Avodah Zarah 29

לחספניתא וחילופא סכנתא

for facial wounds, but the reverse presents a danger.

חלא לסיבורי ומוניני לתעניתא וחילופא סכנתא תחלי וסיבורא סכנתא אישתא וסיבורא סכנתא כאיב עינא וסיבורי סכנתא שני לדג דם שני לדם דג שלישי לו סכנתא

Vinegar is good for one to consume after bloodletting, and eating small fish is good for one who has completed a fast, but the reverse is a danger. Eating cress and then undergoing bloodletting poses a danger. With regard to one who suffers from a fever and undergoes bloodletting, this poses a danger to his life. Similarly, one who suffers from pain of the eye and undergoes bloodletting endangers to his life. On the second day after eating fish one may let blood, and on the second day after letting blood one may eat fish. With regard to eating fish on the third day after letting blood, or letting blood on the third day after eating fish, both of these actions pose a danger.

תנו רבנן המקיז דם לא יאכל חגבש לא חלב ולא גבינה ולא בצלים ולא שחלים אם אכל אמר אביי נייתי רביעתא דחלא ורביעתא דחמרא ונערבבינהו בהדי הדדי ונישתי וכי מפנה לא מפנה אלא למזרחה של עיר משום דקשה ריחא

§ The Gemara presents a series of health-related statements. The Sages taught: One who lets blood may not eat the following foods, corresponding to the acronym ḥet, gimmel, beit, shin. That is, he may consume neither milk [ḥalav], nor cheese [gevina], nor onions [betzalim], nor cress [sheḥalim]. If he ate one of these, Abaye said: He should bring a quarter-log of vinegar and a quarter-log of wine and mix them together and drink the mixture. And when he defecates, he should defecate only toward the east of the city, because the odor of the excrement after that treatment is offensive. Since the wind does not usually blow from the east, it is less likely to spread the stench.

אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי מעלין אונקלי בשבת מאי אונקלי אמר רבי אבא איסתומכא דליבא מאי אסותא מייתי כמונא כרוייא וניניא ואגדנא וציתרי ואבדתא

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: One may lift the unkali on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is the unkali? Rabbi Abba said: It is the edge of the ribs [istumkha] near the heart which sometimes bend inward, in which case they must be lifted and straightened into their proper position. The Gemara asks: What is the cure for one whose unkali has been bent? He should take cumin, caraway, mint [ninya], wormwood, satureja, and hyssop.

לליבא בחמרא וסימנך ויין ישמח לבב אנוש לרוחא במיא וסימנך ורוח אלהים מרחפת על פני המים לכודא בשיכרא וסימנך וכדה על שכמה

This remedy is beneficial for several ailments, and the Gemara presents each of these in turn: For curing the heart, the above combination should be taken with wine, and your mnemonic for this is the verse: “And wine that makes glad the heart of man” (Psalms 104:15). For curing an ailment that arises due to the wind [ruḥa], one drinks the mixture in water, and your mnemonic for this is the verse: “And the spirit [ruaḥ] of God hovered over the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2). For childbirth [lekhuda], a woman in labor drinks the mixture with beer [shikhra], and your mnemonic for this is the verse: “With her pitcher [vekhadah] upon her shoulder [shikhmah]” (Genesis 24:15).

רב אחא בריה דרבא שחיק להו לכולהו בהדי הדדי ושקיל ליה מלא חמש אצבעתיה ושתי ליה רב אשי שחיק כל חד וחד לחודיה ושקיל מלא אצבעיה רבתי ומלא אצבעיה זוטרתי אמר רב פפא אנא עבדי לכל הני ולא איתסאי עד דאמר לי ההוא טייעא אייתי כוזא חדתא ומלייה מיא ורמי ביה תרוודא דדובשא דתלי לה בי כוכבי ולמחר אישתי עבדי הכי ואיתסאי

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, ground all of these together and took a handful of the mixture and drank it. Rav Ashi ground each and every one of the herbs separately and he took all that he could hold between his large finger and his small finger and drank it. Rav Pappa said: I tried all these remedies and I was not healed until a certain Arab said to me: Bring a new jug and fill it with water and place in it a ladle [tarvada] of honey that is suspended among the stars, i.e., add the ladle at night, and drink it on the next day. Rav Pappa concludes: I did this and I was healed.

