Avodah Zarah 64b — the Talmud in English

And likewise

it was taught

in a beraita

also so:

“When is this matter stated? When they inherited.

At that time the Rabbis were lenient and permitted him to take money or produce corresponding to the avoda zara, or yayin nesech, lest he return to his corruption, as stated above.

But

a gentile and a Jew who

formed a partnership [

formed a partnership between themselves and came to divide their partnership ]

it is prohibited

for the Jew to take money corresponding to avoda zara or yayin nesech.”

They again sat and raised a question [

they sat again and were uncertain ]:

Above (52b) we learned: “A gentile can annul his own avoda zara and that of his fellow, but a Jew cannot annul the avoda zara of a gentile.”

And the question is:

A resident convert,

who does not worship idolatry (as will be explained below), but with regard to the other laws is like a gentile,

what is the law: can he annul avoda zara?

Is his law like that of a Jew, who cannot annul the avoda zara of a gentile, or perhaps his law is like that of a gentile?

And the root of the uncertainty is:

Does one who worships annul [

is it only one who himself worships idolatry who can annul it ]

but a resident convert,

who does not worship [

who does not worship idolatry ]

does not annul.

Or perhaps, anyone of his kind can annul [

anyone who is of the gentile’s kind can annul avoda zara ],

and this

resident convert, although he does not worship idolatry, nevertheless

is of his kind

of the gentile

he is.

Rav Nahman said to them: It stands to reason,

only one who

worships [

who worships idolatry ]

can annul [

can annul it ].

But a resident convert

who does not worship [

who does not worship idolatry ]

does not annul.

The Gemara raised an objection:

It was objected,

we learned in a beraita:

“A Jew who found avoda zara in the marketplace, before it came into his possession, says to a gentile, and he annuls it.

And after he has annulled it, he may acquire it.

But

once it came into his possession,

and he acquired it, again

he does not say to a gentile, ‘Annul it.’

And the reason is:

“For they said: A gentile can annul his own avoda zara and that of his fellow, whether he worships it or whether he does not worship it.”

Therefore, as long as he has not acquired it, he can tell the gentile to annul it.

The Gemara infers:

What is meant by “he worships it,” and what is meant by “he does not worship it”?

If you say,

if you explain the beraita and say,

both this and that are a gentile,

meaning that in both cases the matter concerns a gentile, and it teaches us that he can annul even avoda zara that he never worshiped.

It cannot be explained in this way, since

this is the same as “his own and that of his fellow.”

Meaning, we already learned this law from the first clause: that he can annul the avoda zara of his fellow, that is, avoda zara that he never worshiped. For if he worshiped it, it is also his own avoda zara.

Rather, is it not so

that the intention of the beraita is certainly to say:

“He worships it,”

that is

a gentile. And what is meant by “he does not worship it”? A resident convert

who does not worship idolatry.”

And learn from it that a resident convert also can annul,

and not in accordance with Rav Nahman?

The Gemara answers:

No.

Actually, I can say to you, both this and that are a gentile.

And as for what you said,

and what we challenged: If so,

this is the same as “his own and that of his fellow,”

and what is novel in the latter clause?

One can say that in the

first clause

the case is when

both this and that

worship

Peor,

or

both this and that

worship

Markulis.

But each one has his own Peor or Markulis. And it teaches us that he can annul even the Peor or Markulis of his fellow.

But in the

latter clause

the case is when

this one

worships

Peor, and that one Markulis.

And it teaches us that even in this case, the one who worships Peor can annul Markulis.

But with regard to a resident convert, who does not worship idolatry at all, perhaps he cannot annul it, in accordance with the words of Rav Nahman.

The Gemara further raised an objection to the words of Rav Nahman:

It was objected:

We learned in a beraita: We are commanded, with regard to a resident convert, to sustain him, as it is stated (Leviticus 25:35): “When your brother becomes poor and his hand falters with you, you shall support him, a resident and sojourner, and he shall live with you.” (And see Bava Metzia 111b.)

But

who is a resident convert?

If you say that every gentile who does not worship idols is a resident convert, even gentiles were commanded regarding idolatry, and there is nothing novel in his not worshiping idolatry.

Rather,

anyone who accepted before three colleagues not to worship idolatry

is called a “resident convert.”

These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: Anyone who accepted upon himself the seven commandments that the descendants of Noah accepted upon themselves.

Others

say: These did not come within the category of a resident convert.

For all the gentiles were commanded regarding the seven Noahide commandments.

Rather, who is a resident convert? This is a convert who eats carrion, who accepted upon himself to fulfill all the commandments stated in the Torah except for the prohibition of carrion.

The laws of a resident convert:

One may designate wine with him.

That is, it is permitted for a Jew to leave wine in his shop for a short time, such as until he walks a mil, and there is no concern regarding his touch, since he does not worship idolatry; likewise, over a short period there is no concern lest he exchange it for his own wine.

But one may not deposit wine with him

for an extended time, lest he exchange it for his own wine, which is prohibited for drinking by rabbinic decree, as they decreed a prohibition of drinking regarding “ordinary wine of gentiles.”

And even in a city whose majority is Jewish

there is concern regarding this prohibition.

But one may designate wine with him

for a short time

, and even in a city whose majority are idolaters.

And we do not fear that he will give it to the gentile who enters his shop to touch the wine. Since he has no benefit from this, he will not give him permission to touch the wine.

His oil

is prohibited

like his wine.

Parenthetically, the Gemara raised a difficulty:

His oil

is prohibited

like his wine—is this conceivable?!

Would it enter your mind to say that the oil of a resident convert is prohibited?

Would oil indeed become

like

wine of libation?!

Rather,

the intention of the beraita certainly is to say:

His wine

is permitted for benefit

like his oil,

even though it is prohibited for drinking. The beraita continues to detail the laws of a resident convert:

And with regard to all other matters,

since he has not been circumcised, he is suspected with regard to the entire Torah, and

he is like a gentile.

Rabban Shimon says:

Even

his wine is wine of libation,

since he is not particular regarding the touch of a gentile. And we are concerned that a gentile touched his wine and poured it as an offering.

And some say [

and there are those who say ],

his wine

is permitted for drinking.

This concludes the beraita.

The Gemara infers:

In any event, it teaches: “And with regard to all his other matters, he is like a gentile.”

For what halakhic purpose?

What practical difference is there in his being treated like a gentile?

Is it not

the intention of the beraita to teach

that he annuls the avoda zara

of his fellow

like a gentile?!

And from here there is a difficulty with the words of Rav Nahman, who said above: “One who worships can annul; one who does not worship cannot annul.”

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: No.

Actually, he cannot annul avoda zara, in accordance with the words of Rav Nahman.

But his law is like that of a gentile

to grant permission

or

to annul permission

on Shabbat.

As follows.

A necessary introduction for understanding the beraita:

According to the fundamental law, an enclosed courtyard shared by several residents may be used on Shabbat for carrying, and it is permitted to bring objects from the houses into the courtyard, and from it into the houses.

But the Sages were concerned lest people err and come to permit carrying even in the public domain. Therefore they decreed that the residents of the courtyard may not carry from their houses into the courtyard, or from the courtyard into their houses, unless they made an “eruv.” That is, all the residents place food before Shabbat in the house of one of them, and through this their domains become mixed. It is as though they are all in the same dwelling in which the eruv is located, and the entire courtyard is one domain.

But if one of the neighbors did not participate in the eruv, it follows that there are two domains in this courtyard, and again it is prohibited for everyone to carry in it.

However, that resident can annul his domain for the other residents, even on Shabbat, and then carrying in the courtyard is permitted for everyone.

But if a gentile resides in that courtyard, the Sages instituted that it is prohibited for the other residents to carry in that courtyard, even by means of an eruv, and even if he annuls his domain, until they rent from him the domain that he has in that courtyard.

And the reason for the institution is so that they will refrain from living in neighborhood with gentiles.

And as it was taught: “A Jewish apostate,

if he still

guards his Shabbat in the marketplace [

that is, he does not publicly desecrate Shabbat ],

annuls his domain.

That is, he can annul the domain that he has in his courtyard, and it again becomes permitted to carry in it.

But a Jewish apostate

who does not guard his Shabbat

even

in the marketplace,

his law is like that of a gentile, who

does not annul a domain.

And the reason is,

for they said: A Jew grants permission,

that is, he can participate in an eruv,

and

likewise

annuls a domain.

If he forgot to participate in the eruv, he can annul his domain without an act of acquisition.

And with regard to a gentile,

and the same law applies to a Jew who is an apostate to publicly desecrate Shabbat, the Sages decreed that he does not annul his domain for free,

until they rent

his domain from him.

And

how

does a Jew annul his domain?

He says to him: “My domain is acquired by you; my domain is annulled for you; acquire it.” And it is unnecessary to confer possession.

This concludes the beraita.

Accordingly, Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak answers: A resident convert has the law of a gentile and cannot participate in an eruv or annul his domain until they rent it from him.

The Gemara brought another discussion concerning the law of a “resident convert”:

It was already explained at the beginning of the tractate that it is prohibited to send a gentile, during the three days before his festival, anything that could serve him for idolatry.

However, with regard to a resident convert, whom we know does not worship idolatry, it is permitted to send.