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

Daf Yomi

March 1, 2023 | 讞壮 讘讗讚专 转砖驻状讙

  • Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.

Nazir 37

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by the Tannenbaum family in loving memory of Miriam鈥檚 father, Jacob Zemsky, Yaakov Yitchak ben Moshe Nachum HaLevi z”l on his 19th yahrzeit. 鈥淗e embodied Ahavat Yisrael, as was manifested in causes for both the klal and even more so, through his helping so many on the prat level. May his inspiration continue to guide us. 聽转讛讗 谞砖诪转讜 爪专讜专讛 讘爪专讜专 讛讞讬讬诐.”

Today’s daf is sponsored in memory of Dr. Atarah Twersky, z”l who passed away this past week. Yehi zichra baruch.聽聽

After the third difficulty of Abaye against Rav Dimi (who held that the law of heiter mitztaref l’issur is unique only to nazir) is resolved, Abaye shifts gears and questions Rav Dimi by suggesting that perhaps the verse relating to bread soaked with wine is teaching a different halacha of ta’am k’ikar, that if the taste of a forbidden item is in a food, even if the actual forbidden item is no longer in the food, it is forbidden. He quotes a braita where this law is derived from nazir and applied to all forbidden items in the Torah. Rabbi Avahu responds for Rav Dimi by saying that he holds like Rabbi Akiva who held that heiter mitztaref l’issur聽by nazir. A discussion ensues about questions on the debate between Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis about this, beginning with: From where does Rabbi Akiva derive the laws of ta’am k’ikar? And if he learns it from somewhere else (according to the conclusion, from kashering pots of the gentiles), why don’t the rabbis learn it from there? The Rabbis view that as a unique halacha and therefore cannot learn it from there. Another question is asked against Rabbi Akiva – why does he not learn heiter mitztaref l’issur that appears by nazir can be applied to all other cases, as the rabbis say regarding ta’am k’ikar? From the answer to that, a question is thrown back at the rabbis, then back at Rabbi Akiva, etc. Another question is then raised against Rabbi Akiva from a braita but is resolved.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 讻讙讜谉 讚谞驻讬砖讬 讞讜诇讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讻讬 谞驻讬砖讬 讞讜诇讬谉 诪讗讬 讛讜讬


Granted, according to my opinion, as I say that this is because permitted food combines with forbidden food, I can explain that this is referring to a case where there is more non-sacred produce than teruma, and the combination assumes the status of the forbidden item or teruma only when those are the majority. However, according to your opinion, that you say this is because there is an olive-bulk consumed in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, then even if there is more non-sacred produce, what of it? In any case there is an olive-bulk of teruma eaten within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讞 诇转专讜诪讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讚专讘谞谉


Rav Dimi said to Abaye: Leave aside teruma in the present, as it applies by rabbinic law. Since the exile of the Jewish people from Eretz Yisrael, the halakhot of teruma and tithes apply by rabbinic law, not Torah law. This is the basis for the lenient ruling with regard to this mixture.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讗讬 诪砖专转 诇讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讬转谉 讟注诐 讻注讬拽专 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗


Abaye said to him: From where do you derive that this verse: 鈥淣or shall he drink anything soaked in grapes鈥 (Numbers 6:3), comes to teach the principle that permitted food combines with forbidden food, as stated by Rabbi Yo岣nan (35b)? Perhaps instead it comes to establish the principle that the legal status of the flavor of a forbidden food is like that of its substance. This principle states that any food that absorbs the taste of a forbidden item assumes the status of this forbidden item itself.


讜诇讗讘讬讬 诪注讬拽专讗 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜拽讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讬讛 讻诇 讛诇讬谉 转讬讜讘转讗 讛讚专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬转谉 讟注诐 讻注讬拽专


The Gemara expresses surprise at Abaye鈥檚 question. And according to the opinion of Abaye, initially that which Rav Dimi said was difficult for him. Rav Dimi had cited Rabbi Yo岣nan as saying that permitted food combines with forbidden foods only in the case of naziriteship (36a), due to the term 鈥渟oaked,鈥 and Abaye had objected with all these aforementioned refutations to prove that this principle applies in all areas of Torah law. And yet he then said to him that one should derive a very different principle from that same verse, that the verse establishes the principle that the legal status of the flavor of a forbidden food is like that of its substance.


讘转专 讚砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讬转谉 讟注诐 讻注讬拽专 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗


The Gemara answers: After Rav Dimi resolved Abaye鈥檚 difficulties, and Abaye had accepted his answer that the principle that permitted food combines with forbidden food does not apply to the rest of Torah law, he said to Rav Dimi that perhaps the verse comes to establish that the legal status of the flavor of a forbidden food is like that of its substance, with the following application.


诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诪砖专转 诇讬转谉 讟注诐 讻注讬拽专 砖讗诐 砖专讛 注谞讘讬诐 讘诪讬诐 讜讬砖 讘讛谉 讟注诐 讬讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讜诪讻讗谉 讗转讛 讚谉 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛


This is relevant for that which is taught in a baraita: The term 鈥渟oaked鈥 serves to establish the principle that the legal status of the flavor of a forbidden food is like that of its substance. As, if a nazirite soaked grapes in water and the water has the taste of wine, he is liable to receive punishment for drinking this liquid, as it assumes the status of wine. And from here you derive the halakha with regard to all prohibitions of the Torah; in all cases, the legal status of the taste of a forbidden food is like that of its substance. The fact that with regard to all other prohibitions, the legal status of the flavor of a forbidden food is like that of its substance, is derived from the halakhot of naziriteship.


