Avodah Zarah 68b (סח:) — the Talmud in English

And if you would say,

and if you say,

here too

there is room to reject this proof:

as

the words of

Rabbi Zeira

above,

who said: “Dough is different, since it is fit to leaven several other doughs with it,” and consequently no proof can be brought from here that they also disagree in a case where it was initially detrimental;

come

and

hear

a proof

from the latter clause

of the beraita:

“Wine that fell into lentils, and vinegar that fell into groats, are forbidden, and Rabbi Shimon permits.”

But here too, it was initially detrimental, and

nevertheless

they disagree.

And with regard to wine, it is not possible to answer as Rabbi Zeira did.

And if you would say, here too

there is room to reject this proof,

as Ulla answered Rabbi Haga

above, that it is referring

to a case where it initially improved the mixture and ultimately made it worse,

but they do not disagree in a case where it was initially detrimental.

Do they disagree

[is it possible to say that they disagree]

in a case where it initially improved the mixture and ultimately made it worse?!

But it teaches

in the first clause:

“If the teruma fell first, everyone agrees that it is forbidden,”

and Rabbi Shimon also agrees that it is forbidden, since at first it improved the mixture and only afterward made it worse.

Rather, is it not the case that one may conclude from this that they disagree when it was initially detrimental?!

And the conclusion of the discussion is: indeed,

conclude from this!

They disagree in a case where it was initially detrimental.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Why do I need these three cases that it teaches,

[the three cases brought in the beraita concerning deterioration: two involving teruma leaven and non-sacred leaven that fell into dough, and one involving wine that fell into lentils]

?

Granted, as for the latter case,

that is, wine that fell into lentils,

it teaches us

that

they disagree when it was initially detrimental,

as stated above.

And the

middle case [“

the teruma leaven fell first, and everyone agrees that it is forbidden”]

also

comes to teach us that

when it initially improved the mixture and ultimately made it worse, everyone agrees that it is forbidden.

Rather,

the first

case,

in which teruma leaven and non-sacred leaven fell simultaneously, and the Sages and Rabbi Shimon disagree,

why do I need it?

Is it necessary to teach us that the Sages prohibit this case? Is this not derived by a

kal va-chomer:

if

in the latter case,

where wine fell into lentils,

which did not improve them at all,

nevertheless

the Sages prohibit them,

in the first case, where it did improve them

[the teruma initially improved the dough, and only afterward made it worse]

is it necessary to state

[that the Sages would prohibit this case] ?!

Abaye said: The first case is necessary for Rabbi Shimon.

That is, the first case teaches that Rabbi Shimon permits this case, despite the fact that it initially improved the mixture and only ultimately made it worse.

And this is the explanation of the dispute:

And this is what the Sages said to Rabbi Shimon: This dough was fit to become leavened in two hours. What caused it to become leavened in one hour? The forbidden substance!

And therefore, the forbidden leaven improved the mixture, and only afterward made it worse. And in a case where it initially improved the mixture and ultimately made it worse, even Rabbi Shimon agrees that it is forbidden.

And Rabbi Shimon

held:

, when they improved it, they both improved it,

and it was not the forbidden substance alone that improved it. And afterward,

when they made it worse, they both made it worse.

And since the forbidden substance improved the mixture only in conjunction with a permitted substance, it is permitted.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

According to Rabbi Shimon, let the permitted substance and the forbidden substance combine with one another,

and let them be prohibited?

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Shimon follows his own reasoning. For he says that even two forbidden substances likewise do not combine

to render the mixture forbidden, as follows. And all the more so, a permitted substance and a forbidden substance do not combine.

As we learned:

in tractate Orla (chapter 2, mishna 1):

“Orla and produce of a vineyard planted with diverse seeds

that fell together into a permitted substance, and there is not two hundred times the permitted substance against them,

combine

to render it forbidden.

Rabbi Shimon says: They do not combine.”

The Gemara brought another discussion concerning the law of a forbidden substance that imparted flavor to a permitted substance:

There was a certain mouse that fell into a barrel of beer,

and Rav prohibited that beer.

Although the mouse imparted a detrimental flavor to the beer, Rav nevertheless prohibited it.

The Sages said this ruling

[they stated Rav’s words before]

before Rav Sheshet.

And they asked him:

Shall we say that he holds

[that one may infer from here that Rav holds]

that a substance that imparts a detrimental flavor is forbidden?

Rav Sheshet said to them: No.

In general, Rav holds that a substance that imparts a detrimental flavor is permitted.

But here, it is a novelty, for

the mouse

is utterly repulsive, and

even without the Torah’s warning, people would

keep away from it, and nevertheless the Merciful One prohibited it.

And for what purpose did He prohibit it? Certainly, this teaches that even if it imparted a detrimental flavor, it is forbidden.

Therefore,

a mouse that

imparts a detrimental flavor

is likewise forbidden.

The Sages said to Rav Sheshet: If that is so,

according to your statement that the prohibition of a mouse is “a novelty” and comes to teach that it is prohibited even when it imparts a detrimental flavor,

should it become impure

with the ritual impurity of an animal carcass whether it is

moist or

whether it is

dry?

For we learned (Nidda, chapter 7, mishna 1): “Discharge, mucus, saliva, a creeping creature, an animal carcass, and semen

impart impurity when moist but do not impart impurity when dry”?

The Gemara answers:

But according to your reasoning,

according to your comparison of the prohibition of eating with the law of impurity,

should semen impart impurity when moist and when dry?

For semen is certainly a novelty, since it is repulsive and people keep away from it, and nevertheless it imparts impurity.

But we learned: “They impart impurity when moist but do not impart impurity when dry”?

Rather, what must you say? “Semen”

the Merciful One said,

to teach us that it imparts impurity only when it is

fit to seed.

But dry semen is not fit to seed, and therefore it does not impart impurity.

Here too,

with regard to the impurity of a creeping creature, one may say that

“at their death”

the Merciful One said,

to teach us that it imparts impurity only

in a manner similar to their death,

that is, before it becomes putrid; but once it has dried out and deteriorated, it does not impart impurity.

This is not so with regard to eating: Since it is “a novelty,” it is forbidden even when it imparts a detrimental flavor.

Rav Shimi of Neharde’a challenged this: Is it repulsive?!

Is a mouse repulsive

?! But does it not appear on the tables of kings?

Rav Shimi of Neharde’a said: This is not difficult. This is referring to a mouse of the field

[a field mouse], and

that is referring to one of the city

[a mouse found in inhabited places].

That is, a field mouse is what appears on the tables of kings and is not repulsive.

But a mouse found in inhabited places is repulsive. And since the verse included both of them in a single prohibition and prohibited them, it follows that they are forbidden even if they impart a detrimental flavor.

Rava said: The halakha is that a substance that imparts a detrimental flavor is permitted.

This applies even to creeping creatures, such as a mouse. And he did not accept the Gemara’s earlier reasoning that it is “a novelty” and is therefore forbidden even when it imparts a detrimental flavor.

But as for the mouse in the beer, I do not know Rav’s reason

for prohibiting it

, whether it is because he holds that a substance that imparts a detrimental flavor is forbidden, and the halakha does not follow him,

in which case, according to the halakha, a mouse in beer is permitted.

Or whether it is because he holds that a substance that imparts a detrimental flavor is permitted, but a mouse in beer improves the beer.

And if so, even according to our ruling, a mouse in beer is forbidden.