משנה: שְׂאוֹר שֶׁלְחוּלִין שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ עִיסָּה וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ כְדֵי לְחַמֵּץ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָפַל שְׂאוֹר שֶׁלְתְּרוּמָה אוֹ שְׂאוֹר שֶׁלְכִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם וְיֵשּׁ בּוֹ כְדֵי לְחַמֵּץ אָסוּר. שְׂאוֹר שֶׁלְחוּלִין שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹךְ עִיסָּה וְחִימִיצָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָפַל שְׂאוֹר שֶׁלְתְּרוּמָה אוֹ שְׂאוֹר שֶׁלְכִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם וְיֵשּׁ בּוֹ כְדֵי לְחַמֵּץ אָסוּר. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר. MISHNAH: If profane sourdough fell into dough, enough to cause souring, and afterwards sourdough of heave or of vineyard kilaim fell into it, also enough to cause souring, the dough is forbidden117Even though the dough also would have risen without the forbidden sourdough, the fact that it could have been used without the profane sourdough activates the rule of Mishnah 4..
If profane sourdough fell into dough and caused it to become sour when afterwards sourdough of heave or of vineyard kilaim fell into it, enough to cause souring, the dough is forbidden but Rebbi Simeon permits it118R. Simeon holds that the forbidden dough does not do anything and should be treated by the 1 in 100 (or 200) rule as if it were inert. The anonymous majority hold that this case is not different from that of the preceding Mishnah..
הלכה: תַּנֵּי חֲנַנְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַף הָרִאשׁוֹנָה בְמַחֲלוֹקֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה הֲוִינָן סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר מַפְלִיגִין בְּשֶׁחִימֵּץ זֶה כָּל־כּוֹחוֹ וְזֶה כָּל־כּוֹחוֹ וְנָפַל שְׂאוֹר שֶׁלְחוּלִין תְּחִילָּה. אֲבָל אִם נָפַל שְׂאוֹר שֶׁלְתְּרוּמָה תְּחִילָּה כְּבָר נִתְחַמְּצָה הָעִיסָּה. HALAKHAH: Ḥanania119He might be R. Ḥananiah, the colleague of the rabbis. stated in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The first Mishnah also is in disagreement120The two Mishnaiot are really one and the statement of R. Simeon refers to both of them.. Rebbi Jonah said, we hold to say that they disagree when each one is full strength and the profane sourdough fell in first. But if the heave sourdough fell in first, the dough already became sour.
כָּל־נוֹתְנֵי טְעָמִים בֵּין לִפְגָּם בֵּין לִשְׁבָח אָסוּר דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר לִשְׁבָח אָסוּר לִפְגָּם מוּתָּר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּשֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחַ וְאַחַר כָּךְ פָּגַם. אֲבָל אִם פָּגַם וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִשְׁבִּיחַ אוֹף רִבִּי מֵאִיר מוֹדֶה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לֹא שַׁנְייָא הִיא הִשְׁבִּיחַ הִיא פָגַם. הִיא פָגַם הִיא הִשְׁבִּיחַ הִיא הַמַּחֲלוֹקֶת. תַּמָּן תַּנִינָן שְׂעוֹרִין שֶׁנָּֽפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ הַבּוֹר שֶׁל מַיִם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִבְאִישׁוּ מֵימָיו מֵימָיו מוּתָּרִין. וְהָדָא מַתְנִיתָא מַה הִיא. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר אִילֵּין שְׁמוּעָתָא הָדָא רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל. “121This is from Terumot 10:2, explained there in Notes 20–25. Everything that can be tasted is forbidden, whether it spoils or improves, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Simeon says, if it improves it is forbidden, if it spoils it is permitted.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in what do they disagree? If it first improved but then spoiled. But if it spoiled and later improved, even Rebbi Meïr will agree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference whether it improved and spoiled or spoiled and improved, it is the disagreement. There, we have stated: “If barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, the water is permitted.” What is the status of that Mishnah? Rebbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said this tradition here: Rebbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is the opinion of everybody.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה צוֹרְכָה לְהָדָה דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לֹא כֵן סָֽבְרִנָן מֵימַר מָה פְלִיגִין בְּשֶׁחִימֵּץ זֶה כָּל־כּוֹחוֹ וְזֶה כָּל־כּוֹחוֹ וְנָפַל שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל חוּלִין תְּחִילָּה. אֲבָל אִם נָפַל שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה תְּחִילָּה כְּבָר נִתְחַמְּצָה הָעִיסָּה. וַאֲפִילוּ נָפַל שְׂאוֹר חוּלִין תְּחִילָּה נַעֲשֶׂה כְּמִי שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחַ מֵעִיקָּרוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ פָּגַם. חָזַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה וָמַר הָאִשָּׁה הַזֹּאת אֵינָהּ מְחַמֶּצֶת כָּל־צוֹרְכָהּ מְשַׁייֶרֶת הִיא כָּל־שֶׁהוּא. אוֹתוֹ כָּל־שֶׁהוּא יֵעָשֶׂה כְּמִי שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחַ וְלִבְסוֹף פָּגַם. וְקַשְׁיָא אִילּוּ הִשְׁבִּיחַ וְלֹא פָּגַם שֶׁמָּא כְּלוּם הִיא. Rebbi Jonah said; the statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is necessary since we wanted to say that they122The anonymous Tanna and R. Simeon in Mishnah 8. disagree when each one is full strength and the profane sourdough fell in first. But if the heave sourdough fell in first, the dough already became sour. Even if profane sourdough fell in first, it is considered that first it improved and then spoiled123In the end, there is too much sourdough which cannot but reduce the quality of the bread.. Rebbi Jonah came back to this and said, that woman will not make it thoroughly sour124A full portion of sourdough will be at the lower limit of what is necessary to thoroughly leaven the dough., she will leave a little bit. That little bit should be considered as if it first improved and then spoiled. That is difficult, if it improved and did not spoil, is that nothing125In that case, because of the doubt R. Simeon should agree with the anonymous Tanna that the heave sourdough is active and makes the entire bread dema‘. Therefore, the opinion of R. Simeon ben Laqish is irrelevant here; the statement of R. Joḥanan, that R. Simeon also disagrees in Mishnah 8, has to be rejected.?
רִבִּי יוֹנָה בָּעֵי מָה בֵּין שָׁבַח מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. וּמָה בֵּין פָּגַם מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. שָׁבַח מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה אָסוּר. פָּגַם מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה מוּתָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא שָׁבַח מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה אַתְּ רוֹאֶה כְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ אוֹתוֹ הָאִיסּוּר אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְדֵי לֶאֱסוֹר. פָּגַם מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה אַתְּ רוֹאֶה אֶת הַהֵיתֵר כְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ אוֹתוֹ הָאִיסּוּר אֵין בּוֹ כְדֵי לֶאֱסוֹר. Rebbi Jonah asked: What is the difference if it improved from both of them or spoiled from both of them? If it improved from both of them, it is forbidden126In the Babli (Pesaḥim 27a/b, Sanhedrin 80a, Avodah Zarah 49a, Ḥulin 58a, Temurah 31a) this premiss is questioned and the final determination is that anything caused by two agents, one permitted and the other forbidden, is permitted. In the Yerushalmi, this is accepted only if no agent alone could have caused the result; cf. Mishnah 11.. If it spoiled from both of them, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said, if it improved from both of them, you consider [the permitted]127Missing in the texts but implied by the parallel in the next sentence. as non-existent; the forbidden is enough to make it forbidden128By Mishnah 5, since it acts to improve.. If it spoiled from both of them, you consider the permitted as non-existent; the forbidden is not enough to make it forbidden.