## Avodah Zarah Daf 37b

###### Avodah Zarah 37b:1
[Avodah Zarah 37b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/37b:1)

סוּסְבִּיל, בְּרֹאשׁוֹ אָרוֹךְ — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּאָסוּר, וְהָכָא בִּכְנָפָיו חוֹפִין אֶת רוּבּוֹ עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר רוּבָּא כֹּל דְּהוּ בָּעֵינַן, וּמָר סָבַר רוּבָּא דְּמִנְּכַר בָּעֵינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
it is **a *susbil*,** and accordingly, **with regard to a long-headed** locust, **everyone agrees that** it is **prohibited. And here they disagree with regard** to a locust **whose wings barely cover most of its** body: One **Sage,** Yosei ben Yo’ezer, **holds** that **we require** only **a minimal majority** of the locust’s body to be covered by its wings, **and** one **Sage,** the Rabbis, **holds** that **we require a noticeable majority** of the body to be covered.


###### Avodah Zarah 37b:2
[Avodah Zarah 37b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/37b:2)

וְעַל מַשְׁקֵה בֵּי מַטְבְּחַיָּא דְּכַן. מַאי ״דְּכַן״? רַב אָמַר: דְּכַן מַמָּשׁ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: דְּכַן מִלְּטַמֵּא אֲחֵרִים, אֲבָל טוּמְאַת עַצְמָן יֵשׁ בָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was stated above: **And** Yosei ben Yo’ezer testified **with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse** in the Temple that they are **ritually pure.** The Gemara asks: **What** did Yosei ben Yo’ezer mean when he said they are **pure? Rav says:** He meant that they are **actually ritually pure. And Shmuel says: They are pure** in the sense that they do not **impart ritual impurity to other** substances; **but they themselves** can contract **impurity.**


###### Avodah Zarah 37b:3
[Avodah Zarah 37b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/37b:3)

רַב אָמַר: ״דְּכַן מַמָּשׁ״, קָסָבַר: טוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין דְּרַבָּנַן, וְכִי גְּזוּר רַבָּנַן טוּמְאָה בְּמַשְׁקִין דְּעָלְמָא, אֲבָל בְּמַשְׁקֵה בֵּי מַטְבְּחַיָּא לָא גְּזַרוּ רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the reasons for these opinions. **Rav says** that these liquids are **actually pure,** as **he maintains** that **the ritual impurity of liquids** applies **by rabbinic law, and when the Sages decreed impurity** upon liquids, they did so only **with regard to ordinary liquids. But the Sages did not issue** their **decree with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse** in the Temple.


###### Avodah Zarah 37b:4
[Avodah Zarah 37b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/37b:4)

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: דְּכַן מִלְּטַמֵּא אֲחֵרִים, אֲבָל טוּמְאַת עַצְמָן יֵשׁ בָּהֶן, קָסָבַר: טוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לְטַמֵּא אֲחֵרִים דְּרַבָּנַן, וְכִי גְּזַרוּ רַבָּנַן בְּמַשְׁקִין דְּעָלְמָא, בְּמַשְׁקִין בֵּי מַטְבְּחַיָּא לָא גְּזַרוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel says:** The liquids are **ritually pure** in the sense that they do not **impart impurity to other** substances; **but they themselves** can contract **impurity,** as Shmuel **maintains** that the **ritual impurity of liquids** themselves is **by Torah law,** whereas their capacity **to impart impurity to other** substances is **by rabbinic law. And when the Sages issued** this **decree,** they did so only with regard **to ordinary liquids.** But **they did not issue** their **decree** with regard **to the liquids of the slaughterhouse** in the Temple.


###### Avodah Zarah 37b:5
[Avodah Zarah 37b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/37b:5)

וְעַל דְּיִקְרַב לְמִיתָא מְסָאַב, וְקָרוּ לֵיהּ ״יוֹסֵף שָׁרְיָא״. ״יוֹסֵף אָסְרָא״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! וְעוֹד, דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הִיא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע עַל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה בַּחֲלַל חֶרֶב אוֹ בְמֵת וְגוֹ׳״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was stated: **And** Yosei ben Yo’ezer testified **with regard to one who touches a corpse** that he is **impure, and** as a result **they called him: Yosef the Permissive.** The Gemara questions this: Since he issued a stringent ruling, **they should have** called him: **Yosef the Prohibiting. And furthermore,** this *halakha* **is** explicitly written **in the Torah, as it is written: “And whosoever in the open field touches one that is slain with a sword, or one that is dead,** or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be impure seven days” (Numbers 19:16).


###### Avodah Zarah 37b:6
[Avodah Zarah 37b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/37b:6)

דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, דְּיִקְרַב — טָמֵא, דְּיִקְרַב בִּדְיִקְרַב — טָהוֹר, וַאֲתוֹ אִינְהוּ וּגְזוּר אֲפִילּוּ דְּיִקְרַב בִּדְיִקְרַב, וַאֲתָא אִיהוּ וְאוֹקְמַהּ אַדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **By Torah law one who touches** a corpse is **ritually impure,** but **one who touches** another **who** has **touched** a corpse is **pure. And** the Sages **came and decreed** that **even one who touches** another **who** has **touched** a corpse is also impure. **And** Yosei ben Yo’ezer **came and established** the *halakha* **in accordance with** the original, more lenient **Torah law.**


###### Avodah Zarah 37b:7
[Avodah Zarah 37b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/37b:7)

דְּיִקְרַב בִּדְיִקְרַב נָמֵי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הוּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בּוֹ הַטָּמֵא יִטְמָא״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **One who touches** another **who** has **touched** a corpse **is also** rendered impure **by Torah law, as it is written: “And whatsoever the impure person touches shall be impure”** (Numbers 19:22).


###### Avodah Zarah 37b:8
[Avodah Zarah 37b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/37b:8)

אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּמָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, דְּאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא דְּיִקְרַב בִּדְיִקְרַב, בְּחִיבּוּרִין — טוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה, שֶׁלֹּא בְּחִיבּוּרִין — טוּמְאַת עֶרֶב, וַאֲתוֹ אִינְהוּ וּגְזוּר אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּחִיבּוּרִין טוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה, וַאֲתָא אִיהוּ וְאוֹקְמַהּ אַדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages stated this** difficulty **before Rava in the name of Mar Zutra, the son of Rav Naḥman, who said** a response **in the name of Rav Naḥman: By Torah law,** one **who touches** another **who touches** a corpse **while** the second individual is **in concurrent contact** with the corpse is impure with **seven-**day **impurity.** If this occurs **while** the second individual is **not in concurrent contact** with the corpse, he contracts **impurity** until the **evening. And** the Sages **came and decreed that even** where there is **no concurrent contact,** one still contracts **seven-**day **impurity** when he touches someone who touched a corpse. **And** subsequently Yosei ben Yo’ezer **came and established** the *halakha* **in accordance with** the original **Torah law.**


###### Avodah Zarah 37b:9
[Avodah Zarah 37b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/37b:9)

דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא מַאי הִיא? דִּכְתִיב: ״הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּמֵת לְכׇל נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם וְטָמֵא שִׁבְעַת יָמִים״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בּוֹ הַטָּמֵא יִטְמָא״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ הַנֹּגַעַת תִּטְמָא עַד הָעָרֶב״, הָא כֵּיצַד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the source of this *halakha*, prescribed **by Torah law? As it is written: “He that touches the dead, even any man’s dead body, shall be impure seven days”** (Numbers 19:11), **and it is written: “And whatsoever the impure person touches shall be impure”** (Numbers 19:22). These two verses indicate that one contracts ritual impurity for seven days. **And** yet **it is** also **written: “And the soul that touches him shall be impure until evening”** (Numbers 19:22). **How** can **these** texts be reconciled?


###### Avodah Zarah 37b:10
[Avodah Zarah 37b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/37b:10)

כָּאן בְּחִיבּוּרִין, כָּאן שֶׁלֹּא בְּחִיבּוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Here,** in the first two verses, the Torah is discussing **concurrent contact,** which results in impurity of seven days; **there,** in the last verse, it is discussing a case **where** there is **no concurrent contact,** and therefore the individual in question is impure only until the evening.


###### Avodah Zarah 37b:11
[Avodah Zarah 37b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/37b:11)

אֲמַר לְהוּ רָבָא: לָאו אָמֵינָא לְכוּ לָא תִּתְלוֹ בֵּיהּ בּוּקֵי סְרִיקֵי בְּרַב נַחְמָן? הָכִי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: סְפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים הִתִּיר לָהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to** the Sages who suggested that explanation citing Rav Naḥman: **Didn’t I tell you not to hang empty pitchers [*bukei*] upon Rav Naḥman,** i.e., not to attribute incorrect statements to him? Rather, **this is** what **Rav Naḥman said:** Yosei ben Yo’ezer **permitted for them** a case of **uncertain impurity** contracted **in a public domain.** In other words, Yosei ben Yo’ezer ruled leniently that one who is unsure whether or not he came in contact with a corpse in the public domain is ritually pure.


###### Avodah Zarah 37b:12
[Avodah Zarah 37b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/37b:12)

וְהָא הִלְכְתָא מִסּוֹטָה גָּמְרִינַן לַהּ, מָה סוֹטָה רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, אַף טוּמְאָה רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But didn’t we learn** this ***halakha* from** the case of **a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [*sota*]: Just as a *sota*** can be made to drink the bitter waters only when she is suspected of engaging in adultery in **a private domain, so too,** uncertain **ritual impurity** is considered impure only when one suspects that he came into contact with it in **a private domain?** This shows that even by Torah law one who is unsure whether or not he touched a corpse in the public domain remains pure.


###### Avodah Zarah 37b:13
[Avodah Zarah 37b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/37b:13)

הָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה וְאֵין מוֹרִין כֵּן, וַאֲתָא אִיהוּ וְאוֹרִי לֵיהּ אוֹרוֹיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said** in explanation: This is the ***halakha*, but** a public **ruling is not issued to that effect.** Consequently, the masses treated this matter with stringency. **And** Yosei ben Yo’ezer **came and instructed** the masses to follow the original **instruction** of the Torah. Therefore, his ruling was in fact a leniency.


###### Avodah Zarah 37b:14
[Avodah Zarah 37b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/37b:14)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, קוֹרוֹת נָעַץ לָהֶם, וְאָמַר: עַד כָּאן רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, עַד כָּאן רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד. כִּי אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי, אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָא מַיָּא בְּשִׁיקַעְתָּא דִּבְנַהֲרָא, זִילוּ טְבוּלוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara provides support for Rabbi Yoḥanan’s explanation. **This is also taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehuda says** that Yosei ben Yo’ezer **drove stakes** into the ground **for** the people **and said: Until here** is **the public domain,** and **until there** is **the private domain,** so that they would know the *halakha* if they suspected that they had touched a corpse. The Gemara relates that **when** people **came before Rabbi Yannai** because they suspected that they might have come into contact with a source of impurity in the public domain, **he said to them:** Why involve yourselves in matters of uncertainty? **There is deep water in the river; go immerse** yourselves in it, and resolve the problem in this manner.


###### Avodah Zarah 37b:15
[Avodah Zarah 37b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/37b:15)

וְהַשְּׁלָקוֹת. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָמַר קְרָא ״אֹכֶל בַּכֶּסֶף תַּשְׁבִּרֵנִי וְאָכַלְתִּי וּמַיִם בַּכֶּסֶף תִּתֶּן לִי וְשָׁתִיתִי״, כַּמָּיִם — מָה מַיִם שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּנּוּ, אַף אוֹכֶל שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And boiled** vegetables prepared by gentiles are prohibited. The Gemara asks: **From where is this matter** derived? **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The verse states** that when Moses asked Sihon, King of the Amorites, for passage through his land, he said: **“You shall sell me food for money, that I may eat; and give me water for money, that I may drink”** (Deuteronomy 2:28). By juxtaposing food and water, the verse teaches that food is **like water: Just as** Moses wished to purchase **water that was unchanged, so too,** he wished to purchase **food that was unchanged,** i.e., uncooked. Evidently, this is because foods cooked by gentiles are prohibited.


###### Avodah Zarah 37b:16
[Avodah Zarah 37b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/37b:16)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, חִטִּין וַעֲשָׂאָן קְלָיוֹת — הָכִי נָמֵי דַּאֲסוּרִין? וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָתַנְיָא: חִיטִּין וַעֲשָׂאָן קְלָיוֹת — מוּתָּרִין! אֶלָּא, כְּמַיִם — מָה מַיִם שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּנּוּ מִבְּרִיָּיתָן, אַף אוֹכֶל שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּנָּה מִבְּרִיָּיתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **If that is so,** then in a case where a gentile had **wheat and made it** into **roasted grains** by roasting it in the oven, the wheat should **also be prohibited,** as it was cooked. **And if you would say: Indeed** that is so, this cannot be the *halakha*, as **isn’t it taught** in *baraita*: If a gentile had **wheat and made it** into **roasted grains,** it is **permitted?** The Gemara suggests a different explanation: **Rather,** food is **like water** in the following manner: **Just as** Moses wished to purchase **water that was not altered from its original state, so too,** he wished to purchase **food that was not altered from its original state.** Roasting wheat kernels does not alter their original state.


###### Avodah Zarah 37b:17
[Avodah Zarah 37b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/37b:17)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, חִיטִּין וּטְחָנָן הָכִי נָמֵי דַּאֲסוּרִין? וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָתַנְיָא: חִיטִּין וַעֲשָׂאָן קְלָיוֹת, הַקְּמָחִים וְהַסְּלָתוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן מוּתָּרִין! אֶלָּא כַּמָּיִם — מָה מַיִם שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּנּוּ מִבְּרִיָּיתָן עַל יְדֵי הָאוּר, אַף אוֹכֶל שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּנָּה מִבְּרִיָּיתוֹ עַל יְדֵי הָאוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another difficulty: **If that is so,** then if a gentile had **wheat and ground it** into flour, the flour should **also be prohibited,** as the wheat has been altered from its original state. **And if you would say: Indeed** that is so, this cannot be the case, as **isn’t it taught** in *baraita*: If a gentile had **wheat and made it** into **roasted grains,** it is permitted; similarly, **flours and fine flours belonging to** gentiles **are permitted? Rather,** food is **like water** in the following manner: **Just as** Moses wished to purchase **water that was not altered from its original state by fire, so too,** he wished to purchase **food that was not altered from its original state by fire.** Although wheat ground into flour is altered from its original state, this change is not accomplished by means of fire.


###### Avodah Zarah 37b:18
[Avodah Zarah 37b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/37b:18)

מִידֵּי אוּר כְּתִיב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **Is fire written** in the verse? There is no mention of fire in the verse at all. How can it be assumed that this is the similarity between water and food?