Avodah Zarah 20b — the Talmud in English

And he shall not

look

at colored garments

of

a woman,

because he remembers the woman by the garments in which she is clothed, which beautify her, and he entertains thoughts about her.

And he shall not

look

at a donkey, nor at a she-donkey, nor at a pig, nor at a sow, nor at birds—

when they are mating with one another.

And even if he is full of eyes like the Angel of Death

this is a parable: even if he is found in a place of women, so that in whichever direction he turns he will necessarily look at them—even so, he should 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 passing—

he stands

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

suspended upon it; once the sick person sees him—

he shudders,

the sick person,

and opens his mouth. And the

Angel of Death

throws it

the drop of gall

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

Thus, is it forbidden to look at women?

And we resolve: Indeed, it is forbidden to look, and these pious men did not look; rather,

it was a corner

when they entered from one alley into another, at the corner of the streets their gaze unintentionally encountered a woman, and they saw her merely 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 upon a wall,

and not specifically when she is wearing them.

Rav Pappa said:

This prohibition of looking at a woman’s garments when she is not wearing them applies

only

when he

knows their owner,

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

Rava said: It is also precise

it is possible to infer this, in accordance with the words of Rav Pappa, from the wording of the beraita—

For it teaches

the beraita taught:

And not at colored garments

of

a woman,

implying that he knows 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.

Conclude from it.

The Gemara adds another clause concerning this halakha.

Rav Chisda said: These words

are stated

with regard to old garments,

garments that the woman has already worn, and he has already seen her [merely in passing, at the corner of the street!] wearing them; therefore it is forbidden to look at them when they are spread upon the wall, because when he sees the garments again he remembers her and entertains thoughts about her—

but with regard to 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 so, it is difficult—

We

ourselves—

from where, to the launderer, how do we give them

how do we give garments to the launderer who launders new garments [or to the tailor],

for he looks

for behold, he looks at them, and it follows that we cause him to stumble in a prohibition, and thereby transgress “before the blind”—

And it is proved that there is no prohibition against looking at new garments.

The Gemara rejects Rav Chisda’s proof—

And according to your reasoning,

according to your words, that there is a prohibition of placing a stumbling block, since the launderer looks while doing his work—

it can be objected:

That which Rav Yehuda said:

What is forbidden in mating animals of diverse kinds is only one species with another species, but

a species with its own species—

it is permitted to insert

and mate

as

they insert

the brush into its tube,

its own—

And how did Rav Yehuda permit this?—

for he looks,

and yet we learned that it is forbidden to do so?

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

he is occupied with his work,

his preoccupation and the thoughts of his heart are with his work—

So too,

the same applies to the launderer—

he is occupied with his work,

he is occupied with his work, and his heart is not directed toward sinful thoughts.

And this is the reason for the permission concerning the launderer, and not because they are new garments. And it is impossible to derive from this permission for other people, who are not occupied with their work, to look at new garments; and it is possible that there is a prohibition of sinful thoughts in this.

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 did not concern myself with the honor of created beings

if I did not take into account the honor of created beings—

I would expose the slaughtering place like that of an animal,

I would expose his slaughtered neck just as the slaughtering of an animal is visible to all; rather, I do not do so because of the honor of created beings, and I slaughter him in a manner that will not be seen—

Thus, the Angel of Death actually slaughters, and does not throw a drop?

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

perhaps

it is possible that

that drop

which the beraita said the Angel of Death throws into him

cuts the windpipe and the gullet

it cuts his neck!

We further learned in the beraita:

From it

from the bitter drop

he putrefies,

the dead person.

It supports him

it is possible to support

the

words of

Rabbi Chanina bar Kahana—

For Rabbi Chanina bar Kahana said: They said in the academy of

in the academy of

Rav: One who wishes that his dead person should not putrefy—

should turn him on his face,

so that the Angel of Death will not throw into his mouth the bitter drop from which he putrefies.

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the Torah [Deuteronomy 23]:

“And you shall guard against every evil matter”

and afterward it is written: “When there will be

among you

a man who will not be pure, because of a nocturnal occurrence,” this comes to teach us

that a person should not entertain sinful thoughts during the day

sinful thoughts—

and

if he entertains thoughts,

he will come to impurity at night.

And the Torah said, “And you shall guard,” so that he should take care and guard himself from coming to this.

The continuation of the words of the beraita is a statement of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair. [And there are many versions of this statement, and we shall present it according to the version of the Maharsha and the Gra].

From here Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair said

Torah,

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

brings to caution,

to be careful of a transgression at the time of the act, when it comes to his hand, and to be guarded from it and not stumble.

Caution—

brings to alacrity,

to be careful before the transgression comes to his hand, so that it will not come; and he is quick to foresee what will arise and to correct himself so as not to transgress the prohibition [such as guarding oneself from thoughts during the day].

Alacrity brings to cleanliness,

clean, without sin.

Cleanliness—

brings to separation,

to be stringent with oneself and separate even from a permitted matter.

Separation—

brings to purity,

clear and whitened, and it is more than “cleanliness.”

Purity—

brings to holiness.

Holiness—

brings to humility.

