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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 25, 2018 | 讟壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Avodah Zarah 68b

The discussion regarding the debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon continues relating to the halacha about a forbidden item that gives bad flavor – is the mixture permitted or not? IF a non-Jew is handling in some way sealed wine of a Jew and the Jew leaves the non-Jew alone with the wine, what amount of time needs to pass for the Jew to suspect that the non-Jew opened it, did a libation and then resealed it.

砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬讛 诇讙专 讗讬谞讛 拽专讜讬讛 谞讘诇讛

and any carcass that is unfit even for a ger toshav to consume, e.g., one that turned rancid and is unfit for consumption, is not called an unslaughtered carcass with regard to its prohibition.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讛讜讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 住专讜讞讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住专讜讞讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诪讬注讜讟讗 注驻专讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

And what can Rabbi Meir respond to this? He could say: That verse is written to exclude meat that was rancid at the outset, i.e., that was not fit for consumption even before the animal鈥檚 death, due to a defect in the animal. By contrast, a carcass that was fit for consumption when the animal died and was consequently rendered forbidden remains forbidden even when it becomes rancid. And Rabbi Shimon could counter that meat that was rancid at the outset does not need specific exclusion by the verse, as it is considered as mere dust and does not fall under the category of an unslaughtered animal carcass.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖讛砖讘讬讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 驻讙诐 讗讘诇 驻讙诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专

Ulla says: This dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon is with regard to a forbidden food that enhanced the flavor of a dish when it first fell into it and subsequently detracted from its flavor. In this case Rabbi Meir deems the dish forbidden, since the forbidden food enhanced its flavor at the outset. But in a case of forbidden food that detracted from the flavor of the dish at the outset, everyone agrees that it is permitted.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讞讙讗 诇注讜诇讗 讬讬谉 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 注讚砖讬诐 讜讞讜诪抓 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讙专讬住讬谉 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚驻讙诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讗 讜驻诇讬讙讬

Rav 岣gga raised an objection to the opinion of Ulla from a baraita: Forbidden wine that fell into lentils, or forbidden vinegar that fell into split beans, renders the food forbidden. And Rabbi Shimon deems them permitted. But here it is a case where the forbidden food detracted from the flavor of the dish at the outset, and the tanna鈥檌m disagree.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讞讙讗 诇讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚注 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 转讬讜讘转讗 拽讗 诪讜转讬讘 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讙专讬住讬谉 爪讜谞谞讬谉 讜讛专转讬讞诐 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

Ulla said: 岣gga does not know what the Sages say, yet he raises an objection? Here we are dealing with a case where the vinegar fell into the cold split beans and one subsequently heated them, in which case it becomes like a forbidden food that enhanced the flavor of the mixture and subsequently detracted from it, as vinegar enhances the flavor of cold split beans, and it is consequently forbidden according to Rabbi Meir.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘驻讜讙诐 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讞诇讜拽转

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon is with regard to a case where the forbidden food detracts from the flavor of the permitted food from the outset.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘驻讜讙诐 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讘诇 讛砖讘讬讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 驻讙诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘讬谉 讘讝讜 讜讘讬谉 讘讝讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 转讬拽讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does Rabbi Yo岣nan mean that the dispute is with regard to a case where the forbidden food detracts from its flavor from the outset, but if it enhanced it at first and subsequently detracted from it, everyone agrees that it is forbidden? Or, perhaps he means that the dispute is both in this case and in that case. The Gemara comments: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讗驻砖专 讗讬转讗 诇讛讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诇讗 转谞讬讗 诇讛 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉

Rav Amram said: Is it possible that there is substance to this statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan, i.e., that there is disagreement with regard to a case where the forbidden food detracts from the flavor of the permitted food from the outset, but it is not taught in the Mishna?

谞驻拽 讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 讚转谞讬讗 砖讗讜专 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讛注讬住讛 讜讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛讞诪讬抓 讜讛讞诪讬爪讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞驻诇 砖讗讜专 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讗讜 砖讗讜专 砖诇 讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 讜讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛讞诪讬抓 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专

Rav Amram went out, examined the Mishna, and discovered that this dispute is taught in a mishna (Orla 2:8): In the case of non-sacred leaven that fell into the dough, and there is enough of it to cause the dough to become leavened, and the dough indeed became leavened, and subsequently leaven of teruma, or leaven of forbidden diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, fell into this dough, and there is enough of it to cause the dough to become leavened, the dough is forbidden, because the forbidden leaven is considered to have contributed to the process of the leavening. But Rabbi Shimon deems the dough permitted, because the additional leaven has a negative impact on the dough, which was already leavened.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚驻讙诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讗 讜驻诇讬讙讬

Rav Amram comments: But here it is a case where the forbidden substance detracted from the flavor of the dough at the outset, and Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree, as a mishna that is not attributed explicitly to a tanna represents the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 砖讗谞讬 注讬住讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讗讜讬讛 诇讞诪注 讘讛 讻诪讛 注讬住讜转 讗讞专讜转

Rabbi Zeira said: Dough is different, because even if the additional leaven is detrimental to its flavor, in any event the dough is enhanced, since it is suitable for leavening several other batches of dough with it. The more it is leavened, the more it is enhanced in terms of this purpose.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讗讜专 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讱 讛注讬住讛 讘讝讛 讻讚讬 诇讛讞诪讬抓 讜讘讝讛 讻讚讬 诇讛讞诪讬抓 讜讞讬诪爪讜 讗住讜专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 谞驻诇 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 转讞诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专 谞驻诇 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞驻诇 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讗讜 砖诇 讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专

The Gemara suggests another source for the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Come and hear that which is taught in a baraita: In the case of leaven of teruma and non-sacred leaven that fell into the dough, if this one was sufficient to cause the dough to become leavened and that one was sufficient to cause the dough to become leavened, and they both cause the dough to become leavened, it is forbidden. Rabbi Shimon deems it permitted. If the leaven of teruma fell in first, everyone agrees that it is forbidden. If the non-sacred leaven fell in first and subsequently the leaven of teruma or of diverse kinds that were planted in a vineyard fell in, this is also forbidden; but Rabbi Shimon deems it permitted.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚驻讙诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讜驻诇讬讙讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬

The Gemara comments: But here it is a case where the forbidden substance detracted from the flavor of the dough from the outset, and they disagree. And if you would say: Here too,

讻讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 转讗 砖诪注 诪住讬驻讗 讛讬讬谉 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 注讚砖讬诐 讜讞讜诪抓 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讙专讬住讬谉 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讜讛讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻讙诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讜驻诇讬讙讬

this can be explained in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Zeira that dough is different because it is enhanced in any event, come and hear a refutation of that explanation from the latter clause of the same baraita: Forbidden wine that fell into lentils or forbidden vinegar that fell into split beans renders the food forbidden. And Rabbi Shimon deems them permitted. And here also, it is a case where the forbidden substance detracted from the flavor of the dough from the outset, and they disagree.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讚砖谞讬 诇讬讛 注讜诇讗 诇专讘讬 讞讙讗 讻砖讛砖讘讬讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 驻讙诐 讜诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讻砖讛砖讘讬讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 驻讙诐 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 谞驻诇 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 转讞诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专

And if you would say: Here too, it can be explained as Ulla responded to Rabbi 岣gga, that the baraita is referring to a case when the vinegar enhanced the flavor of the split beans and subsequently detracted from it, e.g., where it spilled into cold split beans and then they were heated, this cannot be said, as do they actually disagree in a case when the forbidden substance enhanced the flavor of the permitted food and subsequently detracted from it? But isn鈥檛 it taught in the first clause of the baraita that if the leaven of teruma fell in first, before the non-sacred leaven, everyone agrees that it renders the dough forbidden, as it enhanced the flavor of the dough at the outset, even though the flavor was subsequently detracted from by the non-sacred leaven?

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘驻讙诐 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, must one not conclude from it that the dispute is with regard to a case where the forbidden substance detracted from the flavor of the food from the outset? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is so.

讛谞讬 转诇转讗 讘讘讬 讚拽转谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讘讘讗 讚住讬驻讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讘驻讜讙诐 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 诪爪讬注转讗 谞诪讬 讛砖讘讬讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 驻讙诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专

The Gemara asks: With regard to those three clauses that the baraita teaches concerning different cases, why do I need all three of them? Granted, the last clause, concerning the wine spilling into the lentils, teaches us that the dispute is with regard to a case where the forbidden substance detracts from the flavor of the food from the outset. The middle clause, with regard to the case where the leaven of teruma fell in first, also teaches a novel halakha, which is that in the case of a forbidden substance that enhanced the flavor of the food and subsequently detracted from it, everyone agrees that the mixture is forbidden.

讗诇讗 专讬砖讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 住讬驻讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 诪砖讘讞 讻诇诇 讗住专讬 专讘谞谉 专讬砖讗 讚拽讗 诪砖讘讞 诪讬讘注讬讗

But why do I need the first clause, concerning the case of non-sacred leaven and leaven of teruma falling into the dough together? It could have been inferred from the other two clauses that the dough is forbidden, in the following manner: Now that in the case of the last clause, where the forbidden substance does not enhance the permitted food at all, the Rabbis deem it forbidden, is it necessary to say that it is forbidden in the first clause, where the forbidden substance enhances the food鈥檚 flavor at first before detracting from it?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讬砖讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗爪讟专讬讱 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 注讬住讛 讝讜 专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讞诪讬抓 讘砖转讬 砖注讜转 诪讬 讙专诐 诇讛 砖转讞诪讬抓 讘砖注讛 讗讞转 讗讬住讜专

Abaye said: The first clause is necessary to teach that Rabbi Shimon deems it permitted. And this is what the Rabbis said to Rabbi Shimon: This dough was fit to become leavened in two hours if the permitted leaven had fallen into it alone. What caused it to become leavened in one hour? The forbidden leaven. Therefore, the dough is forbidden.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻砖讛砖讘讬讞讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讛砖讘讬讞讜 讻砖驻讙诪讜 砖谞讬讛诐 驻讙诪讜

And Rabbi Shimon could respond that when the two types of leaven enhanced the flavor of the dough, they both enhanced it, not only the forbidden leaven; and when they subsequently detracted from it, they both detracted from it. Therefore, it is permitted.

诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讬爪讟专祝 讛讬转专 讜讗讬住讜专 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讜诇讬转住专

The Gemara asks: Even according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, let the permitted leaven and the forbidden leaven combine together and render the dough forbidden, since Rabbi Shimon concedes that if the permitted food was initially enhanced by the forbidden substance it is forbidden.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬住讜专 讜讗讬住讜专 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬爪讟专驻讬

The Gemara responds: Rabbi Shimon conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says that even a forbidden substance and another forbidden substance do not combine to render a mixture forbidden. Accordingly, a forbidden substance and a permitted substance certainly do not.

讚转谞谉 讛注专诇讛 讜讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

The Gemara comments: This is as we learned in a mishna (Me鈥檌la 18a): If orla and diverse kinds planted in a vineyard fell into a permitted substance, and neither one is sufficient in its own quantity to render the mixture forbidden, they combine to render it forbidden if together they are of a sufficient quantity. Rabbi Shimon says: They do not combine, and each forbidden substance is treated individually. Here too, since when the forbidden leaven enhanced the dough, it was not sufficient to enhance it by itself, the permitted leaven does not combine with it to render the dough forbidden.

讛讛讜讗 注讻讘专讗 讚谞驻诇 诇讞讘讬转讗 讚砖讬讻专讗 讗住专讬讛 专讘 诇讛讛讜讗 砖讬讻专讗 讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 谞讬诪讗 拽住讘专 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 讗住讜专

搂 The Gemara recounts an incident involving a certain mouse that fell into a barrel of beer. Rav deemed that barrel of beer forbidden. The Sages said before Rav Sheshet: Shall we say that Rav maintains that even in a case where the forbidden substance imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture, it is forbidden? Presumably, the mouse imparted flavor to the detriment of the beer.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 砖砖转 讘注诇诪讗 住讘专 专讘 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 诪讜转专 讜讛讻讗 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讚讛讗 诪讬诪讗住 诪讗讬住 讜讘讚讬诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讗住专讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讛诇讻讱 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 谞诪讬 讗住讜专

Rav Sheshet said to them: Rav generally maintains that in a case where the forbidden substance imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture, it is permitted. But here, in the case of a mouse, it is a novelty that the Torah prohibits the flavor from a mouse at all, as it is repulsive and people distance themselves from consuming it, and even so the Merciful One prohibits it. Therefore, although it imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture, it is still forbidden.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘 砖砖转 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诇讬讟诪讗 诇讞 讜讬讘砖 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诇讞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讬讘砖讬诐

The Sages said to Rav Sheshet: If that is so, that the halakha with regard to a mouse is considered a novelty and is therefore understood to be more stringent than the norm, then a dead mouse should impart ritual impurity whether it is moist or dried out. Why did we learn in a mishna (Nidda 54b) that carcasses of creeping animals impart impurity when they are moist but do not impart impurity when they are dried out?

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 砖讻讘转 讝专注 转讟诪讗 诇讞 讜讬讘砖 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诇讞讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讬讘砖讬谉

Rav Sheshet responded: And according to your reasoning, in which you compare the halakhot of ritual impurity to forbidden foods, then with regard to semen, which is also repulsive, it should impart impurity whether moist or dried out. Why did we learn in a mishna (Nidda 54b) that semen imparts impurity when it is moist but it does not impart impurity when it is dried out?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讘专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讝专讬注 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘诪转诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讻注讬谉 诪讜转诐

Rather, what have you to say? With regard to the ritual impurity of semen, the Merciful One states: 鈥淭he flow of seed鈥 (Leviticus 15:16), meaning that the reference is to semen that is fit to fertilize. Here too, with regard to the ritual impurity of a mouse, the verse states: 鈥淲hen they have died鈥 (Leviticus 11:32). The Merciful One states that the carcasses of creeping animals impart impurity only when they are similar to their state at time of their death, i.e., when they are still moist. Therefore, there is no contradiction to the claim that the prohibition against eating a mouse is a novelty and consequently applies even when it detracted from the flavor of the food into which it fell.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讜诪讬 诪讗讬住 讜讛诇讗 注讜诇讛 注诇 砖诇讞谉 砖诇 诪诇讻讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讚讚讘专讗 讛讗 讘讚诪转讗

Rav Shimi of Neharde鈥檃 objects to the assumption that a mouse is repulsive: And is it repulsive? But isn鈥檛 it served at the table of kings and considered a delicacy? Rav Shimi of Neharde鈥檃 said in clarification: This is not difficult. This statement, that a mouse is served as a delicacy, is stated with regard to a field mouse, and that statement, that it is repulsive, is stated with regard to a city mouse.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 诪讜转专 讜注讻讘专讗 讘砖讬讻专讗 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 讗住讜专 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 诪讜转专 讜注讻讘专讗 讘砖讬讻专讗 讗砖讘讜讞讬 诪砖讘讞

Rava said: The halakha is that if the forbidden substance imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture, it is permitted. But with regard to a mouse that fell into a barrel of beer, I do not know what the reason was that Rav deemed it forbidden. I do not know whether it was because he maintains that if the forbidden substance imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture it is forbidden, and if so, the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion, or whether it was because although he maintains that if the forbidden substance imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture it is permitted, a mouse that falls into beer enhances its flavor.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 68b

