(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 75

AVODAH ZARAH 72-76 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.



(a) When Bei Rav in the name of Rav say (in connection with Niguv) 'Tarti T'las', they mean - that if the tub is still wet, then one only needs to clean it once with ashes and once with water, whereas if it is already dry, then one begins with water, then uses ashes and then water once more.

(b) By the same token, when Shmuel says 'T'las, Arba', he means - that when the tub is wet, it requires ashes, water and ashes; whereas when it is dry, it requires water, ashes, water and ashes.

(c) The basic Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel is - that Rav requires one cleaning out with ashes, and Shmuel requires two.

(d) Shmuel ignores the 'Mayim' that one inevitably ends up with - because that is performed for aesthetic reasons, and is not required by Halachah.

(a) That was how they cited the Machlokes in Sura. In Pumbedisa, Bei Rav in the name of Rav said 'T'las Arba', and Shmuel - 'Arba Chameish'.

(b) We will now explain ...

1. ... Rav's opinion - like we explained Shmuel's according to the first Lashon (three when the tub is still wet, and four when it is already dry), only this time, Rav is the one not to mention the final rinsing with water).
2. ... Shmuel's opinion - the same as Rav, only *he* does mention it.
(c) In fact, according to this Lashon - both opinions require two lots of ashes, and there is no Machlokes, as we explained.
(a) Alternatively, it is Rav and Shmuel who argue in both Leshonos, whereas the two Leshonos don't (this is the explanation of Rashi's father, whereas the first explanation is that of Rashi's Rebbe). In that case, when Bei Rav in the name of Rav say (in connection with Niguv) 'Tarti T'las', they mean - water and ashes in the case of a dry tub, and ashes, water and ashes by a wet one.

(b) Shmuel ...

1. ... agrees in the case of - a wet tub, but ...
2. ... argues in the case of - a dry one (where. like in the first explanation, he requires two cleanings with ashes).
(c) That is what they said in Sura. When, in Pumbedisa, they said 'T'las ve'Arba' and 'Arba ve'Chameish' in Pumbedisa, they meant exactly the same as the 'Tarti T'las' and 'T'las ve'Arba' in Sura, only they counted the last rinsing with water.

(d) We prefer the second Lashon, because, according to the first, the Lashon of Sura is problematic in that - seeing as it is coming to teach us the Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel, what was the point in omitting the last rinsing with water according to Shmuel, and not according to Rav? It ought therefore to have cited Shmuel as saying 'Arba ve'Chameish'.

(a) They asked Rebbi Avahu how one Kashers or purifies 'Gurgi', a sort of lattice-work which covers and holds together the grapes beneath the beam in the wine-press - or a wickerwork basket (made of creepers from a date-palm) for pressing dates.

(b) In reply, Rebbi Avahu cited a Beraisa, which discusses purifying wine and olive presses. The Tana requires the beams, the tubs and the palm-branch brooms - for gathering the grapes that scatter in the wine-press, to be washed.

(c) From the fact that Rebbi Avahu resolved the She'eilah that was put to him, from this Beraisa, we can learn - that the tub of the wine-press does not require Niguv (as we learned in our Mishnah [and that washing them is sufficient]).

(a) The Tana requires baskets made of ...
1. ... sticks or canvas (or flax) - to be dried (Niguv).
2. ... various kinds of rushes (which are more absorbent) - to be left for twelve months.
(b) Despite the fact that the wine season generally occurs once a year, the difference between the Tana Kama and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says 'from one pressing to the next' - will be there where the next season occurs late or early; the Tana Kama requires one year, irrespective, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel one season, irrespective.

(c) Rebbi Yossi gives a totally different Shiur. In his opinion, one lets them stand under a pipe with a steady flow, or in a fast-flowing spring.

(d) He prescribes leaving them there for an Onah, adding that this Din applies to Taharos (just as it applies to Yayin Nesech) - which we invert, seeing as the Beraisa is talking about Taharos.

(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan defines 'Onah' as a day or a night. Rebbi Chana She'inah (or Rebbi Chana bar She'inah) Amar ... Rebbi Yochanan says - half a day plus half a night.

(b) When we say that the two opinions do not argue, we mean - that the former opinion is speaking about the spring or the autumn, when the days and the nights are equal (each comprising twelve hours); whereas the latter opinion speaks in the summer or the winter, when the days and the nights are of different lengths.

(a) According to Rav Yehudah, 'Ravki' - sacks into which one places grape-dregs, in order to sift the juice that flows from them, can be made either of hair or of wool.

(b) Ravki made of hair belonging to a Nochri require Niguv, whereas those made of wool (which absorb more) - must stand for twelve months.

(c) If there are knots - one must first untie them (and this is also the Din in the case that follows).

(d) Rav Yehudah also discusses baskets and a bee-hive-shaped contraption for sifting wine. If it is made of palm-branches, it requires rinsing out. Assuming it is made of ...

1. ... sedge (a kind of rush), it requires - Niguv.
2. ... flax - leaving for twelve months.



(a) Rebbi and Rebbi Chiya argue over a case where an Am ha'Aretz touches a cluster of grapes that is lying in the wine in the wine-press. One of them declares all the wine in the wine-press Tamei, the other one - maintains that it is only the cluster and the wine immediately surrounding it that is Tamei, whereas the rest of the wine remains Tahor.

(b) In a case where a Sheretz is found in among the olives that are being ground in a mill, the Mishnah in Taharos assuming that the oil is ...

1. ... not flowing yet, rules - that it only renders Tamei the part that it is touching.
2. ... already flowing, rules - that all the oil in the mill is Tamei.
(c) We reconcile this with the one who declares the wine in the wine-pit Tahor - by differentiating between the case there, where nothing divides between the spot where the Sheretz touched and the remainder of the oil, and our case, where the cluster creates a clear division.

(d) The Rabbanan indicated to Rebbi Yirmiyah (or to his son) - that the Halachah is like the one who is lenient.

(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah rules that someone who purchases something that requires ...
1. ... Tevilah has to Tovel it, he is referring to - an eating utensil that is generally used in cold water (and therefore requires Tevilah and no more.
2. ... Hag'alah, needs to make Hag'alah, he is referring to - cooking utensils, that are generally used with hot water.
3. ... burning in fire, must burn it in fire, he is referring to - utensils that are generally used directly in fire ...
(b) ... such as a spit-rod and a roasting grid.

(c) A knife, says the Tana - needs to be filed on a grindstone.

(d) The Beraisa adds to our Mishnah - that all the cases require Tevilah in a Kasher Mikveh after they have been Kashered.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with the K'lei Midi'an) "Kol Davar Asher Yavo ba'Eish, Ta'aviru ba'Eish (ve'Taher)" - the principle of 'ke'Bol'o Kach Polto' (a vessel exudes in the same manner as it absorbs).

(b) And Rava learns from the word "ve'Taher" - that even after Kashering, a vessel requires Tevilah in a Mikveh.

(c) The Torah continues "Ach be'Mei Nidah Yischata". Kapara, citing a Beraisa, learns from the word "Ach" - that utensils obtained from a Nochri do not need to be sprinkled with ashes of the Parah Adumah on the third and seventh days.

(a) Despite the fact that the utensils do not require sprinkling with the ashes of the Parah Adumah, the Torah needs to write "be'Mei Nidah" - to teach us that they must be Toveled in a Mikveh that is Kasher for the Tevilah of a Nidah.

(b) And the Torah still found it necessary to write "ve'Taher" - to teach us that they are Tahor immediately, and that one does not need to wait until nightfall before using them.

(c) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah extrapolate from "Kol Davar Asher Yavo ba'Eish" that even new vessels that one obtains from a Nochri also require Tevilah - because any utensil that is placed in fire, is like new (yet it requires Tevilah).

(d) In that case, Rav Sheishes asked Rav Nachman (seeing as even new utensils require Tevilah) why do a pair of tailor's scissors that one purchased from a Nochri does not require Tevilah too. Rav Nachman replied - that the Pasuk is speaking exclusively about eating utensils, seeing as they are the only kind of vessels that are sometimes used directly in fire.

(a) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah learned that utensils that one borrows from a Nochri need not be Toveled - from the Parshah in Matos, which is confined to vessels which the soldiers captured, and which therefore belonged to them.

(b) This does not mean that borrowed vessels may be used without being Kashered - since that is a question of eating 'T'reif, which is obviously forbidden, irrespective of whose utensils they are.

(a) When Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef wanted to Tovel an eating utensil made of earth and animal dung, Rebbi Ya'akov pointed out to him what he heard from Rebbi Yochanan - namely, that the Parshah lists specifically metal utensils.

(b) Rav Ashi says however - that the fact that glass vessels that break can be repaired, renders them similar to metal vessels, and they require Tevilah (mi'de'Rabbanan).

(c) Rav Acha and Ravina argue over earthenware utensils that have been overlaid with lead - one of them goes after the beginning of the vessel (which is not Chayav Tevilah), the other, after the end (which is).

(d) The Halachah is - that we go after the end, and they are Chayav Tevilah.

(a) Rav Ashi - Toveled a silver utensil that he received from a Nochri as a Mashkon.

(b) Mar bar Rav Ashi learned from his father's actions - that a Mashkon requires Tevilah.

(c) He did not conclude however, from there that a Mashkon is considered a sale in this regard - because he was not sure whether his father's reason for Toveling the utensil was because he considered every Mashkon like a sale in this regard, or whether it was only because he sensed that the owner intended to leave the Mashkon with him in lieu of his debt.

(d) Another Beraisa gives a detailed list of the Dinim of Kashering utensils obtained from a Nochri. The Tana there rules that utensils that were used in cold water - must be rinsed before Toveling them.

Next daf


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