POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Avodah Zarah 38
AVODAH ZARAH 38 (18 Nisan) - Dedicated by Kenny & Aliza Weinblatt in memory
of their grandfather, Sam (Shmuel Ben Baruch) Silverman Z"L, and in
gratitude to the Creator of all for the gift of their son Mordechai, may he
blessed with long years filled with Torah and Avodas Hashem.
1) BISHUL AKUM (cont.)
(a) Version #1 (in Sura - Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak):
Anything that can be eaten raw, Bishul Akum does not
apply to it.
2) FOOD PARTIALLY COOKED BY NOCHRIM
(b) Version #2 (in Pumbadisa - Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak):
Bishul Akum does not apply to anything not fit for a
(c) Question: What is the difference between these answers?
(d) Answer: Small fish, mushrooms, and porridge (Rashi - they
are not eaten raw but they are not fit for a king's
table; Rashba - small fish and mushrooms are not eaten
raw but are not fit for a king's table, porridge can be
eaten raw but is fit for a king's table).
(e) (Rav Asi): Bishul Akum does not apply to small salted
(f) (Rav Yosef): If (a Nochri - Rashba deletes this from the
text) roasted them, they (are considered cooked, they)
may be used for Eruv Tavshilin;
1. If a Nochri made Kisa d'Harsena from them (fried
them in fish oil with flour), they are forbidden on
account of Bishul Akum.
(g) (Rav Berona): If a Nochri made a fire in a swamp (and
grasshoppers became roasted), they are forbidden.
2. Objection: This is obvious!
3. Answer: One might have thought, the primary
ingredient is the oil (and this can be eaten raw) -
Rav Yosef teaches, the primary ingredient is the
flour (which is not eaten raw).
(h) Question: What is the case?
1. If one cannot tell whether or not they are Tahor,
even if a Yisrael made the fire, they are forbidden!
(i) Answer #1: Rather, one can see that they are Tahor, they
are forbidden on account of Bishul Akum.
(j) Objection: Bishul Akum does not apply in such a case!
1. (Rav Chanan bar Ami): If a Nochri singed a head of
an animal, a Yisrael may eat it, even from the tip
of the ear (which gets cooked very easily).
(k) Answer #2: Really, one cannot tell whether or not they
are Tahor; because a case occurred with a Nochri, the
Halachah was said regarding a Nochri.
2. Since the Nochri did not intend to cook, only to
remove the hair, it is permitted - also regarding
the swamp, he intended to clear the swamp, not to
(l) (Rav Chanan bar Ami): If a Nochri singed a head, a
Yisrael may eat it, even from the tip of the ear.
(m) (Ravina): Therefore, if a Yisrael put raw gourds in an
oven, and a Nochri ignited it in order to dry pegs (and
the gourds became cooked), they are permitted.
(n) Objection: This is obvious!
(o) Answer: One might have thought, the Nochri intended to
cook (soften) the peg - Ravina teaches, this is not so,
he intended to harden it, this is not considered cooking.
(a) (Rav Yehudah): If a Yisrael left meat on coals, and a
Nochri turned the meat over, it is permitted.
(b) Question: What is the case?
1. If the meat would have cooked even had the Nochri
not turned the meat over, obviously it is permitted!
(c) Answer #1: It would not have cooked had the Nochri not
turned it over.
(d) Rejection: If so, the Nochri caused it to be cooked, it
should be forbidden!
(e) Answer #2: Had the Nochri not turned the meat over, it
would have cooked in two hours; because he turned it
over, it cooked in one hour;
1. One might have thought, because he hastened the
cooking, it is considered Bishul Akum - Rav Yehudah
teaches, this is not so.
(f) Question: Rav Asi taught, anything cooked (by a Yisrael)
like the food of Ben Drusai (a thief who used to eat food
one third or one half cooked) is not considered Bishul
Akum if a Nochri finishes cooking it.
1. Inference: Anything cooked less than this amount, if
a Nochri finishes cooking it, it is Bishul Akum!
(g) Answer: That is when the Yisrael took it off the fire
after partially cooking it. (In Rav Yehudah's case, the
Yisrael left it on the fire, it would have finished
cooking by itself.)
(h) Support (Beraisa): A Yisrael may leave meat on coals and
allow a Nochri to turn it over until he (the Yisrael)
returns from the synagogue or Beis Medrash;
1. A Yisraelis may leave a pot on a stove and allow a
Nochris to turn mix it until she returns from the
bathhouse or synagogue.
(i) Question: If a Nochri left meat on coals and a Yisrael
turned it over, what is the law?
3) FORBIDDEN AND PERMITTED FOODS OF NOCHRIM
(j) Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): We permit when a
Yisrael left meat on coals and a Nochri turned it over
(even though the Nochri finished the cooking), all the
more so it is permitted when the Yisrael finishes the
(k) (Rabah bar bar Chanah): Whether a Yisrael left meat and a
Nochri turned it over, or vice-versa, it is permitted;
1. It is forbidden only if the Nochri began and
finished the cooking.
(l) (Ravina): The Halachah is: if a Nochri lit an oven and a
Yisrael put the bread in, or vice-versa, or if a Nochri
did both and a Yisrael stoked the coals (this increases
the heat), the bread is permitted.
(a) Version #1 (Chizkiyah): If a Nochri salted fish, it is
4) FORBIDDEN AND PERMITTED FOODS OF NOCHRIM (cont.)
(b) (R. Yochanan): It is forbidden.
(c) (Bar Kapara): If a Nochri roasted an egg, it is
(d) (R. Yochanan): It is forbidden.
(e) Version #2 - Rav Dimi - (Chizkiyah and bar Kapara): If a
Nochri salted fish or roasted an egg, it is permitted;
(f) (R. Yochanan): It is forbidden.
(g) Question (People of the Reish Galusa's house): If a
Nochri roasted an egg, is it permitted?
(h) Answer #1 (R. Chiya Parva'ah): Yes, because two Chachamim
permit it, only one forbids it.
(i) Answer #2 (Rav Zvid): No, Abaye said that the Halachah
follows R. Yochanan.
1. Version #1 (Rashi): The people of the Reish Galusa's
house were upset that Rav Zvid forbade it, they
killed him by giving him vinegar to drink.
(j) (Beraisa): Kafrisin (caper fruit), leeks, Matalya (this
will be explained), hot water and dried grain of Nochrim
2. Version #2 (Pores Yosef): The people of the Reish
Galusa's house gave Rav Zevid vinegar to drink; he
was comforted. (He deduced from this that they would
accept his ruling:
i. Since they permit vinegar touched by Nochrim,
we do not consider it fit to eat (even though
it can be eaten under duress). Likewise, eggs
are not considered fit to eat raw, therefore,
Bishul Akum applies to them.)
1. A roasted egg of a Nochri is forbidden;
(k) (Beraisa): Matalya is Shi'asa (seeds).
2. R. Yehudah Nesi'ah and his Beis Din permitted their
(l) (Rabah bar bar Chanah): Sixty years ago, they brought
from Miztrayim seeds of celery, flax and clover. They
soaked them together in warm water until they sprouted;
they brought a new vessel full of water, and soaked clay
in it. They stuck the seeds in the clay, and went to the
bathhouse; when they came out, the plants were
blossoming. They ate them, it cooled them off from their
hair (i.e. heads) until their knees.
(m) Version #1 (Rav Ashi): That is not true (they did not
grow so quickly).
(n) Version #2 (Rav Ashi): Witchcraft caused them to grow so
(a) (Beraisa #1): Refuse of dates (used to make beer) of
Nochrim - if it was put in water heated in a big pot of
the Nochri, it is forbidden; in a small pot, it is
(b) Question: What is considered a small pot?
(c) Answer (R. Yanai): It is small if the opening is too
narrow for a wild bird (the smallest forbidden food we
are concerned about) to enter.
(d) Objection: Perhaps the Nochri cut up a bird, and cooked
the pieces inside!
(e) Correction: Rather, it is small if the opening is too
narrow for a head of a wild bird to enter.
(f) Contradiction (Beraisa #2): Refuse of dates is permitted
whether it was put in water heated in a big or small pot.
(g) Answer: (We assume that the pot was not used in the last
24 hours, so any absorptions are li'Fgam.) The Tana of
Beraisa #1 holds that Nosen Ta'am li'Fgam is forbidden,
the Tana of Beraisa #2 permits it.
(h) (Rav Sheshes): Cooked oil of Nochrim is forbidden.
(i) Rejection (Rav Safra): There is no reason to forbid it!
1. They would not mix in wine - this would make it
(j) Question: Are cooked dates of Nochrim forbidden?
2. We are not concerned for Bishul Akum - oil is
normally eaten raw!
3. We are not concerned for forbidden absorptions,
Nosen Ta'am li'Fgam is permitted!
1. Surely, sweet dates are permitted - they can be
(k) Answer (R. Asi): My Rebbi (Levi) forbids them.
2. Surely, bitter dates are forbidden - they are only
3. The question is about dates that are only eaten raw
in pressed circumstances.
(l) (Rav): Shesisiah (a cooked dish made with flour of
Kelayos) is permitted;
(m) (Shmuel's father and Levi): It is forbidden.
(n) Version #1: All agree that if it was made with flour of
dried wheat and barley, it is permitted (vinegar is never
1. All agree that if it was made from lentils and
vinegar, it is forbidden (their vinegar probably
came from their wine);
(o) Version #2: All agree that if it was made with lentils,
it is forbidden - even if it was with water, we decree on
account of lentils and vinegar;
2. They argue when it was made from lentils and water:
Shmuel's father and Levi forbid it on account of
lentils and vinegar, Rav does not decree.
1. They argue when it is of wheat and barley: Shmuel's
father and Levi forbid it on account of lentils, Rav
does not decree.
(p) (Rav): Barzilai ha'Giladi sent two types of Shesisiyah to
David - "U'S'orim v'kemach v'Kali u'Ful va'Adashim
(q) In Neharda'a, people buy Shesisiyah of Nochrim, they are
not concerned for the decree of Shmuel's father and Levi.
(r) (Mishnah): Preserved foods of Nochrim to which wine is
often added (are forbidden to eat, but one may benefit
(s) (Chizkiyah): This is only if we do not know that wine was
added - if we know, it is forbidden to benefit from them.
(t) Question: Why is it different than Muryas, which one may
benefit from, even though most people add wine to it (it
is as if we know that wine was added)?
(u) Answer: There, the wine merely nullifies the broth (its
taste is wasted), regarding preserved foods, it improves
(v) (R. Yochanan): Even if we know that wine was added, it is
permitted to benefit from them.
(w) Question: Why is this different than Muryas, according to
R. Meir (it is forbidden to benefit from it)?
(x) Answer: There, the wine is part of the essence (it is
consumed with the Muryas); here, it is not (it merely
preserves the food).