Avodah Zarah, Daf Ayin Vav, Part 6

 

Introduction

The final sugya in Avodah Zarah discusses kashering a knife.

 

הסכין שפה והיא טהורה: אמר רב עוקבא בר חמא ונועצה עשרה פעמים בקרקע

אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע ובקרקע שאינה עבודה

א"ר כהנא ובסכין יפה שאין בה גומות

תניא נמי הכי סכין יפה שאין בה גומות נועצה עשרה פעמים בקרקע

 

But a knife may be polished and is then pure.

R. Ukba b. Hama said: And he must plunge it ten times in the earth.

R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: In untilled soil.

R. Kahana said: The knife must be in sound condition and have no notches.

It has been also taught in a baraita: With a knife in sound condition and without notches one plunges it ten times in soil.

 

This passage teaches how one kashers a knife. It seems that by plunging it in untilled soil, one will remove the outer layer that has been in contact with the forbidden substance.

 

אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לאכול בה צונן

 

R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: Only to eat cold food with it.

 

The knife that has been kashered can only be used with cold food. Using it with hot food would cause it to emit the taste that it absorbed from the prohibited food.

 

כי הא דמר יהודה ובאטי בר טובי הוו יתבי קמיה דשבור מלכא. אייתו לקמייהו אתרוגא. פסק אכל פסק והב ליה לבאטי בר טובי. הדר דצה עשרה זימני בארעא פסק הב ליה למר יהודה. א"ל באטי בר טובי וההוא גברא לאו בר ישראל הוא. א"ל מר קים לי בגויה ומר לא קים לי בגויה איכא דאמרי א"ל אידכר מאי עבדת באורתא:

 

Like Mar Judah and Bati b. Tobi who were sitting with King Shapur and an etrog was set before them. [The king] cut a slice and ate it, and then cut a slice and handed it to Bati b. Tobi. He then stuck [the knife] ten times in the ground, cut a slice [of the etrog] and handed it to Mar Judah. Bati b. Tobi said to [the king], Am I not a Jew! He replied, Concerning him I am certain [that he is observant of Jewish law] but of you, I am not certain. There are those who say he said to him, Remember what you did last night!

 

In this fascinating story, the Persian King Shappur cuts some etrog slices and gives it Bati b. Tobi without kashering his knife, but kashers the knife before he gives it to Mar Yehudah. Bati is not too happy that he is not being treated like a non-Jew. The king responds that he does not know if Bati b. Tobi really is observant. And in a highly humorous end to the masekhet, the king says to him, I remember what you did last night. Too bad we ll never know what naught Bati did last night. And come on, can you think of a better way to end Masechet Avodah Zarah then with a non-Jewish king kashering a knife and telling another Jew he is not observant enough?

 

הדרן עלך השוכר את הפועל וסליקא לה מסכת עבודה זרה

 

May we return to you chapter One who rents a worker and this is the end of Tractate Avodah Zarah

 

That is it folks. We finished another masekhet, another wild ride through the complicated, topsy-turvy, free-thinking, beautiful minds of Hazal, our rabbis of blessed memory. I’m hoping you found this Tractate as fascinating as I did. Discussions about how Jews can preserve their identity in a world full of people whose identity they do not share. When can Jews trust non-Jews, and when can they not? When can they use their things, and when can they not? What foods of theirs can they eat and what can they drink (not wine, that s for sure)? It was a relevant tractate then and much of it is still relevant now. I hope you have time to review some of your learning and most importantly, I hope you continue with us onto our fifth masekhet Kiddushin!

 

 

 

 

 

Avodah Zarah, Daf Ayin Vav, Part 5

 

Introduction

Today s sugya explains how one kashers by making white hot and how one kashers by boiling.

 

ועד כמה מלבנן? א"ר מני עד שתשיר קליפתן

וכיצד מגעילן א"ר הונא יורה קטנה בתוך יורה גדולה

 

For how long must they be made white-hot?

R. Mani said: Until the outer layer falls off.

And how is scalding done?

R. Huna said: A small vessel must be placed inside a large vessel.

 

The amoraim here explain how the two major forms of kashering are performed.

