meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Talmud/Bavli/Seder Nezikin/Avodah Zarah/English/Daf Shevui.txt"}
text: Avodah Zarah
  עבודה זרה
  Daf Shevui
  
  
  Avodah Zarah
  
  
  
  Daf 1a
  
  
  
  Daf 1b
  
  
  
  Daf 2a
  
  On the three days preceding the festivals of idolaters, it is forbidden to conduct business with them, to lend articles to them or borrow from them, to lend or borrow any money from them, to repay a debt, or receive repayment from them.  Rabbi Judah says:  we should receive repayment from them, as this can only depress them;  But they [the Rabbis] said to him: even though it is depressing at the time, they are glad of it subsequently.
  GEMARA. Rav and Shmuel:  One taught edehem (with an aleph)  while the other taught edehem (with an ayin). The one who taught edehem (with an aleph) is not in error while the one who taught edehem (with an ayin) is not in error.
  The one who taught edehem (with an aleph) is not in error, as it is written: “For the day of their calamity is at hand” (Deuteronomy 32:35); And the one who taught edehem (with an ayin) is not in error, as it is written: “Let them bring their witnesses [testimonies] that they may be justified” (Isaiah 43:9).
  The one who taught edehem (with an aleph) why did he not teach edehem (with an ayin? He could say: Calamity is preferable. he one who taught edehem (with an ayin) why did he not teach edehem (with an aleph)? He might say: What is it that brings about that calamity? The testimony they testify about themselves. Therefore testimony is preferable.
  But does the verse, “Let them bring their witnesses that they may be justified,” refer to idolaters? It is written  about Israel; as R. Joshua b. Levi said: All the commandments which Israel performs in this world will come and testify on their behalf in the world to come, as it is said: “Let them bring their witnesses that they may be justified” — this refers to Israel; “And let them hear and say: It is true” this refers the idolaters.
  Rather, R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said that the one who says edehem with an aleph derives it from here: “They that fashion a graven image are all nothing, and their delectable things shall not profit, and their own witnesses see not” (Isaiah 44:9).
  Hanina b. Papa and some say R. Simlai expounded: In the time to come, the Holy Blessed One will take a Torah scroll and place it in His embrace and proclaim: “Let him who has occupied himself with it, come and take his reward.”
  Thereupon all the nations will come and gather in confusion, as it is said,  “All the nations are gathered together” etc. (Isaiah 43:9). The Holy Blessed One will then say to them: “Do not come before Me in confusion, but let each nation 
  
  Daf 2b
  
  come in with its scribes;” as it is said, “And let the peoples (le’umim) be gathered together,” (ibid.) and the word peoples means a kingdom, as it is written, “And one kingdom [u-leom] shall be stronger than the other kingdom” (Genesis 25:23). But can there be confusion in the presence of the Holy Blessed One? Rather it is only that they be not confused, and so hear what He says to them.
  Thereupon the Kingdom of Rome entered first. Why first? Because they are the most important. How do we know they are most important? Because it is written: “And he shall devour the whole earth and shall tread it down and break it in pieces” (Daniel 7:23) and R. Yohanan says: This refers to Rome, whose power is known to the whole world.
  And from where do we know that the most important ones come in [for judgment] first? This is in accordance with R. Hisda, for R. Hisda said: When a king and a community appear before the [Heavenly] tribunal, the king enters first, as it is said: “To perform the sentence of his servant [King Solomon] and [then] the sentence of His people Israel.” And what is the reason? You may say,  because it is not the way of the world that a king should wait outside; or you may say [in order that the king shall plead] before the anger [of the Judge] is roused.
  The Holy Blessed One will then say to them: “With what have you occupied yourselves?” They will reply: “Master of the Universe, we have established many market-places, we have built many bathhouses, we have accumulated much gold and silver, and all this we did only for the sake of Israel, that they might [have leisure] for occupying themselves with the study of the Torah.”
  The Holy Blessed One will say in reply: “You foolish ones in the world, all that which you have done, you have only done to satisfy your own desires. You have established marketplaces to place prostitutes in them; baths, to delight yourself in them; silver and gold, that is mine,  as it is said: “Mine is the silver and Mine is the gold, says the Lord of Hosts” (Haggai 2:8).
  Are there any among you who have been declaring this? As it is said, “Who among you declares this? (Isaiah 43:9). And “this” is nothing but Torah, as it is said: “And this is the Torah which Moses set before the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 4:44). They will then depart crushed in spirit.
  The kingdom of Rome goes out and the kingdom of Persia enters. Why Persia next? Because they are next in importance. And how do we know this? Because it is written: “And behold another beast, a second like a bear” (Daniel 7:5);  and R. Joseph said: This refers to the Persians, who eat and drink greedily like a bear, are fleshly like a bear, have shaggy hair like a bear, and are restless like a bear.
  The Holy Blessed One will ask of them: “With what have you occupied yourselves?  and they will reply, “Master of the Universe, we have built many bridges, we have captured many cities, we have waged many wars, and all this for the sake of Israel, that they might engage in the study of the Torah.”
  The Holy Blessed One will say in reply: “All that which you have done, you have only done to satisfy your own desires. You have made bridges, to collect taxes on them; cities, to raise in them the head-tax; wars, I make, as it is said: “The Lord is  a man of war” (Exodus 15:3). Are there any among you who have been declaring this? As it is said, “Who among you declares this? (Isaiah 43:9). And “this” is nothing but Torah, as it is said: “And this is the Torah which Moses set before the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 4:44). They will then depart crushed in spirit.
  But after the Persians saw that the Romans did not achieve anything, why did they go in? They will say to themselves: “The Romans have destroyed the Temple, whereas we have built it.”   And so too every nation.
  But after they saw that the first ones did not achieve anything, why should the other nations come forth? They will say to themselves: The others have oppressed Israel, but we have not.   And why are these [two] nations singled out as important, and not the others? Because their reign will last till the coming of the Messiah.
  The nations will then say: “Master of the Universe, have you given us the Torah, and have we declined to accept it?” But how can they argue this, is it not written, “The Lord came from Sinai and rose from Seir to them, He shined forth from Mount Paran?” (Deuteronomy 33:2), and it is also written, “God will come from Teman” (Habbakuk 3:3). What did He want in Seir, and what did He want at Mount Paran?
  R. Yohanan says: This teaches us that the Holy Blessed One offered the Torah to every nation and every tongue, but none accepted it, until He came to Israel who received it.
  Rather, this is what they will say to Him: “Did we accept it and fail to observe it?” But surely to this the response would be: “Then why did you not accept it?” Rather, this is what they will say to Him: “Master of the Universe, did you hold the mountain over us like a tub as You did to Israel and did we still decline to accept it?”
  As it is written: “And they stood at the foot (or under) the mountain” (Exodus 19:17), R. Dimi b. Hama said: This teaches us that the Holy Blessed One suspended the mountain over Israel like a tub, and said to them: “If you accept the Torah, it will be well with you, but if not, there you will find your grave.”
  Thereupon God will say to them: “Let them tell us of the former deeds,” as it is said, “And let them tell us of the former deeds.” The seven commandments which you did accept, did you observe them?
  How do we know that they did not observe them? For R. Joseph taught: “He stood and shook the earth, He saw and made the nations tremble” (Habbakuk 3:6). What did He see? He saw that the nations did not observe even the seven commandments which the sons of Noah had taken upon themselves, and seeing that they did not observe them, He stood up and released them from them. They benefited! If so, it pays to be a sinner!
  Mar the son of Rabina said:
  
  Daf 3a
  
  This says that even if they kept them, they do not receive reward for them.
  But they do not? Has it not been taught: R. Meir used to say: From where do we know that even a non-Jew who studies the Torah is equal to a High Priest? Scripture says: “You shall therefore keep My statutes and My ordinances which, if a man do, he shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). Priests, Levites, or Israelites is not stated here, rather “a man.” This teaches you that even a non-Jew who studies the Torah is equal to a High Priest!”
  Rather this teaches that they are not rewarded as greatly as one who does a thing which he is commanded to do, but rather as one who does a thing he is not commanded to do. For, R. Hanina said: One who is commanded and does is greater than one who is not commanded and does
  The nations will then say, “Master of the Universe, has Israel, who accepted the Torah, observed it? 
  The Holy Blessed One will reply, “I can give testify that they observed the Torah.” Then they will say back to Him,  “Master of the Universe, can a father testify on behalf of his son? For it is written, “Israel is My son, My firstborn” (Exodus 4:22). Then will the Holy Blessed One will say: “Heaven and Earth testify that Israel has fulfilled the entire Torah.”
  Then they will say: Master of the Universe, Heaven and Earth are partial witnesses, for it is said, “If I have not made My covenant with day and with night and established the laws of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). And R. Shimon b. Lakish further said: What is it that is written, “And there was evening and there was morning the sixth day?” (Genesis 1:31). This teaches that God made a condition with the works of creation, saying,  “If Israel accept my Law it will be well, but if not, I shall reduce you to a state of chaos.”
  And this resonates with R Hezekiah  who said, “You caused sentence to be heard from Heaven, the earth trembled and was still” (Psalms 76:9). If the earth trembled, how could it be still, and if it was still, how could it tremble? Rather at first it trembled, and subsequently it became still.
  Then the Holy Blessed One will say: You yourselves shall testify that Israel observed the entire Torah. Let Nimrod come and testify that Abraham did not worship idols; let Lavan come and testify that Jacob was not suspected of theft; let Potiphar's wife testify that Joseph was not suspected of sinning;
  let  Nebuchadnezzar come and testify that Hanania, Mishael and Azariah did not bow down to an image; let Darius come and testify that Daniel never neglected the prayers; let Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite, and Eliphaz the Temanite [and Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite] testify that Israel has observed the whole Torah; as it is said, “Let them [the nations] bring their [own] witnesses, that they [Israel] may be justified” (Isaiah 43:9). 
  The nations will then say: Offer us the Torah anew and we shall obey it.  But the Holy Blessed One will say to them, You foolish ones among peoples, he who took trouble [to prepare] on the eve of Shabbat can eat on Shabbat, but he who has not troubled on the eve of Shabbat, what shall he eat on Shabbat? Nevertheless, I have an easy command which is called Sukkah; go and carry it out.
  But how can you say this: Did not R. Joshua b. Levi say: What is it that it is written,  “Which I command you this day” (Deuteronomy 7:11)? Today is the day to do them, and tomorrow is not the day to do them. Today is the day to perform them, but today is not the day to take reward for their performance.
  Rather, the Holy Blessed One does not deal harshly with His creatures. And why does He term it an easy commandment? Because it does not cause a financial loss.
  Straightaway everyone will go and make a sukkah on the top of his roof; but the Holy Blessed One will cause the sun to burn over them as at the summer season and every one of them will trample down his sukkah and go away, as it is said, “Let us break their bands, and cast away their cords from us” (Psalms 2:3). He caused the sun to burn over them! But did you not just say, “The Holy Blessed One does not deal harshly with his creatures?” True! But with the Israelites, too, it occasionally happens
  
  Daf 3b
  
  that the summer season extends till Sukkot and they are troubled [by the heat]. But didn’t Rava say: He who is troubled is exempt from dwelling in the Sukkah? True he is exempt, but should he trample it.
  Thereupon the Holy Blessed One will laugh at them, as it is said, “He that sits in heaven will laugh” (Psalms 2:4). R. Yitzchak said: “Only on that day is there laughter before the Holy Blessed One.”
  There are those who teach the comment of R. Yitzchak in connection with the following teaching, as it was taught: R. Yosi says: In the time to come non-Jews will come and convert. But will they be accepted? Has it not been taught: In the days of the Messiah converts will not be accepted; likewise they did not accept converts in the days of David or of Solomon?
  Rather, they will be self-made converts, and they will place tefillin on their heads and on their arms, fringes on their garments, and a mezuzah on their doorposts,
  but when they see the battle of Gog and Magog, he will ask them, “For what purpose have you come?”  And they will reply: “Against God and His Messiah” as it is said, “Why are the nations in an uproar, and why do the peoples mutter in vain” (Psalms 2:1). Then each of them will throw aside his mitzvah and go away, as it is said,
  “Let us break their bands, and cast away their cords from us” (Psalms 2:3), And the Holy Blessed One will laugh at them, as it  is said, “He that sits in heaven will laugh” (Psalms 2:4). R. Yitzchak said: “Only on that day is there laughter before the Holy Blessed One.
  But is this so? Has Rav Judah not said in the name of Rav: There are twelve hours in a day; during the first three hours the Holy Blessed One occupies Himself with the Torah, during the second three He sits in judgment of the whole world, and when He sees that the world deserves destruction, He transfers Himself from the seat of Justice to the seat of Mercy;
  during the third quarter, He feeds the whole world from the horned ram to the eggs of vermin; during the fourth quarter He is sporting with the leviathan, as it is said, “There is leviathan, whom You have formed to laugh (or play) with” (Psalms 104: 26)? R. Nahman b. Yitzchakh said: With His creatures he does laugh, but he does not laugh at His creatures except on that day. 
  Aha said to R. Nahman b. Isaac: Since the day of the destruction of the Temple, there is no laughter for the Holy Blessed One. How do we know that there is no laughter? If we say from the verse, “And on that day the Lord, the God of Hosts, called you to weep and wail” (Isaiah 22:12). Perhaps this refers to that day and no more.
  Rather, as it is written: “If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember you?” (Psalms 137:5). Perhaps this rules out forgetting, but does not rule out laughter. Rather from the verse, “I have long time held my peace, I have been still, and refrained myself, now will I cry.”
  What then does God do in the fourth quarter [of each day]?... He sits and instructs the school children, as it is said, “To whom shall one teach knowledge, and to whom shall one make the message understood? To them that are weaned from the milk, to those just taken from the breast” (Isaiah 28:9).
  Who instructed them before that? If you want, you may say Metatron. Or if you want you may say God did this as well as other things.
  And what does He do by night? If you want you may say, the kind of thing He does by day. And if you want you may say He rides his light cherub, and floats in eighteen thousand worlds; as it is said, “The chariots of God are myriads, even thousands of thousands (shinan)” (Psalms 68:18) Do not read shinan, [repeated], but she-enan [that are not quite 20,000]. Or if you want you may say, He sits and listens to the song of the Hayyot, as it is said, “By the day the Lord will command His lovingkindness and in the night His song shall be with me” (Psalms 42:9).
  Levi says: Anyone who stops [learning] words of the Torah and indulges in idle gossip will be made to eat glowing coals of juniper, as it is said, “They pluck salt-wort with wormwood; and the roots of juniper are their food” (Job 30:4). Resh Lakish said: Anyone who engages in the study of the Torah by night, the Holy One extends a thread of grace  over him by day, as it is said, “By day the Lord will command his lovingkindness, and in the night his song shall be with me” (Psalms 42:9). Why will the Lord command his lovingkindness by day? Because His song shall be with me in the night.
  Some say that Resh Lakish said:  Anyone who engages in the study of the Torah in this world, which is like night, the Holy Blessed One extends a thread of grace over him in the future world, which is like day, as it is said: “By day the Lord, etc.”
  Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: Why is it written, “And You made man as the fishes of the sea, and as the creeping things, that have no ruler over them” (Habbakuk 1:14)?  Why are humans compared to the fishes of the sea? To tell you, just as the fishes of the sea, as soon as they come on to dry land, die, so also people, as soon as they separate themselves from Torah and the commandments die immediately. Another explanation: Just as the fishes of the sea, as soon as the sun scorches them, they die; so too people, when struck by the sun, die.
  This can be applied to the present world, or to the future world. If you want you can say that this applies to this world, in accordance with R. Hanina, for R. Hanina says: Everything is in Heaven’s hands, except cold and heat, as is said, “Thorns and snares are in the path of the wicked; He who values his life will keep far from them” (Proverbs 22:5).
  And if you want you can say it applies to the world to come, in accordance with R. Shimon b. Lakish, for R. Shimon b. Lakish says: There is no gehenna in the world to come. Rather, the Holy Blessed One brings the sun out of its sheath, and it beats down [on the world]: the wicked are punished by it, the righteous are healed by it. The wicked are punished by it,
  
  Daf 4a
  
  as it is said: “For lo! That day is at hand, burning like an oven. All the arrogant and all the doers of evil shall be straw, and the day that is coming—said the LORD of Hosts—shall burn them to ashes and leave of them neither stock nor boughs” (Malachi 3:19). It shall leave them neither stock — in this world, nor bough — in the world to come.
  The righteous are healed by it, as it is said, “But for you who revere My name a sun of victory shall rise to bring healing” (Malachi 3:20). Moreover, they will delight in it, as it is said, You shall go forth and stamp like stall-fed calves” (ibid.).
  Another explanation: Just as among fish of the sea, every fish greater than its fellow swallows its fellow, so with men, were it not for fear of the government, every person greater than his fellow would swallow his fellow. And this is what was taught: R. Hanina, the Deputy High Priest, said, Pray for the welfare of the government, for were it not for the fear of it, people would swallow each other alive.
  R. Hinena b. Papa pointed to the following contradiction: Scripture says, “Shaddai—we have not found the greatness of his power” (Job 37:23), yet it is written, “Great is our Lord and of abundant power” (Psalms 147:5) and it is also written,  “Your right hand, O Lord, is glorious in power!” (Exodus 15:6). There is no contradiction: the former refers to the time of judgment, the latter refers to a time of war.
  R. Hama b. Hanina pointed to another contradiction: It is written, “I have no fury,” (Isaiah 27:4), yet it is also written, “The Lord takes revenge and is furious” (Nahum 1:2). There is no contradiction: the former refers to Israel, the latter to non-Jews. R. Hinena b. Papa said: “I have no fury” for I already vowed, would that I had not so vowed, then, “If one offers Me thorns and thistles, I will march to battle against him, And set all of them on fire” (Isaiah 27:4).
  This accords with the following teaching of R. Alexandri: What is it that is written, “And it shall come to pass on that day that I will seek to destroy all the nations” (Zechariah 12:9). “Seek” from whom? The Holy Blessed One said:  I will seek their records: if they have any meritorious deeds to their credit, I will redeem them, but if not, I will destroy them.
  This also accords with what Rava said: What is it that is written, “Surely He would not strike at a ruin if, in calamity, one cried out to Him” (Job 30:24)? The Holy Blessed One to Israel: When I judge Israel, I do not judge them as I do the non-Jews concerning whom it is said,  “Ruin, an utter ruin, I will make it,” (Ezekiel 21:32). Rather I only exact payment from them [a little at a time] as the hen does her picking.
  Another explanation: Even if Israel does before Me only a few good deeds, like hens picking in a rubbish heap, I will make them accumulate to a large sum, as it is said,  “Though they pick little they are saved” (Job 30:24).  Another interpretation: As a reward of their crying before Me, I save them.
  This is similar to what R. Abba said: What is it that is written, “For I was their Redeemer; Yet they have plotted treason against Me?” (Hosea 7:13).  I thought I would redeem them by depriving them of monetary possessions in this world, so that they would be worthy to merit the world to come, yet they have plotted against me.
  And this is similar to what R. Papi said in the name of Rava: What is it that is written, “I braced, I strengthened their arms, And they plot evil against Me” (Hosea 7:15)?  The Holy Blessed One says:  I thought I would chastise them with suffering in this world, so that their arm might be strengthened in the world to come, yet they plot evil against me.
  Abahu commended R. Safra to the minim as a learned man, and he was thus exempted by them from paying taxes for thirteen years. One day, on coming across him, they said to him; It is written: “You alone have I singled out of all the families of the earth— That is why I will call you to account for all your iniquities” (Amos 3:2). If one is in anger does one take it out on one’s friend? He was silent and could give them no answer; so they wound a scarf round his neck and tortured him.
  Abbahu came and found him. He said to them: Why are you torturing him? They said to him: Did you not tell us that he is a great man? Yet he cannot explain to us the meaning of this verse! He said: Say that I told you [that he was learned] in tannaitic traditions; did I tell you [he was learned] in Scripture?
  They said to him: How are you different that you know [Scripture]?’ He replied: We who are frequently with you, set ourselves the task of studying it thoroughly, they do not study it carefully.
  They said to him: So you tell us the meaning? He said to them: I will draw you a parable. To what may it be compared? To a man who is the creditor of two persons, one of them a friend, the other an enemy; of his friend he will accept payment little by little, whereas of his enemy he will exact payment in one sum!
  Abba b. Kahana: What is the meaning of the verse, “Far be it for you to act in such a way, to slay the righteous with the wicked” (Genesis 18:25)? Abraham said in front of the Holy Blessed One: “Master of the Universe, it is profane to act in such a way to slay the righteous with the wicked.”
  And God does not act in this manner? Is it not written, “And I will cut off from you the righteous and the wicked” (Ezekiel 21:8)?   That refers to one who is not thoroughly righteous.
  But not to one who is thoroughly righteous? Is it not written, “And begin [the slaughter] with my sanctuary” (Ezekiel 9:6) and R. Joseph taught, do not read “my sanctuary” but my sanctified ones, namely the men who fulfilled the Torah from Aleph to Tav? There, too, since it was in their power to protest against [the wickedness of the others] and they did not protest, they are not regarded as thoroughly righteous.
  Papa noted the following contradiction: It is written, “God is angry every day” (Psalms 7:12), while it is also written, “Who could stand before His anger” (Nahum 1:6)? There is no contradiction; the latter refers to an individual, the former to the community.
  Our Rabbis taught: God is angry every day, but how long does His anger last? A moment. And how long is a moment? One fifty three thousand eight hundred forty eighth of an hour is a moment. And no creature could ever precisely fix this moment, except Bilaam the wicked, of whom it is written,
  
  Daf 4b
  
  “who knew the knowledge of the Most High” (Numbers 24:16). Is it possible that he did not know the mind of his animal, but he did know the mind of the Most High?
  What is meant by the words “he did not know the mind of his animal”? At the time when he was seen riding on his donkey, they said to him, “Why do you not ride on a horse?” And he replied, “I consigned mine to the meadow.” Whereupon the donkey said, “Am I not your donkey.” He said back, “You are just for carrying loads.”
  She said to him, “Upon whom you rode.” He said back, “Only occasionally.” But she continued, “Ever since I was yours until this very day”? What is more [she added], I have given you rides by day and sexual company at night.” It is written here, “Have I endangered you (hiskanti), and it is written there “and she was for him a companion” (I Kings 1:2).
  What, then, is the meaning of “He knew the knowledge of the Most High”?  He knew the exact hour when the Holy One, blessed be He, is angry. This, indeed, is what the prophet was saying to them when he says, “My people, Remember what Balak king of Moab plotted against you, and how Balaam son of Beor responded to him. [Recall your passage] From Shittim to Gilgal— And you will recognize the gracious acts of the Lord.” Elazar said: The Holy Blessed One said to Israel:
  My people, see how many righteous acts I did for you, in that I did not get angry with you all those days, for had I become angry, none would have remained or been spared of Israel’s enemies. This is what Bilaam said to Balak, “How can I curse, seeing that God has not cursed, and how can I be wrathful, seeing that the Lord has not been wrathful” (Numbers 23:8)?
  And how long is His wrath? A moment [rega]. And how long is a rega? Amemar said (others say, Ravina): As long as it takes to utter this word. And how do we know that His wrath lasts a moment? As it is written, “For He is angry but a moment, and when He is pleased there is life” (Psalms 30:6). Or if you want you can say, from this verse: “Hide yourself for a short moment, until the wrath is past” (Isaiah 26:20).
  When is He wrathful? Abaye said: During the first three hours, when the comb of the cock is white. But is it not white at all times? At other times it has red streaks, at that time there are no red streaks in it. Joshua b. Levi used to be troubled by a min about scriptural verses. One day he took a cock and, placed it between the legs of the bed and watched it, thinking,
  “When that hour will arrive, I shall curse him.” When that hour did arrive, he was napping. He said:
  You can learn from this that it is not proper to act thus. “His tender mercies are over all His works” is what is written, and it also says. “Neither is it good for the righteous to punish” (Proverbs 17:26).
  It was taught in the name of R. Meir: At the hour when the kings place their crowns on their heads and bow down to the sun, immediately the Holy Blessed One becomes wrathful. Joseph said: One should not recite the Musaf prayer during the first three hours of the day on the first day of the New Year in private, lest, since judgment is then proceeding, his deeds may be scrutinized and the prayer rejected.
  But if that be so, the same should apply to the congregation! The [collective] merits of a congregation are greater. If so, the same should be true with regard to the morning prayer! Since there is a congregation praying at the same time, the prayer will not be rejected.
  But have you not said, “During the first three hours the Holy Blessed One is occupying Himself with the Torah, during the second three He sits in judgment over the whole world”?   Reverse [the order];
  Or if you want you may say it need not be reversed: The Torah, about which it is written “truth,” as it is written, “Buy the truth and sell it not,” (Proverbs 23:23) the Holy Blessed One will not go beyond the letter of the law; judgment, about which it is not written “truth,” the Holy Blessed One may go beyond the letter of the law [towards mercy].
   [To revert to] the above text: R. Joshua b. Levi said: What is the meaning of the verse, “Which I command you this day to do” (Deuteronomy 7:11)? Today is the time to do them, and tomorrow is not the time to do them. Today is the day to do them, but today is not the day to receive their reward.
  Joshua b. Levi also said: All the mitzvot which Israel does in this world will testify on their behalf in the world to come, as it is said, “Let them bring their witnesses that they may be justified; let them hear and say it is truth” (Isaiah 43:9). “Let them bring their witnesses that they may be justified,” this refers to Israel; “let them hear and say it is truth” this refers to the non-Jews.
  Joshua b. Levi also said: All the mitzvot which Israel does in this world will come and strike the non-Jews on their heads in the world to come, as it is said, “You shall observe and do them, for this is your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the peoples” (Deuteronomy 4:6) It does not say in the presence of the peoples, but, in the eyes of the peoples, to teach you that they will come and strike the idolaters in their heads in the world to come.
  Joshua b. Levi further said: The Israelites made the [golden] calf only in order to place a good argument in the mouth of those who do teshuvah (repentance), as it is said, “Would that it were possible that this heart would stay with them and they would revere me forever” (Deuteronomy 5:25).
  This last statement accords with what R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Shimon b. Yohai: David was not the kind of man to do that act, nor was Israel the kind of people to do that act. David was not the kind of man to do that act, as it is written, “My heart is pierced within me” (Psalms 109:22); nor were the Israelites the kind of people to commit that act, for it is said,
  “Would that it were possible that this heart would stay with them and they would revere me forever.” Why, then, did they do these things?
  
  Daf 5a
  
  To teach you that if an individual has sinned, they say to him,  “Look to the individual [David],” and if a community has sinned they say to them,  “Look to the community [of Israel].”
  And both these are necessary; for if it had taught only [the case of] the individual, [it might have been thought that teshuvah was possible] because his sin is not well known, but in the case of a community whose sins are well known it might not be so;  if, on the other hand, the case of a community only were mentioned, it might have been thought [that teshuvah is possible] because mercy for them is great, but with an individual, whose merits are not so strong, it is not so; hence both are necessary.
  This accords with the following saying of R. Shmuel b. Nahmani, who said in the name of R. Yonathan: What is it that is written,  “The saying of David the son of Jesse, and the saying of the man raised on high” (II Samuel 23:1). The saying of David the son of Jesse, the man who elevated the yoke of repentance.
  Shmuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Yonatan also said: Every one that one performs a mitzvah in this world, it precedes him and walks in front of him in the world to come, as it is said: “And your righteousness shall go before you; the presence of the Lord shall be your rearguard” (Isaiah 58:8). Similarly, every transgression that one commits clasps him and leads him towards the Day of Judgment, as it is said, “They clasp him in the course of their way” (Job 6:18).
  Elazar said: It is tied to him like a dog, as it is said, “He did not listen to her, to lie with her, to be with her” (Genesis 39:10); to lie with her in this world, to be with her in the world to come.
  Resh Lakish said: Come let us be grateful to our ancestors, for had they not sinned, we would not have come into the world, as it is said: “I said you are gods and all of you are sons of the Most High; now that you have spoiled your deeds, you shall indeed die like mortals,” etc (Psalms 82:6).
  That is to say that if the Israelites had not committed that sin they would not have given birth to children? Was it not written, “And you, be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 9:7)?  That refers to those who lived up to the times of Sinai. But with regard to those at Sinai, too, it is written, “Go say to them, Return to your tents.” This refers to regular sexual intercourse.
  And is it not also said, “That it might be well with them and with their children” (Deuteronomy 5:25)? It refers to the children of those who stood at Sinai.
  But did not Resh Lakish say, what is it that is written, “This is the book of the generations of Adam?” (Genesis 5:1). Did Adam have a book? Rather, this teaches that the Holy Blessed One showed Adam every generation with its darshanim, every generation with its sages, every generation with its leaders; when he reached the generation of R. Akiva  he rejoiced at his Torah, but was grieved about his death, and said, “How precious are Your thoughts to me, O God!” (Psalms 139:17).
  And R. Yose said: The Son of David will only come when all the souls in the guf have been exhausted, as it is said, “For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth, for the spirit should fall before me and the souls which I have made” (Isaiah 57:16).
  Do not say “we would not have come into the world,” rather  it would have been as if we had not come into the world. Does that mean then that if they had not sinned, they would never have died? But were not chapters written about levirate marriage and inheritance?
  These were written conditionally. But are there verses in the Torah that are written on condition?  Certainly; for R. Shimon b. Lakish said:  What is it that is written, “And it was evening and it was morning the sixth day” (Genesis 1:31)? This teaches that the Holy Blessed One made a condition with all creation, saying, If Israel will accept the Torah all will be well, but if not, I will turn the world void and without form.
  They raised on objection: “May they always be of such a mind [… that it might go well with them and their children]” (Deuteronomy 5:26). This obviously does not refer to the abolition of the angel of death, since the decree [of death] had already been made?  It means therefore that Israel accepted the Torah only so that no nation or tongue would prevail against them, as it is said,
  “That it might be well with them and their children after them.”
  He [Resh Lakish] said like the following Tanna, for it is taught: R. Yose said, The Israelites accepted the Torah only so that the Angel of Death would not rule over them, as it is said: “I said you are gods [i.e, immortals] and all of you children of the Most High, now that you have spoilt your deeds, you shall indeed die like mortals” (Psalms 82:6).
  But against R. Yose, too, [it may be argued] that the verse “that it may be well with them and their children forever,” there is prosperity, but no death. R. Yose could reply:  Since there is no death, there is nothing greater than this.
  Then how does the first Tanna explain the phrase: “You shall indeed die”? What may be meant here by dying? Poverty, for a Master has said: Four are regarded as dead and they are: the poor, the blind, the leprous, and the childless.
  The poor, as it is written, “For all the men are dead” (Exodus 4:19). Who are these men? Datan and Aviram. But were they then dead?  Rather they had lost their property.
  The blind, as it is said: “He has made me to dwell in darkness, as those that have been long dead” (Lamentations 3:6). The leprous, as it is said, “Let her not, I pray, be as one who is dead” (Numbers 12:12). The childless, as it is said, “Give me children, or else I die” (Genesis 30:1).
  Our Rabbis taught: “If you walk in my statutes” (Leviticus 26:3) the word if is nothing but an appeal. So too it says, “Would that my people would listen to Me…that Israel would walk in my ways . . . I should soon subdue their enemies” (Psalms 81:14); And it says, “Had you listened to my commandments: Then your peace would be like a river… your seed like the sand, their issue [as many as its grains]” (Isaiah 48:18).
  Our Rabbis taught: “May they always be of such a mind” (Deuteronomy 5:26). Moses said to Israel: You are an ungrateful people, the descendants of ungrateful people. When the Holy Blessed One said to you:  “May they always be of such a mind,” you should have said: “You give.”
  Instead they were ungrateful] as it is written, “We have come to loathe
  
  Daf 5b
  
  this miserable food” (Numbers 21:5). The descendants of ungrateful people, as it is written, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat” (Genesis 3:12). 
  Yet Moses indicated this to the Israelites only after forty years had passed, as it is said, “And I have led you forty years in the wilderness . . .  but the Lord has not given you a heart to know, and eyes to see and ears to hear, unto this day.” Rabbah said:  Learn from this that it takes forty years to learn the mind of one’s master.
  Yohanan said in the name of R. Bana’ah: What is that is written, “Blessed are you that plant beside all waters, that send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey” (Isaiah 32:20)? Blessed is Israel; for when they occupy themselves with Torah and acts of kindness their inclination is mastered by them, and they are not mastered by their inclination, as it is said, “Blessed are you that plant beside all waters.” By “planting” is meant doing deeds of righteousness, as it is said, “Plant to yourselves in righteousness, reap according to mercy” (Hosea 10:12). And by “water” is meant Torah, as it is said, “Oh you who are thirsty come to the water” (Isaiah 55:1).
  “That send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey”: The Tanna of the House of Eliyahu taught: When it comes to the study of Torah one should always make himself like an ox with a yoke and a donkey with a load.
  On the three days preceding their festivals it is forbidden to do any business transaction with them. Is such a long period necessary?
  Have we not learned: At four periods of the year one who sells cattle to another for slaughter must let him know if  its mother had been sold or if its young had been sold to be slain [the same day].
  And these are the dates: the eve of the last day of Sukkot, the eve of the first day of Pesach, the eve of Shavuot, and the Eve of Rosh Hashanah and, according to R. Yose the Galilean, also on the eve of Yom Kippur in the Galilee.
  In those cases where the animals were bought for eating, one day is enough, but here where they were bought for sacrifice, three days are needed. But are three days enough in the case of sacrifices? Have we not learned: The laws relating to Pesah [should be learned] for thirty days before Pesah; R. Shimon b. Gamaliel says two weeks.
  We, for whom there are many blemishes that disqualify [animals for sacrifice], even in the lids of the eye, require thirty days. They, who have laws regarding animals missing limbs, require only three days.
  As R. Elazar said: How do we know that [an animal] missing a limb is forbidden to Noahides [for use as a sacrifice]? As it is written, “Of every living thing of all flesh two of every kind” (Genesis 6:19). The Torah says.  ‘Bring such cattle whose principal limbs are living.
  But is not this phrase needed to exclude such animals that are trefa? The exclusion of the trefa is from the phrase, “to keep seed alive” (Genesis 7:3). This answer works well for the one who said that an animal which is trefa cannot bear any offspring;
  
  
  Daf 6a
  
  but according to the one who said that a trefa animal can bear offspring what can you say? The verse says, “with you” implying similar to you. But how can we tell that Noah himself was not a trefa?  Because it is written about him “perfect” (Genesis 6:9).
  Perhaps this means that he was perfect in his manners? It is also written about him that he was “righteous.”
  Perhaps he was “perfect” in his manners and “righteous” in his deeds? You should not think that Noah was a trefa; for if you thought that he was a trefa, would God have said, “sacrifice one like yourself” but do not sacrifice one whole?
  Now that we deduce this from the phrase “with you”, why do we need the phrase “to keep seed alive?” If it had just said, “with you” I might have thought that the purpose was just to keep him company, even if they be old or neutered, therefore the Torah wrote “seed.”
  The question was asked: Three days, them and the festivals, or perhaps them apart from the festivals?...
  Come and hear: R. Ishmael says: On the three preceding and three following [days] it is forbidden. Now if you should think “them and the festivals” does R. Ishmael reckon the day of the festival as one of the days preceding and one of the days following! 
  Since he taught “three preceding” he also taught “three following.”
  Come and hear that R. Tahlifa b. Avdimi said in the name of Shmuel: According to R. Ishmael, it is always forbidden [to transact business with idolaters because of] Sunday!   Now, if you thought that the festival is to be included, there would still remain Wednesday and Thursday which are permitted.
  According to R. Ishmael, there is no question that the period does not include the festivals.
  My question is only about the opinion of the rabbis.  Ravina said: Come and hear: These are the festivals of idolaters, Kalenda, Saturnalia and Kratesis. And R. Hanin b. Rava explained that Kalenda [lasts for] eight days after the [winter] equinox, and Saturnalia [is kept on the] eight days before the equinox; and your mnemonic [to remember which comes first and which comes last is], “You have hedged me behind and behind” (Psalms 139:5).
  Now if you thought them and their festivals, then there are [at times] ten days. The Tanna may regard the whole Kalenda as one day.
  Ashi said: Come and hear: [Our Mishnah says] “on the three days preceding the festivities of the idolaters.” Now if you thought it meant them and the festival itself, let it teach, “the Festivals of the idolaters are three days;”
  And if you should say that that which it taught “preceding the festival” are meant to exclude after the festival, let it teach, “The festivals of the idolaters, for three days preceding them…” Rather learn from this, these days, not including the festival. Learn from this.
  The question was asked: Is it [forbidden] because of it causes profit, or perhaps because “You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14)?    
  What is the practical difference [between the two explanations]?... If the idolater has an animal of his own. If you say [the prohibition is] because of profit, here, too, he causes him to profit. If however you say it is because of placing a stumbling block before the blind, here, then, he has [a sacrifice] of his own. 
  And if he has one of his own then the Jew does not transgress placing a stumbling block before the blind? Was it not taught that R. Nathan said:
  
  Daf 6b
  
  How do we know that one should not hold out a cup of wine to a Nazirite or a limb from a living animal to a Noachide? Scripture says, “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind.” Now here, if they did not give it to him he could take it himself, yet the one [who hands it] is guilty of placing a stumbling block before the blind.
  Here we are dealing with a case of two people on opposite sides of a river.... This is also implied by the fact that it teaches “one should not hold out” and it does not teach, “one should not give.” Learn from this.
  The question was asked: What if one did transact business? R. Yohanan says: [The proceeds of] the transaction are forbidden. Shimon b. Lakish says [the proceeds of] the transaction are permitted. Yohanan raised the following difficulty on Resh Lakish: As to the festivals of idolaters, if one transacts any business [the proceeds] are forbidden. Does this not refer to [the period] preceding the festivals? No, [it refers to] the festival exclusively.
  There are those who say that R. Shimon b. Lakish raised a difficulty against R. Yohanan: As to the festivals of idolaters, if one transacts any business [the proceeds] are forbidden. During their festivals it is [forbidden], but before their festival it is not?   No, the tanna refers to both as “their festivals.”
  It was taught in a baraita in accordance with Resh Lakish:... When they said it was prohibited to engage in business with them [before their festivals] this applies only to unperishable items but not to perishable items; and even in the case of unperishable items, if the transaction is made, [the proceeds] are permitted. Zevid taught a baraita from the house of R. Oshaia: An item that is perishable may be sold to them, but may not be bought from them.
  A certain min sent a Caesarean denar to R. Judah Nesi’a on his festival day. Resh Lakish was sitting before him. He said: “What shall I do? If I accept it, he will go and praise [the idols for it]; if I do not accept it, he will have enmity with me.” ‘ Resh Lakish answered: “Take it and throw it into a well in his presence.” He said back: “But this will cause even greater enmity.” “I meant you should do it by sleight of hand.”
  To lend articles to them or borrow any from them. It makes sense to prohibit lending to them, for this benefits them; but borrowing from them deprives them. Abaye said: We forbid borrowing from them lest they come to lend to them. But Rava said: It is all on account of their going to offer thanks.
  To lend money to them or borrow money from them. It makes sense to prohibit lending to them, for this benefits them; but borrowing from them deprives them. Abaye said: We forbid the borrowing from them lest they come to lend to them. But Rava said: It is all on account of their going to offer thanks.
  To repay a debt, or receive repayment from them. It makes sense to prohibit repaying a debt to them, for this benefits them; but to reclaim a debt from them deprives them. Abaye said: We forbid reclaiming from them lest they come to repay them. But Rava said: It is all on account of their going to offer thanks.
  And all [the instances in the Mishnah] are necessary; for if it mentioned only transacting business with them, I might have said [it is forbidden] because it profits them and they will go and thank [their god], but to borrow from them, which deprives them, would be permitted.
  If [on the other hand] it had taught borrowing articles from them, I might have thought it is because the importance that he attaches to it, and he would go and offer thanksgiving for it, but borrowing money from him causes anxiety, as he might say, “My money may not be returned again.”
  And if it had taught the case of lending money [I might have thought this is prohibited] because he might say, “I can enforce payment,” and now he would go and offer thanksgiving, but to recover from them money which will never return to the lender we might regard this as painful to him, and he would not go offer thanks for it. Hence all the instances are necessary.
  Judah says: we should receive repayment from them… Does R. Judah not hold that though it is depressing at the time they are glad of it subsequently?
  Is it not taught: R. Judah says: A woman must not smear lime on her face on the intermediate days of the festival because it disfigures her. R, Judah, however, admits that if the lime can still be scraped off during the festival, it may be applied on the festival for though she is troubled by it for the while, it will eventually please her.
  Nahman b. Yitzchak said: Leave aside the laws relating to [work permitted on] the intermediate days of the festival: they all cause trouble now, and are pleasant later. Ravina said: To an idolater, the matter of repayment is always troubling.
  Our mishnah does not accord with [the opinion of] R. Joshua b. Korha. For it is taught: R. Joshua b. Korha says: One may not recover a loan made through a document, but one may collect a loan made by word of mouth, since this is as if he is rescuing it from their hands.
  Joseph was sitting behind R. Abba while R. Abba was sitting in front of R. Huna who, as he was sitting stated: [In one instance] the halakhah follows R. Joshua b. Korha and [in another] the halakhah follows R. Judah.
  The halakhah follows R. Joshua b. Korha in the one about which we have just spoken. According to R. Judah: This refers to what we learned:  If one gives wool to a dyer to be dyed red and he dyed it black, or to be dyed black and he dyed it red:
  
  Daf 7a
  
  Meir says: The dyer should refund to the owner the value of his wool. Judah says: If the increase in value [through the dyeing] exceeds the costs, the owner may pay the costs, or if the costs exceed the increased value, he may pay the increase in value.
  Joseph turned his face away from R. Abba [and said]: It made sense [to state] that the halakhah is according to R. Joshua b. Karha for we might have said that where an individual disagrees with a majority, the halakhah is according to the majority, so he teaches us that here the halakhah is according to the individual.
  But why state that the law is according to R. Judah? It is obvious that where differing opinions [are quoted] and then [one of these] is quoted anonymously, the law is according to the anonymous opinion. The differing opinions are quoted in Bava Kamma, and the anonymous opinion is in Bava Metzia, where it is taught:
  The party which changes [an agreement] has the lesser right, and whoever retracts has the lesser right.
  And as to R. Huna?  [His statement is necessary] because there may be no order to the Mishnah, so that it could be said that the anonymous statement was quoted earlier and the differing opinions later. But if that were so, every case of differing opinions followed by an anonymous one, we could say there is no order to the Mishnah!
  R. Huna [could reply]: When we do not say that there is no order to the Mishnah, that is within one tractate, but in two tractates we do say there is no order. And as to R. Joseph? He holds that all of Nezikin is one tractate;
  Or, if you want, you can say, because this rule was taught among legal and fixed decisions, thus: “The party which changes [an agreement] has the lesser right, and whoever retracts has the lesser right.”
  Our rabbis taught: One should not say to another [on Shabbat]: “Do you want to work with me this evening?” R. Joshua b. Korha says: One may say to another, “Do you want to work with me this evening.” Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: The halakhah is according to R. Joshua b. Korha.
  Our rabbis taught: If one consulted a sage who declared [a person or article] impure, he should not consult another sage who might declare it as pure.
  If [he consulted] one sage and he declared it forbidden, one should not consult another sage who might declare it permitted. If there were two sages, and one declares it impure and the other pure, one forbids and the other permits, then if one of them is superior to the other in learning and in number of years, follow his opinion. And if not, follow the one holding the stricter view. Joshua b. Korah says: In laws of the Torah follow the stricter view, in those of the scribes follow the more lenient view. Joseph said: The halakhah is according to R. Joshua b. Korha.
  Our rabbis taught: And all of these, if they reverted [to their usual practices] they are never accepted, the words of R. Meir. Judah says: If they reverted in secret matters, they are not accepted, but if in things done in public they are accepted. There are those who say if they observed even secret things, they are accepted, but if only things done
  
  Daf 7b
  
  in public they are not accepted. Shimon and R. Joshua b. Korha say:  Whether in the one case or in the other they should be accepted, for it is said,  “Return, O backsliding children” (Jeremiah 3:14). Yitzchak, a man of Kefar Acco, in the name of R. Yohanan: The halakhah is according to the latter pair.
  Rabbi Ishmael says on the three preceding days and the three following days it is forbidden;  But the Sages say: before their festivities it is forbidden, but after their festivities it is permitted.
  GEMARA. R. Tahlifa b. Abdimi said in the name of Shmuel: According to R. Ishmael it is always be forbidden [because of] Sunday. 
  But the sages say, before their festivities it is forbidden, but after their festivities it is permitted. Is not [the opinion of] the sages identical with that of the first tanna? Them without their festivals themselves is the point on which they differ. The first tanna holds that the period is exclusive of the festival, but the latter rabbis hold that it includes the festivals.
  Or if you want you can say  that they differ on the question of a case where he did engage in business, the first tanna holds that [the proceeds of] such transactions are permissible, while our later rabbis hold that [the proceeds of] these transactions are forbidden.
  If you want you can say that they disagree over Shmuel. For Shmuel said: In the Diaspora the prohibition is limited to their festival day only. The first tanna holds by Shmuel’s ruling, while our later rabbis do not hold like Shmuel.
  If you want you may say that they disagree over the ruling of Nahum the Mede. For it is taught: Nahum the Mede says: The prohibition applies to only one day before their festivals. The first tanna does not accept the ruling of Nahum the Mede, and our latter rabbis do agree with Nahum the Mede’s ruling.
  To revert to [the above text]: Nahum the Mede says: The prohibition applies to only one day before their festivals. They said to him: Let this matter be suppressed and left unsaid. But are there not our latter rabbis who hold the same opinion?   Our latter Rabbis may be none other than  Nahum the Mede.
  Another [baraita] taught: Nahum the Mede says: One may sell [to idolaters] an old male horse in war time. They said to him: Let this matter be suppressed and left unsaid.
  But is there not Ben Batera who holds the same opinion; for we learned: Ben Batera permits [the sale of] a horse? Ben Batera does not distinguish between the sale of horses and mares, whereas Nahum the Mede does make that distinction, and thus holds like the rabbis;  and according to the rabbis: This matter ought to be suppressed and left unsaid.
  It is [further] taught: Nahum the Mede says: The dill plant is subject to tithe whether [in its state of] seeds, or vegetables, or pods. They said to him: Let this matter be suppressed and left unsaid. But is there not R. Eliezer who holds the same opinion; for we learned: R. Eliezer said: The dill plant is subject to tithe whether in its state of seeds, or vegetable, or pods?  That refers to the garden variety.
  Aha b. Minyomi said to Abaye: A great man has come from our place, but whatever he says he is told that it ought to be suppressed and left unsaid! He replied: There is one instance in which we do follow his ruling, as it is taught: Nahum the Mede says: One should ask for one’s own needs in the blessing [concluding with] “Who hears prayer.”
  He said: This is an exception, for it is hanging on strong ropes.
  As it is taught: R. Eliezer says: One should first ask for one’s own needs and then pray, as it is said; “A prayer for the afflicted when he is faint, and [then] pours forth his meditation before the Lord” (Psalms 102:1) By “meditation,” only prayer is meant, as it is said, “And Isaac went out to meditate in the field” (Genesis 24:63).
  Joshua says: One should first pray and then ask for one’s own needs, as it is said, “I pour out my meditation before Him [then] I declare my [own] affliction before Him” (Psalms 142:3).
  Now, as to R. Eliezer, is it not written, “I pour out my meditation” etc.! This is what it means, “I pour out my meditation before Him after I have already declared my [own] affliction.” And as to R. Joshua, is it not written, “A prayer for the afflicted when he is faint” etc.! This is what it means: “When should there be prayer for the afflicted? After he had poured forth his meditation before the Lord.”
  Since the verses do not prove one master’s statement more than the other, what are they really arguing about?
  It as was expounded by R. Simlai; for R. Simlai gave the following exposition: One should always recount the praises of God and then pray. From where do we learn this? From Moshe Rabbenu, as it is written: “O Lord God, You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness,” and afterwards it is written “Let me go over and see the good land” (Deuteronomy 3:24). 
  
  Daf 8a
  
  R. Joshua holds that we learn from [the example of] Moses, while R. Eliezer says we should not learn from the example of Moses; Moses is different for he was a great man. The sages say [the decision is] neither according to the one nor according to the other. Rather one should pray for his personal needs at the blessing [concluding with], “Who hears prayer.”
  Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The halakhah is that one should pray for his personal needs at the blessing [concluding with], “Who hears prayer.” Judah the son of Shmuel b. Shilat said in the name of Rav: Even though it was said one should pray for his personal needs at the blessing [concluding with], “Who hears prayer,” nevertheless, if he is wants to say at the of any of the blessing an addition similar to that blessing, he may do so.
  Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Rav: Even though they said one should pray for his personal needs at the blessing [concluding with], “Who hears prayer,” if [for example] one has a sick person at home, he may say [his supplication] at the blessing for the Sick; or if he is in need of sustenance, he may say [his supplication] at the blessing for [the prosperity] of years.
  Joshua b. Levi said: Even though they said one should pray for his personal needs at the blessing [concluding with], “Who hears prayer,” if one wishes to say them after his prayer, even to the extent of the Yom Kippur Service, he may do so.
  These are the festivities of the idolaters: <i>Kalenda</i>, <i>Saturnalia</i>, <i>Kratesis</i>, the anniversary of accession to the throne and birthdays and anniversaries of deaths, according to Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: a death at which burning [of articles of the dead] takes place is attended by idolatry, but where there is not such burning there is no idolatry. But the day of shaving ones beard and lock of hair, or the day of landing after a sea voyage, or the day of release from prison, or if an idolater holds a banquet for his son — the prohibition only applies to that day and that particular person.
  GEMARA. R. Hanan b. Rava said: Kalenda is kept on the eight days following the [winter] equinox. Saturnalia on the eight days preceding the equinox. As a mnemonic take the verse, “You hedge me behind and before” (Psalms 139:5).
  Our rabbis taught: When the first Adam saw the day getting gradually shorter, he said, “Woe is me, perhaps because I have sinned, the world around me is being darkened and returning to its state of chaos and confusion. This then is the death to which I have been sentenced from Heaven!” So he began keeping an eight days fast.
  When he saw the winter equinox and noted the day getting increasingly longer, he said, “This is the way of the world,” and he went out and made an eight day festival. In the following year he appointed both as festivals. He established them for the sake of Heaven, but they established them for the sake of idolatry.
  This makes sense according to the one who holds that the world was created in Tishrei, for he had seen short days, but he had not yet seen longer days; but according to the one who holds that the world was created in Nisan, Adam must have seen the long days as well as the short ones!  Still, he had not yet seen the very short days.
  Our rabbis taught: On the day that the world was created, the first Adam, when he saw the setting of the sun he said, “Woe is me, it is because I have sinned that the world around me is becoming dark; the universe will now become again void and without form. This then is the death to which I have been sentenced from Heaven!” So he sat up all night fasting and weeping and Eve was weeping opposite him. When however dawn broke, he said, “This is the way of the world!” He then arose and offered up a bull whose horns were developed before its hooves, as it is said, “And it [my thanksgiving] shall please the Lord better than a bull that is horned and has hooves” (Psalms 69:32).
  Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The bull which Adam offered had only one horn in its forehead, as the verse says, “And it shall please the Lord better than a bull that is horned and hooves.” But does not “horned’ imply two horns? R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: “Horned” is here spelt [defectively].
  Matana asked: When Rome makes a Kalends [festival] and all of the towns in its vicinity are subject to it, is it forbidden or permitted [to transact business etc.] in those towns? Joshua b. Levi said: On the Kalends the prohibition applies to all. Yohanan said: The prohibition applies only to those who celebrate it.
  It is taught in a baraita in accordance with R. Yohanan: Even though they said that Rome made Kalends and all of the towns in its vicinity are subjected to it, the actual prohibition applies only to those who celebrate it.  
  As to Saturnalia, Kratesis, and the anniversary of accession to the throne, or the day on which a king is proclaimed, the prohibition applies to the period preceding them, but thereafter it is permitted. If an idolater gives a banquet for his son the prohibition is limited to that day and that man.
  Ashi said: We have also taught the same thing: for it teaches, the day of shaving one’s beard or lock of hair, or the day of landing after a sea voyage, or the day of release from prison — the prohibition only applies to that day and that particular person.
  Now, it makes sense to say “that day” to exclude the preceding and following [days], but what “that man” meant to exclude,  unless it excludes those subjected to him? Learn from this.
  It was taught: R. Ishmael says: Israelites who reside outside of Israel are idol worshippers in purity. How so? An idolater gives a banquet for his son and invites all the Jews in his town. Even though they eat of their own and drink of their own and their own attendant waits on them, Scripture treats them as if they had eaten of the sacrifices to dead idols, as it is said, “And he will call you and you will eat of his sacrifice” (Exodus 34:15).
  But why not say that this is not true till he actually eats? Rava said: If that were so, the verse would have only said, “And you shall eat of his sacrifice”; what does it mean, “And he will call you”? From the time he calls you. Hence
  
  Daf 8b
  
  during the entire thirty days [following a marriage celebration] whether he said to him that he was inviting him because of the banquet or not it is forbidden. From that time onward, if he invited him because of the marriage, it is forbidden, but if not, it is permitted.
  And if he said that the invitation is because of the marriage, until when is it prohibited? Papa said: For twelve months. And from the outset when is it prohibited? Papa said in the name of Rava: From the time when the barley is placed in the tub.
  And after twelve months is it permitted? But did not R. Yitzchak the son of R. Mesharsheya, come to the house of a certain idolater more than a year after a marriage, and hear that they were thanking their gods and he refused to eat! Yitzchak the son of R. Mesharsheya is different, for he is an important man.
  Kratesis etc. What is Kratesis? Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The day on which Rome seized the kingship.  But was it not taught Kratesis and the day on which Rome seized the kingship? Joseph said: Rome seized the kingship twice; once in the days of Cleopatra, the queen [of Egypt] and in the days of the Greeks.
  For when R. Dimi came he said: The Romans fought 32 battles against the Greeks and could not prevail against them until the Romans made an alliance with the Israelites. And these were the conditions made with them:  If the kings are [chosen] from among us, the princes should be chosen from yours, and if the kings are chosen from among you, the princes shall come from us.
  Then the Romans sent to the Greeks as follows: Up until now we have been engaging in battle, now let us argue out in logic: A pearl and a precious stone which shall form a setting for which? They sent the reply: The pearl for the precious stone.
  And a precious stone and an onyx, which shall form a setting to the other? ‘ The precious stone to the onyx. And an onyx and a Sefer Torah which shall serve as the setting for the other? The onyx for the Sefer Torah.
  The Romans then sent word: In that case, the Sefer Torah is in our possession, for Israel is with us. Thereupon the Greeks gave in. For twenty-six years the Romans kept faith with Israel, thereafter they subdued them.
  What did they expound at the outset and what did they expound at the end? At the outset they expounded: “Let us start on our journey and I will proceed at your pace” (Genesis 33:12). And at the end they expounded: “Let my lord now pass before his servant” (Genesis 33. 14).
  That Rome kept faith with Israel for twenty six years, from where do we know this? [From the following:]  For R. Kahana said: When R. Yishmael b. Yose was ill they sent word to him: Rabbi, tell us two or three things which you told us in your father’s name.
  He said to them: One hundred and eighty years before the Temple was destroyed evil Rome cast her rule over Israel; eighty years before the destruction of the Temple they (the rabbis) decreed impurity on the lands of the nations and on glass vessels. Forty years before the Temple was destroyed the Sanhedrin was exiled from [the Temple] and dwelled in Hanut.
  What is the legal significance of this? Yitzchak b. Avdimi said: It indicates that [from that time onward] they did not adjudicate the laws of fines. “The laws of fines”! Do you really think so? Has not Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: That man R. Judah b. Baba should be remembered for good, for were it not for him the laws of fines would have been forgotten in Israel? “Forgotten”! Let them study them?
  Rather, the laws of fines would have been abolished; for the wicked Kingdom of Rome decreed that he who ordains a rabbi shall be put to death, and he who is ordained shall be put to death, the town in which an ordination takes place shall be destroyed and the border in which the ordination is held shall be laid waste.
  What did R. Judah b. Baba do? He went and sat down between two mountains and between two large towns between two borders, namely, between Usha and Shefar’am and there he ordained five elders: R. Meir, R. Judah [b. Il’ai]. R. Yose, R. Shimon and R. Eleazar b. Shammua (R. Avia adds also R. Nehemiah).
  Once their enemies saw them, he said to them, “Flee, my children!” They said to him, “Rabbi, what about you?” He replied, “I lie before them as a stone that is not turned.” They say that the Romans did not move from there until they drove three hundred iron spears into his body and made his corpse like a sieve.
  Nahman b. Yitzchak said: Do not say “cases of fines” but rather that they did not adjudicate capital cases.
  Why? Because when the Sanhedrin saw that murderers were so prevalent that they could not be properly judged, they said: Rather let us be exiled from place to place than pronounce them guilty [of capital offences] for it is written
  “And you shall do according to the sentence that they tell you, from that place” (Deuteronomy 17:10). This indicates that the place matters.
  One hundred and eighty years prior to the destruction (Rome conquered Israel). But was it not earlier? For R. Yose b. Rabbi taught:
  
  Daf 9a
  
  Persian rule lasted thirty-four years after the building of the Temple, Greece ruled one hundred eighty years during the existence of the Temple, the Hasmonean rule lasted one hundred three years during existence of the Temple, the House of Herod ruled one hundred three years. From this point and onward, one should go on counting the years from the Destruction of the Temple.
  Hence we see that it was two hundred six years, yet you say one hundred eighty years! Rather, for twenty six years the Romans kept faith with Israel and did not enslave them, and therefore those years are not reckoned in the period during which Rome cast her dominion over Israel.
  Papa said: If a Tanna is uncertain about the details [of what exact year it is] let him ask a notary what year it is according to his reckoning and add twenty to it and he will find his calculation. As a mnemonic sign take the verse, “Thus I have been twenty years in Your house” (Genesis 31:41).
  If on the other hand a notary is uncertain, let him ask a Tanna what the year is according to his reckoning and deduct from it twenty years and he will find his calculation. As a mnemonic take, “The Scribe is reducing the Tanna is adding.”
  The Tanna of the house of Eliyyahu taught:  The world is to exist six thousand years; the first two thousand years were chaos; the next two thousand years are the period of the Torah, and the following two thousand years are the period of the Messiah. Through our many sins a number of these have already passed [and the Messiah is not yet].
  From when are the two thousand years of the Torah to be reckoned? If we say from the giving of the Torah at Sinai it is not so long, for if you reckon the years [from creation to the giving of the Torah] you will find that they comprise two thousand and a part of the third thousand; 
  The period is therefore to be reckoned from the time [when Abraham and Sarah] “made souls in Haran” (Genesis 12:5) for we have learned that Abraham was at that time fifty-two years old. 
  How much less than [2000 years is the calculation]? Four hundred and forty-eight years! When you reckon it you will find that from the time when they had “made souls in Haran” till the giving of the Torah there are four hundred and forty-eight years.
  Papa said: If the Tanna does not know the exact number of years [of the period of the Messiah] that have passed let him ask a scribe what year he uses in his writings, and on adding forty-eight to it he will find his solution. And your mnemonic is, 
  
  
  Daf 9b
  
  “Forty-eight cities” (Numbers 35:7). If, on the other hand, the scribe is uncertain as to his number, let him ask the Tanna how many he counts and deduct therefrom forty-eight and he will find his solution. As a mnemonic, take the phrase, “The Scribe is sparing, the Tanna is redundant.”
  Huna the son of R. Joshua said: If one does not know what the year is in the sabbatical cycle of seven years he is in, let him add one year [to the years since the Destruction of the Temple] and let him reckon the hundreds as Jubilee Cycles and convert the remainder into sabbatical Cycles [of seven years each]
  and take two out of every hundred and add it to the years and then calculate the years of the cycle and he will know they year in the current sabbatical cycle. As a mnemonic [for adding two years for every century, think of the verse]. “For these two years has the famine been in the land” (Genesis 46:5).
  Hanina said: From the year four hundred after the destruction and onwards, if one says unto you “Buy a field that is worth one thousand denarii for one denar,” do not buy it. In a baraita it was taught: From the year four thousand two hundred and thirty-one of the creation of the world onward, if one says to you, “Buy a a field that is worth a thousand denarii for one denar,” do not buy it. What difference is there between these two [given periods]?There is a difference of three years between them, for the baraita is three years longer.
  There was a document which was dated six years ahead.
  
  Daf 10a
  
  six years ahead. The rabbis who were sitting before Rava thought that it should be pronounced a post-dated document. Let us delay it until it’s time arrives and not seize property based on it. Nahman said: This document must have been written by a scribe who was very particular and took into account the six years in which they (the Greeks) ruled in Elam which we do not reckon. The dating is correct, 
  for we have learned: Rabbi Yose said, Six years the Greeks reigned in Elam and after that their dominion extended universally.
  Aha b. Jacob asked the following difficulty: How do we know that we count according to the rule of the Greeks? Perhaps we count from the Exodus from Egypt, omitting the first thousand years and giving the years of the next thousand, and the document is really post-dated! Nahman said: In the Diaspora they count only according to the rule of the Greeks.
  He [R. Aha b. Jacob] thought that  R. Nahman wanted to just turn him away. He went and studied it thoroughly and found that it is indeed taught [in a baraita]: In the Diaspora they count only according to the rule of the Greeks.
  Ravina said: Our Mishnah also proves this, for we taught, “The first of Nisan is New Year for reckoning [the reign of] kings and for festivals,” and we said, “The reign of kings,” what is the practical significance of this law? R. Hisda replied: [It affects the dating] of documents. 
  And the same mishnah taught, the first of Tishrei is New Year for [counting] years and sabbatical cycles and we said, “for years,” what is the practical significance of this law?” And R. Hisda [again] replied: [It affects the dating of] documents.  The dating documents contradicts the other dating of documents?
  And we resolved this by saying: The one refers to Jewish kings, the other to non-Jewish kings. For non-Jewish kings we count from Tishrei, and for Jewish kings from Nisan.
  Now, in the present time we count the years from Tishri; were we then to say that we count our from the Exodus from Egypt we would need to count from.  Rather learn from this that we count from the reign of the Greek kings. Learn from this.
  The day of the “genosia” of their kings etc. What is “the day of the genosia of their kings”? Rav Judah said: It is the day on which the idolaters coronate their king. But has it not been taught [elsewhere] “The day of genosia and the day they coronate their king.”  This is not a difficulty; the one refers to the king’s own ascension, the other to that of his son.
  But do [the Romans] ever appoint a king’s son as king? Did not R. Joseph teach: “Behold I made you small among the nations” (Obadiah 1:2)— in that they do not appoint a king’s son a king. “You are greatly despised,” for they do not possess a script or tongue? What then does “the day of genosia” mean? [The King’s] birthday.
  But we learn [elsewhere] “The day of genosia and the birthday.” That, too, is no contradiction. the one refers to the king’s own birthday, the other to that of his son.
  But we have also the wording: “The king’s Genosia and his son’s Genosia, his own birthday and his son’s birthday”! What then does “the day of genosia” mean? Then [as said previously] “Genosia means indeed the day they corrronated the kind.” But there is no difficulty, the one applies to his own accession, the other to that of his son;
  and as to your question about their not appointing a king’s son as king, if the king requested it, they would appoint him, such as Severus son of Antoninus who did rule.
  Antoninus once said to Rabbi: “I want my son Severus to reign in my place and that Tiberias should be declared a Colony.  Were I to ask one of these things, they will grant it, but both they will not grant.” [Rabbi] brought a man and placed him on the shoulders of another, and he gave the man on top a dove and said to the one on the bottom to set the dove free. The Emperor said, “Learn from this that this is what he is saying to me. You should ask them to appoint my son Severus to reign in my place, and tell Severus to make Tiberias a Colony.”
   [On another occasion] Antoninus mentioned to him that some prominent Romans were annoying him.  Rabbi took him into the garden. Every day picked a radish from the garden. [The Emperor to himself] this is what he is saying to me: Kill them one at a time, but do not attack all of them at once.
  
  Daf 10b
  
  But let him speak to him explicitly! He thought  prominent Romans might hear and persecute him. Why then did he not say it in a whisper! Because it is written: “For a bird of the air shall carry the voice” (Ecclesiastes 10:20).
  He [Antoninus] had a daughter named Gira who committed a sin. So he sent Rabbi an herb, and Rabbi in return sent him coriander. The Emperor then sent some leeks and Rabbi sent lettuce in return.
  Every day Antoninus sent Rabbi gold-dust in a leather bag, with wheat at the top, saying [to his servants]:  “Carry the wheat to Rabbi!” Rabbi sent back to him, “I do not need it, I have enough of my own.” He answered, “Leave it then to those who will come after you, so that they might give it to those who will come after me, for your descendants and those who will follow them will hand it over to them.”
  Antoninus had a cave which led from his house to the house of Rabbi. Every time [he visited Rabbi] he brought two slaves. He killed one at the door of Rabbi’s house and the other [who had been left behind] was killed at the door of his own house. Antoninus said to Rabbi: “When I come let no one be found with you.”
  One day he found R. Hanina b. Hama sitting there, so he said: “Did I not tell you that when I come let no one be found with you?” And Rabbi replied,  “This is not an [ordinary] human being.” Antoninus said,  “Let him tell that servant who is sleeping outside the door to rise and come in.”
  Haninah b. Hama went out but found that the man had been killed. He said to himself, what should I do? If I go and say that the man is dead, one should not bring a bad report. If I leave him and walk away, that would be slighting the king. So he prayed for mercy for the man and he was restored to life. He then sent him in. Antoninus said, “I know that the least one among you can bring the dead to life, still no one should be here when I come.”
  Every day [he came] he would attend on Rabbi. He would give him food and drink. When Rabbi wanted to get on his bed Antoninus crouched in front of the bed saying,  “Step on me to get into your bed.” Rabbi said, “It is not proper to treat a king so cheaply.” Antoninus responded: “Would that I would serve as a mattress for you in the world to come.
  Once he asked him, “Will I enter the world to come?” He said back,  “Yes.” Antoninus replied, “But is it not written, ‘There will be no remnant to the house of Esau?’ (Obadiah 1:18).   “That applies only to those who do the deeds of Esau”
  It was also taught in a baraita: “There will be no remnant to the house of Esau.” This might have been taken to apply to all,  therefore Scripture says, “To the house of Esau,” those who do the deeds of Esau.
  Antonius said back, Is it not also written: “There [in the nether world] is Edom, her kings, and all her princes” (Ezekiel 32:29).   Rabbi explained, “Her kings,” but not all her kings; “All her princes,” but not all her officers.
  This was also taught in a baraita:  “Her kings,” but not all her kings; “All her princes,” but not all her officers. “Her kings,” but not all her kings — excludes Antoninus the son of Severus; “All her princes,” but not all her officers— excludes Keti’ah bar Shalom.
  What about this Keti’ah b. Shalom? There was once a Caesar who hated the Jews. One day he said to the prominent members of the government, “Someone who has a wart on his foot, should he cut it away and live [in comfort] or leave it on and suffer discomfort?” They replied: He should cut it away and live in comfort.”
  Then Keti’ah b. Shalom spoke to them: First, you cannot do away with all of them, for it is written, “For I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven” (Zechariah 2:10). Now, what does this verse mean? If it means that [Israel] was to be scattered to the four corners of the world, then instead of saying, “as the four winds,” the verse would have said, to the four winds? Rather just as the world cannot exist without winds, so the world cannot exist without Israel. And what is more, your kingdom will be called a “crippled kingdom.”
  The king replied: “You have spoken very well; however, he who contradicts the king is to be cast into a circular furnace.” When they were taking him away, a Roman matron said to him: “Pity the ship that sails without paying the tax. ”he fell on the head of his foreskin and cut it off and said, “You have paid the tax. Pass through.” As he was being cast [into the furnace] he said, “All my possessions [are to go to] R. Akiva and his colleagues.” Akiva went out and interpreted, “And it shall be to Aaron and his sons”–one half is Aaron’s and one half his sons’.
  A bat-kol then exclaimed: “Keti’ah b. Shalom is destined for [eternal] life in the world to come!” Rabbi wept, saying: “Some acquire eternity in a single hour, others acquire it after many years!”
  Antoninus attended on Rabbi. Artaban attended on Rav. When Antoninus died, Rabbi exclaimed: The bond has been undone. When Artaban died, Rab exclaimed: 
  
  Daf 11a
  
  The bond has been undone.
  Onkelos the son of Kalonymus converted. The Emperor sent a regiment of Roman [soldiers] after him, but he enticed them by [citing] verses and they converted to Judaism. The Emperor sent another Roman regiment after him. He said to them, “Do not say anything to him.”
  As they were about to take him away with them, he said to them, “Let me tell you just an ordinary thing: A guard carries a light in front of the torch bearer, the torch bearer in front of the leader, the leader in front of the governor, the governor in front of the chief officer; but does the chief officer carry the light in front of the people [that follow]?” They replied, “No.” He said: “The Holy One, blessed be He, does carry the light before Israel, as it is written, “And the Lord went before them . . . in a pillar of fire to give them light” (Exodus 13:21). They converted.
  Again he sent another regiment after him. He said,  “Do not say anything at all to him.”   When they took hold of him and started going, he saw the mezuzah which was fixed on the door-frame and he placed his hand on it and said to them, “Now what is this?” They said to him, “You tell us then.”
  He said, “In the normal way of the world, the mortal king dwells inside, and his servants keep guard on him without. But [in the case of] the Holy One, blessed be He, it is His servants who dwell within while He keeps guard on them from without; as it is said:... ‘The Lord shall guard you going out and your coming in from this time forth and for evermore.’” They converted. He sent no more after him.
  “And the Lord said to her: Two nations [goyim] are in you womb” (Genesis 25:23).  Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: Do not read goyim  [nations] but ge’im [lords].  This refers to Antoninus and Rabbi  from whose table neither lettuce, nor radish nor cucumber was ever absent either in summer or winter; and, as a master has said: Radish helps the food to dissolve, lettuce helps the food to be digested, cucumber makes the intestines expand.
  But was it not taught in the house of R. Ishmael: Why are cucumbers are called “kishuin”? Because they are as hard to a person’s body as swords? There is no contradiction here: That was said of large ones, but this is said to small ones.
  The birthday and anniversaries of king’s deaths [the words of R. Meir]. This implies that R. Meir holds that at every death, whether there is burning of articles or there is no burning, idol-worship takes place. Consequently, the burning of articles is not an [idolatrous] ritual practice. From which it can be inferred that the rabbis hold that burning [of articles at a funeral] is an [idolatrous] ritual practice.
  But has it not been taught, The burning of articles at a king’s [funeral] is permitted and it is not “the way of the Amorites”? ow if it is an idolatrous practice how could such burning be allowed?... Is it not written, “And in their statutes you shall not walk” (Leviticus 18:3)?  
  Rather, all agree that burning is not an idolatrous practice. Rather it is a sign of the importance [of the deceased]. And this is what they disagree about: R. Meir holds that at every death, whether burning of articles takes place or does not take place there is idol-worship; but the rabbis hold that a death at which burning takes place is regarded as important and they worship there, but one at which no burning takes place is unimportant and they do not worship there.
  [To return to] the main text: “The burning of articles at a king’s [funeral] is permitted and it is not prohibited as ,the ways of the Amorites,’ as it is said, ‘You shall die in peace and as they burned for your fathers, the earlier kings that came before you, so shall they will burn for you’ (Jeremiah 34:5).” And just as it is permitted to burn at the [funerals] of kings so it is permitted to burn in the case of princes.
  What do they burn in the case of kings? Their beds and the things that they used. And when R. Gamaliel the elder died, Onkelos the proselyte burned after him seventy Tyrian manehs.  But did you not say “what do they burn in the case of kings? Their beds and the things that they used?”  Say “to the value of seventy Tyrian manehs.”
  But nothing else may be burned? Has it not been taught: It is permitted to mutilate [an animal] at royal funerals and this is not prohibited as the “ways of the Amorites”!   Papa said [that refers to]  the horse on which he rode.
  And is it forbidden to mutilate clean animals?  Yet it has been taught: Mutilation which renders the animal trefa is forbidden, but such as does not render it trefa is permitted; what kind of mutilation does not render it trefa?
  
  Daf 11b
  
  Trimming the tendons of its hoofs from the ankle downward!  Papa explained that this refers to a calf [employed for] drawing the royal coach.
  The day of shaving the beard, etc. The question was asked: How was this taught? The day of shaving of one’s beard when the lock of hair is left, or the shaving of the beard when the lock of hair was removed? Come and hear: Both are taught: The day of shaving one’s beard when one’s lock of hair is left; The day of shaving one’s hair and of removing one’s lock of hair.
  Rav Judah in the name of Shmuel: They have yet another festival in Rome [which occurs] once every seventy years. They bring a healthy man and ride him on a lame man. They dress him with the clothes of the first Adam, they place on his head the scalp of R. Ishmael, and on his neck they hang pieces of fine gold weighing four zuzim. They pave the markets with onyx stones, and they proclaim:
  “The reckoning of the ruler is wrong. The brother of our lord, the impostor! Let him who will see it see it; he who will not see it now will never see it. How does treason benefit the traitor or deceit the deceiver!” And they conclude: “Woe unto the one when the other will arise.”  
  Ashi said: Their own mouths caused them to stumble. Had they said “Our lord’s brother the impostor,” it would have been as they said, but when they say, “The brother of our lord, the impostor,” it may be taken to mean that it is their lord himself who is the impostor.
  And our Tanna, why does he not include this [festival in the Mishnah?] Those that are every year, he includes, those that are not every year, he does not include.
  Which are the Persian ones? — Mutardi, Turyaskai, Muharnekai, Muharin. These then are those of the Romans and Persians, which are the Babylonian ones? — Muharnekai, Aknayata, Bahnani and the tenth of Adar.
  Hanan b. Hisda said in the name of Rav (and some say R. Hanan b. Rava said in the name of Rav): There are five fixed temples of idol-worship and they are: Bet Bel in Bavel, Bet Nevo in Kursi, Tar’ata which is in Mapug, Zerifa which is in Ashkelon, and Nishtra which is in Arabia. When R. Dimi came he said: They added  the fair [with the idol] in En-Beki and the Nidbakah of Akko [some call it  Nitbara of Akko]. Dimi of Nehardea taught these in the reversed order: The market place of Akko, the Nidbakah of En-Beki.
  Hanan son of R. Hisda said to R. Hisda: What does it mean that they are fixed? He answered him: This is how your mother’s father explained it: They are fixed permanently; regularly, all the year round they worship there.
  Shmuel said: In the Diaspora it is only forbidden [to transact business with idolaters] on the actual festival days alone.   And is it forbidden even on the actual days of the festivals. Did not Rav Judah declare it permissible to R. Bruna to buy wine and to R. Giddal to buy wheat on the Festival of the Merchants?   The Festival of the Merchants is different, as it is not a fixed one. 
  When an idolatrous [festival] takes place within a city it is permitted [to conduct business with non-Jews] outside it. If the idolatrous [festival] takes place outside it, [business] is permitted within it. Is it permitted to go there? If the road leads solely to that place, it is forbidden;  But if one can go by it to any other place, it is permitted.
  GEMARA. What is a case of “outside it” [where it is permitted to engage in business with pagans]? Shimon b. Lakish said: Such as the fair in Gaza. Some relate this as follows: R. Shimon b. Lakish asked R. Hanina,  How about the fair in Gaza? He replied: Have you never gone to Tyre and seen a Jew and a pagan
  
  Daf 12a
  
  placing two pots on the same stove, and the sages were not concerned. What does it mean “the sages were not concerned”? 
  Abaye said: The possibility of eating “flesh of nebelah.”  We are not concerned lest the Jew would turn around and the non-Jew would drop some nevelah into his pot. As a parallel case, here too the Sages were not concerned lest he receive money used in idolatry.
  Rava said: What does it mean “the sages were not concerned”? That cooking was done by a non-Jew. As a parallel case, here too the rabbis were not concerned about transacting business on account of the festivity.
  
  Rabbah b. Ulla said: What does it mean “the sages were not concerned”?   About the splashing [of food from the non-Jew’s pot into the Jew’s pot]. As a parallel case, here too the rabbis were not concerned about the days before the festival.
  
  What about going there? etc. Our Rabbis taught: A city that has idolatrous worship taking place there, it is forbidden to enter it, or [to go] from there to another city, the words of R. Meir. But the Sages say, only when the road leads solely to that city is it forbidden; if however the road does not lead exclusively to that place it is permitted.
  If a splinter got into his [foot] while in front of an idol, he should not bend down to get it out, because it looks as if he is bowing to the idol; but if this is not apparent  it is permitted. If his coins got scattered in front of an idol he should not bend and pick them up, for it looks as if he is bowing to the idol; but if this is not apparent it is permitted.
  If there is a spring flowing in front of an idol he should not bend down and drink, because it looks like he is bowing to the idol; but if this is not apparent it is permitted. Human faces that spout water in the cities one should not place his mouth on them and drink; because he may seem as kissing the idolatrous figure. So also one should not place one’s mouth on a water pipe and drink from it for fear of danger.
  What is meant by “not apparent”? If we say that he is not seen [by others], but did not Rav Judah say in the name of Rav that  whatever the Sages prohibited because it looks like he is transgressing, is also forbidden in one’s innermost chamber! Rather, it means that it does not look as if he is bowing to the idol.
  And all [three instances given] are necessary. For if it had taught the case of the splinter only, [we would have thought that it is forbidden] because he can walk away from the idol and take it out, but in the case of the coins where this cannot be done, the prohibition does not apply.
  If, on the other hand, it had taught the case of the coins only [we might say that the prohibition applies] because there is a loss of money, but in the case of the thorn, where there is pain, the prohibition is not to be applied.  If it had taught both of these cases, [we might still say that the prohibition applied to them] because there is no danger involved, but in the case of the spring where there is danger, for if he does not drink he will die, we might say that the prohibition should be waived, hence all the instances are necessary.
  
  Daf 12b
  
  Why then do we need to learn the case of [placing one’s mouth on the faces of the] figures? That is only because he wanted to teach “so also one should not place one’s mouth on a water pipe and drink from it for fear of danger.”
  What is the danger? Swallowing a leech. Our rabbis taught: One should not drink water either from rivers or from pools direct with his mouth or [by drawing the water] with one hand; if he drinks it, his blood shall be upon his head, for it is dangerous. What danger is there? The danger of a leech.
  [This statement] supports R. Hanina: for R. Hanina said: One who swallows a leech, it is permissible to heat water for him on Shabbat. It happened that one swallowed a leech, and R. Nehemiah permitted heating water for him on Shabbat. Meanwhile [before the water is heated, what should he do?] R. Huna son of R. Joshua said “let him sip vinegar.”
  Idi b. Abin said: One who has swallowed a wasp cannot possibly live. Let him however drink a quarter of strong vinegar; perhaps he will live long enough to set his house in order.
  Our rabbis taught: One should not drink water at night; if he does drink his blood is on his head, for it is dangerous. What danger is there? The danger of Shabriri. But if he is thirsty, what can he do? If there is another person with him, he should wake him and say, “I am thirsty for water.” If not, let him knock with the lid on the jug and say to himself: “So and so son of so and so [his mother’s name] said to me, ‘be warned to guard your against Shabriri, briri, riri, iri, ri, in clear vessels.’”
  A city in which an idolatrous festival is taking place, some of its shops being decorated and some not decorated  — this was the case with Beth-Shean,  and the Sages said:... in the decorated stores it is forbidden [to buy] but in the undecorated ones it is permitted.
  GEMARA. R. Shimon b. Lakish: This refers only to [shops] decorated with roses and myrtle, for he will enjoy the odor, but if they are decorated with produce, it is permissible [to buy in them]. What is the reason? The verse says, “Nothing of that which is proscribed should cleave to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18). It is prohibited to derive benefit,
  
  Daf 13a
  
  all the more so it is prohibited to provide benefit. But R. Yohanan said: Even if they are decorated with other types of produce they are also forbidden. For this is an a fortiori argument. If deriving benefit is prohibited, all the more so it is prohibited to provide benefit.
  They raised a difficulty: R. Natan says: On the day when the idolaters reduce the taxes, they proclaim: “Whoever takes a wreath and puts it on his head and on the head of his donkey in honor of the idols, his tax will be remitted; otherwise his tax will not be remitted!” A Jew who is found there, what should he do?
  If he puts it on, it turns out that he is benefiting! If he does not put it on? Then he is providing benefit!
  From here they said: One who engages in business in a market of idolaters, if it be cattle it should be disabled, if fruit, clothes or utensils, they should be allowed to rot, if money or metal vessels he should carry them to the Dead Sea. What is meant by disabling? Cutting the tendons of the hoofs beneath the ankle.
  In any case we are taught,  “If he puts it on, it turns out that he is benefiting! If he does not put it on? Then he is providing benefit!”
  Mesharsheya the son of R. Idi said: R. Shimon b. Lakish holds that the rabbis disagree with R. Nathan, and I (Resh Lakish) say like the Rabbis who disagree; whereas R. Yohanan holds that they do not disagree.
  But do the rabbis not disagree? Was it not taught: One may attend a fair of idolaters and buy from them cattle, slaves, maidservants, houses, fields and vineyards; one may even write the necessary documents and bring them to their courts because this is like rescuing from their hands.
  If he is a priest he may be defiled by going outside the Land for the purpose of arguing the matter with them and have it tried in court. And just as he may defile himself [by going] outside the Land, so he may become defiled by walking on a burial ground.
  “A burial ground”! Do you really think that? This is biblical defilement! Rather a field that is a doubtful burial ground.
  And one may be defiled for the sake of studying Torah or marrying a woman. Judah said: This only applies when he cannot find [a place elsewhere] to learn, but when he can find elsewhere to learn he may not be defiled;
  But R. Yose said: Even when he can find elsewhere to learn he may defile himself, for a person may not be able to learn from everyone.
  Yose said: It happened that Joseph the Priest went after his master to Zidon. And R. Yohanan said: The halakhah is according to R. Jose.
  Hence the Sages do disagree! Yohanan could answer you: The rabbis indeed do not disagree [with R. Natan], yet there is no difficulty here:
  The one case refers to purchasing from a dealer, from whom the tax is exacted, the other case refers to purchasing from a private individual from whom the tax is not exacted.
  The master stated: “Cattle should be hamstrung.” But is there not the prohibition of causing suffering to a living being? Abaye said: The Torah says, “Their horses you shall hamstring” (Joshua 11:6).
  The Master said: “What is meant by disabling [cattle]? The cutting of the tendons beneath the ankle.” The following is cited as contradicting it: One should not sanctify, or devote, or evaluate at the present time; and if one did sanctify, devote or evaluate, then if it be cattle it should be disabled, if fruit, clothes or utensils
  
  Daf 13b
  
  if fruit, clothes or utensils they should be allowed to rot, if money or metal vessels, he should carry them to the Dead Sea. What is meant by disabling?  The door is locked in front of it, so that it dies of itself.
  Abaye said: That case is treated differently, because of the prohibition of despising sanctified things. Then let him slaughter it! That may lead to transgression. 
  Then let him cut it in half! . Abaye said: Scripture says, “And you shall tear down their altars …You shall not do so to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:3).
  Rava said: [Disabling is here avoided] because it seems like inflicting a blemish on sanctified things.  “Seems!” This is a real blemish! This is true only while the Temple was in existence, so that the animal is fit for being offered up; but at the present time, since it cannot in any case be offered, the prohibition does not apply.
  But let it be regarded as inflicting a blemish on a blemished animal which, even though not fit for a sacrificial purpose, is forbidden!  An animal which had been blemished, while it cannot be used for sacrifice, the money obtained for it may be used;  but this excludes our case where the animal is not fit for the money obtained for it nor for actual sacrifice.
  Yonah found R. Ilai as he was standing at the gate of Tyre. He said to him: They taught, “Cattle [bought at the idolatrous fair] should be disabled.” What about a slave? I am not asking about a Jewish slave; what I am asking about is a Canaanite slave. What is the law? The other replied: Why do you ask at all? It has been taught; As to idolaters and [Jewish] shepherds of small cattle, even though one is not obligated to take them out [of a pit], one must not throw them in [to a pit to endanger their lives].
  Yirmiyah said to R. Zera: It was taught, “We may buy cattle from them, slaves and maidservants.” Is this to be applied to a Jewish slave or to a Canaanite slave as well? He said back: It makes sense that it refers only to a Jewish slave; for were it to apply to a Canaanite slave, why would he want him? When Ravin came he said in the name of Resh Lakish: It may apply even to a Canaanite slave; because he brings him under the wings of the Shekhinah.  
  Ashi said: When it comes to buying animals [from idolaters] is this bringing them under the wings of the Shekhinah? Rather, it is allowed because this diminished [the possessions of the idolaters], and here too it is allowed because this diminishes their possessions.
  Yaakov once bought sandals [at the idolatrous fair], while R. Yirmiyah bought bread. One said to the other: “Orphan! Would your master act thus?” The other said back: “Orphan! Would your master act thus?” Both in fact had bought of private individuals, but each one thought that the other had bought from a dealer; for R. Abba the son of R. Hiyya b. Abba said: The prohibition was taught only in the case of buying from a dealer from whom tax is exacted, but buying from a private person from whom no tax is exacted is permitted.
  Abba son of R. Hiyya b. Abba said: Had R. Yohanan been present once in a place where taxes were exacted even from private persons he would have forbidden [even such purchase]. How is it then that they made the purchase? They bought from a private individual who was not a permanent resident.
  The following things are forbidden to be sold to idolaters: iztroblin, bnoth-shuah with their stems, frankincense, and a white rooster. Rabbi Judah says: it is permitted to sell a white rooster to an idolater among other roosters; but if it be by itself, one should clip its spur and then sell it to him, because a defective [animal] is not sacrificed to an idol.
  As for other things, if they are not specified their sale is permitted, but if specified it is forbidden. Rabbi Meir says: also a “good-palm,” hazab and niklivas are forbidden to be sold to idolaters. Gemara:
  
  Daf 14a
  
  What is an itztroblin? Cedar wood. But this is contradicted [by the following]:  ‘To these  have been added Alexandrian nuts, iztroblin, cordia myxa  and bnot-shuah.” Now should you think that iztroblin is cedar wood, is cedar wood subject to laws of the sabbatical year?
  Has it not been taught: This is the general rule: Everything which has a [perennial] root is subject to the laws of the sabbatical Year  but anything that has no [perennial] root is not subject to the law of the Sabbatical Year. Rather R. Safra said: It means fruit of the cedar. So also when Rabin came [from Eretz Yisrael] he said in the name of R. Elazar [It means] fruit of the cedar.
  Bnot Shuah: Rabbah b. Bar-Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: White figs. Stems: Rabbah b. Bar-Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: They taught “with their stems.”
  Frankincense. R. Yitzchak said in the name of R. Shimon b. Lakish: Pure frankincense. A tanna taught: But of any of these they may sell them a package. And how much is a package? R. Judah b. Batera explained: A package is no less than three manehs.
  But we should be concerned lest he goes and sells it to others who will burn it [before idols]? Abaye said: We are commanded not to [place a stumbling-block] before [the blind]   but we are not commanded not to place one before one who may place it before the blind.
  And a white rooster. R. Jonah said in the name of R. Zera who said in the name of R. Zevid (And some teach that, R. Jonah said in the name of R. Zera): [If an idolater asks,] “Who has a rooster?” It is permitted to sell him [even] a white rooster. If he asks, “Who has a white rooster?” It is forbidden to sell him a white rooster.
  It was stated in the mishnah: R. Judah said: One may sell him a white rooster among [other] roosters. Now what is the precise circumstance? If we say that he asked: Who has a white rooster, who has a white rooster? In that case, even among other roosters it is prohibited!
  Rather, it means that he was asking: Who has a rooster, who has a rooster? And even then according to R. Judah a white one may be sold him only among others but not by itself, while according to the first tanna it may not be sold even among others!
  Nahman b. Yitzchak said: What are we dealing with here? Where he said, “I want this (a white rooster) and this (a rooster).”
  It was also taught:  R. Judah said: When is this so? If he asks for ‘this [white] rooster” but if he asks for this and another one it is permitted [to sell both together]. An idolater who gives a banquet for his son or has a sick person in his house it is permitted [to sell him a white rooster even if he asks for a white rooster].
  But have we not learned “If an idolater gives a banquet for his son it is prohibited to sell only on that day and to that man alone,”  but in any case, that man and that day are prohibited! Yitzchak son of R. Mesharsheya said: That refers
  to an ordinary party We have learned: As for other things, if they are not specified their sale is permitted, but if specified it is forbidden.  Now what is meant by “specified” and by “unspecified”? f we say that “unspecified” means if he asks [for example] for white wheat, and “specified” means he states that [he requires it] for idolatry?
  
  Daf 14b
  
  In that case it is neither necessary to state that the unspecified may be sold, nor is it necessary to state that the specified may not be sold. Rather, “unspecified” means if he asks for wheat and “specified” when he asks for white wheat.
  This implies that in the case of a rooster it is forbidden even when unspecified! We may indeed say that “unspecified” is when he asks for white wheat, and “specified” is when he states [that it is required] for idolatry;
  yet it is necessary to state that the “specified” is forbidden lest I say that that man does not really require it for idolatry. Rather, he is attached to idolatry, and he thinks to himself that just I am attached to it everyone is attached to it, and therefore I will say this so that they might readily give it to me. It is therefore necessary to state [that its sale is forbidden].
  Ashi asked: [If he asks,] “Who has a mutilated white rooster?” may one sell him an unblemished white rooster? Do we say that since he asks for a mutilated one, he is not asking for it for idolatry, or perhaps he is merely acting cunningly?
  And if you should say that this one is acting cunningly, [what about the following,] “Who has a white rooster? Who has a white rooster?” and when a black one is given to him he accepts it or when a red one is given to him he accepts it, may a white one be sold to him? Do we say, since when he was given a black one or a red one he accepted it, he is not asking for one for idolatry, or perhaps he is merely acting cunningly? This stands undecided.
  Meir says: Also a good palm etc. R. Hisda to Abimi: There is a tradition that the [tractate] Avodah Zarah of our Abraham our father consisted of four hundred chapters; we have only learnt five, yet we do not know what we are saying.
  And what difficulty is there? It is taught: R. Meir says: also a good palm, hatzav and niklas are forbidden to be sold to idolaters– a “good palm” may not be sold to them, but we may sell them a bad palm. But have we not taught: One may not sell them anything that is attached to the ground! He replied: What is meant by “good-palm”? Fruit of a “good-palm.” And so too said R. Huna: The fruit of a good-palm.
  Hatzav is the species of dates called kashba. Niklas: When R. Dimi came he said in the name of R. Hama b. Joseph that it is kuryati. Abaye said to R. Dimi: We taught niklas, and do not know what it is, so you tell us it is kuryati which we do not know either, where then have you benefited us? He said: I have provided you with benefit for were you to go to there (to Eretz Yisrael) and say niklas they would know what it is; but if you say kuryati they will know and will show it to you.
  In a place where it is the custom to sell small domesticated animals to non-Jews, such a sale is permitted; but where the custom is not to sell, such a sale is not permitted. In no place however is it permitted to sell large animals, calves or foals, whether whole or maimed. Rabbi Judah permits in the case of a maimed one. And Ben Bateira permits in the case of a horse.
  GEMARA. This is to say that there is no actual prohibition, but that it is only a matter of custom; so that where the custom is to prohibit, it is to be followed, and where the custom is to permit it is to be followed?
  But this contradicts the following [Mishnah]: One should not place cattle in inns kept by idolaters, because they are suspected of bestiality! Rav said: In places where it is permitted to sell, it is permitted to leave them together alone, but in places where leaving them together alone is forbidden, it is also forbidden to sell.
  
  
  Daf 15a
  
  But R. Elazar said: Even in a place where it is forbidden to leave them together it is permitted to sell. Why? The idolater cares that his beast will not become sterile. And Rav too changed his opinion for R. Tahlifa said in the name of R. Shila b. Abimi, who said in the name of Rav: An idolater cares that his beast will not become sterile.
  In all places it is forbidden to sell them large animals  etc. What is the reason for this? While we may not fear bestiality, maybe there is the fear of his making the animal work [on Shabbat]?
  Then let him make it work; since he has bought it, he owns it! The prohibition is because of lending and because of renting.
  [But, surely] when he borrows it he owns it, or when he rents it he owns it [during that period]!
  Then said Rami the son of R. Yeba: The prohibition is because of ‘trying [the animal out].”  For sometimes it might happen that he sells it to him close to sunset on the eve of Shabbat and he might say to him, “Come let me try it out,” and hearing the owner’s voice it will walk because of him, and he indeed desires it to walk, so that he acts as a driver of his beast on the Sabbath and he who drives his beast on Shabbat is liable for a sin-offering.
  Shisha the son of R. Idi objected: But does renting cause an acquisition? Have we not learned, “Even in a place where they said it was permitted to rent [a house to an idolater], they did not say it in regard to a dwelling house, because he will bring idols into it.”
  It is different with idols, for this is a strict matter, as it is written, “And you shall not bring abomination into your house” (Deuteronomy 7:26).
  Yitzchak the son of R. Mesharsheya objected: But does rent really constitute acquisition? Have we not learned:  An Israelite who rents a cow from a priest may feed it terumah vetches; but a priest who rents a cow of an Israelite, even though he is obligated to feed it, may not feed it terumah vetches.
  Now, were we to hold the opinion that renting constitutes acquisition, why should he not feed it? Surely the cow belongs to him! From here you can deduce that renting does not constitute acquisition. Now, since you have declared that renting does not constitute acquisition, the prohibition is both because of “renting,” and because of “lending” and because of “trying.”
  Adda permitted selling a donkey [to an idolater] through an agent: If we are concerned about “trying,” it is not familiar with his voice that it should walk because of him. And as to “lending” or “renting” since it is not his own he will neither lend nor rent it; Also, lest some fault be discovered in it.
  Huna sold a cow to an idolater. R. Hisda said to him: Why did you act in this way? He replied: I assume that he bought it for slaughtering.
  
  Daf 15b
  
  How do we know that we can say such a thing? Beth Shammai says: One should not sell a plowing cow during the Sabbatical Year; but Beth Hillel permits it, because he may possibly slaughter it.
  Rabbah said: Are the two cases similar? In that other case, one is not commanded to let one’s cattle rest on the Sabbatical year, whereas in our case, one is commanded to let one’s cattle rest on the Sabbath!
  Abaye said to him: And in every case when one is commanded [concerning a thing] he is forbidden [to sell it to one who may disregard the commandment]? Take then the case of a field, for one is commanded to let his field lie fallow on the Sabbatical Year. Yet it has been taught: Beth Shammai say: One may not sell a field meant for plowing on the Sabbatical year, but Beth Hillel permit it, because it is possible that he will let it lie fallow [during that year]!
  Ashi objected: And in any case where a person is not commanded [concerning a thing] he is permitted [to sell it to one who will not observe the prohibition]? Take then the case of implements, for one is not commanded to let one’s implements rest in the Sabbatical year. Yet we have learned: The following are the implements which one is not allowed to sell in the Sabbatical year:  the plough and all its accessory vessels, the yoke, the winnowing-fan and the mattock!
  Rather R. Ashi said, where there is reason for the assumption [that proper use will be made] we assume it, even though a command is involved, and where there is no reason for such assumption, we do not assume it, even where there is no command involved.
  Rabbah once sold a donkey to a Jew who was suspected of selling to idolaters. Abaye said to him: “Why have you acted thus?” He replied, “I sold it to a Jew.” He said back, “He will go and sell it to an idolater!” [He replied], “He will sell it to an idolater and he won’t sell it to a Jew.”
  He [Abaye] objected to him [from the following baraita]: In a place where it is the custom to sell small cattle to Samaritans, one may sell, but where they do not sell, one may not sell. What is the reason [for the prohibition]? If we say because they are suspected of bestiality, are they to be suspected? Has it not been taught: One may not place cattle in inns kept by idolaters even male-cattle with men and female-cattle with women, and it is needless to say that female-cattle with men and male-cattle with women [are forbidden]; nor may one hand over cattle to one of their shepherds; nor may one be alone with them; nor may one entrust a child to them to be educated, or to be taught a trade.
  One may however place cattle in inns kept by Samaritans even male-cattle with women and female-cattle with men, and it goes without saying that males with males and females with females are permitted; so also may one hand over cattle to one of their shepherds and be alone with them, or hand over a child to them to be educated or to be taught a trade.  
  This shows indeed that they are not to be suspected.  
  And it has further been taught: One should not sell them either weapons or accessories of weapons, nor should one sharpen any weapon for them, not may one sell them either stocks or neck-chains or ropes, or iron chains — neither to idolaters nor Samaritans.
  What is the reason? We might say because they are suspected of murder? But are they suspected,  seeing we have just said that one may be alone with them! Rather it is because he might sell it to an idolater.
  And if you think to say that whereas a Samaritan will not repent an Israelite will repent? But has R. Nahman not said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: Just as it was said that it is forbidden to sell to an idolater, so is it forbidden to sell to a Jew who is suspected of selling it to an idolater! He [Rabbah] ran three parasangs after the buyer (some say one parasang in sand) but failed to overtake him.
  Dimi b. Abba said: Just as it is forbidden to sell to an idolater, so it is forbidden to sell to a robber who is an Israelite. What is the case? If he is suspected of murder, then this is obvious; he is the same as an idolater!
  If [on the other hand] he has never committed murder, why not [sell them to him]? It refers indeed to one who has not committed murder; but we may be dealing here with a sneaky thief who is apt at times [when caught] to save himself [by committing murder].
  Our Rabbis taught: It is forbidden to sell them shields; some say, however,  that shields may be sold to them. What is the reason [for this prohibition]? If we say because they protect them, then even wheat or barley should not [be sold to them].  Rav said:
  
  Daf 16a
  
  If it is possible, these, too, should not.
  There are some who say that the reason for not permitting [the sale of] shields is this: When they have no weapons left, they might use these for killing [in battles]. But there are others who say that shields may be sold to them, for when they have no more weapons they run away. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: The halakhah accords with the “others say.”
  Adda b. Ahavah said: One should not sell them bars of iron. Why? Because they may hammer weapons out of them. If so,spades and pick-axes too [should also be forbidden]! Zebid said: This refers to [bars of] Indian iron. Why then do we sell it now? Ashi said: [We sell it] to the Persians who protect us.
  Calves and foals. It has been taught: R. Judah permits [the sale of] a maimed one, since it cannot be cured or restored to health.  They said to him: But won’t they breed her and she will give birth, and since they breed her, she will be kept? He replied: Wait till she gives birth. This is to say, an animal [in such a state] will not let the male get near her.
  Ben Batera permits in the case of a horse. It has been taught: Ben Batera permits in the case of a horse, because it performs the kind of work for which one is not obligated for a sin-offering.  Rabbi forbids it for two reasons: One, because it comes under the prohibition of selling weapons, the other, because it comes under the prohibition of big cattle.
  It makes sense regarding the prohibition of weapons, for there are [horses] which kill by trampling, but the prohibition of large cattle, how does that apply?  Yohanan said: When the horse gets old, they will make him grind on a mill on Shabbat. Yohanan said: The halakhah follows Ben Batera.
  The following question was asked: What about a fattened ox? This question can be asked both of R. Judah and the Rabbis.
  It can be asked of R. Judah, for R. Judah permits only in the case of a maimed one, which is not at all fit for work, whereas this one, which if kept long enough may be fit for work, might be forbidden;
  or it might be said that even according to the Rabbis it is only in that case [of a maimed one], which is ordinarily not intended for slaughter, that they forbid, but this one, which is ordinarily intended for slaughter, maybe they permit?
  Come and hear: Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel that the House of Rabbi had to present a fatted ox for their festival, and they paid a sum of forty thousand [coins] so that they would not have to offer on the day of the festival but the next day; then they paid another forty thousand so that they would not have to present it alive but slaughtered; then they paid another forty thousand to so that they would not have to present it at all.
  Now what is the reason [for not presenting it alive] if not to avoid its being kept? But if that is the reason, what is the purpose of [paying them such that is should not be presented] today, but rather tomorrow?   Rather, Rabbi was anxious to abolish the thing entirely, but he considered it advisable to do it little by little.
  But can [a fatted ox] be kept [and slimmed] and made healthy enough to do work? Ashi said: Zavida told me that a young bullock [that was fattened] they can hold on to it [and slim it] and it will do the work of two.
  One should not sell them bears, lions or anything which may injure the public. One should not join them in building a basilica, a scaffold, a stadium, or a platform. But one may join them in building public or private bathhouses. When however he reaches the cupola in which the idol is placed he must not build.
  GEMARA. R. Hanin son of R. Hisda said (and some say R. Hanan b. Rava said in the name of Rav): A large wild animal has the same rule as a small beast as regards struggling but not as regards selling.
  But in my opinion this applies  to selling also, so that in such places where it is the custom to sell, such sale is permitted, but where the custom is not to sell, it is forbidden.
  Our Mishnah says:  One should not sell them bears, lions, or anything which may injure the public. The reason is because they might injure the public, but if they will not injure the public it should be permitted?   Rabbah b. Ulla said: [Our Mishnah may refer] to a mutilated lion
  
  Daf 16b
  
  in accordance with the opinion of R. Judah.  Ashi said: Generally, any lion may be regarded as “maimed” in regard to work.
  They objected: Just as it is forbidden to sell them large cattle, so it is forbidden to sell them large wild animals; and even in such places where they do sell them small cattle, large wild animals should not be sold to them.  This is a refutation of R. Hanan b. Rava. Refutation.
  Ravina cast our mishnah against a baraita and then resolved the contradiction: We learned: one should not sell them bears, lions or anything which may injure the public. The reason is because they may injure the public, but if they may not injure the public they may be sold!
  Against this he cast [the following baraita]: Just as it is forbidden to sell them large cattle, so it is forbidden to sell them large wild animals, and even in such places where they do sell them small cattle, they may not sell them large wild animals. Rabbah b. Ulla said: [Our Mishnah may refer] to a maimed lion in accordance with the opinion of R. Judah.  Ashi said: Generally, any lion may be regarded as “maimed” in regard to work.
  Nahman objected: Who says that a lion is to be regarded as a big animal? Perhaps it is a small animal.
  Ashi read the mishnah precisely and raised the following refutation: We learned: one should not sell them bears, lions or anything which may injure the public. The reason is that it is a danger to the public, but if it is not a danger to the public it can be sold.
  And the reason why “lion” is mentioned, is because a lion is generally regarded as “maimed” vis a vis workd, but any other animal which can perform work, the prohibition does apply. This refutes R. Hanan b. Rava. Refutation.
  But what kind of work can a large wild animal perform? Abaye said: Mar Judah told me that at the house of Mah Yohani they work mills with wild asses.
  Zera said: When we were at the school of Rav Judah he said to us: Learn from me this matter for I have heard it from a great man, but I do not know whether from Rav or from Shmuel: “A large wild beast is like small cattle with regard to struggling.”
  When I came to Korkunia I found R. Hiyya b. Ashi who was sitting [in the academy] and saying in the name of Shmuel, “A large wild beast is like small cattle with regard to struggling” and I said, “Learn from this that it was stated in the name of Shmuel.” But when I came to Sura I found Rabbah b. Yirmiyah who was sitting and saying in the name of Rav, “A large wild beast is like small cattle with regard to struggling.” Then I said, “That means that this has been stated in the name of Rav as well as in the name of Shmuel.”
  Now, when I went up there I found R. Assi sitting and saying: R. Hama b. Guria said in the name of Rav: “A large wild beast is like small cattle with regard to struggling.” I said to him, “Do you not hold, then, that the one who reported this teaching in the name of Rav is Rabbah b. Yirmiyah?” He said back to me: “You black-pot.’  Through me and you this report will be completed.”
  It has indeed been stated so: R. Zera said in the name of R. Assi, in the name of Rabbah b. Yirmiyah, in the name of R. Hama b. Guria, in the name of Rav: “A large wild beast is like small cattle with regard to struggling.”
  One should not join them in building a basilica, an executioner’s scaffold, a stadium or a tribune. Rabbah b. Bar-Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: There are three kinds of basilica-buildings: those of kings, baths, or store-houses. Rava said: Two of these are permitted and one is forbidden; as a reminder, “To bind their kings with chains” (Psalms 149:8).
  There are those who say: Rava said:  All [basilicas] are permitted. But have we not learned, “one should not join them in building a basilica, an executioner’s scaffold, a stadium or a tribune”? Say a basilica attached to an executioner’s scaffold, a stadium or a tribune.
  Our Rabbis taught: When R. Eliezer was arrested because of heresy (minut) they brought him up to the tribune to be judged. The governor said to him, “How can a elder man like you occupy himself with those idle things?”
  He replied, “I acknowledge the Judge as right.” The governor thought that he referred to him, but he was only speaking about his father in heaven. The governor said to him, “Because you have acknowledge me as right, I pardon you. You are dismissed.”
  When he came home, his disciples called on him to console him, but he would accept no consolation.   Akiba said to him, “Master, will you allow me to say one thing of that which you have taught me?” He replied, “Say it.” He said back, “Master, perhaps you came across some teaching of the minim and you enjoyed it,
  
  Daf 17a
  
  and for that you were arrested He exclaimed: “Akiva, you have reminded me. I was once walking in the upper-market of Tzippori when I came across one [of the disciples of Jesus the Nazarene] Jacob of Kefar-Sekaniah is his name, who said to me: ‘It is written in your Torah, “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot . . . into the house of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 23:19).  Can one use this money be to build a toilet for the High Priest?’ I did not say anything back.
  He said to me: ‘Thus was I taught [by Jesus the Nazarene], “For of the hire of a harlot hath she gathered them and unto the hire of a harlot shall they return” (Micah 1:17). They came from a place of filth, let them go to a place of filth.”’ Those words pleased me very much, and that is why I was arrested for apostasy and I thereby transgressed what is written in the Torah,
  ‘Remove your way far from her’ — which refers to minut : ‘And do not come near the door of her house,’  — which refers to the ruling power” (Proverbs 5:8). There are those who say, “Remove your way from her” this refers to minut as well as to the ruling power, and, “and do not come near the door of her house” this refers to a harlot. And how far is one to keep away? R. Hisda said: Four cubits.
  And the rabbis, how do they expound on the words “the hire of a harlot”? Like R. Hisda, for R. Hisda said: Every harlot who allows herself to be hired will at the end have to hire, as it is said, “And in that you give hire, and no hire is given to you, thus you are reversed” (Ezekiel 16:34).
  This is contrary to what R. Pedat said; for R. Pedat said: The Torah forbids close approach only to those prohibited as incest as it is said, “No man shall approach any that is near of kin to him to uncover their nakedness” (Leviticus 18:6).
  Ulla, when he would return from the academy, used to kiss his sister on the hand;  some say, on the breast. But he contradicts himself, for Ulla said: Mere approach is forbidden because we say to a Nazarite, “Go, go, around vineyard; but do not approach.”
  “The leech has two daughters: Give, give” (Proverbs 30:15):  What is meant by “Give, give”? Mar Ukba said: It is the voice of the two daughters who cry from Gehenna calling to this world: Bring, bring! And who are they? Apostasy and the ruling authority. Others say: R. Hisda said in the name of Mar Ukba: It is the voice of Gehenna crying and calling: Bring me the two daughters who cry and call in this world, “Bring, bring.”
  Scripture says, “None that go to her return neither do they attain the paths of life” (Proverbs 2:19). But if they do not return, how could they attain [the paths of life]? This is what it means:  Even if they do turn away from it they will not attain the paths of life.
  Does it mean then that those who repent from minut die? Was there not a woman who came before R. Hisda confessing to him that the lightest sin that she committed was that her younger son is the offspring of her older son? Whereupon R. Hisda said: Get busy in preparing her shrouds — but she did not die.
  Now, since she says that this was the lightest of her sins, it may be assumed that she had also acted had minut in her [and yet she did not die]! That one did not altogether renounce her evil-doing, that is why she did not die.
  Some say as follows: [Is it only] from minut that one dies if one repents, but not from other sins? Was there not a woman who came before R. Hisda who said, Prepare her shrouds and she died?  Since she said that this was the lightest of her sins, it may be assumed that she was guilty of minut as well.
  And does not one die on renouncing sins other [than minut]? Surely it has been taught: It was said of R. Elazar b. Dordia that he did not leave leave any harlot in the world without coming to her. Once, on hearing that there was a certain harlot in one of the towns by the sea who accepted a purse of denarii for her hire, he took a purse of denarii and crossed seven rivers for her sake.  As he was with her, she passed and said: As this passed gas will not return to its place, so Elazar b. Dordia never be received in repentance.
  He went and sat between two hills and mountains and exclaimed: O, ye hills and mountains, plead for mercy for me! They replied: Rather than pray for you, we should pray for ourselves, for it is said, “For the mountains shall depart and the hills be removed” (Isaiah 54:10).   So he exclaimed: Heaven and earth, plead for mercy for me! They, too, replied: Rather than pray for you, we should pray for ourselves, for it is said, “For the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wear out like a garment” (Isaiah 51:6).  
  He then exclaimed: Sun and moon, plead for mercy for me! But they also replied: Rather than pray for you, we should pray for ourselves, for it is said, “Then the moon shall be ashamed and the sun abashed” (Isaiah 24:23).   He exclaimed: Stars and constellations, plead for mercy for me! They said: Rather than pray for you, we should pray for ourselves, for it is said, “And all the hosts of heaven shall molder away” (Isaiah 34:4).  
  He said: The matter then depends upon me alone! He placed his head between his knees, he wept aloud until his soul departed. Then a heavenly was heard proclaiming: “Rabbi Eleazar b. Dordai is destined for the life of the world to come!” Now, here was a case of a sin [other than minut] and yet he did die! In that case, too, since he was so addicted to [fornication] it is as [if he had been guilty of] minut.
  Rabbi [on hearing of it] wept and said: One may acquire eternal life after many years, another in one hour! Rabbi also said: Repentants are not alone accepted, they are even called “Rabbi”!
  Hanina and R. Yonatan were walking on the road and came to two paths, one of which led by the door of a place of idol-worship and the other led by a brothel. One said to the other:  Let us go [through the one leading] by the place of idolatry,
  
  Daf 17b
  
  for the inclination has been destroyed. The other however said: Let us go [through that leading] by the brothel and defy our inclination and we will receive a reward. As they approached the place they saw the prostitutes withdraw from before them.
  One said to the other: How did you know this?  The other said back, “Foresight (mezimah) will protect you, and discernment will guard you” (Proverbs 2:11).
  The rabbis said to Rava: What does the word “mezimmah” mean?  If we render it “Torah” since the word zimmah in Scripture is translated in the Targum, “It is a counsel of the wicked” and Scripture has the phrase, “Wonderful is His counsel and great His wisdom” (Isaiah 28:29)?  But in that case the word should have been zimmah. This is what it therefore means, “Against matters of licentiousness (zimmah) she shall watch over you, and discernment will guard against you.”
  Our rabbis taught: When R. Elazar b. Perata and R. Hanina b. Teradion were arrested, R. Elazar b. Perata said to R. Hanina b. Teradion: Happy are you, for you have been arrested on one charge; woe is me, for I have been arrested on five charges.
  Hanina replied: Happy are you, for you have been arrested on five charges, but you will be saved; woe is me who was arrested on one charge and I will not be saved; for you have occupied yourself with the study of Torah and acts of loving kindness, whereas I occupied myself with Torah alone.
  This accords with the opinion of R. Huna. For R. Huna said: He who occupies himself only with the study of the Torah is as if he had no God, for it is said: “Now for many days Israel was without the true God” (II Chronicles 15:3).  What is meant by “without the true God”? It means that he who only occupies himself only with the study of the Torah is as if he had no God.
  But did he not occupy himself with acts of loving kindness? Surely it has been taught: R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: One should not put his money into a charity-bag, unless it is supervised by a disciple of the sages such as R. Hanina b. Teradion!   He was indeed trustworthy, but he did not practice [“gemilut hasadim”].
  But has it not been taught: He said to him: I accidentally mixed up charity collected for Purim with ordinary charity money, so I distributed it to the poor!   He did indeed practice, but not as much as was required.
  When they brought up R. Elazar b. Perata [for his trial] they asked him, “Why have you been studying [the Torah] and why have you been stealing?” He answered, “If one is a scribe, one is not a robber, if a robber, one cannot be a scribe, and as I am not the one I am neither the other.” “Why then are you titled Master”?   “I am a Master of Weavers.”
  Then they brought him two coils [of spun wool] and asked, “Which is for the warp and which for the woof?” A miracle occurred and a female-bee came and sat on the warp and a male-bee came and sat on the woof. He said to them, “This is of the warp and that of the woof.”
  Then they asked him, “Why did you not go to the House of Aveidan?”   He replied, ‘I am old and I am afraid you will trample me under your feet.” [They said] “And how many old people have been trampled till now?” A miracle happened–on that very day an old man was trampled.
   “And why did you let your slave go free?”  He replied, “No such thing ever happened.” One of them rose to testify against him. Elijah came, appearing as one of the dignitaries of Rome. He said to that man, “Since a miracle was worked for him in all the other matters, a miracle will also happen in this one, and you will only come out looking bad.”
  He, however, disregarded him. He stood up to tell them [that R. Elazar had freed his slave]. There was a written communication from important members of the government that had to be sent to the Emperor and they sent it by that man. [On the road] Elijah came and hurled him a distance of four hundred parasangs. So that he went and did not return.
  They then brought up R. Hanina b. Tradion and asked him, “Why have you occupied yourself with the Torah?”   He replied, “This is what the Lord my God commanded me.” At once they sentenced him to be burned, his wife to be killed, and his daughter to be sent to a brothel. He was sentenced to be burned because
  
  
  Daf 18a
  
  he renounced the Name in its full spelling. But how could he do so? Have we not learned: The following have no portion in the world to come: He who says that the Torah is not from Heaven, or that the resurrection of the dead is not taught in the Torah. Abba Shaul says: Also he who pronounces the Name in its full spelling?
  He did it in order to practice, as we have learned: “You shall not learn to do” (Deuteronomy 18:9). But you may learn [about them] in order to understand and to teach.
  Why then was he punished? — Because he was pronouncing the Name in public. His wife was punished by being slain, because she did not protest against him. From here they said: Anyone who has the power to prevent [one from doing wrong] and does not prevent, is punished for him.
  His daughter was consigned to a brothel, as R. Yohanan said that once his daughter was walking in front of some great men of Rome. They remarked,  “How beautiful are the steps of this maiden!” Immediately she took particular care of her step. And this accords with what Resh Lakish said: What is the meaning of the verse, “The sin of my heel encompasses me” (Psalms 49:6). Sins which one treads under one’s heels in this world encompass him on the Day of Judgment.
  As the three of them went out [from the tribunal] they declared the righteousness of the judgment. He quoted, “The Rock, His work is perfect; for all his ways are justice” (Deuteronomy 32:4). His wife continued: “A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and right is He” (ibid). And the daughter quoted: “Great in counsel and mighty in work, whose eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons of men, to give everyone according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doing” (Jeremiah 32:19). Rabbi said: How great were these righteous ones, in that the three passages, expressing the righteousness of judgment, readily occurred to them just at the appropriate time for the declaration of such righteousness.
  Our Rabbis taught: When R. Yose b. Kisma was ill, R. Hanina b. Teradion went to visit him. He said to him: “My brother, Hanina, do you not know, that this nation, Heaven has ordained that they reign?  For though she laid waste to His House and burned His Temple, and slew His pious ones and caused His best ones to perish, she still is firmly established! Yet, I have heard that you are sitting and occupying yourself with the Torah, publicly gather assemblies, and a Torah Scroll is resting.”
  He replied, “Heaven will show mercy.” He responded, “I am making reasonable statement, and you say, ‘Heaven will show mercy!’ It will surprise me if they do not burn you and the Torah scroll with fire.” He said back, “What is my status with regard to the world to come?”
  He said, “Is there any particular act that you have done?” He replied: “I once mistook Purim-money for ordinary charity-money, and I distributed [of my own] to the poor.’  He said then, “If so, would that your portion were my portion and you lot my lot.”
  They said that not many days passed before R. Yose b. Kisma died and all the great men of Rome went to his burial and offered a great eulogy for him. On their return, they found R. Hanina b. Tradion sitting and occupying himself with the Torah, publicly gathering assemblies, and keeping a Sefer Torah in his lap.
  They took hold of him, wrapped him in the Sefer Torah, placed bundles of twigs round him and set them on fire. They then brought tufts of wool, which they had soaked in water, and placed them over his heart, so that he should not die quickly. His daughter exclaimed, “Father, that I should see you in this state!” He replied, “If I being burned alone it would have been difficulty for me; but now that I am burning together with the Sefer Torah, He who will have regard for the injury done to the Torah will also have regard for the injury to me.”
  His disciples called out, “Rabbi, what do you see?” He answered them, “The parchments are being burned but the letters are flying away.” “Open your mouth so that the fire can enter you.” He replied, “It is better that the one who gave me [my soul] take it away, but no one should injure oneself.”
  The Executioner then said to him, “Rabbi, if I increase the flame and take away the tufts of wool from over your heart, will you bring me to life in the world to come?”
  “Yes,” he replied. “Then swear to me.” He swore to him. He thereupon increased the flame and removed the tufts of wool from over his heart, and his soul departed speedily. The Executioner then jumped and threw himself into the fire. And a heavenly voice came forth and exclaimed: R. Hanina b. Teradion and the Executioner are invited to life in the world to come. Rabbi wept and said: One may acquire eternal life in a single hour, another after many years. 
  Beruria, the wife of R. Meir, was the daughter of R. Hanina b. Teradion. She said [to her husband], “I am ashamed to have my sister sitting in a brothel.” So he took a tarkav full of denarii and set out. He said to himself, “If any sin has not been committed with her, a miracle will happen for her, but if a sin has been performed with her, no miracle will happen for her.”
  He went and disguised himself as a cavalryman. He came to her and said, “Prepare for me.” She replied, “I am menstruating.” He said back, “I will wait for you.” She replied, “But there are many here that are prettier than I am.” He said to himself, that proves that she has not committed any wrong, for she says that to all who come.”
  He then went to her jailer and said, “Hand her over to me.” He replied, “I am afraid of the government.” He said, “Take the tarkav of dinars. One half give to the government [as a bribe], the other half take for yourself.” “And what shall I do when these dinars run out?” he asked. He replied, “Say, ‘O God of Meir, answer me!’ and you will be saved.”
  
