Babylonian Talmud: Tractate ‘Abodah Zarah

Folio 66a

We learnt: IF YEN NESEK FELL UPON GRAPES etc. Now it is assumed that [the reference is to] new wine upon grapes; and yet [are they not disqualified only] if it imparts a flavour?²  — No, [they are prohibited] however small the quantity be. Since, however, it states in the sequel: THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHATEVER DERIVES ADVANTAGE [FROM YEN NESEK BY ITS] IMPARTING A FLAVOUR IS PROHIBITED; WHATEVER DOES NOT DERIVE ADVANTAGE [FROM YEN NESEK BY ITS] IMPARTING A FLAVOUR IS PERMITTED, it follows that we are dealing here with a case where it does impart a flavour. What, then, of Abaye?³  — [He explains] our Mishnah as referring to old wine [which fell] upon grapes.⁴

If wine-vinegar [becomes mixed] with malt-vinegar or wheat-yeast with barley yeast,⁵  Abaye said: [The mixture is prohibited when the unlawful element] imparts a flavour and we use the criterion of flavour; and since each has a separate flavour, it is a case of one species [being mixed] with a different species, and in such circumstances [the disqualification depends upon the prohibited element] imparting its flavour [to the mixture]. Raba, on the other hand, said: [It is prohibited] however small the quantity be and we use the criterion of name; and since each is called vinegar or yeast, they belong to the same species and a minimum quantity [suffices to disqualify] with what belongs to the same species. Abaye said: Whence do I declare that we use the criterion of flavour? As we have learnt: Spices of two or three different categories⁶  which belong to the same species,⁷  or three species [of one category], are prohibited⁸  and may be combined together;⁹  and Hezekiah said: We are dealing here with kinds of [condiments which impart a flavour of] sweetness¹⁰  because they are appropriately used for sweetening what is cooked. Now this is quite right if you maintain that we use the criterion of flavour, since they all taste alike; but should you maintain that we use the criterion of name, each of them has a separate name!¹¹  — Raba, however, can reply:¹²  Whose teaching is this? It is R. Meir's, as it has been taught: R. Judah says in the name of R. Meir: Whence is it that all the prohibited things of the Torah may be combined together?¹³  — As it Is stated, Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing¹⁴  — everything which I declared to be abominable comes within the law of Thou shalt not eat.¹⁵

If [prohibited] vinegar fell into [permitted] wine, all agree that it depends on whether it imparts a flavour;¹⁶  but if [prohibited] wine fell into [permitted] vinegar,¹⁷  Abaye said [that it is prohibited] however small the quantity be, and Raba said [that it depends upon whether the forbidden element] imparts a flavour. Abaye said [that it is prohibited] however small the quantity be,

1. What the proportion of the forbidden element must be to the whole for the mixture to be allowed is discussed at the end of this Gemara (p. 329).
2. This refutes Abaye.
3. Who prohibits them however small be the quantity of wine which fell upon them.
4. And then all agree that the prohibition depends on the flavour.
5. I.e., the wine-vinegar being nesek and the wheat-leaven being part of a heave-offering.
6. Viz., they are forbidden for common use under different headings, as, e.g., 'orlah, heave-offering etc.
7. E.g., white pepper, black pepper, etc.
8. When they impart a flavour to food with which they have been mixed.
9. If each one by itself is not sufficient to impart a flavour but together they are ('Orlah, II, 10).
10. They must all have the same taste if they are to be combined together to disqualify the mixture.
11. Why then should they combine?
12. He rejects Hezekiah's interpretation.
13. If each element is itself insufficient to disqualify.
14. Deut. XIV, 3.
15. Consequently the criterion in regard to combination is neither name nor taste. The forbidden character of the several spices is in itself sufficient to make them combine.
16. Because the vinegar is not affected either in its odour or taste before it mixes with the wine and it is thus a case of the mixture of two species.
17. As soon as the wine begins to fall into the vessel, it is affected by the odour of the vinegar, even before the two liquids actually mix.

If a heathen [smelt the wine] of an Israelite through the bung-hole²  it is all right; but if an Israelite does this with the wine of a heathen Abaye declared it prohibited whereas Raba declared it permitted. Abaye declared it prohibited because the smell is something actual, whereas Raba declared it permitted because the smell is not something actual. Raba said: Whence do I maintain that the smell is not considered anything at all? As we have learnt: If they used cumin of a heave-offering as fuel for an oven and baked a loaf in it, the loaf is permitted because it [absorbs] not the taste but the smell of the cumin.³  [How does] Abaye [meet this argument]? — It is different in this instance because the prohibited element was burnt. R. Mari said: This is like [the difference between the following] Tannaim: If a man removes a warm loaf [from the oven] and places it upon a cask of wine⁴  which is heave-offering, R. Meir prohibits and R. Judah permits it;⁵  R. Jose permits it with a wheaten-loaf but prohibits it with a barley-loaf because the latter absorbs [the fumes of the wine]. Is not the issue here that one Master regards smell as something actual and the other regards it as nothing at all? From Raba's viewpoint the Tannaim do certainly differ on this matter;⁶  but from Abaye's viewpoint are we to say that the Tannaim differ on this matter!⁷  — Abaye can reply: Has it not been stated in this connection: Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: With a hot loaf and open cask

1. The smell of vinegar is stronger than of wine, and people would judge the mixture by the odour.
2. To see whether it was matured.
3. Ter. X, 4. And if the smell were considered something actual, the loaf would be prohibited.
4. The mouth of the cask being open so that the smell of the wine penetrates the loaf.
5. To a non-priest.
6. Because his opinion coincides with R. Judah's, whereas R. Meir by prohibiting the loaf obviously takes notice of the smell of the wine.
7. Abaye could explain that even R. Judah regards smell as something actual, only his opinion is that the loaf does not absorb the fumes of the wine.