 

יורה גדולה מאי ת"ש דההוא דודא דהואי בי רב עקביה אהדר ליה גדנפא דלישא אפומא ומליוה מיא וארתחה

אמר רבא מאן חכים למעבד כי הא מילתא אי לאו רב עקביה דגברא רבא הוא קסבר כבולעו כך פולטו מה בולעו בנצוצות אף פולטו בנצוצות:

 

A large pot what is to be done with it? Come and hear: There was a pot in the house of R. Akaviah. He made for it a rim of dough around its edges and filled it with water which he boiled up.

Rava said: Who could have been clever enough to do this if not R. Akaviah who is a great man! He held that as [a vessel] absorbs so it discharges; as [its rim] absorbs by the splashings [of the food which is cooked in the pot] so [the boiling water] would cause [the rim] to emit [the taste] through its splashings.

 

How does one kasher a large pot, one that cannot be boiled inside a larger pot? One makes a rim of dough around its edges and then builds it up so that the water basically boils over. The rim will get hot water splashed on it. This is sufficient to kasher it, for just as the rim absorbed taste by having the forbidden substance splash on it, so it can emit taste in the same way.

 

.

 

Avodah Zarah, Daf Ayin Vav, Part 4

 

Introduction

The Talmud continues to try to resolve why one mishnah requires kashering by making something white hot, while the other mishnah suffices with scalding.

 

רב פפא אמר האי קריד האי לא קריד

 

R. Papa said: [The reason is that] one is encrusted and the other is not.

 

R. Papa resolves that the two sources refer to different situations. If the pot is encrusted, then it must be made white hot. Scalding will not get off the encrusted taste. If the pot is not encrusted, then scalding is sufficient.

 

רב אשי אמר לעולם כדאמרן מעיקרא הכא התירא בלע הכא איסורא בלע ודקא קשיא לך דבעידנא דקא פליט איסורא קא פליט בעידנא דקא פליט לא איתיה לאיסורא בעיניה:

 

R. Ashi said: [The reason is] as was originally explained, in the former [the case of sacrifices] it absorbed what is permitted and in the latter [yayin neseskh] it absorbed what is prohibited, and as for your objection that what it emits is prohibited, at the time it emits [the taste] the prohibition is not visible.

 

R. Ashi offers the final resolution to the problem, which goes back to the first resolution. The pan in which sacrifices was cooked only needs scalding and not being made white hot. Although when it emits taste, that taste is also forbidden, like yayin nesekh, the taste is just taste. It is not visible. Since the taste is not visible, and when it absorbed the taste the taste was permitted, what it emits is less prohibited. Note that it still requires kashering, just a lesser form.

 

 

 

 

Avodah Zarah, Daf Ayin Vav, Part 3

 

Introduction

Today s sugya continues to try to resolve the contradiction between the mishnah that required making Gentile vessels white hot in order to kasher them and the mishnah that said that vessels used with sacrifices could be kashered by boiling. Abaye said that each mishnah provides part of the information and that each method of kashering was valid in either case. In today s sugya, Rava offers his dissent and then tries to resolve the difficulty in a different way.

 

א"ל רבא אי הכי לתנינהו לכולהו בחדא וליתני חדא באידך אחריתי ולימא יגיד עליו רעו

 

Rava answered him: If so, let him teach both in one passage and one of them in the other, and then it would be possible to say, Let his fellow testify about him !

 

Rava says that if we thought each mishnah testifies about the other, then two forms of kashering should have appeared in one context and one in the other. This would make it clearer that both are always valid. But one form in each context gives the impression of a difference between them.

 

אלא אמר רבא קדשים היינו טעמייהו כדרב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה דאמר כל יום ויום נעשה גיעול לחבירו

 

Rather Rava said [in the case of] sacrifices [the cleansing of the vessels by means of scalding] follows the reasoning given by R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha who said: Every day scalding was carried out with respect to the preceding day’s [offerings].

 

Rava explains that with holy vessels there is actually never a case where the taste would sit in the vessel for two days and thereby become remnant which is prohibited. If, for instance, a sacrifice is boiled in a vessel on Sunday, it does not become prohibited till Tuesday. But if the vessel is used on Monday, then it removes the taste of Sunday s sacrifice. And thus there is never any time in which the taste becomes prohibited.

 

תינח שלמים דכיון דלשני ימים מיתאכלי מקמי דניהוי נותר קא הוי גיעול אלא חטאת כיון דליום ולילה מיתאכלא כי מבשל בה האידנא חטאת הוי נותר כי הדר מבשל בה למחר או שלמים או חטאת קא פליט נותר דחטאת דהאידנא בחטאת ושלמים דלמחר

 

This makes sense with regard to a shelamim which could be eaten on the second day [after the sacrifice]; in this case the process of scalding would be performed before [the traces of the offering] became remannt.

With a sin-offering, however, since it must be eaten the same day [as sacrificed] and the following night, when he cooks a sin-offering today, there would be remnant; so if he further cooked in it tomorrow either a shelamim or sin-offering, then what was remnant of today’s sin-offering would be expelled into the sin-offering or shelamim of the next day!

 

Rava s resolution above works well if we re only concerned about shelamim, which can be eaten for two days. But a sin-offering (a hatat) can only be eaten for one day. So the taste of yesterday s sin-offering is already prohibited when the vessel is used to cook today, making it prohibited.

 

אמרי לא צריכא דכי מבשל בה חטאת האידנא הדר מבשל בה האידנא שלמים דחטאת דלמחר ושלמים דאתמול בהדי הדדי קא שלים זמנייהו והדר מבשל שלמים דלמחר

 

I can say: It is not necessary [to kasher the vessel by making it white hot in the situation], where he cooks today a sin-offering, then he again cooks today a shelamim, so that the time-limit of tomorrow’s sin-offering and the shelamin of the preceding day will expire simultaneously; and then he may cook in it tomorrow’s shelamim!

 

The Talmud explains that it is not necessary to kasher the vessel by making it white hot in the following circumstance. He cooks hatat today and then, on the same day, he also cooks a shelamim. This will get rid of the taste of the hatat. He then can cook in it hatat tomorrow, and then the taste of that hatat and yesterday s shelamim will become remnant at the same time, the next day. Then he again cooks in it shelamim on that same day, thereby purging it of the taste of that day s hatat. As long as one keeps repeating this process, kashering will not be necessary.

 

 

Avodah Zarah, Daf Ayin Vav, Part 2

 

Introduction

In yesterday s sugya R. Sheshet explained that vessels belonging to a Gentile must be kashered by heating them up until they are white hot. But since Temple vessels had absorbed permitted substances, they need be kashered only by boiling.

Today s sugya raises a difficulty on R. Sheshet.

אמר רבא סוף סוף כי קא פליט איסורא קא פליט

 

Rav said: In any case, when they discharge [the taste], what they discharge is prohibited!

 

While it is true that permitted substances were cooked in the Temple vessels, when they discharge taste, that taste is from a substance that is now prohibited. The taste has been in the walls of the vessels for several days and sacrifices become strictly prohibited after one or two days. Thus in both cases, the substance cooked in one of these vessels would have the taste of a prohibited substance.

 

אלא אמר רבא מאי הגעלה נמי שטיפה ומריקה

 

Rather Rava said what does the term hag’alah [boiling] mean? Merikah and shetifah [ rinsing and washing ].

 

Rava explains that the word boiling does not mean what it seems. Rather, it means rinsing and washing, two verbs used in the context of cleaning holy utensils in Leviticus 6:21.

 

א"ל אביי מי דמי מריקה ושטיפה בצונן הגעלה בחמין

אלא אמר אביי (איוב לו, לג) יגיד עליו רעו תנא הכא ליבון והוא הדין להגעלה תנא התם הגעלה וה"ה לליבון

 

Abaye said to him: Are they the same? Merikah and shetifah are with cold water whereas hag’alah applies to boiling water!

Rather Abaye said Let his fellow testify about him (Job 36:33). Here [in the Mishnah] he taught that it must be made white-hot and scalding also applies, and there [in connection with sacrifices] he taught that they must be scalded and making them white-hot also applies.

 

Abaye rejects Rava s resolution because rinsing and washing are done with cold water, not hot. He resolves the difficulty by saying that in both cases, both scalding and heating until white hot are required. This is a case of each mishnah providing only partial information.

 

 

Avodah Zarah, Daf Ayin Vav, Part 1

 

Introduction

The last daf of Avodah Zarah (!) continues to deal with kashering vessels.

 

רמי ליה רב עמרם לרב ששת תנן השפודין והאסכלא מלבנן באור

(והתני’) גבי קדשים השפוד והאסכלא מגעילן בחמין

 

R. Amram pointed out the following contradiction to R. Sheshet: We learn: a spit and grill must be made white-hot; but has it not been taught with reference to sacrifices: A spit and grill must be scalded with boiling water!