  Daf 18b
  
  “But who can assure me that this will work?” He replied, “You will see now.” There were there some dogs who would bite everyone. He took a stone and threw it at them, and when they were about to bite him he exclaimed, “O God of Meir answer me!” and they let him alone.  The warder then handed her over to him.
  At the end, the matter became known to the government. And they brought [the jailer] to hang him up on the gallows. He exclaimed, “O God of Meir answer me.” They took him down and asked him what that meant, and he told them the incident that had happened.
  They then engraved R. Meir’s likeness on the gates of Rome and proclaimed that anyone seeing a person resembling it should bring him there. One day [some Romans] saw him and ran after him, so he ran away from them and entered a brothel. Others say he happened just then to see food cooked by heathens and he dipped in one finger and then sucked the other. Others say that Elijah the Prophet appeared to them as a prostitute and embraced him. They said, “Heaven forbid, were this R. Meir, he would not have acted thus!”
  He then arose and ran away and came to Babylon. Some say it was because of that incident that he ran to Babylonia; others say because of the incident about Beruria.
  Our Rabbis taught: Those who visit stadiums or a sieges and witness there [the performance] of sorcerers and enchanters, or of bukion and mukion, lulion and mulion, blurin or salgurin, behold this is “a gathering of the scornful,” and about them Scripture says, “Happy is the man that has not walked in the counsel of the wicked . . . nor sat in the gathering of the scornful, but his delight is in the law of the Lord” (Psalms 1:1).  From these things cause one to neglect the Torah. 
  They contrasted the above with the following: It is permitted to go to stadiums, because by shouting one may save [the victim]. [It is also permitted to go] to a siege camp because of those who dwell there, as long as he does not conspire [with the Romans]. But if it is for the purpose of conspiring, it is forbidden. There is thus a contradiction between [the laws relating to]stadiums as well as between [those relating to] siege camps!
  It makes sense that there is no contradiction between those relating to camps, because the one may refer to where he conspires with them, and the other to where he does not; but the laws relating to stadiums are surely contradictory!
  They represent the differing opinions of tannaim. For it has been taught: One should not go to stadiums because [they are] “a gathering of the scornful.” But R. Natan permits it for two reasons: first, because by shouting one may save [the victim], secondly, because one might be able to give evidence [of death] for the wife [of a victim] and so enable her to remarry.
  Our Rabbis taught: One should not go to theaters or circuses because they offer sacrifices to foreign gods there, the words of R. Meir. But the Sages say: Where they offer sacrifices, it is prohibited because he will be suspected of idol worship, and where they do not offer sacrifices, it is prohibited because of being in the “gathering of the scornful.”
  What is the practical difference between these two reasons? Hanina of Sura said If he engaged in business is the difference between them.
  Shimon b. Pazi expounded [the foregoing verse as follows]: What is it that is written, “Happy is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the wicked, or stood on the path of sinners, or sat in the company of the insolent” (Psalms : )? 
  If he did not walk [in the counsel of the wicked] how could he stand there? And if he did not stand there how could he sit [among them], and if he did not sit among them he could he have scorned! Rather it teaches you that if one walks [in the path of the wicked] he will subsequently stand with them, and if he stands he will at the end sit with them, and if he does sit, he will also come to scorn, and if he does scorn the about him it is written, “If you are wise, you are wise for yourself; If you are a scoffer, you bear it alone” (Proverbs 9: 2).
  Elazar said: He who scoffs, affliction will befall him, as it is said, “Now therefore do not scoff lest your punishment be made severe” (Isaiah 28:22). Rava said to say to the Rabbis: With pleading, I ask of you, do not scoff, so that suffering does not come to you.”
  Katina said: He who scoffs, his sustenance will be reduced, as it is said, “He withdraws His hand in the case of scoffers” (Hosea 7:5). Shimon b. Lakish said: He who scoffs will fall into Gehennom, as it is said, “The proud, insolent man, scoffer is his name, Acts in a wrath of insolence” (Proverbs 2 :24). And “wrath” refers to Gehennom; as it is said, “That day is a day of wrath” (Zephaniah : 5).
  Oshaia said: He who is haughty falls into Gehennom, as it is said, “The proud, insolent man, scoffer is his name, Acts in a wrath of insolence” (Proverbs 2 :24). And “wrath” refers to Gehennom; as it is said, “That day is a day of wrath” (Zephaniah : 5). R. Hanilai b. Hanilai said: He who scoffs brings destruction upon the world, as it is said, “Therefore, refrain from scoffing, Lest your bonds be tightened. For I have heard a decree of destruction” (Isaiah 28:22). R. Elazar said: It is indeed a grievous sin, since it first incurs “affliction” at first and “destruction” at the end. 
  Shimon b. Pazi expounded: “Happy is the man that has not walked” to theatres and circuses of idolaters; “nor stood in the way of sinners,”—this refers to the one who does not attend contests of wild beasts; “nor sat in the gathering of the scornful,” that is he who does not participate in [evil] conspiracies. 
  And lest one say, “Since I do not go to theatres or circuses nor attend contests of wild animals, I will go and indulge in sleep,” Scripture therefore says, “And in His Torah he meditates day and night.”
  Samuel b. Nahmani in the name of R. Yonatan: “Happy is the man that has not walked in the counsel of the wicked” — this 
  
  Daf 19a
  
  refers to Abraham our father who did not follow the counsel of the men of the generation of the division of the world who were wicked, as it is said, “Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, with its top in heaven” (Genesis 11:4); “Nor stood in the way of sinners” — for he did not stand with the people of Sodom, who were sinful, as it is said, “Now the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord” (Genesis 13:13); 
  “Nor sat in the seat of the scornful” — for he did not sit in the company of the Philistines, because they were scoffers; as it is said, “And it came to pass, when their hearts were merry, that they said: “Call for Samson that he may make us sport” (Judges 16:25).
  “Happy is the man that fears the Lord” (Psalms 112:1):  Happy is the “man” and not the woman? Amram said in the name of Rav: Happy is he who repents while he is still a “man.” Joshua b. Levy said: Happy is he who overcomes his inclination like a “man.”
  “Who desires his commandments exceedingly:” R. Elazar said: “His commandments,” but not the reward of His commandments.  This is what was taught, “He used to say, Be not like servants who serve the master on the condition of receiving a reward; but be like servants who serve the master without the condition of receiving a reward.”
  “But whose desire is in the Torah of the Lord.” Rabbi said: One can learn Torah only in a place which his heart desires, for it is said, “But whose desire is in the Torah of the Lord.”
  Levi and R. Shimon the son of Rabbi were once sitting before Rabbi learning verses.   When the book was concluded, Levi said: Let the book of Proverbs now be brought in. R. Shimon the son of Rabbi however said: Let the book Psalms be brought. They forced Levi and the book of Psalms was brought. When they came to this verse, “But whose desire is in the Torah of the Lord,” Rabbi said: One can learn Torah only in a place which his heart desires Whereupon Levi remarked: Rabbi, You have given me the right to rise.
  Avdimi b. Hama said: He who occupies himself with the Torah will have his desires granted by the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is said: “But he who [is occupied] with the Torah of the Lord, his desire [shall be granted].” Rava said: One should always study Torah in a place which his heart desires, as it is said, “But whose desire is in the Torah of the Lord.”
  Rava also said: At the beginning [of this verse] the Torah is called by the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, but at the end it is called by the name of he [who studies it], for it is said, “Whose desire is in the Torah of the Lord and in his [own] Torah he meditates day and night.”
  Rava also said: One should always study the Torah first and meditate in it afterwards, as it is said, “In the Torah Law of the Lord,” and then, “and in his [own] Torah he meditates.”
  Rava also said: A person should always recite, even though he is liable to forget and even if he does not fully understand all the words which he says, as it is said, “My soul recites for desire of Your rules at all times” (Psalms 119:20).  “Recites” is what Scripture says, it does not say “grinds.”
  Rava pointed to the following contradictions:  Scripture says, “Upon the highest places,” (Proverbs 9:3) and then it says, “On a seat” (vs. 14). At the beginning [the student occupies] any place, but ultimately [he will occupy] a seat.  
  It is written, “In the top of high places” (Proverbs 8:2) and then it says by the road! At first he is in the top [out of the way] high places, yet ultimately [he will] be by the road.
  Ulla pointed to the following contradiction: It is written, “Drink waters out of you own cistern” (Proverbs 5:15) and then it says, “and running waters out of your own well!”  At first drink from your own cistern, and by the end running waters from your own well.
  Rava said in the name of R. Sehorah who said it in the name of R. Huna: What is the meaning of the verse, “Wealth gotten by vanity shall be diminished, but he that gathers little by little shall increase” (Proverbs 13:11)?  If one learns his Torah heaps and heaps it will be decreased, but if one gathers [knowledge] little by little he will gain much.
  Rava said: The Rabbis know this thing, and yet they transgress it. Nahman b. Isaac said: I did this and it stood for me.
  Shizbi said in the name of R. Elazar b. Azariah: What is the meaning of the verse, “The slothful man shall not hunt his prey” (Proverbs 12:27)? A deceitful hunter [in matters of learning], will not live or have length of days.  
  Sheshet said: [It means that] the deceitful hunter will roast [his prey]. When R. Dimi came he said: This may be likened to one who hunts birds; if he breaks the wings of each one in turn, they will all remain in his possession, but if not they will not remain with him.
  “And he shall be like a tree transplanted by streams of water” (Psalms 1:3). Those of the school of R. Yannai said: “A tree transplanted,” not “a tree planted:” whoever learns Torah from one master only will never see a blessing.
  Hisda said to the rabbis: I would like to tell you something, but I am afraid that you might leave me and go elsewhere: “Whoever learns Torah from one master only will never see a blessing.” They abandoned him and went [to sit] before Rabbah. He said to them: These words apply only to logic, but when it comes to oral traditions it is better to learn from one master only,
  
  Daf 19b
  
  so that one is not confused by the variance in language. “By streams of water”: R. Tanhum b. Hanilai:  One should divide one’s years [of study] into three: one third of them devoted to Scripture, one third to Mishnah, and one third to Talmud. 
  But does a person know how many years he will live? When they said this they were referring to days.
  “That brings forth its fruit in its season and whose leaf does not wither” (Psalms 1:3): Rava said: If he brings forth his fruit in its season, then, his leaf will not wither, otherwise, concerning the one who learned and the one who taught the verse says, “Not so the wicked; but they are like the chaff which the wind drives away” (vs. 4).
  Abba said in the name of R. Huna, in the name of Rav: What is meant by what is written, “For she has cast down many wounded” (Proverbs 7:26). This refers to the student who has not yet reached the age of instruction and yet issues an instruction; “Mighty are all those that she has slain:” this refers to the student who has reached the age of instruction but does not yet issue instruction.
  And what is the age? Forty years. But did not Rava issue instruction? That was a case of being equal [to anyone].
  “And whose leaf will not wither” (Psalms 1:3):  Aha b. Ada said in the name of Rav (and some say R. Aha b. Abba said in the name of R. Hamnuna who said in the name of Rav): Even the ordinary talk of scholars needs studying, for it is said, “And whose leaf does not wither.”
  “And whatever he does shall prosper” (Psalms 1:3). R. Joshua b. Levi said: This matter is written in the Torah, repeated in the Prophets and mentioned a third time in the Writings: Whoever occupies himself with the Torah, his possessions shall prosper. It is written in the Torah, for it says, “You shall observe the words of this covenant, and do them, that you may make all that you do prosper” (Deuteronomy 29:8). 
  It is repeated in the Prophets, for it is written, “This book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate upon it day and night, that you observe to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your ways prosperous, and then you shall have good success” (Joshua 1:8). It is mentioned a third time in the Writings, for it is written, “But his delight is in the Torah of the Lord, and in His Torah he meditates day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by streams of water, that brings forth its fruit in its season, and whose leaf does not wither; and in whatever he does he shall prosper” (Psalms 1:2-3).
  Alexandri would call out, “Who wants life, who wants life?” All the people came and gathered round him saying: “Give us life!” He then said to them, “Who is the man who desires life …? Guard your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deception, turn from evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it” (Psalms 34:13). Lest one say,
  “I guarded my tongue from evil and my lips from speaking deception. I may therefore indulge in sleep,” Scripture therefore tells us, “Turn from evil and do good.” Good means Torah is meant; as it is said, “For I have given you a good teaching, do not forsake my Torah” (Proverbs 4:2).
  When he reaches the cupola in which the idol is placed [he must not build]. Elazar said in the name of R. Yohanan: If he did build, the pay he received is permitted. This is obvious: it is a case of things used in the worship of idols, and things used in the worship of idols, whether according to R. Ishmael or according to R. Akiba, are not forbidden till actually worshipped.
  Yirmiyah said: It is necessary in the case of the idol itself. This accords with the one who holds that it is prohibited to derive benefit from an idol made for an Israelite immediately, but if the idol is made for an idolater, [it is not prohibited] until it is worshipped. In that case the statement goes well. But according to the one who holds that even when made for an idolater [any benefit] is forbidden immediately, what can be said?
  Rather Rabbah b. Ulla said the statement is necessary in regard to the last stroke of work; for what is it that makes the idol fit for worship? It is its completion; And when is work completed? With the last stroke. But the last stroke does not constitute the value of a perutah.
  Thus he holds that the wage is earned from the beginning to the end [of the work].
  One should not make jewelry for an idol [such as] necklaces, ear-rings, or finger-rings. Rabbi Eliezer says, for payment it is permitted. One should not sell to idolaters a thing which is attached to the soil, but when cut down it may be sold. Judah says, one may sell it on condition that it be cut down.
   GEMARA. From where do we derive this? Yose b. Hanina:
  
  
  Daf 20a
  
  For the verse says, “Grant them no quarter (lo tehonem)” (Deuteronomy 7:2): Do not give them a hold on the land.But this phrase “lo tehonem” needed to convey that the Torah taught not to provide them with grace?
  If so, it should have said “lo tehunem.” What does lo tehonem mean? It means both.
  But still it is needed, to convey that the Torah teaches not to give them any free gift! If so it should have said lo tehinnem. Why then does it say lo tehanem? So as to imply all these interpretations.
  It has indeed been taught in a baraita: “lo tehannem” you shall not give them possession on the soil. Another interpretation: “lo tehannem” you shall not give them grace; Another interpretation “lo tehannem” you shall not give them any free gift....
  The giving of free gifts [to idolaters] is itself a matter of dispute between Tannaim, for it has been taught:  [The verse], “You shall not eat anything that has died a natural death; give it to the stranger in your community to eat, or you may sell it to a foreigner.” We know only that it may be given away to a stranger or sold to an idolater. How do we know that it may be sold to a stranger? Because Scripture says, “You may give it — or sell it.” 
  How do we know that it may be given away to an idolater? Because Scripture says, “You may give it that he may eat it or you may sell it to an idolater”: It turns out that it may be given or sold to either a stranger or an idolater, the words of R. Meir. R. Judah says: The words should be taken as they are written, it may be given to a stranger, or sold to an idolater....
  But R. Meir’s interpretation is right! R. Judah could say to you: If you thought that what R. Meir said was correct, the Torah should have written: “You shall give it so that he may eat it and you may sell it.” Why then does it say “or?” It comes to teach that the words are written precisely.
  And R. Meir?  [He might reply that “or”] indicates that it is preferable to give it away to a stranger than to sell it to an idolater. And as to R. Judah? He might say that, since you are commanded to maintain a stranger  but you are not commanded to maintain an idolaters no verse is needed to give [the stranger] preference.
  [It has been stated above.] “Another interpretation: “lo tehannem:” Do not give them grace. This supports the view of Rav. For Rav said: One is forbidden to say, “How beautiful is that gentile woman!”
  They objected: It happened that R. Shimon b. Gamaliel was standing on a step on the Temple Mount and he saw a gentile woman who was particularly beautiful. He exclaimed: “How great are Your works, O Lord” (Psalms 104:24). So too R. Akiva saw the wife of the wicked Turnus Rufus, he spat, then laughed, and then wept. He spat because of her originating only from a putrefying drop. He laughed because he foresaw that she would convert and be married to him; “Wept,” that such beauty should [ultimately] decay in the dust.
  But what about Rav?  They were merely offering thanksgiving, for the Master said: He who sees beautiful creatures should say, “Blessed be He who has created such in His universe.”
  But is even looking permitted? They objected: “You shall guard yourself from every evil thing   [implies] that one should not look at a beautiful woman, even if she be unmarried, or at a married woman even if she is ugly,
  
  Daf 20b
  
  nor at a woman’s colored garments, nor at male and female donkeys, or a pig and a sow or at fowls when they are mating; even if one be all eyes like the Angel of Death!
  It is said of the Angel of Death that he is all full of eyes. When a sick person is about to depart, he stands above his head with his sword drawn out in his hand and a drop of gall hanging on it. As the sick person beholds it, he trembles and opens his mouth [in fright]; he then drops it into his mouth. It is from this that he dies, from this that [the corpse] deteriorates, from this that his face becomes greenish.
  [In that case] the woman turned round a corner. 
  “Nor at a woman’s colored garments!” R. Judah b. Shmuel said: Even when they are lying against the wall. Papa said: But only if knows their owner. Rava said This is also proved by the wording which teaches, “Nor at a woman’s colored garments,” but does not teach “at colored garments.”  This proves it.
  Hisda said: This refers only to worn clothing, but in the case of new clothing it does not matter; for were you not to say so, how could women’s dresses be handed to a launderer; he must needs look at them!
  And according to your reasoning, that which Rav Judah said that in the case of animals of the same kind he may bring them to mate like putting a painting stick in the tube; surely he, too needs to look! Rather, this is not a problem because he is occupied with his work, so too here he is occupied with his work.
  The Master said: “From it he dies.” Shall we say that this differs from the statement of Shmuel’s father?  For Shmuel’s father said: The Angel of Death told me, Were it not for the regard I have for people’s honor, I would cut the tear open the throat of men like that of an animal!” Possibly, that very drop cuts into the organs of the throat.
  “From it the corpse deteriorates.” This supports the view of R. Hanina b. Kahana. For R. Hanina b. Kahana stated: They say in the school of Rav that if one wants to keep a corpse from deteriorating, he should turn it on its face.
  Our Rabbis taught: “Guard yourself from all evil things” (Deuteronomy 23:10), this means that one should not think [sexual] thoughts during the day that would to uncleanliness by night.
  From here R. Pinchas b. Yair said: Torah leads to caution, caution leads to eagerness, eagerness leads to cleanliness, cleanliness leads to separation, separation leads to purity, purity leads to righteousness, righteousness leads to humility, humility leads to fear of sin, fear of sin leads to holiness, holiness leads to the holy spirit, the holy spirit leads to resurrection, and righteousness is greater than any of these, as its says, “Then you spoke in visions to Your righteous ones” (Psalms 89:20).
  This disagrees with the view of R. Joshua b. Levy. For R. Joshua b. Levy said: Humility is the greatest of them all, as it says, “The spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good tidings to the humble” (Isaiah 61:1).   It does not say, “to the righteous,” but “to the humble” from which you learn that humility is greater than them all.
  One should not sell them anything attached to the soil. Our Rabbis taught: One may sell them a tree with the stipulation that it be felled and he then he felles it, the words of R. Judah. R. Meir says: We may sell them only a tree that has already been felled. Low-growth, with the stipulation that it be cut and he then cuts it, the words of R. Judah. R. Meir says: We may sell them only when it has already been cut. Standing grain, with the stipulation that it be reaped and he thens reap it, the words of R. Judah. R. Meir says: We may sell them only when it is reaped.
  And all three disputes are necessary; for were we told of the case of a tree only [we might think that] in that case R. Meir states his rule, for, since the non-Jew will not lose by letting it remain in the ground, he might leave it there, but in the other case, where he would lose by letting it remain in the soil, we might think that R. Meir would agree with R. Judah.
  And if we were we told about the tree and the grain only [we might have thought that] it is because it is not obvious that he benefits by leaving them in the soil [that R. Judah permits], but in the case of low-growth where he obviously benefits by leaving it to grow on, we might think that he agrees with R. Meir.
  And were we told of the case of [low-growth] only, we might have thought that it is only in that case that R. Meir states his rule, but in the other two cases, he agrees with R. Judah; hence all these are necessary.
  The question was asked: What is the rule about selling them cattle with the stipulation that it be slaughtered?
  Shall we say that in those other instances the reason why R. Judah permits is because the land is not in the non-Jew’s domain and therefore he may not be able to leave it there, whereas cattle, which is in his own domain, he might keep it [unslaughtered], or perhaps it makes no difference?
  Come and hear: It has been taught: Cattle with the stipulation that he should slaughter it, and he then slaughters it, the words of R. Judah. R. Meir says: We may only sell it to them when slaughtered.
  One should not let houses to them in the land of Israel; and it is not necessary to mention fields. In Syria houses may be let to them, but not fields. 
  
  Daf 21a
  
  Outside of the land of Israel, houses may be sold and fields let to them, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: in the land of Israel, one may let to them houses but not fields; In Syria, we may sell them houses and let fields; Outside of the land of Israel, both may be sold.
  Even in such a place where the letting of a house has been permitted, they did not say [that this was permitted if it was] for the purpose of a residence,  since the idolater will bring idols into it; for it says, “you shall not bring an abomination into your house” (Deut. 7:26). In no place may one let a bath-house to an idolater, as it is called by the name of the owner.
  GEMARA. What does it mean “and it is not necessary to mention fields”? If we say that it is for two reasons, first of all that the non-Jew settles on the soil, and second that the [produce] becomes exempt from tithes? 
  If so, then houses too have two reasons: first, that he settles on the soil, and second they become exempt from having a mezuzah. R. Mesharsheya said: Mezuzah is an obligation of the resident.
  In Syria they may rent them houses, but not fields. Why is selling [of houses] different in that it is not allowed? Lest it lead to selling [houses] in the Land of Israel. If so, we should prohibit letting them houses as well? Letting itself is a decree; shall we then go make a decree on a decree?
  But is not the letting of a field in Syria is a decree on another decree, and yet we still make that decree? That is not a decree, for it follows the opinion that even the annexation by an individual is to be regarded as annexed [to Israel].
  For a field for which there are two problems, the rabbis made a decree. But in the case of houses, where there are two problems, the rabbis made no decree.
  Outside of the land, houses may be sold and fields rented to them. A field, which has two problems, the rabbis decreed; but in the case of a house, since there is only one problem they did not decree.
  R. Yose says: In the land of Israel, we may let them houses but not fields. What is the reason? In the case of fields, for which there are two problems, the rabbis made a decree, but in the case of houses, for which there are not two problems, the rabbis did not make a decree:
  In Syria, we may sell them houses and let them fields, What is the reason? [R. Yose] holds that the conquering made by an individual is not regarded as a proper conquering; hence in the case of fields, for which there are two problems, the rabbis made a decree, but in the case of houses, for which there are not two problems, the rabbis did not make a decree.
  But abroad, the one as well as the other may be sold. What is the reason? Because it is far from Israel they do not make any decree.
  Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The halakhah follows R. Yose. R. Joseph: As long as he does not make it a community. And how many [residents] constitute a community? It was taught a community constitutes no less than three.
  But should we not fear lest one Israelite go and sell a property to one non-Jew, and then another sell to two? Abaye said: We are commanded not to place a stumbling block, but we are not commanded to not to place a stumbling block before stumbling block.
  Even in a place where they said that renting is permitted. This implies that there
  are places where renting is not permitted. 
  
  Daf 21b
  
  Thus the anonymous mishnah accords with R. Meir for R. Yose allows renting in all places.
  In all places one should not rent them a bath-house. It has been taught: Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel said: One should not rent his bath-house to a non-Jew, for it is called by the owner's name, and the non-Jew will work in it on Shabbat and festivals.
  But to a Samaritan is it permitted? Say that he might do work on the intermediate days of the festival. On the intermediate days we too do such work.
  But renting a field to a non-Jew is permitted! What is the reason? Because people will say that he is merely a tenant working for his tenancy. With regard to a bath-house people will also say that he is working for his tenancy? People do not generally rent a bath-house on terms for tenancy.
  It was taught: R. Shimon b. Elazar says: One should not rent one's field to a Samaritan, for it is called by the owner's name and the Samaritan will do work on it on the intermediate days of the festival. But what about to a non-Jew? It is permitted? Because they will say that he is a tenant working for his own tenancy. If so, why should it not be said in the case of a Samaritan, too, that he is a tenant working for his own tenancy?
  
  
  Daf 22a
  
  R. Shimon b. Elazar is not thinking about tenancy. Rather why is it permitted in the case of a non-Jew? Because if he is told [not to work on forbidden days] he obeys. The Samaritan will not listen to a Jew who tells him not to work on hol hamoed. The Samaritan believes that he knows more than the Jew, and in their system of laws, working a field on hol hamoed is permitted. 
  The Talmud notes that there is an additional reason for why it is prohibited to rent a field to a Samaritan. This will give the Samaritan an opportunity to work the field on hol hamoed. Providing a person with an opportunity to transgress is considered placing a stumbling block before the bling. Thus there are really two reasons why one should not do this.
  Two saffron-growers, the non-Jew took charge of the field on Shabbat, and the Israelite took charge on Sunday. They came before Rava; and he permitted the partnership.
  Ravina raised a difficulty on Rava: If an Israelite and a non-Jew leased a field in partnership, the Israelite should not say subsequently to the non-Jew, Take your portion of the profit for the work on Shabbat, and I will take as mine for the week day. 
  But if they made such a condition at the outset, it is permitted. But if they calculate the profit it is forbidden. Rava was embarrassed. Subsequently, it was revealed that the partners had indeed laid down that condition originally.
  R. Gavihah of Be-Katil said: That was a case of orlah plants, the non-Jew ate the produce during the orlah years and the Israelite during [a corresponding number of] permitted years. They came before Rava who permitted it.
  But did not Ravina raise a difficulty on Rava? [No,] it was in order to support it. Then why was Rava embarrassed? That never occurred at all. 
  What if the partners did not make any arrangements, neither before nor after? Can the Jew take the profits from Sunday and the non-Jew from Saturday?
  In the end, the baraita cannot answer this question. The first half would lead to the ruling that without any explicit arrangements it is prohibited. And the second half would lead to the opposite. 
  May we return to you, chapter “Before their festivals”
  Non-Jewish idolaters are suspected of bestiality. Therefore Jews should not place animals in their inns. By doing so they would be encouraging the non-Jew to engage in bestiality, which according to Jewish ideology is also forbidden to non-Jews. It is one of the seven “Noahide” commandments which are incumbent upon non-Jews to observe. Jewish women should not be alone with non-Jewish idolaters for they are suspected of being rapists. Jewish men should not be alone with non-Jewish idolaters for they are suspected of being murderers.
  
  Daf 22b
  
  GEMARA. They raised the following in contradiction: One may buy from them cattle for a sacrifice, and we need not fear lest they engaged in bestiality with it, or lest they designated as an offering to idols, or lest it had been worshipped.
  Now it makes sense not to fear that it was designated as an offering to idols or made an object of worship, since if it had been so designated or worshipped, its owner would not have sold it; but we should be concerned lest it engaged in bestiality! R. Tahlifa said in the name of R. Shila b. Avina in the name of Rav: A non-Jew would have regard for his cattle, lest it becomes barren.
  This makes sense in the case of female cattle but what do you say about the males? R. Kahana said: Since it weakens their flesh.
  Then what about that which was taught: “One may buy cattle of from their shepherd” let us be concerned lest he engage in bestiality with it? Their shepherd would be afraid of losing his wages.
  What then about that which was taught: “One should not turn over cattle to a non-Jewish shepherd” why not say that their shepherd would be afraid of losing his wages?
  They who know each other, would fear. We who do not know about this, would not be afraid. Rabbah said: This is what people, “As the stylus penetrates the stone so the spy knows the other.”
  In that case, we should not buy male cattle from women, for fear that they will use the animal for bestiality! She would be afraid of being followed about by the animal.
  Then what about that which R. Joseph taught: “A widow should not rear dogs, nor accommodate a student as a guest”? Now this makes sense in the case of a student, as she might rely on his modesty, but in the case of a dog why not say that she would be afraid of being followed about by it?
  Since when she throws it a piece of meat, people will say that it is following her because of the piece of meat.
  Why then should we not leave female animals alone with female non-Jews? Mar Ukba b. Hama said: Because non-Jews frequent their neighbors’ wives, and should one by chance not find her in, and find the cattle there, he might engage in bestiality with it.
  You may also say that even if he should find her in he might engage in bestiality with the animal, as a Master has said: Non-Jews prefer the beasts of Israelites to their own wives, for R. Yohanan said: When the serpent came unto Eve he infused pollution into her. If that be so [the same should apply] also to Israel! When Israel stood at Sinai their pollution was eliminated, but the non-Jews, who did not stand at Sinai, their pollution did not cease.
  The question was asked: How about birds? Come and hear: Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel in the name of R. Hanina: I saw a non-Jew buy a goose in the market, have sex with it, and then strangle it, roast, and eat it. R. Jeremiah of Difti said: I saw an Arab who bought a side [of meat], pierced it in order to have sex with it, and then roast it and eat it.
  
  
  Daf 23a
  
  Ravina said: There is no contradiction; the one teaching [prohibits it] ab initio; the other [permits it] ex post facto.
  And from where do we know that a difference is made between ab initio and ex post facto? From the following: We have learned: A woman should not be alone with them, because they are suspected of fornication; and against this they cast the following: A woman who had been imprisoned by non-Jews in connection with monetary matters, is permissible to her husband, but if on a capital charge, she is forbidden to her husband.
  Does this not prove that we differentiate between ab initio and ex post facto? But how would you know this! Perhaps I could say to you that the prohibition applies even after it happened, but here the reason is that the non-Jew will be afraid to lose his money!
  You can indeed prove it by what is stated in the second clause: “If on a capital charge, she is forbidden to her husband.” So there is no more [to be said about this].
  Pedat said: There is no contradiction; the one is [according to] R. Eliezer, the other is [according to] the rabbis. For we have learned in connection with the red heifer: R. Eliezer says: It must not be bought from a non-Jew, but the sages permit it. Do they not disagree over this: R. Eliezer holds that we are concerned about bestiality while the rabbis hold that we are not concerned about bestiality?
  From where [do you we know this]? Perhaps all agree that we are not concerned about bestiality, and here the reason for R. Eliezer’s opinion is like that which was said by Rav Judah in the name of Rav, for Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: [In the case of the red heifer] even if a bundle of sacks was laid on her she is disqualified, but in the case of the calf, only if she had been made to draw a burden.
  [It may thus be that] one master is of the opinion that we should be concerned, and the other that we should not be concerned! Do not let this enter your mind; for the sake of a small comfort one would not risk a big loss.
  Let us then say likewise that for the sake of a little enjoyment one would not risk so big a loss! In that instance his inclination impels him.
  But [still] it may be that all agree that we are not suspicious about adultery, but here the reason for R. Eliezer's ruling is as was taught by Shila? For Shila taught: What is the reason for R. Eliezer's ruling? “Speak to the children of Israel, and they shall bring to you” (Numbers 19:2), [which implies that] Israelites shall bring, but non-Jews should not bring.
  Do not think this; for it is taught in the second clause: So too R. Eliezer disqualified all other kinds of sacrifices. Now were you to reason as Shila taught, it would make sense in the case of the [red] heifer, for “bringing,” is written in connection with it, but does Scripture ever mention “bringing” in connection with other sacrifices? But perhaps the rabbis disagree with R. Eliezer
  
  
  Daf 23b
  
  only in the case of the [red] heifer which is very valuable, but in the case of other sacrifices they agree with him?
  But then whose opinion would be that which was taught: We may purchase from them cattle for [ordinary] sacrifices? Neither that of R. Eliezer nor that of the rabbis!
  Moreover, it is explicitly taught: How did the rabbis refute R. Eliezer, “All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together to you . . . they shall come up with acceptance on my altar” (Isaiah 60:7).
  The difference of opinion up until here is only in regard to suspicion [of bestiality], but if we know for certain that he had bestiality with it, it is unfit. From here then you can deduce that the [degree of sanctity of the red heifer] is that of sacrifices offer on the altar; for if it had only the sanctity of those [dedicated] to repairs of the temple, even bestiality would not disqualify it.
  The red heifer may be different for the Torah calls it a sin-offering.
  If that be so, it should be disqualified if born through caesarean: and were you to say that it is so indeed, why then are we taught: If one dedicates [as a red heifer] born through a caesarean section, it is unfit, but R. Shimon declares it as fit?
  And were you to say that R. Shimon follows here the opinion he expressed elsewhere that one born of caesarean section is to be regarded as a properly born child, has not R. Yohanan said that R. Shimon agreed, in regard to sacred things, that it is not sacred?
  Rather the case of the red heifer is different; since a blemish renders it unfit, bestiality and idolatrous worship also render it unfit; as it is written, “[nor shall you accept such [animals] from a foreigner for offering as food for your God], for they are corrupted, they have a defect” (Leviticus 22:25) and the School of R. Ishmael taught: Wherever “corruption” is mentioned it only means fornication and idolatry:
  “fornication,” as it is said, “for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth” (Genesis 6:12); and “idolatry,” or Scripture says, “Lest you corrupt and make yourself a graven image” (Deuteronomy 4:16), and since a blemish renders the red heifer unfit, bestiality and idolatrous worship also render it unfit.
  The above text stated: Shila taught: What is the reason for R. Eliezer's ruling? It is as it is written, “Speak to the children of Israel and they shall bring” (Numbers 19:2), [which imply that] Israelites shall bring, but non-Jews should not bring. According to this, “Speak to the children of Israel that they bring for me an offering” (Exodus 25:2) Israelites should bring and non-Jews should not bring.
  And were you to say that this is indeed so, surely Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: They asked R. Eliezer: To what extent must one go to honor one's father and mother? He answered: Go forth and see how a certain gentile in Ashkelon, Dama the son of Natina was his name, acted. Once they asked him about selling precious stones for the ephod 
  
  Daf 24a
  
  at a profit of six hundred thousand [denarii]. (R. Kahana says eight hundred thousand); but the keys were lying under his father's head-pillow, so he would not disturb him!
  The words “onyx stones” are detached from the preceding words. But are they not followed by “and stones to be set” which again connects them?
  Moreover, it teaches at the end of that tradition: In a subsequent year a “red heifer” was born in his herd. The sages of Israel called on him. He said to them: I know that if I were to demand from you all the money in the world, you would give it to me, but all I ask of you now is that money that I had lost because of my father!
  In that case it was purchased through [the agency of] Israelite merchants.
  R. Eliezer is not then concerned about bestiality?
  Has it not been taught: They said to R. Eliezer: It happened that they bought [a red heifer] from a non-Jew named Dama — or, as some say, named Remetz . R. Eliezer replied: What does that prove? Israelites were watching the heifer from the hour of its birth? R. Eliezer has two reasons [why the red heifer may not be bought from a non-Jew]: the word “bought” as well as the suspicion of bestiality.
  The Master said: Israelites watched the heifer from the time of its birth. But we should be suspicious that they had bestiality with its mother when she was pregnant, for Rava said: The young of a goring cow is unfit, for it was both the cow and her young that did the goring. Likewise the young of an animal that had engaged in bestiality is unfit, since the animal and the young were ill-used together? Rather, say that Israelites watched it from the time it was first formed.
  Let us be concerned that they had bestiality with them mother, for we have learned: All [animals] which are forbidden to be offered on the altar — their young are permitted. And on this it was taught that R. Eliezer forbade.
  Now, this makes sense according to Rava, for Rava said in the name of R. Nahman: The dispute only applies to a case of an animal which engaged in bestiality when already dedicated as a sacrifice; but if when still non-sacred, all agree that [the young] is permitted.
  But to R. Huna b. Hinena who said in the name of R. Nahman that the dispute applies to a case of an animal with which they engaged in bestiality while still non-sacred, but if when already dedicated all agree that [the young] is forbidden what could you say?
  Rather we must say that the mother, too, was watched by Israelites since the time it was first formed. But let us suspect that they had bestiality with the mother's mother? This suspicious we are not.
  The Master said: “It was watched by Jews from the time it was first formed.’ How did they know it [would be born a red heifer]? R. Kahana said: A red cup would be passed before [the mother] when the male is mating with her.
  If that is so, why should [a red heifer] be so costly? Because even two hairs [of another color] disqualify her. Then why [use this means] on their [animals]? R. Kahana said: When it was assumed [to be of the breed that could form a red heifer].
  R. Ammi and R. Isaac Nafha were sitting in the tent of R. Isaac Nafha. One of them began and said: Thus R. Eliezer forbade [animals bought from a non-Jew] for all sacrifices.
  Thereupon the other one began and said: What difficulty did the others raise against R. Eliezer, “All the flocks of Kedar shall be assembled for you, [The rams of Nebaioth shall serve your needs; They shall be welcome offerings on My altar] (Isaiah 60:7). R. Eliezer replied: All these will become self-made proselytes in the time to come.
  R. Joseph said: What is the verse [for this]? For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, [that they may all call upon the name of the Lord]” (Zephaniah 3:9). Abaye said to him: Perhaps this merely means that they will turn away from idolatry? And R. Joseph answered him: The verse continues, “and to serve Him with one consent.”
  This is how R. Papa reported it; but R. Zevid reported thus: Both [R. Ammi and R. Isaac Nafha] said: Thus, R. Eliezer forbade [animal bought from non-Jews] for all sacrifices. And both of them said: How did his colleagues refute R. Eliezer? “All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered etc.”, and R. Eliezer said: They will all become self-made proselytes in the time to come,
  And what is the verse? “For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord” R. Joseph objected: Perhaps this merely Perhaps this merely means that they will turn away from idolatry? Abaye said to him: The verse continues, “to serve Him with one consent.”
  They raised an objection: “And Moses said: You must also give into our hand sacrifices and burnt-offerings” (Exodus 10:25). It was different before the giving of the Torah.
  Come and hear: “And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt-offering and sacrifices for God” (Exodus 18:12). Jethro also occurred before the giving of the Torah This works according to the one who says that Jethro's [visit to Moses] came before the giving of the Torah, but according to the one who says that
  
  Daf 24b
  
  Jethro's [visit] came after the giving of the Torah, what can you say? Rather, Jethro bought it from an Israelite.
  Come and hear: “And Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice to the Lord your God!” (I Samuel 15:15). What is meant by the best is the price of the best. 
  Then why bring the best? So that they find eager buyers.
  Come and hear: “And Araunah said to David, Let my lord the King take and offer up what seems good unto him: behold the oxen for the burnt offering and morigim and the furniture of the oxen for the wood” (II Samuel 24:22). R. Nahman said: Araunah was a resident alien.
  What are morigim? Ulla said: A “turbil bed.” And what is a “turbil bed”? A “goat with hooks” which is used for threshing. R. Joseph said: What verse shows this? “Behold I will make you a new sharp threshing instrument [morag] having teeth; you shall thresh the mountains, and beat them small, and shall make the hills as chaff” (Isaiah 41:15).
  They raised an objection: “And they sacrificed the cattle as a burnt-offering to the Lord” (I Samuel 6:14)! This was a temporary ruling. 
  This also makes sense, for had not that been the case, how could a female be used as a burnt offering?
  What is the difficulty? Perhaps this was a private “high place,” and it accords with the opinion of R. Adda b. Ahava; for R. Adda b. Ahava said: How do we know that a female sacrifice is fit as a burnt offering on a private high-place? As it is said, “And Shmuel took a suckling lamb and offered it for a burnt offering” (I Samuel 7:9).
  “But he offered him” implies that it was a male! R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: It is written, and offered her.
  R. Yohanan said: There are limits: under the age of three years [an animal] becomes infertile, but from the age of three years it does not become infertile.
  They raised all of the above difficulties as refutation, and he replied that they referred to animals under the age of three years.
  Come and hear: “And the cattle they offered as a burnt offering unto the Lord” (I Samuel 6:14). This, too, refers to those under the age of three years.
  R. Huna the son of R. Natan objected: In that case the words, “and their calves they shut up at home,” refer to those under three years; but does a cow under three years give birth? Have we not learned: In the case of a cow or of a donkey which is three years old [the one born] certainly belongs to the priest; from that age upward it is doubtful. Rather, it is clear that the earlier resolutions were correct.
  “And the cattle took the straight way [vayisharnah] on the way to Bet Shemesh” (I Samuel 6:12). What is the meaning of the word vayisharnah? R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Meir: They sang. R. Zutra b. Tobiah said in the name of Rav: They directed their faces towards the Ark and sang. 
  And what did they sing? R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Meir: “Then Moses and the Children of Israel sang” (Exodus 15:1). R. Yohanan himself said: “And on that day you shall say, Give thanks unto the Lord, call upon His name, make known His doings among the peoples” (Isaiah 12:4) etc.
  R. Shimon b. Lakish said: [They sang] the “orphaned” Psalm: “A Psalm. Sing unto the Lord a new song, for He has done marvelous things; His right hand, and His holy arm, have wrought salvation for Him” (Psalms 98:1). R. Eliezer said: “The Lord reigns, let the peoples tremble” (Psalms 99:1). R. Shmuel b. Nahmani said: “The Lord reigns; He is clothed in majesty” (Psalms 93:1).
  R. Yitzchak Nafha said: [They sang:] Sing, sing, acacia; ascend in all your glory; overlaid with golden embroidery, exalted by the book [devir] of the palace, and magnificent with jewels.
  R. Ashi taught this statement made by R. Isaac on the following: And it came to pass, when the Ark set forward, that Moses said, Rise up, O Lord etc. What did the Israelites say? R. Yitzchak said: Sing, sing, acacia….
  Rav said: According to whom do the Persians calling a book “devir”? From here: “Now the name of Devir before time was Kiryat-Sefer” (Judges 1:11).
  R. Ashi said: According to whom do the Persians call a menstruant a “Dashtana”? From here, “For the way of a woman is upon me” (Genesis 31:35).
  
  Daf 25a
  
  “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Yashar” (Joshua 10:3). What is the book of Yashar? R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan: It is the book of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who are designated as righteous, as it is said, “Let me die the death of the righteous” (Numbers 23:10).
  And where is this incident hinted at [in Genesis]? “And his seed shall fill the nations” (Genesis 48:19): When shall [Ephraim's fame] fill the nations? At the time when the sun will stand still for Joshua. “And the sun stayed in the midst of the heaven and hastened not to go down for about a whole day” (Joshua 10:13). How long [did the sun stand still]?
  R. Joshua b. Levi said: Twenty four hours: [The sun] moved for six hours and stood still for six, then it moved for six and stood still for six, then it moved for six and stood still for six; the whole thing took about a whole day
  R. Elazar said: Thirty-six hours; it moved for six hours and stood still for twelve, it then moved for six and stood still for twelve so that its ceasing alone equaled a whole day. R. Shmuel b. Nahmani said: Forty-eight; it moved for six and stood for twelve, it then moved for six and stood still for twenty-four, as its says, “and hastened not to go down for about a whole day,” which implies that the previous stoppage did not equal a whole day.
  There are those who say that that it was over the additional hours which they disputed. R. Joshua b. Levi said: They were twenty-four; it moved for six and stood for twelve, then moved for six and stood for twelve — its halt thus equaled a whole day; R. Eleazar said: Thirty-six; it moved for six and stood for twelve, then moved for six and stood for twenty-four, “and hastened not to go down about a whole day.”
  R. Shmuel b. Nahmani said: Forty-eight; it moved for six and stood for twentyfour, then moved for six and again stood for twenty-four; comparing its standing still [at noon] with that of setting time; just as the one at setting time equaled a whole day, so the standing still [in the middle of the sky] equaled a whole day. 
  A Tanna taught: Just as the sun stood still for Joshua, so did the sun stand still for Moses and for Nakdimon b. Gorion. [As to the case of] Joshua, there are the scriptural verses; [that of] Nakdimon b. Gorion is a tradition; From where do we know about Moses? It may be derived from the identical [expression] “I will begin” [used in both cases]. Here it is written, “I will begin to put the dread of you” (Deuteronomy 2:25), and there, referring to Joshua, it is written, “I will begin to magnify you” (Joshua 3:7). 
  R. Yohanan said: It may be derived from the identical expression “put” [used in both cases]. Here is written, “I will begin to put the dread of you”, and there, concerning Joshua, it is written, “In the day when the Lord put the Amorites” (Joshua 10:12). 
  R. Shmuel b. Nahmani said: You can detect it in the very wording of the verse itself, “[This day will I begin to deliver the dread of you and the fear of you upon the peoples that are under the whole heaven, who,] when they hear the report of you, shall tremble and be in anguish because of you” (Deuteronomy  2:25): When did they tremble and were in anguish because of you? When the sun stood still for Moses.
  They raised a difficulty: [Does not it say in the case of Joshua] “And there was no day like that before it or after it?” (Joshua 10:14). If you want you may explain that there was no day that lasted as long as that one; Or if you want, you may say it means that there were no hailstones [as in the case of Joshua], of which it is written, “And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, while they were in the descent of Bet-Horon, that the Lord cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azeka and they died” (Joshua 10:11).
  It is written, “And said to teach the Children of Judah [to handle] the bow, behold it is written in the Book of Yashar” (II Samuel 2:18). What is the book of Yashar? R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan: It is the book of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who are designated as righteous, as it is said, “Let me die the death of the righteous” (Numbers 23:10).
  And where is this fact hinted at? “Judah, you, your brothers shall praise; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies” (Genesis 49:8).  kind of fighting requires hand to be directed at the [enemy's neck]? Say that this is archery.
  R. Elazar said: It is the book of Deuteronomy, which is here called the Book of Yashar, because it is written, “And you shall do that which is right [yashar] in the sight of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:18). And where does it hint [at Judah's archery]? “His hands shall contend for him” (Deuteronomy 33:7): What kind of fighting requires both hands? Surely, archery.
  R. Shmuel b. Nahmani said: It is the Book of Judges. And why do they call it Sefer Hayashar, because it contains the verse, “In those days there was no King in Israel; every man did that which was right [“yashar”] in his own eyes. And where is this hinted at? “That the generations of the Children of Israel might know, to teach them war” (Judges 3:2). What kind of warfare requires teaching? Surely, archery.
  But how do we know that this verse refers to Judah? From the scriptural verse, “Who shall go up for us first against the Canaanites, to fight against them? And the Lord said, Judah shall go up” (Judges 1:1).
  “And the cook took up the thigh, and that which was upon it and set it before Saul” (I Samuel 9:24). What means, “that which was upon it’? R. Yohanan said: the thigh and the tail. And what does “that which was upon it” mean? The thigh which is next to the tail; 
  R. Elazar said: the thigh and the breast. And what does “that which was upon it” mean? The placing of the breast upon the thigh when these have to be formally waved. R. Shmuel b. Nahmani said: the leg and the cap; and what does “that which was upon it” mean? The cap which is above the leg.
  A woman should not be alone with idolaters. What are we dealing with here? If to one idolater, then in the case of an Israelite would it be permitted? Have we not learned, “One man should not remain alone even with two women”?
  
  Daf 25b
  
  It must therefore refer to three idolaters. But would this be permitted in the case of loose Israelites? Have we not learned: “But one woman may be alone with two men,” and Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: This refers only to moral men, but as to loose ones, it is not permitted, even if they are ten. And it happened that ten men took her out on a bier [for an immoral purpose]!
  It is necessary in a case where the man's wife is present. An idolater, his wife will not prevent him, but the wife of an Israelite will prevent him.
  But derive that this is prohibited for fear of murder? R. Yirmiyah said: We are here dealing with a woman of high repute, so that he would be afraid of killing her. R. Idi replied: Every woman has her weapons on her. 
  What is the practical difference between them? The practical difference is the case of a woman who is considered important among men but not among women.
  It was taught in agreement in accordance with the opinion of R. Idi b. Abin: A woman, even though she in a state of peace, should not be alone with them, because they are suspected of fornication.
  No man should be alone with them. Our Rabbis taught: If an Israelite happens to be joined by an idolater while on the road, he should let him (the idolater) walk on his right. R. Ishmael the son of R. Yohanan the son of R. Yohanan b. Berokah says: [If  the idolater is armed] with a sword, he should let him walk on his right; if with a stick on the left.
  If they are ascending or descending, the Israelite should not be on the lower level and the idolater on the higher. Rather the Israelite should be higher and the idolater lower; Nor should the Israelite bend down in front of him, lest he smashes his skull
  If the idolater asks him where he is going, he should say towards a place beyond his actual destination, just as our father Jacob acted towards the wicked Esau; as it is written, “Until I come unto my lord to Seir” (Genesis 33:14),
  while it is written, “And Jacob journeyed to Succoth” (Genesis 33:17). 
  It once happened that some disciples of R. Akiva were journeying to Khziv. They were overtaken by bandits who asked them where they were going. They replied, “To Acco.” On reaching Khziv they separated from them. The bandits then said to them, “Whose disciples are you?” And they replied, ‘The disciples of R. Akiva” They said, “Happy are R. Akiva and his disciples, for no evil man has ever encountered them.
  R. Menashe was once going
  
  Daf 26a
  
  to Be-Toratha. Thieves met him on the road. They asked him where he was going. He said, “Toward Pumbeditha.” When he reached Be-Toratha he separated. They said to him, “You are a disciple of [Rav] Judah the deceiver.” He to them, “Do you really know him? May it be the [Divine] will that these men be under his ban.” 
  For twenty-two years they went on stealing but did not meet with any success. When they saw this, they all came to ask for the ban to be revoked. Now there was among them one weaver who did not come to have his ban annulled, and he was devoured by a lion. This is what is meant by what people say: A a weaver who is not shy, a year is deducted from his allotted years
  Come now and see what difference there is between mere thieves of Babylon and robbers of Eretz Yisrael!
  A Jewish woman should not act as midwife to a non-Jewish woman, because she would be delivering a child for idolatry. But a non-Jewish woman may act as midwife to a Jewish woman. A Jewish woman should not suckle the child of a non-Jewish woman, But a non-Jewish woman may suckle the child of a Jewish woman in her premises.
  GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: An Israelite woman should not act as midwife for an idolatrous woman, because she delivers a child to idolatry; nor should an idolatrous woman act as midwife to an Israelite woman because they are suspected of murder, the words of R. Meir.
  But the sages say: An idolatrous woman may act as midwife to an Israelite woman so long as there are others standing by, but not if she is acting on her own. But R. Meir says: Even if others are standing by her [she may not act as midwife], for she may find an opportunity to put her hand on the [infant's] soft spot and kill it, and they will not see her.
  Like the incident of that woman who, on called her neighbor, “Jewish midwife, the daughter of a Jewish midwife!” She said back, “May many evils befall that woman, as I have spilled their blood like the froth of the river.”
  The Rabbis could say to you: This is not so; she may have merely given her some kind of retort.
  An Israelite woman should not nurse etc. Our Rabbis taught: An Israelite woman should not nurse the child of an idolater, because she is raising a child for idolatry; nor should an idolatrous woman nurse  child of an Israelite woman, because she is liable to murder it, the words of R. Meir. But the Sages say: An idolatrous may nurse a child of an Israelite woman, so long as there are others standing by her, but not if she is on her own. R. Meir says: Even if others are standing by her [it is still prohibited] for she may take the opportunity to rubbing in poison on her breast beforehand and so kill the child.
  And both cases are necessary; for if we were told about a midwife only [we might have thought that] only in that case do the Sages permit for others see her, but in the case of nursing, where it is possible for her to apply poison to the breast beforehand and kill the child, they might agree with R. Meir.
  If [on the other hand] we were told only about nursing, [we might have thought that] only in that case does R. Meir forbid, because she could kill the child by applying poison to her breast beforehand, but in the case of a midwife, where she could do no harm while others are standing by her, he might agree with the Rabbis; [hence both are] necessary.
  The following was cited in contradiction: A Jewish woman may act as midwife for a non-Jewish woman for payment but not for free. R. Yoseph said: Payment is permitted to prevent enmity.
  R. Joseph thought that even on Shabbat it is permitted to act as midwife for a non-Jew for payment, so as to avoid enmity. Abaye said to him: The Jewish woman could say [in excuse], “For our own, who keep the Shabbat, we desecrate it, but for you, who do not observe Shabbat, we do not desecrate it.”
  R. Joseph thought that even nursing for payment should be allowed because of enmity Abaye said to him: She can say to him [in excuse], if she is unmarried, “I want to get married,” or, if she is married, “I will not pollute myself before my husband.”
  R. Joseph thought to say in regard to what has been taught: Idolaters and shepherds of small cattle one is not obligated to bring them up [from a pit] but one should not cast them in it; but for payment it is permitted to bring them up to prevent enmity. 
  Abaye said to him: He could say [in excuse], “My son is on the roof’, or, “I have to keep an appointment at the court.”
  R. Abahu taught in front of R. Yohanan: Idolaters and [Jewish] shepherds of small cattle need not be brought up [from a pit]
  
  Daf 26b
  
  though they should not be cast in, but heretics, informers, and apostates may be cast in, and need not be brought up.
  R. Yohanan said to him: I have been teaching “And so shall you do with every lost thing of your brother's” (Deuteronomy 22:3) that this comes to include the apostate, and you say he may be cast down. Erase [from this list] apostates! 
  But let him resolve that the one might apply to the kind of apostate who eats carrion to satisfy his appetite, and the other to an apostate who eats carrion to provoke? In his opinion, an apostate eating carrion meat to provoke is the same as a heretic.
  It was stated: [In regard to the term] “apostate” there is a disagreement between R. Aha and Ravina; one says that [he who eats forbidden food] to satisfy his appetite, is an apostate, but [he who does so] to provoke is a heretic; while the other says that even [one who does so] to provoke is merely an apostate. And who is a “heretic”? One who actually worships idols.
  They objected: If one eats a flea or a gnat he is an apostate. Now here this must have been done to provoke, and yet we are taught that he is merely an apostate! Even in there he may just be trying to see what a forbidden thing tastes like.
  The Master said: They may be cast in and need not be brought up — if they may be cast in, does it need to say they need not be brought up?  R. Joseph b. Hama said in the name of R. Sheshet: It is only necessary to teach that if there was a step in the sides of the pit, one may scrape it off, giving as a reason for doing so that a wild animal should not go down in there.
  Raba and R. Joseph both of them said: It was only necessary that if there is a stone lying by the pit opening, one may cover the pit with it, saying that he does it for [the safety] of passing animals. Rabina said: It is was only necessary that if there is a ladder there, he may remove it, saying, I want it for getting my son down from the roof.
  Our Rabbis taught: An Israelite may circumcise a non-Jew for the purpose of becoming a proselyte, but not for [the purpose of] removing a worm. But a non-Jew may not circumcise an Israelite, because they are suspected of murder, the words of R. Meir.
  The Sages said: A non-Jew may circumcise an Israelite, so long as others are standing by him, but not while he is on his own. R. Meir said: Not even when others are standing by him, for he may find occasion to let the knife slip and so cut off his genitals.
  Does then R. Meir hold that a non-Jew is not [to be allowed to circumcise]? But the opposite is proved by the following: In a town where there is no Jewish physician, but there is a physician who is a Samaritan and one who is a non-Jew, let the non-Jew circumcise and not the Samaritan, the words of R. Meir. R. Judah said: Let the Samaritan circumcise and not the non-Jew. 
  Reverse [the names]: R. Meir says that the Samaritan and not the non-Jew can circumcise, and R. Judah says the non-Jew and not the Samaritan.
  Does then R. Judah hold that a non-Jew may circumcise? But has it not been taught: R. Judah said: From where can it be deduced that circumcision performed by a non-Jew is invalid? From this verse, “And as for you, you shall keep my covenant” (Genesis 17:9).
  Indeed, do not reverse the positions, but say that we are here dealing
  
  Daf 27a
  
  with an expert physician. For when R. Dimi came he said in the name of R. Yohanan that if [a non-Jewish physician] is recognized as an expert by the public, it is permissible [for him to circumcise an Israelite]. Does then 
  R. Judah hold that a Samaritan may [circumcise an Israelite]? But has it not been taught: An Israelite may circumcise a Samaritan, but a Samaritan may not circumcise an Israelite, because he performs the circumcision for the sake of Mount Gerizim, the words of R. Judah.
  R. Yose said to him: Where in the Torah do we find that circumcision must be performed specifically for its purpose? Rather he may go on performing it until the day of his death.
  Rather we must then reverse names as we did before, and as to the difficulty that R. Judah contradicts R. Judah— the former opinion should be ascribed to
  R. Judah the Prince. For it has been taught: R. Judah the Prince says: From where do we learn that circumcision performed by a non-Jew is invalid? Scripture says, “And as for you, you shall keep my covenant.”
  R. Hisda: What is the reasoning of R. Judah? As it is written, “To the Lord, he shall circumcise” (Exodus 12:48). And R. Yose, “Circumcise, he shall circumcise” (Genesis 17:13)
  But as to the other [R. Yose], is it not written “the Lord he shall circumcise? That refers to the Pesah sacrifice.  as to the other [R. Judah] is it not written, “Circumcise, he shall circumcise”? The Torah speaks in human language.
  It has been stated: From where do we know that circumcision performed by a non-Jew is invalid? Daru b. Papa said in the name of Rav: [From the words,] “And as for you, you shall keep my covenant.” While R. Yohanan: “Circumcise, you shall surely circumcise” [which he reads as if it says “he who is circumcised shall circumcise.”
  What practical difference is there between these two? The case of a circumcised Arab or a circumcised Gibeonite: According to the one who said, “he who is circumcised shall circumcise” he may, but according to the one who says, “And as for you, you shall keep my covenant.”
  But according to the one who says, “He who is circumcised shall circumcise” is he really allowed, have we not learned, [He who says], “I vow not to derive benefit anything belonging to uncircumcised persons,” may derive benefit from uncircumcised Israelites, but may not derive benefit from circumcised non-Jew. Thus, even though they are circumcised it is as if they are uncircumcised.
  Rather they differ in the case of an Israelite whose brothers died because of circumcision so that he was not circumcised: according to the one who says, “You shall keep my covenant” he may: while according to the one who says, “He who is circumcised shall circumcise,” he may not.
  And to the one who said, “He who is circumcised shall circumcise” he may not? Have we not learned: [He who says,] “I vow not to derive benefit from anything belonging to circumcised persons, must not derive benefit from uncircumcised Israelites, but may derive benefit from circumcised non-Jews: which proves that Israelites who are not circumcised are considered as circumcised.
  Rather they differ in the case of a woman. According to the one who says “You shall keep my covenant,” she may not circumcise, since a woman is not subject to circumcision, while according to the one who says “He who is circumcised shall circumcise,” she may, for a woman it is as if she is circumcised.
  But does anyone really hold that a woman is not [qualified to perform circumcision]. Is it not written, “Then Zipporah took a flint” (Exodus 4:25)? Read it, “she caused to be taken.” But it also says, “And she cut off!” Read it, “And she caused it to be cut off,” by asking another person, a man, to do it. Or you may say it means that she only began and Moses came and completed it.
  We may allow them to heal us when the healing relates to money, but not personal healing; Nor should we have our hair cut by them in any place, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages said: in a public place it is permitted, but not when the two persons are alone.
  GEMARA. What is “healing relating to money” and what is “personal healing”? Shall we say that “healing relating to money” means for payment and “personal healing” free? Then the Mishnah should have said: We may allow them to heal us for payment but not free!
  Rather “healing related to money” must therefore mean where no danger is involved and “personal healing” where there is danger. But has not Rav Judah said: Even the wound over a bloodletting incision should not be healed by them?
  Rather, “healing related to money” therefore relates to one's cattle, and personal healing to one's own body, about which Rav Judah said: Even the wound over a bloodletting incision should not be healed by them.
  R. Hisda said in the name of Mar Ukba: But if he said to him that such and such medicine is good for him and such and such medicine is bad for him, it is permitted [to follow his advice]
  
  Daf 27b
  
  for he will think that he is merely asking him, and just as he is asking him so he will also ask others, so that if he gives the wrong advice, he will come to spoil his reputation.
  Rava said in the name of R. Yohanan [and some say R. Hisda in the name of R. Yohanan]: In the case where it is doubtful whether [the patient] will live or die, we must not allow them to heal; but if he will certainly die, we may allow them to heal.
  “Die”! Surely there is still the life of the hour [to be considered]? The life of the hour is not to be considered.
  How do you know that the life of the hour is not to be considered? As it is written, “If we say: we will enter into the city, then the famine is in the city, and we shall die there” (II Kings 7:4). Now is there not the life of the hour [which they might lose]! This implies that the life of the hour is not to be considered.
  An objection was raised: ‘No man should have any dealings with the heretics, nor is it allowed to be healed by them, even to save an hour’s worth of life.
  It once happened that Ben Dama the son of R. Ishmael's sister was bitten by a snake and Jacob, a man of Kefar Sekaniah, came to heal him but R. Ishmael did not let him; whereupon Ben Dama said, “My brother R. Ishmael, let him, so that I may be healed by him. I will even cite a verse from the Torah that he is to be permitted,” but he did not manage to complete his saying, when his soul departed and he died.
  R. Ishmael said about him, Happy are you Ben Dama for your body was pure and your soul left you in purity and you did not transgress the words of your colleagues, who said, “He who breaks through a fence, a snake shall bite him” (Ecclesiastes 10:8).
  It is different with the teaching of the heretics, for he may come to be drawn after it.
  The Master said: Nor have you transgressed the words of you colleagues who , “He who breaks through a fence, a snake shall bite him”? But a snake did indeed bite him! The snake of the rabbis [did not bite him] which can never be cured.
  Now, what is it that he might have said? “He shall live by them,” (Leviticus 18:5) but not die by them.
  And R. Ishmael? This is only meant when in private, but not in public; for it has been taught: R. Ishmael used to say: From where can we deduce that if they say to one, “Worship idol worship and you will not be killed,” that he may worship it so as not to be killed? Scripture says, “He shall live by them,” but not die by them. This might mean even in public, therefore Scripture says, “And you shall not profane My holy name” (Leviticus 22:32).
  Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in the name of R. Yohanan: Any wound for which Shabbat may be profaned should not be healed by them (by non-Jews). Others say that Rabba b. Bar Hanah said: Any
  
  Daf 28a
  
  internal wound should not be healed by them. Hand and foot wounds are considered serious wounds for which one may break Shabbat even though they are not internal wounds. According to the first version, one may not be healed by a non-Jew for them, but according to the second version, one may since they are not truly internal wounds.
  R. Zutra b. Tuvyah said in the name of Rav: Any wound which requires a [medical] opinion one may profane Shabbat for it. R. Shemen b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan: This burning fever is to be regarded as an internal wound for which Shabbat may be profaned.
  Where does an internal wound begin? R. Ammi explained: On the lip and inward. R. Elazar asked: How about the gums and the teeth: Since they are hard, should they be regarded as external; or do we say that, since they are placed within [the mouth], they are to be regarded as internal? 
  Abaye said: Come and hear: One who is troubled with his teeth must not rinse them with vinegar [on Shabbat]. If he is only “troubled” he must not [rinse them] but if they hurt him very much he may do it. Perhaps this Tanna would call “being troubled” even if they hurt very much.
  Then come and hear this: R. Yohanan was troubled with scurvy [on his gums] and he went to a certain [non-Jewish] lady. She attended to him on Thursday and the Friday. He said: What about tomorrow? She replied: You will not need [the treatment]. But what if I do need it? he asked. She replied: Swear to me that you will not reveal [the remedy]. He said: I swear, to the God of Israel I will not reveal it. She revealed it to him. The next day he went out and expounded on it in his public lecture.
  But did he not swear to her? He swore: “To the God of Israel I will not reveal it,” but I may reveal it to His people Israel. But is this not a desecration of God’s Name? He said this to her originally.
  Now is it not evident then that [a sore on the gum] is regarded as an internal sore? R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: Scurvy is different, because though starting in the mouth it extends to the intestines.
  What is its symptom? If he places anything between his teeth, blood comes from the gums. What causes it? The chill of cold wheat and the heat of hot barley, also the remnant of fish-hash and flour. What did she apply to it? R. Aha the son of Rava said: Leaven-water with olive oil and salt. Mar son of R. Ashi said: Geese-fat smeared with a goose-quill.
  Abaye said: I did all this but was not cured, until a certain Arab told me to get seeds of an olive not one third ripe and burn them on a new spade and spread [the ashes] on the gums. I did this and was cured.
  But how could R. Yohanan do this: Did not Rabbah b. Bar Hanah say in the name of R. Yohanan: Any sore for which Shabbat may be transgressed should not be healed by a non-Jew? It is different with an important man.
  What about R. Abahu, who too was a distinguished man, yet Jacob the heretic prepared for him a medicine for his leg, and were it not for R. Ammi and R. Asi who licked his leg, he would have cut his leg off?
  The one [who attended] R. Yohanan was an expert physician. R. Abahu’s [doctor] was also an expert physician! It was different in the case of R. Abahu, for heretics establish within themselves the attitude of “let me die with the Philistines” (Judges 16:30).
  Shmuel said: This gash is to be regarded as dangerous and Shabbat may be desecrated to heal it. What is the remedy? For stopping the bleeding, cress with vinegar; for cause [flesh] to rise on the wound, scavla scrapings and thornbush scrapings, or a salve made from the worms of the trash.
  R. Safra said: These grapelike boils are the forerunners of the Angel of Death. What is the remedy? A tigna plant soaked in honey or parsley soaked in wine. In the meantime, one should bring a grape of the same size and rub it on the boil, a white grape for a white boil, and a black grape for a black boil.
  Rava said: This abscess is a forerunner of fever. What is the remedy for it? One should snap it sixty times with his thumb and then cut open crosswise; But this is only so if the head is not yet white, but if its head is white, it matters not.
  R. Jacob suffered
  
  
  Daf 28b
  
  from hemorrhoids and R. Ammi — some say R. Assi — directed him to take seven grains of ice plant, wrap them up in the collar of a shirt, tie it round with a white thread [of cattle-hair], dip it in white naphtha and burn it, and apply [the ashes] to the sore. While preparing this he should take the kernel of a bramble nut and apply its split side to his split side. But this is with regard to the upper crevice. What [is one to do] if it is the lower crevice?
  One should take some fat of a goat that has not yet been opened [by birth], melt it and apply it.
  And if he cannot do this, he should take three melon leaves which have faded in the shade, burn them and apply the ashes. In the absence of these, he should bring snail-shells, or else take olive-oil mixed with wax and he should smear it on a rag of linen in the summer and cotton wool in the winter.
  R. Abahu had an earache and he was given some directions by R. Johanan — others say, by those in the House of Study. What were the directions? Similar to those of Abaye [who said]: My Mother told me that kidneys were only made to [heal] the ear. Rava also said: Minyomi the physician told me that any kind of fluid is bad for the ear except the juice from kidneys. One should take the kidney of a bald ram, cut it cross-wise and place it on glowing coals, and pour the water which comes out of it into the ear, neither cold nor hot, but tepid.
  And if he can’t do this, one should take the fat of a large-size beetle, melt it and drip it [into the ear]. And if he can’t do this, he should fill the ear with oil, then he should make seven wicks out of green blades of wheat-stalks at the one end of which dry garlic ends and some white thread should be set alight while the other end is placed within the ear, the ear should be exposed to the light but care should be taken that no spark falls on it, each wick [when done with] should be replaced by another.
  Another version is: And if this is not possible, he should prepare seven wicks of white thread and dip them in oil of balsam-wood setting light to the one end and placing the other end in the ear, each one, when done with, should be replaced by another, care being taken to avoid any sparks. 
  And if this is not possible he should take tow cotton which has been dyed but not combed and place it within the ear, which should be placed above a fire, taking precaution against sparks. Another remedy: Take a tube of an old cane [which has been detached from the soil] for about a century and fill it with rock salt, then burn it and apply the ashes [to the sore part]. [Take as] thy mnemonic [to remember how to apply the foregoing,] in liquid form to a dry sore, and in dry form to a wet sore.
  Rava b. Zutra in the name of R. Hanina: It is permissible to restore the ear into its proper position on Shabbat. R. Shmuel b. Judah taught: With the hand, but not by applying medicines. There are those who say: By applying medicine, but not with the hand. Why not? He might come to injure him.
  R. Zutra b. Tuvyah in the name of Rav: An eye that got out of order, it is permissible to put blue paint on it on Shabbat. They thought that this is true only when the medical ingredients had been ground the previous day, but if it is necessary to grind them on the Sabbath and carry them through the public domain, it would not be permitted. One of the rabbis, and R. Jacob was his name, remarked to him: It was explained to me on behalf of Rav Judah that even grinding on the Sabbath and the carrying through the public street are permissible.
  Rav Judah permitted painting one’s eye on Shabbat. R. Shmuel b. Judah said: He who acts according to Judah desecrates Shabbat. In the end he had an eye sore. He sent to ask of Rav Judah: Is it permitted or forbidden? He sent back [the following reply:] “To everyone else it is permitted — but to you it is forbidden.”
  [Rav Judah said]: Was it on my own authority [that I permitted it?] It was on that of Mar Shmuel. It once happened to a maid-servant in Mar Shmuel's house that her eye became inflamed on a Sabbath. She cried, but no one attended her and her eye dropped. The next day Mar Shmuel went out and expounded that if one's eye gets out of order it is permissible to paint it on Shabbat. What is the reason? Because the tendons of the eye are dependent upon the valves of the heart.
  What, for example [is considered a life-threatening eye injury]? R. Judah said: Such as discharge, pricking, congestion, watering, inflammation or the first stages of sickness, excluding the last stage of sickness or the brightening of the eyesight in which cases it is not permitted.
  Rav Judah said: The sting of a wasp, the prick of a thorn, an abscess, a sore eye or an inflammation — for all these a bath-house is dangerous. Radishes are good for fever, and beets for cold shivers: the reverse is dangerous. Warm things [are good] for a scorpion [bite] and cold things for that by a wasp: the reverse is dangerous.
  
  Daf 29a
  
  Likewise warm things for a thorn prick and cold for an eruption: the reverse is dangerous.
  Vinegar [is good] after letting blood and small fish in brine after fasting; the reverse is dangerous. Cress [after] blood-letting is dangerous. Fever is dangerous for blood-letting; so also are sore eyes dangerous for bloodletting. The second [day] after [eating] fish [may be used] for [the letting of] blood; the second day after bleeding, for [eating] fish; on the third day it is injurious.
  Our rabbis taught: One who has his blood let should abstain from HGBSH: milk (H), cheese (G), onions (B) and pepperwort (SH). If one has eaten any of these: Abaye said: he should take a quarter of vinegar and a quarter of wine, mix them together and drink; and when he has to defecate, he should not defecate to the east of the town for the smell is bad.
  R. Joshua b. Levi said: It is permitted to lift the unkali on Shabbat. What is the unkali? R. Abba said: The cartilage [in front] of the heart. What is the remedy for it? Take cumin, caraway, mint, wormwood, satureja and hyssop.
  For [problems of] the heart, [mix it] in wine. And your mnemonic is “wine gladdens the heart of man” (Psalms 104:15). For [problems in] breathing, [mix it] in water. And your mnemonic is: “The breath of God hovered over the face of the water” (Genesis 1:2); For childbirth, mix it in beer. And your mnemonic is, “her pitcher on her shoulder” Genesis 24:15).
  R. Aha the son of Rava ground all these together and took a fist-full [of the mixture] and drank it. R. Ashi ground each one separately and took a full pinch of it with his thumb and little finger. R. Papa said: I did all these but was not cured till an Arab told me to take a new jug, fill it with water and throw in a spoonful of honey, which stood overnight under the stars and the next day to drink the contents. I did this and was cured.
  Our Rabbis taught: Six things help the sick to recover from sickness and their cure is real. And these are they: cabbage, beets, water in which dried chamomile had been soaked, the stomach [of an animal], the womb [of an animal] and the lobe above the liver; some say, also small fish; moreover small fish keep the whole human body in a fit condition. 
  Ten things return the sick to his sickness, and to make his illness severe. And these are they: to eat ox-meat, fat, roast meat, birds’ meat, roast egg, pepperwort, shaving, bathing, cheese or liver. Some say also nuts, others add also melons. In the School of Ishmael it was taught: Why are they called kishuim [melons]? Because they are kashin [injurious] to the whole human body as swords.
  The Jew must keep his eye on the non-Jew cutting his hair, lest the non-Jew try to murder him. And a Jew may cut a non-Jew’s hair, but not his special forelock for this is associated with idolatry. The Jew should not be seen as helping groom this special part of the hair.
  The Master said: When an Israelite is having his hair cut by a non-Jew he must look in the mirror? What is the specific case? If it is done in a public domain, why does he need a mirror? If in a private domain, even if he looks into it, how does this help? [It refers] indeed to a private domain, but since he is using the mirror he will look like an important person.
  R. Hana b. Bizna was having his hair cut in the road leading to Nehardea by a non-Jew. He said to him: Hana, Hana, your throat is fine for the scissors. He answered: I deserve it for transgressing the words of R. Meir.
  And did he not also transgress the words of the rabbis, for the rabbis only permit it in a public place but not in a private place? He thought that the roads leading to Nehardea, where there are usually many people there, are to be regarded as a public place.
  And a non-Jew having his hair cut from a Jew, when he reaches the forelock, he must leave it alone. How much [of it is he to leave]? R. Malkiah said in the name of R. Adda b. Ahava: Three fingers’ length on every side.
  R. Hanina the son of R. Ika: [The statements about] a spear, maid-servants, and small holes, are by R. Malkio; [but those about] the forelock, burnt ashes, and cheese are by R. Malkiah. 
  R. Papa however said: If referring to a mishnah or baraita, it is R. Malkiah, but if in reference to an amoraic statement, it is R. Malkio. And your mnemonic is, “The tannaitic statement is queen.” What is the difference between the two? They differ in regard to the statement about maid-servants. 
  
  Daf 29b
  
  The following things belonging to non-Jews are forbidden [for Jews to use] and the prohibition extends to any benefit that may be derived from them: wine, or a non-Jew’s vinegar that was formerly wine, Hadrianic earthenware, skins pierced at the animal’s heart. Rabban Shimon Gamaliel says: when its tear is round, [the skin] is forbidden, but if oblong it is permitted.
   Meat which is being brought into a place of idol worship is permitted, but that which is brought out is forbidden, because it is like a sacrifice to the dead, this is the opinion of Rabbi Akiba. With non-Jews going on a pilgrimage [to worship idols] it is forbidden to have any business transactions, but with those returning it is permitted.
  Skin-bottles or flasks belonging to non-Jews in which wine of a Jew is kept are forbidden and the prohibition extends to any benefit that may be derived from them, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say that the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit. Grape seeds and grape-skins of non-Jews are forbidden, the prohibition extending to any benefit that may be derived from them, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, when fresh they are forbidden but when dry they are permitted.
  Fish brine and Bithynian cheese of the non-Jews are forbidden, the prohibition extending to any benefit that may be derived from them, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say that the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit.
  Rabbi Judah said: Rabbi Ishmael put this question to Rabbi Joshua as they were walking on the way, “Why have they forbidden the cheese of non-Jews?” He replied, because they curdle it with the rennet of a nevelah (an animal that was not properly slaughtered.” 
  He (Rabbi Ishmael) said: “but is not the rennet of a burnt-offering more strictly forbidden than the rennet of a nevelah? [and yet] it was said that a priest who is not fastidious may suck it out raw.” (Though the Sages disagreed with this opinion, and they said that no benefit may be derived from it, although one who consumed it did not trespass [temple property]).
  Rabbi Joshua responded: “The reason then is because they curdle it with the rennet from calves sacrificed to idols.” He (Rabbi Ishmael) said to him: “If that be so, why do they not extend the prohibition to any benefit derived from it?
  He (Rabbi Joshua) diverted him to another matter, saying: “Ishmael, how do you read — ‘for your [masc.] love is more delightful than wine’ or ‘your [fem.] love’ etc. (Song of Songs 1:2)?” He replied: “your [fem.] love is better . . .” 
  He said to him: “This is not so, as it is proved by the parallel verse, ‘Your ointments [masc.] have a goodly fragrance … [therefore do the maidens love you]’ (Song of Songs 1:3).” 
  GEMARA. From where do we learn [the prohibition of] wine? Rabbah b. Avuha said: The verse says, “Who did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink-offering,” (Deuteronomy 32:38). Just as it is forbidden to derive benefit from [idolatrous] sacrifice so too it is forbidden to derive benefit from their wine.
  But from where do we know that an [idolatrous] sacrifice itself is prohibited? As it is written, “They joined themselves to Baal Peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead” (Psalms 106:28): Just as deriving benefit from the dead is forbidden so too idolatrous sacrifices are prohibited.
  And from where do we know this about the dead? We deduce it from the similar expression “there” used in connection with the heifer whose neck was to be broken. Here it is said, “And Miriam died there” (Numbers 20:1), and there it is said, “And they shall break the heifer's neck there in the wadi” (Deuteronomy 21:4). Just as in the case of the heifer, it is prohibited to derive benefit from it, so too here it is prohibited to derive benefit from it.
  But how do we know that it is so in that case? Those of the school of R. Yannai said: Because atonement is written about it, as with sacrifices.
  Or the wine of a non-Jew that was originally wine. This is obvious! Just because it turned sour its prohibition is removed? R. Ashi said: This comes to teach that vinegar belonging to us being held by a non-Jew does not require double sealing. If we are concerned lest he libate it, [vinegar] is generally not libated. And if we are concerned that he might exchange it for his own — since there is one seal, he would not take the trouble to falsify it.
  R. Elai said: We have taught: Boiled wine belonging to a non-Jew, which was formerly wine is forbidden. This is obvious! Just because it was cooked, its prohibition is removed? R. Ashi said: This comes to teach that vinegar belonging to us being held by a non-Jew does not require double sealing. If we are concerned lest he libate it, [cooked wine] is generally not libated. And if
  
  Daf 30a
  
  if we are concerned that he might exchange it for his own — since there is one seal, he would not take the trouble to falsify it.
  Our Rabbis taught: Boiled wine or alontit belonging to a non-Jew is forbidden, but prepared alontit is permitted. What is alontit? As it was taught in connection with Shabbat: We may make anomalin but not alontith. What is “anomalin” and what is “alontit”? Anomalin [is a mixture of] wine, honey and pepper; alontit [is a mixture] of old wine, clear water and balsam, which is made for use in the bath-house.
  Rabbah and R. Joseph both of them said that diluted wine does not become forbidden through being left uncovered; nor is boiled wine to be suspected of being libated. The question was asked: Does boiled wine become forbidden by being left uncovered or not? Come and hear: R. Jacob b. Idi testified in regard to boiled wine that it does not become forbidden by being left uncovered.
  R. Yannai b. Ishmael was sick and R. Ishmael b. Zirud and other rabbis came to ask about him. As they sat, the question was asked of them: Does boiled wine become forbidden by being uncovered? To which R. Ishmael b. Zirud replied: Thus said R. Shimon b. Lakish on behalf of a great man — and his name is R. Hiyya: Boiled wine does not become prohibited by being left uncovered. They said, “Shall we rely on it?” R. Jannai b. Ishmael motioned [as if to say], “The responsibility is on me and on my neck.”
  Shmuel and Avlet were sitting together when boiled wine was brought up for them. [The latter] withdrew his hand. Shmuel said to him: Behold, they said that boiled wine is not to be suspected of idolatrous use.
  R. Hiyya's maid-servant found that some boiled wine had been left uncovered. She came [to ask about it] in front of R. Hiyya. He told her: Behold they said that boiled wine is not rendered unfit by being left uncovered. The servant of R. Adda b. Ahavah found some diluted wine had been left uncovered. He said to him: Behold they said that diluted wine is not rendered unfit by being left uncovered.
  R. Papa said: This has only been said [of wine] that is well diluted; but if it is only slightly diluted [a snake] might drink it. But does it indeed drink wine that is slightly diluted? But was not Rabbah son of R. Huna travelling in a boat and had some wine with him. He saw that a snake was cutting through the water and approaching. He said to his attendant,  “Put out its eyes!” The attendant took some water and poured it into the wine and the snake turned back!
  For pure wine [the snake] will even endanger its life, while for diluted wine it will not endanger its life.
  And it does not endanger its life for diluted wine? What about R. Yannai who was at Akhborei’s house (others say it was Bar-Hadaya that was at Akhborei’s) where people were sitting and drinking diluted wine. Some of it was left in the   cask they tied a rag over it? He then saw a snake carrying water which it poured into the cask till the cask was so filled that the wine came above the rag, and [the snake then] drank!
  We can say that what [the snake] itself dilutes it will drink, but it will not drink what others dilute. 
  R. Ashi (and some say, R. Mesharsheya) said: A resolution for a matter of danger! Rava said: The law is that diluted wine is rendered unfit by being left uncovered and is to be suspected of idolatrous use, but boiled wine does not become unfit by being left uncovered nor is it suspected of idolatrous use.
  R. Hilkiah b. Tobi’s servant [found that] he had been sleeping next to a tank of water that had been left uncovered. He came to [ask about it from] R. Hilkiah b. Tobi. He said to him: It has been stated that snakes are afraid of a sleeping person. But this is true only during the day time but not at night. But this is not the case. It does not matter whether it is day or night, there are afraid of a sleeping person.
  Rav did not drink water from a non-Jew’s house, saying that they are not cautious about the laws of leaving liquid uncovered. From a widow's house he did drink, saying, she follows her husband's practice.
  Shmuel [on the other hand] would not drink water from the house of a widow. He said: The fear of her husband is not on her and she will not necessarily keep the water covered. But he would drink from the house of a non-Jew. Even if they are not particular about [the prohibition relating to] uncovered liquids, they are particular about cleanliness. Some say that Rav would not drink the water from a non-Jew’s house, but would drink that of a widow's house, while Shmuel would not drink the water from either the house of a non-Jew or that of a widow.
  R. Joshua b. Levi said: There are three kinds of wine to which the prohibition of being left uncovered does not apply: strong, bitter, and sweet. “Sharp” is the acrid tila which makes the wine-skin burst; “Bitter” is wine made of unripe grapes; “Sweet” is wine made of grapes sweetened [by the heat of the sun]. R. Hama taught [that those three] are improved wines: “Sharp”-is wine mixed with pepper; “Bitter” is wine mixed with wormwood; ‘Sweet’ — is sparkling wine.
  R. Shimon b. Lakish: Karina does not become prohibited by being left uncovered. What is Karina? R. Abbahu said: Karina is a sweet wine from Asia. Rava said: In its own place, however, it is rendered unfit if left uncovered, the reason being that it is the “local wine.”Rava said: Wine which has formed a film—for the first three days it is made unfit by being left uncovered and it is suspected of idolatrous use;
  
  Daf 30b
  
  from this point and onwards, it is not made unfit by being left uncovered nor it is suspected of idolatrous use. The Nehardeans say that even after three days we must be concerned about it being left uncovered. What is the reason? Occasionally even such wine is drunk [by snakes]. 
  Our Rabbis taught: Wine in the first stage of fermentation does not become prohibited by being left uncovered. And how long is it considered to be fermenting? Three days. Cress-dish does not become prohibited by being left uncovered. But those in the Diaspora have a custom to forbid it it [if left uncovered]. But this was said only if there was no vinegar in it; but if there is vinegar in it, it deters snakes.
  Babylonian kutah does not become prohibited by being left uncovered, but those in the Diaspora have a custom to prohibit it. R. Manashi said: If it has traces of biting we must suspect [it of being bitten by a snake]. R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Shmuel: Dripping water does not become prohibited by being left uncovered. R. Ashi said: That is if the dripping is continuous.
  R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Shmuel: The opening of a fig does not become prohibited by being left uncovered. This is like the following Tanna: For it has been taught: R. Eliezer says, One may eat grapes and figs at night without suspecting any harm, for Scripture says, “The Lord guards the simple” (Psalms 116:6).
  R. Safra said in the name of R. Joshua of the south: There are three kinds of  venoms [of snakes]: that of a young one sinks to the bottom; that of a middle aged one bubbles in the middle; while that of an old one floats on top. That is to say that the older a snake gets the more his strength diminishes. But  has it not been taught: There are three whose strength increases as their age advances: a fish, a snake and a swine! Its strength indeed increases, but its venom becomes weaker.
  The venom of a young one sinks to the bottom. What practical application does this have? As it is taught: If a barrel was uncovered, even if nine persons drank from it and did not die, the tenth person is still forbidden to drink from it. It happened indeed that nine people drank from it and did not die but the tenth one died; and R. Jeremiah said: It was a case of the venom sinking to the bottom.
  Likewise if a [cut] melon was left uncovered and nine persons ate of it without dying, it is forbidden for a tenth person to eat from it, for it once happened that nine persons ate of such a one and did not die and the tenth one who ate it died; and Rav said that it was a case of venom that sank to the bottom.
  Our Rabbis taught: Water which had been left uncovered should not be poured out in a public road, or used for sprinkling the floor of a house, or for kneading mortar; nor should one give it to his animal or to his neighbor's animal to drink; nor should one wash one's face, hands or feet therewith. Others said: Only a part of the body that has an opening must not [be washed with] but where there is no opening it is permitted.
  The “others” hold the same as the first opinion? They differ in regard to the back part of the hand and of the foot, or the upper part of the face.
  The Master said: “Nor should one give it to his own animal or to his neighbor's animal to drink.” But has it not been taught: One may, however, give it to his own animal to drink? That teaching refers to a cat. Why then not to his neighbor's? Because it weakens it. Then his own, too, would it not weaken it? But it subsequently recovers. Then his neighbor's would also recover? It might so happen that he might wish to sell it and would suffer loss through it.
  R. Assi said in the name of R. Yohanan who said it in the name of R. Judah ben Batera: There are three kinds of wine: [1] Wine that has been libated. It is forbidden to derive any benefit from this wine, and the quantity of the size of an olive causes serious impurity;
  
  
  Daf 31a
  
  [2] Ordinary wine belonging to non-Jews, from which it is likewise forbidden to derive any benefit, and a quarter [of a log] of which renders drinks [or foods] impure. [3] One who deposits his wine with a non-Jew, it is forbidden to drink it, but it is permitted to derive benefit from it.
  If one deposits his fruit with an idolater it is considered as if it were the idolater's own fruit as regards tithes or Sabbatical year's produce. In our instance he assigned a separate corner to it.
  In that case it should be permitted to drink it as well! For when R. Yohanan came to Parud he asked if there was any teaching (mishnah) of Bar-Kappara, and R. Tanhum of Parud quoted to him [the following]: Wine which had been deposited with an idolater is permissible for drinking.
  He applied to him the verse, “In the place where the tree falls, there shall it be.” “There it shall be”— how can that be? But it means that there shall its fruit be.
  R. Zera said: There is no contradiction: the one is according to the opinion of R. Eliezer and the other according to that of the rabbis,
  For it has been taught: If one buys or rents a house in a court of an idolater and stores wine in it, and the key or seal is in the charge of an Israelite: R. Eliezer permits it, but the Sages forbid it.
  R. Hiyya the son of R. Hiyya b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Hisda [who said it] in the name of Rav (and some say that R. Hisda said it in the name of R. Ze'iri, while others say that R. Hisda said, I was told by Aba b. Harina that Ze'iri said it: The halakhah follows R. Eliezer.
  R. Elazar said: Everything is considered guarded by one seal, except wine which is not considered guarded by one seal. R. Yohanan however said: Even wine is considered guarded by one seal. And they are not arguing with one other: one follows the opinion of R. Eliezer, and the other, that of the rabbis.
  Some say [the following version]: R. Elazar said: Everything is sufficiently guarded by a seal within another seal, except wine which is not guarded even with a seal within a seal. R. Yohanan said: Even wine is guarded by a seal within a seal. Both these follow the opinion of the rabbis, the one holding that the rabbis disagree with R. Eliezer only when there is only one seal, but if there is a seal within another seal they, too, permit it; while the other holds that even in the case of a double seal they forbid.
  What, for example, is a seal within another seal? Rava said: A basin placed over the opening of a barrel and joined to the barrel with a seal on it, is a seal within another seal, otherwise it is not so; A basket fastened [over the stopper] is a seal within a seal, but if it is not fastened it is not a seal within a seal. A skin bottle within a bag with the closed opening of the skin bottle on the bottom, is a seal within a seal, but if the opening is on the top, it is not a seal within a seal; if he bends in the closed opening of the skin bottle within and then ties the bottle up again and seals it, it is considered a seal within a seal.
  Our rabbis taught: Formerly the ruling was that wine of En-Kushi is forbidden  because of Birat-Sirika, that of Borkata is forbidden on account of KefarParshai, and that of Zagdar is forbidden because of Kefar-Shalem; subsequently they said: Open casks are forbidden, but closed ones are permitted.
  What did they hold at first and what did they hold at the end? At first they held  that a Samaritan does not care if a non-Jew has contact [with the wine] whether the casks are open or closed; but subsequently they held that only in the case of open ones they are not particular, but in the case of closed casks they are very particular.
  Is it then permitted in the case of open barrels?
  
  Daf 31b
  
  But the following contradicts it: One who sends a cask of wine by the hand of a Samaritan, or of brine or murias by the hand of a non-Jew, if he can identify his seal and the [spot and manner of] his closing up, it is permitted, but if not it is forbidden!
  R. Zera said: There is no contradiction: The one refers to the town, the other to the open road.
  R. Yirmiyah raised a difficulty on this: But did not those in the town come by the road? Rather R. Yirmiyah said: They taught this in reference to [casks found in] the vicinity of the wine presses; since all the people are milling around there, he would be afraid [to let a non-Jew touch it] saying, “if they see this, I will lose money.”
  It has been stated: Why did they prohibit the beer of idolaters? Rami b. Hama said in the name of R. Yitzchak: Because of fraternization. R. Nahman said: Because it might have been left uncovered.
   “Uncovered” when? If while in the vat, we also keep it uncovered; and if while in the barrel, in that state, too, we keep it uncovered! It may only refer to a place where the water is allowed to settle.
  In that case it should be permitted when it matures, for Rav said: [Wine which is] matured is permitted, for [the venom] would not allow it to mature; [so also wine which has] gone to vinegar is permitted, for it would not have allowed it to go to vinegar! Matured is forbidden as a safeguard against the fresh.
  R. Papa used to drink beer when it was brought out to him to the door of the shop; R. Ahai used to drink it when it was brought to his house. Both of them held that the reason [for the prohibition] is intermarriage. R. Ahai was extra precautious.
  R. Shmuel b. Bisna happened to be in Marguan: They brought him wine but he would not drink it, they then brought him beer but he did not drink it either. It is makes sense that he did not drink the wine, as there is a suspicion, but what objection is there to the beer? There is the suspicion of a suspicion.
  Rav said: Non-Jewish beer is permitted, but still I would not allow my son Hiyya to drink it. Which way will you have it? If it is permitted then it should be permitted to all; if it is forbidden, it should be forbidden to all!
  Rav suspects it of being left uncovered; but the bitter taste of the hops counteracts any venom that might be in it. One who is weak, it would injure him greatly, and his son Hiyya, since he is weak, should not drink it.
  Shmuel said to Hiyya b. Rav: Son of a lion, come and I will tell you an excellent thing which your father Rav used to say. Thus said your father: Those swollen Arameans who drink what is kept uncovered suffer no fatal consequences because through eating abominable and creeping things, their bodies become immune from it.
  R. Joseph said:
  
  Daf 32a
  
  The vinegar which non-Jews make from beer is forbidden because they mix yeast of idolatrous wine in it. Ashi said: If it is from a storehouse it is permitted, for if it contained such admixture it would have been spoiled.
  Hadrianic earthenware. What does Hadrianic mean? Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: Earthenware of King Hadrian. When R. Dimi came [from Eretz Yisrael] he said: Virgin soil, which had not been tilled before, used to be tilled by [the Romans] and planted with vines. They would the put the wine into white jugs which absorbed the wine. They broke these vessels into fragments which they used to carry, and wherever they came they soaked them [in water] and drank of it. R. Joshua b. Levi said: Our first [quality wine] is only equal to their third [soaking].
  The question was asked: May one use these shards as supports of the legs of a bed? If the Jew wants the object to exist for some other reason, is it permitted or forbidden?
  Come and hear! R. Elazar and R. Yohanan: One said it is prohibited and the other said it is permitted. [And the halakhah follows the one who said it is prohibited.]
  An objection was raised: Barrels or leather bottles belonging to non-Jews: Jewish wine kept in them is forbidden for drinking but permitted for deriving benefit. Shimon b. Gudda testified in the presence of R. Gamaliel's son that R. Gamaliel drank of such wine in Acco, but they did not agree to this practice.
  As to wine flasks belonging to non-Jews, R. Shimon b. Gamaliel says in the name of R. Joshua b. Kapusai that it is forbidden to make of them covers for a donkey. But here there is an intention to preserve [the forbidden thing] for some other purpose and yet we are taught that it is forbidden!
  But according to your reasoning then, it should also be prohibited to sell the earthenware flasks of non-Jews, for what difference is there between [leather] flasks and [earthenware] flasks? Rava said: This is prohibited by decree lest his flask be split and he takes the flask of the non-Jew and patches it on his own.
  Now according to the one who holds that if he wishes to preserve [a forbidden thing] for some other purpose it is forbidden, why is the use of [earthenware] flasks allowed? His answer might be: There, in that case the forbidden matter is not there in substance, whereas in the other cases the substance of the forbidden matter is there.
  [It was stated above:] “But they did not agree to this practice.” A contradiction was raised: Wine contained in leather bottles of non-Jews is forbidden for drinking but permitted for deriving benefit. Shimon b. Gudda’ testified in the presence of R. Gamaliel's son that R. Gamaliel drank of such in Acco, and they did agree to this practice.
  What did it mean there “they did not agree to this practice?” His colleagues did not agree, but his son did agree. Or, if you wish, it may be said that Gudda is one and Gudda’ is another.
  Skins pierced at the animal's heart: Our rabbis taught: What is a skin pierced at the heart? Any skin that is torn opposite the heart and is round like an aperture. If there is a drop of blood on it, it is forbidden, but if it has no such drop of blood it is permitted. 
  
  Daf 32b
  
  it is forbidden, but if it has no such drop of blood it is permitted. R. Huna said: That is only if it has not been treated with salt, but if it has been treated with salt, it is forbidden in either case, for we can say that the salt may have removed it.
  R. Shimon b. Gamaliel says when its tear is round [the skin] it is forbidden, but if oblong it is permitted. R. Joseph said in the name of Rav Judah who said it in the name of Shmuel: The halakhah follows R. Shimon b. Gamaliel.
  Abaye said: “The halakhah follows” implies that they argue about this? He said to him: What difference does it make to you? He said back to him: Is the learning of the tradition, to be like the singing of a song?
  Meat which is being brought into an idolatrous place is permitted. Who is the tanna that teaches this? R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan: It is not R. Eliezer; for were it R. Eliezer, did he not say that an idolater generally has idolatry in his mind.
  But that which is brought out is forbidden, because it is regarded as sacrifices of the dead. What is the reason? Because it is impossible for some idolatrous sacrifice not to have taken place. Whose opinion is this? That of R. Judah b. Batera;
  for it has been taught: R.  Judah b. Batera says: From where can we deduce that idolatrous offerings defile by overshadowing? From the verse, “They joined themselves to Ba’al-Peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead” (Psalms 106:28) just as a dead body defiles by overshadowing, so too an idolatrous sacrifice causes such defilement by overshadowing.
  With idolaters going to a place of idolatry, it is forbidden to have any business transactions. Shmuel said: With idolaters going to a place of idolatry, on their way there, it is forbidden [to have business transactions], for they will go and offer thanks to the idols; but on their return it is permitted, for what has happened has already happened.
  If an Israelite goes to a place of idolatry, it is permitted [to deal with him] on his journey there, for he may change his mind and not go; but on his return it is forbidden, for as
  
  Daf 33a
  
  he has already become attached to it he will go again and again
  But has it not been taught: It is forbidden [to do any business transactions] with an Israelite going towards a place of idolatry either on his journey there or back? R. Ashi said: When they taught that, it referred to an apostate Israelite, who is sure to go.
  Our rabbis taught: With an idolater going to a market-fair it is permitted to deal both on his journey there and back; but in the case of a Jew going to such a fair, it is permitted on his journey there but forbidden on his return journey.
  Why is an Israelite different in that it is forbidden on his return journey? For we say that he may have been selling articles of idolatry and has thus idolatry money with him. Should we not say the same in the case of an idolater that he may have sold articles of idol-worship and carries idolatry-money on him?
  Rather, in the case of an idolater we say that he may have sold such things as a garment or wine. [If so] let us then say in the case of an Israelite, too, that it may have been such things as a garment or wine that he was selling! If he had such things only he would have sold them here.
  But with those coming from there it is permitted. R. Shimon b. Lakish said: This teaching applies only if they are not connected to one another, but if they are connected to one another it is forbidden, for we should say that each one has a mind to return again.
  Skin bottles and [earthenware] flagons belonging to pagans. Our Rabbis taught: Skin bottles of pagans, without pitch: If they are new, they are permitted. But if old or lined with pitch they are forbidden. If a pagan lined them with pitch and put the wine into them while an Israelite was standing by him, there is no reason for concern.
  But since the pagan puts the wine into the bottles, how does it help that an Israelite stands by him? R. Papa said: What is meant is that if a pagan pitched and lined them and an Israelite poured wine into them while another Israelite was standing by there is no cause for suspicion. 
  But if it is an Israelite that is pouring the wine into them, what need is there for another Israelite to stand by? Lest while the Israelite is busy, the heathen pour some of it out for idolatry and he wouldn’t notice.
  R. Zevid said: The original wording can indeed stand, but here the reason is that when wine is poured into the fresh pitch it is as water that is poured in mortar. R. Papi said: From what was said by R. Zevid it may be deduced that if a pagan poured wine into the salt cellar of an Israelite [the salt] is permitted. 
  R. Ashi raised a difficulty: How can these be compared? In that case the wine has disappeared, while here it has not disappeared! 
  Bar Adi, an Arab, once seized a wine-skin from R. Isaac b. Joseph. He put wine in it returned it to him. He came and asked about it in the Bet Midrash. R. Yirmiyah said to him: This is how R. Ammi ruled in an actual case: [The vessels] are to be filled with water for three days and then emptied. And Rava said: The water should be emptied every twenty-four hours.
  They at first thought that this applies only to our [vessels used by pagans] but not to theirs. When Rabin came [from Palestine] he said in the name of R. Shimon b. Lakish: [It applies to] either ours or theirs. R. Aha b. Rava thought, sitting before R. Ashi, that this only applies to wineskins but not to earthenware ones. But R. Ashi said to him: It makes no difference whether they be skin-bottles or earthenware ones.
  Our rabbis taught: Earthenware bottles belonging to pagans, if new and stripped, are permitted, but if old and pitched they are forbidden. If an idolater kept wine in them, the Israelite should put water into them; but though an idolater kept wine in them an Israelite may [immediately] put brine or murias into them without any concern.
  The question was asked:
  
  
  Daf 33b
  
  Is he allowed to do so ab initio or only ex post facto? Come and hear: For R. Zevid b. Oshaia taught: If one buys earthenware bottles from an idolater, if they are new he may put wine into them; if old, he may use them for brine and murias ab initio.
  R. Judah Nesi'a asked of R. Ammi: What if he put them back into a furnace, so that they became heated to a very high temperature? He replied: If brine has a cleansing effect on them, how much more so fire! It has likewise been stated: R. Yohanan said (others say that R. Assi said it in the name of R. Yohanan): Flagons of idolaters which had been placed back in the furnace, as soon as the pitch has fallen off, are permitted.
  R. Ashi said: Do not say “until it has fallen off,” rather, even if it has only been loosened, even though it has not dropped off [it is enough]. [Where the pitch is removed by means of lighted wood chips: R. Aha and Ravina dispute this: One forbids while the other permits. The law follows the one who forbids.
  The question was asked: Is it permissible to put beer into such a vessel? R. Nahman and Rav Judah prohibited, but Rava permits.
  R. Yitzchak b. Bisna had some vessels made of boxwood (meaning of word uncertain). He filled them with water and let them stand in the sun, and they split. R. Abba said to him: You have indeed prohibited them for yourself forever! While our rabbis did say they should be filled with water; did they say they should be left in the sun?
  R. Yosna said in the name of R. Ammi: A vessel of natron can never be purified (i.e. koshered). What is a vessel of natron? R. Yose b. Abin: A vessel made of crystals coming from a mine of alum.
  A person from the house of the governor Parzak seized some [earthenware] wine-casks from [Jews in] Pumbedita. He put wine in them and then returned them. [The owners] came to ask Rav Judah about these, and he said: This is a case of vessels taken for temporary use, let them be rinsed with water and they will be permitted for use.
  R. Avira said: Those dark jugs made by non-Jews, since they do not absorb much, they can be rinsed with water and then immediately they are permitted. R. Papa said: Those earthenware vessels coming from Be-Mikse since they do not absorb much, they can be rinsed with water and then immediately they are permitted.
  Cups [used with wine by idolater]: R. Assi forbids, but R. Ashi permits. If an idolater drank from it the first time it was used, no one disputes that it is forbidden, they argue only if it was the second time.
  Some say that if it is the first or second time they both agree that it is forbidden and they dispute only if it is the third time. The law is, if it is the first or second time it is forbidden, if the third time it is permitted.
  R. Zevid said: These glazed vessels, if white or black they are permitted, but if green are forbidden because it contains crystals of alum; and if they have any cracks [in the glazing] they are all forbidden. Meremar expounded that all glazed vessels, whether black or white or green, are permitted. 
  But why should this case be different from that of hametz on Pesah? For they asked Meremar [himself]: May one use glazed vessels on Passover? Do not ask about green glazed vessels which contains alum crystals and they absorb and thus [the vessels] are forbidden; rather ask about white or black glazed vessels.
  If they have cracks, do not ask about this, for these certainly absorb and are forbidden; rather ask about smooth ones. What is the law? He answered
  
  Daf 34a
  
  them: I saw that such vessels emit sweat, and since they sweat they certainly absorb and are therefore forbidden. Why? The Torah testified that an earthenware vessel can never be rid of its defect.
  Why then should this be different from wine used for idolatry concerning which [we are told] Meremar expounded that all glazed vessels [which had been used for it] are permitted?
  And should you say that hametz [on Pesah] is forbidden by the Torah, whereas idolatrous wine is merely a rabbinic prohibition, whatever the Rabbis enacted they enacted it to be like the Torah! This is used for hot and this is used for cold.
  R. Akiva happened to come to Ginzak. They asked him: Is fasting by hours considered a fast, or is it not considered a fast? He did not have an answer. [They then asked him:] Are bottles of idolaters permitted or forbidden? He did not have an answer. In what garments did Moses minister during the seven days of consecration? He did not have an answer.
  He then went and asked at the Bet Midrash and they said to him: The law is: Fasting by hours is considered a fast, so that if he completed the day, he may say the prayer for a fast; And the law is that wine bottles owned by idolaters are permissible for use after twelve months. And what garment did Moses minister in during the seven days of consecration: In a white cloak. R. Kahana taught in a white with no border.
  Grape pits and grape-skins of idolaters etc. Our Rabbis taught: Grape pits and grape-skins of idolaters are forbidden while moist but permitted when dry. Which are considered moist and which dry? Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: They are considered moist during the first twelve months, and dry after the twelve months.
  It has been stated: Raba b. Bar-Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: When they are forbidden, it is prohibited to derive any benefit from them, and when they are permitted, it is permitted even to eat them.
  R. Zevid said: This yeast made of wine of non-Jews, after a complete year of twelve months it is permitted. R. Habiba the son of Rava said: These jugs after a complete year of twelve months hey are permitted. R. Habiba said:
  
  Daf 34b
  
  These wine-bags belonging to travelers after a complete year of twelve months, they are permitted. R. Aha the son of R. Ika said: These kernels sold by Arameans after a complete year of twelve months, they are permitted. R. Aha the son of Rava said: Those red or black jugs after a complete year of twelve months they are permitted.
  Murias [fish brine] etc. Our Rabbis taught: Murias made by an expert is permitted. R. Judah b. Gamaliel says in the name of R. Hanina b. Gamaliel: So too [brine of] hilik prepared by an expert is likewise permitted.
  Avimi the son of R. Abbahu taught that murias made by an expert is permitted. He taught it and he explained it: the first and second [extracts] from this fish are permitted, but the third is forbidden. What is the reason? For the first and second [extracts] there is a lot of fat and he does not need to put in wine. From this point and onward, he puts in wine.
  Once a ship-load of murias came to the port of Acco. R. Aha of Acco placed a guard by it. Rava said to him: And who watched the ship till now? He replied: Until now what would we have worried about: as to mixing the brine with wine, a kista of muries costs a luma while a kista of wine costs four lumas.
  R. Yirmiyah said to R. Zera: Might they not have come by the way of Tyre where wine is cheap? He replied: There, there are narrow bays and shallow waters.
  And Bithynian cheese etc. R. Shimon b. Lakish said: Why did they forbid Bithynian cheese? Because the majority of calves of that place are slaughtered [as sacrifices] to idols. Why specifically “the majority of calves”? Even if it were the minority it would have been prohibited, since R. Meir is concerned about the minority!
  When you say the majority [of calves] there really is only a minority [of cattle].
  But if you were to say a minority, since a majority of calves are not slain for idolatry, and there are also other cattle that are not slaughtered for idolatry, this would be a minority of a minority, and even R. Meir does not take a minority of a minority into consideration.
  R. Shimon b. Elyakim said to R. Shimon b. Lakish: Even if they are slaughtered for idolatry, what does it matter, for you yourself permit [something similar]?
  For it has been stated: If one slaughters an animal with the intention of sprinkling its blood for idolatry, or offering its fat for idolatry, R. Yohanan says that the animal is forbidden, for he holds that we compare the one sacrificial process to another, and that we learn slaughtering outside the sanctuary from within;
  But R. Shimon b. Lakish says it is permitted!
  He replied: You have indeed raised a good difficulty. [Here, where I prohibit] refers to a case where he says that its very slaughtering is its worship.
  R. Judah said: R. Yishmael asked etc. R. Ahdaboi said in the name of Rav: If one betroths a woman with the dung of an ox which is to be stoned she is betrothed; but if with dung of calves used for idolatry, she is not betrothed. You can say that this can be proved by logic, or, you may say it comes from Scripture.
  You can say that this can be proved by logic — in the case of calves to be offered to idols it pleases [the owner] that they be fattened, whereas in the case of the ox to be stoned he is not pleased that it be fattened.
  And if you want, you can prove it from Scripture. Here the verse says, “Anything that is proscribed should not be found in your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18). While it is written there, “The ox shall be surely stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten” (Exodus 21:28)-- its flesh only is forbidden, but its dung is permitted.
  Rava said: Both of these have been taught in the mishnah. The fact that R. Joshua replied: “because they curdle it with the rennet of a nevelah” and R. Ishmael responded, “but is not the rennet of a burnt offering more strictly forbidden than that of a nevelah” 
  
  Daf 35a
  
  proves that the dung of an animal from which no benefit may be derived is permitted. 
  And since R. Joshua responded, “because they curdle it with the rennet of calves sacrificed to idols,” and R. Ishmael replied: “if that is so, why do they not extend the prohibition to any benefit derived from it”— this proves that it is forbidden to derive benefit from dung of animals used for idolatry.
  Let him reply that the forbidden matter is not present in substance?
  For murias to the rabbis who did not prohibit one from deriving benefit from it, is it because the forbidden matter is not there in substance?
  Say: Since here, since it [the rennet] is what curdles milk, it must be regarded as though the prohibited matter is there in substance.
  He diverted him to another matter etc. What is the meaning of the words, “For your love is better than wine?” (Song of Songs 1:2). When R. Dimi came [from Eretz Yisrael] he said: The Congregation of Israel declared to the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of the Universe! The words of your beloved ones are more pleasant to me than the wine of the Torah. 
  Why did he ask him just about this verse? R. Shimon b. Pazi (and if you want, R. Shimon b. Ammi): He was speaking to him about the beginning of this verse: “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth.” He said to him, “Ishmael, my brother, press your lips one to the other and do not rush to answer.”
  What is the reason? Ulla (and if you want, R. Shmuel b. Aba): This is a new ordinance, and one should not doubt it. What [then] is the reason for this decree? R. Shimon b. Pazi said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: Because it may have been bitten by a snake.
  Then say to him that the reason is that it may have been bitten by a snake? As Ulla said, for Ulla said, when they make a decree in the west they do not reveal its reason for a full year, lest there be some who might not agree with the reason and would treat the decree lightly.
  This was ridiculed by R. Yirmiyah: If that be so, then hard [cheese] should be permitted, and old [cheese], too, should be permitted for R. Hanina said: [When it becomes] dry, it is permitted, because the [snake’s venom] would not let it get dry; [so also] when matured it is permitted, as it would not have allowed it to mature!
  R. Hanina said: [The reason for forbidding cheese is] because it is impossible for it not to have particles of milk. Shmuel said: Because it is set with skin of a nevelah.
  This implies that the rennet itself is permitted. But did Shmuel state this? Have we not learned, “The rennet of a non-Jew’s animals or of a nevelah is forbidden”?
  And we discussed this [and said], “Is not any animal [slaughtered] by a non-Jew not a nevelah?”
  And Shmuel himself answered: One thing was taught: The rennet of an animal slaughtered by non-Jews is nevelah and is forbidden
  This is not a difficulty.
  
  Daf 35b
  
  The former [represents R. Joshua's opinion] before it was reversed; the latter after it was reversed, and the mishnah did not move from its place.
  R. Malkiah in the name of R. Adda b. Ahava said: [Cheese is forbidden] because they smear the surface with pig fat. R. Hisda said: Because they curdle it with vinegar. R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: Because they curdle it with sap of orlah.
  Whose opinion does this [last answer] follow? That of the following tanna; for we learned: R. Eliezer says: If milk is curdled with sap of orlah it is forbidden because it is considered fruit!
  You may even say that it is also the opinion of R. Joshua, for R. Joshua only differs from R. Eliezer as regards the sap of the tree, but as regards that of the fruit he agrees with him,
  and this is what we learned: R. Joshua said: I have heard explicitly that milk curdled with the sap of the leaves or with the sap of the root is permitted; but if with the sap of unripe figs it is forbidden, because this is a fruit.
  Both to R. Hisda and to R. Nahman b. Yitzchak the prohibition should be one that extends to deriving benefit. This is indeed a difficulty. 
  R. Nahman the son of R. Hisda expounded: What is it that is written, “Your ointments yield a sweet fragrance, [Your name is like finest oil]” (Song of Songs 1:3)? To what may a scholar be compared? To a flask of pelaitin: When opened, its odor is diffused, but if covered up its odor does not diffuse.
  Moreover things that are hidden become revealed to him, as it is said, “Therefore do the maidens (alamot) love you.” Read “the hidden (alumot).” Moreover, even the Angel of Death loves him as it says “alamot love you,” read, “the one who rules over death (al mavet).” Moreover, he inherits both worlds, this world and the world to come, as it says, “alamot” read “worlds (olamot).”
  The following articles of non-Jews are prohibited but the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit from them: 1. milk which a non-Jew milked without an israelite watching him, 2. their bread and oil (Rabbi and his court permitted the oil) —
  3. stewed and pickled things into which they are accustomed to put wine or vinegar, 4. pickled herring which had been minced, 5. brine in which there is no kalbith-fish floating, 6. helek, 7. pieces of asafoetida 8. and sal-conditum. Behold these are prohibited but the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit from them.
  GEMARA. Milk, what could we be concerned about? If we fear that theys ubstituted it [with the milk of an unclean animal], [the milk of] a clean animal is white and of an unclean animal green! If on account of the possibility of a mixture [of a clean animal's milk with that of an unclean animal], let him curdle it, because a Master has said: The milk of a clean animal curdles but that of an unclean animal does not!
  If he required [the milk for the purpose of making] cheese, then this would be so; but with what are we dealing here? When he requires it for food.
  Then let him take a small quantity and curdle it! [This test would not be conclusive], because even with the milk of a clean animal there is the whey which does not curdle, so nothing can be proved with this test. 
  Or if you wish I can say that even if he wants the milk for cheese [the test is not conclusive because drops of milk] remain between the holes.
  Bread. R. Kahana said in the name of R. Yohanan: Their bread was not permitted by the court. One could deduce from this statement that there are some that allow it? 
  Yes, because when R. Dimi came [from Eretz Yisrael] he said: On one occasion Rabbi went out into the field, and a gentile brought before him a loaf baked in a large oven from a se'ah of flour. Rabbi exclaimed: “How beautiful is this loaf! Why should the Sages have prohibited it!” “Why should the Sages have thought fit to prohibit it?” Because of fraternization.
  Rather, what he meant was: “Why should the Sages have thought fit to prohibit it in a field!” [As the result of this remark] people thought that Rabbi permitted bread but it was not so; Rabbi did not permit it.
  R. Joseph, and if you want you can say, R. Shmuel b. Judah said: This was not how it happened. Rather they said, Rabbi once went to a certain place and observed that his disciples experienced difficulty in obtaining bread; so he asked, “Is there no baker here?” People thought that he was asking for a Gentile baker, but he really was referring to a Jewish baker.
  R. Helbo said: Even according to those who say [that he was looking for] a Gentile baker, this would apply only where there was no Jewish baker. But if there was a Jewish baker, it would not apply. R. Yohanan said: Even according to those who say [that he was looking for] a Gentile baker, this would apply only in a field, and not in a city as a safeguard against fraternization.
  Aibu used to bite and eat [Gentiles’] bread at the boundaries [of the fields]. Rava, and –if you want you can say, R. Nahman b. Yitzchak, said to the people, “Do not talk to Aibu because he eats the bread of Gentiles.”
  And their oil: Oil: Rav said: Daniel decreed against its use. But Shmuel said:
  
  
  Daf 36a
  
  The residue from their defiled vessels renders it prohibited. Is this to say that people generally are concerned to eat their food in a state of ritual purity! Rather: The residue from their prohibited vessels renders it prohibited.
  Shmuel said to Rav: It makes sense according to my explanation that the residue from their prohibited vessels renders it prohibited, that when R. Yitzchak bar Shmuel b. Marta came [from Eretz Yisrael] he stated that R. Simlai expounded in Nisibis: As regards oil R. Judah and his court took a vote and declared it permitted,
  holding the opinion that [when the forbidden element] imparts a worsened flavor [the mixture] is permitted.
  But according to your statement that [it is prohibited because] Daniel decreed against it, can it Daniel make a decree and R. Judah the Prince come and annul it? For have we not learned: A Court is unable to annul the decisions of another Court, unless it is superior to it in wisdom and numerical strength.
  Rav said to him: You quote Simlai of Lod; but the inhabitants of Lod ared ifferent because they are neglectful. [Shmuel] said to him: Shall I send for him? Rav became embarrassed.
  Rav said: If [R. Judah and his Court] did not expound [correctly], shall we not expound correctly? Surely it is written, “But Daniel put on his heart that he would not defile himself with the king's meat nor with the wine which he drank” (Daniel 1:8): the verse speaks of two drinkings, the drinking of wine and the drinking of oil!
  Rav held that Daniel put on his own heart [not to drink the oil] and decided similarly for all of Israel; whereas Shmuel held that he set on his own heart [not to drink the oil] but did not decide similarly for all Israel.
  But did Daniel decree against oil? Behold Bali declared that Avimi the Nota’a said in the name of Rav: The bread, wine and oil of non-Jews and their daughters are all included in the eighteen things!
  And should you argue that Daniel came and made the decree but it was not accepted, and then the disciples of Hillel and Shammai came and made the decree which was accepted, in that case what was the purpose of Rav’s testimony? Rather, Daniel decreed against the use of the oil in a city, and they came and decreed against its use even in a field.
  How then was it possible for R. Yehudah Hanasi to permit [what was forbidden by] the decree of the disciples of Shammai and Hillel. For haven’t we learned: A Court is not allowed to annul the decisions of another Court, unless it is superior to it in wisdom and numerical strength! Furthermore, Rabbah b. Bar Hanah has said in the name of R. Yohanan: In all matters a Court can annul the decisions of another Court except the eighteen things, for even were Elijah and his Court to come [and declare them permitted] we would not listen to him!
  R. Mesharsheya said: The reason [that these eighteen things form an exception] is because their prohibition has spread among the large majority of Israelites, but the prohibition concerning oil did not spread among the majority of Israel; for R. Shmuel b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan: Our masters sat and investigated [the use of Gentile] oil [and found] that its prohibition had not spread among the large majority of Israelites; they accordingly relied upon the statement of Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel and R. Eliezer b. Zadok who declared: We make no decree upon the community unless the majority are able to abide by it. R. Adda b. Ahavah said: What Scriptural verse supports this rule?
  
  
  Daf 36b
  
  “You are cursed with the curse; for you rob Me, even this whole nation” (Malakhi 3:9) when the whole nation has [accepted an ordinance, then the curse which is the penalty for not observing it] does apply, otherwise it does not.
  The above text stated: “Behold Bali declared that Avimi Nota’a said in the name of Rava: The bread, wine and oil of heathens and their daughters are all included in the eighteen things.” What does it mean by “their daughters”? R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: [The Schools of Hillel and Shammai] decreed that their daughters should be considered as menstruants from the cradle.
  And Geneva said in the name of Rav: They decreed against all of these things to safeguard against idolatry. For when R. Aha b. Adda came [from Eretz Yisrael] he declared in the name of R. Yitzchak: They decreed against [Gentile’s] bread on account of their oil.
  But how is oil stricter than bread! Rather [the statement should read that they decreed] against their bread and oil on account of their wine; against their wine on account of their daughters; against their daughters on account of another matter, and against this other matter on account of still another matter.
  But the prohibition against marrying their daughters is a Biblical law, for it is written, “Do not marry them” (Deuteronomy 7:3)! It is forbidden from the Torah to marry one from the seven nations [of Canaan] but this does not include other non-Jews; and they [the Schools of Hillel and Shammai] came and decreed against these also.
  But according to R. Shimon b. Yohai who said that the words, “For he will turn away your son from following Me,” (Deuteronomy 7:4) include all women who would turn [their husbands aside from the worship of God], what is there to say? Rather, the Torah prohibits marital intercourse, and they came and decreed even against non-marital intercourse.
  But non-marital sex had already been decreed against by the Court of Shem, for it is written, And Judah said, “Bring her forth and let her be burned” (Genesis 38:24).
  Rather the Torah prohibits a non-Jew from having sex with a Jewish woman since she would be drawn after him but an Israelite who has sex with a non-Jewish woman is not prohibited [by the Torah], and they decreed even against a Jew who has sex with a non-Jewish woman.
  But [the prohibition against] an Israelite having intercourse with a non-Jewish woman is a halakhah from Moses from Sinai, for a Master has said: If [an Israelite] has intercourse with an Aramean woman, zealots may attack him!
  He said to him: From the Torah a public act is prohibited, as the incident that had happened; but they came and decreed even against a private act. But the Court of the Hasmoneans had already decreed also against a private act;
  for when R. Dimi came [from Eretz Yisrael] he declared: The Court of the Hasmoneans decreed that an Israelite who had intercourse with a non-Jewish woman is liable on four counts, viz., she is regarded as niddah, a slave, a non-Jew, and a married woman;
  and when Rabin came [from Eretz Yisrael] he declared: On the following four counts, she is regarded as niddah, a slave, a non-Jew, and a zonah!
  When the Court of the Hasmoneans decreed, it was against intercourse but not against being secluded, so they came and decreed even against being secluded. But the Court of David had already decreed against seclusion,
  for Rav Judah said: At that time they made a decree against seclusion! Say [that the decree of the Court of David] there referred to seclusion with an Israelite and not a non-Jewish woman, and they came and decreed even against seclusion with a non-Jewish woman.
  But [the prohibition against] secluding with an Israelite woman is from the Torah; for R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Shimon b. Yehozadak: From where is there an indication in the Torah against seclusion? As it is said, “If your brother, the son of your mother... entices you” (Deuteronomy 13:7): Does the son of the mother, and not the son of the father, entice?...
  Rather this teaches that a son may be secluded with his mother, but nobody else may secluded with any woman whom the Torah prohibits to him!
  [The correct explanation is that] the Torah prohibits seclusion with an [Israelite] married woman; David came and decreed that seclusion was prohibited even with an unmarried woman; and the students of the Schools of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that it was prohibited to be secluded even with a non-Jewish woman. 
  What is the meaning of, “and against this other matter on account of still another matter”? R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: They decreed that a non-Jewish child should cause defilement as if he had unnatural genital emission so that an Israelite child should not become familiar with him and have male intercourse.
  For R. Zera said: I experienced great trouble with R. Assi, and R. Assi with R. Yohanan, and R. Yohanan with R. Yannai, and R. Yannai with R. Nathan b. Amram, and R. Nathan b. Amram with Rabbi over this question: From what age does a non-Jewish child cause defilement as if he had genital discharge? He replied to me: From a day old; but when I came to R. Hiyya, he told me: From the age of nine years and one day.
  When I then came and discussed the matter with Rabbi, he said to me: Abandon my reply and adopt that of R. Hiyya who declared: From what age does a non-Jewish child cause defilement by genital discharge? From the age of nine years and one day,
  
  Daf 37a
  
  since he is then capable of having sex he likewise defiles by genital discharge. Ravina said: Therefore a non-Jewish girl [defiles] from the age of three years and one day, since she is then capable of the sexual act she likewise defiles by genital discharge.
  This is obvious! You might argue that he is at an age when he knows to persuade [a female] but she is not at an age when she knows to persuade. Hence he teaches us.
  R. Judah Nesi'a was once walking and leaning upon the shoulder of his attendant, R. Simlai, when he said to him, “Simlai, you were not present yesterday at the Bet Midrash” when we declared [Gentile] oil permitted.” He replied, “Would that in our days you permitted their bread also!” He said to him, “If we were to do that, they would call us ‘the permitting Court.’’ As we have learned: R. Yose b. Yo'ezer of Zeredah testified that the stag-locust is clean, that the flow [of blood and water] from the place of slaughter [in the Temple] is non-defiling, and that one who comes in contact with a corpse is defiled; and they called him "Joseph the permitter".’
  [R. Simlai] said to him, “There he permitted three things, and the master has only permitted one; so that if he permits another there would still be only two!” He replied, “I have already permitted a second.” What is it? As we have learned: [If a husband said to his wife before a journey,]
  “This is your bill of divorce should I not return within twelve months,” and he died within twelve months, the divorce is invalid. On this it was taught: And our Rabbis permitted her to remarry; and we asked, who is “our Rabbis”? Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The Court which permitted [non-Jewish] oil;
  for they held the same view as R. Yose who said: The date of the document proves its intent. R. Abba, son of R. Hiyya b. Abba said: R. Judah Nesi’a taught this, but [the Rabbis] did not agree with him all his lifetime [sha'ato]. Another version is: All his colleagues [saya'to] [did not agree with him].
  R. Elazar asked a certain old man: When you permitted a woman [to remarry in the circumstances described above], did you allow her to do so immediately since he is not going to return, or perhaps it was after twelve months since his condition had then been fulfilled?
  Let him ask this question also in connection with the Mishnah as it is taught: [But if the husband said,] “Behold this is your bill of divorce from now onward should I not return within twelve months,” and he died within the twelve months, the divorce is valid because the condition had been fulfilled. 
  And about this you should ask: does the divorce take effect immediately [on his death] since he could not return, or perhaps only after twelve months when the condition had been fulfilled? [R. Elazar said to him:] Yes, even in this case [I ask my question] but [I asked you this] because you were in the count [of sages who voted to grant her permission to remarry].
  Abaye said: All agree [that if a man said to his wife that the divorce should take effect] when the sun comes out from its sheath, he intended the time of sunrise, and should he die during the night, it is then a bill of divorce which comes into effect after his death [and is invalid];
  [But if he said to her that the divorce should take effect] “on condition that the sun comes out from its sheath,” he intended it to take effect from that moment onward, and should he die at night, this was certainly a condition, and the divorce thus took effect while he was alive [and is valid] in agreement with the view of R. Huna. For R. Huna said: Anyone who says “on condition” [in a bill of divorce] it is the same as if he had said, “From now onward.”
  They only differ over the case [where he said], “If the sun comes out [from its sheath]”: R. Judah Nesi’a holds like R. Yose who said, “The date of the document proves its intent,” and he holds it to be as if he said, “From today if I die” or “From now onward if I die.” The rabbis do not agree with R. Yose and hold that it is like, “Here is your bill of divorce if I die.”
  Rabbi Yose ben Yoezer, a man of Zereda, testified concerning the ayal-locust, that it is pure; And concerning liquid in the slaughter-house (of the Temple), that it is pure; And that one who touches a corpse is impure. And they called him “Yose the permitter.” To return to the matter from above: What is the ayal-locust? R. Papa said: Shoshiba, and R. Hiyya b. Ammi said in the name of Ulla: Susbil.
  R. Papa said it is the shoshiba, and they differ on [the permissibility] of the long-headed locust, one holding that it is prohibited and the other that it is permitted. R. Hiyya b. Ammi said in the name of Ulla that
  
  Daf 37b
  
  the susbil, and nobody disagrees that the long-headed locust is prohibited, and here they disagree when there is difficulty in perceiving whether its wings cover the greater part of the body, one holding that we require [the wings] to cover just more than the greater part of the body and the other that we require it appreciably to cover the greater part of the body.
  “That the flow [of blood and water] from the place of slaughter [in the Temple] is pure.” What means “pure” mean? Rav said: It is actually pure. But Shmuel said: It is pure in the sense that it does not render other things impure but in itself there was impurity.
  Rav that it was actually pure: he holds that the impurity of liquids was a rabbinical ordinance and when the rabbis decreed they referred to liquids in general, but not to liquids in the slaughter house.
  But Shmuel said that it was pure in the sense that it did not render other things impure but in itself there was impurity. He holds that the impurity of liquids is from the Torah; but with respect to its power to render other things unclean it was a rabbinic ordinance, and when the Rabbis decreed, they decreed it about liquids in general, but they did not decree it about liquids in the slaughter house.
  “And that one who comes in contact with a corpse is defiled; and they called him, ‘Yosef the permitter.’” They should have called him “Yosef the prohibiter”! Furthermore [that a corpse defiles] is from the Torah, as it is written, “And whosoever in the open field touches one that is slain with a sword, or a dead body [or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days]” (Numbers 19:16).
  According to the Torah he who comes in contact with a corpse is defiled, but anybody who comes in contact with this person is pure; and [the rabbis] proceeded to decree that even one who has contact with one who had contact [with a dead body] is defiled. And then [Yose b. Yo'ezer] came an established   the law according to the Torah.
  But [the impurity of] a person who comes in contact with one who had touched a corpse is also from the Torah, for it is written, “And whatsoever the unclean person touches shall be impure” (Numbers 19:22).
  The rabbis said this in front of Rava in the name of Mar Zutra son of Nahman who said it in the name of R. Nahman: According to the Torah if a person touches another while the latter is in contact [with a corpse] he too is defiled for seven days; but if he is not in contact [with the corpse], then he is only defiled until the evening. The rabbis came and decreed that even without contact he is defiled for seven days, and [R. Yose b. Yoezer] came and reestablished the law according to the Torah.
  From where do we know this from the Torah? As it is written, “He that touches the dead body of any man shall be impure for seven days” (Numbers 19:11) and it is also written, And whatsoever the impure person touches shall be impure” (19:22) and it is written, “the soul that touches it shall be impure until evening” (ibid). How [are these texts] to be understood? 
  The former refers to where there is actual contact and the latter to where there is not actual contact.
  Rava said to them: Have I not said to you not to hang empty pitchers on R.N ahman! This is what R. Nahman said: He [Yose b. Yoezer] permitted a doubtful case of impurity in a public domain. 
  But this is a rule which is drawn by analogy from the case of a womans uspected of infidelity, just as [the case of doubt in connection with] the suspected woman can only occur [when seclusion with the man takes place] in a private domain, so too [the case of doubt in connection with] defilement can only occur [when the contact with the corpse takes place] in a private domain.
  R. Yohanan said: This is indeed the traditional rule but we do not rule in public this way, until [Yose b. Yo'ezer] came and ruled this way in public.
  It was also taught in a baraita: R. Judah says: [Yose b. Yo'ezer] stuck stakes [int he ground] for the people, declaring, “Up to here is a public domain and up to there a private domain.” When persons came in front of R. Yannai, he used to tell them, “There is plenty of water in the depth of the river; go and immerse yourselves.”
  Cooked food. From where is this derived?R . Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan: Scripture says, “You shall sell me food for money that I may eat, and give me water for money that I may drink” (Deuteronomy 2:28). [The food] must be like water, just as the water has undergone no change so too the food must have undergone no change.
  According to this reasoning wheat that was roasted, it too should be permitted; and should you maintain that that is so, behold it has been taught: Wheat that was roasted are permitted! Rather like water: Just as water has not been changed from its natural form [is permitted to Jews] so too the food must not have been changed from its natural form.
  According to this reasoning wheat that milled should be prohibited; and shouldy ou maintain that that is so, behold it has been taught: Wheat that was roasted and then ground into flour or fine flour is permitted.
  But there is nothing in the verse about fire!
  
  Daf 38a
  
  Rather, this is a rabbinical ruling and the verse is merely a support.
  R. Shmuel b. Yitzchak said in the name of Rav: Whatever is eaten raw is not prohibited on account of having been cooked by non-Jews. Thus was it taught in Sura; but in Pumbedita they taught this version: R. Shmuel b. R. Yitzchak said in the name of Rav: Whatever is not brought upon the table of kings to serve as a relish with bread is not prohibited on account of having been cooked by non-Jews.
  What is the difference between the two versions? Small fish, mushrooms and pounded grain.
  R. Assi said in the name of Rav: Small fish when salted [by non-Jews] are not prohibited on account of having been cooked by non-Jews. R. Joseph said: If a non-Jew roasted them, an Israelite may rely upon them for eruv tavshilin. If a non-Jew made them into a pie of fish-hash it is prohibited.
  This is obvious! What might you have thought? That [in such a pie] the fishhash is the principal element; hence he informs us that the flour is the principal element.
  R. Berona said in the name of Rav: If a non-Jew set fire to uncleared ground, all the [roasted] locusts found in the uncleared ground are prohibited. How do we understand [this prohibition]? If we say that the reason [the locusts] are prohibited is because he could not distinguish between the clean and unclean species; why specify that a non-Jew [kindled the fire] since it would be the same if even an Israelite did so!
  Rather it must on account of [the locusts] having been cooked by a non-Jew? But in such a circumstance would they be prohibited! Did not R. Hanan b. Ammi say that R. Pedat said in the name of R. Yohanan: If a non-Jew singed the head [of a animal], it is permissible to eat of it even from the tip of the ear! For it is assumed that his intention was to remove the hair; so similarly [in the other case it should be allowed] because his intention was to clear the ground!
  [No, the true reason was] certainly because he could not distinguish between the clean and unclean species, and the incident just happened with a non-Jew.
  The above text stated: R. Hanan b. Ammi said that R. Pedath said in the name of R. Yohanan: If a non-Jew singed the head [of an animal], it is permissible to eat of it even from the tip of the ear. Ravina said: Consequently if a non-Jew threw a moist peg into an oven and an Israelite had previously deposited a pumpkin there, it is all right. This is obvious! What might you have thought? That his intention had been to cook the vessel; hence he informs us that his intention was to harden the vessel. 
  Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: If an Israelite left meat on the coals and a non-Jew came and turned it over, it is permitted. What is the precise case? If I say that the meat would have been cooked without being turned over, obviously [it is permitted]; Rather, is it not then referring to a case where it would not have been cooked without being turned over? Why, then, is it permitted? This is food cooked by a non-Jew!
  No; it is necessary in a case where it would have taken two hours to cook if he had not turned it over, but now it was cooked in one hour. What might you have said? That hastening the process of cooking is a matter which is taken into consideration; hence he informs us [that it is not].
  But did not R. Assi say in the name of R. Yohanan: Any food which is [already cooked to the extent] of that which was eaten by Ben Drosai is not subject to the laws of food cooked by non-Jews, 
  hence if it is not cooked to that extent it does come within the prohibition! There [R. Yohanan] referred to a case where [an Israelite] placed the meat in a pot and a non-Jew took and set it in an oven.
  This was also taught in a baraita: An Israelite may set meat upon the coals and let a non-Jew come and turn it over pending his return from the synagogue or Bet Midrash, and he need not be concerned. And [an Israelite] woman may set a pot on a stove and let a Gentile woman come
  
  Daf 38b
  
  and stir it pending her return from the bathhouse or synagogue, and she need not be concerned.
  The question was asked: What is the rule if a non-Jew placed [meat upon the coals] and an Israelite turned it over? R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: The answer can be deduced by a fortiori reasoning: if the food is permitted when its cooking is completed by a non-Jew, how much more so when it is completed by an Israelite!
  It has been similarly stated: Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan (and others say) R. Aha son of Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: Whether a non-Jew placed it there and an Israelite turned it over or a Jew placed it there and a non-Jew turned it over, it is permitted. It is not prohibited unless both the beginning and completion of the cooking are performed by a non-Jew.
  Ravina said: The halakhah is: Bread baked in an oven, if a non-Jew kindled the fire and an Israelite baked it or if a Jew kindled the fire and a non-Jew baked it, or if a non-Jew both kindled the fire and baked the bread but an Israelite came and stoke the coals, it is permitted.
  Fish salted [by a non-Jew]: Hezekiah permits but R. Yohanan prohibits. An egg roasted [by a non-Jew] Bar Kappara permits R. Yohanan prohibits. When R. Dimi came [from Eretz Yisrael] he said: Both salted fish and roasted eggs Hezekiah and Bar Kappara permit but R. Yohanan prohibits. 
  R. Hiyya Parva'ah visited the house of the Exilarch. They asked him, “What is the rule with regard to an egg roasted [by a non-Jew]?” He replied, “Hezekiah and Bar Kapara permit it, but R. Yohanan prohibits it, and the opinion of one sage cannot stand against that of two.”  R. Zevid said to them, “Pay no attention to him, for Abaye said that the halakhah agrees with R. Yohanan.” [The Exilarch's non-Jewis servants were infuriated by R. Zevid's remark and] gave him a draught of spiced vinegar from which he died.
  Our rabbis taught: The caper-flower, leeks, matalya, hot water and roasted ears of grain roasted are permitted, but a roasted egg is prohibited. As regards oil [made by non-Jews], R. Yehudah Hanasi and his Court took a vote on it and declared it permitted.
  It has been taught: The rule which applies to liver-wort holds good also of the beans called pesilya and Egyptian beans [shi'atha]. What is shi'ata? Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: It is forty years since this preparation was imported from Egypt; while Rabbah b. Bar Hanah himself said: It is sixty years since this preparation was imported from Egypt. There is no contradiction since each [sage] stated according to the years of his own life.
  [The manner of its preparation is as follows:] Take the seeds of parsley, flax and fenugreek, soak them together in lukewarm water and leave them until they begin to sprout. Then take new earthenware pots, fill them with water and soak in them red clay into which the seeds are planted. After that go to the bathhouse and by the time of coming out they will have blossomed, and on eating of them you will feel cooled from the hair of the head down to the toe-nails. R. Ashi said: R. Hanina told me that this is an empty tale; Others say [he told him that this was done] through magical incantations.
  Our Rabbis taught: Date-husks belonging to a non-Jew: when boiled in a large cauldron are prohibited, but if in a small cauldron they are permitted. Which is a small cauldron? R. Yannai said: One into which a swallow cannot enter.
  But perhaps it is cut up in pieces and placed in it [to be cooked]! Rather one into which the head of a swallow cannot enter.
  But it has been taught: Whether it be a large or small cauldron [the brew] is permitted! There is no contradiction: [The one who forbids when cooked in a large cauldron] he is in agreement with the view that when [the forbidden element of a mixture] imparts a worsening flavor it is prohibited, while [the one who permits even when cooked in a large cauldron] is in agreement with the view that when [the forbidden element] imparts a worsening flavor the mixture is permitted.
  R. Sheshet said: The cooked oil of a Gentile is prohibited. R. Safra said: Why should we be concerned about it? If because of the possibility that he may have mixed in it [forbidden wine], the effect would be to turn it rancid! If it is on account of [the prohibition against] all things cooked by a non-Jew, it is something which is eatable in its raw state! If on account of the rule that vessels used by non-Jews must be scoured before they may be used by a Jew, it is an instance where a worsened flavour is imparted and it should therefore be permitted!
  They asked R. Assi: What of dates cooked by a Gentile? As regards the sweet species the question does not arise since they are certainly permitted; as regards the bitter species the question also does not arise since they are certainly prohibited; but there is a question about the moderate species? What is the rule? He replied: Why do you ask me this question seeing that my teacher has declared them prohibited! And who is he? Levi.
  As for shetita [cooked by a non-Jew]: Rav permits it but Shmuel’s father and Levi prohibit it. If it is made from wheat or barley, they all agree that it is permitted. If from lentils and vinegar all agree that it is prohibited; Where there is disagreement is when it is made from lentils and water. [Shmuel’s father and Levi] hold that we prohibit it out of fear [that being permitted with water people will drink it when it has been prepared with vinegar], whereas [Rav] held that we do not prohibit it.
  There are those who say: When [the shetita] is made from lentils and water all agree that it is prohibited; they disagree when it is made from wheat or barley. [Shmuel's father and Levi] hold that we prohibit it out of fear [that being permitted with water people will drink it when it has been prepared with vinegar], whereas [Rav] held that we do not prohibit it.
  Rav said: Barzilai the Gileadite sent two kinds of shetita to David, as it is said, “And Barzillai the Gileadite of Rogelim brought beds, and basins, and earthen vessels, and wheat, and barley, and meal, and parched grain, and beans, and lentils, and parched pulse” (II Samuel 17:28). Nowadays people carry out basketfuls to the markets of Nehardea and no one is concerned about the view of Shmuel’s father and Levi.
  And pickled foods into which they are accustomed to put wine. Hezekiah said: This teaching only applies when they are merely accustomed [to put wine or vinegar into them]; but when it is certain [that they put wine or vinegar in], it is prohibited to derive any benefit from the foods. Why is this different from murias which the rabbis permit deriving benefit from? There the purpose [of the wine] is to overcome the bad smell [of the fish] and  here the purpose is to sweeten the taste. 
  R. Yohanan said: Even when it is certain [that they put wine into the food] they are also permitted.
  
  Daf 39a
  
  There the wine is present in substance, but here its substance is not present.
  Tarit fish which had been minced, brine which does not have a [kilbit] fish [and hilak are all prohibited]. What is the “hilak”? R. Nahman b. Abba said in the name of Rav: It is the sultanit [fish]. Why is it prohibited? Because other species of a similar kind [but prohibited] are caught together with it.
  Our Rabbis taught: [Those species of fish] which now have no [fins and scales] but grow them later, such as the sultanit and afitz are permitted; those which have them now but shed them when drawn out of the water, such as the colias, scomber, sword-fish, anthias and tunny are permitted.
  R. Abbahu announced in Caesarea that fish-entrails and their eggs may be purchased from anybody since the presumption is that they only come from Pelusium and Aspamia. This is like what Abaye said: The small tzahanta fish from the river Bab-Nahara is permitted.
  What is the reason [they are permitted]? If you say because the water flows rapidly and an unclean species of fish cannot exist in fast-flowing water since they do not have a backbone, but we do see them there!
  Rather it be suggested that the reason is because the water is salty and an unclean species of fish cannot exist in salty water since it has no scales, but we do see them there! Rather the reason is that muddy water does not let unclean fish reproduce. Ravina said: Since nowadays the rivers Goza and Gamda flow into [BabNahara, its small zahanta fish] are prohibited.
  Abaye said: The sea-donkey is permitted, the sea-ox is prohibited; and an aid to the memory is the unclean [on land, the donkey] is clean [in the water] and the clean [on land] is unclean [in the water].
  R. Ashi said: The shefar nuna is permitted, but the kedash nuna is prohibited; and an aid to the memory is “Holy [kodesh] to the Lord” [but not edible for people]. There are those who say: The kevar nuna is prohibited, an aid to the memory being the phrase “ the graves [kivre] of non-Jews.”
  When R. Akiba visited Guizak, they set before him a fish resembling the hipusha fish; he covered it over with a basket, and noticing scales in it declared it permitted. When R. Ashi visited Tamduria, they set before him a fish resembling an eel; holding it up against the sun, he noticed that it had growths [like scales], so he declared it permitted.
  When R. Ashi visited a certain place, they set before him a fish resembling the shefar nuna, he covered white basins over them, and perceiving scales in them declared them permitted. When Rabbah b. Bar Hanah visited the fort of Agama, they set before him some zahanta; but when he heard somebody call it “batei”, he said, ‘Since this has been called “batei” I conclude that there is something unclean in it.’ 
  He did not eat any of it; and looking at it the following day he found something unclean in it; so he applied to himself the verse, “No sin shall befall the righteous.”
  A sliver of hiltit [may not be eaten]. What is the reason? Because they cut it with a knife [on which there is residue from a non-kosher substance]; And although a master has said that when [the forbidden element] imparts a worsening flavor [the mixture] is permitted, the sharpness of the hiltit sweetens the fatty substance [which had been absorbed in the knife] and it therefore becomes a case where [the forbidden element] imparts an improved flavor and as such is prohibited.
  R. Levi's slave used to sell hiltit. When R. Levi died people asked R. Yohanan whether it was permissible to buy [hiltit] from him. He replied to them: The slave of a haver is like a haver.
  R. Huna b. Minyomi bought blue wool from the wife of R. Amram the hasid, and came before R. Joseph. He was unable to answer him;
  He met Hanan the tailor [and mentioned the issue to him]. He replied: Poor Joseph how did this happen to you! It once happened that I bought blue wool from the household of Rabanah, brother of R. Hiyya b. Abba, and I came before R. Matana who could not answer [the same question]. So I went to R. Judah of Hagronia who said to me: This has happened to you! Thus said Samuel: The wife of a haver is like a haver.
  We have taught this in a baraita, for our rabbis have taught: The wife of a haver is like a haver. The slave of a haver is like a haver. When a haver dies his wife, children and members of his household remain in that state of confidence until others suspect them. Similarly a store in which blue wool is sold remains in a state of confidence until its wares are disqualified. 
  Our Rabbis have taught: The wife of an am ha’aretz who marries a haver, likewise the daughter of an am ha-aretz who marries a haver, and the slave of an am ha-aretz who is sold to a haver are all required to accept upon themselves the obligation relating to the status of a haver. But the wife of a haver who marries an am ha-aretz likewise the daughter of a haver who marries an am ha-aretz and the slave of a haver who is sold to an am ha-aretz are not ab initio required to accept the obligation relating to the status of a haver, the words of R. Meir; 
  R. Judah says: These too are required ab initio to take upon themselves the obligation relating to the status of a haver. So too R. Shimon b. Eleazar would say: It happened that a woman married to a haver used to bind the tefillin upon his arm; she afterwards married a taxcollector and she used to attach the tax-seals for him.
  Rav said: Milk, meat, wine and blue wool are prohibited with one seal; 
  
  
  Daf 39b
  
  but hiltit, murias, bread and cheese are permitted with one seal.
  Why should we be concerned about bread? Were he to change a fresh loaf for a stale one, the receiver would know. Or a loaf of wheat for one of barley, he would know! If they are the same, since there is one seal attached he would not take the trouble to commit a fraud.
  And to Rav why is cheese different, in that [the non-Jew] would not take the trouble to commit a fraud [and allows one seal]; likewise with milk he would not take the trouble to commit a fraud [and yet Rav demands two seals]? R. Kahana said: Strike out the word “milk” and insert “a piece of fish” which has no distinguishing mark.
  But that is the same as meat. There are two kinds of meat. 
  Shmuel said: Meat, wine and blue wool are prohibited with one seal; but murias, hiltit and cheese are permitted with one seal. According to Shmuel, a slice of fish which has no distinguishing mark is regarded as the same as meat, and we do not say that there are two kinds of meat.
  Our Rabbis taught: We do not buy in Syria wine, murias, milk, salkondorit salt, hiltit or cheese, unless it be from a reliable dealer; but if [an Israelite] is the guest of a host there, they are all permitted.
  This supports the statement of R. Joshua b. Levi who said: If [a Syrian] householder sends him [as a gift any of these foods] he may eat them. What is the reason? A householder would not leave what is allowed and eat what is forbidden, and if he sends anything to him [it may be assumed that] he sends him from what he himself eats.
  And salkondorit salt. What is salkondorit salt? Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: Salt of which all Roman guests partake. Our rabbis have taught: Black salkondorit salt is prohibited and the white is permitted, the words of R. Meir. R. Judah says: The white is prohibited and the black permitted. R. Judah b. Gamaliel says in the name of R. Hanina b. Gamaliel: Both kinds are prohibited.
  Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: To the one who declared the white to be prohibited, the intestines of unclean white fish are mixed with it; to the one who declared the black to be prohibited, the intestines of unclean black fish are mixed with it;
  and to the one who declared both kinds to be prohibited, [the intestines of] both species of fish are mixed with them. R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Hanina b. Gamaliel: There was an old man in our neighborhood who used to polish this salt with pig fat.
  Behold these are prohibited. What does this intend to exclude? According to Hezekiah it excludes [those preserved foods] in which it is known [that wine is included]. According to R. Yohanan it excludes murias and Bithynian cheese, and the anonymous statement [in the Mishnah] is that of R. Meir. 
  The following are permitted to be eaten [by an israelite]: 1) milk which a non-Jew milked with a Jew watching him; 2) honey, 3) grape-clusters — even though these secrete moisture the law which renders food susceptible to defilement by a liquid does not apply to them — 4) preserves into which they are not accustomed to put wine or vinegar, 5) pickled herring which has not been minced, 6) brine containing fish, 7) a leaf of asafoetida, 8) and rolled olive-cakes.
  Rabbi Yose says: those olives having pits ready to drop out are prohibited. 9) Locusts which come out of [a shopkeeper’s] basket are prohibited, but if from storage they are permitted. The same rule applies to terumah.
  GEMARA. We have already taught this, as the rabbis have taught elsewhere: If an Israelite is sitting near a non-Jew's flock and the non-Jew milks and brings some to him, he need have no concern [and is allowed to drink it]. How is this to be understood? If there is no unclean animal in the flock, it is obvious; but if there is an unclean animal in the flock why [should he be permitted to drink the milk]!
  It does indeed deal with a case when there is an unclean animal, but [the Israelite is in such a position that] when he stands up he can see the non-Jew and when sitting he is unable to see him. What might you have thought? Since he cannot see him when sitting, he should be concerned that he might bring him [milk in which something forbidden] has been mixed; therefore it teaches us that since he is able to see him when standing, the non-Jew would be afraid to mix anything with the milk. 
  Honey. Honey, what should he be concerned about? If because of the possibility that something [forbidden] may have been mixed with it, this would cause it to go rancid! If it is on account of [the prohibition against] all things cooked by a non-Jew, it is something which is eaten in its raw state! If on account of the rule that vessels used by non-Jews must be scoured [before they may be used] by a Jew, it is an instance where a worsening flavour is imparted and it is therefore permitted.
  Grape-clusters — even though these secrete moisture the law which renders food susceptible to defilement by a liquid does not apply to them. This was contrasted with the following: If one gleans grapes for the wine-press, Shammai says that they are susceptible to impurity [by liquid] while Hillel says that they are not susceptible; And Hillel agreed with Shammai.
  There, he needs the grapes for their liquid, whereas here [in our mishnah] they are not required for a liquid.
  A tarit fish which is not minced: Our Rabbis have taught: How do we define “a tarit fish which has not been minced”? One whose head and backbone are recognizable. And how do we define “brine containing a fish”? One that has one or two kalbit-fish 
  
  Daf 40a
  
  floating in it. Now that you have permitted when there is one kalbit-fish in it, is there any need of mentioning two? There is no difficulty; in open barrels [two are necessary], but in closed [one suffices].
  It has been stated: R. Huna said: So long as the head and backbone are recognizable. R. Nahman said: Either the head or the backbone. R. Ukba b. Hama objected: [We learned] with regard to fish, only such as have fins and scales [may be eaten]! Abaye said: When that mishnah was taught, it referred to the ara’a and the palmuda fish, the heads of which resemble those of unclean fish.
  Rav Judah said in the name of Ulla: There is a dispute [between R. Huna and R. Nahman over the permissibility] to dip [bread] in the brine, but as regards eating the fish itself, all agree that it is prohibited unless both the head and backbone are recognizable. R. Zera said: At first I used to dip [bread] in the brine; but when I heard the statement of Rav Judah in the name of Ulla, “the dispute is over the permissibility to dip [bread] in the brine but as regards eating the fish itself all agree that it is prohibited unless both the head and backbone are recognizable,” I would not also dip in it.
  R. Papa said: The halakhah is that both the head and backbone of each fish must be recognizable. They objected: Pieces of fish which have a sign [that the fish was of a clean species] whether in all of them, some of them or even in one in one hundred, they are all permitted. And it once happened that a non-Jew brought a barrel containing pieces of fish and a mark [of it being clean] was found in one of them and Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel declared the whole barrel to be permitted!
  R. Papa interpreted this to be a case where the pieces fit together. If so, what does this teach us! What might you have said? We are concerned lest [that fish which had the mark of cleanness] happened [to fit in] by chance; so he informs us [that we need have no such fear].
  A boat-load of zahanta once came to Sikara. R. Huna b. Hinnena went to inspect it and, noticing scales [on the sides of the boat], declared the fish to be permitted. Rava said to him: Does anyone give permission in a place where scales are so common! Rava’s announcement prohibiting the fish went out, R. Huna b. Hinnena’s announcement went out that they were permitted.
  R. Yirmiyah of Difti said: R. Papi told me that R. Huna b. Hinnena allowed only the brine but did not allow eating the fish itself. R. Ashi said: R. Papa told me that R. Huna b. Hinnena even allowed the fish to be eaten; but as for myself,
  I cannot prohibit it after what R. Papa told me, nor can I permit it, for Rav Judah said in the name of Ulla: There is a dispute is over whether it is permissible to dip [bread] in the brine, but as regards eating the fish all agree that it is prohibited unless both the head and backbone are recognizable in each one. 
  R. Hinnena b. Idi was sitting in front of R. Adda b. Ahavah; and while sitting there he said: If a non-Jew brought a boat laden with barrels [of fish-brine] and a kalbit-fish is found in one of them, should they be open barrels they are all permitted, but if is closed, that barrel is permitted and the rest are prohibited. [R. Adda] asked him: From where do you know this? I heard this from three verses: From Rav, Shmuel and R. Yohanan.
  R. Berona said in the name of Rav: Fish-entrails and their roe should only be bought from an expert. Ulla raised a difficulty to R. Dosthai of Berai: Since Rav said that fish-entrails and roe should only be bought from an expert, it follows that unclean fish have roe; but against this I cast the following baraita: Unclean fish give birth, whereas clean fish lay eggs!
  [He replied:] Strike out the word roe! R. Zera said to him: Do not strike out the word because they both lay eggs; but whereas [the clean species] breed [by laying eggs externally] the other lays eggs internally.
  Why, however, is it necessary [to buy the roe] from an expert? Let him examine the marks [which differentiate the clean and unclean species]; for it has been taught: The marks of [clean birds’] eggs are the same as those of [clean] fish.
  Clean fish? Does this make sense? Scripture mentions fins and scales as the marks of [clean] fish! Rather the meaning is: The marks of [clean birds’] eggs are the same as those of fish-roe [which may be eaten]; and the following are the marks of [clean] birds’ eggs: Any one that narrows at the top and is rounded, one of its ends is wide and the other end is pointed is kosher. If both of its ends are sharp or both of its ends are wide, it is non-kosher. If the yolk is on the outside and the albumen is on the inside, it is non-kosher; if the albumen is on the outside and the yolk is on the inside, it is kosher. If the yolk and albumen are mixed with each other, this is the egg of a creeping animal. Rava said: [Rav's statement that it must only be bought from an expert refers to when the roe] has been pressed. 
  But as for R. Dostai from Biri who said that the word “roe” should be struck out,
  
  Daf 40b
  
  surely it has been taught: The marks of [clean birds’] eggs are the same as those of fish-roe [which may be eaten]! Did you not already correct this baraita? Read, therefore, thus: “Are the same as fish entrails.”
  But where is it found that the marks of fish-entrails are rounded and pointed? This is actually found with the fish-bladder. 
  If there be no expert, what is the rule? Rav Judah said: So long as he declares, “I salted the fish,” it is permitted. R. Nahman said: He must be able to declare, “These are the fish and these their entrails.” Rav Judah instructed Adda, the attendant, “So long as he declares, ‘I salted the fish,’ it is permitted.”
  A leaf of hiltit. This is obvious! It was only necessary to mention this with regard to the slivers one the leaf. What might you have said? We must be concerned lest [a non-Jew] bring [other slivers of hiltit which he had cut from the root with his knife] and mix them with it. Therefore it teaches us that [the slivers which are found on the leaf] detached themselves [without cutting] and came off together with it. 
  And rolled olive-cakes. This is obvious! It was only necessary to teach [that they may be eaten] even when they are very soft. What might you have said? [The non-Jew] put wine on them. Hence it teaches us that their softness is due to the oil.
  R. Yose says: Overripe olives are prohibited. What is considered overripe? R. Yose b. Hanina said: Any one which when held by hand, its pit falls out.
  Locusts which come [out of [a shopkeeper’s] basket are prohibited, but if from storage they are permitted]. Our rabbis taught: Locusts, capers and leeks which come from a warehouse, storage or from a ship are permitted; but those sold on the counter in front of the shopkeeper are prohibited because [the shopkeeper] sprinkles wine upon them. Similarly the apple-cider of a non-Jew a warehouse, storage or from a ship are permitted; but those sold on the counter in front of the shopkeeper are prohibited because [the shopkeeper] mixes wine with it. 
  Our rabbis taught: Rabbi once suffered from a disorder of the bowels and said, “Does anyone know whether apple-cider bought from a non-Jew is prohibited or permitted?” R. Ishmael son of R. Yose replied, “My father once suffered a bowel disorder and they brought him apple-cider from a non-Jew which was seventy years old; he drank it and recovered.” He said to him, “You had this information all this time and let me suffer!”
  They checked and found a non-Jew who possessed three hundred jars of apple-cider seventy years old. [Rabbi] drank some of it and recovered; whereupon he exclaimed, “Blessed be God Who delivered His world into the keeping of guardians!”
  The same rule applies to terumah. What does it mean “the same rule applies to terumah”? R. Sheshet said: [It means that] the same rule applies to a priest who is suspected of selling his portion of terumah as though it were non-sacred food. If it is in front of him, it is prohibited [to buy it]; but if it comes out of a warehouse or the stock or a basket, it is permitted because he would be afraid [to include the terumah among the wares] lest the rabbis hear and they cause him a loss.
  May we return to you chapter “One may not place”
  All images are prohibited because they are worshipped once a year, the words of Rabbi Meir; But the Sages say: [an image] is not prohibited except one that has a staff or bird or orb in its hand. Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel says: any [image] which has anything in its hand [is prohibited].
  Gem: If they are worshipped once a year, what is the reason of the rabbis? R. Yitzchak b. Yoseph said in the name of R. Yohanan: In the place where R. Meir lived, they used to worship each image once a year; and since R. Meir takes a minority into consideration, he decreed [against the use of images] in the other places on account of the place [where they are worshipped]. The other rabbis, who do not take a minority into consideration, did not decree [against the use of images] in the other places on account of the place [where they are worshipped].
  Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The teaching of the mishnah refers to the royal statues. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: The teaching of the mishnah refers [to the statues] when they stand at the entrance of a city. 
  
  Daf 41a
  
  Rabbah said: The dispute is [with regard to statues] in villages, but as for those which are in cities all agree that they are permitted. What is the reason [for their being permitted]? They are made for ornamentation.
  But is there anyone [who says that the images set up] in villages are made merely for ornamentation? Those in the villages are certainly made to be worshipped!
  Rather if it was said, this is how it was said: Rabbah said: They dispute [with regard to statues] in cities; but as for those in But the sages declare, [an image] is not prohibited etc.
  A staff, for this implies that it rules the whole world as with a staff. A bird, because this implies that it grasps the whole world as though it were a bird. An orb, because this implies that it grasps the whole world as though it were a ball. villages all agree that they are prohibited. 
  A Tanna taught: They added a sword, a crown, or a ring. 
  A sword — at first they thought that it is just the emblem of a robber, but later they thought that it has the power of killing the whole world.
  A crown — at first they thought it is just a woven wreath, but they thought it is like the crown of a king. A ring — at first they thought that it is just a signet rign, but later they thought that it symbolizes the power of sealing [the fate of] the whole world for death.
  Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel. A Tanna taught: Even [if it has in its hand] a pebble or chip of wood.
  R. Ashi asked: What is the rule if it held excrement in its hand? Do we say that [the intention is that] it shows contempt for all people as though they were filth, or perhaps [the meaning is] that it is held in contempt by all as though it were filth? The question remains unanswered.
  One who finds fragments of images, behold they are permitted. If one found the figure of a hand or the figure of a foot, behold it is prohibited because such an object is worshipped.
  GEMARA. Shmuel said: Even fragments of idols [are permitted]. But have we not learned: fragments of images? The same law applies even to fragments of idols.
  And the reason the mishnah uses the phrase “fragments of images” is because it wants to teach the second clause, If one found the figure of a hand or the figure of a foot, behold it is prohibited because such an object is worshipped.
  We learned [in the Mishnah]: if one found the figure of a hand or the figure of a foot, behold it is prohibited because such an object is worshipped. But why [should they be prohibited]?
  
  Daf 41b
  
  They are only fragments! Shmuel explained that [the prohibition only applies when the hand and foot] are standing on their base.
  It has been stated: An idol that broke on it own: R. Yohanan said that [its fragments] are prohibited, but R. Shimon b. Lakish said that they are permitted.
  R. Yohanan said that they are prohibited because [the idolater] did not annul the idol. R. Shimon b. Lakish said that they are permitted because [the owner] can be assumed to have annulled [the idol], saying, “It could not save itself, so how can it save me!”
  R. Yohanan raised a difficulty against R. Shimon b. Lakish: “And the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands lay cut off . . . Therefore neither the priests of Dagon, nor any that come into Dagon's house, tread” etc. (I Samuel 5:4).
  He replied to him: From there you bring proof? In that passage [we learn] that they abandoned Dagon and worshipped the threshold, saying, the divinity left Dagon and went and settled itself upon the threshold.
  [R. Yohanan] raised another difficulty against him: “if one finds fragments of images, behold they are permitted,” implying that fragments of idols are prohibited!
  [Resh Lakish replied:] Do not say that fragments of idols are prohibited, but rather say that the images themselves [when whole] are forbidden, and the anonymous statement in the Mishnah is the view of R. Meir.
  Now as to R. Yohanan, from the view of R. Meir we can infer the opinion of the Rabbis: Did not R. Meir say that images are prohibited but the fragments of images are permitted? Thus to the Rabbis, while an idol itself is prohibited, its fragments should be permitted.
  But is the analogy correct? There [in the case of images] they were perhaps worshipped or perhaps not; and even if you assume that they had been worshipped, perhaps they had been annulled. But in the case of an idol, it has certainly been worshipped; and who can say whether it has been annulled? Consequently there is a doubt and a certainty, and a doubt cannot set aside a certainty.
  And a doubt does not set aside a certainty? Behold it has been taught: If a haver died and left a store-room full of produce even if they were only picked that day, they are presumed to have been properly tithed.
  Now here it is certain [that the produce was once] untithed and there is a doubt whether he had tithed them or not; yet the doubt does set aside the certainty!
  [No] there it is a case of certainty and certainty, for he certainly tithed the produce, according to the teaching of R. Hanina of Hoza, for R. Hanina of Hoza said: It is presumed that a haver does not allow anything to pass out of his control unless it had been properly treated.
  Or if you wish I can say that it is a case of doubt and doubt,
  as he might have acted according to [the advice of] R. Oshaia who said: A man may act cunningly with his produce and store it together with the chaff, so that his cattle may eat of it and it be exempt from the tithe. 
  And a doubt cannot set aside a certainty? Behold it has been taught: R. Judah said: It once happened that a female slave
  
  Daf 42a
  
  of a certain tax-collector in Rimmon threw the body of a premature child into a pit, and a priest came and gazed [into the pit] to ascertain whether it was male or female. The matter came before the Sages and they pronounced him clean because weasels and martens are commonly found there.
  Now here is a certainty that the woman had cast a premature child [into the pit], and a doubt whether [animals] dragged it elsewhere or not; yet the doubt sets aside the certainty!
  Do not say “she cast a premature child into a pit” but rather something similar to a premature child into a pit.
  But it is stated [that the priest looked] to ascertain whether it was male or female!
  This is how it should read: [He looked] to ascertain whether she had aborted a sack of wind or whether it was a premature child [into the pit]; and if you assume that she threw a premature child there, he wished to ascertain whether it was male or female.
  Or if you wish I can say that since weasels and martens are commonly found there, they certainly dragged it elsewhere.
  
  
  [R. Yohanan] raised another difficulty against [Resh Lakish]: An idolater can annul an idol belonging to himself or to another idolater, but an Israelite cannot annul the idol of an idolater. But why not? Let it be considered the same as an idol which was broken of its own accord!
  Abaye said: [The Mishnah refers to a case] where he only defaced the idol. But if he only defaced it, so what? Have we not taught: If he defaced it, although he did not cause it to be missing anything, it is still annulled!
  This rule only applies when an idolater defaced it in this manner, but if an Israelite did so it is not annulled.
  Rava said: In reality when an Israelite only defaces it, it is also annulled; But they prohibited this lest he lift it up and then annul it. In that event it would be an idol in the possession of an Israelite, and an idol which is in the possession of an Israelite can never be annulled.
  [R. Yohanan] raised another difficulty again [Resh Lakish]: If an idolater brought stones from [the statue of] Mercury and used them for paving roads or theatres, they are permitted [to be walked on by an Israelite]; but if an Israelite brought stones from [the statue of] Mercury and used them for paving roads or theatres, they are prohibited. But why [are they not permitted]? Let them be considered the same as an idol which was broken of its own accord!
  This case has also to be explained according to the explanation of Rava.
  [R. Yohanan] raised another difficulty against [Resh Lakish]: If an idolater chipped off an idol to make use of the pieces, it and the pieces are permitted. For the good of the idol, it is prohibited but its pieces are permitted; But if an Israelite chipped off an idol, whether to make use of the pieces or for its embellishment, it and the pieces are prohibited. Now why [are they not allowed]? Let them be considered the same as an idol which broke of its own accord!
  This case also has to be explained according to Rava.
  [R. Yohanan] raised another difficulty against [Resh Lakish]: R. Yose says: He may grind [an idol] to powder and scatter it to the wind or throw it into the sea. They said to him: This also could become manure, and it is stated, “And nothing proscribed should cling to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18). Now why [is it not permitted]? Let it be considered the same as an idol which is broken of its own accord!
  This case also has to be explained according to Rava.
  [R. Yohanan] raised another difficulty against [R. Shimon:] R. Yose b. Yasian says: If he found the figure of a dragon with its head cut off, if there is a doubt whether an idolater or an Israelite cut it off, it is permitted; but if it is certain that an Israelite had cut it off, it is prohibited. But why? Let it be considered the same as an idol which is broken of its own accord!
  This case also has to be explained according to Rava.
  [R. Yohanan raised] another difficulty against [Resh Lakish]: R. Yose says: Nor may vegetables [be planted beneath an Asherah tree] in winter because the foliage falls upon them. But why? Let it be considered the same as an idol which broke its own accord!
  It is different in this case because the main part of the idol remains.
  
  
  Daf 42b
  
  But what about chips [chipped off an idol] where the basic part of the idol remains, and it was taught [above]: “If he did so for the idol’s own need, it, it is prohibited but its pieces are permitted.”
  R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: Because an idol cannot be annulled by a natural cause.
  R. Shimon b. Lakish raised a difficulty against R. Yohanan: A bird's nest on the top of a tree which had been dedicated to the Temple, one may not make use of it, but if one does make use of it, it does not count as trespass. [If the nest was made] on top of an Asherah, he may knock it off with a stick!
  Now you should assume here that the bird broke twigs from the Asherah and built a nest of them; and yet it is taught: He knocks it off with a stick! 
  We are dealing here with a case where [the bird] brought twigs from other trees and built a nest of them.
  This conclusion is proved to be correct by the fact that when it came to a tree dedicated to the Temple it is stated: One may not make use of it, but if one does make use of it, it does not count as trespass. It makes sense if you say that [the bird] brought twigs from other places, for that is why it teaches with regard to a dedicated tree: One may not make use of it, but if one does make use of it, it does not count as trespass. “One may not make use of it” according to rabbinical law, “but if one does make use of it, it does not count as trespass,” according to the law of the Torah because [the twigs] were not dedicated.
  But if you say that [the bird] broke twigs from that tree [which had been dedicated] and built a nest with them, why has he not “trespassed” since they were dedicated to the Temple!
  Does this prove anything? Here we are dealing with a case where [the bird used twigs] which grew after [the tree had been dedicated to the Templ], and he holds that there is no “trespass” [if use was made of] the after-growth! 
  But R. Abahu said in the name of R. Yohanan: What does it mean “he knocks off”? He knocks [the nest down] to get the young birds.
  R. Ya’akov said to R. Yirmiyah b. Tahlifa: I will explain this to you: As for young birds, they may be used in any event; as for eggs they are prohibited in any event. R. Ashi said: Young birds which need the care of their mother are considered to be like eggs [and are not permitted].
  If one finds utensils upon which is the figure of the sun or moon or a dragon, he must cast them into the Dead Sea. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if [one of these figures] is upon precious utensils they are prohibited, but if upon common utensils they are permitted.
  GEMARA. Is this to say that [the idolaters] worship these objects and no others? They cast against this the following baraita: If one slaughters an animal in the name of seas, rivers, a desert, the sun, moon, stars and planets, Michael the great Prince or a tiny worm, behold these are like “sacrifices to the dead”!
  Abaye said: With regard to worshipping, they worship whatever they take hold of; but with regard to the making of images and then worshipping them, these three [mentioned in the Mishnah] which are particularly important to them, they  make an image and worship it; but as for the other figures, they only make them for ornamental purposes.
  R. Sheshet used to gather passages related to the Mishnah and teach them: [Pictures of] all the planets are permissible except that of the sun and moon; of all faces are permissible except that of a human face; and of all figures are permissible except that of the dragon.
  The master said: “[Pictures of] all the planets are permissible except that of the sun and moon.” What are we dealing with here? If we say with the making of them? If it is with the making of them, is making any of the planets allowed? Is it not written, “You shall not make with Me” (Exodus 20:23) [which means] you shall not make according to the likeness of My attendants who serve before Me in the heavens!
  Rather it obviously must refer to finding them, and as it is taught in our Mishnah: if one finds utensils on which is the figure of the sun or moon or a dragon, he casts them into the salt sea. 
  If, then, it refers to finding them, consider the middle clause: “All faces are permissible except that of a human face.” Now if this refers to finding them, is the picture of a human face prohibited? Surely we have learnt: if one finds utensils upon which is the figure of the sun or moon or a dragon, he must them into the salt sea.  Which implies that [he does this] to the figure of a dragon but not to the picture of a human face!
  Rather then, it must refer to making them, and it is in accord with the view of R. Huna the son of R. Joshua.
  If, then, it refers to making them, consider the last clause: “All figures are permissible except that of the dragon.” Now if this refers to making them, is the image of a dragon prohibited, is it not written, “You shall not make of Me gods of silver or gods of gold”
  
  Daf 43a
  
  but not the image of a dragon!
  Obviously, then, it refers to finding them, and it is in accord with our Mishnah: if one finds utensils upon which is the figure of the sun [or the moon or a dragon, they are prohibited].
  Therefore the first and last clauses deal with finding and the middle clause with making!
  Abaye said: That is so, the first and last clauses deal with the act of finding and the middle clause with the act of making.
  Rava said: They all deal with finding [such an image], and as for the middle clause it is the teaching of R. Judah. For it has been taught: “R. Judah adds the picture of a nursing woman suckling and Serapis. A nursing woman alludes to Eve who nursed the whole world; Serapis alludes to Joseph who became a prince [sar] and appeased [hefis] the whole world.” [The picture of Serapis is only prohibited when he is represented as] holding a dry measure and is measuring, and that [of the nursing woman] when she is holding a child and nursing it.
  Our rabbis taught: Which is the figure of a dragon [that is prohibited]? R. Shimon b. Elazar said: One that has joints between his neck. R. Assi motioned to the joints between the joints of the neck. R. Hama son of Hanina said: The halakhah is in accord with the view of R. Shimon b. Eleazar.
  Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: I was once walking after R. Elazar Hakkappar Berebbi along the road, and he found a ring and on it was the figure of a dragon He found a non-Jewish child but he said nothing to him. Then there passed by an adult non-Jew and [R. Elazar] said to him, “Annul it,” but he refused to do so; and he struck him until he annulled it.
  Learn three lessons from this: Learn from this that an idolater can annul an idolatrous object which belongs to him or to a fellow non-Jew; Learn from this, that if [the idolater] understands the nature of the idolatrous object and its accessories he can annul it, but if he does not know the nature of the idolatrous object and its accessories he cannot annul it; and third, one may force an idolater to annul the object.
  R. Hanina ridiculed this ruling: Does not R. Elazar Hakkappar Berebbi agree with the following teaching: If a person rescued something from a lion, bear, leopard, or from a robber, a river, or from what the tide throws up, or the overflow of a river; or if a person finds something in a public thoroughfare or in a place where many people congregate, behold the object belongs to him because the owner despairs of recovering it!
  Abaye said: Let it be that [the owner] despaired of recovering it, but did he despair of its prohibited nature? He would have said [to himself]: If an idolater finds it he will worship it, if an Israelite finds it, since it is a valuable object, he will sell it to an idolater who will worship it.
  We have learned elsewhere: On a tablet on the wall of his upper chamber Rabban Gamaliel had images of the moon which he used to show to the unlearned and say to them, “Did you see (the moon] thus or thus?”
  But is [such a picture] allowed, is it not written, “You shall not make with Me” (Exodus 20:23) you shall not make according to the likeness of My attendants who serve before Me!
  Abaye said: The Torah forbids only the making of His attendants which can be reproduced in their likeness.
  As it is taught: A man should not make a house after the design of the Temple, or a porch after the design of the Temple-porch, a courtyard after the design of the Temple-court, a table after the design of the table [in the Temple], or a candelabrum after the design of [the Temple] candelabrum . He may, however, make one with five, six or eight [branches], but with seven he may not make even of other metals. 
  R. Yose b. Judah says: Also of wood he should not make it, because this is how the Hasmoneans did it.
  [The rabbis] said to him: Can you bring any proof from there? It consisted of metal staves, which they covered with tin. When [the Hasmoneans] grew rich they made one of silver, and when they grew still richer they made one of gold! 
  And are His attendants which cannot be reproduced in their likeness really allowed? Has it not been taught: “You shall not make with Me”, which means “You shall not make according to the likeness of My attendants who serve before Me in the heavens”!
  Abaye explained:
  
  Daf 43b
  
  The Torah prohibited only the making of the likeness of the four faces together. 
  According to this, a human face by itself should be permitted; so why was it taught: “All faces are permissible except that of a human face”!
  Judah the son of R. Joshua said: At the public lecture of R. Joshua I learned: You shall not make with me [“with me”] [this should be rendered as though it was] “You shall not make Me” [oti], but the other attendants are permitted.
  But are the other attendants permitted? Has it not been taught: “You shall not make with Me” you shall not make according to the likeness of My attendants who serve before Me in the heights, such as the Ophanim, Seraphim, the holy Hayyot and Ministering Angels! 
  Abaye explained: The Torah prohibited only the the attendants who are in the highest stratum.
  Are, then, those in the lower stratum permitted? Has it not been taught: “That is in heaven,” this is to include the sun, moon, stars and planets; “above,” this is to include the Ministering Angels!
  That teaching alludes to worshipping them. 
  But if it is a matter of worshipping them, even a tiny worm is also [prohibited]! That is indeed so, and this is derived from the continuation of the verse; for it has been taught: “Or that is in the earth,” this is to include seas, rivers, mountains and hills; “beneath,” this is to include a tiny worm.
  But is the mere making of them permitted?  Has it not been taught: “You shall not make with Me,” you shall not make according to the likeness of My attendants who serve before Me in the heavens, the sun, moon, stars and planets!
  It was different with R. Gamaliel because others made [the chart] for him.
  But there is the case of R. Judah for whom others made [a design on a seal], and Shmuel said to him, Toothy one! Blind its eyes!”
  That was a case of a protruding seal and because of suspicion [that it might be worshipped, Shmuel objected to it]; for it has been taught: A signet-ring which has a protruding ring, it is forbidden to wear it, but it is permitted to seal with it; and if the signet is sunk in, one may put the ring on but not seal with it.  
  But are we concerned with the suspicion [that an object might be worshipped]? Behold in the synagogue of Shaf Veyativ in Nehardea a statue was set up, and Shmuel’s father and Levi entered it and prayed there without worrying about the possibility of suspicion!It is different when there are many people together.
  But R. Gamaliel was a single individual! Since he was the Nasi, many people were always found with him. Or if you wish I can say that [his chart] was in sections.
  Or if you wish I can say that when it is for the purpose of study it is different; as it has been taught: “You shall not learn to do,” (Deuteronomy 18:9) but you may learn in order to understand and teach.
  Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel etc. Which utensils are respectable and which disgraceful?
  Rav said: The respectable are those which [have the figures] above the water, the disgraceful those which have them under the water. Shmuel said: Both these kinds are to be regarded as disgraceful. Rather, those that are respectable are those which are on bracelets, nose-rings and signet-rings.
  It is taught in agreement with Shmuel: The respectable images are those that are on bracelets, nose-rings and signet-rings; the disgraceful are those on kettles, pots, vessels for boiling water, sheets and towels.
  Rabbi Yose says: He may grind [an idol] to powder and scatter it to the wind or throw it into the sea. They said to him, even so it may then become manure, as it says, “let nothing that has been proscribed stick to your hand (Deuteronomy 13:18)”.
  GEMARA. It has been taught: R. Yose said to [the rabbis]: Has it not been stated, “Your sin, 
  
  Daf 44a
  
   the calf that you had made, I took and burned it with fire, and beat it in pieces, grinding it very small, until it was as fine as dust; and I cast its dust into the brook that descended out of the mount” (Deuteronomy 9:21)
  They replied to him: Can any proof be deduced from this passage? Behold it states, “And he strewed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it.” He had no other intention than to test them as is done with women suspected of adultery!
  R. Yose said back to them: But has it not been stated, “And also Ma’acah the mother of Asa the king, he removed her from being queen, because she had made at abominable image . . . he made dust of it, and burned it at the brook of Kidron” (II Chronicles 15:16)! They said to him: From there you bring proof? The brook of Kidron is not a place in which vegetation grows?
  But is it not? Has it not been taught: [The blood of] the various [sacrifices] mingled in the aqueduct and flowed into the brook of Kidron and was sold to gardeners for manure. And one who uses it is guilty of trespass. There are different kinds of places there, in some vegetation grows and some it does not.
  
  R. Yose said to [the rabbis]: But has it not been stated, “He crushed into pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made” (II Kings 18:4).
  They replied to him: From there you bring proof? Behold it states, “And the Lord said unto Moses, Make lekha [for you] a fiery serpent” (Numbers 21:8), “lekha” means “from what belongs to you,” and a man cannot render prohibited what is not his property! In that case [of the bronze serpent] there was really no necessity for it to have been broken in pieces,
  but when [Hezekiah] saw that the Israelites were erring after it, he arose and destroyed it.
  [R. Yose] said to [the rabbis]: But has it not been stated, “And they left their images there, and David and his men took them away (vayisa’em)” (II Samuel 5:21). And how do we know that the meaning of “And David took them away” is “scattering”? It is the language of scattering as R. Joseph translated, “You shall winnow them and the wind shall carry them off (tisaem)” (Isaiah 41:16) and we translate it, “You shall winnow them and a wind will disperse them”!
  They replied to him: From there you bring proof? Behold it states, “And they were burned with fire” (I Chronicles 14:12) and since it is not written, “and he burned them and took them away,” learn from this that he really took them away.
  In any case, the two verses are contradictory!
  “And David gave an order and they were burned with fire” (I Chronicles 14:12), and it is written, “He took them away” (II Samuel 5:21).
  There is no contradiction; the first passage refers to before Ittai the Gittite came, the latter to after Ittai the Gittite came.
  As it is written, “And he took the crown of their king from off his head, and its weight was a talent of gold” (II Samuel 12:30). But was that permissible? Is it not forbidden to derive benefit from it? Nahman explained: Ittai the Gittite came and annulled it.
  If the weight [of the crown] was a talent of gold, how could [David] have put it on? Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: It was fit to rest upon David’s head. Yose son of R. Hanina said: There was a lodestone in it which raised it up .Elazar said: [The meaning is] that there was a precious stone in it worth a talent of gold.
  “This I have had, because I kept Your precepts” (Psalms 119:56). What does this mean? This is what it means: As a reward for keeping Your precepts, “this” is a testimony on my behalf.   What is its testimony? R. Joshua b. Levi said: He used to wear [the crown] in the place of the tefillin and it fitted him. But does he not have to put on tefillin? R. Shmuel bar R. Yitzchak said: There is sufficient room on the forehead to lay two sets of tefillin.
  [It is written], “Then he brought out the king’s son and put upon him the crown [hanezer] and the testimony” (II Chronicles 23:11).  “Nezer:” this is the crown. “The testimony”?
  Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: It was a testimony to the house of David that whoever was fit for the throne [the crown] would fit him, but anyone who was not fit for the throne, the crown would not fit him.
  [It is written], “Then Adoniyah the son of Haggith exalted himself saying, ‘I will be king’” (I Kings 1:5). Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: He exalted himself [thinking that the crown] would fit him, but it did not fit him.
  
  
  Daf 44b
  
  Proclos, son of a plosphos, asked Rabban Gamaliel in Acco when the latter was bathing in the bathhouse of aphrodite. He said to him, “It is written in your torah, ‘let nothing that has been proscribed stick to your hand (Deuteronomy 13:18)’;  why are you bathing in the bathhouse of Aphrodite?”
  He replied to him, “We do not answer [questions relating to torah] in a bathhouse.” When he came out, he said to him, “I did not come into her domain, she has come into mine.  People do not say, ‘the bath was made as an adornment for Aphrodite’; rather they say, ‘Aphrodite was made as an adornment for the bath.’
  Another reason is, even if you were given a large sum of money, you would not enter the presence of your idol while you were nude or had experienced seminal emission, nor would you urinate before it. But this [statue of Aphrodite] stands by a sewer and all people urinate before it. [In the Torah] it is only stated, “their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:3)  — what is treated as a god is prohibited, what is not treated as a deity is permitted.
  GEMARA. But how did [R. Gamaliel] act in this manner? Did not Rabbah b. Bar Hanah say in the name of R. Yohanan: It is permitted to contemplate [matters of Torah] in any place except a bathhouse and a toilet!
  Should you say that he spoke to him in the vernacular, behold Abaye has said: It is permitted to discuss secular subjects in the holy tongue, but it is forbidden to discuss holy subjects in the vernacular!
  A Tanna taught: When he came out, he replied to him, “We may not answer [questions relating to Torah] in a bathhouse.”
  Hama b. Joseph said in the name of R. Oshaia: R. Gamaliel gave a deceptive reply to that officer, but I maintain that it was not deceptive. 
  How was it deceptive? Because he told him, “this [statue] stands by a sewer and all people urinate before it.” And if people do urinate before it, so what? For has not Rava said: Peor proves [the contrary], because people defecate in its presence every day but it is not annulled.
  But I maintain that [R. Gamaliel’s answer] was not deceptive, because [in the case of Peor] that is how it is worshipped, but [with Aphrodite] that is not how she is worshipped.
  Abaye said: Its deception was from the fact that he told him, “I did not enter her domain, she entered mine.” And if he had entered her domain, what of it?   For we learn: If an idol has a bathhouse or garden, we may derive benefit from it as long as we don’t provide something in return, but we may not derive benefit if we do provide something in return.
  But I hold that [R. Gamaliel’s answer] was not deceptive, because the favor provided by Rabban Gamaliel is not like the favor provided by others.   
  Shimi b. Hiyya said: Its deceptiveness was from the fact that he told him, “This [statue] stands by a sewer and all people urinate before it.” And if people do urinate before it, what does this matter? Have we not learned: If he spat before it, urinated before it, dragged it, or hurled excrement at it, behold it is not annulled!
  But I maintain that [his answer] was not deceptive. There [in the mishnah just cited] the man may have been momentarily angry at the idol and subsequently made his peace with it; but here [in the case of the Aphrodite image] it is constantly treated in this contemptuous manner.
  Rabbah b. Ulla said: Its deceptiveness is from the fact that he told him, “People do not say, ‘the bath was made as an adornment for Aphrodite’; rather they say, ‘Aphrodite was made as an adornment for the bath.’” And if one said that the bath was made as an adornment for Aphrodite, so what? For it has been taught: If one says, “This house is for an idol, this cup is for an idol,” he has said nothing because there can be no dedication to an idol!  
  But I say that [his answer] was not deceptive. Granted that [the use of the bath] is not actually forbidden, it is nevertheless intended as an ornament [of the idol, and is consequently prohibited].
  
  Daf 45a
  
  If idolaters worship mountains and hills these are permitted; but what is on them is prohibited, as it is says, “you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them and take them” (Deut. 7:25).
  Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: [it says] “their gods on the mountains” (Deut. 12:2),  not their mountains which are their gods; “their gods on the hills” (ibid.), not their hills which are their gods.
  And why is an asherah prohibited?  Because there was manual labor connected with it, and whatever has manual labour connected with it is prohibited.
  Rabbi Akiba said: let me expound and decide [the interpretation] before you: wherever you find a high mountain or elevated hill or green tree, know that an idolatrous object is there.
  GEMARA. R. Yose Hagalili holds the same opinion as the first opinion [in the Mishnah]! Rami b. Hama said in the name of R. Shimon b. Lakish: The dispute between them is whether the covering on a mountain is identical with the mountain. The first opinion holds that the covering on a mountain is not identical with the mountain and is prohibited, whereas R. Yose Hagalili holds that the covering on a mountain is identical with the mountain [and is permitted].
  Sheshet said: All agree that the covering on a mountain is not identical with the mountain,
  
  Daf 45b
  
  and here they argue with regard to a tree which had been planted and was subsequently worshipped. The first opinion holds that a tree which had been planted and was subsequently worshipped is permitted, whereas R. Yose Hagalili holds that such a tree is prohibited.
  From where [do I know that this is R. Yose Hagalili’s opinion]? From the end of the Mishnah: And why is an asherah prohibited?  Because there was manual labor connected with it, and whatever has manual labor connected with it is prohibited. And what does the phrase, “whatever has manual labor connected with it,” come to include? It surely includes the case of a tree which had been planted and was subsequently worshipped.
  Yose son of R. Yehudah likewise holds that a tree which had been planted and was subsequently worshipped is prohibited; for it has been taught: R. Yose son of R. Yehudah says: Since it is stated, “Their gods upon the high mountains,” and not the mountains which are their gods, “Their gods upon the hills,” and not the hills which are their gods. I might have [similarly] thought, “Their gods under every green tree,” and not the green tree itself which is their god,
  Scripture therefore says, “And burn their asherah-trees with fire” (Deuteronomy 12:3).
  Why, then, do I need “under every green tree”?  This is required in accordance with the teaching of R. Akiva; for R. Akiva said: let me expound and decide [the interpretation] before you: wherever you find a high mountain or elevated hill or green tree, know that an idolatrous object is there.
  And the rabbis, what do they do with the verse “and burn their asherim with fire”? It is required to cover the case of a tree which had been planted from the outset for idolatry.
  And does not R. Yose son of R. Yehudah should also require the same text for this rule? Indeed so. So then from where does he derive that a tree which had been planted and was subsequently worshipped [is prohibited]? He derives it from, “and hew down their asherim,” (Deuteronomy 7:5).  Which tree has its later growth prohibited while its root is permitted? Say that it is a tree which had been planted and was subsequently worshipped.
  But surely “and burn their asherim with fire” is the verse used!
  He employs the argument “if it had not been stated:” If it had not been stated, “and burn their asherim with fire,” I would have said that, “and hew down their asherim,” refers to a tree which had been originally planted for idolatry; now that it is written, “and burn their asherim with fire,” the phrase, “and hew down their asherim,” is left over to refer to a tree which had been planted and was subsequently worshipped.
  [They explain it] according to the view of R. Joshua b. Levi; for R. Joshua b. Levi said: The cutting down of idolatrous trees takes precedence over the conquest of the land of Israel, but the conquest of the land of Israel takes precedence over the destruction of idolatry.
  For R. Joseph taught: “You shall tear down their altars” and leave them, “and dash in pieces their pillars” — and leave them (Deuteronomy 12:3). 
  Can it enter your mind that they are to be left? They must be burned!  R. Huna said: [The meaning is,] Pursue and then burn them [afterwards].
  And R. Yose son of R. Yehudah, how does he derive this rule? He derives it from, “You shall surely destroy” destroy and then destroy.
  And the rabbis? They require [this verse] for the rule that when one destroys an idol he must eradicate every trace of it.
  From where does R. Yose son of R. Judah [derive the rule] that he must eradicate every trace of it? He derives it from, “and you shall destroy their name from that place” (Deuteronomy 12:3).
  And the Rabbis [how do they explain that verse]? That the idol must be renamed; for it has been taught: R. Eliezer says: From where do we known is it that when one destroys an idol he must eradicate every trace of it? Scripture says, “And you shall destroy their name.
  
  Daf 46a
  
  R. Akiva said to him: But has it not been already stated, “You shall surely destroy?” If so, what does Scripture say, “And you shall destroy their name from that place?” That verse teaches that an idol must be renamed. 
  You might have thought [it should be renamed] for praise. For praise? Would you really think such a thing! Rather, you might have thought [that the renaming should be] neither for praise nor contempt; Scripture says, “You shall utterly detest it, and you shall utterly abhor it for it is proscribed” (Deuteronomy 7:26).
  How so? If they called it Bet Galya [house of revelation], call it Beth Karya [house of concealment]; if they called it En Kol [the all-seeing eye], call it En Koz [the eye of a thorn].
  A tanna taught in the presence of R. Sheshet: If idolaters worship mountains and hills, they are permissible but the worshippers must be put to the sword; [if they worshipped] plants and vegetation, these are prohibited and the worshippers must be put to the sword.
  [R. Sheshet] said to him: Who said that to you? It must be R. Yose son of R. Yehudah who said: A tree which had been planted and was subsequently worshipped is prohibited.
  But let [R. Sheshet] apply [the statement reported by the tanna] to a tree which had been planted for idolatry at the outset and [make it agree with the view of] the rabbis! Do not even think this, for it taught [that the plants] were similar to the mountain: just as with a mountain it was not planted for idolatry at the outset, so with this also it was not planted for idolatry at the outset.
  It has been stated: If boulders become detached from a mountain: the sons of R. Hiyya and R. Yohanan [disagree]; one says that they are prohibited and the other that they are permitted. What is the reason for the one who says they are permitted? [The boulders are] like the mountain; just as the mountain is something on which no manual labor had been performed and is permitted, so these are things on which no manual labor had been performed and they are permitted.
  [But it may be argued] that the mountain is attached to the ground! The case of an animal will prove [the contrary].
  [Here again it may be argued] that an animal [is only permitted] because it is alive! The case of a mountain proves [the contrary]. 
  Therefore the logic returns, this one is not like this one, nor is it like this cone; their commonality is that they are not the products of manual labor and they are permitted. Consequently anything that is not the product of manual labor is permitted.
  [But it may be argued that] the point common to them both is that they have not changed from their natural form!
  Rather, [the boulder is permitted by] an analogy between an animal which has become blemished and a mountain;
  or [it may be drawn] also between an unblemished animal and a dried up tree.
  As for him who prohibits [the boulders], it is because it is written, “You shall utterly detest it and you shall utterly abhor it” although it is possible to reason to the conclusion that they are permitted, do not make that analogy
  It can be proven that it was the sons of R. Hiyya who permit their use; because Hizkiyah asked: What is the rule if one set up an egg to worship it?
  You should [currently] understand that he had the intention of worshipping it and did worship it; and the point of [Hizkiyah's] question is whether the setting up of the egg is to be considered an action or not. But if he had not set it up, it is not prohibited. Conclude from that that it was the sons of R. Hiyya who permitted [the use of the boulders]!
  No; I can always say that it was the sons of R. Hiyya who prohibited their use, and that if the man worshipped [the egg], even though he had not set it up, it would be prohibited. And what are we dealing with here [in Hizkiyah’s question]? With a case where he set up an egg to worship but did not worship it.
  Now according to whom [is this question asked]? If according to him who sayst hat the idolatrous object of an Israelite is prohibited immediately, then it is prohibited; if according to him who says [that such an object is not prohibited] until it has been actually worshipped, behold the man has not worshipped it!
  No; it is necessary [to ask the question in the following case]: If he set up an egg to worship but did not do so, and an idolater came and worshipped it:
  and [his question was whether] this is like that which R. Judah said in the name of Shmuel: If an Israelite set up a brick to worship [but did not do so] and an idolater came and worshipped it, it is prohibited. And [Hizkiyah] asked the question: A brick [is prohibited] because its erection is noticeable, but an egg’s is not; or perhaps there is no difference? The question remains unanswered.
  Rami b. Hama asked: If a man worshipped a mountain, may its stones be used to build an altar [to God]? 
  
  Daf 46b
  
  Does the law prohibiting the use in Temple worship of objects which have been worshipped [as idols] apply to things attached to the ground or does it not?
  And if you decide that this law does apply to things attached to the ground, are objects necessary for the preparation of a sacrifice like the sacrifice or not?
  Rava said: It can be answered with a kal vehomer argument: if the hire of a harlot is usable for secular purposes when it is an object detached from the ground, but is prohibited for divine worship when it is attached to the ground, as it is written, “You shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the wages of a dog” (Deuteronomy 23:19) and it makes no difference whether it is detached from the ground or attached to the ground, a worshipped object, which is prohibited even when it is detached, should it not become prohibited for divine worship w hen it is attached.
  R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said to Rava: Or perhaps the opposite [may be concluded]: If a worshipped object which may not be used for secular purposes when it is detached but is permitted in divine worship when attached, as it is said, “‘Their gods upon the high mountains,’ not the mountains which are their gods,” and it does not make a difference whether it is for secular use or for the divine worship, how much more must the hire of a harlot which is usable for secular purposes when it is detached be permissible in the divine worship when it is attached!
  And if [you would argue that this conclusion is incorrect] because of the words, “into the house of the Lord your God,” they are required in accordance with this teaching: “Into the house of the Lord your God” this excludes a [red] heifer which does not enter the Temple, the words of R. Eliezer; but the Sages say: This includes plates of beaten gold. 
  [Rava] replied to [R. Huna]: I reason from the lenient to the strict view and you reason from the strict to the lenient view; and the rule is that where it is possible to reason to both conclusions we argue to the strict view.
  R. Papa said to Rava: But is it true that where it is possible to reason to both a lenient and a stringent position, we do not reason to a lenient position? Behold there is the example of the sprinkling on Pesah over which R. Eliezer and R. Akiva dispute; for R. Eliezer holds the strict view and makes the man liable [to bring the pesach sacrifice] and R. Akiva holds the lenient view and exempts him. And R. Akiva argues for the lenient conclusion;
  as it was taught: R. Akiva responded: Rather conclude the reverse: if sprinkling which is only [forbidden on Shabbat] due to shevut does not supersede Shabbat, how much more must the act of slaughtering [the pesach lamb which is prohibited] by the Torah not [supersede Shabbat]!
  In that case R. Eliezer had himself taught him, but had forgotten his own teaching; so R. Akiva came and reminded him of it. That is why [R. Akiba  said to him, ‘My master! Do not deny me in the time of judgment! Thus have I received the teaching from you: Sprinkling [is prohibited] on account of shevut and it does not supersede Shabbat.” 
  Rami b. Hama asked: What if one had worshipped a stalk of wheat [in a field]; may it be subsequently used for a minhah offering? Is there a rule of “change” when it comes to something worshipped or is there not?
  Mar Zutra son of R. Nahman said: Come and hear: Any [animal] prohibited from being offered upon the altar, its young is permissible; and on this it was taught that R. Eliezer forbids.
  But was it not stated on this source: R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbahu: The dispute is when the animal had been subject to bestiality and had then conceived,
  
  Daf 47a
  
  but when they had conceived and then been subject to bestiality, all agree that [the young] are forbidden [as offerings]? Similarly here [with the standing-grain] it is analogous to the circumstance where the animals conceived and had then been subject to bestiality.
  There are those who say: The dispute is when the animals had been subject to bestiality and then conceived, but when they had conceived and then been subject to bestiality, all agree that [the young] are forbidden [as offerings]. Similarly here [with the standing-grain] it is analogous to the circumstance where the animals conceived and had then been subject to bestiality. 
  But is the analogy correct? In that case it was originally an animal and now it is an animal, only the door had been closed in its face; but in the other instance it was originally wheat and now it is flour!
  Shimon b. Lakish asked: If one worshipped a palm-tree, may its lulav be used for the fulfilment of the mitzvah?
  If it was a tree originally planted for idolatry the question does not arise, because it is prohibited even for secular use; but the question does arise with a tree which had been planted and subsequently worshipped.
  Now according to the view of R. Yose son of R. Judah, [even then] the question does not arise because it is prohibited by him even for secular use; but the question does arise according to the view of the rabbis. Is [this lulav] revolting for holy use or not.
  When R. Dimi came he said: The question was asked in connection with an Asherah which had been annulled. Is there such a concept as “disqualified” with regard to commandments or not?
  You can solve this problem from what we have learned: If one covered it [blood of a wild animal or bird that had been slaughtered], and it became uncovered, he is exempt from having to cover it again; but if the wind covered it, he is obligated to cover it himself. And Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: This was taught only when the wind again uncovered it, but if the wind did not again uncover it, he is exempt from having to cover it.
  And we raised the question: If the wind again uncovered it, so what? Since [the blood] has been disqualified from the obligation [of covering], it is disqualified [once for all]!
  And R. Papa said: This proves that there is no concept of disqualification with regard to commandments.
  The question was asked in connection with this very statement of R. Papa itself. Is it clear to R. Papa that there is no “disqualification” with regard to commandments either to create a leniency or a stringency;
  or perhaps he is doubtful and we apply the concept when it leads to a stringency but not to a leniency. The question remains unanswered.
  Papa asked: What is the rule if one worshipped an animal; may its wool be used for blue thread?
  Blue thread for what? If it is for the blue material of the priests’ [garments], that is dealt with in the question of Rami b. Hama! If it is for the blue thread of tzitzit, that is dealt with in the question of R. Shimon b. Lakish!
  This is indeed so, there was no need [for R. Papa] to ask about this; but the reason why he did ask this question is because there are other similar matters [about which he asked]: May its wool be used for blue thread, its horns for trumpets, the bones of its legs for flutes, its intestines for harp-strings?
  According to the one who says that the main aspect of [Temple] music is with the instrument, the question does not arise because using these materials is certainly prohibited;...
  but the question does arise according to him who says that the main aspect of [Temple] music is with the mouth. Is, then, the purpose [of the instrument] only to sweeten the sound and we may use these [materials], or perhaps even then it is prohibited?  The question remains unanswered.
  Rabbah asked: What is the rule if one worshipped a spring; may its water be used for the drink-offerings? What is he asking? If it is whether the person worshipped his reflection [in the water], or perhaps he worshipped the water itself, then he should have asked about a bowl of water and its use for secular purposes!
  Rather we assume that he worshipped the water; and this is the point of his question: Did he worship the water which was in front of him and that water has flowed away, or perhaps he worshipped the flow of the water?
  But is [water which has been worshipped] prohibited; for has not R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Shimon b. Yehotzadak: Water which belongs to the public is not prohibited [if an individual worshipped it]! No, it was necessary [to ask the question] where it is water which wells up from the earth.  
  If [a Jew] has a house next to an idolatrous shrine and it collapsed, he is forbidden to rebuild it. What should he do? He withdraws a distance of four cubits into his own property and builds there.
  [If the wall] belonged both to him and the shrine,
  
  
  Daf 47b
  
  it is judged as being half and half.
  Its stones, timber and rubbish defile like a creeping thing, as it says, “you shall utterly detest it” (Deut. 7:26).  ]
  Rabbi Akiba says: [it defiles] like a menstruous woman, as it says, “[and you will treat as unclean the silver overlay of your images and the golden plating of your idols].  You will cast them away like a menstruous woman.  Out, you will call to them” (Isaiah 30:22), just as a menstruous woman impurifies [an object] by carrying it, so also an idolatrous object defiles by its being carried.
  GEMARA. But [by doing so] he enlarges the space for the idolatrous shrine! Hanina of Sura said: He should use [the four cubits] for constructing a toilet.
  But it needs to be in a place of modesty. He should make a toilet for use at night.
  But behold a Master has said: Who is modest? He who relieves himself at night in the same place where he relieves himself by day! And although we explain that the phrase “in the same place” is to be understood as  “in the same manner,” still it is necessary to be in a place of modesty!
  He should, then, make [a toilet] for children;
  or let him fence in the space with thorns and shrubs.
  There are three types of shrines: A shrine originally built for idolatrous worship, behold this is prohibited. If one plastered and tiled [an ordinary house] for idolatry and renovated it, one may remove the renovations [and it becomes permitted]. If he had only brought an idol into it and taken it out again, [the house] is permitted.
  GEMARA. Rav said: If one worshipped a house, he has rendered it prohibited. Thus he holds that an object which is not attached to the ground and subsequently becomes attached  is like a detached object. But the Mishnah deals with a shrine built [originally for idolatry]!
  [The prohibition applies to a shrine] built [originally for idolatry] although nobody has yet worshipped in it, and to one in which somebody worshipped although he had not built it. If so, instead of three [types in the Mishnah] there should be four!
  Since with regard to annulment, building [the shrine] and worshipping it are considered one, it lists them together.
  There are three kinds of [idolatrous] stones: A stone which a man hewed originally to serve as a pedestal [for an idol] — behold this is prohibited. If one plastered and tiled [a stone] for idolatry, one may remove the plaster and tile, and it is then permitted. If he set an idol upon it and took it off, behold [the stone] is permitted.
  GEMARA. R. Ami said: [It is only prohibited] if he plastered or tiled in the stone itself.  
  But it was taught as analogous to a house; and in the case of a house [the plastering] was not inserted into the material and yet it is prohibited!  Also with the house there is [plastering] in between the bricks.
  [Since, however, the Mishnah does not mention this,] may we not be dealing with a case where he plastered [a house not for idolatry] and then plastered it again [for idolatry]?
  Rather R. Ami was referring to annulment, and although he plastered and tiled in the stone itself, if he removes the renovation, it is all right.
  For what might you have said? Since he plastered and tiled in the material of the stone, it is analogous to a stone which had been originally hewn for idolatry and the whole of it is prohibited. Therefore he teaches us [that it is not so].
  
  Daf 48a
  
  There are three kinds of asherah: A tree which has originally been planted for idolatry — behold this is prohibited. If he chopped and trimmed [a tree] for idolatry, and its sprouted afresh, he removes the new growth. If he only set [an idol] under it and took it away, behold the tree is permitted.
  GEMARA. Those of the House of R. Yannai said: [When the Mishnah declares that he removes the new growth then the tree is permitted,] it applies only when he sank [a branch into the ground] and or grafted onto the trunk of the tree.
  But have we not taught in the Mishnah: If he chopped or trimmed.
  Rather when the statement of the House of R. Yannai was stated it was in reference to annulment, that although he bent a branch [into the ground] or grafted it on the trunk of the tree, if he removes the new growth [on the grafting], it is all right. For what might you have said? Since he bent a branch [into the ground] or grafted it on the trunk of the tree, it is like a tree which had been originally planted for idolatry and the whole of it is prohibited. Consequently we are informed [that it is not so].
  Shmuel said: If a person bowed down to a tree, the branches which subsequently grow are prohibited. R. Elazar raised a difficulty against him: If he chopped and trimmed [a tree] for idolatry, and its sprouted afresh, he removes the new growth. If he chopped and trimmed it the new growth is [prohibited] otherwise it is not!
  Samuel could reply to you: Whose teaching is this [in the mishnah]? It is the Rabbis, whereas Shmuel agrees with that of R. Yose b. Judah who said: If a tree was planted and subsequently worshipped it is prohibited.
  R. Ashi attacked this explanation: How do we know that R. Yose b. Judah and the Rabbis differ on the question of the new growth? Perhaps they all agree that  it is prohibited, and they disagree about the trunk itself!
  For R. Yose b. Judah holds that the trunk [of a tree which has been worshipped] is likewise prohibited since it is stated, “And burn their asherim with fire,” (Deuteronomy 12:3) and the rabbis hold that the trunk of the tree is permitted since it is stated, “And hew down their asherim” (Deuteronomy 7:5): Which tree has its hewn part prohibited while the trunk is permitted? I would answer you that is a tree which had been planted and was subsequently worshipped!
  And if you should say: But we have not explained [the verses] in this way above! [I could reply:] Reverse the rabbis with R. Yose b. R. Judah and R. Yose b. Judah with the rabbis.
  [This is impossible] because if that were so, who taught the passage in the Mishnah: “if he chopped and trimmed”? It cannot be either the Rabbis or R. Yose b. Judah; because according to the rabbis, even if he did not chop and trim the tree, the new growth would still be prohibited, and according to R. Yose b. Judah even the trunk of the tree is prohibited!
  [No] If you wish I can say that [the Mishnah agrees] with the rabbis and if you wish I can say it agrees with R. Yose b. Judah. I can say that it agrees with R. Yose b. Judah, for when he said that the trunk is prohibited when the tree has not been chopped or trimmed that was in a general case, but if he chopped and trimmed it then he revealed that his intention was to worship the new growth and not the trunk.
  I can also say that it agrees with the rabbis, and it needed to mention that he chopped or trimmed it lest I would have thought that since he did something to the body of the tree even the trunk is prohibited, therefore it comes to teach us that it is not.
  What is an asherah? Any [tree] beneath which there is an idol. Rabbi Shimon says: any [tree] which is worshipped. It happened at Sidon that there was a tree which was worshipped and they found a heap of stones beneath it. Rabbi Shimon said to them, “examine this heap.” They examined it and discovered an image in it. He said to them, “since it is the image that they worship, we permit the tree for you.”
  GEMARA. What is an asherah? But haven’t we learned above: There are three kinds of Asherah trees! This is what he means: There is agreement about two kinds, but in connection with the third there is a dispute between R. Shimon and the rabbis. What is the Asherah about which R. Shimon and the rabbis disagree? Any [tree] beneath which there is an idol. R. Shimon says: Any [tree] which is worshipped.
  What is considered an asherah even though it has not been specified as such? Rav said: Any tree beneath which idolatrous priests sit but do not eat its fruits. Shmuel said: Even if [the priests beneath it] say, “These dates are for the house of Nitzrafei” the tree is prohibited because they brew beer from them which they drink on their feast days. Amemar said: The elders of Pumbedita told me that the halakhah follows Shmuel.
  
  Daf 48b
  
  One may not sit in its shadow, but if he sat he is pure. Nor may he pass beneath it, and if he passed he is impure.
  GEMARA. One may not sit in its shade. This is obvious! Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: It was only necessary to mention it in the case of the shade of its shade.
  By inference if he sat in the shade corresponding to the height of the tree he is defiled? No, even if he sat in the shade corresponding to the height of the tree he is also pure, and it teaches us that he may not sit even in the shade of its shade.
  There are some who apply this teaching to the end of the mishnah: But if he sat, he is pure. This is obvious! Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: It was only necessary to teach this in the case of the shade corresponding to the height of the tree. By inference he may sit in the shade of its shade even ab initio? No; rather it teaches us that even if he sat in the shade corresponding to the height of the tree he is pure.
  Nor may he pass beneath it, and if he passed [beneath it] he is impure. What is the reason? Because it is impossible that there is not there [remains] of idolatrous sacrifices there.
  Whose teaching is this? It is that of R. Judah b. Batera; for it has been taught: R. Judah b. Batera says: How do I know that an idolatrous sacrifice defiles inside a tent? Because it is said, “They joined themselves also to Baal-Peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead” (Psalms 106:28) just as a dead body defiles in a tent, so an idolatrous offering defiles in a tent.
  If it encroaches upon the public road and he passed beneath it he is pure. They asked: [Is the word to be read] “passed” or “passes”? R. Yitzchak b. Elazar said in the name of Hezekiah: “Passes.” But R. Yohanan said: “Passed.”
  But they do not really dispute: The one who says [passed] refers to a case where there is another road, and the one who says [passes] to a case where there is not another road.
  R. Sheshet said to his attendant, “When you reach there, run me past.” What was the case? If there was no other road, why does need he say, “Run me past,” since it is permitted? If, however, there was another road, when he said, “Run me past,” is that permissible?
  Certainly there was no other road; but with an important man it is different.
  They may sow vegetables beneath it in winter but not in summer, and lettuce neither in summer nor winter. Rabbi Yose says: even vegetables [may not be planted] in winter because the foliage falls upon them and becomes manure for them.
  GEMARA. Is this to say that R. Yose holds that when both this and that cause it is prohibited and the rabbis hold that when both this and that cause it is permitted?
  But haven’t we heard them say the opposite, for we have learned: R. Yose says: He may grind [an idol] to dust and scatter it to the wind or throw it into the sea. They said to him: Even so it may then become manure, and it says, “And nothing that is proscribed should cleave to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18)!
  The rabbis contradict themselves and R. Yose contradicts himself.
  R. Yose does not contradict himself. In that case since the man proceeds to destroy [the idol], [R. Yose] permits [the use of the dust as manure]; but in the case here [in our Mishnah], where he does not proceed to destroy [the idol], [the dust] is prohibited [as manure].
  But the rabbis contradict themselves! Reverse [the statements in our Mishnah].
  Or if you wish I can say that there is no need to reverse the positions. R. Yose [is resolved] as we explained; and that of the rabbis [is resolved] as R. Mari the son of R. Kahana said: What makes the hide valuable decreases the value of the meat.
  Similarly here, the benefit gained through the foliage is lost by the shade.
  Does R. Yose really hold that in cases of “this one and that one causes” the product is prohibited? Have we not learned: R. Yose says: One may plant a young shoot which is orlah but not a nut which is orlah because it is fruit. And Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: R. Yose agrees that if one planted [a nut which is orlah] or bent it under the ground or grafted [a young shoot which is orlah on an old tree], [the fruit it grows] is permitted!
  It has been similarly taught R. Yose agrees
  
  Daf 49a
  
  that if one planted [a nut which is orlah] or bent it under the ground or grafted [a young shoot which is orlah on an old tree], [the fruit it grows] is permitted!
  And should you say that R. Yose distinguishes between cases of idolatry and other prohibitions, does he really make this distinction? Has it not been taught: A field which has been fertilized with manure derived from an idolatrous source or a cow that has been fattened on vetch derived from an idolatrous source: One tanna teaches that the field may be sown and the cow slaughtered, while the other tanna teaches that the field must lie fallow and the cow grow lean?
  Is it not, then, that the former is that of R. Yose and the latter that of the Rabbis? No, the former is that of R. Eliezer and the latter that of the rabbis. 
  Which R. Eliezer and rabbis? If I say it is [the dispute] between them with regard to leaven,
  for we have taught: Ordinary leaven and terumah leaven which fell into dough, and in each there was an insufficient quantity to cause leavening, but together they caused leavening:
  R. Eliezer says: I follow whichever [leaven went into the dough] last. But the sages say: Whether the prohibited leaven fell in first or last, [the dough] is not prohibited unless it is of a sufficient quantity by itself to cause fermentation.
  And Abaye explained: The teaching [of R. Eliezer] only applies when he first removed the prohibited leaven but if he did not first remove the prohibited leaven, [the dough] is prohibited. 
  But how do we know that the reasoning of R. Eliezer is like that suggested by Abaye; perhaps his reasoning is because he follows the last thing, and thus if the last thing was forbidden, it is forbidden, and if the last thing is permitted, it is permitted, whether he removed [the prohibited substance] or did not. 
  Rather it is the R. Eliezer and the rabbis concerning the wood [of an Asherah];
  for we have learned:  If one took pieces of wood from it, they are forbidden to be used. If he heated a new oven with them, it must be broken into pieces. [If he heated] an old oven with them, it must be allowed to cool. If he baked bread [in an oven so heated], it is forbidden to be used,
  and if [the loaf] became mixed with other loaves, they are all prohibited. R. Eliezer says: Let him throw an equivalent amount to his benefit into the sea.
  [The Sages] said to him: There is no redemption for idolatry.
  The rabbis who disagree with R. Eliezer, who are they? If I say it is the rabbis in the mishnah about the wood, they take the stricter view!
  Rather it must be the rabbis [who spoke] about the leaven. But say that you have heard that the Rabbis take a lenient view in connection with leaven, but are they lenient with regard to idolatry!
  Rather, one baraita is R. Yose's and the other is the rabbis.
  And R. Yose was responding to the words of the rabbis, saying to them: According to my opinion, when there are two causes the product is permitted;
  but according to you who hold that when there are two causes the product is prohibited, admit to me that [the planting of] vegetables in winter [is prohibited]! 
  But the rabbis [would reply] as R. Mari son of R. Kahana stated. 
  Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The halakhah agrees with R. Yose. There was a garden fertilized with the manure obtained from an idolatrous source. R. Amram sent to R. Joseph. He replied to him: Thus said Rav Judah in the name of Shmuel: The halakhah agrees with R. Yose.
  
  Daf 49b
  
  If one took pieces of wood from it [the asherah tree], they are forbidden to be used. If he heated an oven with them— if it was new it must be broken to pieces; if it was old, it must be allowed to cool. If he baked bread [in an oven heated with wood from an asherah], it is forbidden to be used,
  and if [the loaf] became mixed with other loaves, they are all prohibited. Rabbi Eliezer says: let him cast the advantage [he derives] into the Dead Sea. They said to him: there is no process of redemption for an idol.
  If one took [a piece of wood] from it [to use as] a shuttle, it is forbidden to be used. If he wove a garment with it, it is forbidden to be used. If [the garment) became mixed with others, and these with others, they are all forbidden to be used. Rabbi Eliezer says: let him cast the advantage [he derives] into the Dead Sea. They said to him: there is no process of redemption for an idol.
  GEMARA. It was necessary [to mention both cases]; because if he had informed us of only the first [we might have thought] that R. Eliezer spoke of this case only because at the time when the loaf is finished [baking] the prohibited material had been burned; but in the case of the shuttle, since the prohibited objected remains, I might have said that he agrees with the rabbis.
  If he had only informed us of the case of the shuttle, [we might have thought] that the rabbis spoke of this case only, but in the case of a loaf I might have said that they agree with R. Eliezer, that the equivalent of the value of the forbidden loaf or garment can be destroyed. [Therefore both are] necessary.
  R. Hiyya, son of Rabbah b. Nahmani, said in the name of R. Hisda: Ze'iri said that the halackah follows R. Eliezer. There are those who say that R. Hisda said: Abba son of R. Hisda informed me that Ze'iri said: The halakhah follows R. Eliezer.
  R. Adda b. Ahavah said: This was taught only with regard to the loaf, but with regard to a jug [of wine] it was not [taught]. But R. Hisda said: Even a cask of wine is permitted. 
  There was a man for whom a cask of libated wine got mixed up with his own wine. He came before R. Hisda who told him, “Take four zuz and throw them into the river and the wine will then be permitted to you [to dispose of].”
  How does one annul [an asherah]? If [a pagan] pruned or trimmed it, removing from it a stick or twig or even a leaf, behold it is annulled. If he smoothed it out for its own sake, it is prohibited; but if not for its own sake, it is permitted.
  GEMARA. The pieces which were smoothed off—what is their status? R. Huna and Hiyya b. Rav differ in opinion. One said that they are prohibited, the other that they are permitted.
  It was taught in agreement with the one who said that they are permitted, for it has been taught: If an idolater smoothed off an idol for his own sake, the tree and the pieces are permitted, and if he did so for the tree’s sake, it is prohibited but its pieces are permitted; but if an Israelite smoothed off an idol, whether for his sake or for the sake of the tree it and the pieces are prohibited. 
  It has been stated: If an idol was broken of its own accord: Rav said: It is necessary to annul every little pieces; but Shmuel said: An idol is only annulled when it is in its natural form.
  On the contrary, does one annul it when it is in its natural form! Rather this is what he means to say: An idol need not be annulled except when it is in its natural form.
  Shall we say that they differ on this point: One holds that [idolaters] worship fragments [of idols] and the other holds that they do not worship fragments?
  No, they all agree that idolaters worship fragments; and here they differ with respect to the fragments of the fragments. One holds that the fragments of the fragments are prohibited and the other holds that they are permitted.
  Or if you wish, I can say that they all agree that the fragments of the fragments are permitted, and here they differ with respect to an idol which is formed in sections and with regard to an ordinary man who is able to restore it.  One holds that since an ordinary man is able to restore it, it is not annulled; while the other holds that an idol need only be annulled when it is in its natural form, that is, the form it normally assumes. So in this instance it is not in its natural form, and there is no need to annul it.
  
  Rabbi Ishmael says: if three stones are lying side by side next to a Merculis (=Mercurius), they are prohibited; if there are two they are permitted. The sages say: if [the stones] are seen to be connected with it they are prohibited, but if they do not appear to be connected with it they are permitted.
  GEMARA. The opinion of the rabbis makes sense. They hold that [idolaters] worship the fragments [of idols], [therefore the stones] that are seen with it, we can assume that they fell from it and are prohibited, but if they are not seen with it they are permitted.
  But what does R. Ishmael hold? If he holds that [idolaters] worship the fragments, then even two stones should be prohibited; and if he holds that they do not worship the fragments, then even three stones should not [be prohibited]!
  R. Yitzchak b. Joseph said in the name of R. Yohanan: If it is known that they fell from the idol, all agree that they are prohibited, and even according to the one who says that they do not worship fragments, this applies only to an idol for which this is not normal. But here [with the Mercurius, the stones are] from the outset detached and that is its normal form. They differ when we do not know [from where they fell].
  
  
  Daf 50a
  
  But if the stones are close, we can still say that they fell from it and they are prohibited. They dispute with respect to stones which are at a distance. 
  But the Mishnah says: next to a Mercurius! What does it mean by “next to”? Within four cubits of its side.
  R. Ishmael holds that they make a small Mercurius by the side of a large Mercurius; three stones which together resemble a Mercurius are prohibited, two are permitted. The rabbis hold that people do not make a small Mercurius by the side of a large Mercurius; so it does not matter whether there are three or two stones. If they are seen with it they are prohibited, otherwise they are permitted.
  The Master said: “If it is known that they fell from the idol, all agree that they are prohibited.” Against this statement they cast the following: Stones that fell from a Mercurius, if they are seen with it they are prohibited, and if they are not seen with it they are permitted; and R. Ishmael says: Three stones are prohibited but two are permitted! Rava said: Do not read that fell but “were found.”
  But does R. Ishmael really hold that two stones are permitted? Has it has been taught: R. Ishmael says: If two stones were found within the idol's reach they are prohibited and three are prohibited even at a greater distance!
  Rava explained: There is no contradiction; here they were within one reach, and there within two reaches. What is this case? There is a mound between [the stones] and the Mercurius.
  When they are lying in this manner [are they a Mercurius]? Has it not been taught: The following are the stones of a Bet-Kulis: one here, and a third on top of, and a third on the top of them! Rava explained: That refers to the main part of a Mercurius.
  The palace of King Yannai was destroyed. Idolaters came and set up a Mercurius there. Subsequently other idolaters who did not worship Mercurius came and removed the stones and paved with them roads and streets. Some Rabbis abstained [from walking in them] while others did not.
  R. Yohanan said, “The son of the holy ones walks on them, and we should abstain!” Who was “the son of the holy ones”? R. Menahem son of R. Simai. And why did they call him “the son of the holy ones”? Because he would not look even at the image on a zuz.
  What was the reason for the one who did not [walk on these stones]? He agreed with what R. Giddal said in the name of R. Hiyya b. Joseph: From where do we know that an idolatrous offering can never be annulled? As it is stated, “They joined themselves also to Baal-peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead” (Psalms 106:28) just as a dead body can never be annulled, similarly an idolatrous offering can never be annulled.
  As for the one who did not abstain, he would say: We require [such an offering] to resemble what was offered within the Temple and this is not the case.
  R. Joseph b. Abba said: Rabbah b. Yirmiyah once visited our town. When he came he brought with him this teaching: If an idolater took stones from a Mercurius and paved roads and streets with them, they are permitted. If an Israelite took stones from a Mercurius and paved roads and streets with them,
  
  Daf 50b
  
  they are prohibited; And there was no carpenter or son of a carpenter who could explain this teaching.
  R. Sheshet said: I am neither a carpenter nor a son of a carpenter, yet I can explain it. What was the difficulty? The statement of R. Gidel. [And the solution is] that we require [such an offering] to resemble what was offered within the Temple, and this is not the case here.
  R. Joseph b. Abba said: Rabbah b. Yirmiyah once visited our town. When he came he brought with him this teaching: We may remove worms [from a tree] and place manure [on a cut branch] during the Sabbatical year, but we may not remove worms [from a tree] and place manure [on a cut branch] during the [intermediate days of] a festival.
  On both these occasions we may not prune, but we may smear oil on the place of pruning both during the festival and during the Sabbatical year. And there was no carpenter or son of a carpenter who could explain this teaching.
  Ravina said: I am neither a carpenter nor a son of a carpenter yet I can explain it. What is the difficulty he has with it? If I say that the difficulty is the festival vis a vis the Sabbatical year, why is it that the Sabbatical year is permitted and the festival forbidden? Are the two the same? On the Sabbatical year the Torah prohibited work but exertion is permitted, but on the festival even exertion is forbidden.
  Perhaps the difficulty is in connection with placing manure and pruning— why is placing manure permitted but pruning forbidden? But are they the same? Placing manure is to preserve the tree and is permitted, but pruning is to strengthen the tree is prohibited!
  Perhaps the difficulty is in the contradiction about placing the manure as it was taught, “We may remove worms [from a tree] and place manure [on the bark] during the Sabbatical year’; and against this we cast the following: We may place manure on saplings, wrap them [to the trunk], cut off their tops, make supports for them, and water them up to the New Year” up to the New Year this is permissible but not in the Sabbatical year itself!
  Perhaps [the contradiction might be solved] according to the statement of R. Ukba b. Hama who said: There are two kinds of hoeing; one to strengthen the tree and this is prohibited [in the Sabbatical year] and the other to close up cracks and this is permitted. Similarly here there are two kinds of placing manure; one is to preserve the tree and is permitted and the other to strengthen the tree and is prohibited!
  Perhaps the difficulty is in the contradiction about smearing oil, for it was taught: “We may smear oil on the place of pruning either during hol hamoed or during the Sabbatical year”; and against this I quote: “We may smear fig and perforate them and fatten them [with oil] up to the New Year” up to the New Year this is permissible but not in the Sabbatical year itself!
  But are the two cases analogous; here the purpose is to preserve the tree and is permitted, whereas there it is to fatten the fruit and is prohibited!
  R. Sama the son of R. Ashi said to Ravina: The son of Yirmiyah’s difficulty was comparing placing oil on the festival with placing manure on the festival. Since the purpose of both is to preserve the tree, why is one permitted and the other prohibited? That is why he said, “There was no carpenter or carpenter’s son who could explain it.”
  Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: If an idol is worshipped with a stick and [an Israelite] broke a stick in its presence, he is liable. If he threw a stick in front of it he is exempt. Abaye said to Rava: Why is it different when he broke the stick? Because it resembles the slaughter [of an animal in the Temple]. Throwing a stick also resembles the rite of sprinkling [the blood in the Temple]! He replied: We require a sprinkling which is broken up and we do not have that here.
  They raised an objection: If he fed an idol excrement or poured out before it a chamber pot of urine,
  
  Daf 51a
  
  he is liable. It is clear [why he is liable if he poured out] a chamber pot of urine because it is a kind of sprinkling which is broken up; but where is there a sprinkling which is broken up with excrement? With moist excrement.
  Shall we say [that Rav’s statement] is a matter of dispute between Tannaim: “If one slaughtered a locust to an idol, R. Judah holds him liable, but the sages say he is exempt”?
  Is this not what they are arguing about: [R. Judah] holds that we say it needs to be like the act of slaughter, whereas the others hold that we do not say that it needs to be like the act of slaughter but rather that it must resemble the ritual within the Temple?
  No, all agree that we do not say that it must be like the act of slaughter rather we require it to resemblance the ritual within the Temple; but it is different with a locust because it has a neck like the neck of an animal.
  
  
  According to this reasoning, why should the stones [which are thrown before] a shrine of Mercurius be forbidden? He answered him: I, too, had that difficulty and I asked Rabbah b. Abbuha, and Rabbah b. Abbuha asked Hiyya b. Rav and Hiyya b. Rav asked Rav who said to him: [The stone] becomes liks an enlargement of the idol.
  This works for the one who holds that the idol of an idolater is prohibited immediately [when he makes it]; but according to the one who holds that [the idol is not prohibited] until it has been worshipped [the stones] should be permitted since it has not been worshipped!
  [R. Nahman] said back to [Rava]: Each stone becomes an idolatrous object in itself and also an offering to the one next to it. [Rava asked]: If this is so, the last stone at least should be permitted! [R. Nahman] said to him: If you know [which is the last stone], go and remove it! R. Ashi said: Each stone becomes an offering in itself and an offering to the one next to it.
  We have taught: If he found on top [of a Mercurius] a garment or coins or utensils, behold these are permitted; but [if he found] grape-clusters, wreaths of grain, wine, oil or fine flour, or anything resembling what is offered upon the altar, it is prohibited.
  This makes sense with regard to wine, oil and fine flour, since they are like what is offered within the Temple and they are also sprinkling which is broken up; but grape-clusters and wreaths of grain are not like what is the Temple and they are not sprinkling which is broken up!
  Rava said in the name of Ulla: For instance when he harvested at the outset for an idolatrous purpose.
  R. Abahu said in the name of R. Yohanan: How do we know that one who sacrifices a blemished animal to an idol is exempt? As it is stated, “He that sacrifices to any god, save unto the Lord alone, shall be utterly destroyed” (Exodus 22:19). The Torah prohibits only acts like those done within the Temple.
  Rava questioned: What [sort of blemish]? If I say that it is on the cornea of the eye, since such an animal is fit to be offered by the sons of Noah to God upon their altars, is it even necessary to state that it is fit for an idol!
  Rather he must be referring to an animal missing a limb, and it is in accord with R. Elazar, for R. Elazar said: How do I know that an animal missing a limb is prohibited [as an offering] to the sons of Noah? As it is stated, “And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every kind” “(Genesis 6:19) “of every living thing” the Torah stated, Bring an animal all of whose limbs are living.
  But the phrase “of every living thing” is needed to exclude an animal which is trefa! This is derived from the phrase “to keep seed alive” (Genesis 7:3).
  This makes sense to the one who holds that an animal which is trefa cannot bear offspring; but for the one that holds that a trefa can bear offspring, what is there to say?
  The verse states “with you” animals like yourself. Perhaps Noah was himself a trefa! 
  It is written concerning him that he was “without blemish.” 
  Perhaps that means without blemish in his ways.! It is written concerning him that he was righteous. Perhaps it means that he was “without blemish” in his ways and “righteous” in his actions. You cannot possibly say that Noah himself was a trefa, for should you think that he was, would God have said to him, “[Animals] like yourself [which are defective] take [into the Ark] but do not take those which are unblemished!
  Now that the words “with you” exclude [the trefa] why do I need the phrase “to keep seed alive”? If [the Torah had only written] “with you” I might have said that the reason [he brought the animals on the ark] was merely for companionship and he could bring even an old or castrated animal; therefore it states, “to keep seed alive.”
  R. Elazar said: How do I know that if one slaughters an animal to Mercurius he is liable? As it is stated, “And they shall not slaughter their offerings unto the seirim” (Leviticus 12:30). Since this text cannot apply to the matter [of worshipping idols] in their regular way, since it is written, “How do these nations serve their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:30) apply it to the matter [of worshipping idols] in an unusual way.
  But does [the verse “and they shall not slaughter…”] come to teach this?
  
  Daf 51b
  
  Surely it is required for the following teaching: Up to here it speaks of sacrificial animals which he dedicated during the time that private altars were prohibited and that he sacrificed during the time when private altars were prohibited,
  for the penalty is stated, “And has not brought it to the door of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 17:4). We have heard the penalty but where is the warning? Scripture says, “Take heed lest you offer your burnt offerings in every place that you see” (Deuteronomy 12:13);
  and this is in accordance with R. Abin who said in the name of R. Elai: Wherever it is stated “Take heed,” or “lest,” or “do not,” it denotes a negative commandment.
  From this point and onwards it speaks of sacrificial animals which he dedicated during the time that private altars were permitted but that he offered when private altars were prohibited,
  as it is stated, “This is in order that the Israelites may bring the sacrifices which they have been making” (Leviticus 17:5); [this refers to] sacrifices that I previously allowed you to make; “in the open field” — this teaches that whoever sacrifices on a private altar when private altars are prohibited, Scripture ascribes it to him as though he sacrifices in the open field.
  “And bring them to the Lord” — this is a positive commandment. From where do we have a negative commandment? Scripture says, “And they shall no more slaughter their sacrifices” (Leviticus 17:7). 
  It might have been that this too is punishable by karet, therefore Scripture says, “This shall be a statute forever for them” [meaning] this is for them but the other is not for them! 
  Rava said: Read both “and they shall not slaughter” and “they shall not [slaughter] anymore.”
  If he found on top [of a Mercurius] a coins or a garment or utensils behold these are permitted; [But if he found] grape-clusters, wreaths of grain, [gifts of] wine, oil or fine flour, or anything resembling what is offered upon the altar, such is prohibited.
  GEMARA. From where do I know this? R. Hiyya b. Joseph said in the name of R. Oshaia: One verse states, “And you have seen their abominations, and their idols, wood and stone, silver and gold, which were with them” (Deuteronomy 29:16) and another verse states, “You shalt not covet the silver or the gold that is on them” (Deuteronomy 7:25). How can this be so?
  “With them,” is similar to “on them”; just as the things “on them” a prohibited when decorative and not prohibited when non-decorative, so to the things “among them” are prohibited when decorative and not prohibited when non-decorative.
  But why not say, “On them” is the same as “with them’; just as “with them” means anything that is “with them” so too “on them” means anything that is on them. In that case the verse would not have needed to state “on them.”
  Coins are decorative! They said in the house of R. Yannai: In a case where they are tied in a bag and hung from the idol.
  A garment is decorative! They said in the house of R. Yannai: In a case where it is folded and placed upon the head of the idol. A vessel is decorative! R. Papa said: In a case where a pot is inverted over its head.
  R. Assi b. Hiyya said: Whatever is within the partitions, even water and salt, is prohibited; whatever is outside the partitions what is decorative is prohibited and what is not decorative is permitted. 
  R. Yose b. Hanina said: We have a tradition that that this rule regarding partitions does not apply to the idol Peor or to a Mercurius. For what purpose [does he mention this]? If I say that objects which are even within [the partitions] are like those outside and are permitted, since people defecate in front of it would they not also bring water and salt as an offering to it! Rather it must mean that even what is outside is like what is within the partitions and is prohibited. 
  If an idolatrous shrine has a garden or bathhouse, one may use either so lon as it is not to the advantage [of the idolaters], But one may not use either if it is to its advantage. If [the garden or bathhouse] belonged jointly to it and to others, one may use them whether it be to the advantage [of idolatry] or not. The idol of an idolater is prohibited immediately; but if it belonged to a Jew it is not prohibited until it is worshipped.
  GEMARA. Abaye said: “Advantage” means that payment is made to the priests, and “not to its advantage” means that payment is not made to them, thus excluding where payment is made to the idol-worshippers, which is permitted.
  There are some who teach this in reference to the second clause [of the Mishnah]: If [the garden or bathhouse] belonged jointly to it and to others, one may use them whether it be to the advantage [of idolatry] or not. Abaye said: “Advantage” means that the payment is made to the other jointowners, and not to their advantage means that no payment is made to the priests.
  One who teaches it in reference to the second clause, would all the more so teach it in reference to the first clause; but one who teaches it in reference to the first clause, would in connection with the second clause say that since there are other owners, one can make payment even to the priests.
  The idol of an idolater is prohibited immediately. Whose teaching is our Mishnah? It is R. Akiva’s, for it has been taught: “You shall destroy all the places where the nations worshipped” (Deuteronomy 12:2). The verse refers to the vessels which are used for idolatry.
  It might have been that if they made them but did not complete them, or completed them but did not bring them [into the idolatrous shrine], or brought them there but did not use them, they would still be prohibited; therefore the text states, “Where the nations worshipped,” they are not prohibited until they have been used in the worship From here they said: The idol of an idolater is not prohibited until it is worshipped; but if it belonged to an Israelite it is prohibited immediately, the words of R. Yishmael; 
  But R. Akiva says the opposite: The idol of an idolater is prohibited immediately; but if it belonged to an Israelite it is not prohibited until it is worshipped.
  The Master said [above]: “The verse refers to the vessels which are used for idolatry.” But “places” is written! Since, it cannot refer to places, which are not prohibited, for it is written, “Their gods upon the high mountains,” not their mountains which are their gods, apply it to the subject of vessels.
  
  Daf 52a
  
  From here they said: The idol of an idolater is not prohibited until it is worshipped; but if it belonged to an Israelite it is prohibited immediately.
  But we explained the verse as referring to vessels [and not to idols]! The verse says, “Where [the nations] that you are to dispossess served their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:2), it compares their gods to vessels — just as vessels [are not prohibited] until they are used in worship so their gods likewise [are not prohibited] until they are worshipped. R. Akiva, who does not draw this comparison, would tell you that the “et” interrupts the subject.
  We have explained why R. Ishmael holds that the idol of an idolater is not prohibited until it is worshipped; but from where does he derive that the idol of an Israelite is prohibited immediately? It is common sense that if when it belongs to an idolater [it is not prohibited] until it is worshipped, when it belongs to an Israelite it should be prohibited immediately But say that when it belongs to an Israelite it is not prohibited at all! Since it has to be disposed of, how can it not be prohibited!
  But say [that when it belongs to an Israelite it is to be treated in the same way as when it belongs to] an idolater! The verse says, “And I took your sin that you made, the calf” (Deuteronomy 9:21) from the moment it was made they were accounted as sinning.
  Say that these words make a man is guilty of sin [when he makes an idol] but not that it is prohibited! The verse says, “Cursed be the man that makes a graven or molten image” (Deuteronomy 27:15) from the moment it is made he comes under the curse.
  But say again that these words make a man guilty of sin [when he makes an idol] but not that it is prohibited! “An abomination unto the Lord” is written.
  How does R. Akiva [explain this phrase]? [The idol] is a thing that leads to an abomination.
  Ulla said: The verse says, “The graven images of their gods you shall burn with fire” (Deuteronomy 7:25): once they have been made into graven images they become gods.
  And the other [how does he explain this verse]? He requires it in accordance with the teaching of Rav Joseph, for R. Joseph taught: From where do we know that an idolater can disqualify his god? As it is stated, “The graven images of their gods you shall burn with fire.”
  And the other [where does he derive this regulation]? He deduces it from the statement of Shmuel, for Shmuel contrasted the following: It is written, “You shalt not covet the silver or the gold that is on them,” and it is written, “You shall keep it for yourselves” (Deuteronomy 7:25). How is this to be understood? When [the idolater] fashions it into a god do not covet it, but when he has annulled it so that it is no longer a god you may take it for yourself.
  We have found R. Akiva's reason for the view that the idol of an idolater is prohibited immediately, but from does he derive that if it belonged to an Israelite [it is not prohibited] until it is worshipped? Rav Judah said: The verse states, “And sets it up in secret” (Deuteronomy 27:15) until he performs for it things which are done in secret.
  And the other [i.e., R. Ishmael, how does he use this phrase]? He requires it in accordance with the teaching of R. Yitzchak who said: From where do we know that an idol belonging to an Israelite must be removed from sight? As it is stated, “And he places it in secret.”
  And from where does the other [i.e., R. Akiva, derive this rule]? He derives it from what R. Hisda said in the name of Rav: From where do we know that an idol belonging to an Israelite must be removed from sight? As it is stated, “You shall not plant for yourself an asherah of any kind of tree beside the altar” (Deuteronomy 16:21): just as an altar must be removed from sight, so too an asherah [belonging to an Israelite] must be removed from sight.
  And what does the other [i.e., R. Ishmael, make of this verse]? He requires it in accordance with the teaching of R. Shimon b. Lakish, for R. Shimon b. Lakish said: Whoever appoints an unworthy judge is as though he plants an asherah in Israel, as it is stated, “Judges and officers you shall establish for yourselves in all your gates,” and near to this [is stated], “You shall not plant for yourself an asherah of any kind of tree” (Deuteronomy 16:18)
  R. Ashi said: [If he does so] in a place where there are disciples of the Sages, it is as though he had planted an Asherah by the side of the altar, as it is stated, “Beside the altar.”
  R. Hamnuna asked: What is the rule if one welded a vessel [which has been broken] for an idol? Whose idol? If I say the idol of an idolater, then both according to R. Ishmael and R. Akiva they are accessories of idolatry, and accessories of idolatry are not prohibited until they are used. If it is an idol that belongs to an Israelite then according to whom [is the question being asked?]
  If I say it is according to R. Akiva, since the idol itself is not prohibited until it is worshipped do I even need to ask about its accessories? Rather [it is asked] according to R. Ishmael who said that [the idol of an
  Israelite] is prohibited immediately: Do we derive the law about the accessories [of an Israelite's] idol from the accessories [of an idolater’s idol]? Just as with the latter [they are not prohibited] until they are used, so with the former [they  are not prohibited] until they are used. Or do we derive the rule from the idol itself, just as [an Israelite's idol] is prohibited immediately so too its accessories are prohibited immediately?
  But why does he specifically ask about “one who welded a vessel”? Let him ask about one who made a vessel!
   R. Hamnuna asked the question that way because of the issue of earlier defilement; for we have learned: Metal vessels: those which are flat and those which have receptacles are susceptible to impurity; if they are broken they become pure, but if they are repaired they return to their former impurity.
  R. Hamnuna asked the question that way because of the issue of earlier defilement; for we have learned: Metal vessels: those which are flat and those which have receptacles are susceptible to impurity; if they are broken they become pure, but if they are repaired they return to their former impurity. But if that were his intention, let him ask about other forms of rabbinical impurity! 
  He was asking two questions: Does rabbinical impurity return or not? And if you decide that it does not return, do the rabbis make impurity caused by idolatry, on account of its severity, equal to biblical impurity or not? The question remains unanswered.
  R. Yohanan asked R. Yannai: What is the rule with regard to foods offered to an idol? Does the annulment [of the idol] avail to purify them of their impurity or not? 
  But he should have asked about vessels [used in idol worship]! There is no question about vessels, for they can [in general] be purified in a mikveh, so too the purity [by idolatry] can likewise be annulled. He was asking about foods [offered to an idol].
  But let him ask about [foods] which are themselves worshipped! There is no question with regard [to foods] which are themselves worshipped,
  
  
  Daf 52b
  
  because when its prohibited character is annulled its purity is likewise annulled. He is asking about foods offered to an idol: What is the rule? [Shall we say] that since its prohibited character cannot be annulled, in accordance with R. Giddel, its purity can likewise never be annulled; or perhaps, its prohibition by the Torah cannot be annulled but its purity, which is of rabbinic origin, can be annulled? The question remains unanswered. 
  R. Yose b. Shaul asked Rabbi: May vessels which were used in the Temple of Onias be used in the Temple [in Jerusalem]?
  He asks based on the one who said that the Temple of Onias was not an idolatrous shrine; as we have taught: Priests who served in the Temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple which is in Jerusalem, and it is not even necessary to state this about [priests who served] other matters (idolatry).
  Did the rabbis penalize the priests because they are aware of their actions but [they did not penalize] the vessels, or perhaps there is no difference?
  [Rabbi] replied to him: They are prohibited and we had a verse [on which to support this decision] but we forgot it.
  [R. Yose b. Shaul] raised a difficulty against him: “All of the vessels that King Ahaz had befouled during his reign, when he trespassed, we have made ready and sanctified” (II Chronicles 29:19): Does this not mean “we have made ready” that we immersed them, and “sanctified” that we have made them holy again!
  He said to him: May you be blessed by Heaven for having restored my loss to me! “We have made ready” means we have stored them away, “and sanctified” that we have substituted others for them.
  Shall we say that [Rabbi] has support [from this Mishnah]: In the north-east the Hasmoneans stored away the altar-stones which the Greeks had made abominable. And R. Sheshet said: They had made them abominable through idolatry?
  R. Papa said: There [in the case of the Hasmoneans] they found a verse and expounded on it, for it is written, “And robbers shall enter into it and profane it” (Ezekiel 7:22).
  They (the Hasmoneans) said: What should we do? If we break them, “whole stones” (Deuteronomy 27:6) demanded God; if we saw them, “do not lift up an iron tool on them” (v. 5) demanded God.
  But why did they not break them and take them for their own personal use? Has not R. Oshaia said: [The Rabbis] wanted to store away all the silver and gold in the world on account of the silver and gold [plundered from the Sanctuary] of Jerusalem! And they objected: Is Jerusalem the greater part of the world!
  Rather Abaye said: They wanted to store away every Hadrianic and Trajanic dinar which had become worn by use because it was coined from [metal captured from] Jerusalem; until they discovered a verse of the Torah according to which it was permitted, “And robbers shall enter into it and profane it!”
  There [in the case of the coins] they had not been used to worship God; but here [in the case of the altar-stones], since they had been used to worship God it would not be respectful to put them to a secular use.
  An idolater can annul an idol belonging to himself or to another idolater, but a Jew cannot annul the idol of an idolater. He who annuls an idol annuls the things that are used to serve it. If he only annulled the things used to serve it these are permitted but the idol itself is prohibited.
  GEMARA. Rabbi taught his son R. Shimon: An idolater can annul an idol belonging to himself or to another idolater. He said back to him: “My Master, in your youth you taught us that an idolater can annul an idol belonging to himself or to an Israelite!” But can the idol of an Israelite be annulled; for behold it is written. “And sets it up in secret” (Deuteronomy 27:15)! R. Hillel the son of R. Volas said: No, [Rabbi's teaching] was necessary for the circumstance where there was joint-ownership of the idol [by an Israelite and an idolater].
  What did Rabbi hold in his youth and what did he hold in his old age? In his youth he held that the Israelite worshipped the idol on account of the non-Jew, so that when the latter annulled it for himself he annulled it also for  the Israelite. In his old age he held that the Israelite worshipped it on his own account, so that when the non-Jew annulled it he did so for himself but not for the Israelite. 
  There are some who apply [the statement of R. Hillel] to the next clause in our Mishnah: An Israelite cannot annul the idol of an idolater. This is obvious! R. Hillel the son of
  
  Daf 53a
  
  R. Volas said: No, the clause is necessary for the circumstance where there was joint-ownership; and it teaches us that while the Israelite cannot annul [the part of] the idol which belongs to the non-Jew, the idolater can annul [the part] which belongs to himself.
  There are some who apply [the statement of R. Hillel] to this teaching: R. Shimon b. Menasya says: An idol belonging to an Israelite can never be annulled. What does it mean “can never”? R. Hillel the son of R. Volas said: No, it was necessary to teach this in the circumstance where an idolater has part-ownership.And he teaches us that the Israelite worships the idol on his own account.
  How does he annul it? If he cut off the tip of its ear, the tip of its nose, or the tip of its finger; or if he defaced it, although there was no reduction in the mass of the material, he has annulled it. If he spat before it, urinated before it, dragged it [in the dust] or hurled excrement at it, behold it is not annulled. If he sold or gave it as a pledge, Rabbi says that he has annulled it, One) but the sages say that he has not annulled it.
  GEMARA. Since he did not reduce the material, how could it be annulled? R. Zera said: Because he defaced its appearance.
  If he spat before it, urinated before it…From where is this rule derived? —
  Hezekiah said: Because the verse stated, “And it shall come to pass that, when he shall be hungry, he shall fret, and curse his king and his god, and turn his face upward,” and following this it is written, “And he shall look to the earth, and behold distress and darkness” (Isaiah 8:21). Thus, although he cursed his king and his god and turn upward [to the true God], he still looks down to the earth.
  If he sold or gave it as a pledge, Rabbi says that he has annulled it etc. Zei'ri in the name of R. Yohanan and R. Yirmiyah b. Abba in the name of Rav: One said that the difference is over a case where it was sold to an idolatrous smelter, but if it was [sold to] an Israelite smelter all agree that he annulled i t.The other said that the difference is over an Israelite smelter. 
  The question was asked: Is the dispute over an Israelite smelter but with an idolatrous smelter all agree that he has not annulled it, or perhaps in either case there is a dispute?
  Come and hear: For Rabbi said: My view seems correct when he sold it to be destroyed, and my colleagues’ view seems correct when he sold it to be worshipped.
  What does it mean “to be destroyed” and what does it mean “to be worshipped”? If I say that “to be destroyed” means literally or “worshipped” literally, what is the reason for the one who says that he had annulled it and what is the reason for the one who says that he had not annulled it?
  Rather, “to be destroyed” must mean [that he sold it] to someone who would destroy it, and who is he? An Israelite smelter. And “to be worshipped” means [that he sold it] to someone who would worship it, and who is he? An idolatrous smelter. And are we not to conclude that in either case there is a difference of opinion?
  No; this is the meaning: Rabbi said: My view is acceptable to my colleagues when he sold it to be destroyed, i.e., to an Israelite smelter, because even my colleagues do not differ from me except in the case where he sold it to be worshipped, but when it is sold to be destroyed they agree with me [that it had been annulled].
  They raised an objection: If one brought scrap metal from an idolater and found an idol amongst it, if he drew it [into his possession] before giving the coins he can return the idol; but if he drew it [into his possession] after giving the coin she must throw it into the Dead Sea. 
  Its makes sense if you say that they argue about selling it to an Israelite smelter; whose teaching is this? It is the Rabbis’. But if you say that they argue over selling it to a non-Jewish smelter and all agree that [if he sells it to] an Israelite smelter he has annulled it, then whose teaching is this?
  This case is different because his intention was to sell scrap metal and not an idol.
  Our Rabbis taught: If he borrowed money against an idol, or an avalanche fell on it, or robbers stole it, or the owners left it behind and journeyed to a distant land, 
  
  Daf 53b
  
  if with the intention of returning [to claim it] as happened during the war waged by Joshua, it is not annulled.
  It was necessary [to cite all these circumstances]. For if it had taught only the case where he borrowed money against it, from the fact that he had not sold it [it follows that] he had not annulled it; but if an avalanche fell on it, since he did not clear it away, I might say that he had annulled it! Therefore it was necessary.
  If it had taught the case where an avalanche fell on it, because he reasoned that [the idol] is lying there and whenever I want it I can take it [he did not annul it]; but in the case where robbers stole it, from the fact that he does not go searching for it [it might be assumed] that he had annulled it! Therefore it was necessary.
  If it had taught the case where robbers stole it, because he thought that if an idolater took it he would worship it and if an Israelite took it, since it is of value, he would sell it to an idolater who would worship it [therefore it is not annulled]; but in the case where the owners left it behind and journeyed to a distant land, since they did not take it with them [it might be assumed] that they had annulled it! Therefore it was necessary.
  “If with the intention of returning [to claim the idol] as happened during the war waged by Joshua, it is not annulled!” But in the instance of the war waged by Joshua did they return? This is what it means: If [the owners] have the intention of returning, it is analogous to the war waged by Joshua and there can be no annulment.
  Why did he compare it to the war waged by Joshua? He teaches something on the side, like that which R. Judah said in the name of Rav: If an Israelite set up a brick to worship [but did not do so] and an idolater came and worshipped it, it is prohibited.
  How do we know it is prohibited?  R. Elazar said: It is the same as happened at the beginning of the settlement of the land of Israel; for the Torah said, “And burn their asherim with fire” (Deuteronomy 12:3). But since it was an inheritance to [the Israelites] from their ancestors and a man cannot make prohibited what does not belong to him!
  And [it is assumed that the reason that asherim have to be burned] is on account of those [asherim] which existed there originally, then just an annulment would have sufficed!
  Rather, since the Israelites worshipped the Golden Calf, they revealed their intentions for idolatry, so that when the idolaters came [and worshipped asherim] they acted according to [the Israelites’] desire. Similarly when an Israelite set up a brick, he revealed his intention for idolatry; therefore when an idolater came and worshipped it he acted according to [the Israelite’s] desire.
  But perhaps [the Israelites] wanted to worship the Golden Calf but nothing else! No; the verse states, “These are your gods, O Israel,” (Exodus 32:4) which proves that they lusted for many gods.
  But say that all [the asherim] which existed at the same time as the Golden Calf are prohibited, but those planted subsequently are permitted!  
  An idol which its worshippers abandoned in time of peace is permitted; in time of war it is prohibited. Pedestals of kings are permitted because they set them up at the time the kings pass by.
  GEMARA. R. Yirmiyah b. Abba said in the name of Rav: The Temple of Nimrod is to be regarded the same as an idol which its worshippers abandoned in time of peace and is permitted. Even though when God dispersed them, it was like a time of war, if they had wished to return [and claim the idols] they could have returned; but since they did not, they must have annulled them.
  Pedestals of kings are permitted. Because they set them up at the time the kings pass by they are permitted!
  Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: This is what it means — because they set them up at the time kings pass by and the kings abandon that road and go on another road.
  When Ulla came he sat on a damaged pedestal. Rav Judah said to him: Did not both Rav and Shmuel declare that a damaged pedestal is prohibited; and even according to him who said that they do not worship fragments [of idols], that applies only to an idol because it is degrading to worship fragments but with this [pedestal] one does not care!
  He replied to him: Who would give me some of the dust [from the bodies] of Rav and Samuel that I might fill my eyes with it! Behold both R. Yohanan and R. Shimon b. Lakish declared that a damaged pedestal is permitted; and even according to him who said that they do worship fragments, that applies only to an idol because from the fact that they worship it, it would be degrading to annul it; but as for these [pedestals] they take this one away and bring another.
  It was taught in accordance with R. Yohanan and R. Shimon b. Lakish: A damaged pedestal is permitted; a damaged altar is prohibited until the greater part of it is demolished. What constitutes a pedestal and what an altar?  Ya’akov b. Idi said in the name of R. Yohanan: A pedestal consists of a single stone, an altar of several stones.
  
  Daf 54a
  
  Hezekiah said: What is the verse? “When he makes all the stones of the altar as limestones that are beaten into pieces, so that the asherim and the sun images shall rise no more”–if [the altar] becomes like limestones that are shattered, then “the asherim and the sun-images shall rise no more,” otherwise they will rise again.
  It was taught: His own [animal] which he worshipped– it is prohibited; but if it belonged to another it is permitted. Against this they raised the following contradiction: Which [animal is considered to have been] worshipped? Any which was worshipped, whether inadvertently or deliberately, whether under compulsion or voluntarily. These words “under compulsion” how are they to be understood? Is it not when a man took his neighbor’s animal by force and worshipped it? 
  Rami b. Hama said: No, it is when idolaters forced him and he worshipped his own animal. Zera objected: But the Torah exempts anyone who acts under duress, as it is written, “But to the girl you shall do nothing” (Deuteronomy 22:26)!
  Rather Rava said: All were included in the general law “Do not serve them”; so when Scripture specifies “He shall live by them,” and not die through them, it excludes the one who acts under duress.
  After that, however, the Torah wrote. “And you shall not profane My holy name” even under compulsion!   How is this so? — The former refers to an act in private, the latter to an act in public.
  The rabbis said to Rava: There is a tannaitic teaching which supports your view: Idolatrous pedestals [set up] during a time of religious persecution, even though the persecution is over, the pedestals are not annulled. 
  He said to them: If it is on account of that teaching, it does not support us, for we can say that perhaps there was an Israelite apostate who worshipped at it voluntarily! Ashi said: Do not say “perhaps.” Rather there certainly was an Israelite, an apostate, who worshipped voluntarily.
  Hizkiyah said: For instance, he poured wine to an idol on the horns of [his neighbor’s animal]. Ada b. Ahava objected: Is that a case of [an animal] which was worshipped? It is merely a pedestal and is permitted!
  Rather R. Ada b. Ahava said: For instance where he poured wine between the horns of [his neighbor’s animal] in which case he performed on it an act [of worship]. And this accords with what Ulla reported in the name of R. Yohanan when he came [from Eretz Yisrael]: Although they said that he who worships his neighbor’s animal does not render it prohibited, if he performed on it an act [of idolatrous worship] he does render it prohibited. 
  Nahman said [to the rabbis]: Go, tell Ulla, that R. Huna has already expounded your teaching in Babylonia! For R. Huna said: If the animal of his neighbor was lying in front of an idol, as soon as he cut one of its neck-veins he has rendered it prohibited.
  How do we know that he has rendered it prohibited? If I say from the priests, it is different with priests because they are rational beings.
  But if [I answer that it may be derived] from the altar-stones, perhaps it is as R. Papa explained!
  
  Daf 54b
  
  Rather [must it be derived] from the Tempe vessels; for it is written, “Moreover all the vessels, which King Ahaz in his reign did cast away when he trespassed, we have prepared and sanctified” (II Chronicles 29:19) and a Master stated: “We have prepared” means that we have stored them away, and “sanctified” means that we have substituted others for them. But one cannot render prohibited what is not his property!
  Since, however, an act [of idolatrous worship] was performed on them, they became prohibited. So too here [with the animal] since he performed an act [of idolatrous worship] on it, he has rendered it prohibited.
  When R. Dimi came [from Eretz Yisrael] he stated in the name of R. Yohanan: Although [the rabbis] declared that he who worships a piece of ground does not render it prohibited, yet if he dug in it wells, pits or caves he has rendered it prohibited. When R. Shmuel b. Judah came [from Eretz Yisrael] he reported that R. Yohanan said: Although [the rabbis] declared that he who worships animals has not rendered them prohibited, if he used them in exchange for an idol he has rendered them prohibited.
  When Rabin came [to Eretz Yisrael] he said that R. Yishmael son of R. Yose and the other rabbis disputed: One said that the animals used in exchange for an idol are prohibited but the animals used in exchange for these are permitted; while the other says that even these are prohibited.
  What is the reason of him who says that even these are prohibited? The verse says, “That you should become accursed like it” (Deuteronomy 7:26) whatever you bring into being from it is to be treated like it.
  And as to the other opinion [how does he explain the word “it”]? He requires it for the exclusion of orlah and the mixed seeds a vineyard, so that if he sold them and with the proceeds betrothed a woman she is betrothed.
  And the other opinion, why does he not read this verse in the same way? Because orlah and the mixed plantings of a vineyard do not require to be specially excluded, because idolatry and the Sabbatical year are two verses which come as one, in any case where two verses come as one we do not derive any other cases from them.
  As regards idolatry it is as we have stated. As regards the Sabbatical year, it is written, “For it is a Jubilee, it shall be sacred to you” (Leviticus 25:12) just as a sacred object transfers [its sanctity] onto the money and is prohibited, similarly Sabbatical year [produce] transfers [its sanctity] onto the money and is prohibited.
  If [this conclusion is correct], then just as the holiness affects its redemption money and [the object which is redeemed] becomes non-holy, similarly the Sabbatical year should affect its money and [the produce which had been sold] become non-holy! Scripture says, “It shall be [holy],” it shall remain in its state.
  How is it, then? If he bought meat with fruits grown in the Sabbatical year, both must be “removed” during the Sabbatical year. But if he bought fish with that meat, the meat ceases to be holy and the fish becomes holy; if he then bought wine with the fish, the fish ceases to be holy and the wine becomes holy; if he then bought oil with the wine, the wine ceases to be holy and the oil becomes holy. How is it, then? It is the last thing [in the series of exchanges] which is affected by the Sabbatical year and the fruit itself is prohibited. 
  And the other opinion?  He holds that two texts that come as one can be used to derive and therefore it is needed to exclude them.
  They asked the elders in Rome, “If [your God] has no desire for idolatry, why does he not abolish it?” They replied, “If it was something unnecessary to the world that was worshipped, he would abolish it; but people worship the sun, moon, stars and planets; should he destroy his universe on account of fools!”
  They said [to the elders], “If so, he should destroy what is unnecessary for the world and leave what is necessary for the world!” They replied, “[If he did that], we should merely be strengthening the hands of the worshippers of these, because they would say, “know that these are deities, for behold they have not been abolished!”
  GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Philosophers asked the elders in Rome, “If your God has no desire for idolatry, why does He not abolish it?” They replied, “If they worshipped something that the world did not need, He would abolish it; but they worship the sun, moon, stars and planets; should He destroy the Universe on account of fools! The world pursues its natural course, and as for the fools who spoil the world, in the future they will be called into account.
  Another matter: Suppose a man stole a measure of wheat and went and planted it in the ground; it is right that it should not grow, but the world pursues its natural course and as for the fools who act wrongly, they will be called into account.
  Another matter: Suppose a man has intercourse with his neighbor’s wife; it is right that she should not conceive, but the world pursues its natural course and as for the fools who act wrongly, they will be called into account.
  This is similar to what Resh Lakish said: The Holy One, blessed be He, declared, “It is not enough that the wicked put My coinage to vulgar use, but they trouble Me and cause me to sign against My will.”
  A philosopher asked R. Gamaliel, “It is written in your Torah, ‘For the Lord your God is a devouring fire, a jealous God’ (Deuteronomy 4:24). Why is He jealous of its worshippers rather than of the idol itself?”
  He replied, “I will give you a parable: To what is the matter like? To a human king who had a son, and this son raised a dog and called it by his father’s name, so that whenever he took an oath he exclaimed, ‘By the life of this dog, my father!’ When the king hears of it, with whom is he angry, his son or the dog? Surely he is angry with his son!”
  [The philosopher] said to him, “You call the idol a dog; but there is some reality to it.”
  [Rabban Gamaliel asked], “What is your proof?” He replied, “Once a fire broke out in our city, and the whole town was burned with the exception of a certain idolatrous shrine!” He said to him, “I will give you a parable: To what is the matter like? To a human king against whom one of his provinces rebelled. If he goes to war against it, does he fight with the living or the dead? Surely he wages war with the living!”
  [The philosopher] said to him, “You call the idol a dog and you call it a dead thing. In that case, let Him destroy it from the world!” He replied, “If it was something unnecessary to the world that was worshipped, He would abolish it; but people worship the sun and moon, stars and planets, brooks and valleys. Should He destroy His universe on account of fools!” And thus it states, 
  
  Daf 55a
  
  “Shall I utterly consume all things from off the face of the earth? says the Lord. Shall I consume man and beast? Shall I consume the fowls of the heavens and the fish of the sea, and the stumbling blocks of the wicked” (Zephaniah 1:2). Because the wicked stumble over these things is He to destroy them from the world? Do they not worship the human being; so am I to cut off man from off the face of the ground!
  The General Agrippas asked R. Gamaliel: “It is written in your Torah, ‘For the Lord your God is a devouring fire, a jealous God’ (Deuteronomy 4:24): Is a wise man jealous of anyone but a wise man, a warrior of anyone but a warrior, a rich man of anyone but a rich man?”
  He replied: “I will give you a parable: To what is the matter like? To a man who marries an additional wife. If the second wife is her superior, the first will not be jealous of her, but if she is her inferior, the first wife will be jealous of her.”
  Zunin said to R. Akiva: ‘We both know in our heart that there is no substance to idol. Nevertheless we see men enter [the shrine] crippled and come out cured. What is the reason?’
  He replied, “I will give you a parable: To what is the matter like? To a trustworthy man in a city, and all his townsmen used to deposit [their money] in his charge without witnesses. One man, however, came and deposited [his money] in his charge with witnesses; but on one occasion he forgot and made his deposit without witnesses. The wife [of the trustworthy man] said to [her husband], ‘Come, let us deny it.’ He answered her, ‘Because this fool acted in an unworthy manner, shall I destroy my reputation for trustworthiness!’”
  It is similar with afflictions. When they are sent on a man they make them take an oath, ‘You shall not come upon him except on such and such a day, nor depart from him except on such and such a day, and at such an hour, and by the work of so and so, and through such and such a druge." When the time arrives for them to depart, the man chanced to go to an idolatrous shrine. The afflictions plead, ‘It is right that we should not leave him and depart; but because this fool acts in an unworthy way shall we break our oath!’”
  This what R. Yohanan said: What is that is written, “And bad and faithful sicknesses” (Deuteronomy 28:59)? “Bad” in their mission and “faithful” to their oath.
  Rava son of R. Yitzchak said to R. Judah: “There is an idolatrous shrine in our region, and whenever the world is in need of rain, [the idol] appears to them in a dream, saying, ‘Slay a human being to me and I will send rain.’ They slay a human being to it and rain does come!”
  He replied, “Now were I dead, nobody could have told you that which Rav said, ‘What is it that is written, “Which the Lord your God has alloted [halak] to all the nations under the whole heaven” (Deuteronomy 4:19).  This teaches that He misled [hehelik] them with matters to banish [idolaters] from the world.’”
  This is similar to what Resh Lakish said: What is it that is written, “If it concerns the scornful, He scorns them, but to the humble He gives grace” (Proverbs 3:34). If one comes to defile they provide him with an opening to do so, and if he comes to purify himself they support him.
  A winepress [containing] trodden [grapes] may be purchased from a non-Jew even though it was he that lifted [the trodden grapes] with his hand and put them among the heap. And [the juice] does not become yen nesek (wine assumed to have been used as a libation) until it descends into the vat. When it has descended into the vat, what is in the vat is prohibited; But the remainder is permitted.
  A Jew may tread the winepress together with a non-Jew
  
  Daf 55b
  
  but may not pick grapes with him. If a Jew was working in a state of ritual impurity, one may neither tread nor pick with him, but one may move [empty] casks with him to the press and carry them [filled] with him from the press.
  If a baker was working in a state of ritual impurity, one may neither knead nor roll dough with him but we may carry loaves with him to the bakery.
  GEMARA. R. Huna said: As soon as the wine begins to flow it may become yayin nesekh. But we learn in our Mishnah: A winepress [containing] trodden [grapes] may be purchased from a non-Jew even though it was he that lifted [the trodden grapes] with his hand and put them among the heap. Huna said: This refers to a winepress which is stoppered and full.
  Come and hear: And [the juice] does not become yayin nesekh until it descends into the vat! Similarly here [says R. Huna, the Mishnah deals with] a vat which is stoppered and full.
   Come and hear: When it has descended into the vat, what is in the vat is prohibited but the remainder is permitted! Huna said: There is no contradiction; one teaching is from the older Mishnah and the other from the later Mishnah
  for it has been taught: At first [the sages] used to say (B.D.D.): [Israelites] may not glean grapes together with a non-Jew [and bring them] into a winepress, for it is forbidden to cause defilement to the non-sacred fruit of the Land of Israel, Nor may they tread grapes together with an Israelite who works with his fruits while he is in a state of impurity for it is forbidden to assist transgressors; But they may tread grapes together with a non-Jew in a winepress. And they were not concerned about the view of R. Huna.
  Later [the Rabbis] said (D.B.B.):  [Israelites] may not tread grapes together with a non-Jew in a winepress, for the reason given by R. Huna.
  
  Daf 56a
  
  Nor may they glean grapes together with an Israelite who works with his fruits while he is impure, and all the more so they may not tread grapes. But they may glean together with a non-Jew, since it is permitted to defile to the ordinary produce in the land of Israel.
  And [the juice] does not become yayin nesekh until it descends into the vat. But we have learned: Wine [becomes subject to the tithe] when it is skimmed!
  Rava said: There is no contradiction, because this is R. Akiva’s opinion and [that of the mishnah] is the rabbis. For it has been taught: [The liquid is considered to be] wine when it descends into the vat. R. Akiva says, When it is skimmed. 
  The question was asked: Does this mean skimming [of the wine] while it is in the vat or when it is in the cask?
  Come and hear! For we have learned: [It is to be considered] wine when it is skimmed; and although he has skimmed it, he may draw some off from the upper press and from the pipe and drink it. Learn from this that we mean the skimming while it is in the vat. Conclude from this.
  But did not R. Zevid teach in a baraita from the School of R. Oshaia:  [It is to be considered] wine when it descends into the vat and is skimmed; R. Akiva says: When it is drawn into casks! You should also resolve that former baraita in this way: [It is considered] wine when it descends into the vat and is skimmed; R. Akiva says: When it is drawn into casks.
  But what about our Mishnah which teaches, “It does not become yayin nesekh until it descends into the vat,” conclude that there are three tannaitic opinions. No; it is different as regards yayin nesekh because for the rabbis were strict with it;
  
  Daf 56b
  
  but as for Rava who draws no distinction (between yayin nesekh and tithes), he indeed posits that there are three tannaitic opinions.
  What is in the vat is prohibited but the remainder is permitted. Huna said: They only taught this in the case where he did not return the wicker basket to the press, but if he did return the wicker basket to the press it is all prohibited.
  But as to the wicker basket, how did its contents become prohibited? Through a poured stream of liquid. Deduce from this that a poured stream of liquid serves as a connective! [No,] as R. Hiyya taught: The level of his flagon overflowed; and here too the [contents of the] vat overflowed.
  There was a boy who had learned the tractate on idolatry when he was six years old. He was asked, “May [an Israelite] tread grapes together with an idolater in a press?” He replied: One may tread grapes together with a non-Jew in a press. “But does he not render it yayin nesekh by [the touch of] his hands!” “We tie his hands up.” “But he renders it yayin nesek by [the touch of] his feet!” “Wine touched by the feet is not called nisukh.”
  It happened in Nehardea that an Israelite and an idolater pressed wine together. Shmuel delayed three festivals [before replying]. What was the reason [for the delay]? If I say that he thought to himself,
  
  Daf 57a
  
  “If I find a tanna who forbids its use as does R. Natan, then I will forbid it, even for deriving benefit” since it has been taught: If [an idolater] measured [the quantity of wine] either by using his hand or leg, it may be sold. R. Natan says: If he used his hand it is prohibited, but if his leg it is permitted.
  But say that R. Natan declared [it prohibited] when touched by the hand, but did he say so [when it was touched] by his leg! Rather [must he have thought to himself], “If I find a teacher who permits like R. Shimon, then I will permit it even for drinking.”
  It happened at Biram that an idolater climbed a palm-tree and took one of its branches. While descending he unintentionally touched a [cask of] wine with the branch. Rav permitted it to be sold to idolaters.
  Kahana and R. Assi said to him: But was it not the Master who declared that a child only a day old can make yayin nesekh! He replied: Say that I said it is prohibited to drink, did I say it is prohibited to derive benefit from it.
  The text states: The Master himself has declared that a child a day old can make yayin nesekh.
  Shimi b. Hiyya raised an objection: If [an Israelite] bought slaves from a non-Jew who had been circumcised but not immersed, and similarly with the children of female slaves [born in an Israelite’s house] who had been circumcised but not immersed, their spittle and the place where they tread in the street are impure, but others declare that they are pure.
  As for wine, adults render it yayin nesekh but minors do not render it yayin nesekh. The following are adults and minors: Adults understand the nature of idolatry and its accessories, whereas minors do not understand the nature of idolatry and its accessories.  
  In any case, it teaches that adults do [render wine yayin nesekh] but minors do not! [Rav] explained the teaching as referring to the children of female slaves.  
  But “and similarly” was stated! That refers to their spittle and place of treading!
   This works well according to the one who declared that they are impure, but according to the one who declared that they are pure what is there to say?
  It teaches us that slaves are similar to the children of female slaves: just as the children of female slaves, when circumcised but not immersed, render wine yayin nesek, and if both circumcised and immersed do not, so is it also with slaves.
  This excludes what R. Nahman said in the name of Shmuel: If [an Israelite] bought slaves from a non-Jew, although they had been both circumcised and immersed, they render wine yayin nesekh until idolatry is entirely banished from their lips. Thus he teaches us that it is not so.
  The text states: R. Nahman said in the name of Shmuel: If [an Israelite] bought slaves from an idolater, although they had been both circumcised and immersed, they render wine nesekh until idolatry is entirely banished from their lips. How long is this? R. Joshua b. Levi said: Up to twelve months.
  If [an Israelite] bought slaves from a non-Jew who had been circumcised but not immersed, and similarly with the children of female slaves [born in an Israelite’s house] who had been circumcised but not immersed, their spittle and the place where they tread
  
  Daf 57b
  
   in the street are impure, but others declare that they are pure. As for wine, adults render it yayin nesekh but minors do not render it yayin nesekh. The following are adults and minors: Adults understand the nature of idolatry and its accessories, whereas minors do not understand the nature of idolatry and its accessories.
  In any case, it teaches that if they circumcise but do not immerse they do make yayin nesekh. But if they circumcise and immerse they do not.  [Rav Nachman] explained the teaching as referring to the children of female slaves.  
  But “and similarly” was stated! That refers to their spittle and place of treading!  
  This works well according to the one who declared that they are impure, but according to the one who declared that they are pure what is there to say?
  It teaches us that slaves are similar to the children of female slaves: just as the adult children of female slaves render wine nesekh but if minors they do not, so also with slaves they render wine nesekh when adults but not when minors.
  This excludes what Rav said: A child only a day old can render wine nesekh. Hence it teaches us that it is not so.
  It happened at Mahoza that a non-Jew came and entered the shop of an Israelite. He asked them, “Have you wine to sell?” They replied, “We do not.” There was some wine in a bucket. The idolater cast his hand into it and shook it around. He said to them, “Is this not wine?” In his anger [the shopkeeper] took the wine and poured it back into the cask.
  Rava permitted him to sell it to Gentiles. Huna b. Hinena and R. Huna son of R. Nahman disagreed with him. The exclaimers of Rava went out and permitted [the sale of the wine], while the exclaimers of R. Huna b. Hinnena and R. Huna son of R. Nahman went out and prohibited it.
  
  Daf 58a
  
  R. Huna son of R. Nahman came Mehoza, and Rava said to his attendant, R. Eliakim, “Bolt the doors so that nobody shall enter to disturb us.” [R. Huna son f R. Nahman] entered the room.
  He asked him, “In such circumstances what is the law?” He replied, “It is forbidden even for use.” [R. Huna exclaimed], “But was it not the master who declared that such shaking does not make wine nesekh!” [He responded], “I was saying except for the value of that wine. But the value of that wine, I did not say.”
  Rava said, When I came to Pumbedita, Nahmani surrounded me with traditions and teachings according to which it is prohibited.
  Traditions: It happened in Nehardea and Shmuel prohibited it. In Tiberias and R. Yohanan prohibited it; and when I said to him that [they ruled strictly because the inhabitants of those towns] were not students of Torah, he responded, "[The inhabitants of] Tiberias and Nehardea are not students of Torah and those of Mehoza are students of Torah!
  A tannaitic teaching: A non-Jewish market inspector who drilled a hole in [a cask of wine] with a tube and drew off [some wine], or he tasted some of it in a glass and returned [the remainder] to the cask. This happened and [the Rabbis] declared it forbidden. Is it not that it is prohibited to derive benefit from it? No, it is prohibited to drink it [but it is not prohibited to sell it].
  If so, let it teach: “He may sell it,” as it teaches in the last clause: If a non-Jewish oppressor put his hand into a cask, thinking that it contained oil, but it chanced to contain wine , this actually happened and [the rabbis] said that it may be sold!"’ This is a refutation of Rava! It is a refutation.
  R. Yohanan b. Arza and R. Yose b. Nehorai were once sitting and drinking wine. A man came. They said to him, “Come, pour some for us.” After he had poured it into the glass, it became known that he was a non-Jew. One of them prohibited it even for benefit, while the other permitted it even for drinking. R. Joshua b. Levi said: He who prohibited it acted rightly and he who permitted it acted rightly. The one who prohibited would have said: [The non-Jew] must have said to himself
  
  Daf 58b
  
  “Would I think that such rabbis drink beer? Rather, it surely must be wine!” And he libated it. He who permitted it acted rightly. [The non-Jew] must have said to himself, ‘Would it occur to such rabbis as these to drink wine and ask me to pour for them? It must be beer they are drinking!’ and he did not libate it.
  But he could have seen [whether it was wine or beer]! It was night. But he could have smelled it! It was new.
  But he must have touched it with the drawing cup, so it is a case where a non-Jew touched [wine] unintentionally and it is prohibited! No; it is necessary [to understand it as a case] where he merely poured it out, and so it is a circumstance of him acting on it without intention, and in any case where the non-Jew acted on it without intention the rabbis did not decree that it is prohibited.
  R. Asi asked R. Yohanan: Wine mixed (mesakho) by a non-Jew, what is its status? He said to him: Say mezago! R. Asi asked R. Yohanan: Wine mixed (mesakho) by a non-Jew, what is its status? He said to him: Say mezago! [R. Asi] replied: I say it as it is written, “She has slaughtered her meat, she has mixed [mesakhah] her wine” (Proverbs 9:2). He said to him: The language of the Torah is distinct and the language of the sages is distinct.
  In any case, what is the rule? [R. Yohanan] answered: It is prohibited because of the principle, “Go, go, we say to the Nazirite, go around the vineyard. Do not draw near.”
  Jeremiah once came to Savata. He saw non-Jews mixing the wine and Israelites drinking it. He prohibited it to them on the principle, “Go, go, we say to the Nazirite, go around the vineyard. Do not draw near.”It has likewise been stated: R. Yohanan said, and some say R. Asi said in the name of R. Yohanan: Wine mixed by a non-Jew is prohibited on the principle, “Go, go, we say to the Nazirite, go around the vineyard. Do not draw near.”
  Shimon b. Lakish once came to Botzrah and saw Jews eating untithed produce and he prohibited it to them.He saw water which had been worshipped by idolaters being drunk by Israelites and he prohibited it to them.
  He came before R. Yohanan. [R. Yohanan] said to him, “While your cloak is still on you, return; Betzer is not Botzrah; and water belonging to the public cannot become prohibited!”
  Yohanan here followed his own opinion.
  
  Daf 59a
  
  for R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Shimon b. Yehotzadak: Water belonging to the public cannot become prohibited. But if it belongs to an individual it does become prohibited.
  But it should be excluded for the reason that it is something attached to the ground! No; it is necessary [to mention it because it can be prohibited in the case] where a wave detached it from the ground.
  In any case [such water may be compared] to boulders which had broken away [from a mountain];  and it must therefore be concluded that it was R. Yohanan who said they were prohibited!
  No; it is necessary [to suppose a case] where [a non-Jew] struck [the waters] with his own hand.
  R. Hiyya b. Abba once visited Gavla, and there saw Israelite women who had become pregnant by non-Jews who had been circumcised but not immersed. He also saw wine that was mixed by non-Jews and then drunk by Jews, He saw lupines that were cooked by non-Jews and eaten by Jews; but he said nothing to them.
  He came before R. Yohanan [and reported the matter to him]. R. Yohanan said to him, “Go and declare that their children are mamzerim, their wine is nesekh, and their lupines [are prohibited] as something cooked by non-Jews, because they are not students of Torah!
  [He decreed] that their children were mamzerim. R. Yohanan followed his own opinion; for R. Yohanan said: [A Gentile] is never to be considered a convert until he is both circumcised and immersed, and since he has not undergone immersion he is a non-Jew. And Rabbah b. Bar Hanah has said in the name of R. Yohanan: If a non-Jew or a slave has intercourse with an Israelite woman, the child is a mamzer.
  He decreed that their wine was nesekh because of, “Go, go, we say to a Nazirite; go round the vineyard and do not come near it.”
  [And he decreed] against their lupines because of the prohibition of eating food cooked by non-Jews, because [the inhabitants of Gavla] were not students of Torah. His reason was that they were not students of Torah. Had they been students of Torah, [the lupines] would have been permitted! But surely R. Shmuel son of R. Yitzchak said in the name of Rav: Whatever is eaten raw does is not prohibited on account of having been cooked by Gentiles.
  R. Yohanan follows a different version [of the teaching]: R. Shmuel son of R. Yitzchak said in the name of Rav: Whatever is not brought on the table of kings to dip with bread is not prohibited on account of having been cooked by Gentiles. Therefore his reason was that they were not students of Torah, had they been students of Torah [the lupines] would have been permitted. 
  They asked R. Kahana: May a non-Jew carry grapes to a winepress? He replied: It is prohibited on the principle, “Go away, go away, we say to a Nazirite; go around the vineyard and do not come near it!” R. Yemar raised an objection against R. Kahana: If a non-Jew carried grapes to a winepress in baskets
  
  Daf 59b
  
  or barrels, even though the wine drips upon them, they are permitted! [R. Kahana] replied to him: You used the word “carried,” I was speaking of a case of ab initio.
  An etrog once fell into a cask of wine, and a non-Jew sprang forward to pull it out. R. Ashi said to them: Hold his hand so that he does not stir it, and tilt [the cask] until it is emptied.
  R. Ashi said: This non-Jew who deliberately libated the wine of an Israelite, although it is prohibited to sell it to another non-Jew, [the owner] is allowed to receive the cost from the person [who libated it]. What is the reason? Because it is as if burned it.
  R. Ashi said: From where do I derive this? As it is taught: A non-Jew who libated the wine of an Israelite, not in the presence of an idol, it is prohibited; but R. Judah b. Bava and R. Judah b. Betera permit it for two reasons: first, because wine is libated only in the presence of an idol, and secondly because [the owner can] say to him, ‘You have no right to make my wine prohibited against my will.”
  It once happened that the stopper fell out of a cask of wine, and a non-Jew sprang forward and placed his hand over it: R. Papa said: All the wine that is on the level with the spout is prohibited
  
  Daf 60a
  
  and the remainder is permitted. There are those who say: R. Papa said: The wine above the stopper is prohibited and the remainder is permitted.
  R. Yemar said: [This is] like the [dispute of the] following tannaim: If a jug was pierced whether on top, the bottom or its sides, and a tevul yom touched it, it is defiled. R. Judah says: [If it was pierced] on top or bottom it is impure, but if on its sides it is pure on this side and that.
  R. Papa said: If a non-Jew [was holding] the barrel and a Jew the cask, the wine is prohibited. What is the reason? Because [the pouring] results from the effort of the non-Jew. If, however, a Jew [was holding] the barrel and a non-Jew the cask, the wine is permitted; but should [the non-Jew] tilt it sideways it is prohibited. 
  R. Papa said: If a non-Jew carries a skin-bottle [of wine] and a Jew follows behind him, if it is full it is permitted because [the wine] does not shake, but if it is not full it is prohibited because there is the possibility of shaking. A full cask [being carried in such a manner], is prohibited because he might have touched it, but if it is not full it is permitted because he did not touch it.
  R. Ashi said: In the case of a skin-bottle, whether full or not it is permitted. What is the reason? Because this is not the way of offering a libation.
  [Wine] from a press where beams are used: R. Papi permits; R. Ashi, or according to another version, R. Shimi b. Ashi prohibits.
  In the case of direct force no on disagree that it is prohibited, they disagree where there was indirect force. Others say that they do not disagree in the case of indirect force that it is permitted, they disagree only in a case of direct force. An instance of indirect force occurred and R. Jacob of Nehar-Pekod prohibited it.
  It once happened that a cask
  
  Daf 60b
  
  split lengthwise, and a non-Jew sprang forward and clasped it in his arms. Rafram b. Papa (another version--R. Huna the son of Rab Joshua) permitted selling it to non-Jews. This rule applies only when it split lengthwise, but if crosswise it is permitted even to be drunk [by Israelites]. What is the reason? He only did what a brick might have done. 
  A non-Jew was once found standing in [the empty] wine-press [of an Israelite]. R. Ashi said: If it was sufficiently moist to moisten other objects, it needs to be rinsed with water and rubbed dry, otherwise mere rinsing is sufficient.
  If a non-Jew was found standing by the side of a vat of wine, if he had loaned money to the Jew, then [the wine] is prohibited; but if he did not loan money to the Jew, then it is permitted.
  If [a non-Jew] fell into a vat and climbed out, or measured it with a reed, or flicked out a hornet with a reed, or tapped on the top of a frothing cask. All of these things actually happened, and [the Rabbis] said that the wine may be sold, but Rabbi Shimon permits it [even to be drunk]. If [a non-Jew] took a cask, and in his anger threw it into the vat — this actually happened and [the Rabbis] declared it fit [for drinking].
  GEMARA. Shmuel said: [The first clause of the mishnah applies only] when he has a lien on that wine [which is in the vat].
  R. Ashi said: This can also be learned by a deduction in the Mishnah which teaches: If [a Jew] prepares a non-Jew’s wine in a state of ritual purity and leaves it in [the non-Jew’s] domain, and the [non-Jew] writes for him “I have received the money from you,” then [the wine] is permitted. If, however, the Jew wished to remove it and [the non-Jew] refuses to let it go until he paid him — this actually happened in Beth-Shean and [the Rabbis] prohibited it.
  The reason [why they prohibited it] was because he refused to let it go; hence if he had agreed to let it go, it would have been permitted. Learn from this that we require that the lien should be on that wine [for it to be prohibited]! Learn from this.
  If [a non-Jew] fell into a vat and climbed out. R. Papa said: This was taught only if he came out dead, but if he climbed out alive it is prohibited. What is the reason? — Because it would be to him like an idolatrous festival.
  Or measured it with a reed…All of these things actually happened, and [the Rabbis] said that the wine may be sold, but Rabbi Shimon permits it [even to be drunk]. R. Adda b. Ahavah said: May blessings fall on the head of R. Shimon, because when he permits, he permits even the drinking [of the wine] and when he prohibits he prohibits it for all use!
  R. Hiyya the son of Abba b. Nahmani said that R. Hisda said in the name of Rav — and others that R. Hisda said in the name of Ze'iri: The halakhah follows R. Shimon. There are those that say that R. Hisda said: Abba b. Hanan told me that Ze'iri said: The halakhah agrees with R. Simeon. But the halachah is not in accord with R. Shimon.
  If he took a cask and in his anger threw it into the vat — this actually happened and [the rabbis] declared it fit [for drinking]. R. Ashi said: Whatever is rendered unclean by a zav makes wine [in a similar circumstance] nesek by a non-Jew, and whatever is not rendered unclean by a zav does not makes wine nesekh by a non-Jew
  R. Huna raised a difficulty against R. Ashi: If he took a cask and in his anger threw it into the vat — this actually happened in Beth-Shean and [the rabbis] declared it fit [for drinking]! If he did this in anger it is [fit for drinking], but if he had not done it in anger it would not [be fit]
  
  Daf 61a
  
  [R. Ashi replied:] There [it refers to the circumstance where the cask] was being rolled by him [the whole distance into the vat].
  If [a Jew] prepares a non-Jew's wine in a state of ritual purity and leaves it in [the non-Jew’s] domain, in a house which is open to the public domain, should it be in a city where non-Jews and Jews reside, it is permitted. But should it be in a city where only non-Jews reside it is prohibited unless [an Jew] sits and guard.
  There is no need for the guard to sit and watch [the whole time]; even if he keeps going out and coming in it is permitted. Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar says: it is all one with the domain of a non-Jew.
  If [a Jew] prepares a non-Jew’s wine in a state of ritual purity and leaves it in [the non-Jew’s] domain, and the [non-Jew] writes for him “I have received the money from you,” then [the wine] is permitted. If, however, the Jew wished to remove it and [the non-Jew] refuses to let it go until he paid him — this actually happened in Bet Shean and [the Rabbis] prohibited it.
  GEMARA. In a city where consisting of all non-Jews reside it should also [be permitted without a guardian] since there are [Jewish] spice-sellers going about the cities! Shmuel said: [The Mishnah refers] to a city which has doors and bolts.
  R. Joseph said: If there is a window it is the equivalent [of the house being in] a public domain; or if there is a rubbish-heap it is the equivalent [of the house being in] a public domain; and similarly a date-palm makes it the equivalent of [the house being in] a public domain.
  If the top [of the date-palm] had been cut off: R. Aha and Rabina disagree, one prohibits [the wine] and the other permits it. He who prohibits it assumes that the owner will have no reason to climb it; and the one who permits it thinks that it could happen that [the Israelite's] beast will become lost and he will climb it to look for it.
  Our rabbis taught: Whether [a Jew] purchases or rents a house in the courtyard of a non-Jew and fills it with [casks of] wine, and a Jew resides in that courtyard, it is permitted even though the key and seal are not in his [the Jew’s] possession.
  
  Daf 61b
  
  If [he resides] in another courtyard, it is permitted only when the key and seal are in his possession.
  If [a Jew] prepares the wine of a non-Jew in a state of ritual purity in his (the non-Jew’s) domain and a Jew resides in that courtyard, it is permitted should the key and seal be in his possession. R. Yohanan said to the tanna: Read [as follows]: Even though the key and seal are not in his possession it is permitted. 
  [Should he reside] in another courtyard, it is prohibited even if the key and seal are in his possession, the words of R. Meir;
  but the Sages prohibit it unless a supervisor sits and watches or until somebody is appointed to go there at regular intervals.
  The sages refer to which clause? If I say it is to the last, the first tanna also prohibits it. Perhaps it is to the first half of the second clause. But R. Yohanan told the tanna: “Read [as follows]: Even though the key and seal are not in his possession [the wine is permitted]”! 
  Rather they refer to the second half of the first clause, for the first Tanna said: If [he resides] in another court, it is permitted only when the key and seal are in his possession. And the sages say that it is always prohibited unless a supervisor sits and watches or until somebody is appointed to go there at regular intervals.”
  But his going in there intermittently is not as good! Rather [must the statement be amended to]: Until somebody is appointed to go there not for stated periods.
  R. Shimon b. Elazar says: it is all one with the domain of a non-Jew. They asked: Did R. Shimon b. Elazar make the law lenient or strict? Rav Judah said in the name of Ze'iri: He made it lenient. R. Nahman said in the name of Ze'iri: He made it strict.
  Rav Judah said in the name of Ze'iri: He made it lenient. And this is what the first Tanna said: Just as [the wine] in his (the non-Jew’s) domain is prohibited, so too it is prohibited in the domain of any other non-Jew and we are concerned about collusion.\
  But R. Shimon b. Elaazar says: To what does this refer? To his own domain. But if it is in the domain of another non-Jew it is permitted because we are not concerned about collusion.
  R. Nahman said in the name of Ze'iri: He made it stricter, and this is what the first Tanna said: This only applies to his own domain, but when it is in the domain of another non-Jew it is permitted and we are not concerned with collusion; but R. Shimon b. Elazar says: It is all one with the domain of a non-Jew.
  It was taught in accord with what R. Nahman said in the name of Ze'iri, that he made the law more strict: R. Shimon b. Elazar said: It is all one with the domain of a non-Jew due to deceivers.
  Those of the house of Parzak, the king’s officer, left [wine made in purity by Jews] in the domain of their sharecroppers. The rabbis who were in front of Rava thought to say that we are concerned with collusion only when one places in his domain, and the other places in his domain; but in this case since a share cropper does not place [wine] in the domain of the king's officer, we are not worried about collusion.
  Rava said to them: On the contrary, even according to the one who maintains that we are not concerned about collution, that only applies where he is not afraid of him; but in this case since [the tenants] are afraid of him, they would cover up for him and testify on his behalf.
  There was certain town in which there was wine belonging to a Jew, a non-Jew was found standing among the jars. Rava said: If he would be arrested on that account as a thief, the wine is permitted, otherwise it is prohibited. 
  May we return to you, Chapter “R. Yishmael”
  
  Daf 62a
  
  If [a non-Jew] hires [a Jewish] laborer to assist him in [the transportation of] yayin nesekh, his wage is prohibited. a) If he hired him to assist him in another kind of work, even if he says to him, “remove for me a cask of yayin nesekh from this place to that,” his wage is permitted. If he hired [a Jew’s] donkey to carry yayin nesekh, its wages are prohibited; But if he hired it to sit upon, even though the non-Jew rested his jar [of yayin nesekh] upon it, its wages are permitted.
  GEMARA. Why are his wages prohibited? If I say that since yayin nesekh is prohibited for use of any kind and therefore his wage are also prohibited, behold orlah and the mixed plantings in a vineyard are prohibited for use of any kind and yet we have learned: If he sold them and with the proceeds betrothed a wife she is betrothed!
  Rather, [should I say that the reason is] because the proceeds [gained through yayin nesekh] are like idolatrous objects, behold Sabbatical year produce which affects the money [obtained from its sale] and yet we have learned: If one said to a laborer [in the Sabbatical year], “Here is a dinar and for it gather vegetables for me today,” his wage is prohibited; [but if he said,] “Gather vegetables for me today,” his wage is permitted!
  R. Abahu said in the name of R. Yohanan: It is a penalty which the Sages imposed upon donkey-drivers and in connection with yayin nesekh. As for yayin nesekh it is as has just been stated; And what is the case of the donkey-drivers? As it has been taught: If donkeydrivers work with Sabbatical year produce, their wage is [considered the produce of] a Sabbatical year.
  What does it mean “their wage is [considered the produce of] the Sabbatical year”? If I say it means that they receive their wage in Sabbatical year produce, it would turn out that [the employer] pays his debt in Sabbatical year produce and the Torah has said, “[And the Shabbat of the land shall be] for food — but not for trading” (Leviticus 25:6)!
  Rather, [if I answer that it means] that their wage is holy with the holiness of Sabbatical year [produce], is it holy? For it has been taught: If one said to a laborer [in the Sabbatical year], “Here is a dinar and gather vegetables for me today,” his wage is permitted; [If he said,] “Gather vegetables for me today for this [dinar]” his wage is prohibited!
  Abaye said: It certainly means that they are paid their wage in Sabbatical year produce, and the difficulty you raised, “‘for food’ but not for trading,” [is solved] in that they pay him in a lawful manner, as we have learned: “One may not say to his fellow,
  
  Daf 62b
  
  ‘Carry up for me these fruits to Jerusalem in order that we share them”; but he may say to him, “Carry them up so that we may eat and drink of them in Jerusalem.” And each may give the other as a free gift.
  And Rava said: [The meaning is] certainly that their wage has the holiness of [the produce of] the Sabbatical year, and the difficulty you raised with regard to the workman, in the case of a workman whose wage is small the Rabbis did not impose a penalty, but in the case of donkey-drivers whose wage is considerable the Rabbis did impose a penalty; and as for our Mishnah the stringency of yayin nesekh is different.
  The question was asked: If the non-Jew hired him in connection with ordinary wine what is the status of his wage? Do we say that since its prohibition is as strict as with yayin nesekh the wage is likewise prohibited; or perhaps since its impurity is lesser, the law with regard to his wage is also less stringent?
  Come and hear! A certain man hired out his ship [to transport] ordinary wine [belonging to non-Jews]. They paid him in wheat. He came before R. Hisda who said to him, “Go burn it and bury it in a graveyard.”
  But why did he not tell him to scatter it! People might come to stumble into a wrong-doing through it. Then let him tell him to burn and scatter it! People might use it as manure
  Let him bury it as it is, for have we not learned: The stone with which a person was stoned, the tree upon which he was hanged, the sword with which he was  decapitated, and the sheet with which he was strangled are all alike buried with him!
  In this latter instance, since they are buried in the court, it would be generally known that they had been executed under sentence of the court; but here the circumstances would not be generally known and a person might suppose that somebody had stolen [the wheat] and brought it to be buried there.
  Those of the house of R. Yannai used to borrow Sabbatical year produce from the poor and repay them in the eighth year. When this was reported to R. Yohanan, he said to them, “They are acting correctly.”
  And a corresponding case may be found in the matter of a prostitute’s hire which is permitted; for it has been taught: If he gave her [an animal] without having intercourse with her or had intercourse without giving it to her, her hire is permitted [for use in the Temple].
  Now if he gave it to her without having intercourse with her, obviously [it may be used in the Temple] since he did not have intercourse with her, it was just a gift that he gave to her! Furthermore, if he had intercourse with her and did not give it to her, behold he didn’t give her anything, and since he did not give anything to her what does it mean that her hire is permitted!
  Rather this is what it means: If he gave it to her and subsequently had intercourse with her, or had intercourse with her and subsequently gave it to her, the hire is permitted.
  But if he gave it to her and subsequently had intercourse with her, since he did have intercourse with her
  
  Daf 63a
  
  the prohibition of a prostitute’s hire should apply retroactively to [the animal]! R. Elazar replied: [It is permitted] when she first offered it.
  What is the exact case? If he said to her, “Acquire it immediately” then obviously it is permitted because it is no longer there at the time of intercourse and he merely gave her a gift;
  But if he did not say to her, “Acquire it immediately” how could she offer it, “And when a person shall sanctify his house to be holy” (Leviticus 27:14) says God, just as the house [which he sanctifies] must be in his possession, so too must everything [which is dedicated to the Sanctuary] be in the person's possession!
  Rather [he said to her], “Let it be with you until the time of intercourse; but should you require it then you acquire it immediately.”
  R. Hoshaya asked: What is the rule if she dedicated it beforehand? Since the Master has said that a declaration to God is like delivery to an ordinary person, is she like one who has actually offered it, or perhaps [the animal] is after all still in existence [at the time of intercourse]?
  But solve the question from the statement of R. Elazar who said: [It is permitted] when she first offered it” – only if she offered it, but not if she merely dedicated it?
  R. Elazar’s statement itself is what was being asked about: Is it clear to R. Elazar that only if she had actually offered it [is it permitted] but not if she merely dedicated it because it is [in her possession] at the time of intercourse; or perhaps it is obvious where it had been offered but doubtful when it had only been dedicated? The question remains unanswered.
  [It was stated:] If he had intercourse with her and subsequently gave it to her, it is permitted. Against this they brought the following: If he had intercourse with her and subsequently gave it to her, even after the lapse of three years, it is prohibited!
  R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said in the name of R. Hisda: There is no contradiction, the latter teaching refers to a case where he said to her, “Have intercourse with me for this lamb,’ and the former teaching to a case where he said to her, “Have intercourse with me for a lamb.”
  And even if he did use the phrase “for this lamb” what of it? Behold it is lacking being drawn towards the one acquiring it! [It deals here] with a non-Jewish prostitute who does not acquire an object by the act of drawing it towards herself. Or if you wish I can say that it surely deals with an Israelite prostitute but in a case where she standing in her courtyard.
  But if it was standing in her courtyard, [how can it be taught that] he had intercourse with her and subsequently gave it to her, seeing that she already had possession of it! No, it is necessary in a case where he used it as a pledge, saying to her, “If I bring you a certain number of zuz by such a date, well and good; otherwise take [the lamb] as your pay.”
  R. Sheshet raised an objection: One can say to his donkey-drivers or workmen, “Go and eat for this dinar, go out and drink for this dinar,” and he need not be concerned
  
  Daf 63b
  
  [about their eating and drinking the produce of] the Sabbatical year or tithe or yayin nesekh.
  But if he said to them, “Go out and eat and I will pay you back, go out and drink and I will pay you back,” he must be concerned [about their eating and drinking the produce of] the Sabbatical year or tithe or yayin nesek.
   Thus when he pays them back, he pays back he is paying for prohibited produce, and similarly in the case [of the House of R. Yannai] when they made repayment they did so for something that was prohibited!
  R. Hisda explained: [The teaching just quoted deals] with a shop-keeper who extends credit so that he is indebted to him, and since it was his custom to give him credit it is as though he had acquired the dinar from him.
  But a shop-keeper who does not extend credit, what is the rule? It is permitted! If that is so, instead of teaching “Go and eat for this dinar, go out and drink for this dinar,” it should have drawn a distinction in this very case and taught as follows:
  When does this apply? [When they buy] from a shopkeeper who gives him credit so that he is indebted to him, but if from shopkeeper who does not give him credit it is permitted!
  Furthermore, if the shopkeeper does not give him credit, is [the employer in such a circumstance] not indebted to him? Has Rava not declared: One who says to his fellow, “Give so-and-so a maneh and let all my possessions be acquired to you,” he has acquired through the halakhah of a guarantor!
  Rather Rava said: It does not matter whether he gives him credit or not; even though [the employer] is indebted to him, since he does not specify his indebtedness, it is not prohibited.
  Why, then, here should he be concerned [about their eating and drinking the produce of] the Sabbatical year as he does not specify his indebtedness! R. Papa said: Here is the case where he paid him the dinar in advance.
  R. Kahana said: I stated this teaching in the presence of R. Zevid of Nehardea. He said to me: If that were so, then instead of the words “Go out and eat and drink and I will pay,” it should have said “Go out and eat and drink and I will reckon with him”! [R. Kahana] said to him: Read, “Go out and I will reckon with him.”
  R. Ashi said: For example when [the employer] took [the food] from the shopkeeper and handed it [to his workmen]. R. Yemar said to R. Ashi: If that were so, then instead of the words, “Go out and eat, go out and drink” it should have stated, “Take and eat, take and drink”! He replied to him: Teach it, “Take and eat, take and drink.”
  Nahman, Ulla and Avimi b. Papi were sitting together and R. Hiyya b. Ammi sat with them. As they were sitting the question was asked: What is the rule if [a Jew] was hired to break [a jug of] yayin nesekh? Do we say that since his wish is the preservation [of the cask] it is prohibited, or perhaps any case where improper things are wasted is okay?
  Nahman said: Let him break it and may a blessing come upon him. Shall we say that the following supports his opinion: We may not hoe together with a non-Jew among mixed seeds
  
  Daf 64a
  
  we may uproot them together with him in order to reduce what is improper!
  They thought that the statement [that uprooting is permitted] was [even according to] R. Akiva who said: He who helps to preserve mixed seeds is liable to the punishment of lashes; for it has been taught: He who weeds or covers mixed seeds with soil is liable to the punishment of lashes; R. Akiba says: Also he who helps to preserve them.  
  What is R. Akiva’s reason?  Scripture says, “You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed” (Leviticus 19:19). I only know this about sowing; from where do I know that [it is also forbidden to] preserve them? Scripture says, “No . . . with a diverse kind.”
  But reducing what is improper is permitted!
  No, whose opinion is this? The rabbis.
  If it is the opinion of the rabbis, why specify “We may uproot them,” since according to them it would even be allowed to preserve them. What are we dealing with here? For instance when he worked for free, and it is in accord with the teaching of R. Judah who said: It is forbidden to give them a free gift.
  [But nevertheless] from R. Judah’s statement we could infer something about R. Akiva’s view. Did not R. Judah say that it is forbidden to give them a free gift, but it is okay to reduce what is improper. The same then would be for R. Akiva, although he said that he who preserves [mixed seeds] is liable to the punishment of lashes, it is okay for the purpose of reducing what is improper! There is nothing further to discuss on this subject.
  They were again sitting together and they were asked: What is the rule with regard to the proceeds of an idol in the possession of an idolater? Does the prohibition affect the money which is in the possession of an idolater or not?
  Nahman said to them: It seems reasonable that the proceeds from the sale of idol in the possession of an idolater are permitted. As can be seen from those who came before Rabbah b. Abbahu and he told them, “Go and sell all your possessions and then come to be converted.”
  What was his reason? Was it not because he held that the proceeds of an idol in the possession of an idolater are permitted! But perhaps it is different in that case, since his intention is to convert, they certainly annulled them.
  Rather [there may be support] from the following: If an Israelite has a claim for a maneh against an idolater and the latter sold an idol and brought him the proceeds or yayin nesekh and brought him the proceeds, [the money] is permitted; but if [the idolater] said, “Wait until I sell an idol and I will bring you the proceeds or yayin nesekh and I will bring you the proceeds,” it is prohibited.
  What is the difference between the first case and the second cases [that one is permitted and the other not]? Sheshet said: The latter [is prohibited] because [the Jew] then wishes [the idol] to be preserved.
  But is it prohibited if he wishes it to be preserved in such a case? Have we not taught: If a convert and an idolater inherited from their father who was an idolater, the convert can say to his brother, “You take the idol and I the money;” “You take the yayin nesekh and I will take the proceeds”;   but after they come into the possession of the convert it is forbidden.
  Raba b. Ulla said: This baraita refers to an idol which can be divided according to its pieces.
  Let this be so with an idol, but what is there to say with yayin nesekh! [It refers to wine preserved] in hadrianic earthenware.
  But does he not want that they should be preserved in the sense that they not be stolen or lost! Rather R. Papa said: You referred to the inheritance of a convert!  The inheritance of a convert is different for Rabbis were lenient about it lest he might relapse into his error. 
  
  Daf 64b
  
  It was also taught in a baraita: To what does this refer? When they inherit, but in a case of partnership  it is prohibited.
  They were again sitting together and the question was raised: Can a ger toshav annul an idol? One who worships can annul and one who does not worship cannot annul? Or perhaps anybody who is one of them can annul it and he is one of them?  
  Nahman said to them: It seems that one who worships can annul and one who does not worship cannot annul.
  They raised a difficulty: If a Jew found an idol in a public place: before it comes into his possession he may ask an idolater to annul it, but after it comes into his possession he may not ask an idolater to annul it because [the rabbis] declared: An idolater can annul the idol belonging to himself or to another idolater whether he worships or does not worship it.
  What does it mean “he worships it” and what means “he does not worship it”? If I say that both refer to an idolater, then what is the difference between “belonging to himself or to another idolater”! Rather is it not that “he worships it” refers to an idolater and “he does not worship it” refers to a ger toshav, and we can learn from this that a ger toshav can also annul?
  No; I can say to you that in either case it refers to an idolater, and when you say that it is then identical with “belonging to himself or to another idolater,” I can say that in the first clause it means when each of them [worships] Peor or each [worships] Mercurius, whereas in the second clause it means when one [worships] Peor and the other [worships] Mercurius.
  They raised a difficulty: Who is a ger toshab? Anyone who takes upon himself in the presence of three haverim not to worship idols, the words of R. Meir.
  But the Sages say: Anyone who takes upon himself the seven Noahide commandments.
  But others hold: These do not come within the category of a ger toshav. Rather, who is a ger toshav? A convert who eats of animals not ritually slaughtered. He took upon himself to observe all the commandments mentioned in the Torah apart from the prohibition of eating animals not ritually slaughtered.
  We may leave such a man alone with wine, but we may not deposit wine in his charge even in a city where the majority of residents are Israelites. We may, however, leave him alone with wine even in a city where the majority of residents are idolators. 
  And his oil is like his wine. (How can it enter your mind to say that his oil is like his wine; can oil become yayin nesekh)! Rather his wine is like his oil.
   But in every other respect he is like an idolater. Rabban Shimon says: His wine is yayin nesekh. Other says: It is permitted to drink his wine.
  The assumption from the baraita is that he can annul idols like an idolater. This is a difficulty against R. Nahman.
  Nahman b. Yitzchak said: No; it is in connection with his power to transfer or renounce ownership; As it has been taught: An apostate Jew who publicly observes Shabbat may renounce his ownership, but if he does not observe Shabbat publicly he may not renounce his ownership because [the rabbis] said: A Jew may transfer or renounce his ownership, 
  whereas a non-Jew can do this only by renting [his property]. How so? [One Jew] can say to [another Jew], “My ownership is acquired by you; my ownership is renounced in your favor” and the latter has thereby acquired [the property] without the necessity of a formal assignment.
  Rav Judah sent a gift
  
  Daf 65a
  
  to Avidarna on the day of their feast saying, “I know that he does not worship idols.” Joseph said to him: But it has been taught: Who is a ger toshav! Any [Gentile] who takes upon himself in the presence of three haverim not to worship idols! [Rav Judah] replied: This teaching applies only to the matter of supporting him.
  But did not Rabbah b. Bar Hanah say in the name of R. Yohanan: A ger toshav who allows twelve months to pass without becoming circumcised is to be regarded as a heretic among idolaters! This refers to a case where he accepted upon himself to be circumcised but did not circumcise.
  Rava once sent a gift to Bar-Sheshak on his festival day, saying, “I know that he does not worship idols.” He went and found him sitting up to his neck in rosewater while naked harlots were standing before him. [Bar-Sheshak] said to him, “Do you [Jews] have anything like this in the world to come?” He replied, “Our [world to come] is better than this.” He asked, “Is there anything better than this?” [Rava] answered, “You have the fear of the ruling power on you, but we will have no fear of the ruling power.” He said to him, ‘What fear do I have of the ruling power!”
  While they were sitting together, the king’s official arrived with the message, “Arise, the king requires your presence.” As he was departing [Bar-Sheshak] said to [Rava], “May the eye burst that wishes to see evil to you!’ To this Rava responded, “Amen,” and Bar-Sheshak’s eye burst.
  Papi said: [Rava] should have answered him by the following verse, “Kings’ daughters are among your favorites; at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir” (Psalms 45:10). Nahman b. Yitzchak said: [Rava] should have answered him by quoting the verse, “No eye has seen it, God, aside from You, Who will do for those who await Him” (Isaiah 64:3).
  If he hired him to assist him in another kind of work
  Even if he did not ask him [to remove the jug of yayin nesekh] towards evening? Against this they raised the following: One who hires a Jewish workman and towards evening says to him, “Remove a jug of yayin nesekh from this place to that,” his wage is permitted. 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. Rava said: There is no contradiction, because [the second teaching deals with the circumstance] where he says to him, “Remove for me a hundred jugs for a hundred perutahs” and [the Mishnah] where he says to him, “Remove for me some jugs for a perutah each.”
  And thus it has been taught: If [a non-Jew] hires a [Jewish] workman, saying to him, “Remove for me a hundred jugs for a hundred perutahs” and a jug of yayin nesekh was found among them, his wage is prohibited. [But if he said, “Remove for me] some jugs for a perutah each,” and a jug of yayin nesekh was found among them, his wage is permitted.
  If he hired [a Jew’s] donkey to carry yayin nesekh, its wages are prohibited. Why did I need this? It is identical with the first clause? It was necessary on account of the continuation: But if he hired it to sit upon, even though the non-Jew rested his jar [of yayin nesekh] upon it, its wages are permitted.
  Is this to say that it is not lawful to rest the jar [upon the donkey]?
  Against this I can bring the following: If a man hires a donkey, 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 donkey-driver may object; a donkey-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!
  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 cost of carrying the jar”!
  How so? If [the hirer] is able to purchase [food on the journey], the donkey-driver should also be allowed to object! And should [the driver] not be able to purchase [food on the journey], the hirer should also not be allowed to object!
  Papa said: No; it is necessary in a case where one is able by trouble to make purchases from station to station; a donkey-driver is accustomed to the trouble of making such purchases whereas the hirer is not accustomed to it.
  The father of R. Aha the son of R. Ika
  
  Daf 65b
  
  used to pour out wine for non-Jews and carry it across the ford for them, receiving from them the jars as payment. They came and told the matter to Abaye who told them: When he labored he did so with what was permitted.
  But did he not want the preservation of the [the wine] that the wine-skins should not split! This refers to case where had made a prior condition with them. Alternatively, they brought barrels with them.
  But, [it was objected,] he carried them across the ford for them and consequently he labored with what was prohibited! It is case where he instructed the ferryman from the outset [to convey the buyers across]. Or [as an alternative explanation] they carried with them knots (as a signal to the ferryman).
  If yayin nesekh 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 flavor, they are prohibited. It happened with Boethus ben Zunin that he carried dried figs in a ship and a cask of yayin nesekh was broken and it fell upon them; and he consulted the Sages who declared them permitted.
  This is the general rule: whatever derives advantage [from yayin nesekh by its] imparting a flavor is prohibited, but whatever does not derive advantage [from yayin nesekh by its] imparting a flavor is permitted, as, for example vinegar which fell upon split beans.
  GEMARA. A story that contradicts [the rest of the mishnah!] [The wording of the Mishnah] is defective and should read as follows: If [the wine] imparts a bad taste, it is permitted; and thus it happened with Boethus b. Zunin that he carried dried figs in a ship and a jug of yayin nesekh was broken and it fell upon them. The case came in front of the Sages who declared them permitted.
  There was a heap of wheat onto which a jug of wine fell and Rava permitted it to be sold to non-Jews.
  Rabbah b. Livai raised a difficulty against Rava: A garment into which mixed threads have been lost, he may not sell it to a non-Jew, nor may he make of it a pack-saddle for a donkey, but he may use it as shrouds for an unidentified dead boy.  
  Why may he not [sell it] to a non-Jew? Lest he sell it to a Jew! So  too he might come to sell it to an Israelite?
  Rava changed his mind and permitted [the Jew] to mill it, bake it and sell [the loaves] to a non-Jew not in the presence of an Israelite.
  We learned: If yayin nesekh 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! Papa said: Wheat is different because of its slits it is as if it is split.
  
  Daf 66a
  
  Old wine [which falls] upon grapes, all agree that [they are prohibited, if] it imparts a flavor. New wine [which falls] upon grapes, Abaye said that [they are prohibited] however small the quantity but Rava said that it must impart a flavor.
  Abaye said that [they are prohibited] however small the quantity. For we use the criterion of flavor, and since both [the wine and grapes] have the same flavor, it is a case of one species being mixed with the same species, and in such circumstances the mixture is prohibited even if there is the smallest quantity.
  But Rava said that it must impart a flavor. For we use the criterion of name; and since they each have a different name it is a case of one species [being mixed] with a different species, and in such circumstances the mixture is prohibited only if [the prohibited substance] imparts flavor.
  We learned: If yayin nesekh fell upon grapes etc. Now you should assume that this is new wine upon grapes. And are they not prohibited only if it imparts a flavor? No, [they are prohibited] even in the smallest quantity.
  Since it teaches at the end [of the mishnah]: This is the general rule: whatever derives advantage [from yayin nesekh by its] imparting a flavor is prohibited, but whatever does not derive advantage [from yayin nesekh by its] imparting a flavor is permitted, it follows that we are dealing here with a case where it does impart a flavor.
  Then what would Abaye [say]? Our Mishnah refers to old wine [which fell] upon grapes.
  If wine vinegar [becomes mixed] with wheat vinegar or wheat yeast with barley yeast, Abaye said: [The mixture is prohibited when the prohibited substance] imparts a flavor. For we use the criterion of taste and since each has a separate taste, it is a case of one species [being mixed] with a different species, and in such circumstances the mixture is prohibited only if the [prohibited substance] imparts taste.
  But Rava said: [It is prohibited] however even if there is only a small quantity. For we use the criterion of name; and since each is called vinegar or yeast, they belong to the same species and in all such cases the mixture is prohibited even if the smallest amount of prohibited substance is present.
  Abaye said: From where do I declare that we follow the taste? As we have learned: Spices with two or three different names which belong to the same species, or three species, are prohibited and they join together; And Hezekiah said: We are dealing here with kinds of sweet things since they are fit for sweetening the pot. Now if you should say that we follow the criterion of taste, they all have the same taste; but should you hold that we use the criterion of name, each of them has a different name!
  But Rava could say to you:   Whose teaching is this? It is R. Meir’s, as it has been taught: R. Judah says in the name of R. Meir: How do we know that all the prohibited things of the Torah may be combined together?  As it is stated, “You shall not eat any abominable thing” (Deuteronomy 14:3). Everything which I made abominable to you is included in the law of You shall not eat.
  If [prohibited] vinegar fell into [permitted] wine, all agree that it depends on whether it imparts a flavor. But if [prohibited] wine fell into [permitted] vinegar, Abaye said [that it is prohibited] however small the quantity, and Rava said [that it depends upon whether the forbidden element] imparts a flavor.
  Abaye said [that it is prohibited] however small the quantity
  
  Daf 66b
  
  because the smell [of the wine] is that of vinegar and the taste is of wine, and therefore it is considered vinegar. It is then a case of one species [being mixed] with the same species and in such cases even the smallest amount causes a prohibition.
  Rava said [that it depends upon whether the forbidden substance] imparts taste, because the smell [of the wine] is vinegar and the taste is of wine and therefore it is regarded as wine, and it is a case of one species [being mixed] with a different species, and in such circumstances the mixture is prohibited only if the prohibited substance imparts taste.
  The bung-hole [of a wine-jug]: If an idolater smelled that of an Israelite, it is permitted; but if an Israelite does so with the wine of an idolater Abaye declared it prohibited whereas Rava declared it permitted. Abaye declared it prohibited because smell is something substantial, whereas Rav declared it permitted because smell is not something substantial.
  Rava said: From where do I say that smell is not considered something substantial? As we have learned: An oven that was lit with cumin that is terumah and they baked bread in it, the bread is permitted because it does not have the taste of cumin but rather the smell of cumin. Abaye? [What would he say to this argument?] It is different in this instance because the prohibited element was burned.  
  Mari said: This is like [the difference between the following] tannaim: One who removes a warm loaf [from the oven] and places it upon a cask of wine which is terumah, R. Meir prohibits and R. Judah permits it; R. Yose permits if it is of wheat but prohibits if it is of barley because the barley absorbs [the fumes of the wine]. Are they not arguing about the following: One Master regards smell as something substantial and the other regards it as nothing at all?
  To Rava the tannaim do certainly differ on this matter; but to Abaye are we to say that the Tannaim differ on this matter!
  Abaye could say to you: Has it not been stated on this source: Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Shimon b. Lakish: In a case of a hot loaf and open cask
  
  Daf 67a
  
  all agree that it is prohibited; and in the case of a cold loaf and a stoppered cask all agree that it is permitted; they only differ when the loaf is hot and the cask stoppered or when the loaf is cold and the cask open; and the case under consideration is like a hot loaf upon an open cask.
  This is the general rule: Whatever derives advantage [from yayin nesekh by its] imparting a flavor etc. Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: Such is the halakhah.
  And Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: They taught this only when [the vinegar] fell into hot split beans; but if it fell into cold split beans and he then warms them it is as if they were improved and only in the end worsened, and therefore they are prohibited.
  Similarly when Rabin came [from Eretz Yisrael] he reported that Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: They taught this only when [the vinegar] fell into hot split beans; but if it fell into cold split beans and he then warms them it is as if they were improved and only in the end worsened, and therefore they are prohibited. Similarly when Rav Dimi came [from Eretz Yisrael etc.] And thus they used to do on the eve of Sabbaths in Tzippori and they called them cress.
  Shimon b. Lakish said: When they said “It imparts a worsening flavor,” [they did not mean] that people say that the dish lacks salt or is over-salted, or lacks spice or is over-spiced. Rather [what they do mean is] any food which is not lacking in anything and is not eaten because of this.
  There are those who say: R. Shimon b. Lakish said: When they said “It imparts a worsening flavor,” [they did not mean] that people say that the dish lacks salt or is over-salted, or lacks spice or is over-spiced. Rather it is now impaired [by the forbidden food].
  Abbahu said in the name of R. Yohanan: Whenever there is the flavor and substance [of the prohibited substance in a mixture] it is prohibited [and one who eats it] is liable to the punishment of lashes; and this is an olive’s worth [of prohibited substance] eaten in the time it takes to eat half a loaf.
  
  Daf 67b
  
  If the [mixture] contains taste but not the substance, it is prohibited but he is not punished with lashes. But if he put more [of the prohibited substance] so as to worsen it, then it is permitted.
  Let him then say [more explicitly] that if it imparts a detrimental flavor it is permitted! Behold it teaches us that it is so even when there is another element in it which worsens the flavor. And the law follows the second version of R. Shimon b. Lakish’s statement. 
   Kahana said: We learn from the words of them all that when [the forbidden element] imparts a detrimental flavor it is permitted. Abaye said to him: This make sense with regard to the rest of them, but R. Shimon b. Lakish said, “They said” and it follows that he does not hold that view.
  From here we could infer that there are some who maintain that when [the forbidden element] imparts a worsened flavor it is prohibited?
  Yes, for it has been taught: Whether it imparts a detrimental flavor or an improved flavor it is prohibited, the words of R. Meir. R. Shimon says: If improved it is prohibited but if worsened it is permitted.
  What is R. Meir’s reason? He derives it from the vessels of Gentiles. The vessels of Gentiles, are they not a case of imparting a detrimental flavor and yet the Torah forbade them; so here also it makes no difference [and it is prohibited].
  And what would the other (R. Shimon) say? Like R. Huna the son of R. Hiyya who said: The Torah only forbade a utensil which had been used [by a Gentile] the same day, for this is not to its detriment. And the other (what would he say)?  Even in the case of a pot used [by a Gentile] the same day it is impossible that it should not worsen [the flavor] a little.
  And what is R. Shimon’s reason? Because it has been taught: “You shall not eat of anything that dies of itself [nevelah]; you may give it to the stranger that is within your gates” (Deuteronomy 14:21). Whatever is fit for use by a stranger is called nevelah.
  
  Daf 68a
  
  And whatever is unfit for use by a stranger is not called nevelah.
  And R. Meir [how does he explain the verse]? Its purpose is to exclude what was rancid from the outset. And R. Shimon (what would he say)? An animal rancid from the outset does not need to be specially excluded because it is nothing more than dust.
  Ulla said: The difference [between R. Meir and R. Shimon] is over a case where [the mixture] is improved at first but in the end worsens, but if it is worsened from the outset all agree that it is permitted.
  Haga raised a difficulty against Ulla: If wine [which is yayin nesekh] fell into lentils or vinegar into split beans it is prohibited, but R. Shimon permits it. Behold here is a case where it deteriorates from the outset, and they still differ.
  Ulla replied: Haga does not know what the rabbis are saying and yet he raises an objection. What are we dealing with here? For instance it fell into cold split beans and he then warms them, this is like a case where it is first improved and then worsened.
  And R. Yohanan said: They argue when [the mixture] worsens from the outset.
  The question was asked: Do they argue over a case where it worsens from the outset but if it first improves and only in the end worsens all would hold that it is prohibited, or perhaps in either case they argue?  The question remains unanswered.
  Amram said: Is it possible that R. Yohanan’s statement should be correct and not have been taught in the Mishnah?
  He went out, examined and found that it was taught: If ordinary yeast fell into dough and was sufficient to leaven it and did actually leaven it, and subsequently terumah yeast fell into it or yeast from mixed plantings in a vineyard and there is sufficient to cause leavening, it is prohibited. But R. Shimon permits it.
  Now, here is a case where [the mixture] was made worse from the outset and yet they differ!   
  Zerasaid: Dough is different because it is capable of leavening many other pieces of dough.  
  Come and hear:  If terumah yeast and ordinary yeast fell into dough, each being sufficient to cause leavening, and they leavened it, it is prohibited; but R. Shimon permits it. If the terumah yeast fell in first, all agree that it is prohibited. But if the ordinary yeast fell in first and then the terumah yeast or yeast from mixed plantings in a vineyard, it is prohibited. But R. Shimon permits it.
  Now here is a case where it is worsened from the outset and yet they differ! Should you say that here too
  
  Daf 68b
  
  R. Zera’s explanation applies,c ome and hear from the end [of this teaching]: If [nesekh] wine fell into lentils or [nesekh] vinegar into split beans, it is prohibited, but R. Shimon permits it. Now here is a case where it is worsened from the outset and they still differ!
  Should you say that here also what Ulla responded to R. Haga applies, that it first improved and only in the end deteriorated, but do they argue where it first improves and only in the end deteriorates, for behold they taught “if terumah [yeast] falls in first they all agree that it is prohibited.  
  Rather we can conclude from this that they disagree even when it worsened from the outset? Indeed, learn from this. 
  These three clauses which are taught, do I need them all? The last clause makes sense because it teaches us that if the [forbidden substance] worsens the taste from the outset, they still disagree. The middle clause also [needs to be taught so that we know] if it improved and in the end deteriorated all agree that it is prohibited.
  But why do I need the first clause? Since in the third clause, where it does not improve it at all, the rabbis still prohibit it, how much more so [must they prohibit it] where it does improve it. 
  Abaye said: The first clause is necessary for R. Shimon, and thus the Rabbis said to R. Shimon: This dough should take two hours to leaven and what caused it to leaven in one hour? Prohibited [yeast].
  And R. Shimon [how would he respond]? When there was improvement, both [kinds of yeast] improved it and when there was deterioration, both worsened it. 
  But according to R. Shimon, the permitted and prohibited elements should be combined and render [the dough] prohibited!  
  Shimon follows his own opinion, that even two prohibited substances do not combine,
  for we have learned: Orlah and mixed plantings combine; R. Shimon says that they do not combine. 
  A mouse fell into a cask of beer and Rav prohibited the beer. The rabbis related this in the presence of R. Sheshet and said: Shall we say that Rav holds that when it imparts a bad flavor it is prohibited.
  [R. Sheshet] said to them: Rav generally holds that when it imparts a bad flavor it is permitted. Here, however, we have an anomaly since it is something repugnant and people recoil from it; and even so the Torah prohibited it. Therefore, although it imparts a bad flavor it is nevertheless prohibited. 
  The rabbis said to R. Sheshet: According to your argument [a creeping thing] should defile whether moist or dry; why then have we learned: They defile when moist but not when dry!    
  And according to your reasoning semen should defile whether moist or dry; why then have we learned: It defiles when moist but not when dry! 
  Rather, what can you say? The Torah said “seed from lying” this refers to seed capable of fertilizing. Here too [in connection with creeping things] the Torah said “in their death,” i.e., when they are in a state similar to when they died. 
  Shimi of Nehardea objected: Is [the mouse really] repugnant. Is it not brought upon the table of kings! Shimi of Nehardea said: There is no contradiction, for [what is served at meals] is the field mouse and [what fell into the beer] was the domestic mouse.
  Rava said: The halakhah is that when it imparts a bad flavor it is permitted, but in the case of the mouse that fell into beer I do not know what Rav’s reasoning was. Was it because he held that when it imparts a bad flavor it is prohibited and the halakhah does not follow him, or because he held that when it imparts a bad flavor it is permitted but a mouse in the beer causes an improvement [to the flavor]!
  How is it if
  
  Daf 69a
  
  [a mouse] fell into vinegar? Hillel said to R. Ashi: Such an incident happened with R. Kahana and he prohibited it. Hillel said to R. Ashi: Such an incident happened with R. Kahana and he prohibited it.
  Ravina thought to apply here the standard of a hundred and one since it is not worse than terumah [about which we taught]: Teruman [mixed with the non-holy] is neutralized when the proportion is one in a hundred. Tahlifa b. Giza said to Ravina: Perhaps [this case] is like terumah spices [which fell into] a pot of food, whose taste is not annulled.
  Ahai estimated that with vinegar the proportion must be fifty [to one]. Shmuel the son of R. Ika estimated that with beer the proportion must be sixty [to one].
  The halakhah in both is sixty [to one], and it is so with all things prohibited by the Torah.
  If a non-Jew was transporting jars of wine together with a Jew from place to place, and it was presumed that [the wine] was under guard, it is permitted. But if [the Jew] informed him that he was going away [and he was absent a length of time] sufficient for the other to bore a hole [in a jar], stop it up and [the sealing clay] to become dry, [the wine is prohibited]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [a length of time] sufficient for him to open a cask,  put a new stopper on and [the new stopper] to become dry.
  If [a Jew] left his wine in a wagon or on a ship while he went along a short cut, entered a town and bathed, it is permitted.
  But if [the Jew] informed him that he was going away [and he was absent a length of time] sufficient for the other to bore a hole [in a jar], stop it up and [the sealing clay] to become dry, [the wine is prohibited]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [a length of time] sufficient for him to open a cask,  put a new stopper on and [the new stopper] to become dry.
   If [a Jew] left a non-Jew in his shop, although he kept going in and out, [the wine there] is permitted.
  But if [the Jew] informed him that he was going away [and he was absent a length of time] sufficient for the other to bore a hole [in a jar], stop it up and [the sealing clay] to become dry, [the wine is prohibited]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [a length of time] sufficient for him to open a cask,  put a new stopper on and [the new stopper] to become dry.
  GEMARA. What is a case of “and it was presumed that [the wine] was under guard”? As it has been taught: Behold a man’s donkey-drivers and workmen are laden with pure things, even if he goes more than a mile from them, his pure things are considered pure; but if he said to them, “Go on and I will follow you,” as soon as he can no longer see them, his pure things are impure.
  What is the difference between the first and second circumstance? Yitzchak said: The first refers to when he purified his donkey-drivers and workmen for the task.
  If that is so, it should apply also to the second clause! An am ha’aretz is not particular about the touch of his fellow. If that is so, it should apply also to the first clause!
  Rava said:
  
  Daf 69b
  
  It refers to when [the owner] could come upon them by some roundabout path. If that is so, the same should apply to the second clause! Since he had told them, “Go on and I will follow you,” their mind is at rest. 
  If [a Jew] left a non-Jew in his shop etc. If [a Jew] left his wine in a wagon or a ship etc. [Both cases] are necessary; for if it had taught only the case of a non-Jew [transporting jars of wine], [I might have thought the wine is permitted] since he thought that perhaps [the Jew] would come and see him, but when [the wine is left] in a wagon or ship, I might say [that it must be prohibited because the non-Jew] could set sail and do whatever he wished [to the wine].
  If it had taught only the case [of wine being left] in a wagon or ship, [I might have assumed that it was permitted] because the man would have thought, “Perhaps [the owner] will come by another path or stand on the bank and see me,” but when a non-Jew [is left] in the Jew’s shop, I would say [that it must be prohibited because] he could shut the door and do whatever he wished. Therefore it teaches us that in both cases it is prohibited.
  Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: The dispute is over [a stopper of] lime, but with one of clay all agree [that he must have been absent a length of time] sufficient for him to open, put a new stopper on, and [the new stopper] to become dry.
  They raised the following refutation: R. Shimon b. Gamaliel said to the Sages: But his stopping can be detected either on the outside or the inside! 
  If you say that there is difference of opinion [when the stopper is] of clay that is why it teaches [R. Shimon b. Gamaliel] the stopping can be detected either on the outside or the inside. If, on the other hand, you say that there is difference of opinion [when the stopper is] of lime, then it is all right with regard to the inside since it can be known, but as regards the outside it cannot be known!
  Shimon b. Gamaliel was uncertain what the rabbis were saying; so he said to them as follows: If you refer to a clay stopper, then his stopping can be detected on the outside or the inside; but if you refer to one of lime, granted that it cannot be known on the outside, yet it can be known on the inside! And the Rabbis [how did they respond]? Since it cannot be known on the outside, it would not occur to him to turn over [the stopper] and inspect it; Alternatively, sometimes [the new stopping] hardens.
  Rava said: The halakhah agrees with R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, since we teach an anonymous mishnah in accordance with him;
  for we learn: If [a Jew] was eating with [a non-Jew] at a table and set some flasks upon the table and others upon a side-table and leaving them there went out, what is upon the table is prohibited and what is upon the side-table is permitted. And should he have said to him, “mix [some of the wine with water] and drink,” even what is upon the side-table is prohibited. Opened casks are prohibited, and the closed ones are permitted [except when he was absent a length of time] sufficient for [the non-Jew] to open it,  put a new stopper on and [the new stopper] to become dry.
  This is obvious! What might you have said? The whole passage was taught by R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. Hence he teaches it that it is not so.
  Now since we have established that [the halakhah] agrees with R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, who is not concerned about the possibility of a hole being bored in a jar, and the halakhah also agrees with R. Eliezer, that we need not be concerned about the possibility of the seal being forged, what is the reason that we do not nowadays leave [stoppered casks] in the hands of a non-Jew? On account of the bunghole.
  Rava said: A non-Jewish prostitute and Jews reclining at the table with her, the wine is permitted. While the desire for sin will overcome them,
  
  Daf 70a
  
  the desire for yayin nesekh will not overcome them. A Jewish prostitute and non-Jews were reclining with her, the wine [which belongs to her] is prohibited. Why? Because she would be held in contempt by them, she is subject to them.
  There was a house in which wine belonging to an Israelite was stored. A non-Jew entered and locked the door behind him. There was a crack in the door. It was discovered that the non-Jew was standing among the jars. Rava said: All those which were opposite the crack are permitted, but those on either side are prohibited.
  Wine belonging to a Jew was stored in a house where a Jew lived on the top floor and a non-Jew on the bottom floor.  Once they heard a sound of quarrelling [in the street] and went out. The non-Jew came back first and locked the door behind him. Rava said: The wine is permitted. For the non-Jew would have said, “Just as I came back first, so might the Jew have come back first and be sitting upstairs and he would see me.”
  There was an inn in which Jewish wine was being stored, and a non-Jew was discovered among the jars. Rava said: If he was caught like a thief, the wine is permitted, otherwise it is prohibited.
  There was a house in which Jewish wine was stored and a non-Jew was discovered among the jars. Rava said: If he can offer an excuse the wine is prohibited, otherwise it is permitted. They raised a difficulty against this: If the inn was locked or [the Jew] said to him,  “Keep watch,” it is prohibited. Is it not that [the wine is prohibited] even when the non-Jew has no excuse?  No, [this applies] only when he has an excuse.
  A Jew and a non-Jew were sitting and drinking wine together. The Jew heard the sound of prayer in a synagogue; so he got and went there. Rava said: The wine is permitted on the ground that [the non] must have thought, “He will remember the wine at any moment and return.”
  A Jew and a non-Jew were sitting on a ship. The Jew heard the sound of the shofar on erev Shabbat. So he left [the ship] and went ashore. Rava said: The wine is permitted, [for the non-Jew would say], “He will remember the wine at any moment and return.”
  But if [we should assume that the non-Jew will know] that he is leaving because of Shabbat, behold Rava has said: Issur the convert once told me, “When we were in our Aramean (non-Jewish) state we would say that Jews do not observe Shabbat, because if they did observe it how many purses would be found in the streets! But I did not then know that we follow the view of R. Yitzchak who said: If a person finds a purse on Shabbat he may carry it for distances less than four cubits.
  A lion once roared in a [Jewish] wine-press. A non-Jew[who was working in it], on hearing this, hid among the jars. Rava said: The wine is permitted for [the non-Jew] would have thought, “Just as I am hiding here, so also may the Jew be hiding behind me and watching me.”
  Some thieves came up to Pumbedita and opened many casks of wine. Rava said: The wine is permitted. What was his reason?  Because the majority of thieves [in Pumbedita] are Jews. The same thing happened in Nehardea and Shmuel said: The wine is permitted.
  According to whom [was this decision made]? According to R. Eliezer who said: When there is uncertainty about his entrance he is pure;
  for we have learned: If a person entered  a valley during the rainy season and there was something impure in a certain field, and he said, “I walked in that place but am not sure whe00ther I did or did not enter that field,” R. Eliezer says: When there is uncertainty about his entrance he is impure but if the uncertainty is about his having touched [the impure object] he is defiled.
  No, it is different there [in the case of the thieves] because there are some who open [the casks] to search for money; thus there is a double uncertainty.
  
  Daf 70b
  
  A [non-Jewish] girl was found among jars of wine and she was holding some of the froth in her hand. Rava said: The wine is permitted for I can say that she took it from the outside of the cask, and even though there is none there any more, I can also say that she happened to find some there.
  A certain army once came up to Nehardea and opened several casks. When R. Dimi arrived [from Eretz Yisrael] he said: This same thing happened in front of R. Elazar and he permitted [the wine], but I do not know whether he did so because he agreed with the view of R. Eliezer who said that when there is uncertainty whether he entered [an impure place] he is pure or because he holds that the majority of the men who were in the troops  were Jews.
  But if that is so this is not a case of uncertainty about entrance; but uncertainty about touching!  Since, they opened many, I could say that they opened them with the intention of [searching for money] and so it is like a case of uncertainty about entrance.
  There was a Jewish woman who sold wine who left the key of her door in charge of a non-Jewish woman. R. Yitzchak said in the name of R. Elazar: This happened in our Bet Midrash [and they permitted the wine because] they maintained that she only entrusted her to guard the key.
  Abaye said: We have also taught in a baraita: If a person entrusts his keys to an am ha-aretz his things which are pure remain pure because he only entrusted him to guard the key. Since his things which are pure remain pure, would we even need to say this about yayin nesekh.
  Is this to say that the laws of purity are more stringent than those of yayin nesekh? Yes, for it has been stated: If a courtyard that was divided off by a low partition, Rav said that the pure things [of the haver] are impure, but [if the resident on the other side is] a non-Jew he does not render the wine [of the haver] nesekh; and R. Yohanan said: Also his pure things remain pure.
  They raised a difficulty: [If there are two courtyards one within the other,] the inner belonging to a haver and the outer to an am ha-aretz, the haver may lay out his fruits there and leave utensils there, even though the hand of the ‘am ha-arez can reach it. This is a difficulty for Rav!
  Rav can answer you: It is different in this case because he can be regarded as a thief. 
  Come and hear: R. Shimon b. Gamaliel says: If the roof of a haver is higher than the roof of an am ha-aretz, the haver may lay out his fruits there and leave utensils there, provided the hand of the ‘am ha-aretz cannot reach to it.  This is a difficulty for R. Yohanan!
  Yohanan could answer: It is different in this case because he could offer the excuse that he was only stretching.
  Come and hear: If the roof of a haver was next to that of an am ha-aretz, the haver may lay out his fruits there and leave utensils there, even though the hand of the am ha-aretz can reach to it. This is a difficulty against Rav! Rav could say to you: Is there not R. Shimon b. Gamaliel who agrees with me?  I made my statement in agreement with R. Shimon b. Gamaliel.
  If a band of non-Jewish marauders entered a city in a time of peace, the open casks are prohibited and the sealed are permitted; In a time of war both are permitted because they do not have the leisure to offer libations.
  
  Daf 71a
  
  GEMARA. Against this they quoted: A city which been captured by besieging troops, all the wives of priests in it are disqualified [to their husbands]! Mari said: [The soldiers] have no free time to offer libations, but they have free time to have intercourse.
  Mishnah. If a non-Jew sent to Jewish craftsmen a cask of yen nesekh as their wages, they are allowed to say to him, “give us its value in money”; But after [the wine] has come into their possession [the exchange] is prohibited.
  GEMARA. Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: A man is allowed to say to a non-Jew, “Go and appease for me the king’s taxes.” 
  They raised a difficulty: One may not say to a gentile, “Go in my place to the official”! Rav said to him: You speak of a case where a man says, “Go in my place to the official.”  But this is similar only to the following: But he may say to him, “Save me from the official.”
  If [a Jew] sells his wine to a non-Jew—if he set the price before he measured it out, the purchase-money is permitted; But if he measured it out before he set the price, the purchase-money is prohibited.
  GEMARA. Amemar said: Meshikhah effects acquisition for non-Jews. You can know this from the practice of the Persians who send presents to one another and never retract. Ashi said: I can always say to you that meshikhah does not effect acquisition for non-Jews, and the reason why [the Persians] do not retract is the haughtiness that they have adopted.
  Ashi said: From what source did I say this? From that which Rav told [Jewish] wine-sellers, “When you measure wine for non-Jews, first take the money and then measure for them, and if they do not have zuzim with them, lend to them and get them back later, so that it should be a loan [of money] with them; for should you not act in this manner, when it becomes yayin nesek it will be in your possession and when you receive payment it will be for yayin nesekh.” Now should you think that meshikhah effects acquisition for a non-Jew,
  
  Daf 71b
  
  acquisition for a non-Jew, then as soon as the non-Jew drew [the wine] to himself he acquired it and it did not become yayin nesekh until he touched it.
  If the wine was measured and poured [by the Jew] into the Jew’s vessel, it would indeed be so. But this measure is necessary where [the Jew] measured and poured it into the Gentile’s vessel.
  At all events when [the wine] enters the interior of the vessel [the non-Jew] acquired it, and it does not become yayin nesek until it reaches the bottom of the vessel. Are we, then to conclude that the flow is considered a connecting link?
  No; if the non-Jew was holding the vessel in his hand it would indeed be so [that he acquires it before it becomes nesekh].  But it is necessary [to suppose the circumstance] where it was resting upon the ground.
  But let [the non-Jews] vessels acquire [the wine] for him! Learn from here that when the purchaser’s vessels are in the possession of the seller the purchaser does not acquire.
  No; I can always say to you that the purchaser does acquire them; but what are we dealing with here? For instance when there is some wine held back on the mouth of the smaller vessel for each bit of wine will become nesekh.
  According to whom does this follow?  It does not accord with R. Shimon b. Gamaliel; for if it followed him, behold he has said: All of it may be sold to a non-Jew with the exception of the value of the yayin nesek which is in it!
  This was only an argument against Rav; but did not Rav himself says that the halakhah agrees with R. Shimon b. Gamaliel only when a cask [of yayin nesek] became mixed with other casks but not when wine [which is nesekh] became mixed with other wine.
  They raised a difficulty [against Amemar]: One who bought scrap metal from a non-Jew and found an idol in it: if before he gave the coins he drew it to himself, he may return the idol; but if he gave the coins and then drew it to himself, he must throw it into the Dead Sea! Now if you thought that acquisition by meshikhah does apply to a Gentile, how can he return it? Abaye said: Because it appears to be a mistaken acquisition.
  Rather Rava said: Both circumstances are a mistaken purchase; but in the first, since he had not paid over the money, it does not look like an idol in the possession of a Jew, whereas in the second, since he had paid over the money, it does look like an idol in the possession of a Jew.
  Mar Kashisha, son of R. Hisda, said to R. Ashi: Come and hear: If [a Jew] sells his wine to a non-Jew—if he set the price before he measured it out, the purchase-money is permitted. Now should you say that acquisition by meshikhah does not apply to a non-Jew, why is the purchase-money permitted?  [R. Ashi replied:] What are we dealing with here? When he paid him the dinar beforehand.
  [Mar Kashisha said]: If so, what about the end [of the mishnah]: But if he measured it out before he set the price, the purchase-money is prohibited. Now if he paid him the dinar beforehand, why should the purchase-money be prohibited?
  [R. Ashi replied:] But according to your reasoning, that acquisition by meshikhah does apply to a non-Jew, why in the first clause is the purchase-money permitted and prohibited in the second!
  Rather, what can you say? When he set the price, his mind is made up [to acquire the wine] and if he had not set the price, his mind is not made up.
  Similarly, according to my view, even when he has paid him the dinar in advance, should he have set the price his mind is made up and if he had not set the price his mind is not made up.
  Ravina said to R. Ashi: Come and hear: R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan: A Noahide is put to death for stealing less than a perutah’s worth [of the property of an Israelite] and is not obligated to make restitution. Now if you say that acquisition by meshikhah does not apply to a non-Jew, why should he be put to death? 
  Because he caused trouble to an Israelite.
  
  Daf 72a
  
  And what does it means “he is not obligated to make restitution”? The laws of restitution do not apply to him.
  If that is so what about the end of the teaching: If his neighbor came and stole it from him, [that man] is put to death on account of it. The first part of the baraita makes sense because [the original thief] caused trouble to an Israelite; but the second part, what did he do?
  Consequently we must deduce from this that acquisition by meshikhah does apply to a non-Jew! Indeed, draw that conclusion.
  A man once said to his fellow, “If I sell this piece of land, I will sell it to you,” but he went and sold it to another person. Joseph said: The first one acquired it.
  Abaye said to him: But he had not settled the price! [R. Joseph asked:] And what is the source for your saying that wherever he had not settled the price he has not acquired it? [He replied:] As we learn in our Mishnah: If [a Jew] sells his wine to a non-Jew—if he set the price before he measured it out, the purchase-money is permitted; But if he measured it out before he set the price, the purchase-money is prohibited.
  What is said about this? “What is said about this”? It is as we said! Perhaps the stringency of yayin nesekh makes this case different.
  Come and hear: R. Idi b. Avin said: A similar case came before R. Hisda who referred it to R. Huna who solved it from that which is taught: If a man took possession of [the produce loaded onto another’s] donkey-drivers [or produce carried by] his workmen  and brought them [the people] into his own house, whether he settled the price before measuring [the produce] or measured it without having settled the price, he has not acquired them and both can retract.
  If, however, he unloaded them and brought them into his house, then should he have settled the price before he measured them neither can retract, and should he have measured them before settling the price both can retract.
  A man once said to his fellow, “If I sell this piece of land I will sell it to you for a hundred zuz.” He later sold it to another for a hundred and twenty. Kahana said: The first man acquired it. Rav Ya’akov of Nehar-Pekod objected: These zuz compelled him [to sell to the second person]. The halakhah agrees with R. Jacob of Nehar-pekod.
  If [the seller] said to [the purchaser], “When the article has been valued by three people [we will settle the price accordingly],” even if two of the three agree [on the price, it must be accepted]; But if he said, “As three will say [the price],” then [the sale is not valid] until all three agree on the price." If he said, “When it has been valued by four people” then there must be four who agree on the price; all the more so if he said, “As four will say [the price].”
  If he said to him, “When the article has been valued by three people” and three men came and valued it, and then the other said, “Let three different people come who are more qualified,” R. Papa said: He has the right to prevent the sale. Huna the son of R. Joshua raised a difficulty: How can we know that these are more qualified; perhaps the first three were better qualified! The halakhah agrees with R. Huna the son of R. Joshua.
  If [a Jew] took a funnel and measured [wine] into a non-Jew’s flask and then measured some into a Jew’s flask, should a drop of the [first] wine have remained [in the funnel], then [the wine measured into the second flask] is prohibited. If he poured from [his own] vessel into [a non-Jew’s] vessel, [the wine in the vessel] from which he poured is permitted and [the wine in the vessel] into which he poured is prohibited.
  GEMARA. It was taught elsewhere: Flow, a downward stream of water and dripping liquid do not form a connecting link to transmit either impurity or purity, but a pool of water is a connecting link to transmit both impurity and purity.
  R. Huna said: Flow, a downward stream of water and dripping liquid form a connecting link with regard to yayin nesekh.
  R. Nahman asked R. Huna: From where do you know this? If from [the Mishnah] which we learned: Flow, a downward stream of water and dripping liquid do not form a connecting link to communicate either impurity or purity, [and you argue that] it is only with regard to purity and impurity that it does not form a link but it does with yayin nesek; in that case say the end: But if there is a pool of standing liquid connecting the two, they are considered connected, [and you would have to say that] it is only in connection with purity and impurity that it does form a link but it does not in connection with yayin nesekh! So from this mishnah nothing can be learned.
  We learned: If [a Jew] took a funnel and measured [wine] into a non-Jew’s flask and then measured some into a Jew’s flask, should a drop of the [first] wine have remained [in the funnel], then [the wine measured into the second flask] is prohibited. 
  
  Daf 72b
  
  How is the wine left [in the funnel] rendered prohibited? Is it not by the flow, and we could deduce from here that flow is a connecting link.
  R. Hiyya taught: [Our Mishnah refers to the circumstance where] his flask reached back. But if his flask did not reach back, what is the rule? It is not [prohibited]. Then learn from here that flow is not a connecting link? No; it merely proves that when his flask reached back it is prohibited, but the question about flow remains.
  Come and hear: If he poured from one vessel into another, the [liquid] in the vessel from which he poured remains permitted. [Deduce from here] that what is between [the two vessels] is prohibited; Learn from this that the flow is a connecting link!
  But if flow is a connecting link, then what is inside [the upper] vessel should also be prohibited! This is not a difficulty, because this is a case where he cuts off [the outflow]. In any case,
  it seems from here that flow is a connecting link! But according to your reasoning I can say the end of the mishnah: And [the wine in the vessel] into which he poured is prohibited. What is between [the two vessels] is permitted! Consequently there is nothing to be learned from this mishnah.
  Come and hear: One who pours from a cask into a vat [which contains yayin nesek], the spout of liquid which descends from the rim of the cask is prohibited! R. Sheshet explained that this refers to a non-Jew pouring out so that [the wine flows] because of his action.
  But if it is a non-Jew pouring out, what is in the cask should also prohibited! What is poured because of the power of the rabbis is prohibited by decree of the rabbis, and they decreed only against what came out [of the cask] and not against what was inside it.
  R. Hisda told the [Jewish] wine-dealers: When you measure wine for non-Jews, either cut off [the outflow] or pour it in with a splash. Rava told those who pour wine: When you pour wine, do not let a non-Jew come near to help you, lest you forget yourselves and rest [the vessel] upon his [hands] and [the pouring] will be from his power and [the wine will] be prohibited.
  There was a man who was drawing wine through [a siphon consisting of] a  large and small tube. A non-Jew came and put his hand upon the large tube, and Rava disqualified all the wine.
  R. Papa said to Rava — and other says R. Adda b. Matana said to Rava; and still others say Ravina said to Rava: Was it on account of the flow? Deduce from this that the flow is a connecting link? [Rava answered: No;] it is different in this instance, because all the wine is drawn through the siphon
  Mar Zutra son of R. Nahman said: It is permitted [to drink from] a “knishknin” [a vessel containing several straws,] provided the Jew stops first but not when a non-Jew stopped first. Rabbah son of R. Huna visited the house of the exilarch and allowed them to drink from a knishknin.
  
  Daf 73a
  
  Some say that Rabbah son of R. Huna himself drank from such a vessel.
  Yen nesekh is prohibited and renders [other wine] prohibited by the smallest quantity. Wine [mixed] with wine and water with water [prohibits] by the smallest quantity. Wine [mixed] with water and water with wine [disqualifies when the prohibited element] imparts a flavor. 
  This is the general rule: with the same type [the mixture is disqualified] by the smallest quantity, but with a different type [it is disqualified when the prohibited element] imparts a flavor.
  GEMARA. When R. Dimi came [from Eretz Yisrael] he reported that R. Yohanan said: If one pours yayin nesekh from a cask into a vat, even the whole day long, each drop is annulled.
  We learned: Yayin nesekh is prohibited and renders [other wine] prohibited by the smallest quantity! Is this not when the forbidden element fell into the permitted? No, when the permitted fell into the prohibited.
  Come and hear: Wine [that falls] into water [disqualifies when the prohibited element] imparts a flavor. Does this not mean when prohibited wine fell into permitted water? No, when permitted wine fell into prohibited water.
  And since the first clause [deals with] prohibited water, the second clause must also [deal with] prohibited water, but in the second clause it teaches: Water that falls into wine [disqualifies when the prohibited element] imparts a flavor! R. Dimi could reply to you: The whole Mishnah deals with the permitted falling into the prohibited, the first clause when permitted wine fell into prohibited water and the second when permitted water fell into prohibited wine.
  When R. Yitzchak b. Yosef came [from Eretz Yisrael] he reported in the name of R. Yohanan: If one pours yayin nesek from a small canteen into a vat, even the whole day long, each drop is annulled. This applies only to a small canteen whose pour-stream is not considerable but to a cask whose pour-stream is considerable it does not apply.
  When Rabin came [from Eretz Yisrael] he reported in the name of R. Yohanan: If yayin nesekh fell into a vat and a flask of water also fell into it, we consider the permitted [portion of the wine] as if it does not exist and as for the remainder, the water is greater than it, and it annuls it.
  R. Shmuel b. Judah said in the name of R. Yohanan: This teaching applies only when a flask of water fell into it first, but if a flask of water did not fall into it first one species finds its own species and is awoken.
  There are some who connect [this statement of R. Shmuel b. Judah's] with our Mishnah: Wine [that falls into] other wine [disqualifies] by the smallest quantity. R. Shmuel b. Judah said in the name of R. Yohanan: This teaching applies only when a flask of water did not fall into it, but if a flask of water did fall into it we consider the permitted [portion of the wine] as if it does not exist and as for the remainder the water is greater than it, and it annuls it.
  What difference is there whether [R. Shmuel's statement] is connected with our Mishnah or Rabin's statement? The one who teaches it about our Mishnah does not require [the flask of water to fall in] first, but the one who teaches it about Rabin's statement does require [it to fall in] first.
  It was stated: If yayin nesekh fell into a vat and a flask of water also fell into it,
  
  Daf 73b
  
  Hizkiyah said that if [the mixture] was increased in quantity through the prohibited element, then it is prohibited. But if the mixture was increased in quantity through the permitted element, then it is permitted.
  R. Yohanan said: Even if it is increased in quantity through the prohibited element it is permitted.
  R. Yirmiyah said to R. Zera: Shall we say that Hizkiyah and R. Yohanan disagree over the same issue as R. Eliezer and the Rabbis,
  for we have learned: If leaven of non-sacred and leaven of terumah fell into dough, and in each there was an insufficient quantity to cause fermentation, but added together they caused fermentation:
  R. Eliezer says: I follow the [leaven] that fell in last. But the Sages say: Whether the prohibited leaven fell in first or last, [the dough] is not prohibited unless there is in it a sufficient quantity [of prohibited leaven] to cause fermentation!
  But do you really think this makes sense, has not Abaye said: They only taught this [R. Eliezer’s teaching] in a case where he first removed the prohibited leaven, but if he did not first remove the prohibited leaven, [the dough] is prohibited. So with whom does Hezekiah agree!
  Rather, they disagree over the principle of “we see:” Hezekiah does not hold by this principle and R. Yohanan does.
  Does R. Yohanan really hold by the principle of “we see”? Did not R. Asi asked of R. Yohanan: Two cups, one containing non-holy wine and the other containing terumah wine, and one diluted them with water and then mixed the two together? And he did not answer the question.
  At first he did not answer him, but subsequently he did. It has also been stated: R. Ami said in the name of R. Yohanan, and others say R. Asi said in the name of R. Yohanan: Two cups, one containing non-holy wine and the other containing terumah wine, and a person diluted them with water and then mixed the two together, we view the permitted element as nonexistent and as for the remainder the water is greater than it and annuls it.
  This is the general rule: When a species is mixed with [another species of] the same type [the mixture is disqualified] by the smallest quantity, but with a different type [it is disqualified when the prohibited element] imparts a flavor.
  Rav and Samuel both say: With all the prohibited things of the Torah: if one species [becomes mixed] with the same species, [it prohibits the entire mixture] even in the smallest quantity. With a different species, when [the prohibited element] imparts a flavor.
  What do the words “this is the general rule” come to include? To include all the prohibited substances in the Torah.
  R. Yohanan and R. Shimon b. Lakish both say: With all the prohibited substances in the Torah, whether mixed with the same species or with a different species, [the mixture is prohibited only when the prohibited substance] imparts a flavor, except for tevel and yayin nesekh. [With these substances if they are mixed] with the same species [the mixture is prohibted] by the smallest quantity, but with a different species when [the prohibited substance] imparts a flavor. What do the words “this is the general rule” come to include? To include tevel.
  It was taught in agreement with Rav and Samuel, and it was taught in agreement with R. Yohanan and R. Shimon b. Lakish.
  It was taught in agreement with Rav and Samuel: With all the prohibited things of the Torah: if one species [becomes mixed] with the same species, [it prohibits the entire mixture] even in the smallest quantity. With a different species, when [the prohibited element] imparts a flavor.
  It was taught in agreement with R. Yohanan and R. Shimon b. Lakish: With all the prohibited substances in the Torah, whether mixed with the same species or with a different species, [the mixture is prohibited only when the prohibited substance] imparts a flavor, except for tevel and yayin nesekh. [With these substances if they are mixed] with the same species [the mixture is prohibted] by the smallest quantity, but with a different species when [the prohibited substance] imparts a flavor.
  This makes sense with yayin nesekh because of the stringency in the laws of idolatry; but what is the reason for tevel?
  Like its permissibility so is its prohibition; for Shmuel said: One grain of wheat can exempt the heap. And we also learned in a baraita: When did [the rabbis] say that tevel renders [a mixture] prohibited by the smallest quantity, it refers to the same species, but when it is with a different species it must impart a flavor.
  
  Daf 74a
  
  The following are prohibited and render prohibited by the smallest quantity: 1) [a cask of] yen nesekh; 2) an idolatrous object; 3) skins of animals which have holes over the heart;
  4) an ox which has been sentenced to be stoned;
  5) a heifer whose neck was broken; 6) birds brought as an offering by a leper; 7) the hair-offering of a nazirite; 8) the first born of a donkey; 9) meat cooked in milk; 10) the scapegoat; 11) and non-consecrated animals slaughtered in the Temple court. Behold these are prohibited and render prohibited by the smallest quantity.
  GEMARA. The Tanna [of our Mishnah] what is he listing? If he lists objects which are [customarily] numbered, then he should include slices of meat from an animal which had not been ritually slaughtered; if they are objects which may not be put to any use, then he should include leaven during Pesach! R. Hiyya b. Abba, and others say R. Yitzchak Nafha, said: The Tanna lists the objects to which both criteria apply, they are customarily numbered and may not be put to any use.
  Let him teach nuts with soft shells and the pomegranates of Baddan because they are customarily numbered and may not be put to any use!
  [The author of the Mishnah] taught them elsewhere (Orlah 3:7): “To those to which orlah applies [they prohibit the mixture] as orlah, [to those of which] kilayim of the vineyard apply [they prohibit the mixture as] kilayim of the vineyard.”
  Let him teach loaves made by a householder with reference to the laws of leaven during Pesah! From whom did you hear this opinion? From R. Akiva; and [the author of the Mishnah] has already stated there: R. Akiva adds the loaves of a householder.
  Behold these. What do these words come to exclude? To exclude things which are customarily numbered but are not prohibited for all use, or the things which are prohibited for all use but are not customarily numbered.
  If yen nesekh fell into a vat, the whole of it is prohibited for use. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: the whole of it may be sold to non-Jews with the exception of [a quantity corresponding to] the value of the yen nesekh in it.
  GEMARA. Rav said: The halakhah accords with R. Shimon b. Gamaliel when a cask [of yayin nesekh] has been mixed with other casks, but not when wine is mixed with other wine. And Shmuel said: Even when it is wine mixed with wine.  Similarly Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: Even when it is wine mixed with wine. Similarly R. Shmuel b. Nathan said in the name of R. Hanina: Even when it is wine mixed with wine. Similarly R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: Even when it is wine mixed with wine.
  R. Nahman said: The practical halakhah with yayin nesekh: when wine is mixed with wine it is prohibited and a cask mixed with casks is permitted; But with ordinary wine (stam yeynam): even when wine is mixed with wine it is permitted.
  
  Daf 74b
  
  If one covered a stone wine press with pitch it may be scoured and is then clean; But if it was of wood, Rabbi says that it may be scoured and the Sages say that he must peel off the pitch. If it was of earthenware, even though he peeled off the pitch it is prohibited.
  GEMARA. Rava said: [Scouring is necessary] only when he covered it with pitch, but if he [only] tread [his grapes] in it [and didn’t cover it with pitch] it is not necessary. This is obvious since the Mishnah taught: covered with pitch! What might you have said? The same is true even if he [only] tread grapes in it, and the reason why it teaches “covered with pitch” is because he mentioned the customary practice. Therefore, [Rava] teaches [only when he covered it with pitch].
  There are those who say: Rava said: [Scouring is necessary] only when he covered it with pitch, but if he tread [his grapes in it after he covered it with pitch] scouring is insufficient. This is obvious, since the Mishnah stated: “covered with pitch”! What might you have said? The same law is true even when he tread in it, and the reason why he taught “covered with pitch” is because he mentioned the customary practice. Therefore, [Rava] teaches [only when he covered with pitch] but when he [also] tread in it, scouring is not sufficient.
  Like the man who came before R. Hiyya. He said to him, “Give me a man to purify my winepress.” [R. Hiyya] said to Rav, “Go with him and see that there is no ground for complaint against me in the Bet Midrash.” He went and saw that [the sides of the press] were very smooth; so he said, “Here scouring will surely be sufficient.” But as he proceeded [with his examination] he saw a crack at the bottom and saw that it was full of wine. He said, “Here scouring will not be sufficient, but it will have to be scraped.” That is what My Beloved [uncle] said to me, ‘See that there is no ground for complaint against me in the Bet Midrash.”
  Our Rabbis taught: As for a winepress, a ladle and a funnel belonging to non-Jews, Rabbi permits them after scouring, whereas the Sages prohibit. And Rabbi agrees that flasks belonging to a non-Jew are prohibited. What is the difference between one and the other? In this one he stores [wine] and in this one he does not.
  If made of wood or stone he may scour them, but if they had been covered with pitch they are prohibited. But have we not taught: A stone winepress covered with pitch by a non-Jew—he may scour it and then it is pure! Our Mishnah refers to when he had not tread in it, and the baraita to when he had tread in it.
  The master said, As for the winepress, ladle and funnel belonging to a non-Jew, Rabbi permits them after scouring, whereas the Sages prohibit them. But haven’t we taught: If it was of earthenware, even though he peeled off the pitch it is prohibited! Rava said: This last clause of our Mishnah comes to give the view of the Rabbis.
  Rava expounded: [As for a tank]—scald it! When Rava sent [empty] jars to Harpania he placed them mouth downwards [in sacks] and sealed them on their hems. For he held that any vessel into which [wine] is put for storage [by a non-Jew] even temporarily the rabbis decreed against.
  With what does one scour them? Rav said: With water; Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: With ashes. Rav said with water: With water and not with ashes? Rather 
  
  Daf 75a
  
  Rav said with water and with ashes, and Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said with ashes and with water. And they do not dispute, since one was referring to what is dry and the other to what is moist.
  It has been stated: The School of Rav said in the name of Rav: [The number of processes is] two and three; and Shmuel said that it is three and four.
  Thus they taught in Sura, but in Pumbedita they taught: The School of Rav said in the name of Rav: [The number of processes is] three and four; but Shmuel said that it is four and five.
  And they do not dispute: The one master counts the final rinsing with water [as a separate process] whereas the other master does not count the final rinsing.
  They asked of R. Abahu: What is the rule with regard to the wicker-nets used by non-Jews?
  R. Abahu answered: You have taught this: If his winepress and oil-press were impure and he wished to prepare [wine or oil] in them in a state of purity, the boards [on the sides], the troughs and supporting-beams must be rinsed, and as for the wicker-baskets: if made of willows and hemp, he must scour them, but if of bulrush or reeds, he must let them remain unused for twelve months. R. Shimon b. Gamaliel says: He leaves them from one period of wine-pressing to another and from one period of oil-pressing to another.
  But that agrees with the statement of the first Tanna! The difference between them is the matter of the early and late ripening [of the grapes].
  R. Yose says: One who desires to purify them at once, he should pour over them boiling water or scald them with olive-water. R. Shimon b. Gamaliel says in the name of R. Yose: He may leave them beneath a pipe through which there is a continuous stream of water or in a spring with rapid waters. For how long? — An onah.
  Just as they said with regard to yayin nesekh so too they said with regard to purifying things.
  Isn’t it the opposite? We are dealing here with purification! Rather [say] just as they said with regard to purifying things so too they said with regard to yayin nesekh.
  How long is an onah? R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan: Either a day or a night. R. Hana Sh’eina, and some say, R. Hana b. She'ina;inah said that Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: Half a day and half a night.
  R. Shmuel b. Yitzchak said: And they do not argue with each other, one refers to the time of the spring and autumn equinox and the latter to the summer and winter solstice.
  Rav Judah said: Filter-bags used by non-Jews, if made of hair, they may be rinsed,
  
  Daf 75b
  
  if of twigs they must be scoured, and if of flax they must be left unused [for twelve months]; and if there are any knots in them they must be untied.
  It was stated: If an am ha-aretz stretched out his hand into a winepress and touched [one of] the clusters: Rabbi and R. Hiyya: One says that the cluster and all that is around it are impure but the rest of the press is pure, whereas the other says that the entire press is also impure.
  And according to the one who holds that the clusters and all that is around them are impure but the press as a whole is pure, why should this be different fromthat which we learned: “A sheretz which was found in an oil-mill, it only defiles the place it touches, but if there is flowing liquid it is all impure”? 
  In that case, there is no division at all, but here the clusters are separate.
  The Rabbis instructed R. Yirmiyah, and some say R. Yirmiyah’s son, in agreement with the one says that the cluster and all that is around it are impure but the press as a whole is pure.
  If [a Jew] purchases cooking-utensils from a non-Jew, those which are customarily used with cold liquids, he must immerse; Those which are customarily used with hot liquids, he must be dip in boiling water; Those which are customarily made white-hot in the fire, he must make white- hot in the fire. A spit and grill must be made white-hot, But a knife may be polished and is then ritually clean.
  GEMARA. It has been taught: They all need to be immersed in [a ritual bath containing a minimum of] forty se'ah. From where is this derived? Rava said: Because the verse states, “Every thing that may be put in the fire you shall through the fire, and it shall be clean” (Numbers 31:23): The verse has here added for you an additional [process of] cleansing.
  Bar Kapara taught: Since it says, “[Nevertheless it shall be purified] with the water of lustration” I might have inferred that it requires sprinkling [with this water] on the third and seventh day; therefore Scripture says “nevertheless”, to make a distinction.
  If that be so, why does Scripture say “with the waters of lustration”? Say in water in which a niddah immerses.
  And it needed to write both “and it shall be clean,” and “with the waters of lustration.” If it had only written, “and it shall be clean,” I might have thought, it shall be clean means by any quantity of water, therefore the Torah wrote, “with the waters of lustration”;
  and if the Torah had only written, “with the waters of lustration,” I might have thought that the sun needs to set, as is the case with the niddah, therefore the Torah wrote “and it shall be clean,” immediately [after the immersion].
  R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: Even new utensils are included [in the requirement for immersion], since old ones when made white-hot are regarded as new and nevertheless require immersion. R. Sheshet raised an objection: If this be so, even shearing-scissors should likewise [be immersed if bought from a non-Jew]! [R. Nahman] replied: Only utensils connected with a meal were mentioned in the passage.
  R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abuha: The teaching only applies to utensils which are purchased as was the case that happened, but not when they are borrowed.
  R. Yitzchak b. Yosef bought a vessel made from a mixture of earth and animal's dung from a non-Jew and thought to immerse it. A certain rabbi, and R. Yaakov is his name, said to him: It was explained to me by R. Yohanan that only metal utensils are mentioned in the passage.
  R. Ashi said: Utensils of glass, since they can be repaired when broken, are like utensils of metal. As for a glazed utensil, R. Aha and Ravina disagree; one says [that it must be treated] according to its original state, while the other says [that it must be treated] according to its final state. The halakhah is [that it must be treated] according to its final state.
  The question was asked: What is the rule with [a new vessel which had been given by a non-Jew] as a pledge? Mar bar R. Ashi said: A non-Jew deposited a silver goblet with my father as a pledge, and he immersed it and drank from it and I do not know whether it was because he considered a pledge to be the same as something bought or because he saw that the non-Jew’s intention was to leave it with him.
  Our Rabbis taught: If [a Jew] purchases cooking-utensils from a non-Jew: Things that have never been used—he immerses them and they are pure; Things that were used for cold things, such as cups, jugs and flasks, he rinses them and immerses them and they are pure; Things which were used for hot things, such as boilers, kettles and heating vessels, he scalds them and then immerses them and they are pure. Things used with fire, such as spits and grills, he heats them up until they are white-hot and he immerses them and they are pure.
  And in all of these cases, if they were used [by a Jew] before he immersed it or scalded it or made it white-hot, one authority teaches that [the contents] are prohibited whereas another teaches that they are permitted.
  There is, however, no contradiction; for one decides according to him who said that when [the forbidden element] imparts a worsened flavor it is prohibited and the other according to him who said that when it imparts a worsened flavor it is permitted.
  But according to him who maintains that when it imparts a worsened flavor it is permitted, in what case do we find that the Torah prohibits the cooking vessels of non-Jews?
  R. Hiyya, the son of R. Huna said: The Torah only forbade a utensil
  
  Daf 76a
  
  which had been used [by a non-Jew] the same day for this is not the case of imparting a worsened flavor.
  Then let [the utensils which had been used] from then onwards be permitted [without cleansing]. The decree was made against those which had not been used the same day on account of those which had been used the same day.  What of the other authority? [His view is] that a utensil used the same day also imparts a worsened flavor.
  Finally, the Talmud asks what the other opinion, the one who thinks that even if the flavor worsens the dish the dish is still prohibited, how does he explain the verse? He would say that even a dish that was used on that day would impart a worsening flavor, and nevertheless the Torah prohibits the dish. This proves that even if the flavor is worsening, the dish is prohibited.
  R. Amram pointed out the following contradiction to R. Sheshet: We learn: a spit and grill must be made white-hot; but has it not been taught with reference to sacrifices: A spit and grill must be scalded with boiling water!
  He replied: Amram, my son, what do sacrifices have to do with Gentiles’ vessels since the former absorbed what is permitted and the latter what is prohibited!
  Rav said: In any case, when they discharge [the taste], what they discharge is prohibited! Rather Rava said what does the term hag'alah [boiling] mean? <i>Merikah</i> and <i>shetifah</i> [“rinsing and washing”].
  Abaye said to him: Are they the same? <i>Merikah</i> and <i>shetifah</i> are with cold water whereas <i>hag'alah</i> applies to boiling water! Rather Abaye said “Let his fellow testify about him” (Job 36:33). Here [in the Mishnah] he taught that it must be made white-hot and scalding also applies, and there [in connection with sacrifices] he taught that they must be scalded and making them white-hot also applies.
  Rava answered him: If so, let him teach both in one passage and one of them in the other, and then it would be possible to say, “Let his fellow testify about him”!
  Rather Rava said [in the case of] sacrifices [the cleansing of the vessels by means of scalding] follows the reasoning given by R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha who said: Every day scalding was carried out with respect to the preceding day's [offerings].
  This makes sense with regard to a shelamim which could be eaten on the second day [after the sacrifice]; in this case the process of scalding would be performed before [the traces of the offering] became remnant. With a sin-offering, however, since it must be eaten the same day [as sacrificed] and the following night, when he cooks a sin-offering today, there would be remnant; so if he further cooked in it tomorrow either a shelamim or sin-offering, then what was remnant of today's sin-offering would be expelled into the sin-offering or shelamim of the next day!
  I can say: It is not necessary [to kasher the vessel by making it white hot in the situation], where he cooks today a sin-offering, then he again cooks today a shelamim,
  so that the time-limit of tomorrow's sin-offering and the shelamin of the preceding day will expire simultaneously; and then he may cook in it tomorrow's shelamim!
  If so, then scalding is also unnecessary! This [indeed] is a difficulty.
  R. Papa said: [The reason is that] one is encrusted and the other is not.
  R. Ashi said: [The reason is] as was originally explained, in the former [the case of sacrifices] it absorbed what is permitted and in the latter [yayin neseskh] it absorbed what is prohibited,
  and as for your objection that what it emits is prohibited, at the time it emits [the taste] the prohibition is not visible.
  For how long must they be made white-hot? R. Mani said: Until the outer layer falls off. And how is scalding done? R. Huna said: A small vessel must be placed inside a large vessel.
  A large pot—what is to be done with it? Come and hear: There was a pot in the house of R. Akaviah. He made for it
  
  Daf 76b
  
  a rim of dough around its edges and filled it with water which he boiled up. Rava said: Who could have been clever enough to do this if not R. Akaviah who is a great man! He held that as [a vessel] absorbs so it discharges; as [its rim] absorbs by the splashings [of the food which is cooked in the pot] so [the boiling water] would cause [the rim] to emit [the taste] through its splashings.
  But a knife may be polished and is then pure. R. Ukba b. Hama said: And he must plunge it ten times in the earth. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: In untilled soil. R. Kahana said: The knife must be in sound condition and have no notches. It has been also taught in a baraita: With a knife in sound condition and without notches one plunges it ten times in soil. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: Only to eat cold food with it.
  Like Mar Judah and Bati b. Tobi who were sitting with King Shapur and an etrog was set before them. [The king] cut a slice and ate it, and then cut a slice and handed it to Bati b. Tobi. He then stuck [the knife] ten times in the ground, cut a slice [of the etrog] and handed it to Mar Judah. Bati b. Tobi said to [the king], “Am I not a Jew!” He replied, “Concerning him I am certain [that he is observant of Jewish law] but of you, I am not certain.”...
  There are those who say he said to him, “Remember what you did last night!”
  May we return to you chapter “One who rents a worker” and this is the end of Tractate Avodah Zarah