Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) CAN A PERSON FORBID OTHERS' PROPERTY?

(a) (Beraisa): If a person worshipped his own animal, it is forbidden; if he worshipped another's animal, it is permitted.
(b) Contradiction (Beraisa): Whether an animal was Ne'evad intentionally or unintentionally, willingly or b'Ones (under compulsion), it is forbidden.

1. Question: What is the case of Ones?

i. Suggestion: Someone stole his animal and worshipped it.

(c) Answer #1 (to both questions - Rami bar Chama): No, Nochrim forced him to bow to his own animal.

1. Question (R. Zeira): The Torah exempts Ones - "Vela'Na'arah Lo Sa'aseh Davar" (therefore, Ne'evad b'Ones is not considered Ne'evad)!
2. Answer (Rava): We would have thought that "V'Lo Sa'avdem" forbids serving willingly or b'Ones;

i. "Va'Chay Bahem" - but one may not (Rambam; Tosfos (27B) need not) forfeit one's life to avoid transgressing.
ii. Contradiction: "V'Lo Sechalelu Es Shem Kodshi" - one may not transgress, even b'Ones.
iii. Resolution: In private, "Va'Chay Bahem"; in public, "V'Lo Sechalelu..." (Tosfos - regarding idolatry, the Halachah never permits transgressing, even in private.)

3. Support (for Rava - Beraisa): A Bimus of Nochrim - if there was a decree (to publicly force Yisraelim to serve idolatry), it is forbidden, even after the decree ends. (Even though Yisraelim were Anusim, since they were forbidden to serve, the Bimus is forbidden.)
4. Rejection (Rava): Perhaps they are forbidden because a Yisrael Mumar may have willingly served (and idolatry of a Yisrael is never Batel).
5. (Rav Ashi): *Surely*, at such a time, a Yisrael Mumar served!

(d) Answer #2 (to both questions - Chizkiyah): The case is, a person poured wine to idolatry between the horns of Reuven's animal (since he did an action to the animal, he is able to forbid it).
(e) Objection (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): The animal was not Ne'evad, it is only Meshamshim of idolatry (Rashi - a living animal is not forbidden for being Meshamshim; R. Chananel - Meshamshim of a Yisrael can become Batel; Ra'avad - Meshamshim are forbidden only if made to be Meshamshim from the beginning; Ramban - the Beraisa said, the animal *itself* was Ne'evad)!
(f) Answer #3 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): The case is, a person poured wine between the horns of Reuven's animal to serve *it* - since he did an action to it, he forbids it;
(g) This is as Ula taught.
(h) (Ula citing R. Yochanan): Even though one who bows to another's animal does not forbid it, if he did an action to it (for idolatry), he forbids it.
(i) Rejection (Rav Nachman): R. Yochanan refers to slaughtering the animal *to a different idolatry*, as Rav Huna taught.

1. (Rav Huna): If Reuven's animal was lying in front of idolatry and someone else slaughtered the Kaneh or Vesht (or even a small part of one of them), it is forbidden.

(j) Question: What is the source of this?

1. Suggestion: We learn from Kohanim who were forced to serve idolatry, they were forbidden to serve in the Mikdash.
2. Rejection: Perhaps Kohanim become forbidden, because they have understanding (but animals are not forbidden)!

(k) Answer #1: We learn from the stones of the Mizbe'ach (the Yevanim did not own them (they are Hekdesh), yet by using them for idolatry, they forbade them, the stones had to be buried).
(l) Rejection: Rav Papa explained, "U'Va'u Vah Paritzim v'Chileluha" teaches that Yevanim were Mechalel them (and acquired them, therefore they could forbid them).

(m) Answer #2: We learn from vessels that Achaz used for idolatry.

1. "Ha'Kelim Asher Hizni'ach Melech Achaz...Hechanu (we put them in Genizah) v'Hikdashnu (we were Makdish new vessels in place of them)";
2. Even though Achaz did not own them (they were Hekdesh), because he did an action to them, he forbade them.
3. Likewise, one who does an action to another's animal forbids it.

(n) (Rav Dimi citing R. Yochanan): Even though one who bows to land (untouched by man) does not forbid it, if he digs pits in it for the sake of idolatry, he forbids it.
(o) (Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah citing R. Yochanan): Even though one who bows to a living animal does not forbid it, if he trades it for idolatry, he forbids it.

(a) (Ravin): R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi and Chachamim argue about Chalipin of (something traded for) Chalipin of idolatry - one forbids it, one permits it.

