Avodah Zarah 38b (לח:) — the Talmud in English

And a gentile woman comes

and stirs,

turning it over with a spoon and mixing it,

until

the Jewish woman comes

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 status?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: This follows by way of a kal va-chomer:

this matter is permitted.

For if when

its completion

of the meat was performed

by a gentile

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

permitted,

then if

its completion was performed by a Jew—

all the more so

is it permitted!

It was also stated

another statement concerning this matter:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said; and some say

there are those who say that this matter was

said by Rav Aḥa bar bar Ḥana, who said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said—

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.

It is not prohibited,

but

only when both its beginning and its completion are performed by a gentile!

Ravina said: The halakha is as follows:

in all these forms of the case:

a.

This bread

is the bread,

for which a gentile heated

the oven

and a Jew baked

it,

b.

Alternatively,

and likewise in a case in which

he heated

the oven,

a Jew, and baked

it

a gentile,

c.

Alternatively,

and likewise in a case in which

he heated

the oven,

a gentile, and a gentile baked

the bread,

and a Jew came

and

stirred the fire beneath it,

rekindling the fire slightly.

That is fine!

That is sufficient, and the matter is permitted; it is not subject to the prohibition of gentile cooking.

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

a. A food that is eaten as it is while raw is not subject to the prohibition of gentile cooking.

b. The prohibition applies only to food fit to be served at a king’s table. Foods that are not eaten in a dignified manner are permitted.

c. The food is prohibited only when the gentile intends to cook it. However, 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 cooked as a result, it is permitted.

d. The prohibition applies only when the entire cooking was performed by a gentile. But if the beginning or the end of the cooking was performed by a Jew, the food is permitted.

Salted fish

that a gentile salted, thereby making it fit to eat even without cooking—

Ḥizkiyya permitted it,

they permitted it, since there was no cooking here,

but Rabbi Yoḥanan prohibited it,

because its salting and preparation for eating constitute its cooking.

A roasted egg

by a gentile—

Bar Kappara permitted it,

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

But Rabbi Yoḥanan prohibited it.

When

he came,

Rav Dimi

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said: With regard both to salted fish and to a roasted egg, Ḥizkiyya and Bar Kappara permitted them,

they permitted these two matters,

and Rabbi Yoḥanan prohibited them

both.

Rabbi Ḥiyya of Parva [

this was the name of his place],

happened to come

to

the house of

the

Exilarch

the head of the exile.

They said to him,

the members of that household:

A roasted egg

prepared by a gentile,

what

is its status?

He said to them,

to them:

Ḥizkiyya and Bar Kappara permitted it,

they permitted it,

but Rabbi Yoḥanan prohibited it.

And the statement of one

Rabbi Yoḥanan

does not stand in 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 like him

the halakha follows

Rabbi Yoḥanan,

and it is prohibited.

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

gave him to drink,

they gave Rav Zevid to drink

sharp vinegar,

sharp and deadly vinegar, because he had been stringent with them,

and his soul departed,

and he died!

The Sages taught: With regard to capers,

the protective covering of the fruit of the caper tree, which are customarily eaten raw, although some cook them: Since they are eaten raw, if a gentile cooked them, they are permitted.

And leeks,

leeks.

And the young shoots [

as will be explained below],

and hot water

hot water [which is not changed from its original state through cooking],

and their parched grains—

are permitted.

A roasted egg—

is prohibited.

Oil—

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court convened concerning it and permitted it.

It was taught: The young shoots

mentioned above, which are permitted,

are the fashelia [

a type of legume],

which are the shi’ata.

The Gemara explains:

What

is

shi’ata?

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “It has been forty years since this incident emerged from Egypt,”

forty years ago this incident emerged from Egypt [in which “shi’ata” was performed, as will be explained below],

and Rabba bar bar Ḥana himself

himself

said: “It has been sixty years,

sixty years have passed

since this incident emerged from Egypt,”

since this matter emerged from Egypt.

And they do not disagree;

they are not in disagreement, but

one spoke in his second decade, and the other in his second decade.

