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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 21, 2018 | 讜壮 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Avodah Zarah 37

Study Guide Avoda Zara 37

Why didn’t Rabbi Yehuda Nesia permit bread of non-Jews? He didn’t want to be considered a permissive court, like Yosi benYoezer who permitted three things and was聽called “Yosef the permissive one.” Besides the oil of non-Jews, Yosi ben Yoezer permitted a case of a get where the husband dates the get with today’s date and says this will be your get if I don’t return within 12 months. If he dies, the woman does not have to perform levirate marriage (in the event they had no kids, as the get is valid). What were the 3 cases that Yosi ben Yoezer permitted?

讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讗讜讬 诇讘讬讗讛 诪讟诪讗 谞诪讬 讘讝讬讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛诇讻讱 讛讗 转讬谞讜拽转 讙讜讬讛 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讗讜讬讛 诇讘讬讗讛 诪讟诪讗讛 谞诪讬 讘讝讬讘讛

The Gemara explains the reason for this opinion: Since a nine-year-old boy is fit to engage in intercourse, he also imparts ritual impurity as one who experienced ziva. Ravina said: Therefore, with regard to a female gentile child who is three years and one day old, since she is fit to engage in intercourse at that age, she also imparts impurity as one who experienced ziva.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讗讬 讬讚注 诇讗专讙讜诇讬 讜讛讗 诇讗 讬讚注讛 诇讗专讙讜诇讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara explains: It was necessary to state this ruling, lest you say that the halakha that a gentile who is suited for intercourse imparts impurity does not apply to a female. The possible difference between a male and female child is based on the fact that whereas that child, a nine-year-old male gentile, knows how to accustom others to sin by employing persuasion, this child, a three-year-old female gentile, does not know how to accustom others to sin until she matures. Therefore, Ravina teaches us that the halakha nevertheless applies to both male and female children.

诪讬住转诪讬讱 讜讗讝讬诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 讗讻转驻讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 砖诪注讬讛 讗诪专 诇讜 砖诪诇讗讬 诇讗 讛讬讬转 讗诪砖 讘讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讻砖讛转专谞讜 讗转 讛砖诪谉 讗诪专 诇讜 讘讬诪讬谞讜 转转讬专 讗祝 讗转 讛驻转 讗诪专 诇讜 讗诐 讻谉 拽专讜 诇谉 讘讬转 讚讬谞讗 砖专讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讗讬砖 爪专讬讚讛 注诇 讗讬讬诇 拽诪爪讗 讚讻谉 讜注诇 诪砖拽讛 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 讚讻谉 讜注诇 讚讬拽专讘 诇诪讬转讗 诪住讗讘 讜拽专讜 诇讬讛 讬讜住祝 砖专讬讗

The Gemara relates a relevant incident: Rabbi Yehuda Nesia was traveling while leaning upon the shoulder of Rabbi Simlai, his attendant. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to him: Simlai, you were not in the study hall last night when we permitted the oil of gentiles. Rabbi Simlai said to him: In our days, you will permit bread of gentiles as well. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to him: If so, people will call us a permissive court. As we learned in a mishna (Eduyyot 8:4): Rabbi Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer of Tzereida testified with regard to the eil kamtza, a type of locust, that it is kosher, and with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple that they are ritually pure, and with regard to one who touches a corpse that he is impure, as soon explained by the Gemara. And as a result, they called him: Yosef the Permissive.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 砖专讗 转诇转 讜诪专 砖专讗 讞讚讗 讜讗讬 砖专讬 诪专 讞讚讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讗讻转讬 转专转讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讬讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 砖专讗讬 讗讞专讬转讬 诪讗讬 讛讬讗

Rabbi Simlai said to him: There, Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer permitted three matters, but the Master has permitted only one, and even if the Master permits one other matter, these will still constitute only two permissive rulings. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to him: I have already permitted another matter. The Gemara asks: What is the other matter that he permitted?

讚转谞谉 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 讜诪转 讘转讜讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讜专讘讜转讬谞讜 讛转讬专讜讛 诇讬谞砖讗 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗谉 专讘讜转讬谞讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讬转 讚讬谞讗 讚砖专讜 诪砖讞讗

The Gemara explains that this is as we learned in a mishna (Gittin 76b) that if one says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I do not arrive from now until twelve months鈥 time, and he died within twelve months, then it is not a valid bill of divorce because it would not take effect until after the husband鈥檚 death. And it is taught with regard to that mishna that our Rabbis nevertheless permitted her to marry. The Gemara continues: And we say: Who is the mishna referring to when it mentions our Rabbis? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This is referring to the court that permitted the oil of gentiles.

住讘专讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 讝诪谞讜 砖诇 砖讟专 诪讜讻讬讞 注诇讬讜 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讛讜专讛 讜诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讻诇 砖注转讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻诇 住讬讬注转讜

Tangentially, the Gemara examines the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia鈥檚 court concerning a bill of divorce. They hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says: The date written in a document proves when it takes effect. In other words, the bill of divorce takes effect at the time written on it. Therefore, the divorce actually goes into effect before the husband鈥檚 death, because it is retroactively initiated on the day that the bill was issued. The Gemara adds: And Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, says: In an earlier period, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also ruled that the bill of divorce should be valid, but the other Sages did not concede to his opinion during his entire lifetime [sha鈥檃to]. And some say that all of his colleagues [si鈥檃to] did not concede to his opinion.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 (讗诇讬注讝专) [讗诇注讝专] 诇讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 讻讬 砖专讬转讜讛 诇讗诇转专 砖专讬转讜讛 讚诇讗 讗转讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 讚讛讗 讗讬拽讬讬诐 诇讬讛 转谞讗讬讛

Rabbi Elazar said to a certain elderly man, who was a member of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia鈥檚 court: When you permitted this woman to remarry, did you permit her immediately after the husband died, as he certainly will not arrive within the twelve months, or perhaps you permitted her only after twelve months, because only then was the condition fulfilled?

