ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Avodah Zarah 64
AVODAH ZARAH 64 (14 Iyar) - this Daf has been dedicated by Hagaon Rav Yosef
Pearlman of London, England, l'Iluy Nishmas ha'Rabbani Reb Rephael David ben
Yosef Yitzchak Pearlman, whose passed away on Pesach Sheni (14 Iyar) 5758.
(a) The Tana in a Beraisa forbids digging together with a Nochri in a field
of Kil'ayim, but permits digging up the plants to destroy them - because it
is a Mitzvah to get rid of what is Asur.
(b) We assume the author of the Beraisa to be Rebbi Akiva, who maintains
that someone who retains Kil'ayim in his field - receives Malkos.
(c) From the inverted phraseology of the Pasuk "Behemt'cha Lo Sarbi'a
Kil'ayim, *Sadcha Lo Sizra Kil'ayim*" - (he attaches Sadcha to the "Kil'ayim
that precedes it and) Darshens the three consecutive words "Kil'ayim, Sadcha
Lo", to include merely retaining Kil'ayim in a field.
(d) We reconcile this with Rebbi Akiva who holds (in Makos) 'La'av she'Ein
Bo Ma'aseh Lokin Alav' - by requiring him to perform an act (such as fencing
the field [see Tosfos DH 'Rebbi Akiva Omer']) as well.
(a) We try to prove from here - that the Mitzvah to get rid of an Isur,
overrides the Isur of wanting to retain it (like Rav Nachman's previous
ruling 'Yishbor, ve'Tavo Alav B'rachah')?
(b) The problem with establishing the Beraisa like the Chachamim (to refute
the proof) is - that if there is no Isur in retaining Kil'ayim, then why
does the Tana need to permit uprooting it?
(c) So we establish the case when the Yisrael is working free of charge -
and the Tana is coming to teach us that even though it is normally forbidden
to give a Nochri a free gift (and we are speaking here when the Yisrael is
working free of charge), it is permitted in this case, in order to get rid
of the Kil'ayim.
(a) The Tana who forbids giving a Nochri a free gift is - Rebbi Yehudah.
(b) In spite of all this, we conclude 'mi'de'Rebbi Yehudah Nishma le'Rebbi
Akiva' - which means that, just as the Mitzvah of getting rid of an Isur
overrides the sin of giving a Nochri a free gift (according to Rebbi
Yehudah), so too, ought it to override the sin of retaining Kil'ayim
(according to Rebbi Akiva).
(c) 've'Su Lo Midi' means - that this is the last word on the matter.
(a) Rav Nachman, Ula and Avimi bar Papi then asked whether 'D'mei
Avodas-Kochavim be'Yad Oved-Kochavim' (the exchange of Avodas-Kochavim that
a Nochri sold or swapped) is Asur (like that of a Yisrael) or not.
(b) Once again, Rav Nachman resolved the She'eilah immediately, but this
time, based on a ruling of his Rebbe, Rabah bar Avuhah, who instructed those
potential converts - to sell their property before converting.
(c) From the fact that he told them to do it before they converted, Rav
Nachman tries to prove - that 'D'mei Avodas-Kochavim be'Yad Oved-Kochavim'
(d) We refute Rav Nachman's proof however - because we can safely assume
that, seeing as they were on the verge of converting, selling their
Avodah-Zarah was sufficient indication that they were Mevatel it (see
(a) The Beraisa rules that if a Nochri who ...
1. ... sold his god or Yayin Nesech to pay his Jewish creditor - the
creditor *is permitted to accept it*.
(b) Rav Sheishes explains the difference - inasmuch as, in the latter case,
the Yisrael wants the Avodas-Kochavim to remain (whereas he could hardly
care less in the former case).
2. ... told his Jewish creditor to wait for him to sell his god or his Yayin
Nesech, and then he would pay him - he is *not*.
(c) Even the first case would be forbidden however - once the Ger already
had the things in his possession.
(a) The Mishnah in D'mai rules that if a Ger and his Nochri 'brother'
inherited from their father, Avodas-Kochavim or Yayin Nesech and other
things - the Ger may ask his brother to take the Avodah-Zarah or the Yayin
Nesech, whilst he takes the rest.
(b) The problem this Mishnah creates with Rav Sheishes is - that the Tana
seems to permit the Ger to accept the D'mei Avodas-Kochavim, even though he
wants the Avodas-Kochavim to remain.
(c) To solve the problem, Rava bar Ula establishes the Mishnah in D'mai - by
restricting the case to silver and golden idols, which are intrinsically
valuable, in which case the Ger does not care if they break into pieces.
(d) We refute this answer however, from the case of Yayin Nesech, which is a
1. ... if the Tana is speaking about ordinary Yayin Nesech in ordinary
vessels - because the Ger certainly wants them to remain, so that he can
receive the exchange.
2. ... even if we assume that the Tana is speaking about Yayin Hadriani,
where the Yayin Nesech is absorbed in the earthenware vessels (and will not
get lost even if the barrel breaks) - because he would still prefer the
barrels to remain whole with their contents, to prevent them from getting
(a) So Rav Papa answers that they were more lenient in the case of Yerushas
ha'Ger - because we are afraid that if he stands to lose the inheritance
that he would have received had he not converted, he will relinquish his new
Geirus, and revert to being a Nochri.
(b) And we cite a Beraisa in support of Rav Papa, which draws a distinction
between the above case and one where the two 'brothers' entered into a
partnership - where the Tana forbids the Ger to make any such exchange ...
(c) ... because he wants the Avodah-Zarah to remain (a proof that, in the
Reisha, it was only permitted for the reason given by Rav Papa).
(a) The same trio then asked whether a Ger Toshav is able to be Mevatel an
idol. He might not be able to do so - because perhaps it is only a
worshipper who is able to nullify an Avodas-Kochavim.
(b) Rav Nachman ruled - that logically, someone who does not worship idols
cannot be Mevatel them.
(c) The Beraisa rules that if a Yisrael finds an Avodas-Kochavim in the
street - he may ask a Nochri to be Mevatel it, as long as he has not yet
picked it up ('ad she'Lo Ba'sah li'Yedei').
(a) The Tana adds to the fact that a Nochri can be Mevatel his own
Avodas-Kochavim and that of his friend - that it does not make a difference
either, whether he worships it or not ('Bein Ovdah Bein she'Ein Ovdah').
(b) The problem with explaining that both 'Ovdah' and 'Eino Ovdah' refer to
Ovdei-Kochavim - is that it would be synonymous with 'she'Lo ve'shel
(c) We therefore attempt to establish 'Eino Ovdah' - by a Ger Toshav, a
Kashya on Rav Nachman, who said that a Ger Toshav cannot annul an
(d) Even if 'Ovdah' and 'Eino Ovdah' both refer to Nochrim, we conclude (in
refuting the Kashya on Rav Nachman) - there will be no problem, because
whereas 'she'Lo ve'shel Chavero' refers to the same Avodah-Zarah, 'Ovdah'
and 'Eino Ovdah' refers to two different Avodah-Zarahs (e.g. 'Pe'or and
(a) Another Beraisa discusses how a Nochri becomes a Ger Toshav. Rebbi Meir
requires him to undertake in front of three friends to stop worshipping
Avodah-Zarah. The Chachamim - that he only needs to accept the Sheva Mitzvos
(b) Acherim is the most radical of all. In his opinion - a Ger Toshav may
eat Neveilos, but otherwise undertake to keep the entire Torah.
(c) When the Tana continues ... .
1. ...'Meyachdin Etzlo Yayin', he means - that one may leave wine with him
for as long as it takes to walk a Mil or so, seeing as he is not interested
in touching the wine or being Menasech it.
(d) 'Meyachdin' applies - even in a town where the majority of residents are
Nochrim, and 'Ein Mafkidim' even where they are Yisre'elim.
2. ... 've'Ein Mafkidin Etzlo Yayin', he means - that one may not deposit
with him wine for longer periods because we are afraid that he will
exchange it for is own wine (which he will be afraid to do in the first
(e) A Nochri, on the other hand, is interested in touching the wine and
being Menasech it. Consequently, one may not even be 'Meyached' the wine
(a) We reject the text 'Shamno ke'Yeino', because even the wine of a Nochri
is not considered Yayin Nesech. We therefore amend it to read - 'Yeino
(b) This does not mean that one is permitted to drink his oil and his wine -
but that it is Mutar be'Hana'ah (since the Tana is speaking before the
Chachamim permitted drinking the oil of a Nochri).
(c) In all other regards, the Tana Kama concludes, he has the Din of a
Nochri - because, as long as he has not had the B'ris Milah, he is still a
Nochri, and is suspected of doing everything that a Nochri will do.
(d) There are two possible Leshonos in Rebbi Shimon. The first Lashon
states 'Yeino Yayin Nesech'. The second Lashon says - 'Yeino Mutar
(a) We try to query Rav Nachman (who just forbade a Ger Toshav to be Mevatel
an Avodas-Kochavim) from the Tana Kama's final statement - by explaining
'u'le'Sha'ar Kol Davar, Harei Hu ke'Oved-Kochavim' to mean that he is able
to be Mevatel an Avodas-Kochavim.
(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak rejects this proof when he says 'Lo, Litein
Reshus, u'Le'vatel Reshus', by which he means - that he is like a Nochri
regarding the Din of being Mevatel his Reshus to the other residents of the
court-yard into which his own property opens.
(c) The Beraisa draws a distinction between a Yisrael on the one hand - who
only need to declare his Reshus Bateil to the other residents in the Chatzer
(to be allowed to carry in the Chatzer), and a Nochri or a Yisrael Mumar
(who desecrates Shabbos publicly) on the other - who must actually rent
their property to the other members of the Chatzer, for the Eruv to be
(d) For the 'Eruv to take effect, the Yisrael must say - 'Reshusi Kenuyah
Lach' or Reshusu Mevuteles Lach'.