Avodah Zarah 68a (סח.) — the Talmud in English

The Sages expounded:

Every

carcass

that is fit for consumption by a gentile is called a carcass;

but a carcass

that is not fit for consumption by a gentile,

such as one that has putrefied,

is not called a carcass.

And from here Rabbi Shimon derived that a forbidden substance whose taste is detrimental does not prohibit. The Gemara asks:

And what did Rabbi Meir derive

from this verse?

The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Meir,

that verse serves to exclude an animal that was putrid from the outset.

That is, we derive from the verse that if an animal was afflicted with boils while alive and subsequently became a carcass, the status of carcass does not apply to it.

But if it was fit for consumption when it became a carcass and only subsequently putrefied, the status of carcass does not leave it, even though its taste is now detrimental. The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Shimon,

from where does he know that the verse comes to exclude a carcass that putrefied? Perhaps it comes only to exclude an animal that was putrid from the outset, as Rabbi Meir maintains?

The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Shimon, if it was

putrid from the outset,

it is certainly permitted, and

no exclusion is necessary,

for

it is merely dust!

Rather, the verse certainly teaches us that if it putrefied after becoming a carcass, it is permitted, since its taste is detrimental.

Ulla said: The dispute

between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon applies only to a forbidden substance

that

became mixed with a permitted substance and

initially enhanced

it,

but ultimately rendered it detrimental.

For example, the taste of the meat’s fat in butter, which initially enhances it but, after some time, renders it detrimental.

But

if it

was detrimental from the outset, everyone agrees that it is permitted.

Rav Haga raised an objection

from this:

to Ulla:

We learned in a beraita:

If wine fell into lentils, or vinegar fell into grits, they are prohibited.

And Rabbi Shimon permits it,

since it imparted detrimental taste.

But here, it was detrimental from the outset,

as the wine renders the lentils detrimental as soon as it falls into them,

and

nevertheless

they disagree,

the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon, and according to the Rabbis it is prohibited. Yet according to Ulla, in this case everyone should permit it?

Ulla said: Haga does not know what the Rabbis said, and he raises an objection?! [

Rav Haga does not know what the Sages said, yet he raises objections?!]

What are we dealing with here? For example, it fell into cold grits and heated them,

and

it thereby became like a case in which it initially enhanced and ultimately rendered the mixture detrimental,

and therefore, according to the Rabbis, it is

prohibited.

As we said above (67a).

Thus far, the Gemara has been discussing Ulla’s ruling.

And Rav Yohanan

disagreed with Ulla and

said: The dispute is concerning a substance that is detrimental from the outset.

According to Rabbi Meir, it is prohibited, and according to Rabbi Shimon, it is permitted.

The students in the study hall had difficulty understanding Rav Yohanan’s statement:

They raised a dilemma:

According to his view, is it only

in a case where it is detrimental from the outset that there is a dispute, but

if it

initially enhanced the mixture and ultimately rendered it detrimental, everyone agrees that it is prohibited?

Or perhaps,

his intention was to say:

There is a dispute in both this case and that case.

And the matter remained

teyku.

Rav Amram said: Is it possible that this statement of Rabbi Yohanan is valid,

yet it was not taught in the Mishna?!

Can it be that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon also disagree in a case where the forbidden substance is detrimental from the outset, as Rav Yohanan says, and that there is no indication of this in the Mishna?!

He went out and examined,

analyzing the language of the mishnayot,

and found

an indication of it in the Mishna.

As we learned

in tractate Orla (chapter 2, Mishna 9):

Leaven

[a leavening agent]

belonging to non-sacred produce, which fell into dough and was sufficient to cause it to leaven, and it caused it to leaven; and afterward leaven belonging to teruma, or leaven belonging to diverse kinds of the vineyard,

fell into that same dough,

and it too

was

sufficient to cause it to leaven,

the dough is

prohibited.

Since it became more leavened through the forbidden leavening agent.

And Rabbi Shimon permits.

Since the additional leavening agent caused the dough to become excessively leavened and thereby rendered it defective.

Rav Amram analyzed this:

But here,

the forbidden leavening agent

was detrimental from the outset, and

nevertheless

they disagree.

We have thus found a source for Rav Yohanan’s statement, that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon also disagree when the forbidden substance is detrimental from the outset.

Rav Zeira said:

This can be rejected:

Dough is different, since it is fit to be used to leaven

[to cause to leaven]

many other batches of dough.

Therefore, even though the forbidden leavening agent rendered this dough defective with regard to consumption, it nevertheless enhanced it with regard to leavening other batches of dough. And the tannaitic authorities disagree in this matter: Is it prohibited even in a case where there is no complete detriment here?

But in a case where the forbidden substance is detrimental from the outset, it may be said that they do not disagree, and everyone agrees that it is permitted.

The Gemara proves Rav Yohanan’s statement from another beraita:

Come and hear:

We learned in a beraita:

Leaven belonging to teruma and leaven belonging to non-sacred produce, which fell

simultaneously

into the dough,

and

each one was sufficient to cause it to leaven, and they caused it to leaven

the dough excessively,

, it is prohibited.

Rabbi Shimon permits.

Since they imparted detrimental taste.

And if

the one belonging to

the leavening agent belonging to

teruma fell first

and caused the dough to leaven, even though afterward leaven belonging to non-sacred produce also fell into it, and together they caused the dough to become defective,

everyone agrees that it is prohibited.

Since a forbidden substance that initially enhanced the mixture and ultimately rendered it detrimental is prohibited according to everyone.

And if

leaven

belonging

to non-sacred produce

fell into the dough and caused it to leaven

, and afterward leaven fell

belonging

to teruma or to diverse kinds of the vineyard, it is prohibited.

And Rabbi Shimon permits,

since they imparted detrimental taste.

The Gemara analyzes this:

But here,

the leaven belonging to teruma

was detrimental from the outset, and

nevertheless

they disagree.

This proves Rav Yohanan’s statement, that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon also disagree when the forbidden substance is detrimental from the outset.