Masechet Avodah Zarah
Masechet Avodah Zarah is sponsored by the Talmud class of Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA, in honor of the Hadran staff who make learning possible.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
This week’s learning is sponsored by Carolyn Hochstadter, Adam Dicker, and family on the 17th yahrzeit of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla v’Baruch this Monday, 8 Elul. “‘Dad’ was a holocaust survivor who was saved via the Kindertransport, came to Canada and met ‘Ma’ in Montreal. Together, they built a family, business, community, and legacy of support and love for Medinat Yisrael. We miss you and are managing to catch up on some of your reading material, including Menachem Elon’s Mishpat Ivri — to which Hadran’s Daf Yomi has given so much background and context. We continue to laugh at your jokes and follow your wise guidance. And also in honor of today’s pidyon haben of our first Sabra grandchild, Zecharia Ami – Zach. Saba and Savta would be proud.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Rochel Cheifetz in commemoration of her husband’s, Aryeh Leib ben Yehuda, Lenny Cheifetz’s, 33rd yahrzeit. “You were taken much too soon. But I thank HKB”H for the time we were blessed with your smile, goodness, sense of humor, and love. Yehi zichro baruch.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Emma Rinberg for a refuah shlemah for her son Joseph, Yosef Yitzchak Nisan Ben Nechama Leah Esther, who is having surgery today to repair a broken femur after a bike accident.
The Mishna lists various items that are forbidden to derive benefit from and remain prohibited even in the smallest amount when mixed with permitted substances. The Gemara asks and explains why certain items are not included in the Mishna’s list.
If yayin nesech falls into a pit, the entire quantity of wine becomes forbidden. However, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel ruled that the mixture may be sold, provided the value of the yayin nesech is deducted from the sale price. There is a debate among the amoraim about whether we rule like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in all cases, or only in specific situations—such as when a barrel of yayin nesech is mixed with a barrel of permitted wine, as opposed to a smaller quantity of forbidden wine that is mixed into a jug or barrel of permitted wine.
To kasher a winepress that was used by or prepared by a non-Jew, the process depends on the material from which the winepress is made and whether it was lined with pitch.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Avodah Zarah
Masechet Avodah Zarah is sponsored by the Talmud class of Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA, in honor of the Hadran staff who make learning possible.
Avodah Zarah 74
מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין, וְאוֹסְרִין בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּ: יֵין נֶסֶךְ, וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְעוֹרוֹת לְבוּבִין,
MISHNA: These following items are themselves forbidden, and any amount of them renders other items with which they become mixed forbidden: Wine used for a libation; and objects of idol worship; and hides with a tear opposite the heart, indicating the idolatrous practice of sacrificing hearts of live animals.
וְשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, וְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה,
And this halakha also applies to an ox that has been condemned to be stoned (see Exodus 21:28), from which it is prohibited to derive benefit even before its sentence is carried out; and it applies to a heifer whose neck is broken when a person is found killed in an area between two cities and the murderer is unknown (see Deuteronomy 21:1–9), which is likewise forbidden from the time it is taken down to the river to be killed. In these cases, if the animal becomes mixed in a herd of similar animals, all of the animals in the herd are forbidden.
וְצִיפּוֹרֵי מְצוֹרָע, וּשְׂעַר נָזִיר, וּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר, וּבָשָׂר בְּחָלָב, וְשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ, וְחוּלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בַּעֲזָרָה — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין וְאוֹסְרִין בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא.
And this halakha also applies to birds designated for the purification of a leper (Leviticus 14:1–6), and the shorn hair of a nazirite (Numbers 6:18), and a firstborn donkey (Exodus 13:13), and meat that was cooked in milk (Exodus 23:19), and the scapegoat of Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16:7–10), and the meat of a non-sacred animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. All of these are forbidden themselves, and any amount of them renders a mixture forbidden.
גְּמָ׳ תַּנָּא מַאי קָחָשֵׁיב? אִי דָּבָר שֶׁבְּמִנְיָן קָחָשֵׁיב, לִיתְנֵי נָמֵי חֲתִיכוֹת נְבֵילָה! אִי אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה קָא חָשֵׁיב, לִיתְנֵי נָמֵי חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח! אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא: הַאי תַּנָּא תַּרְתֵּי אִית לֵיהּ — דָּבָר שֶׁבְּמִנְיָן וְאִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה.
