Parallel
פסחים 44
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
in the matter of leaven too? — That indeed is so; yet this is to reject [the ruling] of Abaye, who said, There is burning [on the altar] in respect of less than an olive; therefore he informs us that there is no burning for less than an olive. R. Dimi sat and reported this discussion. Said Abaye to R. Dimi: And [in] all [other] prohibitions of the Torah, does not a permitted commodity combine with a prohibited [commodity]? Surely we learned: If the mikpeh is of terumah, while the garlic and the oil are of hullin, and a tebul yom touched part of it, he disqualifies all of it. If the mikpeh is of hullin, while the garlic and the oil is of terumah, and a tebul yom touches part of it, he disqualifies only the place which he touches. Now we pondered thereon: why is the place where he touches unfit? Surely the seasoning is nullified in the greater quantity? And Rabbah b. Bar Hanah answered: What is the reason? Because a lay Israelite is flagellated on its account for [eating] as much as an olive. How is that conceivable? Is it not because the permitted [commodity] combines with the forbidden [commodity]? — No: what does ‘as much as an olive’ mean: that there is as much as an olive within the time of eating half [a loaf]. Is then ‘as much as an olive within the time of eating half [a loaf]’ a Scriptural [standard]? Yes, he answered him. If so, why do the Rabbis disagree with R. Eliezer in reference to Babylonian kutah? — What then: [the reason is] because the permitted [commodity] combines with the prohibited commodity? Then after all why do the Rabbis differ from R. Eliezer in the matter of Babylonian kutah? But leave Babylonian kutah alone, because it does not contain as much as an olive within the eating of half [a loaf]. [For] if [it is eaten] in its natural state, so that he gulps it down and eats it, we disregard such a fancy as being exceptional. While if he dips [bread] into it and eats it, it does not contain as much as an olive within the time of eating half [a loaf]. He raised all objection against him: If there are two [stew] pots, one of hullin and the other of terumah, and in front of them are two mortars, one containing [condiments of] hullin and the other containing terumah, and the latter fell into the former, they are permitted, for I assume: the terumah fell into the terumah, and the hullin fell into the hullin. Now if you say that as much as an olive within the [time of] eating half [a loaf] is a Biblical [standard],why do we say, ‘for I assume, the terumah’ etc.? — Leave the terumah of condiments alone, he replied, which is [only] Rabbinical. He raised an objection against him: [If there are] two baskets, one containing hullin and the other containing terumah, and in front of them are two se'ah [of provisions], one of hullin and the other of terumah and these fell into those, they are permitted, for I assume: the hullin fell into hullin, [and] the terumah fell into the terumah. Now if you say that as much as an olive within the eating of half [a loaf] is a Scriptural [standard], why do we say, ‘because I assume’ [etc.]? — Leave the terumah [set aside] kutah there is as much as an olive of leaven, and for that he should be liable. at the present time he answered him, which is only Rabbinical. Now does this [law of] the infusion [of grapes] come for this purpose? It is required for what was taught: ‘An infusion’:
—
[this is] to intimate that the taste is as the substance itself, so that if he [the nazirite] steeped grapes in water and it possesses the taste of wine, he is culpable. From this you may draw a conclusion for the whole Torah. For if a nazirite, whose prohibition is not a permanent prohibition, and his prohibition is not a prohibition of [general] use, and there is a release for his prohibition, yet [Scripture] made the taste tantamount to the substance in his case; then kil'ayim, the prohibition of which is a permanent prohibition, and whose prohibition is a prohibition of [general] use, and there is no release from its prohibition, is it not logical that the taste should be treated as tantamount to the substance itself? And the same applies to ‘orlah by two [arguments]! — The authority for this is the Rabbis, which R. Johanan stated [his ruling] in accordance with R. Akiba. Which [ruling of] R. Akiba [is alluded to]? Shall we say, R. Akiba of our Mishnah, for we learned: ‘R. Akiba said: If a nazirite soaked his bread in wine, and it contains sufficient to combine as much as an olive, he is culpable’? But whence [do you know that he means sufficient] of the bread and the wine; perhaps [he means] of the wine alone? And should you say, [if] of the wine alone, why state it? He informs us thus: [He is culpable] although it is a mixture! — Rather it is R. Akiba of the Baraitha. For it was taught, R. Akiba said: If a nazirite soaked his bread in wine and ate as much as an olive of the bread and the wine [combined] he is culpable. Now [according to] R. Akiba, whence do we know that the taste [of forbidden food] is like the substance itself? — He learns it from [the prohibition of] meat [seethed] in milk; is it not merely a taste, and it is forbidden? so here too it is not different. And the Rabbis? — We cannot learn from meat [seethed] in milk, because it is an anomaly. Yet what is the anomaly? Shall we say because this [sc. meat] by itself is permitted, and that [sc. milk] by itself is permitted, while in conjunction they are forbidden, but [with] kil'ayim too, this [species] by itself is permitted, and that species] by itself is permitted, yet in conjunction they are forbidden? — Rather [the anomaly is] that if he soaked it all day in milk it is permitted, yet if he but seethed it [in milk] it is forbidden. Then R. Akiba too? [The prohibition of] meat [seethed] in milk is certainly an anomaly? — Rather he learns it from the vessels of Gentiles. The vessels of Gentiles, is it not merely a flavour [which they impart]? Yet they are forbidden; so here too it is not different. And the Rabbis? — The vessels of Gentiles too are an anomaly, for whatever imparts a deteriorating flavour is permitted, since we learn it from nebelah, yet here it is for bidden. But R. Akiba [holds] as R. Hiyya the son of R. Huna, who said: The Torah prohibited [it] only in the case of a pot used on that very day, hence it is not a deteriorating flavour. And the Rabbis? — A pot used on that very day too, it is impossible that it should not slightly worsen [the food cooked in it]. R. Aha son of R. ‘Awia said to R. Ashi: ‘From the Rabbis let us learn the view of R. Akiba. Did not the Rabbis say, "An infusion": [this is] to intimate that the taste is tantamount to the substance itself. From this you may draw a conclusion for the whole Torah?’ Then according to R. Akiba too [let us say]: ‘An infusion’: this is [to intimate] that the permitted commodity combines with the forbidden commodity. From this you may draw a conclusion for the whole Torah? — Said he to him,
—