Avodah Zarah 59
דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק: מַיִם שֶׁל רַבִּים אֵין נֶאֱסָרִין. הָא דְּיָחִיד נֶאֱסָרִין.
as Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: Water that belongs to the public is not rendered prohibited. The Gemara infers that since water that belongs to the public is permitted, therefore, in a case where gentiles bow to water that is owned by an individual it is rendered prohibited.
וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ, דְּהָא מְחוּבָּרִין נִינְהוּ! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּתַלְשִׁינְהוּ גַּלָּא.
The Gemara challenges: But Rabbi Yoḥanan could derive that even water owned by an individual is permitted, as the water is connected to the ground, and worshipping an object that is connected to the ground does not render it prohibited. The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to derive this halakha from the fact that the water belongs to the public in a case where a wave raised the water and detached it from the ground. In this case worshipping water owned by an individual would render it prohibited.
סוֹף סוֹף, אַבְנֵי הַר שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ נִינְהוּ, תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר אֲסוּרוֹת?
The Gemara challenges: Nevertheless, the water ultimately falls into the category of objects that were detached without human involvement, such as boulders of a mountain that dislodged on their own. The Gemara (46a) cites a dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya with regard to boulders that dislodged without human involvement and were then worshipped, and does not conclude who deems the boulders permitted and who deems them prohibited. May it be concluded from Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that it is Rabbi Yoḥanan who says that the boulders are prohibited?
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּטַפְחִינְהוּ בִּידֵיהּ.
The Gemara replies: No, even if Rabbi Yoḥanan deems the boulders permitted, his ruling with regard to the water is necessary in a case where one struck the water with his hand and thereby detached it. Since it was detached due to human involvement, if the water was owned by an individual it is prohibited.
רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אִיקְּלַע לְגַבְלָא, חֲזָא בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּמִיעַבְּרָן מִגּוֹיִם שֶׁמָּלוּ וְלֹא טָבְלוּ, חֲזָא חַמְרָא דִּמְזַגוּ גּוֹיִם וְשָׁתוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, חֲזָא תּוֹרְמוֹסָא דְּשָׁלְקִי לְהוּ גּוֹיִם וְאָכְלִי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְלָא אֲמַר לְהוּ וְלָא מִידֵּי.
§ Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba happened to come to Gavla. He saw Jewish women there who were impregnated by gentiles who were in the process of converting and were circumcised but had not yet immersed in a ritual bath. He also saw wine that gentiles diluted with water and Jews then drank the wine. He also saw lupines that gentiles were cooking and Jews were eating. And despite seeing all this, he did not say anything to them to correct their actions.
אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: צֵא וְהַכְרֵז עַל בְּנֵיהֶם שֶׁהֵן מַמְזֵרִים, וְעַל יֵינָן מִשּׁוּם יֵין נֶסֶךְ, וְעַל תּוֹרְמוֹסָן מִשּׁוּם בִּישּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵינָן בְּנֵי תוֹרָה.
Later, he came before Rabbi Yoḥanan and told him what he had seen. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Go and declare about their children that they have the status of children born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzerim]. And decree with regard to their wine that it is prohibited as an extension of the prohibition of wine used for a libation. And with regard to their lupines you should declare that they are forbidden due to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles, as they are not people well-versed in Torah, and any leniency would be misunderstood and applied too extensively.
עַל בְּנֵיהֶם שֶׁהֵם מַמְזֵרִים — רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ גֵּר עַד שֶׁיָּמוּל וְיִטְבּוֹל, וְכֵיוָן דְּלָא טְבֵיל — גּוֹי הוּא. וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גּוֹי וְעֶבֶד הַבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל — הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר.
The Gemara explains that with regard to declaring about their children that they have the status of mamzerim, Rabbi Yoḥanan conforms to his standard line of reasoning concerning two halakhot. The first is as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One is never deemed to be a convert until he has been circumcised and has immersed. And since the father has not immersed, he is still considered a gentile. And the second halakha is as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the case of a gentile or a Canaanite slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a mamzer.
וּגְזוּר עַל יֵינָם מִשּׁוּם יֵין נֶסֶךְ — מִשּׁוּם ״לָךְ לָךְ, אָמְרִין נְזִירָא; סְחוֹר סְחוֹר, לְכַרְמָא לָא תִּקְרַב״.
The Gemara continues to explain Rabbi Yoḥanan’s second instruction to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: And decree with regard to their wine that it is prohibited as an extension of the prohibition of wine used for a libation. Although the gentile did not touch the wine when he diluted it, it is prohibited due to the maxim: Go, go, we say to a nazirite; go around and go around, but do not come near to the vineyard.
וְעַל תּוֹרְמוֹסָן מִשּׁוּם בִּישּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם — לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָן בְּנֵי תוֹרָה. טַעְמָא דְּאֵינָן בְּנֵי תוֹרָה, הָא בְּנֵי תוֹרָה שְׁרֵי? וְהָאָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק אָמַר רַב: כֹּל שֶׁנֶּאֱכָל כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא חַי אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּישּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם!
Lastly, Rabbi Yoḥanan instructed Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba to decree with regard to their lupines that they are forbidden due to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles, as they are not people well-versed in Torah. The Gemara asks: The reason that the lupines are deemed prohibited is because they are not people well-versed in Torah; but in the case of people who are well-versed in Torah, one can infer that the lupines are permitted. But doesn’t Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak say that Rav says: Anything that is eaten raw is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles, even when cooked by them? Lupines are not eaten raw due to their bitterness, and therefore they are subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כִּי הָךְ לִישָּׁנָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק אָמַר רַב: כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה לְשׁוּלְחָן שֶׁל מְלָכִים לְלֶפֶת בּוֹ אֶת הַפַּת — אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּישּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם. טַעְמָא דְּאֵינָן בְּנֵי תוֹרָה, הָא בְּנֵי תוֹרָה שְׁרֵי.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan holds in accordance with that other version of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak’s statement, as Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says that Rav says: Anything that lacks importance and therefore does not appear on the table of kings in order to be eaten together with bread is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles. Lupines are not sufficiently important to be served on the table of kings, and therefore they are permitted even if cooked by gentiles. Consequently, the reason for prohibiting the residents of Gavla from eating them is because they are not people well-versed in Torah. But in the case of people well-versed in Torah, the lupines are permitted.
בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַב כָּהֲנָא: גּוֹי מַהוּ שֶׁיּוֹלִיךְ עֲנָבִים לַגַּת? אֲמַר לְהוּ: אָסוּר, מִשּׁוּם ״לָךְ לָךְ, אָמְרִין נְזִירָא; סְחוֹר סְחוֹר, לְכַרְמָא לָא תִּקְרַב״. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב יֵימַר לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: גּוֹי שֶׁהֵבִיא עֲנָבִים לַגַּת בְּסַלִּין.
§ The Sages asked Rav Kahana: With regard to a gentile, what is the halakha concerning the following question: May he bring grapes to the winepress without doing anything else to them? Rav Kahana said to them: It is prohibited by rabbinic decree due to the maxim: Go, go, we say to a nazirite; go around and go around, but do not come near to the vineyard. Rav Yeimar raised an objection to Rav Kahana from a baraita: With regard to a gentile who brought grapes to the winepress in baskets
וּבְדוּדוֹרִין, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַיַּיִן מְזַלֵּף עֲלֵיהֶן — מוּתָּר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״הֵבִיא״ קָאָמְרַתְּ? אֲנָא לְכַתְּחִלָּה קָאָמֵינָא!
and in small barrels, even though the grapes are squashed in the process and the wine, i.e., the juice, sprays onto the grapes, nevertheless they are permitted. Rav Kahana said to Rav Yeimar: Are you saying that this is the halakha where the gentile already brought the grapes? The baraita is discussing whether the grapes are prohibited after the fact, whereas I am saying that one should not permit a gentile to bring the grapes ab initio.
הָהוּא אֶתְרוֹגָא דִּנְפַל לְחָבִיתָא דְּחַמְרָא, אִידְּרִי גּוֹי וְשַׁקְלֵיהּ. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב אָשֵׁי: נַקְטוּהּ לִידֵיהּ כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לְשַׁכְשֵׁיךְ בֵּיהּ, וּבָרְצוּהָ עַד דְּשָׁיְיפָא.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain etrog that fell into a barrel of wine. A gentile jumped up to take it out of the barrel, thereby unintentionally touching the wine. Rav Ashi said to the people standing there: Hold his hand still, so that he does not stir the wine and render it prohibited, and tip the barrel until the wine is drained into another vessel, and then he may take the etrog.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הַאי גּוֹי דְּנַסְּכֵיהּ לְחַמְרָא דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּכַוָּונָה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּלְזַבּוֹנֵיהּ לְגוֹי אַחֲרִינָא אָסוּר, שְׁרֵי לֵיהּ לְמִישְׁקַל דְּמֵיהּ מֵהָהוּא גּוֹי. מַאי טַעְמָא? מִיקְלָא קַלְיֵיהּ.
§ Rav Ashi says: In the case of this gentile who intentionally poured a Jew’s wine as a libation in order to render it prohibited, even though it is prohibited to sell it to another gentile, as one may not derive benefit from it, nevertheless, it is permitted for him to collect its monetary value from that gentile. What is the reason for this? It is considered as though the gentile burned the wine and destroyed it, and he is required to pay for the damage.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּתַנְיָא: גּוֹי שֶׁנִּסֵּךְ יֵינוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — אָסוּר, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא מַתִּירִין מִשּׁוּם שְׁנֵי דְּבָרִים: אֶחָד — שֶׁאֵין מְנַסְּכִין יַיִן אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְאֶחָד — שֶׁאוֹמֵר לוֹ: לֹא כׇּל הֵימֶנְךָ שֶׁתֶּאֱסוֹר יֵינִי לְאוֹנְסִי.
Rav Ashi says: From where do I say that this is the halakha? This halakha is derived as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a gentile who poured a Jew’s wine as an idolatrous libation but not before an object of idol worship, the wine is prohibited, but Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira deem it permitted due to two factors: One is that idol worshippers pour wine as an idolatrous libation only before an object of idol worship. And the other one is that the Jew says to the gentile: It is not in your power to render my wine prohibited against my will. Rav Ashi rules in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna. Nevertheless, he derives from the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira that one may collect compensation from the gentile, whose actions were against the will of the owner.
הָהִיא חָבִיתָא דְּחַמְרָא דְּאִישְׁתְּקִיל לְבַרְזָא, אֲתָא גּוֹי, אִידְּרִי אַנַּח יְדֵיהּ עִילָּוֵיהּ. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כֹּל דְּלַהֲדֵי בַּרְזָא — חַמְרָא אֲסִיר.
§ There was a certain barrel of wine from which the stopper had been removed and the wine was spilling out. A gentile came, jumped up, and placed his hand on the hole to prevent the wine from leaking. Rav Pappa said: Any wine that is adjacent to the stopper is prohibited, as it was touched by the gentile,
