Avodah Zarah 32b (לב:) — the Talmud in English

However, if

there is no speck of blood on it, it is permitted.

For presumably the act was performed after its death. And this is not done for idolatry; therefore, the matter is permitted.

Rav Huna said: This was taught only

that when there is no blood there, it is permitted,

if

it has

not yet been salted

—that is, the hide was not salted before it was examined to determine whether or not there was a speck of blood in it.

But

if it had already been

salted

and was examined only afterward,

it is forbidden

to derive benefit from the hide.

The reason is:

Perhaps

one must be concerned and say:

The salt removed it.

The salt removed and erased the sign of blood. And it is possible that the hide was cut while the animal was alive, and for the sake of idolatry.

We learned further in our Mishna concerning this matter:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: When its tear

—the tear in the hide at the place from which the heart was removed—

is round

it is forbidden

to derive benefit from it. But if it is

lengthwise

along its length,

it is permitted.

Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Abaye said to him:

From your saying that

the halakha

is in accordance with him,

by inference

we learn that

they disagree,

as the Sages disagree with him in this matter.

He said

to Rav Yosef:

What difference does it make to you

whether they disagree with him or not? In any event, the halakha is not in accordance with them.

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef [who was his teacher]:

You have learned the tradition thoroughly; shall it be merely a song?

Are you informing us that the halakha is in accordance with him like a song sung by a singer [without understanding and contemplating the matter that you are teaching]? Surely this matter must be understood: If the Sages do not disagree with him, there is no need to inform us that the halakha follows anyone in particular!

We learned in our Mishna:

Meat being brought into a house of idol worship,

meaning that the gentile wishes to bring it in and offer it, if a Jew is careful to take the meat immediately after it enters there, before it is offered,

it is permitted.

Who is the tanna

who taught this halakha?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

This halakha is

not in accordance with Rabbi Elazar. For if it were in accordance with Rabbi Elazar,

then

did Rabbi Elazar not say:

An unspecified thought of an idolater

during the slaughter of an animal is

for

the sake of

idolatry.

And therefore, its meat becomes forbidden through the thought already at the time of slaughter, before he comes to offer the meat.

It necessarily follows that this law of our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Elazar. Therefore, as long as the animal has not actually been offered to idolatry, it remains permitted, and the thought of offering it for that purpose does not prohibit it before it has been offered.

We learned further concerning this:

And

meat

leaving

a house of idol worship—

is forbidden, because it is like the sacrifices of the dead,

as it has already been offered to idolatry.

The Gemara explains:

What is the reason

that it is forbidden? Because

it is impossible that there is not

some other status to this meat than

an offering to idolatry.

The Gemara asks:

Who is

this tanna who likens an offering to idolatry to the sacrifices of the dead, and consequently holds that idolatry is forbidden to derive benefit from, like the sacrifices of the dead?

It is Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira!

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: From where is it derived concerning an offering to idolatry

found in a tent [and the same law applies to a house and to anything else that shelters over it]

that it imparts ritual impurity

to everything found with it

in

that

tent?

As it is stated [Psalms 106:28]:

“They joined themselves to Baal Peor and ate the sacrifices of the dead.”

Just as a corpse imparts ritual impurity in a tent, so too an offering to idolatry

—such as the idolatry of Baal Peor mentioned in the verse—

imparts ritual impurity in a tent,

like a corpse.

And it is likewise derived: Just as a corpse is forbidden to derive benefit from, so too idolatry is forbidden to derive benefit from. We learned in our Mishna:

Those who are going to Tarpe,

to a distant place of idolatry, and a Jew encounters one of them on the way,

it is forbidden to engage in business with them.

Shmuel said: An idolater who is going to Tarpe,

as long as he is

on the way, it is forbidden to engage in business with him.

Because

he is going

and

acknowledges

the success of his business dealings

before

the

idolatry.

Therefore, it is forbidden.

However, when he is

returning

from there,

it is permitted.

For

whatever happened, happened.

What happened has happened, and he is no longer involved with idolatry, since he has already left there.

And

a Jew

who sins and

is going to Tarpe,

then

while he is on the way, it is permitted

to engage in business with him, because

perhaps he will change his mind and not go,

perhaps he will change his mind about going there. However, if he has already gone there and is now

returning

—

it is forbidden