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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 6, 2018 | 讬状讟 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 50

Study Guide Avoda Zara 50

If one finds rocks beside the idol Markolis (Mercury), in what case should one assume that the rocks came from the idol and would be forbidden to benefit from them? If roads are paved by non-Jews who took rocks from there, can we walk on those roads as the rocks were canceled out by the non-Jews who paved the roads with them or are these rocks considered “tikrovet聽avoda聽zara” – something used for worship which then can never be canceled? The criteria for what can be considered a tikrovet聽is discussed. The gemara goes off on a tangent about types of work in the field that can/can’t be done in the shemita year and on Chol Hamoed.


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

讘诪拽讜专讘讜转 谞诪讬 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讬谞讬讛 谞驻诇 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专讜转 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪专讜讞拽讜转

Furthermore, everyone agrees that also in the case of stones that are near the stone pile dedicated to Mercury, with regard to which it can be said that they fell from it, they are prohibited. Rabbi Yishmael and the Rabbis disagree only when the stones are distant.

讜讛讗 讘爪讚 诪专拽讜诇讬住 拽转谞讬 诪讗讬 讘爪讚 讘爪讚 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚讬讚讬讛

The Gemara challenges: But the mishna teaches that the stones are at the side of Mercury, indicating that they are nearby. The Gemara explains: What is meant by the term: At the side of Mercury? It means at the side of its four cubits.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 注讜砖讬谉 诪专拽讜诇讬住 拽讟谉 讘爪讚 诪专拽讜诇讬住 讙讚讜诇 砖诇砖 讚讚诪讬讬谉 诇诪专拽讜诇讬住 讗住讜专讜转 砖转讬诐 诪讜转专讜转 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪专拽讜诇讬住 拽讟谉 讘爪讚 诪专拽讜诇讬住 讙讚讜诇 诇讗 砖谞讗 砖诇砖 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 砖转讬诐 谞专讗讜转 注诪讜 讗住讜专讜转 砖讗讬谉 谞专讗讜转 注诪讜 诪讜转专讜转

The Gemara clarifies the dispute: Rabbi Yishmael holds that at times, idol worshippers initially construct a small stone pile dedicated to Mercury at the side of a large stone pile dedicated to Mercury. Therefore, three stones, which resemble a complete pile dedicated to Mercury, are prohibited. Two stones, which do not resemble a stone pile dedicated to Mercury, are permitted. Conversely, the Rabbis hold that idol worshippers do not construct a small stone pile dedicated to Mercury at the side of a large stone pile dedicated to Mercury. Therefore, the halakha is not different in a case where there are three stones, and it is not different in a case where there are two stones. In both cases those stones that can be seen together with the pile dedicated to Mercury are prohibited, as they may have fallen from it, whereas those that cannot be seen together with the stone pile are permitted.

讗诪专 诪专 讘讬讚讜注 砖谞砖专讜 诪诪谞讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专讜转 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗讘谞讬诐 砖谞砖专讜 诪谉 讛诪专拽讜诇讬住 谞专讗讜转 注诪讜 讗住讜专讜转 砖讗讬谉 谞专讗讜转 注诪讜 诪讜转专讜转 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 讗住讜专讜转 砖转讬诐 诪讜转专讜转 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 砖谞砖专讜 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 砖谞诪爪讗讜

The Master said: In a case where it is known that these stones fell from it, everyone agrees that they are prohibited. And the Gemara raises a contradiction to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement from his statement presented in a baraita: With regard to stones that fell from a pile dedicated to Mercury, those that can be seen together with it are prohibited; those that cannot be seen together with it are permitted. And Rabbi Yishmael says: Three stones are prohibited, but two stones are permitted. The baraita indicates that Rabbi Yishmael and the Rabbis also disagree where it is known that the stones fell from the stone pile. Rava said: Do not say in the baraita: Stones that fell from a pile. Rather, say: Stones that were found adjacent to the pile. There is no certainty that they fell from the pile.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖转讬诐 诪讜转专讜转 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖转讬诐 讘转驻讬住讛 诇讜 讗住讜专讜转 砖诇砖 讗驻讬诇讜 诪专讜讞拽讜转 讗住讜专讜转

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yishmael actually hold that two stones that are found adjacent to the pile are permitted? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael says: Two stones that are found in the area of the pile dedicated to Mercury are prohibited. Three stones are prohibited, even if they are found at a distance.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘转驻讬住讛 讗讞转 讻讗谉 讘砖转讬 转驻讬住讜转 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讙讜讘讛讛 讘讬谞讬 讜讘讬谞讬

Rava said: It is not difficult. Here, in the second baraita, it is referring to a case where both the pile and the adjacent stones are in the same area, in which case the stones are forbidden. There, in the first baraita, it is referring to a case where they are in two adjacent areas, in which case they are permitted. And what is considered two adjacent areas? This is referring to a case where there is an elevated area between them, and evidently the stones did not fall from the pile.

