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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 22, 2018 | 讜壮 讘砖讘讟 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 7

A number of different halachot聽are said in the name of individuals rabbis and the reactions of the rabbis to their statements are brought – there were some rabbis they agreed with their positions聽and others whose positions were rejected.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛砖讘讞 讬转专 注诇 讛讬爪讬讗讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛讬爪讬讗讛 讜讗诐 讛讬爪讬讗讛 讬转讬专讛 注诇 讛砖讘讞 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讘讞

Rabbi Meir says: The dyer gives the owner of the wool the value of his wool. Since the dyer deviated from the owner鈥檚 wishes, he is considered akin to a robber who acquires the stolen item by changing it. Therefore, like a robber he keeps the changed item and pays the owner its original value. Rabbi Yehuda says: The dyer does not acquire the wool; rather, the owner of the wool must reimburse the dyer for his expenses, without losing out himself. If the value of the enhancement, i.e., the enhanced value of the wool, exceeds the dyer鈥檚 expenses, the owner of the wool gives the dyer the expenses. And if the expenses exceed the enhancement, he gives him the value of the enhancement.

讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗驻讬讛 讘砖诇诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讬讞讬讚 讜专讘讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讬讞讬讚

Rav Yosef turned his face away to demonstrate his displeasure with Rav Huna鈥檚 comment. The Gemara explains why Rav Yosef was unhappy: Granted, his ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that because this is a dispute between an individual and the many, the halakha should be in accordance with the opinion of the many, not in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣. Rav Huna therefore teaches us that in this case the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 despite the fact that he is an individual.

讗诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诪讞诇讜拽转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 住转诐 讛诇讻转讗 讻住转诐

But why do I need the statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? It is obvious that this is the case, as there is a well-known principle that whenever there is a dispute in a mishna and afterward one opinion is presented as the ruling of an unattributed mishna, i.e., without attribution to a particular Sage or that the ruling is subject to debate, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion presented in the unattributed mishna.

诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讘讘讗 拽诪讗 讜住转诐 讘讘讘讗 诪爪讬注讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛诪砖谞讛 讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讜讻诇 讛讞讜讝专 讘讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛

The Gemara adds that here the ruling of the unattributed mishna appears after the dispute, as the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir appears in tractate Bava Kamma, and the unattributed mishna appears in Bava Metzia, which is the next tractate in the order of the Mishna. As we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 76a): Whoever changes the terms accepted by both parties is at a disadvantage, and whoever reneges on an agreement is at a disadvantage. This statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that a craftsman who deviates from his assignment is at a disadvantage, as he receives only the expense or the enhancement, whichever is worth less.

讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 住讚专 诇诪砖谞讛 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 住转诐 转谞讗 讘专讬砖讗 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讻诇 诪讞诇讜拽转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 住转诐 诇讬诪讗 讗讬谉 住讚专 诇诪砖谞讛

The Gemara asks: And why did Rav Huna feel it necessary to state explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? It was necessary because Rav Huna holds that the Mishna is not sequential, and therefore it is not clear that the mishna in Bava Kamma precedes the mishna in Bava Metzia. Consequently, it can be said that in fact this is a case of an unattributed mishna that is taught first, and only afterward appears the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir. The Gemara challenges: If that is so, that the Mishna is not sequential, then in every case of a dispute that is afterward followed by an unattributed mishna, let us say that the Mishna is not sequential.

讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬谉 住讚专 讘讞讚讗 诪住讻转讗 讘转专讬 诪住讻转讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讜诇讛 谞讝讬拽讬谉 讞讚讗 诪住讻转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara explains: And Rav Huna? How would he respond to this claim? He would say: When do we not say that the Mishna is non-sequential? The Mishna is considered sequential when both mishnayot appear in one tractate, but when they are in two different tractates, we do say that the Mishna is not sequential, and it is unclear which one was taught last. Therefore, in this case, as each mishna is found in a different tractate, one in Bava Kamma and the other in Bava Metzia, one cannot say for certain which was taught first. And how would Rav Yosef respond? He would say: All of tractate Nezikin, i.e., Bava Kamma, Bava Metzia, and Bava Batra, is considered one tractate, and therefore its internal order of mishnayot is sequential.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽转谞讬 诇讛 讙讘讬 讛诇讻转讗 驻住讬拽转讗 讻诇 讛诪砖谞讛 讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讜讻诇 讛讞讜讝专 讘讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛

And if you wish, say instead that Rav Yosef maintained that it was not necessary to say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, because his ruling is taught amid other decided halakhot: Whoever changes the terms accepted by both parties is at a disadvantage, and whoever reneges on an agreement is at a disadvantage, i.e., this statement is unrelated to the subject matter of the chapter in which it appears. Consequently, it is evidently the accepted halakha and therefore Rav Huna鈥檚 statement was unnecessary.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬讗诪专 讗讚诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 讛谞专讗讛 砖转注诪讜讚 注诪讬 诇注专讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 讛谞专讗讛 砖转注诪讜讚 注诪讬 诇注专讘 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛

搂 The Gemara discusses other halakhot that are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣. The Sages taught: A person may not say to another on Shabbat: Does it seem that you will join me this evening? This is prohibited, as the speaker is hinting that he would like to hire him for labor after the conclusion of Shabbat. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: A person may say to another on Shabbat: Does it seem that you will join me this evening? In this case, he is not asking him explicitly. Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞砖讗诇 诇讞讻诐 讜讟讬诪讗 诇讗 讬砖讗诇 诇讞讻诐 讜讬讟讛专 诇讞讻诐 讜讗住专 诇讗 讬砖讗诇 诇讞讻诐 讜讬转讬专

The Sages taught: In the case of one who asks a question of a Sage with regard to an issue of ritual impurity and the Sage rules that the item is impure, he may not ask the same question of another Sage and have him rule that it is pure. Similarly, in the case of one who asks a Sage a halakhic question and he deems it forbidden, he may not ask the question of another Sage and have him deem it permitted.

讛讬讜 砖谞讬诐 讗讞讚 诪讟诪讗 讜讗讞讚 诪讟讛专 讗讞讚 讗讜住专 讜讗讞讚 诪转讬专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讙讚讜诇 诪讞讘讬专讜 讘讞讻诪讛 讜讘诪谞讬谉 讛诇讱 讗讞专讬讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛诪讞诪讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖诇 转讜专讛 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛诪讞诪讬专 讘砖诇 住讜驻专讬诐 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛诪讬拽诇 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛

In a situation where there were two Sages sitting together and one deems an item impure and the other one deems it pure, or if one deems it prohibited and the other one deems it permitted, the questioner should proceed as follows: If one of the Sages was superior to the other in wisdom and in number, one should follow his ruling, and if not, he should follow the one who rules stringently. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: If the uncertainty exists with regard to a Torah law, follow the one who rules stringently; if it exists with regard to a rabbinic law, follow the one who rules leniently. Rav Yosef said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讞讝专讜 讘讛谉 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 注讜诇诪讬转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞讝专讜 讘讛谉 讘诪讟诪讜谞讬讜转 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘驻专讛住讬讗 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 注砖讜 讚讘专讬讛诐 讘诪讟诪讜谞讬讜转 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讗讜转谉

The Sages taught: And with regard to all of the people who are not deemed credible due to sins that they performed, even when they retract and repent from their evil ways, society never accepts them; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If they retract their ways in private, society does not accept them, but if they repent in public [befarheseya], society accepts them. There are those who say that there is another version of this discussion: If they performed their sinful matters in private, then when they repent society accepts them.

讘驻专讛住讬讗 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诪拽讘诇讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 砖讜讘讜 讘谞讬诐 砖讜讘讘讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讬砖 讻驻专 注讻讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻转讗 讻讗讜转讜 讛讝讜讙

But if they performed their sins in public, society does not accept them. Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 say: Both in this case, where they sinned in private, and in that case, where they sinned in public, society accepts them, as it is stated: 鈥淩eturn, you backsliding children, I will heal your backslidings鈥 (Jeremiah 3:22). Rabbi Yitz岣k of the village of Akko says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of that pair, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, i.e., penitents are accepted, regardless of whether they sinned in public or in private.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讛 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诇讗讞专讬讛诐 讗住讜专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇驻谞讬 讗讬讚讬讛谉 讗住讜专 诇讗讞专 讗讬讚讬讛谉 诪讜转专

MISHNA: Rabbi Yishmael says: On the three days before the festivals of gentiles and on the three days after them, it is prohibited to engage in business with those gentiles. And the Rabbis say: It is prohibited to engage in business with them before their festivals, but it is permitted to engage in business with them after their festivals.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞讜爪专讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讜专

GEMARA: Rav Ta岣ifa bar Avdimi says that Shmuel says: With regard to a Christian, according to the statement of Rabbi Yishmael it is always prohibited for a Jew to engage in business with him. Since his festival takes place every Sunday and the three days before and after Sunday constitute the entire week, one cannot engage in business with a Christian on any day of the week.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇驻谞讬 讗讬讚讬讛谉 讗住讜专 诇讗讞专 讗讬讚讬讛谉 诪讜转专 讻讜壮 讞讻诪讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛谉 讘诇讗 讗讬讚讬讛谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讛谉 讘诇讗 讗讬讚讬讛谉 讜专讘谞谉 讘转专讗讬 住讘专讬 讛谉 讜讗讬讚讬讛谉

The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: It is prohibited to engage in business with them before their festivals, but it is permitted to engage in business with them after their festivals. The Gemara raises a difficulty: The statement of the Rabbis is identical to the statement of the first tanna in the mishna on 2a, who said that it is prohibited to engage in business with gentiles during the three days before their festival. The Gemara answers: The difference between them is with regard to the question of whether the three days includes only them, i.e., the three days, without their festival, or if the festival is counted as one of the three days. The first tanna holds that the three days is referring to them, the days preceding the festival, without their festivals, and the later Rabbis cited in this mishna hold that the three days include them and their festivals.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 诪讜转专 讜专讘谞谉 讘转专讗讬 住讘专讬 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讗住讜专

If you wish, say that the difference between the Rabbis and the first tanna is with regard to one who ignored this injunction and engaged in business with gentiles before their festival. The first tanna holds that if one engaged in business, it is permitted to derive benefit from the profits, and the later Rabbis hold that if one engaged in business, it is prohibited to derive benefit from the profits.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讙讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讬讚诐 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 专讘谞谉 讘转专讗讬 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讚砖诪讜讗诇

And if you wish, say that the difference between the Rabbis and the first tanna is with regard to the statement of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: In the Diaspora it is prohibited to engage in business with gentiles only on their festival day itself. The first tanna is of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and the later Rabbis are not of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚转谞讬讗 谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇驻谞讬 讗讬讚讬讛谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讜专讘谞谉 讘转专讗讬 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬

If you wish, say that the difference between the Rabbis and the first tanna is with regard to a statement of Na岣m the Mede. As it is taught in a baraita that Na岣m the Mede says: It is prohibited to engage in business with gentiles only on the day before their festival. The first tanna is not of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Na岣m the Mede, and the later Rabbis are of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Na岣m the Mede, as they do not mention how many days before the festival are included in the prohibition.

讙讜驻讗 谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇驻谞讬 讗讬讚讬讛谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 谞砖转拽注 讛讚讘专 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专 讜讛讗讬讻讗 专讘谞谉 讘转专讗讬 讚拽讬讬诪讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讛讜讗

Having mentioned Na岣m the Mede鈥檚 opinion, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Na岣m the Mede says: It is prohibited only on the day before their festival. The other Sages said to him: It would be best if this matter were lost and not stated, as it is not the halakha. The Gemara asks: But aren鈥檛 there the later Rabbis, who hold in accordance with his opinion? The Gemara answers: Who are these Rabbis? This is referring to Na岣m the Mede himself, but the other Sages disagree.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讗讜诪专 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 住讜住 讝讻专 讜讝拽谉 讘诪诇讞诪讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 谞砖转拽注 讛讚讘专 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专

搂 The Gemara cites additional statements of Na岣m the Mede. It is taught in another baraita that Na岣m the Mede says: Although it is prohibited to sell large livestock to gentiles, one may sell a male and elderly horse to them during a war, as it cannot be used for battle. The Sages said to him: It would be best if this matter were lost and not stated, as it is not the halakha.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讚拽讗讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚转谞谉 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪转讬专 讘住讜住 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诇讗 诪驻诇讬讙 讘讬谉 讝讻专讬诐 诇谞拽讘讜转 讗讬讛讜 诪讚拽讗 诪驻诇讬讙 讘讬谉 讝讻专讬诐 诇谞拽讘讜转 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜诇专讘谞谉 谞砖转拽注 讛讚讘专 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there ben Beteira, who holds in accordance with his opinion? As we learned in a mishna (14b): Ben Beteira permits selling a horse to gentiles. The Gemara answers: Since ben Beteira does not differentiate between male and female horses, and Na岣m the Mede does differentiate between male and female horses, it is clear that Na岣m the Mede holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that one is generally not permitted to sell a horse to a gentile, only he permits it in this specific circumstance. And according to the opinion of the Rabbis, it would be best if this matter were lost and not stated.

转谞讬讗 谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讗讜诪专 讛砖讘转 诪转注砖专 讝专注 讜讬专拽 讜讝讬专讬谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 谞砖转拽注 讛讚讘专 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专 讜讛讗讬讻讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚拽讗讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛砖讘转 诪转注砖专转 讝专注 讜讬专拽 讜讝讬专讬谉 讛转诐 讘讚讙谞讜谞讬转讗

The Gemara cites a similar dispute. It is taught in a baraita that Na岣m the Mede says: The dill plant is subject to tithes, whether it is used as a seed, or a vegetable, or a pod. The Sages said to him: It would be best if this matter were lost and not stated, as it is not the halakha. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there Rabbi Eliezer, who holds in accordance with his opinion? As we learned in a mishna (Ma鈥檃srot 4:5) that Rabbi Eliezer says: The dill plant is subject to tithes whether it is used as a seed, or a vegetable, or a pod. The Gemara answers: There, Rabbi Eliezer is referring to the garden variety of dill, which is of such a high quality that its seeds, vegetable, and pods are eaten. By contrast, in the case of wild dill, only its seeds and vegetable are eaten, not the pods.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 诇讗讘讬讬 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讗转讗 诪讗转专讬谉 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪专 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 谞砖转拽注 讛讚讘专 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诪专 讗讬讻讗 讞讚讗 讚注讘讚讬谞谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讗讜诪专 砖讜讗诇 讗讚诐 爪专讻讬讜 讘砖讜诪注 转驻诇讛

Apropos the discussion between Na岣m the Mede and the other Sages, Rav A岣 bar Minyumi said to Abaye: A great man came from our place, i.e., from Media, and in response to every matter that he said, the Sages said to him that it would be best if this matter were lost and not stated. Do they wish to erase all the halakhot taught by the Sages of Media? Abaye said: There is one instance in which we act in accordance with his opinion, as it is taught in a baraita that Na岣m the Mede says: During the Amida prayer a person may request his personal needs that are not included in the standard formulation of the Amida prayer, in the blessing that ends: Who listens to prayer.

讗诪专 讘专 诪讬谞讛 讚讛讛讬讗 讚转诇讬讗 讘讗砖诇讬 专讘专讘讬

Rav A岣 bar Minyumi said to Abaye: Apart from this halakha, i.e., this does not serve as proof that a statement of Na岣m the Mede was ever accepted by the other Sages, as this halakha is dependent on the dispute between great trees, i.e., great authorities, who expressed their opinions with regard to the halakha before Na岣m the Mede.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 砖讜讗诇 讗讚诐 爪专讻讬讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬转驻诇诇 砖谞讗诪专 转驻诇讛 诇注谞讬 讻讬 讬注讟祝 讜诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讬砖驻讱 砖讬讞讜 讜讙讜壮 讗讬谉 砖讬讞讛 讗诇讗 转驻诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬爪讗 讬爪讞拽 诇砖讜讞 讘砖讚讛

Rav A岣 bar Minyumi elaborates: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: A person should request his own needs first and afterward recite the Amida prayer, as it is stated: 鈥淎 prayer of the afflicted, when he is faint and pours out si岣 before the Lord. O Lord, hear my prayer鈥 (Psalms 102:1鈥2). These verses indicate that one first requests help concerning his afflictions and pains, and only afterward pours forth his si岣. And si岣 means nothing other than prayer, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd Isaac went out to meditate [lasua岣] in the field鈥 (Genesis 24:63).

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讬转驻诇诇 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬砖讗诇 爪专讻讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讗砖驻讱 诇驻谞讬讜 砖讬讞讬 爪专转讬 诇驻谞讬讜 讗讙讬讚

Rabbi Yehoshua says: One should pray first and afterward request his own needs, as it is stated: 鈥淚 pour out si岣 before Him, I declare before Him my trouble鈥 (Psalms 142:3), which teaches that first one pours forth his si岣, and only afterward speaks of his own troubles.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讗砖驻讱 诇驻谞讬讜 砖讬讞讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗砖驻讜讱 诇驻谞讬讜 砖讬讞讬 讘讝诪谉 砖爪专转讬 诇驻谞讬讜 讗讙讬讚 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 转驻诇讛 诇注谞讬 讻讬 讬注讟祝 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬诪转讬 转驻诇讛 诇注谞讬 讘讝诪谉 砖诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讬砖驻讜讱 砖讬讞讜

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer as well, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淚 pour out si岣 before Him, I declare before Him my trouble鈥? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Eliezer, this is what the verse is saying: I pour out my si岣 before Him when I have already declared before Him my trouble. The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 opinion: And according to Rabbi Yehoshua as well, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎 prayer of the afflicted, when he is faint and pours out si岣 before the Lord鈥? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yehoshua, this is what the verse is saying: When is there a prayer of the afflicted? When he has already poured out si岣 before the Lord, and now requests his own needs.

诪讻讚讬 拽专讗讬 诇讗 讻诪专 讚讬讬拽讬 讜诇讗 讻诪专 讚讬讬拽讬 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara notes: Now it is clear that the verses themselves do not fit precisely in accordance with the opinion of this Sage and do not fit precisely in accordance with the opinion of that Sage, as one verse indicates that prayer is recited before stating personal requests, while the other suggests that first one states personal requests and then prays. Evidently, the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua is not based on the verses, but depends on some other issue. Therefore, the Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree?

讻讚讚专讬砖 专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 [讚讚专讬砖 专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬] 诇注讜诇诐 讬住讚专 讗讚诐 砖讘讞讜 砖诇 诪拽讜诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬转驻诇诇 诪谞诇谉 诪诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讛壮 讗诇讛讬诐 讗转讛 讛讞诇讜转 诇讛专讗讜转 讗转 注讘讚讱 讜讙讜壮 讜讻转讬讘 讘转专讬讛 讗注讘专讛 谞讗 讜讗专讗讛 讗转 讛讗专抓 讛讟讜讘讛

They disagree with regard to that which Rabbi Simlai taught. As Rabbi Simlai taught: A person should always set forth praise of God and only then pray for his own needs. From where do we derive this? We derive it from Moses our teacher, as it is written: 鈥淥 Lord God, You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness, and Your strong hand; for what god is there in heaven or on earth, that can do according to Your works, and according to Your mighty acts?鈥 (Deuteronomy 3:24). Here Moses praises God, and it is written afterward, in the following verse, that then Moses requested from God: 鈥淟et me go over, I pray You, and see the good land鈥 (Deuteronomy 3:25).

  • 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 7

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 7

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 爪诪专讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛砖讘讞 讬转专 注诇 讛讬爪讬讗讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛讬爪讬讗讛 讜讗诐 讛讬爪讬讗讛 讬转讬专讛 注诇 讛砖讘讞 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讘讞

Rabbi Meir says: The dyer gives the owner of the wool the value of his wool. Since the dyer deviated from the owner鈥檚 wishes, he is considered akin to a robber who acquires the stolen item by changing it. Therefore, like a robber he keeps the changed item and pays the owner its original value. Rabbi Yehuda says: The dyer does not acquire the wool; rather, the owner of the wool must reimburse the dyer for his expenses, without losing out himself. If the value of the enhancement, i.e., the enhanced value of the wool, exceeds the dyer鈥檚 expenses, the owner of the wool gives the dyer the expenses. And if the expenses exceed the enhancement, he gives him the value of the enhancement.

讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗驻讬讛 讘砖诇诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讬讞讬讚 讜专讘讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讬讞讬讚

Rav Yosef turned his face away to demonstrate his displeasure with Rav Huna鈥檚 comment. The Gemara explains why Rav Yosef was unhappy: Granted, his ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that because this is a dispute between an individual and the many, the halakha should be in accordance with the opinion of the many, not in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣. Rav Huna therefore teaches us that in this case the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 despite the fact that he is an individual.

讗诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诪讞诇讜拽转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 住转诐 讛诇讻转讗 讻住转诐

But why do I need the statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? It is obvious that this is the case, as there is a well-known principle that whenever there is a dispute in a mishna and afterward one opinion is presented as the ruling of an unattributed mishna, i.e., without attribution to a particular Sage or that the ruling is subject to debate, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion presented in the unattributed mishna.

诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讘讘讗 拽诪讗 讜住转诐 讘讘讘讗 诪爪讬注讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛诪砖谞讛 讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讜讻诇 讛讞讜讝专 讘讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛

The Gemara adds that here the ruling of the unattributed mishna appears after the dispute, as the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir appears in tractate Bava Kamma, and the unattributed mishna appears in Bava Metzia, which is the next tractate in the order of the Mishna. As we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 76a): Whoever changes the terms accepted by both parties is at a disadvantage, and whoever reneges on an agreement is at a disadvantage. This statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that a craftsman who deviates from his assignment is at a disadvantage, as he receives only the expense or the enhancement, whichever is worth less.

讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 住讚专 诇诪砖谞讛 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 住转诐 转谞讗 讘专讬砖讗 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讻诇 诪讞诇讜拽转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 住转诐 诇讬诪讗 讗讬谉 住讚专 诇诪砖谞讛

The Gemara asks: And why did Rav Huna feel it necessary to state explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? It was necessary because Rav Huna holds that the Mishna is not sequential, and therefore it is not clear that the mishna in Bava Kamma precedes the mishna in Bava Metzia. Consequently, it can be said that in fact this is a case of an unattributed mishna that is taught first, and only afterward appears the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir. The Gemara challenges: If that is so, that the Mishna is not sequential, then in every case of a dispute that is afterward followed by an unattributed mishna, let us say that the Mishna is not sequential.

讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬谉 住讚专 讘讞讚讗 诪住讻转讗 讘转专讬 诪住讻转讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讜诇讛 谞讝讬拽讬谉 讞讚讗 诪住讻转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara explains: And Rav Huna? How would he respond to this claim? He would say: When do we not say that the Mishna is non-sequential? The Mishna is considered sequential when both mishnayot appear in one tractate, but when they are in two different tractates, we do say that the Mishna is not sequential, and it is unclear which one was taught last. Therefore, in this case, as each mishna is found in a different tractate, one in Bava Kamma and the other in Bava Metzia, one cannot say for certain which was taught first. And how would Rav Yosef respond? He would say: All of tractate Nezikin, i.e., Bava Kamma, Bava Metzia, and Bava Batra, is considered one tractate, and therefore its internal order of mishnayot is sequential.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽转谞讬 诇讛 讙讘讬 讛诇讻转讗 驻住讬拽转讗 讻诇 讛诪砖谞讛 讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讜讻诇 讛讞讜讝专 讘讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛

And if you wish, say instead that Rav Yosef maintained that it was not necessary to say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, because his ruling is taught amid other decided halakhot: Whoever changes the terms accepted by both parties is at a disadvantage, and whoever reneges on an agreement is at a disadvantage, i.e., this statement is unrelated to the subject matter of the chapter in which it appears. Consequently, it is evidently the accepted halakha and therefore Rav Huna鈥檚 statement was unnecessary.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬讗诪专 讗讚诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 讛谞专讗讛 砖转注诪讜讚 注诪讬 诇注专讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 讛谞专讗讛 砖转注诪讜讚 注诪讬 诇注专讘 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛

搂 The Gemara discusses other halakhot that are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣. The Sages taught: A person may not say to another on Shabbat: Does it seem that you will join me this evening? This is prohibited, as the speaker is hinting that he would like to hire him for labor after the conclusion of Shabbat. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: A person may say to another on Shabbat: Does it seem that you will join me this evening? In this case, he is not asking him explicitly. Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞砖讗诇 诇讞讻诐 讜讟讬诪讗 诇讗 讬砖讗诇 诇讞讻诐 讜讬讟讛专 诇讞讻诐 讜讗住专 诇讗 讬砖讗诇 诇讞讻诐 讜讬转讬专

The Sages taught: In the case of one who asks a question of a Sage with regard to an issue of ritual impurity and the Sage rules that the item is impure, he may not ask the same question of another Sage and have him rule that it is pure. Similarly, in the case of one who asks a Sage a halakhic question and he deems it forbidden, he may not ask the question of another Sage and have him deem it permitted.

讛讬讜 砖谞讬诐 讗讞讚 诪讟诪讗 讜讗讞讚 诪讟讛专 讗讞讚 讗讜住专 讜讗讞讚 诪转讬专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讙讚讜诇 诪讞讘讬专讜 讘讞讻诪讛 讜讘诪谞讬谉 讛诇讱 讗讞专讬讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛诪讞诪讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖诇 转讜专讛 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛诪讞诪讬专 讘砖诇 住讜驻专讬诐 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛诪讬拽诇 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛

In a situation where there were two Sages sitting together and one deems an item impure and the other one deems it pure, or if one deems it prohibited and the other one deems it permitted, the questioner should proceed as follows: If one of the Sages was superior to the other in wisdom and in number, one should follow his ruling, and if not, he should follow the one who rules stringently. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: If the uncertainty exists with regard to a Torah law, follow the one who rules stringently; if it exists with regard to a rabbinic law, follow the one who rules leniently. Rav Yosef said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讞讝专讜 讘讛谉 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 注讜诇诪讬转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞讝专讜 讘讛谉 讘诪讟诪讜谞讬讜转 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘驻专讛住讬讗 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 注砖讜 讚讘专讬讛诐 讘诪讟诪讜谞讬讜转 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讗讜转谉

The Sages taught: And with regard to all of the people who are not deemed credible due to sins that they performed, even when they retract and repent from their evil ways, society never accepts them; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If they retract their ways in private, society does not accept them, but if they repent in public [befarheseya], society accepts them. There are those who say that there is another version of this discussion: If they performed their sinful matters in private, then when they repent society accepts them.

讘驻专讛住讬讗 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诪拽讘诇讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 砖讜讘讜 讘谞讬诐 砖讜讘讘讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讬砖 讻驻专 注讻讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻转讗 讻讗讜转讜 讛讝讜讙

But if they performed their sins in public, society does not accept them. Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 say: Both in this case, where they sinned in private, and in that case, where they sinned in public, society accepts them, as it is stated: 鈥淩eturn, you backsliding children, I will heal your backslidings鈥 (Jeremiah 3:22). Rabbi Yitz岣k of the village of Akko says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of that pair, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, i.e., penitents are accepted, regardless of whether they sinned in public or in private.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讛 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诇讗讞专讬讛诐 讗住讜专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇驻谞讬 讗讬讚讬讛谉 讗住讜专 诇讗讞专 讗讬讚讬讛谉 诪讜转专

MISHNA: Rabbi Yishmael says: On the three days before the festivals of gentiles and on the three days after them, it is prohibited to engage in business with those gentiles. And the Rabbis say: It is prohibited to engage in business with them before their festivals, but it is permitted to engage in business with them after their festivals.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞讜爪专讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讜专

GEMARA: Rav Ta岣ifa bar Avdimi says that Shmuel says: With regard to a Christian, according to the statement of Rabbi Yishmael it is always prohibited for a Jew to engage in business with him. Since his festival takes place every Sunday and the three days before and after Sunday constitute the entire week, one cannot engage in business with a Christian on any day of the week.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇驻谞讬 讗讬讚讬讛谉 讗住讜专 诇讗讞专 讗讬讚讬讛谉 诪讜转专 讻讜壮 讞讻诪讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛谉 讘诇讗 讗讬讚讬讛谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讛谉 讘诇讗 讗讬讚讬讛谉 讜专讘谞谉 讘转专讗讬 住讘专讬 讛谉 讜讗讬讚讬讛谉

The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: It is prohibited to engage in business with them before their festivals, but it is permitted to engage in business with them after their festivals. The Gemara raises a difficulty: The statement of the Rabbis is identical to the statement of the first tanna in the mishna on 2a, who said that it is prohibited to engage in business with gentiles during the three days before their festival. The Gemara answers: The difference between them is with regard to the question of whether the three days includes only them, i.e., the three days, without their festival, or if the festival is counted as one of the three days. The first tanna holds that the three days is referring to them, the days preceding the festival, without their festivals, and the later Rabbis cited in this mishna hold that the three days include them and their festivals.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 诪讜转专 讜专讘谞谉 讘转专讗讬 住讘专讬 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讗住讜专

