When is Proximity to Something Prohibited Cause for Concern?

Provided courtesy of Real Clear Daf

We learned about this in a discussion that began on the bottom of 11b. The Mishnah there stated that if one idolatrous community is observing a pagan festival, we need not be concerned that a neighboring community is also observing that festival. Consequently, it is permitted to engage in commerce with the adjacent community. In the second version presented there, Reish Lakish asks R’ Chanina if we could be lenient even by the “market of Azza,” a community in very close proximity to Azza. R’ Chanina answers by way of analogy:

“Haven’t you ever been to Tzur and seen a Jew and an idolater placing their pots on the stove right next to each other without being reprimanded by the Sages?”

Clearly R’ Chanina’s intent was to answer that we could be likewise lenient regarding the question of doing commerce with a community adjacent to one observing a pagan festival. However the Gemara there (at this point, on 12a) brings a three-way dispute as to whether there are any additional Halachic lessons that can be derived from the analogy.

Abaye there contends that R’ Chanina also wanted to teach us something that concerns the halacha on the Biblical level. That is, that the halacha deems the contents of the Jew’s pot to be kosher and isn’t concerned that perhaps the idolater tossed some non-kosher meat into the Jew’s pot when he was looking the other way. So too in our case: we needn’t be concerned for the potential Biblical issue that perhaps the money the Jewish merchant is receiving is “idolatrous money” (either money that was offered for an idol or received in exchange for idol; see Tosfos) from the nearby Azza community. Now if the halacha isn’t concerned with this Biblical problem then kal v’chomer, certainly, we needn’t be concerned for the potential Rabbinic concern of conducting business with people in close proximity of those observing a pagan festival.

Rava, however, rejects this reading. As explained by Rashi, Rava argues that the fact that we aren’t concerned that the idolater threw in some non-kosher meat isn’t relevant to our case. For by the pots case the idolater would have nothing to gain by “treifing up” the Jew’s food.  On the contrary, if caught he might have to pay if taken to court and sued for damages. As opposed to the commerce case where it’s actually fairly plausible that this pagan purchaser is doing a favor for a friend from nearby Azza and is purchasing something for him with idolatrous money. Before we proceed with Rava’s own understanding, let us consider how Abaye might respond to Rava’a argument. To this end we turn to the words of the Ran.

The Ran first dismisses the notion that the idolater would deliberately make the Jew’s food non-kosher in a case like ours where the Jew is standing right there. Rather, the Ran explains, the potential concern here is that given how close these pots are to each other, maybe the idolater inadvertently put some non-kosher in the Jew’s pot, mistaking it for his pot. Now Abaye’s analogy is on more solid ground: we can learn from the pots case that proximity is not a reason to make us concerned that something fairly plausible occurred--even though that occurrence would’ve created a Biblical prohibition. Certainly then, the proximity factor does not create a concern for the Rabbinic issue of commerce with people nearby the pagan festival observers. Rava still isn’t enamoured with this, the Ran explains. For in Rava’s opinion, it is still pretty unlikely that the idolater would add meat to someone else’s pot. Instead, Rava proposes that the focus here is on the Rabbinic prohibition of food cooked by a non-Jew. That is, R’ Chaninan with his analogy is pointing out that just as there in the pots case the halacha isn’t concerned that maybe the idolater cooked the Jew’s food in spite of the pots’ close proximity, the halacha isn’t concerned either about the possibility of a Rabbinic prohibition due to the proximity of this purchaser with the people of Azza (i.e. that he is also observing the pagan festival and will go thank his idol to express thanks for finding this item to purchase). Rava prefers this reading since there’s no particular motivator that will prevent the idolater from inadvertently putting the Jew’s pot on the flame, and so the probability of a prohibition in each case roughly matches up.

A third reading is suggested by Rabbah bar Ulla. Rabbah bar Ulla rejects both of the above readings arguing that the potential concerns of those readings are simply far less likely than the possibility that this person from the “market of Azza” indeed observes the same pagan festivals as the Azza people. Based on this assertion, Rabbah bar Ulla rules in practice that we indeed have to be stringent when dealing with “market of Azza” people on the day of the Azzian festival. And R’ Chanina’s lenient ruling, Rabbah contends, was specifically referring to the additional Rabbinic prohibition that normally applies three days before the pagan festival. As far as that additional layer of Rabbinic law, R’ Chaninan makes the following analogy: just as the Rabbis are not concerned about the possibility of accidental splashing from the idolater’s pot into the Jew’s pot in spite of their close proximity, they also are not concerned about this “market of Azza” person being a “spill-over” person from Azza in terms of the “three days before” prohibition. And this is the logic in both cases: the possibility of splashing from the idolater’s pot isn’t very high. And even if it did occur, the small amount of non-kosher would Biblically become nullified in the larger amount of kosher. Similarly in the Azza case: it’s not very likely that just because this person lives nearby Azza, that he follows the pagan festivals of Azza. And even if he does, it’s also not so probable that the business deal will actually prompt him to go and thank his idol, since his pagan festival has not arrived yet.

Another wonderful instance in the Talmud where a question about one issue sparks a discussion involving numerous important halachic concepts.