Avodah Zarah 6b — the Talmud in English

For it was taught:

Rabbi Natan said: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

From where

do we learn

that a person may not hand a cup of wine to a nazir,

who is forbidden to drink wine, because of the concern lest the nazir come to drink it,

and

from where that a person may not hand

a limb from a living creature to the descendants of Noah,

who are forbidden to eat it, as it is stated [Genesis 9]: “But flesh with its soul, its blood, you shall not eat”

?

The Rishonim asked: Granted, what Rabbi Natan said—a limb from a living creature to the descendants of Noah—contains a great novelty in his words, that even with regard to the descendants of Noah there applies the prohibition of “before the blind,” [as explained in the following note]—but why did he mention a cup of wine for a nazir? Why did he not mention “an unslaughtered carcass to an Israelite” and the like? And they answered; see Tosafot and the Rosh and others, that indeed it is permitted to hand an unslaughtered carcass to an Israelite. And the wording of the Rosh is: As long as he does not know with certainty that he wants to eat it, because the Israelite is careful regarding the prohibition of eating an unslaughtered carcass. But a nazir, presumably, wants to drink, since he sees everyone drinking, and perhaps he forgot that he is a nazir—and Rabbi Natan came to teach that it is forbidden to hand it to him, lest he drink and transgress a prohibition. And Tosafot wrote that if it is clear that if he gives an unslaughtered carcass to an Israelite, he will eat it, such as in the case of an apostate, it is certainly forbidden to give it to him, for he thereby causes him to stumble. And seemingly this is difficult, for he is not “blind”; is it forbidden to place a stumbling block before one who can see, to place a stone in his path—for he will not stumble? And if he does stumble, has he not injured himself? And see Kehilot Yaakov, which explains according to the wording of the book Chinukh [mitzva 232]: “That one should not cause the Children of Israel to stumble by giving them bad advice, but should direct them aright when they ask advice regarding what we believe to be upright and good advice. And this prohibition likewise includes one who assists transgressors, for he causes him to be enticed into this again on further occasions.” And seemingly it is difficult: Why did Chinukh write “that he be enticed into further occasions besides this one,” since he is causing him to stumble now? And he explains that now he is truly not “blind,” and seemingly it would be permitted to hand it to him; rather, if he transgresses the offense, he will become more attached to the offense, for “one who transgresses and repeats it, it becomes permitted to him.” Therefore it is forbidden. And he further explains in another manner, according to what Rambam wrote [Murderer and Preservation of Life 12:14]: “Anyone who causes a blind person to stumble in a matter and gives him advice that is not proper, or who strengthens the hands of transgressors, who is blind and does not see the true path because of the desire of his heart, violates a negative commandment. As it is stated: ‘Before the blind you shall not place a stumbling block.’” That is to say, one who causes a person who can see to stumble with a stumbling block, and places a stone in his path—the person who can see sees it; but one who wishes to transgress an offense, his eye becomes blinded and a spirit of folly enters him.

But

yet

here,

with wine for a nazir and a limb from a living creature for the descendants of Noah,

for when we do not give it to him,

even if they do not give it to him,

they take it themselves,

they will take it themselves,

and

nevertheless

he transgresses

the one who hands it to them

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

Thus, even if the one who would stumble is capable of stumbling on his own, nevertheless it is forbidden to hand it to him, and if he hands it over, he transgresses the negative commandment.

And it is difficult regarding what they said, that if the gentile has another animal there is no prohibition of “before the blind.” And we answer: There is no proof from this beraita. For

with what are we dealing here?

The beraita speaks of a situation in which the one who would stumble has no possibility of taking it himself without the one who causes him to stumble handing it to him, such as

when they stand on two sides of the river,

the one who causes him to stumble and the one who stumbles are on the two sides of the river, and without the one who causes him to stumble handing it to the one who stumbles, the latter cannot reach the wine or the limb from a living creature himself. But if the one who stumbles can take it himself, the one who causes him to stumble does not transgress, for he is not causing him to stumble .

