Avodah Zarah 6b (ו:) — the Talmud in English

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.

—

Rava said: The entire,

all the cases mentioned in our Mishna,

were prohibited because he goes and gives thanks,

the gentile sees the fact that a Jew asks something of him as a sign of importance to himself, and “goes and gives thanks.”

We learned in our Mishna:

to lend to them and to borrow from them.

And we raise a difficulty:

Granted, with regard to lending to them,

the Sages prohibited it

because he provides them with profit,

as the Jew generates profit for them—

but with regard to borrowing from them, why?

Why did the Sages prohibit it, given that he diminishes their assets?

And we answer:

Abaye said: They prohibited borrowing from them as a preventive decree lest one come to lend to them.

The Sages decreed that if one borrows from them, he may come to permit lending to them as well.

Rava said: The entire,

all the cases mentioned in the Mishna, were prohibited

because he goes and gives thanks.

We learned in our Mishna:

to collect debts from them and to repay debts to them.

And we raise a difficulty:

Granted, with regard to collecting debts from them,

the Sages prohibited it

because he provides them with profit—

but with regard to repaying debts to them,

why is it prohibited, given that, on the contrary,

he diminishes their assets?

Abaye said: They prohibited repaying debts to them as a preventive decree lest one come to collect debts from them.

Rava said: The entire matter is because he goes and gives thanks.

It is necessary.

According to Rava, who maintains that all the laws of the Mishna are because of “he goes and gives thanks,” it is necessary to ask why the Mishna had to teach us this novelty both with regard to “borrowing,” “lending,” and “collecting debts.”

The Gemara explains that each of these cases contains an additional novelty beyond its predecessor.

For if it had 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 with regard to borrowing from them, which diminishes their assets,

we could have said that

it is entirely proper,

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

And if it had taught: “borrowing from them””—

we could have said that the reason it is prohibited is

because the matter is important to him,

as he regards it as a sign of importance,

and

therefore

he goes and gives thanks.

But with regard to borrowing money from them,

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

he experiences mere distress,

as the loan troubles him, because

he says,

the gentile thinks to himself:

“My money will never return!”

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

And if it had taught: “borrowing money from them,”

we could have said that the reason it is prohibited is

because he says,

the gentile thinks to himself:

“I will collect from him against his will,”

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

and for the present,

at least now,

“he goes and gives thanks”—

but with regard to collecting debts from them, since the money will no longer return,

as the money will no longer return to the gentile,

I might say,

we could have said:

he experiences distress,

the gentile is merely distressed by this,

and he does not go and give thanks,

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

It is necessary.

Therefore the Mishna must teach us that in all these circumstances he will go and give thanks to his idol, and in all of them the Sages prohibited the act.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: One may collect debts

from them because he is distressed by it. They said to him: Although he is distressed now—

he will be happy later.

And we raise a difficulty:

Does Rabbi Yehuda not maintain

the reasoning that

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

But was it not taught

in a beraita in tractate Moed Katan, where Rabbi Yehuda’s view is cited, that he indeed maintains this reasoning?

That beraita concerns the laws of Ḥol HaMoed, days on which some forms of labor are prohibited while some forms of labor performed for the needs of the festival are permitted. And there we learned:

Rabbi Yehuda says: A woman

who applies cosmetics during the festival

may not apply depilatory paste

[she may not put lime on her face, which is one of the woman’s cosmetics, since when the lime is removed her face becomes red and radiant]

during the festival, because

now, during the festival,

it is a disfigurement for her

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

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

And Rabbi Yehuda concedes with regard to dry lime

when she applies it at the beginning of the festival

that she can peel it off

and remove it

during the festival,

and since she will benefit from it during the festival, Rabbi Yehuda concedes

, that she may apply it during the festival.

For

although she is distressed now,

nevertheless

she will be happy later.

Thus Rabbi Yehuda does maintain this reasoning! And we answer:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Set aside the laws of the festival,

do not raise a difficulty from the laws of the festival,

as all of them,

all its laws, such as slaughtering, cooking, and baking,

cause distress now,

at the time of the exertion, even though the exertion is considerable,

and bring joy

[the version of the Baḥ:

and he is happy]

later

they are,

and therefore it is permitted to exert oneself in them.

Therefore, with regard to the laws of the festival, Rabbi Yehuda concedes that it is permitted to apply lime, despite the fact that she is distressed now, since she will be happy later, during the festival. But here, with regard to the laws of buying and selling from gentiles, he maintains that if he is distressed now, one may collect debts from them.

Ravina said

another answer:

A gentile, with regard to repayment of a debt,

a debt,

is always distressed,

even later, because his intention is to steal.

Our Mishna does not distinguish between a loan documented in a deed and an oral loan. The correct approach is that there is reason to distinguish between them, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa distinguishes—

And the Gemara says:

The Mishna

is not in accordance with

the words of

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa.

As it was taught, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says:

If a Jew lent the gentile

a loan,

and they wrote it

in a deed—

one may not collect debts from them

before their festivals, because the gentile knows that the Jew who holds the deed will demand payment from him and extract the money from him, and he fears him. Therefore, when he repays him, he is happy afterward, and on his festival “he goes and gives thanks”—

But

a loan

that is made

orally,

without a deed—

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

as it were. That is, the gentile is distressed, knowing that he could deny the debt, as it is said of gentiles: “whose mouth speaks vanity, falsehood, and deceit”; and when he repays, he is distressed, and does not “go and give thanks.”

The Sages, the sages of our Mishna, maintain that it is prohibited in every case.

And the Gemara relates:

Rav Yosef sat

in the study hall

behind

Rabbi Abba,

and Rav Abba sat before

Rabbi Huna.

And

before

Rabbi Huna

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

And

Rabbi Huna sat

and said: The halakha,

the halakha has been decided

in accordance with

him,

and the halakha is in accordance with

him,

Rabbi Yehuda.

And Rav Huna explains:

The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa—

this is the case that we stated,

the law that we stated: one may collect an oral loan from them.

And the halakha is

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught

as we learned

in a 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, and he dyed it black.

Or

black, and he dyed it red—