GEMARA: According to what criterion does the tanna who teaches this mishna reckon cases? If he reckons based on any item that is counted, i.e., any item that is significant enough to be considered individually, which therefore cannot be nullified in a mixture even in a very large majority of permitted items, let him also teach the case of significant cuts of an unslaughtered animal carcass. And if he reckons based on items from which deriving benefit is prohibited, let him also teach the case of leavened bread on Passover. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, and some say it was Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa who said: This tanna has two criteria. He reckons based on any item that is both counted and from which deriving benefit is prohibited.
וְלִיתְנֵי אֱגוֹזֵי פֶּרֶךְ וְרִימּוֹנֵי בָּדָן, דְּדָבָר שֶׁבְּמִנְיָן וְאִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה הוּא!
The Gemara challenges: But let the tanna teach the cases of perekh nuts, a type of nut that has a brittle shell, and Badan pomegranates, pomegranates from Badan; as these fruits are considered significant, and when they grow during the first three years after the tree was planted [orla], they belong to the category of items that are counted and from which deriving benefit is prohibited.
הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ הָתָם: הָרָאוּי לְעׇרְלָה — עׇרְלָה, הָרָאוּי לְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם — כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם.
The Gemara responds: The Mishna taught that case there, in tractate Orla (3:7), where perekh nuts and Badan pomegranates are listed among the forbidden items that cannot be nullified in a mixture, and it is stated with regard to such items: Those items to which the prohibition of orla applies render the entire mixture forbidden by imparting to it the status of orla, while those to which the prohibition of diverse kinds planted in a vineyard applies render the mixture forbidden by imparting to it the status of diverse kinds planted in a vineyard. Therefore, it is unnecessary to mention those cases here.
וְלִיתְנֵי כִּכָּרוֹת שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לְעִנְיַן חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח! מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ דַּאֲמַר לַהּ? רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ הָתָם: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מוֹסִיף אַף כִּכָּרוֹת שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת.
The Gemara suggests: But let the tanna teach the case of loaves of a homeowner, each of which is unique and significant, with regard to the prohibition against deriving benefit from leavened bread on Passover. The Gemara explains: Whom did you hear who says that such loaves are not nullified in a mixture? This is taught by Rabbi Akiva, and he taught it there in tractate Orla (3:7): Rabbi Akiva adds to the list the loaves of a homeowner.
״הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לְמַעוֹטֵי דָּבָר שֶׁבְּמִנְיָן וְלָאו אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה, אִי נָמֵי לְמַעוֹטֵי אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה וְלֹא דָּבָר שֶׁבְּמִנְיָן.
At the end of the mishna here, the tanna reiterates the halakha stated at its beginning, saying: All of these are forbidden themselves, and any amount of them renders a mixture forbidden. The Gemara asks: The purpose of this reiteration is to exclude what? The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude any item that is counted but from which deriving benefit is not prohibited, or to exclude items from which deriving benefit is prohibited but that are not counted.
מַתְנִי׳ יֵין נֶסֶךְ שֶׁנָּפַל לַבּוֹר, כּוּלּוֹ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: יִמָּכֵר כּוּלּוֹ לְגוֹי, חוּץ מִדְּמֵי יֵין נֶסֶךְ שֶׁבּוֹ.
MISHNA: In the case of wine used for a libation that fell into a wine cistern, it is prohibited to derive benefit from all of the wine in the cistern, even if the volume of the wine used for a libation was tiny in comparison to the volume of the wine in the cistern. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: All of the wine in the cistern may be sold to a gentile, and the money paid for it is permitted except for the value of the wine used for a libation that is included in it.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל חָבִית בְּחָבִיּוֹת, אֲבָל לֹא יַיִן בְּיַיִן. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ יַיִן בְּיַיִן. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲפִילּוּ יַיִן בְּיַיִן. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אֲפִילּוּ יַיִן בְּיַיִן. וְכֵן אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: אֲפִילּוּ יַיִן בְּיַיִן.
GEMARA: Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in a case where a barrel of wine used for a libation became intermingled with barrels of permitted wine, but not when the wine itself became mixed with permitted wine. And Shmuel says: Even when the wine itself became mixed with permitted wine, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And likewise, Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even when wine became mixed with wine, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And likewise, Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: Even when wine became mixed with wine, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And likewise, Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: Even when wine became mixed with wine, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה לְמַעֲשֶׂה, יֵין נֶסֶךְ יַיִן בְּיַיִן — אָסוּר, חָבִית בְּחָבִית — מוּתָּר, סְתָם יַיִן אֲפִילּוּ יַיִן בְּיַיִן — מוּתָּר.
