Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 16, 2018 | 讗壮 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Avodah Zarah 32

The pottery shards that Hadrian used are described in detail. Since they have wine absorbed in them for the purpose of drinking, it is forbidden to derive benefit from them. But is one allowed to derive benefit from them if the benefit has nothing to do with the wine inside them, i.e. like using them for placing under the legs of a bed to make it even.聽In the context of that discussion, a braita is brought which included halachot about聽using a leather flask of a non-Jew and halachot relating to that issue are discussed. What are the details necessary to forbid a cut in the skin of an animal near the heart (when can one assume that it was done to remove the heart as an offering to their idols)? What are the halachot about animals on their way in/out of a house of idol worship? What about doing business with non-Jews on their way in/out of a house of worship? What about doing business with Jews on their way in/out of a house of worship?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讛讗讬 讞诇讗 讚砖讬讻专讗 讚讗专诪讗讛 讗住讜专 讚诪注专讘讬 讘讬讛 讚讜专讚讬讗 讚讬讬谉 谞住讱 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜诪讗讜爪专 砖专讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诪注专讘讬 讘讬讛 诪住专讗 住专讬

This vinegar made of Aramean beer is prohibited, as they mix in it yeast of wine used for a libation. Rav Ashi said: But vinegar from a storeroom is permitted, since if another substance is mixed with it, it would spoil over time.

讜讞专住 讛讚专讬讬谞讬 诪讗讬 讛讚专讬讬谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞专住 砖诇 讛讚专讬讬谞讜住 拽讬住专 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 拽专拽注 讘转讜诇讛 讛讬转讛 砖诇讗 注讘讚讛 讗讚诐 诪注讜诇诐 注讘讚讛 讜谞讟注讛 讜专诪讬 诇讬讛 诇讞诪专讗 讘讙讜诇驻讬 讞讬讜专讬 讜诪讬讬爪讬 诇讛讜 诇讞诪专讬讬讛讜 讜诪转讘专讜 诇讛讜 讘讞住驻讬 讜讚专讜 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪讟讜 转专讜 诇讛讜 讜砖转讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讜专讗砖讜谉 砖诇谞讜 讻砖诇讬砖讬 砖诇讛谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And Hadrianic earthenware is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is Hadrianic earthenware? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It is earthenware of Emperor Hadrian. When Rav Dimi came, he said: There was an expanse of virgin soil that no man had ever tilled before, and Hadrian tilled it and planted grapevines in it, which yielded wine of the highest quality. And they placed this wine in white jugs, and the jugs absorbed the wine. And they would break the jugs into shards and carry the shards with them, and anywhere that they stopped, they soaked these shards in water and drank the water. The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: And our first-rate wine is like the wine produced by the third usage of their Hadrianic earthenware.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇住诪讜讱 讘讛谉 讻专注讬 讛诪讟讛 专讜爪讛 讘拽讬讜诪讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 砖专讬 讗讜 讗住讜专

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha if one wishes to use such shards to support the legs of a bed with them? Is one who desires a prohibited item鈥檚 continued existence in order to use it for another matter, i.e., not for the prohibited purpose, permitted to use it or prohibited from doing so? In this case, no benefit whatsoever is derived from the wine absorbed within the shards, but the shards themselves are being used to support the bed.

转讗 砖诪注 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讚 讗住专 讜讞讚 砖专讬 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗住专

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma, as Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yo岣nan engaged in a dispute in this case: One prohibited using the shards in such a fashion, and one permitted this practice. The Gemara adds: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Sage who prohibited it.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讚专讚讜专讬谉 讜讛专讜拽讘讗讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讬讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讻谞讜住 讘讛谉 讗住讜专 讘砖转讬讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 讛注讬讚 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙讜讚讗 诇驻谞讬 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 注诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖砖转讛 诪诪谞讜 讘注讻讜 讜诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita to the Sage who deems it permitted: With regard to the jugs [dardurin] and flagons [rokva鈥檕t] of gentiles that have a Jew鈥檚 wine contained in them, one is prohibited from drinking the wine, but one is permitted to derive benefit from it. The Gemara notes that Shimon ben Guda testified before the son of Rabban Gamliel with regard to Rabban Gamliel that he drank from it in Akko, but the Sages did not concede to the ramifications of his testimony.

谞讜讚讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽驻讜住讗讬 讗住讜专 诇注砖讜转 诪讛谉 砖讟讬讞讬谉 诇讞诪讜专 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚专讜爪讛 讘拽讬讜诪讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 讜拽转谞讬 讚讗住讜专

Concerning wineskins that belong to gentiles, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai: It is prohibited to fashion from them items such as blankets to cover a donkey, as one derives benefit from them. The Gemara explains the objection: And here, in the case of wineskins used as donkey covers, he desires its continued existence for another matter, and yet the baraita teaches that it is prohibited to use it for this purpose.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 拽谞拽谞讬诐 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 诇讬转住专讜 诇诪讬讝讘谉 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 谞讜讚讜转 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 拽谞拽谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讘拽注 谞讜讚讜 讜讬讟诇谞讜 讜讬转驻专谞讜 注诇 讙讘讬 谞讜讚讜

The Gemara retorts: And according to your reasoning, it should be prohibited to sell jugs belonging to gentiles, and yet Jews sell them frequently; what is different about wineskins, from which one may not derive indirect benefit, and what is different about jugs, which may be sold for indirect benefit? The Gemara answers that Rava says: There is a rabbinic decree that one may not sell wineskins of gentiles lest his own wineskin break open, and to repair it he would take the gentile鈥檚 wineskin and sew it onto his wineskin. This would cause the wine absorbed in the gentile鈥檚 wineskin to mix with the wine of the Jew and render it forbidden.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讜爪讛 讘拽讬讜诪讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 拽谞拽谞讬诐 讚砖专讜 讗诪专 诇讱 讛转诐 诇讬转讬讛 诇讗讬住讜专讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 讛讻讗 讗讬转讬讛 诇讗讬住讜专讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that someone who desires the continued existence of a prohibited item for another matter is prohibited from using the item in this way, what is different about jugs that purchasing them is permitted? The Gemara explains that this Sage could have said to you: There, with regard to the jugs, there is no substantive prohibited entity, whereas here, in the case of Hadrianic earthenware, there is a substantive prohibited entity, as the wine is recognizable in the earthenware.

讜诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讬讬谉 讛讘讗 讘专讜拽讘讗讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讗住讜专 讘砖转讬讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 讛注讬讚 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙讜讚注 诇驻谞讬 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 注诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖砖转讛 诪诪谞讜 讘注讻讜 讜讛讜讚讜 诇讜

搂 It was stated that Shimon ben Guda provided testimony, but the Sages did not concede to its ramifications. And the Gemara raises a contradiction: With regard to wine that comes in the flagons of gentiles, one is prohibited from drinking the wine, but one is permitted to derive benefit from it. Shimon ben Guda testified before the son of Rabban Gamliel with regard to Rabban Gamliel that he drank from it in Akko, and they conceded to him. This directly contradicts the episode cited above.

诪讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讚拽讗诪专 讛转诐 讻诇 住讬讬注转讜 讗讘诇 讘谞讜 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讙讜讚讗 诇讞讜讚 讜讙讜讚注 诇讞讜讚

The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the sentence: But they did not concede to the ramifications of his testimony, which was stated there, in the first account? The meaning is that the rest of his entire company, i.e., the Sages, did not concede, but his son did concede to him. If you wish, say instead that Guda with the letter alef, as stated in the first episode, is discrete, and Guda with an ayin, in the second account, is discrete, i.e., the two incidents are not referring to the same individual.

讜注讜专讜转 诇讘讜讘讬谉 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 注讜专 诇讘讜讘 讻诇 砖拽专讜注 讻谞讙讚 讛诇讘 讜拽讚讜专 讻诪讬谉 讗专讜讘讛 讬砖 注诇讬讜 拽讜专讟 讚诐 讗住讜专

搂 The mishna further teaches: And hides with a tear opposite the heart are prohibited. The Sages taught: What is considered a hide with a tear opposite the heart? Any hide that is torn opposite the heart and incised in a shape similar to an aperture, and which has a trace of coagulated blood on it, is prohibited.

讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 拽讜专讟 讚诐 诪讜转专 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 诪诇讞讜 讗讘诇 诪诇讞讜 讗住讜专 讗讬诪讗 诪诇讞讜 讛注讘专转讜

If it does not have a trace of blood upon it, then it is permitted. Rav Huna says: They taught that a bloodless hide is permitted only in a case where the gentile did not salt it, but if he salted it, it is prohibited, as I say: Its salting removed the trace of blood.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讘讝诪谉 砖讛拽专注 砖诇讜 注讙讜诇 讗住讜专 诪砖讜讱 诪讜转专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A hide is prohibited only when the tear around its heart is circular, but if it is elongated, it is permitted. The Gemara notes: Rav Yosef says that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛诇讻讛 诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讱 诪讬谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙诪专讗 讙诪讜专 讝诪讜专转讗 转讛讗

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If one rules that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, does that mean by inference that the Rabbis disagree, or perhaps there is no dispute and everyone accepts the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? Rav Yosef said to him: What difference is there to you whether or not the Rabbis disagree? In either case the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Abaye said to him, invoking a folk expression with regard to one who learns without achieving understanding: Is it simply learn the lesson; let it be like a song? In other words, is it sufficient to simply parrot the halakhic ruling? No; it is necessary to examine an issue to understand it even if it does not yield a practical halakhic difference.

讘砖专 讛谞讻谞住 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讜转专 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讗诪专 住转诐 诪讞砖讘转 讙讜讬 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

搂 The mishna further teaches: Meat that enters the house of idol worship, before it is sacrificed, is permitted. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this? Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as if one were to posit that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, this would be difficult: Doesn鈥檛 he say: When slaughtering an animal, a gentile鈥檚 unspecified intention is to use it for idol worship? Accordingly, Rabbi Elazar would disagree with the ruling of the mishna that meat entering a house of idol worship is permitted.

讜讛讬讜爪讗 讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻讝讘讞讬 诪转讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讬讻讗 转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讛讬讗

The mishna teaches: And meat that exits the house of idol worship is prohibited because it is considered as offerings to the dead, i.e., idols. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that it is classified as such? It is because it is impossible that it is not an idolatrous offering. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion does this reflect? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬爪诪讚讜 诇讘注诇 驻注讜专 讜讬讗讻诇讜 讝讘讞讬 诪转讬诐 诪讛 诪转 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 讗祝 转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讗讛诇

As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: From where is it derived that an idolatrous offering imparts ritual impurity by means of a tent to an individual or item situated together with it under the same structure, even if they do not come into direct contact? As it is stated: 鈥淭hey joined themselves also unto Baal of Peor, and ate the offerings to the dead鈥 (Psalms 106:28). Just as a corpse imparts ritual impurity by means of a tent, so too idolatrous offerings impart ritual impurity by means of a tent. Similarly, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira would hold that just as it is prohibited to derive benefit from a corpse, so too it is prohibited to derive benefit from idolatrous offerings.

讛讛讜诇讻讬谉 诇转专驻讜转 讗住讜专讬谉 诇砖讗转 讜诇转转 注诪讛诐 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讙讜讬 讛讛讜诇讱 诇转专驻讜转 讘讛诇讬讻讛 讗住讜专 讚讗讝讬诇 讜诪讜讚讬 拽诪讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讞讝专讛 诪讜转专 诪讗讬 讚讛讜讛 讛讜讛

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to those going to a festival of idolatry, it is prohibited to engage with them in business. The Gemara notes that Shmuel says: In the case of a gentile who goes to a festival of idolatry, if he is on his way to the festival it is prohibited to engage in business with him, as he subsequently goes and offers thanks before the object of idol worship. Upon his return it is permitted, as what was, was, i.e., he has already finished his worship, and refraining from engaging in business with the gentile at this stage will accomplish nothing.

讬砖专讗诇 讛讛讜诇讱 诇转专驻讜转 讘讛诇讬讻讛 诪讜转专 讚诇诪讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讜诇讗 讗讝讬诇 讘讞讝专讛 讗住讜专 讻讬讜谉

Conversely, with regard to a Jew who goes to a festival of idolatry, if he is on his way to the festival it is permitted to engage in business with him, as perhaps he will retract from his plan and will not go. Upon his return, it is prohibited, since

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Avodah Zarah 32

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 32

讛讗讬 讞诇讗 讚砖讬讻专讗 讚讗专诪讗讛 讗住讜专 讚诪注专讘讬 讘讬讛 讚讜专讚讬讗 讚讬讬谉 谞住讱 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜诪讗讜爪专 砖专讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诪注专讘讬 讘讬讛 诪住专讗 住专讬

This vinegar made of Aramean beer is prohibited, as they mix in it yeast of wine used for a libation. Rav Ashi said: But vinegar from a storeroom is permitted, since if another substance is mixed with it, it would spoil over time.

讜讞专住 讛讚专讬讬谞讬 诪讗讬 讛讚专讬讬谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞专住 砖诇 讛讚专讬讬谞讜住 拽讬住专 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 拽专拽注 讘转讜诇讛 讛讬转讛 砖诇讗 注讘讚讛 讗讚诐 诪注讜诇诐 注讘讚讛 讜谞讟注讛 讜专诪讬 诇讬讛 诇讞诪专讗 讘讙讜诇驻讬 讞讬讜专讬 讜诪讬讬爪讬 诇讛讜 诇讞诪专讬讬讛讜 讜诪转讘专讜 诇讛讜 讘讞住驻讬 讜讚专讜 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪讟讜 转专讜 诇讛讜 讜砖转讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讜专讗砖讜谉 砖诇谞讜 讻砖诇讬砖讬 砖诇讛谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And Hadrianic earthenware is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is Hadrianic earthenware? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It is earthenware of Emperor Hadrian. When Rav Dimi came, he said: There was an expanse of virgin soil that no man had ever tilled before, and Hadrian tilled it and planted grapevines in it, which yielded wine of the highest quality. And they placed this wine in white jugs, and the jugs absorbed the wine. And they would break the jugs into shards and carry the shards with them, and anywhere that they stopped, they soaked these shards in water and drank the water. The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: And our first-rate wine is like the wine produced by the third usage of their Hadrianic earthenware.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇住诪讜讱 讘讛谉 讻专注讬 讛诪讟讛 专讜爪讛 讘拽讬讜诪讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 砖专讬 讗讜 讗住讜专

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha if one wishes to use such shards to support the legs of a bed with them? Is one who desires a prohibited item鈥檚 continued existence in order to use it for another matter, i.e., not for the prohibited purpose, permitted to use it or prohibited from doing so? In this case, no benefit whatsoever is derived from the wine absorbed within the shards, but the shards themselves are being used to support the bed.

转讗 砖诪注 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讚 讗住专 讜讞讚 砖专讬 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗住专

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma, as Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yo岣nan engaged in a dispute in this case: One prohibited using the shards in such a fashion, and one permitted this practice. The Gemara adds: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Sage who prohibited it.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讚专讚讜专讬谉 讜讛专讜拽讘讗讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讬讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讻谞讜住 讘讛谉 讗住讜专 讘砖转讬讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 讛注讬讚 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙讜讚讗 诇驻谞讬 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 注诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖砖转讛 诪诪谞讜 讘注讻讜 讜诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita to the Sage who deems it permitted: With regard to the jugs [dardurin] and flagons [rokva鈥檕t] of gentiles that have a Jew鈥檚 wine contained in them, one is prohibited from drinking the wine, but one is permitted to derive benefit from it. The Gemara notes that Shimon ben Guda testified before the son of Rabban Gamliel with regard to Rabban Gamliel that he drank from it in Akko, but the Sages did not concede to the ramifications of his testimony.

谞讜讚讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽驻讜住讗讬 讗住讜专 诇注砖讜转 诪讛谉 砖讟讬讞讬谉 诇讞诪讜专 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚专讜爪讛 讘拽讬讜诪讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 讜拽转谞讬 讚讗住讜专

Concerning wineskins that belong to gentiles, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai: It is prohibited to fashion from them items such as blankets to cover a donkey, as one derives benefit from them. The Gemara explains the objection: And here, in the case of wineskins used as donkey covers, he desires its continued existence for another matter, and yet the baraita teaches that it is prohibited to use it for this purpose.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 拽谞拽谞讬诐 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 诇讬转住专讜 诇诪讬讝讘谉 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 谞讜讚讜转 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 拽谞拽谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讘拽注 谞讜讚讜 讜讬讟诇谞讜 讜讬转驻专谞讜 注诇 讙讘讬 谞讜讚讜

The Gemara retorts: And according to your reasoning, it should be prohibited to sell jugs belonging to gentiles, and yet Jews sell them frequently; what is different about wineskins, from which one may not derive indirect benefit, and what is different about jugs, which may be sold for indirect benefit? The Gemara answers that Rava says: There is a rabbinic decree that one may not sell wineskins of gentiles lest his own wineskin break open, and to repair it he would take the gentile鈥檚 wineskin and sew it onto his wineskin. This would cause the wine absorbed in the gentile鈥檚 wineskin to mix with the wine of the Jew and render it forbidden.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讜爪讛 讘拽讬讜诪讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 拽谞拽谞讬诐 讚砖专讜 讗诪专 诇讱 讛转诐 诇讬转讬讛 诇讗讬住讜专讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 讛讻讗 讗讬转讬讛 诇讗讬住讜专讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that someone who desires the continued existence of a prohibited item for another matter is prohibited from using the item in this way, what is different about jugs that purchasing them is permitted? The Gemara explains that this Sage could have said to you: There, with regard to the jugs, there is no substantive prohibited entity, whereas here, in the case of Hadrianic earthenware, there is a substantive prohibited entity, as the wine is recognizable in the earthenware.

讜诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讬讬谉 讛讘讗 讘专讜拽讘讗讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讗住讜专 讘砖转讬讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 讛注讬讚 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙讜讚注 诇驻谞讬 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 注诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖砖转讛 诪诪谞讜 讘注讻讜 讜讛讜讚讜 诇讜

搂 It was stated that Shimon ben Guda provided testimony, but the Sages did not concede to its ramifications. And the Gemara raises a contradiction: With regard to wine that comes in the flagons of gentiles, one is prohibited from drinking the wine, but one is permitted to derive benefit from it. Shimon ben Guda testified before the son of Rabban Gamliel with regard to Rabban Gamliel that he drank from it in Akko, and they conceded to him. This directly contradicts the episode cited above.

诪讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讚拽讗诪专 讛转诐 讻诇 住讬讬注转讜 讗讘诇 讘谞讜 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讙讜讚讗 诇讞讜讚 讜讙讜讚注 诇讞讜讚

The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the sentence: But they did not concede to the ramifications of his testimony, which was stated there, in the first account? The meaning is that the rest of his entire company, i.e., the Sages, did not concede, but his son did concede to him. If you wish, say instead that Guda with the letter alef, as stated in the first episode, is discrete, and Guda with an ayin, in the second account, is discrete, i.e., the two incidents are not referring to the same individual.

讜注讜专讜转 诇讘讜讘讬谉 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 注讜专 诇讘讜讘 讻诇 砖拽专讜注 讻谞讙讚 讛诇讘 讜拽讚讜专 讻诪讬谉 讗专讜讘讛 讬砖 注诇讬讜 拽讜专讟 讚诐 讗住讜专

搂 The mishna further teaches: And hides with a tear opposite the heart are prohibited. The Sages taught: What is considered a hide with a tear opposite the heart? Any hide that is torn opposite the heart and incised in a shape similar to an aperture, and which has a trace of coagulated blood on it, is prohibited.

讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 拽讜专讟 讚诐 诪讜转专 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 诪诇讞讜 讗讘诇 诪诇讞讜 讗住讜专 讗讬诪讗 诪诇讞讜 讛注讘专转讜

If it does not have a trace of blood upon it, then it is permitted. Rav Huna says: They taught that a bloodless hide is permitted only in a case where the gentile did not salt it, but if he salted it, it is prohibited, as I say: Its salting removed the trace of blood.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讘讝诪谉 砖讛拽专注 砖诇讜 注讙讜诇 讗住讜专 诪砖讜讱 诪讜转专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A hide is prohibited only when the tear around its heart is circular, but if it is elongated, it is permitted. The Gemara notes: Rav Yosef says that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛诇讻讛 诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讱 诪讬谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙诪专讗 讙诪讜专 讝诪讜专转讗 转讛讗

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If one rules that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, does that mean by inference that the Rabbis disagree, or perhaps there is no dispute and everyone accepts the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? Rav Yosef said to him: What difference is there to you whether or not the Rabbis disagree? In either case the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Abaye said to him, invoking a folk expression with regard to one who learns without achieving understanding: Is it simply learn the lesson; let it be like a song? In other words, is it sufficient to simply parrot the halakhic ruling? No; it is necessary to examine an issue to understand it even if it does not yield a practical halakhic difference.

讘砖专 讛谞讻谞住 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讜转专 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讗诪专 住转诐 诪讞砖讘转 讙讜讬 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

搂 The mishna further teaches: Meat that enters the house of idol worship, before it is sacrificed, is permitted. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this? Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as if one were to posit that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, this would be difficult: Doesn鈥檛 he say: When slaughtering an animal, a gentile鈥檚 unspecified intention is to use it for idol worship? Accordingly, Rabbi Elazar would disagree with the ruling of the mishna that meat entering a house of idol worship is permitted.

讜讛讬讜爪讗 讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻讝讘讞讬 诪转讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讬讻讗 转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讛讬讗

The mishna teaches: And meat that exits the house of idol worship is prohibited because it is considered as offerings to the dead, i.e., idols. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that it is classified as such? It is because it is impossible that it is not an idolatrous offering. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion does this reflect? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬爪诪讚讜 诇讘注诇 驻注讜专 讜讬讗讻诇讜 讝讘讞讬 诪转讬诐 诪讛 诪转 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇 讗祝 转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讘讗讛诇

As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: From where is it derived that an idolatrous offering imparts ritual impurity by means of a tent to an individual or item situated together with it under the same structure, even if they do not come into direct contact? As it is stated: 鈥淭hey joined themselves also unto Baal of Peor, and ate the offerings to the dead鈥 (Psalms 106:28). Just as a corpse imparts ritual impurity by means of a tent, so too idolatrous offerings impart ritual impurity by means of a tent. Similarly, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira would hold that just as it is prohibited to derive benefit from a corpse, so too it is prohibited to derive benefit from idolatrous offerings.

讛讛讜诇讻讬谉 诇转专驻讜转 讗住讜专讬谉 诇砖讗转 讜诇转转 注诪讛诐 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讙讜讬 讛讛讜诇讱 诇转专驻讜转 讘讛诇讬讻讛 讗住讜专 讚讗讝讬诇 讜诪讜讚讬 拽诪讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讞讝专讛 诪讜转专 诪讗讬 讚讛讜讛 讛讜讛

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to those going to a festival of idolatry, it is prohibited to engage with them in business. The Gemara notes that Shmuel says: In the case of a gentile who goes to a festival of idolatry, if he is on his way to the festival it is prohibited to engage in business with him, as he subsequently goes and offers thanks before the object of idol worship. Upon his return it is permitted, as what was, was, i.e., he has already finished his worship, and refraining from engaging in business with the gentile at this stage will accomplish nothing.

讬砖专讗诇 讛讛讜诇讱 诇转专驻讜转 讘讛诇讬讻讛 诪讜转专 讚诇诪讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讜诇讗 讗讝讬诇 讘讞讝专讛 讗住讜专 讻讬讜谉

Conversely, with regard to a Jew who goes to a festival of idolatry, if he is on his way to the festival it is permitted to engage in business with him, as perhaps he will retract from his plan and will not go. Upon his return, it is prohibited, since

Scroll To Top