Avodah Zarah 29
לְחַסְפָּנִיתָא, וְחִילּוּפָא סַכַּנְתָּא.
for facial wounds, but the reverse presents a danger.
חַלָּא לְסִיבּוּרֵי, וּמוֹנִינֵי לְתַעֲנִיתָא, וְחִילּוּפָא סַכַּנְתָּא. תַּחְלֵי וְסִיבּוּרָא סַכַּנְתָּא, אִישָּׁתָא וְסִיבּוּרָא סַכַּנְתָּא, כְּאֵיב עֵינָא וְסִיבּוּרֵי סַכַּנְתָּא. שֵׁנִי לַדָּג דָּם, שֵׁנִי לַדָּם דָּג, שְׁלִישִׁי לוֹ סַכַּנְתָּא.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמַּקִּיז דָּם לֹא יֹאכַל חגב״ש — לֹא חָלָב, וְלֹא גְּבִינָה, וְלֹא בְּצָלִים, וְלֹא שַׁחֲלַיִם. אִם אָכַל, אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: נַיְיתֵי רְבִיעֲתָא דְּחַלָּא וּרְבִיעֲתָא דְּחַמְרָא, וּנְעַרְבְּבִינְהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי וְנִישְׁתֵּי. וְכִי מִפְּנֵה — לָא מִפְּנֵה אֶלָּא לְמִזְרָחָהּ שֶׁל עִיר, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָשֵׁה רֵיחָא.
§ 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מַעֲלִין אוּנְקְלֵי בְּשַׁבָּת. מַאי אוּנְקְלֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: אִיסְתּוּמְכָא דְּלִיבָּא. מַאי אָסוּתָא? מַיְיתֵי כַּמּוֹנָא כֵּרְוַיָּיא וְנִינְיָא וְאַגְדָּנָא וְצִיתְרִי וְאַבְדָּתָא.
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.
לְלִיבָּא בְּחַמְרָא, וְסִימָנָךְ ״וְיַיִן יְשַׂמַּח לְבַב אֱנוֹשׁ״. לְרוּחָא בְּמַיָּא, וְסִימָנָךְ ״וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם״. לְכוּדָא בְּשִׁיכְרָא, וְסִימָנָךְ ״וְכַדָּהּ עַל שִׁכְמָהּ״.
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).
רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא שָׁחֵיק לְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי, וְשָׁקֵיל לֵיהּ מְלֵא חֲמֵשׁ אֶצְבְּעָתֵיהּ, וְשָׁתֵי לֵיהּ. רַב אָשֵׁי שָׁחֵיק כֹּל חַד וְחַד לְחוֹדֵיהּ, וְשָׁקֵיל מְלֵא אֶצְבְּעֵיהּ רַבָּתִי וּמְלֵא אֶצְבְּעֵיהּ זוּטַרְתִּי. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אֲנָא עֲבַדִי לְכֹל הָנֵי וְלָא אִיתַּסַּאי, עַד דַּאֲמַר לִי הַהוּא טַיָּיעָא: אַיְיתִי כּוּזָא חַדְתָּא וּמַלְּיֵיהּ מַיָּא, וּרְמִי בֵּיהּ תַּרְוָודָא דְּדוּבְשָׁא דִּתְלֵי לֵהּ בֵּי כוֹכְבֵי, וְלִמְחַר אִישְׁתִּי. עֲבַדִי הָכִי וְאִיתַּסַּאי.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שִׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים מְרַפְּאִין אֶת הַחוֹלֶה מֵחׇלְיוֹ וּרְפוּאָתָן רְפוּאָה, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: כְּרוּב, וּתְרָדִין, וּמֵי סִיסִין (יְבֵישָׁה וְקֵיבַת) [יְבֵישִׁין וְקֵיבָה], וְהֶרֶת, וְיוֹתֶרֶת הַכָּבֵד. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף דָּגִים קְטַנִּים, וְלָא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁדָּגִים קְטַנִּים מַפְרִין וּמַרְבִּין כׇּל גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם.
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.
עֲשָׂרָה דְּבָרִים מַחְזִירִין אֶת הַחוֹלֶה לְחׇלְיוֹ, וְחׇלְיוֹ קָשֶׁה, אֵלּוּ הֵן: הָאוֹכֵל בְּשַׂר שׁוֹר, שׁוֹמֵן, בְּשַׂר צָלִי, בְּשַׂר צִיפֳּרִים, וּבֵיצָה צְלוּיָה, וְשַׁחֲלַיִם, וְתִגְלַחַת, וּמֶרְחָץ, וּגְבִינָה, וְכָבֵד. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף אֱגוֹזִים. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף קִשּׁוּאִין. תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָן קִשּׁוּאִין? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן קָשִׁין לְכׇל גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם כַּחֲרָבוֹת.
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.
וְאֵין מִסְתַּפְּרִין מֵהֶן בְּכׇל מָקוֹם. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יִשְׂרָאֵל הַמִּסְתַּפֵּר מִגּוֹי רוֹאֶה בַּמַּרְאָה, וְגוֹי הַמִּסְתַּפֵּר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לִבְלוֹרִיתוֹ שׁוֹמֵט אֶת יָדוֹ.
§ 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.
אָמַר מָר: יִשְׂרָאֵל הַמִּסְתַּפֵּר מִגּוֹי רוֹאֶה בַּמַּרְאָה. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, לְמָה לִי מַרְאָה? וְאִי בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, כִּי רוֹאֶה מַאי הָוֵי? לְעוֹלָם בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, וְכֵיוָן דְּאִיכָּא מַרְאָה — מִתְחֲזֵי כְּאָדָם חָשׁוּב.
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.
רַב חָנָא בַּר בִּיזְנָא הֲוָה מִסְתַּפֵּר מִגּוֹי בִּשְׁבִילֵי דִנְהַרְדְּעָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חָנָא, חָנָא, יָאֵי קוֹעָיךְ לְזוּגָא! אָמַר: תֵּיתֵי לִי דַּעֲבַרִי אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר.
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.
וְאַדְּרַבָּנַן לָא עֲבַר? אֵימַר דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד מִי אֲמוּר? וְהוּא סָבַר: שְׁבִילֵי דִנְהַרְדְּעָא, כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁכִיחִי רַבִּים, כִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים דָּמוּ.
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.
וְגוֹי הַמִּסְתַּפֵּר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לִבְלוֹרִיתוֹ שׁוֹמֵט אֶת יָדוֹ. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב מַלְכִּיָּה אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: שָׁלֹש אֶצְבָּעוֹת לְכׇל רוּחַ וָרוּחַ.
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.
אָמַר רַב חֲנִינָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: שַׁפּוּד, שְׁפָחוֹת, וְגוּמוֹת — רַב מַלְכִּיּוֹ; בְּלוֹרִית, אֵפֶר מִקְלֶה, וּגְבִינָה — רַב מַלְכִּיָּה.
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.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מַתְנִיתִין וּמַתְנִיתָא — רַב מַלְכִּיָּה, שְׁמַעְתָּתָא — רַב מַלְכִּיּוֹ, וְסִימָנָךְ: מַתְנִיתָא מַלְכְּתָא. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ שְׁפָחוֹת.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁל גּוֹיִם אֲסוּרִין, וְאִיסּוּרָן אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה: הַיַּיִן, וְהַחוֹמֶץ שֶׁל גּוֹיִם שֶׁהָיָה מִתְּחִלָּתוֹ יַיִן, וְחֶרֶס הַדְרְיָינִי, וְעוֹרוֹת לְבוּבִין. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַקֶּרַע שֶׁלּוֹ עָגוֹל — אָסוּר, מָשׁוּךְ — מוּתָּר.
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.
בָּשָׂר הַנִּכְנָס לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — מוּתָּר, וְהַיּוֹצֵא — אָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּזִבְחֵי מֵתִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. הַהוֹלְכִין לַתַּרְפּוּת — אָסוּר לָשֵׂאת וְלָתֵת עִמָּהֶן, וְהַבָּאִין — מוּתָּרִין.
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.
נוֹדוֹת הַגּוֹיִם וְקַנְקַנֵּיהֶן, וְיַיִן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּנוּס בָּהֶן — אֲסוּרִין, וְאִיסּוּרָן אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין אִיסּוּרָן אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה. הַחַרְצַנִּים וְהַזַּגִּין שֶׁל גּוֹיִם — אֲסוּרִין, וְאִיסּוּרָן אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לַחִין — אֲסוּרִין, יְבֵישִׁין — מוּתָּרִין.
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.
הַמּוּרְיָיס, וּגְבִינַת בֵּית אוּנְיָיקִי שֶׁל גּוֹיִם — אֲסוּרִין, וְאִיסּוּרָן אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין אִיסּוּרָן אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: שָׁאַל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כְּשֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ, אָמַר לוֹ: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָסְרוּ גְּבִינוֹת גּוֹיִם? אָמַר לוֹ: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּקֵיבָה שֶׁל נְבֵילָה.
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.
אָמַר לוֹ: וַהֲלֹא קֵיבַת עוֹלָה חֲמוּרָה מִקֵּיבַת נְבֵילָה, אָמְרוּ: כֹּהֵן שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ יָפָה שׂוֹרְפָה חַיָּה, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ, אֲבָל אָמְרוּ: אֵין נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין!
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?
אָמַר לוֹ: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּקֵיבַת עֶגְלֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אָמַר לוֹ: אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה לֹא אֲסָרוּהָ בַּהֲנָאָה?
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?
הִשִּׂיאוֹ לְדָבָר אַחֵר, אָמַר לוֹ: יִשְׁמָעֵאל, הֵיאַךְ אַתָּה קוֹרֵא ״כִּי טוֹבִים דֹּדֶיךָ מִיָּיִן״ אוֹ ״כִּי טוֹבִים דֹּדַיִךָ״?
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.
אָמַר לוֹ: ״כִּי טוֹבִים דֹּדַיִךָ״. אָמַר לוֹ: אֵין הַדָּבָר כֵּן, שֶׁהֲרֵי חֲבֵירוֹ מְלַמֵּד עָלָיו: ״לְרֵיחַ שְׁמָנֶיךָ טוֹבִים״.
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… therefore do the maidens love you” (Song of Songs 1:3). This phrase, which appears in the next verse, must be describing a male, and therefore it can be deduced that the preceding verse is also in the masculine form.
גְּמָ׳ יַיִן מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״אֲשֶׁר חֵלֶב זְבָחֵימוֹ יֹאכֵלוּ יִשְׁתּוּ יֵין נְסִיכָם״, מָה זֶבַח אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, אַף יַיִן נָמֵי אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה.
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.
זֶבַח גּוּפֵיהּ מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּצָּמְדוּ לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר וַיֹּאכְלוּ זִבְחֵי מֵתִים״, מָה מֵת אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, אַף זֶבַח נָמֵי אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה.
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.
וּמֵת גּוּפֵיהּ מְנָלַן? אָתְיָא ״שָׁם״ ״שָׁם״ מֵעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה, כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וַתָּמׇת שָׁם מִרְיָם״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וְעָרְפוּ שָׁם אֶת הָעֶגְלָה בַּנָּחַל״, מָה לְהַלָּן אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, אַף כָּאן נָמֵי אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה.
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.
וְהָתָם מְנָלַן? אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: ״כַּפָּרָה״ כְּתִיב בָּהּ, כְּקָדָשִׁים.
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.
וְהַחוֹמֶץ שֶׁל גּוֹיִם שֶׁהָיָה מִתְּחִלָּתוֹ יַיִן. פְּשִׁיטָא! מִשּׁוּם דְּאַחְמֵיץ פְּקַע לֵיהּ אִיסּוּרֵיהּ? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָא אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן חוֹמֶץ שֶׁלָּנוּ בְּיַד גּוֹי אֵין צָרִיךְ חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם. אִי מִשּׁוּם אִינַּסּוֹכֵי — לָא מְנַסְּכִי, וְאִי מִשּׁוּם אִיחַלּוֹפֵי — כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא חוֹתָם לָא טָרַח וּמְזַיֵּיף.
§ 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא, שָׁנִינוּ: יַיִן מְבוּשָּׁל שֶׁל גּוֹיִם שֶׁהָיָה מִתְּחִלָּתוֹ יַיִן — אָסוּר. פְּשִׁיטָא! מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיבַּשִּׁיל פְּקַע לֵיהּ אִיסּוּרֵיהּ? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָא אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן, יַיִן מְבוּשָּׁל שֶׁלָּנוּ בְּיַד גּוֹיִם אֵין צָרִיךְ חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם. אִי מִשּׁוּם אִינַּסּוֹכֵי — לָא מְנַסְּכִי, וְאִי מִשּׁוּם
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
