Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 28, 2018 | 讬状讘 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Avodah Zarah 13

It is forbidden to purchase from stores in cities of idol worshippers (presumably during their holiday) that are decorated. Reish聽Lakish and Rabib Yochanan debate what聽the decoration is and why specifically those stores are forbidden. According to Rabbi Yochanan, the issue is because those stores pay tributes to the idols. Items purchased in a forbidden manner are to be rendered useless. For animals this means to cut off the hooves. A question is asked why this is n’t forbidden on account of tzaar baalei聽hayim – mistreatment of animals? Why is another context is the penalty to close the animal in a room and let it die? What is the difference between the 2 cases?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗讘诇 诪讛谞讛 砖专讬 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪注讜讟专讜转 讘驻讬专讜转 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 谞讛谞讛 讗住讜专 诪讛谞讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

but it is permitted to cause benefit. Although by buying from the store one indirectly supports idol worship, as a portion of the sales are given to support idol worship, this is not prohibited by Torah law. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even if the stores are adorned only with fruit one is also prohibited from buying from them. This is derived by an a fortiori inference: If it is prohibited to derive benefit from idol worship, is it not all the more so prohibited to cause benefit to idol worship?

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讬讜诐 砖注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪谞讞转 讘讜 讗转 讛诪讻住 诪讻专讬讝讬谉 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 诪讬 砖谞讜讟诇 注讟专讛 讜讬谞讬讞 讘专讗砖讜 讜讘专讗砖 讞诪讜专讜 诇讻讘讜讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讬谞讬讞 诇讜 讗转 讛诪讻住 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗诇 讬谞讬讞 诇讜 讗转 讛诪讻住

The Gemara raises an objection to Reish Lakish鈥檚 opinion from a baraita. Rabbi Natan says: On the day in which a reduction is made from the tax in honor of idol worship, they announce and say: Anyone who takes a wreath of roses and places it on his head and on the head of his donkey in honor of the object of idol worship, his tax will be reduced. And if one does not place a wreath on one鈥檚 head, his tax will not be reduced.

讬讛讜讚讬 砖谞诪爪讗 砖诐 诪讛 讬注砖讛 讬谞讬讞 谞诪爪讗 谞讛谞讛 诇讗 讬谞讬讞 谞诪爪讗 诪讛谞讛

What should a Jew who is present there do? If he places the wreath on his head and on the head of his donkey, he will be found to derive benefit from idol worship. And if he does not place the wreath on his head, he will be found to cause benefit to idol worship, through the tax that he pays.

诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讛谞讜砖讗 讜谞讜转谉 讘砖讜拽 砖诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讛诪讛 转讬注拽专 驻讬专讜转 讻住讜转 讜讻诇讬诐 讬专拽讘讜 诪注讜转 讜讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 讬讜诇讬讻诐 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讜讗讬讝讛讜 注讬拽讜专 讛诪谞砖专 驻专住讜转讬讛 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讜诇诪讟讛

From here the Sages stated: One who conducts business in a market of idol worship will be forced either to benefit from or cause benefit to idol worship. Therefore, any animal he bought there should be destroyed, any produce, clothing or vessels should be left to decompose, and with regard to any money or metal vessels, which would not decompose on their own, one should take them and cast them into the Dead Sea. And what constitutes destroying the animal? One cuts off the hooves of the animal from the knee and below.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讬谞讬讞 谞诪爪讗 谞讛谞讛 诇讗 讬谞讬讞 谞诪爪讗 诪讛谞讛

The Gemara explains the objection to Reish Lakish鈥檚 statement. In any event, the baraita teaches that it is prohibited to cause benefit to idol worship, as it states: If he places the wreath on his head then he will be found to derive benefit from idol worship, and if he does not place the wreath on his head, he will be found to cause benefit to idol worship. How, then, can Reish Lakish claim that it is permitted to cause benefit to idol worship?

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 拽住讘专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 谞转谉 讜讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻专讘谞谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘专 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

Rav Mesharshiyya, son of Rav Idi, said: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish holds as follows: The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Natan, whose opinion is cited in the baraita, and I spoke in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Natan. The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yo岣nan, who rules in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Natan, holds that the Rabbis do not disagree with Rabbi Natan; rather, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to cause benefit to idol worship.

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛讜诇讻讬谉 诇讬专讬讚 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讜诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛诐 讘讛诪讛 注讘讚讬诐 讜砖驻讞讜转 讘转讬诐 讜砖讚讜转 讜讻专诪讬诐 讜讻讜转讘 讜诪注诇讛 讘注专讻讗讜转 砖诇讛谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪爪讬诇 诪讬讚诐

The Gemara asks: And is it so that they do not disagree? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One may go to a fair of gentiles, whose purpose is to honor to idol worship, and buy from the gentiles animals, and slaves, and maidservants, as the purchase raises the items to a more sanctified state; and he may buy houses, fields, and vineyards from them, due to the mitzva to settle Eretz Yisrael. And one may write the necessary deeds and confirm them in their gentile courts [be鈥檃rkaot], although this involves an acknowledgement of their authority, because it is as though he is rescuing his property from their hands, as the court鈥檚 confirmation and stamp of approval prevents the seller from denying the sale and claiming that the property still belongs to him.

讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 诪讟诪讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讚讜谉 讜诇注专注专 注诪讛诐 讜讻砖诐 砖诪讟诪讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讻讱 诪讟诪讗 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转

And if he is a priest, he may become ritually impure by going outside Eretz Yisrael, even though a priest is usually prohibited from leaving Eretz Yisrael to the impure land outside, in order to litigate with them and to contest their claims. And just as a priest may become ritually impure by going outside Eretz Yisrael, so may he become ritually impure for this purpose by entering a cemetery.

讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara interrupts its citation of the baraita to express surprise at this last ruling: Can it enter your mind to say that a priest may become impure by entering a cemetery? The halakha that a cemetery imparts ritual impurity to a priest is by Torah law; how could the Sages override this prohibition? Rather, the baraita is referring to an area where there is uncertainty with regard to the location of a grave or a corpse [beit haperas], owing to the fact that a grave had been unwittingly plowed over, and the bones may have become scattered throughout the field. Such a field imparts ritual impurity by rabbinic law.

讜诪讟诪讗 诇诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讜诇讬砖讗 讗砖讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讜爪讗 诇诇诪讜讚 讗讘诇 讘讝诪谉 砖诪讜爪讗 诇诇诪讜讚 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗

The baraita continues: And a priest may likewise become ritually impure and leave Eretz Yisrael in order to study Torah or in order to marry a woman. Rabbi Yehuda says: When does this allowance apply? It applies when he cannot find a place to study in Eretz Yisrael. But when the priest can find a place to study in Eretz Yisrael, he may not become ritually impure by leaving the country.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讝诪谉 砖诪讜爪讗 诇诇诪讜讚 讬讟诪讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讝讜讻讛 诇诇诪讜讚 诪讻诇

Rabbi Yosei says: Even when he can find a place to study Torah in Eretz Yisrael, he may leave the country and become ritually impure, because a person does not merit to learn from everyone, and it is possible that the more suitable teacher for him lives outside of Eretz Yisrael.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪注砖讛 讘讬讜住祝 讛讻讛谉 砖讛诇讱 讗讞专 专讘讜 诇爪讬讚讜谉 诇诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

Rabbi Yosei says, in support of his opinion: There was an incident involving Yosef the priest, who followed his teacher to the city of Sidon, outside of Eretz Yisrael, to learn Torah even though the preeminent Sage of his generation, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai, lived in Eretz Yisrael. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says about this: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

讗诇诪讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara returns to the issue at hand. This baraita apparently indicates that the Rabbis do disagree with Rabbi Natan, as they hold that it is permitted to buy items from a gentile fair and cause benefit to idol worship, whereas the ruling of Rabbi Natan is a minority opinion. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yo岣nan could have said to you: Actually, the Rabbis do not disagree with Rabbi Natan, and even according to this baraita one is prohibited from causing benefit for idol worship.

讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诇讜拽讞 诪谉 讛转讙专 讚砖拽诇讬 诪讬讻住讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讻讗谉 讘诇讜拽讞 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讚诇讗 砖拽诇讬 诪讬讻住讗 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara elaborates: And the fact that the baraita permits buying at a gentile fair is not difficult, as here, where Rabbi Natan prohibits buying items from a gentile fair, he states his ruling with regard to one who buys from a merchant, as a tax is taken from him for the benefit of idol worship; whereas there, in the baraita that permits buying items at the fair, it states its ruling with regard to one who buys from a homeowner, i.e., a private individual, where a tax is not taken from him.

讗诪专 诪专 讘讛诪讛 转讬注拽专 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 爪注专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗转 住讜住讬讛诐 转注拽专

搂 The Gemara returns to discuss the baraita that cited the opinion of Rabbi Natan. The Master said above: Any animal that one bought there should be destroyed. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there a requirement to prevent suffering to animals? Abaye said: Although there is an enjoinder against causing suffering to a living creature, it is permitted when necessary, as the Merciful One states to Joshua: 鈥淵ou shall destroy their horses鈥 (Joshua 11:6).

讗诪专 诪专 讜讗讬讝讜讛讬 注讬拽讜专 诪谞砖专 驻专住讜转讬讛 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讜诇诪讟讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗讬谉 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讞专讬诪讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讬讻讬谉 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讜讗诐 讛拽讚讬砖 讜讛讞专讬诐 讜讛注专讬讱 讘讛诪讛 转讬注拽专 驻讬专讜转 讻住讜转 讜讻诇讬诐

The Master said above: And what constitutes destroying the animal? One cuts the hooves of the animal from the knee and below. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: One may neither consecrate objects, nor dedicate items for sacred use, nor valuate an item鈥檚 worth based on its appraisal (see Leviticus, chapter 27) and dedicate its monetary worth to the Temple treasury, in the present time, when the Temple no longer exists. And if one did consecrate, or dedicate, or valuate items for sacred use, the presence of these items might lead to the violation of the prohibition against using consecrated property. Therefore, if one dedicated an animal it should be destroyed. If he dedicated produce, garments, or vessels made from materials that decompose,

讬专拽讘讜 诪注讜转 讜讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 讬讜诇讬讻诐 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讜讗讬讝讛讜 注讬拽讜专 谞讜注诇 讚诇转 讘驻谞讬讛 讜讛讬讗 诪转讛 诪讗讬诇讬讛

he should store them until they decompose. And if he dedicated money or metal vessels, he should take them and cast them into the Dead Sea. And what constitutes destroying? He locks the door before it, and the animal dies on its own from hunger. According to the baraita, the disposal of the animal is carried out by starving it, not by cutting its hooves.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讘讝讬讜谉 拽讚砖讬诐 讜谞砖讞讟讬讛 诪讬砖讞讟 讗转讜 讘讛讜 诇讬讚讬 转拽诇讛

Abaye said: There, in the case of a consecrated animal, the method employed is different, because cutting the animal鈥檚 hooves would cause the degradation of sacrificial animals. The Gemara asks: But why does the baraita require this complicated method of killing the animal? Why not simply state that he should slaughter it? The Gemara answers: If he were to slaughter it, someone might come to experience a mishap through it, by eating the meat and thereby misusing consecrated property.

讜诇讬砖讜讬讛 讙讬住讟专讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞转爪转诐 讗转 诪讝讘讞转诐 讜讙讜壮 诇讗 转注砖讜谉 讻谉 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讻诐

The Gemara asks: But why not let him render the animal a shard [gistera], by mutilating it so that it is unfit to be eaten? Why is it necessary to kill it in such a drawn-out fashion, by starving it to death? Abaye said that it is because the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall break down their altars鈥ou shall not do so to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:3鈥4). It is derived from here that one may not actively destroy any sacred item.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讛 讻诪讟讬诇 诪讜诐 讘拽讚砖讬诐 谞专讗讛 诪讜诐 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讚讞讝讬 诇讛拽专讘讛 讛砖转讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讛拽专讘讛 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

Rava said there is a different reason a consecrated animal may not be disposed of by cutting its hooves: It is because it appears as though he is inflicting a blemish on a sacrificial animal. The Gemara asks: Why does Rava say that it merely appears as though he is inflicting a blemish, when in actual fact he is inflicting a full-fledged blemish? The Gemara answers: This matter, that one may not inflict a blemish on a sacrificial animal, applies only when the Temple is standing, as the animal is fit for sacrifice and he renders it unfit. By contrast, now, when the animal is not fit for sacrifice, since there is no Temple, we have no problem with it by Torah law. The only problem is that it appears as though one is inflicting a blemish on a sanctified animal.

讜诇讬讛讜讬 讻诪讟讬诇 诪讜诐 讘讘注诇 诪讜诐 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讛拽专讘讛 讗住讜专 讘注诇 诪讜诐 谞讛讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讙讜驻讬讛 诇讚诪讬 讞讝讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 诇讚诪讬 讞讝讬 讜诇讗 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讞讝讬

The Gemara asks: But this should be considered equivalent to one who inflicts a blemish on an animal that is already blemished, which is prohibited even though that animal is not fit for sacrifice. The Gemara answers: In the case of a blemished animal when the Temple is standing it is prohibited to inflict a blemish upon it, as granted, it itself is not fit to serve as an offering; but it is fit to make use of its monetary value, i.e., another animal may be purchased with the proceeds of its sale and sacrificed in its place. This is to the exclusion of the case here, when there is no Temple, as the animal is not fit for its monetary value and it is not fit to serve as an offering itself.

讗砖讻讞讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 诇专讘讬 注讬诇讗讬 讚拽讗讬 讗驻讬转讞讗 讚爪讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽转谞讬 讘讛诪讛 转讬注拽专 注讘讚 诪讗讬 注讘讚 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 注讘讚 讙讜讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讱 转谞讬讗 讛讙讜讬诐 讜讛专讜注讬 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 诇讗 诪注诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜专讬讚讬谉

Rabbi Yona found Rabbi Elai, who was standing at the entrance to the city of Tyre. Rabbi Yona said to him: The baraita cited above teaches that if one bought an animal at a pagan fair it should be destroyed. What should be done with a slave purchased at the fair? Rabbi Yona elaborated: I do not raise the dilemma about a Jewish slave, as it is obvious that the master cannot cause him harm. Where it is a dilemma for me is the case of a gentile slave; what is the halakha? Rabbi Elai said to him in response: What is the reason that this is a dilemma for you? It is taught in a baraita: With regard to the gentiles and shepherds of small domesticated animals, we do not raise them from a pit but we do not actively lower them into a pit either. It may be inferred from here that one may not cause the death of a gentile slave.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 拽转谞讬 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讘讛诪讛 注讘讚讬诐 讜砖驻讞讜转 注讘讚 讬砖专讗诇 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 注讘讚 讙讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪住转讘专讗 注讘讚 讬砖专讗诇 讚讗讬 注讘讚 讙讜讬 诇诪讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗驻讬诇讜 注讘讚 讙讜讬 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讻谞讬住讜 转讞转 讻谞驻讬 讛砖讻讬谞讛

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: The second baraita cited above teaches that one may go to a pagan fair and buy from the gentiles animals, slaves, and maidservants. Does the baraita mean that one may buy a Jewish slave, or perhaps, is it teaching that one may buy even a gentile slave? Rabbi Zeira said to him: It stands to reason that the baraita means specifically a Jewish slave; as, if it is referring to a gentile slave, what is the reason that it is necessary for the Sages to permit this purchase? When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: It is permitted to purchase even a gentile slave, because he brings him under the wings of the Divine Presence by having him undergo the process of conversion when he becomes the slave of a Jew.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讟讜 讘讛诪讛 诪讗讬 诪讻谞讬住 转讞转 讻谞驻讬 讛砖讻讬谞讛 讗讬讻讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 诪注讜讟讬讬讛讜 讜讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚诪诪注讟讬 砖专讬

Rav Ashi said: But with regard to the permission to buy an animal, what is there about this purchase that one can be said to bring the animal under the wings of the Divine Presence? Rather, the reason it is permitted is because through this purchase the Jew reduces the possessions of the gentile. And here too, as he reduces the gentile鈥檚 property by purchasing the slave, it is permitted.

专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讝讘谉 住谞讚诇讗 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讝讘谉 驻讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讚 诇讞讘专讬讛 讬转诪讗 注讘讚 专讘讱 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讚讱 讬转诪讗 注讘讚 专讘讱 讛讻讬 讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讝讘讜谉 讜讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 住讘专 讞讘专讗讬 诪转讙专 讝讘谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诇讜拽讞 诪谉 讛转讙专 讚砖拽诇讬 诪讬讻住讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘诇 讘诇讜拽讞 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讚诇讗 砖拽诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬讻住讗 诪讜转专

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bought sandals and Rabbi Yirmeya bought bread at a pagan fair. One said to the other: Orphan, i.e., one with no guide, would your teacher act in this manner? The other likewise said to him: Orphan, would your teacher act in this manner? The Gemara explains: Actually, both purchased these items from a homeowner, i.e., a private individual, and each one thought that the other had purchased his item from a merchant. As Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, says: The Sages taught that it is prohibited to buy from a gentile at a pagan fair only in the case of one who buys from a merchant, as a tax is taken from him and used for the benefit of idol worship. But with regard to one who buys from a homeowner, when a tax is not taken from him, it is permitted to make the purchase.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗讬诇诪诇讗 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讘讗转专讗 讚拽讗 砖拽诇讬 诪讬讻住讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讛讜讛 讗住专 讗诇讗 讗讬谞讛讜 讛讬讻讬 讝讘讜谉 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讘讜注 讝讘讜谉

Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, says: If Rabbi Yo岣nan had been present at this time and age, in a place where the tax is taken from all sales, including those conducted with private individuals, he would have prohibited buying items even from a homeowner. The Gemara asks: But if so, how did these Sages, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov and Rabbi Yirmeya, purchase items at the fair? The Gemara answers: They purchased the items from a homeowner who sells solely on a temporary basis.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 讗住讜专讬诐 诇诪讻讜专 诇讙讜讬 讗爪讟专讜讘诇讬谉 讜讘谞讜转 砖讜讞 讜驻讟讜讟专讜转 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讜转专谞讙讜诇 讛诇讘谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讜转专 诇诪讻讜专 诇讜 转专谞讙讜诇 诇讘谉 讘讬谉 讛转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 拽讜讟注 讗转 讗爪讘注讜 讜诪讜讻专讜 诇讜 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪拽专讬讘讬诐 讞住专 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

MISHNA: These are the items that it is prohibited to sell to a gentile at any time of year, as they are used specifically for idol worship: Itzterubalin, benot shua岣, petotarot, frankincense, and a white rooster. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is permitted to sell a white rooster to a gentile provided that it is sold along with other types of roosters. But when it is sold by itself, one should cut off its toe and sell it to the gentile, because they do not sacrifice a defective animal to their object of idol worship.

讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讚讘专讬诐 住转诪谉 诪讜转专 讜驻讬专讜砖谉 讗住讜专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讚拽诇 讟讘 讜讞爪讘 讜谞拽诇讘 讗住讜专 诇诪讻讜专 诇讙讜讬诐

And with regard to all remaining items, without specification it is permitted to sell them, but with specification it is prohibited to sell them. Rabbi Meir says: Even in the case of a good palm tree, 岣tzav, and naklav, it is prohibited to sell them to gentiles.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Avodah Zarah 13

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 13

讗讘诇 诪讛谞讛 砖专讬 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪注讜讟专讜转 讘驻讬专讜转 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 谞讛谞讛 讗住讜专 诪讛谞讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

but it is permitted to cause benefit. Although by buying from the store one indirectly supports idol worship, as a portion of the sales are given to support idol worship, this is not prohibited by Torah law. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even if the stores are adorned only with fruit one is also prohibited from buying from them. This is derived by an a fortiori inference: If it is prohibited to derive benefit from idol worship, is it not all the more so prohibited to cause benefit to idol worship?

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讬讜诐 砖注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪谞讞转 讘讜 讗转 讛诪讻住 诪讻专讬讝讬谉 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 诪讬 砖谞讜讟诇 注讟专讛 讜讬谞讬讞 讘专讗砖讜 讜讘专讗砖 讞诪讜专讜 诇讻讘讜讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讬谞讬讞 诇讜 讗转 讛诪讻住 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗诇 讬谞讬讞 诇讜 讗转 讛诪讻住

The Gemara raises an objection to Reish Lakish鈥檚 opinion from a baraita. Rabbi Natan says: On the day in which a reduction is made from the tax in honor of idol worship, they announce and say: Anyone who takes a wreath of roses and places it on his head and on the head of his donkey in honor of the object of idol worship, his tax will be reduced. And if one does not place a wreath on one鈥檚 head, his tax will not be reduced.

讬讛讜讚讬 砖谞诪爪讗 砖诐 诪讛 讬注砖讛 讬谞讬讞 谞诪爪讗 谞讛谞讛 诇讗 讬谞讬讞 谞诪爪讗 诪讛谞讛

What should a Jew who is present there do? If he places the wreath on his head and on the head of his donkey, he will be found to derive benefit from idol worship. And if he does not place the wreath on his head, he will be found to cause benefit to idol worship, through the tax that he pays.

诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讛谞讜砖讗 讜谞讜转谉 讘砖讜拽 砖诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讛诪讛 转讬注拽专 驻讬专讜转 讻住讜转 讜讻诇讬诐 讬专拽讘讜 诪注讜转 讜讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 讬讜诇讬讻诐 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讜讗讬讝讛讜 注讬拽讜专 讛诪谞砖专 驻专住讜转讬讛 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讜诇诪讟讛

From here the Sages stated: One who conducts business in a market of idol worship will be forced either to benefit from or cause benefit to idol worship. Therefore, any animal he bought there should be destroyed, any produce, clothing or vessels should be left to decompose, and with regard to any money or metal vessels, which would not decompose on their own, one should take them and cast them into the Dead Sea. And what constitutes destroying the animal? One cuts off the hooves of the animal from the knee and below.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讬谞讬讞 谞诪爪讗 谞讛谞讛 诇讗 讬谞讬讞 谞诪爪讗 诪讛谞讛

The Gemara explains the objection to Reish Lakish鈥檚 statement. In any event, the baraita teaches that it is prohibited to cause benefit to idol worship, as it states: If he places the wreath on his head then he will be found to derive benefit from idol worship, and if he does not place the wreath on his head, he will be found to cause benefit to idol worship. How, then, can Reish Lakish claim that it is permitted to cause benefit to idol worship?

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 拽住讘专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 谞转谉 讜讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻专讘谞谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘专 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

Rav Mesharshiyya, son of Rav Idi, said: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish holds as follows: The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Natan, whose opinion is cited in the baraita, and I spoke in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Natan. The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yo岣nan, who rules in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Natan, holds that the Rabbis do not disagree with Rabbi Natan; rather, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to cause benefit to idol worship.

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛讜诇讻讬谉 诇讬专讬讚 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讜诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛诐 讘讛诪讛 注讘讚讬诐 讜砖驻讞讜转 讘转讬诐 讜砖讚讜转 讜讻专诪讬诐 讜讻讜转讘 讜诪注诇讛 讘注专讻讗讜转 砖诇讛谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪爪讬诇 诪讬讚诐

The Gemara asks: And is it so that they do not disagree? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One may go to a fair of gentiles, whose purpose is to honor to idol worship, and buy from the gentiles animals, and slaves, and maidservants, as the purchase raises the items to a more sanctified state; and he may buy houses, fields, and vineyards from them, due to the mitzva to settle Eretz Yisrael. And one may write the necessary deeds and confirm them in their gentile courts [be鈥檃rkaot], although this involves an acknowledgement of their authority, because it is as though he is rescuing his property from their hands, as the court鈥檚 confirmation and stamp of approval prevents the seller from denying the sale and claiming that the property still belongs to him.

讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 诪讟诪讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讚讜谉 讜诇注专注专 注诪讛诐 讜讻砖诐 砖诪讟诪讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讻讱 诪讟诪讗 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转

And if he is a priest, he may become ritually impure by going outside Eretz Yisrael, even though a priest is usually prohibited from leaving Eretz Yisrael to the impure land outside, in order to litigate with them and to contest their claims. And just as a priest may become ritually impure by going outside Eretz Yisrael, so may he become ritually impure for this purpose by entering a cemetery.

讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara interrupts its citation of the baraita to express surprise at this last ruling: Can it enter your mind to say that a priest may become impure by entering a cemetery? The halakha that a cemetery imparts ritual impurity to a priest is by Torah law; how could the Sages override this prohibition? Rather, the baraita is referring to an area where there is uncertainty with regard to the location of a grave or a corpse [beit haperas], owing to the fact that a grave had been unwittingly plowed over, and the bones may have become scattered throughout the field. Such a field imparts ritual impurity by rabbinic law.

讜诪讟诪讗 诇诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讜诇讬砖讗 讗砖讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讜爪讗 诇诇诪讜讚 讗讘诇 讘讝诪谉 砖诪讜爪讗 诇诇诪讜讚 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗

The baraita continues: And a priest may likewise become ritually impure and leave Eretz Yisrael in order to study Torah or in order to marry a woman. Rabbi Yehuda says: When does this allowance apply? It applies when he cannot find a place to study in Eretz Yisrael. But when the priest can find a place to study in Eretz Yisrael, he may not become ritually impure by leaving the country.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讝诪谉 砖诪讜爪讗 诇诇诪讜讚 讬讟诪讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讝讜讻讛 诇诇诪讜讚 诪讻诇

Rabbi Yosei says: Even when he can find a place to study Torah in Eretz Yisrael, he may leave the country and become ritually impure, because a person does not merit to learn from everyone, and it is possible that the more suitable teacher for him lives outside of Eretz Yisrael.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪注砖讛 讘讬讜住祝 讛讻讛谉 砖讛诇讱 讗讞专 专讘讜 诇爪讬讚讜谉 诇诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

Rabbi Yosei says, in support of his opinion: There was an incident involving Yosef the priest, who followed his teacher to the city of Sidon, outside of Eretz Yisrael, to learn Torah even though the preeminent Sage of his generation, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai, lived in Eretz Yisrael. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says about this: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

讗诇诪讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara returns to the issue at hand. This baraita apparently indicates that the Rabbis do disagree with Rabbi Natan, as they hold that it is permitted to buy items from a gentile fair and cause benefit to idol worship, whereas the ruling of Rabbi Natan is a minority opinion. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yo岣nan could have said to you: Actually, the Rabbis do not disagree with Rabbi Natan, and even according to this baraita one is prohibited from causing benefit for idol worship.

讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诇讜拽讞 诪谉 讛转讙专 讚砖拽诇讬 诪讬讻住讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讻讗谉 讘诇讜拽讞 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讚诇讗 砖拽诇讬 诪讬讻住讗 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara elaborates: And the fact that the baraita permits buying at a gentile fair is not difficult, as here, where Rabbi Natan prohibits buying items from a gentile fair, he states his ruling with regard to one who buys from a merchant, as a tax is taken from him for the benefit of idol worship; whereas there, in the baraita that permits buying items at the fair, it states its ruling with regard to one who buys from a homeowner, i.e., a private individual, where a tax is not taken from him.

讗诪专 诪专 讘讛诪讛 转讬注拽专 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 爪注专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗转 住讜住讬讛诐 转注拽专

搂 The Gemara returns to discuss the baraita that cited the opinion of Rabbi Natan. The Master said above: Any animal that one bought there should be destroyed. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there a requirement to prevent suffering to animals? Abaye said: Although there is an enjoinder against causing suffering to a living creature, it is permitted when necessary, as the Merciful One states to Joshua: 鈥淵ou shall destroy their horses鈥 (Joshua 11:6).

讗诪专 诪专 讜讗讬讝讜讛讬 注讬拽讜专 诪谞砖专 驻专住讜转讬讛 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讜诇诪讟讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗讬谉 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讞专讬诪讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讬讻讬谉 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讜讗诐 讛拽讚讬砖 讜讛讞专讬诐 讜讛注专讬讱 讘讛诪讛 转讬注拽专 驻讬专讜转 讻住讜转 讜讻诇讬诐

The Master said above: And what constitutes destroying the animal? One cuts the hooves of the animal from the knee and below. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: One may neither consecrate objects, nor dedicate items for sacred use, nor valuate an item鈥檚 worth based on its appraisal (see Leviticus, chapter 27) and dedicate its monetary worth to the Temple treasury, in the present time, when the Temple no longer exists. And if one did consecrate, or dedicate, or valuate items for sacred use, the presence of these items might lead to the violation of the prohibition against using consecrated property. Therefore, if one dedicated an animal it should be destroyed. If he dedicated produce, garments, or vessels made from materials that decompose,

