Search

Avodah Zarah 22

Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:

podcast placeholder

0:00
0:00




Summary

Today’s daf is sponsored in memory of Deena Kalker’s grandmother Tzipora Shoshana bat Bracha z”l. May her memory be a comfort and a blessing.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Becky Goldstein for the refuah shleima of David Mordechai ben Raizel who is undergoing a procedure this morning. Please Gd for a succesful operation with שליחים נאמנים.

The Mishna prohibits one from leaving one’s animal in an inn alone with a pagan as they are concerned the pagan will engage in bestiality with the animal and the Jew will transgress the prohibition to put a stumbling block in front of a blind person. The Gemara raises a contradiction to this from a braita that permits a Jew to buy an animal from a non-Jew to use for a sacrifice. Why is there no concern that the animal was used for bestiality, which would disqualify the animal for sacrifice? Rav Tachlifa quotes Rav who distinguishes between the pagan’s own animal and someone else’s, as bestiality is bad for the animal (females become unable to birth and males become weaker). Two difficulties are raised against Rav Tachlifa’s answer and are resolved.

Two other questions are asked about the Mishna. Why would it be forbidden to seclude a female pagan with a female animal? Does the prohibition apply to birds as well?

Today’s daily daf tools:

Avodah Zarah 22

אֲרִיסוּתָא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר לֵית לֵיהּ, אֶלָּא גּוֹי מַאי טַעְמָא מוּתָּר? דְּאָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ וְצָיֵית. כּוּתִי נָמֵי אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ וְצָיֵית! כּוּתִי לָא צָיֵית, דְּאָמַר: אֲנָא גְּמִירְנָא טְפֵי מִינָּךְ.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar does not accept the principle that a sharecropper works for his tenancy, rather than as the Jew’s employee. The Gemara asks: But if so, with regard to a gentile, what is the reason that it is permitted to rent to him? The Gemara answers that we say to him that he may not perform labor on certain days, and he complies. The Gemara asks: If that is so, then in the case of a Samaritan as well, we can say to him that he may not perform labor on certain days, and he will comply. The Gemara answers: A Samaritan will not comply, as he says: I am more learned than you, and I know that it is permitted to work on these days.

אִי הָכִי, מַאי אִירְיָא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּקְרֵאת עַל שְׁמוֹ? תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם ״לִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל״! חֲדָא וְעוֹד קָאָמַר: חֲדָא — מִשּׁוּם ״לִפְנֵי עִוֵּר״, וְעוֹד — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּקְרֵאת עַל שְׁמוֹ.

The Gemara asks: If that is so, why does Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar state specifically that the reason for the prohibition is because the field is called by the name of the owner? Let him derive this halakha due to the fact that the Samaritan, like a Jew, is commanded to refrain from labor during the intermediate days of the Festival, and since he will work on these days, renting him a field is included in the prohibition: “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14). The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar states one reason and adds another: One reason is that of the prohibition: You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind; and, furthermore, it is prohibited because the field is called by the name of the owner.

הָנְהוּ מוֹרִיקָאֵי דְּגוֹי נָקֵיט בְּשַׁבְּתָא, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּחַד בְּשַׁבְּתָא, אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא — שְׁרָא לְהוּ.

§ The Gemara relates that there were certain saffron growers who jointly owned a field in an arrangement according to which a gentile took possession of the field and worked in it on Shabbat, and a Jew took possession of it on Sunday. They came before Rava, to find out if they could divide their profits equally, and Rava permitted them to do so.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹי שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ שָׂדֶה בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת, לֹא יֹאמַר יִשְׂרָאֵל לְגוֹי: ״טוֹל חֶלְקְךָ בַּשַּׁבָּת וַאֲנִי בַּחוֹל״, וְאִם הִתְנוּ מִתְּחִלָּה — מוּתָּר,

Ravina raised an objection to the ruling of Rava from a baraita: In the case of a Jew and a gentile who received tenancy of a field in partnership, with the understanding that they were to work the field and receive part of its produce in exchange, the Jew may not say to the gentile: Take your portion of the profit for your work on Shabbat, and I will take my portion for my work on one of the days of the rest of the week. The reason one may not do so is that it turns out that when the gentile worked on Shabbat, he was laboring partly on behalf of his Jewish partner. But if they initially stipulated when they entered into their partnership that the gentile would receive a share of the profit in exchange for his work on Shabbat, and the Jew would receive a share for the work that he performs during one of the days of the week, it is permitted.

וְאִם בָּאוּ לְחֶשְׁבּוֹן — אָסוּר. אִיכְּסִיף, לְסוֹף אִיגַּלַּאי מִלְּתָא דְּהִתְנוּ מֵעִיקָּרָא הֲווֹ.

And if they did not make this stipulation and later came to calculate the number of weekdays for which the Jew should receive the profit, corresponding to the number of Shabbatot that the gentile worked, it is prohibited, as this would mean that when the gentile worked on Shabbat, he was working on behalf of the Jew. Rava was embarrassed that he had ruled incorrectly. Ultimately, the matter was revealed that the saffron growers had stipulated from the outset that this was the arrangement, and therefore even according to the baraita Rava had ruled correctly.

רַב גְּבִיהָה מִבֵּי כְתִיל אָמַר: הָנְהוּ שְׁתִילֵי דְּעׇרְלָה, הֲוָה גּוֹי אָכֵיל שְׁנֵי דְּעׇרְלָה, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁנֵי דְּהֶתֵּירָא. אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, שְׁרָא לְהוּ.

Rav Geviha from Bei Ketil said that the incident was actually as follows: The Jew and the gentile formed a partnership with regard to those orla saplings, to tend to them and sell them. The gentile would work and profit from them during the orla years, the first three years after the tree is planted when it is prohibited for a Jew to eat its fruit, and the Jew would work and profit from them during the years where the fruit is permitted. They came before Rava, who permitted them to do so.

וְהָא אוֹתְבֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא! לְסַיּוֹעֵי סַיְּיעֵיהּ. וְהָא אִכְּסִיף! לֹא הָיוּ דְבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t Ravina object to the ruling issued by Rava? The Gemara answers: No, Ravina’s intention was to provide a support for the ruling of Rava. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t Rava embarrassed by Ravina’s statement? The Gemara answers: That never happened.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: סְתָמָא מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע: אִם הִתְנוּ מִתְּחִילָּה — מוּתָּר, הָא סְתָמָא — אָסוּר.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the partners did not specify that the gentile would work on Shabbat and the Jew during the week, but they also did not calculate their profits so that they would split the earnings equally, what is the halakha? The Gemara attempts to provide an answer from the baraita: Come and hear: If they initially stipulated that the gentile would receive a share of the profit in exchange for his work on Shabbat, while the Jew would receive a share for the work on one of the other days of the week, it is permitted. This indicates that without specification, it is prohibited.

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אִם בָּאוּ לְחֶשְׁבּוֹן — אָסוּר, הָא סְתָמָא — מוּתָּר! אֶלָּא, מֵהָא לֵיכָּא לְמִשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

The Gemara rejects this proof: Say the last clause: If they came to calculate their profits, it is prohibited; this indicates that without specification, doing so is permitted. The Gemara concludes: Rather, no inference is to be learned from this baraita, as the inferences contradict each other.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ לִפְנֵי אֵידֵיהֶן.

מַתְנִי׳ אֵין מַעֲמִידִין בְּהֵמָה בְּפוּנְדְּקָאוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲשׁוּדִין עַל הָרְבִיעָה, וְלֹא תִּתְיַיחֵד אִשָּׁה עִמָּהֶן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲשׁוּדִין עַל הָעֲרָיוֹת, וְלֹא יִתְיַיחֵד אָדָם עִמָּהֶן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲשׁוּדִין עַל שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים.

MISHNA: One may not keep an animal in the inns [befundekaot] of gentiles because they are suspected of bestiality. Since even gentiles are prohibited from engaging in bestiality, a Jew who places his animal there is guilty of violating the prohibition: “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14). And a woman may not seclude herself with gentiles because they are suspected of engaging in forbidden sexual relations. And any person may not seclude himself with gentiles because they are suspected of bloodshed.

גְּמָ׳ וּרְמִינְהִי: לוֹקְחִין מֵהֶן בְּהֵמָה לְקׇרְבָּן, וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לֹא מִשּׁוּם רוֹבֵעַ, וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם נִרְבָּע, וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם מוּקְצֶה, וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם נֶעֱבָד.

GEMARA: With regard to the assumption that gentiles are suspected of bestiality, the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita (Tosefta 2:1): One may purchase an animal from gentiles for use as an offering, and there is no concern that it might be unfit due to it being an animal that copulated with a person, or due to is being an animal that was the object of bestiality, or due to it having been set aside for idol worship, or due to the animal itself having been worshipped.

בִּשְׁלָמָא מוּקְצֶה וְנֶעֱבָד, אִם אִיתָא דְּאַקְצְיֵיהּ וְאִם אִיתָא דְּפַלְחֵיהּ — לָא הֲוָה מְזַבֵּין לֵיהּ, אֶלָּא רוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע לֵחוּשׁ! אָמַר רַב תַּחְלִיפָא אָמַר רַב שֵׁילָא בַּר אֲבִינָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: גּוֹי חָס עַל בְּהֶמְתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תֵּעָקֵר.

The Gemara analyzes this ruling: Granted, there is no concern that the animal was set aside for idolatry or was itself worshipped. The reason is that if it is so that it was set aside, or if it is so that it was worshipped, then the gentile would not have sold it to the Jew in the first place. But with regard to the possibility that it is an animal that copulated with a person or an animal that was the object of bestiality, let one raise a concern in line with the ruling of the mishna. The Gemara explains: Rav Taḥlifa says that Rav Sheila bar Avina says in the name of Rav: A gentile protects and thereby spares his own animal so that it will not become barren. Since an act of bestiality may cause an animal to become barren, there is no concern that the gentile engaged in immoral behavior with it. Therefore, one may use an animal purchased from a gentile as an offering.

הָתִינַח נְקֵבוֹת, זְכָרִים מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: הוֹאִיל וּמַכְחִישִׁין בַּבָּשָׂר.

The Gemara asks: This works out well with regard to female animals, as they can become barren, but with regard to males, what is there to say? Rav Kahana says: Gentiles also refrain from engaging in bestiality with their male livestock, since doing so deteriorates the animals’ flesh, i.e., it makes them physically weaker.

אֶלָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: לוֹקְחִין בְּהֵמָה מֵרוֹעֶה שֶׁלָּהֶן, לֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא רַבְעַהּ לָהּ! רוֹעֶה שֶׁלָּהֶן מִתְיָירֵא מִשּׁוּם הֶפְסֵד שָׂכָר.

Rather, the Gemara instead raises a contradiction from that which is taught in a baraita: One may purchase an animal for use as an offering from their shepherd, i.e., a gentile shepherd. The Gemara explains the apparent contradiction: In light of the ruling of the mishna, let us be concerned that perhaps he engaged in bestiality with the animal, as it does not belong to him, and therefore it should be prohibited to purchase an animal from gentile shepherds. The Gemara answers: Their shepherd is fearful of engaging in bestiality with the animals under his care, due to the forfeit of his wages that would result if this were discovered.

אֶלָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין מוֹסְרִין בְּהֵמָה לָרוֹעֶה שֶׁלָּהֶן, לֵימָא: רוֹעֶה שֶׁלָּהֶן מִתְיָירֵא מִשּׁוּם הֶפְסֵד שְׂכָרוֹ!

Rather, the Gemara instead raises a contradiction from that which is taught in a baraita: One may not deliver an animal to their shepherd, i.e., a gentile shepherd. The Gemara explains the contradiction: Why may one not do so? Let us say that their shepherd is fearful due to the forfeit of his wages, and accordingly one should be permitted to give him an animal.

אִינְהוּ דְּיָדְעִי בַּהֲדָדֵי, מִרַתְתִי. אֲנַן דְּלָא יָדְעִינַן בְּהוּ, לָא מִרַתְתִי. אָמַר רַבָּה: הַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: מַכְתְּבָא גְּלָלָא בָּזַע, רַגָּלָא בְּחַבְרֵיהּ יָדַע.

The Gemara answers: With regard to themselves, i.e., other gentiles, as they are aware of each other’s actions, they are fearful that they may be caught, and therefore will not engage in bestiality with an animal belonging to another gentile. But with regard to ourselves, Jews, as we are not aware of them and their behavior, they are not fearful of us. The Gemara notes that Rabba said: This is in accordance with the adage that people say: Just as the stylus etches script upon marble, a sinner knows his fellow sinner, i.e., a transgressor is acutely aware of others who act in the same manner.

