Avodah Zarah 76
Share this shiur:
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.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
- What is a Siyum, click here.
Siyum Masechet Avodah Zarah is dedicated with love and pride to Terri Krivosha from her husband, Rabbi Hayim Herring, her children, Tamar, Avi and Shaina, and her grandchildren, Noam, Liba, and Orly, for completing her first Daf Yomi cycle. You embody the words of Micah 6:8, and “do justice, love goodness, and walk modestly with HaShem.”
A contradiction arises between the Mishna and a Mishna in Zevachim regarding the proper method for kashering a spit. Several sages present different approaches, prompting five proposed resolutions—though many are ultimately rejected.
When it comes to kashering knives, the Mishna recommends polishing as the preferred method. However, Rav Ukva offers an alternative: inserting the knife into the ground ten times.
The Masechet concludes with an intriguing anecdote involving the Persian king Shabur Malka, Mar Yehuda, and a Canaanite slave named Bati bar Tuvi. Before serving Mar Yehuda, the king inserts the knife into the ground, adhering to Rav Ukva’s method. Yet he omitted this step before serving Bati previously. When Bati questions the discrepancy, the king responds with a dismissive remark, implying that Bati lacks the same level of halachic stringency. In an alternate version of the story, the king’s reply is even more pointed and accusatory.
Today’s daily daf tools:
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.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Avodah Zarah 76
בַּת יוֹמָאּ, דְּלָאו נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם הוּא.
that was used for cooking that same day by a gentile, as in such a case, it does not impart flavor to food cooked in it to the detriment of the mixture.
מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ לִישְׁתְּרֵי! גְּזֵירָה קְדֵירָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בַּת יוֹמָאּ מִשּׁוּם קְדֵירָה בַּת יוֹמָאּ.
The Gemara asks: If so, from that point onward the pot should be permitted, as on the following day the taste of the non-kosher food imparted by the pot is already to the detriment of the food. The Gemara answers: There is a rabbinic decree that prohibits use of a pot that was not used by a gentile that same day, due to concern that one will use a pot used by a gentile that same day.
וְאִידָּךְ? קְדֵירָה בַּת יוֹמָאּ נָמֵי מִפְגָּם פָּגְמָה.
The Gemara comments: And according to the opinion of the other tanna, who holds that even if the imparted flavor is to the detriment of the permitted food nevertheless it is forbidden, even the flavor imparted by a pot that was used that same day is detrimental to the flavor of the food, and still the Torah deems it forbidden, which proves that if a forbidden substance imparts flavor to a permitted food to its detriment, the permitted food is forbidden.
רָמֵי לֵיהּ רַב עַמְרָם לְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת, תְּנַן: הַשַּׁפּוּדִין וְהָאַסְכָּלָא — מְלַבְּנָן בָּאוּר, וְהָתַנְיָא גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים: הַשַּׁפּוּד וְהָאַסְכָּלָא — מַגְעִילָן בְּחַמִּין!
§ Rav Amram raises a contradiction before Rav Sheshet: We learned in the mishna: With regard to the spits and the grill, one must heat them until white-hot in the fire. But it is taught in a mishna (Zevaḥim 97a) with regard to sacrificial meat: The spit and the grill that were used to roast sacrificial meat may not be used again after the time for eating that particular offering has passed, as the leftover taste of the offering in these utensils is forbidden, unless one purges them in hot water. Apparently, heating them until white-hot is unnecessary.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עַמְרָם בְּרִי, מָה עִנְיַן קָדָשִׁים אֵצֶל גִּיעוּלֵי גוֹיִם? הָכָא הֶיתֵּירָא בָּלַע, הָתָם אִיסּוּרָא בָּלַע.
Rav Sheshet said to him: Amram, my son, what has the matter of sacrificial meat to do with vessels of gentiles that require purging? Here, in the case of sacrificial meat, the utensils absorbed a permitted food that subsequently became forbidden, and therefore purging in hot water is sufficient. There, in the case of utensils acquired from gentiles, the utensils absorbed a forbidden food, and so they must be heated until white-hot.
אָמַר רָבָא: סוֹף סוֹף כִּי קָא פָלֵיט אִיסּוּרָא קָא פָלֵיט, אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי הַגְעָלָה? נָמֵי שְׁטִיפָה וּמְרִיקָה.
Rava disagreed, saying: Ultimately, even in the case of sacrificial meat, when it emits flavor, it emits a forbidden flavor, so what difference does it make that it was permitted when it was absorbed? Rather, Rava said: What is meant by the purging stated with regard to sacrificial meat? It means that besides heating it until white-hot, rinsing and scouring it are also required, as is the halakha with regard to any utensil used with sacrificial meat, as the verse states: “It shall be scoured and rinsed in water” (Leviticus 6:21).
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִי דָּמֵי? מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה בְּצוֹנֵן, הַגְעָלָה בְּחַמִּין! אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: יַגִּיד עָלָיו רֵעוֹ — תְּנָא הָכָא לִיבּוּן, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְהַגְעָלָה; תְּנָא הָתָם הַגְעָלָה, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְלִיבּוּן.
Abaye said to him: Are rinsing and scouring comparable to purging? Scouring and rinsing are done in cold water, whereas purging is done in hot water. Therefore, this is not a valid interpretation of the term purging. Rather, Abaye said that the Mishna employs the style of: Its counterpart reveals about it (see Job 36:33), as follows: The Mishna taught here that the spit and the grill require heating until white-hot, and the same is true of purging, which is also required. The Mishna taught there that purging the spit and the grill is necessary, and the same is true of heating until white-hot.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִי הָכִי, לִתְנִינְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ בַּחֲדָא, וְלִיתְנֵי חֲדָא בְּאִידַּךְ אַחֲרִיתִי, וְלֵימָא: ״יַגִּיד עָלָיו רֵעוֹ״!
Rava said to him: If so, let the Mishna teach all of these requirements in one of the places, and let it teach only one of them in the other, and then let us say that the Mishna employs the style of: Its counterpart reveals about it. The principle that one mishna supplements the other can apply when all of the information is stated in one of the two places, but not when each has only part of it.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: קָדָשִׁים הַיְינוּ טַעְמַיְיהוּ, כִּדְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל יוֹם וָיוֹם נַעֲשֶׂה גִּיעוּל לַחֲבֵירוֹ.
Rather, Rava said that with regard to sacrificial meat, this is the reason that its utensils do not require heating until white-hot: It is in accordance with that which Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says, as he says: Each and every day constitutes purging for the other day, i.e., the previous day. Since the designated time for eating the meat of a peace-offering ends the day after it is sacrificed, using the utensils every day for an offering sacrificed on that day guarantees that the taste of every offering is expelled from the utensils before they become forbidden, by using them with fire on the following day. Therefore the utensils do not require special heating until white-hot in fire in order to become permitted for subsequent use.
תִּינַח שְׁלָמִים, דְּכֵיוָן דְּלִשְׁנֵי יָמִים מִיתְאַכְלִי, מִקַּמֵּי דְּנִיהְוֵי נוֹתָר קָא הָוֵי גִּיעוּל. אֶלָּא חַטָּאת, כֵּיוָן דִּלְיוֹם וְלַיְלָה מִיתְאַכְלָא, כִּי מְבַשֵּׁל בַּהּ הָאִידָּנָא חַטָּאת — הָוֵי נוֹתָר, כִּי הָדַר מְבַשֵּׁל בַּהּ לִמְחַר אוֹ שְׁלָמִים אוֹ חַטָּאת, קָא פָלֵיט נוֹתָר דְּחַטָּאת דְּהָאִידָּנָא בְּחַטָּאת וּשְׁלָמִים דְּלִמְחַר!
