(כה) וְהִבְדַּלְתֶּ֞ם בֵּֽין־הַבְּהֵמָ֤ה הַטְּהֹרָה֙ לַטְּמֵאָ֔ה וּבֵין־הָע֥וֹף הַטָּמֵ֖א לַטָּהֹ֑ר וְלֹֽא־תְשַׁקְּצ֨וּ אֶת־נַפְשֹֽׁתֵיכֶ֜ם בַּבְּהֵמָ֣ה וּבָע֗וֹף וּבְכֹל֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּרְמֹ֣שׂ הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־הִבְדַּ֥לְתִּי לָכֶ֖ם לְטַמֵּֽא׃
(25) So you shall set apart the clean beast from the unclean, the unclean bird from the clean. You shall not draw abomination upon yourselves through beast or bird or anything with which the ground is alive, which I have set apart for you to treat as unclean.
(א) מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לֵידַע הַסִּימָנִין שֶׁמַּבְדִּילִין בָּהֶן בֵּין בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה וְעוֹף וְדָגִים וַחֲגָבִים שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְאָכְלָן וּבֵין שֶׁאֵין מֻתָּר לְאָכְלָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כ כה) "וְהִבְדַּלְתֶּם בֵּין הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהֹרָה לַטְּמֵאָה וּבֵין הָעוֹף הַטָּמֵא לַטָּהֹר". וְנֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יא מז) "לְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין הַטָּמֵא וּבֵין הַטָּהֹר וּבֵין הַחַיָּה הַנֶּאֱכֶלֶת וּבֵין הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֵאָכֵל":
(1) It is a positive commandment to know the simanim (signs) that distinguish between domesticated and wild animals, birds and fish, and grasshoppers that are permitted to be eaten, and those that are forbidden for consumption, as it says, (Leviticus 20:25) "And you shall distinguish between a kosher animal and a non-kosher animal, between a non-kosher fowl and a kosher fowl." And it says, (Leviticus 11:47) "To distinguish between the kosher and the non-kosher, between a beast which may be eaten and one which may not be eaten."
תנן התם כל שיש לו קשקשת יש לו סנפיר ויש שיש לו סנפיר ואין לו קשקשת יש לו קשקשת ויש לו סנפיר דג טהור יש לו סנפיר ואין לו קשקשת דג טמא מכדי אקשקשת קא סמכינן ליכתוב רחמנא קשקשת ולא ... וליכתוב רחמנא קשקשת ולא ליכתוב סנפיר א"ר אבהו וכן תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל (ישעיהו מב, כא) יגדיל תורה ויאדיר
: מתני׳ ואלו דברים של עובדי כוכבים אסורין ואין איסורן איסור הנאה חלב שחלבו עובד כוכבים ואין ישראל רואהו והפת והשמן שלהן ... וטרית טרופה וציר שאין בה דגה כלבית שוטטת בו והחילק ...
Here, with regard to the mishna in Ḥullin, Shmuel’s comment reflects the explanation of Rabbi Yehoshua before Rabbi Yehoshua’s retraction of the assertion that it is prohibited to derive benefit from the stomach contents of an animal carcass. There, with regard to the mishna in Avoda Zara, Shmuel’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua after his retraction of that claim. And although this indicates that the mishna in Ḥullin presents an outdated ruling that was later rescinded, a mishna does not move from its place. In other words, once it has been taught in a certain manner, the tanna will not change the text of a mishna in order to reflect a change of opinion, so as to avoid confusion. The Gemara suggests additional reasons for the decree of the Sages. Rav Malkiyya says in the name of Rav Adda bar Ahava: The cheese is prohibited because gentiles smooth its surface with pig fat. Rav Ḥisda says: It is because they curdle it with vinegar produced from their wine, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: It is because they curdle it with sap that is subject to the prohibition against consuming the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla]. Parenthetically, the Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is Rav Naḥman’s claim that the cheese of gentiles is prohibited because it is curdled in the sap of orla? The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a mishna (Orla 1:7): Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to one who curdles cheese with the sap of orla, the cheese is prohibited, because the sap is considered to be fruit of the tree. The Gemara comments: You may even say that the statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer only with regard to the sap of a branch, but with regard to the sap of a fruit Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that it is prohibited as orla. Rav Naḥman’s statement can be understood as referring specifically to the sap of the fruit, which would mean that it is in accordance with the opinions of both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. The Gemara adds: And this is in accordance with that which we learned in the continuation of that mishna: Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard explicitly that with regard to one who curdles cheese with the sap of the leaves and the sap of the roots of an orla tree, the cheese is permitted. But if it is curdled with the sap of unripe figs it is prohibited, because that sap is considered to be fruit. The Gemara raises a difficulty against the last two suggested reasons for the decree of the Sages. According to both Rav Ḥisda, who holds that the cheese is prohibited because it is curdled with vinegar made from wine of gentiles, and Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, who maintains that it is prohibited because it is curdled with the sap of orla, one should be prohibited from deriving benefit from the cheese, as one may not derive benefit from either the wine of gentiles or orla. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is difficult. § Rav Naḥman, son of Rav Ḥisda, interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Your ointments have a goodly fragrance” (Song of Songs 1:3)? This is a metaphor for a Torah scholar: To what is a Torah scholar comparable? To a flask of pelaitin: When it is exposed, its scent diffuses; when it is covered, its scent does not diffuse. The Gemara remarks: And moreover, when a Torah scholar spreads his knowledge, matters that are generally hidden from him are revealed to him, as it is stated: “Maidens [alamot] love You” (Song of Songs 1:3), and one may read into the verse: The hidden [alumot]. And moreover, the Angel of Death loves him, as it is stated: “Maidens [alamot] love You,” and one may read into the verse: The one appointed over death [al mot] loves you. And moreover, a Torah scholar inherits two worlds: One is this world, and the other one is the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Maidens [alamot] love You,” and one may read into the verse: Worlds [olamot]. MISHNA: This mishna lists items belonging to gentiles which it is prohibited to consume, but from which it is permitted to derive benefit. And these are items that belong to gentiles and are prohibited, but their prohibition is not that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited: Milk that was milked by a gentile and a Jew did not see him performing this action, and their bread and oil. The mishna notes that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court permitted the oil of gentiles entirely. The mishna resumes its list: And boiled and pickled vegetables, whose usual manner of preparation involves adding wine and vinegar to them, and minced tarit fish, and brine that does not have a kilbit fish floating in it, and ḥilak, and a sliver of ḥiltit, and salkondit salt (see 39b); all these are prohibited, but their prohibition is not that of item from which deriving benefit is prohibited. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Concerning milk, with regard to what need we be concerned? Why is the milk prohibited? If it is due to the concern that a gentile might exchange the milk of a kosher animal with the milk of a non-kosher animal, this concern is unfounded, as kosher milk is white whereas non-kosher milk has a green tinge to it, and therefore they are easily distinguishable. And if it is prohibited due to the concern that it might be mixed with non-kosher milk, let the Jew curdle the milk obtained from the gentile, as the Master said: Milk from a kosher animal curdles, but milk from a non-kosher animal does not curdle. The Gemara answers: If one desires to eat it as cheese, indeed, one can simply curdle it, as the milk of non-kosher animals does not curdle. What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where one desires to use the milk in kamkha, also known as kutaḥ, a food item that contains milk. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But in that case, let him take a bit of milk and curdle it, to test whether or not it has been mixed with the milk of a non-kosher animal: If it curdles completely, it is kosher; if some milk is left over, it is not. The Gemara explains: Since there is also whey in kosher milk, which does not curdle, there is no way to establish the halakhic matter with regard to it. Even kosher milk will not curdle completely, and therefore this is not a reliable method to determine the halakhic status of the milk. The Gemara presents an alternative suggestion: And if you wish, say instead that you may even say that the concern applies where he intends to use the milk to make cheese, as there is milk that remains between the crevices of curdled cheese, and therefore there is a concern that drops of non-kosher milk might be mixed with it. § The mishna teaches: And bread belonging to gentiles is prohibited for consumption. Rav Kahana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Unlike oil, bread was not permitted by a court. The Gemara asks: From the fact that Rabbi Yoḥanan states that bread was not permitted in court, can it be inferred that there is a different opinion that claims that a court did permit it? The Gemara answers: Yes, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Once Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went out to the field, and a gentile brought before him a se’a of bread baked in a large baker’s oven [purnei]. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: How exquisite is this loaf of bread! What did the Sages see that caused them to prohibit it? The Gemara asks, incredulously: What did the Sages see that caused them to prohibit it? It was prohibited due to the concern that Jews might befriend gentiles while breaking bread with them, which could lead to marriage with gentiles. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was not asking why bread was prohibited in general. Rather, he asked: What did the Sages see that caused them to prohibit bread even in the field, where this concern does not apply? The Gemara notes that upon hearing of this incident the people thought that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted the bread of gentiles. But that is not so; Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not actually permit such bread. This is why Rabbi Yoḥanan emphasized that the bread of gentiles was never permitted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s court. The Gemara records an alternate version of this episode. Rav Yosef, and some say Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, says: The incident did not occur in this manner. Rather, they said: Once Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went to a certain place and saw that bread was scarce for the students in the study hall. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Is there no baker [palter] here who can prepare bread? Upon hearing of this incident, the people thought to say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was referring to a gentile baker, which would indicate that bread baked by a professional baker is permitted, even if he is a gentile. But in reality, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi stated his question only in reference to a Jewish baker. The Gemara cites two qualifications of the leniency that people inferred from the above incident. Rabbi Ḥelbo said: Even according to the one who thought to say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was referring to a gentile baker, we said that the bread is permitted only where there is no Jewish baker, but in a place where there is a Jewish baker, the leniency would certainly not apply. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even according to the one who thought to say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was referring to a gentile baker, that statement applies only in the field, but in the city it would not apply, and the bread would still be prohibited due to the possibility of marriage with a gentile. The Gemara relates: Aivu would bite and eat bread of gentiles at the boundaries of the fields. Rava said to the students in the study hall, and some say that it was Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak who said to them: Do not speak with Aivu, as he eats bread of Arameans in deliberate violation of a rabbinic decree. § The mishna teaches: And their oil was originally prohibited but later permitted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court. The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to the origin of the prohibition of oil. Rav says: Daniel decreed that oil is prohibited, and Shmuel says:
וטרית - מין דגים קטנים מלוחים:
טרופה - שנטרפו ונשתברו הדגים ואין ניכרין הלכך חיישי לטמאים:
והחילק - מין דגים קטנים טהורים והיא סולתנית ואין לה סנפיר וקשקשת ועתיד לגדל לאחר זמן סנפיר וקשקשת וקיימא לן דמותרת ואמר בגמרא מפני מה אסרוה מפני שעירבונה עולה עמה דגים טמאים הדומים לה הלכך לא שנא טרופה ול"ש אינה טרופה איכא למיחש לאחד מאלף ביניהם דדמו ליה ולא מינכרי אבל טרית אין שקץ דומה לה הלכך כי אינה טרופה שריא:
מתני׳ ואלו מותרין באכילה חלב שחלבו עובד כוכבים וישראל רואה ... וטרית שאינה טרופה וציר שיש בה דגה
... תנו רבנן איזו היא טרית שאינה טרופה כל שראש ושדרה ניכר ...
are all prohibited when they are found with only one seal; ḥiltit, fish stew [morayes], bread [pat], and cheese [gevina] are all permitted when they are found with one seal. The Gemara explains why only one seal is necessary for bread. With regard to what need we be concerned in the case of bread, that one might have thought it requires two seals? If it is due to the concern for the gentile exchanging the fresh bread of the Jew with his own bread that is less fresh, the difference between cold bread and warm bread is known, and the Jew will realize that there has been an exchange. Likewise, if there is a concern that a gentile might exchange the more valuable wheat bread of the Jew with his own less valuable barley bread, the Jew will also know about it in this case. And if it is due to the concern that a gentile might exchange similar kinds of bread with each other, it can be assumed that since there is one seal the gentile will not trouble himself and forge another seal just to exchange bread of equal value. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rav, what is different about cheese that it requires only one seal whereas milk requires two? If the reason is that a gentile will not trouble himself and forge a different seal, as cheese is generally inexpensive and the small profit he might make is not worth such an effort, this reasoning should apply to milk also, as he will not trouble himself and forge a new seal in this case either. Rav Kahana said: Remove the term: Milk, from Rav’s statement, and enter instead: A piece of fish that has no sign of kashrut. The Gemara raises an objection: Rav could not have been teaching that a piece of fish with no signs of kashrut requires two seals, as fish is the same as meat, which is already included in the list of items that require two seals. The Gemara explains that there are two categories of meat: Animal meat and fish meat. Since one might have thought that they are subject to different halakhot, Rav therefore teaches that both require two seals. The Gemara cites a different set of lists than that presented by Rav. And Shmuel says: The substances represented by the acronym beit, yod, tav are prohibited when sealed with one seal; those represented by the acronym mem, ḥet, gimmel, are permitted when sealed with one seal. The Gemara explains: Meat [basar], wine [yayin], and sky-blue dye [tekhelet] are prohibited when sealed with a single seal; fish stew [morayes], ḥiltit, and cheese [gevina], are permitted when sealed with a single seal. The Gemara comments: According to Shmuel, a piece of fish that has no sign of kashrut is the same as meat, and we do not say that there is a difference between two categories of meat. Consequently, he does not include in his list a piece of fish that has no sign of kashrut. The Sages taught: One may not purchase foods represented by the acronym yod, mem, ḥet; mem, ḥet, gimmel in Syria, not even from Jews. The Gemara elaborates: One may not purchase wine [yayin], nor fish stew [morayes], nor milk [ḥalav], nor salkondarit salt [melaḥ salkondarit], nor ḥiltit, nor cheese [gevina], except when purchased from an expert with a reputation for knowing and upholding the halakhot of kashrut. And with regard to all of them, if one is a guest in the home of his host, they are permitted, as a Jew is assumed to keep the halakhot of kashrut in his own home. The Gemara adds: This supports the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If a homeowner sent someone a package of food to his house, the food is permitted. What is the reason? It is because a homeowner does not leave aside permitted foods and eat prohibited foods, and when he sends food to another, he sends it from that which he eats himself, even though one may not be allowed to purchase food from that individual. § The mishna teaches that salkondarit salt is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is salkondarit salt? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It is the salt that all Roman bakers [salkondarei] eat. The Sages taught: With regard to salkondarit salt, black salt is prohibited, whereas white salt is permitted; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: White salt is prohibited; black salt is permitted. The Gemara cites a third opinion: Rabbi Yehuda ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: This and that, i.e., both white and black salkondarit salt, are prohibited. The Gemara cites an explanation of this dispute. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: According to the statement of the one who says that white salkondarit salt is prohibited, it is suspected that the intestines of white non-kosher fish are mixed in it, and this is the reason for the prohibition. According to the statement of the one who says that black salt is prohibited, it is suspected that the intestines of black non-kosher fish are mixed in it. According to the statement of the one who said this and that are prohibited, he is concerned that this and that, i.e., the intestines of both white and black fish, are mixed in white and black salt, respectively. The Gemara mentions an additional problem with salkondarit salt: Rabbi Abbahu says in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: There was a certain elder in our neighborhood who would smooth its surface with pig fat. § The mishna further teaches that the list of items it mentioned are all prohibited. The Gemara asks: Since the mishna began by stating that the items it lists are prohibited for consumption, what does this apparently redundant conclusion serve to exclude? The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Ḥizkiyya cited on 38b, it serves to exclude cases where it is known that wine of gentiles’ was added to the foods, as one may not even derive benefit from such foods. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, it serves to exclude fish stew and cheese of Beit Unyaki, as it is prohibited to derive benefit from these, and accordingly, the unattributed statement in this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, cited in the previous mishna (29b). MISHNA: And these are permitted for consumption: Milk that was milked by a gentile and a Jew watched him doing so; and honey; and grape clusters [davdevaniyyot] which, despite the fact that they are dripping juice, are not subject to the halakhot of susceptibility to ritual impurity caused by contact with that liquid; and pickled vegetables whose usual manner of preparation does not involve adding wine and vinegar to them; and tarit fish that is not minced; and brine that has fish in it; and the leaf of a ḥiltit plant; and rolled olive cakes [geluskaot]. Rabbi Yosei says: Overripe olives are prohibited. Locusts that come from a salesman’s basket are prohibited, whereas those that come from the storeroom [heftek] are permitted; and likewise with regard to the portion of the produce designated for the priest [teruma], as will be explained in the Gemara. GEMARA: We learn from the mishna that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita: A Jew may sit beside a gentile’s flock and wait while the gentile milks his animals and brings the milk to the Jew, and he not need be concerned, even if he cannot see the milking process from his seated position. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If it is known that there is no non-kosher animal in the gentile’s flock, isn’t it obvious that the milk is permitted? Why would the baraita teach an obvious halakha? And if there is a non-kosher animal in his flock, then why is the milk permitted, considering the fact that the Jew could not see the gentile from where he sat? The Gemara explains: Actually, this is referring to a case where there is a non-kosher animal in the flock, and when the Jew is standing he can see the gentile, but when he is sitting he cannot see the gentile. Lest you say: Since when the Jew is sitting, he cannot see the gentile, we should be concerned that perhaps the gentile will bring non-kosher milk and mix it with the kosher milk, the baraita therefore teaches us that since when the Jew is standing, he can see him, the gentile is fearful of being caught and does not mix anything into the milk. § The mishna teaches: And the honey of gentiles is permitted. The Gemara explains: For what need we be concerned with regard to honey? If it is due to the concern that a gentile might mix wine with it, honey spoils when it is mixed with wine, and therefore a gentile would not do so. If it is due to the cooking of gentiles, this too does not apply, because it is eaten as it is, i.e., raw. If it is due to the concern that the honey might have absorbed prohibited taste from vessels of gentiles that require purging, this does not apply either, as it is a prohibited substance that imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture, and such a case is permitted. Since none of these concerns are relevant, the honey is permitted. § The mishna further teaches: And grape clusters which, despite the fact that they are dripping juice, are not subject to the halakhot of susceptibility to ritual impurity caused by contact with that liquid. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the following baraita: With regard to one who harvests grapes in order to take them to the press and crush them, there is a dispute as to whether or not the liquid that seeps from the grapes renders them susceptible to ritual impurity. Shammai says: It has become susceptible to ritual impurity, and Hillel says: It has not become susceptible. And eventually Hillel conceded to the opinion of Shammai. This shows that the juice that seeps out of grapes does render them susceptible to ritual impurity, which apparently contradicts the ruling of the mishna. The Gemara explains: There, in the case of the baraita, he wants the juice as a beverage, and one’s intention influences the capability of certain liquids to render substances susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, the liquid that seeps from the grapes renders them susceptible to ritual impurity. Here, in the case of the mishna, he does not want the juice as a beverage, and therefore the grapes are not rendered susceptible to impurity. § The mishna further teaches: And tarit fish that is not minced and brine that has fish in it are permitted. The Sages taught: What is considered tarit that has not been minced? Any fish whose head and spine are recognizable. And what is considered brine that has fish in it? Any brine that has one kilbit or two kilbiyot
(יג) דָּג שֶׁמְּלָחוֹ עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים וּפֵרוֹת שֶׁעִשְּׁנָן עַד שֶׁהִכְשִׁירָן לַאֲכִילָה, (הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין, דְּמָלוּחַ) מָלִיחַ אֵינוֹ כְּרוֹתֵחַ בִּגְזֵרָה זוֹ, וְהַמְּעֻשָּׁן אֵינוֹ כִּמְבֻשָּׁל. הַגָּה: גַּם כָּבוּשׁ אֵינוֹ כִּמְבֻשָּׁל, דְּלֹא אָסְרוּ אֶלָּא בִּשּׁוּל שֶׁל אֵשׁ (טוּר).
(13) Fish salted by a non-Jew and fruits that are smoked until they are fit to eat, these are permitted, because salting is not considered like boiling for the purposes of this injunction, and smoking is not like cooking. Rema: Also soaking is not like cooking, because the only prohibition is on cooking by fire.
(ה) יֵין רִמּוֹנִים שֶׁמּוֹכְרִים לִרְפוּאָה, מֻתָּר לְלָקְחוֹ מֵהַתַּגָּר אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא מֵהֶחָבִית, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדָּמָיו יְקָרִים מֵהַיַּיִן, מִשּׁוּם דְּכֵיוָן דְּאִית בֵּיהּ קְפֵידָא לֹא מָרַע נַפְשֵׁיהּ. וְכֵן כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁקּוֹנִים מִן הָאֻמָּן דְּלֹא מָרַע נַפְשֵׁיהּ (כֵּן מַשְׁמָע מִדִּבְרֵי הר''ן פא''מ וּמָרְדְּכַי ר''פ כֵּיצַד מְבָרְכִין).
(5) Pomegranate wine that is purchased for it's healing properties, is permitted to be bought from the merchant, even if it is not from the barrel, even though that it has a superior appearance to that of wine, because since that people are careful about medicine, they will not want to risk their own careers over this. (and so too all things that are bought from craftsmen that they do not want to tarnish their careers)