## Avodah Zarah Daf 64a

###### Avodah Zarah 64a:1
[Avodah Zarah 64a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/64a:1)

אֲבָל עוֹקְרִין עִמּוֹ, כְּדֵי לְמַעֵוטי אֶת הַתִּיפְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**but one may uproot** diverse kinds **with him, in order to reduce impropriety.**


###### Avodah Zarah 64a:2
[Avodah Zarah 64a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/64a:2)

סַבְרוּהָ: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּאָמַר: הַמְקַיֵּים בְּכִלְאַיִם לוֹקֶה. דְּתַנְיָא: הַמְנַכֵּשׁ וְהַמְחַפֶּה בְּכִלְאַיִם לוֹקֶה, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אַף הַמְקַיֵּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages initially **assumed** that in accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who says** that not only one who sows or grows diverse kinds, but even **one who maintains diverse kinds, is flogged. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **One who removes the weeds** interfering with the growth of the plants **or who covers up** the seeds **of diverse kinds** with earth **is flogged. Rabbi Akiva says: Even one who maintains** them instead of actively uprooting them is flogged.


###### Avodah Zarah 64a:3
[Avodah Zarah 64a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/64a:3)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע כִּלְאָיִם״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא זוֹרֵעַ, מְקַיֵּים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא כִּלְאַיִם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reasoning of Rabbi Akiva?** The Gemara answers: **The verse states: “You shall not sow your field with diverse kinds of seed”** (Leviticus 19:19). **I have** derived **only** the case of **one who sows. From where** is it derived that **one who maintains** diverse kinds also receives lashes? **The verse states: “Not…diverse kinds of seed,”** indicating that there should not be diverse kinds in one’s field.


###### Avodah Zarah 64a:4
[Avodah Zarah 64a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/64a:4)

וְאִילּוּ לְמַעוֹטֵי תִּיפְלָה — שְׁרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes its support for the opinion of Rav Naḥman: It is prohibited to maintain diverse kinds, **but nevertheless,** if one wishes to maintain diverse kinds temporarily in order **to** be paid for uprooting them, thereby **reducing impropriety,** it is **permitted.** Similarly, it is permitted for one to receive payment for breaking barrels of wine used for a libation.


###### Avodah Zarah 64a:5
[Avodah Zarah 64a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/64a:5)

לָא, הָא מַנִּי? רַבָּנַן הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this explanation: **No,** in accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*, which deems it permitted for one to uproot diverse kinds with a gentile? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who permit one to maintain diverse kinds, but prohibit one from maintaining wine used for a libation, so there is no proof from this *baraita* in support of Rav Naḥman’s opinion.


###### Avodah Zarah 64a:6
[Avodah Zarah 64a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/64a:6)

אִי רַבָּנַן, מַאי אִירְיָא עוֹקְרִין? אֲפִילּוּ קַיּוֹמֵי נָמֵי שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן דְּקָא עָבֵיד בְּחִנָּם, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: לִיתֵּן לָהֶם מַתְּנַת חִנָּם אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis, why** does the *tanna* **specifically** permit **uprooting** with a gentile? **Even maintaining** the diverse kinds is **permitted.** The Gemara answers: **Here we are dealing with** a case **where he performed** the uprooting **unpaid, and it is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who says** that **giving an unpaid gift to** a gentile is **prohibited.**


###### Avodah Zarah 64a:7
[Avodah Zarah 64a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/64a:7)

מִדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נִשְׁמַע לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, לָאו אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אָסוּר לִיתֵּן לָהֶם מַתְּנַת חִנָּם, אֲבָל לְמַעוֹטֵי תִּיפְלָה שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא נָמֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: הַמְקַיֵּים בְּכִלְאַיִם לוֹקֶה, לְמַעוֹטֵי תִּיפְלָה שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. וְתוּ לָא מִידִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara reasons that Rav Naḥman’s ruling can in any event be proven from this *baraita*: **From** the opinion **of Rabbi Yehuda we may understand** the *halakha* **according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva. Doesn’t Rabbi Yehuda say** that **it is prohibited to give** a gentile **an unpaid gift, but to reduce impropriety** he holds that it is **permitted** to work with a gentile? The same can be said **according to Rabbi Akiva as well: Although Rabbi Akiva says** that **one who maintains diverse kinds is flogged,** he presumably holds that if the purpose is **to reduce impropriety,** it is **permitted.** The Gemara concludes: **And nothing more** is to be said on this matter.


###### Avodah Zarah 64a:8
[Avodah Zarah 64a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/64a:8)

הֲדוּר יָתְבִי וְקָמִבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: דְּמֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּיַד גּוֹי, מַהוּ? מִי תּוֹפֶסֶת דָּמֶיהָ בְּיַד גּוֹי, אוֹ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Rav Naḥman, Ulla, Avimi bar Pappi, and Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami **were sitting again and a dilemma was raised before them:** With regard to **the proceeds from** the sale of an object of **idol worship** that are **in the possession of a gentile,** who sold the object to another, **what is** the *halakha*? **Does** the object of idol worship **transfer** its forbidden status **to the money** that is **in the possession of a gentile,** as it would to money in the possession of a Jew, **or not?**


###### Avodah Zarah 64a:9
[Avodah Zarah 64a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/64a:9)

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב נַחְמָן: מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּמֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּיַד גּוֹי מוּתָּרִין, מִדְּהָנְהוּ דַּאֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: זִילוּ זַבִּינוּ כֹּל מָה דְּאִית לְכוּ, וְתוּ אִיתְגַּיַּירוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said to them: It stands to reason** that **the proceeds from** the sale of an object of **idol worship in the possession of a gentile are permitted.** This may be proven **from certain** gentiles **who came before Rabba bar Avuh** to convert. Rabba bar Avuh **said to them: Go sell everything that you have,** including your objects of idol worship, **and** then **come** back to me to **convert.**


###### Avodah Zarah 64a:10
[Avodah Zarah 64a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/64a:10)

מַאי טַעְמָא? מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר: דְּמֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּיַד גּוֹי מוּתָּרִין. וְדִלְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּכֵיוָן דְּדַעְתֵּיהּ לְאִיגַּיּוֹרֵי — וַדַּאי בַּטְּלַהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason** he gave this advice? Isn’t it **because he maintains** that **the proceeds from** the sale of an object of **idol worship in the possession of a gentile are permitted,** and therefore he suggested they sell the objects of idol worship so they could derive benefit from the money after they converted? The Gemara rejects this proof: **But perhaps it is different there, as since** their **intention is to convert,** they **certainly revoked** the idolatrous status of these objects, and when they sold them they were selling permitted items.


###### Avodah Zarah 64a:11
[Avodah Zarah 64a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/64a:11)

אֶלָּא מֵהָכָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיָה נוֹשֶׁה בְּגוֹי מָנֶה, וּמָכַר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְהֵבִיא לוֹ, יֵין נֶסֶךְ וְהֵבִיא לוֹ — מוּתָּר, אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ: ״הַמְתֵּן לִי עַד שֶׁאֶמְכּוֹר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְאָבִיא לָךְ״, ״יֵין נֶסֶךְ וְאָבִיא לָךְ״ — אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** proof may be brought **from here,** as it is taught in a *baraita*: In the case of **a Jew who was a creditor to a gentile** for the amount of **one hundred dinars, and** the gentile **sold** an object of **idol worship and** from the proceeds **brought him** the payment of the debt, or sold **wine** used for **a libation and** from the proceeds **brought him** the payment of the debt, the money is **permitted. But if** the gentile **said to him: Wait for me until I sell** an object of **idol worship and** from the proceeds **I will bring you** the payment of the debt, or: Wait until I sell **wine** used for **a libation and** from the proceeds **I will bring you** the payment of the debt, this money is **forbidden.** This proves that the proceeds of an object of idol worship in the possession of a gentile are permitted.


###### Avodah Zarah 64a:12
[Avodah Zarah 64a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/64a:12)

מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: סֵיפָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ כִּי רוֹצֶה בְּקִיּוּמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is different** in **the first clause** that it is permitted, **and what is different** in **the latter clause** that it is forbidden? **Rav Sheshet said:** In **the latter clause** the proceeds are forbidden **because** the Jew **desires the preservation of** the object of idol worship or wine used for a libation, since he knows that the gentile must sell it in order to repay the debt.


###### Avodah Zarah 64a:13
[Avodah Zarah 64a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/64a:13)

וְכִי רוֹצֶה בְּקִיּוּמוֹ כְּהַאי גַּוְונָא מִי אֲסִיר? וְהָתְנַן: גֵּר וְגוֹי שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ אֲבִיהֶן גּוֹי, גֵּר יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ: ״טוֹל אַתָּה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וַאֲנִי מָעוֹת״, ״טוֹל אַתָּה יֵין נֶסֶךְ וַאֲנִי פֵּירוֹת״; אִם מִשֶּׁבָּאוּ לִרְשׁוּת הַגֵּר — אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And if he desires its preservation in a case like this, is** the money **forbidden? But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Demai* 6:10): In the case of **a convert and a gentile who inherited from their gentile father,** the **convert can say to** his gentile brother: **You take** the objects of **idol worship and I** will take the **money,** or: **You take the wine** used for **a libation and I** will take the **produce;** but **if** they make this exchange **after** the property **came into the possession of the convert,** it is **forbidden.**


###### Avodah Zarah 64a:14
[Avodah Zarah 64a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/64a:14)

אָמַר רָבָא בַּר עוּלָּא: מַתְנִיתִין בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הַמִּתְחַלֶּקֶת לְפִי שְׁבָרֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava bar Ulla said:** The ruling of the **mishna** is stated **with regard to** an object of **idol worship** whose value **can be distributed among its shards,** i.e., even if it were broken to pieces its value would remain, so the convert does not desire its preservation.


###### Avodah Zarah 64a:15
[Avodah Zarah 64a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/64a:15)

תִּינַח עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, יֵין נֶסֶךְ מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? בְּחֶרֶס הַדְרְיָינִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: This resolution **works out well** in the case of objects of **idol worship,** but with regard to **wine** used for **a libation, what is there to say?** There is no situation in which the convert does not desire the preservation of the wine until the exchange. The Gemara answers: The ruling of the mishna is stated **with regard to Hadrianic earthenware** permeated with wine used for a libation. Since the wine can be extracted by soaking the earthenware in water, the convert does not desire that the vessel remain intact.


###### Avodah Zarah 64a:16
[Avodah Zarah 64a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/64a:16)

וַהֲלֹא רוֹצֶה בְּקִיּוּמוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא יִגָּנֵובוּ וְשֶׁלֹּא יֵאָבֵדוּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: יְרוּשַּׁת הַגֵּר קָאָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי יְרוּשַּׁת הַגֵּר, דְּאַקִּילוּ בַּהּ רַבָּנַן, גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַחְזוֹר לְקִלְקוּלוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But doesn’t he desire its preservation** in the sense **that it should not be stolen or lost? Rather, Rav Pappa said** that there is a different resolution: **You say** there is a difficulty from the case of **the inheritance of a convert? The inheritance of a convert is different, as the Sages were lenient with regard to it,** as a rabbinic **decree, lest he return to his corrupted** ways if it were prohibited for him to inherit property from his father. In the case of one who is not a convert and desires the preservation of an object of idol worship, it is prohibited for him to profit from it.