Avodah Zarah 37bעבודה זרה ל״ז ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Avodah Zarah 37b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
37bל״ז ב

סוסביל בראשו ארוך כ"ע לא פליגי דאסור והכא בכנפיו חופין את רובו על ידי הדחק קמיפלגי מר סבר רובא כל דהו בעינן ומר סבר רובא דמנכר בעינן:

it is a susbil, and accordingly, with regard to a long-headed locust, everyone agrees that it is prohibited. And here they disagree with regard to a locust whose wings barely cover most of its body: One Sage, Yosei ben Yo’ezer, holds that we require only a minimal majority of the locust’s body to be covered by its wings, and one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that we require a noticeable majority of the body to be covered.

ועל משקה בי מטבחיא דכן: מאי דכן רב אמר דכן ממש ושמואל אמר דכן מלטמא אחרים אבל טומאת עצמן יש בהן

§ It was stated above: And Yosei ben Yo’ezer testified with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple that they are ritually pure. The Gemara asks: What did Yosei ben Yo’ezer mean when he said they are pure? Rav says: He meant that they are actually ritually pure. And Shmuel says: They are pure in the sense that they do not impart ritual impurity to other substances; but they themselves can contract impurity.

רב אמר דכן ממש קסבר טומאת משקין דרבנן וכי גזור רבנן טומאה במשקין דעלמא אבל במשקה בי מטבחיא לא גזרו רבנן

The Gemara explains the reasons for these opinions. Rav says that these liquids are actually pure, as he maintains that the ritual impurity of liquids applies by rabbinic law, and when the Sages decreed impurity upon liquids, they did so only with regard to ordinary liquids. But the Sages did not issue their decree with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple.

ושמואל אמר דכן מלטמא אחרים אבל טומאת עצמן יש בהן קסבר טומאת משקין דאורייתא לטמא אחרים דרבנן וכי גזרו רבנן במשקין דעלמא במשקין בי מטבחיא לא גזרו:

And Shmuel says: The liquids are ritually pure in the sense that they do not impart impurity to other substances; but they themselves can contract impurity, as Shmuel maintains that the ritual impurity of liquids themselves is by Torah law, whereas their capacity to impart impurity to other substances is by rabbinic law. And when the Sages issued this decree, they did so only with regard to ordinary liquids. But they did not issue their decree with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse in the Temple.

ועל דיקרב למיתא מסאב וקרו ליה יוסף שריא: יוסף אסרא מיבעי ליה ועוד דאורייתא היא דכתיב (במדבר יט, טז) וכל אשר יגע על פני השדה בחלל חרב או במת וגו'

§ It was stated: And Yosei ben Yo’ezer testified with regard to one who touches a corpse that he is impure, and as a result they called him: Yosef the Permissive. The Gemara questions this: Since he issued a stringent ruling, they should have called him: Yosef the Prohibiting. And furthermore, this halakha is explicitly written in the Torah, as it is written: “And whosoever in the open field touches one that is slain with a sword, or one that is dead, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be impure seven days” (Numbers 19:16).

דאורייתא דיקרב טמא דיקרב בדיקרב טהור ואתו אינהו וגזור אפילו דיקרב בדיקרב ואתא איהו ואוקמה אדאורייתא

The Gemara explains: By Torah law one who touches a corpse is ritually impure, but one who touches another who has touched a corpse is pure. And the Sages came and decreed that even one who touches another who has touched a corpse is also impure. And Yosei ben Yo’ezer came and established the halakha in accordance with the original, more lenient Torah law.

דיקרב בדיקרב נמי דאורייתא הוא דכתיב (במדבר יט, כב) וכל אשר יגע בו הטמא יטמא

The Gemara raises a difficulty: One who touches another who has touched a corpse is also rendered impure by Torah law, as it is written: “And whatsoever the impure person touches shall be impure” (Numbers 19:22).

אמרוה רבנן קמיה דרבא משמיה דמר זוטרא בריה דרב נחמן דאמר משמיה דרב נחמן דאורייתא דיקרב בדיקרב בחיבורין טומאת שבעה שלא בחיבורין טומאת ערב ואתו אינהו וגזור אפילו שלא בחיבורין טומאת שבעה ואתא איהו ואוקמה אדאורייתא

The Sages stated this difficulty before Rava in the name of Mar Zutra, the son of Rav Naḥman, who said a response in the name of Rav Naḥman: By Torah law, one who touches another who touches a corpse while the second individual is in concurrent contact with the corpse is impure with seven-day impurity. If this occurs while the second individual is not in concurrent contact with the corpse, he contracts impurity until the evening. And the Sages came and decreed that even where there is no concurrent contact, one still contracts seven-day impurity when he touches someone who touched a corpse. And subsequently Yosei ben Yo’ezer came and established the halakha in accordance with the original Torah law.

דאורייתא מאי היא דכתיב (במדבר יט, יא) הנוגע במת לכל נפש אדם וטמא שבעת ימים וכתיב וכל אשר יגע בו הטמא יטמא וכתיב והנפש הנוגעת תטמא עד הערב הא כיצד

The Gemara asks: What is the source of this halakha, prescribed by Torah law? As it is written: “He that touches the dead, even any man’s dead body, shall be impure seven days” (Numbers 19:11), and it is written: “And whatsoever the impure person touches shall be impure” (Numbers 19:22). These two verses indicate that one contracts ritual impurity for seven days. And yet it is also written: “And the soul that touches him shall be impure until evening” (Numbers 19:22). How can these texts be reconciled?

