עבודה זרה ס״ב

עבודה זרה ס״ב

מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמּוֹ בְּיֵין נֶסֶךְ — שְׂכָרוֹ אָסוּר. שְׂכָרוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמּוֹ מְלָאכָה אַחֶרֶת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ ״הַעֲבֵר לִי חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן נֶסֶךְ מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם״ — שְׂכָרוֹ מוּתָּר. הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר לְהָבִיא עָלֶיהָ יֵין נֶסֶךְ — שְׂכָרָהּ אָסוּר. שְׂכָרָהּ לֵישֵׁב עָלֶיהָ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִנִּיחַ גּוֹי לְגִינוֹ עָלֶיהָ — שְׂכָרָהּ מוּתָּר.

MISHNA: In the case of a gentile who hires a Jewish laborer to work with wine used for an idolatrous libation with him, his wage is forbidden, i.e., it is prohibited for the Jew to derive benefit from his wage. If the gentile hired him to do other work with him, even if he said to him while he was working with him: Transport the barrel of wine used for a libation for me from this place to that place, his wage is permitted, i.e., the Jew is permitted to derive benefit from the money. With regard to a gentile who rents a Jew’s donkey to carry wine used for a libation on it, its rental fee is forbidden. If he rented it to sit on it, even if a gentile placed his jug of wine used for a libation on it, its rental fee is permitted.

גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא שְׂכָרוֹ אָסוּר? אִילֵּימָא, הוֹאִיל וְיֵין נֶסֶךְ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, שְׂכָרוֹ נָמֵי אָסוּר — הֲרֵי עׇרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם דַּאֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה, וּתְנַן: מְכָרָן וְקִידֵּשׁ בִּדְמֵיהֶן — מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת!

GEMARA: In the first case of the mishna, where a gentile hires a Jew to produce wine used for a libation with him, what is the reason that his wage is forbidden? If we say that since it is prohibited to derive benefit from wine used for a libation, his wage is also prohibited, that is difficult: There are the cases of orla produce, i.e., produce grown during a tree’s first three years, and diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, from which it is also prohibited to derive benefit, and yet we learned in a mishna (Kiddushin 56b) that if a man sold this produce and betrothed a woman with the money received for it, she is betrothed. Evidently, money gained from a forbidden item is not itself forbidden, as otherwise the betrothal would not take effect.

אֶלָּא, הוֹאִיל וְתוֹפֵס אֶת דָּמָיו כַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וַהֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית דְּתוֹפֶסֶת אֶת דָּמֶיהָ, וּתְנַן: הָאוֹמֵר לְפוֹעֵל ״הֵילָךְ דִּינָר זֶה, לְקוֹט לִי בּוֹ יָרָק הַיּוֹם״ — שְׂכָרוֹ אָסוּר, ״לְקוֹט לִי יָרָק הַיּוֹם״ — שְׂכָרוֹ מוּתָּר!

Rather, perhaps the reason that the wage is forbidden is since the wine used for a libation transfers to the money its status as an object of idol worship. The Gemara challenges: But there is the halakha of Sabbatical-Year produce, which transfers its sanctity to the money with which it is redeemed, and yet we learned in a mishna (Shevi’it 8:4): With regard to one who says to his laborer during the Sabbatical Year: Here is this dinar I give to you; gather for me vegetables for its value today, his wage is forbidden, i.e., the sanctity of the Sabbatical-Year produce is transferred to the wage, since it is as though he has purchased Sabbatical-Year produce in exchange for the dinar. But if the employer says to him: Gather for me vegetables today, without mentioning that it is for the value of the dinar, his wage is permitted, as he merely paid him for his labor. This should apply as well to the case of the wine used for a libation.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קְנָס הוּא שֶׁקָּנְסוּ חֲכָמִים בַּחֲמָרִין וּבְיֵין נֶסֶךְ. יֵין נֶסֶךְ — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן, חַמָּרִין מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: הַחַמָּרִין שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹשִׂין מְלָאכָה בְּפֵירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית — שְׂכָרָן שְׁבִיעִית.

Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is a penalty that the Sages imposed upon donkey drivers and with regard to wine used for a libation. The Gemara explains: With regard to wine used for a libation, the penalty is as we said, that the wage of one who is hired to work in the production of wine used for libation is forbidden. With regard to donkey drivers, what is this penalty? The penalty is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the donkey drivers who were working in the transportation of Sabbatical-Year produce, their wage is Sabbatical-Year produce.

מַאי ״שְׂכָרָן שְׁבִיעִית״? אִילֵּימָא דְּיָהֲבִינַן לְהוּ שָׂכָר מִפֵּירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית, נִמְצָא זֶה פּוֹרֵעַ חוֹבוֹ מִפֵּירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״לְאׇכְלָה״ וְלֹא לִסְחוֹרָה!

The Gemara asks: What does it mean when it says that their wage is Sabbatical-Year produce? If we say that we give them their wage for their work from Sabbatical-Year produce, the employer consequently is paying his debt from Sabbatical-Year produce, and this violates that which the Torah states: “And the Sabbatical produce of the land shall be for food for you” (Leviticus 25:6), indicating that this produce is designated for food, but not for commerce.

וְאֶלָּא דְּקָדוֹשׁ שְׂכָרָן בִּקְדוּשַּׁת שְׁבִיעִית. וּמִי קָדוֹשׁ? וְהָתַנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר לְפוֹעֵל: ״הֵילָךְ דִּינָר זֶה וּלְקוֹט לִי יָרָק הַיּוֹם״ — שְׂכָרוֹ מוּתָּר, ״לְקוֹט לִי יָרָק בּוֹ הַיּוֹם״ — שְׂכָרוֹ אָסוּר!

And if it means that their wage is sacred with the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce, is that wage in fact sacred? But isn’t it taught in a mishna that with regard to one who says to a laborer: Here is this dinar I give to you and gather for me vegetables today, his wage is permitted, but if he says to him: Gather for me vegetables today for its value, his wage is forbidden? The case of the donkey drivers is clearly similar to the former case, where the value of the dinar was not mentioned.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם יָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ שָׂכָר מִפֵּירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ ״לְאׇכְלָה״ וְלֹא לִסְחוֹרָה, דְּיַהֲבֵיהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ בְּצַד הֶיתֵּר, כְּדִתְנַן: לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ:

Abaye said: Actually, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement should be interpreted as saying that we give him his wage from Sabbatical-Year produce. And as for that which appears to pose a difficulty for you, that the verse designates such produce “for food” but not for commerce, that can be resolved by explaining that one gives him his wage in a permitted manner, i.e., as a gift rather than as a wage. This is as we learned in a mishna (Ma’aser Sheni 3:1) that a person should not say to another:

״הַעֲלֵה לִי פֵּירוֹת הַלָּלוּ לִירוּשָׁלַיִם לְחַלֵּק״, אֲבָל אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הַעֲלֵם לְאוֹכְלָם וְלִשְׁתּוֹתָם בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם״, וְנוֹתְנִין זֶה לָזֶה מַתָּנָה שֶׁל חִנָּם.

Bring this produce designated as second tithe to Jerusalem for me in exchange for a share of the produce, of which you may partake in Jerusalem. This is considered payment and is tantamount to conducting commerce with the tithe. But he may say to him: Bring it to Jerusalem to eat it and drink it in Jerusalem, as long as he does not specify that it is payment; and once in Jerusalem they may give one another unrequited gifts. This indicates that what may not be given as payment may be given as a gift, and therefore the donkey drivers may be compensated with Sabbatical-Year produce.

וְרָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם דְּקָדוֹשׁ בִּקְדוּשַּׁת שְׁבִיעִית, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ פּוֹעֵל — פּוֹעֵל דְּלָא נְפִישׁ אַגְרֵיהּ לָא קַנְסוּהּ רַבָּנַן, חַמָּרִין דִּנְפִישׁ אַגְרַיְיהוּ — קְנַסוּ רַבָּנַן בְּהוּ. וּמַתְנִיתִין — חוּמְרָא דְּיֵין נֶסֶךְ שָׁאנֵי.

And Rava says: Actually, Rabbi Yoḥanan means that the produce with which the drivers are paid is sacred with the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce, and as for that which poses a difficulty for you with regard to the halakha of the laborer cited in the mishna, which states that his wage is not sacred, that difficulty can be resolved as follows: There is a distinction between a laborer, whose wage is not great, and therefore the Sages did not penalize him by decreeing that his wage is sacred, and donkey drivers, whose wages are great, and therefore the Sages penalized them. And with regard to the mishna that deems forbidden even the laborer’s wage in the case of one who produces wine designated for libation, the stringency of wine used for a libation is different, and it is treated more stringently than Sabbatical-Year produce.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שְׂכָרוֹ לִסְתָם יֵינָן, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּאִיסּוּרָא חָמוּר כִּדְיֵין נֶסֶךְ — שְׂכָרוֹ נָמֵי אָסוּר, אוֹ דִלְמָא: הוֹאִיל וְטוּמְאָתוֹ (קיל) [קִילָא] — אַף שְׂכָרוֹ נָמֵי קִיל?

§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a gentile hired a Jew to work with him in the production of nondescript wine of gentiles, i.e., wine that was not used for libation, what is the halakha? Do we say that since the prohibition of deriving benefit from nondescript wine of gentiles is as stringent as the prohibition of deriving benefit from wine used for a libation, his wage is also forbidden, or perhaps should it be reasoned that since the halakha with regard to its capacity for imparting ritual impurity to one who comes into contact with it is more lenient than the halakha with regard to wine used for a libation, the halakha with regard to its wage is also more lenient?

תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאֹגַר אַרְבֵּיהּ לִסְתָם יֵינָן, יְהַבוּ לֵיהּ חִיטֵּי בְּאַגְרָא, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל קְלִינְהוּ וְקִבְרִינְהוּ (בקברי) [בֵּי קִבְרֵי].

Come and hear a resolution: It is related that there was a certain man who rented out his ship for transporting nondescript wine of gentiles, and the gentiles gave him wheat in payment. He came before Rav Ḥisda to determine the status of the wheat. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Go burn it and bury it in a graveyard. Evidently, payment for working with nondescript wine of gentiles is forbidden.

וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: בַּדְּרִינְהוּ! אָתוּ בְּהוּ לִידֵי תַּקָּלָה. וְלִיקְלִינְהוּ וְלִיבַדְּרִינְהוּ! דִּלְמָא מְזַבְּלִי בְּהוּ.

The Gemara raises an objection to the method of eradication of the wheat in Rav Ḥisda’s ruling. But let him say to the ship owner: Scatter it. The Gemara responds: If he scatters it, people might be caused a mishap by it if they find kernels of the scattered wheat and gather them for eating. The Gemara challenges: But then let him burn it and scatter it. Why should it be buried? The Gemara answers: Perhaps people will fertilize their fields with it.

וְלִקְבְּרִינְהוּ בְּעֵינַיְיהוּ! מִי לָא תְּנַן: אֶחָד אֶבֶן שֶׁנִּסְקַל בָּהּ, וְאֶחָד עֵץ שֶׁנִּתְלָה עָלָיו, וְאֶחָד סַיִיף שֶׁנֶּהֱרַג בּוֹ, וְאֶחָד סוּדָר שֶׁנֶּחְנַק בּוֹ — כּוּלָּם נִקְבָּרִים עִמּוֹ?

The Gemara challenges: But let him bury the wheat in its unadulterated form. Didn’t we learn in a baraita with regard to the instruments used for imposing capital punishment: The stone with which a condemned person is stoned, and the tree on which his corpse is hung after his execution, and the sword with which he is killed, and the scarf with which he is strangled, all of them are buried together with him, as it is prohibited to derive benefit from them. The baraita does not require that they be burned before they are buried.

הָתָם דְּקָא קָבְרִי בְּבֵי דִינָא, מוֹכְחָא מִילְּתָא דַּהֲרוּגֵי בֵּית דִּין נִינְהוּ. הָכָא לָא מוֹכְחָא מִילְּתָא, אֵימַר: אִינָשׁ גְּנַב וְאַיְיתִי קְבַר הָכָא.

The Gemara answers: There, since they are buried in the court graveyard, the matter is clear to all that these were executed by the court, so everyone knows that using the instruments of execution is prohibited. Here, the matter is not clear to all, as one might say to himself that a person stole the wheat and brought it and buried it here, and he might thereby come to use it.

דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי יָזְפִי פֵּירֵי שְׁבִיעִית מֵעֲנִיִּים, וּפָרְעוּ לְהוּ בִּשְׁמִינִית. אֲתוֹ אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֲמַר לְהוּ: יָאוּת הֵן עָבְדִין.

§ The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai borrowed Sabbatical-Year produce from the poor and repaid them in the eighth year. Others came and said this to Rabbi Yoḥanan, out of concern that by doing so they violated the prohibition against engaging in commerce with Sabbatical-Year produce. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to them: They are acting properly, as this is not considered commerce.

וּכְנֶגְדָּן בְּאֶתְנַן — מוּתָּר, דְּתַנְיָא: נָתַן לָהּ וְלֹא בָּא עָלֶיהָ, בָּא עָלֶיהָ וְלֹא נָתַן לָהּ — אֶתְנַנָּה מוּתָּר.

And in the corresponding case concerning payment to a prostitute for services rendered, it is permitted to sacrifice such an animal as an offering. Although the Torah prohibits the sacrifice of an animal used as a prostitute’s payment (see Deuteronomy 23:19), in a case similar to this one, it is permitted; as it is taught in a baraita: If the man gave the prostitute payment but did not engage in intercourse with her, or if he engaged in intercourse with her but did not give her payment, it is permitted for her payment to serve as an offering.

נָתַן לָהּ וְלֹא בָּא עָלֶיהָ — פְּשִׁיטָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא בָּא עָלֶיהָ מַתָּנָה בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דְּיָהֵיב לַהּ! וְתוּ, בָּא עָלֶיהָ וְלֹא נָתַן לָהּ — הָא לָא יָהֵיב לָהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי, וְכֵיוָן דְּלָא נָתַן לָהּ מַאי ״אֶתְנַנָּה מוּתָּר״?

The Gemara discusses difficulties with the wording of the baraita: If he gave her payment but did not engage in intercourse with her, isn’t it obvious that it is permitted? Since he did not engage in intercourse with her, it is merely a gift that he has given her, and there is no reason for it to be forbidden. Why does the baraita need to state this? And furthermore, with regard to the case in the baraita where he engaged in intercourse with her but did not give her payment, he did not give her anything, and since he did not give her payment, what is the meaning of the statement that her payment is permitted?

אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: נָתַן לָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא עָלֶיהָ, אוֹ בָּא עָלֶיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָתַן לָהּ — אֶתְנַנָּה מוּתָּר.

The Gemara answers: Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: If he gave her payment and afterward, after some time elapsed, he engaged in intercourse with her, or if he engaged in intercourse with her and afterward, after some time elapsed, he gave her payment, her payment is permitted, because the payment was not given proximate to the intercourse. This is also the halakha in the case of borrowing Sabbatical-Year produce, i.e., paying for it after time has elapsed is not considered commerce.

נָתַן לָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא עָלֶיהָ, לְכִי בָּא עָלֶיהָ

The Gemara asks: If the baraita is referring to a case where he gave her payment and afterward engaged in intercourse with her, then when he engaged in intercourse with her,