Avodah Zarah 59a — the Talmud in English

For Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of

in the name of

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: water belonging to the public

belonging to the public,

is not rendered forbidden

when they worshipped it as an object of idolatry, because a person cannot render forbidden something that is not his.

And the Gemara raises an objection against Rabbi Yoḥanan’s words: from his words it is implied that it is only because they belong to the public that they are therefore not forbidden. And let us infer:

that of an individual

if they are water belonging to an individual, which issue from his land,

is rendered forbidden

if the owner of the water bowed down to them.

And

why are they rendered forbidden? —

Let it issue from this,

are they not also permitted in this manner,

, for they are attached

since they are naturally attached to the ground, and we learned above [45a] that an attached object is not rendered forbidden?

And we answer:

It is necessary

the novelty in Rabbi Yoḥanan’s words is: in a case

where a wave tore them away

a wave of water that was torn away from its place of attachment, and now the water is not attached. Therefore, when it belongs to an individual it is rendered forbidden, whereas when it belongs to the public it is not rendered forbidden. And this is Rabbi Yoḥanan’s novelty.

And we raise an objection:

Ultimately

even if they were torn away,

they are stones of a mountain that became detached

their law should be like that of stones that were torn away from their place of attachment. And concerning the law of stones of a mountain that became detached—whether their law is that of attached objects, since they were attached and now became detached on their own, without the action of a person’s hand, or whether their law is that of detached objects, since ultimately they are not attached—the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed [46a]. And there, in that sugya, the matter was not decided: which of them is the one who permits, and which is the one who forbids. If so, should it be concluded

that it is established

that the matter will be decided from here,

that Rabbi Yoḥanan

is the one

who said: They are forbidden,

since we explained his words as meaning that water belonging to an individual is forbidden because it is now detached, despite the fact that it became detached on its own?!

And we answer: Rather,

it is necessary

Rabbi Yoḥanan’s words are stated in a case

where he struck them with his hand

where he detached them with his hands, and they did not become detached on their own, and he bowed down to this water. Had they belonged to an individual, they would have been forbidden; and Rabbi Yoḥanan comes to teach us that this water, despite the fact that it was detached by human hands, since it belongs to the public, is permitted.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba happened to come to

a place called

Gavla.

And he saw there three things that did not appear proper in his eyes.

He saw

he saw,

daughters of Israel becoming pregnant

becoming pregnant

from idolaters who had been circumcised but had not immersed.

He saw

and he also saw

wine,

wine

that idolaters diluted, and Israelites drank.

He saw

and he also saw

lupines,

a type of vegetable whose preparation is through extensive cooking—

that they cooked them,

they cooked them

idolaters, and Israelites ate them. [And later it will be explained whether there is in them the prohibition of “the cooking of idolaters.”]

And he did not say anything to them

he did not say anything to them, to forbid these three things to them.

He came

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba came

before Rabbi Yoḥanan

and told him what he had seen.

He said to him

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Go out and proclaim concerning their sons that they are mamzerim, and concerning their wine

that it is forbidden

because of libation wine, and concerning their lupines

that it is forbidden

because of the cooking of idolaters.

And the prohibition of the lupines is

because they are not sons of Torah,

and so that they should not treat the prohibition of the cooking of idolaters lightly .

And the Gemara explains:

concerning their sons, that they are mamzerim,

Rabbi Yoḥanan ruled this

Rabbi Yoḥanan

according to his own reasoning,

in accordance with his reasoning concerning the laws of conversion and the laws of marriage—

For Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

One who comes to convert

is never a convert

until he undergoes circumcision and immersion.

And since he did not immerse, he is an idolater.

And

further,

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: An idolater and a slave

a Canaanite slave

who had intercourse with a daughter of Israel—the offspring

born from this intercourse

is a mamzer

he is.

(And he decreed

concerning their wine,

Rabbi Yoḥanan forbade it

because of libation wine, because of “Go, go,” they say to a nazirite, “around, around; do not approach the vineyard.”

As above.

And concerning their lupines, because of the cooking of idolaters, since they are not sons of Torah.

From this wording it is implied that according to the essential law they are not forbidden, but he was stringent with them. Therefore we raise an objection:

The reason

the reason that he forbade them is: because

they are not sons of Torah,

and they treat the prohibition of the cooking of idolaters lightly; and let us infer:

if they are sons of Torah,

that is, according to the essential law,

it is permitted,

they are permitted for eating. And this is difficult:

But did not Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak say in the name of Rav: Every

food

that can be eaten as it is while alive

and does not require cooking

does not have the prohibition of the cooking of idolaters

idolaters,

and only food whose improvement is through cooking, and the gentile cooked it, is forbidden.

And this is difficult: lupines are not fit for eating except through cooking; it follows that they are forbidden according to the essential law, and not only because they are not sons of Torah?

And the Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan stated another principle in defining the prohibition of the cooking of idolaters:

Rabbi Yoḥanan, according to this formulation, holds

he holds like this formulation:

For Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said in the name of Rav: Every

food

that

because of its inferior quality

does not ascend onto the table of kings to eat bread with it—

does not have the prohibition of the cooking of idolaters.

And lupines do not ascend onto the table of kings. Therefore, when a gentile cooked them, they are not forbidden. And therefore,

the reason

the reason that he forbade them to the people of Gavla is because

they are not sons of Torah.

If they are sons of Torah, it is permitted,

it is permitted to eat them when a gentile cooked them.

And now the Gemara discusses the laws of a gentile’s contact with wine.

They asked him

they asked him for a ruling

of Rav Kahana: An idolater—

what is the ruling as to whether he may carry grapes to the winepress ?

He said to them

Rav Kahana said to those who asked him:

It is forbidden.

Because of “Go, go,” they say to a nazirite, “around, around—

do not approach the vineyard.”

Rav Yemar raised an objection to Rav Kahana

from what we learned in a beraita:

An idolater who brought grapes to the winepress in baskets,