עבודה זרה ל״ח

עבודה זרה ל״ח

אֶלָּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וּקְרָא אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא.

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

אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק אָמַר רַב: כָּל הַנֶּאֱכָל כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא חַי — אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּישּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם. בְּסוּרָא מַתְנוּ הָכִי, בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא מַתְנוּ הָכִי: אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק אָמַר רַב: כׇּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל עַל שׁוּלְחַן מְלָכִים לְלַפֵּת בּוֹ אֶת הַפַּת — אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּישּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם.

The Gemara discusses the particulars of the prohibition against eating the cooking of gentiles. Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak 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 Yitzḥak 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.

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ: דָּגִים קְטַנִּים, וְאַרְדֵי, וְדַיְיסָא.

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.

אָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַב: דָּגִים קְטַנִּים מְלוּחִים אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם בִּישּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אִם צְלָאָן גּוֹי סוֹמֵךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם עֵירוּבֵי תַבְשִׁילִין, וְאִי עַבְדִינְהוּ גּוֹי כָּסָא דְּהַרְסָנָא — אָסוּר.

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.

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הַרְסָנָא עִיקָּר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: קִימְחָא עִיקָּר.

The Gemara asks: Isn’t 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.

אָמַר רַב בְּרוֹנָא אָמַר רַב: גּוֹי שֶׁהִצִּית אֶת הָאוּר בַּאֲגַם — כָּל הַחֲגָבִים שֶׁבָּאֲגַם אֲסוּרִין. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּלָא יָדַע הֵי טָהוֹר וְהֵי טָמֵא, מַאי אִירְיָא גּוֹי? אֲפִילּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי! אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם בִּישּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם.

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.

כִּי הַאי גַּוְונָא מִי אֲסִיר? וְהָאָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר אַמֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי פְּדָת אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַאי גּוֹי דְּחָרֵיךְ רֵישָׁא שְׁרֵי לְמֵיכַל מִינֵּיהּ, אֲפִילּוּ מֵרֵישׁ אוּנֵּיהּ. אַלְמָא לְעַבּוֹרֵי שֵׂעָר קָמִיכַּוֵּין, הָכָא נָמֵי לְגַלּוֹיֵי אַגְמָא קָא מִיכַּוֵּין!

The Gemara raises an objection: Does anyone actually prohibit the cooking of gentiles in a case like this? But doesn’t Rav Ḥanan bar Ami say that Rabbi Pedat says that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

לְעוֹלָם, דְּלָא יָדַע הֵי טָהוֹר וְהֵי טָמֵא, וּמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה בְּגוֹי הָיָה.

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.

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַאי גּוֹי דְּחָרֵיךְ רֵישָׁא — שְׁרֵי לְמֵיכַל מִינֵּיהּ, אֲפִילּוּ מֵרֵישׁ אוּנֵּיה. אָמַר רָבִינָא: הִלְכָּךְ, הַאי גּוֹי דִּשְׁדָא סִיכְּתָא לְאַתּוּנָא, וּקְבַר בָּהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל קָרָא מֵעִיקָּרָא — שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לְבַשּׁוֹלֵי מָנָא קָא מִיכַּוֵּין, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: לְשָׁרוֹרֵי מָנָא קָא מִיכַּוֵּין.

§ The Gemara addresses the matter itself: Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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’t 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.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הִנִּיחַ יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּשָׂר עַל גַּבֵּי גֶּחָלִים, וּבָא גּוֹי וְהִפֵּךְ בּוֹ — מוּתָּר. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּאִי לָא הַפֵּךְ בֵּיהּ הֲוָה בְּשִׁיל — פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא לָאו דְּאִי לָא הַפֵּךְ לָא הֲוָה בְּשִׁיל, אַמַּאי מוּתָּר? בִּישּׁוּלֵי שֶׁל גּוֹיִם נִינְהוּ!

§ 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’s 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.

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי לָא הַפֵּךְ הֲוָה בְּשִׁיל בְּתַרְתֵּי שָׁעֵי, וְהַשְׁתָּא קָא בְשִׁיל בַּחֲדָא שַׁעְתָּא, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: קָרוֹבֵי בִּישּׁוּלָא מִילְּתָא הִיא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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.

וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל שֶׁהוּא כְּמַאֲכַל בֶּן דְּרוֹסַאי — אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּישּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם, הָא אֵינוֹ כְּמַאֲכַל בֶּן דְּרוֹסַאי — יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּשּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם!

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Asi say that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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’s intervention.

הָתָם, כְּגוֹן דְּאוֹתְבֵיהּ בְּסִילְתָּא, וְשַׁקְלֵיהּ גּוֹי וְאוֹתְבֵיהּ בְּתַנּוּרָא.

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’s 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.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: מַנִּיחַ יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּשָׂר עַל גַּבֵּי גֶּחָלִים, וּבָא גּוֹי וּמְהַפֵּךְ בּוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא יִשְׂרָאֵל מִבֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת אוֹ מִבֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. שׁוֹפֶתֶת אִשָּׁה קְדֵירָה עַל גַּבֵּי כִּירָה, וּבָאת גּוֹיָה

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

וּמְגִיסָה, עַד שֶׁתָּבֹא מִבֵּית הַמֶּרְחָץ אוֹ מִבֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת, וְאֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת.

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

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הִנִּיחַ גּוֹי וְהִפֵּךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל, מַהוּ? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: קַל וָחוֹמֶר — גְּמָרוֹ בְּיַד גּוֹי מוּתָּר, גְּמָרוֹ בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

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 Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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?

אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי: אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בֵּין שֶׁהִנִּיחַ גּוֹי וְהָפַךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל, בֵּין שֶׁהִנִּיחַ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהָפַךְ גּוֹי — מוּתָּר, וְאֵינוֹ אָסוּר עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא תְּחִלָּתוֹ וּגְמָרוֹ בְּיַד גּוֹי.

Along these lines, it was also stated: Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and some say Rav Aḥa bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

אָמַר רָבִינָא, הִלְכְתָא: הָא רִיפְתָּא דִּשְׁגַר גּוֹי וַאֲפָה יִשְׂרָאֵל, אִי נָמֵי שְׁגַר יִשְׂרָאֵל וַאֲפָה גּוֹי, אִי נָמֵי שְׁגַר גּוֹי וַאֲפָה גּוֹי וַאֲתָא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְחַתִּה בַּהּ חַתּוֹיֵי — שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.

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.

דָּג מָלִיחַ — חִזְקִיָּה שָׁרֵי, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָסַר. בֵּיצָה צְלוּיָה — בַּר קַפָּרָא שָׁרֵי, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָסַר. כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: אֶחָד דָּג מָלִיחַ וְאֶחָד בֵּיצָה צְלוּיָה — חִזְקִיָּה וּבַר קַפָּרָא שָׁרוּ, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָסַר.

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

רַבִּי חִיָּיא פַּרְוָואָה אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: בֵּיצָה צְלוּיָה מַאי? אֲמַר לְהוּ: חִזְקִיָּה וּבַר קַפָּרָא שָׁרוּ, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָסַר, וְאֵין דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד בִּמְקוֹם שְׁנַיִם. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב זְבִיד: לָא תְּצִיתוּ לֵיהּ, הָכִי אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אַשְׁקְיוּהּ נָגוֹטָא דְּחַלָּא וְנָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ.

The Gemara relates a relevant incident. Rabbi Ḥiyya 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 Ḥiyya said to them: Ḥizkiyya and bar Kappara deem it permitted, and Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan. 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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַקַּפְרֵיסִין, וְהַקַּפְלוֹטוֹת, וְהַמִּטַלְיָא, וְהַחַמִּין, וְהַקְּלָיוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן — מוּתָּרִין, בֵּיצָה צְלוּיָה — אֲסוּרָה, שֶׁמֶן — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא וּבֵית דִּינוֹ נִמְנוּ עָלָיו וְהִתִּירוּהוּ.

