Avodah Zarah 63

Our gem today is the ONE WAY that we can benefit from forbidden wine… by being paid to breaking the barrels.

We Rav Naḥman and Ulla and Avimi bar Pappi were sitting, and Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami, who was studying with them, was sitting among them, and they were sitting and a dilemma was raised before them: If one hired a person to break barrels of wine used for a libation so the wine will spill out, what is the halakha? Do we say that since he has an interest in the preservation of the barrels until he breaks them, so that he can be paid for breaking them, his wage is forbidden, or perhaps should it be reasoned that any action that one performs to reduce impropriety [tifela] is permitted, even if he is paid for the actual breaking? 

Rav Naḥman said: He may break them, and let a blessing come upon him.

Avoiding sin is not the only way to do right. Avoiding sin helps us. Eliminating the object of sin helps society.

It reminds me of Rabbi Eliezer’s story of what makes a truly righteous man.

He says there are two kinds of righteous people. 1 is like a person wearing a fur coat in the winter, their righteous protects them. The second is a person who builds a fire in the winter – they warm themselves and others.

Spread that warmth.

Avodah Zarah 62

One of the craziest things about the ancient world (in my opinion) was cult prostitution. Cult prostitution, also known as temple or sacred prostitution, refers to performing sexual acts, often for payment, in the context of a religious ritual, as part of worship, and even in the temple! We see it in ancient Greece, the middle east, and, yes, Canaan (and is not limited to those localities). We tend to think of religious people as prudes – but people would go to temple and pay to have sex and that money would go to the temple! (Talk about a fund raiser.) Judaism was radically different in that it protected women and children from this kid of sexual exploitation. It wanted you to only have sex in a married relationship (but did not deny that plenty of people had sex outside of that context). And so, it tried to separate, as much as possible, any form of prostitution from temple profits.

So, this is the gem – our rabbis trying to figure out if someone pays a prostitute with an animal, and the prostitute wants to dedicate that animal to the temple service, if this is permitted. It’s not. However, if two people have sex and one gives the other a lamb just as a gift . . well, that’s another matter.

If the man gave the prostitute payment but did not engage in intercourse with her, or if he engaged in intercourse with her but did not give her payment, it is permitted for her payment to serve as an offering.

Okay, pause. This is ridiculous. If he did not have intercourse with her, then obviously the animal is not prohibited. It was not a payment because nothing happened. If he had sex with her and didn’t pay her – then there is literally no animal to prohibit.

The Gemara discusses difficulties with the wording of the baraita: If he gave her payment but did not engage in intercourse with her, isn’t it obvious that it is permitted? Since he did not engage in intercourse with her, it is merely a gift that he has given her, and there is no reason for it to be forbidden. Why does the baraita need to state this? And furthermore, with regard to the case in the baraita where he engaged in intercourse with her but did not give her payment, he did not give her anything, and since he did not give her payment, what is the meaning of the statement that her payment is permitted?

The Gemara answers: Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: If he gave her payment and afterward, after some time elapsed, he engaged in intercourse with her, or if he engaged in intercourse with her and afterward, after some time elapsed, he gave her payment, her payment is permitted, because the payment was not given proximate to the intercourse.

Ha! Okay, I will give you this nice lamb and maybe we will have adult consensual sex sometime. But it’s not payment! It’s a gift.

The second scenario reminds me of a friend I had in college. One day her cell phone bill came and she said she was going to send it to a guy she slept with. (To clarify, not her boyfriend, a one night stand.) I was baffled by this. I asked why he would pay it, and she said because she slept with him. I told her that if she expects money after sleeping with someone, that made her a prostitute. She disagreed. After reading today’s daf I realize that the rabbis might have agreed with her (not that they would in any way condone this behavior). They certainly would have taken the payment.

So we see that we have protections against temple prostitution and the rabbis don’t want to profit off of selling sex . . . but they’re not gonna dig too deep to make sure that everyone makes their money in only the most ethical of ways.

Avodah Zarah 61

On our daf today, we are STILL concerned with non-Jews using “kosher” wine for libations to their gods and rendering the wine not kosher for either consumption or for the benefit of Jews who might sell it. What is new on the daf is thinking about the psychology of why someone might secretly mis-handle the wine. We get two ideas 1) collusion, a little I’ll do this for you and you’ll owe me a favor. And 2) fear, I’m not saying no to that guy.

The Gemara explains: Rav Yehuda says that Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar came to be lenient, andaccordingly, this is what the first tanna is saying: Just as the wine is prohibited when it is left in the gentile owner’s domain, so too the wine is prohibited when it is left in the domain of another gentile, as the bailee might allow the owner to touch the wine. And we are concerned that they might be in collusion and the bailee will not reveal that the gentile owner touched the wine, as the owner reciprocates on other occasions.

That was the collusion. Now, fear.

The Gemara relates that men from the house of Parzak the vizier placed wine that had been rendered permitted by Jews who had not yet paid for it in the domain of their gentile sharecroppers. The Rabbis who were studying before Rava thought to say: When are we concerned that two gentiles might be in collusion? This matter applies only in a case where this gentile places items in the domain of that gentile, and vice versa. But here, since the vizier’s sharecroppers are not accustomed to place items in the house of Parzak the vizier, we are not concerned that two gentiles might be in collusion.

These are not two equals who might do favors for each other. So, you might assume the wine is kosher then!

Rava said to the Rabbis: On the contrary, even according to the one who says that we are not concerned that two gentiles might be in collusion, that statement applies only where the other gentile is not afraid of the wine’s owner. But here, since the sharecropper is afraid of the vizier, he covers up for him and testifies on his behalf that he did not touch the wine

When we are scared of consequences because of a power imbalance, we may be more willing break rules or lie.

It’s making me think of all the abuses to power we are witnessing today and all the people who lie and say it’s not happening out of fear of those with more power.

Avodah Zarah 60

Today we have a few incidences where a non-Jew migth touch wine . . . and they’re all emergency situations.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain barrel that split lengthwise from top to bottom, and a certain gentile jumped up and encircled it with his arms in order to prevent the wine from spilling.

I asked ChatGPT to illustrate this, you will see the image below.

Not what I pictured. In my head is was more arms and legs wrapped around the barrel. But you get the idea – a man holding a splitting barrel together.

Rafram bar Pappa, and some say it was Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, deemed it permitted to sell the wine to gentiles, as the wine was rendered prohibited only for drinking but not with regard to deriving benefit. The Gemara notes: This statement applies only in a case where it split lengthwise. But where the barrel split widthwise and the gentile held the top and bottom halves together, it is permitted even for drinking. What is the reason that the wine is permitted? The gentile is merely performing the action of a brick by weighing the barrel down, and he is not doing anything to the wine.

Okay, so now it split the other direction and he is just holding down the top. But now we get the strangest cse of a non-Jew touching wine unintentionally:

The mishna teaches that if a gentile fell into the wine collection vat and emerged, it is not prohibited to derive benefit from the wine. Rav Pappa says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where the gentile emerged from the vat dead. But if he emerged alive, the wine is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the wine is prohibited? Rav Pappa said: Since the gentile was rescued from death, he considers that day like their festival day, and he offers the wine as an idolatrous libation in thanksgiving.

Okay, so first, this reminds me of Seth Rogan’s “An American Pickle” where he falls into a vat of pickle juice and wakes up 100 years later. Second, this is really disturbing for so many reasons, the primary for me is that the floating dead body means the wine is permitted. It makes no sense as we can’t have dead things touching our wine, let alone dead humans. Third, I do love that the daf understands that a near death experience will make us grateful and make us want to praise God in whatever way we can. I would hope that if, God forbid, this ever happened, that both the non-Jewish wine swimmer and the Jewish wine owner would praise God that he survived the fall.

Avodah Zarah 59

What’s the difference between Torah law and Rabbinic law? Apparently the poeple or Gavla didn’t know.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba happened to come to Gavla. He saw Jewish women there who were impregnated by gentiles who were in the process of converting and were circumcised but had not yet immersed in a ritual bath. He also saw wine that gentiles diluted with water and Jews then drank the wine. He also saw lupines that gentiles were cooking and Jews were eating. And despite seeing all this, he did not say anything to them to correct their actions.

