(32a:1)האי חלא דשיכרא דארמאה אסור דמערבי ביה דורדיא דיין נסך אמר רב אשי ומאוצר שרי כיון דמערבי ביה מסרא סרי:
(32a:1)This vinegar made of Aramean beer is prohibited, as they mix in it yeast of wine used for a libation. Rav Ashi said: But vinegar from a storeroom is permitted, since if another substance is mixed with it, it would spoil over time.
(32a:2)וחרס הדרייני: מאי הדרייני אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל חרס של הדריינוס קיסר כי אתא רב דימי אמר קרקע בתולה היתה שלא עבדה אדם מעולם עבדה ונטעה ורמי ליה לחמרא בגולפי חיורי ומייצי להו לחמרייהו ומתברו להו בחספי ודרו בהדייהו וכל היכא דמטו תרו להו ושתו א"ר יהושע בן לוי וראשון שלנו כשלישי שלהן
(32a:2)§ The mishna teaches: And Hadrianic earthenware is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is Hadrianic earthenware? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It is earthenware of Emperor Hadrian. When Rav Dimi came, he said: There was an expanse of virgin soil that no man had ever tilled before, and Hadrian tilled it and planted grapevines in it, which yielded wine of the highest quality. And they placed this wine in white jugs, and the jugs absorbed the wine. And they would break the jugs into shards and carry the shards with them, and anywhere that they stopped, they soaked these shards in water and drank the water. The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: And our first-rate wine is like the wine produced by the third usage of their Hadrianic earthenware.
(32a:3)איבעיא להו מהו לסמוך בהן כרעי המטה רוצה בקיומו ע"י ד"א שרי או אסור
(32a:3)A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha if one wishes to use such shards to support the legs of a bed with them? Is one who desires a prohibited item’s continued existence in order to use it for another matter, i.e., not for the prohibited purpose, permitted to use it or prohibited from doing so? In this case, no benefit whatsoever is derived from the wine absorbed within the shards, but the shards themselves are being used to support the bed.
(32a:4)ת"ש דר"א ורבי יוחנן חד אסר וחד שרי והלכתא כמאן דאסר
(32a:4)The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma, as Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yoḥanan engaged in a dispute in this case: One prohibited using the shards in such a fashion, and one permitted this practice. The Gemara adds: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Sage who prohibited it.
(32a:5)מיתיבי הדרדורין והרוקבאות של עובדי כוכבים יין של ישראל כנוס בהן אסור בשתיה ומותר בהנאה העיד שמעון בן גודא לפני בנו של ר"ג על ר"ג ששתה ממנו בעכו ולא הודו לו
(32a:5)The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita to the Sage who deems it permitted: With regard to the jugs [dardurin] and flagons [rokva’ot] of gentiles that have a Jew’s wine contained in them, one is prohibited from drinking the wine, but one is permitted to derive benefit from it. The Gemara notes that Shimon ben Guda testified before the son of Rabban Gamliel with regard to Rabban Gamliel that he drank from it in Akko, but the Sages did not concede to the ramifications of his testimony.
(32a:6)נודות של עובדי כוכבים רשב"ג אומר משום רבי יהושע בן קפוסאי אסור לעשות מהן שטיחין לחמור והא הכא דרוצה בקיומו ע"י דבר אחר וקתני דאסור
(32a:6)Concerning wineskins that belong to gentiles, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai: It is prohibited to fashion from them items such as blankets to cover a donkey, as one derives benefit from them. The Gemara explains the objection: And here, in the case of wineskins used as donkey covers, he desires its continued existence for another matter, and yet the baraita teaches that it is prohibited to use it for this purpose.
(32a:7)וליטעמיך קנקנים של עובדי כוכבים ליתסרו למיזבן מאי שנא נודות ומ"ש קנקנים אמר רבא גזירה שמא יבקע נודו ויטלנו ויתפרנו על גבי נודו
(32a:7)The Gemara retorts: And according to your reasoning, it should be prohibited to sell jugs belonging to gentiles, and yet Jews sell them frequently; what is different about wineskins, from which one may not derive indirect benefit, and what is different about jugs, which may be sold for indirect benefit? The Gemara answers that Rava says: There is a rabbinic decree that one may not sell wineskins of gentiles lest his own wineskin break open, and to repair it he would take the gentile’s wineskin and sew it onto his wineskin. This would cause the wine absorbed in the gentile’s wineskin to mix with the wine of the Jew and render it forbidden.
(32a:8)ולמ"ד רוצה בקיומו על ידי ד"א אסור מ"ש קנקנים דשרו אמר לך התם ליתיה לאיסוריה בעיניה הכא איתיה לאיסוריה בעיניה:
(32a:8)The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that someone who desires the continued existence of a prohibited item for another matter is prohibited from using the item in this way, what is different about jugs that purchasing them is permitted? The Gemara explains that this Sage could have said to you: There, with regard to the jugs, there is no substantive prohibited entity, whereas here, in the case of Hadrianic earthenware, there is a substantive prohibited entity, as the wine is recognizable in the earthenware.
(32a:9)ולא הודו לו: ורמינהי יין הבא ברוקבאות של עובדי כוכבים אסור בשתיה ומותר בהנאה העיד שמעון בן גודע לפני בנו של ר"ג על ר"ג ששתה ממנו בעכו והודו לו
(32a:9)§ It was stated that Shimon ben Guda provided testimony, but the Sages did not concede to its ramifications. And the Gemara raises a contradiction: With regard to wine that comes in the flagons of gentiles, one is prohibited from drinking the wine, but one is permitted to derive benefit from it. Shimon ben Guda testified before the son of Rabban Gamliel with regard to Rabban Gamliel that he drank from it in Akko, and they conceded to him. This directly contradicts the episode cited above.
(32a:10)מאי לא הודו לו דקאמר התם כל סייעתו אבל בנו מודי ליה איבעית אימא גודא לחוד וגודע לחוד:
(32a:10)The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the sentence: But they did not concede to the ramifications of his testimony, which was stated there, in the first account? The meaning is that the rest of his entire company, i.e., the Sages, did not concede, but his son did concede to him. If you wish, say instead that Guda with the letter alef, as stated in the first episode, is discrete, and Guda with an ayin, in the second account, is discrete, i.e., the two incidents are not referring to the same individual.
(32a:11)ועורות לבובין: תנו רבנן איזהו עור לבוב כל שקרוע כנגד הלב וקדור כמין ארובה יש עליו קורט דם אסור
(32a:11)§ The mishna further teaches: And hides with a tear opposite the heart are prohibited. The Sages taught: What is considered a hide with a tear opposite the heart? Any hide that is torn opposite the heart and incised in a shape similar to an aperture, and which has a trace of coagulated blood on it, is prohibited.
(32b:1)אין עליו קורט דם מותר אמר רב הונא לא שנו אלא שלא מלחו אבל מלחו אסור אימא מלחו העברתו:
(32b:1)If it does not have a trace of blood upon it, then it is permitted. Rav Huna says: They taught that a bloodless hide is permitted only in a case where the gentile did not salt it, but if he salted it, it is prohibited, as I say: Its salting removed the trace of blood.
(32b:2)רשב"ג אומר בזמן שהקרע שלו עגול אסור משוך מותר: אמר רב יוסף אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרשב"ג
(32b:2)§ The mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A hide is prohibited only when the tear around its heart is circular, but if it is elongated, it is permitted. The Gemara notes: Rav Yosef says that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
(32b:3)א"ל אביי הלכה מכלל דפליגי א"ל מאי נפקא לך מינה א"ל גמרא גמור זמורתא תהא:
(32b:3)Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If one rules that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, does that mean by inference that the Rabbis disagree, or perhaps there is no dispute and everyone accepts the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? Rav Yosef said to him: What difference is there to you whether or not the Rabbis disagree? In either case the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Abaye said to him, invoking a folk expression with regard to one who learns without achieving understanding: Is it simply learn the lesson; let it be like a song? In other words, is it sufficient to simply parrot the halakhic ruling? No; it is necessary to examine an issue to understand it even if it does not yield a practical halakhic difference.
(32b:4)בשר הנכנס לעבודת כוכבים מותר: מאן תנא אמר ר' חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן דלא כרבי אלעזר דאי כרבי אלעזר האמר סתם מחשבת עובד כוכבים לעבודת כוכבים:
(32b:4)§ The mishna further teaches: Meat that enters the house of idol worship, before it is sacrificed, is permitted. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as if one were to posit that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, this would be difficult: Doesn’t he say: When slaughtering an animal, a gentile’s unspecified intention is to use it for idol worship? Accordingly, Rabbi Elazar would disagree with the ruling of the mishna that meat entering a house of idol worship is permitted.
(32b:5)והיוצא אסור מפני שהוא כזבחי מתים: מ"ט אי אפשר דליכא תקרובת עבודת כוכבים מני רבי יהודה בן בתירא היא
(32b:5)The mishna teaches: And meat that exits the house of idol worship is prohibited because it is considered as offerings to the dead, i.e., idols. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that it is classified as such? It is because it is impossible that it is not an idolatrous offering. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion does this reflect? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.
(32b:6)דתניא רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר מנין לתקרובת עבודת כוכבים שמטמא באהל שנאמר (תהלים קו, כח) ויצמדו לבעל פעור ויאכלו זבחי מתים מה מת מטמא באהל אף תקרובת עבודת כוכבים מטמאה באהל:
(32b:6)As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: From where is it derived that an idolatrous offering imparts ritual impurity by means of a tent to an individual or item situated together with it under the same structure, even if they do not come into direct contact? As it is stated: “They joined themselves also unto Baal of Peor, and ate the offerings to the dead” (Psalms 106:28). Just as a corpse imparts ritual impurity by means of a tent, so too idolatrous offerings impart ritual impurity by means of a tent. Similarly, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira would hold that just as it is prohibited to derive benefit from a corpse, so too it is prohibited to derive benefit from idolatrous offerings.
(32b:7)ההולכין לתרפות אסורין לשאת ולתת עמהם: אמר שמואל עובד כוכבים ההולך לתרפות בהליכה אסור דאזיל ומודי קמי עבודת כוכבים בחזרה מותר מאי דהוה הוה
(32b:7)§ The mishna teaches: With regard to those going to a festival of idolatry, it is prohibited to engage with them in business. The Gemara notes that Shmuel says: In the case of a gentile who goes to a festival of idolatry, if he is on his way to the festival it is prohibited to engage in business with him, as he subsequently goes and offers thanks before the object of idol worship. Upon his return it is permitted, as what was, was, i.e., he has already finished his worship, and refraining from engaging in business with the gentile at this stage will accomplish nothing.
(32b:8)ישראל ההולך לתרפות בהליכה מותר דלמא הדר ביה ולא אזיל בחזרה אסור כיון
(32b:8)Conversely, with regard to a Jew who goes to a festival of idolatry, if he is on his way to the festival it is permitted to engage in business with him, as perhaps he will retract from his plan and will not go. Upon his return, it is prohibited, since
