R. Yannai son of R. Yishmael became sick and R. Zeira, R. Hoshiya, R. Bun bar Kahana and R. Chananya and all of their group of Chachamim came to visit him. They saw R. Yehoshua bar Zidal there, sitting in front of R. Yannai. The Rabbis said, "This is R. Yannai, son of R. Yishmael who related the teaching (in the name of R. Shimon ben Lakish). And this is R. Yehoshua bar Zidal, who posed them the question''.

(R. Yannai b'R. Yishmael to them): R. Shimon ben Lakish says that sweet wine has no prohibition if left unattended; nor does it become prohibited as Yayin Nesech.

(R. Zeira): Perhaps R. Shimon ben Lakish was merely suggesting it as a possibility but did not actually make a ruling?

(R. Yannai): No, he ruled that way and we rely on this.

After they left the house, R. Ila met R. Bun bar Kahana and said to him, "If you wouldn't like relating teachings of the Amoraim, couldn't the question be answered from a Baraisa...

(Baraisa of R. Chiya): Why is cooked wine of gentiles prohibited? As it began as wine. (But if it came into his possession already cooked, it would not be prohibited.) Why is vinegar of gentiles prohibited? As it began as wine.

(R. Yosi): One could also understand it from a Mishnah (in Maseches Avodah Zarah 2:3), "Wine and vinegar of gentiles that began as wine...'' (- but if it came into his possession already cooked, it would not be prohibited.)

R. Imi was hosting guests. He told them, "If my cooked wine would not have been left uncovered, I would have given it to you to drink.''

(R. Bayvai to R. Imi): Bring it to me and I'll drink it.

(R. Imi): If a person wishes to die, let him die in his own house.

Bar Yudni's Kunditun was left uncovered. He asked the Rabbanan and they told him that it is prohibited to drink.

Question: Didn't R. Yitzchak bar Nachman say in the name of R. Yehoshua ben Levi that wine that is sharp, bitter or sweet is not prohibited if left unattended?

Answer (Rabbanan of Kisarin citing R. Chiya bar Titas): That permission applies when the Kunditun consists of 1/3rd herbs, 1/3rd honey and 1/3rd wine (which was not the case with Bar Yudni's Kunditun).

Question (asked to R. Abahu): What's the law of cooked wine that was left uncovered?

Answer (R. Abahu): If R. Yochanan was unsure about sweet wine, certainly cooked wine, which began as regular wine, is prohibited if left uncovered.

They went to ask R. Yitzchak who ruled that it is prohibited.

R. Abahu then remembered that R. Yochanan had prohibited it.

(R. Yaakov bar Acha/ R. Imi citing R. Elazar): If the person is coming and going from the house, it is permitted (as the snake will be afraid to drink from it).

Bar Netuza left his barrel uncovered. He asked R. Ba bar Mamal, who ruled that if he had been coming and going from the house, it is permitted.

(R. Yaakov bar Acha/ R. Imi citing R. Elazar): If he was sleeping near the wine, it is permitted.

R. Chananya and R. Yehoshua ben Levi disagreed - One said that if he was sleeping, it is permitted and the other said that it is prohibited; and we didn't know who said what...

It's logical to say that R. Chanina held that if he was sleeping, it's permitted; as in all places, R. Eliezer relies on the words of R. Chanina (and earlier, R. Eliezer permitted it).

(R. Yosi ben Shaul): There was once a wife that loved to do Mitzvos, but her husband hated to do them. Once, a poor man came to her and she gave him a meal. Whilst he was eating, she sensed that her husband was returning home. She sent him to hide in the attic. She fed her husband a meal and he fell asleep. Whilst he was sleeping, the poor man watched as a snake came and ate from the food. When the husband awoke, he wanted to continue his meal and the poor man called out from the attic that he shouldn't eat it as a snake ate from it. This shows that if a person slept, it is prohibited.

Rebuttal: The husband was wrapped in his clothing, so the snake didn't notice him. (Note: This follows the text of the Gemara in Avoda Zara, as cited by HaRav C. Kanievski.)

Question: Why didn't she become prohibited to her husband for being secluded with the poor man? (Note: See the explanation of HaRav C. Kanievski.)

Answer: Since the poor man wasn't suspected of leaving the husband to die (as he saved his life), he also wasn't suspected of adultery. The pasuk states (Yechezkel 23:37), "For they have committed adultery, and blood is on their hands''. This shows the connection, that if one is not suspected of murder, they are not suspected of adultery.