Previous daf

1)

(a) We learned in a Mishnah in Orlah that if a yeast of Chulin and a yeast of Terumah fall into a Chulin dough, causing it to rise (though neither of them would have been able to do so on its own), Rebbi Eliezer goes after the one that fell in last. The Rabbanan - permit the dough to Zarim (irrespective of when the yeast of Terumah fell in), since it was unable to cause the dough to rise on its own.

(b) Abaye qualifies Rebbi Eliezer's ruling - confining it to where the Terumah yeast had been removed before the Chulin yeast fell in. Otherwise, Rebbi Eliezer would agree that the Chulin dough would be Asur to Zarim even if the Chulin yeast was the last one to fall in.

(c) The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan is whether 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem Asur' (Rebbi Eliezer) or 'Mutar' (the Rabbanan), establishing the Machlokes between the two Beraisos that we quoted above (by the field which was manured with dung of an Avodah-Zarah animal or a cow that was fed oats of Avodah-Zarah).

(d) However, we query Abaye's explanation, concluding that Rebbi Eliezer really holds that ...

1. ... in the case of the two yeasts - we go after the last yeast to fall in, even if the first yeast had not been removed.
2. ... assuming that the two yeasts fell into the dough at the same time - the dough would be permitted (because 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem, Mutar' [like the Rabbanan]).

(a) So we turn to the Mishnah on the next Amud 'Natal Heimenah Eitzim Asurah be'Hana'ah'. The Tana continues that, in a case where one used wood from an Asheirah to heat up ...

1. ... a new oven - the oven must be broken, since it was completed with Isurei Hana'ah.
2. ... an old oven - it must be allowed to cool down (for the Isur to dissipate) before being permitted to use it.

(b) If he baked bread with it, the Tana continues, the bread is Asur be'Hana'ah - whether he baked it in the above new oven after it had cooled down, using fresh wood, or whether he baked it even as he heated the old oven.

(c) If the loaf later became mixed up with other loaves of Chulin, all the loaves are forbidden. Rebbi Eliezer permits - taking the value of the Isur, and throwing it into the Yam ha'Melach.

(d) The Rabbanan maintain - that one cannot redeem Isurei Hana'ah.

(a) The problem with equating the Tana who is lenient in the case of the field that was manured with dung from an Avodah-Zarah animal or a cow that was fed with oats of Avodah-Zarah, with the Rabbanan of Rebbi Eliezer in the case ...

1. ... that we just cited ('Natlah Heimenah Eitzim') is - that those Rabbanan are more *stringent* than Rebbi Eliezer (and we are looking for a Tana who is more *lenient*).
2. ... of the two yeasts is - that they are only lenient with regard to the Din of Terumah, whereas we are looking for a Tana who is even more lenient by Avodah-Zarah.

(b) So we revert to our original suggestion ('Ha Rebbi Yossi, Ha Rabbanan'). In fact, we conclude, Rebbi Yossi holds 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem Mutar' ...

1. ... by Avodah-Zarah as well as by other issues.
2. ... both in the case of the dust of ground Avodah-Zarah, which does not settle, and leaves, which do.

(c) And when he says in our Mishnah 'Af Lo Yerakos Mipnei ha'Geshamim Mipnei she'Neviyah Nosheres Aleihen ... ' - he is not stating his own opinion, but is asking the Rabbanan whether, seeing as they hold 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem Asur', they will not agree that vegetables ought to be Asur even in the winter (as we explained earlier). Rebbi Yossi in fact, permits them.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules like Rebbi Yossi.

(b) When Rav Amram sent Rav Yosef a She'eilah concerning a field that had been manured with dung of Avodah-Zarah - the latter cited the ruling of Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, in which case whatever grew subsequently would be permitted.

5)

(a) We discussed the first half of the Mishnah on the previous Amud. The Mishnah forbids a Karkur (a piece of pointed wood that one took from the Asheirah-tree for weaving purposes). The Tana rules that ...

1. ... a garment that one subsequently wove with it - is forbidden, too.
2. ... in the event that the Karkur got mixed up with others, and those others with others - they are all forbidden.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer - permits it by throwing its value into the Yam Hamelach, whereas the Rabbanan forbid it (as we explained above). (c) In spite of having taught us in the ...

1. ... Reisha, the prohibition of the piece of wood from the Asheirah, the Tana finds it necessary to repeat the Halachah in the case of the Karkur, to teach us that, even though (unlike the piece of wood, which is burned), it remains intact, Rebbi Eliezer is lenient.
2. ... Seifa, the prohibition of the Karkur, the Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to repeat the Halachah in the case of the piece of wood from the Asheirah, to teach us that, even though (unlike the Karkur, which remains intact) it is burned, the Rabbanan are stringent.

(a) Ze'iri quoted by Rav Chisda (or by Rav Chisda's father) - rules like Rebbi Eliezer.

(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah confines Rebbi Eliezer's Heter to a loaf of bread. It does not extend, he says, to a barrel which was made from the piece of wood - since there, the piece of Isur is still visible, whereas by the barrel it does not.

