Previous Folio / ‘Abodah Zarah Directory / Tractate List / Home / Navigate Site

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate ‘Abodah Zarah

Folio 67a

all agree that it is prohibited;1  with a cold loaf and a stoppered cask all agree that it is permitted; they only differ when the loaf is hot and the cask stoppered or when the loaf is cold and the cask open; and the case under consideration2  is like a hot loaf upon an open cask.

THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHATEVER DERIVES ADVANTAGE [FROM YEN NESEK BY ITS] IMPARTING A FLAVOUR etc. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: Such is the legal decision.3  Further declared Rab Judah in the name of Samuel: This teaching only applies when [the vinegar] fell into hot split beans;4  but if it fell into cold split beans5  and he then warms them6  the effect is to improve them and only in the end are they deteriorated, and therefore they are prohibited. Similarly when Rabin came [from Palestine] he reported that Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: This teaching only applies when [the vinegar] fell into hot split beans; but if it fell into cold split beans and he then warms them the effect is to improve them and only in the end are they deteriorated, and therefore they are prohibited. There was a similar report from Rab Dimi when he came [from Palestine, and he added] that they used to do this7  on Sabbath-eves in Sepphoris and they called them cress-dish.8

R. Simeon b. Lakish said: When [the Rabbis] use the phrase 'it imparts a worsened flavour,'[they do not mean] that we are to say that a certain dish lacks salt or is oversalted, or lacks spice or is over-spiced;9  but [what they do mean is] any food which is not lacking in anything and is not eaten because of this.10  Another version is: R. Simeon b. Lakish said: When [the Rabbis] use the phrase 'it imparts a worsened flavour', we do not attribute [the bad flavour to the fact that] a certain dish lacks salt or is oversalted, or lacks spice or is over-spiced, but [we declare that] now only it has deteriorated [owing to the mixture].11

R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Johanan: Whenever the flavour and substance [of the prohibited element in a mixture are perceptible] it is prohibited [and one who eats it] is liable to the punishment of lashes; and that is a quantity equal to the size of an olive [of the prohibited element mixed] with a quantity equal to half a loaf.12

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. Because the smell certainly affects the loaf.
  2. The Israelite smelling the heathen's wine through the bung-hole.
  3. Viz., that when the wine or vinegar causes a deterioration in the value of the food-stuff it is permitted.
  4. The effect is to spoil them.
  5. Which improves the flavour.
  6. In order to destroy the advantage of the vinegar.
  7. Pour vinegar upon cold split beans.
  8. Cf. supra 30b.
  9. And would not for that reason be eaten quite apart from the disqualifying matter which has been mixed with it.
  10. Viz., the bad flavour which resulted from the mixture with disqualifying matter. Only in that circumstance does it become permitted.
  11. This is a less strict view than what is given in the previous version; because even if it is under- or over-seasoned, it may still be allowed when mixed with what is unlawful, provided this imparted a bad flavour.
  12. I.e., a quantity equal to the size of four eggs (Rashi). To be liable he must in addition have eaten the minimum amount spread over a period which is defined by the phrase 'in which one could eat half a loaf.'

‘Abodah Zarah 67b

 If the taste [is perceptible] but not the substance,1  it is prohibited but he is not punished with lashes; should, however, [the unlawful element] have intensified the flavour so as to worsen it, then it is permitted. Let him then say [more explicitly] that if it imparts a worsened flavour it is permitted! — He thereby informs us that it is so even when there is another element in it which worsens the flavour, and [that] the legal decision is in accord with the second version of R. Simeon b. Lakish's statement.2

R. Kahana said: We learn from the words of them all3  that when [the forbidden element] imparts a worsened flavour it is permitted. Abaye said to him: As regards all the rest of them very well, but since R. Simeon b. Lakish has the words, 'When [the Rabbis] use the phrase,' it follows that he personally does not hold that view. Are we, then, to infer that there are some who maintain that when [the forbidden element] imparts a worsened flavour it is prohibited? — Yes, for it has been taught: Whether it imparts a worsened or improved flavour it is prohibited — such is the statement of R. Meir; R. Simeon says: If improved it is prohibited but if worsened it is permitted. What is R. Meir's reason? — He derives it from the vessels of Gentiles. The vessels of Gentiles, do they not impart a worsened flavour [to the food cooked in them]? and yet the All-merciful forbade them;4  so here also it makes no difference [and it is prohibited]. How does the other [viz., R. Simeon establish his view]? — In the same manner as R. Huna the son of R. Hiyya who said: The Torah only forbade a utensil which had been used [by a Gentile] the same day, the effect of which is not to worsen the flavour. [What reply is made to this by] the other? — Even in the case of a pot used [by a Gentile] the same day it is impossible that it should not worsen [the flavour] a little. And what is R. Simeon's reason? — Because it has been taught: Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself [nebelah]; thou mayest give it unto the stranger that is within thy gates5  — whatever is fit for use by a stranger is called nebelah,

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. It had become dissolved in the mixture.
  2. The more lenient view is adopted.
  3. Rab Judah, R. Dimi, Resh Lakish, R. Abbahu.
  4. They must be rinsed with boiling water before a Jew may use them. This law is based on Num. XXXI, 23; v. p. 362.
  5. Deut.XIV, 21.