The Gemara raises an objection: This works out well with regard to peace-offerings, as, since their meat may be eaten over two days, purging is achieved before they become leftover sacrificial meat, which is forbidden. But with regard to a sin-offering, since its meat may be eaten only over the course of a day and a night, when one cooks the meat of a sin-offering with the utensil now, it becomes leftover the next morning. And when one cooks with it again the next day, whether the meat of a peace-offering or a sin-offering, the utensil expels the leftover taste of the sin-offering sacrificed now into the meat of the sin-offering or peace-offering sacrificed the next day, and it should be forbidden.
אָמְרִי: לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּכִי מְבַשֵּׁל בַּהּ חַטָּאת הָאִידָּנָא, הָדַר מְבַשֵּׁל בַּהּ הָאִידָּנָא שְׁלָמִים.
The Sages say in response: It is not necessary to purge the utensil by heating it until white-hot even if it was used for the meat of a sin-offering; it is possible to avoid such a requirement, as when one cooks a sin-offering with the utensil now, he can then cook the meat of a peace-offering with the same utensil now, i.e., on the same day, and the taste of the sin-offering is consequently expelled from the utensil on that same day.
דְּחַטָּאת דְּלִמְחַר, וּשְׁלָמִים דְּאֶתְמוֹל, בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָא שָׁלֵים זִמְנַיְיהוּ, וַהֲדַר מְבַשֵּׁל שְׁלָמִים דְּלִמְחַר.
Then, when the taste of the peace-offering is absorbed, it creates a situation where the designated times for eating the meat of the sin-offering of the next day and the meat of the peace-offering of the previous day are complete simultaneously. It is therefore possible to use the utensil for cooking the meat of a sin-offering the next day without having to purge it from the taste of the previous day’s offerings. And one can then cook the meat of a peace-offering with the utensil the next day, thereby expelling from it the taste of the sin-offering of that day, and repeat this practice day after day.
אִי הָכִי, הַגְעָלָה נָמֵי לָא לִיבְעֵי! קַשְׁיָא.
The Gemara raises an objection: If so, if each day the utensil expels the taste of the sacrificial meat that has not become leftover, then purging it with boiling water is also unnecessary. Why, then, does the mishna require purging with boiling water? The Gemara comments: This poses a difficulty to Rava’s explanation.
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: הַאי קָרִיד, הַאי לָא קָרִיד.
Rav Pappa said that there is another resolution to the contradiction between mishnayot: In this case of a gentile’s spit and grill, because it is a utensil that is not in continual use, it becomes crusty and must be heated until white-hot; but that utensil used for sacrificial meat is in continual use, so it does not become crusty.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם כְּדַאֲמַרַן מֵעִיקָּרָא, הָכָא הֶתֵּירָא בָּלַע, הָכָא אִיסּוּרָא בָּלַע.
Rav Ashi said: Actually, the contradiction should be resolved as we said from the outset, as explained by Rav Sheshet: There, in the case of sacrificial meat, the utensils absorbed a permitted food that subsequently became forbidden, and therefore purging is sufficient. Here, in the case of utensils acquired from gentiles, the utensils absorbed a forbidden food, and so they must be heated until white-hot.
וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ, דִּבְעִידָּנָא דְּקָא פָלֵיט אִיסּוּרָא קָא פָלֵיט, בְּעִידָּנָא דְּקָא פָלֵיט לָא אִיתֵיהּ לְאִיסּוּרָא בְּעֵינֵיהּ.
And as for that which poses a difficulty for you, that at the time that the utensil expels flavor, it expels the flavor of a forbidden food, the answer is that at the time it expels flavor, the forbidden food is nonexistent in its substantive form. Since the forbidden substance expelled from the utensil is not the forbidden food itself but only its flavor, it is treated leniently, and therefore the fact that it was permitted at the time it was absorbed in the utensil is taken into account.
וְעַד כַּמָּה מְלַבְּנָן? אָמַר רַבִּי מִנִּי: עַד שֶׁתַּשִּׁיר קְלִיפָּתָן. וְכֵיצַד מַגְעִילָן? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: יוֹרָה קְטַנָּה בְּתוֹךְ יוֹרָה גְּדוֹלָה.
§ Returning to the mishna, the Gemara asks: And how much does one heat utensils to make them white-hot? Rabbi Mani says: Until they shed their outer layer. And how does one purge utensils with boiling water? Rav Huna says: One immerses a small kettle inside a large kettle of boiling water.
יוֹרָה גְּדוֹלָה, מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּהָהוּא דּוּדָא דַּהֲוַאי בֵּי רַב עֲקַבְיָה, אַהְדַּר לַהּ.
The Gemara asks: What does one do with a large kettle? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer from an incident involving a certain cauldron that was in the house of Rav Akavya and required purging. He surrounded it
גְּדָנְפָא דְּלַיְשָׁא אַפּוּמַּאּ, וּמַלְּיַוהּ מַיָּא וְאַרְתְּחַהּ. אָמַר רָבָא: מַאן חַכִּים לְמֶעְבַּד כִּי הָא מִילְּתָא, אִי לָאו רַב עֲקַבְיָה דְּגַבְרָא רַבָּא הוּא? קָסָבַר: כְּבוֹלְעוֹ כָּךְ פּוֹלְטוֹ — מָה בּוֹלְעוֹ בְּנִצוֹצוֹת, אַף פּוֹלְטוֹ בְּנִצוֹצוֹת.
with a rim [gedanfa] of dough around its rim, and filled it with water and boiled it, so that the water boiled along its rim. Rava said: Who would be clever enough to perform such an action if not Rav Akavya, as he is a great man. He maintains that as it absorbs it so it expels it; just as the rim absorbs the forbidden substance by small drops of it that reach the rim, so too it expels the forbidden substance by small drops of boiling water that reach the rim.
הַסַּכִּין — שָׁפָהּ וְהִיא טְהוֹרָה. אָמַר רַב עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא: וְנוֹעֲצָהּ עֲשָׂרָה פְּעָמִים בַּקַּרְקַע. אֲמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: וּבְקַרְקַע שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֲבוּדָה. אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: וּבְסַכִּין יָפָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ גּוּמּוֹת. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: סַכִּין יָפָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ גּוּמּוֹת נוֹעֲצָהּ עֲשָׂרָה פְּעָמִים בְּקַרְקַע. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לֶאֱכוֹל בָּהּ צוֹנֵן.
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the knife, one must polish it and it is rendered pure. Rav Ukva bar Ḥama says: And one must thrust it ten times into the ground. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: And this must be done in untilled earth, i.e., hard earth. Rav Kahana says: And this applies to a good knife that does not have notches, so that the entire surface of the knife is scraped against the ground. This is also taught in a baraita: With regard to a good knife that does not have notches, one can thrust it ten times into the ground. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: This is sufficient for the purpose of eating cold food with it.
כִּי הָא דְּמָר יְהוּדָה וּבָאטִי בַּר טוֹבִי הֲווֹ יָתְבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּשַׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא, אַיְיתוֹ לְקַמַּיְיהוּ אֶתְרוֹגָא. פְּסַק אֲכַל, פְּסַק וְהַב לֵיהּ לְבָאטִי בַּר טוֹבִי, הֲדַר דָּצַהּ עַשְׂרָה זִימְנֵי בְּאַרְעָא, פְּסַק הַב לֵיהּ לְמָר יְהוּדָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ בָּאטִי בַּר טוֹבִי: וְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא לָאו בַּר יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָר קִים לִי בְּגַוֵּיהּ, וּמָר לָא קִים לִי בְּגַוֵּיהּ.
This is like that incident involving Mar Yehuda, an important personage of the house of the Exilarch, and Bati bar Tuvi, a wealthy man, who were sitting before King Shapur, the king of Persia. The king’s servants brought an etrog before them. The king cut a slice and ate it, and then he cut a slice and gave it to Bati bar Tuvi. He then stuck the knife ten times in the ground, cut a slice, and gave it to Mar Yehuda. Bati bar Tuvi said to him: And is that man, referring to himself, not Jewish? King Shapur said to him: I am certain of that master, Mar Yehuda, that he is meticulous about halakha; but I am not certain of that master, referring to Bati bar Tuvi, that he is meticulous in this regard.
אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִידְּכַר מַאי עֲבַדְתְּ בְּאוּרְתָּא.
There are those who say that King Shapur said to him: Remember what you did last night. The Persian practice was to present a woman to each guest, with whom he would engage in intercourse. Mar Yehuda did not accept the woman who was sent to him, but Bati bar Tuvi did, and therefore he was not assumed to be meticulous with regard to eating kosher food.
הָדְרָן עֲלָךְ הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֵת הַפּוֹעֵל, וּסְלִיקָא לַהּ מַסֶּכֶת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Avodah Zarah 76: Closing the Relationship between Jew and Non-Jew
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.
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
Phoenix, AZ, United States
Bronx, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
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 being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
Avodah Zarah 76
בַּת יוֹמָאּ, דְּלָאו נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם הוּא.
that was used for cooking that same day by a gentile, as in such a case, it does not impart flavor to food cooked in it to the detriment of the mixture.
מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ לִישְׁתְּרֵי! גְּזֵירָה קְדֵירָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בַּת יוֹמָאּ מִשּׁוּם קְדֵירָה בַּת יוֹמָאּ.
The Gemara asks: If so, from that point onward the pot should be permitted, as on the following day the taste of the non-kosher food imparted by the pot is already to the detriment of the food. The Gemara answers: There is a rabbinic decree that prohibits use of a pot that was not used by a gentile that same day, due to concern that one will use a pot used by a gentile that same day.
וְאִידָּךְ? קְדֵירָה בַּת יוֹמָאּ נָמֵי מִפְגָּם פָּגְמָה.
The Gemara comments: And according to the opinion of the other tanna, who holds that even if the imparted flavor is to the detriment of the permitted food nevertheless it is forbidden, even the flavor imparted by a pot that was used that same day is detrimental to the flavor of the food, and still the Torah deems it forbidden, which proves that if a forbidden substance imparts flavor to a permitted food to its detriment, the permitted food is forbidden.
רָמֵי לֵיהּ רַב עַמְרָם לְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת, תְּנַן: הַשַּׁפּוּדִין וְהָאַסְכָּלָא — מְלַבְּנָן בָּאוּר, וְהָתַנְיָא גַּבֵּי קָדָשִׁים: הַשַּׁפּוּד וְהָאַסְכָּלָא — מַגְעִילָן בְּחַמִּין!
§ Rav Amram raises a contradiction before Rav Sheshet: We learned in the mishna: With regard to the spits and the grill, one must heat them until white-hot in the fire. But it is taught in a mishna (Zevaḥim 97a) with regard to sacrificial meat: The spit and the grill that were used to roast sacrificial meat may not be used again after the time for eating that particular offering has passed, as the leftover taste of the offering in these utensils is forbidden, unless one purges them in hot water. Apparently, heating them until white-hot is unnecessary.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עַמְרָם בְּרִי, מָה עִנְיַן קָדָשִׁים אֵצֶל גִּיעוּלֵי גוֹיִם? הָכָא הֶיתֵּירָא בָּלַע, הָתָם אִיסּוּרָא בָּלַע.
Rav Sheshet said to him: Amram, my son, what has the matter of sacrificial meat to do with vessels of gentiles that require purging? Here, in the case of sacrificial meat, the utensils absorbed a permitted food that subsequently became forbidden, and therefore purging in hot water is sufficient. There, in the case of utensils acquired from gentiles, the utensils absorbed a forbidden food, and so they must be heated until white-hot.
אָמַר רָבָא: סוֹף סוֹף כִּי קָא פָלֵיט אִיסּוּרָא קָא פָלֵיט, אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי הַגְעָלָה? נָמֵי שְׁטִיפָה וּמְרִיקָה.
Rava disagreed, saying: Ultimately, even in the case of sacrificial meat, when it emits flavor, it emits a forbidden flavor, so what difference does it make that it was permitted when it was absorbed? Rather, Rava said: What is meant by the purging stated with regard to sacrificial meat? It means that besides heating it until white-hot, rinsing and scouring it are also required, as is the halakha with regard to any utensil used with sacrificial meat, as the verse states: “It shall be scoured and rinsed in water” (Leviticus 6:21).
