Avodah Zarah 67a — the Talmud in English

With hot bread and an open barrel ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

everyone agrees that it is forbidden.

Since it absorbs the smell from the wine.

And

with cold bread and a covered barrel

closed

, everyone agrees that it is permitted.

Since it does not absorb any smell at all.

And

they disagreed

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah,

only in the case of hot bread and a covered barrel,

or

cold bread and an open barrel.

And they disagreed as to whether it absorbs the smell from the wine or not. But certainly, if it did absorb the smell, it would be forbidden.

For smell is a matter.

And

if so,

this matter of mine as well,

the case concerning which Abaye spoke, in “the smelling of wine,” since in this case there is certainly a smell,

is comparable to hot bread and an open barrel.

And it is forbidden according to everyone.

We learned in the Mishna:

“This is the general rule: whatever contains, through its benefit, the giving of flavor

is forbidden; whatever does not contain, through its benefit, the giving of flavor, is permitted. For example, vinegar that fell upon grits.”

The view of our Mishna is that “flavor that impairs” is permitted. However, below (67b), it will appear that Rabbi Meir’s view is to forbid a mixture of a forbidden substance even if the forbidden substance gives an impairing flavor.

But as for the halakha,

Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel: This is the halakha,

in accordance with the words of our Mishna, that “flavor that impairs” is permitted.

And Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel: They taught

that vinegar that fell upon grits is permitted

only

in a case

where it fell into boiling grits,

and then, immediately when it fell, it gave them an impairing flavor. Therefore, the grits are permitted.

But

if

it fell into cold grits, and

afterward

he boiled them

over the fire,

it becomes like a case in which it improved at first and ultimately impaired,

and it is forbidden.

And likewise, when Ravin came [when Ravin returned to Babylonia],

he said

in the name of

Rabba bar bar Hanna,

who

said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan,

he too said in accordance with these words:

They taught only where it fell into boiling grits; but if it fell into cold grits and he boiled them, it becomes like a case in which it improved at first and ultimately impaired, and it is forbidden.

And likewise, when Rav Dimi came, etc.

He too said so.

And

Rav Dimi added and said:

This is what they used to do on the eves of Shabbat in Sepphoris:

they would put vinegar into cold grits,

and call them “shahalayyim.”

Thus, the vinegar improves the grits while they are still cold.

The Gemara discusses what is the definition of “giving an impairing flavor,” which permits the mixture:

Reish Lakish said:

The law of

“giving an impairing flavor,” which they said

in our Mishna,

which does not forbid,

does not

refer to a case

where

those tasting from the cooked dish

say, “This pot lacks salt,”

or

“has too much salt, lacks seasoning,”

or

“has too much seasoning,”

and therefore its taste is impaired.

In such a case, we do not attribute the impairment to the forbidden substance, but to the lack of salt or seasoning.

Rather, wherever it lacks nothing and is not edible

only

because of this.

That is, because of the forbidden substance mixed into it, then it is considered “giving an impairing flavor.”

That is, if a forbidden substance became mixed into a pot of permitted food and gave it an impairing flavor, but the one tasting the cooked dish does not know how to distinguish why the cooked dish is impaired—whether because of the mixture of the forbidden substance that fell into it, or perhaps because of a lack of salt or seasoning—the cooked dish is forbidden.

Only in a case where the cooked dish lacks no correction whatsoever, and became impaired only because of the forbidden substance mixed into it, is it considered “giving an impairing flavor.”

And there are those who say:

There are those who transmitted the words of Reish Lakish leniently:

Reish Lakish said: With regard to the “giving of an impairing flavor” that they said, one does not say, “This pot

does not have an impaired flavor because of the mixture, but because it

lacks salt

or

has too much salt, lacks seasoning, or has too much seasoning,”

and if it had been properly prepared, it would not have become impaired.

Rather,

in every case where

now, in any event, it has impaired it,

[the flavor became impaired because of the mixture], even if it is possible to attribute the impairment to a lack of salt or seasoning, it is permitted. And this is the halakha. The Gemara proves this from the following statement, in accordance with the latter formulation of Reish Lakish:

Introduction to the words of Rabbi Abbahu:

There is a halakha given to Moses from Sinai that one is not flogged for eating a forbidden substance unless he ate an olive-bulk of it within the time of eating.

And the Sages estimated that the time for eating is the measure of eating a peras, [“peras” means half a loaf, and the measure of a “loaf” is one-third of a kav. It follows that the measure of a peras is one-sixth of a kav, that is, the measure of the time required to eat four eggs], that is, if he ate a cooked dish in the measure of a peras, in which an olive-bulk of a forbidden substance was mixed, he is flogged for it.

But if he paused in his eating longer than the time required to eat a peras, it becomes like two separate acts of eating, each of which contains less than an olive-bulk, and he is not flogged.

Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Whatever contains the flavor

and substance

of a forbidden substance mixed into it

, is forbidden,

and

one is flogged for it.

And this is an olive-bulk within the time of eating a peras.

That is, this is the situation concerning which the measure of eating an olive-bulk within the time of eating a peras was stated.