Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 18, scan section 54

Said Abayi : It speaks of a reward paid with the Sabbathic fruit ; and as to the diflficulty of " food and not for traffic " it can be answered that he gives him the fruit as a present, and not as reward, as we find a similar case in the following Mishna: One must not say to his neighbor: Carry this fruit for me to Jeru- salem, of which take a part as your reward; but he may say: Carry it to be eaten in Jerusalem, and there they present each other the fruit as a present. Rabha, however, said : It means that the reward becomes holy like the Sabbathic fruit itself, and the difficulty that it is allowed to a laborer is not considered, for the rabbis do not care to fine him for such a trifle. The schoolmen propounded a question : How is it when the heathen hires a Jewish laborer to prepare wine in general? Shall we assume that, since all use of this wine is prohibited just as that of offered wine, the wages are by implication not allowable, or that the wine in general is not so rigorously treated by reason of its differing from the offered wine in that it does not defile an Israelite by touch, while the latter does so, and hence, that the wages in this case be allowed? Come and hear! A heathen once hired a Jewish boatman to convey for him some wine to a certain place and paid him for the labor in wheat. The laborer appeared then before R. 'Hisda asking him what is to be done with the wheat? The answer was: You must burn it and bury the ashes; hence, such wages, too, are prohibited. The disci- ples of R. Janai were wont to borrow on the Sabbathic year fruit from the poor and to pay them back in fruit the succeed- ing year. R. Johanan was interrogated as to the legitimacy of this act, and he found it in accord with the law.* R. Na'hman, Ula, Abimi b. Papa, and R. Hyya b. Ammi were once sitting together and discussing the following point: If an Israelite is hired to break the casks that contained offered wine * The text treats here of the question as to whether the reward of a harlot is allowed in case she was paid after ; which we deem not in place here and therefore omit it. TRACT ABUDA ZARA (IDOLATRY). 137 of which some remnant may now flow yet, is he allowed to receive payment for his work or not? The possible reason for a negative answer is that the laborer desirous to get work wishes for the existence of whole casks, and thereby also for that of the prohibited wine left therein ; while on the other hand the reason for a positive answer is that he by his labor destroys the wine. Thereupon decided R. Na'hman : The laborer may without any scruples break the casks and get paid therefor; in addition to it, he may yet earn the blessing of Heaven ! The following Boraitha corroborates R. Nahman's decision: The Israelite is prohibited from assisting a heathen in ploughing a field sowed with kelaim (variegated seeds), but he is allowed to weed out various seeds so that only one kind be left, for he thereby diminishes the unallowed. At some other time the same sages were together discussing the question as to whether or no the use of the money obtained by a heathen from the sale of an idol is all forbidden to an Israelite (just as it is in case the Israelite sells an idol)? Said R. Na'hman : It seems to be allowable, because once there came some heathens to Rabba b. Abuhu and declared themselves willing to embrace Judaism, whereupon he replied: If this is your intention, it is incumbent on you first to sell out all you have, for as soon as you have become Israelites, your wine and idols are prohibited to sell. Whence it follows that they are allowed, even after they become Israelites, to use the money gotten from selling the idols when yet heathens. The others objected to this inference, saying: In this case the intention of becoming an Israelite renders surely their idols profaned. Here- upon R. Na'hman recited the following Boraitha: If a heathen pays his debt to an Israelite in money, which he obtained from the sale of an idol or offered wine, the Israelite is allowed to accept it; if, however, the heathen asks his creditor to wait until after he has sold his idol or offered wine, the Israelite is prohibited to accept the money. Hence, in the former case, the money is allowed. And why is it forbidden in the latter case? Because, said R. Sheshith, the Israelite would then ap- parently wish for the existence of a prohibited object till it gets sold. But is there not a Mishna that, a proselyte and a heathen having inherited their father, a heathen, the former may say: You take the idols and I the money, you the wine and I the other fruit in exchange ; but as soon as an object enters the con- trol of the proselyte all exchange is forbidden? Now, you see 138 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. that, though the proselyte doubtless wishes for the existence of the prohibited objects, the exchange is originally allowed. Said R. Papa: The sages treated exceptionally this case of a prose- lyte with leniency in order not to encourage his return to heath- endom. Yea, there is a Boraitha to this effect : The decision in favor of the proselyte is limited only to the case of inherit- ance, but does not concern partnership. The above-mentioned sages happened to be once more together and to discuss the following question : Can a citizen- proselyte, a heathen settled down in the land of Israel, on hav- ing taken upon himself not to practise idol-worship only, pro- fane an idol, or only an actual idol-worshipper can do this? R. Na'hman said: In all probability the latter is the case. An objection was raised from the following Tosephtha : An Israelite who found an idol in the market, may, before taking possession thereof, ask a heathen to profane it, but not after he had taken possession of it; and the reason is that the sages have established a rule that a heathen may profane his own idol as well as that of his neighbor immaterial whether he worships it or not. Now let us see what does the last expression " whether he worships or not " mean ; if it means a heathen, it is superfluous, as it was already stated that a heathen may pro- fane his neighbor's idol although he has not worshipped it; we must then say that it means a citizen-proselyte, hence the latter can profane? Nay; it may speak only of a heathen, and as to the apparently superfluous expression, it may be said that the first part speaks of the idols of one kind, e.g., both of the kind Peor or Markules, while the last part has in view two different idols, e.g., one of Peor and the other of Markules, and neverthe- less the heathen may profane even the one in whose worship he does not believe. Another objection was raised : Who is called a citizen-proselyte? He who took upon himself before three scholars not to practise any idol-worship, so said R. Mair;