It is also precise,

from the wording of the beraita one can likewise infer this, that they are situated on “two sides of the river,”

for it teaches, “he may not hand over,”

which implies that the one who causes him to stumble hands it to the one who stumbles from a place where the one who stumbles cannot take it himself,

and it does not teach, “he may not give,”

which would imply giving alone.

And the inquiry was not resolved whether the reason is because of benefit or because of “before the blind.”

And now the Gemara discusses one who transgressed the law of our Mishna and conducted business with them before their festival day: Was the merchandise forbidden with a prohibition of benefit, or not? That is to say, did the Sages give this prohibition the status of a prohibition “from the outset,” or even the status of a prohibition “after the fact”?

They raised an inquiry before them

the members of the academy were uncertain:

He conducted business

before their festival day,

what—

was the merchandise forbidden with a prohibition of benefit, or not?

Rabbi Yohanan said: If he conducted business—

it is forbidden

for benefit.

Resh Lakish said: If he conducted business—

it is permitted

for benefit.

And the Gemara brings a beraita to resolve the inquiry.

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Resh Lakish

from a beraita in which we learned:

Their festivals of the idolaters,

if

he conducted business—

they are forbidden [the tanna did not say “it is forbidden to conduct business,” referring to the person, but “they are forbidden,” to say that the objects are forbidden].

[таннай не сказал: «запрещено вести торговлю», относя это к человеку, а сказал: «запрещены», чтобы сообщить, что сами предметы запрещены].

What, is it not

what is the meaning of “their festivals” that the beraita taught? Is its meaning not

before their festivals,

implying that they are forbidden for benefit, and not in accordance with Resh Lakish? And we reject this:

No!

The beraita speaks specifically on the

day of their festival,

and indeed Resh Lakish agrees that merchandise with which one conducted business with the gentiles on the day of their festivals is forbidden for benefit.

There are those who say,

there are those who transmitted this report in another formulation:

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yohanan,

from a beraita in which we learned:

Their festivals of the idolaters,

if

he conducted business—

it is forbidden.

And we infer from the wording of the beraita: What he traded with them on the day of

their festival—

yes,

indeed it is forbidden. But

before their festivals—

no,

it is not forbidden, and not in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan?

And we reject: The intention of the beraita is also “before their festivals.”

For the tanna

of the beraita,

both this and that— \-

he calls them their festivals,

he calls “their festivals” also “before their festivals,” and when he said “their festivals,” he intended also the days of their festivals that the Sages prohibited.

And there is no proof from this beraita. But, conversely, there is another beraita that was taught in accordance with the words of Resh Lakish.

It was taught in accordance with his view,

in accordance with his words,

of Resh Lakish: When they said

the Sages

“It is forbidden to conduct business with them,” they prohibited only an object that endures

until his festival day, and when he sees it before him on his festival day, he goes and gives thanks to idols.

But an object that does not endure,

vegetables and the like,

they did not

prohibit.

And even with an object that endures,

if

he conducted business, it is permitted

for benefit.

And this is in accordance with the words of Resh Lakish.

Rav Zevid taught in

his

academy

of

Rabbi Oshaya

[that is, in the beraita that he arranged]:

An object that does not endure, they may sell to them, but they may not buy from them.

Because the gentile desires to sell since it does not endure, and he profits from this, and he goes and gives thanks .

Just as it is forbidden to conduct business with them, so it is forbidden to accept a gift from them, because the acceptance of the gift by the Israelite brings him to joy, and “he goes and gives thanks.”

And the Gemara tells an incident concerning this matter.

A certain sectarian

a certain sectarian [Christian],

who sent him

who sent

a Caesarean dinar

[a dinar with a new design, that is, the emperor invalidated the first one and issued a new dinar]

to Rabbi Yehuda Nesia

[the grandson of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi],

on his festival day

of the sectarian.

He was sitting,

he was sitting,

Resh Lakish before him,

before Rabbi Yehuda Nesia.

He said

Rabbi Yehuda Nesia:

What shall I do,

what shall I do?

If

I take it

I will take it—

he will go

the sectarian

and give thanks.

And if

I do not take it,

if I do not take it—

there will be

enmity toward me,

he will have enmity toward me, seeing this as disdain for his gift.

