Masechet Avodah Zarah
Masechet Avodah Zarah is sponsored by the Talmud class of Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA, in honor of the Hadran staff who make learning possible.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Today’s daf is sponsored by Lisa Elon in honor of her steadfast chevruta, Rhondda May, “May G-d grant us many more years of great learning together. “
Today’s daf is sponsored by Rachel Alexander Levy in memory of Jack Schuster, father of my chevruta, Rabbi Jordi Schuster. May his memory be for a blessing.
Today’s daf is sponsored by Adam Dicker in honor of Carolyn Hochstadter Dicker on her birthday.
There is a debate between Rav and Shmuel regarding the kashering process known as niguv. In one version of the debate, Rav requires that ashes be used once during the process, while Shmuel requires them to be used twice. In another version, there is no actual disagreement—Rav simply omits the final step of rinsing with water, since its sole purpose is to remove the ashes. Shmuel, however, includes it as part of the process.
How are wicker nets in a winepress kashered? Rabbi Avahu derives from the laws of purifying wicker nets that they require niguv. If the nets are made of reeds, which are more absorbent, they must be left unused for twelve months—or, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, until the next wine-making season. What is the practical difference between these two opinions? Rabbi Yossi offers an alternative to waiting a year: pouring boiling water over them. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel cites Rabbi Yossi, suggesting instead that the nets be placed under running water for an onah. What is an onah? Some define it as either a day or a night, while others say it means twelve hours. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak explains that both interpretations ultimately mean the same thing. How?
The strainer and baskets used in the winepress are kashered differently depending on the material they are made from, since the level of absorption varies.
If grape clusters are placed in the winepress and surrounded by the juice from the grapes, are they considered a single unit for the purposes of impurity? This has practical implications: if an am haaretz—someone who may not be trusted regarding purity laws—touches one cluster, does that render all the surrounding clusters impure?
If one purchases utensils from a non-Jew, how are they to be kashered? The method depends on how the utensil was used: if used with cold food, rinse with water; if used with hot water, perform hagala (boiling); and if exposed to direct fire, apply libun (burning with fire). A knife must be polished. All these utensils also require tevila—immersion in a mikveh. Two different phrases in Bamidbar 31:23, following the battle with Midian, are cited to derive the requirement for tevila. Why are both phrases needed? Rav Nachman explains that even new utensils purchased from a non-Jew require tevila, since kashered old utensils are considered equivalent to new ones. Borrowed utensils from a non-Jew do not require tevila, but a question arises regarding utensils given to a Jew as collateral.
Metal and glass utensils require tevila, but earthenware does not. If an earthenware vessel is coated with a lead glaze, should it be treated as earthenware or as metal?
If utensils were used without being kashered, is food prepared in them forbidden? The answer depends on when the vessel was last used and whether one holds that a substance imparting a bad flavor is permitted or prohibited.
Masechet Avodah Zarah
Masechet Avodah Zarah is sponsored by the Talmud class of Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA, in honor of the Hadran staff who make learning possible.
Avodah Zarah 75
רַב אָמַר: בְּמַיִם, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְאֵפֶר. רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר: לְאֵפֶר, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְמַיִם, וְלָא פְּלִיגִי — הָא בְּרַטִּיבְתָּא, הָא בְּיַבִּשְׁתָּא.
Rav says: One must cleanse it with water first, and the same must be done with ashes subsequently, and Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: One must cleanse it with ashes first, and the same must be done with water subsequently. The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree. This statement, that it must be cleansed first with ashes and subsequently with water, was stated with regard to a damp winepress. That statement, that first it must be moistened with water and then cleansed with ashes, was stated with regard to a dry winepress.
אִיתְּמַר בֵּי רַב מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אָמְרִי: תַּרְתֵּי תְּלָת, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: תְּלָת אַרְבַּע.
A dispute was stated with regard to this matter: The Sages of the school of Rav say in the name of Rav that the cleansing process consists of two stages for a damp winepress, namely, ashes and water, and three stages for a dry winepress, namely, water, ashes, and water. And Shmuel says that it consists of three stages for a damp winepress, namely, ashes, water, and ashes, and four stages for a dry winepress, namely, water, ashes, water, and ashes.
בְּסוּרָא מַתְנוּ הָכִי, בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא מַתְנוּ: בֵּי רַב אָמְרִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: תְּלָת אַרְבַּע, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אַרְבַּע חָמֵשׁ.
In Sura they taught the dispute in this preceding manner, but in Pumbedita they taught it in the following manner: The Sages of the school of Rav said in the name of Rav that the cleansing process consists of three stages for a damp winepress, namely, ashes, water, and ashes, and four stages for a dry winepress, namely, water, ashes, water, and ashes. And Shmuel says that it consists of four stages for a damp winepress, namely, ashes, water, ashes, and water, and five stages for a dry winepress, namely, water, ashes, water, ashes, and water.
וְלָא פְּלִיגִי, מָר קָא חָשֵׁיב מַיָּא בָּתְרָאֵי, וּמָר לָא קָחָשֵׁיב מַיָּא בָּתְרָאֵי.
The Gemara comments with regard to the latter version of the dispute: And they do not actually disagree. One Sage, Shmuel, counts the last rinsing with water, which is only in order to remove the ashes, and the other Sage, Rav, does not count the last rinsing with water. Therefore Rav counts three and four stages, whereas Shmuel counts four and five.
בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: הָנֵי גּוּרְגֵּי דַּאֲרַמָּאֵי מַאי?
§ The students asked Rabbi Abbahu with regard to a similar issue of cleansing a utensil from wine of gentiles: With regard to those wicker nets [gorgei] used to hold the grapes during the treading, which belong to gentiles, what is the way to cleanse them?
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: תְּנֵיתוּהָ, הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיוּ גִּתָּיו וּבֵית בַּדָּיו טְמֵאִין, וּבִקֵּשׁ לַעֲשׂוֹתָן בְּטָהֳרָה — הַדַּפִּין וְהָעֲדָשִׁין וְהַלּוּלָבִין מַדִּיחָן, וְהָעֲקָלִין שֶׁל נְצָרִין וְשֶׁל בִּצְבּוּץ מְנַגְּבָן, וְשֶׁל שִׁיפָה וְשֶׁל גֶּמִי מְיַשְּׁנָן שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מַנִּיחָן מִגַּת לְגַת וּמִבַּד לְבַד.
Rabbi Abbahu said to them: You learned this in a baraita: In the case of one whose winepresses or olive presses were impure, and he wished to prepare his grapes and olives in a state of purity, he must first cleanse the presses from the impure produce for which they were used. He must rinse the planks used as a frame in the winepress, and the troughs, and the twigs used as brooms in the winepress; and he must cleanse the pressing baskets with ashes and water if they were made of palm leaves or of hemp [bitzbutz], or leave them dormant twelve months if they were made of bulrush or of reeds, because these absorb more of the wine. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He may leave them dormant from one wine-pressing season to the next wine-pressing season, or from one olive-pressing season to the next olive-pressing season.
הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ: חוֹרְפֵי וְאַפְלֵי.
The Gemara interjects: Isn’t this opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel the same as that of the first tanna, as twelve months pass from one wine-pressing season to the next? The Gemara responds: The difference between them is with regard to early-ripening grapes and late-ripening grapes. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel does not require a precise measure of twelve months, as the lapse between ripening seasons may be greater or less.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: הָרוֹצֶה לְטַהֲרָן מִיָּד, מַגְעִילָן בְּרוֹתְחִין, אוֹ חוֹלְטָן בְּמֵי זֵיתִים. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מַנִּיחָן תַּחַת צִינּוֹר שֶׁמֵּימָיו מְקַלְּחִין, אוֹ בְּמַעְיָן שֶׁמֵּימָיו רוֹדְפִין. וְכַמָּה? עוֹנָה.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yosei says: One who wishes to purify the winepress or olive press immediately without waiting a year can purge them by pouring boiling water over them, or scald them in water used for cooking olives. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Yosei: He can place them under a pipe whose water flows constantly or in a spring with rapid waters. And for how long should he leave them there? He should leave them for an interval of time, as the Gemara will explain.
כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאָמְרוּ בְּיֵין נֶסֶךְ, כָּךְ אָמְרוּ בִּטְהָרוֹת.
The baraita adds: In the same way that the Sages stated these cleansing instructions with regard to a winepress used for libation wine, so they stated these instructions with regard to matters of purity.
כְּלַפֵּי לְיָיא! בִּטְהָרוֹת קָיְימִינַן! אֶלָּא, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאָמְרוּ בִּטְהָרוֹת, כָּךְ אָמְרוּ בְּיֵין נֶסֶךְ.
The Gemara asks with regard to this last clause: Isn’t it the opposite? We are dealing in this baraita with matters of purity, not with the matter of wine used for a libation. Rather, the baraita should be emended: In the same way that the Sages stated this with regard to matters of purity, so they stated this with regard to libation wine.
כַּמָּה עוֹנָה? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אוֹ יוֹם אוֹ לַיְלָה. רַבִּי חָנָא שְׁאִינָה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי חָנָא בַּר שְׁאִינָה, אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חֲצִי יוֹם וַחֲצִי לַיְלָה.
The Gemara asks: How long is an interval of time? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is either an entire day or an entire night. Rabbi Ḥana Sha’ina, and some say Rabbi Ḥana bar Sha’ina, says that Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is half a day and half a night.
אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יִצְחָק: וְלָא פְּלִיגִי, הָא בִּתְקוּפַת נִיסָן וְתִשְׁרִי, הָא בִּתְקוּפַת תַּמּוּז וְטֵבֵת.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzḥak says: And they do not disagree. This statement, that it is either a day or a night, is referring to the season of Nisan or Tishrei, i.e., the fall or spring, when the day and the night are of equal length, and that statement, that it is half a day and half a night, is referring to the season of Tammuz or Tevet, i.e., the summer or winter, when they are not equal, and so twelve hours are measured by half the day and half the night.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הָנֵי רְוָוקֵי דַּאֲרַמָּאֵי דְּמַזְיָא — מַדִּיחָן, דְּעַמְרָא — מְנַגְּבָן, דְּכִיתָּנָא — מְיַשְּׁנָן, וְאִי אִיכָּא קִטְרֵי — שָׁרֵי לְהוּ. הָנֵי דִּקוּלֵי וְחַלָּאתָא דַּאֲרַמָּאֵי דְּחַיְטִי בְּחַבְלֵי דְּצוּרֵי — מְדִיחָן,
§ Rav Yehuda says: In order to cleanse those gentiles’ straining bags [ravukei], which are used for straining yeast from wine, with regard to those made of hair, which is not absorbent, one may rinse them. With regard to those made of wool, one must cleanse them with ashes and water. With regard to those made of flax, which is more absorbent, one must leave them dormant. And if there are knots, one must undo them. In order to cleanse those gentiles’ baskets and strainers, with regard to those that are plaited from palm strips, one may rinse them.
דְּצַבְתָּא — לְנַגְּבָן, דְּכִיתָּנָא — מְיַשְּׁנָן, וְאִי אִית בְּהוּ קִיטְרֵי — שָׁרֵי לְהוּ.
With regard to those that are plaited from tzavta, one must cleanse them with ashes and water. With regard to those that are plaited from flax, one must leave them dormant. And if they have knots, one must undo them.
אִיתְּמַר: עַם הָאָרֶץ שֶׁהוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ לַגַּת וְנָגַע בְּאֶשְׁכּוֹלוֹת, רַבִּי וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא — חַד אָמַר: אֶשְׁכּוֹל וְכׇל סְבִיבוֹתָיו טְמֵאִין, וְכׇל הַגַּת כּוּלָּהּ טְהוֹרָה; וְחַד אָמַר: כׇּל הַגַּת כּוּלָּהּ נָמֵי טְמֵאָה.
