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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 4, 2021 | 讻壮 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

The Daf Yomi women of Neve Daniel are proud to dedicate a month of learning in honor of all the women learning Torah in the world and in honor of completing our first year of learning together. Thank you to Hadran and to the Rabbaniot Michelle, Chamotal, Tanya, Sally, Michal, Chayuta and Meirav that lead us in our in depth learning. Yishar Cochachen!

  • This month's learning is sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

Pesachim 44

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sharon Hausdorff in memory of her mother, Minna Friedman, Menucha bat Moshe Yehezkel on her 10th yahrzeit. And by Susan Cashdan in memory of her dear father, Yitzchak ben Moshe Chuna on his 12th yahrzeit. He so inspired me with a deep love of Hebrew and lifelong learning, enabling me to work here in Israel and to learn Daf Yomi. And by Susan Shabsels in honor of Elisheva Rappaport. “Ellie, thank you for making our Daf Yomi meetings happen each week!”聽

In what cases do we say that heiter joins issur for requisite amounts – meaning if you eat an item that the forbidden item is mixed into the permitted item, do we measure the requisite amount needed for liability from the whole mixture? Rabbi Yochanan and Zeiri disagree about when this principle is used. Abaye questions Rabbi Yochanan’s opinion (quoted by Rav Dimi) from a mishna in Tvul Yom 2:3 regarding impurity of a porridge with teruma spices mixed in. According to Rabba bar bar Chana, it becomes impure because if one ate an olive bulk of it, one would be liable. Is it because of heiter joins the issur or it is because one ate a whole olive bulk of the spices? Rav Dimi answers that it is the latter and Abaye asks several questions on his theory. IF Rabbi Yochanan derived from the Nazir the laws of heiter combining with issur only for a nazir, how does that work with a braita that derives the law for flavor not being nullified in a mixture, which is also derived from the same word by nazir? He must hold like Rabbi Akiva who holds the same as him with regards the previous principle. So where does he derive laws about flavor not being nullified? A number of suggestions are brought – milk and meat, kashering pots. How do the rabbis react to his proof if there derive it from nazir?

诇注谞讬谉 讞诪抓 讘驻住讞 谞诪讬

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.

讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讬砖 讛拽讟专讛 诇驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讛拽讟专讛 诇讗讜 诇驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转

The Gemara answers: Yes, indeed it is so, and the prohibition mentioned by Ze鈥檈iri 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.

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 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讗讬谉 讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专

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?

讜讛转谞谉 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 讛诪拽驻讛 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 讘诇讘讚

But didn鈥檛 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.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪拽讜诐 诪讙注讜 讗诪讗讬 驻住讜诇讛 讛讗 讘讟诇讬 诇讛讜 转讘诇讬谉 讘专讜讘 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诪讛 讟注诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讝专 诇讜拽讛 注诇讬讛谉 讘讻讝讬转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专

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 岣na 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?

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

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.

讜讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 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

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.

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 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讻讜转讞 讛讘讘诇讬

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 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.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 住讜祝 住讜祝 讗诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讻讜转讞 讛讘讘诇讬 讗诇讗 讛谞讞 诇讻讜转讞 讛讘讘诇讬 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讗讬 讘注讬谞讬讛 讚拽砖专讬祝 讜拽讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛 讘讟诇讛 讚注转讬讛 讗爪诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讜讗讬 诪砖讟专 拽砖讟专 讜讗讻讬诇 诇讬转 讘讬讛 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住

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 kuta岣? Rather, leave Babylonian kuta岣, 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 kuta岣 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 kuta岣 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.

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

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.

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 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 转专讜诪讛 诇转讜讱 讻讜壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讞 诇转专讜诪转 转讘诇讬谉 讚专讘谞谉

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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 砖转讬 拽讜驻讜转 讗讞转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讗讞转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜诇驻谞讬讛诐 砖谞讬 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 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 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 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 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鈥檃 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鈥檃 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鈥檃 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鈥檛 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?

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

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.

讜讛讗讬 诪砖专转 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诪砖专转

The Gemara returns to its discussion of Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 statement with regard to the meaning of the word soaked in the verse: 鈥淗e 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,鈥 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,

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

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.

诪讻讗谉 讗转讛 讚谉 诇讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 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 讻诇讗讬诐 砖讗讬住讜专讜 讗讬住讜专 注讜诇诐 讜讗讬住讜专讜 讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讬转专 诇讗讬住讜专讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬注砖讛 讟注诐 讻注讬拽专

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?

讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇注专诇讛 讘砖转讬诐

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 Yo岣nan, who derives a different halakha from the term: Soaked.

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

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 Yo岣nan, who said that a permitted substance joins together with a prohibited substance, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

讛讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚转谞谉 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 讜讬砖 讘讜 诇爪专祝 讻讚讬 讻讝讬转 讞讬讬讘 讜诪诪讗讬 讚诪驻转 讜诪讬讬谉 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬讬谉 诇讞讜讚讬讛

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?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讬讬谉 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚转注专讜讘转

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鈥檚 opinion with regard to the combination of a permitted substance with a prohibited substance.

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

The Gemara states: Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 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

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.

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 the Rabbis, why don鈥檛 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.

讜诪讗讬 讞讬讚讜砖 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 讜讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 砖专讬 讜讘讛讚讚讬 讗住讜专

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.

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 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 the meat in milk even for a short time, the mixture is prohibited by Torah law.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞诪讬 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讜讚讗讬 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗

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?

讗诇讗 讬诇讬祝 诪讙讬注讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 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

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鈥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鈥檛 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.

