Pt2 Uncovered Liquids and Ritual Boundaries: Gentile Wine and the Risk of Snake Venom (Avodah Zarah 30a-31b)
This is the second part of a three-part series. Part 1 is here; the outline for the series can be found at Part 1.
The Danger of Exposed Wine and Water
Drinking Exposed Cooked or Diluted Wine
Rabbinic discussions focus on whether cooked or diluted1 wine is subject to the rule of "gilui",2 which is the prohibition of consuming exposed liquids due to the risk of snake venom.
רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו:
יין מזוג -- אין בו משום גילוי
יין מבושל -- אין בו משום ניסוך
[...]
Rabba and Rav Yosef both say:
Diluted wine is not subject to the halakha of exposure, according to which the consumption of a liquid is prohibited if it is left uncovered;
and cooked wine is not subject to the halakha of libation, which prohibits deriving benefit from wine that has been in a gentile’s possession.
[...]
Drinking Exposed Cooked Wine: A Ruling Affirmed by R’ Yannai bar Yishmael
The Talmud recounts an incident where R' Yannai bar Yishmael (רבי ינאי בר ישמעאל) fell ill, and R' Yishmael ben Zeirud,3 along with other sages, visited him.
During their visit, they discussed whether cooked wine is subject to the halakha of exposure, a rule that normally applies to liquids left uncovered due to potential contamination.
R' Yishmael ben Zeirud conveyed the opinion of R' Shimon ben Lakish, who cited “a great man”,4 stating that cooked wine is exempt from this halakha.
When the sages questioned if they should rely on this view, R' Yannai bar Yishmael motioned (מחוי) to them: “Upon me and upon my neck”.5
רבי ינאי בר ישמעאל חלש
על לגביה ר' ישמעאל בן זירוד ורבנן לשיולי ביה
יתבי וקא מבעיא להו:
יין מבושל יש בו משום גילוי, או אין בו משום גילוי?
אמר להו ר' ישמעאל בן זירוד:
הכי אמר רשב"ל, משום גברא רבה
ומנו? ר' חייא
יין מבושל אין בו משום גילוי
אמרו ליה: נסמוך?
מחוי להו ר' ינאי בר ישמעאל: עלי ועל צוארי
The Gemara cites another proof that cooked wine is not subject to the halakha of exposure. When R' Yannai bar Yishmael became ill,
R' Yishmael ben Zeirud and other Sages went to him to inquire about his health.
They were seated, and this very dilemma was raised before them:
With regard to cooked wine, is it subject to the halakha of exposure, or is it not subject to the halakha of exposure?
R' Yishmael ben Zeirud said to them:
This is what R' Shimon ben Lakish says in the name of a great man.
Parenthetically, the Gemara asks: And who is this great man? He is R' Ḥiyya.
He said: Cooked wine is not subject to the halakha of exposure.
The Sages said to R' Yishmael ben Zeirud: Shall we rely on this claim?
R' Yannai bar Yishmael motioned to them: Upon me and upon my neck, i.e., you can certainly rely on this claim.
Story: Shmuel Assures Non-Jewish Scholar Friend “Ablat”: Cooked Wine Not Subject to Prohibition After His Touch
The Talmud recounts a story where Shmuel and a non-Jewish scholar named Ablat6 were sitting together when cooked wine was brought to them.
Ablat refrained from touching the wine to avoid prohibiting it for Shmuel, a Jew.
However, Shmuel reassured Ablat that the Sages taught that cooked wine is not subject to the prohibition of wine used for idol worship (libation; on this issue, see my intro), so Ablat need not avoid it on Shmuel's behalf.
שמואל ואבלט הוו יתבי
אייתו לקמייהו חמרא מבשלא
משכיה לידיה
א"ל שמואל:
הרי אמרו:
יין מבושל אין בו משום יין נסך
The Gemara relates another incident: Shmuel and Ablet, a gentile scholar, were sitting together,
and others brought cooked wine before them.
Ablet withdrew his hand to avoid rendering the wine prohibited to Shmuel.
Seeing this, Shmuel said to Ablet that the Sages said:
Cooked wine is not subject to the prohibition of wine used for a libation, and therefore you need not withdraw your hand on my account.
Encounters with Snakes and Their Implications
Two Stories: Sages Exempting Cooked and Diluted Wine from Rule of Exposure
The Talmud recounts two incidents involving exposed wine.
In the first, R' Ḥiyya's female slave (אמתיה) saw that a container of cooked wine was exposed and consulted him. He reassured her that cooked wine is exempt from the law of exposure.
In the second, Rav Adda bar Ahava's attendant found diluted wine that had been exposed. Rav Adda bar Ahava similarly explained that diluted wine is also exempt from this halakha.
אמתיה דרבי חייא, איגלויי לה ההוא חמרא מבשלא
אתיא לקמיה דר' חייא
אמר לה: הרי אמרו: יין מבושל אין בו משום גילוי
שמעיה דרב אדא בר אהבה, איגלי ליה חמרא מזיגא
אמר ליה: הרי אמרו יין מזוג אין בו משום גילוי
[...]
The Gemara cites yet another incident: R' Ḥiyya’s maidservant noticed that a certain container of cooked wine had become exposed.
She came before R' Ḥiyya,
who said to her that the Sages said: Cooked wine is not subject to the halakha of exposure.
Similarly, Rav Adda bar Ahava’s attendant noticed that a certain container of diluted wine had become exposed.
Rav Adda bar Ahava said to him that the Sages said: Diluted wine is not subject to the halakha of exposure.
[...]
Story: Rabba Bar Rav Huna’s Attendant Drives Away Snake by Throwing Water
Rabba bar Rav Huna was traveling by boat (ארבא) with a jug of wine when a snake (חיויא) slithered (צרי) and approached the boat.
He instructed his attendant (שמעיה) to drive the snake away. The attendant threw some water,7 which caused the snake to turn (סר) away.
רבה בר רב הונא הוה קאזיל בארבא,
והוה נקיט חמרא בהדיה
וחזייה לההוא חיויא,
דצרי ואתי
אמר ליה לשמעיה: סמי עיניה דדין
שקיל קלי מיא,
שדא ביה,
וסר לאחוריה
[...]
Rabba bar Rav Huna once traveling on a ship
while carrying a jug of wine with him,
and he saw a certain snake
that slithered and approached the wine.
He said to his attendant: Remove the eyes of this serpent, i.e., do something that will cause the snake to leave.
His attendant took a bit of water
and threw it in the wine,
and the snake turned away. This indicates that snakes do not drink partially diluted wine.
[...]
Story: R’ Yannai or Bar-Hadaya and the Snake’s Wine: A Strange Encounter in Ukbara
The story describes R' Yannai, or possibly Bar-Hadaya,8 sitting in a place called Bei Ukbarei,9 drinking diluted wine with others.
After they finished drinking, they had some wine left in the container (כובא), which they covered with a cloth (פרונקא).
A snake approached, filled its mouth with water, and poured it through the cloth into the wine container until it overflowed. The snake then drank the spilled wine.
רבי ינאי הוה בי עכבורי
ואמרי ליה: בר הדיא הוה בי עכבורי
הוו יתבי
והוו קא שתו חמרא מזיגא
פש להו חמרא בכובא,
וצרונהי בפרונקא
וחזיא לההוא חיויא
דשקיל מיא,
ורמא בכובא
עד דמלא בכובא,
וסליק חמרא עילויה פרונקא,
ושתי
[...]
R' Yannai once was in Bei Akhborei,
and some say that it was bar Hadaya who was in Bei Akhborei,
and others were sitting with him
and drinking diluted wine.
When they finished, they had some wine left in the container [bekhuva],
and they covered it with a cloth.
And then they saw a certain snake
take water in its mouth
and pour it through the cloth into the container
until the liquid filled the container
and the wine flowed over the cloth,
and the snake drank the overflowing wine. This shows that a snake will risk its life to drink diluted wine.
[...]
Story: Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tovi's advises that Snakes Fear Sleeping Person, Nearby Water Safe to Drink
The Talmud now discusses the status of exposed water (as opposed to wine, until now).
Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tovi's attendant (שמעיה), who had been napping (ניים) near an exposed jug (קיסתא) of water, sought clarification on whether to drink from it. Rav Ḥilkiya ruled that snakes fear a sleeping person and would not drink from the water.
שמעיה דרב חלקיה בר טובי,
איגליא ההוא קיסתא דמיא,
והוה ניים גבה
אתא לגביה דרב חלקיה בר טובי
אמר ליה:
הרי אמרו:
״אימת ישן עליהן״
[...]
After discussing exposed wine, the Gemara addresses the matter of exposed water.
The attendant of Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tovi
noticed that a certain jug of water had become exposed,
and he had been sleeping near it.
He went to Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tovi to determine the halakhic status of the exposed water.
Rav Ḥilkiya said to him that
the Sages said:
Fear of a sleeping person is upon them, i.e., snakes will not attempt to drink from a container that is near a person, even if he is asleep.
[...]
Rabbinic Views on Drinking Practices
Differing Practices of Rav and Shmuel Re Drinking Water of Non-Jewish People and Jewish Widows
The Talmud presents a debate between Rav and Shmuel concerning drinking water from different sources:
Rav avoided drinking water from the house of one of the local non-Jews,10 citing a lack of care regarding exposure to potential hazards.
However, Rav would drink water from house of a Jewish widow,11 reasoning that she carefully maintains her late husband's practices (סירכא) and ensures that liquids are not left uncovered.
Shmuel held the opposite view of Rav regarding water sources:
He avoided drinking water from a Jewish widow’s house, arguing that, without a man’s presence, she might not cover the water.
However, Shmuel would drink water from a non-Jew’s house, believing that, even though they may not follow Jewish practice, they maintain cleanliness and cover water for reasons of basic hygiene (מנקרותא).