1. Opinion #1 (who forbids it) learns from "*Ve'Hayisa* Cherem Kamohu" - whatever you Mehaveh (make or get) from idolatry is like idolatry (i.e. forbidden).
2. Opinion #2 (who permits it) learns from "(Ki Cherem) Hu" - (what you trade it for is like it,) not Chalipin of Chalipin of it.
3. Opinion #1 uses "Hu" to exclude Orlah and Kilayim (Chalipin of either of them is permitted);

i. If one sold Orlah or Kilayim and was Mekadesh a woman with the money, she is Mekudeshes.

4. Opinion #2 does not need "Hu" to permit them, since idolatry and Shemitah produce are two sources to forbid Chalipin;

i. If two verses teach the same principle, we do not learn to other cases.

(b) Question: What is the source that Chalipin of Shemitah produce are forbidden?
(c) Answer: "Ki Yovel Hu Kodesh Tihyeh Lachem" - just as Kodesh transfers its prohibition to money used to redeem it, Shemitah produce transfers its restrictions to its Chalipin.
(d) Suggestion: Just as Hekdesh becomes Chulin after redemption, we should say that Shemitah produce becomes permitted after trading it!
(e) Rejection: "Tihyeh" - the Shemitah produce always keeps its stringencies.

1. If Reuven bought meat with Shemitah produce, when the time for Bi'ur (of the produce, to eradicate it (Rambam; Rashi - remove it from one's house; Ramban - make it Hefker)) comes, it applies to both the meat and the produce;
2. If he traded the meat for fish (and then wine, and then oil), Bi'ur only applies to the last thing bought and the original Shemitah produce.
3. Opinion #1 holds that when two verses teach the same principle, we *do* learn to other cases, therefore we need "Hu" to exclude Orlah and Kilayim.

(a) (Mishnah - Romans) Question: If Hash-m dislikes idolatry, why does He leave it in the world?
(b) Chachamim: Indeed, if people only worshipped needless things, He would abolish it;

1. But people serve the sun, moon, stars and constellations - Hash-m will not abolish these and ruin the world on account of fools who serve them!

(c) Romans: People also worship needless things - why does He leave them in the world?
(d) Chachamim: If He would abolish only the needless ones, people would think that the sun, moon, etc. remain because they are truly gods!
(e) (Gemara - Beraisa - Roman philosophers) Question: If Hash-m dislikes idolatry, why does He leave it in the world?
(f) Chachamim: Indeed, if people only worshipped needless things, He would abolish it;

1. But people serve the sun, moon, stars and constellations - Hash-m will not abolish these and ruin the world on account of fools who serve them!
2. Rather, He allows the world to exist according to its nature, the idolaters will be punished in the future.
3. Similarly, if a person stole wheat and planted it, it is fitting that it should not sprout (i.e. a sinner should not profit) - rather, the world goes according to its nature, the sinners will be punished in the future.
4. Similarly, if a man had relations with another man's wife, it is fitting that it she should not become pregnant - rather, the world goes according to its nature, the sinners will be punished in the future.
5. (Reish Lakish): Hash-m says 'Not only do sinners make a free-for-all of My mintage (they father children from others' wives), they also 'force' Me to stamp (to make babies, for the world goes according to its nature).'

(g) Question (Roman philosophers): "Ki Hash-m...Kel Kana" - why does Hash-m have Kinah against idolaters, and not against idolatry?
(h) Answer (R. Gamliel): A parable - the son of a mortal king had a dog, he called it by his father's name (Ploni); he would swear 'By the life of dog Ploni' - the father will be angry at his son, not at the dog!

1. The philosophers: Do you call idolatry a dog?! It has special powers - once, a fire burned everything in the city, except for the house of idolatry!
2. R. Gamliel: A parable - subjects of a mortal king rebelled against him - when he fights them, he only fights the living, not the dead.
3. The philosophers: You call idolatry a dog, you call it dead?! If so, why doesn't Hash-m eradicate it from the world?
4. R. Gamliel: Indeed, if people only worshipped needless things, He would abolish it;
5. But people serve the sun, moon, stars and constellations - Hash-m will not abolish these and ruin the world on account of fools who serve them!

i. "Asof Asef Kol me'Al Penei ha'Adamah...Adam u'Vhemah Asef Of ha'Shamayim u'Dgei ha'Yam" - Hash-m asks, because Resha'im stumble in (worship) these things, should I destroy them?! Will I destroy man, because they worship man?!