🚫 Mishnah Avodah Zarah 4

רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, שָׁלשׁ אֲבָנִים זוֹ בְצַד זוֹ בְּצַד מַרְקוּלִיס, אֲסוּרוֹת. וּשְׁתַּיִם, מֻתָּרוֹת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, שֶׁנִּרְאוֹת עִמּוֹ, אֲסוּרוֹת. וְשֶׁאֵין נִרְאוֹת עִמּוֹ, מֻתָּרוֹת:

Rabbi Yishmael says: Three stones that are adjacent to each other at the side of Mercury [Markulis] are prohibited, as that idol was worshipped by tossing stones toward it, which then became part of the idol. But if there are only two stones, then they are permitted. And the Rabbis say: Those stones that are adjacent to Mercury and appear to have fallen from it are prohibited. But those stones that are not adjacent to it are permitted.

מָצָא בְרֹאשׁוֹ מָעוֹת, כְּסוּת אוֹ כֵלִים, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. פַּרְכִּילֵי עֲנָבִים וַעֲטָרוֹת שֶׁל שִׁבֳּלִים וְיֵינוֹת וּשְׁמָנִים וּסְלָתוֹת וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁכַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ קָרֵב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אָסוּר:

If one found money, a garment, or vessels at the head of Mercury, these are permitted. If one found vine branches laden with clusters of grapes, or wreaths made of stalks, or containers of wine, oil, or flour, or any other item the likes of which is sacrificed on the altar there, it is prohibited.

עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁהָיָה לָהּ גִנָּה אוֹ מֶרְחָץ, נֶהֱנִין מֵהֶן שֶׁלֹּא בְטוֹבָה וְאֵין נֶהֱנִין מֵהֶן בְּטוֹבָה. הָיָה שֶׁלָּהּ וְשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים, נֶהֱנִין מֵהֶן בֵּין בְּטוֹבָה וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא בְטוֹבָה:

In the case of an object of idol worship that had a garden or a bathhouse, one may derive benefit from them when it is not to the advantage of the idol worship, i.e., when he does not pay for his use, but one may not derive benefit from them when it is to their advantage, i.e., if one is required to pay for his use. If the garden or bathhouse belonged jointly to the place of idol worship and to others, one may derive benefit from them, both when it is to their advantage and when it is not to their advantage.

עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נָכְרִי, אֲסוּרָה מִיָּד. וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֵין אֲסוּרָה עַד שֶׁתֵּעָבֵד. נָכְרִי מְבַטֵּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁלּוֹ וְשֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ מְבַטֵּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁל נָכְרִי. הַמְבַטֵּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, בִּטֵּל מְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ. בִּטֵּל מְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ, מְשַׁמְּשֶׁיהָ מֻתָּרִין וְהִיא אֲסוּרָה:

A gentile’s object of idol worship is prohibited immediately, i.e., as soon as it is fashioned for that purpose, but a Jew’s object of idol worship is not prohibited until it is actually worshipped. A gentile can revoke the status of his object of idol worship and the status of the idol of another gentile, but a Jew cannot revoke the status of the object of idol worship of a gentile. One who revokes the status of an object of idol worship thereby revokes the status of its accessories. But if he revokes the status of its accessories, its accessories alone are rendered permitted, but the object of idol worship itself remains prohibited.

כֵּיצַד מְבַטְּלָהּ, קָטַע רֹאשׁ אָזְנָהּ, רֹאשׁ חָטְמָהּ, רֹאשׁ אֶצְבָּעָהּ, פְּחָסָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא חִסְּרָהּ, בִּטְּלָהּ. רָקַק בְּפָנֶיהָ, הִשְׁתִּין בְּפָנֶיהָ, גְּרָרָהּ, וְזָרַק בָּהּ אֶת הַצּוֹאָה, הֲרֵי זוֹ אֵינָהּ בְּטֵלָה. מְכָרָהּ אוֹ מִשְׁכְּנָהּ, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, בִּטֵּל. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, לֹא בִטֵּל:

How does a gentile revoke the status of an object of idol worship? If he cut off the tip of its ear, or the tip of its nose, or its fingertip; or if he crushed it, even though he did not remove any part of it, in all these cases he thereby revoked its status as an object of idol worship. If he spat before the idol, urinated before it, dragged it on the ground, or threw excrement at it, the status of this idol is not revoked, as this is only a temporary display of scorn, and afterward the gentile might continue to worship the idol. If the gentile sold it or mortgaged it, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He thereby revoked its status. And the Rabbis say that he did not revoke its status.

עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁהִנִּיחוּהָ עוֹבְדֶיהָ בִּשְׁעַת שָׁלוֹם, מֻתֶּרֶת. בִּשְׁעַת מִלְחָמָה, אֲסוּרָה. בִּימוֹסְיָאוֹת שֶׁל מְלָכִים, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרוֹת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָם בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהַמְּלָכִים עוֹבְרִים:

With regard to an object of idol worship that was abandoned by its worshippers, if it was abandoned in peacetime, it is permitted, as it was evidently abandoned by choice and this constitutes an implicit revocation of its status as an object of idol worship. If it was abandoned in wartime, it is prohibited, as it was not abandoned by choice. With regard to the stone platforms of kings upon which idols are placed in honor of the kings, these are permitted, due to the fact that the idol is placed on these platforms only at the time that the kings pass by.

שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת הַזְּקֵנִים בְּרוֹמִי, אִם אֵין רְצוֹנוֹ בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, לָמָה אֵינוֹ מְבַטְּלָהּ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶן, אִלּוּ לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין צֹרֶךְ לָעוֹלָם בּוֹ הָיוּ עוֹבְדִין, הָיָה מְבַטְּלוֹ. הֲרֵי הֵן עוֹבְדִין לַחַמָּה וְלַלְּבָנָה וְלַכּוֹכָבִים וְלַמַּזָּלוֹת. יְאַבֵּד עוֹלָמוֹ מִפְּנֵי הַשּׁוֹטִים. אָמְרוּ לָהֶן, אִם כֵּן, יְאַבֵּד דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין צֹרֶךְ לָעוֹלָם בּוֹ וְיַנִּיחַ דָּבָר שֶׁצֹּרֶךְ הָעוֹלָם בּוֹ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶן, אַף אָנוּ מַחֲזִיקִין יְדֵי עוֹבְדֵיהֶם שֶׁל אֵלּוּ, שֶׁאוֹמְרִים, תֵּדְעוּ שֶׁהֵן אֱלוֹהוֹת, שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵן לֹא בָטָלוּ:

The gentiles asked the Jewish Sages who were in Rome: If it is not God’s will that people should engage in idol worship, why does He not elimi-nate it? The Sages said to them: Were people worshipping only objects for which the world has no need, He would eliminate it. But they worship the sun and the moon and the stars and the constellations. Should He destroy His world because of the fools? The gentiles said to the Sages: If so, let Him destroy those objects of idol worship for which the world has no need and leave those objects for which the world has a need. The Sages said to them: If that were to happen, we would thereby be supporting the worshippers of those objects for which the world has need, as they would say: You should know that these are truly gods, as they were not eliminated from the world, whereas the others were eliminated.

לוֹקְחִין גַּת בְּעוּטָה מִן הַגּוֹי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֵל בְּיָדוֹ וְנוֹתֵן לַתַּפּוּחַ. וְאֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה יֵין נֶסֶךְ, עַד שֶׁיֵּרֵד לַבּוֹר. יָרַד לַבּוֹר, מַה שֶּׁבַּבּוֹר אָסוּר, וְהַשְּׁאָר מֻתָּר:

One may purchase from a gentile a winepress in which the grapes have been trodden on, despite the fact that the gentile takes grapes in his hand from the winepress and places them on the pile that remains to be trodden on. And the gentile’s touch does not render the juice of the grapes wine used for a libation in idol worship, which is forbidden, until it descends into the collection vat, because until then it does not have the status of wine. Once the wine descended into the collection vat, that which is in the vat is prohibited, and the rest, which did not yet descend into the vat, is permitted.

דּוֹרְכִין עִם הַגּוֹי בַּגַּת, אֲבָל לֹא בוֹצְרִין עִמּוֹ. יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בְטֻמְאָה, לֹא דוֹרְכִין וְלֹא בוֹצְרִין עִמּוֹ, אֲבָל מוֹלִיכִין עִמּוֹ חָבִיּוֹת לַגַּת, וּמְבִיאִין עִמּוֹ מִן הַגָּת. נַחְתּוֹם שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בְטֻמְאָה, לֹא לָשִׁין וְלֹא עוֹרְכִין עִמּוֹ, אֲבָל מוֹלִיכִין עִמּוֹ פַת לַפַּלְטֵר:

One may tread on grapes together with the gentile in the winepress, but one may not harvest grapes with him. After the harvest the grapes are brought to the winepress, which is ritually impure. This would render the grapes impure, and it is prohibited to render produce of Eretz Yisrael impure. In the case of a Jew who produces his wine in a state of ritual impurity, one may not tread on grapes nor harvest them with him, as it is prohibited to assist transgressors. But once he has produced his wine, one may take the barrels to the winepress with him, as the wine is already impure. And one may also bring the barrels from the winepress together with him. Similarly, in the case of a baker who makes his bread in a state of ritual impurity, one may not knead or arrange the dough in the shape of bread together with him, so as not to assist in a transgression. But one may take the bread with him to the bread merchant [lapalter].

גּוֹי שֶׁנִּמְצָא עוֹמֵד בְּצַד הַבּוֹר שֶׁל יַיִן, אִם יֶשׁ לוֹ עָלָיו מִלְוָה, אָסוּר. אֵין לוֹ עָלָיו מִלְוָה, מֻתָּר. נָפַל לַבּוֹר וְעָלָה, וּמְדָדוֹ בַקָּנֶה, הִתִּיז אֶת הַצִּרְעָה בַקָּנֶה אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מְטַפֵּחַ עַל פִּי חָבִית מְרֻתַּחַת, בְּכָל אֵלּוּ הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה, וְאָמְרוּ יִמָּכֵר. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר. נָטַל אֶת הֶחָבִית וּזְרָקָהּ בַּחֲמָתוֹ לַבּוֹר, זֶה הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה וְהִכְשִׁירוּ:

In the case of a gentile who was found standing next to the wine collection vat, if there is a loan owed by the owner of the wine vat to the gentile, the wine is prohibited. Since the gentile maintains that he has a right to the owner’s property he has no compunctions about touching the wine. But if there is no loan owed by the owner of the wine vat to the gentile, the wine is permitted, as it is assumed that the gentile did not touch the wine that was not his. If a gentile fell into the wine collection vat and emerged from it, or if he measured the wine in the winepress with a pole without touching it with his hands, or if he cast a hornet out of the wine by means of a pole and the pole touched the wine, or where the gentile was removing the foam that was on the top of a fermenting barrel of wine; with regard to all these cases there was such an incident. And the Sages said that the wine may be sold to gentiles, as it is permitted to derive benefit from the wine, but not to drink it. And Rabbi Shimon deems the wine permitted even for drinking. In a case where a gentile took the barrel of wine and threw it, in his anger, into the wine collection vat, this was an incident that occurred and the Sages deemed the wine fit for drinking.

הַמְטַהֵר יֵינוֹ שֶׁל נָכְרִי וְנוֹתְנוֹ בִרְשׁוּתוֹ בְּבַיִת הַפָּתוּחַ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, בְּעִיר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בָּהּ גּוֹיִם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים, מֻתָּר. בְּעִיר שֶׁכֻּלָּהּ גּוֹיִם, אָסוּר, עַד שֶׁיּוֹשִׁיב שׁוֹמֵר. וְאֵין הַשּׁוֹמֵר צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת יוֹשֵׁב וּמְשַׁמֵּר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא יוֹצֵא וְנִכְנָס, מֻתָּר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר, כָּל רְשׁוּת גּוֹיִם אַחַת הִיא:

In the case of a Jew who renders the wine of a gentile permitted by treading the gentile’s grapes so that the wine can be sold to Jews, and although a Jew has not yet paid for the wine he then places the wine in the gentile’s domain in a house that is open to a public thoroughfare until he sells it, the halakha depends on the circumstances. If this occurs in a city in which there are both gentiles and Jews, the wine is permitted, as the gentile does not touch the wine lest the Jews see him doing so. If this occurs in a city in which all its inhabitants are gentiles, the wine is prohibited unless a Jew sits and safeguards the wine. But the watchman is not required to sit and guard the wine constantly; even if he frequently leaves the place and comes in again later, the wine is permitted. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: The domain of gentiles is all one, as the Gemara will explain.

הַמְּטַהֵר יֵינוֹ שֶׁל נָכְרִי וְנוֹתְנוֹ בִרְשׁוּתוֹ, וְהַלָּה כוֹתֵב לוֹ, הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי מִמְּךָ מָעוֹת, מֻתָּר. אֲבָל אִם יִרְצֶה יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מַנִּיחוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ אֶת מְעוֹתָיו, זֶה הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה בְבֵית שְׁאָן, וְאָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים:

In the case of a Jew who renders the wine of a gentile permitted by treading the gentile’s grapes so that the wine can be sold to Jews, and he then places the wine in the gentile’s domain until he sells it, the halakha depends on the circumstances. If that one, the gentile, writes for the Jew: I received money from you in payment for the wine, even though he did not yet receive the actual payment, the wine is permitted. This is because the wine is considered the Jew’s property and the gentile does not venture to touch it. But if the Jew desires to remove the wine and the gentile does not allow him to do so until the Jew gives him the money due to him, this was an incident that occurred in Beit She’an and the Sages deemed the wine prohibited. In this case the gentile believes that he has a lien upon the wine, and therefore he has no compunctions about touching it.