Avodah Zarah 62a (סב.) — the Talmud in English

It was already explained above (54b) that idolatry seizes its proceeds; that is, not only is idolatry itself prohibited for benefit, but if one sells it and receives money in exchange for it, the money is also prohibited for benefit. We learn this from what is stated in the Torah concerning idolatry (Deuteronomy 7:26

“And you shall treat it as anathema, like it,”

and we expound: “Whatever you cause to come into being from it is like it.”

This law applies to yayin nesekh as well, since it was offered to idolatry and its status is that of idolatry; therefore, it renders its proceeds prohibited.

Our Mishna will explain that the Sages imposed an additional stringency with regard to yayin nesekh: not only does it seize its proceeds, but even wages earned through work involving yayin nesekh are prohibited for benefit.

Mishna:

A gentile

who hires

a Jewish worker

to work with him

at a task

involving yayin nesekh,

such as pouring it from one vessel into another or transporting it from one place to another,

his wages

are prohibited

for benefit to everyone. However, if

the gentile hires

him to perform another task,

such as transporting oil jars for him,

, even though he said to him, “Transport a barrel of yayin nesekh for me from one place to another,” his wages are permitted.

Similarly, a gentile

who hires the Jewish man’s donkey

in order

to transport yayin nesekh on it, its rental fee

—that is, what the Jew received for the donkey—

is prohibited

for benefit, because it is payment for transporting yayin nesekh.

But if

the

gentile hired the donkey in order

to sit on it, even though the gentile placed his basket

[a jug containing yayin nesekh]

on it, its rental fee is permitted.

Gemara:

As stated in our Mishna, the Sages enacted that wages for work involving yayin nesekh are prohibited for benefit.

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason that his wages are prohibited?

That is, why did the Sages prohibit wages for yayin nesekh more than the wages for other substances from which deriving benefit is prohibited?

If you say

: if you say

since yayin nesekh

itself

is prohibited for benefit,

therefore they enacted that

its wages too

should be

prohibited,

so that people would not come to permit the wine itself,

This cannot be said,

for, as for orla and kil’ei hakerem, which are prohibited for benefit,

nevertheless

we learned

(Kiddushin 56b) that if he

sold them and betrothed

a woman

with their proceeds,

she is betrothed.

They did not enact a prohibition even with regard to the proceeds of a substance prohibited for benefit, because of the prohibition of the substance itself. All the more so, they should not enact a prohibition against its wages because of the prohibition of the substance itself.

Rather, since

yayin nesekh

seizes

[prohibits]

its proceeds

by Torah law

like idolatry,

they enacted a prohibition against its wages, so that people would not come to permit its proceeds.

But with regard to other substances from which deriving benefit is prohibited, where the prohibition applies only to the substance itself and not to its proceeds, there is no concern that if we permit its wages people will come to permit the substance itself.

And

there is still a difficulty:

for, as for the Sabbatical Year, it seizes its proceeds,

as explained in the Gemara above (54b), from the verse “For it is a Jubilee; it shall be holy to you,” which we expound: “Just as something holy seizes its proceeds and is prohibited, so too the produce of the Sabbatical Year seizes its proceeds and is prohibited.”

And

nevertheless

we learned

(Shevi’it, chapter 8, Mishna 4):

“One who says to a worker, ‘Here is this dinar,

and

collect for me

with it

[that is, with its value]

Sabbatical-Year produce

today, his wages are prohibited.’

Since he said, “Collect for me with it,” this is an expression of sale, as though he had said to him, “Sell me produce for the value of the issar.” Therefore, the dinar becomes invested with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, and one may use it only for purposes of eating, drinking, and anointing, as is the law regarding the use of Sabbatical-Year produce; likewise, it is prohibited to retain it after the time of removal.

However, if he said, “Here is this dinar, and

collect produce for me today,

since he gives him the dinar only as payment for the work,

his wages are permitted.”

It is thus evident that although the Sabbatical Year seizes its proceeds, nevertheless its wages are permitted even by rabbinic law, and no prohibition was enacted with regard to them.