Avodah Zarah 39b — the Talmud in English

HBYT —

milk, meat, wine, and blue wool

of tzitzit,

are forbidden with one seal,

because meat and blue wool are expensive. Therefore, one must be concerned lest the gentile counterfeited them and replaced them. And with wine, one must be concerned lest he libated it [as an idolatrous offering] [and regarding milk, the Gemara will discuss it below].

HMPG —

chiltit, morais, bread, and cheese —

are permitted with one seal.

Because there is not so much profit in replacing the chiltit.

And the Gemara explains the permission of bread with one seal:

Bread—for what should we be concerned about? —

If [we are concerned] because he might replace cold [bread] with hot [bread],

if we are concerned lest he replaced his own cold bread with hot bread belonging to an Israelite —

it is immediately known.

The matter is recognizable and known to the owners. Because of this, the gentile will refrain from the replacement, and therefore there is no concern.

[If he might replace] wheat bread with barley [bread],

wheat bread with barley bread, which is cheaper —

it is also immediately known,

there is likewise no concern about replacing them, because the replacement is recognizable and known to the owners.

If they are equal,

if the two loaves are equal, and there is no great difference between them, then

since there is

one

seal, he does not trouble himself

—the gentile—

and counterfeit

the seal.

And the Gemara discusses [this]:

But Rav,

who forbade milk with one seal, and permitted cheese with one seal,

what is different,

what is different about

cheese, that he does not

—not

trouble himself

the gentile

and counterfeit

it in order to replace it with cheese of his own, and therefore it is permitted with one seal—then milk also, milk too, he does not trouble himself and counterfeit it. And why is milk forbidden with one seal?

Rav Kahana said: Remove

indeed, remove

milk

from among the things mentioned as forbidden with one seal, and let milk be permitted with one seal,

and bring in

and place in its stead the prohibition of

a piece of fish,

whose price is high, and

which has no identifying mark,

and therefore there is concern lest the gentile replaced it. The Gemara asks: But a piece of fish

is meat;

why list meat twice?

And it answers:

There are two kinds of meat,

there are two types of meat: the meat of an animal and the meat of a fish.

And Samuel says:

the laws of a seal are as follows:

BYT is forbidden with one seal.

MḤG is permitted with one seal.

BYT —

meat, wine, and blue wool —

are forbidden with one seal.

MḤG —

morais, chiltit, and cheese —

are permitted with one seal.

And the Gemara explains why, according to Samuel [who does not disagree with Rav regarding the halakha], there is no need to mention a piece of fish at all in the sign for prohibition. And there is no need to mention bread at all in the sign for permission, because —

According to Samuel, a piece of fish that has no identifying mark —

is meat.

And the reasoning stated above, that fish and meat are

two kinds

two types of

meat,

and each is counted separately—in Samuel's view, this reasoning

we do not say.

Fish meat too is included within meat.

According to him, there is likewise no need to mention the permission of bread with one seal, because there is nothing to be concerned about with bread, as we said above: “Bread—for what should we be concerned about?”

The Sages taught: One may not purchase

wine, fish brine, milk, fish-salt, chiltit, and cheese

in Syria.

And the Gemara explains:

Not wine, nor morais, nor milk, nor fish-salt, nor chiltit, nor cheese.

Because the shopkeepers in Syria are suspected of violating “before the blind you shall not place a stumbling block” . They are accustomed to purchase this merchandise from gentiles and sell it to Jews!

But only from an expert

is it permitted to purchase. For it is known about him that he is careful not to take [merchandise] from gentiles.

And all of them,

all these foods that it is forbidden to purchase from the shopkeepers,

if one was hosted by a householder —

it is permitted.

For although the people of Syria are suspected of violating the prohibition of “before the blind,” nevertheless they themselves are not suspected of eating prohibited food. Therefore, eating their food in their homes is permitted.

And this beraita

supports the words of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, who said:

if

he sent

—sent—

to him, to his home, the householder

one of all these foods —

it is permitted

to eat them.

What is the reason? —

The householder does not abandon

permitted [food]

he does not refrain from eating something permitted,

and eat forbidden [food],

a prohibited item.

And when he sends it to him,

and when he sends it to his fellow,

he sends him what he eats.

He sends him from his home only what he himself is accustomed to eat, and therefore the item is permitted to eat.

We learned in our Mishna:

and fish-salt

is forbidden to eat.

The Gemara asks:

What is

what is

fish-salt?

Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel: Salt that every Roman fish-salter

baker

eats,

and they mix into it the fat of non-kosher fish, and therefore it is forbidden.

The Sages taught: Black fish-salt is forbidden; white is permitted —

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah says: White is forbidden; black is permitted.

Rabbi Judah ben Gamaliel in the name of Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says: This and that,

black and white,

are forbidden.

And the Gemara explains:

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: According to the one who says that white is forbidden,

that is because

the innards

fat

of non-kosher white fish are mixed into it.

And therefore it is forbidden.

According to the one who says that black is forbidden, the innards of the fat of non-kosher black fish are mixed into it.

According to the one who says that this and that are forbidden, both this and that

the fat of black and white fish

are mixed into it.

Rabbi Abahu said in the name of Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel: There was an old man

a gentile

in our neighborhood,

who would smooth its surface

of the fish-salt

with pig fat.

This indicates that one must be concerned about other prohibitions present in this salt.

At the end of the Mishna we learned:

These

that were listed above

are forbidden,

but their prohibition is not a prohibition of benefit.

And the Gemara discusses: This repetition, by which the Mishna again mentions the prohibition at the end and says, “These are forbidden,” implying that it comes to exclude and say that not everything is forbidden,

to exclude what,

what does it come to exclude from this prohibition?

And it answers:

For

the view of

Hezekiah,

above [38b], the intention of our Mishna is

to exclude a

case in which it is

known

that wine was placed into the pickled vegetables, and they are forbidden even in benefit, and are not included in the law of our Mishna.

For

the view of

Rabbi Yohanan,

who permits these pickled vegetables in benefit, our Mishna comes

to exclude morais and the cheese of Beit Unaiki,

which are forbidden even in benefit.

And

from this it follows that

the anonymous [opinion]

of this Mishna is

according to Rabbi Meir,

who forbids these things in benefit [in the Mishna above, 30b].

Mishna:

Until now we learned the law of things forbidden in benefit and of things forbidden to eat. Now the Mishna explains which things of gentiles are permitted even to eat.

And these

are the things of gentiles

permitted to eat:

1.

Milk —

that a gentile milked, and an Israelite watches him

while he milks.

2.

And honey,

3.

and grape clusters,

bunches of grapes,

even though they drip,

that grape juice drips from them; if the grape juice dripped onto foods,

they do not have

the capacity to render the foods fit to receive ritual impurity,

by virtue of the fitness of liquid.

The reason for this is that the owners' intention is that these fruits be for eating, and they do not desire that their juice flow.

4.

And pickled vegetables,

pickled vegetables

into which it is not customary to put wine or vinegar,

they are permitted.

5.

And ṭarit,

salted fish

that is not minced,

but a recognizable piece of the fish remains in it, and it is possible to discern that it is a kosher fish.

6.

And brine

of fish

that has a small fish in it,

a kalbit [a non-kosher fish ] and as we learned in the Mishna above, it develops on its own in kosher brine, and this constitutes a sign that the brine was made from kosher fish.

7.

And a whole leaf

of

chiltit

that they did not cut with a knife, and there is no concern that it absorbed a prohibition.

8.

And olives of Gluksa,

collected in a round vessel like loaves of bread,

rolled,

and they become heated there, and the oil is extracted on its own because of the heat.

Rabbi Yose says:

the olives

whose pits slip out [that is, they are so soft that when they are taken in the hand, the pits slip out on their own] are forbidden, because there is concern lest wine was placed in them, and it caused this softening.

9.

9.

The locusts

[that are kosher]

that come from the salula

from the basket before the shopkeeper —

are forbidden

because he sprinkles wine over them.

But if they come

from the hefteq

[a storehouse ] —

they are permitted.

Because they have not yet been taken out for sale, and wine has not yet been placed on them.