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִי דָּמֵי? מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה בְּצוֹנֵן, הַגְעָלָה בְּחַמִּין! אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: יַגִּיד עָלָיו רֵעוֹ — תְּנָא הָכָא לִיבּוּן, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְהַגְעָלָה; תְּנָא הָתָם הַגְעָלָה, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְלִיבּוּן.
Abaye said to him: Are rinsing and scouring comparable to purging? Scouring and rinsing are done in cold water, whereas purging is done in hot water. Therefore, this is not a valid interpretation of the term purging. Rather, Abaye said that the Mishna employs the style of: Its counterpart reveals about it (see Job 36:33), as follows: The Mishna taught here that the spit and the grill require heating until white-hot, and the same is true of purging, which is also required. The Mishna taught there that purging the spit and the grill is necessary, and the same is true of heating until white-hot.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִי הָכִי, לִתְנִינְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ בַּחֲדָא, וְלִיתְנֵי חֲדָא בְּאִידַּךְ אַחֲרִיתִי, וְלֵימָא: ״יַגִּיד עָלָיו רֵעוֹ״!
Rava said to him: If so, let the Mishna teach all of these requirements in one of the places, and let it teach only one of them in the other, and then let us say that the Mishna employs the style of: Its counterpart reveals about it. The principle that one mishna supplements the other can apply when all of the information is stated in one of the two places, but not when each has only part of it.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: קָדָשִׁים הַיְינוּ טַעְמַיְיהוּ, כִּדְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל יוֹם וָיוֹם נַעֲשֶׂה גִּיעוּל לַחֲבֵירוֹ.
Rather, Rava said that with regard to sacrificial meat, this is the reason that its utensils do not require heating until white-hot: It is in accordance with that which Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says, as he says: Each and every day constitutes purging for the other day, i.e., the previous day. Since the designated time for eating the meat of a peace-offering ends the day after it is sacrificed, using the utensils every day for an offering sacrificed on that day guarantees that the taste of every offering is expelled from the utensils before they become forbidden, by using them with fire on the following day. Therefore the utensils do not require special heating until white-hot in fire in order to become permitted for subsequent use.
תִּינַח שְׁלָמִים, דְּכֵיוָן דְּלִשְׁנֵי יָמִים מִיתְאַכְלִי, מִקַּמֵּי דְּנִיהְוֵי נוֹתָר קָא הָוֵי גִּיעוּל. אֶלָּא חַטָּאת, כֵּיוָן דִּלְיוֹם וְלַיְלָה מִיתְאַכְלָא, כִּי מְבַשֵּׁל בַּהּ הָאִידָּנָא חַטָּאת — הָוֵי נוֹתָר, כִּי הָדַר מְבַשֵּׁל בַּהּ לִמְחַר אוֹ שְׁלָמִים אוֹ חַטָּאת, קָא פָלֵיט נוֹתָר דְּחַטָּאת דְּהָאִידָּנָא בְּחַטָּאת וּשְׁלָמִים דְּלִמְחַר!
The Gemara raises an objection: This works out well with regard to peace-offerings, as, since their meat may be eaten over two days, purging is achieved before they become leftover sacrificial meat, which is forbidden. But with regard to a sin-offering, since its meat may be eaten only over the course of a day and a night, when one cooks the meat of a sin-offering with the utensil now, it becomes leftover the next morning. And when one cooks with it again the next day, whether the meat of a peace-offering or a sin-offering, the utensil expels the leftover taste of the sin-offering sacrificed now into the meat of the sin-offering or peace-offering sacrificed the next day, and it should be forbidden.
אָמְרִי: לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּכִי מְבַשֵּׁל בַּהּ חַטָּאת הָאִידָּנָא, הָדַר מְבַשֵּׁל בַּהּ הָאִידָּנָא שְׁלָמִים.
The Sages say in response: It is not necessary to purge the utensil by heating it until white-hot even if it was used for the meat of a sin-offering; it is possible to avoid such a requirement, as when one cooks a sin-offering with the utensil now, he can then cook the meat of a peace-offering with the same utensil now, i.e., on the same day, and the taste of the sin-offering is consequently expelled from the utensil on that same day.
דְּחַטָּאת דְּלִמְחַר, וּשְׁלָמִים דְּאֶתְמוֹל, בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָא שָׁלֵים זִמְנַיְיהוּ, וַהֲדַר מְבַשֵּׁל שְׁלָמִים דְּלִמְחַר.
Then, when the taste of the peace-offering is absorbed, it creates a situation where the designated times for eating the meat of the sin-offering of the next day and the meat of the peace-offering of the previous day are complete simultaneously. It is therefore possible to use the utensil for cooking the meat of a sin-offering the next day without having to purge it from the taste of the previous day’s offerings. And one can then cook the meat of a peace-offering with the utensil the next day, thereby expelling from it the taste of the sin-offering of that day, and repeat this practice day after day.
אִי הָכִי, הַגְעָלָה נָמֵי לָא לִיבְעֵי! קַשְׁיָא.
The Gemara raises an objection: If so, if each day the utensil expels the taste of the sacrificial meat that has not become leftover, then purging it with boiling water is also unnecessary. Why, then, does the mishna require purging with boiling water? The Gemara comments: This poses a difficulty to Rava’s explanation.
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: הַאי קָרִיד, הַאי לָא קָרִיד.
Rav Pappa said that there is another resolution to the contradiction between mishnayot: In this case of a gentile’s spit and grill, because it is a utensil that is not in continual use, it becomes crusty and must be heated until white-hot; but that utensil used for sacrificial meat is in continual use, so it does not become crusty.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם כְּדַאֲמַרַן מֵעִיקָּרָא, הָכָא הֶתֵּירָא בָּלַע, הָכָא אִיסּוּרָא בָּלַע.
Rav Ashi said: Actually, the contradiction should be resolved as we said from the outset, as explained by Rav Sheshet: There, in the case of sacrificial meat, the utensils absorbed a permitted food that subsequently became forbidden, and therefore purging is sufficient. Here, in the case of utensils acquired from gentiles, the utensils absorbed a forbidden food, and so they must be heated until white-hot.
וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ, דִּבְעִידָּנָא דְּקָא פָלֵיט אִיסּוּרָא קָא פָלֵיט, בְּעִידָּנָא דְּקָא פָלֵיט לָא אִיתֵיהּ לְאִיסּוּרָא בְּעֵינֵיהּ.
And as for that which poses a difficulty for you, that at the time that the utensil expels flavor, it expels the flavor of a forbidden food, the answer is that at the time it expels flavor, the forbidden food is nonexistent in its substantive form. Since the forbidden substance expelled from the utensil is not the forbidden food itself but only its flavor, it is treated leniently, and therefore the fact that it was permitted at the time it was absorbed in the utensil is taken into account.
וְעַד כַּמָּה מְלַבְּנָן? אָמַר רַבִּי מִנִּי: עַד שֶׁתַּשִּׁיר קְלִיפָּתָן. וְכֵיצַד מַגְעִילָן? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: יוֹרָה קְטַנָּה בְּתוֹךְ יוֹרָה גְּדוֹלָה.
§ Returning to the mishna, the Gemara asks: And how much does one heat utensils to make them white-hot? Rabbi Mani says: Until they shed their outer layer. And how does one purge utensils with boiling water? Rav Huna says: One immerses a small kettle inside a large kettle of boiling water.
יוֹרָה גְּדוֹלָה, מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּהָהוּא דּוּדָא דַּהֲוַאי בֵּי רַב עֲקַבְיָה, אַהְדַּר לַהּ.
The Gemara asks: What does one do with a large kettle? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer from an incident involving a certain cauldron that was in the house of Rav Akavya and required purging. He surrounded it
גְּדָנְפָא דְּלַיְשָׁא אַפּוּמַּאּ, וּמַלְּיַוהּ מַיָּא וְאַרְתְּחַהּ. אָמַר רָבָא: מַאן חַכִּים לְמֶעְבַּד כִּי הָא מִילְּתָא, אִי לָאו רַב עֲקַבְיָה דְּגַבְרָא רַבָּא הוּא? קָסָבַר: כְּבוֹלְעוֹ כָּךְ פּוֹלְטוֹ — מָה בּוֹלְעוֹ בְּנִצוֹצוֹת, אַף פּוֹלְטוֹ בְּנִצוֹצוֹת.
with a rim [gedanfa] of dough around its rim, and filled it with water and boiled it, so that the water boiled along its rim. Rava said: Who would be clever enough to perform such an action if not Rav Akavya, as he is a great man. He maintains that as it absorbs it so it expels it; just as the rim absorbs the forbidden substance by small drops of it that reach the rim, so too it expels the forbidden substance by small drops of boiling water that reach the rim.
הַסַּכִּין — שָׁפָהּ וְהִיא טְהוֹרָה. אָמַר רַב עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא: וְנוֹעֲצָהּ עֲשָׂרָה פְּעָמִים בַּקַּרְקַע. אֲמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: וּבְקַרְקַע שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֲבוּדָה. אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: וּבְסַכִּין יָפָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ גּוּמּוֹת. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: סַכִּין יָפָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ גּוּמּוֹת נוֹעֲצָהּ עֲשָׂרָה פְּעָמִים בְּקַרְקַע. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לֶאֱכוֹל בָּהּ צוֹנֵן.
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the knife, one must polish it and it is rendered pure. Rav Ukva bar Ḥama says: And one must thrust it ten times into the ground. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: And this must be done in untilled earth, i.e., hard earth. Rav Kahana says: And this applies to a good knife that does not have notches, so that the entire surface of the knife is scraped against the ground. This is also taught in a baraita: With regard to a good knife that does not have notches, one can thrust it ten times into the ground. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: This is sufficient for the purpose of eating cold food with it.
כִּי הָא דְּמָר יְהוּדָה וּבָאטִי בַּר טוֹבִי הֲווֹ יָתְבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּשַׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא, אַיְיתוֹ לְקַמַּיְיהוּ אֶתְרוֹגָא. פְּסַק אֲכַל, פְּסַק וְהַב לֵיהּ לְבָאטִי בַּר טוֹבִי, הֲדַר דָּצַהּ עַשְׂרָה זִימְנֵי בְּאַרְעָא, פְּסַק הַב לֵיהּ לְמָר יְהוּדָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ בָּאטִי בַּר טוֹבִי: וְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא לָאו בַּר יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָר קִים לִי בְּגַוֵּיהּ, וּמָר לָא קִים לִי בְּגַוֵּיהּ.
This is like that incident involving Mar Yehuda, an important personage of the house of the Exilarch, and Bati bar Tuvi, a wealthy man, who were sitting before King Shapur, the king of Persia. The king’s servants brought an etrog before them. The king cut a slice and ate it, and then he cut a slice and gave it to Bati bar Tuvi. He then stuck the knife ten times in the ground, cut a slice, and gave it to Mar Yehuda. Bati bar Tuvi said to him: And is that man, referring to himself, not Jewish? King Shapur said to him: I am certain of that master, Mar Yehuda, that he is meticulous about halakha; but I am not certain of that master, referring to Bati bar Tuvi, that he is meticulous in this regard.
אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִידְּכַר מַאי עֲבַדְתְּ בְּאוּרְתָּא.
There are those who say that King Shapur said to him: Remember what you did last night. The Persian practice was to present a woman to each guest, with whom he would engage in intercourse. Mar Yehuda did not accept the woman who was sent to him, but Bati bar Tuvi did, and therefore he was not assumed to be meticulous with regard to eating kosher food.
הָדְרָן עֲלָךְ הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֵת הַפּוֹעֵל, וּסְלִיקָא לַהּ מַסֶּכֶת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.
