Avodah Zarah 44: תְּשׁוּבָה גְּנוּבָה הֱשִׁיבוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 44

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Proclus the son of Plospus met Rabban Gamliel while bathing in the Greek goddess Aphrodite’s bathhouse in Akko and asked him how he could bathe there, given the clear prohibition in the Torah against benefiting from pagan idols. According to the Mishna, he went so far as to quote the passage in Sefer Devarim (13:18) that is the source for the prohibition.

Rabban Gamliel said to him “I cannot respond to you and discuss Torah ideas in the bathhouse.”

Upon exiting, Rabban Gamliel did respond to the question posed by Proclus.

Aphrodite was the Greek goddess of beauty, and she was represented by a beautiful, young female form, which is why statues of her were often used for decoration, rather than as an idol to be worshipped.

We explore The Bathhouse of Aphrodite: as a Case Study in Rabbinic Subterfuge.

Avodah Zarah 43: כְּמִין זַכְרוּת עָשְׂתָה לָהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 43

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Daf preserves a fascinating rabbinic debate that illuminates both the enduring significance of Maacah bat Absalom's story and the complex halakhic questions it raises. In this passage, Rabbi Yosei cites the destruction of Maacah's Asherah image as a precedent in a discussion about the disposal of idolatrous objects:

Rabbi Yosei said to them: But isn't it already stated concerning Asa: "And he also removed Maacah his mother from being queen, because she had made an abominable image [miflatztah] for an ashera; and Asa cut down her image, and burned it at the Kidron River" (see I Kings 15:13)?

It seems that Asa was unconcerned that the ground-up idol may provide fertilization. They said to him: You seek to bring proof from there? The Kidron River does not grow vegetation,so even if the idol would have fertilized the soil, it would have been of no benefit.

This rabbinic exchange reveals how later Jewish interpretation grappled with the practical and theological implications of Maacah's idolatry.

Avodah Zarah 42: כׇּל הַפַּרְצוּפוֹת מוּתָּרִין חוּץ מִפַּרְצוּף אָדָם

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 42

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Certain images were known to represent idols, and when found on different utensils may indicate that they are used for avoda zara. The Mishna on today’s daf teaches that when someone finds utensils that have on them images of the sun, the moon or a derakon, they must be cast into the Dead Sea. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel distinguishes between important utensils, which can be assumed to be used for idol worship, and simple utensils – like pots and pans – that are permitted even if they have such images on them.

In his Commentary to the Mishna, the Rambam explains that the references to the sun and the moon do not relate to simple drawings of these heavenly bodies, but rather they refer to a Zodiac wheel like one prepared by astrologers, that gives a form to each of the signs of the Zodiac, with a figure representing the sun in the middle.

Avodah Zarah 41: צְלָמִים אֲסוּרִין, שִׁבְרֵי צְלָמִים מוּתָּרִין

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 41

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Although we have learned that statues that are worshipped are considered avoda zara and it is forbidden to derive benefit from them, the Mishna on our daf teaches that if, when the statue is found, it is broken into pieces, it is permitted. The exception would be when a full limb remains intact. In a case where the form of a hand or a foot is still whole it will be forbidden, since there are those who worship them as representative of the deity.

In general, the reason that a broken statue can be used is because we are not sure whether the statue had been worshiped as avoda zara, and even if it had been treated as an idol, its present state leads us to believe that it had been destroyed by the non-Jew who had rejected it as a deity.

We continue our exploration of the decrease of pagan worship and the increased use of pagan symbols for esthetic value in late antiquity.

Avodah Zarah 40: לְנוֹי עָבְדִי לְהוּ

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 40

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

The third perek of Massekhet Avoda Zara, Perek Kol ha-Tzelamim, which begins on our daf,deals with the questions that evolve from this reality. What is included in the command to destroy pagan idols? Under what circumstances may idols remain intact?

The first Mishna in the perek teaches that according to Rabbi Meir, all publicly displayed statues are forbidden – i.e. one cannot derive benefit from them – since they are worshipped once a year. The Ḥakhamim rule that this is only the case if the statue grasps in his hand a staff, a bird or an orb. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel extends this to idols that are portrayed with anything in their hands.

We explore the change in attitudes towards statues from Torah to Talmud and what social forces operated to cause these changes.

Avodah Zarah 39: יוֹשֵׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּצַד עֶדְרוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 39

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Although the Mishna appears to require that the Jewish person watch the milking process, the Gemara quotes a baraita that permits the milk as long as the Jewish person was in the vicinity, even if he was not watching. The Gemara explains that the very presence of the Jew will frighten the non-Jew and keep him from placing anything non-kosher in the milk. As we have already learned, some contemporary rabbis permit the use of milk that has government inspection guaranteeing the purity of the milk.

We explore how cholov yisroel in the US represented the evolving approach to post war communal minhag standards.

Avodah Zarah 38: הָכָא — לְמַתּוֹקֵי טַעְמָא

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 38

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

The Gemara discusses whether fish that was salted by a Nochri is forbidden because of "Bishul Akum." Chizkiyah maintains that it is not forbidden, while Rebbi Yochanan argues that it is forbidden. Rebbi Yochanan apparently maintains that salting the fish is considered like cooking the fish (see Rashi, DH v'Rebbi Yochanan).

We explore condiments and additives in late antiquity.

Avodah Zarah 37: כָּאן בְּחִיבּוּרִין, כָּאן שֶׁלֹּא בְּחִיבּוּרִין

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 37

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Yosei ben Yo’ezer ish Tzereida was the first head of the pairs of scholars who are mentioned at the beginning of Massekhet Avot, a student of Antigonos ish Sokho. At that time, scholars were not given titles and were simply called by their names. According to the Talmud, Yosei ben Yo’ezer, who was a kohen, lived during the period when the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem was made up of Hellenists. He was put to death by his nephew Alcimus, who was an evil kohen, and died a martyr’s death.

He was known as the ḥasid she-bakehuna – the righteous among the priests – because he was particularly strict about issues of ritual purity. It was he who instituted the Rabbinic ordinance declaring the lands of the Diaspora to be considered ritually defiled. Although he was known for his strict positions in this area of halakha, in other fields he was known to be lenient – so much so that he is sometimes referred to as Yosei sharya – “Yosei the Permissive.”

Avodah Zarah 36: דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא, וּכְמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 36

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Mishna (38b), in addition to non-Jewish milk and bread (see the discussion on yesterday’s daf), one of the things that was forbidden by the Sages was oil produced by non-Jews. The Mishna, however, adds that the beit din of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted the use of non-Jewish oil.

The Gemara on our daf deals with two issues relating to this law:

Who established the original Rabbinic prohibition?

What gave later Sages the ability to abrogate this ruling?

With regard to the first question, Rav claims that the original prohibition stems from the time of Daniel, for we find in Sefer Daniel (1:8) that he accepted upon himself to refrain from participating in the feasts and parties in Nebuchadnezzar’s palace.

Our daf also explores how the two schools of Hillel and Shammai developed contrasting approaches to what we might term "moral purity" versus "tribal purity"—the former emphasizing ethical transformation and redemptive encounter, the latter prioritizing communal boundaries and protective separation.

Avodah Zarah 35: פַּת לֹא הוּתְּרָה בְּבֵית דִּין

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 35

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Although the ruling of the Rambam and the Shulḥan Arukh is that milk is only kosher if a Jew supervises the milking, given that the only concern is that there may be forbidden additives placed in the milk, there are contemporary responsa that permit the use of milk that has reliable government supervision.

The concern with bread is not the ingredients – which must be kosher – but the possibility that joining with non-Jews at meals may lead to intermarriage and assimilation.

The Gemara itself suggests that there may be situations where the bread is commercially baked where no such concern exists. Nevertheless, the simple reading of the Gemara seems to indicate that the Rabbinic injunction against non-Jewish bread that is brought in the Mishna could not be removed.

We explore the inyan of pas akum as well as the prooftext from Daniel 1:8 as to the prohibition of gentile oil, focusing on the dispute between Rav and Shmuel regarding whether Daniel or later rabbinic authorities instituted this decree.

Avodah Zarah 34: וּמִיעוּטָא דְּמִיעוּטָא לָא חָיֵישׁ רַבִּי מֵאִיר

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 34

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The reason why cheese from Beis Unayki has been forbidden from benefit (according to Rabbi Meir in our Mishna) is because the majority of calves of that place are slaughtered for the sake of idolatry.

The Gemora asks: Even if it were the minority, it would still be forbidden, since Rabbi Meir always takes the minority into consideration!?

We explore the issue of cheese, kosher cheese and the talmudic interdictions thereof.

Avodah Zarah 33: דאזיל ומודי קמי עבודה זרה

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 33

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The rabbis discuss the risks surrounding doing business with a Gentile who is either on his/her way to serve idols or who is returning from serving idols. Perhaps s/he will not in fact honor an idol. Or if the Gentile is going to a fare, idolatry may not be part of that trip. The rabbis consider whether one might sell or buy wine or other items. The age of the product might indicate whether or not the Gentile is going or has been to serve an idol.

We explore pagan festivals in antiquity and their modern iteration.

Avodah Zarah 32: חרס של הדריינוס קיסר

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 32

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Wine is forbidden both because of concern that it may have been consecrated for pagan worship, in addition to the desire on the part of the Sages to limit social interaction between Jews and pagans.

Vinegar made from wine, assuming that it belonged to a pagan while it was still wine, becomes forbidden and its change of status does not remove the prohibition.

But what is ḥeres hadriyani and why is it forbidden?

Rav Yehuda quotes Shmuel as teaching that this refers to the Caesar Hadrian. When Rav Dimi came from Israel, he explained that the Romans tilled virgin soil that had not been tilled before, which they then planted with grapevines. The wine that was produced was poured into white earthenware jugs which absorbed the wine.

We return to Hadrian Palestine and the Jews.

Avodah Zarah 31: מפני מה אסרו שכר של גוים

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 31

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new mishnah statesWhy has beer of idolaters been forbidden? Rami bar Chama said in the name of Rabbi Yitzchak: It is because of intermarriages (for people would go to parties at the houses of idolaters and eventually marry their daughters).

Rav Nachman said: It is because it might have been left uncovered. The Gemora explains that this concern only refers to a place where the water is allowed to settle until it clarifies.

We explore the The Talmudic discussion of gentile beer which presents a fascinating contrast to the treatment of wine, revealing different categories of rabbinic concern and different approaches to managing social and physical risks.

The fact that beer is discussed at all is notable, as Tosafos points out that no explicit prohibition of gentile beer appears in the Mishnah or early rabbinic sources, suggesting that this represents a later development in rabbinic law.

Avodah Zarah 30: יַיִן מָזוּג אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 30

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A number of different concerns are presented by the Gemara regarding food and drink that have been left uncovered. The main issue appears to be the concern that a snake may come to eat or drink from the uncovered liquid and leave behind venom that may injure or even kill.

The Sages forbid drinking from a barrel that had been left open even if others have already drunk from it, arguing that the venom may be at the bottom of the barrel. Furthermore, the Gemara quotes a baraita that forbids using water that had been left uncovered overnight even to wash the floor, to give to animals to drink or to use to wash his hands and his face.

Avodah Zarah 29: ויין של ישראל כנוס בהן

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 29

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The following things belonging to idol worshipers are forbidden and the prohibition extends to any benefit that may be derived from them: wine, or an idol worshiper's vinegar that was formerly wine, Hadrianic earthenware (2), skins pierced at the animal's heart. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: when its rent is round, [the skin] is forbidden, but if oblong it is permitted.

Leather flasks and earthenware jugs of idol worshipers in which wine of an Israelite is kept are forbidden and the prohibition extends to any benefit that may be derived from them; this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say that the prohibition does not extend to deriving any benefit.

We explore the world of wine, kosher wine and the recent scandals thereof.

Avodah Zarah 28: מחללין עליה את השבת

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 28

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We know how seriously the Torah takes the laws of Shabbat, yet for piku’aḥ nefesh – when there is danger to life – the laws of Shabbat are pushed aside.

The Gemara on our daf notes that this is true not only when there is a clear danger, but also when there is any makah shel ḥalal – an internal injury – we will automatically be willing to treat the person, although Talmidei Rabbeinu Yona explain that this does not refer to a minor pain or complaint, only a known injury or serious pain.

This discussion leads to a question about whether an injury or disease to teeth and gums would be included. Are they considered to be “internal”? As a proof to this question, the Gemara tells of Rabbi Yoḥanan who was suffering from tzafdina, and was treated by a Roman matron, who agreed to share the secret of the treatment if Rabbi Yoḥanan swore not to reveal it to others.

We explore the disease of scurvy and the Galenic influences in talmudic medicine.

Avodah Zarah 27: מת? האיכא חיי שעה

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 27

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Can a woman – who does not have a circumcision – circumcise a baby?

Must the person who circumcises a Jewish child be Jewish himself?

Two passages are brought on our daf that limit the kind of people who can perform circumcision. Daru bar Pappa quotes the pasuk that permits only those like Abraham and his descendants to act as a mohel (see Bereshit 17:9), while Rabbi Yoḥanan quotes the pasuk that is understood to limit a brit milah only to people who, themselves, have been circumcised (see Bereshit 17:13).

The Gemara suggests several differences that may stem from these different sources. For example, according to the first pasuk, women may be excluded, since they cannot be circumcised. According to the second pasuk, however, since women are considered as if they have been circumcised, they would be able to circumcise others – with Moshe’s wife, Tzippora a prime example (see Shemot 4:25).

Avodah Zarah 26: אונוקי בשכר שרי משום איבה

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 26

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We begin with a new Mishna: Gentile women should not be midwives for Jewish women, nor should they be wet nurses for the babies of Jewish women. Jewish women can be midwives for Gentile women and Jewish women can be wet-nurses for the babies of Gentile women.

It becomes clear almost immediately through the Gemara that Gentile women are treated with suspicion. Either they will kill Jewish babies in ways that cannot be proven, or they will tell other Gentile women that they are doing so. Gentile wet-nurses might even put poison on their breasts before nursing in attempts to kill Jewish babies. This Mishna is in place to save Jewish babies from the evil that rabbis imagine is in the hearts of Gentile women.

We explore the history of Jewish midwives…

Avodah Zarah 25: אשה חשובה בין אנשים

For the source text click/tap here: Avodah Zarah 25

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The prohibition of yichud, codified in the Talmud (Kiddushin 80b; Avodah Zarah 36b) and halakhically detailed in the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 22), forbids a man and woman who are not married to one another from being secluded in private spaces.

To many, this restriction appears anachronistic in an age that celebrates autonomy, gender equality, and sexual liberation.

Yet, in a cultural moment punctuated by scandals involving consensual and non-consensual sexual interactions (e.g., Weinstein, Epstein, #MeToo), the yichud framework warrants renewed attention.

Yichud is not primarily concerned with action but with potential: the creation of a situation where illicit sexual behavior might occur. The prohibition stems from the rabbinic maxim, ein apotropus le-arayot—“there is no guardian against sexual impropriety” (Avodah Zarah 36b). Human desire, rabbinic sources suggest, is unpredictable, transcultural, and requires external containment.

We explore the notions of power intimacy and sexuality.