Siman 114

The Rambam wrote in Chapter 17 of Ma'akhalot Assurot, law 9, and this is his wording: There are other things that the sages forbade etc. in order to distance etc. so that they do not intermingle etc. and come to intermarriage. And these are they: they forbade drinking with them even in a place where there is no concern for wine of libation, and they forbade eating their bread or their cooked foods even in a place where there is no concern for their absorbed prohibited flavors. How so? A person should not drink in a gathering of idolaters, even if it is cooked wine which is not prohibited, or if he was drinking from his own vessels alone. But if the majority of the gathering was Israel, it is permitted. And one may not drink their beer that they make from dates and from figs and the like, and it is not prohibited except in its place of sale; but if he brought the beer to his house and drinks it there, it is permitted, for the essence of the decree is lest he dine with him. Apple wine and pomegranate wine and the like are permitted to be drunk in any place; a thing that is not common, they did not decree upon it. Raisin wine is like wine. Thus far the words of the Rambam:

And behold, that which he wrote not to drink at their gathering, even if he drinks from his own vessels alone or a substance that is not forbidden, is a puzzling matter, for this law is not found in any place, and also the poskim did not mention this and did not bring his words at all, except for the Tur at the beginning of siman 112. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his book Kesef Mishneh, wrote that he derived this from what they said in the first chapter [8a]: An idolater who made a feast for his son and invited all the Jews in his city, even though they eat of their own and drink of their own, etc., Scripture considers it as if they ate from sacrifices of the dead, as it is said, "And he will call to you and you will eat from his sacrifice," see there. And I am puzzled, for there the prohibition is because of the feast, as the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in siman 152, see there. And also the Rambam himself wrote this law in the ninth chapter of Hilkhot Avodat Kokhavim, law 15, and this is his wording: An idolater who made a feast for his son or for his daughter, it is forbidden to benefit from his meal, and even for the Israelite to eat and drink of his own there is forbidden, since he ate at their gathering. And from when is it forbidden to eat with him? From the time he begins to engage in and prepare the needs of the meal, and all the days of the feast, and after the days of the feast for thirty days, etc. And all this distancing is because of idolatry, as it is said, "And he will call to you," etc. Thus far his words.

Behold, this is only regarding a wedding feast and not at another time. Furthermore, there he wrote that the prohibition is only for the duration of the wedding and thereafter thirty days and no more, whereas here the prohibition is forever. Furthermore, there he mentioned eating as well, while here he mentioned only drinking. Similarly, regarding what he wrote that if the majority of the gathering is Israel it is permitted, the author of Lechem Mishneh wrote in the name of the Beit Yosef that he derived this from that which is found in the Gemara [30a]: Shmuel and Avlat were sitting; they brought before them cooked wine; Avlat withdrew his hand from it; Shmuel said to him: Behold, they have said that cooked wine is not subject to the law of yayin nesech, see there. And if you say that even if the majority of the gathering is Israel it is prohibited, how did Shmuel drink with him? And he raised a difficulty against him: perhaps only Shmuel alone was drinking, and Avlat withdrew his hand so as not to touch it, see there. And behold, this is not such a strong difficulty, for since it says "they brought before them," it implies explicitly that they brought it for both of them to drink, for if not so, it should have said "they brought before him." However, the essence of the matter is astonishing, for two people sitting together is not a gathering.

Therefore, it appears to me that the Rambam was precise in this from these decrees themselves, for indeed there are great questions regarding this. For behold, in the Mishnah [35b] we find only that they decreed upon bread and cooked foods; if so, from where did the sages of the Gemara derive to decree also upon shekhar [31b]? As the Tosafot wrote there in the heading beginning "For what reason did they forbid shekhar," and this is their wording: We find the prohibition of shekhar neither in the Mishnah nor in the Baraita, and perhaps in the days of the Amoraim they forbade it. Thus far their words. And more difficult than this: it says there that they decreed upon shekhar because of intermarriage, as it is stated there: Rav Papa brought it out to the door of the shop and drank; Rav Aha brought it to his house; and both were because of intermarriage, and Rav Aha performed an extra distancing. Thus far its wording. And it is difficult, for the decree of bread and cooked foods was also because of intermarriage, as is explained there [35b] in the Gemara and in Rashi and Tosafot. And since all of them are because of intermarriage, why are they different in their laws, that for bread and cooked foods the prohibition is in every place, while for shekhar the prohibition is only when drinking in the house of the idolater? And it is further difficult: since the sages of the Mishnah did not decree upon shekhar because of intermarriage, it is evident that it was clear to them that intermarriage is not applicable to shekhar; how then were the Amoraim more concerned than they were? However, Rashi, of blessed memory, in the precision of his pure wording, settled everything, and this is also the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

For behold, regarding bread which they mentioned in the Gemara due to intermarriage, it did not explain anything because it requires no explanation, as our Sages of blessed memory already explained this themselves in the first chapter of Shabbat regarding the decree of the eighteen matters, for it says there: they decreed upon their bread because of their oil, and their oil because of their wine, and their wine because of their daughters; see there. And here regarding intoxicating liquor where the Gemara said "due to intermarriage," Rashi explained: that he should not become accustomed to making feasts with idolaters and set his eyes upon his daughter. Thus far his words. And why did he elaborate here? However, the essence of the matter is this: that the entire intention of our holy teachers is to distance from their daughters, which is intermarriage, and this matter comes about through social gatherings together. But without eating and drinking it is nothing, as we say at the beginning of Chullin that incitement occurs through eating and staying; see there. Therefore, they were compelled to forbid their bread and their cooked food entirely, for if not so, the idolater would prepare kosher foods at his home and they would eat together in a group and with many friends, and through this they would come to intermarriage. And they were also compelled to forbid wine entirely because wine gladdens the heart of man, and for one who sets his eye on the cup, the whole world seems to him like a plain. And even if they were to forbid the eating, there is power also in drinking alone to draw hearts, as we say in Chullin there, that only kings do not have the practice of drinking without eating, but ordinary people have the practice of drinking even without eating; see there. Therefore, they were compelled to forbid the wine completely, and since there is no eating and drinking here, automatically there is no social gathering here, and as Rashi explained: that he should not become accustomed to making feasts, etc. And it turns out that the entire essence of the reasons for the decrees is because of the social gatherings and feasts together.

Because in Eretz Yisrael the primary drink was wine, as is stated in Shabbat [78a] and as Tosafot wrote there [47a, s.v. "begalila"], and this is their wording: For they had an abundance of wine and they would drink only wine, etc. Thus far their words. Conversely, shekhar was not common to them, for barley shekhar was called "Median shekhar" by them, as is explained at the beginning of the third chapter of Pesachim, and in Eretz Yisrael it was not common; similarly, date shekhar was not common to them, and they would despise shekhar. Therefore, they did not permit reciting kiddush or havdalah over it, as is explained in Pesachim [107a] that Rabbi and Rabbi Chiyya did not permit it to Rav, see there, and they were not concerned to decree upon shekhar. However, in Babylonia there was an abundance of dates and there were many there who made shekhar, as is explained in the Shas, and we say: Ulla happened upon Babylonia, they brought him a basket of dates, he said to them: How many, etc. [Pesachim 88a]. And there they permitted reciting havdalah over it because it was chamar medina, as is explained there in Pesachim [and with this it is settled what is stated there, that Rav Huna found Rav reciting kiddush over shekhar; and this is difficult, for did Rabbi not permit it to him? Rather, this was after he descended to Babylonia]. Therefore, the Amoraim were forced to decree also regarding shekhar, yet they did not decree exactly as they did regarding wine, because it does not possess the unique quality of wine to gladden the heart of man, and wine draws one after it, whereas this is not so with shekhar. Furthermore, since the sages of the Mishnah did not decree at all in this matter, they did not want to equate their decree to the decree of the ancients. They only fenced it in for the primary reason, so that there would not be gatherings in their house to drink together; they prohibited shekhar to be drunk in their house, but outside the house they permitted it. They were not concerned that perhaps they would come to the house of an Israelite to drink together, for presumably in the house of an Israelite the majority of the gathering would be Israelites, and the many will not be drawn after the few. This is not so in their house, where they are the majority most of the time. Therefore, Rashi was precise to explain this only regarding shekhar and not regarding other things.

And according to this, the words of the Rambam are clear in their reasoning, for since he needed to explain all these decrees and they are not similar to one another, he therefore prefaced the reason: that because the primary reason is in order to distance oneself so that one does not come to intermarriage, and intermarriage comes about through a gathering together and also through drinking alone, as Rashi explained. Therefore, their bread and their cooked foods were forbidden entirely, but regarding intoxicating liquor, they decreed in their house. And the reason is that because the primary prohibition is not to drink with them together in a gathering, the prohibition for intoxicating liquor was sufficient when they forbade drinking it specifically in their house. And this is what he concluded: "But if he brought the intoxicating liquor to his house, it is permitted, for the primary decree is lest he dine with him," thus far his words; meaning to say, that they should not eat and they should not drink together in one gathering.

And one should not still ask what benefit this provides, for there is a concern that they will request of the Israelite to prepare the foods at his place and bring his wine with him to their house and they will dine together; however, this is understood, for this causes distancing when the Israelite guards himself from their food even if they prepared it with kashrut, as is found at the beginning of Chullin regarding Yehoshaphat and Ahab, that he did not separate himself from him, see there. And this matter is not possible to occur except at a time when he makes a wedding feast for his son or his daughter and his desire is that Israelites should also rejoice with him, he is forced to act thus; and therefore, in truth, in such a case they forbade them, and this is the law that he explained in the ninth chapter of Kochavim as I have written.

The Rashba, of blessed memory, wrote in Torat HaBayit [Bayit 5, Sha'ar 1] that beer was not from a decree of the sages, but rather a custom of the holy ones who practiced it to distance themselves from their gatherings, and therefore they were not stringent with it except in their homes, see there. However, from all the poskim it is implied that the sages of the Gemara decreed regarding beer, and so it is implied from the Tur and the Rosh and most of the poskim. And it appears explicitly that the Rashba was forced to this, for if not so, why is there a difference between beer and all other prohibitions? And according to what I have written, it is settled simply. And for the halacha there is no practical difference in this [and see Taz subsection 2 for other reasons].

And behold, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch also wrote according to the wording of the Rambam, and this is his wording: Any beer of gentiles, whether it is beer of dates or of figs or of barley or of grain or of honey, is forbidden due to intermarriage, and it is only forbidden in the place of its sale. However, if he brought the beer to his house and drinks it there, it is permitted, etc. And they only forbade it when one establishes himself to drink in the manner that a person establishes himself for drinking; but if he entered the house of the gentile and drank in a casual manner, by happenstance, it is permitted. And so too, one who stays overnight in the house of the gentile is considered like his own house, and it is permitted to send into the city to buy beer from the gentile. Thus far his words. And all of this is because of the reason that the decree was only due to the reason of social drinking, as we have explained.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1 that there are those who permit grain beer and honey drinks, and such is the custom to be lenient in these lands. Thus far his words. For indeed, according to the first opinion, there is at least some prohibition regarding all types of drinks to drink in a gathering, yet it has never been heard that people are careful regarding this. For this reason, there are those among the early authorities who said that the decree was only regarding date beer, and not regarding grain beer nor regarding the honey drink called mead. Therefore, even among us where the drink of whiskey is the primary drink, nevertheless there is no care taken regarding it. The Mordechai wrote the reason for this in the name of the Raviah in the name of Rabbeinu Tam, that with our beer there is not such a closeness of mind, see there; for date beer is an important drink, but our beer is not so. According to this, it is a fortiori regarding whiskey, which is a very simple drink, and similarly honey water does not involve such a closeness of mind. When we join to this the reasoning of the Rashba that we brought in section 9, that even regarding date beer there was never a decree of the sages, see there, certainly there is no concern regarding any drinks besides wine. And although there are very expensive drinks like rum and porter and cognac, where in these there is certainly a closeness of mind, nevertheless they are drinks that are not common due to the expense, and it is like apple wine and pomegranate wine, which they did not decree upon due to the rarity of their existence, as the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 3. Therefore, with all of these, it is not relevant to stumble in their parties—these due to their lowliness and those due to the rarity of their existence.

And know that regarding beer, even though they cook it, and similarly other drinks that they cook, there is no prohibition of cooked foods of gentiles, for the beer is nullified relative to the water, and we have already written this in siman 113. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 2: In a place where Jews practice leniency regarding the wine of gentiles, even beer is forbidden. Thus far their words. And its source is from the Rashba there, and he inferred it from an incident found in the Gemara [31b] regarding another Amora who happened upon a city where the Jews were not careful regarding the touch of Cutheans, and he did not want to drink from the Jew neither wine nor beer so that he would not come to drink wine. But this law does not pertain to the matter of drinking from the beer of gentiles [Bach]. However, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch interpret that his intention was not to drink beer there at all. But even according to this, the Rif, the Rambam, and the Rosh omitted this entirely, and also the Rashba himself wrote that perhaps this is only for a pious soul and not for every person [see Beit Yosef]. And if so, how did they rule it as a prohibition without qualification? And also there are those who say that this is only in a place where they are lenient, but in a place where, due to our many sins, it has become like permitted to them through a rebellious spirit, it is permitted to drink beer there [Bach in the name of the Maharshal, and so wrote the Derisha]. And especially according to the ruling of our teacher, the Rema, above, that they did not decree at all against our beer, certainly this law is not applicable [see Taz subsection 3 who rejected the words of the Bach, but in my humble opinion the words of the Bach are clear, and so wrote the Perisha in the name of the Beit Yosef].

All these liquids that have been explained, the permission is only if there is no concern regarding them of a mixture of wine, such as beer and honey-water and the like. However, types of liquids where there is reason to fear a mixture of wine, such as apple wine and pomegranate wine and the like, if in that place wine is cheaper, or even if it is not cheaper but the liquid is improved by the wine [Shach, subsection 6], if there is merely this concern, it is forbidden to buy it from the gentile until he knows that there is no mixture of wine there. And even if there is a mixture of wine in them, but he knows that the wine is nullified in sixty, it is also permitted. And some say that sixty is not required and one in six is sufficient, as was written in siman 134 that wine in water is nullified in six, and the same applies to other liquids [Taz, subsection 4]. And the first opinion holds that only in water is it nullified in six, but in other liquids sixty is required [Magen Avraham, siman 204, subsection 16].

The concern of a mixture of wine is only regarding a shopkeeper who sells it in a shop, but if one sees that they are taking it out from the barrel it is permitted, and we do not fear that perhaps he mixed wine into it, for if he were to mix wine in the barrel it would spoil. However, in a shop, since it is for a short time as he sells it in a day or two, he did not fear that it would spoil. And the matter is simple that if the nature of this liquid is such that it would not spoil by means of the wine, there is a prohibition even in a barrel. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 4 that even though they are accustomed to grease the vessels and the vats with lard, there is no concern, for it is a flavor that impairs the taste and is also nullified in sixty. Also, there is no concern if they placed these liquids in vessels of wine. See below in siman 134 regarding a place where they were accustomed to put blood or other prohibited substances into the salt or into the ink, whether it is permitted or prohibited. Thus far his words. And there it was explained that it is permitted because it is a flavor that impairs the taste. And there was an incident in one place where it was told to the posek that the fresh beans that the sellers there grease with soap, and he prohibited buying them; however, according to the core law there is no concern in this, for it is a flavor that impairs the taste, and furthermore, who knows if the matter is true? And furthermore, even if they do so, it is only a very small amount in order to polish it and to remove the dirt, and so too anything similar to this [Pitchei Teshuvah in the name of the Yavetz].

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 5: Pomegranate wine that is sold for medicinal purposes may be purchased from a merchant even if it is not from the barrel, even though its price is more expensive than wine, because since there is a strictness regarding it, he will not damage his reputation. And so too regarding anything purchased from a craftsman, for he will not damage his reputation. Thus far his words. However, this matter depends on the time, for behold, there are those known among craftsmen who make mixtures and are not strict. And so too among those who maintain wine cellars: there are those who will not damage their reputation and do not make any mixtures, and there are those who do. It is upon the buyer to know if there is any concern of a prohibition in the mixtures, and it is impossible to detail everything in writing.

They further wrote that one must be careful to examine and investigate the beer and the honey beverage that the gentiles make nowadays, whether they put wine dregs into them; and if it is their way to put dregs into it, it is forbidden to buy from them if there is not sixty times the dregs in the beverage, and this is provided that it is not made for flavoring, for regarding flavoring, even in a thousand it is not nullified. Thus far his words. It has already been explained that some say that sixty is not required, but rather six. And nowadays, we have not heard at all that there is any concern of mixtures in beer and in honey water, and therefore nowadays there is no need to investigate, except in a place where it is known that there is a concern of mixtures, but in an ordinary case we are not concerned.

The oil of idolaters is permitted, and the sages taught in the Mishnah [35b] that Rabbi and his beit din permitted the oil. It is stated in the Jerusalem Talmud, the first chapter of Shabbat, regarding a great man who did not want to eat oil, and Shmuel sent to him: "Eat, and if not, I will write concerning you that you are a rebellious elder." The Rambam wrote similarly in chapter 17, law 22, and this is his wording: The oil of idolaters is permitted, and one who forbids it stands in great sin because he rebels against the word of the beit din that permitted it. Even if the oil was cooked, it is permitted, and it is not forbidden neither because of their cooking, since it is eaten as it is raw, nor because of their purging of vessels, because the meat impairs the oil and makes it foul; and similarly their honey that was cooked and from which they made types of sweets is permitted for this reason. Thus far his words. Now, that which he wrote that the impairment is because the meat impairs the oil follows his own reasoning, as he does not hold that "ordinary vessels are not considered used within the day," as we explained in siman 112, section 2, that this is his opinion. Therefore, he was forced to explain that which they said in the Gemara, that it is a "flavor that impairs," as being because the meat impairs the oil. But all the poskim who hold that "ordinary vessels are not considered used within the day," the reason is simple: that therefore it is a "flavor that impairs." Therefore, even if it is known that the meat does not impair the oil or the honey, it is permitted for the reason that the vessels are not considered used within the day. The wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, section 7, is as follows: Their oil and honey are permitted and are not forbidden neither because of their cooking nor because of their purging of vessels, and the same applies to their hot water. Thus far his words. And the reason is as I have written [see Shach, subsection 11]. The reason for hot water is simple, because it is eaten as it is raw, and regarding the discharge of vessels there is also no concern for the reason that has been explained. And I do not know what the matter of hot water is doing in this siman.

And behold, about twenty-five years ago, a loud report emerged regarding the olive oil brought from outside our country, that it contains a mixture of lard, and the report grew stronger and stronger. We then abstained from eating it for a long time, even though such a thing also occurred in the time of our teacher, the Rema, as is explained in his responsa, siman 54, that a report emerged then that they smear the barrels with a thick smearing of lard until there is not sixty in the oil to nullify it. One of the great sages requested of him that he should cease eating it, and this is his wording there [siman 53]: Nevertheless, a holy mouth like my master should distance himself from this, see there. And he replied to him that to be stringent in this is only among the wonders, for the Mordechai wrote [in chapter Ein Ma'amidin] that lard provides a detrimental taste in beer and certainly in oil. And in the Gemara [38b] they said regarding cooked oil that it is permitted, for if it were because of mixtures, it would become putrid; it follows that any mixture spoils the oil, see there [even though Rashi explained this regarding wine, see there, nevertheless certainly everything is included, for if not so, we should be concerned for it, and examine this]. And he further elaborated with proofs and nullified the words of the challengers entirely. Nevertheless, due to the great noise, we did not eat it until the time passed that the report also emerged among the nations, and then the great medical sages and the great pharmacists examined all types of olive oil brought from outside the country by means of separating the elements according to the science of chemistry, and they announced that nothing from any animal was found in it, and there is only in some oils mixtures from seeds. Then the report ceased and we began to eat it, and anyone who is stringent in this is only among the wonders, like the words of our teacher, the Rema, and it is against the words of our sages, of blessed memory, who said that there are no prohibited mixtures in this.

It is stated in the Gemara [40b]: Hagavin, and capers, and leeks that come from the storehouse, or from the warehouse, or from the ship are permitted; those sold in the marketplace before a shopkeeper are forbidden because he sprinkles wine upon them. All of these are pickled fruits where there is a concern of wine mixtures; however, when they are sold from the storehouse, they did not concern themselves with this, for he would not do so because the fruits would be spoiled by the wine. But those sold in the marketplace, meaning in the market at the shopkeeper's where they are sold in a short time, they concerned themselves with this. Similarly, their pickled olives are permitted even if they are very soft until their pit slips out, and we do not fear that perhaps he sprinkled wine upon them, provided they are not cut with their knife; for since they are sharp, they absorb from the knife, and their sharpness is after the pickling and not before. But if they were pickled in their vessels, they are permitted, for since there is water with them, their sharpness is nullified. And so too anything similar to this. And some say specifically a majority of water [Shach, subsection 13]. And according to what we wrote in siman 102, section 9 regarding brine, that even a little water nullifies the sharpness, one could say here as well. And see what I wrote in siman 96, section 2. And also regarding the prohibition from the cutting of the knife, according to what was explained there in section 18, if there is a multitude of olives there is no concern in this, for it has already been nullified, and as I wrote there regarding lemon juice [and to this the Rema intended at the end of section 8 when he wrote to see siman 96; and see Shach, subsection 12, and according to what I wrote there it is not so, see there well and delve into it].

Their grapes, even if they are very moist to the point that they are dripping, are permitted, and we do not concern ourselves that perhaps he sprinkled wine upon them, because it is not their way to do so. And so too, all types of pickled foods that it is not their way to put wine or wine vinegar into them, it is permitted to purchase from them. Therefore, we purchase from them pickled cucumbers and pickled beets. However, cabbage is forbidden because this vegetable is presumed to contain worms, and so too anything similar to this. But types of pickled foods that it is their way to put wine or wine vinegar into them, it is forbidden to purchase from them. And these words apply to forbidding them for eating, but for benefit it is permitted, for on account of a mere concern one should not forbid benefit. Therefore, if it is known that everyone puts wine in, they are forbidden even for benefit according to the law of the Gemara, and he sells the whole thing except for the value of the wine of idolatry within it. And according to what will be explained in siman 123, that their ordinary wine in a case of loss is permitted for benefit, this is not necessary and he sells it normally.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 10: And if it is known that there is one merchant in the city who does not mix wine into it, even though it is the way of the other merchants to mix wine into it, it is permitted to buy from all of them as long as it is not known with certainty that they mixed wine into it, for we hang the matter on the lenient side, that perhaps they did not mix wine into it; and so too in all similar cases regarding rabbinic prohibitions. And if it is known that some certainly put wine into it and some certainly do not put wine into it, we follow the majority, for "anything that separates, separates from the majority." However, it is forbidden to buy from them in their homes, for "anything fixed is considered as half and half." Thus far his words.

The explanation of his words is, for example, when it is known that one specific merchant certainly does not mix wine into it, and regarding the rest of the merchants there is a doubt whether they mix, and we do not know who the merchant is who does not mix, one may enter their houses and buy, for regarding each one we attribute and say that this is the one who does not mix. However, if it is known who the one is who does not mix, it does not avail for the other merchants [so it appears from the Shach, subsection 18, and from the Pri Chadash, subsection 25]. And there is one who explained that even if it is known who the one is who does not mix, nevertheless it is permitted to buy from all of them because regarding them as well it is only a doubt whether perhaps they mix [Taz, subsection 13]. And these are wondering words, for since this one is known who he is, in what manner would it avail for the others? Therefore, the primary view is according to the first explanation. And if there is one who is known to certainly mix, even if there is one who is known to certainly not mix and the rest are a doubt, even if both of them are not known who they are, it is forbidden to buy from all of them in their houses, except from the one who is known certainly not to mix [see there in the Taz, and examine carefully].

And afterward he says if some of them certainly give and some of them certainly do not give, entering their houses is forbidden for all of them, even if the majority do not give, for in their houses they are fixed, and everything fixed is considered as half and half. And so too, even if they take from their houses to their shops, the shop is considered fixed. But when they sell in the market where they do not have a fixed place in the market, it is as if it separated from the place of fixation and we follow the majority, for the law of "fixed" applies both to a Torah prohibition and to a rabbinic prohibition. However, in siman 110, section 10, we explained that "fixed" does not apply to a rabbinic prohibition, since it is as half and half, we follow the lenient view, and it requires further study [and so it appears from Tosafot, Pesachim 9, starting with "Highnu"].

Our sages, of blessed memory, said that one may not purchase from them a morsel of hiltit, and this is a type of fruit called lazra or lazerkraut, and it possesses great pungency. It is forbidden because they cut it with their knives, and even though they are generally not ben yomo, nevertheless, due to the pungency of the hiltit, it sweetens [the fat] and makes it for improvement [39b]. It has already been explained in siman 96 that regarding a pungent item, the fact that it is not ben yomo is not effective. However, the leaf of the hiltit is permitted, for in the leaves there is no pungency. The same applies to any pungent item, that there is no pungency in the leaves, as I wrote there in section 17. And for how much a pungent item forbids, see there in section 5.

And likewise they forbade purchasing from them a type of small fish called hilek, which is essentially a pure fish whose scales fall off at the time it emerges from the water, but because small types of impure fish are mixed with it and it is impossible to separate them from one another. However, small fish that have scales on them may be purchased even if there are impure ones among them, for behold, one can separate them by means of the signs of scales [Shach, subsection 16]. And likewise they forbade purchasing from them crushed tarit, and this is a type of small salted fish that were crushed and the fish were broken and are not recognizable at all; therefore, we are concerned for impure ones. But tarit that is not crushed, which are whole, may be purchased from them, and specifically when its head and spine are recognizable, as has been explained in siman 83. And likewise, the brine of pure fish may be purchased from them when a fish called kilbit is floating in the brine, and there are many laws regarding this, and we have explained everything there from section 33 until section 38; see there.

Muryas, which is the fat of kosher fish, in a place where it is their practice to put wine into it, is forbidden for consumption. If the wine was more expensive than the muryas in that place, it is permitted, for he will be sparing with the cost of the wine and will not put it into it. In a place where it is not their practice to put wine into it, it is permitted to purchase it from them, and similarly to deposit it with them or to send it through them. This will be explained in siman 118 with the help of Heaven, for there are the laws of trustworthiness regarding prohibitions in matters of agency and deposits. And behold, in our time and in our lands, the fat of kosher fish is not known at all.

This is the wording of the Tur: Their muryas is forbidden etc. because they mix wine into it; therefore, there is no prohibition except in a place where wine is cheaper than it, but in a place where wine is more expensive than the price of the muryas, it is permitted. And if they brought it from a place where it is expensive to a place where it is cheap, it is permitted, and we do not fear that he traveled through places where wine is cheap. In what case does this apply? Regarding the first and second time that they put water upon it, for it is still fatty and it is possible to prepare it without wine; but from the second time onwards, it is already lean and it is impossible to prepare it without wine. In what case does this apply? Regarding a craftsman, for he is able to prepare it the first and second time without wine; but one who is not a craftsman, even the first time he does not know how to prepare it without wine, and it is forbidden even if the wine is more expensive than it. Thus far his words. And that which he wrote, "we do not fear that he traveled through places where wine is cheap," means when it is not known to us that there is a place on his travel route where wine is cheap; but if it is known to us that there is a place on his travel route where wine is cheap, we certainly fear [Darkhei Moshe and Derishah], unless it is impossible to reach that place because of bends in the road and melting snow [Gemara 34b]. And behold, the Rambam and the Shulchan Arukh omitted all these laws, and their reason is simple: for this depends on observation; if there is a fear of wine mixtures, it is forbidden, whether because the wine is cheaper or because the wine improves it significantly. And this is not specifically regarding muryas, as the Rambam wrote in chapter 17, law 26. This is his wording: The muryas etc. and with this we rule regarding everything for which we fear lest they mixed a forbidden substance into it, for a person does not mix an expensive thing into a cheap one, as he would lose, but he mixes a cheap thing into an expensive one in order to profit. Thus far his words. And it is understood automatically that if it is necessary for him so that it will be good merchandise, one must fear.

The Rashba, of blessed memory, wrote that now it is the custom to take muryas in every place from any person, because they are no longer accustomed now to put water into it at all; and similarly, they leave it in the possession of a Kuti and send it with him, because he does not consider at all to remove the muryas and put wine, for wine is more improved than muryas, and if he comes to remove and exchange it, he would put water and not wine. Thus far his words [brought in the Beit Yosef]. He further wrote in a Responsum that he, of blessed memory, was careful regarding saffron, which they call "zafran," because in that entire land they would sprinkle much wine upon it, and they also make thin threads from the flesh of oxen like the threads of saffron and mix them into it. Thus far his words. However, the great later authorities have written at length that now it is the custom to permit saffron and there is no concern in the matter even ab initio, for our saffron we see with our senses that it is entirely saffron, and it is an expensive item that comes from afar, and great craftsmen make it, and a craftsman will not ruin his craft [Shach subsection 21 and Peri Chadash].