Aligned sentence by sentence
[]
Mishnah [1]
▶Sources · 1
The Commentary's explanation of the cheese prohibition (gevinat akum) appears in condensed form in MT Hilkhot Maakhalot Asurot 3:13–15. Rambam's Commentary emphasizes the rabbinic rationale — cheese was forbidden because of intermarriage concerns or contact with unclean rennet — and notes the dispute among Geonim. The MT simply states the prohibition without engaging the rationale debate, illustrating Rambam's deliberate separation of the Commentary's explanatory mode from the MT's legislative mode.
.
The prohibition against leaving a female animal alone with an idolater applies because a [male] idolater might come to that idolatress woman and copulate with the animal.
, .
As for the statement, "A woman may not be secluded with them" — even the seclusion that would be permissible for her with a Jewish man is forbidden here, for example when an idolater's wife is present with him, and similar situations, as we have explained in its proper place at the end of tractate Kiddushin.
, . .
A Jewish woman may not serve as midwife for an idolatress, because she would thereby be raising a child for idolatry. If it is done for payment, however, it is permitted on account of enmity.
. , .
For this same reason, [a Jewish woman] may not nurse the infant of an idolatress. The phrase "in her domain" [applies] because [the Jewish woman] may not be alone with him [the idolater], since idolaters are suspect regarding bloodshed.
[]
Mishnah [2]
, . , .
"Healing of property" means treating his animal or his idolater-owned slaves. "Healing of persons" means treating the idolater himself.
, .
This applies when the physician administers the remedy from his own hand. If, however, he refers the patient to something the patient himself prepares, it is permitted. For this reason it is permissible to write out a prescription (*nusḵa*) for them and to accept remuneration from them, but it is not permissible to sell them direct medical treatment.
.
The ruling does not follow Rabbi Meir.
[]
Mishnah [3]
▶Sources · 1
The prohibition on hides of idolaters found with a triangular incision (indicating sacrifice) is codified in MT Hilkhot Maakhalot Asurot 7:4. The Commentary explains the halakhic reasoning (the incision is a recognized sign of libation sacrifice) and notes the minority opinion permitting the hides; MT 7:4 records the ruling in favor of prohibition without retaining the dissenting position.
, , .
The Emperor Hadrian had taken a known quantity of clay, kneaded it with wine for a period of time, then formed from it an unfired ceramic vessel, which he would carry with him. Whenever he wished to drink, he would soak a shard of that ceramic in water; the clay would settle and the water, infused with wine, would remain, and he would drink it.
.
That craft persisted in people's hands at the time the Mishnah was compiled, and it is called the "Hadrianic [vessel]" (*ḥerem Adriani*), named after Hadrian.
, , . , . , , .
"Lubbin" (*lubbin*) derives from the word *lev* (heart), because [the idolaters] would pierce [the image] at its heart and extract it — this being a type of sacrifice performed in the temples. "Tarpot" (*tarpot*) means ruin and degradation. The expression *mekom ha-tarpeh* designates a place of disgrace and contempt, referring to those pilgrimage shrines to which people make pilgrimage — hence the pilgrims who travel *be-tarpot* are so called.
, . . .
Those returning [from such places] are permitted if they come individually; if they come in a caravan, they are forbidden, lest their intention be to return. The ruling follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Akiva.
[]
Mishnah [4]
, , .
The Sage's ruling on wineskins (*nodot*) and jugs (*kankanim*) of idolaters is as follows. If they are new and have never apparently been used, we may fill them with wine from the outset. If they are old and have been used, one must soak them in water for three full days, changing the water every twenty-four hours; after that one may use them for wine.
. . .
If, without soaking in water, one placed vinegar, brine (*muri*), or the like in them, one may subsequently use them for wine. It is permissible to put beer in them from the outset. Likewise, if one heated them with fire, one may subsequently put wine in them.
.
If none of these three treatments was performed, but the vessel remained in one's possession for an entire year while empty, one may put wine in it.
, . , . , . , . , .
We have mentioned on several occasions that *ḥarẓanin* means grape seeds, *zugin* the husk surrounding the berry, *laḥim* applies when [grapes are] still fresh in the current year, and *yeveshim* after one year. When the Sages say [the seeds and husks] are "permitted," they mean permitted for eating.
. .
It was their custom to place wine in certain types of brine (*muri*), and for that reason [those brines] are forbidden for eating. It is clarified in the Talmud that if we are certain from the nature and consistency of a particular brine that no wine entered it, it is permitted for eating.
, , , .
Beit Uniaki (*beit unyaki*) was a place where most of the calves present were offered to idolatry. Since most of those calves, relative to all the animals, formed a minority, Rabbi Meir — who is stringent regarding minorities (*miut*) — holds that the entire production of cheese from that city is forbidden to derive benefit from, on account of the rennet of idolatrous calves.
. .
The Sages, who are not stringent regarding minorities, hold that it is only forbidden to eat but not forbidden for benefit. The ruling does not follow Rabbi Meir in any of his positions.
[]
Mishnah [5]
, .
The reason that [the Sages] did not disclose the rationale [for the prohibition on idolaters' cheese] was the concern that if they did so at the outset, people might come to treat the prohibition lightly. For this reason their practice, whenever they prohibited something by Rabbinic decree (*gezera*), was not to state the rationale for that decree for a full year, until the prohibition of that thing had become established and had spread among women and ordinary people; only then would they disclose the reason.
, , , , , .
The actual reason for the prohibition of cheese made by idolaters is the concern that they may set it [the milk] with the skin of the stomach (*abomasum*, *kevah*) of an animal carcass (*neveilah*), since that too serves as a coagulant, and it is known that an idolater's slaughter [constitutes] neveilah. If one set [the cheese] using the stomach-skin, that cheese is forbidden — not on account of the prohibition of meat-with-milk (*basar be-ḥalav*), because meat-with-milk is forbidden only when the prohibited substance imparts a flavor, as we will explain in tractate Ḥullin; rather, it is forbidden on account of the idolater's slaughter [which constitutes neveilah].
, , , , .
Nor do we apply the principle of *aḥad mi-shishshim* (one-in-sixty) here, because the forbidden substance is a coagulant (*maʿamid*), and the action of the neveilah is visible and manifest — not nullified by its small quantity, nor hidden. For when a forbidden substance mixes with a permitted one and the action of the forbidden substance is visible and manifest — not lost through its small quantity and not concealed — it renders the entire mixture forbidden, even if the forbidden substance is of minimal quantity. In such a case one does not say "one-in-sixty" or "one-in-a-hundred," as we explained in the second [chapter] of tractate Orlah regarding the rule that "whatever leavens, seasons, [or coagulates]…" (M. Orlah 2:4).
, .
The coagulant (*maʿamid*) is more stringent than a leavening or seasoning agent; thus the rule is stated: "Everything follows the coagulant" (BT AZ 35b).
, , . .
As for the rennet (*anpaḥa*) of a neveilah itself — it is permitted, because it is secreted matter (*parsha be-ʿalma*), meaning it has the status of waste products and materials, not of the animal's own body, and therefore we may purchase rennet from idolaters and use it to set cheese. Likewise, if we observe an idolater setting milk with the rennet itself [without the stomach-skin], we are permitted to eat that cheese.
.
Knowledge or strong probability is not sufficient in this matter; only actual seeing and direct observation [suffices].
, , , .
The reason why cheese is not forbidden on account of milk milked by an idolater without a Jew watching, is that the rationale for that prohibition is lest he mix in milk from a ritually impure (*tamei*) animal. But our established principle is that the milk of a *tamei* animal does not coagulate; consequently, no prohibition remains except the prohibition arising from neveilah, as stated.
[]
Mishnah [6]
▶Sources · 1
The bread of idolaters (pat akum) ruling in the Commentary is codified in MT Hilkhot Maakhalot Asurot 17:12, where Rambam records the lenient position: bread baked by an idolater's baker — as opposed to a private household — is permitted where no Jewish bread is available. The Commentary here treats this as a straightforward application of rabbinic leniency; MT 17:12 frames it within a broader taxonomy of bread-baking contexts.
, .
Most of these items — such as flat bread (*pat*), boiled foods (*shelakot*), and the like — were prohibited in order to keep us at a distance from [idolaters] and to prevent us from mixing with them, lest ongoing social intercourse lead us to transgress what is forbidden, which is the meaning of their phrase "on account of [the risk of] intermarriage" (*mishum ḥatnut*).
.
These items are among the eighteen things decreed, as we have explained at the beginning of tractate Shabbat.
, , .
What we have stated as forbidden regarding their boiled foods is not the same things that they cook in their pots — for that category is called *giʿulei goyim* (prohibited residues of idolaters' vessels). Rather, these are foods that involve no *giʿulei goyim* issue whatsoever, yet are forbidden on account of their being "finished through the agency of an idolater" (*davar she-nigmera melakhto al yedei goy*).
, , , .
For the Sages prohibited, in order to keep distance from them, anything that an idolater cooks, even if he cooked it in our [Jewish-owned] vessels — unless the item can be eaten raw, or [unless it is something that] does not appear on a king's table to be eaten with bread in that locale. In such cases it is not forbidden when an idolater cooks it under the rubric of *bishul akum*.
.
Do not confuse the prohibition of *bishul akum* with the prohibition of *giʿulei goyim*; I have made that distinction clear for you.
, , , .
As for olive oil: the established ruling is that oil of idolaters is permitted. Bread of idolaters (*pat akum*) appears from our Babylonian Talmud to be forbidden, yet market bread (*pat ha-suk*) — sold by a bread-vendor — is less forbidden and closer to permitted than household bread; in traveling and in times of pressing need it is permitted. In my view, the matter ultimately follows local custom, as I have explained in tractate Pesaḥim.
, , .
Pickled foods (*mekavsot*) that contain wine are not forbidden for benefit, because the action of the wine is not apparent in them but rather dissipates and its flavor is destroyed; therefore they are not forbidden for benefit.
, , , .
*Tarit* is a type of clean fish that they would pound until it became paste-like and eat. Once pounded and pressed, we forbade it lest an impure (*tamei*) fish was pounded along with it and there is no visible form by which to identify it.
, , .
*Ẓir* is the brine of salted fish that flows from them; if there is no fish in it, we do not know whether it flowed from a *tamei* or from a *tahor* fish, and for that reason it is forbidden.
, , , .
*Ḥalik* is a type of fish that is clean (*tahor*), but when it is small it has neither scales nor fins — these develop only as it grows. We forbade it because it emerges from the sea mixed with another forbidden variety in such abundance that only exceptional individuals can distinguish between them.
, , , .
"A piece of *ḥiltit*" (*qurt shel ḥiltit*) — the idolaters would cut it with their knives at the time of sale, and those knives retain the grease (*wediḵa*) of carcasses; when they cut that *ḥiltit*, that moisture penetrates its body and diminishes its pungency. That grease then becomes a flavor-enhancing agent (*noten taʿam le-shvaḥ*), which is forbidden, as will be explained at the end of this tractate.
, , .
"Salquantit salt" (*melaḥ salqantit*) was a salt used by prominent Christians at their tables, and they would smear it with lard (*sheḥum ḥazir*) and fish fat and the like — this too being something that enhances and improves it, so it is forbidden.
, .
The repetition at the end — "these are forbidden, but their prohibition is not a prohibition of benefit" — comes to exclude garum (*muris*) and cheese from Beit Uniaki, which are forbidden for benefit according to Rabbi Meir, to whom this mishnah belongs.
[]
Mishnah [7]
, , .
Even if the Jew is far from the idolater but is seated in a position where, were he to stand, he could see the idolater — then if he can see from that vantage when standing which animal is being milked, that milk is permitted. Even though he was seated and did not see the milking, [the milk is still permitted] because the idolater fears that [the Jew] might stand and see him milking from an impure (*tamei*) animal.
.
Thus what [the Mishnah] means by "watching him" is that [the Jew] is present in a position where he could observe at the time of milking.
, , , .
*Devdevanyot* — honeycombs containing honey — although they drip moisture, we do not say: perhaps he splashed wine (*nesekh*) on them. Nor is that moisture [enough] to render [the honey] susceptible to impurity (*hakhshara*), even though honey is one of the seven liquids that render [produce] susceptible to impurity, as we mentioned and as will be explained in its proper place in tractate Mashkin (Makshirin).
, , , .
For [the honey] at that stage has the status of food rather than liquid until it dissolves and its honey is extracted. In the Tosefta to tractate Taharot: "Honey that flows from a beehive transmits liquid impurity; if one designated it to be eaten, it transmits food impurity" — because it does not fully become a distinct liquid until a person deliberately melts it and clarifies it from the wax. Take note of this.
, , , .
"Unbroken (*she-eina terufa*) tarit" — this does not mean that the fish must remain wholly intact, for that is obvious; rather it means that even if [the fish] has been somewhat crumbled, as long as it has not been ground to a thorough paste, it is permitted. The criterion is that the head of the fish and the spine of its back must remain, so that its form can be identified as a clean (*tahor*) fish.
, .
"An attached piece of *ḥiltit*" means even [a piece of *ḥiltit*] connected to a portion [of the plant].
, , , .
Rabbi Yose says: "Soaked [olives] (*shelulḥin*) are forbidden." He means that if olives soaked in water have had their flesh so softened that when a berry is lifted, the pit falls out on its own, they are forbidden. This is the meaning of *shelulḥin* — as if to say *sholaḥin* (those that release), like a rider releasing his mount. His reason is that wine was poured over them, which caused their flesh to soften.
, , .
Locusts from the basket that the seller places in front of him are forbidden because it was their custom to sprinkle wine on it repeatedly lest the locusts dry out and become tough. If, however, the seller offers from the bundle [on his back] or from his storage place, it is permitted, since there is no reason to forbid them.
, , , .
Regarding the statement "and likewise in the case of *teruma*" (*ve-khen bi-teruma*): this refers to a priest suspected of selling *teruma* as ordinary produce (*ḥullin*) — whatever is in the basket in front of him, displayed for sale, is forbidden and may not be purchased from him; what is in his storage place is permitted, because he fears that if people learn of it they will seize all the *teruma* he is selling as *ḥullin*, so he is reckless about the small amount and not reckless about the large amount.
.
The ruling does not follow Rabbi Yose.