Babylonian Talmud: Tractate ‘Abodah Zarah

Folio 59a

R. Hiyya b. Abba once visited Gabla,⁵  and there saw Israelite women who were pregnant by heathens who had been circumcised but not immersed. He also saw wine being drunk by Israelites which had been mixed by heathens, and lupins eaten when cooked by heathens; but he said nothing to them. When he came before R. Johanan [and reported the matter to him], the latter exclaimed, 'Go and announce that their children are illegitimate, their wine is nesek, and their lupins [are prohibited] as something cooked by heathens, because [the inhabitants of Gabla] are not students of Torah!'⁶  [In announcing that] their children were illegitimate R. Johanan followed his own opinion; for R. Johanan said: [A Gentile] is never to be regarded as a proselyte until he is both circumcised and immersed, and since he has not undergone immersion he is a Gentile. And Rabbah b. Bar Hanah has said in the name of R. Johanan: If a Gentile or a slave has intercourse with an Israelite woman, the child is a mamzer.⁷  He decreed that their wine was nesek on the principle, 'Keep off, we say to a Nazirite; go round the vineyard and come not near it.' [And he decreed] against their lupins as something cooked by heathens, because [the inhabitants of Gabla] were not students of Torah. His reason was that they were not students of Torah. Consequently if they had been students of Torah, [the lupins] would have been permitted! But surely R. Samuel son of R. Isaac said in the name of Rab: Whatever is eaten raw does not come within [the law of what is prohibited] on account of having been cooked by heathens!⁸  — R. Johanan follows a different version [of the teaching, viz.]: R. Samuel son of R. Isaac said in the name of Rab: Whatever is not brought upon the table of kings to serve as a relish with bread does not come within [the law of what is prohibited] on account of having been cooked by heathens.⁹  Therefore his reason was that they were not students of Torah, and if they had been students of Torah [the lupins] would have been permitted.

R. Kahana was asked: May a heathen be allowed to convey grapes to a winepress? He replied: It is prohibited on the principle, 'Keep off, we say to a Nazirite; go round the vineyard and come not near it!' R. Jemar quoted against R. Kahana: If a heathen carried grapes to a winepress in baskets

1. And what is fixed in the ground does not become prohibited if worshipped.
2. And such a stream of water, if belonging to an individual, would be prohibited as it is no longer fixed to the ground.
3. From a mountain which had been worshipped. Whether they may be used was debated supra 46a, by R. Johanan and R. Hiyya's sons, and it was not decided which of them took the view that they were prohibited.
4. There would then be manual labour involved and consequently prohibited if belonging to an individual; whereas the breaking away of the boulders was due to a natural force, and the two cases are not analogous.
5. Gebal of Ps. LXXXIII, 8, i.e., the northern part of Mount Seir. [V. Klein, S. MGWJ, LXIV, p. 183.]
6. The phrase 'because they are not students of Torah' applies only to the prohibition of the lupins, as will be explained.
7. 'Illegitimate', v, Glos.
8. Lupins are not eaten raw; so they should be prohibited when cooked by heathens whether the inhabitants were learned or not.
9. Lupins are not used for such a purpose and should be permitted.

A citron once fell into a cask of wine, and a heathen sprang for ward to pull it out. R. Ashi said to them:³  Hold his hand so that he does not splash about,⁴  and tilt [the cask] until it is emptied.⁵

R. Ashi said: When a heathen has deliberately rendered the wine of an Israelite nesek, although it is prohibited to sell it to another heathen, [the owner] is allowed to receive the cost from the person [who disqualified it]. On what ground? — Because he involved him in a loss.⁶  R. Ashi said: Whence do I derive this? — From this teaching: If an idolater offered wine of an Israelite [as a libation], not in the presence of an idol, it is prohibited; but R. Judah b. Baba and R. Judah b. Bathyra permit it⁷  for two reasons: first, because wine can be rendered nesek only in the presence of an idol, and secondly because [the owner can] say to him, 'You have no right to make my wine prohibited through no fault of my own.'⁸

It once happened that the bung fell out of a cask of wine, and a heathen sprang forward and placed his hand over it, R. Papa said: All the wine that is on the level with the bung-hole is prohibited⁹

1. Signifying an accomplished fact.
2. He only forbids it ab initio but post factum he too would allow it.
3. The Jewish bystanders.
4. Which action would render all the wine nesek.
5. Into another vessel. So long as he did not move his hand about in the wine, he has not rendered it prohibited.
6. Lit., 'he burned it',
7. To be sold.
8. It follows, at all events, though the ruling of R. Judah b. Baba and R. Judah b. Bathyra is not accepted, that the Jew can receive compensation for his loss.
9. To be drunk by a Jew but it may be sold to a Gentile, since there was no 'splashing' at that spot.