Avodah Zarah 67
Share this shiur:
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.
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,
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.
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
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
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
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 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
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
Blacksburg, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
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 heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
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,
