Avodah Zarah, Daf Lammed Het, Part 6

 

 

שתיתאה רב שרי אבוה דשמואל ולוי אסרי

בחיטי ושערי כ"ע לא פליגי דשרי בטלפחי דחלא כ"ע ל"פ דאסיר כי פליגי בטלפחי דמיא מר סבר גזרינן הא אטו הא ומר סבר לא גזרינן

 

As for shetita [cooked by a non-Jew]: Rav permits it but Shmuel s father and Levi prohibit it.

If it is made from wheat or barley, they all agree that it is permitted.

If from lentils and vinegar all agree that it is prohibited;

Where there is disagreement is when it is made from lentils and water.

[Shmuel s father and Levi] hold that we prohibit it out of fear [that being permitted with water people will drink it when it has been prepared with vinegar], whereas [Rav] held that we do not prohibit it.

 

Shetita is some sort of porridge that can be made with various liquids and grains/beans. If it is made with wheat or barley there is no concern that vinegar may have been added, which would be a problem because non-Jewish wine/vinegar is prohibited. If it was made with lentils and vinegar then obviously it is prohibited. The amoraim dispute when it has been made with lentils and water. Shmuel s father and Levi are concerned lest by permitting this type of shetita people come to eat shetita with non-Jewish vinegar in it. Rav has no such concern.

 

ואיכא דאמרי בטלפחי דמיא כ"ע לא פליגי דאסיר כי פליגי בחיטי ושערי מר סבר גזרינן הא אטו הא ומר סבר לא גזרינן

 

There are those who say: When [the shetita] is made from lentils and water all agree that it is prohibited; they disagree when it is made from wheat or barley.

[Shmuel’s father and Levi] hold that we prohibit it out of fear [that being permitted with water people will drink it when it has been prepared with vinegar], whereas [Rav] held that we do not prohibit it.

 

This is stricter version of the material that appeared above.

 

אמר רב תרי מיני שתיתאה שדר ברזילי הגלעדי לדוד דכתיב (שמואל ב יז, כח) משכב וספות וכלי יוצר חטים ושעורים וקמח וקלי ופול ועדשים וקלי והשתא הוא דקא מפקי צני צני לשוקי דנהרדעא ולית דחייש להא דאבוה דשמואל ולוי:

 

Rav said: Barzilai the Gileadite sent two kinds of shetita to David, as it is said, And Barzillai the Gileadite of Rogelim brought beds, and basins, and earthen vessels, and wheat, and barley, and meal, and parched grain, and beans, and lentils, and parched pulse (II Samuel 17:28).

Nowadays people carry out basketfuls to the markets of Nehardea and no one is concerned about the view of Shmuel s father and Levi.

 

Barzilai sent parched grain and parched beans to David. Rav identifies this as the two kinds of shetita.

The sugya about shetita concludes by noting that the people of Nehardea do not worry about shetita made by Gentiles. They completely ignore the statement of Shmuel s father and Levi. Hard to resist that yummy shetita!

 

וכבשין שדרכן לתת בתוכן יין: אמר חזקיה לא שנו אלא שדרכן אבל בידוע אסור אפילו בהנאה

ומ"ש ממורייס דשרו רבנן בהנאה

התם לעבורי זוהמא הכא למתוקי טעמא

 

And pickled foods into which they are accustomed to put wine.

Hezekiah said: This teaching only applies when they are merely accustomed [to put wine or vinegar into them]; but when it is certain [that they put wine or vinegar in], it is prohibited to derive any benefit from the foods.

Why is this different from murias which the rabbis permit deriving benefit from?

There the purpose [of the wine] is to overcome the bad smell [of the fish] and here the purpose is to sweeten the taste.

 

This section deals with the next line in the mishnah, which forbade eating but allowed deriving benefit from pickled foods into which non-Jewish wine might have been placed. Hezekiah limits the leniency to a case where wine might have been put in. But if wine was certainly put in, then it is prohibited to derive benefit from the food.

Murias is fish brine into which wine was placed. As we learned earlier, it is prohibited to eat murias but not to derive benefit from it, even though we know that there is wine in it. Hezekiah explains that murias is different because wine was put into it only to get rid of the bad smell. Therefore the prohibition is lesser because this wine is not really food. But when it comes to the pickled food, the wine was put in to sweeten the taste, therefore if we know there is wine in it, one may not even derive benefit from it.

 

ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו בידוע נמי מותר

ומאי שנא ממורייס לר"מ דאסיר בהנאה

התם ידיע ממשו הכא לא ידיע ממשן:

 

R. Yohanan said: Even when it is certain [that they put wine into the food] they are also permitted.

How is this different from murias which R. Meir prohibits one from deriving benefit from? There the wine is present in substance, but here its substance is not present.

 

R. Yohanan says that even if we know that wine was put in the pickled foods, it is permitted to derive benefit from them. But R. Meir prohibited one from deriving benefit from murias. So how would he distinguish between the two?

The murias mixture has the presence of the wine therefore it is of a higher degree of prohibition. But the wine in the pickled food is there in taste but not substance. Therefore it is only prohibited to eat this food; it is not prohibited to derive benefit from it.