Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 27, 2015 | 讬状讚 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nazir 36

Study Guide Nazir 36


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 讗祝 砖讗讜专 讘讘诇 转拽讟讬专讜 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讚专讬砖 讻诇

Ze鈥檈iri says: Permitted and forbidden substances combine with regard to the prohibition against offering leaven on the altar, as well, as it states: 鈥淔or any [kol] leaven and any [kol] honey shall be offered as a burnt-offering before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 2:11). This indicates that one is also liable for sacrificing leaven in a mixture in addition to the liability for sacrificing pure leaven. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Ze鈥檈iri issue his ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who derives from the term kol in the verse 鈥淵ou shall eat nothing [kol] leavened鈥 (Exodus 12:20) that a mixture with part leaven is forbidden on Passover.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诇注谞讬谉 讞诪抓 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讬砖 讛拽讟专讛 讘驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讬谉 讛拽讟专讛 讘驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, then with regard to the matter of leavened bread on Passover, one should also be liable for eating leaven combined with a permitted substance, e.g., less than an olive-bulk of bread soaked in wine, so that the volume is now an olive-bulk. The Gemara answers: Yes, indeed it is so. Rather, when Ze鈥檈iri specifies that the prohibition applies with regard to sacrificing leaven in offerings, he meant to exclude the statement of Abaye, who says: There is significance to sacrificing less than an olive-bulk of leaven on the altar, i.e., one is flogged for sacrificing an offering of that kind. By noting that one is liable due to the fact that permitted substances combine with forbidden substances, Ze鈥檈iri teaches us that there is no significance to sacrificing less than an olive-bulk, and therefore this is not punishable by lashes.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛诪拽驻讛 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜讛砖讜诐 讜讛砖诪谉 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜谞讙注 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讘诪拽爪转谉 驻住诇 讗转 讻讜诇谉 诪拽驻讛 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讛砖讜诐 讜讛砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜谞讙注 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讘诪拽爪转谉 诇讗 驻住诇 讗诇讗 诪拽讜诐 诪讙注讜

Rav Dimi sat and stated this halakha of Rabbi Yo岣nan that a permitted substance does not combine with a forbidden substance except in the case of a nazirite. Abaye raised an objection to his opinion from a mishna (Tevul Yom 2:3): In a case where the thick soup was made with produce that had the status of teruma but the garlic and oil therein were of non-sacred produce, and one who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed touched some of the contents, he has disqualified all the contents of the pot from being eaten, as it all is considered teruma soup. However, if the thick soup was made with produce of non-sacred status but the garlic and the oil had the status of teruma produce, and one who immersed himself that day touched some of them, he has disqualified only the contents in the place that he touched.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪拽讜诐 诪讙注讜 讗诪讗讬 驻住讜诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讛 讟注诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讝专 诇讜拽讛 注诇讬讛 讘讻讝讬转

Abaye continues: And we discussed this issue: Why are the contents in the place that he touched disqualified? Since the primary ingredients of the dish are of non-sacred produce, it should not be disqualified by contact with one who immersed himself that day. And Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: What is the reason that the contents become disqualified? It is due to the fact that a non-priest is flogged for eating an olive-bulk of the soup, as anything into which teruma is mixed is considered teruma by Torah law.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛

Abaye concludes his question: What is Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 reason that one is flogged for eating this mixture?

诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讗讬 讻讝讬转 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住

Is it not due to the fact that the permitted substance combines with the forbidden substance? This would mean that this principle applies in other areas of Torah law besides naziriteship. Rav Dimi said to him: No; what is the meaning of an olive-bulk in this mishna? It means that there is enough teruma in the mixture so that when one eats from the mixture he will consume an olive-bulk of teruma in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. In that case one is liable to receive a punishment for eating this olive-bulk, as though he ate the teruma alone.

