(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 64

AVODAH ZARAH 64 (14 Iyar) - this Daf has been dedicated by Hagaon Rav Yosef Pearlman of London, England, l'Iluy Nishmas ha'Rabbani Reb Rephael David ben Yosef Yitzchak Pearlman, whose passed away on Pesach Sheni (14 Iyar) 5758.



(a) The Tana in a Beraisa forbids digging together with a Nochri in a field of Kil'ayim, but permits digging up the plants to destroy them - because it is a Mitzvah to get rid of what is Asur.

(b) We assume the author of the Beraisa to be Rebbi Akiva, who maintains that someone who retains Kil'ayim in his field - receives Malkos.

(c) From the inverted phraseology of the Pasuk "Behemt'cha Lo Sarbi'a Kil'ayim, *Sadcha Lo Sizra Kil'ayim*" - (he attaches Sadcha to the "Kil'ayim that precedes it and) Darshens the three consecutive words "Kil'ayim, Sadcha Lo", to include merely retaining Kil'ayim in a field.

(d) We reconcile this with Rebbi Akiva who holds (in Makos) 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh Lokin Alav' - by requiring him to perform an act (such as fencing the field [see Tosfos DH 'Rebbi Akiva Omer']) as well.

(a) We try to prove from here - that the Mitzvah to get rid of an Isur, overrides the Isur of wanting to retain it (like Rav Nachman's previous ruling 'Yishbor, ve'Tavo Alav B'rachah')?

(b) The problem with establishing the Beraisa like the Chachamim (to refute the proof) is - that if there is no Isur in retaining Kil'ayim, then why does the Tana need to permit uprooting it?

(c) So we establish the case when the Yisrael is working free of charge - and the Tana is coming to teach us that even though it is normally forbidden to give a Nochri a free gift (and we are speaking here when the Yisrael is working free of charge), it is permitted in this case, in order to get rid of the Kil'ayim.

(a) The Tana who forbids giving a Nochri a free gift is - Rebbi Yehudah.

(b) In spite of all this, we conclude 'mi'de'Rebbi Yehudah Nishma le'Rebbi Akiva' - which means that, just as the Mitzvah of getting rid of an Isur overrides the sin of giving a Nochri a free gift (according to Rebbi Yehudah), so too, ought it to override the sin of retaining Kil'ayim (according to Rebbi Akiva).

(c) 've'Su Lo Midi' means - that this is the last word on the matter.

(a) Rav Nachman, Ula and Avimi bar Papi then asked whether 'D'mei Avodas-Kochavim be'Yad Oved-Kochavim' (the exchange of Avodas-Kochavim that a Nochri sold or swapped) is Asur (like that of a Yisrael) or not.

(b) Once again, Rav Nachman resolved the She'eilah immediately, but this time, based on a ruling of his Rebbe, Rabah bar Avuhah, who instructed those potential converts - to sell their property before converting.

(c) From the fact that he told them to do it before they converted, Rav Nachman tries to prove - that 'D'mei Avodas-Kochavim be'Yad Oved-Kochavim' is permitted.

(d) We refute Rav Nachman's proof however - because we can safely assume that, seeing as they were on the verge of converting, selling their Avodah-Zarah was sufficient indication that they were Mevatel it (see Ritva).

(a) The Beraisa rules that if a Nochri who ...
1. ... sold his god or Yayin Nesech to pay his Jewish creditor - the creditor *is permitted to accept it*.
2. ... told his Jewish creditor to wait for him to sell his god or his Yayin Nesech, and then he would pay him - he is *not*.
(b) Rav Sheishes explains the difference - inasmuch as, in the latter case, the Yisrael wants the Avodas-Kochavim to remain (whereas he could hardly care less in the former case).

(c) Even the first case would be forbidden however - once the Ger already had the things in his possession.

(a) The Mishnah in D'mai rules that if a Ger and his Nochri 'brother' inherited from their father, Avodas-Kochavim or Yayin Nesech and other things - the Ger may ask his brother to take the Avodah-Zarah or the Yayin Nesech, whilst he takes the rest.

(b) The problem this Mishnah creates with Rav Sheishes is - that the Tana seems to permit the Ger to accept the D'mei Avodas-Kochavim, even though he wants the Avodas-Kochavim to remain.

(c) To solve the problem, Rava bar Ula establishes the Mishnah in D'mai - by restricting the case to silver and golden idols, which are intrinsically valuable, in which case the Ger does not care if they break into pieces.

(d) We refute this answer however, from the case of Yayin Nesech, which is a problem ...

1. ... if the Tana is speaking about ordinary Yayin Nesech in ordinary vessels - because the Ger certainly wants them to remain, so that he can receive the exchange.
2. ... even if we assume that the Tana is speaking about Yayin Hadriani, where the Yayin Nesech is absorbed in the earthenware vessels (and will not get lost even if the barrel breaks) - because he would still prefer the barrels to remain whole with their contents, to prevent them from getting lost.
(a) So Rav Papa answers that they were more lenient in the case of Yerushas ha'Ger - because we are afraid that if he stands to lose the inheritance that he would have received had he not converted, he will relinquish his new Geirus, and revert to being a Nochri.

