עבודה זרה ל״ו

עבודה זרה ל״ו

זְלִיפָתָן שֶׁל כֵּלִים טְמֵאִים אוֹסַרְתָּן. אַטּוּ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אוֹכְלֵי טְהָרוֹת נִינְהוּ? אֶלָּא, זְלִיפָתָן שֶׁל כֵּלִים אֲסוּרִין אוֹסַרְתָּן.

The secretion of ritually impure vessels prohibits the oil that gentiles pour into them. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that all people are consumers of only ritually pure substances? Since it is common practice to eat ritually impure foods, why should the secretion of impure vessels render the oil prohibited? The Gemara emends Shmuel’s statement: Rather, the secretion of prohibited vessels prohibits the oil, as it absorbs the prohibited substances.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב: בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי דְּאָמֵינָא זְלִיפָתָן שֶׁל כֵּלִים אֲסוּרִין אוֹסַרְתָּן, הַיְינוּ דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָא וְאָמַר: דָּרֵישׁ רַבִּי שִׂמְלַאי בִּנְצִיבִין: שֶׁמֶן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וּבֵית דִּינוֹ נִמְנוּ עָלָיו וְהִתִּירוּהוּ.

Shmuel said to Rav: Granted, according to my opinion, as I say that the secretion of prohibited vessels prohibits the oil, this is how one can understand that when Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta came, he said that Rabbi Simlai taught in Netzivin: With regard to oil, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court were counted, i.e., voted, on this matter and permitted it.

קָסָבַר: נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם — מוּתָּר.

Shmuel elaborates: It can be explained that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: A prohibited substance that imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture is permitted. According to Shmuel’s explanation, the prohibition was revoked because the taste absorbed by the oil would have impaired its flavor rather than enhanced it.

אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ דָּנִיאֵל גָּזַר עָלָיו, דָּנִיאֵל גְּזַר וַאֲתָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא וּמְבַטֵּל לֵיהּ? וְהָתְנַן: אֵין בֵּית דִּין יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דִּבְרֵי בֵּית דִּין חֲבֵירוֹ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן גָּדוֹל הֵימֶנּוּ בְּחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן!

But according to you, Rav, who said that Daniel decreed a prohibition upon the oil of gentiles, how can this be understood? Can it be said that Daniel decreed it, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi came and voided the decree? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Eduyyot 1:5): A court cannot void the statements of another court, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number? According to Rav, how could Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi void a decree issued by Daniel?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ שִׂמְלַאי לוּדָּאָה קָא אָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי לוּדָּאֵי דִּמְזַלְזְלוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֶשְׁלַח לֵיהּ? אִיכְּסִיף.

Rather than answering Shmuel’s question directly, Rav first rejects his proof: Rav said to him: Was it Rabbi Simlai of Lod of whom you spoke? Residents of Lod are different, as they disparage the Sages’ decrees, and therefore Rabbi Simlai’s testimony is unreliable. Shmuel said to him: Shall I send for him? As a result, Rav became embarrassed.

אָמַר רַב: אִם הֵם לֹא דָּרְשׁוּ, אֲנַן לָא דָּרְשִׁינַן? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיָּשֶׂם דָּנִיֵּאל עַל לִבּוֹ אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִתְגָּאַל בְּפַת בַּג הַמֶּלֶךְ וּבְיֵין מִשְׁתָּיו״ — בִּשְׁתֵּי מִשְׁתָּאוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אֶחָד מִשְׁתֵּה יַיִן וְאֶחָד מִשְׁתֵּה שֶׁמֶן.

Rav claimed that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court erred in permitting the oil of gentiles, which Daniel had prohibited. Rav said: If they, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court, did not expound the following verse, will we not expound it? We must certainly do so. Isn’t it written: “But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the king’s food, nor with the wine which he drank [mishtav]” (Daniel 1:8)? The word mishtav is in the plural, indicating that the verse speaks of two types of drinking: One is the drinking of wine, and one is the drinking of oil. Accordingly, Daniel himself refrained from consuming oil of gentiles, as he instituted this prohibition. Why does Shmuel reject this inference, which indicates that Daniel issued this decree?

רַב סָבַר: עַל לִבּוֹ שָׂם, וּלְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל הוֹרָה; וּשְׁמוּאֵל סָבַר: עַל לִבּוֹ שָׂם, וּלְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא הוֹרָה.

The Gemara explains that Rav maintained: Daniel placed the prohibition against consuming the oil of gentiles upon his heart, i.e., for himself, and he instructed all Jews to adhere to it as well. And Shmuel held: Daniel placed the prohibition upon his heart, but he did not instruct all Jews to accept it.

וְשֶׁמֶן, דָּנִיאֵל גְּזַר? וְהָאָמַר בָּאלִי אֲבִימִי נִוְתָאָה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: פִּיתָּן וְשַׁמְנָן, יֵינָן וּבְנוֹתֵיהֶן, כּוּלָּן מִשְּׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר דָּבָר הֵן.

The Gemara asks: And is it correct that Daniel decreed that oil is prohibited? But doesn’t Balei say that Avimi of Nota [Nota’a] says in the name of Rav: The prohibitions of gentiles’ bread and their oil, their wine and their daughters, are all from the eighteen matters decreed in a single day in the days of the students of Shammai and Hillel. Apparently, Rav himself maintains that the prohibition was not instituted by Daniel.

וְכִי תֵּימָא: אֲתָא דָּנִיאֵל גְּזַר וְלָא קַיבֻּל, וַאֲתוֹ תַּלְמִידֵי דְּהִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי וּגְזוּר וְקַיבֻּל, אִם כֵּן מַאי אַסְהָדוּתֵיהּ דְּרַב? אֶלָּא, דָּנִיאֵל גָּזַר עָלָיו בָּעִיר, וַאֲתוֹ אִינְהוּ וּגְזוּר אֲפִילּוּ בַּשָּׂדֶה.

The Gemara adds: And if you would say that Daniel came and decreed but the people did not accept it, and later the students of Hillel and Shammai came and decreed with regard to gentiles’ oil and the people accepted it, if that is so, what is the significance of Rav’s testimony that Daniel initially instituted the prohibition? The Gemara explains: Rather, Daniel decreed upon the oil of gentiles in the city, and the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that it is prohibited even in the field.

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא הֵיכִי מָצֵי לְמִישְׁרֵא תַּקַּנְתָּא דְּתַלְמִידֵי שַׁמַּאי וְהִלֵּל? וְהָתְנַן: אֵין בֵּית דִּין יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דִּבְרֵי בֵּית דִּין חֲבֵירוֹ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן גָּדוֹל הֵימֶנּוּ בְּחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן! וְעוֹד, הָא אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בַּכֹּל יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל בֵּית דִּין דִּבְרֵי בֵּית דִּין חֲבֵירוֹ, חוּץ מִשְּׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר דָּבָר, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ יָבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ וּבֵית דִּינוֹ אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ!

The Gemara asks: And how could Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permit an ordinance issued by the students of Shammai and Hillel? But didn’t we learn in a mishna that a court cannot void the statements of another court, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number? And furthermore, doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to all issues, a court can void the statements of another court, except the eighteen matters decreed by the students of Beit Shammai, as, even if Elijah and his court were to come and rescind them, one would not listen to him.

אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: מַה טַּעַם? הוֹאִיל וּפָשַׁט אִיסּוּרוֹ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁמֶן לֹא פָּשַׁט אִיסּוּרוֹ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יָשְׁבוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ וּבָדְקוּ עַל שֶׁמֶן שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁט אִיסּוּרוֹ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְסָמְכוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ עַל דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְעַל דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר צָדוֹק, שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: אֵין גּוֹזְרִין גְּזֵירָה עַל הַצִּבּוּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן רוֹב צִבּוּר יְכוֹלִין לַעֲמוֹד בָּהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: מַאי קְרָא?

Rav Mesharshiyya said: What is the reason that none of the eighteen decrees can be voided? Since the prohibition spread among the majority of the Jewish people, it cannot be voided. But with regard to oil, its prohibition did not spread among the majority of the Jewish people, and therefore it can be voided. As Rabbi Shmuel bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Our Sages sat and inspected the matter of gentiles’ oil and determined that its prohibition had not spread among the majority of the Jewish people, and our Sages relied upon the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and upon the statement of Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, who would say: The Sages issue a decree upon the community only if most of the community is able to abide by it. As Rav Adda bar Ahava said: What is the verse from which it is derived?

״בַּמְּאֵרָה אַתֶּם נֵאָרִים וְאֹתִי אַתֶּם קֹבְעִים הַגּוֹי כֻּלּוֹ״, אִי אִיכָּא גּוֹי כּוּלּוֹ — אִין, אִי לָא — לָא.

It is the verse: “You are cursed with the curse, yet you rob Me, even this whole nation” (Malachi 3:9). This teaches that if there is the acceptance of the whole nation, yes, an ordinance may be instituted, but if not, no, the ordinance may not be instituted.

גּוּפָא, אָמַר בָּאלִי אָמַר אֲבִימִי נִוְתָאָה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: פִּיתָּן וְשַׁמְנָן, יֵינָן וּבְנוֹתֵיהֶן — כּוּלָּן מִשְּׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר דָּבָר הֵן. בְּנוֹתֵיהֶן מַאי הִיא? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: גָּזְרוּ עַל בְּנוֹתֵיהֶן נִידּוֹת מֵעֲרִיסוֹתָן.

§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Balei says that Avimi of Nota says in the name of Rav: The prohibitions with regard to gentiles’ bread and their oil, their wine and their daughters, are all from the eighteen matters issued in a single day in the time of the students of Shammai and Hillel. The Gemara asks: With regard to their daughters, what is the decree? Rabbi Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: They decreed upon their daughters that they should be classified as menstruating women from the time they are in their cradle, i.e., they decreed that from when they are young, gentile women are always considered to be menstruating.

וּגְנִיבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אָמַר: כּוּלָּן מִשּׁוּם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה גָּזְרוּ בָּהֶן, דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב אַחָא בַּר אַדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: גָּזְרוּ עַל פִּיתָּן מִשּׁוּם שַׁמְנָן, מַאי אוּלְמֵיהּ דְּשֶׁמֶן מִפַּת?

The Gemara presents another opinion. And Geneiva says in the name of Rav: Gentiles’ bread, oil, wine, and daughters were all decreed upon due to the concern that Jews might participate in idol worship with gentiles as a result of intermingling with them. As, when Rav Aḥa bar Adda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: They decreed a prohibition upon their bread due to their oil. The Gemara asks: In what way is the prohibition with regard to oil stronger than the prohibition with regard to bread? That is, why does the primary concern relate to the oil of gentiles rather than their bread?

אֶלָּא, עַל פִּיתָּן וְשַׁמְנָן מִשּׁוּם יֵינָן, וְעַל יֵינָן מִשּׁוּם בְּנוֹתֵיהֶן, וְעַל בְּנוֹתֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם דָּבָר אַחֵר, וְעַל דָּבָר אַחֵר מִשּׁוּם דָּבָר אַחֵר.

The Gemara offers a different interpretation: Rather, they issued a decree prohibiting their bread and their oil due to their wine. And they issued the decree prohibiting their wine due to the fact that this leads to familiarity, and Jews will come to marry their daughters. And they issued a decree prohibiting their daughters due to something else, idolatry. And they further issued a decree on something else due to something else, which will be explained by the Gemara.

בְּנוֹתֵיהֶן, דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הִיא, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תִתְחַתֵּן בָּם״, דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא שִׁבְעָה גּוֹיִם, אֲבָל שְׁאָר אוּמּוֹת — לָא, וַאֲתוֹ אִינְהוּ וּגְזוּר אֲפִילּוּ דִּשְׁאָר אוּמּוֹת.

It was stated that the prohibition against marrying the daughters of gentiles was decreed on account of idolatry. The Gemara raises an objection: But the prohibition against marrying their daughters is prescribed by Torah law, as it is written: “Neither shall you make marriages with them” (Deuteronomy 7:3). The Gemara explains: By Torah law intermarriage is prohibited only with the seven Canaanite nations, but intermarriage with the other nations of the world is not prohibited, and the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that intermarriage is prohibited even with the other nations.

וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי, דְּאָמַר: ״כִּי יָסִיר אֶת בִּנְךָ מֵאַחֲרַי״ לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל הַמְּסִירוֹת, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אֶלָּא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אִישׁוּת דֶּרֶךְ חַתְנוּת, וַאֲתוֹ אִינְהוּ גְּזוּר אֲפִילּוּ דֶּרֶךְ זְנוּת.

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, who says that the subsequent verse: “For he will turn away your son from following Me” (Deuteronomy 7:4) serves to include all who turn away one’s son from God, i.e., all gentiles, what is there to say? Rather, by Torah law only sexual relations by way of marriage are prohibited, and they came and decreed that sexual relations are prohibited even by way of licentiousness.

זְנוּת נָמֵי בְּבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל שֵׁם גָּזְרוּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה הוֹצִיאוּהָ וְתִשָּׂרֵף״!

The Gemara raises an objection: Licentious sexual intercourse was also prohibited earlier, as they decreed a prohibition in this regard in the court of Shem, as it is written: “It was told to Judah, saying: Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; and moreover, behold, she is with child by harlotry. And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burned” (Genesis 38:24). This proves that the prohibition against licentious intercourse with a gentile was in force long before the time of the students of Shammai and Hillel.

אֶלָּא, דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — גּוֹי הַבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, דְּמָשְׁכָה בָּתְרֵיהּ; אֲבָל יִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּא עַל הַגּוֹיָה — לָא, וַאֲתוֹ אִינְהוּ גְּזוּר אֲפִילּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּא עַל הַגּוֹיָה.

The Gemara explains: Rather, the prohibition prescribed by Torah law applies to the case of a gentile who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, as she is drawn after him toward idolatry, but the case of a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman is not included in the prohibition by Torah law. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that the prohibition applies even to a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman.

יִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּא עַל הַגּוֹיָה — הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי הִיא, דְּאָמַר מָר: הַבּוֹעֵל אֲרַמִּית — קַנָּאִין פּוֹגְעִין בּוֹ.

The Gemara rejects this: The prohibition concerning a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, not a rabbinic ordinance. As the Master said: With regard to one who engages in intercourse with an Aramean woman, zealots may attack him, as Pinehas did to Zimri in the wilderness (see Numbers 25:6–8).

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא, וּכְמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה, וַאֲתוֹ אִינְהוּ גְּזוּר אֲפִילּוּ בְּצִינְעָא. בְּצִינְעָא נָמֵי בֵּית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל חַשְׁמוֹנַאי גָּזְרוּ!

He said to him: By Torah law intercourse with a gentile is prohibited in public, and only in situations like the incident that occurred, as described in Numbers, chapter 25. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that the prohibition applies even in private. The Gemara raises another difficulty: This was also prohibited in private, as the court of the Hasmoneans decreed that it is prohibited.

דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל חַשְׁמוֹנַאי גָּזְרוּ, יִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּא עַל הַגּוֹיָה חַיָּיב מִשּׁוּם נשג״א.

As when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: The court of the Hasmoneans decreed that a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman bears liability for transgressing four prohibitions, represented by the mnemonic: Nun, shin, gimmel, alef. These letters stands for: Menstruating woman [nidda], maidservant [shifḥa], gentile [goya], and married woman [eshet ish]. By rabbinic law, a man who engages in intercourse with a gentile woman is considered to have violated the prohibitions involved in having intercourse with all four of these women.

כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר מִשּׁוּם נשג״ז.

And when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: He bears liability for four prohibitions represented by the mnemonic: Nun, shin, gimmel, zayin, which stands for: Menstruating woman [nidda], maidservant [shifḥa], gentile [goya], and prostitute [zona]. In any case, it is apparent that this decree was in force before the time of the students of Shammai and Hillel.

כִּי גָּזְרוּ בֵּית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל חַשְׁמוֹנַאי בִּיאָה, אֲבָל יִיחוּד לָא, וַאֲתוֹ אִינְהוּ גְּזוּר אֲפִילּוּ יִיחוּד. יִיחוּד נָמֵי בֵּית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל דָּוִד גָּזְרוּ!

The Gemara answers: When the court of the Hasmoneans decreed, they prohibited only sexual intercourse, but with regard to seclusion with a gentile woman, no, they did not prohibit that. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that even seclusion with a gentile woman is prohibited. The Gemara raises an objection: Seclusion was also prohibited earlier, as the court of King David decreed that with regard to this matter.

דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה גָּזְרוּ עַל יִיחוּד. אָמְרִי: הָתָם יִיחוּד דְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל יִיחוּד דְּגוֹיָה — לָא, וַאֲתוֹ אִינְהוּ גְּזַרוּ אֲפִילּוּ אַיִּיחוּד דְּגוֹיָה.

As Rav Yehuda says: At that time, after the incident involving Amnon and Tamar (see II Samuel 13:1–19), they decreed with regard to seclusion. The Sages said in response to the objection: There, in David’s court, seclusion with a Jewish woman was prohibited, but seclusion with a gentile woman was not prohibited. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed a prohibition even with regard to seclusion with a gentile woman.

