(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 37



(a) Rebbi Simla'i was - Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah's Shamash.

(b) When the latter, who was leaning on him, once asked him whether he had been in the Beis-Hamedrash on the previous day when they had rescinded the decree on Nochri oil - he replied with the wish that he would soon permit Nochri bread, too.

(c) To which Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah replied that this was not possible - because then his Beis-Din would earn itself the title of 'Beis-Din Sharya' (a Beis-Din of concessions).

(d) He based this on Yossi ben Yo'ezer Ish Tzereidah, whom they gave the title 'Yosef Sharya' for that very reason. One must permit - three things that were hitherto considered Asur to earn that title.

(a) Yossi ben Yo'ezer permitted eating a locust by the name of 'Ayil Kamtza'. He further ruled - that the liquids (i.e. the water and the wine) in the Beis ha'Shechitah in the Azarah - were subject to Tum'ah.

(b) His third ruling (the one that earned him his title [though it is not yet clear what he meant]) - was that someone who touches a dead person becomes Tamei.

(c) When Rebbi Simla'i pointed out that he (Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah) had only permitted one thing to date, so that, even if he were to permit Nochri bread, he would not earn himself the title of 'Sharya', Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah replied - that in fact, he had permitted a second thing too.

(a) That second leniency involved a man who gave his wife a Get on the express condition that he did not return from a trip within twelve months, and then died during those twelve months. The Rabbanan ruled there - that the woman was not divorced (because the husband stipulated that the divorce should take effect only in a year, at which time he was no longer alive.

(b) We learned in connection with that Beraisa 've'Raboseinu Hitiruhah Linasei'. 'Raboseinu' refers - to Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah.

(c) His colleagues never actually agreed with him.

(a) In fact, Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah holds like Rebbi Yossi, who maintains - that the date on a Sh'tar indicates the time that it takes effect.

(b) Rebbi Elazar asked that old sage whether Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah permitted the woman to marry immediately or only after twelve months (when at least the dead husband's condition had been met). He retorted with the question why he did not ask him directly on the Mishnah in Gitin - 'Harei Zeh Gitech me'Achshav Im Lo Ba'si mi'Ka'an ve'ad Sh'neim Asar Chodesh, u'Meis ... Harei Zeh Get'.

(c) Rebbi Elazar answered - that indeed his question pertained equally to that Mishnah, and the reason that he posed it with regard to Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah's ruling was because the old man had been present at the time, and he assumed that he would know what he (Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah) had said in the matter.

(a) According to Abaye, Rebbi Yossi and the Chachamim argue specifically about the case in hand ('Harei Zeh Gitech Im Lo Ba'si' ... '). But in a case where the husband died after saying 'Harei Zeh Gitech ...
1. ... le'che'she'Teitzei Chamah mi'Nartikah (meaning tomorrow morning)' - even Rebbi Yossi will agree that the Get will not be valid, since the Lashon implies specifically after the sun rises (in spite of the date on the Sh'tar), in which we will apply the principle 'Ein Get le'Achar Misah'.
2. ... al-M'nas she'Teitzei Chamah mi'Nartikah' - she is divorced immediately.
(b) The source of this latter ruling is a statement by Rav Huna, who declared - that someone who says 'al-M'nas' it is as if he specifically said 'me'Achshav' (from now, retroactively).

(c) In the case of 'Harei Zeh Gitech le'che'she'Teitzei Chamah mi'Nartikah', the woman is not divorced according to Rebbi Yossi (in spite of the principle 'Z'mano shel Sh'tar Mochi'ach Alav') - because he compares it to a case of 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Misah', which the Mishnah considers to be Safek Megureshes, because maybe his second statement (u'le'Achar Misah') is a retraction from the first ('me'Hayom').

(a) Rav Papa translates the Ayil Kamtza that Yossi ben permits as 'Shushiva'. What is unusual about a Shushiva - is its long head.

(b) The Torah lists four Kasher locusts (none of which have a long head but) all of which have four legs and four wings - plus two jumping legs and the wings cover the majority of its body.

(c) The basis of the Machlokes between Yossi ben Yo'ezer and the Rabbanan (who consider the Shushiva a non-Kasher species of locusts) is - whether to Darshen the Pesukim in Shemini (with regard to Kasher locusts) as a 'K'lal u'P'rat' (the Rabbanan, precluding any species of locusts that is in any way different than the four which the Torah describes) or as a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal', including any species that has the four Simanim (Yossi ben Yo'ezer).

(a) Rav Chiya bar Ami in the name of Ula translates the Ayil Kamtza that Yossi ben Yo'ezer permitted as 'Susvil'. A Shushiva in his opinion - is not Kasher even according to Yossi ben Yo'ezer.

(b) Seeing as the special feature of Susvil is that its wings are not as long as the four that the Torah specifies, the Machlokes Tana'im is based on the fact that they do in fact, cover the majority of its body, but not perceptibly - according to Yossi ben Yo'ezer, that is sufficient, whereas the Rabbanan require a Rov that is easily perceptible, not one that needs to be measured.

(c) We erase the wording 've'Karsulin Chofin es Rubo' - due to the fact that the Karsulin are the two jumping legs which do not cover the majority of anything.




(a) Rav explains that when Yossi ben Yo'ezer's rules 'Mashkeh bei Mitbachaya Dachan', he means 'Dachan Mamash'. What he means is - that the water and the blood in the slaughterhouse in the Azarah are not subject to Tum'ah.

(b) According to Shmuel - he means that they are not Metamei others, though they themselves are Tamei.

(c) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether liquids are subject to Tum'ah min ha'Torah (Shmuel) or not (Rav). According to Shmuel, the Rabbanan would not have the right to rescind a Tum'ah d'Oraysa.

(d) Rav will explain the Pasuk 've'Chol Mashkeh Asher Yishaseh Yitma" - as referring to their ability to render food Muchshar Le'kabel Tum'ah (even though they are themselves Tahor).

(a) The two problems with Yossi ben Yo'ezer's third ruling 've'al de'Yikrav le'Misah Mesa'av' are - 1. why should they call him 'Yosef Sharya', seeing as this ruling is a Chumra (and not a Kula); and 2. that the Din rendering someone who touches a Meis Tamei, we already know from the Pasuk "ve'Chol Asher Yiga al-P'nei ha'Sadeh ... O be'Meis"?

(b) We object to the suggestion that Yossi ben Yo'ezer is referring to someone who touches a Tamei Meis ('Yikrav be'de'Yikrav'), which the Rabbanan decreed, but which *he* declared Tahor - on the grounds that 'Yikrav be'de'Yikrav' is Tamei d'Oraysa (from the Pasuk in Chukas "ve'Chol Asher Yiga Bo ha'Tamei Yitma").

(c) Tum'ah be'Chiburin is - when Reuven for example touches Shimon whilst the latter is still touching the Meis, rendering him Tamei for seven days (as if he had touched the Meis itself).

(d) Based on this premise, the Rabbanan quoting Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Nachman in the name of his father, established the Machlokes in front of Rava when Levi touched Shimon, whilst he was touching Reuven, who was still touching the Meis - the Rabbanan decreed that Levi too, is Tamei for seven days, whilst Yossi ben Yo'ezer declared him Tamei for only one day (like the Torah law).

(a) Based on the Pasuk "ha'Noge'a be'Meis le'Chol Nefesh Adam ve'Tamei Shiv'as Yamim", we learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ve'Chol Asher Yiga Bo ha'Tamei Yitma" - that 'Yikrav be'de'Yikrav be'Chiburin' is Tamei for seven days.
2. ... "ve'ha'Nefesh ha'Noga'as Titma ad ha'Erev" - that if it is not be'Chiburin, he is only Tamei for one day.
(b) When Rava said 'Lo Tislu Bei Buki S'riki be'de'Rav Nachman', he meant - that they should not misquote Rav Nachman, who never said that (see Tosfos DH 'de'Yikrav be'de'Yikrav').

(c) According to Rava quoting Rav Nachman - Yossi ben Yo'ezer and the Rabbanan argue over Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, which the Rabbanan did not declare Tahor, whereas Yossi ben Yo'ezer did.

(a) Despite the fact that Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim is a Halachah that we learn from Sotah, we nevertheless brand Yossi ben Yo'ezer as 'Yossi Sharya' - because as Rebbi Yochanan stated 'Halachah ve'Ein Morin Kein' (which is the opinion of the Rabbanan), and Yossi ben Yo'ezer actually publicized his ruling.

(b) The Dinim of Sotah must be confined to a Reshus ha'Yachid - because there is no such thing as 'S'tirah' in a Reshus ha'Rabim, and without S'tirah, a woman cannot become a Sotah.

(c) And we prove this from a Beraisa. Rebbi Yehudah quotes Yossi ben Yo'ezer as having - knocked beams into the ground, to mark the borders between the Reshus ha'Rabim and the private fields (see Rabeinu Chananel).

(d) When cases of Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim came before Rebbi Yanai - he would instruct them to go and Tovel in the river.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan tries to base the Isur of eating food cooked by a Nochri on the Pasuk in Devarim "Ochel ba'Kesef Tashbireini ... u'Mayim ba'Kesef Titen Li ... " - by comparing food to water; inasmuch as the food just like the water, was unchanged from its original state.

(b) We refute this D'rashah however, from a Beraisa - permitting roasted kernels of wheat that one purchases from Nochrim (despite the fact that the Nochrim changed the food from its original state).

(c) We adjust the D'rashah to accommodate the Heter of roasted wheat-kernels - by comparing food to water inasmuch as it has not changed its shape through cooking (which wheat kernels have not done either).

(d) We refute this D'rashah too, based on a Beraisa concerning wheat products. The Tana there - permits purchasing coarse and fine flour, as well as roast kernels of wheat from Nochrim, even though their shape has been changed through grinding, thereby clashing with this D'rashah of Rebbi Yochanan's too.

(a) And we refute the D'rashah that compares the food that they purchased from Nochrim to water, inasmuch as it had not been changed by fire - on the grounds that the Pasuk does not mention fire, and it makes no sense to connect the Hekesh to something not mentioned in the Pasuk.

(b) We therefore conclude - that the prohibition of cooked food is mi'de'Rabbanan.

(c) And Rebbi Yochanan quotes the Pasuk - only as an Asmachta, but not as a real source.

Next daf


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