The Eddie D. Sitt edition presents an audio series on the תלמוד בבלי Talmud Bavli, specifically focusing on פרק עבודה זרה Perek Avodah Zarah, דף ס"ה Daf Samech Hey. This daf is sponsored לעילוי נשמת le'iluy nishmat אברהם בן אסתר Avraham ben Esther, רוח השם תניחנו בגן עדן אמן ruach Hashem tenicheinu b'gan eden amen. Additionally, this daf is sponsored לרפואה שלמה l'refuah shleimah מיקי בן ג'יימי Micky ben Jamie, רפואת הנפש ורפואת הגוף refuat hanefesh u'refuat haguf, ובתוקף הבריאות וכן יהי רצון ונאמר אמן u'vetokef habriut v'chen yehi ratzon v'nomar amen. We begin today's daf on ס"ד עמוד ב' Samech Dalet Amud Bet, starting from the bottom line.
We continue our discussion within the סוגיא sugya regarding the גר תושב ger toshav. According to all opinions, a ger toshav does not worship עבודה זרה avodah zarah. For instance, this ger toshav resides in ארץ ישראל Eretz Yisrael and has accepted upon himself not to engage in עבודה זרה avodah zarah. The גמרא Gemara presents a story: רב יהודה Rav Yehuda sent a קורבן korban to אבידרנא Abidarna on the holiday of the גויים goyim. He said, “I know this person is a ger toshav; he does not worship עבודה זרה avodah zarah.” Earlier in the מסכת masechet, we learned that one cannot send an animal to the goyim close to their holiday, as they may praise the עבודה זרה avodah zarah during that time. However, Rav sent the animal to this goy on the holiday, confident that he would not praise the עבודה זרה avodah zarah.
Rav Yosef interjected, questioning whether this individual qualifies as a ger toshav since he did not accept this commitment in front of three חברים chaverim. The only way to be considered a ger toshav is through an official acceptance before three rabbis. Hence, how could one send him a korban? The response given is that there is a מצוה mitzvah to sustain him, and if he had accepted his status before three, we would have an obligation to support him, similar to our obligation to sustain Jewish people. However, since he did not do so, we may not have an obligation to sustain him, but Rav knows he does not worship עבודה זרה avodah zarah, and therefore he felt comfortable sending him the animal on the holiday.
Rabba bar bar Hana stated that Rabbi Yochanan declared that a ger toshav who has not converted within י"ב חודש yud bet chodesh is considered like a מין min, reverting to the status of an עובד עבודה זרה oved avodah zarah. This raises the concern for the individual in question, who has exceeded twelve months without conversion. Logically, he should not be better than a ger toshav, as a ger toshav has a twelve-month period to convert; otherwise, he returns to the status of an עובד כוכבים oved kochavim due to lack of seriousness in his commitment. The Gemara clarifies that the case being discussed is one where he accepted upon himself to circumcise but failed to do so. Thus, we suspect he has returned to his old ways. In contrast, this individual never made such a commitment; he merely accepted not to engage in עבודה זרה avodah zarah. Since Rav knows he is a good person who does not worship עבודה זרה avodah zarah, he sees no issue in sending him an animal on the holiday.
The Gemara continues with another story. רבא Rava sent a korban to בר שישך Bar Sheshach on their holiday. He stated that he knows this person does not worship עבודה זרה avodah zarah. When Rava visited, he found Bar Sheshach in a bath surrounded by roses, and undressed women were present. Bar Sheshach asked Rava if their עולם הבא olam ha-ba is as pleasurable as his current experience. Rava responded that their עולם הבא Olam HaBa is indeed more pleasurable. Bar Sheshach questioned how anything could surpass his current enjoyment. Rava explained that while Bar Sheshach enjoys physical pleasures, he is still under the fear of the king, which detracts from his complete pleasure. In contrast, for the righteous, the fear of the King in the עולם הבא Olam HaBa enhances their pleasure, as they connect with הקדוש ברוך הוא Hakadosh Baruch Hu.
Bar Sheshach, however, insisted that he felt no fear of the government. As they spoke, a messenger from the king arrived, commanding him to get up for service. This interruption led him to recognize the truth in Rava's words. He then expressed a curse upon anyone who looks negatively upon the Jewish people, wishing that their eyes should burst. Rava responded with an "Amen." However, Bar Sheshach's own eye burst as a consequence of his curse. The mefarshim mefarshim explain that although Bar Sheshach did not intend to harm the Jewish people, his comparison of worldly pleasures to the עולם הבא Olam HaBa was derogatory to the Jewish people, thus leading to his punishment.
Rav Papa commented that Rava should have referenced a פסוק pasuk to emphasize the greatness of the עולם הבא Olam HaBa. He noted that in the עולם הבא Olam HaBa, the righteous will be served by princesses rather than by lowly women, highlighting a higher level of honor and joy. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak suggested another פסוק pasuk, emphasizing that no eye can fathom the reward that God has prepared for the righteous. This illustrates that the reward for the righteous is beyond human comprehension.
Returning to the משנה mishnah, we find that working for יין נסך yayin nesech is prohibited, and the payment is also prohibited. However, if a goy hires a worker for other tasks and instructs him to move barrels of יין נסך yayin nesech, the wages for that additional work are permitted. The Gemara questions this ruling, noting that the worker is still moving the יין נסך yayin nesech. The Gemara clarifies that if the worker was instructed after sunset, his workday has ended, and thus he is not being compensated for the movement of the יין נסך yayin nesech.
Even if the instruction occurs before sunset, the wages remain permissible if the worker was not hired specifically for the יין נסך yayin nesech. Rashi elaborates that the worker's payment is for the work performed until sunset, meaning he is free to move the barrels afterward without concern for the prohibition. The Gemara continues to analyze the scenarios and distinctions between cases involving hired workers and the transportation of יין נסך yayin nesech.
The discussion leads to the case of hiring a donkey to transport items. If the donkey is hired for non-restricted purposes, and the goy places jugs of יין נסך yayin nesech on the donkey, the wages for the donkey's work are permitted. The Gemara questions the necessity of this ruling, as it seems redundant. The unique aspect is that the donkey was hired for a different purpose, allowing for the permissibility of transporting the jugs. The Gemara further clarifies that the payment for the donkey is not directly tied to the jugs, reinforcing the distinction between permissible and prohibited earnings.
As the Gemara progresses, it discusses the nuances of how the payment structure affects the permissibility of the work performed. The conversation shifts to other cases, such as the impact of יין נסך yayin nesech on various items, including grapes and figs, and how the presence of יין נסך yayin nesech affects their status. The Gemara concludes that if the fruit is not significantly affected by the wine, it remains permissible, while instances where the wine alters the taste lead to prohibition.
Through these discussions, the Gemara elucidates the complexities surrounding the interactions between Jewish law and non-Jewish practices, particularly concerning the implications of עבודה זרה avodah zarah and the status of ger toshav. Each case reinforces the importance of intention, context, and the nature of the relationships between individuals and their actions.