## Avodah Zarah Daf 68a

###### Avodah Zarah 68a:1
[Avodah Zarah 68a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/68a:1)

שֶׁאֵין רְאוּיָה לְגֵר — אֵינָהּ קְרוּיָה נְבֵלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Avodah Zarah 68a:2
[Avodah Zarah 68a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/68a:2)

וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, הָהוּא לְמַעוֹטֵי סְרוּחָה מֵעִיקָּרָא, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — סְרוּחָה מֵעִיקָּרָא לָא צְרִיכָא מִיעוּטָא, עַפְרָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Avodah Zarah 68a:3
[Avodah Zarah 68a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/68a:3)

אָמַר עוּלָּא: מַחְלוֹקֶת שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחַ וּלְבַסּוֹף פָּגַם, אֲבָל פָּגַם מֵעִיקָּרָא — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.**


###### Avodah Zarah 68a:4
[Avodah Zarah 68a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/68a:4)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב חַגָּא לְעוּלָּא: יַיִן שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ עֲדָשִׁים, וְחוֹמֶץ שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ גְּרִיסִין — אָסוּר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר. וְהָא הָכָא דִּפְגַם מֵעִיקָּרָא הוּא, וּפְלִיגִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Avodah Zarah 68a:5
[Avodah Zarah 68a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/68a:5)

אָמַר עוּלָּא: חַגָּא לָא מִידָּע יָדַע מַאי קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן, תְּיוּבְתָּא קָא מוֹתֵיב? הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ גְּרִיסִין צוֹנְנִין וְהִרְתִּיחָם, נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחַ וּלְבַסּוֹף פָּגַם, וְאָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Avodah Zarah 68a:6
[Avodah Zarah 68a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/68a:6)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בְּפוֹגֵם מֵעִיקָּרָא מַחְלוֹקֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Avodah Zarah 68a:7
[Avodah Zarah 68a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/68a:7)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בְּפוֹגֵם מֵעִיקָּרָא מַחְלוֹקֶת, אֲבָל הִשְׁבִּיחַ וּלְבַסּוֹף פָּגַם — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר, אוֹ דִּלְמָא בֵּין בָּזוֹ וּבֵין בָּזוֹ מַחְלוֹקֶת? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Avodah Zarah 68a:8
[Avodah Zarah 68a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/68a:8)

אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם: אֶפְשָׁר אִיתָא לְהָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְלָא תַּנְיָא לַהּ בְּמַתְנִיתִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?**


###### Avodah Zarah 68a:9
[Avodah Zarah 68a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/68a:9)

נְפַק דָּק וְאַשְׁכַּח, דְּתַנְיָא: שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל חוּלִּין שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ הָעִיסָּה, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהַחְמִיץ וְהֶחְמִיצָה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָפַל שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה אוֹ שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהַחְמִיץ — אָסוּר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Avodah Zarah 68a:10
[Avodah Zarah 68a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/68a:10)

וְהָא הָכָא, דִּפְגַם מֵעִיקָּרָא הוּא, וּפְלִיגִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Avodah Zarah 68a:11
[Avodah Zarah 68a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/68a:11)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: שָׁאנֵי עִיסָּה, הוֹאִיל וּרְאוּיָה לְחַמֵּעַ בָּהּ כַּמָּה עִיסּוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Avodah Zarah 68a:12
[Avodah Zarah 68a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/68a:12)

תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה וְשֶׁל חוּלִּין שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ הָעִיסָּה, בְּזֶה כְּדֵי לְהַחְמִיץ וּבְזֶה כְּדֵי לְהַחְמִיץ וְחִימְּצוּ — אָסוּר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר. נָפַל שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה תְּחִלָּה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר. נָפַל שֶׁל חוּלִּין וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָפַל שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה אוֹ שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם — אָסוּר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Avodah Zarah 68a:13
[Avodah Zarah 68a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/68a:13)

וְהָא הָכָא, דִּפְגַם מֵעִיקָּרָא, וּפְלִיגִי! וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכָא נָמֵי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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,**