Nazir 36a — the Talmud in English

We learned in tractate Menachot 58a:

The Sages taught: “You shall not offer any leaven.” The Torah prohibited offering leavened dough or se'or upon the altar.

I have only [that one is liable for] all of it [that is, the measure of a full handful, which is two olives’ bulk].

From where [do I know that one is liable for] part of it [part of the handful, provided that it contains an olive’s bulk, since there is no offering of less than an olive’s bulk]? The verse states: “All” [“For

all

leaven, you shall not offer

What is the source for [liability for] its mixture [if one offered half an olive’s bulk of leaven and half an olive’s bulk of unleavened dough]? The verse states: “

For

all [leaven you shall not offer]”.

And in Pesachim 43a we read: “It was taught: For completely leavened grain, one is liable to karet; for its mixture [half an olive’s bulk of leavened dough and half an olive’s bulk of unleavened dough], [one violates] a prohibition, the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And the Sages say: For leavened grain, one is liable to karet; for its mixture, nothing.”

And we learned another beraita there: “

All

leavened substance you shall not eat,” to include Babylonian kutah [a dairy food into which flour of grain is mixed]. Could one be liable to karet? The verse states: “For whoever eats a leavened substance, that soul shall be cut off”: for completely leavened grain, one is liable to karet, whereas for its mixture, [one violates] a prohibition.

And this beraita, according to Rabbi Elazar, as is explained in the sugya there. But according to the Sages, one does not violate a prohibition for the mixture of leavened dough, because they do not expound the word “all”.

It follows that even what we learned concerning leaven—that one is liable for its mixture—is only according to Rabbi Elazar, who expounds the word “all”. If so, also concerning offering leaven upon the altar, the word “all” is required to include half a handful. And what the Torah states “

for all

”—we shall expound it to include its mixture.

But according to the Sages, who do not expound the word “all”, we have to include half a handful from “for all”, and we have no source to include the mixture of leaven at all.

Ze'iri said:

Even leaven [

leavened dough] is subject to “

do not offer

it”.

That is to say: even concerning offering leaven upon the altar—for the Torah states: “For all leaven and all honey you shall not offer any of it as a fire-offering to the Lord”—the permitted combines with the prohibited. And if one offered half an olive’s bulk of leaven and half an olive’s bulk of unleavened dough upon the altar at one time, he is liable.

And we raise an objection:

In accordance with whom

did Ze'iri state his words?—

It must be

in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, who expounds

elsewhere the word “

all

” [and as we find that he expounded this way concerning leavened dough]. Therefore, we expound “all leaven” to include half a handful, and “for all leaven” to include “the permitted combines with the prohibited” in offering leaven —

If so,

then

concerning leavened dough as well,

the permitted combines with the prohibited, because the Torah states: “You shall not eat any leavened substance,” and we have to include “the permitted combines with the prohibited” concerning leavened dough.

And why did Ze'iri add to Rabbi Yohanan’s words only “even leaven is subject to ‘do not offer it,’” and not “leavened dough is subject to ‘do not eat’”?!

And we answer:

Indeed,

also concerning leavened dough, “the permitted combines with the prohibited”—

Rather,

the reason Ze'iri stated “even leaven is subject to ‘do not offer it’” is that there is a novelty in his words,

to exclude Abaye, [

to exclude Abaye’s position]

who said: “

There is an offering with less than an olive’s bulk,”

and even when one offers some amount of leaven upon the altar, he violates “do not offer it”. According to his position, there is no need to combine the permitted with the prohibited—

Therefore,

he teaches us

that Ze'iri [that]

there is no offering with less than an olive’s bulk,

and it follows that one violates the prohibition for offering leaven only with an olive’s bulk; therefore, the permitted must combine with the prohibited to complete the measure.

Rav Dimi sat and stated it [

Rav Dimi sat and was saying]

this teaching

of Rabbi Abahu in the name of Rabbi Yohanan!

Abaye raised an objection

and challenged

Abaye

Rav Dimi concerning Rabbi Yohanan, who said: “With regard to all prohibitions of the Torah, the permitted does not combine with the prohibited,” from the Mishna in Tevul Yom [2:3]:

For we learned:

The thick dish [

a thick cooked food, such as porridge, into which garlic and oil are put as seasoning], where the thick dish itself

was of teruma, and

if

the garlic and the oil

—scattered over the thick dish and recognizable—

were ordinary produce.

у Раши в сугье в трактате Псахим, 44а, имеется иное объяснение.

And a tevul yom touched [

a person who immersed but requires sunset for his purification]—who disqualifies teruma through his touch—

some of them

of the garlic and oil, he

disqualified them all,

that is to say: even the thick dish, which he did not touch, because the garlic and oil are like “handles” for the thick dish, so that when the impure person touches the handles, the food becomes impure—

But if the

thick dish was ordinary produce, and the garlic and oil

alone were

of teruma, and a tevul yom touched some of them

of the garlic and oil—

he disqualified only

the

place of his touch

alone. That is to say: only the garlic and oil that he touched became disqualified.

And we raised the following question [

and they had already raised this difficulty in the beit-midrash]: “

The place of his touch”—

why is it disqualified?

But the garlic and oil do not contain an egg’s bulk, and according to Torah law foods do not contract impurity with less than an egg’s bulk—

And although by rabbinic law food contracts impurity with less than an egg’s bulk, nevertheless, we should have said that concerning impurity by rabbinic law, the teruma garlic and oil are nullified in relation to the ordinary-produce thick dish, even though they are recognizable!?

And Rabbah bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan

to resolve this difficulty:

What is the reason

the garlic and oil are not nullified in relation to the thick dish?—

Since a non-priest is liable to lashes for it with an olive’s bulk.

That is to say: since we find that a person becomes liable for eating teruma—for example, if he eats an olive’s bulk by combining the garlic and oil with the thick dish—therefore the teruma is significant and is not nullified.

But

what is the reason

that if he eats an olive’s bulk of it, he will be liable!?