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)

(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 will Rebbi Eliezer concede that the Chulin dough is 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?

(d)What have we now proved?

(e)We query Abaye's explanation however. What does Rebbi Eliezer really hold regarding ...

1. ... the two yeasts?

2. ... 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem' (assuming that the two yeasts fell into the dough simultaneously)?

1)

(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. The Rabbanan - permit the dough to Zarim (irrespective of when the yeast of Terumah fell in), since it was unable to cause the dough to rise on its own.

(b)Abaye qualifies Rebbi Eliezer's ruling - confining it to where the Terumah yeast was removed before the Chulin yeast fell in. Otherwise, Rebbi Eliezer will concede that the Chulin dough will be Asur to Zarim even if the Chulin yeast was the last one to fall in.

(c)The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan is whether 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem Asur' (Rebbi Eliezer) or 'Mutar' (the Rabbanan) ...

(d)... establishing the Machlokes between the two Beraisos that we quoted earlier (by the field which was fertilized with the manure of an Avodah-Zarah animal or a cow that was fed oats of Avodah-Zarah).

(e)We query Abaye's explanation however, inasmuch as Rebbi Eliezer really holds that ...

1. ... in the case of the two yeasts - we go after the last yeast to fall in, even if the first yeast has not been removed.

2. ... assuming the two yeasts fell into the dough simultaneously, that - the dough is permitted (because he too holds 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem, Mutar').

2)

(a)So we turn to the Mishnah on the next Amud which forbids be'Hana'ah wood that one takes from an Asheirah. What does the Tana then say in a case where one used wood from an Asheirah to heat up ...

1. ... a new oven?

2. ... an old oven? Why the difference?

(b)If one bakes 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?

2)

(a)So we turn to the Mishnah on the next Amud which forbids be'Hana'ah wood that one takes from an Asheirah. The Tana continues that, in a case where one used wood from an Asheirah to heat up ...

1. ... a new oven - the oven must be broken, since it was completed with Isurei Hana'ah.

2. ... an old oven - it must be allowed to cool down (for the Isur to dissipate) before being permitted to use it.

(b)If one baked bread with it, the Tana continues, the bread is Asur be'Hana'ah - whether he baked it in the above new oven after it had cooled down, using fresh wood, or whether he baked it even as he heated the old oven.

(c)If the loaf later became mixed up with other loaves of Chulin, all the loaves are forbidden. Rebbi Eliezer permits them however - by taking the value of the Isur, and throwing it into the Yam ha'Melach.

(d)The Rabbanan maintain - that one cannot redeem Isurei Hana'ah.

3)

(a)What problem do we have with equating the Tana who is lenient in the case of the field that was fertilized with manure 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 that do?

(c)Then why does he say in our Mishnah 'Af Lo Yerakos Mipnei ha'Geshamim, Mipnei she'Neviyah Nosheres aleihen ... '?

3)

(a)The problem with equating the Tana who is lenient in the case of the field that was fertilized with manure 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') is that - those Rabbanan are more stringent than Rebbi Eliezer (and we are looking for a Tana who is more lenient).

2. ... of the two yeasts is that - they are only lenient with regard to the Din of Terumah, whereas we are looking for a Tana who is more lenient even by Avodah-Zarah.

(b)So we revert to our original suggestion ('Ha Rebbi Yossi, Ha Rabbanan'). In fact, we conclude, Rebbi Yossi holds 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem Mutar' ...

1. ... by Avodah-Zarah as well as by other issues.

2. ... with regard to both dust of ground Avodah-Zarah which does not settle, and leaves, that do.

(c)And when he says in our Mishnah 'Af Lo Yerakos Mipnei ha'Geshamim, Mipnei she'Neviyah Nosheres Aleihen ... ' - he is not stating his own opinion (since he permits them), but is asking the Rabbanan whether, seeing as they hold 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem, Asur', they will not agree that vegetables ought to be Asur even in the winter (as we explained earlier).

4)

(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 fertilized with the manure of Avodah-Zarah?

4)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules - like Rebbi Yossi (that 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem is permitted).

(b)When Rav Amram sent Rav Yosef a She'eilah concerning a field that had been fertilized with the manure of Avodah-Zarah - the latter cited the ruling of Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, in which case whatever grows subsequently will be permitted.

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

5)

(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 takes from an Asheirah-tree for weaving purposes). What does the Tana say about ...

1. ... the garment that one subsequently weaves?

2. ... the Karkur getting mixed up with others and those others 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 teach the Halachah in the case of the piece of wood from the Asheirah?

5)

(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 takes from an Asheirah-tree for weaving purposes). The Tana rules that ...

1. ... a garment that one subsequently weaves - is forbidden, too.

2. ... in the event that the Karkur gets mixed up with others, and those others with others - they are all forbidden.

(b)Rebbi Eliezer - permits them by throwing its value into the Yam Hamelach, whereas the Rabbanan forbid it (as we explained in the Mishnah).

(c)In spite of having taught us in the ...

1. ... Reisha, the prohibition of the piece of wood from the Asheirah, the Tana finds it necessary to repeat the Halachah in the case of the Karkur, to teach us that - even though (unlike the piece of wood, which is burned), it remains intact, Rebbi Eliezer permits it.

2. ... Seifa, the prohibition of the Karkur, the Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to teach the Halachah in the case of the piece of wood from the Asheirah, to teach us that - even though (unlike the Karkur, which remains intact) it is burned, the Rabbanan forbid it.

6)

(a)Like which Tana in our Mishnah does Rav Chisda quoting Rav (or Ze'eiri) 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 if it 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?

6)

(a)Rav Chisda quoting Rav (or Ze'eiri) - rules like Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah.

(b)Rav Ada bar Ahavah confines Rebbi Eliezer's Heter to a loaf of bread. It does not extend, he says, to a barrel which was made from the piece of wood - since there, the piece of Isur is still visible, whereas by the loaf of bread, it is not.

(c)If the Heter did extend to the barrel - the owner would then be obligated to sell the barrels one by one, or to give their contents to Nochri donkey-drivers.

(d)Now that Rebbi Eliezer's Heter does not apply to them however, he may sell them - provided he deducts the full value of the Yayin Nesech from the price.

7)

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

(b)What did Rav Chisda say to the 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?

7)

(a)Rav Chisda disagrees with Rav Ada bar Ahavah. According to him - the Heter of throwing the value into the Yam Hamelach even helps with regard to the barrels too.

(b)And that is why, when a man asked him about a barrel of Yayin Nesech wine that got mixed up with his own barrels of wine - he instructed him to throw four Zuz into the Yam Hamelach, following which ...

(c)... he was permitted to sell them one at a time, wash clothes in the wine or feed it to Nochrim, but not to drink it.

8)

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

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

8)

(a)The Tana Kama of a Beraisa (discussed in the last Perek) forbids be'Hana'ah a wine-pit into which some Yayin Nesech fell. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that - he may sell the entire stock, provided he deducts the cost of the Yayin Nesech.

(b)To reconcile Rav Chisda's current ruling with that Beraisa - we establish both opinions in the Beraisa like the Rabbanan here, whereas Rav Chisda's current ruling follows the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer (see Maharsha and Rashash).

9)

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

9)

(a)Our Mishnah describes how a Nochri must nullify an Asheirah ('Bitul'). 'Kirsam' means that he cuts off dry twigs for firewood; 'Zirem', that - he cuts off wet twigs for his own personal use.

(b)The Tana also classifies cutting off a stick or a staff, or even a leaf - as Bitul.

(c)Filing down the Asheirah is considered Bitul - if the Nochri wants the shavings, but not if he does it to enhance the looks of the Asheirah.

(d)Rav Huna and Chiya bar Rav argue over the shavings of the Asheirah that were cut off for the benefit of the Asheirah - one of them forbids them, the other one permits them.

(e)The Beraisa which supports those who permit them - forbids them however (as well as the Asheirah itself), if it was a Yisrael who filed them, irrespective of whether he did it for the sake of the Asheirah or for his own personal use.

10)

(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)Why is that?

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

10)

(a)According to Rav, one needs to nullify each and every splinter of an Avodah-Zarah that broke by itself - because each one is considered an individual Avodah-Zarah.

(b)We object to Shmuel's initial text 'Avodas-Kochavim Einah Beteilah Ela Derech Gedilasah' - because that an Avodah-Zarah 'Derech Gedilasah' is not subject to Bitul.

(c)We therefore amend Shmuel's statement to read - 'Ein Avodas-Kochavim Tzerichah Libateil Ela Derech Gedilasah' (whern it is complete, but not when it is broken) ...

(d)... because since it was unable to save itself from being broken, how can it possibly save anybody else?

(e)Initially, we explain the basis of their Machlokes as - whether 'Ovdin li'Shevarim' (people tend to worship broken pieces [Rav]) or not (Shmuel).

11)

(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?

11)

(a)We conclude that, in fact, both Rav and Shmuel hold 'Ovdin li'Shevarim', and when Shmuel 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 - he was speaking in a case where it was not known how it broke (and we assume that a Nochri broke it [because it is unusual for an idol to break by itself - (by an animal knocking it over]).

(b)In fact, we maintain the basis of their Machlokes is - over 'Shivrei Shevarim'; whether people even worship pieces that were broken into smaller pieces still (Rav) or not (Shmuel).

(c)Alternatively, both opinions permit Shivrei Shevarim, and they are arguing about an Avodah-Zarah that is made of many pieces ...

1. ... that came apart but which a Hedyot (anybody) can reconstruct.

2. ... and the basis of their Machlokes is whether, since a Hedyot can reconstruct it, it is considered whole, and requires Bitul (Rav), or whether only an image that is whole requires Bitul, but not small pieces (Shmuel).

Hadran alach 'Kol ha'Tzelamim'

Perek Rebbi Yishmael

12)

(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?

12)

(a)In defining Markulis, Rebbi Yishmael in our Mishnah - forbids three stones that are one next to the other, that are situated beside the big Markulis (which is full of stones), but permits two.

(b)And if he forbids three stones next to each other - 'Kal va'Chomer' where there are two stones next to each other and one on top.

(c)The three stones - are considered to be a small Markulis which will take over from the big (full) one.

13)

(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 do they declare them 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?

13)

(a)The Chachamim have a different criterion. According to them, the stones are Asur irrespective of whether there are two or three - provided they look as if they are part of Markulis.

(b)And hey declare them Asur - because they hold a. 'Ovdin li'Shevarim' and b. stones that are seen together with Markulis obviously fell from it (whereas those that are not, did not).

(c)The problem with Rebbi Yishmael is that, assuming he holds ...

1. ... 'Ovdin li'Shevarim' - then even two stones ought to be Asur, whereas if he holds ...

2. ... 'Ein Ovdin li'Shevarim' - then even three stones ought to be permitted.

(d)Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan therefore concludes that both Tana'im might well hold 'Ein Ovdin li'Shevarim', and he ...

1. ... interprets 'be'Tzad Markulis' referred to by Rebbi Yishmael, to mean that - the stones are not standing right next to the big Markulis (like we originally thought), but within four Amos of it.

2. ... explains the Machlokes in that Rebbi Yishmael holds that - it is customary to make a small Markulis beside a big one, whereas the Chachamim hold that it is not. Consequently, unless it is obvious that the stones fell from the big Markulis, they are permitted.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF