skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Elazar ben Durdia did not leave one harlot in the world without a visit. Once he heard that there was a particular harlot overseas who took a purse of coins for her services. He crossed seven rivers for her sake. When they were starting, she blew wind with her mouth and said, “Just as this air cannot return, so they will not receive Elazar ben Durdia in repentance.” He went and sat between two mountains and asked mountains, heaven, earth, moon, and stars to beseech mercy for him. They all said that they needed mercy for themselves. He then saw that the matter depends solely on him, and cried until his soul departed. A heavenly voice proclaimed, “Rabbi Elazar ben Durdia is ready for the life in the World to Come!”
Rabbi Yehudah the Prince cried and said, “Some get their World to Come in a single moment. And they are even called 'Rabbi'”.
Art: John William Waterhouse - The Remorse of the Emperor Nero
One may not sell to idolaters weapons, implements of torture, bears and lions. Since murder is prohibited under the Noahide laws, such sales would be “putting a stumbling block in front of a blind person.”
One should not build with the idol worshippers a basilica - a tall palatial structure used as a hall of justice - from whose top the guilty and condemned were hurled to their deaths. Alternatively, this is prohibited because it served as a pedestal for an idol. However, one may build together with them beautiful buildings used for neither idolatry nor judicial proceeding, and one may also build bathhouses. Nevertheless, once in the construction of the latter they reach the dome on which an idol was usually placed, it is forbidden to continue building together with the idol worshipppers.
Art: Giovanni Antonio Canal (called Canaletto) - Grand Canal from Palazzo Flangini to Palazzo Bembo
But contrast this with the following ruling: “One should not stable an animal at the inns of idol worshippers, because they are suspected of bestiality” - this ruling gives a blanket prohibition! The difference is that the idolater is concerned that his animal would not become sterile, and will not sodomize it if it is his own.
One is never allowed to sell large livestock. The sale may happen right before Sabbath, and the idolater will ask the Jew to call the animal to see how it walks, the animal will move and carry its load. The Jew will thus cause his animal to work on Sabbath. Therefore, to sell through an intermediary is allowed – since the animal does not know the reseller and will not follow his command.
Art: Govert Dircksz. Camphuyse - Herdsman and Herdswoman with Livestock
However, selling a large bundle of these items is allowed. It can be assumed that the buyer is a merchant, who will be reselling them at a profit, and the “stumbling block” prohibition does not go that far.
If an idol worshipper asks for other items, specifying that they are for idol worship, it is prohibited to sell them to him. One cannot rationalize that this man is simply so devoted to idol worship that he expects all others to be as devoted and sell to him at a discount.
The tractate Avodah Zarah of our father Abraham was comprised of 400 chapters. We have only five, and we encounter difficulties even with these, since we are not certain which cedar trees are meant above.
Art: William Trost Richards - Cedars on the Shore Near Atlantic City
If in a city, on the day when they celebrate their deity, some shops are decorated and some are not, then buying in the decorated shops is prohibited, while buying in non-decorated shops is permitted. One can assume that the owners of non-decorated shops do not participate in the festivities.
Resh Lakish said that this prohibition applies only to shops decorated with roses or myrtle, since they have been dedicated to the idol, and the buyer derives benefit from the fragrance when he enters the shop. The Torah only prohibited deriving benefit from idolatrous matter, saying “No part of the banned property may adhere to your hand.”
However, Rabbi Yochanan prohibits all shops, even decorated with fruit. By patronizing the shop, one provides benefit to the idol, either because the priests own the shop, or the store owner pays tax to them. If deriving benefit from an idol is prohibited, then providing it with benefit is certainly prohibited.
Art: Edwin Longsden Long - A Spanish Flower Seller
Can a city where a festival is being held be visited? - If the road leads only to that city and to nowhere else, it is forbidden, because it gives the appearance of going to the festival; otherwise, it is permitted.
A thorn should not be removed from one's foot in front of an idol, nor should one collect his money scattered in front of an idol. Instead, one should first turn to the side, so as not to give the appearance of bowing down to that idol.
Both rulings are necessary. The thorn can be removed elsewhere, but one might have thought that money is allowed to be collected. Conversely, one can loose some money, but one might think that removing a thorn, which is painful, would be allowed. The ruling informs us that both actions are prohibited.
Art: Léon Bonnat - An Arab removing a thorn from his foot
It is also forbidden to do business with a pagan on the day he shaves his beard and the lock of his hair – which were often grown for a year and then dedicated to the pagan's deity.
There was also another festival in Rome. Once in seventy years they would take a healthy person – representing Esau – and have him ride upon the shoulders of a lame person, representing Jacob. They would dress the upper man in the attire of Adam, the first man, which he had used for hunting, and they would put the scalp of Rabbi Ishmael on his head. They would declare, “The calculations of the ruler (Jacob) are wrong,” (which meant that the Jews still have not been redeemed). The brother (Jacob) of our lord (Esau) is a cheat; woe to one of them when the other one arises.”
Said Rav Ashi, “Their language made them stumble, since this can be understood as 'Our lord is a cheat.'”
Art: William Blake - Tiriel, borne back to the Palace on the Shoulders of his Brother Ijim, addressing his five Daughters
But let him say it directly! - Maybe the dignitaries will overhear. But say it quietly! - “a bird of the sky will carry the sound” - one can never be sure that a private conversation will remain secret.
A secret cave led from the palace of Antoninus to the house of Rabbi Yehudah. Daily Antoninus would visit Rabbi Yehudah and study Torah with him, but he wanted this to be secret. He would bring two servants with him, killing one at the entrance to the house of Rabbi Yehudah, and another on return. Antoninus told Rabbi Yehudah that nobody should be present at their meeting, but one day Rabbi Chanina bar Chama was there.
Antoninus was upset, but Rabbi Yehudah told Antoninus, “It is not a man, but an angel.” To verify this, Antoninus told Rabbi Chanina, "Go and wake my servant, sleeping at the door." Rabbi Chanina found the servant dead. Not wanting to either come back with the bad news, or to flee, Rabbi Chanina revived the servant. Antoninus said, “I know that the least among you can resurrect the dead, but please next time nobody should be with you.”
Art: David The Younger Ryckaert - Man Sleeping
The Romans fought thirty-two battles against the Greeks but were unable to overcome them, until they accepted Israel as a partner. They then sent a message to the Greeks: “Until now we were fighting with weapons, but now let's reason. If one has a carbuncle and a Torah scroll, which one should be made into a setting for the other?” The Greeks replied, “The carbuncle should be the setting for the Torah scroll.” The Romans then replied, “If so, we have a Torah scroll with us, for Israel is with us.” Then they went ahead and defeated the Greeks.
The Romans promised to treat Israel as partners, but after twenty-six years, they subjugated Israel. What was their logic? At first they relied on “I will proceed alongside you,” implying partnership between Esau (Rome) and Jacob. But later they expounded “Let my master go ahead of his servant,” which indicates that Esau (Rome) is the leader.
Art: Juan De La Corte - Battle Scene with a Roman Army Besieging a Large City
When Adam the first man saw the days decreasing in winter, he said, “Woe is to me! This is the death that has been decreed upon me!” He then engaged in fasting and prayer for eight days. When after winter solstice he saw that the days began increasing, he said, “This is the way of the world!” and established eight days of festivities. The following year he established both eight-day periods as festival days. Although he intended for the sake of Heaven, later generations dedicated them for the sake of idolatry.
Art: Frederick Cayley Robinson - A Winter Evening
However, today these prohibitions don't apply, because today's idol worshippers do it only by rote. Moreover, many societies have accepted upon themselves a moral code which differs greatly from the lifestyle that idol worship expressly allowed. To emphasize that, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein called the American society a “Government of Benevolence.”
When should one ask for his personal needs, before or after the prayer? Some say, following the example of Moses, that one should start with God's praises, then ask for his needs. Others says that for us to follow Moses would be presumptuous. Rather, we should ask for our needs first, which will lead us to realize that we can rely only on God. We then will be in the proper state of mind to pray, while Moses did not need this preparation.
Art: Jacopo Tintoretto (Robusti) - Deucalion and Pyrrha Praying before the Statue of the Goddess Themis
Then compare it to the law that one must learn the laws of a Jewish holiday thirty days before the holiday! - In the case of an idolater, the only disqualification is if the animal is missing a limb, and three days are enough, but in the Temple there are many animal disqualifications.
So the idolaters took the law of sacrifices to God and applied it to sacrifices to their idols, and are careful that the animal should be intact. What is the source for this law? - Noah was commanded to take whole animals into the Ark, because he would bring some as a sacrifice. But maybe they were not whole? - The Torah says, “With you,” meaning, “Like you.” But maybe Noah himself was not whole? - That can't be, because then only lame animals would be allowed.
