Yerushalmi Orlah 2:5 ירושלמי ערלה ב׳:ה׳

MISHNAH: Spices¹²⁹Of heave, ‘orlah, etc., two or three names from one kind¹³⁰For example black, white, and long pepper (Rashi, Šabbat 89b, Avodah Zarah 66b). Maimonides brings as example different sorts of cardamum which are never sold together., or [one name for] three are forbidden and combine. Rebbi Simeon says, two or three names from one kind, or two kinds of the same name, do not combine.

HALAKHAH: We understand two names for one kind. But two kinds of one name? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: They taught this about sweeteners.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, there are three kinds of imparting taste. Anything a common person tastes and says, this dish is not missing anything, if it fell in, it may improve the taste but is permitted¹³¹Since the person who is not a professional cook or food taster finds the dish perfect, the later addition of forbidden spice either does not add anything; then it will be permitted if it is less than 1/100 (or 1/200) of the whole; or it will spoil the taste and be permitted outright.. Even if he says, this dish contains spice x, when it spoils the taste it is permitted. But if a professional tastes it and says, this dish contains spice x¹³²But a non-professional would not taste it and for him the additional spice might improve the taste, the addition is not considered spoiling and is forbidden in the most minute amount., when it spoils the taste it is forbidden.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, all forbidden [food] is estimated as if it were onion, as if it were leeks¹³³Cf. Terumot 10:1, Notes 8–12; Babli Ḥulin 97b. Any foodstuffs usually estimated as if they were onion, as if they were leeks, are ingredients for cooking. Things not usually estimated as if they were onion, as if they were leeks, such as cumin, are used on top of bread or dishes. The problem is that one may not taste the dish or bread because it contains a forbidden substance and might be forbidden.. That is, anything usually estimated as if it were onion, as if it were leeks. Anything which is not usually estimated as if it were onion, as if it were leeks, how do you estimate it? How do you estimate cumin?

Rebbi Yudan said, did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, they taught this about sweeteners? Since sweeteners usually are estimated as if they were onion or leeks, one estimates them as if they were onion or leeks. All other forbidden [foods], since they are not usually estimated as if they were onion or leeks one estimates in their kinds. Cumin one estimates by its kind¹³⁴Since usually one does not use forbidden cumin, one will know how much to take to induce the flavor of cumin in the finished product..

Rebbi Mana did not say so but: Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, they taught this about sweeteners? Since sweeteners all taste the same, they are estimated as if they were onion, as if they were leeks. All other forbidden [foods], since they do not taste the same one does not estimate them as if they were onion, as if they were leeks. Cumin is a problem¹³⁵In the absence of standards for judging, it remains forbidden..

¹³⁶From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is also in Nazir 6:1 (fol. 54d). Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself¹³⁷A person eating forbidden food cannot be criminally prosecuted unless he ate at least the volume of an olive of the forbidden substance. Taste makes a mixture forbidden but not criminally.. Rebbi Ḥama bar Yose¹³⁸A student of R. Hoshaia, Amora of the early second generation in Galilee. objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: There is meat in milk, where he did not taste the forbidden thing itself¹³⁹If meat is cooked in milk and then the meat is removed, the person drinking the milk is criminally liable even though he did not eat from the meat. and you say that he is whipped! He accepted that. What means, he accepted that? Like a person who listens to the argument of the opposing party he accepted it.¹⁴⁰He did not find it necessary to respond since he has his own argument. The question is obviously invalid since the milk is as strictly forbidden as is the meat since milk and meat are treated as parallels in the verses.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir¹⁴¹Num. 6.. Rebbi Zeïra said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself¹⁴²R. Zeïra takes the statements of R. Abbahu in this and the preceding paragraph as one. A similar interpretation in Babli Pesaḥim 43b, Nazir 35b.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted are not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine¹⁴³Since nobody can be punished for eating less than the volume of an olive of a forbidden substance, this is his interpretation of the statements of R. Abbahu.. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeïra: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he¹⁴⁴A nazir. ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita¹⁴⁵A shortened version in Sifry Num. 23, a short reference to the argument is in Babli Pesaḥim 44a/b. supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to grape skins he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? That means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it¹⁴⁶The amount of water soaked up by the bread. adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent¹⁴⁷It is forbidden only for the nazir and only for a period of time specified at the beginning., nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted¹⁴⁸The vow of a nazir can be annulled just as any other vow can be annulled., He made taste like the thing itself; is it not logical that for all prohibitions of the Torah, whose prohibition is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition cannot be lifted¹⁴⁹At least one of these categories applies to any food prohibition in the Torah., that we¹⁵⁰The principle formulated is divine for the nazir and rabbinic for all other prohibitions. treat taste like the thing itself¹⁵¹Babli Pesaḥim 44b.? From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Zeïra who says everywhere “unless he tasted¹⁵²The forbidden food itself.”, and here he says, “even if he did not taste.”