Tract Abuda Zara: Volume X. (XVIII.): Chapter I

R. Joshua b. Levi said: The following is written in the Pentateuch, repeated in the Prophets, and thirdly in the Hagiographa: He who occupies himself with the Torah is prosperous in all his undertakings. In the Pentateuch [Deut. xxix. 8]: "Keep ye therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do," repeated in Prophets [Jos. i. 8]: p. 36 [paragraph continues] "This book of the book shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt mediate therein day and night, in order that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein; for then shalt thou make thy way prosperous, and then shalt thou have good success." And thirdly in Hagiographa [Psalm i. 2, 3]: "But whose delight is in the law of the Lord, and who doth meditate in his law by day and night. (3) And he shall be like a tree planted by rivulets of water, that yieldeth its fruit in its season, and the leaf of which doth not wither; and all that he may do shall prosper." R, Alexander heralded: Who wants to live, who wants to live? And a big crowd surrounded him. He then referred them to [ibid. xxxiv. 14-16]. "Where the idols should be placed," etc. Said R. Eliezar in the name of R. Johanan: If however, he has built, the reward of it is valid. Is this not self-evident? It is only the preparation for the idol to which both R. Ismael and R. Aqiba agree that they are not forbidden, unless the idol is already worshipped? Said R. Jeremiah: The Mishna means that even if he has made the idol itself, the reward is valued. But this is correct only to him, who holds that when an Israelite made an idol for himself, it is forbidden even before it was worshipped; but of a heathen, it is not, unless worshipped. But to him who holds that the same is the case with the idol of a heathen, what can be said? Said Rabba b. Ula: The Mishna refers to the finishing touch, which completes the idol, and the reason is: what made the idol ready? The last touch, which in itself is not worth the smallest coin (a perutha), and therefore it is not forbidden. From this it may be inferred that the Tana holds the obligation to pay a laborer, counts from the beginning till the very end of the labor, and not only after its completion.

MISHNA IX.: One must not manufacture ornaments for an idol--e.g., necklaces, nose-bands and rings. R. Eliezar, however, maintains that for reward one may. Nothing must be sold to them while attached to the ground, but after it was cut off, one may. R. Jehudah said: He may also sell with the stipulation to cut it off afterward. GEMARA: Whence is this deduced? Said R. Jose, from [Deut. Vii. 2]: "Nor favor them," 1 means, he shall not give p. 37 him a rest in the land; we have learned similarly in a Boraitha, with the addition that it also means: You shall not give him such which shall make them merciful in the eyes of others. (Here is repeated from Chulin, p. 114 b.) The above statement is a support to that which Rabh said: It is forbidden to say: How nice is this female heathen? An objection was raised. R. Simeon b. Gamalien, being once on the steps of the Temple mountain, happened to see a female heathen who was a great beauty, and he exclaimed: "How great is thy work O Lord!" And it happened also to R. Aqiba that, when he saw the wife of Tornus Rupus, he laughed and wept. Laughed, because he saw that she would become a proselyte, and he would marry her; wept, that such a beauty must be buried under earth? This does not contradict Rabh, as it was only a benediction, which one has to recite by seeing nice creatures. 1 R. Joshua b. Levi said: Modesty is the greatest of them all, as it reads [Is. lxi. 1]: "Hath anointed me to announce good tidings unto the meek," it does not read to announce pious men, but meek; hence modesty is greatest.

"One must not sell." The rabbis taught: One may sell them a tree with the stipulation to cut it off, and he cuts it immediately, so R. Jehudah. R. Mair, however, says: Only that which is already cut. The same is the case with hay, and also with flour. According to R. Jehudah, it may be sold to harvest, and according to R. Mair that which is already harvested. It was necessary to learn their points of differing in all the three, as one from the other could not be inferred (we omit the reasons, as of little importance). The schoolman propounded a question.. May one sell them a cow with the stipulation to slaughter it? Shall we assume that the above things R. Jehudah permits, because they are not under the control of the heathen so that he is not able to prolong time? But in the case of a cow which he takes immediately, he may prolong the time a good deal until slaughtering, and this even R. Jehudah will not allow. Come and hear the following: One may sell a cow with the stipulation of slaughtering, and the heathen has to do it immediately. So R. Jehudah, while R. Mair permits only the sale of the slaughtered. p. 38 MISHNA X: Houses must not be rented to the heathens in Palestine, not to speak of fields. In Syria, however, houses are permitted to be sold, but not fields, and out of Syria houses may be sold and fields rented. So R. Mair. R. Jose, however, said: In Palestine, houses may be rented, but not fields, in Syria houses sold, and fields rented; out of Syria, everything may be sold. However, even in the places where renting is allowed, it must not be for residence, as the idol is brought there, which is against [Deut. Vii. 26]: "And thou shalt not bring an abomination in thy house." A bath-house must not be rented at any place because it is named after the owner, who is an Israelite (and he can be suspected of heating it himself on the Sabbath).

GEMARA: What is meant by the expression "not to speak of fields"; is it because two things would be neglected, resting the fields and tithe from the growth? The same would be with the houses also, resting, and the neglect of a mazuza? Said R. Mesharshia: The mazuza is not an obligation upon the house, but upon him who lives in it. "In Syria houses," etc. Let us see; why is selling forbidden? Because it is considered as the land of Israel. Why, then, is renting permitted? Renting even in Palestine is only as a safeguard that one should not come to sell; and a safeguard to a safeguard we do not decree. But is not renting fields in Syria also a safeguard to a safeguard, and is nevertheless forbidden? This is not considered a safeguard, as the Tana holds that the land which was taken away by an individual (not by the people of Israel at large) is considered, nevertheless, to be the land of Israel. Hence, against fields upon which two things would be neglected, as said above, the rabbis decreed; but this is not the case with houses. "In Syria houses are permitted," etc. For the just-mentioned reasons. "R. Jose . . . in Palestine, houses," etc. Also for the same reason. "In Syria houses sold," etc. It is because he holds that the land which was taken by an individual is not considered the land of Israel, and, therefore, only against fields they decreed for the reasons adduced above, but not against houses.

"In Syria houses sold," etc. It is because he holds that the land which was taken by an individual is not considered the land of Israel, and, therefore, only against fields they decreed for the reasons adduced above, but not against houses. "Everything maybe sold," etc. Because it is far from Palestine, no decree was rendered. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The Halakha prevails with R. Jose. Said R. Joseph: Provided it does not make a whole neighborhood of heathens, p. 39 [paragraph continues] And there is a Boraitha: That less than three families is not considered a neighborhood. "Where renting is allowed," etc. From this we infer that not in every place renting is allowed. Hence, the unnamed Mishna is according to R. Mair; as according to R. Jose, renting is permitted in every place. "Put not a bath-house," etc. There is a Boraitha: R. Simeon b. Gimalia said: One must not rent his bath-house to a heathen because the bath is named after the owner and the heathen does his labor on Sabbath and holidays (and people may think that the Israelites themselves do this). But how is it to a Samaritan? It may be rented, although he works on the minor festivals? On minor festivals, we Israelites also are permitted to heat baths. But let us see why it is permitted to rent a field to a heathen, although he does labor on Sabbath? Because people know that the gardener is doing work for himself. Why not say the same concerning a bath-house? It is because usually a field is hired to a gardener, which is not the case with bathhouses. There is another Boraitha: R. Simeon b. Eliezar: One must not rent his field to a Samaritan because it is named after him, and the Samaritan works the field during the minor festivals. But how is it with a heathen? It is allowed, because people know that he does it for himself; why not say the same concerning a Samaritan? R. Simeon b. Eliezar does not consider the reason of a gardener at all, and his reason why it is allowed to a heathen is that if we tell him that be should not work, he will listen to, which is not the case with a Samaritan, who thinks that he knows better than woe do. There were fields of safran in partnership of an Israelite and a heathen; the heathen worked on Sabbath and the Israelite on Sunday, and Rabha has permitted to do so. Rabbina questioned him from the following: "An Israelite and a heathen who have hired a field in partnership, the Israelite must not say to the heathen: You take your share on Sabbath and I on a week day, unless it was so stipulated at the time they started. However, when they come to make their accounts, it is not permitted to the Israelite that he should take his share from the Sabbath labor." Rabha became ashamed; thereafter, however, it was announced that such was stipulated when the partnership was started.

The schoolman propounded a question: How is it if there was no stipulation? Come and hear: "If such a stipulation was made at the time when started, it is allowed"; whence it may p. 40 be inferred, that if there was no stipulation, it is prohibited. But if so, how is the latter part to be understood? "When they come to make the account, the Israelite must not take his share of Sabbath," from which it may be inferred that without an account, he may accept it, although there was no stipulation. In view of this, from this Boraitha nothing can be taken for a support. 1:1 The term for festivals in the Mishna, is "Aidehen" and Rabh and Samuel are discussing this term at some length. According to one it is Aidehen and means misfortune while to the other it is "Edihen," and means "witnesses." It is because the sages of the Mishna hesitate to name the holidays of the idolaters with the term "festivals." We, however, deem it not necessary to translate this discussion, as it is unimportant. 1:2 The term for people here, is Leum and by an analogy of expression it is inferred to mean kingdom. 4:1 Leeser's translation does not correspond. 5:1 The term for this word is sh'hok, which means both sport and smile, hence the objection. 5:2 The translation of this verse does not correspond at all, it is therefore of no use to quote it. 6:1 Leeser's translation, according to the sense, does not correspond with the Talmud who takes it literally.

6:1 Leeser's translation, according to the sense, does not correspond with the Talmud who takes it literally. 9:1 We do not quote the passage, as the translation of it does not at all correspond. 12:1 In text many things on which the Halakha prevails according to R. Jehoshua b. Kar'ha are gathered, though they do not belong to this tract at all; and as all of them are mentioned, each in its proper place, they are omitted here. 13:1 The word complaint is termed by shicho, which means "prior" according to the Talmud concerning Isaac in [Gen. xxiv. 63] where the same term is used. 16:1 We do not quite understand how to make out 206 years according to this account. Rashi's explanation does not suffice, and all other commentators keep silent. The Gamara itself was in doubt, concerning this account, as R. Papa said in text. We have, however, omitted it, leaving the whole affair to the historian. 16:2 There are a few lines repeated here from Sanhedrin, p. 303, to which we could not refer because of the continuation in text. 16:3 The reader must not forget that this was said fourteen centuries ago. 16:4 This account remains very complicated, notwithstanding Rashi's attempt to explain it. And as it seems to us unimportant, we have omitted the whole discussion. 18:1 For the explanation, see Taanith, p. 4. 20:1 To the explanation of these peculiar words, we give the following of Jastrow Dictionary: an alleged proclamation made in Rome on the occasion of a sort of secular game, and intended as a satire of Eseau (Rome) on his brother Jacob (Judaism). The interpretations of commentaries (sakh number of years predicted for the coming of the Messiah, or sakh brother) are unsatisfactory.

20:1 To the explanation of these peculiar words, we give the following of Jastrow Dictionary: an alleged proclamation made in Rome on the occasion of a sort of secular game, and intended as a satire of Eseau (Rome) on his brother Jacob (Judaism). The interpretations of commentaries (sakh number of years predicted for the coming of the Messiah, or sakh brother) are unsatisfactory. 25:1 This Mishna is repeated from tract Passover, p. 90. We did not omit because it is a Mishna and because of the discussions of the Gemara here. 27:1 The text discusses here whether an animal in convulsive movement before death is considered alive or dead, which is inserted here not in its proper place, nor is it of importance and therefore omitted. 27:2 In Tosaphta Chulin (ii. 24) it states that Eliazar said: Jacob has related to me things of minim in the name of Jeshu b. Panthyra, and I was pleased with them. But it is not mentioned what it was, and we are in doubt whether it means the joke in text. This may serve as an answer to the criticism of the "Open court" Vol. 16, pp. 475-477. 29:1 The term for discretion in Hebrew is me zema the last word is the term for prostitution and the Talmud explains it as it would be written men zema which means from prostitution. 33:1 The text does not say what happened to her. Rashi explains that she committed suicide because of a discussion between her and her husband, who finally conquered her.

35:1 In text it is inferred from (Ps. cxix. 20). However, the translation does not correspond and therefore the quotation is omitted. 36:1 The term for favor in Hebrew is chanina. Chanina means also rest. Hence the deduction. 37:1 Here is repeated from many tracts, especially from Middle Gate, p. 227, and a whole Mishna front Tract Shekalim vi, which we have omitted. The statement of R. Joshua b. Levi in text belongs to the Mishna Shekalim vi, which states that piety is greater than all other good things.