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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 18, 2018 | 讙壮 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 Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Avodah Zarah 34

Do glazed earthenware vessels absorb? To what extent? In what situation? Can it be kashered? Three questions were asked of Rabbi akiva and he didn’t know the answer to them and went to the beit midrash and found the answers, one of them related to the question of clay jars of聽non-Jews. Grape seeds and grape peels, and fish stew (morayis) mentinoed in the mishna are discussed and the issues relating to them. Why are the cheeses from Onaiki聽forbidden? Reish聽Lakish brings an answer but his answer is questioned based on a seemingly contradictory statement he made in another context?


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

诇讛讜 讗谞讗 讞讝讬谞讗 诇讛讜 讚诪讚讬讬转讬 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诪讚讬讬转讬 讜讚讗讬 讘诇注讬 讜讗住讬专讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛转讜专讛 讛注讬讚讛 注诇 讻诇讬 讞专住 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讜驻谞讜 诇注讜诇诐

to them: I observe that they sweat, i.e., they exude liquid from their exterior. And since they sweat, they certainly absorb, and are therefore prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they cannot be rendered permitted by purging with hot water? It is because the Torah attested with regard to an earthenware vessel that substances absorbed in it are never expelled from its walls.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讬讬谉 谞住讱 讚讚专砖 诇讛讜 诪专讬诪专 讻讜诇讛讜 诪讗谞讬 讚拽讜谞讬讗 砖专讬

The Gemara reiterates its question: Mareimar ruled that glazed earthenware absorbs leavened bread permanently, but he did not rule likewise with regard to wine. But in what way is leavened bread different from wine used for an idolatrous libation? Why is it that Mareimar taught with regard to them: All glazed earthenware vessels are permitted, even if they have contained wine of gentiles?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讞诪抓 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讚专讘谞谉 讜讛讗 讻诇 讚转拽讜谉 专讘谞谉 讻注讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转拽讜谉 讝讛 转砖诪讬砖讜 讘讞诪讬谉 讜讝讛 转砖诪讬砖讜 讘爪讜谞谉

The Gemara adds: And if you would say that these cases are different, as leavened bread is prohibited by Torah law whereas wine used for a libation is prohibited by rabbinic law, that is difficult: But there is a principle that all ordinances that the Sages instituted, they instituted them parallel to Torah law. Although this wine is prohibited by rabbinic law, it is subject to the same halakhot as leavened bread. The Gemara answers: This one鈥檚 use is with hot substances, and that one鈥檚 use is with cold substances. Wine is drunk while it is cold and is therefore absorbed to a lesser extent than leavened bread, which is often cooked in the vessel.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讙讬谞讝拽 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪转注谞讬谉 诇砖注讜转 讗讜 讗讬谉 诪转注谞讬谉 诇砖注讜转 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讚讬讛 拽谞拽谞讬诐 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讗讜 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讘诪讛 砖讬诪砖 诪砖讛 讻诇 砖讘注转 讬诪讬 讛诪诇讜讗讬诐 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讚讬讛

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Akiva happened to come to the city of Ginzak, whose residents asked him three questions to which he did not know the answer: First, does one fast for hours, or does one not fast for hours? The answer to the question was not available to Rabbi Akiva. Second, are clay jars that belong to gentiles permanently prohibited, or can they be rendered permitted? The answer was not available to him. Third, in what garments did Moses serve all seven days of the Tabernacle鈥檚 inauguration, as acting priest when Aaron and his sons were initiated into the priesthood? Moses presumably did not wear the priestly vestments, as he himself was not a priest. Once again, the answer was not available to him.

讗转讗 砖讗诇 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗诪专讬 讛诇讻转讗 诪转注谞讬谉 诇砖注讜转 讜讗诐 讛砖诇讬诐 诪转驻诇诇 转驻诇转 转注谞讬转 讜讛诇讻转讗 拽谞拽谞讬诐 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 诪讜转专讬谉 讘诪讛 砖讬诪砖 诪砖讛 砖讘注转 讬诪讬 讛诪诇讜讗讬诐 讘讞诇讜拽 诇讘谉 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪转谞讬 讘讞诇讜拽 诇讘谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讬诪专讗

Rabbi Akiva came and asked these questions in the study hall. They said to him: The halakha is that one fasts for hours, and if he completed the fast he prays the prayer of a fast. And the halakha is that the jars that belong to gentiles are permitted after they have not been used for twelve months. Finally, in what garments did Moses serve during the seven days of inauguration? He did not serve in his own clothes, nor in the regular priestly vestments, but in a special white cloak. Rav Kahana teaches: Moses served in a white cloak without a hem.

讛讞专爪谞讬诐 讜讛讝讙讬诐 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讞专爪谞讬诐 讜讛讝讙讬诐 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 诇讞讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讬讘砖讬诐 诪讜转专讬诐 讛讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讞讬谉 讜讛讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讬讘砖讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讞讬谉 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讬讘砖讬诐 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖

搂 The mishna teaches that residual grape seeds and grape skins that belong to gentiles are prohibited. The Sages taught: Moist grape seeds and grape skins that belong to gentiles are prohibited, but dry ones are permitted. The Gemara asks: Which are considered moist and which are considered dry? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Grape residues are considered moist for all of the first twelve months after the grapes were pressed, and dry after the first twelve months.

讗转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻砖讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讛谞讗讛 讻砖讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 诪讜转专讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讻讬诇讛

It was stated that Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: When these grape residues are prohibited, one is prohibited even from deriving benefit from them. When they are permitted, they are permitted even with regard to consumption.

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛讗讬 讚讜专讚讬讗 讚讞诪专讗 讚讗专诪讗讬 讘转专 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 砖专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛谞讬 讙讜诇驻讬 讘转专 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 砖专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 讛谞讬

Rav Zevid says: With regard to these yeasts produced from the wine of Arameans, after twelve months of the year they are permitted. Rav 岣viva, son of Rava, says: With regard to these jugs that belong to gentiles, after twelve months of the year they are permitted. Rav 岣viva says: With regard to these

讗讘讟讗 讚讟讬讬注讬 讘转专 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 砖专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讛谞讬 驻讜专爪谞讬 讚讗专诪讗讬 讘转专 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 砖专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛谞讬 讙讜诇驻讬 砖讞讬诪讬 讜讗讜讻诪讬 讘转专 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 砖专讬

canteens belonging to Arabs, after twelve months of the year they are permitted. Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, says: With regard to these Aramean grape pits, after twelve months of the year they are permitted. Rav A岣, son of Rava, says: With regard to these brown and black jugs, after twelve months of the year they are permitted.

讜讛诪讜专讬讬住 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜专讬讬住 讗讜诪谉 诪讜转专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗祝 讞讬诇拽 讗讜诪谉 诪讜转专

搂 The mishna teaches that fish stew is prohibited. The Sages taught: Fish stew prepared by an expert is permitted, as professionals do not mix wine in it. Rabbi Yehuda ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel: 岣lak prepared by an expert is also permitted.

转谞讬 讗讘讬诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪讜专讬讬住 讗讜诪谉 诪讜转专 讛讜讗 转谞讬 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻注诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 诪讜转专 砖诇讬砖讬 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 驻注诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 讚谞驻讬砖 砖讜诪谞讬讬讛讜 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬专诪讬 讘讛讜 讞诪专讗 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 专诪讜 讘讛讜 讞诪专讗

Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, would teach: Fish stew prepared by an expert is permitted. He would teach this baraita that he received through tradition, and then he would say its explanation: The first time and the second time that fish stew is prepared from a fish, it is permitted, but the third time it is prohibited. What is the reason? With regard to the first time and the second time, as the fish鈥檚 oil is plentiful, there is no need to place wine in it. From this point forward, one might place wine in it to compensate for the insufficient fish oil.

