Avodah Zarah 019

1:
The first chapter of our Tractate was concerned mainly with financial and economic relations between Jews and non-Jews on a broad canvas. The second chapter, which we now broach, is concerned with the more intimate inter-relationships between Jews and non-Jews, as between neighbours.

2:
Our mishnah is a sad commentary on the perceived general state of non-Jewish society in the Roman Empire. Surely we must assume that our mishnah is, by and large, referring to a minority and that the overwhelming majority of ordinary citizens were upright, decent people. Nevertheless, our present mishnah is quite disturbing.

3:
On many occasions and in many contexts our sages point out that wayside inns were not healthy places to be. They were often overcrowded and 'guests' sometimes had to make do with a place in the stalls where animals were housed for the night. (A well-known story in the Christian scriptures reflects this social situation.) These inns were constantly watched by brigands in the hope of a quick – though nefarious – gain. Apparently, our mishnah reports that often frustrated male guests would resort to coitus with animals in their stalls.

4:
In these inns more often than not several guests would have to share one bed. When room was at a great premium it might be that a husband and wife had to separate for the night. Strictly speaking, one would think that it would be permissible for a Jewish woman to share a bed with a non-Jewish man if that man's wife was also in the bed (they usually slept in these inns fully clothed). However, our mishnah seeks to warn against that: a Jewish woman should not share a bed with a non-Jewish man (even if his wife is present too) because the consequences are seen as being almost inevitable.

5:
I have already mentioned that wayside inns were a favourite haunt of thieves and robbers. These brigands would have no hesitation in killing a 'guest' at the inn in order to steal his purse. The only insurance against such an eventuality was not to sleep alone nor to be the only Jew sleeping with non-Jews.

To be continued

In AZ 016 when describing how the Romans would consign condemned criminals to the circus where they would have to fight for their lives against trained gladiators and wild animals, I concluded by writing thus neatly combining the exercise of justice with public entertainment.

Ron Kaminsky writes:

I was a bit appalled when I read this, in my opinion your use of "neatly" has the connotation that you somehow approve of the practice (or at least, of its efficiency). It especially stands out for me because the other sense of the word "neat" was for sure not fulfilled by this custom ("conveniently" wouldn't have this additional problem, but it still might indicate approval). Maybe I'm being overly sensitive, but I think you might want to rethink your phrasing of that particular sentence.

I respond:

Yes, I think you are being over-sensitive. My comment was jocularly sarcastic and I assumed that it would be understood as such. It may have been 'neat' from the Roman point of view, but could never be acceptable in any shape or form when seen through Jewish eyes. The desire of the mob for panem et circenses [bread and circuses, or games] was deplorable. However our condemnation of their behaviour should also include all those in most ages who eagerly attend the execution of criminals. In modern western society that craving is apparently served by an avid reading of the lurid details of such executions – especially botched ones – in the more sanguineous press.

In AZ 017 we studied the various interpretations that have been given for the Hebrew phrase lo teĥonem.

Tamar Dar writes:

I have given the shiur a first reading and something disturbs me greatly. According to the contents of the passage [Deuteronomy 7:1-2] according to my understanding "do not be gracious to them' should be understood as meaning 'pardon', which fits the contents of the passage. How is it that you did not give this possible interpretation even as an additional possibility? The interpretation 'camping' may be possible but the meaning 'gracious' does not seem reasonable at all because it says that the pagans must be smitten and exterminated, so how is it possible to beautify those one is exterminating?

I respond:

First of all I must sincerely thank Tamar for giving my shiur more than one reading. I am truly flattered and grateful.

The interpretations of biblical words and phrases that are in the shiur are not mine. They are interpretations given by the sages. Now, we have seen 'many a time and oft' that the sages had no compunctions about taking a word or a phrase in the Torah out of its context in order to justify one ruling or another. If what one seeks is the intended meaning of the original biblical text – called pshat in Hebrew – then surely the meaning of lo teĥonem would have to be 'show them no pity'. But the sages chose two other interpretations, both of which are – if we are intellectually honest – far-fetched. (They could have derived a further interpretation connected with 'gratis' had they so wished.) The sages were well aware that their interpretations were not according to the intended meaning of the text: that did not worry them.

Tamar asks why I did not give a more reasonable interpretation. My answer is simple: these shiurim are not about bible. Nor are they really about any novel interpretation of a biblical word or phrase that might occur to me. They are about the sages – their interpretations and their decisions.

Please note: the next shiur in this series will be, God willing, on Thursday September 18th.