Avodah Zarah 34
לְהוּ: אֲנָא חָזֵינָא לְהוּ דְּמִדַּיְּיתִי, וְכֵיוָן דְּמִדַּיְּיתִי וַדַּאי בָּלְעִי וַאֲסִירִי. מַאי טַעְמָא? הַתּוֹרָה הֵעִידָה עַל כְּלִי חֶרֶס שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִידֵי דּוֹפְנוֹ לְעוֹלָם.
to them: I observe that they sweat, i.e., they exude liquid from their exterior. And since they sweat, they certainly absorb, and are therefore prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they cannot be rendered permitted by purging with hot water? It is because the Torah attested with regard to an earthenware vessel that substances absorbed in it are never expelled from its walls.
מַאי שְׁנָא מִיַּיִן נֶסֶךְ, דְּדָרֵשׁ לְהוּ מָרִימָר: כּוּלְּהוּ מָאנֵי דְקוּנְיָא שְׁרֵי?
The Gemara reiterates its question: Mareimar ruled that glazed earthenware absorbs leavened bread permanently, but he did not rule likewise with regard to wine. But in what way is leavened bread different from wine used for an idolatrous libation? Why is it that Mareimar taught with regard to them: All glazed earthenware vessels are permitted, even if they have contained wine of gentiles?
וְכִי תֵּימָא: חָמֵץ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, יֵין נֶסֶךְ דְּרַבָּנַן — וְהָא כֹּל דְּתַקּוּן רַבָּנַן כְּעֵין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא תַּקּוּן! זֶה תַּשְׁמִישׁוֹ בְּחַמִּין, וְזֶה תַּשְׁמִישׁוֹ בְּצוֹנֵן.
The Gemara adds: And if you would say that these cases are different, as leavened bread is prohibited by Torah law whereas wine used for a libation is prohibited by rabbinic law, that is difficult: But there is a principle that all ordinances that the Sages instituted, they instituted them parallel to Torah law. Although this wine is prohibited by rabbinic law, it is subject to the same halakhot as leavened bread. The Gemara answers: This one’s use is with hot substances, and that one’s use is with cold substances. Wine is drunk while it is cold and is therefore absorbed to a lesser extent than leavened bread, which is often cooked in the vessel.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אִיקְּלַע לְגִינְזַק, בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ: מִתְעַנִּין לְשָׁעוֹת אוֹ אֵין מִתְעַנִּין לְשָׁעוֹת? לָא הֲוָה בִּידֵיהּ. קַנְקַנִּים שֶׁל גּוֹיִם אֲסוּרִין אוֹ מוּתָּרִין? לָא הֲוָה בִּידֵיהּ. בַּמֶּה שִׁימֵּשׁ מֹשֶׁה כׇּל שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּלּוּאִים? לָא הֲוָה בִּידֵיהּ.
The Gemara relates: Rabbi Akiva happened to come to the city of Ginzak, whose residents asked him three questions to which he did not know the answer: First, does one fast for hours, or does one not fast for hours? The answer to the question was not available to Rabbi Akiva. Second, are clay jars that belong to gentiles permanently prohibited, or can they be rendered permitted? The answer was not available to him. Third, in what garments did Moses serve all seven days of the Tabernacle’s inauguration, as acting priest when Aaron and his sons were initiated into the priesthood? Moses presumably did not wear the priestly vestments, as he himself was not a priest. Once again, the answer was not available to him.
אֲתָא שְׁאֵל בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא, אָמְרִי: הִלְכְתָא מִתְעַנִּין לְשָׁעוֹת, וְאִם הִשְׁלִים — מִתְפַּלֵּל תְּפִלַּת תַּעֲנִית. וְהִלְכְתָא קַנְקַנִּים שֶׁל גּוֹיִם לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ מוּתָּרִין. בַּמֶּה שִׁימֵּשׁ מֹשֶׁה שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּלּוּאִים? בְּחָלוּק לָבָן. רַב כָּהֲנָא מַתְנֵי: בְּחָלוּק לָבָן שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אִימְּרָא.
Rabbi Akiva came and asked these questions in the study hall. They said to him: The halakha is that one fasts for hours, and if he completed the fast he prays the prayer of a fast. And the halakha is that the jars that belong to gentiles are permitted after they have not been used for twelve months. Finally, in what garments did Moses serve during the seven days of inauguration? He did not serve in his own clothes, nor in the regular priestly vestments, but in a special white cloak. Rav Kahana teaches: Moses served in a white cloak without a hem.
הַחַרְצַנִּים וְהַזַּגִּים שֶׁל גּוֹיִם וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַחַרְצַנִּים וְהַזַּגִּים שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, לַחִין — אֲסוּרִין, יְבֵשִׁים — מוּתָּרִים. הֵי נִינְהוּ לַחִין וְהֵי נִינְהוּ יְבֵשִׁין? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לַחִין — כׇּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, יְבֵשִׁים — לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ.
§ The mishna teaches that residual grape seeds and grape skins that belong to gentiles are prohibited. The Sages taught: Moist grape seeds and grape skins that belong to gentiles are prohibited, but dry ones are permitted. The Gemara asks: Which are considered moist and which are considered dry? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Grape residues are considered moist for all of the first twelve months after the grapes were pressed, and dry after the first twelve months.
אִתְּמַר, אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּשֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין — אֲסוּרִין אֲפִילּוּ בַּהֲנָאָה, כְּשֶׁהֵן מוּתָּרִין — מוּתָּרִין אֲפִילּוּ בַּאֲכִילָה.
It was stated that Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: When these grape residues are prohibited, one is prohibited even from deriving benefit from them. When they are permitted, they are permitted even with regard to consumption.
אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: הַאי דּוּרְדְּיָּא דְּחַמְרָא דַּאֲרַמָּאֵי, בָּתַר תְּרֵיסַר יַרְחֵי שַׁתָּא שָׁרֵי. אָמַר רַב חֲבִיבָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הָנֵי גּוּלְפֵי, בָּתַר תְּרֵיסַר יַרְחֵי שַׁתָּא שָׁרֵי. אָמַר רַב חֲבִיבָא: הָנֵי
Rav Zevid says: With regard to these yeasts produced from the wine of Arameans, after twelve months of the year they are permitted. Rav Ḥaviva, son of Rava, says: With regard to these jugs that belong to gentiles, after twelve months of the year they are permitted. Rav Ḥaviva says: With regard to these
אֲבַטָּא דְּטַיָּיעֵי, בָּתַר תְּרֵיסַר יַרְחֵי שַׁתָּא שְׁרֵי. אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: הָנֵי פּוּרְצָנֵי דַּאֲרַמָּאֵי, בָּתַר תְּרֵיסַר יַרְחֵי שַׁתָּא שָׁרֵי. אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הָנֵי גּוּלְפֵי שְׁחִימֵי וְאוּכָּמֵי, בָּתַר תְּרֵיסַר יַרְחֵי שַׁתָּא שְׁרֵי.
canteens belonging to Arabs, after twelve months of the year they are permitted. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, says: With regard to these Aramean grape pits, after twelve months of the year they are permitted. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, says: With regard to these brown and black jugs, after twelve months of the year they are permitted.
וְהַמּוּרְיָיס. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מוּרְיָיס אוּמָּן — מוּתָּר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: אַף חִילָק אוּמָּן — מוּתָּר.
§ The mishna teaches that fish stew is prohibited. The Sages taught: Fish stew prepared by an expert is permitted, as professionals do not mix wine in it. Rabbi Yehuda ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: Ḥilak prepared by an expert is also permitted.
תָּנֵי אֲבִימִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: מוּרְיָיס אוּמָּן מוּתָּר. הוּא תָּנֵי לַהּ וְהוּא אָמַר לַהּ: פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי מוּתָּר, שְׁלִישִׁי אָסוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי דִּנְפִישׁ שׁוּמְנַיְיהוּ — לָא צְרִיךְ לְמִירְמֵי בְּהוּ חַמְרָא, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ רָמוּ בְּהוּ חַמְרָא.
Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, would teach: Fish stew prepared by an expert is permitted. He would teach this baraita that he received through tradition, and then he would say its explanation: The first time and the second time that fish stew is prepared from a fish, it is permitted, but the third time it is prohibited. What is the reason? With regard to the first time and the second time, as the fish’s oil is plentiful, there is no need to place wine in it. From this point forward, one might place wine in it to compensate for the insufficient fish oil.
הָהוּא אַרְבָּא דְּמוּרְיְיסָא דַּאֲתַי לִנְמֵילָא דְּעַכּוֹ, אוֹתֵיב רַבִּי אַבָּא דְּמִן עַכּוֹ נָטוֹרֵי בַּהֲדַהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: עַד הָאִידָּנָא מַאן נַטְרַהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עַד הָאִידָּנָא (לְמַאן) [לְמַאי] נֵיחוּשׁ לַהּ? אִי מִשּׁוּם דִּמְעָרְבִי בֵּיהּ חַמְרָא — קִיסְתָּא דְּמוּרְיָיס בְּלוּמָא, קִיסְתָּא דְּחַמְרָא בְּאַרְבְּעָה לוּמֵי.
The Gemara relates that there was a certain boat carrying fish stew which came to the port of Akko, and Rabbi Abba from Akko placed guards over it to ensure that no wine would be added to the fish stew. Rava said to him: Until now, who guarded it? Rabbi Abba said to him: Until now, for what should we be concerned? If the problem is due to the concern that they mix wine in it, that concern is unfounded, as in the place where this fish stew was produced, a kista of fish stew sells for one luma while a kista of wine sells for four luma. Since wine was more expensive than fish stew, there is no reason to suspect that wine was added to the stew before it reached Akko, where fish stew is sold at a higher price than wine.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי זֵירָא: דִּלְמָא אַיְּידֵי דְּצוֹר אֲתוֹ דְּשָׁוֵי חַמְרָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם עִיקּוּלֵי וּפָשׁוֹרֵי אִיכָּא.
Upon hearing this, Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: But perhaps they came by means of Tyre, where wine is inexpensive and therefore likely to be added to the fish stew to increase its volume. Rabbi Zeira said to him: There, by way of Tyre, there are impediments and melted snow, which make travel very difficult, and the boat would not have sailed through that route.
וּגְבִינַת בֵּית אוּנְיָיקֵי. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָסְרוּ גְּבִינַת אוּנְיָיקֵי? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרוֹב עֲגָלִים שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ עִיר נִשְׁחָטִין לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. מַאי אִירְיָא רוֹב עֲגָלִים? אֲפִילּוּ מִיעוּט נָמֵי, דְּהָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר חָיֵישׁ לְמִיעוּטָא!
§ The mishna teaches: And cheese of Beit Unyaki is prohibited. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: For what reason did they prohibit deriving benefit from the cheese of Beit Unyaki? It is because most of the calves of that city are slaughtered for the sake of idol worship, and the milk curdled in their stomach contents is prohibited. The Gemara asks: Why does this explanation specifically mention most calves? Even if a minority of calves were slaughtered for idol worship, this would also be reason enough, as Rabbi Meir, who is the tanna of unattributed opinions in a mishna, is generally concerned about a minority.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ רוֹב — אִיכָּא מִיעוּט.
The Gemara explains: If you say that the reason for the prohibition is due to a majority of calves slaughtered for idol worship, then despite the fact that the majority of animals in general used to curdle cheese are not slaughtered for idolatrous purposes, there are nevertheless a minority of animals altogether, i.e., the majority of calves, that are, and this minority of calves are cause for concern according to Rabbi Meir.
אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מִיעוּט, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא רוֹב עֲגָלִים דְּאֵין נִשְׁחָטִין לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְאִיכָּא נָמֵי שְׁאָר בְּהֵמוֹת דְּאֵין נִשְׁחָטִין לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — הָוֵה לֵיהּ מִיעוּטָא דְּמִיעוּטָא, וּמִיעוּטָא דְּמִיעוּטָא לָא חָיֵישׁ רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
The Gemara continues: But if you say that Rabbi Meir prohibits the cheese due to a minority of calves, since there are a majority of calves that are not slaughtered for idol worship, and there are also a wider majority of the remaining animals used to curdle milk that are not slaughtered for idol worship at all, this would constitute a minority of a minority, and Rabbi Meir is not concerned for a minority of a minority. Since only a particular minority of animals used to curdle cheese, i.e., calves, are ever slaughtered for idolatry, and even within that group, only a minority are actually slaughtered, even Rabbi Meir would not be concerned.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר אֶלְיָקִים לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: כִּי נִשְׁחָטִין לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָא אַתְּ הוּא דְּשָׁרֵי!
Rabbi Shimon bar Elyakim said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Even when calves are slaughtered for the sake of idol worship, what of it? But are you not the one who permits animals slaughtered with idolatrous intentions?
דְּאִתְּמַר: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה לִזְרוֹק דָּמָהּ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, לְהַקְטִיר חֶלְבָּהּ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲסוּרָה, קָסָבַר מְחַשְּׁבִין מֵעֲבוֹדָה לַעֲבוֹדָה, וְיָלְפִינַן חוּץ מִפְּנִים.
As it was stated: The halakha with regard to one who slaughters an animal in order to sprinkle its blood for the sake of idol worship, or to burn its prohibited fat for idol worship, is subject to a dispute between amora’im. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Deriving benefit from the animal is prohibited, as he holds that one can intend from one rite to another rite. In other words, idolatrous intent while slaughtering an animal renders it prohibited, even if the intention pertains not to the slaughter itself but to sprinkling the blood or burning the fat. And he maintains that we derive halakhot concerning intent outside the Temple from the halakhot concerning intent inside the Temple. Since such intentions at the time of slaughter render an animal prohibited within the Temple, they render it prohibited outside the Temple as well, with regard to idol worship.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מוּתֶּרֶת!
And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Deriving benefit from the animal is permitted. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish holds that slaughtering an animal for the sake of idol worship does not render it prohibited. This contradicts his previous assertion that it is prohibited to derive benefit from calves that have been slaughtered for the sake of idol worship.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תִּרְמִינָךְ שַׁעְתָּךְ, בְּאוֹמֵר: בִּגְמַר זְבִיחָה הוּא עוֹבְדָהּ.
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to Rabbi Shimon bar Elyakim: May your fortune be auspicious; the case here is where one says that he is worshipping the idol at the conclusion of the slaughter. Since the act of slaughtering itself is an act of worship, the calf is rendered prohibited immediately.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: שָׁאַל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. אָמַר רַב אַחָדְבוּי אָמַר רַב: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּפֶרֶשׁ שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל — מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, בְּפֶרֶשׁ עֶגְלֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda said: Rabbi Yishmael asked Rabbi Yehoshua a series of questions. The Gemara notes that Rav Aḥadevoi says that Rav says: With regard to one who betroths a woman by giving her the excrement of an ox that is to be stoned, the woman is betrothed, provided that the excrement was worth one peruta. Although no benefit may be derived from the ox itself, it is permitted to derive benefit from its excrement. But if one attempts to betroth her with the excrement of calves that were used as offerings of idol worship, she is not betrothed, as even their excrement is forbidden. The Gemara remarks: If you wish, propose logical reasoning, and if you wish, cite a verse to substantiate this claim.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא: גַּבֵּי עֶגְלֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה נִיחָא לֵיהּ בְּנִפְחֵיהּ, אֲבָל גַּבֵּי שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל לָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ בְּנִפְחֵיהּ.
The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, propose logical reasoning: With regard to calves used for idol worship, a calf’s additional girth derived from the excrement stored in its body is satisfactory for the worshipper, as fatter animals are more impressive offerings. Since the excrement is part of the offering, it is also forbidden. But with regard to an ox that is to be stoned, its additional girth is not satisfactory for the owner, as he gains nothing from it.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא: כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״לָא יִדְבַּק בְּיָדְךָ מְאוּמָה״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל הַשּׁוֹר וְלֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ״, בְּשָׂרוֹ אָסוּר, הָא פִּרְשׁוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת.
If you wish, cite a verse: It is written here, with regard to an animal used for idol worship: “And there shall cleave naught of the dedicated thing to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18), which indicates that the entire animal is forbidden. And it is written there, with regard to an ox to be stoned: “The ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten” (Exodus 21:28). This teaches that its flesh is forbidden, but its excrement is permitted.
אָמַר רָבָא: תַּרְוַיְיהוּ תְּנַנְהִי, מִדְּקָאָמַר לֵיהּ: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין בְּקֵיבַת נְבֵילָה, וְקָא מַהְדַּר לֵיהּ: וַהֲלֹא קֵיבַת עוֹלָה חֲמוּרָה מִקֵּיבַת נְבֵילָה.
Rava said: We learned both of these halakhot from the mishna. He elaborates: From the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Yishmael that cheese of gentiles is prohibited because they curdle it in the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal carcass, one can derive the halakha of the excrement of an ox that is to be stoned. The reason is that Rabbi Yishmael responded to Rabbi Yehoshua: But isn’t the stomach of a burnt-offering subject to a more stringent halakha than the stomach of an unslaughtered animal carcass, and yet although one may not derive benefit from the stomach of a burnt-offering ab initio, if one did derive benefit from it he is not liable for misuse of property consecrated to the Temple?
