Avodah Zarah 68b — the Talmud in English

And if you say,

and if you say,

here too

there is room to reject!

as

the words of

Rabbi Zeira

above,

who said: “The case of 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 dispute concerning something that was defective from the outset,

come

and

hear

a proof

from the end

of the beraita:

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

But here too it is a case of something defective from the outset, and

nevertheless

they dispute.

And with wine, it is not possible to answer in accordance with the words of Rabbi Zeira.

And if you say, here too

there is room to reject,

as Ulla answered Rabbi Haga

above, that it is speaking

when it initially improved and ultimately impaired,

but they did not dispute concerning something defective from the outset.

And do they dispute

[is it possible to say that they disputed]

when it initially improved and ultimately impaired?!

But it is taught

at the beginning,

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

and Rabbi Shimon also agrees that it is forbidden, since at first it improved it and only afterward impaired it.

Rather, is it not so? Learn from it: they dispute concerning something defective from the outset!

And the conclusion of the discussion is: indeed,

learn from it!

They dispute concerning something defective from the outset.

The Gemara raises an objection:

These three cases that it teaches,

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

why do I need them?

Granted, the case at the end,

that is, wine that fell into lentils,

it teaches us

that

the dispute concerns something defective from the outset.

As above.

And the

middle case [“If the teruma [leaven] fell first, everyone agrees that it is forbidden”]

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

also

comes to teach us that

if it initially improved and ultimately impaired, everyone agrees that it is forbidden.

Rather,

the case at the

beginning,

where teruma leaven and non-sacred leaven fell at the same time, and the Sages and Rabbi Shimon disputed it,

why do I need it?

And is it necessary to teach us that the Sages forbid in this case?! Is it not a kal va-chomer,

now, and what

if in the

end,

where wine fell into lentils,

which does not improve at all,

and nevertheless

the Sages forbid,

at the beginning, where it improves

[for the teruma initially improved the dough, and only afterward impaired it]

is it necessary

[to say that the Sages would forbid in this case] ?!

Abaye said: The beginning is necessary for Rabbi Shimon.

That is, the beginning teaches that Rabbi Shimon permits in this case, despite the fact that at first it improved and only afterward impaired it.

And this is the explanation of the dispute:

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

And if so, the forbidden leaven improved it, and only afterward impaired it. And in a case where it initially improved and ultimately impaired, even Rabbi Shimon agrees that it is forbidden.

And Rabbi Shimon

held

, when they improved it, both of them improved it,

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

when they impaired it, both of them impaired it.

And since the forbidden substance improved it only together with the permitted substance, it is permitted.

The Gemara raises an objection:

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

and let it be forbidden?

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Shimon follows his own reasoning. For he said: Even a forbidden substance and a forbidden substance likewise do not combine

to make it forbidden, as follows below. And all the more so, a permitted substance and a forbidden substance.

For we learned:

in tractate Orla (chapter 2, Mishna 1):

“Orla and the diverse kinds of the vineyard

that fell together into a permitted substance, and there are not two hundred parts of the permitted substance corresponding to them,

combine

to make it forbidden.

Rabbi Shimon says: They do not combine.”

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

A certain mouse fell into a barrel of beer,

and Rav forbade that beer.

Even though the mouse imparts defective flavor into the beer, Rav nevertheless forbade it.

The Sages said it

[they stated Rav’s words before]

Rav Sheshet.

And they asked him:

Shall we say that he holds

[can it be inferred from here that Rav holds]

that one who imparts defective flavor makes it forbidden?

Rav Sheshet said to them: No.

In general, Rav holds that one who imparts defective flavor makes it permitted.

And here, it is a novelty, for

a mouse

is utterly disgusting, and

even without the Torah’s warning

people keep away from it, and nevertheless the Merciful One forbade it.

And for what purpose did He forbid it? It certainly comes to say that even when it imparted defective flavor, it is forbidden.

Therefore,

a mouse that

imparts defective flavor

is likewise forbidden.

The Sages said to Rav Sheshet: If so, from now,

according to your words, that the prohibition of a mouse is “a novelty,” and comes to teach us to forbid it even when it imparts defective flavor,

should it impart ritual impurity

the impurity of a carcass whether it is

moist or

whether it is

dry?

For we learned (Nidda, chapter 7, Mishna 1): “The discharge, the mucous discharge, the spittle, the creeping creature, and the carcass, and the semen,

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

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

The Gemara answers:

And according to your reasoning,

according to your words, since you compare 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.

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

Rather, what have you to say? “Semen,”

the Merciful One said,

to teach us that it imparts impurity only when it is

fit to produce seed.

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

Here too,

it may be said concerning the impurity of a creeping creature:

“At their death”

the Merciful One said,

to teach us that it imparts impurity only

in the manner of their death,

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

This is not so concerning eating, since it is “a novelty”; it is forbidden even when it imparts defective flavor.

Rav Shimi of Nehardea challenged this: And is it repulsive?!

Is a mouse repulsive?

Why, does it not appear on the tables of kings?!

Rav Shimi of Nehardea said: This is not difficult. This refers to a field mouse

[a mouse of the field],

that refers to a city mouse

[a mouse found in settled places].

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

But a mouse found in settled places is repulsive. And since the verse included them in one prohibition and forbade them, it was innovated that even when they impart defective flavor, they are forbidden.

Rava said: The halakha is that one who imparts defective flavor makes it permitted.

Even in the case of creeping creatures, such as a mouse. And he did not hold in accordance with the words of the Gemara above, that “it is a novelty,” and it is forbidden even when it imparts defective flavor.

And concerning the mouse in beer, I do not know what Rav’s reason is

for forbidding it

, whether because he holds that one who imparts defective flavor makes it forbidden, and the halakha is not in accordance with him,

and if so, according to the halakha: a mouse in beer is permitted.

Or because he holds that one who imparts defective flavor makes it permitted, and a mouse in beer improves it.

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