Avoda Zara Daf 12 - Going to City on Festival Day
Summary
- The Mishna rules on commerce between a city and its surrounding villages on a *yom eid*, limits travel into an idolatrous city because of *mar'it ayin*, and frames a proximity case through the market of Gaza. The Gemara uses the parable of שפתו שתי קדירות על גבי כירה אחת to derive three graded applications about suspicion and prohibition, from potential *nevelah* contamination, to *bishul akum*, to negligible splatter, and applies them to commerce with nearby markets. A baraita enumerates multiple acts that are אסור משום חשד, defines when אינו נראה permits bending without resembling bowing, and affirms that *mar'it ayin* applies אפילו בחדרי חדרים. Practical rulings address davening in a shul abutting a church and bowing to officials wearing a cross. The sugya concludes with dangers of drinking from unsafe water, permissibility of Shabbat desecration for life-threatening cases, interim remedies, end-of-life guidance, and protection from nighttime danger of שברירי.
- The Mishna states that when a עיר שיש בה עבודת כוכבים celebrates a *yom eid*, commerce with חוצה לה is permitted, and when the *yom eid* is in surrounding villages, commerce with the city is permitted because non-Jews observe only their own festivals, as Rashi explains. The Meiri notes that even if the villages supply the city’s needs for the festival yet do not celebrate, commerce with them remains permitted. The Mishna forbids going to such a city on its festival when the route is a *derekh meyuchedet*, but permits travel if the path could lead elsewhere, removing *mar'it ayin* concerns. The Rashba allows travel when the visitor or other Jews reside there because observers will attribute the trip to Jewish destinations, whereas the Rosh, citing the Yerushalmi, requires the traveler himself to reside there and further indicates that only a real קהילה (at least a מנין) creates sufficient presumption.
- The Gemara tests whether proximity alone forbids commerce by asking about the animal market near Gaza, with one version as a statement and another as a question to R. Chanina, who answers with a precedent from Tzur. The cited parable depicts a Jew and a non-Jew placing two pots on one stove—לא חששו لهم חכמים—showing that mere closeness does not create a prohibition, so commerce with the nearby market remains permitted despite adjacency to the city’s *yom eid*.
- Abaye explains לא חששו להם חכמים as not fearing משום בשר נבילה, rejecting the concern that the non-Jew slips forbidden meat into the Jew’s pot even when the Jew turns away; by analogy, he is not concerned that money received from the nearby market are דמי *avodah zarah*, an *issur de'oraita*, and certainly not for the *issur derabbanan* of commerce with a festival observer. Rava reads the parable as leniency only regarding משום *bishul akum*, and he remains stringent about דמי *avodah zarah*, permitting acceptance of funds only if known to have been in the payer’s possession from before the day to avoid any *issur de'oraita*, while being lenient for the *issur derabbanan* of *yom eid* commerce. Rabba bar Ulla interprets the parable as not fearing משום צינורא (minor splatter) because it is uncommon and בטל, and he analogizes only to the lighter prohibition of three pre-festival days, permitting commerce then and not extending the worry to *lifnei ideihen*.
- Rashi and the Ritva explain the parable’s concern as the non-Jew removing the pot before full cooking and manipulating it, which can create *bishul akum*, whereas mere מחיתה בגחלים after the Jew’s act does not create a prohibition according to Ashkenazi practice. The Beit Yosef rules that minimal Jewish participation like stoking coals does not suffice, while the Rema (YD 113) rules that even חיתה בגחלים—or lighting the flame or pilot—suffices to avoid *bishul akum*. Preparation alone does not count as cooking, so if a non-Jew alone turns on the oven and cooks, it is *bishul akum* despite Jewish prep. Contemporary Sephardi poskim debate Rav Ovadia Yosef’s leniencies for Sephardim in Ashkenazi environments, with Ben Zion Abba Shaul and others objecting to Mehadrin hashgachot that rely on Ashkenazi leniencies; the Rema (YD 118) and the Shach advise avoiding placing pots adjacent to a non-Jew’s pot לכתחילה because of ניצוצות, though small admixtures are בטל.
- A baraita prohibits entering a city that has *avodah zarah* on its festival day and, according to R. Meir, even using it as a passageway, while the Chachamim forbid only when the road is a *derekh meyuchedet*. The baraita further prohibits bending to remove a splinter, to pick up scattered money, or to drink from a spring before an idol מפני שנראה כמשתחוה לעבודה זרה, permitting only when אינו נראה. The baraita also forbids drinking from statue-fountains by placing one’s mouth on the statue’s mouth, as it appears like kissing the idol, and similarly forbids drinking directly from a ground-fixed pipe מפני הסכנה.
- The Gemara rejects interpreting אינו נראה as “when no one sees” because Rav rules that anything prohibited for *mar'it ayin* remains forbidden אפילו בחדרי חדרים. The Gemara defines the allowance as bending in a way that does not resemble bowing, such as turning one’s back to the idol. The shiur applies this rule to Israelis in the diaspora on Yom Tov Sheni, noting a dispute whether private melacha is allowed within a Jewish settlement, with the Mishnah Berurah being stringent and an anecdote illustrating that unseen acts are often observed.
- The Gemara states צְרִיכָא because each case teaches a unique balance of loss, pain, and danger: splinter (pain but avoidable), money (monetary loss), and spring (possible danger of death). The sugya explains that without listing all, one might misapply either the stringency or the leniency of אינו נראה, and it presents the statue-fountain case to introduce the subsequent practical danger case of the pipe.
- Rav Moshe Feinstein permits davening in a shul whose eastern wall is shared with a church, rejecting *mar'it ayin* concerns since it is manifestly a shul with an Aron Kodesh and sefarim and congregants face Hashem. The Terumat haDeshen discusses bowing to high officials wearing a cross, cites permissive reasoning that the bow is to the dignitary and not to the cross, but from this sugya inclines to stringency, while distinguishing that typical bowing to officials is naturally understood as honor to the person.
- A baraita forbids drinking from rivers or ponds directly with the mouth or with one hand, ואם שתה דמו בראשו, because of the danger of עלוקה, and R. Chanina permits heating water on Shabbat for one who swallowed a living water-creature, as in the case where R. Nechemia allowed it. Interim remedies include drinking vinegar while hot water is prepared, and for one who swallowed a wasp, strong vinegar may prolong life briefly despite a grim prognosis. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach states that when death is imminent and pain is great, one need not always pursue every possible extension of חיי שעה, though brief extension for final instructions may be appropriate.
- A baraita warns against drinking water at night alone because of סכנת שברירי and declares ואם שתה דמו בראשו. The Gemara prescribes waking a companion and saying “I am thirsty,” or, if alone, making noise and reciting a self-formula—פלניא בר פלניתא ... אזהר משברירי רירי רי רירי בכסי חיורי—so that the name שברירי is progressively diminished and the danger abates. The sugya presents these measures as protective steps permitting drinking while averting the nighttime danger.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions