משנה: יַיִן נֶסֶךְ שֶׁנָּפַל עַל גַּבֵּי עֲנָבִים יְדִיחֵם וְהֵן מוּתָּרוֹת וְאִם הָיוּ מְבוּקָּעוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבַיְתוֹס בֶּן זוֹנִין שֶׁהֵבִיא גְרוֹגְרוֹת בִּסְפִינָה וְנִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ חָבִיּוֹת שֶׁל ייִַן נֶסֶךְ עַל גַבֵּיהֶן וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְהִתִּירוּ. זֶה הַכְּלָל כֹּל שֶׁהוּא בַהֲנָייָתוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם אָסוּר וְכָל־ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בַהֲנָייָתוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם מוּתָּר כְּגוֹן הַחוֹמֶץ שֶׁנָּפַל לַגְּרִיסִים׃ MISHNAH: If libation wine fell on grapes, one should wash it off and they are permitted; but if they were split they are forbidden. If happened that Boetius ben Zenon brought dried figs in a boat when amphoras of libation wine broke over them. The case came before the Sages and they permitted. This is the principle: Anything where the taste improves the use is forbidden30If the taste of the forbidden wine improves the taste of the food on which it fell.; anything where the taste does not improve its use is permitted31If the spill was accidental, it is not necessary that the wine actually diminish the value or enjoyment of the food on which it fell., such as vinegar on broken beans32In the Halakhah both here and in the Babli (67a) R. Joḥanan restricts this to wine falling on a dish of hot broken beans or peas..
הלכה: יַיִן נֶסֶךְ שֶׁנָּפַל עַל גַּבֵּי עֲנָבִים כול׳. מַתְנִיתִין בְּשֶׁלֹּא נִידַּלְדֵּל חוֹתָמָן. אֲבָל נִידַּלְדֵּל חוֹתָמָן כִּמְבוּקָּעוֹת הֵן. HALAKHAH: “If libation wine fell on grapes,” etc. Our Mishnah if their seal is not loosened. But if their seal was loosened they are as injured33Grapes which still sit on the vine with intact skin are sealed; if libation wine falls on them one washes the bunch and it is permitted. But loose grapes have a hole where they were sitting on the vine; the libation wine enters through this hole and cannot be removed..
מָה אַתְּ עֲבַד לָהּ. כְּיַיִן בְּיַיִן אוֹ כְיַיִן לְתַבְשִׁיל. אִין תַּעַבְדִּינָּהּ כְּיַיִן לְתַבְשִׁיל דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אָסוּר. וְאִין תַּעַבְדִּינָּהּ כְּיַיִן בְּיַיִן מַחֳלוֹקֶת רִבִּי מֵאִיר וַחֲכָמִים. How do you treat them34What is the reason that injured grapes on which libation wine fell are forbidden?? Like wine in wine or wine in a dish35If wine of one kind is mixed with wine of another type, for wine cognoscenti this definitely is spoilage. But wine added to a cooked dish improves the taste.? If you treat it like wine in a dish, according to everybody it is forbidden. If you treat it like wine in wine, there is the disagreement between Rebbi Meїr and the Sages36As noted later, if the forbidden admixture improves the taste, the mixture is forbidden according to everybody. But if it spoils the taste, the rabbis opposing Rebbi Meїr do permit consumption of the food..
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר בְּרוֹתְחִין. אֲבָל בְּצוֹנִין אָסוּר. שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי צִיפּוֹרִין עוֹשִׂין כֵּן וְקוֹרִין אוֹתוֹ שָהֲלִייָא. הָיוּ רוֹתְחִין וְצִינְנָן. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ רוֹתְחִין יְהוּ אָסוּרִין מֵאַחַר שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לָצוּן. 37This paragraph is an intrusion here; it should be placed at the end of the Halakhah since it refers to the last statement in the Mishnah, forbidden vinegar on broken beans. Ihe parallel is in the Babli, 67a. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this you say if it is hot. But cold it is forbidden, for the people of Sepphoris are used to make it and call it laxative38In the Babli, the dish of Sepphoris is called שחליים. This probably comes from the Babylonian pronunciation of ח as ה. As the Babli reports, Megillah.24b">Megillah24b, Rebbi told R. Ḥiyya the Babylonian to be careful if he quotes Is 8:17, “I am waiting (וְחִכִּיתִי) for the Eternal”, not to blaspheme by saying “I am hitting (וְהִכִּיתִי).” Now שְׁחַלַיִים are watercresses, not making sense for the context. The root שהל is not documented in Hebrew or any of the Talmudic Aramaic dialects; but one of the many meanings of Arabic سمل is “to purge, to act as laxative.” This is taken as the meaning here. It cannot be determined whether the word was pronounced with שׁ or שׂ, even though שׁ is more likely.. If it was hot and one cooled it down? Then even hot it should be forbidden since usually it cools down39An implied answer to this question is found in the Babli: Vinegar in the cold dish improves the taste and therefore makes it forbidden. If the dish then is heated the vinegar spoils the taste but this does not remove the prohibition. Cooling the dish after heating leaves the dish spoiled..
דְּתַנֵּי. כָּל־נוֹתְנִין טַעַם בֵּין לִשְׁבָח בֵּין לְפְגָם אָסוּר. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. לִשְׁבָח אָסוּר. לִפְגָם מוּתָּר. כְּגוֹן חוֹמֶץ שֶׁנָּפַל לַגְּרִיסִין. רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. וְכֵן שְׂעוֹרִים שֶׁנָּפְלוּ בְתוֹךְ הַבּוֹר שֶׁל מַיִם. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִבְאִישׁוּ מֵימָיו מֵימָיו מוּתָּרִין׃ וְהָדָא מַתְנִיתָא רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר. שְׁמוּעָתָה כֵן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת. עַל דַּעְתִין דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל. 40This paragraph is a corrupted version of one in Terumot 10:4:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.10.4.2">Terumot10:2 (Notes 20–24), Orlah2:5 (Note 121). It is the continuation of the discussion why and under which condition contamination with libation wine makes food prohibited. Babli 67b/68a. As we have stated41Tosephta Terumot8:9.. “Everything that can be smelled is forbidden, whether it improves or spoils, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, if it improves it is forbidden, if it spoils it is permitted,” as for example vinegar which fell into broken beans. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated there42Mishnah Terumot10:2. The barley grains are heave, forbidden to anybody but a Cohen. Since they spoil the taste of the water, they impart no sanctity to it. The water remains permitted to everybody.: “If barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, [the water] is permitted.” About this Mishnah, Rebbi Meïr says it is in dispute, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: everybody’s opinion43This sentence and the following one are impossible; Rebbi Meïr the fourth-generation Tanna cannot engage in a discussion with the second generation Amoraim RR. Joḥanan and Simeon ben Laqish. The correct statements are from Orlah and Terumot: “About this Mishnah, Rebbi Joḥanan says it is in dispute, Rebbi Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said this tradition so: In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is in dispute, in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is everybody’s opinion.”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said this tradition so: In the opinion of Rebbi Meïr it is in dispute, in the opinions of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is everybody’s opinion.