## Avodah Zarah Daf 12a

###### Avodah Zarah 12a:1
[Avodah Zarah 12a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/12a:1)

שֶׁשָּׁפְתוּ שְׁתֵּי קְדֵירוֹת עַל גַּבֵּי כִּירָה אַחַת? וְלֹא חַשּׁוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים! מַאי ״לֹא חַשּׁוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**place two pots on one stove, and** yet **the Sages were not concerned** and did not issue a prohibition with regard to the meat that was in the pot belonging to the Jew, despite the fact that forbidden food was in close proximity to the permitted food? Similarly, in this case as well, the Sages were not concerned about the bazaar’s proximity to Gaza and did not prohibit engaging in business there. The Gemara asks: **What** did he mean in stating: **The Sages were not concerned,** with regard to the meat, and how does that case relate the issue here?


###### Avodah Zarah 12a:2
[Avodah Zarah 12a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/12a:2)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִשּׁוּם בְּשַׂר נְבֵילָה לָא אָמְרִינַן, דִּלְמָא מַהְדַּר אַפֵּיהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לַאֲחוֹרֵיהּ וְשָׁדֵי גּוֹי נְבֵילָה בִּקְדֵירָה, דִּכְוָותַהּ הָכָא נָמֵי לֹא חַשּׁוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים מִשּׁוּם דְּמֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** The Sages were not concerned **with regard to** the possibility of eating the **meat** of an unslaughtered **animal carcass. We do not say:** Cooking in this manner is prohibited since **perhaps the Jew** will **turn his face and** at that moment **the gentile** will **throw** meat of **an animal carcass into** his **pot. Here too, in the corresponding** situation, although the permitted and prohibited places are in close proximity, **the Sages were not concerned** about engaging in business transactions in the bazaar of Gaza, even **due to** the possibility that **money** associated with **idol worship** would end up in the hands of the Jews. If the money were for the purchase of an animal used as an offering for idolatry, those coins would be prohibited by Torah law. Nevertheless, the Sages were not concerned about this possibility, just as they were not concerned that the gentile might add his meat to the Jew’s pot.


###### Avodah Zarah 12a:3
[Avodah Zarah 12a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/12a:3)

רָבָא אָמַר: מַאי ״לֹא חַשּׁוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים״? מִשּׁוּם בִּישּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** that there is a different explanation. The Sages were not lenient in the face of a potential violation of Torah law, but were lenient in a case where it was rabbinic law that might be violated. As for Rabbi Ḥanina’s comparison to pots in Tyre, there is no concern that a gentile might throw his meat into the pot of a Jew, as he would derive no benefit from doing so and would be afraid that the Jew might see him. By contrast, here the gentile is engaged in business. Rather, **what** is it that **the Sages were not concerned about** in the case of the pots? Although the gentile is cooking food next to the Jew, there is no concern **with regard to** the possibility that the gentile might cook the Jew’s food, causing the latter to violate the rabbinic prohibition against eating **food cooked by gentiles.**


###### Avodah Zarah 12a:4
[Avodah Zarah 12a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/12a:4)

דִּכְוָותַהּ, הָכָא נָמֵי, לֹא חַשּׁוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים מִשּׁוּם יוֹם אֵידָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava concludes: **Here too, in the corresponding** situation, it is referring to a case where the coins were the gentile’s own money. **The Sages were not concerned** about engaging in business transactions in the bazaar of Gaza, even **due to** the possibility that the Jew might be engaging in business with residents of Gaza on **their festival day,** which would be a violation of rabbinic law.


###### Avodah Zarah 12a:5
[Avodah Zarah 12a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/12a:5)

רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא אָמַר: לֹא חַשּׁוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים מִשּׁוּם צִינּוֹרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba bar Ulla says:** Even if the concern in the case of the pots applied only to the gentile cooking the Jew’s food, not the consumption of non-kosher meat, with regard to the bazaar the *halakha* would not be comparably lenient. The reason is the Jew need only stir the coals once to ensure that the food in his pot is not considered cooked by a gentile, an option that does not apply here. Rather, in the case mentioned by Rabbi Ḥanina, **the Sages were not concerned with regard to** the possibility that food might **splatter [*tzinnora*]** from the gentile’s pot into the Jew’s pot. This is an especially lenient case, both because this is an unlikely possibility and because that small amount of food would be nullified by a majority of the Jew’s food.


###### Avodah Zarah 12a:6
[Avodah Zarah 12a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/12a:6)

דִּכְוָותַהּ, הָכָא נָמֵי, לֹא חַשּׁוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים מִשּׁוּם לִפְנֵי אֵידֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba bar Ulla concludes: **Here too, in the corresponding** situation, **the Sages were not concerned** about engaging in business transactions in the bazaar of Gaza **with regard to** the days **before the festival of** Gaza. This is an analogous case to that of the splattered food, as it is outside the festival in both time and place.


###### Avodah Zarah 12a:7
[Avodah Zarah 12a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/12a:7)

מַהוּ לֵילֵךְ לְשָׁם וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — אָסוּר לִיכָּנֵס לְתוֹכָהּ, וְלֹא מִתּוֹכָהּ לְעִיר אַחֶרֶת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהַדֶּרֶךְ מְיוּחֶדֶת לְאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם — אָסוּר, אֵין הַדֶּרֶךְ מְיוּחֶדֶת לְאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם — מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **What is** the *halakha* with regard to **traveling there,** a place that is celebrating a pagan festival? If the road leads only to that place, it is prohibited, but if the road leads to another place as well, it is permitted. In this connection, the Gemara cites a related *baraita*. **The Sages taught:** In the case of **a city in which there is** active **idol worship,** i.e., its residents are worshipping their idol on that day, it is **prohibited to enter** the city, **and** one may **not** leave **it for another city;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: As long as the road is designated** only **for that place,** it is **prohibited** to enter the city. But if **the road is not designated for** only **that place,** it is **permitted.**


###### Avodah Zarah 12a:8
[Avodah Zarah 12a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/12a:8)

יָשַׁב לוֹ קוֹץ בִּפְנֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — לֹא יִשְׁחֶה וְיִטְלֶנָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּמִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְאִם אֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה — מוּתָּר. נִתְפַּזְּרוּ לוֹ מְעוֹתָיו בִּפְנֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — לֹא יִשְׁחֶה וְיִטְּלֵם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּמִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְאִם אֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה — מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: If **a thorn became imbedded** in one’s foot while he was standing **before** an object of **idol worship, he may not bend down and remove** the thorn, **because he appears to be bowing down to** the object of **idol worship; but if he is not seen,** it is **permitted.** If **one’s coins were scattered** while he is **before** an object of **idol worship, he may not bend down and pick them up, because he appears to be bowing down to** the object of **idol worship; but if he is not seen,** it is **permitted.**


###### Avodah Zarah 12a:9
[Avodah Zarah 12a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/12a:9)

מַעְיָין הַמּוֹשֵׁךְ לִפְנֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — לֹא יִשְׁחֶה וְיִשְׁתֶּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּמִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְאִם אֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה — מוּתָּר. פַּרְצוּפוֹת הַמְקַלְּחִין מַיִם לִכְרַכִּין — לֹא יַנִּיחַ פִּיו עַל פִּיהֶם וְיִשְׁתֶּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כִּמְנַשֵּׁק לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ — לֹא יַנִּיחַ פִּיו עַל סִילוֹן וְיִשְׁתֶּה, מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, if there is **a spring that runs before** an object of **idol worship,** one **may not bend down and drink** from it, **because he appears to be bowing down to** the object of **idol worship; but if he is not seen,** it is **permitted.** With regard to figures of human **faces [*partzufot*] that spray water in the cities,** i.e., fountains, **one may not place his mouth on the mouths of** the figures **and drink, because he appears to be kissing** the object of **idol worship. Similarly, one may not place his mouth on a pipe [*sillon*] and drink,**here **due to the danger** that this practice poses.


###### Avodah Zarah 12a:10
[Avodah Zarah 12a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/12a:10)

מַאי ״אֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה״? אִילֵּימָא דְּלָא מִתְחֲזֵי, וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן, אֲפִילּוּ בְּחַדְרֵי חֲדָרִים אָסוּר! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: אִם אֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה כְּמִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** does the *baraita* mean when it states: If **he is not seen? If we say** it means **that he is not seen** by others, **doesn’t Rav Yehuda say** that **Rav says: Wherever the Sages prohibited** an action **due to the appearance** of prohibition, **it is prohibited even in the innermost chambers** where no one will see it, as the Sages did not distinguish between different circumstances in such cases. Accordingly, the fact that he is not seen by anyone should make no difference with regard to whether or not the action is prohibited. **Rather, say: If he is not seen as one who bows down to** an object of **idol worship,** i.e., he turns his side or back to the idol, then it is **permitted.**


###### Avodah Zarah 12a:11
[Avodah Zarah 12a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/12a:11)

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי תְּנָא קוֹץ, מִשּׁוּם דְּאֶפְשָׁר לְמֵיזַל קַמֵּיהּ וּמִשְׁקְלֵיהּ, אֲבָל מָעוֹת דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר — אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** it is **necessary** for the *baraita* to list all of these cases, notwithstanding their similarity. **As, if** it had **taught** only the case of the **thorn,** one might have thought that bending down to remove a thorn is prohibited **because it is possible to walk past** the figure, **and** only then **take** out the thorn. **But** in the case of the **coins, where it is not possible** to collect them elsewhere, you might **say** that it is **not** prohibited to pick them up.


###### Avodah Zarah 12a:12
[Avodah Zarah 12a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/12a:12)

וְאִי תְּנָא מָעוֹת — דְּמָמוֹנָא, אֲבָל קוֹץ דְּצַעֲרָא — אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי תְּנָא הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי — מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵיכָּא סַכָּנָה, אֲבָל מַעְיָין דְּאִיכָּא סַכָּנָה, דְּאִי לָא שָׁתֵי מָיֵית — אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** furthermore, **if** the *baraita* had **taught** only the case of the **coins,** one might have thought that the reason for the stringent ruling is **that** the loss is purely **financial. But** in the case of the **thorn, which** causes him **pain,** you might **say** that it is **not** prohibited to remove it. **And** finally, **if** the *baraita* had **taught** only **these two** cases, one might have thought that they are prohibited **because there is no danger** if the action is not performed on the spot. **But** in the case of the **spring, where there is** an element of **danger, that if he does not drink he** might **die,** one could **say** that it is **not** prohibited. Therefore, it is **necessary** to state each example.