Avodah Zarah 12

Avodah Zarah 12

שֶׁשָּׁפְתוּ שְׁתֵּי קְדֵירוֹת עַל גַּבֵּי כִּירָה אַחַת? וְלֹא חַשּׁוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים! מַאי ״לֹא חַשּׁוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים״?

place two pots on one stove, and yet the Sages were not concerned and did not issue a prohibition with regard to the meat that was in the pot belonging to the Jew, despite the fact that forbidden food was in close proximity to the permitted food? Similarly, in this case as well, the Sages were not concerned about the bazaar’s proximity to Gaza and did not prohibit engaging in business there. The Gemara asks: What did he mean in stating: The Sages were not concerned, with regard to the meat, and how does that case relate the issue here?

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִשּׁוּם בְּשַׂר נְבֵילָה לָא אָמְרִינַן, דִּלְמָא מַהְדַּר אַפֵּיהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לַאֲחוֹרֵיהּ וְשָׁדֵי גּוֹי נְבֵילָה בִּקְדֵירָה, דִּכְוָותַהּ הָכָא נָמֵי לֹא חַשּׁוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים מִשּׁוּם דְּמֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.

Abaye said: The Sages were not concerned with regard to the possibility of eating the meat of an unslaughtered animal carcass. We do not say: Cooking in this manner is prohibited since perhaps the Jew will turn his face and at that moment the gentile will throw meat of an animal carcass into his pot. Here too, in the corresponding situation, although the permitted and prohibited places are in close proximity, the Sages were not concerned about engaging in business transactions in the bazaar of Gaza, even due to the possibility that money associated with idol worship would end up in the hands of the Jews. If the money were for the purchase of an animal used as an offering for idolatry, those coins would be prohibited by Torah law. Nevertheless, the Sages were not concerned about this possibility, just as they were not concerned that the gentile might add his meat to the Jew’s pot.

רָבָא אָמַר: מַאי ״לֹא חַשּׁוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים״? מִשּׁוּם בִּישּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם.

Rava said that there is a different explanation. The Sages were not lenient in the face of a potential violation of Torah law, but were lenient in a case where it was rabbinic law that might be violated. As for Rabbi Ḥanina’s comparison to pots in Tyre, there is no concern that a gentile might throw his meat into the pot of a Jew, as he would derive no benefit from doing so and would be afraid that the Jew might see him. By contrast, here the gentile is engaged in business. Rather, what is it that the Sages were not concerned about in the case of the pots? Although the gentile is cooking food next to the Jew, there is no concern with regard to the possibility that the gentile might cook the Jew’s food, causing the latter to violate the rabbinic prohibition against eating food cooked by gentiles.

דִּכְוָותַהּ, הָכָא נָמֵי, לֹא חַשּׁוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים מִשּׁוּם יוֹם אֵידָם.

Rava concludes: Here too, in the corresponding situation, it is referring to a case where the coins were the gentile’s own money. The Sages were not concerned about engaging in business transactions in the bazaar of Gaza, even due to the possibility that the Jew might be engaging in business with residents of Gaza on their festival day, which would be a violation of rabbinic law.

רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא אָמַר: לֹא חַשּׁוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים מִשּׁוּם צִינּוֹרָא.

Rabba bar Ulla says: Even if the concern in the case of the pots applied only to the gentile cooking the Jew’s food, not the consumption of non-kosher meat, with regard to the bazaar the halakha would not be comparably lenient. The reason is the Jew need only stir the coals once to ensure that the food in his pot is not considered cooked by a gentile, an option that does not apply here. Rather, in the case mentioned by Rabbi Ḥanina, the Sages were not concerned with regard to the possibility that food might splatter [tzinnora] from the gentile’s pot into the Jew’s pot. This is an especially lenient case, both because this is an unlikely possibility and because that small amount of food would be nullified by a majority of the Jew’s food.

דִּכְוָותַהּ, הָכָא נָמֵי, לֹא חַשּׁוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים מִשּׁוּם לִפְנֵי אֵידֵיהֶן.

Rabba bar Ulla concludes: Here too, in the corresponding situation, the Sages were not concerned about engaging in business transactions in the bazaar of Gaza with regard to the days before the festival of Gaza. This is an analogous case to that of the splattered food, as it is outside the festival in both time and place.

מַהוּ לֵילֵךְ לְשָׁם וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — אָסוּר לִיכָּנֵס לְתוֹכָהּ, וְלֹא מִתּוֹכָהּ לְעִיר אַחֶרֶת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהַדֶּרֶךְ מְיוּחֶדֶת לְאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם — אָסוּר, אֵין הַדֶּרֶךְ מְיוּחֶדֶת לְאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם — מוּתָּר.

§ The mishna teaches: What is the halakha with regard to traveling there, a place that is celebrating a pagan festival? If the road leads only to that place, it is prohibited, but if the road leads to another place as well, it is permitted. In this connection, the Gemara cites a related baraita. The Sages taught: In the case of a city in which there is active idol worship, i.e., its residents are worshipping their idol on that day, it is prohibited to enter the city, and one may not leave it for another city; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: As long as the road is designated only for that place, it is prohibited to enter the city. But if the road is not designated for only that place, it is permitted.

יָשַׁב לוֹ קוֹץ בִּפְנֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — לֹא יִשְׁחֶה וְיִטְלֶנָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּמִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְאִם אֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה — מוּתָּר. נִתְפַּזְּרוּ לוֹ מְעוֹתָיו בִּפְנֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — לֹא יִשְׁחֶה וְיִטְּלֵם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּמִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְאִם אֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה — מוּתָּר.

The baraita continues: If a thorn became imbedded in one’s foot while he was standing before an object of idol worship, he may not bend down and remove the thorn, because he appears to be bowing down to the object of idol worship; but if he is not seen, it is permitted. If one’s coins were scattered while he is before an object of idol worship, he may not bend down and pick them up, because he appears to be bowing down to the object of idol worship; but if he is not seen, it is permitted.

מַעְיָין הַמּוֹשֵׁךְ לִפְנֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — לֹא יִשְׁחֶה וְיִשְׁתֶּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּמִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְאִם אֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה — מוּתָּר. פַּרְצוּפוֹת הַמְקַלְּחִין מַיִם לִכְרַכִּין — לֹא יַנִּיחַ פִּיו עַל פִּיהֶם וְיִשְׁתֶּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כִּמְנַשֵּׁק לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ — לֹא יַנִּיחַ פִּיו עַל סִילוֹן וְיִשְׁתֶּה, מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה.

Likewise, if there is a spring that runs before an object of idol worship, one may not bend down and drink from it, because he appears to be bowing down to the object of idol worship; but if he is not seen, it is permitted. With regard to figures of human faces [partzufot] that spray water in the cities, i.e., fountains, one may not place his mouth on the mouths of the figures and drink, because he appears to be kissing the object of idol worship. Similarly, one may not place his mouth on a pipe [sillon] and drink, here due to the danger that this practice poses.

מַאי ״אֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה״? אִילֵּימָא דְּלָא מִתְחֲזֵי, וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן, אֲפִילּוּ בְּחַדְרֵי חֲדָרִים אָסוּר! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: אִם אֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה כְּמִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — מוּתָּר.

The Gemara asks: What does the baraita mean when it states: If he is not seen? If we say it means that he is not seen by others, doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav says: Wherever the Sages prohibited an action due to the appearance of prohibition, it is prohibited even in the innermost chambers where no one will see it, as the Sages did not distinguish between different circumstances in such cases. Accordingly, the fact that he is not seen by anyone should make no difference with regard to whether or not the action is prohibited. Rather, say: If he is not seen as one who bows down to an object of idol worship, i.e., he turns his side or back to the idol, then it is permitted.

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי תְּנָא קוֹץ, מִשּׁוּם דְּאֶפְשָׁר לְמֵיזַל קַמֵּיהּ וּמִשְׁקְלֵיהּ, אֲבָל מָעוֹת דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר — אֵימָא לָא.

The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the baraita to list all of these cases, notwithstanding their similarity. As, if it had taught only the case of the thorn, one might have thought that bending down to remove a thorn is prohibited because it is possible to walk past the figure, and only then take out the thorn. But in the case of the coins, where it is not possible to collect them elsewhere, you might say that it is not prohibited to pick them up.

וְאִי תְּנָא מָעוֹת — דְּמָמוֹנָא, אֲבָל קוֹץ דְּצַעֲרָא — אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי תְּנָא הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי — מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵיכָּא סַכָּנָה, אֲבָל מַעְיָין דְּאִיכָּא סַכָּנָה, דְּאִי לָא שָׁתֵי מָיֵית — אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא.

And furthermore, if the baraita had taught only the case of the coins, one might have thought that the reason for the stringent ruling is that the loss is purely financial. But in the case of the thorn, which causes him pain, you might say that it is not prohibited to remove it. And finally, if the baraita had taught only these two cases, one might have thought that they are prohibited because there is no danger if the action is not performed on the spot. But in the case of the spring, where there is an element of danger, that if he does not drink he might die, one could say that it is not prohibited. Therefore, it is necessary to state each example.

פַּרְצוּפוֹת לְמָה לִי? מִשּׁוּם דְּקָבָעֵי לְמִיתְנֵי: כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ לֹא יַנִּיחַ פִּיו עַל גַּבֵּי הַסִּילוֹן וְיִשְׁתֶּה, מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה.

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the baraita to teach that it is prohibited to drink from fountains formed in the figure of human faces? If the reason is to teach the halakha in a life-threatening situation, the baraita already addressed this issue in the case of the spring. The Gemara answers: It was included because the baraita wanted to teach the continuation of that halakha: Similarly, one may not place his mouth on a pipe and drink, due to the danger that this poses.

מַאי סַכָּנָה? עֲלוּקָה. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה אָדָם מַיִם לֹא מִן הַנְּהָרוֹת וְלֹא מִן הָאֲגַמִּים, לֹא בְּפִיו וְלֹא בְּיָדוֹ אַחַת, וְאִם שָׁתָה — דָּמוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ, מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה. מַאי סַכָּנָה? סַכָּנַת עֲלוּקָה.

The Gemara inquires: What danger is the baraita referring to here? It is referring to the danger of swallowing a leech in the water. As the Sages taught: A person should not drink water from rivers or from ponds either by drinking from the water directly with his mouth, or by collecting the water with one hand alone. And if he drank in this manner, his blood is upon his own head, due to the danger. The Gemara explains: What is this danger? It is the danger of swallowing a leech.

מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הַבּוֹלֵעַ נִימָא שֶׁל מַיִם — מוּתָּר לְהָחֵם לוֹ חַמִּין בְּשַׁבָּת. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁבָּלַע נִימָא שֶׁל מַיִם, וְהִתִּיר רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה לְהָחֵם לוֹ חַמִּין בְּשַׁבָּת. אַדְּהָכִי וְהָכִי? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לִיגַמַּע חַלָּא.

This supports the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: In the case of one who swallows a water leech [nima], it is permitted to perform labor on Shabbat and heat water for him to drink on Shabbat, as his life is in danger. And in fact there was an incident involving one who swallowed a water leech, and Rabbi Neḥemya permitted them to heat water for him on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: In the meantime, until the water is ready, what should he do? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: He should swallow vinegar.

אָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין: הַאי מַאן דִּבְלַע זִיבּוּרָא — מִחְיָיא לָא חָיֵי, מִיהוּ לַשְׁקְיֵיהּ רְבִיעֲתָא דְחַלָּא שַׁמְגַּז, אֶפְשָׁר דְּחָיֵי פּוּרְתָּא עַד דְּמַפְקֵיד אַבֵּיתֵיהּ.

Rav Idi bar Avin said: One who swallowed a hornet will not live, as the hornet will sting him to death. Nevertheless, they should give him a quarter-log of sharp [shamgaz] vinegar to drink. In this manner it is possible that he will live for a bit longer until he can instruct his household with regard to his final wishes before dying.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה אָדָם מַיִם בַּלַּיְלָה, וְאִם שָׁתָה — דָּמוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ, מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה. מַאי סַכָּנָה? סַכָּנַת שַׁבְרִירֵי. וְאִם צָחֵי, מַאי תַּקַּנְתֵּיהּ? אִי אִיכָּא אַחֲרִינָא בַּהֲדֵיהּ — לִיתְרְיֵיהּ וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: ״צָחֵינָא מַיָּא״, וְאִי לָא — נְקַרְקֵשׁ בְּנִכְתְּמָא אַחַצְבָּא, וְנֵימָא אִיהוּ לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ: ״פְּלָנְיָא בַּר פְּלָנִיתָא, אָמְרָה לָךְ אִימָּךְ אִזְדְּהַר מִשַּׁבְרִירֵי בְּרִירֵי רִירֵי יְרֵי רֵי בְּכָסֵי חִיוָּרֵי״.

The Sages taught: A person should not drink water at night. And if he drank, his blood is upon his own head, due to the danger. The Gemara asks: What is this danger? The Gemara answers: The danger of the shavrirei, an evil spirit that rules over water. And if he is thirsty, what is his remedy? If there is another person with him, he should wake him and say to him: I thirst for water, and then he may drink. And if there is no other person with him, he should knock with the lid on the jug and say to himself: So-and-so, son of so-and-so, your mother said to you to beware of the shavrirei verirei rirei yirei rei, found in white cups. This is an incantation against the evil spirit.

מַתְנִי׳ עִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְהָיוּ בָּהּ חֲנוּיוֹת מְעוּטָּרוֹת וְשֶׁאֵינָן מְעוּטָּרוֹת, זֶה הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבֵית שְׁאָן, וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: הַמְעוּטָּרוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת, וְשֶׁאֵינָן מְעוּטָּרוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת.

MISHNA: With regard to a city in which idol worship is practiced and in which there are stores that are adorned for the sake of idol worship and there are others that are not adorned, this was in fact an incident that occurred in Beit She’an, and the Sages said: With regard to the adorned shops, it is prohibited to buy from them, but in the case of those that are not adorned it is permitted.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מְעוּטָּרוֹת בְּוֶורֶד וַהֲדַס, דְּקָא מִתְהֲנֵי מֵרֵיחָא, אֲבָל מְעוּטָּרוֹת בְּפֵירוֹת — מוּתָּרוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא יִדְבַּק בְּיָדְךָ מְאוּמָה מִן הַחֵרֶם״, נֶהֱנֶה הוּא דְּאָסוּר,

GEMARA: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: They taught that buying is prohibited only in the case of stores that are adorned with roses and myrtle, as one derives benefit from their smell and they serve as offerings to objects of idol worship. But with regard to stores that are adorned with fruit, it is permitted to buy from them. What is the reason that they are permitted? As the verse states: “And there shall cleave nothing dedicated to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18), i.e., the items dedicated to idol worship. From here it is derived that it is prohibited to derive benefit from idol worship,