讜讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讻讜转讞 讛讘讘诇讬

Abaye asked him: But is eating an olive-bulk in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread prohibited by Torah law, and is one flogged for it? Rav Dimi said to him: Yes. Abaye asked in response: If so, why do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to eating Babylonian kuta岣, a dip that contains bread, on Passover? The Rabbis maintain that one is not punished by Torah law for eating a mixture that contains leaven. Although the Rabbis do not derive from the term 鈥渘othing [kol],鈥 that leaven in a mixture is forbidden, they should nevertheless hold one liable for eating an olive-bulk of a forbidden substance in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讞 诇讻讜转讞 讛讘讘诇讬 讚诇讬讻讗 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讗讬 讚拽讗 砖专讬祝 诇讬讛 诪讬砖专祝 讘讟诇讛 讚注转讜 讗爪诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗讬 诪讬砖讟专 拽讗 砖讟专 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住

Rav Dimi said to Abaye: Leave aside the case of Babylonian kuta岣, as there is no possibility that one will consume an olive-bulk of the leaven in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. If he eats kuta岣 in its pure, unadulterated form, by swallowing [shareif ] it as food, not as a dip, his intention is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other people. It is unusual for a person to eat a pungent dip by itself, and especially so quickly. One receives no punishment for conduct that anomalous. And if he dips [shatar] other food into the kuta岣 and eats it, he will not be found to have consumed an olive-bulk in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. Due to the pungency of the dip, one typically adds only a small portion of it to his food.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 砖转讬 诪讚讜讻讜转 讗讞转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜讗讞转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诇驻谞讬讜 砖转讬 拽讚讬专讜转 讗讞转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜讗讞转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜谞驻诇讜 讗诇讜 诇转讜讱 讗诇讜 砖转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讞讜诇讬谉 诇转讜讱 讞讜诇讬谉 谞驻诇讜 讜转专讜诪讛 诇转讜讱 转专讜诪讛 谞驻诇讛

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Dimi from a baraita: With regard to two spice mortars, one used for teruma spices and one used for non-sacred spices, before which were two pots, one of teruma produce and the other one of non-sacred produce, and the contents of these mortars fell into these pots, but it is unknown which produce fell into which pot, the contents of both pots are permitted; the pot containing the teruma produce is permitted for a priest and the pot containing non-sacred produce is permitted for all. This is because I say, with no definitive proof to the contrary, that the non-sacred spices fell into the non-sacred produce and the teruma spices fell into the teruma.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专

Abaye explains his objection: And if it would enter your mind to say that eating an olive-bulk of a forbidden substance in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread is prohibited by Torah law, why do we say this principle: Because I say that the non-sacred spices fell into the non-sacred produce? If the teruma spices fell into the pot containing non-sacred produce, one who eats from the mixture will consume an olive-bulk of teruma within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, and he will thereby violate a Torah prohibition. One is not lenient in a case of this kind.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗诇讗 讛谞讞 诇转专讜诪转 转讘诇讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗

Rav Dimi said to him: Rather, what will you say? That the permitted substance combines with the forbidden substance? But if so, one can still ask why we say this principle: Because I say that the non-sacred spices fell into the non-sacred produce. After all, it is possible that the second mortar contained slightly less than an olive-bulk of teruma, and the permitted substance combined with it to form the amount of an olive-bulk. Rather, leave aside the case of teruma separated from spices, which is teruma by rabbinic law. By Torah law one is required to separate teruma only from grain, wine, and oil. The Sages are lenient with regard to teruma by rabbinic law.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 砖转讬 拽讜驻讜转 讗讞转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜讗讞转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诇驻谞讬讛谉 砖转讬 住讗讬谉 讗讞转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讗讞转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜谞驻诇讜 讗诇讜 诇转讜讱 讗诇讜 砖谞讬讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讞讜诇讬谉 诇转讜讱 讞讜诇讬谉 谞驻诇讜 转专讜诪讛 诇转讜讱 转专讜诪讛 谞驻诇讛

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Dimi from a similar baraita: There were two baskets, one filled with teruma and one filled with non-sacred produce, and before them were two containers each containing a se鈥檃 of produce, one of non-sacred produce and the one of teruma, and these, the contents of each of the baskets, fell into those, each of the containers before them. Although it is prohibited for non-priests to eat a mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce, and it is possible that the teruma fell into the non-sacred produce, the contents of both of the vessels are nevertheless permitted; the container of teruma produce is permitted for a priest and the container of non-sacred produce is permitted for all. This is because I say that the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce and the teruma fell into the teruma.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讗住讜专 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专

Abaye explains: And if it would enter your mind to say that eating an olive-bulk of forbidden food in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread is prohibited by Torah law, why do we say the principle: Because I say the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce? Why are the Sages not concerned that one might eat an olive-bulk of teruma in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, which is prohibited by Torah law?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nazir 36