כאן בחיבורין כאן שלא בחיבורין

The Gemara answers: Here, in the first two verses, the Torah is discussing concurrent contact, which results in impurity of seven days; there, in the last verse, it is discussing a case where there is no concurrent contact, and therefore the individual in question is impure only until the evening.

אמר להו רבא לאו אמינא לכו לא תתלו ביה בוקי סריקי ברב נחמן הכי אמר רב נחמן ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים התיר להן

Rava said to the Sages who suggested that explanation citing Rav Naḥman: Didn’t I tell you not to hang empty pitchers [bukei] upon Rav Naḥman, i.e., not to attribute incorrect statements to him? Rather, this is what Rav Naḥman said: Yosei ben Yo’ezer permitted for them a case of uncertain impurity contracted in a public domain. In other words, Yosei ben Yo’ezer ruled leniently that one who is unsure whether or not he came in contact with a corpse in the public domain is ritually pure.

והא הלכתא מסוטה גמרינן לה מה סוטה רשות היחיד אף טומאה רשות היחיד

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn’t we learn this halakha from the case of a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota]: Just as a sota can be made to drink the bitter waters only when she is suspected of engaging in adultery in a private domain, so too, uncertain ritual impurity is considered impure only when one suspects that he came into contact with it in a private domain? This shows that even by Torah law one who is unsure whether or not he touched a corpse in the public domain remains pure.

הא א"ר יוחנן הלכה ואין מורין כן ואתא איהו ואורי ליה אורויי

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in explanation: This is the halakha, but a public ruling is not issued to that effect. Consequently, the masses treated this matter with stringency. And Yosei ben Yo’ezer came and instructed the masses to follow the original instruction of the Torah. Therefore, his ruling was in fact a leniency.

תניא נמי הכי ר' יהודה אומר קורות נעץ להם ואמר עד כאן רשות הרבים עד כאן רשות היחיד כי אתו לקמיה דרבי ינאי אמר להו הא מיא בשיקעתא דבנהרא זילו טבולו:

The Gemara provides support for Rabbi Yoḥanan’s explanation. This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that Yosei ben Yo’ezer drove stakes into the ground for the people and said: Until here is the public domain, and until there is the private domain, so that they would know the halakha if they suspected that they had touched a corpse. The Gemara relates that when people came before Rabbi Yannai because they suspected that they might have come into contact with a source of impurity in the public domain, he said to them: Why involve yourselves in matters of uncertainty? There is deep water in the river; go immerse yourselves in it, and resolve the problem in this manner.

והשלקות: מנהני מילי א"ר חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן אמר קרא (דברים ב, כח) אוכל בכסף תשבירני ואכלתי ומים בכסף תתן לי ושתיתי כמים מה מים שלא נשתנו אף אוכל שלא נשתנה

§ The mishna teaches: And boiled vegetables prepared by gentiles are prohibited. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The verse states that when Moses asked Sihon, King of the Amorites, for passage through his land, he said: “You shall sell me food for money, that I may eat; and give me water for money, that I may drink” (Deuteronomy 2:28). By juxtaposing food and water, the verse teaches that food is like water: Just as Moses wished to purchase water that was unchanged, so too, he wished to purchase food that was unchanged, i.e., uncooked. Evidently, this is because foods cooked by gentiles are prohibited.

אלא מעתה חטין ועשאן קליות ה"נ דאסורין וכי תימא ה"נ והתניא חיטין ועשאן קליות מותרין אלא כמים מה מים שלא נשתנו מברייתן אף אוכל שלא נשתנה מברייתו

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is so, then in a case where a gentile had wheat and made it into roasted grains by roasting it in the oven, the wheat should also be prohibited, as it was cooked. And if you would say: Indeed that is so, this cannot be the halakha, as isn’t it taught in baraita: If a gentile had wheat and made it into roasted grains, it is permitted? The Gemara suggests a different explanation: Rather, food is like water in the following manner: Just as Moses wished to purchase water that was not altered from its original state, so too, he wished to purchase food that was not altered from its original state. Roasting wheat kernels does not alter their original state.

אלא מעתה חיטין וטחנן ה"נ דאסורין וכי תימא ה"נ והתניא חיטין ועשאן קליות הקמחים והסלתות שלהן מותרין אלא כמים מה מים שלא נשתנו מברייתן ע"י האור אף אוכל שלא נשתנה מברייתו ע"י האור

The Gemara raises another difficulty: If that is so, then if a gentile had wheat and ground it into flour, the flour should also be prohibited, as the wheat has been altered from its original state. And if you would say: Indeed that is so, this cannot be the case, as isn’t it taught in baraita: If a gentile had wheat and made it into roasted grains, it is permitted; similarly, flours and fine flours belonging to gentiles are permitted? Rather, food is like water in the following manner: Just as Moses wished to purchase water that was not altered from its original state by fire, so too, he wished to purchase food that was not altered from its original state by fire. Although wheat ground into flour is altered from its original state, this change is not accomplished by means of fire.

מידי אור כתיב

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is fire written in the verse? There is no mention of fire in the verse at all. How can it be assumed that this is the similarity between water and food?