אִי הָכִי, זְכָרִים מִנְּקֵבוֹת לָא נִיזְבּוֹן, דְּחָיְישִׁינַן דִּלְמָא מַרְבְּעָא לֵיהּ עִילָּוַהּ! כֵּיוָן דְּמִיגָּרֵי בַּהּ, מִרַתְתָא.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is so, and the reason one may purchase an animal for use as an offering from a gentile is that engaging in bestiality has a negative impact on the animal, then let us not purchase male animals from female gentiles, as we should be concerned that perhaps she engaged in bestiality with it. This would not damage the animal or render it barren, and therefore there is no deterrent that would prevent a gentile woman from doing so. The Gemara answers: Since, if she were to engage in bestiality, the animal would follow her around in public, she is afraid of others discovering her behavior.

אֶלָּא הָא דְּתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: אַרְמַלְתָּא לָא תְּרַבֵּי כַּלְבָּא, וְלָא תַּשְׁרֵי בַּר בֵּי רַב בְּאוּשְׁפִּיזָא. בִּשְׁלָמָא בַּר בֵּי רַב צְנִיעַ לַהּ, אֶלָּא כַּלְבָּא, כֵּיוָן דְּמִיגָּרֵה בַּהּ — מִרַתְתָא!

The Gemara further asks: But consider that which Rav Yosef teaches: A widow may not raise a dog due to the suspicion that she may engage in bestiality, and she may not allow a student of Torah to dwell as a lodger [be’ushpiza] in her home. Granted, it makes sense that is prohibited for her to have a student of Torah lodging in her home, as he is regarded as discreet in her eyes, so she will not be deterred from sinning with him. But with regard to a dog, since it would follow her around after she mates with it, she is afraid to engage in bestiality with it. Therefore, it should be permitted for her to raise a dog.

כֵּיוָן דְּכִי שָׁדְיָא לֵיהּ אוּמְצָא וּמִסְּרִיךְ אַבָּתְרַהּ, מֵימָר אָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: הַאי דְּמִסְּרִיךְ אַבָּתְרַהּ מִשּׁוּם אוּמְצָא דְּקָא מִסְּרִיךְ.

The Gemara answers: Since it will also follow her around in a case when she throws it a piece of meat, people will say: The fact that it is following her is due to the meat she threw at it, and they will not suspect her of bestiality. Consequently, she will not be deterred from transgressing.

נְקֵבוֹת אֵצֶל נְקֵבוֹת, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא מְיַיחֲדִינַן? אָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַגּוֹיִם מְצוּיִין אֵצֶל נְשֵׁי חַבְרֵיהֶן, וּפְעָמִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹצְאָהּ וּמוֹצֵא אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְרוֹבְעָהּ.

The Gemara asks: With regard to female animals with females, what is the reason that we do not permit them to be secluded with each other? Mar Ukva bar Ḥama says: It is because gentiles frequent the wives of others, and on occasion the gentile does not find her, and he finds the animal and engages in bestiality with it instead.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אֲפִילּוּ מוֹצְאָהּ נָמֵי רוֹבְעָהּ, דְּאָמַר מָר: חֲבִיבָה עֲלֵיהֶן בְּהֶמְתָּן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל יוֹתֵר מִנְּשׁוֹתֵיהֶן, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּא נָחָשׁ עַל חַוָּה הֵטִיל בָּהּ זוּהֲמָא. אִי הָכִי, יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי? יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁעָמְדוּ עַל הַר סִינַי — פָּסְקָה זוּהֲמָתָן, גּוֹיִם שֶׁלֹּא עָמְדוּ עַל הַר סִינַי — לֹא פָּסְקָה זוּהֲמָתָן.

And if you wish, say instead: Even when he finds the wife, he also engages in bestiality with the animal, as the Master said: The animal of a Jew is more appealing to gentiles than their own wives, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: At the time when the snake came upon Eve, at the time of the sin of her eating from the Tree of Knowledge, it infected her with moral contamination, and this contamination lingers in all human beings. The Gemara asks: If that is so, a Jew should also be suspected of engaging in bestiality. The Gemara answers: With regard to the Jewish people, who stood at Mount Sinai and received the Torah, their contamination ended, whereas in the case of gentiles, who did not stand at Mount Sinai and receive the Torah, their contamination has not ended.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: עוֹפוֹת מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אֲנִי רָאִיתִי גּוֹי שֶׁלָּקַח אַוָּוז מִן הַשּׁוּק, רְבָעָהּ, חֲנָקָהּ, צְלָאָהּ, וַאֲכָלָהּ. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מִדִּיפְתִּי: אֲנִי רָאִיתִי עַרְבִי אֶחָד שֶׁלָּקַח יָרֵךְ מִן הַשּׁוּק, וְחָקַק בָּהּ כְּדֵי רְבִיעָה, רְבָעָהּ, צְלָאָהּ, וַאֲכָלָהּ.

§ The Gemara inquires with regard to the halakha in the case of a bird. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to birds, what is the halakha? Are gentiles suspected of engaging in bestiality with birds? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof that they are suspected of doing so, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: I once saw a gentile who bought a goose in the market, engaged in bestiality with it, strangled it, roasted it, and then ate it. And similarly, Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti says: I saw a certain Arab who bought a thigh of meat from the market and carved a space in it that was the size necessary to allow for penetration. Subsequently, he penetrated it, roasted it, and ate it. These incidents demonstrate that gentiles are suspected of immoral conduct with fowl.

Today’s daily daf tools:

Delve Deeper

Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.

For the Beyond the Daf shiurim offered in Hebrew, see here.

New to Talmud?

Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you. 

The Hadran Women’s Tapestry

Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories. 

I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!

Rabbi Nicki Greninger
Rabbi Nicki Greninger

California, United States

I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.

Gila Loike
Gila Loike

Ashdod, Israel

At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Deborah Hoffman-Wade

Richmond, CA, United States

I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.

Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld
Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld

Far Rockaway, United States

I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.

Caroline-Ben-Ari-Tapestry
Caroline Ben-Ari

Karmiel, Israel

I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!

Debbie Engelen-Eigles
Debbie Engelen-Eigles

Minnesota, United States

I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!

Roslyn Jaffe
Roslyn Jaffe

Florida, United States

I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.

Karena Perry
Karena Perry

Los Angeles, United States

Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.

Rebecca Stulberg
Rebecca Stulberg

Ottawa, Canada

Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .

Goldie Gilad
Goldie Gilad

Kfar Saba, Israel

Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!

Lisa Lawrence
Lisa Lawrence

Neve Daniel, Israel

I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.

Krivosha_Terri_Bio
Terri Krivosha

Minneapolis, United States

It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.

Jeanne Yael Klempner
Jeanne Yael Klempner

Zichron Yaakov, Israel

תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.

Vitti Kones
Vitti Kones

מיתר, ישראל

My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid

Renee Braha
Renee Braha

Brooklyn, NY, United States

Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!

Judith Weil
Judith Weil

Raanana, Israel

I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.

Caroline-Ben-Ari-Tapestry
Caroline Ben-Ari

Karmiel, Israel

I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…

Miriam Eckstein-Koas
Miriam Eckstein-Koas

Huntington, United States

I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!

Dena Lehrman
Dena Lehrman

אפרת, Israel

I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!

Roslyn Jaffe
Roslyn Jaffe

Florida, United States

Avodah Zarah 22

אֲרִיבוּΧͺָא ΧœΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ΄Χ™ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧžΦ°Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧŸ Χ‘ΦΌΦΆΧŸ ΧΦΆΧœΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ–ΦΈΧ¨ ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χͺ ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ, א֢לָּא Χ’ΦΌΧ•ΦΉΧ™ ΧžΦ·ΧΧ™ טַגְמָא ΧžΧ•ΦΌΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ¨? Χ“ΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧžΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™Χ Φ·ΧŸ ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ Χ•Φ°Χ¦ΦΈΧ™Φ΅Χ™Χͺ. Χ›ΦΌΧ•ΦΌΧͺΦ΄Χ™ Χ ΦΈΧžΦ΅Χ™ ΧΦΈΧžΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™Χ Φ·ΧŸ ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ Χ•Φ°Χ¦ΦΈΧ™Φ΅Χ™Χͺ! Χ›ΦΌΧ•ΦΌΧͺΦ΄Χ™ לָא Χ¦ΦΈΧ™Φ΅Χ™Χͺ, Χ“ΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧžΦ·Χ¨: אֲנָא Χ’ΦΌΦ°ΧžΦ΄Χ™Χ¨Φ°Χ ΦΈΧ Χ˜Φ°Χ€Φ΅Χ™ ΧžΦ΄Χ™Χ ΦΌΦΈΧšΦ°.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar does not accept the principle that a sharecropper works for his tenancy, rather than as the Jew’s employee. The Gemara asks: But if so, with regard to a gentile, what is the reason that it is permitted to rent to him? The Gemara answers that we say to him that he may not perform labor on certain days, and he complies. The Gemara asks: If that is so, then in the case of a Samaritan as well, we can say to him that he may not perform labor on certain days, and he will comply. The Gemara answers: A Samaritan will not comply, as he says: I am more learned than you, and I know that it is permitted to work on these days.

אִי Χ”ΦΈΧ›Φ΄Χ™, ΧžΦ·ΧΧ™ אִירְיָא ΧžΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ™ שׁ֢נִּקְר֡אΧͺ גַל Χ©ΧΦ°ΧžΧ•ΦΉ? ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ™Χ€ΦΌΧ•ΦΉΧ§ ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ ΧžΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧ•ΦΌΧ Χ΄ΧœΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ™ Χ’Φ΄Χ•ΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ לֹא ΧͺΦ΄Χͺּ֡ן ΧžΦ΄Χ›Φ°Χ©ΧΦΉΧœΧ΄! חֲדָא Χ•Φ°Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧ“ קָאָמַר: חֲדָא β€” ΧžΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧ•ΦΌΧ Χ΄ΧœΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ™ Χ’Φ΄Χ•ΦΌΦ΅Χ¨Χ΄, Χ•Φ°Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧ“ β€” ΧžΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ™ שׁ֢נִּקְר֡אΧͺ גַל Χ©ΧΦ°ΧžΧ•ΦΉ.

The Gemara asks: If that is so, why does Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar state specifically that the reason for the prohibition is because the field is called by the name of the owner? Let him derive this halakha due to the fact that the Samaritan, like a Jew, is commanded to refrain from labor during the intermediate days of the Festival, and since he will work on these days, renting him a field is included in the prohibition: β€œYou shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14). The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar states one reason and adds another: One reason is that of the prohibition: You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind; and, furthermore, it is prohibited because the field is called by the name of the owner.

Χ”ΦΈΧ Φ°Χ”Χ•ΦΌ ΧžΧ•ΦΉΧ¨Φ΄Χ™Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ™ Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧ™ Χ ΦΈΧ§Φ΅Χ™Χ˜ בְּשַׁבְּΧͺָא, Χ•Φ°Χ™Φ΄Χ©Χ‚Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χœ Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ—Φ·Χ“ בְּשַׁבְּΧͺָא, אֲΧͺΧ•ΦΉ ΧœΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧžΦΌΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ דְּרָבָא β€” שְׁרָא ΧœΦ°Χ”Χ•ΦΌ.

Β§ The Gemara relates that there were certain saffron growers who jointly owned a field in an arrangement according to which a gentile took possession of the field and worked in it on Shabbat, and a Jew took possession of it on Sunday. They came before Rava, to find out if they could divide their profits equally, and Rava permitted them to do so.

א֡יΧͺΦ΄Χ™Χ‘Φ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ רָבִינָא ΧœΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧ: Χ™Φ΄Χ©Χ‚Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χœ Χ•Φ°Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧ™ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ§ΦΌΦ΄Χ™Χ‘ΦΌΦ°ΧœΧ•ΦΌ Χ©Χ‚ΦΈΧ“ΦΆΧ” בְּשׁוּΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ€Χ•ΦΌΧͺ, לֹא Χ™ΦΉΧΧžΦ·Χ¨ Χ™Φ΄Χ©Χ‚Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χœ ΧœΦ°Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧ™: Χ΄Χ˜Χ•ΦΉΧœ Χ—ΦΆΧœΦ°Χ§Φ°ΧšΦΈ בַּשַּׁבָּΧͺ וַאֲנִי Χ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧœΧ΄, וְאִם Χ”Φ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ Χ•ΦΌ מִΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ—Φ΄ΧœΦΌΦΈΧ” β€” ΧžΧ•ΦΌΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ¨,

Ravina raised an objection to the ruling of Rava from a baraita: In the case of a Jew and a gentile who received tenancy of a field in partnership, with the understanding that they were to work the field and receive part of its produce in exchange, the Jew may not say to the gentile: Take your portion of the profit for your work on Shabbat, and I will take my portion for my work on one of the days of the rest of the week. The reason one may not do so is that it turns out that when the gentile worked on Shabbat, he was laboring partly on behalf of his Jewish partner. But if they initially stipulated when they entered into their partnership that the gentile would receive a share of the profit in exchange for his work on Shabbat, and the Jew would receive a share for the work that he performs during one of the days of the week, it is permitted.

וְאִם בָּאוּ ΧœΦ°Χ—ΦΆΧ©ΧΦ°Χ‘ΦΌΧ•ΦΉΧŸ β€” אָבוּר. אִיכְּבִיף, ΧœΦ°Χ‘Χ•ΦΉΧ£ ΧΦ΄Χ™Χ’ΦΌΦ·ΧœΦΌΦ·ΧΧ™ מִלְּΧͺָא Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χ”Φ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ Χ•ΦΌ ΧžΦ΅Χ’Φ΄Χ™Χ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ”Φ²Χ•Χ•ΦΉ.

And if they did not make this stipulation and later came to calculate the number of weekdays for which the Jew should receive the profit, corresponding to the number of Shabbatot that the gentile worked, it is prohibited, as this would mean that when the gentile worked on Shabbat, he was working on behalf of the Jew. Rava was embarrassed that he had ruled incorrectly. Ultimately, the matter was revealed that the saffron growers had stipulated from the outset that this was the arrangement, and therefore even according to the baraita Rava had ruled correctly.

Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ’ΦΌΦ°Χ‘Φ΄Χ™Χ”ΦΈΧ” ΧžΦ΄Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅Χ™ Χ›Φ°ΧͺΦ΄Χ™Χœ אָמַר: Χ”ΦΈΧ Φ°Χ”Χ•ΦΌ שְׁΧͺΦ΄Χ™ΧœΦ΅Χ™ Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χ’Χ‡Χ¨Φ°ΧœΦΈΧ”, Χ”Φ²Χ•ΦΈΧ” Χ’ΦΌΧ•ΦΉΧ™ ΧΦΈΧ›Φ΅Χ™Χœ שְׁנ֡י Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χ’Χ‡Χ¨Φ°ΧœΦΈΧ”, Χ•Φ°Χ™Φ΄Χ©Χ‚Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χœ שְׁנ֡י Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χ”ΦΆΧͺּ֡ירָא. אֲΧͺΧ•ΦΉ ΧœΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧžΦΌΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ דְּרָבָא, שְׁרָא ΧœΦ°Χ”Χ•ΦΌ.

Rav Geviha from Bei Ketil said that the incident was actually as follows: The Jew and the gentile formed a partnership with regard to those orla saplings, to tend to them and sell them. The gentile would work and profit from them during the orla years, the first three years after the tree is planted when it is prohibited for a Jew to eat its fruit, and the Jew would work and profit from them during the years where the fruit is permitted. They came before Rava, who permitted them to do so.

וְהָא אוֹΧͺΦ°Χ‘Φ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ רָבִינָא ΧœΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧ! ΧœΦ°Χ‘Φ·Χ™ΦΌΧ•ΦΉΧ’Φ΅Χ™ Χ‘Φ·Χ™ΦΌΦ°Χ™Χ’Φ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ. וְהָא אִכְּבִיף! לֹא Χ”ΦΈΧ™Χ•ΦΌ דְבָרִים ΧžΦ΅Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧœΦΈΧ.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t Ravina object to the ruling issued by Rava? The Gemara answers: No, Ravina’s intention was to provide a support for the ruling of Rava. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t Rava embarrassed by Ravina’s statement? The Gemara answers: That never happened.

אִיבַּגְיָא ΧœΦ°Χ”Χ•ΦΌ: Χ‘Φ°Χͺָמָא ΧžΦ·ΧΧ™? Χͺָּא שְׁמַג: אִם Χ”Φ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ Χ•ΦΌ מִΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ—Φ΄Χ™ΧœΦΌΦΈΧ” β€” ΧžΧ•ΦΌΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ¨, הָא Χ‘Φ°Χͺָמָא β€” אָבוּר.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the partners did not specify that the gentile would work on Shabbat and the Jew during the week, but they also did not calculate their profits so that they would split the earnings equally, what is the halakha? The Gemara attempts to provide an answer from the baraita: Come and hear: If they initially stipulated that the gentile would receive a share of the profit in exchange for his work on Shabbat, while the Jew would receive a share for the work on one of the other days of the week, it is permitted. This indicates that without specification, it is prohibited.

ΧΦ΅Χ™ΧžΦΈΧ ב֡י׀ָא: אִם בָּאוּ ΧœΦ°Χ—ΦΆΧ©ΧΦ°Χ‘ΦΌΧ•ΦΉΧŸ β€” אָבוּר, הָא Χ‘Φ°Χͺָמָא β€” ΧžΧ•ΦΌΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ¨! א֢לָּא, ΧžΦ΅Χ”ΦΈΧ ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧ לְמִשְׁמַג ΧžΦ΄Χ™Χ ΦΌΦ·Χ”ΦΌ.

The Gemara rejects this proof: Say the last clause: If they came to calculate their profits, it is prohibited; this indicates that without specification, doing so is permitted. The Gemara concludes: Rather, no inference is to be learned from this baraita, as the inferences contradict each other.

Χ”Φ²Χ“Φ·Χ¨Φ·ΧŸ גֲלָךְ ΧœΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ™ ΧΦ΅Χ™Χ“Φ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΆΧŸ.

מַΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ™Χ³ ΧΦ΅Χ™ΧŸ ΧžΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧžΦ΄Χ™Χ“Φ΄Χ™ΧŸ Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ”Φ΅ΧžΦΈΧ” בְּ׀וּנְדְּקָאוֹΧͺ שׁ֢ל גּוֹיִם, ΧžΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ™ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ—Φ²Χ©ΧΧ•ΦΌΧ“Φ΄Χ™ΧŸ גַל Χ”ΦΈΧ¨Φ°Χ‘Φ΄Χ™Χ’ΦΈΧ”, Χ•Φ°ΧœΦΉΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ™Φ·Χ™Χ—Φ΅Χ“ אִשָּׁה Χ’Φ΄ΧžΦΌΦΈΧ”ΦΆΧŸ, ΧžΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ™ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ—Φ²Χ©ΧΧ•ΦΌΧ“Φ΄Χ™ΧŸ גַל Χ”ΦΈΧ’Φ²Χ¨ΦΈΧ™Χ•ΦΉΧͺ, Χ•Φ°ΧœΦΉΧ Χ™Φ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ™Φ·Χ™Χ—Φ΅Χ“ אָדָם Χ’Φ΄ΧžΦΌΦΈΧ”ΦΆΧŸ, ΧžΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ™ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ—Φ²Χ©ΧΧ•ΦΌΧ“Φ΄Χ™ΧŸ גַל שְׁ׀ִיכוּΧͺ Χ“ΦΌΦΈΧžΦ΄Χ™Χ.

MISHNA: One may not keep an animal in the inns [befundekaot] of gentiles because they are suspected of bestiality. Since even gentiles are prohibited from engaging in bestiality, a Jew who places his animal there is guilty of violating the prohibition: β€œYou shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14). And a woman may not seclude herself with gentiles because they are suspected of engaging in forbidden sexual relations. And any person may not seclude himself with gentiles because they are suspected of bloodshed.

