Avodah Zarah 65

לאבידרנא ביום אידם אמר ידענא ביה דלא פלח לעבודה זרה אמר ליה רב יוסף והתניא איזהו גר תושב כל שקיבל עליו בפני שלשה חברים שלא לעבוד עבודה זרה כי תניא ההיא להחיותו

to a gentile named Avidarna on their festival day. Rav Yehuda said: I know of him that he does not worship idols, so he is not considered a gentile with regard to the prohibition against giving a gift to a gentile on their festival. Rav Yosef said to him: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Who is a ger toshav? It is anyone who has accepted upon himself before three ḥaverim to not worship idols. Avidarna had not accepted this upon himself before three Jews. Rav Yehuda replied to him: When that baraita is taught, it is with regard to the mitzva to sustain him.

והאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן גר תושב שעברו עליו שנים עשר חדש ולא מל הרי הוא כמין שבאומות התם כגון שקיבל עליו למול ולא מל

Rav Yosef further objected: But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A ger toshav for whom twelve months passed without him circumcising himself is considered as a heretic of the gentiles, and certainly this Avidarna is not circumcised. Rav Yehuda replied: There, Rabbi Yoḥanan is referring to a case where the gentile who desired to become a ger toshav took it upon himself to become circumcised, but he recanted and did not circumcise himself, and in such a case it is assumed that he did not circumcise himself due to apostasy. Generally, in the case of a ger toshav who did not take this upon himself, this is not required of him.

רבא אמטי ליה קורבנא לבר שישך ביום אידם אמר ידענא ביה דלא פלח לעבודה זרה אזל אשכחיה דיתיב עד צואריה בוורדא וקיימן זונות ערומות קמיה אמר ליה אית לכו כהאי גוונא לעלמא דאתי אמר ליה דידן עדיפא טפי מהאי אמר ליה טפי מהאי מי הוה אמר ליה אתון איכא עלייכו אימתא דמלכותא אנן לא תיהוי עלן אימתא דמלכותא אמר ליה אנא מיהא מאי אימתא דמלכותא איכא עלי

The Gemara relates: Rava brought a gift to a minister named bar Sheshakh on their festival day. Rava said: I know of him that he does not worship idols. Rava went to him and found him sitting up to his neck in rose water, and naked prostitutes were standing before him. Bar Sheshakh said to him: Do you have anything as fine as this in the World-to-Come? Rava said to him: Ours is better than this. Bar Sheshakh said to him: Is there anything finer than this? Rava said to him: You have the fear of the government upon you; we will not have the fear of the government upon us in the World-to-Come. Bar Sheshakh said to him: As for me, in any event, what fear of the government is there upon me? I am a powerful man.

עד דיתבי אתא ההוא פריסתקא דמלכא אמר ליה קום דקבעי לך מלכא כי נפיק ואזיל אמר ליה עינא דבעי למיחזי לכו בישותא תיפקע אמר ליה רבא אמן פקע עיניה דבר שישך

While they were sitting, a certain royal officer [peristaka] came and said to bar Sheshakh: Rise, as the king requires you to appear before him. As he was going out, he said to Rava: May any eye that wishes to see evil upon you burst, as it is clear that you were correct. Rava said to him: Amen. And then bar Sheshakh’s eye burst.

אמר רב פפי איבעי ליה למימרא ליה מהאי קרא בנות מלכים ביקרותיך נצבה שגל לימינך בכתם אופיר אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק איבעי ליה למימרא ליה מהכא עין לא ראתה אלהים זולתך יעשה למחכה לו

Rav Pappi said: Rava should have said a response to him from this verse: “Kings’ daughters are among your favorites; at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir” (Psalms 45:10), indicating that in the World-to-Come, the daughters of kings will serve the Jewish people. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: He should have said a response to him from here: The reward of the Jewish people will be such that “no eye has seen it, God, aside from You, Who will do for those who await Him” (Isaiah 64:3).

שכרו לעשות עמו מלאכה אחרת ואף על גב דלא אמר ליה לעיתותי ערב

§ The mishna teaches: 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., it is permitted for the Jew to derive benefit from the money. The Gemara notes that this formulation of the mishna indicates that this wage is permitted even if the gentile did not say to him to transport the barrel of wine toward evening, i.e., toward the end of his workday.

ורמינהי השוכר את הפועל ולעיתותי ערב אמר לו העבר חבית של יין נסך ממקום למקום שכרו מותר טעמא דאמר ליה לעיתותי ערב אין כולי יומא לא

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: In the case of one who hires a laborer, and toward evening the employer said to him: Transport this barrel of wine used for a libation from this place to that place, his wage is permitted. By inference, the reason for this ruling is that the employer said it to him toward evening, and therefore yes, it is permitted, as it is clear that he has completed the labor for which he is being paid and the wage is not for moving the barrel. But if this happened during the entire day, not toward evening, this would not be permitted.

אמר אביי כי תנן נמי מתניתין דאמר לעיתותי ערב תנן רבא אמר לא קשיא הא דאמר ליה העבר לי מאה חביות במאה פרוטות הא דאמר ליה העבר לי חבית חבית בפרוטה

Abaye said: When we learned this in the mishna as well, we learned this with regard to the case where the employer said this toward evening. Rava said: This is not difficult. This case, where the wage is forbidden if it was not toward evening, is a case where the employer said to him: Transport one hundred barrels for me for one hundred perutot, in which case moving all of the barrels is considered a single task, and if one of the barrels was wine used for a libation, the entire wage is forbidden. That case, in which the wage is permitted in any event, is a case where the employer said to him: Transport each barrel for me for one peruta, such that each barrel is its own task.

והתניא השוכר את הפועל ואמר לו העבר לי מאה חביות במאה פרוטות ונמצאת חבית של יין נסך ביניהן שכרו אסור חבית חבית בפרוטה ונמצאת חבית של יין נסך ביניהן שכרו מותר

And so it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who hires a laborer and said to him: Transport one hundred barrels for me for one hundred perutot, and a barrel of wine used for a libation was found among them, his wage is forbidden. But if the employer said to him: Transport each barrel for one peruta, and there was a barrel of wine used for a libation among them, his wage is permitted.

השוכר את החמור להביא עליה יין נסך שכרו אסור הא תו למה לי היינו רישא סיפא איצטריכא ליה שכרה לישב עליה אף על פי שהניח גוי לגינו עליה שכרו מותר

§ The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this additional clause? This is the same as the first clause, as the principle is the same; only the example is different. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach the latter clause in order to teach that if the gentile rented the donkey to sit upon it, even if the gentile placed his jug of wine used for a libation on it, its rental fee is permitted.

למימרא דלגין לאו דינא הוא לאותוביה

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that it is not the legal right of the renter to place a jug upon the donkey, and therefore placing the jug on the donkey was not included in the rental?

ורמינהי השוכר את החמור שוכר מניח עליה כסותו ולגינתו ומזונותיו של אותו הדרך מכאן ואילך חמר מעכב עליו חמר מניח עליה שעורים ותבן ומזונותיו של אותו היום מכאן ואילך שוכר מעכב עליו

And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this from a baraita: With regard to one who rents a donkey to ride on, the renter may place on it his garment, his water jug, and his food for that journey. Beyond those items, the donkey driver, who would take the renter on the journey, may prevent him from placing anything on the animal by saying that he does not wish to further burden the donkey. The donkey driver may place on it barley and hay for the donkey and his food for that first day alone. Beyond those items, the renter may prevent him from placing anything on the animal, on the grounds that it will inhibit its progress.

אמר אביי נהי דלגין דינא הוא לאותובי מיהא אי לא מותיב ליה מי אמרינן ליה נכי ליה אגרא דלגינתו

Abaye said: Granted that it is the legal right of the renter to place a jug upon the donkey, but in any event, if he does not place it on the donkey, can we say to the driver: Deduct the fee of his jug from the rental? Since the donkey driver will not deduct any amount from the rental fee if he does not place the jug on the donkey, therefore, even if he does place it, the rental fee is not forbidden.

היכי דמי אי דשכיח למזבן חמר נמי לעכב ואי דלא שכיח למזבן שוכר נמי לא לעכב

With regard to the main point of the baraita, the Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If locations in which one is able to purchase provisions on the way are common, the donkey driver can also prevent the renter from putting provisions on the donkey for the entire journey, and if locations in which one is able to purchase provisions along the way are uncommon, the renter cannot prevent the driver from taking his provisions for the journey either.

אמר רב פפא לא צריכא דשכיח למיטרח ולמזבן מאונא לאונא חמר דרכיה למיטרח ולמזבן שוכר לאו דרכיה למיטרח ולמזבן

Rav Pappa said: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha with regard to a case where locations in which one is able to go to the trouble of purchasing provisions are common between station and station, i.e., one can find locations to purchase provisions along the way, but only with difficulty. A donkey driver is accustomed to troubling himself to purchase provisions along the way, so it is not permitted for him to pack provisions for the entire journey on the donkey. A renter is not accustomed to troubling himself to purchase provisions along the way, so he is allowed to pack all of his provisions.

אבוה דרב אחא בריה דרב איקא

The Gemara relates: The father of Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika,

הוה שפיך להו חמרא לגוים ואזיל מעבר להו מעברא ויהבו ליה גולפי באגרא אתו אמרו ליה לאביי אמר להו כי קא טרח בהתירא קא טרח

would pour wine which he sold to gentiles into their wineskins and go and ferry them over the crossing, and they would give him the jugs in which the wine had been stored as payment. The jugs that the wine had been stored in were included in the sale, and the gentiles would pay him by returning the jugs. People came and told Abaye that Rav Ika was accepting a wage from the wine of gentiles. Abaye said to them: When he labored, he labored with permitted wine, since he was pouring kosher wine into the wineskins, and only subsequently the wine was rendered forbidden by being in the possession of the gentiles.

והא רוצה בקיומו דלא נצטרו זיקי דמתני בהדייהו אי נמי דמייתו פריסדקי בהדייהו

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t he desire the preservation of the wine in the wineskins in that the wineskins should not be torn, as he would then need to return the jugs he received in payment? The Gemara answers: It is a case where he stipulated with the gentile purchasers that even if the wineskins were to tear it would be at their expense and not his, and he would keep the jugs in any event. Alternatively, it is a case where the gentile purchasers brought barrels [perisdakei] with them, so that they could pour the wine into them should the wineskins be torn.

והא קא מעבר להו מעברא דקא טרח באיסורא דאמר ליה למברויא מעיקרא אי נמי דנקיטי ביה קיטרי

The Gemara asks: But didn’t he ferry them over the crossing, which is laboring with forbidden wine? The Gemara answers: This is not a case where he was ferrying the wine over the crossing himself, as he made an arrangement with the ferrymen and said to the ferryman initially that the latter would ferry the buyers and the barrels without payment. Alternatively, it was a case where he held special signal knots in collusion with the ferryman that he would ferry these people without payment. In any event, he was not laboring for them himself.

מתני׳ יין נסך שנפל על גבי ענבים ידיחן והן מותרות ואם היו מבוקעות אסורות נפל על גבי תאנים או על גבי תמרים אם יש בהן בנותן טעם אסור ומעשה בביתוס בן זונן שהביא גרוגרות בספינה ונשתברה חבית של יין נסך ונפל על גביהן ושאל לחכמים והתירום

MISHNA: In the case of wine used for a libation that fell on grapes, one rinses them and they are permitted. But if the grapes were cracked, they are forbidden. In a case where the wine fell on figs or on dates, if there is sufficient wine in them to impart flavor, they are forbidden. And there was an incident involving Boethus ben Zunen, who transported dried figs in a ship, and a barrel of wine used for a libation broke and fell on them, and he asked the Sages as to the halakha, and the Sages deemed the figs permitted.