讬专拽讘讜 诪注讜转 讜讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 讬讜诇讬讻诐 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讜讗讬讝讛讜 注讬拽讜专 谞讜注诇 讚诇转 讘驻谞讬讛 讜讛讬讗 诪转讛 诪讗讬诇讬讛

he should store them until they decompose. And if he dedicated money or metal vessels, he should take them and cast them into the Dead Sea. And what constitutes destroying? He locks the door before it, and the animal dies on its own from hunger. According to the baraita, the disposal of the animal is carried out by starving it, not by cutting its hooves.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讘讝讬讜谉 拽讚砖讬诐 讜谞砖讞讟讬讛 诪讬砖讞讟 讗转讜 讘讛讜 诇讬讚讬 转拽诇讛

Abaye said: There, in the case of a consecrated animal, the method employed is different, because cutting the animal鈥檚 hooves would cause the degradation of sacrificial animals. The Gemara asks: But why does the baraita require this complicated method of killing the animal? Why not simply state that he should slaughter it? The Gemara answers: If he were to slaughter it, someone might come to experience a mishap through it, by eating the meat and thereby misusing consecrated property.

讜诇讬砖讜讬讛 讙讬住讟专讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞转爪转诐 讗转 诪讝讘讞转诐 讜讙讜壮 诇讗 转注砖讜谉 讻谉 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讻诐

The Gemara asks: But why not let him render the animal a shard [gistera], by mutilating it so that it is unfit to be eaten? Why is it necessary to kill it in such a drawn-out fashion, by starving it to death? Abaye said that it is because the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall break down their altars鈥ou shall not do so to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:3鈥4). It is derived from here that one may not actively destroy any sacred item.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讛 讻诪讟讬诇 诪讜诐 讘拽讚砖讬诐 谞专讗讛 诪讜诐 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讚讞讝讬 诇讛拽专讘讛 讛砖转讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讛拽专讘讛 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

Rava said there is a different reason a consecrated animal may not be disposed of by cutting its hooves: It is because it appears as though he is inflicting a blemish on a sacrificial animal. The Gemara asks: Why does Rava say that it merely appears as though he is inflicting a blemish, when in actual fact he is inflicting a full-fledged blemish? The Gemara answers: This matter, that one may not inflict a blemish on a sacrificial animal, applies only when the Temple is standing, as the animal is fit for sacrifice and he renders it unfit. By contrast, now, when the animal is not fit for sacrifice, since there is no Temple, we have no problem with it by Torah law. The only problem is that it appears as though one is inflicting a blemish on a sanctified animal.

讜诇讬讛讜讬 讻诪讟讬诇 诪讜诐 讘讘注诇 诪讜诐 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讛拽专讘讛 讗住讜专 讘注诇 诪讜诐 谞讛讬 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讙讜驻讬讛 诇讚诪讬 讞讝讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 诇讚诪讬 讞讝讬 讜诇讗 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讞讝讬

The Gemara asks: But this should be considered equivalent to one who inflicts a blemish on an animal that is already blemished, which is prohibited even though that animal is not fit for sacrifice. The Gemara answers: In the case of a blemished animal when the Temple is standing it is prohibited to inflict a blemish upon it, as granted, it itself is not fit to serve as an offering; but it is fit to make use of its monetary value, i.e., another animal may be purchased with the proceeds of its sale and sacrificed in its place. This is to the exclusion of the case here, when there is no Temple, as the animal is not fit for its monetary value and it is not fit to serve as an offering itself.

讗砖讻讞讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 诇专讘讬 注讬诇讗讬 讚拽讗讬 讗驻讬转讞讗 讚爪讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽转谞讬 讘讛诪讛 转讬注拽专 注讘讚 诪讗讬 注讘讚 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 注讘讚 讙讜讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讱 转谞讬讗 讛讙讜讬诐 讜讛专讜注讬 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 诇讗 诪注诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜专讬讚讬谉

Rabbi Yona found Rabbi Elai, who was standing at the entrance to the city of Tyre. Rabbi Yona said to him: The baraita cited above teaches that if one bought an animal at a pagan fair it should be destroyed. What should be done with a slave purchased at the fair? Rabbi Yona elaborated: I do not raise the dilemma about a Jewish slave, as it is obvious that the master cannot cause him harm. Where it is a dilemma for me is the case of a gentile slave; what is the halakha? Rabbi Elai said to him in response: What is the reason that this is a dilemma for you? It is taught in a baraita: With regard to the gentiles and shepherds of small domesticated animals, we do not raise them from a pit but we do not actively lower them into a pit either. It may be inferred from here that one may not cause the death of a gentile slave.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 拽转谞讬 诇讜拽讞讬谉 诪讛谉 讘讛诪讛 注讘讚讬诐 讜砖驻讞讜转 注讘讚 讬砖专讗诇 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 注讘讚 讙讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪住转讘专讗 注讘讚 讬砖专讗诇 讚讗讬 注讘讚 讙讜讬 诇诪讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗驻讬诇讜 注讘讚 讙讜讬 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讻谞讬住讜 转讞转 讻谞驻讬 讛砖讻讬谞讛

