Avodah Zarah 39a — the Talmud in English

The Gemara answers:

there

when he dips his bread into muryas,

its substance is actually discernible,

for he is eating from the wine itself, since the wine becomes part of the muryas.

However,

here

with pickled foods

their substance is not discernible.

The wine does not constitute part of the food, since it is mixed only into the sauce that preserves the pickled foods, and it is not eaten together with them.

We learned in our Mishna:

chopped terit

a type of chopped fish

and brine in which there is no fish

a kalbit is swimming, and the ḥilek, and so forth.

And the Gemara discusses:

What

is

the ḥilek?

Rav Naḥman bar Abba said that Rav said: This is the sultanit.

A small, young fish, which at the beginning of its growth has no scales, but they are destined to grow after some time.

And for what reason is it forbidden,

for it is a kosher fish? —

Because

they are small fish, and at the time of fishing

a arvona rises with it,

and other impure fish become mixed with it.

The Sages taught:

A fish that

does not now have scales, but is destined to grow them later, such as the sultanit and the afitz

another type of small fish

is

permitted.

A fish that

now has,

while it is in the water, scales,

but is destined to shed

them

when it rises from the sea, such as

these types of fish:

the akonas, the afonas, the katasפטייס, the akספטייס, and the otnas —

is permitted.

He proclaimed

he proclaimed

Rabbi Abbahu in Caesarea: Fish innards,

their fat,

and their eggs,

their eggs

may be purchased

bought

from anyone,

and even from a gentile, because

it is presumed that they come only from

places called

Pelusa and Spain.

And impure fish are not found there.

As in that which Abaye said: This tzachanta

ḥilek

of the

Bab River

that came from the river called “Bab”

is permitted,

permitted [because impure fish are not found there].

What is the reason,

why indeed are impure fish not found there?

If you say

that impure fish are not found there

because the waters are swift,

for the river flows quickly and forcefully,

and this impure fish

cannot survive there,

since it does not have

that it does not have

a spinal cord,

therefore

in a place where the waters are swift,

a place where the waters flow there forcefully,

it cannot remain

it cannot be there.

It is not possible to say this. For

we see

indeed we see

that it remains,

that impure fish nevertheless exist there.

Rather, because the waters are salty,

for the waters there are salty.

And this impure fish, since it does not have scales,

that it has no scales,

in a place where the waters are salty it cannot remain,

it cannot be in salty water.

This too is not possible to say. For

we see

indeed we see

that it remains,

that impure fish nevertheless exist there.

Rather, because it does not produce silt,

the riverbed of that river cannot produce

an impure fish.

Ravina said: Nowadays

in our times,

since they pour into it

that are poured into the Bab River,

the Gozan River and the Gamda River —

they are forbidden.

The fish that come from it are forbidden, since there is concern for the impure fish that came from the other rivers.

Abaye said: This

fish called

the ḥamra de-yama

the sea donkey —

is permitted

permitted.

And the fish called

the tora de-yama

the sea ox —

is forbidden.

And your sign

a sign for this matter: a living creature that is

impure

on dry land is

pure

in the sea [such as a donkey].

And

pure

on dry land is

impure

in the sea [an ox].

Rav Ashi said:

The fish called

the shefar nuna —

is permitted

permitted.

And the one called

the kadesh nuna —

is forbidden.

And your sign

a sign for the matter, from what is stated [Exodus 16:23]

“Holy to the Lord”

just as something holy is forbidden, so the fish called “kadesh nuna” is forbidden.

Some say

there are those who say that the fish called

“kever nuna” —

is forbidden.

And your sign

a sign for the matter: it is impure like

the graves of idolaters.

Rabbi Akiva happened to come

to

a place called

“Ginzak.” They brought before him

they brought before him

that

fish called

“nuna,” which resembled

which was similar

to

the impure fish called

“ḥifusha.”

And in order to examine it, Rabbi Akiva did this:

he covered it with a basket,

he covered it with a basket, and the fish thrashed inside it.

He saw scales on it,

after the shaking he saw scales in the basket,

and permitted it

and permitted it.

Rav Ashi happened to come

happened to come

to

a place called

“Tameduria.”

They brought before him

they brought before him

that

fish called

“nuna, which resembled

which was similar

to

an impure fish,

the tselofḥa.

He held it opposite the sun

he took it opposite the sunlight,

he saw that it had fine growths,

and saw that it had fine scales,

and permitted it

he permitted it.

Rav Ashi happened to come to a certain place

he happened to come to that place,

they brought before him

they brought before him

“nuna.”

For it resembled

which was similar

to

an impure fish called

“shefarnuna.”

He covered it with white bowls,

they placed it inside a white vessel,

he saw scales on it

he saw scales on it [which were black and stood out against the white background],

and permitted it

and permitted it.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana happened to come

he happened to come

to

a place called

“Akra de-Agma.” They brought him tzachanta,

they brought before him a food made from small fish.

He heard a certain man,

he heard that man

who was calling it

who was calling this species

“bati,”

which is the name of an impure fish.

