Avodah Zarah 35b (לה:) — the Talmud in English

Here,

the Mishna in tractate Hullin that states that the stomach contents of a gentile are forbidden was taught

before the retraction,

when Rabbi Yehoshua retracted his statement in our Mishna, “for they curdle it in the stomach of an animal carcass,” since he had then held that the milk in the animal’s stomach was not merely excrement [but after Rabbi Yishmael demonstrated to him that there is no prohibition at all in the stomach of an animal carcass, Rabbi Yehoshua retracted his statement].

Whereas Shmuel’s statement

here, “because they curdle it in the hide of the stomach of an animal carcass,”

was stated

after the retraction,

when Rabbi Yehoshua had retracted his statement. Therefore, Shmuel required this reason: that they curdled the cheese in the hide of the stomach of an animal carcass. For the contents of the stomach itself are permitted.

And

however, that

Mishna,

in which the prohibition of the stomach contents of an animal carcass was stated, was not uprooted and

did not move from its place

entirely, since it had already been taught. Nevertheless, the halakha does not follow it.

The Gemara now gives additional reasons why gentile cheese is forbidden:

Rav Malkiyya in the name of

Rav Adda bar Ahava

said:

The reason this cheese is forbidden is

because they smooth its surface

of the cheese

with pig fat!

Rav Ḥisda said:

The reason this cheese is forbidden is

because

the gentiles

curdle it with vinegar,

which causes it to coagulate. And the vinegar is made from wine that is forbidden for benefit.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

The reason is

because they curdle it with the sap of orla,

which is forbidden for benefit.

In accordance with whom,

in whose opinion was this statement said?

In accordance with this tanna:

As it was taught,

Rabbi Eliezer says: One who curdles

milk in order to make cheese

with the sap of orla

it is forbidden,

because it,

the sap, is treated as

produce.

The Gemara rejects this: There is no necessity to interpret Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s statement specifically in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer. Rather,

even if you say

that Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s statement was said in accordance with

Rabbi Yehoshua,

who disputes Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishna in Orla, it can be reconciled as follows:

Rabbi Yehoshua disagreed [

disputed ]

with Rabbi Eliezer only with regard to sap from a branch,

concerning the status of sap that emerges from a tree. Rabbi Eliezer holds that this sap is treated as the produce of an orla tree, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua does not hold this way.

But with regard to sap from a fruit,

concerning the status of sap that emerges from the fruit itself,

Rabbi Yehoshua concedes

that it is forbidden.

And this is what we learned,

and this is what we learned there in Orla:

Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard explicitly that one who curdles

cheese

with sap

that rises from

the leaves, and with sap

that rises from

the roots,

the rootstock,

it is permitted.

However,

with sap

that emerges from

unripe fruit

fruit that has not ripened

it is forbidden, because it is produce,

fruit.

Accordingly, it may be said that Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s statement applies even according to Rabbi Yehoshua, who prohibits curdling cheese with the sap of the fruit of an orla tree.

However, there is a difficulty:

Whether according to

the reason of

Rav Ḥisda,

that the gentiles curdle the cheese with vinegar,

or according to

the reason of

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak,

that they curdle the cheese with the sap of orla,

it should be forbidden

to prohibit the cheese also

for benefit,

as is the law with regard to libation wine and with regard to the produce of orla. Why, then, did the Sages prohibit the cheese only for eating?

This is difficult!

Above, the Gemara interpreted the verse from Song of Songs 1:2, “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, for your love is better than wine,” and now the Gemara further interprets the subsequent verses there:

Rav Naḥman, son of Rav Ḥisda, expounded: What

what is

that is written [

Song of Songs 1:3 ]

“For the fragrance of your oils is good,

“your name is oil poured forth; therefore the maidens love you”?

The explanation is as follows:

To what may a Torah scholar be compared? To a flask of perfumed oil [

perfumed oil]. When this flask of perfumed oil

is uncovered, its fragrance spreads.

And this is what is stated: “Your name is oil poured forth.” When it is uncovered and its oil is poured out, its fragrance rises. So too with a Torah scholar: when he teaches Torah to students, his name becomes known and he is revealed to the public.

But when the flask

is covered, its fragrance does not spread.

So too with a Torah scholar: when he conceals himself, his Torah is not revealed to the public.

Moreover,

when he teaches it to others,

matters that are concealed

and hidden

from him,

from the Torah scholar,

are revealed to him

of their own accord, without effort.

As it is stated [

Song of Songs 1:2 ] “Therefore

the maidens love you.” Read it as

it should be read

“the concealed matters.”

That is, matters hidden from him now become like “those who love,” revealed to him.

Moreover, the Angel of Death loves him!

As it is stated: “The maidens love you.” Read it as

it should be read

“over death,”

that is, the Angel of Death, who is appointed “over” “death.”

