json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Avodah Zarah/English/merged.json

{
    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Avodah Zarah",
    "language": "en",
    "versionTitle": "merged",
    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Avodah_Zarah",
    "text": {
        "Introduction": [],
        "": [
            [
                [
                    "<b>On the three days preceding the festivals of idolaters, it is forbidden to conduct business with them, to lend articles to them or borrow from them, to lend or borrow any money from them, to repay a debt, or receive repayment from them. Rabbi Judah says: we should receive repayment from them, as this can only depress them; But they [the Rabbis]  said to him: even though it is depressing at the time, they are glad of it subsequently.</b> Exodus 23:13 states, “Make no mention of the names of other gods; they shall not be heard on your lips.”  From the last part of this verse, “they shall not be heard on your lips” the Rabbis created a midrash that a Jew should avoid giving a non-Jew a reason to bring a sacrifice or libation to his foreign god.  Therefore, during the three days preceding pagan holidays, Jews should avoid any business transactions with non-Jews, lest the non-Jew thank his god for this transaction.  According to the first opinion in the mishnah, this prohibition works in both directions.  It is forbidden for Jews to sell, lend or repay non-Jews and likewise it is forbidden to buy, borrow or receive repayment from them.  According to this opinion, all of these transactions may potentially cause the non-Jew to celebrate and therefore should be avoided.  Rabbi Judah dissents with regards to receiving repayment from non-Jews.  Since repaying a debt causes sorrow to a person, it is permitted to receive repayment during this time, since the non-Jew will not thank his god after having done so.  The Rabbis respond to Rabbi Judah that repaying a debt can indeed be a cause of celebration, even if the immediate parting with the money is depressing.  Therefore it too is prohibited three days preceding a holiday. We should note that although this mishnah seems to be of a restrictive nature, it does indeed allow business transactions at any time that is not three days before their festivals.  In other words, by forbidding the conduct of business on certain days the mishnah tacitly permits conducting business with non-Jews on other days.  This was of course an economic necessity; even before the modern “global economy” no people could survive without conducting business with other peoples."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday’s mishnah is a continuation of the mishnah we learned yesterday, which stated that it is forbidden to conduct transactions with non-Jews three days before their festivals, lest they offer sacrifices or libations to their gods for their transactions with Jews.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Ishmael says on the three preceding days and the three following days it is forbidden; But the Sages say: before their festivities it is forbidden, but after their festivities it is permitted.</b> Rabbi Ishmael states that not only is it forbidden to make transactions with non-Jews during the three days before a pagan holiday but it is also forbidden during the three days following the holiday.  In the Palestinian Talmud two potential reasons are given for Rabbi Ishmael’s statement.  The first is that non-Jews continue to celebrate for three days after their holidays are over and therefore these three days are also forbidden.  The second is that if the non-Jew knows that he will not be able to conduct business with the Jew after his holiday, he will be depressed during his holiday and he will engage in less idol worship. The Sages, who are the same Sages who expressed their opinion in the previous mishnah, prohibit only the three days preceding the holiday and not the three days following.",
                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• What is the qualitative difference between the two reasons given for prohibiting the conduct of business during the three days following the pagan holiday?"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah three delineates which idolatrous holidays are referred to in the previous two mishnayoth.",
                    "<b>These are the festivities of the idolaters:  Kalenda,  Saturnalia,   Kratesis, the anniversary of accession to the throne and birthdays and anniversaries of deaths, according to Rabbi Meir.</b>  Kalenda, from which the English word calendar derives, refers to the first day of the month, and especially to the first day of the year.  Saturnalia was a popular Roman holiday on the 17th of December, dedicated to the god, Saturn.  Kratesis, which was on the first of August, commemorated the day that Augustus conquered Alexandria in Egypt.  Note that I have used the names of these holidays as Albeck states that they should be read.  Medieval scribes often did not know what these holidays were or what their names were and different forms of the words can be found in other versions of the mishnah. The anniversary of the accession of the king to the throne is also considered to be a day of celebration full of idolatrous practices. The final two days of idolatrous celebration are personal:  one’s birthday and the anniversary of the death of a close relative.  On these days non-Jews would make idolatrous celebrations.  Interestingly, Jews did not traditionally celebrate birthdays because it was seen to be a non-Jewish custom.",
                    "<b>But the Sages say: a death at which burning [of articles of the dead] takes place is attended by idolatry, but where there is not such burning there is no idolatry.</b>  The opinion in the previous section was that of Rabbi Meir, who held that pagans commemorate the anniversaries of all deaths.  The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir and hold that only deaths where the body and clothes were burned on a funeral pyre are celebrated by idolatrous acts.  If the body was not burned on the pyre then the day is not accompanied by idolatry and it is therefore permitted to conduct business with the non-Jew three days before.",
                    "<b>But the day of shaving ones beard and lock of hair, or the day of landing after a sea voyage, or the day of release from prison, or if an idolater holds a banquet for his son   the prohibition only applies to that day and that particular person.</b>  As was previously stated it is forbidden to conduct business with non-Jews during the three days before the personal holidays mentioned in section two.  In section three the mishnah lists pagan holidays that Jews can conduct business during the three days before and are only forbidden from doing so on the holiday itself.  These include the day that the non-Jew shaves his beard and lock of hair, which refers to a lock of hair grown at the back of one’s head and is shaved once a year; the day of return from a long trip by sea; the day that one is released from prison and the day in which one marries off one’s son and makes him a celebratory feast.",
                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• What is the difference between the personal holidays mentioned in section two of this mishnah and those mentioned in section three?  Why is it forbidden to conduct business for the three days preceding some of them but not others?"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah provides some exceptions to the prohibition of conducting business with non-Jews during their festivals.",
                    "<b>When an idolatrous [festival] takes place within a city it is permitted [to conduct business with non-Jews] outside it. If the idolatrous [festival] takes place outside it, [business] is permitted within it.</b>  The prohibition of conducting business with non-Jews during their holidays is limited to the city that is actually celebrating the holiday.  Outside of the city it is permitted to conduct business with them.  The type of holiday referred to in this mishnah is probably a local holiday and not one that would have been observed throughout the land.",
                    "<b>Is it permitted to go there? If the road leads solely to that place, it is forbidden; But if one can go by it to any other place, it is permitted.</b>  This section begins with a question, a literary form that is not typical for mishnah.  The question is:  can one go to this city on the day of the celebration?  If the answer to this question were to be categorically affirmative, stating that Jews are not allowed to even travel on the road to that city, it would create another fence to prevent Jews from aiding non-Jews in their celebrations.  However, the answer is not categorical.  Rather, a Jew may travel on the road to this city as long as the road leads to other places as well.  If it only leads to this place then it is forbidden.  After all, if the Jew was travelling to this place on the holiday and the road only travels to that city, he is obviously going to transgress the prohibition, or perhaps even worse, to actually celebrate with them.",
                    "<b>A city in which an idolatrous festival is taking place, some of its shops being decorated and some not decorated    this was the case with Beth-Shean,  and the Sages said: in the decorated stores it is forbidden [to buy] but in the undecorated ones it is permitted.</b>  This section is addressed to the Jew who is already located in the non-Jewish city on the day of their celebration.  We might have thought that he is not to distinguish at all between non-Jews and that it is forbidden to conduct business with any of them.  In this section we learn that the prohibition is limited to those actually demonstrating that they are celebrating the holiday.  A storekeeper who does not decorate his store is evidently not celebrating, and therefore it is permitted to conduct business with him.  We should note that in this case the Rabbis are lenient even though it is not totally clear that this non-Jew will not celebrate later on.  In other words, although there is a chance that later the non-Jew will offer sacrifices to his god for the transaction with the Jew, since this is unlikely it is permitted. It is interesting to note the direction of this mishnah:  the first section is directed at those found outside of the city, the second at those outside of the city who are coming into the city and the third at those who are inside the city.",
                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Section two:  Is a Jew permitted to travel to the city if the road leads to other cities?  If so, why?<br>• This mishnah might remind us of the modern holiday celebrations surrounding Christmas.  How does the situation here compare and contrast with the modern situation?"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah begins a somewhat new topic:  things which are forbidden to sell to idolaters at all times of the year and not just during their holidays, lest these things be used in idol worship.  Again, it is not only forbidden to worship idols, but it is forbidden to aid non-Jews in idolatry.",
                    "<b>The following things are forbidden to be sold to idolaters: iztroblin, bnoth-shuah with their stems, frankincense, and a white rooster.</b>  Iztroblin are the pines of a cedar tree.  Bnoth-shuah are types of figs.  All of these things listed in this section are used by the idolaters for idol worship.  Therefore it is forbidden to sell them to non-Jews since that would be abetting idolatry.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: it is permitted to sell a white rooster to an idolater among other roosters; but if it be by itself, one should clip its spur and then sell it to him, because a defective [animal] is not sacrificed to an idol. As for other things, if they are not specified their sale is permitted, but if specified it is forbidden.</b>  Rabbi Judah presents some exceptions to the prohibition of selling a white rooster to an idolater.  A Jew may sell a white rooster to an idolater if it is sold with other regular roosters.  In this case the Jew is merely selling roosters and happens to sell one that is white. The non-Jew may also not be purchasing the rooster for idolatrous purposes since he bought a lot of other roosters.  Furthermore, when he sells the white rooster it doesn’t look to others as if he is selling something specifically for idol worship, since the other roosters he is selling will not typically be used in idol worship.  Rabbi Judah also creates a way for Jews to sell white roosters alone to idolaters.  As long as the Jew cuts off the spur the sale is permitted since the idolater will not sacrifice a blemished animal. With regards to the other forbidden items, it is forbidden to sell them to idolaters only if  the sale is specifically for idol worship.  If not, it is permitted to sell the item, because it may be used for other, non-idolatrous purposes.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Meir says: also a “good-palm”,  hazab and niklivas are forbidden to be sold to idolaters.</b>  Rabbi Meir adds several other things which are forbidden for a Jew to sell to idolaters.   All three of these are varieties of date-palms."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah discusses the prohibition of a Jew from selling animals to non-Jews, lest the non-Jews use them for work on the Sabbath.",
                    "<b>In a place where it is the custom to sell small domesticated animals to non-Jews, such sale is permitted; but where the custom is not to sell, such sale is not permitted. In no place however is it permitted to sell large animals, calves or foals, whether whole or maimed. Rabbi Judah permits in the case of a maimed one. And Ben Bateira permits in the case of a horse.</b> The Torah teaches on several occasions that an animal must rest on the Sabbath (see for instance Exodus 20:9). Our mishnah extends this prohibition and prohibits a Jew from selling an animal to a non-Jew, lest the non-Jew use the animal for work on the Sabbath.  This is similar yet somewhat different from the issue which the mishnah discussed previously, selling potentially idolatrous objects to the non-Jew.  In both cases it is forbidden to sell something to a non-Jew.  However, in this case, Jews are not enjoined to prevent non-Jews from working on the Sabbath.  Rather Jews are prohibited from putting Sabbath observant animals into the position where they will have to break the Sabbath.  In other words this prohibition concerns the animal and not the non-Jew himself. Not all animals are used for work.  Small animals, such as sheep and goats are not used for work.  Therefore in a place where it is customary to sell them to non-Jews it is permitted to do so.  In other places it was customary not to sell even small animals to non-Jews, lest the Jew become confused and sell them large animals, which is prohibited in all places. [We have not encountered many of these types of mishnahs, which permit something in a place where it is customary to do so, and forbid it in places where it is not customary.  For other examples which we have learned see Bava Metzia 7:1 or 9:1.] It is forbidden in all places to sell large animals, such as oxen and horses, to non-Jews since they will be used to perform work on the Sabbath.  This prohibition includes calves and foals, even though they do not usually perform work. Rabbi Judah allows one to sell injured animals to non-Jews since they are clearly being purchased for their meat and not in order to do work. Ben Bateira allows the sale of a horse since horses are used for riding, which is not considered by the Rabbis to be work.  Pulling plows, a work performed by oxen is considered work.",
                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>Why is it forbidden in all places to sell calves and foals to non-Jews and yet there are some places that do sell small animals?  Since both don’t perform work why is one always prohibited and one sometimes permitted?"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah teaches that one is forbidden to assist a non-Jew in any way that may injure the public.",
                    "<b>One should not sell them bears, lions or anything which may injure the public.</b>  A Jew is not allowed to sell bears or lions to non-Jews, lest the non-Jew not take proper care of the animal and the animal cause damage to the public.  This section may also be understood as referring to the gladiator exhibitions which often involved lions and bears.  The Rabbis were opposed to these violent exhibitions and to the culture that encouraged the enjoyment of bloodshed.  A Jew should certainly not attend such events nor sell animals to non-Jews that might be used in these events.",
                    "<b>One should not join them in building a basilica, a scaffold, a stadium, or a platform.</b>  A Jew may not join non-Jews in building any of the structures listed in this section.  The basilica served as a courtroom.  The scaffold was used for executions.  The platform was used for judges to make speeches.  We can see from this mishnah that the Jews had a deep distrust for the non-Jewish law system.  This law system is considered damaging to the public and therefore a Jew should not aid in building this system.",
                    "<b>But one may join them in building public or private bathhouses. When however he reaches the cupola in which the idol is placed he must not build.</b>  A Jew is allowed to join non-Jews in building bathhouses, since bathhouses are for the public good.  Indeed in other Talmudic sources the Romans are praised for building bathhouses, marketplaces, roads and bridges.  From other stories in the Talmud and a famous story that will appear in our tractate, it is clear that Jews and non-Jews shared public bathhouses. [Note:  the version of the mishnah upon which my interpretation is based is “dimasaot” and not “bimasaot”, as recommended by Albeck.] A Jew may not aid in building the cupola of the bathhouse since that is the place where the idol is placed.  As we have learned already in the previous mishnayoth, a Jew may not perform any action which would aid in idolatrous practice."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah continues to discuss things that should not be sold to non-Jews.  The first section lists things that shouldn’t be sold lest they be used for idolatrous purposes.  The remainder of the mishnah discusses land and things attached to the land.  These should not be sold to non-Jews lest they begin to dispossess the Jews of the land of Israel.",
                    "<b>One should not make jewelry for an idol [such as] necklaces, ear-rings, or finger-rings. Rabbi Eliezer says, for payment it is permitted.</b>  One should not make jewelry for idolaters lest they use them to decorate their idols.  Rabbi Eliezer says that one may sell jewelry to them but not give it for free.  This opinion is perplexing because usually if we are concerned that the actions of the Jew might encourage idolatry, the fact that he profits does not make it more permissible.  There are some versions of the mishnah that do not include this line.",
                    "<b>One should not sell to idolaters a thing which is attached to the soil, but when cut down it may be sold. R. Judah says, one may sell it on condition that it be cut down.</b>  The mishnah now begins to discuss selling them land and things attached to the land.  One should not sell them things attached to the land, such as trees, since this might give them a stake in the land as well.  Once the item has been cut down, it is permitted.  Rabbi Judah is more lenient and allows something to be sold while it is attached, as long as it is stipulated that it will be cut down.",
                    "<b>One should not let houses to them in the land of Israel; and it is not necessary to mention fields. In Syria houses may be let to them, but not fields. Outside of the land of Israel, houses may be sold and fields let to them, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: in the land of Israel, one may let to them houses but not fields; In Syria, we may sell them houses and let fields; Outside of the land of Israel, both may be sold.</b>  The first half of this section is Rabbi Meir’s opinion.  He holds that one should not even rent houses to non-Jews in the land of Israel, lest he come to sell them as well.  This is true of houses and even more true of fields, for with fields there is the added problem of tithes.  Once a Jew sells his field to a non-Jew the field’s produce is not liable for tithing.  In this way, the sale reduces the holiness of the field. In Syria, which is adjacent to Israel and was conquered by David but is not considered fully a part of Israel, we can be slightly more lenient.  Houses may be rented to non-Jews, but fields still may not, because the produce grown in Syria is still subject to tithes.  Outside of the land, a Jew may sell houses, but he still may not sell fields, lest by habit he come to sell fields in the land of Israel as well. On all of these cases, Rabbi Yose is slightly more lenient. Inside of Israel he allows the renting of houses, but not fields.  In Syria he allows the sale of houses and the renting of fields and outside of the land, both may be sold.  Note that he is still consistent in that the rules are more strict with fields than with houses.  The major difference is that he does not rule more strictly in cases that should be permitted (such as selling fields outside of the land) but were forbidden by Rabbi Meir lest one come to sell something that really should not be sold."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is a continuation of the previous mishnah, which discussed selling and letting houses to idolaters.",
                    "<b>Even in such a place where the letting of a house has been permitted, they did not say [that this was permitted if it was] for the purpose of a residence, since the idolater will bring idols into it; for it says, “you shall not bring an abomination into your house” (Deut. 7:26).</b>  Although in the previous mishnah we learned that in certain places it is permitted to let a house to an idolater (in Syria according to Rabbi Meir, and in the land of Israel according to Rabbi Yose), this permission is not granted if the idolater is renting the house as a residence.  Since the idolater will bring his idols into the house, this would violate the prohibition of allowing idols into one’s home.  The idolater may only rent the house from the Jew to use for storage or other non-residential usage.  [The Jerusalem Talmud rules that outside of the land of Israel it is permitted to sell or let houses to idolaters even for the purpose of residence.  Although in this case too the idolater will bring idols into the house and seemingly thereby cause the Jew to violate the commandment in Deut. 7:26, the essential meaning of the verse is that it is forbidden for a Jew to bring idols into his own house.  The halacha is more strict inside the land of Israel and in bordering areas because it is incumbent upon Jews to cleanse the land of idol worship.]",
                    "<b>In no place may one let a bath-house to an idolater, as it is called by the name of the owner.</b>  In no place, even outside the land of Israel, may one let a bath-house to an idolater.  Since the bath-house will continue to be called by the name of the Jewish owner, and the idolater will surely bring idols into the warehouse, this is forbidden.",
                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• How is the topic of this mishnah different from the topic of the previous mishnah?<br>• What is different about a bath-house and why is it more prohibited than other types of rentals or sales?"
                ]
            ],
            [
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah teaches that non-Jewish idol worshippers are suspected of several heinous sins:  bestiality, sexual licentiousness and murder.  This mishnah adopts a very harsh attitude towards the idolaters at the time.  We should remind ourselves that according to later Jewish law, non-Jews who did not engage in such practices were not subject to these laws.",
                    "<b>One should not place animals in inns of non-Jews,  because they are suspected of bestiality.</b>  Non-Jewish idolaters are suspected of bestiality.  Therefore Jews should not place animals in their inns.  By doing so they would be encouraging the non-Jew to engage in bestiality, which according to Jewish ideology is also forbidden to non-Jews.  It is one of the seven “Noahide” commandments which are incumbent upon non-Jews to observe.",
                    "<b>A woman should not be alone with them, because they are suspected of licentiousness; Nor should a man be alone with them, because they are suspected of shedding blood.</b>  Jewish women should not be alone with non-Jewish idolaters for they are suspected of being rapists.  Jewish men should not be alone with non-Jewish idolaters for they are suspected of being murderers.",
                    "<b>A Jewish woman should not act as midwife to a non-Jewish woman, because she would be delivering a child for idolatry. But a non-Jewish woman may act as midwife to a Jewish woman.</b>  A Jewish woman should not act as midwife for a non-Jew for this would abet idol worship.  In the Talmud it is explained that this is only prohibited if the Jewish woman works for free.  If she is paid for her work it is permitted. A non-Jewish woman may act as a midwife for a Jewish woman.",
                    "<b>A Jewish woman should not suckle the child of a non-Jewish woman, But a non-Jewish woman may suckle the child of a Jewish woman in her premises.</b>  A Jewish woman may not act as a wet-nurse for a non-Jewish child.  This is for the same reason that she may not act as a midwife. A non-Jewish woman may be a wet-nurse to a Jewish child, provided she nurse the child on the premises of the Jewish family.  The Jewish family may not give over their child to the non-Jewish woman for fear that she will kill the child."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is a continuation of the discussion which began in the previous mishnah.  It continues to discuss prohibitions that are a result of the Jewish suspicion that non-Jews are murderers.",
                    "<b>We may allow them to heal us when the healing relates to money, but not personal healing;</b>  A Jew is permitted to be healed by a non-Jew when the healing relates to money. In the Talmud this clause is explained to mean that a Jew may take his animals to a non-Jewish doctor.  This “healing” is considered to be related to money because the animal is the Jew’s property.  However, a Jew may not himself be healed by a non-Jewish doctor, lest the non-Jewish doctor purposefully cause him damage.  The Talmud adds that if the non-Jewish doctor tells him that a certain drug would be beneficial he may listen to him, since the Jew could check this information with others.",
                    "<b>Nor should we have our hair cut by them in any place, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages said:  in a public place it is permitted, but not when the two persons are alone.</b>  According to Rabbi Meir a Jew may never get his hair cut by a non-Jew, lest the non-Jew kill him with the scissors or razor.  The Sages say that this is only prohibited in private.  In public the non-Jew would not dare to kill the Jew."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah lists things that belong to non-Jews that may not be used by Jews, for fear that the Jew will be using something that has previously been used in idol worship.",
                    "<b>The following things belonging to non-Jews are forbidden [for Jews to use] and the prohibition extends to any benefit that may be derived from them: wine, or a non-Jew’s vinegar that was formerly wine, Hadrianic earthenware, skins pierced at the animal’s heart. (1) Rabban Shimon Gamaliel says: when its tear is round, [the skin] is forbidden, but if oblong it is permitted.</b>  Non-Jewish wine may not be used since it may have been used in making a libation to an idol.  [This prohibition is still observed by many religious Jews today, even though we can be quite sure that the wine was not used for idol worship.]  Similarly, vinegar that was once intended to be wine and then went sour may not be used by a Jew, since it may have been used in idol worship when it was wine.  However, if the non-Jew bought the vinegar from a Jew and then gave it back to a Jew the Jew may use it since vinegar itself is not used in idol worship. According to the Talmud Hadrianic earthenware absorbs wine and when subsequently wetted, will release the wine.  If a Jew were to use such earthenware he would be using non-Jewish wine, which is prohibited. According to the mishnah, idolaters would make incisions in animals to remove the hearts and use them in idol worship.  If one sees a cut in an animal skin at the place of the heart, it is a sign that the animal was used for idol worship and it is forbidden.  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel claims that only if the cut is circular is the skin forbidden.  Since non-Jews do not make oblong cuts as part of their idol worship, the skin is permitted.",
                    "<b>Meat which is being brought into a place of idol worship is permitted,  but that which is brought out is forbidden, because it is like a sacrifice to the dead,  this is the opinion of Rabbi Akiba.</b>  Meat that is being brought into a place of idol worship is permitted to a Jew, since it has not yet been used for idol worship.  It is of course not permitted to be eaten, since it probably is not kosher.  However, one could use it to feed animals.  Meat that is coming out of a place of idol worship is forbidden, since it was probably used for idolatry.",
                    "<b>With non-Jews going on a pilgrimage [to worship idols] it is forbidden to have any business transactions, but with those returning it is permitted.</b>  It is forbidden to conduct business with non-Jews who are on their way to worship idols, since they will thank their gods for their business with the Jews.  In this way the Jew will indirectly be abetting idol worship.  However, it is permitted to engage them in business on their return, since they have already completed their idol worship.  [Note this last section is of a different subject than the other sections.  It should have been included in chapter one.  It probably was included here due to its similarity to the previous clause.]"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah contains three disputes between Rabbi Meir and the Sages with regards to the prohibitions of certain foods once owned by non-Jews.  In each case Rabbi Meir is more strict.",
                    "<b>Skin-bottles or flasks of non-Jews in which wine of a Jew is kept are forbidden and the prohibition extends to any benefit that may be derived from them, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say that the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit.</b>  If a Jew stores his wine in skin-bottles or ceramic flasks in which non-Jews previously stored their wine the Jewish wine becomes forbidden.  Since the skin-bottles and flasks contained absorbed wine in their walls, that non-Jewish wine would mix with the Jewish wine.  According to Rabbi Meir, it is forbidden to even derive any benefit from this wine.  According to the Sages it is only forbidden for the Jew to drink the wine.  If he wants he could sell the wine to a non-Jew and thereby derive benefit.  The Sages rule that the only type of non-Jewish wine from which it is actually prohibited to derive benefit is wine that one can see.  Wine that has been absorbed in a vessel is only forbidden to be drunk.",
                    "<b>Grape seeds and grape-skins of non-Jews are forbidden, the prohibition extending to any benefit that may be derived from them, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, when fresh they are forbidden but when dry they are permitted.</b>  According to Rabbi Meir, both dry and moist grape skins and seeds that belonged to non-Jews are forbidden to Jews and the prohibition extends even to deriving any benefit from them.  The Sages rule that dry seeds and skins are permitted even to eat and only moist ones are prohibited.",
                    "<b>Fish brine and Bithynian cheese of the non-Jews are forbidden, the prohibition extending to any benefit that may be derived from them, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say that the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit.</b>  The concern with regards to fish brine is that there may be small amounts of wine in it.  Bithynian cheese is cheese that comes from a place called Bithynia, which is in Asia Minor.  According to the Talmud most of the calves raised there were used for idol worship.  Since cheese uses rennet, a substance which comes from the stomach lining of a cow and solidifies the milk into cheese, we are concerned that the rennet came from a cow used in idol worship.  Due to our concern with both of these foods, Rabbi Meir says it is forbidden for a Jew to derive benefit from either.  According the Sages it is only forbidden to eat them; it is permitted to derive benefit from them.  The fish brine is permitted since the wine was only used as an antidote for any polluting agent in the brine and not for its own taste.  The cheese is permitted since most of the animals in Bithynia were not used for idol worship, only most of the calves which were a minority of the total number of animals."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah contains a discussion between Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Joshua concerning the prohibition of non-Jewish cheese.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Judah said: Rabbi Ishmael put this question to Rabbi Joshua as they were walking on the way, “Why have they forbidden the cheese of non-Jews?” He replied, because they curdle it with the rennet of a nevelah (an animal that was not properly slaughtered.”</b>  Rabbi Ishmael asks Rabbi Joshua why the Sages forbid cheese made by non-Jews.  This prohibition is perplexing to Rabbi Ishmael because even the non-Jews make their cheese from kosher animals such as cows and goats.  Since the milk used to make the cheese comes from kosher animals, it should be permitted. Rabbi Joshua responds that non-Jews use rennet to curdle the cheese.  This rennet comes from the stomachs of animals that were not properly slaughtered and therefore the cheese is prohibited.",
                    "<b>He (Rabbi said: “but is not the rennet of a burnt-offering more strictly forbidden than the rennet of a nevelah? [and yet] it was said that a priest who is not fastidious may suck it out raw.” (Though the Sages disagreed with this opinion, and they said that no benefit may be derived from it, although one who consumed it did not trespass [temple.</b>  Rabbi Ishmael responds that a priest who sees rennet in the stomach of a whole burnt offering may drink this rennet (I know this sounds a little gross.).  Since a whole burnt offering is forbidden to be eaten, this law proves that the rennet is not considered part of the animal.  If it were considered to be an integral part of the animal, it would have been prohibited.  Since it is not forbidden in this case then by comparison the rennet used to make cheese should not make the cheese forbidden to Jews, even though it comes from an animal that was improperly slaughtered. At this point the mishnah offers an aside. The statement that the rennet of a whole burnt offering may be consumed by a priest was only Rabbi Ishmael’s opinion.  The Rabbis did not agree with him.  They stated that it is forbidden to derive benefit from this rennet and yet one who does so is not considered to have taken (trespassed) Temple property.  [If he had taken from Temple property he would have to bring a sacrifice to atone for the sin, as well as pay back the value of that which he took.]  This section is not an integral part of the mishnah and was added in at a later time.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Joshua responded:  “The reason then is because they curdle it with the rennet from calves sacrificed to idols.”</b>  Rabbi Joshua now provides another reason why non-Jewish cheese is forbidden.  Non-Jews use rennet that comes from calves that were used in idol worship.  Since any item that was used in idol worship is forbidden to a Jew, non-Jewish cheese is forbidden to a Jew.",
                    "<b>He (Rabbi said to him: “if that be so, why do they not extend the prohibition to any benefit derived from it?”</b>  Rabbi Ishmael responds that if non-Jewish cheese is forbidden since it may contain rennet that comes from an animal used in idol worship, then it should not only be forbidden to eat, it should also be forbidden to derive any benefit from it.  From the example in the previous mishnah concerning Bithynian cheese, we learned that the Sages said it was only forbidden for consumption and it was not forbidden to derive benefit from non-Jewish cheese.",
                    "<b>He (Rabbi diverted him to another matter, saying: “Ishmael, how do you read   for your [masc.] love is more delightful than wine” or “your [fem.] love etc. (Song of Songs 1:2” He replied: “your [fem.] love is better …” He said to him: this is not so, as it is proved by its fellow [-verse]: your ointments [masc.] have a goodly fragrance … [therefore do the maidens love you] (Song of Songs 1:3).”</b>  Rabbi Joshua does not seem to have an answer to this response of Rabbi Ishmael’s and therefore he distracts him to a different topic, this dealing with the gender of  the speaker in the second verse of Song of Songs.  The verse states “for your love is more delightful than wine”.  “Your love” can either be masculine or feminine.  The only difference in the Hebrew is the vocalization;  the consonants are exactly the same.  Rabbi Ishmael responds that he vocalizes it to be a masculine pronoun.  In other words the speaker is feminine and she is speaking to a male.  Rabbi Joshua points out that this is surely wrong for the word “your ointments” is masculine.  Although this word too can be vocalized to be feminine, the fact that the end of the verse refers to maidens loving him proves that the one being spoken to is male."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah lists things that were made by non-Jews which Jews may not eat but from which they may derive benefit.",
                    "<b>The following articles of non-Jews are prohibited but the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit from them: 1. milk which a non-Jew milked without an israelite watching him, 2. their bread and oil (Rabbi and his court permitted the oil) 3. stewed and pickled things into which they are accustomed to put wine or vinegar, 4. pickled herring which had been minced, 5. brine in which there is no kalbith-fish floating, 6. helek, 7. pieces of asa foetida 8. and sal-conditum. Behold these are prohibited but the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit from them.</b> Mishnah three began with a list of things owned by a non-Jew from which it was prohibited to derive benefit.  This is a more stringent legal category than food which is merely prohibited to eat, the list which is contained in our mishnah.  We will explain each item in this mishnah and why it is forbidden to eat. 1) Milk if the non-Jew milked an animal without a Jew watching, he may have mixed into the milk, milk which comes from an non-kosher animal, such as a camel. 2) Bread and oil this prohibition is not due to a fear of the bread or oil being truly non-kosher.  Rather the Sages prohibited a Jew from eating non-Jewish bread or oil in order to prevent Jews from socializing with non-Jews. The Talmud relates that it is permitted to eat bread made by bakers (as opposed to private individuals) since that will not bring Jews and non-Jews together.  The mishnah notes, in what is surely a later addition, that Rabbi and his court permitted Jews to consume non-Jewish oil.  The “Rabbi” referred to here is Rabbi Judah Nesia, the grandson of Rabbi Judah the Prince who composed the Mishnah.  The reason, according to the Talmud, that they permitted the oil is that most people were not observing the prohibition.  From here we learn that a “decree” of the Sages that is not accepted by the people does not become law. 3) Stewed and pickled things which might have wine or vinegar in them.  These are forbidden because of the wine, which we learned in mishnah three is forbidden. 4) Pickled herring, which had been minced.  The concern is that the non-Jew added in non-kosher fish.  Since the fish is minced one would not be able to recognize what was in it. 5) Brine in which there is no kalbith-fish floating According to the Talmud brine which has only kosher fish will always have a “kalbith” fish.  The absence of this type of fish is a potential sign that it also contains non-kosher fish. 6) Hilek this is a type of fish that does not have fins and scales until it is older.  When it is young it may be mistaken for truly non-kosher fish, and therefore it may not be eaten. 7) Pieces of asa-foetida:  This is a spicy tasting plant that needs to be cut with a sharp knife.  It is prohibited lest the same knife used to cut it had previously been used to cut the meat of non-kosher animals. 8)  Sal-conditum:  This is a type of spice-salt which had non-kosher oils (from pigs and non-kosher fish) mixed into it.",
                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• What are the different types of reasons for the prohibitions listed in this mishnah?  What can this tell us about the attitudes of the Sages to the non-Jews?"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>The following are permitted to be eaten [by an israelite]:<br>milk which a non-Jew milked with a Jew watching him;<br>honey,<br>grape-clusters    even though these secrete moisture the law which renders food susceptible to defilement by a liquid does not apply to them<br>preserves into which they are not accustomed to put wine or vinegar,<br>pickled herring which has not been minced,<br>brine containing fish,<br>a leaf of asafoetida,<br>and rolled olive-cakes. Rabbi Yose says: those olives having pits ready to drop out are prohibited.<br>Locusts which come out of [a shopkeeper’s] basket are prohibited, but if from storage they are permitted. The same rule applies to terumah.</b><br>This mishnah lists food produced by non-Jews which a Jew is allowed to eat.<br>1) As we explained in the previous mishnah, the concern with milk is that the non-Jew might mix milk which comes from a kosher animal with milk that comes from a non-kosher animal (such as a camel).  If the Jew is watching over the non-Jew we have no such concern and the milk is therefore permitted.<br>2) Mixing foreign substances with honey would spoil the honey.  Therefore we can assume that the non-Jew did not put anything into the honey and it is permitted.<br>3) Even though some grape juice may be dripping from the cluster of grapes, we are not concerned that the non-Jew used this juice in idol worship and it would be forbidden.  The mishnah also notes that the liquid that comes out of grapes is not the type of liquid which makes a food susceptible to impurities.  As we have learned before (Eduyoth 4:6) food cannot become impure until it is made wet by seven types of liquids.  Grape juice is not one of them.<br>4) Preserved foods into which it is not customary to put wine or vinegar are permitted.<br>5) If one can see that the fish in the brine is actually herring, it is permitted, unlike the minced fish which was discussed above.<br>6) In the previous mishnah we learned that it was forbidden to eat pieces of the asa foetida, since the same knife used to cut this plant might have been used to cut non-kosher food.  In this mishnah we learn that since they don’t cut the leaves of the as foetida with this type of knife, it is permitted.<br>7) Olives that have been rolled out into cakes are permitted, since no wine is used in them.  According to Rabbi Yose, if the olives have become so soft that the pits fall out, wine might have been put on them to soften them.  Therefore, they are forbidden.<br>8) Some types of locusts are kosher.  When a seller sells them, he brings them from his storehouse and puts them in a small basket, onto which he mixes a little wine.  Due to the addition of this wine, locusts that come from this basket are forbidden.  The locusts that come from the storehouse are permitted since the wine has not yet been put upon them.<br>The mishnah points out that the same is true with regards to terumah.  If a kohen sells locusts from the little basket, we must suspect that he has dripped wine on them, and that the wine might be terumah, which is strictly forbidden to non-priests.  If, however, the locusts come from storage, we can be sure that there is no terumah-wine mixed in with them."
