אֲסוּרִין בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד; חִילְתִּית, מוֹרַיְיס, פַּת, גְּבִינָה – מוּתָּרִין בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד.

are all prohibited when they are found with only one seal; ḥiltit , fish stew [ morayes ], bread [ pat ], and cheese [ gevina ] are all permitted when they are found with one seal.

פַּת לְמַאי נֵיחוּשׁ לָהּ? אִי מִשּׁוּם אִיחֲלוּפֵי קְרִירָא בַּחֲמִימָא – מֵידַע יְדִיעַ, דְּחִיטֵּי בִּדְשַׂעֲרֵי נַמִי מֵידַע יְדִיעַ; אִי כִּי הֲדָדֵי – כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא חוֹתָם אֶחָד לָא טָרַח וּמְזַיֵּיף.

The Gemara explains why only one seal is necessary for bread. With regard to what need we be concerned in the case of bread, that one might have thought it requires two seals? If it is due to the concern for the gentile exchanging the fresh bread of the Jew with his own bread that is less fresh, the difference between cold bread and warm bread is known, and the Jew will realize that there has been an exchange. Likewise, if there is a concern that a gentile might exchange the more valuable wheat bread of the Jew with his own less valuable barley bread, the Jew will also know about it in this case. And if it is due to the concern that a gentile might exchange similar kinds of bread since there is one seal the gentile will not trouble himself and forge another seal just to exchange bread of equal value.

וְרַב, מַאי שְׁנָא גְּבִינָה? דְּלָא טָרַח וּמְזַיֵּיף; חָלָב נַמִי לָא טָרַח וּמְזַיֵּיף! אֲמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: אַפֵּיק חָלָב וְעָיֵּיל חֲתִיכַת דָּג שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ סִימָן.

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rav, what is different about cheese that it requires only one seal whereas milk requires two? If the reason is that a gentile will not trouble himself and forge a different seal, as cheese is generally inexpensive and the small profit he might make is not worth such an effort, this reasoning should apply to milk also, as he will not trouble himself and forge a new seal in this case either. Rav Kahana said: Remove the term: Milk, from Rav’s statement, and enter instead: A piece of fish that has no sign of kashrut.

הַיְינוּ בָּשָׂר! תְּרֵי גַוְונֵי בָשָׂר.

The Gemara raises an objection: Rav could not have been teaching that a piece of fish with no signs of kashrut requires two seals, as fish is the same as meat, which is already included in the list of items that require two seals. The Gemara explains that there are two categories of meat: Animal meat and fish meat. Since one might have thought that they are subject to different halakhot , Rav therefore teaches that both require two seals.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אוֹמֵר: בי״ת אָסוּר בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד, מח״ג מוּתָּר בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד; בָּשָׂר, יַיִן, תְּכֵלֶת – אֲסוּרִין בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד; מוֹרַיְיס, חִילְתִּית, גְּבִינָה – מוּתָּרִין בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד. לִשְׁמוּאֵל, חֲתִיכַת דָּג שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ סִימָן הַיְינוּ בָּשָׂר, תְּרֵי גַוְונֵי בָשָׂר לָא אָמְרִינַן.

The Gemara cites a different set of lists than that presented by Rav. And Shmuel says: The substances represented by the acronym beit , yod , tav are prohibited when sealed with one seal; those represented by the acronym mem , ḥet , gimmel , are permitted when sealed with one seal. The Gemara explains: Meat [ basar ], wine [ yayin ], and sky-blue dye [ tekhelet ] are prohibited when sealed with a single seal; fish stew [ morayes ], ḥiltit , and cheese [ gevina ], are permitted when sealed with a single seal. The Gemara comments: According to Shmuel, a piece of fish that has no sign of kashrut is the same as meat, and we do not say that there is a difference between two categories of meat. Consequently, he does not include in his list a piece of fish that has no sign of kashrut.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין לוֹקְחִין ימ״ח מח״ג בְּסוּרְיָא – לֹא יַיִן וְלֹא מוֹרַיְיס וְלֹא חָלָב, וְלֹא מֶלַח סַלְקוֹנְדָּרִית וְלֹא חִילְתִּית וְלֹא גְּבִינָה, אֶלָּא מִן הַמּוּמְחֶה; וְכוּלָּן אִם נִתְאָרֵחַ אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת – מוּתָּר.

The Sages taught: One may not purchase foods represented by the acronym yod , mem , ḥet ; mem , ḥet , gimmel in Syria, not even from Jews. The Gemara elaborates: One may not purchase wine [ yayin ], nor fish stew [ morayes ], nor milk [ ḥalav ], nor salkondarit salt [ melaḥ salkondarit ], nor ḥiltit , nor cheese [ gevina ], except when purchased from an expert with a reputation for knowing and upholding the halakhot of kashrut. And with regard to all of them, if one is a guest in the home of his host, they are permitted, as a Jew is assumed to keep the halakhot of kashrut in his own home.

מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: שִׁגֵּר לוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לְבֵיתוֹ – מוּתָּר; מַאי טַעְמָא? בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לָא שָׁבֵיק הֶיתֵּירָא וְאָכַל אִיסּוּרָא, וְכִי מְשַׁגַּר לֵיהּ, מִמַּאי דְּאָכֵיל מְשַׁדַּר לֵיהּ.

The Gemara adds: This supports the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If a homeowner sent someone a package of food to his house, the food is permitted. What is the reason? It is because a homeowner does not leave aside permitted foods and eat prohibited foods, and when he sends food to another, he sends it from that which he eats himself, even though one may not be allowed to purchase food from that individual.

״וּמֶלַח סַלְקוֹנְדָּרִית״. מַאי מֶלַח סַלְקוֹנְדָּרִית? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מֶלַח שֶׁכָּל סַלְקוֹנְדַּרֵי רוֹמִי אוֹכְלִין אוֹתָהּ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מֶלַח סַלְקוֹנְדָּרִית – שְׁחוֹרָה אֲסוּרָה, לְבָנָה מוּתֶּרֶת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר; רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לְבָנָה אֲסוּרָה, שְׁחוֹרָה מוּתֶּרֶת; רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: זוֹ וְזוֹ אֲסוּרָה.

§ The mishna teaches that salkondarit salt is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is salkondarit salt? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It is the salt that all Roman bakers [ salkondarei ] eat. The Sages taught: With regard to salkondarit salt, black salt is prohibited, whereas white salt is permitted; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: White salt is prohibited; black salt is permitted. The Gemara cites a third opinion: Rabbi Yehuda ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: This and that, i.e., both white and black salkondarit salt, are prohibited.

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר לְבָנָה אֲסוּרָה, קִירְבֵי דָגִים לְבָנִים טְמֵאִים מְעוֹרָבִין בָּהּ; לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר שְׁחוֹרָה אֲסוּרָה, קִירְבֵי דָגִים שְׁחוֹרִים טְמֵאִים מְעוֹרָבִין בָּהּ;

The Gemara cites an explanation of this dispute. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: According to the statement of the one who says that white salkondarit salt is prohibited, it is suspected that the intestines of white non-kosher fish are mixed in it, and this is the reason for the prohibition. According to the statement of the one who says that black salt is prohibited, it is suspected that the intestines of black non-kosher fish are mixed in it.

לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר זוֹ וְזוֹ אֲסוּרָה, זֶה וְזֶה מְעוֹרָבִין בָּהּ. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּהוּ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: זָקֵן אֶחָד הָיָה בִּשְׁכוּנָתֵנוּ, שֶׁהָיָה מַחֲלִיק פָּנֶיהָ בְּשׁוּמַּן חֲזִיר.

According to the statement of the one who said this and that are prohibited, he is concerned that this and that, i.e., the intestines of both white and black fish, are mixed in white and black salt, respectively. The Gemara mentions an additional problem with salkondarit salt: Rabbi Abbahu says in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: There was a certain elder in our neighborhood who would smooth its surface with pig fat.

״הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִים״. לְמַעוּטֵי מַאי? לְחִזְקִיָּה – לְמַעוּטֵי בְּיָדוּעַ, לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – לְמַעוּטֵי מוֹרַיְיס וּגְבִינַת בֵּית אוּנְיָיקִי, וּסְתָמָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר.

§ The mishna further teaches that the list of items it mentioned are all prohibited. The Gemara asks: Since the mishna began by stating that the items it lists are prohibited for consumption, what does this apparently redundant conclusion serve to exclude? The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Ḥizkiyya cited on 38b, it serves to exclude cases where it is known that wine of gentiles’ was added to the foods, as one may not even derive benefit from such foods. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, it serves to exclude fish stew and cheese of Beit Unyaki, as it is prohibited to derive benefit from these, and accordingly, the unattributed statement in this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, cited in the previous mishna (29b).

מתני׳ וְאֵלּוּ מוּתָּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה: חָלָב שֶׁחֲלָבוֹ גּוֹי וְיִשְׂרָאֵל רוֹאֵהוּ, וְהַדְּבַשׁ, וְהַדַּבְדְּבָנִיּוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּנַטְּפִין אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם הֶכְשֵׁר מַשְׁקֶה, וּכְבָשִׁין שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכָּן לָתֵת לְתוֹכָן יַיִן וְחוֹמֶץ, וְטָרִית שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְרוּפָה, וְצִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ דָּגָה, וְעָלֶה שֶׁל חִילְתִּית, וְזֵיתֵי גְלוּסְקָאוֹת הַמְגוּלְגָּלִין.

And these are permitted for consumption: Milk that was milked by a gentile and a Jew watched him doing so; and honey; and grape clusters [ davdevaniyyot ] which, despite the fact that they are dripping juice, are not subject to the halakhot of susceptibility to ritual impurity caused by contact with that liquid; and pickled vegetables whose usual manner of preparation does not involve adding wine and vinegar to them; and tarit fish that is not minced; and brine that has fish in it; and the leaf of a ḥiltit plant; and rolled olive cakes [ geluskaot ].

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: הַשְּׁלָחִין אֲסוּרִין. הַחֲגָבִים הַבָּאִים מִן הַסְּלוּלָה – אֲסוּרִין, מִן הַהֶפְתֵּק – מוּתָּרִין. וְכֵן לִתְרוּמָה.

Rabbi Yosei says: Overripe olives are prohibited. Locusts that come from a salesman’s basket are prohibited, whereas those that come from the storeroom [ heftek ] are permitted; and likewise with regard to the portion of the produce designated for the priest [ teruma ], as will be explained in the Gemara.

גמ׳ תָּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: יוֹשֵׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּצַד עֶדְרוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי, וְגוֹי חוֹלֵב וּמֵבִיא לוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּלֵיכָּא דָּבָר טָמֵא בְּעֶדְרוֹ, פְּשִׁיטָא! וְאִי דְּאִיכָּא דָּבָר טָמֵא בְּעֶדְרוֹ, אַמַּאי?

We learn from the mishna that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita : A Jew may sit beside a gentile’s flock and wait while the gentile milks his animals and brings the milk to the Jew, and he not need be concerned, even if he cannot see the milking process from his seated position. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If it is known that there is no non-kosher animal in the gentile’s flock, isn’t it obvious that the milk is permitted? Why would the baraita teach an obvious halakha ? And if there is a non-kosher animal in his flock, then why is the milk permitted, considering the fact that the Jew could not see the gentile from where he sat?

לְעוֹלָם דְּאִיכָּא דָּבָר טָמֵא, וְכִי קָאֵי חָזֵי לֵיהּ, וְכִי יָתֵיב לָא חָזֵי לֵיהּ; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּיָתֵיב לָא חָזֵי לֵיהּ, נֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא מַיְיתֵי וּמְעָרֵב בֵּיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן: כֵּיוָן דְּכִי קָאֵי חָזֵי לֵיהּ, אִירְתּוּתֵי מִירְתַּת וְלָא מִיעֲרַב בֵּיהּ.

The Gemara explains: Actually, this is referring to a case where there is a non-kosher animal in the flock, and when the Jew is standing he can see the gentile, but when he is sitting he cannot see the gentile. Lest you say: Since when the Jew is sitting, he cannot see the gentile, we should be concerned that perhaps the gentile will bring non-kosher milk and mix it with the kosher milk, the baraita therefore teaches us that since when the Jew is standing, he can see him, the gentile is fearful of being caught and does not mix anything into the milk.

״וְהַדְּבַשׁ״. דְּבַשׁ לְמַאי נֵיחוּשׁ לָהּ? אִי מִשּׁוּם אִיעֲרוּבֵי – מִיסְרָא סָרֵי, אִי מִשּׁוּם בִּישּׁוּלֵי גוֹיִם – נֶאֱכָל כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַי, אִי מִשּׁוּם גֵּיעוּלֵי גוֹיִם – נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם הוּא וּמוּתָּר.

§ The mishna teaches: And the honey of gentiles is permitted. The Gemara explains: For what need we be concerned with regard to honey? If it is due to the concern that a gentile might mix wine with it, honey spoils when it is mixed with wine, and therefore a gentile would not do so. If it is due to the cooking of gentiles, this too does not apply, because it is eaten as it is, i.e., raw. If it is due to the concern that the honey might have absorbed prohibited taste from vessels of gentiles that require purging, this does not apply either, as it is a prohibited substance that imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture, and such a case is permitted. Since none of these concerns are relevant, the honey is permitted.

״וְהַדַּבְדְּבָנִיּוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּנַטְּפוֹת אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם הֶכְשֵׁר מַשְׁקֶה״. וּרְמִינְהִי: הַבּוֹצֵר לַגַּת – שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר: הוּכְשַׁר, הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר: לֹא הוּכְשַׁר, וְאוֹדֵי לֵיהּ הִלֵּל לְשַׁמַּאי!

§ The mishna further teaches: And grape clusters which, despite the fact that they are dripping juice, are not subject to the halakhot of susceptibility to ritual impurity caused by contact with that liquid. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the following baraita : With regard to one who harvests grapes in order to take them to the press and crush them, there is a dispute as to whether or not the liquid that seeps from the grapes renders them susceptible to ritual impurity. Shammai says: It has become susceptible to ritual impurity, and Hillel says: It has not become susceptible. And eventually Hillel conceded to the opinion of Shammai. This shows that the juice that seeps out of grapes does render them susceptible to ritual impurity, which apparently contradicts the ruling of the mishna.

הָתָם קָא בָּעֵי לֵיהּ לְמַשְׁקֶה, הָכָא לָא קָא בָּעֵי לֵיהּ לְמַשְׁקֶה.

The Gemara explains: There, in the case of the baraita , he wants the juice as a beverage, and one’s intention influences the capability of certain liquids to render substances susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, the liquid that seeps from the grapes renders them susceptible to ritual impurity. Here, in the case of the mishna, he does not want the juice as a beverage, and therefore the grapes are not rendered susceptible to impurity.

״וְטָרִית שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְרוּפָה״. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזוֹ הִיא טָרִית שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְרוּפָה? כָּל שֶׁרֹאשׁ וְשִׁדְרָה נִיכָּר; וְאֵיזוֹ צִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ דָּגָה? כָּל שֶׁכִּילְבִּית אַחַת אוֹ שְׁתֵּי כִילְבִּיּוֹת

§ The mishna further teaches: And tarit fish that is not minced and brine that has fish in it are permitted. The Sages taught: What is considered tarit that has not been minced? Any fish whose head and spine are recognizable. And what is considered brine that has fish in it? Any brine that has one kilbit or two kilbiyot