讛讛讜讗 讗专讘讗 讚诪讜专讬讬住讗 讚讗转讬 诇谞诪讬诇讗 讚注讻讜 讗讜转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讚诪谉 注讻讜 谞讟讜专讬 讘讛讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 注讚 讛讗讬讚谞讗 诪讗谉 谞讟专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讚 讛讗讬讚谞讗 诇诪讗谉 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诪注专讘讬 讘讬讛 讞诪专讗 拽讬住转讗 讚诪讜专讬讬住 讘诇讜诪讗 拽讬住转讗 讚讞诪专讗 讘讗专讘注讛 诇讜诪讬

The Gemara relates that there was a certain boat carrying fish stew which came to the port of Akko, and Rabbi Abba from Akko placed guards over it to ensure that no wine would be added to the fish stew. Rava said to him: Until now, who guarded it? Rabbi Abba said to him: Until now, for what should we be concerned? If the problem is due to the concern that they mix wine in it, that concern is unfounded, as in the place where this fish stew was produced, a kista of fish stew sells for one luma while a kista of wine sells for four luma. Since wine was more expensive than fish stew, there is no reason to suspect that wine was added to the stew before it reached Akko, where fish stew is sold at a higher price than wine.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚诇诪讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚爪讜专 讗转讜 讚砖讜讬 讞诪专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 注讬拽讜诇讬 讜驻砖讜专讬 讗讬讻讗

Upon hearing this, Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: But perhaps they came by means of Tyre, where wine is inexpensive and therefore likely to be added to the fish stew to increase its volume. Rabbi Zeira sad to him: There, by way of Tyre, there are impediments and melted snow, which make travel very difficult, and the boat would not have sailed through that route.

讜讙讘讬谞转 讘讬转 讗讜谞讬讬拽讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗住专讜 讙讘讬谞转 讗讜谞讬讬拽讬 诪驻谞讬 砖专讜讘 注讙诇讬诐 砖诇 讗讜转讛 注讬专 谞砖讞讟讬谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 专讜讘 注讙诇讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬注讜讟 谞诪讬 讚讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讞讬讬砖 诇诪讬注讜讟讗

搂 The mishna teaches: And cheese of Beit Unyaki is prohibited. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: For what reason did they prohibit deriving benefit from the cheese of Beit Unyaki? It is because most of the calves of that city are slaughtered for the sake of idol worship, and the milk curdled in their stomach contents is prohibited. The Gemara asks: Why does this explanation specifically mention most calves? Even if a minority of calves were slaughtered for idol worship, this would also be reason enough, as Rabbi Meir, who is the tanna of unattributed opinions in a mishna, is generally concerned about a minority.

讗讬 讗诪专转 专讜讘 讗讬讻讗 诪讬注讜讟

The Gemara explains: If you say that the reason for the prohibition is due to a majority of calves slaughtered for idol worship, then despite the fact that the majority of animals in general used to curdle cheese are not slaughtered for idolatrous purposes, there are nevertheless a minority of animals altogether, i.e., the majority of calves, that are, and this minority of calves are cause for concern according to Rabbi Meir.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讬注讜讟 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 专讜讘 注讙诇讬诐 讚讗讬谉 谞砖讞讟讬谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 砖讗专 讘讛诪讜转 讚讗讬谉 谞砖讞讟讬谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讬注讜讟讗 讚诪讬注讜讟讗 讜诪讬注讜讟讗 讚诪讬注讜讟讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara continues: But if you say that Rabbi Meir prohibits the cheese due to a minority of calves, since there are a majority of calves that are not slaughtered for idol worship, and there are also a wider majority of the remaining animals used to curdle milk that are not slaughtered for idol worship at all, this would constitute a minority of a minority, and Rabbi Meir is not concerned for a minority of a minority. Since only a particular minority of animals used to curdle cheese, i.e., calves, are ever slaughtered for idolatry, and even within that group, only a minority are actually slaughtered, even Rabbi Meir would not be concerned.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 讗诇讬拽讬诐 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讻讬 谞砖讞讟讬谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讜讛讗 讗转 讛讜讗 讚砖专讬

Rabbi Shimon bar Elyakim said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Even when calves are slaughtered for the sake of idol worship, what of it? But are you not the one who permits animals slaughtered with idolatrous intentions?

讚讗转诪专 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 诇讝专讜拽 讚诪讛 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诇讛拽讟讬专 讞诇讘讛 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗住讜专讛 拽住讘专 诪讞砖讘讬谉 诪注讘讜讚讛 诇注讘讜讚讛 讜讬诇驻讬谞谉 讞讜抓 诪驻谞讬诐

As it was stated: The halakha with regard to one who slaughters an animal in order to sprinkle its blood for the sake of idol worship, or to burn its prohibited fat for idol worship, is subject to a dispute between amora鈥檌m. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Deriving benefit from the animal is prohibited, as he holds that one can intend from one rite to another rite. In other words, idolatrous intent while slaughtering an animal renders it prohibited, even if the intention pertains not to the slaughter itself but to sprinkling the blood or burning the fat. And he maintains that we derive halakhot concerning intent outside the Temple from the halakhot concerning intent inside the Temple. Since such intentions at the time of slaughter render an animal prohibited within the Temple, they render it prohibited outside the Temple as well, with regard to idol worship.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讜转专转

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Deriving benefit from the animal is permitted. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish holds that slaughtering an animal for the sake of idol worship does not render it prohibited. This contradicts his previous assertion that it is prohibited to derive benefit from calves that have been slaughtered for the sake of idol worship.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转专诪讬谞讱 砖注转讱 讘讗讜诪专 讘讙诪专 讝讘讬讞讛 讛讜讗 注讜讘讚讛

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to Rabbi Shimon bar Elyakim: May your fortune be auspicious; the case here is where one says that he is worshipping the idol at the conclusion of the slaughter. Since the act of slaughtering itself is an act of worship, the calf is rendered prohibited immediately.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讗诇 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪拽讚砖 讘驻专砖 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 诪拽讜讚砖转 讘驻专砖 注讙诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda said: Rabbi Yishmael asked Rabbi Yehoshua a series of questions. The Gemara notes that Rav A岣devoi says that Rav says: With regard to one who betroths a woman by giving her the excrement of an ox that is to be stoned, the woman is betrothed, provided that the excrement was worth one peruta. Although no benefit may be derived from the ox itself, it is permitted to derive benefit from its excrement. But if one attempts to betroth her with the excrement of calves that were used as offerings of idol worship, she is not betrothed, as even their excrement is forbidden. The Gemara remarks: If you wish, propose logical reasoning, and if you wish, cite a verse to substantiate this claim.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 讙讘讬 注讙诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘谞驻讞讬讛 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘谞驻讞讬讛

The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, propose logical reasoning: With regard to calves used for idol worship, a calf鈥檚 additional girth derived from the excrement stored in its body is satisfactory for the worshipper, as fatter animals are more impressive offerings. Since the excrement is part of the offering, it is also forbidden. But with regard to an ox that is to be stoned, its additional girth is not satisfactory for the owner, as he gains nothing from it.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 诇讗 讬讚讘拽 讘讬讚讱 诪讗讜诪讛 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 住拽讜诇 讬住拽诇 讛砖讜专 讜诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗转 讘砖专讜 讘砖专讜 讗住讜专 讛讗 驻专砖讜 诪讜转专转

If you wish, cite a verse: It is written here, with regard to an animal used for idol worship: 鈥淎nd there shall cleave naught of the dedicated thing to your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:18), which indicates that the entire animal is forbidden. And it is written there, with regard to an ox to be stoned: 鈥淭he ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten鈥 (Exodus 21:28). This teaches that its flesh is forbidden, but its excrement is permitted.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 转谞谞讛讬 诪讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讘拽讬讘转 谞讘讬诇讛 讜拽讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 讜讛诇讗 拽讬讘转 注讜诇讛 讞诪讜专讛 诪拽讬讘转 谞讘讬诇讛

Rava said: We learned both of these halakhot from the mishna. He elaborates: From the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Yishmael that cheese of gentiles is prohibited because they curdle it in the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal carcass, one can derive the halakha of the excrement of an ox that is to be stoned. The reason is that Rabbi Yishmael responded to Rabbi Yehoshua: But isn鈥檛 the stomach of a burnt-offering subject to a more stringent halakha than the stomach of an unslaughtered animal carcass, and yet although one may not derive benefit from the stomach of a burnt-offering ab initio, if one did derive benefit from it he is not liable for misuse of property consecrated to the Temple?