§ The Gemara discusses another aspect of the purity of a winepress. It was stated: In the case of one who is unreliable with regard to ritual impurity [am ha’aretz] who reached his hand into the winepress and touched grape clusters that were lying in the wine, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Ḥiyya disagree. One says that the cluster he touched and all its surroundings are rendered impure, but the rest of the entire winepress is pure, and one says that the rest of the entire winepress is also rendered impure, as the entire winepress is considered connected due to the wine in it.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אֶשְׁכּוֹל וְכׇל סְבִיבוֹתָיו טְמֵאִים, וְכׇל הַגַּת כּוּלָּהּ טְהוֹרָה, מַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: שֶׁרֶץ שֶׁנִּמְצָא בָּרֵחַיִם אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶלָּא מְקוֹם מַגָּעוֹ, וְאִם הָיָה מַשְׁקִין מְהַלֵּךְ — הַכֹּל טָמֵא?
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that the cluster and all its surroundings are impure but the rest of the entire winepress is pure, in what way is this case different from that which we learned in a mishna (Teharot 9:8): The carcass of a creeping animal that was found in an oil press transmits impurity to the place it touched alone, but if there was liquid flowing in the mill, it is all rendered impure? Why is it not the halakha in the case of the winepress as well that the entire winepress is impure due to the liquid in it?
הָתָם לָא מַפְסֵק וְלָא מִידֵּי, הָכָא מַפְסְקִי אֶשְׁכּוֹלוֹת.
The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the oil press, there is nothing that interrupts the flow of the liquid, and therefore the liquid connects everything to render it impure. Here, the clusters of grapes interrupt the flow of the wine, and so there is no uninterrupted connection between all of the wine in the winepress.
אוֹרוֹ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ לִבְרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר: אֶשְׁכּוֹל וְכׇל סְבִיבוֹתָיו טְמֵאִין, וְכׇל הַגַּת כּוּלָּהּ טְהוֹרָה.
The Sages taught Rabbi Yirmeya, and some say they taught the son of Rabbi Yirmeya, in accordance with the statement of the one who says: The cluster and all its surroundings are impure, but the entire winepress is pure.
מַתְנִי׳ הַלּוֹקֵחַ כְּלֵי תַּשְׁמִישׁ מִן הַגּוֹיִם, אֶת שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַטְבִּיל — יַטְבִּיל, לְהַגְעִיל — יַגְעִיל, לְלַבֵּן בָּאוּר — יְלַבֵּן בָּאוּר. הַשַּׁפּוּד וְהָאַסְכָּלָא — מְלַבְּנָן בָּאוּר, הַסַּכִּין — שָׁפָהּ וְהִיא טְהוֹרָה.
MISHNA: One who purchases cooking utensils from the gentiles must prepare them for use by Jews in the following manner: With regard to those utensils whose manner of preparation is to immerse them in a ritual bath, as they require no further preparation, he must immerse them accordingly. With regard to those utensils whose manner of preparation is to purge them with boiling water, as those utensils are used with boiling water, e.g., pots, he must purge them accordingly. With regard to those whose manner of preparation is to heat until white-hot in the fire, as they are used for grilling, he must heat them until white-hot in the fire. Therefore, with regard to the spit [hashappud] and the grill [veha’askela], he must heat them until white-hot in the fire. With regard to the knife, he must polish it and it is rendered pure.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: וְכוּלָּן צְרִיכִין טְבִילָה בְּאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רָבָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״כׇּל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יָבֹא בָאֵשׁ תַּעֲבִירוּ בָאֵשׁ וְטָהֵר״, הוֹסִיף לְךָ הַכָּתוּב טׇהֳרָה אַחֶרֶת.
GEMARA: The Sages taught: And they all require immersion in forty se’a of water, including utensils that must first be purged in boiling water or heated until white-hot. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rava says: It is derived from that which the verse states with regard to utensils captured in the battle against the Midianites: “Anything that may tolerate the fire, you shall make to go through the fire, and it shall be pure” (Numbers 31:23). By stating: “And it shall be pure,” the verse added to the process another required act of purification in addition to heating the utensil with fire, which is understood to be immersion.
תָּנֵי בַּר קַפָּרָא: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״בְּמֵי נִדָּה״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ הַזָּאָה שְׁלִישִׁי וּשְׁבִיעִי, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אַךְ״ — חָלַק.
Bar Kappara teaches an additional source for this halakha: From that which is stated the continuation of the verse: “Nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of sprinkling [nidda],” I would derive that the utensils require sprinkling of purification water on the third and the seventh day of their purification process, as is the halakha in the case of one who is impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. Therefore, the verse states “nevertheless,” indicating that the Torah makes a distinction in this case, and that sprinkling on the third and seventh day are not required.
אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בְּמֵי נִדָּה״? מַיִם שֶׁנִּדָּה טוֹבֶלֶת בָּהֶן, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה.
If that is so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “With the water of sprinkling [nidda]”? Clearly, the term nidda is referring not to sprinkling but to a menstruating woman, who is also called a nidda. Accordingly, the verse means that the utensils must be immersed in water in which a menstruating woman can immerse in order to become pure; and you must say that this is referring to a ritual bath that contains forty se’a of water.
אִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִיכְתַּב ״וְטָהֵר״, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִיכְתַּב ״בְּמֵי נִדָּה״. אִי כְּתַב ״וְטָהֵר״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא ״וְטָהֵר״ כֹּל דְּהוּ, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״בְּמֵי נִדָּה״.
The Gemara explains that both sources for this halakha are necessary: It was necessary for the Torah to write “and it shall be pure,” and it was necessary for the Torah to write “with the water of sprinkling,” because if the Torah had written only “and it shall be pure,” I would say that the verse means: “And it shall be pure” by immersion in any amount of water. Therefore the Merciful One writes: “With the water of sprinkling.”
וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּמֵי נִדָּה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא הֶעֱרֵב שֶׁמֶשׁ כְּנִדָּה, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְטָהֵר״ לְאַלְתַּר.
And if the Merciful One had written only “with the water of sprinkling,” I would say that the process requires the setting of the sun, as is the halakha with regard to a menstruating woman, whose immersion renders her pure only after sunset. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “And it shall be pure,” indicating that the utensils can be purified immediately.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: אֲפִילּוּ כֵּלִים חֲדָשִׁים בַּמַּשְׁמָע, דְּהָא יְשָׁנִים וְלִיבְּנָן כַּחֲדָשִׁים דָּמוּ, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי בָּעֵי טְבִילָה. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ זוּזָא דְּסַרְבָּלָא נָמֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּלֵי סְעוּדָה אֲמוּרִין בַּפָּרָשָׁה.
§ Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: Even new utensils that were never used that are bought from gentiles are meant to be included in the requirement of immersion, as old utensils that one heated until white-hot are similar to new utensils, as they do not contain the flavor of non-kosher food, and nevertheless they require immersion. Rav Sheshet objects to this: If so, then even scissors for cutting clothing [zuza desarbela] should require immersion as well. Rav Naḥman said to him: Only utensils used in the preparation of meals are mentioned in the passage in the Torah, and only those require immersion.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בִּלְקוּחִין, וּכְמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה, אֲבָל שְׁאוּלִין — לָא.
Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The Sages taught this only with regard to utensils that were purchased from gentiles and are therefore comparable to the utensils mentioned in the incident that was related in the passage; but the requirement does not apply to borrowed utensils.
רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף זְבַן מָנָא דְּמַרְדָּא מִגּוֹי, סְבַר לְהַטְבִּילָהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב שְׁמֵיהּ: לְדִידִי מִפָּרְשָׁא לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת אֲמוּרִין בַּפָּרָשָׁה.
Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef bought a utensil of marda, a mixture of earth and dung, from a gentile. He thought he was required to immerse it. One of the Sages, and Rabbi Ya’akov was his name, said to him: It was explained to me personally by Rabbi Yoḥanan himself that this requirement applies to metal utensils alone, as those are the utensils mentioned in the passage.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָנֵי כְּלֵי זְכוּכִית, הוֹאִיל וְכִי נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ יֵשׁ לָהֶן תַּקָּנָה, כִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת דָּמוּ. קוּנְיָא, פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא, חַד אָמַר: כִּתְחִלָּתוֹ, וְחַד אָמַר: כְּסוֹפוֹ, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּסוֹפוֹ.
Rav Ashi says: With regard to those glass utensils, since when broken they can be fixed, i.e., remade, if one melts them down and fashions the material into new utensils, they are similar to metal utensils and also require immersion. With regard to lead-glazed earthenware utensils, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree. One says: The halakha is in accordance with its initial state; since it was initially an earthenware utensil, it does not require immersion. And one says: The halakha is in accordance with its ultimate state; since it is coated with metal, it requires immersion. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with its ultimate state.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא מַאי? אָמַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: אַבָּא מַשְׁכֵּן לֵיהּ גּוֹי כָּסָא דְּכַסְפָּא, וְאַטְבְּלֵיהּ וְאִישְׁתִּי בֵּיהּ, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא אִי מִשּׁוּם דְקָסָבַר מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא כִּזְבִינֵי דָּמְיָא, אִי מִשּׁוּם דְּחָזֵי לְגוֹי דְּדַעְתֵּיהּ לְשַׁקּוֹעֵיהּ.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a Jew is holding a gentile’s utensil as collateral, what is the halakha? Is he required to immerse it or not? Mar bar Rav Ashi said: A gentile once gave my father a silver goblet as collateral, and he immersed it and drank from it. But I do not know whether this was because he maintained that possessing a utensil as collateral is considered like a purchase, or because he saw that the gentile’s intention was to leave it with him, and therefore he considered it as his own.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַלּוֹקֵחַ כְּלֵי תַּשְׁמִישׁ מִן הַגּוֹיִם, דְּבָרִים שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן — מַטְבִּילָן וְהֵן טְהוֹרִין. דְּבָרִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עַל יְדֵי צוֹנֵן, כְּגוֹן כּוֹסוֹת וְקִתּוֹנִיּוֹת וּצְלוֹחִיּוֹת — מַדִּיחָן וּמַטְבִּילָן וְהֵם טְהוֹרִין. דְּבָרִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עַל יְדֵי חַמִּין, כְּגוֹן הַיּוֹרוֹת הַקּוּמְקְמוֹסִין וּמְחַמֵּי חַמִּין — מַגְעִילָן וּמַטְבִּילָן וְהֵן טְהוֹרִין. דְּבָרִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עַל יְדֵי הָאוּר, כְּגוֹן הַשַּׁפּוּדִין וְהָאַסְכְּלָאוֹת — מְלַבְּנָן וּמַטְבִּילָן וְהֵן טְהוֹרִין.
§ The Sages taught: One who purchases utensils from the gentiles must prepare them for use in the following manner: With regard to items that the gentile did not use, one immerses them, and they are pure. With regard to items that the gentile used for cold food or drink, such as cups and jugs and flasks, one rinses them and immerses them, and they are pure. With regard to items that the gentile used for hot food or drink, such as large pots, small kettles [hakumkamusun], and samovars, one purges them with boiling water and immerses them, and they are pure. With regard to items that the gentile used with fire, such as spits and grills, one heats them until white-hot and immerses them, and they are pure.
וְכוּלָּן שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַטְבִּיל וְשֶׁלֹּא יַגְעִיל וְשֶׁלֹּא יְלַבֵּן, תָּנֵי חֲדָא: אָסוּר, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: מוּתָּר.
And with regard to all utensils that one used before immersing and purging and heating them until white-hot, it is taught in one baraita that the food prepared with them is forbidden, and it is taught in another baraita that the food prepared with them is permitted.
לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר: נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם — אָסוּר, הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר: נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם — מוּתָּר.
The Gemara explains: This contradiction is not difficult. This ruling, that the food prepared with such utensils is forbidden, is according to the one who says that if a forbidden substance imparts flavor to a permitted food to the detriment of the mixture, the permitted food is forbidden. That ruling, that the food prepared with such utensils is permitted, is according to the one who says that if a forbidden substance imparts flavor to a permitted food to the detriment of the mixture, it remains permitted. Here too, since the flavor of non-kosher food imparted by the utensil detracts from the flavor of the food, such food is permitted.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר: נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם — מוּתָּר, גִּיעוּלֵי גוֹיִם דְּאָסַר רַחֲמָנָא הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?
The Gemara asks: But according to the one who says that that if a forbidden substance imparts flavor to a permitted food to the detriment of the mixture then the mixture is permitted, with regard to utensils of gentiles that require purging, which the Merciful One renders forbidden until they are purged, how can you find these circumstances when it is actually prohibited to use the utensils until they are purged? Since utensils impart a detrimental flavor to food that is cooked in them, there seems to be no reason not to use utensils of gentiles without purging them.
אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא: לֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא קְדֵירָה
Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Huna, says: The Torah renders forbidden only a pot
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
Bronx, United States
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
Avodah Zarah 75
רַב אָמַר: בְּמַיִם, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְאֵפֶר. רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר: לְאֵפֶר, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְמַיִם, וְלָא פְּלִיגִי — הָא בְּרַטִּיבְתָּא, הָא בְּיַבִּשְׁתָּא.
Rav says: One must cleanse it with water first, and the same must be done with ashes subsequently, and Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: One must cleanse it with ashes first, and the same must be done with water subsequently. The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree. This statement, that it must be cleansed first with ashes and subsequently with water, was stated with regard to a damp winepress. That statement, that first it must be moistened with water and then cleansed with ashes, was stated with regard to a dry winepress.
אִיתְּמַר בֵּי רַב מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אָמְרִי: תַּרְתֵּי תְּלָת, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: תְּלָת אַרְבַּע.
A dispute was stated with regard to this matter: The Sages of the school of Rav say in the name of Rav that the cleansing process consists of two stages for a damp winepress, namely, ashes and water, and three stages for a dry winepress, namely, water, ashes, and water. And Shmuel says that it consists of three stages for a damp winepress, namely, ashes, water, and ashes, and four stages for a dry winepress, namely, water, ashes, water, and ashes.
בְּסוּרָא מַתְנוּ הָכִי, בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא מַתְנוּ: בֵּי רַב אָמְרִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: תְּלָת אַרְבַּע, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אַרְבַּע חָמֵשׁ.
In Sura they taught the dispute in this preceding manner, but in Pumbedita they taught it in the following manner: The Sages of the school of Rav said in the name of Rav that the cleansing process consists of three stages for a damp winepress, namely, ashes, water, and ashes, and four stages for a dry winepress, namely, water, ashes, water, and ashes. And Shmuel says that it consists of four stages for a damp winepress, namely, ashes, water, ashes, and water, and five stages for a dry winepress, namely, water, ashes, water, ashes, and water.
וְלָא פְּלִיגִי, מָר קָא חָשֵׁיב מַיָּא בָּתְרָאֵי, וּמָר לָא קָחָשֵׁיב מַיָּא בָּתְרָאֵי.
The Gemara comments with regard to the latter version of the dispute: And they do not actually disagree. One Sage, Shmuel, counts the last rinsing with water, which is only in order to remove the ashes, and the other Sage, Rav, does not count the last rinsing with water. Therefore Rav counts three and four stages, whereas Shmuel counts four and five.
בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: הָנֵי גּוּרְגֵּי דַּאֲרַמָּאֵי מַאי?
§ The students asked Rabbi Abbahu with regard to a similar issue of cleansing a utensil from wine of gentiles: With regard to those wicker nets [gorgei] used to hold the grapes during the treading, which belong to gentiles, what is the way to cleanse them?
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: תְּנֵיתוּהָ, הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיוּ גִּתָּיו וּבֵית בַּדָּיו טְמֵאִין, וּבִקֵּשׁ לַעֲשׂוֹתָן בְּטָהֳרָה — הַדַּפִּין וְהָעֲדָשִׁין וְהַלּוּלָבִין מַדִּיחָן, וְהָעֲקָלִין שֶׁל נְצָרִין וְשֶׁל בִּצְבּוּץ מְנַגְּבָן, וְשֶׁל שִׁיפָה וְשֶׁל גֶּמִי מְיַשְּׁנָן שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מַנִּיחָן מִגַּת לְגַת וּמִבַּד לְבַד.
Rabbi Abbahu said to them: You learned this in a baraita: In the case of one whose winepresses or olive presses were impure, and he wished to prepare his grapes and olives in a state of purity, he must first cleanse the presses from the impure produce for which they were used. He must rinse the planks used as a frame in the winepress, and the troughs, and the twigs used as brooms in the winepress; and he must cleanse the pressing baskets with ashes and water if they were made of palm leaves or of hemp [bitzbutz], or leave them dormant twelve months if they were made of bulrush or of reeds, because these absorb more of the wine. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He may leave them dormant from one wine-pressing season to the next wine-pressing season, or from one olive-pressing season to the next olive-pressing season.
הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ: חוֹרְפֵי וְאַפְלֵי.
The Gemara interjects: Isn’t this opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel the same as that of the first tanna, as twelve months pass from one wine-pressing season to the next? The Gemara responds: The difference between them is with regard to early-ripening grapes and late-ripening grapes. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel does not require a precise measure of twelve months, as the lapse between ripening seasons may be greater or less.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: הָרוֹצֶה לְטַהֲרָן מִיָּד, מַגְעִילָן בְּרוֹתְחִין, אוֹ חוֹלְטָן בְּמֵי זֵיתִים. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מַנִּיחָן תַּחַת צִינּוֹר שֶׁמֵּימָיו מְקַלְּחִין, אוֹ בְּמַעְיָן שֶׁמֵּימָיו רוֹדְפִין. וְכַמָּה? עוֹנָה.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yosei says: One who wishes to purify the winepress or olive press immediately without waiting a year can purge them by pouring boiling water over them, or scald them in water used for cooking olives. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Yosei: He can place them under a pipe whose water flows constantly or in a spring with rapid waters. And for how long should he leave them there? He should leave them for an interval of time, as the Gemara will explain.
כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאָמְרוּ בְּיֵין נֶסֶךְ, כָּךְ אָמְרוּ בִּטְהָרוֹת.
The baraita adds: In the same way that the Sages stated these cleansing instructions with regard to a winepress used for libation wine, so they stated these instructions with regard to matters of purity.
כְּלַפֵּי לְיָיא! בִּטְהָרוֹת קָיְימִינַן! אֶלָּא, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאָמְרוּ בִּטְהָרוֹת, כָּךְ אָמְרוּ בְּיֵין נֶסֶךְ.
The Gemara asks with regard to this last clause: Isn’t it the opposite? We are dealing in this baraita with matters of purity, not with the matter of wine used for a libation. Rather, the baraita should be emended: In the same way that the Sages stated this with regard to matters of purity, so they stated this with regard to libation wine.
כַּמָּה עוֹנָה? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אוֹ יוֹם אוֹ לַיְלָה. רַבִּי חָנָא שְׁאִינָה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי חָנָא בַּר שְׁאִינָה, אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חֲצִי יוֹם וַחֲצִי לַיְלָה.
The Gemara asks: How long is an interval of time? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is either an entire day or an entire night. Rabbi Ḥana Sha’ina, and some say Rabbi Ḥana bar Sha’ina, says that Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is half a day and half a night.
אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יִצְחָק: וְלָא פְּלִיגִי, הָא בִּתְקוּפַת נִיסָן וְתִשְׁרִי, הָא בִּתְקוּפַת תַּמּוּז וְטֵבֵת.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzḥak says: And they do not disagree. This statement, that it is either a day or a night, is referring to the season of Nisan or Tishrei, i.e., the fall or spring, when the day and the night are of equal length, and that statement, that it is half a day and half a night, is referring to the season of Tammuz or Tevet, i.e., the summer or winter, when they are not equal, and so twelve hours are measured by half the day and half the night.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הָנֵי רְוָוקֵי דַּאֲרַמָּאֵי דְּמַזְיָא — מַדִּיחָן, דְּעַמְרָא — מְנַגְּבָן, דְּכִיתָּנָא — מְיַשְּׁנָן, וְאִי אִיכָּא קִטְרֵי — שָׁרֵי לְהוּ. הָנֵי דִּקוּלֵי וְחַלָּאתָא דַּאֲרַמָּאֵי דְּחַיְטִי בְּחַבְלֵי דְּצוּרֵי — מְדִיחָן,
§ Rav Yehuda says: In order to cleanse those gentiles’ straining bags [ravukei], which are used for straining yeast from wine, with regard to those made of hair, which is not absorbent, one may rinse them. With regard to those made of wool, one must cleanse them with ashes and water. With regard to those made of flax, which is more absorbent, one must leave them dormant. And if there are knots, one must undo them. In order to cleanse those gentiles’ baskets and strainers, with regard to those that are plaited from palm strips, one may rinse them.
דְּצַבְתָּא — לְנַגְּבָן, דְּכִיתָּנָא — מְיַשְּׁנָן, וְאִי אִית בְּהוּ קִיטְרֵי — שָׁרֵי לְהוּ.
With regard to those that are plaited from tzavta, one must cleanse them with ashes and water. With regard to those that are plaited from flax, one must leave them dormant. And if they have knots, one must undo them.
אִיתְּמַר: עַם הָאָרֶץ שֶׁהוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ לַגַּת וְנָגַע בְּאֶשְׁכּוֹלוֹת, רַבִּי וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא — חַד אָמַר: אֶשְׁכּוֹל וְכׇל סְבִיבוֹתָיו טְמֵאִין, וְכׇל הַגַּת כּוּלָּהּ טְהוֹרָה; וְחַד אָמַר: כׇּל הַגַּת כּוּלָּהּ נָמֵי טְמֵאָה.
§ The Gemara discusses another aspect of the purity of a winepress. It was stated: In the case of one who is unreliable with regard to ritual impurity [am ha’aretz] who reached his hand into the winepress and touched grape clusters that were lying in the wine, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Ḥiyya disagree. One says that the cluster he touched and all its surroundings are rendered impure, but the rest of the entire winepress is pure, and one says that the rest of the entire winepress is also rendered impure, as the entire winepress is considered connected due to the wine in it.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אֶשְׁכּוֹל וְכׇל סְבִיבוֹתָיו טְמֵאִים, וְכׇל הַגַּת כּוּלָּהּ טְהוֹרָה, מַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: שֶׁרֶץ שֶׁנִּמְצָא בָּרֵחַיִם אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶלָּא מְקוֹם מַגָּעוֹ, וְאִם הָיָה מַשְׁקִין מְהַלֵּךְ — הַכֹּל טָמֵא?
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that the cluster and all its surroundings are impure but the rest of the entire winepress is pure, in what way is this case different from that which we learned in a mishna (Teharot 9:8): The carcass of a creeping animal that was found in an oil press transmits impurity to the place it touched alone, but if there was liquid flowing in the mill, it is all rendered impure? Why is it not the halakha in the case of the winepress as well that the entire winepress is impure due to the liquid in it?
הָתָם לָא מַפְסֵק וְלָא מִידֵּי, הָכָא מַפְסְקִי אֶשְׁכּוֹלוֹת.
The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the oil press, there is nothing that interrupts the flow of the liquid, and therefore the liquid connects everything to render it impure. Here, the clusters of grapes interrupt the flow of the wine, and so there is no uninterrupted connection between all of the wine in the winepress.
אוֹרוֹ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ לִבְרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר: אֶשְׁכּוֹל וְכׇל סְבִיבוֹתָיו טְמֵאִין, וְכׇל הַגַּת כּוּלָּהּ טְהוֹרָה.
The Sages taught Rabbi Yirmeya, and some say they taught the son of Rabbi Yirmeya, in accordance with the statement of the one who says: The cluster and all its surroundings are impure, but the entire winepress is pure.
מַתְנִי׳ הַלּוֹקֵחַ כְּלֵי תַּשְׁמִישׁ מִן הַגּוֹיִם, אֶת שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַטְבִּיל — יַטְבִּיל, לְהַגְעִיל — יַגְעִיל, לְלַבֵּן בָּאוּר — יְלַבֵּן בָּאוּר. הַשַּׁפּוּד וְהָאַסְכָּלָא — מְלַבְּנָן בָּאוּר, הַסַּכִּין — שָׁפָהּ וְהִיא טְהוֹרָה.
MISHNA: One who purchases cooking utensils from the gentiles must prepare them for use by Jews in the following manner: With regard to those utensils whose manner of preparation is to immerse them in a ritual bath, as they require no further preparation, he must immerse them accordingly. With regard to those utensils whose manner of preparation is to purge them with boiling water, as those utensils are used with boiling water, e.g., pots, he must purge them accordingly. With regard to those whose manner of preparation is to heat until white-hot in the fire, as they are used for grilling, he must heat them until white-hot in the fire. Therefore, with regard to the spit [hashappud] and the grill [veha’askela], he must heat them until white-hot in the fire. With regard to the knife, he must polish it and it is rendered pure.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: וְכוּלָּן צְרִיכִין טְבִילָה בְּאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רָבָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״כׇּל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יָבֹא בָאֵשׁ תַּעֲבִירוּ בָאֵשׁ וְטָהֵר״, הוֹסִיף לְךָ הַכָּתוּב טׇהֳרָה אַחֶרֶת.
GEMARA: The Sages taught: And they all require immersion in forty se’a of water, including utensils that must first be purged in boiling water or heated until white-hot. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rava says: It is derived from that which the verse states with regard to utensils captured in the battle against the Midianites: “Anything that may tolerate the fire, you shall make to go through the fire, and it shall be pure” (Numbers 31:23). By stating: “And it shall be pure,” the verse added to the process another required act of purification in addition to heating the utensil with fire, which is understood to be immersion.
תָּנֵי בַּר קַפָּרָא: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״בְּמֵי נִדָּה״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ הַזָּאָה שְׁלִישִׁי וּשְׁבִיעִי, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אַךְ״ — חָלַק.
Bar Kappara teaches an additional source for this halakha: From that which is stated the continuation of the verse: “Nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of sprinkling [nidda],” I would derive that the utensils require sprinkling of purification water on the third and the seventh day of their purification process, as is the halakha in the case of one who is impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. Therefore, the verse states “nevertheless,” indicating that the Torah makes a distinction in this case, and that sprinkling on the third and seventh day are not required.
אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בְּמֵי נִדָּה״? מַיִם שֶׁנִּדָּה טוֹבֶלֶת בָּהֶן, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה.
If that is so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “With the water of sprinkling [nidda]”? Clearly, the term nidda is referring not to sprinkling but to a menstruating woman, who is also called a nidda. Accordingly, the verse means that the utensils must be immersed in water in which a menstruating woman can immerse in order to become pure; and you must say that this is referring to a ritual bath that contains forty se’a of water.
אִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִיכְתַּב ״וְטָהֵר״, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִיכְתַּב ״בְּמֵי נִדָּה״. אִי כְּתַב ״וְטָהֵר״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא ״וְטָהֵר״ כֹּל דְּהוּ, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״בְּמֵי נִדָּה״.
The Gemara explains that both sources for this halakha are necessary: It was necessary for the Torah to write “and it shall be pure,” and it was necessary for the Torah to write “with the water of sprinkling,” because if the Torah had written only “and it shall be pure,” I would say that the verse means: “And it shall be pure” by immersion in any amount of water. Therefore the Merciful One writes: “With the water of sprinkling.”
וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּמֵי נִדָּה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא הֶעֱרֵב שֶׁמֶשׁ כְּנִדָּה, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְטָהֵר״ לְאַלְתַּר.
And if the Merciful One had written only “with the water of sprinkling,” I would say that the process requires the setting of the sun, as is the halakha with regard to a menstruating woman, whose immersion renders her pure only after sunset. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “And it shall be pure,” indicating that the utensils can be purified immediately.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: אֲפִילּוּ כֵּלִים חֲדָשִׁים בַּמַּשְׁמָע, דְּהָא יְשָׁנִים וְלִיבְּנָן כַּחֲדָשִׁים דָּמוּ, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי בָּעֵי טְבִילָה. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ זוּזָא דְּסַרְבָּלָא נָמֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּלֵי סְעוּדָה אֲמוּרִין בַּפָּרָשָׁה.
§ Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: Even new utensils that were never used that are bought from gentiles are meant to be included in the requirement of immersion, as old utensils that one heated until white-hot are similar to new utensils, as they do not contain the flavor of non-kosher food, and nevertheless they require immersion. Rav Sheshet objects to this: If so, then even scissors for cutting clothing [zuza desarbela] should require immersion as well. Rav Naḥman said to him: Only utensils used in the preparation of meals are mentioned in the passage in the Torah, and only those require immersion.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בִּלְקוּחִין, וּכְמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה, אֲבָל שְׁאוּלִין — לָא.
Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The Sages taught this only with regard to utensils that were purchased from gentiles and are therefore comparable to the utensils mentioned in the incident that was related in the passage; but the requirement does not apply to borrowed utensils.
רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף זְבַן מָנָא דְּמַרְדָּא מִגּוֹי, סְבַר לְהַטְבִּילָהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב שְׁמֵיהּ: לְדִידִי מִפָּרְשָׁא לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת אֲמוּרִין בַּפָּרָשָׁה.
Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef bought a utensil of marda, a mixture of earth and dung, from a gentile. He thought he was required to immerse it. One of the Sages, and Rabbi Ya’akov was his name, said to him: It was explained to me personally by Rabbi Yoḥanan himself that this requirement applies to metal utensils alone, as those are the utensils mentioned in the passage.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָנֵי כְּלֵי זְכוּכִית, הוֹאִיל וְכִי נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ יֵשׁ לָהֶן תַּקָּנָה, כִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת דָּמוּ. קוּנְיָא, פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא, חַד אָמַר: כִּתְחִלָּתוֹ, וְחַד אָמַר: כְּסוֹפוֹ, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּסוֹפוֹ.
Rav Ashi says: With regard to those glass utensils, since when broken they can be fixed, i.e., remade, if one melts them down and fashions the material into new utensils, they are similar to metal utensils and also require immersion. With regard to lead-glazed earthenware utensils, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree. One says: The halakha is in accordance with its initial state; since it was initially an earthenware utensil, it does not require immersion. And one says: The halakha is in accordance with its ultimate state; since it is coated with metal, it requires immersion. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with its ultimate state.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא מַאי? אָמַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: אַבָּא מַשְׁכֵּן לֵיהּ גּוֹי כָּסָא דְּכַסְפָּא, וְאַטְבְּלֵיהּ וְאִישְׁתִּי בֵּיהּ, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא אִי מִשּׁוּם דְקָסָבַר מַשְׁכַּנְתָּא כִּזְבִינֵי דָּמְיָא, אִי מִשּׁוּם דְּחָזֵי לְגוֹי דְּדַעְתֵּיהּ לְשַׁקּוֹעֵיהּ.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a Jew is holding a gentile’s utensil as collateral, what is the halakha? Is he required to immerse it or not? Mar bar Rav Ashi said: A gentile once gave my father a silver goblet as collateral, and he immersed it and drank from it. But I do not know whether this was because he maintained that possessing a utensil as collateral is considered like a purchase, or because he saw that the gentile’s intention was to leave it with him, and therefore he considered it as his own.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַלּוֹקֵחַ כְּלֵי תַּשְׁמִישׁ מִן הַגּוֹיִם, דְּבָרִים שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן — מַטְבִּילָן וְהֵן טְהוֹרִין. דְּבָרִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עַל יְדֵי צוֹנֵן, כְּגוֹן כּוֹסוֹת וְקִתּוֹנִיּוֹת וּצְלוֹחִיּוֹת — מַדִּיחָן וּמַטְבִּילָן וְהֵם טְהוֹרִין. דְּבָרִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עַל יְדֵי חַמִּין, כְּגוֹן הַיּוֹרוֹת הַקּוּמְקְמוֹסִין וּמְחַמֵּי חַמִּין — מַגְעִילָן וּמַטְבִּילָן וְהֵן טְהוֹרִין. דְּבָרִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עַל יְדֵי הָאוּר, כְּגוֹן הַשַּׁפּוּדִין וְהָאַסְכְּלָאוֹת — מְלַבְּנָן וּמַטְבִּילָן וְהֵן טְהוֹרִין.
§ The Sages taught: One who purchases utensils from the gentiles must prepare them for use in the following manner: With regard to items that the gentile did not use, one immerses them, and they are pure. With regard to items that the gentile used for cold food or drink, such as cups and jugs and flasks, one rinses them and immerses them, and they are pure. With regard to items that the gentile used for hot food or drink, such as large pots, small kettles [hakumkamusun], and samovars, one purges them with boiling water and immerses them, and they are pure. With regard to items that the gentile used with fire, such as spits and grills, one heats them until white-hot and immerses them, and they are pure.
וְכוּלָּן שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַטְבִּיל וְשֶׁלֹּא יַגְעִיל וְשֶׁלֹּא יְלַבֵּן, תָּנֵי חֲדָא: אָסוּר, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: מוּתָּר.
And with regard to all utensils that one used before immersing and purging and heating them until white-hot, it is taught in one baraita that the food prepared with them is forbidden, and it is taught in another baraita that the food prepared with them is permitted.
לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר: נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם — אָסוּר, הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר: נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם — מוּתָּר.
The Gemara explains: This contradiction is not difficult. This ruling, that the food prepared with such utensils is forbidden, is according to the one who says that if a forbidden substance imparts flavor to a permitted food to the detriment of the mixture, the permitted food is forbidden. That ruling, that the food prepared with such utensils is permitted, is according to the one who says that if a forbidden substance imparts flavor to a permitted food to the detriment of the mixture, it remains permitted. Here too, since the flavor of non-kosher food imparted by the utensil detracts from the flavor of the food, such food is permitted.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר: נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם — מוּתָּר, גִּיעוּלֵי גוֹיִם דְּאָסַר רַחֲמָנָא הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?
The Gemara asks: But according to the one who says that that if a forbidden substance imparts flavor to a permitted food to the detriment of the mixture then the mixture is permitted, with regard to utensils of gentiles that require purging, which the Merciful One renders forbidden until they are purged, how can you find these circumstances when it is actually prohibited to use the utensils until they are purged? Since utensils impart a detrimental flavor to food that is cooked in them, there seems to be no reason not to use utensils of gentiles without purging them.
אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא: לֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא קְדֵירָה
Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Huna, says: The Torah renders forbidden only a pot
