The Talmud Babli discusses the verse, “For Hashem your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.” What does it mean that Hashem is jealous? The explanation is that jealousy generally exists between people of the same kind: one sage becomes jealous of another sage, one strong person of another strong person, and one wealthy person of another wealthy person.
According to this, however, the jealousy does not seem to make sense. If my brother becomes jealous of me, the very fact that he is jealous indicates that there is something about me that troubles him. Let me give an example. Suppose a man marries a second wife, and the second wife is more important than the first. The first wife does not necessarily become angry with her, because she understands that the second wife is more important. But if the second wife is less important, the first wife becomes angry at her husband and begins to hate her.
Perhaps, then, the word “jealous” here does not mean jealousy at all. It can also mean anger. If the idolatry that the nations worshipped were something greater than the Holy One, blessed be He, Hashem would not become angry. He could say, “They left Me and chose something better; that is understandable.” The fact that they left God to worship something inferior—something worthless—would instead provoke His anger. In fact, that anger demonstrates that the idolatry has no value.
Thus, the word does not necessarily mean jealousy. It can refer to anger and the desire to punish. Hashem says, in effect, “I know the truth. I know that the idolatry has no credibility and no power.” Yet we see that a person goes to a house of idolatry when he has broken bones, a physical problem, or an illness, and when he leaves, he is healed. We know that the idolatry has no power, but it appears to have something, because people are being healed. How do we explain that?
There was an honest man living in a city. People would give him money to safeguard, even without witnesses. They trusted him so completely that they would give him thousands of dollars without requiring witnesses to confirm that the money had been deposited. They knew that when they returned to ask for their money, he would give it back.
One man, however, did not trust him. He said, “I do not trust this man. I will give him the money only in the presence of witnesses.” One time, though, this same man gave the money without witnesses. The wife of the man who was holding the money then said, “When he comes back, let us deny that he gave it to us. We will teach him a lesson. He did not trust us, and he did not use witnesses. Now we have the money.”
Her husband responded, “This man did something wrong. He gave us money without witnesses, and he did not trust us. Because he made that mistake, should we lose our reputation on his account? If we do not return the money, we will lose our reputation with everyone else. He made a mistake, but should we lose our reputation because of him?”
That is the same idea regarding affliction. When God sends suffering to a person, the heavenly court makes the afflictions swear that they will leave on a particular day. They arrive on a certain day and leave on a certain day. God determines not only the dates but even the hour at which they will leave. He also determines which doctor will be the agent through whom the affliction will be removed, and which medicine will work. All of this is already determined when the afflictions are sent down.
What happens when the time arrives for the illness to leave, but the person happens to go to a house of idolatry to pray? The afflictions might say to themselves, “It is appropriate that we remain with this person and punish him further. He is going to a house of idolatry; why should we leave?”
But then they reconsider: “Because this person is acting improperly, should we also act improperly? We gave God our word that we would leave on a certain date and at a certain time. That time has arrived. It is merely coincidental that the person went to the house of idolatry at that moment. Therefore, it was not the house of idolatry that healed him. He would have been healed anyway, even if he had stayed at home.”
The afflictions therefore say, “Should we fail to leave? Should we lose the trust we gave to God because this person is foolish?” That is what Rav said regarding the verse, “bad and faithful” afflictions. They are bad in that they are sent to a person, but they are faithful in that they keep their word to God. When God tells them to remain until a particular day and hour, and to leave through a particular doctor and medicine, they follow those instructions.
Rav was also asked about a place where, whenever the world needed rain, an idol would appear in a dream to those who worshipped it and say, “I want a human sacrifice. Sacrifice a person to me, and rain will come.” They would sacrifice a person to the idol, and rain would come exactly as predicted. How could this be explained if the idol had no power?
Rav responded that it was good that the question had been asked. If he had died, this explanation would have died with him, because he had received it from Rav. The verse in Devarim discusses the heavenly bodies—the stars, the sun, the moon, and everything similar—and says that God allotted them to the nations of the world.
The word used in the verse can mean that God bestowed these things upon the nations, as though He gave them the ability to serve them as idols. But the same word can also mean that God caused them to stumble or make a mistake. God allows the idolatry to appear to have power so that its worshippers will say, “You see? It brought the rain.” They continue worshipping it, and through that very error they receive further punishment and additional troubles.
