Commentary for Avodah Zarah 149:10

And they do not disagree. Rav and Shmuel [do not disagree], according to the language of Pumbedita, except that Rav does not count the final [rinsing with] water, and Shmuel does count the final [rinsing with] water. And there are those who explain that "they do not disagree" refers to Sura and Pumbedita, except that Sura does not count the final [rinsing with] water and that Pumbedita does count [the final rinsing]; but, Rav and Shmuel disagree. And this is the meaning of the words "two, three": Two [steps are necessary] for a dry [vat]: water and ash; three for a moist [vat]: ash and water and ash. And Shmuel says three for a moist [vat] as stated, but for a dry [vat], four: water and ash, water and ash; in all cases, [Shmuel] requires ash twice. And in Pumbedita it was taught that Rav [required] three and four [steps]: For a dry [vat], three: water and ash [and] water. And we also have this in Sura, except these [i.e. the Pumbedita prescriptions] count final water [for rinsing]. And for a moist [vat], four [steps are required]: ash and water, ash and water; and according to Shmuel, for a moist [vat], four [steps are required] as stated, but for a dry [vat] five [steps are required]: water and ash, and water and ash, and water, such that a dry [vat] also requires ash twice. "And they do not disagree refers to Sura and Pumbedita, etc." But, Rav and Shmuel disagree regarding a dry [vat] both in Sura and in Pumbedita in that Rav only requires ash once and Shmuel requires [ash] twice. This is reading of my father, my teacher, may he rest in peace, and this seems to me [to be the correct reading]. The first reading [is that of] my teacher, and it is difficult for me since in the language of Sura, Rav and Shmuel certainly disagree. What is the difference [of opinion]? Rav counts final [rinsing] water and Shmuel does not count final [rinsing] water. For Shmuel, [the] four and five [counting] requires that we teach [that Shmuel is counting the final rinsing water]. This is reasonable according to Pumbedita even though Rav does not count [the final rinsing water] and Shmuel does count [it]. This is convenient because the disagreement between Rav and Shmuel is not substantive, [it is] only [a disparity] in the counting of the final [rinsing] water. But, according to the language of Sura, there is still a disagreement [between Rav and Shmuel], which is difficult for me.

Gurgei - [wicker-net] bales, in La'az "ributi," [which] are wrapped around the "tapuach" [i.e. heap of grape pulp] so that the grapes do not scatter because of the weight of the beam [which is used to press them]. And Rav Hai [Gaon] commented [that] "akalim" as taught here are like "a bale ["ekel"] [used for] an olive press" (Sanhedrin 26a), made as a type of basket weaved into a net. After squeezing the olives the "gefet" [i.e. peat made of olive peals] is placed in that "ekel" [i.e. wicker-net] and [one] presses it [with a beam] and because of the weight [being applied] the remaining drink is drawn [from the peat made of olive peals]. These are "gurgei d'Armaei" [i.e. the wicker-nets of the Gentiles]. How is it scoured?

This is the vat itself, which is called "Mait" [Old French: the bin portion of a wine-press].

Hemp, which is very absorptive, and requires scouring with ash and water.

"Paveil" [Old French: a type of rush].

"Jonc" [Old French: rush], which is very absorptive.

How does one scour earthenware vessels? While it might seem that Rav and Rabbah b. Hanah disagree, the Talmud believes that they do not. Both say that one needs ashes (a cleansing agent) and water. If the vat is wet, first he puts some ashes and then he cleans it off with water. If the vat is dry, he first puts some water and then the ashes clean it off.

There are two layers of disputes here as to how many processes of rinsing and washing with ash are required for a wet winepress or a dry winepress (the former requires less because it is already moist). The first dispute is between Rav and Shmuel and the second dispute is between the schools of Sura and Pumbedita as to what the parameters of Rav and Shmuel’s dispute was. The Talmud remarks that the latter version is not really a dispute because Rav does not count the final rinsing whereas Shmuel does. [I should note that there are other ways of explaining the last comment here].

R. Shimon b. Gamaliel seems to state the same opinion at the previous one, the tanna kamma. Both require waiting from one season to the next, which seems to be 12 months. The Talmud explains that R. Shimon b. Gamaliel is more lenient—he does not always require waiting a full twelve months. The time could be less, for instance the time between one year’s pressing of late ripening grapes and the next year’s pressing of early ripening grapes. The time between one year’s pressing and another could also be longer than 12 months.

If one wants to purify them quickly without waiting twelve months or a similar length of time there are two opinions as to what to do. One is that one can pour boiling water (or olive- water) over them. Alternatively, he can put them in a rapidly moving stream of water. The Talmud says he puts them in the water for an “onah.” In tomorrow’s section we will learn how long an “onah” is.

The baraita deals with the laws of purity, not with the laws of yayin nesekh. So the Talmud has to emend the baraita such that it ends by saying that the same ways of purifying the winepress can be used to kasher it from yayin nesekh.

There seems to be a dispute as to how long an onah is, one rabbi saying a full day or night and the other saying half a day or night. But R. Shmuel b. Yitzchak harmonizes the two opinions—when the days are long, only half a day is required. But when the days are short, a full day is required. This is roughly about six hours.

Rav Judah gives instruction as to how to kasher filter-bags.

Here we learn how to kasher wicker-baskets and strainers.