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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 22, 2018 | 讝壮 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Avodah Zarah 38

Laws of bishul akum (food cooked by a non-Jew) – details about when it is permitted and when it is forbidden are discussed. What is considered “cooking,” if a Jew is involved in part of the cooking process – what type of involvement is necessary, etc.

讗诇讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗

Rather, the cooking of gentiles is prohibited by rabbinic law, and the verse is cited as a mere support.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讛谞讗讻诇 讻诪讜转 砖讛讜讗 讞讬 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘讬砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 讘住讜专讗 诪转谞讜 讛讻讬 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 诪转谞讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 注诇 砖讜诇讞谉 诪诇讻讬诐 诇诇驻转 讘讜 讗转 讛驻转 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘讬砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐

The Gemara discusses the particulars of the prohibition against eating the cooking of gentiles. Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k says that Rav says: Any item that is eaten as it is, i.e., raw, is not subject to the prohibition against eating the cooking of gentiles. The Gemara remarks: In the study hall in Sura, they taught it this way. In Pumbedita, they taught it like this: Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k says that Rav says: Any item that is not eaten together with bread on the table of kings is not subject to the prohibition against eating the cooking of gentiles. In other words, foods that are not eaten by distinguished individuals are not subject to this prohibition.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讙讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 讜讗专讚讬 讜讚讬讬住讗

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two opinions? The practical difference between them is with regard to small fish, mushrooms, and porridge. These foods are not eaten raw, but they are not eaten by distinguished individuals. Consequently, these foods are prohibited according to the version taught in Sura, but permitted according to the version taught in Pumbedita.

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘 讚讙讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 诪诇讜讞讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讘讬砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诐 爪诇讗谉 讙讜讬 住讜诪讱 讬砖专讗诇 注诇讬讛诐 诪砖讜诐 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讜讗讬 注讘讚讬谞讛讜 讙讜讬 讻住讗 讚讛专住谞讗 讗住讜专

Rav Asi says that Rav says: Small, salted fish are not subject to the prohibition of the cooking of gentiles, because they can be eaten raw. Rav Yosef says: If a gentile roasted these fish, a Jew may rely upon them for use in the mitzva of a joining of cooked foods, which must be prepared in order to permit cooking for Shabbat on a Festival that occurs on a Friday. And if a gentile made them into kasa deharsena, a dish of fish fried in oil and flour, the dish is prohibited. In this case, since the flour had not been edible, it is considered the cooked food of a gentile.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛专住谞讗 注讬拽专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 拽讬诪讞讗 注讬拽专

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? What reason would there be to think that kasa deharsena prepared by a gentile is permitted? The Gemara answers: This is taught lest you say that the salted fish, which one is permitted to eat even if cooked by gentiles, is the essential component. Therefore, Rav Yosef teaches us that the flour is the essential component, and the dish is therefore considered the cooked food of a gentile.

讗诪专 专讘 讘专讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讙讜讬 砖讛爪讬转 讗转 讛讗讜专 讘讗讙诐 讻诇 讛讞讙讘讬诐 砖讘讗讙诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讬讚注 讛讬 讟讛讜专 讜讛讬 讟诪讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讙讜讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讬砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐

Rav Beruna says that Rav says: In the case of a gentile who ignited a fire in the meadow, all the locusts that were burned in the meadow are prohibited. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that the reason they are prohibited is that one no longer knows which are kosher and which are non-kosher as a result of their burning, why does Rav Beruna specifically discuss a case involving a gentile? Even if a Jew burned the meadow, they would also be prohibited for the same reason. Rather, this is referring to a case where all the locusts were kosher, and the prohibition is due to the cooking of gentiles, as the locusts were effectively cooked by a gentile.

讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讬 讗住讬专 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 驻讚转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讬 讙讜讬 讚讞专讬讱 专讬砖讗 砖专讬 诇诪讬讻诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪专讬砖 讗讜谞讬讛 讗诇诪讗 诇注讘讜专讬 砖注专 拽诪讬讻讜讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讙诇讜讬讬 讗讙诪讗 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉

The Gemara raises an objection: Does anyone actually prohibit the cooking of gentiles in a case like this? But doesn鈥檛 Rav 岣nan bar Ami say that Rabbi Pedat says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to this gentile who singed the head of an animal, it is permitted to eat part of it, even from the tip of the ear, which is fully cooked? The Gemara remarks: Evidently, this is permitted because the gentile merely intends to remove the hair and not to cook the ears. Here, too, it ought to be permitted because he merely intends to clear the meadow, not to cook the locusts.

诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讗 讬讚注 讛讬 讟讛讜专 讜讛讬 讟诪讗 讜诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讘讙讜讬 讛讬讛

The Gemara answers: Actually, this is referring to a case where there is a mixture of different types of locusts, and they are prohibited because one does not know which are kosher and which are non-kosher. And the reason Rav Beruna specified that the case involved a gentile is because the incident that occurred happened to have occurred with the involvement of a gentile.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讬 讙讜讬 讚讞专讬讱 专讬砖讗 砖专讬 诇诪讬讻诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪专讬砖 讗讜谞讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛诇讻讱 讛讗讬 讙讜讬 讚砖讚讗 住讬讻转讗 诇讗转讜谞讗 讜拽讘专 讘讛 讬砖专讗诇 拽专讗 诪注讬拽专讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讘砖讜诇讬 诪谞讗 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇砖专讜专讬 诪谞讗 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉

搂 The Gemara addresses the matter itself: Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to this gentile who singed the head of an animal, it is permitted to eat part of it, even from the tip of the ear, which is fully cooked. Ravina said: Therefore, with regard to this gentile who threw a moist peg into the oven in order to dry it out and harden it, and a Jew had already inserted a gourd in the oven from the outset, the gourd is permitted, even though it was in effect cooked by a gentile. The reason is that the gentile had no intention to cook the vegetable. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach this, lest you say that the gentile intends to cook the vessel, i.e., the peg, by softening it. Therefore Ravina teaches us that he intends only to harden the vessel.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛谞讬讞 讬砖专讗诇 讘砖专 注诇 讙讘讬 讙讞诇讬诐 讜讘讗 讙讜讬 讜讛驻讱 讘讜 诪讜转专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 讛驻讱 讘讬讛 讛讜讛 讘砖讬诇 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗讬 诇讗 讛驻讱 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘砖讬诇 讗诪讗讬 诪讜转专 讘讬砖讜诇讬 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜

搂 The Gemara continues the discussion with regard to the cooking of gentiles by examining the halakha of meat cooked by both a gentile and a Jew. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: If a Jew placed meat upon flaming coals and a gentile came and turned the meat over, the meat is permitted. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that it is a case where if the gentile had not turned over the meat it would have cooked anyway, it is obvious that the meat is permitted, as the gentile鈥檚 actions did not actually alter the food. The Gemara suggests: Rather, is it not a case where, if the gentile had not turned it over, it would not have cooked? But if so, why is it permitted? In such a case, the meat is certainly considered to be the cooking of gentiles and ought to be prohibited.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 讛驻讱 讛讜讛 讘砖讬诇 讘转专转讬 砖注讬 讜讛砖转讗 拽讗 讘砖讬诇 讘讞讚讗 砖注转讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 拽专讜讘讬 讘讬砖讜诇讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha with regard to a case where if the gentile had not turned over the meat, it would have cooked in two hours, and now that he did turn it over, it will cook in only one hour. Lest you say that hastening the cooking process is a significant matter, and therefore food whose preparation is expedited by a gentile is prohibited, Ravina teaches us otherwise.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讻诪讗讻诇 讘谉 讚专讜住讗讬 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘讬砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 讛讗 讗讬谞讜 讻诪讗讻诇 讘谉 讚专讜住讗讬 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Asi say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Any item that has been cooked like the food of ben Derosai, i.e., partially cooked so that it is just about edible, is not subject to the prohibition of the cooking of gentiles? Consequently, if it is not cooked like the food of ben Derosai, it is subject to the prohibition of the cooking of gentiles. Accordingly, meat whose cooking was expedited by a gentile ought to be prohibited, as this ruling includes cases where it had not been cooked like the food of ben Derosai at the time of the gentile鈥檚 intervention.

讛转诐 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讜转讘讬讛 讘住讬诇转讗 讜砖拽诇讬讛 讙讜讬 讜讗讜转讘讬讛 讘转谞讜专讗

The Gemara answers: There, Rabbi Asi was referring to a case where the Jew had placed the meat that was not yet cooked like the food of ben Derosai in a basket where it would not have cooked at all, and a gentile took it and placed it in the oven. Rabbi Asi was teaching that in such a case, when the current cooking process has yet to begin, the meat is prohibited if it had not already been cooked like the food of ben Derosai. By contrast, in the case addressed by Rabbi Yehuda, the meat was already cooking and the gentile鈥檚 actions hastened the process, but did not initiate it. In other words, the issue of cooked food like the food of ben Derosai is relevant only if the gentile takes a dish that is not being cooked at present.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪谞讬讞 讬砖专讗诇 讘砖专 注诇 讙讘讬 讙讞诇讬诐 讜讘讗 讙讜讬 讜诪讛驻讱 讘讜 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讬砖专讗诇 诪讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讗讜 诪讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖 砖讜驻转转 讗砖讛 拽讚讬专讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讻讬专讛 讜讘讗转 讙讜讬讛

The Gemara adds: This is also taught in a baraita: A Jew may place meat on hot coals and let a gentile come and turn it over as necessary until the Jew comes back from the synagogue or from the study hall, and the Jew need not be concerned for the prohibition of eating cooking of gentiles. Similarly, a Jewish woman may set a pot upon the stove and let a gentile woman come

讜诪讙讬住讛 注讚 砖转讘讗 诪讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讗讜 诪讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讜讗讬谞讛 讞讜砖砖转

and stir it until she comes back from the bathhouse or from the synagogue, and she need not be concerned.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛谞讬讞 讙讜讬 讜讛驻讱 讬砖专讗诇 诪讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讙诪专讜 讘讬讚 讙讜讬 诪讜转专 讙诪专讜 讘讬讚 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a gentile placed meat on a fire and a Jew turned it over, what is the halakha? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The halakha can be derived by an a fortiori inference: If the meat is permitted when it finished cooking by the hand of a gentile, then where it finished cooking by the hand of a Jew, all the more so is it not clear that it should be permitted?

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬谉 砖讛谞讬讞 讙讜讬 讜讛驻讱 讬砖专讗诇 讘讬谉 砖讛谞讬讞 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛驻讱 讙讜讬 诪讜转专 讜讗讬谞讜 讗住讜专 注讚 砖转讛讗 转讞诇转讜 讜讙诪专讜 讘讬讚 讙讜讬

Along these lines, it was also stated: Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, and some say Rav A岣 bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Whether the gentile placed the meat on the fire and the Jew turned it over, or whether the Jew placed the meat on the fire and the gentile turned it over, the meat is permitted, and it is not prohibited unless its cooking from beginning to end was performed by the hand of a gentile.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛诇讻转讗 讛讗 专讬驻转讗 讚砖讙专 讙讜讬 讜讗驻讛 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖讙专 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗驻讛 讙讜讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖讙专 讙讜讬 讜讗驻讛 讙讜讬 讜讗转讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讞转讛 讘讛 讞转讜讬讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

Ravina says: The halakha is that this bread baked in an oven that a gentile lit and a Jew subsequently baked, or, alternatively, if a Jew lit the oven and a gentile baked, or, alternatively, even if a gentile lit, and a gentile baked, and a Jew came and stoked the coals to heat the fire, it is permitted, as the act of the Jew speeds up the baking process.

讚讙 诪诇讬讞 讞讝拽讬讛 砖专讬 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗住专 讘讬爪讛 爪诇讜讬讛 讘专 拽驻专讗 砖专讬 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗住专 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讚讙 诪诇讬讞 讜讗讞讚 讘讬爪讛 爪诇讜讬讛 讞讝拽讬讛 讜讘专 拽驻专讗 砖专讜 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗住专

The Gemara continues: With regard to fish salted by a gentile, 岣zkiyya deems it permitted, and Rabbi Yo岣nan deems it prohibited. As for an egg roasted by a gentile, bar Kappara deems it permitted and Rabbi Yo岣nan deems it prohibited. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: With regard to both salted fish and roasted eggs, 岣zkiyya and bar Kappara deem them permitted them even if they were prepared by a gentile, and Rabbi Yo岣nan deems them prohibited.

专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 驻专讜讜讗讛 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讘讬爪讛 爪诇讜讬讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讞讝拽讬讛 讜讘专 拽驻专讗 砖专讜 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗住专 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讬诐 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诇讗 转爪讬转讜 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗砖拽讬讜讛讜 谞讙讜讟讗 讚讞诇讗 讜谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara relates a relevant incident. Rabbi 岣yya of Parva arrived at the home of the Exilarch, whose attendants said to him: With regard to an egg roasted by a gentile, what is the halakha? Rabbi 岣yya said to them: 岣zkiyya and bar Kappara deem it permitted, and Rabbi Yo岣nan deems it prohibited, and the statement of one Sage has no standing in a place where it is contradicted by two, i.e., the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan because he is in the minority. Rav Zevid said to them: Do not listen to him, as this is what Abaye said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. Due to the stringency Rav Zevid sought to impose, the attendants gave Rav Zevid a cup [negota] of spiced vinegar to drink, and he died as a result.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛拽驻专讬住讬谉 讜讛拽驻诇讜讟讜转 讜讛诪讟诇讬讗 讜讛讞诪讬谉 讜讛拽诇讬讜转 砖诇讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讬爪讛 爪诇讜讬讛 讗住讜专讛 砖诪谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讜讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 谞诪谞讜 注诇讬讜 讜讛转讬专讜讛讜

搂 The Gemara continues to discuss the halakhic status of various foods with regard to the prohibition against eating the cooking of gentiles. The Sages taught in a baraita: Caper buds [kafrisin], and leeks [kaflotot], and matalya, and hot water, and roasted grains that belong to gentiles and were cooked by them are permitted. An egg roasted by a gentile is prohibited. With regard to oil, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court were counted, i.e., voted on the matter, and permitted it.

转谞讬讗 讛讬讗 讛诪讟诇讬讗 讛讬讗 驻砖诇讬讗 讛讬讗 砖讬注转讗 诪讗讬 砖讬注转讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗 讗专讘注讬谉 砖谞讬谉 讚谞驻讬拽 讛讗讬 注讜讘讚讗 诪诪爪专讬诐 讜专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 讛讗 砖转讬谉 砖谞讬谉 讚谞驻讬拽 讛讗讬 注讜讘讚讗 诪诪爪专讬诐 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 讘砖谞讬讛 讜诪专 讘砖谞讬讛

It is taught in a baraita: Matalya is the same as the black-eyed pea [pashalya], which is also called shiata. What is shiata? Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is forty years since this item emerged from Egypt and was imported here. And Rabba bar bar 岣na himself said: It is sixty years since this item emerged from Egypt and was imported here. The Gemara remarks: And they do not disagree, as one Sage issued his statement in his year, and the other Sage issued it in his year. Whereas sixty years had passed by the time of Rabba bar bar 岣na, only forty had elapsed when Rabbi Yo岣nan issued his statement.

诪讬讬转讜 讘讬讝专讗 讚讻专驻住讗 讜讘讬讝专讗 讚讻讬转谞讗 讜讘讬讝专讗 讚砖讘诇讬诇转讗 讜转专讜 诇讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讘驻砖讜专讬 讜砖讘拽讜 诇讬讛 注讚 讚诪拽讘诇 讜诪讬讬转讬 讞爪讘讬 讞讚转讬 讜诪诇讜 诇讛讜 诪讬讗 讜转专讜 讘讛讜 讙专讙讬砖转讗 讜诪讚讘拽讬谉 讘讬讛 讜注讬讬诇讬谉 诇讘讬 讘谞讬 讗讚谞驻拽讜 诪诇讘诇讘讬 讜讗讻诇讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜拽讬讬专讬 诪讘讬谞转讗 讚专讬砖讬讬讛讜 注讚 讟讜驻专讗 讚讻专注讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讬诇讬谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘诪讬诇讬谉

The Gemara describes the preparation of shiata. They take parsley seeds and flax root and fenugreek root, and soak them together in lukewarm water, and leave them until they sprout. And then they take new earthenware pots, and fill them with water, and soak red clay [gargishta] in them, and then stick the seeds and roots in the clay. And after that they go to the bathhouse, and by the time they come out, the plants have blossomed, and they eat from them. And as they eat them, they cool down from the heat of the bathhouse from the hair of their head until the toenails of their feet. Rav Ashi says: Rabbi 岣nina said to me: These are mere words, i.e., this is false, as it is impossible for the plants to blossom so quickly. And some say: This was performed by means of magic words that caused the plants to grow faster.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讻讜住驻谉 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 砖讛讜讞诪讜 讞诪讬谉 讘讬讜专讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讗住讜专 讘讬讜专讛 拽讟谞讛 诪讜转专 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讬讜专讛 拽讟谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 爪驻讜专 讚专讜专 讬讻讜诇 诇讬讻谞住 讘转讜讻讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: The halakha with regard to date husks [kuspan] that belong to gentiles and that were heated in hot water depends on the size of the pot in which they were prepared: If they were cooked in a large pot they are prohibited, as prohibited foods are often cooked in large pots; if they were cooked in a small pot they are permitted, because non-kosher foods, which are usually large, are not generally cooked in these pots and it is therefore reasonable to assume that the pot has not absorbed a prohibited substance. The Gemara asks: And what is a small pot? Rabbi Yannai says: It is any pot that is so small that a swallow cannot enter into it.

讜讚诇诪讗 讗讚诪讜讬讬 讗讚诪讜讛 讜注讬讬诇讜讛 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 专讗砖 爪驻讜专 讚专讜专 讬讻讜诇 诇讬讻谞住 讘转讜讻讛

The Gemara challenges: But even if non-kosher foods are not generally cooked in pots of this size, perhaps they sliced the food into smaller pieces and inserted them into the small pot. Since large non-kosher foods can be cooked in small pots once they have been sliced, the concern should apply to these pots as well. The Gemara accepts this point and amends Rabbi Yannai鈥檚 definition: Rather, a small pot is any pot that is so small that a swallow鈥檚 head cannot enter into it. Such small pots would not be used to cook even sliced non-kosher foods.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讞转 讬讜专讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讗讞转 讬讜专讛 拽讟谞讛 诪讜转专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 讗住讜专 讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 诪讜转专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But in any case, isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that food cooked in both a large pot and a small pot is permitted? This directly contradicts the baraita cited here, which permits only food cooked in a small pot. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult; this first baraita cited above is written in accordance with the one who says: A prohibited substance that imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture is prohibited, whereas that baraita mentioned here is written in accordance with the one who says: A prohibited substance that imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture is permitted.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讗讬 诪讬砖讞讗 砖诇讬拽讗 讚讗专诪讗讬 讗住讜专 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 诇诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讗讬注专讜讘讬 诪讬住专讗 住专讬 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讘讬砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 谞讗讻诇 讛讜讗 讻诪讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讙讬注讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 讛讜讗 讜诪讜转专

Rav Sheshet said: This oil that was cooked by an Aramean is prohibited. Rav Safra rejected this ruling and said: With regard to what need we be concerned? If it is due to the concern that it might have been mixed with wine used for an idolatrous libation, this cannot be correct, as wine ruins oil and therefore gentiles would not mix them together. If it is due to the prohibition against eating the cooking of gentiles, this also cannot be true because oil is eaten as it is, i.e., raw. And if it is due to the oil being cooked in vessels of gentiles that require purging on account of the prohibited taste they have absorbed, and now the forbidden flavor from the vessel is in the food, this concern is also invalid as the absorbed substance is one that imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture, and in this case the mixture is permitted.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讬 讗住讬 讛谞讬 讗讛讬谞讬 砖诇讬拽讬 讚讗专诪讗讬 诪讗讬 讞讜诇讬讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讜讚讗讬 砖专讜 诪专讬专讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讜讚讗讬 讗住讬专讬 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 诪爪讬注讗讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讛讜 讚专讘讬 讗住专 讜诪谞讜 诇讜讬

The Sages raised a dilemma before Rabbi Asi: With regard to these boiled dates [ahinei] of an Aramean, what is the halakha? The Gemara interjects: Do not raise the dilemma with regard to sweet dates, as they are certainly permitted, since they can be eaten raw. Similarly, do not raise the dilemma with regard to bitter dates, as they are certainly prohibited, since they are rendered edible through cooking. Rather, let the dilemma be raised with regard to dates whose flavor is moderate, neither sweet nor bitter. What is the halakha? Rabbi Asi said to them: What is your dilemma? The halakha is clear, as my teacher prohibited such dates. The Gemara asks: And who was the Rabbi Asi鈥檚 teacher? Levi.

砖转讬转讗讛 专讘 砖专讬 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜诇讜讬 讗住专讬 讘讞讬讟讬 讜砖注专讬 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚砖专讬 讘讟诇驻讞讬 讚讞诇讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗住讬专 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讟诇驻讞讬 讚诪讬讗 诪专 住讘专 讙讝专讬谞谉 讛讗 讗讟讜 讛讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉

搂 With regard to shetita鈥檃, a sweet porridge made from roasted grains and honey, Rav deemed it permitted even when it was prepared by a gentile, whereas Shmuel鈥檚 father and Levi deemed it prohibited. The Gemara elaborates: With regard to shetita鈥檃 made of wheat or barley, everyone agrees that it is permitted. Similarly, with regard to shetita鈥檃 prepared from lentils to which vinegar is added, everyone agrees that it is prohibited, on account of the vinegar of gentiles. When they disagree, it is with regard to lentils made only with water: One Sage, Levi, holds that we decree a prohibition with regard to this porridge made without vinegar due to that porridge made with vinegar. And one Sage, Rav, holds that we do not decree for this reason.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘讟诇驻讞讬 讚诪讬讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗住讬专 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讞讬讟讬 讜砖注专讬 诪专 住讘专 讙讝专讬谞谉 讛讗 讗讟讜 讛讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉

The Gemara notes: And some say that with regard to lentils made only with water, everyone agrees that the shetita鈥檃 is prohibited on account of lentils made with vinegar. When they disagree, it is with regard to shetita鈥檃 made of wheat and barley: One Sage, Levi, holds that we decree a prohibition with regard to this porridge prepared with wheat and barley due to that porridge made with lentils. And one Sage, Rav, holds that we do not decree for this reason.

讗诪专 专讘 转专讬 诪讬谞讬 砖转讬转讗讛 砖讚专 讘专讝讬诇讬 讛讙诇注讚讬 诇讚讜讚 讚讻转讬讘 诪砖讻讘 讜住驻讜转 讜讻诇讬 讬讜爪专 讞讟讬诐 讜砖注专讬诐 讜拽诪讞 讜拽诇讬 讜驻讜诇 讜注讚砖讬诐 讜拽诇讬 讜讛砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪驻拽讬 爪谞讬 爪谞讬 诇砖讜拽讬 讚谞讛专讚注讗 讜诇讬转 讚讞讬讬砖 诇讛讗 讚讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜诇讜讬

Apropos the mention of shetita鈥檃, the Gemara relates that Rav said: Barzillai the Gileadite sent two kinds of shetita鈥檃 to David, as it is written: 鈥淎nd Barzillai the Gileadite of Rogelim brought beds, and basins, and earthen vessels, and wheat, and barley, and meal, and parched grain, and beans, and lentils, and parched pulse鈥 (II聽Samuel 17:28). Barzillai brought two kinds of parched foods: Grain and pulse. The Gemara concludes: And now shetita鈥檃 is taken out in baskets upon baskets to the markets of Neharde鈥檃, and there is no one who is concerned about that stringent ruling of Shmuel鈥檚 father and Levi.

讜讻讘砖讬谉 砖讚专讻谉 诇转转 讘转讜讻谉 讬讬谉 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讚专讻谉 讗讘诇 讘讬讚讜注 讗住讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讛谞讗讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诪讜专讬讬住 讚砖专讜 专讘谞谉 讘讛谞讗讛 讛转诐 诇注讘讜专讬 讝讜讛诪讗 讛讻讗 诇诪转讜拽讬 讟注诪讗

搂 The mishna teaches: And boiled and pickled vegetables of gentiles, whose usual manner of preparation involves adding wine and vinegar to them, may not be consumed, but one may derive benefit from them. 岣zkiyya says: They taught that this prohibition applies solely to consumption only where their usual manner of preparation involves adding wine and vinegar, though there is no information about how these particular vegetables were prepared. But where it is known for certain that these vegetables were prepared with wine or vinegar, it is prohibited even to derive benefit from them. The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from fish stew, which the Sages permitted one to derive benefit from? The Gemara answers: There, with regard to fish stew, wine is added merely to remove the stench of the fish and does not actually contribute any taste to it, whereas here, with regard to pickled vegetables, it is added to sweeten the taste.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬讚讜注 谞诪讬 诪讜转专 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诪讜专讬讬住 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗住讬专 讘讛谞讗讛

The Gemara cites a dissenting opinion. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even where it is known that wine or vinegar was added to the vegetables, it is also permitted to derive benefit from them. The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from fish stew, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who prohibited deriving benefit from the fish stew? Why does Rabbi Meir permit one to derive benefit from vegetables pickled in gentiles鈥 wine but prohibit deriving benefit from fish stew that contains wine or vinegar?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 38

