Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 19, 2018 | 讚壮 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Avodah Zarah 35

Study Guide Avoda Zara 35

What are the reasons that the rabbis decreed that cheese of non-Jews was forbidden for eating purposes, however one聽can benefit from them? The interaction聽in the mishna聽between Rabbi聽Yehoshua and Rabbi Yishmael regarding this issue is analyzed and is also brought as proof for the previous聽sugya about the difference between betrothing a woman with the dung of an ox who killed a person and the dung of an animal that was used for worshipping idols. Six possible explanations for the decree are brought by various amoraim. The next mishna聽discusses other decrees the rabbis instituted regarding items of non-Jews such as milk, bread, cooked items, oil, etc. Each item will be analyzed in the gemara.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 砖专讜 驻专砖讬讬讛讜

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.

讜诪讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘拽讬讘转 注讙诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜拽讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 诇讗 讗住专讜讛 讘讛谞讗讛 诪讻诇诇 讚注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗住讜专 驻专砖讬讬讛讜

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鈥檛 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.

讜诇讛讚专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬转讬讛 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讘注讬谞讬讛

The mishna related that rather than addressing Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 final difficulty, Rabbi Yehoshua diverted his attention to another matter. The Gemara inquires: But let him respond to Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 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.

讚讛讗 诪讜专讬讬住 诇专讘谞谉 讚诇讗 讗住专讜讛讜 讘讛谞讗讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬转讬讛 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讘注讬谞讬讛

The Gemara reinforces its question: After all, isn鈥檛 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鈥檛 Rabbi Yehoshua explain that deriving benefit from cheese of a gentile is similarly permitted because it contains no substantive prohibited entity?

讗诪专讬 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讜拽诪讬讛 拽讗 诪讜拽讬诐 讞砖讬讘 诇讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讗讬住讜专讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛

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.

讛砖讬讗讜 诇讚讘专 讗讞专 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讻讬 讟讜讘讬诐 讚讚讬讱 诪讬讬谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讗诪专讛 讻谞住转 讬砖专讗诇 诇驻谞讬 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 专讘讜谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 注专讬讘讬诐 注诇讬 讚讘专讬 讚讜讚讬讱 讬讜转专 诪讬讬谞讛 砖诇 转讜专讛

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua diverted Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 attention to another matter, and began discussing the verse: 鈥淔or your love is better than wine鈥 (Song of Songs 1:2). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the verse: 鈥淔or your love [dodekha] is better than wine鈥? 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.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讗讬 拽专讗 讚砖讬讬诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 讗诪讬 诪专讬砖讬讛 讚拽专讗 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬砖拽谞讬 诪谞砖讬拽讜转 驻讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讞讬 讞砖讜拽 砖驻转讜转讬讱 讝讜 讘讝讜 讜讗诇 转讘讛诇 诇讛砖讬讘

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: 鈥淟et him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth鈥 (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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗讘讗 讙讝专讛 讞讚砖讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讬谉 诪驻拽驻拽讬谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 讙讝讬专转讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 谞讬拽讜专

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鈥 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.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 谞讬拽讜专 讻讚注讜诇讗 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讻讬 讙讝专讬 讙讝讬专转讗 讘诪注专讘讗 诇讗 诪讙诇讜 讟注诪讗 注讚 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 讚诇诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讚诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讗转讬 诇讝诇讝讜诇讬 讘讛

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.

诪讙讚祝 讘讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讬讘砖讛 转砖转专讬 讬砖谉 转砖转专讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讬讘砖 诪讜转专 讗讬谉 诪谞讬讞讜 诇讬讘砖 讬砖谉 诪讜转专 讗讬谉 诪谞讬讞讜 诇讬砖谉

Rabbi Yirmeya would ridicule [megaddef ] Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi鈥檚 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 岣nina 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鈥檚 venom does not let it dry, i.e., congeal. And an aged liquid is permitted, as a snake鈥檚 venom does not let it age, as it causes it to spoil instead.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛 讘诇讗 爪讞爪讜讞讬 讞诇讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘注讜专 拽讬讘转 谞讘讬诇讛

The Gemara presents two alternative reasons for this decree of the Sages. Rabbi 岣nina 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.

讛讗 拽讬讘讛 讙讜驻讗 砖专讬讗 讜诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞谉 拽讬讘转 讛讙讜讬 讜砖诇 谞讘讬诇讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讗住讜专讛

The Gemara comments: Shmuel鈥檚 statement indicates that only the skin of the animal鈥檚 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鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (岣llin 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.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讗讟讜 讚讙讜讬 诇讗讜 谞讘诇讛 讛讬讗

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.

讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讚讗 拽转谞讬 拽讬讘转 砖讞讬讟转 讙讜讬 谞讘诇讛 讗住讜专讛

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鈥檚 stomach is prohibited, which indicates that the stomach contents are permitted. In his explanation of the mishna in 岣llin, Shmuel posits that the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal are prohibited.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara explains that this is not difficult:

讻讗谉 拽讜讚诐 讞讝专讛 讻讗谉 诇讗讞专 讞讝专讛 讜诪砖谞讛 诇讗 讝讝讛 诪诪拽讜诪讛

Here, with regard to the mishna in 岣llin, Shmuel鈥檚 comment reflects the explanation of Rabbi Yehoshua before Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 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鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua after his retraction of that claim. And although this indicates that the mishna in 岣llin 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.

专讘 诪诇讻讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讞诇讬拽讬谉 驻谞讬讛 讘砖讜诪谉 讞讝讬专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘讞讜诪抓 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘砖专祝 讛注专诇讛

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 岣sda says: It is because they curdle it with vinegar produced from their wine, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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].

讻诪讗谉 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛诪注诪讬讚 讘砖专祝 讛注专诇讛 讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 驻讬专讬

Parenthetically, the Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is Rav Na岣an鈥檚 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.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 讘拽讟驻讗 讚讙讜讝讗 讗讘诇 讘拽讟驻讗 讚驻讬专讗 诪讜讚讬

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 Na岣an鈥檚 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.

讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖诪注转讬 讘驻讬专讜砖 砖讛诪注诪讬讚 讘砖专祝 讛注诇讬谉 讜讘砖专祝 讛注讬拽专讬谉 诪讜转专 讘砖专祝 讛驻讙讬谉 讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 驻讬专讬

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.

讘讬谉 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 讘讬谉 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 转转住专 讘讛谞讗讛 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty against the last two suggested reasons for the decree of the Sages. According to both Rav 岣sda, who holds that the cheese is prohibited because it is curdled with vinegar made from wine of gentiles, and Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k, 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.

讚专砖 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 诇专讬讞 砖诪谞讬讱 讟讜讘讬诐 诇诪讛 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讚讜诪讛 诇爪诇讜讞讬转 砖诇 驻诇讬讬讟讬谉 诪讙讜诇讛 专讬讞讛 谞讜讚祝 诪讻讜住讛 讗讬谉 专讬讞讛 谞讜讚祝

Rav Na岣an, son of Rav 岣sda, interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淵our ointments have a goodly fragrance鈥 (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.

讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讚讘专讬诐 砖诪讻讜住讬谉 诪诪谞讜 诪转讙诇讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讗诪专 注诇诪讜转 讗讛讘讜讱 拽专讬 讘讬讛 注诇讜诪讜转 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖诪诇讗讱 讛诪讜转 讗讜讛讘讜 砖谞讗诪专 注诇诪讜转 讗讛讘讜讱 拽专讬 讘讬讛 注诇 诪讜转 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖谞讜讞诇 砖谞讬 注讜诇诪讜转 讗讞讚 讛注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讛注讜诇诐 讛讘讗 砖谞讗诪专 注诇诪讜转 拽专讬 讘讬讛 注讜诇诪讜转

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: 鈥淢aidens [alamot] love You鈥 (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: 鈥淢aidens [alamot] love You,鈥 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: 鈥淢aidens [alamot] love You,鈥 and one may read into the verse: Worlds [olamot].

