Avodah Zarah 66a (סו.) — the Talmud in English

The Mishna explains that if libation wine fell on split grapes, it renders them forbidden when it imparts flavor.

The Gemara below will present several distinctions in the laws concerning this matter:

We learned below (73a): “Libation wine is forbidden and renders [other wine] forbidden in any amount. Wine mixed with wine, and water mixed with water, [render the mixture forbidden] in any amount. Wine mixed with water, and water mixed with wine, [render the mixture forbidden] when they impart flavor. This is the general rule: one type mixed with its own type [is forbidden] in any amount, and [one type mixed] with a different type [is forbidden] when it imparts flavor.”

And it is explained that the rule of nullification in a mixture when the substance imparts flavor applies only when one type was mixed with a different type. But when one type is mixed with its own type, even if it does not impart flavor, it is not nullified.

The Gemara below will discuss what defines a mixture as “one type mixed with its own type”: Is it the fact that the tastes of the substances mixed together are identical that defines the mixture as one type mixed with its own type, or perhaps “we follow the name”—that is, the fact that the components of the mixture are called by the same name—is what defines the mixture as “one type mixed with its own type”?

If there fell

old wine [yayin yashan]

into

grapes

that were split, since its taste is discernible and its name is also different,

according to everyone

it renders the grapes forbidden

when it imparts flavor.

Rambam (Zakony o zapreshchyonnoi pishche, glava 16, zakon 32) napisal, chto vino zapreshchaet vinogradiny dlya polucheniya polzy. I net sposobа ispravit ikh, prodav ikh za isklucheniem stoimosti zapreshchёнnogo vina, soderzhashchegosya v nikh. Prichina etogo, kak obyasnyaetsya v Ierushalmi (Avoda Zara, glava 5, zakon 13), v tom, chto po obshchemu mneniyu vino, popavsheye v blyudo, zapreshchaet ego polnostyu, i ego nelzya ispravit prodazhey za isklucheniem stoimosti zapreshchёнnogo vina, tak kak lyubaya raznorodnaya dobavka, peredayushchaya vkus razreshyonnomu veshchestvu, soglasno Rashba razresheno prodat vinogradiny za isklucheniem stoimosti zapreshchёнnogo vina, soderzhashchegosya v nikh.

But if there fell

new wine [yayin hadash]

[wine that is new and has not yet fermented], whose taste is like the taste of the grapes,

into

split grapes,

Abaye said:

It renders them forbidden even

in any amount.

As will be explained below.

And Rava said:

It too renders them forbidden only

when it imparts flavor.

Rashi.

The Gemara explains:

Abaye

who

said

that the wine renders the grapes forbidden even

in any amount

held that

we follow the taste [when a mixture of a permitted substance and a forbidden substance is before us, and it is necessary to define the nature of the mixture, we follow the taste].

[esli pered nami smes razreshyonnogo veshchestva s zapreshchёнnym i nuzhno opredelit kharakter smesi, sledyet za vkusom].

And since

both this and that [the wine and the grapes]

[vino i vinogradiny]

have one taste,

it renders them forbidden in any amount, because

it is

like a mixture of

one type mixed with its own type. And one type mixed with its own type

renders [the mixture] forbidden

in any amount.

napisal v etom razdele, chto gakhicheskoe postanovlenie ne sootvetstvuet mneniyu Abaye, i odnorodnyy vid anuliruetsya v kolichestve, pri kotorom peredayotsya vkus. Smotri nizhe, 69a, «zakon — v shestidesyati», gde my otmetim sposob ustranit protivorechie v slovakh Rashi.

As explained below (73a): “This is the general rule: one type mixed with its own type [is forbidden] in any amount, and [one type mixed] with a different type [is forbidden] when it imparts flavor.”

And Rava,

who

said

that it renders [the mixture] forbidden only

when it imparts flavor,

held that

we follow the name, [when it is necessary to define the nature of the mixture, we follow the names of the substances mixed together],

[esli nuzhno opredelit kharakter smesi, sledyet za nazvaniyami smeshannykh veshchestv],

and

in a mixture of wine and grapes, although their tastes are identical, nevertheless

this has one name, and that has a different name:

the name of this is “wine,” and the name of that is “grapes,”

and

consequently

it is

like a mixture of

one type mixed with a different type, and one type mixed with a different type

does not render [the mixture] forbidden except

when it imparts flavor.

Ramban (ego privel Ran zdes) napisal, chto esli zakvaska, sdelannaya iz pshenitsy, popala v pshenichnoye testo, to, khotya ikh vkus ne odinakov, po obshchemu mneniyu eto odnorodnyy vid s odnorodnym, tak kak testo samo po sebe prevrashchaetsya v zakvasku, i, sledovatelno, vsyo schitaetsya odnim vkusom. Po etomu zhe, esli stareye vino prolilos v novoye vino, tak kak novoye vino samo po sebe prevrashchaetsya v staroye vino, vsyo schitaetsya odnim vkusom. Poetomu Gemara zadala vopros imenno o vine, popavshem v vinogradiny, a ne o starom vine, popavshem v novoye vino. Khatam Sofer.

The Gemara raises an objection: After all,

we learned

in our Mishna:

“Libation wine that fell upon grapes, etc.,

and if they were split, they are forbidden.”

The Gemara initially understood:

It might have entered your mind

that the Mishna is discussing all cases, even if

new wine

[new wine] fell

into

split grapes.

And it raised the following objection:

Is it not so that the Mishna intends to say that the wine renders the grapes forbidden only when it

imparts

flavor?!

If so, the Mishna is in accordance with Rava’s statement: Although the taste of the wine is identical to that of the grapes, nevertheless it renders them forbidden only when it imparts flavor.

But this may be rejected:

No.

The Mishna intends to say that the wine renders them forbidden even

in any amount, in accordance with Abaye, who said, “We follow the taste.” Since their tastes are identical, the mixture is treated as “one type mixed with its own type,” and it renders the mixture forbidden even in any amount.

v sootvetstvii s mneniem Abaye, kotoryy skazal: «sledyet za vkusom». I poskolku ikh vkus odinakov, smes rassmatrivaetsya kak «odnorodnyy vid s odnorodnym» i zapreshchaet dazhe v samoy maloy mere.

The Gemara raises another objection:

But from the fact that the latter clause teaches, “This is the general rule: Whatever, when it is enjoyed, imparts flavor, is forbidden; whatever, when it is enjoyed, does not impart flavor, is permitted,”

it follows

by inference

from this

that

when the Mishna says “they are forbidden,” it does not intend to prohibit them even in any amount; rather,

we are dealing with [prohibition] when it imparts flavor!

Khatam Sofer]. No Tosafoт oprovergli ikh slova i napisali, chto nuzhno razlichat mezhdu «odnorodnym vidom s odnorodnym», kotoryy zapreshchaet dazhe v samoy maloy mere, i «isportivshim vkusom», kotoryy voobshche ne zapreshchen. V sluchae «odnorodnogo vida s odnorodnym», poskolku vkus v smesi odinakov, zapreshchyonnyy vkus ne anuliruetsya, i veshch zapreshchena dazhe v samoy maloy mere. No isportivshiy vkus ne imeyet znacheniya i anuliruetsya. Poetomu, esli peredayotsya isportivshiy vkus, razresheno. Po mneniyu Tosafoт, Gemara dokazala iz togo, chto v kontse Mishny tannay razlichil mezhdu uluchshayushchim i isportivshim vkusom, chto v nachale Mishny reche idyot o zapreshchenii v kolichestve, pri kotorom peredayotsya vkus, a ne o zapreshchenii v samoy maloy mere. No otsyuda nelzya dokazat, chto vsyakoye zapreshcheniye, deystvuyushchee v samoy maloy mere, deystvuet dazhe pri isportivshchem vkuse. Rabi Akiva Eger (na pole Gemary) vozrazil protiv slov Tosafoт: iz slov Tosafoт vidno, chto razlichie mezhdu «zapreshcheniyem v samoy maloy mere» i «isportivshim vkusom» v tom, chto v «odnorodnom vide s odnorodnym», zapreshchennom v samoy maloy mere, iz-za odinakogo vkusa vkus ne anuliruetsya. V otlichie ot etogo, pri «isportivshchem vkuse» vkus anuliruetsya. No tak mozhno skazat tolko po mneniyu Abaye, kotoryy sledyet za vkusom. A po mneniyu Ravy, kotoryy sledyet za nazvaniem, «odnorodnyy vid s odnorodnym» opredelyaetsya ne po vkusu, a po nazvaniyu. Esli zhe smeshany dva vida s odinakovym nazvaniem, no s raznym vkusom, oni zapreshcheny dazhe v samoy maloy mere, khotya vkus anuliruetsya. I tak kak zakon ustanovlen po mneniyu Ravy, nuzhno li zapreshchat «odnorodnyy vid s odnorodnym» dazhe pri isportivshchem vkuse? Etu trudnost on ostavil s pomеткой «trebuyet bolshogo issledovaniya». Pozdnie mudretsy (smotri Khatam Sofer, i Imrei Tzvi) reshili vopros Rabi Akivy Egera: po mneniyu Ravy, kotoryy sledyet za nazvaniem, nuzhno skazat, chto i razreshenie v sluchae «isportivshego vkusa» proizkhodit ot togo, chto veshch s isportivshim vkusom poluchaet drugoye nazvanie. Kak obyasnyaet Gemara nizhe, zakon ob «isportivshchem vkuse» vyvoditsya iz zapreshcheniya padali: podobno tomu kak zapreshchena tolko padal, godnaya dlya gerа, no isporchennaya padal, negodnaya dlya gera, uzhe ne nazyvaetsya padalyu i razreshena, tak i pri isportivshchem vkuse: poskolku vkus isporchen, nazvanie izmenilos. Sledovatelno, razlichie Tosafoт mozhno obosnovat i po mneniyu Ravy: v sluchae «odnorodnogo vida s odnorodnym», poskolku nazvanie odinakovo, zapreshchyonnoe nazvanie ne anuliruetsya dazhe v odnoy tysyachnoy chasti, i poetomu zapreshcheno dazhe v samoy maloy mere. No v sluchae «isportivshego vkusa», poskolku iz-za porchi blyuda nazvanie izmenilos, ono razresheno.

Accordingly, it appears that our Mishna reflects Rava’s view: Although the taste of the wine is identical to that of the grapes, nevertheless, since their names are different, the mixture is treated as “one type mixed with a different type,” and it renders the mixture forbidden only when it imparts flavor.

And Abaye

will explain the Mishna as follows:

The Mishna:

Our Mishna is discussing

a

case in which

old wine

[old wine] fell

into

grapes. Since the taste of the old wine is not like the taste of the grapes, it renders them forbidden only when it imparts flavor.

The Gemara now presents the opposite case, in which according to Abaye the mixture is forbidden only when it imparts flavor, whereas according to Rava it is forbidden even in any amount:

Vinegar of wine, and vinegar of beer [vinegar made from wine mixed with vinegar made from beer],

one of which was forbidden and the other permitted,

or

wheat leavening and barley leavening [leavening made from wheat mixed with leavening made from barley], and, for example, one of them was teruma and the other ordinary produce,

[zakvaska iz pshenitsy smeshalas s zakvaskoy iz yachmenya], naprimer odna iz nikh byla teruma, a drugaya obychnym produktom,

Abaye said:

They render one another forbidden only

when they impart flavor.

Because

“we follow the taste,” and

since

this taste is one thing, and that taste is another thing [the taste of vinegar made from wine is not like the taste of vinegar made from beer],

[vkus uksusa iz vina ne takoy, kak vkus uksusa iz piva],

it is

like a mixture of

one type mixed with a different type, and one type mixed with a different type

does not render the mixture forbidden except

when it imparts flavor.

And Rava said:

They render one another forbidden even

in any amount.

Because

“we follow the name,” and

since

this is called vinegar and that is called vinegar. [Both vinegar made from wine and vinegar made from beer are called “vinegar,”]

[i uksus iz vina, i uksus iz piva nazyvayutsya «uksusom»],

and

likewise,

this is called leavening and that is called leavening [both wheat leavening and barley leavening are called “leavening”],

[i pshenichnaya zakvaska, i yachmennaya zakvaska nazyvayutsya «zakvaskoy»]

and it is

like a mixture of

one type mixed with its own type. And every one type mixed with its own type

renders the mixture forbidden even

in any amount.

Ramban.

Abaye said: From where do I say this [what is the source for my statement]

[kakoy istochnik moikh slov]

that “we follow the taste”?

As it is taught:

one who flavors a cooked dish with

spices

of a prohibition, from

two or three names that are one type [that is, from two or three varieties of spices that are one type, such as white pepper, black pepper, and long pepper], or

to est iz dvukh ili trekh raznovidnostey odnogo vida, naprimer belogo pertsa, chernogo pertsa i dlinнogo pertsa,

a third type [that is, from three types of spices, such as pepper, onion, and vinegar], even though none of them individually is sufficient to flavor the dish,

[to est iz trekh vidov pryanostey, naprimer pertsa, luka i uksusa], khotya ni odnoy iz nikh nedostatochno, chtoby otdelno pridat blyudu vkus,

they are forbidden, and they combine

to render the cooked dish forbidden.

And Hezekiah said: Here we are dealing with sweetening spices,

and the case is that all the spices have a sweet taste, and

since they are fit to sweeten the pot with them,

they combine with one another to render it forbidden.

And Abaye proved from here:

Granted, if you say, “we follow the taste,”

it is understandable why the three types of spices combine, since

they all have one taste.

But if you say, “we follow the name,”

why do they combine to render the mixture forbidden? After all,

this has one name and that has a different name?!

Rather, it is certainly proved that “we follow the taste.”

And Rava can say to you

that no proof can be brought from this Mishna, for

who is the author of this? It is Rabbi Meir!

As follows:

As it is taught: Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Meir: From where [do we know] that all prohibitions in the Torah combine with one another

to render forbidden an item into which they became mixed, even though their names and tastes differ from one another?

As it is stated (Deuteronomy 14:3):

(Devarim 14:3):

“You shall not eat any abomination”; everything that I have made abominable to you is included in the prohibition of eating.

But we, who do not hold in accordance with Rabbi Meir’s view, certainly [hold that] “we follow the taste.”

The Gemara presents another discussion concerning the laws of mixtures:

Vinegar [vinegar]

of a prohibition that fell

into wine [into wine]

[v vino],

, according to everyone

does not render it forbidden except

when it imparts flavor.

For its name and its taste are different, and it is like “one type mixed with a different type,” which renders the mixture forbidden only when it imparts flavor.

But

wine into vinegar [forbidden wine that fell into vinegar]:

[zapreshchёнnoe vino, popavsheye v uksus]:

Abaye said:

It renders the mixture forbidden even

in any amount.

As follows.

And Rava said:

It renders the mixture forbidden only

when it imparts flavor.

The Gemara explains:

Abaye said [that it is forbidden] in any amount

since wine that falls into vinegar changes its smell to the smell of vinegar as soon as it enters the air of the vessel. It follows that their smells were already identical before they became mixed.