Avodah Zarah 38b — the Talmud in English

And a gentile woman comes ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

and stirs,

turning it over with a spoon and mixing it,

until she comes

the Jewish woman

from the bathhouse or from the synagogue, and she is not concerned!

They raised a dilemma before them,

they were uncertain:

If a gentile placed

the meat on the fire,

and a Jew turned it over—

what

is its law?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: kal va-chomer

that this matter is permitted.

For if in a situation where

its completion

of the meat was done

by a gentile

by his turning it over, it was decided that it is

permitted,

then if its

completion was done by a Jew—

is it not all the more so

that it is permitted!

It was also stated

something further concerning this matter:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and some say

there are those who say that this matter

was said by Rav Aḥa bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

whether a gentile placed

the meat on the fire

and a Jew turned it over,

or whether a Jew placed

the meat

and a gentile turned it over—

it is permitted.

And it is not prohibited

except

until its beginning and its completion are in the hands of a gentile!

Ravina said: The halakha:

in all these forms of cases:

a.

This is bread

this bread,

that a gentile heated

who heated his oven

and a Jew baked

it

—

b.

Alternatively,

and likewise in a situation

that he heated,

heated the oven

and baked

it

a gentile,

c.

Alternatively

and likewise in a situation

that he heated

heated it

a gentile, and a gentile baked

the bread,

and a Jew came

and came

and stirred the fire beneath it,

rekindled the fire slightly

It is properly effective!

That is sufficient, and the matter is permitted; this does not involve gentile cooking.

The summary of the sugya indicates that several conditions must be fulfilled for food to be prohibited on account of gentile cooking:

a. A thing that is eaten as it is, alive, is not subject to gentile cooking.

b. There is a prohibition only with food that is served on the table of kings. But foods that are not eaten in a manner of honor are permitted.

c. The food was prohibited only when the gentile intended to cook it. But if he heated the oven in order to dry some utensil in it [or for other heating needs], and there was a stew there that was cooked through this, it is permitted.

d. There is a prohibition only when all the cooking was done by a gentile. But if the beginning of the cooking or its end was done by a Jew, the food is permitted.

Salted fish

which a gentile salted, and through this it became fit to eat even without cooking—

Ḥizkiyya permits,

he permitted it, since there was no cooking here,

and Rabbi Yoḥanan prohibited it,

because its salting and preparation for eating—this is its cooking.

A roasted egg

by a gentile—

Bar Kappara permits,

he permitted it because the egg itself is enclosed within the shell, and the gentile does not touch it at all.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan prohibited it.

When

when

Rav Dimi

came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said: One is salted fish, and one is a roasted egg; Ḥizkiyya and Bar Kappara permit

they permitted these two things,

and Rabbi Yoḥanan prohibited

them.

Rabbi Ḥiyya of Parva [

this was the name of his place],

happened to come

he happened to come

to the house of

to the house of

the Exilarch

the head of the exile.

They said to him

the members of that household:

A roasted egg

by a gentile,

what

what is its law?

He said to them

to them:

Ḥizkiyya and Bar Kappara permit

they permitted it,

and Rabbi Yoḥanan prohibited it.

And the statement of one

Rabbi Yoḥanan

does not stand in the place of two

who disagree with him, and therefore it is permitted.

Rav Zevid said to them: Do not heed him,

do not listen to him in this matter. For

Abaye said as follows: The halakha is in accordance with him

the halakha is like

Rabbi Yoḥanan,

and it is prohibited.

Those members of the Exilarch’s household who were “people of improper character,”

gave him to drink,

they gave Rav Zevid to drink

a deadly vinegar potion,

a sharp and lethal vinegar because he had been stringent against them,

and his soul departed,

and he died!

The Sages taught: The capers,

the protective covering for the fruit of the caper tree, whose ordinary manner is that they are eaten raw, although some cook them. Since they are eaten raw, if a gentile cooked them, they are permitted.

And the leeks

leeks.

And the seedlings [

as will be explained below],

and the hot water

hot water [which does not change from its original state through cooking],

and their parched grains—

are permitted.

A roasted egg—

is prohibited.

Oil—

Rabbi Judah the Prince and his court took a vote concerning it and permitted it.

It was taught: It is the seedling

mentioned above, which is permitted,

it is the pashlia [

a type of legume],

it is the shiata.

The Gemara clarifies:

What

what is

the shiata?

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: It is forty years that this incident went out from Egypt,

forty years ago this incident emerged from Egypt [in which shiata was performed, as will be explained below],

and Rabba bar bar Ḥana himself

himself

said: It is sixty years,

sixty years have passed since

this incident went out from Egypt

that this matter emerged from Egypt.

And they do not disagree,

they are not in disagreement, but

one [spoke] in his second decade, and one [spoke] in his second decade.

Each of them said this during his own years [with a difference of twenty years].

And this is the matter:

They bring seeds of celery,

they bring celery seeds,

and seeds of flax,

flax seeds,

and seeds of fenugreek,

fenugreek seeds,

and soak them together in lukewarm water,

they soak them together in lukewarm water,

and leave it until it takes hold,

and leave it until they begin to sprout,

and bring new vessels,

and bring new vessels,

and fill them with water

and fill them with water,

and soak clay in them,

and soak earth in them,

and attach them to it,

and attach these plants to it,

and enter the bathhouse

and enter the bathhouse.

When they emerge,

until they emerge from the bathhouse,

they sprout,

these plants sprout,

and they eat from them

and they eat from them.

And

through this

they cool down from the hair of their heads to the nails of their feet,

those emerging from the bathhouse cool down [from the heat and the steam], from the hair of their heads to their toenails.

And from this matter we learn that if a gentile soaked the plants, even in hot water — it is permitted.

Rav Ashi said: Rabbi Ḥanina said to me—

words!

This description is merely words and falsehood, since it is impossible for the plants to sprout in so short a time.

And some say

and there are those who say that this matter was performed

through words

by means of sorcery. Therefore, it sprouts so quickly.

Introduction concerning “imparting a defective taste”

A food utensil of gentiles, when it is not known whether a forbidden substance was cooked in it, or when, has the presumption of being a utensil “not of the same day,” and it is therefore considered one that “imparts a defective taste.” We shall explain these two concepts:

a. “A utensil of the same day” is a utensil that absorbed taste from hot food cooked inside it over the fire, and during the twenty-four hours [twenty-four hours] since the stew was cooked in it, it is considered “a utensil of the same day.” The taste absorbed in it remains as it is, with its excellent taste, and the utensil is capable of imparting the excellent taste absorbed in it to other hot food when it is cooked inside it.

“A utensil not of the same day” is a utensil upon which a day [twenty-four hours] has already passed since it absorbed the taste from the stew cooked in it, and nothing else was cooked in it in the meantime. Therefore, the taste absorbed inside it is considered defective.

b. “Imparting a defective taste”: a defective taste absorbed in a utensil does not prohibit, even if it is a utensil of the same day.

And as stated, even an excellent taste absorbed in a utensil becomes defective after twenty-four hours.

This issue is brought in the sugya before us and also in the Gemara’s sugyot below.

The Sages taught: The date refuse,

the waste of dates from which beer was made

of gentiles, which were heated

scalded

in

water

hot,

if this was done

in a large cauldron—

it is prohibited.

And if they were heated

in a small cauldron—

it is permitted.

And the Gemara discusses:

And what is a small cauldron?

Rabbi Yannai said: Any one into which a sparrow cannot enter.

Since its opening is narrow, this is a small cauldron. It is permitted, since because of its smallness there is no concern that something impure was cooked in it.

However, one must ask:

Perhaps they reduced it and inserted it,

perhaps they cut the impure substance into small pieces and inserted it into this small utensil, and now the utensil is emitting the forbidden taste into this hot water? And the Gemara explains:

Rather,

the measure of the utensil is

any one into which the head of a sparrow cannot enter,

and a piece of forbidden substance smaller than this is not possible.

The Gemara asks:

But was it not taught: Both a large cauldron and a small cauldron—

are permitted!?

And it answers:

It is not difficult. This

this measure was stated with regard to a small utensil

according to the one who says

imparting a defective taste—

is prohibited.

Therefore, an impure substance that was in the utensil and whose taste was emitted there prohibits the utensil and what is inside it.

And

this

the view that there is no difference between a small utensil and a large one is

according to the one who says: imparting a defective taste is permitted.

Rav Sheshet said: This cooked oil of the Arameans,

oil that gentiles cooked—

is prohibited.

Rav Safra said:

But Rabbi Judah the Prince permitted gentile oil. If so,

why should we be concerned about it,

why be concerned and prohibit it?

If

the concern is

because of mixing

lest they mixed gentile wine into it—

it becomes putrid

it becomes foul because of this. If so, there is no concern that they will mix it in this manner.

And

if

the concern is

because of gentile cooking,

behold, the oil

is eaten as it is raw

even without cooking. In such a case, it is not prohibited because of gentile cooking.

And

if

the concern is that during the cooking the utensil emitted

the absorbed substances [

the emission of forbidden substance of]

gentiles—

behold,

it imparts a defective taste, and is permitted?

And if so, there is no basis to prohibit, like Rav Sheshet.

They asked him

they asked him

of Rabbi Asi: These cooked dates

these are the cooked dates

of gentiles

of gentiles,

what

what is their status?