תנו רבנן ששה דברים מרפאין את החולה מחליו ורפואתן רפואה ואלו הן כרוב ותרדין ומי סיסין יבישה וקיבת והרת ויותרת הכבד ויש אומרים אף דגים קטנים ולא עוד אלא שדגים קטנים מפרין ומרבין כל גופו של אדם

The Sages taught: Six items heal a sick person from his illness and their cure is a permanent cure, and these are: Cabbage, beets, water in which dried chamomile was soaked, and the stomach contents of an animal, and the womb of an animal, and the lobe of the liver. And some say: Small fish are also included in this list. And moreover, eating small fish causes a person’s entire body to flourish and to grow.

עשרה דברים מחזירין את החולה לחליו וחליו קשה אלו הן האוכל בשר שור שומן בשר צלי בשר ציפרים וביצה צלויה ושחלים ותגלחת ומרחץ וגבינה וכבד ויש אומרים אף אגוזים ויש אומרים אף קשואין תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל למה נקרא שמן קשואין מפני שהן קשין לכל גופו של אדם כחרבות

Ten items return a sick person to his illness, and his illness becomes even more severe than it originally was, and they are: One who eats ox meat, fat, roasted meat, bird meat, and a roasted egg, and cress; and the act of shaving, and bathing, and the consumption of cheese, and liver. And some say: Nuts are also included in this list. And some say: Cucumbers are also included in this list. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Why are they called cucumbers [kishu’in]? Because they are as harmful [kashin] to a person’s entire body as swords.

ואין מסתפרין מהן בכל מקום תנו רבנן ישראל המסתפר מגוי רואה במראה וגוי המסתפר מישראל כיון שהגיע לבלוריתו שומט את ידו

§ The mishna teaches: And one may not have his hair cut by gentiles anywhere. The Sages taught in a baraita: A Jew who has his hair cut by a gentile should observe the gentile’s actions in a mirror while he cuts his hair. And in the case of a gentile who has his hair cut by a Jew, when the Jew reaches the gentile’s forelock he removes his hand and does not cut it, because it is associated with idol worship.

אמר מר ישראל המסתפר מגוי רואה במראה היכי דמי אי ברשות הרבים למה לי מראה ואי ברשות היחיד כי רואה מאי הוי לעולם ברשות היחיד וכיון דאיכא מראה מתחזי כאדם חשוב

The Master said: A Jew who has his hair cut by a gentile should observe the gentile’s actions in a mirror. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If it is referring to a haircut performed in a public domain, why do I need a mirror? After all, the gentile will not harm a Jew in public. And if it occurs in a private domain, even if the Jews observes the gentile’s actions, what of it? How does the fact that the Jew is watching prevent the gentile barber from harming him? The Gemara explains: Actually, this is referring to a haircut in a private domain, but since there is a mirror in place, the Jew appears as an important person whom the gentile will hesitate to attack.

רב חנא בר ביזנא הוה מסתפר מגוי בשבילי דנהרדעא אמר ליה חנא חנא יאי קועיך לזוגא אמר תיתי לי דעברי אדרבי מאיר

The Gemara relates a relevant incident: Rav Ḥana bar Bizna was having his hair cut by a gentile in one of the side streets of Neharde’a. The barber said to him: Ḥana, Ḥana; Your throat is appealing to the razor. Rav Ḥana bar Bizna said: I have this coming to me, as I violated the ruling of Rabbi Meir, who stated that one may not have his hair cut by a gentile in any location.