讜诪专拽讜诇讬住 讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讬 讛讜讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗诇讜 讛谉 讗讘谞讬 讘讬转 拽讜诇讬住 讗讞转 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讞转 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讞转 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘注讬拽专 诪专拽讜诇讬住

The Gemara asks: And are stones that are merely adjacent to each other in this way considered a pile dedicated to Mercury? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: These are the stones of a place of worship dedicated to Mercury: One stone is situated on one side and one is situated on the other side, and one is situated atop of them, but not where the stones are merely adjacent to each other? Rava said: When that baraita is taught, it is with regard to the main pile of stones dedicated to Mercury, but the stones that are added to it are not necessarily arranged in this way.

讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诪诇讻讗 讞专讜讘 讗转讜 讙讜讬诐 讗讜拽讬诪讜 讘讬讛 诪专拽讜诇讬住 讗转讜 讙讜讬诐 讗讞专讬谞讬 讚诇讗 驻诇讞讬 诇诪专拽讜诇讬住 砖拽诇讬谞讛讜 讜讞讬驻讜 讘讛谉 讚专讻讬诐 讜住讟专讟讗讜转 讗讬讻讗 专讘谞谉 讚驻专砖讬 讜讗讬讻讗 专讘谞谉 讚诇讗 驻专砖讬

搂 The Gemara relates: The house of King Yannai was destroyed, and gentiles came and placed stones dedicated to Mercury in it. Later, other gentiles who did not worship Mercury came and took those stones and paved paths and streets with them. There were Rabbis who withdrew from these paths, and there were other Rabbis who did not withdraw from these paths.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谞谉 砖诇 拽讚讜砖讬诐 诪讛诇讱 注诇讬讛谉 讜讗谞谉 谞驻专讜砖 诪讛谉 诪讗谉 谞讬讛讜 讘谞谉 砖诇 拽讚讜砖讬诐 专讘讬 诪谞讞诐 讘专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讬讛 讘谞谉 砖诇 拽讚讜砖讬诐 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘爪讜专转讗 讚讝讜讝讗 诇讗 诪讬住转讻诇

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The son of holy ones walks on them. Should we withdraw from them? The Gemara asks: Who is the person referred to as the son of holy ones? The Gemara answers: It is Rabbi Mena岣m, son of Rabbi Simai. And why did they call him the son of holy ones? They did so because Rabbi Mena岣m would not even gaze at the form on a coin, as it was sometimes an idolatrous symbol.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚驻专讬砖 住讘专 诇讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬谉 诇转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讘讟讬诇讛 注讜诇诪讬转 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬爪诪讚讜 诇讘注诇 驻注讜专 讜讬讗讻诇讜 讝讘讞讬 诪转讬诐 诪讛 诪转 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讟讬诇讛 诇注讜诇诐 讗祝 转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 讘讟讬诇讛 诇注讜诇诐

The Gemara asks: What is the reason of the one who withdraws from those paths? He holds in accordance with that which Rav Giddel says that Rav 岣yya bar Yosef says that Rav says: From where is it derived that with regard to an offering brought in idolatrous worship, there can never be any nullification of its prohibited status? This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: 鈥淭hey joined themselves to Baal of Peor, and ate the offerings to the dead鈥 (Psalms 106:28). Just as the prohibited status of a corpse has no nullification, and it is forever prohibited to derive benefit from it, so too, the prohibited status of an offering brought in idolatrous worship has no nullification ever.

讜诪讗谉 讚诇讗 驻专讬砖 讗诪专 讘注讬谞讗 讻注讬谉 驻谞讬诐 讜诇讬讻讗

And the one who does not withdraw from those paths says: In order for idol worship to prohibit an offering I require the offering to be like those offerings sacrificed inside the Temple, and there is no parallel to this offering in the Temple service, as stones are not brought as offerings.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讗讘讗 讗讬拽诇注 专讘讛 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 诇讗转专讬谉 讜讗转讗 讜讗讬讬转讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讙讜讬 砖讛讘讬讗 讗讘谞讬诐 诪谉 讛诪专拽讜诇讬住 讜讞讬驻讛 讘讛谉 讚专讻讬诐 讜讟专讟讬讗讜转

Rav Yosef bar Abba said: Rabba bar Yirmeya happened to come to our locale, and when he came he brought the following baraita with him: In the case of a gentile who brought stones from a pile dedicated to Mercury and paved paths and theaters with them,

诪讜转专讜转 讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讘讬讗 讗讘谞讬诐 诪谉 讛诪专拽讜诇讬住 讜讞讬驻讛 讘讛谉 讚专讻讬诐 讜住专讟讬讗讜转 讗住讜专讜转 讜诇讬转 谞讙专 讜诇讗 讘专 谞讙专 讚讬驻专拽讬谞讛

they are permitted, as the gentile nullified their prohibited status. In the case of a Jew who brought stones from a pile dedicated to Mercury and paved paths and streets with them, they are prohibited. And there is neither a carpenter [naggar] nor a son of a carpenter who can resolve this, i.e., no one can resolve the difficulty inherent in this statement, not a Torah scholar, and not even a scholar who is the son of a scholar.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗谞讗 诇讗 谞讙专 讗谞讗 讜诇讗 讘专 谞讙专 讗谞讗 讜驻专讬拽谞讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讚专讘 讙讬讚诇 讘注讬谞讗 讻注讬谉 驻谞讬诐 讜诇讬讻讗

