(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Avodah Zarah 59



(a) We just cited the ruling of Rebbi Yochanan Mishum Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak, that public expanses of water *cannot become Asur*. The problem with the implication that water belonging to a private person *can* is - that water is considered 'Mechubar le'Karka', and we have learned that 'Mechubar le'Karka' cannot become forbidden ("Eloheihem al he'Harim ... ").

(b) We resolve the problem - by introducing the suspicion that a wave momentarily detached itself from the stream, and that batch of water contained the water that the Nochri had worshipped.

(c) We now try to resolve from here the unresolved She'eilah from the previous Perek, which of the two disputants (B'nei Rebbi Chiya or Rebbi Yochanan) holds that stones that break away from a mountain that a Nochri worshipped are forbidden.

(d) Bearing in mind that their Machlokes involved stones that came loose by themselves, we refute this proof - by changing the case to when a Nochri detached the water with his hand (presumably, this suspicion is then based on the Chumra of Avodah-Zarah).

(a) When Rebbi Chiya bar Aba arrived in Gavla, he said nothing when he saw ...
1. ... Jewish women who were pregnant from potential Geirim who had performed Milah but not Tevilah.
2. ... Yisre'elim drinking wine which Nochrim had diluted.
3. ... Yisre'elim eating Turmus beans (that need to be cooked seven times before they become sweet and fit to eat) that had been cooked by Nochrim.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan instructed Rebbi Chiya bar Aba to go and tell the residents of Gavla - that their children were Mamzerim, their wine was Yayin Nesech and their Turmus beans were forbidden because of Bishul Akum.

(c) We already cited Rebbi Yochanan's reason for his second ruling ('Lech Lech Amrin li'Nezira ... '). The basis of his first ruling is - a. that a Nochri only becomes a Ger after Milah and Tevilah, and b. that a child born to a bas-Yisrael from an Eved or a Nochri is a Mamzer.

(d) This is the opinion of Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan however. According to the Halachah, only a child who is born from a relationship involving incest (which carries with it a Chiyuv Kareis) is a Mamzer.

(a) Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak Amar Rav rules that any food that can be eaten raw - is not subject to Bishul Akum.

(b) Nevertheless, despite the fact that Turmus beans cannot be eaten raw, Rebbi Yochanan needed to come on to the reason of 'Einan B'nei Torah' to forbid the Turmus beans in Gavla - because according to him, what Rav Yitzchak Amar Rav said was that any food that is not served at the king's table is not subject to Bishul Akum (and Turmus beans belong in that category).

(a) When they asked Rav Kahana whether a Nochri is permitted to carry the grapes to the wine-press - he replied in the negative, based on the principle of 'Lech Lech Amrin li'Nezira ... '.

(b) The Beraisa rules that in a case where a Nochri carried baskets or small barrels, of grapes from which juice was oozing, to the wine-press - the grapes and the wine that is subsequently made are permitted.

(c) When Rav Yeimar queried Rebbi Yochanan from this Beraisa - he pointed out that the Beraisa speaks in a case of 'Bedi'eved', whereas he was speaking 'Lechatchilah'.




(a) When that Nochri saw an Esrog fall into a barrel of wine - he ran to the barrel and grabbed the Esrog, to prevent it from sinking to the bottom of the barrel.

(b) Rav Ashi instructed those who were present - a. to hold the Nochri's hand tight (so that he should not stir the water), and b. to tip the barrel, allowing the wine to pour into another vessel until the level of the wine dropped to below the Nochri's hand (because it would be nigh-on impossible to control his hand [even whilst holding it] as he withdrew it from the wine, to prevent it from stirring the wine).

(a) Rav Ashi permitted someone - to sell the barrel of wine to the Nochri who was Menasech it (in spite of the fact that he would not have been permitted to sell it to any other Nochri) ...

(b) ... because he was merely making him pay for the good wine that he destroyed.

(c) Rav Ashi took his cue from a Beraisa. The Tana Kama there forbids benefiting from wine that a Nochri was Menasech not in the presence of the Avodah-Zarah; whereas Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava and Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira permit it - a . because real Nisuch only applies in the presence of the Avodas-Kochavim, and b. because the Nochri has no right to render one's wine Asur.

(d) This does not mean that Rav Ashi holds like the two Rebbi Yehudahs - only that he uses their second S'vara to permit selling it to him.

(a) In a case where the tap of a barrel of wine broke off, and a Nochri placed his hand over the hole to prevent the wine from flowing out, Rav Papa permits all the wine that is not actually next to the hole - because he does not consider the rest of the wine joined to the wine next to the tap (presumably because if not for the Nochri's hand, the latter would have immediately flowed out of the tap, whereas the former would have [momentarily] remained inside the barrel).

(b) He only forbade drinking the wine, and not deriving benefit from it - because the hole was too narrow for the Nochri to have stirred the wine in the barrel.

(c) In the second Lashon, where he is not so lenient - he forbids all the wine that is above the hole, seeing as it would all have flowed through the hole had the Nochri not kept his hand there.

(d) Based on a Mishnah in T'vul-Yom that we are about to cite, the Halachah is not like Rav Papa - since it follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah there (which is an individual opinion), and not that of the Chachamim.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,