Avodah Zarah 48b — the Talmud in English

He may not sit in its shade

of the ashera, because it is forbidden to derive benefit from it,

but if he sat

in its shade that is not beneath its foliage, he is

pure,

because he did not sit beneath its foliage, and therefore did not become impure.

And he may not pass beneath it

beneath its foliage,

but if he passed

he is

impure,

because the tree spread its canopy over him.

If it was “robbing” the public,

because its foliage extended toward the public domain,

and he passed beneath it,

he is

pure,

since this impurity is rabbinic, therefore the Sages did not decree this impurity in a place where it is robbing the public.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna:

“He may not sit in its shade”—

And the Gemara challenges: What is the novelty in this matter?

It is obvious!

After all, he is deriving benefit from idolatry.

And the Gemara answers:

Rabba bar bar Hanna said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: It was necessary

to teach us that it is forbidden to sit in its shade,

but to

teach us that it is forbidden to sit in

the shade of its shade,

which is a place distant from the tree. That is, “its shade” is every place where the measure of the length of the shade has not exceeded the measure of the height of the tree’s stature; if the tree were to fall, it would reach this place, and up to there it is “its shade,” and the shade there is dense and dark. From this place onward, it is “the shade of its shade,” and there the shade is thin and faint.

And the Mishna needed to teach us that even in that place where the shade is thin and faint, he may not sit there.

And the Gemara wonders: After all,

by implication

you learn this,

that in the shade of its stature

itself—

if he sat

he is

impure?!

But he is not passing beneath the foliage, and the ashera did not spread its canopy over him.

And the Gemara answers:

No,

do not infer this precisely from our Mishna, since

even in the shade [

in the shade]

of its stature itself, if he sat, he is pure,

provided that he did not sit beneath its foliage.

And this it teaches us

our Mishna:

that even in the shade of its shade

initially

he may not sit,

even though he does not derive so much benefit from the shade; but if he sat there, he is not impure.

There are those who transmit it

this tradition

with regard to the conclusion,

the continuation of the Mishna,

as we learned in it:

“But if he sat,

he is

pure.”

And concerning this law we ask:

It is obvious!

What need was there to teach this to us? After all, he did not sit beneath the foliage.

And the Gemara answers:

Rabba bar bar Hanna said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: It was necessary

to teach us that if he sat beneath the shade, he is pure,

but concerning the shade of its stature,

for it might have occurred to one to say that it is considered beneath the tree, since it is close to the tree. Therefore the Mishna comes to teach us that this is not so, and as long as he did not sit directly beneath the foliage, he is pure.

And the Gemara wonders: If so, that the Mishna is dealing with the shade of its stature, and concerning this place it said, “If he sat, he is pure,” and concerning this place it said that it is forbidden to sit there initially, then

by implication

you learn this,

that in the shade of its shade he may sit even initially.

And how can this be said? After all, he is deriving benefit from idolatry? [And even though the benefit there is slight, what of it? Is there a distinction between substantial benefit and slight benefit?!]

And we conclude:

No,

do not infer this; rather, certainly it is initially forbidden to sit even in the shade of its shade, and

this it teaches us

this law the tanna came to teach us:

that even in the shade of its stature, if he sat

he is

pure,

and the Mishna did not state this in order to infer and exclude, permitting sitting in the shade of its shade.

We learned in our Mishna:

“And he may not pass beneath it, but if he passed”—

he is impure.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason,

what is the reason that he is impure?—Because

it is impossible that there is not

nothing beneath the tree—

an offering of idolatry,

and it follows that the foliage of the tree spreads its canopy over the offering and over him.

And the Gemara explains:

Who is it,

according to whose view is our Mishna?—It is according to the view of

Rabbi Judah ben Beteira.

As it was taught

we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Judah ben Beteira says: From where

do we learn

concerning an offering

that is offered before

idolatry, that

it

causes impurity through

the impurity of

a tent?

As it is stated [

Psalms 106],

“And they joined themselves to Baal-peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead,”

and we expound from the fact that Scripture calls the sacrifices that they sacrificed before Baal-peor “sacrifices of the dead”—

just as a dead body causes impurity through a tent, so too an offering of idolatry causes impurity through a tent.

We learned in our Mishna:

“If it was robbing the public and he passed beneath it”—

he is pure.

The Gemara clarifies whether what the Mishna taught—that the Sages did not decree when the ashera was robbing the public—means that this permission applies after the fact, if he passed, or whether it is permitted even initially to pass beneath it.

They raised a dilemma before them: “He passed”

after the fact,

or “he passes”

even initially?

Rabbi Isaac ben Eleazar said in the name

of

Hezekiah: “He passes”

initially.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: “If he passed”

after the fact, he is pure.

And we conclude:

And they do not disagree;

there is no dispute between the amoraim, rather—

This one,

the statement of Rabbi Yohanan, who forbids initially, refers to a case

where there is another road,

that he has another way by which to pass; therefore it is forbidden to pass beneath the ashera, but nevertheless, after the fact, if he passed, he is pure.

And this one,

the statement of Hezekiah, who permits initially, refers to a case

where there is no other road,

and therefore they permitted him to pass.

And the Gemara relates:

Rav Sheshet said

who was a sagi nahor [blind]

to his attendant:

When you lead me,

when you reach there,

when you arrive there, at the place where an ashera was leaning toward the road and robbing the public,

make me run,

lead me quickly.

And the Gemara analyzes:

What are the circumstances,

what matter are we dealing with?

If

we are dealing with

a case where there is no other road—

why did he need to make me run,

for what purpose did he urge his attendant to hurry him? After all,

it is entirely permitted,

it is permitted even initially to pass there!?

And if

we are dealing with

a case where there is another road, when he said, “Make me run,”

even if he urged him to hurry,

is it permitted,

and is the matter permitted?!

And we conclude:

Actually,

we are dealing with

a case where there is no other road,

and it was permitted to pass even initially; and the reason that he urged him to hurry was that Rav Sheshet was an important person,

and an important person is different.

His law is different, and he must be careful to the greatest of his ability, so that others should not come to learn from him to be lenient even where there is another road.

Mishna:

Our Mishna continues to deal with the prohibition of deriving benefit from an ashera.

They may sow

it is permitted to sow

vegetables beneath it in the rainy season,

because its shade is not beneficial to the vegetables then, and even harms them by causing the shade to hold back the rays of the sun.

But they may not

sow

in the sunny season,

because then its shade provides them with benefit.

And lettuce [

lettuce], they may not sow beneath it

neither in the sunny season nor in the rainy season,

because shade is always beneficial to lettuce. These are the words of the Sages.

Rabbi Yose says: Even not

sow

vegetables in the rainy season, because the leaf-fall,

the leaves of the tree that fall in the rainy season,

falls upon them and becomes fertilizer for them,

and fertilizes the soil and causes the vegetables to grow, and it follows that he derives benefit from the leaf-fall of the ashera.

Gemara:

The Sages, who permit [sowing] in the sunny season, do not disagree with the very “reality” that the leaf-fall benefits the growth of the vegetables. They permit it because they hold, “This and that cause it—permitted.” Since the leaf-fall is not the sole cause of the growth of the vegetables, but is only a partner with the soil beneath the ashera [which is “natural ground,” which was not forbidden for benefit], which also causes the vegetables to grow, it is therefore permitted.

But Rabbi Yose holds, “This and that cause it—forbidden.”

This law concerning the partnership of a prohibited cause with a permitted cause, both of which bring about the “formation” of a thing—whether it is forbidden or permitted—applies to many laws of the Torah, as will be explained in the discussion below:

And the Gemara analyzes:

Does this mean

that it tells us

that Rabbi Yose holds, “This and that cause it—forbidden,” whereas the Rabbis say, “This and that cause it—permitted”?

But the opposite we have heard from them!

For in another discussion we heard their view in the opposite manner: Rabbi Yose is the one who permits, and the Sages are the ones who prohibit?

As we learned [

above, 43b]: A person who finds a metal image of idolatry—what should he do with it in order to destroy it?

Rabbi Yose says: He should grind

it

and scatter

it

to the wind, or cast it into the sea. The Sages said to him:

There is no such manner of destruction, because

it too will become fertilizer,

and Jewish owners of fields will derive benefit from it,

and it is said [

Deuteronomy 13]

“Nothing of the banned thing shall cling to your hand.”

Rather, he must destroy it completely from the world, and not scatter it to the wind.

And Rabbi Yose, who permits it, holds: Even if the ground-up pieces become fertilizer and cause the produce of the field to grow, there is no prohibition, since the growth will also come from natural ground: “This and that cause it—permitted.”

And the Sages, who prohibit scattering it to the wind, hold: “This and that cause it—forbidden.”

It is difficult from

the words

of the Rabbis against the words of the Rabbis,

who contradict their own words in another discussion, and likewise

it is difficult from Rabbi Yose against Rabbi Yose!

Granted, from

the words

of Rabbi Yose against the words of

which contradict the words of

Rabbi Yose—

it is not difficult,

for they can be reconciled:

There,

in the case of grinding the metal idol,

it is going to be lost,

for the Israelite intends to destroy it, and it has already been nullified and ground up, therefore

Rabbi Yose permits

it.

But

here,

in the case of the leaf-fall of the ashera,

it is not going to be lost,

and this is its normal manner, and since he derives benefit from it, therefore

it is forbidden,

because the leaf-fall causes growth. And although there is another cause with it that is not forbidden, Rabbi Yose holds that “This and that cause it—forbidden.”

Rather, from the Rabbis against the Rabbis,

who contradict their own words—

it is difficult!

And the Gemara answers:

Reverse it.

Reverse the version of our Mishna, and say that the Sages are the ones who prohibit because of the leaf-fall, according to their view that “This and that cause it—forbidden,” whereas Rabbi Yose follows his own view and permits sowing vegetables in the rainy season; he does not prohibit because of the leaf-fall, for even if the leaf-fall causes the soil to be fertilized, nevertheless, “This and that cause it—permitted.”

And if you wish, say: Do not reverse it;

there is no need to reverse the version of our Mishna, because the contradiction in the words

of Rabbi Yose

is not difficult,

as we explained,

as we reconciled it. And the contradiction in the words

of the Rabbis

we will reconcile

as Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said—

In tractate Temura [24a] we learned: “One may not skin the disqualified consecrated animals in the manner of ragala.” That is, an animal of sacrificial property that became disqualified, and it is permitted to redeem it [and its value belongs to consecrated property], and it is permitted to eat it as non-sacred meat; nevertheless, it is forbidden to damage the meat because of “disgrace of consecrated property.”

One of the ways of disgracing it is “to skin it in the manner of ragala,” that is, to remove the animal’s hide while keeping it whole, without cutting it along its entire length, but rather to remove it in a certain manner through the animal’s legs. Since one who skins it in this manner is concerned that the hide should remain whole, he cuts into the meat in a manner that damages the meat.

And although in this manner the hide is sold at a higher price, so that consecrated property will profit from it, because the person who redeems the animal will pay a larger sum to consecrated property, knowing the high price he will receive for the whole hide removed through the animal’s legs, nevertheless—

That which improves the hide damages the meat!

And although there are people, hide merchants, who do this, nevertheless consecrated property does not profit from it, because the meat will be lost.

And similarly,

here,

in the case of the leaf-fall of an ashera,

likewise, that which improves the leaf-fall damages the shade.

And it follows that, all in all, he does not derive benefit from sowing vegetables beneath the ashera in the rainy season, because the loss of the shade is greater than the gain from the falling leaves.

And according to this conclusion, Rabbi Yose holds, “This and that cause it—forbidden.”

And the Gemara raises an objection from the words of Rabbi Yosei in tractate Orlah, which contradict this conclusion.

The fruits that grow during the first three years after the planting of the tree are orlah, and are forbidden in eating and in benefit. And not only are the fruits forbidden, but also the peels and the seeds and the like, which are part of the fruit; but the wood itself is not forbidden in benefit. Therefore, one who takes a shoot [a cut branch] from an orlah tree and plants it in the ground, and fruits grow from this shoot, the fruits are not permanently forbidden with the prohibition of orlah on account of their being fruits of an orlah shoot. For, as stated, the shoot itself is not forbidden in benefit, and only the fruits that grow from it during the first three years after planting the shoot in the ground are orlah fruit and forbidden, since the shoot has now been newly planted. And even initially, it is permitted to do so, because the tree itself is not forbidden in benefit.

And likewise, it is permitted to graft an orlah shoot into an old tree, whose years of orlah have already passed, for the same reason: that the shoot is not forbidden in benefit.

But it is forbidden to plant a fruit, such as an orlah nut, so that the fruit will take root and a tree will grow, because he is now deriving benefit from orlah fruit. And although it is forbidden to plant the fruit initially, nevertheless, after the fact, if one planted orlah fruit and caused a tree with fruits to grow from it—the fruits are permitted, since it was not only the fruit that caused the tree and the fruits to grow, but the ground also did so, and “this and that cause—it is permitted.”

When are the fruits permitted? With regard to fruits that grow from this fruit after the three years of orlah; but the fruits that grow from it during the three years of orlah—it is clear that they are forbidden.

And likewise, if one planted an orlah shoot into an old tree, the fruits that grow from it are permitted on account of “this and that cause—it is permitted,” for although the shoot, which is within its years of orlah, causes its fruits to grow, nevertheless, the tree also causes them to grow.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

and

if

Rabbi Yosei held

“this and that cause”

is forbidden”?

And

we

learned

we stated in tractate Orlah [1:9]:

Rabbi Yosei says: One may plant,

it is permitted to plant

an orlah shoot

in the ground,

but one may not plant an orlah nut, because it is fruit

that is forbidden in benefit.

And he said

about this,

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Rabbi Yosei agrees that if

after the fact, he

planted

an orlah nut,

and layered it,

or if he bent a branch from an orlah tree and inserted it into the ground,

and grafted it,

or if he inserted a shoot into another tree and fruits grew,

it is permitted

to eat them and derive benefit from them [after the years of orlah], because “this and that cause—it is permitted.”

And it was also taught so

in accordance with the words of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav,