Avodah Zarah, Daf Mem Het, Part 6
Introduction
Today s section starts with yet another mishnah about the asherah tree.
מתני׳ זורעין תחתיה ירקות בימות הגשמים אבל לא בימות החמה והחזירין לא בימות החמ’ ולא בימות הגשמים ר’ יוסי אומר אף לא ירקות בימות הגשמים מפני שהנביה נושרת עליהן והוה להן לזבל:
They may sow vegetables beneath it in winter but not in summer, and lettuce neither in summer nor winter.
Rabbi Yose says: even vegetables [may not be planted] in winter because the foliage falls upon them and becomes manure for them.
In the winter one is allowed to sow plants underneath the asherah tree, since the shade provided by the tree will not benefit the plants. In this case he is not benefiting from an idolatrous object. However, he may not plant lettuce underneath the asherah, even in the winter, since shade is always beneficial to lettuce.
Rabbi Yose states that even vegetables may not be planted in winter, since the falling leaves will act as manure for the vegetables and therefore the planter would be benefiting from an idolatrous object. In other words, although he will not benefit from the shade since he will benefit in other ways, it is forbidden.
גמ׳ למימרא דרבי יוסי סבר זה וזה גורם אסור ורבנן אמרי זה וזה גורם מותר
GEMARA. Is this to say that R. Yose holds that when both this and that cause it is prohibited and the rabbis hold that when both this and that cause it is permitted?
The rabbis in the mishnah allow one to plant underneath an asherah tree even though its foliage will fall onto the plants and fertilize them. Rabbi Yose prohibits. The Talmud extracts a principle over which they dispute. In this case, the tree is fertilized by the ground and by the falling leaves. The rabbis hold that when there are two causes, one permitted and one prohibited, the product is permitted. R. Yose holds that it is not.
הא איפכא שמעינן להו דתנן רבי יוסי אומר שוחק וזורה לרוח או מטיל לים
אמרו לו אף היא נעשה זבל ונאמר (דברים יג, יח) לא ידבק בידך מאומה מן החרם קשיא דרבנן אדרבנן קשיא דר’ יוסי אדרבי יוסי
But haven t we heard them say the opposite, for we have learned: R. Yose says: He may grind [an idol] to dust and scatter it to the wind or throw it into the sea.
They said to him: Even so it may then become manure, and it says, And nothing that is proscribed should cleave to your hand (Deuteronomy 13:18)!
The rabbis contradict themselves and R. Yose contradicts himself.
The rabbis and R. Yose disagree in another mishnah, and their positions seem to be opposite of what they are here. That mishnah talks about destroying an idol by grinding it up and scattering it to the wind. R. Yose allows him to do so, even though it may fertilize the ground. According to the interpretation here, he is allowed to do so because there will be two causes in nourishing the plant the ground up idol and the ground. The rabbis are strict in such cases. Thus both the rabbis and R. Yose contradict themselves.
בשלמא דרבי יוסי אדרבי יוסי לא קשיא התם דקאזיל לאיבוד מתיר הכא דלא קאזיל לאיבוד אסור
R. Yose does not contradict himself. In that case since the man proceeds to destroy [the idol], [R. Yose] permits [the use of the dust as manure]; but in the case here [in our Mishnah], where he does not proceed to destroy [the idol], [the dust] is prohibited [as manure].
R. Yose allows one to crush up the idol because that is destroying it. The fact that it will also form manure is not significant. When it comes to our mishnah, the case of the leaves falling onto the ground, he is not destroying anything so it is not permitted.
אלא דרבנן אדרבנן קשיא איפוך
ואיבעית אימא לא תיפוך דר’ יוסי כדשנין דרבנן כדאמר רב מרי בריה דרב כהנא מה שמשביח בעור פוגם בבשר הכא נמי מה שמשביח בנביה פוגם בצל
But the rabbis contradict themselves! Reverse [the statements in our Mishnah].
Or if you wish I can say that there is no need to reverse the positions. R. Yose [is resolved] as we explained; and that of the rabbis [is resolved] as R. Mari the son of R. Kahana said: What makes the hide valuable decreases the value of the meat. Similarly here, the benefit gained through the foliage is lost by the shade.
The first attempt to resolve the rabbis is to reverse their position with that of R. Yose. Of course that will cause R. Yose to again contradict himself.
So a better way to resolve the issue is to say that the rabbis don t contradict themselves because as the value of the foliage as manure goes up, its value as shade goes down. So there is no net gain and therefore the rabbis are not strict.
This is compared with an animal which is disqualified from being a sacrificed. The animal should be sold and the profits given to the Temple. The rabbis wanted to make sure that the maximum profits go to the Temple. While skinning the animal whole would increase the value of the hide, it would decrease the value of the flesh. Therefore, it is forbidden to skin the animal whole. So too here when the foliage falls its value as manure is offset by its loss as shade.