Avodah Zarah 38a

עבודה זרה ל״ח ע״א

Learn Avodah Zarah 38a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Avodah Zarah 38a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

בישולי גוים: its rabbinic source, which foods it covers, and when a non-Jew's involvement in cooking makes food forbidden.

Overview

The גמרא first concludes that the ban on בישולי גוים is only מדרבנן, and that the פסוק is just an אסמכתא. רב's rule on which foods are covered was taught two ways. סורא taught that food eaten raw is not included. פומבדיתא taught that food not served at a king's table is not included. Small fish, mushrooms and porridge show the difference between them. רב יוסף adds that salted fish roasted by a non-Jew are permitted, but fish fried with flour (כסא דהרסנא) is forbidden, because the flour is the main ingredient. The גמרא then explains that locusts burned when a גוי set fire to a meadow are forbidden only because kosher and non-kosher kinds get mixed up. They are not בישולי גוים, since a גוי who is not trying to cook does not make food forbidden, as with the singed head and רבינא's peg in the oven. Finally, שמואל rules that meat a ישראל put on coals stays permitted even if a גוי turned it over and made it cook faster. A ברייתא supports this ruling and continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (25)

1. ConclusionThe ban on non-Jewish cooking is rabbinic
2. Statementסורא version: food eaten raw is not included
3. Statementפומבדיתא version: food not fit for a king's table is not included
4. QuestionWhat is the difference between the two versions?
5. ResponseSmall fish, mushrooms, and porridge
6. StatementSmall salted fish are not included
7. StatementRoasted salted fish and fish fried in batter
8. ChallengeIsn't that obvious?
9. ResolutionThe flour is the main ingredient, not the fish
10. StatementA גוי set fire to a meadow: the locusts are forbidden
11. QuestionWhy are they forbidden? Not just because of a mix-up
12. ResponseThe reason must be בישולי גוים
13. ChallengeChallenge from the singed head: the גוי didn't mean to cook
14. ResolutionBack to the mix-up: the גוי is mentioned only because that is what happened
15. StatementBack to the statement about a singed animal head
16. Statementרבינא applies the rule to a peg put into an oven
17. ChallengeIsn't that obvious?
18. ResolutionThe גוי means to harden the peg, not cook it
19. StatementA גוי turns over meat a ישראל put on coals
20. QuestionWhat is the case? If it would have cooked anyway, it's obvious
21. ChallengeIf it would not have cooked without him, why is it permitted?
22. ResolutionThe גוי only made it cook faster
23. ChallengeChallenge from רבי יוחנן's rule about בן דרוסאי's food
24. Resolutionרבי יוחנן was talking about food that was not cooking at all
25. ProofA ברייתא supports שמואל: a גוי may turn over the meat