Horayot 2: אוֹ תַּלְמִיד וְהוּא רָאוּי לְהוֹרָאָה

For the source text click/tap here: Horayot 2

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Massekhet Horayot deals with mistakes made by Jewish courts and by Jewish leaders, and the atonement sacrifices that are brought as a consequence of those errors.

Although the focus of the tractate deals with the sacrificial service, and it would appear that the proper place for it would have been in Seder Kodashim, it appears in Seder Nezikin because it, too, serves as a continuation and completion of Massekhet Sanhedrin. After learning the rules and regulations that apply to the Jewish court system, and specifically to the Great Sanhedrin that legislates and rules on capital crimes, it is important to also address the issue of how to deal with mistakes. It is impossible to avoid all circumstances of errors and mistakes, so we must be prepared for such situations, including arranging for atonement for them.

Avodah Zarah 76: אִידְּכַר מַאי עֲבַדְתְּ בְּאוּרְתָּא

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 76

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Shevor Malka – Shapur – was the name of a number of Persian kings. Our final Daf in Avodah Zara appears to be referring to the first king Shapur, who continued his father’s success in wars against the Roman Empire, capturing the city of Netzivim and arriving at the border of Syria.

In the course of a number of attacks, he not only defeated the Roman emperor Valerian, but he captured him and held him until his death.

With regard to internal matters, he was an open-minded leader and allowed a good deal of freedom of religion. As is apparent from our Gemara, he was knowledgeable regarding Jewish customs.

We explore the figure of Shapur in rabbinic literature who represents far more than historical documentation; he functions as a multifaceted character through whom the rabbis explored, articulated, and transmitted their sophisticated understanding of minority survival strategies. Through carefully crafted narratives involving this Persian monarch, the Talmudic sages encoded lessons about diplomatic finesse, the preservation of religious integrity under foreign rule, and the transformation of apparent powerlessness into moral authority.

Avodah Zarah 75: מְלַבְּנָן וּמַטְבִּילָן וְהֵן טְהוֹרִין

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 75

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Utensils that are made by non-Jews and purchased by Jews must be dipped in a kosher mikveh prior to their use.

The source for this halakha is the passage in Sefer Bamidbar (31:23) that describes how after the war with the Midianites, all metal vessels that were taken as booty in the war needed to be washed be-mei nidda – in a kosher mikveh containing 40 se’a of water. This is not a requirement connected to the laws of kashrut; the Torah requires this even if the utensil had been made kosher by means of heat in fire beforehand.

We explore the halachic ramifications of toveling keilim.

Avodah Zarah 74: סְתָם יַיִן אֲפִילּוּ יַיִן בְּיַיִן — מוּתָּר

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 74

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnah's treatment of bitul (nullification) in our daf Avodah Zarah 74a presents a fascinating paradox within halakhic reasoning. While Jewish law generally operates on quantitative principles—most notably the rule that forbidden substances become nullified when diluted in sixty times their volume (batel b'shishim)—the Mishnah systematically enumerates a series of exceptions where any amount of contamination renders the entire mixture forbidden.

We explore the possible commonality of the diverse forbidden objects of our mishnah’s exception to the rule of batel beshishim.

Avodah Zarah 73: הִגְדִּילוּ בְּאִיסּוּר — אָסוּר, הִגְדִּילוּ בְּהֶיתֵּר — מוּתָּר

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 73

To download, click/tap here: PDF

When we have mixtures of foods that are forbidden with foods that are permitted, can the forbidden food ever be perceived as so insignificant that it is nullified so that the mixture can be eaten?

The Mishna on our daf teaches that yayin nesekh – wine that has been poured off as a libation to pagan gods – that is mixed with other wine – can never be nullified. Similarly, water that has been sacrificed in that way that has been mixed with other water can never be nullified. Water mixed with wine or wine mixed with water, however, will become nullified if the volume of the permitted liquid overwhelms the forbidden liquid to the extent that it can no longer be tasted.

The general principle is that min be-mino – in a mixture where the two things are similar – one cannot nullify the other; min shelo be-mino – when the mixture is two dissimilar things – one can nullify the other.

In the intersection of ancient religious law and modern scientific understanding often reveals surprising parallels and illuminating contrasts. Few areas demonstrate this more clearly than the Talmudic laws of mixtures (ta'arovet) and contemporary fluid mechanics and chemistry. Both traditions grapple with fundamental questions about identity, boundaries, and the persistence of essential properties when substances combine.

Avodah Zarah 72: הַנִּצּוֹק וְהַקָּטַפְרֵס וּמַשְׁקֶה

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 72

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf is concerned whether when wine is poured into a barrel containing forbidden wine, perhaps the connection between the liquids will cause the permitted wine to become prohibited, as well. This theme leads to a number of warnings made to Jews who dealt with wine, as described by the Gemara.

Steinsaltz remarks "We find many pictures from the ancient world that show groups of people drinking from a single vessel by means of tubes and siphons. Some suggest that the words used in the Gemara to describe this – gishta and bat gishta – are related to the Persian word “to suckle” although the philological evidence is not clear.”

we explore the concepts of nitsok (stream), katafres (descending water), and mashkeh tofe’ach (moistening liquid)—and compares these ancient understandings with modern scientific knowledge of fluid dynamics, microbiology, and contamination theory.

Avodah Zarah 71: הָנֵי פָּרְסָאֵי מְשַׁדְּרִי פַּרְדָּשְׁנֵי לַהֲדָדֵ

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 71

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf discusses how one can sell wine to a non-Jew, since the wine will become stam yeinam as soon as it is poured into his container. The Mishna teaches that if the non-Jewish buyer and the Jewish seller came to an agreement regarding the price of the wine before it was measured out into the non-Jew’s container, then the money is permitted. If, however, the wine was first measured out and only afterwards the price was discussed, then the Jew cannot make use of the money since the wine had already become stam yeinam before the sale took place.

We explore the use of wine in other ancient traditions and it transforming properties in their myths.

Avodah Zarah 70: לְנַסֵּךְ אֵין פְּנַאי, לִבְעוֹל יֵשׁ פְּנַאי

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 70

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Mishna on our daf, when a boleshet – an army unit – entered the city, during peacetime we are concerned about open barrels of wine but not about closed barrels of wine. During wartime we rule that all barrels of wine are permitted – whether open or closed – since we assume that the soldiers will not have time for libations to their gods, since they are occupied with their fighting.

When Rav Mari declared on our daf that soldiers "do not have time to pour libations, as their passion for idolatry is not pressing at that time, but they have time to engage in intercourse, because their lust is great even during wartime," he articulated a psychological insight that would not be fully understood by Western science for nearly two millennia.

This remarkable statement, found in Avodah Zarah 70b, represents one of the earliest systematic attempts to understand the differential psychology of human drives under military stress—a topic that has only recently become the subject of rigorous scientific investigation.

We explore The Limits of Virtue: Moral Psychology and Military Conduct.

Avodah Zarah 69: בְּבָא לָהֶם דֶּרֶךְ עֲקַלָּתוֹן

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 69

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf describes several cases where barrels of wine are left in a place where a non-Jew has access to them and the Jew who is in charge of the wine leaves.

We explore the complex halakhic framework governing when and under what circumstances Jewish law permits trust in gentiles, particularly in matters of wine supervision and commercial relationships.

We discover a sophisticated criteria for evaluating gentile trustworthiness based on factors including supervision, time constraints, legal status, and situational context. Rather than blanket prohibition or permission, the halakhic system creates nuanced categories that reflect both practical concerns about idolatrous wine and broader principles of inter-group relations.

We end with the scholarship of Jacob Katz and his groundbreaking work on the fraught Jewish Gentile relationships during the medieval and modern period.

Avodah Zarah 68: הֲלֹא עוֹלֶה עַל שֻׁלְחָן שֶׁל מְלָכִים

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 68

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rav Sheishes answered: Usually, Rav holds that if a forbidden item imparts a detrimental taste to the mixture, it is permitted. However, a mouse is a novel law, as people think it is repulsive, yet even so, the Torah specifically forbids it. It therefore forbids other things as well even though it imparts a detrimental taste to the mixture. The Rabbis asked Rav Sheishes: If this is so, whether it is moist or dried out it should transmit tumah!? However, the Mishna says that it only transmits tumah if it is moist (i.e. alive in normal conditions) and not if it is dried out!?

The Gemora replies: According to this, semen should also transmit tumah both when it is moist and dry. However, the Mishna says it only transmits tumah when it is moist. It therefore must be that the Torah only said it transmits tumah when it is in a form where it can fertilize, as opposed to when it is dry.

We explore the transition from Bible to Talmud in attitudes to semen and seminal emission.

