json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Avodah Zarah/English/The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein.json

{
    "language": "en",
    "title": "Mishnah Avodah Zarah",
    "versionSource": "http://www.sefaria.org/shraga-silverstein",
    "versionTitle": "The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein",
    "status": "locked",
    "license": "CC-BY",
    "versionNotes": "To enhance the quality of this text, obvious translation errors were corrected in accordance with the Hebrew source",
    "versionTitleInHebrew": "המשנה עם פירושי רבי עובדיה מברטנורא, רבי שרגא זילברשטיין",
    "versionNotesInHebrew": "כדי לשפר את איכות הטקסט הזה, שונו שגיאות תרגום ברורות בהתאם למקור העברי",
    "actualLanguage": "en",
    "languageFamilyName": "english",
    "isBaseText": false,
    "isSource": false,
    "direction": "ltr",
    "heTitle": "משנה עבודה זרה",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Seder Nezikin"
    ],
    "text": [
        [
            "\tThree days before \"ideihen\" [(an epithet for \"their festivals\")] of the idolators it is forbidden to trade with them [(to sell or to buy) because they go and thank their gods (for it) on the day of their festival], to lend them [animals or vessels, things that are returned intact] or to borrow from them; to lend them [money, which is not returned intact, loans being given to be spent] or to borrow (money) from them; to pay them (a debt) [When they are paid they go and thank their god on their holiday], or to exact payment from them. R. Yehudah said: Payment may be exacted of them for they are distressed [over their lost money and will not go and thank (their god).] They said to him: Even though they are distressed now, they will be happy afterwards [on the morrow, the day of their festival, and will go and thank (their god). The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah. And it is only for a written loan that it is forbidden to exact payment of them; but for a verbal loan it is permitted, it being considered as rescuing (his money from their hand)]",
            "\tR. Yishmael says: Three days before and three days afterwards it is forbidden, and the sages say: Before their festivals it is forbidden and afterwards it is permitted. [And this is the halachah. And in the exile where we cannot prevent ourselves from dealing with them, their being the major source of our livelihood, and also, because we fear them, only their festival day itself is forbidden. And today it is regarded as permitted even on the day itself, the rabbis taking it for granted that they do not go and thank (their god); for all that is forbidden in this tractate obtains with actual idolators and idolatry only.]",
            "\tAnd these are the festivals of the nations: the calends (the Roman New Year) [eight days after the Teveth (winter) solstice]; the Saturnalia [eight days before the solstice. When Adam saw the days growing shorter, he thought: \"Woe unto me! Can it be because I have sinned that the world is returning to (primordial) emptiness and void!\" — whereupon he sat eight days in fasting and in prayer. When, with the advent of the Teveth solstice, he saw the days growing progressively longer, he said: \"It was (only) the natural course of things\" — whereupon he celebrated an eight-day festival. The following year he established both (eight day periods as festivals). He dedicated them to Heaven; they (the heathens), to idolatry]; the Kratisis [the day of the king's investiture, which they established as a festival]; the Genusia [coronation day] of kings; the [king's] birthday; and the day of his death. These are the words of R. Meir. And the sages say: Every death where there is burning [i.e., where they burn his personal effects with him, as they do with kings], there is a festival [i.e., they establish a festival for idolatry on that day; and so, from year to year, all the days of his son. And all of the aforementioned days are of special significance to them and are forbidden (in the aforementioned activities) three days before]; and where there is no burning there is no festival day. But the day of the shaving of his beard, [which is not fixed for all, but which each one makes a festival day], and (the day of the cutting of) his locks [which he leaves behind him the whole year and which he cuts only from year to year, making a festival on that day], and the day that he comes up from the sea, [which he makes a festival day for having been saved], and the day that he is released from prison, and the day on which a gentile makes a feast for his son [-- On all of these occasions, the aforementioned activities] are forbidden, only on that day [ and not before ], and only for that man (celebrating his holiday) [because they are of relatively lesser significance.]",
            "\tA city which worshipped a certain idolatry — [on the day of its festival for that idolatry] — outside of it, [even very close to that city] it is permitted [to do business with its inhabitants (who do not worship that idolatry). For it was their custom that the festival day of the one did not fall on the festival day of the other.] If there were [a festival for] idolatry outside of it, then within it, it is permitted [to do business]. Is it permitted to go there [to that city on the day of its festival?] If the way is paved [specifically] to that place, it is forbidden [to go there. For he thereby gives the impression that he is going to serve that idolatry] And if he could walk upon it [i.e., if the road were also paved] to another city, it is permitted, [for the observer could think that he is going there] A city that served idolatry, with shops, some decorated, [a sign that the priests collected from them a tariff for idolatry] some undecorated — this transpired in Beth Shean, and the sages ruled: the decorated ones are forbidden and the undecorated ones, permitted. [For these did not collect tariff for idolatry, and no benefit would accrue to idolatry thereby. (And to buy from them \"something that endures\" on their festival day is permitted, for the seller will be sad (for parting with it) and will not go and thank (his god for the business).]",
            "\tThese are things that it is forbidden to sell to idolators: itztroblin (fruits of a cedar), b'noth shvach [kinds of large white figs] with their spines [on which they hang, the gentile probably wishing to bring them as an offering to idolatry], and frankincense, and a white cock. R. Yehudah says: It is permitted to sell him a white cock among the others. [If a gentile buys many cocks from a Jew it is permitted to sell him a white cock among them; for since he takes others, it is apparent that he does not intend it for idolatry.] And when it is by itself, he cuts its finger and sells it to him, for they do not sacrifice a defective (animal) to idolatry. As for all other things, if he does not specify (what he will use them for) it is permitted (to sell them to him), and if he expressly states [that he desires them for idolatry], it is forbidden. [It is necessary to say this, for I might otherwise think that this man does not really want them for idolatry, but says that he does, thinking that just as he is devoted to idolatry, so are all others, and he says this, hoping that they will \"come down\" (on the price); we are, therefore, told that this is not so.] R. Meir says: It is also forbidden to sell to an idolator [the fruit of] a choice palm, [which are customarily offered to idolatry], chatzav [sugar cane], and niklivam [an unusually fine herb. The halachah is in accordance with R. Meir.]",
            "\tIn a place where it was the custom to sell a small animal to idolators, they (are permitted to) sell. In a place where it was the custom not to sell, [where they were stringent with themselves, lest they come to sell a large one], they do not sell. And in all places it is not permitted to sell a large animal to them, [the rabbis having decreed (against it) lest he lend or rent his beast to an idolator (who might work with it on Shabbath), and a Jew is exhorted vis-à-vis the resting of his animal (on the Sabbath). And through sirsur (brokerage), which would not be confused with renting, the broker, not renting, it is permitted to sell it.] (And it is not permitted to sell them) calves or young asses, sound or broken. [For even the broken ones are fit for (some kind of) work, [e.g., grinding]. R. Yehudah permits (selling) an unsound beast. [And the halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.] And Ben Betheirah permits (selling) a horse, [even a horse upon which the hunters ride the birds with which they hunt, holding that \"a living being carries itself.\" And the Rabbis hold that it is only a human being that carries itself. Therefore, if it were  used only for riding, then (selling) it is permitted. But to carry a different living thing other than a human being is forbidden. And the halachah is not in accordance with Ben Betheirah.]",
