Avodah Zarah 38a — the Talmud in English

And the conclusion is:

rather,

every prohibition of food cooked by gentiles is only

rabbinic.

For they decreed this so that a Jew would not become accustomed to eating at the home of a gentile, and through this the gentile would feed him impure food.

And “it is called,”

the verse that was brought concerning this matter,

is merely an asmachta!

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said in the name of Rav: Every

food

that is eaten as it is while alive

and does not require cooking—even if a gentile cooked it,

there is no prohibition of food cooked by idolaters.

For it can be eaten even without cooking.

And the Gemara brings concerning this matter:

In Sura, they taught

this statement of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak in the name of Rav

thus,

in this manner, as it was brought here.

Whereas

in Pumbedita, they taught it thus

they taught it in the following manner:

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said in the name of Rav: Every

food

that is not

sufficiently honored, and therefore is not

eaten at the table of kings

to accompany bread,

there is no prohibition of food cooked by idolaters.

And the Gemara clarifies:

What is the difference between them

between the two formulations of this statement?

The practical difference between them

is in

small fish, mushrooms [

mushrooms ],

and porridge.

For on the one hand, they are not eaten alive, but require cooking. And on the other hand, they are not brought to the table of kings.

According to the first formulation [that the definition of the prohibition is cooking], these foods are prohibited. According to the second formulation [that the definition of the prohibition is food brought to the table of kings], these foods are permitted.

Rav Asi said in the name of Rav: Salted small fish have no prohibition of food cooked by idolaters.

Since they are salted, they are eaten even when alive.

Rav Yosef said: If a

gentile

roasted the salted fish,

a Jew may rely upon them

because although they are not considered “food cooked by” gentiles, they can nevertheless be considered a cooked dish

for the purpose of [

with regard to ]

the eruv tavshilin. [

One prepares a ready cooked dish on the eve of a Festival that occurs on the eve of Shabbat, and “mixes” into it so that he may prepare from the Festival for Shabbat ].

And if he made them

and if he made

a gentile

from the salted fish

a kasa de-harsena [

small salted fish fried in their intestinal oil and in flour ],

it is prohibited.

The Gemara asks:

Obviously,

it is certainly prohibited?!

And it answers:

Lest you say

we would say that

the harsena,

the salted fish fat found in this dish, is

the principal

component of the dish [and with it there is no food cooked by gentiles], and not the flour,

it teaches us: the flour,

for the flour is the

principal,

and therefore the food is prohibited under the law of food cooked by gentiles.

Rav Beruna said in the name of Rav: A gentile who kindled a fire

fire in a field [an open field],

all the locusts

that

are found

in the field

and were scorched and cooked because of the heat of the fire—

are prohibited .

And the Gemara discusses:

What are the circumstances,

in what manner is this case speaking?

If you say

that the situation is one

where he did not know

it was not known

which

of the locusts

was pure and which

of them

was impure,

why specifically a gentile,

why is it necessary to establish that specifically he kindled the field, when

even

if

a Jew

did this,

also,

it would likewise be prohibited, for perhaps he will eat an impure locust!

Rather,

it must be established that we know that the locusts in the field are permitted. And the reason for the prohibition is

because of food cooked by idolaters.

And this is difficult:

In such a case

and in such a manner,

is it prohibited

are the locusts prohibited?

But did Rav Hanan bar Ami not say in the name of Rabbi Fedat in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: This gentile who singes the head

who singes the head of an animal with fire

is permitted to eat from it

it is permitted to eat from it, even though it was singed by a gentile. And

even

if he singed

the beginning of its ear

from the ear, which is soft and is easily roasted through singeing, even so it is permitted, because he did not intend to do this in order to cook it,

this demonstrates,

it is evident from here that one should assume that the gentile does not intend to singe in order to roast, but only

to remove

to remove

the hair

of the animal

he intends

with this singeing, and therefore there is no prohibition because of food cooked by a gentile. And if so,

here too,

let us say likewise here, that the gentile does not intend to cook the locusts in the field, but

intends to clear the field,

he intends to uncover [clean] the field; so why are the locusts prohibited?

The Gemara explains:

In fact,

the case is indeed one

where he did not know

it was not known

which was pure and which was impure.

The locusts were not prohibited because the gentile kindled the fire,

but the event that occurred

that incident in which they instructed that the locusts be prohibited

involved a gentile.

Indeed, the matter would likewise have been prohibited with a Jew.

The law concerning a gentile who singed the head of an animal was brought above. The Gemara discusses it:

The matter itself—

Rav Hanan bar Ami said in the name of Rabbi Fedat, in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: This gentile who singes the head,

who singed the head of an animal—

it is permitted

permitted

to eat from it

to eat from it. And

even

if he singed and roasted

the beginning of its ear,

from its ear.

Ravina said: Therefore, this gentile who threw a splinter into the furnace

placed a wooden peg in the fire oven,

and a Jew buried a squash in it at the outset,

and a Jew placed a squash there beforehand,

it is entirely well,

the squash is permitted.

The Gemara asks:

Obviously!?

This is precisely what Rabbi Yohanan said!

And it answers:

Lest you say

we would say that the gentile

intended to cook the vessel

he placed the wooden peg in order to soften it, which is a process of cooking, and since he heated it for the purpose of cooking, the squash that was cooked together with it should be prohibited,

it teaches us

that the gentile only

intended to harden the vessel,

his intention was to harden the wooden peg.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: If a Jew placed

meat upon coals, and a gentile came and turned

it—

it is permitted.

The Gemara clarifies:

What are the circumstances

how did this matter occur?

If you say

that the state of the meat at the time of the turning was

that if he had not turned it

if he had not turned it

it would have cooked

it would have cooked in any event,

obviously

it is permitted.

Rather, is it not

that the situation was

that if he had not

if he had not

turned

the meat,

it would not have cooked,

it would not have cooked, and through his turning it, it cooked?

If so,

why is it permitted?

For is this not

the cooking of

idolaters

this meat?

The Gemara explains:

It is necessary

this law was necessary only for the following case:

that if he had not turned it

if he had not turned it,

it would have cooked in two hours

it would have been cooked over the course of two hours.

But now it cooks in one hour,

and now, once he turned it, it cooked in one hour.

Lest you say

I would say that since

bringing the cooking closer

brought the cooking of the meat closer by an hour,

it is a matter

the matter is considered cooking and the meat should be prohibited because of this,

it teaches us

that since in any event the meat would have cooked, it is not prohibited because of the gentile’s act. The Gemara asks:

But did Rabbi Asi not say in the name of Rabbi Yohanan—

every food that is

slightly cooked

like the food of Ben Drosai [

the name of a bandit who was always in a hurry. And once his food was somewhat cooked ], he would not wait, but would eat it as it was ]

has no prohibition of food cooked by idolaters.

And this is even more precise:

but

if it is still

not like ma'achal ben Dorsai

and a gentile cooked it,

there is in it the prohibition of cooking by gentiles.

And if so, it is possible that when the gentile turned the meat over, it was still not cooked like ma'achal ben Dorsai, and it turns out that the gentile cooked it?

The Gemara resolves:

there

in the law, “Anything that is like ma'achal ben Dorsai has no prohibition of cooking by gentiles,” it is speaking of

such as when he placed it in a silta,

when the meat was lying in a basket,

and the gentile took it and placed it in the oven.

And the gentile took it and placed it in the oven.

And if so, all its cooking was performed by the gentile. But here, when the meat is already placed upon coals or in the oven, and the gentile merely turned it over, there is nothing in this, for in any event it would have become cooked [although for a longer time

It was likewise taught: An Israelite places meat upon coals, and a gentile comes and turns it over until the Israelite comes from the synagogue or from the beit-midrash, and he need not be concerned

this Israelite, on account of cooking by gentiles.

And likewise,

a woman sets a pot upon a stove,