Avodah Zarah 34b — the Talmud in English

Rav Haviva said: These ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

abta of the travelers

a leather wineskin of the Arabs, made of thick leather, which travelers carried with them when it was full of wine, on long journeys lasting a great deal of time, this vessel is considered a vessel into which wine is put for long-term storage, and therefore only

after twelve months of the year is it permitted.

Only after twelve months of the year is it permitted, and not before.

Rav Aha, son

his son

of Rav Ika, said: These grape pressings

the refuse of grapes

of the Arameans

of gentiles,

after twelve months of the year are permitted.

Rav Aha, son

his son

of Rava, said: These barrels

these jugs

that are brown and black

brown and black,

after twelve months of the year are permitted.

We learned in our Mishna:

“And fish brine,”

fish oil, is forbidden, and its prohibition is a prohibition of benefit, lest they mix wine into it—these are the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: Their prohibition is not a prohibition of benefit.

The Sages taught: Fish brine

fish oil made by

a craftsman—

is permitted.

Because the entire prohibition of fish brine is lest wine was put into it. And the craftsman does not put wine into the fish brine.

Rabbi Judah ben Gamliel says in the name of

in the name of

Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel: Even salted fish

of

a craftsman is permitted!

Salted fish is a type of small, pure fish, and below, on 39a, it is explained that salted fish of gentiles is forbidden. For there are small impure fish resembling it, which are caught together with it in the same fishing and are sold together. There is concern that perhaps the impure fish is mixed into it, and because of this it is forbidden.

And the craftsman, who is expert in the types of fish, is concerned that the impure fish resembling the salted fish will spoil its taste by being mixed with it. Because of this, the craftsman distinguishes between them and separates them. Therefore salted fish of a craftsman is permitted.

Avimi

taught

the son

his son

of Rabbi Abbahu: Fish brine

fish oil of

a craftsman

of a gentile

is permitted.

He taught it,

he taught this law,

and he explained it,

he explained it:

In order to extract the oil of the fish, they put water and salt on them, and through this their oil is drawn out. After extracting the oil once, they would repeat this action a second time, in order to extract more, and likewise a third time.

And the law is as follows:

The first time

that they extracted the fat through the water and salt

and

likewise the

second time—the fish brine

fish brine

is permitted.

However, the fish brine extracted through the

third

cycle of the action

is forbidden!

What is the reason

it is forbidden?—Because

the first and second times

that they drew out the fish brine,

since their oil is abundant,

since the fat found in the fish is plentiful, therefore

there is no need to put wine into them,

wine, in order to extract it. Rather, water and salt are sufficient.

However,

from here

from the third time

and onward, they put wine into them,

they would put wine into them in order to assist in extracting more fish brine.

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

There was a certain shipload of fish brine

that ship carrying fish brine,

which came to the harbor of Akko

that arrived at the harbor of Akko,

Rabbi Abba

appointed

of

from among the people of

Akko, guards over it

guards on the ship, to ensure that the gentiles would not render the fish brine forbidden with wine.

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

until the ship came here, who guarded it so that they would not put wine into the fish brine? Perhaps in the place from which it came they had already mixed wine 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 lest they mix wine into the fish brine, there is no need to be concerned about this.

For in the place from which the fish brine arrived, a

kista [

the name of a particular measure of quantity]

of

of

fish brine is sold for

the price of

“luma” [

a zuz].

In contrast, a

kista

the same quantity

of wine

of wine is sold

for four luma

zuz! And if so, there is no concern lest they put wine into fish brine worth one quarter of it, because through this they would lose the wine at three-quarters of its value.

However, here the fish brine is expensive and the wine is cheap. Therefore there is concern lest they mix wine into the fish brine in order to enrich it and increase its quantity. Because of this, it is necessary to guard the shipload of fish brine, so that the gentiles will not mix wine into it.

Rabbi Jeremiah said to Rabbi Zeira: Perhaps, since they came by way of Tyre

perhaps this ship passed by way of Tyre, which is near the sea,

where wine is cheap

where wine there too is cheaper than fish brine, and if so, there is concern that in Tyre they mixed wine into the fish brine?

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira:

There

there, on the route passing by Tyre—

there are bends and thawing places.

The waters there run in a winding course, and the snow melts there. And the navigators of the ship cannot pass along this route. Therefore there is no concern lest they put wine there.

We learned in our Mishna:

“And cheeses”

a place called

Beit Unaiki,

are forbidden, and their prohibition is a prohibition of benefit—these are the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: Their prohibition is not a prohibition of benefit.

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

the

cheese of Unaiki?

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

And since this cheese is made by curdling the milk in the stomachs of calves slaughtered for idolatry, it is forbidden for benefit.

The Gemara asks:

Why specifically

why is the reason for the prohibition specifically

most of the calves

that are slaughtered for idolatry in that place? For

even

if only

a minority

of the calves there are slaughtered for idolatry,

also,

according to Rabbi Meir one should likewise forbid the cheese made in their stomachs?

For indeed,

for

Rabbi Meir is concerned with a minority,

he is concerned everywhere even with a minority, and if so, even if those calves were a minority, he should forbid the cheese?

And the Gemara answers: Here too, Rabbi Meir said that the cheeses are forbidden because he is concerned with a minority. And the fact that most of the calves slaughtered for idolatry are required is in order that the majority of the calves constitute a minority of all the animals in the city.

If you say

only if you say that there is in the city

a majority

of calves slaughtered for idolatry, there is a reason to forbid all the cheeses 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 lest the cheeses were made in the stomachs of calves of idolatry, even though these calves are a minority in relation to all the animals. Because of this significant minority, we forbid the cheese.

But if you say

but if you say that there is in the city

a minority

of calves slaughtered for idolatry, the cheese should not be forbidden because of this,

since there is

there is

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

there are also

other animals that are not slaughtered for idolatry,

for these cheeses are likewise curdled in their stomachs—then the minority of calves slaughtered for idolatry

would be

it constitutes

a minority of a 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 a minority of a minority

for a minority of a minority

he is not concerned,

Rabbi Meir is not concerned. Therefore there is no concern that the cheeses coming from there were made in the stomachs of calves of idolatry.

And because of this, the reason for the prohibition of the cheeses of Beit Unaiki is only that most of the calves of that city are slaughtered for idolatry.

Rabbi Shimon bar Elyakim said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

And even

if they are slaughtered for idolatry, what of it?

What difference does it make?

But you are the one who permits it,

for you, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, yourself permitted it?

For it was stated: One who slaughters an animal

with the intention

of sprinkling

its

blood for idolatry,

and not in order to perform idolatry through the slaughter itself, or who slaughters it in order

to burn

its

fat for idolatry—

Rabbi Yohanan said: It is forbidden,

the animal, even if he did not sprinkle its blood and did not burn its fat for idolatry.

And his reason is:

he holds

Rabbi Yohanan, with regard to the sacrificial service in the Temple,

that one forms an intention from one service to another service.

That is, if during one service, such as during the service of slaughtering the sacrifice, he formed an intention of pigul, to sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice tomorrow, or to burn the fat of the sacrifice tomorrow, the sacrifice thereby becomes pigul, even if he sprinkles the blood or burns the fat today, properly. For the intention to perform the service of sprinkling improperly, even if this intention is formed during the service of slaughtering, has the status of an intention of pigul and renders the sacrifice pigul.

And we derive

we learn the service performed

outside,

that is, service for idolatry,

from

the service performed

inside,

in the Temple.

And since in the Temple the thought at the time of the slaughter-service is effective concerning the service of the sprinkling, so too concerning idolatry: when at the time of the slaughter he thinks to sprinkle the blood for idolatry, the thought is effective already now, and the animal is forbidden.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It is permitted

the animal. For he holds that this law—that one thinks from one service concerning another—was stated only with regard to the service of the Temple, and we do not derive from it with regard to idolatry.

If so, this is difficult: the slaughter of the animal for idolatry mentioned here with regard to calves is not performed with the thought that the slaughter itself is a service for idolatry; rather, at the time of slaughter he thinks that he will serve the idolatry by sprinkling its blood and burning its fat for idolatry. If so, according to Resh Lakish, who holds that one does not think from one service concerning another in the case of idolatry, why is the stomach of the animal forbidden?

He said to him

Resh Lakish:

May your fortune raise you up,

may your fortune rise! But this difficulty is not difficult. Since it is speaking

of one who says, At the completion

of the slaughter it is

serving it,

the idolatry. That is, he thinks to serve it through the slaughter itself, and therefore the animal becomes forbidden already from this time.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Judah said: Rabbi Ishmael asked

Rabbi Joshua, and so forth: Why did they prohibit the cheeses of gentiles?

He said to him: Because they set it [the milk, in order to make it cheese] with the stomach of an unslaughtered animal. And so forth.

Rav Aḥadvoi said,

Rav said: One who betroths

a woman

with the dung

of the stomach

of a stoned ox—

she is betrothed.

However, one who betroths

with the dung

of the stomachs

of calves of idolatry—

she is not betrothed!

And the Gemara brings several ways to explain this law and distinction:

If you wish, say:

the basis of this law is

reasoning.

And if you wish, say:

the source of this law is

a verse.

And the Gemara explains:

If you wish, say: reasoning,

that one who betroths a woman with the dung of calves of idolatry is not betrothed, because

with regard to calves of idolatry, he is pleased

the one who worships it

with its bulk,

with the bulk and fat of the animal, since through this dung being found within it, his offering appears choice.

And since this is so, the designation of idolatry takes effect upon this dung, and it is forbidden. And one who betroths with it—she is not betrothed.

But with regard to

the dung found within

the stoned ox, he is not pleased with its bulk.

The owner of the ox has no interest or desire in the existence of this dung, which causes the bulk and fat of the ox. Therefore, the dung is not considered part of the stoned ox, and it is not forbidden for benefit; therefore, one who betroths with it—she is betrothed.

If you wish, say

the source of this law is

a verse.

It is written here [

Deuteronomy 13:18, with regard to idolatry],

“Nothing whatsoever shall cleave to your hand

from the proscribed thing.” And we derive that everything belonging to idolatry is entirely forbidden. And the dung too is included in this.

And it is written there [

Exodus 21:28, with regard to the stoned ox],

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

and we derive—

its flesh is forbidden, but

its dung

is permitted!

Since it is not included within its flesh.

Rava said: Both of them we have learned.

These two laws were already taught in our Mishna.

A. The permission to benefit from the dung of a stoned ox is learned

from what he said to him,

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

because they set it with the stomach of an unslaughtered animal, and he responds to him,

and Rabbi Ishmael replied to him:

Is not the stomach of a burnt offering more stringent than the stomach of an unslaughtered animal?

And nevertheless it is not forbidden for benefit like the burnt offering itself.