            "\tWe do not sell them bears or lions or anything that can cause harm to the public, [such as weapons of war, swords and spears]; we do not build with them basilicae [high towers where they sit to judge men, and whence they throw them to their death, a gardom [a building where they judge capital cases], stadiums [sports arenas, where they bring goring bulls to kill men], and a bima [a narrow high tower, whence they push men to their death]. But we do build with them bimusioth [buildings which are neither for the purpose of idolatry or for execution] and bath houses. When they reach the dome, where their idols are placed, it is forbidden to continue building.",
            "\tWe do not sell them what is attached to the ground, [it being written (Deuteronomy 7:2): \"velo techanem\" (\"Give them no resting\") in the land]; but it may be sold when it is cut off. R. Yehudah says: One may sell it to him on condition that it will be cut. We may not rent them houses in Eretz Yisrael [(a decree to forestall selling them, a Torah prohibition)]; and it goes without saying [that it is forbidden to rent] fields, [where two prohibitions obtain, \"resting\" in the land and releasing the land from tithes.] And in Suria [Aram Tzovah, conquered by David, and not of the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael] it is permitted to rent them houses [and we do not decree against it to forestall selling. For even if he did sell he would not be in violation of a Torah prohibition, for \"Give them no resting\" is written only in respect to Eretz Yisrael. But it may not be sold ab initio, in order to forestall selling in Eretz Yisrael.] But fields may not (be sold) [because two prohibitions relate to them (see above).] And [far] outside of Eretz Yisrael [where selling is not to be decreed against to forestall selling in Eretz Yisrael], houses are sold to them and fields are rented, [but fields are not sold, because two prohibitions relate to them.] These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yossi says: In Eretz Yisrael houses are rented to them, but not fields. And in Suria houses are sold and fields rented. And outside Eretz Yisrael both are sold. [The halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi, provided that he does not rent to three gentiles together, so that he not make a neighborhood of gentiles.]",
            "\tEven in a place where they permitted renting, [(according to R. Meir, in Suria alone and not in Eretz Yisrael; and, according to R. Yossi, even in Eretz Yisrael)], they did so, not for dwelling, [(but only to store there straw, wood, and the like)] because he (the idolator) brings idolatry into it (his house), it being written (Deuteronomy 3:27): \"You shall not bring idolatry into your house.\" And in any place, he may not rent him his bath house, for it is called by his (the Jew's) name, [and the gentile heats it on Shabbath, and people will come to say: \"This Jew's bath house is open on Shabbath.\" This is not comparable to the instance of a Jew's field which a gentile lessee (aris) works on Shabbath. For a field is made for leasing and the gentile does his own work (and not that of the Jew). But a bath house is not made for leasing and not everyone knows that a Jew rented it to the gentile. For this reason it is forbidden. And in our days, when it is common to lease a bath house for a year, a half-year, a third, or a quarter, as a field (is leased), it is permitted to rent a bath house to a gentile. And even though the gentile works there on Shabbath, people know that the gentile is a leaseholder there and that he is doing his own work.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tA beast may not be stood at the inns of idolators, [where wayfarers lodge], for idolators are suspect of sodomy. [This is even forbidden with female (beasts) vis-à-vis females. For idolators are familiar with their friends' wives, and sometimes, not finding them, might use the beast.] And a woman may not be alone with them, for they are suspect of illicit relations. [Even a type of yichud (\"being alone\") which is permitted with a Jew (as with a Jewess and a Jew, when his wife is with him) is forbidden for a Jewess and an idolator; for his wife does not \"guard\" him.] And a man may not be alone with them, for they are suspect of killing. A Jewess may not deliver a gentile, for she thereby delivers a son for idolatry. [But for a fee it is permitted, so as not to generate hatred.] But a gentile may deliver a Jewess [when other Jews are standing over her, but not when they are alone; for they are suspect of blood-spilling (i.e., she might kill the child)]. A Jewess may not nurse the child of a gentile; but a gentile may nurse the child of a Jew in her (the Jew's) home.",
            "\tIt is permitted to be healed by them, a healing of money [i.e., one's animals], but not a healing of souls [i.e., one's body. And if he says to him: \"This medicine is good for you,\" even the healing of his body is permitted therewith.] And one may not have his hair cut by them in all places. These are the words of R. Meir. And the sages say: In the public domain it is permitted; but not in privy. [And if he (who is having his hair cut) looks in a mirror, it is permitted. For the gentile will think, since he does this, he must be a distinguished person, and he will be afraid to kill him.]",
            "\tThese things of the idolators are forbidden (to a Jew), and their issur (prohibition) is an issur of (derivation of) benefit: (their) wine, and the vinegar of an idolator, which, in the beginning, was wine [to exclude the gentile's having bought vinegar from a Jew, in which instance benefit is not forbidden. For the reason benefit is forbidden is that he might have offered it as a libation to idolatry, and vinegar is not offered as a libation]; and Hadrianic earthenware [The emperor Hadrian would knead clay with wine and make vessels of it without smelting it in an oven. They would take these to war, and when they wished they would place the shards in water, in which they would dissolve. The clay would sink to the bottom and the wine would remain diluted in the water — thus the name \"Hadrianic earthenware\"]; and \"heart-hides,\" (\"oroth levuvin\") [so called because they would make a round hole (in the hide) from which they extracted the heart (lev) and offered it up to idolatry.] R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: When its (the hide's) cut is round, it is forbidden; when it is extended (in a straight line), it is permitted; [for only a round cut is made for idolatry. The halachah is in accordance with R. Shimon b. Gamliel.] It is permitted (to derive benefit from) flesh that goes in to (be offered to) idolatry (it not yet having been offered) and it is forbidden (to derive benefit from) flesh that goes out, [it already having been devoted to idolatry]; for it is like \"the sacrifices of the dead\" (Psalms 106:28). These are the words of R. Akiva. Those who go to tarputh [idolatrous debauchery (from \"beth tarpah,\" a woman's pudendum)] — it is forbidden to deal with them; [for they then go and thank their idolatry (for the sale), and, what is more, they buy (with the proceeds) what they need for their idolatrous offerings.) The halachah is in accordance with R. Akiva.]",
            "\tThe [leathern] skins of the gentiles and their [earthenware], vessels, and the wine of a Jew inside them are forbidden, and their issur (prohibition) is an issur of (derivation of) benefit. These are the words of R. Meir. And the sages say: Their issur is not an issur of benefit. [And this is their din: If they are new, it is permitted to put wine in them immediately. And if the gentile had placed wine in them to keep, he fills them with water which he leaves there for three full days, spilling out the water every full day of the three days and replacing it with fresh water, after which it is permitted to put wine in them. And if twelve months had passed without a gentile's wine being in them, they are permitted immediately thereafter without emptying.] The shells and kernels (of grapes) of a gentile are forbidden, and their issur is an issur of benefit. These are the words of R. Meir. And the sages say: Wet ones are forbidden [all twelve months, in derivation of benefit], and dry ones are permitted [to eat, after twelve months.] The muries [(fish) brine, into which they used to put wine)] and the cheeses of the gentiles of Beth Unyaki [a village in which most of the calves were sacrificed to idolatry] are forbidden in (derivation of) benefit. These are the words of R. Meir. [R. Meir is apprehensive of the minority (of instances), holding that even though the majority of the calves are a minority relative to the other animals, we are apprehensive of the minority, and vis-à-vis all the cheeses that are found there we are afraid they may have been curdled in the stomachs of calves sacrificed to idolatry.] And the sages say: Their issur is not an issur of benefit. [The sages are not apprehensive of the minority. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Meir in all of these three instances.]",
            "\tR. Yehudah said: R. Yishmael asked R. Yehoshua as they were walking along the road: Why were the cheeses of idolators forbidden [to eat]? [The query is to the Rabbis. There is no need to be apprehensive of the milk of an unclean animal for we know that such milk does not curdle.] He answered: Because they curdle them in the maw of carrion. R. Yishmael: But is the maw of a burnt-offering not more stringent (vis-à-vis derivation of benefit) than that of carrion, not withstanding which they said: A Cohein who can tolerate it quaffs it raw, [it being nothing more than a secretion]! (And they did not concede it to him [to permit it ab initio] but told him: It is not permitted to derive benefit from it, but a meilah [abuse of sacred property] offering is not brought [if benefit were derived from it]). Then he (R. Yehoshua) repeated: Because they curdle it in the maw of calves (devoted to) idolatry. [And even though it is a mere secretion, it is forbidden, it being written in respect to idolatry (Deuteronomy 13:18): \"And let there adhere to your hand naught from the spoil.\"] He (R. Yishmael) thereupon asked: If so, why did they not forbid derivation of benefit from it? — whereupon he diverted him to another matter, [but he did not want to give the reason for it, for twelve months had not yet elapsed since the issuance of this decree; and when the rabbis issue a decree they do not reveal its reason until the thirteenth month (from its issuance) until it has taken hold, lest there be one who will question the reason and come to cheapen it. And the reason that they forbade the cheeses of gentiles is that they curdle it in the skin of the maw of the slaughtered animals of gentiles, which is neveilah (carrion). And though it is negligible relative to all of the milk, still, since it curdles the milk and acts upon it, it is not nullified, the rule being: \"All goes according to the catalyst.\" And the interdiction against milk and meat would not forbid it, for if the meat itself were permitted, it would not forbid the milk, though it curdled it until it imparted a flavor (of meat) to it. But a thing which is forbidden in itself (e.g., neveilah) forbids the permitted even if it does not impart a flavor to it, so long as it curdles it.] (\"whereupon he diverted him to a different matter\") asking him: Yishmael how do you read it (Song of Songs 1:2): \"for your [Israel's] love [of the L rd] ('dodecha') is better than wine,\" or: \"for Your [the L rd's] love [of Israel] ('dodayich') is better than wine\"? He answered: \"for better is dodayich\" — whereupon he (R. Yehoshua) said: It is not so, as is indicated by what follows (3): \"For fragrance Your oils are good, etc.\" (the context clearly indicating that Israel is addressing the L rd). [Israel is saying before the Holy One Blessed be He: \"Sweeter to me are the words of dodecha (Your loved ones, i.e., the measures ordained and decreed by the sages) more than 'the wine of Torah,' (the written Torah itself).\"]",
            "\tThese things of gentiles are forbidden (to eat), but their issur is not one of (derivation of) benefit: milk (from an animal) milked by a gentile without being observed by a Jew, and their loaf and their oil [All of these are forbidden for fear that they will lead to fraternization (and intermarriage). They permitted a baker's loaf, but a householder's loaf was permitted only to wayfarers and in situations of stress. And when they saw that the issur of oil did not \"take,\" they convened and permitted it, as stated in the Mishnah]. (Rabbi and his beth-din permitted oil.), and shelakoth [Anything cooked by gentiles even in the utensils of a Jew and even in his presence, where there is no apprehension of the intermixture of anything that is forbidden or of the pollutions of idolatry is forbidden because of \"the cooked things of gentiles.\" ([bishulei nachrim]. This, if he were not assisted by a Jew neither in the beginning nor in the end of the cooking.) And they forbade because of bishulei nachrim only something which is not eaten raw and which is placed upon the royal table to complement the loaf; but if one of these is lacking, bishulei nachrim does not obtain.], and preserves, to which wine and vinegar are customarily added [Derivation of benefit is not forbidden in such an instance because the taste of wine is not perceptible in them, but it is forbidden to eat them], and a hash of tarith [clean fish, whose identity is not recognizable. It is forbidden when taken from gentiles because of the possibility that an unclean fish is intermixed with them.], and a brine in which dagah kilbith is not found. [This is a small fish called kilbith, which grows in clean fish. If the brine of an unclean fish is intermixed with it, kilbith will not grow there.], and chilak [a kind of small clean fish, which have no fins and scales (as yet) but which will grow them later. Small unclean fish similar to them become intermixed with them and are not discernible, even when they are not hashed. But in the instance of tarith (above) the unclean fish are not similar to it, for which reason it is permitted when unhashed.], and a piece of chiltith [(a plant, so called in Arabic), which is cut into pieces with a knife. It is forbidden because of the fattiness of the knife, whose (forbidden) taste the chiltith absorbs by reason of its \"sharpness.\"], and salkontith salt, [which was used by all the Roman nobles. They used to smear it with pig fat and with the fats of unclean fish. It is rough and very white.] (All of these are forbidden to eat, but their issur is not one of (derivation of) benefit.)",
            "\tThese may be eaten: milk (from an animal) milked by a gentile in sight of a Jew, [not necessarily being seen by the Jew, but being visible to the Jew if he (the Jew) stood up. The gentile would be afraid (to milk an unclean animal in the Jew's presence), thinking: If he gets up, he will see me (and will not buy from me)], and their honey, and their davdevaniyoth [(loaves of honey taken from the hive.) Even though they drip, we do not fear that he may have put libation wine into them. Another interpretation: Clusters of grapes. Even though the wine drips from them, they are not forbidden by reason of libation wine.] And they [the drippings] are not hechsher mashkeh (an agent of uncleanliness) [i.e., they do not create susceptibility (of the grapes) to uncleanliness, for they (the grapes) are meant for eating and he does not desire the liquid that drips from them.], and preserves into which we are not accustomed to place vine and vinegar, and a tarith that is not hashed. [Even though it is cut in pieces, the head and spine are intact and it is discernible as a clean fish.], and a brine in which there is dagah, and a leaf of chiltith, [which it is not customary to cut with a knife], and exotic pressed olives, [olives placed in a round vessel and warmed and pressed of themselves until they become like rounded eggs. (These may be eaten)] R. Yossi says the \"cast-outs\" are forbidden. [If the olives have become so soft that when he takes an olive in his hand the pit is cast out and falls of itself, they are forbidden because (we suspect that) they have been softened by wine. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yossi.] The locusts that come from the basket [before the shopkeeper] are forbidden, [for we fear that he may have sprinkled wine upon them to soften them]. (Those that come) from the store-room are permitted, [for he does not sprinkle wine upon them before offering them for sale.] And the same applies to terumah. [If a Cohein is suspect of selling terumah as chullin, everything found in front of him is forbidden (lest it be terumah). But if he takes it from the store-room, it is permitted, for he fears that the rabbis might hear of it and rule his entire supply hefker (ownerless)]."
        ],
        [
            "\tAll images (tzelamim) are forbidden [in (derivation of) benefit] because they are worshiped one day a year, [when the sun is at the same height as it was when the image was made. For though there are many images that are made for beauty only and are not worshiped, R. Meir is consistent with his view that minority instances are to be apprehended.] And the sages say: Only those tzelamim holding a rod or a bird or a ball (are forbidden). [For these tzelamim are certainly worshiped, the objects having been placed in their hands because of their distinction. (In the baraitha there are added: sword, crown, and ring.] R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: All (are forbidden) that are holding any thing. [The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]",
            "\tIf one finds the fragments of images, they are permitted. [For (even) if they were whole, there is a doubt (safek) as to whether they were or were not worshiped. And even if you say that they were worshiped, perhaps they were annulled, for which reason they were broken — so that they are sfek-sfekah (\"a doubt of a doubt\"), where the ruling is for leniency.] If one found the form of a hand or the form of a foot, they are forbidden, for their like (if whole) is worshiped. [Ab initio, they make for themselves the form of a hand (or a foot) and worship them.]",
            "\tIf one finds vessels on which are depicted the form of the sun, the form of the moon [Rambam explains: Not that he finds a circular object and says: This is the sun; or a crescent-shaped object and says: This is the moon, but that he finds a figure that the astrologers see as representing the sun or the moon, viz.: The sun is represented as a crowned king riding on a chariot, and the like.], the form of Dracon, [a serpent, having appendages and scales like those of a fish. (They say that it represents the rays of the moon, which was worshiped in those days.) And even the Rabbis, who say above that all other tzelamim are permitted agree that these are forbidden, being objects of worship.] — they should be thrown into the Dead Sea. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: [Those forms] that are on valued objects, [such as bracelets, nose rings and (finger) rings, and the like] are forbidden, and those on common objects, [such as kettles, boilers, heaters, and the like] are permitted. R. Yossi says: He should take them and throw them to the winds or cast them into the sea [so that no Jew benefit from them] — whereupon they said to him: But that, too, [(grinding them down and throwing them to the wind, is of benefit to the Jews)], converting (the objects) into fertilizer, and it is written (Deuteronomy 13:18): \"And let naught of the spoil adhere to your hand!\"",
            "\tProclus the son of Plospos asked R. Gamliel in Acco when he bathed in the baths of Aphrodite [(where there was an image of the star Venus; thus, Rambam)]: \"It is written in your Torah (Deuteronomy 13:18): 'And let naught of the spoil adhere to your hand.' Why, then, do you bathe in the baths of Aphrodite?\" He answered: \"One does not answer (questions of Torah) in the bath-house\" [(because he stands naked there)]. When he went out, he said to him: \"I did not enter her (Aphrodite's) border; she entered my border\" [i.e., the bath-house was there before she was, and the bath-house was made for all who came to bathe] and [another answer]: \"We do not say: Let us make a bath-house as an ornament for Aphrodite, [a bath-house not being ornamental], but \"Let us make an Aphrodite as an ornament for the bath-house,\" [Aphrodite being secondary to the bath-house]. Another indication (that the Aphrodite was placed there for ornament and not for worship): \"Even if they gave you a great deal of money (for doing so), you would not go to your idolatry naked, or having experienced a (seminal) discharge, and (you would not) urinate before it. Yet this (Aphrodite) stands before the (sewage) duct, and all the people urinate before it, (which indicates that the Aphrodite was placed there for ornament and not for worship.) It is written (that you are not to derive benefit from) \"their gods\" (Deuteronomy 12:2). A Jew may not (derive benefit) from what they perceive as a god; but he may (derive benefit) from what they do not perceive as a god (but as an ornament).",
            "\tThe gentiles who worship the mountains and the hills — they [the mountains themselves] are permitted [for sowing and for hewing stones from them, what is rooted, not being forbidden]; and what is upon them is forbidden. As it is written (Deuteronomy 8:25): \"You shall not covet the silver and gold upon them and take it.\" R. Yossi Haglili says (Ibid. 12:2): \"Destroy shall you destroy… their gods upon the mountains\"; but the mountains (themselves) are not their gods. \"their gods upon the hills\"; but the hills (themselves) are not their gods. Why, then, is an asheirah (a tree devoted to idolatry) forbidden? [That is, just as we expound \"their gods upon the mountains\"; but the mountains themselves are not their gods, we can expound (Ibid.): \"their gods are under every leafy tree\"; but the leafy tree (itself) is not their god!] Why, then, does the Torah forbid (derivation of benefit from) it, it being written (Ibid. 7:5): \"And their asheirah trees shall you cut down\"?] Because a man's hands have a \"hold\" in it. [i.e., because a man's hands planted it, (R. Yossi holding that a tree planted by a man and then worshiped by him is forbidden.) And the first tanna holds that since in the beginning he did not intend to worship it, his subsequent worship of it, since it is attached to the ground, does not forbid it, it being comparable to worshiping a mountain. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yossi.] R. Akiva said: I will explain and analyze for you: Wherever you find a high mountain and a high hill and a leafy tree, know that there is idolatry there. [i.e., since we cannot expound the exclusion clause of \"under every leafy tree,\" we can say that it was stated only to give them signs of where the Emorites were likely to serve idolatry, so that Israel should seek it out and destroy it. And \"upon the mountains\" and \"upon the hills\" (Ibid. 12:2) are understood as exclusion clauses, that we are not commanded to destroy the mountains themselves (but what is upon them). But we are commanded to destroy the leafy trees, viz. (Ibid. 3): \"And their asheiroth shall you burn in fire.\"]",
            "\tIf one's house adjoined idolatry [i.e., if one of its walls were (part of) a house of idolatry, and the house itself was worshiped], and it (that wall) fell, it is forbidden to rebuild it, [for he thereby builds a house of idolatry. ] What can he do? He moves (the wall) four cubits [within his property, and he builds. And he does not leave it (the intervening space) empty; for he would thereby be benefitting idolatry (by aggrandizing its space.) But he fills the space with thorns and makes it a lavatory for the young.] If it [the space of the thickness of the wall] were [half] his and [half] idolatry's, it is estimated half and half. [i.e., that space of idolatry does not enter into four cubits (of his property); but only his space does. So that if the space of the wall were  two cubits, he counts one cubit of his (of the wall) and moves it three cubits within his property]. The stones, the wood, and the sand of that (common) wall cause tumah as a sheretz (a creeping thing) does, [even the part of the Jew, for there is no distinguishing (between the two parts). It causes tumah by contact (maga) and not by carrying (massa), for the tumah of idolatry, being rabbinically ordained, they (the rabbis) were lenient therein. And it does not cause tumah (by contact) with the size of a lentil, as a sheretz does, but only with the size of an olive, as a dead body does.], it being written (of idolatry) (Deuteronomy 7:26): \"Shaketz (like \"sheretz\") teshaktzenu\" — \"Despite shall you despise it.\" R. Akiva says: (It causes tumah) as a niddah does, it being written (Isaiah 30:22): \"You will cast them (your idols) away, like a niddah. Begone! will you say to it (idolatry).\" Just as a niddah causes tumah by massa, so does idolatry. [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Akiva, even with idolatry itself — how much more so, with its appurtenances.]",
