Avodah Zarah 39a (לט.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara answers:

There

when he dips his bread into muris,

its substance is discernible,

for he is actually eating some of the wine, since the wine becomes part of the muris.

However,

here

in the case of 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:

crushed terit

a type of chopped fish

and brine in which there is no fish,

in which a kalbit fish swims, and the ḥilek, etc.

And the Gemara discusses this:

What

is

the ḥilek?

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

It is a small, young fish that, at the beginning of its growth, has no scales, but scales will grow on it later.

And why is it forbidden,

since it is a kosher fish?

Because

they are small fish, and when they are caught,

the arvona rises with them,

and other, non-kosher fish become mixed with them.

The Sages taught:

A fish that

does not now have scales but will 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 will shed

them

when it emerges from the sea, such as

these species of fish:

the akonas, the afonas, the katseftayes, the akseftayes, and the otenas—

is permitted.

Rabbi Abbahu proclaimed

he proclaimed

in Caesarea: Fish innards,

their fat,

and their roe,

their eggs—

may be purchased

purchased

from anyone,

even from a gentile, because

they are presumed to come only from

the places called

Pelusa and Aspamia.

Non-kosher fish are not found there.

As in the statement of Abaye: This tzaḥanta

ḥilek

of the

Bab

River

is permitted,

for non-kosher fish are not found there.

What is the reason,

why indeed are non-kosher fish not found there?

If you say

that non-kosher fish are not found there

because the waters flow swiftly,

as the river flows rapidly and forcefully,

and this non-kosher fish

cannot survive there,

since it does not have

a

spinal cord,

therefore

in a place where the waters flow swiftly,

a place where the waters flow forcefully,

it cannot remain

there.

This cannot be said, because

we see

that

they remain,

that non-kosher fish nevertheless survive there.

Rather, because the waters are salty,

as the waters there are saline.

And this non-kosher fish, since it does not have scales,

as it has no scales,

cannot remain in a place where the waters are salty,

as it cannot exist in salt water.

This too cannot be said, because

we see

that

they remain,

that non-kosher fish nevertheless survive there.

Rather, because it does not produce silt,

the riverbed cannot support the growth of

a non-kosher fish.

Ravina said: Nowadays,

in our times,

since

the waters of

the Gozah River and the Gamda River

are poured into it,

the fish that come from it are forbidden, because there is concern that non-kosher fish came from the other rivers.

Abaye said: This

fish called

the ḥamra de-yama,

the sea donkey,

is permitted,

it is permitted.

And the fish called

the tora de-yama,

the sea ox,

is forbidden.

And your mnemonic

is a sign for this matter: An animal that is

non-kosher

on land is

kosher

in the sea, such as the donkey.

And an animal that is

kosher

on land is

non-kosher

in the sea, such as the ox.

Rav Ashi said:

The fish called

the shapar nuna

is permitted,

it is permitted.

And the one called

the kadesh nuna—

is forbidden.

And your mnemonic

is a sign for this matter, based on what is stated [Exodus 16:23]:

“Holy to the Lord”

Just as a sacred matter is forbidden, so too the fish called kadesh nuna is forbidden.

Some say

that the fish called

“kever nuna”—

is forbidden.

And your mnemonic

is a sign for this matter: It is impure like

the graves of idolaters.

Rabbi Akiva happened to come

to

a place called

“Ginzak.” They brought before him

that is, they brought before him

that

fish called

“nuna,” which resembled

that is, which was similar

to

the non-kosher fish called

“ḥifusa.”

And in order to examine it, Rabbi Akiva did the following:

He covered it with a basket,

covering it with a basket, and the fish thrashed about inside it.

He saw scales on it,

after it was shaken, he saw scales in the basket,

and permitted it.

He permitted it.

Rav Ashi happened to come

to

a

place called

“Tamdureya.”

They brought before him

that is, they brought before him

that

fish called

“nuna,” which resembled

that is, which was similar

to

a non-kosher fish,

the tselofḥa.

He held it up toward the sunlight,

taking it into the sunlight,

and saw that it had fine scales,

seeing that it had thin scales,

and permitted it.

He permitted it.

Rav Ashi happened to come to a certain place

he happened to come to that place,

and they brought before him

that is, they brought before him

a “nuna.”

It resembled

that is, it was similar

to

a non-kosher fish called

“shafarnuna.”

They placed it in a white vessel,

putting it inside a white vessel,

and he saw scales on it,

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

and permitted it.

He permitted it.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana happened to come

to

a

place called

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

a food made from small fish.

He heard a certain man,

he heard that man

who called it

who called this species

“batti,”

which is the name of a non-kosher fish.

He said: Since he calls it

because he calls it

“batti,” it follows

it follows from this that

there is a non-kosher matter in it,

in the food made from this species.

And since this was so,

he did not eat from it

any of it.

In the morning

in the morning,

he examined it

that matter in daylight, and indeed

he found in it

he found

a non-kosher matter.

Since he had been saved from eating a non-kosher matter,

he applied to himself

the verse [Proverbs 12:21]:

“No harm will befall the righteous.”

We learned in our Mishna:

And a piece of ḥiltit,

a piece of a pungent plant called ḥiltit, that comes from gentiles is forbidden to eat but permitted for benefit.

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason

that it is forbidden to eat?

And it answers:

Because they cut it with a knife.

The gentile cuts it with a knife, and presumably the knife contains remnants of forbidden fatty residue, which become absorbed into the ḥiltit.

And

although the Master said

that the prohibition of

a substance that imparts a defective taste is permitted,

the ḥiltit is forbidden because the forbidden substance imparts taste, for

due to the pungency of the ḥiltit,

because the ḥiltit is pungent,

it sweetens the fatty residue.

The fatty residue is slightly sweetened by it.

And it is therefore

the fatty residue

a substance that imparts a choice taste

to the ḥiltit,

and it is forbidden.

His slave

the gentile slave

of Rabbi Levi

would sell

he was selling

ḥiltit.

They relied on him as being kosher because he was Rabbi Levi’s slave.

When Rabbi Levi died, they came before

they came before

Rabbi Yoḥanan and said to him: What is the ruling concerning purchasing from him?

Can one continue to purchase from him now that his master has died?

He said to them: The slave of a ḥaver

a Torah scholar

is

like a ḥaver!

Rav Huna bar Minyomi purchased tekhelet

he bought threads of tekhelet for the mitzva of tzitzit

from a member of the household

from the wife

of Rav Amram the pious.

He specifically bought it from her because dishonest sellers commonly sell another substance, kela ilan, as though it were tekhelet.

He came before Rav Yosef

to ask Rav Yosef whether it was indeed possible to rely on the wife of Rav Amram the pious.

He had no answer

he had no answer to give.

He encountered

he met

Ḥanan the tailor

the tailor.

He said to him: Yosef the poor man,

the poor one,

where would he get

an answer to this question?

I myself had a similar incident,

a similar case happened to me,

for I purchased tekhelet from a member of the household

I bought tekhelet from the wife

of Rabbenai, the brother

his brother

of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and I came before

I came before

Rav Mattana,

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

He had no answer

he had no answer to this.

I came before

I came before

Rav Yehuda of

a place called

“Hagrunia,” and he said to me: You have fallen into my hands.

That is, you have come into my hands, and now you require my answer. This is what

so

he

Shmuel said:

The wife of a ḥaver is like a ḥaver!

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

If a ḥaver dies, his wife, his children, and the members of his household retain their presumptive status

as they had during the ḥaver’s lifetime,

until they are suspected,

and it becomes clear that they are no longer reliable.

And likewise, a courtyard in which tekhelet is sold

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

retains its presumptive status

that no one cheats there and substitutes other substances,

until

it becomes clear that they indeed cheat there and

it is disqualified

from serving as a place where kosher tekhelet is sold.

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

became widowed or divorced, and now

married a ḥaver.

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

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

all of them must

initially

accept

upon themselves before three ḥaverim

the practices of ḥaverut,

such as eating food in a state of ritual purity, tithing produce, and the like.

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

to accept the practices of ḥaverut initially

upon themselves in order to be trusted regarding the practices of ḥaverut; rather, one relies on the fact that before they joined themselves to the am ha-aretz, they had been trustworthy —

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: They too must accept

upon themselves anew

the practices of ḥaverut initially.

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

Afterward

she married

that woman

a tax collector

ordinary tax collectors are robbers,

and she would bind the tax collector’s seals on his arm

the seals that a tax collector affixes to the goods of those who pay the tax, indicating that they have already paid and should not be charged a second time.

It follows that a woman always follows her husband, and therefore she is not presumed reliable on the basis of the status she had with her previous husband. If she wishes to be trusted regarding the practices of ḥaverut, she must accept them upon herself anew.

Rav said: Ḥa-bi-t

the initials of which will be explained below, when entrusted to a gentile,

is forbidden

to use them if they are sealed only

with one seal.

Rather, two seals are required.

Hampag [

the following items will be detailed below]

may be used

even if they were entrusted to a gentile

with a single seal.