Avodah Zarah, Daf Vav, Part 2
Introduction
This section asks an important question about the Mishnah why should Jews refrain from engaging in business with idolaters before their festivals?
I should note that I have a chapter on this subject in my forthcoming volume 2 of Reconstructing the Talmud. In this chapter, my co-author and I show that the original reason for the prohibition was that participation in the economic aspect of the festival was akin to idol worship itself. In other words, the problem was not that the Jew was in some ways abetting the idol worship of a non-Jew. The problem was that the Jew was engaging in idol worship himself. However, the Talmud for the most part does not read the mishnah in this way.
איבעיא להו משום הרווחה או דלמא משום (ויקרא יט, יד) ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול?
The question was asked: Is it [forbidden] because of it causes profit, or perhaps because You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind (Leviticus 19:14)?
Is it prohibited to engage in business because doing so will cause the idolater to profit and then he will go thank his god on his festival? Or is it a transgression of the prohibition of causing someone else to stumble? By selling or giving an animal to be sacrificed, the Jew is causing the idolater to engage in idolatry.
למאי נפקא מינה? דאית ליה בהמה לדידיה. אי אמרת משום הרווחה הא קא מרווח ליה אי אמרת משום עור לא תתן מכשול הא אית ליה לדידיה.
What is the practical difference [between the two explanations]? If the idolater has an animal of his own. If you say [the prohibition is] because of profit, here, too, he causes him to profit. If however you say it is because of placing a stumbling block before the blind, here, then, he has [a sacrifice] of his own.
If the idolater has another animal of his own, then if the prohibition is due to profit, it is still in effect because by selling the idolater another animal, the Jew still causes him to profit. If, however, the prohibition is because of placing a stumbling block before the blind, then if the idolater has another animal to sacrifice, the Jew is not enabling him to offer a sacrifice. The idolater could have sacrificed one anyway.
וכי אית ליה לא עבר משום עור לא תתן מכשול?
והתניא אמר רבי נתן מנין שלא יושיט אדם כוס של יין לנזיר ואבר מן החי לבני נח ת"ל (ויקרא יט, יד) "ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול" והא הכא דכי לא יהבינן ליה שקלי איהו וקעבר משום לפני עור לא תתן מכשול.
And if he has one of his own then the Jew does not transgress placing a stumbling block before the blind?
Was it not taught that R. Nathan said: How do we know that one should not hold out a cup of wine to a Nazirite or a limb from a living animal to a Noachide? Scripture says, You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind. Now here, if they did not give it to him he could take it himself, yet the one [who hands it] is guilty of placing a stumbling block before the blind.
The implication above was that if the idolater has another animal to sacrifice, the Jew who sells him an animal does not transgress the prohibition of placing a stumbling block before the blind. But this contradicts a baraita stated by R. Natan. If one makes forbidden substances available to those to whom they are prohibited, he transgresses, even if the person could have consumed the substance in any case.
הב"ע דקאי בתרי עברי נהרא דיקא נמי דקתני לא יושיט ולא קתני לא יתן ש"מ.
Here we are dealing with a case of two people on opposite sides of a river. This is also implied by the fact that it teaches one should not hold out and it does not teach, one should not give. Learn from this.
The prohibition of placing a stumbling block before the blind applies only if the person could not have otherwise gotten hold of the forbidden substance, such as he was on the other side of the river. Thus if the idolater has another animal to sacrifice, the Jew does not transgress placing a stumbling block before the blind.
Note that the Talmud never got back to answering the original question what is the reasoning for the prohibition of engaging in business with idolaters before their festival.
