עבודה זרה ס״ה

עבודה זרה ס״ה

לַאֲבִידַרְנָא בְּיוֹם אֵידָם, אָמַר: יָדַעְנָא בֵּיהּ דְּלָא פָּלַח לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵיזֶהוּ גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב? כֹּל שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲבֵרִים שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲבוֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה! כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא — לְהַחְיוֹתוֹ.

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.

וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב שֶׁעָבְרוּ עָלָיו שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ וְלֹא מָל, הֲרֵי הוּא כְּמִין שֶׁבָּאוּמּוֹת! הָתָם כְּגוֹן שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו לָמוּל וְלֹא מָל.

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.

רָבָא אַמְטִי לֵיהּ קוּרְבָּנָא לְבַר שֵׁישַׁךְ בְּיוֹם אֵידָם. אֲמַר: יָדַעְנָא בֵּיהּ דְּלָא פָּלַח לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אֲזַל אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ דְּיָתֵיב עַד צַוְּארֵיהּ בְּוַורְדָּא, וְקָיְימָן זוֹנוֹת עֲרוּמּוֹת קַמֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִית לְכוּ כְּהַאי גַּוְונָא לְעָלְמָא דְּאָתֵי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּידַן עֲדִיפָא טְפֵי מֵהַאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: טְפֵי מֵהַאי מִי הָוֵה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַתּוּן אִיכָּא עֲלַיְיכוּ אֵימְתָא דְּמַלְכוּתָא, אֲנַן לָא תֶּיהְוֵי עֲלַן אֵימְתָא דְמַלְכוּתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא מִיהָא מַאי אֵימְתָא דְּמַלְכוּתָא אִיכָּא עֲלַי?

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.

עַד דְּיָתְבִי, אֲתָא הָהוּא פְּרִיסְתָּקָא דְּמַלְכָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קוּם, דְּקָבָעֵי לָךְ מַלְכָּא. כִּי נָפֵיק וְאָזֵיל, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עֵינָא דְּבָעֵי לְמִיחְזֵי לְכוּ בִּישׁוּתָא תִּיפְקַע. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אָמֵן. פְּקַע עֵינֵיהּ דְּבַר שֵׁישַׁךְ.

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.

אָמַר רַב פַּפִּי: אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמֵימְרָא לֵיהּ מֵהַאי קְרָא ״בְּנוֹת מְלָכִים בְּיִקְּרוֹתֶיךָ נִצְּבָה שֵׁגַל לִימִינְךָ בְּכֶתֶם אוֹפִיר״. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמֵימְרָא לֵיהּ מֵהָכָא ״עַיִן לֹא רָאָתָה אֱלֹהִים זוּלָתְךָ יַעֲשֶׂה לִמְחַכֵּה לוֹ״.

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).

שְׂכָרוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמּוֹ מְלָאכָה אַחֶרֶת. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְעִיתּוֹתֵי עֶרֶב.

§ 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.

וּרְמִינְהִי: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל, וּלְעִיתּוֹתֵי עֶרֶב אָמַר לוֹ: ״הַעֲבֵר חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן נֶסֶךְ מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם״ — שְׂכָרוֹ מוּתָּר. טַעְמָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְעִיתּוֹתֵי עֶרֶב — אִין, כּוּלֵּי יוֹמָא — לָא!

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.

אֲמַר אַבָּיֵי: כִּי תְּנַן נָמֵי מַתְנִיתִין, דְּאָמַר לְעִיתּוֹתֵי עֶרֶב תְּנַן. רָבָא אָמַר: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״הַעֲבֵר לִי מֵאָה חָבִיּוֹת בְּמֵאָה פְּרוּטוֹת״, הָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״הַעֲבֵר לִי חָבִית חָבִית בִּפְרוּטָה״.

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.

וְהָתַנְיָא: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֵל, וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״הַעֲבֵר לִי מֵאָה חָבִיּוֹת בְּמֵאָה פְּרוּטוֹת״, וְנִמְצֵאת חָבִית שֶׁל יֵין נֶסֶךְ בֵּינֵיהֶן — שְׂכָרוֹ אָסוּר. חָבִית חָבִית בִּפְרוּטָה, וְנִמְצֵאת חָבִית שֶׁל יֵין נֶסֶךְ בֵּינֵיהֶן — שְׂכָרוֹ מוּתָּר.

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.

הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר לְהָבִיא עָלֶיהָ יֵין נֶסֶךְ — שְׂכָרוֹ אָסוּר. הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? הַיְינוּ רֵישָׁא! סֵיפָא אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ: שְׂכָרָהּ לֵישֵׁב עָלֶיהָ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִנִּיחַ גּוֹי לְגִינוֹ עָלֶיהָ — שְׂכָרוֹ מוּתָּר.

§ 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.

לְמֵימְרָא, דְּלָגִין לָאו דִּינָא הוּא לְאוֹתוֹבֵיהּ?

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?

וּרְמִינְהִי: הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַחֲמוֹר — שׂוֹכֵר מַנִּיחַ עָלֶיהָ כְּסוּתוֹ וּלְגִינָתוֹ וּמְזוֹנוֹתָיו שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ הַדֶּרֶךְ, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ חַמָּר מְעַכֵּב עָלָיו. חַמָּר מַנִּיחַ עָלֶיהָ שְׂעוֹרִים וְתֶבֶן וּמְזוֹנוֹתָיו שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ שׂוֹכֵר מְעַכֵּב עָלָיו.

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.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: נְהִי דְּלָגִין דִּינָא הוּא לְאוֹתוֹבֵי, מִיהָא אִי לָא מוֹתֵיב לֵיהּ, מִי אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: נַכִּי לֵיהּ אַגְרָא דִּלְגִינָתוֹ?

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.

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דִּשְׁכִיחַ לְמִזְבַּן — חַמָּר נָמֵי לְעַכֵּב, וְאִי דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ לְמִזְבַּן — שׂוֹכֵר נָמֵי לָא לְעַכֵּב.

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.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא צְרִיכָא דִּשְׁכִיחַ לְמִיטְרַח וּלְמִזְבַּן מֵאַוָּנָא לְאַוָּנָא, חַמָּר דַּרְכֵּיהּ לְמִיטְרַח וּלְמִזְבַּן, שׂוֹכֵר לָאו דַּרְכֵּיהּ לְמִיטְרַח וּלְמִזְבַּן.

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.

אֲבוּהּ דְּרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא

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

הֲוָה שָׁפֵיךְ לְהוּ חַמְרָא לְגוֹיִם, וְאָזֵיל מְעַבַּר לְהוּ מַעְבָּרָא, וְיָהֲבוּ לֵיהּ גּוּלְפֵי בְּאַגְרָא. אֲתוֹ אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְאַבָּיֵי, אֲמַר לְהוּ: כִּי קָא טָרַח — בְּהֶתֵּירָא קָא טָרַח.

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.

וְהָא רוֹצֶה בְּקִיּוּמוֹ, דְּלָא נִצְטְרוֹ זִיקֵי! דְּמַתְנֵי בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ? אִי נָמֵי, דְּמַיְיתוּ (פְּרִיסְדְּקֵי) [פַּרְדִּיסְקֵי] בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ.

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.

וְהָא קָא מְעַבַּר לְהוּ מַעְבָּרָא, דְּקָא טָרַח בְּאִיסּוּרָא! דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמַבָּרוֹיָא מֵעִיקָּרָא, אִי נָמֵי, דִּנְקִיטִי בֵּיהּ קִיטְרֵי.

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.

מַתְנִי׳ יֵין נֶסֶךְ שֶׁנָּפַל עַל גַּבֵּי עֲנָבִים — יַדִּיחֵן וְהֵן מוּתָּרוֹת, וְאִם הָיוּ מְבוּקָּעוֹת — אֲסוּרוֹת. נָפַל עַל גַּבֵּי תְּאֵנִים אוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי תְּמָרִים, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶן בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם — אָסוּר. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּבַיְתוֹס בֶּן זוּנֵן שֶׁהֵבִיא גְּרוֹגְרוֹת בִּסְפִינָה, וְנִשְׁתַּבְּרָה חָבִית שֶׁל יֵין נֶסֶךְ וְנָפַל עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן, וְשָׁאַל לַחֲכָמִים וְהִתִּירוּם.

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.

זֶה הַכְּלָל: כֹּל שֶׁבַּהֲנָאָתוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם — אָסוּר, כֹּל שֶׁאֵין בַּהֲנָאָתוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם — מוּתָּר, כְּגוֹן חוֹמֶץ שֶׁנָּפַל עַל גַּבֵּי גְּרִיסִין.

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.

גְּמָ׳ מַעֲשֶׂה לִסְתּוֹר? חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: אִם נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם הוּא — מוּתָּר, וּמַעֲשֶׂה נָמֵי בְּבַיְתוֹס בֶּן זוּנֵן שֶׁהָיָה מֵבִיא גְּרוֹגְרוֹת בִּסְפִינָה, וְנִשְׁתַּבְּרָה חָבִית שֶׁל יֵין נֶסֶךְ וְנָפַל עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְהִתִּירוּם.

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.

הָהוּא (כרי) [כַּרְיָא] דְּחִיטֵּי דִּנְפַל עֲלֵיהּ חָבִיתָא דְּיֵין נֶסֶךְ, שַׁרְיֵיהּ רָבָא לְזַבּוֹנֵיהּ לְגוֹיִם.

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.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבָּה בַּר לֵיוַאי לְרָבָא: בֶּגֶד שֶׁאָבַד בּוֹ כִּלְאַיִם, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִמְכְּרֶנָּה לְגוֹי, וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂנָּה מַרְדַּעַת לַחֲמוֹר, אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ תַּכְרִיכִין לְמֵת מִצְוָה.

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.

לְגוֹי מַאי טַעְמָא לָא? דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְזַבּוֹנֵיהּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, הָכָא נָמֵי אָתֵי לְזַבּוֹנֵיהּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל!

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.

הֲדַר שְׁרָא לְמִיטְּחִינְהוּ וְלִמְפִינְהוּ וּלְזַבּוֹנִינְהוּ לְגוֹיִם, שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

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.

תְּנַן: יֵין נֶסֶךְ שֶׁנָּפַל עַל גַּבֵּי עֲנָבִים — יַדִּיחֵן וְהֵן מוּתָּרוֹת, וְאִם הָיוּ מְבוּקָּעוֹת — אֲסוּרוֹת. מְבוּקָּעוֹת — אִין, שֶׁאֵין מְבוּקָּעוֹת — לָא. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שָׁאנֵי חִיטֵּי, הוֹאִיל וְאַגַּב צִירַיְיהוּ כִּמְבוּקָּעוֹת דָּמְיָין.

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.