Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) ABOLITION OF THE "YETZER HA'RA" FOR IDOLATRY

(a) Question: "Vayiz'aku b'Kol Gadol El Hash-m" - what did they say?
(b) Answer (Rav Yehudah): They moaned - 'The Yetzer ha'Ra (evil inclination) caused the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash and the Heichal, the killing of Tzadikim, the exile of Yisrael from Eretz Yisrael, and it still wreaks havoc among us;

1. You (Hash-m) only gave us the Yetzer ha'Ra to overcome it and receive reward - we prefer not to have it nor its reward!'

(c) Answer: After they were steeped in idolatry, they lusted to serve it.
(d) (Rav Yehudah): They fasted for three days and asked Hash-m to hand the Yetzer ha'Ra over to them; a note fell from Shamayim, it said 'Emes'.

1. (R. Chanina): This teaches that Hash-m's signature is 'Emes'.

(e) A lion of fire came out from the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim; Zecharyah told them that this was the Yetzer ha'Ra. They seized it, a hair came out, it roared and was heard for 400 Parsa'os. They were concerned that Hash-m had mercy on it.

1. Zecharyah: Throw it in a lead pot and cover it with lead - "Zos ha'Rish'ah va'Yashlech Osah El Toch ha'Eifah...Oferes Al Piha".
2. Since they were granted this, they requested the Yetzer ha'Ra for Arayos; Hash-m agreed, they held it for three days.
3. A fresh egg was needed for a sick person, it could not be found (hens were not even laying eggs, even those finished inside the hen).
4. They reasoned - Hash-m will not consent to remove only half of the Yetzer (for what is permitted). They blinded it - this helped that people would not lust for their relatives.

(f) (Rav Yehudah): A case occurred, a Nochris was very sick; she said that if she recovers, she will serve every idolatry in the world. She recovered and went to serve every idolatry. When she came to Ba'al Pe'or, she asked its priests how to serve it.

1. The priests: Eat beets and drink beer (these induce bowel movement) and excrete in front of it.
2. The woman: It is better to be sick than to do so!

(g) (Rav Yehudah): Yisrael sunk lower than this Nochris! "Ha'Nitzmadim l'Ba'al Pe'or" - Yisrael clung to Ba'al Pe'or like a Tzamid Pasil (a tightly sealed container);

1. "V'Atem ha'Devaekim ba'Sh-m" - they clung to Hash-m like dates (that do not cling to each other so tightly).

(h) (Beraisa): "Ha'Nitzmadim l'Ba'al Pe'or" - like a Tzamid (bracelet) on a woman's hand (that does not cling);

1. "V'Atem ha'Devaekim ba'Sh-m" - truly clinging.

(i) (Beraisa): A case occurred, Savta ben Eles rented a donkey to a Nochris; when she came to Ba'al Pe'or, she went to serve it. Afterwards, he told her that he wants to serve it.

1. The woman: Aren't you a Yisrael?!
2. Savta: What difference does it make?
3. He excreted in front of it, and wiped himself with its nose. The priests were ecstatic - 'No one ever served like this before!'

(j) Excreting in front of Ba'al Pe'or is its normal Avodah, one is liable (Rambam - a Korban, if he was Shogeg; Rashi - and if he was Mezid and warned, Misah) even though he intends to disgrace it (Tosfos -to serve it through disgrace); throwing rocks at Markulis is its Avodah, he is liable even if he intends to stone it.
(k) Rav Menasheh was travelling; they told him 'There is idolatry here'. He threw a clod of earth at it; they told him that it was Markulis.

1. Rav Menasheh the Mishnah only forbids throwing rocks *to* Markulis, i.e. to honor it!
2. Rabanan: The Mishnah forbids throwing rocks *at* Markulis, even if he intends to stone it.
3. Rav Menasheh: I will remove what I threw! (so it will not be adorned by my act)!
4. Rabanan: One is liable for taking rocks from or throwing rocks at Markulis;

i. By "taking" one away, you make room for others to throw.

(a) (Mishnah): To be liable for giving a child to Molech, he must give his child to (the priests of) Molech and pass him through a fire;

1. If he only gave his child to Molech, or only passed him through a fire he is exempt.

(b) (Gemara) Question: Another Mishnah teaches about liability for idolatry!
(c) Answer (R. Avin): Our Tana holds that Molech is not idolatry (rather, a forbidden ritual for which one is stoned).

1. (Beraisa): If one gives a child to Molech or to any other idolatry and passes him through a fire, he is liable;
2. R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon says, for Molech he is liable, not for any other idolatry.

(d) (Abaye): R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon and R. Chanina ben Antigonus agree with each other.

1. (R. Chanina ben Antigonus): The Torah says Molech because people were Mamlich (crowned) it upon themselves; it can be anything, even a pebble or chip of wood.

(e) (Rava): R. Elazar and R. Chanina argue about a temporary Molech (such as a pebble or chip, which is not likely to be served again - R. Shimon exempts for it).

(f) (R. Yanai): He is not liable until he gives his child to the priests of Molech and passes him through a fire - "Umi'Zar'acha Lo Siten Leha'avir la'Molech".
(g) Support (Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps one is liable for passing a child through a fire, without giving him to the priests!

1. Rejection: "Lo Siten".
2. Suggestion: Perhaps one is liable for giving a child to the priests, without passing him through a fire!
3. Rejection: "Leha'avir".
4. Suggestion: Perhaps one is liable for giving him to the priests and passing him through a fire to an idolatry other than Molech!
5. Rejection: "La'Molech".
6. Suggestion: Perhaps one is liable for giving him to the priests and passing him to Molech, but not through a fire!
7. Rejection: It says here "Leha'avir", another verse says "Ma'avir Beno u'Vito ba'Esh" - just like there it refers to fire, also here; just like here it refers to Molech, also there.

(h) (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): If one gave all his children (to the priests of Molech and passes them) through a fire, he is exempt - "U*mi*'Zar'acha", not all your children.
(i) Questions (Rav Ashi): What is the law if one gave a child that is blind, sleeping, or the son of his son or daughter?
(j) Answer (to one of them - Beraisa) Question: What do we learn from "Ki mi'Zar'o Nosan la'Molech"?

1. Answer: Since it says "Lo Yimatzei Becha Ma'avir Beno u'Vito ba'Esh", one might have thought that he is liable only for his own son or daughter;
2. "B'Sito mi'Zar'o" teaches, he is liable even for a grandson.
3. Question: The Tana asked 'What do we learn from "Ki mi'Zar'o...", and he answered by expounding a different verse, "B'Sito mi'Zar'o"!
4. Answer: Really, "Ki mi'Zar'o" teaches that he is liable even for a grandson;

i. "B'Sito mi'Zar'o" teaches something else:
ii. Suggestion: "(Ki) mi'Zar'o" - perhaps he is liable only for legitimate children!
iii. Rejection: "B'Sito mi'Zar'o" - he is liable even for illegitimate children.

(k) (Rav Yehudah): He is liable only for passing through in the normal way (of Molech).
(l) Question: What is this?
(m) Answer #1 (Abaye): He passes his child along a brick wall, with a fire on each side of it.
(n) Answer #2 (Rava): He makes the child jump over a fire in a pit, as children jump on Purim.
(o) Support (for Rava - Beraisa): He is liable only for passing through in the normal way;

1. If he made him walk across, he is exempt.
2. He is liable only for his own descendants:

i. He is liable for (giving and passing ) a son or daughter, he is exempt for a parent or sibling or for himself.
ii. R. Elazar bar Shimon obligates for giving and passing oneself.

3. He is liable for giving and passing to Molech or to any other idolatry;
4. R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon says, he is liable only for Molech.

(p) (Ula): R. Elazar bar Shimon (who obligates for oneself) learns from "Lo Yimatzei *Becha*" - yourself.
(q) Question: Do Chachamim not expound 'Becha'?!

1. (Mishnah): If Reuven sees his lost object and his father's and he cannot save both, he should save his own.
2. Question: What is the reason?
3. Answer (Rav Yehudah): "Efes Ki Lo Yihyeh Becha Evyon" (do not allow yourself to become poor), save your lost object before anyone else's.

(r) Answer: There we expound "Efes" (this word is extra), not "Becha".

(a) Question (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): Why does the Torah say three times that idolatry is Chayavei Kerisus (once regarding idolatry in general, and twice regarding Molech)?
(b) Answer: One is Mechayev Kares for serving k'Darko, one is Mechayev for Lo k'Darko, one is Mechayev for Molech.
(c) Question: According to the opinion that Molech is an idolatry, what do we learn from the third?
(d) Answer: It is Mechayev for passing one's child to a different idolatry.
(e) (Tana'im argue whether "Megadef" refers to blasphemy or idolatry.)
(f) Question: According to the opinion that Megadef refers to idolatry, what do we learn from the Kares written by it?
(g) Answer (Beraisa - R. Akiva): "Hikares Tikares" - he will be cut off from this world and the next;
(h) R. Yishmael: It already says "V'Nichresa" - is there a third world?!

1. Rather, "V'Nichresa" - he will be cut off from this world; "Hikares" - he will be cut off from the next; "Tikares" - the Torah speaks as people do (we need not expound the extra word).