Χ’ΦΌΦ°ΧžΦΈΧ³ Χ•ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧžΦ΄Χ™Χ Φ°Χ”Φ΄Χ™: ΧœΧ•ΦΉΧ§Φ°Χ—Φ΄Χ™ΧŸ ΧžΦ΅Χ”ΦΆΧŸ Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ”Φ΅ΧžΦΈΧ” ΧœΦ°Χ§Χ‡Χ¨Φ°Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧŸ, Χ•Φ°ΧΦ΅Χ™ΧŸ Χ—Χ•ΦΉΧ©ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄Χ™ΧŸ לֹא ΧžΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧ•ΦΌΧ Χ¨Χ•ΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ’Φ·, Χ•Φ°ΧœΦΉΧ ΧžΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧ•ΦΌΧ Χ Φ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧ’, Χ•Φ°ΧœΦΉΧ ΧžΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧ•ΦΌΧ ΧžΧ•ΦΌΧ§Φ°Χ¦ΦΆΧ”, Χ•Φ°ΧœΦΉΧ ΧžΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧ•ΦΌΧ Χ ΦΆΧ’Φ±Χ‘ΦΈΧ“.

GEMARA: With regard to the assumption that gentiles are suspected of bestiality, the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita (Tosefta 2:1): One may purchase an animal from gentiles for use as an offering, and there is no concern that it might be unfit due to it being an animal that copulated with a person, or due to is being an animal that was the object of bestiality, or due to it having been set aside for idol worship, or due to the animal itself having been worshipped.

Χ‘ΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧœΦΈΧžΦΈΧ ΧžΧ•ΦΌΧ§Φ°Χ¦ΦΆΧ” Χ•Φ°Χ ΦΆΧ’Φ±Χ‘ΦΈΧ“, אִם אִיΧͺָא דְּאַקְצְי֡יהּ וְאִם אִיΧͺָא Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧœΦ°Χ—Φ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ β€” לָא Χ”Φ²Χ•ΦΈΧ” ΧžΦ°Χ–Φ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅Χ™ΧŸ ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ, א֢לָּא Χ¨Χ•ΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ’Φ· Χ•Φ°Χ Φ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧ’ ΧœΦ΅Χ—Χ•ΦΌΧ©Χ! אָמַר Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ—Φ°ΧœΦ΄Χ™Χ€ΦΈΧ אָמַר Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ™ΧœΦΈΧ Χ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ אֲבִינָא ΧžΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦ°ΧžΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘: Χ’ΦΌΧ•ΦΉΧ™ Χ—ΦΈΧ‘ גַל Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ”ΦΆΧžΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧ•ΦΉ שׁ֢לֹּא ΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ’ΦΈΧ§Φ΅Χ¨.

The Gemara analyzes this ruling: Granted, there is no concern that the animal was set aside for idolatry or was itself worshipped. The reason is that if it is so that it was set aside, or if it is so that it was worshipped, then the gentile would not have sold it to the Jew in the first place. But with regard to the possibility that it is an animal that copulated with a person or an animal that was the object of bestiality, let one raise a concern in line with the ruling of the mishna. The Gemara explains: Rav TaαΈ₯lifa says that Rav Sheila bar Avina says in the name of Rav: A gentile protects and thereby spares his own animal so that it will not become barren. Since an act of bestiality may cause an animal to become barren, there is no concern that the gentile engaged in immoral behavior with it. Therefore, one may use an animal purchased from a gentile as an offering.

Χ”ΦΈΧͺΦ΄Χ™Χ Φ·Χ— Χ Φ°Χ§Φ΅Χ‘Χ•ΦΉΧͺ, זְכָרִים ΧžΦ·ΧΧ™ אִיכָּא ΧœΦ°ΧžΦ΅Χ™ΧžΦ·Χ¨? אָמַר Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ כָּהֲנָא: Χ”Χ•ΦΉΧΦ΄Χ™Χœ Χ•ΦΌΧžΦ·Χ›Φ°Χ—Φ΄Χ™Χ©ΧΦ΄Χ™ΧŸ Χ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧ©Χ‚ΦΈΧ¨.

The Gemara asks: This works out well with regard to female animals, as they can become barren, but with regard to males, what is there to say? Rav Kahana says: Gentiles also refrain from engaging in bestiality with their male livestock, since doing so deteriorates the animals’ flesh, i.e., it makes them physically weaker.

א֢לָּא הָא Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χͺַנְיָא: ΧœΧ•ΦΉΧ§Φ°Χ—Φ΄Χ™ΧŸ Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ”Φ΅ΧžΦΈΧ” ΧžΦ΅Χ¨Χ•ΦΉΧ’ΦΆΧ” Χ©ΧΦΆΧœΦΌΦΈΧ”ΦΆΧŸ, ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ—Χ•ΦΌΧ©Χ Χ“ΦΌΦ΄ΧœΦ°ΧžΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·Χ‘Φ°Χ’Φ·Χ”ΦΌ ΧœΦΈΧ”ΦΌ! Χ¨Χ•ΦΉΧ’ΦΆΧ” Χ©ΧΦΆΧœΦΌΦΈΧ”ΦΆΧŸ מִΧͺְיָיר֡א ΧžΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧ•ΦΌΧ Χ”ΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ‘Φ΅Χ“ Χ©Χ‚ΦΈΧ›ΦΈΧ¨.

Rather, the Gemara instead raises a contradiction from that which is taught in a baraita: One may purchase an animal for use as an offering from their shepherd, i.e., a gentile shepherd. The Gemara explains the apparent contradiction: In light of the ruling of the mishna, let us be concerned that perhaps he engaged in bestiality with the animal, as it does not belong to him, and therefore it should be prohibited to purchase an animal from gentile shepherds. The Gemara answers: Their shepherd is fearful of engaging in bestiality with the animals under his care, due to the forfeit of his wages that would result if this were discovered.

א֢לָּא הָא Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χͺַנְיָא: ΧΦ΅Χ™ΧŸ ΧžΧ•ΦΉΧ‘Φ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™ΧŸ Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ”Φ΅ΧžΦΈΧ” ΧœΦΈΧ¨Χ•ΦΉΧ’ΦΆΧ” Χ©ΧΦΆΧœΦΌΦΈΧ”ΦΆΧŸ, ΧœΦ΅Χ™ΧžΦΈΧ: Χ¨Χ•ΦΉΧ’ΦΆΧ” Χ©ΧΦΆΧœΦΌΦΈΧ”ΦΆΧŸ מִΧͺְיָיר֡א ΧžΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧ•ΦΌΧ Χ”ΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ‘Φ΅Χ“ Χ©Χ‚Φ°Χ›ΦΈΧ¨Χ•ΦΉ!

