Avodah Zarah 20b (כ:) — the Talmud in English

And he shall not

look

at colored garments

of

a woman, because he remembers the woman in the garments that she wears, which enhance her appearance, and he entertains thoughts about her.

a woman, because he remembers the woman in the garments that she wears, which enhance her appearance, and he entertains thoughts about her.

And he shall not

look

at a male donkey, nor at a female donkey, nor at a male pig, nor at a female pig, nor at birds—

when they are mating with one another.

And even if he is full of eyes like the Angel of Death [that is a parable: even if he finds himself among women, so that whichever way he turns he will necessarily look at them, he must nevertheless close his eyes] .

[this is a parable: even if he is in a place where there are women, so that wherever he turns he will necessarily look at them, he must still close his eyes] .

They said about the Angel of Death that he is entirely full of eyes, and at the time of a sick person's death—

he stands

above his head, with his sword drawn in his hand, and a drop of gall

suspended from it. Once the sick person sees him—

he is terrified

the sick person

and opens his mouth. And the

Angel of Death

casts it

the drop of gall

into his mouth; from it he dies, from it he becomes putrid, and from it his face turns green!

Does this not show that it is forbidden to look at women?

And we answer: Indeed, it is forbidden to look, and these pious men did not look deliberately. Rather,

it was a corner

when they entered from one alley into another, their gaze happened to encounter a woman at the corner of the streets unintentionally, and they saw her only in passing, before they had time to close their eyes.

The Gemara explains several details of the beraita.

We learned:

And he shall not

look

at colored garments of a woman.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

It is forbidden to look

even

when the garments are

spread over a wall,

and not only when she is wearing them.

Rav Pappa said:

This prohibition against looking at a woman's garments when she is not wearing them applies

only

when he

recognizes their owner,

the owner of the garments—that is, the woman who ordinarily wears them.

Rava said: It is also precise

that this is so, as can be inferred from the wording of the beraita,

as it teaches

the beraita:

And not at colored garments

of

a woman;

this implies that he recognizes the woman who owns the garments,

and it does not teach: “

And not

at colored garments,”

which would have implied all garments that women customarily wear.

Learn from it.

The Gemara adds another detail concerning this halakha.

Rav Chisda said: This applies

to the following circumstances:

to old garments,

garments that the woman has already worn, and he has already seen her [in a passing sight at a corner!] wearing them. Therefore, it is forbidden to look at them when they are spread over the wall, because when he again sees the garments he remembers her and entertains thoughts about her —

but with new garments

garments that the woman has not yet worn,

we have no concern,

we have no such prohibition.

And Rav Chisda proves this:

For if you do not say so,

if you do not say this, it is difficult:

We

ourselves—

from where and how do we give them

garments to a launderer who washes new garments [or to a tailor],

for he looks

for he looks at them, and we would thereby be causing him to stumble in this prohibition and transgressing “before the blind”—

This proves that there is no prohibition against looking at new garments.

The Gemara rejects Rav Chisda's proof:

But according to your reasoning,

according to your assertion that there is a prohibition against placing a stumbling block, since the launderer looks at the garments while working—

one can raise the following objection:

That which Rav Yehuda said:

The prohibition against mating animals of diverse kinds applies only to one species with another species, but

one species with its own kind—

it is permitted to bring

and mate them

as

they bring

a stylus into its case

of the same type—

And how could Rav Yehuda permit this?—

for he looks,

yet we learned that it is forbidden to do so?

Rather, you are forced to explain that there is no prohibition in this case, because mating does not lead to sinful thoughts, since

he is occupied with his work,

his attention and thoughts are focused on his work—

so too,

the same applies to the launderer—

he is occupied with his work,

he is engaged in his work, and his mind is not occupied with sinful thoughts.

This is the reason for permitting the launderer, and not because the garments are new. Therefore, this cannot establish permission for other people, who are not occupied with their work, to look at new garments; it is possible that doing so involves a prohibition because of sinful thoughts.

The Master said

the Gemara continues to explain the beraita:

“From it he dies!”

Shall we say

that the beraita

disagrees

with the statement

of Shmuel's father,

Shmuel's father—

for Shmuel's father said: The Angel of Death said to me: If I were not concerned for the honor of human beings,

if I did not take human dignity into consideration—

I would expose the slaughtering place as one does with an animal,

I would expose the slaughtered person's neck so that the slaughter would be visible to all, as is the case with an animal; but I do not do so because of human dignity, and I slaughter him in a manner that will not be seen—

This indicates that the Angel of Death actually slaughters him, rather than casting a drop into his mouth?

And we answer: The two statements do not contradict one another, because

perhaps

it is possible that

that drop

which the beraita said the Angel of Death casts into him

cuts through his סימנים,

cuts his neck.

We also learned in the beraita:

“From it”

from the bitter drop

“he becomes putrid,”

the dead person.

This supports

the statement

of

the words of

Rabbi Hanina bar Kahana—

for Rabbi Hanina bar Kahana said: They said in the academy of

in the academy of

Rav: One who wishes that his dead not become putrid—

should turn him over onto his face,

so that the Angel of Death will not cast into his mouth the bitter drop from which he becomes putrid.

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the Torah [Deuteronomy 23]:

“And you shall guard yourself from every evil thing”

and afterward it is written: “When there is among

you

a man who is not pure because of a nocturnal emission.” This comes to teach us

that a person should not entertain sinful thoughts during the day,

sinful thoughts—

and

if he does entertain them,

he will come to impurity at night. The Torah says “And you shall guard yourself,” meaning that he must take care and guard himself against coming to this.

he will come to impurity at night. The Torah says “And you shall guard yourself,” meaning that he must take care and guard himself against coming to this.

The continuation of the beraita is the statement of Rabbi Pinḥas ben Yair. [There are many versions of this statement, and we present it according to the version of the Maharsha and the Vilna Gaon.]

From here Rabbi Pinḥas ben Yair said

Torah,

engagement in Torah, understanding its warnings, and observing them—

leads to vigilance,

to being careful to avoid a transgression when the opportunity to commit it arises, and guarding oneself from it so that one will not stumble.

Vigilance—

leads to alacrity,

to taking care before the transgression comes to one's hand, so that it will not come; he is quick to foresee what may develop and to correct himself so as not to transgress [such as guarding oneself against thoughts during the day].

Alacrity leads to cleanliness,

being clean, without sin .

Cleanliness—

leads to abstinence,

to be stringent with oneself and abstain even from something permitted.

Abstinence—

leads to purity,

being clear and unsullied, which is a higher level than “cleanliness.”

Purity—

leads to holiness.

Holiness—

leads to humility.

Humility—

leads to fear of sin.

Fear of sin—

leads to piety.

Piety—

leads to the divine spirit,

the indwelling of the Divine Presence.

The divine spirit—

leads to the resurrection of the dead.

And piety is greater than them all, as it is stated [Psalms 89]:

“Then You spoke in a vision to Your pious ones,”

and it does not state another title, such as “to those who fear You” or “to the humble.”

and it does not say another title, such as “to those who fear You” or “to the humble.”

And

what the beraita said, “Piety is greater than them all,”

disagrees

with

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi—

for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Humility is greater than them all, as it is stated [Isaiah 61]:

for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Humility is greater than them all, as it is stated [Isaiah 61]:

“The spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring tidings to the humble.”

And one should infer:

“Pious ones” it does not say, but rather “the humble”! You learn from this that humility is greater than them all.

We learned in our Mishna:

One may not rent houses to them in Eretz Yisrael, and needless to say, fields; but one may rent houses to them in Syria. Rabbi Shimon says: In Eretz Yisrael, one may also rent houses to them, but not fields; and in Syria, one may rent houses and fields.

The Gemara cites a beraita, in which several details of the dispute between Rabbi Meir [who is the first tanna of our Mishna] and Rabbi Yehuda are explained.

The Sages taught: One may sell them

to gentiles

a tree,

and stipulate with them

on condition that it be cut down, and

the gentile

cuts it down—

the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: One may sell them only a tree that has already been cut down.

Similarly, one may sell them

unripe grain,

grass, or wheat and barley crops before they have fully ripened,

on condition that they be reaped, and

the gentile

reaps them—

the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: One may sell them only grain that has already been reaped.

Similarly, one may sell them

standing grain,

grain standing in the field, that is, grain that has fully grown,

on condition that it be harvested, and

the gentile

harvests it—

the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: One may sell them only grain that has already been harvested.

