Commentary page

Avodah Zarah 38a

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Avodah Zarah 38a

Avodah Zarah 38a. The full printed text of this folio side — 14 numbered segments, about 367 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

אֶלָּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וּקְרָא אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא.

Rather, the cooking of gentiles is prohibited by rabbinic law, and the verse is cited as a mere support.

Segment 2

אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק אָמַר רַב: כָּל הַנֶּאֱכָל כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא חַי — אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּישּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם. בְּסוּרָא מַתְנוּ הָכִי, בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא מַתְנוּ הָכִי: אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק אָמַר רַב: כׇּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל עַל שׁוּלְחַן מְלָכִים לְלַפֵּת בּוֹ אֶת הַפַּת — אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּישּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם.

The Gemara discusses the particulars of the prohibition against eating the cooking of gentiles. Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says that Rav says: Any item that is eaten as it is, i.e., raw, is not subject to the prohibition against eating the cooking of gentiles. The Gemara remarks: In the study hall in Sura, they taught it this way. In Pumbedita, they taught it like this: Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says that Rav says: Any item that is not eaten together with bread on the table of kings is not subject to the prohibition against eating the cooking of gentiles. In other words, foods that are not eaten by distinguished individuals are not subject to this prohibition.

Segment 3

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ: דָּגִים קְטַנִּים, וְאַרְדֵי, וְדַיְיסָא.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two opinions? The practical difference between them is with regard to small fish, mushrooms, and porridge. These foods are not eaten raw, but they are not eaten by distinguished individuals. Consequently, these foods are prohibited according to the version taught in Sura, but permitted according to the version taught in Pumbedita.

Segment 4

אָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַב: דָּגִים קְטַנִּים מְלוּחִים אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם בִּישּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אִם צְלָאָן גּוֹי סוֹמֵךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם עֵירוּבֵי תַבְשִׁילִין, וְאִי עַבְדִינְהוּ גּוֹי כָּסָא דְּהַרְסָנָא — אָסוּר.

Rav Asi says that Rav says: Small, salted fish are not subject to the prohibition of the cooking of gentiles, because they can be eaten raw. Rav Yosef says: If a gentile roasted these fish, a Jew may rely upon them for use in the mitzva of a joining of cooked foods, which must be prepared in order to permit cooking for Shabbat on a Festival that occurs on a Friday. And if a gentile made them into kasa deharsena , a dish of fish fried in oil and flour, the dish is prohibited. In this case, since the flour had not been edible, it is considered the cooked food of a gentile.

Segment 5

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הַרְסָנָא עִיקָּר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: קִימְחָא עִיקָּר.

The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? What reason would there be to think that kasa deharsena prepared by a gentile is permitted? The Gemara answers: This is taught lest you say that the salted fish, which one is permitted to eat even if cooked by gentiles, is the essential component. Therefore, Rav Yosef teaches us that the flour is the essential component, and the dish is therefore considered the cooked food of a gentile.

Segment 6

אָמַר רַב בְּרוֹנָא אָמַר רַב: גּוֹי שֶׁהִצִּית אֶת הָאוּר בַּאֲגַם — כָּל הַחֲגָבִים שֶׁבָּאֲגַם אֲסוּרִין. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּלָא יָדַע הֵי טָהוֹר וְהֵי טָמֵא, מַאי אִירְיָא גּוֹי? אֲפִילּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי! אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם בִּישּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם.

Rav Beruna says that Rav says: In the case of a gentile who ignited a fire in the meadow, all the locusts that were burned in the meadow are prohibited. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that the reason they are prohibited is that one no longer knows which are kosher and which are non-kosher as a result of their burning, why does Rav Beruna specifically discuss a case involving a gentile? Even if a Jew burned the meadow, they would also be prohibited for the same reason. Rather, this is referring to a case where all the locusts were kosher, and the prohibition is due to the cooking of gentiles, as the locusts were effectively cooked by a gentile.

Segment 7

כִּי הַאי גַּוְונָא מִי אֲסִיר? וְהָאָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר אַמֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי פְּדָת אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַאי גּוֹי דְּחָרֵיךְ רֵישָׁא שְׁרֵי לְמֵיכַל מִינֵּיהּ, אֲפִילּוּ מֵרֵישׁ אוּנֵּיהּ. אַלְמָא לְעַבּוֹרֵי שֵׂעָר קָמִיכַּוֵּין, הָכָא נָמֵי לְגַלּוֹיֵי אַגְמָא קָא מִיכַּוֵּין!

The Gemara raises an objection: Does anyone actually prohibit the cooking of gentiles in a case like this? But doesn’t Rav Ḥanan bar Ami say that Rabbi Pedat says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to this gentile who singed the head of an animal, it is permitted to eat part of it, even from the tip of the ear, which is fully cooked? The Gemara remarks: Evidently, this is permitted because the gentile merely intends to remove the hair and not to cook the ears. Here, too, it ought to be permitted because he merely intends to clear the meadow, not to cook the locusts.

Segment 8

לְעוֹלָם, דְּלָא יָדַע הֵי טָהוֹר וְהֵי טָמֵא, וּמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה בְּגוֹי הָיָה.

The Gemara answers: Actually, this is referring to a case where there is a mixture of different types of locusts, and they are prohibited because one does not know which are kosher and which are non-kosher. And the reason Rav Beruna specified that the case involved a gentile is because the incident that occurred happened to have occurred with the involvement of a gentile.

Segment 9

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַאי גּוֹי דְּחָרֵיךְ רֵישָׁא — שְׁרֵי לְמֵיכַל מִינֵּיהּ, אֲפִילּוּ מֵרֵישׁ אוּנֵּיה. אָמַר רָבִינָא: הִלְכָּךְ, הַאי גּוֹי דִּשְׁדָא סִיכְּתָא לְאַתּוּנָא, וּקְבַר בָּהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל קָרָא מֵעִיקָּרָא — שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לְבַשּׁוֹלֵי מָנָא קָא מִיכַּוֵּין, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: לְשָׁרוֹרֵי מָנָא קָא מִיכַּוֵּין.

§ The Gemara addresses the matter itself: Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to this gentile who singed the head of an animal, it is permitted to eat part of it, even from the tip of the ear, which is fully cooked. Ravina said: Therefore, with regard to this gentile who threw a moist peg into the oven in order to dry it out and harden it, and a Jew had already inserted a gourd in the oven from the outset, the gourd is permitted, even though it was in effect cooked by a gentile. The reason is that the gentile had no intention to cook the vegetable. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach this, lest you say that the gentile intends to cook the vessel, i.e., the peg, by softening it. Therefore Ravina teaches us that he intends only to harden the vessel.

Segment 10

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הִנִּיחַ יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּשָׂר עַל גַּבֵּי גֶּחָלִים, וּבָא גּוֹי וְהִפֵּךְ בּוֹ — מוּתָּר. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּאִי לָא הַפֵּךְ בֵּיהּ הֲוָה בְּשִׁיל — פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא לָאו דְּאִי לָא הַפֵּךְ לָא הֲוָה בְּשִׁיל, אַמַּאי מוּתָּר? בִּישּׁוּלֵי שֶׁל גּוֹיִם נִינְהוּ!

§ The Gemara continues the discussion with regard to the cooking of gentiles by examining the halakha of meat cooked by both a gentile and a Jew. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: If a Jew placed meat upon flaming coals and a gentile came and turned the meat over, the meat is permitted. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that it is a case where if the gentile had not turned over the meat it would have cooked anyway, it is obvious that the meat is permitted, as the gentile’s actions did not actually alter the food. The Gemara suggests: Rather, is it not a case where, if the gentile had not turned it over, it would not have cooked? But if so, why is it permitted? In such a case, the meat is certainly considered to be the cooking of gentiles and ought to be prohibited.

Segment 11

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי לָא הַפֵּךְ הֲוָה בְּשִׁיל בְּתַרְתֵּי שָׁעֵי, וְהַשְׁתָּא קָא בְשִׁיל בַּחֲדָא שַׁעְתָּא, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: קָרוֹבֵי בִּישּׁוּלָא מִילְּתָא הִיא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha with regard to a case where if the gentile had not turned over the meat, it would have cooked in two hours, and now that he did turn it over, it will cook in only one hour. Lest you say that hastening the cooking process is a significant matter, and therefore food whose preparation is expedited by a gentile is prohibited, Ravina teaches us otherwise.

Segment 12

וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל שֶׁהוּא כְּמַאֲכַל בֶּן דְּרוֹסַאי — אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּישּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם, הָא אֵינוֹ כְּמַאֲכַל בֶּן דְּרוֹסַאי — יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם בִּשּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם!

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Asi say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Any item that has been cooked like the food of ben Derosai, i.e., partially cooked so that it is just about edible, is not subject to the prohibition of the cooking of gentiles? Consequently, if it is not cooked like the food of ben Derosai, it is subject to the prohibition of the cooking of gentiles. Accordingly, meat whose cooking was expedited by a gentile ought to be prohibited, as this ruling includes cases where it had not been cooked like the food of ben Derosai at the time of the gentile’s intervention.

Segment 13

הָתָם, כְּגוֹן דְּאוֹתְבֵיהּ בְּסִילְתָּא, וְשַׁקְלֵיהּ גּוֹי וְאוֹתְבֵיהּ בְּתַנּוּרָא.

The Gemara answers: There, Rabbi Asi was referring to a case where the Jew had placed the meat that was not yet cooked like the food of ben Derosai in a basket where it would not have cooked at all, and a gentile took it and placed it in the oven. Rabbi Asi was teaching that in such a case, when the current cooking process has yet to begin, the meat is prohibited if it had not already been cooked like the food of ben Derosai. By contrast, in the case addressed by Rabbi Yehuda, the meat was already cooking and the gentile’s actions hastened the process, but did not initiate it. In other words, the issue of cooked food like the food of ben Derosai is relevant only if the gentile takes a dish that is not being cooked at present.

Segment 14

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: מַנִּיחַ יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּשָׂר עַל גַּבֵּי גֶּחָלִים, וּבָא גּוֹי וּמְהַפֵּךְ בּוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא יִשְׂרָאֵל מִבֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת אוֹ מִבֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. שׁוֹפֶתֶת אִשָּׁה קְדֵירָה עַל גַּבֵּי כִּירָה, וּבָאת גּוֹיָה

The Gemara adds: This is also taught in a baraita : A Jew may place meat on hot coals and let a gentile come and turn it over as necessary until the Jew comes back from the synagogue or from the study hall, and the Jew need not be concerned for the prohibition of eating cooking of gentiles. Similarly, a Jewish woman may set a pot upon the stove and let a gentile woman come

Avodah Zarah 38a

Avodah Zarah 38a

Rashi

Tosafot

Rabbeinu Chananel

Rashba

Ritva

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Maharam

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Sages named on this page

Original text