ואדרבנן לא עבר אימר דאמור רבנן ברשות הרבים ברשות היחיד מי אמור והוא סבר שבילי דנהרדעא כיון דשכיחי רבים כרשות הרבים דמו

The Gemara asks: And didn’t Rav Ḥana bar Bizna violate the ruling of the Rabbis as well? Say that when the Rabbis stated that it is permitted to have one’s hair cut by a gentile, they were referring to a haircut performed in a public domain; but with regard to a haircut performed in a private domain, did they say that it is permitted? Since the side streets of Neharde’a cannot be considered a public domain, evidently Rav Ḥana bar Bizna violated the ruling of the Rabbis. The Gemara explains: And Rav Ḥana bar Bizna maintains: With regard to the side streets of Neharde’a, since many people are present there, they are similar to a public domain, and it would therefore be permitted to have one’s hair cut there according to the opinion of the Rabbis.

וגוי המסתפר מישראל כיון שהגיע לבלוריתו שומט את ידו וכמה אמר רב מלכיה אמר רב אדא בר אהבה שלשה אצבעות לכל רוח ורוח

The baraita stated: And in the case of a gentile who has his hair cut by a Jew, when the Jew reaches the gentile’s forelock, he removes his hand and does not cut it, because it is associated with idol worship. The Gemara asks: And how much space should the Jew leave around the forelock? Rav Malkiyya says that Rav Adda bar Ahava says: Three fingerbreadths in each and every direction.

אמר רב חנינא בריה דרב איקא שפוד שפחות וגומות רב מלכיו בלורית אפר מקלה וגבינה רב מלכיה

In addition to Rav Malkiyya, whose ruling was just cited, there was another amora known as Rav Malkiyyu. In order to avoid confusing the two, the Gemara records their respective rulings. Rav Ḥanina, son of Rav Ika, says: The statements concerning a skewer, maidservants, and follicles were issued by Rav Malkiyyu; the rulings concerning a forelock, burnt ashes, and cheese were stated by Rav Malkiyya.

אמר רב פפא מתניתין ומתניתא רב מלכיה שמעתתא רב מלכיו וסימנא מתניתא מלכתא מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו שפחות

Rav Pappa said a different opinion: Statements from the Mishna and baraita were issued by Rav Malkiyya, whereas rulings of halakha that are not related to a mishna or baraita were taught by Rav Malkiyyu. And the mnemonic to remember this is: The Mishna is a queen [malketa], i.e., the statements that are referring to a mishna were made by Rav Malkiyya, whose name is similar to the Aramaic term for queen. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the opinions of Rav Ḥanina and Rav Pappa? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them with regard to the halakha concerning maidservants. According to Rav Ḥanina, this halakha was stated by Rav Malkiyyu, whereas Rav Pappa holds that it was taught by Rav Malkiyya, as it is referring to a dispute in a mishna.

מתני׳ אלו דברים של גוים אסורין ואיסורן איסור הנאה היין והחומץ של גוים שהיה מתחלתו יין וחרס הדרייני ועורות לבובין רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר בזמן שהקרע שלו עגול אסור משוך מותר

MISHNA: This mishna discusses the halakhic status of various items that belong to gentiles. These are items that belong to gentiles and are prohibited to Jews, and their prohibition is that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited: Wine, and vinegar belonging to gentiles that was originally wine, and Hadrianic earthenware, and hides with a tear opposite the heart. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A hide is prohibited only when the tear around its heart is circular, but if it is elongated it is permitted, as gentiles will sacrifice a heart only when it has been removed by a circular laceration.

בשר הנכנס לעבודה זרה מותר והיוצא אסור מפני שהוא כזבחי מתים דברי רבי עקיבא ההולכין לתרפות אסור לשאת ולתת עמהן והבאין מותרין

Meat that enters the house of idol worship is permitted, and meat that exits this house is prohibited, because it is considered as offerings to the dead, i.e., to idols; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. With regard to those going to a festival of idolatry [tarput], it is prohibited to engage in business with them. And with regard to those who are coming from it, it is permitted to engage in business with them.

