Avodah Zarah, Daf Lammed Het, Part 1
Introduction
Today s section deals with several amoraic statements that limit what types of foods cooked by non-Jews are prohibited to Jews.
אמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק אמר רב כל הנאכל כמות שהוא חי אין בו משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים
R. Shmuel b. Yitzchak said in the name of Rav: Whatever is eaten raw is not prohibited on account of having been cooked by non-Jews.
If the food can be eaten while it is raw, then cooking does not make it edible for it was edible before. Thus even if it is cooked by a non-Jew, a Jew can still eat it. An example would be, for instance, a tomato.
בסורא מתנו הכי בפומבדיתא מתנו הכי אמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק אמר רב כל שאינו נאכל על שולחן מלכים ללפת בו את הפת אין בו משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים
Thus was it taught in Sura; but in Pumbedita they taught this version: R. Shmuel b. R. Yitzchak said in the name of Rav: Whatever is not brought upon the table of kings to serve as a relish with bread is not prohibited on account of having been cooked by non-Jews.
This is the second version of the above statement. If the food is not fancy enough to be put on the table of a king to be eaten with bread then the prohibition does not apply.
מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דגים קטנים וארדי ודייסא
What is the difference between the two versions? Small fish, mushrooms and pounded grain.
These foods can all be eaten raw, and therefore according to the first version, the prohibition of food cooked by non-Jews does not apply. But kings do eat these foods, so according to the second version these laws do apply. Thus the two versions would disagree about these foods and others like them.
אמר רב אסי אמר רב דגים קטנים מלוחים אין בהן משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים
R. Assi said in the name of Rav: Small fish when salted [by non-Jews] are not prohibited on account of having been cooked by non-Jews.
Since small salted fish can be eaten raw, the laws of foods cooked by Gentiles do not apply.
אמר רב יוסף אם צלאן עובד כוכבים סומך ישראל עליהם משום עירובי תבשילין ואי עבדינהו עובד כוכבים כסא דהרסנא אסור
פשיטא מהו דתימא הרסנא עיקר קמ"ל קימחא עיקר
R. Joseph said: If a non-Jew roasted them, an Israelite may rely upon them for eruv tavshilin. If a non-Jew made them into a pie of fish-hash it is prohibited.
This is obvious! What might you have thought? That [in such a pie] the fish-hash is the principal element; hence he informs us that the flour is the principal element.
R. Joseph states two laws about these little fish. First of all, if the non-Jew cooked them, the Jew may use them for eruv tavshilin. This is the meal that one begins to cook on erev Yom Tov, as if he is making it for Shabbat, that allows him to continue to cook on Yom Tov for Shabbat.
The second law is that if the non-Jew makes these fish into a fish-hash pie, the pie is prohibited because of the crust which was baked by the non-Jew.
אמר רב ברונא אמר רב עובד כוכבים שהצית את האור באגם כל החגבים שבאגם אסורין
R. Berona said in the name of Rav: If a non-Jew set fire to uncleared ground, all the [roasted] locusts found in the uncleared ground are prohibited.
According to Rav, if a non-Jew sets fire to the ground and the fire roasts some locusts the locusts may not be eaten.
ה"ד אילימא דלא ידע הי טהור והי טמא מאי איריא עובד כוכבים אפילו ישראל נמי אלא משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים כי האי גוונא מי אסיר והאמר רב חנן בר אמי א"ר פדת א"ר יוחנן האי עובד כוכבים דחריך רישא שרי למיכל מיניה אפילו מריש אוניה אלמא לעבורי שער קמיכוין ה"נ לגלויי אגמא קא מיכוין
How do we understand [this prohibition]? If we say that the reason [the locusts] are prohibited is because he could not distinguish between the clean and unclean species; why specify that a non-Jew [kindled the fire] since it would be the same if even an Israelite did so!
Rather it must on account of [the locusts] having been cooked by a non-Jew? But in such a circumstance would they be prohibited! Did not R. Hanan b. Ammi say that R. Pedat said in the name of R. Yohanan: If a non-Jew singed the head [of a animal], it is permissible to eat of it even from the tip of the ear! For it is assumed that his intention was to remove the hair; so similarly [in the other case it should be allowed] because his intention was to clear the ground!
The problem with Rav s statement is that we can assume the non-Jew burned the ground of the uncleared field not in order to roast the locusts but in order to clear the ground. In cases like this, where the intention was not to cook but to clear some unwanted thing away, the cooked food should not be prohibited.
לעולם דלא ידע הי טהור והי טמא ומעשה שהיה בעובד כוכבים היה
.
[No, the true reason was] certainly because he could not distinguish between the clean and unclean species, and the incident just happened with a non-Jew.
The Talmud resolves that Rav prohibited because once roasted one could not tell whether the locusts were clean or not. The fact that it happened to be a non-Jew that burned the field is not material. [We should note that this is a difficult resolution. Clearly when Rav issued his statement it was material].