(c) If the Heter did extend to the barrel, the owner would then be obligated to sell the barrels one by one, or to give their contents to Nochri donkey-drivers.

(d) Now that Rebbi Eliezer's Heter does not apply to them however, he may sell them - provided he deducts the value of the Yayin Nesech from the price.

(a) Rav Chisda disagrees with Rav Ada bar Ahavah. According to him - the Heter of throwing the value into the Yam Hamelach even helps with regard to the barrels too.

(b) And that is why, when a man asked him about a barrel of Yayin Nesech wine that got mixed up with his own barrels of wine - he instructed him to throw four Zuz into the Yam Hamelach, following which ...

(c) ... he would be permitted to sell them one at a time, wash clothes in them or to feed it to Nochrim, but not to drink it.

(a) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa forbids be'Hana'ah a wine-pit into which some Yayin Nesech fell. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel holds - that he may sell the entire stock, provided he deducts the cost of the Yayin Nesech.

(b) Both opinions in that Beraisa however, hold like the Rabbanan here, whereas Rav Chisda's current ruling follows the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer (see Maharsha and Rashash).

(a) Our Mishnah describes how a Nochri must nullify an Asheirah ('Bitul'). 'Kirsem' means that he cuts off dry twigs for firewood - whereas 'Zirem' means that he cuts off wet twigs for his own personal use.

(b) The Tana classifies cutting off a stick or a staff, or even a leaf - as Bitul.

(c) Filing down the Asheirah is considered Bitul - if it is done to enhance the looks of the Asheirah, but not if it is done because the Nochri wants the shavings.

(d) Rav Huna and Chiya bar Rav argue about the shavings of the Asheirah that were cut off for the benefit of the Asheirah - one of them forbids them, the other one permits them.

(e) The Beraisa which supports those who permit the shavings - forbids the shavings (as well as the Asheirah) if it was a Yisrael who filed them, irrespective of whether he did it for the sake of the Asheirah or for his own personal use.

(a) According to Rav, one needs to nullify each and every splinter of an Avodah-Zarah that broke by itself - because each one is considered an individual Avodah-Zarah.

(b) We object to Shmuel's initial text 'Avodas-Kochavim Einah Beteilah Ela Derech Gedilasah' - on the grounds that an Avodah-Zarah 'Derech Gedilasah' is not subject to Bitul.

(c) We therefore amend Shmuel's statement to - 'Ein Avodas-Kochavim Tzerichah Le'vateil Ela Derech Gedilasah'.

(d) Initially, we explain the basis of their Machlokes as - whether 'Ovdin li'Shevarim' (people tend to worship broken pieces [Rav]) or not (Shmuel).

(a) We conclude that, in fact, both Rav and Shmuel hold 'Ovdin li'Shevarim', and when Shmuel learned at the beginning of the Perek, that someone who finds a broken idol is permitted to keep the pieces and make use of them - he was speaking in a case where it was not known how it broke (and we assume that a Nochri broke it [because it is unusual for an idol to break by itself - e.g. by an animal knocking it over]).

(b) In fact, we maintain the basis of their Machlokes is - over 'Shivrei Shevarim'; whether people even worship pieces that were broken into smaller pieces still (Rav) or not (Shmuel).

(c) Alternatively, both opinions permit Shivrei Shevarim, and they are arguing about an Avodah-Zarah that is made of many pieces ...

1. ... that came apart but which a Hedyot (anybody) can reconstruct.
2. ... and the basis of their Machlokes is whether since a Hedyot can reconstruct it, it is considered whole, and requires Bitul (Rav), or whether only an image that is whole requires Bitul, but not tiny pieces (Shmuel).

12)

(a) In defining Markulis, Rebbi Yishmael in our Mishnah - forbids three stones that are one next to the other, that are situated beside the big Markulis (which is full of stones, but permits two.

(b) And if he forbids three stones next to each other - 'Kal va'Chomer' where there are two stones next to each other and one on top.

(c) The three stones - are considered to be a small Markulis which will take over from the big (full) one.

(a) The Chachamim have a different criterion. According to them, the stones are Asur irrespective of whether there are two or three - provided they look as if they are part of Markulis.

(b) They are Asur - because they hold a. 'Ovdin li'Shevarim' and b. stones that are seen together with Markulis obviously fell from it (whereas those that are not, did not.

(c) The problem with Rebbi Yishmael is - that assuming he holds ...

1. ... 'Ovdin li'Shevarim' - then even two stones ought to be Asur, whereas if he holds ...
2. ... 'Ein Ovdin li'Shevarim' - then even three stones ought to be permitted.

(d) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan therefore concludes that both Tana'im might well hold 'Ein Ovdin li'Shevarim', and he ...

1. ... interprets 'be'Tzad Markulis' referred to by Rebbi Yishmael to mean that that the stones were not standing right next to the big Markulis (like we originally thought), but within four Amos of it.
2. ... explains the Machlokes as follows. Rebbi Yishmael, he says, holds - that it is customary to make a small Markulis beside a big one, whereas the Chachamim hold that it is not. Consequently, unless it is obvious that the stones fell from the big Markulis, they are permitted.