Avodah Zarah

MISHNAH. THE FOLLOWING THINGS BELONGING TO HEATHENS ARE FORBIDDEN AND THE PROHIBITION EXTENDS TO ANY BENEFIT THAT MAY BE DERIVED FROM THEM: WINE, OR A HEATHEN'S VINEGAR THAT WAS FORMERLY WINE,  HADRIANIC EARTHENWARE,  SKINS PIERCED AT THE ANIMAL'S HEART.  RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: WHEN ITS RENT IS ROUND, [THE SKIN] IS FORBIDDEN, BUT IF OBLONG IT IS PERMITTED.  MEAT WHICH IS BEING BROUGHT IN TO A PLACE OF IDOLS IS PERMITTED,  BUT THAT WHICH IS BROUGHT OUT IS FORBIDDEN, BECAUSE IT IS [REGARDED] AS SACRIFICES OF THE DEAD,  THIS IS THE OPINION OF R. AKIBA. [WITH IDOLATERS] GOING ON A PILGRIMAGE  IT IS FORBIDDEN TO HAVE ANY BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS, BUT WITH THOSE COMING THENCE IT IS PERMITTED. SKIN-BOTTLES OR FLAGONS OF HEATHENS IN WHICH WINE OF AN ISRAELITE IS KEPT ARE FORBIDDEN AND THE PROHIBITION EXTENDS TO ANY BENEFIT THAT MAY BE DERIVED FROM THEM, THIS IS THE OPINION OF R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES SAY THAT THE PROHIBITION DOES NOT EXTEND TO DERIVING ANY BENEFIT. GRAPE-STONES AND GRAPE-SKINS OF HEATHENS ARE FORBIDDEN, THE PROHIBITION EXTENDING TO ANY BENEFIT, THIS IS THE OPINION OF R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES SAY, WHEN FRESH THEY ARE FORBIDDEN BUT WHEN DRY THEY ARE PERMITTED. MURIES  AND BITHYNIAN CHEESE  OF THE HEATHENS ARE FORBIDDEN, THE PROHIBITION EXTENDING TO ANY BENEFIT, THIS IS THE OPINION OF R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES SAY THAT THE PROHIBITION DOES NOT EXTEND TO ANY BENEFIT. R. JUDAH SAID: R. ISHMAEL PUT THIS QUESTION TO R. JOSHUA AS THEY WERE ON A JOURNEY, 'WHY,' ASKED HE, 'HAVE THEY FORBIDDEN THE CHEESE OF HEATHENS?'  HE REPLIED, BECAUSE THEY CURDLE IT WITH THE RENNET OF A NEBELAH.'  HE RETORTED: 'BUT IS NOT THE RENNET OF A BURNT-OFFERING MORE STRICTLY FORBIDDEN THAN THE RENNET OF A NEBELAH? [AND YET] IT WAS SAID THAT A PRIEST WHO IS NOT FASTIDIOUS MAY SUCK IT OUT RAW (THOUGH THIS OPINION WAS NOT APPROVED, AND IT WAS SAID THAT NO BENEFIT MAY BE DERIVED FROM IT, ALTHOUGH NO TRESPASS WOULD APPLY THERETO).'  'THE REASON THEN,' [R. JOSHUA SAID,] 'IS BECAUSE THEY CURDLE IT WITH THE RENNET FROM CALVES SACRIFICED TO IDOLS.' SAID HE, 'IF THAT BE SO, WHY DO THEY NOT EXTEND THE PROHIBITION TO ANY BENEFIT DERIVED FROM IT?' HE, HOWEVER, DIVERTED TO ANOTHER MATTER, SAYING:  'ISHMAEL, HOW DO YOU READ — FOR THY [MASC.] LOVE IS BETTER THAN WINE OR THY [FEM.] LOVE ETC.'  HE REPLIED: 'THY [FEM.] LOVE IS BETTER …' HE RETORTED: THIS IS NOT SO, AS IT IS PROVED BY ITS FELLOW [-VERSE]: THINE OINTMENTS HAVE A GOODLY FRAGRANCE [WHEREFORE THE MAIDENS LOVE THEE].' GEMARA. Whence do we deduce [the prohibition of] WINE? — Rabbah b. Abbuha said: From the scriptural verse which says, Who did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink-offering,'  as [heathens'] sacrifice is forbidden as to deriving any benefit, so also their wine is forbidden. But whence do we deduce the prohibition of a sacrifice itself? — From the scriptural words, They joined themselves also unto Baal of Peor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead:  as anything appertaining to the dead is forbidden as to any benefit, so [heathen] sacrifices are likewise forbidden. And how do we know this about the dead? — We deduce it from the similar expression 'there' used in connection with the heifer whose neck was to be broken,  as well as here [in connection with the dead]. Here it is said, And Miriam died there,  and there it is said, And they shall break the heifer's neck there in the valley.  As in that other case the heifer was forbidden as to any benefit, so also in our case the prohibition is the same. But how do we know that it is so in that case? — Those of the School of R. Jannai said: Because forgiveness  is mentioned in connection therewith as with sacrifices. OR A HEATHEN'S VINEGAR THAT WAS FORMERLY WINE. This, surely, is obvious! Shall its prohibition cease because it turned sour? — R. Ashi said: The statement serves to imply that vinegar belonging to us when in the keeping of a heathen does not require double sealing;  [and for this reason:] as to the fear lest he would offer it to idols — this is generally not offered, and [again] as to the possibility that he might exchange it for his own — since there is one seal, he would not take the trouble to falsify it. R. Elai said: We have had it stated that a heathen's boiled wine, which was formerly [raw] wine [while in his possession], is forbidden. This, too, is self evident! Does its prohibition cease because it had been boiled? — Said R. Ashi: This, too, enables us to draw the implication that our boiled wine which is in the keeping of a heathen does not require double sealing.  For as to the fear lest he would offer it to the idol, it is not offered [in that state]; and as for