Study Avodah Zarah folio 68B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
כדרבי זירא, תא שמע מסיפא: היין שנפל לתוך עדשים, וחומץ שנפל לתוך גריסין — אסור, ורבי שמעון מתיר. והא הכי נמי דפגם מעיקרא, ופליגי!
this can be explained in accordance with the explanation of R' 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 R' 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.
וכי תימא, הכא נמי כדשני ליה עולא לרבי חגא: כשהשביח ולבסוף פגם, ומי פליגי כשהשביח ולבסוף פגם? והא קתני: נפל של תרומה תחלה — דברי הכל אסור!
And if you would say: Here too, it can be explained as Ulla responded to R' 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?
אלא לאו שמע מינה, בפגם מעיקרא מחלוקת? שמע מינה.
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 Talmud affirms: Conclude from it that this is so.