עבודה זרה דף נט

דאמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יהוצדק: מים של רבים אין נאסרין. הא דיחיד נאסרין.

as Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: Water that belongs to the public is not rendered prohibited. The Gemara infers that since water that belongs to the public is permitted, therefore, in a case where gentiles bow to water that is owned by an individual it is rendered prohibited.

ותיפוק ליה, דהא מחוברין נינהו! לא צריכא, דתלשינהו גלא.

The Gemara challenges: But Rabbi Yoḥanan could derive that even water owned by an individual is permitted, as the water is connected to the ground, and worshipping an object that is connected to the ground does not render it prohibited. The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to derive this halakha from the fact that the water belongs to the public in a case where a wave raised the water and detached it from the ground. In this case worshipping water owned by an individual would render it prohibited.

סוף סוף, אבני הר שנדלדלו נינהו, תסתיים דרבי יוחנן דאמר אסורות?

The Gemara challenges: Nevertheless, the water ultimately falls into the category of objects that were detached without human involvement, such as boulders of a mountain that dislodged on their own. The Gemara (46a) cites a dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya with regard to boulders that dislodged without human involvement and were then worshipped, and does not conclude who deems the boulders permitted and who deems them prohibited. May it be concluded from Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that it is Rabbi Yoḥanan who says that the boulders are prohibited?

לא צריכא, דטפחינהו בידיה.

The Gemara replies: No, even if Rabbi Yoḥanan deems the boulders permitted, his ruling with regard to the water is necessary in a case where one struck the water with his hand and thereby detached it. Since it was detached due to human involvement, if the water was owned by an individual it is prohibited.

רבי חייא בר אבא איקלע לגבלא, חזא בנות ישראל דמיעברן מגוים שמלו ולא טבלו, חזא חמרא דמזגו גוים ושתו ישראל, חזא תורמוסא דשלקי להו גוים ואכלי ישראל,

§ Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba happened to come to Gavla. He saw Jewish women there who were impregnated by gentiles who were in the process of converting and were circumcised but had not yet immersed in a ritual bath. He also saw wine that gentiles diluted with water and Jews then drank the wine. He also saw lupines that gentiles were cooking and Jews were eating. And despite seeing all this, he did not say anything to them to correct their actions.

ולא אמר להו ולא מידי.

אתא לקמיה דרבי יוחנן, אמר ליה: צא והכרז על בניהם שהן ממזרים, ועל יינן משום יין נסך, ועל תורמוסן משום בישולי גוים, משום שאינן בני תורה.

Later, he came before Rabbi Yoḥanan and told him what he had seen. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Go and declare about their children that they have the status of children born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzerim]. And decree with regard to their wine that it is prohibited as an extension of the prohibition of wine used for a libation. And with regard to their lupines you should declare that they are forbidden due to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles, as they are not people well-versed in Torah, and any leniency would be misunderstood and applied too extensively.

על בניהם שהם ממזרים — רבי יוחנן לטעמיה, דאמר רבי יוחנן: לעולם אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול, וכיון דלא טביל — גוי הוא.

The Gemara explains that with regard to declaring about their children that they have the status of mamzerim, Rabbi Yoḥanan conforms to his standard line of reasoning concerning two halakhot. The first is as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One is never deemed to be a convert until he has been circumcised and has immersed. And since the father has not immersed, he is still considered a gentile. And the second halakha is as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the case of a gentile or a Canaanite slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a mamzer.

ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן: גוי ועבד הבא על בת ישראל — הולד ממזר.

וגזור על יינם משום יין נסך — משום ״לך לך, אמרין נזירא; סחור סחור, לכרמא לא תקרב״.

The Gemara continues to explain Rabbi Yoḥanan’s second instruction to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: And decree with regard to their wine that it is prohibited as an extension of the prohibition of wine used for a libation. Although the gentile did not touch the wine when he diluted it, it is prohibited due to the maxim: Go, go, we say to a nazirite; go around and go around, but do not come near to the vineyard.

ועל תורמוסן משום בישולי גוים — לפי שאינן בני תורה. טעמא דאינן בני תורה, הא בני תורה שרי? והאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק אמר רב:

Lastly, Rabbi Yoḥanan instructed Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba to decree with regard to their lupines that they are forbidden due to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles, as they are not people well-versed in Torah. The Gemara asks: The reason that the lupines are deemed prohibited is because they are not people well-versed in Torah; but in the case of people who are well-versed in Torah, one can infer that the lupines are permitted. But doesn’t Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak say that Rav says: Anything that is eaten raw is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles, even when cooked by them? Lupines are not eaten raw due to their bitterness, and therefore they are subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles.

כל שנאכל כמות שהוא חי אין בו משום בישולי גוים!

רבי יוחנן כי הך לישנא סבירא ליה, דאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק אמר רב: כל שאינו עולה לשולחן של מלכים ללפת

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan holds in accordance with that other version of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak’s statement, as Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says that Rav says: Anything that lacks importance and therefore does not appear on the table of kings in order to be eaten together with bread is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles. Lupines are not sufficiently important to be served on the table of kings, and therefore they are permitted even if cooked by gentiles. Consequently, the reason for prohibiting the residents of Gavla from eating them is because they are not people well-versed in Torah. But in the case of people well-versed in Torah, the lupines are permitted.

בו את הפת — אין בו משום בישולי גוים. טעמא דאינן בני תורה, הא בני תורה שרי.

בעו מיניה מרב כהנא: גוי מהו שיוליך ענבים לגת? אמר להו: אסור, משום ״לך לך, אמרין נזירא; סחור סחור, לכרמא לא תקרב״. איתיביה רב יימר לרב כהנא:

§ The Sages asked Rav Kahana: With regard to a gentile, what is the halakha concerning the following question: May he bring grapes to the winepress without doing anything else to them? Rav Kahana said to them: It is prohibited by rabbinic decree due to the maxim: Go, go, we say to a nazirite; go around and go around, but do not come near to the vineyard. Rav Yeimar raised an objection to Rav Kahana from a baraita: With regard to a gentile who brought grapes to the winepress in baskets

גוי שהביא ענבים לגת בסלין.

ובדודורין, אף על פי שהיין מזלף עליהן — מותר. אמר ליה: ״הביא״ קאמרת? אנא לכתחלה קאמינא!

and in small barrels, even though the grapes are squashed in the process and the wine, i.e., the juice, sprays onto the grapes, nevertheless they are permitted. Rav Kahana said to Rav Yeimar: Are you saying that this is the halakha where the gentile already brought the grapes? The baraita is discussing whether the grapes are prohibited after the fact, whereas I am saying that one should not permit a gentile to bring the grapes ab initio.

ההוא אתרוגא דנפל לחביתא דחמרא, אידרי גוי ושקליה. אמר להו רב אשי: נקטוה לידיה כי היכי דלא לשכשיך ביה, וברצוה עד דשייפא.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain etrog that fell into a barrel of wine. A gentile jumped up to take it out of the barrel, thereby unintentionally touching the wine. Rav Ashi said to the people standing there: Hold his hand still, so that he does not stir the wine and render it prohibited, and tip the barrel until the wine is drained into another vessel, and then he may take the etrog.

אמר רב אשי: האי גוי דנסכיה לחמרא דישראל בכוונה, אף על גב דלזבוניה לגוי אחרינא אסור, שרי ליה למישקל דמיה מההוא גוי. מאי טעמא? מיקלא קלייה.

§ Rav Ashi says: In the case of this gentile who intentionally poured a Jew’s wine as a libation in order to render it prohibited, even though it is prohibited to sell it to another gentile, as one may not derive benefit from it, nevertheless, it is permitted for him to collect its monetary value from that gentile. What is the reason for this? It is considered as though the gentile burned the wine and destroyed it, and he is required to pay for the damage.

אמר רב אשי: מנא אמינא לה? דתניא: גוי שנסך יינו של ישראל שלא בפני עבודה זרה — אסור, ורבי יהודה בן בבא ורבי יהודה בן

Rav Ashi says: From where do I say that this is the halakha? This halakha is derived as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a gentile who poured a Jew’s wine as an idolatrous libation but not before an object of idol worship, the wine is prohibited, but Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira deem it permitted due to two factors: One is that idol worshippers pour wine as an idolatrous libation only before an object of idol worship. And the other one is that the Jew says to the gentile: It is not in your power to render my wine prohibited against my will. Rav Ashi rules in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna. Nevertheless, he derives from the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira that one may collect compensation from the gentile, whose actions were against the will of the owner.

בתירא מתירין משום שני דברים: אחד — שאין מנסכין יין אלא בפני עבודה זרה, ואחד — שאומר לו: לא כל הימנך שתאסור ייני לאונסי.

ההיא חביתא דחמרא דאישתקיל לברזא, אתא גוי, אידרי אנח ידיה עילויה. אמר רב פפא: כל דלהדי ברזא — חמרא אסיר.

§ There was a certain barrel of wine from which the stopper had been removed and the wine was spilling out. A gentile came, jumped up, and placed his hand on the hole to prevent the wine from leaking. Rav Pappa said: Any wine that is adjacent to the stopper is prohibited, as it was touched by the gentile,