עבודה זרה ל״ג

עבודה זרה ל״ג

דַּאֲבִיק בַּהּ, מִהְדָּר הָדַר אָזֵיל.

he will cleave to it and go to worship idolatry once again.

וְהָתַנְיָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל הַהוֹלֵךְ לַתַּרְפּוּת, בֵּין בַּהֲלִיכָה בֵּין בַּחֲזָרָה — אָסוּר! אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מְשׁוּמָּד, דְּוַדַּאי אָזֵיל.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that with regard to a Jew who goes to a festival of idolatry, whether he is on the way there or returning from it, it is prohibited to engage in business with him? The Gemara answers that Rav Ashi said: When that baraita is taught, it is in reference to an apostate Jew, who will certainly go to the festival, and will certainly not change his mind.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: גּוֹי הַהוֹלֵךְ לְיָרִיד, בֵּין בַּהֲלִיכָה בֵּין בַּחֲזָרָה — מוּתָּר. יִשְׂרָאֵל הַהוֹלֵךְ לְיָרִיד, בַּהֲלִיכָה — מוּתָּר, בַּחֲזָרָה — אָסוּר.

The Sages taught: With regard to a gentile who goes to a fair, where goods and idols are bought and sold, whether he is on the way there or returning from it, it is permitted to engage in business with him. With regard to a Jew who goes to a fair, when he is on the way there, it is permitted to engage in business with him, but if he is returning from it, it is prohibited.

מַאי שְׁנָא יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּבַחֲזָרָה אָסוּר? דְּאָמְרִי: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה זַבֵּין, דְּמֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אִיכָּא בַּהֲדֵיהּ. גּוֹי נָמֵי נֵימָא: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה זַבֵּין, דְּמֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אִיכָּא בַּהֲדֵיהּ!

The Gemara asks: What is different about a Jew that it is prohibited to engage in business with him when he is returning? The Gemara answers that this is in accordance with that which the Sages say: He sold objects of idol worship, and therefore money gained from idol worship is in his possession. Since the money in his possession is assumed to have been gained through objects of idolatry, it is prohibited to engage in business with the Jew. The Gemara challenges: But with regard to a gentile, also, let us say: He sold objects of idol worship, and therefore money gained from idol worship is in his possession. Why is it prohibited to do business only with the Jew?

אֶלָּא גּוֹי, אָמְרִינַן: גְּלִימָא זַבֵּין, חַמְרָא זַבֵּין; יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי נֵימָא: אֵימוֹר גְּלִימָא זַבֵּין, חַמְרָא זַבֵּין! אִי אִיתָא דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ הָכָא, הֲוָה מְזַבֵּין לֵיהּ.

The Gemara suggests: Rather, with regard to a gentile, we say: He sold clothing or he sold wine, but not idols. The Gemara questions this: Then with regard to a Jew, also, let us say: One should say that he sold clothing or he sold wine, but not idols. The Gemara explains: If he had only wine or clothing to sell, he would have sold them here instead of going to the fair. The fact that he exerted himself to travel to a fair of gentiles indicates that he intended to sell idols.

וְהַבָּאִין מוּתָּרִין. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין קְשׁוּרִין זֶה בָּזֶה, אֲבָל קְשׁוּרִין זֶה בָּזֶה — אֲסוּרִין, אֵימָא דַּעְתּוֹ לַחְזוֹר.

§ The mishna teaches: And with regard to those who are coming from a festival of idolatry, it is permitted to engage with them in business. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The Sages taught this only with regard to a case where those returning are not attached to one another, i.e., they are not traveling in groups. But where they are attached to one another it is prohibited to engage in business with them, as I say: The gentile intends to return to the festival with his companions.

נוֹדוֹת הַגּוֹיִם וְקַנְקַנֵּיהֶם. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נוֹדוֹת הַגּוֹיִם, גְּרוּדִים חֲדָשִׁים — מוּתָּרִין, יְשָׁנִים וּמְזוּפָּפִין — אֲסוּרִין. גּוֹי רִיבְּבָן וְעִיבְּדָן וְנָתַן לְתוֹכָן יַיִן, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו — אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ.