讜诪讛 谞讝讬专 砖讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专讜 讗讬住讜专 注讜诇诐 讜讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专讜 讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛 讜讬砖 讛讬转专 诇讗讬住讜专讜 注砖讛 讘讜 讟注诐 讻注讬拽专 讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 砖讗讬住讜专谉 讗讬住讜专 注讜诇诐 讜讗讬住讜专谉 讗讬住讜专 讛谞讬讬讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讬转专 诇讗讬住讜专谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬注砖讛 讘讜 讟注诐 讻注讬拽专


The baraita explains the derivation: And just as with regard to a nazirite, whose prohibition against eating grapes is not a permanent prohibition, as he will be permitted to eat grapes once his term of naziriteship is over, and furthermore his prohibition is not a prohibition against deriving benefit from wine, and there is a way to permit his prohibition against eating grape products by requesting from a halakhic authority to dissolve his vow, and nevertheless, in his case the Torah rendered the legal status of the flavor of food like that of its substance. With regard to a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds in a vineyard, i.e., grain seeds sown with grape seeds, whose prohibition is a permanent prohibition and whose prohibition is a prohibition against deriving benefit, and there is no way to permit their prohibition, is it not right that the Torah should render the legal status of the flavor of its forbidden food like that of its substance?


讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇注专诇讛 讘砖转讬诐


The baraita adds: And the same is true for the prohibition against eating the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla], on two of three counts: Although the prohibition of orla is not a permanent prohibition, as one may eat the fruit of this tree after three years have passed, it is prohibited to derive benefit from orla, and this prohibition cannot be permitted, as the fruits that grow during the first three years remain forbidden. Similarly, all other prohibitions in the Torah are more severe than the case of a nazirite in one of these aspects, and therefore this principle is universal. Abaye is asking Rav Dimi: In any case doesn鈥檛 this entire derivation present a difficulty for Rabbi Yo岣nan, who derives a different halakha from the term 鈥渟oaked鈥?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讛讻讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖专讛 驻讬转讜 讘讬讬谉 讜讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇爪专祝 讻讝讬转 讞讬讬讘 讜诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讝讬转 讘注讬谞讗


One of the Sages said to Abaye: When Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the principle of permitted food combining with forbidden food is derived from the term 鈥渟oaked,鈥 he spoke in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara asks: To which statement of Rabbi Akiva is the Gemara referring? If we say it is referring to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva of this mishna, as we learned (Shevuot 21b) that Rabbi Akiva says: Even if a nazirite soaked his bread in wine, and the bread and the wine contain enough to combine to constitute an olive-bulk, he is liable; but from where do we know that Rabbi Akiva means an olive-bulk taken from the bread and the wine together? Perhaps that ruling applies only when there is an olive-bulk of wine as is, without the bread?


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬砖转讛 专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉


And if you would say: In that case, what is the purpose of stating this ruling? What is the novelty of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 statement if the mixture contains an olive-bulk of wine? One can say that it serves to exclude the opinion of the first tanna, who said that he is liable only if he drinks a quarterlog of wine. Rabbi Akiva emphasizes that one is liable even if he drinks the amount of an olive-bulk.


讗诇讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讘专讬讬转讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 谞讝讬专 砖砖专讛 驻转讜 讘讬讬谉 讜讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 诪驻转 讜诪讬讬谉 讞讬讬讘


Rather, the reference is to the following statement of Rabbi Akiva in a baraita. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: A nazirite who soaked his bread in wine and ate an olive-bulk of the mixture of bread and wine is liable. This baraita indicates that according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva a permitted substance combines with a forbidden substance.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚拽讗 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 讜讻诇 诪砖专转 诇讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 诇讬转谉 讟注诐 讻注讬拽专 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讬诇讬祝 诪讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 诇讗讜 讟注诐 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讜讗住讜专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗


Rav A岣, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: According to Rabbi Akiva, who establishes the verse 鈥渘either shall he drink anything soaked鈥 (Numbers 6:3) as referring to the principle that the permitted combines with the forbidden, from where does he derive the principle that the legal status of the flavor is like that of the substance itself? The Gemara answers: He derives this principle from the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. Is it not the case that there is no actual milk present, and it is merely the taste of the milk absorbed in the meat, and yet the mixture is prohibited? Here too, in the case of other prohibitions, it is no different, and the legal status of the flavor is like that of the substance itself.


讜专讘谞谉 诪讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 讚讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva and derive the halakha that the legal status of the flavor is like that of the substance itself from the phrase 鈥渘either shall he drink anything soaked,鈥 why do they not derive this principle from the case of meat cooked in milk? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis claim that we do not derive other prohibitions from meat cooked in milk, as that prohibition is a novelty, and one does not learn general halakhot from unusual cases.


诪讗讬 讞讬讚讜砖讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讜讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 砖专讬 讜讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗住讜专 讻诇讗讬诐 谞诪讬 讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 砖专讬 讜讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 砖专讬 讜讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗住讜专


The Gemara asks: What is the novelty of that prohibition? If we say that it is unique in that this meat alone and that milk alone are each permitted, and yet together they are forbidden, that characteristic is not unique to meat cooked in milk. In the case of forbidden mixtures of diverse kinds too, this element alone and that element alone are each permitted, and yet together they are forbidden.


讗诇讗 讚讗讬 转专讜 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬 讬讜诪讗 讘讞诇讘讗 砖专讬 讜诪讘砖讬诇 诇讬讛 讘砖讜诇讬 讗住讜专


The Gemara answers: Rather, the novelty is that if one soaks meat in milk all day, it is permitted by Torah law, despite the fact that the meat certainly absorbed some taste of the milk, whereas if one cooked meat in milk even for a short time, the mixture is forbidden by Torah law. The novelty is that it is not the fact that they are mixed together that renders meat and milk forbidden, but the act of cooking.


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞诪讬 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讗诇讗


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Akiva too, he certainly agrees that the halakha of meat cooked in milk is a novelty. How can he derive a general principle from this case? Rather,


讬诇讬祝 诪讙讬注讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讻诇 讚讘专 讗砖专 讬讘讗 讘讗砖 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讗住讬专讬 讙讬注讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 诇讗讜 讟注诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讜讗住讜专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗


Rabbi Akiva derives the principle: The legal status of the flavor of forbidden food is like that of the substance itself, from the vessels of gentiles that require purging [gi鈥檜lei], where the Jews were commanded to purge the non-kosher flavor from the vessels they seized from the Midianites. As the Merciful One states in the section of the Torah that deals with the spoils of Midian: 鈥淓very thing that passes through the fire, you shall make it pass through the fire鈥 (Numbers 31:23). That is to say that the vessels of gentiles that require purging are forbidden to be used until they have been purged through fire and purified. Isn鈥檛 there mere taste absorbed in the vessels through the process of cooking? And even so, these vessels are forbidden if this purging was not performed. Here, too, with regard to other matters of Torah law, it is no different; and the legal status of the flavor is like that of the substance itself.


讜诇专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讛讜 诪讙讬注讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讚讛讗 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 诪讜转专


Rav A岣 further suggested to Rav Ashi: And according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who derive this principle from the verse: 鈥淣either shall he drink anything soaked鈥 (Numbers 6:3), let them also derive it from the vessels of gentiles that require purging, as does Rabbi Akiva. Rav Ashi said to him: The Rabbis maintain that there the halakha of purging vessels of gentiles is also a novelty. What is the novelty of this halakha? As with regard to all dietary laws in the Torah, anything that gives flavor, i.e., contributes taste, that renders the food tainted, is permitted. If the taste added by the forbidden food does not enhance the permitted food, it does not render that food forbidden.


讜讙讘讬 讙讬注讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 讗住讜专


But here, with regard to the halakha of vessels of gentiles that require purging, the Torah states that even if they contribute taste that renders the food tainted, nevertheless they are forbidden. If twenty-four hours have passed since food was cooked in a pot, the assumption is that the flavor released from the pot will contribute a deleterious taste to any foods subsequently cooked in the pot. Even so, vessels taken from gentiles remain forbidden until they have been purged, despite the fact that the taste they contribute taints the food.


讜诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞诪讬 讛讗 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诇讗 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诇拽讚讬专讛 讘转 讬讜诪讗 讚诇讗讜 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva too, the case of vessels of gentiles that require purging is apparently a novelty. Rabbi Akiva derives this principle from the required purging of the vessels of gentiles. How then does he respond to the previous claim? Rav Huna, son of 岣yya, said: The Torah prohibited the use of unpurged vessels of gentiles only in the case of a pot that was used on that day, which is not a case where the pot gives flavor that renders the food tainted. Accordingly, it is not a novelty that the vessels were forbidden.


讜专讘谞谉 拽讚讬专讛 讘转 讬讜诪讗 谞诪讬 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 驻讙诪讛 驻讜专转讗


The Gemara asks: And why don鈥檛 the Rabbis derive the halakha from there, as it is no longer a novelty? The Gemara answers: They hold that even in the case of a pot used on that day, it is impossible that the vessel does not slightly taint the food absorbed in the vessel. Consequently, the halakha of purging vessels of gentiles is a novelty, from which general principles cannot be derived.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讚专讘谞谉 谞砖诪注 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗讜 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 诪砖专转 诇讬转谉 讟注诐 讻注讬拽专 讜诪讻讗谉 讗转讛 讚谉 诇讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞诪讬 讚拽讗 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 诪砖专转 诇讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 诇讬诪讗 诪讻讗谉 讗转讛 讚谉 诇讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛


Rav A岣, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: From the opinion of the Rabbis, we infer the proper understanding of the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Don鈥檛 the Rabbis say that the term 鈥渟oaked鈥 teaches that the principle that the legal status of the flavor of forbidden food is like that of its substance applies not only to a nazirite, but that from here you derive the halakha with regard to all prohibitions of the Torah? According to Rabbi Akiva as well, who establishes this term: 鈥淪oaked,鈥 as teaching that the permitted substance combines with the forbidden substance with regard to a nazirite, let us say that from here you derive the halakha with regard to all prohibitions of the Torah. This explanation runs counter to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who applies this principle only to a nazirite.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讜讞讟讗转 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 谞讝讬专 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讞讟讗转 诪讗讬 讛讬讗


Rav Ashi said to him: This cannot serve as a proof, due to the fact that the halakhot of a nazirite and those of a sin-offering are from two verses that come as one, i.e., to teach the same matter, and any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to apply to other cases. The Gemara comments: The derivation that a permitted substance joins together with a forbidden substance in the case of a nazirite is that which we stated, from the term 鈥渟oaked.鈥 With regard to a sin-offering, what is the derivation that a permitted substance combines with a forbidden substance?


讚转谞讬讗 讻诇 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讘砖专讛 讬拽讚砖 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘诇注 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讘砖专讛 注讚 砖讬讘诇注 讘讘砖专讛


It is as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse discussing a sin-offering 鈥淎nything that touches in its flesh shall become consecrated鈥 (Leviticus 6:20). One might have thought that non-sacred meat that touched any part of a sin-offering is consecrated even if it did not absorb the taste of the sin-offering it touched. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚n its flesh,鈥 to teach that this meat is not consecrated until the taste of the sin-offering is absorbed within its flesh.


讬拽讚砖 诇讛讬讜转 讻诪讜讛 砖讗诐 驻住讜诇讛 讛讬讗 讬驻住诇 讜讗诐 讻砖专讛 转讗讻诇 讻讞诪讜专 砖讘讛


The baraita continues: 鈥淪hall become consecrated,鈥 means that its legal status becomes like that of the sin-offering itself; that is, if the sin-offering is disqualified, the non-sacred meat that touched it will also be disqualified. And if the sin-offering is valid, the non-sacred meat that touched it may be eaten in accordance with the more stringent standards of a sin-offering, with regard to when and where it may be eaten. The principle that a permitted substance combines with a forbidden substance is thereby stated in the case of a sin-offering as well. Consequently, the principle cannot be extended to the entire Torah, as a halakha stated in two cases is not applied elsewhere.


讜专讘谞谉 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 讞讟讗转 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讝讬专 诇讗 讗转讬 诪讬谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚谞讝讬专 诪拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉


And the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva, would maintain that both these sources are necessary, as neither the case of a nazirite nor the case of a sin-offering could be derived from the other. Therefore, this is not a case of two verses that come as one. The Gemara elaborates: For had the Merciful One written this halakha only with regard to a sin-offering, I would say that the case of a nazirite cannot be derived from it, due to the fact that we do not derive the halakha of a nazirite from that of consecrated items. This is because the prohibitions of naziriteship are unrelated to the Temple and offerings, and therefore it is possible that the halakha in question is unique to consecrated items.


讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪谞讝讬专 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讞诪讬专 讗讬住讜专讬讛 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讞专爪谉 讗住讬专 诇讬讛 讛诇讻讱 诇讗 讗转讬讗 诪讬谞讬讛


And conversely, had the Merciful One written this halakha only with regard to a nazirite, I would say that we do not derive the halakha of a sin-offering from that of a nazirite due to the fact that its prohibition is stringent. In what way? It is stringent as even a grape seed is forbidden to a nazirite, although the seeds are not usually eaten. Therefore, the halakha of a sin-offering cannot be derived from the case of a nazirite, which means that this is not a case of two verses that come as one. Consequently, one can derive a general halakha from them.


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 诇诪讗讬 爪专讬讻讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞讟讗转 诇讗 讙诪专 谞讝讬专 诪讬谞讛 讚讞讜诇讬谉 诪拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 讗诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘谞讝讬专 讜转讬转讬 讞讟讗转 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讛讗 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 拽讗 讙诪专讬 诪谞讝讬专


And Rabbi Akiva could have said to you, in rebuttal of this claim: Why are these cases both necessary? Granted, if the Merciful One had written this principle only with regard to a sin-offering, one would not derive the halakha of a nazirite from it, as we do not derive halakhot of non-sacred items from those of consecrated items. Certain stringencies and strictures apply only to consecrated property. However, let the Merciful One write this principle with regard to a nazirite, and you could derive the case of the sin-offering from that of a nazirite, just as the application of this principle to all prohibitions in the Torah is derived from the halakha of a nazirite. Since it is not necessary to state this principle in both cases, one cannot derive a general principle from them.


讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 诇讱 讞讟讗转 诇讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 讜讞讜诇讬谉 诪拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉


The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who maintain that the principle that the legal status of the flavor of a forbidden substance is like that of the substance itself is not limited to these two cases, would say to you that both sources are required. The case of a sin-offering is necessary to derive the principle that a permitted substance combines with a forbidden substance, and this stringency is not extrapolated to other prohibitions, in accordance with the principle that one cannot derive the halakhot of non-sacred items from consecrated items.


讜诪砖专转 诇讬转谉 讟注诐 讻注讬拽专 诪讻讗谉 讗转讛 讚谉 诇讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛


And the term 鈥渟oaked,鈥 which appears in the context of a nazirite, teaches the principle that the legal status of the flavor of forbidden food is like that of its substance. Since both examples are necessary, they are not considered two verses that come as one, and it is therefore possible to derive a general principle from them. And consequently, from here you derive the halakha with regard to all of the prohibitions of the Torah.


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 讜讛讜讜 诇讛讜 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉


The Gemara asks: And how would Rabbi Akiva respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva would say that both cases teach the principle that a permitted substance combines with a forbidden substance, and they are two verses that come as one, to teach about the same issue. And the rule is that any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to apply to other cases.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讻诇 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 诪讙驻谉 讛讬讬谉 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讗讬住讜专讬 谞讝讬专 砖讛谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛砖转讗 讬砖 诇讜诪专 讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 讗讬住讜专 诇讗讬住讜专 诪讘注讬讗


Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: But consider that which is taught in a baraita. The verse 鈥淗e shall not eat anything that is made of the grapevine鈥 (Numbers 6:4) taught with regard to prohibitions of a nazirite that these substances combine with each other. If a nazirite ate only a small amount of each substance, which together amount to the measure that determines liability, he is liable. According to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, now that one says that permitted substances combine with forbidden substances, is it necessary to teach that one forbidden substance combines with another forbidden substance? According to Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion, this derivation is apparently unnecessary.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬转专 诇讗讬住讜专 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗讬住讜专 诇讗讬住讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛


Rav Kahana said to Rav Ashi that this derivation is necessary because the two cases are not identical: Permitted substances combine with forbidden substances only when they are eaten simultaneously, whereas forbidden substances combine with other forbidden substances even when eaten one after the other. Therefore, according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, if a nazirite eats half an olive-bulk of grape skins and then eats half an olive-bulk of grape seeds, he is liable.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon,


  • Masechet Nazir is sponsored by the family of Rabbi Howard Alpert, HaRav Tzvi Lipa ben Hillel, in honor of his first yahrzeit.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nazir: 37-42 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the concept of 鈥渢he taste of forbidden food is prohibited鈥 and how it relates to...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nazir: 30-36 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the concept of 鈥渢he taste of forbidden food is prohibited鈥 and how it relates to...
talking talmud_square

Nazir 37: Meat, Milk, and Grape Products

Rabbi Akiva teaches that the prohibited food combines with the permitted one to make the whole thing prohibited - specifically...
flashback master of his people cesarea

Master of His People and Leader of His Nation

While Caesarea in ancient times is often associated with Romans and then with Christians, there were some significant Sages who...

Nazir 37

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nazir 37

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 讻讙讜谉 讚谞驻讬砖讬 讞讜诇讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讻讬 谞驻讬砖讬 讞讜诇讬谉 诪讗讬 讛讜讬


Granted, according to my opinion, as I say that this is because permitted food combines with forbidden food, I can explain that this is referring to a case where there is more non-sacred produce than teruma, and the combination assumes the status of the forbidden item or teruma only when those are the majority. However, according to your opinion, that you say this is because there is an olive-bulk consumed in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, then even if there is more non-sacred produce, what of it? In any case there is an olive-bulk of teruma eaten within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讞 诇转专讜诪讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讚专讘谞谉


Rav Dimi said to Abaye: Leave aside teruma in the present, as it applies by rabbinic law. Since the exile of the Jewish people from Eretz Yisrael, the halakhot of teruma and tithes apply by rabbinic law, not Torah law. This is the basis for the lenient ruling with regard to this mixture.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讗讬 诪砖专转 诇讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讬转谉 讟注诐 讻注讬拽专 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗


Abaye said to him: From where do you derive that this verse: 鈥淣or shall he drink anything soaked in grapes鈥 (Numbers 6:3), comes to teach the principle that permitted food combines with forbidden food, as stated by Rabbi Yo岣nan (35b)? Perhaps instead it comes to establish the principle that the legal status of the flavor of a forbidden food is like that of its substance. This principle states that any food that absorbs the taste of a forbidden item assumes the status of this forbidden item itself.


讜诇讗讘讬讬 诪注讬拽专讗 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜拽讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讬讛 讻诇 讛诇讬谉 转讬讜讘转讗 讛讚专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬转谉 讟注诐 讻注讬拽专


The Gemara expresses surprise at Abaye鈥檚 question. And according to the opinion of Abaye, initially that which Rav Dimi said was difficult for him. Rav Dimi had cited Rabbi Yo岣nan as saying that permitted food combines with forbidden foods only in the case of naziriteship (36a), due to the term 鈥渟oaked,鈥 and Abaye had objected with all these aforementioned refutations to prove that this principle applies in all areas of Torah law. And yet he then said to him that one should derive a very different principle from that same verse, that the verse establishes the principle that the legal status of the flavor of a forbidden food is like that of its substance.


讘转专 讚砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讬转谉 讟注诐 讻注讬拽专 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗


The Gemara answers: After Rav Dimi resolved Abaye鈥檚 difficulties, and Abaye had accepted his answer that the principle that permitted food combines with forbidden food does not apply to the rest of Torah law, he said to Rav Dimi that perhaps the verse comes to establish that the legal status of the flavor of a forbidden food is like that of its substance, with the following application.


诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诪砖专转 诇讬转谉 讟注诐 讻注讬拽专 砖讗诐 砖专讛 注谞讘讬诐 讘诪讬诐 讜讬砖 讘讛谉 讟注诐 讬讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讜诪讻讗谉 讗转讛 讚谉 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛


This is relevant for that which is taught in a baraita: The term 鈥渟oaked鈥 serves to establish the principle that the legal status of the flavor of a forbidden food is like that of its substance. As, if a nazirite soaked grapes in water and the water has the taste of wine, he is liable to receive punishment for drinking this liquid, as it assumes the status of wine. And from here you derive the halakha with regard to all prohibitions of the Torah; in all cases, the legal status of the taste of a forbidden food is like that of its substance. The fact that with regard to all other prohibitions, the legal status of the flavor of a forbidden food is like that of its substance, is derived from the halakhot of naziriteship.


讜诪讛 谞讝讬专 砖讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专讜 讗讬住讜专 注讜诇诐 讜讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专讜 讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛 讜讬砖 讛讬转专 诇讗讬住讜专讜 注砖讛 讘讜 讟注诐 讻注讬拽专 讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 砖讗讬住讜专谉 讗讬住讜专 注讜诇诐 讜讗讬住讜专谉 讗讬住讜专 讛谞讬讬讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讬转专 诇讗讬住讜专谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬注砖讛 讘讜 讟注诐 讻注讬拽专


The baraita explains the derivation: And just as with regard to a nazirite, whose prohibition against eating grapes is not a permanent prohibition, as he will be permitted to eat grapes once his term of naziriteship is over, and furthermore his prohibition is not a prohibition against deriving benefit from wine, and there is a way to permit his prohibition against eating grape products by requesting from a halakhic authority to dissolve his vow, and nevertheless, in his case the Torah rendered the legal status of the flavor of food like that of its substance. With regard to a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds in a vineyard, i.e., grain seeds sown with grape seeds, whose prohibition is a permanent prohibition and whose prohibition is a prohibition against deriving benefit, and there is no way to permit their prohibition, is it not right that the Torah should render the legal status of the flavor of its forbidden food like that of its substance?


讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇注专诇讛 讘砖转讬诐


The baraita adds: And the same is true for the prohibition against eating the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla], on two of three counts: Although the prohibition of orla is not a permanent prohibition, as one may eat the fruit of this tree after three years have passed, it is prohibited to derive benefit from orla, and this prohibition cannot be permitted, as the fruits that grow during the first three years remain forbidden. Similarly, all other prohibitions in the Torah are more severe than the case of a nazirite in one of these aspects, and therefore this principle is universal. Abaye is asking Rav Dimi: In any case doesn鈥檛 this entire derivation present a difficulty for Rabbi Yo岣nan, who derives a different halakha from the term 鈥渟oaked鈥?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讛讻讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖专讛 驻讬转讜 讘讬讬谉 讜讬砖 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇爪专祝 讻讝讬转 讞讬讬讘 讜诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讝讬转 讘注讬谞讗


One of the Sages said to Abaye: When Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the principle of permitted food combining with forbidden food is derived from the term 鈥渟oaked,鈥 he spoke in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara asks: To which statement of Rabbi Akiva is the Gemara referring? If we say it is referring to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva of this mishna, as we learned (Shevuot 21b) that Rabbi Akiva says: Even if a nazirite soaked his bread in wine, and the bread and the wine contain enough to combine to constitute an olive-bulk, he is liable; but from where do we know that Rabbi Akiva means an olive-bulk taken from the bread and the wine together? Perhaps that ruling applies only when there is an olive-bulk of wine as is, without the bread?


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬砖转讛 专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉


And if you would say: In that case, what is the purpose of stating this ruling? What is the novelty of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 statement if the mixture contains an olive-bulk of wine? One can say that it serves to exclude the opinion of the first tanna, who said that he is liable only if he drinks a quarterlog of wine. Rabbi Akiva emphasizes that one is liable even if he drinks the amount of an olive-bulk.


讗诇讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讘专讬讬转讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 谞讝讬专 砖砖专讛 驻转讜 讘讬讬谉 讜讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 诪驻转 讜诪讬讬谉 讞讬讬讘


Rather, the reference is to the following statement of Rabbi Akiva in a baraita. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: A nazirite who soaked his bread in wine and ate an olive-bulk of the mixture of bread and wine is liable. This baraita indicates that according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva a permitted substance combines with a forbidden substance.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚拽讗 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 讜讻诇 诪砖专转 诇讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 诇讬转谉 讟注诐 讻注讬拽专 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讬诇讬祝 诪讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 诇讗讜 讟注诐 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讜讗住讜专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗


Rav A岣, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: According to Rabbi Akiva, who establishes the verse 鈥渘either shall he drink anything soaked鈥 (Numbers 6:3) as referring to the principle that the permitted combines with the forbidden, from where does he derive the principle that the legal status of the flavor is like that of the substance itself? The Gemara answers: He derives this principle from the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. Is it not the case that there is no actual milk present, and it is merely the taste of the milk absorbed in the meat, and yet the mixture is prohibited? Here too, in the case of other prohibitions, it is no different, and the legal status of the flavor is like that of the substance itself.


讜专讘谞谉 诪讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 讚讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva and derive the halakha that the legal status of the flavor is like that of the substance itself from the phrase 鈥渘either shall he drink anything soaked,鈥 why do they not derive this principle from the case of meat cooked in milk? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis claim that we do not derive other prohibitions from meat cooked in milk, as that prohibition is a novelty, and one does not learn general halakhot from unusual cases.


诪讗讬 讞讬讚讜砖讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讜讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 砖专讬 讜讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗住讜专 讻诇讗讬诐 谞诪讬 讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 砖专讬 讜讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 砖专讬 讜讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗住讜专


The Gemara asks: What is the novelty of that prohibition? If we say that it is unique in that this meat alone and that milk alone are each permitted, and yet together they are forbidden, that characteristic is not unique to meat cooked in milk. In the case of forbidden mixtures of diverse kinds too, this element alone and that element alone are each permitted, and yet together they are forbidden.


讗诇讗 讚讗讬 转专讜 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬 讬讜诪讗 讘讞诇讘讗 砖专讬 讜诪讘砖讬诇 诇讬讛 讘砖讜诇讬 讗住讜专


The Gemara answers: Rather, the novelty is that if one soaks meat in milk all day, it is permitted by Torah law, despite the fact that the meat certainly absorbed some taste of the milk, whereas if one cooked meat in milk even for a short time, the mixture is forbidden by Torah law. The novelty is that it is not the fact that they are mixed together that renders meat and milk forbidden, but the act of cooking.


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞诪讬 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讗诇讗


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Akiva too, he certainly agrees that the halakha of meat cooked in milk is a novelty. How can he derive a general principle from this case? Rather,


讬诇讬祝 诪讙讬注讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讻诇 讚讘专 讗砖专 讬讘讗 讘讗砖 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讗住讬专讬 讙讬注讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 诇讗讜 讟注诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讜讗住讜专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗


Rabbi Akiva derives the principle: The legal status of the flavor of forbidden food is like that of the substance itself, from the vessels of gentiles that require purging [gi鈥檜lei], where the Jews were commanded to purge the non-kosher flavor from the vessels they seized from the Midianites. As the Merciful One states in the section of the Torah that deals with the spoils of Midian: 鈥淓very thing that passes through the fire, you shall make it pass through the fire鈥 (Numbers 31:23). That is to say that the vessels of gentiles that require purging are forbidden to be used until they have been purged through fire and purified. Isn鈥檛 there mere taste absorbed in the vessels through the process of cooking? And even so, these vessels are forbidden if this purging was not performed. Here, too, with regard to other matters of Torah law, it is no different; and the legal status of the flavor is like that of the substance itself.


讜诇专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讛讜 诪讙讬注讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讚讛讗 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 诪讜转专


Rav A岣 further suggested to Rav Ashi: And according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who derive this principle from the verse: 鈥淣either shall he drink anything soaked鈥 (Numbers 6:3), let them also derive it from the vessels of gentiles that require purging, as does Rabbi Akiva. Rav Ashi said to him: The Rabbis maintain that there the halakha of purging vessels of gentiles is also a novelty. What is the novelty of this halakha? As with regard to all dietary laws in the Torah, anything that gives flavor, i.e., contributes taste, that renders the food tainted, is permitted. If the taste added by the forbidden food does not enhance the permitted food, it does not render that food forbidden.


讜讙讘讬 讙讬注讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 讗住讜专


But here, with regard to the halakha of vessels of gentiles that require purging, the Torah states that even if they contribute taste that renders the food tainted, nevertheless they are forbidden. If twenty-four hours have passed since food was cooked in a pot, the assumption is that the flavor released from the pot will contribute a deleterious taste to any foods subsequently cooked in the pot. Even so, vessels taken from gentiles remain forbidden until they have been purged, despite the fact that the taste they contribute taints the food.


讜诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞诪讬 讛讗 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诇讗 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诇拽讚讬专讛 讘转 讬讜诪讗 讚诇讗讜 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva too, the case of vessels of gentiles that require purging is apparently a novelty. Rabbi Akiva derives this principle from the required purging of the vessels of gentiles. How then does he respond to the previous claim? Rav Huna, son of 岣yya, said: The Torah prohibited the use of unpurged vessels of gentiles only in the case of a pot that was used on that day, which is not a case where the pot gives flavor that renders the food tainted. Accordingly, it is not a novelty that the vessels were forbidden.


讜专讘谞谉 拽讚讬专讛 讘转 讬讜诪讗 谞诪讬 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 驻讙诪讛 驻讜专转讗


The Gemara asks: And why don鈥檛 the Rabbis derive the halakha from there, as it is no longer a novelty? The Gemara answers: They hold that even in the case of a pot used on that day, it is impossible that the vessel does not slightly taint the food absorbed in the vessel. Consequently, the halakha of purging vessels of gentiles is a novelty, from which general principles cannot be derived.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讚专讘谞谉 谞砖诪注 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗讜 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 诪砖专转 诇讬转谉 讟注诐 讻注讬拽专 讜诪讻讗谉 讗转讛 讚谉 诇讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞诪讬 讚拽讗 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 诪砖专转 诇讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 诇讬诪讗 诪讻讗谉 讗转讛 讚谉 诇讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛


Rav A岣, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: From the opinion of the Rabbis, we infer the proper understanding of the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Don鈥檛 the Rabbis say that the term 鈥渟oaked鈥 teaches that the principle that the legal status of the flavor of forbidden food is like that of its substance applies not only to a nazirite, but that from here you derive the halakha with regard to all prohibitions of the Torah? According to Rabbi Akiva as well, who establishes this term: 鈥淪oaked,鈥 as teaching that the permitted substance combines with the forbidden substance with regard to a nazirite, let us say that from here you derive the halakha with regard to all prohibitions of the Torah. This explanation runs counter to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who applies this principle only to a nazirite.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讜讞讟讗转 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 谞讝讬专 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讞讟讗转 诪讗讬 讛讬讗


Rav Ashi said to him: This cannot serve as a proof, due to the fact that the halakhot of a nazirite and those of a sin-offering are from two verses that come as one, i.e., to teach the same matter, and any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to apply to other cases. The Gemara comments: The derivation that a permitted substance joins together with a forbidden substance in the case of a nazirite is that which we stated, from the term 鈥渟oaked.鈥 With regard to a sin-offering, what is the derivation that a permitted substance combines with a forbidden substance?


讚转谞讬讗 讻诇 讗砖专 讬讙注 讘讘砖专讛 讬拽讚砖 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘诇注 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讘砖专讛 注讚 砖讬讘诇注 讘讘砖专讛


It is as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse discussing a sin-offering 鈥淎nything that touches in its flesh shall become consecrated鈥 (Leviticus 6:20). One might have thought that non-sacred meat that touched any part of a sin-offering is consecrated even if it did not absorb the taste of the sin-offering it touched. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚n its flesh,鈥 to teach that this meat is not consecrated until the taste of the sin-offering is absorbed within its flesh.


