עבודה זרה דף סח

שאין ראויה לגר — אינה קרויה נבלה.

and any carcass that is unfit even for a ger toshav to consume, e.g., one that turned rancid and is unfit for consumption, is not called an unslaughtered carcass with regard to its prohibition.

ורבי מאיר, ההוא למעוטי סרוחה מעיקרא, ורבי שמעון — סרוחה מעיקרא לא צריכא מיעוטא, עפרא בעלמא הוא.

And what can Rabbi Meir respond to this? He could say: That verse is written to exclude meat that was rancid at the outset, i.e., that was not fit for consumption even before the animal’s death, due to a defect in the animal. By contrast, a carcass that was fit for consumption when the animal died and was consequently rendered forbidden remains forbidden even when it becomes rancid. And Rabbi Shimon could counter that meat that was rancid at the outset does not need specific exclusion by the verse, as it is considered as mere dust and does not fall under the category of an unslaughtered animal carcass.

אמר עולא: מחלוקת שהשביח ולבסוף פגם, אבל פגם מעיקרא — דברי הכל מותר.

§ Ulla says: This dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon is with regard to a forbidden food that enhanced the flavor of a dish when it first fell into it and subsequently detracted from its flavor. In this case Rabbi Meir deems the dish forbidden, since the forbidden food enhanced its flavor at the outset. But in a case of forbidden food that detracted from the flavor of the dish at the outset, everyone agrees that it is permitted.

איתיביה רב חגא לעולא: יין שנפל לתוך עדשים, וחומץ שנפל לתוך גריסין — אסור, ורבי שמעון מתיר. והא הכא דפגם מעיקרא הוא, ופליגי!

Rav Ḥagga raised an objection to the opinion of Ulla from a baraita: Forbidden wine that fell into lentils, or forbidden vinegar that fell into split beans, renders the food forbidden. And Rabbi Shimon deems them permitted. But here it is a case where the forbidden food detracted from the flavor of the dish at the outset, and the tanna’im disagree.

אמר עולא: חגא לא מידע ידע מאי קאמרי רבנן, תיובתא קא מותיב? הכא במאי עסקינן? כגון שנפל לתוך גריסין צוננין והרתיחם, נעשה כמי שהשביח ולבסוף פגם, ואסור.

Ulla said: Ḥagga does not know what the Sages say, yet he raises an objection? Here we are dealing with a case where the vinegar fell into the cold split beans and one subsequently heated them, in which case it becomes like a forbidden food that enhanced the flavor of the mixture and subsequently detracted from it, as vinegar enhances the flavor of cold split beans, and it is consequently forbidden according to Rabbi Meir.

ורבי יוחנן אמר: בפוגם מעיקרא מחלוקת.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon is with regard to a case where the forbidden food detracts from the flavor of the permitted food from the outset.

איבעיא להו: בפוגם מעיקרא מחלוקת, אבל השביח ולבסוף פגם — דברי הכל אסור, או דלמא בין בזו ובין בזו מחלוקת? תיקו.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does Rabbi Yoḥanan mean that the dispute is with regard to a case where the forbidden food detracts from its flavor from the outset, but if it enhanced it at first and subsequently detracted from it, everyone agrees that it is forbidden? Or, perhaps he means that the dispute is both in this case and in that case. The Gemara comments: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

אמר רב עמרם: אפשר איתא להא דרבי יוחנן, ולא תניא לה במתניתין?

Rav Amram said: Is it possible that there is substance to this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, i.e., that there is disagreement with regard to a case where the forbidden food detracts from the flavor of the permitted food from the outset, but it is not taught in the Mishna?

נפק דק ואשכח, דתניא: שאור של חולין שנפל לתוך העיסה, ויש בו כדי להחמיץ והחמיצה, ואחר כך נפל שאור של תרומה או

Rav Amram went out, examined the Mishna, and discovered that this dispute is taught in a mishna (Orla 2:8): In the case of non-sacred leaven that fell into the dough, and there is enough of it to cause the dough to become leavened, and the dough indeed became leavened, and subsequently leaven of teruma, or leaven of forbidden diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, fell into this dough, and there is enough of it to cause the dough to become leavened, the dough is forbidden, because the forbidden leaven is considered to have contributed to the process of the leavening. But Rabbi Shimon deems the dough permitted, because the additional leaven has a negative impact on the dough, which was already leavened.

שאור של כלאי הכרם ויש בו כדי להחמיץ — אסור, ורבי שמעון מתיר.

והא הכא, דפגם מעיקרא הוא, ופליגי!

Rav Amram comments: But here it is a case where the forbidden substance detracted from the flavor of the dough at the outset, and Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree, as a mishna that is not attributed explicitly to a tanna represents the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

אמר רבי זירא: שאני עיסה, הואיל וראויה לחמע בה כמה עיסות אחרות.

Rabbi Zeira said: Dough is different, because even if the additional leaven is detrimental to its flavor, in any event the dough is enhanced, since it is suitable for leavening several other batches of dough with it. The more it is leavened, the more it is enhanced in terms of this purpose.

תא שמע: שאור של תרומה ושל חולין שנפלו לתוך העיסה, בזה כדי להחמיץ ובזה כדי להחמיץ וחימצו — אסור, ורבי שמעון מתיר.

The Gemara suggests another source for the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Come and hear that which is taught in a baraita: In the case of leaven of teruma and non-sacred leaven that fell into the dough, if this one was sufficient to cause the dough to become leavened and that one was sufficient to cause the dough to become leavened, and they both cause the dough to become leavened, it is forbidden. Rabbi Shimon deems it permitted. If the leaven of teruma fell in first, everyone agrees that it is forbidden. If the non-sacred leaven fell in first and subsequently the leaven of teruma or of diverse kinds that were planted in a vineyard fell in, this is also forbidden; but Rabbi Shimon deems it permitted.

נפל של תרומה תחלה — דברי הכל אסור. נפל של חולין ואחר כך נפל של תרומה או של כלאי הכרם — אסור, ורבי שמעון מתיר.

והא הכא, דפגם מעיקרא, ופליגי! וכי תימא: הכא נמי

The Gemara comments: But here it is a case where the forbidden substance detracted from the flavor of the dough from the outset, and they disagree. And if you would say: Here too,

כדרבי זירא, תא שמע מסיפא: היין שנפל לתוך עדשים, וחומץ שנפל לתוך גריסין — אסור, ורבי שמעון מתיר. והא הכי נמי דפגם מעיקרא, ופליגי!

this can be explained in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Zeira that dough is different because it is enhanced in any event, come and hear a refutation of that explanation from the latter clause of the same baraita: Forbidden wine that fell into lentils or forbidden vinegar that fell into split beans renders the food forbidden. And Rabbi Shimon deems them permitted. And here also, it is a case where the forbidden substance detracted from the flavor of the dough from the outset, and they disagree.

וכי תימא, הכא נמי כדשני ליה עולא לרבי חגא: כשהשביח ולבסוף פגם, ומי פליגי כשהשביח ולבסוף פגם? והא קתני: נפל של תרומה תחלה — דברי הכל אסור!

And if you would say: Here too, it can be explained as Ulla responded to Rabbi Ḥagga, that the baraita is referring to a case when the vinegar enhanced the flavor of the split beans and subsequently detracted from it, e.g., where it spilled into cold split beans and then they were heated, this cannot be said, as do they actually disagree in a case when the forbidden substance enhanced the flavor of the permitted food and subsequently detracted from it? But isn’t it taught in the first clause of the baraita that if the leaven of teruma fell in first, before the non-sacred leaven, everyone agrees that it renders the dough forbidden, as it enhanced the flavor of the dough at the outset, even though the flavor was subsequently detracted from by the non-sacred leaven?

אלא לאו שמע מינה, בפגם מעיקרא מחלוקת? שמע מינה.

