Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 20, 2018 | ื“ืณ ื‘ื ื™ืกืŸ ืชืฉืขืดื—

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Avodah Zarah 64

Rabbi Chiya bar Ami asks a number of questions to a number of rabbis regarding certain issues about avoda zaraย – can one work for a non-Jew to break idols? Does the money a non-Jew receives for selling idols have the status of the idols themselves and is forbidden to a Jew to benefit from them? Can a ger toshavย cancel avodaย zara?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ืื‘ืœ ืขื•ืงืจื™ืŸ ืขืžื• ื›ื“ื™ ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืืช ื”ืชื™ืคืœื”

but one may uproot diverse kinds with him, in order to reduce impropriety.

ืกื‘ืจื•ื” ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืžืงื™ื™ื ื‘ื›ืœืื™ื ืœื•ืงื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืžื ื›ืฉ ื•ื”ืžื—ืคื” ื‘ื›ืœืื™ื ืœื•ืงื” ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื”ืžืงื™ื™ื

The Sages initially assumed that in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that not only one who sows or grows diverse kinds, but even one who maintains diverse kinds, is flogged. As it is taught in a baraita: One who removes the weeds interfering with the growth of the plants or who covers up the seeds of diverse kinds with earth is flogged. Rabbi Akiva says: Even one who maintains them instead of actively uprooting them is flogged.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืฉื“ืš ืœื ืชื–ืจืข ื›ืœืื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื–ื•ืจืข ืžืงื™ื™ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื ื›ืœืื™ื

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Akiva? The Gemara answers: The verse states: โ€œYou shall not sow your field with diverse kinds of seedโ€ (Leviticus 19:19). I have derived only the case of one who sows. From where is it derived that one who maintains diverse kinds also receives lashes? The verse states: โ€œNotโ€ฆdiverse kinds of seed,โ€ indicating that there should not be diverse kinds in oneโ€™s field.

ื•ืื™ืœื• ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืชื™ืคืœื” ืฉืจื™

The Gemara concludes its support for the opinion of Rav Naแธฅman: It is prohibited to maintain diverse kinds, but nevertheless, if one wishes to maintain diverse kinds temporarily in order to be paid for uprooting them, thereby reducing impropriety, it is permitted. Similarly, it is permitted for one to receive payment for breaking barrels of wine used for a libation.

ืœื ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื

The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita, which deems it permitted for one to uproot diverse kinds with a gentile? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who permit one to maintain diverse kinds, but prohibit one from maintaining wine used for a libation, so there is no proof from this baraita in support of Rav Naแธฅmanโ€™s opinion.

ืื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ืขื•ืงืจื™ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืงื™ื•ืžื™ ื ืžื™ ืฉืคื™ืจ ื“ืžื™ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืงื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื—ื ื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœื”ื ืžืชื ืช ื—ื ื ืืกื•ืจ

The Gemara asks: If the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, why does the tanna specifically permit uprooting with a gentile? Even maintaining the diverse kinds is permitted. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where he performed the uprooting unpaid, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that giving an unpaid gift to a gentile is prohibited.

ืžื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื ืฉืžืข ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืœืื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืกื•ืจ ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœื”ื ืžืชื ืช ื—ื ื ืื‘ืœ ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืชื™ืคืœื” ืฉืคื™ืจ ื“ืžื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื ืžื™ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ืžืงื™ื™ื ื‘ื›ืœืื™ื ืœื•ืงื” ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืชื™ืคืœื” ืฉืคื™ืจ ื“ืžื™ ื•ืชื• ืœื ืžื™ื“ื™

The Gemara reasons that Rav Naแธฅmanโ€™s ruling can in any event be proven from this baraita: From the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda we may understand the halakha according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Doesnโ€™t Rabbi Yehuda say that it is prohibited to give a gentile an unpaid gift, but to reduce impropriety he holds that it is permitted to work with a gentile? The same can be said according to Rabbi Akiva as well: Although Rabbi Akiva says that one who maintains diverse kinds is flogged, he presumably holds that if the purpose is to reduce impropriety, it is permitted. The Gemara concludes: And nothing more is to be said on this matter.

ื”ื“ื•ืจ ื™ืชื‘ื™ ื•ืงืžื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื“ืžื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื‘ื™ื“ ื’ื•ื™ ืžื”ื• ืžื™ ืชื•ืคืกืช ื“ืžื™ื” ื‘ื™ื“ ื’ื•ื™ ืื• ืœื

ยง Rav Naแธฅman, Ulla, Avimi bar Pappi, and Rabbi แธคiyya bar Ami were sitting again and a dilemma was raised before them: With regard to the proceeds from the sale of an object of idol worship that are in the possession of a gentile, who sold the object to another, what is the halakha? Does the object of idol worship transfer its forbidden status to the money that is in the possession of a gentile, as it would to money in the possession of a Jew, or not?

ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืžื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื‘ื™ื“ ื’ื•ื™ ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืžื“ื”ื ื”ื• ื“ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื–ื™ืœื• ื–ื‘ื™ื ื• ื›ืœ ืžื” ื“ืื™ืช ืœื›ื• ื•ืชื• ืื™ืชื’ื™ื™ืจื•

Rav Naแธฅman said to them: It stands to reason that the proceeds from the sale of an object of idol worship in the possession of a gentile are permitted. This may be proven from certain gentiles who came before Rabba bar Avuh to convert. Rabba bar Avuh said to them: Go sell everything that you have, including your objects of idol worship, and then come back to me to convert.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงืกื‘ืจ ื“ืžื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื‘ื™ื“ ื’ื•ื™ ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ื•ื“ืœืžื ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื“ืขืชื™ื” ืœืื™ื’ื™ื•ืจื™ ื•ื“ืื™ ื‘ื˜ืœื”

What is the reason he gave this advice? Isnโ€™t it because he maintains that the proceeds from the sale of an object of idol worship in the possession of a gentile are permitted, and therefore he suggested they sell the objects of idol worship so they could derive benefit from the money after they converted? The Gemara rejects this proof: But perhaps it is different there, as since their intention is to convert, they certainly revoked the idolatrous status of these objects, and when they sold them they were selling permitted items.

ืืœื ืžื”ื›ื ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื ื•ืฉื” ื‘ื’ื•ื™ ืžื ื” ื•ืžื›ืจ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื• ื™ื™ืŸ ื ืกืš ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื• ืžื•ืชืจ ืื‘ืœ ืื ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืžืชืŸ ืœื™ ืขื“ ืฉืืžื›ื•ืจ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ืื‘ื™ื ืœืš ื™ื™ืŸ ื ืกืš ื•ืื‘ื™ื ืœืš ืืกื•ืจ

Rather, proof may be brought from here, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a Jew who was a creditor to a gentile for the amount of one hundred dinars, and the gentile sold an object of idol worship and from the proceeds brought him the payment of the debt, or sold wine used for a libation and from the proceeds brought him the payment of the debt, the money is permitted. But if the gentile said to him: Wait for me until I sell an object of idol worship and from the proceeds I will bring you the payment of the debt, or: Wait until I sell wine used for a libation and from the proceeds I will bring you the payment of the debt, this money is forbidden. This proves that the proceeds of an object of idol worship in the possession of a gentile are permitted.

ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืจื™ืฉื ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืกื™ืคื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืกื™ืคื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื›ื™ ืจื•ืฆื” ื‘ืงื™ื•ืžื•

The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause that it is permitted, and what is different in the latter clause that it is forbidden? Rav Sheshet said: In the latter clause the proceeds are forbidden because the Jew desires the preservation of the object of idol worship or wine used for a libation, since he knows that the gentile must sell it in order to repay the debt.

ื•ื›ื™ ืจื•ืฆื” ื‘ืงื™ื•ืžื• ื›ื”ืื™ ื’ื•ื•ื ื ืžื™ ืืกื™ืจ ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื’ืจ ื•ื’ื•ื™ ืฉื™ืจืฉื• ืื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ื’ื•ื™ ื’ืจ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื• ื˜ื•ืœ ืืชื” ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ืื ื™ ืžืขื•ืช ื˜ื•ืœ ืืชื” ื™ื™ืŸ ื ืกืš ื•ืื ื™ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืื ืžืฉื‘ืื• ืœืจืฉื•ืช ื”ื’ืจ ืืกื•ืจ

The Gemara asks: And if he desires its preservation in a case like this, is the money forbidden? But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Demai 6:10): In the case of a convert and a gentile who inherited from their gentile father, the convert can say to his gentile brother: You take the objects of idol worship and I will take the money, or: You take the wine used for a libation and I will take the produce; but if they make this exchange after the property came into the possession of the convert, it is forbidden.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื‘ืจ ืขื•ืœื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื”ืžืชื—ืœืงืช ืœืคื™ ืฉื‘ืจื™ื”

Rava bar Ulla said: The ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to an object of idol worship whose value can be distributed among its shards, i.e., even if it were broken to pieces its value would remain, so the convert does not desire its preservation.

ืชื™ื ื— ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื™ื™ืŸ ื ืกืš ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื‘ื—ืจืก ื”ื“ืจื™ื™ื ื™

The Gemara asks: This resolution works out well in the case of objects of idol worship, but with regard to wine used for a libation, what is there to say? There is no situation in which the convert does not desire the preservation of the wine until the exchange. The Gemara answers: The ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to Hadrianic earthenware permeated with wine used for a libation. Since the wine can be extracted by soaking the earthenware in water, the convert does not desire that the vessel remain intact.

ื•ื”ืœื ืจื•ืฆื” ื‘ืงื™ื•ืžื• ืฉืœื ื™ื’ื ื•ื‘ื• ื•ืฉืœื ื™ืื‘ื“ื• ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื™ืจื•ืฉืช ื”ื’ืจ ืงืืžืจืช ืฉืื ื™ ื™ืจื•ืฉืช ื”ื’ืจ ื“ืืงื™ืœื• ื‘ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉืžื ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ืœืงืœืงื•ืœื•

The Gemara asks: But doesnโ€™t he desire its preservation in the sense that it should not be stolen or lost? Rather, Rav Pappa said that there is a different resolution: You say there is a difficulty from the case of the inheritance of a convert? The inheritance of a convert is different, as the Sages were lenient with regard to it, as a rabbinic decree, lest he return to his corrupted ways if it were prohibited for him to inherit property from his father. In the case of one who is not a convert and desires the preservation of an object of idol worship, it is prohibited for him to profit from it.

ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ืฉื™ืจืฉื• ืื‘ืœ ื ืฉืชืชืคื• ืืกื•ืจ

This is also taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement, that a convert and a gentile are permitted to divide up common property that includes objects of idol worship, said? This is said with regard to property that they inherited; but if they were partners, it is prohibited.

ื”ื“ื•ืจ ื™ืชื‘ื• ื•ืงืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื’ืจ ืชื•ืฉื‘ ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ื‘ื˜ืœ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื“ืคืœื— ืžื‘ื˜ื™ืœ ื“ืœื ืคืœื— ืœื ืžื‘ื˜ื™ืœ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืžื‘ื˜ื™ืœ ื•ื”ืื™ ื‘ืจ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื”ื•ื

ยง The Gemara mentions another discussion among Rav Naแธฅman, Ulla, Avimi bar Pappi, and Rav แธคiyya bar Ami. They were sitting again and a dilemma was raised before them: With regard to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav], including the prohibition against engaging in idol worship, what is the halakha with regard to the possibility that he can revoke the status of objects of idol worship? Is it the case that one who worships idols can revoke the status of one, but one who does not worship them cannot revoke the status of one? Or perhaps should it be reasoned that anyone who is of the same kind as idol worshippers, i.e., a gentile, can revoke its status, and a ger toshav is of the same kind as idol worshippers?

ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืคืœื— ืžื‘ื˜ื™ืœ ื“ืœื ืคืœื— ืœื ืžื‘ื˜ื™ืœ

Rav Naแธฅman said to them: It stands to reason that one who worships idols can revoke the status of one, but one who does not worship them cannot revoke the status of one.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉืžืฆื ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื‘ืฉื•ืง ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื‘ืืชื” ืœื™ื“ื• ืื•ืžืจ ืœื’ื•ื™ ื•ืžื‘ื˜ืœื” ืžืฉื‘ืืชื” ืœื™ื“ื• ืื™ื ื• ืื•ืžืจ ืœื’ื•ื™ ื•ืžื‘ื˜ืœื” ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืืžืจื• ื’ื•ื™ ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืฉืœื• ื•ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขื•ื‘ื“ื”

The Gemara raises an objection to this ruling from a baraita: In the case of a Jew who found an object of idol worship in the marketplace, as long as it has not yet come into his possession, he can tell a gentile, and the gentile can revoke its idolatrous status. Once it has come into his possession, he cannot tell a gentile and have the gentile revoke its status. This applies to any gentile, because the Sages said: A gentile can revoke the status of his own object of idol worship or that of another gentile, whether he worships it or whether he does not worship it.

ืžืื™ ืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ื•ืžืื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ื’ื•ื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืฉืœื• ื•ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืืœื ืœืื• ืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ื’ื•ื™ ื•ืžืื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ื’ืจ ืชื•ืฉื‘ ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื’ืจ ืชื•ืฉื‘ ื ืžื™ ืžื‘ื˜ืœ

What is meant by the phrase: Worships it, and what is meant by the phrase: Does not worship it? If we say both this and that are referring to a gentile, this is the same as the previous statement in the baraita, that a gentile can revoke the status of his own object of idol worship or that of another gentile, i.e., an object that he worships or one that another gentile worships. Rather, isnโ€™t it to be understood that the phrase: Worships it, is referring to a gentile? And what is the meaning of the phrase: Does not worship it? It is referring to a ger toshav, who does not worship any idols. And learn from it that a ger toshav can also revoke the status of objects of idol worship.

ืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืžื ืœืš ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ื’ื•ื™ ื•ื“ืงืืžืจืช ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืฉืœื• ื•ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืจื™ืฉื ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ืœืคืขื•ืจ ื•ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ืœืžืจืงื•ืœื™ืก ืกื™ืคื ื–ื” ืœืคืขื•ืจ ื•ื–ื” ืœืžืจืงื•ืœื™ืก

The Gemara rejects this explanation. No, actually, I will say to you that this phrase and that phrase are both referring to a gentile, and with regard to that which you say, that this is the same as the statement concerning his object of idol worship or that of another gentile, it can be explained as follows: The first clause is referring to a case where both gentiles worship the same idol, e.g., this one and that one both worship Peor, or this one and that one both worship Mercury, and the baraita is teaching that one can revoke the status of an idol that belongs to the other. The latter clause, which distinguishes between one who worships it and one who does not worship it, is referring to a case where this one worships Peor and that one worships Mercury, indicating that an idolater can revoke the status of an idol that he does not worship at all, but only if he is himself an idolater, as opposed to a ger toshav.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืื™ื–ื”ื• ื’ืจ ืชื•ืฉื‘ ื›ืœ ืฉืงื™ื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ื‘ืคื ื™ ืฉืœืฉื” ื—ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉืœื ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Who is a ger toshav? It is anyone who has accepted upon himself before three แธฅaverim, i.e., people devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes, not to worship idols. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื›ืœ ืฉืงื™ื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืฉื‘ืข ืžืฆื•ืช ืฉืงื‘ืœื• ืขืœื™ื”ื ื‘ื ื™ ื ื—

And the Rabbis say: Anyone who has accepted upon himself observance of the seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah accepted upon themselves is a ger toshav.