יִיחוּד דְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הִיא! דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק: רֶמֶז לְיִיחוּד מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי יְסִיתְךָ אָחִיךָ בֶן אִמֶּךָ״, וְכִי בֶּן אֵם מֵסִית, בֶּן אָב אֵינוֹ מֵסִית?

The Gemara raises yet another difficulty: Seclusion with a Jewish woman is prohibited by Torah law, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: Where is there an allusion in the Torah to the prohibition against seclusion? As it is stated: “If your brother, the son of your mother, entices you” (Deuteronomy 13:7). And does only a half brother who is the son of a mother entice one to sin, whereas the son of a father does not entice?

אֶלָּא, בֵּן מִתְיַיחֵד עִם אִמּוֹ, וְאֵין אַחֵר מִתְיַיחֵד עִם כׇּל עֲרָיוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה!

Rather, there is a greater concern that a maternal half brother might entice one to sin, as a son secludes himself with his mother, and no other may seclude himself with any of those with whom relations are forbidden by the Torah. Since an individual and his maternal half brother both seclude themselves with their shared mother, they are frequently together in private, and this facilitates enticement. In any case, it is clear that the prohibition against seclusion with a Jewish woman preceded King David.

יִיחוּד דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא דְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וַאֲתָא דָּוִד וּגְזַר אֲפִילּוּ אַיִּיחוּד דִּפְנוּיָה, וַאֲתוֹ תַּלְמִידֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל גְּזוּר אֲפִילּוּ אַיִּיחוּד דְּגוֹיָה.

The Gemara explains: The prohibition against seclusion prescribed by Torah law applies specifically to a married woman, and David came and decreed a prohibition even with regard to seclusion with an unmarried woman. And later the students of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel came and decreed even with regard to seclusion with a gentile woman.

מַאי עַל דָּבָר אַחֵר מִשּׁוּם דָּבָר אַחֵר? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: גָּזְרוּ עַל תִּינוֹק גּוֹי שֶׁיְּטַמֵּא בְּזִיבָה, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא תִּינוֹק יִשְׂרָאֵל רָגִיל אֶצְלוֹ בְּמִשְׁכַּב זְכוּר.

§ It was stated above that they issued a decree prohibiting the daughters of gentiles due to something else, idolatry. And they further issued a decree on something else due to something else. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: And they further issued a decree on something else due to something else? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: They decreed upon a male gentile child that he imparts ritual impurity as though he were a Jew who experienced a gonorrhea-like discharge [ziva], so that a Jewish child will not become familiar with him, leading to homosexual intercourse. The Sages employed a euphemism when referring to this decree.

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: צַעַר גָּדוֹל הָיָה לִי אֵצֶל רַבִּי אַסִּי, וְרַבִּי אַסִּי אֵצֶל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵצֶל רַבִּי יַנַּאי, וְרַבִּי יַנַּאי אֵצֶל רַבִּי נָתָן בֶּן עַמְרָם, וְרַבִּי נָתָן בֶּן עַמְרָם אֵצֶל רַבִּי: תִּינוֹק גּוֹי מֵאֵימָתַי מְטַמֵּא בְּזִיבָה? וְאָמַר לִי: בֶּן יוֹמוֹ, וּכְשֶׁבָּאתִי אֵצֶל רַבִּי חִיָּיא אָמַר לִי: בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד.

As Rabbi Zeira says: I had great trouble with Rabbi Asi when I asked him the following question, and likewise Rabbi Asi experienced trouble with Rabbi Yoḥanan when he posed it to him. And Rabbi Yoḥanan had trouble with Rabbi Yannai, and Rabbi Yannai had trouble with Rabbi Natan ben Amram, and Rabbi Natan ben Amram had trouble with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The inquiry was as follows: With regard to a male gentile child, from when, i.e., from what age, does he impart ritual impurity as one who experiences ziva? And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to me: From when he is one day old. And when I came to Rabbi Ḥiyya, he said to me: From when he is nine years and one day old.

וּכְשֶׁבָּאתִי וְהִרְצֵיתִי דְּבָרַי לִפְנֵי רַבִּי, אָמַר לִי: הַנַּח דְּבָרַי וֶאֱחוֹז דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא. דְּאָמַר: תִּינוֹק גּוֹי אֵימָתַי מְטַמֵּא בְּזִיבָה — בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד,

And when I came back and relayed Rabbi Ḥiyya’s statement before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he said to me: Discard my statement, and grasp the statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya, who says: From when does a gentile child impart ritual impurity as one who experiences ziva? From when he is nine years and one day old.