Avodah Zarah, Daf Nun Aleph, Part 5

 

Introduction

Today s section starts with another new mishnah.

 

מתני׳ עבודת כוכבים שהיה לה גינה או מרחץ נהנין מהן שלא בטובה

ואין נהנין מהן בטובה

היה שלה ושל אחרים נהנין מהן בין בטובה ובין שלא בטובה

 

If an idolatrous shrine has a garden or bathhouse, one may use either so long as it is not to the advantage [of the idolaters],

But one may not use either if it is to its advantage.

If [the garden or bathhouse] belonged jointly to it and to others, one may use them whether it be to the advantage [of idolatry] or not.

 

If an idolatrous shrine has a garden or bathhouse in its courtyard, there are certain circumstances in which the garden or bathhouse may nevertheless be used. First of all one may always use them as long as one doesn t give any advantage to the idolaters. This means that one could use the garden or bathhouse as long as he does not pay the idolatrous priests for such use. Secondly, if the garden or bathhouse was jointly owned by the shrine a private individual, one could always use them, and even pay for their use. Even though some of the money may go to the shrine, the Jew can consider the payment as going to the individual partner.

We should note that Maimonides explains that to the advantage of does not mean paying money as we explained above, but rather giving verbal recognition to the owners. If the bathhouse or garden is jointly owned, one may give verbal advantage to the owners, and even to the idolatrous priests, however, according to Maimonides, one may not pay for the use.

 

עבודת כוכבים של עובד כוכבים אסורה מיד ושל ישראל אין אסורה עד שתיעבד:

 

The idol of an idolater is prohibited immediately;

but if it belonged to a Jew it is not prohibited until it is worshipped.

 

As soon as an idol is made by a non-Jew it is prohibited, even before it is worshipped. The reason is that we can safely assume that the non-Jew will worship the idol, and it was certainly made for idolatrous purposes. However, an idol made by a Jew is only forbidden for Jewish use once it has been worshipped. The reason is that we cannot be sure that the Jew will worship the idol. It potentially could be used for decorative, non-idolatrous purposes.

 

גמ׳ אמר אביי בטובה בטובת כומרין שלא בטובה שלא בטובת כומרין לאפוקי טובת עובדיה דשרי

 

GEMARA. Abaye said: Advantage means that payment is made to the priests, and not to its advantage means that payment is not made to them, thus excluding where payment is made to the idol-worshippers, which is permitted.

 

According to Abaye, when the mishnah says that one may use the garden or bathhouse as long as it is not to the advantage it means to the advantage of the priests who run it. A Jew may pay other idolaters for its use.

 

איכא דמתני לה אסיפא היה שלה ושל אחרים נהנין מהן בטובה ושלא בטובה

אמר אביי בטובה בטובת אחרים שלא בטובה שלא בטובת כומרין

 

There are some who teach this in reference to the second clause [of the Mishnah]: If [the garden or bathhouse] belonged jointly to it and to others, one may use them whether it be to the advantage [of idolatry] or not.

Abaye said: Advantage means that the payment is made to the other joint-owners, and not to their advantage means that no payment is made to the priests.

 

Some teach Abaye s statement in reference to the second clause one can use a garden if it is jointly owned by an idolatrous temple and by others. He can pay the other owners, but he cannot pay the priests who own it.

 

מאן דמתני אסיפא כ"ש ארישא ומאן דמתני ארישא אבל אסיפא כיון דאיכא אחרים בהדה אפי’ בטובת כומרין נמי שפיר דמי:

 

One who teaches it in reference to the second clause, would all the more so teach it in reference to the first clause; but one who teaches it in reference to the first clause, would in connection with the second clause say that since there are other owners, one can make payment even to the priests.

 

If one teaches Abaye s statement in reference to the second clause, then he could also teach it in reference to the first clause. In neither case can one make payment directly to the priests.

But if one teaches the statement in reference to the first clause, then when it comes to the second clause, where the bathhouse or garden is jointly owned, he can even make payment to the priests. Since the whole bathhouse or garden does not belong to the idolatrous temple, we can say he is using the part owned by others.