Art: Jan van Balen - Noah And The Ark
But didn't God show Adam all the generations of men? And isn't it also true that the Messiah will not come until all souls have been reincarnated in physical bodies? Rather, understand Resh Lakish as saying that had they lived forever in a perfect state, we would be considered as nonentities compared to them.
Another opinion is that the decree of death is irrevocable, and had Jews not sinned, they would be free from any foreign domination, but would still remain mortal. It is based on "Observe the Torah, so that it will be good for you" - but not so that you would be immortal. And Resh Lakish answers that the decree of "death" can be fulfilled through being poor, because four are considered as dead: poor, blind, leper, and one without children.
Art: Adriaen Pietersz van de Venne - Allegory of Poverty
No creature can precisely know this moment, except for the wicked prophet Balaam, about whom the Torah says, “one who knows the mind of the Supreme One.” But how could that be? Balaam did not even know the mind of an animal!
When the Moabite emissaries saw Balaam riding on a donkey, they asked him, “Why do you not ride a horse?” He answered, “Usually I ride a horse. Today I am riding a donkey for the first time, because I put my horses in the marshland to graze.”
The she-donkey then said to him, “Am I not your she-donkey?” Balaam said, “To carry loads.” She however replied, “That you have ridden on me.” He said “Occasionally,” and she replied, “All your life until this day! And not only that, but I provide you with riding by day and with marital acts at night!”
Rather, Balaam knew the moment when God is angry, and was trying to say the word כלם “destroy them”, at this moment, and it became מלך - king – in his mouth.
Art: Eduardo Zamacois y Zabala - Taming The Donkey
It will claim that it built marketplaces, fought wars, and amassed wealth, so that the Jews could study Torah. But God will reply to them that they built marketplaces to put prostitutes there, fought wars for their own benefit, and that gold belongs to Him anyway.
The same will happen with other nations. However, since God does not act treacherously, He will offer them another chance at the Torah and ask them to fulfill one easy mitzvah, Sukkah. Immediately everyone will build a sukkah on his roof. God will make the sun blast down on it, and they will kick the sukkah and leave, thus loosing their chance.
But didn't we say that God does not act treacherously? Why did He force them out of the sukkah with the burning sun? - That was fair, because Jews also sometimes have to sit in the sukkah in hot months. But if it is uncomfortably hot, the law is that the person should leave the sukkah! That is true, and the Jews also leave the sukkah, but they don't kick it, unlike the nations, who do.
Art: George Wesley Bellows - Sunset Shady Valley
During the three days preceding the idolatrous festivals, it is forbidden to transact business with the votaries of this order, to lend them money or to borrow money from them, to repay a debt to them, or to accept payment of a debt from them.
Three days prior to his festival, the idolater is already focused on his deity, because at this time he begins to search for an animal that is suitable to use as a sacrifice. He therefore is likely to pay homage to his deity on the day of the festival for any benefits that have accrued to him from the point onward. A Jew therefore may not do business with an idolater during those three days, since he will indirectly cause the idolater to praise the name of his alien god.
Rabbi Yehudah says, “We accept payment from them, since this causes the payer distress,” but the Sages reply to him, “Though it causes him distress now, he rejoices afterwards.”
Art: Francisco De Goya y Lucientes - The Sacrifice of Pan
Any of the four types of custodians may swear regarding the object he was keeping. Even if he swears falsely, he is not necessarily liable for a false oath.
If his oath would change his obligation from one liability to another, such as that the ox he borrowed died naturally, when actually it was captured, and in both of which cases he would be liable to pay, his oaths changes nothing. If he confesses that he swore falsely, he does not have to bring the usual sacrifice nor pay one-fifth extra. The same would apply if he swears to change from one exemption to another, or from an exemption to a liability.
However, if he swears to change from liability to exemption, but then confesses, he needs to bring a guilt-offering and must add one-fifth to the amount.
Art: Joaquin Sorolla y Bastida - Oxen on the beach
When a lender dies, the money that he had loaned out belongs to his children. Before collecting, they must take an “oath of heirs,” which states that to the best of their knowledge the debt was not repaid.
However, as both Rav and Shmuel have stated, that is only true if the lender died first. If, on the other hand, the borrower died first, then the lender has to take a definite oath that the debt was not repaid. His children cannot take such a definite oath, but only to the best of their knowledge, and it is not sufficient. Thus, if their father now dies, they cannot collect the money at all.
Rabbi Elazar in Israel disagreed, “Just because the lender's children cannot take the same oath as him, must they forfeit their father's debt?”
In practice, the ruling of Rav and Shmuel was followed, but, since there was not a definite decision either way, if a judge ruled in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, his ruling would also stand.
Art: Luigi Nono - A Child's Funeral
If the defendant has to take an oath, such as when he agrees that he owes half of the amount and has to swear about the other half, but cannot, because he once swore falsely, the oath is shifted to his opponent, the plaintiff. If, however, the plaintiff is also not trustworthy, then the rule is that “the oath returns to its place.”
What does “the oath returns to its place” mean? The Teachers in Babylon, that is, Rav and Shmuel, say it means that the oath returns to Sinai, where it was stated, “do not steal.” The courts do not get involved, and the one who is dishonest must fear Divine retribution.
The teachers in Israel, that is, Rabbi Abba, says that the oath returns to the one who was initially obligated to take it, in order to free himself from liability. And, since he cannot swear, he remains liable and has to pay.
Art: Rembrandt Van Rijn - Anna Accused by Tobit of Stealing the Kid
If a craftsman says to his employer, “You stipulated to me a fee of two sela coins for this job,” and the employer says, “I stipulated to you a fee of only one sela,” - Shmuel said, “In that case the employer swears that he stipulated only one sela, and the craftsman looses the contested sela.”
But why should this be so? Didn't we require the worker to swear about his wage in a similar case? The answer is that in this other case, the employer may have forgotten which worker he already paid. However, in the case of wage dispute, the employer certainly remembers the amount of stipulation.
Art: Jean-Francois Millet - Forest workers in the wood saws
Similarly, if witnesses saw that someone entered another's domain whole and left injured, then since it is improbable that the victim would self-inflict those injuries, he can swear and collect damages.
What is the case of a storekeeper with his ledger? If an employer tells the storekeeper, “Give my workers two selah in small change,” and the shopkeeper says, “It is written in my ledger that I gave as you instructed,” but the workers say, “We did not take anything from the storekeeper,” they both swear and collect the payment from the employer.
Art: John Frederick Peto - The Poor Man's Store
All who swear an oath decreed by the Torah, swear to free themselves from liability. However, the Sages have decreed additional oaths, and as a result of taking these oaths, one swears and collects the money due to him. They include: a hired worker, a victim of theft, a victim of assault, one whose opposing side is suspect in regards to oaths, and a storekeeper regarding that which is written in his ledger.
What is the case of a hired worker? If a hired worker tells his employer, “Pay me my wages!”, and the employer says, “I already paid!”, but the worker says, “I never received them” - the worker swears that he has not been paid and then collects the wage. The reason for this oath is that the employer has many workers and may think that he already paid that one.
Art: Thomas Pollock Anschutz - Iron Workers at Noontime
If the borrower claims that the collateral was worth the amount of his loan, and the lender says that it was less, the borrower is free from an oath, since there was no admission of partial liability. However, if the borrower says that he owes a balance, and the lender says that he owes a larger balance, the borrower has to swear.
Who swears as to the value of the collateral? The one in whose possession it was lost, or the lender. If the borrower were to swear and not be careful in assessing the value, and the lender would later produce the deposit, the borrower would be disqualified from taking oaths and from testifying in court. This would be unfair, so the Sages shifted the oath to the lender.
Art: Hans Thoma - Earth
An unpaid custodian, who ordinarily must swear that he was not negligent in guarding an object entrusted in his care, does not have to swear for these things. A paid custodian, who is ordinarily liable for theft, does not have to swear and does not pay for those things.
An oath requires a definite measure. For example, if one says, “I delivered a house full of produce to you for safekeeping,” or “a purse full of money,” and the guardian says, “I do not know how much you gave, but I am giving you back everything,” - he does not have to swear. However, if he says that the produce reached to the ceiling beam, and the guardian says that it only reached the window – the guardian has to swear due to his partial admission.
Art: John George Brown - Woman Seated At Window
The Torah assumes that no person would be so impudent as to deny a loan outright. After all, the lender did him a favor by loaning money interest-free (and other types of loans are anyway forbidden). When the borrower partially admits a loan, but partially denies it, this is just because he does not have all the money and plans to pay the balance later on. This is not right, however, and the Torah imposes an oath on him. But we cannot assume this in the case of complete denial.
Later, however, this situation has changed, and the Sages established an “Oath of Forgetfulness” even for cases of complete denial. However, this Rabbinical oath is different in that it can be switched: if the defendant does not want to take an oath, the plaintiff can take an oath and collect the money.