רב לא שתי מבי ארמאה,
אמר: לא זהירי בגילוי
מבי ארמלתא שתי,
אמר: סירכא דגברא נקיטא
שמואל לא שתי מיא מבי ארמלתא,
אמר: לית לה אימתא דגברא, ולא מיכסיא מיא
אבל מבי ארמאה שתי,
נהי דאגילויא לא קפדי, אמנקרותא מיהא קפדי
[...]
The Gemara presents the opinions of Rav and Shmuel with regard to various sources of water.
Rav would not drink water from the house of an Aramean,
as he said: They are not careful with regard to exposure.
But he would drink water from the house of a widow,
as he said: She upholds her late husband’s conventions and ensures that liquids are not left uncovered.
By contrast, Shmuel would not drink water from the house of a widow,
as he said: She no longer has the fear of a man upon her, and therefore she does not necessarily cover the water.
But he would drink water from the house of an Aramean,
as he said: Granted that they are not particular about the halakha of exposure, but in any event they are particular about cleanliness, and will cover it for hygienic reasons, if not halakhic ones.
[...]
Wine-Based Drinks: R’ Yehoshua ben Levi and Rav Ḥama on Sharp, Bitter/Sour, and Sweet Flavored Wines
R’ Yehoshua ben Levi lists three types of flavored wines exempt from the halakha of exposure:
Rav Ḥama interprets:
“Sharp” wine is flavored with black pepper15
“Bitter” wine is flavored wormwood16
“Sweet” wine is a beverage called "barg”17
אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי:
שלש יינות הן, ואין בהן משום גילוי,
ואלו הן:
חד
מר
מתוק
חד -- טילא חריפא, דמצרי זיקי
מר -- ירנקא
מתוק -- חוליא
רב חמא מתני לעילויא:
חד -- חמר ופלפלין
מר -- אפסינתין
מתוק -- מי בארג
[...]
R' Yehoshua ben Levi says:
There are three kinds of wines that are not subject to the halakha of exposure,
and they are:
Sharp,
bitter,
and sweet wines.
Sharp is referring to acrid wine [tila] that cracks the jug, due to its acidity.
Bitter is referring to yarneka.
Sweet is referring to sweetened wine.
These three wines that R' Yehoshua ben Levi says are not subject to the halakha of exposure are all of low quality.
Rav Ḥama teaches that the three wines are of high quality:
Sharp is referring to wine mixed with peppers.
Bitter is referring to wine mixed with wormwood [apsintin].
Sweet is referring to mei barg, a choice beverage.
[...]
מזוג - literally: “mixed”. On the contemporary practice of diluting wine, see my piece and note here: “Dinars, Disputes, and Dilutions: Rava's Query and the Spark of a Scholarly Spat (Nedarim 55a)“.
גילוי - literally: “exposure”, referring to the concept that water left uncovered was dangerous due to snake poison, see my intro.
רבי ישמעאל בן זירוד - cf. Sanhedrin.14a.7: רבי שמעון בן זירוד.
גברא רבה - interpreted by the Stam Talmud to be referring to R' Ḥiyya.
עלי ועל צוארי - i.e., you can certainly rely on this claim.
אבלט - for another talmudic story featuring him, notably also in the context of a story about a poisonous snake, see my piece “Stars, Serpents, and Salvation: Three Talmudic Tales of Astrological Fate and Divine Intervention (Shabbat 156b)”, section “Shmuel, Ablat, and the Supernatural Survival from a Poisonous Snake”.
Steinsaltz: into the wine; from the broader context of the passage, which I elide, this is indeed implied; but it might mean at the snake; technically, the pronoun leaves the referent ambiguous.
בר הדיא - this is the name of a famous dream interpreter in Babylonia, mentioned elsewhere in the Talmud, see my piece “Annotated List of Talmudic Figures Known as 'Ben X' or 'Bar X,' and Stories of Ben Zoma (Chagigah 14b-15a)”, section “Annotated List of 70+ names of People known Primarily as ‘Ben X’ or ‘Bar X’”, list item # 14; however, it’s unlikely to be the same person.
בי עכבורי - likely to be identified with Ukbara (“a medieval city in Iraq“, interesingly, there was a town with the same name in Eretz Yisrael), and properly pronounced accordingly.
ארמאה - Aramean - i.e one of the local non-Jewish Aramaic-speakers; the somewhat uncommon terms “Aramean” is used a number of times in this sugya.
See Wikipedia, Aramean, section “Modern identity”:
In modern times, an Aramean identity is held mainly by a number of Syriac Christian groups
ארמלתא - it's possible that there's some literary wordplay here, as this word in Aramaic sounds similar to “Aramean”.
Identified by the Talmud as as wine which is highly acidic and cracks (מצרי) its container (זיקי).
Identified by the Talmud as חוליא.
See my note yesterday on the Roman wine piperatum: wine flavored with black pepper.
אפסינתין - from Greek apsínthion; i.e. absinthe.
Compare the cognate modern alcoholic drink absinthe, which is
is an anise-flavored spirit derived from several plants, including the flowers and leaves of Artemisia absinthium ("grand wormwood"), together with green anise, sweet fennel, and other medicinal and culinary herbs.