Avodah Zarah 75b (עה:) — the Talmud in English

made from

tzabta

a type of plant,

one may scrub them

with water and ashes.

Those made of flax

from flax,

if they remain unused

for twelve months,

and if there are in them

if these utensils made of tzabta contain

knots

knots,

it is permitted to undo them

one may undo them, since the wine enters between the knots.

The Gemara further discusses the laws of impurity and purity of a winepress:

It was stated:

an am ha-aretz who extended his hand into a winepress and touched the clusters

when they were inside the wine.

They disagreed about this law.

Rabbi and Rabbi Hiyya: One said: The cluster and everything surrounding it

are impure, and

these,

the entire winepress

is pure.

And the other said: The entire winepress as well

also

is impure.

The Gemara asks:

And according to the one who says

who maintains

that the cluster and everything surrounding it are impure, while the entire winepress is pure, what is the difference

how does this law differ

from that which we learned

from what we learned:

If a creeping creature is found in a press

in which olives are ground before being placed in a cloth to extract their oil,

it does not render impure

the creeping creature

except

the

place it touched.

And if liquids were flowing

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

everything is impure!

The difficulty is: How does this law differ from the law concerning an am ha-aretz who touched the clusters? After all, there are also liquids in the winepress, just as in the olive press. The Gemara explains:

There

in the olive press,

there is no interruption whatsoever

there is no separation between the millstones touched by the creeping creature and their surroundings, since the liquids join everything together.

Whereas

here

in the winepress,

the clusters interrupt

they separate

the clusters,

and consequently the liquids do not join the clusters touched by the am ha-aretz to the winepress, which he did not touch. Therefore, although the clusters are impure, the winepress remains pure.

They instructed

they ruled

the Sages to Rabbi Yirmeya, and some say

and some say that they ruled

to his son

to the son

of Rabbi Yirmeya,

that the halakha is

in accordance with the opinion that says:

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

the cluster and everything surrounding it are impure, while the entire winepress is pure.

Mishna:

One who purchases eating utensils

for eating

from gentiles,

how does he render them fit for use?

a.

A

utensil

that is ordinarily immersed

that is, one that becomes fit only through immersion such as utensils used only with cold food, like cups and plates,

he should immerse

and it requires no additional preparation.

b. A utensil that must be made fit by

purging

it, such as metal pots in which one cooks with boiling liquids,

he should purge it.

c. A utensil that must be made fit by

white-hot heating

it

in fire

fire, [such as a utensil whose normal use is directly in fire, as the Mishna specifies]—

he should heat it white-hot

on all its sides

in fire.

These are the utensils used in fire:

the spit

on which meat is roasted over the fire,

and the askela

a metal grill on which meat is roasted—

they must be heated white-hot in fire.

d.

A knife

purchased from a gentile,

he must sharpen

scrub and sharpen it—

and it is pure.

Gemara:

The tanna taught: And all of them

all those mentioned in our Mishna, including those whose preparation is through white-hot heating,

require immersion in

a ritual bath containing

forty se'a.

The Gemara clarifies:

The Gemara clarifies:

From where are these matters derived

that all these utensils 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 utensils, and the Torah said regarding those utensils]:

“Everything that comes into the fire

“Everything that comes into the fire

that is, a utensil whose normal use is through fire

you shall pass through fire

according to the principle: As it absorbs, so it expels. That is, just as the prohibited substance is absorbed through fire, so the utensil is purified and the prohibited substance absorbed within it is expelled through fire—

“and it shall be purified.”

The word “and it shall be purified,” which appears superfluous,

the verse added another purification for you

in addition to purifying the utensils through fire. This is immersion.

Bar Kappara taught

he taught

another source

for the law that utensils must be immersed:

Since it is stated

in the same passage concerning the utensils of Midian, “but

in the waters of niddah

it shall be purified,” implying that the utensils must be purified with the water of the red heifer, called the waters of niddah, which are used to purify one from impurity imparted by a corpse,

I might 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 one from impurity imparted by a corpse.

Rather,

the verse states: “but”

the word in the verse comes to exclude, and

it distinguishes

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

However,

if so, what does the verse mean by stating “in the waters of niddah,”

since, necessarily, it cannot refer to purification according to the laws of purification from impurity imparted by a corpse?

Rather, the meaning of “waters of niddah”

—

the water in which a menstruating woman immerses, that is to say

a ritual bath containing

forty se'a.

One must understand why the verse states “and it shall be purified,” implying an obligation to immerse the utensils in water, and immediately afterward states “but in the waters of niddah,” which likewise teaches an obligation of immersion. Why are these two teachings necessary?

The explanation is:

It is necessary

to write

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

to write

“in the waters of niddah.”

The reason is as follows:

If

if

the Torah had written

only

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

we would have thought that fulfilling

“and it shall be purified”

would suffice through immersion in a ritual bath containing

any amount,

even an incomplete and scant amount. -

Therefore,

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

to teach that a ritual bath suitable for the purification of a menstruating woman is required, containing forty se'a.

And if

if

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

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

I would have said

we would have thought that, in addition to immersion, there must be

sunset

that is, the day must end

as in the case of a menstruating woman,

as is required for the purification of a menstruating woman.

Therefore,

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

That is,

immediately,

the utensil becomes pure upon its immersion.

There is no need to wait until sunset.

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: Even

if the utensils purchased from the gentile were

new utensils,

and had not been used for prohibited foods, they too

are included

in this obligation of immersion.

And from where is this known?

For

since

old utensils that were heated white-hot are considered like new ones

because all traces of prohibited substance are expelled and eliminated from them through the white-hot heating,

and even so, they require

they need

immersion.

It follows that every new utensil purchased from a gentile must be immersed.

Rav Sheshet challenged this: If so,

if indeed every new utensil purchased from a gentile requires immersion by decree of the verse, even if it contains no trace whatsoever of absorbed prohibited substance, then

even wool-shearers' scissors

scissors used by those who shear wool

as well!?

He said to him

Rav Naḥman:

The passage is speaking of eating utensils.

Since it says, “Everything that comes into the fire,” and only eating utensils are customarily put into fire, not other work utensils, only these utensils are subject to the obligation of “and it shall be purified.”

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: They taught

this obligation of immersion

only with regard to

utensils purchased from a gentile,

as was the incident

in the war with Midian, when the utensils came into their possession through conquest.

But

utensils

that were borrowed do not

become obligated in immersion.

Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef purchased a utensil made of earth and cow dung

he bought a utensil made of earth and cow dung

from a gentile. He thought

that it was necessary

to immerse it. A certain

one of the Sages,

whose name was Rabbi Yaakov,

[that was his name],

said to me explicitly

[it was explained to me]

by him

by

Rabbi Yoḥanan,

that the law is as follows:

Only

metal utensils are spoken of in the passage

as requiring immersion. Other materials do not require immersion. This is derived from what is stated: “But only the gold, the silver, the copper, the iron, the tin, and the lead.”

Rav Ashi said: These

these

glass utensils, since if

if

they break, they can be repaired

by melting them and making new utensils from them, in this respect

they are like metal utensils,

and therefore they too require immersion.

A utensil of

kuniya

earthenware coated with metal—

they disagree

they disagree

about it

about its law,

Rav Aḥa and Ravina.

One said:

Its law is

like its initial state.

Since it was initially an earthenware utensil and was coated with metal only afterward, its law is that of earthenware and it does not require immersion.

And one said:

It is treated

according to its final state.

Since it ultimately has a metal coating, its law is that of a metal utensil and it requires immersion.

And the halakha is:

It is treated

according to its final state,

and it is considered a metal utensil and requires immersion.

They raised a dilemma:

A gentile's utensil in the possession of an Israelite as

collateral

until the debt is repaid—

what is the law,

must it be immersed?

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: My father

Rav Ashi

took as collateral

took as a pledge from him

a silver cup from a gentile

a silver cup against a debt owed to him by the gentile.

And he immersed it

my father immersed it

and drank from it

and drank from it. Apparently, a utensil held as collateral must be immersed.

However,

I do not know

I did not know

whether

my father did this

because he maintained

that a utensil held as

collateral is considered like one purchased

as though it had been sold,

or

whether it was because he saw that the gentile intended to leave it

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

The Sages taught: One who purchases eating utensils from gentiles

the law is as follows: a.

Things that they did not use

the gentiles at all,

he immerses them

the Israelite

and they are pure.

Things that they used

b.

Things that they used

the gentiles

with cold substances, such as cups, and small bowls

[a utensil for eating and not for cooking],

and plates—

he washes them and immerses them

and they are pure.

c.

Things that they used

with foods

hot, such as large cauldrons, small kettles

[a small kettle for hot water],

and heaters

of water

hot

[large ones]—

he purges 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 while roasting meat,

and grills

[the grill on which meat is roasted]—

he heats them white-hot, immerses them, and they are pure.

The Gemara clarifies:

And all of them

all these utensils

that one used before

[that is, before one]

immersed, purged, or heated them white-hot,

what is the status of food prepared with them?

One beraita teaches

that food prepared in them is

forbidden, while another beraita teaches

and another beraita teaches that it is

permitted.

These conflicting rulings must be reconciled:

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult—

this

the beraita that forbids it, is

in accordance with the one who says that a substance imparting defective flavor—

is forbidden.

That is, the flavor remaining from a prohibited substance, absorbed within the utensil, is no longer fresh and good and does not add a good flavor to the food cooked in it, but instead imparts a defective flavor. The one who maintains this opinion holds that the flavor absorbed in the utensil—even though it is defective—nevertheless renders the food forbidden if it becomes mixed with it.

Therefore, food cooked in a gentile's utensil before it was rendered fit for use is forbidden.

And

this,

the beraita that permits food cooked in a gentile's utensil before it was rendered fit for use, is

in accordance with the one who says that a substance imparting defective flavor—

is permitted.

Therefore, the food is permitted.

The Gemara asks:

And according to the one who says

that

a substance imparting defective flavor is permitted,

and therefore food cooked in a gentile's utensil is permitted, then

the residue

[the flavor expelled from prohibited food] of

gentiles, which the Merciful One prohibited

which the Torah prohibited, since the Torah required utensils taken from Midian to be rendered fit,

how can you find it

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