## Avodah Zarah Daf 68b

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

כִּדְרַבִּי זֵירָא, תָּא שְׁמַע מִסֵּיפָא: הַיַּיִן שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ עֲדָשִׁים, וְחוֹמֶץ שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ גְּרִיסִין — אָסוּר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר. וְהָא הָכִי נָמֵי דִּפְגַם מֵעִיקָּרָא, וּפְלִיגִי!

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


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

וְכִי תֵּימָא, הָכָא נָמֵי כִּדְשַׁנִּי לֵיהּ עוּלָּא לְרַבִּי חַגָּא: כְּשֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחַ וּלְבַסּוֹף פָּגַם, וּמִי פְּלִיגִי כְּשֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחַ וּלְבַסּוֹף פָּגַם? וְהָא קָתָנֵי: נָפַל שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה תְּחִלָּה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר!

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


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

אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, בִּפְגַם מֵעִיקָּרָא מַחְלוֹקֶת? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

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


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

הָנֵי תְּלָתָא בָּבֵי דְּקָתָנֵי, לְמָה לִי? בִּשְׁלָמָא בָּבָא דְּסֵיפָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: בְּפוֹגֵם מֵעִיקָּרָא מַחְלוֹקֶת. מְצִיעֲתָא נָמֵי, הִשְׁבִּיחַ וּלְבַסּוֹף פָּגַם — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר.

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


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

אֶלָּא רֵישָׁא לְמָה לִי? הַשְׁתָּא, וּמָה סֵיפָא דְּלָא קָא מַשְׁבַּח כְּלָל, אָסְרִי רַבָּנַן, רֵישָׁא דְּקָא מַשְׁבַּח מִיבַּעְיָא?

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


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

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רֵישָׁא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִצְטְרִיךְ, וְהָכִי קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: עִיסָּה זוֹ רְאוּיָה לְהַחְמִיץ בִּשְׁתֵּי שָׁעוֹת, מִי גָּרַם לָהּ שֶׁתַּחֲמִיץ בְּשָׁעָה אַחַת? אִיסּוּר.

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


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

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? כְּשֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחוּ, שְׁנֵיהֶם הִשְׁבִּיחוּ; כְּשֶׁפָּגְמוּ, שְׁנֵיהֶם פָּגְמוּ.

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


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

לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, לִיצְטָרֵף הֶיתֵּר וְאִיסּוּר בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי וְלִיתְּסַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ אִיסּוּר וְאִיסּוּר נָמֵי לָא מִיצְטָרְפִי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

דִּתְנַן: הָעׇרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם מִצְטָרְפִין, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

הָהוּא עַכְבְּרָא דִּנְפַל לְחָבִיתָא דְּשִׁיכְרָא, אַסְרֵיהּ רַב לְהָהוּא שִׁיכְרָא. אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: נֵימָא קָסָבַר נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם אָסוּר?

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


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

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: בְּעָלְמָא סָבַר רַב נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם מוּתָּר, וְהָכָא חִידּוּשׁ הוּא, דְּהָא מִימְאָס מְאִיס וּבְדִילִי אִינָשֵׁי מִינֵּיהּ, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי אַסְרֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא. הִלְכָּךְ נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם נָמֵי אָסוּר.

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


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

אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, לִיטַמֵּא לַח וְיָבֵשׁ, אַלְּמָה תְּנַן: מְטַמְּאִין לַחִים וְאֵין מְטַמְּאִין יְבֵשִׁים?

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


###### Avodah Zarah 68b:14
[Avodah Zarah 68b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/68b:14)

וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע תְּטַמֵּא לַח וְיָבֵשׁ, אַלְּמָה תְּנַן: מְטַמְּאִין לַחִין וְאֵין מְטַמְּאִין יְבֵשִׁין?

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


###### Avodah Zarah 68b:15
[Avodah Zarah 68b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/68b:15)

אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר? ״שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, בִּרְאוּיָה לְהַזְרִיעַ. הָכָא נָמֵי, ״בְּמֹתָם״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, כְּעֵין מוֹתָם.

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


###### Avodah Zarah 68b:16
[Avodah Zarah 68b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/68b:16)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שִׁימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא: וּמִי מְאִיס? וַהֲלֹא עוֹלֶה עַל שֻׁלְחָן שֶׁל מְלָכִים! אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא בִּדְדַבְרָא, הָא בִּדְמָתָא.

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


###### Avodah Zarah 68b:17
[Avodah Zarah 68b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/68b:17)

אָמַר רָבָא: הִלְכְתָא נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם מוּתָּר, וְעַכְבְּרָא בְּשִׁיכְרָא לָא יָדַעְנָא מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב, אִי מִשּׁוּם דְקָסָבַר נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם אָסוּר, וְלֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ, אִי מִשּׁוּם דְקָסָבַר נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם מוּתָּר, וְעַכְבְּרָא בְּשִׁיכְרָא אַשְׁבּוֹחֵי מַשְׁבַּח.

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


###### Avodah Zarah 68b:18
[Avodah Zarah 68b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/68b:18)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: