Avodah Zarah 35

Avodah Zarah 35

מִכְּלָל דְּאִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה שָׁרוּ פִּרְשַׁיְיהוּ.

One can learn by inference from here that with regard to animals from which deriving benefit is prohibited, their excrement, which is the content of their stomach, is permitted. Although deriving benefit from both a burnt-offering and an unslaughtered animal carcass is prohibited, the excrement of each is permitted. Similarly, although deriving benefit from an ox that is to be stoned is prohibited, its excrement is permitted.

וּמִדְּקָאָמַר לֵיהּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּקֵיבַת עֶגְלֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְקָא מַהְדַּר לֵיהּ: אִם כֵּן לָמָּה לֹא אֲסָרוּהָ בַּהֲנָאָה — מִכְּלָל דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֲסִיר פִּרְשַׁיְיהוּ.

And from the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Yishmael: Cheese of gentiles is prohibited because they curdle it with the stomach contents of calves used for idol worship, and that Rabbi Yishmael responded to him: If that is so, why didn’t the Sages prohibit deriving benefit from the cheese, one may learn by inference that with regard to animals of idol worship, their excrement is prohibited. Since the cheese formed with the stomach contents of an animal of idol worship is prohibited, it is evident that the excrement formed in the stomach of such an animal is also prohibited.

וְלַהְדַּר לֵיהּ, מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵיתֵיהּ לְאִיסּוּרָא בְּעֵינֵיהּ!

The mishna related that rather than addressing Rabbi Yishmael’s final difficulty, Rabbi Yehoshua diverted his attention to another matter. The Gemara inquires: But let him respond to Rabbi Yishmael’s query by explaining that the Sages did not prohibit deriving benefit from cheese curdled in the stomach contents of an animal used for idolatry because there is no substantive prohibited entity in such cheese.

דְּהָא מוּרְיָיס, לְרַבָּנַן דְּלָא אַסְרוּהּ בַּהֲנָאָה, מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵיתֵיהּ לְאִיסּוּרָא בְּעֵינֵיהּ?

The Gemara reinforces its question: After all, isn’t the halakha with regard to fish stew, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, an application of this rationale, as they did not prohibit deriving benefit from fish stew prepared by a gentile? What is the reason for this leniency? Is it not because there is no substantive prohibited entity in it? Although fish stew may contain the wine of a gentile, deriving benefit from it is not prohibited because the wine is not discernible. Why didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua explain that deriving benefit from cheese of a gentile is similarly permitted because it contains no substantive prohibited entity?

אָמְרִי: הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאוֹקֹמֵיה קָא מוֹקֵים, חֲשִׁיב לֵיהּ כְּמַאן דְּאִיתֵיהּ לְאִיסּוּרֵיהּ בְּעֵינֵיהּ.

The Gemara rejects this possibility: The Sages say in response that here, with regard to cheese, since the rennet curdles it, it is considered like an item that contains a substantive prohibited entity. Although the prohibited rennet is not discernible in the cheese, it is nevertheless considered a substantive prohibited entity because it is essential to the formation of the cheese.

הִשִּׂיאוֹ לְדָבָר אַחֵר וְכוּ׳. מַאי ״כִּי טוֹבִים דֹּדֶיךָ מִיָּיִן״? כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: אָמְרָה כְּנֶסֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, עֲרֵיבִים עָלַי דִּבְרֵי דוֹדֶיךָ יוֹתֵר מִיֵּינָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua diverted Rabbi Yishmael’s attention to another matter, and began discussing the verse: “For your love is better than wine” (Song of Songs 1:2). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the verse: “For your love [dodekha] is better than wine”? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: The congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, the statements of Your beloved ones [dodekha], i.e., the Sages, are more pleasant to me than the wine of the written Torah itself.

