Avodah Zarah, Daf Samekh Het, Part 3

 

Introduction

Today s section continues to discuss a potential tannaitic source for R. Yohanan s claim that R. Meir prohibits the mixture even though the prohibited substance imparts a bad flavor from the outset.

 

ת"ש שאור של תרומה ושל חולין שנפלו לתוך העיסה בזה כדי להחמיץ ובזה כדי להחמיץ וחימצו אסור רבי שמעון מתיר נפל של תרומה תחלה ד"ה אסור נפל של חולין ואח"כ נפל של תרומה או של כלאי הכרם אסור ור"ש מתיר והא הכא דפגם מעיקרא ופליגי

 

Come and hear: If terumah yeast and ordinary yeast fell into dough, each being sufficient to cause leavening, and they leavened it, it is prohibited; but R. Shimon permits it. If the terumah yeast fell in first, all agree that it is prohibited. But if the ordinary yeast fell in first and then the terumah yeast or yeast from mixed plantings in a vineyard, it is prohibited. But R. Shimon permits it. Now here is a case where it is worsened from the outset and yet they differ!

 

In the first case, both the permitted and the prohibited yeast fall in at the same time. Again, the first opinion (assumed to be R. Meir) prohibits and R. Shimon permits.

If the terumah yeast falls in first, R. Shimon agrees that it is prohibited because this is not a case where the forbidden yeast worsens the mixture.

But if the ordinary yeast falls in first, they disagree.

Again, in this last case the second yeast only worsens the dough and yet R. Meir prohibits.

 

וכי תימא ה"נ כדרבי זירא ת"ש מסיפא היין שנפל לתוך עדשים וחומץ שנפל לתוך גריסין אסור ור"ש מתיר והא ה"נ דפגם מעיקרא ופליגי

 

Should you say that here too R. Zera’s explanation applies,c ome and hear from the end [of this teaching]: If [nesekh] wine fell into lentils or [nesekh] vinegar into split beans, it is prohibited, but R. Shimon permits it. Now here is a case where it is worsened from the outset and they still differ!

 

You might argue that the case of the dough it still not conclusive. We can still argue as does R. Zera that overly leavened dough is not worsened. The problem is that this same baraita continues with a case of vinegar falling into split beans. This seems to be a case where the taste is worsened from the outset and yet R. Meir prohibits.

 

וכי תימא ה"נ כדשני ליה עולא לרבי חגא כשהשביח ולבסוף פגם ומי פליגי כשהשביח ולבסוף פגם והא קתני נפל של תרומה תחלה דברי הכל אסור אלא לאו ש"מ בפגם מעיקרא מחלוקת שמע מינה

 

Should you say that here also what Ulla responded to R. Haga applies, that it first improved and only in the end deteriorated, but do they argue where it first improves and only in the end deteriorates, for behold they taught if terumah [yeast] falls in first they all agree that it is prohibited. Rather we can conclude from this that they disagree even when it worsened from the outset? Indeed, learn from this.

 

We could try to say that the case of the vinegar falling into the split beans is a case where at first the vinegar improved the taste (because the beans were cold) and only then did it worsen the taste (because it was heated up). The problem is that we know that if the terumah yeast falls in first even R. Shimon agrees that it is prohibited, even though when the ordinary yeast falls in, the overly yeasted mixture will not taste good.

Therefore, the only conclusion left to make is that R. Meir and R. Shimon do indeed argue even if the mixture is made worse from the outset, as R. Yohanan said. Thus this second baraita proves that he is correct, or at least that he has a source in tannaitic literature.