Rav Sheshet said: As for me, I am not a carpenter, nor am I the son of a carpenter, and yet I will resolve the difficulty. What is the difficulty that Rabba bar Yirmeya finds in the baraita? The baraita is difficult because of the statement of Rav Giddel, that the prohibited status of offerings brought in idol worship can never be revoked. This is not difficult, as in order for idol worship to prohibit an offering I require the offering to be like those offerings sacrificed inside the Temple, and there is no a parallel offering of stones in the Temple.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讗讘讗 讗讬拽诇注 专讘讛 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 诇讗转专讬谉 讜讗转讗 讜讗讬讬转讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讘讬讚讬讛 诪转诇讬注讬谉 讜诪讝讛诪讬谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜讗讬谉 诪转诇讬注讬谉 讜诪讝讛诪讬谉 讘诪讜注讚

Rav Yosef bar Abba said: Rabba bar Yirmeya happened to come to our locale, and when he came he brought the following baraita with him: One may remove worms from a tree and place manure on a cut in a tree during the Sabbatical Year, but one may not remove worms or place manure on a cut during the intermediate days of the Festival.

讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉 讗讬谉 诪讙讝诪讬谉 讜住讻讬谉 砖诪谉 诇讙讝讜诐 讘讬谉 讘诪讜注讚 讘讬谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇讬转 谞讙专 讜诇讗 讘专 谞讙专 讚讬驻专拽讬谞讛

The baraita continues: Both here, in the case of the Sabbatical Year, and there, in the case of the intermediate days of the Festival, one may not prune the trees. But one may smear oil on the previously pruned tree on the place where one pruned it in order to prevent the tree from being damaged, both during the intermediate days of the Festival and during the Sabbatical Year. And there is neither a carpenter nor a son of a carpenter who can resolve this.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗谞讗 诇讗 谞讙专 讗谞讗 讜诇讗 讘专 谞讙专 讗谞讗 讜诪驻专拽讬谞讗 诇讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讜注讚 讗砖讘讬注讬转 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖讘讬注讬转 讚砖专讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讜注讚 讚讗住讜专 诪讬 讚诪讬 砖讘讬注讬转 诪诇讗讻讛 讗住专 专讞诪谞讗 讟讬专讞讗 砖专讬 诪讜注讚 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讬专讞讗 谞诪讬 讗住讜专

Ravina said: As for me, I am not a carpenter, nor am I the son of a carpenter, and yet I will resolve the difficulty. What is the difficulty that Rabba bar Yirmeya finds in the baraita? If we say that the difference between the intermediate days of the Festival and the Sabbatical Year poses a difficulty to him, this cannot be so. One cannot explain that Rabba bar Yirmeya is asking what is different about the Sabbatical Year that one is permitted to remove worms and place manure on a cut, and what is different about the intermediate days of the Festival that it is prohibited to do so, as this is not a valid question. Are they comparable? With regard to the Sabbatical Year, the Merciful One prohibited only agricultural labor, whereas other forms of exertion are permitted. With regard to the intermediate days of the Festival, even other forms of exertion are prohibited.

讜讗诇讗 讝讬讛讜诐 讗讙讬讝讜诐 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讝讬讛讜诐 讚砖专讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讬讝讜诐 讚讗住讜专 诪讬 讚诪讬 讝讬讛讜诐 讗讜拽讜诪讬 讗讬诇谞讗 讜砖专讬 讙讬讝讜诐 讗讘专讜讬讬 讗讬诇谞讗 讜讗住讜专

Ravina suggests: Rather, perhaps the difference between placing manure and pruning poses a difficulty to him. What is different about placing manure that it is permitted during the Sabbatical Year, and what is different about pruning that it is prohibited? Ravina rejects this suggestion: This is also not a valid question. Are they comparable? The purpose of placing manure is to preserve the tree, and therefore it is permitted, whereas the purpose of pruning is to enhance the tree, and therefore it is prohibited.

讜讗诇讗 讝讬讛讜诐 讗讝讬讛讜诐 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讚拽转谞讬 诪转诇讬注讬谉 讜诪讝讛诪讬谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诪讝讛诪讬谉 讗转 讛谞讟讬注讜转 讜讻讜专讻讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜拽讜讟诪讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜注讜砖讬谉 诇讛诐 讘转讬诐 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讗讜转谉 注讚 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 注讚 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讗讬谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 诇讗

Ravina suggests: Rather, perhaps the contradiction between the aforementioned baraita with regard to placing manure and another mishna with regard to placing manure poses a difficulty to him, as the baraita teaches: One may remove worms from a tree and place manure on a cut in a tree during the Sabbatical Year. And one may raise a contradiction from a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 2:4): One may place manure on the saplings, and one may bind their branches to the trunk so that they grow upright. And one may lop off their tops to promote their growth, and make shelters for them to shield them from the sun, and water them. All these actions are permitted until Rosh HaShana of the Sabbatical Year. One can infer that until Rosh HaShana, yes, one may place manure on the tree; but during the Sabbatical Year itself one may not do so.

讜讚诇诪讗 讻讚专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 转专讬 拽砖拽讜砖讬 讛讜讜 讞讚 诇讗讘专讜讬讬 讗讬诇谞讗 讜讗住讜专 讜讞讚 诇住转讜诪讬 驻讬诇讬 讜砖专讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 转专讬 讝讬讛诪讜诪讬 讛讜讬 讞讚 诇讗讜拽讜诪讬 讗讬诇谞讬 讜砖专讬 讜讞讚 诇讗讘专讜讬讬 讗讬诇谞讬 讜讗住讜专

Ravina rejects this suggestion: But perhaps one can account for the apparent contradiction in a similar fashion to the explanation of Rav Ukva bar 岣ma, as Rav Ukva bar 岣ma says: There are two types of hoeing [kishkushei]. The purpose of one type is to enhance the tree鈥檚 health, and it is therefore prohibited. And the purpose of one type is to close up cracks in the ground, which is permitted, as it is done only to prevent the trees from dying and not to enhance their growth. So too, one may suggest that there are two types of placing manure: One type whose purpose is to preserve the trees, and is therefore permitted, and one type whose purpose is to enhance the trees, and is therefore prohibited.

讜讗诇讗 住讬讻讛 讗住讬讻讛 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讚拽转谞讬 住讻讬谉 砖诪谉 诇讙讝讜诐 讘讬谉 讘诪讜注讚 讜讘讬谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 住讻讬谉 讗转 讛驻讙讬谉 讜诪谞拽讘讬谉 讜诪驻讟诪讬谉 讗讜转谉 注讚 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 注讚 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讗讬谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 诇讗

Ravina suggests: Rather, perhaps the contradiction between the halakha in the baraita with regard to smearing oil and the halakha in another mishna with regard to smearing oil poses a difficulty for him, as the baraita teaches: One may smear oil on the previously pruned tree, on the place where one pruned it, both during the intermediate days of the Festival and during the Sabbatical Year. And one may raise a contradiction from the mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 2:5): One may smear oil on the unripe figs in the sixth year of the Sabbatical cycle in order to accelerate their ripening, and similarly one may pierce them and fill the cut with oil to facilitate their ripening until Rosh HaShana. One can infer that until Rosh HaShana, yes, one may smear; but during the Sabbatical Year itself one may not do so.

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛讻讗 讗讜拽讜诪讬 讗讬诇谞讗 讜砖专讬 讛转诐 驻讟讜诪讬 驻讬专讗 讜讗住讜专

Ravina rejects this suggestion: That is also not a valid question. Are they comparable? Here, the purpose of smearing oil on the place where the tree was pruned is to preserve the tree, and therefore it is permitted. There, the purpose of smearing oil on the unripe figs is to enhance and enlarge the fruit and is therefore prohibited.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住诪讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 住讬讻讛 讚诪讜注讚 讗讝讬讛讜诐 讚诪讜注讚 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讻讚讬 讛讗讬 讗讜拽讜诪讬 讜讛讗讬 讗讜拽讜诪讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讗讬 讚砖专讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讗讬 讚讗住讜专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬转 谞讙专 讜诇讗 讘专 谞讙专 讚讬驻专拽讬谞讛

Rav Samma, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina: The contradiction between the halakha with regard to smearing oil during the intermediate days of the Festival and the halakha with regard to placing manure during the intermediate days of the Festival poses a difficulty for Rabba bar Yirmeya. Since the purpose of this action is to preserve the tree, and the purpose of that action is to preserve the tree, what is different in this case that it is permitted, and what is different in that case that it is prohibited? This is the reason that Rabba bar Yirmeya said to him: There is neither a carpenter nor a son of a carpenter who can resolve this.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖注讜讘讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘诪拽诇 砖讘专 诪拽诇 讘驻谞讬讛 讞讬讬讘 讝专拽 诪拽诇 讘驻谞讬讛 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖讘专 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻注讬谉 讝讘讬讞讛 讝专拽 谞诪讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻注讬谉 讝专讬拽讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注讬谞讗 讝专讬拽讛 诪砖转讘专转 讜诇讬讻讗

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: In the case of an object of idol worship that is worshipped by means of a stick, e.g., by beating a stick on another object in order to produce noise, if one broke a stick before it, he is liable. If he threw a stick before it, he is exempt. Abaye said to Rava: What is different about the case where one broke a stick? In this case one is liable because it is similar to slaughtering an offering, which is a rite performed in the Temple; so too, in the case where one threw a stick, it is similar to the sprinkling of the blood on the altar. Rava said to Abaye: In order for a sacrificial rite to be similar to the sprinkling of blood, I require a form of throwing that scatters the offering, and that is not the case here.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 住驻转 诇讛 爪讜讗讛 讗讜 砖谞住讱 诇驻谞讬讛 注讘讬讟 砖诇 诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬诐

Abaye raised an objection to Rava鈥檚 explanation from a baraita: One who fed [safat] an idol excrement, or who poured a chamber pot of urine before it as a libation,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 50

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 50

讘诪拽讜专讘讜转 谞诪讬 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讬谞讬讛 谞驻诇 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专讜转 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪专讜讞拽讜转

Furthermore, everyone agrees that also in the case of stones that are near the stone pile dedicated to Mercury, with regard to which it can be said that they fell from it, they are prohibited. Rabbi Yishmael and the Rabbis disagree only when the stones are distant.