If you wish, say that the difference between the Rabbis and the first tanna is with regard to one who ignored this injunction and engaged in business with gentiles before their festival. The first tanna holds that if one engaged in business, it is permitted to derive benefit from the profits, and the later Rabbis hold that if one engaged in business, it is prohibited to derive benefit from the profits.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讙讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讬讚诐 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 专讘谞谉 讘转专讗讬 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讚砖诪讜讗诇

And if you wish, say that the difference between the Rabbis and the first tanna is with regard to the statement of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: In the Diaspora it is prohibited to engage in business with gentiles only on their festival day itself. The first tanna is of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and the later Rabbis are not of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚转谞讬讗 谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇驻谞讬 讗讬讚讬讛谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讜专讘谞谉 讘转专讗讬 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬

If you wish, say that the difference between the Rabbis and the first tanna is with regard to a statement of Na岣m the Mede. As it is taught in a baraita that Na岣m the Mede says: It is prohibited to engage in business with gentiles only on the day before their festival. The first tanna is not of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Na岣m the Mede, and the later Rabbis are of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Na岣m the Mede, as they do not mention how many days before the festival are included in the prohibition.

讙讜驻讗 谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇驻谞讬 讗讬讚讬讛谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 谞砖转拽注 讛讚讘专 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专 讜讛讗讬讻讗 专讘谞谉 讘转专讗讬 讚拽讬讬诪讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讛讜讗

Having mentioned Na岣m the Mede鈥檚 opinion, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Na岣m the Mede says: It is prohibited only on the day before their festival. The other Sages said to him: It would be best if this matter were lost and not stated, as it is not the halakha. The Gemara asks: But aren鈥檛 there the later Rabbis, who hold in accordance with his opinion? The Gemara answers: Who are these Rabbis? This is referring to Na岣m the Mede himself, but the other Sages disagree.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讗讜诪专 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛谉 住讜住 讝讻专 讜讝拽谉 讘诪诇讞诪讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 谞砖转拽注 讛讚讘专 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专

搂 The Gemara cites additional statements of Na岣m the Mede. It is taught in another baraita that Na岣m the Mede says: Although it is prohibited to sell large livestock to gentiles, one may sell a male and elderly horse to them during a war, as it cannot be used for battle. The Sages said to him: It would be best if this matter were lost and not stated, as it is not the halakha.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讚拽讗讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚转谞谉 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪转讬专 讘住讜住 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诇讗 诪驻诇讬讙 讘讬谉 讝讻专讬诐 诇谞拽讘讜转 讗讬讛讜 诪讚拽讗 诪驻诇讬讙 讘讬谉 讝讻专讬诐 诇谞拽讘讜转 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜诇专讘谞谉 谞砖转拽注 讛讚讘专 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there ben Beteira, who holds in accordance with his opinion? As we learned in a mishna (14b): Ben Beteira permits selling a horse to gentiles. The Gemara answers: Since ben Beteira does not differentiate between male and female horses, and Na岣m the Mede does differentiate between male and female horses, it is clear that Na岣m the Mede holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that one is generally not permitted to sell a horse to a gentile, only he permits it in this specific circumstance. And according to the opinion of the Rabbis, it would be best if this matter were lost and not stated.

转谞讬讗 谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讗讜诪专 讛砖讘转 诪转注砖专 讝专注 讜讬专拽 讜讝讬专讬谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 谞砖转拽注 讛讚讘专 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专 讜讛讗讬讻讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚拽讗讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛砖讘转 诪转注砖专转 讝专注 讜讬专拽 讜讝讬专讬谉 讛转诐 讘讚讙谞讜谞讬转讗

The Gemara cites a similar dispute. It is taught in a baraita that Na岣m the Mede says: The dill plant is subject to tithes, whether it is used as a seed, or a vegetable, or a pod. The Sages said to him: It would be best if this matter were lost and not stated, as it is not the halakha. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there Rabbi Eliezer, who holds in accordance with his opinion? As we learned in a mishna (Ma鈥檃srot 4:5) that Rabbi Eliezer says: The dill plant is subject to tithes whether it is used as a seed, or a vegetable, or a pod. The Gemara answers: There, Rabbi Eliezer is referring to the garden variety of dill, which is of such a high quality that its seeds, vegetable, and pods are eaten. By contrast, in the case of wild dill, only its seeds and vegetable are eaten, not the pods.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 诇讗讘讬讬 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讗转讗 诪讗转专讬谉 讻诇 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪专 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 谞砖转拽注 讛讚讘专 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诪专 讗讬讻讗 讞讚讗 讚注讘讚讬谞谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 谞讞讜诐 讛诪讚讬 讗讜诪专 砖讜讗诇 讗讚诐 爪专讻讬讜 讘砖讜诪注 转驻诇讛

Apropos the discussion between Na岣m the Mede and the other Sages, Rav A岣 bar Minyumi said to Abaye: A great man came from our place, i.e., from Media, and in response to every matter that he said, the Sages said to him that it would be best if this matter were lost and not stated. Do they wish to erase all the halakhot taught by the Sages of Media? Abaye said: There is one instance in which we act in accordance with his opinion, as it is taught in a baraita that Na岣m the Mede says: During the Amida prayer a person may request his personal needs that are not included in the standard formulation of the Amida prayer, in the blessing that ends: Who listens to prayer.

