Avodah Zarah 62
Share this shiur:
Masechet Avodah Zarah
Masechet Avodah Zarah is sponsored by the Talmud class of Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA, in honor of the Hadran staff who make learning possible.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Tina Lamm for the refuah shleima for מעין ליאורה בת שלומית פייגא. “Our precious Maya”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Avodah Zarah
Masechet Avodah Zarah is sponsored by the Talmud class of Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA, in honor of the Hadran staff who make learning possible.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Tina Lamm for the refuah shleima for מעין ליאורה בת שלומית פייגא. “Our precious Maya”
Avodah Zarah 62
מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמּוֹ בְּיֵין נֶסֶךְ — שְׂכָרוֹ אָסוּר. שְׂכָרוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמּוֹ מְלָאכָה אַחֶרֶת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ ״הַעֲבֵר לִי חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן נֶסֶךְ מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם״ — שְׂכָרוֹ מוּתָּר. הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר לְהָבִיא עָלֶיהָ יֵין נֶסֶךְ — שְׂכָרָהּ אָסוּר. שְׂכָרָהּ לֵישֵׁב עָלֶיהָ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִנִּיחַ גּוֹי לְגִינוֹ עָלֶיהָ — שְׂכָרָהּ מוּתָּר.
MISHNA: In the case of a gentile who hires a Jewish laborer to work with wine used for an idolatrous libation with him, his wage is forbidden, i.e., it is prohibited for the Jew to derive benefit from his wage. If the gentile hired him to do other work with him, even if he said to him while he was working with him: Transport the barrel of wine used for a libation for me from this place to that place, his wage is permitted, i.e., the Jew is permitted to derive benefit from the money. With regard to a gentile who rents a Jew’s donkey to carry wine used for a libation on it, its rental fee is forbidden. If he rented it to sit on it, even if a gentile placed his jug of wine used for a libation on it, its rental fee is permitted.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא שְׂכָרוֹ אָסוּר? אִילֵּימָא, הוֹאִיל וְיֵין נֶסֶךְ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, שְׂכָרוֹ נָמֵי אָסוּר — הֲרֵי עׇרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם דַּאֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה, וּתְנַן: מְכָרָן וְקִידֵּשׁ בִּדְמֵיהֶן — מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת!
GEMARA: In the first case of the mishna, where a gentile hires a Jew to produce wine used for a libation with him, what is the reason that his wage is forbidden? If we say that since it is prohibited to derive benefit from wine used for a libation, his wage is also prohibited, that is difficult: There are the cases of orla produce, i.e., produce grown during a tree’s first three years, and diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, from which it is also prohibited to derive benefit, and yet we learned in a mishna (Kiddushin 56b) that if a man sold this produce and betrothed a woman with the money received for it, she is betrothed. Evidently, money gained from a forbidden item is not itself forbidden, as otherwise the betrothal would not take effect.
אֶלָּא, הוֹאִיל וְתוֹפֵס אֶת דָּמָיו כַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וַהֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית דְּתוֹפֶסֶת אֶת דָּמֶיהָ, וּתְנַן: הָאוֹמֵר לְפוֹעֵל ״הֵילָךְ דִּינָר זֶה, לְקוֹט לִי בּוֹ יָרָק הַיּוֹם״ — שְׂכָרוֹ אָסוּר, ״לְקוֹט לִי יָרָק הַיּוֹם״ — שְׂכָרוֹ מוּתָּר!
Rather, perhaps the reason that the wage is forbidden is since the wine used for a libation transfers to the money its status as an object of idol worship. The Gemara challenges: But there is the halakha of Sabbatical-Year produce, which transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed, and yet we learned in a mishna (Shevi’it 8:4): With regard to one who says to his laborer during the Sabbatical Year: Here is this dinar I give to you; gather for me vegetables for its value today, his wage is forbidden, i.e., the sanctity of the Sabbatical-Year produce is transferred to the wage, since it is as though he has purchased Sabbatical-Year produce in exchange for the dinar. But if the employer says to him: Gather for me vegetables today, without mentioning that it is for the value of the dinar, his wage is permitted, as he merely paid him for his labor. This should apply as well to the case of the wine used for a libation.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קְנָס הוּא שֶׁקָּנְסוּ חֲכָמִים בַּחֲמָרִין וּבְיֵין נֶסֶךְ. יֵין נֶסֶךְ — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן, חַמָּרִין מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: הַחַמָּרִין שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹשִׂין מְלָאכָה בְּפֵירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית — שְׂכָרָן שְׁבִיעִית.
Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is a penalty that the Sages imposed upon donkey drivers and with regard to wine used for a libation. The Gemara explains: With regard to wine used for a libation, the penalty is as we said, that the wage of one who is hired to work in the production of wine used for libation is forbidden. With regard to donkey drivers, what is this penalty? The penalty is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the donkey drivers who were working in the transportation of Sabbatical-Year produce, their wage is Sabbatical-Year produce.
מַאי ״שְׂכָרָן שְׁבִיעִית״? אִילֵּימָא דְּיָהֲבִינַן לְהוּ שָׂכָר מִפֵּירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית, נִמְצָא זֶה פּוֹרֵעַ חוֹבוֹ מִפֵּירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״לְאׇכְלָה״ וְלֹא לִסְחוֹרָה!
The Gemara asks: What does it mean when it says that their wage is Sabbatical-Year produce? If we say that we give them their wage for their work from Sabbatical-Year produce, the employer consequently is paying his debt from Sabbatical-Year produce, and this violates that which the Torah states: “And the Sabbatical produce of the land shall be for food for you” (Leviticus 25:6), indicating that this produce is designated for food, but not for commerce.
וְאֶלָּא דְּקָדוֹשׁ שְׂכָרָן בִּקְדוּשַּׁת שְׁבִיעִית. וּמִי קָדוֹשׁ? וְהָתַנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר לְפוֹעֵל: ״הֵילָךְ דִּינָר זֶה וּלְקוֹט לִי יָרָק הַיּוֹם״ — שְׂכָרוֹ מוּתָּר, ״לְקוֹט לִי יָרָק בּוֹ הַיּוֹם״ — שְׂכָרוֹ אָסוּר!
And if it means that their wage is sacred with the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce, is that wage in fact sacred? But isn’t it taught in a mishna that with regard to one who says to a laborer: Here is this dinar I give to you and gather for me vegetables today, his wage is permitted, but if he says to him: Gather for me vegetables today for its value, his wage is forbidden? The case of the donkey drivers is clearly similar to the former case, where the value of the dinar was not mentioned.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם יָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ שָׂכָר מִפֵּירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ ״לְאׇכְלָה״ וְלֹא לִסְחוֹרָה, דְּיַהֲבֵיהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ בְּצַד הֶיתֵּר, כְּדִתְנַן: לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ:
Abaye said: Actually, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement should be interpreted as saying that we give him his wage from Sabbatical-Year produce. And as for that which appears to pose a difficulty for you, that the verse designates such produce “for food” but not for commerce, that can be resolved by explaining that one gives him his wage in a permitted manner, i.e., as a gift rather than as a wage. This is as we learned in a mishna (Ma’aser Sheni 3:1) that a person should not say to another:
״הַעֲלֵה לִי פֵּירוֹת הַלָּלוּ לִירוּשָׁלַיִם לְחַלֵּק״, אֲבָל אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הַעֲלֵם לְאוֹכְלָם וְלִשְׁתּוֹתָם בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם״, וְנוֹתְנִין זֶה לָזֶה מַתָּנָה שֶׁל חִנָּם.
Bring this produce designated as second tithe to Jerusalem for me in exchange for a share of the produce, of which you may partake in Jerusalem. This is considered payment and is tantamount to conducting commerce with the tithe. But he may say to him: Bring it to Jerusalem to eat it and drink it in Jerusalem, as long as he does not specify that it is payment; and once in Jerusalem they may give one another unrequited gifts. This indicates that what may not be given as payment may be given as a gift, and therefore the donkey drivers may be compensated with Sabbatical-Year produce.
וְרָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם דְּקָדוֹשׁ בִּקְדוּשַּׁת שְׁבִיעִית, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ פּוֹעֵל — פּוֹעֵל דְּלָא נְפִישׁ אַגְרֵיהּ לָא קַנְסוּהּ רַבָּנַן, חַמָּרִין דִּנְפִישׁ אַגְרַיְיהוּ — קְנַסוּ רַבָּנַן בְּהוּ. וּמַתְנִיתִין — חוּמְרָא דְּיֵין נֶסֶךְ שָׁאנֵי.
And Rava says: Actually, Rabbi Yoḥanan means that the produce with which the drivers are paid is sacred with the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce, and as for that which poses a difficulty for you with regard to the halakha of the laborer cited in the mishna, which states that his wage is not sacred, that difficulty can be resolved as follows: There is a distinction between a laborer, whose wage is not great, and therefore the Sages did not penalize him by decreeing that his wage is sacred, and donkey drivers, whose wages are great, and therefore the Sages penalized them. And with regard to the mishna that deems forbidden even the laborer’s wage in the case of one who produces wine designated for libation, the stringency of wine used for a libation is different, and it is treated more stringently than Sabbatical-Year produce.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שְׂכָרוֹ לִסְתָם יֵינָן, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּאִיסּוּרָא חָמוּר כִּדְיֵין נֶסֶךְ — שְׂכָרוֹ נָמֵי אָסוּר, אוֹ דִלְמָא: הוֹאִיל וְטוּמְאָתוֹ (קיל) [קִילָא] — אַף שְׂכָרוֹ נָמֵי קִיל?
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a gentile hired a Jew to work with him in the production of nondescript wine of gentiles, i.e., wine that was not used for libation, what is the halakha? Do we say that since the prohibition of deriving benefit from nondescript wine of gentiles is as stringent as the prohibition of deriving benefit from wine used for a libation, his wage is also forbidden, or perhaps should it be reasoned that since the halakha with regard to its capacity for imparting ritual impurity to one who comes into contact with it is more lenient than the halakha with regard to wine used for a libation, the halakha with regard to its wage is also more lenient?
תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאֹגַר אַרְבֵּיהּ לִסְתָם יֵינָן, יְהַבוּ לֵיהּ חִיטֵּי בְּאַגְרָא, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל קְלִינְהוּ וְקִבְרִינְהוּ (בקברי) [בֵּי קִבְרֵי].
Come and hear a resolution: It is related that there was a certain man who rented out his ship for transporting nondescript wine of gentiles, and the gentiles gave him wheat in payment. He came before Rav Ḥisda to determine the status of the wheat. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Go burn it and bury it in a graveyard. Evidently, payment for working with nondescript wine of gentiles is forbidden.
וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: בַּדְּרִינְהוּ! אָתוּ בְּהוּ לִידֵי תַּקָּלָה. וְלִיקְלִינְהוּ וְלִיבַדְּרִינְהוּ! דִּלְמָא מְזַבְּלִי בְּהוּ.
The Gemara raises an objection to the method of eradication of the wheat in Rav Ḥisda’s ruling. But let him say to the ship owner: Scatter it. The Gemara responds: If he scatters it, people might be caused a mishap by it if they find kernels of the scattered wheat and gather them for eating. The Gemara challenges: But then let him burn it and scatter it. Why should it be buried? The Gemara answers: Perhaps people will fertilize their fields with it.
וְלִקְבְּרִינְהוּ בְּעֵינַיְיהוּ! מִי לָא תְּנַן: אֶחָד אֶבֶן שֶׁנִּסְקַל בָּהּ, וְאֶחָד עֵץ שֶׁנִּתְלָה עָלָיו, וְאֶחָד סַיִיף שֶׁנֶּהֱרַג בּוֹ, וְאֶחָד סוּדָר שֶׁנֶּחְנַק בּוֹ — כּוּלָּם נִקְבָּרִים עִמּוֹ?
