Avodah Zarah 13a — the Talmud in English

But

if

he benefits

“the” idolatry

it is permitted.

It is permitted, for the Torah did not prohibit this. These are the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who explains that the reason for the prohibition of shops decorated [with roses and myrtles] is that he benefits from the scent of a rose and myrtle. And

if

Rabbi Yohanan had said:

Even if they are decorated with fruits, it is also prohibited,

because

it is a kal va-chomer:

if

benefiting is prohibited, benefiting—

all the more so!

For he benefits them, because the shopkeepers are the priests’ merchants.

It was objected:

The Gemara brings a beraita to raise an objection against Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

Rabbi Natan says: On the day on which the idolatry

[the priests]

waives the tax,

[when they forgo collection of the tax],

they announce and say: Whoever takes a crown and places

it

on his head and on the head of his donkey in honor of idolatry—

let them waive

his tax. And if not—

let them not waive his tax!

A Jew who is found there—

what should he do?

If

he places

the crown on his head,

it is found

that he

benefits

from the scent. And if

he does not place

the crown on his head,

it is found

that he

benefits them,

giving them the tax. Therefore, let him not go there!

[unclear: the source segment continues the previous sentence] From here they said

the Sages that if he went there, they penalized him with this penalty:

One who conducts business in the marketplace of idolatry,

if he bought

an animal—

it shall be rendered unfit,

as the beraita will explain. And if he bought

produce, clothing, and utensils—

they shall rot. Money and metal utensils—

he shall take them to the Salt Sea,

so that they will be lost there.

And what is rendering unfit? Cutting off the hooves:

he removes and cuts off its two hooves, in a manner that does not make it liable to be torn apart thereby, provided that he cuts them

from the knee joint

[the bone in the animal’s leg]

and below.

And now we raise an objection against Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

The beraita teaches, at any rate:

“Let him place”—

“he is found to benefit.” “Let him not place”—

“he is found to benefit them.”

Thus it is prohibited to benefit “the” idolatry. And this is difficult for Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish!?

We answer:

Rav Mesharsheya, son of Rav Idi, said:

Although in the beraita Rabbi Natan holds this way,

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish holds: The Sages disagree with Rabbi Natan,

and permit benefiting “the” idolatry.

And I say,

I explained the Mishna

like

the

Sages who disagree with him,

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 they prohibit “benefiting”; therefore he establishes the Mishna according to the Sages and prohibits even shops decorated with fruits.

And we raise an objection:

“And they do not disagree?!”

Do the Sages not disagree?!

But it was taught

The Gemara brings a beraita from which it appears that they permitted going to the fair of idolaters, contrary to Rabbi Natan’s view. And apparently it must be established according to the Sages:

For it was taught:

“They go,”

it is permitted to go

to the fair of idolaters, and they buy

and purchase

from them animals, male and female slaves, houses, fields, and vineyards.

And he writes

a document to establish the sale,

and he presents it

to authenticate the signatures on the document

in their courts,

the place of the prominent men and judges of the gentiles; and although this is honor and splendor for them, and there is concern that he will “go and give thanks”—

because

by authentication in the document

he is like one rescuing

himself

from their hands,

so that the gentiles will not be able to deny the sale.

And if he was a priest—

he renders himself impure

himself

outside the Land of Israel,

whose impurity is rabbinic, and the Sages permitted him

to litigate and appeal with them

there, because he is like one rescuing [his property] from their hands.

And just as he renders himself impure outside the Land of Israel—

so he renders himself impure

the priest himself if he needs to pass

through a cemetery

to litigate and appeal.

Before the Gemara brought the continuation of the beraita, it wondered:

“Through a cemetery,” could it enter your mind?! It is impurity of Torah origin!

Surely they did not permit a priest to render himself impure and transgress a prohibition of Torah origin in order to save money; how, then, did the beraita say that just as they permitted the impurity of outside the Land of Israel, which is rabbinic, so they also permitted a prohibition of Torah origin!?

We answer: The intention is not an actual cemetery,

but

the impurity of

a rabbinic “field of corpses,”

which is a field in which a grave was plowed, and the entire field, up to one hundred cubits, is impure by rabbinic decree, out of concern that the bones of the dead may have been scattered there, and one who passes there will “shift” them. The Sages permitted him to contract rabbinic impurity in order to save his money.

And now the Gemara brings the continuation of the beraita:

And

just as they permitted him to render himself impure outside the Land of Israel and in a field of corpses in order to save money, so

he renders himself impure

in order

to study Torah and

in order

to marry a woman.

Rabbi Yehuda said: When

Rabbi Judah said: When

did they permit him?

When he finds no place to study

except outside the Land of Israel.

But when he finds a place to study

in the Land of Israel—

he does not render himself impure.

Rabbi Yose says: Even when he finds a place to study—

he should render himself impure

outside the Land of Israel,

because a person does not merit learning from every

person, but only from his teacher.

Rabbi Yose said:

There is proof that a priest is permitted to leave the Land of Israel to study Torah from his distinguished teacher, even when he finds a place to study in the Land of Israel—

It happened with Joseph the priest, who followed his teacher to Sidon

which is outside the Land of Israel,

to study Torah.

Thus far is the language of the beraita.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: The halakha is according to Rabbi Yose.

It follows that Rabbi Yohanan knew this beraita, including the first clause of the beraita, which permits buying at the fair of idolaters—

Apparently

it is proven

that they disagree:

the Sages disagree with Rabbi Natan. And this is difficult: how did Rabbi Yohanan say that the Sages do not disagree with Rabbi Natan?

We answer:

Rabbi Yohanan can say to you: In truth, they do not disagree.

The Sages indeed prohibit buying at the fair of idolaters; and what they permitted in this beraita—

is not difficult.

Here,

what the Sages and Rabbi Natan prohibited refers

to one who buys from the merchant,

one who purchases from the trader,

for they take the tax from him,

the priests take the tax from him, and it is found that he benefits the idolatry.

But

here,

what the beraita permitted refers

to one who buys f

rom

the householder,

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

for they do not take

the tax

from him,

from him.

Only in this manner is it permitted; but all the authorities hold, according to Rabbi Yohanan, that it is prohibited to benefit “the” idolatry.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish holds that the Sages disagree with Rabbi Natan and permit it, and our Mishna is according to the Sages.

And now the Gemara explains the beraita.

The master said: “An animal—it shall be rendered unfit.”

And this is difficult:

but there is the suffering of living creatures,

and how did the Sages permit this and command it in this manner?

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.”

Thus it is permitted to do so.

The master said we learned in the beraita:

“And what is rendering unfit? He cuts off its hooves from the knee joint and below.”

And we raise a contradiction:

The Gemara raises a contradiction to this from another beraita.

For it was taught: Nowadays—

one may not consecrate

anything for “the repair of the Temple,” which refers to the needs of the Temple, because today we do not have the Temple. But if he nevertheless consecrated it, the sanctity takes effect, and one who uses something that was consecrated commits sacrilege against consecrated property. Therefore, so that they should not come to stumble, the Sages obligated him to destroy the consecrated object.

And one may not declare something cherem,

saying that a certain object is “cherem,” because the ordinary meaning of the expression “cherem” is for the repair of the Temple.

And one may not make valuations,

saying, “My valuation is upon me,” or, “The valuation of so-and-so is upon me,” for the amounts fixed by the Torah are given for the “repair of the Temple.”

And if

nevertheless

he consecrated, declared cherem, or made a valuation—

consecrated, devoted, or valued—

If he consecrated

an animal—

it shall be rendered unfit

[and the beraita will explain this].