Avodah Zarah 7

רבי מאיר אומר נותן לו דמי צמרו רבי יהודה אומר אם השבח יתר על היציאה נותן לו את היציאה ואם היציאה יתירה על השבח נותן לו את השבח

Rabbi Meir says: The dyer gives the owner of the wool the value of his wool. Since the dyer deviated from the owner’s wishes, he is considered akin to a robber who acquires the stolen item by changing it. Therefore, like a robber he keeps the changed item and pays the owner its original value. Rabbi Yehuda says: The dyer does not acquire the wool; rather, the owner of the wool must reimburse the dyer for his expenses, without losing out himself. If the value of the enhancement, i.e., the enhanced value of the wool, exceeds the dyer’s expenses, the owner of the wool gives the dyer the expenses. And if the expenses exceed the enhancement, he gives him the value of the enhancement.

אהדרינהו רב יוסף לאפיה בשלמא הלכה כרבי יהושע בן קרחה איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים קא משמע לן הלכה כיחיד

Rav Yosef turned his face away to demonstrate his displeasure with Rav Huna’s comment. The Gemara explains why Rav Yosef was unhappy: Granted, his ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that because this is a dispute between an individual and the many, the halakha should be in accordance with the opinion of the many, not in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa. Rav Huna therefore teaches us that in this case the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa despite the fact that he is an individual.

אלא הלכה כרבי יהודה למה לי פשיטא דמחלוקת ואחר כך סתם הלכתא כסתם

But why do I need the statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? It is obvious that this is the case, as there is a well-known principle that whenever there is a dispute in a mishna and afterward one opinion is presented as the ruling of an unattributed mishna, i.e., without attribution to a particular Sage or that the ruling is subject to debate, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion presented in the unattributed mishna.

מחלוקת בבבא קמא וסתם בבבא מציעא דתנן כל המשנה ידו על התחתונה וכל החוזר בו ידו על התחתונה

The Gemara adds that here the ruling of the unattributed mishna appears after the dispute, as the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir appears in tractate Bava Kamma, and the unattributed mishna appears in Bava Metzia, which is the next tractate in the order of the Mishna. As we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 76a): Whoever changes the terms accepted by both parties is at a disadvantage, and whoever reneges on an agreement is at a disadvantage. This statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that a craftsman who deviates from his assignment is at a disadvantage, as he receives only the expense or the enhancement, whichever is worth less.

ורב הונא משום דאין סדר למשנה דאיכא למימר סתם תנא ברישא ואחר כך מחלוקת אי הכי כל מחלוקת ואחר כך סתם לימא אין סדר למשנה

The Gemara asks: And why did Rav Huna feel it necessary to state explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? It was necessary because Rav Huna holds that the Mishna is not sequential, and therefore it is not clear that the mishna in Bava Kamma precedes the mishna in Bava Metzia. Consequently, it can be said that in fact this is a case of an unattributed mishna that is taught first, and only afterward appears the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir. The Gemara challenges: If that is so, that the Mishna is not sequential, then in every case of a dispute that is afterward followed by an unattributed mishna, let us say that the Mishna is not sequential.

ורב הונא כי לא אמרינן אין סדר בחדא מסכתא בתרי מסכתי אמרינן ורב יוסף כולה נזיקין חדא מסכתא היא

The Gemara explains: And Rav Huna? How would he respond to this claim? He would say: When do we not say that the Mishna is non-sequential? The Mishna is considered sequential when both mishnayot appear in one tractate, but when they are in two different tractates, we do say that the Mishna is not sequential, and it is unclear which one was taught last. Therefore, in this case, as each mishna is found in a different tractate, one in Bava Kamma and the other in Bava Metzia, one cannot say for certain which was taught first. And how would Rav Yosef respond? He would say: All of tractate Nezikin, i.e., Bava Kamma, Bava Metzia, and Bava Batra, is considered one tractate, and therefore its internal order of mishnayot is sequential.

ואי בעית אימא משום דקתני לה גבי הלכתא פסיקתא כל המשנה ידו על התחתונה וכל החוזר בו ידו על התחתונה

And if you wish, say instead that Rav Yosef maintained that it was not necessary to say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, because his ruling is taught amid other decided halakhot: Whoever changes the terms accepted by both parties is at a disadvantage, and whoever reneges on an agreement is at a disadvantage, i.e., this statement is unrelated to the subject matter of the chapter in which it appears. Consequently, it is evidently the accepted halakha and therefore Rav Huna’s statement was unnecessary.

