Avodah Zarah, Daf Yod Gimmel, Part 4

 

Introduction

This section begins by discussing the section of the baraita which says that if one buys an animal at an idolatrous festival one should disable it.

 

אמר מר בהמה תיעקר:

והא איכא צער בעלי חיים?

אמר אביי אמר רחמנא (יהושע יא, ו) את סוסיהם תעקר.

 

The master stated: Cattle should be hamstrung. But is there not the prohibition of causing suffering to a living being?

Abaye said: The Torah says, Their horses you shall hamstring (Joshua 11:6).

 

The Talmud asks how one can be allowed to hamstring an animal isn t that a violation of the prohibition of causing pain to a living being? Abaye answers with a verse in the book of Joshua where God tells Joshua that in war the Israelites should hamstring their enemies horses. The implication seems to be that if a verse allows it, the action is permitted, despite the fact that the context of the verse was war, a time when disabling horses would seem to be an obvious step.

 

אמר מר ואיזוהי עיקור מנשר פרסותיה מן הארכובה ולמטה.

ורמינהי אין מקדישין ואין מחרימין ואין מעריכין בזה"ז ואם הקדיש והחרים והעריך בהמה תיעקר פירות כסות וכלים ירקבו מעות וכלי מתכות יוליכם לים המלח.

ואיזהו עיקור נועל דלת בפניה והיא מתה מאיליה.

 

The Master said: What is meant by disabling [cattle]? The cutting of the tendons beneath the ankle.

The following is cited as contradicting it: One should not sanctify, or devote, or evaluate at the present time; and if one did sanctify, devote or evaluate, then if it be cattle it should be disabled, if fruit, clothes or utensils they should be allowed to rot, if money or metal vessels, he should carry them to the Dead Sea.

What is meant by disabling? The door is locked in front of it, so that it dies of itself.

 

This baraita is brought here because the method of disabling contradicts the method mentioned in the other baraita. The topic here is one who dedicates an animal or something else to the Temple in a time where the Temple still stands. This is something one should not do, but if one did do it, he should somehow destroy the object so that it will not be brought to the Temple. The animal must be left to starve to death. [Note that this seems to obviously cause pain to the animal, but the rabbis, for various reasons, are not bothered by this.]

 

אמר אביי שאני התם משום בזיון קדשים

ונשחטיה מישחט? אתו בהו לידי תקלה

ולישויה גיסטרא

אמר אביי אמר קרא (דברים יב, ג) ונתצתם את מזבחותם [וגו’] לא תעשון כן לה’ אלהיכם

 

Abaye said: That case is treated differently, because of the prohibition of despising sanctified things.

Then let him slaughter it! That may lead to transgression.

Then let him cut it in half!

Abaye said: Scripture says, And you shall tear down their altars You shall not do so to the Lord your God (Deuteronomy 12:3).

 

Abaye answers the difficulty by saying that it is prohibited to hamstring the sanctified animal because that would be considered treating sacrificial animals in a disgraceful way. One cannot slaughter the animal as a proper sacrifice because that might lead to people eating it. And one cannot cut it in half because the Torah prohibits destroying holy objects in the way that we are commanded to destroy items of idolatry.

 

רבא אמר מפני שנראה כמטיל מום בקדשים.

נראה? מום מעליא הוא!

ה"מ בזמן שבית המקדש קיים דחזי להקרבה השתא דלא חזי להקרבה לית לן בה

 

Rava said: [Disabling is here avoided] because it seems like inflicting a blemish on sanctified things.

Seems! This is a real blemish!

This is true only while the Temple was in existence, so that the animal is fit for being offered up; but at the present time, since it cannot in any case be offered, the prohibition does not apply.

 

Rava explains that disabling the animal is prohibited because there is a prohibition of putting a blemish in a sacrificial animal. Such a blemish prevents the animal from being sacrificed. When the Temple still stood, this prohibition was considered to be biblical and disabling the animal was certainly a full blemish. But once the Temple no longer stood, the prohibition was only like putting a blemish.

 

וליהוי כמטיל מום בבעל מום דאע"ג דלא חזי להקרבה אסור

בעל מום נהי דלא חזי לגופיה לדמי חזי לאפוקי הכא דלא לדמי חזי ולא לגופיה חזי

 

But let it be regarded as inflicting a blemish on a blemished animal which, even though not fit for a sacrificial purpose, is forbidden!

An animal which had been blemished, while it cannot be used for sacrifice, the money obtained for it may be used; but this excludes our case where the animal is not fit for the money obtained for it nor for actual sacrifice.

 

When the Temple still stood, it was prohibited to blemish a sacrificial animal even if it was already blemished. So why here does Rava say it is like inflicting an animal with a blemish. This seems to be really prohibited. The answer is that when the Temple still stood a blemished animal could be sold and the proceeds would go to the Temple. The animal was thus useful and blemishing it would damage it. But this animal is not fit for anything since there is no Temple. Therefore, blemishing it, while still prohibited, would only be like blemishing and not real blemishing.