MISHNAH: Rebbi Ismael said, three stones next to one another and next to a Mercury [A Hermes stele, where every passer-by is supposed to add a stone to the heap covering it. Cf. Sanhedrin5:2 Note 36, Mishnah 7:12. The stele is a phallic symbol (Herodotus II 54).] are forbidden, but two are permitted [If the stones are separated from the heap they do not belong to it. One starts a new heap with a triangle of stones, not with two stones.] . But the Sages say, what is seen with it is forbidden [Since the additional stones are thrown, even if they are found separately from the mound but near to it one may assume that they were thrown as homage to Mercury.] , what is not seen with it is permitted.
HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Ismael said,” etc. Rebbi Immi said, the reason of Rebbi Ismael is because of a small Mercurius next to a large Mercurius. But the rabbis say, because of the feet of Mercurius. How large are the feet of Mercurius? 50 cubits [Within 50 cubits of the center of the heap the stones “are seen with it.” Babli 50a.] .
The practice of Mercurius is the following: Two stones one touching the other and the third on top of them [This does not mean that the third stone lies vertically on top of the other two since this is a very unstable arrangement. It must be that the third stone forms a triangle together with the others; then the third stone is on the altitude of the triangle which is at a right angle to, i. e. “on”, the base line.] . If one put down the second one and they warned him because of “it and its young” [Lev. 22:28. The text is very elliptic here; it is explained by the following quote from Terumot. A person is starting to build a rudimentary Mercurius. When he had put down the second stone he decided to sacrifice to the yet unfinished idol and he chose for this purpose an animal and its young. As explained in Sanhedrin, a criminal conviction in rabbinic theory is possible only if criminal intent was proven by the testimony of two eye witnesses that the perpetrator had duly been warned of the criminal nature of his intended act. Also, for one act there can be only one punishment. Slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day is a simple criminal infraction for which no punishment is spelled out in the biblical text. The prescribed punishment for such an act is flogging.] , he is whipped. Because of idolatry he is stoned [One has to read “is not stoned”. Since two stones do not make an idol, even if there was criminal intent no crime was committed.] . If he put down the third [Then there is an idol and even though it is worshipped by throwing an additional stone, anything which would be part of the service in the Temple when done for an idol is a capital crime whether or not the idol is worshipped in this way.] ; there is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. [This text to the end of the paragraph is from Terumot7:1 Notes 64–66; Ketubot3:1 (27c l.21).] For they disagreed: If somebody slaughters an animal and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young he is flogged, about idolatry he is stoned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he is cautioned about an animal and its young he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he be cautioned about idolatry.
What is a Mercurius? Any which borders the ocean or roads [Indicating a landing spot on the shore or a road crossing on land.] . The practice of Mercurius is by throwing. What if he bowed down before it? Rebbi Yose said, essentially is is called Mercurius only for bowing down, a maskit stone you shall not put up in your land to bow down on it [Lev. 26:1. The connection to be made between משׂכית and מרקוליס is not clear.] . I could think that one may not put two stones next to one another and put his box down on them, the verse says to bow down on it, you do not bow down on it but you put your box down on it; you do not bow down on it but you bow down on the stones of the Temple [Babli Megillah22b; Sifra Behar Pereq9(5).] .
Rav commanded to the family of Rav Aḥa, Rebbi Immi commanded to his own family, if you go out on the fast day [Usually, “fast day” is one of the days of penitence called in case of a drought, as described in Tractate Ta`anit. However, since the Babli states (Ta`anit11b) in the name of Rav’s colleague R. Jeremiah bar Abba that this kind of fast day is not practiced in Babylonia, Rav’s instructions to the family of Rav Aḥa can only refer to the Fast Day, the Day of Atonement, where it is customary to prostrate oneself during the recitation of Rav’s composition Alenu at the mention that “we prostrate ourselves” and during the enactment of the Temple ceremony of the day. Cf. Note 18.] you should not incline normally [Face down on the floor. The examples following refer to the daily prayers which morning and afternoon have three parts. The first, the “eighteen benedictions” are said standing, the second, “falling down on one’s face”, is said while bending down, and the third, a recitation of biblical verses, is said sitting up straight. Following the majority opinion here and the unquestioned prescription of the Babli (Megillah22b) one may not put down one’s face to the ground but must bend it sideways. This presumes that the synagogue had a stone floor (as shown by the archeological evidence in Galilee.) There would be no need to turn one’s head on a dirt floor or on carpets.] . Rebbi Jonah inclined on his side; Rebbi Aḥa inclined on his side. Rebbi Samuel said, I saw Rebbi Abbahu inclining normally. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty before Rebbi Abbahu, is it not written [Lev. 26:1. The connection to be made between משׂכית and מרקוליס is not clear.] , a maskit stone you shall not put up in your land to bow down on it. Explain it if he fixed a place for it. But is it not written [2S. 15:32. A “high place” on the Mount of Olives which however had not to be destroyed since there was neither altar nor stone floor.] , it was when David arrived at the mountaintop where one bows down before God? Except bowing down which is not on the ground. Does there exist bowing down which is not on the ground? They fell down with their faces to the ground and bowed down [2Chr.7:3.] . Rebbi Abbahu added up to give thanks to the Eternal for He is good; Rebbi Mana added up to for eternal is His kindness to Israel [The additions of RR. Abahu and Mana are in the verse, except for the addition “on Israel” which are not in this verse nor in any other biblical occurrence of the formula give thanks to the Eternal for He is good, for eternal is His kindness.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Babylonian, two things came from you, the stretching out on the Fast Day [Prostrating oneself with outstretched arms and legs. Since the only day one did this in Babylonia was the day of Atonement, it must refer to that day.] , and the willow of the Seventh Day [Hitting the floor with a bunch of willow twigs on the Seventh Day of the Festival of Tabernacles; an ancient custom to induce ample rains in the coming winter.] . The rabbis of Caesarea say, also this blood letting [Traditions of good and bad days for blood letting.] . It follows what Rebbi Immi said, the Babylonians in the name of the rabbis there: They permitted prostrating only on a public fast, and only on the side [To avoid violating Lev.26:1. These now are Babylonian instructions for the Palestinian fast days for rain which were not practiced in Babylonia.] . The younger Rebbi Yannai in the name of his fathers: Anybody who is not qualified like Joshua that if he falls on his face the Holy One, praise to Him, would tell him, get up [Jos.7:10.] , should not fall down, in the case of an individual [praying] for the community [An individual praying in public for the relief of a public calamity may not prostrate himself unless he claims for himself a status at least equal to Joshua’s. A private person praying for private needs may prostrate himself as much and as long as he feels necessary. Babli Megillah22b in the name of R. Eleazar.] .
“But the Sages say, what is seen with it is forbidden, what is not seen with it is permitted.” (What is seen with it, its body, is forbidden; what is not seen with it is permitted.) [The first time (in parentheses) the scribe mixed the Mishnah text with the intended explanation. The second time then he wrote correctly.] What is seen with it [Within 50 cubits of the center of the heap the stones “are seen with it.” Babli 50a.] is its body, what is not seen with it is not its body. [A quote from Chapter 3, Notes 215 ff.] Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, an idol which was broken is permitted? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it whole it is permitted [It is clear that one has to read with the text in 3:2 “forbidden”. The argument goes as follows: Since the stones lying around a Mercurius are just pebbles, should they not be considered shards? The answer is that the pebbles can easily be put back on the mound; therefore they are forbidden.] according to everybody. [A quote from Chapter 3, Notes 215 ff.] Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it whole it is permitted according to everybody. [Chapter 3, Note 71.]
But Rebbi Yudan the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, if they were lying on their spot it is as if he would return it to its wholeness. And these are at their place [Therefore they are forbidden according to everybody.] .
Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Sometimes you are saying, broken pieces of idols cannot be nullified. And sometimes you are saying, serving pieces of idols cannot be nullified [Both versions are reported as to be stated by Rav.] He who says serving pieces, certainly idols. But he who says idols, therefore not serving pieces. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rav: Mercurius stones which were scattered never can be nullified, because of worship of idols [Since the worship of Mercurius is by throwing a stone on the heap, all stones (except the core which formed it in the first place) are offerings to the idol which are permanently and irrevocably forbidden.] . Rebbi Joḥanan heard it and said, our teacher taught us well, since if one bows down before an idol of (mourners) [A scribal error. Instead of שלאבלים read שֶׁלָּאֹכְלִים “of food”.] they never can be nullified.
How does one nullify it? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, by spit [By having a Gentile spit on some of the core stones.] . But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: Scattered stones of Mercurius have no nullification? Rebbi Phineas said, here those which where thrown at it; there those which were not thrown at it [As noted before, the original mound can be disassembled and its stones used; the accretions by passers-by cannot.] . As this: Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi had a Mercurius on his field. He came to his burgonar [Probably a dweller or supervisor of a burgus,πυργός “tower”; cf. Chapter 1, Note 229. The conjecture of M. Sokoloff, “tenant farmer” based on an interpretation of D. Sperber (Essays on Greek and Latin in the Mishna, Talmud and Midrashic Literature, Jerusalem 1982) of πυργός as “farm house” is not convincing. Also compare Greek πυρκαεύς. “fire-kindler” (E. G.).] and told him, since I heard that the magistrate [Greek ἄρχων.] wants to pass by here tomorrow, by your life lift these stones. After he [The burgonar.] had lifted them, he wanted to take them away. He [R. Simeon ben Rebbi.] told him, they are mine. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba heard this and said, did not the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya state this [As noted before, the original mound can be disassembled and its stones used; the accretions by passers-by cannot.] ? But since he had heard it from him, he reinforced [R. H.I.D. Azulay reports (ככר לאדן) a ms. reading חזר “he repeated”.] and fixed it [He publicized what he had done in order to fix practice following R. Hiyya in the interpretation of R. Phineas.] .
MISHNAH: If one found on top of it [Of a Mercurius mound.] coins, garments, or vessels, they are permitted [Since only stones are offerings to the Mercurius. There is a dissenting opinion in Tosephta 6:13 which forbids coins found on the top stone.] . Branches of vine [Greek φραγέλλιον “twig”.] , wreaths of ears of grain, wines, oils, and fine flours, and anything similar to what is offered on the altar [Anything of a kind acceptable for the altar in the Temple is forbidden if offered to any pagan deity even if the latter is not usually worshipped in this way. Cf. Sanhedrin7:11, Note 239.] is forbidden.
HALAKHAH: “If one found coins on top of it,” etc. Rebbi Jonathan said, not only wreaths of ears of grain but even wreaths of roses [Which are forbidden as ornaments and also because they are used in Isis worship.] . Rebbi Yose said, not only a Mercurius and on top of it coins but even any pagan place which has no lattice work [Which separates the area reserved for priests from that of common worshippers, where everything is forbidden as appurtenances of idols (Chapter 2 Note 219, Chapter 3 Note 132). If no such separation exists, nothing is reserved for the idol except what is on it. The Babli has the opposite rule, 51b.] and he found in it garments or vessels, they are permitted.
MISHNAH: If an idol had a garden or a bath house, one may benefit from them not with a favor [One does “a favor” either by paying or by incurring a debt of gratitude, i. e., the other party accumulates goodwill which obliges one to reciprocate on occasion.] but one may not benefit with a favor. If it belongs to it and a third party one benefits whether with or without a favor [Since one may credit the third party with either income or goodwill. As implied by the Halakhah, direct payments to a pagan temple are always excluded.] .
HALAKHAH: “If an idol had a garden,” etc. So is the Mishnah: A favor to the priests or without a favor to the priests [Babli 51b.] . [Tosephta 6:1.] “It is forbidden to sell [In the Tosephta: “to use for dirges.” Since a rental fee is mentioned, “rent” is the reading which is required here also.] fifes of idols, but if one pays the rental fee to the state if it is used to supply the needs of idol worship it is permitted to sell [In the Tosephta: “to use for dirges.” Since a rental fee is mentioned, “rent” is the reading which is required here also.] them [As stated at the end of the Halakhah, since the state will take its cut and not spend all the money for idolatry, one may suggest that the Jew’s money is income for the state. This is valid for all cases in the Tosephta.] . It is forbidden to rent a store from a pagan temple, but if one pays rent to the state even if it is used to supply the needs of idol worship it is permitted to rent it. It is forbidden to give to collectors for idol worship. If he pays a fee to the state even though he collects for idol worship it is permitted to give to him.” And the Mishnah said so, “if it belongs to it and a third party one benefits whether with or without a favor.”
MISHNAH: A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden [Immediately when it was made since its manufacture is part of its worship.] but a Jew’s only when it is worshipped [Since he is not supposed to do it there is a chance that he will not worship it.] . A Gentile is able to annul his idol and that of a Jew; but a Jew cannot annul the idol of a Gentile [“To annul” an idol is to treat it in a way inconsistent with veneration, such as breaking off a piece. If the Gentile does this he transforms the idol into a piece of art which is permitted for usufruct. A Jew can do this to his own idol as part of his repentance but since he is under the obligation to destroy pagan idols without obtaining any gain he cannot transform Gentile objects forbidden for usufruct into those permitted for usufruct.] . If one annulled an idol he annulled its appurtenances; if he annulled its appurtenances the appurtenances are annulled but it is forbidden.
