Avodah Zarah 38bעבודה זרה ל״ח ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Avodah Zarah 38b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
38bל״ח ב

ומגיסה עד שתבא מבית המרחץ או מבית הכנסת ואינה חוששת

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

איבעיא להו הניח עובד כוכבים והפך ישראל מהו אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק ק"ו גמרו ביד עובד כוכבים מותר גמרו ביד ישראל לא כ"ש

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?

איתמר נמי אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן ואמרי לה אמר רב אחא בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן בין שהניח עובד כוכבים והפך ישראל בין שהניח ישראל והפך עובד כוכבים מותר ואינו אסור עד שתהא תחלתו וגמרו ביד עובד כוכבים

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.

אמר רבינא הלכתא הא ריפתא דשגר עובד כוכבים ואפה ישראל א"נ שגר ישראל ואפה עובד כוכבים א"נ שגר עובד כוכבים ואפה עובד כוכבים ואתא ישראל וחתה בה חתויי שפיר דמי

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.

דג מליח חזקיה שרי ור' יוחנן אסר ביצה צלויה בר קפרא שרי ור' יוחנן אסר כי אתא רב דימי אמר אחד דג מליח ואחד ביצה צלויה חזקיה ובר קפרא שרו ורבי יוחנן אסר

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 them even if they were prepared by a gentile, and Rabbi Yoḥanan deems them prohibited.

ר' חייא פרוואה איקלע לבי ריש גלותא אמרו ליה ביצה צלויה מאי אמר להו חזקיה ובר קפרא שרו ור' יוחנן אסר ואין דבריו של אחד במקום שנים אמר להו רב זביד לא תציתו ליה הכי אמר אביי הלכתא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן אשקיוהו נגוטא דחלא ונח נפשיה

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.

ת"ר הקפריסין והקפלוטות והמטליא והחמין והקליות שלהן מותרין ביצה צלויה אסורה שמן רבי יהודה הנשיא ובית דינו נמנו עליו והתירוהו

§ 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.

תניא היא המטליא היא פשליא היא שיעתא מאי שיעתא ארבב"ח אמר רבי יוחנן הא ארבעין שנין דנפיק האי עובדא ממצרים ורבה בר בר חנה דידיה אמר הא שתין שנין דנפיק האי עובדא ממצרים ולא פליגי מר בשניה ומר בשניה

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.

מייתו ביזרא דכרפסא וביזרא דכיתנא וביזרא דשבלילתא ותרו להו בהדי הדדי בפשורי ושבקו ליה עד דמקבל ומייתי חצבי חדתי ומלו להו מיא ותרו בהו גרגישתא ומדבקין ביה ועיילין לבי בני אדנפקו מלבלבי ואכלי מינייהו וקיירי מבינתא דרישייהו עד טופרא דכרעייהו אמר רב אשי אמר לי רבי חנינא מילין ואמרי לה במילין

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.

ת"ר הכוספן של עובדי כוכבים שהוחמו חמין ביורה גדולה אסור ביורה קטנה מותר ואיזו היא יורה קטנה א"ר ינאי כל שאין צפור דרור יכול ליכנס בתוכה

§ 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.

ודלמא אדמויי אדמוה ועיילוה אלא כל שאין ראש צפור דרור יכול ליכנס בתוכה

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.

והתניא אחת יורה גדולה ואחת יורה קטנה מותר לא קשיא הא כמ"ד נותן טעם לפגם אסור הא כמ"ד נותן טעם לפגם מותר

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.

אמר רב ששת האי מישחא שליקא דארמאי אסור אמר רב ספרא למאי ניחוש לה אי משום איערובי מיסרא סרי אי משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים נאכל הוא כמו שהוא חי אי משום גיעולי עובדי כוכבים נותן טעם לפגם הוא ומותר

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.

בעו מיניה מרבי אסי הני אהיני שליקי דארמאי מאי חוליי לא תיבעי לך דודאי שרו מרירי לא תיבעי לך דודאי אסירי כי תיבעי לך מציעאי מאי אמר להו מאי תיבעי להו דרבי אסר ומנו לוי

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

שתיתאה רב שרי אבוה דשמואל ולוי אסרי בחיטי ושערי כ"ע לא פליגי דשרי בטלפחי דחלא כ"ע ל"פ דאסיר כי פליגי בטלפחי דמיא מר סבר גזרינן הא אטו הא ומר סבר לא גזרינן

§ 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.

ואיכא דאמרי בטלפחי דמיא כ"ע לא פליגי דאסיר כי פליגי בחיטי ושערי מר סבר גזרינן הא אטו הא ומר סבר לא גזרינן

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.

אמר רב תרי מיני שתיתאה שדר ברזילי הגלעדי לדוד דכתיב (שמואל ב יז, כח) משכב וספות וכלי יוצר חטים ושעורים וקמח וקלי ופול ועדשים וקלי והשתא הוא דקא מפקי צני צני לשוקי דנהרדעא ולית דחייש להא דאבוה דשמואל ולוי:

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.

וכבשין שדרכן לתת בתוכן יין: אמר חזקיה לא שנו אלא שדרכן אבל בידוע אסור אפילו בהנאה ומ"ש ממורייס דשרו רבנן בהנאה התם לעבורי זוהמא הכא למתוקי טעמא

§ 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.

ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו בידוע נמי מותר ומאי שנא ממורייס לר"מ דאסיר בהנאה

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?