Humility—

brings to fear of sin.

Fear of sin—

brings to piety.

Piety—

brings to the Divine spirit,

the indwelling of the Divine Presence.

The Divine spirit—

brings 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 no other title was stated, such as: “to those who fear You” or “to those who are 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:

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

And one should infer:

“Pious ones” is not stated, but rather “humble ones”! You have learned that humility is greater than them all.

We learned in our Mishna:

They may not sell to them [an item] attached to the ground, but he may sell once it is cut; Rabbi Yehuda says: He may sell on condition that it be cut.

The Gemara cites a beraita, and several details are clarified in it concerning the dispute between Rabbi Meir [who is the “first tanna” of our Mishna] and Rabbi Yehuda.

The Sages taught: They may sell to them

to gentiles

a tree,

and he stipulates with them

on condition that it be cut, and

the gentile

cuts it—

these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: They may sell to them only one that has been cut.

Likewise, they may sell to them

unripe grain,

grass, wheat, and barley crops before they have filled out,

on condition that it be cut, and

the gentile

cuts it—

these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: They may sell to them only that which has been cut.

Likewise, they may sell to them

standing grain,

grain in its stalks, meaning that it has fully grown,

on condition that it be harvested, and

the gentile

harvests it—

these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: They may sell to them only that which has been harvested.

And it is necessary

the Gemara explains why the beraita needed to bring their dispute concerning a tree, unripe grain, and standing grain.

For if it had taught us

if the beraita had taught us only

a tree,

we could have said:

In this case he said

only in this case

Rabbi Meir

that they may not sell,

since there is no loss,

there is no loss to the gentile purchaser if he does not cut it; therefore

he will leave it

he will leave it and not cut it, even though he stipulated with him that he would cut it, and it follows that the Jew has given the gentile a holding in the Land of Israel—

But this,

the “standing grain,” will certainly be harvested by him and he will not leave it

for if he leaves it

if he leaves it—

there is a loss,

it will be ruined—

say,

we could have said 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 in both cases, the tree and the standing grain, we could have said that Rabbi Yehuda permitted in both

because their benefit is not apparent,

their benefit is not recognizable; that is, it is not worthwhile for him to leave “standing grain,” and although it is worthwhile for him to leave a “tree,” nevertheless he has no “special” reason to leave it—

But unripe grain, whose benefit is apparent,

it is clear and visible to the eyes that it is worthwhile for him to leave it, so that its growth should be completed—

say,

we could have said that

he agrees with Rabbi Meir,

and would prohibit it, because the gentile will indeed leave it, and it will be a holding for him in the Land of Israel—

Therefore the beraita comes to teach us that Rabbi Yehuda permits even in the case of “unripe grain.”

And if it had taught us this,

if the beraita had taught us only in the case of “unripe grain,” we could have said:

In this case

in the case of “unripe grain,”

Rabbi Meir said

and prohibits it, since it is worthwhile for the gentile to leave it—

But in those,

in the case of the tree and standing grain, where he has no “special” reason to leave it,

say,

we could have said that

he agrees with Rabbi Yehuda

and permits it—

Therefore

it is necessary

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

They raised a dilemma before them

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

an animal

to a gentile [from among the animals that the Sages prohibited selling, in the previous discussion] and stipulate with him

on condition that it be slaughtered—what is

what is the halakha?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

There,

in the case of a tree, unripe grain, and standing grain,

for what reason is he permitting

what is the reason for the permission of

Rabbi Yehuda?

Because the ground beneath the tree

is not standing in his authority,

it is not in the gentile’s authority and was not sold to him,

and he cannot leave them

and cannot leave it indefinitely—

But an animal—

since

if he sells it,

it stands in the authority of the gentile,

it is found in the gentile’s authority, indeed

he will leave it

and will not slaughter it, and will not fulfill his condition—

Or perhaps

it is possible to say that

it is no different,

and there is no distinction in this matter, and nevertheless Rabbi Yehuda permits, because the gentile will fulfill his condition and slaughter it.

Come and hear

the Gemara resolves it from a beraita—

For it was taught:

They may sell

an animal on condition that it be slaughtered—

and he slaughters it; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: They may sell him only one that has been slaughtered.

Mishna:

After we learned in the previous Mishna the prohibition against selling land, the Mishna comes to teach us: In which place the sale of land is prohibited, and in which place the Sages extended the prohibition and decreed even concerning “renting,” and whether there is a distinction between houses and fields.

And the tannaim disagreed concerning this.

They may not rent out

to them

houses in the Land of Israel,

a decree that the Sages decreed lest they come to “sell,”

and it goes without saying

and to prohibit the renting of

fields,

and in the Gemara it will be explained why the prohibition of fields is more severe than that of houses. “

Syria” is a place near the Land of Israel, and it is called in the Torah “Aram Tzova.” King David conquered it and joined it to the Land of Israel, and it is called a “conquest by an individual,” since this conquest was without the counsel of the word of God through the Urim and Thummim and without the participation of the people.

In the initial assumption, we hold that Syria does not have the laws of the Land of Israel, and the reason that they decreed there to some extent is: lest people come to be lenient even in the Land of Israel.