Avodah Zarah Daf 71 עבודה זרח דַף 71

Rav said it is permitted for a Jew to tell an idolator: צא והפס עלי מנת המלך – “Go and satisfy the king’s tax for me, which I will reimburse.” Although the עכו"ם may pay with יין נסך, since he could have paid with money, he is not acting as the Jew’s שליח if he chooses to pay with יין נסך. Rav was challenged from a Baraisa which teaches that a Jew may not tell an idolator: עול תחתי לעוצר – “Go in my stead to the ruler to take care of my taxes,” because his paying with יין נסך is considered as a שליח of the Jew!? Rav responded that his case is not like this one, where the Jew appointed the עכו"ם to go in his stead, thereby appointing him a שליח for any action he takes; rather, it is similar to the latter case of that Baraisa: אבל אומר לו מלטני מן העוצר – but he may tell [the idolator], “Save me from my taxes to the ruler.” In these cases, since he could have paid with money, his choosing to pay with יין נסך is not acting on the Jew’s behalf.

Ameimar said: משיכה בעובד כוכבים קונה – “pulling” in an agreement with an idolator acquires the item, not giving money for it. He supported this from the fact that Persians send gifts to each other and do not retract, because the recipient’s משיכה acquires the item for him. Rav Ashi disagreed and said משיכה may not be קונה for an עכו"ם; the reason the Persians do not retract from their gifts, although they can, דרמות רוחא הוא דנקיטא להו – is because of a haughty spirit which possesses them. Rav Ashi brought support for his position from Rav’s instructions to wine sellers. He told them to take payment for the wine before measuring it out, because otherwise it will become יין נסך while the Jew still owns it, and he cannot take payment for it. If משיכה would be קונה, the עכו"ם would acquire the wine (when he takes the measured wine) before it becomes יין נסך!? The Gemara answers that the Jews were measuring wine into the עכו"ם’s jug, which contains some יין נסך from its last use. It explains further that this jug has a lip at the top with drops of wine from its previous use, which prohibits the Jew’s wine before it even enters the utensil’s airspace.

Ravina brought proof that משיכה is קונה for an עכו"ם, from Rebbe Yochanan’s ruling: בן נח נהרג על פחות משוה פרוטה – a בן נח is executed for stealing from a Jew something worth less than a perutah’s value, ולא ניתן להישבון – and [the stolen item] is not subject to being returned. Although this amount is insignificant for a Jew, it is significant for a gentile, and sufficient to incur the בן נח’s death penalty for stealing. Still, because the Jew is מוחל the small loss, the בן נח need not return it. If משיכה would not acquire for an עכו"ם, why is he killed for “stealing,” if he did not acquire the stolen item? Rav Ashi responded that, even without acquiring the stolen item, he is killed משום דצעריה לישראל – because he pained the Jew by taking his article. However, the Gemara proves otherwise from the סיפא of Rebbe Yochanan’s statement: if another בן נח came and stole the item from the first, he is also executed. Now, if משיכה was not קונה, why is the second נן נח be killed, since the Jew had already lost his item, and the first עכו"ם never acquired it!? Rather, this proves that an עכו"ם is קונה with משיכה.