canteens belonging to Arabs, after twelve months of the year they are permitted. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, says: With regard to these Aramean grape pits, after twelve months of the year they are permitted. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, says: With regard to these brown and black jugs, after twelve months of the year they are permitted.

§ The mishna teaches that fish stew is prohibited. The Sages taught: Fish stew prepared by an expert is permitted, as professionals do not mix wine in it. Rabbi Yehuda ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: Ḥilak prepared by an expert is also permitted.

Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, would teach: Fish stew prepared by an expert is permitted. He would teach this baraita that he received through tradition, and then he would say its explanation: The first time and the second time that fish stew is prepared from a fish, it is permitted, but the third time it is prohibited. What is the reason? With regard to the first time and the second time, as the fish’s oil is plentiful, there is no need to place wine in it. From this point forward, one might place wine in it to compensate for the insufficient fish oil.

The Gemara relates that there was a certain boat carrying fish stew which came to the port of Akko, and Rabbi Abba from Akko placed guards over it to ensure that no wine would be added to the fish stew. Rava said to him: Until now, who guarded it? Rabbi Abba said to him: Until now, for what should we be concerned? If the problem is due to the concern that they mix wine in it, that concern is unfounded, as in the place where this fish stew was produced, a kista of fish stew sells for one luma while a kista of wine sells for four luma. Since wine was more expensive than fish stew, there is no reason to suspect that wine was added to the stew before it reached Akko, where fish stew is sold at a higher price than wine.

Upon hearing this, Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: But perhaps they came by means of Tyre, where wine is inexpensive and therefore likely to be added to the fish stew to increase its volume. Rabbi Zeira sad to him: There, by way of Tyre, there are impediments and melted snow, which make travel very difficult, and the boat would not have sailed through that route.

§ The mishna teaches: And cheese of Beit Unyaki is prohibited. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: For what reason did they prohibit deriving benefit from the cheese of Beit Unyaki? It is because most of the calves of that city are slaughtered for the sake of idol worship, and the milk curdled in their stomach contents is prohibited. The Gemara asks: Why does this explanation specifically mention most calves? Even if a minority of calves were slaughtered for idol worship, this would also be reason enough, as Rabbi Meir, who is the tanna of unattributed opinions in a mishna, is generally concerned about a minority.

The Gemara explains: If you say that the reason for the prohibition is due to a majority of calves slaughtered for idol worship, then despite the fact that the majority of animals in general used to curdle cheese are not slaughtered for idolatrous purposes, there are nevertheless a minority of animals altogether, i.e., the majority of calves, that are, and this minority of calves are cause for concern according to Rabbi Meir.

The Gemara continues: But if you say that Rabbi Meir prohibits the cheese due to a minority of calves, since there are a majority of calves that are not slaughtered for idol worship, and there are also a wider majority of the remaining animals used to curdle milk that are not slaughtered for idol worship at all, this would constitute a minority of a minority, and Rabbi Meir is not concerned for a minority of a minority. Since only a particular minority of animals used to curdle cheese, i.e., calves, are ever slaughtered for idolatry, and even within that group, only a minority are actually slaughtered, even Rabbi Meir would not be concerned.

Rabbi Shimon bar Elyakim said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Even when calves are slaughtered for the sake of idol worship, what of it? But are you not the one who permits animals slaughtered with idolatrous intentions?

As it was stated: The halakha with regard to one who slaughters an animal in order to sprinkle its blood for the sake of idol worship, or to burn its prohibited fat for idol worship, is subject to a dispute between amora’im. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Deriving benefit from the animal is prohibited, as he holds that one can intend from one rite to another rite. In other words, idolatrous intent while slaughtering an animal renders it prohibited, even if the intention pertains not to the slaughter itself but to sprinkling the blood or burning the fat. And he maintains that we derive halakhot concerning intent outside the Temple from the halakhot concerning intent inside the Temple. Since such intentions at the time of slaughter render an animal prohibited within the Temple, they render it prohibited outside the Temple as well, with regard to idol worship.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Deriving benefit from the animal is permitted. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish holds that slaughtering an animal for the sake of idol worship does not render it prohibited. This contradicts his previous assertion that it is prohibited to derive benefit from calves that have been slaughtered for the sake of idol worship.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to Rabbi Shimon bar Elyakim: May your fortune be auspicious; the case here is where one says that he is worshipping the idol at the conclusion of the slaughter. Since the act of slaughtering itself is an act of worship, the calf is rendered prohibited immediately.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda said: Rabbi Yishmael asked Rabbi Yehoshua a series of questions. The Gemara notes that Rav Aḥadevoi says that Rav says: With regard to one who betroths a woman by giving her the excrement of an ox that is to be stoned, the woman is betrothed, provided that the excrement was worth one peruta. Although no benefit may be derived from the ox itself, it is permitted to derive benefit from its excrement. But if one attempts to betroth her with the excrement of calves that were used as offerings of idol worship, she is not betrothed, as even their excrement is forbidden. The Gemara remarks: If you wish, propose logical reasoning, and if you wish, cite a verse to substantiate this claim.

The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, propose logical reasoning: With regard to calves used for idol worship, a calf’s additional girth derived from the excrement stored in its body is satisfactory for the worshipper, as fatter animals are more impressive offerings. Since the excrement is part of the offering, it is also forbidden. But with regard to an ox that is to be stoned, its additional girth is not satisfactory for the owner, as he gains nothing from it.

If you wish, cite a verse: It is written here, with regard to an animal used for idol worship: “And there shall cleave naught of the dedicated thing to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18), which indicates that the entire animal is forbidden. And it is written there, with regard to an ox to be stoned: “The ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten” (Exodus 21:28). This teaches that its flesh is forbidden, but its excrement is permitted.

Rava said: We learned both of these halakhot from the mishna. He elaborates: From the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Yishmael that cheese of gentiles is prohibited because they curdle it in the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal carcass, one can derive the halakha of the excrement of an ox that is to be stoned. The reason is that Rabbi Yishmael responded to Rabbi Yehoshua: But isn’t the stomach of a burnt-offering subject to a more stringent halakha than the stomach of an unslaughtered animal carcass, and yet although one may not derive benefit from the stomach of a burnt-offering ab initio, if one did derive benefit from it he is not liable for misuse of property consecrated to the Temple?