Masechet Avodah Zarah
Masechet Avodah Zarah is sponsored by the Talmud class of Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA, in honor of the Hadran staff who make learning possible.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Avodah Zarah 67
Summary
Today’s daf is sponsored by Laura Warshawsky in loving memory of her mother, Evelyn Margolis, on her second yahrzeit.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Avodah Zarah
Masechet Avodah Zarah is sponsored by the Talmud class of Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA, in honor of the Hadran staff who make learning possible.
Avodah Zarah 67
דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֲסוּרָה, בְּפַת צוֹנֶנֶת וְחָבִית מְגוּפָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּתֶּרֶת. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בְּפַת חַמָּה וְחָבִית מְגוּפָה, בְּפַת צוֹנֶנֶת וְחָבִית פְּתוּחָה. וְהָא דִּידִי נָמֵי כְּפַת חַמָּה וְחָבִית פְּתוּחָה דָּמֵי.
everyone agrees that it is forbidden, as the bread certainly absorbed of the smell of the wine? Furthermore, in the case of a cool loaf of bread and a stoppered barrel, everyone agrees that it is permitted. They disagree only with regard to the case of a hot loaf of bread and a stoppered barrel, or in the case of a cool loaf of bread and an open barrel. And this case of mine, i.e., the case of the bunghole, is also comparable to the case of a hot loaf of bread and an open barrel, in which everyone agrees that the bread is forbidden.
זֶה הַכְּלָל, כֹּל שֶׁבַּהֲנָאָתוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הָכִי הִלְכְתָא.
§ It is stated in the mishna: This is the principle: Anything that benefits from a forbidden item imparting flavor to it, i.e., the forbidden item contributes a positive taste to it, is forbidden, and anything that does not benefit from a forbidden item imparting flavor to it is permitted, e.g., forbidden vinegar that fell onto split beans, as the flavor imparted by the vinegar does not enhance the taste of the beans. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This is the halakha.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ גְּרִיסִין רוֹתְחִין, אֲבָל נָפַל לְתוֹךְ גְּרִיסִין צוֹנְנִין וְהִרְתִּיחָן, נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחַ וּלְבַסּוֹף פָּגַם, וְאָסוּר.
And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The Sages taught this only with regard to a case where the vinegar fell into hot split beans, imparting flavor to their detriment. But if the vinegar fell into cold split beans, the vinegar enhances the flavor, and if one subsequently heated them, it becomes like a dish that some added ingredient first enhanced its flavor and ultimately detracted from it, and it is rendered forbidden, as the initial flavor that was imparted was beneficial.
וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ גְּרִיסִין רוֹתְחִין, אֲבָל נָפַל לְתוֹךְ גְּרִיסִין צוֹנְנִין וְהִרְתִּיחָן, נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחַ וּלְבַסּוֹף פָּגַם, וְאָסוּר. וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי כּוּ׳. וְכָךְ הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בְּעַרְבֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת בְּצִיפּוֹרִי, וְקוֹרְאִין אוֹתָם שַׁחֲלַיִים.
And similarly, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he reported that Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Sages taught this only with regard to the case where the vinegar fell into hot split beans. But if the vinegar fell into cold split beans and one subsequently heated the mixture, it becomes like a dish that some added ingredient first enhanced its flavor and ultimately detracted from it, and it is rendered forbidden. And similarly, when Rav Dimi came, he also reported this in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan and added: And they would prepare this dish of split beans and vinegar on the eves of Shabbat in Tzippori, and they would call it cress dish.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם שֶׁאָמְרוּ, לֹא שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ: קְדֵירָה זוֹ חֲסֵירָה מֶלַח, יְתֵירָה מֶלַח, חֲסֵירָה תַּבְלִין, יְתֵירָה תַּבְלִין, אֶלָּא כֹּל שֶׁאֵין חֲסֵירָה כְּלוּם, וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת מִפְּנֵי זֶה.
§ Reish Lakish says: With regard to the principle that the Sages said, that if a forbidden food imparts flavor to a permitted food to the detriment of the mixture it remains permitted, the criterion is not that people would say: This dish is lacking in salt or is overabundant in salt, is lacking in spices or is overabundant in spices, and that is why its flavor was detracted by the forbidden food. Rather, it is referring to any dish that is not lacking in anything, but will not be eaten only because of this forbidden substance that fell into it.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם שֶׁאָמְרוּ, אֵין אוֹמְרִין: קְדֵירָה זוֹ חֲסֵירָה מֶלַח, יְתֵירָה מֶלַח, חֲסֵירָה תַּבְלִין, יְתֵירָה תַּבְלִין, אֶלָּא הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא הָא פָּגְמָה.
