Avodah Zarah 67b — the Talmud in English

But a permitted substance in which there is mixed only

the taste

of a forbidden substance,

but not its substance,

indeed

it is forbidden,

but since he does not eat an olive-bulk of the forbidden substance within the time of eating a peras, there is no significant eating here,

and one is not flogged for it.

And if

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

increased

in it

a detrimental taste, it is permitted.

The Gemara infers: Why did Rabbi Yochanan say, “If it increased in it a detrimental taste, it is permitted,”

and let him say [יאמר]

say],

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

Rather, certainly,

this teaches us that even though there are other things that cause deterioration together with it [שיש דבר אחר הפוגם עמו],

,

nevertheless, since the prohibition too increased a detrimental taste, it is permitted.

And

from here we learn that

the halakha is in accordance with the latter formulation of Resh Lakish,

that we do not attribute the deterioration to another thing; rather, in every case in which the prohibition causes deterioration, it is permitted.

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

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

we learn

that a forbidden substance that

imparts a detrimental taste

in a permitted substance

is permitted.

Abaye said to him: Granted, from all of them, [we can learn this].

Indeed, this can be learned from their words.

But

from

the

words of

Resh Lakish,

who said, “The detrimental taste that they said is not [referring to a case where] they say, ‘This pot lacks salt,’” and so forth, one cannot infer that he held, “One who imparts a detrimental taste is permitted,” for

he says, “that they said,”

which indicates that his intention is to say: Indeed, there are those who hold this way,

but

he himself

does not hold this way.

The Gemara asks: It follows

from

the words of Abaye

, that there is one who says, “One who imparts a detrimental taste is forbidden.”

But no authority who forbids it was mentioned in the Mishnayot

? And it answers:

No!

Indeed, we have found one who forbids even “one who imparts a detrimental taste.”

But was it not taught

as a statement of resolution—that is, thus we learned in a beraita:

Both one who imparts a detrimental taste and one who imparts an enhancing taste

are forbidden. These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Shimon says:

A forbidden substance that imparts a taste

for enhancement is forbidden. And

if it imparted a taste

for deterioration, it is permitted.

The Gemara explains:

What is the reason of Rabbi Meir

who forbade “one who imparts a detrimental taste

”? He derived [למד]

learned it]

from the purging of gentile vessels.

It is stated in the passage concerning the war with Midian (Numbers 31:22

– 23): “However, the gold, the silver, the copper, the iron, the tin, and the lead: everything that comes into the fire, you shall pass through the fire and it shall be purified; however, it shall be purified with water of sprinkling; and everything that does not come into the fire, you shall pass through water.” It follows that since the gentile used the vessel with hot substances, it must be purged and fired so that it will expel what it absorbed.

Rabbi Meir expounded:

Is the purging of gentile vessels not a case of one who imparts a detrimental taste?!

For every cooked dish that remains overnight has its taste impaired, and ordinary vessels are not presumed to have been used that day,

and

nevertheless

the Merciful One forbade

using these vessels without purging.

Here too

with regard to other prohibitions,

there is no difference,

and it is forbidden even when it imparts a detrimental taste.

And the other one?

And what did Rabbi Shimon hold?

He held

in accordance with the

words of

Rav Huna, son of Rav Chiya.

For Rav Huna, son of Rav Chiya, said: The Torah forbade only a pot used that day, [שבישל בה עובד כוכבים היום]

in which a gentile cooked that day]

for it does not cause deterioration.

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

And the other one?

And what did Rabbi Meir hold?

According to Rabbi Meir, even

a pot used that day inevitably causes a slight deterioration,

and nevertheless it was permitted only through purging. Infer from this: one who imparts a detrimental taste is also forbidden. And what is Rabbi Shimon’s reason? From where does he have [the basis] to distinguish between one who imparts an enhancing taste and one who imparts a detrimental taste?

For it was taught,

it is stated in the Torah (Deuteronomy 14:21

“You shall not eat any carcass; to the stranger who is in your gates

you shall give it and he shall eat it",

,”