And the issue in this question is as follows: dates

sweet

sweet—

you should have no question

there is no doubt concerning their status,

for certainly they are permitted

they are permitted. Since they are sweet, they are eaten even raw.

bitter,

bitter dates,

you should have no question

there is no doubt concerning their status,

for certainly they are prohibited.

Since there is no way to eat them except through cooking. And they are included among the cooking of gentiles.

When you should have a question,

the question is concerning

intermediate ones,

intermediate dates that are neither sweet nor sweet, and in pressing circumstances they eat them even when they are raw. But ideally they cook them.

what,

what is the status of these?

Rabbi Asi said to them:

what is your question about them

what is the doubt in this,

for my master

the reference is to the master of Rav Asi

prohibited. And who is he,

who is the master of Rav Asi?—

Levi.

she’tita,

a dish made from flour of parched grain that they roasted in an oven—

Rav permitted them.

He permitted them.

The father of Shmuel, and Levi—

prohibited them.

And the Gemara explains:

with

flour made from parched grain,

wheat and barley

wheat and barley,

everyone agrees

they did not disagree

that it is permitted

that they are permitted. Since the parched grains themselves are permitted, as we learned above, and likewise the flour made from them.

with lentils of vinegar,

with parched lentils, which are especially sweet, and therefore they mix vinegar into them,

everyone agrees,

they did not disagree

that it is prohibited

that it is prohibited. Since the vinegar comes from forbidden wine.

When they disagree is with lentils of water.

It concerns the status of lentil flour into which they mixed water in order to lessen its sweetness somewhat.

One master,

the father of Shmuel and Levi,

holds: We issue a decree concerning this on account of that.

We issue a decree and prohibit a mixture with water, so that they will not confuse it with a mixture with vinegar.

And the other master

Rav

holds: We do not issue a decree.

And there are those who say

there are those who say that

with lentils of water

with lentil flour mixed with water,

everyone agrees that it is prohibited.

Since there is concern that perhaps they will exchange it for a mixture with vinegar.

When they disagree

their disagreement is

with wheat and barley.

With a dish made from flour of parched wheat and barley.

One master,

the father of Shmuel and Levi,

holds: We issue a decree concerning this on account of that.

We issue a decree concerning barley-and-wheat dishes because of a lentil dish that was prohibited on account of the vinegar placed in it.

And the other master,

Rav

holds: We do not issue a decree

there is no reason to issue a decree on account of this.

Rav said: Two kinds of she’tita,

two kinds of a dish made from flour of parched grain,

sent

sent

Barzillai the Gileadite to David.

as it is written

(II Samuel 17:28)

“Beds and couches, and vessels of a potter, wheat and barley, and flour and parched grain, and beans and lentils and parched grain.”

And from the fact that “parched grain” is repeated twice in the verse, we learn that he sent him two kinds of the dish.

And the Gemara adds concerning this matter:

And now it is that they bring basket after basket to the markets of Nehardea

now, at this time, when they take out baskets upon baskets full of this dish,

and there is no one who is concerned

and there is no one who is concerned

about this

in the opinion

of the father of Shmuel and Levi,

but rather they follow Rav, who permitted it.

We learned in our Mishna:

And pickled foods into which it is customary to put wine

are permitted in benefit and prohibited for eating.

Hezekiah said:

this permission of benefit,

they taught

it

only

with pickled foods

into which it is customary

to put wine, but it is not known whether specifically into these pickled foods before him wine was in fact put.

But if

if

it is known

that wine was certainly put into these pickled foods—

it is prohibited even in benefit.

Ritva added and explained that there are likewise pickled foods in which it is not customary to place wine. Thus, there are two uncertainties before us: first, whether wine was placed in them or not; and second, even if wine was placed in them, perhaps it does not impart flavor to the pickled foods [the details of these uncertainties follow the explanation of the Raavad]. Therefore, they are permitted for benefit and are prohibited only for eating.

The Gemara asks:

And in what way is it different

in what way are these pickled foods different

from muries,

into which most of the world puts wine, and it is therefore as though it is known to us that wine was put into the muries,

that

in any event

they permitted

they permitted it

the Rabbis in benefit?

And it answers:

There

with muries, the wine was put into it only

to remove the foulness

to remove from it the foulness of the fish, and not to sweeten it. And therefore it has a perceptible benefit, and it is as though it has been lost and is not [present].

However,

here

with pickled foods, they put wine into them

to sweeten

the flavor

to sweeten their flavor. And on account of this mixture, they are prohibited.

And Rabbi Yohanan

disagreed with Hezekiah, and

said: even if

in a case where

it is known

that wine was put into these pickled foods,

also

also

it is permitted

in benefit.

The Gemara asks:

And

according to Rabbi Yohanan,

in what way is it different

in what way is the matter different

from muries,

into which most of the world puts wine, and

according to

the view of

Rabbi Meir, who prohibits it in benefit

since it is known that there is wine in it?