Avodah Zarah 49a (מט.) — the Talmud in English

As it was taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Yosei concedes

that if one planted and layered

and grafted—

it is permitted.

it is permitted.

And this is difficult: It is proven that Rabbi Yosei holds: “This and that cause it—permitted”?

And if you would say,

perhaps you wish to answer that

Rabbi Yosei distinguishes between other prohibitions

such as orla, where he permits,

and

between

idolatry,

where he prohibits, since the prohibition against deriving benefit from idolatry is more stringent than other Torah prohibitions, as the Torah states concerning benefit from idolatry: “And nothing from the banned property shall cling to your hand.”

It is impossible to say this, for—

What,

is it that

he distinguishes?!

But it was taught

in a beraita:

A field that was fertilized with fertilizer of idolatry, and likewise a cow that was fattened with carobs

that is, animal feed—that had been offered before

idolatry

or that had been worshipped—

The conclusion of the beraita was transmitted in two versions, which are two beraitot—

One taught

in one of them:

The field may be sown,

even though it was fertilized with fertilizer of idolatry.

The cow may be slaughtered,

even though it was fattened with carobs of idolatry.

And another beraita taught,

in the second beraita:

The field must be left fallow,

and one may not sow it until all the benefit produced in it by the fertilizer has been exhausted.

And the cow must be allowed to grow fat,

since idolatry caused it to improve.

And apparently the beraitot contradict one another—

Is it not

possible to resolve them as follows:

This,

the beraita permitting one to sow the field and slaughter the animal, was taught in accordance with the opinion of

Rabbi Yosei,

who maintains with regard to orla: “This and that cause it—permitted.” Therefore, it is permitted to sow the field. Although the fertilizer causes the prohibition, it is nevertheless not the sole cause of the growth of the produce, because the ordinary permissible soil also causes the produce to grow. Likewise, the cow was not fattened solely with carobs of idolatry, since it had previously eaten many meals of permitted food.

And if we explain it this way, it is proven that Rabbi Yosei does not distinguish between idolatry and other prohibitions, and in both cases he holds that “this and that cause it—permitted.”

And this,

the beraita prohibiting one from sowing the field and slaughtering the animal, was taught in accordance with the opinion of

the Rabbis,

who maintain with regard to pulverized idolatry that it may not be eliminated by scattering it to the wind, because it thereby becomes fertilizer. It is therefore proven that they hold: “This and that cause it—forbidden.” [As for what they permitted in our Mishna, to sow beneath an asheira during the rainy season, we already resolved that whatever he gains from its falling leaves he loses from its shade.] Therefore, the beraita states that one may not sow the field or slaughter the animal until the benefit has been exhausted.

It follows that Rabbi Yosei permits even in the case of idolatry.

The question therefore returns: Why does Rabbi Yosei in our Mishna prohibit sowing beneath it because of its falling leaves?

And we reject this:

No!

There is no necessity to establish the two beraitot as a dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Sages and to say that Rabbi Yosei permits “this and that cause it” even with regard to idolatry. Rather, Rabbi Yosei always holds that “this and that cause it” is forbidden with regard to idolatry, because of the stringency of idolatry [and what he permitted concerning pulverizing it and scattering it to the wind was because it is being destroyed, as the Gemara answered above]. With regard to orla, however, he holds that “this and that cause it—permitted.”

The beraita permitting one to sow a field fertilized with fertilizer of idolatry and to slaughter a cow fattened with carobs of idolatry is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, since he concedes to the Sages with regard to idolatry that “this and that cause it” is forbidden. Rather, other tannaim disputed this matter:

This,

the beraita that holds “this and that cause it—forbidden,” was taught in accordance with the opinion of

Rabbi Eliezer. And this,

the beraita that holds “permitted,” is in accordance with the opinion of

the Rabbis.

The Gemara asks:

Which,

where do we find that

Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis

disagree regarding the law of “this and that cause it”?

If you say

that it is the dispute between

Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis

concerning leaven—

leaven—

Teruma is nullified in one hundred. That is, one se’a of teruma, which is forbidden to non-koHanim, that became mixed with one hundred seahs of non-sacred produce is nullified, and the mixture is permitted to non-koHanim. But if it became mixed with fewer than one hundred, everything is forbidden to non-koHanim.

