Avodah Zarah 37aעבודה זרה ל״ז א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Avodah Zarah 37a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
37aל״ז א
1 א

הואיל וראוי לביאה מטמא נמי בזיבה אמר רבינא הלכך הא תינוקת עובדת כוכבים בת ג' שנים ויום אחד הואיל וראויה לביאה מטמאה נמי בזיבה

The Gemara explains the reason for this opinion: Since a nine-year-old boy is fit to engage in intercourse, he also imparts ritual impurity as one who experienced ziva. Ravina said: Therefore, with regard to a female gentile child who is three years and one day old, since she is fit to engage in intercourse at that age, she also imparts impurity as one who experienced ziva.

2 ב

פשיטא מהו דתימא האי ידע לארגולי והא לא ידעה לארגולי קמ"ל

The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? The Gemara explains: It was necessary to state this ruling, lest you say that the halakha that a gentile who is suited for intercourse imparts impurity does not apply to a female. The possible difference between a male and female child is based on the fact that whereas that child, a nine-year-old male gentile, knows how to accustom others to sin by employing persuasion, this child, a three-year-old female gentile, does not know how to accustom others to sin until she matures. Therefore, Ravina teaches us that the halakha nevertheless applies to both male and female children.

3 ג

מיסתמיך ואזיל ר' יהודה נשיאה אכתפיה דרבי שמלאי שמעיה א"ל שמלאי לא היית אמש בבית המדרש כשהתרנו את השמן אמר לו בימינו תתיר אף את הפת אמר לו א"כ קרו לן בית דינא שריא דתנן העיד רבי יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה על אייל קמצא דכן ועל משקה בית מטבחיא דכן ועל דיקרב למיתא מסאב וקרו ליה יוסף שריא

The Gemara relates a relevant incident: Rabbi Yehuda Nesia was traveling while leaning upon the shoulder of Rabbi Simlai, his attendant. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to him: Simlai, you were not in the study hall last night when we permitted the oil of gentiles. Rabbi Simlai said to him: In our days, you will permit bread of gentiles as well. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to him: If so, people will call us a permissive court. As we learned in a mishna (Eduyyot 8:4): Rabbi Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida testified with regard to the eil kamtza, a type of locust, that it is kosher, and with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple that they are ritually pure, and with regard to one who touches a corpse that he is impure, as soon explained by the Gemara. And as a result, they called him: Yosef the Permissive.

4 ד

אמר ליה התם שרא תלת ומר שרא חדא ואי שרי מר חדא אחריתי אכתי תרתין הוא דהויין א"ל אנא שראי אחריתי מאי היא

Rabbi Simlai said to him: There, Yosei ben Yo’ezer permitted three matters, but the Master has permitted only one, and even if the Master permits one other matter, these will still constitute only two permissive rulings. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to him: I have already permitted another matter. The Gemara asks: What is the other matter that he permitted?

5 ה

דתנן זה גיטך אם לא באתי מכאן עד שנים עשר חודש ומת בתוך שנים עשר חודש אינו גט ותני עלה ורבותינו התירוה לינשא ואמרינן מאן רבותינו אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל בית דינא דשרו משחא

The Gemara explains that this is as we learned in a mishna (Gittin 76b) that if one says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I do not arrive from now until twelve months’ time, and he died within twelve months, then it is not a valid bill of divorce because it would not take effect until after the husband’s death. And it is taught with regard to that mishna that our Rabbis nevertheless permitted her to marry. The Gemara continues: And we say: Who is the mishna referring to when it mentions our Rabbis? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This is referring to the court that permitted the oil of gentiles.

6 ו

סברי לה כר' יוסי דאמר זמנו של שטר מוכיח עליו וא"ר אבא בריה דרבי חייא בר אבא ר' יהודה הנשיא הורה ולא הודו לו כל שעתו ואמרי לה כל סייעתו

Tangentially, the Gemara examines the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia’s court concerning a bill of divorce. They hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says: The date written in a document proves when it takes effect. In other words, the bill of divorce takes effect at the time written on it. Therefore, the divorce actually goes into effect before the husband’s death, because it is retroactively initiated on the day that the bill was issued. The Gemara adds: And Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, says: In an earlier period, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also ruled that the bill of divorce should be valid, but the other Sages did not concede to his opinion during his entire lifetime [sha’ato]. And some say that all of his colleagues [si’ato] did not concede to his opinion.

7 ז

א"ל רבי (אליעזר) [אלעזר] לההוא סבא כי שריתוה לאלתר שריתוה דלא אתי או דלמא לאחר שנים עשר חודש דהא איקיים ליה תנאיה

Rabbi Elazar said to a certain elderly man, who was a member of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia’s court: When you permitted this woman to remarry, did you permit her immediately after the husband died, as he certainly will not arrive within the twelve months, or perhaps you permitted her only after twelve months, because only then was the condition fulfilled?

8 ח

ותיבעי לך אמתני' דתנן הרי זה גיטך מעכשיו אם לא באתי מכאן עד שנים עשר חודש ומת בתוך שנים עשר חודש הוי גט דהא איקיים ליה תנאי

That elderly man said to Rabbi Elazar: And let the dilemma be raised with regard to the mishna itself, as we learned in the next line of the mishna in Gittin: If one says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce from now if I do not arrive from now until twelve months have elapsed, and he died within twelve months, this is a valid bill of divorce. The reason is that its condition was fulfilled, as the husband stated explicitly that the bill takes effect immediately.

9 ט

ותיבעי לך לאלתר הוי גיטא דהא לא אתא או דלמא לאחר י"ב חודש דהא איקיים ליה תנאיה אין ה"נ אלא משום דהוית בההוא מניינא

He explains: And let the dilemma be raised with regard to this case: Is the bill of divorce valid immediately upon the husband’s death because he will certainly not arrive? Or perhaps the bill of divorce is valid only after twelve months have elapsed, because only then is his condition fulfilled? Rabbi Elazar answered: Yes, it is indeed so; this question can be asked with regard to the case of the mishna itself. The Gemara adds: But Rabbi Elazar asked that elder about the decision of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia’s court because he was present at that assembly, and therefore he could report on what had actually occurred.

10 י

אמר אביי הכל מודים לכשתצא חמה מנרתיקה לכי נפקא קאמר לה וכי מיית בליליא גט לאחר מיתה הוא

Abaye says: All concede that one who says that a bill of divorce will take effect once the sun emerges from its sheath is saying to his wife that it will be valid once the sun comes out in the morning. And therefore, if the husband dies during the night, before sunrise, it is a posthumous bill of divorce, which is invalid.

11 יא

על מנת שתצא חמה מנרתיקה מעכשיו קאמר לה וכי מיית בליליא הא ודאי תנאה הוי וגט מחיים הוא כדרב הונא דאמר רב הונא כל האומר על מנת כאומר מעכשיו דמי

Furthermore, if he said to her: On the condition that the sun will come out of its sheath, then he is saying to his wife that the bill of divorce will take effect retroactively from now, on the condition that the sun emerges. And accordingly, if he dies during the night, this is certainly a fulfilled condition, and it is a bill of divorce which takes effect retroactively, while he is alive; in accordance with the statement of Rav Huna. As Rav Huna says: With regard to anyone who states a provision employing the language: On the condition, it is tantamount to his stating in the provision that the document takes effect retroactively from now.

12 יב

לא נחלקו אלא באם תצא ר' יהודה הנשיא סבר לה כר' יוסי דאמר זמנו של שטר מוכיח עליו והוה ליה כמהיום אם מתי כמעכשיו אם מתי ורבנן לית להו דר' יוסי והוה ליה כזה גיטך אם מתי גרידא

They disagreed only in the case of one who said to his wife: This will be your bill of divorce if the sun emerges from its sheath, and the husband died during the night. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says that the date written in a document proves when it takes effect, and it is therefore considered as though the husband said: From today if I die, or as though he said: From now if I die. And the Sages do not accept the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and consequently they maintain that it is considered as though the husband said only: This is your bill of divorce if I die, in which case the bill of divorce is not valid, as it would take effect only after the husband’s death.

13 יג

גופא העיד יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה על אייל קמצא דכן ועל משקה בי מטבחיא דכן ועל דיקרב למיתא מסאב וקרו ליה יוסף שריא מאי אייל קמצא רב פפא אמר שושיבא ורב חייא בר אמי משמיה דעולא אמר סוסביל

§ The Gemara returns to the matter itself: Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida testified with regard to the eil kamtza that it is kosher, and with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple that they are ritually pure, and with regard to one who touches a corpse that he is impure. And as a result, they called him: Yosef the Permissive. The Gemara asks: What is the eil kamtza? Rav Pappa says: It is a long-headed locust called shoshiva, and Rav Ḥiyya bar Ami says in the name of Ulla: It is a locust called susbil.

14 יד

רב פפא אמר שושיבא וקמיפלגי בראשו ארוך מר סבר ראשו ארוך אסור ומר סבר ראשו ארוך מותר רב חייא בר אמי משמיה דעולא אמר

The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa says it is a shoshiva, and accordingly Yosei ben Yo’ezer and the other Rabbis disagree with regard to a long-headed locust: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that a long-headed locust is prohibited, and one Sage, Yosei ben Yo’ezer, holds that a long-headed locust is permitted. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ami says in the name of Ulla that