## Avodah Zarah Daf 72a

###### Avodah Zarah 72a:1
[Avodah Zarah 72a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/72a:1)

וּמַאי ״לֹא נִיתַּן לְהִישָּׁבוֹן״? דְּאֵינוֹ בְּתוֹרַת הִישָּׁבוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And what** does it mean that the stolen object **is not subject to restitution?** It means **that it is not** subject **to the *halakhot* of restitution,** because it is not technically a theft.


###### Avodah Zarah 72a:2
[Avodah Zarah 72a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/72a:2)

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: בָּא חֲבֵירוֹ וּנְטָלָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ — נֶהֱרָג עָלֶיהָ. בִּשְׁלָמָא רֵישָׁא, מִשּׁוּם דְּצַעֲרֵיהּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶלָּא סֵיפָא, מַאי עָבֵיד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so, say the latter clause** of that halakhic statement: If **another** descendant of Noah **came and took** the stolen item **from him,** he is also **executed for it. Granted,** with regard to **the first clause** it can be explained that although there is no obligation to return the item, the gentile is executed **because he caused the Jew distress; but** with regard to **the latter clause, what did he do?** He did not cause the Jew distress, and since the item is worth less than one *peruta*, one is not obligated to return it unless he stole it from a gentile. Consequently, the second theft should not be considered a legally significant act.


###### Avodah Zarah 72a:3
[Avodah Zarah 72a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/72a:3)

אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, מְשִׁיכָה בְּגוֹי קוֹנָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** should one not **conclude from it** that one **pulling** an item **acquires** it **in** a transaction performed by **a gentile?** Accordingly, the actions of both the first and second gentiles are legally significant acts of theft, for which they are liable to be executed. The Gemara affirms: **Conclude from it** that this is so.


###### Avodah Zarah 72a:4
[Avodah Zarah 72a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/72a:4)

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: ״אִי מְזַבֵּינְנָא לַהּ לְהָא אַרְעָא — לָךְ מְזַבֵּינְנָא לַהּ״, אֲזַל זַבְּנַהּ לְאִינִישׁ אַחֲרִינָא, אֲמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: קְנָה קַמָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving **a certain man who said to another: If I sell this land, I will sell it to you,** and they performed a formal act of acquisition to ratify the agreement. **He went** and **sold it to another person. Rav Yosef said: The first one has acquired** it.


###### Avodah Zarah 72a:5
[Avodah Zarah 72a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/72a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא לָא פְּסַק! וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּכֹל הֵיכָא דְּלָא פְּסַק לָא קְנָה? דִּתְנַן: הַמּוֹכֵר יֵינוֹ לְנׇכְרִי, פָּסַק עַד שֶׁלֹּא מָדַד — דָּמָיו מוּתָּרִין, מָדַד עַד שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַק — דָּמָיו אֲסוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: But he did not fix** a price with him for it. **And from where do you say that wherever** the people involved in the transaction **did not fix** a price, the buyer **has not acquired** the item, even if they performed a formal act of acquisition? It is from that **which we learned** in the mishna: In the case of a Jew **who sells his wine to a gentile,** if **he fixed** a price **before he measured** the wine into the gentile’s vessel, deriving benefit from **the money** paid **for** the wine is **permitted.** But if the Jew **measured** the wine into the gentile’s vessel, thereby rendering it forbidden, **before he fixed** a price, **the money** paid **for** the wine is **forbidden.**


###### Avodah Zarah 72a:6
[Avodah Zarah 72a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/72a:6)

מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ?! כִּדְקָאָמְרִינַן! דִּלְמָא חוּמְרָא דְּיֵין נֶסֶךְ שָׁאנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** halakhic conclusion **was** reached **about this** matter? The Gemara interjects: What is meant by the question: **What** halakhic conclusion **was** reached **about this** matter? The conclusion is **as we have stated,** that it is evident from the mishna that the acquisition goes into effect only after the price is fixed. The Gemara explains its question: **Perhaps** due to **the stringency of** the prohibition of **wine** used for **a libation,** the case of the mishna **is different** and is not characteristic of the *halakha* in monetary matters.


###### Avodah Zarah 72a:7
[Avodah Zarah 72a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/72a:7)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין: עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בֵּי רַב חִסְדָּא, וְרַב חִסְדָּא בֵּי רַב הוּנָא, וּפַשְׁטֻיהָ מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: מָשַׁךְ חֲמָרָיו וּפוֹעֲלָיו וְהִכְנִיסָן לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, בֵּין פָּסַק עַד שֶׁלֹּא מָדַד וּבֵין מָדַד עַד שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַק — לֹא קָנָה, וּשְׁנֵיהֶן יְכוֹלִין לַחֲזוֹר בָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof that an acquisition goes into effect only after the price is fixed, **as Rav Idi bar Avin said: There was an incident** that came before **the school of Rav Ḥisda, and Rav Ḥisda** brought it before **the school of Rav Huna, and** Rav Huna **resolved it from that which we learned** in a *baraita*: If one bought from another produce that was loaded on the seller’s donkeys or carried by his laborers, and the purchaser **drew** the seller’s **donkey drivers or laborers** laden with produce **and brought them into his house,** in this case, **whether** the seller **fixed** a price **before he measured** the produce **or whether he measured** the produce **before he fixed** a price, the purchaser **has not acquired** the produce, **and both of them,** the purchaser or the seller, **can retract** the transaction, as no act of acquisition took place.


