Avodah Zarah, Daf Yod Bet, Part 4

 

Introduction

This section explains why we need all of the sections found in yesterday s baraita about not looking like one is bowing down to an idol. Couldn t we have learned one from the other?

 

וצריכא דאי תנא קוץ משום דאפשר למיזל קמיה ומשקליה אבל מעות דלא אפשר אימא לא

 

And all [three instances given] are necessary. For if it had taught the case of the splinter only, [we would have thought that it is forbidden] because he can walk away from the idol and take it out, but in the case of the coins where this cannot be done, the prohibition does not apply.

 

If he has a thorn in his foot, he can walk away from the idol and remove it elsewhere. Therefore, it is clearly prohibited to bend down next to the idol and remove it. But if coins are found in front of the idol, he cannot bend down and pick them up somewhere else. Therefore, we might have thought that this was permitted. The baraita therefore needed to teach that it is not.

 

ואי תנא מעות דממונא אבל קוץ דצערא אימא לא

 

If, on the other hand, it had taught the case of the coins only [we might say that the prohibition applies] because there is a loss of money, but in the case of the thorn, where there is pain, the prohibition is not to be applied.

 

If the baraita had taught just the case of the coins, we might have thought that this is prohibited because it is just a case of gaining some profit. But we might have thought that if he is in pain, he may bend down to take the thorn out even if it looks like he is bowing down to the idol. Therefore, the baraita had to teach us that this too is prohibited.

 

ואי תנא הני תרתי משום דליכא סכנה אבל מעיין דאיכא סכנה דאי לא שתי מיית אימא לא צריכא

 

If it had taught both of these cases, [we might still say that the prohibition applied to them] because there is no danger involved, but in the case of the spring where there is danger, for if he does not drink he will die, we might say that the prohibition should be waived, hence all the instances are necessary.

 

If the baraita had not taught the case of the spring, we might have thought that this was permitted because it is a question of danger to his life. If he does not bend down to drink, he might die. Therefore, the baraita had to teach us that this too is prohibited.

 

פרצופות ל"ל? משום דקבעי למיתני כיוצא בו לא יניח פיו על גבי הסילון וישתה מפני הסכנה מאי סכנה עלוקה

 

Why then do we need to learn the case of [placing one’s mouth on the faces of the] figures? That is only because he wanted to teach so also one should not place one’s mouth on a water pipe and drink from it for fear of danger.

What is the danger? Swallowing a leech.

 

The only reason to teach the prohibition of putting one s face up to the face of a statue from which water flows is to teach the last clause, which prohibits one from putting one s mouth on water pipe. This prohibition is for another reason altogether, unrelated to idolatry. Putting one s mouth up to the water pipe could lead to swallowing a leech (yuck!).