Avodah Zarah 48b (מח:) — the Talmud in English

He may not sit in its shade

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

but if he sat

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

pure,

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

And he may not pass beneath it

beneath its branches,

but if he passed

he is

impure,

because the tree formed an overhang over him.

If it was “encroaching upon the public,”

as its branches extended over the public domain,

and he passed beneath it,

he is

pure,

since this impurity is rabbinic, the Sages did not impose this impurity in a place where the tree encroaches upon the public.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna:

“He may not sit in its shade”—

The Gemara raises a difficulty: What is the novelty of this ruling?

Is it obvious?

He is deriving benefit from idolatry.

The Gemara answers:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: 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 farther from the tree. That is, “its shade” is any place where the length of the shade does not exceed the height of the tree; if the tree were to fall, it would reach this place, and up to there is considered “its shade,” where the shade is dense and dark. From this point onward is considered “the shade of its shade,” where the shade is thin and faint.

The Mishna therefore needed to teach us that one may not sit even in a place where the shade is thin and faint.

The Gemara asks: Is it not

by inference

from this that you learn

that in the shade of its height

itself—

if he sat

he is

impure?!

But he is not passing beneath the branches, and the Asheira did not form an overhang over him.

The Gemara answers:

No,

do not infer this from our Mishna, since

even in the shade [

in the shade]

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

provided that he did not sit beneath its branches.

And this it teaches us,

our Mishna:

even in the shade of its shade

as an initial matter

he may not sit,

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

There are those who transmit it

as referring to the

conclusion,

to the continuation of the Mishna,

where we learned:

“But if he sat,

he is

pure.”

And concerning this law we ask:

Is it obvious?

Why was it necessary to teach this, since he did not sit beneath the branches?

The Gemara answers:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: It was necessary

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

but in the shade of its height,

as one might have thought that this is considered beneath the tree, since it is close to the tree. Therefore the Mishna teaches us that this is not so: as long as he did not sit directly beneath the branches, he is pure.

The Gemara asks: If so, that the Mishna is discussing the shade of its height, and concerning this place it said, “If he sat, he is pure,” while concerning this place it said that it is forbidden to sit there as an initial matter, then is it not

by inference

from this that you learn

that in the shade of its shade one may sit even as an initial matter?

How can this be said? He is deriving benefit from idolatry. [And although the benefit there is slight, so what? Is there a distinction between substantial and slight benefit?!]

The Gemara concludes:

No,

do not infer this. Rather, it is certainly forbidden as an initial matter to sit even in the shade of its shade, and

this it teaches us,

the tanna came to teach us this law:

even in the shade of its height, if he sat

he is

pure,

and the Mishna did not state this in order to infer and exclude the possibility of permitting one to sit 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.

The Gemara explains:

What is the reason,

why is he impure? Because

it is impossible that there is not

something beneath the tree, namely

an idolatrous offering;

thus the branches of the tree form an overhang over the offering and over him.

The Gemara explains:

Who is it,

according to whose opinion is our Mishna? It is according to the opinion of

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.

As it was taught

in a beraita:

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: From where

do we learn

with regard to an offering

that is sacrificed before

idolatry, that

it

imparts

ritual

impurity through an overhang?

As it is stated [

Psalms 106]: “

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 offered before Baal Peor “the sacrifices of the dead”:

Just as a corpse imparts impurity through an overhang, so too an idolatrous offering imparts impurity through an overhang.

We learned in our Mishna:

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

he is pure.

The Gemara clarifies whether the Mishna’s statement that the Sages did not issue their decree when the Asheira encroaches upon the public means that this leniency applies only after the fact, if he passed, or whether it is permitted even as an initial matter to pass beneath it.

They raised a dilemma before them: “He passed”

after the fact,

or “he passes”

even as an initial matter?

Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Elazar said in the name

of

Ḥizkiyya: “He passes”

as an initial matter.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “If he passed”

after the fact, he is pure.

The Gemara concludes:

And they do not disagree

with one another. Rather—

This,

the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who forbids passing beneath it as an initial matter, refers to a case

where there is another route,

by which he can pass. Therefore it is forbidden to pass beneath the Asheira, although after the fact, if he passed, he is pure.

And this,

the statement of Ḥizkiyya, who permits it as an initial matter, refers to a case

where there is no other route,

and therefore they permitted him to pass.

