Talking Talmud

More on the hills and mountains and rocks - where they are being worshipped by a non-Jew, that is, the boulders that separate from a rocky mountain. Is that boulder like the mountain which isn't prohibited from benefit, or is it like the object of idolatrous worship? Usually, human engagement is necessary to make the object of idolatry prohibited. With a comparison to an animal -- including one that is blemished, as a parallel to the boulder. Also, the factor of being attached the ground - to what extent does that establish the worshipped object as something problematic or not?

A new mishnah! Things in the natural world that were worshipped - and whether that worship made them prohibited for benefit. For the most part, the hills and so on are permitted - the worship doesn't change them, but the obligation to destroy the idolatry itself kicks in. Adornment in the name of idolatry would be different - and prohibited. Also, a redundancy in the Torah: a prohibition against trees that are forbidden because they have been worshipped - and then another verse prohibited "each leafy tree," which appears to be redundant. So Rabbi Akiva provides an explanation that presents a need for both verses. Plus, the question of intent - is the tree planted in the name of idolatry, in which case, it needs to be destroyed, or, alternatively, is the tree already there and then someone decides to worship it?

2 new mishnayot! First, an alternative to taking a graven image to the Dead Sea - grind it off (but then the leavings become fertilizer, which would be getting benefit from it). With a parallel to improper use of that which had been consecrated, including that which emptied into the Kidron Valley (a story of King Asa), where fertilizer was less in use... Also, the story of Rabban Gamliel and the rebuke that comes his way for being in the bathhouse of Aphrodite (he has several defenses).

What is the figure of a dragon that is prohibited? One descriptor is scales between the joints, and that is determined to be the halakhah. Also, the story how Rabbi Elazar ben HaKappar found a ring on the road with the depiction of a dragon and he insisted that an adult non-Jew nullify the idolatrous status of it -- with 3 laws being learned from his behavior. Plus, the fact that the change of status of any item when it is saved from wild animals or a destructive river, or so on -- so why did he need a non-Jew to change the status, when that ring was just found on the road? It depends on the despair of the original owner, but that assumes that the finder is Jewish and not going to sell it. Also, the prohibition against depicting the celestial bodies - but Rabban Gamliel had images of the moon to help assess witnesses who come to testify about the new moon - but how could he have those images?! What about a menorah? There are concerns about replication. Likewise, the faces that are part of God's heavenly throne - how could those images be replicated? The Gemara distinguishes between worshipping (obviously prohibited) vs. depicting, which seems to have been done, and therefore flies in the face of the prohibition.

More on finding shards, and the problematic nature of tangible hands, feet, etc., when found. But why are those tangible imagery forbidden? The idol has been destroyed! Also, the possibility of revoking the idolatrous status, and rendering it permitted for use altogether - how actively, physically must that be done? Or does it have happen on its own, without your intervention? Also, a new mishnah! Certain figures that are considered idolatrous and need to be fully "erased" - at the Dead Sea: sun, moon, stars, dragons. But are those the only possible things that were worshipped? Plus, the issues in depicting people's faces.

A Jew cannot benefit from an object that's been used for idolatry, of course, but that extends to images too. Though the majority view maintains that images are not a problem. Also, broken shards may well be permitted - for use, benefit, and so on. But what if they were the object of idol worship? And what if the shards have the image of a hand or a foot or attached to a pedestal on which the idol stood?

A new mishnah! (from the previous daf) Permitted foods, for a change, including milk that was milked by a non-Jew, who was watched by a Jew, and certain fishes, and more. Plus, a deep dive into fish and roe (fish eggs), vs. other seafood, which birth their young (and are not kosher). But some non-kosher fish also lay eggs. Also, the need for experts who were able to determine whether a given fish and its roe were kosher or not. Plus, a story about Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, his stomach ache, and its cure in non-Jewishly-made 70-year-old non-Jewish apple wine.

Several kinds of fishes that are prohibited to be eaten. And several that are permitted, including contingent only on where they come from (depending on where that is and whether non-kosher fish are caught together with the kosher ones). Plus, the question of a fish that will eventually get scales, but doesn't have them now, or did have them, but lost them before now - those are all considered kosher too. Also, the story o a sliver of "hiltit," with concern or the knife, if it has absorbed non-kosher food. Plus, tekhelet - when to trust it as genuine? Plus, trusting the wives of meticulous scholars ("chaver") in the same way as those scholars are to be trusted.

Note: Previously labeled Daf 37, "A King's Table," was really the Daf 38 episode, sadly on account of human error. This episode the real Daf 37, "The Not-So-Permissive Court."

[Who's Who: Rabbi Yehudah Nesiah, not to be confused with Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi] With a case in his name - regarding the discussion of oil that originates with non-Jews, and when that was then permitted for use by Jews, and a question about permitting the bread of non-Jews. But the sages were concerned that they would labeled a "permissive" court. [Who's Who: Yosi ben Yoezer and the Zugot] Plus, a divorce issued on condition of, for example, the husband not returning in X amount of time, or example more than a year. Also, vegetables that are boiled by non-Jews are prohibited to Jews, but why? Is changing the food (through cooking or grinding) the issue?

More on "bishul akum" -- the rabbinic prohibition against eating food cooked by a non-Jew. But anything that can be eaten raw isn't subject to the prohibition - or, that's what was taught in Sura. In Pompedita, they said the more subjective stipulation - namely, that which was not fit or a king's table was not subject to bishul akum. But there's another practical difference - namely, foods that are not eaten raw, but also are not elegant dining. The Gemara's discussion leads into considerations of what the main food is, as compared to accompaniments. Also, when Jews and non-Jews both cook together -- say, when a Jew puts meat on the coals, and a non-Jew turns the meat: is that permitted? It seems to depend on how involved the non-Jew was in the cooking. Is he expediting the cooking or making it happen?