Pesachim 44
לְעִנְיַן חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח נָמֵי.
with regard to the matter of leavened bread on Passover one should also be liable for eating a prohibited substance joined together with a permitted substance.
אִין הָכִי נָמֵי. וּלְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּאַבַּיֵּי דְּאָמַר: יֵשׁ הַקְטָרָה לְפָחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן דְּהַקְטָרָה לָאו לְפָחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת.
The Gemara answers: Yes, indeed it is so, and the prohibition mentioned by Ze’eiri against sacrificing leaven in offerings was only to exclude the statement of Abaye, who said: There is significance to offering less than an olive-bulk of leaven on the altar, and one is flogged for sacrificing an offering of that kind. By noting that one is liable because permitted substances combine with prohibited substances, the baraita teaches us that an offering of less than an olive-bulk is not considered an offering, and therefore sacrificing it is not punishable by lashes.
יָתֵיב רַב דִּימִי וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב דִּימִי: וְכׇל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה אֵין הֶיתֵּר מִצְטָרֵף לְאִיסּוּר?
Rav Dimi sat and stated this halakha that a permitted substance does not join together with a prohibited substance to constitute the requisite measure, except in the case of a nazirite. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: And is it true that with regard to all other prohibitions in the Torah, a permitted substance does not join together with a prohibited substance?
וְהָתְנַן: הַמִּקְפָּה שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה וְהַשּׁוּם וְהַשֶּׁמֶן שֶׁל חוּלִּין, וְנָגַע טְבוּל יוֹם בְּמִקְצָתָן — פָּסַל אֶת כּוּלָּן. הַמִּקְפָּה שֶׁל חוּלִּין וְהַשּׁוּם וְהַשֶּׁמֶן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, וְנָגַע טְבוּל יוֹם בְּמִקְצָתָן — לֹא פָּסַל אֶלָּא מְקוֹם מַגָּעוֹ בִּלְבַד.
But didn’t we learn in a mishna: With regard to thick soup prepared with teruma produce whose garlic and oil are of non-sacred produce, and one who immersed himself during that day touched some of the ingredients, he disqualified all the contents of the pot, as they are subsumed within the teruma soup. However, if the thick soup was prepared with non-sacred produce and the garlic and the oil were of teruma, and one who immersed himself during that day touched some of them, he disqualifies only the ingredients in the place that he touched.
וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: מְקוֹם מַגָּעוֹ אַמַּאי פְּסוּלָה? הָא בָּטְלִי לְהוּ תַּבְלִין בְּרוֹב! וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: מַה טַּעַם — הוֹאִיל וְזָר לוֹקֶה עֲלֵיהֶן בִּכְזַיִת. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי, לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּהֶיתֵּר מִצְטָרֵף לְאִיסּוּר?
Abaye continues. And we discussed this issue: Why are the ingredients in the place that he touched disqualified? The spices, i.e., the garlic or oil, are nullified by the majority. Since the major portion of the dish is composed of non-sacred produce, it should not be disqualified by contact with one who immersed himself during that day. And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in reply: What is the reason that it becomes disqualified? It is since 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. What are the circumstances of this ruling that a non-priest is flogged? Is it not due to the fact that the permitted substance joins together with the prohibited substance?
לָא, מַאי כְּזַיִת — דְּאִיכָּא כְּזַיִת בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס.
Rav Dimi rejects this contention: No; what is the meaning of an olive-bulk in this mishna? It means that there is sufficient teruma in the mixture 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 for punishment for eating this olive-bulk, as if he ate the teruma alone.
וּכְזַיִת בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הִיא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין.
Abaye asked him: Is eating an olive-bulk in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread prohibited by Torah law, and one is punished for it? He said to him: Yes.
אִי הָכִי, אַמַּאי פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּכוּתָּח הַבַּבְלִי?
Abaye asked in response: If so, why do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to eating Babylonian kutaḥ, a dip that contains flour, on Passover? The Rabbis maintain that one is not punished by Torah law for eating a mixture containing leaven. Although the Rabbis do not derive from the word: Anything [kol], that leaven in a mixture is prohibited, they should nonetheless hold one liable for eating an olive-bulk of a prohibited substance in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread.
אֶלָּא מַאי, מִשּׁוּם דְּהֶיתֵּר מִצְטָרֵף לְאִיסּוּר? סוֹף סוֹף אַמַּאי פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּכוּתָּח הַבַּבְלִי? אֶלָּא: הַנַּח לְכוּתָּח הַבַּבְלִי דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ כְּזַיִת בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס. אִי בְּעֵינֵיהּ דְּקָשָׂרֵיף וְקָאָכֵיל לֵיהּ, בָּטְלָה דַּעְתֵּיהּ אֵצֶל כׇּל אָדָם. וְאִי מִשְׁטָר קָשָׁטַר וְאָכֵיל — לֵית בֵּיהּ כְּזַיִת בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס.
Rav Dimi said: Rather, what conclusion must be drawn; the reason that a non-priest is flogged for eating the teruma soup is due to the fact that a permitted substance joins together with a prohibited substance? If so, ultimately, why do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to eating Babylonian kutaḥ? Rather, leave Babylonian kutaḥ, as in eating that mixture 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 kutaḥ in its pure, unadulterated form, by swallowing 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, all the more so, for him to eat it so quickly. One receives no punishment for conduct that anomalous. And if he dips other food into the kutaḥ and eats it, he will not consume an olive-bulk in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. Due to the pungency of the dip, one needs to add only a small portion to his food.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: שְׁתֵּי קְדֵירוֹת, אַחַת שֶׁל חוּלִּין וְאַחַת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, וְלִפְנֵיהֶן שְׁתֵּי מְדוֹכוֹת, אַחַת שֶׁל חוּלִּין וְאַחַת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, וְנָפְלוּ אֵלּוּ לְתוֹךְ אֵלּוּ — מוּתָּרִין. שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: תְּרוּמָה לְתוֹךְ הַתְּרוּמָה נָפְלָה, וְחוּלִּין לְתוֹךְ חוּלִּין נָפְלוּ,
Abaye raised an objection to Rav Dimi from a baraita: With regard to two pots, one of non-sacred produce and the other one of teruma, before which were two mortars, one in which non-sacred produce was pounded, and one in which teruma produce was pounded, and the contents of these mortars fell into these pots, but it is unknown which produce fell into which pot, it is all permitted. The reason for this ruling is as I say, since there is no definitive proof to the contrary, that the teruma fell into the teruma and the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce.
וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ כְּזַיִת בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אַמַּאי אָמְרִינַן ״שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר תְּרוּמָה לְתוֹךְ כּוּ׳״? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַנַּח לִתְרוּמַת תַּבְלִין דְּרַבָּנַן.
Abaye explains his objection: And if you say that eating an olive-bulk of a prohibited substance in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread is prohibited by Torah law, why do we say this principle: As I say that the teruma fell into the teruma, etc.? If the teruma produce 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. Rav Dimi said to him: Leave 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.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: שְׁתֵּי קוּפּוֹת, אַחַת שֶׁל חוּלִּין וְאַחַת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, וְלִפְנֵיהֶם שְׁנֵי סְאִין, אַחַת שֶׁל חוּלִּין וְאַחַת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, וְנָפְלוּ אֵלּוּ לְתוֹךְ אֵלּוּ — מוּתָּרִין, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: חוּלִּין לְתוֹךְ חוּלִּין נָפְלוּ, תְּרוּמָה לְתוֹךְ תְּרוּמָה נָפְלָה. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ כְּזַיִת בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — אַמַּאי אָמְרִינַן ״שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר״?
Abaye raised another objection from a similar baraita: In a case where there are two baskets, one filled with non-sacred produce and the other filled with teruma, and before them were two vessels each containing a se’a of produce, one filled with non-sacred produce and the other one filled with teruma, and these, the contents of each of the baskets, fell into those, each of the se’a vessels. It is possible that the teruma fell into the non-sacred produce, and it is prohibited for non-priests to eat a mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce. Nevertheless, the contents of the se’a vessel containing the non-sacred produce are permitted, as I say that the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce and the teruma fell into the teruma. The obligation to separate teruma from grain is by Torah law, and if you 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: As I say the non-sacred grain fell into the non-sacred grain? Why aren’t the Sages concerned that one might eat an olive-bulk of teruma in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf, which is prohibited by Torah law?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַנַּח לִתְרוּמָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה דְּרַבָּנַן.
He said to him: Leave teruma in modern times, as it is in effect by rabbinic law. Once the Jewish people were exiled from their land, the halakhot of teruma and tithes apply by rabbinic law, not Torah law. This is the basis for the lenient ruling in the case of this mixture.
וְהַאי ״מִשְׁרַת״ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא? הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״מִשְׁרַת״ —
The Gemara returns to its discussion of Rabbi Abbahu’s statement with regard to the meaning of the word soaked in the verse: “He shall abstain from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, nor shall he drink anything soaked in grapes,” and whether or not a permitted substance combines with a prohibited one. The Gemara asks: And does this word: Soaked, come to teach that mixtures are prohibited in this case? That verse is required to derive that which was taught in a baraita elsewhere: Soaked,
לִיתֵּן טַעַם כְּעִיקָּר. שֶׁאִם שָׁרָה עֲנָבִים בְּמַיִם, וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶן טַעַם יַיִן — חַיָּיב.
comes to establish the principle that the legal status of the taste of a forbidden food is like that of its substance. This term teaches that any food that absorbs the taste of a prohibited item assumes the status of this prohibited item itself. As, in a case where one soaked grapes in water and the water has the taste of wine, a nazirite is liable for drinking this mixture, as it assumes the status of wine.
