AVODAH ZARAH 49 (18 Adar) - Dedicated by Harav Shlomo Weinberger of Brooklyn, NY, in memory of his father, Reb Chaim Tzvi ben Reb Shlomo Weinberger, whose Yahrzeit is 18 Adar. Reb Chaim Tzvi, a Holocaust survivor who raised his family in a new country, bequeathed his children a steadfast commitment to Torah and its study.

1)

'ZEH V'ZEH GOREM'

(a)

Question: Does R. Yosi really forbid Zeh v'Zeh Gorem?!

1.

(Mishnah - R. Yosi): We may plant a shoot of Orlah (only the fruit is forbidden, but not the wood), but not a nut of Orlah, because it is a fruit.

2.

(Rav Yehudah): R. Yosi admits that if a nut (Rashi - or shoots) of Orlah was planted, or the (Tosfos - and the resulting) shoots were reinserted into the ground or grafted, what grows is permitted. (One of the causes, i.e. the ground or the tree it was grafted onto, is permitted.)

3.

A Beraisa supports Rav Yehudah.

4.

Suggestion: R. Yosi forbids Zeh v'Zeh Gorem only regarding idolatry.

5.

Rejection (Beraisa #1): If a field was fertilized with manure of idolatry, or a cow was fattened with fodder of idolatry, one may sow the field and eat the cow;

i.

Contradiction (Beraisa #2): One must leave the field fallow (until the improvement of the fertilizer wears off), he may not eat the cow until it becomes thin again.

ii.

Suggestion: Beraisa #1 is like R. Yosi (he permits Zeh v'Zeh Gorem even regarding idolatry), and Beraisa #2 is like Chachamim.

(b)

Answer: No. One Beraisa is like R. Eliezer, one is like Chachamim.

(c)

Question: Where do we find that R. Eliezer and Chachamim argue about Zeh v'Zeh Gorem?

(d)

Answer #1 (Mishnah #1 - R. Eliezer): If Se'or (sourdough, a fermenting agent) of Chulin and of Terumah fell into a dough, and there was not enough of either one to ferment the dough (make it become Chametz), and together they fermented it, the dough is like the last one that fell in. (If Terumah fell in last, only Kohanim may eat the dough, in Taharah);

1.

Chachamim say, no matter which fell in last, it is forbidden (to a non-Kohen, or b'Tum'ah) only if there was enough (Se'or of) Terumah to ferment it without the Chulin.

2.

(Abaye): R. Eliezer permits (when the Chulin fell in last) only if the Terumah was removed before the Chulin fell in. If not, it is forbidden. (He forbids Zeh v'Zeh Gorem, and Chachamim permit.)

(e)

Rejection: Perhaps also R. Eliezer permits Zeh v'Zeh Gorem (e.g. if they fell in at the same time). He forbids here only because we attribute the entire action to the final cause, whether or not the first cause was removed (unlike Abaye)!

(f)

Answer #2 (Mishnah #2): If wood from an Asherah was used to heat a new oven (that was never heated before; the first heating solidifies the oven), the oven must be destroyed. If the wood was used to heat an old oven, it must cool down (before one may use it to bake);

1.

If one did not, rather, he baked in the forbidden oven or with the forbidden heat, the bread is forbidden. If the bread became mixed with other bread, one may not benefit from any of them;

2.

R. Eliezer says, he takes the amount he benefited (Rashi - the cost of wood equal to that of the Asherah wood he used; Tosfos - the value of the loaf baked with that wood) and throws it in the sea. Then, he may benefit (Ba'al ha'Ma'or - but not eat; Ri - or even eat) from all of them.

3.

Chachamim: One cannot redeem idolatry!

(g)

Question: (We have partially answered Question (c); Mishnah #2 shows that R. Eliezer forbids Zeh v'Zeh Gorem.) Who are the Chachamim who argue with him, and permit?

1.

Suggestion: They are the Chachamim of Mishnah #2.

2.

Rejection: They are more stringent than him! (He forbids Zeh v'Zeh Gorem, so all the more so they do!)

(h)

Answer: They are the Chachamim of Mishnah #1.

(i)

Objection: Granted, those Chachamim permit Zeh v'Zeh Gorem regarding Se'or, but perhaps they forbid regarding idolatry! (We said (b) that Chachamim and R. Eliezer argue about Zeh v'Zeh Gorem regarding idolatry.)

(j)

Conclusion: Indeed (like we said above (a:5:ii), Beraisa #1 is like R. Yosi. He permits Zeh v'Zeh Gorem even regarding idolatry;

1.

R. Yosi addresses Chachamim according to their reasoning. I myself permit Zeh v'Zeh Gorem. Since you forbid it, you should forbid vegetables even in winter.

2.

Chachamim permit, like Rav Mari taught (the gain due to the leaves is offset by the loss due to the shade).

(k)

(Rav Yehudah): The Halachah follows R. Yosi.

(l)

Question (Rav Amram): A certain garden is fertilized by (blood of Korbanos to) idolatry. What is the law?

(m)

Answer (Rav Yosef): Rav Yehudah taught that the Halachah follows R. Yosi (the Peros are permitted).

49b----------------------------------------49b

2)

BENEFIT FROM IDOLATRY

(a)

(Mishnah): If wood from an Asherah was used to heat a new oven, it must be destroyed. If the wood was used to heat an old oven, it must cool down;

1.

If one baked in the forbidden oven or with the forbidden heat, the bread is forbidden. If the bread became mixed with other bread, one may not benefit from any of them;

2.

R. Eliezer says, he takes the amount he benefited and throws it in the sea, then all the loaves are permitted.

3.

Chachamim: One cannot redeem idolatry!

(b)

If wood from an Asherah was used to make a Karkar (a weaving tool), one may not benefit from it. If it was used to weave a garment, the garment is forbidden. If the garment became mixed with other garments, (and these garments became mixed with other garments - R. Tam deletes this from the text), one may not benefit from any of them;

1.

R. Eliezer says, he takes the amount he benefited and throws it in the sea, then he may benefit from all of them.

2.

Chachamim: One cannot redeem idolatry!

(c)

(Gemara): The Mishnah needed to teach both cases.

1.

Had it taught only the Reisha, one might have thought that only there R. Eliezer permits (via throwing the benefit into the sea), because the Isur (the wood) has been consumed before the bread is finished, but regarding the Karkar, the Isur remains intact, so one cannot throw away money to permit the garment;

2.

Had it taught only the Seifa, one might have thought that only there Chachamim argue, because the Isur remains intact, but regarding the bread, they agree to R. Eliezer.

3.

Therefore, it needed to teach that they argue in both cases.

(d)

(Ze'iri): The Halachah follows R. Eliezer.

(e)

(Rav Ada bar Ahavah): This applies only to bread, but if a barrel of Yayin Nesech (wine offered to idolatry) was mixed with permitted wine, it cannot be permitted (by throwing its value in the sea);

(f)

(Rav Chisda): This permits even wine.

(g)

A barrel of Yayin Nesech was mixed with Reuven's wine.

(h)

(Rav Chisda): Take four Zuz and throw them in the river. This permits you to benefit from (but not drink) the wine.

3)

'BITUL' OF AN 'ASHERAH'

(a)

(Mishnah): If a Nochri took from it (for his needs) chips, sticks or branches, even a leaf, it is Batel;

(b)

If he shaved off pieces for its sake (to beautify it), it is forbidden. If he did so for his own needs, it is permitted.

(c)

Question: What is the law of the shavings?

(d)

Answer #1 (Rav Huna or Chiya bar Rav): They are forbidden.

(e)

Answer #2 (The other of Rav Huna and Chiya bar Rav): They are permitted.

(f)

Support (for the latter opinion - Beraisa): If a Nochri shaved off pieces of idolatry for his own needs, it and the shavings are permitted. If he did so for its sake, it is forbidden, and the shavings are permitted;

1.

If a Yisrael shaved off pieces, whether for his own needs or for its sake, it and the shavings are forbidden (because a Yisrael cannot be Mevatel idolatry).

(g)

(Rav): If an idolatry broke (by itself), every piece requires Bitul;

(h)

(Shmuel): Idolatry becomes Batel (if it broke) the way it grows (e.g. leaves fell off).

(i)

Objection: Just the contrary, it is not Batel the way it grows!

(j)

Correction: Rather, idolatry (that broke) only requires Bitul (if it broke) the way it grows.

(k)

Suggestion: Rav holds that idolaters worship fragments of idolatry, and Shmuel holds that theydu worship fragments.

(l)

Rejection #1: No, all agree that fragments are worshipped;

1.

They argue about fragments of fragments. Rav forbids them, and Shmuel permits them.

(m)

Rejection #2: All permit fragments of fragments. They argue about an idolatry consisting of rings that can be easily assembled:

1.

Rav says that it does not become Batel when it breaks, because anyone can easily assemble it;

2.

Shmuel says, idolatry requires Bitul only (if it broke) the way it grows. This did not break the way it grows, so it does not need Bitul.

PEREK R. YISHMAEL
4)

MARKULIS

(a)

(Mishnah - R. Yishmael): If three rocks are found next to each other near Markulis, they are forbidden. If two are found, they are permitted;

(b)

Chachamim say, rocks that are seen with it (Tosfos - literally; Rashi - i.e. are very close) are forbidden. Those that are not are permitted.

(c)

(Gemara): We understand Chachamim. They hold that fragments are worshipped;

1.

Rocks that are seen with it are forbidden, for perhaps they fell from it. Rocks that are not seen with it are permitted.

(d)

Question: How does R. Yishmael hold?

1.

If he holds that fragments are worshipped, even two rocks should be forbidden;

2.

If he holds that fragments are not worshipped, even three rocks should be permitted!

(e)

Answer (Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef): If we know that the rocks fell from Markulis, all agree that they are forbidden;

1.

Even the opinion that fragments are not worshipped says so only about idolatry that does not normally become fragmented;

2.

Here, the idolatry is not riveted. It normally comes apart.

(f)

They argue in a case that we do not know from where the rocks fell.

1.

If they are very close to Markulis, all agree that they are forbidden. Perhaps they fell from it;

2.

They argue in a case that they are not close (but are within four Amos).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF