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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 3, 2018 | 讻状讛 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讟

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Chullin 6

Why did the rabbis forbid eating from shechita of the Cutim and forbade their wine? How did the rabbinic decrees relating to the聽Cutim change over time? Does one need to worry about demai聽(whether tithes were taken) in a food that contains produce from an am haaretz? If one gives the am haaretz the ingredients, in what cases would one need to be concerned that the am haaretz聽switched the ingredients with their own? What were the reactions of others to Rebbi’s permitting fruits of Beit Shean to be eaten without separating tithes and how did Rebbi respond to them?


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

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讬讱 诇讗 拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讬砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讻讗谉 讻砖讬砖专讗诇 注讜诪讚 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讻讗谉 讻砖讗讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 注讜诪讚 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Zeira did not accept from Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi that Rabban Gamliel prohibited eating from the slaughter of a Samaritan even when a Jew was standing over him, let Rabbi Zeira resolve the matter for himself in a different manner: Here, where Rabbi Yo岣nan ate from the slaughter of a Samaritan, it was when a Jew was standing over him; there, where Rabban Gamliel prohibited eating from the slaughter of a Samaritan, it was when a Jew was not standing over him. Rather, must one not conclude from it that Rabbi Zeira accepted the response from Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, learn this from it.

讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 砖讚专讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞诪专讗 诪讘讬 讻讜转讗讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜砖诪转 住讻讬谉 讘诇注讱 讗诐 讘注诇 谞驻砖 讗转讛 讛诇讱 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讜住驻专 讚讘专讬诐 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讙讝专 注诇讬讛谉

搂 The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the Sages, Rabban Gamliel and his court, issued a decree rendering it prohibited to eat from the slaughter of Samaritans? The Gemara answers: It is like that case involving Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, in which Rabbi Meir dispatched him to bring wine from the area of the Samaritans. A certain elder found him and said to him: 鈥淎nd put a knife to your throat, if you are a man given to appetite鈥 (Proverbs 23:2),as a warning to distance himself from them and not to drink their wine, because they were not reliable. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar went and related those matters before Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Meir issued a decree against them.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讚诪讜转 讬讜谞讛 诪爪讗讜 诇讛谉 讘专讗砖 讛专 讙专讬讝讬诐 砖讛讬讜 注讜讘讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讞讬讬砖 诇诪讬注讜讟讗 讜讙讝专 专讜讘讗 讗讟讜 诪讬注讜讟讗 讜专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 谞诪讬 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜

What is the reason that the Samaritans are deemed unreliable? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: At the peak of Mount Gerizim they found the image of a dove, which the Samaritan residents of Mount Gerizim would worship; and Rabbi Meir issued the decree according to his line of reasoning that he takes the minority into consideration, and therefore, despite the fact that the majority of Samaritans did not live on Mount Gerizim, he issued a decree rendering meat slaughtered by the majority forbidden due to the minority that worshipped that idol. And Rabban Gamliel and his court also hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

驻砖讟讬讛 讚拽专讗 讘诪讗讬 讻转讬讘 讘转诇诪讬讚 讛讬讜砖讘 诇驻谞讬 专讘讜 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讬 转砖讘 诇诇讞讜诐 讗转 诪讜砖诇 讘讬谉 转讘讬谉 讗转 讗砖专 诇驻谞讬讱 讜砖诪转 住讻讬谉 讘诇注讱 讗诐 讘注诇 谞驻砖 讗转讛

The Gemara asks: As to the plain meaning of that verse: 鈥淎nd put a knife to your throat, if you are a man given to appetite,鈥 with regard to what matter is it written? The Gemara answers: It is written with regard to a student who is sitting before his teacher, as he must consider his words carefully. As Rabbi 岣yya teaches a baraita interpreting the verses: 鈥淲hen you sit to eat with a ruler, consider well [bin tavin] him that is before you; and put a knife to your throat, if you are a man given to appetite鈥 (Proverbs 23:1鈥2).

讗诐 讬讜讚注 转诇诪讬讚 讘专讘讜 砖讬讜讚注 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讟注诐 讘讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 转讘讬谉 讗转 讗砖专 诇驻谞讬讱 讜砖诪转 住讻讬谉 讘诇注讱 讗诐 讘注诇 谞驻砖 讗转讛 驻专讜砖 讛讬诪谞讜

The tanna explains the verse: If a student knows about his teacher that he knows to respond to him with a reasoned answer, seek wisdom [bin] from him. And if the student believes that the teacher is not capable of doing so, understand [tavin] who is sitting before you, and put a knife to your throat and refrain from embarrassing him with questions that he cannot answer. And if you are a man given to appetite and you seek an answer to your question, distance yourself from him.

专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 讬讜住祝 砖讚专讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞诪专讗 诪讘讬 讻讜转讗讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬转 讻讗谉 砖讜诪专讬 转讜专讛 讛诇讱 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讜住驻专 讚讘专讬诐 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜讛诇讱 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜住驻专 讚讘专讬诐 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讜诇讗 讝讝讜 诪砖诐 注讚 砖注砖讗讜诐 讙讜讬诐 讙诪讜专讬谉

Rabbi Abbahu dispatched Rabbi Yitz岣k ben Yosef to bring wine from the area of the Samaritans. A certain elder found him and said to him: The people here are not keepers of the Torah. Rabbi Yitz岣k went and related the matters before Rabbi Abbahu, and Rabbi Abbahu went and related the matters before Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, and they did not move from there until they rendered the Samaritans full-fledged gentiles.

诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讜讬讬谉 谞住讱 诪讛转诐 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讝讜专 讜诇讗 拽讘诇讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗转讜 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讙讝专讜 讜拽讘诇讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: For what matters did those Sages render them full-fledged gentiles? If it was to prohibit eating from their slaughter and to render their wine as wine used for a libation in idol worship, these prohibitions were issued previously. From there, from the generations of Rabbi Meir and Rabban Gamliel, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting them. The Gemara answers: They issued a decree, and the people did not accept it from them. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi came and issued a decree, and the people accepted it from them.

诪讗讬 讙讜讬诐 讙诪讜专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讘讟诇 专砖讜转 讜诇讬转谉 专砖讜转

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of full-fledged gentiles? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: It means that the halakhic status of a Samaritan is like that of a gentile with regard to renouncing his domain in a jointly-owned courtyard on Shabbat and to transferring his domain in the courtyard to residents of that courtyard.

讜讻讚转谞讬讗 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖讜诪讚 诪砖诪专 砖讘转讜 讘砖讜拽 诪讘讟诇 专砖讜转 讜谞讜转谉 专砖讜转 讜砖讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪专 砖讘转讜 讘砖讜拽 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讟诇 专砖讜转 讜谞讜转谉 专砖讜转

And this is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a Jewish transgressor who nevertheless observes his Shabbat in the marketplace, i.e., in public, if he failed to establish a joining of houses in a courtyard before Shabbat, his halakhic status is that of an observant Jew, and he may renounce his domain in the courtyard and transfer his domain in the courtyard. But a transgressor who does not observe his Shabbat in the marketplace may neither renounce his domain in the courtyard nor transfer his domain in the courtyard.

诪驻谞讬 砖讗诪专讜 讬砖专讗诇 谞讜转谉 专砖讜转 讜诪讘讟诇 专砖讜转 讜讘讙讜讬 注讚 砖讬砖讻讜专

This is because the Sages said: Only a Jew may verbally transfer rights in his domain or renounce his rights in his domain, but with regard to a gentile, the other residents cannot establish a joining of courtyards unless the residents of the courtyard lease his domain from him. The halakhic status of one who publicly desecrates Shabbat is that of a gentile.

讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 诇讜 专砖讜转讬 拽谞讜讬讛 诇讱 专砖讜转讬 诪讘讜讟诇转 诇讱 拽谞讛 讜讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讝讻讜转

How does a Jew transfer or renounce his domain? If a Jew says to his neighbor: My domain is transferred to you or my domain is renounced to you, his neighbor has acquired his domain, and it is not necessary for him to grant it to his neighbor by means of one of the standard modes of acquisition.

专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗讬拽诇注讜 诇驻讜谞讚拽讗 讚讬讗讬 讗讬讬转讜 诇拽诪讬讬讛讜 讘讬爪讬诐 讛诪爪讜诪拽讜转 讘讬讬谉 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 讗讻诇 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗讻诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘 讗住讬 讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖 诪专 诇转注专讜讘转 讚诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讗讬

搂 The Gemara revisits the statement that the righteous would not experience mishaps. Rabbi Zeira and Rav Asi happened to come to the inn of the town of Ya鈥檈i. In the inn, they brought before these Sages eggs that shriveled after being cooked in wine. Rabbi Zeira did not eat the eggs, and Rav Asi ate them. Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi: And is the Master not concerned about the possibility that the dish is a mixture containing wine that is doubtfully tithed produce [demai]? Rav Asi said to him: It did not enter my mind.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗驻砖专 讙讝专讜 注诇 讛转注专讜讘转 讚诪讗讬 讜诪住转讬讬注讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚专讘 讗住讬 诇诪讬讻诇 讗讬住讜专讗 讛砖转讗 讘讛诪转谉 砖诇 爪讚讬拽讬诐 讗讬谉 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讘讬讗 转拽诇讛 注诇 讬讚谉 爪讚讬拽讬诐 注爪诪谉 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rabbi Zeira said to himself: Is it possible that the Sages issued a decree on a mixture containing demai and the matter eventuated that Rav Asi ate forbidden food? Now, since even with regard to the animals of the righteous, the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not generate mishaps through them, is it not all the more so true that the righteous themselves would not experience mishaps?

谞驻拽 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 讚转谞谉 讛诇讜拽讞 讬讬谉 诇转转 诇转讜讱 讛诪讜专讬讬住 讗讜 诇转讜讱 讛讗诇讜谞转讬转 讻专砖讬谞讬谉 诇注砖讜转 诪讛谉 讟讞讬谞讬谉 注讚砖讬诐 诇注砖讜转 诪讛谉 专住讬住讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 讜讚讗讬

Rabbi Zeira emerged, analyzed, and found that no mishap was generated through Rav Asi, as we learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Demai 1:24): In the case of one who purchases wine to place into fish gravy [hamorayes] or into aluntit, a beverage in which wine is mixed, or one who purchases vetch to prepare grist from it, or lentils to prepare groats from it, if it is uncertain whether what he purchased is tithed, e.g., he bought it from one who is unreliable with regard to tithes [am ha鈥檃retz], one is obligated to tithe it, due to the fact that it is demai. And needless to say, if it is certain that what he purchased is not tithed, he is obligated to tithe it due to the fact that it is certain that it is untithed produce.

讜讛谉 注爪诪谉 诪讜转专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 转注专讜讘转

And they themselves, the gravy, aluntit, grist, and groats that one purchased from an am ha鈥檃retz, are permitted, because they are a mixture. Since only one element of the mixture must be tithed, the food is permitted.

讜诇讗 讙讝专讜 注诇 转注专讜讘转 讚诪讗讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛谞讜转谉 诇砖讻谞转讜 注讬住讛 诇讗驻讜转 讜拽讚讬专讛 诇讘砖诇 讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖 诇砖讗讜专 讜转讘诇讬谉 砖讘讛 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇讗 诪砖讜诐 诪注砖专

The Gemara asks: And is it so that the Sages did not issue a decree on a mixture containing demai? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who gives his neighbor, who is an am ha鈥檃retz, dough to bake and gives her leaven for the dough to rise, or gives her a pot of food and the spices to cook in it, he need not be concerned about the leaven and the spices that are in the dough and the pot respectively, that perhaps she replaced them with her own, neither with regard to the possibility that they are Sabbatical Year produce nor with regard to the possibility that tithe was not separated.

讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讛 注砖讬 诇讬 诪砖诇讬讻讬 讞讜砖砖 诇砖讗讜专 讜转讘诇讬谉 砖讘讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬注讬转 讜诪砖讜诐 诪注砖专

And if he says to her: Prepare the dough or the food for me with your own leaven and spices, he must be concerned about the leaven and the spices that are in the dough and the pot respectively, with regard to the possibility that they are Sabbatical Year produce and with regard to the possibility that tithe was not separated, even though it is a mixture containing demai.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗诪专 诇讛 注砖讬 诇讬 诪砖诇讬讻讬 讻诪讗谉 讚注专讬讘 讘讬讚讬诐 讚诪讬 专驻专诐 讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 砖讗讜专 讜转讘诇讬谉 讚诇讟注诪讗 注讘讬讚 讜讟注诪讗 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

The Gemara answers: It is different there, as, since he said to her: Prepare the dough or the food for me from your own, it is like one who mixed it by direct action. Rafram said: Leaven and spices are different, as each of them is made for the purpose of adding taste to the mixture, and taste is not nullified in a mixture.

讜诇讞诇讜驻讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讛转谞谉 讛谞讜转谉 诇讞诪讜转讜 诪注砖专 讗转 砖讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讜讗转 砖讛讜讗 谞讜讟诇 诪诪谞讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讞砖讜讚讛 诪讞诇驻转 讛诪转拽诇拽诇 讛转诐 讻讚转谞讬讗 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讜爪讛 讛讬讗 讘转拽谞转 讘转讛 讜讘讜砖讛 诪讞转谞讛

The Gemara asks: And are we not concerned about replacement of the ingredients that he gave his neighbor with her own? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Demai 3:6): One who gives dough to his mother-in-law, who is suspect with regard to tithing, so that she will prepare it for him, must tithe everything that he gives her and everything that he takes back from her. This is because she is suspected of replacing an ingredient that spoils. The Gemara answers: There, the reason is like it is taught explicitly in that mishna, that Rabbi Yehuda said: The mother-in-law desires her daughter鈥檚 well-being and wants to ensure that she eats quality food, and is reticent to tell her son-in-law that she replaced the ingredients that spoiled.

讜诇注诇诪讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讛转谞谉 讛谞讜转谉 诇驻讜谞讚拽讬转 砖诇讜 诪注砖专 讗转 砖讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讜讗转 砖讛讜讗 谞讜讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讞砖讜讚讛 诪讞诇驻转 讛转诐 谞诪讬 诪讜专讬讗 讜讗诪专讛 讘专 讘讬 专讘 诇讬讻讜诇 讞诪讬诪讗 讜讗谞讗 讗讬讻讜诇 拽专讬专讗

The Gemara asks: And in general, in a case not involving one鈥檚 mother-in-law, are we not concerned about the possibility of replacement? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Demai 3:5): One who gives dough or a pot of food to his innkeeper [pundakit] who is an am ha鈥檃retz to bake or cook, tithes what he gives her and tithes what he takes back from her, due to the fact that she is suspected of replacing the ingredients? The Gemara answers: There too, her intentions are good, as the innkeeper rationalizes her deception and says: Let the student of Torah eat my hot food and I will eat his cold food.

讜诇讞诇讜驻讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗砖转 讞讘专 讟讜讞谞转 注诐 讗砖转 注诐 讛讗专抓 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 讟讛讜专讛

The Gemara asks: And are we not concerned about replacement of the ingredients? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The wife of a 岣ver, one devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially the halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes,grinds grain with the wife of an am ha鈥檃retz when the wife of the 岣ver is ritually impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman. In that case, there is no concern that she will eat her counterpart鈥檚 untithed produce, as, since she is impure she will refrain from touching the grain so that she will not render it impure. But she may not do so when she is ritually pure, due to the concern that she will eat the untithed produce.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 诇讗 转讟讞讜谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讞讘讬专转讛 谞讜转谞转 诇讛 讜讗讜讻诇转

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even when she is impure, the wife of the 岣ver may not grind grain together with the wife of the am ha鈥檃retz, due to the fact that her counterpart gives her grain and she eats it without touching the rest of the grain.

讛砖转讗 诪讬讙讝诇 讙讝诇讛 讞诇讜驻讬 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛转诐 谞诪讬 诪讜专讬讗 讜讗诪专讛 转讜专讗 诪讚讬砖讬讛 拽讗讻讬诇

The Gemara infers: Now that there is suspicion that the wife of the am ha鈥檃retz steals from her husband鈥檚 grain and gives it to her counterparts, is it necessary to say that she is suspect with regard to replacing ingredients? Rav Yosef said: There too there are special circumstances, as the wife of the am ha鈥檃retz rationalizes her behavior and says metaphorically: The ox eats from its threshing, and believes that the wife of the 岣ver is entitled to some of the grain that she is grinding.

讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 讝专讜讝 讘谉 讞诪讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 注诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讗讻诇 注诇讛 砖诇 讬专拽 讘讘讬转 砖讗谉 讜讛转讬专 专讘讬 讗转 讘讬转 砖讗谉 讻讜诇讛 注诇 讬讚讜

搂 The Gemara resumes its discussion of the statement that the righteous would not experience mishaps. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Zeruz, son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Meir, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi about Rabbi Meir that he ate the leaf of a vegetable in Beit She鈥檃n without tithing or separating teruma, as he holds that Beit She鈥檃n is not part of Eretz Yisrael and therefore is not sacred with its sanctity. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted all the produce of Beit She鈥檃n on the basis of his testimony.

讞讘专讜 注诇讬讜 讗讞讬讜 讜讘讬转 讗讘讬讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讘讜转讬讱 讜讗讘讜转 讗讘讜转讬讱 谞讛讙讜 讘讜 讗讬住讜专 讗转讛 转谞讛讜讙 讘讜 讛讬转专

His brothers and his father鈥檚 household united against him and said to him: In a place where your fathers and the fathers of your fathers treated untithed produce as forbidden, will you treat it as permitted?

讚专砖 诇讛谉 诪拽专讗 讝讛 讜讻转转 谞讞砖 讛谞讞砖转 讗砖专 注砖讛 诪砖讛 讻讬 注讚 讛讬诪讬诐 讛讛诪讛 讛讬讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪拽讟专讬诐 诇讜 讜讬拽专讗 诇讜 谞讞砖转谉 讗驻砖专 讘讗 讗住讗 讜诇讗 讘讬注专讜 讘讗 讬讛讜砖驻讟 讜诇讗 讘讬注专讜 讜讛诇讗 讻诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讘注讜诇诐 讗住讗 讜讬讛讜砖驻讟 讘讬注专讜诐

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interpreted this verse to them: 鈥淎nd he broke in pieces the copper serpent that Moses had made; for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it; and it was called Nehushtan鈥 (II聽Kings 18:4). Is it possible that they burned incense to it and Asa, a righteous king, came and did not eradicate it, and Jehoshaphat, a righteous king, came and did not eradicate it, and it remained until the time of Hezekiah? But didn鈥檛 Asa and Jehoshaphat eradicate all objects of idol worship in the world?

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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!

Chullin 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 6

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讬讱 诇讗 拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讬砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讻讗谉 讻砖讬砖专讗诇 注讜诪讚 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讻讗谉 讻砖讗讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 注讜诪讚 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Zeira did not accept from Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi that Rabban Gamliel prohibited eating from the slaughter of a Samaritan even when a Jew was standing over him, let Rabbi Zeira resolve the matter for himself in a different manner: Here, where Rabbi Yo岣nan ate from the slaughter of a Samaritan, it was when a Jew was standing over him; there, where Rabban Gamliel prohibited eating from the slaughter of a Samaritan, it was when a Jew was not standing over him. Rather, must one not conclude from it that Rabbi Zeira accepted the response from Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, learn this from it.

讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 砖讚专讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞诪专讗 诪讘讬 讻讜转讗讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜砖诪转 住讻讬谉 讘诇注讱 讗诐 讘注诇 谞驻砖 讗转讛 讛诇讱 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讜住驻专 讚讘专讬诐 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讙讝专 注诇讬讛谉

搂 The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the Sages, Rabban Gamliel and his court, issued a decree rendering it prohibited to eat from the slaughter of Samaritans? The Gemara answers: It is like that case involving Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, in which Rabbi Meir dispatched him to bring wine from the area of the Samaritans. A certain elder found him and said to him: 鈥淎nd put a knife to your throat, if you are a man given to appetite鈥 (Proverbs 23:2),as a warning to distance himself from them and not to drink their wine, because they were not reliable. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar went and related those matters before Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Meir issued a decree against them.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讚诪讜转 讬讜谞讛 诪爪讗讜 诇讛谉 讘专讗砖 讛专 讙专讬讝讬诐 砖讛讬讜 注讜讘讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讞讬讬砖 诇诪讬注讜讟讗 讜讙讝专 专讜讘讗 讗讟讜 诪讬注讜讟讗 讜专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 谞诪讬 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜

What is the reason that the Samaritans are deemed unreliable? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: At the peak of Mount Gerizim they found the image of a dove, which the Samaritan residents of Mount Gerizim would worship; and Rabbi Meir issued the decree according to his line of reasoning that he takes the minority into consideration, and therefore, despite the fact that the majority of Samaritans did not live on Mount Gerizim, he issued a decree rendering meat slaughtered by the majority forbidden due to the minority that worshipped that idol. And Rabban Gamliel and his court also hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

驻砖讟讬讛 讚拽专讗 讘诪讗讬 讻转讬讘 讘转诇诪讬讚 讛讬讜砖讘 诇驻谞讬 专讘讜 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讬 转砖讘 诇诇讞讜诐 讗转 诪讜砖诇 讘讬谉 转讘讬谉 讗转 讗砖专 诇驻谞讬讱 讜砖诪转 住讻讬谉 讘诇注讱 讗诐 讘注诇 谞驻砖 讗转讛

The Gemara asks: As to the plain meaning of that verse: 鈥淎nd put a knife to your throat, if you are a man given to appetite,鈥 with regard to what matter is it written? The Gemara answers: It is written with regard to a student who is sitting before his teacher, as he must consider his words carefully. As Rabbi 岣yya teaches a baraita interpreting the verses: 鈥淲hen you sit to eat with a ruler, consider well [bin tavin] him that is before you; and put a knife to your throat, if you are a man given to appetite鈥 (Proverbs 23:1鈥2).

讗诐 讬讜讚注 转诇诪讬讚 讘专讘讜 砖讬讜讚注 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讜 讟注诐 讘讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 转讘讬谉 讗转 讗砖专 诇驻谞讬讱 讜砖诪转 住讻讬谉 讘诇注讱 讗诐 讘注诇 谞驻砖 讗转讛 驻专讜砖 讛讬诪谞讜

The tanna explains the verse: If a student knows about his teacher that he knows to respond to him with a reasoned answer, seek wisdom [bin] from him. And if the student believes that the teacher is not capable of doing so, understand [tavin] who is sitting before you, and put a knife to your throat and refrain from embarrassing him with questions that he cannot answer. And if you are a man given to appetite and you seek an answer to your question, distance yourself from him.

专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 讬讜住祝 砖讚专讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞诪专讗 诪讘讬 讻讜转讗讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬转 讻讗谉 砖讜诪专讬 转讜专讛 讛诇讱 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讜住驻专 讚讘专讬诐 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜讛诇讱 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜住驻专 讚讘专讬诐 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讜诇讗 讝讝讜 诪砖诐 注讚 砖注砖讗讜诐 讙讜讬诐 讙诪讜专讬谉

Rabbi Abbahu dispatched Rabbi Yitz岣k ben Yosef to bring wine from the area of the Samaritans. A certain elder found him and said to him: The people here are not keepers of the Torah. Rabbi Yitz岣k went and related the matters before Rabbi Abbahu, and Rabbi Abbahu went and related the matters before Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, and they did not move from there until they rendered the Samaritans full-fledged gentiles.

诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇砖讞讬讟讛 讜讬讬谉 谞住讱 诪讛转诐 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讝讜专 讜诇讗 拽讘诇讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗转讜 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讙讝专讜 讜拽讘诇讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: For what matters did those Sages render them full-fledged gentiles? If it was to prohibit eating from their slaughter and to render their wine as wine used for a libation in idol worship, these prohibitions were issued previously. From there, from the generations of Rabbi Meir and Rabban Gamliel, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting them. The Gemara answers: They issued a decree, and the people did not accept it from them. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi came and issued a decree, and the people accepted it from them.

诪讗讬 讙讜讬诐 讙诪讜专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讘讟诇 专砖讜转 讜诇讬转谉 专砖讜转

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of full-fledged gentiles? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: It means that the halakhic status of a Samaritan is like that of a gentile with regard to renouncing his domain in a jointly-owned courtyard on Shabbat and to transferring his domain in the courtyard to residents of that courtyard.

讜讻讚转谞讬讗 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖讜诪讚 诪砖诪专 砖讘转讜 讘砖讜拽 诪讘讟诇 专砖讜转 讜谞讜转谉 专砖讜转 讜砖讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪专 砖讘转讜 讘砖讜拽 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讟诇 专砖讜转 讜谞讜转谉 专砖讜转

And this is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a Jewish transgressor who nevertheless observes his Shabbat in the marketplace, i.e., in public, if he failed to establish a joining of houses in a courtyard before Shabbat, his halakhic status is that of an observant Jew, and he may renounce his domain in the courtyard and transfer his domain in the courtyard. But a transgressor who does not observe his Shabbat in the marketplace may neither renounce his domain in the courtyard nor transfer his domain in the courtyard.

诪驻谞讬 砖讗诪专讜 讬砖专讗诇 谞讜转谉 专砖讜转 讜诪讘讟诇 专砖讜转 讜讘讙讜讬 注讚 砖讬砖讻讜专

This is because the Sages said: Only a Jew may verbally transfer rights in his domain or renounce his rights in his domain, but with regard to a gentile, the other residents cannot establish a joining of courtyards unless the residents of the courtyard lease his domain from him. The halakhic status of one who publicly desecrates Shabbat is that of a gentile.

讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 诇讜 专砖讜转讬 拽谞讜讬讛 诇讱 专砖讜转讬 诪讘讜讟诇转 诇讱 拽谞讛 讜讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讝讻讜转

How does a Jew transfer or renounce his domain? If a Jew says to his neighbor: My domain is transferred to you or my domain is renounced to you, his neighbor has acquired his domain, and it is not necessary for him to grant it to his neighbor by means of one of the standard modes of acquisition.

专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗讬拽诇注讜 诇驻讜谞讚拽讗 讚讬讗讬 讗讬讬转讜 诇拽诪讬讬讛讜 讘讬爪讬诐 讛诪爪讜诪拽讜转 讘讬讬谉 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 讗讻诇 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗讻诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘 讗住讬 讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖 诪专 诇转注专讜讘转 讚诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讗讬

搂 The Gemara revisits the statement that the righteous would not experience mishaps. Rabbi Zeira and Rav Asi happened to come to the inn of the town of Ya鈥檈i. In the inn, they brought before these Sages eggs that shriveled after being cooked in wine. Rabbi Zeira did not eat the eggs, and Rav Asi ate them. Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi: And is the Master not concerned about the possibility that the dish is a mixture containing wine that is doubtfully tithed produce [demai]? Rav Asi said to him: It did not enter my mind.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗驻砖专 讙讝专讜 注诇 讛转注专讜讘转 讚诪讗讬 讜诪住转讬讬注讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚专讘 讗住讬 诇诪讬讻诇 讗讬住讜专讗 讛砖转讗 讘讛诪转谉 砖诇 爪讚讬拽讬诐 讗讬谉 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讘讬讗 转拽诇讛 注诇 讬讚谉 爪讚讬拽讬诐 注爪诪谉 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rabbi Zeira said to himself: Is it possible that the Sages issued a decree on a mixture containing demai and the matter eventuated that Rav Asi ate forbidden food? Now, since even with regard to the animals of the righteous, the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not generate mishaps through them, is it not all the more so true that the righteous themselves would not experience mishaps?

谞驻拽 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 讚转谞谉 讛诇讜拽讞 讬讬谉 诇转转 诇转讜讱 讛诪讜专讬讬住 讗讜 诇转讜讱 讛讗诇讜谞转讬转 讻专砖讬谞讬谉 诇注砖讜转 诪讛谉 讟讞讬谞讬谉 注讚砖讬诐 诇注砖讜转 诪讛谉 专住讬住讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 讜讚讗讬

Rabbi Zeira emerged, analyzed, and found that no mishap was generated through Rav Asi, as we learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Demai 1:24): In the case of one who purchases wine to place into fish gravy [hamorayes] or into aluntit, a beverage in which wine is mixed, or one who purchases vetch to prepare grist from it, or lentils to prepare groats from it, if it is uncertain whether what he purchased is tithed, e.g., he bought it from one who is unreliable with regard to tithes [am ha鈥檃retz], one is obligated to tithe it, due to the fact that it is demai. And needless to say, if it is certain that what he purchased is not tithed, he is obligated to tithe it due to the fact that it is certain that it is untithed produce.

讜讛谉 注爪诪谉 诪讜转专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 转注专讜讘转

And they themselves, the gravy, aluntit, grist, and groats that one purchased from an am ha鈥檃retz, are permitted, because they are a mixture. Since only one element of the mixture must be tithed, the food is permitted.

讜诇讗 讙讝专讜 注诇 转注专讜讘转 讚诪讗讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛谞讜转谉 诇砖讻谞转讜 注讬住讛 诇讗驻讜转 讜拽讚讬专讛 诇讘砖诇 讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖 诇砖讗讜专 讜转讘诇讬谉 砖讘讛 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬注讬转 讜诇讗 诪砖讜诐 诪注砖专

The Gemara asks: And is it so that the Sages did not issue a decree on a mixture containing demai? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who gives his neighbor, who is an am ha鈥檃retz, dough to bake and gives her leaven for the dough to rise, or gives her a pot of food and the spices to cook in it, he need not be concerned about the leaven and the spices that are in the dough and the pot respectively, that perhaps she replaced them with her own, neither with regard to the possibility that they are Sabbatical Year produce nor with regard to the possibility that tithe was not separated.

讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讛 注砖讬 诇讬 诪砖诇讬讻讬 讞讜砖砖 诇砖讗讜专 讜转讘诇讬谉 砖讘讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬注讬转 讜诪砖讜诐 诪注砖专

And if he says to her: Prepare the dough or the food for me with your own leaven and spices, he must be concerned about the leaven and the spices that are in the dough and the pot respectively, with regard to the possibility that they are Sabbatical Year produce and with regard to the possibility that tithe was not separated, even though it is a mixture containing demai.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗诪专 诇讛 注砖讬 诇讬 诪砖诇讬讻讬 讻诪讗谉 讚注专讬讘 讘讬讚讬诐 讚诪讬 专驻专诐 讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 砖讗讜专 讜转讘诇讬谉 讚诇讟注诪讗 注讘讬讚 讜讟注诪讗 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

The Gemara answers: It is different there, as, since he said to her: Prepare the dough or the food for me from your own, it is like one who mixed it by direct action. Rafram said: Leaven and spices are different, as each of them is made for the purpose of adding taste to the mixture, and taste is not nullified in a mixture.

讜诇讞诇讜驻讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讛转谞谉 讛谞讜转谉 诇讞诪讜转讜 诪注砖专 讗转 砖讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讜讗转 砖讛讜讗 谞讜讟诇 诪诪谞讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讞砖讜讚讛 诪讞诇驻转 讛诪转拽诇拽诇 讛转诐 讻讚转谞讬讗 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讜爪讛 讛讬讗 讘转拽谞转 讘转讛 讜讘讜砖讛 诪讞转谞讛

The Gemara asks: And are we not concerned about replacement of the ingredients that he gave his neighbor with her own? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Demai 3:6): One who gives dough to his mother-in-law, who is suspect with regard to tithing, so that she will prepare it for him, must tithe everything that he gives her and everything that he takes back from her. This is because she is suspected of replacing an ingredient that spoils. The Gemara answers: There, the reason is like it is taught explicitly in that mishna, that Rabbi Yehuda said: The mother-in-law desires her daughter鈥檚 well-being and wants to ensure that she eats quality food, and is reticent to tell her son-in-law that she replaced the ingredients that spoiled.

讜诇注诇诪讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讛转谞谉 讛谞讜转谉 诇驻讜谞讚拽讬转 砖诇讜 诪注砖专 讗转 砖讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讜讗转 砖讛讜讗 谞讜讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讞砖讜讚讛 诪讞诇驻转 讛转诐 谞诪讬 诪讜专讬讗 讜讗诪专讛 讘专 讘讬 专讘 诇讬讻讜诇 讞诪讬诪讗 讜讗谞讗 讗讬讻讜诇 拽专讬专讗

The Gemara asks: And in general, in a case not involving one鈥檚 mother-in-law, are we not concerned about the possibility of replacement? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Demai 3:5): One who gives dough or a pot of food to his innkeeper [pundakit] who is an am ha鈥檃retz to bake or cook, tithes what he gives her and tithes what he takes back from her, due to the fact that she is suspected of replacing the ingredients? The Gemara answers: There too, her intentions are good, as the innkeeper rationalizes her deception and says: Let the student of Torah eat my hot food and I will eat his cold food.

讜诇讞诇讜驻讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗砖转 讞讘专 讟讜讞谞转 注诐 讗砖转 注诐 讛讗专抓 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 讟讛讜专讛

The Gemara asks: And are we not concerned about replacement of the ingredients? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The wife of a 岣ver, one devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially the halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes,grinds grain with the wife of an am ha鈥檃retz when the wife of the 岣ver is ritually impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman. In that case, there is no concern that she will eat her counterpart鈥檚 untithed produce, as, since she is impure she will refrain from touching the grain so that she will not render it impure. But she may not do so when she is ritually pure, due to the concern that she will eat the untithed produce.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 讟诪讗讛 诇讗 转讟讞讜谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讞讘讬专转讛 谞讜转谞转 诇讛 讜讗讜讻诇转

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even when she is impure, the wife of the 岣ver may not grind grain together with the wife of the am ha鈥檃retz, due to the fact that her counterpart gives her grain and she eats it without touching the rest of the grain.

讛砖转讗 诪讬讙讝诇 讙讝诇讛 讞诇讜驻讬 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛转诐 谞诪讬 诪讜专讬讗 讜讗诪专讛 转讜专讗 诪讚讬砖讬讛 拽讗讻讬诇

The Gemara infers: Now that there is suspicion that the wife of the am ha鈥檃retz steals from her husband鈥檚 grain and gives it to her counterparts, is it necessary to say that she is suspect with regard to replacing ingredients? Rav Yosef said: There too there are special circumstances, as the wife of the am ha鈥檃retz rationalizes her behavior and says metaphorically: The ox eats from its threshing, and believes that the wife of the 岣ver is entitled to some of the grain that she is grinding.

讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 讝专讜讝 讘谉 讞诪讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 注诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讗讻诇 注诇讛 砖诇 讬专拽 讘讘讬转 砖讗谉 讜讛转讬专 专讘讬 讗转 讘讬转 砖讗谉 讻讜诇讛 注诇 讬讚讜

搂 The Gemara resumes its discussion of the statement that the righteous would not experience mishaps. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Zeruz, son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Meir, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi about Rabbi Meir that he ate the leaf of a vegetable in Beit She鈥檃n without tithing or separating teruma, as he holds that Beit She鈥檃n is not part of Eretz Yisrael and therefore is not sacred with its sanctity. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted all the produce of Beit She鈥檃n on the basis of his testimony.

讞讘专讜 注诇讬讜 讗讞讬讜 讜讘讬转 讗讘讬讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讘讜转讬讱 讜讗讘讜转 讗讘讜转讬讱 谞讛讙讜 讘讜 讗讬住讜专 讗转讛 转谞讛讜讙 讘讜 讛讬转专

His brothers and his father鈥檚 household united against him and said to him: In a place where your fathers and the fathers of your fathers treated untithed produce as forbidden, will you treat it as permitted?

讚专砖 诇讛谉 诪拽专讗 讝讛 讜讻转转 谞讞砖 讛谞讞砖转 讗砖专 注砖讛 诪砖讛 讻讬 注讚 讛讬诪讬诐 讛讛诪讛 讛讬讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪拽讟专讬诐 诇讜 讜讬拽专讗 诇讜 谞讞砖转谉 讗驻砖专 讘讗 讗住讗 讜诇讗 讘讬注专讜 讘讗 讬讛讜砖驻讟 讜诇讗 讘讬注专讜 讜讛诇讗 讻诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讘注讜诇诐 讗住讗 讜讬讛讜砖驻讟 讘讬注专讜诐

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interpreted this verse to them: 鈥淎nd he broke in pieces the copper serpent that Moses had made; for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it; and it was called Nehushtan鈥 (II聽Kings 18:4). Is it possible that they burned incense to it and Asa, a righteous king, came and did not eradicate it, and Jehoshaphat, a righteous king, came and did not eradicate it, and it remained until the time of Hezekiah? But didn鈥檛 Asa and Jehoshaphat eradicate all objects of idol worship in the world?

Scroll To Top