Commentary for Avodah Zarah 34:6
וכדרב הונא דאמר רב הונא כל העוסק בתורה בלבד דומה כמי שאין לו אלוה שנאמר (דברי הימים ב טו, ג) וימים רבים לישראל ללא אלהי אמת [וגו'] מאי ללא אלהי אמת שכל העוסק בתורה בלבד דומה כמי שאין לו אלוה
This accords with the opinion of R. Huna. For R. Huna said: He who occupies himself only with the study of the Torah is as if he had no God, for it is said: “Now for many days Israel was without the true God” (II Chronicles 15:3). What is meant by “without the true God”? It means that he who only occupies himself only with the study of the Torah is as if he had no God.
Daf Shevui to Avodah Zarah
This story is here again because of the juxtaposition of fornication and avodah zarah. Interestingly, the rabbis choose the path that offers greater temptation. The rabbis were not tempted by idol worship and indeed this tractate is not really about idol worship. It is about sharing public space with idolaters. But the sexual urges—well those have not gone away. But when they get to the brothel, the prostitutes run away. And one rabbi seems to have known that they would be protected from sin. This is based on a pun on the verb. “Mezimmah” which I have translated as “foresight” but be read as “from licentiousness.” Thus the verse could be rendered, “you will be protected from licentiousness.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Avodah Zarah
Here Rava explains why he renders the word “mezimmah” as from or against matters of licentiousness and not Torah. The “mem” in front of the word does not make sense if “mezimmah” is simply Torah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Avodah Zarah
This is the story of the arrest of R. Elazar b. Perata on five charges (which are not listed here) and the arrest of R. Hanina b. Tradion for only one charge, studying Torah. R. Hanina b. Tradion, despite being arrested for only one charge, will not escape punishment, whereas R. Elazar b. Perata will. This is because R. Hanina only studied Torah and did not occupy himself with “gemilut hasadim.”
The Talmud adds in here a general accusation against a person who only studies Torah and does not occupy himself with “gemilut hasadim.” One who only studies Torah is akin to one who has no God. This is certainly a biting criticism of one who leads this type of imbalanced life.
The Talmud adds in here a general accusation against a person who only studies Torah and does not occupy himself with “gemilut hasadim.” One who only studies Torah is akin to one who has no God. This is certainly a biting criticism of one who leads this type of imbalanced life.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Avodah Zarah
This story makes it sound as if R. Hanina b. Teradion was occupied in the supervision of charity, which seems to be an act that counts as an act of loving kindness.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Avodah Zarah
The potential resolution is that he was indeed trustworthy, but he did not actually practice acts of gemilut hasadim.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Avodah Zarah
The Talmud brings up a statement by R. Hanina concerning charity collection. Somehow he mixed up money collected for Purim, which must be given out that day so that the poor can use it to buy food for the Purim feast, with money collected for general charity. Rashi explains that to compensate for this error, he distributed his own money to the poor for Purim. In any case, it again seems clear that he was occupied with acts of gemilut hasadim.
Again, the Talmud tries to resolve the difficulty. He did engage in acts of lovingkindness, but not at the level required.
Again, the Talmud tries to resolve the difficulty. He did engage in acts of lovingkindness, but not at the level required.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Avodah Zarah
Elazar is accused of being a robber and of being a rabbi. He points out that this is a contradiction in terms. One cannot be both. But they insist—you are called “Master.” He explains that he is not a “rabbi”—a teacher of Torah. He is only a master of weavers. As we shall see, he is not telling the truth. Again we see a rabbi try to “trick” his way out of martyrdom.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Avodah Zarah
Miraculously, R. Elazar, who is not really a weaver, is taught by some bees how to identify which is the warp and which is the woof. The warp is the passive part that sits on the loom, as a female is receptive of the male in the sexual act. I suppose one can tell male and female wasps apart?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Avodah Zarah
The House of Aveidan seems to be some place of religious disputation, more reflective of Babylonian than Palestinian reality. The authorities ask R. Elazar why he did not go there. As we have seen elsewhere, the rabbi makes an excuse and again a miracle occurs to bolster his excuse.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Avodah Zarah
According to this story, the authorities forbade slave owners from freeing their slaves. Perhaps they feared that this would lead to a revolt. R. Elazar, evidently did free his slave, but now denies it. Elijah appears to warn the man who wants to testify against R. Elazar that this will be to no avail. The man ignores Elijah, but again, a miracle occurs and R. Elazar is saved.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Avodah Zarah
Note the very different reaction that R. Hanina has to his accusers. Whereas R. Elazar consistently lied and thereby avoided martyrdom, R. Hanina willingly admits to his violation of Roman law and testifies that this is what he believes that God wants him to do. He seems to relish his opportunity to be executed. In reality, R. Hanina is not martyred because he only occupied himself with Torah and not with gemilut hasadim. He is martyred because he does not take the opportunity to avoid it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Avodah Zarah
The Talmud tries to find sins that would explain why R. Hanina was executed. Note that this is “overexplaining”—the Talmud explained earlier that he dies because he did not engage in gemilut hasadim
Hanina is accused of pronouncing God’s name according to its letters. But then the Talmud explains that he only did so in order to practice or understand, but not for magical purposes. Nevertheless, he was punished for pronouncing God’s name in public.
Hanina is accused of pronouncing God’s name according to its letters. But then the Talmud explains that he only did so in order to practice or understand, but not for magical purposes. Nevertheless, he was punished for pronouncing God’s name in public.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy