Avodah Zarah 34b (לד:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Ḥaviva said: These

skins of the travelers

a wineskin of the Arabs, made of thick leather; travelers would carry it with them filled with wine on long journeys that lasted a considerable amount of time, is considered a vessel in which wine is stored for an extended period, and therefore only

after twelve months of the year is it permitted.

It is permitted only after twelve months have elapsed, and not before.

Rav Aḥa, son of

his son,

of Rav Ika, said: These grape residues

the refuse of grapes

of the Arameans

of gentiles,

are permitted after twelve months of the year.

Rav Aḥa, son of

his son,

of Rava, said: These jugs

these jugs

that are brown and black,

brown and black,

are permitted after twelve months of the year.

We learned in our Mishna:

And fish brine,

fish oil, is forbidden, and its prohibition is a prohibition applying even to deriving benefit from it, lest wine was mixed into it—this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: Its prohibition does not apply even to deriving benefit from it.

The Sages taught: Fish brine

fish oil made by

a craftsman—

is permitted.

Since the entire reason for the prohibition of fish brine is the concern that wine may have been added to it, and a craftsman does not add wine to fish brine.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Gamla says in the name of

in the name of

Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamla: Even small fish

of

a craftsman are permitted!

Small fish are a type of small kosher fish, and below, on 39a, it is explained that small fish belonging to gentiles are forbidden. This is because there are small non-kosher fish resembling them, which are caught with them in the same fishing operation and sold together. There is therefore concern that a non-kosher fish may have been mixed in, and for this reason they are forbidden.

A craftsman who is expert in the various types of fish is concerned that the non-kosher fish resembling the small kosher fish will spoil its taste if mixed with it. Therefore, the craftsman distinguishes between them and separates them. Consequently, small fish prepared by a craftsman are permitted.

Avimi, son of

taught

his son,

son of

Rabbi Abbahu: Fish brine

fish oil of

a craftsman

a gentile

is permitted.

He taught this law,

he taught this ruling,

and he explained it:

he explained it:

In order to extract the fish's oil, water and salt are placed on them, thereby drawing out their oil. After extracting the oil once, they would repeat the process a second time in order to extract more, and then a third time as well.

The law is as follows:

The first time

that they extracted the fat using water and salt,

and

likewise the

second

time—

the fish brine is permitted.

However, fish brine extracted by the

third

cycle

is forbidden!

What is the reason

it is forbidden? Because

the first and second times

that they extracted the fish brine,

since their oil is abundant,

since the fish contain a great deal of fat,

there is no need to add wine to them

in order to extract it; water and salt alone suffice.

However,

from this point

the third time

onward, they added wine to them,

they would add wine in order to help extract more fish brine.

Therefore, the fish brine extracted the first and second times is permitted, since it contains nothing but water and salt, whereas the fish brine extracted the third time is forbidden, since their wine was mixed into it.

There was a certain ship carrying fish brine

that ship transporting fish brine,

which arrived at the port of Akko.

that had reached the port of Akko,

Rabbi Abba

appointed

of

among the people of

Akko as guards over it,

guards on the ship, to ensure that the fish brine would not be rendered forbidden by gentile wine.

Rava said to him: Until now, who guarded it,

before the ship came here, who ensured that wine was not added to the fish brine? It is possible that where it came from, wine had already been mixed into it.

He said to him,

Rabbi Abba of Akko:

Until now,

until this point,

(for whom)

should we be concerned about it?

why should there be concern about it? -

If it is because they mix wine into it,

if the concern is that they mix wine into the fish brine, there is no reason for such concern.

For where the fish brine came from,

a kista [

the name of a particular measure of quantity]

of

of

fish brine is sold for the price

the price

of “luma” [

a zuz].

On the other hand,

a kista

the same quantity

of wine

of wine is sold

for four luma

zuz! If so, there is no concern that they would add wine to fish brine worth one quarter of its value, since by doing so they would lose three quarters of the wine's value.

Here, however, fish brine is expensive and wine is cheap. Therefore, there is concern that they might mix wine into the fish brine in order to enrich it and increase its quantity. For this reason, the fish-brine ship must be guarded so that the gentiles do not mix wine into it.

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: Perhaps, since it came through Tyre,

perhaps this ship passed through Tyre, which is near the sea,

where wine is cheap,

where wine is also cheaper than fish brine; if so, there is concern that they mixed wine into the fish brine in Tyre.

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira:

There,

there, on the route passing near Tyre,

there are bends and thawing snow.

The waters there flow along a winding course, and snow melts there. The ship's navigators cannot pass along that route. Therefore, there is no concern that wine was added there.

We learned in our Mishna:

And cheeses

of the place called

Beit Unaiki

are forbidden, and their prohibition is a prohibition applying even to deriving benefit from them—this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: Their prohibition does not apply even to deriving benefit from them.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: For what reason did they prohibit

the

cheese of Unaiki?

Because most of the calves of that city are slaughtered for idolatry!

And since this cheese is made by coagulating milk in the stomachs of calves slaughtered for idolatry, it is forbidden even with regard to deriving benefit from it.

The Gemara asks:

Why specifically

why is the reason for the prohibition specifically

the majority of calves

of that place being slaughtered for idolatry? After all,

even if only

if only

a minority

of the calves there are slaughtered for idolatry,

also,

even then, according to Rabbi Meir, the cheese made in their stomachs should be forbidden.

For,

as

Rabbi Meir is concerned about a minority,

he is concerned everywhere even about a minority, and if those calves were only a minority, he should nevertheless prohibit the cheese.

The Gemara answers: Here too, Rabbi Meir said that the cheeses are forbidden because he is concerned about a minority. The requirement that most of the calves be slaughtered for idolatry is necessary so that the majority of the calves will constitute a minority of all the animals in the city.

If you say

that only if you say that in the city there is a

majority

of calves slaughtered for idolatry is there a reason to prohibit all the cheese in the city, because only then

is there a minority,

there is a significant minority among all the animals of the city, and there is concern that the cheese was made with the stomachs of calves used for idolatry, even though these calves constitute a minority relative to all the animals. Because of this significant minority, we prohibit the cheese.

But if you say

that if you say that in the city there is a

minority

of calves slaughtered for idolatry, the cheese should not be prohibited for that reason,

since there is

a

majority of calves that are not slaughtered for idolatry, and there are also

also

the other animals, which are not slaughtered for idolatry,

since these cheeses are also made in the stomachs of those animals—then the minority of calves slaughtered for idolatry

would be

is

an extremely small minority,

a minority of a minority [a minority of calves among the animals of the city, and a minority of calves slaughtered for idolatry among the majority of calves that are not slaughtered for idolatry].

And an extremely small minority

an extremely small minority

he is not concerned about,

Rabbi Meir is not concerned about. Therefore, there is no concern that the cheeses brought from there were made with the stomachs of calves used for idolatry.

Consequently, the reason for prohibiting the cheeses of Beit Unaiki is specifically that most of the calves of that city are slaughtered for idolatry.

Rabbi Shimon bar Elyakim said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

But even

if they are slaughtered for idolatry, what of it?

What difference does that make?

Are you not the one who permits it,

after all, you, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, permitted it?

For it was stated: One who slaughters an animal

with the intention

of sprinkling

its

blood for idolatry,

but not in order to worship the animal itself through the slaughter, or one who slaughters it in order

to burn

its

fat for idolatry—

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is forbidden,

the animal is forbidden even if he did not sprinkle its blood or burn its fat for idolatry.

And his reason is that

he holds

Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that, with regard to the sacrificial service in the Temple,

one service is considered through the thought concerning another service.

That is, if, during one service—for example, during the slaughtering of an offering—he conceived an invalidating intention to sprinkle the blood of the offering tomorrow, or to burn the fat of the offering tomorrow, the offering thereby becomes piggul, even if he sprinkles the blood or burns the fat today, in accordance with the law. The intention to perform the service of sprinkling improperly, even if this intention arose during the service of slaughtering, has the status of an invalidating intention and renders the offering piggul.