讗诪专 讘专 诪讬谞讛 讚讛讛讬讗 讚转诇讬讗 讘讗砖诇讬 专讘专讘讬

Rav A岣 bar Minyumi said to Abaye: Apart from this halakha, i.e., this does not serve as proof that a statement of Na岣m the Mede was ever accepted by the other Sages, as this halakha is dependent on the dispute between great trees, i.e., great authorities, who expressed their opinions with regard to the halakha before Na岣m the Mede.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 砖讜讗诇 讗讚诐 爪专讻讬讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬转驻诇诇 砖谞讗诪专 转驻诇讛 诇注谞讬 讻讬 讬注讟祝 讜诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讬砖驻讱 砖讬讞讜 讜讙讜壮 讗讬谉 砖讬讞讛 讗诇讗 转驻诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬爪讗 讬爪讞拽 诇砖讜讞 讘砖讚讛

Rav A岣 bar Minyumi elaborates: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: A person should request his own needs first and afterward recite the Amida prayer, as it is stated: 鈥淎 prayer of the afflicted, when he is faint and pours out si岣 before the Lord. O Lord, hear my prayer鈥 (Psalms 102:1鈥2). These verses indicate that one first requests help concerning his afflictions and pains, and only afterward pours forth his si岣. And si岣 means nothing other than prayer, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd Isaac went out to meditate [lasua岣] in the field鈥 (Genesis 24:63).

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讬转驻诇诇 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬砖讗诇 爪专讻讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讗砖驻讱 诇驻谞讬讜 砖讬讞讬 爪专转讬 诇驻谞讬讜 讗讙讬讚

Rabbi Yehoshua says: One should pray first and afterward request his own needs, as it is stated: 鈥淚 pour out si岣 before Him, I declare before Him my trouble鈥 (Psalms 142:3), which teaches that first one pours forth his si岣, and only afterward speaks of his own troubles.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讗砖驻讱 诇驻谞讬讜 砖讬讞讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗砖驻讜讱 诇驻谞讬讜 砖讬讞讬 讘讝诪谉 砖爪专转讬 诇驻谞讬讜 讗讙讬讚 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 转驻诇讛 诇注谞讬 讻讬 讬注讟祝 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬诪转讬 转驻诇讛 诇注谞讬 讘讝诪谉 砖诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讬砖驻讜讱 砖讬讞讜

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer as well, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淚 pour out si岣 before Him, I declare before Him my trouble鈥? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Eliezer, this is what the verse is saying: I pour out my si岣 before Him when I have already declared before Him my trouble. The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 opinion: And according to Rabbi Yehoshua as well, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎 prayer of the afflicted, when he is faint and pours out si岣 before the Lord鈥? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yehoshua, this is what the verse is saying: When is there a prayer of the afflicted? When he has already poured out si岣 before the Lord, and now requests his own needs.

诪讻讚讬 拽专讗讬 诇讗 讻诪专 讚讬讬拽讬 讜诇讗 讻诪专 讚讬讬拽讬 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara notes: Now it is clear that the verses themselves do not fit precisely in accordance with the opinion of this Sage and do not fit precisely in accordance with the opinion of that Sage, as one verse indicates that prayer is recited before stating personal requests, while the other suggests that first one states personal requests and then prays. Evidently, the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua is not based on the verses, but depends on some other issue. Therefore, the Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree?

讻讚讚专讬砖 专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 [讚讚专讬砖 专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬] 诇注讜诇诐 讬住讚专 讗讚诐 砖讘讞讜 砖诇 诪拽讜诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讬转驻诇诇 诪谞诇谉 诪诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讛壮 讗诇讛讬诐 讗转讛 讛讞诇讜转 诇讛专讗讜转 讗转 注讘讚讱 讜讙讜壮 讜讻转讬讘 讘转专讬讛 讗注讘专讛 谞讗 讜讗专讗讛 讗转 讛讗专抓 讛讟讜讘讛

They disagree with regard to that which Rabbi Simlai taught. As Rabbi Simlai taught: A person should always set forth praise of God and only then pray for his own needs. From where do we derive this? We derive it from Moses our teacher, as it is written: 鈥淥 Lord God, You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness, and Your strong hand; for what god is there in heaven or on earth, that can do according to Your works, and according to Your mighty acts?鈥 (Deuteronomy 3:24). Here Moses praises God, and it is written afterward, in the following verse, that then Moses requested from God: 鈥淟et me go over, I pray You, and see the good land鈥 (Deuteronomy 3:25).

Scroll To Top