讜专讘谞谉 讙讬注讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 谞诪讬 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讚讛讗 讻诇 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 诪讜转专 讚讙诪专讬谞谉 诪谞讘讬诇讛 讜讛讻讗 讗住讜专

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.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻讚专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 讘拽讚讬专讛 讘转 讬讜诪讗 讛诇讻讱 诇讗讜 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 讛讜讗

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 岣yya, 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.

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

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.

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 诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 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 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞诪讬 诪砖专转 诇讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 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 讻讜诇讛

Rav A岣, 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鈥檛 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 Yo岣nan, who applies this principle only to a nazirite.

讗诪专 诇讬讛

Rav Ashi said to him: This cannot serve as a proof,

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

The Daf Yomi women of Neve Daniel are proud to dedicate a month of learning in honor of all the women learning Torah in the world and in honor of completing our first year of learning together. Thank you to Hadran and to the Rabbaniot Michelle, Chamotal, Tanya, Sally, Michal, Chayuta and Meirav that lead us in our in depth learning. Yishar Cochachen!

  • This month's learning is sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Dr. Tamara Spitz

Pesachim 39-45 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about different vegetables that can be used as Marror and if vinegar stops the leavening...
alon shvut women

Mixtures

Pesachim Daf 044 Different types of mixtures and how they are understood and what is their status halachically. Examples, rules,...

Pesachim 44

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 44

诇注谞讬谉 讞诪抓 讘驻住讞 谞诪讬

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.

讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讬砖 讛拽讟专讛 诇驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讛拽讟专讛 诇讗讜 诇驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转

The Gemara answers: Yes, indeed it is so, and the prohibition mentioned by Ze鈥檈iri 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.

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 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讗讬谉 讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专

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?

讜讛转谞谉 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 讛诪拽驻讛 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 讘诇讘讚

But didn鈥檛 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.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪拽讜诐 诪讙注讜 讗诪讗讬 驻住讜诇讛 讛讗 讘讟诇讬 诇讛讜 转讘诇讬谉 讘专讜讘 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诪讛 讟注诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讝专 诇讜拽讛 注诇讬讛谉 讘讻讝讬转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专

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 岣na 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?

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

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.

讜讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 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

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.

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 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讻讜转讞 讛讘讘诇讬

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 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.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 住讜祝 住讜祝 讗诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讻讜转讞 讛讘讘诇讬 讗诇讗 讛谞讞 诇讻讜转讞 讛讘讘诇讬 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讗讬 讘注讬谞讬讛 讚拽砖专讬祝 讜拽讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛 讘讟诇讛 讚注转讬讛 讗爪诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讜讗讬 诪砖讟专 拽砖讟专 讜讗讻讬诇 诇讬转 讘讬讛 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住

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 kuta岣? Rather, leave Babylonian kuta岣, 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 kuta岣 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 kuta岣 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.

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

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.

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 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 转专讜诪讛 诇转讜讱 讻讜壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讞 诇转专讜诪转 转讘诇讬谉 讚专讘谞谉

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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 砖转讬 拽讜驻讜转 讗讞转 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讗讞转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜诇驻谞讬讛诐 砖谞讬 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 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 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 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 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鈥檃 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鈥檃 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鈥檃 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鈥檛 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?

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

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.

讜讛讗讬 诪砖专转 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诪砖专转

The Gemara returns to its discussion of Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 statement with regard to the meaning of the word soaked in the verse: 鈥淗e 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,鈥 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,

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

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.

诪讻讗谉 讗转讛 讚谉 诇讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 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 讻诇讗讬诐 砖讗讬住讜专讜 讗讬住讜专 注讜诇诐 讜讗讬住讜专讜 讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讬转专 诇讗讬住讜专讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬注砖讛 讟注诐 讻注讬拽专

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?

讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇注专诇讛 讘砖转讬诐

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 Yo岣nan, who derives a different halakha from the term: Soaked.

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

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 Yo岣nan, who said that a permitted substance joins together with a prohibited substance, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

讛讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚转谞谉 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 讜讬砖 讘讜 诇爪专祝 讻讚讬 讻讝讬转 讞讬讬讘 讜诪诪讗讬 讚诪驻转 讜诪讬讬谉 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬讬谉 诇讞讜讚讬讛

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?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讬讬谉 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚转注专讜讘转

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鈥檚 opinion with regard to the combination of a permitted substance with a prohibited substance.

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

The Gemara states: Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 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

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.

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 the Rabbis, why don鈥檛 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.

讜诪讗讬 讞讬讚讜砖 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 讜讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 砖专讬 讜讘讛讚讚讬 讗住讜专

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.

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 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 the meat in milk even for a short time, the mixture is prohibited by Torah law.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞诪讬 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讜讚讗讬 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗

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?

讗诇讗 讬诇讬祝 诪讙讬注讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 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

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鈥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鈥檛 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.

讜专讘谞谉 讙讬注讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 谞诪讬 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讚讛讗 讻诇 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 诪讜转专 讚讙诪专讬谞谉 诪谞讘讬诇讛 讜讛讻讗 讗住讜专

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.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻讚专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 讘拽讚讬专讛 讘转 讬讜诪讗 讛诇讻讱 诇讗讜 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇驻讙诐 讛讜讗

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 岣yya, 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.

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

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.

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 诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 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 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞诪讬 诪砖专转 诇讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 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 讻讜诇讛

Rav A岣, 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鈥檛 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 Yo岣nan, who applies this principle only to a nazirite.

讗诪专 诇讬讛

Rav Ashi said to him: This cannot serve as a proof,

Scroll To Top