Avodah Zarah, Daf Lammed Het, Part 2
Introduction
Today s sugya begins by going back to a statement made by R. Yohanan in yesterday s sugya.
גופא אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן האי עובד כוכבים דחריך רישא שרי למיכל מיניה אפילו מריש אוניה
The above text stated: R. Hanan b. Ammi said that R. Pedath said in the name of R. Yohanan: If a non-Jew singed the head [of an animal], it is permissible to eat of it even from the tip of the ear.
The assumption here is that the person singed the head of the animal to remove the hair and not to cook it. Therefore, as long as the animal is kosher, the Jew can eat it even though the non-Jew performed a cooking activity with it.
אמר רבינא הלכך האי עובד כוכבים דשדא סיכתא לאתונא וקבר בה ישראל קרא מעיקרא שפיר דמי פשיטא מהו דתימא לבשולי מנא קא מיכוין קמ"ל לשרורי מנא קא מיכוין
Ravina said: Consequently if a non-Jew threw a moist peg into an oven and an Israelite had previously deposited a pumpkin there, it is all right.
This is obvious! What might you have thought? That his intention had been to cook the vessel; hence he informs us that his intention was to harden the vessel.
The pumpkin, put into the oven by the Jew, was cooked by the non-Jew who threw a peg into the fire and then lit the stove. Therefore the pumpkin should be prohibited. But Ravina teaches us that his intention was not to cook the peg but to harden it, therefore the pumpkin is permitted. Again, we take the person s intention into account.
אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הניח ישראל בשר על גבי גחלים ובא עובד כוכבים והפך בו מותר
היכי דמי אילימא דאי לא הפך ביה הוה בשיל פשיטא אלא לאו דאי לא הפך לא הוה בשיל אמאי מותר בישולי של עובדי כוכבים נינהו לא צריכא דאי לא הפך הוה בשיל בתרתי שעי והשתא קא בשיל בחדא שעתא מהו דתימא קרובי בישולא מילתא היא קמ"ל
Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: If an Israelite left meat on the coals and a non-Jew came and turned it over, it is permitted.
What is the precise case? If I say that the meat would have been cooked without being turned over, obviously [it is permitted];
Rather, is it not then referring to a case where it would not have been cooked without being turned over? Why, then, is it permitted? This is food cooked by a non-Jew!
No; it is necessary in a case where it would have taken two hours to cook if he had not turned it over, but now it was cooked in one hour. What might you have said? That hastening the process of cooking is a matter which is taken into consideration; hence he informs us [that it is not].
Shmuel rules that if the non-Jew facilitates the speeding up of the cooking process, the food is not considered as having been cooked by a non-Jew.
והאמר ר’ אסי א"ר יוחנן כל שהוא כמאכל בן דרוסאי אין בו משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים הא אינו כמאכל בן דרוסאי יש בו משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים התם כגון דאותביה בסילתא ושקליה עובד כוכבים ואותביה בתנורא
But did not R. Assi say in the name of R. Yohanan: Any food which is [already cooked to the extent] of that which was eaten by Ben Drosai is not subject to the laws of food cooked by non-Jews, hence if it is not cooked to that extent it does come within the prohibition!
There [R. Yohanan] referred to a case where [an Israelite] placed the meat in a pot and a non-Jew took and set it in an oven.
The Talmud notes that the statement by Shmuel seems to contradict a ruling by R. Yohanan. R. Yohanan said that if the food had already been cooked a minimal amount (sufficient for the bandit Ben Drosai to eat it we will discuss this more later) then the prohibition of being cooked by a non-Jew does not apply. But if the food was not yet cooked, then if the non-Jew does turn it over on the coals then the food is prohibited. This contradicts what Shmuel said before.
The resolution is that R. Yohanan was referring to a case where the non-Jew essentially began the cooking process by putting the pot in the oven. The Jew only put the food into the pot. But if the cooking process had already begun, then the prohibition of non-Jewish cooking does not apply. This seems to be a considerable leniency.
תניא נמי הכי מניח ישראל בשר על גבי גחלים ובא עובד כוכבים ומהפך בו עד שיבא ישראל מבית הכנסת או מבית המדרש ואינו חושש שופתת אשה קדירה על גבי כירה ובאת עובדת כוכבים ומגיסה עד שתבא מבית המרחץ או מבית הכנסת ואינה חוששת
This was also taught in a baraita: An Israelite may set meat upon the coals and let a non-Jew come and turn it over pending his return from the synagogue or Bet Midrash, and he need not be concerned. And [an Israelite] woman may set a pot on a stove and let a Gentile woman come and stir it pending her return from the bathhouse or synagogue, and she need not be concerned.
This baraita teaches that if the cooking process was begun by the Jew, the non-Jew would be allowed to continue the cooking. The food is prohibited only if the non-Jew begins the cooking process.
Again we can see how lenient the rabbis were with regard to this prohibition. My impression is that amoraic rabbis inherited a series of prohibitions that were created during a period in which there was a real fear of assimilation. Many of these prohibitions seem likely to have been created as early as the Second Temple period, when Hellenism was at its height. By amoraic times Jewish identity had more fully coalesced and those Jews who remained within the fold were not threatened by eating food cooked by non-Jews. Thus they could be lenient with regard to these rules.