The Gemara relates:

Rav Sheshet said

who was blind

to his attendant

who served him: When you lead me,

when you reach there,

when you reach the place where an Asheira leaned over the road and encroached upon the public,

make me hurry,

lead me quickly.

The Gemara analyzes this:

What are the circumstances,

of what case are we speaking?

If

it is a case

where there is no other route—

why did he tell him, “Make me hurry,”

why did he urge his attendant to hurry him? After all,

it is entirely permitted,

it is permitted even as an initial matter to pass there?!

And if

it is a case

where there is another route, when he said, “Make me hurry,”

even if he urged him to hurry,

is it permitted,

can this really be permitted?!

The Gemara concludes:

Actually,

it is a case

where there is no other route,

and it was permitted to pass even as an initial matter. The reason he urged him to hurry was that Rav Sheshet was an important person,

and the law is different for an important person.

His case is different, and he must take every possible precaution, so that others will not come to learn from him to be lenient even where there is another route.

Mishna:

Our Mishna continues to discuss the prohibition against deriving benefit from an Asheira.

They may sow

it is permitted to sow

vegetables beneath it during the rainy season,

when its shade does not benefit the vegetables, and indeed harms them by preventing the sun’s rays from reaching them.

But not

may they sow

during the sunny season,

when its shade benefits them.

And lettuce [

lettuce], may not be sown beneath it

either during the sunny season or during the rainy season,

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

Rabbi Yosei says: They may not even

sow

vegetables during the rainy season, because the fallen foliage,

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

falls upon them and becomes fertilizer for them,

fertilizing the ground and causing the vegetables to grow. It follows that one derives benefit from the fallen foliage of the Asheira.

Gemara:

The Sages, who permit sowing during the sunny season, do not dispute the basic fact that the fallen foliage benefits the growth of the vegetables. They permit it because they hold: “When this and that cause it, it is permitted.” Since the fallen foliage is not the sole cause of the vegetables’ growth, but is merely a partner, together with the ground beneath the Asheira—which is “natural ground,” and was not prohibited for benefit—which also causes the vegetables to grow, it is permitted.

But Rabbi Yosei holds: “When this and that cause it, it is forbidden.” This law concerning the combination of a prohibited factor with a permitted factor, both of which bring about the production of something, and whether the result is forbidden or permitted, applies to many areas of Torah law, as will be explained in the discussion below.

The Gemara asks:

And the Gemara discusses:

To say

that it is telling us

that Rabbi Yosei holds, “When this and that cause it, it is forbidden,” while the Rabbis say, “When this and that cause it, it is permitted”?

The opposite is what we have heard from them!

For in another discussion we heard their views the other way around: Rabbi Yosei is the one who permits, while the Sages are the ones who prohibit.

As we learned [

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

Rabbi Yosei says: He should grind

it

and scatter

it

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

that this is not a manner of destruction, because

it too will become fertilizer,

and Jewish field owners will derive benefit from it,

and it is stated [

Deuteronomy 13]:

“Nothing from the banned property shall cling to your hand.”

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

Rabbi Yosei, who permits it, holds that even if the fragments become fertilizer and cause the crops of the field to grow, there is no prohibition, since the growth will also come from natural ground: “When this and that cause it, it is permitted.”

The Sages, who prohibit scattering it to the wind, hold: “When this and that cause it, it is forbidden.”

It is difficult for

the words of

the Sages to contradict the words of the Sages,

who contradict their own position in another discussion; and likewise

it is difficult for Rabbi Yosei’s words to contradict Rabbi Yosei’s words!

Granted, for

the words of

Rabbi Yosei to contradict the words of

those who contradict

Rabbi Yosei—

it is not difficult,

as they can be reconciled:

There,

in the case of grinding the metal idol,

it is going to be lost,

as the Jew intends to destroy it, and it has already been nullified and ground up, and therefore

Rabbi Yosei permits

it.

But

here,

in the case of the fallen foliage of the Asheira,

it is not going to be lost,

and this is its normal course. Since he derives benefit from it,

it is forbidden,

because the fallen foliage causes growth. Although there is another factor with it that is not forbidden, Rabbi Yosei holds that “when this and that cause it, it is forbidden.”

Rather, concerning the Sages contradicting the Sages,

who contradict their own words—

it is difficult!

The Gemara answers:

Reverse it.

Reverse the version of our Mishna and say that the Sages are the ones who prohibit because of the fallen foliage, in accordance with their view that “when this and that cause it, it is forbidden,” while Rabbi Yosei follows his position and permits sowing vegetables during the rainy season. He does not prohibit it because of the fallen foliage, since even if the fallen foliage causes the ground to be fertilized, in any event “when this and that cause it, it is 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 Yosei

is not difficult,

as we explained,

as we reconciled it. And the contradiction in the words

of the Sages

we will reconcile

as Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said—

In tractate Temura [24a] we learned: “One may not strip the hides of animals disqualified from consecrated offerings in the customary manner.” That is, an animal consecrated as an offering that became disqualified, and which may be redeemed [with the money retaining the sanctity of the consecrated property], and may be eaten as non-sacred meat, may nevertheless not have its meat spoiled, because of the degradation of consecrated property.

One of the ways of degrading it is to strip the hide in the customary manner, that is, to remove the animal’s hide whole, without cutting it along its entire length, but rather to strip it in a particular manner through the animal’s legs. Since one who strips it in this way takes care that the hide remain intact, he cuts into the flesh in a manner that damages the meat.

Although the hide is sold for a higher price in this manner, so that the consecrated property would gain, since the person redeeming the animal will pay a higher sum to the consecrated property, knowing the high price he will receive for the whole hide stripped through the animal’s legs, nevertheless—

That which improves the hide damages the meat!

Although some leather merchants do this, nevertheless the consecrated property does not profit from it, because the meat will be ruined.

Similarly,

here,

in the case of the fallen foliage of an Asheira,

that which improves the fallen foliage damages the shade.

It follows that overall he does not benefit from sowing vegetables beneath the Asheira during the rainy season, because the loss caused by the shade is greater than the gain from the fallen leaves.

According to this conclusion, Rabbi Yosei holds: “When this and that cause it, it is forbidden.”

The Gemara raises a difficulty from the words of Rabbi Yosei in tractate Orlah, which contradict this conclusion.

The fruits that grow during the first three years after the tree is planted are orlah, and are forbidden both for eating and for deriving benefit. It is not only the fruits that are forbidden; the peels, pits, and the like, which are parts of the fruit, are also forbidden. The wood, however, is not forbidden for deriving benefit. Therefore, if one takes a shoot [a cut branch] from an orlah tree, plants it in the ground, and fruits grow from that shoot, the fruits are not permanently forbidden with the prohibition of orlah merely because they are fruits of an orlah shoot. For, as stated, the shoot itself is not forbidden for deriving benefit; only the fruits that grow from it during the first three years after the shoot is newly planted in the ground are orlah fruits and are forbidden. It is even permitted to do this initially, because the tree itself is not forbidden for deriving benefit.

Likewise, it is permitted to graft a shoot from an orlah tree into an old tree, whose years of orlah have already elapsed, for the same reason: the shoot itself is not forbidden for deriving benefit.

However, it is forbidden to plant a fruit, such as an orlah walnut, so that the fruit will take root and grow into a tree, because one is thereby deriving benefit from an orlah fruit. Although it is forbidden to plant the fruit initially, nevertheless, after the fact, if one planted an orlah fruit and a tree grew from it, bearing fruits, the fruits are permitted, since it was not only the fruit that caused the tree and its fruits to grow; the soil also caused them to grow, and “when this and that are causes, it is permitted.”

In what case are the fruits permitted? With regard to fruits that grow from this fruit after the three years of orlah have elapsed. But fruits that grow from it during the three years of orlah are obviously forbidden.

Likewise, if one planted a shoot from an orlah tree into an old tree, the fruits that grow from it are permitted on the basis of “when this and that are causes, it is permitted.” For although the shoot, which is within its years of orlah, contributes to the growth of its fruits, nevertheless the tree also contributes to their growth.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

And

did

Rabbi Yosei hold that

“when this and that are causes”—

“it is forbidden”?

But

didn’t

we learn

as we learned in tractate Orlah [1:9]:

Rabbi Yosei says: We plant,

it is permitted to plant

a shoot from an orlah tree

in the ground,

but we do not plant an orlah walnut, because it is a fruit that is forbidden for deriving benefit.

that is prohibited for benefit.

And it was stated

about this:

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

after the fact, one

planted

an orlah walnut,

and layered it,

that is, if one bent a branch from an orlah tree and inserted it into the ground,

or grafted it,

that is, if one 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 “when this and that are causes, it is permitted.”

And it was taught likewise

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