讜转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚转谞谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 诪注讻砖讬讜 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 讜诪转 讘转讜讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 讛讜讬 讙讟 讚讛讗 讗讬拽讬讬诐 诇讬讛 转谞讗讬

That elderly man said to Rabbi Elazar: And let the dilemma be raised with regard to the mishna itself, as we learned in the next line of the mishna in Gittin: If one says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce from now if I do not arrive from now until twelve months have elapsed, and he died within twelve months, this is a valid bill of divorce. The reason is that its condition was fulfilled, as the husband stated explicitly that the bill takes effect immediately.

讜转讬讘注讬 诇讱 诇讗诇转专 讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讚讛讗 诇讗 讗转讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 讚讛讗 讗讬拽讬讬诐 诇讬讛 转谞讗讬讛 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬转 讘讛讛讜讗 诪谞讬讬谞讗

He explains: And let the dilemma be raised with regard to this case: Is the bill of divorce valid immediately upon the husband鈥檚 death because he will certainly not arrive? Or perhaps the bill of divorce is valid only after twelve months have elapsed, because only then is his condition fulfilled? Rabbi Elazar answered: Yes, it is indeed so; this question can be asked with regard to the case of the mishna itself. The Gemara adds: But Rabbi Elazar asked that elder about the decision of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia鈥檚 court because he was present at that assembly, and therefore he could report on what had actually occurred.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讻砖转爪讗 讞诪讛 诪谞专转讬拽讛 诇讻讬 谞驻拽讗 拽讗诪专 诇讛 讜讻讬 诪讬讬转 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讙讟 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讛讜讗

Abaye says: All concede that one who says that a bill of divorce will take effect once the sun emerges from its sheath is saying to his wife that it will be valid once the sun comes out in the morning. And therefore, if the husband dies during the night, before sunrise, it is a posthumous bill of divorce, which is invalid.

注诇 诪谞转 砖转爪讗 讞诪讛 诪谞专转讬拽讛 诪注讻砖讬讜 拽讗诪专 诇讛 讜讻讬 诪讬讬转 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 转谞讗讛 讛讜讬 讜讙讟 诪讞讬讬诐 讛讜讗 讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 注诇 诪谞转 讻讗讜诪专 诪注讻砖讬讜 讚诪讬

Furthermore, if he said to her: On the condition that the sun will come out of its sheath, then he is saying to his wife that the bill of divorce will take effect retroactively from now, on the condition that the sun emerges. And accordingly, if he dies during the night, this is certainly a fulfilled condition, and it is a bill of divorce which takes effect retroactively, while he is alive; in accordance with the statement of Rav Huna. As Rav Huna says: With regard to anyone who states a provision employing the language: On the condition, it is tantamount to his stating in the provision that the document takes effect retroactively from now.

诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘讗诐 转爪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 讝诪谞讜 砖诇 砖讟专 诪讜讻讬讞 注诇讬讜 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诪讛讬讜诐 讗诐 诪转讬 讻诪注讻砖讬讜 讗诐 诪转讬 讜专讘谞谉 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讗诐 诪转讬 讙专讬讚讗

They disagreed only in the case of one who said to his wife: This will be your bill of divorce if the sun emerges from its sheath, and the husband died during the night. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says that the date written in a document proves when it takes effect, and it is therefore considered as though the husband said: From today if I die, or as though he said: From now if I die. And the Sages do not accept the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and consequently they maintain that it is considered as though the husband said only: This is your bill of divorce if I die, in which case the bill of divorce is not valid, as it would take effect only after the husband鈥檚 death.

讙讜驻讗 讛注讬讚 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讗讬砖 爪专讬讚讛 注诇 讗讬讬诇 拽诪爪讗 讚讻谉 讜注诇 诪砖拽讛 讘讬 诪讟讘讞讬讗 讚讻谉 讜注诇 讚讬拽专讘 诇诪讬转讗 诪住讗讘 讜拽专讜 诇讬讛 讬讜住祝 砖专讬讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讬诇 拽诪爪讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 砖讜砖讬讘讗 讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讗诪专 住讜住讘讬诇

搂 The Gemara returns to the matter itself: Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer of Tzereida testified with regard to the eil kamtza that it is kosher, and with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple that they are ritually pure, and with regard to one who touches a corpse that he is impure. And as a result, they called him: Yosef the Permissive. The Gemara asks: What is the eil kamtza? Rav Pappa says: It is a long-headed locust called shoshiva, and Rav 岣yya bar Ami says in the name of Ulla: It is a locust called susbil.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 砖讜砖讬讘讗 讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘专讗砖讜 讗专讜讱 诪专 住讘专 专讗砖讜 讗专讜讱 讗住讜专 讜诪专 住讘专 专讗砖讜 讗专讜讱 诪讜转专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讗诪专

The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa says it is a shoshiva, and accordingly Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer and the other Rabbis disagree with regard to a long-headed locust: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that a long-headed locust is prohibited, and one Sage, Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer, holds that a long-headed locust is permitted. Rav 岣yya bar Ami says in the name of Ulla that

住讜住讘讬诇 讘专讗砖讜 讗专讜讱 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗住讜专 讜讛讻讗 讘讻谞驻讬讜 讞讜驻讬谉 讗转 专讜讘讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 专讜讘讗 讻诇 讚讛讜 讘注讬谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 专讜讘讗 讚诪谞讻专 讘注讬谞谉

it is a susbil, and accordingly, with regard to a long-headed locust, everyone agrees that it is prohibited. And here they disagree with regard to a locust whose wings barely cover most of its body: One Sage, Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer, holds that we require only a minimal majority of the locust鈥檚 body to be covered by its wings, and one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that we require a noticeable majority of the body to be covered.

