אִם יִרְצֶה הַשֵּׁם
The Core Kashya
When a person must walk down a certain street and a ray of avodah zarah incense reaches him (lo efshar to avoid the situation), but he has no intention to smell it (lo mechaven), is the hana’ah (forbidden pleasure/benefit) mutar or asur?
Two variables dominate the sugya: - Efshar / Lo efshar: Is it possible to avoid the exposure entirely? - Mechaven / Lo mechaven: Does one intend to derive pleasure from it?
The Two Lushonot (Versions of the Teaching)
First Lashon: The machloket between R’ Yehuda and R’ Shimon is in the case of lo efshar ve’lo mechaven.
- R’ Yehuda: Asur (the unavoidable exposure itself creates responsibility).
- R’ Shimon: Mutar (no kavanah, therefore permitted — consistent with his view on melachah she’einah tzrichah l’gufah).
Second Lashon (“Ika d’amri”): Both agree that lo efshar ve’lo mechaven is mutar. The machloket shifts to efshar ve’lo mechaven.
- R’ Yehuda: Asur (one could have avoided it).
- R’ Shimon: Mutar (still no kavanah).
Tosfos clarifies that “kuli alma” refers to different pairs in each lashon, and that all proof cases in the sugya are not p’sik reisha (inevitable outcome). Lo efshar throughout means “cannot be done in the normal, easy way” — great difficulty (such as lowering workers in boxes) still counts as lo efshar.
Key Proof Cases and Their Sevarot
Workers lowered in boxes for Kodesh HaKodashim repairs
This shows that even in lo efshar situations, mechaven must be actively prevented. The boxes are a chumra because mechaven for looking at the Kodesh HaKodashim would be asur. Tosfos notes that for true necessity, even certain de’rabbanan concerns can be managed.
Shade of the Heichal / Azarah walls
Rashi explains that benefit from the shade is permitted because it is not the derech hana’ah (typical way of benefiting) from the hekdesh. This contrasts with avodah zarah, where even shade made for that purpose is forbidden.
The long me’ilah digression (tumas hadash and bigdei kehunah)
Why does the Torah write the din of me’ilah even after nasi mitzvah in two places? Tosfos explains that one mi’ut (exclusion) blocks binyan av only for unlikely cases; two mi’utim are needed to exclude even likely extensions. The duplication itself limits the exception.
Healing with Atzei Asheirah (Tosfos DH Chutz me’Atzei Asheirah)
The Ri explains: It is forbidden to use asheirah wood for healing when it is the only way to be cured and the method involves shedim or occult means — because then one will come to err after avodah zarah (ati l’meitei betar avodah zarah).
Ordinary refuah (sama / potion or tachboshet / bandage) remains permitted, even from someone who also offers forbidden methods. The Yerushalmi on ben Dama clarifies: whispering an incantation in the name of Yeshu is forbidden (apikorsus mashcha — heresy attracts), but regular medication is permitted (as R’ Avahu accepted from Yaakov the Apikores).
Summary Table of the Variables
| Case | Efshar / Lo Efshar | Mechaven / Lo Mechaven | R’ Yehuda | R’ Shimon | Key Distinction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Street with avodah zarah incense | Lo efshar | Lo mechaven | Asur (1st) / Mutar? (2nd) | Mutar | Core machloket |
| Efshar ve’lo mechaven | Efshar | Lo mechaven | Asur | Mutar | Second lashon focus |
| Workers in boxes | Lo efshar | Prevented | Asur if mechaven | Asur if mechaven | Necessity + de’rabbanan |
| Atzei Asheirah healing (occult method) | Lo efshar | Method draws to avodah zarah | Asur | Asur | Ati l’meitei betar avodah zarah |
| Atzei Asheirah healing (ordinary sama) | Lo efshar | No occult method | Mutar | Mutar | Ordinary refuah permitted |
The Sevara Behind the Positions
R’ Shimon consistently weights the intention of the heart. Just as he permits dragging furniture on Shabbat even though a furrow may result (because one does not intend to plow), he permits exposure to avodah zarah hana’ah when there is no kavanah for it.
R’ Yehuda is stricter on the objective element of efshar: if avoidance was possible, choosing to proceed creates responsibility.
The Asheirah healing case adds a crucial layer: the issur is not only physical hana’ah but the spiritual magnetism of the method. When the cure itself trains the heart toward avodah zarah or apikorsus, it is forbidden even if life-saving in the short term. Ordinary physical refuah, by contrast, carries no such attractive power.
Practical Mussar Challenge
In our lives we often find ourselves in “lo efshar” situations — environments, information streams, or influences we cannot completely avoid. The sugya asks us to examine two things:
- Do we truly have no kavanah for the forbidden hana’ah, or are we subtly enjoying it while telling ourselves we “have no choice”?
- When we do have a choice of method (ordinary vs. one that carries spiritual entanglement), do we choose the one that protects the heart, or the one that is merely convenient?
The distinction between “I had to be there” and “I had to use this method” is the line the Rishonim draw with great precision.
Open Kashya for Continued Study
How far does the Ri’s definition of lo efshar (“cannot be done in the normal/easy way”) extend when the “difficulty” is modern and psychological — extreme social cost, professional risk, or family tension — rather than physical boxes or long routes? And when a therapy or source of information has a known syncretistic or ideologically entangled origin, but is administered in a purely physical, non-incantational way, does the sugya still classify it as ordinary refuah that is mutar, or does the concern of ati l’meitei betar avodah zarah create a chumra?
Sources: Rav Avigdor Miller shiur on Pesachim 26A (audio transcription), Tosfos on Pesachim 26A (multiple DH), Yerushalmi on ben Dama, related Rashi explanations.