Babylonian Talmud: Tractate ‘Abodah Zarah

Folio 68a

'Ulla said: The difference [between R. Meir and R. Simeon] is over the circumstance where [the mixture] is improved [by the addition of the forbidden element] and in the end deteriorates, but if it deteriorates in the first instance all agree that it is permitted. R. Haga quoted against 'Ulla: If wine [which is nesek] fell into lentils or vinegar into split beans it is prohibited, but R. Simeon permits it. Hence is a case where it deteriorates from the outset, and for all that they differ! — 'Ulla replied: Haga is ignorant of what the Rabbis are here discussing and yet quotes it in objection. With what are we dealing here? E.g., it fell into cold split beans and he then warms them, the effect of which is to improve them, and only in the end are they deteriorated, and so they are prohibited. R. Johanan, on the other hand, said: The difference is when [the mixture] deteriorates from the outset. The question was asked: Is the difference over a case where it deteriorates from the outset and all agree that it is prohibited when it first improves and only in the end deteriorates, or perhaps in either event there is a difference of opinion?⁴  — The question remains unanswered.

R. Amram said: Is it possible that R. Johanan's statement⁵  should have any substance and not be the subject of a Mishnaic teaching? He went forth and examined and found a teaching. For we learnt: If non-holy yeast fell into dough and was sufficient to leaven it and did actually leaven it, and subsequently there fell into it yeast of a heave-offering or yeast of mixed plantings⁶  sufficient to cause leavening, it is prohibited — but R. Simeon permits it.⁷  Now, here is a case where [the mixture] deteriorated from the outset⁸  and yet they differ!⁹  — R. Zera said: It is otherwise with dough because it is capable of fermenting many other pieces of dough.¹⁰

Come and hear:¹¹  If yeast of a heave-offering and also some which was non-holy fell into dough,¹²  each being sufficient to cause leavening, and they leavened it, then it is prohibited; but R. Simeon permits it. If the yeast of a heave-offering fell in first, all agree that it is prohibited;¹³  but if the non-holy yeast fell in first and then the yeast of a heave-offering or mixed plantings,¹⁴  it is prohibited, but R. Simeon permits it. Now here is a case where it deteriorated from the outset and yet they differ! Should you answer that here also

1. I.e., if it was unfit for consumption because it was so deteriorated, the prohibition departs from it.
2. So that it had never been fit for consumption; consequently the prohibition of nebelah does not apply to it.
3. It is not regarded as an animal at all.
4. Viz., R. Meir prohibits and R. Simeon permits it.
5. That the difference is when the mixture deteriorates from the outset.
6. Prohibited by the law of Lev. XIX, 19.
7. 'Orlah II, 10.
8. Since it was already leavened before the prohibited yeast fell into it. The effect must be to spoil the dough.
9. This supports R. Johanan.
10. The yeast that fell into the dough deteriorated it from the point of view of eating; yet it was an advantage by rendering it capable of leavening other pieces of dough.
11. Another attempt is made to find a teaching in support of R. Johanan's statement.
12. At the same time, and the combined quantity was greater than was necessary for leavening.
13. Because there was improvement at first and only in the end it deteriorated because of the second quantity of yeast.
14. And leavened it so that it was worsened from the outset by the unlawful element.

Why were the three clauses³  which are taught necessary? — It is quite right that he quotes the third because he thereby teaches us that there is difference of opinion even when it deteriorated from the outset. The second likewise [taught us that] if it improved and in the end deteriorated all agree that it is prohibited. But why [quote] the first clause? Since in the third clause, where no improvement at all occurred, the Rabbis prohibit it, how much more so [must they prohibit it] where there was improvement! — Abaye said: The first clause is necessary because of R. Simeon,⁴  and the Rabbis spoke thus to R. Simeon: This dough should take two hours to leaven and what caused it to leaven in one hour? — [Yeast which was] prohibited.⁵  How does R. Simeon [meet this argument]? — When there was improvement it was caused by both [kinds of yeast]⁶  and when there was deterioration it was also caused by both. But according to R. Simeon, the lawful and prohibited elements should be combined and render [the dough] prohibited! — R. Simeon follows his own opinion, viz., that even two prohibited elements⁷  are not to be combined,⁸  for we have learnt: 'Orlah and mixed plantings may be combined; R. Simeon says that they may not be combined.⁹

A mouse fell into a cask of beer and Rab prohibited the beer. Some Rabbis mentioned this in the presence of R. Shesheth and remarked: He evidently was of the opinion that when it imparts a worsened flavour it is prohibited. [R. Shesheth] said to them: Rab certainly maintains elsewhere that when it imparts a worsened flavour it is permitted. Here, however, we have an anomaly since it is something repugnant and people recoil from it; and even then the Divine Law prohibited it¹⁰  with the consequence that although it imparts a worsened flavour it is nevertheless prohibited. The Rabbis said to R. Shesheth: According to your argument [a creeping thing] should defile¹¹  whether moist or dry; why then have we learnt: They defile when moist but not when dry!¹²  — And according to your reasoning semen should defile whether moist or dry; why then have we learnt: It defiles when moist but not when dry! What, however, you could say is that the semen of which the Divine Law speaks [as defiling] is such as is capable of causing fertilisation; and likewise here [in connection with creeping things] the Divine Law uses the expression when they are dead,¹³  i.e., when they have the appearance of being dead.¹⁴  R. Shimi of Nehardea objected: Is [the mouse something] repugnant; is it not brought upon the table of kings! — R. Shimi of Nehardea said:¹⁵  There is no contradiction, for [what is served at meals] is the fieldmouse and [what fell into the beer] was the domestic mouse.

Raba said: The legal decision is that when it imparts a worsened flavour it is permitted, but what was Rab's reason [for prohibiting it] in the case where a mouse fell into beer I do not know. Was it because he held that when it imparts a worsened flavour it is prohibited and the legal decision is not in agreement with him, or because he held that when it imparts a worsened flavour it is permitted but a mouse in the beer causes an improvement [to the flavour]!

The question was asked:

1. That there is a special feature about dough, and no general rule can be deduced from it.
2. Cf. n. 1.
3. (a) Holy and non-holy yeast fell in the dough at the same time. (b) The holy yeast fell in first. (c) Yen nesek fell into lentils.
4. Who permits the dough when the unlawful yeast fell in simultaneously.
5. Consequently the yeast was at first an advantage and only in the end a cause of deterioration, and even R. Simeon admits that this is prohibited.
6. And not only by the prohibited yeast.
7. Each of which is insufficient in quantity.
8. To constitute a quantity sufficient to render something prohibited.
9. 'Orlah, II, 1.
10. Lev. XI, 29. That the mouse was eaten, v. Isa. LXVI, 17.
11. For the reason that the Torah prohibited it despite its repugnance.
12. Liquid being a conductor of defilement.
13. Lev. XI, 32, only then does contact cause defilement.
14. I.e., when they are moist.
15. [To be deleted with MS.M.]