Pesachim

[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.1 From this you may draw a conclusion for the whole Torah.2 For if a nazirite, whose prohibition is not a permanent prohibition, and his prohibition is not a prohibition of [general] use,3 and there is a release for his prohibition,4 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]!5 — The authority for this is the Rabbis, which R. Johanan6 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?7 And should you say, [if] of the wine alone, why state it? He informs us thus: [He is culpable] although it is a mixture!8 — 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 bread9 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?10 — He learns it from [the prohibition of] meat [seethed] in milk; is it not merely a taste,11 and it is forbidden? so here too12 it is not different. And the Rabbis?13 — We cannot learn from meat [seethed] in milk, because it is an anomaly.14 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,15 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?16 — Rather he learns it from the vessels of Gentiles.17 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?18 — The vessels of Gentiles too are an anomaly, for whatever imparts a deteriorating flavour is permitted,19 since we learn it from nebelah,20 yet here it is for bidden.21 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.22 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?23 — Said he to him, substance consisted originally of the size of an olive. This requirement distinguishes this principle from that of R. Johanan, in virtue of which what is permitted combines with what is forbidden, even though the latter is less in size than an olive's bulk.] be applied here, as ‘orlah is not permanently forbidden, since it is permitted after three years. Tosaf. explains it differently. — But incidentally we see that ‘an infusion’ is required for a different purpose. separate now but is spread through the bread. reason for culpability must be the principle enunciated by R. Johanan. purged with boiling water (this is called hage'alah) before they may be used, because they exude a flavour of the food which was boiled in them. accordance with R. Akiba?