The Gemara challenges: But let him bury the wheat in its unadulterated form. Didn’t we learn in a baraita with regard to the instruments used for imposing capital punishment: The stone with which a condemned person is stoned, and the tree on which his corpse is hung after his execution, and the sword with which he is killed, and the scarf with which he is strangled, all of them are buried together with him, as it is prohibited to derive benefit from them. The baraita does not require that they be burned before they are buried.
הָתָם דְּקָא קָבְרִי בְּבֵי דִינָא, מוֹכְחָא מִילְּתָא דַּהֲרוּגֵי בֵּית דִּין נִינְהוּ. הָכָא לָא מוֹכְחָא מִילְּתָא, אֵימַר: אִינָשׁ גְּנַב וְאַיְיתִי קְבַר הָכָא.
The Gemara answers: There, since they are buried in the court graveyard, the matter is clear to all that these were executed by the court, so everyone knows that using the instruments of execution is prohibited. Here, the matter is not clear to all, as one might say to himself that a person stole the wheat and brought it and buried it here, and he might thereby come to use it.
דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי יָזְפִי פֵּירֵי שְׁבִיעִית מֵעֲנִיִּים, וּפָרְעוּ לְהוּ בִּשְׁמִינִית. אֲתוֹ אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֲמַר לְהוּ: יָאוּת הֵן עָבְדִין.
§ The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai borrowed Sabbatical-Year produce from the poor and repaid them in the eighth year. Others came and said this to Rabbi Yoḥanan, out of concern that by doing so they violated the prohibition against engaging in commerce with Sabbatical-Year produce. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to them: They are acting properly, as this is not considered commerce.
וּכְנֶגְדָּן בְּאֶתְנַן — מוּתָּר, דְּתַנְיָא: נָתַן לָהּ וְלֹא בָּא עָלֶיהָ, בָּא עָלֶיהָ וְלֹא נָתַן לָהּ — אֶתְנַנָּה מוּתָּר.
And in the corresponding case concerning payment to a prostitute for services rendered, it is permitted to sacrifice such an animal as an offering. Although the Torah prohibits the sacrifice of an animal used as a prostitute’s payment (see Deuteronomy 23:19), in a case similar to this one, it is permitted; as it is taught in a baraita: If the man gave the prostitute payment but did not engage in intercourse with her, or if he engaged in intercourse with her but did not give her payment, it is permitted for her payment to serve as an offering.
נָתַן לָהּ וְלֹא בָּא עָלֶיהָ — פְּשִׁיטָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא בָּא עָלֶיהָ מַתָּנָה בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דְּיָהֵיב לַהּ! וְתוּ, בָּא עָלֶיהָ וְלֹא נָתַן לָהּ — הָא לָא יָהֵיב לָהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי, וְכֵיוָן דְּלָא נָתַן לָהּ מַאי ״אֶתְנַנָּה מוּתָּר״?
The Gemara discusses difficulties with the wording of the baraita: If he gave her payment but did not engage in intercourse with her, isn’t it obvious that it is permitted? Since he did not engage in intercourse with her, it is merely a gift that he has given her, and there is no reason for it to be forbidden. Why does the baraita need to state this? And furthermore, with regard to the case in the baraita where he engaged in intercourse with her but did not give her payment, he did not give her anything, and since he did not give her payment, what is the meaning of the statement that her payment is permitted?
אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: נָתַן לָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא עָלֶיהָ, אוֹ בָּא עָלֶיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָתַן לָהּ — אֶתְנַנָּה מוּתָּר.
The Gemara answers: Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: If he gave her payment and afterward, after some time elapsed, he engaged in intercourse with her, or if he engaged in intercourse with her and afterward, after some time elapsed, he gave her payment, her payment is permitted, because the payment was not given proximate to the intercourse. This is also the halakha in the case of borrowing Sabbatical-Year produce, i.e., paying for it after time has elapsed is not considered commerce.
נָתַן לָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא עָלֶיהָ, לְכִי בָּא עָלֶיהָ
The Gemara asks: If the baraita is referring to a case where he gave her payment and afterward engaged in intercourse with her, then when he engaged in intercourse with her,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Avodah Zarah 62: Non-Jews, Non-Idolaters: “Stam Yeinam”
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Los Angeles, United States
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
I started learning the daf during Covid. I’d always wanted to learn Talmud but that wasn’t an option for girls in the small town I grew up in and I struggled to help my younger kids with Hebrew homework let alone read a Hebrew text. I decided to start small by listening to the daf podcast on the way to work each morning. Then I joined the Long Island WhatsApp group. Now I go to the siyyums.
Long Island, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
Ontario, Canada
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Avodah Zarah 62
מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמּוֹ בְּיֵין נֶסֶךְ — שְׂכָרוֹ אָסוּר. שְׂכָרוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמּוֹ מְלָאכָה אַחֶרֶת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ ״הַעֲבֵר לִי חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן נֶסֶךְ מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם״ — שְׂכָרוֹ מוּתָּר. הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר לְהָבִיא עָלֶיהָ יֵין נֶסֶךְ — שְׂכָרָהּ אָסוּר. שְׂכָרָהּ לֵישֵׁב עָלֶיהָ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִנִּיחַ גּוֹי לְגִינוֹ עָלֶיהָ — שְׂכָרָהּ מוּתָּר.
MISHNA: In the case of a gentile who hires a Jewish laborer to work with wine used for an idolatrous libation with him, his wage is forbidden, i.e., it is prohibited for the Jew to derive benefit from his wage. If the gentile hired him to do other work with him, even if he said to him while he was working with him: Transport the barrel of wine used for a libation for me from this place to that place, his wage is permitted, i.e., the Jew is permitted to derive benefit from the money. With regard to a gentile who rents a Jew’s donkey to carry wine used for a libation on it, its rental fee is forbidden. If he rented it to sit on it, even if a gentile placed his jug of wine used for a libation on it, its rental fee is permitted.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא שְׂכָרוֹ אָסוּר? אִילֵּימָא, הוֹאִיל וְיֵין נֶסֶךְ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, שְׂכָרוֹ נָמֵי אָסוּר — הֲרֵי עׇרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם דַּאֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה, וּתְנַן: מְכָרָן וְקִידֵּשׁ בִּדְמֵיהֶן — מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת!
GEMARA: In the first case of the mishna, where a gentile hires a Jew to produce wine used for a libation with him, what is the reason that his wage is forbidden? If we say that since it is prohibited to derive benefit from wine used for a libation, his wage is also prohibited, that is difficult: There are the cases of orla produce, i.e., produce grown during a tree’s first three years, and diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, from which it is also prohibited to derive benefit, and yet we learned in a mishna (Kiddushin 56b) that if a man sold this produce and betrothed a woman with the money received for it, she is betrothed. Evidently, money gained from a forbidden item is not itself forbidden, as otherwise the betrothal would not take effect.
אֶלָּא, הוֹאִיל וְתוֹפֵס אֶת דָּמָיו כַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וַהֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית דְּתוֹפֶסֶת אֶת דָּמֶיהָ, וּתְנַן: הָאוֹמֵר לְפוֹעֵל ״הֵילָךְ דִּינָר זֶה, לְקוֹט לִי בּוֹ יָרָק הַיּוֹם״ — שְׂכָרוֹ אָסוּר, ״לְקוֹט לִי יָרָק הַיּוֹם״ — שְׂכָרוֹ מוּתָּר!
Rather, perhaps the reason that the wage is forbidden is since the wine used for a libation transfers to the money its status as an object of idol worship. The Gemara challenges: But there is the halakha of Sabbatical-Year produce, which transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed, and yet we learned in a mishna (Shevi’it 8:4): With regard to one who says to his laborer during the Sabbatical Year: Here is this dinar I give to you; gather for me vegetables for its value today, his wage is forbidden, i.e., the sanctity of the Sabbatical-Year produce is transferred to the wage, since it is as though he has purchased Sabbatical-Year produce in exchange for the dinar. But if the employer says to him: Gather for me vegetables today, without mentioning that it is for the value of the dinar, his wage is permitted, as he merely paid him for his labor. This should apply as well to the case of the wine used for a libation.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קְנָס הוּא שֶׁקָּנְסוּ חֲכָמִים בַּחֲמָרִין וּבְיֵין נֶסֶךְ. יֵין נֶסֶךְ — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן, חַמָּרִין מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: הַחַמָּרִין שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹשִׂין מְלָאכָה בְּפֵירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית — שְׂכָרָן שְׁבִיעִית.
Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is a penalty that the Sages imposed upon donkey drivers and with regard to wine used for a libation. The Gemara explains: With regard to wine used for a libation, the penalty is as we said, that the wage of one who is hired to work in the production of wine used for libation is forbidden. With regard to donkey drivers, what is this penalty? The penalty is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the donkey drivers who were working in the transportation of Sabbatical-Year produce, their wage is Sabbatical-Year produce.
מַאי ״שְׂכָרָן שְׁבִיעִית״? אִילֵּימָא דְּיָהֲבִינַן לְהוּ שָׂכָר מִפֵּירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית, נִמְצָא זֶה פּוֹרֵעַ חוֹבוֹ מִפֵּירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״לְאׇכְלָה״ וְלֹא לִסְחוֹרָה!
The Gemara asks: What does it mean when it says that their wage is Sabbatical-Year produce? If we say that we give them their wage for their work from Sabbatical-Year produce, the employer consequently is paying his debt from Sabbatical-Year produce, and this violates that which the Torah states: “And the Sabbatical produce of the land shall be for food for you” (Leviticus 25:6), indicating that this produce is designated for food, but not for commerce.
וְאֶלָּא דְּקָדוֹשׁ שְׂכָרָן בִּקְדוּשַּׁת שְׁבִיעִית. וּמִי קָדוֹשׁ? וְהָתַנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר לְפוֹעֵל: ״הֵילָךְ דִּינָר זֶה וּלְקוֹט לִי יָרָק הַיּוֹם״ — שְׂכָרוֹ מוּתָּר, ״לְקוֹט לִי יָרָק בּוֹ הַיּוֹם״ — שְׂכָרוֹ אָסוּר!
And if it means that their wage is sacred with the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce, is that wage in fact sacred? But isn’t it taught in a mishna that with regard to one who says to a laborer: Here is this dinar I give to you and gather for me vegetables today, his wage is permitted, but if he says to him: Gather for me vegetables today for its value, his wage is forbidden? The case of the donkey drivers is clearly similar to the former case, where the value of the dinar was not mentioned.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם יָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ שָׂכָר מִפֵּירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ ״לְאׇכְלָה״ וְלֹא לִסְחוֹרָה, דְּיַהֲבֵיהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ בְּצַד הֶיתֵּר, כְּדִתְנַן: לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ:
Abaye said: Actually, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement should be interpreted as saying that we give him his wage from Sabbatical-Year produce. And as for that which appears to pose a difficulty for you, that the verse designates such produce “for food” but not for commerce, that can be resolved by explaining that one gives him his wage in a permitted manner, i.e., as a gift rather than as a wage. This is as we learned in a mishna (Ma’aser Sheni 3:1) that a person should not say to another:
״הַעֲלֵה לִי פֵּירוֹת הַלָּלוּ לִירוּשָׁלַיִם לְחַלֵּק״, אֲבָל אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הַעֲלֵם לְאוֹכְלָם וְלִשְׁתּוֹתָם בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם״, וְנוֹתְנִין זֶה לָזֶה מַתָּנָה שֶׁל חִנָּם.
Bring this produce designated as second tithe to Jerusalem for me in exchange for a share of the produce, of which you may partake in Jerusalem. This is considered payment and is tantamount to conducting commerce with the tithe. But he may say to him: Bring it to Jerusalem to eat it and drink it in Jerusalem, as long as he does not specify that it is payment; and once in Jerusalem they may give one another unrequited gifts. This indicates that what may not be given as payment may be given as a gift, and therefore the donkey drivers may be compensated with Sabbatical-Year produce.
וְרָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם דְּקָדוֹשׁ בִּקְדוּשַּׁת שְׁבִיעִית, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ פּוֹעֵל — פּוֹעֵל דְּלָא נְפִישׁ אַגְרֵיהּ לָא קַנְסוּהּ רַבָּנַן, חַמָּרִין דִּנְפִישׁ אַגְרַיְיהוּ — קְנַסוּ רַבָּנַן בְּהוּ. וּמַתְנִיתִין — חוּמְרָא דְּיֵין נֶסֶךְ שָׁאנֵי.
And Rava says: Actually, Rabbi Yoḥanan means that the produce with which the drivers are paid is sacred with the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce, and as for that which poses a difficulty for you with regard to the halakha of the laborer cited in the mishna, which states that his wage is not sacred, that difficulty can be resolved as follows: There is a distinction between a laborer, whose wage is not great, and therefore the Sages did not penalize him by decreeing that his wage is sacred, and donkey drivers, whose wages are great, and therefore the Sages penalized them. And with regard to the mishna that deems forbidden even the laborer’s wage in the case of one who produces wine designated for libation, the stringency of wine used for a libation is different, and it is treated more stringently than Sabbatical-Year produce.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שְׂכָרוֹ לִסְתָם יֵינָן, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּאִיסּוּרָא חָמוּר כִּדְיֵין נֶסֶךְ — שְׂכָרוֹ נָמֵי אָסוּר, אוֹ דִלְמָא: הוֹאִיל וְטוּמְאָתוֹ (קיל) [קִילָא] — אַף שְׂכָרוֹ נָמֵי קִיל?
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a gentile hired a Jew to work with him in the production of nondescript wine of gentiles, i.e., wine that was not used for libation, what is the halakha? Do we say that since the prohibition of deriving benefit from nondescript wine of gentiles is as stringent as the prohibition of deriving benefit from wine used for a libation, his wage is also forbidden, or perhaps should it be reasoned that since the halakha with regard to its capacity for imparting ritual impurity to one who comes into contact with it is more lenient than the halakha with regard to wine used for a libation, the halakha with regard to its wage is also more lenient?
תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאֹגַר אַרְבֵּיהּ לִסְתָם יֵינָן, יְהַבוּ לֵיהּ חִיטֵּי בְּאַגְרָא, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל קְלִינְהוּ וְקִבְרִינְהוּ (בקברי) [בֵּי קִבְרֵי].
Come and hear a resolution: It is related that there was a certain man who rented out his ship for transporting nondescript wine of gentiles, and the gentiles gave him wheat in payment. He came before Rav Ḥisda to determine the status of the wheat. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Go burn it and bury it in a graveyard. Evidently, payment for working with nondescript wine of gentiles is forbidden.
וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: בַּדְּרִינְהוּ! אָתוּ בְּהוּ לִידֵי תַּקָּלָה. וְלִיקְלִינְהוּ וְלִיבַדְּרִינְהוּ! דִּלְמָא מְזַבְּלִי בְּהוּ.
The Gemara raises an objection to the method of eradication of the wheat in Rav Ḥisda’s ruling. But let him say to the ship owner: Scatter it. The Gemara responds: If he scatters it, people might be caused a mishap by it if they find kernels of the scattered wheat and gather them for eating. The Gemara challenges: But then let him burn it and scatter it. Why should it be buried? The Gemara answers: Perhaps people will fertilize their fields with it.
וְלִקְבְּרִינְהוּ בְּעֵינַיְיהוּ! מִי לָא תְּנַן: אֶחָד אֶבֶן שֶׁנִּסְקַל בָּהּ, וְאֶחָד עֵץ שֶׁנִּתְלָה עָלָיו, וְאֶחָד סַיִיף שֶׁנֶּהֱרַג בּוֹ, וְאֶחָד סוּדָר שֶׁנֶּחְנַק בּוֹ — כּוּלָּם נִקְבָּרִים עִמּוֹ?
The Gemara challenges: But let him bury the wheat in its unadulterated form. Didn’t we learn in a baraita with regard to the instruments used for imposing capital punishment: The stone with which a condemned person is stoned, and the tree on which his corpse is hung after his execution, and the sword with which he is killed, and the scarf with which he is strangled, all of them are buried together with him, as it is prohibited to derive benefit from them. The baraita does not require that they be burned before they are buried.
הָתָם דְּקָא קָבְרִי בְּבֵי דִינָא, מוֹכְחָא מִילְּתָא דַּהֲרוּגֵי בֵּית דִּין נִינְהוּ. הָכָא לָא מוֹכְחָא מִילְּתָא, אֵימַר: אִינָשׁ גְּנַב וְאַיְיתִי קְבַר הָכָא.
The Gemara answers: There, since they are buried in the court graveyard, the matter is clear to all that these were executed by the court, so everyone knows that using the instruments of execution is prohibited. Here, the matter is not clear to all, as one might say to himself that a person stole the wheat and brought it and buried it here, and he might thereby come to use it.
דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי יָזְפִי פֵּירֵי שְׁבִיעִית מֵעֲנִיִּים, וּפָרְעוּ לְהוּ בִּשְׁמִינִית. אֲתוֹ אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֲמַר לְהוּ: יָאוּת הֵן עָבְדִין.
§ The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai borrowed Sabbatical-Year produce from the poor and repaid them in the eighth year. Others came and said this to Rabbi Yoḥanan, out of concern that by doing so they violated the prohibition against engaging in commerce with Sabbatical-Year produce. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to them: They are acting properly, as this is not considered commerce.
וּכְנֶגְדָּן בְּאֶתְנַן — מוּתָּר, דְּתַנְיָא: נָתַן לָהּ וְלֹא בָּא עָלֶיהָ, בָּא עָלֶיהָ וְלֹא נָתַן לָהּ — אֶתְנַנָּה מוּתָּר.
And in the corresponding case concerning payment to a prostitute for services rendered, it is permitted to sacrifice such an animal as an offering. Although the Torah prohibits the sacrifice of an animal used as a prostitute’s payment (see Deuteronomy 23:19), in a case similar to this one, it is permitted; as it is taught in a baraita: If the man gave the prostitute payment but did not engage in intercourse with her, or if he engaged in intercourse with her but did not give her payment, it is permitted for her payment to serve as an offering.
נָתַן לָהּ וְלֹא בָּא עָלֶיהָ — פְּשִׁיטָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא בָּא עָלֶיהָ מַתָּנָה בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דְּיָהֵיב לַהּ! וְתוּ, בָּא עָלֶיהָ וְלֹא נָתַן לָהּ — הָא לָא יָהֵיב לָהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי, וְכֵיוָן דְּלָא נָתַן לָהּ מַאי ״אֶתְנַנָּה מוּתָּר״?
The Gemara discusses difficulties with the wording of the baraita: If he gave her payment but did not engage in intercourse with her, isn’t it obvious that it is permitted? Since he did not engage in intercourse with her, it is merely a gift that he has given her, and there is no reason for it to be forbidden. Why does the baraita need to state this? And furthermore, with regard to the case in the baraita where he engaged in intercourse with her but did not give her payment, he did not give her anything, and since he did not give her payment, what is the meaning of the statement that her payment is permitted?
אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: נָתַן לָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא עָלֶיהָ, אוֹ בָּא עָלֶיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָתַן לָהּ — אֶתְנַנָּה מוּתָּר.
The Gemara answers: Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: If he gave her payment and afterward, after some time elapsed, he engaged in intercourse with her, or if he engaged in intercourse with her and afterward, after some time elapsed, he gave her payment, her payment is permitted, because the payment was not given proximate to the intercourse. This is also the halakha in the case of borrowing Sabbatical-Year produce, i.e., paying for it after time has elapsed is not considered commerce.
נָתַן לָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא עָלֶיהָ, לְכִי בָּא עָלֶיהָ
The Gemara asks: If the baraita is referring to a case where he gave her payment and afterward engaged in intercourse with her, then when he engaged in intercourse with her,