###### Avodah Zarah 72a:8
[Avodah Zarah 72a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/72a:8)

פֵּרְקָן וְהִכְנִיסָן לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, פָּסַק עַד שֶׁלֹּא מָדַד — אֵין שְׁנֵיהֶן יְכוֹלִין לַחֲזוֹר בָּהֶן, מָדַד עַד שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַק — שְׁנֵיהֶן יְכוֹלִין לַחֲזוֹר בָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: But if the purchaser **unloaded** the produce **and brought it into his house,** this constitutes an act of acquisition, and therefore if **he fixed** a price **before he measured** the produce, **neither of them can retract,** but if **he measured** the produce **before he fixed** a price, **both of them can retract.** This illustrates that even if there was an act of acquisition, they can retract the transaction until the price has been fixed, in accordance with the statement of Abaye.


###### Avodah Zarah 72a:9
[Avodah Zarah 72a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/72a:9)

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: ״אִי מְזַבֵּינְנָא לַהּ לְהָא אַרְעָא — מְזַבֵּינְנָא לָךְ בִּמְאָה זוּזֵי״, אֲזַל זַבְּנַהּ לְאִינִישׁ אַחֲרִינָא בִּמְאָה וְעֶשְׂרִין. אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: קְנָה קַמָּא. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יַעֲקֹב מִנְּהַר פְּקוֹד: הַאי זוּזֵי אַנְסוּהּ! וְהִלְכְתָא כְּרַב יַעֲקֹב מִנְּהַר פְּקוֹד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ There was a related incident involving **a certain man who said to another: If I** will desire to **sell this land, I will sell it to you for one hundred dinars,** and they performed an act of acquisition to ratify the agreement. **He went** and **sold it to another person for one hundred and twenty** dinars. **Rav Kahana said: The first one has acquired it. Rav Ya’akov of Nehar Pekod objects to this: Those** twenty additional **dinars compelled him** to sell it to the second purchaser. The Gemara concludes: **And the *halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Ya’akov of Nehar Pekod.**


###### Avodah Zarah 72a:10
[Avodah Zarah 72a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/72a:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ ״כִּדְשָׁיְימִי בִּתְלָתָא״ — אֲפִילּוּ תְּרֵי מִגּוֹ תְּלָתָא. ״כִּדְאָמְרִי בִּתְלָתָא״ — עַד דְּאָמְרִי בִּתְלָתָא. ״כִּדְשָׁיְימִי בְּאַרְבְּעָה״ — עַד דְּאָמְרִי בְּאַרְבָּעָה, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן הֵיכָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״כִּדְאָמְרִי בְּאַרְבָּעָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ If the seller **said to** the purchaser: I will sell you this merchandise **as it is assessed by three** people, **even** if **two out of the three** agreed to a certain assessment, the seller must accept this price. If he said: I will sell you this merchandise **in accordance with** the price **that is stated by three** people, he is not held to their assessment **unless it is stated by** all **three.** If he said: **As it is assessed by four** people, he is not held to their assessment **unless it is stated by** all **four; and all the more so** in a case **where he said to him: In accordance with** the price **that is stated by four** people.


###### Avodah Zarah 72a:11
[Avodah Zarah 72a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/72a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״כִּדְשָׁיְימִי בִּתְלָתָא״, וַאֲתוֹ תְּלָתָא וְשָׁמוּהָ, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ אִידַּךְ: לֵיתוֹ תְּלָתָא אַחֲרִינֵי דְּקִים לְהוּ טְפֵי! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דִּינָא הוּא דִּמְעַכֵּב. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מִמַּאי דְּהָנֵי קִים לְהוּ טְפֵי? דִּלְמָא הָנֵי קִים לְהוּ טְפֵי! וְהִלְכְתָא כְּרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the seller **said to** the buyer: I will sell you this merchandise **as it is assessed by three** people, **and three** people **came and assessed it, and the other one,** the purchaser, **said: Let three other** people, **who are more proficient** in their assessment, **come** and assess the merchandise, **Rav Pappa said: The *halakha* is that he can prevent** the price from being set until more proficient people assess the merchandise. **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, objects to this: From where** can he know **that those** other three **are more proficient** in their assessment? **Perhaps these,** the first three, **are more proficient.** The Gemara concludes: **And the *halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.**


