Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah 5:1 ירושלמי עבודה זרה ה׳:א׳

MISHNAH: If somebody hires a worker to work for him on libation wine, his wages are forbidden¹If a Gentile hires a Jewish worker specifically to work on his wine, the wages are forbidden to the worker for all usufruct. The rule which makes it impossible for the Jewish worker to be hired in this way is purely rabbinical; it is not implied by the fact that libation wine is forbidden for usufruct for a Jewish owner.. If he hired him for other work, even though he told him, transport an amphora of libation wine for me from one place to another, his wages are permitted²The moment that libation wine was not mentioned at the time of the hiring, there is no obligation on the worker to refrain from being occupied with libation wine..

HALAKHAH: “If somebody hires a worker,” etc. Does he not give him his wages? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They fined him a fine³A customary restriction without justification in law..

⁴This paragraph is a shortened and somewhat corrupt copy of one in Ševi`it8:6, Notes 94–98. It was stated<sup>5</sup>Babli 62a, Tosephta Ševi`it6:26.: “The wages of donkey drivers, carriers, and all those working with Sabbatical produce are sabbatical.⁶They should only be used to buy Sabbatical produce to be eaten, not processed.” Rebbi Ze`ira said, this baraita deals with permitted produce. And what Rebbi Joḥanan taught those of the House of Rebbi Yannai that they should not accept in their hands<sup>7</sup>While the paragraph in general looks like a bad copy of the one in Ševi`it, the reading בידיהן “in their hands” is superior to the reading בדיהן “of their olive presses” of both Ševi`it mss. There is no question why one should be paid in wine for using an olive press. wine as wages but money, he taught them following Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah<sup>8</sup>Who in Ševi`it(8:4 Note 69, Tosephta 6:21) forbid to pay for anything, even for food, with sabbatical produce.. Rebbi Ilai said, this baraita deals with idolatrous produce⁹This reading is quite impossible; idolatrous produce does not exist. In Ševi`it: “forbidden produce”, stored sabbatical produce at a time when wild animals no longer can find produce on the fields, which has to be consumed immediately.. As Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, in matters of libation wine they fined him a fine.

If he transported for him amphora against amphora¹⁰The language is not clear and the proposed interpretations are unfounded. It seems that the worker is not paid as a worker for his time but as a contractor by the piece, and is not paid in money but receives an (empty) amphora.
In the entire paragraph it is equally possible not to read the sentences as apodictic statements but as questions. If he is paid in land, is the land forbidden? Etc., you fine him in his own amphora up to the amount of his wages¹¹That he might be forced to sell the amphora and destroy coins in the equivalent of his wages.. If he paid him his wages in land. Everywhere you are saying that land is not forbidden¹²Halakhah 3:6, Note 125., here it is forbidden. If he paid him his wages in an animal. Everywhere you are saying that anything breathing is not forbidden¹³Halakhah 3:6, Note 140., here it is forbidden. If he gave him anything as his wages¹⁴Which clearly is worth more than the amount due for his wages., is everything forbidden or only up to the amount of his wages? If he worked for him for goodwill, do you impound his property in the value of his wages?

If he worked for him half a day in prohibition and half a day in permission. If he was selling profane [food] and Second Tithe together, [the buyer] has the choice of treating as profane what he chooses and as Second Tithe what he chooses¹⁵This statement is not found in any parallel source but no opposing opinion is noted. While it is necessary to “give a name” to the Second Tithe due for a harvest, it is not necessary bodily to separate it from the remainder of the harvest. If the farmer does not intend to bring his tithe bodily to Jerusalem, he may sell it and transfer its sanctity to the money. The buyer then has to separate tithe from profane food but is not restricted in his choice; cf. Introduction to Tractate Ma`aser Šeni.. Is this the same here? Let us hear from the following<sup>16</sup>Ševi`it8:4 Note 65. In the first case the worker is hired as a contractor, in the second as a worker who has to be paid for his time.. If somebody hires a worker to bring wine to a sick person; if he delivered [the employer] has to pay him, otherwise he does not have to pay him. But if he told him, wine for a sick person from place X, an apple for a sick person from place X, whether or not he delivered he has to pay him, for he pays the wages of his feet. And here, does he not pay the wages of his feet¹⁷There is no reason to impound the wages for the time he worked in a permitted way.?

Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if he hired him to break amphoras of libation wine; is it forbidden anyhow¹⁸In the Babli 63b the question was asked by Amoraim of the second generation and answered in the negative.?

Assi said, the proceeds of libation wine in the hands of a Gentile are prohibited¹⁹They are not forbidden to the Gentile, only to a Jew who knows that this money was received as payment for wine whose usufruct is forbidden to Jews. From the argument in the text it seems possible that one should read; “Assi said, the proceeds of libation wine in the hands of a Gentile and the proceeds of an idol in the hand of a Gentile, Rebbi Jonathan said it is permitted, Rebbi Joḥanan said it is prohibited”, since in the proof texts wine and idols are always treated in parallel. On the other hand, the preceding text (Notes 11–12) notes that the prohibition of wine, a purely rabbinic custom, follows much stricter rules than the biblical prohibition of idols.. The proceeds of an idol in the hand of a Gentile, Rebbi Jonathan said it is permitted, Rebbi Joḥanan said it is prohibited. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “A Gentile who owed money to a Jew should not tell him, wait until I sell libation wine, until I sell an idol, and I shall give it to you. I am saying, maybe he exchanged.²⁰Babli 64a. If the Gentile tells the Jew that he gives him money received for forbidden wine or idols, the Jew may not accept since we must assume that the Gentile tells the truth. In the Babli’s tradition, this is accepted by everybody; in the Yerushalmi this is particular to R. Joḥanan.” A baraita supports Rebbi Jonathan: “A Gentile who owes money to a Jew may sell libation wine and give to him, an idol and give to him. Because of the bad impression?²¹This is read as meaning that in all cases the Jew may accept the money and does not have to worry that people will say that he accepts idol money. The Babli would interpret the baraita as stating that the Jew may accept the money as long as the Gentile does not explicitly declare it as idol’s proceeds.”

²²The entire paragraph has a parallel in the Babli, 54b. Anything received in barter for an idol must be destroyed as if it were the idol itself. Everybody agrees that substitutes are forbidden. What about substitutes of substitutes? Rebbi Ḥanina said, a disagreement between Rebbi Ismael and the rabbis. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said, forbidden. But the rabbis say, permitted. Rebbi Eleazar ben Hoshaia, the reason of the rabbis, you would be banned like itself²³Deut. 7:26.. Anything which you can keep from it is like itself²⁴Any proceeds are like the idol itself. But nothing is said about proceeds for barter of the proceeds.. What about it? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, like itself, like itself two times²⁵The expression חֶרֶם כָּמוֹהוּ appears only once in the biblical text. The argument gives the reason for R. Ismael ben R. Yose’s position. If the proceeds obtained by barter for an idol are an idol, then the proceeds in barter for the proceeds are also an idol; in effect, the prohibition never stops., because of nothing should cling to your hand from the ban²⁶Deut. 13:18..