Avodah Zarah 37b — the Talmud in English

Rav Hiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla:

This locust, which Rabbi Yosei ben Yo'ezer permitted and the Sages prohibited, is

sosvil.

Regarding

a locust whose

head is long, everyone—

both Rabbi Yosei ben Yo'ezer and the Sages—

do not disagree:

they did not disagree concerning this, and they hold

that it is prohibited.

And if so, in what did they disagree?

Here

they disagreed

concerning the locust

called sosvil, which indeed does not have a long head [and for this reason it would seemingly be permitted], but on the other hand

its wings cover most of it with difficulty [the Sages accepted an additional sign among the signs of the kashrut of a locust: that its wings cover most of it]. This locust’s wings cover most of it by a very narrow margin, which is not visible to the eye; only through precise measurement can one discern that indeed its wings cover most of it.

the Sages accepted an additional sign of a locust’s kosher status: its wings must cover most of its body. In this locust, the wings cover most of its body only by a very narrow margin, which is not apparent to the eye; only through precise measurement can one determine that its wings do indeed cover most of its body.

And concerning the law of this locust,

they disagree—

Rabbi Yosei ben Yo'ezer and the Sages.

One master holds

that in order to render it fit, a prominent majority is not necessary, but rather

any majority whatsoever—

is required.

And with a narrow majority it is fit.

And one master holds—

in order to render it fit,

a discernible majority is required,

a clear and noticeable majority is necessary for this purpose.

And the second matter concerning which Yosei ben Yo'ezer testified was

and concerning the liquid of the slaughterhouse,

the blood and water found in the slaughterhouse of the Temple—

that they are pure,

they are pure.

And the Gemara discusses:

What,

from what aspect are they

pure

[pure]?

Rav said: They are pure

they are pure

in the actual sense,

for they do not render others impure, and they themselves do not contract impurity.

And Shmuel said: They are pure

they are pure only

from rendering others impure. But as for their own impurity, they have it!

And the Gemara explains the basis of their disagreement:

Rav said

these liquids

are actually pure; he holds that the impurity of liquids

in general is only

rabbinic. And when

the Sages decreed

impurity,

they decreed it only

for ordinary liquids. But concerning the liquid of the slaughterhouse, they did not decree

this impurity.

And Shmuel said:

These liquids in the slaughterhouse

are pure

they are pure

from rendering others impure. But

if they became impure,

they have their own impurity.

He holds

Shmuel

that the impurity of liquids

in the liquids themselves

is by Torah law

it is.

However,

to render others impure

which touched them, they render them impure only

by rabbinic law.

And when

the Sages

decreed

that these liquids should render others impure, they decreed it only

for ordinary liquids.

But with

the liquids of the slaughterhouse,

Yosei ben Yo'ezer held that

they did not decree

that they should render others impure.

The third matter concerning which Yosei ben Yo'ezer testified was:

and concerning one who comes near a corpse, he is impure.

One who comes near and touches a corpse is impure. And because of these three permissions, they called him “Yosef the Permitter” [the one who permits].

And the Gemara objects: Here, concerning the law of one who touches a corpse, he ruled that he is impure and prohibited; and if so,

“Yosef the Prohibitor”

[the one who prohibits]

should have been required,

he should have been called that!

And furthermore,

it is difficult: Surely the impurity of one who touches a corpse

is by Torah law! For it is written

[Numbers 19:16]

“And whoever touches upon the face of the open field one slain by the sword or

a corpse ...

shall be impure for seven days,” and how do we say here that Yosei ben Yo'ezer ruled this?

And the Gemara resolves: The impurity of one who touches a corpse, which is

by Torah law,

is only

that of one who comes near,

that is, one who touches the corpse itself,

is impure

he is.

However, “

one who comes near one who comes near,”

a person who touches a person who touches a corpse, by Torah law is

pure.

And they came,

and the Sages came,

and decreed

impurity

even

upon “

one who comes near one who comes near,”

also upon one who touches someone who touches a corpse.

And he came,

and he—Yosei ben Yo'ezer—

established it as Torah law,

and established the law of impurity according to its fundamental law, by Torah law: only one who touches the corpse itself is impure, but not one who touches someone who touches it.

And if so, this is the permission concerning which Yosei ben Yo'ezer testified: “And concerning one who comes near a corpse, he is impure.” That is, only he is impure, but those who touch him are pure.

But the Gemara objects: Surely even “

one who comes near one who comes near,”

one who touches someone who touches a corpse,

also

his law of impurity

is by Torah law!

For it is written

[Numbers 19:22]

“And whatever the impure person touches

shall be impure.”

That is, the impure person who touches a corpse renders others impure through his touch. And how did Yosei ben Yo'ezer declare this pure?

Rather, this is the explanation of the matter:

The Sages said before

they said before

Rava, in the name

in the name of

Mar Zutra his son

the son of

Rav Nahman, who said in the name

in the name of

Rav Nahman

his father, that this is the law:

By Torah law—

one who comes near one who comes near,

one who touches someone who touches a corpse,

while in contact,

when he touches his fellow while his fellow is still touching [in contact with] the corpse, even the one who touches the one who touches it is impure

with seven-day impurity,

and only after seven days can he become pure, as is the law of one who touches the corpse itself!

However, if a person touched his fellow who was impure with corpse impurity

not while in contact,

after his fellow had already separated from his touching [contact with] the corpse, he is impure only with

evening impurity.

And after the sun has set, he can become pure.

And they came,

and the Sages came,

and decreed

that

even

if he touched his fellow

not while in contact,

that is, after his fellow had already separated from his contact with the corpse, he is impure

with seven-day impurity.

And he came,

and Yosei ben Yo'ezer came,

and established

and established this law

as Torah law,

that one who touches a person who touched a corpse not while in contact is impure only until evening.

And the Gemara clarifies: This distinction that we have stated, which is a law

by Torah law

distinguishing between one who touches through contact and one who touches not while in contact,

what is it,

what is its source in the Torah?

For it is written

[Numbers 19:11], concerning corpse impurity, three matters:

a.

“One who touches the dead, of every human soul, shall be impure for seven days.”

And this is the law of one who touches the corpse itself.

b.

And it is written,

it is further stated there concerning one who touches someone who became impure:

“And whatever the impure person touches shall be impure.”

c.

And it is written: “And the person who touches shall be impure until evening.”

And seemingly one should wonder:

How is this possible?

Why does the second verse state, “And whatever the impure person touches shall be impure,” which implies that one who touches someone who became impure shall be like the impure person, and shall be impure for seven days, as stated in the first verse, whereas in the third verse it says that the one who touches him shall be impure only with evening impurity? Rather—

Here,

what is stated in the second verse, “And whatever the impure person touches shall be impure,” implying that his impurity is seven days like the impurity of one who touches a corpse, refers to when he touches

while in contact

[that is, one who touches his fellow while his fellow is touching a corpse].

Here,

what is stated, “He shall be impure until evening,” refers to when he touched the one who touched it

not while in contact,

not at the time of his fellow’s contact with the corpse.

Rava said to them:

Did

I not tell you

I did not tell you:

Do not hang empty vessels upon him,

do not hang upon him “empty vessels,” that is, words that have no substance,

upon Rav Nahman!?

For Rav Nahman certainly did not say these words, but rather

thus

so

said Rav Nahman: Doubt concerning impurity

such as an olive-bulk of a corpse or anything else that imparts impurity, concerning whose impurity there is doubt—if the doubt was

in the public domain, he permitted them

Yosei ben Yo'ezer, and said that in this doubt the prohibition is not observed.

And these are his words: “And concerning one who comes near a corpse”—only when it is certainly a corpse —he is impure; but a doubtful corpse does not impart impurity.

And the Gemara asks:

But this halakha

this law, that doubt concerning impurity in the public domain is pure—surely

we derive it from the sota,

we learn from the law of the impurity of a sota to her husband the law that doubt concerning impurity in the public domain is pure.

And the derivation is as follows:

Just as

the doubt concerning the act of intercourse of the

sota

through which she becomes impure to her husband is concealed, as it is stated [Numbers 5:13], “And she was concealed, and she became impure,” and this concealment

is a private domain

it is—

so too

every doubt

of impurity

whose law is impurity is only in

the private domain.

But if doubt concerning impurity arises in the public domain, it is pure.

And if so, what did Yosei ben Yo'ezer innovate with his words, that doubt concerning impurity in the private domain is pure?

And the Gemara explains:

Did Rabbi Yohanan not say,

indeed,

the halakha

is that doubt concerning impurity in the public domain is pure; however

we do not instruct this,

rather, we prohibit it.

And he came

and Yosei ben Yo'ezer came

and instructed him explicitly,

he ruled this halakha in practice: doubt concerning impurity in the public domain is pure.

It was taught likewise: Rabbi Yehuda says—

Rabbi Yosei ben Yo'ezer

fixed beams for them,

to distinguish between the public domain and the fields of the valley, which are a private domain, in order to mark the boundary of the public domain in which doubt concerning impurity is pure,

and said: Up to here is the public domain; up to here is the private domain!

When they came before him,

when a question concerning this matter of doubt concerning impurity in the public domain reached

Rabbi Yannai, he said to them

to the one who asked the question:

There is water in the depression of the river,

there is water in the hollow and depth of the river;

go immerse yourselves!

Go and immerse yourselves, even though according to the fundamental law doubt concerning impurity in the public domain is pure.

We learned in our Mishna:

And cooked foods,

things cooked by gentiles, are prohibited for eating but not for benefit.

And the Gemara discusses:

From where are these words derived,

from where do we know this law?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: The verse says

It is stated [Deuteronomy 2:28, when Israel turned to Sihon before they fought them].

“You shall sell me food for money, and I shall eat; and you shall give me water for money, and I shall drink.”

And from this verse we learn that the food which Moses requested to purchase from Sihon was

like water. Just as water

which has not been changed

at all, but is as it was created,

so too

the

food

which he requested from them was food

which had not been changed

and nothing had been done to it by them, but it was as it was created.

And from this we learn that food made by a gentile is forbidden.

The Gemara asks:

But if that is so,

that there is no permission for any food that was improved and made by a gentile, then

wheat which he took and made

the gentile

into roasted grains [wheat roasted in an oven],

—wheat roasted in an oven—

is it likewise that

they will be

forbidden?!

And if you would say

perhaps you will say,

it is indeed so,

they are indeed forbidden,

but it was taught in a beraita,

a gentile who took

wheat and made it into roasted grains—

they are permitted!

And it is demonstrated that not every improvement of food by a gentile renders it forbidden!

Rather,

this is the teaching from the fact that the food which Moses requested to take from Sihon was

like water:

Just as water was not changed from its created state, so too food was not changed from its created state.

And roasted grains are wheat that was roasted as it is, and was not essentially changed.

But the Gemara asks:

But if that is so,

since the definition of the prohibition is that the food was changed from what it had been, then if the gentile had

wheat and ground it, is it likewise

also here that we shall say

that

the flours will be

forbidden.

And if you would say, it is indeed so,

perhaps you will say that the flours will indeed be forbidden,

but it was taught in a beraita: wheat which he took and made into roasted grains—their flours and fine flours,

which were made by the gentile—

are permitted!

And it is demonstrated that even if the thing was completely changed, it is permitted. If so, what is the definition of the prohibition and permission of the foods of gentiles, which is learned from this verse?

Rather, “like water.” Just as water was not changed from its created state by fire [cooking by fire],

—cooking with fire—

so too food

of gentiles is permitted only if

it was not changed from its created state by fire.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Is “fire” written?

How can we learn from the verse that the definition of the prohibition is food made by fire? Was the term “fire” mentioned at all?