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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Avodah Zarah 36

AVODAH ZARAH 36 - Mr. and Mrs. David and Gerti Kornfeld have dedicated this Daf in honor of the Bat Mitzvah of Eliana Chana Farber of Raanana, Israel -- Mazal Tov to her and to her parents, Steve and Lynn Farber! May Eliana be blessed with the strength and determination to follow her illustrious grandmother, Mrs. Esther Farber, in her dedication to Torah and Yiddishkeit.



(a) According to Shmuel, the Isur of Nochri oil was due to the exuding of Tamei vessels into the oil. According to Rav - it was a decree issued by Daniel.

(b) The problem with this version of Shmuel's reason is - that most people were not worried about eating Tum'ah, so why should the Chachamim issue a decree on it.

(c) So we amend it to read - that the Isur of Nochri oil was due to the exuding of forbidden vessels into the oil.

(a) Rebbi Simla'i (from Lud) Darshened in Netzivin - that the Isur of Nochri oil was rescinded by Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah.

(b) Shmuel felt at ease with that explanation - because seeing as the taste that the vessels exuded was an unpleasant one, it was a question of 'Nosen Ta'am li'Pegam', giving good Halachic grounds for rescinding the prohibition.

(c) He tried to prove Rav wrong, based on a Mishnah in Iduyos, which specifically prohibits one Beis-Din from rescinding the decrees of another, unless it is greater in wisdom and numbers ...

(d) ... a Kashya on Rav - because how could Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'a then rescind a decree issued by Daniel?

(a) Rav queried the source of the statement (that Rebbi Yehudah Nesui'ah and his Beis-Din had lifted the ban on oil) based on the fact that it was quoted by Rebbi Simla'i, based on the fact - that he was from Lud, and the Ludians disrespectfully misquoted the Chachamim (see Ya'avatz).

(b) When Shmuel threatened to pass on what Rav had said to Rebbi Simla'i himself, Rav reacted - by becoming embarrassed.

(c) Rav therefore cited the Pasuk in Daniel "Va'yasem Daniel al Libo Asher Lo Yisga'el be'Pas Bag ha'Melech u'be'Yein Mishtav". He extrapolated from the word "Mishtav" (which has plural connotations) - that the Daniel also decreed on something to do with feasting besides wine, namely oil.

(d) Shmuel counters Rav's proof - by explaining that although Daniel had in mind to issue such a decree, he did not do so.

(a) Ba'ali quoting Avimi Nusa'a in the name of Rav cites - Beis Shamai nd Beis Hillel as the instigators of the decree on bread, oil, wine and their daughters?

(b) We reject the suggestion that Daniel ...

1. ... tried to decree on oil but it was not accepted until Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai decreed, and it was - because then Rav's statement that Daniel issued the decree would be meaningless.
2. ... decreed in the town and Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel extended the prohibition to the field - because then back comes the question how could Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah rescind a decree issued by Beis Shamai and beis Hillel.
(c) This Kashya would be valid even if one Beis-Din could normally rescind the ruling of another due to a statement of Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who stated - that the 'eighteen decrees of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel' can in any event never be rescinded (even by Eliyahu ha'Navi and his Beis-Din).
(a) We finally solve the problem - by pointing out that the decree on oil was never accepted in the first place, in which case even if it was one of the eighteen decrees, Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah could rescind it.

(b) And he relied on statements by Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Elazar bar Tzadok, who ruled - that a Beis-Din cannot issue derees that effect the community unless the majority of the community can live by them.

(c) The meaning of the Pasuk ...

1. ... ''ba'Me'eirah Atem Ne'arim" is - that first Yisrael accept decrees that are issued with a curse, and then ...
2. ... "ve'Osi Atem Kov'im" - they rob (Hashem of the curses).
(d) Rav Ada bar Ahavah Darshens the conclusion of the Pasuk "ha'Goy Kulo" - that decrees should only be issued if all (i.e. the majority of the people can stand up to them).



(a) We spoke earlier about the decree on bread, oil, wine and their daughters (issued by Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel). According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, they decreed their daughters to be Nidos from birth. According to G'niva in the name of Rav - they prohibited their daughters (as we shall see shortly), as well as their bread, oil, wine - because of Avodah-Zarah.

(b) Rav's explanation is based on a statement by Rav Acha bar Ada Amar Rebbi Yitzchak, whose words 'Gazru al Pitan Mishum Shamnan' we amend to read 'Gazru al Pitan ve'Shamnan Mishum ... ' - because there was no reason to initially forbid their bread any more than their oil.

(c) So he says 'Gazru al Pitan ve'Shamnan Mishum Yienan, ve'al Yeinan Mishum Benoseihen - ve'al Benoseihen Mishum Davar Acher ve'al Davar Acher Mishum Davar Acher'.