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: The second baraita cited above teaches that one may go to a pagan fair and buy from the gentiles animals, slaves, and maidservants. Does the baraita mean that one may buy a Jewish slave, or perhaps, is it teaching that one may buy even a gentile slave? Rabbi Zeira said to him: It stands to reason that the baraita means specifically a Jewish slave; as, if it is referring to a gentile slave, what is the reason that it is necessary for the Sages to permit this purchase? When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: It is permitted to purchase even a gentile slave, because he brings him under the wings of the Divine Presence by having him undergo the process of conversion when he becomes the slave of a Jew.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讟讜 讘讛诪讛 诪讗讬 诪讻谞讬住 转讞转 讻谞驻讬 讛砖讻讬谞讛 讗讬讻讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 诪注讜讟讬讬讛讜 讜讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚诪诪注讟讬 砖专讬

Rav Ashi said: But with regard to the permission to buy an animal, what is there about this purchase that one can be said to bring the animal under the wings of the Divine Presence? Rather, the reason it is permitted is because through this purchase the Jew reduces the possessions of the gentile. And here too, as he reduces the gentile鈥檚 property by purchasing the slave, it is permitted.

专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讝讘谉 住谞讚诇讗 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讝讘谉 驻讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讚 诇讞讘专讬讛 讬转诪讗 注讘讚 专讘讱 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讚讱 讬转诪讗 注讘讚 专讘讱 讛讻讬 讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讝讘讜谉 讜讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 住讘专 讞讘专讗讬 诪转讙专 讝讘谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诇讜拽讞 诪谉 讛转讙专 讚砖拽诇讬 诪讬讻住讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘诇 讘诇讜拽讞 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讚诇讗 砖拽诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬讻住讗 诪讜转专

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bought sandals and Rabbi Yirmeya bought bread at a pagan fair. One said to the other: Orphan, i.e., one with no guide, would your teacher act in this manner? The other likewise said to him: Orphan, would your teacher act in this manner? The Gemara explains: Actually, both purchased these items from a homeowner, i.e., a private individual, and each one thought that the other had purchased his item from a merchant. As Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, says: The Sages taught that it is prohibited to buy from a gentile at a pagan fair only in the case of one who buys from a merchant, as a tax is taken from him and used for the benefit of idol worship. But with regard to one who buys from a homeowner, when a tax is not taken from him, it is permitted to make the purchase.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗讬诇诪诇讗 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讘讗转专讗 讚拽讗 砖拽诇讬 诪讬讻住讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讛讜讛 讗住专 讗诇讗 讗讬谞讛讜 讛讬讻讬 讝讘讜谉 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讘讜注 讝讘讜谉

Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, says: If Rabbi Yo岣nan had been present at this time and age, in a place where the tax is taken from all sales, including those conducted with private individuals, he would have prohibited buying items even from a homeowner. The Gemara asks: But if so, how did these Sages, Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov and Rabbi Yirmeya, purchase items at the fair? The Gemara answers: They purchased the items from a homeowner who sells solely on a temporary basis.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 讗住讜专讬诐 诇诪讻讜专 诇讙讜讬 讗爪讟专讜讘诇讬谉 讜讘谞讜转 砖讜讞 讜驻讟讜讟专讜转 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讜转专谞讙讜诇 讛诇讘谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讜转专 诇诪讻讜专 诇讜 转专谞讙讜诇 诇讘谉 讘讬谉 讛转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 拽讜讟注 讗转 讗爪讘注讜 讜诪讜讻专讜 诇讜 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪拽专讬讘讬诐 讞住专 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

MISHNA: These are the items that it is prohibited to sell to a gentile at any time of year, as they are used specifically for idol worship: Itzterubalin, benot shua岣, petotarot, frankincense, and a white rooster. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is permitted to sell a white rooster to a gentile provided that it is sold along with other types of roosters. But when it is sold by itself, one should cut off its toe and sell it to the gentile, because they do not sacrifice a defective animal to their object of idol worship.

讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讚讘专讬诐 住转诪谉 诪讜转专 讜驻讬专讜砖谉 讗住讜专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讚拽诇 讟讘 讜讞爪讘 讜谞拽诇讘 讗住讜专 诇诪讻讜专 诇讙讜讬诐

And with regard to all remaining items, without specification it is permitted to sell them, but with specification it is prohibited to sell them. Rabbi Meir says: Even in the case of a good palm tree, 岣tzav, and naklav, it is prohibited to sell them to gentiles.

Scroll To Top