Avodah Zarah, Daf Lamed Daled, Part 6
Introduction
Today s section teaches that generally, non-flesh parts of animals (particularly dung and rennet) from which one may not derive benefit may be used. But if the animal has been used in idolatry, then they may not.
א"ר יהודה שאל ר’ ישמעאל: אמר רב אחדבוי אמר רב המקדש בפרש שור הנסקל מקודשת בפרש עגלי עבודת כוכבים אינה מקודשת
R. Judah said: R. Yishmael asked etc.
R. Ahdaboi said in the name of Rav: If one betroths a woman with the dung of an ox which is to be stoned she is betrothed; but if with dung of calves used for idolatry, she is not betrothed.
Men did not betroth women with dung of any animals during the Talmudic period, any more than someone would do such a thing now. This is a great example of rabbis using the issue of the viability of betrothal to demonstrate something else. If the dung has value, then the man can perform betrothal with it. The dung of an ox that has been sentenced to be stoned (for murder) evidently has value, despite the fact that one may not derive benefit from the ox. In contrast, the dung of an animal used for idolatry does not have value. Therefore, this act of betrothal is invalid.
איבעית אימא סברא ואב"א קרא. איבעית אימא סברא גבי עגלי עבודת כוכבים ניחא ליה בנפחיה אבל גבי שור הנסקל לא ניחא ליה בנפחיה.
You can say that this can be proved by logic, or, you may say it comes from Scripture.
You can say that this can be proved by logic in the case of calves to be offered to idols it pleases [the owner] that they be fattened, whereas in the case of the ox to be stoned he is not pleased that it be fattened.
The Talmud first attempts to explain this with logic. When it comes to the animals offered as idols, the owner would want them fatter more food for the gods. Therefore, there dung is something he wanted and it has value. But when it comes to an ox sentenced to be stoned, the owner certainly does not care that they be fattened. Therefore, this dung is unwanted and has no value.
איבעית אימא קרא כתיב הכא (דברים יג, יח) לא ידבק בידך מאומה וכתיב התם (שמות כא, כח) סקול יסקל השור ולא יאכל את בשרו בשרו אסור הא פרשו מותרת
And if you want, you can prove it from Scripture. Here the verse says, Anything that is proscribed should not be found in your hand (Deuteronomy 13:18). While it is written there, The ox shall be surely stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten (Exodus 21:28)– its flesh only is forbidden, but its dung is permitted.
The second proof is from verses. When it comes to idolatrous objects (things that are proscribed), the word used is anything. One may not benefit from anything that comes from idolatry. But when it comes to the ox, the word is flesh. One may not derive benefit from its flesh, but one may derive benefit from other parts of the ox.
אמר רבא תרוייהו תננהי מדקא"ל מפני שמעמידין בקיבת נבילה וקא מהדר ליה והלא קיבת עולה חמורה מקיבת נבילה מכלל דאיסורי הנאה שרו פרשייהו
Rava said: Both of these have been taught in the mishnah. The fact that R. Joshua replied: because they curdle it with the rennet of a nevelah and R. Ishmael responded, but is not the rennet of a burnt offering more strictly forbidden than that of a nevelah proves that the dung of an animal from which no benefit may be derived is permitted.
Rava says that he can prove both of these laws from the mishnah in which R. Joshua and R. Ishmael argue as to why cheese made by non-Jews is prohibited. R. Joshua argued that non-Jews curdle their cheese with rennet made from nevelah (an animal not properly slaughtered). To this R. Yishmael responded that the rennet of a burnt offering is permitted. This proves that non-flesh parts of animals from which one may not derive benefit (like the burnt offering) are permitted. Thus dung from an ox sentenced to be stoned is permitted and can be used for betrothal.
ומדקא"ל מפני שמעמידין אותה בקיבת עגלי עבודת כוכבים וקא מהדר ליה א"כ למה לא אסרוה בהנאה מכלל דעבודת כוכבים אסור פרשייהו
And since R. Joshua responded, because they curdle it with the rennet of calves sacrificed to idols, and R. Ishmael replied: if that is so, why do they not extend the prohibition to any benefit derived from it this proves that it is forbidden to derive benefit from dung of animals used for idolatry.
R. Ishmael clearly states that it is prohibited to derive benefit from rennet of calves offered for idolatry. This proves that the same is true for dung.
ולהדר ליה משום דליתיה לאיסורא בעיניה דהא מורייס לרבנן דלא אסרוהו בהנאה מ"ט לאו משום דליתיה לאיסורא בעיניה
אמרי הכא כיון דאוקמיה קא מוקים חשיב ליה כמאן דאיתיה לאיסוריה בעיניה:
Let him reply that the forbidden matter is not present in substance? For murias to the rabbis who did not prohibit one from deriving benefit from it, is it because the forbidden matter is not there in substance?
Say: Since here, since it [the rennet] is what curdles milk, it must be regarded as though the prohibited matter is there in substance.
The Talmud asks why R. Joshua did not respond that the reason the cheese is only prohibited in eating and not in benefit is that the rennet is no longer visible. This is like the murias (fish brine) into which wine was put. It is prohibited but only in consumption because the wine is not visible.
The answer is an important distinction in halakhah the rennet is an active agent, it is what makes the cheese curdle. Therefore, even though one cannot see it, it is not nullified.