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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 23, 2018 | 讝壮 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 shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Avodah Zarah 67

If a forbidden item mixes with a permitted one and gives it a bad taste, does it make it permitted? Is there a debate regarding this issue and if so, exactly in which case is the debate?


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

讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专讛 讘驻转 爪讜谞谞转 讜讞讘讬转 诪讙讜驻讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专转 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘驻转 讞诪讛 讜讞讘讬转 诪讙讜驻讛 讘驻转 爪讜谞谞转 讜讞讘讬转 驻转讜讞讛 讜讛讗 讚讬讚讬 谞诪讬 讻驻转 讞诪讛 讜讞讘讬转 驻转讜讞讛 讚诪讬

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.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讘讛谞讗转讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讛诇讻转讗

搂 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讙专讬住讬谉 专讜转讞讬谉 讗讘诇 谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讙专讬住讬谉 爪讜谞谞讬谉 讜讛专转讬讞谉 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖讛砖讘讬讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 驻讙诐 讜讗住讜专

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.

讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讙专讬住讬谉 专讜转讞讬谉 讗讘诇 谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讙专讬住讬谉 爪讜谞谞讬谉 讜讛专转讬讞谉 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖讛砖讘讬讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 驻讙诐 讜讗住讜专 讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讻讜壮 讜讻讱 讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 讘注专讘讬 砖讘转讜转 讘爪讬驻讜专讬 讜拽讜专讗讬谉 讗讜转诐 砖讞诇讬讬诐

And similarly, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he reported that Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 砖讗诪专讜 诇讗 砖讬讗诪专讜 拽讚讬专讛 讝讜 讞住讬专讛 诪诇讞 讬转讬专讛 诪诇讞 讞住讬专讛 转讘诇讬谉 讬转讬专讛 转讘诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讞住讬专讛 讻诇讜诐 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇转 诪驻谞讬 讝讛

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.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 砖讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬谉 拽讚讬专讛 讝讜 讞住讬专讛 诪诇讞 讬转讬专讛 诪诇讞 讞住讬专讛 转讘诇讬谉 讬转讬专讛 转讘诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 讛讗 驻讙诪讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 砖讟注诪讜 讜诪诪砖讜 讗住讜专 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜讝讛讜 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住

搂 Furthermore, with regard to a forbidden food that became mixed with a permitted food, Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讟注诪讜 讜诇讗 诪诪砖讜 讗住讜专 讜讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜讗诐 专讬讘讛 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 诪讜转专

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.

讜诇讬诪讗 讗诐 谞转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 诪讜转专 讛讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讬诇讬 讗讞专谞讬讬转讗 讚驻讙诪讛 讘讛讚讬讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻诇讬砖谞讗 讘转专讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖

The Gemara asks: But then let Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讚讘专讬 讻讜诇诐 谞诇诪讚 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 诪讜转专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讻讜诇讛讜 诇讞讬讬 讗诇讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专讜 拽讗诪专 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

Rav Kahana says: From the statements of all the amora鈥檌m who were cited, namely, Shmuel, Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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.

诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 讗住讜专

The Gemara asks with regard to Rav Kahana鈥檚 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?

讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 讜讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇砖讘讞 讗住讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇砖讘讞 讗住讜专 讜诇驻讙诐 诪讜转专

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讙诪专 诪讙讬注讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 讙讬注讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 诇讗讜 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 讛讜讗 讜讗住专 专讞诪谞讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

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鈥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.

讜讗讬讚讱 讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞讬讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞讬讬讗 诇讗 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 拽讚讬专讛 讘转 讬讜诪讗 讚诇讗 诇驻讙诐 讛讜讗 讜讗讬讚讱 拽讚讬专讛 讘转 讬讜诪讗 谞诪讬 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 驻讙诪讛 驻讜专转讗

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 岣yya; as Rav Huna, son of Rav 岣yya, 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.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讻诇 谞讘诇讛 诇讙专 讗砖专 讘砖注专讬讱 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇讙专 拽专讜讬讛 谞讘讬诇讛

The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? It is as it is taught in a baraita that from the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not eat of any unslaughtered animal carcass; you may give it to the resident alien [la鈥檊er] who is within your gates, that he may eat it鈥 (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,

  • 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 shleima 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 67

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 67

讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专讛 讘驻转 爪讜谞谞转 讜讞讘讬转 诪讙讜驻讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专转 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘驻转 讞诪讛 讜讞讘讬转 诪讙讜驻讛 讘驻转 爪讜谞谞转 讜讞讘讬转 驻转讜讞讛 讜讛讗 讚讬讚讬 谞诪讬 讻驻转 讞诪讛 讜讞讘讬转 驻转讜讞讛 讚诪讬

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.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讘讛谞讗转讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讛诇讻转讗

搂 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讙专讬住讬谉 专讜转讞讬谉 讗讘诇 谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讙专讬住讬谉 爪讜谞谞讬谉 讜讛专转讬讞谉 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖讛砖讘讬讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 驻讙诐 讜讗住讜专

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.

讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讙专讬住讬谉 专讜转讞讬谉 讗讘诇 谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讙专讬住讬谉 爪讜谞谞讬谉 讜讛专转讬讞谉 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖讛砖讘讬讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 驻讙诐 讜讗住讜专 讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讻讜壮 讜讻讱 讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 讘注专讘讬 砖讘转讜转 讘爪讬驻讜专讬 讜拽讜专讗讬谉 讗讜转诐 砖讞诇讬讬诐

And similarly, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he reported that Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 砖讗诪专讜 诇讗 砖讬讗诪专讜 拽讚讬专讛 讝讜 讞住讬专讛 诪诇讞 讬转讬专讛 诪诇讞 讞住讬专讛 转讘诇讬谉 讬转讬专讛 转讘诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讞住讬专讛 讻诇讜诐 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇转 诪驻谞讬 讝讛

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.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 砖讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬谉 拽讚讬专讛 讝讜 讞住讬专讛 诪诇讞 讬转讬专讛 诪诇讞 讞住讬专讛 转讘诇讬谉 讬转讬专讛 转讘诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 讛讗 驻讙诪讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 砖讟注诪讜 讜诪诪砖讜 讗住讜专 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜讝讛讜 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住

搂 Furthermore, with regard to a forbidden food that became mixed with a permitted food, Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讟注诪讜 讜诇讗 诪诪砖讜 讗住讜专 讜讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜讗诐 专讬讘讛 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 诪讜转专

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.

讜诇讬诪讗 讗诐 谞转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 诪讜转专 讛讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讬诇讬 讗讞专谞讬讬转讗 讚驻讙诪讛 讘讛讚讬讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻诇讬砖谞讗 讘转专讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖

The Gemara asks: But then let Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讚讘专讬 讻讜诇诐 谞诇诪讚 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 诪讜转专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讻讜诇讛讜 诇讞讬讬 讗诇讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专讜 拽讗诪专 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

Rav Kahana says: From the statements of all the amora鈥檌m who were cited, namely, Shmuel, Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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.

诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 讗住讜专

The Gemara asks with regard to Rav Kahana鈥檚 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?

讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 讜讗讞讚 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇砖讘讞 讗住讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇砖讘讞 讗住讜专 讜诇驻讙诐 诪讜转专

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讙诪专 诪讙讬注讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 讙讬注讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 诇讗讜 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 讛讜讗 讜讗住专 专讞诪谞讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

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鈥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.

讜讗讬讚讱 讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞讬讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞讬讬讗 诇讗 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 拽讚讬专讛 讘转 讬讜诪讗 讚诇讗 诇驻讙诐 讛讜讗 讜讗讬讚讱 拽讚讬专讛 讘转 讬讜诪讗 谞诪讬 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 驻讙诪讛 驻讜专转讗

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 岣yya; as Rav Huna, son of Rav 岣yya, 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.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讻诇 谞讘诇讛 诇讙专 讗砖专 讘砖注专讬讱 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇讙专 拽专讜讬讛 谞讘讬诇讛

The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? It is as it is taught in a baraita that from the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not eat of any unslaughtered animal carcass; you may give it to the resident alien [la鈥檊er] who is within your gates, that he may eat it鈥 (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,

Scroll To Top