Art: Leopold Loeffler - Forgotten Speech
Rav says that it is the denied amount. For example, the total amount of the loan in dispute may be 10, and the defendant may agree that he owes 8, but deny the remaining 2. In contrast, Shmuel says that the claim itself must be for 2 maot. Then, if the defendant denies 1 perutah or admits one perutah, he is liable for an oath.
Rava said: “The precise reading of the ruling indicates the opinion of Rav, but the words of the Torah sound like the opinion of Shmuel.” The precise reading of the ruling seems to agree with Rav, because it says that the minimum amount of “the claim” must be 2 maot, but never mentions how much the denied amount should be, which means that by “claim” the ruling means “the denial”. The Torah, however, sounds closer to the opinion of Shmuel, when it says “this is it!” indicating that the amount of claim itself is important when it is 2 coins.
Art: G. Alluisetti - The Public Ministry of Finance
Since the punishment for violating a Biblical oath is very severe, Rashi writes that Jewish courts in his time refrained from asking the defendant to swear and instead placed a curse on any defendant who would lie.
If the defendant says, “I will not swear,” he is immediately excused from court, owes money, and does not come back to change his opinion. However, if he says, “I shall swear,” those standing there recite the phrase “Turn away from the tents of these wicked men.” Even the plaintiff is considered guilty for causing an oath, since he should not have dealt with an untrustworthy person.
The judges tell him, “You should know that the whole world trembled at the words 'Do not take the name of Hashem your God in vain'” And why is this? Because about a false oath it says, “God will not absolve.”
Art: H. de la Charlerie - King Louis XVI Swearing on the Book of the Constitution
Courts have limited authority in imposing oaths, and can do it in only three specific cases: partial admission, oath of custodians, and the single-witness oath.
The first case, partial admission, has its own additional limitations. This oath can be imposed only if the claim is at least for two silver maot (volume of 32 grains of barley, about $10), and the admission is at least a perutah coin (half a silver barleycorn, under 25 cents).
In addition, partial admission must be for the same kind. For example, if the plaintiff says, “You have two silver coins in my possession,” and the defendant responds, “You have only one perutah coin in my possession,” the defendant is free from an oath, because the claim was for silver, and the admission – for copper.
Art: Thomas Waterman Wood - The Doubtful Coin
Normally, one gets lashes for willful transgressions and brings a sacrifice for mistakes. The oath of deposit is special, however, since one brings a sacrifice even for knowing violation of it. So then he is not lashed. Or maybe, he is not lashed when there was no warning, but if there was a warning, he is lashed? It could also be both.
They answered him based on a well-known ruling that the oath of deposit is more stringent than the oath of testimony – for one gets lashes for it. Therefore, they said, he gets lashes but does not bring a sacrifice.
When they related this to Rabbah, he said, “Incorrect question!” If the witnesses saw him accept the deposit, the claimant can have the deposit back based on their testimony, and his denial carries no weight – therefore, it is not a true oath of deposit anyway! But Rabbah was later proven incorrect.
Art: Paul Charles Chocarne-Moreau - The Spanking
If a person in possession of someone else's money – either a deposit, a loan, a stolen article, or the like – swears that he does not have it, he has taken what is known as an oath of deposit. If he swore falsely and subsequently confesses his sin, he must repay the principal plus an additional fifth and bring a “guilt offering” sacrifice in the Temple.
Although this oath applies to all types of debts – not just deposits – it is nevertheless called the “oath of the deposit”, because a deposit is the first example mentioned in the Torah.
The oath of deposit applies to both men and women, to non-relatives and relatives, to those who are qualified to serve as witnesses, as well as to those who are disqualified, in court and out of court.
In truth, there is no reason to think that these rules would not apply – but they are only stated to contrast this with the oath of witnesses discussed previously.
Art: George Baxter - Stolen Pleasures
There are five cases when there is no liability for the false oath of testimony: where one testifies to a promise, not actual giving of money; where he adjures them to testify when they will know the testimony in the future; where he addressed himself to a whole group of people, without specifying the witnesses; where their testimony would be hearsay or otherwise invalid; where he sent his slave to adjure the witnesses, or if it was the defendant, not the claimant, who adjured them.
If one said, “I adjure you,” “I command you,” “I bind you” (to testify) – the witnesses are liable.
If they swore by heaven and earth, then they are not liable. However, if they swore by “Lord,” by the Tetragrammaton, by the “Lord of Hosts,” “Compassionate,” “Merciful,” “Slow to Anger,” “Abundantly Kind,” or by any of the subordinate Names of God – they are liable.
Art: Jules Alexandre Grun - A Group Of Artists
