Study Avodah Zarah folio 70B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ההיא רביתא דאישתכח דהות בי דני, והות נקיטא אופיא בידה, אמר רבא: חמרא שרי, אימר מגבה דחביתא שקלתיה, ואף על גב דליכא תו, אימר אתרמויי אתרמי לה.
The Talmud relates: There was an incident involving a certain non-Jew girl who was found among wine jugs and she was holding wine froth in her hand. Rava said: The wine is permitted, as it is reasonable to say that she took it from the outside of the jug and not from inside the jug. And even if there is no more of the froth on the outside of the jug, it is reasonable to say that she happened upon the froth while it was still there, even though it is no longer there.
ההוא פולמוסא דסליק לנהרדעא, פתחו חביתא טובא. כי אתא רב דימי אמר: עובדא הוה קמיה דרבי אלעזר, ושרא. ולא ידענא, אי משום דסבר לה כרבי אליעזר דאמר: ספק ביאה טהור, אי משום דסבר: רובא דאזלי בהדי פולמוסא ישראל נינהו.
The Talmud relates: There was an incident involving a certain army [pulmusa] that entered Neharde’a and opened many jugs of wine. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: There was a similar incident that was brought before R' Elazar, and he deemed the wine permitted. But I do not know whether he permitted it because he holds in accordance with the opinion of R' Eliezer, who says: Concerning uncertainty with regard to entry, the person or item is ritually pure, or whether he permitted it because he maintains that most of those who went with that army were Jews, i.e., that although it was a non-Jew army, the ancillaries were mostly Jews.
אי הכי, האי ספק ביאה? ספק מגע הוא! כיון דמפתחי טובא, אימא אדעתא דממונא פתחו, וכספק ביאה דמי.
The Talmud asks: If that is so, if he holds in accordance with the opinion of R' Eliezer, why did he permit the wine? Is this a case of uncertainty with regard to entry? It is clear that the ancillaries came and opened the jugs, so it is a case of uncertainty with regard to contact, i.e., whether they touched the wine or not, and R' Eliezer agrees that such a case is treated stringently. The Talmud answers: Since they opened many jugs, it is reasonable to say that they opened the jugs only with the intention of finding money and had no interest in the wine itself. And therefore it is similar to a case of uncertainty with regard to entry.