מִכָּאן אַתָּה דָּן לְכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ: וּמָה נָזִיר שֶׁאֵין אִיסּוּרוֹ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם, וְאֵין אִיסּוּרוֹ אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה, וְיֵשׁ הֶיתֵּר לְאִיסּוּרוֹ — עָשָׂה בּוֹ טַעַם כְּעִיקָּר, כִּלְאַיִם, שֶׁאִיסּוּרוֹ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם, וְאִיסּוּרוֹ אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה, וְאֵין הֶיתֵּר לְאִיסּוּרוֹ — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה טַעַם כְּעִיקָּר?
From here you derive the halakha with regard to the entire Torah; in all cases, the legal status of the taste of a forbidden food is like that of its substance. The Gemara elaborates. Just as with regard to a nazirite, whose prohibition against eating grapes is not an eternal prohibition, as he will be permitted to eat grapes once his period of naziriteship is over, and furthermore, his prohibition is not a prohibition against deriving benefit from wine, and there is dissolution for his prohibition against eating grape products by requesting a Sage to release him from his vow, nevertheless, in his case, the Torah rendered the legal status of the taste of food forbidden to him like that of its substance; with regard to a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds, whose prohibition is an eternal prohibition [issuro issur olam] and whose prohibition is a prohibition against deriving benefit, and there is no dissolution for its prohibition, is it not right that the Torah should render the legal status of the taste of its forbidden food like that of its substance?
וְהוּא הַדִּין לְעׇרְלָה בִּשְׁתַּיִם!
And the same is true of fruit that grows on a tree during the first three years after it was planted [orla], on two of three counts: Although the prohibition of orla is not an eternal 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 dissolved, as the fruits that grow during the first three years remain prohibited. Therefore, based on the same a fortiori inference, the principle: The legal status of its taste is like that of its substance, should apply in this case as well. 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. In any case, this entire derivation presents a difficulty for Rabbi Yoḥanan, who derives a different halakha from the term: Soaked.
הָא מַנִּי רַבָּנַן הִיא, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is the previously cited derivation? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who derive this halakha from the term: Soaked. However, Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that a permitted substance joins together with a prohibited substance, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
הֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּמַתְנִיתִין, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: נָזִיר שֶׁשָּׁרָה פִּתּוֹ בְּיַיִן, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ לְצָרֵף כְּדֵי כְּזַיִת — חַיָּיב, וּמִמַּאי דְּמִפַּת וּמִיַּיִן? דִּילְמָא מִיַּיִן לְחוֹדֵיהּ?
The Gemara asks: To which statement of Rabbi Akiva is the Gemara referring? If you say it is referring to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in the following mishna, as we learned: Rabbi Akiva says, with regard to a nazirite who soaked his bread in wine, and the bread and the wine contain enough to join together to constitute an olive-bulk, that he is liable; from where do we know that Rabbi Akiva means an amount of an olive-bulk taken from the bread and the wine together? Perhaps he meant that the measure is calculated from the wine alone?
וְכִי תֵּימָא: מִיַּיִן לְחוֹדֵיהּ מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּתַעֲרוֹבֶת.
The Gemara asks: And lest you say that if this amount is from the wine alone, what purpose is there to state this halakha, this statement comes to teach us that even though the prohibited item is in a mixture, one is nonetheless liable for consuming it. Since this mishna can be explained as referring to an olive-bulk from wine alone, it cannot be cited as proof for Rabbi Akiva’s opinion with regard to the combination of a permitted substance with a prohibited substance.
אֶלָּא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּבָרַיְיתָא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: נָזִיר שֶׁשָּׁרָה פִּתּוֹ בְּיַיִן, וְאָכַל כְּזַיִת מִפַּת וּמִיַּיִן — חַיָּיב.
The Gemara states: Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in the baraita, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: A nazirite who soaked his bread in wine and ate an olive-bulk of the mixture from the bread and the wine is liable. This baraita indicates that according to Rabbi Akiva, a permitted substance joins together with a prohibited substance.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא טַעַם כְּעִיקָּר מְנָא לֵיהּ? יָלֵיף מִבָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב: לָאו טַעְמָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, וְאָסוּר? הָכָא נָמֵי לָא שְׁנָא.
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Akiva, from where does he derive the principle: The legal status of the taste is like that of the substance itself? The Gemara answers: He derives this principle from the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. In that case, there is merely the taste of the milk absorbed by the meat, and the mixture is nonetheless forbidden. Here, too, in the case of other prohibitions, it is no different, and the same principle applies.
וְרַבָּנַן? מִבָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב לָא גָּמְרִינַן, דְּחִידּוּשׁ הוּא.
The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, why don’t they derive this principle from meat cooked in milk? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis claim that from meat in milk we do not derive other prohibitions, as that prohibition is a novelty.
וּמַאי חִידּוּשׁ? אִילֵּימָא דְּהַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ וְהַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ — שְׁרֵי, וּבַהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי — אָסוּר, כִּלְאַיִם נָמֵי: הַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ וְהַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ — שְׁרֵי, וּבַהֲדָדִי — אָסוּר.
The Gemara asks: And what is the novelty in that prohibition? If you 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 prohibited mixtures of diverse kinds too, this element alone and that element alone are each permitted, and yet together they are prohibited.
אֶלָּא: דְּאִי תָּרוּ לֵיהּ כּוּלֵּי יוֹמָא בַּחֲלָבָא — שְׁרֵי, בַּשֵּׁיל לֵיהּ בַּשּׁוֹלֵי — אָסוּר.
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 the meat in milk even for a short time, the mixture is prohibited by Torah law.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא נָמֵי, בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב וַדַּאי חִידּוּשׁ הוּא?
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Akiva too certainly agrees that the halakha of meat in milk is a novelty. How can he derive a general principle from this case?
אֶלָּא יָלֵיף מִגִּיעוּלֵי גוֹיִם: גִּיעוּלֵי גוֹיִם, לָאו טַעְמָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, וְאָסוּר? הָכָא נָמֵי לָא שְׁנָא.
Rather, he derives the principle: The legal status of the taste is like that of the substance itself from the required purging of the vessels of gentiles. In the section of the Torah that deals with the spoils of Midian (Numbers 31:21–24), it states that a vessel used by a gentile to cook food must be purged through fire and purified before it may be used by a Jew. Isn’t the purging of vessels of gentiles necessary only to cleanse them from the mere taste that was absorbed through the process of cooking? Even so, these vessels are prohibited if this cleansing was not performed. Here, too, it is no different; the same reasoning applies in all cases.
וְרַבָּנַן, גִּיעוּלֵי גוֹיִם נָמֵי חִידּוּשׁ הוּא. דְּהָא כׇּל נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם — מוּתָּר, דְּגָמְרִינַן מִנְּבֵילָה — וְהָכָא אָסוּר.
The Gemara comments: And the Rabbis do not derive this principle from this source, as they maintain that the halakha of purging vessels of gentiles is also a novelty. What is the novelty of this halakha? As in general, anything that contributes taste that renders the food tainted is permitted. If the taste added by the prohibited food does not enhance the permitted food, then as a rule it does not render the permitted substance prohibited. As we derive this principle from the halakha that an unslaughtered animal carcass that is unfit for consumption is not classified as a prohibited animal carcass and is not prohibited. However, here, with regard to the halakha of purging vessels of gentiles, the Torah states that even if they contribute taste that renders the food tainted they are prohibited. If twenty-four hours have passed since food was cooked in a pot, the assumption is that it will contribute a negative taste to any foods cooked in the pot subsequently. Nevertheless, vessels taken from gentiles remain prohibited until they are purged, even though the taste they contribute taints the food.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא כִּדְרַב חִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר: לֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא בִּקְדֵירָה בַּת יוֹמָא, הִלְכָּךְ לָאו נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם הוּא.
The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Akiva, who derives this principle from the required purging of the vessels of gentiles, respond to the previous claim? The Gemara explains: He holds in accordance with the opinion subsequently cited in the name of Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Huna, who said: The Torah prohibited unpurged vessels of gentiles only in the case of a pot that was used on that day. Therefore, it is not a case where the pot contributes taste that renders the food tainted.
וְרַבָּנַן? קְדֵירָה בַּת יוֹמָא נָמֵי, לָא אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא פָּגְמָה פּוּרְתָּא.
The Gemara asks: And what do the Rabbis say about deriving the halakha from a pot used on that day? The Gemara answers: In their opinion, 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 indeed a novel case from which principles cannot be derived.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מִדְּרַבָּנַן נִשְׁמַע לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, מִי לָא אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן ״מִשְׁרַת״ לִיתֵּן טַעַם כְּעִיקָּר, מִכָּאן אַתָּה דָּן לְכׇל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא נָמֵי — ״מִשְׁרַת״ לְהֶיתֵּר מִצְטָרֵף לְאִיסּוּר, מִכָּאן אַתָּה דָּן לְכׇל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ!
Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: From the opinion of the Rabbis, let us learn the correct interpretation of the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Don’t the Rabbis say that the term soaked teaches that the principle that the legal status of taste is like that of 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, the term soaked teaches that the permitted substance joins together with the prohibited substance with regard to a nazirite, and from here you derive the halakha with regard to all prohibitions of the Torah. This explanation is contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who applies this principle only to a nazirite.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ:
Rav Ashi said to him: This cannot serve as a proof,
