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.

Avodah Zarah 57: טְרוֹק גַּלֵּי, דְּלָא נֵיתוֹ אִינָשֵׁי דְּנִיטְרֹיד

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 57

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf is a detailed exploration of who may drink from wine touched by a Gentile and who may use that wine for libations. For each different category of person, the rabbis consider the possible outcomes.

The people mentioned include Gentiles, Gentile minors (those who do not understand idolatry), Gentile infants (those who have not been exposed to idolatry), Jewish slaves, Jewish maidservants, Gentile slaves, Gentile maidservants, the sons of Gentile slaves and the sons of Gentile maidservants.

§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain incident in Meḥoza in which a gentile came and entered the store of a Jew. The gentile said to the owners: Do you have any wine to sell? They said to him: No. There was wine sitting in a bucket. The gentile put his hand in itand stirred the wine around. The gentile said to them: This, is it not wine? The otherperson, i.e., the storeowner, took the bucket and, in his anger, threw its contents into a barrel of wine.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, happened to come to Meḥoza. Rava said to his attendant, Rav Elyakim: Close, close the gates, so that people who might disturb us should not come, and we may focus on clarifying the matter.

We explore the city of mechoza its people economy and how it differed halachically from the main centers of learning like Pumpedita.

Avodah Zarah 56: וְאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה יֵין נֶסֶךְ עַד שֶׁיֵּרֵד לְבוֹר

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 56

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Beginning with the Mishna on daf 55a, Massekhet Avoda Zara begins to focus on the laws of yayin nesekh – wine forbidden to Jews because it has been sacrificed as a libation to pagan idols. Due to this concern, the Sages forbid all wine with which non-Jews come in contact. The Mishna teaches that as long as the grapes are still in the process of being squeezed in the wine press – even if there are non-Jews who are touching the grapes and placing them in the press to be tread upon – they will not be considered to have become yayin nesekh. The juice is only considered to have become wine when it flows out of the press and into the collection vats.

We examine the notion of wine (and water) libations in antiquity.

Avodah Zarah 55: וְכִי מִפְּניֵ שֶׁשּׁוֹטֶה זהֶ עשָָׂה שֶׁלּאֹ כַּהוֹגןֶ אנָוּ נאְבַּדֵ אתֶ אמֱוּנתָיֵנוּ

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 55

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A man named Zunim asked Rabbi Akiva to explain why it is that we sometimes find that a person who goes to a house of idol worship becomes healed from illnesses and broken limbs.

Rabbi Akiva answered that an illness is a messenger sent by the heavens to afflict a person, and the illness is charged with a detailed mission. The illness is administered an oath as to precisely when it can begin to afflict its victim.

It is also charged with instructions regarding the day and hour it must depart from him, as a result of which doctor, and through which medicine.

Rabbi Akiva explained that the person who is sick will have the illness leave his body under the prescribed conditions, wherever he might be at that time. The truth is that the illness protests and prefers not to leave a body if the sick person happens to be in a house of idolatry at that moment, so that no credit be given to the idol.

We explore the parable of Rabbi Akiva and how it relates to his theology.

Avodah Zarah 54: מִפְּנֵי מָה מִתְקַנֵּא בְּעוֹבְדֶיהָ וְאֵין מִתְקַנֵּא בָּהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 54

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Gemara relates:

Philosophers asked the Jewish Sages in Rome, “If your God has no desire for idolatry, why does He not abolish it?”

They replied, “If it was something of which the world has no need that was worshipped, He would abolish it; but people worship the sun, moon, stars and planets; should He destroy the universe on account of fools? The world pursues its natural course, and as for the fools who act wrongly, they will have to render an account.

The “philosophers” who engaged the Sages in conversation – both in Rome and in Greece – did not truly believe in pagan gods as divine. Nevertheless, since they lived in cultures that were steeped in avoda zara, they did consider the possibility that there was some measure of truth in it.

The conversation/debates that we find recorded were part of an attempt to ascertain the truth of the matter by means of engagement with the Jewish Sages.

The remarkable parables allows us to explore hidden theologies embedded in the fictional narratives as a literary tool.

Avodah Zarah 53: רָקַק בְּפָנֶיהָ, וְהִשְׁתִּין בְּפָנֶיהָ

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 53

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Talmudic passage in Avodah Zarah 53b presents a fascinating case study in rabbinic hermeneutics, where the sages invoke the war of Joshua (milḥemet Yehoshua) as a legal paradigm for determining the status of abandoned idolatrous objects. This seemingly straightforward halakhic discussion reveals profound tensions between historical narrative and legal precedent, between memory and law, and between theological meaning and practical jurisprudence.

Avodah Zarah 52: כֵּלִים שֶׁשִּׁימְּשׁוּ בָּהֶן בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 52

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Aside from the first and second Temples in Jerusalem, the only other Jewish Temples where sacrifices were brought were built by Jewish priests in Egypt. Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi whether the utensils used in Beit Ḥonyo – the Temple of Onias – could be used in the Jewish Temple, as well.

The Gemara in Menaḥot (109b) quotes a baraita that brings two opinions about the Temple of Onias. According to Rabbi Meir, that temple was a place of pagan idol worship; Rabbi Yehuda rules that only Jewish sacrifices to God were brought there. Rashi explains that according to Rabbi Meir’s opinion it is obvious that the utensils used there cannot be used in the Temple in Jerusalem, since they are avoda zara, which is forbidden for ordinary use, and certainly for use in the Temple.

Thus, the question is posed only according to Rabbi Yehuda. Although the priests who performed the sacrificial service in the Temple of Onias were disqualified from serving in the Temple in Jerusalem, perhaps that is only because they should have been aware of their indiscretion and are penalized for it; the utensils, however, have no free will, and therefore may remain permitted.

Avodah Zarah 51: בְּטוֹבָה — בְּטוֹבַת כּוֹמָרִין

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 51

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Mishna on our daf, if there is a garden or bathhouse attached to the ground of avoda zara, one is permitted to benefit from them she-lo be-tova – if he does not have to pay for that benefit – be-tova, however, that is, if he has to pay for it, then it would be forbidden. In the Gemara, Abaye explains that that be-tova and she-lo be-tova refer to tovat komarim – whether the money will go to pay the idolatrous priests. If the money simply will go to people who are worshippers, then it is of no concern to us.

We continue the exploration of the accouterments of idolatry.

Avodah Zarah 50: דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא תַּבּוֹרֵי מִיתַּבְּרִי

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 50

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Following the destruction of the second Temple, the house belonging to King Yannai was abandoned and fell into disrepair. Ultimately, pagans entered the house and placed an idol dedicated to Mercury in it.

Later on, other non-Jews who did not believe in Mercury as a deity removed the stones from the building and used them to pave the paths and streets of the city.

This led to a disagreement among the Sages. Some of them refused to walk on the newly paved streets, lest they benefit from the stones that had been consecrated to the worship of Mercury. Others had no such compunctions and walked on them without concern. Rabbi Yoḥanan ruled: The “son of holy ones” – referring to Rabbi Menaḥem the son of Rabbi Simai – walks on these streets, how can we do otherwise?

We explore the mythic history of Mercury as a pagan deity and the rabbinic skill in negotiating the Torah law vs expedience down to Jung’s archetypal treatment of mercury in the ensouling process.

Avodah Zarah 49: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֵינָהּ בְּטֵלָה אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ גְּדִילָתָהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 49

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Rabanan and Rebbi Yosi argue in the Mishnah about whether one is permitted to plant vegetables beneath an Asheirah tree in the winter. The Rabanan permit it, because the shade of the Asheirah tree does not benefit the vegetables planted beneath it during the winter. Rebbi Yosi prohibits it, because the foliage of the Asheirah fall on the vegetables, serving as fertilizer and helping them to grow. Since the vegetables grow due to the effects of something permitted (the nutrients in the soil) and the effects of something prohibited (the leaves of the Asheirah tree), it is a situation of "Zeh v'Zeh Gorem." Rebbi Yosi maintains that the Halachah in a case of "Zeh v'Zeh Gorem" is that the object is forbidden. This is the way the Gemara originally understands the opinion of Rebbi Yosi.

We explore the tree in ancient traditions and the evolution of the sacred grove.

Avodah Zarah 48: כֹּל שֶׁכּוֹמָרִים יוֹשְׁבִין תַּחְתֶּיהָ

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 48

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnayot on today’s daf focus on the ashera and attempt to define what such a tree is. According to the Mishna, there are three types of ashera –

A tree planted specifically for avoda zara

A tree that was sculpted or pruned in the name of avoda zara

A tree where an idol was placed underneath it.

In the first case, there is nothing that can be done. Such a tree is an ashera and must be destroyed. In the second case, although the tree that is formed is forbidden, if the tree continues growing, what grows anew is not considered to be avoda zara and is permitted. In the final case, according to the tanna of the Mishna, if the idol was removed, the tree is permitted.

We explore the notion of sacred contamination, how the shade under the tree might be sufficient to convey tumor as well as how COVID epidemic evoked the apocalypse.

Avodah Zarah 47: הוֹאִיל וְלַצּוּרָה הֵן עוֹבְדִין, נַתִּיר לָהֶן אֶת הָאִילָן

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 47

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The question is regarding a tree that was planted (for regular purposes) and only later worshipped. The question is not according to Rabbi Yosi bar Yehudah, as he would hold it is certainly forbidden, even to a regular person.

The question is according to the Rabbis. Do we say that this lulav can no longer be used for a mitzvah as it is repulsive for the Highest, for it has been used as an idol, or not? When Rav Dimi came (to Bavel), he said: The question was asked regarding an asheirah tree (which was even forbidden for mundane purposes) that was nullified. Do we say that there is permanent rejection regarding mitzvos aside or not?

We continue our exploration of the Ashera prohibition and derivative laws thereof.