Avodah Zarah 32b — the Talmud in English

However, if

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

Since presumably this was done after the animal’s death. This is not done for idolatrous worship, and therefore the item is permitted.

Rav Huna said: They taught

that when there is no blood there, it is permitted

only when

the skin has

not yet been salted

before it was checked to see whether there was a trace of blood in it.

But

if it had already

been salted

and only afterward was it checked,

it is prohibited

to derive benefit from the skin.

The reason is:

Perhaps

one must be concerned and say:

The salt removed it.

The salt removed and erased the sign of blood. It is possible that the skin was cut while the animal was alive and for the sake of idolatrous worship.

We learned another statement in our Mishna (the early legal compilation):

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: When its tear

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

is round,

it is prohibited

to derive benefit from it. But if it is

stretched

lengthwise,

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 implication

we learn

that they disagree,

meaning that 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 their view.

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef [who was his teacher]:

Are you merely reciting a teaching, so that it becomes a song?

Are you telling us that the halakha is in accordance with him like a singer’s song, without understanding and examining the matter that you are teaching? This matter certainly must be understood: If the Sages do not disagree with him, there is no need to tell us that the halakha follows a particular authority!

We learned in our Mishna:

“Meat brought into an idolatrous shrine,”

meaning meat that a gentile wishes to bring there and offer. If a Jew is careful to take the meat immediately after it entered the shrine, before it was offered,

it is permitted.

Who is the author of this teaching,

meaning, which tannaitic sage taught this law?

Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yochanan said:

This law is

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

then

did Rabbi Elazar not say

that the ordinary intention of an idolater

when slaughtering an animal is

for

the sake of

idolatrous worship?

Therefore, the meat becomes prohibited through his intention already at the time of slaughter, before he comes to offer the meat.

It necessarily follows that this law in our Mishna is not according to Rabbi Elazar’s view. Therefore, as long as the animal itself has not actually been offered for idolatrous worship, it remains permitted, and the intention to offer it for that purpose does not prohibit it before it is offered.

We also learned the following about this:

And

meat

taken out

of an idolatrous shrine—

is prohibited, because it is like offerings of the dead,

since it has already been offered for idolatrous worship.

The Gemara (the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna) explains:

What is the reason,

meaning, why is it prohibited? Because

it is impossible that there is not

some other status to this meat; it must be

an offering to idolatry.

The Gemara discusses this:

Who is the author,

meaning, which tannaitic sage compares an offering to idolatry to offerings of the dead, and therefore regards idolatry as prohibited to derive benefit from in the same way as offerings of the dead?

It is Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira!

As it was taught in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: From where is it derived that an offering to idolatry

found under a tent [and the same law applies to a house and to anything else that forms an overhead covering]

imparts ritual impurity

to everything found together with it

under

that

tent?

As it is stated [Psalms 106:28]:

«

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

such as the idolatry of Baal-peor mentioned in the verse—

imparts impurity under a tent,

like a corpse.

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

“Those traveling to a place of idolatry,”

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

it is prohibited to engage in business with them.

Shmuel said: An idolater traveling to a place of idolatry,

as long as he is

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

This is because

he is going

and

giving thanks

for the success of his business dealings

before

the

idolatry.

Therefore, it is prohibited.

However, when he is

returning

from there, it is

permitted.

Because

what happened has happened.

What happened has happened, and he is no longer engaging in idolatrous worship, since he has already left there.

And

a Jew who

sins and

travels to a place of idolatry

—

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.

But if he has already gone there and is now

returning—

it is prohibited

to engage in business with him.