(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Avodah Zarah, 22

AVODAH ZARAH 22 - Today's Daf has been dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Rav Shalom ben Aryeh Leibush (Fogel), by Keren Tzidkas Shalom. D.A.F. is grateful for their assistance in our Harbatzas Torah.


QUESTION: The Mishnah states that we may not "stand" animals ("Ein Ma'amidin") in inns of Ovdei Kochachim, because the Nochri innkeeper might be attracted to the animal, and the Jew will have caused him to sin, thereby transgressing the Isur of "Lifnei Iver."

Earlier (14b), when Rav refers to this Mishnah, he says that the Mishnah prohibits "Yichud," isolating an animal with a Nochri. Why does the Mishnah use the phrase "Ein Ma'amidin" rather than "Ein Meyachadim," as the Mishnah itself says with regard to a man or a woman being alone with a Nochri? (NETZIV in MEROMEI SADEH)

In addition, RASHI explains that "Pundaka'os" are meant to provide board for travelers. He adds that the guests at the inn pay the owners for their services. Why does Rashi add that the travelers pay for the services of the innkeeper? If the prohibition is to leave an animal alone with a Nochri, then what difference does it make whether or not the owner of the animal is paying the Nochri? (HAGAHOS HA'BACH on the RIF)

ANSWER: TOSFOS (23a, DH v'Su) points out that we find that a Nochri is suspected of Revi'a only when the animal is placed in the care of the Nochri. Accordingly, we may suggest that the Mishnah's intention is to teach that there is no prohibition to leave one's animal isolated in the presence of a Nochri; it is only when one places his animal under the Nochri's care that the Nochri might take advantage of having the animal, since he was given the right to approach the animal (in order to care for it). This is the connotation of the word "Ma'amidin" -- placing the animal in the care of the Nochri.

Rashi is making a similar inference from the word "Pundaka'os." The Mishnah does not prohibit bringing an animal to the home of a Nochri, but rather placing the animal in a Nochri's inn. A Pundak is a place where travelers appoint the innkeeper to care for their animals. This is why Rashi mentions that the innkeeper is being paid; he is emphasizing that it is prohibited only when the innkeeper has responsibilities to care for the animal.


QUESTIONS: The Gemara says that a Jew may not leave his female animal alone with a Nochri woman, because the Nochri women often have male friends visiting them who might find the animal and be Rove'a it. According to one explanation of the Gemara, even when the Nochri woman is home, the male friend will prefer the animal (and not the woman), because the Nochrim "have a greater desire for the animals owned by Jews than for their own wives." The reason for this is related to the Zuhama that the Nachash brought upon Chavah when it seduced her to sin. A Jew does not have that Zuhama, because it was removed when the Jews stood at Har Sinai and received the Torah.
(a) Why does a Nochri prefer the animals that belong specifically to a Jew? Why should there be any difference between animals owned by a Jew and animals owned by a Nochri? Since the animals did not receive the Torah, all animals should be the same with regard to Zuhama!

(b) The Chachamim teach that the Zuhama of the Nachash was removed from the Jewish people when the Torah was given at Har Sinai. The Rishonim (TOSFOS CHOCHMEI ANGLIYA, KOLBO (Perush on the Hagadah), TASHBATZ (Avos 3:18)) explain that this is what is meant in the Hagadah of Pesach, "Had Hashem brought us to Har Sinai without giving us the Torah, it would have been enough." What would we have gained by being brought to Har Sinai without receiving the Torah? The answer is that standing at Har Sinai, even without receiving the Torah, would have accomplished the removal of the Zuhama.

How are we to understand this Zuhama that overcame Chavah due to her interaction with the Nachash, and how was it removed at Har Sinai?

(a) It seems from the words of TOSFOS CHOCHMEI ANGLIYA that he understands that the Gemara mentions the animal of a Jew only because the Nochri stays away from his own animal, because he does not want to cause it to become Akarah.

(b) The CHASDEI DAVID (Tosefta 3:1, cited by the SEDER YAKOV) explains that "Zuhama" refers to a heightened level of lust. The Nochri is so overcome with lust that he desires even animals.

Why, then, does the Gemara say that the Nochri *prefers* the animal to his wife? Perhaps it is because of the principle mentioned in the Gemara in Nedarim (91b) of "Mayim Genuvim Yimtaku" (Mishlei 9:17) -- taking what one is not allowed to have provides more physical pleasure.

When the Jewish people stood at Har Sinai and Hashem revealed Himself to them, the awe of Hashem weakened their lusts, making their lusts more controllable, and that is how their Zuhama was removed.

The RAMBAM (Moreh Nevuchim 2:30), based on the Midrash, explains that it was not the Nachash that seduced Chavah, but rather it was the Satan who "rode" upon the Nachash who seduced Chavah. This is what the Chachamim mean when they say that the Nachash seduced Chavah and infused her with Zuhama, which remained in her descendants until the Jewish people stood at Har Sinai, and this is what the verse means when it says that the man overcomes the Nachash by crushing its *head*, and the Nachash overcomes man by biting his *heel*.

What does the Rambam mean by this? The heel alludes to the lowliest and most mundane part of the person (see Tosfos to Nazir 51a, DH Rekev). The Satan seduces a person by attracting him through his physical lusts and desires for worldly pleasures. Man, in turn, must use his head to overcome these lusts. The way that man conquers the Satan is by crushing Satan by his head. The head of the Satan refers to arrogance, which arouses within a person his physical lusts (see Zevachim 88b, which says that the Mitznefes worn upon the head atones for arrogance, and the Tzitz worn upon the forehead atones for brazenness). A man's heel, which represents his lowliness and mundane qualities, can be used for his benefit or for his detriment. If he allows the arrogance of the Satan to fill himself with lust for worldly pleasures, it will bring his downfall. If, on the other hand, his lowliness arouses within himself a sense of modesty and humility in front of the Creator, through this he will be able to overcome the attempts of the Nachash to seduce him and crush his arrogance. (See Berachos 5a, which says that remembering the day of death will help a person to avoid sin.)

The Rambam adds that the word "Satan" and the word "Nachash" allude to the qualities of the Satan. Perhaps he means that "Nachash" is related to the word "Nechoshes" (see Rashi to Bamidbar 21:9) which is a metal which represents arrogance and brazenness, as we find in the verse, "u'Metzchacha Nechushah" (Yeshayah 48:4).

We know that Amalek is referred to as "Reishis Goyim" (Bamidbar 24:20) because they are like the head of the Nachash; they are the most arrogant of the nations who try to arouse the other nations to sin. That is why they must be destroyed, just as man must crush the head of the Nachash in order to overcome the Satan.

The Zuhama of the Nachash was removed from the Jewish people when Hashem appeared to us at Har Sinai. According to the Gemara in Nedarim (20a), we learn from the verse (Shemos 20:17) that the purpose of Hashem's revelation to the Jewish people at Sinai was in order that they should acquire the trait of bashfulness, which would guarantee their humility and prevent them from sinning. This is what cured the arrogance that the Nachash infused in man.

(See also TZAFNAS PANE'ACH, end of Hilchos Terumos, at length.)

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,