Avodah Zarah, Daf Kaf Vav, Part 5

 

Introduction

Today s sugya discusses the meaning of the word that I have rendered apostate. In Hebrew the words is meshumad. The term I have translated as heretic is min. All sources agree that the latter is worse.

 

איתמר משומד פליגי רב אחא ורבינא חד אמר לתיאבון משומד להכעיס מין הוי וחד אמר אפילו להכעיס נמי משומד אלא איזהו מין זה העובד עבודה זרה

 

It was stated: [In regard to the term] apostate there is a disagreement between R. Aha and Ravina; one says that [he who eats forbidden food] to satisfy his appetite, is an apostate, but [he who does so] to provoke is a heretic; while the other says that even [one who does so] to provoke is merely an apostate.

And who is a heretic ? One who actually worships idols.

 

According to one opinion, an apostate is one who sins because it makes life easier (for instance, it is cheaper to eat non-kosher meat). A heretic is one who sins because he wants to provoke (i.e. two hamburgers are put in front of them, one kosher one not, and they eat the non-kosher one). To the other opinion, the term apostate includes both categories of sinners. According to this view a heretic is a Jew who goes so far as to worship idols.

מיתיבי אכל פרעוש אחד או יתוש אחד הרי זה משומד

והא הכא דלהכעיס הוא וקתני משומד

התם בעי למיטעם טעמא דאיסורא

 

They objected: If one eats a flea or a gnat he is an apostate.

Now here this must have been done to provoke, and yet we are taught that he is merely an apostate!

Even in there he may just be trying to see what a forbidden thing tastes like.

 

One probably does not eat a flea or a gnat because one is hungry. Not much nourishment there. One eats a small bug does so only to provoke because it is forbidden. This seems to prove that even one who sins in order to provoke is still an apostate and not a heretic.

The Talmud rejects this and suggests that the person may have eaten the bug neither to provoke nor to feed his hunger. He may have just been curious as to what a forbidden thing tastes like.

 

אמר מר מורידין אבל לא מעלין השתא אחותי מחתינן אסוקי מיבעי

אמר רב יוסף בר חמא אמר רב ששת לא נצרכא שאם היתה מעלה בבור מגררה דנקיט ליה עילא ואמר לא תיחות חיותא עלויה

 

The Master said: They may be cast in and need not be brought up if they may be cast in, does it need to say they need not be brought up?

R. Joseph b. Hama said in the name of R. Sheshet: It is only necessary to teach that if there was a step in the sides of the pit, one may scrape it off, giving as a reason for doing so that a wild animal should not go down in there.

 

The baraita seems superfluous if you can cast these people in, then obviously you do not need to bring them up.

R. Joseph b. Hama reads into the baraita a broader meaning of the lack of an obligation to bring them up. If one of these people is in the pit, one can even remove the ladder and provide some excuse as to why one is doing so.

 

רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו לא נצרכא שאם היתה אבן על פי הבאר מכסה אמר לעבורי חיותא עילויה רבינא אמר שאם היה סולם מסלקו אמר בעינא לאחותי ברי מאיגרא

 

Raba and R. Joseph both of them said: It was only necessary that if there is a stone lying by the pit opening, one may cover the pit with it, saying that he does it for [the safety] of passing animals.

Rabina said: It is was only necessary that if there is a ladder there, he may remove it, saying, I want it for getting my son down from the roof.

 

These other amoraim read other things in to the baraita that one may do to make sure this person stays in the pit and to provide excuses as to why he is doing so.