Avodah Zarah 65a — the Talmud in English

And behold,

Rav Yehuda sent a gift [

sent a gift]

to

a gentile named

Avidarna, on their festival day.

Even though he was not a ger toshav.

And

he said, I know about him that he does not worship [

I know that he does not worship]

idolatry.

Rav Yosef said to him: But

was it not

taught

in a beraita (brought above)

, “Who is a ger toshav? Anyone who accepted upon himself before three haberim not to worship idolatry,”

implying that if he did not accept this before three haberim, there is concern that perhaps he worships idolatry?

Rav Yehuda said to him:

When that was taught

,

what we learned, that he must accept upon himself before three haberim that he will not worship idolatry,

was taught only when we come to sustain him.

But in order to permit sending him a gift on his festival day, it is not necessary for him to accept this before three haberim.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But

did

Rabba bar bar Hana say in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: A ger toshav over whom twelve months passed and he did not undergo circumcision is like a heretic among the idolaters?

This implies that in every respect he is like a gentile, and not only when we come to sustain him?

The Gemara answers:

There, it is a case where he accepted upon himself to undergo circumcision, but did not undergo circumcision.

And then his law is like that of a heretic among the idolaters. But if he did not accept upon himself to undergo circumcision, and we know that he does not worship idolatry, this alone suffices to permit sending him a gift on his festival day.

And also

Rava brought a gift [

brought a gift]

to

a gentile named

Bar Sheshekh, on their festival day.

And

he said, I know about him that he does not worship [

I know that he does not worship]

idolatry.

He went,

when he came to him,

he found him [

he found him]

sitting up to his neck in rose water [

sitting up to his neck in a bath of rose water]

, and standing

[

naked prostitutes before him [

before him].

He said to him,

Bar Sheshekh

, Do you have pleasures such as these in the World-to-Come [

Do you have pleasures such as these in the World-to-Come]?

Rava said to him,

Bar Sheshekh

, Ours is preferable by far to this [

Our reward in the World-to-Come is preferable to this].

Bar Sheshekh said to him:

Rava,

Can there be anything greater than this [

Is there pleasure greater than this] ?!

Rava said to him:

Bar Sheshekh,

You have the fear of the kingdom upon you. We will not have the fear of the kingdom upon us. [

You have the fear of the kingdom imposed upon you, but for us, in the World-to-Come, the fear of the kingdom will not be imposed upon us].

Bar Sheshekh said to him:

Rava,

As for me, at least, what fear of the kingdom is there upon me [

What fear of the kingdom is imposed upon me]?

While they were sitting, that royal official came [

the royal messenger came]

, and said to him

to Bar Sheshekh

, “Get up!”

For the king is summoning you [

the king is interested in you].

When he went out and departed [

when Bar Sheshekh went out to leave by the king’s command]

, he said to

Rava

, “May the eye that desires to see your misfortune burst” [

may the eye that desires to see your harm be uprooted], for the Holy One, blessed be He, fulfills all your desires, and even your conversation is clarified immediately.

Rava said to him: Amen.

And indeed,

his eye burst [

his eye was uprooted]

of Bar Sheshekh.

Rav Pappi said: He should have said to him from this verse (

Psalms 45:10):

“Daughters of kings are among your precious ones; the queen stands at your right hand in the gold of Ophir.”

The explanation is: Daughters of kings will stand before you for your honor and service, but the queen—that is, the woman designated for intercourse—will stand at your right hand and rise above them all, just as gold that comes from Ophir is superior to all other gold.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: He should have said to him from here (

Isaiah 64:3):

“No eye has seen, O God, besides You; He will do [this] for the one who awaits Him.”

The explanation is: No eye, other than the eye of the Holy One, blessed be He, has seen what He will do for the one who awaits Him—honor and greatness the likes of which have not been seen.:

We learned in the Mishna

“If he hired him to perform another labor

even though he said to him, ‘Carry for me a barrel of libation wine from place to place,’ his wage is permitted”.

Plainly, the language of the Mishna indicates that his wage is permitted in every case.

And

the Gemara raises an objection: Is his wage permitted

even though he did not say to him at the end of the day [

after the workday had ended] ?!

That is, is his wage permitted even in a case where he had him carry a barrel of libation wine in the middle of the workday, and he took wages for this labor?!

And we raise a contradiction,

for we learned in a beraita:

“One who hires a laborer, and at the end of the day says to him, ‘Carry a barrel of libation wine from place to place,’ his wage is permitted.”

It follows:

The reason is that he said to him at the end of the day; yes.

That is, only then is his wage permitted, but if he had him carry a barrel of libation wine

throughout the entire day [

during the work period]

, no.

But in our Mishna it implies that his wage is permitted in every case, even if he had him carry it during the work period?

And because of this difficulty,

Abaye said:

Indeed, one must force the matter and say,

Our Mishna was also taught concerning a case where he said it at the end of the day. [

Our Mishna too deals with a case where he said it at the end of the day.]