§ The mishna further teaches: Wineskins and jugs that belong to gentiles and that have a Jew’s wine contained in them are prohibited. The Sages taught: With regard to wineskins of gentiles, if they are stripped and free from tar, and new, they are permitted, but old and tarred containers are prohibited. Nevertheless, if a gentile pitched them [ribbevan] and lined them and added wine to them to negate the flavor of the tar while a Jew stands over him, one need not be concerned for a prohibition.

וְכִי מֵאַחַר דְּגוֹי נוֹתֵן לְתוֹכָן יַיִן, כִּי יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו מַאי הָוֵי? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָכִי קָאָמַר — גּוֹי רִיבְּבָן וְעִיבְּדָן, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹתֵן לְתוֹכָן יַיִן, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ.

The Gemara asks: But once we have established that a gentile places wine in the containers, what of the fact that a Jew stands over him? Why does this affect the halakha? The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa said that this is what the baraita is saying: If a gentile pitched the containers and lined them, and a Jew then placed wine in them while another Jew stood over him, one need not be concerned that it is prohibited.

וּמֵאַחַר דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹתֵן לְתוֹכָן יַיִן, יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו לְמָה לִי? דִּלְמָא אַגַּב טִירְדֵּיהּ מְנַסֵּךְ, וְלָאו אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ.

The Gemara asks: But since a Jew is the one who places wine in them, why do I need another Jew to stand over him? The Gemara answers: It is necessary as perhaps due to the Jew’s preoccupation with pouring the wine, the gentile will manage to libate the wine, and the Jew will be unaware of it.

רַב זְבִיד אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ מֵעִיקָּרָא, וְהָכָא בְּעִידָּנָא דְּקָא שָׁדֵי לֵיהּ נַעֲשֶׂה כְּזוֹרֵק מַיִם לְטִיט. אָמַר רַב פַּפֵּי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִדְּרַב זְבִיד, הַאי גּוֹי דִּשְׁדָא חַמְרָא לְבֵי מִילְחֵי דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל — שְׁרֵי.

The Gemara presents an alternative interpretation. Rav Zevid said: Actually, it should be as you initially said, that the gentile himself pours the wine. And here, when he pours the wine into the container, he is considered as one who splashes water in clay and does not intend to use it as a libation. Rav Pappi said: Conclude from the statement of Rav Zevid that with regard to this incident involving a gentile who casts wine into the salt receptacle of a Jew, the salt is permitted, as the gentile has no intention of using the wine as a libation.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם קָאָזֵיל לְאִיבּוּד, הָכָא לָא קָאָזֵיל לְאִיבּוּד.

Rav Ashi objects to this: Are the two cases comparable? There, with regard to the pitched container, the flavor of the wine is going to be lost, due to the tar. But here, in the case of the salt receptacle, the flavor of the wine is not going to be lost. Therefore there is no reason to rule that the salt is permitted.

בַּר עֲדִי טַיָּיעָא אֲנַס הָנְהוּ זִיקֵי מֵרַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף, רְמָא בְּהוּ חַמְרָא וְאַהְדְּרִינְהוּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ, אֲתָא שְׁאֵיל בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: כָּךְ הוֹרָה רַבִּי אַמֵּי הֲלָכָה לְמַעֲשֶׂה — מְמַלְּאָן מַיִם שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים וּמְעָרָן. וְאָמַר רָבָא: צָרִיךְ לְעָרָן מֵעֵת לְעֵת.

The Gemara relates a relevant incident. Bar Adi the Arab seized certain wineskins from Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef, placed wine in them for an extended period of time, and then returned them to him. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef came and asked in the study hall what course of action he should take. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: This is what Rabbi Ami instructed me to do in terms of practical halakha: One fills the skins with water for three days, so that the water will absorb the flavor of the wine, and then pours the water out. And Rava says: In addition, one must pour out the water in them every twenty-four-hour period and then refill them. Once this has been performed, the wineskins will be permitted.

סְבוּר מִינַּהּ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי דִּידַן, אֲבָל דִּידְהוּ — לָא. כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: אֶחָד שֶׁלָּנוּ וְאֶחָד שֶׁלָּהֶם. סְבַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי לְמֵימַר: הָנֵי מִילֵּי נוֹדוֹת, אֲבָל קַנְקַנִּים — לָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: לָא שְׁנָא נוֹדוֹת וְלָא שְׁנָא קַנְקַנִּים.

It was understood from the above incident that this matter, i.e., that one may fill the wineskins with water for three days to render them permitted, applies only to our wineskins that were taken by gentiles. But with regard to their own wineskins, it does not apply, as they are permanently prohibited. When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Both ours and theirs can be rendered permitted in this manner. Similarly, Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, thought to say before Rav Ashi: This matter applies only to wineskins, but not to jugs. Rav Ashi said to him: There is no difference between wineskins and jugs, as both can be rendered permitted in this manner.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: קַנְקַנִּים שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, חֲדָשִׁים גְּרוּדִים — מוּתָּרִין, יְשָׁנִים וּמְזוּפָּפִין — אֲסוּרִין. גּוֹי נוֹתֵן לְתוֹכָן יַיִן — יִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹתֵן לְתוֹכָן מַיִם, גּוֹי נוֹתֵן לְתוֹכָן יַיִן — יִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹתֵן לְתוֹכָן צִיר וּמוּרְיָיס, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ.

§ The Gemara continues to discuss the halakhic status of various wineskins. The Sages taught: With regard to wineskins of gentiles, if they are new and stripped free from tar, they are permitted, but old and tarred containers are prohibited. If a gentile places wine in them, the Jew should put water in them. Additionally, if a gentile places wine in them, the Jew may put brine and fish stew in them immediately, and he need not be concerned.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ:

A dilemma was raised before the Sages:

לְכַתְּחִלָּה אוֹ דִיעֲבַד? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי רַב זְבִיד בַּר אוֹשַׁעְיָא: הַלּוֹקֵחַ קַנְקַנִּים מִן הַגּוֹיִם — חֲדָשִׁים נוֹתֵן לְתוֹכָן יַיִן, יְשָׁנִים — נוֹתֵן לְתוֹכָן צִיר וּמוּרְיָיס לְכַתְּחִלָּה.

Is it permitted to put brine or fish stew in the wineskins ab initio, or is the substance permitted only after the fact? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma, as Rav Zevid bar Oshaya teaches: With regard to one who purchases jugs from gentiles, if they are new, he may place wine in them, and if they are old, he may place brine and fish stew in them ab initio.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה מֵרַבִּי אַמֵּי: הֶחְזִירָן לְכִבְשַׁן הָאֵשׁ וְנִתְלַבְּנוּ, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: צִיר שׂוֹרֵף, אוּר לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?! אִתְּמַר נָמֵי: אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קַנְקַנִּים שֶׁל גּוֹיִם שֶׁהֶחְזִירָן לְכִבְשַׁן הָאֵשׁ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּשְׁרָה זִיפְתָּן מֵהֶן — מוּתָּרִין.

§ The Gemara discusses the effect of fire on prohibited vessels. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ami: If one returned prohibited containers to the furnace and they whitened due to its heat, what is the halakha? Is the fire assumed to expunge the absorbed wine or not? Rabbi Ami said to him: If brine burns away the wine, all the more so is it not clear that fire does as well? It was also stated that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and some say Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to jugs belonging to gentiles that one returned to the furnace, once their tar has disintegrated they are permitted.

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לָא תֵּימָא עַד דְּנָתְרָן, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ רְפַאי מִירְפָא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא נְתַר. קִינְסָא — פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא, חַד אָסַר וְחַד שָׁרֵי, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּמַאן דְּאָסַר.

Rav Ashi said: Do not say that the jugs must stay in the furnace until the tar falls apart entirely; rather, even if it only softens, the jug is permitted, despite the fact that the tar did not fall off. The Gemara adds: With regard to a situation in which the tar was removed by dropping ignited splinters of wood [kinsa] into the jug, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree: One deemed the jug prohibited, and one deemed it permitted. The Gemara adds: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the one who deemed it prohibited.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ לִיתֵּן לְתוֹכוֹ שֵׁכָר? רַב נַחְמָן וְרַב יְהוּדָה אָסְרִי, וְרָבָא שָׁרֵי. רָבִינָא שְׁרָא לֵיהּ לְרַב חִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יִצְחָק לְמִירְמָא בֵּיהּ שִׁכְרָא, אֲזַל רְמָא בֵּיהּ חַמְרָא, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי לָא חַשׁ לַהּ לְמִילְּתָא, אֲמַר: אַקְרַאי בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.

The Gemara discusses the halakha with regard to beer kept in a prohibited vessel. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to putting beer in it? Rav Naḥman and Rav Yehuda prohibited this, and Rava permitted it. The Gemara notes that Ravina permitted Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Yitzḥak, to pour beer into such a jug, but he went and poured wine into it instead. And even so, Ravina was not concerned over the matter, as he said to himself: It is merely an incidental occurrence. The fact that Rav Ḥiyya mistakenly poured wine into the jug instead of beer is not a reason to prohibit filling it with beer in general.

רַב יִצְחָק בַּר בִּיסְנָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ הָנְהוּ מָאנֵי דְּפָקוּסְנָא, מַלִּינְהוּ מַיָּא, אַנְּחִינְהוּ בְּשִׁימְשָׁא, פְּקַעוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא: אֲסַרְתִּינְהוּ עֲלָךְ אִיסּוּרָא דִּלְעָלַם. אֵימוֹר דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן מְמַלִּינְהוּ מַיָּא, אַנּוֹחֵי בְּשִׁימְשָׁא מִי אֲמוּר?

§ The Gemara discusses different vessels and the halakhot that pertain to them. Rav Yitzḥak bar Bisna had certain vessels made of cow dung [defakosna] that had contained wine of gentiles, which he filled with water and placed in the sun in order to rid them of the forbidden substance they had absorbed. As a result, they burst. Rabbi Abba then said to him in jest: You have rendered them prohibited to you forever, i.e., you have destroyed them completely. You may say that the Sages said that one should fill the containers with water, but did anyone say that you should place them in the sun?

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסְנָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: כְּלֵי נֶתֶר אֵין (לוֹ) [לָהֶן] טׇהֳרָה עוֹלָמִית. מַאי כְּלֵי נֶתֶר? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין: כְּלֵי מַחְפּוֹרֶת שֶׁל צְרִיף.

Rabbi Yusna says that Rabbi Ami says: A natron vessel has no ritual purification, i.e., it cannot be rendered suitable for use, ever. The reason is that this material is highly absorbent. The Gemara asks: What is a natron vessel? Rabbi Yosei bar Avin says: It is a vessel crafted from the excavation of alum powder.

דְּבֵי פַּרְזַק רוּפִילָא אֲנַס הָנֵי כּוּבֵי מִפּוּמְבְּדִיתָא, רְמָא בְּהוּ חַמְרָא, אַהְדְּרִינְהוּ נִיהֲלַיְיהוּ. אֲתוֹ שַׁיְילוּהּ לְרַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מַכְנִיסוֹ לְקִיּוּם הוּא, מְשַׁכְשְׁכָן בְּמַיִם וְהֵן מוּתָּרִין.

The Gemara relates that an individual named Parzak, from the house of the vizier [rofila], seized certain vessels from Jews of Pumbedita, placed wine of gentiles in them, and later returned the containers to them. They went and asked Rav Yehuda for a halakhic ruling on this matter. Rav Yehuda said: This vessel is an item that is not brought into storage for preservation. Accordingly, one may simply scrub such vessels in water, and they are permitted.

אָמַר רַב עַוִּירָא: הָנֵי חַצְבֵי שְׁחִימֵי דַּאֲרַמָּאֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא בָּלְעִי טוּבָא — מְשַׁכְשְׁכָן בְּמַיִם וּמוּתָּרִין. אָמַר רַב פַּפִּי: הָנֵי פַּתְוָותָא דְּבֵי מִיכְסֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא בָּלְעִי טוּבָא — מְשַׁכְשְׁכָן בְּמַיִם וּמוּתָּרִין.

Rav Avira said: With regard to these dark brown Aramean jugs, since they do not absorb substances well, one need only scrub them in water and they are permitted. Rav Pappi likewise said: With regard to these earthenware vessels from Bei Mikhsei, since they do not absorb substances well, one need only scrub them in water, and they are permitted.

כָּסֵי — רַב אַסִּי אָסַר, וְרַב אָשֵׁי שְׁרֵי. אִי שָׁתֵי בְּהוּ גּוֹי פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹן — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲסִיר, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּפַעַם שֵׁנִי.

The Gemara continues: The halakha with regard to cups, which hold wine only temporarily, is subject to a dispute: Rav Asi prohibited them, and Rav Ashi permitted them. The Gemara comments: If a gentile drank from a cup for the first time, i.e., it had never been used before, everyone agrees that it is prohibited, as a new cup absorbs a great deal of wine in its first usage. They disagree when it is being used for a second time, i.e., the cup has already absorbed a permitted liquid, and therefore its capacity to absorb the gentile’s wine is impaired.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲסִיר, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּפַעַם שְׁלִישִׁי. וְהִלְכְתָא: פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי — אָסוּר, שְׁלִישִׁי — מוּתָּר.

And there are those who say: If the cup is used for the first or the second time by a gentile, everyone agrees that it is prohibited. They disagree when it is being used for the third time. And the halakha is that a cup used for the first or the second time by a gentile is rendered prohibited, but with regard to the third time, it is permitted.

אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: הַאי מָאנֵי דְקוּנְיָא, חִיוָּרָא וְאוּכָּמָא — שְׁרֵי, יְרוֹקָא — אֲסִיר, מִשּׁוּם דְּמִיצְּרִיף. וְאִי אִית בְּהוּ קַרְטוּפָנֵי — כּוּלְּהוּ אֲסִירִי. דָּרֵשׁ מָרִימָר: קוּנְיָא, בֵּין אוּכָּמָא בֵּין חִיוָּרָא בֵּין יְרוֹקָא — שְׁרֵי.

Rav Zevid said: With regard to these glazed earthenware vessels, white and black ones are permitted. Green ones are prohibited, because they contain alum, which absorbs liquids well. And if any of these vessels have cracks in them, they are all prohibited. Mareimar taught: Glazed earthenware [kunya] is permitted, whether it is black or white or green, because the coating impairs the capacity of the container to absorb liquids.

מַאי שְׁנָא מֵחָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח, דִּבְעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מִמָּרִימָר: הָנֵי מָאנֵי דְקוּנְיָא, מַהוּ לְאִשְׁתַּמּוֹשֵׁי בְּהוּ בְּפִיסְחָא? יְרוּקֵּי לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּמִצָּרְפִי וּבָלְעִי וַאֲסִירִי. כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ — חִיוָּרֵי וְאוּכָּמֵי מַאי?

The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from the case of leavened bread on Passover, which is also absorbed? The Gemara explains its question: As they once asked Mareimar: With regard to these glazed earthenware vessels, what is the halakha concerning using them on Passover? The Gemara interjects: With regard to green earthenware, do not raise the dilemma, as it contains alum and as a result absorbs leaven well, and it is therefore prohibited. Rather, let the dilemma be raised with regard to white and black earthenware. What is the halakha?

כִּי אִית בְּהוּ קַרְטוּפָנֵי, לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּוַדַּאי בָּלְעִי וַאֲסִירִי. כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ — דְּשִׁיעִי מַאי? אֲמַר

The Gemara qualifies the question further: Where they have cracks in them, do not raise the dilemma, as they certainly absorb that which was placed in them and are therefore prohibited. Rather, let the dilemma be raised where they are perfectly smooth: What is the halakha in such a case? Mareimar said