Avodah Zarah 13a (יג.) — the Talmud in English

But

if

he benefits “

the object of idolatry” –

it is permitted.

It is permitted, since the Torah did not prohibit this. These are the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who explains that the reason for the prohibition against shops decorated with garlands is that one benefits from the fragrance of roses and myrtles.

And

if

Rabbi Yohanan said: Even if they are decorated with fruit, it is also prohibited,

because

by a kal va-chomer,

if

benefiting is prohibited, benefiting –

all the more so!

And he does, after all, benefit them, because the shopkeepers are the priests’ merchants.

The Gemara raises an objection:

The Gemara cites a beraita to challenge Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

Rabbi Natan says: On the day when the idolaters’

priests]

remit the tax,

meaning that they waive collection of the tax,]

they announce and say: Anyone who takes a crown and places

it

on his head or on the head of his donkey in honor of the idols –

they shall waive

his tax. But if not –

they shall not waive his tax!

A Jew who is there –

what should he do?

If

he places

the crown on his head,

it turns out

that he

benefits

from the fragrance. And if

he does not place

the crown on his head,

it turns out

that he

benefits them,

by paying them the tax. Therefore, he should not go there!

From here the Sages said that if one went there, they imposed this penalty upon him:

The Sages said that if one went there, they penalized him as follows:

One who conducts business in the marketplace of the idolaters,

if he bought

an animal –

it must be rendered unfit,

as the beraita will explain. And if he bought

produce, garments, or utensils –

they must rot. Money or metal vessels –

he must take them to the Salt Sea,

so that they will be lost there.

And what is rendering it unfit? Cutting off,

he removes and cuts the hooves of its two legs in a manner that does not cause it to become a tereifa, provided that he cuts them

from the knee joint

a bone in the animal’s leg]

and below .

We now challenge Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

And now we challenge Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

In any event, it teaches: “He shall place it” –

“It turns out that he benefits. He shall not place it” –

“It turns out that he benefits them.”

It follows that it is prohibited to benefit the object of idolatry. This is difficult for Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish!

And we answer:

Rav Mesharsheya, son of Rav Idi, said:

Although Rabbi Natan holds this position in the beraita,

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish maintains that the Sages disagree with Rabbi Natan,

and permit benefiting the object of idolatry.

And when I stated

I explained the Mishna

in accordance with

the

Sages, who disagree with him,

namely, those who disagree with Rabbi Natan.

And

if

Rabbi Yohanan holds: They do not disagree.

The Sages do not disagree with Rabbi Natan and, like him, prohibit benefiting the object of idolatry. Therefore, he interprets the Mishna in accordance with the Sages and prohibits even shops decorated with fruit.

And we challenge this:

They do not disagree?!

Do the Sages not disagree?

But it was taught in a beraita,

the Gemara cites a beraita from which it appears that it is permitted to go to the fair of idolaters, contrary to Rabbi Natan’s position. Apparently, it must be interpreted as expressing the view of the Sages:

For it was taught:

One may go

it is permitted to go

to the fair of idolaters, and one may purchase

and buy

from them animals, slaves and maidservants, houses, fields, and vineyards.

And he writes

a document to formalize the sale,

and he has it validated,

that is, he confirms the signatures on the document,

in their courts,

the place of the gentiles’ dignitaries and judges. Although this is an honor and glory for them, and there is concern that he will “go and give thanks” \-

because

by having the document validated,

he is like one who saves

himself

from their hands,

so that the gentiles will be unable to deny the sale.

And if he was a kohen –

he may render

himself

impure outside Eretz Yisrael,

as its impurity is rabbinic, and the Sages permitted him

to litigate and contest with them

there, because he is like one who saves property from their hands.

And just as he may render himself impure outside Eretz Yisrael –

so too he may render himself impure

the kohen may render himself impure if he needs to pass

through a cemetery

in order to litigate and contest.

Before the Gemara cites the continuation of the beraita, it expresses its astonishment:

Do you think it means an actual cemetery?! Its impurity is by Torah law!

Surely they did not permit a kohen to become impure and transgress a prohibition by Torah law in order to save money. How, then, could the beraita say that just as they permitted the impurity of outside Eretz Yisrael, which is rabbinic, so too they permitted a prohibition by Torah law?!

And we answer: It does not mean an actual cemetery,

but rather

the impurity of

a “beit ha-peras,” which is rabbinic,

which is a field in which a grave was plowed up. The entire field, up to one hundred cubits, is impure by rabbinic decree, due to concern that fragments of the corpse’s bones may have scattered that far and that one who passes there will “shift” them. The Sages permitted him to contract impurity of rabbinic status in order to save his property.

And now the Gemara cites the continuation of the beraita:

And

just as they permitted him to become impure outside Eretz Yisrael and in a beit ha-peras in order to save property, so

he may become impure

in order

to study Torah and

in order

to marry.

Rabbi Yehuda said: When

Rabbi Yehuda said: When

did they permit him? –

when he cannot find a place to study

except outside Eretz Yisrael.

But when he can find a place to study

in Eretz Yisrael –

he may not render himself impure.

Rabbi Yosei says: Even when he can find a place to study –

he may render himself impure

outside Eretz Yisrael,

because a person does not merit learning from everyone

but only from his teacher.

Rabbi Yosei said:

There is proof that a kohen may leave Eretz Yisrael to study Torah from his foremost teacher, even when he can find a place to study in Eretz Yisrael:

There was an incident involving Yosef the kohen, who followed his teacher to Sidon,

which is outside Eretz Yisrael,

to study Torah.

This is the end of the wording of the beraita.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei.

This indicates that Rabbi Yohanan was familiar with this beraita, including its first clause, which permits purchasing at the fair of idolaters:

It follows

that it is proven

that they disagree

that the Sages disagree with Rabbi Natan. This is difficult: How could Rabbi Yohanan say that the Sages do not disagree with Rabbi Natan?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan could say to you: They never disagree.

The Sages indeed prohibit purchasing at the fair of idolaters, and as for what they permitted in this beraita –

it is not difficult.

Here,

what the Sages and Rabbi Natan prohibited refers

to one who purchases from a merchant,

that is, one who buys from a trader,

because they collect the tax from him,

as the priests take the tax from him, and he thereby benefits the object of idolatry.

But

here,

what the beraita permitted refers

to one who purchases f

rom

a homeowner,

a private individual who comes to the market to sell his merchandise,

because they do not collect

as the priests do not collect

the tax from him,

from him.

Only in this manner is it permitted. But according to Rabbi Yohanan, all the tannaim maintain that it is prohibited to benefit the object of idolatry.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, however, maintains that the Sages disagree with Rabbi Natan and permit it, and that our Mishna follows the view of the Sages.

And now the Gemara explains the beraita.

The Master said: “An animal must be rendered unfit.”

And this is difficult:

But there is the suffering of living creatures,

so how could the Sages permit this and instruct that it be done?

And we answer:

Abaye said: The Merciful One said [

Joshua 11] concerning the war against the seven nations, “And the Lord said to Joshua:

‘You shall hamstring their horses.’”

It follows that it is permitted to do so.

The Master said

we learned in the beraita:

“And what is rendering it unfit? Removing its hooves from the knee joint and below.”

But we raise a contradiction:

The Gemara challenges this from another beraita.

For it was taught: Nowadays,

one may not consecrate

anything for “the maintenance of the Temple,” meaning the needs of the Temple, because today we do not have the Temple. Nevertheless, if he consecrated something, the sanctity takes effect, and one who uses a consecrated object commits misuse of consecrated property. Therefore, so that people should not come to stumble, the Sages obligated him to destroy the consecrated object.

And one may not declare property herem,

that is, say of a particular object, “It is herem,” because the unqualified term herem means that it is designated for the maintenance of the Temple.

And one may not make valuations,

that is, say, “My valuation is upon me,” or “The valuation of so-and-so is upon me,” since the amounts fixed by the Torah for these valuations are given for the maintenance of the Temple.

But if

nevertheless

he consecrated, declared property herem, or made a valuation –

if he consecrated

an animal –

it must be rendered unfit [

and the beraita will explain this].