Avodah Zarah, Daf Vav, Part 3
Introduction
The mishnah said that one should not engage in business with idolaters for three days before their festivals. Our sugya asks what happens if one did is the profit he gained prohibited for use?
איבעיא להו נשא ונתן מאי? ר’ יוחנן אמר נשא ונתן אסור. ר"ל אמר נשא ונתן מותר.
The question was asked: What if one did transact business? R. Yohanan says: [The proceeds of] the transaction are forbidden.
R. Shimon b. Lakish says [the proceeds of] the transaction are permitted.
This is the amoraic dispute on which the sugya is based.
איתיביה רבי יוחנן לריש לקיש אידיהן של עובדי כוכבים נשא ונתן אסורין. מאי לאו לפני אידיהן? לא אידיהן דוקא.
R. Yohanan raised the following difficulty on Resh Lakish: As to the festivals of idolaters, if one transacts any business [the proceeds] are forbidden.
Does this not refer to [the period] preceding the festivals?
No, [it refers to] the festival exclusively.
R. Yohanan cites a baraita that seems to directly oppose Resh Lakish. But Resh Lakish solves it by saying it refers only to transactions that took place on the festival itself. If a Jew engaged in a transaction before the festival, the proceeds are permitted. Note that this is a limitation on Resh Lakish s permission to use the proceeds.
א"ד איתיביה ר"ש בן לקיש לרבי יוחנן אידיהן של עובדי כוכבים נשא ונתן אסור. אידיהן אין לפני אידיהן לא.
תנא אידי ואידי אידיהן קרי ליה.
There are those who say that R. Shimon b. Lakish raised a difficulty against R. Yohanan: As to the festivals of idolaters, if one transacts any business [the proceeds] are forbidden. During their festivals it is [forbidden], but before their festival it is not?
No, the tanna refers to both as their festivals.
In this version Resh Lakish tries to use the baraita as a difficulty on R. Yohanan. The baraita prohibits the proceeds only if they engaged in business on the festival itself. But R. Yohanan resolves the difficulty by saying that both before and on the festival can be called festivals.
תניא כוותיה דר"ל כשאמרו אסור לשאת ולתת עמהם לא אסרו אלא בדבר המתקיים אבל בדבר שאינו מתקיים לא ואפילו בדבר המתקיים נשא ונתן מותר.
It was taught in a baraita in accordance with Resh Lakish: When they said it was prohibited to engage in business with them [before their festivals] this applies only to unperishable items but not to perishable items; and even in the case of unperishable items, if the transaction is made, [the proceeds] are permitted.
This baraita teaches two things. First of all, the prohibition extends only to unperishable items. One can engage in transactions involving perishable items. Rashi explains that if one sells a perishable item, such as a vegetable, a few days before the festival, the item will not be there on the festival such that the idolater could thank his god for it.
Second, the proceeds of forbidden sales are permitted. This accords with Resh Lakish.
תני רב זביד בדבי רבי אושעיא דבר שאין מתקיים מוכרין להם אבל אין לוקחין מהם
R. Zevid taught a baraita from the house of R. Oshaia: An item that is perishable may be sold to them, but may not be bought from them.
According to this source, one may sell them perishable items, because they will be used before the holiday. But one may not buy perishable items because this causes them a profit.
There are a various ways of understanding the relationship between this source and the previous one. According to one opinion, it is a stringency. The previous baraita seemed to say that one could engage in business with perishables. Here we learn that this is limited to selling them.
ההוא מינאה דשדר ליה דינרא קיסרנאה לרבי יהודה נשיאה ביום אידו. הוה יתיב ריש לקיש קמיה אמר היכי אעביד? אשקליה אזיל ומודה, לא אשקליה הויא ליה איבה?
א"ל ריש לקיש טול וזרוק אותו לבור בפניו.
אמר כל שכן דהויא ליה איבה. כלאחר יד הוא דקאמינא:
A certain min sent a Caesarean denar to R. Judah Nesi’a on his festival day. Resh Lakish was sitting before him. He said: What shall I do? If I accept it, he will go and praise [the idols for it]; if I do not accept it, he will have enmity with me.
Resh Lakish answered: Take it and throw it into a well in his presence.
He said back: But this will cause even greater enmity.
I meant you should do it by sleight of hand.
R. Judah Nesi a, a rabbinic political leader, is presented with a dilemma. He is sent a gift by an idolater (again, the word min is used). If he accepts the gift, the idolater will go thank his gods for having the privilege to send a gift to a prominent rabbi (I know, this seems like a stretch). If he doesn t accept it, the idolater will be angry and the rabbi does not want to increase the enmity between him and the Roman authorities. Resh Lakish s solution is for R. Judah Hanesia to accidentally throw the money down the well.
This is a very forced story, especially the ending. The parallel in the Yerushalmi tells the story differently. I analyze the difference in my forthcoming book. So stay tuned!