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

This is what happened:

They brought celery seeds,

they brought celery seeds,

and flax seeds,

flax seeds,

and fenugreek seeds,

fenugreek seeds,

and soaked them together in lukewarm water,

they soaked them together in lukewarm water,

and left them until they began to take root,

and left them until they began to sprout,

and brought new jugs,

and brought new vessels,

and filled them with water,

and filled them with water,

and soaked earth in them,

and soaked soil in them,

and attached them to it,

and attached these plants to it,

and entered the bathhouse

and entered the bathhouse.

By the time they emerged,

by the time they left the bathhouse,

they had sprouted,

these plants had sprouted,

and they ate from them

and ate from them.

And

through this

they cooled down from the hair of their heads to the toenails of their feet,

those leaving the bathhouse cooled down [from the heat and steam] from the hair of their heads to the toenails of their feet.

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

Rav Ashi said: Rabbi Ḥanina said to me—

“Words!”

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

And some say

there are those who say that this matter was performed

through words,

by means of sorcery. That is why it sprouted so quickly.

Introduction concerning “rendering a defective flavor”

A gentile’s food utensil, when it is not known whether forbidden food was cooked in it, or when, is presumed to be a utensil that has not been used within the previous day, and is therefore considered one that renders a defective flavor. We shall explain these two concepts:

a. “A utensil used within the previous day” is a utensil that absorbed flavor from hot food cooked inside it over a fire. During the twenty-four hours since the food was cooked in it, it is considered a utensil used within the previous day: the flavor absorbed in it remains as it was, with its superior flavor, and the utensil has the capacity to impart this superior absorbed flavor into other hot food when it is cooked in it.

“A utensil not used within the previous day” is a utensil upon which a full day [twenty-four hours] has already passed since it absorbed flavor from the food cooked in it, and nothing else was cooked in it in the interim. Therefore, the flavor absorbed within it is considered defective.

b. “Rendering a defective flavor”: A defective flavor absorbed in a utensil does not prohibit food, even if the utensil was used within the previous day.

As stated, even a superior flavor absorbed in a utensil becomes defective after twenty-four hours.

This issue is presented in the sugya before us and in the subsequent sugyot of the Gemara.

The Sages taught: With regard to date refuse,

the waste of dates from which beer was made,

belonging to gentiles, that was heated

was scalded

in

water

hot,

if this was done

in a large cauldron—

it is prohibited.

But if it was heated

in a small cauldron—

it is permitted.

The Gemara discusses this:

And which 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 due to its smallness there is no concern that something non-kosher may have been cooked in it.

However, this may be questioned:

Perhaps they cut it into pieces and inserted it,

it is possible that they cut the non-kosher item into small pieces and inserted it into this small vessel, and now the vessel is releasing the forbidden flavor into this hot water. And the Gemara explains:

Rather,

the measure of the vessel is

one into which even 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:

This is not difficult. This

measure was stated with regard to a small vessel

according to the one who says

that rendering a defective flavor—

is prohibited.

Therefore, a non-kosher substance that was in the utensil and whose flavor was released there prohibits the utensil and whatever is inside it.

And

this

view, that there is no difference between a small vessel and a large one, is

according to the one who says that rendering a defective flavor is permitted.

Rav Sheshet said: This cooked oil of the Arameans,

oil cooked by gentiles—

is prohibited.

Rav Safra said:

But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted gentile oil. If so,

why should we be concerned about it,

why should we be concerned and prohibit it?

If

the concern is

because of admixture,

lest they mixed gentile wine into it—

it becomes foul

and spoils because of this. If so, there is no concern that they might mix it in this way.

And

if

the concern is

because of gentile cooking,

the oil

is eaten as it is while raw

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

And

if

the concern is that during the cooking the utensil released

the residue [

the release of forbidden substance from]

gentiles—

then

it renders a defective flavor, and is permitted?

And if so, there is no basis for forbidding it in accordance with Rav Sheshet.

They inquired of

him:

from Rabbi Asi: These cooked dates

—these are cooked dates—

of Arameans

—of gentiles—

what

is their status?

The subject of this question is as follows: dates

that are sweet

—sweet dates—

you need not ask

—there is no doubt concerning their status—

for they are certainly permitted

because, since they are sweet, they are eaten even raw.

Bitter

—bitter dates—

you need not ask

—there is no doubt concerning their status—

for they are certainly forbidden.

Since they are not ordinarily eaten except through cooking, they are included in the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles.