That is the test. When one sees that idolatry sometimes appears to work, we already know that God said this would happen. The nations can say, “See, it brought the rain. Continue worshipping it, and you will receive more.”
There is a similar idea in Mishlei: God acts toward a person in accordance with the way that person acts. God leads a person along the path he chooses. If a person wants to make mistakes, God does not have to help him make those mistakes; the doors are simply opened before him. If a person wants to purify himself and makes an effort to do so, God helps him.
These idols follow the same principle. The person wants to go in that direction, and the opportunity is opened before him. The fact that something appears to work is therefore not an indication that it is correct. This is a very important lesson in life. Success in a particular endeavor is not always evidence that what one is doing is right. It may be that a person has chosen a wrong path, and God allows him to succeed on that path.
That is why a person must constantly scrutinize his ways to determine whether they are truly correct. Success is not proof that a course of action is right. It may be that the person is approaching God in impurity, and God is allowing him to proceed in the direction he has chosen.
Tosafot raises a question in tractate Shabbat concerning Moshe Rabbeinu. Moshe did certain things on his own, and the Holy One, blessed be He, agreed with him. For example, Moshe broke the Tablets. God did not have to tell him to break them. Moshe also separated from his wife, and there were other things that he did on his own.
Tosafot asks how we can know that Moshe was correct merely because we do not see God punishing him. Perhaps the fact that nothing happened does not prove that Moshe was right. God may simply have allowed him to proceed along the path he had chosen. Therefore, Moshe’s success does not by itself establish that the path was correct. Whatever answer Tosafot gives there, the point is that the absence of immediate punishment is not proof. Punishment may come in another form or at another level, while God continues to accompany a person along the path he has chosen.
This is a fundamental principle. Now we return to the next Mishnah, which discusses wine used for idolatry. Let us review what we have learned. There are actually three levels.
The first is wine that was explicitly poured as an offering to idolatry. That is wine used for idolatry, and it is prohibited. The second is ordinary wine belonging to a non-Jew when we do not know what he did with it. We do not know whether he worshipped with it or not, but it is nevertheless prohibited for benefit. The third level is the rabbinic prohibition involving a Jew’s wine that a non-Jew touched. That wine is also prohibited.
The discussion in the Mishnah is: at what stage does wine become prohibited for benefit when a non-Jew touches it or participates in its production? What is the earliest stage at which we call the liquid wine?
The process was as follows. There was a board placed on an incline. The grapes were put on it and crushed with the feet. The juice flowed downward into a filtering system, which separated the pits and other material, and eventually collected in a lower vat. The vat was cemented so that the wine would not be absorbed. From the vat, the wine was transferred into barrels.
There was another part of the process. After the grapes had been crushed, they were gathered into a pile on the inclined board. A piece of wood was used to press the pile again, extracting whatever juice remained. That juice would flow downward once more.
The Mishnah says that until the wine reaches the vat, it is not considered wine for this purpose. If the non-Jew touches it before that point, there is no concern. Once the liquid reaches the vat, however, and the non-Jew touches it, there is a problem.
The Mishnah says that one may purchase wine from the press of a non-Jew, even though the non-Jew touches it with his hands. He takes the crushed grapes and moves them up onto the press in order to gather them into a pile and press them again. Even though his hands clearly touch the grapes and the juice, it is not yet considered wine. Only after the liquid flows into the vat does it become wine for this purpose.
The peels and pulp would float to the top of the vat and be skimmed off. There were several stages of filtering. At first, the liquid flowed through pieces of wood that filtered it somewhat. Once it entered the vat, the remaining material floated to the top and was removed. When the liquid reached the vat, it was considered wine.
Therefore, even though the non-Jew touched the liquid at the beginning, and even though his feet touched it and he moved the grapes with his hands from one part of the press to another, it was not yet considered wine. Once it entered the vat, it became wine, and if the non-Jew touched it at that point, it became prohibited. Whatever remained on the press was permitted, even for drinking, although the non-Jew had touched it.
The rule is: what is in the vat is prohibited, while the rest is permitted.