Moreover, he inherits two worlds: one, this world, and one, the World to Come. As it is stated: “The maidens.” Read it as

it should be read

“worlds.”

That is, two worlds are included in his inheritance.

Mishna:

When the Sages of Israel gathered in the upper chamber of Ḥananya ben Ḥizkiyya ben Garon [one of the great scholars and a leading figure of his generation ] to visit him, a large gathering of students of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel assembled there, and no one in that generation who was fit to issue halakhic rulings was absent from that assembly. These are the words of the Mishna in Shabbat 13b: “

These are some of the halakhot that were stated in the upper chamber of the son of Ḥizkiyya ben Garon when they went up to visit him: the House of Shammai outnumbered the House of Hillel, and they issued eighteen decrees on that day.”

Five of these eighteen decrees were enacted in order to distance Jews from gentiles. They are: gentile bread, their oil, their wine, seclusion with their daughters, and the decree that a gentile infant transmits impurity through zivah.

In addition to these decrees, the Sages added further decrees concerning various types of food, as will be brought below in our Mishna. There were also those who permitted or relaxed these decrees, as will be brought below in the Gemara.

Two reasons were given for the prohibitions listed in our Mishna:

a. So that one would not become accustomed to eating and drinking with him and thereby cause him to eat impure food [Rashi].

b. Because eating together the foods of a gentile may lead to intermarriage with their daughters [Tosafot].

Besides these concerns, the Sages [in the Mishna and in the ensuing discussions of the Gemara] prohibited certain foods that involve a kashrut concern.

Until now, we learned which products of gentiles are forbidden both for eating and for benefit. The Mishna now explains:

And these

are

the products of idolaters

that are

forbidden,

but

their prohibition is not a prohibition for benefit,

but only a prohibition against eating.

a.

Milk milked by an idolater, with no Israelite watching him

at the time of milking.

b.

And bread

made by him.

c.

And their oil,

it too is forbidden.

However, Rabbi

and his court permitted

the use of

the oil.

d.

And cooked foods.

Anything cooked by a gentile, even kosher food cooked in a clean vessel, is forbidden, because there is concern that people may come to intermarry with them through eating their cooked foods.

e.

And

likewise

pickled foods,

things customarily pickled in vinegar [ such as fish, vegetables, and the head and feet of an animal ]

into which they customarily put wine and vinegar.

f.

And chopped fish.

A food made from small, salted fish that have been chopped. Since they are chopped, the species of fish cannot be identified, and it is possible that impure fish are mixed in.

g.

And fish brine

of fish

in which there is no

fish brine

in which a kolbit fish swims.

There is a small fish called a kolbit that grows and develops spontaneously only in the brine of pure fish, and not in that of impure fish. If it is not found in the brine of a pure fish, there is concern that an impure fish may have been mixed into it. For this reason, the fish does not develop there.

Accordingly, the brine of a fish in which no kolbit is found is forbidden, because there is concern that brine from an impure fish may be mixed into it.

h.

And the small fish called ḥilek,

a small pure fish that has neither fins nor scales but is destined to develop them later—one may not take it from gentiles.

Although this fish itself is permitted, nevertheless it is forbidden to take it from gentiles, because due to its small size it is difficult to determine whether it was caught alone or whether other, impure fish were caught with it in the net.

i.

And a piece

of

ḥaltit [

a pungent plant ], which is customarily cut into pieces [small pieces, grains]. There is concern that the knife used to cut it may have been soiled with non-kosher fat. Since ḥaltit is pungent, it absorbs the taste of the fat, and is therefore forbidden.

j.

And

likewise

salt of kundit.

Salt mixed with spices made from forbidden substances [such as pig fat and impure fish] -

Thus

all

these

that we listed here

are forbidden, and their prohibition is not a prohibition for benefit.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: Milk milked by a gentile with no Israelite watching him is forbidden.

The Gemara asks:

Milk—for what concern should we have,

what is the concern on account of which the milk is forbidden?

The Gemara analyzes:

If it is due to substitution,

if the concern is that the gentile substituted impure milk for it, there is no reason for such concern, since

pure

milk is

white,

whereas

impure milk is

green.

And

likewise,

if it is due to admixture,

if the concern is that he mixed impure milk into pure milk, making its color less readily discernible,

let us coagulate it,

let him place the milk in the stomach of an animal [as this was the customary way to produce cheese, by coagulating milk in an animal’s stomach].

And as

the Master said: Pure milk

coagulates.

It coagulates in the animal’s stomach, whereas

impure milk

does not coagulate

and harden in it. Would this not be a sign of whether the milk is pure, or whether impure milk was mixed into it?!

The Gemara rejects this possibility:

If he seeks it—

if he indeed needs the milk in order

to

make

cheese, this is indeed so—

he can examine the milk in this manner.

