עבודה זרה סז

עבודה זרה סז

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,