Mishnah
Mishnah

Talmud for Avodah Zarah 5:12

הַלּוֹקֵחַ כְּלֵי תַשְׁמִישׁ מִן הַגּוֹי, אֶת שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַטְבִּיל, יַטְבִּיל. לְהַגְעִיל, יַגְעִיל. לְלַבֵּן בָּאוּר, יְלַבֵּן בָּאוּר. הַשַּׁפּוּד וְהָאַסְכְּלָה, מְלַבְּנָן בָּאוּר. הַסַּכִּין, שָׁפָהּ וְהִיא טְהוֹרָה:

If one takes [eating] utensils from a gentile, [(only metal utensils or earthenware utensils coated with lead (and glassware is like metalware)] — what is wont to be immersed, [that is, a vessel which can be rendered ritually clean by immersion and which requires no other procedure (as when it is used with "cold")] should be immersed [in a mikveh which is kosher for the immersion of women, and its immersion permits it (for use)]. (What is wont) to be purged (by immersion in boiling water) [such as kettles and plates of metal, which are used with "hot"] should be purged [in boiling water. They are placed into a kettle full of boiling water and left there a little. This, after their rust has been scrubbed and removed, after which they are immersed in a mikveh which is kosher for the immersion of women, and they are permitted (for use)]. (What is wont) to be fired (white-heated), [i.e., utensils that are used for dry things], like a spit and a grill, should be fired [until they give off sparks, after which they are immersed and are permitted (for use)]. A knife — shafah and it is (ritually) clean. [He sticks it into hard earth ten times if it has no depressions, and he may eat "cold" with it; or he sharpens it with its whetstone and he may eat even "hot" with it. If it has depressions, he "fires" them. And all of them (the above) — if he used them before he boiled or fired or immersed them (respectively) — it (i.e., what he processed with them) is permitted.]

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah

In a baraita26The baraita as stated here is not found in any other source except the Yerushalmi parallels Pesaḥim 28c, Avodah Zarah 45b. In Mekhilta Mišpaṭim 19; quoted in Babli Pesaḥim22b, Qiddušin 56b, Baba Qama 41a the text explicitly notes that, since “its meat shall not be eaten” is included in the statement of the sentence to be passed by the court, only after judgment is rendered does slaughter become ineffective. This may also be the rule implied by the Yerushalmi Targum to Ex. 21:28: וְלָא יִתְנְכַס לְמֵיכוּל יַת בִּשְׂרֵיהּ “it should not be slaughtered to make its flesh edible.” Since the Babli follows R. Eleazar, no discussion of the prohibition of usufruct is necessary. one disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “What does one understand from what has been said (Ex. 21:28): ‘The ox shall certainly be stoned’? Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food27As carcass meat.? Then why does the verse say, ‘its meat shall not be eaten’? To tell you that just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden for usufruct.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explained it if the owners slaughtered it before sentence was pronounced28This statement directly contradicts the position of the Babli. R. Yoḥanan will hold that the prescriptive commandment to stone the ox after judgment has been passed automatically makes any slaughter invalid; that would not need a proof from the verse..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse