Avodah Zarah 75b — the Talmud in English

Those made

of tzavta

[a type of plant] may be

wiped

with water and ash.

Those made of kitana

from flax,

if they are left

twelve months,

and if there are in them

in these objects made of tzavta,

knots

knots,

he may undo them

he may untie them. Once the wine enters between the knots.

The Gemara discusses further the matters of impurity and purity of the winepress:

It was stated: An am ha-aretz

who extended his hand into the winepress and touched the grape clusters

when they were inside the wine.

They disagreed concerning this law.

Rabbi and Rabbi Hiyya. One said: The grape cluster and all that surrounds it

are impure, and

whereas

the entire winepress

is pure.

And one said: The entire winepress as well

also

is impure.

The Gemara asks:

And according to the one who says

who holds

that the grape cluster and all that surrounds it are impure, and the entire winepress is pure, what is different

in what way is this law different

from that which we learned

from what we learned:

An impure creeping creature that is found in the millstones

in which olives are ground before they are placed in a cloth to extract oil from them,

does not render impure

the creeping creature

except

the

place of its contact.

And if liquid was flowing

that is, flowing and running there from place to place,

everything is impure!

And it is difficult: In what way is this law different from the law of an am ha-aretz who touched the grape clusters? Is there not also liquid in the winepress, as in the olive press? The Gemara explains:

There

in the olive press,

there is no interruption whatsoever

there is no interruption at all between the millstones touched by the creeping creature and their surroundings, because the liquids connect everything.

Whereas

here

in the winepress,

the

interrupt

grape clusters,

and consequently there is no connection through the liquids between the clusters touched by the am ha-aretz and the winepress, which he did not touch. Therefore, although the clusters are impure, the winepress remains pure.

They instructed him

they ruled for him

the Rabbis, for Rabbi Yirmeya, and some say

and some say that they ruled

for his son

for the son of

Rabbi Yirmeya,

the halakha

is according to the words of the one who says:

the am ha-aretz who extended his hand into the winepress and touched the grape clusters,

the grape cluster and all that surrounds it are impure, and the entire winepress is pure.

Mishna:

One who purchases vessels of use

for eating

from gentiles,

how does he render them fit?

a.

The

vessel

whose manner is to immerse

that is, which is fit to become pure only through immersion, such as vessels used only with cold substances, like cups and plates,

he shall immerse

and it does not require any additional kashering.

b. A vessel that, in order to render it fit, must be

scalded

such as metal pots in which one cooks with boiling water

he shall scald.

c. A vessel that, in order to render it fit, must

be whitened

it

with fire

fire, [such as a vessel whose manner of use is actually within fire, as the Mishna specifies]

he shall whiten

it on all its sides

with fire.

And these are the vessels that are used with fire:

the spit

on which meat is roasted over the fire,

and the grill

a metal grate upon which meat is roasted

he whitens them with fire.

d.

The knife

that was purchased from a gentile,

he shall sharpen

he scrubs and sharpens it

and it is pure.

Gemara:

The tanna taught: And all of them

all those that we learned in our Mishna, even those whose kashering is through whitening,

require immersion in

a ritual bath containing

forty seah.

The Gemara clarifies:

What is the source of these words

from where are these matters derived

that indeed all of these also require immersion?

Rava said:

The source is

as the verse says [in Numbers 31:23, concerning the war with Midian, when the soldiers returned with vessels, and concerning these vessels the Torah said:]

“Anything that will come into fire

“

that is, a vessel whose manner of use is with fire

you shall pass through fire

according to the principle known to us: As it absorbs, so it expels. That is, just as the absorption of the prohibition is through fire, so the purification of the vessel and the expulsion of the prohibition absorbed in it shall be through fire

and it shall be purified.”

And this word, “and it shall be purified,” which is seemingly superfluous,

the verse added for you another purification

additional to the purification of the vessels through fire. And that is immersion.

