Avodah Zarah 38a (לח.) — the Talmud in English

And the conclusion is:

Rather,

the prohibition against dishes cooked by gentiles is only

rabbinic.

The Sages instituted this decree so that a Jew would not become accustomed to eating at the home of a gentile, and as a result the gentile might feed him non-kosher food.

And the verse,

the verse cited in this matter,

is merely an asmachta!

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said that Rav said: Any

food

that is eaten as it is alive

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

there is no prohibition of food cooked by gentiles.

This is because it can be eaten even without cooking.

The Gemara cites a related tradition:

In Sura, they taught

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

as follows:

in the manner in which it was cited here.

But

in Pumbedita, they taught it as follows:

they taught the statement in this form:

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said that Rav said: Any

food

that is not

sufficiently prestigious, and therefore is not

eaten at the table of kings

as a relish with bread,

there is no prohibition of food cooked by gentiles.

The Gemara clarifies:

What is the practical difference

between the two formulations of this statement?

There is a practical difference

between them with regard to

small fish, ardei [

mushrooms],

and porridge.

On the one hand, they are not eaten raw but require cooking. On the other hand, they are not served at 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 served at the table of kings], these foods are permitted.

Rav Asi said that Rav said: Salted small fish are not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles.

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

Rav Yosef said: If a

gentile

roasted the salted fish,

a Jew may rely on them

even though they are not considered “cooked” by gentiles; nevertheless, they may be considered a cooked dish

with regard to

the halakha of

eruv tavshilin. [

One prepares a cooked dish before a Festival that occurs on Friday and “mixes” the Festival and Shabbat preparations through it, so that he may prepare food on the Festival for Shabbat.]

And if he made

and if the

gentile

made from the salted fish

kasa de-harsena [

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

it is prohibited.

The Gemara is surprised:

Is it obvious

that it is prohibited?!

It answers:

Lest you say

that

harsena,

the fat of the salted fish found in this dish, is the

principal component

of the dish [and there is no prohibition of food cooked by gentiles in its case], rather than the flour,

it teaches us that it is the flour

that is the

principal component,

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

Rav Beruna said that Rav said: A gentile who kindled a fire

in a meadow [an open field],

all the locusts

that

were

in the meadow

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

are prohibited .

The Gemara discusses the case:

What are the circumstances?

In what manner is this statement speaking?

If we say

that the case is one in which

he did not know

which

one

of the locusts

is pure and which

of them

is impure,

why specifically a gentile?

Why must the case be established as one in which specifically he kindled the fire in the meadow?

Even

if

a Jew

did so,

also,

it would be prohibited, since he might eat an impure locust!

Rather,

the case must be one in which we know that the locusts in the meadow are permitted, and the reason for the prohibition is

the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

In a case like this,

could it be that

it is prohibited

and the locusts are forbidden?

But didn’t Rav Ḥanan bar Ami say that Rabbi Fedat said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In the case of this gentile who singed an animal’s head,

who singed the head of an animal by fire,

it is permitted to eat from it,

even though it was singed by a gentile.

Even

if he singed

the upper part of its ear,

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

Apparently,

it can be inferred from here that the gentile did not intend to singe it in order to roast it, but only

to remove

the

hair,

of the animal,

he intended

to singe it for that purpose, and therefore there is no prohibition of food cooked by a gentile. If so,

here too,

we should say that the gentile did not intend to cook the locusts in the meadow, but

he intended only to clear the meadow,

he intended to uncover [to clear] the field; why, then, are the locusts prohibited?

The Gemara explains:

Actually,

the case is indeed one in which

he did not know

which was

pure and which was impure.

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

but the incident that occurred,

the incident in which they ruled that the locusts were prohibited,

involved a gentile.

Indeed, had the same thing occurred with a Jew, the locusts would also have been prohibited.

The halakha concerning a gentile who singed an animal’s head was cited above. The Gemara discusses it:

The matter itself—

Rav Ḥanan bar Ami said that Rabbi Fedat said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In the case of this gentile who singed an animal’s head,

who singed an animal’s head—

it is permitted

to eat

from it.

And

even

if he singed and roasted

the upper part of its ear,

from its ear.

Ravina said: Therefore, in the case of this gentile who cast a splinter into the furnace

and placed a wooden peg in the fire of the furnace,

and a Jew had initially buried a squash in it,

and a Jew had placed a squash there beforehand,

it is well,

the squash is permitted.

The Gemara is surprised:

Is it obvious!?

This is precisely what Rabbi Yoḥanan said!

It answers:

Lest you say

that the gentile

intended to cook the utensil,

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

it teaches us

that the gentile intended only

to harden the utensil,

to harden the wooden peg.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If a Jew placed

meat on coals, and a gentile came and turned it over

in them—

it is permitted.

The Gemara clarifies:

What are the circumstances?

How did this incident occur?

If we say

that the state of the meat at the time it was turned over was such

that had he not turned it over,

if he had not turned it over,

it would have cooked,

it would have cooked in any event,

it is obvious

that it is permitted.

Rather, is it not

that the situation was

that had he not

if he had not

turned over

the meat,

it would not have cooked,

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

If so,

why is it permitted?

But this is

food cooked by

gentiles,

this meat!

The Gemara explains:

It is necessary

only for the following case:

That had he not turned it over,

if he had not turned it over,

it would have cooked in two hours,

it would have cooked over the course of two hours.

But now it cooks in one hour,

and now, after he turned it over, it cooked in one hour.

Lest you say

that since

bringing the cooking closer

brought the cooking of the meat forward by an hour,

it is a significant act,

it is considered cooking and the meat should be prohibited on account of this,

it teaches us

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

But didn’t Rabbi Asi say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said—

Any food that is

partially cooked

like the food of ben Drosai [

the name of a bandit who was always in a hurry; once his food was partially cooked, he would not wait and would eat it as it was]

is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles.

And this is more precise:

indeed,

if it was still

not cooked to the stage of the food of ben Drosai

and a gentile cooked it,

it is subject to the prohibition of gentile cooking.

If so, it is possible that when the gentile turned the meat over, it was still not cooked to the stage of the food of ben Drosai, and it follows that the gentile cooked it?

The Gemara resolves this:

there,

in the case of the ruling that “anything that is like the food of ben Drosai is not subject to the prohibition of gentile cooking,” this refers to

a case where he placed it in a basket,

meaning that the meat had been lying in a basket,

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

The gentile took it and placed it in the oven.

And therefore, all its cooking was performed by the gentile. Here, however, when the meat was already lying on coals or in the oven, and the gentile merely turned it over, this has no effect, since in any event it would have become cooked [although for a longer time].

A beraita likewise teaches: A Jew may place meat on coals, and a gentile comes and turns it over until the Jew returns from the synagogue or from the beit-midrash, and the Jew need not be concerned

that this meat is subject to the prohibition of gentile cooking.

And similarly,

a woman may place a pot on a stove,