Avodah Zarah 12a — the Talmud in English

He said to him

Rabbi Hanina: was it so that

you never went to

the city

of Tyre [a mixed city—Israelites and gentiles lived there]

[smeshannyi gorod, v kotorom zhili evrei i neevrei]

in your life, and

did you never

see an Israelite and an idolater

[setting]

precise page location

who placed two pots upon a single stove, next to one another, meat of an unslaughtered carcass together with slaughtered meat,

stoyashchie ryadom drug s drugom: myaso padali s myasom zakolotogo zhivotnogo,

and they did not fear,

they did not fear

for them, the Sages, as will be explained. So it is with the market of Gaza: although it is very close to the townspeople who have an idolatrous festival day, the Sages did not fear, and it is permitted to engage in business with them. And Rabbi Hanina did not say “it is permitted”; rather, he merely gave the “parable” of the city of Sidon, in order to learn from it concerning the market of Gaza.

kak budet obyasneno. Tak zhe i na rynke Ateluza v Aze: hotya on ochen blizko nahoditsya k gorodu, zhitelei kotorogo prazdnuyut den ikh prazdnika, mudretsy ne opasalis, i razreshili torgovat s nimi. Rabbi Hanina ne skazal «razresheno», a tolko privel «primer» s gorodom Tsidon, chtoby iz nego sdelat vyvod o rynke Ateluza v Aze.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the meaning of “the Sages did not fear for them”?

What is the parable, and what is the lesson, and what concern should the Sages have had regarding the two pots but did not have, and what does this come to teach us?

The amoraim disagreed concerning this—

Abaye said: because of the meat of an unslaughtered carcass.

That is,

we do not say,

the Sages did not fear

perhaps the Israelite will turn his face backward,

perhaps the Israelite will turn his gaze backward and will not pay attention to his pot,

and

in the meantime

the

he will throw

idolater

meat

of an unslaughtered carcass into the pot

of the Israelite, placed upon the fire beside the gentile’s pot.

In the same manner, here too,

and similarly in the market of Gaza,

the Sages did not fear for them because of money of idolatry.

That is, Abaye holds that Rabbi Hanina came to be lenient, and to say that even where there is a possibility that one will transgress a prohibition of Torah law of “money of [the coins of] idolatry” [see the note], which is something prohibited by the Torah, nevertheless they did not fear this.

The prohibition of the money of idolatry is on account of [Deuteronomy 13] “nothing whatsoever of the ban shall cleave to your hand.” And although it is possible that in the animal market there is “money of idolatry” belonging to the people of Gaza, because today is their festival day, and when an Israelite sells an animal in the market to a gentile it is possible that he receives prohibited money in exchange, nevertheless the Sages did not fear this.

The reason is that there is no money in the market that is certainly known to be money of idolatry; rather, there is only uncertainty concerning the matter. Therefore, we do not presume regarding ordinary money that perhaps it is money of prohibition; instead, we are lenient and say that presumably it is not prohibited money. This is similar to the fact that the Sages did not fear in Sidon regarding the two pots, for in those pots too, seemingly, one should fear that perhaps the gentile will put meat of an unslaughtered carcass into the Israelite’s pot and prohibit the Israelite’s meat with a prohibition of Torah law. But the Sages did not presume a prohibition because of uncertainty, until it becomes known to you that there is a prohibition here.

This is the comparison between Sidon and the market of Gaza.

According to Abaye, since they do not fear even a possible prohibition of Torah law, kal va-chomer they do not fear a possible rabbinic prohibition: perhaps the gentile purchasing animals outside the city of Gaza belongs to the residents of the city, and today is his festival day, so that the Israelite who sells him an animal transgresses a rabbinic prohibition, for they prohibited engaging in business with them.

Rava said: What is the meaning

of the words of Rabbi Hanina

“the Sages did not fear for them”?—

They did not fear

because of the cooking of idolaters.

In the same manner,

similarly,

here too,

in the market of Gaza,

the Sages did not fear for them because of

perhaps the gentile purchaser belongs to the residents of the city, and today is

their festival day.

It is implied by Rava’s words that Rabbi Hanina permitted selling an animal outside the city even on the actual day of their festival.

That is, Rava disagrees with Abaye and holds that the Sages were not so lenient. Rather, the fact that they did not fear lest he put an unslaughtered carcass into the Israelite’s pot is not because the Sages did not presume a prohibition in a case of uncertain Torah prohibition, but because the gentile is not suspected of doing so, since he fears the Israelite: if the matter becomes known to him, he will bring him to judgment.

And Rava holds that if there were indeed an uncertain Torah prohibition, one would fear it. Therefore, according to him, ordinary coins found in the market are prohibited. And it is permitted to take [money] from the people of the market, from those outside the city, only when they gave money from their own box, concerning which there is no fear that it is “money of idolatry.”

Rather, Rabbi Hanina came to permit selling an animal to animal merchants outside the city, even though one should fear that perhaps that gentile belongs to the residents of the city, and now it is “his festival day,” and when the Israelite sells him an animal he transgresses a rabbinic prohibition, for they prohibited engaging in business with them.

The reason for the permission is that it is an uncertain rabbinic prohibition, and the Sages did not fear this, just as they did not fear lest the Israelite rely upon the gentile, and the gentile stir the coals beneath the pots, so that the Israelite would transgress the prohibition of “the cooking of gentiles,” which is a rabbinic prohibition.

Rabba bar Ulla disagrees with this and holds that it is prohibited. Indeed, one must fear that perhaps the gentile belongs to the residents within the city.

And from the fact that in Sidon they do not fear the prohibition of the cooking of idolatry, one cannot bring proof that in every rabbinic prohibition one does not fear. The reason is that even if the gentile stirs the coals, it is still possible that the food will not become prohibited because of the cooking of idolatry, if the Israelite also stirs the coals [as explained in its place], and the Israelite will indeed do so—

But in the market of Gaza Rabbi Hanina did not permit this, and indeed he fears the prohibition of business with those outside it, lest they belong to the residents of the city, since it is adjacent to it [and what the Mishna permitted refers to when it is not so adjacent, like the distance from the market of Gaza to the city of Gaza]—

Rather, Rabbi Hanina permitted only on the days of “before their festival days,” whose prohibition is a lenient prohibition in comparison with the actual day of their festival, just as there is no need to fear lest the gentile’s food boil over the edge of the pot and drip from it into the Israelite’s pot. The reason the Sages did not fear is that this is not common; moreover, even if this should happen, the drops would be nullified in sixty parts in the Israelite’s pot.

And Rabbi Hanina indeed prohibited [selling] in the market of Gaza, and permitted only if it was farther away from it, so that the concern receded—and then he permitted.

Rabba bar Ulla said:

just as

they did not fear for them

the Sages

for the people of Sidon

because of a spout

lest something drip from the gentile’s pot into the Israelite’s pot—

In the same manner,

in this comparison,

here too, the Sages did not fear for them because of “before their festival days.”

But on their festival days it is prohibited to sell an animal to a gentile in the market of Gaza.

According to the explanation of Rabba bar Ulla, this “there are those who say” disagrees with the preceding “there are those who say,” and prohibits [selling] in the market of Gaza on their festival days.

We learned in our Mishna:

What is the rule concerning going there? When the road is designated for that place—

it is prohibited; but if he could travel on it to another place—

it is permitted.

Our Mishna was taught anonymously, without dispute, whereas in the beraita the Sages disagreed concerning the matter. And thus we learned:

The Sages taught: A city in which there is idolatry,

and today is their festival day,

it is prohibited to enter it, and he may not

pass

through it to another city.

The words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: Whenever the road is designated for that place—

it is prohibited. If the road is not designated for that place,

but there is passage through it to another place—

it is permitted.

And the beraita continues with matters that are prohibited because of suspicion of idolatry.

If

a thorn became lodged

in his foot while he was passing

before idolatry—

he may not bend down

to stoop

and remove it,

the thorn,

because he appears to be bowing to idolatry.

But if he does not appear—

it is permitted,

as will be explained below.

Likewise, if

his coins were scattered before idolatry—

he may not bend down and take them, because he appears to be bowing to idolatry. But if he does not appear—

it is permitted.

Likewise,

a spring that flows

water

before idolatry—

he may not bend down and drink, because he appears to be bowing to idolatry. But if he does not appear—

it is permitted.

Figures,

statues in the form of a human face, with an empty space inside them, through which water flows from the mouths of the statues [that is, water fountains made in the shape of a human face]

that pour water into the cities [Rashi’s version:

Rashi’s version

in the cities,

in large towns they did this as a mark of distinction]—

he may not place his mouth upon their mouths and drink, because he appears to be kissing idolatry.

Similarly, he may not place his mouth upon a water pipe

a water pipe attached to the ground,

and drink

directly from the flow of water, before the water enters a vessel and he can see whether it is clean,

because of the danger,

lest he swallow a leech.

And now the Gemara explains the beraita:

What

is the meaning of “and if”

“he does not appear,”

it is permitted?

If you say,

if we say

that he is not seen,

that he does this at a time when no one sees him, it is difficult: how did they permit it?!

But Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Wherever the Sages prohibited

something permitted, and prohibited it

because of appearance,

so that an observer should not suspect him of transgressing a prohibition—

even in innermost rooms,

where no one sees him,

it is prohibited

to do it. And it is impossible to explain the beraita in this manner.

Rather, say: If he does not appear to be bowing to idolatry,

for he turns himself away from before the idols, backward or to the sides,

it is permitted.

And the Gemara adds an explanation of the beraita:

And it is necessary,

the beraita needed to state several forms of suspicion.

For if the tan­​nay had taught the case of a thorn,

if the tannay had made known to us only the law of a thorn, we would have said that it is prohibited only in this manner,

because

he does not need to remove it specifically before idolatry,

it is possible

for him

to proceed before it,

to continue on his way until he moves away from opposite the idols,

and remove it,

and take out the thorn there. Therefore it is prohibited to remove it here, because he appears to be lingering for the purpose of bowing.

But coins,

which were scattered opposite the idols,

it is not possible

to move away; rather, he must gather them here, and he appears to be gathering his coins, not bowing,

I might say not

that we should prohibit him from bending down and gathering them; therefore the tannay had to teach us that it is prohibited.

And if the tannay had taught coins,

if the tannay had made known to us only the law of coins, we would have said that it is prohibited only in that case,

because of monetary loss,

for he has only monetary loss if he does not gather them.

But a thorn, which involves suffering,

for he suffers bodily pain,

I might say not

that we should prohibit him; therefore the tannay teaches us in the beraita that nevertheless it is prohibited.

And if the tannay had taught these two,

only a thorn and coins, we would have said that it is prohibited only in those cases,

because there is no danger,

for if he does not remove the thorn and does not gather the coins, he is not endangered.

But a spring, where there is danger,

for he is endangered,

for if he does not drink,

if he does not drink,

he will die,

he may die of thirst —

I might say not

that we should prohibit him from drinking. And the tannay teaches us in the beraita that even so he is prohibited from drinking from the spring.

It is necessary!

Therefore the beraita needed to make known all these cases .