  • 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 Shlemah 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 34

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 34

诇讛讜 讗谞讗 讞讝讬谞讗 诇讛讜 讚诪讚讬讬转讬 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诪讚讬讬转讬 讜讚讗讬 讘诇注讬 讜讗住讬专讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛转讜专讛 讛注讬讚讛 注诇 讻诇讬 讞专住 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讜驻谞讜 诇注讜诇诐

to them: I observe that they sweat, i.e., they exude liquid from their exterior. And since they sweat, they certainly absorb, and are therefore prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they cannot be rendered permitted by purging with hot water? It is because the Torah attested with regard to an earthenware vessel that substances absorbed in it are never expelled from its walls.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讬讬谉 谞住讱 讚讚专砖 诇讛讜 诪专讬诪专 讻讜诇讛讜 诪讗谞讬 讚拽讜谞讬讗 砖专讬

The Gemara reiterates its question: Mareimar ruled that glazed earthenware absorbs leavened bread permanently, but he did not rule likewise with regard to wine. But in what way is leavened bread different from wine used for an idolatrous libation? Why is it that Mareimar taught with regard to them: All glazed earthenware vessels are permitted, even if they have contained wine of gentiles?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讞诪抓 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讚专讘谞谉 讜讛讗 讻诇 讚转拽讜谉 专讘谞谉 讻注讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转拽讜谉 讝讛 转砖诪讬砖讜 讘讞诪讬谉 讜讝讛 转砖诪讬砖讜 讘爪讜谞谉

The Gemara adds: And if you would say that these cases are different, as leavened bread is prohibited by Torah law whereas wine used for a libation is prohibited by rabbinic law, that is difficult: But there is a principle that all ordinances that the Sages instituted, they instituted them parallel to Torah law. Although this wine is prohibited by rabbinic law, it is subject to the same halakhot as leavened bread. The Gemara answers: This one鈥檚 use is with hot substances, and that one鈥檚 use is with cold substances. Wine is drunk while it is cold and is therefore absorbed to a lesser extent than leavened bread, which is often cooked in the vessel.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讙讬谞讝拽 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪转注谞讬谉 诇砖注讜转 讗讜 讗讬谉 诪转注谞讬谉 诇砖注讜转 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讚讬讛 拽谞拽谞讬诐 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讗讜 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讘诪讛 砖讬诪砖 诪砖讛 讻诇 砖讘注转 讬诪讬 讛诪诇讜讗讬诐 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讚讬讛

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Akiva happened to come to the city of Ginzak, whose residents asked him three questions to which he did not know the answer: First, does one fast for hours, or does one not fast for hours? The answer to the question was not available to Rabbi Akiva. Second, are clay jars that belong to gentiles permanently prohibited, or can they be rendered permitted? The answer was not available to him. Third, in what garments did Moses serve all seven days of the Tabernacle鈥檚 inauguration, as acting priest when Aaron and his sons were initiated into the priesthood? Moses presumably did not wear the priestly vestments, as he himself was not a priest. Once again, the answer was not available to him.

讗转讗 砖讗诇 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗诪专讬 讛诇讻转讗 诪转注谞讬谉 诇砖注讜转 讜讗诐 讛砖诇讬诐 诪转驻诇诇 转驻诇转 转注谞讬转 讜讛诇讻转讗 拽谞拽谞讬诐 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 诪讜转专讬谉 讘诪讛 砖讬诪砖 诪砖讛 砖讘注转 讬诪讬 讛诪诇讜讗讬诐 讘讞诇讜拽 诇讘谉 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪转谞讬 讘讞诇讜拽 诇讘谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讬诪专讗

Rabbi Akiva came and asked these questions in the study hall. They said to him: The halakha is that one fasts for hours, and if he completed the fast he prays the prayer of a fast. And the halakha is that the jars that belong to gentiles are permitted after they have not been used for twelve months. Finally, in what garments did Moses serve during the seven days of inauguration? He did not serve in his own clothes, nor in the regular priestly vestments, but in a special white cloak. Rav Kahana teaches: Moses served in a white cloak without a hem.

讛讞专爪谞讬诐 讜讛讝讙讬诐 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讞专爪谞讬诐 讜讛讝讙讬诐 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 诇讞讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讬讘砖讬诐 诪讜转专讬诐 讛讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讞讬谉 讜讛讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讬讘砖讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讞讬谉 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讬讘砖讬诐 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖

搂 The mishna teaches that residual grape seeds and grape skins that belong to gentiles are prohibited. The Sages taught: Moist grape seeds and grape skins that belong to gentiles are prohibited, but dry ones are permitted. The Gemara asks: Which are considered moist and which are considered dry? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Grape residues are considered moist for all of the first twelve months after the grapes were pressed, and dry after the first twelve months.

讗转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻砖讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讛谞讗讛 讻砖讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 诪讜转专讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讻讬诇讛

It was stated that Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: When these grape residues are prohibited, one is prohibited even from deriving benefit from them. When they are permitted, they are permitted even with regard to consumption.

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛讗讬 讚讜专讚讬讗 讚讞诪专讗 讚讗专诪讗讬 讘转专 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 砖专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛谞讬 讙讜诇驻讬 讘转专 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 砖专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 讛谞讬

Rav Zevid says: With regard to these yeasts produced from the wine of Arameans, after twelve months of the year they are permitted. Rav 岣viva, son of Rava, says: With regard to these jugs that belong to gentiles, after twelve months of the year they are permitted. Rav 岣viva says: With regard to these

讗讘讟讗 讚讟讬讬注讬 讘转专 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 砖专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讛谞讬 驻讜专爪谞讬 讚讗专诪讗讬 讘转专 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 砖专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛谞讬 讙讜诇驻讬 砖讞讬诪讬 讜讗讜讻诪讬 讘转专 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 砖专讬

canteens belonging to Arabs, after twelve months of the year they are permitted. Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, says: With regard to these Aramean grape pits, after twelve months of the year they are permitted. Rav A岣, son of Rava, says: With regard to these brown and black jugs, after twelve months of the year they are permitted.

讜讛诪讜专讬讬住 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜专讬讬住 讗讜诪谉 诪讜转专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗祝 讞讬诇拽 讗讜诪谉 诪讜转专

搂 The mishna teaches that fish stew is prohibited. The Sages taught: Fish stew prepared by an expert is permitted, as professionals do not mix wine in it. Rabbi Yehuda ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel: 岣lak prepared by an expert is also permitted.

转谞讬 讗讘讬诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪讜专讬讬住 讗讜诪谉 诪讜转专 讛讜讗 转谞讬 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻注诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 诪讜转专 砖诇讬砖讬 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 驻注诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 讚谞驻讬砖 砖讜诪谞讬讬讛讜 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬专诪讬 讘讛讜 讞诪专讗 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 专诪讜 讘讛讜 讞诪专讗

Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, would teach: Fish stew prepared by an expert is permitted. He would teach this baraita that he received through tradition, and then he would say its explanation: The first time and the second time that fish stew is prepared from a fish, it is permitted, but the third time it is prohibited. What is the reason? With regard to the first time and the second time, as the fish鈥檚 oil is plentiful, there is no need to place wine in it. From this point forward, one might place wine in it to compensate for the insufficient fish oil.

讛讛讜讗 讗专讘讗 讚诪讜专讬讬住讗 讚讗转讬 诇谞诪讬诇讗 讚注讻讜 讗讜转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讚诪谉 注讻讜 谞讟讜专讬 讘讛讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 注讚 讛讗讬讚谞讗 诪讗谉 谞讟专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讚 讛讗讬讚谞讗 诇诪讗谉 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诪注专讘讬 讘讬讛 讞诪专讗 拽讬住转讗 讚诪讜专讬讬住 讘诇讜诪讗 拽讬住转讗 讚讞诪专讗 讘讗专讘注讛 诇讜诪讬

The Gemara relates that there was a certain boat carrying fish stew which came to the port of Akko, and Rabbi Abba from Akko placed guards over it to ensure that no wine would be added to the fish stew. Rava said to him: Until now, who guarded it? Rabbi Abba said to him: Until now, for what should we be concerned? If the problem is due to the concern that they mix wine in it, that concern is unfounded, as in the place where this fish stew was produced, a kista of fish stew sells for one luma while a kista of wine sells for four luma. Since wine was more expensive than fish stew, there is no reason to suspect that wine was added to the stew before it reached Akko, where fish stew is sold at a higher price than wine.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚诇诪讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚爪讜专 讗转讜 讚砖讜讬 讞诪专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 注讬拽讜诇讬 讜驻砖讜专讬 讗讬讻讗

Upon hearing this, Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: But perhaps they came by means of Tyre, where wine is inexpensive and therefore likely to be added to the fish stew to increase its volume. Rabbi Zeira sad to him: There, by way of Tyre, there are impediments and melted snow, which make travel very difficult, and the boat would not have sailed through that route.

讜讙讘讬谞转 讘讬转 讗讜谞讬讬拽讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗住专讜 讙讘讬谞转 讗讜谞讬讬拽讬 诪驻谞讬 砖专讜讘 注讙诇讬诐 砖诇 讗讜转讛 注讬专 谞砖讞讟讬谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 专讜讘 注讙诇讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬注讜讟 谞诪讬 讚讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讞讬讬砖 诇诪讬注讜讟讗

搂 The mishna teaches: And cheese of Beit Unyaki is prohibited. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: For what reason did they prohibit deriving benefit from the cheese of Beit Unyaki? It is because most of the calves of that city are slaughtered for the sake of idol worship, and the milk curdled in their stomach contents is prohibited. The Gemara asks: Why does this explanation specifically mention most calves? Even if a minority of calves were slaughtered for idol worship, this would also be reason enough, as Rabbi Meir, who is the tanna of unattributed opinions in a mishna, is generally concerned about a minority.

讗讬 讗诪专转 专讜讘 讗讬讻讗 诪讬注讜讟

The Gemara explains: If you say that the reason for the prohibition is due to a majority of calves slaughtered for idol worship, then despite the fact that the majority of animals in general used to curdle cheese are not slaughtered for idolatrous purposes, there are nevertheless a minority of animals altogether, i.e., the majority of calves, that are, and this minority of calves are cause for concern according to Rabbi Meir.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讬注讜讟 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 专讜讘 注讙诇讬诐 讚讗讬谉 谞砖讞讟讬谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 砖讗专 讘讛诪讜转 讚讗讬谉 谞砖讞讟讬谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讬注讜讟讗 讚诪讬注讜讟讗 讜诪讬注讜讟讗 讚诪讬注讜讟讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara continues: But if you say that Rabbi Meir prohibits the cheese due to a minority of calves, since there are a majority of calves that are not slaughtered for idol worship, and there are also a wider majority of the remaining animals used to curdle milk that are not slaughtered for idol worship at all, this would constitute a minority of a minority, and Rabbi Meir is not concerned for a minority of a minority. Since only a particular minority of animals used to curdle cheese, i.e., calves, are ever slaughtered for idolatry, and even within that group, only a minority are actually slaughtered, even Rabbi Meir would not be concerned.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 讗诇讬拽讬诐 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讻讬 谞砖讞讟讬谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讜讛讗 讗转 讛讜讗 讚砖专讬

Rabbi Shimon bar Elyakim said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Even when calves are slaughtered for the sake of idol worship, what of it? But are you not the one who permits animals slaughtered with idolatrous intentions?

讚讗转诪专 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 诇讝专讜拽 讚诪讛 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诇讛拽讟讬专 讞诇讘讛 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗住讜专讛 拽住讘专 诪讞砖讘讬谉 诪注讘讜讚讛 诇注讘讜讚讛 讜讬诇驻讬谞谉 讞讜抓 诪驻谞讬诐

As it was stated: The halakha with regard to one who slaughters an animal in order to sprinkle its blood for the sake of idol worship, or to burn its prohibited fat for idol worship, is subject to a dispute between amora鈥檌m. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Deriving benefit from the animal is prohibited, as he holds that one can intend from one rite to another rite. In other words, idolatrous intent while slaughtering an animal renders it prohibited, even if the intention pertains not to the slaughter itself but to sprinkling the blood or burning the fat. And he maintains that we derive halakhot concerning intent outside the Temple from the halakhot concerning intent inside the Temple. Since such intentions at the time of slaughter render an animal prohibited within the Temple, they render it prohibited outside the Temple as well, with regard to idol worship.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讜转专转

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Deriving benefit from the animal is permitted. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish holds that slaughtering an animal for the sake of idol worship does not render it prohibited. This contradicts his previous assertion that it is prohibited to derive benefit from calves that have been slaughtered for the sake of idol worship.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转专诪讬谞讱 砖注转讱 讘讗讜诪专 讘讙诪专 讝讘讬讞讛 讛讜讗 注讜讘讚讛

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to Rabbi Shimon bar Elyakim: May your fortune be auspicious; the case here is where one says that he is worshipping the idol at the conclusion of the slaughter. Since the act of slaughtering itself is an act of worship, the calf is rendered prohibited immediately.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讗诇 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪拽讚砖 讘驻专砖 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 诪拽讜讚砖转 讘驻专砖 注讙诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda said: Rabbi Yishmael asked Rabbi Yehoshua a series of questions. The Gemara notes that Rav A岣devoi says that Rav says: With regard to one who betroths a woman by giving her the excrement of an ox that is to be stoned, the woman is betrothed, provided that the excrement was worth one peruta. Although no benefit may be derived from the ox itself, it is permitted to derive benefit from its excrement. But if one attempts to betroth her with the excrement of calves that were used as offerings of idol worship, she is not betrothed, as even their excrement is forbidden. The Gemara remarks: If you wish, propose logical reasoning, and if you wish, cite a verse to substantiate this claim.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 讙讘讬 注讙诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘谞驻讞讬讛 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘谞驻讞讬讛

The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, propose logical reasoning: With regard to calves used for idol worship, a calf鈥檚 additional girth derived from the excrement stored in its body is satisfactory for the worshipper, as fatter animals are more impressive offerings. Since the excrement is part of the offering, it is also forbidden. But with regard to an ox that is to be stoned, its additional girth is not satisfactory for the owner, as he gains nothing from it.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 诇讗 讬讚讘拽 讘讬讚讱 诪讗讜诪讛 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 住拽讜诇 讬住拽诇 讛砖讜专 讜诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗转 讘砖专讜 讘砖专讜 讗住讜专 讛讗 驻专砖讜 诪讜转专转

If you wish, cite a verse: It is written here, with regard to an animal used for idol worship: 鈥淎nd there shall cleave naught of the dedicated thing to your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:18), which indicates that the entire animal is forbidden. And it is written there, with regard to an ox to be stoned: 鈥淭he ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten鈥 (Exodus 21:28). This teaches that its flesh is forbidden, but its excrement is permitted.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 转谞谞讛讬 诪讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讘拽讬讘转 谞讘讬诇讛 讜拽讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 讜讛诇讗 拽讬讘转 注讜诇讛 讞诪讜专讛 诪拽讬讘转 谞讘讬诇讛

Rava said: We learned both of these halakhot from the mishna. He elaborates: From the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Yishmael that cheese of gentiles is prohibited because they curdle it in the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal carcass, one can derive the halakha of the excrement of an ox that is to be stoned. The reason is that Rabbi Yishmael responded to Rabbi Yehoshua: But isn鈥檛 the stomach of a burnt-offering subject to a more stringent halakha than the stomach of an unslaughtered animal carcass, and yet although one may not derive benefit from the stomach of a burnt-offering ab initio, if one did derive benefit from it he is not liable for misuse of property consecrated to the Temple?

Scroll To Top