Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 18, scan section 29

must not enact anything which the majority of the congregation could not possibly follow.* R. Jehudah the second leaned upon the shoulder of R. Sim- layi when walking in the street, and said: Simlayi, you were not in college yesterday, at the time we permitted oil of the heathens. And he answered: I hope that you will soon permit their bread also. Rejoined R. Jehudah : Then the people would name us the all-permitting court, as so they named R. Josh (Tract Idioth Mishna). Then to Simlayi's remark: R. Josh has permitted three things, and you, master, have only permitted one, and should you permit one more, it will be only two. Je- hudah answered : I have already permitted another thing con- cerning the validity a divorce attains after twelve months had elapsed before the husband returns; and it happened that before the elapse of such period the man died, and I have permitted the woman to remarry, f " Cooked,'" etc. Whence is this deduced? Said R. Hyia b. Aba in the name of R. Johanan, from [Deut. ii. 28]: " Food shalt thou sell me for money, that I may eat; and water for money shalt thou give me, that I may drink," which means, like water, which does not, since its creation, change by fire, eatables are not changed since their creation, by fire. (But that which was changed is not permissible.) But as there is not mentioned ''fire" in the Scripture, this is but a decree of the rabbis, and the verse is brought only as a hint to this. R. Sam- uel b. Itz'hak said in the name of Rabh : To everything which can be consumed raw, the prohibition of cooked by a heathen does not apply. So it was taught in the college of Sura. In the college of Pumbeditha, however, it was taught as follows: R. Samuel b. R. Itz'hak in the name of Rabh said: To everything which is not served on the table of noblemen to relish the bread, the prohibition of " cooked by a heathen " does not apply. And what is the difference between the two versions? Small fish, mushroom and disa (a thickly cooked barley or meal). All these three cannot be consumed raw, but they are not served on the tables of noblemen. Hence, according to the first version, if * The text here treats of the eighteen decrees mentioned in [Sabbath page 24] which we have omitted. We also call the attention of the reader to the appendix at the end of same tract. f The text discusses here the three things which Josh b. Joezer testified in the cited Mishna, Idioth, which will be found there in the proper place. 70 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. prepared by a heathen, must not be consumed, and according to the second, it is permissible. R. Assi said in the name of Rabh: To small salt fish cooking of a heathen does not apply. Said R. Joseph: If the heathen roasted it, an Israelite may rely upon it for aneb tabshilin.* But if he has prepared from this a mush of harsana (a dish of small fish with flour) it is forbidden. Is this not self-evident? Lest one say that the fish is the main thing of this dish, it comes to teach us that the flour is the main thing. R. Johanan said , If a heathen singed the head of an animal, it is permissible to partake of it even from the ear (although the ear is nearly cooked by the singeing). Said Rabbina : From this we may infer that if he threw a tent-pin in the stove (to dry it), and an Israel- ite has deposited upon it a pumpkin, it may be used. Is this not self-evident? Lest one say that the heathen intended to cook the tent-pin (hence the pumpkin would be cooked by him), he came to teach us that his intention was only to dry and not to cook it. R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: If an Israelite placed meat upon live coals and a heathen came and turned it, it is permissible. But let us examine the case. If without turning, it would not be cooked, then it was cooked by the heathen, and must not be permissible; on the other hand, if it would be cooked without turning, then its permission is self-evident. It speaks of the fact that if he did not turn it, it would cook in two hours, but by turning, it was cooked in one hour; and lest one say that the hastening of the cooking be taken into consideration, he teaches us that it is not so. But did not R. Assi say in the name of R. Johanan that, when the food has been cooked to the extent that Ben Drusai f habitually eats it, the heathen may then complete its cooking, but not otherwise, and should not the above-mentioned fried meat be accordingly prohibited? This quotation intends to say as follows: If the meat was put into the pot by the Israelite and then placed upon the fire by a heathen, it is permissible. There is a Boraitha to this effect : The Israelite may put the meat upon the coals and let the heathen do the turning till he returns from the synagogue or college. Similarly, a Jewish woman may place the pot upon the fire and then leave the heathen woman do the skimming till she returns from the syna- * See Erubin. f Ben-Drusai, a certain robber who used to eat meat only one-third cooked. TRACT ABUDA ZARA (IDOLATRY). 71 gogue or bath-house. In these cases there is nothing to fear. The schoolmen propounded a question whether that meat is permissible which was put upon the coals by a heathen and turned about by an Israelite? Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: The answer thereto can be inferred a fortiori — viz. : if the com- pletion of the cooking by the heathen's hand is allowed, so much the more is it so, if by the hand of Israelite. It wa3 taught so, too: Rabba b. 'Hana, according to others, R. A'ha b. b. 'Hana, said in the name of R. Johanan : It is only then pro- hibited when the heathen prepares the food all alone, without the aid of the Israelite. As to bread, Rabbina said: The Halakha is thus: When the Israelite heats the oven and the heathen places the bread therein, or vice versa, or, finally, the heathen does both the things and the Israelite was but fixing a little the fire during the heating, the bread is allowed. How- ever, fish salted by heathens are allowed by 'Hiskia, but pro- hibited by R. Johanan ; and an ^g^ roasted by a heathen Bar Kapara allows, but not R. Johanan. But when R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said that in both fish and egg 'Hiskia and Bar Kapara allow, and R. Johanan does not. R. Hyye Parvah called once on the Exilearch, where he was asked whether it is allowed to eat an egg roasted by a heathen, and he replied that 'Hiskia and Bar Kapara allow it and R. Johanan prohibits it; the rule " The majority rules " is to be followed. Thereupon exhorted R. Zebid: Do not listen to R. Hyye, for Ahayi says that in this case the Halakha prevails according to R. Johanan. The Exilearch's servants became therefore so enraged that they poisoned R. Zebid with a drink of vinegar, from which he died.