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专谉 讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛 讞诇讘 砖讞诇讘讜 讙讜讬 讜讗讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 专讜讗讛讜 讜讛驻转 讜讛砖诪谉 砖诇讛谉 专讘讬 讜讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 讛转讬专讜 讛砖诪谉

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.

讜讛砖诇拽讜转 讜讻讘砖讬谉 砖讚专讻谉 诇转转 诇转讜讻谉 讬讬谉 讜讞讜诪抓 讜讟专讬转 讟专讜驻讛 讜爪讬专 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讙讛 讻诇讘讬转 砖讜讟讟转 讘讜 讜讛讞讬诇拽 讜拽讜专讟 砖诇 讞诇转讬转 讜诪诇讞 砖诇拽讜谞讚讬转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专谉 讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛

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 岣lak, and a sliver of 岣ltit, and salkondit salt (see 39b); all these are prohibited, but their prohibition is not that of item from which deriving benefit is prohibited.

讙诪壮 讞诇讘 诇诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讟讛讜专 讞讬讜专 讟诪讗 讬专讜拽 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讗讬注专讜讘讬 谞讬拽讜诐 讚讗诪专 诪专 讞诇讘 讟讛讜专 注讜诪讚 讞诇讘 讟诪讗 讗讬谞讜 注讜诪讚

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.

讗讬 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇讙讘讬谞讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻诪讻讗

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 kuta岣, a food item that contains milk.

讜谞砖拽讜诇 诪讬谞讬讛 拽诇讬 讜谞讬拽讜诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讟讛讜专 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 谞住讬讜讘讬 讚诇讗 拽讬讬诪讬 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬拽诐 注诇讛 讚诪讬诇转讗

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.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讚拽讘注讬 诇讛 诇讙讘讬谞讛 讗讬讻讗 讚拽讗讬 讘讬谞讬 讗讟驻讬

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.

讜讛驻转 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻转 诇讗 讛讜转专讛 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讗谉 讚砖专讬

搂 The mishna teaches: And bread belonging to gentiles is prohibited for consumption. Rav Kahana says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Unlike oil, bread was not permitted by a court. The Gemara asks: From the fact that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讗讬谉 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 驻注诐 讗讞转 讬爪讗 专讘讬 诇砖讚讛 讜讛讘讬讗 讙讜讬 诇驻谞讬讜 驻转 驻讜专谞讬 诪讗驻讛 住讗讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讻诪讛 谞讗讛 驻转 讝讜 诪讛 专讗讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讗讜住专讛 诪讛 专讗讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讞转谞讜转

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鈥檃 of bread baked in a large baker鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 诪讛 专讗讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讗讜住专讛 讘砖讚讛 讻住讘讜专讬谉 讛注诐 讛转讬专 专讘讬 讛驻转 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 专讘讬 诇讗 讛转讬专 讗转 讛驻转

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 Yo岣nan emphasized that the bread of gentiles was never permitted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 court.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讗 讻讱 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专讜 驻注诐 讗讞转 讛诇讱 专讘讬 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讜专讗讛 驻转 讚讞讜拽 诇转诇诪讬讚讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 驻诇讟专 讻住讘讜专讬谉 讛注诐 诇讜诪专 驻诇讟专 讙讜讬 讜讛讜讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讗诇讗 驻诇讟专 讬砖专讗诇

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻诇讟专 讙讜讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讬讻讗 驻诇讟专 讬砖专讗诇 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 驻诇讟专 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻诇讟专 讙讜讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘砖讚讛 讗讘诇 讘注讬专 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讞转谞讜转

The Gemara cites two qualifications of the leniency that people inferred from the above incident. Rabbi 岣lbo 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗讬讘讜 讛讜讛 诪谞讻讬转 讜讗讻讬诇 驻转 讗讘讬 诪爪专讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讗 转砖转注讜 讘讛讚讬讛 讚讗讬讘讜 讚拽讗讻讬诇 诇讞诪讗 讚讗专诪讗讬

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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k who said to them: Do not speak with Aivu, as he eats bread of Arameans in deliberate violation of a rabbinic decree.

