Avodah Zarah 71a (עא.) — the Talmud in English

It is explained in the Mishna that, during wartime, the gentiles entering the city do not have time to pour the wine as an idolatrous libation.

Gemara:

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

And we raise a contradiction,

for did we not learn in tractate Ketubot (27a),

“A city that was conquered by an army besieging it

[a force that surrounds the city in order to conquer it],

there is concern that the soldiers raped the women of the city, and therefore

all the daughters of kohanim

who

were found

inside it are disqualified.

Since the wife of a kohen becomes forbidden to her husband even if she was raped .”

In any event, it is evident that they have time to engage in intercourse,

and if so, why do we not fear that they poured the wine as a libation?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Mari said: To pour a libation,

since their inclination does not overpower them to such an extent,

there is no time.

But

to engage in intercourse,

since their inclination overpowers them greatly,

there is time.

Mishna:

Introduction:

It was already explained at the beginning of this chapter that wine used for an idolatrous libation seizes its monetary equivalent. That is, payment for labor made with wine used for an idolatrous libation, or the monetary value of such wine, is forbidden to derive benefit from, just like the wine itself. Our Mishna discusses in which cases it is permitted to derive benefit from the monetary value of wine used for an idolatrous libation.

Jewish artisans

[Jewish craftsmen]

, who

performed work for a gentile, and

the

gentile

sent them a barrel of wine used for an idolatrous libation

as their payment,

it is permitted

for them

to say

to the gentile: “We do not want a barrel of wine;

give us its monetary value.”

This money is not considered the monetary value of wine used for an idolatrous libation, since they have not yet accepted the wine from him, and the gentile owes them money, rather than wine, in exchange for their labor. It follows that the money is payment for their labor, and not the monetary value of the wine.

But

once it entered

the barrel

into their possession,

it is forbidden

for them to say to the gentile, “Take the barrel and give us its monetary value,” since they have already acquired it. In such a case, the money they receive for it is the monetary value of wine used for an idolatrous libation, and not payment for their labor. The monetary value of wine used for an idolatrous libation is forbidden to derive benefit from.:

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses additional circumstances in which it is permitted to derive benefit from the monetary value of wine used for an idolatrous libation:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

If the king imposed a tax on wine, and the Jew wanted the gentile to pay the tax on his behalf, with the Jew giving him money in exchange,

it is permitted for a person to say to a gentile, “Go and pay the king’s tax for me.”

Although the gentile gives the king’s agent wine used for an idolatrous libation, and the Jew pays him money in exchange, this is not considered as though the Jew sent the gentile to pay his debt with wine used for an idolatrous libation, since the gentile is not obligated to give the tax collector wine and can pay him money.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

It was objected:

We learned in a beraita:

“A person may not say to a gentile, ‘Enter in my place

[take my place]

with the tax collector

[the officer]

, but he may say to him, ‘Save me from the tax collector.’”

That is, one who owes wine to the tax collector may not say to a gentile, “Pay him in my place,” since this wording implies that he appoints him as an agent to pay his debt, and it follows that he paid his debt with wine used for an idolatrous libation.

But he may say to him, “Go and appease the officer with whatever you can.” Then, even if he gives him wine, he is not acting as his agent, and it is permitted.

The Gemara assumed that the wording “Go and pay the king’s tax for me” has the same status as “Enter in my place with the tax collector.” If so, it is difficult: Why did Rav permit one to say this?

Rav said to him: Are you saying, “Enter in my place with the tax collector”?!

Do you challenge me from the wording “Enter in my place with the tax collector”?!

This is comparable only to this: “But he may say to him, ‘Save me from the tax collector’!”

That is, the wording “Go and pay the king’s tax for me” is not like “Enter in my place with the tax collector,” but like “Save me from the tax collector.”

Since the gentile is not obligated to pay the king with wine, but may pay him money, when he paid him with wine he was not the Jew’s agent; rather, he did so on his own initiative.:

Mishna:

Our Mishna presents additional cases in which it is permitted or forbidden to derive benefit from the monetary value of wine used for an idolatrous libation.

A Jew

who sells his wine to a gentile,

and

stipulated

[agreed with the gentile on the price of the wine]

before he measured it

[before he measured the wine for him]

, its monetary value is permitted.

Since the wine does not become forbidden until the gentile touches it, and here the gentile acquired the wine before touching it, [or by drawing it, or by paying money in advance, as the Gemara will explain,] it follows that he owes the Jew the monetary value of permitted wine.

But if he

measured

the wine for the gentile

before he stipulated

[before they agreed on its price]

, its monetary value is forbidden

for the Jew to derive benefit from.

Since the gentile does not firmly resolve to acquire the wine until he knows its price, consequently, when he touched the wine and rendered it wine used for an idolatrous libation, it was still the Jew’s wine. When the gentile subsequently came to pay him, the money was the monetary value of wine used for an idolatrous libation, and it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, like the wine itself.:

Gemara:

It is stated in the Mishna that if he stipulated the price of the wine with the gentile and then measured the wine for him, its monetary value is permitted. This is because the gentile had already acquired the wine before he had an opportunity to render it a libation, and it follows that he owes him the monetary value of permitted wine.

The Gemara discusses through which act of acquisition the gentile acquired the wine.

Ameimar said: Drawing by a gentile effects acquisition.

That is, if one wishes to sell an object to a gentile and the gentile draws the object, he acquires it even if he has not yet paid him its monetary value. Likewise, to acquire an object from a gentile, drawing it is sufficient, and one need not pay him its monetary value.

Know

that this was the practice among the gentiles:

“For these Persians would send gifts to one another

[the practice of the Persians was to send gifts to one another]

, and they would not retract from them

[they would not retract from the transaction], even though they had not yet received money in exchange, since they acquired them through drawing.”

Rav Ashi said: I can tell you that drawing by a gentile never effects acquisition.

Rather, he acquires only when he gives him money.

And

one cannot prove otherwise from the practice of the Persians, since

the reason that they did not retract from them

was not acquisition through drawing, but rather

“they considered it an affront to their honor”

[they considered it arrogant to cancel the transaction after drawing].

Rav Ashi said: From where do I say this

[from where did I learn that drawing does not effect acquisition for a gentile]?

From the fact that Rav said to those wine merchants

[sellers of wine]

, “When you measure wine for gentiles, take money from them and then measure it for them.”

[When you pour wine into the gentiles’ vessels, first take payment from them, and only afterward pour the wine into their vessels.]

“And if they do not have money with them, lend it to them and then take it from them, so that it will be a loan to them.”

[And if they did not bring money with them, lend it to them, and afterward take this money from them, so that the payment for the wine will be considered a loan and not the monetary value of the wine.]

“For if you do not do so, when it becomes wine used for an idolatrous libation,

it will be in your possession. And when you take the money, you will be taking the monetary value of wine used for an idolatrous libation.”

[For if you do not act in this manner, it is forbidden for you to derive benefit from the money for the wine, since the wine became wine used for an idolatrous libation while it was still yours, and it follows that you benefited from the monetary value of wine used for an idolatrous libation.] These are Rav’s words.