However,

here, with what are we dealing? He needs it

for kimha,

he needs the milk in order to put it into food as it is, and does not wish to make cheese from it.

For this reason, there is concern that the milk contains non-kosher milk mixed into it, and this cannot be determined. Therefore, all milk that comes from gentiles must be prohibited.

The Gemara asks: We still have a way to examine whether the milk is entirely kosher or whether non-kosher milk is mixed into it.

And let us take a little from it,

take a small amount of the milk and coagulate it with rennet,

and let it coagulate;

he can determine whether it is kosher and coagulates, or whether it is non-kosher and does not coagulate. Since this is so, we have a method for purchasing milk from gentiles, and the matter should be permitted?

The Gemara rejects this possibility as well:

Since even in

kosher milk

there is also whey,

there is always water in milk,

which does not remain standing,

as it does not coagulate but remains water, for this reason

it is impossible to determine the matter;

it is impossible to examine it in this manner, since every milk, whether non-kosher or kosher, contains water that does not coagulate. Therefore, there is concern that the kosher milk will coagulate while the non-kosher milk will [unclear: the source text is corrupted at this point], and it follows that we have no way to determine whether the milk that comes from a gentile is kosher or whether non-kosher milk was mixed into it. For this reason, all milk that comes from gentiles without supervision is prohibited.

Alternatively, if you wish, say

there is another way to explain this matter:

Even if you say that he needs it

we may say that he needs it

for cheese,

and if so, he can examine the milk by coagulating it with rennet; even this possibility is of no use, because there are always

[whey]

whey

that remain between the crevices,

which are situated between the cavities of the cheese, and there is concern that this water comes from non-kosher milk.

We learned in our Mishna:

And the bread

of gentiles is prohibited.

Rav Kahana said,

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: The bread was not permitted by a court

as the oil was.

The Gemara asks concerning this:

By inference,

from the fact that it was not permitted by a court, we learn

that there is someone who permits it?!

?

It answers:

No,

indeed.

And where is this so? The Gemara presents this possibility:

When

Rav Dimi

came

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said: Once Rabbi went out to the field,

and a gentile brought before him

before Rabbi

a pat pureni,

made in a large oven,

a baking of a se'a.

And

Rabbi said

about it:

How attractive this bread is! Why did the Sages see fit to prohibit it?

The Gemara expresses surprise: How could Rabbi ask

why did the Sages see fit

to prohibit it? It is explicitly stated below that the reason for the Sages’ prohibition is

because

there is concern that through sitting and eating together with gentiles, they may come to

intermarriage

with them.

Rather,

the intention of Rabbi’s question was:

Why did the Sages see fit to prohibit

gentile bread

in the field,

in a place where one does not sit and eat together with them, and there is no concern of intermarriage? -

These are Rabbi’s words.

And

the people thought

that by these words he had expressed

Rabbi permitted

the

bread.

But

that is not so!

Rabbi did not permit the bread!

Rather, it was merely a question. The Gemara presents another version of how that incident occurred.

Rav Yosef, and some say

there are those who say that

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said: The incident did not happen that way! Rather, they said

the incident happened as follows:

Once Rabbi went to a certain place and saw that bread was scarce,

as there was only a small amount of bread

for

the students’

food. Rabbi said: Is there no baker here

who could bake more bread for them?

The people thought to say

that Rabbi intended to search for a

baker

who was a

gentile.

They therefore learned from this that Rabbi had permitted gentile bread.

But he,

Rabbi,

said nothing other than

that they should search for a

baker,

a baker who was

Jewish.

Indeed, nothing can be inferred from this incident regarding gentile bread.

Rabbi Helbo said: Even according to the one who says

according to the view that Rabbi searched for a

baker,

a baker who was

a gentile,

and he intended to permit bread baked by a gentile baker,

we said

this permission

only when there is no

no

baker

baker who is

Jewish

in that place. Only then did Rabbi permit bread baked by a gentile baker.

But where there is

a

Jewish baker,

not

did Rabbi permit bread baked by a gentile baker.

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

Even according to the one who says,

according to the view that Rabbi permitted bread baked by a

gentile baker, this applies only

to bread given to him by a gentile

in the field,

in a manner in which there is no place there to sit and recline together with the gentile.

But

bread given by a gentile

in the city was not

permitted,

because

of the concern that they might come to

intermarriage

if the gentile—

Aivu used to

be

biting and eating

biting and eating

bread

belonging to gentiles

along the boundaries

along the boundaries of the fields.

Rava said to him,

to him,

and some say

that

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Do not speak

do not speak

with Aivu

together with Aivu, because

he eats the bread of gentiles,

as he eats gentile bread.

We learned in our Mishna:

And their oil

is prohibited for consumption.

Regarding the origin of the prohibition of

the oil

of gentiles, the Sages disagreed:

Rav said: Daniel enacted a decree concerning it

prohibiting it.