讬拽讚砖 诇讛讬讜转 讻诪讜讛 砖讗诐 驻住讜诇讛 讛讬讗 讬驻住诇 讜讗诐 讻砖专讛 转讗讻诇 讻讞诪讜专 砖讘讛


The baraita continues: 鈥淪hall become consecrated,鈥 means that its legal status becomes like that of the sin-offering itself; that is, if the sin-offering is disqualified, the non-sacred meat that touched it will also be disqualified. And if the sin-offering is valid, the non-sacred meat that touched it may be eaten in accordance with the more stringent standards of a sin-offering, with regard to when and where it may be eaten. The principle that a permitted substance combines with a forbidden substance is thereby stated in the case of a sin-offering as well. Consequently, the principle cannot be extended to the entire Torah, as a halakha stated in two cases is not applied elsewhere.


讜专讘谞谉 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 讞讟讗转 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讝讬专 诇讗 讗转讬 诪讬谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚谞讝讬专 诪拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉


And the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva, would maintain that both these sources are necessary, as neither the case of a nazirite nor the case of a sin-offering could be derived from the other. Therefore, this is not a case of two verses that come as one. The Gemara elaborates: For had the Merciful One written this halakha only with regard to a sin-offering, I would say that the case of a nazirite cannot be derived from it, due to the fact that we do not derive the halakha of a nazirite from that of consecrated items. This is because the prohibitions of naziriteship are unrelated to the Temple and offerings, and therefore it is possible that the halakha in question is unique to consecrated items.


讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 谞讝讬专 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪谞讝讬专 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讞诪讬专 讗讬住讜专讬讛 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讞专爪谉 讗住讬专 诇讬讛 讛诇讻讱 诇讗 讗转讬讗 诪讬谞讬讛


And conversely, had the Merciful One written this halakha only with regard to a nazirite, I would say that we do not derive the halakha of a sin-offering from that of a nazirite due to the fact that its prohibition is stringent. In what way? It is stringent as even a grape seed is forbidden to a nazirite, although the seeds are not usually eaten. Therefore, the halakha of a sin-offering cannot be derived from the case of a nazirite, which means that this is not a case of two verses that come as one. Consequently, one can derive a general halakha from them.


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 诇诪讗讬 爪专讬讻讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞讟讗转 诇讗 讙诪专 谞讝讬专 诪讬谞讛 讚讞讜诇讬谉 诪拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 讗诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘谞讝讬专 讜转讬转讬 讞讟讗转 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讛讗 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 拽讗 讙诪专讬 诪谞讝讬专


And Rabbi Akiva could have said to you, in rebuttal of this claim: Why are these cases both necessary? Granted, if the Merciful One had written this principle only with regard to a sin-offering, one would not derive the halakha of a nazirite from it, as we do not derive halakhot of non-sacred items from those of consecrated items. Certain stringencies and strictures apply only to consecrated property. However, let the Merciful One write this principle with regard to a nazirite, and you could derive the case of the sin-offering from that of a nazirite, just as the application of this principle to all prohibitions in the Torah is derived from the halakha of a nazirite. Since it is not necessary to state this principle in both cases, one cannot derive a general principle from them.


讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 诇讱 讞讟讗转 诇讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 讜讞讜诇讬谉 诪拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉


The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who maintain that the principle that the legal status of the flavor of a forbidden substance is like that of the substance itself is not limited to these two cases, would say to you that both sources are required. The case of a sin-offering is necessary to derive the principle that a permitted substance combines with a forbidden substance, and this stringency is not extrapolated to other prohibitions, in accordance with the principle that one cannot derive the halakhot of non-sacred items from consecrated items.


讜诪砖专转 诇讬转谉 讟注诐 讻注讬拽专 诪讻讗谉 讗转讛 讚谉 诇讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛


And the term 鈥渟oaked,鈥 which appears in the context of a nazirite, teaches the principle that the legal status of the flavor of forbidden food is like that of its substance. Since both examples are necessary, they are not considered two verses that come as one, and it is therefore possible to derive a general principle from them. And consequently, from here you derive the halakha with regard to all of the prohibitions of the Torah.


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 讜讛讜讜 诇讛讜 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉


The Gemara asks: And how would Rabbi Akiva respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva would say that both cases teach the principle that a permitted substance combines with a forbidden substance, and they are two verses that come as one, to teach about the same issue. And the rule is that any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to apply to other cases.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讻诇 讗砖专 讬注砖讛 诪讙驻谉 讛讬讬谉 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讗讬住讜专讬 谞讝讬专 砖讛谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛砖转讗 讬砖 诇讜诪专 讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 讗讬住讜专 诇讗讬住讜专 诪讘注讬讗


Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: But consider that which is taught in a baraita. The verse 鈥淗e shall not eat anything that is made of the grapevine鈥 (Numbers 6:4) taught with regard to prohibitions of a nazirite that these substances combine with each other. If a nazirite ate only a small amount of each substance, which together amount to the measure that determines liability, he is liable. According to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, now that one says that permitted substances combine with forbidden substances, is it necessary to teach that one forbidden substance combines with another forbidden substance? According to Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion, this derivation is apparently unnecessary.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬转专 诇讗讬住讜专 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗讬住讜专 诇讗讬住讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛


Rav Kahana said to Rav Ashi that this derivation is necessary because the two cases are not identical: Permitted substances combine with forbidden substances only when they are eaten simultaneously, whereas forbidden substances combine with other forbidden substances even when eaten one after the other. Therefore, according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, if a nazirite eats half an olive-bulk of grape skins and then eats half an olive-bulk of grape seeds, he is liable.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon,


Scroll To Top