Avodah Zarah 11a — the Talmud in English

When he died

when

Adran

precise page location:

“The bundle was separated.”

And the Gemara recounts what happened with Onkelos, who was also one of the prominent men of Rome, and converted.

Onkelos son of Kalonymus converted,

he converted.

The emperor sent

the Roman emperor sent

a Roman troop,

a troop of Roman soldiers

after him,

after him, to seize him and bring him to him.

He drew them after him with verses,

he drew them with scriptural passages, proving to them through proofs from the Writings that the religion of Israel was true and eternal,

and they converted.

The Roman soldiers were drawn after him, and they too converted.

He again sent,

the emperor returned and sent

another Roman troop

after him,

another

after him,

after him, and the emperor commanded them

and said to them: Do not speak with him, and nothing.

Do not enter into arguments with him!

When they took him and went,

when they seized him and began to go,

he said to them,

Onkelos said to them: I will not argue with you, but

I will say a mere matter to you,

I will tell you an incidental matter! And thinking that they had not been commanded by the emperor concerning this, they listened to him.

He said to them:

A minor official

a minor official

takes a torch

holds a torch

before a senior official,

before an official greater than he, to illuminate before him for his honor. And likewise

a senior official does so before a duke,

an official greater than he, and so

a duke does so before a hegemon,

and

the hegemon

does so

before the king,

the king—

The king—

does he take a torch before people,

does the king hold a torch before people?

They said to him

the soldiers said to Onkelos:

No!

He said to them

Onkelos said to the soldiers:

The Holy One, blessed be He, takes a torch

holds a torch to illuminate

before Israel, as it is written

[Exodus 13]

“And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them on the way, and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light.”

And through this he proved to them the greatness of the affection and importance of Israel in the eyes of the Holy One, blessed be He.

They converted

all of them,

they too recognized the righteousness of his path, and converted.

He again sent,

he returned and sent

another troop after him,

another troop after him.

He said to them,

and commanded them:

Do not speak anything with him!

Do not speak with him at all!

When they took him and went,

when they seized him and began to go,

he saw a mezuzah,

he saw the mezuzah

that was placed at the doorway

that was placed at the doorway,

he placed his hand upon it,

Onkelos placed his hand upon the mezuzah,

and said to them: What is this?

What is this? [Another version:

He laughed,

he laughed, and

said to them: Why am I laughing,

why am I laughing?]

And in this way he drew them into speaking with him.

They said to him,

they said to Onkelos:

You tell us,

you tell us!

He said to them

Onkelos:

The practice of the world is that a king,

who is

flesh and blood, sits inside

in his palace,

and his servants guard him outside. But the Holy One, blessed be He: His servants are inside, and He guards them outside.

For the mezuzah guards them from harmful beings, as

it is stated

[Psalms 121]

“The Lord will guard your going out and your coming in from now and forever.”

They converted.

They too converted.

He no longer sent after him,

he no longer sent troops to seize him.

And now the Gemara returns to Antoninus and Rabbi.

The prophet announced to Rebecca [Genesis 25]

“And he said

to her: ‘Two nations are in your womb,’”

and we expound:

Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: Do not read “nations,” but

“lords,”

from the expression “proud,” meaning two important, distinguished men,

this is Antoninus,

who descended from Esau,

and Rabbi,

who descended from Jacob. And both of them were exceedingly wealthy,

so that there never ceased from their table

lettuce

[chasa]

nor cucumber nor radish—

neither in the summer nor in the rainy season .

And the virtue of these vegetables is that they aid the digestion of food.

For the Master said: Radish cuts food,

it grinds the foods in the intestines.

Lettuce turns over

the

food. Cucumber expands

the

intestines .

And the Gemara raises a difficulty: How did they say that cucumber benefits the body?

But the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: Why is it called “cucumber”? Because it is “hard” for a person’s body like swords.

Thus, it does not benefit the body!?

And the Gemara answers:

It is not difficult. This

what they said in the beraita, that they are hard for the body, refers to

the large ones,

large cucumbers.

And this,

what did not cease from the table of Rabbi and Antoninus, refers to

the small ones.

Small cucumbers.

We learned in our Mishna:

“The day of birth and the day of death, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: Every death in which there is burning entails idolatry, and one in which there is no burning does not entail idolatry.”

The Gemara now analyzes the explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages, for it is certain that they did not disagree about the facts—whether they burned for all the kings or not—and certainly Rabbi Meir agrees that there were kings for whom they burned, and kings for whom they did not burn. Rather, the Gemara initially assumes that the basis of their dispute is this: Rabbi Meir holds that the festival day for idolatry is established by the king’s death itself, and it is not the burning that makes it a festival day. For Rabbi Meir holds that burning for the king is not one of the practices of the nations for the sake of idolatry, and is not related to idolatry. Whereas the Sages hold that the burning is a practice of the nations for the sake of idolatry, and only it causes the day to become a festival day for idolatry, and not the king’s death itself.

And the Gemara infers:

By implication

from these words of the Sages, you learn

that Rabbi Meir holds: It makes no difference whether it is a death in which there is burning, and it makes no difference whether it is a death in which there is no burning—

they worship through it

they serve following a death of this kind

for idolatry,

and they make it a fixed festival day throughout all the days of the son who reigns in his place.

It follows

it is proven from here that Rabbi Meir holds that

burning is not a practice.

The burning itself is not one of the practices of the nations for the sake of idolatry.

And

by implication

you learn this:

that the Rabbis hold: Burning is a practice,

a practice of the nations for the sake of idolatry, and it is what makes it a festival day—

And it is difficult: If burning is a practice of the nations for the sake of idolatry, how was it permitted to do so for the kings of Israel?

But it was taught: We burn for kings,

the kings of Israel,

and not

need to be concerned about a prohibition

because of

any

“practices of the Amorites,”

for the Torah prohibited acting according to the deeds of the Amorites, as it is stated [Exodus 23]: “And I shall bring you to the Amorite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Canaanite, the Hivvite, and the Jebusite, and I shall destroy him. You shall not bow down to their gods and you shall not serve them, and you shall not act according to their deeds.” That is, besides the prohibition against serving idols, it is also prohibited to act according to their deeds. And this prohibition is called “the practices of the Amorites.”

And it is difficult:

And if it is a practice

of idols,

we

we Israelites,

how do we burn

how do we practice burning for our kings?

But it is written [Leviticus 18] “

[Leviticus 18]:

And in their practices

of the nations

you shall not walk”!? And the Gemara answers: Burning for kings is not a practice for the sake of idolatry, but is on account of honor, an expression of the greatness of his importance and the depth of the grief over his death.

The Gemara answers: Burning objects for kings is not a rite performed for idol worship; rather, it is done because of their importance, expressing the greatness of their stature and the depth of the grief over their death.

Rather,

everyone

Rabbi Meir and the Sages hold:

burning is not a practice

for the sake of idolatry,

but rather, it is an expression of honor—

And

what did Rabbi Meir and the Sages dispute?—

Here, this is what they dispute,

they dispute concerning this reason:

Rabbi Meir holds: It makes no difference

between

a death in which there is burning, and it makes no difference

between

a death in which there is no burning—

they worship through it for idolatry.

They make it a festival day. And although that king was not important enough for them to burn for him, nevertheless they make a festival day for idolatry on his account.

And

whereas

the Rabbis hold: A death in which there is burning is important to them,

the king is important to them,

and they worship through it,

they make it a festival day.

But one in which there is no burning is not important and they do not worship through it,

and they do not make it a festival day.

And now the Gemara brings the beraita in which we learned “We burn for kings” in its entirety, and explains it.

The matter itself: We burn for kings

the kings of Israel,

and there is not in it

in this act

because of

the prohibition against doing

the practices of the Amorites.

As

it is stated,

the beraita proves this from what the prophet said [Jeremiah 34] concerning the word of God to King Zedekiah:

“You shall die in peace, and with the burnings of your fathers, the earlier kings who were before you, so shall they burn for you.”

And the beraita continues:

And just as they burn for kings—

so they burn for princes,

the princes of Israel who lived during the Second Temple and afterward.

And what do they burn for kings? Their beds and their implements of use.

And there was an incident

that

Rabban Gamaliel the Elder died,

the prince of Israel,

and Onkelos the convert burned for him seventy maneh of Tyrian currency

[the name of a weight of silver].

Apparently, this means that Onkelos burned actual money for him. Therefore we raise a difficulty:

But you said: What do they burn for him? Their bed and their implements of use,

and not other things; so how did the beraita bring an incident that contradicts it!? And the Gemara answers: He did not burn money for him, but

say

that the meaning of the words of the beraita is that he burned his bed and his implements of use

of

the value of

seventy maneh of Tyrian currency.

The beraita said that they burn for him his bed and his implements of use—

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

And nothing else?!

Do they not destroy other things for him?!

But it was taught: They cripple

they uproot and cut the tendons of an animal at its hooves

for kings. And there is not in it

in this act a prohibition

because of the practices of the Amorites.

Thus, besides his implements of use, they destroyed other things?

And the Gemara answers:

Rav Pappa said:

indeed, the intention is his implements of use, and it refers to

the horse upon which he rode,

the king.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty against this answer:

And

when there is

a pure animal,

which one does not ride and which is not among the king’s implements of use,

do they not

cripple it?!

But it was taught: Crippling that entails making it tereifa,

through which the animal becomes tereifa,

is prohibited

to perform, because it is prohibited to cause a pure animal to become tereifa, even though it is not designated for him for eating or benefit.

And

whereas crippling

that does not entail making it tereifa,

through which the animal does not become tereifa, as will be explained,

is permitted.

And what is crippling that does not entail making it tereifa?