A substance that leavens and causes dough to rise is not nullified even in one hundred or more, because of its importance. Therefore, if one leavens non-sacred dough with teruma leaven, even if the non-sacred dough contains more than one hundred times the amount of the teruma leaven, the entire dough is forbidden to non-koHanim.

As we learned

in a Mishna concerning the laws of teruma:

Leaven

that leavens dough—

of non-sacred produce and

leaven

of teruma that fell into the dough

of non-sacred produce,

not this

leaven

alone

in the measure

sufficient to leaven

this dough

nor that alone sufficient to leaven,

but

they combined and leavened it—

Rabbi Eliezer says: I follow the last one

the one that fell last;

I come

to the conclusion that if the non-sacred leaven fell last, it nullified the first, and the dough is permitted to non-koHanim, while if the teruma leaven fell last, the dough is forbidden to non-koHanim because the last one caused it to become leavened.

And the Sages say: Whether the prohibition fell first

[another version:

initially]

or whether the prohibition fell last—

it is not forbidden until there is in it

of the prohibition alone

enough to leaven.

And Abaye said: They taught this

the statement of Rabbi Eliezer that “I follow the last one,” so that when the last one is non-sacred the dough is permitted—

only when he removed the prohibition beforehand

before the permitted substance fell. Since, when the permitted substance fell, it did not combine with the prohibition to constitute together the measure that would render it forbidden, the prohibition itself does not contain the measure necessary to render it forbidden. Although the prohibition had already imparted forbidden leavening power to the dough, and without it the dough would not have become leavened, nevertheless, since it alone does not have the power to leaven, this is not considered “this and that cause it,” and the last one nullifies the first.

But

if

he did not remove the prohibition beforehand,

and both perform the leavening—

it is forbidden,

because “this and that cause it” is forbidden.

And the Sages disagree and hold: “This and that cause it—permitted.”

The first beraita, which permits it, was taught in accordance with the Sages, and the second in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

The Gemara raises an objection:

And from where

do you know

that Rabbi Eliezer’s reason

is

as

they

Abaye

explained

it?

Perhaps

it is possible to say:

Rabbi Eliezer’s reason is: because he

holds:

I follow the last one,

since it performs the completion of the act.

If it is completed with the prohibition—

it is forbidden, and if it is completed with the permitted substance—

they are permitted,

and we follow the last one

whether he removed the prohibition or whether he did not remove it?

Indeed, if both fall simultaneously and there is no last cause, Rabbi Eliezer holds that the dough is permitted, because “this and that cause it—permitted.”

The Gemara answers:

Rather,

we find elsewhere that Rabbi Eliezer holds: “This and that cause it—forbidden.”

And this is the case:

Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis

who disputed him in the Mishna

concerning wood —

as we learned,

in the following Mishna:

If one took from it

from the asheira

wood—

the wood

is forbidden

the Mishna’s version is:

forbidden

for benefit.

If one heated it

with them

and thereby heated the oven,

if the oven is

new—

it must be demolished,

because the wood of items from which benefit is forbidden made and reinforced it, and it was built through items from which benefit is forbidden. If the oven is

old—

it must be cooled,

and one may not bake with this heating, nor derive benefit from the wood of the asheira.

If he baked bread in it

in a new oven and did not demolish it, but cooled it and heated it with permitted wood—

it is forbidden,

the bread

for benefit,

even though the oven is not the sole cause of the baking of the bread, since permitted wood also contributes to the baking—

Likewise, in the case of an old oven and forbidden wood, although the wood is not the sole cause of the baking, and the permitted oven also contributes to the baking, the bread is forbidden, because “this and that cause it—forbidden.”

And if the bread

became mixed with others

[another version:

with other loaves

of permitted bread—

all of them are forbidden for benefit.

These are the words of the Sages.

Rabbi Eliezer says: He shall take the benefit

the value of the wood

to the Salt Sea

and destroy its value there. It will then be found that he did not benefit from it, and the bread will be permitted for benefit .

They said to him the Sages to Rabbi Eliezer: Taking the benefit to the Salt Sea will not help, because

there is no redemption for idolatry,

and the bread remains forbidden.

According to Rabbi Eliezer, as long as he does not take the benefit to the Salt Sea, the bread is forbidden. It is therefore proven that he holds: “This and that cause it—forbidden.”

According to Rabbi Eliezer, as long as one does not take the benefit to the Dead Sea, the bread is prohibited. It is thus proven that he holds that when this and that cause the result, it is prohibited.

And the beraita that stated: “A field shall be plowed and a cow shall be fattened” was taught in accordance with the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

The Gemara then asks: From now on,

who are the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer,

who are the Sages who permit “both this and that contribute,” and who taught the beraita: “A field shall be sown and a cow shall be slaughtered”?

If you say

if you say,

the Sages who

disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer concerning

trees—

the Gemara is astonished: On the contrary,

they are even more stringent,

as they, too, prohibit the bread, in accordance with the words of Rabbi Eliezer, and hold that “both this and that contribute—it is prohibited”; they are merely more stringent, and do not permit taking it to the Dead Sea?!

Rather, the Sages of leaven

who hold that even if the prohibited substance fell in last—and all the more so if they fell simultaneously—the dough is permitted, on the grounds that “both this and that contribute.”

The Gemara is astonished:

You may say that you heard the lenient Sages

when did we hear them being lenient—

with regard to leaven,

that is, with regard to the prohibition of teruma and other prohibitions—

but

with regard to idolatry—

who says that they are lenient?

Do we have clear proof that they are lenient? And from where is there proof to establish that the lenient beraita also applies to idolatry, in accordance with their view?

And we conclude:

Rather,

let us answer as we answered earlier:

this refers to Rabbi Yosei, and that refers to the Sages—

Rabbi Yosei is the tanna who holds that “both this and that contribute—it is permitted” even with regard to idolatry. Therefore, he holds that one grinds it and scatters it to the wind, and certainly this applies to other prohibitions. Accordingly, with regard to orla he holds: “If one planted, layered, or grafted, it is permitted.” And he is the tanna of the beraita in which it is stated: “A field shall be sown and a cow shall be slaughtered.”

Whereas the Sages disagree with him and hold that “both this and that contribute—it is prohibited”; therefore, they hold that it is prohibited to scatter it to the wind—

And

as for what is difficult for you—if so, why does Rabbi Yosei prohibit sowing vegetables during the rainy season because of the fallen leaves?

We shall answer: Indeed, Rabbi Yosei does not prohibit it. Rather—

Rabbi Yosei said this according to the view of the Sages

he said this [for the purpose of the dispute], in accordance with the view of the Sages:

When Rabbi Yosei heard that the Sages prohibit it during the summer because of the shade, he said to them:

As for me,

it is permitted even during the summer, and even though one benefits from the shade, nevertheless,

“both this and that contribute—

it is permitted,”

since the soil also causes the vegetables to grow, it is permitted.

But, said Rabbi Yosei,

according to you,

according to your words, since you prohibited it during the summer,

you say

that you hold:

“both this and that contribute—

it is prohibited,”

why did you permit it during the rainy season?

At least concede to me

my position, that the fallen leaves contribute to the prohibition, and prohibit

even vegetables during the rainy season!

Ritva, that, according to the Tosafot, it is necessary to say that the Gemara retracted the reasoning it presented there, that shade and soil are two separate contributing factors and therefore are not included in “both this and that contribute.” But the Ramban, cited by the Ran, holds that the Gemara did not retract its position, and that what it said—“Rather, according to you”—does not mean that the Sages prohibit shade and soil; rather: You, the Sages who prohibited scattering it to the wind. So too wrote the Maharsha. And the Sages

hold: Indeed, the fallen leaves cause growth, but they do not cause benefit from the prohibited substance,

as

stated by

Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana:

Whatever improves the plant through the fallen leaves impairs it through the shade.

And we conclude:

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

who holds that “both this and that contribute—it is permitted.”

The Gemara relates an incident:

There was a certain garden

that garden

that had been fertilized

they had fertilized it

with fertilizer from idolatry,

which came from the blood of bulls and calves slaughtered for idolatry, and the blood is prohibited for benefit by virtue of the law of an offering to idolatry—

Rav Amram sent

to determine the status of the vegetables that grew there, whether they were permitted—

before him,

before

the

amora

Rav Yosef.

He said to him,

Rav Yosef said to him:

This is what Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

and the vegetables are permitted.