Avodah Zarah 59a (נט.) — the Talmud in English

As Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of

the name of

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: water belonging to the public

that belongs to the public

is not rendered forbidden

when they worshipped it as an object of idolatry, because no person can render forbidden an object that does not belong to him.

And the Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yohanan's statement: It follows from his words that the only reason they are not forbidden is that they belong to the public. And let us infer:

but in the case of an individual

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

they are rendered forbidden

if the owner of the water prostrated himself before them.

And

why are they rendered forbidden?

Let it follow

that even in this case they should be permitted

, as they are attached

to the ground by their nature; and we learned above [45a] that an attached object is not rendered forbidden?

And we answer:

It is necessary

Rabbi Yohanan's statement introduces a novel ruling in a case

where a wave tore them away

a body of water that was torn away from the place where it was attached, so that the water is now detached. Therefore, when it belongs to an individual it is rendered forbidden, whereas when it belongs to the public it is not rendered forbidden. This is Rabbi Yohanan's novel teaching.

And we challenge this:

Ultimately,

even if they were torn away,

they are like stones of a mountain that became detached

their status should be like that of stones detached from the place where they were attached. And concerning stones of a mountain that became detached, whether their status is that of attached objects, since they had been attached and then became detached on their own, without human intervention, or whether their status is that of detached objects, since ultimately they are no longer attached, the sons of Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Yohanan disputed the matter [46a]. And there, in that discussion, the matter was not resolved: which of them permits and which forbids. If so, can it be

conclusively established

whether this matter can be resolved from here

that Rabbi Yohanan

is the one

who said: They are forbidden,

since we explained his statement to mean that water belonging to an individual is forbidden because it is now detached, despite having become detached on its own?!

And we answer: Rather,

it is necessary

Rabbi Yohanan's statement is referring to a case

where he struck them away with his hand,

where he detached them with his hands, and they did not become detached on their own, and he prostrated himself before this water. Had it belonged to an individual, it would have been forbidden; and Rabbi Yohanan teaches us that this water, despite having been detached by human action, is permitted because it belongs to the public.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba happened to come to

a place called

Gavla.

And there he saw three things that did not appear proper to him.

He saw,

he observed,

Jewish women who had become pregnant

who had conceived

from gentiles who had been circumcised but had not immersed.

He saw,

and he also saw

wine,

wine

that gentiles had diluted, and Jews drank.

He saw,

and he also saw

lupines,

a type of vegetable whose preparation requires extensive cooking,

that they cooked,

they cooked them

and Jews ate. [It will be explained below whether they are subject to the prohibition of “gentile cooking.”]

And he said nothing to them

he said nothing to them to forbid these three things to them.

He came,

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba came

before Rabbi Yohanan

and told him what he had seen.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan

“Go and proclaim concerning their children that they are mamzerim, and concerning their wine

that it is forbidden

as yayin nesekh, and concerning their lupines

that they are forbidden

as gentile cooking.”

And the prohibition of the lupines is

because they are not learned in Torah,

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

And the Gemara explains:

“Concerning their children, that they are mamzerim”,

Rabbi Yohanan issued this ruling

in accordance with his own view,

according to his reasoning,

as follows from his position concerning the laws of conversion and the laws of marriage:

As Rabbi Yohanan said:

One who comes to convert

is never a convert

until he is circumcised and immerses.

And since he did not immerse, he is a gentile.

And

another statement

Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Yohanan said: A gentile or a slave

a Canaanite slave

who has intercourse with a Jewish woman—the child

born of this intercourse

is a mamzer

he is.

(And he decreed

concerning their wine,

Rabbi Yohanan prohibited it

as yayin nesekh, because of “Go away, go away, we say to the nazirite; go around, go around, do not approach the vineyard.”

As stated above.

And concerning their lupines, because of gentile cooking, since they are not learned in Torah.

This wording indicates that by strict law they are not forbidden; rather, he imposed a stringency upon them. Therefore, the Gemara asks:

The reason

the reason he prohibited them is

that they are not learned in Torah,

and they treat the prohibition of gentile cooking lightly. And let us infer:

but if they are learned in Torah,

that is, by strict law,

they are permitted,

they may be eaten. But this is difficult:

Yet did Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzhak not say in the name of Rav: Every

food

that can be eaten as it is, raw,

and does not require cooking,

is not subject to the prohibition of gentile

cooking,

whereas only food whose preparation is accomplished through cooking, and which a gentile cooked, is forbidden?

And this is difficult: Lupines are fit for eating only through cooking; consequently, they are forbidden by strict law, and not merely because the people are not learned in Torah.

And the Gemara answers: Rabbi Yohanan followed another principle in defining the prohibition of gentile cooking:

Rabbi Yohanan, in accordance with this version, held

he maintains the view expressed in this version:

As Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzhak said in the name of Rav: Every

food

that

because of its inferior quality

is not served on the table of kings to accompany bread—

is not subject to the prohibition of gentile cooking.

Lupines are not served on the table of kings. Therefore, when a gentile cooks them, they are not forbidden. And therefore,

the reason

the reason he prohibited them to the people of Gavla is

that they are not learned in Torah.

But if they are learned in Torah, they are permitted,

they may eat them when a gentile cooks them.

The Gemara now discusses the laws governing a gentile's contact with wine.

They asked

they asked for a halakhic ruling

of Rav Kahana: A gentile—

what is the ruling concerning his carrying grapes to the winepress?

He said to them,

Rav Kahana said to those who asked him:

It is forbidden.

Because of “Go away, go away, we say to the nazirite; go around, go around—

do not approach the vineyard.”

Rav Yemar raised an objection to Rav Kahana

from what we learned in a beraita:

A gentile who brought grapes to the winepress in baskets,