Avodah Zarah 68a — the Talmud in English

The Sages expounded:

every

carcass

that is fit for a foreigner is called a carcass,

but a carcass that

is not fit for a foreigner,

such as one that has spoiled,

is not called a carcass.

And from here Rabbi Shimon learned that a forbidden substance whose taste is defective does not prohibit. The Gemara raises an objection:

But Rabbi Meir?

What did Rabbi Meir expound from this verse?

The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Meir,

that verse serves to exclude one that was spoiled from the outset.

That is to say, from the verse we learned that if an animal had boils during its lifetime and afterward became a carcass, the designation of carcass does not apply to it.

But if it was fit for eating when it became a carcass and afterward spoiled, the designation of carcass does not leave it, even though its taste is now defective. The Gemara raises an objection:

And Rabbi Shimon

from where does he know that the verse came to exclude a carcass that spoiled? Perhaps it came only to exclude one that was spoiled from the outset, as Rabbi Meir says?

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

spoiled from the outset,

it is certainly permitted, and

no exclusion is needed,

for

it is merely earth!

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

Ulla said: The dispute

between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon is only concerning a forbidden substance

that

became mixed with a permitted substance, and

improved

at first,

but ultimately became defective.

For example, the taste of the fat of meat in butter, which at first improves it, but after some time makes it defective.

But

if it

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

He raised an objection

[he objected]

Rav Haga to Ulla:

We learned in a beraita:

Wine that fell into lentils, and vinegar that fell into grits, are forbidden.

And Rabbi Shimon permits,

since it imparted a defective taste.

But here, it is a case of being defective from the outset,

for wine makes the lentils defective immediately when it falls into them,

and

nevertheless

they dispute

the Sages and Rabbi Shimon, and according to the Sages it is forbidden. Whereas according to Ulla’s words, in this case everyone should permit it?

Ulla said: Haga does not know what the Sages are saying, and he raises an objection?!

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

With what are we dealing here? With a case where it fell into cold grits and heated them,

and

it became like one that improved and ultimately became defective, and

therefore, according to the Sages, it is

forbidden.

As we said earlier, 67a.

Up to here the Gemara deals with Ulla’s words.

And Rav Yohanan

disagreed with Ulla and

said: In a case defective from the outset, there is a dispute.

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

The members of the academy had difficulty understanding Rav Yohanan’s words:

It was asked of them:

Does this mean that according to his view, only

in a case defective from the outset is there a dispute, but

if it

improved and ultimately became defective, everyone agrees that it is forbidden?

Or perhaps,

his intention is to say:

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

And they remained at

teyku.

Rav Amram said: Is it possible that Rav Yohanan’s statement is present,

yet it was not taught in the Mishna?!

Is it possible to say that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon also disputed a case of “defective from the outset,” as Rav Yohanan says, and there is no hint of this in the Mishna?!

He went out and examined,

he examined the words of the Mishnayot carefully,

and found,

and found a hint of this in the Mishna.

For we learned

in tractate Orla, chapter 2, Mishna 9:

Leaven

[leavening]

of non-sacred produce that fell into the dough, and there was enough in it to leaven, and it leavened it, and afterward leaven of teruma, or leaven of diverse kinds of the vineyard,

fell into that same dough,

and there is

also

enough in it to leaven,

the dough is

forbidden.

Since it became more leavened through the forbidden leavening.

And Rabbi Shimon permits.

Since the additional leaven leavened the dough excessively, and it became defective.

Rav Amram inferred:

But here,

the forbidden leaven

was defective from the outset, and

nevertheless

they dispute.

And from here we have found a source for Rav Yohanan’s words, that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon applies also when it was defective from the outset.

Rav Zeira said:

It should be rejected:

A dough is different, since it is fit to leaven

[to ferment]

many other doughs with it,

and therefore, even though the forbidden leaven made it defective with regard to eating, nevertheless it improved it with regard to leavening other doughs. And in this the tannaim disputed: whether even in a case where there is not here a complete defect, it is forbidden.

But in a case where the prohibition is defective from the outset, it is possible to say that they did not dispute, and everyone agrees that it is permitted.

The Gemara proves from another beraita in accordance with Rav Yohanan’s words:

Come and hear:

We learned in a beraita:

Leaven of teruma and of non-sacred produce that fell

simultaneously

into the dough,

and there is

enough in this one to leaven and enough in that one to leaven, and they leavened

the dough excessively,

, it is forbidden.

Rabbi Shimon permits.

Since they imparted a defective taste.

And if

that of

the leaven of

teruma fell first

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

everyone agrees that it is forbidden.

Since a forbidden substance that improved and ultimately became defective is forbidden according to everyone.

And if

leaven

of

non-sacred produce

fell into the dough and leavened it

, and afterward leaven fell

of

teruma, or of diverse kinds of the vineyard, it is forbidden.

And Rabbi Shimon permits,

since they imparted a defective taste.

The Gemara infers:

But here,

the leaven of the teruma

was defective from the outset, and

nevertheless

they dispute.

And from here it is proven in accordance with Rav Yohanan’s words, that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon applies also when it was defective from the outset.