Avodah Zarah, Daf Kaf Tet, Part 5

 

Introduction

Today s sugya derives the source for the prohibition of deriving benefit from libated wine. We should note that this is only wine that was actually used in idolatrous ritual. Wine that belonged to non-Jews is not prohibited by the Torah, only by the rabbis.

 

גמ׳ יין מנלן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר קרא (דברים לב, לח) אשר חלב זבחימו יאכלו ישתו יין נסיכם מה זבח אסור בהנאה אף יין נמי אסור בהנאה

 

GEMARA. From where do we learn [the prohibition of] wine?

Rabbah b. Avuha said: The verse says, Who did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink-offering, (Deuteronomy 32:38). Just as it is forbidden to derive benefit from [idolatrous] sacrifice so too it is forbidden to derive benefit from their wine.

 

The Talmud learns the prohibition of libated wine from the comparison the verse makes with idolatrous sacrifices.

 

זבח גופיה מנלן דכתיב (תהלים קו, כח) ויצמדו לבעל פעור ויאכלו זבחי מתים מה מת אסור בהנאה אף זבח נמי אסור בהנאה

 

But from where do we know that an [idolatrous] sacrifice itself is prohibited? As it is written, They joined themselves to Baal Peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead (Psalms 106:28): Just as deriving benefit from the dead is forbidden so too idolatrous sacrifices are prohibited.

 

The Talmud now asks the obvious question how do we know that idolatrous sacrifices are prohibited. This is derived from Psalms which compares sacrifices to the dead. It is prohibited to derive benefit from body parts of the dead (unless one is doing so to save a life, so organ transplants are allowed).

 

ומת גופיה מנלן אתיא שם שם מעגלה ערופה כתיב הכא (במדבר כ, א) ותמת שם מרים וכתיב התם (דברים כא, ד) וערפו שם את העגלה בנחל מה להלן אסור בהנאה אף כאן נמי אסור בהנאה

 

And from where do we know this about the dead? We deduce it from the similar expression there used in connection with the heifer whose neck was to be broken. Here it is said, And Miriam died there (Numbers 20:1), and there it is said, And they shall break the heifer’s neck there in the wadi (Deuteronomy 21:4). Just as in the case of the heifer, it is prohibited to derive benefit from it, so too here it is prohibited to derive benefit from it.

 

The chain of deriving laws continues! How do we know that one may not benefit from the dead? Because of a gezerah shavah (a comparison of the same word used in two different contexts) connecting it with the heifer whose neck must be broken when a body is found and the murderer is not known. It is forbidden to derive benefit from this heifer.

 

והתם מנלן אמרי דבי רבי ינאי כפרה כתיב בה כקדשים:

 

But how do we know that it is so in that case? Those of the school of R. Yannai said: Because atonement is written about it, as with sacrifices.

 

How do we know that one may not derive benefit from the red heifer? Because it is an act of atonement, like a sacrifice. And just as one may not derive benefit from sacrifices (except for specifically prohibited acts like eating), so too one may not derive benefit from the heifer.