 

R. Amram points out that there are contradictory tannaitic sources one says that the spit and the grill must be heated up until they are white hot, while the other says that it is sufficient to boil them.

 

א"ל עמרם ברי מה ענין קדשים אצל גיעולי עובדי כוכבים הכא היתירא בלע התם איסורא בלע

 

He replied: Amram, my son, what do sacrifices have to do with Gentiles vessels since the former absorbed what is permitted and the latter what is prohibited!

 

R. Sheshet points out that vessels used by Gentiles absorbed prohibited substances and therefore require a more thorough form of kashering. But vessels used in sacrificial worship absorbed permitted substances.

Tomorrow s sugya will continue this subject.

 

Avodah Zarah, Daf Ayin Heh, Part 6

 

Introduction

The sugya continues to discuss kashering dishes used by non-Jews.

 

איבעיא להו משכנתא מאי?

אמר מר בר רב אשי אבא משכן ליה עובד כוכבים כסא דכספא ואטבליה ואישתי ביה ולא ידענא אי משום דקסבר משכנתא כזביני דמיא אי משום דחזי לעובד כוכבים דדעתיה לשקועיה:

 

The question was asked: What is the rule with [a new vessel which had been given by a non-Jew] as a pledge?

Mar bar R. Ashi said: A non-Jew deposited a silver goblet with my father as a pledge, and he immersed it and drank from it and I do not know whether it was because he considered a pledge to be the same as something bought or because he saw that the non-Jew s intention was to leave it with him.

 

The Talmud asks whether Jews have to immerse a vessel if the non-Jew gave it to them as a pledge, which would ostensibly be returned to the non-Jew upon termination of the loan. Mar bar R. Ashi, one of the last amoraim, teaches that indeed his father did immerse such a vessel. However, he is not sure if this is because a vessel taken as a pledge is considered to be the property of the creditor (this is a question frequently asked in the Talmud). If this was true, then taking a pledge is just like buying. Or perhaps in this particular case R. Ashi assumed that the non-Jew was not going to take it back but in other cases, where the non-Jew might take it back, it would not be considered as belonging to the creditor and therefore the Jew would not have to immerse it.

 

ת"ר הלוקח כלי תשמיש מן העובדי כוכבים

דברים שלא נשתמש בהן מטבילן והן טהורין

דברים שנשתמש בהן ע"י צונן כגון כוסות וקתוניות וצלוחיות מדיחן ומטבילן והם טהורין

דברים שנשתמש בהן ע"י חמין כגון היורות הקומקמוסון ומחמי חמין מגעילן ומטבילן והן טהורין

דברים שנשתמש בהן ע"י האור כגון השפודין והאסכלאות מלבנן ומטבילן והן טהורין

 

Our Rabbis taught: If [a Jew] purchases cooking-utensils from a non-Jew:

Things that have never been used he immerses them and they are pure;

Things that were used for cold things, such as cups, jugs and flasks, he rinses them and immerses them and they are pure;

Things which were used for hot things, such as boilers, kettles and heating vessels, he scalds them and then immerses them and they are pure.

Things used with fire, such as spits and grills, he heats them up until they are white-hot and he immerses them and they are pure.

 

This baraita provides all the rules for how to make vessels that can be kashered (metal vessels, mostly) usable by a Jew. They all need to be immersed, and depending on how they were used, this is how they need to be kashered. Note that many of these rules will be familiar to anyone who ever kashered anything for Pesah.

 

וכולן שנשתמש בהן עד שלא יטביל ושלא יגעיל ושלא ילבן תני חדא אסור ותניא אידך מותר ל"ק הא כמאן דאמר נותן טעם לפגם אסור הא כמאן דאמר נותן טעם לפגם מותר

 

And in all of these cases, if they were used [by a Jew] before he immersed it or scalded it or made it white-hot, one authority teaches that [the contents] are prohibited whereas another teaches that they are permitted.

There is, however, no contradiction; for one decides according to him who said that when [the forbidden element] imparts a worsened flavor it is prohibited and the other according to him who said that when it imparts a worsened flavor it is permitted.

 

There is a dispute if the Jew uses the vessel before it was kashered. According to one opinion, the contents cooked or prepared in the vessel are prohibited. This accords with the opinion that if a forbidden element imparts a worsened flavor the food is permitted. The non-Jew s vessel will emit the flavor embedded in the vessel but this flavor is old and will not improve the taste of the dish. Nevertheless, this opinion holds, the forbidden element causes a prohibition.

According to the other opinion, the food is permitted because he holds that if the forbidden element imparts a worsened flavor, the dish is permitted.

 

ולמאן דאמר נותן טעם לפגם מותר גיעולי עובדי כוכבים דאסר רחמנא היכי משכחת לה אמר רב חייא בריה דרב הונא לא אסרה תורה אלא קדירה בת יומא דלאו נותן טעם לפגם הוא

 

But according to him who maintains that when it imparts a worsened flavor it is permitted, in what case do we find that the Torah prohibits the cooking vessels of non-Jews?

R. Hiyya, the son of R. Huna said: The Torah only forbade a utensil which had been used [by a non-Jew] the same day for this is not the case of imparting a worsened flavor.

 

The Talmud asks if one opinion holds that when it imparts a worsened flavor the food is permitted, how did the Torah ever prohibit vessels used by non-Jews.

The answer is that this prohibition only applies to vessels used that very day in this case, the taste imparted is not considered to be a worsening flavor.

 

מכאן ואילך לישתרי!

גזירה קדירה שאינה בת יומא משום קדירה בת יומא

 

Then let [the utensils which had been used] from then onwards be permitted [without cleansing].

The decree was made against those which had not been used the same day on account of those which had been used the same day.

What of the other authority? [His view is] that a utensil used the same day also imparts a worsened flavor.

 

The Talmud now asks why not skip the kashering process altogether and just use the vessels after a day in which they were not used.

The answer is that the rabbis decreed against using any vessel used by a non-Jew lest one come to use a vessel used by a non-Jew within the past day (which is prohibited by the Torah).

 

ואידך קדירה בת יומא נמי מפגם פגמה

 

Finally, the Talmud asks what the other opinion, the one who thinks that even if the flavor worsens the dish the dish is still prohibited, how does he explain the verse? He would say that even a dish that was used on that day would impart a worsening flavor, and nevertheless the Torah prohibits the dish. This proves that even if the flavor is worsening, the dish is prohibited.

 

Avodah Zarah, Daf Ayin Heh, Part 5

 

Introduction

Today s section continues to discuss immersing vessels owned by non-Jews.

 

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אפי’ כלים חדשים במשמע דהא ישנים וליבנן כחדשים דמו ואפילו הכי בעי טבילה

 

R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: Even new utensils are included [in the requirement for immersion], since old ones when made white-hot are regarded as new and nevertheless require immersion.

 

R. Nahman says that even new vessels, those never used and therefore that have not absorbed the taste of any prohibited food, must be immersed. He derives this from the fact that immersion is required even if the vessels were first kashered by fire (which is mentioned in the biblical passage). Such cleansing will utterly rid the vessel of any taste and make it like new. Nevertheless, it must be immersed. From here we can conclude that all vessels bought from non-Jews must be immersed.

 

מתקיף לה רב ששת אי הכי אפי’ זוזא דסרבלא נמי

א"ל כלי סעודה אמורין בפרשה

 

R. Sheshet raised an objection: If this be so, even shearing-scissors should likewise [be immersed if bought from a non-Jew]!

[R. Nahman] replied: Only utensils connected with a meal were mentioned in the passage.

 

If even vessels that have no residue of taste in them must be immersed, then why not say that even scissors need to be immersed? R. Nahman answered that the only types of vessels mentioned in the biblical passage are those used in connection with meals. Shearing scissors are not included.

 

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה לא שנו אלא בלקוחין וכמעשה שהיה אבל שאולין לא

 

R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abuha: The teaching only applies to utensils which are purchased as was the case that happened, but not when they are borrowed.

 

In the biblical passage from which these laws are derived, the Israelites had acquired title to the utensils (they took them as booty in war). Possession means that they must be immersed. But if one borrows the vessels, they need not be immersed.

We should note that there is something a bit strange in this law. If the requirement has to do with purity or with kashrut, then what should it matter if the vessel was bought or borrowed?

רב יצחק בר יוסף זבן מנא דמרדא מעובד כוכבים סבר להטבילה

א"ל ההוא מרבנן ורבי יעקב שמיה לדידי מפרשא לי מיניה דרבי יוחנן כלי מתכות אמורין בפרשה

 

R. Yitzchak b. Yosef bought a vessel made from a mixture of earth and animal’s dung from a non-Jew and thought to immerse it.

A certain rabbi, and R. Yaakov is his name, said to him: It was explained to me by R. Yohanan that only metal utensils are mentioned in the passage.

 

R. Yohanan explains that only metal utensils were mentioned in the passage and therefore only they must be immersed. Those made of earth and dung need not.

 

אמר רב אשי הני כלי זכוכית הואיל וכי נשתברו יש להן תקנה ככלי מתכות דמו

R. Ashi said: Utensils of glass, since they can be repaired when broken, are like utensils of metal.

 

Glassware can be repaired, and was indeed repaired, in a world in which glassware was very expensive, and is thus like metal. Just as metal utensils must be immersed, so must glassware.

קוניא פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אמר כתחלתו וחד אמר כסופו והלכתא כסופו

 

As for a glazed utensil, R. Aha and Ravina disagree; one says [that it must be treated] according to its original state, while the other says [that it must be treated] according to its final state.

The halakhah is [that it must be treated] according to its final state.

 

Glazed utensils before they are glazed are basically just earthenware and earthenware vessels need not be immersed. But by the end, they are like glass and glass vessels must be immersed. So there is a dispute as to whether they need immersion like glass utensils, or not like earthenware. The rule is that they do.

 

 

 

Avodah Zarah, Daf Ayin Heh, Part 5

 

Introduction

This mishnah discusses how a Jew can make usable cooking utensils that were purchased from a non-Jew. Since the non-Jew surely used these utensils to cook unkosher products, the utensils must be kashered.

 

מתני׳ הלוקח כלי תשמיש מן העובדי כוכבים את שדרכו להטביל יטביל להגעיל יגעיל ללבן באור ילבן באור השפוד והאסכלא מלבנן באור הסכין שפה והיא טהורה:

 

If [a Jew] purchases cooking-utensils from a non-Jew, those which are customarily used with cold liquids, he must immerse;

Those which are customarily used with hot liquids, he must be dip in boiling water;

Those which are customarily made white-hot in the fire, he must make white-hot in the fire.

A spit and grill must be made white-hot,

But a knife may be polished and is then ritually clean.

 

The general principle in this mishnah is quite simple: the way that a utensil was normally used is the way that it is made usable by the Jew.

A utensil that was used generally with cold foods may be washed off and it is kosher. Since it was used with cold, it did not absorb the unkosher food and therefore it need only be cleaned with water. If a utensil had been used with hot boiling liquids, such as a soup pot, it absorbed more than the utensil used with cold. Therefore it must be dipped in boiling water to remove the unkosher elements that it has absorbed. Utensils that had been used directly on the fire, such as the spit and the grill, become even more absorbent. The only way to kasher them is to make them white hot.

A knife is a special case: it must be polished so that the outside layer of the knife is actually removed. This is because the knife, which is pressed with force into foods, tends to become more absorbent, even though it is not used directly on the fire. Remember that the knives in those days were not made of the hard stainless steel of which our knives are made.

 

גמ׳ תנא וכולן צריכין טבילה בארבעים סאה

 

GEMARA. It has been taught: They all need to be immersed in [a ritual bath containing a minimum of] forty se’ah.

 

The Talmud adds that in addition to kashering all of these vessels need to be immersed in a mikveh.

מנהני מילי אמר רבא דאמר קרא (במדבר לא, כג) כל דבר אשר יבא באש תעבירו באש וטהר הוסיף לך הכתוב טהרה אחרת

 

From where is this derived? Rava said: Because the verse states, Every thing that may be put in the fire you shall through the fire, and it shall be clean (Numbers 31:23): The verse has here added for you an additional [process of] cleansing.

 

Rava derives this requirement from the additional word וטהר found at the end of the verse. This word is extraneous, so Rava uses it as the source for the requirement of immersing vessels bought from non-Jews.

 

תני בר קפרא מתוך שנאמר (במדבר לא, כג) במי נדה שומע אני שצריך הזאה שלישי ושביעי ת"ל אך חלק א"כ מה ת"ל במי נדה מים שנדה טובלת בהן הוי אומר ארבעים סאה

 

Bar Kapara taught: Since it says, [Nevertheless it shall be purified] with the water of lustration I might have inferred that it requires sprinkling [with this water] on the third and seventh day; therefore Scripture says nevertheless , to make a distinction. If that be so, why does Scripture say with the waters of lustration ? Say in water in which a niddah immerses.

 

Bar Kapara derives the halakhah that vessels bought from a Gentile must be immersed in the mikveh from the use of the word the waters of lustration which literally translates as the waters of the menstruant (niddah). Just as a menstruant must immerse in a mikveh, so too must these vessels be immersed in the mikveh.

 

איצטריך למיכתב וטהר ואיצטריך למיכתב במי נדה אי כתב וטהר ה"א וטהר כל דהו כתב רחמנא במי נדה ואי כתב רחמנא במי נדה הוה אמינא הערב שמש כנדה כתב רחמנא וטהר לאלתר

 

And it needed to write both and it shall be clean, and with the waters of lustration. If it had only written, and it shall be clean, I might have thought, it shall be clean means by any quantity of water, therefore the Torah wrote, with the waters of lustration ; and if the Torah had only written, with the waters of lustration, I might have thought that the sun needs to set, as is the case with the niddah, therefore the Torah wrote and it shall be clean, immediately [after the immersion].

 

The Talmud now explains why we need both Rava and Bar Kapara s midrash. Don t they teach the same thing? If we only had the midrash on it shall be clean I would not have known that the immersion needs to be in a mikveh. The cleansing could have been accomplished by pouring water over the person. Thus we need the verse that compares the method of immersion for vessels to that needed by a niddah. And if we only had the verse that mentions the mikveh ( waters of lustration ) I might have thought that the purity laws of immersing Gentile vessels are the same as those for a niddah they are not pure until the sun sets. Therefore, the other verse is necessary to teach that the vessels are immediately pure even before the sun sets.

 

 

Avodah Zarah, Daf Ayin Heh, Part 3

 

 

איתמר עם הארץ שהושיט ידו לגת ונגע באשכולות רבי ורבי חייא חד אמר אשכול וכל סביבותיו טמאין וכל הגת כולה טהורה וחד אמר כל הגת כולה נמי טמאה

 

It was stated: If an am ha-aretz stretched out his hand into a winepress and touched [one of] the clusters: Rabbi and R. Hiyya: One says that the cluster and all that is around it are impure but the rest of the press is pure, whereas the other says that the entire press is also impure.

 

The am ha aretz is assumed to be impure. According to one opinion, when he touches only one cluster we only have to treat as impure only those clusters that are around it. But according to the other opinion, we must treat the entire winepress as impure.

 

ולמ"ד אשכול וכל סביבותיו טמאים וכל הגת כולה טהורה מאי שנא מהא דתנן שרץ שנמצא ברחים אינו מטמא אלא מקום מגעו ואם היה משקין מהלך הכל טמא

התם לא מפסק ולא מידי הכא מפסקי אשכולות

 

And according to the one who holds that the clusters and all that is around them are impure but the press as a whole is pure, why should this be different from that which we learned: A sheretz which was found in an oil-mill, it only defiles the place it touches, but if there is flowing liquid it is all impure ?

In that case, there is no division at all, but here the clusters are separate.

 

The Talmud raises a contradiction between the one who says that only the surrounding clusters are impure and a mishnah which assumes that if a sheretz (a reptile of sorts) falls into an oil-mill and there is flowing liquid which would convey the impurity throughout the mill the entire mill is impure. Isn t there liquid in the winepress as well?

The answer is that the clusters will stop the liquid from flowing all the way around. The liquid will only reach the close clusters. Therefore, only they are impure. Whereas the olives are not clusters and will not stop the flow of the oil.

 

אורו ליה רבנן לר’ ירמיה ואמרי לה לבריה דרבי ירמיה כדברי האומר אשכול וכל סביבותיו טמאין וכל הגת כולה טהורה:

 

The Rabbis instructed R. Yirmiyah, and some say R. Yirmiyah s son, in agreement with the one says that the cluster and all that is around it are impure but the press as a whole is pure.

 

The rabbis rule according to the lenient viewpoint only the cluster and all that around it is impure.