Avodah Zarah 14a — the Talmud in English

The Gemara explains what itztrobelin is.

Gemara:

What is itztrobelin? —

The tree called tornita.

A species of cedar.

And they raised a contradiction

from a beraita concerning the laws of the seventh year, which lists the species of fruit that have “the sanctity of the seventh year,” and with which it is forbidden to engage in commerce, and which one is obligated to declare ownerless. And later the beraita says:

They added to them

to these fruits also

alaksin and itztrobelin, muksas-sin and benot shuaḥ,

which are species of fruit that are not so important; therefore at first they did not practice “the sanctity of the seventh year” with regard to them —

And now this is difficult:

And if it enters your mind

that

itztrobelin

is the species called

tornita —

Tornita —

Can it be subject to the laws of the seventh year!?

Is it possible that the laws of the seventh year are practiced with this fruit?

But it was taught

in another beraita:

This is the rule

concerning the sanctity of the seventh year:

Every

thing

that has a root,

that has a root enduring in the soil, and from which it receives its vitality —

it has the seventh year. And every

thing

that has no root,

that has no root enduring in the ground, through which it can continue to exist in the ground also during the rainy season, such as cucumbers and gourds —

it has no seventh year,

and it is permitted to engage in commerce with it, and there is no need to declare it ownerless.

But tornita has no root in the land, so why did the beraita say that they added itztrobelin to them? Rather, it is proven that itztrobelin is not the species called “tornita.”

Rather,

Rav Safra said, and likewise when

Ravin

came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Elazar:

Itztrobelin is

the fruit of the cedar,

the fruit of the cedar [called in foreign speech “galant”].

We learned in our Mishna:

benot shuaḥ.

And the Gemara explains what “benot shuaḥ” are —

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: White figs,

white figs.

We learned in our Mishna:

and stems.

And the Gemara explains:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: They taught, “with their stems.”

That is, the “stems” that the Mishna mentioned are not a separate species called by this name; rather, the intention is the stems of all the fruits, which are called “stems,” and this is what the Mishna said: The prohibition against selling itztrobelin and benot shuaḥ to a gentile applies only when they are with their stems, because the practice of the gentiles is to worship idolatry by hanging them by their stems before it. But without the stems, the gentiles do not hang them; therefore their purchase is not for the needs of idolatry, and it is permitted to sell them to them.

We learned in our Mishna:

and frankincense.

Rav Yitzḥak said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

What the Mishna prohibited refers to the species of frankincense called

pure frankincense.

And the gentiles offer that species to idols.

A tanna

taught in a beraita:

And from all of them,

from all the species taught in our Mishna —

one may sell them a bundle,

a large quantity together, since then it is certain that he purchases them in order to engage in commerce with them, and not to worship them himself.

And how much

is

a bundle?

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira explained: A bundle is not less than

the weight of

three manehs [“

maneh”].

And we challenge: How did they permit selling a bundle, even though he does not purchase it for himself,

and let us be concerned lest

perhaps

he go and sell it to others,

go and sell the parts of the bundle one by one to other gentiles for an idolatrous offering,

and

they

burn them as incense,

burning them for their idols?

And we answer:

Abaye said:

Only

“before,”

concerning the prohibition of “before the blind, you shall not place an obstacle,”

are we commanded.

But

“before the before,” we are not commanded.

That is, the reason that the Sages prohibited selling to a gentile is that the Jew would transgress the prohibition of “before the blind, you shall not place an obstacle,” which is the prohibition against causing a person, even a gentile, to stumble in a transgression. And since a gentile is forbidden to worship idolatry, it is forbidden for a Jew to provide him with something that he will use for the idolatry forbidden to him, because we are warned not to cause him to stumble. But there is no prohibition against causing the one who causes the stumbling to stumble, as here, where he sells to one gentile and that gentile will sell to another gentile; this is “concerning the ‘before’ of ‘before the blind,’ we are not commanded,” for this we are not commanded. That is, there is no prohibition in this.

We learned in our Mishna:

and a white rooster.

The Gemara explains the words of the first tanna, who prohibits selling a white rooster: when it is forbidden and when it is permitted.

Rabbi Yona said in the name of Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rav Zevid, and some say:

There is one who transmitted this tradition in this manner,

Rabbi Yona said in the name of Rabbi Zeira:

If the gentile asks, “

A rooster for whom

is it to be sold?” —

it is permitted to sell him a white rooster,

because since he did not mention “white,” he is not purchasing it for the needs of idolatry.

And only if he asks, “

A white rooster for whom?”

then

it is forbidden to sell him a white rooster,

because then he is purchasing it for the needs of idolatry.

And the Gemara infers from Rabbi Yehuda’s words that the first tanna prohibits even when he asks, “A rooster for whom?”

We learned

in the continuation of the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: He may sell him a white rooster among the roosters.

And the Gemara infers:

What are the circumstances?

When does Rabbi Yehuda permit it?

If you say

that it means

that

the gentile

says

“A white rooster for whom,” “A white rooster for whom” —

“A white rooster for whom” —

Surely in this manner,

even

a white rooster

among the roosters, too, he did not

permit Rabbi Yehuda to sell him, for the gentile reveals his intention that he needs it for the needs of idolatry; and the fact that he takes it among the other roosters is because he wants the white one and is prepared to purchase many for the sake of the white one!

Rather, is it not that Rabbi Yehuda permits only in the case

where

he says

without specification,

“A rooster for whom,”

“A rooster for whom,” and

even so,

although he says merely “A rooster for whom,”

according to Rabbi Yehuda,

only a white rooster

among the roosters —

yes,

it is permitted to sell it to him. But a white rooster

by itself, no.

And from here we infer:

And according to the first tanna, even

when he sells him the white rooster

among the roosters —

also no,

they did not permit him, even if he said merely, “A rooster for whom.”

And if so, there is a difficulty against Rabbi Zeira’s words, who holds that according to the first tanna it is permitted to sell him a white rooster when he says merely, “A rooster for whom,” even not among roosters?

And we answer:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

Do not infer this precisely from our Mishna. Rather, the truth is as Rabbi Zeira said: When he says merely “A rooster for whom,” it is permitted to sell it to him, even according to the first tanna; and when he says “A white rooster for whom,” it is forbidden even among roosters, even according to Rabbi Yehuda. For

here,

in our Mishna,

with what are we dealing,

what is the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda? — With a third case,

for example, when he said

the gentile,

“This and this.”

At first he asked, “A white, black, and red rooster for whom?”

And in this case, which is the case discussed by our Mishna, Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is forbidden to sell him the white one by itself, and permitted among the roosters.

By itself it is forbidden, since at first he mentioned “white” and now he takes “white”; therefore it is reasonable to say that this gentile intended “white,” and he added the question about black and red, knowing that the Jews would not sell him “white.” Therefore he is employing a ruse [acting cunningly] and does not ask for “white” alone.

But these words apply if in the end he indeed takes “white” by itself. But if in the end he takes the “white” among other roosters, it is permitted, because since he is not purchasing the other roosters for the needs of idols, it is proven that he is not purchasing the “white” for their needs either.

And despite all this, the first tanna prohibits it, since at the beginning he asked for “white.”

It was also taught so,

we learned this likewise in a beraita, in accordance with this interpretation of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak:

Rabbi Yehuda said: When

did the Sages prohibit selling a white rooster? —

When he said

the gentile, “

This rooster

white,”

but if he said “a rooster

“rooster”

this and this,”

black and white —

it is permitted

to sell it to him among the roosters.

And it is proven that Rabbi Yehuda permitted “this and this” only to sell it to him among the other roosters, whereas by itself he did not permit it. And all this is only if he mentioned “white.” It follows that when he says merely “A rooster for whom,” it is permitted even by itself. And since we do not find that the Sages disagree with him, it follows in accordance with Rabbi Zeira’s words, that even according to the first tanna it is permitted when he says merely “A rooster for whom.”

And the Gemara brings the continuation of the beraita’s words:

And even if he said “

this rooster [

white],”

if he is

a gentile who made a feast for his son, or if he had

a

sick person in his house —

it is permitted

to sell him a white one, because he purchases the “white” for the adornment of his feast and for the treatment of the sick person.

And we challenge Rabbi Yehuda’s words, who permits selling it to him for the needs of his son’s feast: Surely the day of his son’s feast is his festival day, and on this day it is certainly forbidden to sell to him, even though he is not purchasing it for the needs of an idolatrous offering, because of “he goes and gives thanks.”

But we learned,

for we learned in our Mishna:

A gentile who made a feast for his son —

he is not forbidden

during the three days before them

except on that day and for that person alone.

And it is proven that

that day and that person —

at least,

in any event —

is forbidden.

And if so, how did Rabbi Yehuda permit selling it to him for the needs of “his son’s feast”?

And we answer:

Rav Yitzḥak bar Mesharsheya said:

What Rabbi

Yehuda

permitted selling to him for the needs of “his son’s feast” does not mean his son’s wedding, but rather

a tuziz,

a feast of companions that the young men make with one another, which is not an important feast; and on that day he does not offer [anything] to idols, nor does he “go and give thanks.” And Rav Yehuda concedes that on the day of “his son’s wedding” it is forbidden to sell to him.

And now the Gemara returns to challenge Rabbi Zeira’s words, who permits selling a white rooster when he says merely “A rooster for whom.”

We learned

in the continuation of our Mishna:

And all other things, their unspecified ones,

if the gentile purchases them without specification —

are permitted.

And their specified ones,

when he specifies —

are forbidden.

What

is the meaning of

“their unspecified ones,”

and what is the meaning of “their specified ones”?

If you say,

if you say that

“their unspecified ones”

means

that

the gentile

says

“white wheat,”

white wheat, whereas

“their specified ones”

means

that

the gentile

says explicitly

“for idolatry” —