Avodah Zarah 7b (ז:) — the Talmud in English

However, if they performed their deeds

openly—they are not accepted

, since, having rebelled to such an extent, they do not set their hearts to return in complete repentance.

But

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

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

they are accepted

—

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

“Return, rebellious children,”

indicating even those who sinned deliberately and openly [the term “openly” connotes rebellion and arrogance].

And concerning this halakha,

Rabbi Yitzḥak of Kefar Akko said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with that pair,

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa.

Mishna:

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

The Sages in the first Mishna maintain that it is prohibited to conduct business with them during the three days preceding their festivals. But—

Rabbi Yishmael says: Three

days

before them, and three

days

after them—

it is prohibited.

are prohibited.

And the Sages say: Before their festivals—

—

it is prohibited;

after their festivals—

—

it is permitted [the Gemara will explain in what matter they disagree with the Sages of the first Mishna].

The Gemara:

Rav Taḥlifa bar Avdimi said that Shmuel said: Sunday

is prohibited according to Rabbi Yishmael forever,

[another version:

the Christian day

] every week, as it is the Christians’ festival day,

according to Rabbi Yishmael forever,

throughout all the days of the week,

it is prohibited

to conduct 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 prohibited; after their festivals —

it is permitted.

The Gemara analyzes: The statement of

the Sages—

that is

identical to the statement of

the first tanna,

who prohibits transactions before their festivals and permits them afterward! That is, what novel point did they intend to teach, and in what do they disagree?

There is a difference between them,

as there is the following practical difference between them—

The first tanna maintains

: The three days

are in addition to their festivals,

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

But

the

the later Sages,

in the second Mishna,

maintain: They and their festivals. The festival day itself is included in the three days, since they did not say precisely “three days before their festivals”; therefore, it is possible that they intended to disagree with the first tanna concerning the rule that “they and their festivals” are counted together.

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

that there is another difference between them:

If one conducted a transaction,

what is the status of the transaction after the fact—

that is the difference between them.

The first tanna maintains: If one conducted a transaction, it is permitted.

Since the wording “it is prohibited to conduct business” implies [to some degree] that the prohibition concerns the transaction itself, and there is no prohibition against deriving benefit from the object.

But

the

the later Sages,

who said simply “it is prohibited,”

maintain: If one conducted a transaction, it is prohibited.

And if you wish, say that the difference concerns Shmuel’s ruling,

the law stated by Shmuel—

that is the difference between them.

As Shmuel said

: This halakha, that it is prohibited to conduct business with them before their festival day, was stated only with regard to Eretz Yisrael; but

in the Diaspora,

outside Eretz Yisrael,

only their festival day itself is prohibited. For the gentiles of the Diaspora are not so devoted to their idols, and they do not begin preparing for their festivals three days in advance. Furthermore, this is because we fear them.

This is because the gentiles of the Diaspora are not so firmly attached to their idols and do not begin preparing for them three days in advance. In addition, we are afraid of them.

The first tanna accepts Shmuel’s ruling,

maintaining that it applies only in Eretz Yisrael.

But

the later Sages do not accept Shmuel’s ruling

; they do not agree with him, and prohibit transactions in the Diaspora as well during the three days before their festivals.

And if you wish, say that the difference concerns the ruling of Naḥum the Mede,

the law stated by Naḥum the Mede—

that is the difference between them.

As it was taught in a beraita, Naḥum 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 ruling

of Naḥum the Mede. But

the

the later Sages,

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

accept the ruling of Naḥum the Mede.

After the Gemara has explained several possible interpretations of the disagreement between the Sages and the first tanna, it presents the opinion of the Sages who disagreed with Naḥum the Mede.

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

:

Let the matter be buried and never mentioned

—this statement was never uttered by anyone! That is, your words have no validity.

The Gemara asks: Why did they say this to him,

and

is it not the case that

there are

the later Sages,

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

hold in accordance with him,

agreeing with the words of Naḥum the Mede?

The Gemara answers: Here there is no opinion of the Sages, for

who are the Sages?

Who is the author of this opinion, which the Mishna refers to anonymously as “the Sages”?

It is Naḥum the Mede,

and his is an individual opinion. Therefore, the Sages refused to accept his view and told him that his words had no validity.

