Avodah Zarah 37b (לז:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla:

This grasshopper that Rabbi Yosei ben Yo'ezer permitted and the Sages prohibited is '

Sosvil.'

Regarding

a grasshopper whose

head is elongated, everyone—

both Rabbi Yosei ben Yo'ezer and the Sages—

do not disagree;

they did not disagree about this, and they hold

that it is prohibited.

If so, in what did they disagree?

Here

they disagreed

regarding a grasshopper

called Sosvil. Its head is indeed not elongated [and therefore, seemingly, it should be permitted]; however, on the other hand,

its wings cover most of its body only with difficulty [

the Sages accepted an additional sign among the signs of a grasshopper's fitness: its wings must cover most of its body]. In this grasshopper, the wings cover most of its body only by a very narrow margin, in a manner that is not perceptible to the eye; only through precise measurement can one determine that its wings do in fact cover most of its body.

And regarding the legal status of this grasshopper,

they disagree—

Rabbi Yosei ben Yo'ezer and the Sages.

One master holds

that in order to deem it fit, a clearly discernible majority is not necessary; rather,

any majority whatsoever—

is required.

Thus, a narrowly marginal majority is sufficient to render it fit.

And the other master holds:

in order to deem it fit,

a discernible majority is required,

a clear and perceptible majority is necessary.

And the second matter about 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—

they are pure,

they are pure.

And the Gemara asks:

What

is the sense in which they are

pure [

pure]?

Rav said: They are pure

in the sense that they are pure

literally—

they do not render others impure, nor can they themselves contract impurity.

And Shmuel said: They are pure

only in that they are pure

from rendering others impure. But they themselves can contract impurity!

The Gemara explains the basis of their dispute:

Rav said:

These liquids

are literally pure, for he holds that the impurity of liquids

in general is only of

rabbinic origin. And when

the Sages decreed

impurity,

they decreed it only

with regard to ordinary liquids. But with regard to 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 themselves became impure,

they do have intrinsic impurity.

For Shmuel holds

that

the impurity of liquids

in the liquids themselves

is by Torah law

.

However,

with regard to rendering others impure,

those that come into contact with them, they render others impure only by

rabbinic law.

And when

the Sages

decreed

that these liquids should render other things impure, they decreed this only

with regard to ordinary liquids.

But with regard to

the liquids of the slaughterhouse,

Yosei ben Yo'ezer held that

they did not decree

that they should render others impure.

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

and concerning one who comes into contact with a corpse, he is impure.

One who approaches and touches a corpse is impure. Because of these three permissions, he was called “Yosef the Permitter” [the one who permits].

The Gemara raises an objection: Here, in the matter of one who touches a corpse, he ruled that one becomes impure and that the matter is prohibited. If so,

“Yosef the Prohibiter” [

the one who prohibits]

should have been required,

he should have been called that!

Furthermore,

there is another difficulty: The impurity of one who touches a corpse

is by Torah law! As it is written [

Numbers 19:16]:

“And whoever in the open field touches one slain by the sword or

a corpse ...

shall be impure for seven days.” How, then, can it be said here that Yosei ben Yo'ezer issued this ruling?

The Gemara answers: The impurity of one who touches a corpse, which is

by Torah law,

applies only to

one who comes into contact with it,

meaning one who touches the corpse itself;

he is impure

.

However, with regard to

“one who comes into contact with one who comes into contact,”

a person who touches someone who is touching a corpse, by Torah law he is

pure.

And they came,

the Sages came,

and decreed

impurity

even

upon

“one who comes into contact with one who comes into contact,”

even upon one who touches someone who is touching a corpse.

And he came,

and Yosei ben Yo'ezer came,

and established it as Torah law,

he restored the law of impurity to its fundamental Torah status: only one who touches the corpse itself is impure, whereas one who touches someone who touched it is not.

If so, this is the permission about which Yosei ben Yo'ezer testified: “And concerning one who comes into contact with a corpse, he is impure.” That is, only he is impure, whereas those who touch him are pure.

But the Gemara raises another objection: Even

“one who comes into contact with one who comes into contact,”

one who touches someone who is touching a corpse,

also

his status with regard to impurity

is by Torah law!

As it is written [

Numbers 19:22]:

“And whatever the impure person touches

shall be impure.”

That is, an impure person who touches a corpse renders others impure through his contact. How, then, did Yosei ben Yo'ezer declare this person pure?

Rather, this is the explanation of the matter:

The Sages said before

Rava,

in the name of

the son of

Mar Zutra,

the son of

Rav Naḥman, who said in the name of

of

Rav Naḥman,

his father, that the law is as follows:

By Torah law—

one who comes into contact with one who comes into contact

with a corpse

while they are in contact,

when he touches his fellow while his fellow is still touching the corpse, is impure—even the person touching the person who is touching the corpse has

seven-day impurity,

and can become pure only after seven days, like one who touches the corpse itself!

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

when they were not in contact,

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

evening impurity.

Once the day has ended, he can become pure.

And they came,

the Sages came,

and decreed

that

even

if he touched his fellow

when they were not in contact,

meaning 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

this law

as Torah law,

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

The Gemara clarifies: This distinction that we have stated, that it is a

Torah-law

distinction between one who touches while in contact and one who touches when not in contact,

what is it,

what is its source in the Torah?

As it is written [

Numbers 19:11], regarding corpse impurity, three matters:

a.

“One who touches a corpse, for any human life, shall be impure for seven days.”

This is the law of one who touches the corpse itself.

b.

And it is written,

it is further stated there regarding 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.”

At first glance, this is difficult:

How so?

Why does the second verse state, “And whatever the impure person touches shall be impure,” implying that one who touches someone who became impure has the same status as the impure person and is impure for seven days, as stated in the first verse, whereas the third verse states that the one who touches him is impure only until evening? Rather—

Here,

the second verse, “And whatever the impure person touches shall be impure,” which implies that his impurity lasts seven days, like the impurity of one who touches a corpse, refers to a case in which he touches

while in contact [

that is, he touches his fellow while his fellow is touching the corpse].

Here,

the statement “shall be impure until evening” refers to a case in which he touched the person who touched the corpse

when they were not in contact,

not while his fellow was in contact [attached] with the corpse.

Rava said to them:

Did I

not tell you

that I had told you:

Do not hang empty vessels on

him—do not attribute to him “empty jugs,” meaning statements that have no substance—

Rav Naḥman!?

For Rav Naḥman certainly did not say these things. Rather,

this

is what

Rav Naḥman said: [in a case of] uncertain impurity,

for example, an olive-bulk of a corpse or any other source of impurity, regarding which there is uncertainty whether it imparted impurity—if the uncertainty occurred

in the public domain, he permitted them,

Yosei ben Yo'ezer permitted them and said that the prohibition does not apply in this case.

And this is what he said: “And concerning one who comes into contact with a corpse”—only when it is certainly a corpse —he is impure; but an uncertain corpse does not impart impurity.

And the Gemara asks:

But this halakha

that uncertain impurity in the public domain is considered pure,

we derive from the sota

we learn from the law of the sota regarding her husband that uncertain impurity in the public domain is considered pure.

And the derivation is as follows:

Just as

the uncertain act of intercourse of the

sota

by which she becomes forbidden to her husband takes place in seclusion, as it is stated [Numbers 5:13], “And she was secluded, and she became impure,” and this seclusion

is a private domain

—

so too,

any uncertainty involving

impurity

whose status is impurity applies only in

a private domain.

But if an uncertainty involving impurity arose in the public domain, it is pure.

If so, what did Yosei ben Yo'ezer innovate by stating that uncertain impurity in a private domain is pure?

The Gemara explains:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said,

indeed,

the halakha

is that uncertain impurity in the public domain is pure; however,

we do not instruct people accordingly,

rather, we prohibit it.

And he came

and Yosei ben Yo'ezer came

and instructed them explicitly,

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

It was taught likewise in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says—

Rabbi Yosei ben Yo'ezer

drove stakes for them,

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

and he said: Until here is the public domain; until here is the private domain!

When they came before him,

when a question concerning uncertain impurity in the public domain was brought before

Rabbi Yannai, he said to them

to the one who had 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 uncertain impurity in the public domain is pure.

We learned in our Mishna:

And cooked foods,

foods cooked by gentiles, are prohibited for consumption but not for benefit.

And the Gemara asks:

From where are these matters derived?

From where do we derive this law?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: The verse says

It is stated [Deuteronomy 2:28, when Israel addressed Sihon before fighting him]:

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

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

like water. Just as water

is not changed

at all, but remains as it was created,

so too

the

food

that he requested from them was food

that was not changed

and nothing was done to it by them; rather, it remained in its natural state.

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

The Gemara asks:

But if that is so,

since no food that has been processed and prepared by a gentile is permitted, then

wheat that he took and made

into

parched grain [

wheat parched in an oven],

would this too

be

forbidden?!

And if you would say

perhaps you would say,

this too

would indeed be forbidden,

but it was taught in a beraita:

a gentile who took

wheat and made it parched grain—

it is permitted!

This demonstrates that not every processing of food by a gentile renders it forbidden!

Rather,

this is what is derived from the fact that the food Moses requested to take from Sihon was

like water:

Just as water is not changed from its natural state, so too food is not changed from its natural state.

Parched grain consists of wheat that was parched as it was, without being essentially changed.

But the Gemara asks:

But if that is so,

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

wheat and ground it, would this too

be said

that

the flour would be

forbidden?

And if you would say, this too,

perhaps you would say that the flour would indeed be forbidden,

but it was taught in a beraita: Wheat that he took and made into parched grain—their flours and semolina,

which were made by the gentile—

are permitted!

This demonstrates that even when the item has been completely changed, it is permitted. If so, what is the definition of the prohibition and the permission concerning the food of gentiles, as derived from this verse?

Rather, “like water.” Just as water is not changed from its natural state by fire [

cooking by fire],

so too food

of gentiles is permitted only if it

has not been changed from its natural state by fire.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Is “fire” written in the verse?

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