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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 20, 2018 | 讛壮 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Avodah Zarah 36

The bread and oil of non-Jews is forbidden. Was permission granted to allow bread of non-Jews? If so, was it limited to particular circumstances? Why was the oil of non-Jews forbidden and then later permitted? Debate between Rav and Shmuel. Many questions are raised against Rav’s opinion. According to Rav, it was part of the eighteen things that the students of Shamai and Hillel forbade on one particular day when there were more students of Shamai than Hillel and聽Shamai’s students were able to pass them by a majority vote. What they forbade on that day according to Rav in the category of non-Jews is explained – bread and oil because of wine, wine because of their daughters, their daughters because of something else and something else on account of something else. The gemara聽has a discussion and brings several attempts to explain what the issue is regarding the daughters, because if it is lest they marry them, that is already forbidden by Torah law.


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

讝诇讬驻转谉 砖诇 讻诇讬诐 讟诪讗讬诐 讗讜住专转谉 讗讟讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讜讻诇讬 讟讛专讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讝诇讬驻转谉 砖诇 讻诇讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讗讜住专转谉

The secretion of ritually impure vessels prohibits the oil that gentiles pour into them. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that all people are consumers of only ritually pure substances? Since it is common practice to eat ritually impure foods, why should the secretion of impure vessels render the oil prohibited? The Gemara emends Shmuel鈥檚 statement: Rather, the secretion of prohibited vessels prohibits the oil, as it absorbs the prohibited substances.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪讬谞讗 讝诇讬驻转谉 砖诇 讻诇讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讗讜住专转谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 讜讗诪专 讚专讬砖 专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 讘谞爪讬讘讬谉 砖诪谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 谞诪谞讜 注诇讬讜 讜讛转讬专讜讛讜

Shmuel said to Rav: Granted, according to my opinion, as I say that the secretion of prohibited vessels prohibits the oil, this is how one can understand that when Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta came, he said that Rabbi Simlai taught in Netzivin: With regard to oil, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court were counted, i.e., voted, on this matter and permitted it.

拽住讘专 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 诪讜转专

Shmuel elaborates: It can be explained that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: A prohibited substance that imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture is permitted. According to Shmuel鈥檚 explanation, the prohibition was revoked because the taste absorbed by the oil would have impaired its flavor rather than enhanced it.

讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 讚谞讬讗诇 讙讝专 注诇讬讜 讚谞讬讗诇 讙讝专 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讜诪讘讟诇 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞谉 讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讘讟诇 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讞讘讬专讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讙讚讜诇 讛讬诪谞讜 讘讞讻诪讛 讜讘诪谞讬谉

But according to you, Rav, who said that Daniel decreed a prohibition upon the oil of gentiles, how can this be understood? Can it be said that Daniel decreed it, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi came and voided the decree? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Eduyyot 1:5): A court cannot void the statements of another court, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number? According to Rav, how could Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi void a decree issued by Daniel?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪诇讗讬 诇讜讚讗讛 拽讗 讗诪专转 砖讗谞讬 诇讜讚讗讬 讚诪讝诇讝诇讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讗讬讻住讬祝

Rather than answering Shmuel鈥檚 question directly, Rav first rejects his proof: Rav said to him: Was it Rabbi Simlai of Lod of whom you spoke? Residents of Lod are different, as they disparage the Sages鈥 decrees, and therefore Rabbi Simlai鈥檚 testimony is unreliable. Shmuel said to him: Shall I send for him? As a result, Rav became embarrassed.

讗诪专 专讘 讗诐 讛诐 诇讗 讚专砖讜 讗谞谉 诇讗 讚专砖讬谞谉 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬砖诐 讚谞讬讗诇 注诇 诇讘讜 讗砖专 诇讗 讬转讙讗诇 讘驻转 讘讙 讛诪诇讱 讜讘讬讬谉 诪砖转讬讜 讘砖转讬 诪砖转讗讜转 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讞讚 诪砖转讛 讬讬谉 讜讗讞讚 诪砖转讛 砖诪谉

Rav claimed that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court erred in permitting the oil of gentiles, which Daniel had prohibited. Rav said: If they, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court, did not expound the following verse, will we not expound it? We must certainly do so. Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淏ut Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the king鈥檚 food, nor with the wine which he drank [mishtav]鈥 (Daniel 1:8)? The word mishtav is in the plural, indicating that the verse speaks of two types of drinking: One is the drinking of wine, and one is the drinking of oil. Accordingly, Daniel himself refrained from consuming oil of gentiles, as he instituted this prohibition. Why does Shmuel reject this inference, which indicates that Daniel issued this decree?

专讘 住讘专 注诇 诇讘讜 砖诐 讜诇讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜专讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专 注诇 诇讘讜 砖诐 讜诇讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讛讜专讛

The Gemara explains that Rav maintained: Daniel placed the prohibition against consuming the oil of gentiles upon his heart, i.e., for himself, and he instructed all Jews to adhere to it as well. And Shmuel held: Daniel placed the prohibition upon his heart, but he did not instruct all Jews to accept it.

讜砖诪谉 讚谞讬讗诇 讙讝专 讜讛讗诪专 讘讗诇讬 讗讘讬诪讬 谞讜转讗讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻讬转谉 讜砖诪谞谉 讬讬谞谉 讜讘谞讜转讬讛谉 讻讜诇谉 诪砖诪谞讛 注砖专 讚讘专 讛谉

The Gemara asks: And is it correct that Daniel decreed that oil is prohibited? But doesn鈥檛 Balei say that Avimi of Nota [Nota鈥檃] says in the name of Rav: The prohibitions of gentiles鈥 bread and their oil, their wine and their daughters, are all from the eighteen matters decreed in a single day in the days of the students of Shammai and Hillel. Apparently, Rav himself maintains that the prohibition was not instituted by Daniel.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗转讗 讚谞讬讗诇 讙讝专 讜诇讗 拽讬讘诇 讜讗转讜 转诇诪讬讚讬 讚讛诇诇 讜砖诪讗讬 讜讙讝讜专 讜拽讬讘诇 讗诐 讻谉 诪讗讬 讗住讛讚讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讗诇讗 讚谞讬讗诇 讙讝专 注诇讬讜 讘注讬专 讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讜讙讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讚讛

The Gemara adds: And if you would say that Daniel came and decreed but the people did not accept it, and later the students of Hillel and Shammai came and decreed with regard to gentiles鈥 oil and the people accepted it, if that is so, what is the significance of Rav鈥檚 testimony that Daniel initially instituted the prohibition? The Gemara explains: Rather, Daniel decreed upon the oil of gentiles in the city, and the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that it is prohibited even in the field.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讛讬讻讬 诪爪讬 诇诪讬砖专讗 转拽谞转讗 讚转诇诪讬讚讬 砖诪讗讬 讜讛诇诇 讜讛转谞谉 讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讘讟诇 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讞讘讬专讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讙讚讜诇 讛讬诪谞讜 讘讞讻诪讛 讜讘诪谞讬谉 讜注讜讚 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讻诇 讬讻讜诇 诇讘讟诇 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讞讘讬专讜 讞讜抓 诪砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专 讚讘专 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讜讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara asks: And how could Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permit an ordinance issued by the students of Shammai and Hillel? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna that a court cannot void the statements of another court, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number? And furthermore, doesn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to all issues, a court can void the statements of another court, except the eighteen matters decreed by the students of Beit Shammai, as, even if Elijah and his court were to come and rescind them, one would not listen to him.

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诪讛 讟注诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻砖讟 讗讬住讜专讜 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 砖诪谉 诇讗 驻砖讟 讗讬住讜专讜 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讬砖讘讜 专讘讜转讬谞讜 讜讘讚拽讜 注诇 砖诪谉 砖诇讗 驻砖讟 讗讬住讜专讜 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 讜住诪讻讜 专讘讜转讬谞讜 注诇 讚讘专讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜注诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 爪讚讜拽 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讙讜讝专讬谉 讙讝讬专讛 注诇 讛爪讘讜专 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 专讜讘 爪讘讜专 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇注诪讜讚 讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪讗讬 拽专讗

Rav Mesharshiyya said: What is the reason that none of the eighteen decrees can be voided? Since the prohibition spread among the majority of the Jewish people, it cannot be voided. But with regard to oil, its prohibition did not spread among the majority of the Jewish people, and therefore it can be voided. As Rabbi Shmuel bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Our Sages sat and inspected the matter of gentiles鈥 oil and determined that its prohibition had not spread among the majority of the Jewish people, and our Sages relied upon the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and upon the statement of Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, who would say: The Sages issue a decree upon the community only if most of the community is able to abide by it. As Rav Adda bar Ahava said: What is the verse from which it is derived?

讘诪讗专讛 讗转诐 谞讗专讬诐 讜讗转讬 讗转诐 拽讘注讬诐 讛讙讜讬 讻诇讜 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讙讜讬 讻讜诇讜 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

It is the verse: 鈥淵ou are cursed with the curse, yet you rob Me, even this whole nation鈥 (Malachi 3:9). This teaches that if there is the acceptance of the whole nation, yes, an ordinance may be instituted, but if not, no, the ordinance may not be instituted.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 讘讗诇讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 谞讜转讗讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻讬转谉 讜砖诪谞谉 讬讬谞谉 讜讘谞讜转讬讛谉 讻讜诇谉 诪砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专 讚讘专 讛谉 讘谞讜转讬讛谉 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讙讝专讜 注诇 讘谞讜转讬讛谉 谞讬讚讜转 诪注专讬住讜转谉

搂 The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Balei says that Avimi of Nota says in the name of Rav: The prohibitions with regard to gentiles鈥 bread and their oil, their wine and their daughters, are all from the eighteen matters issued in a single day in the time of the students of Shammai and Hillel. The Gemara asks: With regard to their daughters, what is the decree? Rabbi Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: They decreed upon their daughters that they should be classified as menstruating women from the time they are in their cradle, i.e., they decreed that from when they are young, gentile women are always considered to be menstruating.

讜讙谞讬讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 讻讜诇谉 诪砖讜诐 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讙讝专讜 讘讛谉 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讙讝专讜 注诇 驻讬转谉 诪砖讜诐 砖诪谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讜诇诪讬讛 讚砖诪谉 诪驻转

The Gemara presents another opinion. And Geneiva says in the name of Rav: Gentiles鈥 bread, oil, wine, and daughters were all decreed upon due to the concern that Jews might participate in idol worship with gentiles as a result of intermingling with them. As, when Rav A岣 bar Adda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Yitz岣k says: They decreed a prohibition upon their bread due to their oil. The Gemara asks: In what way is the prohibition with regard to oil stronger than the prohibition with regard to bread? That is, why does the primary concern relate to the oil of gentiles rather than their bread?

讗诇讗 注诇 驻讬转谉 讜砖诪谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讬讬谞谉 讜注诇 讬讬谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讘谞讜转讬讛谉 讜注诇 讘谞讜转讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专 讗讞专 讜注诇 讚讘专 讗讞专 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专 讗讞专

The Gemara offers a different interpretation: Rather, they issued a decree prohibiting their bread and their oil due to their wine. And they issued the decree prohibiting their wine due to the fact that this leads to familiarity, and Jews will come to marry their daughters. And they issued a decree prohibiting their daughters due to something else, idolatry. And they further issued a decree on something else due to something else, which will be explained by the Gemara.

讘谞讜转讬讛谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转转讞转谉 讘诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 砖讘注讛 讙讜讬诐 讗讘诇 砖讗专 讗讜诪讜转 诇讗 讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讜讙讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讚砖讗专 讗讜诪讜转

It was stated that the prohibition against marrying the daughters of gentiles was decreed on account of idolatry. The Gemara raises an objection: But the prohibition against marrying their daughters is prescribed by Torah law, as it is written: 鈥淣either shall you make marriages with them鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:3). The Gemara explains: By Torah law intermarriage is prohibited only with the seven Canaanite nations, but intermarriage with the other nations of the world is not prohibited, and the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that intermarriage is prohibited even with the other nations.

讜诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讬住讬专 讗转 讘谞讱 诪讗讞专讬 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讛诪住讬专讜转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讬砖讜转 讚专讱 讞转谞讜转 讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讚专讱 讝谞讜转

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i, who says that the subsequent verse: 鈥淔or he will turn away your son from following Me鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:4) serves to include all who turn away one鈥檚 son from God, i.e., all gentiles, what is there to say? Rather, by Torah law only sexual relations by way of marriage are prohibited, and they came and decreed that sexual relations are prohibited even by way of licentiousness.

讝谞讜转 谞诪讬 讘讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 砖诐 讙讝专讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜爪讬讗讜讛 讜转砖专祝

The Gemara raises an objection: Licentious sexual intercourse was also prohibited earlier, as they decreed a prohibition in this regard in the court of Shem, as it is written: 鈥淚t was told to Judah, saying: Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; and moreover, behold, she is with child by harlotry. And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burned鈥 (Genesis 38:24). This proves that the prohibition against licentious intercourse with a gentile was in force long before the time of the students of Shammai and Hillel.

讗诇讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讙讜讬 讛讘讗 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讚诪砖讻讛 讘转专讬讛 讗讘诇 讬砖专讗诇 讛讘讗 注诇 讛讙讜讬讛 诇讗 讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 讛讘讗 注诇 讛讙讜讬讛

The Gemara explains: Rather, the prohibition prescribed by Torah law applies to the case of a gentile who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, as she is drawn after him toward idolatry, but the case of a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman is not included in the prohibition by Torah law. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that the prohibition applies even to a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman.

讬砖专讗诇 讛讘讗 注诇 讛讙讜讬讛 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪专 讛讘讜注诇 讗专诪讬转 拽谞讗讬谉 驻讜讙注讬谉 讘讜

The Gemara rejects this: The prohibition concerning a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, not a rabbinic ordinance. As the Master said: With regard to one who engages in intercourse with an Aramean woman, zealots may attack him, as Pinehas did to Zimri in the wilderness (see Numbers 25:6鈥8).

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘驻专讛住讬讗 讜讻诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘爪讬谞注讗 讘爪讬谞注讗 谞诪讬 讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 讞砖诪讜谞讗讬 讙讝专讜

He said to him: By Torah law intercourse with a gentile is prohibited in public, and only in situations like the incident that occurred, as described in Numbers, chapter 25. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that the prohibition applies even in private. The Gemara raises another difficulty: This was also prohibited in private, as the court of the Hasmoneans decreed that it is prohibited.

[讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讞砖诪讜谞讗讬 讙讝专讜] 讬砖专讗诇 讛讘讗 注诇 讛讙讜讬讛 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 谞砖讙讗

As when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: The court of the Hasmoneans decreed that a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman bears liability for transgressing four prohibitions, represented by the mnemonic: Nun, shin, gimmel, alef. These letters stands for: Menstruating woman [nidda], maidservant [shif岣], gentile [goya], and married woman [eshet ish]. By rabbinic law, a man who engages in intercourse with a gentile woman is considered to have violated the prohibitions involved in having intercourse with all four of these women.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 谞砖讙讝

And when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: He bears liability for four prohibitions represented by the mnemonic: Nun, shin, gimmel, zayin, which stands for: Menstruating woman [nidda], maidservant [shif岣], gentile [goya], and prostitute [zona]. In any case, it is apparent that this decree was in force before the time of the students of Shammai and Hillel.

讻讬 讙讝专讜 讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 讞砖诪讜谞讗讬 讘讬讗讛 讗讘诇 讬讬讞讜讚 诇讗 讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讬讞讜讚 讬讬讞讜讚 谞诪讬 讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 讚讜讚 讙讝专讜

The Gemara answers: When the court of the Hasmoneans decreed, they prohibited only sexual intercourse, but with regard to seclusion with a gentile woman, no, they did not prohibit that. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that even seclusion with a gentile woman is prohibited. The Gemara raises an objection: Seclusion was also prohibited earlier, as the court of King David decreed that with regard to this matter.

讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讙讝专讜 注诇 讬讬讞讜讚 讗诪专讬 讛转诐 讬讬讞讜讚 讚讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讘诇 讬讬讞讜讚 讚讙讜讬讛 诇讗 讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讝专讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬讬讞讜讚 讚讙讜讬讛

As Rav Yehuda says: At that time, after the incident involving Amnon and Tamar (see II聽Samuel 13:1鈥19), they decreed with regard to seclusion. The Sages said in response to the objection: There, in David鈥檚 court, seclusion with a Jewish woman was prohibited, but seclusion with a gentile woman was not prohibited. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed a prohibition even with regard to seclusion with a gentile woman.

讬讬讞讜讚 讚讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜爪讚拽 专诪讝 诇讬讬讞讜讚 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬住讬转讱 讗讞讬讱 讘谉 讗诪讱 讜讻讬 讘谉 讗诐 诪住讬转 讘谉 讗讘 讗讬谞讜 诪住讬转

The Gemara raises yet another difficulty: Seclusion with a Jewish woman is prohibited by Torah law, as Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: Where is there an allusion in the Torah to the prohibition against seclusion? As it is stated: 鈥淚f your brother, the son of your mother, entices you鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:7). And does only a half brother who is the son of a mother entice one to sin, whereas the son of a father does not entice?

讗诇讗 讘谉 诪转讬讬讞讚 注诐 讗诪讜 讜讗讬谉 讗讞专 诪转讬讬讞讚 注诐 讻诇 注专讬讜转 砖讘转讜专讛

Rather, there is a greater concern that a maternal half brother might entice one to sin, as a son secludes himself with his mother, and no other may seclude himself with any of those with whom relations are forbidden by the Torah. Since an individual and his maternal half brother both seclude themselves with their shared mother, they are frequently together in private, and this facilitates enticement. In any case, it is clear that the prohibition against seclusion with a Jewish woman preceded King David.

讬讬讞讜讚 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讗转讗 讚讜讚 讜讙讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬讬讞讜讚 讚驻谞讜讬讛 讜讗转讜 转诇诪讬讚讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讙讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬讬讞讜讚 讚讙讜讬讛

The Gemara explains: The prohibition against seclusion prescribed by Torah law applies specifically to a married woman, and David came and decreed a prohibition even with regard to seclusion with an unmarried woman. And later the students of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel came and decreed even with regard to seclusion with a gentile woman.

诪讗讬 注诇 讚讘专 讗讞专 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专 讗讞专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讙讝专讜 注诇 转讬谞讜拽 讙讜讬 砖讬讟诪讗 讘讝讬讘讛 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 转讬谞讜拽 讬砖专讗诇 专讙讬诇 讗爪诇讜 讘诪砖讻讘 讝讻讜专

搂 It was stated above that they issued a decree prohibiting the daughters of gentiles due to something else, idolatry. And they further issued a decree on something else due to something else. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: And they further issued a decree on something else due to something else? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: They decreed upon a male gentile child that he imparts ritual impurity as though he were a Jew who experienced a gonorrhea-like discharge [ziva], so that a Jewish child will not become familiar with him, leading to homosexual intercourse. The Sages employed a euphemism when referring to this decree.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 爪注专 讙讚讜诇 讛讬讛 诇讬 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讗住讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讜专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗爪诇 专讘讬 谞转谉 讘谉 注诪专诐 讜专讘讬 谞转谉 讘谉 注诪专诐 讗爪诇 专讘讬 转讬谞讜拽 讙讜讬 诪讗讬诪转讬 诪讟诪讗 讘讝讬讘讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 讜讻砖讘讗转讬 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚

As Rabbi Zeira says: I had great trouble with Rabbi Asi when I asked him the following question, and likewise Rabbi Asi experienced trouble with Rabbi Yo岣nan when he posed it to him. And Rabbi Yo岣nan had trouble with Rabbi Yannai, and Rabbi Yannai had trouble with Rabbi Natan ben Amram, and Rabbi Natan ben Amram had trouble with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The inquiry was as follows: With regard to a male gentile child, from when, i.e., from what age, does he impart ritual impurity as one who experiences ziva? And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to me: From when he is one day old. And when I came to Rabbi 岣yya, he said to me: From when he is nine years and one day old.

