מתני׳ אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁל גּוֹיִם אֲסוּרִין וְאִיסּוּרָן אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה: הַיַּיִן, וְהַחוֹמֶץ שֶׁל גּוֹיִם שֶׁהָיָה מִתְּחִלָּתוֹ יַיִן, וְחֶרֶס הַדְרִיָּינִי, וְעוֹרוֹת לְבוּבִין. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַקֶּרַע שֶׁלּוֹ עָגוֹל – אָסוּר, מָשׁוּךְ – מוּתָּר.

This mishna discusses the halakhic status of various items that belong to gentiles. These are items that belong to gentiles and are prohibited to Jews, and their prohibition is that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited: Wine, and vinegar belonging to gentiles that was originally wine, and Hadrianic earthenware, and hides with a tear opposite the heart. 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, as gentiles will sacrifice a heart only when it has been removed by a circular laceration.

בָּשָׂר הַנִּכְנָס לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מוּתָּר, וְהַיּוֹצֵא – אָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּזִבְחֵי מֵתִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. הַהוֹלְכִין לְתַרְפּוּת – אָסוּר לָשֵׂאת וְלָתֵת עִמָּהֶן, וְהַבָּאִין – מוּתָּרִין.

Meat that enters the house of idol worship is permitted, and meat that exits this house is prohibited, because it is considered as offerings to the dead, i.e., to idols; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. With regard to those going to a festival of idolatry [ tarput ], it is prohibited to engage in business with them. And with regard to those who are coming from it, it is permitted to engage in business with them.

נוֹדוֹת הַגּוֹיִם וְקַנְקַנֵּיהֶן וְיַיִן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּנוּס בָּהֶן – אֲסוּרִין וְאִיסּוּרָן אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר; וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין אִיסּוּרָן אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה. הַחַרְצַנִּים וְהַזַּגִּין שֶׁל גּוֹיִם – אֲסוּרִין וְאִיסּוּרָן אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר; וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לַחִין אֲסוּרִין, יְבֵישִׁין מוּתָּרִין.

Wineskins and jugs belonging to gentiles, which have a Jew’s wine contained in them, are prohibited to Jews, and their prohibition is that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Their prohibition is not that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited. Residual grape seeds and grape skins belonging to gentiles, which are left behind after the grapes are crushed for wine, are prohibited, and their prohibition is that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Moist grape residues are prohibited, but dry residues are permitted.

הַמּוּרַיְיס וּגְבִינַת בֵּית אוּנְיָיקִי שֶׁל גּוֹיִם – אֲסוּרִין וְאִיסּוּרָן אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר; וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין אִיסּוּרָן אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה.

Fish stew [ murayes ] and cheese of Beit Unyaki belonging to gentiles are prohibited, and their prohibition is that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Their prohibition is not that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited.

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: שָׁאַל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כְּשֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ, אָמַר לוֹ: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָסְרוּ גְּבִינוֹת גּוֹיִם? אָמַר לוֹ: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּקֵיבָה שֶׁל נְבֵילָה.

Rabbi Yehuda said: Rabbi Yishmael asked Rabbi Yehoshua a series of questions while they were traveling along the road. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: For what reason did the Sages prohibit the cheeses of gentiles? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Because gentiles curdle cheese with the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal carcass, and as the carcass of an unslaughtered animal is not kosher, cheese that is curdled with it is likewise prohibited.

אָמַר לוֹ: וַהֲלֹא קֵיבַת עוֹלָה חֲמוּרָה מִקֵּיבַת נְבֵילָה, אָמְרוּ: כֹּהֵן שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ יָפָה שׁוֹרְפָהּ חַיָּה, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ, אֲבָל אָמְרוּ: אֵין נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין!

In response, Rabbi Yishmael said to him: But aren’t the stomach contents of a burnt-offering subject to a more stringent prohibition than the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal carcass? And yet they said: A priest who is open-minded [ shedato yafa ] with regard to what he eats may swallow [ shorefah ] the stomach contents of a burnt-offering while they are raw, and the other Sages did not agree with him. But the Sages said: One may not derive benefit from the stomach contents of a burnt-offering ab initio , and if one did derive benefit from them, he is not liable for misusing consecrated property. According to both opinions, deriving benefit from the stomach contents of a burnt-offering is not prohibited by Torah law. Since the halakha with regard to a burnt-offering is more stringent than that of an animal carcass, why would deriving benefit from the carcass be prohibited, while deriving benefit from the burnt-offering is permitted?

אָמַר לוֹ: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּקֵיבַת עֶגְלֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אָמַר לוֹ: אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה לֹא אֲסָרוּהָ בַּהֲנָאָה?

Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Yishmael: The cheese of gentiles is prohibited because they curdle it in the stomach contents of calves used for idol worship. Since it is prohibited to derive benefit from such calves, cheese curdled in their stomach contents is also prohibited. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: If that is so, why didn’t the Sages prohibit deriving any benefit from the cheese, instead of merely prohibiting its consumption?

הִשִּׂיאוֹ לְדָבָר אַחֵר, אָמַר לוֹ: יִשְׁמָעֵאל, הֵיאָךְ אַתָּה קוֹרֵא ״כִּי טוֹבִים דֹּדֶיךָ מִיָּיִן״ אוֹ ״כִּי טוֹבִים דֹּדַיִךְ״?

Instead of answering Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Yehoshua diverted his attention to another matter and said to him: Yishmael, how do you read the following verse in the Song of Songs (1:2)? Do you read it as: For Your love [ dodekha ] is better than wine, or as: For your love [ dodayikh ] is better than wine? The first version, which is in the masculine form, would be a reference to God, whereas the second version, in the feminine, would be a reference to the Jewish people.

אָמַר לוֹ: ״כִּי טוֹבִים דֹּדַיִךְ״. אָמַר לוֹ: אֵין הַדָּבָר כֵּן, שֶׁהֲרֵי חֲבֵירוֹ מְלַמֵּד עָלָיו: ״לְרֵיחַ שְׁמָנֶיךָ טוֹבִים״.

Rabbi Yishmael said to him that it should be read in the feminine: For your love [ dodayikh ] is better than wine. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: The matter is not so, as another verse teaches with regard to it: “Your ointments [ shemanekha ] have a goodly fragrance” (Song of Songs 1:3). This phrase, which appears in the next verse, is written in the masculine form, and therefore it is determined that the preceding verse can also be understood in the masculine form.

גמ׳ יַיִן מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״אֲשֶׁר חֵלֶב זְבָחֵימוֹ יֹאכֵלוּ יִשְׁתּוּ יֵין נְסִיכָם״, מַה זֶּבַח אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, אַף יַיִן נַמִי אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה.

From where do we derive that wine belonging to gentiles is prohibited? Rabba bar Avuh says that the verse states: “Who did eat the fat of their offerings, and drank the wine of their drink-offering” (Deuteronomy 32:38). This verse juxtaposes the fat of gentile sacrifices to their wine: Just as deriving benefit from their offering is prohibited, so too, deriving benefit from their wine is prohibited.

זֶבַח גּוּפֵיהּ מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּצָּמְדוּ לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר וַיֹּאכְלוּ זִבְחֵי מֵתִים״, מַה מֵּת אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, אַף זֶבַח נַמִי אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה.

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive the prohibition with regard to an offering itself? It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “They joined themselves also unto Baal of Peor, and ate the offerings to the dead” (Psalms 106:28). This verse teaches that just as deriving benefit from a corpse is prohibited, so too, deriving benefit from an offering of idolatry is prohibited.

וּמֵת גּוּפֵיהּ מְנָלַן? אָתְיָא ״שָׁם״ ״שָׁם״ מֵעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה, כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וַתָּמָת שָׁם מִרְיָם״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וְעָרְפוּ שָׁם אֶת הָעֶגְלָה בַּנָּחַל״, מַה לְּהַלָּן אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, אַף כָּאן נַמִי אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה.

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive the prohibition of a corpse itself? The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verbal analogy between the words “there” and “there” employed with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken to absolve a city from bearing responsibility for the death of a visitor. It is written here: “And Miriam died there” (Numbers 20:1), and it is written there: “And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, which may neither be plowed nor sown, and shall break the heifer’s neck there in the valley” (Deuteronomy 21:4). Just as there, deriving benefit from the heifer is prohibited, so too here, deriving benefit from a corpse is prohibited.

וְהָתָם מְנָלַן? אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: כַּפָּרָה כְּתִיב בָּהּ כְּקָדָשִׁים.

And there, from where do we learn that deriving benefit from the heifer is prohibited? The Sages said in the school of Rabbi Yannai: A term of atonement is written with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken (Deuteronomy 21:8), just as it is written with regard to sacrificial animals.

״וְהַחוֹמֶץ שֶׁל גּוֹיִם שֶׁהָיָה מִתְּחִלָּתוֹ יַיִן״. פְּשִׁיטָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּאַחְמִיץ פְּקַע לֵיהּ אִיסּוּרֵיהּ? אֲמַר רַב אַשִׁי, הָא אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוּעִינַן: חוֹמֶץ שֶׁלָּנוּ בְּיַד גּוֹי אֵין צָרִיךְ חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם; אִי מִשּׁוּם אִינְסוּכֵי – לָא מְנַסְּכִי, וְאִי מִשּׁוּם אִיחְלוּפֵי – כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא חוֹתָם, לָא טָרַח וּמְזַיֵּיף.

§ The mishna teaches: And vinegar belonging to gentiles that was originally wine is prohibited. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? Just because the wine has soured, should its prohibition lapse? Rav Ashi said: This comes to teach us that our vinegar that is in a gentile’s possession does not require a seal within a seal for it to remain permitted for consumption. Rather, one seal is sufficient. Rav Ashi explains the reason for this leniency: If the concern is due to idolatrous libation, gentiles do not offer libations of vinegar. And if it is due to the concern that a gentile may secretly exchange his prohibited vinegar with the vinegar of a Jew, since there is one seal, the gentile will not exert himself and forge a different seal in order to facilitate the exchange.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶילְעָא, שָׁנִינוּ: יַיִן מְבוּשָּׁל שֶׁל גּוֹיִם שֶׁהָיָה מִתְּחִלָּתוֹ יַיִן – אָסוּר. פְּשִׁיטָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיבְשִׁיל פְּקַע לֵיהּ אִיסּוּרָא? אֲמַר רַב אַשִׁי, הָא אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוּעִינַן: יַיִן מְבוּשָּׁל שֶׁלָּנוּ בְּיַד גּוֹיִם אֵין צָרִיךְ חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם; אִי מִשּׁוּם אִינְסוּכֵי – לָא מְנַסְּכִי, וְאִי מִשּׁוּם

Rabbi Ile’a says: We learned that cooked wine belonging to gentiles that was originally uncooked wine is prohibited. The Gemara again asks: Isn’t this obvious? Just because the wine was cooked, should its prohibition lapse? Rav Ashi said: This comes to teach us that our cooked wine that is in a gentile’s possession does not require a seal within a seal for it to remain permitted for consumption. Rather, one seal is sufficient. Rav Ashi elaborates: If the concern is due to idolatrous libation, gentiles do not offer libations of cooked wine. And if it is due to