HALAKHAH: “A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Mishnah speaks about an artist who works to sell it on the market. When he finishes it, it is a sure thing that he bows down before it. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is a sure thing that he bows down before it, why did we state “a Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden but a Jew’s only when it is worshipped [If he works for the trade and an idol is worth more if it was worshipped then there is no reason to exempt a Jewish-made idol from immediate prohibition.] ”?
Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If one cuts an idol in stone, even though you say that nothing connected to the ground is forbidden, one warns him on every single chiseling and when it will be separated from the rock he will be flogged. Rebbi Yose said, from this you understand that if somebody makes a statue for idol worship, even though you say that nothing breathing can be forbidden, one warns him about each single mallet [While in modern Hebrew קורנס is a sledge hammer, and some dictionaries define it as a mallet, neither etymology nor meaning are clear. (In Arabic قرناس is “the back of an axe, mountain ridge”.) The sentence is not intelligible, but the Babli (19b) seems to disagree since it notes that an incomplete idol will not be worshipped and therefore has no commercial value in the idol trade; therefore it is the last application of the hammer or chisel which confers the status of idol.] and he will be flogged when it is finished.
“A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden,” therefore it can be annulled. “But a Jew’s only when it is worshipped,” therefore it cannot be annulled. Rebbi Ze`ira said, there is no “therefore” [It is not a logical consequence. The Tosephta, 5:3, notes that it is a logical consequence of the opposite opinion. If the idol made by a Jew is immediately forbidden even if he did not worship it then it follows that he cannot annul it (except maybe by melting it down) but the Gentile whose idol becomes forbidden only if worshipped can annul an idol by an act of non-worship.] , only “it cannot be annulled or it can be annulled”. “A Gentile’s idol is immediately forbidden,” as it is written [Deut. 12:20.] : you certainly shall destroy.“But a Jew’s only when it is worshipped,” as it is written [Deut. 27:15. The argument is from the later part of the verse, cursed be the man who would make a hewn or molten image and put it up in secret. As long as it is not put up there is no curse. The Babli, 52a, reads the verse as stating that the curse applies when the idol is made.] , cursed be the man who makes a hewn or molten image, etc., when he puts it up. But some are switching this [Tosephta 5:4.] . “A Jew’s idol is immediately forbidden,” for it is written, cursed be the man. “But a Gentile’s only when it was worshipped,” as it is written [Deut. 12:20.] , you certainly shall destroy all the places where these peoples worshipped. Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel understood it from the following: If you inherited it when it was a god you shall burn it in fire [This probably should be a quote of Deut. 7:25.] , otherwise of which you will inherit their gods [The full verse reads: you certainly shall destroy all the places where these peoples worshipped, whom you are going to inherit, their gods. By taking only a fraction of the verse it is turned into permission to inherit the statues of the gods. This implies that if the Gentiles do not consider them as gods any more, the prohibition of usufruct is lifted.] . Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai understood it from the following: You should not covet silver or gold for them [` Deut. 8:25. If the Gentiles covet their silver and gold, you may take it. In the Babli, 52a, is a similar argument. Samuel reads the verse, do not covet silver or gold for them and take for yourself as: you may not covet silver or gold for them but you may be permitted to take for yourself.] . You cannot covet and take, but others can covet and you are taking.
Rebbi Joḥanan said to Bar Drosai, go down and break all those statues in the public baths [Greek δημόσιον (βαλανεῖον) public (government run) bath.] . He went down and broke them all except one [Greek παρά. For this use of the word cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, On the Talmudic Vocabulary12–15, Lešonenu 39(1975) pp. 62–69.] . Why this? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because another [One might read אחד “one” instead of אחר “another.”] Jew was suspected of burning incense for it.
Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: [Babli 52b, where, however, it is accepted that Rebbi in his advanced age changed his opinion.] Rebbi was sitting and teaching his son [Reading בְּרֵהּ “his son” instead of inappropriate בָּמָה “height, altar” or בַּמֶּה “why?”.] Rebbi Simeon. The Gentile annuls his own idol and that of his neighbor. He said to him, when you still were in full mental powers you quoted Tannaim stating that a Gentile annuls his own idol and that of a Jew. He answered him, no, my son. An idol which a Jew had worshipped can never be annulled. And it was stated so: “Rebbi Simeon ben Menassia says, an idol which a Jew had worshipped can never be annulled.” [Babli 53a; as anonymous text Tosephta 5:3.] Rav stated in the name of [A name is missing here.] the reason of this Tanna: Cursed be the man who makes a hewn or molten image, forever [Deut. 27:15. The argument is from the later part of the verse, cursed be the man who would make a hewn or molten image and put it up in secret. As long as it is not put up there is no curse. The Babli, 52a, reads the verse as stating that the curse applies when the idol is made.] .
[Another version of the same story is in the Babli, 43a, leading to essentially the same conclusions.] Bar Qappara found a ring with an idol. An Aramean youth was running after him. He was hitting him [Bar Qappara the Gentile youth.] , cursing him, and told him, spit on it! He did not accept. Urinate on it! He did not accept. This implies that a Non-Jew annuls his own and another person’s idols under duress, on condition that he knows the nature of this idol. An idol which had been worshipped by a Jew can never be annulled [This sentence does not seem to fit into the context here. It is not totally excluded that the translation should be: An idol which had been worshipped, a Jew can never annul.] . Could it not be like an idol which was abandoned by its worshippers and by that being annulled [Mishnah 6.] ? Rebbi Ze`ira said, anything which becomes annulled by itself, a Jew can annul. But anything which does not become annulled by itself, a Jew cannot annul [If the ring had been abandoned, by this fact it would become permitted for usufruct. Then the Jew could eliminate the idolatry aspect either by defacing it or by melting it down. But if the ring was lost and the owner did not realize his loss, he could not abandon it and it remains forbidden for all usufruct unless a Gentile treat it with contempt.] .
Rav said, a pedestal [Cf. Chapter 3:10, Note 231.] is not annulled [If the pedestal was made especially for an idol, removing the idol does not automatically make the pedestal permitted for usufruct. This implies that the pedestal is treated not as an appurtenance of the idol but as a separate idol.] . Therefore if one annulled it it is annulled [In the Babli, 53b, this is the opinion of the Galilean authorities R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish, opposed by Rav and Samuel.] . The opinions of Rav seem inconsistent. There he says [Halakhah 3:10. Since Rav deduces from the statement of the Mishnah about stones used for a pedestal rules about appurtenances of idols it follows that he treats the pedestal as an appurtenance.] , if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden, and here he says so? Here if he burned incense, there if he did not burn incense [A pedestal which was not used as an altar is an appurtenance; if it was used as an altar it is an idol.] . And even if you are saying, in both cases if he burned incense, Rav follows his opinion since Rav said, if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden [Obviously this quote cannot be correct since it was the basis of the question raised; one must refer here to the statement of R. Abba in the name of Rav in Halakhah 3:10: “This implies that what is cast for idolatry is immediately forbidden.” The difference is whether the stone was quarried or the tree felled for the purpose of building a pedestal for idolatry or whether the material was bought on the market.] .