§ 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.

תַּנְיָא: הִיא הַמִּטַלְיָא הִיא פַּשִׂלְיָא הִיא שִׁיעֲתָא. מַאי שִׁיעֲתָא? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָא אַרְבְּעִין שְׁנִין דְּנָפֵיק הַאי עוֹבָדָא מִמִּצְרַיִם, וְרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה דִּידֵיהּ אָמַר: הָא שִׁתִּין שְׁנִין דְּנָפֵיק הַאי עוֹבָדָא מִמִּצְרַיִם, וְלָא פְּלִיגִי — מָר בִּשְׁנֵיהּ וּמָר בִּשְׁנֵיהּ.

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 Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is forty years since this item emerged from Egypt and was imported here. And Rabba bar bar Ḥana 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 Ḥana, only forty had elapsed when Rabbi Yoḥanan issued his statement.

מַיְיתוּ בִּיזְרָא דְּכַרְפְּסָא וּבִיזְרָא דְּכִיתָּנָא וּבִיזְרָא דְּשַׁבְלִילְתָּא, וְתָרוּ לְהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי בְּפָשׁוֹרֵי, וְשָׁבְקוּ לֵיהּ עַד דִּמְקַבֵּל, וּמַיְיתֵי חַצְבֵי חַדְתֵי וּמָלוּ לְהוּ מַיָּא, וְתָרוּ בְּהוּ גַּרְגִּישְׁתָּא וּמְדַבְּקִין בֵּיהּ, וְעָיְילִין לְבֵי בָנֵי (אַדְּנָפְקוּ) [אַדְּנָפְקִי] מְלַבְלְבִי, וְאָכְלִי מִינַּיְיהוּ, וְקָיְירִי מִבִּינְתָּא דְּרֵישַׁיְיהוּ עַד טוּפְרָא דְּכַרְעַיְיהוּ. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲמַר לִי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מִילִּין, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: בְּמִילִין.

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 Ḥanina 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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַכּוּסְפָּן שֶׁל גּוֹיִם שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ (חַמִּין) [חַמָּיו] בְּיוֹרָה גְּדוֹלָה — אָסוּר, בְּיוֹרָה קְטַנָּה — מוּתָּר. וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא יוֹרָה קְטַנָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין צִפּוֹר דְּרוֹר יָכוֹל לִיכָּנֵס בְּתוֹכָהּ.

§ 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.

וְדִלְמָא אַדְמוֹיֵי אַדְמוּהּ וְעַיְּילוּהּ! אֶלָּא, כֹּל שֶׁאֵין רֹאשׁ צִפּוֹר דְּרוֹר יָכוֹל לִיכָּנֵס בְּתוֹכָהּ.

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’s definition: Rather, a small pot is any pot that is so small that a swallow’s head cannot enter into it. Such small pots would not be used to cook even sliced non-kosher foods.

וְהָתַנְיָא: אַחַת יוֹרָה גְּדוֹלָה וְאַחַת יוֹרָה קְטַנָּה מוּתָּר! לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר: נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם אָסוּר, הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר: נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם מוּתָּר.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But in any case, isn’t 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.

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הַאי מִישְׁחָא שְׁלִיקָא דַּאֲרַמָּאֵי אָסוּר. אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: לְמַאי נֵיחוּשׁ לַהּ? אִי מִשּׁוּם אִיעָרוֹבֵי — מִיסְרָא סְרֵי, אִי מִשּׁוּם בִּישּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם — נֶאֱכָל הוּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַי, אִי מִשּׁוּם גִּיעוּלֵי גוֹיִם — נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם הוּא וּמוּתָּר.

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.

בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַבִּי אַסִּי: הָנֵי אֲהִינֵי שְׁלִיקֵי דַּאֲרַמָּאֵי מַאי? חוּלְיֵי — לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּוַדַּאי שְׁרוּ. מְרִירֵי — לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּוַדַּאי אֲסִירִי. כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ מְצִיעָאֵי, מַאי? אֲמַר לְהוּ: מַאי תִּיבְּעֵי לְהוּ? דְּרַבִּי אָסַר. וּמַנּוּ? לֵוִי.

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 Rabbi Asi’s teacher? Levi.

שַׁתִּיתָאה — רַב שָׁרֵי, אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל וְלֵוִי אָסְרִי. בְּחִיטֵּי וּשְׂעָרֵי כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּשְׁרֵי, בִּטְלָפְחֵי דְּחַלָּא כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲסִיר. כִּי פְּלִיגִי — בִּטְלָפְחֵי דְּמַיָּא: מָר סָבַר גָּזְרִינַן הָא אַטּוּ הָא, וּמָר סָבַר לָא גָּזְרִינַן.

§ With regard to shetita’a, a sweet porridge made from roasted grains and honey, Rav deemed it permitted even when it was prepared by a gentile, whereas Shmuel’s father and Levi deemed it prohibited. The Gemara elaborates: With regard to shetita’a made of wheat or barley, everyone agrees that it is permitted. Similarly, with regard to shetita’a 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.

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בִּטְלָפְחֵי דְּמַיָּא כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲסִיר, כִּי פְּלִיגִי — בְּחִיטֵּי וּשְׂעָרֵי, מָר סָבַר: גָּזְרִינַן הָא אַטּוּ הָא, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא גָּזְרִינַן.

The Gemara notes: And some say that with regard to lentils made only with water, everyone agrees that the shetita’a is prohibited on account of lentils made with vinegar. When they disagree, it is with regard to shetita’a 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.

אָמַר רַב: תְּרֵי מִינֵי שַׁתִּיתָאה שַׁדַּר בַּרְזִילַּי הַגִּלְעָדִי לְדָוִד, דִּכְתִיב: ״מִשְׁכָּב וְסַפּוֹת וּכְלִי יוֹצֵר חִטִּים וּשְׂעֹרִים וְקֶמַח וְקָלִי וּפוֹל וַעֲדָשִׁים וְקָלִי״, וְהַשְׁתָּא הוּא דְּקָא מַפְּקִי צַנֵּי צַנֵּי לְשׁוּקֵי דִּנְהַרְדְּעָא, וְלֵית דְּחָיֵישׁ לְהָא דַּאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל וְלֵוִי.

Apropos the mention of shetita’a, the Gemara relates that Rav said: Barzillai the Gileadite sent two kinds of shetita’a to David, as it is written: “And 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” (II Samuel 17:28). Barzillai brought two kinds of parched foods: Grain and pulse. The Gemara concludes: And now shetita’a is taken out in baskets upon baskets to the markets of Neharde’a, and there is no one who is concerned about that stringent ruling of Shmuel’s father and Levi.

וּכְבָשִׁין שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לָתֵת בְּתוֹכָן יַיִן. אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁדַּרְכָּן, אֲבָל בְּיָדוּעַ — אָסוּר אֲפִילּוּ בַּהֲנָאָה. וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִמּוּרְיָיס דְּשָׁרוּ רַבָּנַן בַּהֲנָאָה? הָתָם — לְעַבּוֹרֵי זוּהֲמָא, הָכָא — לְמַתּוֹקֵי טַעְמָא.

§ 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. Ḥizkiyya 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.

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּיָדוּעַ נָמֵי מוּתָּר, וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִמּוּרְיָיס לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר דַּאֲסִיר בַּהֲנָאָה?

The Gemara cites a dissenting opinion. And Rabbi Yoḥanan 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’ wine but prohibit deriving benefit from fish stew that contains wine or vinegar?