And there are those who say that Reish Lakish states a lenient interpretation of the principle: With regard to that which Sages said that if a forbidden food imparts flavor to a permitted food to the detriment of the mixture, it remains permitted, one does not say that a certain food is forbidden because its flavor was not actually detracted by the forbidden substance, as this dish is lacking in salt or is overabundant in salt, is lacking in spices or is overabundant in spices, and it is for that reason that the forbidden substance detracted from its flavor. Rather, since now, in any event, the forbidden substance detracted from its flavor, it is permitted.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כֹּל שֶׁטַּעְמוֹ וּמַמָּשׁוֹ אָסוּר, לוֹקִין עָלָיו, וְזֶהוּ כְּזַיִת בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס.
§ Furthermore, with regard to a forbidden food that became mixed with a permitted food, Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In any case where the flavor and substance of the forbidden food are perceptible in the mixture, the mixture is forbidden, and one is flogged for consuming it. And it is a tradition that this is the measure for such a case: One who eats an olive-bulk of the forbidden element in the mixture in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread is liable for eating the forbidden food.
טַעְמוֹ וְלֹא מַמָּשׁוֹ — אָסוּר, וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו, וְאִם רִיבָּה טַעַם לִפְגָם — מוּתָּר.
But if only the flavor of the forbidden food is recognizable in the mixture, but not its substance, as it was completely dissolved into the permitted food, the mixture is forbidden, but one is not flogged for consuming it. And if the forbidden food amplified the flavor of the permitted food to its detriment, it is permitted.
וְלֵימָא: אִם נָתַן טַעַם לִפְגָם — מוּתָּר! הָא קָמַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיכָּא מִילֵּי אַחְרָנְיָיתָא דְּפַגְמַהּ בַּהֲדֵיהּ, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּלִישָּׁנָא בָּתְרָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ.
The Gemara asks: But then let Rabbi Yoḥanan say: If the forbidden food imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture, it is permitted. Why does he use the term: Amplified? The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches us: That even if there are other substances that detracted from the flavor of the mixture along with the forbidden food, e.g., insufficient salt or excessive seasoning, this is not taken into consideration; since the forbidden food detracted from its flavor, the mixture is permitted. The Gemara comments: And the halakha is in accordance with the last version of the statement of Reish Lakish.
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מִדִּבְרֵי כּוּלָּם נִלְמַד נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם מוּתָּר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בִּשְׁלָמָא מִכּוּלְּהוּ לְחַיֵּי, אֶלָּא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ — ״אָמְרוּ״ קָאָמַר, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.
§ Rav Kahana says: From the statements of all the amora’im who were cited, namely, Shmuel, Rabbi Yoḥanan, and Reish Lakish, we learn that if a forbidden food imparts flavor to a permitted food to the detriment of the mixture, it is permitted. Abaye said to him: Granted, from all the rest of them this conclusion is very well; but how can this be concluded from the statement of Reish Lakish? He says only that the Sages said that if a forbidden food imparts flavor to a permitted food to its detriment, the mixture is permitted. Perhaps he is only citing what others said and he himself does not hold accordingly.
מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם — אָסוּר?
The Gemara asks with regard to Rav Kahana’s statement: By inference, is there one who says that if a forbidden food imparts flavor to a permitted food to the detriment of the mixture, it is forbidden?
אִין, וְהָתַנְיָא: אֶחָד נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם וְאֶחָד נוֹתֵן טַעַם לְשֶׁבַח — אָסוּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לְשֶׁבַח — אָסוּר, וְלִפְגָם — מוּתָּר.
The Gemara answer: Yes, and this opinion is taught in a baraita: Both in a case where the forbidden food imparts flavor to the detriment of the flavor of the permitted food, and in a case where it imparts flavor that enhances the permitted food, the mixture is forbidden; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: If it enhances the flavor it is forbidden, but if it causes it detriment it is permitted.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? גָּמַר מִגִּיעוּלֵי גוֹיִם, גִּיעוּלֵי גוֹיִם לָאו נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם הוּא? וְאָסַר רַחֲמָנָא, הָכִי נָמֵי לָא שְׁנָא.
The Gemara explains: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir? He derives this halakha from the case of vessels of gentiles that require purging, i.e., vessels that gentiles used for cooking, which the Torah requires that one purge through fire and ritually purify before they may be used by Jews (see Numbers 31:22–23 and mishna on 75b). Is it not the case that vessels of gentiles that require purging impart flavor to food that is cooked in them to their detriment? Since time has passed since the gentiles cooked non-kosher food in the vessels, the flavor that the vessels transmit to food that a Jew cooks in them is certainly detrimental, and yet the Merciful One deems their use prohibited without purging. So too, the case here is no different, and even if the flavor imparted by the forbidden food is a detrimental one, the mixture should be forbidden.
וְאִידַּךְ? כִּדְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִיָּיא, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִיָּיא: לֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא קְדֵירָה בַּת יוֹמָא, דְּלָא לִפְגָם הוּא. וְאִידָּךְ? קְדֵירָה בַּת יוֹמָא נָמֵי אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא פָּגְמָה פּוּרְתָּא.
And the opinion of the other tanna, Rabbi Shimon, who deems the mixture permitted if the flavor imparted is detrimental, can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Ḥiyya; as Rav Huna, son of Rav Ḥiyya, says: With regard to the vessels of gentiles, the Torah prohibits only a pot that was used for cooking on that very day, which does not yet impart flavor to the detriment of the food cooked in it. Rather, the flavor that it imparts is not considered detrimental. And the opinion of the other tanna, Rabbi Meir, can also be explained in accordance with this statement, as in his opinion, even in the case of a pot that was used for cooking on that very day, it is not possible that it does not detract from the flavor of food that is subsequently cooked in it even slightly.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּתַנְיָא: ״לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כׇּל נְבֵלָה לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ״, כָּל הָרְאוּיָה לַגֵּר — קְרוּיָה נְבֵילָה,
The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? It is as it is taught in a baraita that from the verse: “You shall not eat of any unslaughtered animal carcass; you may give it to the resident alien [la’ger] who is within your gates, that he may eat it” (Deuteronomy 14:21), it is derived that with regard to animal carcasses, anything that is fit for a ger toshav to consume is called an unslaughtered carcass and is forbidden,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Avodah Zarah 67: Enhancing or Destroying the Taste of Food
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
Minnesota, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
Blacksburg, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
Avodah Zarah 67
דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֲסוּרָה, בְּפַת צוֹנֶנֶת וְחָבִית מְגוּפָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּתֶּרֶת. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בְּפַת חַמָּה וְחָבִית מְגוּפָה, בְּפַת צוֹנֶנֶת וְחָבִית פְּתוּחָה. וְהָא דִּידִי נָמֵי כְּפַת חַמָּה וְחָבִית פְּתוּחָה דָּמֵי.
everyone agrees that it is forbidden, as the bread certainly absorbed of the smell of the wine? Furthermore, in the case of a cool loaf of bread and a stoppered barrel, everyone agrees that it is permitted. They disagree only with regard to the case of a hot loaf of bread and a stoppered barrel, or in the case of a cool loaf of bread and an open barrel. And this case of mine, i.e., the case of the bunghole, is also comparable to the case of a hot loaf of bread and an open barrel, in which everyone agrees that the bread is forbidden.
זֶה הַכְּלָל, כֹּל שֶׁבַּהֲנָאָתוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הָכִי הִלְכְתָא.
§ It is stated in the mishna: This is the principle: Anything that benefits from a forbidden item imparting flavor to it, i.e., the forbidden item contributes a positive taste to it, is forbidden, and anything that does not benefit from a forbidden item imparting flavor to it is permitted, e.g., forbidden vinegar that fell onto split beans, as the flavor imparted by the vinegar does not enhance the taste of the beans. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This is the halakha.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ גְּרִיסִין רוֹתְחִין, אֲבָל נָפַל לְתוֹךְ גְּרִיסִין צוֹנְנִין וְהִרְתִּיחָן, נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחַ וּלְבַסּוֹף פָּגַם, וְאָסוּר.
And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The Sages taught this only with regard to a case where the vinegar fell into hot split beans, imparting flavor to their detriment. But if the vinegar fell into cold split beans, the vinegar enhances the flavor, and if one subsequently heated them, it becomes like a dish that some added ingredient first enhanced its flavor and ultimately detracted from it, and it is rendered forbidden, as the initial flavor that was imparted was beneficial.
וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ גְּרִיסִין רוֹתְחִין, אֲבָל נָפַל לְתוֹךְ גְּרִיסִין צוֹנְנִין וְהִרְתִּיחָן, נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחַ וּלְבַסּוֹף פָּגַם, וְאָסוּר. וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי כּוּ׳. וְכָךְ הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בְּעַרְבֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת בְּצִיפּוֹרִי, וְקוֹרְאִין אוֹתָם שַׁחֲלַיִים.
And similarly, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he reported that Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Sages taught this only with regard to the case where the vinegar fell into hot split beans. But if the vinegar fell into cold split beans and one subsequently heated the mixture, it becomes like a dish that some added ingredient first enhanced its flavor and ultimately detracted from it, and it is rendered forbidden. And similarly, when Rav Dimi came, he also reported this in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan and added: And they would prepare this dish of split beans and vinegar on the eves of Shabbat in Tzippori, and they would call it cress dish.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם שֶׁאָמְרוּ, לֹא שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ: קְדֵירָה זוֹ חֲסֵירָה מֶלַח, יְתֵירָה מֶלַח, חֲסֵירָה תַּבְלִין, יְתֵירָה תַּבְלִין, אֶלָּא כֹּל שֶׁאֵין חֲסֵירָה כְּלוּם, וְאֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת מִפְּנֵי זֶה.
§ Reish Lakish says: With regard to the principle that the Sages said, that if a forbidden food imparts flavor to a permitted food to the detriment of the mixture it remains permitted, the criterion is not that people would say: This dish is lacking in salt or is overabundant in salt, is lacking in spices or is overabundant in spices, and that is why its flavor was detracted by the forbidden food. Rather, it is referring to any dish that is not lacking in anything, but will not be eaten only because of this forbidden substance that fell into it.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם שֶׁאָמְרוּ, אֵין אוֹמְרִין: קְדֵירָה זוֹ חֲסֵירָה מֶלַח, יְתֵירָה מֶלַח, חֲסֵירָה תַּבְלִין, יְתֵירָה תַּבְלִין, אֶלָּא הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא הָא פָּגְמָה.
And there are those who say that Reish Lakish states a lenient interpretation of the principle: With regard to that which Sages said that if a forbidden food imparts flavor to a permitted food to the detriment of the mixture, it remains permitted, one does not say that a certain food is forbidden because its flavor was not actually detracted by the forbidden substance, as this dish is lacking in salt or is overabundant in salt, is lacking in spices or is overabundant in spices, and it is for that reason that the forbidden substance detracted from its flavor. Rather, since now, in any event, the forbidden substance detracted from its flavor, it is permitted.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כֹּל שֶׁטַּעְמוֹ וּמַמָּשׁוֹ אָסוּר, לוֹקִין עָלָיו, וְזֶהוּ כְּזַיִת בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס.
§ Furthermore, with regard to a forbidden food that became mixed with a permitted food, Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In any case where the flavor and substance of the forbidden food are perceptible in the mixture, the mixture is forbidden, and one is flogged for consuming it. And it is a tradition that this is the measure for such a case: One who eats an olive-bulk of the forbidden element in the mixture in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread is liable for eating the forbidden food.
טַעְמוֹ וְלֹא מַמָּשׁוֹ — אָסוּר, וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו, וְאִם רִיבָּה טַעַם לִפְגָם — מוּתָּר.
But if only the flavor of the forbidden food is recognizable in the mixture, but not its substance, as it was completely dissolved into the permitted food, the mixture is forbidden, but one is not flogged for consuming it. And if the forbidden food amplified the flavor of the permitted food to its detriment, it is permitted.
וְלֵימָא: אִם נָתַן טַעַם לִפְגָם — מוּתָּר! הָא קָמַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיכָּא מִילֵּי אַחְרָנְיָיתָא דְּפַגְמַהּ בַּהֲדֵיהּ, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּלִישָּׁנָא בָּתְרָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ.
The Gemara asks: But then let Rabbi Yoḥanan say: If the forbidden food imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture, it is permitted. Why does he use the term: Amplified? The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches us: That even if there are other substances that detracted from the flavor of the mixture along with the forbidden food, e.g., insufficient salt or excessive seasoning, this is not taken into consideration; since the forbidden food detracted from its flavor, the mixture is permitted. The Gemara comments: And the halakha is in accordance with the last version of the statement of Reish Lakish.
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מִדִּבְרֵי כּוּלָּם נִלְמַד נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם מוּתָּר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בִּשְׁלָמָא מִכּוּלְּהוּ לְחַיֵּי, אֶלָּא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ — ״אָמְרוּ״ קָאָמַר, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.
§ Rav Kahana says: From the statements of all the amora’im who were cited, namely, Shmuel, Rabbi Yoḥanan, and Reish Lakish, we learn that if a forbidden food imparts flavor to a permitted food to the detriment of the mixture, it is permitted. Abaye said to him: Granted, from all the rest of them this conclusion is very well; but how can this be concluded from the statement of Reish Lakish? He says only that the Sages said that if a forbidden food imparts flavor to a permitted food to its detriment, the mixture is permitted. Perhaps he is only citing what others said and he himself does not hold accordingly.
מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם — אָסוּר?
The Gemara asks with regard to Rav Kahana’s statement: By inference, is there one who says that if a forbidden food imparts flavor to a permitted food to the detriment of the mixture, it is forbidden?
אִין, וְהָתַנְיָא: אֶחָד נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם וְאֶחָד נוֹתֵן טַעַם לְשֶׁבַח — אָסוּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לְשֶׁבַח — אָסוּר, וְלִפְגָם — מוּתָּר.
The Gemara answer: Yes, and this opinion is taught in a baraita: Both in a case where the forbidden food imparts flavor to the detriment of the flavor of the permitted food, and in a case where it imparts flavor that enhances the permitted food, the mixture is forbidden; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: If it enhances the flavor it is forbidden, but if it causes it detriment it is permitted.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? גָּמַר מִגִּיעוּלֵי גוֹיִם, גִּיעוּלֵי גוֹיִם לָאו נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם הוּא? וְאָסַר רַחֲמָנָא, הָכִי נָמֵי לָא שְׁנָא.
The Gemara explains: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir? He derives this halakha from the case of vessels of gentiles that require purging, i.e., vessels that gentiles used for cooking, which the Torah requires that one purge through fire and ritually purify before they may be used by Jews (see Numbers 31:22–23 and mishna on 75b). Is it not the case that vessels of gentiles that require purging impart flavor to food that is cooked in them to their detriment? Since time has passed since the gentiles cooked non-kosher food in the vessels, the flavor that the vessels transmit to food that a Jew cooks in them is certainly detrimental, and yet the Merciful One deems their use prohibited without purging. So too, the case here is no different, and even if the flavor imparted by the forbidden food is a detrimental one, the mixture should be forbidden.
וְאִידַּךְ? כִּדְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִיָּיא, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִיָּיא: לֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא קְדֵירָה בַּת יוֹמָא, דְּלָא לִפְגָם הוּא. וְאִידָּךְ? קְדֵירָה בַּת יוֹמָא נָמֵי אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא פָּגְמָה פּוּרְתָּא.
And the opinion of the other tanna, Rabbi Shimon, who deems the mixture permitted if the flavor imparted is detrimental, can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Ḥiyya; as Rav Huna, son of Rav Ḥiyya, says: With regard to the vessels of gentiles, the Torah prohibits only a pot that was used for cooking on that very day, which does not yet impart flavor to the detriment of the food cooked in it. Rather, the flavor that it imparts is not considered detrimental. And the opinion of the other tanna, Rabbi Meir, can also be explained in accordance with this statement, as in his opinion, even in the case of a pot that was used for cooking on that very day, it is not possible that it does not detract from the flavor of food that is subsequently cooked in it even slightly.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּתַנְיָא: ״לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כׇּל נְבֵלָה לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ״, כָּל הָרְאוּיָה לַגֵּר — קְרוּיָה נְבֵילָה,
The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? It is as it is taught in a baraita that from the verse: “You shall not eat of any unslaughtered animal carcass; you may give it to the resident alien [la’ger] who is within your gates, that he may eat it” (Deuteronomy 14:21), it is derived that with regard to animal carcasses, anything that is fit for a ger toshav to consume is called an unslaughtered carcass and is forbidden,
