Avodah Zarah 36a — the Talmud in English

And Shmuel said: ![](pamud.bmp "

precise location of the page")

their seepage,

their emission,

of vessels

impure,

which emit impure fats absorbed in the vessels,

forbids them,

the oil of the gentiles that was made in their vessels.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Is it so that everyone,

that is, the entire world, even Israelites,

are eaters of pure foods,

are particular specifically about eating pure foods?

But this matter of refraining from eating an impure thing concerns only those who need to beware of ritual impurity, and there is no prohibition in this for ordinary Israelites?

Rather,

the Gemara retracts and explains that this is what Shmuel said:

their seepage,

their emission,

of forbidden vessels,

in which the gentiles made forbidden foods, is what

forbids them,

their oil, because of the concern lest a forbidden substance have become mixed into the oil.

Shmuel said to Rav: Granted, according to me,

for I say,

that I say,

their seepage,

their emission,

of forbidden vessels forbids them; that is,

this matter fits with

for when

when

Rav Yitzhak bar Shmuel bar Marta came and said:

He expounded,

he expounded,

Rabbi Simlai expounded in Netzivin: The oil

of gentiles,

Rabbi Yehuda and his court counted a vote concerning it, and permitted it!

And the reason that they permitted it was that

he held,

Rabbi Yehuda the Nasi and his court,

a giver of a defective taste is permitted.

That is, the forbidden taste absorbed in the vessels, after a period of a day has passed over it, becomes defective; and if the taste in the walls of the vessel is emitted into the oil inside it, it does not improve it, but, on the contrary, damages it. And according to Rabbi Yehuda the Nasi and his court, every giver of a defective taste is permitted.

Rather, according to you,

according to your words,

that you say Daniel

is the one who

decreed concerning it,

concerning the oil of gentiles, to prohibit it, and is it possible that

Daniel decreed

a prohibition concerning the oil,

and Rabbi Yehuda the Nasi came

and came

and nullified it,

this prohibition, and permitted the oil?

But did we not learn

and we learned:

A court cannot nullify the words of another court unless

the court that wishes to nullify them is

greater than it in wisdom and in number.

And since it is impossible to say that Rabbi Yehuda the Nasi and his court were greater than Daniel, according to your words it is difficult: how did Rabbi Simlai in Netzivin expound this matter in the name of Rabbi Yehuda the Nasi and his court?

He said to him,

Rav to Shmuel:

Are you speaking of Simlai the Lodian?

This matter that you are saying was said by Rabbi Simlai, who came from Lod; if so, you cannot raise an objection against me from his words, because

the Lodians are different,

the people of Lod are different,

for they treat lightly,

for they treat rabbinic matters lightly.

Shmuel said to him:

Shmuel: Do you want me to

send to him,

to Rabbi Yehuda the Nasi, and ask him whether he indeed ruled this way?

He was embarrassed.

Rav was ashamed of this matter.

He said

about this

Rav:

also

if they,

Rabbi Yehuda the Nasi and his court,

did not expound

from the verse in Daniel to decree concerning the oil, but held that this decree had been decreed by another court [because of the reason of the seepage of forbidden vessels], and for that reason permitted it, since they did not accept this reason,

is it that

we

we

do not expound,

will we not expound this from the verse in Daniel?

But it is written

and it is stated [Daniel 1:8], when Nebuchadnezzar instructed the chief of his officers to bring before him children from among the Israelites in order to raise them as servants and sages, and the king provided them every day with the king’s pat-bag—the king’s food in the Chaldean language and wine from his wine, in order to raise them and strengthen them.

And Daniel was among them, and concerning him it is stated as follows:

“And Daniel set upon his heart that he would not defile himself with the king’s pat-bag or with the wine of his drinks.”

And they expound this:

The verse is speaking of two drinking parties. One is a drinking party of wine, and one is a drinking party of oil.

Daniel did not benefit from either of the two drinking parties. And it implies that he held that there is a prohibition concerning the oil of gentiles.

And if so, why did Shmuel not accept this reason from Rav, and likewise expound from the verse in Daniel to prohibit the oil?

And the Gemara explains:

Rav held

that Daniel

set upon his heart

that it is indeed necessary to prohibit and distance oneself from these things, as is written in the verse,

and instructed all Israel

that it is forbidden.

And Shmuel held: He set it upon his heart

to prohibit the oil and personally withdraw from it,

but did not instruct all Israel

this prohibition. And therefore the oil is permitted.

The Gemara asks:

And

is it that this prohibition of

oil was decreed by Daniel

concerning it!?

But Baly said

in the name of

Avimi the Notoean, in the name

of

of Rav: Their bread

of gentiles

and their oil

of gentiles, and likewise

their wine and their daughters—all of them

all these, their prohibition is

from

the decree of

the eighteen matters,

which the houses of Hillel and Shammai decreed concerning them together.

And if you should say

and even if you say in resolution that

Daniel came

came

Daniel

and

decreed

this decree

and it was not accepted,

his decree was not accepted by the public,

and the students of Hillel and Shammai came

and came

and decreed, and it was accepted

their decree was accepted.

If so

it will be difficult:

What is the nature of Rav’s testimony?

Why did Rav testify that Daniel decreed this decree, when even if he decreed it, in any event the members of his generation did not accept this decree?

Rather,

this is how the matter was:

Daniel decreed concerning it,

concerning the oil, that the oil of gentiles would be forbidden

in the city,

so that they would not sit with them at a meal and come to intermarriage.

And they came,

and the students of Hillel and Shammai came,

and decreed

to prohibit the oil

even in the field.

But the Gemara wonders:

And Rabbi Yehuda the Nasi—how could he permit

how could he permit the oil that was prohibited by the

ordinance

their ordinance

of the students of Shammai and Hillel?

But did we not learn

A court cannot nullify the words of another court unless it is greater than it in wisdom

and in number!

And furthermore,

even without the prohibition against nullifying the words of another court,

Rabbah bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: In every

matter and subject,

a court can nullify

the

words of another court, except for the eighteen matters

concerning which the students of Hillel and Shammai decreed because of the concern of gifts,

so that even if Elijah and his court were to come, they would not heed him!

And if so, how did Rabbi permit this matter?

Rav Mesharsheya said: What is the reason

that it is impossible to nullify the prohibition of the decree of the eighteen matters,

since its prohibition spread

of each of these matters

among the majority of Israel.

However,

oil,

which

its prohibition did not spread among the majority of Israel,

it is possible to nullify its prohibition.

And from where do we know that its prohibition indeed did not spread?

For Rabbi Shmuel bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Our Sages sat [

Rabbi Yehuda the Nasi ]

and examined

the matter of the

oil,

and found

that its prohibition had not spread among the majority of Israel,

and they had still not adopted this prohibition.

And our Sages relied [

Rabbi Yehuda the Nasi]

upon the words of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and upon the words of Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, who would say: One does not decree a decree upon the public —

unless the majority of the public can uphold it.

And a decree that the public cannot uphold has no validity and can be nullified!

And from where did they derive this matter?

For Rav Adda bar Ahava said: What is the verse

from which we learn this matter?