Resh Lakish said to him: Take it,

take it

and throw it into a pit in his presence!

Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said

Rabbi Yehuda Nesia:

All the more so there will be enmity toward me!

Resh Lakish said to him:

I am speaking of doing it indirectly.

I intended to say that you should throw it in a manner in which it will not appear that you threw it deliberately, and he will think that it was lost from you. And since he will see that the gift that he sent you was lost from you, he will not rejoice. And through this you will be saved both from accepting a gift and from enmity.

We learned in our Mishna:

To lend to them and to borrow from them.

And we ask:

Granted, to lend to them

the Sages prohibited, because

he provides them benefit,

the Israelite gives them profit—

but, to borrow from them—

why

why did they prohibit it? On the contrary,

he diminishes

them! For through this the gentile is diminished.

And we answer:

Abaye said:

Indeed, there is no reason to prohibit borrowing from them; rather, it is

a decree

not

to borrow from them, on account of lending to them,

the Sages decreed that borrowing from them should be prohibited, for if they permit it, people will come to permit lending to them.

Rava said: The whole [matter],

all that is stated in our Mishna,

is because he goes and gives thanks,

and they were prohibited. Since an Israelite asks [something] from him, the gentile regards this for himself as important, and “goes and gives thanks.”

We learned in our Mishna:

to lend to them and to borrow from them.

And we object:

Granted, to lend to them

the Sages prohibited,

because he provides them with profit,

for the Israelite causes them profit—

but to borrow from them, why?

Why did the Sages prohibit it, since he diminishes them?

And we answer:

Abaye said: [It is] a decree [prohibiting] borrowing from them on account of lending to them.

The Sages decreed that if one borrows from them, he will come to permit also lending to them.

Rava said: The whole [matter],

all that is stated in the Mishna was prohibited,

because he goes and gives thanks.

We learned in our Mishna:

to collect from them and to repay them.

And we object:

Granted, to collect from them

the Sages prohibited,

because he provides them with profit—

but to repay them

why is it forbidden, when, on the contrary,

he diminishes them?

Abaye said: [It is] a decree [prohibiting] repaying them on account of collecting from them.

Rava said: The whole [matter is] because he goes and gives thanks.

And [all these distinctions] are necessary.

According to Rava, who holds that all the laws of the Mishna are because of “he goes and gives thanks,” it is necessary to ask why the Mishna needed to inform us of this novelty both with regard to “borrowing,” and with regard to “lending,” and with regard to “being repaid.”

And the Gemara explains that each one contains an additional novelty beyond its predecessor.

For if it taught, “buying and selling with them,”

we could have said that the reason for the prohibition is

because he provides them with profit, and he goes and gives thanks,

and therefore the Sages prohibited it—

but borrowing from them, since he diminishes them,

we could have said that

it is well,

and it is permitted. Therefore the Mishna informs us that nevertheless the Sages prohibited it because of “he goes and gives thanks,” since in the gentile’s eyes there is importance in the fact that the Israelite borrows his utensils from him, and he knows that the Israelite will return them to him.

And if it taught, “borrowing from them,”

we could have said that the reason it is forbidden is

because the matter is important to him,

it is important in his eyes,

and

therefore

he goes and gives thanks.

But borrowing from them,

we could have said that the Sages did not prohibit it because

he has mere distress,

the loan worries him, since

he said

the gentile thinks in his heart:

“The money will no longer return!”

My money will no longer return to me. Therefore the Mishna informs us that nevertheless they prohibited it, because the gentile is not worried, since he knows that he will collect from him against his will; and since he sees importance in the fact that an Israelite needs his loan—“he goes and gives thanks.”

And if it taught, “lending to them,”

we could have said that the reason it is forbidden is

because he says

the gentile in his heart:

“Against his will I will collect it from him,”

I will collect from the Israelite whether he wishes it or not,

and now, at any rate,

at least now

“he goes and gives thanks”—

but being repaid from them, since the money will no longer return,

since the money will no longer return to the gentile,

one might say

we could have said:

he has distress,

the gentile is only distressed by this,

and he does not go and give thanks;

therefore the Mishna informs us that although he is distressed now, nevertheless he is happy later, and “he goes and gives thanks.”

It is necessary.

Therefore the Mishna needs to inform us that in all these cases he goes and gives thanks to his idol, and in all of them the Sages prohibited [the action].

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Judah says: One may collect

from them because he causes him distress. They said to him: Although he is distressed now—

he is happy later.

And we object:

Does Rabbi Judah not have

the reasoning that

although he is distressed now, he is happy later?!

But it was taught,

for we learned a beraita in tractate Moed Katan, in which the view of Rabbi Judah is brought, that he indeed holds this reasoning.

That beraita deals with the laws of Chol HaMoed, which are days on which some forms of labor are forbidden, while some forms of labor performed for the needs of the festival are permitted. And there we learned:

Rabbi Judah says: A woman

who adorns herself during the festival

may not apply [lime]

[she may not put lime on her face, and it is among a woman’s adornments, for when the lime is removed, her face becomes red and brightens]

during the festival, because

now, during the festival,

it is disfigurement for her

while it is on her face, and she is distressed, even though she is happy after she removes it.

When does this matter—that it is forbidden to apply lime to the face? When she intends to remove the lime after the festival—

And Rabbi Judah agrees concerning dry lime

when she applies it at the beginning of the festival,

that she can fold it

to remove it

during the festival,

and since she will benefit from it during the festival, Rabbi Judah agrees

, that she applies it during the festival.

For

although she is distressed now,

nevertheless

she is happy later.

So Rabbi Judah holds this reasoning! And we answer:

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: Set aside the laws of the festival,

do not raise an objection from the laws of the festival,

for all of them

all its laws—for example, slaughtering, cooking, and baking—

cause distress now

at the time of the effort, even though it is considerable effort,

[they are] happy

[the version of the Bach]

and happy

later

they are,

and therefore it is permitted to exert oneself in them.

Therefore, in the laws of the festival, Rabbi Judah agrees that it is permitted to apply lime, despite being distressed now, since she will be happy later, during the festival. But here, in the laws of commerce with gentiles, he holds that if he is distressed now, one may collect from them.

Ravina said

another resolution:

A gentile, with regard to repayment

of a debt,

is always distressed,

even later, because his intention is to rob.

In our Mishna no distinction was stated between a loan documented in a deed and a loan made orally. The correct position is that there is reason to distinguish between them, as Rabbi Joshua ben Korha distinguishes—

And the Gemara says:

The Mishna

is not like

the words of

Rabbi Joshua ben Korha.

For it was taught: Rabbi Joshua ben Korha says:

If the Israelite lent the gentile

a loan,

and they wrote it

in a deed—

one may not collect from them

before their festivals, because the gentile knows that the Israelite who possesses the deed will demand it from him and extract the money from him, and he is afraid of him; therefore, when he repays him, he is happy afterward, and on his festival day “he goes and gives thanks”—

But

a loan

that is made

orally,

without a deed—

one may collect from them, because he is like one rescuing his money from their hands,

that is, the gentile is distressed, knowing that he could deny it, as it is said concerning gentiles: “Whose mouth speaks vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of falsehood”; and when he repays, he is distressed, and he does not “go and give thanks.”

And the Sages, the sages of our Mishna, hold that in every case it is forbidden.

And the Gemara relates:

[He] sat

Rab Joseph

in the bēt-midrash

behind

Rabbi Abba, and Rabbi Abba sat before him

before

Rav Huna

in front of

Rav Huna

[these students sat before their teacher, Rav Huna].

And [he] sat,

Rav Huna,

and said: The halakha

the halakha was decided

like

him,

and the halakha like

him,

like Rabbi Judah.

And Rav Huna explains:

The halakha is like Rabbi Joshua ben Korha—

that which we said,

the law that we said: one may collect from them a loan made orally.

And

the halakha is like Rabbi Judah, for it was taught

[as we learned]

it was taught in the Mishna in tractate Bava Kamma [100b]:

One who gives wool to a dyer,

a craftsman who dyes wool, and says to him

to dye it red for him, and he dyed it black.

Or

black, and he dyed it red—