(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 49


(a) We learned in a Mishnah in Orlah that if a yeast of Chulin and a yeast of Terumah fall into a Chulin dough, causing it to rise (though neither of them would have been able to do so on its own), Rebbi Eliezer goes after the one that fell in last.
What do the Rabbanan say?

(b) How does Abaye qualify Rebbi Eliezer's ruling? In which case would Rebbi Eliezer agree that the Chulin dough would be Asur to Zarim even if the Chulin yeast was the last one to fall in?

(c) What is now the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan? What have we now proved?

(d) However, we query Abaye's explanation.
What does Rebbi Eliezer really hold regarding ...

  1. ... the two yeasts?
  2. ... 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem' (assuming that the two yeast fell into the dough at the same time)?
(a) So we turn to the Mishnah on the next Amud 'Natal Heimenah Eitzim Asurah be'Hana'ah'.
What does the Tana then say in a case where one used wood from an Asheirah to heat up a ...
  1. ... new oven?
  2. ... old oven? Why the difference?
(b) If he baked bread with it, the Tana continues, the bread is Asur be'Hana'ah. What is the case? In which kind of oven did he bake it?

(c) If the loaf later became mixed up with other loaves of Chulin, all the loaves are forbidden.
What does Rebbi Eliezer permit one to do?

(d) What do the Rabbanan say?

(a) What problem do we have with equating the Tana who is lenient in the case of the field that was manured with dung from an Avodah-Zarah animal or a cow that was fed with oats of Avodah-Zarah with the Rabbanan of Rebbi Eliezer in the case ...
  1. ... that we just cited ('Natlah Heimenah Eitzim')?
  2. ... of the two yeasts?
(b) So we revert to our original suggestion ('Ha Rebbi Yossi, Ha Rabbanan').
What does Rebbi Yossi now hold with regard to 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem'? Does he differentiate between ...
  1. ... other issues and Avodah-Zarah?
  2. ... the dust that does not settle, and leaves which do?
(c) Then why does he say in our Mishnah 'Af Lo Yerakos Mipnei ha'Geshamim Mipnei she'Neviyah Nosheres Aleihen ... '?
(a) Like which Tana does Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rule?

(b) What did Rav Yosef reply, when Rav Amram sent him a She'eilah concerning a field that had been manured with dung of Avodah-Zarah?

Answers to questions



(a) We discussed the first half of the Mishnah on the previous Amud. The Mishnah forbids a Karkur (a piece of pointed wood that one took from the Asheirah-tree for weaving purposes).
What does the Tana say about ...
  1. ... a garment that one subsequently wove with it?
  2. ... the Karkur getting mixed up with others?
(b) And what do Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan respectively, say about permitting it by throwing its value into the Yam Hamelach?

(c) Having taught us in the ...

  1. ... Reisha, the prohibition of the piece of wood from the Asheirah, why does the Tana find it necessary to repeat the Halachah in the case of the Karkur?
  2. ... Seifa, the prohibition of the Karkur, why does the Tana find it necessary to repeat the Halachah in the case of the piece of wood from the Asheirah?
(a) Like which Tana in our Mishnah does Ze'iri quoted by Rav Chisda (or by Rav Chisda's father), rule?

(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah confines Rebbi Eliezer's Heter to a loaf of bread. It will not extend, he says, to a barrel which was made from the piece of wood. Why the difference?

(c) What would be the ramifications of the Heter did extend to the barrel.
What would the owner then be permitted to do?

(d) What can he do now that Rebbi Eliezer's Heter does not apply to them? Must he throw them all into the Yam Hamelach?

(a) Rav Chisda disagrees with Rav Ada bar Ahavah.
What does *he* say?

(b) What did Rav Chisda say to that man who asked him about a barrel of Yayin Nesech wine that got mixed up with his own barrels?

(c) Was the man then permitted to drink the wine?

(a) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa forbids be'Hana'ah a wine-pit into which some Yayin Nesech fell.
What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel say there?

(b) How do we reconcile Rav Chisda's current ruling with this Beraisa?

(a) Our Mishnah describes how a Nochri must nullify an Asheirah ('Bitul'). If 'Kirsem' means that he cuts off dry twigs for firewood, what does 'Zirem' mean?

(b) What does the Tana say about him cutting off a stick or a staff, or even a leaf?

(c) When is filing down the Asheirah considered Bitul, and when is it not?

(d) What do Rav Huna and Chiya bar Rav say about the shavings of an Asheirah that were cut off for the benefit of the Asheirah?

(e) What does the Beraisa which supports those that permit the shavings say if it was a Yisrael who filed them and not a Nochri?

(a) According to Rav, one needs to nullify each and every splinter of an Avodah-Zarah that broke by itself.
Why is that? Why does the Bitul of one not work for the others?

(b) What objection do we raise to Shmuel's initial text 'Avodas-Kochavim Einah Beteilah Ela Derech Gedilasah'?

(c) So how do we amend Shmuel's statement?

(d) How do we initially explain the basis of their Machlokes?

(a) We conclude that, in fact, both Rav and Shmuel hold 'Ovdin li'Shevarim'. How do we reconcile this with Shmuel, who learned at the beginning of the Perek that someone who finds a broken idol is permitted to keep the pieces and make use of them?

(b) If they are not arguing over 'Shevarim', then over what *are* they arguing?

(c) Alternatively, both opinions permit Shivrei Shevarim', and they argue about an Avodah-Zarah made of many pieces.
What is ...

  1. ... the case?
  2. ... the basis of their Machlokes?
***** Hadran Alach 'Kol ha'Tzelamim' *****

***** Perek Rebbi Yishmael *****


(a) In defining 'Markulis', what distinction does Rebbi Yishmael in our Mishnah, make between three stones and two stones? Where are they situated?

(b) What will he hold in a case where there are two stones next to each other and one on top?

(c) What is the significance of the three stones?

(a) The Chachamim have a different criterion.
When are the stones Asur according to them, irrespective of whether there are two or three?

(b) Why are they Asur?

(c) What problem do we have with Rebbi Yishmael? What is the Kashya, assuming he holds ...

  1. ... 'Ovdin li'Shevarim'?
  2. ... 'Ein Ovdin li'Shevarim'?
(d) So Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan concludes that both Tana'im might hold 'Ein Ovdin li'Shevarim'.
How does he then ...
  1. ... interpret 'be'Tzad Markulis' referred to by Rebbi Yishmael?
  2. ... establish the basis of their Machlokes?
Answers to questions

Next daf


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