                ]
            ],
            [
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAccording to Deuteronomy 7:25-26 it is forbidden for a Jew to derive any benefit from idolatrous images.  Our mishnah defines which images made by non-Jews are idolatrous and therefore forbidden and which are made merely as adornments, and are therefore permitted.",
                    "<b>All images are prohibited because they are worshipped once a year, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir; But the Sages say: [an image] is not prohibited except one that has a staff or bird or orb in its hand. Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel says: any [image] which has anything in its hand [is prohibited].</b> The Rabbis in this mishnah dispute which images (sculptures) that are made by non-Jews are prohibited, because they may be used for idolatrous purposes.  According to Rabbi Meir, all images are prohibited for at least some of them are worshipped once a year.  Even though most of the images may have only been made as decorations, and not truly as idols, since there are some that are indeed idols, all are forbidden.  Furthermore, even though an idol seems to be made only as a decoration, since it may be worshipped once a year, it is forbidden. The Sages dispute with Rabbi Meir.  They hold that only the images that have in their hands a staff, bird or orb are forbidden.  An image that holds one of these items, which probably was a symbol of power, was certainly made for idolatry.  However, although some other images may have been made for idolatrous purposes, we are not sure if they were.  Therefore we are not strict with regards to them, and they are permitted. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel basically agrees with the Sages that an image about which there is a doubt if it is idolatrous, is permitted.  However, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel adds that any image that has something in its hand is idolatrous, and is therefore forbidden.",
                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• What is the nature of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages?  In other words what is the concept or concepts underlying their dispute?"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah discusses the permissibility of broken pieces of potentially idolatrous images.",
                    "<b>One who finds fragments of images, behold they are permitted. If one found the figure of a hand or the figure of a foot, behold it is prohibited because such an object is worshipped.</b> One who finds a fragment of an image may make use of that fragment.  The mishnah teaches that we may assume that the non-Jew intentionally broke the idol and thereby annulled it from its idolatrous use. However, if one finds an entire hand of an image or a foot, it is prohibited, since there are non-Jews who use these parts in and of themselves as idols.  The Talmud explains that these are only prohibited if they are found attached to a base, which means that they are not truly broken pieces."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah discusses what one must do with things that he found that are likely to have been used as idols.",
                    "<b>If one finds utensils upon which is the figure of the sun or moon or a dragon, he casts them into the Dead Sea. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if [one of these figures] is upon precious utensils they are prohibited, but if upon common utensils they are permitted.</b>  If one finds a utensil that has on it a picture of the sun, moon or a dragon he must destroy it, since it was certainly used for idolatrous purposes.  According to the first section of the mishnah, the best way to totally destroy an idol is to throw it into the Dead Sea.  In such a way there is no chance that he, or any other Jew, will ever derive any benefit from it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel states that not all utensils that have pictures of the sun, moon or dragon are forbidden.  Only precious utensils with such pictures on them are forbidden, for they were certainly worshipped.  Cheap utensils were, in all likelihood, not worshipped, and are therefore permitted, even though they have on them pictures of the sun, moon or dragon.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says: he may grind [an idol] to powder and scatter it to the wind or throw it into the sea. They said to him, even so it may then become manure, as it says, “let nothing that has been proscribed stick to your hand (Deuteronomy 13:18)”.</b>  Rabbi Yose adds to the opinion in section one which stated that the idols must be thrown into the Dead Sea.  He holds that it is even sufficient to grind them up and then throw the dust to the wind.  The other Sages respond to him that this is not sufficient.  By grinding up the idol, someone might use it as fertilizer. This method of destruction would not, therefore, prevent other Jews from violating the strict prohibition of deriving benefit from idols.  The Sages bring a verse from Deuteronomy to prove that it is forbidden to derive even the smallest benefit from idolatrous objects."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Proclos, son of a plosphos, asked Rabban Gamaliel in Acco when the latter was bathing in the bathhouse of aphrodite.<br>He said to him, “It is written in your torah, ‘let nothing that has been proscribed stick to your hand (Deuteronomy 13:18)’;  why are you bathing in the bathhouse of Aphrodite?”<br>He replied to him, “We do not answer [questions relating to torah] in a bathhouse.”<br>When he came out, he said to him, “I did not come into her domain, she has come into mine.  People do not say, ‘the bath was made as an adornment for Aphrodite’; rather they say, ‘Aphrodite was made as an adornment for the bath.’<br>Another reason is, even if you were given a large sum of money, you would not enter the presence of your idol while you were nude or had experienced seminal emission, nor would you urinate before it. But this [statue of Aphrodite] stands by a sewer and all people urinate before it. [In the torah] it is only stated, “their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:3)    what is treated as a god is prohibited, what is not treated as a deity is permitted.</b><br>This mishnah contains a famous story of a discussion between Proclos, a Greek philosopher and Rabban Gamaliel, the Jewish patriarch.<br>In order to understand this mishnah we must remember that Roman and Greek society would have been full of statues.  Indeed, anywhere a Jew turned his head, he probably saw a statue, often a statue of a god or goddess.  If the Jews were to adopt an overly strict attitude towards these statues, and consider them idols, Jews would effectively be prohibited from taking part in most of Greco-Roman society, including such communal institutions such as the bathhouse, roads, bridges and marketplaces.  In this mishnah Rabban Gamaliel shows a remarkable degree of flexibility and accommodation to this situation.<br>The story begins with Proklos, the son of Plosphos (this may be the word for philosopher) pointing out that the Torah forbids Rabban Gamaliel’s being in Aphrodite’s bathhouse.  Rabban Gamaliel responds that it is not appropriate to respond in the bathhouse.<br>When they leave the bathhouse Rabban Gamaliel answers Proklos’s question.  The bathhouse was not made for Aphrodite.  Rather it was made for the public use and Aphrodite was merely placed there as adornment.  As such, Rabban Gamaliel’s presence in the bathhouse is not a form of worship to Aphrodite, as it would be in her temple.  Furthermore, people do not say that the bathhouse was made to adorn Aphrodite.  Rather she is ancillary to the bathhouse and it is the central structure.<br>Rabban Gamaliel further points out that if this sculpture of Aphrodite were truly considered to be a goddess, people would not walk naked in front of her, or have seminal emissions or urinate.  Such actions are signs of disrespect, which would not be appropriate in front of a goddess.  When the Torah states that a Jew is commanded to destroy idols, the intent is to destroy idols that are treated as gods, and not those that are treated with disrespect."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah discusses hills, mountains and trees which were used in idolatrous worship.  The question is asked, are these to be forbidden as were other material items used in idol worship.",
                    "<b>If idolaters worship mountains and hills these are permitted;  but what is upon them is prohibited, as it is says, “you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them and take them” (Deut. 7:25).</b>  Although an idolater may worship a hill or mountain, that mountain is not prohibited to subsequent Jewish use as is a statue worshipped by a non-Jew.  Any thing that is either ground or attached to the ground is not considered an idolatrous “object” that would be forbidden to Jews.  However, that which is upon these “worshipped” mountains and hills is forbidden. This principle is learned from Deut. 7:25 which uses the word “that is on them”.  Although according to the simple sense of the verse, this refers to the gold and silver that are on idols, the midrash in our mishnah understands this to be referring to the idolatrous objects that are on a mountain or hill.  They are forbidden but the land itself is not.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: [it says] “their gods on the mountains” (Deut. 12:,  not their mountains which are their gods; “their gods on the hills” (ibid.), not their hills which are their gods.</b>  Rabbi Yose Hagalili offers an alternative midrash to the one in the previous section.  This verse instructs the Israelites to destroy all of the sites where the other nations worship.  It says that these sites are on the mountains and hills.  From here Rabbi Yose concludes that that which is on the mountains and hills is forbidden, but not the land itself.",
                    "<b>And why is an asherah prohibited?  Because there was manual labour connected with it, and whatever has manual labour connected with it is prohibited.</b>  So far we have learned in the previous two sections that in general land and anything attached to land is not treated as an idolatrous object.  The mishnah raises a glaring exception to this rule, the asherah, a tree which was worshipped, which according to Deut. 7:5 and 12:3, must be cut down and burned.  The answer is that any natural object that was planted by a human being and was gardened by a person is, if worshipped, to be treated as an idol.",
                    "<b>Rabbi Akiba said: let me expound and decide [the interpretation] before you: wherever you find a high mountain or elevated hill or green tree, know that an idolatrous object is there.</b>  Deut. 12:2 instructs Israelites to destroy all the idolatrous sites, “whether on lofty mountains and on hills or under any luxuriant tree.”  Rabbi Akiva seems to be answering the question, why does the Torah mention the mountains, hills and tree.  It would have been sufficient to merely state that all idolatrous sites must be destroyed and we would know that this includes those found on mountains, hills and under luxuriant trees.  Rabbi Akiva answers that the verse was giving a hint to the Jews where they could find idolatry.",
                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• What is the reasoning behind the answer given in section three that any tree that was planted by man is forbidden if used as an idol?"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah six deals with two subjects: 1)  a person who lives adjacent to an idolatrous shrine; 2) the ritual impurity of idolatrous objects.",
                    "<b>If [a Jew] has a house next to an idolatrous shrine and it collapsed, he is forbidden to rebuild it. What should he do? He withdraws a distance of four cubits into his own ground and build there.</b>  If one shared a wall with an idolatrous shrine, meaning his house was next to this shrine, he need not tear down his house and move somewhere else.  Since he lived there before the shrine was built he does not need to move.  However, if the house should fall down he may not rebuild the wall that will be shared with the shrine.  What he may do is withdraw four cubits and build his own wall, one which will not be shared with the shrine.",
                    "<b>[If the wall] belonged both to him and the shrine, it is judged as being half and half.</b>  The wall that is shared by the Jewish homeowner and the idolatrous shrine is considered to be jointly owned.  The half that is next to the shrine is forbidden for Jews to use and the half that is next to the Jewish house is permitted.",
                    "<b>Its stones, timber and rubbish defile like a creeping thing, as it says, “you shall utterly detest it” (Deut. 7:26).  ] Rabbi Akiba says: [it defiles] like a menstruous woman, as it says, “[and you will treat as unclean the silver overlay of your images and the golden plating of your idols].  You will cast them away like a menstruous woman.  Out, you will call to them” (Isaiah 30:22), just as a menstruous woman impurifies [an object] by carrying it, so also an idolatrous object defiles by its being carried.</b>  According to Deut. 7:26 a Jew must abhor idolatrous objects.  The word for “abhor” is “sheketz”, which is the same word used for an impure creeping thing in Leviticus 11:31.  From here the mishnah learns that just as creeping things transmit impurity, so too do idolatrous objects.  The type of impurity that a creeping thing imparts is contact impurity.  It does not impart impurity to one who carries it (without touching it).  Contact impurity is a lesser type of impurity than carrying impurity. Rabbi Akiva learns the impurity of idolatrous objects from Isaiah 30:22, which explicitly compares idolatrous objects to menstruating women, both being impure and imparting impurity to others.  A menstruating woman imparts impurity both through contact and through carrying.  So too, according to Rabbi Akiva, do idolatrous objects.  In other words Rabbi Akiva holds that the impurity of idolatrous objects is more serious than that of the creeping thing.",
                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• What is the problem with living next to an idolatrous shrine?<br>• Why doesn’t the opinion in the first part of the last section learn about the impurity of idolatrous objects from the verse in Isaiah, which seemingly explicitly compares idolatrous objects to a menstruating woman?"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>There are three types of shrines: A shrine originally built for idolatrous worship   behold this is prohibited. If one plastered and tiled [an ordinary house] for idolatry and renovated it, one may remove the renovations. If he had only brought an idol into it and taken it out again, [the house] is permitted.<br>There are three kinds of [idolatrous] stones: A stone which a man hewed originally to serve as a pedestal [for an idol]   behold this is prohibited. If one plastered and tiled [a stone] for idolatry, one may remove the plaster and tile, and it is then permitted. If he set an idol upon it and took it off, behold [the stone] is permitted.<br>There are three kinds of asherah: a tree which has originally been planted for idolatry   behold this is prohibited. If he chopped and trimmed [a tree] for idolatry, and its sprouted  afresh, he removes the new growth. If he only set [an idol] under it and took it away, behold the tree is permitted.<br>What is an asherah? Any [tree] beneath which there is an idol. Rabbi Shimon says: any [tree] which is worshipped. It happened at Sidon that there was a tree which was worshipped and they found a heap of stones beneath it. Rabbi Shimon said to them, “examine this heap.” They examined it and discovered an image in it.  He said to them, “since it is the image that they worship, we permit the tree for you.”</b><br>This mishnah discusses houses, stones and tree which were used in idolatrous ways and divides each of them into three different types.<br>Sections 1-3:  All three of these sections teach the same rule with regards to three different potentially idolatrous items:  shrines, stones and trees.  If any of these was created from the beginning to be idolatrous, it is totally prohibited from Jewish usage.  If one of these things originally existed not for idolatrous purposes, and then was somehow modified to be idolatrous, the Jew needs to remove the renovations before it is permitted to use the object.  In other words, the basic object is permitted and only the new parts that were created for idolatry are forbidden.  If one of these objects was not changed at all, but had idols put inside it (house) or on top of it (stone) or underneath it (the tree), all that needs to be done is for the idol to be removed and the object is permitted to the Jew.  In this case the object itself was never truly idolatrous, but rather it was used to facilitate idol worship.  Therefore this is an easy situation to rectify and make the object permissible to Jews.<br>Section four:  This section teaches the definition of the asherah, the idolatrous tree mentioned on several occasions in the Torah.  According to the first opinion in the mishnah an asherah has idols underneath it, but it itself is not worshipped.  According to Rabbi Shimon the tree itself is an idolatrous object.  The mishnah now tells a story that happened in Sidon, where there was a suspicion that idolaters were worshipping a certain tree.  Underneath the tree was a heap of stones.  Rabbi Shimon instructed the other rabbis to examine the heap of stones and when they did they found an image.  From here Rabbi Shimon concluded that the tree itself was not worshipped, but rather the image underneath the tree.  Therefore the tree was permitted for Jews to use.<br>Questions For Further Thought:<br> Does section three match Rabbi Shimon’s opinion?<br> What is the relationship of the story at the end of the mishnah to Rabbi Shimon’s statement that precedes it?"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah talks about using the space underneath the asherah tree. The question asked is: is using this space considered deriving benefit from idolatry and therefore forbidden?  Furthermore the mishnah discusses the purity of one who passes underneath the asherah tree.",
