Avodah Zarah 67a (סז.) — the Talmud in English

With hot bread and an open barrel

everyone agrees that it is forbidden.

Since it absorbs the smell from the wine.

And

with cold bread and a sealed barrel

sealed

, everyone agrees that it is permitted.

Since it does not absorb any smell at all.

And

they disagreed

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda,

only in the case of hot bread and a sealed 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.

Because smell is significant.”

And

if so,

this matter of mine as well,

the case about which Abaye spoke, concerning bat teiḥa, 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 principle: Anything whose benefit is conveyed by imparting flavor

is forbidden; anything whose benefit is not conveyed by imparting flavor is permitted. For example, vinegar that fell upon grits.”:

The position of our Mishna is that “imparting detrimental flavor” is permitted. However, below (67b), it will become apparent that Rabbi Meir’s position is to prohibit a mixture containing a forbidden substance even when the forbidden substance imparts a detrimental flavor.

But with regard to the halakha,

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This is the halakha,

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

And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They taught

that vinegar that fell upon grits is permitted

only

in a case

where it fell into boiling grits,

and then, as soon as it fell in, it imparted a detrimental flavor to them. 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 where it initially improves the food and ultimately impairs it,

and it is forbidden.

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

he said

in the name of

Rabba bar bar Ḥana,

who

said

in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan

that he too ruled in accordance with these words:

They taught only that it fell into boiling grits; but if it fell into cold grits and he boiled them, it becomes like a case where it initially improves the food and ultimately impairs it, and it is forbidden.

And similarly, when Rav Dimi came, etc.

[He too said this.]

And

Rav Dimi added and said that

this is what they would do on the eve of Shabbat in Tzippori:

they would put vinegar into cold grits

and call them “shĕḥalayim.”

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

The Gemara discusses the definition of “imparting detrimental flavor,” which renders the mixture permitted:

Reish Lakish said:

The law of

“imparting detrimental flavor,” which they stated

in our Mishna

, which does not render the mixture forbidden,

does not

refer to a case in which

the people who taste

the cooked dish

say, “This pot lacks salt,”

or

“It has too much salt; it lacks seasoning,”

or

“It has too much seasoning,”

and therefore its flavor is defective.

In such a case, the defect is not attributed to the forbidden substance, but to the lack of salt or seasoning.

Rather, it is a case where it lacks nothing, and it is inedible

only

because of this.

That is, because of the forbidden substance mixed into it; then it is considered “imparting detrimental flavor.”

That is, if a forbidden substance became mixed into a pot of permitted food and imparted a detrimental flavor, but the person tasting the food cannot determine why the food is defective—whether because of the forbidden substance that fell into it or because of a lack of salt or seasoning—the food is forbidden.

Only when the food requires no adjustment whatsoever, and is defective solely because of the forbidden substance mixed into it, is it considered “imparting detrimental flavor.”

And there are those who say,

there are those who taught the words of Reish Lakish leniently:

Reish Lakish said: With regard to the imparting of detrimental flavor that they stated, one does not say, “This pot

does not have a defective 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 adjusted, it would not have become defective.

Rather,

in every case where

at present, in any event, it has become defective,

[because the flavor became defective because of the mixture], even if it is possible to attribute the defect 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:

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

The Sages estimated that the time required for eating is the time needed to eat a peras, [“peras” means half a loaf, and the measure of a “loaf” is one-third of a kav; consequently, the measure of a “peras” is one-sixth of a kav, namely, the time required to eat four eggs], that is, if one ate a quantity of cooked food equal to a peras, containing an olive-bulk of a forbidden substance, he is flogged for it.

However, if he delayed during his eating longer than the time required to eat a peras, it is considered two separate acts of eating, each of which contains less than an olive-bulk, and he is not flogged.

Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Any [food] in which the flavor

and substance

of a forbidden substance are mixed

, is forbidden,

and

one is flogged for it.

And this is an olive-bulk within the time required to eat a peras.

That is, this measure of eating an olive-bulk within the time required to eat a peras was stated with regard to this circumstance.