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 38

讗诇讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗

Rather, the cooking of gentiles is prohibited by rabbinic law, and the verse is cited as a mere support.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讛谞讗讻诇 讻诪讜转 砖讛讜讗 讞讬 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘讬砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 讘住讜专讗 诪转谞讜 讛讻讬 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 诪转谞讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 注诇 砖讜诇讞谉 诪诇讻讬诐 诇诇驻转 讘讜 讗转 讛驻转 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘讬砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐

The Gemara discusses the particulars of the prohibition against eating the cooking of gentiles. Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k says that Rav says: Any item that is eaten as it is, i.e., raw, is not subject to the prohibition against eating the cooking of gentiles. The Gemara remarks: In the study hall in Sura, they taught it this way. In Pumbedita, they taught it like this: Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k says that Rav says: Any item that is not eaten together with bread on the table of kings is not subject to the prohibition against eating the cooking of gentiles. In other words, foods that are not eaten by distinguished individuals are not subject to this prohibition.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讙讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 讜讗专讚讬 讜讚讬讬住讗

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two opinions? The practical difference between them is with regard to small fish, mushrooms, and porridge. These foods are not eaten raw, but they are not eaten by distinguished individuals. Consequently, these foods are prohibited according to the version taught in Sura, but permitted according to the version taught in Pumbedita.

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘 讚讙讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 诪诇讜讞讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讘讬砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诐 爪诇讗谉 讙讜讬 住讜诪讱 讬砖专讗诇 注诇讬讛诐 诪砖讜诐 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讜讗讬 注讘讚讬谞讛讜 讙讜讬 讻住讗 讚讛专住谞讗 讗住讜专

Rav Asi says that Rav says: Small, salted fish are not subject to the prohibition of the cooking of gentiles, because they can be eaten raw. Rav Yosef says: If a gentile roasted these fish, a Jew may rely upon them for use in the mitzva of a joining of cooked foods, which must be prepared in order to permit cooking for Shabbat on a Festival that occurs on a Friday. And if a gentile made them into kasa deharsena, a dish of fish fried in oil and flour, the dish is prohibited. In this case, since the flour had not been edible, it is considered the cooked food of a gentile.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛专住谞讗 注讬拽专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 拽讬诪讞讗 注讬拽专

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? What reason would there be to think that kasa deharsena prepared by a gentile is permitted? The Gemara answers: This is taught lest you say that the salted fish, which one is permitted to eat even if cooked by gentiles, is the essential component. Therefore, Rav Yosef teaches us that the flour is the essential component, and the dish is therefore considered the cooked food of a gentile.

讗诪专 专讘 讘专讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讙讜讬 砖讛爪讬转 讗转 讛讗讜专 讘讗讙诐 讻诇 讛讞讙讘讬诐 砖讘讗讙诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讬讚注 讛讬 讟讛讜专 讜讛讬 讟诪讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讙讜讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讬砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐

Rav Beruna says that Rav says: In the case of a gentile who ignited a fire in the meadow, all the locusts that were burned in the meadow are prohibited. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that the reason they are prohibited is that one no longer knows which are kosher and which are non-kosher as a result of their burning, why does Rav Beruna specifically discuss a case involving a gentile? Even if a Jew burned the meadow, they would also be prohibited for the same reason. Rather, this is referring to a case where all the locusts were kosher, and the prohibition is due to the cooking of gentiles, as the locusts were effectively cooked by a gentile.

讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讬 讗住讬专 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 驻讚转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讬 讙讜讬 讚讞专讬讱 专讬砖讗 砖专讬 诇诪讬讻诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪专讬砖 讗讜谞讬讛 讗诇诪讗 诇注讘讜专讬 砖注专 拽诪讬讻讜讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讙诇讜讬讬 讗讙诪讗 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉

The Gemara raises an objection: Does anyone actually prohibit the cooking of gentiles in a case like this? But doesn鈥檛 Rav 岣nan bar Ami say that Rabbi Pedat says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to this gentile who singed the head of an animal, it is permitted to eat part of it, even from the tip of the ear, which is fully cooked? The Gemara remarks: Evidently, this is permitted because the gentile merely intends to remove the hair and not to cook the ears. Here, too, it ought to be permitted because he merely intends to clear the meadow, not to cook the locusts.

诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讗 讬讚注 讛讬 讟讛讜专 讜讛讬 讟诪讗 讜诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讘讙讜讬 讛讬讛

The Gemara answers: Actually, this is referring to a case where there is a mixture of different types of locusts, and they are prohibited because one does not know which are kosher and which are non-kosher. And the reason Rav Beruna specified that the case involved a gentile is because the incident that occurred happened to have occurred with the involvement of a gentile.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讬 讙讜讬 讚讞专讬讱 专讬砖讗 砖专讬 诇诪讬讻诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪专讬砖 讗讜谞讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛诇讻讱 讛讗讬 讙讜讬 讚砖讚讗 住讬讻转讗 诇讗转讜谞讗 讜拽讘专 讘讛 讬砖专讗诇 拽专讗 诪注讬拽专讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讘砖讜诇讬 诪谞讗 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇砖专讜专讬 诪谞讗 拽讗 诪讬讻讜讬谉

搂 The Gemara addresses the matter itself: Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to this gentile who singed the head of an animal, it is permitted to eat part of it, even from the tip of the ear, which is fully cooked. Ravina said: Therefore, with regard to this gentile who threw a moist peg into the oven in order to dry it out and harden it, and a Jew had already inserted a gourd in the oven from the outset, the gourd is permitted, even though it was in effect cooked by a gentile. The reason is that the gentile had no intention to cook the vegetable. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach this, lest you say that the gentile intends to cook the vessel, i.e., the peg, by softening it. Therefore Ravina teaches us that he intends only to harden the vessel.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛谞讬讞 讬砖专讗诇 讘砖专 注诇 讙讘讬 讙讞诇讬诐 讜讘讗 讙讜讬 讜讛驻讱 讘讜 诪讜转专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 讛驻讱 讘讬讛 讛讜讛 讘砖讬诇 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗讬 诇讗 讛驻讱 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘砖讬诇 讗诪讗讬 诪讜转专 讘讬砖讜诇讬 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜

搂 The Gemara continues the discussion with regard to the cooking of gentiles by examining the halakha of meat cooked by both a gentile and a Jew. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: If a Jew placed meat upon flaming coals and a gentile came and turned the meat over, the meat is permitted. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that it is a case where if the gentile had not turned over the meat it would have cooked anyway, it is obvious that the meat is permitted, as the gentile鈥檚 actions did not actually alter the food. The Gemara suggests: Rather, is it not a case where, if the gentile had not turned it over, it would not have cooked? But if so, why is it permitted? In such a case, the meat is certainly considered to be the cooking of gentiles and ought to be prohibited.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 讛驻讱 讛讜讛 讘砖讬诇 讘转专转讬 砖注讬 讜讛砖转讗 拽讗 讘砖讬诇 讘讞讚讗 砖注转讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 拽专讜讘讬 讘讬砖讜诇讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha with regard to a case where if the gentile had not turned over the meat, it would have cooked in two hours, and now that he did turn it over, it will cook in only one hour. Lest you say that hastening the cooking process is a significant matter, and therefore food whose preparation is expedited by a gentile is prohibited, Ravina teaches us otherwise.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讻诪讗讻诇 讘谉 讚专讜住讗讬 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘讬砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 讛讗 讗讬谞讜 讻诪讗讻诇 讘谉 讚专讜住讗讬 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Asi say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Any item that has been cooked like the food of ben Derosai, i.e., partially cooked so that it is just about edible, is not subject to the prohibition of the cooking of gentiles? Consequently, if it is not cooked like the food of ben Derosai, it is subject to the prohibition of the cooking of gentiles. Accordingly, meat whose cooking was expedited by a gentile ought to be prohibited, as this ruling includes cases where it had not been cooked like the food of ben Derosai at the time of the gentile鈥檚 intervention.

讛转诐 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讜转讘讬讛 讘住讬诇转讗 讜砖拽诇讬讛 讙讜讬 讜讗讜转讘讬讛 讘转谞讜专讗

The Gemara answers: There, Rabbi Asi was referring to a case where the Jew had placed the meat that was not yet cooked like the food of ben Derosai in a basket where it would not have cooked at all, and a gentile took it and placed it in the oven. Rabbi Asi was teaching that in such a case, when the current cooking process has yet to begin, the meat is prohibited if it had not already been cooked like the food of ben Derosai. By contrast, in the case addressed by Rabbi Yehuda, the meat was already cooking and the gentile鈥檚 actions hastened the process, but did not initiate it. In other words, the issue of cooked food like the food of ben Derosai is relevant only if the gentile takes a dish that is not being cooked at present.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪谞讬讞 讬砖专讗诇 讘砖专 注诇 讙讘讬 讙讞诇讬诐 讜讘讗 讙讜讬 讜诪讛驻讱 讘讜 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讬砖专讗诇 诪讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讗讜 诪讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖 砖讜驻转转 讗砖讛 拽讚讬专讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讻讬专讛 讜讘讗转 讙讜讬讛

The Gemara adds: This is also taught in a baraita: A Jew may place meat on hot coals and let a gentile come and turn it over as necessary until the Jew comes back from the synagogue or from the study hall, and the Jew need not be concerned for the prohibition of eating cooking of gentiles. Similarly, a Jewish woman may set a pot upon the stove and let a gentile woman come

讜诪讙讬住讛 注讚 砖转讘讗 诪讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讗讜 诪讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讜讗讬谞讛 讞讜砖砖转

and stir it until she comes back from the bathhouse or from the synagogue, and she need not be concerned.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛谞讬讞 讙讜讬 讜讛驻讱 讬砖专讗诇 诪讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讙诪专讜 讘讬讚 讙讜讬 诪讜转专 讙诪专讜 讘讬讚 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a gentile placed meat on a fire and a Jew turned it over, what is the halakha? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The halakha can be derived by an a fortiori inference: If the meat is permitted when it finished cooking by the hand of a gentile, then where it finished cooking by the hand of a Jew, all the more so is it not clear that it should be permitted?

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬谉 砖讛谞讬讞 讙讜讬 讜讛驻讱 讬砖专讗诇 讘讬谉 砖讛谞讬讞 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛驻讱 讙讜讬 诪讜转专 讜讗讬谞讜 讗住讜专 注讚 砖转讛讗 转讞诇转讜 讜讙诪专讜 讘讬讚 讙讜讬

Along these lines, it was also stated: Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, and some say Rav A岣 bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Whether the gentile placed the meat on the fire and the Jew turned it over, or whether the Jew placed the meat on the fire and the gentile turned it over, the meat is permitted, and it is not prohibited unless its cooking from beginning to end was performed by the hand of a gentile.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛诇讻转讗 讛讗 专讬驻转讗 讚砖讙专 讙讜讬 讜讗驻讛 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖讙专 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗驻讛 讙讜讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖讙专 讙讜讬 讜讗驻讛 讙讜讬 讜讗转讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讞转讛 讘讛 讞转讜讬讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

Ravina says: The halakha is that this bread baked in an oven that a gentile lit and a Jew subsequently baked, or, alternatively, if a Jew lit the oven and a gentile baked, or, alternatively, even if a gentile lit, and a gentile baked, and a Jew came and stoked the coals to heat the fire, it is permitted, as the act of the Jew speeds up the baking process.

讚讙 诪诇讬讞 讞讝拽讬讛 砖专讬 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗住专 讘讬爪讛 爪诇讜讬讛 讘专 拽驻专讗 砖专讬 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗住专 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讚讙 诪诇讬讞 讜讗讞讚 讘讬爪讛 爪诇讜讬讛 讞讝拽讬讛 讜讘专 拽驻专讗 砖专讜 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗住专

The Gemara continues: With regard to fish salted by a gentile, 岣zkiyya deems it permitted, and Rabbi Yo岣nan deems it prohibited. As for an egg roasted by a gentile, bar Kappara deems it permitted and Rabbi Yo岣nan deems it prohibited. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: With regard to both salted fish and roasted eggs, 岣zkiyya and bar Kappara deem them permitted them even if they were prepared by a gentile, and Rabbi Yo岣nan deems them prohibited.

专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 驻专讜讜讗讛 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讘讬爪讛 爪诇讜讬讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讞讝拽讬讛 讜讘专 拽驻专讗 砖专讜 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗住专 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讬诐 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诇讗 转爪讬转讜 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗砖拽讬讜讛讜 谞讙讜讟讗 讚讞诇讗 讜谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara relates a relevant incident. Rabbi 岣yya of Parva arrived at the home of the Exilarch, whose attendants said to him: With regard to an egg roasted by a gentile, what is the halakha? Rabbi 岣yya said to them: 岣zkiyya and bar Kappara deem it permitted, and Rabbi Yo岣nan deems it prohibited, and the statement of one Sage has no standing in a place where it is contradicted by two, i.e., the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan because he is in the minority. Rav Zevid said to them: Do not listen to him, as this is what Abaye said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. Due to the stringency Rav Zevid sought to impose, the attendants gave Rav Zevid a cup [negota] of spiced vinegar to drink, and he died as a result.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛拽驻专讬住讬谉 讜讛拽驻诇讜讟讜转 讜讛诪讟诇讬讗 讜讛讞诪讬谉 讜讛拽诇讬讜转 砖诇讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讬爪讛 爪诇讜讬讛 讗住讜专讛 砖诪谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讜讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 谞诪谞讜 注诇讬讜 讜讛转讬专讜讛讜

搂 The Gemara continues to discuss the halakhic status of various foods with regard to the prohibition against eating the cooking of gentiles. The Sages taught in a baraita: Caper buds [kafrisin], and leeks [kaflotot], and matalya, and hot water, and roasted grains that belong to gentiles and were cooked by them are permitted. An egg roasted by a gentile is prohibited. With regard to oil, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court were counted, i.e., voted on the matter, and permitted it.

转谞讬讗 讛讬讗 讛诪讟诇讬讗 讛讬讗 驻砖诇讬讗 讛讬讗 砖讬注转讗 诪讗讬 砖讬注转讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗 讗专讘注讬谉 砖谞讬谉 讚谞驻讬拽 讛讗讬 注讜讘讚讗 诪诪爪专讬诐 讜专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 讛讗 砖转讬谉 砖谞讬谉 讚谞驻讬拽 讛讗讬 注讜讘讚讗 诪诪爪专讬诐 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 讘砖谞讬讛 讜诪专 讘砖谞讬讛

It is taught in a baraita: Matalya is the same as the black-eyed pea [pashalya], which is also called shiata. What is shiata? Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is forty years since this item emerged from Egypt and was imported here. And Rabba bar bar 岣na himself said: It is sixty years since this item emerged from Egypt and was imported here. The Gemara remarks: And they do not disagree, as one Sage issued his statement in his year, and the other Sage issued it in his year. Whereas sixty years had passed by the time of Rabba bar bar 岣na, only forty had elapsed when Rabbi Yo岣nan issued his statement.

诪讬讬转讜 讘讬讝专讗 讚讻专驻住讗 讜讘讬讝专讗 讚讻讬转谞讗 讜讘讬讝专讗 讚砖讘诇讬诇转讗 讜转专讜 诇讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讘驻砖讜专讬 讜砖讘拽讜 诇讬讛 注讚 讚诪拽讘诇 讜诪讬讬转讬 讞爪讘讬 讞讚转讬 讜诪诇讜 诇讛讜 诪讬讗 讜转专讜 讘讛讜 讙专讙讬砖转讗 讜诪讚讘拽讬谉 讘讬讛 讜注讬讬诇讬谉 诇讘讬 讘谞讬 讗讚谞驻拽讜 诪诇讘诇讘讬 讜讗讻诇讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜拽讬讬专讬 诪讘讬谞转讗 讚专讬砖讬讬讛讜 注讚 讟讜驻专讗 讚讻专注讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讬诇讬谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘诪讬诇讬谉

The Gemara describes the preparation of shiata. They take parsley seeds and flax root and fenugreek root, and soak them together in lukewarm water, and leave them until they sprout. And then they take new earthenware pots, and fill them with water, and soak red clay [gargishta] in them, and then stick the seeds and roots in the clay. And after that they go to the bathhouse, and by the time they come out, the plants have blossomed, and they eat from them. And as they eat them, they cool down from the heat of the bathhouse from the hair of their head until the toenails of their feet. Rav Ashi says: Rabbi 岣nina said to me: These are mere words, i.e., this is false, as it is impossible for the plants to blossom so quickly. And some say: This was performed by means of magic words that caused the plants to grow faster.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讻讜住驻谉 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 砖讛讜讞诪讜 讞诪讬谉 讘讬讜专讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讗住讜专 讘讬讜专讛 拽讟谞讛 诪讜转专 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讬讜专讛 拽讟谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 爪驻讜专 讚专讜专 讬讻讜诇 诇讬讻谞住 讘转讜讻讛

The Sages taught in a baraita: The halakha with regard to date husks [kuspan] that belong to gentiles and that were heated in hot water depends on the size of the pot in which they were prepared: If they were cooked in a large pot they are prohibited, as prohibited foods are often cooked in large pots; if they were cooked in a small pot they are permitted, because non-kosher foods, which are usually large, are not generally cooked in these pots and it is therefore reasonable to assume that the pot has not absorbed a prohibited substance. The Gemara asks: And what is a small pot? Rabbi Yannai says: It is any pot that is so small that a swallow cannot enter into it.

讜讚诇诪讗 讗讚诪讜讬讬 讗讚诪讜讛 讜注讬讬诇讜讛 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 专讗砖 爪驻讜专 讚专讜专 讬讻讜诇 诇讬讻谞住 讘转讜讻讛

The Gemara challenges: But even if non-kosher foods are not generally cooked in pots of this size, perhaps they sliced the food into smaller pieces and inserted them into the small pot. Since large non-kosher foods can be cooked in small pots once they have been sliced, the concern should apply to these pots as well. The Gemara accepts this point and amends Rabbi Yannai鈥檚 definition: Rather, a small pot is any pot that is so small that a swallow鈥檚 head cannot enter into it. Such small pots would not be used to cook even sliced non-kosher foods.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讞转 讬讜专讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讗讞转 讬讜专讛 拽讟谞讛 诪讜转专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 讗住讜专 讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 诪讜转专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But in any case, isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that food cooked in both a large pot and a small pot is permitted? This directly contradicts the baraita cited here, which permits only food cooked in a small pot. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult; this first baraita cited above is written in accordance with the one who says: A prohibited substance that imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture is prohibited, whereas that baraita mentioned here is written in accordance with the one who says: A prohibited substance that imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture is permitted.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讗讬 诪讬砖讞讗 砖诇讬拽讗 讚讗专诪讗讬 讗住讜专 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 诇诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讗讬注专讜讘讬 诪讬住专讗 住专讬 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讘讬砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 谞讗讻诇 讛讜讗 讻诪讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讙讬注讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 讛讜讗 讜诪讜转专

Rav Sheshet said: This oil that was cooked by an Aramean is prohibited. Rav Safra rejected this ruling and said: With regard to what need we be concerned? If it is due to the concern that it might have been mixed with wine used for an idolatrous libation, this cannot be correct, as wine ruins oil and therefore gentiles would not mix them together. If it is due to the prohibition against eating the cooking of gentiles, this also cannot be true because oil is eaten as it is, i.e., raw. And if it is due to the oil being cooked in vessels of gentiles that require purging on account of the prohibited taste they have absorbed, and now the forbidden flavor from the vessel is in the food, this concern is also invalid as the absorbed substance is one that imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture, and in this case the mixture is permitted.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讬 讗住讬 讛谞讬 讗讛讬谞讬 砖诇讬拽讬 讚讗专诪讗讬 诪讗讬 讞讜诇讬讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讜讚讗讬 砖专讜 诪专讬专讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讜讚讗讬 讗住讬专讬 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 诪爪讬注讗讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讛讜 讚专讘讬 讗住专 讜诪谞讜 诇讜讬

The Sages raised a dilemma before Rabbi Asi: With regard to these boiled dates [ahinei] of an Aramean, what is the halakha? The Gemara interjects: Do not raise the dilemma with regard to sweet dates, as they are certainly permitted, since they can be eaten raw. Similarly, do not raise the dilemma with regard to bitter dates, as they are certainly prohibited, since they are rendered edible through cooking. Rather, let the dilemma be raised with regard to dates whose flavor is moderate, neither sweet nor bitter. What is the halakha? Rabbi Asi said to them: What is your dilemma? The halakha is clear, as my teacher prohibited such dates. The Gemara asks: And who was the Rabbi Asi鈥檚 teacher? Levi.

砖转讬转讗讛 专讘 砖专讬 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜诇讜讬 讗住专讬 讘讞讬讟讬 讜砖注专讬 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚砖专讬 讘讟诇驻讞讬 讚讞诇讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗住讬专 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讟诇驻讞讬 讚诪讬讗 诪专 住讘专 讙讝专讬谞谉 讛讗 讗讟讜 讛讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉

搂 With regard to shetita鈥檃, a sweet porridge made from roasted grains and honey, Rav deemed it permitted even when it was prepared by a gentile, whereas Shmuel鈥檚 father and Levi deemed it prohibited. The Gemara elaborates: With regard to shetita鈥檃 made of wheat or barley, everyone agrees that it is permitted. Similarly, with regard to shetita鈥檃 prepared from lentils to which vinegar is added, everyone agrees that it is prohibited, on account of the vinegar of gentiles. When they disagree, it is with regard to lentils made only with water: One Sage, Levi, holds that we decree a prohibition with regard to this porridge made without vinegar due to that porridge made with vinegar. And one Sage, Rav, holds that we do not decree for this reason.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘讟诇驻讞讬 讚诪讬讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗住讬专 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讞讬讟讬 讜砖注专讬 诪专 住讘专 讙讝专讬谞谉 讛讗 讗讟讜 讛讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉

The Gemara notes: And some say that with regard to lentils made only with water, everyone agrees that the shetita鈥檃 is prohibited on account of lentils made with vinegar. When they disagree, it is with regard to shetita鈥檃 made of wheat and barley: One Sage, Levi, holds that we decree a prohibition with regard to this porridge prepared with wheat and barley due to that porridge made with lentils. And one Sage, Rav, holds that we do not decree for this reason.

讗诪专 专讘 转专讬 诪讬谞讬 砖转讬转讗讛 砖讚专 讘专讝讬诇讬 讛讙诇注讚讬 诇讚讜讚 讚讻转讬讘 诪砖讻讘 讜住驻讜转 讜讻诇讬 讬讜爪专 讞讟讬诐 讜砖注专讬诐 讜拽诪讞 讜拽诇讬 讜驻讜诇 讜注讚砖讬诐 讜拽诇讬 讜讛砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪驻拽讬 爪谞讬 爪谞讬 诇砖讜拽讬 讚谞讛专讚注讗 讜诇讬转 讚讞讬讬砖 诇讛讗 讚讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜诇讜讬

Apropos the mention of shetita鈥檃, the Gemara relates that Rav said: Barzillai the Gileadite sent two kinds of shetita鈥檃 to David, as it is written: 鈥淎nd Barzillai the Gileadite of Rogelim brought beds, and basins, and earthen vessels, and wheat, and barley, and meal, and parched grain, and beans, and lentils, and parched pulse鈥 (II聽Samuel 17:28). Barzillai brought two kinds of parched foods: Grain and pulse. The Gemara concludes: And now shetita鈥檃 is taken out in baskets upon baskets to the markets of Neharde鈥檃, and there is no one who is concerned about that stringent ruling of Shmuel鈥檚 father and Levi.

讜讻讘砖讬谉 砖讚专讻谉 诇转转 讘转讜讻谉 讬讬谉 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讚专讻谉 讗讘诇 讘讬讚讜注 讗住讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讛谞讗讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诪讜专讬讬住 讚砖专讜 专讘谞谉 讘讛谞讗讛 讛转诐 诇注讘讜专讬 讝讜讛诪讗 讛讻讗 诇诪转讜拽讬 讟注诪讗

搂 The mishna teaches: And boiled and pickled vegetables of gentiles, whose usual manner of preparation involves adding wine and vinegar to them, may not be consumed, but one may derive benefit from them. 岣zkiyya says: They taught that this prohibition applies solely to consumption only where their usual manner of preparation involves adding wine and vinegar, though there is no information about how these particular vegetables were prepared. But where it is known for certain that these vegetables were prepared with wine or vinegar, it is prohibited even to derive benefit from them. The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from fish stew, which the Sages permitted one to derive benefit from? The Gemara answers: There, with regard to fish stew, wine is added merely to remove the stench of the fish and does not actually contribute any taste to it, whereas here, with regard to pickled vegetables, it is added to sweeten the taste.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬讚讜注 谞诪讬 诪讜转专 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诪讜专讬讬住 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗住讬专 讘讛谞讗讛

The Gemara cites a dissenting opinion. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even where it is known that wine or vinegar was added to the vegetables, it is also permitted to derive benefit from them. The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from fish stew, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who prohibited deriving benefit from the fish stew? Why does Rabbi Meir permit one to derive benefit from vegetables pickled in gentiles鈥 wine but prohibit deriving benefit from fish stew that contains wine or vinegar?

Scroll To Top