ืื—ืจื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืืœื• ืœื ื‘ืื• ืœื›ืœืœ ื’ืจ ืชื•ืฉื‘ ืืœื ืื™ื–ื”ื• ื’ืจ ืชื•ืฉื‘ ื–ื” ื’ืจ ืื•ื›ืœ ื ื‘ื™ืœื•ืช ืฉืงื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืœืงื™ื™ื ื›ืœ ืžืฆื•ืช ื”ืืžื•ืจื•ืช ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืื™ืกื•ืจ ื ื‘ื™ืœื•ืช

Others say: These have not entered the category of ger toshav. Rather, who is a ger toshav? This is a convert who eats unslaughtered animal carcasses, which are not kosher, but who has accepted upon himself to observe all of the mitzvot that are stated in the Torah except for the prohibition against eating unslaughtered carcasses.

ืžื™ื™ื—ื“ื™ืŸ ืืฆืœื• ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžืคืงื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืืฆืœื• ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืฉืจื•ื‘ื” ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืื‘ืœ ืžื™ื™ื—ื“ื™ืŸ ืืฆืœื• ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืฉืจื•ื‘ื” ื’ื•ื™ื ืฉืžื ื• ื›ื™ื™ื ื•

The baraita continues: Whatever the definition of a ger toshav, the following halakhot apply to him: One may leave him alone with wine briefly without Jewish supervision with no concern that he might use it for a libation, thereby rendering it forbidden to Jews, as he is not an idol worshipper. But one may not deposit wine with him for an extended period of time, lest he exchange it with the wine of a gentile, which is forbidden. And this applies even in a town that has a Jewish majority. But one may leave him alone with wine briefly without Jewish supervision even in a town with a majority of gentiles. His oil is treated like his wine in terms of its permissibility.

ืฉืžื ื• ื›ื™ื™ื ื• ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืฉืžืŸ ืžื™ ืงื ื”ื•ื™ ื™ื™ืŸ ื ืกืš ืืœื ื™ื™ื ื• ื›ืฉืžื ื•

The Gemara interjects: His oil is like his wine? Can this enter your mind? Does the oil of a gentile become, i.e., assume the status of, wine used for a libation? Rather, the baraita should be emended as follows: His wine is like his oil. It is permitted to derive benefit from it, but not to consume it.

ื•ืœืฉืืจ ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ื’ื•ื™ ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ื™ื ื• ื™ื™ืŸ ื ืกืš ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืฉืชื™ื”

The baraita continues: And with regard to all other matters, a ger toshav is treated like a gentile. Rabban Shimon says: His wine is treated like wine used for a libation. And some say he says: Even drinking it is permitted.

ืงืชื ื™ ืžื™ื”ื ื•ืœืฉืืจ ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ื’ื•ื™ ืœืžืื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ืœืื• ื“ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื›ื’ื•ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœื ืœื™ืชืŸ ืจืฉื•ืช ื•ืœื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช

The Gemara comments on the baraita: In any event, the baraita teaches: And with regard to all other matters, a ger toshav is treated like a gentile. With regard to what halakha is this stated? Is it not teaching that he can revoke the status of an object of idol worship as a gentile can? Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak says: No, it is stated with regard to giving away rights in a domain or renouncing rights in a domain in the context of the halakhot of joining houses in courtyards for Shabbat.

ื•ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžืฉื•ืžื“ ืžืฉืžืจ ืฉื‘ืชื• ื‘ืฉื•ืง ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืฉืžืจ ืฉื‘ืชื• ื‘ืฉื•ืง ืื™ืŸ ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืืžืจื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืจืฉื•ืช ื•ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช

And this is as it is taught in a baraita: An apostate Jew who nevertheless observes his Shabbat in the marketplace, i.e., in public, can renounce his rights in a shared domain so the other Jews in the domain may carry in it on Shabbat, but an apostate who does not observe his Shabbat even in the marketplace cannot renounce his rights in a domain, because the Sages said that only a Jew can give away rights in his domain or renounce his rights in his domain, and this applies in the context of joining houses in courtyards on Shabbat.

ื•ื‘ื’ื•ื™ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืฉื›ื•ืจ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ืจืฉื•ืชื™ ืงื ื•ื™ื” ืœืš ืจืฉื•ืชื™ ืžื‘ื•ื˜ืœืช ืœืš ืงื ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื–ื›ื•ืช

But with regard to a gentile, this is not effective unless the Jew leases his domain in the courtyard. How so? A Jew may say to another Jew: My rights in this domain are hereby acquired by you, or: My rights in this domain are hereby renounced to you, and the other Jew thereby acquires those rights, and it is not necessary for him to take possession of it through a formal act of acquisition.

ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืฉื“ืจ ืœื™ื” ืงื•ืจื‘ื ื

The Gemara relates: Rav Yehuda sent a gift

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Avodah Zarah 64

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 64

ืื‘ืœ ืขื•ืงืจื™ืŸ ืขืžื• ื›ื“ื™ ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืืช ื”ืชื™ืคืœื”

but one may uproot diverse kinds with him, in order to reduce impropriety.

ืกื‘ืจื•ื” ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืžืงื™ื™ื ื‘ื›ืœืื™ื ืœื•ืงื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืžื ื›ืฉ ื•ื”ืžื—ืคื” ื‘ื›ืœืื™ื ืœื•ืงื” ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื”ืžืงื™ื™ื

The Sages initially assumed that in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that not only one who sows or grows diverse kinds, but even one who maintains diverse kinds, is flogged. As it is taught in a baraita: One who removes the weeds interfering with the growth of the plants or who covers up the seeds of diverse kinds with earth is flogged. Rabbi Akiva says: Even one who maintains them instead of actively uprooting them is flogged.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืฉื“ืš ืœื ืชื–ืจืข ื›ืœืื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื–ื•ืจืข ืžืงื™ื™ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื ื›ืœืื™ื

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Akiva? The Gemara answers: The verse states: โ€œYou shall not sow your field with diverse kinds of seedโ€ (Leviticus 19:19). I have derived only the case of one who sows. From where is it derived that one who maintains diverse kinds also receives lashes? The verse states: โ€œNotโ€ฆdiverse kinds of seed,โ€ indicating that there should not be diverse kinds in oneโ€™s field.

ื•ืื™ืœื• ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืชื™ืคืœื” ืฉืจื™

The Gemara concludes its support for the opinion of Rav Naแธฅman: It is prohibited to maintain diverse kinds, but nevertheless, if one wishes to maintain diverse kinds temporarily in order to be paid for uprooting them, thereby reducing impropriety, it is permitted. Similarly, it is permitted for one to receive payment for breaking barrels of wine used for a libation.

ืœื ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื

The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita, which deems it permitted for one to uproot diverse kinds with a gentile? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who permit one to maintain diverse kinds, but prohibit one from maintaining wine used for a libation, so there is no proof from this baraita in support of Rav Naแธฅmanโ€™s opinion.

ืื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ืขื•ืงืจื™ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืงื™ื•ืžื™ ื ืžื™ ืฉืคื™ืจ ื“ืžื™ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืงื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื—ื ื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœื”ื ืžืชื ืช ื—ื ื ืืกื•ืจ

The Gemara asks: If the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, why does the tanna specifically permit uprooting with a gentile? Even maintaining the diverse kinds is permitted. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where he performed the uprooting unpaid, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that giving an unpaid gift to a gentile is prohibited.

ืžื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื ืฉืžืข ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืœืื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืกื•ืจ ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœื”ื ืžืชื ืช ื—ื ื ืื‘ืœ ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืชื™ืคืœื” ืฉืคื™ืจ ื“ืžื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื ืžื™ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ืžืงื™ื™ื ื‘ื›ืœืื™ื ืœื•ืงื” ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืชื™ืคืœื” ืฉืคื™ืจ ื“ืžื™ ื•ืชื• ืœื ืžื™ื“ื™

The Gemara reasons that Rav Naแธฅmanโ€™s ruling can in any event be proven from this baraita: From the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda we may understand the halakha according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Doesnโ€™t Rabbi Yehuda say that it is prohibited to give a gentile an unpaid gift, but to reduce impropriety he holds that it is permitted to work with a gentile? The same can be said according to Rabbi Akiva as well: Although Rabbi Akiva says that one who maintains diverse kinds is flogged, he presumably holds that if the purpose is to reduce impropriety, it is permitted. The Gemara concludes: And nothing more is to be said on this matter.

ื”ื“ื•ืจ ื™ืชื‘ื™ ื•ืงืžื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื“ืžื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื‘ื™ื“ ื’ื•ื™ ืžื”ื• ืžื™ ืชื•ืคืกืช ื“ืžื™ื” ื‘ื™ื“ ื’ื•ื™ ืื• ืœื

ยง Rav Naแธฅman, Ulla, Avimi bar Pappi, and Rabbi แธคiyya bar Ami were sitting again and a dilemma was raised before them: With regard to the proceeds from the sale of an object of idol worship that are in the possession of a gentile, who sold the object to another, what is the halakha? Does the object of idol worship transfer its forbidden status to the money that is in the possession of a gentile, as it would to money in the possession of a Jew, or not?

ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืžื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื‘ื™ื“ ื’ื•ื™ ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืžื“ื”ื ื”ื• ื“ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื–ื™ืœื• ื–ื‘ื™ื ื• ื›ืœ ืžื” ื“ืื™ืช ืœื›ื• ื•ืชื• ืื™ืชื’ื™ื™ืจื•

Rav Naแธฅman said to them: It stands to reason that the proceeds from the sale of an object of idol worship in the possession of a gentile are permitted. This may be proven from certain gentiles who came before Rabba bar Avuh to convert. Rabba bar Avuh said to them: Go sell everything that you have, including your objects of idol worship, and then come back to me to convert.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงืกื‘ืจ ื“ืžื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื‘ื™ื“ ื’ื•ื™ ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ื•ื“ืœืžื ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื“ืขืชื™ื” ืœืื™ื’ื™ื•ืจื™ ื•ื“ืื™ ื‘ื˜ืœื”

What is the reason he gave this advice? Isnโ€™t it because he maintains that the proceeds from the sale of an object of idol worship in the possession of a gentile are permitted, and therefore he suggested they sell the objects of idol worship so they could derive benefit from the money after they converted? The Gemara rejects this proof: But perhaps it is different there, as since their intention is to convert, they certainly revoked the idolatrous status of these objects, and when they sold them they were selling permitted items.

ืืœื ืžื”ื›ื ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื ื•ืฉื” ื‘ื’ื•ื™ ืžื ื” ื•ืžื›ืจ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื• ื™ื™ืŸ ื ืกืš ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื• ืžื•ืชืจ ืื‘ืœ ืื ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืžืชืŸ ืœื™ ืขื“ ืฉืืžื›ื•ืจ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ืื‘ื™ื ืœืš ื™ื™ืŸ ื ืกืš ื•ืื‘ื™ื ืœืš ืืกื•ืจ

Rather, proof may be brought from here, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a Jew who was a creditor to a gentile for the amount of one hundred dinars, and the gentile sold an object of idol worship and from the proceeds brought him the payment of the debt, or sold wine used for a libation and from the proceeds brought him the payment of the debt, the money is permitted. But if the gentile said to him: Wait for me until I sell an object of idol worship and from the proceeds I will bring you the payment of the debt, or: Wait until I sell wine used for a libation and from the proceeds I will bring you the payment of the debt, this money is forbidden. This proves that the proceeds of an object of idol worship in the possession of a gentile are permitted.

ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืจื™ืฉื ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืกื™ืคื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืกื™ืคื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื›ื™ ืจื•ืฆื” ื‘ืงื™ื•ืžื•

The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause that it is permitted, and what is different in the latter clause that it is forbidden? Rav Sheshet said: In the latter clause the proceeds are forbidden because the Jew desires the preservation of the object of idol worship or wine used for a libation, since he knows that the gentile must sell it in order to repay the debt.

ื•ื›ื™ ืจื•ืฆื” ื‘ืงื™ื•ืžื• ื›ื”ืื™ ื’ื•ื•ื ื ืžื™ ืืกื™ืจ ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื’ืจ ื•ื’ื•ื™ ืฉื™ืจืฉื• ืื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ื’ื•ื™ ื’ืจ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื• ื˜ื•ืœ ืืชื” ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ืื ื™ ืžืขื•ืช ื˜ื•ืœ ืืชื” ื™ื™ืŸ ื ืกืš ื•ืื ื™ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืื ืžืฉื‘ืื• ืœืจืฉื•ืช ื”ื’ืจ ืืกื•ืจ

The Gemara asks: And if he desires its preservation in a case like this, is the money forbidden? But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Demai 6:10): In the case of a convert and a gentile who inherited from their gentile father, the convert can say to his gentile brother: You take the objects of idol worship and I will take the money, or: You take the wine used for a libation and I will take the produce; but if they make this exchange after the property came into the possession of the convert, it is forbidden.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื‘ืจ ืขื•ืœื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื”ืžืชื—ืœืงืช ืœืคื™ ืฉื‘ืจื™ื”

Rava bar Ulla said: The ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to an object of idol worship whose value can be distributed among its shards, i.e., even if it were broken to pieces its value would remain, so the convert does not desire its preservation.

ืชื™ื ื— ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื™ื™ืŸ ื ืกืš ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื‘ื—ืจืก ื”ื“ืจื™ื™ื ื™

The Gemara asks: This resolution works out well in the case of objects of idol worship, but with regard to wine used for a libation, what is there to say? There is no situation in which the convert does not desire the preservation of the wine until the exchange. The Gemara answers: The ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to Hadrianic earthenware permeated with wine used for a libation. Since the wine can be extracted by soaking the earthenware in water, the convert does not desire that the vessel remain intact.

ื•ื”ืœื ืจื•ืฆื” ื‘ืงื™ื•ืžื• ืฉืœื ื™ื’ื ื•ื‘ื• ื•ืฉืœื ื™ืื‘ื“ื• ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื™ืจื•ืฉืช ื”ื’ืจ ืงืืžืจืช ืฉืื ื™ ื™ืจื•ืฉืช ื”ื’ืจ ื“ืืงื™ืœื• ื‘ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉืžื ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ืœืงืœืงื•ืœื•

The Gemara asks: But doesnโ€™t he desire its preservation in the sense that it should not be stolen or lost? Rather, Rav Pappa said that there is a different resolution: You say there is a difficulty from the case of the inheritance of a convert? The inheritance of a convert is different, as the Sages were lenient with regard to it, as a rabbinic decree, lest he return to his corrupted ways if it were prohibited for him to inherit property from his father. In the case of one who is not a convert and desires the preservation of an object of idol worship, it is prohibited for him to profit from it.

ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ืฉื™ืจืฉื• ืื‘ืœ ื ืฉืชืชืคื• ืืกื•ืจ

This is also taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement, that a convert and a gentile are permitted to divide up common property that includes objects of idol worship, said? This is said with regard to property that they inherited; but if they were partners, it is prohibited.

ื”ื“ื•ืจ ื™ืชื‘ื• ื•ืงืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื’ืจ ืชื•ืฉื‘ ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ื‘ื˜ืœ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื“ืคืœื— ืžื‘ื˜ื™ืœ ื“ืœื ืคืœื— ืœื ืžื‘ื˜ื™ืœ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืžื‘ื˜ื™ืœ ื•ื”ืื™ ื‘ืจ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื”ื•ื

ยง The Gemara mentions another discussion among Rav Naแธฅman, Ulla, Avimi bar Pappi, and Rav แธคiyya bar Ami. They were sitting again and a dilemma was raised before them: With regard to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav], including the prohibition against engaging in idol worship, what is the halakha with regard to the possibility that he can revoke the status of objects of idol worship? Is it the case that one who worships idols can revoke the status of one, but one who does not worship them cannot revoke the status of one? Or perhaps should it be reasoned that anyone who is of the same kind as idol worshippers, i.e., a gentile, can revoke its status, and a ger toshav is of the same kind as idol worshippers?

ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืคืœื— ืžื‘ื˜ื™ืœ ื“ืœื ืคืœื— ืœื ืžื‘ื˜ื™ืœ

Rav Naแธฅman said to them: It stands to reason that one who worships idols can revoke the status of one, but one who does not worship them cannot revoke the status of one.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉืžืฆื ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื‘ืฉื•ืง ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื‘ืืชื” ืœื™ื“ื• ืื•ืžืจ ืœื’ื•ื™ ื•ืžื‘ื˜ืœื” ืžืฉื‘ืืชื” ืœื™ื“ื• ืื™ื ื• ืื•ืžืจ ืœื’ื•ื™ ื•ืžื‘ื˜ืœื” ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืืžืจื• ื’ื•ื™ ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืฉืœื• ื•ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขื•ื‘ื“ื”

The Gemara raises an objection to this ruling from a baraita: In the case of a Jew who found an object of idol worship in the marketplace, as long as it has not yet come into his possession, he can tell a gentile, and the gentile can revoke its idolatrous status. Once it has come into his possession, he cannot tell a gentile and have the gentile revoke its status. This applies to any gentile, because the Sages said: A gentile can revoke the status of his own object of idol worship or that of another gentile, whether he worships it or whether he does not worship it.

ืžืื™ ืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ื•ืžืื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ื’ื•ื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืฉืœื• ื•ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืืœื ืœืื• ืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ื’ื•ื™ ื•ืžืื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ื’ืจ ืชื•ืฉื‘ ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื’ืจ ืชื•ืฉื‘ ื ืžื™ ืžื‘ื˜ืœ

What is meant by the phrase: Worships it, and what is meant by the phrase: Does not worship it? If we say both this and that are referring to a gentile, this is the same as the previous statement in the baraita, that a gentile can revoke the status of his own object of idol worship or that of another gentile, i.e., an object that he worships or one that another gentile worships. Rather, isnโ€™t it to be understood that the phrase: Worships it, is referring to a gentile? And what is the meaning of the phrase: Does not worship it? It is referring to a ger toshav, who does not worship any idols. And learn from it that a ger toshav can also revoke the status of objects of idol worship.

ืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืžื ืœืš ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ื’ื•ื™ ื•ื“ืงืืžืจืช ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืฉืœื• ื•ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืจื™ืฉื ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ืœืคืขื•ืจ ื•ื–ื” ื•ื–ื” ืœืžืจืงื•ืœื™ืก ืกื™ืคื ื–ื” ืœืคืขื•ืจ ื•ื–ื” ืœืžืจืงื•ืœื™ืก

The Gemara rejects this explanation. No, actually, I will say to you that this phrase and that phrase are both referring to a gentile, and with regard to that which you say, that this is the same as the statement concerning his object of idol worship or that of another gentile, it can be explained as follows: The first clause is referring to a case where both gentiles worship the same idol, e.g., this one and that one both worship Peor, or this one and that one both worship Mercury, and the baraita is teaching that one can revoke the status of an idol that belongs to the other. The latter clause, which distinguishes between one who worships it and one who does not worship it, is referring to a case where this one worships Peor and that one worships Mercury, indicating that an idolater can revoke the status of an idol that he does not worship at all, but only if he is himself an idolater, as opposed to a ger toshav.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืื™ื–ื”ื• ื’ืจ ืชื•ืฉื‘ ื›ืœ ืฉืงื™ื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ื‘ืคื ื™ ืฉืœืฉื” ื—ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉืœื ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Who is a ger toshav? It is anyone who has accepted upon himself before three แธฅaverim, i.e., people devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes, not to worship idols. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื›ืœ ืฉืงื™ื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืฉื‘ืข ืžืฆื•ืช ืฉืงื‘ืœื• ืขืœื™ื”ื ื‘ื ื™ ื ื—

And the Rabbis say: Anyone who has accepted upon himself observance of the seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah accepted upon themselves is a ger toshav.

ืื—ืจื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืืœื• ืœื ื‘ืื• ืœื›ืœืœ ื’ืจ ืชื•ืฉื‘ ืืœื ืื™ื–ื”ื• ื’ืจ ืชื•ืฉื‘ ื–ื” ื’ืจ ืื•ื›ืœ ื ื‘ื™ืœื•ืช ืฉืงื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืœืงื™ื™ื ื›ืœ ืžืฆื•ืช ื”ืืžื•ืจื•ืช ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืื™ืกื•ืจ ื ื‘ื™ืœื•ืช

Others say: These have not entered the category of ger toshav. Rather, who is a ger toshav? This is a convert who eats unslaughtered animal carcasses, which are not kosher, but who has accepted upon himself to observe all of the mitzvot that are stated in the Torah except for the prohibition against eating unslaughtered carcasses.

ืžื™ื™ื—ื“ื™ืŸ ืืฆืœื• ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžืคืงื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืืฆืœื• ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืฉืจื•ื‘ื” ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืื‘ืœ ืžื™ื™ื—ื“ื™ืŸ ืืฆืœื• ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืฉืจื•ื‘ื” ื’ื•ื™ื ืฉืžื ื• ื›ื™ื™ื ื•

The baraita continues: Whatever the definition of a ger toshav, the following halakhot apply to him: One may leave him alone with wine briefly without Jewish supervision with no concern that he might use it for a libation, thereby rendering it forbidden to Jews, as he is not an idol worshipper. But one may not deposit wine with him for an extended period of time, lest he exchange it with the wine of a gentile, which is forbidden. And this applies even in a town that has a Jewish majority. But one may leave him alone with wine briefly without Jewish supervision even in a town with a majority of gentiles. His oil is treated like his wine in terms of its permissibility.

ืฉืžื ื• ื›ื™ื™ื ื• ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืฉืžืŸ ืžื™ ืงื ื”ื•ื™ ื™ื™ืŸ ื ืกืš ืืœื ื™ื™ื ื• ื›ืฉืžื ื•

The Gemara interjects: His oil is like his wine? Can this enter your mind? Does the oil of a gentile become, i.e., assume the status of, wine used for a libation? Rather, the baraita should be emended as follows: His wine is like his oil. It is permitted to derive benefit from it, but not to consume it.

ื•ืœืฉืืจ ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ื’ื•ื™ ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ื™ื ื• ื™ื™ืŸ ื ืกืš ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืฉืชื™ื”

The baraita continues: And with regard to all other matters, a ger toshav is treated like a gentile. Rabban Shimon says: His wine is treated like wine used for a libation. And some say he says: Even drinking it is permitted.

ืงืชื ื™ ืžื™ื”ื ื•ืœืฉืืจ ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ื’ื•ื™ ืœืžืื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ืœืื• ื“ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื›ื’ื•ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœื ืœื™ืชืŸ ืจืฉื•ืช ื•ืœื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช

The Gemara comments on the baraita: In any event, the baraita teaches: And with regard to all other matters, a ger toshav is treated like a gentile. With regard to what halakha is this stated? Is it not teaching that he can revoke the status of an object of idol worship as a gentile can? Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak says: No, it is stated with regard to giving away rights in a domain or renouncing rights in a domain in the context of the halakhot of joining houses in courtyards for Shabbat.

ื•ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžืฉื•ืžื“ ืžืฉืžืจ ืฉื‘ืชื• ื‘ืฉื•ืง ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืฉืžืจ ืฉื‘ืชื• ื‘ืฉื•ืง ืื™ืŸ ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืืžืจื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ื•ืชืŸ ืจืฉื•ืช ื•ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช

And this is as it is taught in a baraita: An apostate Jew who nevertheless observes his Shabbat in the marketplace, i.e., in public, can renounce his rights in a shared domain so the other Jews in the domain may carry in it on Shabbat, but an apostate who does not observe his Shabbat even in the marketplace cannot renounce his rights in a domain, because the Sages said that only a Jew can give away rights in his domain or renounce his rights in his domain, and this applies in the context of joining houses in courtyards on Shabbat.

ื•ื‘ื’ื•ื™ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืฉื›ื•ืจ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ืจืฉื•ืชื™ ืงื ื•ื™ื” ืœืš ืจืฉื•ืชื™ ืžื‘ื•ื˜ืœืช ืœืš ืงื ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื–ื›ื•ืช

But with regard to a gentile, this is not effective unless the Jew leases his domain in the courtyard. How so? A Jew may say to another Jew: My rights in this domain are hereby acquired by you, or: My rights in this domain are hereby renounced to you, and the other Jew thereby acquires those rights, and it is not necessary for him to take possession of it through a formal act of acquisition.

ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืฉื“ืจ ืœื™ื” ืงื•ืจื‘ื ื

The Gemara relates: Rav Yehuda sent a gift

Scroll To Top