###### Avodah Zarah 72a:12
[Avodah Zarah 72a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/72a:12)

**מַתְנִי׳** נָטַל אֶת הַמַּשְׁפֵּךְ וּמָדַד לְתוֹךְ צְלוֹחִיתוֹ שֶׁל נׇכְרִי, וְחָזַר וּמָדַד לְתוֹךְ צְלוֹחִיתוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ עַכֶּבֶת יַיִן — אָסוּר. הַמְעָרֶה מִכְּלִי אֶל כְּלִי, אֶת שֶׁעֵירָה מִמֶּנּוּ — מוּתָּר, וְאֶת שֶׁעֵירָה לְתוֹכוֹ — אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In a case where a Jew **took a funnel and measured** wine **into a gentile’s jug, and then measured** wine with the same funnel **into a Jew’s jug, if there is a remnant of wine** left **in** the funnel, the wine measured into the Jew’s jug is **forbidden,** as some of the wine that was measured into the gentile’s jug is mixed in it. In the case of **one who pours** wine **from** one **vessel into** another **vessel,** the wine left in the vessel **from which he poured** is **permitted, but** the wine in the vessel **into which he poured** is **forbidden.**


###### Avodah Zarah 72a:13
[Avodah Zarah 72a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/72a:13)

**גְּמָ׳** תְּנַן הָתָם: הַנִּצּוֹק, וְהַקָּטַפְרֵס, וּמַשְׁקֶה טוֹפֵחַ — אֵינוֹ חִיבּוּר, לֹא לְטוּמְאָה וְלֹא לְטׇהֳרָה. הָאַשְׁבּוֹרֶן — חִיבּוּר לְטוּמְאָה וּלְטׇהֳרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **We learned** in a mishna **elsewhere** (*Teharot* 8:9): **A stream** of water, **and** water descending **an incline [*vehakatafres*], and liquid** that rendered an item **moist** do **not** constitute **a connection** between liquids, **neither with regard to ritual impurity nor with regard to purity.** These liquids do not constitute a connection that transmits impurity, e.g., if impure water is in one place and becomes attached to water above it, the water above is not considered attached to the impure water and is not rendered impure. They also do not constitute a connection for purification, e.g., if two collections of water are attached via the pouring of a stream, they do not join together to form the amount of water necessary to form a valid ritual bath, through which people and items can become ritually pure. **A pond** constitutes **a connection** between liquids **with regard to impurity and with regard to purity.**


###### Avodah Zarah 72a:14
[Avodah Zarah 72a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/72a:14)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: נִצּוֹק וְקָטַפְרֵס וּמַשְׁקֶה טוֹפֵחַ חִיבּוּר לְעִנְיַן יֵין נֶסֶךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna says: A stream** of water, **and** water descending **an incline, and liquid** that rendered an item **moist** constitute **a connection with regard to the matter of wine** used for **a libation.**


###### Avodah Zarah 72a:15
[Avodah Zarah 72a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/72a:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְרַב הוּנָא: מְנָא לָךְ הָא? אִילֵּימָא מִדִּתְנַן: הַנִּצּוֹק וְהַקָּטַפְרֵס וּמַשְׁקֶה טוֹפֵחַ אֵינוֹ חִיבּוּר לֹא לְטוּמְאָה וְלֹא לְטׇהֳרָה, לְטוּמְאָה וּלְטׇהֳרָה הוּא דְּלָא הָוֵי חִיבּוּר, הָא לְעִנְיַן יֵין נֶסֶךְ הָוֵי חִיבּוּר — אֵימָא סֵיפָא: הָאַשְׁבּוֹרֶן חִיבּוּר לְטוּמְאָה וּלְטׇהֳרָה, לְטוּמְאָה וּלְטׇהֳרָה הוּא דְּהָוֵי חִיבּוּר, הָא לְעִנְיַן יֵין נֶסֶךְ לָא הָוֵי חִיבּוּר. אֶלָּא מֵהָא לֵיכָּא לְמִשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna: From where** do **you** derive **this? If we say** it is derived **from that which we learned** in the mishna: **A stream, and** water descending **an incline, and liquid** that rendered an item **moist** do **not** constitute **a connection** between liquids, **neither with regard to ritual impurity nor with regard to purity,** and it is inferred that **it is with regard to impurity and with regard to purity that it does not constitute a connection, but with regard to wine** used for **a libation it does constitute a connection,** then **say the latter clause: A pond** constitutes **a connection** between liquids **with regard to impurity and with regard to purity.** It can be inferred from here that **with regard to impurity and with regard to purity it is a connection, but with regard to wine** used for **a libation it is not a connection,** contrary to the *halakha* inferred from the former clause. **Rather,** clearly **no** inference is **to be learned from this** mishna.


###### Avodah Zarah 72a:16
[Avodah Zarah 72a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/72a:16)

תְּנַן: נָטַל אֶת הַמַּשְׁפֵּךְ וּמָדַד לְתוֹךְ צְלוֹחִיתוֹ שֶׁל נׇכְרִי, וְחָזַר וּמָדַד לְתוֹךְ צְלוֹחִיתוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts to bring proof for Rav Huna’s opinion from that which **we learned** in the mishna here: In a case where a Jew **took a funnel and measured** wine **into a gentile’s jug, and then measured** wine with the same funnel **into a Jew’s jug,**