He said: Since he is calling it

because he calls it

“bati, infer from it

it follows from this that

there is something impure in it

in the food made from this species.

And since this was so,

he did not eat from it

from it.

In the morning

in the morning

he examined it

he examined this matter in daylight, and indeed

he found in it

he found in it

something impure.

And since he was saved from eating something impure,

he applied to himself

he recited concerning himself the verse [Proverbs 12:21]

“No harm will befall the righteous.”

We learned in our Mishna:

And the slice of ḥiltit,

a piece of a pungent plant called ḥiltit, which comes from gentiles, is forbidden for eating but permitted for benefit.

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason

that it is forbidden for eating?

And it answers:

Because they cut it with a knife.

The gentile cuts it with a knife. Presumably, the knife contains remnants of forbidden fatty substance, and they are absorbed into the ḥiltit.

And

even though the Master said

that the prohibition of

an imparting of defective flavor is permitted,

the ḥiltit is forbidden through the imparting of flavor, because

on account of the pungency of the ḥiltit,

because the ḥiltit is pungent,

it sweetens the fatty substance.

It is somewhat sweetened by the fatty substance.

And it becomes

and the fatty substance is

like an imparting of enhancing flavor

in the ḥiltit,

and it is forbidden.

His slave,

his gentile slave

of Rabbi Levi,

was selling

he was selling

ḥiltit.

And they relied on him that it was kosher, because he was Rabbi Levi’s slave.

When Rabbi Levi died, they came before

they came before

Rabbi Yoḥanan, they said to him: What is it to buy from him,

is it now, after his master died, possible to continue buying from him?

He said to them: The slave of a haver

a Torah scholar

is

like a haver!

Rav Huna bar Minyomi bought tekhelet

he bought tekhelet threads for the mitzva of tzitzit

from the woman of the household

from the wife

of Rav Amram the pious.

And he bought specifically from her, because it is the practice of deceitful sellers to sell something else [kela ilan] as though it were tekhelet.

He came before Rav Yosef

he came before Rav Yosef to ask him whether it was indeed possible to rely upon the wife of Rav Amram the pious.

He did not have it in his possession.

He had no answer to this.

He encountered

he met

Ḥanan the tailor

the tailor.

He said to him: Yosef the poor one,

the poor one,

from where does he have

from where does he have an answer to this question?

In my own case there was an incident,

a similar incident occurred to me personally,

for I bought tekhelet from the woman of the household

that I bought tekhelet from the wife

of Rabbanai, the brother

his brother

of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and I came before

and I came before

Rav Mattana,

and asked him whether it was indeed possible to buy from her.

He did not have it in his possession.

He had no answer to this.

I came before

I came before

Rav Yehuda from

a place called

“Hagronia,” and he said to me: You have fallen into my hand.

That is, you have fallen into my hands, and now you require my answer. And this is what he said:

Thus

so

said Shmuel —

the wife of a haver is like a haver!

For the Sages taught: The wife of a haver is like a haver. The slave of a haver is like a haver.

A haver who died: his wife, his sons, and the members of his household remain in their presumption

as they were during the life of the haver,

until they are suspected,

and it becomes clear that they are no longer in their state of kosher reliability.

And likewise, a courtyard in which tekhelet is sold

and which is established as a place where kosher tekhelet is sold

remains in its presumption

that they do not deceive there and exchange it for other things,

until it

becomes clear that they indeed deceive there and

is disqualified

the courtyard from serving as a place where kosher tekhelet is sold.

The Sages taught: The wife of an am ha-aretz who

was widowed or divorced, and now

married a haver.

And likewise, the daughter of an am ha-aretz who married a haver,

and likewise, the slave of an am ha-aretz who was sold to a haver —

all of them must

initially

accept

upon themselves before three havruta, reliability in all

the matters of havruta,

such as eating in purity, separating tithes from produce, and the like.

But the wife of a haver who married an am ha-aretz, and likewise the daughter of a haver who married an am ha-aretz, and likewise the slave of a haver who was sold to an am ha-aretz, do not need

initially to accept the matters of havruta

upon themselves in order to be reliable concerning the matters of havruta; rather, one relies on the fact that before they joined themselves to the am ha-aretz, they were reliable —

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: They too must accept

upon themselves anew

the matters of havruta initially.

And likewise Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: There was an incident involving a certain woman who married a haver, and she would bind tefillin for him on his hand.

Afterward

she married

that woman

a tax collector

ordinary tax collectors are robbers,

and she would bind for him the bonds of a tax collector on his hand

seals that the tax collector stamped for those who paid the tax, as a sign that they had already paid the tax and that it should not be collected from them a second time.

It follows from this that a woman always follows her husband, and therefore she is not to be presumed [reliable] on account of the status she had with her previous husband. And if she wishes to be believed concerning the matters of havruta, she must accept them upon herself anew.

Rav said: HBT

the initials of these will be detailed below, which were deposited with a gentile

is forbidden

to use them if they were sealed only

with one seal.

Rather, two seals are required.

Hampag [

the following will detail these matters]

permitted

to use them even if they were deposited with a gentile

with one seal.