And we derive

we derive the service performed

outside,

that is, a service for idolatry,

from

the service performed

inside,

in the Temple.

And since in the Temple, an intention during the slaughtering service concerning the service of sprinkling the blood is effective, so too with regard to avoda zara: when, at the time of slaughter, he intends to sprinkle its blood for avoda zara, the intention is effective from that moment, and the animal is forbidden.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It is permitted

the animal. For he maintains that this law—that an intention concerning one service can take effect with regard to another service—was stated only concerning the service in the Temple, and we do not derive from it the law with regard to avoda zara.

But if so, this is difficult: The slaughtering of the animal for avoda zara mentioned here with regard to the calves is not performed with the intention that the slaughtering itself is a service for avoda zara. Rather, at the time of slaughter he intends to serve avoda zara by sprinkling its blood and burning its fat for avoda zara. If so, according to Reish Lakish, who maintains that with regard to avoda zara an intention concerning one service does not take effect with regard to another service, why is the animal's stomach contents rendered forbidden?

He said to him

Reish Lakish:

May your fortune carry you,

may your fortune rise! But this question is not difficult, since the case is one

where he says: At the completion

of the slaughter he

will worship it,

meaning that he intends to worship it through the slaughtering itself. Therefore, the animal becomes forbidden already at that time.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda said: Rabbi Yishmael asked

Rabbi Yehoshua, and so on: Why did they prohibit the cheeses of gentiles?

He said to him: Because they set it [the milk, in order to turn it into cheese] in the stomach of an animal carcass, and so on.”

Rav Aḥadvoi said,

Rav said: If one betroths

a woman

with the feces

of the stomach

of an ox sentenced to stoning,

she is betrothed.

However, one who betroths

with the feces

found in the stomach of

idolatrous calves—

she is not betrothed!

The Gemara presents several ways to explain this law and distinction:

Alternatively,

the basis of this law is

reason.

And alternatively,

the source of this law is

a verse.

The Gemara explains:

Alternatively, the basis is reason:

the one who betroths a woman with the feces of idolatrous calves does not betroth her, because

with regard to idolatrous calves, he wants it,

the one who worships it wants it

for its bulk,

for the animal's bloatedness and fatness, since this fecal matter is found within it, so that his offering will appear superior.

Since this is so, the status of avoda zara takes effect upon this fecal matter, and it is forbidden. Therefore, one who betroths a woman with it has not betrothed her.

But with regard to

the fecal matter found inside

an ox sentenced to stoning, he does not want its bulk.

The owner of the ox has no interest or desire in the existence of this fecal matter, which causes the ox's bloatedness and fatness. Therefore, the fecal matter is not considered part of the ox sentenced to stoning, and it is not forbidden for benefit; consequently, a woman betrothed with it is betrothed.

Alternatively,

the source of this law is

a verse.

It is written here

[Deuteronomy 13:18], with regard to avoda zara,

“Nothing

from the ban shall cling to your hand.” And we derive from this that everything belonging to avoda zara is entirely forbidden. The fecal matter is included in this as well.

And it is written there

[Exodus 21:28], with regard to an ox sentenced to stoning,

“The ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten,”

and we derive:

its flesh is forbidden; but

but

its feces is permitted!

For it is not included in “its flesh.”

Rava said: Both of them we learned.

These two laws have already been taught in our Mishna.

a. The permission to benefit from the feces of an ox sentenced to stoning is derived

from what he said to him,

from the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua told him that the reason the cheese is forbidden for benefit is

because they set it in the stomach of a carcass, and he replied to him,

and Rabbi Yishmael responded to him:

“But the stomach of an olah is more stringent than the stomach of a carcass.”

Yet in any event, it is not forbidden for benefit in the manner of the olah itself.