Avodah Zarah, Daf Samech Bet, Part 4
Introduction
Today s sugya asks if there is a distinction between yayin nesekh and stam yeynam which is wine that has not been libated. This is not a distinction we read about often, but does exist in some realms of halakhah. It might be that the Talmud just brings this up to remind us that the law is just as strict with regard to ordinary wine as it is with regard to libated wine.
איבעיא להו שכרו לסתם יינן מהו? מי אמרי’ כיון דאיסורא חמור כדיין נסך שכרו נמי אסור או דלמא הואיל וטומאתו קיל אף שכרו נמי קיל
The question was asked: If the non-Jew hired him in connection with ordinary wine what is the status of his wage? Do we say that since its prohibition is as strict as with yayin nesekh the wage is likewise prohibited; or perhaps since its impurity is lesser, the law with regard to his wage is also less stringent?
Ordinary wine is as prohibited as yayin nesekh. The only difference is with regard to the laws of impurity, where wine known to be libated has a higher degree of impurity. The question is how do we deal with its status in a third category the wages earned working with it?
תא שמע דההוא גברא דאגר ארביה לסתם יינן. יהבו ליה חיטי באגרא. אתא לקמיה דרב חסדא א"ל זיל קלינהו וקברינהו בקברי
ולימא ליה בדרינהו אתו בהו לידי תקלה
וליקלינהו וליבדרינהו דלמא מזבלי בהו
Come and hear! A certain man hired out his ship [to transport] ordinary wine [belonging to non-Jews]. They paid him in wheat. He came before R. Hisda who said to him, Go burn it and bury it in a graveyard.
But why did he not tell him to scatter it!
People might come to stumble into a wrong-doing through it.
Then let him tell him to burn and scatter it!
People might use it as manure.
As we can see, wages earned while working with ordinary wine is just as prohibited.
The Talmud asks why R. Hisday told him to burn it and bury it. This is extraordinarily strict to make sure that people don t accidentally come to use the wheat and that he not benefit from it as manure.
ולקברינהו בעינייהו מי לא תנן אחד אבן שנסקל בה ואחד עץ שנתלה עליו ואחד סייף שנהרג בו ואחד סודר שנחנק בו כולם נקברים עמו
Let him bury it as it is, for have we not learned: The stone with which a person was stoned, the tree upon which he was hanged, the sword with which he was decapitated, and the sheet with which he was strangled are all alike buried with him!
Why burn it and then bury it? Why not just bury it? This is what is done with the articles used in execution. As an aside it is interesting that the rabbis say that anything used to kill a human being can never again be used. It seems that there is some inherent disgrace, or perhaps even pollution accorded to these instruments. Not only should they not be glorified, essentially they must be destroyed.
התם דקא קברי בבי דינא מוכחא מילתא דהרוגי בית דין נינהו הכא לא מוכחא מילתא אימר אינש גנב ואייתי קברא הכא
In this latter instance, since they are buried in the court, it would be generally known that they had been executed under sentence of the court; but here the circumstances would not be generally known and a person might suppose that somebody had stolen [the wheat] and brought it to be buried there.
When it comes to the instruments buried with the executed people, everyone will know that these items are prohibited and will not come to dig them up. But with the individual burying the wheat that he gained through renting out his ship, people might think he is burying it just to hide it because he stole it. Then they will come to steal it, which seems fitting since they suspect him of being a thief. To prevent this, it must be burned.
As an aside, it seems far more likely that people would come to try to steal the sword for it is more valuable. But rabbis never executed anyone so this source is not so realistic. Burying the sword is a symbolic act, not meant simply to prevent others from benefiting from it. On the other hand, the story of the wheat seems to be more realistic.