Rather, must one not conclude from it that the dispute is with regard to a case where the forbidden substance detracted from the flavor of the food from the outset? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is so.

הני תלתא בבי דקתני, למה לי? בשלמא בבא דסיפא, קא משמע לן: בפוגם מעיקרא מחלוקת. מציעתא נמי, השביח ולבסוף פגם — דברי הכל אסור.

The Gemara asks: With regard to those three clauses that the baraita teaches concerning different cases, why do I need all three of them? Granted, the last clause, concerning the wine spilling into the lentils, teaches us that the dispute is with regard to a case where the forbidden substance detracts from the flavor of the food from the outset. The middle clause, with regard to the case where the leaven of teruma fell in first, also teaches a novel halakha, which is that in the case of a forbidden substance that enhanced the flavor of the food and subsequently detracted from it, everyone agrees that the mixture is forbidden.

אלא רישא למה לי? השתא, ומה סיפא דלא קא משבח כלל, אסרי רבנן, רישא דקא משבח מיבעיא?

But why do I need the first clause, concerning the case of non-sacred leaven and leaven of teruma falling into the dough together? It could have been inferred from the other two clauses that the dough is forbidden, in the following manner: Now that in the case of the last clause, where the forbidden substance does not enhance the permitted food at all, the Rabbis deem it forbidden, is it necessary to say that it is forbidden in the first clause, where the forbidden substance enhances the food’s flavor at first before detracting from it?

אמר אביי: רישא לרבי שמעון אצטריך, והכי קאמרי ליה רבנן לרבי שמעון: עיסה זו ראויה להחמיץ בשתי שעות, מי גרם לה שתחמיץ בשעה אחת? איסור.

Abaye said: The first clause is necessary to teach that Rabbi Shimon deems it permitted. And this is what the Rabbis said to Rabbi Shimon: This dough was fit to become leavened in two hours if the permitted leaven had fallen into it alone. What caused it to become leavened in one hour? The forbidden leaven. Therefore, the dough is forbidden.

ורבי שמעון? כשהשביחו, שניהם השביחו; כשפגמו, שניהם פגמו.

And Rabbi Shimon could respond that when the two types of leaven enhanced the flavor of the dough, they both enhanced it, not only the forbidden leaven; and when they subsequently detracted from it, they both detracted from it. Therefore, it is permitted.

לרבי שמעון, ליצטרף היתר ואיסור בהדי הדדי וליתסר!

The Gemara asks: Even according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, let the permitted leaven and the forbidden leaven combine together and render the dough forbidden, since Rabbi Shimon concedes that if the permitted food was initially enhanced by the forbidden substance it is forbidden.

רבי שמעון לטעמיה, דאמר: אפילו איסור ואיסור נמי לא מיצטרפי,

The Gemara responds: Rabbi Shimon conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says that even a forbidden substance and another forbidden substance do not combine to render a mixture forbidden. Accordingly, a forbidden substance and a permitted substance certainly do not.

דתנן: הערלה וכלאי הכרם מצטרפין, רבי שמעון אומר: אין מצטרפין.

The Gemara comments: This is as we learned in a mishna (Me’ila 18a): If orla and diverse kinds planted in a vineyard fell into a permitted substance, and neither one is sufficient in its own quantity to render the mixture forbidden, they combine to render it forbidden if together they are of a sufficient quantity. Rabbi Shimon says: They do not combine, and each forbidden substance is treated individually. Here too, since when the forbidden leaven enhanced the dough, it was not sufficient to enhance it by itself, the permitted leaven does not combine with it to render the dough forbidden.

ההוא עכברא דנפל לחביתא דשיכרא, אסריה רב לההוא שיכרא. אמרוה רבנן קמיה דרב ששת: נימא קסבר נותן טעם לפגם אסור?

§ The Gemara recounts an incident involving a certain mouse that fell into a barrel of beer. Rav deemed that barrel of beer forbidden. The Sages said before Rav Sheshet: Shall we say that Rav maintains that even in a case where the forbidden substance imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture, it is forbidden? Presumably, the mouse imparted flavor to the detriment of the beer.

אמר להו רב ששת: בעלמא סבר רב נותן טעם לפגם מותר, והכא חידוש הוא, דהא מימאס מאיס ובדילי אינשי מיניה, ואפילו הכי אסריה רחמנא.

Rav Sheshet said to them: Rav generally maintains that in a case where the forbidden substance imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture, it is permitted. But here, in the case of a mouse, it is a novelty that the Torah prohibits the flavor from a mouse at all, as it is repulsive and people distance themselves from consuming it, and even so the Merciful One prohibits it. Therefore, although it imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture, it is still forbidden.

הלכך נותן טעם לפגם נמי אסור.

אמרו ליה רבנן לרב ששת: אלא מעתה, ליטמא לח ויבש, אלמה תנן: מטמאין לחים ואין מטמאין יבשים?

The Sages said to Rav Sheshet: If that is so, that the halakha with regard to a mouse is considered a novelty and is therefore understood to be more stringent than the norm, then a dead mouse should impart ritual impurity whether it is moist or dried out. Why did we learn in a mishna (Nidda 54b) that carcasses of creeping animals impart impurity when they are moist but do not impart impurity when they are dried out?

ולטעמיך, שכבת זרע תטמא לח ויבש, אלמה תנן: מטמאין לחין ואין מטמאין יבשין?

Rav Sheshet responded: And according to your reasoning, in which you compare the halakhot of ritual impurity to forbidden foods, then with regard to semen, which is also repulsive, it should impart impurity whether moist or dried out. Why did we learn in a mishna (Nidda 54b) that semen imparts impurity when it is moist but it does not impart impurity when it is dried out?

אלא מאי אית לך למימר? ״שכבת זרע״ אמר רחמנא, בראויה להזריע. הכא נמי, ״במתם״ אמר רחמנא, כעין מותם.

Rather, what have you to say? With regard to the ritual impurity of semen, the Merciful One states: “The flow of seed” (Leviticus 15:16), meaning that the reference is to semen that is fit to fertilize. Here too, with regard to the ritual impurity of a mouse, the verse states: “When they have died” (Leviticus 11:32). The Merciful One states that the carcasses of creeping animals impart impurity only when they are similar to their state at time of their death, i.e., when they are still moist. Therefore, there is no contradiction to the claim that the prohibition against eating a mouse is a novelty and consequently applies even when it detracted from the flavor of the food into which it fell.

מתקיף לה רב שימי מנהרדעא: ומי מאיס? והלא עולה על שלחן של מלכים! אמר רב שימי מנהרדעא: לא קשיא, הא בדדברא, הא בדמתא.

Rav Shimi of Neharde’a objects to the assumption that a mouse is repulsive: And is it repulsive? But isn’t it served at the table of kings and considered a delicacy? Rav Shimi of Neharde’a said in clarification: This is not difficult. This statement, that a mouse is served as a delicacy, is stated with regard to a field mouse, and that statement, that it is repulsive, is stated with regard to a city mouse.

אמר רבא: הלכתא נותן טעם לפגם מותר, ועכברא בשיכרא לא ידענא מאי טעמא דרב, אי משום דקסבר נותן טעם לפגם אסור, ולית הלכתא כוותיה,

Rava said: The halakha is that if the forbidden substance imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture, it is permitted. But with regard to a mouse that fell into a barrel of beer, I do not know what the reason was that Rav deemed it forbidden. I do not know whether it was because he maintains that if the forbidden substance imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture it is forbidden, and if so, the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion, or whether it was because although he maintains that if the forbidden substance imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture it is permitted, a mouse that falls into beer enhances its flavor.

אי משום דקסבר נותן טעם לפגם מותר, ועכברא בשיכרא אשבוחי משבח.

איבעיא להו:

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: