Avodah Zarah 033

10:
Our mishnah states that Jews are forbidden to use non-Jewish oil and then, rather strangely, we are told that Rabbi and his Bet Din removed this prohibition and permitted Jews once again to use non-Jewish oil. We have already seen that there was a persistent 'rumour' that Rabbi had also permitted non-Jewish bread; and we have also seen that in Eretz-Israel at least the prohibition against non-Jewish bread was greatly weakened. (The modern prohibition against non-Jewish bread is because of the concern that oils from non-kosher animals may have been used in its production. Thus the reason is not social, as in Talmudic times, but a matter of kashrut.)

11:
In its discussion on this matter [AZ 35b-36a] the Gemara starts by asking how the prohibition against non-Jewish oil started. Two opinions are given:

Thus Rav, the famous Babylonian Amora, is of the opinion that the prohibition has a biblical origin: Daniel, in Babylonian captivity, ruled against non-Jewish foodstuffs. (While the bible does not specifically mention oil it does say that Daniel refused non-Jewish food and liquids in general [Daniel 1:8].) On the other hand, his hardly less famous contemporary, Shemu'el is of the opinion that the prohibition is for reasons of kashrut: non-Jews use the same utensils for storing their oil as they do for other purposes and it is therefore quite possible that residue from non-kosher foodstuffs in those utensils will become absorbed into the oil.

12:
The Gemara now brings a detailed halakhic discussion on this matter between Rav and Shemu'el. Shemu'el was aware that Rabbi and his Bet Din has abrogated the prohibition against non-Jewish oil and he claims that according to his view Rabbi's action was halakhically possible, but according to the view of Rav it would not have been. The reasoning of Shemu'el is thus:

Rabbi was entitled to abrogate the prohibition because the admixture of minute residues of the non-Kosher foodstuffs will spoil the quality of the oil. This makes it halakhically possible to permit the oil.

13:
Shemu'el continues: Rav's contention that the prohibition is biblical would make it halakhically impossible for Rabbi to abrogate it. He quotes the rule:

How can a post-biblical authority be superior in any way to a biblical authority?

14:
However, the plot now thickens. The Gemara brings another opinion:

The Gemara [Shabbat 13b and 17b] tells us that on one occasion the [anti-Roman] school of Shammai outnumbered the [Romanophile] School of Hillel and in the home of Ĥananyah ben-Ĥizkiyah ben-Gurion a vote was taken and eighteen decrees against socializing with non-Jews, including the prohibition against non-Jewish oil.

15:
Furthermore, the Gemara now quotes the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan that

(The vehemence of this opinion suggests to me that the prohibitions of the 'eighteen things' were still considered a social necessity more than two hundred years after their original promulgation, but that the adherence of the people to these prohibitions was weakening.)

16:
This, of course, raises the question why should one set of prohibitions be considered to be of greater authority than another? The Gemara answers:

This is a most interesting reasoning. Are we to assume that if a prohibition has not been accepted by 'the large majority of Jews' that it is no longer in force? Apparently so! Once again Rabbi Yoĥanan is quoted:

The sages mentioned here may be the Bet Din of Rabbi's grandson, Rabban Yehudah Nesi'ah, the President of the Sanhedrin a couple of generations after Rabbi himself. Be that as it may, the Gemara here determines that the continuing validity of rabbinic prohibitions is dependent upon their observance by 'the large majority of Jews'. (Conservative Judaism has already determined in a similar context the 'Jews' are those who generally observe Torah.)

To be continued.

The next shiur in this series will be, God willing, on Thursday 25th December.