And so,

this law, too,

applies to teruma

, as will be explained below in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: milk that a gentile milked, while an Israelite watches him—is permitted.

We learned this,

we learned in a beraita something similar to the matter under discussion in our Mishna

For the Sages taught: an Israelite sits

beside the flock of a gentile,

even if he does not see him,

and a gentile milks

for him

and brings him

milk for an Israelite,

and he has no concern

about drinking from the milk.

And the Gemara discusses:

what are the circumstances,

how is this case understood?

If there is not

anything

impure

[animal]

in his flock,

of the gentile, and therefore there is no concern about impure milk, then

it is obvious

that it is permitted to drink it!

And if there is

an

impure thing in his flock, why

is it permitted for the Israelite to drink without concern?

The Gemara explains:

in fact,

the case is

that there is

present an

impure thing

in the flock.

And when he stands,

when the Israelite stands,

he sees him,

he sees from where the gentile is milking for him.

And when he sits,

when he sits beside him,

he does not see him,

he does not see from where he brings him the milk.

And we might have said as follows:

what might you have said, since he sits

with the Israelite sitting beside him and

does not see him,

he does not see the gentile,

let us be concerned lest he bring it and mix it with it,

let us be concerned lest he mixed in some of the impure milk,

it teaches us that, since when he stands

when the Israelite stands,

he sees him,

he then sees the gentile, therefore even when he sits,

he is very afraid

the gentile is afraid lest the Israelite come to see him at any moment,

and he does not mix impure milk with it.

We learned in our Mishna:

and the honey

of gentiles—is permitted.

And the Gemara explains the basis of the permission:

Honey, for what,

what aspect of prohibition

should we be concerned

should we be concerned

about it?

If

the concern is

because of mixing,

lest the gentile mixed wine into it, this is impossible, for

it becomes putrid,

it becomes foul through the mixing with wine.

If

the concern is lest they cooked it and it should become forbidden

because of the cooking of idolaters,

then the honey

is eaten as it is alive,

and we learned that something eaten as it is alive, even if a gentile cooked it, does not become forbidden.

If

the concern is lest they cooked it in gentile vessels that emit forbidden absorbed matter, and the food is forbidden

because of the leachings of idolaters,

then this forbidden emission

imparts a defective taste, and it is permitted?!

We learned in our Mishna:

and the grape clusters,

bunches of grapes,

even though they drip—

there is in them no matter of the preparation by liquid

for receiving impurity.

The Gemara raises a contradiction to this:

And they raise a contradiction—

one who harvests

grapes

for

pressing them in a

winepress,

in order to make wine from them—

Shammai says: it was rendered susceptible,

the food upon which the grape juice dripped, to receive impurity. Since these liquids are destined to emerge from the grapes, and therefore the owner desires their dripping.

Hillel says: it was not rendered susceptible,

the food upon which this juice dripped.

And he conceded to him,

he conceded to him,

Hillel to Shammai.

And it is proved that these liquids emerging from the grapes render [food] susceptible to receiving impurity, and not as our Mishna says?!

And the Gemara answers:

there,

there, in the case of pressing grapes in a winepress,

he desires it as liquid,

the owner desires the grape liquid, and therefore he is pleased with its emergence and dripping, and consequently they render the food susceptible through this dripping.

However,

here,

here, in the case of liquid dripping from the grapes and going to waste,

he does not desire it as liquid,

the owner does not desire this liquid, and therefore it does not render [food] susceptible to receiving impurity.

We learned in our Mishna:

and terit

[a food containing salted fish]

that is not crushed.

The Sages taught: Which is terit that is not crushed,

such that it can be discerned that there is no impure fish in it?

Any that

is not completely crushed, and

the head and spinal column

of each and every fish

are recognizable.

And through this they know whether it is impure or pure, for an impure fish has a pointed head and does not have a spinal column.

And the beraita continues and clarifies:

And which

is

brine that contains

fish [and as we learned in our Mishna—“and brine that contains fish”]?—

any that

has a fish called

kilbit

[a small impure fish that develops on its own in the brine of pure fish],