讜讛讗 讘爪讚 诪专拽讜诇讬住 拽转谞讬 诪讗讬 讘爪讚 讘爪讚 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚讬讚讬讛

The Gemara challenges: But the mishna teaches that the stones are at the side of Mercury, indicating that they are nearby. The Gemara explains: What is meant by the term: At the side of Mercury? It means at the side of its four cubits.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 注讜砖讬谉 诪专拽讜诇讬住 拽讟谉 讘爪讚 诪专拽讜诇讬住 讙讚讜诇 砖诇砖 讚讚诪讬讬谉 诇诪专拽讜诇讬住 讗住讜专讜转 砖转讬诐 诪讜转专讜转 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪专拽讜诇讬住 拽讟谉 讘爪讚 诪专拽讜诇讬住 讙讚讜诇 诇讗 砖谞讗 砖诇砖 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 砖转讬诐 谞专讗讜转 注诪讜 讗住讜专讜转 砖讗讬谉 谞专讗讜转 注诪讜 诪讜转专讜转

The Gemara clarifies the dispute: Rabbi Yishmael holds that at times, idol worshippers initially construct a small stone pile dedicated to Mercury at the side of a large stone pile dedicated to Mercury. Therefore, three stones, which resemble a complete pile dedicated to Mercury, are prohibited. Two stones, which do not resemble a stone pile dedicated to Mercury, are permitted. Conversely, the Rabbis hold that idol worshippers do not construct a small stone pile dedicated to Mercury at the side of a large stone pile dedicated to Mercury. Therefore, the halakha is not different in a case where there are three stones, and it is not different in a case where there are two stones. In both cases those stones that can be seen together with the pile dedicated to Mercury are prohibited, as they may have fallen from it, whereas those that cannot be seen together with the stone pile are permitted.

讗诪专 诪专 讘讬讚讜注 砖谞砖专讜 诪诪谞讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专讜转 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗讘谞讬诐 砖谞砖专讜 诪谉 讛诪专拽讜诇讬住 谞专讗讜转 注诪讜 讗住讜专讜转 砖讗讬谉 谞专讗讜转 注诪讜 诪讜转专讜转 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 讗住讜专讜转 砖转讬诐 诪讜转专讜转 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 砖谞砖专讜 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 砖谞诪爪讗讜

The Master said: In a case where it is known that these stones fell from it, everyone agrees that they are prohibited. And the Gemara raises a contradiction to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement from his statement presented in a baraita: With regard to stones that fell from a pile dedicated to Mercury, those that can be seen together with it are prohibited; those that cannot be seen together with it are permitted. And Rabbi Yishmael says: Three stones are prohibited, but two stones are permitted. The baraita indicates that Rabbi Yishmael and the Rabbis also disagree where it is known that the stones fell from the stone pile. Rava said: Do not say in the baraita: Stones that fell from a pile. Rather, say: Stones that were found adjacent to the pile. There is no certainty that they fell from the pile.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖转讬诐 诪讜转专讜转 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖转讬诐 讘转驻讬住讛 诇讜 讗住讜专讜转 砖诇砖 讗驻讬诇讜 诪专讜讞拽讜转 讗住讜专讜转

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yishmael actually hold that two stones that are found adjacent to the pile are permitted? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael says: Two stones that are found in the area of the pile dedicated to Mercury are prohibited. Three stones are prohibited, even if they are found at a distance.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘转驻讬住讛 讗讞转 讻讗谉 讘砖转讬 转驻讬住讜转 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讙讜讘讛讛 讘讬谞讬 讜讘讬谞讬

Rava said: It is not difficult. Here, in the second baraita, it is referring to a case where both the pile and the adjacent stones are in the same area, in which case the stones are forbidden. There, in the first baraita, it is referring to a case where they are in two adjacent areas, in which case they are permitted. And what is considered two adjacent areas? This is referring to a case where there is an elevated area between them, and evidently the stones did not fall from the pile.

讜诪专拽讜诇讬住 讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讬 讛讜讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗诇讜 讛谉 讗讘谞讬 讘讬转 拽讜诇讬住 讗讞转 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讞转 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讞转 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘注讬拽专 诪专拽讜诇讬住

The Gemara asks: And are stones that are merely adjacent to each other in this way considered a pile dedicated to Mercury? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: These are the stones of a place of worship dedicated to Mercury: One stone is situated on one side and one is situated on the other side, and one is situated atop of them, but not where the stones are merely adjacent to each other? Rava said: When that baraita is taught, it is with regard to the main pile of stones dedicated to Mercury, but the stones that are added to it are not necessarily arranged in this way.

讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诪诇讻讗 讞专讜讘 讗转讜 讙讜讬诐 讗讜拽讬诪讜 讘讬讛 诪专拽讜诇讬住 讗转讜 讙讜讬诐 讗讞专讬谞讬 讚诇讗 驻诇讞讬 诇诪专拽讜诇讬住 砖拽诇讬谞讛讜 讜讞讬驻讜 讘讛谉 讚专讻讬诐 讜住讟专讟讗讜转 讗讬讻讗 专讘谞谉 讚驻专砖讬 讜讗讬讻讗 专讘谞谉 讚诇讗 驻专砖讬

搂 The Gemara relates: The house of King Yannai was destroyed, and gentiles came and placed stones dedicated to Mercury in it. Later, other gentiles who did not worship Mercury came and took those stones and paved paths and streets with them. There were Rabbis who withdrew from these paths, and there were other Rabbis who did not withdraw from these paths.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谞谉 砖诇 拽讚讜砖讬诐 诪讛诇讱 注诇讬讛谉 讜讗谞谉 谞驻专讜砖 诪讛谉 诪讗谉 谞讬讛讜 讘谞谉 砖诇 拽讚讜砖讬诐 专讘讬 诪谞讞诐 讘专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讬讛 讘谞谉 砖诇 拽讚讜砖讬诐 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘爪讜专转讗 讚讝讜讝讗 诇讗 诪讬住转讻诇

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The son of holy ones walks on them. Should we withdraw from them? The Gemara asks: Who is the person referred to as the son of holy ones? The Gemara answers: It is Rabbi Mena岣m, son of Rabbi Simai. And why did they call him the son of holy ones? They did so because Rabbi Mena岣m would not even gaze at the form on a coin, as it was sometimes an idolatrous symbol.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚驻专讬砖 住讘专 诇讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬谉 诇转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讘讟讬诇讛 注讜诇诪讬转 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬爪诪讚讜 诇讘注诇 驻注讜专 讜讬讗讻诇讜 讝讘讞讬 诪转讬诐 诪讛 诪转 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讟讬诇讛 诇注讜诇诐 讗祝 转拽专讜讘转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 讘讟讬诇讛 诇注讜诇诐

The Gemara asks: What is the reason of the one who withdraws from those paths? He holds in accordance with that which Rav Giddel says that Rav 岣yya bar Yosef says that Rav says: From where is it derived that with regard to an offering brought in idolatrous worship, there can never be any nullification of its prohibited status? This is derived from a verse, as it is stated: 鈥淭hey joined themselves to Baal of Peor, and ate the offerings to the dead鈥 (Psalms 106:28). Just as the prohibited status of a corpse has no nullification, and it is forever prohibited to derive benefit from it, so too, the prohibited status of an offering brought in idolatrous worship has no nullification ever.

讜诪讗谉 讚诇讗 驻专讬砖 讗诪专 讘注讬谞讗 讻注讬谉 驻谞讬诐 讜诇讬讻讗

And the one who does not withdraw from those paths says: In order for idol worship to prohibit an offering I require the offering to be like those offerings sacrificed inside the Temple, and there is no parallel to this offering in the Temple service, as stones are not brought as offerings.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讗讘讗 讗讬拽诇注 专讘讛 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 诇讗转专讬谉 讜讗转讗 讜讗讬讬转讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讙讜讬 砖讛讘讬讗 讗讘谞讬诐 诪谉 讛诪专拽讜诇讬住 讜讞讬驻讛 讘讛谉 讚专讻讬诐 讜讟专讟讬讗讜转

Rav Yosef bar Abba said: Rabba bar Yirmeya happened to come to our locale, and when he came he brought the following baraita with him: In the case of a gentile who brought stones from a pile dedicated to Mercury and paved paths and theaters with them,

诪讜转专讜转 讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讘讬讗 讗讘谞讬诐 诪谉 讛诪专拽讜诇讬住 讜讞讬驻讛 讘讛谉 讚专讻讬诐 讜住专讟讬讗讜转 讗住讜专讜转 讜诇讬转 谞讙专 讜诇讗 讘专 谞讙专 讚讬驻专拽讬谞讛

they are permitted, as the gentile nullified their prohibited status. In the case of a Jew who brought stones from a pile dedicated to Mercury and paved paths and streets with them, they are prohibited. And there is neither a carpenter [naggar] nor a son of a carpenter who can resolve this, i.e., no one can resolve the difficulty inherent in this statement, not a Torah scholar, and not even a scholar who is the son of a scholar.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗谞讗 诇讗 谞讙专 讗谞讗 讜诇讗 讘专 谞讙专 讗谞讗 讜驻专讬拽谞讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讚专讘 讙讬讚诇 讘注讬谞讗 讻注讬谉 驻谞讬诐 讜诇讬讻讗