מַאי שְׁנָא הַאי קְרָא דְּשַׁיְילֵיהּ? אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר אַמֵּי: מֵרֵישֵׁיהּ דִּקְרָא קָאָמַר לֵיהּ, ״יִשָּׁקֵנִי מִנְּשִׁיקוֹת פִּיהוּ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָחִי, חֲשׁוֹק שִׂפְתוֹתֶיךָ זוֹ בָּזוֹ וְאַל תִּבָּהֵל לְהָשִׁיב.

The Gemara asks: What is different about this verse that led Rabbi Yehoshua to ask Rabbi Yishmael a question specifically with regard to it? Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said, and some say Rabbi Shimon bar Ami said: He chose that verse because he sought to tell him a message that can be derived from the beginning of the verse: “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth” (Song of Songs 1:2). In essence, Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Yishmael, my brother, press your lips one to the other, and do not be so hasty to retort, i.e., do not persist in your questioning.

מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר עוּלָּא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא: גְּזֵרָה חֲדָשָׁה הִיא, וְאֵין מְפַקְפְּקִין בַּהּ. מַאי גְּזֵירְתָּא? אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מִשּׁוּם נִיקּוּר.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rabbi Yehoshua instructed Rabbi Yishmael not to question him further? Ulla says, and some say Rav Shmuel bar Abba says: The ordinance prohibiting the cheese of gentiles was a new decree, and therefore one does not scrutinize its origins. The Gemara asks: What was, in fact, the reason for the Sages’ decree prohibiting the cheese of gentiles? Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: It was due to the concern for puncturing, i.e., the concern that a snake might have deposited its venom in the cheese, as gentiles are not assumed to be careful about this.

וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם נִיקּוּר! כִּדְעוּלָּא, דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא: כִּי גָּזְרִי גְּזֵירְתָּא בְּמַעְרְבָא לָא מְגַלּוּ טַעְמָא עַד תְּרֵיסַר יַרְחֵי שַׁתָּא, דִּלְמָא אִיכָּא אִינִישׁ דְּלָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ וְאָתֵי לְזַלְזוֹלֵי בַּהּ.

The Gemara comments: But if so, let Rabbi Yehoshua simply say to Rabbi Yishmael: It is prohibited due to the concern for puncturing. Why did he choose to avoid answering? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehoshua reasoned in accordance with a statement of Ulla, as Ulla said: When the Sages decreed a decree in the West, Eretz Yisrael, they would not reveal the reason behind it until twelve months of the year had passed, lest there be a person who does not agree with it and will come to treat it with contempt.

מְגַדֵּף בַּהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, יְבֵשָׁה תִּשְׁתְּרֵי, יָשָׁן תִּשְׁתְּרֵי! דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: יָבֵשׁ מוּתָּר, אֵין מַנִּיחוֹ לְיַבֵּשׁ, יָשָׁן מוּתָּר, אֵין מַנִּיחוֹ לְיַשֵּׁן.

Rabbi Yirmeya would ridicule [megaddef ] Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s explanation that the prohibition was due to the concern for puncturing: If that is so, dry cheese should be permitted, and likewise aged cheese should be permitted, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: With regard to exposure, a dry substance is permitted even if it was originally in the form of an uncovered liquid, because a snake’s venom does not let it dry, i.e., congeal. And an aged liquid is permitted, as a snake’s venom does not let it age, as it causes it to spoil instead.

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לְפִי שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לָהּ בְּלֹא צִחְצוּחֵי חָלָב, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּעוֹר קֵיבַת נְבֵילָה.

The Gemara presents two alternative reasons for this decree of the Sages. Rabbi Ḥanina says: The cheese is prohibited because it is not possible for it to have been made without containing particles of non-kosher milk. And Shmuel says: The cheese is prohibited because it is curdled with the skin of the stomach of an unslaughtered animal carcass.

הָא קֵיבָה גּוּפָא שַׁרְיָא, וּמִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל הָכִי? וְהָתְנַן: קֵיבַת הַגּוֹי וְשֶׁל נְבֵילָה — הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה,

The Gemara comments: Shmuel’s statement indicates that only the skin of the animal’s stomach is prohibited, whereas the contents of the stomach, i.e., the rennet itself, is permitted. The Gemara asks: And did Shmuel actually say this? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Ḥullin 116a): With regard to the stomach contents of an animal slaughtered by a gentile and the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal carcass, each of these is prohibited.

וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ, אַטּוּ דְּגוֹי לָאו נְבֵלָה הִיא?

And we discussed it and asked: Why does the mishna mention both an animal slaughtered by a gentile and an unslaughtered animal carcass? Is that to say that an animal slaughtered by a gentile is not classified as an animal carcass? By mentioning each of these separately, the mishna indicates that generally they are subject to different halakhot. This is difficult, as an animal slaughtered by a gentile has the halakhic status of an unslaughtered animal carcass.

וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חֲדָא קָתָנֵי, קֵיבַת שְׁחִיטַת גּוֹי — נְבֵלָה אֲסוּרָה!

And in answer to this difficulty, Shmuel says: The mishna is in fact teaching a single halakha, which is that the stomach contents of an animal slaughtered by a gentile are considered to be like the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal carcass and are therefore prohibited. Earlier, Shmuel asserted that only the physical skin of an animal’s stomach is prohibited, which indicates that the stomach contents are permitted. In his explanation of the mishna in Ḥullin, Shmuel posits that the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal are prohibited.

לָא קַשְׁיָא.

The Gemara explains that this is not difficult:

כָּאן קוֹדֶם חֲזָרָה, כָּאן לְאַחַר חֲזָרָה, וּמִשְׁנָה לֹא זָזָה מִמְּקוֹמָהּ.

Here, with regard to the mishna in Ḥullin, Shmuel’s comment reflects the explanation of Rabbi Yehoshua before Rabbi Yehoshua’s retraction of the assertion that it is prohibited to derive benefit from the stomach contents of an animal carcass. There, with regard to the mishna in Avoda Zara, Shmuel’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua after his retraction of that claim. And although this indicates that the mishna in Ḥullin presents an outdated ruling that was later rescinded, a mishna does not move from its place. In other words, once it has been taught in a certain manner, the tanna will not change the text of a mishna in order to reflect a change of opinion, so as to avoid confusion.

רַב מַלְכִּיָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּחְלִיקִין פָּנֶיהָ בְּשׁוּמַּן חֲזִיר. רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּחוֹמֶץ. רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בִּשְׂרַף הָעׇרְלָה.

The Gemara suggests additional reasons for the decree of the Sages. Rav Malkiyya says in the name of Rav Adda bar Ahava: The cheese is prohibited because gentiles smooth its surface with pig fat. Rav Ḥisda says: It is because they curdle it with vinegar produced from their wine, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: It is because they curdle it with sap that is subject to the prohibition against consuming the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla].

כְּמַאן? כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הַמַּעֲמִיד בִּשְׂרַף הָעׇרְלָה — אָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פֶּירִי.

Parenthetically, the Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is Rav Naḥman’s claim that the cheese of gentiles is prohibited because it is curdled in the sap of orla? The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a mishna (Orla 1:7): Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to one who curdles cheese with the sap of orla, the cheese is prohibited, because the sap is considered to be fruit of the tree.

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיג רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אֶלָּא בְּקִטְפָא דִּגְוָזָא, אֲבָל בְּקִטְפָא דְּפֵירָא מוֹדֵי.

The Gemara comments: You may even say that the statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer only with regard to the sap of a branch, but with regard to the sap of a fruit Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that it is prohibited as orla. Rav Naḥman’s statement can be understood as referring specifically to the sap of the fruit, which would mean that it is in accordance with the opinions of both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua.

וְהַיְינוּ דִּתְנַן, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: שָׁמַעְתִּי בְּפֵירוּשׁ, שֶׁהַמַּעֲמִיד בִּשְׂרַף הֶעָלִין וּבִשְׂרַף הָעִיקָּרִין — מוּתָּר, בִּשְׂרַף הַפַּגִּין — אָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פֶּירִי.

The Gemara adds: And this is in accordance with that which we learned in the continuation of that mishna: Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard explicitly that with regard to one who curdles cheese with the sap of the leaves and the sap of the roots of an orla tree, the cheese is permitted. But if it is curdled with the sap of unripe figs it is prohibited, because that sap is considered to be fruit.

בֵּין לְרַב חִסְדָּא, בֵּין לְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, תִּתְּסַר בַּהֲנָאָה, קַשְׁיָא.

The Gemara raises a difficulty against the last two suggested reasons for the decree of the Sages. According to both Rav Ḥisda, who holds that the cheese is prohibited because it is curdled with vinegar made from wine of gentiles, and Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, who maintains that it is prohibited because it is curdled with the sap of orla, one should be prohibited from deriving benefit from the cheese, as one may not derive benefit from either the wine of gentiles or orla. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is difficult.

דָּרַשׁ רַב נַחְמָן בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״לְרֵיחַ שְׁמָנֶיךָ טוֹבִים״, לְמָה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם דּוֹמֶה? לִצְלוֹחִית שֶׁל פִּלְיָיטֹין: מְגוּלָּה — רֵיחָהּ נוֹדֵף, מְכוּסָּה — אֵין רֵיחָהּ נוֹדֵף.

§ Rav Naḥman, son of Rav Ḥisda, interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Your ointments have a goodly fragrance” (Song of Songs 1:3)? This is a metaphor for a Torah scholar: To what is a Torah scholar comparable? To a flask of pelaitin: When it is exposed, its scent diffuses; when it is covered, its scent does not diffuse.

וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא דְּבָרִים שֶׁמְּכוּסִּין מִמֶּנּוּ מִתְגַּלִּין לוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עֲלָמוֹת אֲהֵבוּךָ״, קְרִי בֵּיהּ ״עֲלוּמוֹת״; וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁמַּלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת אוֹהֲבוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עֲלָמוֹת אֲהֵבוּךָ״, קְרִי בֵּיהּ ״עַל מָוֶת״; וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁנּוֹחֵל שְׁנֵי עוֹלָמוֹת, אֶחָד הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְאֶחָד הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עֲלָמוֹת״, קְרִי בֵּיהּ ״עוֹלָמוֹת״.

The Gemara remarks: And moreover, when a Torah scholar spreads his knowledge, matters that are generally hidden from him are revealed to him, as it is stated: “Maidens [alamot] love You” (Song of Songs 1:3), and one may read into the verse: The hidden [alumot]. And moreover, the Angel of Death loves him, as it is stated: “Maidens [alamot] love You,” and one may read into the verse: The one appointed over death [al mot] loves you. And moreover, a Torah scholar inherits two worlds: One is this world, and the other one is the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Maidens [alamot] love You,” and one may read into the verse: Worlds [olamot].

מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁל גּוֹיִם אֲסוּרִין וְאֵין אִיסּוּרָן אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה: חָלָב שֶׁחֲלָבוֹ גּוֹי וְאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל רוֹאֵהוּ, וְהַפַּת וְהַשֶּׁמֶן שֶׁלָּהֶן. רַבִּי וּבֵית דִּינוֹ הִתִּירוּ הַשֶּׁמֶן.

MISHNA: This mishna lists items belonging to gentiles which it is prohibited to consume, but from which it is permitted to derive benefit. And these are items that belong to gentiles and are prohibited, but their prohibition is not that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited: Milk that was milked by a gentile and a Jew did not see him performing this action, and their bread and oil. The mishna notes that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court permitted the oil of gentiles entirely.

וְהַשְּׁלָקוֹת, וּכְבָשִׁין שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לָתֵת לְתוֹכָן יַיִן וָחוֹמֶץ, וְטָרִית טְרוּפָה, וְצִיר שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דָּגָה כִּלְבִּית שׁוֹטֶטֶת בּוֹ, וְהַחִילֵּק, וְקוֹרֶט שֶׁל חִלְתִּית, וּמֶלַח שְׂלָקוֹנְדִית — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין, וְאֵין אִיסּוּרָן אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה.

The mishna resumes its list: And boiled and pickled vegetables, whose usual manner of preparation involves adding wine and vinegar to them, and minced tarit fish, and brine that does not have a kilbit fish floating in it, and ḥilak, and a sliver of ḥiltit, and salkondit salt (see 39b); all these are prohibited, but their prohibition is not that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited.

גְּמָ׳ חָלָב לְמַאי נֵיחוּשׁ לַהּ? אִי מִשּׁוּם אִיחַלּוֹפֵי — טָהוֹר חִיוָּר, טָמֵא יָרוֹק! וְאִי מִשּׁוּם אִיעָרוֹבֵי — נֵיקוּם! דְּאָמַר מָר: חָלָב טָהוֹר עוֹמֵד, חָלָב טָמֵא אֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Concerning milk, with regard to what need we be concerned? Why is the milk prohibited? If it is due to the concern that a gentile might exchange the milk of a kosher animal with the milk of a non-kosher animal, this concern is unfounded, as kosher milk is white whereas non-kosher milk has a green tinge to it, and therefore they are easily distinguishable. And if it is prohibited due to the concern that it might be mixed with non-kosher milk, let the Jew curdle the milk obtained from the gentile, as the Master said: Milk from a kosher animal curdles, but milk from a non-kosher animal does not curdle.

אִי דְּקָא בָעֵי לִגְבִינָה, הָכִי נָמֵי. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? דְּקָא בָעֵי לֵיהּ לְכַמְכָּא.

The Gemara answers: If one desires to eat it as cheese, indeed, one can simply curdle it, as the milk of non-kosher animals does not curdle. What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where one desires to use the milk in kamkha, also known as kutaḥ, a food item that contains milk.

וְנִשְׁקוֹל מִינֵּיהּ קַלִּי וְנֵיקוּם! כֵּיוָן דִּבְטָהוֹר נָמֵי אִיכָּא נַסְיוּבֵי דְּלָא קָיְימִי, לֵיכָּא לְמֵיקַם עֲלַהּ דְּמִילְּתָא.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But in that case, let him take a bit of milk and curdle it, to test whether or not it has been mixed with the milk of a non-kosher animal: If it curdles completely, it is kosher; if some milk is left over, it is not. The Gemara explains: Since there is also whey in kosher milk, which does not curdle, there is no way to establish the halakhic matter with regard to it. Even kosher milk will not curdle completely, and therefore this is not a reliable method to determine the halakhic status of the milk.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא דְּקָבָעֵי לֵהּ לִגְבִינָה, אִיכָּא דְּקָאֵי בֵּינֵי אִטְפֵי.

The Gemara presents an alternative suggestion: And if you wish, say instead that you may even say that the concern applies where he intends to use the milk to make cheese, as there is milk that remains between the crevices of curdled cheese, and therefore there is a concern that drops of non-kosher milk might be mixed with it.

וְהַפַּת. אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פַּת לֹא הוּתְּרָה בְּבֵית דִּין, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא מַאן דְּשָׁרֵי?

§ The mishna teaches: And bread belonging to gentiles is prohibited for consumption. Rav Kahana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Unlike oil, bread was not permitted by a court. The Gemara asks: From the fact that Rabbi Yoḥanan states that bread was not permitted in court, can it be inferred that there is a different opinion that claims that a court did permit it?

אִין, דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: פַּעַם אַחַת יָצָא רַבִּי לַשָּׂדֶה, וְהֵבִיא גּוֹי לְפָנָיו פַּת פּוּרְנִי מַאֲפֵה סְאָה. אָמַר רַבִּי: כַּמָּה נָאָה פַּת זוֹ, מָה רָאוּ חֲכָמִים לְאוֹסְרָהּ? מָה רָאוּ חֲכָמִים?! מִשּׁוּם חַתְנוּת!

The Gemara answers: Yes, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Once Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went out to the field, and a gentile brought before him a se’a of bread baked in a large baker’s oven [purnei]. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: How exquisite is this loaf of bread! What did the Sages see that caused them to prohibit it? The Gemara asks, incredulously: What did the Sages see that caused them to prohibit it? It was prohibited due to the concern that Jews might befriend gentiles while breaking bread with them, which could lead to marriage with gentiles.

אֶלָּא, מָה רָאוּ חֲכָמִים לְאוֹסְרָהּ בַּשָּׂדֶה. כִּסְבוּרִין הָעָם הִתִּיר רַבִּי הַפַּת, וְלָא הִיא, רַבִּי לֹא הִתִּיר אֶת הַפַּת.

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was not asking why bread was prohibited in general. Rather, he asked: What did the Sages see that caused them to prohibit bread even in the field, where this concern does not apply? The Gemara notes that upon hearing of this incident the people thought that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted the bread of gentiles. But that is not so; Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not actually permit such bread. This is why Rabbi Yoḥanan emphasized that the bread of gentiles was never permitted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s court.

רַב יוֹסֵף, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה, אָמַר: לֹא כָּךְ הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה, אֶלָּא אָמְרוּ: פַּעַם אַחַת הָלַךְ רַבִּי לְמָקוֹם אֶחָד וְרָאָה פַּת דָּחוּק לַתַּלְמִידִים, אָמַר רַבִּי: אֵין כָּאן פַּלְטֵר? כִּסְבוּרִין הָעָם לוֹמַר פַּלְטֵר גּוֹי, וְהוּא לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא פַּלְטֵר יִשְׂרָאֵל.

The Gemara records an alternate version of this episode. Rav Yosef, and some say Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, says: The incident did not occur in this manner. Rather, they said: Once Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went to a certain place and saw that bread was scarce for the students in the study hall. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Is there no baker [palter] here who can prepare bread? Upon hearing of this incident, the people thought to say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was referring to a gentile baker, which would indicate that bread baked by a professional baker is permitted, even if he is a gentile. But in reality, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi stated his question only in reference to a Jewish baker.

אָמַר רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּלְטֵר גּוֹי, לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלֵיכָּא פַּלְטֵר יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם דְּאִיכָּא פַּלְטֵר יִשְׂרָאֵל — לָא. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּלְטֵר גּוֹי, הָנֵי מִילֵּי בַּשָּׂדֶה, אֲבָל בָּעִיר — לָא, מִשּׁוּם חַתְנוּת.

The Gemara cites two qualifications of the leniency that people inferred from the above incident. Rabbi Ḥelbo said: Even according to the one who thought to say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was referring to a gentile baker, we said that the bread is permitted only where there is no Jewish baker, but in a place where there is a Jewish baker, the leniency would certainly not apply. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even according to the one who thought to say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was referring to a gentile baker, that statement applies only in the field, but in the city it would not apply, and the bread would still be prohibited due to the possibility of marriage with a gentile.

אַיְבוּ הֲוָה מְנַכֵּית וְאָכֵיל פַּת אַבֵּי מִצְרֵי, אֲמַר לְהוּ רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לָא תִּשְׁתַּעוּ בַּהֲדֵיהּ דְּאַיְבוּ, דְּקָאָכֵיל לַחְמָא דַּאֲרַמָּאֵי.

The Gemara relates: Aivu would bite and eat bread of gentiles at the boundaries of the fields. Rava said to the students in the study hall, and some say that it was Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak who said to them: Do not speak with Aivu, as he eats bread of Arameans in deliberate violation of a rabbinic decree.

וְהַשֶּׁמֶן שֶׁלָּהֶן. שֶׁמֶן, רַב אָמַר: דָּנִיאֵל גָּזַר עָלָיו, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר:

§ The mishna teaches: And their oil was originally prohibited but later permitted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court. The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to the origin of the prohibition of oil. Rav says: Daniel decreed that oil is prohibited, and Shmuel says: