Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 18, scan section 53

TRACT ABUDA ZARA (IDOLATRY). 133 they refer to the third case, where the wine, when sealed and locked by a Jew, is allowed ; because, as R. Johanan allows it even when not sealed and locked, there would be no reason to account for the exceptional rigor of the rabbis in this case. Hence, it is manifest that they refer to the second case, which allows the wine put up in the house of a heathen, when both there lives a Jew in the same town and also when the wine is sealed and locked ; and it is here that the rabbis add the limitation that an Israelite watch the wine, or come to it at certain times. But what is gained by the last point? When the Jew is to come there only at certain times, the heathen will know it and find his time to break the seal and do what he pleases? The answer is this: We must assume that the Jew is to come there at times and not at certain times, so that the heathen will know nothing definite. " R. Simeon b. Elazar says, all heathen premises," etc. The schoolmen propounded a question : What does R. Simeon in- tend with this doctrine, to make the regulations of wine more rigorous or more lenient? R. Jehudah said in the name of Zeira, the latter is the case, while R. Na'hman said in the name of the same authority the former was intended. In order to make R. Jehudah's opinion plausible, it is necessary to insert the following in the Mishna: The same prohibition is imposed upon wine brought into the house of another heathen, because of fear lest the latter should go to the proprietor and say : You are free to come to my house and do with your wine as you please; I will not betray you provided, however, you promise to serve me in the same way in case I will have Jews prepare wine; it is in this connection that R. Simeon b. Elazar said: Are, then, all premises of the same account? We see that if the wine is left in the premises of the proprietor, an Israelite must watch it; if, however, the wine is stored with another heathen, this watch is not requisite, as I do not believe that the heathens would enter such mutual agreements with one another. On the other hand, in order to make R. Na'hman's view of R. Simeon's position plausible, the following wording must be given to the inserted passage: The prohibition is only then in force when the wine is left in the premises of the proprietor with a Jew watching it ; but if the wine is left with another heathen, the additional watch is unnecessary, as we do not believe in the mutual agreement of the heathens. To which R. Simeon b. Elazar says: All heathen premises account alike, hence as the 134 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. watching by a Jew is there requisite, it is so here, too, for I fear, indeed, that the heathen may enter some mutual understanding. There is a Boraitha in accordance with R. Na'hman: R. Simeon b. Elazar says, all premises of heathens are of the same account, for we fear lest they deceive us. It once happened that Israelites bought of Parsik, the vice- roy, the grapes of a vineyard in order to prepare wine therefrom ; they then left the wine with Parsik's gardeners without having paid for it. Hereupon the disciples of Rabha's college wanted to allow the wine on the ground that there cannot possibly be a mutual agreement between the viceroy and his gardeners. Said Rabha to them: Just in this case there is much to fear, because if Parsik wants to falsify the wine, he will meet no barrier. Once a few casks of wine belonging to an Israelite were lying in the street, and a heathen was found standing among them ; Rabha, upon being asked what is to be done with the wine, said: If this man is known to be a thief, the wine is allowed, for he will fear to touch the wine in the open street, lest he be sus- pected of stealing it; but if he is an honest man the wine is for- bidden, because of the reasonable fear, maybe he touched it. CHAPTER V. RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING WAGES AND LIBATION WINE. EFFECTS OF SUCH WINE WHEN FALLING ON FRUIT OR MIXING WITH OTHER WINE. — UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WINE MAY BE LEFT WITH A HEATHEN. — CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH JEWISH WINE IS SOLD TO HEATHENS. — DETERMINATION OF QUANTITY OF LIBA- TION WINE MIXED WITH OTHER WINE. — HOW VESSELS OF HEATHEN ARE TO BE ALTERED TO MAKE THEM FIT FOR A JEWISH TABLE. MISHNA /. : The wages of a Jewish laborer hired by a heathen to work with him wine for libation are prohibited. But if he was hired for some other work and was then told : Bring this cask of offered wine from one place to another, the wages are allowed. If a heathen hires of a Jew an ass to carry on it such wine, the reward is forbidden ; if, however, he hired it to sit thereon, it is allowed even if he had with him his wine-flask. GEMARA: The reason why the wages are prohibited is hardly that all the benefit of offered wine is forbidden, because the following speaks against such a reason — viz. : Although arlah (the fruit growing on a tree within the first three years after it has been planted) is prohibited, likewise the fruit of a field sowed in a vineyard kelaiin (variegated seeds); yet if one sells these fruits and with the money thus obtained betroths himself to a girl, she is regarded his legitimate wife. Nor can it be said that the wages follow the same rules with the wine, just as the money obtained from the sale of an idol is subject to the regulations governing the latter; because, as it is known, the money gotten for the fruits growing on the Sabbathic year is subject to the rules of the fruits themselves, and yet we learned that, if one invites the laborer, saying: Take this dinar and gather herbs for me to-day, this reward is forbidden ; but if the invitation is made thus : Gather for me herbs to-day, the reward is allowed when this case takes place on the Sabbathic year. Hence, wages are allowed after all! Said R. Abuhu in the name of R. Johanan : This is a fine which the sages find neces- sary to impose upon driver and offered wine. In the case of wine, as said above in the Mishna, and in the case of drivers in the following Boraitha: The reward obtained by drivers for transporting fruits grown on the Sabbathic year is considered 135 136 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. Sabbathic. Now, what does this mean : The reward is Sah- bathic? It cannot possibly mean that the reward is made in fruit of the Sabbathic year, for the proprietor of the fruit would thus meet a debt with fruit which is by law allowed [Levit. XXV. 6] : " For food," but not to traffic with. Neither can this expression be interpreted to mean : The reward is as holy as the fruit of the Sabbathic year, because of the Mishna cited above: If one says: Gather for me fruit to-day, the reward is allowed.