讜讻砖讘讗转讬 讜讛专爪讬转讬 讚讘专讬 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讗诪专 诇讬 讛谞讞 讚讘专讬 讜讗讞讜讝 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚讗诪专 转讬谞讜拽 讙讜讬 讗讬诪转讬 诪讟诪讗 讘讝讬讘讛 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚

And when I came back and relayed Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 statement before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he said to me: Discard my statement, and grasp the statement of Rabbi 岣yya, who says: From when does a gentile child impart ritual impurity as one who experiences ziva? From when he is nine years and one day old.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 36

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 36

讝诇讬驻转谉 砖诇 讻诇讬诐 讟诪讗讬诐 讗讜住专转谉 讗讟讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讜讻诇讬 讟讛专讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讝诇讬驻转谉 砖诇 讻诇讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讗讜住专转谉

The secretion of ritually impure vessels prohibits the oil that gentiles pour into them. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that all people are consumers of only ritually pure substances? Since it is common practice to eat ritually impure foods, why should the secretion of impure vessels render the oil prohibited? The Gemara emends Shmuel鈥檚 statement: Rather, the secretion of prohibited vessels prohibits the oil, as it absorbs the prohibited substances.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪讬谞讗 讝诇讬驻转谉 砖诇 讻诇讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讗讜住专转谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 讜讗诪专 讚专讬砖 专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 讘谞爪讬讘讬谉 砖诪谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 谞诪谞讜 注诇讬讜 讜讛转讬专讜讛讜

Shmuel said to Rav: Granted, according to my opinion, as I say that the secretion of prohibited vessels prohibits the oil, this is how one can understand that when Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta came, he said that Rabbi Simlai taught in Netzivin: With regard to oil, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court were counted, i.e., voted, on this matter and permitted it.

拽住讘专 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 诪讜转专

Shmuel elaborates: It can be explained that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: A prohibited substance that imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture is permitted. According to Shmuel鈥檚 explanation, the prohibition was revoked because the taste absorbed by the oil would have impaired its flavor rather than enhanced it.

讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 讚谞讬讗诇 讙讝专 注诇讬讜 讚谞讬讗诇 讙讝专 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讜诪讘讟诇 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞谉 讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讘讟诇 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讞讘讬专讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讙讚讜诇 讛讬诪谞讜 讘讞讻诪讛 讜讘诪谞讬谉

But according to you, Rav, who said that Daniel decreed a prohibition upon the oil of gentiles, how can this be understood? Can it be said that Daniel decreed it, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi came and voided the decree? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Eduyyot 1:5): A court cannot void the statements of another court, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number? According to Rav, how could Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi void a decree issued by Daniel?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪诇讗讬 诇讜讚讗讛 拽讗 讗诪专转 砖讗谞讬 诇讜讚讗讬 讚诪讝诇讝诇讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讗讬讻住讬祝

Rather than answering Shmuel鈥檚 question directly, Rav first rejects his proof: Rav said to him: Was it Rabbi Simlai of Lod of whom you spoke? Residents of Lod are different, as they disparage the Sages鈥 decrees, and therefore Rabbi Simlai鈥檚 testimony is unreliable. Shmuel said to him: Shall I send for him? As a result, Rav became embarrassed.

讗诪专 专讘 讗诐 讛诐 诇讗 讚专砖讜 讗谞谉 诇讗 讚专砖讬谞谉 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬砖诐 讚谞讬讗诇 注诇 诇讘讜 讗砖专 诇讗 讬转讙讗诇 讘驻转 讘讙 讛诪诇讱 讜讘讬讬谉 诪砖转讬讜 讘砖转讬 诪砖转讗讜转 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讞讚 诪砖转讛 讬讬谉 讜讗讞讚 诪砖转讛 砖诪谉

Rav claimed that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court erred in permitting the oil of gentiles, which Daniel had prohibited. Rav said: If they, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court, did not expound the following verse, will we not expound it? We must certainly do so. Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淏ut Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the king鈥檚 food, nor with the wine which he drank [mishtav]鈥 (Daniel 1:8)? The word mishtav is in the plural, indicating that the verse speaks of two types of drinking: One is the drinking of wine, and one is the drinking of oil. Accordingly, Daniel himself refrained from consuming oil of gentiles, as he instituted this prohibition. Why does Shmuel reject this inference, which indicates that Daniel issued this decree?

专讘 住讘专 注诇 诇讘讜 砖诐 讜诇讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜专讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专 注诇 诇讘讜 砖诐 讜诇讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讛讜专讛

The Gemara explains that Rav maintained: Daniel placed the prohibition against consuming the oil of gentiles upon his heart, i.e., for himself, and he instructed all Jews to adhere to it as well. And Shmuel held: Daniel placed the prohibition upon his heart, but he did not instruct all Jews to accept it.

讜砖诪谉 讚谞讬讗诇 讙讝专 讜讛讗诪专 讘讗诇讬 讗讘讬诪讬 谞讜转讗讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻讬转谉 讜砖诪谞谉 讬讬谞谉 讜讘谞讜转讬讛谉 讻讜诇谉 诪砖诪谞讛 注砖专 讚讘专 讛谉

The Gemara asks: And is it correct that Daniel decreed that oil is prohibited? But doesn鈥檛 Balei say that Avimi of Nota [Nota鈥檃] says in the name of Rav: The prohibitions of gentiles鈥 bread and their oil, their wine and their daughters, are all from the eighteen matters decreed in a single day in the days of the students of Shammai and Hillel. Apparently, Rav himself maintains that the prohibition was not instituted by Daniel.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗转讗 讚谞讬讗诇 讙讝专 讜诇讗 拽讬讘诇 讜讗转讜 转诇诪讬讚讬 讚讛诇诇 讜砖诪讗讬 讜讙讝讜专 讜拽讬讘诇 讗诐 讻谉 诪讗讬 讗住讛讚讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讗诇讗 讚谞讬讗诇 讙讝专 注诇讬讜 讘注讬专 讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讜讙讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讚讛

The Gemara adds: And if you would say that Daniel came and decreed but the people did not accept it, and later the students of Hillel and Shammai came and decreed with regard to gentiles鈥 oil and the people accepted it, if that is so, what is the significance of Rav鈥檚 testimony that Daniel initially instituted the prohibition? The Gemara explains: Rather, Daniel decreed upon the oil of gentiles in the city, and the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that it is prohibited even in the field.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讛讬讻讬 诪爪讬 诇诪讬砖专讗 转拽谞转讗 讚转诇诪讬讚讬 砖诪讗讬 讜讛诇诇 讜讛转谞谉 讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讘讟诇 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讞讘讬专讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讙讚讜诇 讛讬诪谞讜 讘讞讻诪讛 讜讘诪谞讬谉 讜注讜讚 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讻诇 讬讻讜诇 诇讘讟诇 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讞讘讬专讜 讞讜抓 诪砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专 讚讘专 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讬讘讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讜讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara asks: And how could Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permit an ordinance issued by the students of Shammai and Hillel? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna that a court cannot void the statements of another court, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number? And furthermore, doesn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to all issues, a court can void the statements of another court, except the eighteen matters decreed by the students of Beit Shammai, as, even if Elijah and his court were to come and rescind them, one would not listen to him.

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诪讛 讟注诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻砖讟 讗讬住讜专讜 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 砖诪谉 诇讗 驻砖讟 讗讬住讜专讜 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讬砖讘讜 专讘讜转讬谞讜 讜讘讚拽讜 注诇 砖诪谉 砖诇讗 驻砖讟 讗讬住讜专讜 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 讜住诪讻讜 专讘讜转讬谞讜 注诇 讚讘专讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜注诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 爪讚讜拽 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讙讜讝专讬谉 讙讝讬专讛 注诇 讛爪讘讜专 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 专讜讘 爪讘讜专 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇注诪讜讚 讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪讗讬 拽专讗

Rav Mesharshiyya said: What is the reason that none of the eighteen decrees can be voided? Since the prohibition spread among the majority of the Jewish people, it cannot be voided. But with regard to oil, its prohibition did not spread among the majority of the Jewish people, and therefore it can be voided. As Rabbi Shmuel bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Our Sages sat and inspected the matter of gentiles鈥 oil and determined that its prohibition had not spread among the majority of the Jewish people, and our Sages relied upon the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and upon the statement of Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, who would say: The Sages issue a decree upon the community only if most of the community is able to abide by it. As Rav Adda bar Ahava said: What is the verse from which it is derived?

讘诪讗专讛 讗转诐 谞讗专讬诐 讜讗转讬 讗转诐 拽讘注讬诐 讛讙讜讬 讻诇讜 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讙讜讬 讻讜诇讜 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

It is the verse: 鈥淵ou are cursed with the curse, yet you rob Me, even this whole nation鈥 (Malachi 3:9). This teaches that if there is the acceptance of the whole nation, yes, an ordinance may be instituted, but if not, no, the ordinance may not be instituted.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 讘讗诇讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 谞讜转讗讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻讬转谉 讜砖诪谞谉 讬讬谞谉 讜讘谞讜转讬讛谉 讻讜诇谉 诪砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专 讚讘专 讛谉 讘谞讜转讬讛谉 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讙讝专讜 注诇 讘谞讜转讬讛谉 谞讬讚讜转 诪注专讬住讜转谉

搂 The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Balei says that Avimi of Nota says in the name of Rav: The prohibitions with regard to gentiles鈥 bread and their oil, their wine and their daughters, are all from the eighteen matters issued in a single day in the time of the students of Shammai and Hillel. The Gemara asks: With regard to their daughters, what is the decree? Rabbi Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: They decreed upon their daughters that they should be classified as menstruating women from the time they are in their cradle, i.e., they decreed that from when they are young, gentile women are always considered to be menstruating.

讜讙谞讬讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 讻讜诇谉 诪砖讜诐 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讙讝专讜 讘讛谉 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讙讝专讜 注诇 驻讬转谉 诪砖讜诐 砖诪谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讜诇诪讬讛 讚砖诪谉 诪驻转

The Gemara presents another opinion. And Geneiva says in the name of Rav: Gentiles鈥 bread, oil, wine, and daughters were all decreed upon due to the concern that Jews might participate in idol worship with gentiles as a result of intermingling with them. As, when Rav A岣 bar Adda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Yitz岣k says: They decreed a prohibition upon their bread due to their oil. The Gemara asks: In what way is the prohibition with regard to oil stronger than the prohibition with regard to bread? That is, why does the primary concern relate to the oil of gentiles rather than their bread?