זה הכלל כל שבהנאתו בנותן טעם אסור כל שאין בהנאתו בנותן טעם מותר כגון חומץ שנפל על גבי גריסין

This is the principle: Anything that benefits from a forbidden item imparting flavor to it, i.e., the forbidden item contributes a positive taste to it, is forbidden, and anything that does not benefit from a forbidden item imparting flavor to it is permitted, such as forbidden vinegar that fell onto split beans, as the flavor imparted by the vinegar does not enhance the taste of the beans.

גמ׳ מעשה לסתור חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני אם נותן טעם לפגם הוא מותר ומעשה נמי בביתוס בן זונן שהיה מביא גרוגרות בספינה ונשתברה חבית של יין נסך ונפל על גביהן ובא מעשה לפני חכמים והתירום

GEMARA: The Gemara asks with regard to the incident related in the mishna: Was an incident cited to contradict the halakha stated immediately before it? The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: If the wine imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture, the food is permitted. And there was also an incident involving Boethus ben Zunen, who was transporting dried figs in a ship, and a barrel of wine used for a libation broke and fell on them, and the incident came before the Sages, and the Sages deemed the figs permitted because the flavor given by the wine did not enhance their taste but was instead to their detriment.

ההוא כרי דחיטי דנפל עליה חביתא דיין נסך שרייה רבא לזבוניה לגוים

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain heap of wheat upon which a barrel of wine used for a libation fell. Rava permitted selling it to gentiles, as deriving benefit from it is not prohibited.

איתיביה רבה בר ליואי לרבא בגד שאבד בו כלאים הרי זה לא ימכרנה לגוי ולא יעשנה מרדעת לחמור אבל עושה אותו תכריכין למת מצוה

Rabba bar Livai raised an objection to Rava from a baraita: With regard to a garment in which diverse kinds, a prohibited mixture of wool and linen, have been lost, i.e., it is known that linen fibers became mixed into a woolen garment but they cannot be detected and removed, one may not sell the garment to a gentile, nor fashion it into a saddlecloth for a donkey, but one may make it into shrouds for a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva], as a corpse is not obligated in the observance of mitzvot.

לגוי מאי טעמא לא דלמא אתי לזבוניה לישראל הכא נמי אתי לזבוניה לישראל

Rabba bar Livai asked: What is the reason that it is not permitted to sell it to a gentile? Perhaps he will come to sell it to a Jew, who will not know that it is forbidden. Here too, with regard to the wheat, the gentile purchasers may come to sell it to a Jew, who is prohibited from consuming it.

הדר שרא למיטחינהו ולמפינהו ולזבונינהו לגוים שלא בפני ישראל

Rava then retracted his decision and permitted grinding the wheat and baking bread with it and selling it to gentiles not in the presence of Jews. In this manner, Jews will not be likely to buy bread from the gentiles, as the bread of gentiles is forbidden to Jews.

תנן יין נסך שנפל על גבי ענבים ידיחן והן מותרות ואם היו מבוקעות אסורות מבוקעות אין שאין מבוקעות לא אמר רב פפא שאני חיטי הואיל ואגב צירייהו כמבוקעות דמיין

We learned in the mishna: In the case of wine used for a libation that fell on grapes, one rinses them and they are permitted. But if the grapes were cracked, they are forbidden. The Gemara infers: If the grapes are cracked, they are forbidden, but grapes that are not cracked are not forbidden. If so, what is the cause for concern in the case where wine spilled on the wheat? It should be sufficient to rinse the wheat. Rav Pappa said: Wheat is different, since, because of its slits, its status is similar to that of grapes that are cracked.