Avodah Zarah 67: גִּיעוּלֵי גוֹיִם לָאו נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם הוּא

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 67

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemora had stated regarding the emissions of utensils used by idolaters that have been used within twenty-four hours, it is impossible that the absorption is not deemed slightly bad, and although with respect to all prohibitions, such a taste would be permitted, nevertheless, the Torah states that one is prohibited from using such a pot unless it is first scalded. The Ramban asks: If in regard to those utensils used by idolaters, the flavor is regarded like the substance, how is it possible to say that with respect to other prohibitions, the flavor is not forbidden like the substance?

Are the emissions from the idolaters’ utensils a distinct class of prohibition, different from any other prohibitions? The Midianite utensils were forbidden out of the concern that there were nonkosher foods cooked inside of it!

We explore the particular offense of Midian in bible and its transformation in talmud.

Avodah Zarah 66: רֵיחֵיהּ חַלָּא וְטַעְמָא חַמְרָא

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 66

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara discusses a case in which a Nochri made holes in the top of his wine barrel in order to determine the amount of time it would keep fresh. Is a Jew allowed to smell this wine for the Nochri, or is that considered having benefit from Yayin Nesech?

TOSFOS (DH Yisrael) points out that the Gemara must be referring to a case in which the Jew smells the wine for free, and the Nochri does not consider this as a favor from the Jew for which he owes his gratitude, because otherwise this act would be forbidden (the Jew would be receiving tangible benefit for working with Yayin Nesech).

Abaye answers that smell is included in the prohibition against deriving benefit from Yayin Nesech. Rava argues that smelling the wine is permitted, because smell is not considered a benefit, and thus the Jew who smells the wine does not benefit from Yayin Nesech.

We explore the Halacha of smell.

Avodah Zarah 65: וּמִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 65

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Msihnah: If yen nesekh falls on other types of foods, such as dates or figs, the food becomes prohibited only if the wine improves the flavor of the food. The mishnah mentions a story of a person who carried figs and yen nesekh on a ship. When one of the casks of wine broke on the figs, he asked the Sages if the figs were still permissible, and they permitted them. Since the wine does not improve the flavor of the figs, the person has not derived benefit from the wine and therefore the figs are permitted.

We explore the halachic ramifications of nosein taam as well as the science and history of food coloring.

Avodah Zarah 64: אֵיזֶהוּ גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 64

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Daf’s Amoraim (Rav Nachman, Ulla, and Avimi bar Pappi) sat and inquired further: Can a ger toshav (a resident alien; a non-Jew who formally accepts upon himself the observance of certain mitzvos) nullify an idol (like an ordinary idolater)?

Do we say that only one who worships idols can nullify idols, and since the ger toshav does not worship idols, he cannot nullify idols; or perhaps, whoever is the “same kind” as an idolater can nullify idols, and since the ger toshav is an idolater, he too can nullify idols? Rav Nachman said to them: It is logical that one who worships idols can nullify idols, and since the ger toshav does not worship idols, he cannot nullify idol.

We explore the history and evolution of Jewish attitudes to the ger Toshav…

Avodah Zarah 63: נָתַן לָהּ וְלֹא בָּא עָלֶיהָ

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 63

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Torah teaches that tainted money cannot be used in the Temple. Thus, neither an animal given as payment to a prostitute for her services (etnan zona), nor money paid for purchase of a dog (mekhir kelev) can be used to bring a sacrifice in the Temple (see Sefer Devarim 23:19).

The Gemara brings a baraita that teaches that if payment was made to the prostitute, but he did not make use of her services, or if they engaged in relations but he did not pay her – in both of these cases the money could be used in the Temple. Since this teaching is difficult to understand, the Gemara restates the law – if there was a time lapse between when the money was given and when the act of prostitution took place, e.g., if payment was made beforehand, then the money can be used, assuming that she immediately consecrated it (for otherwise when the act of prostitution takes place, the payment would be forbidden retroactively).

We examine the Torah view of prostitution and how it evolved overt time as well as the archetypal theory of the whore in Jungian theory.

Avodah Zarah 62: : וְאֶחָד סוּדָר שֶׁנֶּחְנַק בּוֹ — כּוּלָּם נִקְבָּרִים עִמּוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 62

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Gemora explains that if a person was commanded to be killed by a beis din, the sword by which he was killed or the gallows on which he was hung must be buried, just like other objects from which one must not derive benefit.

Rabbi Yaakov Emden's responsum presents a fascinating application of ancient principles to an 18th-century practical situation. When an experienced shochet (ritual slaughterer) sought to acquire "a sharp and polished knife made from the finest metal" and purchased an executioner's sword, he created a halakhic crisis that illuminated fundamental questions about spiritual contamination.

Rabbi Emden's ruling—that no benefit could be derived from an instrument that had killed a person—extends Talmudic principles while revealing the complex relationship between different forms of sanctified violence.

Pischei Teshuvah asserts that Ya’vetz therefore concluded that one mustn’t derive benefit from any object used to kill a person.

Avodah Zarah 61: דְּבֵי פַּרְזַק רוּפִילָא אוֹתִיבוּ חַמְרָא

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 61

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara relates that men from the house of Parzak the vizier placed wine that had been rendered permitted by Jews who had not yet paid for it in the domain of their gentile sharecroppers. The Rabbis who were studying before Rava thought to say: When are we concerned that two gentiles might be in collusion? This matter applies only in a case where this gentile places items in the domain of that gentile, and vice versa. But here, since the vizier’s sharecroppers are not accustomed to place items in the house of Parzak the vizier, we are not concerned that two gentiles might be in collusion.

The relationship between Jewish communities and governing authorities has been one of the most complex and enduring themes in Jewish history, law, and social organization. The Talmudic passage cited from Bava Batra reveals the intricate legal and practical considerations that arose when Jews had to navigate relationships with gentile authorities—in this case, the "Beit Parzak Rufila" (the house of Parzak the vizier). This ancient discussion of wine storage, sharecroppers, and concerns about collusion between gentiles represents a microcosm of the broader Jewish experience: how to maintain religious integrity and communal autonomy while operating within systems of non-Jewish political and economic power.

Avodah Zarah 60: וּזְרָקָהּ בַּחֲמָתוֹ לַבּוֹר

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 60

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

The Gemara on our daf discusses a matzera zayera – a wine press where the grapes are squeezed by a board or by a beam that is pressed on them by a non-Jew. Rav Pappi permits such wine, while Rav Ashi – some say Rav Shimi bar Ashi – forbids it. The Gemara explains that all agree that if the press was operated directly by the non-Jew, then the wine would be prohibited. The disagreement comes up only in a case of ko’aḥ koḥo – where the contact of the non-Jew comes from secondary or indirect action.

The mishna teaches: With regard to the case where a gentile took a barrel of wine and threw it, in his anger, into the wine collection vat, this was an incident that occurred, andthe Sages deemed the wine fit for drinking. Rav Ashi says: With regard to any form of contact through which a zav renders an object ritually impure, in a case where a gentilehas that same type of contact with wine, he renders it wine used for a libation. In the case of any form of contact through which a zav does not transmit ritual impurity, leaving an object ritually pure, a gentile does not render the wine with which he has contact wine used for a libation.

We explore anger and rage in the talmud and differences between Jew and Gentile.

Avodah Zarah 59: אֶתְרוֹגָא דִּנְפַל לְחָבִיתָא דְּחַמְרָא

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 59

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We have learned that a non-Jew who touches wine – and certainly one who libates it in honor of a pagan deity – will make it forbidden for the Jew to benefit from it. What if the non-Jew does this on purpose? Rav Ashi rules that in such a case although it cannot be sold to another non-Jew, nevertheless, he can demand that the non-Jew who poured the wine must pay him for it, as though he had burned it. That is to say, he is not paying to purchase the wine, rather he must pay for the damage that he did.

We explore further the possuk Det 7:25 "You shall consign the images of their gods to the fire; you shall not covet the silver and gold on them and keep it for yourselves, lest you be ensnared thereby; for that is abhorrent to your God” comparing the Netziv with rav Kook on idolatry.

Avodah Zarah 58: לְשׁוֹן תּוֹרָה לְעַצְמָהּ, לְשׁוֹן חֲכָמִים לְעַצְמוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 58

To download, click/tap here: PDF

§ Rabbi Asi asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to wine that a gentile mixed [mesakho]with water, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Asi: And why not say: Wine that a gentile diluted [mezago] with water, as that is the term that is usually used?

Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: I say wine that was mixed, as it is written:

“She has prepared her meat, she has mixed [maskha] her wine” (Proverbs 9:2).

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Asi: While it is true that this is the language of the Bible, the language of the Torah is a language in itself, and the language of the Sages is a language in itself, i.e., the terminology of the Bible is not the same as the terminology employed by the Sages.

We explore the way talmud and midrash makes use of the book of Proverbs.