Rav Naḥman says: The practical halakha is that with regard to wine that was actually used for a libation, wine that became mixed with wine renders the entire mixture forbidden, but if a barrel became intermingled with barrels of permitted wine, it is permitted to sell the barrels in the manner described by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. With regard to nondescript wine of gentiles, which is forbidden due to the suspicion that it was used for a libation, even if wine became mixed with wine, it is permitted to sell the mixture in the manner described by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
מַתְנִי׳ גַּת שֶׁל אֶבֶן שֶׁזְּפָתָהּ גּוֹי, מְנַגְּבָהּ וְהִיא טְהוֹרָה. וְשֶׁל עֵץ, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: יְנַגֵּב, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יִקְלוֹף אֶת הַזֶּפֶת. וְשֶׁל חֶרֶס, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּלַף אֶת הַזֶּפֶת — הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה.
MISHNA: In the case of a stone winepress that a gentile lined with pitch and then poured wine onto the pitch to neutralize its flavor, one may cleanse it and it is pure, i.e., wine pressed in it is permitted. And if the winepress is fashioned of wood, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One may cleanse it, but the Rabbis say: One must peel off the pitch completely. And if the winepress is of earthenware, even if one peeled off the pitch, this press is forbidden.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רָבָא: דַּוְקָא זְפָתָהּ, אֲבָל דָּרַךְ בָּהּ — לֹא. פְּשִׁיטָא, ״זְפָתָהּ״ תְּנַן! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הוּא הַדִּין אֲפִילּוּ דָּרַךְ בָּהּ, וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי ״זְפָתָהּ״ — אוֹרְחָא דְּמִלְּתָא קָתָנֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
GEMARA: Rava says: The requirement to cleanse the winepress applies specifically if the gentile lined it with pitch. But if he only trod on his grapes in it without lining it with pitch, this is not required. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? We learned in the mishna that cleansing the winepress is necessary if the gentile lined it with pitch. The Gemara responds: Lest you say that the same is true that it requires cleansing even if he trod on his grapes in it, and the fact that the mishna teaches a case where he lined it with pitch is because the mishna is teaching the manner in which the matter typically occurs, therefore Rava teaches us that this is not the case.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רָבָא: דַּוְקָא זְפָתָהּ, אֲבָל דָּרַךְ בָּהּ לָא סַגִּי לַהּ בְּנִיגּוּב. פְּשִׁיטָא, ״זְפָתָהּ״ תְּנַן! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ דָּרַךְ בָּהּ, וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי ״זְפָתָהּ״ אוֹרְחָא דְמִלְּתָא קָתָנֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דַּוְקָא זְפָתָהּ, אֲבָל דָּרַךְ בָּהּ לָא סַגִּי לַהּ בְּנִיגּוּב.
There are those who say that Rava says: Cleansing the winepress is effective specifically if the gentile lined it with pitch. But if he trod on his grapes in it as well, cleansing it is not sufficient to purify the winepress. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? We learned in the mishna that cleansing the winepress is sufficient if the gentile lined it with pitch. The Gemara responds: Lest you say that the same is true and that cleansing is sufficient even if he trod on his grapes in it, and the fact that the mishna teaches a case where he lined it with pitch is because the mishna is teaching the manner in which the matter typically occurs, therefore Rava teaches us that cleansing the winepress is sufficient specifically if he lined it with pitch, but if he trod on his grapes in it, cleansing it is not sufficient.
כִּי הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַב לִי גַּבְרָא (דדכי) [דִּמְדַכֵּי] לִי מַעְצַרְתַּאי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְרַב: זִיל בַּהֲדֵיהּ וַחֲזִי דְּלָא מְצַוְּחַתְּ עֲלַי בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא. אֲזַל חַזְיַיהּ דַּהֲוָה שִׁיעָא טְפֵי, אֲמַר: הָא וַדַּאי בְּנִיגּוּב סַגִּי לַהּ. בַּהֲדֵי דְּקָא אָזֵיל וְאָתֵי, חֲזָא פִּילָא מִתּוּתֵיהּ וַחֲזָא דַּהֲוָה מְלֵא חַמְרָא, אֲמַר: הָא לָא סַגִּי לַהּ בְּנִיגּוּב אֶלָּא בְּקִילּוּף, וְהַיְינוּ דַּאֲמַר לִי חַבִּיבִי: חֲזִי דְּלָא מְצַוְּחַתְּ עֲלַי בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא.
This is similar to an incident involving a certain man who came before Rabbi Ḥiyya and said to him: Give me a man who will purify my winepress that I purchased from a gentile. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rav: Go with him and see to it that you conduct yourself in such a manner that will not cause people to complain against me in the study hall. Rav went with him and saw that the winepress was very smooth with pitch. Rav said: Cleansing will certainly be sufficient for this, because it does not absorb the wine. While Rav was going and coming, he saw a crack underneath his feet and saw that it was full of wine. He then said: Cleansing is not sufficient for this; rather, it requires peeling. And this is what my uncle [ḥavivi] meant when he said to me: See to it that you do not cause people to complain against me in the study hall.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַגַּת וְהַמַּחַץ וְהַמַּשְׁפֵּךְ שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, רַבִּי מַתִּיר בְּנִיגּוּב, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי בְּקַנְקַנִּים שֶׁל גּוֹיִם שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין. וּמָה הֶפְרֵשׁ בֵּין זֶה לָזֶה? זֶה מַכְנִיסוֹ בְּקִיּוּם, וְזֶה אֵין מַכְנִיסוֹ בְּקִיּוּם. וְשֶׁל עֵץ וְשֶׁל אֶבֶן — יְנַגֵּב, וְאִם הָיוּ מְזוּפָּפִין — אֲסוּרִין.
The Sages taught: With regard to the winepress and its utensils, the ladle and the funnel, which belong to gentiles, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits them by cleansing, and the Rabbis deem them forbidden. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes with regard to earthenware jugs belonging to gentiles that they are forbidden. And what is the difference between this case and that case? This jug contains the wine for storage purposes, and that case, involving a ladle and a funnel, involves utensils that do not contain it for storage purposes but only temporarily. And if the winepress or its utensils are fashioned of wood or stone, one must cleanse them, but if they were lined with pitch, they are forbidden, and cleansing is not sufficient to render them permitted.
וְהָתְנַן: גַּת שֶׁל אֶבֶן שֶׁזְּפָתָהּ גּוֹי — מְנַגְּבָהּ וְהִיא טְהוֹרָה! מַתְנִיתִין דְּלֹא דָּרַךְ בָּהּ, בָּרַיְיתָא דְּדָרַךְ בָּהּ.
The Gemara raises an objection to the last clause of the baraita: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that in the case of a stone winepress that a gentile lined with pitch, one may cleanse it and it is pure? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a case where the gentile did not tread on his grapes in it, whereas the baraita is referring to a case where he trod on his grapes in it.
אָמַר מָר: הַגַּת וְהַמַּחַץ וְהַמַּשְׁפֵּךְ שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, רַבִּי מַתִּיר בְּנִיגּוּב, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין. וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: שֶׁל חֶרֶס, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּלַף אֶת הַזֶּפֶת — הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה! אָמַר רָבָא: סֵיפָא דְּמַתְנִיתִין אֲתָאן לְרַבָּנַן.
The Master said above: With regard to the winepress and the ladle and the funnel that belong to gentiles, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits them by cleansing, and the Rabbis deem them forbidden. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that if the winepress is of earthenware, even if one peeled off the pitch this press is forbidden? Rava said: In the last clause of the mishna we arrive at the opinion of the Rabbis.
דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא: נַעֲוָה אַרְתַּחוּ. רָבָא כִּי הֲוָה מְשַׁדַּר גּוּלְפֵי לְהַרְפַּנְיָא, סָחֵיף לְהוּ אַפּוּמַּיְיהוּ וְחָתֵים לְהוּ אַבִּירְצַיְיהוּ. קָסָבַר: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁמַּכְנִיסוֹ לְקִיּוּם, אֲפִילּוּ לְפִי שָׁעָה — גְּזַרוּ בֵּיהּ רַבָּנַן.
Rava taught: If one has a tank of wine used by gentiles, he must scald it in order to render it permitted for use. When Rava would dispatch empty kegs to Harpanya, he would turn them over, placing them in their sacks on their openings, and seal the sacks on their brims, so that the gentile carriers would not be able to use them for wine. He maintained that with regard to anything that is used to contain wine for storage, even if the wine may be stored in it only temporarily, the Sages decreed that it is forbidden for use as though it had contained wine.
בַּמֶּה מְנַגְּבָן? רַב אָמַר: בְּמַיִם, רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר: בְּאֵפֶר. רַב אָמַר בְּמַיִם — בְּמַיִם וְלֹא בְּאֵפֶר? רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר בְּאֵפֶר — בְּאֵפֶר וְלֹא בְּמַיִם? אֶלָּא
§ The Gemara asks with regard to the cleansing mentioned in the mishna: How does one cleanse a winepress, or utensils used by a gentile for wine? Rav says: One cleans it with water. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: One cleans it with ashes. The Gemara asks: When Rav says: One cleans it with water, does he mean only with water and not with ashes as well? Furthermore, when Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: One cleans it with ashes, does he mean only with ashes, and not with water as well? Rather, their statements must be understood as follows:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
New York, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
Palo Alto, CA, United States
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
Blacksburg, United States
Ontario, Canada
Avodah Zarah 74
מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין, וְאוֹסְרִין בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּ: יֵין נֶסֶךְ, וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְעוֹרוֹת לְבוּבִין,
MISHNA: These following items are themselves forbidden, and any amount of them renders other items with which they become mixed forbidden: Wine used for a libation; and objects of idol worship; and hides with a tear opposite the heart, indicating the idolatrous practice of sacrificing hearts of live animals.
וְשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, וְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה,
And this halakha also applies to an ox that has been condemned to be stoned (see Exodus 21:28), from which it is prohibited to derive benefit even before its sentence is carried out; and it applies to a heifer whose neck is broken when a person is found killed in an area between two cities and the murderer is unknown (see Deuteronomy 21:1–9), which is likewise forbidden from the time it is taken down to the river to be killed. In these cases, if the animal becomes mixed in a herd of similar animals, all of the animals in the herd are forbidden.
וְצִיפּוֹרֵי מְצוֹרָע, וּשְׂעַר נָזִיר, וּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר, וּבָשָׂר בְּחָלָב, וְשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ, וְחוּלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בַּעֲזָרָה — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין וְאוֹסְרִין בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא.
And this halakha also applies to birds designated for the purification of a leper (Leviticus 14:1–6), and the shorn hair of a nazirite (Numbers 6:18), and a firstborn donkey (Exodus 13:13), and meat that was cooked in milk (Exodus 23:19), and the scapegoat of Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16:7–10), and the meat of a non-sacred animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. All of these are forbidden themselves, and any amount of them renders a mixture forbidden.
גְּמָ׳ תַּנָּא מַאי קָחָשֵׁיב? אִי דָּבָר שֶׁבְּמִנְיָן קָחָשֵׁיב, לִיתְנֵי נָמֵי חֲתִיכוֹת נְבֵילָה! אִי אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה קָא חָשֵׁיב, לִיתְנֵי נָמֵי חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח! אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא: הַאי תַּנָּא תַּרְתֵּי אִית לֵיהּ — דָּבָר שֶׁבְּמִנְיָן וְאִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה.
GEMARA: According to what criterion does the tanna who teaches this mishna reckon cases? If he reckons based on any item that is counted, i.e., any item that is significant enough to be considered individually, which therefore cannot be nullified in a mixture even in a very large majority of permitted items, let him also teach the case of significant cuts of an unslaughtered animal carcass. And if he reckons based on items from which deriving benefit is prohibited, let him also teach the case of leavened bread on Passover. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, and some say it was Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa who said: This tanna has two criteria. He reckons based on any item that is both counted and from which deriving benefit is prohibited.
וְלִיתְנֵי אֱגוֹזֵי פֶּרֶךְ וְרִימּוֹנֵי בָּדָן, דְּדָבָר שֶׁבְּמִנְיָן וְאִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה הוּא!
The Gemara challenges: But let the tanna teach the cases of perekh nuts, a type of nut that has a brittle shell, and Badan pomegranates, pomegranates from Badan; as these fruits are considered significant, and when they grow during the first three years after the tree was planted [orla], they belong to the category of items that are counted and from which deriving benefit is prohibited.
הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ הָתָם: הָרָאוּי לְעׇרְלָה — עׇרְלָה, הָרָאוּי לְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם — כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם.
The Gemara responds: The Mishna taught that case there, in tractate Orla (3:7), where perekh nuts and Badan pomegranates are listed among the forbidden items that cannot be nullified in a mixture, and it is stated with regard to such items: Those items to which the prohibition of orla applies render the entire mixture forbidden by imparting to it the status of orla, while those to which the prohibition of diverse kinds planted in a vineyard applies render the mixture forbidden by imparting to it the status of diverse kinds planted in a vineyard. Therefore, it is unnecessary to mention those cases here.
וְלִיתְנֵי כִּכָּרוֹת שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לְעִנְיַן חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח! מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ דַּאֲמַר לַהּ? רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ הָתָם: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מוֹסִיף אַף כִּכָּרוֹת שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת.
The Gemara suggests: But let the tanna teach the case of loaves of a homeowner, each of which is unique and significant, with regard to the prohibition against deriving benefit from leavened bread on Passover. The Gemara explains: Whom did you hear who says that such loaves are not nullified in a mixture? This is taught by Rabbi Akiva, and he taught it there in tractate Orla (3:7): Rabbi Akiva adds to the list the loaves of a homeowner.
״הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לְמַעוֹטֵי דָּבָר שֶׁבְּמִנְיָן וְלָאו אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה, אִי נָמֵי לְמַעוֹטֵי אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה וְלֹא דָּבָר שֶׁבְּמִנְיָן.
At the end of the mishna here, the tanna reiterates the halakha stated at its beginning, saying: All of these are forbidden themselves, and any amount of them renders a mixture forbidden. The Gemara asks: The purpose of this reiteration is to exclude what? The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude any item that is counted but from which deriving benefit is not prohibited, or to exclude items from which deriving benefit is prohibited but that are not counted.
מַתְנִי׳ יֵין נֶסֶךְ שֶׁנָּפַל לַבּוֹר, כּוּלּוֹ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: יִמָּכֵר כּוּלּוֹ לְגוֹי, חוּץ מִדְּמֵי יֵין נֶסֶךְ שֶׁבּוֹ.
MISHNA: In the case of wine used for a libation that fell into a wine cistern, it is prohibited to derive benefit from all of the wine in the cistern, even if the volume of the wine used for a libation was tiny in comparison to the volume of the wine in the cistern. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: All of the wine in the cistern may be sold to a gentile, and the money paid for it is permitted except for the value of the wine used for a libation that is included in it.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל חָבִית בְּחָבִיּוֹת, אֲבָל לֹא יַיִן בְּיַיִן. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ יַיִן בְּיַיִן. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲפִילּוּ יַיִן בְּיַיִן. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אֲפִילּוּ יַיִן בְּיַיִן. וְכֵן אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: אֲפִילּוּ יַיִן בְּיַיִן.
GEMARA: Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in a case where a barrel of wine used for a libation became intermingled with barrels of permitted wine, but not when the wine itself became mixed with permitted wine. And Shmuel says: Even when the wine itself became mixed with permitted wine, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And likewise, Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even when wine became mixed with wine, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And likewise, Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: Even when wine became mixed with wine, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And likewise, Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: Even when wine became mixed with wine, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה לְמַעֲשֶׂה, יֵין נֶסֶךְ יַיִן בְּיַיִן — אָסוּר, חָבִית בְּחָבִית — מוּתָּר, סְתָם יַיִן אֲפִילּוּ יַיִן בְּיַיִן — מוּתָּר.
Rav Naḥman says: The practical halakha is that with regard to wine that was actually used for a libation, wine that became mixed with wine renders the entire mixture forbidden, but if a barrel became intermingled with barrels of permitted wine, it is permitted to sell the barrels in the manner described by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. With regard to nondescript wine of gentiles, which is forbidden due to the suspicion that it was used for a libation, even if wine became mixed with wine, it is permitted to sell the mixture in the manner described by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
מַתְנִי׳ גַּת שֶׁל אֶבֶן שֶׁזְּפָתָהּ גּוֹי, מְנַגְּבָהּ וְהִיא טְהוֹרָה. וְשֶׁל עֵץ, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: יְנַגֵּב, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יִקְלוֹף אֶת הַזֶּפֶת. וְשֶׁל חֶרֶס, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּלַף אֶת הַזֶּפֶת — הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה.