And it is necessary

for the Gemara to explain why the beraita had to state their dispute with regard to a tree, unripe grain, and standing grain.

For if it had taught us

if the beraita had taught us only

a tree,

we might have said:

In this case he said

only in this case did

Rabbi Meir

say that one may not sell it,

since there is no loss,

the gentile purchaser suffers no loss if he does not cut it down. Therefore,

he will leave it standing,

and not cut it down, despite having stipulated that he cut it down, and the Jew will thereby have enabled the gentile to establish a presence in Eretz Yisrael—

But this

the standing grain will certainly be harvested and not left standing,

for if he leaves it

if he leaves it standing—

there is a loss,

it will be spoiled.

I might say

that

he agrees with Rabbi Yehuda—

And the beraita teaches us that nevertheless Rabbi Meir prohibits it in the case of standing grain.

And if it had taught us these two

if the beraita had taught us that Rabbi Yehuda permits both a tree and standing grain, we might have said that Rabbi Yehuda permits both

because the benefit to them is not evident,

their benefit is not apparent: standing grain is not worth leaving unharvested, and although a tree is worth leaving standing, nevertheless there is no “special” reason for him to leave it standing—

But with regard to unripe grain, whose benefit is evident,

it is clear and visible that it is worthwhile for him to leave it standing until its growth is complete,

I might say

that

he agrees with Rabbi Meir,

and prohibits it, because the gentile will indeed leave it standing, thereby establishing a presence in Eretz Yisrael—

Therefore, the beraita teaches us that Rabbi Yehuda permits even unripe grain.

And if it had taught us this case

if the beraita had taught us only the case of unripe grain, we might have said:

In this case

with regard to unripe grain

Rabbi Meir said

that it is prohibited, since it is worthwhile for the gentile to leave it standing—

But with regard to those,

a tree and standing grain, where there is no “special” reason for him to leave them standing,

I might say

that

he agrees with Rabbi Yehuda

and permits them—

Therefore,

it is necessary

for the beraita to teach us that Rabbi Yehuda permits in every case and Rabbi Meir prohibits in every case .

They raised a dilemma

the members of the academy were uncertain: Is it permitted to sell

an animal

to a gentile [of the animals that the Sages prohibited selling, in the preceding sugya] and stipulate with him

on condition that he slaughter it; what

is the halakha?

The sides of the dilemma are:

There,

with regard to a tree, unripe grain, and standing grain,

what is the reason that he permits

what is the reason for

Rabbi Yehuda's

permission? Because the land beneath the tree

is not in his possession,

it is not in the gentile's possession and was not sold to him,

and he cannot leave them standing

he cannot leave them standing forever—

But an animal—

since,

if he sells it,

it is in the possession of the gentile,

it is found in the gentile's possession, indeed

he will leave it standing

and not slaughter it, thereby failing to fulfill his stipulation—

Or perhaps,

it is possible to say that

it is no different,

and Rabbi Yehuda permits it nevertheless, because the gentile will fulfill his stipulation and slaughter it.

Come and hear

the Gemara resolves the matter from a beraita—

As it was taught: One may sell

an

animal on condition that it be slaughtered—

and he slaughters it, the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: One may sell him only an animal that has already been slaughtered.

Mishna:

After the previous Mishna taught the prohibition against selling land, this Mishna teaches us in which place the sale of land is prohibited, in which place the Sages extended the prohibition and decreed that even “renting” is prohibited, and whether there is a distinction between houses and fields.

And the tannaim disputed this matter.

One may not rent

to them

houses in Eretz Yisrael,

by a rabbinic decree enacted lest they come to “sell,”

and needless to say,

the rental of

fields,

and the Gemara will explain why the prohibition against fields is more severe than that against houses.

“Syria” is a place adjacent to Eretz Yisrael, called “Aram Tzova” in the Torah. King David conquered it and attached it to Eretz Yisrael. It is called a “conquest by an individual,” since this conquest took place without the counsel of the word of God through the Urim VeTumim and without the participation of the people.

The initial assumption is that Syria does not have the laws of Eretz Yisrael, and the reason that the Sages enacted certain decrees there is that they feared people might come to be lenient even in Eretz Yisrael.