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 36

讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 讗祝 砖讗讜专 讘讘诇 转拽讟讬专讜 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讚专讬砖 讻诇

Ze鈥檈iri says: Permitted and forbidden substances combine with regard to the prohibition against offering leaven on the altar, as well, as it states: 鈥淔or any [kol] leaven and any [kol] honey shall be offered as a burnt-offering before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 2:11). This indicates that one is also liable for sacrificing leaven in a mixture in addition to the liability for sacrificing pure leaven. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Ze鈥檈iri issue his ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who derives from the term kol in the verse 鈥淵ou shall eat nothing [kol] leavened鈥 (Exodus 12:20) that a mixture with part leaven is forbidden on Passover.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诇注谞讬谉 讞诪抓 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讬砖 讛拽讟专讛 讘驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讬谉 讛拽讟专讛 讘驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, then with regard to the matter of leavened bread on Passover, one should also be liable for eating leaven combined with a permitted substance, e.g., less than an olive-bulk of bread soaked in wine, so that the volume is now an olive-bulk. The Gemara answers: Yes, indeed it is so. Rather, when Ze鈥檈iri specifies that the prohibition applies with regard to sacrificing leaven in offerings, he meant to exclude the statement of Abaye, who says: There is significance to sacrificing less than an olive-bulk of leaven on the altar, i.e., one is flogged for sacrificing an offering of that kind. By noting that one is liable due to the fact that permitted substances combine with forbidden substances, Ze鈥檈iri teaches us that there is no significance to sacrificing less than an olive-bulk, and therefore this is not punishable by lashes.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛诪拽驻讛 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜讛砖讜诐 讜讛砖诪谉 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜谞讙注 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讘诪拽爪转谉 驻住诇 讗转 讻讜诇谉 诪拽驻讛 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讛砖讜诐 讜讛砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜谞讙注 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讘诪拽爪转谉 诇讗 驻住诇 讗诇讗 诪拽讜诐 诪讙注讜

Rav Dimi sat and stated this halakha of Rabbi Yo岣nan that a permitted substance does not combine with a forbidden substance except in the case of a nazirite. Abaye raised an objection to his opinion from a mishna (Tevul Yom 2:3): In a case where the thick soup was made with produce that had the status of teruma but the garlic and oil therein were of non-sacred produce, and one who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed touched some of the contents, he has disqualified all the contents of the pot from being eaten, as it all is considered teruma soup. However, if the thick soup was made with produce of non-sacred status but the garlic and the oil had the status of teruma produce, and one who immersed himself that day touched some of them, he has disqualified only the contents in the place that he touched.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪拽讜诐 诪讙注讜 讗诪讗讬 驻住讜诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讛 讟注诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讝专 诇讜拽讛 注诇讬讛 讘讻讝讬转

Abaye continues: And we discussed this issue: Why are the contents in the place that he touched disqualified? Since the primary ingredients of the dish are of non-sacred produce, it should not be disqualified by contact with one who immersed himself that day. And Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: What is the reason that the contents become disqualified? It is due to the fact that a non-priest is flogged for eating an olive-bulk of the soup, as anything into which teruma is mixed is considered teruma by Torah law.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛

Abaye concludes his question: What is Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 reason that one is flogged for eating this mixture?

诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讗讬 讻讝讬转 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住

Is it not due to the fact that the permitted substance combines with the forbidden substance? This would mean that this principle applies in other areas of Torah law besides naziriteship. Rav Dimi said to him: No; what is the meaning of an olive-bulk in this mishna? It means that there is enough teruma in the mixture so that when one eats from the mixture he will consume an olive-bulk of teruma in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. In that case one is liable to receive a punishment for eating this olive-bulk, as though he ate the teruma alone.

讜讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讻讜转讞 讛讘讘诇讬

Abaye asked him: But is eating an olive-bulk in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread prohibited by Torah law, and is one flogged for it? Rav Dimi said to him: Yes. Abaye asked in response: If so, why do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to eating Babylonian kuta岣, a dip that contains bread, on Passover? The Rabbis maintain that one is not punished by Torah law for eating a mixture that contains leaven. Although the Rabbis do not derive from the term 鈥渘othing [kol],鈥 that leaven in a mixture is forbidden, they should nevertheless hold one liable for eating an olive-bulk of a forbidden substance in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讞 诇讻讜转讞 讛讘讘诇讬 讚诇讬讻讗 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讗讬 讚拽讗 砖专讬祝 诇讬讛 诪讬砖专祝 讘讟诇讛 讚注转讜 讗爪诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗讬 诪讬砖讟专 拽讗 砖讟专 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住

Rav Dimi said to Abaye: Leave aside the case of Babylonian kuta岣, as there is no possibility that one will consume an olive-bulk of the leaven in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. If he eats kuta岣 in its pure, unadulterated form, by swallowing [shareif ] it as food, not as a dip, his intention is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other people. It is unusual for a person to eat a pungent dip by itself, and especially so quickly. One receives no punishment for conduct that anomalous. And if he dips [shatar] other food into the kuta岣 and eats it, he will not be found to have consumed an olive-bulk in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. Due to the pungency of the dip, one typically adds only a small portion of it to his food.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 砖转讬 诪讚讜讻讜转 讗讞转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜讗讞转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诇驻谞讬讜 砖转讬 拽讚讬专讜转 讗讞转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜讗讞转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜谞驻诇讜 讗诇讜 诇转讜讱 讗诇讜 砖转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讞讜诇讬谉 诇转讜讱 讞讜诇讬谉 谞驻诇讜 讜转专讜诪讛 诇转讜讱 转专讜诪讛 谞驻诇讛

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Dimi from a baraita: With regard to two spice mortars, one used for teruma spices and one used for non-sacred spices, before which were two pots, one of teruma produce and the other one of non-sacred produce, and the contents of these mortars fell into these pots, but it is unknown which produce fell into which pot, the contents of both pots are permitted; the pot containing the teruma produce is permitted for a priest and the pot containing non-sacred produce is permitted for all. This is because I say, with no definitive proof to the contrary, that the non-sacred spices fell into the non-sacred produce and the teruma spices fell into the teruma.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专

Abaye explains his objection: And if it would enter your mind to say that eating an olive-bulk of a forbidden substance in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread is prohibited by Torah law, why do we say this principle: Because I say that the non-sacred spices fell into the non-sacred produce? If the teruma spices fell into the pot containing non-sacred produce, one who eats from the mixture will consume an olive-bulk of teruma within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, and he will thereby violate a Torah prohibition. One is not lenient in a case of this kind.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗诇讗 讛谞讞 诇转专讜诪转 转讘诇讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗

Rav Dimi said to him: Rather, what will you say? That the permitted substance combines with the forbidden substance? But if so, one can still ask why we say this principle: Because I say that the non-sacred spices fell into the non-sacred produce. After all, it is possible that the second mortar contained slightly less than an olive-bulk of teruma, and the permitted substance combined with it to form the amount of an olive-bulk. Rather, leave aside the case of teruma separated from spices, which is teruma by rabbinic law. By Torah law one is required to separate teruma only from grain, wine, and oil. The Sages are lenient with regard to teruma by rabbinic law.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 砖转讬 拽讜驻讜转 讗讞转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜讗讞转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诇驻谞讬讛谉 砖转讬 住讗讬谉 讗讞转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讗讞转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜谞驻诇讜 讗诇讜 诇转讜讱 讗诇讜 砖谞讬讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讞讜诇讬谉 诇转讜讱 讞讜诇讬谉 谞驻诇讜 转专讜诪讛 诇转讜讱 转专讜诪讛 谞驻诇讛

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Dimi from a similar baraita: There were two baskets, one filled with teruma and one filled with non-sacred produce, and before them were two containers each containing a se鈥檃 of produce, one of non-sacred produce and the one of teruma, and these, the contents of each of the baskets, fell into those, each of the containers before them. Although it is prohibited for non-priests to eat a mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce, and it is possible that the teruma fell into the non-sacred produce, the contents of both of the vessels are nevertheless permitted; the container of teruma produce is permitted for a priest and the container of non-sacred produce is permitted for all. This is because I say that the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce and the teruma fell into the teruma.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讗住讜专 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专

Abaye explains: And if it would enter your mind to say that eating an olive-bulk of forbidden food in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread is prohibited by Torah law, why do we say the principle: Because I say the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce? Why are the Sages not concerned that one might eat an olive-bulk of teruma in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, which is prohibited by Torah law?

Scroll To Top