                    "<b>One may not sit in its shadow, but if he sat he is pure. Nor may he pass beneath it, and if he passed he is impure.</b>  One is not allowed to sit in the shade of an asherah, for by doing so he would be benefiting from an idolatrous object.  However, sitting in its shade alone will not cause him to be made impure, because he did not actually sit underneath the tree.  He is not allowed to pass under the asherah, and if he does he is impure.  According to the Talmud this is because we assume that underneath the asherah tree is an idolatrous offering, which causes Jews to become impure.  When the branches of the tree form a tent over the person and the idolatrous offering the impurity of the idolatrous offering is transferred to the person (this is called tent impurity).",
                    "<b>If it encroaches upon the public road and he passed beneath he is pure.</b>  If the asherah was leaning over onto the public road and a person passed underneath it, he is not impure.  The impurity of the asherah is only rabbinically ordained, and in this case the Rabbis did not decree that one who walks underneath the asherah is made impure.  The reason for this is that the Rabbis declared idolatrous objects to be transmitters of impurity in order to keep people away from them. Since this person who was walking on the public could not have avoided the tree, he is not impure.",
                    "<b>They may sow vegetables beneath it in winter but not in summer, and lettuce neither in summer nor winter. Rabbi Jose says: even vegetables [may not be planted] in winter because the foliage falls upon them and becomes manure for them.</b>  In the winter one is allowed to sow plants underneath the asherah tree, since the shade provided by the tree will not benefit the plants.  In this case he is not benefiting from an idolatrous object.  However, he may not plant lettuce underneath the asherah, even in the winter, since shade is always beneficial to lettuce. Rabbi Yose states that even vegetables may not be planted in winter, since the falling leaves will act as manure for the vegetables and therefore the planter would be benefiting from an idolatrous object. In other words, although he will not benefit from the shade since he will benefit in other ways, it is forbidden."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah nine discusses the prohibition from deriving benefit from the wood of an asherah tree.",
                    "<b>If one took pieces of wood from it [the asherah tree], they are forbidden to be used. If he heated an oven with them if it was new it must be broken to pieces; if it was old, it must be allowed to cool.</b>  It is forbidden to use pieces of wood that come from an asherah tree.  This mishnah teaches that the forbidden status of the tree remains in the pieces of the tree that are separated from it. If one used this wood to heat a new oven, the oven must be destroyed.  Since the first heating of an oven helps shape and finish the oven, the oven itself was built through the aid of an idolatrous object, and it itself is therefore forbidden.  However, if the oven was old, one merely needs to let the oven cool before using it again.  In such a case the heat produced by the burning of the asherah wood is forbidden but not the oven itself.",
                    "<b>If he baked bread [in an oven heated with wood from an asherah], it is forbidden to be used, and if [the loaf] became mixed with other loaves, they are all prohibited. Rabbi Eliezer says: let him cast the advantage [he derives] into the Dead Sea. They said to him: there is no process of redemption for an idol.</b>  If he baked bread in an oven heated by the wood from an asherah, the bread is forbidden.  Furthermore, if that loaf should be mixed in with other loaves, they are all forbidden, since each one may be the loaf which was made in the oven heated by the asherah wood.  We should note that in some other cases mixtures of prohibited and permissible goods can be fixed.  For instance if one pound of terumah flour should be mixed in with 100 pounds of terumah flour, one may take out one pound of terumah and give it to the kohen, even though that one pound is not the same pound that fell in.  Through this process the remainder becomes permitted to anyone to eat.  Our mishnah is especially stringent with idolatrous items. Rabbi Eliezer does make an attempt to remedy the situation without causing the loss of the bread.  If he baked a loaf using asherah wood to heat his oven, he may throw the value of the wood into the Dead Sea, thereby nullifying any benefit he received from that wood.  Afterwards the loaf may be eaten by a Jew.  The Sages disagree.  According to their opinion there is no way to redeem something that was made by using an idolatrous item.",
                    "<b>If one took [a piece of wood] from it [to use as] a shuttle, it is forbidden to be used. If he wove a garment with it, it is forbidden to be used. If [the became mixed with others, and these with others, they are all forbidden to be used. Rabbi Eliezer says: let him cast the advantage [he derives] into the Dead Sea. They said to him: there is no process of redemption for an idol.</b>  This section teaches the same thing that was learned in the previous section, only it uses a different example.  Here the wood was used to make a shuttle, a piece of wood used on a loom to weave cloth.  Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages have the same dispute on this section of the mishnah as they did in the previous one.",
                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Why might the mishnah have taught both sections two and three even though they both teach the same principles?"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>How does one annul [an asherah]? If [a pagan] pruned or trimmed it, removing from it a stick or twig or even a leaf, behold it is annulled.<br>If he smoothed it out for its own sake, it is prohibited; but if not for its own sake, it is permitted.</b><br>Our mishnah asks how does one annul an asherah in order to make it permitted for Jews to use.<br>As we will learn in the next chapter of mishnah, a pagan can “annul” his idol by stopping to treat it as such.  If he does so, what was formerly an idol reverts to being a normal object and a Jew may use it.  Our mishnah teaches that removing a piece of an asherah tree is a sign that it is no longer being worshipped.  Evidently the asherah was not used by the pagan for anything but idol worship.  If the pagan does make even the most minimal use of the tree, such as using its leaf, it loses its status as an asherah.  The only exception to this case is if he removes something from the tree for its own sake.  In other words, if he smoothed the tree to make it look better, it is still an asherah and it is still forbidden.  If he did so in order to get a branch, he has annulled its status as an asherah and it is permitted."
                ]
            ],
            [
                [
                    "<b>Rabbi Ishmael says: if three stones are lying side by side next to a merculis, they are prohibited; if there are two they are permitted.<br>The sages say: if [the stones] are seen to be connected with it they are prohibited, but if they do not appear to be connected with it they are permitted.</b><br>In Sanhedrin 7:6 we learned that one who throws stones at a statue of merculis (the Roman god, mercury) is guilty of worshipping the idol, for that his how merculis is typically worshipped.  Our mishnah deals with the status of stones found next to the merculis statue.<br>According to Rabbi Ishmael, if three stones were found next to the merculis statue, we can assume that they were used in worshipping the statue, and they are therefore prohibited.  If there were only two, then we cannot assume that they were placed there for such a purpose and they are permitted.<br>According to the Sages the issue is not the number of stones but rather their proximity to the statue.  Those found next to the idol are prohibited and those found further away are permitted.  Even if three are found further away, we can assume that they were not used in worship."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>If he found on top [of a mercurius] a coins or a garment or utensils behold these are permitted;<br>[But if he found] grape-clusters, wreaths of grain, [gifts of] wine, oil or fine flour, or anything resembling what is offered upon the altar, such is prohibited.</b><br>Mishnah two continues to discuss items that are found in proximity to the mercurius idol, and whether or not these items are assumed to have been used in idolatrous worship and therefore prohibited.<br>In the previous mishnah we learned that one typical way of worshipping the mercurius idol was to lay stones next to it.  In today’s mishnah we see ways in which mercurius was not worshipped.  It was not worshipped by having money, clothes or other vessels laid next to it.  Since this is not typical mercurius worship, it is permitted for Jews to use these items.<br>However, if anything that is normally sacrificed is found next to a mercurius, these items are forbidden to Jews.  Since these items are generally used in idol worship, and evidently also in the worship of mercurius, they are forbidden if they are found in proximity to the idol."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>If an idolatrous shrine has a garden or bathhouse, one may use either so long as it is not to the advantage [of the idolaters], But one may not use either if it is to its advantage.<br>If [the garden or bathhouse] belonged jointly to it and to others, one may use them whether it be to the advantage [of idolatry] or not.</b><br>Mishnah three discusses a garden or bathhouse that is in the courtyard of an idolatrous shrine.<br>If an idolatrous shrine has a garden or bathhouse in its courtyard, there are certain circumstances in which the garden or bathhouse may nevertheless be used.  First of all one may always use them as long as one doesn’t give any advantage to the idolaters.  This means that one could use the garden or bathhouse as long as he does not pay the idolatrous priests for such use.  Secondly, if the garden or bathhouse was jointly owned by the shrine a private individual, one could always use them, and even pay for their use.  Even though some of the money may go to the shrine, the Jew can consider the payment as going to the individual partner.<br>We should note that Maimonides explains that “to the advantage of” does not mean paying money as we explained above, but rather giving verbal recognition to the owners.  If the bathhouse or garden is jointly owned, one may give verbal advantage to the owners, and even to the idolatrous priests, however, according to Maimonides, one may not pay for the use."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first part of mishnah four discusses when an idol becomes prohibited from being used by a Jew.  The second half of the mishnah discusses when an idol that was once worshipped becomes “annulled” as an idol and thereby permitted to be used by a Jew.  Note that we already discussed the process of “annulling” an idol in the last mishnah of chapter three.",
                    "<b>The idol of an idolater is prohibited immediately; but if it belonged to a Jew it is not prohibited until it is worshipped.</b>  As soon as an idol is made by a non-Jew it is prohibited, even before it is worshipped.  The reason is that we can safely assume that the non-Jew will worship the idol, and it was certainly made for idolatrous purposes.  However, an idol made by a Jew is only forbidden for Jewish use once it has been worshipped.  The reason is that we cannot be sure that the Jew will worship the idol.  It potentially could be used for decorative, non-idolatrous purposes.",
                    "<b>An idolater can annul an idol belonging to himself or to another idolater, but a Jew cannot annul the idol of an idolater.</b>  One who is engaged in idolatry can annul an idol that belongs to him and one that belongs to others.  We will learn in the proceeding mishnayoth how one annuls idols.  However, a Jew cannot annul the idol of an idolater.",
                    "<b>He who annuls an idol annuls the things that pertain to it. If he only annulled the things that pertain to it these are permitted but the idol itself is prohibited.</b>  If one annuls an idol, all of the things that go with the idol, for instances the plates used to make offerings to it, are also annulled.  Since these things are ancillary to the main idol, they are effected by its change of status.  However, if one annuls the things that pertain to the idol, without specifically annulling the idol, the idol is still forbidden."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah five discusses how a non-Jew can annul an idol.",
                    "<b>How does he annul it? If he cut off the tip of its ear, the tip of its nose, or the tip of its finger; or if he defaced it, although there was no reduction in the mass of the material, he has annulled it.</b>  In order to annul an idol, the non-Jew must treat the idol with enough disrespect that we can be confident that the idol is no longer considered to be holy by the non-Jew.  Note, that the issue is not a physical issue.  The mishnah is not asking the question, does this still look like an idol.  Rather the issue is psychological.  At one point can an outside observer assume that the owner of the idol no longer is relating to it as a god, but rather as merely a physical item devoid of religious meaning. The first way for the owner to annul the idol is to somehow physically damage it.  If he cuts off one of its appendages, this is sufficient physical damage for it to be annulled.  Furthermore, if he defaces, meaning he distorts the facial features of the idol, it is annulled, even if he has not diminished the material used to make the idol.",
                    "<b>If he spat before it, urinated before it, dragged it [in the dust] or hurled excrement at it, behold it is not annulled.</b>  Acting in a disgraceful way in front of the idol does not annul it.  According to the Talmud, the non-Jew may being do this out of anger at the idol, without annulling its divinity.  In other words, merely getting angry at the idol does not mean that the pagan assumes that it is no longer a god.  When his anger cools down he will again worship the idol, and therefore the idol was never annulled.  Another possible explanation is that sometimes performing a disgraceful act in front of an idol is a means of worship.  In mishnah Sanhedrin 7:6 we learned that pagans worshipped ba’al p’eor by throwing feces at it.  Therefore we cannot assume that other disgraceful acts to other idols are also not worship.",
                    "<b>If he sold or gave it as a pledge, Rabbi says that he has annulled it, but the sages say that he has not annulled it.</b>  If a non-Jew sells or uses the idol as a pledge, according to Rabbi [Judah the Prince] he has annulled the idol.  Since he treated it in a profane matter, and did something that one would not do to a divine idol, he must no longer be considering it to be an idol.  The other Sages disagree with Rabbi.",
                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Do you think the list in section one is exhaustive or merely a sample of ways of annulling the idol?  What would be the ruling if he removed a leg, or a toe?"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>An idol which its worshippers abandoned in time of peace is permitted,<br>in time of war it is prohibited.<br>Pedestals of kings are permitted because they set them up at the time the kings pass by.</b><br>Mishnah six discusses idols which have been abandoned by those who previously worshipped them.  The question is, can we assume that the worshipper has annulled the idol by abandoning it and it is therefore permitted to the Jew.<br>Section one:  If an idolater abandoned his idol in time of peace the idol is permitted since we can assume that the idolater has no intention of returning to worship the idol.  For instance if Maximus the idolater decides to move from Jaffa to Caesarea and he leaves his idols behind, he has shown that he doesn’t intend to worship them anymore.  However, if Maximus the idolater flees his home during a war and in distress leaves his idols behind, he may intend to return and worship them when the war is over.  Therefore they are not considered to be annulled.<br>Section two:  Pedestals which were set up on the sides of roads to place upon them idols when kings pass by are not forbidden to Jews, since they are only temporarily used by the kings.  During other times, when normal people pass them by, they do not worship these pedestals.<br>The mishnah connects these two issues because the pedestals are like idols that have been abandoned by their owners. When the kings are not there these idols are “abandoned”."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>They asked the elders in Rome, “If [your God] has no desire for idolatry, why does he not abolish it?”<br>They replied, “If it was something unnecessary to the world that was worshipped, he would abolish it; but people worship the sun, moon, stars and planets; should he destroy his universe on account of fools!”<br>They said [to the elders], “If so, he should destroy what is unnecessary for the world and leave what is necessary for the world!”<br>They replied, “[If he did that], we should merely be strengthening the hands of the worshippers of these, because they would say, “know that these are deities, for behold they have not been abolished!”</b><br>This mishnah contains a fascinating discussion between the Sages of Rome and some idolaters. Note the different style of this mishnah.  Although most mishnayoth contain brief halakhic (legal) discussions, occasionally the Mishnah does contain aggadic (philosophic) material.<br>In the fascinating discussion in this mishnah some pagans in Rome pose a serious theological problem to Jewish sages: if God is all-powerful why doesn’t he destroy any of his competitors.  The basic answer given is that God doesn’t destroy things which are necessary for the existence of the world.  If He were to destroy the sun, moon and stars our universe would not be able to function.  The pagans then ask why God doesn’t destroy the things that are worshipped and that are not necessary, such as idols.  The answer is that if he were to do so, this would seemingly demonstrate the power of those things that were not destroyed.  By doing so God would actually increase the number of idolaters in the world.<br>An interesting question with regards to this mishnah is whom are these idolaters supposed to be representing?  Are these Greek philosophers?  According to the Rambam (Maimonides) Greek philosophy does not believe in the influence that inanimate objects such as stars and planets can have on human lives.  The Rambam, who was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, and in his book “The Guide of the Perplexed” applied philosophical principles to Torah, claims that these pagan beliefs are believed by the masses, but not by “true philosophers” who understood the unity of God.  He even claims that there are Jewish sages who believe that the stars and planets hold such a power over our lives, but that it is nevertheless forbidden by the Torah to worship them.  In this commentary the Rambam explains the astrological roots of idolatry."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>A winepress [containing] trodden [grapes] may be purchased from a non-Jew even though it was he that lifted [the trodden grapes] with his hand and put them among the heap. And [the juice] does not become yen nesek (wine assumed to have been used as a until it descends into the vat.<br>When it has descended into the vat, what is in the vat is prohibited; But the remainder is permitted.</b><br>In chapter two, mishnah three, we learned that Jews may not drink wine touched by non-Jews, lest they had used the wine as a libation.  The remainder of tractate Avodah Zarah will deal with the prohibition of non-Jewish wine.  Our mishnah defines at what point in the process of wine-pressing do the grapes and grape juice begin to be considered wine.<br>Section one:  A Jew may buy a winepress and all of the grapes that are being trodden in it from a non-Jew, even though the non-Jew has lifted up the trodden grapes and moved them into a different heap.  At this point in their processing the grapes are not yet considered wine, and therefore their being handled by a non-Jew does not make them “yen nesek”, which is forbidden to Jews.  In other words, while we might suspect that non-Jews offer up libations with wine, they will not do so with grapes that are not yet fully pressed, nor will they do so with grape juice.  Only when the juice has descended into the vat where it will ferment into wine is it considered yen nesek.<br>When the wine does descend from the winepress into the vat, the wine which is in the vat is prohibited.  However, that which remains above in the winepress is still permitted, even though it has been handled by a non-Jew."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah discusses what actions a Jew may or may not do to help a non-Jew in the winemaking process.  The second and third sections of the mishnah discuss helping ritually impure winemakers and bakers.  These sections are only brought into our tractate due to their similarity to the halakhah in section one.",
                    "<b>A Jew may tread the winepress together with a non-Jew but may not pick grapes with him.</b>  A Jew is allowed to tread grapes in a winepress with a non-Jew, since the wine does not become yen nesekh until it goes down into the vat (see previous mishnah).  However, a Jew may not pick grapes with the non-Jew for the non-Jew causes the grapes to become impure. When the non-Jew puts the grapes in his impure winepress, the grapes will become impure. If a Jew helps him to do so, the Jew is helping to make produce grown in the land of Israel impure. The reason that treading on the grapes is permitted is that as soon as the non-Jew touches them, they are already impure.",
                    "<b>If an israelite was working in a state of ritual impurity, one may neither tread nor pick with him, but one may move [empty] casks with him to the press and carry them [filled] with him from the press.</b>  An Israelite who works in a winepress while impure is committing a sin, for he is impurifying the terumah and tithes and thereby rendering them inedible.  Since this is forbidden, another Jew may not even tread in the winepress with him, because that would be aiding a transgressor.  However, the other Jew may help this Jew before the process begins by bringing jugs to the winepress and he may help him remove the jugs when the pressing is over.  In other words, it is only forbidden to help him while the impure pressing is going on.  Before and after it is permitted.",
                    "<b>If a baker was working in a state of ritual impurity, one may neither knead nor roll dough with him but we may carry loaves with him to the bakery.</b>  The same rules that were stated in section two with regards to helping a winemaker who presses his wine while impure, are also true with regards to the impure baker.  One may not help him in the baking process, for he causes impurity to the terumah and tithes.  However, one may help him after the loaves are already baked.",
                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Why is it permitted to help the non-Jew tread but not to help the impure Jew, even though both cause the grapes to become impure?"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah discusses different types of contact that a non-Jew may have with wine that may or may not make the wine into yen nesekh, which is forbidden to Jews.",
                    "<b>If a non-Jew was found standing by the side of a vat of wine, if he had loaned money to the Jew, then [the wine] is prohibited; but should he not have loaned money to the Jew, then it is permitted.</b>  If a non-Jew is seen standing next to a vat of wine we need to know if the non-Jew touch the wine, for if he did touch the wine he would have made it into yen nesekh.  Our mishnah teaches that if the non-Jew had loaned money to the Jew then the wine is prohibited.  In such a case, the non-Jew has a lien on the Jews wine and might at some point say to the Jew, give me the wine and I will forgive you the loan.  Since he has this financial connection to the Jew, and in some sense he has ownership over the wine as well, he will feel free to take some of the wine for himself.  Therefore we must assume that he has come into contact with the wine.  If, however, he has not loaned money to the Jew, then we do not assume that he had come into contact with the wine, and it is permitted.",
                    "<b>If [a non-Jew] fell into a vat and climbed out, or measured it with a reed, or flicked out a hornet with a reed, or tapped on the top of a frothing cask All of these things actually happened, and [the Rabbis] said that the wine may be sold, but Rabbi Shimon permits it [even to be drunk].</b>  This section lists all sorts of circumstances in which a non-Jew might come into contact with wine and yet it is highly unlikely that he used it to make a libation.  Since in all of these cases we can be almost one hundred per cent sure that he didn’t do so, there is room to be lenient.  The Sages, in front of whom cases such as these came, said that the wine could be sold to a non-Jew.  In other words, it is forbidden to drink the wine but it is not forbidden to derive benefit from it.  If it had truly been considered yen nesekh, then it could not even be sold.  Rabbi Shimon is even more lenient and allows a person to even drink the wine.",
                    "<b>If [a non-Jew] took a cask, and in his anger threw it into the vat   this actually happened and [the Rabbis] declared it fit [for drinking].</b>  If a non-Jew throws an empty cask into a vat of wine the wine in the vat is not forbidden at all.  Since in this case the non-Jew certainly did not make a libation with the wine, it is permitted and a Jew may even drink the wine."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah and the one that follows discuss wine owned by a non-Jew but produced by a Jew with the intent that the non-Jew will be able to sell it to the Jews, without it having the status of yen nesekh.",
                    "<b>If [an Jew] prepares a non-Jew's wine in a state of ritual purity and leaves it in [the non-Jew’s] domain, in a house which is open to the public domain, should it be in a city where non-Jews and Jews reside, it is permitted. But should it be in a city where only non-Jews reside it is prohibited unless [an Jew] sits and guard. There is no need for the guard to sit and watch [the whole time]; even if he keeps going out and coming in it is permitted. Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar says: it is all one with the domain of a non-Jew.</b> If a Jew were to prepare wine belonging to a non-Jew and then leave it on the non-Jew’s property we need to know whether or not the non-Jew had contact with the wine and thereby made it into yen nesekh.  If the house was open to the public domain and there were both Jews and non-Jews living in the city, the wine is permitted.  The reason is that the non-Jew will fear that if he touches the wine a Jew passing by might see him and tell the other Jews, in which case they won’t buy the wine from him.  This non-Jew from the outset wanted to sell to non-Jews therefore he won’t perform any act that might cause him to lose his ability to sell the wine.  However, if there are only non-Jews in the city, the non-Jew does not fear that they will see him and report him to the Jews.  Since in this case he is not afraid to touch the wine, the wine must be guarded to make sure that it doesn’t become yen nesekh.  If it is not guarded the law is strict and it is forbidden. This guardian need not sit and guard the wine 24 hours a day.  It is sufficient for him to come in and out occasionally.  As long as the non-Jew does not know when he will come in and out, the non-Jew will be too afraid to touch the wine for fear that he will be caught.  This is similar to the way that Jewish kashruth supervisors work today.  They are not present in restaurants at all times.  It is enough for the restaurant owner to know that they might show up at any time for him to be afraid to break the rules of kashruth. The words of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar are not easy to explain.  The Talmud explains that according to the previous opinion in the mishnah, if the Jew were to leave the wine on a different non-Jew’s property he need not place a guard.  Since the wine is not his, this non-Jew will not touch it. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar disagrees.  He holds that all of non-Jewish property is the same and therefore it doesn’t matter where the wine was left; it is forbidden unless it was guarded.",
                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• What would the ruling be if the house was not open to the public domain?"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final mishnah in chapter four is a continuation of mishnah eleven.  It continues to discuss a Jew who makes wine that belongs to a non-Jew, with the intent of the Jew purchasing it.",
                    "Again, what we constantly need to know in the types of circumstances mentioned in this mishnah and in the previous one is the likelihood that the non-Jew touched the wine. If he did so it is forbidden as yen nesekh.",
                    "<b>If [a Jew] prepares a non-Jew’s wine in a state of ritual purity and leaves it in [the non-Jew’s] domain, and the [non-Jew] writes for him “I have received the money from you,” then [the wine] is permitted.</b>  In this case the non-Jew has already written out a receipt that he has received the money for the wine.  Even if he preemptively wrote the receipt before he received the money, in this case the non-Jew will assumedly not touch the wine.  If the Jew really has paid the money then it simply belongs to the Jew, and the non-Jew will not touch wine that doesn’t belong to him.  If the Jew has not really paid the money, the non-Jew will not touch it for if he does, the Jew will not pay him. However, the Talmud adds that the wine must be kept under lock in order to make these assumptions.",
                    "<b>If, however, the Jew wished to remove it and [the non-Jew] refuses to let it go until he paid him   this actually happened in Beth-Shan and [the Rabbis] prohibited it.</b>  However, if the non-Jew demonstrates that he doesn’t consider the wine to really belong to the Jew until he pays the money, then we cannot assume that he has not touched it.  Since the non-Jew still considers himself the owner, he may allow himself to take some of the wine, even though the Jew made it in order to subsequently pay for the wine.  The mishnah relates that this case actually happened in Beth Shan (see also Mishnah Avodah Zarah 1:4, for another case that happened in Beth Shan).",
                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Section one:  Why do you think that the Talmud demands that the wine must be kept under lock?  Think of the similarities between this situation and that in the previous mishnah."
                ]
            ],
            [
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah discusses a non-Jew who hires a Jew to work with him in the transportation of yen neskekh.",
                    "<b>If [a non-Jew] hires [a Jewish] workman to assist him in [the transportation of] yen nesekh, his wage is prohibited. If he hired him to assist him in another kind of work, even if he says to him, ג€œremove for me a cask of yen nesekh from this place to that,ג€ his wage is permitted. If he hired [a Jewג€™s] donkey to carry yen nesekh, its wages are prohibited; But if he hired it to sit upon, even though the non-Jew rested his jar [of yen nesekh] upon it, its wages are permitted.</b>  A Jew is not allowed to assist a non-Jew in the preparation or even the transportation of yen nesekh, wine which may eventually be used in libations.  If he does so, and collects a wage for this specific type of work, the wage is prohibited, meaning that he cannot use the money.  Since this person performed a forbidden act for profit, the Rabbis penalize him and forbid him to use his wages.  However, if he was hired to do another type of work, for instance bring jugs of olive oil, and while working the non-Jew said to him to also bring a cask of yen nesekh, his wages are permitted. Since the Jew was not hired to work with specifically with the forbidden wine and the wages he receives are for his other work, the wages are permitted.  [If the Jew was told from the outset that part of his work involved yen nesekh, the wages would be forbidden.]",
                    "This section teaches a similar ruling with regard to a donkey driver.  If the non-Jew hires a Jewג€™s donkey to bring yen nesekh, the wages which the Jew receives are forbidden.  However, if the non-Jew hires the donkey to ride on it the wages are permitted, even if the non-Jew brings his yen nesekh on the donkey.  Although in both cases the Jewג€™s donkey is helping carry the forbidden wine, since in the second case he is not receiving wages specifically for carrying the wine, the wages are permitted."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah two discusses yen nesekh that falls on other food items.  The question is whether or not this causes the food to become prohibited.",
                    "<b>If yen nesekh fell upon grapes, one may rinse them and they are permitted, but if they were split they are prohibited. If it fell upon figs or upon dates, should there be in them [sufficient wine] to impart a flavor, they are prohibited.</b>  If yen nesekh falls upon grapes, the grapes may be washed and then they are permitted.  Since the yen nesekh does not have any effect on the taste of the grapes, they are permitted.  If, however, the grapes were split open, then the wine could seep into them and effect their taste.  In this case it is not possible to wash away the potential taste of the wine and therefore the grapes are forbidden.",
                    "<b>It happened with Boethus ben Zpnin that he carried dried figs in a ship and a cask of yen nesekh was broken and it fell upon them; and he consulted the Sages who declared them permitted. This is the general rule: whatever derives advantage [from yen nesekh by its] imparting a flavor is prohibited, but whatever does not derive advantage [from yen nesekh by its] imparting a flavor is permitted, as, for example vinegar which fell upon split beans.</b>  If yen nesekh falls on other types of foods, such as dates or figs, the food becomes prohibited only if the wine improves the flavor of the food.  The mishnah mentions a story of a person who carried figs and yen nesekh on a ship.  When one of the casks of wine broke on the figs he asked the Sages if the figs were still permissible, and they permitted them.  Since the wine does not improve the flavor of the figs, the person has not derived benefit from the wine and therefore the figs are permitted.  This general rule, that the wine causes the food to be forbidden only if it imparts a good flavor is stated specifically in the next lines of the mishnah.  The mishnah concludes with an example of another situation in which the taste is not improved, when vinegar (which comes from wine) falls on split beans."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah discusses a Jew who was carrying wine from one place to another with a non-Jew. The question is, are we suspicious that the non-Jew touched the wine, and that it is therefore forbidden.",
                    "<b>If a non-Jew was transporting jars of wine together with a Jew from place to place, and it was presumed that [the wine] was under guard, it is permitted. But if [the Jew] informed him that he was going away [and he was absent a length of time] sufficient for the other to bore a hole [in a jar], stop it up and [the sealing clay] to become dry, [the wine is prohibited]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [a length of time] sufficient for him to open a cask,  put a new stopper on and [the new stopper] to become dry.</b> If, while transporting the wine with the non-Jew the non-Jew assumes that the Jew was always watching the wine, the wine is permitted.  As long as the non-Jew suspects that the Jew might catch him opening up the wine and drinking from it, the non-Jew will not do so.  The Jew might even leave the wine with the non-Jew for a while, as long as the Jew does not tell him that he is doing so. If the Jew leaves the non-Jew and tells him that he is doing so, then the non-Jew knows that he has a certain period of time in which he might be able to drink the wine without being caught.  There are two opinions in the mishnah about how long this period of time must be. According to the first opinion, the non-Jew must have enough time to make a hole in the stopper of the jug (the stopper was made and sealed with clay), and then fill the hole back in, and the new seal to dry, so that the Jew will not be able to tell that it was opened when he returns.  If the Jew did not tell the non-Jew that he would be away for this period of time, the wine is permitted.  The second opinion is that of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.  He assumes that if the non-Jew merely makes a hole in the stopper and then reseals it, the Jew will see the damage.  The only way the non-Jew will avoid getting caught is if he removes the whole stopper, and then closes the jug with a new stopper and then the sealing on this new stopper dries.  If the Jew does not stay away for the period of time it takes to do all of this, the wine is permitted."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is a direct continuation of the previous mishnah.  In it we learn of two more situations in which a Jew leaves casks of wine with a non-Jew and we must decide whether or not the non-Jew is suspected of having opened the cask and removed some of the wine, thereby making it forbidden.  Again, there is a dispute over how long the Jew may be absent before we suspect that the non-Jew will attempt to open the cask.  Since we explained this dispute yesterday we will not explain it again here.",
                    "<b>If [a Jew] left his wine in a wagon or on a ship while he went along a short cut, entered a town and bathed, it is permitted. But if [the Jew] informed him that he was going away [and he was absent a length of time] sufficient for the other to bore a hole [in a jar], stop it up and [the sealing clay] to become dry, [the wine is prohibited]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [a length of time] sufficient for him to open a cask,  put a new stopper on and [the new stopper] to become dry.</b>  In this situation the Jew again leaves the non-Jew with his wine, this time to make a quick excursion into the city.  Note that he uses a short cut into the city.  The fact that he is going and returning quickly will make the non-Jew fear getting caught should he open the cask.  Therefore the wine is permitted.  The Talmud teaches that if the mishnah had not included this scenario, we might have thought that since the non-Jew could take the wagon or boat and go to another place and there open the wine, that the wine is forbidden.  The mishnah teaches that even in this case we are not concerned.  The wine is only forbidden should the Jew tell the non-Jew that he is going and when he will return.",
                    "<b>If [a Jew] left a non-Jew in his shop, although he kept going in and out, [the wine there] is permitted. But if [the Jew] informed him that he was going away [and he was absent a length of time] sufficient for the other to bore a hole [in a jar], stop it up and [the sealing clay] to become dry, [the wine is prohibited]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [a length of time] sufficient for him to open a cask,  put a new stopper on and [the new stopper] to become dry.</b>  In this scenario the Jew leaves the non-Jew in the store.  Although the Jew is constantly going in and out of the store, and frequently leaving the non-Jew alone with the wine, the wine is permitted.  Again, as long as he doesn’t tell him that he is leaving and when he is returning, the wine is permitted.  The Talmud teaches that if the mishnah had not included this scenario, we might have thought that since the non-Jew could close the door to the store and then do what he wishes, that in this case the wine is forbidden.  The mishnah therefore teaches that the wine is nevertheless permitted.",
                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Section one:  What do you think the ruling would be if the Jew did not take the short cut into the city?  Would the wine nevertheless be permitted?"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah discusses a Jew who leaves a non-Jew sitting as a guest at his table.  The question is what wine can we assume the non-Jew touched, and is therefore prohibited.",
                    "<b>If [a Jew] was eating with [a non-Jew] at a table and set some flasks upon the table and others upon a side-table and leaving them there went out, what is upon the table is prohibited and what is upon the side-table is permitted. And should he have said to him, “mix [some of the wine with water] and drink,” even what is upon the side-table is prohibited.</b>  When the Jew leaves the non-Jew alone at the table with an open flask of wine, it is of course assumed that the non-Jew will drink from the wine, thereby making it forbidden.  However, since it is not customary for guests to drink from the “side-table”, the wine there is not forbidden.  This side-table is evidently somewhat like the shelf behind the bar in our time.  If you leave your guest with a bottle on a table it is acceptable for him to drink from the bottle.  It is much less acceptable for him to go behind the bar and take out his own drink. If, however, the Jew told the non-Jew that he could mix some wine with water (this is how wine was always drunk during the time of the mishnah), then of course we must assume that the non-Jew will take also what is on the side-table.  Although he did not specifically tell him to take from the wine on the side-table, it is as if he had done so.  It is like someone today saying, “help yourself” to his friend sitting at his bar.  Therefore all of the wine is forbidden.",
                    "<b>Opened casks are prohibited, and the closed ones are permitted [except when he was absent a length of time] sufficient for [the non-Jew] to open it,  put a new stopper on and [the new stopper] to become dry.</b>  If the Jew leaves the non-Jew with open casks of wine in the house, they are forbidden.  The closed casks are permitted, as long as the Jew was not absent long enough for the non-Jew to open the cask, make a new stopper and then let the stopper dry.",
                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought</b><br>• Section two:  According to whose opinion from the previous mishnah is this section taught?  Why might that be so?"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah discusses the permissibility of wine that was in a city when a band of non-Jewish marauders enter.",
                    "<b>If a band of non-Jewish marauders entered a city in a time of peace, the open casks are prohibited and the sealed are permitted; ( In a time of war both are permitted because they do not have the leisure to offer libations.</b> If the marauders enter the city in a time of peace, the assumption is that they may make libations from wine in open casks.  Nevertheless, wine that is found afterwards in closed casks is permitted.  The mishnah is not assuming that the marauders will not open the closed casks. After all, we have seen over and over in the previous mishnayoth that we must suspect that the non-Jews will open the casks and take from the wine.  Rather the reason that the wine is permitted is that if the marauders had opened the casks they would not bother to reseal them.  Unlike the non-Jews in the previous mishnah who might have attempted to be sneaky and take a drink without getting caught, the marauders have no such concern. However, if the marauders entered the city in a time of war, all of the wine is permitted, since they are too busy making war to make a libation."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first two sections of this mishnah discuss situations in which a Jew is considered as selling yen nesekh, which therefore means that the proceeds from the sale are prohibited.\nThe second two sections deal with situations in which a Jew is selling his wine to a non-Jew.",
                    "<b>If a non-Jew sent to Jewish craftsmen a cask of yen nesekh as their wages, they are allowed to say to him, “give us its value in money”; ( But after [the wine] has come into their possession [the exchange] is prohibited.</b>  If a non-Jew who has hired a Jew to do some work for him, pays him with yen nesekh and actually gives the Jew the wine, the Jew cannot exchange the wine back for money.  Once the wine comes into his possession it is actually his, and exchanging it with the non-Jew would in essence be selling yen nesekh, which is forbidden.  If the Jew were to send back the shipment of wine before it reaches him then he may accept in its place money.  Since in this case the non-Jew has never paid back his debt, it is not considered as if the Jew is selling his own yen nesekh.",
                    "<b>If [a Jew] sells his wine to a non-Jew, should he have set the price before he measured it out, the purchase-money is permitted; ( But should he have measured it out before he set the price, the purchase-money is prohibited.</b>  If a Jew sells his wine to a non-Jew, he must make sure that he is not receiving money for what is now yen nesekh.  If he measures out the wine to the non-Jew and then sets a price, he is actually receiving payment for selling yen nesekh, since the wine becomes yen nesekh as soon as it is in the non-Jew’s possession.  Therefore, he must set a price before he gives over the wine.  Note that once the price is set he need not receive the money, for the debt of the non-Jew is already fixed.",
                    "<b>If [a Jew] took a funnel and measured [wine] into a non-Jew’s flask and then measured some into a Jew’s flask, should a drop of the [first] wine have remained [in the funnel], then [the wine measured into the second flask] is prohibited.</b>  In this section a Jew pours his wine into the container of a non-Jew using a funnel.  The liquid that remains in the funnel when the Jew pours the wine into the non-Jew’s flask has the same status as the wine in the non-Jew’s flask itself.  The fact that the wine in the flask is yen nesekh, means that the wine in the funnel is as well.  This is because the funnel goes into the non-Jew’s container and may “take back” some of the yen nesekh.  If even a drop of wine should remain in the funnel and the Jew should then pour more wine into the funnel and give it to a Jew, all of the wine has become contaminated as yen nesekh and it is all forbidden.",
                    "<b>If he poured from [his own] vessel into [a non-Jew’s] vessel, [the wine in the vessel] from which he poured is permitted and [the wine in the vessel] into which he poured is prohibited.</b>  This section teaches a distinguishing principle from the previous section.  When one pours from one vessel into another, and the poured liquid never touches both vessels at the same time, there is no contamination from the lower vessel into the higher vessel.  While the bottom liquid might become itself contaminated (if it is poured into a non-Jew’s flask), the top liquid remains permitted. We should note, that although these issues sound somewhat trivial, this issue, that of contamination flowing upwards through a poured liquid, was an issue of major content between different groups of Jews during the time of the Second Temple.  In a famous document called “The Halakhic Letter” found in Qumran (The Dead Sea Scrolls” the author of the document complains that his opponents (probably the Pharisees) claim that the poured liquid is pure.  This complaint is also mentioned as a complaint of the Sadducees against the Pharisees in Mishnah Yadayim 4:7.  We see that our mishnah takes the Pharisaic point of view."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with the halachic topic of a forbidden substance becoming mixed with a permitted substance.  The question is how much of the forbidden substance must be in the mixture for the entire mixture to become forbidden.",
                    "<b>Yen nesekh is prohibited and renders [other wine] prohibited by the smallest quantity.</b>  As we saw demonstrated in the previous mishnah, if even a drop of yen nesekh falls into a large container of permitted wine, the entire container of permitted wine is forbidden.",
                    "<b>Wine [mixed] with wine and water with water [prohibits] by the smallest quantity. ( Wine [mixed] with water and water with wine [disqualifies when the prohibited element] imparts a flavor.</b>  If forbidden wine (yen nesekh) should become mixed with permitted (as we learned in section one) or forbidden water (that was used for idolatrous purposes) should be mixed with permitted water, the entire mixture is forbidden, even if the forbidden substance was only a drop. However, if forbidden wine should become mixed with permitted water, or forbidden water with permitted wine, as long as the forbidden substance does not impart a flavor to the mixture, the entire mixture is permitted.  If the forbidden substance imparts flavor, the entire mixture is forbidden",
                    "<b>This is the general rule: with the same type [the mixture is disqualified] by the smallest quantity, but with a different type [it is disqualified when the prohibited element] imparts a flavor.</b>  This section teaches a general rule from which the specific rule taught in the previous section may be extrapolated.",
                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Why does the beginning of section two repeat that which was stated in section one?<br>• Why do you think there is a halachic difference between a type of substance mixed with the same type, versus two different types being mixed together?"
                ],
                [
                    "<b>The following are prohibited and render prohibited by the smallest quantity:<br>[a cask of] yen nesekh;<br>an idolatrous object;<br>skins of animals which have holes over the heart;<br>an ox which has been sentenced to be stoned;<br>a heifer whose neck was broken;<br>birds brought as an offering by a leper;<br>the hair-offering of a nazirite;<br>the first born of a donkey;<br>meat cooked in milk;<br>the scapegoat;<br>and non-consecrated animals slaughtered in the Temple court. Behold these are prohibited and render prohibited by the smallest quantity.</b><br>This mishnah contains a list of things that are prohibited and if even the smallest quantity of them is mixed up with a similar looking permitted item, the entire mixture is forbidden.  The difference between this mishnah and the previous one is that here we are dealing with entire units, such as a cask of wine or an ox.  If one of these which is forbidden such as a cask of wine that contains yen nesekh, becomes mixed in with a thousands casks containing kosher wine, they are all forbidden.<br>1) If one cask of yen nesekh is mixed up with even one thousand kosher casks, they are all forbidden.<br>2) If one statue used for idolatrous purposes is mixed up with even one thousand statues that were not used in idolatry, they are all forbidden.<br>3) In chapter two, mishnah two, we learned that idolaters would make circular holes and take out the animals heart and use it in worship.  If a piece of one of these skins is mixed up with a large quantity of regular animal skins, they are all forbidden.<br>4) An ox that killed a man is to be sentenced to death (Ex. 21:28).  If this ox becomes mixed up with other oxen, they are all forbidden.  Note that in all of the cases of live animals in this mishnah, the same rule is true if the meat of the animal is mixed up with the meat of other animals.<br>5) This heifer is the one referred to in Deut. 21:4.  It is used to expiate the blood guilty for a murder where the murderer has not been caught.  If this heifer, after it has been designated to be part of the ritual and is on its way down to the wadi where its neck will be broken, should become mixed up with other heifers, they are all prohibited.<br>6) When a leper becomes cleansed of his disease, he must bring two birds as a sacrifice (Lev. 14:4).  If they are mixed up with other birds, they are all forbidden.<br>7) When a nazirite ends his term of naziriteship, he must shave (Num. 6:18).  Should his hair, once it is shaved off, become mixed up with other hair, it is all forbidden.  In other words, no nazirite hair wigs!<br>8) The first born of a donkey is usually redeemed by giving a sheep to the priest in place of the donkey (Ex. 13:13).  If this newborn donkey should become mixed up with other donkeys before it is redeemed, they are all forbidden.<br>9) If a piece of meat, cooked in milk should become mixed up with other kosher pieces of meat, they are all forbidden.<br>10) The scapegoat is the goat sent to Azazel on Yom Kippur (Lev. 16:22).  If it should become mixed up with other goats, they are all forbidden.<br>11) It is forbidden to slaughter non-sanctified animals in the Temple court.  If the carcass of an animal slaughtered in this fashion should become mixed up with other carcasses, they are all forbidden."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>If yen nesekh fell into a vat, the whole of it is prohibited for use.<br>Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: the whole of it may be sold to non-Jews with the exception of [a quantity corresponding to] the value of the yen nesekh in it.</b><br>This mishnah returns to the discussion of yen nesekh that falls into a larger quantity of permitted wine.<br>This mishnah contains a dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel and the anonymous mishnah with regards to the prohibition of a mixture of yen nesekh and permitted wine.  According to the first section in the mishnah it is forbidden to derive any benefit from even a mixture of yen nesekh and other wine.  In essence, the wine must be thrown away.  According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, the Jew may remove a quantity of wine from the mixture that corresponds to the quantity of yen nesekh which fell in, and the rest he may sell to a non-Jew.  In this way he is not deriving any financial benefit from yen nesekh."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>If a none covered a stone wine press with pitch it may be scoured and is then clean;<br>But if it was of wood, Rabbi says that it may be scoured and the Sages say that he must peel off the pitch.<br>If it was of earthenware, even though he peeled off the pitch it is prohibited.</b><br>In the time of the mishnah wine presses were sealed with pitch.  A little bit of wine was put into the pitch in order to prevent the smell of the pitch from ruining the taste of the wine made in the wine press.  Our mishnah discusses a Jew who buys a wine press from a non-Jew.  Since the non-Jew used wine, which is yen nesekh, in the pitch in the wine press, the mishnah must teach how to make the wine press “kosher”.  In this mishnah and in the next we will learn several rules that are still observed today by those who keep the laws of kashruth.<br>There are three types of wine presses mentioned by the mishnah:  stone, wood and earthenware.  Stone is the least absorbent of these materials.  Furthermore, stone wine presses do not require much pitch to seal them.  Therefore, all the Jew must do is scour the wine press to rid it of any traces of the previous owner’s wine.  If the wine press was made of wood, Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] holds that it also may be scoured.  However, the Sages hold that he must also peel off all of the pitch.  Since wood is more absorbent than stone, and since wood wine presses require more pitch, he must be even more diligent in cleaning before it becomes usable.  If the wine press is of earthenware, the Jew may never use it.  Since earthenware is very absorbent, there is no way to rid it of the yen nesekh."
                ],
                [
                    "<b>If [a Jew] purchases cooking-utensils from a non-Jew, those which are customarily used with cold liquids, he must immerse;<br>Those which are customarily used with hot liquids, he must be dip in boiling water;<br>Those which are customarily made white-hot in the fire, he must make white-hot in the fire.<br>A spit and grill must be made white-hot, But a knife may be polished and is then ritually clean.</b><br>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”.<br>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.  The Talmud explains that this is learned from a midrashic reading of Numbers 31:  “any article that can withstand fire these you shall pass through fire and they shall be clean, except that they must be cleansed with water of lustration; and anything that cannot withstand fire you must pass through water.”<br>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.<br>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.<br>Congratulations!  We have finished Avodah Zarah.<br>Again this is the point where we thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives.<br>I hope that you found this tractate as interesting as I did.  We live in a world where the relationship of Jews to non-Jews is, thank God, much better, especially in North America, and therefore many of the rules in the tractate probably strike us as harsh and not applicable to our lives.  However, Jews still face the problem of assimilation that Rabbis faced 2000 years ago and we still have much to learn from them on this topic.  This tractate is that we saw the way that the Rabbis dealt with living in a society where they were a minority.<br>Tomorrow we begin to learn Tractate Avoth, also known as Pirkei Avoth or Ethics of the Fathers."
                ]
            ]
        ]
    },
    "versions": [
        [
            "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
            "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/"
        ]
    ],
    "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה עבודה זרה",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
        "Seder Nezikin"
    ],
    "schema": {
        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה עבודה זרה",
        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Avodah Zarah",
        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Avodah Zarah",
        "nodes": [
            {
                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
                "enTitle": "Introduction"
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "",
                "enTitle": ""
            }
        ]
    }
}