(b) And we cite a Beraisa in support of Rav Papa, which draws a distinction between the above case and one where the two 'brothers' entered into a partnership - where the Tana forbids the Ger to make any such exchange ...

(c) ... because he wants the Avodah-Zarah to remain (a proof that, in the Reisha, it was only permitted for the reason given by Rav Papa).




(a) The same trio then asked whether a Ger Toshav is able to be Mevatel an idol. He might not be able to do so - because perhaps it is only a worshipper who is able to nullify an Avodas-Kochavim.

(b) Rav Nachman ruled - that logically, someone who does not worship idols cannot be Mevatel them.

(c) The Beraisa rules that if a Yisrael finds an Avodas-Kochavim in the street - he may ask a Nochri to be Mevatel it, as long as he has not yet picked it up ('ad she'Lo Ba'sah li'Yedei').

(a) The Tana adds to the fact that a Nochri can be Mevatel his own Avodas-Kochavim and that of his friend - that it does not make a difference either, whether he worships it or not ('Bein Ovdah Bein she'Ein Ovdah').

(b) The problem with explaining that both 'Ovdah' and 'Eino Ovdah' refer to Ovdei-Kochavim - is that it would be synonymous with 'she'Lo ve'shel Chavero'.

(c) We therefore attempt to establish 'Eino Ovdah' - by a Ger Toshav, a Kashya on Rav Nachman, who said that a Ger Toshav cannot annul an Avodah-Zarah.

(d) Even if 'Ovdah' and 'Eino Ovdah' both refer to Nochrim, we conclude (in refuting the Kashya on Rav Nachman) - there will be no problem, because whereas 'she'Lo ve'shel Chavero' refers to the same Avodah-Zarah, 'Ovdah' and 'Eino Ovdah' refers to two different Avodah-Zarahs (e.g. 'Pe'or and Markulis').

(a) Another Beraisa discusses how a Nochri becomes a Ger Toshav. Rebbi Meir requires him to undertake in front of three friends to stop worshipping Avodah-Zarah. The Chachamim - that he only needs to accept the Sheva Mitzvos B'nei No'ach.

(b) Acherim is the most radical of all. In his opinion - a Ger Toshav may eat Neveilos, but otherwise undertake to keep the entire Torah.

(c) When the Tana continues ... .

1. ...'Meyachdin Etzlo Yayin', he means - that one may leave wine with him for as long as it takes to walk a Mil or so, seeing as he is not interested in touching the wine or being Menasech it.
2. ... 've'Ein Mafkidin Etzlo Yayin', he means - that one may not deposit with him wine for longer periods because we are afraid that he will exchange it for is own wine (which he will be afraid to do in the first case).
(d) 'Meyachdin' applies - even in a town where the majority of residents are Nochrim, and 'Ein Mafkidim' even where they are Yisre'elim.

(e) A Nochri, on the other hand, is interested in touching the wine and being Menasech it. Consequently, one may not even be 'Meyached' the wine with him.

(a) We reject the text 'Shamno ke'Yeino', because even the wine of a Nochri is not considered Yayin Nesech. We therefore amend it to read - 'Yeino ke'Shamno'.

(b) This does not mean that one is permitted to drink his oil and his wine - but that it is Mutar be'Hana'ah (since the Tana is speaking before the Chachamim permitted drinking the oil of a Nochri).

(c) In all other regards, the Tana Kama concludes, he has the Din of a Nochri - because, as long as he has not had the B'ris Milah, he is still a Nochri, and is suspected of doing everything that a Nochri will do.

(d) There are two possible Leshonos in Rebbi Shimon. The first Lashon states 'Yeino Yayin Nesech'. The second Lashon says - 'Yeino Mutar bi'Shesiyah'.

(a) We try to query Rav Nachman (who just forbade a Ger Toshav to be Mevatel an Avodas-Kochavim) from the Tana Kama's final statement - by explaining 'u'le'Sha'ar Kol Davar, Harei Hu ke'Oved-Kochavim' to mean that he is able to be Mevatel an Avodas-Kochavim.

(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak rejects this proof when he says 'Lo, Litein Reshus, u'Le'vatel Reshus', by which he means - that he is like a Nochri regarding the Din of being Mevatel his Reshus to the other residents of the court-yard into which his own property opens.

(c) The Beraisa draws a distinction between a Yisrael on the one hand - who only need to declare his Reshus Bateil to the other residents in the Chatzer (to be allowed to carry in the Chatzer), and a Nochri or a Yisrael Mumar (who desecrates Shabbos publicly) on the other - who must actually rent their property to the other members of the Chatzer, for the Eruv to be valid.

(d) For the 'Eruv to take effect, the Yisrael must say - 'Reshusi Kenuyah Lach' or Reshusu Mevuteles Lach'.

Next daf


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