Avodah Zarah, Daf Yod Aleph, Part 4

 

Introduction

This section returns to the topic of burning the king s things (or perhaps the king himself). However, when it comes burning Jews, they are referring to burning things, and not the dead Jew himself.

 

גופא שורפין על המלכים ואין בו משום דרכי האמורי שנאמר (ירמיהו לד, ה) בשלום תמות ובמשרפות אבותיך המלכים וגו’

וכשם ששורפין על המלכים כך שורפין על הנשיאים.

 

[To return to] the main text: The burning of articles at a king’s [funeral] is permitted and it is not prohibited as ,the ways of the Amorites, as it is said, You shall die in peace and as they burned for your fathers, the earlier kings that came before you, so shall they will burn for you (Jeremiah 34:5). And just as it is permitted to burn at the [funerals] of kings so it is permitted to burn in the case of princes.

 

Just as Jews were allowed to burn for kings, so too Jews were allowed to burn at the funerals of princes. As we shall see, this refers to the funerals of prominent Jews.

 

ומה הם שורפין על המלכים מיטתן וכלי תשמישן

ומעשה שמת ר"ג הזקן ושרף עליו אונקלוס הגר שבעים מנה צורי.

והאמרת מה הן שורפין עליהם מיטתן וכלי תשמישן! אימא בשבעים מנה צורי.

 

What do they burn in the case of kings? Their beds and the things that they used.

And when R. Gamaliel the elder died, Onkelos the proselyte burned after him seventy Tyrian manehs.

But did you not say what do they burn in the case of kings? Their beds and the things that they used?

Say to the value of seventy Tyrian manehs.

 

There is contradictory testimony here as to what they burned when the king/prince died. Was it his stuff or money? The answer is that they burned his things. And when Rabban Gamaliel died, Onkelos burned 70 manehs worth of his belongings, not seventy maneh of coinage.

 

ומידי אחרינא לא?

והתניא עוקרין על המלכים ואין בו משום דרכי האמורי

אמר רב פפא סוס שרכב עליו.

 

But nothing else may be burned? Has it not been taught: It is permitted to mutilate [an animal] at royal funerals and this is not prohibited as the ways of the Amorites !

R. Papa said [that refers to] the horse on which he rode.

 

We hear here of another practice done at funerals the mutilation of the king or prince s horse. This mutilation, according to Rashi, was cutting through the leg tendon so that the horse could no longer ride.

 

ובהמה טהורה לא?

והתניא עיקור שיש בה טריפה אסור ושאין בה טריפה מותר

ואיזהו עיקור שאין בה טריפה המנשר פרסותיה מן הארכובה ולמטה

תרגמא רב פפא בעגלה המושכת בקרון:

And is it forbidden to mutilate clean animals? Yet it has been taught: Mutilation which renders the animal trefa is forbidden, but such as does not render it trefa is permitted; what kind of mutilation does not render it trefa?

Trimming the tendons of its hoofs from the ankle downward!

R. Papa explained that this refers to a calf [employed for] drawing the royal coach.

 

When R. Papa said that they would mutilate the horse, the implication seemed to be that they could not mutilate clean animals, such as oxen. But another baraita implies that as long as the mutilation does not render the animal a trefa an animal that may not be eaten according to Jewish law, the mutilation is permitted.

Therefore R. Papa translates the baraita as referring to a calf that pulls the royal coach. Such a calf could be mutilated, as long as it was done in such a way that did not render it trefa.