Avodah Zarah 7b — the Talmud in English

But if they performed their deeds

publicly — they are not accepted

, since they have become so brazen that they do not set their hearts to return in complete repentance.

But

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korkha say: In either case,

whether they repented and performed their deeds either secretly or publicly —

they are accepted

—

as it is stated [Jeremiah 3]: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel

“Return, rebellious children,”

which implies even those who acted deliberately and publicly [the term “publicly” signifies rebellion and arrogance].

And concerning this halakha

Rabbi Yitzhak of Kefar Akko said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: The halakha is like that pair,

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korkha.

Mishna:

The following Mishna is a continuation of the first Mishna, concerning the prohibition against doing business with gentiles close to the days of their festivals.

The Sages in the first Mishna hold that it is prohibited during the three days before their festivals. But—

Rabbi Yishmael says: Three

days

before them, and three

days

after them

—

are prohibited.

And the Sages say: Before their festivals

—

it is prohibited;

after their festivals

—

it is permitted

[and the Gemara will explain in what way they disagree with the Sages of the first Mishna].

Gemara:

Rav Tahlifa bar Avdimi said in the name of Shmuel: The first day

[another version:

the Christian day

] of every week, which is their festival day of the Christians,

according to Rabbi Yishmael, is always

every day of the week

prohibited

to engage in business with them [as explained above, 6b].

We learned in our Mishna:

And the Sages say: Before their festivals

—

it is prohibited; after their festivals —

it is permitted.

And the Gemara analyzes: The words of

the Sages

—that is

the same as the words of

the first tanna,

who prohibits before them and permits after them! That is, what have they come to teach, and in what do they disagree?

There is a difference between them,

there is the following law concerning which they differ—

The first tanna holds

: the three days

are apart from their festivals

, in addition to the days of the festivals themselves, as the Gemara clarified above [6a] from the wording of the first tanna.

But

the

later Sages

, in the second Mishna,

hold: they and their festivals. The festival day itself is also included in the three days, since they did not state precisely “three days before their festivals”; it may be said that they came to disagree with the first tanna concerning the law that “they and their festivals” are included.

The three days include the festival day itself. Since they did not say precisely “three days before their festivals,” it is possible that they came to disagree with the first tanna concerning the rule that the three days include their festivals.

And if you wish, say

, there is another difference between them:

If one bought and sold,

what is his status after the fact?

There is a difference between them.

The first tanna holds: If one bought and sold, it is permitted.

For from his wording, “it is prohibited to buy and sell,” it is somewhat implied that the prohibition is the buying and selling, and there is no prohibition of benefit from the object.

But

the

later Sages,

who said simply “it is prohibited,”

hold: If one bought and sold, it is prohibited.

And if you wish, say: Concerning Shmuel’s ruling,

concerning the law stated by Shmuel,

there is a difference between them.

For Shmuel said

: This halakha, that it is prohibited to buy and sell with them before their festival day, was stated only in the Land of Israel, but

in the Diaspora,

outside the Land

it is prohibited only on their festival day itself.

For the gentiles of the Diaspora are not so devoted to their idols, and they do not begin three days beforehand. And additionally, it is because we fear them.

The first tanna accepts Shmuel’s ruling,

he agrees with him and prohibits only in the Land of Israel.

But

the later Sages do not accept Shmuel’s ruling

; they do not agree with him, and prohibit three days beforehand even outside the Land of Israel.

And if you wish, say: Concerning Nahum the Mede’s ruling,

concerning the law stated by Nahum the Mede,

there is a difference between them.

For it was taught: Nahum the Mede says: It is not prohibited

for three days

but only for one day before their festivals.

The first tanna,

who explicitly said “three days”—

does not accept

the law

of Nahum the Mede. But

the

later Sages,

who spoke in the general wording “before their festivals,”

accept the ruling of Nahum the Mede.

And after the Gemara has explained several interpretations of the point of disagreement between the Sages and the first tanna, the Gemara brings the opinion of the Sages who disagreed with Nahum the Mede.

The matter itself: Nahum the Mede says: It is not prohibited except for one day before their festivals. The Sages said to him

—the Sages said to Nahum the Mede:

“Let the matter be forgotten and not be stated”

—this matter has never been said by anyone! That is, there is nothing to your words.

And we challenge: Why did they say this to him,

and

was it not the case that

there are

the later Sages,

who, according to one of the interpretations explained by the Gemara,

stand in agreement with him,

as they hold in accordance with the words of Nahum the Mede?

And we answer: There is no opinion of the Sages here, for

who are the Sages?

Who is the holder of this opinion, which the Mishna calls simply “the Sages”?

It is Nahum the Mede,

and his opinion is the opinion of an individual. Therefore the Sages refused to accept his opinion and said to him that there was nothing to his words.

And the Gemara brings another beraita in which the Sages said to Nahum the Mede, “Let the matter be forgotten and not be stated”!

Just as it is prohibited to trade with gentiles on their festival day, so too the Sages prohibited selling them large livestock, even throughout the entire year, and not specifically during their festivals.

And the reason is that the Sages decreed lest one sell it close to the onset of Shabbat, and while it still belongs to the Jew and the gentile wishes to test its strength in carrying loads, the Jewish seller will drive it with his voice, because the animal recognizes his voice, and Shabbat will meanwhile enter; it will then be found that he violates the prohibition of mehamer on Shabbat. And when they decreed, they extended the decree even to animals unfit for carrying loads, such as calves and foals, whether whole and even whether injured.

And concerning this halakha the Gemara brings a beraita:

It was taught in another beraita

, in another beraita:

Nahum the Mede says: One may sell them a male and old horse

[the version of the Bach:

old

within

the

war

[as will be explained].

They said to him

, the Sages said to Nahum the Mede:

“Let the matter be forgotten and not be stated!”

And we challenge: Why did they say this to him,

and

was it not the case that

there is Ben

Beteira who stands in agreement with him?

Does Ben Beteira not also hold this way?—

For we learned

[below, on 14b]:

Ben Beteira permits selling a horse

to a gentile, because a horse is not ordinarily used to carry loads but to ride upon it. And even if the Jew rides it on Shabbat in order to show the gentile its strength in riding, the Jew will not violate the Torah prohibition of mehamer, because riding on Shabbat is not a Torah prohibition; therefore the Sages did not decree against selling it to a gentile.

But the Sages in the Mishna, who disagree with Ben Beteira, hold that it must nevertheless be prohibited for two reasons. The first: because the horse serves as a weapon of war, as it can kill in battle by a blow, and the Sages prohibited selling weapons of war to a gentile, lest he harm Jews. And the second: an old horse is used to grind in mills; that is, it works in mills, and there is still concern lest the Jew grind with it at the onset of Shabbat in order to show his strength to the gentile.

If so, this opinion of Nahum the Mede is not an individual opinion, since Ben Beteira agrees with him; why then did the Sages say to him, “Let the matter be forgotten and not be stated”?

And we answer: Nahum the Mede does not agree with Ben Beteira, because

Ben Beteira

permits a horse entirely, and

does not distinguish

and does not differentiate

between males and females

[according to the version of the Maharsha:

and between an old one and a young one]. He holds that there is no concern either for the prohibition of Shabbat, and it is permitted even in the case of an old one, or for the sale of weapons of war, and it is permitted even in the case of a young one.

But

he

—

Nahum the Mede—

by the fact that he distinguishes

by the fact that he differentiates

between males and females

[according to the version of the Maharsha:

and between an old one and a young one],

it is implied that

he holds like the Sages

who disagree with Ben Beteira,

he holds

and therefore Nahum the Mede prohibits a young one, since it serves as a weapon of war—

And according to

the opinion of

the Sages, let the matter be forgotten

—that it should be permitted in the case of an old one—

and not be stated,

because it is certainly necessary to decree concerning an old one on account of a young one. And they said to him that they do not accept his opinion of distinguishing between one horse and another.

And the Gemara brings another beraita concerning the laws of tithes, in which as well the Sages said to Nahum the Mede, “Let the matter be forgotten and not be stated.”

There is a principle in the laws of tithes: everything that is ordinarily sown in order to eat its seeds is exempt from tithing the vegetable, that is, the leaves, and one is obligated to tithe only the seeds, which are intended for eating. But if one sows something that is ordinarily sown for the seeds for the sake of the vegetable, the seed is tithed in its ordinary manner, and the vegetable is also tithed, since he sowed it for the vegetable.

It was taught: Nahum the Mede says: The shabbat plant,

a type of vegetable used as a spice,

is tithed as seed, vegetable, and fine leaves,

whether he picked it when it was a vegetable, whether he picked it when it was “fine leaves,” thin leaves, or whether he left it until seed kernels grew inside it, hardened, and he removed them—he must tithe them. For he holds that the ordinary practice with the “shabbat plant” for every person is to sow it both for seed and for vegetable; therefore, even if he sowed it for seed, he is obligated to tithe the vegetable as well.

They said to him

, the Sages said to Nahum the Mede:

“Let the matter be forgotten and not be stated!”

For they hold that it is not ordinarily sown except for seed. And if one sowed it for the seed, he is exempt from tithing the vegetable.

And we challenge: Why did they say this to him?

And

was it not the case that

there is,

there is

Rabbi Eliezer who stands in agreement with him,

who holds like him?

For we learned

[Maasrot 5:4]:

Rabbi Eliezer says: The shabbat plant

—

is tithed as seed, vegetable, and fine leaves.

And we answer: Rabbi Eliezer does not agree with him, because

there

—the matter under discussion there is

the garden shabbat plant,

the shabbat plant that grows in a garden, and that is sown for vegetable and for seed, because it is fit to eat both its seed and the vegetable and fine leaves—

But that which grows in the fields is eaten as a vegetable only for its seed. And concerning it Rabbi Eliezer holds that one tithes only the seed, if he sowed it for its seed.

And it is concerning that which grows in the fields that Nahum the Mede said that it is tithed as seed, vegetable, and fine leaves, and there is no one who holds like him.

Rav Aha bar Minyomi said to Abaye: A great man came from our place,

a great man came to the Land of Israel from our place, the land of Media,

every matter that he said

concerning every matter that he said—

they said to him

the Sages said to him

“Let the matter be forgotten and not be stated”?!

Why did they reject all his words?

He said

Abaye: They did not reject all his words;

there is one

one law that they did not reject, but even accepted it,

for we act in accordance with him

and we even conduct ourselves according to him!

And what is that matter?

For it was taught

we learned:

Nahum the Mede says: A person requests

asks for

his needs

—he elaborates on it and prays for his needs—

in

the blessing of

“Who hears prayer”

in the Eighteen Benedictions, and this is not an interruption prohibited during prayer.

And we conduct ourselves according to him, and the Sages did not reject all his words.

Said

Rav Aha bar Minyomi to Abaye:

“Except for that one!”

Apart from this halakha, we do not conduct ourselves “according to him,” but

it depends on great pillars

—this halakha depends on thick and strong ropes, or on great trees; that is, great Sages hold this opinion.

And the Gemara brings the disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, and at its conclusion it is explained that the Sages, the “great pillars,” hold this halakha stated by Nahum the Mede: “A person requests his needs in the blessing ‘Who hears prayer.’”

For it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer says: A person requests his needs

before the Eighteen Benedictions,

and afterward he prays

the Eighteen Benedictions.

As it is stated

[Psalms 102]

“A prayer of the poor man when he wraps himself, and before the Lord he pours out his utterance.”

First the poor man prays concerning the wrapping of his soul and the distress of his heart, and afterward he pours out his utterance, which is the Eighteen Benedictions.

But

there is no

meaning of

“utterance” except prayer

[a fixed prayer—and this is the Eighteen Benedictions],

as it is stated

[Genesis 24] “

And Isaac went out to converse in the field

toward evening,” and then he instituted the afternoon prayer [which is a fixed prayer].

Rabbi Yehoshua says

: First

he should pray

the Eighteen Benedictions,

and afterward request his needs,

as it is stated

[Psalms 142] “

I pour out my utterance before Him; my distress I declare before Him.”

It follows that first he “pours out his utterance,” which is prayer, and afterward declares his distress before the Holy One, blessed be He.

And the Gemara analyzes:

And Rabbi Eliezer as well,

what will he answer to Rabbi Yehoshua’s proof?

Is it

not

written

“I pour out

my utterance before Him;

my distress I declare before Him”?

And he answers:

This is what it says,

this is what King David said:

“I pour out my utterance before Him”

at the time when “my distress before Him

I declare.”

That is, I have already declared my distress before Him.

And the Gemara further analyzes:

And Rabbi Yehoshua as well,

what will he answer to Rabbi Eliezer’s proof?

Is it

not

written, “A prayer of the poor man when he wraps himself,

and before the Lord he pours out his utterance”?

And he answers:

This is what it says,

this is what King David said: “

When is it a prayer of the poor man,

when is it the prayer of the poor man?

At the time when before the Lord he pours out his utterance,”

after he has already prayed his prayer.

And we challenge:

Since

these

verses

—the expositions of the verses—

do not support the view of one master,

they do not compel the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer,

nor that of the other master

Rabbi Yehoshua

do they support,

since we have interpreted them for both one and the other, if so,

over what do they disagree?

On what principle do they actually disagree?

And we answer: They disagree

in accordance with the exposition of Rabbi Simlai.

[For Rabbi Simlai expounded]

: “A person should always first set forth the praise of the Omnipresent,

the first three blessings of the Eighteen Benedictions—Patriarchs, Mighty Deeds, and Holiness—in which there is no prayer or request, but words of praise of the Holy One, blessed be He—

and afterward he should pray

the remaining blessings, which contain supplication and prayer.

From where do we know this,

from where do we learn this?

From Moses our teacher,

who first arranged the praise of the Omnipresent and afterward prayed his supplication to enter the Land of Israel.

As it is written

[Deuteronomy 3]

“Lord God, You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness and Your strong hand,

for who is a god in heaven or on earth who can perform deeds like Yours and like Your mighty deeds?”

And these are words of praise of the Holy One, blessed be He.

And it is written afterward,

and afterward he requested his request,

“Please let me cross over and see the good land.”