Avodah Zarah 37a — the Talmud in English

For Rabbi Hiyya said

Rabbi Hiyya:

When does a gentile male child become impure with ziva? —

When he is nine years and one day

old, ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

since he is fit

he

for intercourse,

and consequently there is concern that he may engage in male intercourse with a Jewish child; therefore they decreed that he should be

impure also

also

with ziva,

but not before that.

Ravina said: Therefore, this gentile female child, who is three years and one day old,

since she is fit for intercourse, shall also be impure

also

with ziva,

and in accordance with the law of a gentile male child,

The Gemara asks:

Obviously,

surely she should become impure from the time when she is fit for intercourse, so that Jewish children will not be drawn after her, and as with a male child; why, then, would there be room to distinguish between them?

The Gemara explains:

It was necessary to state this,

perhaps I might have said that

this one

the nine-year-old male child

knows how to entice,

he knows how to accustom and draw other children to him for a transgression, and for this reason impurity should be decreed upon him.

However,

this one,

the three-year-old female child,

does not know how to entice,

she does not know how to accustom others to come to her, and consequently there is no reason to decree this impurity upon her.

It teaches us this.

Indeed, there is no distinction between them, and gentile male and female children are impure once they become fit for intercourse.

He was leaning

was leaning

and going

and walking

Rabbi Judah the Prince

the Prince [the grandson of Rabbi

on the shoulders

on the shoulders

of Rabbi Shemai, his attendant,

who was his servant.

He said to him

Rabbi Judah the Prince said to Rabbi Shemai:

Shemai, were you not last night in the study hall when we permitted the oil

of the gentiles?

He said to him

Rabbi Shemai said to Rabbi: If so, then

in our days permit even the bread

of gentiles.

He said to him

Rabbi

If so,

I shall also permit the bread, as you say,

they will call us “the court that permits,”

people will call us, “the court that permits.”

And where do we find that they call someone who permits many things by this name?

For we learned: Rabbi Yose ben Yo’ezer, man of Tzereida, testified concerning the ayyal kamtza

a species of locust,

that it is pure,

that it is pure and permitted for eating.

And

also

concerning the liquid of the slaughterhouse,

the slaughterhouse of the Temple [such as the blood and water found there]—

that it is pure,

that they are pure and do not impart the impurity of liquids.

And concerning one who comes near a corpse

who approaches and touches a corpse, that he should be

impure,

impure.

And

because of these permissions,

they called him

they called him

“Yosef the Permitter,”

the one who permits.

He said to him

Rabbi Shemai said to Rabbi Judah the Prince: There is no comparison between my request to permit the bread and the permissions that Rabbi Yose permitted.

For

there

there, Rabbi Yose ben Yo’ezer, man of Tzereida,

permitted

permitted

three

three things, and since he permitted so much, they called him Yosef the Permitter.

However,

and you,

you, Rabbi Judah the Prince,

permitted one.

You permitted only the oil, which is one thing,

and if the master permits one other thing

whereas if you add and permit only one more thing,

there are still only two.

They are still two permissions, not three; they will not therefore call you “the court that permits.”

He said to him

Rabbi Judah the Prince

I permitted another.

Apart from the oil, I permitted an additional matter. If I add and permit the bread, these will be three permissions.

What is it?

What is the additional matter that Rabbi Judah the Prince permitted?

For we learned: One who says

to his wife

“This is your bill of divorce if I do not come from now until twelve months,” and he died within twelve months—it is not a bill of divorce,

since he did not say that the bill of divorce should take effect now if he did not come by twelve months; rather, he merely said, “if I do not come from now until twelve months.” She is therefore not divorced from him until twelve months have passed, but he has already died before then and cannot divorce her at that time. Therefore, if she falls before his brother for yibbum, she cannot marry outside without halitza!

And it was taught concerning it

and it was taught in a beraita concerning this Mishna:

And our Rabbis permitted her to marry

without requiring halitza from the brother-in-law.

And we said: Who are

who are

our Rabbis

who permit?

Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel,

they are

the court that permitted the oil.

That same court that permitted the oil of gentiles—that is, Rabbi Judah the Prince and his court. And concerning this Rabbi said to Rabbi Shemai that he had already permitted another matter.

And the Gemara explains that in this permission by which Rabbi Judah the Prince permitted the bill of divorce,

they hold

Rabbi holds

like Rabbi Yose,

in his dispute with the Sages [Bava Batra 136a; in the following note we have brought their dispute in full].

For he said

Rabbi Yose:

The date of a document

written in the document

proves concerning it

that the document takes effect from the date appearing in it.

And Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, said: Rabbi Judah the Prince

who was Rabbi’s grandson—he was the one who

ruled

to permit the woman on the basis of this bill of divorce,

and they did not agree with him all his time,

all his days they disagreed with him.

And some say

and there are those who say that they did not agree with him

all his party.

That is, his colleagues in the group of sages on his court.

Rabbi Eleazar said to that elder

one of the elders who was with Rabbi Judah the Prince when he permitted this woman on the basis of the bill of divorce:

When you permitted her,

when you heard that her husband had died and permitted her, did you

permit her immediately,

permit her at once, since it was clear to you

that he would not come,

that the husband would not come again, and did you not wait for twelve months to be completed?

Or perhaps

only

after twelve months

did you permit her,

for his condition was fulfilled,

because only after this time was the husband’s condition fulfilled: “if I do not come from now until twelve months.”

That elder answered him: While you are uncertain about the matter of our permission,

you should ask yourself,

you ought to be uncertain about this question

concerning the Mishna,

concerning the continuation of that Mishna cited above.

For we learned: “This is your bill of divorce from now, if I do not come from now until twelve months,” and he died within twelve months—it is

it is

a bill of divorce, for his condition was fulfilled,

his condition was fulfilled, since he did not come by the end of twelve months.

And if so,

you should ask yourself

concerning that Mishna, whether

it is a bill of divorce immediately,

and the woman is permitted immediately, even if the twelve months have not yet elapsed,

for he did not come,

since the husband died and necessarily will not come.

Or perhaps

perhaps only

after twelve months

will the woman be permitted,

for his condition was fulfilled

because only then is his condition fulfilled. Why, then, were you uncertain only about our permission and not about the words of the Mishna?

Rabbi Eleazar answered him:

Indeed so.

Indeed, I should have asked this question concerning the Mishna as well,

but because you were in that assembly,

I asked you because you were in that assembly which permitted her to marry.

The Gemara further discusses the permission that Rabbi Judah the Prince granted:

Abaye said: Everyone agrees

[even Rabbi Yose] that when a man says to his wife at night, “This is your bill of divorce

when the sun emerges from its sheath.”

His intention is

he is saying it for when it emerges,

that the bill of divorce should take effect only when the sun emerges.

And if he dies at night

and therefore, if that man dies at night, this

bill of divorce

this

is after death,

and a bill of divorce does not take effect after death; this woman is not divorced and requires halitza or yibbum, if she has no son and her deceased husband has a brother.

But if he said: “This is your bill of divorce

on condition that the sun emerges from its sheath”—

he is saying to her, from now,

and it will take effect from now, after the sun emerges from its sheath,

and if he dies at night, this is certainly a condition, and the bill of divorce is from during his lifetime.

This bill of divorce will take effect retroactively, from now. Therefore she is already divorced from now, during his lifetime.

And the Gemara explains that this law is

like Rav Huna. For Rav Huna said: Whoever says “on condition that,”

as here, when he says, “on condition that the sun emerges from its sheath,” he is

like one who says

that this bill of divorce shall be

from now, it is considered.

And in this all agree, Rabbi Judah the Prince and the Rabbis.

They disagreed only

when one says to his wife, “This is your bill of divorce

if it emerges

the sun.”

Rabbi Judah the Prince holds like Rabbi Yose, who said

Rabbi Yose:

The date of a document proves concerning it, and it is considered

and it is

as

though he had said, “This is your bill of divorce

from today if I die,”

and

as

though he says to his wife, “This is your bill of divorce

from now if I die,”

so that the bill of divorce takes effect from now, during his lifetime; after he dies, it becomes clear retroactively that she had already been divorced from now.

And

according to

the Rabbis, they do not hold

they do not accept the words of

Rabbi Yose

that the date of a document proves concerning it,

and

if so, one who says to his wife, “This is your bill of divorce if the sun emerges from its sheath”—

it is considered

he is

as

one who says

“This is your bill of divorce if I die,” merely.

He does not establish that the bill of divorce should take effect immediately; rather, it takes effect after his death. Therefore it is not a bill of divorce.

The essential matter:

the Gemara discusses the three laws concerning which

Yose ben Yo’ezer, man of Tzereida, testified.

a.

Concerning

a locust called

ayyal kamtza, which is pure,

which is pure for eating,

b.

And concerning the liquid

the blood and water of

the slaughterhouse,

the slaughterhouse in the Temple,

that it is pure,

that they are pure from the impurity of liquids,

c.

And concerning one who comes near a corpse

one who touches a corpse—that he is

impure,

impure.

And

because of these laws and permissions,

they called him “Yosef the Permitter”

[the permitter].

And the Gemara clarifies:

What is

what is

ayyal kamtza?

Rav Pappa said: Shosheiva,

a species of locust with a long head.

And Rabbi Hiyya bar Ami in the name

in the name

of Ulla said:

It concerns a species of locust called

“susbil.”

According to these two opinions concerning the definition of “ayyal kamtza,” the Gemara explains the dispute between Yose ben Yo’ezer and the Sages as to whether this locust is pure or impure.

Rav Pappa said,

this locust,

“shosheiva,”

has a long head.

And they disagree

Rabbi Yose ben Yo’ezer and the Sages disagree

concerning a long head.

One master holds: a long head is forbidden,

since it is not stated in the Torah,

and one master holds: a long head is permitted,

because it possesses all the signs of purity.