But

Rava said:

In truth, our Mishna deals even with a case where he had him carry a barrel of libation wine in the middle of the day, and nevertheless

it is not difficult

from the beraita above.

For

this

that we say in the beraita that if he did not say it at the end of the day his wage is prohibited concerns a case

where he said to him, “Carry for me one hundred barrels for one hundred perutot,”

and a barrel of libation wine was found among them; then all his wage becomes prohibited. Since he will not receive all the wage until he carries all the barrels, it follows that all the wage is dependent upon carrying the barrel of libation wine, and it becomes prohibited. But

this

that we say in the Mishna that his wage is permitted even if he carried a barrel in the middle of the day concerns a case

where he said to him, “Carry for me one barrel at a time for one peruta.”

It follows that the wage for each barrel is paid separately. Therefore, even if he carried a barrel of libation wine, the wage for the other barrels does not become prohibited, but only the wage for carrying the barrel of libation wine itself.

And it was taught,

in agreement, meaning, thus too we learned in a beraita:

“One who hires a laborer and says to him, ‘Carry for me one hundred barrels for one hundred perutot,’ and a barrel of libation wine is found among them—his wage is prohibited.”

But if he said, “Carry for me

one barrel at a time for one peruta,” and a barrel of libation wine is found among them, his wage is permitted.

And this is in accordance with Rava.

We learned further in the Mishna:

“One who hires a donkey to bring libation wine upon it, his wage is prohibited;

if he hired it to sit upon it, even though a gentile placed his jug upon it, his wage is permitted.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

Why do I need this further statement?

Why did the tanna teach us a second time that the wage for labor involving libation wine is prohibited—

is this not the first clause?

Have we not already learned this in the first clause?

The Gemara answers:

The latter clause was necessary for him.

The tanna came to teach us the law stated in the latter clause:

“If he hired it to sit upon it, even though a gentile placed his jug

[his jug, containing wine used for idolatrous libation]

upon it, his wage is permitted.”

And along with the latter clause, he taught the first clause as well.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Does this mean

that the tanna intends to say

that placing the jug is not a legal right for which to make a claim [

one who hires a donkey is forbidden to place the jug on its back], and therefore, if the gentile placed the jug on the donkey’s back, his wage is permitted?!

And we raise a contradiction,

for we learned in a beraita:

“One who hires a donkey—the hirer may place upon it his clothing,

his jug, and his provisions for that journey.

Even if the journey lasts several days. But

from this point onward,

if he wishes to place additional loads upon the donkey, the

donkey-driver [

the one leading the donkey]

may prevent him [

he may prevent him].

And likewise the

donkey-driver may place upon it barley and straw and his provisions for that day,

but

from this point onward,

if he wishes to place provisions for several days in advance upon the donkey, the

hirer may prevent him.

Thus far the beraita.

It follows that the hirer is permitted to place his jug on the donkey’s back; if so, why, when he hired the donkey and placed upon it a jug of libation wine, is his wage permitted?

Abaye said: Granted that placing the jug is a legal right for which to make a claim, but if he does not place it, do we say to him, “Deduct from his wage the payment for his jug” [

Granted, it is permitted to place the jug on the donkey’s back, but if he does not place it, should he deduct from the donkey’s owner’s wage on account of this] ?!

Certainly not!

And if so, the wage received by the donkey’s owner for his donkey is not for placing the jug. Therefore, his wage is permitted.

Incidentally, the Gemara explains the beraita brought above:

What are the circumstances?

That is, why is the hirer permitted to place a load and provisions for several days, whereas the donkey-driver was permitted only provisions for one day?

If it is possible to purchase, [

if it is easy to buy during the journey]

the donkey-driver too should be able to prevent him.

And why did they permit the hirer to load provisions for several days?

And if it is not common to obtain provisions for purchase, [

and it is difficult to obtain provisions along the way]

the renter, too, should not be able to prevent it,

and why can he prevent the donkey-driver from loading provisions for several days in advance?

Rav Pappa said: It is not necessary [to say this];

it is referring to a case

in which it is common to trouble oneself and buy from one lodging place to another [

it is possible to trouble oneself and obtain provisions every evening, when they stop to lodge at an inn].

And therefore,

a donkey-driver,

who

it is his way to trouble himself and buy [

it is his way to trouble himself and buy food] can prevent him from loading provisions for several days in advance onto the donkey; rather, he should buy them along the way.

But

a renter—it is not his way to trouble himself and buy [

it is not his way to trouble himself and buy food],

and therefore the donkey-driver cannot prevent him from loading the provisions for the entire journey onto the donkey in advance.

The Gemara brings another incident, concerning payment for wine of idolatrous libation:

The custom of the wine merchants in those days was to give the buyers the barrels as well, within the price of the wine.