Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 18, scan section 41

other road, hence, necessity allows all going under the tree, while R. Johanan has in view the case where there was yet another one. In the place where R. Sheshith lived there was such a tree, and whenever he had to pass by it he, being blind, said to his guide : Pass me by as quickly as possible. (Says the Gemara) : If there was yet another road he was not allowed there, and if not, he had the right to pass by here. What was, then, the speeding by necessary? The answer is that there was but this only road, and R. Sheshith, who was a prominent scholar, wanted (on his own account) to pass it as quickly as he could. MISHNA XIIL: Under such a tree is allowed to sow herbs in the winter, but not in summer. Lettuce is not allowed to sow in either winter or summen R. Jose said : Even herbs must not be sowed in winter either, for their leaves, when falling down, would turn dung for the tree. GEMARA: The statement of R. Jose makes it manifest that he is of the opinion that two causes of which one is al- lowed and the other one prohibited do, when working together, bring about a forbidden effect. (In the case before us there are two causes fostering the growth of the herbs : the dung and the soil; former is forbidden, latter allowed; hence, he prohibits the effect.) On the other hand, the rabbis who do not share this opinion allow the herbs. However, in another place (iv. Mishna of this chap.) we find these two contending parties interchange their respective views. It is true, the apparently contradictory tenets of R. Jose may be reconciled thus : He allows where the idols were ground down, as the efTect here cannot even become dung, but in the present case the falling leaves surely turn into dung, hence his prohibition. But how should we explain the rabbis' contradiction? It may be explained as R. Mari b. R. Kahana said : " In proportion as the hide rises in price, one loses on the meat." In like manner it can be said here of the herbs: What the dung promotes, the shade of the tree hinders; hence, as there is no use of the leaves, the rabbis allow. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel : The Halakha prevails with R. Jose. Once a garden was ameliorated with the dung of an idol; R. Amram let interrogate R. Joseph as to how one should behave with regard to the fruit of this garden, and the answer was: R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel, the Halakha prevails with R. Jose. I02 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. MISHNA XIV.: To derive any benefit of wood obtained from an idol-grove is prohibited. The stove heated therewith must be destroyed if new yet, but if old already, it must be cooled off. Bread baked therewith is prohibited for any benefit ; if it was mingled with other bread, they are all forbidden. R. Eliezar says : The worth of its benefit should be cast into the salt lake. However, the rabbis responded : There is no redemp- tion in case of idol-worship. The same is the case with a loom made of this wood and with the garment wrought therewith. If such a garment was mixed up with other garments and these again with others, the benefit of them all is forbidden. R. Eliezar, however, said : Cast their worth into the salt lake, and he was answered : There is no redemption from idol- worship. GEMARA : The Mishna must lay down both the cases of the benefit of wood, for bread-baking and for garment-making; for if the former case alone were stated, there would be reason to think that R. Eliezar allows the use of the bread only when its worth has been cast into the sea, for as soon as the bread is entered in the oven, the prohibited object, the wood, is, properly speaking, no more, having been consumed by the fire; while in the case of a garment made with the aid of such wood, his prohibition is absolute, since the wood is all the time in ex- istence. On the other hand, if the Mishna treated only the garment-making, there might rise the belief that the garment is forbidden by reason of the perennial existence of its instru- ment, while bread, where the wood was consumed by the fire, the rabbis agree with him. Hence, the establishment of both the cases. Said R. 'Hisda: I was told by Abba b. R. 'Hisda that Siera said, the Halakha prevails with R. Eliezar. Said R. Ada b. Ahaba : R. Eliezar, notwithstanding this his doctrine, prohibits the use of the wine in all the barrels if one cask of forbidden wine was mingled among them. R. 'Hisda, however, asserts that this wine, too, is allowed by R. Eliezar, provided its worth has been cast into the sea. It once happened that a cask of forbidden wine was mixed among other casks of allowed wine; whereupon R. 'Hisda was interrogated as to how to behave in this case, and his answer was to cast four zuz into the river and then we will allow the wine. MISHNA XV. \ How is the idol-worship of a tree profaned? If the heathen cuts down from it dry twigs or fresh branches, a staff or a rod, or even if he takes from it only a leaf, it is pro- TRACT ABUDA ZARA (IDOLATRY). 103 faned. If, however, all this be done in the interest of the tree, it remains forbidden; and if not in its interest, it is allowed. GEMARA: The question as to how to behave toward the dry twigs and other pieces cut off the tree is discussed by R. Huna and R. Hyya b. Rabh. The one allows and the other forbids the use of these objects. This positive view is borne out also in the following Boraitha : When a heathen trims his idol, the question arises, does he do it in order to use the thus obtained wood, or in order to adorn the idol? If former be the case, both the wood cut down and the idol itself are allowed, while in the latter case the wood is allowed but not the idol. If, however, the trimming was done by an Israelite, all is for- bidden, irrespective of the aim in view, because the idol of an Israelite can never be profaned. It was taught : If an idol broke down by itself, what is to be done? Rabh said : Each and every piece of it must be singly and severally profaned before its use is allowed, while Samuel maintains that an idol can be profaned only in its ordinary shape. But how is this to be understood ; does not the contrary seem to be the case? Samuel means to say, then, that only an idol that is in its ordinary shape needs be profaned. The point of difference, however, here is concerning an idol not broken by itself but one that is made of small pieces, such that even a layman could put together or take apart. It is of such an idol that Rabh says it is not pro- faned when out of its joints, because even a layman can restore it, while according to Samuel it is not considered as an idol as soon as it loses its shape. CHAPTER IV. CONCERNING OBJECTS USED FOR IDOLS. — THE MANNER IN WHICH AN IDOL IS PROFANED SO AS TO BE ALLOWED FOR USE. — THE DIS-