נודות הגוים וקנקניהן ויין של ישראל כנוס בהן אסורין ואיסורן איסור הנאה דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים אין איסורן איסור הנאה החרצנים והזגין של גוים אסורין ואיסורן איסור הנאה דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים לחין אסורין יבישין מותרין

Wineskins and jugs belonging to gentiles, which have a Jew’s wine contained in them, are prohibited to Jews, and their prohibition is that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Their prohibition is not that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited. Residual grape seeds and grape skins belonging to gentiles, which are left behind after the grapes are crushed for wine, are prohibited, and their prohibition is that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Moist grape residues are prohibited, but dry residues are permitted.

המורייס וגבינת בית אונייקי של גוים אסורין ואיסורן איסור הנאה דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים אין איסורן איסור הנאה

Fish stew [murayes] and cheese of Beit Unyaki belonging to gentiles are prohibited, and their prohibition is that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Their prohibition is not that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited.

אמר רבי יהודה שאל רבי ישמעאל את רבי יהושע כשהיו מהלכין בדרך אמר לו מפני מה אסרו גבינות גוים אמר לו מפני שמעמידין אותה בקיבה של נבילה

Rabbi Yehuda said: Rabbi Yishmael asked Rabbi Yehoshua a series of questions while they were traveling along the road. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: For what reason did the Sages prohibit the cheeses of gentiles? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Because gentiles curdle cheese with the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal carcass, and as the carcass of an unslaughtered animal is not kosher, cheese that is curdled with it is likewise prohibited.

אמר לו והלא קיבת עולה חמורה מקיבת נבילה אמרו כהן שדעתו יפה שורפה חיה ולא הודו לו אבל אמרו אין נהנין ולא מועלין

In response, Rabbi Yishmael said to him: But aren’t the stomach contents of a burnt-offering subject to a more stringent prohibition than the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal carcass? And yet they said: A priest who is open-minded [shedato yafa] with regard to what he eats may swallow [shorefah] the stomach contents of a burnt-offering while they are raw, and the other Sages did not agree with him. But the Sages said: One may not derive benefit from the stomach contents of a burnt-offering ab initio, and if one did derive benefit from them, he is not liable for misusing consecrated property. According to both opinions, deriving benefit from the stomach contents of a burnt-offering is not prohibited by Torah law. Since the halakha with regard to a burnt-offering is more stringent than that of an animal carcass, why would deriving benefit from the carcass be prohibited, while deriving benefit from the burnt-offering is permitted?

אמר לו מפני שמעמידין אותה בקיבת עגלי עבודה זרה אמר לו אם כן למה לא אסרוה בהנאה

Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Yishmael: The cheese of gentiles is prohibited because they curdle it in the stomach contents of calves used for idol worship. Since it is prohibited to derive benefit from such calves, cheese curdled in their stomach contents is also prohibited. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: If that is so, why didn’t the Sages prohibit deriving any benefit from the cheese, instead of merely prohibiting its consumption?

השיאו לדבר אחר אמר לו ישמעאל היאך אתה קורא כי טובים דדיך מיין או כי טובים דדיך

Instead of answering Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Yehoshua diverted his attention to another matter and said to him: Yishmael, how do you read the following verse in the Song of Songs (1:2)? Do you read it as: For Your love [dodekha] is better than wine, or as: For your love [dodayikh] is better than wine? The first version, which is in the masculine form, would be a reference to God, whereas the second version, in the feminine, would be a reference to the Jewish people.

אמר לו כי טובים דדיך אמר לו אין הדבר כן שהרי חבירו מלמד עליו לריח שמניך טובים

Rabbi Yishmael said to him that it should be read in the feminine: For your love [dodayikh] is better than wine. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: The matter is not so, as another verse teaches with regard to it: “Your ointments [shemanekha] have a goodly fragrance” (Song of Songs 1:3). This phrase, which appears in the next verse, is written in the masculine form, and therefore it is determined that the preceding verse can also be understood in the masculine form.

גמ׳ יין מנלן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר קרא אשר חלב זבחימו יאכלו ישתו יין נסיכם מה זבח אסור בהנאה אף יין נמי אסור בהנאה

GEMARA: From where do we derive that wine belonging to gentiles is prohibited? Rabba bar Avuh says that the verse states: “Who did eat the fat of their offerings, and drank the wine of their drink-offering” (Deuteronomy 32:38). This verse juxtaposes the fat of gentile sacrifices to their wine: Just as deriving benefit from their offering is prohibited, so too, deriving benefit from their wine is prohibited.

זבח גופיה מנלן דכתיב ויצמדו לבעל פעור ויאכלו זבחי מתים מה מת אסור בהנאה אף זבח נמי אסור בהנאה

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive the prohibition with regard to an offering itself? It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “They joined themselves also unto Baal of Peor, and ate the offerings to the dead” (Psalms 106:28). This verse teaches that just as deriving benefit from a corpse is prohibited, so too, deriving benefit from an offering of idolatry is prohibited.

ומת גופיה מנלן אתיא שם שם מעגלה ערופה כתיב הכא ותמת שם מרים וכתיב התם וערפו שם את העגלה בנחל מה להלן אסור בהנאה אף כאן נמי אסור בהנאה

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive the prohibition of a corpse itself? The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verbal analogy between the words “there” and “there” employed with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken to absolve a city from bearing responsibility for the death of a visitor. It is written here: “And Miriam died there” (Numbers 20:1), and it is written there: “And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, which may neither be plowed nor sown, and shall break the heifer’s neck there in the valley” (Deuteronomy 21:4). Just as there, deriving benefit from the heifer is prohibited, so too here, deriving benefit from a corpse is prohibited.

והתם מנלן אמרי דבי רבי ינאי כפרה כתיב בה כקדשים

And there, from where do we learn that deriving benefit from the heifer is prohibited? The Sages said in the school of Rabbi Yannai: A term of atonement is written with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken (Deuteronomy 21:8), just as it is written with regard to sacrificial animals. This teaches that deriving benefit from the heifer is prohibited, just as deriving benefit from sacrificial animals is prohibited.

והחומץ של גוים שהיה מתחלתו יין פשיטא משום דאחמיץ פקע ליה איסוריה אמר רב אשי הא אתא לאשמועינן חומץ שלנו ביד גוי אין צריך חותם בתוך חותם אי משום אינסוכי לא מנסכי ואי משום איחלופי כיון דאיכא חותם לא טרח ומזייף

§ The mishna teaches: And vinegar belonging to gentiles that was originally wine is prohibited. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? Just because the wine has soured, should its prohibition lapse? Rav Ashi said: This comes to teach us that our vinegar that is in a gentile’s possession does not require a seal within a seal for it to remain permitted for consumption. Rather, one seal is sufficient. Rav Ashi explains the reason for this leniency: If the concern is due to idolatrous libation, gentiles do not offer libations of vinegar. And if it is due to the concern that a gentile may secretly exchange his prohibited vinegar with the vinegar of a Jew, since there is one seal, the gentile will not exert himself and forge a different seal in order to facilitate the exchange.

אמר רבי אילעא שנינו יין מבושל של גוים שהיה מתחלתו יין אסור פשיטא משום דאיבשיל פקע ליה איסורא אמר רב אשי הא אתא לאשמועינן יין מבושל שלנו ביד גוים אין צריך חותם בתוך חותם אי משום אינסוכי לא מנסכי ואי משום

Rabbi Ile’a says: We learned that cooked wine belonging to gentiles that was originally uncooked wine is prohibited. The Gemara again asks: Isn’t this obvious? Just because the wine was cooked, should its prohibition lapse? Rav Ashi said: This comes to teach us that our cooked wine that is in a gentile’s possession does not require a seal within a seal for it to remain permitted for consumption. Rather, one seal is sufficient. Rav Ashi elaborates: If the concern is due to idolatrous libation, gentiles do not offer libations of cooked wine. And if it is due to