Avodah Zarah 6a — the Talmud in English

Rather, to the

words of

the one who says: a mortally wounded animal gives birth -

what is there to say?

According to his view, it is impossible to exclude a mortally wounded animal from “to preserve living offspring,” for it indeed “preserves living offspring” and gives birth. If so, the mortally wounded animal is excluded from the verse “from every living thing,” and the question returns: from where do we know that one lacking a limb is forbidden to the descendants of Noah?

And we answer:

The verse says: “to preserve you alive.” And we expound,

“with you”

means

those similar to you.

Just as Noah was not mortally wounded [as will be explained below], so he would not bring a mortally wounded animal into the ark.

And from here we expound the exclusion of a mortally wounded animal. Whereas “from every living thing” we expound as excluding “one lacking a limb.”

And we object:

But perhaps,

it is possible to say

that Noah himself

personally

was mortally wounded?

And we answer:

“Whole” is written concerning him.

The Torah testified concerning him that he was “a righteous man, whole”; evidently he was not mortally wounded.

And we object: From where do we say that “whole” refers to being whole in body?

But perhaps,

it is possible to say that Noah

was “whole” in his ways,

humble and meek in spirit? And we answer: also

“righteous” is written concerning him.

From it we learn that he was righteous in his ways, and from “whole” we learn that he was whole in body—and not mortally wounded.

And we object: We still have not learned that he was whole in body, because

perhaps,

it is possible to say that Noah

was “whole”

in his ways, and “righteous”

in his deeds,

and did not perform deeds of violence like the people of his generation?

Because of this objection the Gemara retracts and says that indeed this is not learned from what is stated “whole,” but is learned from what is stated “with you.” And concerning what was difficult—“perhaps Noah himself was mortally wounded”—it may be said:

It does not enter your mind,

it is not reasonable to suppose

that Noah himself was mortally wounded.

For if it enters your mind that Noah was mortally wounded,

is it possible to say that

the Merciful One said to him: only living creatures

like

you,

those similar to you in being “mortally wounded,”

bring in,

only those bring into the ark, but living creatures

that are whole, do not bring in,

do not bring in?!

And from here is the proof that he did not bring a mortally wounded animal into the ark.

But the Gemara discusses:

And now,

after we have concluded

that it is derived for him

that he did not bring in a mortally wounded animal

from

what is stated

“with you”—

it is difficult:

“to preserve living offspring”—what do I need it for?

Why did the Holy One, blessed be He, say this to him, when a mortally wounded animal had already been excluded by “with you”?

And we answer: Even if he does not bring in mortally wounded animals, it is still possible that he would bring in animals that are unfit to give birth. The Holy One, blessed be He, wanted there to be perpetuation for every living creature; therefore He said to him “to preserve living offspring,” that he should bring in animals fit to give birth.

If it were only from “with you”,

if He had commanded him only “with you,”

we might have said

that he should bring in whole animals

merely for companionship,

to stand with him and with the rest of the living creatures in the ark for twelve months. Therefore he would not bring in mortally wounded animals that do not live twelve months, and the “companionship” would be nullified,

but

he could bring in

even an old animal and even a castrated animal

that are unfit to give birth.

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote

“to preserve”

“offspring,”

to teach him that he should bring in with him only animals fit to give birth.

And now the Gemara discusses the three days stated in the Mishna: whether they include the day of the festival, meaning two days before the festival and, together with the day of the festival, they are three days. Or whether they do not include it, but for three days before the festival it is forbidden to engage in business with them.

They raised a question before them,

the scholars of the academy were uncertain:

the three days

that are forbidden—are

they and their festival days

together, making three days?

Or perhaps,

it is possible to say:

they,

three days,

without their festival days,

and the festival day is not included among the three days?

Come and hear,

the Gemara resolves this from the following Mishna, in which we learned:

Rabbi Ishmael says: three

days

before them, and three days after them—

it is forbidden

to engage in business with them [its reason will be explained there].

And the Gemara proves:

If it enters your mind

that

they and their festival days—how is it possible to say that

Rabbi Ishmael

counts

their festival day twice, both

twice—both

at the beginning, “before” their festival day,

and also

counts it at the end?!

For example, if the festival day is on Tuesday, and it is said that “they and their festival days” are forbidden, then according to Rabbi Ishmael Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday are forbidden. It follows that Tuesday is counted twice, both with the days before it and with the days after it—

and it is not reasonable to say so.

And from Rabbi Ishmael’s words it is heard that this is also the view of the Sages, for they disagreed only over whether it is forbidden after them or not, and did not disagree over whether they and their festival days are counted, or without their festival days.

And we reject this: Indeed, the festival day is counted within the three days before it, while only two days after it are forbidden. And why did he say “three after them”?

Since,

incidentally

he taught “three before them,”

therefore

he also taught “three after them,”

in order to make the wording parallel, although there are only two days after them.

Come and hear,

the Gemara resolves this from a statement of Samuel:

For Rav Tachlifa bar Avdimi said in the name of Samuel: Sunday

[another version:

the Christian day]

of the Christians, who follow the error of “that man,” who commanded them to make their festival day on Sunday, every week,

according to Rabbi Ishmael,

who holds that there are three before them and three after them,

always,

all the days of the year,

it is forbidden

to engage in business with them.

For Thursday, Friday, and Shabbat are the three days before the festival day, while Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday are the three days after it.

And if it enters your mind that they and their festival days,

why did Samuel say “it is always forbidden”?

Is

there

any

remaining

Wednesday and Thursday,

Wednesday and Thursday,

which are permitted,

and from Rabbi Ishmael’s words this is also heard concerning the Sages.

And we reject this: Indeed,

according to Rabbi Ishmael I have no question.

According to Rabbi Ishmael there was no uncertainty:

for

certainly

they are without their festival days,

and therefore all the days of the week are forbidden. Rather,

what I have a question about

is according to whom the uncertainty was,

according to the Sages—

What

What?

What do they hold: “they and their festival days,” or “they without their festival days”?

Come and hear,

the Gemara resolves this from the following Mishna [8a]:

For we learned:

and these are

the days of

the festivals of the star worshippers

which the gentiles observed in the time and place where the Mishna was taught:

Kalenda, Saturnalia, and Kratesis.

These are names of festivals.

And Rabbi Chanin bar Rava said: Kalenda

its time is

eight days after the tekufa,

the winter tekufa, all eight days.

Saturnalia

is

eight days before the tekufa.

And

although Saturnalia is before Kalenda, here the later one is taught first, as the Mishna’s wording must not be reversed, and

your sign

that you should not reverse the version in the Mishna is the verse [Psalms 139]:

“Behind and before You formed me,”

for in this verse too the later is stated before the earlier.

And the Gemara proves:

And if it enters your mind,

if it enters your mind to say

“they and their festival days”—

it is difficult, for

there are ten!

Together with the eight days of the festival, there are ten days?!

Granted, if we say “they without their festival days,” it is understandable, for the tanna does not include the festival day in the count of the days and is not speaking of the festival day at all. But if we say “they and their festival days,” and when the festival lasts one day it joins the two days before it, making three together, then in the case of Kalenda, which lasts eight days, and with which two days are included, just as they are included with a festival lasting one day, together they make ten days.

And we reject this: It is impossible to resolve the question from here, because

the tanna counts all of Kalenda,

all the days of this festival, which lasts eight days,

as one day,

counting it as one day.

That is, the tanna does not extend the calculation in every festival by counting the length of its duration together with the days before it. Rather, he said “three days” together with the festival day: the two days before the festival; and each festival is forbidden according to the length of its duration.

Rav Ashi said: Come and hear:

The question can be resolved from the wording of the Mishna:

“Before the festivals of the star worshippers, three days.”

And if it enters your mind,

if it enters your mind to say

“they and their festival days”—

let him teach,

the tanna should have taught in the Mishna

“The festivals of the star worshippers—

three days

it is forbidden to engage in business with them,” and then the meaning of his words would be that when the time of their festival arrives, the time of prohibition is three days. But since the tanna taught in the Mishna “before their festivals,” it follows that the “three days” are “before” the festival and do not include it.

And if you would say,

if you wish to reject the proof and say that everything the tanna said, “before their festivals,” was in order that we should know that the prohibition is only before the festival,

to exclude after their festivals—

this is not correct, for if the tanna wished to say that specifically “before” is forbidden, but not “after,”

let him teach

the following in the Mishna:

“Their festival of the star worshippers, three days before them

are forbidden.” Then the meaning of his words would be that “their festival” is the principal subject of the Mishna, and two additional days join it.

But since the tanna of the Mishna did not speak at all about the day of their festival, and placed the principal emphasis on the days before them, it follows that the “three days” are the forbidden days without the festival day, concerning which the Mishna informs us.

And the tanna of the Mishna did not speak at all about the festival day, and it is consequently understood that the festival day itself is forbidden.

Learn from it,

the question has been resolved: the three days are without the festival day.

And after the time of the prohibition has been clarified, the Gemara clarifies what is the “reason” for the prohibition against engaging in business with them.

Is it because of “profit”: when the gentile makes a good transaction and gains a profit, he goes and gives thanks to his idol, with the result that the Israelite has transgressed what is written in the Torah [Exodus 23]: “And the name of other gods you shall not mention; it shall not be heard upon your mouth.” And we expound, “it shall not be heard”—that it is forbidden to cause a gentile to vow to idols, and likewise to give thanks to them.

Or is the reason for the prohibition that he causes the gentile to stumble in a prohibition, so that he will sacrifice the animal to idols, while the descendants of Noah were commanded not to worship idols, and the Israelite thereby transgresses the prohibition stated in the Torah [Leviticus 19]: “Before the blind you shall not place a stumbling block”?

And the Gemara will explain the practical difference between the two reasons.

They raised a question before them,

whether the prohibition against engaging in business is

because of profit, or perhaps,

it is possible to say that the reason for the prohibition is

because of “Before the blind you shall not place a stumbling block.”

And the Gemara discusses:

What is the practical difference

from which reason was it stated?

And it explains: The practical difference is in a case where

he has,

where the gentile has

an animal

another one

for himself,

for the needs of idolatrous worship.

If you say,

if you say that the reason for the prohibition is

because of granting him relief,

it is still forbidden to conduct business with him, because

behold, he is granting him relief,

for nevertheless he now has more in abundance.

But if

you say,

if you say that the reason for the prohibition is

because of

“before

the blind, you shall not place a stumbling block,”

there is no placing of a stumbling block here, because

behold, he has it himself,

and without the animal that he purchases from an Israelite, he can offer his animal to idols.

And the Gemara discusses this reasoning: if the one who is caused to stumble has the possibility of transgressing the prohibition without the one causing him to stumble, does the one causing him to stumble not transgress the prohibition of “before the blind.”

And we raise an objection:

But if he has,

is it the case that where the one who is caused to stumble has the possibility of transgressing the prohibition without the one causing him to stumble,

he does not transgress because of

“before

the blind, you shall not place a stumbling block”?!

But it was taught

for we learned a beraita from which it is implied that even if the one who is caused to stumble has the possibility of transgressing a prohibition on his own, nevertheless the one causing him to stumble transgresses “before the blind.”