The Gemara cites another beraita in which the Sages said to Naḥum the Mede: “Let the matter be buried and never mentioned”!

Just as it is prohibited to conduct business with gentiles on their festival day, so too the Sages prohibited selling them large domesticated animals, even throughout the entire year and not specifically during the days of their festivals.

The reason is that the Sages decreed lest one sell the animal shortly before the onset of Shabbat. While it is still owned by the Jew, the gentile may wish to test its strength by having it carry loads, and the Jewish seller will drive it by calling to it, since the animal recognizes his voice. In the meantime, Shabbat will begin, and it will emerge that he has violated the prohibition of leading an animal with a burden on Shabbat. When they issued the decree, they extended it even to animals unfit for carrying loads, such as calves and foals, whether sound or even injured.

Concerning this halakha, the Gemara cites a beraita:

It was taught in another beraita,

in a different beraita:

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

[the version of the Bach:

an old horse

],

during the

war

[as will be explained].

They said to him,

the Sages said to Naḥum the Mede:

Let the matter be buried and never mentioned!

The Gemara asks: Why did they say this to him,

and

is it not the case that

there is ben

Beteira, who holds in accordance with him?

Does ben Beteira not also hold this opinion?

As we learned

[below, 14b]:

Ben Beteira permits selling a horse

to a gentile, because a horse is not ordinarily used to carry loads, but for riding. And even if the Jew rides it on Shabbat in order to demonstrate to the gentile its strength as a riding animal, the Jew will not violate the Torah prohibition of leading an animal with a burden, because riding on an animal 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, maintain that it must nevertheless be prohibited for two reasons. First, because a horse serves as a weapon of war, as it can kill in battle with a blow, and the Sages prohibited selling weapons of war to a gentile, lest he harm Jews. Second, because an old horse is used to turn a millstone—that is, it works at a mill—and there is still concern lest the Jew operate it at the onset of Shabbat in order to demonstrate its strength to the gentile.

If so, it is difficult: Naḥum the Mede’s opinion is not an individual opinion, since ben Beteira agrees with him. Why, then, did the Sages say to him, “Let the matter be buried and never mentioned”?

The Gemara answers: Naḥum the Mede does not agree with ben Beteira, because

ben Beteira

permits a horse entirely, and

does not distinguish

between

males and females

[according to the version of the Maharsha:

and between old and young]. He maintains that there is no concern either regarding the prohibition of Shabbat, so that even an old horse is permitted, or regarding the sale of weapons of war, so that even a young horse is permitted.

But

he

he,

Naḥum the Mede,

by the fact that he distinguishes

—by making a distinction—

between males and females

[according to the version of the Maharsha:

and between old and young],

it follows that he

holds like the Sages

who disagree with ben Beteira,

and therefore

Naḥum the Mede prohibits a young horse, since it serves as a weapon of war—

And according to

the opinion of

the Sages, let the matter be buried

that it should be permitted in the case of an old horse,

and never mentioned,

because it is certainly necessary to decree against an old horse on account of a young one. They told him that they did not accept his distinction between one horse and another.

The Gemara cites another beraita concerning the laws of tithes, in which too the Sages said to Naḥum the Mede: “Let the matter be buried and never mentioned.”

There is a principle in the laws of tithes: Anything that is ordinarily sown in order to eat its seeds is exempt from tithing the vegetable—that is, its 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 its seeds, for the sake of using the vegetable, its seeds are tithed in the usual manner, and the vegetable is also tithed, since he sowed it for the vegetable.

It was taught in a beraita: Naḥum the Mede says: Shabbat,

a type of vegetable used as a seasoning,

is tithed with regard to seed, vegetable, and thin leaves,

whether one gathered it while it was a vegetable, whether one gathered it when it was “thin leaves,” or whether one left it until seed kernels grew inside it, hardened, and were removed; one must tithe all of them. For he maintains that the ordinary practice with shabbat is to sow it both for seed and for vegetable. Therefore, even if one sowed it for its seed, he is obligated to tithe the vegetable as well.

They said to him

—the Sages said to Naḥum the Mede—

“Let the matter be buried and never mentioned!”

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

The Gemara asks: Why did they say this to him?

And

is it not the case that

there is

there is

Rabbi Eliezer, who holds in accordance with him,

who agrees with him?

As we learned

[Maaserot 5:4]:

Rabbi Eliezer says: Shabbat—

—

is tithed with regard to seed, vegetable, and thin leaves.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer does not agree with him, because

there

the subject under discussion is

garden shabbat,

shabbat that grows in a garden. That plant is sown for both vegetable and seed, since both its seed and its vegetable and thin leaves are fit to eat—

But shabbat that grows in the fields is eaten as a vegetable only for its seed. Concerning that type, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that one tithes only the seed if one sowed it for its seed.

And it is concerning the type that grows in the fields that Naḥum the Mede said it is tithed with regard to seed, vegetable, and thin leaves, and no one agrees with him.

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

a prominent man arrived in Eretz Yisrael from our region, the land of Media.

Everything that he said,

concerning every matter that he stated,

they said to him

the Sages,

“Let the matter be buried and never mentioned”?!

Why did they reject all his statements?

Abaye said:

They did not reject all his statements.

There is one

ruling that they did not reject; rather, they even accepted it,

for we act in accordance with him

—we actually practice according to his ruling!

And what is that matter?

As it was taught in a beraita,

we learned:

Naḥum the Mede says: A person may ask

—request—

for his needs

by elaborating on them and praying for them

in

the blessing

Who hears prayer

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

And we practice in accordance with him; the Sages did not reject all his statements.

Rav Aḥa bar Minyomi said

to Abaye:

“Except for that one!”

Aside from this halakha, we do not practice “in accordance with him”; rather,

it is dependent on mighty supports

, meaning that this halakha is supported by strong ropes, or great trees—that is, prominent Sages maintain this opinion.

The Gemara cites a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, at the conclusion of which it is explained that the Sages, the “mighty supports,” maintain the halakha stated by Naḥum the Mede: “A person may ask for his needs in the blessing ‘Who hears prayer.’”

As it was taught in a beraita, Rabbi Eliezer says: A person may ask for his needs

before the Eighteen Benedictions,

and afterward he should pray

the Eighteen Benedictions.

As it is stated

[Psalms 102]:

“A prayer of the afflicted when he is faint, and before the Lord he pours out his supplication.”

First, the afflicted person prays concerning the faintness of his soul and the distress of his heart, and afterward he pours out his supplication, which is the Eighteen Benedictions.

But

there is no

meaning of

“supplication” other than a fixed prayer

[and this is the Eighteen Benedictions],

as it is stated

[Genesis 24]:

“And Isaac went out to supplicate in the field

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

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

First,

he should pray

the Eighteen Benedictions,

and afterward he should ask for his needs,

as it is stated

[Psalms 142]:

“I pour out my supplication before Him; I declare my distress before Him.”

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

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Eliezer, too,

what will he answer to Rabbi Yehoshua’s proof?

Is it

not

written, “I pour out

my

supplication before Him;

I declare my distress before Him”?

The Gemara answers:

This is what he is saying:

This is what King David said:

“I pour out my supplication before Him”—

when “my distress before Him

I declare.”

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

The Gemara further asks:

And Rabbi Yehoshua, too,

what will he answer to Rabbi Eliezer’s proof?

Is it

not

written, “A prayer of the afflicted when he is faint,

and before the Lord he pours out his supplication”?

The Gemara answers:

This is what he is saying:

This is what King David said:

“When is it a prayer of the afflicted,

when is it the prayer of the afflicted?

When he pours out his supplication before the Lord,”

after he has already prayed his prayer.

The Gemara asks:

Granted,

these

verses,

the expositions of the verses,

do not support the one Master’s

opinion, Rabbi Eliezer’s,

nor the other Master’s

—Rabbi Yehoshua’s—

opinion,

since we have interpreted them in accordance with both one and the other. If so,

over what do they disagree?

On what reasoning do they actually disagree?

The Gemara answers: They disagree

in accordance with the teaching of Rabbi Simlai.

For Rabbi Simlai taught

: A person should always first arrange the praise of the Omnipresent,

the first three blessings of the Eighteen Benedictions—Patriarchs, Mighty Deeds, and Sanctification—which contain neither prayer nor petition, 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 learn this,

from where do we derive this?

From Moses our teacher,

who first arranged praise of the Omnipresent and afterward prayed his supplication to enter Eretz Yisrael.

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 mighty acts like Yours?”

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

And it is written afterward,

after which he asked his request,

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