Avodah Zarah 76a (עו.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Hiyya, son of Rav Huna, said: The Torah prohibited only a pot

that was used that day.

That is, a pot in which forbidden food was cooked and which was then sold to a Jew on that same day,

as its flavor is not a flavor that has deteriorated

for the flavor absorbed in it is still fresh and excellent. In such a case, the Torah prohibited food cooked in the vessel, since the food absorbs the flavor of the prohibition.

But food cooked in a vessel in which more than a day has passed since something forbidden was cooked—and the standard presumption is that gentile vessels were not used that same day—is permitted.

The matter requires clarification: If so, even the pot itself,

, from this point onward,

if the pot was not used that same day—

should be permitted;

it should even be permitted ab initio. Why, then, is it necessary to kasher every vessel acquired from a gentile?

The Gemara explains: The obligation to kasher it is because the Sages enacted

a decree

concerning a pot

that was not used that same day

requiring it to be kashered,

because of a pot used that same day,

so that people would not err and permit even a pot used that same day without kashering it.

But the other one

And according to the one who holds that a flavor that has deteriorated is prohibited,

even a pot used that same day

also

has a deteriorated flavor;

its flavor is defective. Yet we see that the Torah nevertheless prohibited it. This implies that the giving of a deteriorated flavor is not a reason to permit. Therefore, every gentile vessel -

even if it gives a deteriorated flavor, the food prepared in it is prohibited.

He raised

an objection

Rav Amram to Rav Sheshet: We learned

in our Mishna:

The spits and the grill are purged in fire

and thereby become pure.

The difficulty is:

But did we not learn

with regard

to sacrificial meat

that their vessels must be made fit for use, [because it is prohibited to leave any of their meat until the next day, and one who eats notar is liable to karet. Therefore, the vessels must be purged in order to remove the flavor of the meat from them, so that the flavor of notar will not be absorbed into sacrificial meat prepared the following day].

And they must be made fit as follows:

The spit and the grill

on which sacrificial meat is prepared

are purged in hot water

and may then be used for sacrificial meat prepared on the following day.

The difficulty is: Why does our Mishna require them to be purged in fire, whereas in the Temple purging in hot water was sufficient?

He said to him—

Rav Sheshet

said: Amram, my son

[my son]—

what connection is there between sacrificial meat and the purging of gentile vessels? Here

with regard to sacrificial meat,

it absorbed permitted matter:

the vessels absorbed permitted meat, and therefore purging is sufficient.

Whereas

there,

with regard to the purging of gentile vessels,

the vessel absorbed forbidden matter.

Therefore, a more intensive form of kashering, by purging in fire, is required!

Rava said:

The difficulty still remains.

Ultimately,

even with sacrificial vessels,

when it releases

when the vessel is used on the following day,

it releases forbidden matter:

the meat absorbed in it is prohibited as notar. If so, it releases a prohibition; what difference does it make that the meat was permitted when it was absorbed?

Rather, Rava said: What

is the

purging

mentioned with regard to a vessel used for sacrificial meat?

Also

there it requires

rinsing and scouring.

Indeed, those vessels also require purging in fire. Rather, this beraita teaches that with sacrificial vessels, in addition to the need to purge them in fire, an additional law applies: sacrificial vessels require scouring and rinsing, as it is stated [Leviticus 6:21]: “It shall be scoured and rinsed in water.”

Abaye said to him: Are they comparable?

Can scouring and rinsing be compared with the purging mentioned in the beraita? After all,

scouring and rinsing

are performed

with cold water.

Whereas

purging is with hot water.

How, then, can one say that the beraita means that “purging” refers to scouring and rinsing?

Rather, Abaye said:

These laws concerning the kashering of meat vessels used with fire are derived from one another, in accordance with the verse stated concerning Job [36:33]:

“His companion declares it to him”

meaning that one Mishna teaches us about the other.

And so:

Here, the tanna taught

in our Mishna that one must perform

purging in fire

on a vessel whose use is with fire,

and

indeed,

the same law

applies, that it requires

purging in hot water.

Whereas

there, the tanna taught

with regard to sacrificial vessels that they require

purging in hot water, and

indeed,

the same law

applies, that they also require

purging in fire.

As we derive and learn from here. Indeed, the laws of kashering a vessel that absorbed the flavor of a prohibition and the laws of kashering a Temple vessel in which the flavor of notar remains are identical.

Rava said to him: If so,

if you indeed interpret each Mishna as stating one law, while the second law is derived from the other Mishna,

the tanna should have

taught all of them together

in one place,

and taught one in the other

and stated one law elsewhere,

, and said: “His companion declares it to him.”

At that other place, he could have instructed us to derive the remaining laws from the place where all of them were taught.

But it is not the practice of a tanna to state one law in one place and another law in a different place.

If so, the question returns: Why is purging in hot water sufficient for sacrificial vessels, whereas a prohibited vessel requires purging in fire?

Rather, Rava said: The reason for

the vessels of

sacrificial meat

is

as

the words

that Rav Naḥman said

in the name of

Rabba bar Avuha.

For he said:

The meat of a peace-offering may be eaten for two days. Only after two days does it become notar. Therefore, the flavor absorbed in the vessels

is released each and every day

[released] and is emitted

into

the meat prepared on

the following day’s

day.

Therefore, it is never notar, because the flavor absorbed yesterday is released today, and the flavor absorbed today will be released tomorrow. Consequently, no absorbed flavor remains for more than one day. Therefore, purging in fire is unnecessary.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

That works

indeed, the difficulty does not apply to vessels used for the meat of

peace-offerings,

since they may be eaten for two days

they are permitted for consumption, and

before they become notar,

before the status of notar takes effect, on the second day

it is released

the flavor has already been released into the meat prepared on the second day, and there is therefore no concern of notar.

But a sin-offering, since

only

it may be eaten for a day and a night,

whereas on the following day its meat is already prohibited as notar, if so,

when

when

he cooks in it

in the vessel

a sin-offering today,

then by tomorrow

it becomes notar.

And

when

when

he again

returns and

cooks in it the next day, either a peace-offering or a sin-offering, it releases

the flavor of the meat of

the notar of

[of]

today’s sin-offering

that was prepared today, and it is absorbed

into

the meat of

tomorrow’s sin-offering and peace-offering;

consequently, one who eats peace-offering or sin-offering meat tomorrow tastes the flavor of today’s prohibition of notar?!

The answer is:

They said: It is necessary only

for this particular case is the dispensation for these vessels necessary:

When he cooks a sin-offering in it today,

when he cooks a sin-offering in the vessels today,

he then

returns and

cooks in it today

later that same day

a peace-offering.

Thus, already when the peace-offering is cooked today, the flavor of the sin-offering cooked today is absorbed into the peace-offering meat, which is also being cooked today in those vessels. In this way, the flavor remaining from the sin-offering is neutralized and is no longer present.

It follows

that

the meat of

the sin-offering that

is prepared

tomorrow, and

the peace-offering meat

that

is prepared

yesterday, together

at the same time,

their allotted time ends

their time is completed, and they remain fit throughout the following day.

And then he

returns and

cooks

meat

of the following day’s peace-offering

and the peace-offering meat absorbs the emission of the sin-offering meat. The flavor of the peace-offering remains until the following day, and then he again prepares a sin-offering, a peace-offering, and so on in this order. Consequently, these vessels contain no absorbed prohibition of notar whose allotted time has passed.

If so,

the difficulty is even stronger:

purging in hot water should also not be required

since there is no absorbed prohibition in these vessels at all?! -

Difficulty!

Another resolution to the Gemara’s question concerning the law that vessels used with fire require purging in fire, whereas for Temple vessels purging in hot water alone is sufficient:

Rav Pappa said: This

gentile vessel is not used for cooking all the time. Therefore, the absorbed prohibition in the walls of the vessel

hardens

and does not emerge easily; it can be removed only by purging in fire.

Whereas

this

Temple vessel, which is used for cooking continuously,

does not harden

the absorbed flavor of the meat does not dry and harden in it, and it is readily removed from the vessel. Therefore, purging in hot water alone is sufficient.

Rav Ashi said: Actually,

the distinction between gentile vessels and Temple vessels is

as we originally said,

as we initially answered.

Here,

in the Temple vessels, at the time the flavor was absorbed,

it absorbed permitted matter.

Whereas

here,

in gentile vessels,

it absorbed forbidden matter.

And if what we raised is difficult for you,

namely, the difficulty raised above,

that

after all,

at the time

when

it releases

when the vessel releases the flavor of the meat that has become notar,

it releases forbidden matter,

what difference does it make that the matter was permitted when it was absorbed?

The answer is:

At the time it releases

when it releases the flavor of the prohibition,

the prohibition is not present as such

the prohibition is not present in its substance, but only the remnants of its flavor remain.

Therefore, since even when it became notar the prohibition was no longer present in its substance [and when the meat was present in its substance, it was still not prohibited], but all that existed was the absorption of its flavor in the vessel—and now as well, the substance of the prohibition is not released, only its flavor—it is sufficient to purge the vessel in hot water.

We learned in the Mishna: Whatever is customarily purged in fire must be purged in fire.

The Gemara clarifies:

And to what extent must they be purged in fire?

Rabbi Mani said: Until their outer layer comes off.

That is, until something resembling a layer, which is the uppermost coating of the vessel, is removed from them.

And how does one purge them? Rav Huna said—

one places

a small pot

that one wishes to purge

inside a large pot,

and fills the large pot with boiling water, so that the water covers the small pot from below to above its rim.

A large pot—what

how does one purge it?