Avodah Zarah 66a — the Talmud in English

The Mishna explains that if libation wine fell upon split grapes, it renders them forbidden in the measure of imparting flavor.

The Gemara below will present several distinctions of law concerning this matter:

Below we learned (73a): “Libation wine is forbidden, and renders [other wine] forbidden in any amount. Wine mixed with wine, and water mixed with water, [render one another forbidden] in any amount. Wine mixed with water, and water mixed with wine, [render one another forbidden] in the measure of imparting flavor. This is the general rule: a kind mixed with its own kind [is forbidden] in any amount, and one not of its own kind [is forbidden] in the measure of imparting flavor.”

And it is explained that the law of nullification in a mixture in the measure of imparting flavor applies only to a kind that was mixed with a kind not its own. But a kind mixed with its own kind, even if it does not impart flavor, is not nullified.

The Gemara below will discuss what defines a mixture as “a kind mixed with its own kind”: whether the fact that the flavor of the things mixed is identical defines the mixture as a kind mixed with its own kind, 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 “a kind mixed with its own kind.”

If there fell

old wine

into split

grapes, since its flavor is discernible, and its name is also different,

according to

everyone

it renders the grapes forbidden

in the measure of imparting 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

[new wine, which has not yet fermented], whose flavor is like the flavor of the grapes, into

grapes

that are split,

Abaye said:

it renders them forbidden even

in any amount.

As will be explained below.

And Rava said:

It too renders them forbidden only

in the measure of imparting flavor.

Rashi.

The Gemara explains:

Abaye,

who

said

that the wine renders [the grapes] forbidden even

in any amount,

held:

we follow the flavor

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

And since

this and that

[the wine and the grapes]

have one flavor,

it renders [them] forbidden in any amount, because

it becomes

like a mixture of

a kind mixed with its own kind. And a kind mixed with its own kind

renders [the other substance] 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: a kind mixed with its own kind [is forbidden] in any amount, and one not of its own kind [is forbidden] in the measure of imparting flavor.”

And Rava,

who

said

that it renders [the other substance] forbidden only

in the measure of imparting flavor,

held:

we follow the name,

[when it is necessary to define the nature of a mixture, we follow the names of the things mixed],

and

in a mixture of wine with grapes, although their flavor is identical, nevertheless

this has one name, and that has another name,

this one is called “wine,” and that one is called “grapes,”

and

consequently,

it becomes

like a mixture of

a kind mixed with one not of its kind, and a kind mixed with one not of its kind

renders [the other substance] forbidden only

in the measure of imparting 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: Surely

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 it is speaking of all circumstances, even if

new wine

[new wine] fell

into

split grapes.

And it raised the question:

Is it not that,

does the Mishna not intend to say that the wine renders the grapes forbidden only when there is in it

the measure of imparting flavor?!

And if so, it is explained in the Mishna in accordance with Rava’s words: although the flavor of the wine is identical to that of the grapes, nevertheless it renders [them] forbidden only in the measure of imparting flavor.

But this can be rejected:

No.

The Mishna intends to say that the wine renders [the grapes] forbidden even

in any amount,

and in accordance with Abaye, who said, “we follow the flavor.” And since their flavor is identical, the mixture is treated as “a kind mixed with its own kind,” and it renders [the grapes] forbidden even in any amount.

The Gemara raises an objection:

From the fact that it teaches in the final clause, “This is the general rule: anything whose benefit [is forbidden] in the measure of imparting flavor is forbidden; anything whose benefit [is forbidden] not in the measure of imparting flavor is permitted,”

it follows

by inference

from this

that

when the Mishna said “they are forbidden,” it did not intend to forbid them even in any amount, but rather

we are dealing with [an amount sufficient for] imparting 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.

And if so, it appears from the words of our Mishna that it agrees with Rava: although the flavor of the wine is identical to that of the grapes, nevertheless, since their names are different, the mixture is treated as “a kind mixed with one not of its kind,” and it renders [the grapes] forbidden only in the measure of imparting flavor.

And Abaye

will explain the Mishna as follows:

Our Mishna,

our Mishna is speaking

of

a case in which

old wine

[old wine] fell

into grapes, and since the flavor of the old wine is not like the flavor of the grapes, it renders [them] forbidden only in the measure of imparting flavor.

i, poskolku vkus starogo vina ne takoy zhe, kak vkus vinogradin, ono zapreshchaet ikh tolko v kolichestve, pri kotorom peredayotsya vkus.

Now the Gemara will present the opposite case, in which according to Abaye it is forbidden only in the measure of imparting flavor, while according to Rava it is forbidden even in any amount:

Wine vinegar,

[wine vinegar that became mixed with grain vinegar], one of them being forbidden and the other permitted,

and

wheat leavening and barley leavening

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

Abaye said:

They do not render one another forbidden except

in the measure of imparting flavor.

Because

“we follow the flavor,” and

since

this has one flavor and that has another flavor,

[the flavor of wine vinegar is not like the flavor of grain vinegar],

and it becomes

like a mixture of

a kind mixed with one not of its kind, and a kind mixed with one not of its kind

does not render [the other substance] forbidden except

in the measure of imparting 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 wine vinegar and grain vinegar are called “vinegar”],

and

likewise,

this is called leavening and that is called leavening

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

and it becomes

like a mixture of

a kind mixed with its own kind. And every kind mixed with its own kind

renders [the other substance] forbidden even

in any amount.

Ramban.

Abaye said: From where do I say this

[what is the source for my words]

that “we follow the flavor”?

For it was taught,

one who seasons a cooked dish with

spices

of a forbidden substance, from

two or three names and they are one kind

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

or a third kind

[that is, from three types of spices, such as pepper, onion, and vinegar], although there is not enough of any one of them to season [the dish],

they are forbidden, and they combine

to render the cooked dish forbidden.

And Hezekiah said: Here we are dealing with types of sweeteners,

and it is speaking of a case in which all the spices have a sweet flavor,

and since they are suitable for sweetening the pot with them,

they combine with one another to render [the dish] forbidden.

And from here Abaye proved:

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

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

they all have one flavor.

But if you say, “we follow the name,”

why do they combine to render [the dish] forbidden? Surely

this has one name and that has another name?!

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

And Rava will say to you:

There is no proof from this Mishna, for

who is this [tanna]? It is Rabbi Meir!

As follows:

For it was taught: Rabbi Judah says in the name of Rabbi Meir: From where [do we know] that all the prohibitions in the Torah combine with one another

to render forbidden a substance into which they became mixed, although their names and their flavors differ from one another?

As it is stated

(Deuteronomy 14:3):

“You shall not eat any abomination”; everything that I have made abominable to you is forbidden to eat.

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

The Gemara brings another discussion concerning the laws of mixtures:

Vinegar

[vinegar] of a forbidden substance, which fell

into wine

[into wine],

according to everyone

does not render [the wine] forbidden except

in the measure of imparting flavor.

For its name and its flavor are different, and it is like “a kind mixed with one not of its kind,” which does not render [the mixture] forbidden except in the measure of imparting flavor.

But

wine into vinegar

[forbidden wine that fell into vinegar]:

Abaye said:

It renders [the vinegar] forbidden even

in any amount.

As follows.

And Rava said:

It renders [the vinegar] forbidden only

in the measure of imparting flavor.

The Gemara explains:

Abaye said [that it is forbidden] in any amount,

since when wine falls into vinegar, from the moment it reaches the air of the vessel its smell changes to the smell of vinegar; it follows that before they became mixed, their smell was already identical.