讜讛砖诪谉 砖诇讛谉 砖诪谉 专讘 讗诪专 讚谞讬讗诇 讙讝专 注诇讬讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专

搂 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:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Avodah Zarah 35

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 35

诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 砖专讜 驻专砖讬讬讛讜

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.

讜诪讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘拽讬讘转 注讙诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜拽讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 诇讗 讗住专讜讛 讘讛谞讗讛 诪讻诇诇 讚注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗住讜专 驻专砖讬讬讛讜

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鈥檛 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.

讜诇讛讚专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬转讬讛 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讘注讬谞讬讛

The mishna related that rather than addressing Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 final difficulty, Rabbi Yehoshua diverted his attention to another matter. The Gemara inquires: But let him respond to Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 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.

讚讛讗 诪讜专讬讬住 诇专讘谞谉 讚诇讗 讗住专讜讛讜 讘讛谞讗讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬转讬讛 诇讗讬住讜专讗 讘注讬谞讬讛

The Gemara reinforces its question: After all, isn鈥檛 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鈥檛 Rabbi Yehoshua explain that deriving benefit from cheese of a gentile is similarly permitted because it contains no substantive prohibited entity?

讗诪专讬 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讜拽诪讬讛 拽讗 诪讜拽讬诐 讞砖讬讘 诇讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讗讬住讜专讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛

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.

讛砖讬讗讜 诇讚讘专 讗讞专 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讻讬 讟讜讘讬诐 讚讚讬讱 诪讬讬谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讗诪专讛 讻谞住转 讬砖专讗诇 诇驻谞讬 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 专讘讜谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 注专讬讘讬诐 注诇讬 讚讘专讬 讚讜讚讬讱 讬讜转专 诪讬讬谞讛 砖诇 转讜专讛

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua diverted Rabbi Yishmael鈥檚 attention to another matter, and began discussing the verse: 鈥淔or your love is better than wine鈥 (Song of Songs 1:2). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the verse: 鈥淔or your love [dodekha] is better than wine鈥? 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.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讗讬 拽专讗 讚砖讬讬诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 讗诪讬 诪专讬砖讬讛 讚拽专讗 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬砖拽谞讬 诪谞砖讬拽讜转 驻讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讞讬 讞砖讜拽 砖驻转讜转讬讱 讝讜 讘讝讜 讜讗诇 转讘讛诇 诇讛砖讬讘

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: 鈥淟et him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth鈥 (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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗讘讗 讙讝专讛 讞讚砖讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讬谉 诪驻拽驻拽讬谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 讙讝讬专转讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 谞讬拽讜专

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鈥 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.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 谞讬拽讜专 讻讚注讜诇讗 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讻讬 讙讝专讬 讙讝讬专转讗 讘诪注专讘讗 诇讗 诪讙诇讜 讟注诪讗 注讚 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 讚诇诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讚诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讗转讬 诇讝诇讝讜诇讬 讘讛

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.

诪讙讚祝 讘讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讬讘砖讛 转砖转专讬 讬砖谉 转砖转专讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讬讘砖 诪讜转专 讗讬谉 诪谞讬讞讜 诇讬讘砖 讬砖谉 诪讜转专 讗讬谉 诪谞讬讞讜 诇讬砖谉

Rabbi Yirmeya would ridicule [megaddef ] Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi鈥檚 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 岣nina 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鈥檚 venom does not let it dry, i.e., congeal. And an aged liquid is permitted, as a snake鈥檚 venom does not let it age, as it causes it to spoil instead.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛 讘诇讗 爪讞爪讜讞讬 讞诇讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘注讜专 拽讬讘转 谞讘讬诇讛

The Gemara presents two alternative reasons for this decree of the Sages. Rabbi 岣nina 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.