תנו רבנן לא יאמר אדם לחבירו הנראה שתעמוד עמי לערב רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר אומר אדם לחבירו הנראה שתעמוד עמי לערב אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן הלכתא כרבי יהושע בן קרחה

§ The Gemara discusses other halakhot that are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa. The Sages taught: A person may not say to another on Shabbat: Does it seem that you will join me this evening? This is prohibited, as the speaker is hinting that he would like to hire him for labor after the conclusion of Shabbat. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: A person may say to another on Shabbat: Does it seem that you will join me this evening? In this case, he is not asking him explicitly. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa.

תנו רבנן הנשאל לחכם וטימא לא ישאל לחכם ויטהר לחכם ואסר לא ישאל לחכם ויתיר

The Sages taught: In the case of one who asks a question of a Sage with regard to an issue of ritual impurity and the Sage rules that the item is impure, he may not ask the same question of another Sage and have him rule that it is pure. Similarly, in the case of one who asks a Sage a halakhic question and he deems it forbidden, he may not ask the question of another Sage and have him deem it permitted.

היו שנים אחד מטמא ואחד מטהר אחד אוסר ואחד מתיר אם היה אחד מהם גדול מחבירו בחכמה ובמנין הלך אחריו ואם לאו הלך אחר המחמיר רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר בשל תורה הלך אחר המחמיר בשל סופרים הלך אחר המיקל אמר רב יוסף הלכתא כרבי יהושע בן קרחה

In a situation where there were two Sages sitting together and one deems an item impure and the other one deems it pure, or if one deems it prohibited and the other one deems it permitted, the questioner should proceed as follows: If one of the Sages was superior to the other in wisdom and in number, one should follow his ruling, and if not, he should follow the one who rules stringently. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: If the uncertainty exists with regard to a Torah law, follow the one who rules stringently; if it exists with regard to a rabbinic law, follow the one who rules leniently. Rav Yosef said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa.

תנו רבנן וכולן שחזרו בהן אין מקבלין אותן עולמית דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר חזרו בהן במטמוניות אין מקבלין אותן בפרהסיא מקבלין אותן איכא דאמרי עשו דבריהם במטמוניות מקבלין אותן

The Sages taught: And with regard to all of the people who are not deemed credible due to sins that they performed, even when they retract and repent from their evil ways, society never accepts them; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If they retract their ways in private, society does not accept them, but if they repent in public [befarheseya], society accepts them. There are those who say that there is another version of this discussion: If they performed their sinful matters in private, then when they repent society accepts them.

בפרהסיא אין מקבלין אותן רבי שמעון ורבי יהושע בן קרחה אומרים בין כך ובין כך מקבלין שנאמר שובו בנים שובבים אמר רבי יצחק איש כפר עכו אמר רבי יוחנן הלכתא כאותו הזוג

But if they performed their sins in public, society does not accept them. Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa say: Both in this case, where they sinned in private, and in that case, where they sinned in public, society accepts them, as it is stated: “Return, you backsliding children, I will heal your backslidings” (Jeremiah 3:22). Rabbi Yitzḥak of the village of Akko says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of that pair, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, i.e., penitents are accepted, regardless of whether they sinned in public or in private.

מתני׳ רבי ישמעאל אומר שלשה לפניהם ושלשה לאחריהם אסור וחכמים אומרים לפני אידיהן אסור לאחר אידיהן מותר

MISHNA: Rabbi Yishmael says: On the three days before the festivals of gentiles and on the three days after them, it is prohibited to engage in business with those gentiles. And the Rabbis say: It is prohibited to engage in business with them before their festivals, but it is permitted to engage in business with them after their festivals.

גמ׳ אמר רב תחליפא בר אבדימי אמר שמואל נוצרי לדברי רבי ישמעאל לעולם אסור

GEMARA: Rav Taḥlifa bar Avdimi says that Shmuel says: With regard to a Christian, according to the statement of Rabbi Yishmael it is always prohibited for a Jew to engage in business with him. Since his festival takes place every Sunday and the three days before and after Sunday constitute the entire week, one cannot engage in business with a Christian on any day of the week.

וחכמים אומרים לפני אידיהן אסור לאחר אידיהן מותר כו׳ חכמים היינו תנא קמא הן בלא אידיהן איכא בינייהו תנא קמא סבר הן בלא אידיהן ורבנן בתראי סברי הן ואידיהן

The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: It is prohibited to engage in business with them before their festivals, but it is permitted to engage in business with them after their festivals. The Gemara raises a difficulty: The statement of the Rabbis is identical to the statement of the first tanna in the mishna on 2a, who said that it is prohibited to engage in business with gentiles during the three days before their festival. The Gemara answers: The difference between them is with regard to the question of whether the three days includes only them, i.e., the three days, without their festival, or if the festival is counted as one of the three days. The first tanna holds that the three days is referring to them, the days preceding the festival, without their festivals, and the later Rabbis cited in this mishna hold that the three days include them and their festivals.