When you do ask

the question concerns

the middle ones

—dates that are neither sweet nor [unclear: the source repeats “not sweet”], and which, in pressing circumstances, are eaten even raw, although ideally they are cooked—

what

is the status of these?

Rabbi Asi said to them:

What is there to ask about them

—what uncertainty is there concerning this?

My master

[the reference is to Rav Asi’s teacher]

forbade them. And who was he?

Who was Rav Asi’s teacher?

Levi.

Shatita

—a dish made from flour of roasted grains, which were roasted in an oven—

Rav permitted it

—he permitted it.

Shmuel’s father and Levi

forbade it.

The Gemara explains:

With

flour made from roasted

wheat and barley

—wheat and barley—

everyone agrees

—there was no dispute—

that it is permitted

—that it is permitted, since the roasted grains themselves are permitted, as we learned above, and so too is the flour made from them.

With lentils of the marsh

—with roasted lentils, which are particularly sweet, and therefore vinegar is mixed into them—

everyone agrees

—there was no dispute—

that it is forbidden

—that it is forbidden, since the vinegar comes from prohibited wine.

When they disagree, it is with lentils mixed with water.

The dispute concerns the status of lentil flour into which water was mixed in order to lessen its sweetness somewhat.

One master

—Shmuel’s father and Levi—

held that we issue a decree concerning this on account of that.

They issue a decree and forbid a mixture with water, so that people will not confuse it with a mixture containing vinegar.

And the other master

—Rav—

held that we do not issue such a decree.

Some say

that

with lentils mixed with water

—lentil flour mixed with water—

everyone agrees that it is forbidden.

Since there is concern that it may be exchanged for a mixture containing vinegar.

When they disagree

—their dispute is—

with wheat and barley

—with a dish made from flour of roasted wheat and barley.

One master

—Shmuel’s father and Levi—

held that we issue a decree concerning this on account of that.

They decree against the barley-and-wheat dish on account of the lentil dish, which was forbidden because of the vinegar added to it.

And the other master

—Rav—

held that we do not issue such a decree

—there is no reason to issue a decree on that account.

Rav said: Two types of shatita

—two types of dish made from flour of roasted grains—

were sent

—were sent—

by Barzillai the Gileadite to David.

As it is written

[II Samuel 17:28]:

“Beds, basins, and earthen vessels; wheat and barley, flour and roasted grain, beans and lentils, and roasted grain.”

From the fact that “roasted grain” is repeated twice in the verse, we learn that he sent him two types of this dish.

The Gemara adds concerning this matter:

And only now do they take out basket after basket to the markets of Nehardea

—nowadays, when they take out baskets upon baskets filled with this dish—

and no one is concerned

—there is no one who is concerned—

about this

—about the position—

of Shmuel’s father and Levi,

but they follow Rav, who permitted it.

We learned in our Mishna:

And pickled foods into which it is customary to put wine

are permitted to derive benefit from but are forbidden to eat.

Ḥizkiya said:

This permission to derive benefit from them

was taught

—this ruling—

only

with regard to pickled foods

that it is customary

to put wine into, but it is not known whether wine was actually put into these particular pickled foods.

But with

regard to a case where it is

known

—it is certainly known that wine was put into these pickled foods—

it is forbidden even to derive benefit from them.

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 do these pickled foods differ—

from muries

—in which most of the world puts wine, so that it is as though we know that wine was put into the muries—

that

in any event

the Sages permitted it

—permitted it—

to derive benefit from?

And it answers:

There

—with muries, the wine is added only

to remove the foul odor

—to remove the stench of the fish, and not to sweeten it. Thus, it provides no perceptible benefit, and it is as though it has been lost and is not present.

However,

here

—with pickled foods, wine is added

to sweeten

the flavor

—to sweeten their flavor. And because of this mixture, they are forbidden.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan

disagreed with Ḥizkiya and

said: Even when it is

the case that it is

known

that wine was put into these pickled foods,

also

—as well—

it is permitted

to derive benefit from them.

The Gemara asks:

And

according to Rabbi Yoḥanan,

in what way is it different

—in what way does this matter differ—

from muries,

into which most people put wine, and

according to

the opinion of

Rabbi Meir, who forbids deriving benefit from it

because it is known that it contains wine?