Rather, the Gemara instead raises a contradiction from that which is taught in a baraita: One may not deliver an animal to their shepherd, i.e., a gentile shepherd. The Gemara explains the contradiction: Why may one not do so? Let us say that their shepherd is fearful due to the forfeit of his wages, and accordingly one should be permitted to give him an animal.

אִינְהוּ Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χ™ΦΈΧ“Φ°Χ’Φ΄Χ™ Χ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ”Φ²Χ“ΦΈΧ“Φ΅Χ™, מִרַΧͺΦ°ΧͺΦ΄Χ™. אֲנַן Χ“ΦΌΦ°ΧœΦΈΧ Χ™ΦΈΧ“Φ°Χ’Φ΄Χ™Χ Φ·ΧŸ Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ”Χ•ΦΌ, לָא מִרַΧͺΦ°ΧͺΦ΄Χ™. אָמַר Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧ”: Χ”Φ·Χ™Φ°Χ™Χ Χ•ΦΌ Χ“ΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧžΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™ אִינָשׁ֡י: ΧžΦ·Χ›Φ°Χͺְּבָא Χ’ΦΌΦ°ΧœΦΈΧœΦΈΧ Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧ–Φ·Χ’, Χ¨Φ·Χ’ΦΌΦΈΧœΦΈΧ Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ—Φ·Χ‘Φ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ Χ™ΦΈΧ“Φ·Χ’.

The Gemara answers: With regard to themselves, i.e., other gentiles, as they are aware of each other’s actions, they are fearful that they may be caught, and therefore will not engage in bestiality with an animal belonging to another gentile. But with regard to ourselves, Jews, as we are not aware of them and their behavior, they are not fearful of us. The Gemara notes that Rabba said: This is in accordance with the adage that people say: Just as the stylus etches script upon marble, a sinner knows his fellow sinner, i.e., a transgressor is acutely aware of others who act in the same manner.

אִי Χ”ΦΈΧ›Φ΄Χ™, זְכָרִים ΧžΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦ°Χ§Φ΅Χ‘Χ•ΦΉΧͺ לָא Χ Φ΄Χ™Χ–Φ°Χ‘ΦΌΧ•ΦΉΧŸ, Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χ—ΦΈΧ™Φ°Χ™Χ©ΧΦ΄Χ™Χ Φ·ΧŸ Χ“ΦΌΦ΄ΧœΦ°ΧžΦΈΧ ΧžΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ Χ’Φ΄Χ™ΧœΦΌΦΈΧ•Φ·Χ”ΦΌ! Χ›ΦΌΦ΅Χ™Χ•ΦΈΧŸ Χ“ΦΌΦ°ΧžΦ΄Χ™Χ’ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χ™ Χ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ”ΦΌ, מִרַΧͺΦ°Χͺָא.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is so, and the reason one may purchase an animal for use as an offering from a gentile is that engaging in bestiality has a negative impact on the animal, then let us not purchase male animals from female gentiles, as we should be concerned that perhaps she engaged in bestiality with it. This would not damage the animal or render it barren, and therefore there is no deterrent that would prevent a gentile woman from doing so. The Gemara answers: Since, if she were to engage in bestiality, the animal would follow her around in public, she is afraid of others discovering her behavior.

א֢לָּא הָא Χ“ΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ™ Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ™Χ•ΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£: אַרְמַלְΧͺָּא לָא ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅Χ™ Χ›ΦΌΦ·ΧœΦ°Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧ, Χ•Φ°ΧœΦΈΧ Χͺַּשְׁר֡י Χ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅Χ™ Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ בְּאוּשְׁ׀ִּיזָא. Χ‘ΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧœΦΈΧžΦΈΧ Χ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅Χ™ Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ¦Φ°Χ Φ΄Χ™Χ’Φ· ΧœΦ·Χ”ΦΌ, א֢לָּא Χ›ΦΌΦ·ΧœΦ°Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧ, Χ›ΦΌΦ΅Χ™Χ•ΦΈΧŸ Χ“ΦΌΦ°ΧžΦ΄Χ™Χ’ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χ” Χ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ”ΦΌ β€” מִרַΧͺΦ°Χͺָא!

The Gemara further asks: But consider that which Rav Yosef teaches: A widow may not raise a dog due to the suspicion that she may engage in bestiality, and she may not allow a student of Torah to dwell as a lodger [be’ushpiza] in her home. Granted, it makes sense that is prohibited for her to have a student of Torah lodging in her home, as he is regarded as discreet in her eyes, so she will not be deterred from sinning with him. But with regard to a dog, since it would follow her around after she mates with it, she is afraid to engage in bestiality with it. Therefore, it should be permitted for her to raise a dog.

Χ›ΦΌΦ΅Χ™Χ•ΦΈΧŸ Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χ›Φ΄Χ™ שָׁדְיָא ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ ΧΧ•ΦΌΧžΦ°Χ¦ΦΈΧ Χ•ΦΌΧžΦ΄Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™ΧšΦ° אַבָּΧͺΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ”ΦΌ, ΧžΦ΅Χ™ΧžΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧžΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™ אִינָשׁ֡י: הַאי Χ“ΦΌΦ°ΧžΦ΄Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™ΧšΦ° אַבָּΧͺΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ”ΦΌ ΧžΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧ•ΦΌΧ ΧΧ•ΦΌΧžΦ°Χ¦ΦΈΧ דְּקָא ΧžΦ΄Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™ΧšΦ°.

The Gemara answers: Since it will also follow her around in a case when she throws it a piece of meat, people will say: The fact that it is following her is due to the meat she threw at it, and they will not suspect her of bestiality. Consequently, she will not be deterred from transgressing.

Χ Φ°Χ§Φ΅Χ‘Χ•ΦΉΧͺ א֡צ֢ל Χ Φ°Χ§Φ΅Χ‘Χ•ΦΉΧͺ, ΧžΦ·ΧΧ™ טַגְמָא לָא ΧžΦ°Χ™Φ·Χ™Χ—Φ²Χ“Φ΄Χ™Χ Φ·ΧŸ? אָמַר מָר גוּקְבָא Χ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ—ΦΈΧžΦΈΧ: ΧžΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ™ שׁ֢הַגּוֹיִם ΧžΦ°Χ¦Χ•ΦΌΧ™Φ΄Χ™ΧŸ א֡צ֢ל נְשׁ֡י Χ—Φ·Χ‘Φ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΆΧŸ, Χ•ΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ’ΦΈΧžΦ΄Χ™Χ שׁ֢א֡ינוֹ ΧžΧ•ΦΉΧ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ”ΦΌ Χ•ΦΌΧžΧ•ΦΉΧ¦Φ΅Χ א֢Χͺ Χ”Φ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ”Φ΅ΧžΦΈΧ” Χ•Φ°Χ¨Χ•ΦΉΧ‘Φ°Χ’ΦΈΧ”ΦΌ.

The Gemara asks: With regard to female animals with females, what is the reason that we do not permit them to be secluded with each other? Mar Ukva bar αΈ€ama says: It is because gentiles frequent the wives of others, and on occasion the gentile does not find her, and he finds the animal and engages in bestiality with it instead.

וְאִיבָּג֡יΧͺ ΧΦ΅Χ™ΧžΦΈΧ: ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄Χ™ΧœΦΌΧ•ΦΌ ΧžΧ•ΦΉΧ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ”ΦΌ Χ ΦΈΧžΦ΅Χ™ Χ¨Χ•ΦΉΧ‘Φ°Χ’ΦΈΧ”ΦΌ, Χ“ΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧžΦ·Χ¨ מָר: Χ—Φ²Χ‘Φ΄Χ™Χ‘ΦΈΧ” Χ’Φ²ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΆΧŸ Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ”ΦΆΧžΦ°Χͺָּן שׁ֢ל Χ™Φ΄Χ©Χ‚Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χœ Χ™Χ•ΦΉΧͺΦ΅Χ¨ ΧžΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΧ•ΦΉΧͺΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΆΧŸ, Χ“ΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧžΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ΄Χ™ Χ™Χ•ΦΉΧ—ΦΈΧ ΦΈΧŸ: בְּשָׁגָה שׁ֢בָּא נָחָשׁ גַל Χ—Φ·Χ•ΦΌΦΈΧ” Χ”Φ΅Χ˜Φ΄Χ™Χœ Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧ”ΦΌ Χ–Χ•ΦΌΧ”Φ²ΧžΦΈΧ. אִי Χ”ΦΈΧ›Φ΄Χ™, Χ™Φ΄Χ©Χ‚Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χœ Χ ΦΈΧžΦ΅Χ™? Χ™Φ΄Χ©Χ‚Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χœ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ’ΦΈΧžΦ°Χ“Χ•ΦΌ גַל Χ”Φ·Χ¨ Χ‘Φ΄Χ™Χ Φ·Χ™ β€” Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ‘Φ°Χ§ΦΈΧ” Χ–Χ•ΦΌΧ”Φ²ΧžΦΈΧͺָן, גּוֹיִם שׁ֢לֹּא Χ’ΦΈΧžΦ°Χ“Χ•ΦΌ גַל Χ”Φ·Χ¨ Χ‘Φ΄Χ™Χ Φ·Χ™ β€” לֹא Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ‘Φ°Χ§ΦΈΧ” Χ–Χ•ΦΌΧ”Φ²ΧžΦΈΧͺָן.

And if you wish, say instead: Even when he finds the wife, he also engages in bestiality with the animal, as the Master said: The animal of a Jew is more appealing to gentiles than their own wives, as Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan says: At the time when the snake came upon Eve, at the time of the sin of her eating from the Tree of Knowledge, it infected her with moral contamination, and this contamination lingers in all human beings. The Gemara asks: If that is so, a Jew should also be suspected of engaging in bestiality. The Gemara answers: With regard to the Jewish people, who stood at Mount Sinai and received the Torah, their contamination ended, whereas in the case of gentiles, who did not stand at Mount Sinai and receive the Torah, their contamination has not ended.

אִיבַּגְיָא ΧœΦ°Χ”Χ•ΦΌ: Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧ€Χ•ΦΉΧͺ ΧžΦ·ΧΧ™? Χͺָּא שְׁמַג, Χ“ΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧžΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ™Φ°Χ”Χ•ΦΌΧ“ΦΈΧ” אָמַר Χ©ΧΦ°ΧžΧ•ΦΌΧΦ΅Χœ ΧžΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧ•ΦΌΧ Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ΄Χ™ חֲנִינָא: אֲנִי רָאִיΧͺΦ΄Χ™ Χ’ΦΌΧ•ΦΉΧ™ Χ©ΧΦΆΧœΦΌΦΈΧ§Φ·Χ— אַוָּוז מִן הַשּׁוּק, Χ¨Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧ”ΦΌ, Χ—Φ²Χ ΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ”ΦΌ, Χ¦Φ°ΧœΦΈΧΦΈΧ”ΦΌ, Χ•Φ·ΧΦ²Χ›ΦΈΧœΦΈΧ”ΦΌ. Χ•Φ°ΧΦΈΧžΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ΄Χ™ Χ™Φ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧžΦ°Χ™ΦΈΧ” ΧžΦ΄Χ“ΦΌΦ΄Χ™Χ€Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ™: אֲנִי רָאִיΧͺΦ΄Χ™ Χ’Φ·Χ¨Φ°Χ‘Φ΄Χ™ א֢חָד Χ©ΧΦΆΧœΦΌΦΈΧ§Φ·Χ— Χ™ΦΈΧ¨Φ΅ΧšΦ° מִן הַשּׁוּק, Χ•Φ°Χ—ΦΈΧ§Φ·Χ§ Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧ”ΦΌ Χ›ΦΌΦ°Χ“Φ΅Χ™ Χ¨Φ°Χ‘Φ΄Χ™Χ’ΦΈΧ”, Χ¨Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧ”ΦΌ, Χ¦Φ°ΧœΦΈΧΦΈΧ”ΦΌ, Χ•Φ·ΧΦ²Χ›ΦΈΧœΦΈΧ”ΦΌ.

Β§ The Gemara inquires with regard to the halakha in the case of a bird. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to birds, what is the halakha? Are gentiles suspected of engaging in bestiality with birds? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof that they are suspected of doing so, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi αΈ€anina: I once saw a gentile who bought a goose in the market, engaged in bestiality with it, strangled it, roasted it, and then ate it. And similarly, Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti says: I saw a certain Arab who bought a thigh of meat from the market and carved a space in it that was the size necessary to allow for penetration. Subsequently, he penetrated it, roasted it, and ate it. These incidents demonstrate that gentiles are suspected of immoral conduct with fowl.

Want to follow content and continue where you left off?

Create an account today to track your progress, mark what you’ve learned, and follow the shiurim that speak to you.

Clear all items from this list?

This will remove ALL the items in this section. You will lose any progress or history connected to them. This is irreversible.

Cancel
Yes, clear all

Are you sure you want to delete this item?

You will lose any progress or history connected to this item.

Cancel
Yes, delete