Avodah Zara 13
Summary
- The Mishna on Avodah Zarah 12b presents a case of a city with *avodah zarah* where some shops are decorated as tax-collecting outlets for the idol; the decorated ones are prohibited and the undecorated permitted, with Rashi explaining that only the decorated shops channel benefit to the idol. Tosafot asserts that this sugya is not about a *yom eid* but about a tax market, resolving earlier contradictions about buying on a holiday. Reish Lakish permits entering stores decorated with fruit but forbids those scented with flowers based on לא ידבק בידך מאומה מן החרם, while Rabbi Yochanan forbids even fruit-decorated shops via a *kal vachomer*, and a ברייתא of רבי נתן supports forbidding being מֵהַנֶּה the idol. The sugya allows attending a *yerid* to purchase assets and even permits a כהן to become טמא דרבנן for legal protection, learning Torah, or marriage, with halachic parameters from Tosafot and the ruling of רבי יוחנן like רבי יוסי that one may travel to the best teacher. The Gemara defines penalties such as *behemah te’akar* and addresses *tza’ar ba’alei chayim*, the definition of עיקור for kodshim versus *avodah zarah*, and the permissibility of purchasing even an eved akum either to be מכניסו תחת כנפי השכינה or to diminish the idolaters’ assets.
- The Mishna states that in a city with *avodah zarah*, decorated shops are forbidden and undecorated shops are permitted. Rashi explains that the decorations are a sign that those stores are dedicated to collect taxes for the *avodah zarah*, so benefit flows to the idol from those shops, while the undecorated shops send no benefit. Rashi answers the earlier problem of trading on a *yom eid* by distinguishing selling—which could cause offerings to the idol or joy that leads to thanks—and allowing buying a *davar hamitkayem*, since sellers are saddened by selling and do not rejoice. Tosafot notes that Rashi’s position reverses his earlier view that לשאת ולתת means full *mekach u’memkar*, and cites Rabbeinu Meir that our case concerns a tax-market scenario unrelated to their holidays, which removes the prior prohibition on buying.
- Reish Lakish states that entering decorated stores is forbidden only when they are adorned with ורד והדס for scent, because one directly enjoys the smell, but if decorated with fruit it is permitted; he interprets ולא ידבק בידך מאומה מן החרם to prohibit receiving benefit while permitting giving benefit. Rabbi Yochanan says that even fruit decorations are forbidden, reasoning via a *kal vachomer* that if receiving is forbidden, then giving benefit is certainly forbidden. Tosafot asks from *reicha lav milta hi* and answers that flowers are made for scent, so smelling is the primary mode of benefit; by contrast, smelling *yayin nesech* is not true enjoyment and may be prohibited because pungent scent resembles drinking rather than due to enjoyment. Tosafot further explains that, generally, being מֵהַנֶּה *avodah zarah* is forbidden, and our case is exceptional because the tax structure functions as a בזיון to the idol when one declines the honor-wreath and instead pays.
- The Braita states that on the idol’s tax day they proclaim that anyone who sets a wreath on his head and his donkey’s head for the idol is exempt from the tax; otherwise he must pay. A Jew who wears the wreath becomes נהנה from the idol, which Rashi attributes to the fragrance of the herbs and spices on the wreath, and Tosafot rejects counting money saved as receiving benefit from the idol. A Jew who refuses the wreath becomes מֵהַנֶּה the idol, and therefore one who trades in a *shuk shel avodah zarah* incurs penalties: for an animal, *te’akar*; for produce, clothing, and vessels, *yirkavu*; and for money and metal utensils, disposal in Yam HaMelach. This Braita supports Rabbi Yochanan that being מֵהַנֶּה is forbidden, while Reish Lakish answers that it reflects רבי נתן as a דעת יחיד, with the Rabbanan disagreeing. Tosafot notes tension whether the money is forbidden as a kenas or as דמי *avodah zarah*, to be clarified later.
- The Baraita permits going to a *yerid* of idolaters to buy animals, slaves, homes, fields, and vineyards, and to execute documents in their legal offices מפני שהוא כמציל מידם. The Baraita permits a כהן to become טמא in חוץ לארץ to litigate and even in a בית הפרס, and extends permission to become טמא דרבנן to learn Torah or to marry. Tosafot conditions these allowances on intent to return to Eretz Yisrael and limits them to these two great mitzvot: גדול תלמוד תורה שמביא לידי מעשה and לא תהו בראה לשבת יצרה.
- Rav Yehuda permits traveling only when one cannot find adequate learning in Eretz Yisrael, while Rabbi Yosi permits traveling even when teachers exist in Eretz Yisrael because אין אדם זוכה ללמוד מכל. The Terumat haDeshen rules that seeking the best place to learn can override parental objections, as learning from the teacher one uniquely benefits from is paramount. Rabbi Yochanan rules like Rabbi Yosi and resolves the apparent Tannaitic dispute by distinguishing between buying from a merchant who pays tax, which is forbidden, and buying from a private owner who does not pay tax, which is permitted.
- The Gemara imposes *behemah te’akar* and asks about *tza’ar ba’alei chayim*; Abaye cites “סוסיהם תעקר” in Yehoshua to justify the practice. Tosafot questions deriving this against a de’oraita and answers that חכמים have authority לעקור דבר מן התורה where needed, as in יבמות פ״ט. The shiur notes multiple proposed sources for *tza’ar ba’alei chayim* and cites Rav Asher Weiss that the pervasive רצון התורה may ground its de’oraita force.
- A Baraita forbids making הקדש, חרם, or ערכין בזמן הזה, and if one did so, rules: for an animal, *te’akar*; for perishable goods, *yirkavu*; and for money and metal, cast into Yam HaMelach; it defines עיקור as *no’el delet bifaneha* until it dies. Abaye reconciles this with tendon-cutting by saying that for kodshim we avoid cutting due to בזיון קדשים, we do not שחוט lest it cause תקלה, and we do not make a *gistera* due to ונתצתם את מזבחותם ולא תעשו כן לה' אלקיכם. Rava states that cutting appears as *matil mum be’kodshim*, which applied when the Mikdash stood; even adding a blemish to a *ba’al mum* is prohibited because it still retains monetary sanctity, unlike our case בזמן הזה where neither body nor value is fit for korban use.
- Rabbi Yannai asks about applying *te’akar* to an eved; the answer invokes the rule עובדי כוכבים ורועי בהמה דקה לא מעלין ולא מורידין, so harming is prohibited. Rabbi Yirmiyah queries whether “slaves” in the heter to buy at the *yerid* includes an eved akum; upon Ravin’s arrival, Reish Lakish states that even an eved akum is included מפני שמכניסו תחת כנפי השכינה. Rav Ashi responds that the primary rationale matches the case of animals: the purchase diminishes the idolaters’ stable assets, and that financial diminution is the basis for the permissibility.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions