Avodah Zarah 67A

דברי הכל אסורה, בפת צוננת וחבית מגופה ⁠— דברי הכל מותרת. לא נחלקו אלא בפת חמה וחבית מגופה, בפת צוננת וחבית פתוחה. והא דידי נמי כפת חמה וחבית פתוחה דמי.

everyone agrees that it is forbidden, as the bread certainly absorbed of the smell of the wine? Furthermore, in the case of a cool loaf of bread and a stoppered jug, everyone agrees that it is permitted. They disagree only with regard to the case of a hot loaf of bread and a stoppered jug, or in the case of a cool loaf of bread and an open jug. And this case of mine, i.e., the case of the bunghole, is also comparable to the case of a hot loaf of bread and an open jug, in which everyone agrees that the bread is forbidden.

זה הכלל, כל שבהנאתו בנותן טעם כו׳. אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: הכי הלכתא.

§ It is stated in the Mishnah: This is the principle: Anything that benefits from a forbidden item imparting flavor to it, i.e., the forbidden item contributes a positive taste to it, is forbidden, and anything that does not benefit from a forbidden item imparting flavor to it is permitted, e.g., forbidden vinegar that fell onto split beans, as the flavor imparted by the vinegar does not enhance the taste of the beans. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This is the halakha.

ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: לא שנו אלא שנפל לתוך גריסין רותחין, אבל נפל לתוך גריסין צוננין והרתיחן, נעשה כמי שהשביח ולבסוף פגם, ואסור.

And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: A baraita states this only with regard to a case where the vinegar fell into hot split beans, imparting flavor to their detriment. But if the vinegar fell into cold split beans, the vinegar enhances the flavor, and if one subsequently heated them, it becomes like a dish that some added ingredient first enhanced its flavor and ultimately detracted from it, and it is rendered forbidden, as the initial flavor that was imparted was beneficial.