Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) "ZEH V'ZEH GOREM"

(a) Question: Does R. Yosi really say that Zeh v'Zeh Gorem is forbidden?!

1. (Mishnah - R. Yosi): We may plant a shoot of Orlah (only fruit is forbidden, not 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, the ground or the tree it was grafted onto, is permitted).
3. A Beraisa supports Rav Yehudah.
4. Suggestion: Perhaps R. Yosi only forbids Zeh v'Zeh Gorem 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.
6. (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.
7. Suggestion: Beraisa #1 is like R. Yosi (Zeh v'Zeh Gorem is permitted even regarding idolatry), 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 - R. Eliezer): Se'or (sourdough, a fermenting agent) of Chulin and of Terumah fell into a dough; there was not enough of either one to make the dough become Chametz, together they made it Chametz - the dough has the law of the last one that fell in (if it was Terumah, it may only be eaten by Kohanim in Taharah);

1. Chachamim say, no matter which fell in last, it is forbidden (to a non-Kohen) only if there was enough (Se'or of) Terumah to make it Chametz without the Chulin.
2. (Abaye): R. Eliezer only permits (when the Chulin fell in last) if the Terumah was removed before the Chulin fell in; if not, it is forbidden. (He forbids Zeh v'Zeh Gorem, Chachamim permit.)

(e) Rejection: Perhaps R. Eliezer also forbids Zeh v'Zeh Gorem (e.g. they fell in at the same time;), he only permits here because we attribute the entire action to the final cause, whether or not the first cause was removed (unlike Abaye)!
(f) Answer #2 (Mishnah): If wood from an Asheirah was used to heat an oven for the first time, it must be destroyed (because this solidifies the oven); if the wood was used to heat an old oven, it must cool down (one may not bake with that heat);

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, it is forbidden to benefit from any of them;
2. R. Eliezer says, he takes the amount he benefited (Rashi - the cost of wood equal to of the Asheirah 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: Who are the Chachamim that argue with R. Eliezer (about Zeh v'Zeh Gorem)?

1. Suggestion: They are the Chachamim of this Mishnah (of the wood).
2. Rejection: They are more stringent than him (since he forbids Zeh v'Zeh Gorem, all the more so they do)!

(h) Answer: They are the Chachamim of the Mishnah of Se'or.
(i) Objection: Granted, those Chachamim permit Zeh v'Zeh Gorem regarding Se'or, but perhaps they forbid regarding idolatry!
(j) Conclusion: Indeed (as we said above (a:7), 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; you forbid it, you should forbid vegetables even in winter.
2. Chachamim permit, as Rav Mari brei d'Rav Kahana taught (the gain on account of 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 sacrifices to) idolatry - what is the law?
(m) Answer (Rav Yosef): Rav Yehudah taught, the Halachah follows R. Yosi (the produce is permitted).

2) DERIVING BENEFIT FROM IDOLS

(a) (Mishnah): If wood from an Asheirah was used to heat an oven for the first time, 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 because mixed with other bread, it is forbidden to benefit from any of them;
2. R. Eliezer says, he takes the amount he benefited (Rashi - the cost of wood equal to of the Asheirah wood he used; Tosfos - the value of the loaf baked with that wood) and throws it in the sea, then he may benefit from all of them.
3. Chachamim: One cannot redeem idolatry!

(b) If wood from an Asheirah was used to make a Karkar (a weaving tool), it is forbidden to 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), it is forbidden to 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): We must teach both cases.

1. If we only taught the first clause, one might have thought that only there R. Eliezer permits (by throwing the benefit into the sea), because the prohibition (the wood) has been consumed before the bread is finished, but regarding the Karkar, the prohibition remains intact, one cannot throw away money to permit the garment;
2. If we only taught the second clause, one might have thought that only there Chachamim argue, because the prohibition remains intact, but regarding the bread, they agree to R. Eliezer.
3. Therefore, we must teach that they argue in both cases.

(d) (Ze'iri): The Halachah follows R. Eliezer.
(e) (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): This only applies 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.

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

(g) (Rav): If an idolatry broke (by itself), every piece must be nullified;
(h) (Shmuel): Idolatry is only nullified (if it broke) the way it grows (e.g. leaves fell off).
(i) Objection: Just the contrary, it is not nullified the way it grows!
(j) Correction: Rather, idolatry (that broke) only *needs to be* nullified (if it broke) the way it grows.
(k) Suggestion: Rav holds that idolaters worship fragments of idolatry, Shmuel holds that fragments are not worshipped.
(l) Rejection: No, all agree that fragments are worshipped;

1. They argue about fragments of fragments - Rav forbids them, Shmuel permits them.
2. Alternatively, all agree that fragments of fragments are permitted; they argue about an idolatry consisting of rings that can be easily assembled:

i. Rav says, it does not become nullified when it breaks, because anyone can easily assemble it;

3. Shmuel says, Idolatry only needs to be nullified the way it grows - this is the way it grows, so it need not be nullified.

4) MARKULIS

(a) (Mishnah): R. Yishmael says, 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, 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 according to the opinion that fragments are not worshipped, that applies to idolatry which does not normally become fragmented;

i. Here, the idolatry is not riveted, it normally comes apart.

(f) They argue when 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 when they are not close (but are within four Amos).