Avodah Zarah 65a (סה.) — the Talmud in English

And indeed,

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 (cited above)

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

which implies that if he did not accept this before three scholars, there is concern that he may be an idolater?

Rav Yehuda said to him:

When that statement was taught

[that we learned that he must accept before three scholars that he will not worship idolatry],

it was taught only when we came

to sustain him.

But in order to permit sending him a gift on his festival day, he need not accept this before three scholars.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But

did

Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A ger toshav who has had twelve months pass over him and has not been circumcised is like a sectarian 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 referring to one who accepted upon himself to be circumcised but was not circumcised.

In that case, his status is like that of a sectarian among the idolaters. But if he did not accept upon himself to be circumcised, and we know that he does not worship idolatry, this is sufficient to permit sending him a gift on his festival day.

And

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,

and found him

[he found him]

sitting immersed up to his neck in rose water

[sitting immersed up to his neck in a bath of rose water], with

standing

[standing]

naked prostitutes before him

[before him].

Bar Sheshekh 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

Rava

, “Ours is far superior to this.”

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

Bar Sheshekh said to him

Bar Sheshekh:

“Could there be anything more pleasurable than this?”

[Is there any pleasure greater than this] ?!

Rava said to him

Rava:

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

[You are subject to the fear of the kingdom, but in the World-to-Come we will not be subject to the fear of the kingdom].

Bar Sheshekh said to him

Bar Sheshekh:

“As for me, what fear of the kingdom is there upon me?”

[What fear of the kingdom is imposed upon me]?

While they were sitting, that royal messenger arrived

[the royal messenger arrived], and said to him

, “Bar Sheshekh,”

to Bar Sheshekh

, “Get up!”

“For the king requires you.”

[the king wishes to see you].

When he left and went away

[when Bar Sheshekh went out to leave by order of the king], he said to

Rava

Rava

, “May the eye that desires to see your downfall burst.”

[May the eye that desires to see your downfall be uprooted], for the Holy One, blessed be He, fulfills all your desires, and even your words are immediately clarified.

Rava said to him: Amen.

And indeed,

his eye burst

[his eye was uprooted]

—that of Bar Sheshekh.

Rav Pappi said: He should have quoted this verse to him

(Psalms 45:10):

“Daughters of kings are among your precious ones; the queen stands at your right hand, in 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 sexual relations—will stand at your right hand and surpass them all, just as gold brought from Ophir is superior to all other gold.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: He should have quoted this verse to him

(Isaiah 64:3):

“No eye has seen, God, besides You; He will do 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 such as have never been seen.

We learned in the Mishna:

“If he hired him to perform some other labor

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

On a straightforward reading, the wording of the Mishna indicates that his wage is permitted in every case.

And

the Gemara raises a difficulty: Is his wage permitted

even though he did not tell him to do so at the end of the day

[after the workday had ended] ?!

That is, is his wage permitted even when he carried a barrel of wine used for idolatry in the middle of the workday and accepted payment for this work?!

And it contradicts this with another source:

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 wine used for idolatry for me from one place to another,’ his wage is permitted.”

The implication is:

The reason is that he told him to do so at the end of the day; yes.

That is, only then is his wage permitted, but if he carried a barrel of wine used for idolatry

throughout the day

[during the work period]

, no.

But from our Mishna it appears that his wage is permitted in every case, even if he carried it during the work period?

On the basis of this difficulty,

Abaye said:

Indeed, one must force the wording and say:

When we also learned our Mishna, we learned it as referring to one who told him to do so at the end of the day.

[Our Mishna, too, deals with a case where he told him to do so at the end of the day.]

But

Rava said:

Actually, our Mishna deals even with a case where he carried a barrel of wine used for idolatry in the middle of the day, and nevertheless

it is not difficult

in light of the beraita cited above.

For

this

statement in the beraita, that if he did not tell him to do so at the end of the day his wage is prohibited, refers to a case

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

and a barrel of wine used for idolatry was found among them. In that case, all his wage is prohibited. Since he will not receive the entire wage until he carries all the barrels, it follows that the entire wage is dependent on carrying the barrel of wine used for idolatry, and it is prohibited. But

this

statement in the Mishna, that his wage is permitted even if he carried a barrel in the middle of the day, refers to a case

where he said to him, “Carry each barrel 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 wine used for idolatry, the wage for the other barrels is not prohibited; only the wage for carrying the barrel of wine used for idolatry is prohibited.

And it was taught:

As an uncontested statement, meaning, this too is what we learned in a beraita:

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

But if he said, “Carry

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

And this is in accordance with Rava's statement.

We learned further in the Mishna:

“One who hires a donkey to carry wine used for idolatry, his wage is prohibited;

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

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

“Why do I need this additional statement?”

Why did the tanna repeat that payment for work involving wine used for idolatry is prohibited?

“Is this not already 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 for riding, even though a gentile placed his jug

[his jug, containing wine used for idolatry]

upon it, his wage is permitted.”

And incidentally to the latter clause, he also taught the first clause.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

“Does this imply”

that the tanna intends to say

“that placing the jug is not considered a legal obligation for which he may demand payment”

[one who hires a donkey is prohibited from placing the jug on its back], and therefore, if the gentile placed the jug on the donkey's back, his wage is permitted?!

And it contradicts this with another source:

for we learned in a beraita:

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

his jug, and provisions for that journey.”

Even if the journey lasts several days. But

from that point onward,

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

donkey driver

[the person leading the donkey]

may prevent him

[he may stop him].

And likewise,

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

but

from that point onward,

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

hirer may prevent him.

This concludes the beraita.

The implication is that the hirer is permitted to place his jug on the donkey's back. If so, why, when he hired the donkey and placed a jug of wine used for idolatry upon it, is his wage permitted?

Abaye said: Granted that placing the jug is legally permitted, but if he does not place it upon the donkey, do we say to him, “Deduct the wage for your jug”?

[Granted, it is permitted to place the jug on the donkey's back, but if he does not place it there, should the donkey's owner deduct from his wage on that account] ?!

Certainly not!

Accordingly, the wage received by the donkey's owner is not for placing the jug on the donkey. Therefore, his wage is permitted.

Incidentally, the Gemara explains the beraita cited above:

“What are the circumstances?”

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

If it is possible to purchase provisions,

[if they can easily be purchased along the way]

the donkey driver may also prevent him.

Why, then, was the hirer permitted to load provisions for several days?

And if it is not common to purchase, [

and if it is difficult to obtain provisions along the way]

the renter likewise should not prevent him,

then why may he prevent the donkey driver from loading provisions for several days in advance?

Rav Pappa said: It is necessary

to state that this is referring to a case

where it is common to make the effort and purchase from one inn to the next

[one can make the effort and obtain provisions each evening, when they stop to lodge at an inn].

Therefore,

a donkey driver,

who

whose practice is to make the effort and purchase

[whose practice is to make the effort and purchase food] may be prevented from loading provisions for several days in advance onto the donkey; rather, he should purchase them along the way.

But

a renter—it is not his practice to make the effort and purchase

[it is not his practice to make the effort and purchase food],

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

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

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