Rashi explains that the press is the place where the non-Jew crushes the grapes. He takes the grapes that have been pressed and places them into the pile beneath the press. The pile is the gathering place where the grapes are collected and pressed a second time. Only when the juice flows downward into the vat does it become wine for this purpose. The vat is made with material around it so that the wine will not be absorbed into the walls and lost.
There is another halachic issue. A person may not work for and receive payment from something that is prohibited for him to benefit from. The question is therefore whether one may help a non-Jew produce wine when the non-Jew will pay him for the work.
The Mishnah says that one may tread grapes together with a non-Jew at the stage of the press, because at that point the liquid is not yet considered wine. One is not earning a livelihood from something prohibited for benefit. Rashi explains that one may even drink the liquid at that stage, until it flows into the vat.
There is, however, another concern. One may not cause the produce of the Land of Israel to become ritually impure. How does produce become susceptible to ritual impurity? It first has to become wet through one of the seven liquids. One of those liquids is wine. At the stage when the grapes are being pressed and the liquid is considered wine, the non-Jew is impure. When he presses the grapes, they become wet, and that moisture makes them susceptible to ritual impurity.
How, then, can one help a non-Jew at the stage of the press? The answer is that one may not be the person who begins the process by placing the grapes into the press. Once the non-Jew has already placed them there and begun the process, the grapes have already become susceptible to impurity. At that point, one may help him, because the non-Jew does not have a commandment prohibiting him from causing the produce of the Land of Israel to become impure. If a Jew were doing this, there would be a problem; but with a non-Jew, that particular concern does not apply.
This is the early stage, the stage of treading. One may not help the non-Jew pick the grapes, because after picking them he will place them into the press, and the pressing will cause them to become susceptible to impurity. If the non-Jew is already pressing and asks for help, one may help him, because by then the process has already begun.
Now consider a Jew who is pressing the grapes. One certainly may not pick the grapes with him, because that would cause the produce to become susceptible to impurity. But one may not even help him press them, although the Jew has already made the grapes susceptible to impurity. Why not? Because one may not help someone who is committing a transgression. The Jew was not permitted to place the grapes into a press that was impure. Even though the helper did not make them impure himself, he is assisting the Jew after the transgression has taken place.
One may, however, bring empty barrels to the press and carry full barrels of wine away from the press. That is no longer the stage at which the transgression is being committed. The damage has already been done, and the transgression has already occurred. By bringing empty barrels or carrying away the full ones, one is not assisting the transgression itself.
The same principle applies to a baker who makes dough while the dough is ritually impure. The bowl in which he kneads the dough is impure. At first, when the flour is placed in the bowl, nothing happens. But when water is added, the water makes the flour susceptible to ritual impurity. Since the flour is now wet in an impure bowl, it becomes impure.
One may not help such a Jewish baker knead the dough, because doing so assists someone who is causing the produce of the Land of Israel to become impure. One may not knead it, shape it, or perform any other action with the dough at that stage. But one may bring the dough to another person who will bake it. If the baker says, “Please take this dough and bring it to the baker so that he can bake it,” one may do so, because at that point the transgression has already occurred. This does not mean that the earlier action was permitted; it means only that the prohibition against assisting the transgression no longer applies to carrying the dough to be baked.
Rashi explains that one may bring it to the person who makes the bread. Can one eat the bread? A person who is careful not to eat food that is ritually impure may not eat it. Those who are not careful in that matter may eat it. The issue here is the concern about causing the produce of the Land of Israel to become impure.
We now return to the Mishnah. When is wine considered wine? We said that it becomes wine when it reaches the vat. Rav Huna says that it can become wine even earlier: once the liquid begins to flow down from the upper part of the press toward the lower part, it is already considered wine. If the non-Jew touches it at that point, there is a problem.
Rav Huna is pointing out that the liquid does not have to be fully filtered or reach the vat. The moment it emerges from the grapes and begins to flow downward, it is considered wine, even though pits, peels, and other material are still mixed into it. It is only the liquid that has not yet separated and begun to flow that is not considered wine.
An obvious question is raised from the Mishnah. The Mishnah says that one may purchase wine from the press of a non-Jew, even though the non-Jew touches it with his hand and places the grapes into the pile on top of the press to press them again. The Mishnah nevertheless says that the liquid remains permitted. This appears to contradict Rav Huna, who said that once the liquid begins to flow, it is already considered wine.
Rav Huna answers that the Mishnah is discussing a press that has been blocked and filled with grapes. The press is on an incline, but it has been stopped up so that the liquid cannot flow down into the vat. The grapes fill the entire press, and when they are pressed, the liquid remains in place. It does not move downward.
Once the liquid begins to move from the upper part of the press to the lower part, it is considered wine. But in this case, because the press is blocked and filled, the liquid remains where it was squeezed. It does not yet have the status of wine.
Another question is raised from the Mishnah: “What is in the vat is prohibited, while the rest is permitted.” According to Rav Huna, once the blockage is removed, the liquid in the press begins to flow. If movement is what gives it the status of wine, how can the Mishnah say that the rest remains permitted? Once the blockage is removed, the liquid in the press has also begun moving.
Rav Huna answers that the Mishnah contains two stages or two versions. In the first case, the press is blocked and full. The liquid has not moved, so it is permitted. In the second case, the blockage is removed, and the liquid begins to flow downward into the vat. At that point, the liquid in the vat is prohibited.
Rashi explains that the press is constructed on an incline. When the liquid begins to flow from the upper section to the lower section, it is considered wine. When the grapes are pressed but the liquid remains in the place where it was squeezed, it has not yet reached that status.
The discussion then returns to the Mishnah’s statement that whatever remains outside the vat is permitted. The question is that once the blockage is removed, everything begins to flow. Why should the liquid remaining in the press remain permitted?
Rav Huna answers that this depends on which teaching in the Mishnah is being discussed. There were originally several laws concerning the process. One law states that one may not pick grapes together with a non-Jew if the grapes will then be placed into the press. Another states that one may not help a Jew crush grapes when the process involves causing them to become ritually impure. But one may crush grapes together with a non-Jew at the stage of the press, as we learned.
In the original version of the Mishnah, there was no concern about receiving payment for something prohibited for benefit at the stage of the press, because the liquid was not yet considered wine. If it had already been prohibited at that point, one would not have been permitted to work for payment from it. The original Mishnah therefore reflects the view that the liquid on the press was not yet wine and that one could help the non-Jew there.
Rav Huna, however, teaches that the liquid becomes wine as soon as it begins to flow downward. According to his view, one may not help the non-Jew at that stage, because one would be earning a livelihood from wine that is prohibited for benefit.
Later, the wording of the Mishnah was changed to reflect this conclusion. At first, the Mishnah stated that only what reached the vat was prohibited, while everything remaining on the press was permitted. That was based on the view that everything on the press was still permitted. Later, the wording was adjusted because the conclusion followed Rav Huna: once the liquid begins to flow, it is already wine, even if it has not yet reached the vat.
Thus, there are two stages in the development of the Mishnah. Initially, one was permitted to help the non-Jew at the press because the liquid was not considered wine. Once the ruling of Rav Huna was accepted, one could no longer help the non-Jew at that stage, because the flowing liquid was already considered wine.
According to Rav Huna, if one cannot help the non-Jew at the press because one would be receiving payment for something prohibited, then not only what has already entered the vat is prohibited. The liquid remaining on the press is also prohibited once it has begun to flow. It remains permitted only before it moves—when the press is blocked and the liquid is still in its original place.
The key distinction is therefore whether the liquid has begun to flow. If it is still trapped among the unfiltered grapes and has not moved, it is permitted. Once it begins to flow down the press, it is considered wine. If it then reaches the vat, what is in the vat is certainly prohibited; and according to Rav Huna, the flowing liquid that has not yet reached the vat is also prohibited.
The discussion returns to the earlier teaching: one may not pick grapes together with a Jewish producer, and one may not crush them with him, because that would assist in causing the produce to become impure. But one may perform actions after that stage, such as bringing the dough or the wine to another location, because the transgression has already occurred and one is no longer assisting the act itself.
There is also a distinction between Jewish produce and the produce of a non-Jew. The concern about causing produce of the Land of Israel to become impure applies to Jewish produce. It does not apply in the same way to the property of a non-Jew. Therefore, when the non-Jew is pressing grapes, the issue of causing his produce to become impure is not the concern. The remaining issue is whether the liquid has already become wine that is prohibited for benefit. According to Rav Huna, once it begins to flow, it has that status, and one may not work for payment from it.