Teach

he taught

Bar Kappara

another source for this law that the vessels must be immersed:

Since it is stated

in that same matter concerning the vessels of Midian, “but

in the water of niddah

shall it be purified,” and it implies that the vessels must be purified with the water of the red heifer, which is called the water of niddah, and with which one purifies from impurity imparted by a corpse,

I would understand that sprinkling is required

on the day

of the third and

on the day

of the seventh,

as is the law of sprinkling with the water of purification to purify from impurity imparted by a corpse?

Rather,

the verse states: “But”

the word written in the verse comes to exclude, and

it distinguishes

between the water of the red heifer and this immersion water, for sprinkling on the third and seventh days is not required with them.

However,

if so, what does the verse come to teach by saying “in the water of niddah,”

since necessarily the intention is not purification according to the law of purification from impurity imparted by a corpse?

Rather, the meaning of “the water of niddah”

is water in which a menstruant immerses; that is to say

a ritual bath of water containing

forty seah.

And it must be understood why “and it shall be purified” was written in the verse, implying an obligation to immerse the vessels in water, and immediately afterward in the verse “but in the water of niddah” was written, which also comes to indicate an obligation of immersion. Why are these two indications necessary?

The explanation is:

It is necessary

it is necessary

to write “and it shall be purified,” and it is necessary

it is necessary

to write “in the water of niddah.”

For the following reason:

If

if

he had written

only

“and it shall be purified,” I would have said

we would have said that fulfillment of

“and it shall be purified”

would suffice through immersion in a ritual bath containing

anything whatsoever,

even an incomplete and small ritual bath. -

For that reason,

the Merciful One wrote “in the water of niddah,”

to teach that a ritual bath fit for the purification of a menstruant is required, containing forty seah.

And if

if

the Merciful One had written “in the water of niddah,”

and had not written “and it shall be purified,”

I would have said

we would have said that besides immersion,

there must be

sunset

that is, that the day must set,

as with a menstruant

as is required for the purification of a menstruant.

For that reason,

the Merciful One wrote “and it shall be purified.”

And that means

immediately,

that with the immersion of the vessel, its purification takes effect.

And there is no need to wait until sunset.

Rav Nahman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: Even

if the vessels purchased from the gentile

were new vessels,

and had not been used for prohibited foods, they too

are included

in this obligation of immersion.

And from where?

For

since vessels

that were old and he whitened them are considered like new,

for once through whitening every trace of prohibition has been expelled and eliminated from them,

and even so, they require

they require

immersion.

And it is proven from this that every new vessel purchased from a gentile must be immersed.

Rav Sheshet raised an objection to this: If so

if indeed every new vessel purchased from a gentile requires immersion by a scriptural decree, even if there is not the slightest absorption of prohibition in it, then

even wool-shearers’ scissors

scissors used by wool shearers

as well!?

He said to him

Rav Nahman:

The vessels of a meal are stated in the passage.

For it is stated, “Anything that will come into fire.” And it is customary to bring into fire only eating vessels, and not other work vessels. And only concerning these vessels was the obligation of “and it shall be purified” stated!

Rav Nahman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: They taught

this obligation of immersion

only regarding

vessels purchased from a gentile.

And as was the incident that occurred

in the war with Midian, where through the conquest the vessels came into their possession.

But

vessels

that are borrowed are not

obligated in immersion.

Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef purchased a vessel of marda a vessel made of earth and cattle dung

from a gentile. He thought

that he needed

to immerse it. A certain

one of the Sages said to him,

and Rabbi Yaakov was his name

[his name],

it was explained to me

[it was explained]

by him

from

by

Rabbi Yohanan,

that the law is as follows:

Only

metal vessels are stated in the passage,

which are obligated in immersion. But other materials are not obligated in immersion. And this matter is learned from what is stated: “But the gold, and the silver, the copper, the iron, the tin, and the lead.”

Rav Ashi said: These

these

glass vessels, since when

if

they break, they have a remedy

through melting them and making new vessels, since in this respect

they are considered like metal vessels,

and therefore they too are obligated in immersion.

A vessel of

kunya

earthenware coated with metal

they disagreed

they disagreed

concerning it

concerning its law,

Rav Aha and Ravina.

One said:

Its law

is according to its beginning.

Since at first it was an earthenware vessel and only afterward was it coated with metal, its law is that of earthenware and it does not require immersion,

and one said:

It is judged

according to its end.

Since at the end it is coated with metal, its law is that of a metal vessel, and it is obligated in immersion.

And the halakha

is judged

according to its end,

and it is considered a metal vessel and is obligated in immersion.

It was asked of them: A gentile’s vessel found in an Israelite’s possession as

collateral

until repayment of his debt

what

is the law? Does he need to immerse it?

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Father

Rav Ashi

took as collateral from him

a gentile

a silver cup

as security for a debt that the gentile owed him.

And he immersed it

Father immersed it

and drank from it

and drank from it. And apparently it follows that a vessel given as collateral must be immersed.

However,

I do not know

I did not know

whether

Father did this

because he held

that

a vessel given as

collateral is considered like a purchase,

as though it were sold,

or

whether because he saw that the gentile intended to abandon it. He saw that the gentile intended to leave and retain the vessel with him, since he did not intend to repay his debt. Therefore the vessel was considered acquired by him, and for that reason he immersed it.

The Sages taught: One who purchases vessels of use from gentiles,

their law is as follows: a.

Things that they did not use

the gentile did not use at all,

he immerses them

the Israelite

and they are pure.

b.

Things that they used

the gentile

through cold substances, such as cups, and small bowls

[a vessel for eating and not for cooking],

and small plates

—

he washes them and immerses them

and they are pure.

c.

Things that they used through hot

foods, such as large pots, the small kettles

[a small kettle for hot water],

and the water heaters

of

hot

water

[large ones] —

he scalds them

with boiling water,

and immerses them —

and they are pure.

d.

Things that they used

the gentile

through fire, such as spits

whose use is made during the roasting of meat,

and grills

[the grate upon which one roasts] —

he whitens them, immerses them, and they are pure.

The Gemara clarifies:

And all of them

all these vessels,

that one used with them before

[that is, before he]

immerses, and before he scalds, and before he whitens,

what is the law of food prepared in them?

One taught

in one beraita that food prepared in them is

forbidden, and another taught

in another beraita that it is

permitted.

And these contradictory rulings must be reconciled:

The Gemara resolves:

It is not difficult —

this

the beraita that forbids it is

according to the one who says: An imparted flavor that spoils —

is forbidden.

That is, the flavor remaining from a prohibited substance and absorbed inside the vessel is not fresh and excellent, and does not add good flavor to the food cooked in it, but rather gives it a spoiled flavor. This authority holds that the flavor absorbed in the vessel, although spoiled, if it becomes mixed into food that food is forbidden, and it renders the food forbidden.

Therefore food cooked in a gentile’s vessel before it was kashered is forbidden.

And

this,

the beraita permitting food cooked in a gentile’s vessel that was not kashered, is

according to the one who says: An imparted flavor that spoils —

is permitted.

Therefore the food is permitted.

The Gemara asks:

And according to the one who says that

an imparted flavor that spoils is permitted,

and therefore food cooked in a gentile’s vessel is permitted, if so

the residue

[the expulsion of the flavor of prohibited food] of

gentiles, which the Merciful One prohibited

which the Torah prohibited, for the Torah obligated one to kasher the vessels taken from Midian,

how do you find it

in what manner did the Torah prohibit vessels before scalding, since the spoiled flavor absorbed in them is permitted?

how can it be found

in what manner did the Torah prohibit the utensils before purging, when the defective taste absorbed in them is permitted?