Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 22, 2018 | 讜壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Avodah Zarah 66

If wine nesech聽was mixed up with grapes, is it forbidden only if it gives flavor or is it forbidden in any quantity? If the mixture is considered a mixture of two of the same types, it is forbidden in any quantity. In determining if two things are the same type, do we determine it based on flavor or based on the name?聽How is smell treated according to halacha – is it considered significant or not?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讞诪专讗 注转讬拽讗 讘注谞讘讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讞诪专讗 讞讚转讗 讘注谞讘讬 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘诪砖讛讜 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

搂 With regard to old wine used for a libation that fell onto grapes, all agree that the grapes are forbidden only in a case where the wine imparts flavor to them. With regard to new wine used for a libation, i.e., wine that had just been squeezed and has not yet fermented, that fell onto grapes, Abaye says that any amount renders the grapes forbidden, and Rava says that they are forbidden only in a case where the wine imparts flavor to them.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘诪砖讛讜 讘转专 讟注诪讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讞讚 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讜诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘诪砖讛讜

The Gemara explains their respective opinions: Abaye says that any amount renders them forbidden because he maintains that when categorizing substances in the context of the halakhot of mixtures we follow the flavor, and this wine and those grapes are of the same flavor, which renders it a case of a substance in contact with the same type of substance. And the principle is that in a case of a substance in contact with the same type of substance, any amount of the forbidden substance renders the mixture forbidden.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讘转专 砖诪讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬 砖诪讗 诇讞讜讚 讜讛讗讬 砖诪讗 诇讞讜讚 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讬谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讜诪讬谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

And Rava says that the grapes are forbidden only in a case where the wine imparts flavor to them because he maintains that when categorizing substances in the context of the halakhot of mixtures we follow the name, and this wine has a discrete name, and those grapes have their own discrete name. And accordingly, this is a case of a substance in contact with a different type of substance. And the principle is that in a case of a substance in contact with a different type of substance, the mixture is forbidden only in a case where the forbidden item imparts flavor to it.

转谞谉 讬讬谉 谞住讱 砖谞驻诇 注诇 讙讘讬 注谞讘讬诐 讻讜壮 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讬谉 讞诪专讗 讞讚转讗 讘注谞讘讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇讗 讘诪砖讛讜

We learned in the mishna that in the case of wine used for a libation that fell on cracked grapes, the grapes are forbidden. It enters our mind that this is referring to new wine falling on grapes. What, is it not the intention of the mishna that they are forbidden only in a case where the wine imparts flavor to the grapes? If so, then it is the name that counts, as the flavor of the wine in this case is the same as the grapes. The Gemara rejects this premise: No, the mishna means that any amount of the wine renders the grapes forbidden.

讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讘讛谞讗转讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讗住讜专 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谞讗转讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诪讜转专 诪讻诇诇 讚讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 注住拽讬谞谉

The Gemara challenges this explanation. But from the fact that the mishna teaches in the last clause: This is the principle: Anything that benefits from a forbidden item imparting flavor to it is forbidden, and anything that does not benefit from a forbidden item imparting flavor to it is permitted, by inference, we are dealing with a case where the forbidden item imparts flavor to the permitted item.

讜讗讘讬讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讞诪专讗 注转讬拽讗 讘注谞讘讬

And how does Abaye explain this? In his opinion, the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to old wine that fell onto grapes, which are not of the same flavor, so it is reasonable that the grapes are rendered forbidden by an amount that imparts flavor.

讞诇讗 讚讞诪专讗 讜讞诇讗 讚砖讬讻专讗 讜讞诪讬专讗 讚讞讬讟讬 讜讞诪讬专讗 讚砖注专讬 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讘转专 讟注诪讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讞讜讚 讜讛讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讞讜讚 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讬谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讜诪讬谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

This dispute between Abaye and Rava applies to another case as well. With regard to the case of wine vinegar and malt vinegar that became mixed together, and one is permitted and the other is forbidden, and also the case of leaven of wheat flour and leaven of barley flour that became mixed together, and one is permitted and the other is forbidden, Abaye says: The forbidden substance renders the mixture forbidden in a case where it imparts flavor to the mixture, because we follow the flavor, and this flavor is discrete and that flavor is discrete, and therefore it becomes a mixture of a type of food mixed with food not of its own type. And a type of food mixed with food not of its own type is forbidden in a case where the forbidden food imparts flavor to the mixture.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讘诪砖讛讜 讘转专 砖诪讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬 讞诇讗 诪讬拽专讬 讜讛讗讬 讞诇讗 诪讬拽专讬 讜讛讗讬 讞诪讬专讗 诪讬拽专讬 讜讛讗讬 讞诪讬专讗 诪讬拽专讬 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讜讻诇 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘诪砖讛讜

And Rava says: Any amount of the forbidden substance renders the mixture forbidden, in accordance with his opinion that we follow the name, and this is called vinegar and that is called vinegar, and this is called leaven and that is called leaven, and therefore it becomes a mixture of a type of food mixed with food of its own type, and in any case of a type of food mixed with food of its own type, any amount of the forbidden substance renders the mixture forbidden.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讘转专 讟注诪讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 转讘诇讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 砖诪讜转 讜讛谉 诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讗讜 诪讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讗住讜专讬谉 讜诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讜讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讬谞讬 诪转讬拽讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讗讜讬谉 诇诪转拽 讘讛谉 讗转 讛拽讚讬专讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘转专 讟注诪讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讻讜诇讬 讞讚 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘转专 砖诪讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讛讗讬 砖诪讗 诇讞讜讚 讜讛讗讬 砖诪讗 诇讞讜讚

Abaye says: From where do I say that we follow the flavor? As it is taught in a baraita: Forbidden spices that are known by two or three different names but are of the same species, or of three different species, are forbidden, and combine together to render a dish forbidden. And 岣zkiyya says: The reason the three species combine to render the dish forbidden is that here we are dealing with types of sweet spices. Since they are all fit to sweeten the dish, they combine, as they impart the same kind of flavor. Abaye explains: Granted, if you say we follow the flavor, they are all considered the same flavor, and therefore they combine. But if you say we follow the name, why should they combine to render the dish forbidden? This name is discrete and that name is discrete.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪谞讬谉 诇讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 砖诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讻诇 转讜注讘讛 讻诇 砖转讬注讘转讬 诇讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇

And Rava could say to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that all forbidden foods combine, whether or not they have the same name or the same flavor, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Meir: From where is it derived that any foods forbidden by the Torah that fall into a mixture combine with one another to render a mixture forbidden? As it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not eat anything abominable鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:3), which indicates that anything that I have made abominable, i.e., forbidden, to you, is prohibited for consumption, and therefore all of these prohibitions are actually a single general prohibition.

讞诇讗 诇讙讜 讞诪专讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讞诪专讗 诇讙讜 讞诇讗 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘诪砖讛讜 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

With regard to forbidden vinegar that fell into a barrel of wine, all agree that the mixture is forbidden in a case where the forbidden vinegar imparts flavor to the mixture. In a case of forbidden wine that spilled into vinegar, since the sharper smell of the vinegar overwhelms the smell of the wine before it mixes in, Abaye says that any amount of the wine renders the mixture forbidden, and Rava says that it is forbidden only in a case where the wine imparts flavor to the vinegar.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘诪砖讛讜

The Gemara explains their respective opinions: Abaye says that any amount renders the mixture forbidden,

专讬讞讬讛 讞诇讗 讜讟注诪讗 讞诪专讗 讞诇讗 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讜讻诇 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘诪砖讛讜

because a liquid whose smell is vinegar and its flavor is wine is considered vinegar, and the wine, when it spilled into the barrel of vinegar, took on the smell of vinegar from the moment it reached the airspace of the barrel, and it has therefore become a type of food mixed with food of its own type. And any type of forbidden food mixed with food of its own type renders the mixture forbidden by any amount.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 专讬讞讬讛 讞诇讗 讜讟注诪讗 讞诪专讗 讞诪专讗 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讬谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讜讻诇 诪讬谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