讗诇讗 注诇 驻讬转谉 讜砖诪谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讬讬谞谉 讜注诇 讬讬谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讘谞讜转讬讛谉 讜注诇 讘谞讜转讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专 讗讞专 讜注诇 讚讘专 讗讞专 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专 讗讞专

The Gemara offers a different interpretation: Rather, they issued a decree prohibiting their bread and their oil due to their wine. And they issued the decree prohibiting their wine due to the fact that this leads to familiarity, and Jews will come to marry their daughters. And they issued a decree prohibiting their daughters due to something else, idolatry. And they further issued a decree on something else due to something else, which will be explained by the Gemara.

讘谞讜转讬讛谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转转讞转谉 讘诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 砖讘注讛 讙讜讬诐 讗讘诇 砖讗专 讗讜诪讜转 诇讗 讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讜讙讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讚砖讗专 讗讜诪讜转

It was stated that the prohibition against marrying the daughters of gentiles was decreed on account of idolatry. The Gemara raises an objection: But the prohibition against marrying their daughters is prescribed by Torah law, as it is written: 鈥淣either shall you make marriages with them鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:3). The Gemara explains: By Torah law intermarriage is prohibited only with the seven Canaanite nations, but intermarriage with the other nations of the world is not prohibited, and the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that intermarriage is prohibited even with the other nations.

讜诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讬住讬专 讗转 讘谞讱 诪讗讞专讬 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讛诪住讬专讜转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讬砖讜转 讚专讱 讞转谞讜转 讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讚专讱 讝谞讜转

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i, who says that the subsequent verse: 鈥淔or he will turn away your son from following Me鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:4) serves to include all who turn away one鈥檚 son from God, i.e., all gentiles, what is there to say? Rather, by Torah law only sexual relations by way of marriage are prohibited, and they came and decreed that sexual relations are prohibited even by way of licentiousness.

讝谞讜转 谞诪讬 讘讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 砖诐 讙讝专讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜爪讬讗讜讛 讜转砖专祝

The Gemara raises an objection: Licentious sexual intercourse was also prohibited earlier, as they decreed a prohibition in this regard in the court of Shem, as it is written: 鈥淚t was told to Judah, saying: Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; and moreover, behold, she is with child by harlotry. And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burned鈥 (Genesis 38:24). This proves that the prohibition against licentious intercourse with a gentile was in force long before the time of the students of Shammai and Hillel.

讗诇讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讙讜讬 讛讘讗 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讚诪砖讻讛 讘转专讬讛 讗讘诇 讬砖专讗诇 讛讘讗 注诇 讛讙讜讬讛 诇讗 讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 讛讘讗 注诇 讛讙讜讬讛

The Gemara explains: Rather, the prohibition prescribed by Torah law applies to the case of a gentile who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, as she is drawn after him toward idolatry, but the case of a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman is not included in the prohibition by Torah law. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that the prohibition applies even to a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman.

讬砖专讗诇 讛讘讗 注诇 讛讙讜讬讛 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪专 讛讘讜注诇 讗专诪讬转 拽谞讗讬谉 驻讜讙注讬谉 讘讜

The Gemara rejects this: The prohibition concerning a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, not a rabbinic ordinance. As the Master said: With regard to one who engages in intercourse with an Aramean woman, zealots may attack him, as Pinehas did to Zimri in the wilderness (see Numbers 25:6鈥8).

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘驻专讛住讬讗 讜讻诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘爪讬谞注讗 讘爪讬谞注讗 谞诪讬 讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 讞砖诪讜谞讗讬 讙讝专讜

He said to him: By Torah law intercourse with a gentile is prohibited in public, and only in situations like the incident that occurred, as described in Numbers, chapter 25. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that the prohibition applies even in private. The Gemara raises another difficulty: This was also prohibited in private, as the court of the Hasmoneans decreed that it is prohibited.

[讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讞砖诪讜谞讗讬 讙讝专讜] 讬砖专讗诇 讛讘讗 注诇 讛讙讜讬讛 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 谞砖讙讗

As when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: The court of the Hasmoneans decreed that a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman bears liability for transgressing four prohibitions, represented by the mnemonic: Nun, shin, gimmel, alef. These letters stands for: Menstruating woman [nidda], maidservant [shif岣], gentile [goya], and married woman [eshet ish]. By rabbinic law, a man who engages in intercourse with a gentile woman is considered to have violated the prohibitions involved in having intercourse with all four of these women.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 谞砖讙讝

And when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: He bears liability for four prohibitions represented by the mnemonic: Nun, shin, gimmel, zayin, which stands for: Menstruating woman [nidda], maidservant [shif岣], gentile [goya], and prostitute [zona]. In any case, it is apparent that this decree was in force before the time of the students of Shammai and Hillel.

讻讬 讙讝专讜 讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 讞砖诪讜谞讗讬 讘讬讗讛 讗讘诇 讬讬讞讜讚 诇讗 讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讬讞讜讚 讬讬讞讜讚 谞诪讬 讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 讚讜讚 讙讝专讜

The Gemara answers: When the court of the Hasmoneans decreed, they prohibited only sexual intercourse, but with regard to seclusion with a gentile woman, no, they did not prohibit that. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that even seclusion with a gentile woman is prohibited. The Gemara raises an objection: Seclusion was also prohibited earlier, as the court of King David decreed that with regard to this matter.

讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讙讝专讜 注诇 讬讬讞讜讚 讗诪专讬 讛转诐 讬讬讞讜讚 讚讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讘诇 讬讬讞讜讚 讚讙讜讬讛 诇讗 讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讝专讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬讬讞讜讚 讚讙讜讬讛

As Rav Yehuda says: At that time, after the incident involving Amnon and Tamar (see II聽Samuel 13:1鈥19), they decreed with regard to seclusion. The Sages said in response to the objection: There, in David鈥檚 court, seclusion with a Jewish woman was prohibited, but seclusion with a gentile woman was not prohibited. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed a prohibition even with regard to seclusion with a gentile woman.

讬讬讞讜讚 讚讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜爪讚拽 专诪讝 诇讬讬讞讜讚 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬住讬转讱 讗讞讬讱 讘谉 讗诪讱 讜讻讬 讘谉 讗诐 诪住讬转 讘谉 讗讘 讗讬谞讜 诪住讬转

The Gemara raises yet another difficulty: Seclusion with a Jewish woman is prohibited by Torah law, as Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: Where is there an allusion in the Torah to the prohibition against seclusion? As it is stated: 鈥淚f your brother, the son of your mother, entices you鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:7). And does only a half brother who is the son of a mother entice one to sin, whereas the son of a father does not entice?

讗诇讗 讘谉 诪转讬讬讞讚 注诐 讗诪讜 讜讗讬谉 讗讞专 诪转讬讬讞讚 注诐 讻诇 注专讬讜转 砖讘转讜专讛

Rather, there is a greater concern that a maternal half brother might entice one to sin, as a son secludes himself with his mother, and no other may seclude himself with any of those with whom relations are forbidden by the Torah. Since an individual and his maternal half brother both seclude themselves with their shared mother, they are frequently together in private, and this facilitates enticement. In any case, it is clear that the prohibition against seclusion with a Jewish woman preceded King David.

讬讬讞讜讚 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讗转讗 讚讜讚 讜讙讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬讬讞讜讚 讚驻谞讜讬讛 讜讗转讜 转诇诪讬讚讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讙讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬讬讞讜讚 讚讙讜讬讛

The Gemara explains: The prohibition against seclusion prescribed by Torah law applies specifically to a married woman, and David came and decreed a prohibition even with regard to seclusion with an unmarried woman. And later the students of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel came and decreed even with regard to seclusion with a gentile woman.

诪讗讬 注诇 讚讘专 讗讞专 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专 讗讞专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讙讝专讜 注诇 转讬谞讜拽 讙讜讬 砖讬讟诪讗 讘讝讬讘讛 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 转讬谞讜拽 讬砖专讗诇 专讙讬诇 讗爪诇讜 讘诪砖讻讘 讝讻讜专

搂 It was stated above that they issued a decree prohibiting the daughters of gentiles due to something else, idolatry. And they further issued a decree on something else due to something else. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: And they further issued a decree on something else due to something else? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: They decreed upon a male gentile child that he imparts ritual impurity as though he were a Jew who experienced a gonorrhea-like discharge [ziva], so that a Jewish child will not become familiar with him, leading to homosexual intercourse. The Sages employed a euphemism when referring to this decree.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 爪注专 讙讚讜诇 讛讬讛 诇讬 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讗住讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讜专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗爪诇 专讘讬 谞转谉 讘谉 注诪专诐 讜专讘讬 谞转谉 讘谉 注诪专诐 讗爪诇 专讘讬 转讬谞讜拽 讙讜讬 诪讗讬诪转讬 诪讟诪讗 讘讝讬讘讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 讜讻砖讘讗转讬 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚

As Rabbi Zeira says: I had great trouble with Rabbi Asi when I asked him the following question, and likewise Rabbi Asi experienced trouble with Rabbi Yo岣nan when he posed it to him. And Rabbi Yo岣nan had trouble with Rabbi Yannai, and Rabbi Yannai had trouble with Rabbi Natan ben Amram, and Rabbi Natan ben Amram had trouble with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The inquiry was as follows: With regard to a male gentile child, from when, i.e., from what age, does he impart ritual impurity as one who experiences ziva? And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to me: From when he is one day old. And when I came to Rabbi 岣yya, he said to me: From when he is nine years and one day old.

讜讻砖讘讗转讬 讜讛专爪讬转讬 讚讘专讬 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讗诪专 诇讬 讛谞讞 讚讘专讬 讜讗讞讜讝 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚讗诪专 转讬谞讜拽 讙讜讬 讗讬诪转讬 诪讟诪讗 讘讝讬讘讛 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚

And when I came back and relayed Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 statement before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he said to me: Discard my statement, and grasp the statement of Rabbi 岣yya, who says: From when does a gentile child impart ritual impurity as one who experiences ziva? From when he is nine years and one day old.

Scroll To Top