讛讗 拽讬讘讛 讙讜驻讗 砖专讬讗 讜诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞谉 拽讬讘转 讛讙讜讬 讜砖诇 谞讘讬诇讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讗住讜专讛

The Gemara comments: Shmuel鈥檚 statement indicates that only the skin of the animal鈥檚 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鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (岣llin 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.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讗讟讜 讚讙讜讬 诇讗讜 谞讘诇讛 讛讬讗

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.

讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讚讗 拽转谞讬 拽讬讘转 砖讞讬讟转 讙讜讬 谞讘诇讛 讗住讜专讛

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鈥檚 stomach is prohibited, which indicates that the stomach contents are permitted. In his explanation of the mishna in 岣llin, Shmuel posits that the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal are prohibited.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara explains that this is not difficult:

讻讗谉 拽讜讚诐 讞讝专讛 讻讗谉 诇讗讞专 讞讝专讛 讜诪砖谞讛 诇讗 讝讝讛 诪诪拽讜诪讛

Here, with regard to the mishna in 岣llin, Shmuel鈥檚 comment reflects the explanation of Rabbi Yehoshua before Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 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鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua after his retraction of that claim. And although this indicates that the mishna in 岣llin 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.

专讘 诪诇讻讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讞诇讬拽讬谉 驻谞讬讛 讘砖讜诪谉 讞讝讬专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘讞讜诪抓 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘砖专祝 讛注专诇讛

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 岣sda says: It is because they curdle it with vinegar produced from their wine, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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].

讻诪讗谉 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛诪注诪讬讚 讘砖专祝 讛注专诇讛 讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 驻讬专讬

Parenthetically, the Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is Rav Na岣an鈥檚 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.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 讘拽讟驻讗 讚讙讜讝讗 讗讘诇 讘拽讟驻讗 讚驻讬专讗 诪讜讚讬

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 Na岣an鈥檚 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.

讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖诪注转讬 讘驻讬专讜砖 砖讛诪注诪讬讚 讘砖专祝 讛注诇讬谉 讜讘砖专祝 讛注讬拽专讬谉 诪讜转专 讘砖专祝 讛驻讙讬谉 讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 驻讬专讬

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.

讘讬谉 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 讘讬谉 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 转转住专 讘讛谞讗讛 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty against the last two suggested reasons for the decree of the Sages. According to both Rav 岣sda, who holds that the cheese is prohibited because it is curdled with vinegar made from wine of gentiles, and Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k, 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.

讚专砖 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 诇专讬讞 砖诪谞讬讱 讟讜讘讬诐 诇诪讛 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讚讜诪讛 诇爪诇讜讞讬转 砖诇 驻诇讬讬讟讬谉 诪讙讜诇讛 专讬讞讛 谞讜讚祝 诪讻讜住讛 讗讬谉 专讬讞讛 谞讜讚祝

Rav Na岣an, son of Rav 岣sda, interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淵our ointments have a goodly fragrance鈥 (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.

讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讚讘专讬诐 砖诪讻讜住讬谉 诪诪谞讜 诪转讙诇讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讗诪专 注诇诪讜转 讗讛讘讜讱 拽专讬 讘讬讛 注诇讜诪讜转 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖诪诇讗讱 讛诪讜转 讗讜讛讘讜 砖谞讗诪专 注诇诪讜转 讗讛讘讜讱 拽专讬 讘讬讛 注诇 诪讜转 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖谞讜讞诇 砖谞讬 注讜诇诪讜转 讗讞讚 讛注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讛注讜诇诐 讛讘讗 砖谞讗诪专 注诇诪讜转 拽专讬 讘讬讛 注讜诇诪讜转

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: 鈥淢aidens [alamot] love You鈥 (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: 鈥淢aidens [alamot] love You,鈥 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: 鈥淢aidens [alamot] love You,鈥 and one may read into the verse: Worlds [olamot].

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专谉 讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛 讞诇讘 砖讞诇讘讜 讙讜讬 讜讗讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 专讜讗讛讜 讜讛驻转 讜讛砖诪谉 砖诇讛谉 专讘讬 讜讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 讛转讬专讜 讛砖诪谉

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.

讜讛砖诇拽讜转 讜讻讘砖讬谉 砖讚专讻谉 诇转转 诇转讜讻谉 讬讬谉 讜讞讜诪抓 讜讟专讬转 讟专讜驻讛 讜爪讬专 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讙讛 讻诇讘讬转 砖讜讟讟转 讘讜 讜讛讞讬诇拽 讜拽讜专讟 砖诇 讞诇转讬转 讜诪诇讞 砖诇拽讜谞讚讬转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专谉 讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛

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 岣lak, and a sliver of 岣ltit, and salkondit salt (see 39b); all these are prohibited, but their prohibition is not that of item from which deriving benefit is prohibited.

讙诪壮 讞诇讘 诇诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 讟讛讜专 讞讬讜专 讟诪讗 讬专讜拽 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讗讬注专讜讘讬 谞讬拽讜诐 讚讗诪专 诪专 讞诇讘 讟讛讜专 注讜诪讚 讞诇讘 讟诪讗 讗讬谞讜 注讜诪讚

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.

讗讬 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇讙讘讬谞讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻诪讻讗

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 kuta岣, a food item that contains milk.

讜谞砖拽讜诇 诪讬谞讬讛 拽诇讬 讜谞讬拽讜诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讟讛讜专 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 谞住讬讜讘讬 讚诇讗 拽讬讬诪讬 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬拽诐 注诇讛 讚诪讬诇转讗

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.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讚拽讘注讬 诇讛 诇讙讘讬谞讛 讗讬讻讗 讚拽讗讬 讘讬谞讬 讗讟驻讬

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.

讜讛驻转 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻转 诇讗 讛讜转专讛 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讗谉 讚砖专讬

搂 The mishna teaches: And bread belonging to gentiles is prohibited for consumption. Rav Kahana says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Unlike oil, bread was not permitted by a court. The Gemara asks: From the fact that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讗讬谉 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 驻注诐 讗讞转 讬爪讗 专讘讬 诇砖讚讛 讜讛讘讬讗 讙讜讬 诇驻谞讬讜 驻转 驻讜专谞讬 诪讗驻讛 住讗讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讻诪讛 谞讗讛 驻转 讝讜 诪讛 专讗讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讗讜住专讛 诪讛 专讗讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讞转谞讜转

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鈥檃 of bread baked in a large baker鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 诪讛 专讗讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讗讜住专讛 讘砖讚讛 讻住讘讜专讬谉 讛注诐 讛转讬专 专讘讬 讛驻转 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 专讘讬 诇讗 讛转讬专 讗转 讛驻转

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 Yo岣nan emphasized that the bread of gentiles was never permitted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 court.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讗 讻讱 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专讜 驻注诐 讗讞转 讛诇讱 专讘讬 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讜专讗讛 驻转 讚讞讜拽 诇转诇诪讬讚讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 驻诇讟专 讻住讘讜专讬谉 讛注诐 诇讜诪专 驻诇讟专 讙讜讬 讜讛讜讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讗诇讗 驻诇讟专 讬砖专讗诇

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻诇讟专 讙讜讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讬讻讗 驻诇讟专 讬砖专讗诇 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 驻诇讟专 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻诇讟专 讙讜讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘砖讚讛 讗讘诇 讘注讬专 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讞转谞讜转

The Gemara cites two qualifications of the leniency that people inferred from the above incident. Rabbi 岣lbo 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗讬讘讜 讛讜讛 诪谞讻讬转 讜讗讻讬诇 驻转 讗讘讬 诪爪专讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讗 转砖转注讜 讘讛讚讬讛 讚讗讬讘讜 讚拽讗讻讬诇 诇讞诪讗 讚讗专诪讗讬

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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k who said to them: Do not speak with Aivu, as he eats bread of Arameans in deliberate violation of a rabbinic decree.

讜讛砖诪谉 砖诇讛谉 砖诪谉 专讘 讗诪专 讚谞讬讗诇 讙讝专 注诇讬讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专

搂 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:

Scroll To Top