Avodah Zarah 67b (סז:) — the Talmud in English

However, an item of permitted food that contains only

the taste

of a prohibited substance,

but not its substance,

is indeed

prohibited,

but since he does not eat an olive-bulk of the prohibited substance within the time required to eat a peras of the permitted food, this is not considered significant eating,

and one is not flogged for it.

And if

the prohibition did not improve the taste of the permitted food with which it was mixed, but rather

imparted

to it

a defective taste, it is permitted.

The Gemara infers: Why did Rabbi Yoḥanan say, “If it imparted a defective taste to it, it is permitted

”? and let him say [that is,

say],

, “If it imparted a defective taste, it is permitted?”

Rather, certainly,

this teaches us that even though there are other things that rendered it defective along with it [that is,

there is another factor that renders it defective], ,

nevertheless, since the prohibition, too, imparted a defective taste, it is permitted.

And

from here we learn that

the halakha follows the latter formulation of Reish Lakish,

that one does not attribute the defect to another factor; rather, whenever the prohibited substance rendered the food defective, it is permitted.

Rav Kahana said: From the statements of all of them,

that is, from all the statements of the amoraim mentioned above—Rav Yehuda, Rabba bar bar Ḥana, Rav Dimi, Reish Lakish, and Rabbi Abbahu—

we learn

that a prohibited substance that

imparts a defective taste

to permitted food

is permitted.

Abaye said to him: Granted, with regard to all of them, yes.

Indeed, this can be learned from their statements.

But

from

the

words of

Reish Lakish,

who said, “The defective taste of which they spoke is not referring to someone saying, ‘This pot lacks salt,’” and so on, one cannot infer that he held that “one that imparts a defective taste is permitted,” since

he says, “of which they spoke,”

implying that he means to say: Indeed, there are those who hold this way,

but

he himself

does not hold this way.

The Gemara asks: It follows

from

Abaye’s words

, that there is one who says that “one that imparts a defective taste” is prohibited.

But no tanna who prohibits it was mentioned in the mishnayot

? And it answers:

Indeed!

We do find one who prohibits even “one that imparts a defective taste

” But was it not taught

comfortably, that is, this is what we learned in a beraita:

Both one that imparts a defective taste and one that imparts an enhancing taste

are prohibited. These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Shimon says:

A prohibited substance that imparts an

enhancing taste is prohibited. And

if it imparts a taste

that is defective, it is permitted.

The Gemara explains:

What is the reason of Rabbi Meir

who prohibited “one that imparts a defective taste

” He derived it [that is,

learned it]

from the purging of gentile utensils.

It is stated in the account of the war with Midian (Numbers 31:22

– 23): “However, the gold, the silver, the copper, the iron, the tin, and the lead: everything that can withstand fire, you shall pass through fire, and it shall be purified; but it shall be purified with the water of sprinkling; and everything that cannot withstand fire, you shall pass through water.” This indicates that since the gentile used the utensil with hot food, it must be purged and heated white-hot so that it will expel what it absorbed.

Rabbi Meir derived:

Is the purging of gentile utensils not a case of one that imparts a defective taste?!

After all, any cooked food that remains overnight becomes defective in taste, and ordinary utensils are presumed not to have been used that day,

and

nevertheless

the Merciful One prohibited

using these utensils without purging them.

Here too,

with regard to other prohibitions,

it is no different,

and it is prohibited even when it imparts a defective taste.

And the other one?

What did Rabbi Shimon hold?

He held

in accordance with the

words of

Rav Huna, son of Rav Ḥiyya.

For Rav Huna, son of Rav Ḥiyya, said: The Torah prohibited only a pot used that day, [that is,

in which a gentile cooked that day]

since its taste is not defective.

But if it was not used that day, it is permitted, since it imparts a defective taste.

And the other one?

What did Rabbi Meir hold?

According to Rabbi Meir, even

a pot used that day inevitably renders the food slightly defective,

and nevertheless it is permitted only through purging. Infer from this that one that imparts a defective taste is also prohibited. And what is Rabbi Shimon’s reason? From where does he derive that a distinction must be made between one that imparts an enhancing taste and one that imparts a defective taste?

For it was taught:

It is stated in the Torah (Deuteronomy 14:21

: “You shall not eat any unslaughtered animal carcass; you shall give it to the stranger who is in your gates

so that he may eat it

,”