Avodah Zarah 13b — the Talmud in English

And if he dedicated

produce, clothing, and utensils - ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

they shall rot,

he shall leave them to rot.

And if he dedicated

coins and metal utensils -

he shall lead them,

he shall cast them

into the Salt Sea.

And what is eradication? -

He locks the door before it,

and it has nothing to eat,

and it dies by itself.

And it is proven that eradication is locking the door, and not severing its hooves

?

Abaye said:

There it is different,

in the case of one who dedicates an animal nowadays,

because of the disgrace

of consecrated property,

for if its hooves are severed in a place where it is not rendered unfit by a fatal condition, it does not die quickly, and its disgrace will be visible for a long time.

And the Gemara asks: Why do they need to lock the door before it

? -

Let them slaughter it! There is a remedy for it if he slaughters it [and not for the purpose of eating, but to hasten its death]

And we answer: This is not a proper remedy, because

they may come to misuse it,

they will come to eat it, and transgress and stumble over the prohibition of “misuse of consecrated property.”

And the Gemara asks again:

Let him make it a gistera!

Let him cut it into two parts, in order to hasten its death, and there will be no disgrace to consecrated property, and they will not eat it either, because it is a carcass

?

Abaye said:

It is forbidden to do so, because

the verse says [Deuteronomy 12], “You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations served there

and you shall demolish their altars and break their pillars. You shall not do so to the Lord your God.”

And we expound: Anything that is for the Lord, including consecrated property for Temple maintenance, you shall not treat in a manner resembling destruction.

Rava said:

There is another reason to forbid cutting it in two,

because it appears as though he is inflicting a blemish upon consecrated property,

and it is forbidden to do so, as it is stated [Leviticus 22], “No blemish shall be in it”; and we expound that it is forbidden to inflict a blemish upon consecrated property.

And we object to Rava’s words:

“Appears”?!

If he cuts it in two, does it merely appear as though he is inflicting a blemish?! Surely

it is a proper blemish!

It is a complete blemish, and not something resembling a blemish.

And we answer: Rava’s intention in saying “appears” is to say that it is not forbidden by Torah law to do so. For

this applies

when did the Torah forbid inflicting a blemish upon consecrated property

?

When the Temple is standing, when it is fit for sacrifice,

when the offering is fit for sacrifice. But

now,

when it is not fit for sacrifice, there is no concern.

There is no Torah prohibition in this. Therefore Rava was precise in saying that it “appears” as though he is inflicting a blemish upon consecrated property.

And we object to what we answered—that if the animal is not fit for sacrifice, there is no Torah prohibition in this. But this reason is not sufficient to establish that there is no Torah prohibition in the matter, for we find [according to several tannaim in tractate Bekhorot 33b] that it is forbidden to inflict a blemish upon an offering that became blemished, even though it is not fit for sacrifice once a blemish has befallen it:

Let it be,

let the prohibition of inflicting a blemish nowadays be a Torah prohibition,

like

one who inflicts a blemish upon one already blemished,

for even though it is not fit

the blemished one

for sacrifice,

it is forbidden to inflict an additional blemish upon it. And why did Rava say that it merely “appears” as though he is inflicting a blemish upon consecrated property

?

And we answer: A distinction must be made between the matters. For an offering that is

blemished, although

it is not fit in its own body,

that it is not fit to sacrifice that very one, nevertheless

it is fit for its “value,”

it can be sold, and with its value another animal can be brought as an offering. Therefore, even while it is blemished, it has the “status” of an offering, so that the verse “It shall be perfect, to be accepted” can be applied to it

-

But

here, in the case of one who dedicates an offering nowadays,

when it is fit neither for its value nor for its body,

for it is fit neither to be sacrificed itself nor for its value, it is therefore not applicable to say concerning it “It shall be perfect, to be accepted,” and there is no Torah prohibition to inflict a blemish upon it, but only a rabbinic prohibition. Therefore Rava said “appears.”

And in summary: To cut it in two [a gistera]—it is forbidden, either because of Abaye’s reason, that it is forbidden to destroy sacred objects, or because of Rava’s reason, that there is a rabbinic prohibition of one who inflicts a blemish upon consecrated property even nowadays.

And to slaughter it—it is forbidden, because they may come to eat it.

And to sever its hooves—it is forbidden because of the disgrace to consecrated property, for its disgrace will be visible for a long time.

Rather, they lock the door before it, and it dies by itself.

But an animal that they purchased at the fair of idolaters—they penalized him to sever its hooves from the knee and below.

And now the Gemara returns to the law of “one who goes to the fair of idolaters.”

He encountered

he met

Rabbi Yonah [encountering] Rabbi Ilai, who was standing

standing

at the entrance,

at the gate of

“Tyre” -

He said to him: It is taught,

we learned in a beraita, “

An animal shall be eradicated.”

And it is uncertain: If he purchased

a slave, what is the law,

what should he do with him—should he eradicate him or not

?

Rabbi Yonah explains his question: If it was

a Jewish slave,

it is not a question for me,

I have no doubt, for it is obvious that it is forbidden to eradicate him [and, on the contrary, it is a mitzva to redeem him from the hands of the idolaters] -

For what is a question for me,

what I am uncertain about is

an idolatrous slave -

what is the law?

What should he do with him

?

He said to him: What is your question?

What is your uncertainty? Is it not that

it is taught,

Idolaters and shepherds of small livestock,

even Jews, who are robbers because they pasture their animals in others’ fields -

are not brought up

if they fell into a pit, but they are left to die by themselves.

And they are not brought down

into a pit, for it is forbidden to kill them by hand.

It follows that it is forbidden to kill and destroy idolaters by hand, and likewise they do not eradicate them!

He said

he asked

to him, Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: It is taught,

this that we learned in the beraita of the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Natan:

One may purchase from them animals, slaves

and maidservants -

which slaves are being discussed

? Is it only

a Jewish slave

[a Jew held under the authority of idolaters], whom it is a mitzva to remove from their hands,

or perhaps even an idolatrous slave?

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira to Rabbi Yirmeya:

It is reasonable

that it is speaking specifically about

a Jewish slave,

whom he thereby frees from his idolatrous master.

For if,

if you say that it is speaking even about

an idolatrous slave -

what need is there for him?!

What mitzva is there in redeeming him, so that we should permit it to him

?

When Rabin arrived from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said in the name of

in the name of

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

It is permitted to purchase

even an idolatrous slave.

And there is a mitzva in redeeming him from them,

because he brings him under the wings of the Divine Presence,

for he converts him, and he becomes obligated in the mitzvot.

Rav Ashi said:

This beraita permitted purchasing from them an animal as well as a slave, and if so,

is it so,

and does it also apply with regard to

an animal

that it is possible to say this

? What “bringing under the wings of the Divine Presence” is there with regard to an animal

?! -

Rather,

necessarily, the reason they permitted him to purchase an animal from the idolaters is

because of diminishing them,

because he diminishes the property of the idolaters and impoverishes them, and purchases from them an animal that they use -

And here too,

likewise with a slave,

they diminish,

they diminish them, and therefore

it is permitted,

the Sages permitted purchasing from them. And not because he brings him under the wings of the Divine Presence.

And the Gemara brings an incident that occurred:

Rabbi Yaakov purchased a sandal,

he purchased a sandal at the fair of idolaters.

Rabbi Yirmeya purchased bread,

he purchased bread there.

One said to the other: Orphan!

You act like an orphan, without understanding, because your father did not educate you! Did

your master act this way?!

Did your master also purchase at the fair of idolaters, and benefit them through payment of the customs duty?!

The other said to him: Orphan! Did your master act

this way

?

And

both of them,

the two of them,

purchased from the householder

they purchased from a householder. And Rabbi Yohanan permits [in the passage above] purchasing from a householder.

And each and every one

each of them

thought: My fellow,

my colleague,

purchased from a merchant,

purchased from a merchant who pays customs duty to the priests.

For Rabbi Abba, the son

the son

of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, said: They taught

that it is forbidden to purchase from them

only when purchasing from the merchant, because they take customs duty from him,

for the priests take customs duty from the merchants, and therefore it is forbidden.

But when purchasing from a householder,

a private person who brings his merchandise to the market,

because they do not take customs duty from him,

for the priests do not take customs duty from them -

it is permitted.

And it is explained that both of them purchased permissibly, and likewise it is explained what each suspected the other of doing.

And in the end it became clear to them that each one’s suspicion of the other was indeed not a false suspicion, for at the current fair the priests took customs duty even from householders.

Rabbi Abba, the son of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, said: Had it not been that

had

Rabbi Yohanan been this time

on this occasion

in the place,

in this place,

where they took customs duty

where the priests took customs duty

even from householders -

he would have forbidden it,

he would have forbidden purchasing even from householders.

And we object:

Rather,

if so,

they

these two amoraim, Rabbi Yaakov and Rabbi Yirmeya, disciples of Rabbi Yohanan,

how did they purchase

how did they purchase from them

?

And we answer:

from a householder who was not permanent

they purchased

they purchased, and from the non-permanent householders the priests did not take customs duty, for it did not occur to them to collect it from them, because they were not merchants and were not permanent in the market.

Mishna:

This Mishna concerns things that it is forbidden to sell to idolaters throughout the entire year, even on their festival day, because the idolaters purchase them for the purpose of an idolatrous offering, and it follows that the Jew transgresses the prohibition of “You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind.”

These are the things that it is forbidden to sell to an idolater:

Pine cones, Shua figs, and stalks,

the Gemara explains,

and frankincense

a type of spice,

and a white rooster.

Rabbi Yehuda says: It is permitted to sell him a white rooster among roosters,

if the Jew sells him many roosters, it is permitted to sell a white rooster among them, since he is not particular to purchase specifically a white one; this demonstrates that he does not need them for idolatrous purposes.

And when it is

the white rooster

by itself,

and not among the roosters -

he cuts off its finger,

and sells it to him, because

the idolaters

sacrifice

an offering that is

missing

a limb

for idolatry .

And all the other things -

their unspecified cases,

if he purchases them “without specification,”

it is permitted

to sell them to them,

and

if

their specification -

it is forbidden

[it will be explained in the Gemara].

Rabbi Meir says: Even a palm branch, havzav, and niklav

[and niklas], the Gemara explains -

it is forbidden to sell them to idolaters.