讜注诇 诪砖拽讛 讘讬 诪讟讘讞讬讗 讚讻谉 诪讗讬 讚讻谉 专讘 讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诪砖 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诇讟诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 讬砖 讘讛谉

搂 It was stated above: And Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer testified with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple that they are ritually pure. The Gemara asks: What did Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer mean when he said they are pure? Rav says: He meant that they are actually ritually pure. And Shmuel says: They are pure in the sense that they do not impart ritual impurity to other substances; but they themselves can contract impurity.

专讘 讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诪砖 拽住讘专 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 讜讻讬 讙讝讜专 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讚注诇诪讗 讗讘诇 讘诪砖拽讛 讘讬 诪讟讘讞讬讗 诇讗 讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉

The Gemara explains the reasons for these opinions. Rav says that these liquids are actually pure, as he maintains that the ritual impurity of liquids applies by rabbinic law, and when the Sages decreed impurity upon liquids, they did so only with regard to ordinary liquids. But the Sages did not issue their decree with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诇讟诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 讬砖 讘讛谉 拽住讘专 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讟诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 讚专讘谞谉 讜讻讬 讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讚注诇诪讗 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讘讬 诪讟讘讞讬讗 诇讗 讙讝专讜

And Shmuel says: The liquids are ritually pure in the sense that they do not impart impurity to other substances; but they themselves can contract impurity, as Shmuel maintains that the ritual impurity of liquids themselves is by Torah law, whereas their capacity to impart impurity to other substances is by rabbinic law. And when the Sages issued this decree, they did so only with regard to ordinary liquids. But they did not issue their decree with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple.

讜注诇 讚讬拽专讘 诇诪讬转讗 诪住讗讘 讜拽专讜 诇讬讛 讬讜住祝 砖专讬讗 讬讜住祝 讗住专讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讜注讜讚 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 讗砖专 讬讙注 注诇 驻谞讬 讛砖讚讛 讘讞诇诇 讞专讘 讗讜 讘诪转 讜讙讜壮

搂 It was stated: And Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer testified with regard to one who touches a corpse that he is impure, and as a result they called him: Yosef the Permissive. The Gemara questions this: Since he issued a stringent ruling, they should have called him: Yosef the Prohibiting. And furthermore, this halakha is explicitly written in the Torah, as it is written: 鈥淎nd whosoever in the open field touches one that is slain with a sword, or one that is dead, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be impure seven days鈥 (Numbers 19:16).

讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讬拽专讘 讟诪讗 讚讬拽专讘 讘讚讬拽专讘 讟讛讜专 讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讜讙讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讬拽专讘 讘讚讬拽专讘 讜讗转讗 讗讬讛讜 讜讗讜拽诪讛 讗讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

The Gemara explains: By Torah law one who touches a corpse is ritually impure, but one who touches another who has touched a corpse is pure. And the Sages came and decreed that even one who touches another who has touched a corpse is also impure. And Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer came and established the halakha in accordance with the original, more lenient Torah law.

讚讬拽专讘 讘讚讬拽专讘 谞诪讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讜 讛讟诪讗 讬讟诪讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: One who touches another who has touched a corpse is also rendered impure by Torah law, as it is written: 鈥淎nd whatsoever the impure person touches shall be impure鈥 (Numbers 19:22).

讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讬拽专讘 讘讚讬拽专讘 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 砖讘注讛 砖诇讗 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 注专讘 讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讜讙讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 砖讘注讛 讜讗转讗 讗讬讛讜 讜讗讜拽诪讛 讗讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

The Sages stated this difficulty before Rava in the name of Mar Zutra, the son of Rav Na岣an, who said a response in the name of Rav Na岣an: By Torah law, one who touches another who touches a corpse while the second individual is in concurrent contact with the corpse is impure with seven-day impurity. If this occurs while the second individual is not in concurrent contact with the corpse, he contracts impurity until the evening. And the Sages came and decreed that even where there is no concurrent contact, one still contracts seven-day impurity when he touches someone who touched a corpse. And subsequently Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer came and established the halakha in accordance with the original Torah law.

讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讻转讬讘 讛谞讙注 讘诪转 诇讻诇 谞驻砖 讗讚诐 讜讟诪讗 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讜 讛讟诪讗 讬讟诪讗 讜讻转讬讘 讜讛谞驻砖 讛谞讙注转 转讟诪讗 注讚 讛注专讘 讛讗 讻讬爪讚

The Gemara asks: What is the source of this halakha, prescribed by Torah law? As it is written: 鈥淗e that touches the dead, even any man鈥檚 dead body, shall be impure seven days鈥 (Numbers 19:11), and it is written: 鈥淎nd whatsoever the impure person touches shall be impure鈥 (Numbers 19:22). These two verses indicate that one contracts ritual impurity for seven days. And yet it is also written: 鈥淎nd the soul that touches him shall be impure until evening鈥 (Numbers 19:22). How can these texts be reconciled?

讻讗谉 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉 讻讗谉 砖诇讗 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉

The Gemara answers: Here, in the first two verses, the Torah is discussing concurrent contact, which results in impurity of seven days; there, in the last verse, it is discussing a case where there is no concurrent contact, and therefore the individual in question is impure only until the evening.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 诇讗讜 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讻讜 诇讗 转转诇讜 讘讬讛 讘讜拽讬 住专讬拽讬 讘专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛转讬专 诇讛谉

Rava said to the Sages who suggested that explanation citing Rav Na岣an: Didn鈥檛 I tell you not to hang empty pitchers [bukei] upon Rav Na岣an, i.e., not to attribute incorrect statements to him? Rather, this is what Rav Na岣an said: Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer permitted for them a case of uncertain impurity contracted in a public domain. In other words, Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer ruled leniently that one who is unsure whether or not he came in contact with a corpse in the public domain is ritually pure.

讜讛讗 讛诇讻转讗 诪住讜讟讛 讙诪专讬谞谉 诇讛 诪讛 住讜讟讛 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讗祝 讟讜诪讗讛 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn鈥檛 we learn this halakha from the case of a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota]: Just as a sota can be made to drink the bitter waters only when she is suspected of engaging in adultery in a private domain, so too, uncertain ritual impurity is considered impure only when one suspects that he came into contact with it in a private domain? This shows that even by Torah law one who is unsure whether or not he touched a corpse in the public domain remains pure.

讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讜专讬谉 讻谉 讜讗转讗 讗讬讛讜 讜讗讜专讬 诇讬讛 讗讜专讜讬讬

Rabbi Yo岣nan said in explanation: This is the halakha, but a public ruling is not issued to that effect. Consequently, the masses treated this matter with stringency. And Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer came and instructed the masses to follow the original instruction of the Torah. Therefore, his ruling was in fact a leniency.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 拽讜专讜转 谞注抓 诇讛诐 讜讗诪专 注讚 讻讗谉 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注讚 讻讗谉 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讻讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讗 诪讬讗 讘砖讬拽注转讗 讚讘谞讛专讗 讝讬诇讜 讟讘讜诇讜

The Gemara provides support for Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 explanation. This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer drove stakes into the ground for the people and said: Until here is the public domain, and until there is the private domain, so that they would know the halakha if they suspected that they had touched a corpse. The Gemara relates that when people came before Rabbi Yannai because they suspected that they might have come into contact with a source of impurity in the public domain, he said to them: Why involve yourselves in matters of uncertainty? There is deep water in the river; go immerse yourselves in it, and resolve the problem in this manner.

讜讛砖诇拽讜转 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 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 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讻诇 讘讻住祝 转砖讘专谞讬 讜讗讻诇转讬 讜诪讬诐 讘讻住祝 转转谉 诇讬 讜砖转讬转讬 讻诪讬诐 诪讛 诪讬诐 砖诇讗 谞砖转谞讜 讗祝 讗讜讻诇 砖诇讗 谞砖转谞讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And boiled vegetables prepared by gentiles are prohibited. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The verse states that when Moses asked Sihon, King of the Amorites, for passage through his land, he said: 鈥淵ou shall sell me food for money, that I may eat; and give me water for money, that I may drink鈥 (Deuteronomy 2:28). By juxtaposing food and water, the verse teaches that food is like water: Just as Moses wished to purchase water that was unchanged, so too, he wished to purchase food that was unchanged, i.e., uncooked. Evidently, this is because foods cooked by gentiles are prohibited.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讞讟讬谉 讜注砖讗谉 拽诇讬讜转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗住讜专讬谉 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞讬讟讬谉 讜注砖讗谉 拽诇讬讜转 诪讜转专讬谉 讗诇讗 讻诪讬诐 诪讛 诪讬诐 砖诇讗 谞砖转谞讜 诪讘专讬讬转谉 讗祝 讗讜讻诇 砖诇讗 谞砖转谞讛 诪讘专讬讬转讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is so, then in a case where a gentile had wheat and made it into roasted grains by roasting it in the oven, the wheat should also be prohibited, as it was cooked. And if you would say: Indeed that is so, this cannot be the halakha, as isn鈥檛 it taught in baraita: If a gentile had wheat and made it into roasted grains, it is permitted? The Gemara suggests a different explanation: Rather, food is like water in the following manner: Just as Moses wished to purchase water that was not altered from its original state, so too, he wished to purchase food that was not altered from its original state. Roasting wheat kernels does not alter their original state.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讞讬讟讬谉 讜讟讞谞谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗住讜专讬谉 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞讬讟讬谉 讜注砖讗谉 拽诇讬讜转 讛拽诪讞讬诐 讜讛住诇转讜转 砖诇讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 讗诇讗 讻诪讬诐 诪讛 诪讬诐 砖诇讗 谞砖转谞讜 诪讘专讬讬转谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讗讜专 讗祝 讗讜讻诇 砖诇讗 谞砖转谞讛 诪讘专讬讬转讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讗讜专

The Gemara raises another difficulty: If that is so, then if a gentile had wheat and ground it into flour, the flour should also be prohibited, as the wheat has been altered from its original state. And if you would say: Indeed that is so, this cannot be the case, as isn鈥檛 it taught in baraita: If a gentile had wheat and made it into roasted grains, it is permitted; similarly, flours and fine flours belonging to gentiles are permitted? Rather, food is like water in the following manner: Just as Moses wished to purchase water that was not altered from its original state by fire, so too, he wished to purchase food that was not altered from its original state by fire. Although wheat ground into flour is altered from its original state, this change is not accomplished by means of fire.

诪讬讚讬 讗讜专 讻转讬讘

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is fire written in the verse? There is no mention of fire in the verse at all. How can it be assumed that this is the similarity between water and food?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 37

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 37

讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讗讜讬 诇讘讬讗讛 诪讟诪讗 谞诪讬 讘讝讬讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛诇讻讱 讛讗 转讬谞讜拽转 讙讜讬讛 讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讗讜讬讛 诇讘讬讗讛 诪讟诪讗讛 谞诪讬 讘讝讬讘讛

The Gemara explains the reason for this opinion: Since a nine-year-old boy is fit to engage in intercourse, he also imparts ritual impurity as one who experienced ziva. Ravina said: Therefore, with regard to a female gentile child who is three years and one day old, since she is fit to engage in intercourse at that age, she also imparts impurity as one who experienced ziva.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讗讬 讬讚注 诇讗专讙讜诇讬 讜讛讗 诇讗 讬讚注讛 诇讗专讙讜诇讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara explains: It was necessary to state this ruling, lest you say that the halakha that a gentile who is suited for intercourse imparts impurity does not apply to a female. The possible difference between a male and female child is based on the fact that whereas that child, a nine-year-old male gentile, knows how to accustom others to sin by employing persuasion, this child, a three-year-old female gentile, does not know how to accustom others to sin until she matures. Therefore, Ravina teaches us that the halakha nevertheless applies to both male and female children.

诪讬住转诪讬讱 讜讗讝讬诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 讗讻转驻讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 砖诪注讬讛 讗诪专 诇讜 砖诪诇讗讬 诇讗 讛讬讬转 讗诪砖 讘讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讻砖讛转专谞讜 讗转 讛砖诪谉 讗诪专 诇讜 讘讬诪讬谞讜 转转讬专 讗祝 讗转 讛驻转 讗诪专 诇讜 讗诐 讻谉 拽专讜 诇谉 讘讬转 讚讬谞讗 砖专讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讗讬砖 爪专讬讚讛 注诇 讗讬讬诇 拽诪爪讗 讚讻谉 讜注诇 诪砖拽讛 讘讬转 诪讟讘讞讬讗 讚讻谉 讜注诇 讚讬拽专讘 诇诪讬转讗 诪住讗讘 讜拽专讜 诇讬讛 讬讜住祝 砖专讬讗

The Gemara relates a relevant incident: Rabbi Yehuda Nesia was traveling while leaning upon the shoulder of Rabbi Simlai, his attendant. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to him: Simlai, you were not in the study hall last night when we permitted the oil of gentiles. Rabbi Simlai said to him: In our days, you will permit bread of gentiles as well. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to him: If so, people will call us a permissive court. As we learned in a mishna (Eduyyot 8:4): Rabbi Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer of Tzereida testified with regard to the eil kamtza, a type of locust, that it is kosher, and with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple that they are ritually pure, and with regard to one who touches a corpse that he is impure, as soon explained by the Gemara. And as a result, they called him: Yosef the Permissive.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 砖专讗 转诇转 讜诪专 砖专讗 讞讚讗 讜讗讬 砖专讬 诪专 讞讚讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讗讻转讬 转专转讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讬讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 砖专讗讬 讗讞专讬转讬 诪讗讬 讛讬讗

Rabbi Simlai said to him: There, Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer permitted three matters, but the Master has permitted only one, and even if the Master permits one other matter, these will still constitute only two permissive rulings. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to him: I have already permitted another matter. The Gemara asks: What is the other matter that he permitted?

讚转谞谉 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 讜诪转 讘转讜讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讜专讘讜转讬谞讜 讛转讬专讜讛 诇讬谞砖讗 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗谉 专讘讜转讬谞讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讬转 讚讬谞讗 讚砖专讜 诪砖讞讗

The Gemara explains that this is as we learned in a mishna (Gittin 76b) that if one says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I do not arrive from now until twelve months鈥 time, and he died within twelve months, then it is not a valid bill of divorce because it would not take effect until after the husband鈥檚 death. And it is taught with regard to that mishna that our Rabbis nevertheless permitted her to marry. The Gemara continues: And we say: Who is the mishna referring to when it mentions our Rabbis? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This is referring to the court that permitted the oil of gentiles.

住讘专讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 讝诪谞讜 砖诇 砖讟专 诪讜讻讬讞 注诇讬讜 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讛讜专讛 讜诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讻诇 砖注转讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻诇 住讬讬注转讜

Tangentially, the Gemara examines the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia鈥檚 court concerning a bill of divorce. They hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says: The date written in a document proves when it takes effect. In other words, the bill of divorce takes effect at the time written on it. Therefore, the divorce actually goes into effect before the husband鈥檚 death, because it is retroactively initiated on the day that the bill was issued. The Gemara adds: And Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, says: In an earlier period, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also ruled that the bill of divorce should be valid, but the other Sages did not concede to his opinion during his entire lifetime [sha鈥檃to]. And some say that all of his colleagues [si鈥檃to] did not concede to his opinion.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 (讗诇讬注讝专) [讗诇注讝专] 诇讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 讻讬 砖专讬转讜讛 诇讗诇转专 砖专讬转讜讛 讚诇讗 讗转讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 讚讛讗 讗讬拽讬讬诐 诇讬讛 转谞讗讬讛

Rabbi Elazar said to a certain elderly man, who was a member of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia鈥檚 court: When you permitted this woman to remarry, did you permit her immediately after the husband died, as he certainly will not arrive within the twelve months, or perhaps you permitted her only after twelve months, because only then was the condition fulfilled?

讜转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚转谞谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 诪注讻砖讬讜 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 讜诪转 讘转讜讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 讛讜讬 讙讟 讚讛讗 讗讬拽讬讬诐 诇讬讛 转谞讗讬

That elderly man said to Rabbi Elazar: And let the dilemma be raised with regard to the mishna itself, as we learned in the next line of the mishna in Gittin: If one says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce from now if I do not arrive from now until twelve months have elapsed, and he died within twelve months, this is a valid bill of divorce. The reason is that its condition was fulfilled, as the husband stated explicitly that the bill takes effect immediately.

讜转讬讘注讬 诇讱 诇讗诇转专 讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讚讛讗 诇讗 讗转讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 讚讛讗 讗讬拽讬讬诐 诇讬讛 转谞讗讬讛 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬转 讘讛讛讜讗 诪谞讬讬谞讗

He explains: And let the dilemma be raised with regard to this case: Is the bill of divorce valid immediately upon the husband鈥檚 death because he will certainly not arrive? Or perhaps the bill of divorce is valid only after twelve months have elapsed, because only then is his condition fulfilled? Rabbi Elazar answered: Yes, it is indeed so; this question can be asked with regard to the case of the mishna itself. The Gemara adds: But Rabbi Elazar asked that elder about the decision of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia鈥檚 court because he was present at that assembly, and therefore he could report on what had actually occurred.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讻砖转爪讗 讞诪讛 诪谞专转讬拽讛 诇讻讬 谞驻拽讗 拽讗诪专 诇讛 讜讻讬 诪讬讬转 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讙讟 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讛讜讗

Abaye says: All concede that one who says that a bill of divorce will take effect once the sun emerges from its sheath is saying to his wife that it will be valid once the sun comes out in the morning. And therefore, if the husband dies during the night, before sunrise, it is a posthumous bill of divorce, which is invalid.

注诇 诪谞转 砖转爪讗 讞诪讛 诪谞专转讬拽讛 诪注讻砖讬讜 拽讗诪专 诇讛 讜讻讬 诪讬讬转 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 转谞讗讛 讛讜讬 讜讙讟 诪讞讬讬诐 讛讜讗 讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 注诇 诪谞转 讻讗讜诪专 诪注讻砖讬讜 讚诪讬

Furthermore, if he said to her: On the condition that the sun will come out of its sheath, then he is saying to his wife that the bill of divorce will take effect retroactively from now, on the condition that the sun emerges. And accordingly, if he dies during the night, this is certainly a fulfilled condition, and it is a bill of divorce which takes effect retroactively, while he is alive; in accordance with the statement of Rav Huna. As Rav Huna says: With regard to anyone who states a provision employing the language: On the condition, it is tantamount to his stating in the provision that the document takes effect retroactively from now.

诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘讗诐 转爪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 讝诪谞讜 砖诇 砖讟专 诪讜讻讬讞 注诇讬讜 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诪讛讬讜诐 讗诐 诪转讬 讻诪注讻砖讬讜 讗诐 诪转讬 讜专讘谞谉 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讗诐 诪转讬 讙专讬讚讗

They disagreed only in the case of one who said to his wife: This will be your bill of divorce if the sun emerges from its sheath, and the husband died during the night. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says that the date written in a document proves when it takes effect, and it is therefore considered as though the husband said: From today if I die, or as though he said: From now if I die. And the Sages do not accept the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and consequently they maintain that it is considered as though the husband said only: This is your bill of divorce if I die, in which case the bill of divorce is not valid, as it would take effect only after the husband鈥檚 death.

讙讜驻讗 讛注讬讚 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讗讬砖 爪专讬讚讛 注诇 讗讬讬诇 拽诪爪讗 讚讻谉 讜注诇 诪砖拽讛 讘讬 诪讟讘讞讬讗 讚讻谉 讜注诇 讚讬拽专讘 诇诪讬转讗 诪住讗讘 讜拽专讜 诇讬讛 讬讜住祝 砖专讬讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讬诇 拽诪爪讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 砖讜砖讬讘讗 讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讗诪专 住讜住讘讬诇

搂 The Gemara returns to the matter itself: Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer of Tzereida testified with regard to the eil kamtza that it is kosher, and with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple that they are ritually pure, and with regard to one who touches a corpse that he is impure. And as a result, they called him: Yosef the Permissive. The Gemara asks: What is the eil kamtza? Rav Pappa says: It is a long-headed locust called shoshiva, and Rav 岣yya bar Ami says in the name of Ulla: It is a locust called susbil.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 砖讜砖讬讘讗 讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘专讗砖讜 讗专讜讱 诪专 住讘专 专讗砖讜 讗专讜讱 讗住讜专 讜诪专 住讘专 专讗砖讜 讗专讜讱 诪讜转专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讗诪专

The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa says it is a shoshiva, and accordingly Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer and the other Rabbis disagree with regard to a long-headed locust: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that a long-headed locust is prohibited, and one Sage, Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer, holds that a long-headed locust is permitted. Rav 岣yya bar Ami says in the name of Ulla that

住讜住讘讬诇 讘专讗砖讜 讗专讜讱 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗住讜专 讜讛讻讗 讘讻谞驻讬讜 讞讜驻讬谉 讗转 专讜讘讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 专讜讘讗 讻诇 讚讛讜 讘注讬谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 专讜讘讗 讚诪谞讻专 讘注讬谞谉

it is a susbil, and accordingly, with regard to a long-headed locust, everyone agrees that it is prohibited. And here they disagree with regard to a locust whose wings barely cover most of its body: One Sage, Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer, holds that we require only a minimal majority of the locust鈥檚 body to be covered by its wings, and one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that we require a noticeable majority of the body to be covered.

讜注诇 诪砖拽讛 讘讬 诪讟讘讞讬讗 讚讻谉 诪讗讬 讚讻谉 专讘 讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诪砖 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诇讟诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 讬砖 讘讛谉

搂 It was stated above: And Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer testified with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple that they are ritually pure. The Gemara asks: What did Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer mean when he said they are pure? Rav says: He meant that they are actually ritually pure. And Shmuel says: They are pure in the sense that they do not impart ritual impurity to other substances; but they themselves can contract impurity.

专讘 讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诪砖 拽住讘专 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 讜讻讬 讙讝讜专 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讚注诇诪讗 讗讘诇 讘诪砖拽讛 讘讬 诪讟讘讞讬讗 诇讗 讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉

The Gemara explains the reasons for these opinions. Rav says that these liquids are actually pure, as he maintains that the ritual impurity of liquids applies by rabbinic law, and when the Sages decreed impurity upon liquids, they did so only with regard to ordinary liquids. But the Sages did not issue their decree with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讚讻谉 诪诇讟诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讘诇 讟讜诪讗转 注爪诪谉 讬砖 讘讛谉 拽住讘专 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讟诪讗 讗讞专讬诐 讚专讘谞谉 讜讻讬 讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讚注诇诪讗 讘诪砖拽讬谉 讘讬 诪讟讘讞讬讗 诇讗 讙讝专讜

And Shmuel says: The liquids are ritually pure in the sense that they do not impart impurity to other substances; but they themselves can contract impurity, as Shmuel maintains that the ritual impurity of liquids themselves is by Torah law, whereas their capacity to impart impurity to other substances is by rabbinic law. And when the Sages issued this decree, they did so only with regard to ordinary liquids. But they did not issue their decree with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple.

讜注诇 讚讬拽专讘 诇诪讬转讗 诪住讗讘 讜拽专讜 诇讬讛 讬讜住祝 砖专讬讗 讬讜住祝 讗住专讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讜注讜讚 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 讗砖专 讬讙注 注诇 驻谞讬 讛砖讚讛 讘讞诇诇 讞专讘 讗讜 讘诪转 讜讙讜壮

搂 It was stated: And Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer testified with regard to one who touches a corpse that he is impure, and as a result they called him: Yosef the Permissive. The Gemara questions this: Since he issued a stringent ruling, they should have called him: Yosef the Prohibiting. And furthermore, this halakha is explicitly written in the Torah, as it is written: 鈥淎nd whosoever in the open field touches one that is slain with a sword, or one that is dead, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be impure seven days鈥 (Numbers 19:16).

讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讬拽专讘 讟诪讗 讚讬拽专讘 讘讚讬拽专讘 讟讛讜专 讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讜讙讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讬拽专讘 讘讚讬拽专讘 讜讗转讗 讗讬讛讜 讜讗讜拽诪讛 讗讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

The Gemara explains: By Torah law one who touches a corpse is ritually impure, but one who touches another who has touched a corpse is pure. And the Sages came and decreed that even one who touches another who has touched a corpse is also impure. And Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer came and established the halakha in accordance with the original, more lenient Torah law.

讚讬拽专讘 讘讚讬拽专讘 谞诪讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讜 讛讟诪讗 讬讟诪讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: One who touches another who has touched a corpse is also rendered impure by Torah law, as it is written: 鈥淎nd whatsoever the impure person touches shall be impure鈥 (Numbers 19:22).

讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讬拽专讘 讘讚讬拽专讘 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 砖讘注讛 砖诇讗 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 注专讘 讜讗转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讜讙讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 砖讘注讛 讜讗转讗 讗讬讛讜 讜讗讜拽诪讛 讗讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

The Sages stated this difficulty before Rava in the name of Mar Zutra, the son of Rav Na岣an, who said a response in the name of Rav Na岣an: By Torah law, one who touches another who touches a corpse while the second individual is in concurrent contact with the corpse is impure with seven-day impurity. If this occurs while the second individual is not in concurrent contact with the corpse, he contracts impurity until the evening. And the Sages came and decreed that even where there is no concurrent contact, one still contracts seven-day impurity when he touches someone who touched a corpse. And subsequently Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer came and established the halakha in accordance with the original Torah law.

讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讻转讬讘 讛谞讙注 讘诪转 诇讻诇 谞驻砖 讗讚诐 讜讟诪讗 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讜 讛讟诪讗 讬讟诪讗 讜讻转讬讘 讜讛谞驻砖 讛谞讙注转 转讟诪讗 注讚 讛注专讘 讛讗 讻讬爪讚

The Gemara asks: What is the source of this halakha, prescribed by Torah law? As it is written: 鈥淗e that touches the dead, even any man鈥檚 dead body, shall be impure seven days鈥 (Numbers 19:11), and it is written: 鈥淎nd whatsoever the impure person touches shall be impure鈥 (Numbers 19:22). These two verses indicate that one contracts ritual impurity for seven days. And yet it is also written: 鈥淎nd the soul that touches him shall be impure until evening鈥 (Numbers 19:22). How can these texts be reconciled?

讻讗谉 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉 讻讗谉 砖诇讗 讘讞讬讘讜专讬谉

The Gemara answers: Here, in the first two verses, the Torah is discussing concurrent contact, which results in impurity of seven days; there, in the last verse, it is discussing a case where there is no concurrent contact, and therefore the individual in question is impure only until the evening.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 诇讗讜 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讻讜 诇讗 转转诇讜 讘讬讛 讘讜拽讬 住专讬拽讬 讘专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛转讬专 诇讛谉

Rava said to the Sages who suggested that explanation citing Rav Na岣an: Didn鈥檛 I tell you not to hang empty pitchers [bukei] upon Rav Na岣an, i.e., not to attribute incorrect statements to him? Rather, this is what Rav Na岣an said: Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer permitted for them a case of uncertain impurity contracted in a public domain. In other words, Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer ruled leniently that one who is unsure whether or not he came in contact with a corpse in the public domain is ritually pure.

讜讛讗 讛诇讻转讗 诪住讜讟讛 讙诪专讬谞谉 诇讛 诪讛 住讜讟讛 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讗祝 讟讜诪讗讛 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn鈥檛 we learn this halakha from the case of a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota]: Just as a sota can be made to drink the bitter waters only when she is suspected of engaging in adultery in a private domain, so too, uncertain ritual impurity is considered impure only when one suspects that he came into contact with it in a private domain? This shows that even by Torah law one who is unsure whether or not he touched a corpse in the public domain remains pure.

讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讜专讬谉 讻谉 讜讗转讗 讗讬讛讜 讜讗讜专讬 诇讬讛 讗讜专讜讬讬

Rabbi Yo岣nan said in explanation: This is the halakha, but a public ruling is not issued to that effect. Consequently, the masses treated this matter with stringency. And Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer came and instructed the masses to follow the original instruction of the Torah. Therefore, his ruling was in fact a leniency.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 拽讜专讜转 谞注抓 诇讛诐 讜讗诪专 注讚 讻讗谉 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注讚 讻讗谉 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讻讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讗 诪讬讗 讘砖讬拽注转讗 讚讘谞讛专讗 讝讬诇讜 讟讘讜诇讜

The Gemara provides support for Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 explanation. This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that Yosei ben Yo鈥檈zer drove stakes into the ground for the people and said: Until here is the public domain, and until there is the private domain, so that they would know the halakha if they suspected that they had touched a corpse. The Gemara relates that when people came before Rabbi Yannai because they suspected that they might have come into contact with a source of impurity in the public domain, he said to them: Why involve yourselves in matters of uncertainty? There is deep water in the river; go immerse yourselves in it, and resolve the problem in this manner.

讜讛砖诇拽讜转 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 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 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讻诇 讘讻住祝 转砖讘专谞讬 讜讗讻诇转讬 讜诪讬诐 讘讻住祝 转转谉 诇讬 讜砖转讬转讬 讻诪讬诐 诪讛 诪讬诐 砖诇讗 谞砖转谞讜 讗祝 讗讜讻诇 砖诇讗 谞砖转谞讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And boiled vegetables prepared by gentiles are prohibited. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The verse states that when Moses asked Sihon, King of the Amorites, for passage through his land, he said: 鈥淵ou shall sell me food for money, that I may eat; and give me water for money, that I may drink鈥 (Deuteronomy 2:28). By juxtaposing food and water, the verse teaches that food is like water: Just as Moses wished to purchase water that was unchanged, so too, he wished to purchase food that was unchanged, i.e., uncooked. Evidently, this is because foods cooked by gentiles are prohibited.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讞讟讬谉 讜注砖讗谉 拽诇讬讜转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗住讜专讬谉 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞讬讟讬谉 讜注砖讗谉 拽诇讬讜转 诪讜转专讬谉 讗诇讗 讻诪讬诐 诪讛 诪讬诐 砖诇讗 谞砖转谞讜 诪讘专讬讬转谉 讗祝 讗讜讻诇 砖诇讗 谞砖转谞讛 诪讘专讬讬转讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is so, then in a case where a gentile had wheat and made it into roasted grains by roasting it in the oven, the wheat should also be prohibited, as it was cooked. And if you would say: Indeed that is so, this cannot be the halakha, as isn鈥檛 it taught in baraita: If a gentile had wheat and made it into roasted grains, it is permitted? The Gemara suggests a different explanation: Rather, food is like water in the following manner: Just as Moses wished to purchase water that was not altered from its original state, so too, he wished to purchase food that was not altered from its original state. Roasting wheat kernels does not alter their original state.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讞讬讟讬谉 讜讟讞谞谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗住讜专讬谉 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞讬讟讬谉 讜注砖讗谉 拽诇讬讜转 讛拽诪讞讬诐 讜讛住诇转讜转 砖诇讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 讗诇讗 讻诪讬诐 诪讛 诪讬诐 砖诇讗 谞砖转谞讜 诪讘专讬讬转谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讗讜专 讗祝 讗讜讻诇 砖诇讗 谞砖转谞讛 诪讘专讬讬转讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讗讜专

The Gemara raises another difficulty: If that is so, then if a gentile had wheat and ground it into flour, the flour should also be prohibited, as the wheat has been altered from its original state. And if you would say: Indeed that is so, this cannot be the case, as isn鈥檛 it taught in baraita: If a gentile had wheat and made it into roasted grains, it is permitted; similarly, flours and fine flours belonging to gentiles are permitted? Rather, food is like water in the following manner: Just as Moses wished to purchase water that was not altered from its original state by fire, so too, he wished to purchase food that was not altered from its original state by fire. Although wheat ground into flour is altered from its original state, this change is not accomplished by means of fire.

诪讬讚讬 讗讜专 讻转讬讘

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is fire written in the verse? There is no mention of fire in the verse at all. How can it be assumed that this is the similarity between water and food?

Scroll To Top