MISHNA: In the case of a stone winepress that a gentile lined with pitch and then poured wine onto the pitch to neutralize its flavor, one may cleanse it and it is pure, i.e., wine pressed in it is permitted. And if the winepress is fashioned of wood, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One may cleanse it, but the Rabbis say: One must peel off the pitch completely. And if the winepress is of earthenware, even if one peeled off the pitch, this press is forbidden.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רָבָא: דַּוְקָא זְפָתָהּ, אֲבָל דָּרַךְ בָּהּ — לֹא. פְּשִׁיטָא, ״זְפָתָהּ״ תְּנַן! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הוּא הַדִּין אֲפִילּוּ דָּרַךְ בָּהּ, וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי ״זְפָתָהּ״ — אוֹרְחָא דְּמִלְּתָא קָתָנֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
GEMARA: Rava says: The requirement to cleanse the winepress applies specifically if the gentile lined it with pitch. But if he only trod on his grapes in it without lining it with pitch, this is not required. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? We learned in the mishna that cleansing the winepress is necessary if the gentile lined it with pitch. The Gemara responds: Lest you say that the same is true that it requires cleansing even if he trod on his grapes in it, and the fact that the mishna teaches a case where he lined it with pitch is because the mishna is teaching the manner in which the matter typically occurs, therefore Rava teaches us that this is not the case.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רָבָא: דַּוְקָא זְפָתָהּ, אֲבָל דָּרַךְ בָּהּ לָא סַגִּי לַהּ בְּנִיגּוּב. פְּשִׁיטָא, ״זְפָתָהּ״ תְּנַן! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ דָּרַךְ בָּהּ, וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי ״זְפָתָהּ״ אוֹרְחָא דְמִלְּתָא קָתָנֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דַּוְקָא זְפָתָהּ, אֲבָל דָּרַךְ בָּהּ לָא סַגִּי לַהּ בְּנִיגּוּב.
There are those who say that Rava says: Cleansing the winepress is effective specifically if the gentile lined it with pitch. But if he trod on his grapes in it as well, cleansing it is not sufficient to purify the winepress. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? We learned in the mishna that cleansing the winepress is sufficient if the gentile lined it with pitch. The Gemara responds: Lest you say that the same is true and that cleansing is sufficient even if he trod on his grapes in it, and the fact that the mishna teaches a case where he lined it with pitch is because the mishna is teaching the manner in which the matter typically occurs, therefore Rava teaches us that cleansing the winepress is sufficient specifically if he lined it with pitch, but if he trod on his grapes in it, cleansing it is not sufficient.
כִּי הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַב לִי גַּבְרָא (דדכי) [דִּמְדַכֵּי] לִי מַעְצַרְתַּאי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְרַב: זִיל בַּהֲדֵיהּ וַחֲזִי דְּלָא מְצַוְּחַתְּ עֲלַי בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא. אֲזַל חַזְיַיהּ דַּהֲוָה שִׁיעָא טְפֵי, אֲמַר: הָא וַדַּאי בְּנִיגּוּב סַגִּי לַהּ. בַּהֲדֵי דְּקָא אָזֵיל וְאָתֵי, חֲזָא פִּילָא מִתּוּתֵיהּ וַחֲזָא דַּהֲוָה מְלֵא חַמְרָא, אֲמַר: הָא לָא סַגִּי לַהּ בְּנִיגּוּב אֶלָּא בְּקִילּוּף, וְהַיְינוּ דַּאֲמַר לִי חַבִּיבִי: חֲזִי דְּלָא מְצַוְּחַתְּ עֲלַי בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא.
This is similar to an incident involving a certain man who came before Rabbi Ḥiyya and said to him: Give me a man who will purify my winepress that I purchased from a gentile. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rav: Go with him and see to it that you conduct yourself in such a manner that will not cause people to complain against me in the study hall. Rav went with him and saw that the winepress was very smooth with pitch. Rav said: Cleansing will certainly be sufficient for this, because it does not absorb the wine. While Rav was going and coming, he saw a crack underneath his feet and saw that it was full of wine. He then said: Cleansing is not sufficient for this; rather, it requires peeling. And this is what my uncle [ḥavivi] meant when he said to me: See to it that you do not cause people to complain against me in the study hall.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַגַּת וְהַמַּחַץ וְהַמַּשְׁפֵּךְ שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, רַבִּי מַתִּיר בְּנִיגּוּב, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי בְּקַנְקַנִּים שֶׁל גּוֹיִם שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין. וּמָה הֶפְרֵשׁ בֵּין זֶה לָזֶה? זֶה מַכְנִיסוֹ בְּקִיּוּם, וְזֶה אֵין מַכְנִיסוֹ בְּקִיּוּם. וְשֶׁל עֵץ וְשֶׁל אֶבֶן — יְנַגֵּב, וְאִם הָיוּ מְזוּפָּפִין — אֲסוּרִין.
