Avodah Zarah 76a — the Talmud in English

Rav Hiyya, son of Rav Huna, said: The Torah prohibited only a pot ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

that is a ben yomo.

That is, food that was prohibited was cooked in it, and later that same day it was sold to an Israelite,

for it is not a case of imparting defective flavor,

since the flavor absorbed in it is still fresh and excellent. And in this manner the Torah prohibited the 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 a prohibited substance was cooked in it—and ordinarily the vessels of gentiles are not ben yomo—the food is permitted.

And it is necessary to understand: If so, even the pot itself

, from this point onward,

if the pot is not ben yomo—

should be permitted,

it should be permitted even lekhathila. And why is it necessary to kasher every vessel acquired from a gentile?

The Gemara explains: The obligation of kashering is because they issued a

decree

concerning a pot

that is not ben yomo

to require it to be kashered,

because of a pot that is ben yomo,

in order that people should not err and permit even a pot that is ben yomo without kashering.

But the other

and according to the one who holds that imparting defective flavor is prohibited,

a pot that is ben yomo as well

also

has its flavor made defective;

its flavor is defective. And we see that nevertheless the Torah prohibited it. And it follows that imparting defective flavor is not a reason to permit. Therefore every vessel of a gentile— -

even if it imparts defective flavor, the food made inside it is prohibited!

He raised

an objection

Rav Amram to Rav Sheshet: We learned:

We learned in our Mishna—

the spits and the grates, one whitens them in fire

and they are pure.

And it is difficult:

But we learned

with regard

to sacrificial meat

that their vessels must be made fit [because it is prohibited to leave any of their meat until the next day. And one who eats from the leftover meat is liable for karet. Therefore they must be kashered in order to extract the flavor of the meat from them, so that the flavor of the leftover meat should not be absorbed into sacrificial meat that will be prepared tomorrow].

And they must be made fit as follows:

the spit and the grate

that are used for sacrificial meat—

one scalds them in hot water

and it is permitted to use them for sacrificial meat that will be prepared the following day.

And it is difficult: Why in our Mishna is it necessary to whiten them in fire, whereas in the Temple they were satisfied with scalding in hot water?

He said to him,

Rav Sheshet:

Amram, my son,

[my son]—

what connection does sacrificial meat have with the scalding of gentiles’ vessels? Here

here, with regard to sacrificial meat,

it absorbed permitted substance;

the vessels absorbed permitted meat. Therefore scalding is sufficient.

Whereas

there,

with regard to the scalding of gentiles’ vessels,

it absorbed prohibited substance.

The vessel absorbed prohibition. Therefore a greater form of kashering, through whitening, is necessary!

Rava said:

It is still difficult.

Ultimately,

even with regard to a vessel of sacrificial meat,

when it emits

when one uses the vessel on the following day,

it emits prohibited substance;

the meat absorbed in it is prohibited as leftover meat, and if so, it emits prohibition. What difference does it make to me if at the time of absorption the meat was permitted?

Rather, Rava said: What is

what is the

scalding

mentioned with regard to a vessel used for sacrificial meat?

Also

there too it requires

rinsing and scrubbing.

Indeed, they too require whitening. Rather, from this beraita we learn that in a vessel of sacrificial meat, in addition to the need to whiten it, another law was stated: sacrificial vessels require scrubbing and rinsing, as it is stated [Leviticus 6:21], “And it shall be scrubbed and rinsed in water.”

Abaye said to him: Are they comparable?

Can scrubbing and rinsing be compared to the scalding mentioned in the beraita? But

scrubbing and rinsing

are performed

with cold water.

Whereas

scalding is with hot water.

And how can it be said that the intention of the beraita is that “scalding” means scrubbing and rinsing?

Rather, Abaye said:

These laws of making fit the meat vessels that are used with fire are learned from one another, as is stated in Job [36:33],

“Its companion declares it.”

That is, one teaching instructs us concerning its fellow.

And so:

The tanna taught here

that here in our Mishna one needs

whitening

for a vessel whose use is with fire,

and

indeed

the same law

is that it also requires

scalding.

Whereas

the tanna taught there

with regard to sacrificial meat that it requires

scalding and

indeed

the same law

is that it also requires

whitening.

As we repeat and learn from here. Indeed, the laws of scalding a vessel that absorbed the flavor of prohibition, and the laws of scalding a Temple vessel in which the flavor of leftover meat remains, are equal.

Rava said to him: If so,

if this is indeed how you explain it—that in each Mishna one law is stated, while the second law is learned from the other Mishna—

the tanna should have

taught all of them together in one place,

teaching all the laws in one place,

and teach one of them in the other place,

and write one law in the other place,

, and say: “Its companion declares it.”

And in that other place he should have instructed and learned the remaining laws from the place where everything was taught.

But for the tanna to state one law in one place and another law in another place is not his practice.

And if so, it is again necessary to understand: Why with regard to a vessel used for sacrificial meat is scalding sufficient, whereas with a vessel of prohibition whitening is required?

Rather, Rava said:

The reason for

sacrificial meat

its law 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 leftover meat. Therefore the flavor absorbed into the vessels

each and every day becomes emission

[emission] and is emitted

into

the meat made on

the following day’s

following day.

Therefore there is never any leftover meat. Since the flavor absorbed yesterday is emitted today, and the flavor absorbed today will be emitted tomorrow, it follows that flavor absorbed will never remain for more than one day. Therefore whitening is not necessary.

The Gemara raises an objection:

This works

indeed, there is no difficulty from a vessel used for

peace-offerings,

since, because they are eaten for two days,

they are permitted for consumption, and

before they become leftover meat,

before the law of leftover meat applies to them, on the second day

there is emission

the flavor has already been emitted into the meat made on the second day, and therefore there is no concern of leftover meat.

But a sin-offering, since

only

it is eaten for a day and a night,

it is eaten, whereas on the following day its meat is already prohibited under the law of “leftover meat,” if so,

when

when

he cooks in it

in the vessel

a sin-offering today,

then by tomorrow

it is leftover meat.

And

when

when

he again

returns and

cooks in it tomorrow, whether a peace-offering or a sin-offering, it emits

the flavor of the meat of

the leftover meat of

[of]

the sin-offering of today,

which was made today, and it is absorbed

into

the meat of

the sin-offering and peace-offering of tomorrow,

with the result that one who eats peace-offering and sin-offering meat tomorrow tastes the flavor of the prohibition of today’s leftover meat?!

The answer:

They said: It is necessary only

indeed, the permit of these vessels is necessary and stated only for this case:

For when he cooks a sin-offering in it today,

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

he again

returns and

cooks in it today

later that same day

a peace-offering.

And if so, already when cooking the peace-offering today, the flavor of the sin-offering cooked today is absorbed into the meat of the peace-offering, which is also being cooked that day in those vessels. Through this, the remaining flavor of the sin-offering becomes defective and is no longer present.

It follows

that

the meat of

the sin-offering that

is made

tomorrow, and

the meat of the peace-offering

that

is made

yesterday, together

together at the same time,

their time is completed

their time ends. And they are fit throughout the entire following day.

And afterward

he returns and

cooks

meat of

the following day’s peace-offering

and the meat of the peace-offering absorbs the emission of the meat of the sin-offering, while the flavor of the peace-offering remains until the following day; and again they make with it a sin-offering, a peace-offering, and so on, in this order. It follows that in these vessels there is no absorption of prohibited leftover meat whose time has passed.

If so,

if so, this is even more difficult, for even

scalding should not be required

either. For there is no absorption of any prohibition in these vessels?! -

Difficulty!

Another resolution to the Gemara’s difficulty concerning the law of our Mishna—that vessels used with fire require whitening—whereas with Temple vessels scalding alone is sufficient:

Rav Pappa said: This one,

the vessels of gentiles, are not used for cooking all the time. Therefore the absorbed prohibition in the walls of the vessel

hardens

and does not leave there easily, except through whitening in fire.

Whereas

this one,

the Temple vessels in which cooking is done all the time,

does not harden

the absorbed flavor of the meat does not dry and harden in them, and it is easy for it to leave the vessel. Therefore scalding alone is sufficient.

Rav Ashi said: In fact,

the distinction between the vessels of gentiles and the Temple vessels is

as we said at the outset,

as we answered initially.

Here,

here, in the Temple, at the time of absorption of the flavor,

it absorbed permitted substance.

Whereas

here,

in the vessels of gentiles,

it absorbed prohibited substance.

And if this is difficult for you,

and if what we raised above is difficult for you,

that

after all,

at the time

at the time

that it emits

when the vessel emits the flavor of the leftover meat,

it emits prohibition,

then what difference does it make to us that at the time of absorption the substance was permitted?

The answer is:

At the time that it emits

when it emits the flavor of the prohibition,

the prohibition itself is not present.

The prohibition is not present as such, but only the remnants of its flavor.

Therefore, since even at the time it became leftover meat the prohibition was no longer present as such [and when the meat itself was present, it was not yet prohibited], but all that there was was absorption of flavor in the vessel; and likewise now the substance of the prohibition itself is not emitted, but only its flavor—scalding is sufficient.

We learned in the Mishna: That whose usual method is to whiten in fire, one whitens in fire.

The Gemara clarifies:

And to what extent does one whiten them?

Rabbi Mani said: Until their outer layer is removed.

That is, until something resembling a layer, which is the upper layer of the vessel’s coating, comes off them.

And how does one scald them? Rav Huna said—

he inserts

a small cauldron

that he wishes to scald

inside a large cauldron,

and he fills the large one with boiling water, so that the water covers the small one from below to above its rims.

A large cauldron—what

how does one scald it?