Avodah Zarah 50bעבודה זרה נ׳ ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Avodah Zarah 50b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
50bנ׳ ב

מותרות ישראל שהביא אבנים מן המרקוליס וחיפה בהן דרכים וסרטיאות אסורות ולית נגר ולא בר נגר דיפרקינה

they are permitted, as the gentile nullified their prohibited status. In the case of a Jew who brought stones from a pile dedicated to Mercury and paved paths and streets with them, they are prohibited. And there is neither a carpenter [naggar] nor a son of a carpenter who can resolve this, i.e., no one can resolve the difficulty inherent in this statement, not a Torah scholar, and not even a scholar who is the son of a scholar.

אמר רב ששת אנא לא נגר אנא ולא בר נגר אנא ופריקנא ליה מאי קושיא ליה דרב גידל בעינא כעין פנים וליכא

Rav Sheshet said: As for me, I am not a carpenter, nor am I the son of a carpenter, and yet I will resolve the difficulty. What is the difficulty that Rabba bar Yirmeya finds in the baraita? The baraita is difficult because of the statement of Rav Giddel, that the prohibited status of offerings brought in idol worship can never be revoked. This is not difficult, as in order for idol worship to prohibit an offering I require the offering to be like those offerings sacrificed inside the Temple, and there is no a parallel offering of stones in the Temple.

אמר רב יוסף בר אבא איקלע רבה בר ירמיה לאתרין ואתא ואייתי מתניתא בידיה מתליעין ומזהמין בשביעית ואין מתליעין ומזהמין במועד

§ Rav Yosef bar Abba said: Rabba bar Yirmeya happened to come to our locale, and when he came he brought the following baraita with him: One may remove worms from a tree and place manure on a cut in a tree during the Sabbatical Year, but one may not remove worms or place manure on a cut during the intermediate days of the Festival.

כאן וכאן אין מגזמין וסכין שמן לגזום בין במועד בין בשביעית ולית נגר ולא בר נגר דיפרקינה

The baraita continues: Both here, in the case of the Sabbatical Year, and there, in the case of the intermediate days of the Festival, one may not prune the trees. But one may smear oil on the previously pruned tree on the place where one pruned it in order to prevent the tree from being damaged, both during the intermediate days of the Festival and during the Sabbatical Year. And there is neither a carpenter nor a son of a carpenter who can resolve this.

אמר רבינא אנא לא נגר אנא ולא בר נגר אנא ומפרקינא לה מאי קא קשיא ליה אילימא מועד אשביעית קא קשיא ליה מאי שנא שביעית דשרי ומ"ש מועד דאסור מי דמי שביעית מלאכה אסר רחמנא טירחא שרי מועד אפי' טירחא נמי אסור

Ravina said: As for me, I am not a carpenter, nor am I the son of a carpenter, and yet I will resolve the difficulty. What is the difficulty that Rabba bar Yirmeya finds in the baraita? If we say that the difference between the intermediate days of the Festival and the Sabbatical Year poses a difficulty to him, this cannot be so. One cannot explain that Rabba bar Yirmeya is asking what is different about the Sabbatical Year that one is permitted to remove worms and place manure on a cut, and what is different about the intermediate days of the Festival that it is prohibited to do so, as this is not a valid question. Are they comparable? With regard to the Sabbatical Year, the Merciful One prohibited only agricultural labor, whereas other forms of exertion are permitted. With regard to the intermediate days of the Festival, even other forms of exertion are prohibited.

ואלא זיהום אגיזום קא קשיא ליה מ"ש זיהום דשרי ומ"ש גיזום דאסור מי דמי זיהום אוקומי אילנא ושרי גיזום אברויי אילנא ואסור

Ravina suggests: Rather, perhaps the difference between placing manure and pruning poses a difficulty to him. What is different about placing manure that it is permitted during the Sabbatical Year, and what is different about pruning that it is prohibited? Ravina rejects this suggestion: This is also not a valid question. Are they comparable? The purpose of placing manure is to preserve the tree, and therefore it is permitted, whereas the purpose of pruning is to enhance the tree, and therefore it is prohibited.

ואלא זיהום אזיהום קא קשיא ליה דקתני מתליעין ומזהמין בשביעית ורמינהי מזהמין את הנטיעות וכורכין אותן וקוטמין אותן ועושין להם בתים ומשקין אותן עד ר"ה עד ר"ה אין בשביעית לא

Ravina suggests: Rather, perhaps the contradiction between the aforementioned baraita with regard to placing manure and another mishna with regard to placing manure poses a difficulty to him, as the baraita teaches: One may remove worms from a tree and place manure on a cut in a tree during the Sabbatical Year. And one may raise a contradiction from a mishna (Shevi’it 2:4): One may place manure on the saplings, and one may bind their branches to the trunk so that they grow upright. And one may lop off their tops to promote their growth, and make shelters for them to shield them from the sun, and water them. All these actions are permitted until Rosh HaShana of the Sabbatical Year. One can infer that until Rosh HaShana, yes, one may place manure on the tree; but during the Sabbatical Year itself one may not do so.

ודלמא כדרב עוקבא בר חמא דאמר רב עוקבא בר חמא תרי קשקושי הוו חד לאברויי אילנא ואסור וחד לסתומי פילי ושרי ה"נ תרי זיהמומי הוי חד לאוקומי אילני ושרי וחד לאברויי אילני ואסור

Ravina rejects this suggestion: But perhaps one can account for the apparent contradiction in a similar fashion to the explanation of Rav Ukva bar Ḥama, as Rav Ukva bar Ḥama says: There are two types of hoeing [kishkushei]. The purpose of one type is to enhance the tree’s health, and it is therefore prohibited. And the purpose of one type is to close up cracks in the ground, which is permitted, as it is done only to prevent the trees from dying and not to enhance their growth. So too, one may suggest that there are two types of placing manure: One type whose purpose is to preserve the trees, and is therefore permitted, and one type whose purpose is to enhance the trees, and is therefore prohibited.

ואלא סיכה אסיכה קא קשיא ליה דקתני סכין שמן לגזום בין במועד ובין בשביעית ורמינהי סכין את הפגין ומנקבין ומפטמין אותן עד ר"ה עד ר"ה אין בשביעית לא

Ravina suggests: Rather, perhaps the contradiction between the halakha in the baraita with regard to smearing oil and the halakha in another mishna with regard to smearing oil poses a difficulty for him, as the baraita teaches: One may smear oil on the previously pruned tree, on the place where one pruned it, both during the intermediate days of the Festival and during the Sabbatical Year. And one may raise a contradiction from the mishna (Shevi’it 2:5): One may smear oil on the unripe figs in the sixth year of the Sabbatical cycle in order to accelerate their ripening, and similarly one may pierce them and fill the cut with oil to facilitate their ripening until Rosh HaShana. One can infer that until Rosh HaShana, yes, one may smear; but during the Sabbatical Year itself one may not do so.

מי דמי הכא אוקומי אילנא ושרי התם פטומי פירא ואסור

Ravina rejects this suggestion: That is also not a valid question. Are they comparable? Here, the purpose of smearing oil on the place where the tree was pruned is to preserve the tree, and therefore it is permitted. There, the purpose of smearing oil on the unripe figs is to enhance and enlarge the fruit and is therefore prohibited.

א"ל רב סמא בריה דרב אשי לרבינא בר ירמיה סיכה דמועד אזיהום דמועד קא קשיא ליה מכדי האי אוקומי והאי אוקומי מאי שנא האי דשרי ומאי שנא האי דאסור היינו דקא"ל לית נגר ולא בר נגר דיפרקינה

Rav Samma, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina: The contradiction between the halakha with regard to smearing oil during the intermediate days of the Festival and the halakha with regard to placing manure during the intermediate days of the Festival poses a difficulty for Rabba bar Yirmeya. Since the purpose of this action is to preserve the tree, and the purpose of that action is to preserve the tree, what is different in this case that it is permitted, and what is different in that case that it is prohibited? This is the reason that Rabba bar Yirmeya said to him: There is neither a carpenter nor a son of a carpenter who can resolve this.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב עבודת כוכבים שעובדין אותה במקל שבר מקל בפניה חייב זרק מקל בפניה פטור א"ל אביי לרבא מאי שנא שבר דהוה ליה כעין זביחה זרק נמי הוה ליה כעין זריקה אמר ליה בעינא זריקה משתברת וליכא

§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: In the case of an object of idol worship that is worshipped by means of a stick, e.g., by beating a stick on another object in order to produce noise, if one broke a stick before it, he is liable. If he threw a stick before it, he is exempt. Abaye said to Rava: What is different about the case where one broke a stick? In this case one is liable because it is similar to slaughtering an offering, which is a rite performed in the Temple; so too, in the case where one threw a stick, it is similar to the sprinkling of the blood on the altar. Rava said to Abaye: In order for a sacrificial rite to be similar to the sprinkling of blood, I require a form of throwing that scatters the offering, and that is not the case here.

איתיביה ספת לה צואה או שנסך לפניה עביט של מימי רגלים

Abaye raised an objection to Rava’s explanation from a baraita: One who fed [safat] an idol excrement, or who poured a chamber pot of urine before it as a libation,