Avodah Zarah 67

דברי הכל אסורה בפת צוננת וחבית מגופה דברי הכל מותרת לא נחלקו אלא בפת חמה וחבית מגופה בפת צוננת וחבית פתוחה והא דידי נמי כפת חמה וחבית פתוחה דמי

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.

זה הכלל כל שבהנאתו בנותן טעם כו׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הכי הלכתא

§ 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.

ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא שנפל לתוך גריסין רותחין אבל נפל לתוך גריסין צוננין והרתיחן נעשה כמי שהשביח ולבסוף פגם ואסור

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.

וכן כי אתא רבין אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא שנפל לתוך גריסין רותחין אבל נפל לתוך גריסין צוננין והרתיחן נעשה כמי שהשביח ולבסוף פגם ואסור וכן כי אתא רב דימי כו׳ וכך היו עושין בערבי שבתות בציפורי וקוראין אותם שחליים

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.

אמר ריש לקיש נותן טעם לפגם שאמרו לא שיאמרו קדירה זו חסירה מלח יתירה מלח חסירה תבלין יתירה תבלין אלא כל שאין חסירה כלום ואינה נאכלת מפני זה

§ 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.

ואיכא דאמרי אמר ריש לקיש נותן טעם לפגם שאמרו אין אומרין קדירה זו חסירה מלח יתירה מלח חסירה תבלין יתירה תבלין אלא השתא מיהא הא פגמה

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.

אמר רבי אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן כל שטעמו וממשו אסור לוקין עליו וזהו כזית בכדי אכילת פרס

§ 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.

טעמו ולא ממשו אסור ואין לוקין עליו ואם ריבה טעם לפגם מותר

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.

ולימא אם נתן טעם לפגם מותר הא קמשמע לן דאף על גב דאיכא מילי אחרנייתא דפגמה בהדיה והלכתא כלישנא בתרא דריש לקיש

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.

אמר רב כהנא מדברי כולם נלמד נותן טעם לפגם מותר אמר ליה אביי בשלמא מכולהו לחיי אלא דריש לקיש אמרו קאמר וליה לא סבירא ליה

§ 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.

מכלל דאיכא למאן דאמר נותן טעם לפגם אסור

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?

אין והתניא אחד נותן טעם לפגם ואחד נותן טעם לשבח אסור דברי רבי מאיר רבי שמעון אומר לשבח אסור ולפגם מותר

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.

מאי טעמא דרבי מאיר גמר מגיעולי גוים גיעולי גוים לאו נותן טעם לפגם הוא ואסר רחמנא הכי נמי לא שנא

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.

ואידך כדרב הונא בריה דרב חייא דאמר רב הונא בריה דרב חייא לא אסרה תורה אלא קדירה בת יומא דלא לפגם הוא ואידך קדירה בת יומא נמי אי אפשר דלא פגמה פורתא

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.

ורבי שמעון מאי טעמא דתניא לא תאכלו כל נבלה לגר אשר בשעריך כל הראויה לגר קרויה נבילה

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,