איבעית אימא נשא ונתן איכא בינייהו תנא קמא סבר נשא ונתן מותר ורבנן בתראי סברי נשא ונתן אסור

If you wish, say that the difference between the Rabbis and the first tanna is with regard to one who ignored this injunction and engaged in business with gentiles before their festival. The first tanna holds that if one engaged in business, it is permitted to derive benefit from the profits, and the later Rabbis hold that if one engaged in business, it is prohibited to derive benefit from the profits.

ואיבעית אימא דשמואל איכא בינייהו דאמר שמואל בגולה אין אסור אלא יום אידם תנא קמא אית ליה דשמואל רבנן בתראי לית להו דשמואל

And if you wish, say that the difference between the Rabbis and the first tanna is with regard to the statement of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: In the Diaspora it is prohibited to engage in business with gentiles only on their festival day itself. The first tanna is of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and the later Rabbis are not of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

איבעית אימא דנחום המדי איכא בינייהו דתניא נחום המדי אומר אינו אסור אלא יום אחד לפני אידיהן תנא קמא לית ליה דנחום המדי ורבנן בתראי אית להו דנחום המדי

If you wish, say that the difference between the Rabbis and the first tanna is with regard to a statement of Naḥum the Mede. As it is taught in a baraita that Naḥum the Mede says: It is prohibited to engage in business with gentiles only on the day before their festival. The first tanna is not of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Naḥum the Mede, and the later Rabbis are of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Naḥum the Mede, as they do not mention how many days before the festival are included in the prohibition.

גופא נחום המדי אומר אינו אסור אלא יום אחד לפני אידיהן אמרו לו נשתקע הדבר ולא נאמר והאיכא רבנן בתראי דקיימי כוותיה מאן חכמים נחום המדי הוא

Having mentioned Naḥum the Mede’s opinion, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Naḥum the Mede says: It is prohibited only on the day before their festival. The other Sages said to him: It would be best if this matter were lost and not stated, as it is not the halakha. The Gemara asks: But aren’t there the later Rabbis, who hold in accordance with his opinion? The Gemara answers: Who are these Rabbis? This is referring to Naḥum the Mede himself, but the other Sages disagree.

תניא אידך נחום המדי אומר מוכרין להן סוס זכר וזקן במלחמה אמרו לו נשתקע הדבר ולא נאמר

§ The Gemara cites additional statements of Naḥum the Mede. It is taught in another baraita that Naḥum the Mede says: Although it is prohibited to sell large livestock to gentiles, one may sell a male and elderly horse to them during a war, as it cannot be used for battle. The Sages said to him: It would be best if this matter were lost and not stated, as it is not the halakha.

והאיכא בן בתירא דקאי כוותיה דתנן בן בתירא מתיר בסוס בן בתירא לא מפליג בין זכרים לנקבות איהו מדקא מפליג בין זכרים לנקבות כרבנן סבירא ליה ולרבנן נשתקע הדבר ולא נאמר

The Gemara asks: But isn’t there ben Beteira, who holds in accordance with his opinion? As we learned in a mishna (14b): Ben Beteira permits selling a horse to gentiles. The Gemara answers: Since ben Beteira does not differentiate between male and female horses, and Naḥum the Mede does differentiate between male and female horses, it is clear that Naḥum the Mede holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that one is generally not permitted to sell a horse to a gentile, only he permits it in this specific circumstance. And according to the opinion of the Rabbis, it would be best if this matter were lost and not stated.

תניא נחום המדי אומר השבת מתעשר זרע וירק וזירין אמרו לו נשתקע הדבר ולא נאמר והאיכא רבי אליעזר דקאי כוותיה דתנן רבי אליעזר אומר השבת מתעשרת זרע וירק וזירין התם בדגנוניתא

The Gemara cites a similar dispute. It is taught in a baraita that Naḥum the Mede says: The dill plant is subject to tithes, whether it is used as a seed, or a vegetable, or a pod. The Sages said to him: It would be best if this matter were lost and not stated, as it is not the halakha. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there Rabbi Eliezer, who holds in accordance with his opinion? As we learned in a mishna (Ma’asrot 4:5) that Rabbi Eliezer says: The dill plant is subject to tithes whether it is used as a seed, or a vegetable, or a pod. The Gemara answers: There, Rabbi Eliezer is referring to the garden variety of dill, which is of such a high quality that its seeds, vegetable, and pods are eaten. By contrast, in the case of wild dill, only its seeds and vegetable are eaten, not the pods.

אמר ליה רב אחא בר מניומי לאביי גברא רבה אתא מאתרין כל מילתא דאמר אמרי ליה נשתקע הדבר ולא נאמר אמר איכא חדא דעבדינן כוותיה דתניא נחום המדי אומר שואל אדם צרכיו בשומע תפלה

Apropos the discussion between Naḥum the Mede and the other Sages, Rav Aḥa bar Minyumi said to Abaye: A great man came from our place, i.e., from Media, and in response to every matter that he said, the Sages said to him that it would be best if this matter were lost and not stated. Do they wish to erase all the halakhot taught by the Sages of Media? Abaye said: There is one instance in which we act in accordance with his opinion, as it is taught in a baraita that Naḥum the Mede says: During the Amida prayer a person may request his personal needs that are not included in the standard formulation of the Amida prayer, in the blessing that ends: Who listens to prayer.

אמר בר מינה דההיא דתליא באשלי רברבי

Rav Aḥa bar Minyumi said to Abaye: Apart from this halakha, i.e., this does not serve as proof that a statement of Naḥum the Mede was ever accepted by the other Sages, as this halakha is dependent on the dispute between great trees, i.e., great authorities, who expressed their opinions with regard to the halakha before Naḥum the Mede.

דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר שואל אדם צרכיו ואחר כך יתפלל שנאמר תפלה לעני כי יעטף ולפני ה׳ ישפך שיחו וגו׳ אין שיחה אלא תפלה שנאמר ויצא יצחק לשוח בשדה

Rav Aḥa bar Minyumi elaborates: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: A person should request his own needs first and afterward recite the Amida prayer, as it is stated: “A prayer of the afflicted, when he is faint and pours out siḥo before the Lord. O Lord, hear my prayer” (Psalms 102:1–2). These verses indicate that one first requests help concerning his afflictions and pains, and only afterward pours forth his siḥa. And siḥa means nothing other than prayer, as it is stated: “And Isaac went out to meditate [lasuaḥ] in the field” (Genesis 24:63).

רבי יהושע אומר יתפלל ואחר כך ישאל צרכיו שנאמר אשפך לפניו שיחי צרתי לפניו אגיד

Rabbi Yehoshua says: One should pray first and afterward request his own needs, as it is stated: “I pour out siḥi before Him, I declare before Him my trouble” (Psalms 142:3), which teaches that first one pours forth his siḥa, and only afterward speaks of his own troubles.

ורבי אליעזר נמי הכתיב אשפך לפניו שיחי הכי קאמר אשפוך לפניו שיחי בזמן שצרתי לפניו אגיד ורבי יהושע נמי הכתיב תפלה לעני כי יעטף הכי קאמר אימתי תפלה לעני בזמן שלפני ה׳ ישפוך שיחו

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer as well, isn’t it written: “I pour out siḥi before Him, I declare before Him my trouble”? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Eliezer, this is what the verse is saying: I pour out my siḥa before Him when I have already declared before Him my trouble. The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion: And according to Rabbi Yehoshua as well, isn’t it written: “A prayer of the afflicted, when he is faint and pours out siḥo before the Lord”? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yehoshua, this is what the verse is saying: When is there a prayer of the afflicted? When he has already poured out siḥo before the Lord, and now requests his own needs.

מכדי קראי לא כמר דייקי ולא כמר דייקי במאי קמיפלגי

The Gemara notes: Now it is clear that the verses themselves do not fit precisely in accordance with the opinion of this Sage and do not fit precisely in accordance with the opinion of that Sage, as one verse indicates that prayer is recited before stating personal requests, while the other suggests that first one states personal requests and then prays. Evidently, the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua is not based on the verses, but depends on some other issue. Therefore, the Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree?

כדדריש רבי שמלאי [דדריש רבי שמלאי] לעולם יסדר אדם שבחו של מקום ואחר כך יתפלל מנלן ממשה רבינו דכתיב ה׳ אלהים אתה החלות להראות את עבדך וגו׳ וכתיב בתריה אעברה נא ואראה את הארץ הטובה

They disagree with regard to that which Rabbi Simlai taught. As Rabbi Simlai taught: A person should always set forth praise of God and only then pray for his own needs. From where do we derive this? We derive it from Moses our teacher, as it is written: “O Lord God, You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness, and Your strong hand; for what god is there in heaven or on earth, that can do according to Your works, and according to Your mighty acts?” (Deuteronomy 3:24). Here Moses praises God, and it is written afterward, in the following verse, that then Moses requested from God: “Let me go over, I pray You, and see the good land” (Deuteronomy 3:25).