Rava says that the mixture is forbidden only in a case where the wine imparts flavor to the vinegar, because a liquid whose smell is vinegar and its flavor is wine is considered wine, and it has therefore become a type of food mixed with food not of its own type. And any type of forbidden food mixed with food not of its own type renders the mixture forbidden only in a case where it imparts flavor to the mixture.

讛讗讬 讘转 转讬讛讗 讙讜讬 讘讚讬砖专讗诇 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘讚讙讜讬 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗住讜专 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讜转专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗住讜专 专讬讞讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讜转专 专讬讞讗 诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗

搂 With regard to this bunghole [bat tiha], the hole in a barrel through which one can smell the wine, if a gentile smells a Jew鈥檚 wine through it, the wine is permitted, but for a Jew to smell a gentile鈥檚 wine through it, Abaye says that it is prohibited, whereas Rava says that it is permitted. Abaye says that it is prohibited because he holds that a smell is a substantial matter, a significant form of pleasure, and it is not permitted to derive benefit from a gentile鈥檚 wine. Rava says it is permitted because he holds that a smell is nothing; it is insignificant.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚专讬讞讗 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗 讚转谞谉 转谞讜专 砖讛住讬拽讜 讘讻诪讜谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜讗驻讛 讘讜 讗转 讛驻转 讛驻转 诪讜转专转 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讟注诐 讻诪讜谉 讗诇讗 专讬讞讗 讻诪讜谉 讜讗讘讬讬 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诪讬拽诇讗 讗讬住讜专讬讛

Rava says: From where do I say that a smell is nothing? It is as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 10:4): With regard to an oven that one lit with cumin stalks of teruma and baked bread in it, the bread is permitted because it has not absorbed the flavor of the cumin stalks but only the smell of the cumin stalks. This indicates that smell alone does not render a food forbidden. And how does Abaye explain this? He answers that it is different there, as the forbidden substance was burned. The smell of the forbidden cumin stalks entered the bread after the cumin stalks themselves were consumed by the fire, and a smell that is not from an extant substance is not forbidden. By contrast, in a case where the smell is from an extant source, it is forbidden.

讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讻转谞讗讬 讛专讜讚讛 驻转 讞诪讛 讜谞转谞讛 注诇 驻讬 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜住专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专 讘砖诇 讞讬讟讬谉 讜讗讜住专 讘砖诇 砖注讜专讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛砖注讜专讬诐 砖讜讗讘讜转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 专讬讞讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讜诪专 住讘专 专讬讞讗 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗

Rav Mari said: This dispute between Abaye and Rava is paral-lel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a mishna (Terumot 10:3): With regard to one who detached a hot loaf of bread from the oven and placed it on the opening of a barrel of wine of teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, Rabbi Meir deems the bread forbidden to non-priests, as in his opinion the smell of the wine renders the bread forbidden to them, and Rabbi Yehuda deems it permitted. Rabbi Yosei deems it permitted in a case of wheat bread but deems it forbidden in a case of barley bread, because the barley draws out the fumes of the wine. Rav Mari explains: What, is it not with regard to this matter that the Sages in the mishna disagree: That one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that a smell is a substantial matter, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that a smell is nothing?

诇专讘讗 讜讚讗讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讬 诇讬诪讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara remarks: According to the opinion of Rava, the dispute between him and Abaye is certainly parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as he must concede that Rabbi Meir holds that a smell is a substantial matter. But according to the opinion of Abaye, shall we say that it is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m?

讗诪专 诇讱 讗讘讬讬 诇讗讜 诪讬 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘驻转 讞诪讛 讜讞讘讬转 驻转讜讞讛

The Gemara answers: Abaye could say to you that Rabbi Yehuda also holds that a smell is a substantial matter. Wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that mishna that Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Reish Lakish says: In the case of a hot loaf of bread and an open barrel,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Avodah Zarah 66

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 66

讞诪专讗 注转讬拽讗 讘注谞讘讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讞诪专讗 讞讚转讗 讘注谞讘讬 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘诪砖讛讜 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

搂 With regard to old wine used for a libation that fell onto grapes, all agree that the grapes are forbidden only in a case where the wine imparts flavor to them. With regard to new wine used for a libation, i.e., wine that had just been squeezed and has not yet fermented, that fell onto grapes, Abaye says that any amount renders the grapes forbidden, and Rava says that they are forbidden only in a case where the wine imparts flavor to them.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘诪砖讛讜 讘转专 讟注诪讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讞讚 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讜诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘诪砖讛讜

The Gemara explains their respective opinions: Abaye says that any amount renders them forbidden because he maintains that when categorizing substances in the context of the halakhot of mixtures we follow the flavor, and this wine and those grapes are of the same flavor, which renders it a case of a substance in contact with the same type of substance. And the principle is that in a case of a substance in contact with the same type of substance, any amount of the forbidden substance renders the mixture forbidden.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讘转专 砖诪讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬 砖诪讗 诇讞讜讚 讜讛讗讬 砖诪讗 诇讞讜讚 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讬谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讜诪讬谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

And Rava says that the grapes are forbidden only in a case where the wine imparts flavor to them because he maintains that when categorizing substances in the context of the halakhot of mixtures we follow the name, and this wine has a discrete name, and those grapes have their own discrete name. And accordingly, this is a case of a substance in contact with a different type of substance. And the principle is that in a case of a substance in contact with a different type of substance, the mixture is forbidden only in a case where the forbidden item imparts flavor to it.

转谞谉 讬讬谉 谞住讱 砖谞驻诇 注诇 讙讘讬 注谞讘讬诐 讻讜壮 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讬谉 讞诪专讗 讞讚转讗 讘注谞讘讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇讗 讘诪砖讛讜

We learned in the mishna that in the case of wine used for a libation that fell on cracked grapes, the grapes are forbidden. It enters our mind that this is referring to new wine falling on grapes. What, is it not the intention of the mishna that they are forbidden only in a case where the wine imparts flavor to the grapes? If so, then it is the name that counts, as the flavor of the wine in this case is the same as the grapes. The Gemara rejects this premise: No, the mishna means that any amount of the wine renders the grapes forbidden.

讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讘讛谞讗转讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讗住讜专 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谞讗转讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诪讜转专 诪讻诇诇 讚讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 注住拽讬谞谉

The Gemara challenges this explanation. But from the fact that the mishna teaches in the last clause: This is the principle: Anything that benefits from a forbidden item imparting flavor to it is forbidden, and anything that does not benefit from a forbidden item imparting flavor to it is permitted, by inference, we are dealing with a case where the forbidden item imparts flavor to the permitted item.

讜讗讘讬讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讞诪专讗 注转讬拽讗 讘注谞讘讬

And how does Abaye explain this? In his opinion, the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to old wine that fell onto grapes, which are not of the same flavor, so it is reasonable that the grapes are rendered forbidden by an amount that imparts flavor.

讞诇讗 讚讞诪专讗 讜讞诇讗 讚砖讬讻专讗 讜讞诪讬专讗 讚讞讬讟讬 讜讞诪讬专讗 讚砖注专讬 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讘转专 讟注诪讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讞讜讚 讜讛讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讞讜讚 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讬谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讜诪讬谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

This dispute between Abaye and Rava applies to another case as well. With regard to the case of wine vinegar and malt vinegar that became mixed together, and one is permitted and the other is forbidden, and also the case of leaven of wheat flour and leaven of barley flour that became mixed together, and one is permitted and the other is forbidden, Abaye says: The forbidden substance renders the mixture forbidden in a case where it imparts flavor to the mixture, because we follow the flavor, and this flavor is discrete and that flavor is discrete, and therefore it becomes a mixture of a type of food mixed with food not of its own type. And a type of food mixed with food not of its own type is forbidden in a case where the forbidden food imparts flavor to the mixture.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讘诪砖讛讜 讘转专 砖诪讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讜讛讗讬 讞诇讗 诪讬拽专讬 讜讛讗讬 讞诇讗 诪讬拽专讬 讜讛讗讬 讞诪讬专讗 诪讬拽专讬 讜讛讗讬 讞诪讬专讗 诪讬拽专讬 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讜讻诇 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘诪砖讛讜

And Rava says: Any amount of the forbidden substance renders the mixture forbidden, in accordance with his opinion that we follow the name, and this is called vinegar and that is called vinegar, and this is called leaven and that is called leaven, and therefore it becomes a mixture of a type of food mixed with food of its own type, and in any case of a type of food mixed with food of its own type, any amount of the forbidden substance renders the mixture forbidden.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讘转专 讟注诪讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 转讘诇讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 砖诪讜转 讜讛谉 诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讗讜 诪讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讗住讜专讬谉 讜诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讜讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讬谞讬 诪转讬拽讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讗讜讬谉 诇诪转拽 讘讛谉 讗转 讛拽讚讬专讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘转专 讟注诪讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讻讜诇讬 讞讚 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘转专 砖诪讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讛讗讬 砖诪讗 诇讞讜讚 讜讛讗讬 砖诪讗 诇讞讜讚

Abaye says: From where do I say that we follow the flavor? As it is taught in a baraita: Forbidden spices that are known by two or three different names but are of the same species, or of three different species, are forbidden, and combine together to render a dish forbidden. And 岣zkiyya says: The reason the three species combine to render the dish forbidden is that here we are dealing with types of sweet spices. Since they are all fit to sweeten the dish, they combine, as they impart the same kind of flavor. Abaye explains: Granted, if you say we follow the flavor, they are all considered the same flavor, and therefore they combine. But if you say we follow the name, why should they combine to render the dish forbidden? This name is discrete and that name is discrete.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪谞讬谉 诇讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 砖诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讻诇 转讜注讘讛 讻诇 砖转讬注讘转讬 诇讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇

And Rava could say to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that all forbidden foods combine, whether or not they have the same name or the same flavor, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Meir: From where is it derived that any foods forbidden by the Torah that fall into a mixture combine with one another to render a mixture forbidden? As it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not eat anything abominable鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:3), which indicates that anything that I have made abominable, i.e., forbidden, to you, is prohibited for consumption, and therefore all of these prohibitions are actually a single general prohibition.

讞诇讗 诇讙讜 讞诪专讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讞诪专讗 诇讙讜 讞诇讗 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘诪砖讛讜 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

With regard to forbidden vinegar that fell into a barrel of wine, all agree that the mixture is forbidden in a case where the forbidden vinegar imparts flavor to the mixture. In a case of forbidden wine that spilled into vinegar, since the sharper smell of the vinegar overwhelms the smell of the wine before it mixes in, Abaye says that any amount of the wine renders the mixture forbidden, and Rava says that it is forbidden only in a case where the wine imparts flavor to the vinegar.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘诪砖讛讜

The Gemara explains their respective opinions: Abaye says that any amount renders the mixture forbidden,

专讬讞讬讛 讞诇讗 讜讟注诪讗 讞诪专讗 讞诇讗 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讜讻诇 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘诪砖讛讜

because a liquid whose smell is vinegar and its flavor is wine is considered vinegar, and the wine, when it spilled into the barrel of vinegar, took on the smell of vinegar from the moment it reached the airspace of the barrel, and it has therefore become a type of food mixed with food of its own type. And any type of forbidden food mixed with food of its own type renders the mixture forbidden by any amount.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 专讬讞讬讛 讞诇讗 讜讟注诪讗 讞诪专讗 讞诪专讗 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讬谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讜讻诇 诪讬谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

Rava says that the mixture is forbidden only in a case where the wine imparts flavor to the vinegar, because a liquid whose smell is vinegar and its flavor is wine is considered wine, and it has therefore become a type of food mixed with food not of its own type. And any type of forbidden food mixed with food not of its own type renders the mixture forbidden only in a case where it imparts flavor to the mixture.

讛讗讬 讘转 转讬讛讗 讙讜讬 讘讚讬砖专讗诇 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘讚讙讜讬 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗住讜专 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讜转专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗住讜专 专讬讞讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讜转专 专讬讞讗 诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗

搂 With regard to this bunghole [bat tiha], the hole in a barrel through which one can smell the wine, if a gentile smells a Jew鈥檚 wine through it, the wine is permitted, but for a Jew to smell a gentile鈥檚 wine through it, Abaye says that it is prohibited, whereas Rava says that it is permitted. Abaye says that it is prohibited because he holds that a smell is a substantial matter, a significant form of pleasure, and it is not permitted to derive benefit from a gentile鈥檚 wine. Rava says it is permitted because he holds that a smell is nothing; it is insignificant.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚专讬讞讗 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗 讚转谞谉 转谞讜专 砖讛住讬拽讜 讘讻诪讜谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜讗驻讛 讘讜 讗转 讛驻转 讛驻转 诪讜转专转 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讟注诐 讻诪讜谉 讗诇讗 专讬讞讗 讻诪讜谉 讜讗讘讬讬 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诪讬拽诇讗 讗讬住讜专讬讛

Rava says: From where do I say that a smell is nothing? It is as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 10:4): With regard to an oven that one lit with cumin stalks of teruma and baked bread in it, the bread is permitted because it has not absorbed the flavor of the cumin stalks but only the smell of the cumin stalks. This indicates that smell alone does not render a food forbidden. And how does Abaye explain this? He answers that it is different there, as the forbidden substance was burned. The smell of the forbidden cumin stalks entered the bread after the cumin stalks themselves were consumed by the fire, and a smell that is not from an extant substance is not forbidden. By contrast, in a case where the smell is from an extant source, it is forbidden.

讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讻转谞讗讬 讛专讜讚讛 驻转 讞诪讛 讜谞转谞讛 注诇 驻讬 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜住专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专 讘砖诇 讞讬讟讬谉 讜讗讜住专 讘砖诇 砖注讜专讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛砖注讜专讬诐 砖讜讗讘讜转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 专讬讞讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讜诪专 住讘专 专讬讞讗 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗

Rav Mari said: This dispute between Abaye and Rava is paral-lel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a mishna (Terumot 10:3): With regard to one who detached a hot loaf of bread from the oven and placed it on the opening of a barrel of wine of teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, Rabbi Meir deems the bread forbidden to non-priests, as in his opinion the smell of the wine renders the bread forbidden to them, and Rabbi Yehuda deems it permitted. Rabbi Yosei deems it permitted in a case of wheat bread but deems it forbidden in a case of barley bread, because the barley draws out the fumes of the wine. Rav Mari explains: What, is it not with regard to this matter that the Sages in the mishna disagree: That one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that a smell is a substantial matter, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that a smell is nothing?

诇专讘讗 讜讚讗讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讬 诇讬诪讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara remarks: According to the opinion of Rava, the dispute between him and Abaye is certainly parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as he must concede that Rabbi Meir holds that a smell is a substantial matter. But according to the opinion of Abaye, shall we say that it is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m?

讗诪专 诇讱 讗讘讬讬 诇讗讜 诪讬 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘驻转 讞诪讛 讜讞讘讬转 驻转讜讞讛

The Gemara answers: Abaye could say to you that Rabbi Yehuda also holds that a smell is a substantial matter. Wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that mishna that Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Reish Lakish says: In the case of a hot loaf of bread and an open barrel,

Scroll To Top