Avodah Zarah 36b — the Talmud in English

It is stated: [Malachi 3:9

“With a curse you are cursed, and Me you are robbing—the entire nation”

That is, you accept upon yourselves a decree with a “curse” to abstain from some matter, and afterward, because you are unable to withstand it, “Me you are robbing”: you rob Me by not standing by this decree, but again deriving benefit from the cursed things.

And therefore,

if there is

a decree which

“the entire nation”

indeed stands by,

if

the entire people

does not

stand by this decree,

it does not

take effect!

And the Gemara discusses the matters brought above concerning the decree of the eighteen matters:

With regard to the matter itself, Bali said,

on behalf of

Avimi of Notah, in the name of Rav:

Their bread, their oil, their wine, and their daughters

of gentiles—

all of them

are forbidden

because of

the decree of

the eighteen matters.

The Gemara asks: The decree concerning

“their daughters”—what is it?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: They decreed concerning their daughters

that they should have the status of the ritual impurity of

menstruants from their cradles,

already from when they are little girls lying in a cradle.

And Genuiva said in the name of Rav: All of them

all the decrees, including the decree concerning their daughters,

were decreed because of idolatry.

For when

Rav Aḥa bar Adda

came, he said: Rabbi Yitzḥak said: They decreed concerning their bread because of

lest, through eating the bread, they come to drinking

their oil.

And the Gemara wonders:

What is its superiority,

in what is its force greater,

of oil over bread,

that they should decree concerning bread because of the oil?

And the Gemara explains:

Rather,

this was the decree: They decreed

concerning their bread, and

also concerning

their oil, because of

lest they come to drinking

their wine.

And concerning their wine

they decreed

because of

the fact that through drinking it they might come to sin with

their daughters,

for wine burns within a person and brings him to sin with their daughters.

And concerning their daughters

they decreed ritual impurity

because of

lest through them they come to

“another matter,”

idolatry.

And concerning another matter

in addition, which was not mentioned here, they decreed

because of another matter.

That is, because of another reason. It will be explained below in the Gemara.

The Gemara asks: But the prohibition of

their daughters

of the gentiles is

of Torah law. For it is written [Deuteronomy 7:3]

“You shall not intermarry with them.

You shall not give your daughter to his son, and you shall not take his daughter for your son”? And it answers: The prohibition

of Torah law

was stated only concerning

the seven nations. But

concerning

the other

daughters and sons of

idolaters, it was not

this prohibition that was stated.

And they came

and these came,

they

the students of Shammai and Hillel,

and decreed even

concerning intermarriage with the sons and daughters

of the other idolaters.

The Gemara asks:

And according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, who says

that the verse [Deuteronomy 7:4]

“For he will turn your son away from following Me”

comes

to include

within the prohibition of intermarriage

all those who turn away,

namely, all those who turn Israel away from the Almighty through intermarriage with idolaters—if so, according to him, all intermarriage with all the nations of the gentiles is forbidden by Torah law,

what is there to say,

why did the Sages need to “decree” concerning their daughters?

The Gemara answers:

Rather,

the prohibition of intermarriage

by Torah law

with a gentile was stated only concerning

marital relations

performed

in the manner of marriage.

And they came,

and these came,

they

the Sages,

and decreed

and decreed a prohibition

even

concerning marital relations with him performed not in the manner of marriage, but through intercourse

in the manner of prostitution.

But the Gemara wonders: Intercourse in the manner of

prostitution, too,

also concerning it

the court of Shem decreed

to forbid intercourse with a gentile even without intermarriage!

For it is written [Genesis 38:24]

“And Judah said, Bring her out, and let her be burned.”

And it implies from this that already then intercourse with a gentile without marital relations was forbidden, and therefore Judah sentenced Tamar to death!?

And therefore the Gemara retracts and says:

Rather,

the prohibition of prostitution involving an Israelite woman with a gentile

by Torah law

was stated only concerning

a gentile who has intercourse with an Israelite woman, for

there is concern lest he

draw her after him,

that she will be drawn after him to idolatry [and for this reason Judah sentenced Tamar to death].

However,

concerning

an Israelite who has intercourse with an idolatrous woman, it was not

the Torah that forbade it.

And they came, they,

and these, the students of Shammai and Hillel, came, and

decreed

that

even an Israelite who has intercourse with an idolatrous woman

is forbidden!

The Gemara asks: But the prohibition of an Israelite

who has intercourse with an idolatrous woman—is it not a halakha given to Moses at Sinai?!

For the master said: One who has intercourse with an Aramean woman [A0161]]a gentile woman,

[нееврейкой]

zealots

people who are zealous for the honor of Heaven

strike him

and avenge the vengeance of the Almighty, and kill him at the time of intercourse [since he is not liable to a court-imposed death penalty].

Rather,

the Gemara explains: the prohibition against having intercourse with a gentile woman

by Torah law

applies only when the matter is done

publicly,

as in the incident that occurred

with Zimri son of Salu and Cozbi daughter of Zur.

And they came, they,

and these, the students of Shammai and Hillel, came, and

decreed

that

even in private

intercourse with the gentile woman is forbidden.

And it is still difficult: even intercourse with the gentile woman

in private, too,

this matter also

was decreed by the court of the Hasmoneans,

and not by the students of Shammai and Hillel mentioned above.

For when Rav Dimi came

when Rav Dimi came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said: The court of the Hasmoneans decreed

that

an Israelite who has intercourse with an idolatrous woman is liable

because of NASHGA [A0197]]niddah, maidservant, gentile woman, and married woman.

[menstruating woman, maidservant, gentile woman, and married woman].

And this is the reason for the decree:

Niddah—although the blood of a gentile woman does not impart ritual impurity, nevertheless they decreed upon her the law of a niddah, since an Israelite accustomed to intercourse with a gentile niddah may, through this habituation, come to have intercourse with an Israelite niddah, whose prohibition is punishable by excision.

Maidservant—because through having intercourse with a gentile woman he may come to marry a maidservant, who is forbidden because of “There shall not be a male prostitute”; therefore they decreed upon her the law of a maidservant. Gentile woman—they decreed upon him liability as though he had married her and had intercourse with her in the manner of marital relations, since through having intercourse with her he may come to marry a gentile woman, and he would transgress “You shall not intermarry.” Married woman—they decreed that one who has intercourse with a married gentile woman shall be liable because of a married woman, since through his intercourse with a gentile woman who has been possessed by a husband, he may come to have intercourse with an Israelite married woman. Therefore they decreed this law upon her.

But

when

Ravin

came, he said:

the framework of the liability imposed by the Sages upon one who has intercourse with a gentile woman is

because of NASHGAZ.

The initial letters of niddah, maidservant, gentile woman, and prostitute [if he is a priest, he is treated as though he had intercourse with a prostitute forbidden to him ].

And if so, we see that a gentile woman is already forbidden for all these reasons, and it was not the Sages who forbade her?

Rather, the Gemara explains: Indeed, the Sages did not decree a prohibition against intercourse with a gentile woman.

For the court of the Hasmonean decreed,

they forbade only

intercourse, but yichud

with the gentile woman

they did not

forbid.

And they came,

and these were the students of Shammai and Hillel, and they

decreed

to forbid

even

upon

yichud

with a gentile woman.

And the Gemara rejects this explanation as well: The prohibition of

yichud

with a gentile woman

also

was not decreed by the Sages; rather,

the court of David decreed it.

For Rav Yehuda said: At that time,

after the incident of Amnon and Tamar,

did they decree concerning yichud?!

And if so, it was not the students of Shammai and Hillel who decreed this?

The Gemara resolves

they say

to explain:

There,

the decree that was decreed there was to forbid

the yichud of an Israelite woman. But yichud [

with]

of an idolater, they did not

decree.

And they came,

and these were the students of Shammai and Hillel, and they

decreed

a prohibition

even concerning the yichud of an idolater.

But the Gemara raises an objection: The prohibition of

the yichud of an Israelite woman—

is it not by Torah law?!

For Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of

in the name of

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak, a hint

to the prohibition of yichud from the Torah,

from where?

As it is stated [Deuteronomy 13:2]

“When your brother, the son of your mother, entices you,”

and why does Scripture speak specifically of “your brother, the son of your mother”?

Is it so that

only a brother who is the

son

of a

mother entices,

whereas a brother who is the

son

of a

father does not entice?

Rather,

the Torah teaches here [indirectly] another law: only a

son

is permitted to be

in yichud with his mother

[and therefore he is associated in the verse with his mother],

but no other person may be in yichud with any of the forbidden relations in the Torah.

And if so, we see that the Torah forbade yichud, and not the court of David?

The Gemara resolves: The prohibition of

yichud

from

the Torah

was stated only concerning the yichud

of a married woman. And David came

and came

and decreed even concerning the yichud of an unmarried woman,

who is not married.

And the students of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel came, and decreed even concerning the yichud of an idolater!

In this way the words of the Gemara above are resolved, that they forbade their daughters on account of another matter. That is, they forbade yichud with their daughters, so that they should not come to idolatry.

And at the conclusion of that statement, the Gemara adds: “And they decreed concerning another matter on account of another matter.”

And the Gemara discusses:

What

is the meaning of the matter that they decreed

concerning another matter on account of another matter,

and what is this matter?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: They decreed concerning a gentile infant that he should become impure with ziva,

so that although he had not seen impurity, he would be impure with the impurity of a zav, so that

there should not be an Israelite infant

found and

become accustomed to being with him in male intercourse.

become accustomed to being with him in male homosexual intercourse.

For Rabbi Zeira said: Great distress

trouble

I had

with the following question, and I asked it

of Rabbi Asi, and Rabbi Asi

asked it

of Rabbi Yohanan, and Rabbi Yohanan

asked

of Rabbi Yannai, and Rabbi Yannai of Rabbi Natan ben Amram, and Rabbi Natan ben Amram of Rabbi,

and this was the question:

A gentile infant—from when does he become impure with ziva?

And he said to me

Rabbi, that the infant becomes impure already while he is

one day old.

And when I came to Rabbi Hiyya, he said to me:

Only concerning

one who is nine years and one day old

did they decree that he should become impure with ziva.

And when I came and presented my words

these

before Rabbi, he said to me—

Set aside the words of Rabbi, and seize the words of Rabbi Hiyya.