Rav said, a pedestal is not annulled. Therefore its appurtenances are annulled. The opinions of Rav seem inconsistent. There [This refers to Mishnah 6, pedestal erected by the Augustales, the priests of the worship of the Emperor, for a visit of the Emperor in the region. If the Emperor did not pass by a certain pedestal it is permitted without being disassembled. The statement of Rav Sheshet is not otherwise recorded. Babli 53b.] Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rav, if the procession was using another way, and here he says so? There if he burned incense, here if he did not burn incense. And even if you are saying, in both cases if he burned incense, Rav follows his opinion since Rav said, if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden [Obviously this quote cannot be correct since it was the basis of the question raised; one must refer here to the statement of R. Abba in the name of Rav in Halakhah 3:10: “This implies that what is cast for idolatry is immediately forbidden.” The difference is whether the stone was quarried or the tree felled for the purpose of building a pedestal for idolatry or whether the material was bought on the market.] .
Rebbi Joḥanan said, a stele is a monolith, an altar has many stones [Babli 53b. In the Babli, instead of maṣseba one uses βωμός, not consistent with the use of the term in the Yerushalmi.. This change in terminology is not usually recognized in the talmudic Dictionaries.] . Ḥizqiah said, a stele is annulled once it is damaged; of an altar one has to damage each single stone. A baraita of Ḥizqiah disagrees with him: If you tore down the altar, leave it alone; if you broke the stele, leave it alone [The terminology is taken from Deut. 12:3.] . Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia; Rebbi Ḥiyya (Rebbi) [Read בר for ר׳. The tradent is R. Ḥiyya bar Abba.] Abba, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rav Hoshaia: When He turns all stones of the altar like smashed pieces of chalk [Is. 27:9. In the Babli, 54a, this is Ḥizqiah’s baraita; probably here also this is the statement which contradicts his earlier statement that simple damage, not complete annihilation, permits maṣsebot and altars for usufruct.] , persecute them until you eliminated its egg from the world. But here, if you broke a stele, leave it alone; if you tore down an altar, leave it alone [Divine vengeance is different from rules prescribed for humans.] .
It is written [Lev. 26:1.] , do not make idols for yourselves, statue and stele you shall not erect for yourselves. Is not making the same as erecting? Rebbi Hila said, making is from new; erecting, if it falls down one shall not re-erect it. It is written [Deut. 12:3. The verse continues, their statues you shall cut down.] , you shall tear down their altars and break their steles. From where to apply one to the other? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, it was said to refer to both sides; either breaking, or cutting down, or tearing down for each of them.
MISHNAH: How does one annul it [An idol or one of its appurtenances.] ? If he cut off the top of its earlobe, the tip of its nose, the tip of its finger. If he disfigured it even though nothing is missing [E. g., by denting the statue with a hammer so that nothing is missing.] , he annulled it. If he spat in its face, urinated before it, dragged it, threw excrement on it, this is not annulled. [Only permanent damage is acceptable.] If he sold or mortgaged it, Rebbi says it is annulled, but the Sages say it is not annulled.
HALAKHAH: “How does one annul it,” etc? Rebbi Ze`ira said, this is if he sold it in peace [Only permanent damage is acceptable.] . But if he sold it in ill-will, everybody agrees that it is annulled; it happens that he is hungry, falls into a rage, and curses his king [Is. 8:21. The Babli uses the same verse as a reason for which a contemptuous treatment of an idol is not an annulment; 53a.] etc. Ze`ur bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith [The disagreement between R. Joḥanan and Rav is formulated in the Babli (53a) about whether the idol is sold to a Jewish or a Gentile goldsmith, without exact attribution of authorship.] . But if he sold it to its worshipper, everybody agrees that it is not annulled. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: they disagreed if he sold it to its worshippers. But if he sold it to a goldsmith everybody agrees that it is annulled. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: in dispute [It is not spelled out what they are referring to. The next sentence makes this clear.] . It turns out that Rebbi Ḥanina held with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav Jeremiah with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. What about it? They disagreed in case he sold it to a goldsmith. But if he sold it to one of its worshippers, everybody agrees that it is not annulled [The decision follows R, Joḥanan and the goldsmith must be a Jew who will melt down the idol.] .
MISHNAH: An idol which was abandoned by its worshippers in times of peace is permitted, in times of war is forbidden [Since there is no indication that the idol was permanently abandoned.] . Pedestals of kings are permitted since they put them up when the kings pass by [This is a temporary situation; as soon as the Emperor has departed, the pedestal has lost its mission; cf. Note 83.] .
HALAKHAH: “An idol which was abandoned by its worshippers,” etc. It was stated: The war of Joshua is forbidden, similar to the war of Joshua is permitted. The war of David is permitted, like the war of David is forbidden. The war of Joshua is forbidden, as it is written [Deut. 20:17. This verse is quoted as justification of the first statement, that idols captured in the wars of Joshua were forbidden.] , for certainly you should ban them. Similar to the war of Joshua is permitted, for it is a short time [Idols conquered in a war of limited duration are temporarily forbidden until it is ascertained after the war that no worshippers returned, as in the war of Joshua where in theory all Canaanites were killed (Deut. 20:16).] . The war of David is permitted, what Itai from Gat annulled [Since David had Gentile mercenaries in his army, they immediately could annul all idols and articles of pagan worship which then became of use (Chapter 3:3 Note 108).] . Like the war of David is forbidden, for it is permanent [If a war is not ended with a peace but with an indefinite truce, the preceding arguments are not applicable.] .
MISHNAH: The Elders were asked in Rome, if He does not approve of idol worship, why does He not eliminate it? They answered, if they would worship something which the world does not need, He would eliminate it. But they worship sun and moon, stars and planets, mountains and hills. Should He destroy His world because of the stupid? They told them, if it is so, He should eliminate things which are not needed in the world, and keep things necessary for the world. They answered, then we would strengthen the worshippers of the latter who would say, you should know that these are divinities since those were eliminated and these were not eliminated.
HALAKHAH: “The Elders were asked in Rome,” etc. If somebody stole seeds and sowed, would it not grow in the end? If somebody sleeps with a married woman, would he not in the end cause a bastard to be born? But let the world continue its usual way. The stupid who misbehave will in the future have to account for their deeds.