The Sages taught: With regard to the winepress and its utensils, the ladle and the funnel, which belong to gentiles, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits them by cleansing, and the Rabbis deem them forbidden. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes with regard to earthenware jugs belonging to gentiles that they are forbidden. And what is the difference between this case and that case? This jug contains the wine for storage purposes, and that case, involving a ladle and a funnel, involves utensils that do not contain it for storage purposes but only temporarily. And if the winepress or its utensils are fashioned of wood or stone, one must cleanse them, but if they were lined with pitch, they are forbidden, and cleansing is not sufficient to render them permitted.
וְהָתְנַן: גַּת שֶׁל אֶבֶן שֶׁזְּפָתָהּ גּוֹי — מְנַגְּבָהּ וְהִיא טְהוֹרָה! מַתְנִיתִין דְּלֹא דָּרַךְ בָּהּ, בָּרַיְיתָא דְּדָרַךְ בָּהּ.
The Gemara raises an objection to the last clause of the baraita: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that in the case of a stone winepress that a gentile lined with pitch, one may cleanse it and it is pure? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a case where the gentile did not tread on his grapes in it, whereas the baraita is referring to a case where he trod on his grapes in it.
אָמַר מָר: הַגַּת וְהַמַּחַץ וְהַמַּשְׁפֵּךְ שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, רַבִּי מַתִּיר בְּנִיגּוּב, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין. וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: שֶׁל חֶרֶס, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּלַף אֶת הַזֶּפֶת — הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה! אָמַר רָבָא: סֵיפָא דְּמַתְנִיתִין אֲתָאן לְרַבָּנַן.
The Master said above: With regard to the winepress and the ladle and the funnel that belong to gentiles, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits them by cleansing, and the Rabbis deem them forbidden. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that if the winepress is of earthenware, even if one peeled off the pitch this press is forbidden? Rava said: In the last clause of the mishna we arrive at the opinion of the Rabbis.
דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא: נַעֲוָה אַרְתַּחוּ. רָבָא כִּי הֲוָה מְשַׁדַּר גּוּלְפֵי לְהַרְפַּנְיָא, סָחֵיף לְהוּ אַפּוּמַּיְיהוּ וְחָתֵים לְהוּ אַבִּירְצַיְיהוּ. קָסָבַר: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁמַּכְנִיסוֹ לְקִיּוּם, אֲפִילּוּ לְפִי שָׁעָה — גְּזַרוּ בֵּיהּ רַבָּנַן.
Rava taught: If one has a tank of wine used by gentiles, he must scald it in order to render it permitted for use. When Rava would dispatch empty kegs to Harpanya, he would turn them over, placing them in their sacks on their openings, and seal the sacks on their brims, so that the gentile carriers would not be able to use them for wine. He maintained that with regard to anything that is used to contain wine for storage, even if the wine may be stored in it only temporarily, the Sages decreed that it is forbidden for use as though it had contained wine.
בַּמֶּה מְנַגְּבָן? רַב אָמַר: בְּמַיִם, רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר: בְּאֵפֶר. רַב אָמַר בְּמַיִם — בְּמַיִם וְלֹא בְּאֵפֶר? רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר בְּאֵפֶר — בְּאֵפֶר וְלֹא בְּמַיִם? אֶלָּא
§ The Gemara asks with regard to the cleansing mentioned in the mishna: How does one cleanse a winepress, or utensils used by a gentile for wine? Rav says: One cleans it with water. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: One cleans it with ashes. The Gemara asks: When Rav says: One cleans it with water, does he mean only with water and not with ashes as well? Furthermore, when Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: One cleans it with ashes, does he mean only with ashes, and not with water as well? Rather, their statements must be understood as follows:
