Daf Yomi for Women – דף יומי לנשים – English

Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi's brother Dr. Dennis Lock on his yahrtzeit. He was a loving husband, father, uncle, and grandfather, a devoted physician; and had a love of learning Talmud. He is sorely missed. Today's daf is sponsored by Rachel Bayefsky and Michael Francus in honor of their baby daughter Avital Temima, born 12 Av/August 6. "She is already listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcast during feedings! May she grow up to love learning." If a fleet enters a city during peacetime, any open wine barrels are deemed forbidden due to the concern that the soldiers may have drunk from them. In contrast, during wartime, it is assumed they would not have had time to drink, and therefore the wine is not considered to have been used for libations. However, a conflicting source suggests that even in times of war, the women of the city may have been raped. Rav Meri resolves this contradiction by distinguishing between the concern of rape and the concern of wine consumption. The Mishna discusses how a Jewish laborer who is paid in wine by a non-Jew can request monetary compensation in a manner that avoids the prohibition of benefiting from yayin nesech (wine used for idolatrous purposes). It raises the question: can a non-Jew pay a wine tax to the king on behalf of a Jew, or would that be prohibited due to the Jew deriving benefit from yayin nesech? The Mishna further rules that when a Jew sells wine to a non-Jew, the price must be agreed upon before the wine is poured into the non-Jew’s container. If not, the wine is considered to be in the non-Jew’s possession before the sale is finalized, and the Jew would be benefiting from yayin nesech. Ameimar and Rav Ashi debate whether the act of pulling an item (meshicha) constitutes a valid acquisition (kinyan) for non-Jews. Rav Ashi, who holds that it does not, cites Rav’s instruction to wine sellers to ensure they receive payment before measuring out the wine. However, the Gemara offers an alternative explanation for Rav’s directive. A challenge is raised against Ameimar’s view, and two difficulties are posed against Rav Ashi—one stemming from our Mishna. Ultimately, all objections are resolved.

Rava ruled that if a Jew is with a non-Jewish prostitute and there is wine present, one can assume that the Jew ensured the prostitute did not come into contact with the wine, and therefore it is permitted. Although he may not be able to control his sexual desires, he is not presumed to be lax in the laws of yayin nesech (forbidden wine). However, in the reverse case—where a Jewish prostitute is with a non-Jew—since the non-Jew holds the dominant position in the relationship, we assume she has no way to prevent him from touching the wine, and thus it is forbidden. There are nine different cases in which a Jew’s wine was left with a non-Jew, and Rava issued rulings on whether the wine was permitted or forbidden in each instance. In many of these cases, he permitted the wine based on his assessment that the non-Jew would likely not have touched it, due to the possibility of being caught by the owner or another Jew. In other cases, there was uncertainty about whether the non-Jew had even come into contact with the wine, or whether the individuals present were Jews or non-Jews. Two additional cases were brought before other rabbis. In the second case, Abaye introduces a comparison to the laws of impurity, and the Gemara addresses this comparison. It notes that the rabbis were stricter regarding impurity laws than they were with wine, citing a debate between Rav and Rabbi Yochanan to support this point. Three challenges are raised against the positions of Rav and Rabbi Yochanan—two against Rav and one against Rabbi Yochanan—and each is resolved.

This week's learning is sponsored by Danielle & Jason Friedman in honor of Anabelle Friedman on her siyum of Mashechet Rosh Hashana on the occasion of her Bat Mitzvah, and in honor and appreciation of Rabbanit Michelle for inspiring and enabling multiple generations of women, in our family and around the world, to engage in Talmud study. Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in memory of Myer Senders a”h, beloved father of our friend and co-learner Tina Lamm. "May the Torah learned today by all of us be a zechut for his neshama ותהא נשמתו צרורה בצרור החיים." What is the law regarding a mouse that falls into vinegar? Is the mouse nullified, and if so, at what ratio? The Mishna presents three distinct scenarios involving a Jew and a non-Jew, where wine is left in a location accessible to the non-Jew, raising concerns about potential libation (נסך) and thus rendering the wine prohibited. In each case, the Mishna outlines whether there is reason to suspect that the non-Jew offered the wine as a libation. The determining factor is whether the Jew stated they would be gone for a while or whether the Jew is considered to be supervising. The Gemara defines supervision as a situation in which the Jew could return at any moment, even if they are not physically present. The amount of time that must elapse to prohibit the wine (in a case where the Jew leaves for a while) is debated between the Rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. The Rabbis hold that the wine becomes prohibited if enough time passes to pierce the stopper, reseal it, and allow it to dry. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that the required time is that needed to break the stopper entirely, fashion a new one, and let it dry. A fourth case involves a non-Jew dining in a Jew’s home, with wine left either on the table or on a side table. If the Jew leaves the room, there is concern that the non-Jew may touch the wine on the table, but not the wine on the side table—unless the Jew instructed the non-Jew to dilute the wine. If the bottle is sealed and enough time has passed for the stopper to be broken, replaced, and dried, the wine is prohibited. Why are all three cases necessary? What is unique about each, and why did the Mishna include them all? Rabbi Yochanan limits the scope of the debate between the Rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel to stoppers made of lime plaster, excluding those made of clay. If a non-Jew were to pierce a clay stopper and reseal it, the tampering would be visibly noticeable. A difficulty is raised against Rabbi Yochanan’s explanation from a braita, but it is ultimately resolved. Rava rules in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as the final case in the Mishna reflects his opinion exclusively, without presenting the view of the Rabbis. The sugya concludes with a practical question: If the halakha follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—requiring a longer time to prohibit the wine—and also follows Rabbi Eliezer (Avodah Zarah 31a), who permits leaving a barrel with a single seal in the possession of a non-Jew without concern for tampering, why is the current practice to avoid leaving wine in a non-Jew’s possession? The Gemara answers that the concern lies with the bunghole, which was used to smell the wine. The worry is that the non-Jew might widen the hole to drink from it and offer the wine as a libation. Bungholes were apparently not present in barrels during the time of the Mishna but were commonly used at a later time in Babylonia when the question was asked.

This week's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik and Professor Adi Wyner in honor of the birth of their first Israeli grandson, David Rafael, son of Rivkah & Charlie Gottlieb. Davidi was born at Sheba Medical Center on 26 Tammuz/ July 22. He is named after his great-grandfathers, David Malik z"l and Dr. Donald Stoltz z"l. As we begin the month of Elul with the recitation of Tehillim 27 (“L’David HaShem Ori v’Yishi”), we continue to pray for Davidi’s refuah shleima as he meets the challenges of a cleft palate, including surgery sometime before his first birthday. דוד רפאל בן רבקה אריאנא ואליעזר בנימין Today's daf is sponsored by Terri Krivosha in memory of her mother, חני מנדל בת שימה פיגה וירחמיאל הכהן, on her second yahrzeit. She was an eshet chayil whom we miss and think of every day. Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Meir dispute whether a mixture is prohibited when the forbidden component imparts a bad taste to the permitted food. Ulla and Rabbi Yochanan differ on the scope of the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Meir: Ulla holds that they disagree when the forbidden item initially gives a good taste and only later turns bad, while Rabbi Yochanan holds that they disagree in a case where the bad taste is immediate. A challenge to Ulla’s view is raised and resolved. The Gemara then asks whether Rabbi Yochanan holds that they disagree in both scenarios, but the question remains unresolved. Rav Amram raises a difficulty with Rabbi Yochanan’s view, noting that this debate is absent from the Mishna. After further searching, he identifies what seems to be the same dispute in Mishna Orlah 2:9. Rabbi Zeira, however, rejects the connection, explaining that the prohibition there rests on a different principle. A braita is then brought that directly supports Rabbi Yochanan: it describes a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis regarding two leavening agents — one of truma, one of chullin — each potent enough to leaven dough on its own. Since adding both would cause over-leavening and produce a bad taste, this proves that there is indeed a debate in cases where a prohibited item imparts a bad taste. The braita lists another disputed scenario — when both leavening agents are added simultaneously. Abaye explains the need for this case: it was brought to clarify Rabbi Shimon’s position that even when the prohibited agent initially aids leavening, if it acts in tandem with the permitted agent, it is not considered to have been beneficial to the dough initially, and therefore, the dough is permitted. A case is brought where a mouse fell into a barrel of beer, and Rav prohibited the consumption of the beer. Some assumed Rav ruled like Rabbi Meir, prohibiting mixtures even when the forbidden element imparts bad taste. Rav Sheshet instead interprets Rav’s decision as a special stringency regarding sheratzim (creeping creatures), and two objections to this reading are resolved. Rava rejects Rav Sheshet’s explanation and holds that if a prohibited item imparts bad taste, the mixture is permitted, and suggests either that the halakha is not in accordance with Rav, or that Rav held the mouse imparted a good taste to the beer.

Today's daf is sponsored by Laura Warshawsky in loving memory of her mother, Evelyn Margolis, on her second yahrzeit.

Study Guide Avodah Zarah 46

Study Guide Avodah Zarah 45

Study Guide Avodah Zarah 44

Today’s daf is sponsored by Marcia Baum in memory of Sam Baum חיים שמחה בן אהרון הלוי וליבה on his 22nd yartzeit. "My father was a larger-than-life individual whose impact is still felt to this day. He would be immensely proud of his daughters and their progeny! " What are the laws of bishul akum (food cooked by a non-Jew)? Under what conditions is it permitted and when is it forbidden? If a Jew is involved in part of the cooking process, it is permitted - what type of involvement is necessary?

Today's daf is sponsored by Doreen Samuels for the shloshim of her dear mother, Elaine Charlton, Ella bat Rachmiel v'Riva Leah, z"l, on 23rd July - 27th Tammuz 5785. She was so proud of my Jewish learning." Rav and Shmuel disagree about the reason and origin of the prohibition on consuming oil from non-Jews. Rav maintains that Daniel instituted the ban to prevent intermarriage, while Shmuel attributes it to concerns of kashrut, arguing that the oil was placed in vessels previously used for non-kosher foods, causing flavor absorption. Three objections are raised against Rav’s view, prompting revisions based on other teachings. Rav holds that Daniel prohibited the oil within city limits, while Hillel and Shamai's students extended the prohibition to the fields as part of the eighteen decrees enacted on a day when Shamai’s students outnumbered Hillel’s and successfully passed rulings by majority. That same day, wine and bread from non-Jews were also banned due to concerns related to their daughters—potentially leading to idol worship and “something else.” Two interpretations are offered regarding "their daughters." Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak claims that the rabbis designated all non-Jewish females as possessing nidda impurity from birth, while Genieva, quoting Rav, suggests the concern was intermarriage. The Gemara challenges Rav’s reasoning—intermarriage is already prohibited by Torah law. After a chain of responses and further inquiries, the conclusion is that Rav saw the decree as either a prohibition on marrying non-Jews outside the seven nations (if Torah law applies only to those) or a ban on seclusion with a non-Jewish woman. To what was the "something else" referring?

The interaction in the Mishna between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Yishmael regarding this issue is analyzed and is also brought as proof for the previous sugya about the difference between betrothing a woman with the dung of an ox who killed a person and the dung of an animal that was used for worshipping idols. What are the reasons that the rabbis decreed that cheese from idol worshippers is forbidden to eat, but permitted for benefit? Six possible explanations for the decree against cheese are brought by various amoraim. The Mishna lists other decrees the rabbis instituted regarding items of idol worshippers, such as milk, bread, cooked items, oil, etc. The oil in the end was permitted by Rebbi and his court. Why is their milk forbidden? Rabbi Yochanan said that their bread was not permitted by the court. Why did he need to make this declaration?

Do glazed earthenware vessels absorb, and if so, to what extent? Can they be kashered? Meriemar appears to issue contradictory rulings regarding this topic, particularly vessels that contained wine of idol worshippers versus the kashering of vessels for Pesach. How is this contradiction resolved? Rabbi Akiva was asked three questions, one of which pertained to clay jugs previously owned by non-Jews. Unable to provide answers on the spot, he went to the beit midrash, where he ultimately discovered the correct rulings. The jugs can be used after twelve months of not having been used for wine.  Grape seeds, grape peels, and fish stew (morayis) mentioned in the Mishna are discussed in detail, along with the halachic issues they raise. Different sages mention items that can be used after twelve months without undergoing any kashering process.  Why are cheeses from Onaiki forbidden? Reish Lakish proposes an explanation, but his answer is challenged based on a seemingly contradictory statement he made in a different context. The resolution of this difficulty involves a clarification of his original statement.  Feces from an ox that gored and was sentenced to be stoned are not forbidden, even though the ox itself is. However, feces from an animal that was used for idol worship are forbidden. The distinction between these two cases is clarified through logical reasoning and supported by verses from the Torah. Rava adds that our Mishna can also serve as a textual basis for these rulings.

What are the distinctions when engaging in business with an idol worshipper, a practicing Jew, or a Jew who has become an idol worshipper while traveling to or returning from the Tarput festival? What are the reasons that Jewish law differentiates between each of these cases? What types of vessels are considered more or less absorbent? This characteristic determines whether they require kashering, how the kashering process should be performed, or if they need it at all. Vessels that previously held wine and are eligible for kashering should be soaked in water for three consecutive days, with the water being replaced every twenty-four hours. Alternatively, the vessels may be placed in a furnace and kashered using the method of libun (intense heat). Another method involves placing fish brine or fish stew in the vessel, as the wine is instantly absorbed by these substances. What is the law regarding glazed vessels?

Vinegar produced by idol worshippers from beer is prohibited if there is a concern that wine yeast may have been added during its preparation. The Hadrianic earthenware shards are prohibited for any benefit, as they were soaked in wine with the intention that the absorbed wine would later be used to produce more wine. Rav Dimi provides a description of their preparation and use. A question is raised regarding whether one may benefit from the shards when the benefit comes not from the wine but from the shard itself—such as placing them under the legs of a bed for support. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yochanan hold differing views on this issue. A difficulty is posed from a braita that supports the permissive opinion, but it is ultimately resolved. A second, seemingly contradictory braita is introduced to challenge the first, and it too is resolved with two possible explanations. What are the necessary criteria to prohibit a hide of an animal with an incision found near the heart—specifically, when can it be assumed that such an incision was made to remove the heart as part of an idolatrous offering? The Mishna discusses the status of an animal slaughtered and handled by an idol worshipper when carried into or out of a house of idol worship. Under what circumstances is there concern that the animal is being offered as a sacrifice to an idol, thereby rendering it prohibited for Jewish benefit? Which tannaitic authorities does the Mishna align with in this context? Is it permissible to engage in business dealings with idol worshippers as they enter or exit Tarput (either a festival or house of idol worship)? How does this ruling differ from conducting business with a Jew in similar circumstances? What are the reasons for this distinction?

If one entrusts items to an idol worshipper for safekeeping, should there be concern that they might have substituted their own items in place of the originals? How many seals are required on the item to eliminate suspicion of tampering? Can one purchase wine from the Cutim? Is there a concern that idol worshippers may have come into contact with the wine, rendering it prohibited? Why is beer produced by idol worshippers forbidden?

Today's daf is sponsored anonymously in honor of Elisa and Morris Hartstein, the founders of the amazing Amuta (NGO) – Operation Ethiopia. "Good luck on the upcoming medical mission this week.  Your dedication and drive to bring basic and state-of-the-art eye care to those who are in dire need are inspirational." Which types of wine are not forbidden due to the concern that an idol worshipper may have used them as a libation for idol worship? Yayin mevushal is permitted if it belonged to and was cooked before it got into the possession of the idol worshipper. Which types of wines are not of concern if left uncovered overnight, that a snake may have inserted its venom? What other types of foods or fruits that have liquids (are juicy) do we need to be concerned about—or not concerned—that a snake may have inserted its venom? If a person is sleeping next to the uncovered liquid, will that prevent a snake from inserting its venom? What else, besides drinking, is forbidden to do with water that was left uncovered?    

What are the foods or activities that one should avoid before or after undergoing bloodletting? Remedies for other ailments are also suggested. Additionally, what are ten specific food items that someone who was ill should avoid, as they may cause the illness to return more aggressively? If one receives a haircut from an idol worshipper, what precautions can be taken to ensure that they are not harmed? A Jew may cut the hair of a non-Jew but must be cautious not to approach the area of the belorit—a section of hair that idol worshippers grow long and then cut and offer to their gods. Certain items belonging to idol worshippers are forbidden not only to eat but also to derive benefit from, as they may have been used in the service of idolatry. Examples include wine and wine-containing products. Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagree regarding various items—whether the prohibition applies only to consumption or also to benefit. Why are their cheeses prohibited for consumption, yet—according to the rabbis—still permitted for benefit? Rabbi Yishmael once asked Rabbi Yehoshua about this matter, but did not receive a complete answer. Wine from an idol worshipper is forbidden for both consumption and benefit. This ruling is derived from a verse that compares it to their sacrificial offerings. Their sacrifices are forbidden to benefit from, and this is derived from the status of a dead person. A corpse is likewise forbidden to derive benefit from, as it is compared to the case of the egla arufa, which is brought for atonement and thus shares a similar status to a sacrifice, which is forbidden to benefit from (meila). What does the Mishna teach us by stating that their vinegar is forbidden if it was in the idol worshipper's possession while it was still wine? A similar question is posed regarding a statement made about yayin mevushal—cooked wine.

  Two different opinions are presented regarding if and when one may receive medical treatment from an idol worshipper. Rav Yehuda strictly prohibits it under all circumstances, except when treating one's animals. Rabbi Yochanan, however, permits it if the patient would otherwise die without treatment. Additionally, two versions of a statement by Rabbi Yochanan offer further nuance. In the first, he prohibits receiving treatment from an idol worshipper for an illness severe enough to justify desecrating Shabbat. In the second, he forbids it only in cases of internal injuries. What is the practical difference between these two versions? Rav and Rabbi Yochanan also offer differing criteria for when desecrating Shabbat for medical treatment is permitted. Rav defines this case as a wound requiring assessment to determine whether the person will survive. Rabbi Yochanan, by contrast, permits for internal injuries. This leads to a question: are tooth pains considered internal injuries? Two sources are brought to address this, though neither offers a conclusive answer. The second source recounts a story in which Rabbi Yochanan himself sought medication from an idol worshipper for a tooth ailment and was prepared to desecrate Shabbat for it. This seems to contradict his stated prohibition against seeking such treatment for illnesses that permit desecrating Shabbat. How, then, was his action permissible? Finally, the Gemara offers various remedies suggested by the sages for various ailments, such as a gash from a sword, boils, high fever, hemorrhoids, earaches, and a dislocated jaw or eye.  

Can an idol worshipper perform a brit mila on a Jew? If no Jew is available, is it preferable for a Samaritan (Cuti) or an idol worshipper to perform it? What are the sources for the various opinions, and which authorities support each view? Is brit mila required to be performed lishma—specifically for the sake of the mitzva? Two different verses are cited to explain why an idol worshipper may not perform a brit mila on a Jew. What is the practical difference between the two interpretations? The Gemara offers three possible distinctions, though the first two are ultimately rejected. The remaining practical implication concerns whether a woman is permitted to perform a brit mila. Can an idol worshipper perform a medical procedure or prescribe medicine for a Jew? Under what circumstances is it permitted? Is there a difference between an idol worshipper and a heretic, and if so, why? Why did Rabbi Yishmael not permit Ben Dama to be healed by a heretic? If the Torah says “and you shall live by them,” why wasn’t healing allowed in this case? Rabbi Yishmael prohibits transgressing idol worship and other commandments publicly, even under threat to life. This approach differs from Rabbi Akiva’s opinion in Sanhedrin, which holds that one must give up one's life rather than transgress the three cardinal sins: idolatry, murder, and forbidden sexual relations.

Today's daf is sponsored by the Sussman family on their aliyanniversary. Mazal tov! "As we stepped off the plane 21 years ago with two little boys, we could never have imagined all that Israel would give to us these many years; nor could we fathom what our boys would be giving back to the land and nation. Am Yisrael Chai." Today's daf is sponsored by Julie Mendelsohn in honor of her daughter Hannah’s graduation from medical school in Italy last week. "The Talmud teaches (Bava Kamma 85a) that permission is granted to a doctor to heal, and that a doctor is an essential partner with G-d in the healing of human beings. May you have wisdom, compassion and help from Heaven all of the days of your profession. Your hard work and persistence inspire all of us." A Jew cannot be a midwife or nursemaid for an idol worshipper. Rabbi Meir and the rabbis disagree about whether an idol worshipper can be a midwife to deliver a Jew's child or nurse the Jew's child. Rabbi Meir forbids out of fear they may kill the child, while the rabbis permit if there is another Jew in the room, as there is no concern for murder in that case. A braita permits a Jew to be a midwife for an idol worshipper if they get paid. Rav Yosef explains that the reason for this is to prevent enmity. Rav Yosef suggests extending this to three other situations, but Abaye explains why in each case the Jew has a legitimate excuse and therefore it will not cause enmity and is forbidden. One cannot put an idol worshipper or a shepherd of small animals in a pit, but it is also not required to save them from a pit. However, heretics, informers and apostates can even be put in a pit by a Jew. What is the definition of a heretic and an apostate? Rabbi Meir and the rabbis have a similar debate about circumcising idol worshippers. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a braita to Rabbi Meir's position and tries to resolve it.  

Study Guide Avodah Zarah 25 Today's daf is sponsored Malka Louzoun in memory of her father, Gilbert Louzoun, Nissim ben Sultana, on his 9th yahrzeit. "A man of many accomplishments, he taught us to work hard, to act honestly and with integrity, to be charitable, and to explore the world. Despite his great successes, he was a person of incredible humility. His warmth and intelligence are missed daily by all who knew him. The life lessons he taught us by simply being who he was, are ones we hope to pass to our children, the grandchildren he so dearly loved." How long did the sun stop in the time of Joshua? Two different versions are brought regarding a debate between three sages. Who else did the sun stop for? What is the "Sefer HaYashar" that is referred to both in the verse about the sun stopping (Joshua 10:13) and also in the Kina of David for the deaths of Shaul and Yonatan (Shmuel II 1:18)? The Mishna relates that a woman can't be alone with an idol worshipper. To what is the Mishna referring, as even with a Jew this is forbidden? Additionally, why is there no concern that the idol worshipper will kill her, as appears later in the Mishna when referring to a man? What precautions should a man take when walking alone on a path with an idol worshipper, to prevent a situation where the idol worshipper may kill him?  

Several challenges are raised against Shila’s interpretation of Rabbi Eliezer, who prohibits purchasing a red heifer from pagans based on a drasha on the word "vayikchu." The well-known story of Dama ben Netina—a non-Jew highlighted as a model for honoring one’s parents, illustrating the extent to which one must go to fulfill this mitzva—is cited in objection. This story raises questions both about Shila’s interpretation and about the alternative explanation that Rabbi Eliezer prohibits the purchase due to concerns about bestiality. Either way, if purchasing from pagans is not permitted, how did the rabbis intend to acquire the red heifer from Dama? Additional difficulties are posed against Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling that animals may not be purchased from pagans for sacrificial purposes.

Study Guide Avodah Zarah 23 Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in honor of her daughter Rina. "With love to my incredible daughter who started me on my Daf journey with Hadran. I am continuously in awe of her, with gratitude for who she is and what she contributes to the world." Two additional explanations (three in total) are presented to resolve the contradiction between our Mishna and the braita concerning whether one should be concerned that pagans engage in bestiality with animals. Ravina proposes that ideally, one should not place an animal in a secluded area with a pagan. However, if the animal is already with the pagan, there is no concern that they engaged in bestiality. Ravina attempts to support this distinction by resolving a similar contradiction: our Mishna prohibits a woman from being secluded with a pagan, while a Mishna in Ketubot 26b does not express concern that a captive woman engaged in relations with her captor. This proof, however, is dismissed for two reasons. Rabbi Pedat addresses the contradiction by suggesting that each source follows a different viewpoint—either that of Rabbi Eliezer or the rabbis—who disagree about whether a red heifer may be purchased from a pagan. The Gemara explores three alternate explanations of this debate in an effort to refute Rabbi Pedat’s comparison, but all three are ultimately rejected. The Gemara draws an inference from the debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis regarding the red heifer, as interpreted by Rabbi Pedat. Their discussion revolves around a case where it is uncertain whether the animal was involved in bestiality. If it were known with certainty, the animal could not be used for the purification process. This suggests that the red heifer carries the sanctity of offerings made on the altar, rather than the sanctity of bedek habayit—items designated for Temple maintenance. However, this conclusion is rejected on two grounds.

Study Guide Avodah Zarah 22 Today's daf is sponsored in memory of Deena Kalker's grandmother Tzipora Shoshana bat Bracha z"l. May her memory be a comfort and a blessing. Today's daf is sponsored by Becky Goldstein for the refuah shleima of David Mordechai ben Raizel who is undergoing a procedure this morning. Please Gd for a succesful operation with שליחים נאמנים. The Mishna prohibits one to leave one’s animal in an inn alone with a pagan as they are concerned the pagan will engage in bestiality with the animal and the Jew will transgress the prohibition to put a stumbling block in front of a blind person. The Gemara raises a contradiction to this from a braita that permits a Jew to buy an animal from a non-Jew to use for a sacrifice. Why is there no concern that the animal was used for bestiality, which would disqualify the animal for sacrifice? Rav Tachlifa quotes Rav who distinguishes between the pagan’s own animal and someone else’s, as bestiality is bad for the animal (females become unable to birth and males become weaker). Two difficulties are raised against Rav Tachlifa's answer and are resolved. Two other questions are asked about the Mishna. Why would it be forbidden to seclude a female pagan with a female animal? Does the prohibition apply to birds as well?

Study Guide Avodah Zarah 21 Can one sell or rent property to non-Jews in Israel, Syria, or outside of Israel entirely? What are the issues involved? What is at the root of this prohibition? How is it that people sell property anyway? What explanations did later authorities provide to explain this? Is it applicable to all non-Jews, or only to the seven nations, or only to idol worshippers? An additional issue is raised with renting a field or bathhouse to a non-Jew who will use it on Shabbat. In what situations is it permitted, and in what situations is it forbidden? What is the difference between a non-Jew and a Cuti (Samaritan)?