The three practices that Rabbi Hiyya sees are walking the line. The women are marrying men who are in the process of converting, maybe they even thing they have converted as Torah only talks about circumcision, not immersion, but according to Rabbinic law, they still have one step left in the process (the immersion).
With the wine, again, they are skating the laws. They seem to know they cannot drink wine made by non-Jews but don’t know that the non-Jews also can’t mix and pour wine.
And, again, with the lupins, it’s not as if they’re eating non-kosher food, but they are eating food cooked by non-Jews.
All of these are NOT infractions of Torah law, but they are ALL infractions of rabbinic law.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba says nothing. There is a difference between Torah and Rabbinic law. There is much more flexibility around laws given by the rabbis. But what happens if we stop following rabbinic law? That’s not something the rabbis wanted to find out:

Later, he came before Rabbi Yoḥanan and told him what he had seen. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Go and declare about their children that they have the status of children born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzerim]. And decree with regard to their wine that it is prohibited as an extension of the prohibition of wine used for a libation. And with regard to their lupines you should declare that they are forbidden due to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles, as they are not people well-versed in Torah, and any leniency would be misunderstood and applied too extensively.

This resonates with me so much as a Reform Rabbi. Those of us who study the daf and the origins of halakhah know where those lines are. We know when the rabbis are building fences around the law and when an act actually breaks Torah law. And sometimes the fences seem to far – it seems too much to ask of people. (I mean, look at the above! Let people eat with non-Jews, let them marry people who are clearly willing to take on Jewish practice and tradition!) Yet, it’s also true that, the more further we get from observing the law as it’s been passed down, the more confusion there is about what those lines actually are. The more we walk the line, the more we step over it. the more we step over it, the less we see that there is a line there at all . . .

Avodah Zarah 58

What do you do when you make a mistake? On our daf today, Reish Lakish makes a ruling when he is traveling through a town. When he comes back to tell his friend/teacher/brother-in-law Rabbi Yohannan, he is sent running back to retract his ruling!

Reish Lakish happened to come to Bozrah, a town east of the Jordan. He saw Jews who were eating untithed produce and he deemed the produce prohibited to them. He also saw water to which gentiles bowed down and yet Jews drank the water, and he deemed the water prohibited to them.

We have learned these rules, just like Reish Lakish! Untithed produce is prohibited (if you live in Israel). Likewise, we have been reading that wine poured by a gentile is prohibited as it’s assumed it was poured as a libation (an offering of idolatry), it woudl make sense then that he would rule water that is literally being bowed to would be forbidden as well. But . . .

Reish Lakish came before Rabbi Yoḥanan and told him about the incident. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: While your coat [addemiktorakh] is still on you, go and retract your rulings. This is because the town of Bezer which is mentioned among the cities of refuge (Deuteronomy 4:43) is not the same as Bozrah. Bozrah is not part of Eretz Yisrael, and one is not obligated to separate tithes from its produce. The water is also permitted as it is water that belongs to the public, and water that belongs to the public is not rendered prohibited.

So, both ruling seemed right – but both were wrong! The gem is that Reish Lakish has to return immediately. As soon s we know we are wrong, we have to tell others. Misinformation is dangerous and the longer misinformation festers the more damage it can do.

The message is to speak truth, and if you find out you’re wrong, admit it and tell others ASAP. A world of untruth is a world we mistrust and a world that’s corrupt.

Avodah Zarah 57

Today’s daf asks if we can derive benefit from wine a gentile touched of it’s certain that they did not touch it for the purposes of offering it to an idol. And it gets feisty!

Gemara relates: There was a certain incident in Meḥoza in which a gentile came and entered the store of a Jew. The gentile said to the owners: Do you have any wine to sell? They said to him: No. There was wine sitting in a bucket.The gentile put his hand in it and stirred the wine around. The gentile said to them: This, is it not wine? The otherperson, i.e., the storeowner, took the bucket and, in his anger, threw its contents into a barrel of wine.

Okay, so already super interesting as we see the seller 1) lie and then 2) lose his cool. It’s also chutzpadick for the guy to put his hand in the wine!! But it gets more so as two rabbis now throw down!

This incident raised a dilemma with regard to the status of the wine in the barrel. Rava permitted the owner to sell the wine to gentiles, as he held that it is permitted to derive benefit from the wine. Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana and Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, disagreed with him. Blasts of shofarot went out from the court of Rava promulgating his ruling, and they permitted the sale. And blasts of shofarot went out from the court of Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana and Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, promulgating their ruling, and they prohibited the sale.

Shofars!!!! They are really drawing lines here.

Rava allows the wine to be sold to Gentiles because the idolater who touched it clearly did not have the intent to drink or libate. He just wanted to see that it was wine. Note that even Rava, who is relatively lenient, does not allow Jews to drink the wine. As we have seen, once the non-Jew touches the wine, the Jew may not drink it. But Rav Huna says so way.

What I love about this is how people get mad and… act like people. One guy is mad so he puts his hand in the wine. The seller is mad so he throws it. The rabbis are mad so they blow shofars. And everyone, everyone, does damage to their case by acting in anger.

Avodah Zarah 56

A shock on the daf!!!

The rabbis don’t know the law and so they ask…. a 6 year old boy!! ,

There was a certain outstanding child who learned the tractate of Avoda Zara when he was six years old. People raised a dilemma to him: What is the halakha? Is it permitted to tread on grapes in the winepress together with the gentile? The child said to them: One may tread on grapes in the winepress together with the gentile, in accordance with the ruling of the mishna. They asked the child: But doesn’t the gentile render the wine a libation by touching it with his hands, rendering it forbidden? If so, how may a Jew derive benefit from the wine by receiving payment for his work? The child replied: It is permitted in a case where we tie his hands so that he cannot pour the wine as a libation. The child was then asked: But doesn’t the gentile render the wine a libation by touching it with his foot? The child replied: Rendering wine a libation by touching it with one’s foot is not considered rendering it a libation.

So this 6 year old boy learned, which for that time means memorized, tractate Avodah Zarah. Now when I think this is hard stuff, I will be that much more embarrassed.

This whole section is a little bit confusing because for wine to be kosher it has to only be handled by Jews. But when you’re just crushing grapes, it’s not yet wine. That seems to be the point the six-year-old is trying to make but the gem is not the six-year-old’s ruling. The gem is learning from six-year-olds. 

Avodah Zarah 55

There is a Church here in Miami, El Rey Jesús. It’s a mega-church and they do faith healings. People will approach the stage and share their maladies and some will walk, dance, many will faint. Apparently, this is nothing new. On the daf we read:

Zunin said to Rabbi Akiva: Both my heart and your heart know that there is no substance to idol worship. Nevertheless, don’t we see people who go with broken limbs to worship idols and come back when they are whole? What is the reason for this?

Faith healings were a great hung in Zunin and Alivia’s day as well. Simon wants to know how it works.

Rabbi Akiva said to Zunin: I will relate a parable to you. To what is this matter comparable? It can be compared to a trusted person who was in a certain city, and all the residents of his city would deposit items and money with him,even not in the presence of witnesses. And there was one man who did not trust him, who came and specifically deposited money with him in the presence of witnesses. On one occasion, that person forgot and deposited money with him not in the presence of witnesses. The trusted man’s wife said to him: Come, let us deny that he deposited the money with us, as there are no witnesses. The man said to her: Should we lose our credibility and act deceitfully just because this fool acted improperly and did not require the presence of witnesses?

Here, the reason the healing “works” seems to be that it was just time for the illness to subside. There are actually studies that show that many of these faith “healings” are mental. There is belief and adrenaline and mentally temporary release. But not long lasting cures.

It seems as long as there has been faith, there have been those who want to exploit it for personal and financial gain.

It’s sad, and gives religion a bad name. But it is fascinating. And made for a great movie in 1992 with Steve Martin.

Avodah Zarah 54

We don’t always here from those who challenge Jewish thought and believe on the daf, but today we do!

A certain philosopher asked Rabban Gamliel: It is written in your Torah with regard to the prohibition against idol worship: “For the Lord your God is a devouring fire, a jealous God” (Deuteronomy 4:24). For what reason is He jealous and does He exact vengeance from the idol’s worshippers, but He is not jealous of the idol itself and does not destroy it?

Yes, why doesn’t God destroy the idols? For that, we get a story.

Rabban Gamliel said to the philosopher: I will relate a parable to you. To what is this matter comparable? It may be compared to a king of flesh and blood who had one son, and that son was raising a dog. And the son gave the dog a name, naming him after his father. When the son would take an oath, he would say: I swear by the life of the dog, my father. When the king heard about this, with whom was the king angry? Is he angry with the son or is he angry with the dog? You must say that he is angry with the son. So too, God is angry with the worshippers who attribute divinity to objects of idol worship and not with the objects of idol worship themselves.

Hilarious. And so good! In the parable, the dog is not to blame, his owner is the one who named him! So too, the statues and trees and items that are worshipped as gods have done nothing (that’s the whole point, they’re powerless to do anything), it’s those who call them “gods” and attribute them power who are to blame.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started