Babylonian Talmud: Tractate ‘Abodah Zarah

Folio 65a

Raba once sent a present to Bar-Sheshak⁵  on a heathen feast-day, saying, 'I know that he does not worship idols'; but on paying him a visit, he found him sitting up to his neck in a bath of rosewater while naked harlots were standing before him. [Bar-Sheshak] said to him, 'Have you [Israelites] anything like this in the World to Come?' He replied, 'We have much finer than this.' He asked, 'Is there anything finer than this?' [Raba] answered, 'There is upon you the fear of the ruling power,⁶  but for us there will be no fear of the ruling power.' He said to him, 'What fear have I, at any rate, of the ruling power!' While they were sitting together, the king's courser arrived with the message, 'Arise, the king requires your presence.' As he was about to depart [Bar-Sheshak] said to [Raba], 'May the eye burst that wishes to see evil of you!' To this Raba responded, 'Amen,' and Bar-Sheshak's eye burst. R. Papi said: [Raba] should have answered him by quoting the verse, Kings' daughters are for thine honour; at thy right hand doth stand the queen in gold of Ophir.⁷  R. Nahman b. Isaac said: [Raba] should have answered him by quoting the verse, No eye hath seen what God, and nobody but Thee, will work for him that waiteth for Him.⁸

IF HE HIRED HIM TO ASSIST HIM IN ANOTHER KIND OF WORK. [Is his wage permitted] even if he did not ask him [to remove the cask of yen nesek] towards evening?⁹  Against such a conclusion I quote: If [a heathen] hires an [Israelite] workman¹⁰  and towards evening says to him, 'Remove a cask of yen nesek from this place to that,' his wage is permitted.¹¹  The reason [why it is permitted] is because he asked him to do so towards evening; consequently [if he was asked to do so] throughout the day it would not [be permitted]! — Abaye said: Our Mishnah likewise refers to when he asked him to do so towards evening. Raba said: [Even if we assume that our Mishnah does not refer to the time towards evening] there is no contradiction, because [the second teaching deals with the circumstance] where he says to him, 'Remove for me a hundred casks for a hundred perutahs',¹²  and [the Mishnah] where he says to him, 'Remove for me some casks for a perutah each.'¹³  And thus it has been taught: If [a heathen] hires an [Israelite] workman, saying to him, 'Remove for me a hundred casks for a hundred perutahs' and a cask of yen nesek was found among them, his wage is prohibited; [but if he said, 'Remove for me] some casks for a perutah each,' and a cask of yen nesek was found among them, his wage is permitted.¹⁴

IF HE HIRED [AN ISRAELITE'S] ASS TO CARRY YEN NESEK, ITS HIRE IS PROHIBITED. What need is there for this [to be mentioned] since it is identical with the first clause?¹⁵  — It was necessary on account of the continuation, viz., BUT IF HE HIRED IT TO SIT UPON, EVEN THOUGH HE RESTED HIS JAR [OF YEN NESEK] UPON IT, ITS HIRE IS PERMITTED.¹⁶  Is this to say that it is not lawful¹⁷  to rest the jar [upon the ass]? Against this I quote: If a man hires an ass, the hirer may rest upon it his clothes, jar and the food which is required for that journey, but as regards anything beyond this the ass-driver may object; an ass-driver may rest upon it barley, straw and food required by him for that day, but as regards anything beyond this the hirer may object!¹⁸  — Abaye said: Granted that it is lawful to rest a jar upon the animal; nevertheless should [the hirer] not rest a jar upon it, do we say to him, 'Deduct the carriage of the jar'!¹⁹

How is this?²⁰  Since [the hirer] is able to purchase [food on the journey], the ass-driver should also be allowed to object!²¹  And should [the driver] not be able to purchase [food on the journey], the hirer should also not be allowed to object!²²  — R. Papa said: No; it is necessary [to suppose conditions] where one is able by trouble²³  to make purchases from station to station; an ass-driver is accustomed to the trouble of making such purchases²⁴  whereas the hirer is not accustomed to it.²⁵

The father of R. Aha the son of R. Ika²⁶

1. A heathen friend of his.
2. And Abidarna was not considered a ger toshab.
3. If a Gentile renounced idolatry and became poor he must receive support from the Jewish community.
4. And Abidarna was not circumcised.
5. A heathen friend.
6. Your fate is in the hands of your king who can at will deprive you of all you possess.
7. Ps. XLV, 10. Instead of 'for thine honour' required as the rendering by the Talmud, E.V. has 'among thy honourable women.' The point of the verse is that Israelites in the Hereafter will be attended by noble women, and not surrounded by harlots as this heathen was.
8. Isa. LXIV, 3, sic. This verse, understood in this sense, is used by the Talmud to denote that the good things of the World to Come cannot be conceived by the mind of man (v. Ber. 34b).
9. The labourer was hired by the day and at evening he was paid for his work. The question, therefore, is whether a Jew may accept pay for removing the cask when it was part of the day's lawful work.
10. For permitted work, and after the day's task is completed he imposes the additional task upon him.
11. Tosef. A.Z. VI.
12. V. Glos., s.v. perutah. His wage is for all the work he did. If, then, all the casks contained oil but one had yen nesek, all his earnings are prohibited.
13. He can then throw away what he earned for the unlawful work and retain the rest.
14. With the exception of the perutah for that cask.
15. Viz., if a heathen hired an (Israelite) workman to assist him in (the preparation of) yen nesek, his wage is prohibited.
16. Consequently it is considered that the owner of the ass only receives pay for the man riding upon it and the jar is not taken into account.
17. [Rashi reads, 'not usual'.]
18. It follows that the hirer may rest his jar upon the ass, and therefore the owner receives payment for this.
19. Because there is no special charge for the carrying of the jar, the hire is permitted.
20. That the hirer can load the animal with the food he requires for the whole journey but the ass-driver with what he requires for one day.
21. Because the stop to buy food prolongs the duration of the journey.
22. To his having food for the whole journey.
23. [Ms.M.: 'he is able to purchase.']
24. So he is allowed only a day's supply.
25. For that reason he may take food with him for the whole journey.
26. He was a wine-dealer. He did not sell heathens jars of wine, but used to pour it into their bottles retaining the jar for himself. The usual custom was to sell the wine inclusive of the jar.

MISHNAH. IF YEN NESEK FELL UPON GRAPES, ONE MAY RINSE THEM AND THEY ARE PERMITTED, BUT IF THEY WERE SPLIT THEY ARE PROHIBITED. IF IT FELL UPON FIGS OR UPON DATES, SHOULD THERE BE IN THEM [SUFFICIENT WINE] TO IMPART A FLAVOUR, THEY ARE PROHIBITED. IT HAPPENED WITH BOETHUS B. ZUNIN THAT HE CONVEYED DRIED FIGS IN A SHIP AND A CASK OF YEN NESEK WAS BROKEN AND IT FELL UPON THEM; SO HE CONSULTED THE SAGES WHO DECLARED THEM PERMITTED. THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHATEVER DERIVES ADVANTAGE [FROM YEN NESEK BY ITS] IMPARTING A FLAVOUR IS PROHIBITED, BUT WHATEVER DOES NOT DERIVE ADVANTAGE [FROM YEN NESEK BY ITS] IMPARTING A FLAVOUR IS PERMITTED, AS, E.G., VINEGAR WHICH FELL UPON SPLIT BEANS.

GEMARA. But there is an incident⁸  [narrated] which contradicts [the first clause of the Mishnah]! — [The wording of the Mishnah] is defective and should read as follows: If [the wine] affects the flavour adversely it is permitted; and thus it happened with Boethus b. Zunin that he conveyed dried figs in a ship and a cask of yen nesek was broken and it fell upon them; so he consulted the Sages who declared them permitted.⁹

A cask of yen nesek once fell upon a heap of wheat, and Raba permitted it to be sold to heathens. Rabbah b. Liwai quoted against Raba: If mixed stuffs occur¹⁰  in a garment, he may not sell it to a heathen, nor make a pack-saddle of it for an ass, but he may use it as shrouds for a meth mizwah.¹¹  Why may he not [sell it] to a heathen? Lest he dispose of it to an Israelite! So here also [there is the fear that the wheat] may be sold back by him to an Israelite? — Thereupon [Raba] permitted [the Israelite] to mill it, bake it and sell [the loaves] to a heathen not in the presence of an Israelite.¹²

We learnt: IF YEN NESEK FELL UPON GRAPES, ONE MAY RINSE THEM AND THEY ARE PERMITTED, BUT IF THEY WERE SPLIT THEY ARE PROHIBITED. If they are split they are [prohibited], but if not split they are not!¹³  — R. Papa said: It is different with wheat because on account of the slit [in the ears] they are considered to be split.

1. [By pouring the wine into their bottles.]
2. The wine did not become nesek until it was in the jars of the heathens.
3. Viz., their bottles, because if these were broken they would retain his jars and he would be the loser.
4. That he was to have the jars even if their bottles were broken.
5. In which the bottles were placed, so that if wine ran out it would not be lost.
6. Before the jars were filled; this is allowed because they were still in his possession.
7. Which the ferryman recognised, and he conveyed them across without being told do so in each case. Accordingly R. Ika did not himself carry them to the other side.
8. Viz., what is told of Boethus.
9. Because the wine had a bad effect on the dried figs.
10. Lit., 'was lost'. Cf. Lev. XIX, 19. The case here is where some threads of different materials were woven into the fabric and they cannot be distinguished from the rest to be cut away.
11. V. Glos. A dead person is absolved from the precepts of the Torah, and so the prohibition of mixed stuffs does not apply.
12. If he sold them in the presence of a Jew, they might be bought by a Jew. Loaves baked by a heathen are disallowed, so that there would be no fear lest they would be bought by a Jew.
13. And this rule should also apply to wheat.