Avodah Zarah 36a (לו.) — the Talmud in English

And Shmuel said:

their seepage,

their emission

from vessels

that are impure,

which emit impure fats absorbed into the vessels,

renders it prohibited,

the oil of gentiles that was made in their vessels.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Is it so that everyone

that is, the entire world, including Jews,

are eaters of ritually pure food,

meticulous specifically about eating ritually pure food?

But this matter of refraining from eating something impure is relevant only to those who must be careful regarding ritual impurity, whereas there is no prohibition in this for an ordinary Jew.

Rather,

the Gemara retracts its initial explanation and clarifies that this is what Shmuel said:

their seepage,

their emission

from forbidden vessels,

in which the gentiles prepared forbidden foods, is what

renders it prohibited,

their oil, due to the concern that a forbidden substance may have become mixed into the oil.

Shmuel said to Rav: Granted, according to me,

as I say

that

their seepage,

their emission

from forbidden vessels renders it prohibited, this is consistent

with the following,

when

when

Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta came and said:

Rabbi Simlai expounded

an exposition

in Netzivin: The oil

of gentiles,

Rabbi Yehuda and his court convened concerning it, and permitted it!

And the reason they permitted it is that

he held

Rabbi Yehuda Nesi’a and his court

that an imparted flavor that has deteriorated is permitted.

That is, the forbidden flavor absorbed into the vessels deteriorates after a period of twenty-four hours. If the flavor absorbed in the walls of the vessel is emitted into the oil contained within it, it does not improve the oil; on the contrary, it spoils it. And according to Rabbi Yehuda Nesi’a and his court, any imparted flavor that has deteriorated is permitted.

But according to you,

according to your words,

who say that Daniel

is the one who

enacted it,

enacted a prohibition against the oil of gentiles, is it possible that

Daniel enacted

a prohibition against the oil,

and

Rabbi Yehuda the Nasi

came and revoked it,

revoking this prohibition and permitting the oil?

But did we not learn

and yet we learned:

A court cannot revoke the words of another court unless

the court that wishes to revoke them is

greater than it in wisdom and in number.

Since it is impossible to say that Rabbi Yehuda Nesi’a and his court were greater than Daniel, according to your words it is difficult: How could Rabbi Simlai expound this matter in Netzivin in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesi’a and his court?

He said to him,

Rav said to Shmuel:

You are speaking of Simlai the Lodite?

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

the Lodites are different,

the people of Lod are different,

as they are contemptuous,

treating rabbinic matters contemptuously.

Shmuel said to him:

Would you like me to

send to him,

to Rabbi Yehuda Nesi’a, and ask him whether he indeed issued this ruling?

He became embarrassed.

Rav was ashamed of this statement.

Rav said

about this

Rav:

Even

if they,

Rabbi Yehuda Nesi’a and his court,

did not expound

from the verse in Daniel that a decree should be enacted concerning the oil, but held that this decree had been enacted by another court [because of the concern of seepage from forbidden vessels], and therefore permitted it because they did not accept this reason,

why should

we

we

not expound,

and derive this from the verse in Daniel?

But it is written,

and yet it is stated [Daniel 1:8], when Nebuchadnezzar instructed the chief officer to bring before him children of Israel in order to raise them as servants and scholars, and the king immediately provided them each 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:

“And Daniel resolved in his heart that he would not defile himself with the king’s pat-bag or with the wine that he drank.”

And this is expounded:

The verse speaks of two drinking parties: one a wine feast, and one an oil feast.

Daniel derived no benefit from either of these drinking parties. It follows that he held that there is a prohibition against the oil of gentiles.

If so, why did Shmuel not accept this reason from Rav and likewise expound from the verse in Daniel that the oil is prohibited?

The Gemara explains:

Rav held

that Daniel

placed in his heart

that these matters should indeed be prohibited and avoided, as the verse states,

and he instructed all Israel

that they were prohibited.

And Shmuel held: He placed in his heart

to prohibit the oil and personally abstain from it,

but he did not instruct all Israel

of this prohibition. Therefore, the oil is permitted.

The Gemara asks:

And

is it the prohibition of

oil that Daniel enacted

upon it?

But Baly said

in the name of

Avimi the Na’otite, in the name

of

Rav: Their bread

of gentiles,

and their oil

of gentiles, as well as

their wine and their daughters—all of them

all these prohibitions are

from

the decree of

the eighteen matters,

which the houses of Hillel and Shammai enacted together.

And if you would say

that even if you answer that

Daniel came

and

Daniel

and

enacted

this decree

but it was not accepted,

his decree was not accepted by the public,

and the disciples of Hillel and Shammai came

and

enacted and it was accepted,

their decree was accepted,

if so,

it would be difficult:

What is the nature of Rav’s testimony?

Why did Rav testify that Daniel enacted this decree, seeing that even if he enacted it, in any event the people of his generation did not accept it?

Rather,

this is what happened:

Daniel enacted it,

concerning the oil, that the oil of gentiles should be prohibited

in the city,

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

And they came,

the disciples of Hillel and Shammai came,

and enacted

that the oil be prohibited

even in the field.

But the Gemara is astonished:

And how could Rabbi Yehuda the Nasi permit it,

how could he permit the oil that had been prohibited by the

ordinance

their ordinance

of the disciples of Shammai and Hillel?

But we learned,

a court cannot revoke the words of another court unless it is greater than it in wisdom

and in number!

And furthermore,

even apart from the prohibition against revoking the words of another court,

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: In every

matter and subject,

a court can revoke

the

words of another court, except for the eighteen matters

that the disciples of Hillel and Shammai enacted because of the concern of gifts,

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

If so, how did Rabbi permit this matter?

Rav Mesharsheya said: What is the reason

that the prohibition resulting from the decree concerning the eighteen matters cannot be revoked?

Since its prohibition spread

throughout each of these matters

among the majority of Israel.

However,

oil,

which

did not have its prohibition spread among the majority of Israel,

its prohibition can be revoked.

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

For Rabbi Shmuel bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Our Rabbis sat [

Rabbi Yehuda Nesi’a ]

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 Rabbis relied [

Rabbi Yehuda Nesi’a]

on the words of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and on the words of Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, who would say: A decree may not be enacted upon the public —

unless the majority of the public can abide by it.

And a decree that the public cannot abide by has no force and may be revoked!

And from where did they derive this matter?

For Rav Adda bar Ahava said: What is the verse

from which this matter is learned?