Avodah Zarah, Daf Mem Tet, Part 1
Introduction
This week s daf continues the discussion of this one and that one causes. To recall, these are cases where one cause would lead to the product being prohibited and the other cause would lead to it being permitted. According to the paradigm of the mishnah about the leaves falling from the asherah tree, R. Yose holds the stringent view.
וסבר רבי יוסי זה וזה גורם אסור והתניא רבי יוסי אומר נוטעין יחור של ערלה ואין נוטעין אגוז של ערלה מפני שהוא פרי
ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב מודה רבי יוסי שאם נטע והבריך והרכיב מותר
ותניא נמי הכי מודה רבי יוסי שאם נטע והבריך והרכיב מותר
Does R. Yose really hold that in cases of this one and that one causes the product is prohibited? Have we not learned: R. Yose says: One may plant a young shoot which is orlah but not a nut which is orlah because it is fruit.
And Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: R. Yose agrees that if one planted [a nut which is orlah] or bent it under the ground or grafted [a young shoot which is orlah on an old tree], [the fruit it grows] is permitted!
It has been similarly taught R. Yose agrees that if one planted [a nut which is orlah] or bent it under the ground or grafted [a young shoot which is orlah on an old tree], [the fruit it grows] is permitted!
The Talmud raises a difficulty from a source about orlah, fruit that grows during its first three years. One may not use such fruit. According to R. Yose, one can use the young shoot to plant a new tree, but one may not plant the nut, because the nut is fruit. However, ex post facto, R. Yose agrees that if one plants a nut, the fruit that grows eventually from the tree may be used. This is because the tree that grows is a case of this one and that one causes. The tree grows from the nut, but the nutrients of the ground and water also cause to the tree to grow. Thus it seems that R. Yose is lenient in such cases.
וכי תימא שני ליה לר’ יוסי בין שאר איסורין לעבודת כוכבים ומי שני ליה והתניא שדה שנזדבלה בזבל עבודת כוכבים וכן פרה שנתפטמה בכרשיני עבודת כוכבים תני חדא שדה תזרע פרה תשחט ותניא אידך שדה תבור ופרה תרזה מאי לאו הא ר’ יוסי והא רבנן
And should you say that R. Yose distinguishes between cases of idolatry and other prohibitions, does he really make this distinction? Has it not been taught: A field which has been fertilized with manure derived from an idolatrous source or a cow that has been fattened on vetch derived from an idolatrous source: One tanna teaches that the field may be sown and the cow slaughtered, while the other tanna teaches that the field must lie fallow and the cow grow lean?
Is it not, then, that the former is that of R. Yose and the latter that of the Rabbis?
This is an attempt at a resolution of the contradiction between the two statements of R. Yose. It could be that R. Yose is stringent in cases of idolatry. He would hold that in cases involving idolatry when there are two causes, the product is still prohibited (i.e. the case of the mishnah with the falling leaves) but lenient in other cases (the case of orlah). The problem is that the Talmud cites another case involving idolatry. These cases are also this and that are causes. The manure fertilizes the field, but so does the dirt that is already there. The vetch fattens the cow, but so does other food. And yet the Talmud suggests the R. Yose is the lenient baraita because even in cases of idolatry he holds that two causes are permitted.
No, the former is that of R. Eliezer and the latter that of the rabbis.
The Talmud rejects the identification of the baraitot and suggests that instead of a dispute between R. Yose and the rabbis, we have here a dispute between R. Eliezer and the rabbis. This means that R. Yose can be stringent in the case of idolatry (the mishnah) but lenient in other cases (orlah).
The following section will attempt to identify which dispute between the rabbis and R. Eliezer is also about cases in which there are two causes.