Avodah Zarah 64b (סד:) — the Talmud in English

And likewise,

it is taught

in a beraita

also as follows:

“In what case is this statement said? When they inherited it.

At that point the Sages were lenient and permitted him to take money or produce in exchange for the object of idol worship or the wine libated to idolatry, lest he return to his corrupt ways, as stated above.

But

a gentile and a Jew who

entered into a partnership

[made a partnership between them and came to divide their partnership]

it is prohibited

for the Jew to take money in exchange for an object of idol worship or wine libated to idolatry.”

They then sat again and raised the following question

[they sat again and were uncertain]:

We learned above (52b): “A gentile can nullify his own object of idol worship and that of another. But a Jew cannot nullify the object of idol worship of a gentile.”

And the question arises:

With regard to a resident alien,

who does not worship idols, as will be explained below, but in other laws is like a gentile,

what is the law concerning his nullifying an object of idol worship?

Is his status like that of a Jew, who cannot nullify the object of idol worship of a gentile, or is his status like that of a gentile?

The root of the uncertainty is:

Does one who worships idols nullify

[does only one who himself worships idols have the ability to nullify them],

but a resident alien,

who does not worship idols

[who does not worship idols],

does not nullify them.

Or perhaps, anyone of the same species can nullify

[anyone who is of the same species as the gentile can nullify the object of idol worship],

, and this one

the resident alien, although he does not worship idols, nevertheless

is of the same species

as the gentile

.

Rav Naḥman said to them: It stands to reason

that only one who

worships idols

[worships idols]

can nullify them

[can nullify them].

But a resident alien

who does not worship idols

[who does not worship idols]

cannot nullify them.

The Gemara raised an objection:

It was objected:

We learned in a beraita:

“If a Jew found an object of idol worship in the marketplace, before it came into his possession, he says to a gentile, and the gentile nullifies it.

And after the gentile nullifies it, the Jew may acquire it.

But

once it came into his possession,

and he acquired it, he again

does not say to a gentile: ‘Nullify it.’

And the reason is:

“Because they said: A gentile can nullify his own object of idol worship and that of another, whether he worships it or whether he does not worship it.”

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

The Gemara analyzes the statement:

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

If you say

that you will explain the beraita and say:

Both cases involve a gentile,

that is, both cases involve someone who worships idols, and the beraita teaches us that he can even nullify an object of idol worship that he never worshipped.

This cannot be the explanation, since

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

That is, we already learned this law from the first clause: he can nullify the object of idol worship of another, meaning an object of idol worship that he never worshipped. If he worshipped it, it is also his own object of idol worship.

Rather, is it not

certainly the intention of the beraita to say that

“whether he worships it,”

means

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

who does not worship idols.

And learn from this that a resident alien can also nullify an object of idol worship,

and not as Rav Naḥman said?

The Gemara answers:

No.

Actually, I can say to you that both cases involve a gentile.

And as for what you said,

that if so,

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

and what is the novel teaching of the latter clause?

It can be said that in the

first clause

the case is when

both this one and that one

worship

Peor,

or

both this one and that one

worship

Mercury.

But each of them has his own Peor or Mercury. And the beraita teaches us that one can even nullify the Peor or Mercury belonging to the other.

But in the

latter clause

the case is when

this one

worships

Peor, while that one worships Mercury.

And the beraita teaches us that even in this case, the one who worships Peor can nullify the Mercury.

But with regard to a resident alien, who does not worship idols at all, perhaps he cannot nullify it, in accordance with the words of Rav Naḥman.

The Gemara raised another objection to the words of Rav Naḥman:

It was objected:

We learned in a beraita: We are commanded with regard to a resident alien to sustain him, as it is stated (Leviticus 25:35): “And if your brother becomes impoverished and his means fail him with you, you shall support him, whether he is a resident alien or a sojourner, and he shall live with you.” (See Bava Metzia 111b.)

But

who is a resident alien?

If you say that every gentile who does not worship idols is a resident alien, even gentiles were commanded concerning idol worship, and therefore there is nothing novel in the fact that he does not worship idols.

Rather,

anyone who accepted before three colleagues not to worship idols

is called a “resident alien.”

These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

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

Others

say: These do not qualify as a resident alien.

For all gentiles were commanded concerning the seven Noahide mitzvot.

Rather, who is a resident alien? This is a convert who eats unslaughtered animal carcasses, who accepted upon himself to observe all the mitzvot stated in the Torah except for the prohibition against unslaughtered carcasses.

The laws of a resident alien are as follows:

One may designate wine in his presence.

That is, a Jew may leave wine in his shop for a short time, such as until he has walked the distance of a mil, and there is no concern that the resident alien will touch it, since he does not worship idols; likewise, during a short period there is no concern that he might exchange it for his own wine.

But one may not deposit wine with him

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

And even in a city whose majority is Jewish

there is concern for this prohibition.

But one may designate wine in his presence

for a short time

, even in a city whose majority consists of idol worshippers.

There is no concern that he will allow a gentile who enters his shop to touch the wine. Since the gentile derives no benefit from this, he will not allow him to touch the wine.

His oil

is prohibited

like his wine.

Parenthetically, the Gemara raised a difficulty:

“His oil

is prohibited

like his wine”—could this enter your mind?!

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

Is oil actually

like

wine libated to idolatry?!

Rather,

the intention of the beraita is certainly to say:

His wine

is permitted for benefit

like his oil.

Although it is prohibited for drinking. The beraita continues to detail the laws of a resident alien:

“And with regard to all other matters,”

since he is uncircumcised, he is suspect concerning the entire Torah, and

he is like an idol-worshipping gentile.

Rabban Shimon says:

Even

his wine is wine libated to idolatry,

since he does not take care regarding the touch of an idol-worshipping gentile. We are concerned that a gentile touched his wine and libated it to idolatry.

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 an idol-worshipping gentile.”

For what halakhic purpose?

What practical difference is there in the fact that his status is like that of an idol-worshipping gentile?

Is it not

the intention of the beraita to teach

that he can nullify the object of idol worship

of another

like a gentile?!

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

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: No.

In fact, he cannot nullify an object of idol worship, in accordance with the words of Rav Naḥman.

Rather, his status is like that of a gentile

with regard to granting permission

or

with regard to nullifying permission

on Shabbat.

As follows.

An introduction necessary for understanding the beraita:

As a matter of Torah law, a closed courtyard shared by several residents may be used for carrying on Shabbat, and it is permitted to bring objects from the houses into the courtyard and from the courtyard into the houses.

However, the Sages were concerned that people might err and come to permit carrying even in the public domain. Therefore, they decreed that the residents of a courtyard may not carry from their houses into the courtyard, or from the courtyard into their houses, unless they made an eruv: all the residents contribute food before Shabbat to one of their houses, thereby making their domains joined, as though they all reside in the same dwelling where the eruv is located, and the entire courtyard is one domain.

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

Nevertheless, that resident can renounce his domain to the other residents, even on Shabbat, after which everyone is permitted to carry in the courtyard.

But if a gentile lives in the same courtyard, the Sages enacted that the other residents may not carry in that courtyard, even by means of an eruv, and even if the gentile renounces his domain, until they rent from him the domain that he possesses in that courtyard.

The reason for this enactment is so that they will refrain from living as neighbors with gentiles.

As it is taught in a beraita: “A Jewish apostate

who still

observes Shabbat in the marketplace

[that is, he does not publicly desecrate Shabbat]

can renounce his domain.

That is, he can renounce the domain that he possesses in his courtyard, after which it is again permitted to carry there.

But a Jewish apostate

who does not observe Shabbat

even

in the marketplace,

his status is like that of a gentile, who

cannot renounce his domain.

The reason is

because they said: A Jew grants permission,

that is, he can participate in an eruv,

and

likewise

he can renounce his domain.

If he forgot to participate in the eruv, he can renounce his domain without a formal acquisition.

And with regard to an idol-worshipping gentile,

and the same law applies to a Jew who apostatized by publicly desecrating Shabbat, the Sages decreed that he cannot renounce his domain for free,

until they rent

his domain from him.

And

how

does a Jew renounce his domain?

He says to him: “My domain is acquired by you; my domain is renounced to you; acquire it.” And there is no need to confer ownership.

This concludes the beraita.

Accordingly, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak answers that a resident alien has the status of a gentile and cannot participate in an eruv or renounce his domain until they rent it from him.

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

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

However, with regard to a resident alien, whom we know does not worship idols, it is permitted to send such an item.