Rav Sheshet said: As for me, I am not a carpenter, nor am I the son of a carpenter, and yet I will resolve the difficulty. What is the difficulty that Rabba bar Yirmeya finds in the baraita? The baraita is difficult because of the statement of Rav Giddel, that the prohibited status of offerings brought in idol worship can never be revoked. This is not difficult, as in order for idol worship to prohibit an offering I require the offering to be like those offerings sacrificed inside the Temple, and there is no a parallel offering of stones in the Temple.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讗讘讗 讗讬拽诇注 专讘讛 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 诇讗转专讬谉 讜讗转讗 讜讗讬讬转讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讘讬讚讬讛 诪转诇讬注讬谉 讜诪讝讛诪讬谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜讗讬谉 诪转诇讬注讬谉 讜诪讝讛诪讬谉 讘诪讜注讚

Rav Yosef bar Abba said: Rabba bar Yirmeya happened to come to our locale, and when he came he brought the following baraita with him: One may remove worms from a tree and place manure on a cut in a tree during the Sabbatical Year, but one may not remove worms or place manure on a cut during the intermediate days of the Festival.

讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉 讗讬谉 诪讙讝诪讬谉 讜住讻讬谉 砖诪谉 诇讙讝讜诐 讘讬谉 讘诪讜注讚 讘讬谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇讬转 谞讙专 讜诇讗 讘专 谞讙专 讚讬驻专拽讬谞讛

The baraita continues: Both here, in the case of the Sabbatical Year, and there, in the case of the intermediate days of the Festival, one may not prune the trees. But one may smear oil on the previously pruned tree on the place where one pruned it in order to prevent the tree from being damaged, both during the intermediate days of the Festival and during the Sabbatical Year. And there is neither a carpenter nor a son of a carpenter who can resolve this.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗谞讗 诇讗 谞讙专 讗谞讗 讜诇讗 讘专 谞讙专 讗谞讗 讜诪驻专拽讬谞讗 诇讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讜注讚 讗砖讘讬注讬转 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖讘讬注讬转 讚砖专讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讜注讚 讚讗住讜专 诪讬 讚诪讬 砖讘讬注讬转 诪诇讗讻讛 讗住专 专讞诪谞讗 讟讬专讞讗 砖专讬 诪讜注讚 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讬专讞讗 谞诪讬 讗住讜专

Ravina said: As for me, I am not a carpenter, nor am I the son of a carpenter, and yet I will resolve the difficulty. What is the difficulty that Rabba bar Yirmeya finds in the baraita? If we say that the difference between the intermediate days of the Festival and the Sabbatical Year poses a difficulty to him, this cannot be so. One cannot explain that Rabba bar Yirmeya is asking what is different about the Sabbatical Year that one is permitted to remove worms and place manure on a cut, and what is different about the intermediate days of the Festival that it is prohibited to do so, as this is not a valid question. Are they comparable? With regard to the Sabbatical Year, the Merciful One prohibited only agricultural labor, whereas other forms of exertion are permitted. With regard to the intermediate days of the Festival, even other forms of exertion are prohibited.

讜讗诇讗 讝讬讛讜诐 讗讙讬讝讜诐 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讝讬讛讜诐 讚砖专讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讬讝讜诐 讚讗住讜专 诪讬 讚诪讬 讝讬讛讜诐 讗讜拽讜诪讬 讗讬诇谞讗 讜砖专讬 讙讬讝讜诐 讗讘专讜讬讬 讗讬诇谞讗 讜讗住讜专

Ravina suggests: Rather, perhaps the difference between placing manure and pruning poses a difficulty to him. What is different about placing manure that it is permitted during the Sabbatical Year, and what is different about pruning that it is prohibited? Ravina rejects this suggestion: This is also not a valid question. Are they comparable? The purpose of placing manure is to preserve the tree, and therefore it is permitted, whereas the purpose of pruning is to enhance the tree, and therefore it is prohibited.

讜讗诇讗 讝讬讛讜诐 讗讝讬讛讜诐 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讚拽转谞讬 诪转诇讬注讬谉 讜诪讝讛诪讬谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诪讝讛诪讬谉 讗转 讛谞讟讬注讜转 讜讻讜专讻讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜拽讜讟诪讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜注讜砖讬谉 诇讛诐 讘转讬诐 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讗讜转谉 注讚 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 注讚 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讗讬谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 诇讗

Ravina suggests: Rather, perhaps the contradiction between the aforementioned baraita with regard to placing manure and another mishna with regard to placing manure poses a difficulty to him, as the baraita teaches: One may remove worms from a tree and place manure on a cut in a tree during the Sabbatical Year. And one may raise a contradiction from a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 2:4): One may place manure on the saplings, and one may bind their branches to the trunk so that they grow upright. And one may lop off their tops to promote their growth, and make shelters for them to shield them from the sun, and water them. All these actions are permitted until Rosh HaShana of the Sabbatical Year. One can infer that until Rosh HaShana, yes, one may place manure on the tree; but during the Sabbatical Year itself one may not do so.

讜讚诇诪讗 讻讚专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 转专讬 拽砖拽讜砖讬 讛讜讜 讞讚 诇讗讘专讜讬讬 讗讬诇谞讗 讜讗住讜专 讜讞讚 诇住转讜诪讬 驻讬诇讬 讜砖专讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 转专讬 讝讬讛诪讜诪讬 讛讜讬 讞讚 诇讗讜拽讜诪讬 讗讬诇谞讬 讜砖专讬 讜讞讚 诇讗讘专讜讬讬 讗讬诇谞讬 讜讗住讜专

Ravina rejects this suggestion: But perhaps one can account for the apparent contradiction in a similar fashion to the explanation of Rav Ukva bar 岣ma, as Rav Ukva bar 岣ma says: There are two types of hoeing [kishkushei]. The purpose of one type is to enhance the tree鈥檚 health, and it is therefore prohibited. And the purpose of one type is to close up cracks in the ground, which is permitted, as it is done only to prevent the trees from dying and not to enhance their growth. So too, one may suggest that there are two types of placing manure: One type whose purpose is to preserve the trees, and is therefore permitted, and one type whose purpose is to enhance the trees, and is therefore prohibited.

讜讗诇讗 住讬讻讛 讗住讬讻讛 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讚拽转谞讬 住讻讬谉 砖诪谉 诇讙讝讜诐 讘讬谉 讘诪讜注讚 讜讘讬谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 住讻讬谉 讗转 讛驻讙讬谉 讜诪谞拽讘讬谉 讜诪驻讟诪讬谉 讗讜转谉 注讚 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 注讚 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讗讬谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 诇讗

Ravina suggests: Rather, perhaps the contradiction between the halakha in the baraita with regard to smearing oil and the halakha in another mishna with regard to smearing oil poses a difficulty for him, as the baraita teaches: One may smear oil on the previously pruned tree, on the place where one pruned it, both during the intermediate days of the Festival and during the Sabbatical Year. And one may raise a contradiction from the mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 2:5): One may smear oil on the unripe figs in the sixth year of the Sabbatical cycle in order to accelerate their ripening, and similarly one may pierce them and fill the cut with oil to facilitate their ripening until Rosh HaShana. One can infer that until Rosh HaShana, yes, one may smear; but during the Sabbatical Year itself one may not do so.

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛讻讗 讗讜拽讜诪讬 讗讬诇谞讗 讜砖专讬 讛转诐 驻讟讜诪讬 驻讬专讗 讜讗住讜专

Ravina rejects this suggestion: That is also not a valid question. Are they comparable? Here, the purpose of smearing oil on the place where the tree was pruned is to preserve the tree, and therefore it is permitted. There, the purpose of smearing oil on the unripe figs is to enhance and enlarge the fruit and is therefore prohibited.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住诪讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 住讬讻讛 讚诪讜注讚 讗讝讬讛讜诐 讚诪讜注讚 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讻讚讬 讛讗讬 讗讜拽讜诪讬 讜讛讗讬 讗讜拽讜诪讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讗讬 讚砖专讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讗讬 讚讗住讜专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬转 谞讙专 讜诇讗 讘专 谞讙专 讚讬驻专拽讬谞讛

Rav Samma, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina: The contradiction between the halakha with regard to smearing oil during the intermediate days of the Festival and the halakha with regard to placing manure during the intermediate days of the Festival poses a difficulty for Rabba bar Yirmeya. Since the purpose of this action is to preserve the tree, and the purpose of that action is to preserve the tree, what is different in this case that it is permitted, and what is different in that case that it is prohibited? This is the reason that Rabba bar Yirmeya said to him: There is neither a carpenter nor a son of a carpenter who can resolve this.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖注讜讘讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘诪拽诇 砖讘专 诪拽诇 讘驻谞讬讛 讞讬讬讘 讝专拽 诪拽诇 讘驻谞讬讛 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖讘专 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻注讬谉 讝讘讬讞讛 讝专拽 谞诪讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻注讬谉 讝专讬拽讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注讬谞讗 讝专讬拽讛 诪砖转讘专转 讜诇讬讻讗

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: In the case of an object of idol worship that is worshipped by means of a stick, e.g., by beating a stick on another object in order to produce noise, if one broke a stick before it, he is liable. If he threw a stick before it, he is exempt. Abaye said to Rava: What is different about the case where one broke a stick? In this case one is liable because it is similar to slaughtering an offering, which is a rite performed in the Temple; so too, in the case where one threw a stick, it is similar to the sprinkling of the blood on the altar. Rava said to Abaye: In order for a sacrificial rite to be similar to the sprinkling of blood, I require a form of throwing that scatters the offering, and that is not the case here.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 住驻转 诇讛 爪讜讗讛 讗讜 砖谞住讱 诇驻谞讬讛 注讘讬讟 砖诇 诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬诐

Abaye raised an objection to Rava鈥檚 explanation from a baraita: One who fed [safat] an idol excrement, or who poured a chamber pot of urine before it as a libation,

Scroll To Top