Avodah Zarah, Daf Nun Daled, Part 1

 

Introduction

Today s section discusses when animals that are worshipped become prohibited.

 

תנא נעבד שלו אסור ושל חבירו מותר

It was taught: His own [animal] which he worshipped– it is prohibited;

but if it belonged to another it is permitted.

 

If a person worships his own animal, it is prohibited. But in general a person does not have the power to prohibit another person s property, so if he worships someone else s animal, it remains permitted.

 

ורמינהי איזהו נעבד כל שעובדים אותו בין בשוגג ובין במזיד בין באונס ובין ברצון

האי אונס היכי דמי לאו כגון דאנס בהמת חבירו והשתחוה לה

אמר רמי בר חמא לא כגון שאנסוהו עובדי כוכבים והשתחוה לבהמתו דידיה

 

Against this they raised the following contradiction: Which [animal is considered to have been] worshipped? Any which was worshipped, whether inadvertently or deliberately, whether under compulsion or voluntarily.

These words under compulsion how are they to be understood? Is it not when a man took his neighbor’s animal by force and worshipped it?

Rami b. Hama said: No, it is when idolaters forced him and he worshipped his own animal.

 

The baraita is raised as a contradiction to the previous baraita. The baraita rules that any animal that was worshipped, even if it was worshipped under compulsion, is prohibited. At first the Talmud tries to explain that under compulsion refers to one who took his friend s animal and worshipped it. This would mean it contradicts the first baraita. But Rami b. Hama explains that it simply refers to one forced to worship an animal, not an animal that was stolen and worshipped.

 

מתקיף לה רבי זירא אונס רחמנא פטריה דכתיב (דברים כב, כו) ולנערה לא תעשה דבר

אלא אמר רבא הכל היו בכלל לא תעבדם וכשפרט לך הכתוב (ויקרא יח, ה) וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם יצא אונס והדר כתב רחמנא ולא תחללו את שם קדשי דאפילו באונס הא כיצד הא בצנעא והא בפרהסיא

 

R. Zera objected: But the Torah exempts anyone who acts under duress, as it is written, But to the girl you shall do nothing (Deuteronomy 22:26)!

Rather Rava said: All were included in the general law Do not serve them ; so when Scripture specifies He shall live by them, and not die through them, it excludes the one who acts under duress. After that, however, the Torah wrote. And you shall not profane My holy name even under compulsion! How is this so? The former refers to an act in private, the latter to an act in public.

 

R. Zera points out that the baraita cannot rule an animal prohibited if it was worshipped under duress. The Torah always exempts one who acts under duress, as we learn in the case of the violated girl. This should extend to the animal as well.

Rava resolves it by noting a progression of verses. Theoretically, idolatry is always prohibited, even under the threat of death. On the other hand, the Torah exempts one who acts under duress. Finally, the Torah also prohibits desecrating God s name. To resolve all of these seeming contradictions Rava says that one situation refers to something done in private and the other to a public act. In private, a person should worship idolatry rather than die. But in public, at least when it comes to idolatry, a person should be willing to die rather than transgress.

We should note that there is a some blurring here in topic between the status of the animal that was worshipped and the issue of whether a person should allow himself to be killed rather than transgress. Rava seems to be talking about the latter, whereas the sugya is talking about the former. To resolve this we d have to equate the two. If a person worships idols under duress in private, the animal is not prohibited because the person did not sin. But if the person worships idols in public under duress, just as he should not have transgressed, so too the animal is prohibited.