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 68b

砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬讛 诇讙专 讗讬谞讛 拽专讜讬讛 谞讘诇讛

and any carcass that is unfit even for a ger toshav to consume, e.g., one that turned rancid and is unfit for consumption, is not called an unslaughtered carcass with regard to its prohibition.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讛讜讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 住专讜讞讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住专讜讞讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诪讬注讜讟讗 注驻专讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

And what can Rabbi Meir respond to this? He could say: That verse is written to exclude meat that was rancid at the outset, i.e., that was not fit for consumption even before the animal鈥檚 death, due to a defect in the animal. By contrast, a carcass that was fit for consumption when the animal died and was consequently rendered forbidden remains forbidden even when it becomes rancid. And Rabbi Shimon could counter that meat that was rancid at the outset does not need specific exclusion by the verse, as it is considered as mere dust and does not fall under the category of an unslaughtered animal carcass.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖讛砖讘讬讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 驻讙诐 讗讘诇 驻讙诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专

Ulla says: This dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon is with regard to a forbidden food that enhanced the flavor of a dish when it first fell into it and subsequently detracted from its flavor. In this case Rabbi Meir deems the dish forbidden, since the forbidden food enhanced its flavor at the outset. But in a case of forbidden food that detracted from the flavor of the dish at the outset, everyone agrees that it is permitted.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讞讙讗 诇注讜诇讗 讬讬谉 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 注讚砖讬诐 讜讞讜诪抓 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讙专讬住讬谉 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚驻讙诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讗 讜驻诇讬讙讬

Rav 岣gga raised an objection to the opinion of Ulla from a baraita: Forbidden wine that fell into lentils, or forbidden vinegar that fell into split beans, renders the food forbidden. And Rabbi Shimon deems them permitted. But here it is a case where the forbidden food detracted from the flavor of the dish at the outset, and the tanna鈥檌m disagree.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讞讙讗 诇讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚注 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 转讬讜讘转讗 拽讗 诪讜转讬讘 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讙专讬住讬谉 爪讜谞谞讬谉 讜讛专转讬讞诐 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

Ulla said: 岣gga does not know what the Sages say, yet he raises an objection? Here we are dealing with a case where the vinegar fell into the cold split beans and one subsequently heated them, in which case it becomes like a forbidden food that enhanced the flavor of the mixture and subsequently detracted from it, as vinegar enhances the flavor of cold split beans, and it is consequently forbidden according to Rabbi Meir.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘驻讜讙诐 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讞诇讜拽转

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon is with regard to a case where the forbidden food detracts from the flavor of the permitted food from the outset.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘驻讜讙诐 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗讘诇 讛砖讘讬讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 驻讙诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘讬谉 讘讝讜 讜讘讬谉 讘讝讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 转讬拽讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does Rabbi Yo岣nan mean that the dispute is with regard to a case where the forbidden food detracts from its flavor from the outset, but if it enhanced it at first and subsequently detracted from it, everyone agrees that it is forbidden? Or, perhaps he means that the dispute is both in this case and in that case. The Gemara comments: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讗驻砖专 讗讬转讗 诇讛讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诇讗 转谞讬讗 诇讛 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉

Rav Amram said: Is it possible that there is substance to this statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan, i.e., that there is disagreement with regard to a case where the forbidden food detracts from the flavor of the permitted food from the outset, but it is not taught in the Mishna?

谞驻拽 讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 讚转谞讬讗 砖讗讜专 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讛注讬住讛 讜讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛讞诪讬抓 讜讛讞诪讬爪讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞驻诇 砖讗讜专 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讗讜 砖讗讜专 砖诇 讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 讜讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛讞诪讬抓 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专

Rav Amram went out, examined the Mishna, and discovered that this dispute is taught in a mishna (Orla 2:8): In the case of non-sacred leaven that fell into the dough, and there is enough of it to cause the dough to become leavened, and the dough indeed became leavened, and subsequently leaven of teruma, or leaven of forbidden diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, fell into this dough, and there is enough of it to cause the dough to become leavened, the dough is forbidden, because the forbidden leaven is considered to have contributed to the process of the leavening. But Rabbi Shimon deems the dough permitted, because the additional leaven has a negative impact on the dough, which was already leavened.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚驻讙诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讗 讜驻诇讬讙讬

Rav Amram comments: But here it is a case where the forbidden substance detracted from the flavor of the dough at the outset, and Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree, as a mishna that is not attributed explicitly to a tanna represents the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 砖讗谞讬 注讬住讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讗讜讬讛 诇讞诪注 讘讛 讻诪讛 注讬住讜转 讗讞专讜转

Rabbi Zeira said: Dough is different, because even if the additional leaven is detrimental to its flavor, in any event the dough is enhanced, since it is suitable for leavening several other batches of dough with it. The more it is leavened, the more it is enhanced in terms of this purpose.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讗讜专 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讱 讛注讬住讛 讘讝讛 讻讚讬 诇讛讞诪讬抓 讜讘讝讛 讻讚讬 诇讛讞诪讬抓 讜讞讬诪爪讜 讗住讜专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 谞驻诇 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 转讞诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专 谞驻诇 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞驻诇 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讗讜 砖诇 讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专

The Gemara suggests another source for the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Come and hear that which is taught in a baraita: In the case of leaven of teruma and non-sacred leaven that fell into the dough, if this one was sufficient to cause the dough to become leavened and that one was sufficient to cause the dough to become leavened, and they both cause the dough to become leavened, it is forbidden. Rabbi Shimon deems it permitted. If the leaven of teruma fell in first, everyone agrees that it is forbidden. If the non-sacred leaven fell in first and subsequently the leaven of teruma or of diverse kinds that were planted in a vineyard fell in, this is also forbidden; but Rabbi Shimon deems it permitted.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚驻讙诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讜驻诇讬讙讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬

The Gemara comments: But here it is a case where the forbidden substance detracted from the flavor of the dough from the outset, and they disagree. And if you would say: Here too,

讻讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 转讗 砖诪注 诪住讬驻讗 讛讬讬谉 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 注讚砖讬诐 讜讞讜诪抓 砖谞驻诇 诇转讜讱 讙专讬住讬谉 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讜讛讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻讙诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讜驻诇讬讙讬

this can be explained in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Zeira that dough is different because it is enhanced in any event, come and hear a refutation of that explanation from the latter clause of the same baraita: Forbidden wine that fell into lentils or forbidden vinegar that fell into split beans renders the food forbidden. And Rabbi Shimon deems them permitted. And here also, it is a case where the forbidden substance detracted from the flavor of the dough from the outset, and they disagree.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讚砖谞讬 诇讬讛 注讜诇讗 诇专讘讬 讞讙讗 讻砖讛砖讘讬讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 驻讙诐 讜诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讻砖讛砖讘讬讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 驻讙诐 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 谞驻诇 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 转讞诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专

And if you would say: Here too, it can be explained as Ulla responded to Rabbi 岣gga, that the baraita is referring to a case when the vinegar enhanced the flavor of the split beans and subsequently detracted from it, e.g., where it spilled into cold split beans and then they were heated, this cannot be said, as do they actually disagree in a case when the forbidden substance enhanced the flavor of the permitted food and subsequently detracted from it? But isn鈥檛 it taught in the first clause of the baraita that if the leaven of teruma fell in first, before the non-sacred leaven, everyone agrees that it renders the dough forbidden, as it enhanced the flavor of the dough at the outset, even though the flavor was subsequently detracted from by the non-sacred leaven?

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘驻讙诐 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, must one not conclude from it that the dispute is with regard to a case where the forbidden substance detracted from the flavor of the food from the outset? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is so.

讛谞讬 转诇转讗 讘讘讬 讚拽转谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讘讘讗 讚住讬驻讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讘驻讜讙诐 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 诪爪讬注转讗 谞诪讬 讛砖讘讬讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 驻讙诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专

The Gemara asks: With regard to those three clauses that the baraita teaches concerning different cases, why do I need all three of them? Granted, the last clause, concerning the wine spilling into the lentils, teaches us that the dispute is with regard to a case where the forbidden substance detracts from the flavor of the food from the outset. The middle clause, with regard to the case where the leaven of teruma fell in first, also teaches a novel halakha, which is that in the case of a forbidden substance that enhanced the flavor of the food and subsequently detracted from it, everyone agrees that the mixture is forbidden.

讗诇讗 专讬砖讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 住讬驻讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 诪砖讘讞 讻诇诇 讗住专讬 专讘谞谉 专讬砖讗 讚拽讗 诪砖讘讞 诪讬讘注讬讗

But why do I need the first clause, concerning the case of non-sacred leaven and leaven of teruma falling into the dough together? It could have been inferred from the other two clauses that the dough is forbidden, in the following manner: Now that in the case of the last clause, where the forbidden substance does not enhance the permitted food at all, the Rabbis deem it forbidden, is it necessary to say that it is forbidden in the first clause, where the forbidden substance enhances the food鈥檚 flavor at first before detracting from it?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讬砖讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗爪讟专讬讱 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 注讬住讛 讝讜 专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讞诪讬抓 讘砖转讬 砖注讜转 诪讬 讙专诐 诇讛 砖转讞诪讬抓 讘砖注讛 讗讞转 讗讬住讜专

Abaye said: The first clause is necessary to teach that Rabbi Shimon deems it permitted. And this is what the Rabbis said to Rabbi Shimon: This dough was fit to become leavened in two hours if the permitted leaven had fallen into it alone. What caused it to become leavened in one hour? The forbidden leaven. Therefore, the dough is forbidden.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻砖讛砖讘讬讞讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讛砖讘讬讞讜 讻砖驻讙诪讜 砖谞讬讛诐 驻讙诪讜

And Rabbi Shimon could respond that when the two types of leaven enhanced the flavor of the dough, they both enhanced it, not only the forbidden leaven; and when they subsequently detracted from it, they both detracted from it. Therefore, it is permitted.

诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讬爪讟专祝 讛讬转专 讜讗讬住讜专 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讜诇讬转住专

The Gemara asks: Even according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, let the permitted leaven and the forbidden leaven combine together and render the dough forbidden, since Rabbi Shimon concedes that if the permitted food was initially enhanced by the forbidden substance it is forbidden.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬住讜专 讜讗讬住讜专 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬爪讟专驻讬

The Gemara responds: Rabbi Shimon conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says that even a forbidden substance and another forbidden substance do not combine to render a mixture forbidden. Accordingly, a forbidden substance and a permitted substance certainly do not.

讚转谞谉 讛注专诇讛 讜讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

The Gemara comments: This is as we learned in a mishna (Me鈥檌la 18a): If orla and diverse kinds planted in a vineyard fell into a permitted substance, and neither one is sufficient in its own quantity to render the mixture forbidden, they combine to render it forbidden if together they are of a sufficient quantity. Rabbi Shimon says: They do not combine, and each forbidden substance is treated individually. Here too, since when the forbidden leaven enhanced the dough, it was not sufficient to enhance it by itself, the permitted leaven does not combine with it to render the dough forbidden.

讛讛讜讗 注讻讘专讗 讚谞驻诇 诇讞讘讬转讗 讚砖讬讻专讗 讗住专讬讛 专讘 诇讛讛讜讗 砖讬讻专讗 讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 谞讬诪讗 拽住讘专 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 讗住讜专

搂 The Gemara recounts an incident involving a certain mouse that fell into a barrel of beer. Rav deemed that barrel of beer forbidden. The Sages said before Rav Sheshet: Shall we say that Rav maintains that even in a case where the forbidden substance imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture, it is forbidden? Presumably, the mouse imparted flavor to the detriment of the beer.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 砖砖转 讘注诇诪讗 住讘专 专讘 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 诪讜转专 讜讛讻讗 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讚讛讗 诪讬诪讗住 诪讗讬住 讜讘讚讬诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讗住专讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讛诇讻讱 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 谞诪讬 讗住讜专

Rav Sheshet said to them: Rav generally maintains that in a case where the forbidden substance imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture, it is permitted. But here, in the case of a mouse, it is a novelty that the Torah prohibits the flavor from a mouse at all, as it is repulsive and people distance themselves from consuming it, and even so the Merciful One prohibits it. Therefore, although it imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture, it is still forbidden.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘 砖砖转 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诇讬讟诪讗 诇讞 讜讬讘砖 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诇讞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讬讘砖讬诐

The Sages said to Rav Sheshet: If that is so, that the halakha with regard to a mouse is considered a novelty and is therefore understood to be more stringent than the norm, then a dead mouse should impart ritual impurity whether it is moist or dried out. Why did we learn in a mishna (Nidda 54b) that carcasses of creeping animals impart impurity when they are moist but do not impart impurity when they are dried out?

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 砖讻讘转 讝专注 转讟诪讗 诇讞 讜讬讘砖 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 诇讞讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讬讘砖讬谉

Rav Sheshet responded: And according to your reasoning, in which you compare the halakhot of ritual impurity to forbidden foods, then with regard to semen, which is also repulsive, it should impart impurity whether moist or dried out. Why did we learn in a mishna (Nidda 54b) that semen imparts impurity when it is moist but it does not impart impurity when it is dried out?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 砖讻讘转 讝专注 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讘专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讝专讬注 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘诪转诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讻注讬谉 诪讜转诐

Rather, what have you to say? With regard to the ritual impurity of semen, the Merciful One states: 鈥淭he flow of seed鈥 (Leviticus 15:16), meaning that the reference is to semen that is fit to fertilize. Here too, with regard to the ritual impurity of a mouse, the verse states: 鈥淲hen they have died鈥 (Leviticus 11:32). The Merciful One states that the carcasses of creeping animals impart impurity only when they are similar to their state at time of their death, i.e., when they are still moist. Therefore, there is no contradiction to the claim that the prohibition against eating a mouse is a novelty and consequently applies even when it detracted from the flavor of the food into which it fell.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讜诪讬 诪讗讬住 讜讛诇讗 注讜诇讛 注诇 砖诇讞谉 砖诇 诪诇讻讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讚讚讘专讗 讛讗 讘讚诪转讗

Rav Shimi of Neharde鈥檃 objects to the assumption that a mouse is repulsive: And is it repulsive? But isn鈥檛 it served at the table of kings and considered a delicacy? Rav Shimi of Neharde鈥檃 said in clarification: This is not difficult. This statement, that a mouse is served as a delicacy, is stated with regard to a field mouse, and that statement, that it is repulsive, is stated with regard to a city mouse.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 诪讜转专 讜注讻讘专讗 讘砖讬讻专讗 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 讗住讜专 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 诪讜转专 讜注讻讘专讗 讘砖讬讻专讗 讗砖讘讜讞讬 诪砖讘讞

Rava said: The halakha is that if the forbidden substance imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture, it is permitted. But with regard to a mouse that fell into a barrel of beer, I do not know what the reason was that Rav deemed it forbidden. I do not know whether it was because he maintains that if the forbidden substance imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture it is forbidden, and if so, the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion, or whether it was because although he maintains that if the forbidden substance imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture it is permitted, a mouse that falls into beer enhances its flavor.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages:

Scroll To Top