Rebbi Ze`ira said, if it were written, “like them should be their worshippers”, that would be difficult; the sun’s worshippers like the sun, the moon’s worshippers like the moon [To compare people to sun and moon would be praise.] ? But, like them should be their makers [Ps. 115:8. This clearly refers to idols and their makers.] . Rebbi Mana said, if it were written, “like them should be their worshippers”, it would not be difficult, as it is written [Is. 24:23.] , the moon will be ashamed and the sun abashed. Rebbi Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Mana: In the future, an idol will come, spit in the face of its worshippers, make them ashamed, and disappear from the world. What is the reason? All worshippers of statues will be ashamed [Ps.97:7. This homily ends the part of the Tractate devoted to idols.] . Rebbi Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Mana: In the future, an idol will come, bow down before the Holy One, praise to Him, and disappear from the world. What is the reason? Bow down before Him, all gods [Ps.97:7. This homily ends the part of the Tractate devoted to idols.] .
MISHNAH: One may buy a used wine-press from a Non-Jew [Since it is stated later in the Mishnah that grape juice becomes wine only when it is collected in the cistern below the wine press, a wine press used by a Gentile does not have to be cleansed from the remainders of the Gentile’s pressing before being used by the Jew to make kosher wine.] . Even if he [This now starts a new topic. The Gentile may help the Jew to load the grapes into the wine press even if the grapes are already oozing juice..] takes it in his hands and puts it on the pile [“The apple” or “the swollen”. Any heap of organic material is called by this expression, so also the heap of ashes at the center of the altar in the Temple courtyard. Here it denotes the heap of grapes to be pressed.] . It does not become libation wine until it flows down into the cistern. If it flowed into the cistern [The place where the juice flowing from the wine press is collected. As Rashi points out, European wine presses are not built over cisterns; there the place of the cistern is taken by the barrel into which the juice is collected. If the Gentile touches the fluid in the cistern, the contents of the cistern become forbidden, the fluid still in the press is permitted. The status of the fluid in the pipe leading from press to cistern has to be discussed in the Halakhah.] , what is in the cistern is forbidden and the remainder in permitted.
HALAKHAH: “One may buy a used wine-press,” etc. Rebbi Ḥanin stated: Only if the Jew did not turn his eyes away from him [The Gentile can help in preparing the harvest for pressing only if at all times a Jew sees him so one is sure that he does not touch the cistern or any storage barrels of grape juice. Quoted in Tosaphot 55b, Roqeaḥ #495, Raviah # 1096, Mordekhai #845, Rosh (Note 113).] . But if he turned his eyes away from him, not then. So far if he [The Gentile.] was taking juice and grapes together to put on the heap. If he gave these and those separately, (even from what was left in the fissures, what is under the bunches is forbidden, on the sides is permitted.) [The reading of Rosh (Avodah zarah4, #50) in the version of R. Lipman Heller Wallerstein and R. ḤID Azulai seems preferable: הָיָה נוֹתֵן אֵילּוּ בִפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְאֵילּוּ בִפְנֵי עַצְמָן אֲפִילוּ כֵן מוּתָּר. גוֹמָמִיוֹת שֶׁתַּחַת הָאֶשְׁכּוֹלוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת. שֶׁבְּצִידֵּיהֶן הֵן אֲסוּרוֹת. “If he gave these and those separately, even so it is permitted. The fissures under the bunches are permitted, on the sides they are forbidden.” If the grapes are harvested into a vat, if the entire vat is emptied into the wine press one does not care if juice already oozed from the grapes since this is part of the pressing process. If the grapes are taken out of the vat and then the fluid is poured into the press separately, this also is acceptable. But if then some fluid is left in the fissures between the wooden planks which form the walls of the vat, it is grape juice in a separate vessel which is no different from a barrel standing under the pipe through which the juice flows from press to cistern; any touch by the Gentile will turn it into forbidden libation wine.] Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Itself it becomes libation wine [He objects to making a difference between places where some juice is left; any juice left in the vat has the same status as juice in the cistern.] .
A wine press on which a Gentile stopped a leak from the inside is forbidden, from the outside permitted, for it is impossible that there not be wet bast where he touches and turns the entire cistern into libation wine [If the wine press were completely dry, there would be no difference whether the Gentile plugs the leak from the inside or the outside. But if it is moist, the bast which he uses to plug the leak retains some wine which then turns the wine press into a vessel like vat and cisterns, and the Gentile’s touch forbids the wine. But from the outside it never can be considered inside a vessel.] .
Rav Huna in the name of Rav: The jet is like the cistern [Babli 55b. The case of the conduit from wine press to cistern which was not treated in the Mishnah is decided: The moment when a drop of grape juice passes the filter at the bottom of the press and enters the pipe leading to the cistern it turns into wine.] . Rebbi Ze`ira asked: Everywhere [The basic text is Mishnah Ṭahorot8:8 which states that any flow downwards is no connection for impurity while standing fluid on a level surface is. Babli 72a.] you do not say that flow is connection, but here you are treating flow as connection? Rav Huna is of the opinion that if the cistern became libation wine, the flow became libation wine [In these matters, any defect is transferred upwards but not downwards.] ; if the flow became libation wine the cistern did not become libation wine [If the flow was cut off and prevented from reaching the cistern.] . Rebbi Abba did not say so, but if the cistern became libation wine, the flow did not become libation wine; if the flow became libation wine the cistern became libation wine. What Rav Huna said in the name of Rav, the jet is like the cistern, for Rav Huna is of the opinion, just as the cistern becomes libation wine so the jet becomes libation wine. There, they say in the name of Rav, the touch of a Gentile makes libation wine. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, only when it is flowing [A libation consists of shaking the wine as an homage to the gods. Therefore if the touch of the Gentile did not move the wine from its position at rest, no libation was made.] .
An Aramean fell into a cavity. The case came before Rebbi Huna who said, immobilize him [Since libation wine is created by a Gentile moving the wine, the Non-Jew has to be immobilized until the cistern is emptied.] until you have emptied the cavity. Rebbi Ḥanina said, he is moving his hand. He said, bring willow baskets and approach from under his hand [Hebrew and Aramaic זלף means “to sprinkle” (Note 161). This does not make any sense here. The word is Arabic زلف “to approach, advance toward”. One brings baskets or mats of willow weave and approaches his arms from below so that his hands are in the air above the wine and cannot move the wine.] .
Simeon bar Ḥiyya was instructing Ḥiyya bar Rav. Starting when does a Gentile make libation wine [This seems to be a question which Ḥiyya bar Rav asked Simeon bar Ḥiyya.] ? He told him, from when he knows the nature of idol worship. (Rav Joshia left) [Rav put out his head] [The translation [in brackets] follows the argument of S. Lieberman (Hayerushalmi Kiphshuto New York 1995, p. 226) that one has to read not אפיק רב יאשיה but אפיק רב ראשיה as in Eruvin1:1, 18d line 33.] from the curtain and told him, you may say this if one buys grapes from the Gentile. But the Gentile proper makes libation wine when he is one day old [Babli 57a, where Simeon bar Ḥiyya actively opposes Rav. Rav admits the leniency only for grape juice flowing from grapes in a vat. But in this case, even an adult Gentile was admitted as help. The leniency applies only to the juice left in the vat after it was emptied of grapes, cf. Note 113.] .
May a Gentile make libation wine with his mouth? Rebbi Ada in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A Gentile cannot make libation wine with his mouth. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: A Gentile can make libation wine with his mouth. And we have stated thus: “If a market supervisor [This should read אגרנימוס Greek ἀγορανόμος “market supervisor”.] tasted from a cup or from a suction pipe [To check the quality of the wine, whetrher the customer would not be overcharged.] and returned [The remainder of the wine.] to the amphora it is forbidden.” In the opinion of Rebbi Ada in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, only if the Gentile returned it [Since they hold that the motion of the wine induced by the overseer’s mouth cannot make libation wine, if the Gentile returned it to the amphora he causes waves in the wine which makes it libation wine forbidden for usufruct.] . In the opinion of Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, even if a Jew returned [For him the wine drawn by the overseer is libation wine in all cases; the person who returns the wine to the amphora will make it forbidden in all cases.] .
MISHNAH: One may stamp with a Non-Jew in the wine press [The grapes are pressed not by a mechanical device but by people stamping on a wooden plank on top of the grapes. All the wine produced is libation wine forbidden for all usufruct. Therefore one could think that a Jew would be forbidden to receive wages for pressing the grapes. But it was explained in the preceding Halakhah that the grape juice turns into wine only by flowing into the cistern below the press. Therefore the Jew may receive wages for pressing the grapes whose juice will not be forbidden at the moment of pressing.] but one may not harvest with him [This Tanna is of the opinion that it is forbidden to cause impurity to fruits of the Holy Land. Since the grapes become impure by being handled by the Non-Jew, a Jewish agricultural worker observing the rules of purity may not help in the Non-Jew’s harvest (cf. Berakhot1:1, Note 3 and Introduction to Tractate Demay p. 349–350).] . With a Jew who works in impurity [Working at a time when it was still possible to follow the rules of impurity, a Jew making his wine in impurity was a sinner since he caused his heave and tithes (which are biblical obligations for grain, olive oil, and grape wine) to be impure and therefore forbidden to be consumed by the Cohen. Grapes harvested for wine making are placed in a vat for transport to the wine press. The fluid oozing out of injured grape berries are collected in the vat and also used for making wine. This fluid is welcome; therefore it prepares the grapes for impurity as explained in Demay2:3 Notes 136,137, 141. An observant Jew harvesting together with an unobservant one is guilty of helping to cause impurity to fruits of the Land. There really is no intrinsic reason to forbid pressing the grapes which already are impure; the prohibition to help in pressing is a general rule “not to support sinners”.] one neither stamps nor harvests with him but one transports with him amphoras to the wine press and brings with him from the wine press [Transporting empty amphoras to the wine press is not connected with any impropriety; it is not even forbidden to fill impure wine into pure amphoras which thereby will become impure. Transporting amphoras filled with impure wine from the wine press is permitted since all forbidden action was in the past.] .
HALAKHAH: “One may stamp with a Non-Jew in the wine press,” etc. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, you say only if they walked over it crosswise [Since Gentiles are considered impure under the rules of a sufferer from gonorrhea (Babli 36b), the moment a Gentile steps on the planks on top of the grapes everything is impure by “stepping on” (Chapter 3:8, Note 181). It is not really necessary that the Gentile walk on the plank in two different directions. Since then the entire contents of the wine press are impure: the Jew does not help to make them impure.] . But if they did not walk over it crosswise, it does not apply. Rebbi Yose asked, if they walked over it crosswise, even following the earlier teaching [There seems to be no reason for R. Jonah’s rule since the entire harvest becomes impure at harvest time, Note 132. There never should be any reason not to press grapes with a Gentile.] ? As it was stated: [Tosephta 7:1, Babli 55b.] “Originally they were saying that one harvests grapes with the Non-Jew and stamps with a Jew who works in impurity [In both sources, one reads: “Originally they were saying that one does not harvest grapes with the Non-Jew and does not stamp with a Jew who works in impurity.” This text must be supposed also for the quote here. If one holds that it is forbidden to cause impurity to the fruits of the Land then one may not harvest with the Gentile because this is the moment when the grapes become impure.] . They changed and said, one does not harvest grapes with the Non-Jew nor stamp with a Jew who works in impurity, but one stamps with a Gentile and helps him as long as it did not disappear from sight. Once it disappeared from sight it became libation wine [The second part of this baraita parallels the Mishnah; it is missing in the Tosephta. In the Babli text it reads “one does not stamp with the Non-Jew”; this is explained as a precaution because if the Gentile has a small harvest and decided to make red wine by leaving the skins in the fluid, the easiest way would be to plug the pipe leading to the cistern and use the press itself to let the wine ferment. Then the act of pressing makes libation wine and the Jew’s wages would be forbidden for usufruct. The Yerushalmi very reasonably does not consider this a possibility.] ”.
What is Rebbi Jonah’s reason? Because it already became impure when it was prepared by the grape harvest [As explained before, this is R. Yose’s argument.] . What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? They were pure by biblical standards. You are the one who decided that they be impure [This is R. Jonah’s argument. There is no biblical impurity for Gentiles; the laws of impurity are uniquely formulated for Jews. The imputation of impurity (permanent and irrevocable) for Gentiles is rabbinical (Babli 36b). The exclusion of Gentiles from the Temple precinct is not because of impurity but because of their being disqualified.] . The strength of Rebbi Yose is the following, as Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Hila [The source of this statement (in another context) is Ḥallah3:2, Note 53.] It should be logical that one may (free) [This text makes no sense either by itself nor in this context. Ṭevel is produce under the obligation of heave from which heave was not yet taken; it may not be consumed. By all standards a person is not only permitted but obligated to free his ṭevel by separating the heave. The text in Ḥallah correctly reads: “a person may make his ṭevel impure by biblical standards.” The main point of the argument is given there but omitted here. Heave not only must be consumed in purity but it is stated in Num. 18:8 that the priests have a special duty to guard heave from impurity. It follows that this duty does not apply to ṭevel, which therefore may be allowed to become impure; disagreeing with the hypothesis underlying the Mishnah. The quote here refers to a different subject. Heave given to Aaron in his quality of priest is pure heave for which he can exercise his duty to watch it and consume it in purity. But once produce has incurred even a doubt of impurity it can no longer be consumed by the Cohen; this eliminates not only the duty of guarding it but all rules made to safeguard it. If the rules of purity no longer can be observed there remain no restrictions on harvesting and pressing grapes with a Gentile.] his ṭevel as it is written, you should give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest [Num. 18:27.] . You have to give it to Aaron in his quality of priest. But here, since you cannot give it to Aaron the priest in his quality of priest, you may make it impure.
MISHNAH: If a baker works in impurity one does not knead with him [For kneading one must wet the flour; this prepares it for impurity and, in an impure bakery, makes the dough impure.] nor form the bread with him [The dough already is impure when it is formed; this prohibition falls under the general prohibition “to support sinners.”] , but one may bring bread to the seller [Greek πρατήρ (Buxtorf) or πωλητήρ (Krauss) “seller”.] with him [Since the bread is fully baked, transporting it is not “to support sinners.”] .
HALAKHAH: “If a baker works in impurity,” etc. One states about this: One does not moisten, nor grind, nor mix with him [One either moistens the grain before grinding to facilitate the separation of chaff from flour or one washes the grain before grinding to eliminate impurities such as pebbles. In any case will the moistening make the grain susceptible to impurity. Even if the grain was dry milled, moistening the flour to make dough will bring on the impurity. Only grinding itself is solely forbidden not “to support sinners.”] . [From here on this is taken from Ševi`it5:9 (Notes 92–97)7, 4:3 (Notes 52–57)*7. Instead of the baraita quoted here, one states in Ševi`it: “One should neither cull nor grind nor sift with him.” These are all done dry when the grain still may be immune to impurity. The question is to explain when each of the baraitot applies.] Rebbi Hila said, here for profane [bread], there for heave. Can you say heave at a baker’s? The colleagues: one if he moistens, the other if he does not moisten [Since it has been established that the Cohen has the duty to guard his heave, he has to bake his heave bread himself or at least have it baked under his strict supervision; he is forbidden to hand it over to a commercial baker. The explanation of the colleagues is the only acceptable one. Quoted in Tosaphot Giṭtin61a/b s.v. רישא.] . But did we not state [Mishnah Ševi`it5:9, speaking of an observant woman baking together with one who does not observe the rules of purity.] : “But she may not touch hers once water has been put in because one does not support transgressors.”
Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Immi. One said [This explains the last sentence in Mishnah Ševi`it5:9 that one encourages Gentiles in the Sabbatical and that one greets Gentiles for communal peace. What is the difference between encouraging and greeting?] , “plough it well; then I will rent it from you after the Sabbatical.” The other one said, “may you succeed.” For him who said, plough it well; then I will rent it from you after the Sabbatical, what means “one greets them”? “May you succeed. [This is the greeting of Gentiles endorsed by the Babli, Giṭtin62a.] ” But he who said that one says to a Gentile, may you succeed, what means that one greets Jews [The text of Ševi`it5:9 is more convincing: One greets Gentiles in the same way one greets Jews.] ? “Peace be on you.”
Explanation [Greek δήλωμα.] . Rebbi Ḥanina bar Pappa and Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman passed by one of the ploughmen in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said to him, may you succeed. Rebbi Ḥanina bar Pappa said to him, did not Rebbi teach, the passers-by did not say [Ps.129:8.] , etc., that it is forbidden to say “may you succeed” to one who ploughs in the Sabbatical? He told him, you know how to read but you do not know how to make a homily. The passers-by did not say, these are the nations who pass out of the world because they did not say to Israel, the blessing of the Eternal is on you. What does Israel say to them? We bless you in the name of the Eternal. Israel says to them, all the good things and happy circumstances that come into the world because of us are not enough for you; you do not say, come and take from these blessings for yourselves, but you roll over us pro-rated contributions [Aramaic and Syriac פיסא “piece”, here used in the sense of individual contribution to a tax imposed on the community (I. Löw).] and fines [Greek ζημία.] , head taxes and annonae [The annual contributions in kind for the upkeep of the Roman army.] .
Rebbi Immi instructed: It is forbidden to take the bread out of the oven with him [The baker who works in impurity. The scribe in Ševi`it5:9 started to write this sentence, then he noticed that there it makes no sense. This determines Avodah zarah as origin of the preceding paragraph.] . Similarly, it is forbidden to sprinkle with him [Moisten baking goods. It would be possible to translate “to load (the oven)”; cf. Note 122.] .
MISHNAH: A Non-Jew who was found standing next to a wine cistern, if he has a loan secured by it [The Jewish owner’s wine is mortgaged to a Gentile. Then it may be assumed that the Gentile touched the wine, which makes the wine forbidden for the Jew. The Gentile may take the wine as repayment of the loan.] , [the wine] is forbidden, if he has no loan secured by it, it is permitted. If he fell into the cistern and climbed out, or measured it with a measuring rod; if he tried to hit a wasp with a stick [The stick did not hit the wasp but the wine in the amphora. This certainly is not libation wine but it was hit if not by the Gentile so by the force of his arm; the wine is forbidden as drink but permitted for usufruct.] , or was drumming on the mouth of a fermenting amphora [There is a distinct possibility that the Gentile touched the foam on the mouth of the amphora. This is not a way of making libations.] ; all these cases happened and they said, it should be sold [To Gentiles since the wine is forbidden as drink but permitted for usufruct.] , but Rebbi Simeon permits. If he took the amphora and threw it into the cistern; [In a rage; there is no libation.] this happened and they declared it kosher [Even to drink.] ..
HALAKHAH: “A Non-Jew who was found standing,” etc. Rab Sheshet in the name of Rav: Only if he has a lien on this particular cistern [The Mishnah could be read as applying to a loan secured by all wine in the possession of the debtor. It is now asserted that in the opinion of Rav (in the Babli, 60b, of Samuel) only the holder of a lien on the particular cistern will consider the wine his property and therefore touch it without hesitation whereas a lender on a future harvest will only visit wine press and threshing floor to ascertain that the harvest is sufficient to secure his claim but he will not touch the produce or the wine since it is not his. In the Babli, this is the only opinion declared consistent with the following Mishnaiot; the discussion in the Yerushalmi shows that the opposing opinion is considered equally valid.] . But if he has no lien on this particular cistern, it is the way of creditors to stand near wine presses and threshing floors. They wanted to say, he who says, only if he has a lien on this particular cistern, within his outstretched arms [The definition of “next to” is “within reach of his hands without moving his body.” This is the definition accepted for the distance in which a person not following the rules of impurity makes vessels and food impure by his presence (Mishnah Ṭahorot7:3).] , but he who says, even if he has no lien on this particular cistern, even outside his outstretched arms [Since he is more restrictive than the first opinion, one may assume that he is more restrictive in this matter also.] . But did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rav Sheshet [Halakhah 5:6 (45a l. 1).] , just as they gave outstretched arms for purity so they gave it for libation wine? But it must be so: He who says, only if he has a lien on this particular cistern, within his outstretched arms, but he who says, even if he has no lien on this particular cistern, only outside his outstretched arms [The definition of “next to” is independent of the circle of persons to which it is applied. In all circumstances, “next to” means what can be reached without moving one’s body.] .
“One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity,” etc. [This Halakhah in its entirety refers to Mishnah 11, not Mishnah 12.] Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Samuel, practice follows Rebbi Simeon [Who in Mishnah 11 permitted to drink wine which the Sages only permitted for usufruct. This tradition is quoted in the Babli 60b but in the end rejected.] . Rebbi Abin in the name of Samuel. I am atoning for Rebbi Simeon [This is an expression traditionally used by the son speaking of his father. He considers himself the spiritual son of R. Simeon (ben Ioḥai).] , either permit to drink or forbid for usufruct [R. Simeon holds that any wine not forbidden for usufruct is not forbidden as drink.] . Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. There was a case and they permitted for drinking following Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: A Gentile does not make libation wine by throwing [If the Gentile never touched the wine but moved it by throwing the bottle in which it was stored, he cannot possibly have made it into libation wine. Quoted in Tosaphot 59a/b s. v. מהו.] . Does a Gentile make libation wine in his rage? Let us hear from the following: An Aramean [A Gentile, cf. Halakhah 1:6, Note 177.] had boxes in a wine press. There came a Jew and sprinkled wine on them. The Aramean came [It might be better to read אַייָתִי “brought” instead of אֲתַא “came”.] [with] a pitcher and poured it out into the cistern. The case came before the rabbis who said, a Gentile does not make libation wine in his rage.
Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. One who mixes wine, with hot water it is forbidden, with cold water it is permitted. It should come over me, if I ever did this [He never let a Gentile pour water in his cup of wine.] . Rebbi Yasa went to Tyre [In the Babli 58b a similar story is told of R. Jeremiah himself. The problem with the text here is that R. Yasa was one of the teachers of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, the teacher of R. Jeremiah’s teacher R. Ze`ira.] . He saw them drinking wine with hot water and an Aramean was mixing. He told them, what [“What”, not “who”. He made it clear that he did not think that any rabbi would allow this.] did allow you?
MISHNAH: One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity [The Jew uses a Gentile’s winery to make kosher wine to sell the wine to Jews.] and leaves it in his domain, in a house open to the public domain [Where the public has open access. If a Jew saw the Gentile near the wine, he could not anymore sell the wine to Jews. Since this would be costly to him, one may assume that the minor oversight provided by the occasional Jewish visitor is sufficient.] in a city where there are Gentiles and Jews it is permitted, in a city where all are Gentiles it is forbidden unless he install there a watchman. But the watchman does not have to sit there and watch; even if he leaves and reenters it is permitted [On condition that he not tell anybody when he would leave or come back.] . Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, all Gentiles’ domains are the same [There is no difference between the owner’s property or that of any other Gentile in this matter.] . One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity [The Jew uses a Gentile’s winery to make kosher wine to sell the wine to Jews.] and leaves it in his domain [Without a guard.] , if this one writes to him that I received the money, it is permitted [Since the Gentile has recognized the wine as the Jew’s property he will not touch it and expose himself to a suit for damages.] . But if the Jew wants to remove it and he does not let him do it before he paid him his money [The Gentile shows that he considers the wine his property until the rental fee for his wine press and wine cellar was paid. This makes the wine Gentile and forbidden.] , this was a case in Bet Shean and the Sages forbade.
HALAKHAH: “One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity,” etc. [This Halakhah discusses Mishnah 12.] Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: Not only a door but even a window wide four by four and high ten [Since the numerals are masculine they denote hand-breadths, not quite 10cm. An opening of 4-by-4 and high 10 is considered a door also for the rules of impurity.] , on condition that it be roofed and glued closed [Not the door but the amphora in which the wine is stored. It cannot be left open in the Gentile’s place under any circumstances but must have a cover, “be roofed”, and the cover must be glued to the amphora by clay which is left to dry. Then it is sufficient that an occasional visitor check that the clay seal is inviolate.] . If it was growing, we would say if he is seen climbing up and coming down it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted [If the wine is stored on a tree (a seemingly unlikely case but which is mentioned also in the Babli, 61a). If an amphora is stored at a place reserved for it and the Gentile is seen going there where he has no reason to be, the wine will become forbidden since one must suspect him of removing the seal, taking some wine, and resealing.] . Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: The Mishnah speaks of a town “with double doors and bolts. [A fortified city; the expression is Biblical (Deut. 3:5). In the Babli the author is Samuel, Rav Jehudah’s teacher and the statement is accepted as authoritative. According to Rashi, the reason is that there all inhabitants are known and easily checked out; therefore one does not need a permanent presence of the watchman.] ” Was it stated in that case “a watchman even if he comes only at intervals”?
It was stated [Tosephta 7:10.] “A Jew and a Gentile who brought their wine into the surroundings [According to H. L. Fleischer this is derived from Greek περιοχή in its meaning “circumference”. In the Tosephta, the corresponding word is (Persian) פַּרוָר “suburb”. This is translated here.] of the city, even if the watchmen are Gentile, even if the amphoras are open, they are permitted since one does not make a libation in this way.”
Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: The buyer has the same status as the seller. It was stated thus [In the Babli, 61a/b, “buyer and renter”. The Yerushalmi’s version is preferable since the Mishnah refers to the producer who is the seller. The rules about storage are identical for producer and buyer.] : Whether the seller or the buyer [stores] on the Gentile’s property. If the wine is the Jew’s and a Jew lives there it is permitted on condition that in his hand are key and seal. If the wine is the Gentile’s and a Jew lives there it is permitted on condition that in his hand are key and seal [The key to the storage room and the seal either on the covers of the amphoras or, if the amphoras are open, on the door to the storage room.] ; but if no Jew lives there it is forbidden even if key and seal are in his hand.
Rebbi Ilai in the name of Rebbi Yannai: They disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. Not on this was it said but on the following, “one who makes an Non-Jew’s wine in purity,” [The disagreement is not about the statement of R. Simeon ben Eleazar applied to Mishnah 12, where everybody agrees that the identity of the Gentile is irrelevant, but about Mishnah 13 where the majority insists that it refers only to the owner of the wine press.] etc.