            "\tThere are three \"houses\" [in respect to the annulment of idolatry]: a house that was built ab initio for idolatry (even though it were not yet worshiped) is forbidden (in the derivation of benefit); if it were plastered or decorated or renovated for idolatry, he removes what was originated [and the rest of the house is permitted]; if he brought idolatry into it [for the moment, without designating the house for worship,] and he took it out, it is permitted. There are three \"stones\" [in respect to annulments]: a stone which was hewed ab initio to serve as a pedestal (for idolatry) is forbidden; if he plastered and decorated it for idolatry [ after it was hewed], a Jew may remove what the gentile had added [ and the stone is permitted]; if he had placed idolatry upon it [for the moment, and had not devoted the stone as a pedestal,] it is permitted. There are three asheiroth. A tree that had been planted ab initio for idolatry is forbidden; if he had cut it down and pared it for idolatry [to worship the shoots that it would now generate], and it generated new shoots, he takes what it had generated, [i.e., what grew in place of those he had cut down [and burns them as per the din of asheirah, and what remains is permitted]; if he had placed an idol under it (a tree) and nullified it, it (the tree) is permitted. What is an asheirah\" R. Shimon says: Every (tree) which is worshiped. [The Gemara explains that this refers to the \"three asheiroth\" discussed above, viz. there are three asheiroth; two instances are agreed upon by all, and one is a machloketh (dispute) between R. Shimon and the rabbis. Which is that? Whatever has an idol beneath it, the rabbis calling it an asheirah and forbidding it as long as the idol is beneath it, and R. Shimon saying that an asheirah is only that which is itself worshiped; but whatever has an idol beneath it is not itself an asheirah. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Simon.] It happened in Tzaidan that they found a heap under a tree which (ostensibly) was worshiped. R. Shimon said to them: \"Examine this heap.\" They did so and found an idol in it — whereupon he said to them: \"Since it is the idol that they worship, let us permit the tree to them.\"",
            "\tOne must not sit in its (an asheirah's) shade; but if he did, he is tahor (clean). [This \"shade\" does not refer to the boughs of the asheirah. For (if it did) we could not continue \"but if he did he is tahor.\" For we learn further: \"and if he did pass under it, he is tamei (unclean). But (the understanding is that) from the tree onwards, when the sun is in the east or in the west, everything casts a long shadow (in which he must not sit.)] And he should not pass under it [under the boughs of the tree. For the tree \"tents\" over him, and if he passes under it he is tamei.] If it \"robbed\" the public [i.e., if its boughs extended into the public domain], he is tahor. [For this is rabbinical tumah, and where it robs the public, the rabbis did not decree.] And greens may be sowed beneath it in the rainy season, [when the tree is harmful to them, keeping the sun from them], but not in the sunny season, [when the shade is beneficial to them]. And lettuce, neither in the sunny season nor in the rainy season, [the shade being always beneficial to them.] R. Yossi says: Neither [should] greens [be sowed] in the rainy season; for the leaves fall upon them (the greens) and are fertilizer for them. [The Gemara asks: But do we not infer that R. Yossi holds that if two things (one permitted and the other forbidden) contribute (to the result), it is permitted? (as we see earlier in this chapter, Mishnah 3, in respect to crumbling them and casting them to the wind, even though it becomes fertilizer). So that if the soil, which is permitted, and fertilizer of idolatry, which is forbidden, contribute to the growing of the greens, R. Yossi holds that it (the result) is permitted. How, then, can he forbid the greens here because the leaves fall on them! And the Gemara answers that R. Yossi is addressing himself to the opinion of the Rabbis, viz.: According to you, who hold that (the result of) \"this and this contributing\" is forbidden, you should have forbidden the greens because the leaves fall on them and become fertilizer for them! And the Rabbis hold this case to be different; for the idolatrous tree does not avail the greens at all. For what it adds to them by way of fertilizer it detracts from them by way of shade! And the halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi and (the result of) \"this and this contribute\" is permitted.]",
            "\tIf he took (pieces of) wood from it, [the asheirah], benefit may not be derived from them. If he fired the oven with them — if it were new, it must be broken; if it were old, it must cool off. [For the first firing of a stove strengthens it, so that (in this instance) it benefits by what is forbidden. This Mishnah is in accordance with the view that (the result of) \"this and this contributes\" is forbidden. (This is not the halachah.) Therefore, both a new oven and an old oven must cool down, so that the loaf not be baked by this firing — until the oven cools off, so that benefit not be derived from forbidden wood.] If he baked a loaf in it, it is forbidden to derive benefit from it. [The Gemara qualifies this, viz.: This is so, only when the torch (of forbidden wood) is opposite him, i.e., that as long as the loaf is baking, it (the torch) burns in the mouth of the oven and bakes it, so that he derives benefit from what is forbidden while it is intact and the benefit of the wood inheres in the loaf.] If it (the asheirah loaf) became intermixed with other loaves, they are all forbidden in (derivation of) benefit. R. Eliezer says: Let him cast its benefits [i.e., the worth of the intermixed loaf] into the Dead Sea — whereupon they said to him: Idolatry cannot be redeemed. If he took from it (the asheirah, a piece of wood to use as) a weaver's shuttle, benefit may not be derived from it. If he weaved a garment with it, benefit may not be derived from it. If it (the garment) became intermixed with others, and the others with others, they are all forbidden in (derivation of) benefit. R. Eliezer says: Let him cast its benefit [i.e., the worth of the intermixed garments] into the Dead Sea — whereupon they said to him: Idolatry cannot be redeemed. [The Mishnah adduces the argument between R. Eliezer and the Rabbis in these two instances (the loaf and the shuttle). For if it adduced just the first, I might think that only in this instance (that of the loaf) did R. Eliezer say (that its benefit may be cast into the Dead Sea, etc.), for at the time that the loaf was finished (baking), its issur (the wood) was burnt; but in the instance of the shuttle, where the issur remains intact, perhaps he would concede to the Rabbis (that it may not be cast into the Dead Sea.) And if it adduced just the second, I might think that only in that instance (that of the shuttle) did the Rabbis say (that it may not be redeemed), but in the instance of the loaf, they would concede to R. Eliezer (that its benefit could be cast into the Dead Sea). Therefore, it is necessary to adduce both instances. And the halachah is in accordance with R. Eliezer. And even if a jug of forbidden wine became intermixed with jugs of permitted wine, he may cast its worth into the Dead Sea and benefit may be derived from all of the others.]",
            "\tHow dos he [a gentile] nullify it [an asheirah]? If he plucks them [twigs of the asheirah, to burn for his purposes] or he cuts off [its wet leaves], or if he takes from it a stick or a staff, or even a leaf, it is nullified. If he files it [shefayah (see Targum [veshafith] on Devarim 9:21) ] — if for its own need [i.e., to beautify it], it is forbidden; if not, it is permitted. [And only an adult gentile, who is knowledgeable in idolatry and its appurtenances can nullify idolatry. And even if he is forced to do so, his nullification stands.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tR. Yishmael says: Three stones, one beside the other, [and, it goes without saying, one atop two, the \"essential\" Mercury], beside (an idol of) Mercury, are forbidden. [\"beside Mercury\": That is, four ells to the side of Mercury, it being known that they did not fall from it. It is of this that R. Yishmael says that three stones are forbidden, Mercury not being less than three stones. They would make a small Mercury beside the big one. And this small one would be made with stones of any size, without care being taken that it be one stone atop two]. And the sages say that those seen with it are forbidden, and those not seen with it, permitted. [The Rabbis hold that a small Mercury is not made beside a big one. Therefore, if the stones can be seen together with it, i.e., if they are near it, so that it can be said that they have fallen from it, whether two or three, they are forbidden. If they cannot be seen together with it, they are permitted. The halachah is in accordance with the Rabbis.]",
            "\tIf one found on its head money, clothing or vessels, they are permitted. [That is, if they are not placed there for decoration, as when the money is in a pouch slung over its neck, clothing folded and placed on its shoulder or on its head, and vessels, too, placed on its head, all of these not being put there for decoration.] Grape clusters, wreaths of ears, wines, oils, and flours, and all things, the likes of which are offered on the altar are forbidden.",
            "\tAn idolatry that had (appended to it) a garden or a bath-house — it is permitted to derive benefit therefrom without payment [to the idolators]. It is not permitted to derive benefit therefrom with payment. If it belonged both to it and to others, it is permitted to derive benefit therefrom both with or without payment.",
            "\tThe idolatry of a gentile is forbidden immediately, [it being written (Deuteronomy 7:25): \"the carved images of their gods shall you burn with fire\" — As soon as they are carved they are rendered \"gods\" for him. ] And that of a Jew is not forbidden until it is worshiped, [it being written in that respect (Ibid. 27:15): \"Cursed be the man who shall make a carved or molten image … and do in secret\" — [It is not forbidden] until he does \"secret\" things with it, i.e., until he worships it. For a Jew worships idolatry only in secret, fearing beth-din.] A gentile may nullify his own idolatry, [it being written (Ibid. 7:25): \"The carved images of their gods shall you burn with fire\" — when they relate to them as gods; but if he has nullified it, it is permitted] and (he may also nullify) that of a Jew, [when they are partners. (But this is not the halachah.) A gentile cannot nullify the idolatry of a Jew even if he has partnership in it.] And a Jew cannot nullify the idolatry of a gentile, [even if he permits him to do so]. If one nullifies an idol, he nullifies its appurtenances. (If he nullifies) its appurtenances, they are permitted and it itself is forbidden.",
            "\tHow does he nullify it? If he cuts off the tip of its ear, the tip of its nose, the tip of its finger; if he defaced it, [i.e., if he mashed it with a mallet until it were defaced], even if he did not diminish it, it is nullified. If he spat in its face, or urinated before it, or dragged it [in the mud] or threw excrement at it, it is not nullified, [his anger having bested him — until he worships it again.] If he sold or pawned it — Rebbi says he has nullified it; but the sages say he has not nullified it. [They argue in the instance of his selling it to a gentile; but if he sold it to a Jewish goldsmith, all agree that it is nullified. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]",
            "\tAn idolatry left behind by its worshipers — If [they left it behind] in a time of peace, it is permitted [Since they went of their own volition and did not take it with them, (it is a sign that) they nullified it]; in a time of war, it is forbidden. The bimusioth of kings [hewn stones fixed on the road for the king as pedestals for idolatry, so that when he passes by there he may bow down to it] are permitted because they are placed there when the kings pass by. The Gemara explains: \"Because they place it down.\" That is, they are not fixed there for all times, but only when the kings pass by. And there are times when the kings pass over different roads and are not concerned for them. Therefore, they are not considered \"appurtenances of idolatry.\"]",
            "\tThey asked the elders in Rome: \"If He does not desire idolatry, why does He not annul (i.e., destroy) it?\" They answered: \"If they worshiped things not needed by the world, He would do so. But they worship the sun, the moon, the stars, and the constellations. Shall He destroy His world because of the fools!\" The others: \"If so, let Him destroy the things not needed by the world and leave the others!\" The elders: \"We would thus strengthen the hands of their worshipers; for [if they saw the other idolatries wasting of themselves and these (the sun and the moon) enduring], they would say: 'Know these [the sun and the moon] to be true gods, for they have not been destroyed!'\"",
            "\tIt is permitted to buy a trodden winepress from a gentile, [who trod upon the grapes], even though he (the gentile) takes in his hand [grapes from the wine] and places it on the tapuach [the place (shaped like a mound) where the grapes are gathered. Our tanna holds that it does not become forbidden wine (yayin nesech) until it descends to the cistern. (This is an earlier Mishnah and is not the halachah, but once the wine starts running down it is yayin nesech)]. It is not yayin nesech until it descends to the cistern. Once it descends to the cistern [— then, if a gentile touches it], what is in the cistern is forbidden and the rest is permitted.",
            "\tOne may tread together with the gentile in the wine-press, [and we do not say that he is deriving benefit from forbidden things. For this tanna holds that it is permitted even to drink it, so long as it did not descend to the cistern. And causing susceptibility to tumah (gorem) does not obtain here. For from the time the gentile trod them a little they become tamei, so that the Jew is not a gorem here.] But he may not pick (grapes) with him. [For he (the gentile) places them into his winepress, which is tamei. And the gentile makes the grapes tamei with his touch, and the Jew, who picks with him, is a gorem of tumah. And this tanna holds that it is forbidden to be a gorem of tumah to chullin (non-consecrated food) in Eretz Yisrael, even that of a gentile. The halachah is not in accordance with this Mishnah, for we hold that once the wine begins flowing down (in the winepress) it becomes yayin nesech. Therefore, it is forbidden to tread with a gentile in the wine-press. And we hold that it is permitted to be a gorem of tumah to chullin in Eretz Yisrael when the chullin belongs to a gentile. Therefore, it is permitted to pick (grapes) with a gentile. And even though, thereby, he is a gorem of tumah to chullin, there is nothing adverse in this. However, a Jew, picking his vineyard may, ab initio, not take a gentile to help him, even to bring the grapes to the wine-press because of \"'Go, go,' (far from the vineyard) 'they say to the Nazarite, etc.'\"] It is forbidden to tread or pick with a Jew who processes (his fruits) in a state of tumah. [He (the owner) transgresses thereby, for he makes the terumoth and ma'aseroth among them tamei. It is, therefore, forbidden to assist him, so that he not become habituated to it.] But he may bring with him [empty] jugs to the winepress, and he may bring with him [full jugs] from the winepress, [for \"what happened, happened.\" Once they (the grapes) become tamei, it is permitted to pour the wine into jugs that are tamei.] It is forbidden to knead (the dough) or to shape it with a baker who processes it in a state of tumah, but he may bring the (finished loaves) with him to the shop.",
            "\tIf a gentile were found standing beside a cistern of wine — if he had a lien upon it, [the wine standing as a guarantee for his loan, in which instance (it is suspected that) he touched it to sample its taste], it is forbidden; if not, it is permitted. If he (a gentile) fell into a cistern [full of wine], and he rose [to the top, dead — since his touching it when he fell into it does not forbid it in (derivation of) benefit, since he had no intent to touch it (—but if he arose, alive, he forbids it, in (derivation of) benefit, upon his arising, for he thanks his idolatry for his survival —)]; or if he [a gentile] measured it [the wine of a Jew] with a rod; or if he [a gentile] flicked aside a hornet [from the wine of a Jew] with the rod, [not touching the wine with his hand]; or if he struck the mouth (i.e., the foam) of a frothing jug [with his hand (to scatter it, this not being the normal mode of libation] — all of these actually occurred, and they (the sages) ruled: Let is be sold (to a gentile); and R. Shimon permitted it [(the halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon)]. If he took the jug and threw it into the cistern — this actually occurred, and (the sages) permitted it [even for drinking].",
            "\tOne [a Jew] who trod the grapes of a gentile in kashruth [in order to sell it to a Jew (not giving money to the gentile until he sells it in the future)], and who placed it in his [the gentile's] domain, in a house open to the public domain — In a city where there are gentiles and Jews, it is permitted, [the gentile fearing that a Jew passing through the public domain might see him (touching the wine) and cause him a loss. Even without key or seal, it is permitted. This, on condition that he (the gentile) has no lien on this wine, as when he (the gentile) wrote to him (the Jew) \"I have received from you (money for the wine,\" as stated below (Mishnah 12)]. In a city where there are only gentiles, it is forbidden, unless he places a watchman there. And the watchman need not sit there and keep (constant) watch; but even though he goes out and comes in, it is permitted. R. Shimon says: \"All \"in the domain of a gentile\" is one. [There is a disagreement here between R. Shimon b. Elazar and the first tanna. The first tanna holds that when the Jew places the wine in the domain of a gentile, the owner of the wine — it is only then that the house need be open to the public domain, and that the city be one of both Jews and gentiles. But in the domain of a different gentile, who is not the owner — it is permitted even in a city where there are no Jews. And R. Shimon b. Elazar says: All \"in the domain of a gentile\" is one, and just as when the wine is in the domain of the gentile owner of the wine, it is forbidden unless it be in a city where both Jews and gentiles live and where the house is open to the public domain; here, too, in the domain of a different gentile, these two conditions are required. (The halachah is in accordance with R. Shimon b. Elazar.) And when key and seal are in the hand of the Jew, both in the domain of the owner of the wine or in that of a different gentile, it is permitted according to all.]",
            "\tOne [a Jew] who trod the wine of a gentile and placed it in his [the gentile's] domain, and the other [the gentile] wrote to him: \"I have received money from you,\" it is permitted, [if the house is open to the public domain and Jews live in that city, as stated above.] But if the Jew desires to take it out, and he (the gentile) does not allow him to do so until he pays him his money, [the wine now being a security for the gentile (his having a lien against the wine) — the gentile saying: If they see me (touching the wine) and bring claim against me, I will say it is mine (even though key and seal be in the hand of the Jew)] — this actually occurred in Beth Shean and the sages forbade it."
        ],
        [
            "\tIf one (a gentile) hires a worker (a Jew) to work for him with yayin nesech [to pour it from vessel to vessel or to take jugs from place to place (even with the ordinary wine of gentiles)], his wages are forbidden (in the derivation of benefit). [This is a penalty imposed upon him by the sages for dealing with yayin nesech or with their ordinary wine.] If he hired him to do other work with him, even if he told him: \"Take this jug of yayin nesech from place to place,\" his wages (for the other work) are permitted, [as when he said to him: \"Each jug for a perutah\"; but if he said to him: \"Deliver for me a hundred jugs for a hundred perutoth,\" and one jug of yayin nesech were found among them, his wages are forbidden.] If one (a gentile) hires an ass (from a Jew) for delivery of yayin nesech, his hire fee is forbidden (to the Jew). If he hired it to ride upon, even if the gentile placed his (wine) vessel upon it, his hire fee is permitted.[This Mishnah is adduced for its latter part, that if one hires an ass to ride upon, even though he apparently hired it also to place his wine vessel and food upon — so that one might think that this is to be considered as if he had hired it ab initio to transport yayin nesech and the hire fee is forbidden — we are apprised otherwise.]",
            "\tIf yayin nesech fell on grapes, he rinses them [in cold water] and they are permitted. If they were split, they are forbidden. [(Our Mishnah is defective. It was taught (after \"they are forbidden\") thus: \"And if it imparts an unsalutary taste it is permitted.\"] And it happened [thus] with Baitus the son of Zonin that he transported dried figs in a boat, and a jug of yayin nesech broke and fell upon them, and he inquired [the halachah] of the sages and they permitted them. This is the rule: All which in its enjoyment involves the imparting of a [forbidden] flavor is forbidden. All which in its enjoyment does not involve the imparting of a forbidden flavor is permitted, as when [forbidden] vinegar falls upon permitted grits, [in which instance the flavor imparted is an unsalutary one. (And this, when the grits are boiling when the vinegar falls upon them, in which instance it spoils them from beginning to end. There are four types of imparted flavors: 1) a flavor which is salutary from beginning to end, such as that of (forbidden) wine in cooked flesh or fish. This is forbidden of a certainty. 2) a flavor which is unsalutary from beginning to end, such as that of (forbidden) fish fats or (forbidden) flesh in honey. This is permitted ab initio. 3) a flavor that is unsalutary in the beginning but salutary in the end, such as (forbidden) honey in wine, which spoils it at the outset, but which lends it aroma and flavor once the wine gains ascendancy over it. 4) a flavor that is salutary in the beginning, but unsalutary at the end, such as that of the fats of flesh with butter or that (i.e., the flavor of) a vessel, not (used) on the same day, which (flavor) when it entered was salutary, and later became unsalutary. These (last) two are forbidden out of doubt. Therefore, if these grits into which vinegar fell were not boiling, they are forbidden out of doubt. For vinegar in (unboiled) grits is (at first) unsalutary and (then) salutary. And even though, if he boils them afterwards, the flavor is spoiled, this is an instance of enhancing and then spoiling, and it is forbidden (out of doubt).]",
            "\tIf a gentile, together with a Jew, were taking jugs of wine from place to place — if he (the gentile) were in the status of being watched, it (the wine) is permitted. [So long as he (the Jew) did not inform him that he is leaving, he (the gentile) is in the status of being watched, even if he went a mile away; for the gentile is always afraid that the Jew will return and see him.] If he informs him that he is going far off [and he walks away from him (the jugs being closed) — if he stays away] long enough [for him] to open [\"yistom\" (as in [Numbers 24:3] \"shethum ha'ayin\" — \"the open of eye.\") i.e., to bore a hole in the stopper of the jug], and to re-close it and [for the closing] to dry, [it is forbidden]. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: [It is not forbidden until he stays away long enough] for him to open it and make another stopper and [for the closing] to dry. [But they were not concerned about his boring a hole in the stopper of the jug, for this is recognizable. And it is only in relation to a lime stopper that the Rabbis differ with R. Shimon b. Gamliel, fearing that he might bore a hole in it, this not being recognizable, the lime being white, and the difference between the old and the new lime not being discernible. But with a clay stopper, the Rabbis concede to R. Shimon b. Gamliel that the wine is not forbidden until he stays away long enough for him to open the entire stopper and replace it and have it dry. The halachah is in accordance with R. Shimon b. Gamliel.]",
            "\tIf one left his wine on a wagon or on a boat [with a gentile], and he took a short-cut, [leaving by one gate and returning by the opposite gate] — if he entered the city and bathed [in the bath-house], it (the wine) is permitted. [For since the gentile did not know that he would stay away, he would fear (his early return) and not touch the wine.] R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: [It is not forbidden until he stays away] long enough for him to open it and make another stopper and [for the closing] to dry. If one leaves a gentile in the shop, even if he (the Jew) goes in and out, it is permitted. And if he informs him that he is going far off [and he walks away from him, and stays away long enough [for him] to open and to reclose it and [for the closing] to dry, [it is forbidden]. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: [It is not forbidden until he stays away] long enough for him to open it and make another stopper and [for the closing] to dry. [The Mishnah apprises us of the dispute between R. Shimon b. Gamliel and the Rabbis in these three instances. For if it taught [only] the instance of a gentile transporting jugs of wine, I might think it is [only] then that we assume that the gentile will fear his imminent return, but in the instance of a boat or a wagon, he can sail away and do what he wishes without fear. And if it taught [only] the instance of a boat or a wagon and not that of leaving a gentile in his shop, I might think that the gentile would fear to do so only in the first instance, lest the Jew leave by one path and return by another and see him, whereas in the second instance, he might say I will close the shutter and do as I like. Therefore, all three instances must be stated, and in all, the halachah is in accordance with R. Shimon b. Gamliel.]",
            "\tIf he ate with him at the table and he left a wine bottle on the table and a wine bottle on the side [serving-] table [used for servicing the main table, none of the guests taking from the side table, but only from the main table], and he (the Jew) left — what is on the table is forbidden and what is on the side table is permitted. And if he said to him: \"Pour and drink,\" even that on the side table is forbidden. [Since he gave him \"carte blanche,\" even what is on the side table is forbidden, for he takes this as license to touch everything.] Open jugs [found in the house where he left him] are forbidden; closed ones [are forbidden if he stays away long enough] for him to open them and make another stopper and [for the closing] to dry. [This is stated anonymously, apparently in accordance with R. Shimon b. Gamliel, according to whom we rule in such an instance.]",
            "\tA search party of gentiles who enter a city — If in a time of peace, the open jugs are forbidden; the closed ones are permitted. If in a time of war, they are both permitted, for there is no time (for the gentiles) to defile them.",
            "\tJewish craftsmen to whom a gentile sent a jug of yayin nesech as their wage may say to him: \"Give us its (worth in) money,\" [for they have not yet acquired it, and he owes them only money.] But if it entered their domain, it is forbidden. If one sells his wine to a gentile — If he stipulates the price [so much wine for so much money] before he measures it out (into his vessels), its monies (received in exchange) are permitted. [For meshichah (drawing to oneself the object to be acquired) effects acquisition for a gentile as it does for a Jew. So that when the Jew measures it out into his vessels and the vessel enters the domain of the gentile, he acquires it with meshichah, so that the Jew is (already) owed money by the gentile as a loan; and it does not become yayin nesech until the gentile touches (the wine itself).] But if he measures it out (into his vessels) before he stipulates the price, its monies are forbidden. [For the gentile does not acquire it now with meshichah. For since he has not yet stipulated the price, he has not committed himself to acquire it with meshichah, lest the Jew overcharge him. Therefore, when he touches it, it is yayin nesech in the domain of the Jew, the gentile not acquiring it until the price is stipulated.] If he (the Jew) took his funnel and measured out (his wine) into the vessels of the gentile, if it (the funnel) [in which he first measured out the wine for the gentile has a rim of wine, [which prevents one or two drops from leaving its mouth], it is forbidden. [The wine of the Jew is forbidden because of that drop of yayin nesech in the funnel.] If he [a Jew] pours [wine] from his vessel into a vessel [in the hand of a gentile or into a vessel containing yayin nesech], what he poured from is permitted [i.e., the wine remaining in the upper vessel in the hand of the Jew is permitted,] and what he poured into it is forbidden [i.e., the flow that left the Jew's vessel, even though it did not reach the vessel in the hand of the gentile (and, it goes without saying, what did reach the vessel of the gentile), is forbidden. [For \"the flow is regarded as connected\" (to the vessel beneath it.) and our Mishnah, which permits the wine left in the vessel in the hand of the Jew, speaks of an instance where the flow from the upper vessel was cut off before it reached the lower vessel in the hand of the gentile, so that there was no flow here which would connect what was in the upper vessel to what was in the lower vessel. Or, (our Mishnah speaks of an instance) where he shakes out wine from the upper vessel, as from a sprinkling bowl, so that there was no flow which would connect the wine in the vessel in the hand of the Jew to the vessel in the hand of the gentile. But if there were such a connection, then everything remaining in the upper vessel in the hand of the Jew is forbidden as yayin nesech by the principle of the flow being regarded as a connection. This is the halachah.]",
            "\tYayin nesech is forbidden, and forbids by any amount. Wine [yayin nesech, which became intermixed] with [permitted] wine, and water [used for idolatrous libations or which was itself worshipped, which became intermixed] with [permitted] water [forbids] by any amount. [There is no difference whether the permitted fall into the forbidden or the forbidden into the permitted — it forbids its own kind by any amount, so long as the forbidden that falls into the permitted falls from a wide-mouthed vessel, so that a large amount of wine leaves the vessel at one time. But if one pours yayin nesech from a small vessel, which emerges only drop by drop, and it falls into permitted wine even the whole day, we say of it \"the first drop that falls is cancelled\" (by what it falls into, etc.) And if he pours permitted into forbidden, everything that he pours into the forbidden is forbidden, even a full jug onto one drop.] Wine [which became intermixed] with water, and water [which became intermixed with wine — the criterion is] the producing of a flavor. This is the rule: kind into kind (forbids) by any amount; and kind into what is not its kind, by the producing of a flavor. The conclusion, according to the halachah: All that is forbidden by the Torah, whether (it became intermixed) with its kind or not with its kind (forbids) by producing its flavor — except for tevel (untithed produce) and yayin nesech, which (if intermixed) with its kind (forbids) by any amount; and, if not with its kind, by (producing) its flavor — yayin nesech, because of the stringency of idolatry, and tevel, \"As its permitting, so is its forbidding,\" i.e., Just as one grain (of tithe) permits the entire pile, so one (untithed) grain renders the entire pile tevel. And if an issur (something forbidden) of other types of issurin becomes intermixed with heter (something permitted) — if kind became intermixed with not its kind, so that it can be determined by taste whether it is terumah (tithe) which has become intermixed with chullin (untithed produce), let a Cohein taste it, and if it is a (generic) issur, let a gentile baker taste it. If he says that there is not in the intermixture, the flavor of terumah or the flavor of issur (respectively), all is permitted. And if kind became intermixed with kind, so that it is not possible to rule by flavor, or a kind (which became intermixed) with not its kind and no Cohein or reliable gentile (respectively) is available — then, if the issur is forbidden fats or blood, carrion or treifah, unclean animals or creeping things, and the like — the criterion for the mixture is sixty, i.e., If there are sixty parts of heter to one part of issur, all is permitted, and if not, all is forbidden. And if the issur is terumah, or challah, or bikkurim, the criterion (for permitting the mixture) is one hundred parts of heter; and if arlah and klai hakerem, the criterion is two hundred parts.]",
            "\tThese are forbidden and forbid by any amount. [Wherever there is an admixture of even one of them in a thousand (of heter), it forbids the whole]: yayin nesech [One jug in a thousand jugs (of heter) forbids all in the derivation of benefit. This is not the halachah, but as we have written in the end of the third chapter, viz.: he casts the worth of that jug into the Dead Sea and it is permitted to derive benefit from the rest and forbidden to drink it.], and idolatry [a worshiped figure which became intermixed with a thousand non-idolatrous figures, and \"heart-hides\" [see 2:33], and a stoned ox, and the birds of a leper [viz. Kiddushin 2:8] and the hair of a Nazirite, [from which it is forbidden to derive benefit, viz. (Numbers 6:18): \"And he shall take the hair of the head of his Naziritism, and he shall place it on the fire under the sacrifice of the peace-offerings.\" If a lock of a Nazir's hair became intermixed with even a thousand locks of other hair, they are all forbidden in derivation of benefit.], the first-born of an ass, [from which derivation of benefit is forbidden so long as it has not been redeemed], and meat in milk [If a piece of meat were cooked in milk, and it became intermixed in a thousand permitted pieces, it is forbidden to derive benefit from all of them. This tanna holds that something which is countable and from which derivation of benefit is forbidden forbids its admixture by any amount. And all these things which are mentioned in our Mishnah are things which are countable and whose issur is that of derivation of benefit], and the sent-away scapegoat, and chullin (a non-consecrated animal) slaughtered in the azarah (the Temple court) [see Kiddushin 2:9] — (All of) these are forbidden and they forbid by any amount. [(\"these\") to exclude things which are not countable or which are countable but not forbidden in derivation of benefit, which do not forbid their admixture by any amount.]",
            "\tIf yayin nesech falls into a pit [of wine], the whole is forbidden in derivation of benefit, [for the wine which was used as an idolatrous libation forbids its kind by (intermixture in) any amount. But the wine of gentiles which we do not know of a certainty to have been used as a libation, even though derivation of benefit is forbidden therefrom, does not thus forbid its admixture.] R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: The whole is to be sold to a gentile less the value of that wine of the gentile which is in it. [This is the halachah.]",
            "\tA winepress of stone tarred by a gentile [It was the practice to put in a little wine and to coat it over with tar] — he (the Jew) wipes it with water and earth and it is clean (i.e., kosher for use). (If the vat were) of wood, [which requires much tar and absorbs much wine] — Rabbi says: He wipes it [as one of stone]; and the sages say: He peels off the tar. [The halachah is not in accordance with Rabbi.] (If the vat were) of earthenware, even if he peeled off the tar, it is forbidden, [both according to Rabbi and according to the sages; for earthenware, aside from the tar, absorbs the wine.]",
            "\tIf one takes [eating] utensils from a gentile, [(only metal utensils or earthenware utensils coated with lead (and glassware is like metalware)] — what is wont to be immersed, [that is, a vessel which can be rendered ritually clean by immersion and which requires no other procedure (as when it is used with \"cold\")] should be immersed [in a mikveh which is kosher for the immersion of women, and its immersion permits it (for use)]. (What is wont) to be purged (by immersion in boiling water) [such as kettles and plates of metal, which are used with \"hot\"] should be purged [in boiling water. They are placed into a kettle full of boiling water and left there a little. This, after their rust has been scrubbed and removed, after which they are immersed in a mikveh which is kosher for the immersion of women, and they are permitted (for use)]. (What is wont) to be fired (white-heated), [i.e., utensils that are used for dry things], like a spit and a grill, should be fired [until they give off sparks, after which they are immersed and are permitted (for use)]. A knife — shafah and it is (ritually) clean. [He sticks it into hard earth ten times if it has no depressions, and he may eat \"cold\" with it; or he sharpens it with its whetstone and he may eat even \"hot\" with it. If it has depressions, he \"fires\" them. And all of them (the above) — if he used them before he boiled or fired or immersed them (respectively) — it (i.e., what he processed with them) is permitted.]"
        ]
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Mishnah"
    ]
}