Pesachim

in the matter of leaven too?1 — That indeed is so; yet this2 is to reject [the ruling] of Abaye, who said, There is burning [on the altar] in respect of less than an olive;3 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 mikpeh4 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.5 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 seasoning6 is nullified in the greater quantity?7 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.8 How is that conceivable?9 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].10 Is then ‘as much as an olive within the time of eating half [a loaf]’ a Scriptural [standard]?11 Yes, he answered him. If so, why do the Rabbis disagree with R. Eliezer in reference to Babylonian kutah?12 — 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,13 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,14 so that he gulps it down and eats it, we disregard such a fancy as being exceptional.15 While if he dips [bread] into it16 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,17 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.?18 — Leave the terumah of condiments alone, he replied, which is [only] Rabbinical.19 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.]?20 — 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 time21 he answered him, which is only Rabbinical. Now does this [law of] the infusion [of grapes] come for this purpose?22 It is required for what was taught: ‘An infusion’: assume that it refers to half all olive of each. quantity, involves punishment. unfit, because it is subsidiary to the terumah. flagellated? time that the normal eater requires for a meal, he will have eaten as much as an olive of terumah, and for that he is culpable. [According to Maim. Yad ‘Erubin,, half a loaf is equivalent to three average eggs]. punishment. — Punishment is incurred only when forbidden, food is eaten in the normal way. of a Scriptural prohibition?