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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 21, 2018 | 讛壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Avodah Zarah 65

Can one give gifts on idol worshipper’s holidays to a non-Jew who doesn’t worship idols? If wine touched by non-Jews falls on other items, does it forbid them?


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

诇讗讘讬讚专谞讗 讘讬讜诐 讗讬讚诐 讗诪专 讬讚注谞讗 讘讬讛 讚诇讗 驻诇讞 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 讙专 转讜砖讘 讻诇 砖拽讬讘诇 注诇讬讜 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛 讞讘专讬诐 砖诇讗 诇注讘讜讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 诇讛讞讬讜转讜

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鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Who is a ger toshav? It is anyone who has accepted upon himself before three 岣verim 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.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙专 转讜砖讘 砖注讘专讜 注诇讬讜 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诇讗 诪诇 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻诪讬谉 砖讘讗讜诪讜转 讛转诐 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讬讘诇 注诇讬讜 诇诪讜诇 讜诇讗 诪诇

Rav Yosef further objected: But doesn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

专讘讗 讗诪讟讬 诇讬讛 拽讜专讘谞讗 诇讘专 砖讬砖讱 讘讬讜诐 讗讬讚诐 讗诪专 讬讚注谞讗 讘讬讛 讚诇讗 驻诇讞 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讝诇 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚讬转讬讘 注讚 爪讜讗专讬讛 讘讜讜专讚讗 讜拽讬讬诪谉 讝讜谞讜转 注专讜诪讜转 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬转 诇讻讜 讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诇注诇诪讗 讚讗转讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讬讚谉 注讚讬驻讗 讟驻讬 诪讛讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讟驻讬 诪讛讗讬 诪讬 讛讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转讜谉 讗讬讻讗 注诇讬讬讻讜 讗讬诪转讗 讚诪诇讻讜转讗 讗谞谉 诇讗 转讬讛讜讬 注诇谉 讗讬诪转讗 讚诪诇讻讜转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诪讬讛讗 诪讗讬 讗讬诪转讗 讚诪诇讻讜转讗 讗讬讻讗 注诇讬

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.

注讚 讚讬转讘讬 讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 驻专讬住转拽讗 讚诪诇讻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讜诐 讚拽讘注讬 诇讱 诪诇讻讗 讻讬 谞驻讬拽 讜讗讝讬诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讬谞讗 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬讞讝讬 诇讻讜 讘讬砖讜转讗 转讬驻拽注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诪谉 驻拽注 注讬谞讬讛 讚讘专 砖讬砖讱

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鈥檚 eye burst.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讬 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讗讬 拽专讗 讘谞讜转 诪诇讻讬诐 讘讬拽专讜转讬讱 谞爪讘讛 砖讙诇 诇讬诪讬谞讱 讘讻转诐 讗讜驻讬专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讻讗 注讬谉 诇讗 专讗转讛 讗诇讛讬诐 讝讜诇转讱 讬注砖讛 诇诪讞讻讛 诇讜

Rav Pappi said: Rava should have said a response to him from this verse: 鈥淜ings鈥 daughters are among your favorites; at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir鈥 (Psalms 45:10), indicating that in the World-to-Come, the daughters of kings will serve the Jewish people. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: He should have said a response to him from here: The reward of the Jewish people will be such that 鈥渘o eye has seen it, God, aside from You, Who will do for those who await Him鈥 (Isaiah 64:3).

砖讻专讜 诇注砖讜转 注诪讜 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讞专转 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇注讬转讜转讬 注专讘

搂 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.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛驻讜注诇 讜诇注讬转讜转讬 注专讘 讗诪专 诇讜 讛注讘专 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 谞住讱 诪诪拽讜诐 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讻专讜 诪讜转专 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇注讬转讜转讬 注专讘 讗讬谉 讻讜诇讬 讬讜诪讗 诇讗

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 转谞谉 谞诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讗诪专 诇注讬转讜转讬 注专讘 转谞谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛注讘专 诇讬 诪讗讛 讞讘讬讜转 讘诪讗讛 驻专讜讟讜转 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛注讘专 诇讬 讞讘讬转 讞讘讬转 讘驻专讜讟讛

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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛驻讜注诇 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛注讘专 诇讬 诪讗讛 讞讘讬讜转 讘诪讗讛 驻专讜讟讜转 讜谞诪爪讗转 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讘讬谞讬讛谉 砖讻专讜 讗住讜专 讞讘讬转 讞讘讬转 讘驻专讜讟讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讘讬谞讬讛谉 砖讻专讜 诪讜转专

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.

讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 诇讛讘讬讗 注诇讬讛 讬讬谉 谞住讱 砖讻专讜 讗住讜专 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讬砖讗 住讬驻讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 砖讻专讛 诇讬砖讘 注诇讬讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛谞讬讞 讙讜讬 诇讙讬谞讜 注诇讬讛 砖讻专讜 诪讜转专

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to a gentile who rents a Jew鈥檚 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.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诇讙讬谉 诇讗讜 讚讬谞讗 讛讜讗 诇讗讜转讜讘讬讛

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?

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 砖讜讻专 诪谞讬讞 注诇讬讛 讻住讜转讜 讜诇讙讬谞转讜 讜诪讝讜谞讜转讬讜 砖诇 讗讜转讜 讛讚专讱 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讞诪专 诪注讻讘 注诇讬讜 讞诪专 诪谞讬讞 注诇讬讛 砖注讜专讬诐 讜转讘谉 讜诪讝讜谞讜转讬讜 砖诇 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 砖讜讻专 诪注讻讘 注诇讬讜

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞讛讬 讚诇讙讬谉 讚讬谞讗 讛讜讗 诇讗讜转讜讘讬 诪讬讛讗 讗讬 诇讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讬讛 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 谞讻讬 诇讬讛 讗讙专讗 讚诇讙讬谞转讜

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚砖讻讬讞 诇诪讝讘谉 讞诪专 谞诪讬 诇注讻讘 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 诇诪讝讘谉 砖讜讻专 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇注讻讘

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚砖讻讬讞 诇诪讬讟专讞 讜诇诪讝讘谉 诪讗讜谞讗 诇讗讜谞讗 讞诪专 讚专讻讬讛 诇诪讬讟专讞 讜诇诪讝讘谉 砖讜讻专 诇讗讜 讚专讻讬讛 诇诪讬讟专讞 讜诇诪讝讘谉

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.

讗讘讜讛 讚专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗

The Gemara relates: The father of Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika,

讛讜讛 砖驻讬讱 诇讛讜 讞诪专讗 诇讙讜讬诐 讜讗讝讬诇 诪注讘专 诇讛讜 诪注讘专讗 讜讬讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讙讜诇驻讬 讘讗讙专讗 讗转讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讬 拽讗 讟专讞 讘讛转讬专讗 拽讗 讟专讞

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.

讜讛讗 专讜爪讛 讘拽讬讜诪讜 讚诇讗 谞爪讟专讜 讝讬拽讬 讚诪转谞讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讬讬转讜 驻专讬住讚拽讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 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.

讜讛讗 拽讗 诪注讘专 诇讛讜 诪注讘专讗 讚拽讗 讟专讞 讘讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪讘专讜讬讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚谞拽讬讟讬 讘讬讛 拽讬讟专讬

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讬讬谉 谞住讱 砖谞驻诇 注诇 讙讘讬 注谞讘讬诐 讬讚讬讞谉 讜讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 诪讘讜拽注讜转 讗住讜专讜转 谞驻诇 注诇 讙讘讬 转讗谞讬诐 讗讜 注诇 讙讘讬 转诪专讬诐 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讗住讜专 讜诪注砖讛 讘讘讬转讜住 讘谉 讝讜谞谉 砖讛讘讬讗 讙专讜讙专讜转 讘住驻讬谞讛 讜谞砖转讘专讛 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讜谞驻诇 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讜砖讗诇 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讜讛转讬专讜诐

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.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讘讛谞讗转讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讗住讜专 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谞讗转讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诪讜转专 讻讙讜谉 讞讜诪抓 砖谞驻诇 注诇 讙讘讬 讙专讬住讬谉

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.

讙诪壮 诪注砖讛 诇住转讜专 讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗诐 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 讛讜讗 诪讜转专 讜诪注砖讛 谞诪讬 讘讘讬转讜住 讘谉 讝讜谞谉 砖讛讬讛 诪讘讬讗 讙专讜讙专讜转 讘住驻讬谞讛 讜谞砖转讘专讛 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讜谞驻诇 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讛转讬专讜诐

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.

讛讛讜讗 讻专讬 讚讞讬讟讬 讚谞驻诇 注诇讬讛 讞讘讬转讗 讚讬讬谉 谞住讱 砖专讬讬讛 专讘讗 诇讝讘讜谞讬讛 诇讙讜讬诐

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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 诇讬讜讗讬 诇专讘讗 讘讙讚 砖讗讘讚 讘讜 讻诇讗讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬诪讻专谞讛 诇讙讜讬 讜诇讗 讬注砖谞讛 诪专讚注转 诇讞诪讜专 讗讘诇 注讜砖讛 讗讜转讜 转讻专讬讻讬谉 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛

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.

诇讙讜讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讝讘讜谞讬讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗转讬 诇讝讘讜谞讬讛 诇讬砖专讗诇

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.

讛讚专 砖专讗 诇诪讬讟讞讬谞讛讜 讜诇诪驻讬谞讛讜 讜诇讝讘讜谞讬谞讛讜 诇讙讜讬诐 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讬砖专讗诇

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.

转谞谉 讬讬谉 谞住讱 砖谞驻诇 注诇 讙讘讬 注谞讘讬诐 讬讚讬讞谉 讜讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 诪讘讜拽注讜转 讗住讜专讜转 诪讘讜拽注讜转 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讘讜拽注讜转 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖讗谞讬 讞讬讟讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讙讘 爪讬专讬讬讛讜 讻诪讘讜拽注讜转 讚诪讬讬谉

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.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 65

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 65

诇讗讘讬讚专谞讗 讘讬讜诐 讗讬讚诐 讗诪专 讬讚注谞讗 讘讬讛 讚诇讗 驻诇讞 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 讙专 转讜砖讘 讻诇 砖拽讬讘诇 注诇讬讜 讘驻谞讬 砖诇砖讛 讞讘专讬诐 砖诇讗 诇注讘讜讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 诇讛讞讬讜转讜

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鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Who is a ger toshav? It is anyone who has accepted upon himself before three 岣verim 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.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙专 转讜砖讘 砖注讘专讜 注诇讬讜 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诇讗 诪诇 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻诪讬谉 砖讘讗讜诪讜转 讛转诐 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讬讘诇 注诇讬讜 诇诪讜诇 讜诇讗 诪诇

Rav Yosef further objected: But doesn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

专讘讗 讗诪讟讬 诇讬讛 拽讜专讘谞讗 诇讘专 砖讬砖讱 讘讬讜诐 讗讬讚诐 讗诪专 讬讚注谞讗 讘讬讛 讚诇讗 驻诇讞 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讝诇 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚讬转讬讘 注讚 爪讜讗专讬讛 讘讜讜专讚讗 讜拽讬讬诪谉 讝讜谞讜转 注专讜诪讜转 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬转 诇讻讜 讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诇注诇诪讗 讚讗转讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讬讚谉 注讚讬驻讗 讟驻讬 诪讛讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讟驻讬 诪讛讗讬 诪讬 讛讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转讜谉 讗讬讻讗 注诇讬讬讻讜 讗讬诪转讗 讚诪诇讻讜转讗 讗谞谉 诇讗 转讬讛讜讬 注诇谉 讗讬诪转讗 讚诪诇讻讜转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诪讬讛讗 诪讗讬 讗讬诪转讗 讚诪诇讻讜转讗 讗讬讻讗 注诇讬

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.

注讚 讚讬转讘讬 讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 驻专讬住转拽讗 讚诪诇讻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽讜诐 讚拽讘注讬 诇讱 诪诇讻讗 讻讬 谞驻讬拽 讜讗讝讬诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讬谞讗 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬讞讝讬 诇讻讜 讘讬砖讜转讗 转讬驻拽注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诪谉 驻拽注 注讬谞讬讛 讚讘专 砖讬砖讱

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鈥檚 eye burst.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讬 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讗讬 拽专讗 讘谞讜转 诪诇讻讬诐 讘讬拽专讜转讬讱 谞爪讘讛 砖讙诇 诇讬诪讬谞讱 讘讻转诐 讗讜驻讬专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讻讗 注讬谉 诇讗 专讗转讛 讗诇讛讬诐 讝讜诇转讱 讬注砖讛 诇诪讞讻讛 诇讜

Rav Pappi said: Rava should have said a response to him from this verse: 鈥淜ings鈥 daughters are among your favorites; at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir鈥 (Psalms 45:10), indicating that in the World-to-Come, the daughters of kings will serve the Jewish people. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: He should have said a response to him from here: The reward of the Jewish people will be such that 鈥渘o eye has seen it, God, aside from You, Who will do for those who await Him鈥 (Isaiah 64:3).

砖讻专讜 诇注砖讜转 注诪讜 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讞专转 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇注讬转讜转讬 注专讘

搂 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.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛驻讜注诇 讜诇注讬转讜转讬 注专讘 讗诪专 诇讜 讛注讘专 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 谞住讱 诪诪拽讜诐 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讻专讜 诪讜转专 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇注讬转讜转讬 注专讘 讗讬谉 讻讜诇讬 讬讜诪讗 诇讗

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 转谞谉 谞诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讗诪专 诇注讬转讜转讬 注专讘 转谞谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛注讘专 诇讬 诪讗讛 讞讘讬讜转 讘诪讗讛 驻专讜讟讜转 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛注讘专 诇讬 讞讘讬转 讞讘讬转 讘驻专讜讟讛

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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛驻讜注诇 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛注讘专 诇讬 诪讗讛 讞讘讬讜转 讘诪讗讛 驻专讜讟讜转 讜谞诪爪讗转 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讘讬谞讬讛谉 砖讻专讜 讗住讜专 讞讘讬转 讞讘讬转 讘驻专讜讟讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讘讬谞讬讛谉 砖讻专讜 诪讜转专

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.

讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 诇讛讘讬讗 注诇讬讛 讬讬谉 谞住讱 砖讻专讜 讗住讜专 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讬砖讗 住讬驻讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 砖讻专讛 诇讬砖讘 注诇讬讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛谞讬讞 讙讜讬 诇讙讬谞讜 注诇讬讛 砖讻专讜 诪讜转专

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to a gentile who rents a Jew鈥檚 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.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诇讙讬谉 诇讗讜 讚讬谞讗 讛讜讗 诇讗讜转讜讘讬讛

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?

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛砖讜讻专 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 砖讜讻专 诪谞讬讞 注诇讬讛 讻住讜转讜 讜诇讙讬谞转讜 讜诪讝讜谞讜转讬讜 砖诇 讗讜转讜 讛讚专讱 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讞诪专 诪注讻讘 注诇讬讜 讞诪专 诪谞讬讞 注诇讬讛 砖注讜专讬诐 讜转讘谉 讜诪讝讜谞讜转讬讜 砖诇 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 砖讜讻专 诪注讻讘 注诇讬讜

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞讛讬 讚诇讙讬谉 讚讬谞讗 讛讜讗 诇讗讜转讜讘讬 诪讬讛讗 讗讬 诇讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讬讛 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 谞讻讬 诇讬讛 讗讙专讗 讚诇讙讬谞转讜

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚砖讻讬讞 诇诪讝讘谉 讞诪专 谞诪讬 诇注讻讘 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 诇诪讝讘谉 砖讜讻专 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇注讻讘

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚砖讻讬讞 诇诪讬讟专讞 讜诇诪讝讘谉 诪讗讜谞讗 诇讗讜谞讗 讞诪专 讚专讻讬讛 诇诪讬讟专讞 讜诇诪讝讘谉 砖讜讻专 诇讗讜 讚专讻讬讛 诇诪讬讟专讞 讜诇诪讝讘谉

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.

讗讘讜讛 讚专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗

The Gemara relates: The father of Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika,

讛讜讛 砖驻讬讱 诇讛讜 讞诪专讗 诇讙讜讬诐 讜讗讝讬诇 诪注讘专 诇讛讜 诪注讘专讗 讜讬讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讙讜诇驻讬 讘讗讙专讗 讗转讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讬 拽讗 讟专讞 讘讛转讬专讗 拽讗 讟专讞

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.

讜讛讗 专讜爪讛 讘拽讬讜诪讜 讚诇讗 谞爪讟专讜 讝讬拽讬 讚诪转谞讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讬讬转讜 驻专讬住讚拽讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 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.

讜讛讗 拽讗 诪注讘专 诇讛讜 诪注讘专讗 讚拽讗 讟专讞 讘讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪讘专讜讬讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚谞拽讬讟讬 讘讬讛 拽讬讟专讬

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讬讬谉 谞住讱 砖谞驻诇 注诇 讙讘讬 注谞讘讬诐 讬讚讬讞谉 讜讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 诪讘讜拽注讜转 讗住讜专讜转 谞驻诇 注诇 讙讘讬 转讗谞讬诐 讗讜 注诇 讙讘讬 转诪专讬诐 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讗住讜专 讜诪注砖讛 讘讘讬转讜住 讘谉 讝讜谞谉 砖讛讘讬讗 讙专讜讙专讜转 讘住驻讬谞讛 讜谞砖转讘专讛 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讜谞驻诇 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讜砖讗诇 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讜讛转讬专讜诐

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.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讘讛谞讗转讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讗住讜专 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谞讗转讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诪讜转专 讻讙讜谉 讞讜诪抓 砖谞驻诇 注诇 讙讘讬 讙专讬住讬谉

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.

讙诪壮 诪注砖讛 诇住转讜专 讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗诐 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 讛讜讗 诪讜转专 讜诪注砖讛 谞诪讬 讘讘讬转讜住 讘谉 讝讜谞谉 砖讛讬讛 诪讘讬讗 讙专讜讙专讜转 讘住驻讬谞讛 讜谞砖转讘专讛 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讜谞驻诇 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讛转讬专讜诐

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.

讛讛讜讗 讻专讬 讚讞讬讟讬 讚谞驻诇 注诇讬讛 讞讘讬转讗 讚讬讬谉 谞住讱 砖专讬讬讛 专讘讗 诇讝讘讜谞讬讛 诇讙讜讬诐

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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 诇讬讜讗讬 诇专讘讗 讘讙讚 砖讗讘讚 讘讜 讻诇讗讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬诪讻专谞讛 诇讙讜讬 讜诇讗 讬注砖谞讛 诪专讚注转 诇讞诪讜专 讗讘诇 注讜砖讛 讗讜转讜 转讻专讬讻讬谉 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛

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.

诇讙讜讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讝讘讜谞讬讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗转讬 诇讝讘讜谞讬讛 诇讬砖专讗诇

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.

讛讚专 砖专讗 诇诪讬讟讞讬谞讛讜 讜诇诪驻讬谞讛讜 讜诇讝讘讜谞讬谞讛讜 诇讙讜讬诐 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讬砖专讗诇

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.

转谞谉 讬讬谉 谞住讱 砖谞驻诇 注诇 讙讘讬 注谞讘讬诐 讬讚讬讞谉 讜讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 诪讘讜拽注讜转 讗住讜专讜转 诪讘讜拽注讜转 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讘讜拽注讜转 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖讗谞讬 讞讬讟讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讙讘 爪讬专讬讬讛讜 讻诪讘讜拽注讜转 讚诪讬讬谉

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.

Scroll To Top