(d) Initially, we reconcile the decree on their daughters with the Pasuk "Lo Sischaten Bam", rendering adultery with a Nochris d'Oraysa - by establishing that Pasuk by the seven nations, whilst Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel are referring to other Nochrim (not of the seven nations).

(a) The problem with this answer lies in the opinion of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, who learns from the Pasuk "Ki Yasir es Bincha me'Acharai" - that all Nochrim are included in the Isur. According to him then, what did Beis-Shamai and Beis Hillel decree?

(b) We query the suggestion that the Torah forbids intermarriage, whilst Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel decreed adultery with a Nochris, on the basis of the Pasuk "Va'yomer Yehudah Hotzi'uhah Ve'sisaref", from which we learn - that Yehudah (i.e. the Beis-Din of Shem) was the one to issue this decree, some fifteen hundred years before Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel?

(c) We answer that Shem's Beis-Din decreed on a bas Yisrael (who will easily be swayed to follow in his ways) having relations with a Nochri - whereas Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel decreed extended it to a Yisrael having relations with a Nochris (where the fear of being convinced to serve idols is less).

(a) Mar rules that if someone has relations with a Nochris - 'Kana'in Pog'in Bo' (someone who is zealous may kill him on the spot).

(b) We reconcile what we just said (ascribing the decree to Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel) with Mar's statement - by confining the latter to an act performed in public (like that of Zimri with Kozbi), whereas Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel's decree pertains to acts performed privately.

(c) When Rav Dimi, upon arriving from Eretz Yisrael, declared that Beis-Din of the Chashmona'im decreed on a Yisrael who had relations with a Nochris because of 'Nashga' he meant because of Nidah, Shifchah - Eishes Ish and Zonah.

(d) What he meant was - that we are afraid that a man who has relations with a Nochris, will go on to have relations with any of these four (who are all forbidden min ha'Torah, and loosely incorporated in a Nochris), so they decreed an Isur de'Rabbanan on having relations with a Nochris, incorporating all four.

(a) When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he referred to the decree as 'Nashgaz' - replacing Eishes Ish with Zonah (a woman who had relations with a man who was forbidden to her).

(b) We now resolve the She'eilah, by establishing the Beis-Din of the Chashmona'im decree - by Bi'ah, and that of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel - by Yichud.

(c) When Rav Yehudah states that David's Beis-Din decreed on Yichud - he is referring to the episode of Amnon's rape of Tamar.

(d) And we reconcile our current statement (that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel decreed on Yichud) with Rav Yehudah's statement - by restricting Rav Yehudah's case to the Yichud of a Yisre'elis, whereas Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel are speaking about the Yichud of a Nochris.

(a) The problem with the Pasuk "Ki Yesischa Achicha ben Imecha ... " is - why the Torah writes specifically "ben Imecha", as if it was only a maternal brother who convinces one to serve idols and not a paternal one.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak learns from this Pasuk - that of all the Arayos, the only one with whom Yichud is permitted, is one's mother.

(c) We attribute Yichud of a Yisre'elis to the Beis-Din of David ha'Melech - by confining the Torah's prohibition to Yichud of a married woman (besides the women that constitute incest), whereas the Chashmona'im decreed on unmarried (Jewish) women?

(d) Rebbi Yitzchak concludes that the Chachamim decreed 'Davar Acher Mishum Davar Acher'. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains this to mean - that they decreed every young Nochri child to be a Zav (to avoid Jewish children playing with them and indulging in homosexuality).

(a) The difficult She'eilah that Rebbi Zeira passed on to Rebbi Asi, who passed it on to Rebbi Yochanan ... Rebbi Yanai ... Rebbi Nachman ben Amram and finally Rebbi was - from which age this decree takes effect.

(b) Rebbi ruled - that they decreed on a Nochri from the day that he is born. According to Rebbi Chiya, it is - from the age of nine (from the time that his Bi'ah is considered a Bi'ah).

(c) When Rebbi Nachman ben Amram told Rebbi what Rebbi Chiya had said - Rebbi instructed him to ignore his own ruling, and to accept that of Rebbi Chiya, which was more logical than his (as we just explained).

(a) Ravina extrapolated from the above ruling - that by the same token, a Tinokes Ovedes-Kochavim will be considered a Zavah from the age of three (since that is the age when her Bi'ah is considered a Bi'ah).

(b) Ravina found it necessary to say that, because we might otherwise have thought - that such a young girl does not have sufficient sense to entice someone to commit adultery with her, and that the age for the decree of Zivus of a Nochris will be nine, like that of a Nochri.

Next daf


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