Avodah Zarah

MISHNAH. ONE MAY NOT SIT IN ITS SHADOW,  BUT IF HE SAT HE IS UNDEFILED. NOR MAY HE PASS BENEATH IT,  AND IF HE PASSED HE IS DEFILED. IF IT ENCROACHES UPON THE PUBLIC ROAD AND HE PASSED BENEATH HE IS UNDEFILED. GEMARA. [The Mishnah states:] ONE MAY NOT SIT IN ITS SHADOW — this is obvious!  — Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: There is no necessity to mention it but for the case of the shadow of its shadow.  Is it to be inferred that if he sat in the shadow corresponding to the height of the tree he is defiled? — No, because even if he sat in the shadow corresponding to the height of the tree he is also undefiled, yet we are informed that one may not sit even in the shadow of its shadow. There are some who apply this teaching to the continuation: BUT IF HE SAT HE IS UNDEFILED — this is obvious!  — Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: There is no necessity to mention it but for the case of the shadow corresponding to the height of the tree. Is it to be inferred that even ab initio he may sit in the shadow of its shadow? No; but we are informed that even if he sat in the shadow corresponding to the height of the tree he is undefiled. NOR MAY HE PASS BENEATH IT, AND IF HE PASSED HE IS DEFILED. What is the reason? — Because it is impossible that there should be no [remains] of idolatrous offerings there. Whose teaching is this? — It is that of R. Judah b. Bathyra; for it has been taught: R. Judah b. Bathyra says: Whence is it that an idolatrous offering communicates defilement within a space which is covered over? Because it is said, They joined themselves also unto Baal-Peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead  — as a dead body communicates defilement in a space which is covered over, so an idolatrous offering communicates defilement in a space which is covered over. IF IT ENCROACHES UPON THE PUBLIC ROAD AND HE PASSED BENEATH IT HE IS UNDEFILED. The question was asked: [Is the word to be read] 'passed' or 'passes'?  — R. Isaac b. Eleazar said in the name of Hezekiah: It should be 'passes', but R. Johanan said: [The reading is] IF HE PASSED; and yet there is no difference of opinion between them — One [has in mind] if there is another road,  and the other if there is not another road. R. Shesheth  said to his attendant, 'When you reach there,  hurry me past.' How is this to be understood? If there was no other road, why need he say, 'Hurry me past, since it is permitted? If, however, there was another road, when he said, 'Hurry me past, was that permissible? Certainly there was no other road; but with an eminent man it is different. MISHNAH. THEY MAY SOW VEGETABLES BENEATH IT IN WINTER  BUT NOT IN SUMMER,  AND LETTUCE NEITHER IN SUMMER NOR WINTER.  R. JOSE SAYS: NOR MAY VEGETABLES [BE PLANTED] IN WINTER BECAUSE THE FOLIAGE FALLS UPON THEM AND BECOMES MANURE FOR THEM. GEMARA. Is this to say that R. Jose holds that a product of combined causes is prohibited  and the Rabbis hold that a product of combined causes is permitted? But we heard the reverse in connection with them, for we have learnt: R. Jose says: He may grind [an idol] to powder and scatter it to the wind or throw it into the sea. They said to him: Even so it may then become manure, as it is stated, And there shall cleave nought of the devoted thing to thine hand!  Here we have the Rabbis contradicting themselves and R. Jose contradicting himself!  It is quite right, there is no contradiction in the teaching of R. Jose. In the case just cited since the man proceeds to destroy [the idol],  [R. Jose] permits [the use of the dust as manure]; but in the case [dealt with in our Mishnah], where he does not proceed to destroy [the idol], [the dust] is prohibited [as manure]. But the Rabbis contradict themselves! — Reverse [the statements in our Mishnah].  Or if you wish I can say that there is no need to reverse them.  The opinion of R. Jose is as we explained;  and that of the Rabbis is as R. Mari the son of R. Kahana said: What makes the hide valuable decreases the value of the meat.  Similarly here, the benefit gained through the foliage is lost by reason of the shade. Does, however, R. Jose hold that a product of combined causes is prohibited? Behold We have learnt: R. Jose says: We may plant a young shoot which is 'orlah  but not a nut which is 'orlah because it is fruit. And Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: R. Jose admits that if one planted [a nut which is 'orlah] or trained and grafted [a young shoot which is 'orlah on an old tree], [the fruit it grows] is permitted!  It has been similarly taught R. Jose admits