Nazir 36a (לו.) — the Talmud in English

We learned in tractate Menahot 58a:

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

I have derived only the case of all of it [i.e., the measure of an entire kometz, which is two olives’ bulk].

From where is it derived that even part of it [part of the kometz, provided that it contains an olive’s bulk, since an offering is never less than an olive’s bulk]? The verse states: “

all

leaven you shall not offer”].

From where is it derived that its mixture [if one offered half an olive’s bulk of leaven and half an olive’s bulk of matza]? The verse states: “

for

all [leaven you shall not offer]”.

And in tractate Pesachim 43a we have the following version: “It was taught: For completely leavened grain, one is liable to karet; for its mixture [half an olive’s bulk of leavened grain and half an olive’s bulk of matza], one violates a prohibition; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

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

And elsewhere we learned another beraita: “

All

leavened matter you shall not eat,” including Babylonian kutah [a dairy food into which grain flour is mixed]. One might think that one is liable to karet for it; the verse states: “For whoever eats leavened matter, 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, as is explained in the sugya there, is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar. But according to the Sages, one does not violate a prohibition for a mixture of leavened grain, because they do not expound the word “all.”

We have therefore learned that even the statement we learned concerning leaven—that one is liable for its mixture—is only according to Rabbi Elazar, who expounds the word “all.” Accordingly, also with regard to offering leaven on the altar, the word “all” is expounded to include half a kometz. And the phrase

for all

we will expound as including its mixture.

But according to the Sages, who do not expound the word “all,” we must include half a kometz from “for all,” but we have no basis for including a mixture of leaven at all.

Zeiri said:

Even leaven [

leavened grain ] is subject to

the prohibition of

“You shall not offer.”

That is to say: Even with regard to offering leaven on the altar—for the Torah states: “For no leaven or any honey may you offer from it as a fire-offering to the Lord”—the permitted substance combines with the prohibited substance, and if one offered half an olive’s bulk of leaven and half an olive’s bulk of matza on the altar at one time, he is liable.

And we raise an objection:

In accordance with whom

did Zeiri state his words?—

It must be

in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, who expounds

the word

“all”

in general [as we find that he expounded it in connection with leaven]. Therefore, we expound “all leaven” as including half a kometz, and “for all leaven” as including “the permitted substance combines with the prohibited substance” in the offering of leaven—

If so,

then

with regard to leavened grain as well

the permitted substance combines with the prohibited substance, because the Torah states: “You shall eat no leavened matter,” and we should include “the permitted substance combines with the prohibited substance” with regard to leavened grain.

Why, then, did Zeiri add to Rabbi Yohanan’s statement only that leaven is subject to “You shall not offer,” and not that leavened grain is subject to “You shall not eat”?!

And we answer:

Indeed,

also with regard to leavened grain, “the permitted substance combines with the prohibited substance”—

However,

Zeiri stated “Even leaven is subject to ‘You shall not offer’” because his statement contains a novelty,

to exclude Abaye [

to reject Abaye’s position ],

who said: “

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

and even for offering any amount of leaven on the altar one violates “You shall not offer.” According to his view, there is no need for the permitted substance to combine with the prohibited substance—

Therefore,

Zeiri teaches us that

an offering does not involve less than an olive’s bulk,

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

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

Rav Dimi sat and recited it [

Rav Dimi sat and was reciting ],

this teaching

of Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yohanan!

Abaye raised an objection

to

Rav Dimi

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

As we learned:

A thick porridge [

a thick dish, such as porridge, into which garlic and oil are added as seasoning ], the porridge itself being

of teruma, and

if

the garlic and oil—

scattered over the porridge and distinguishable—were

non-sacred.

And a tevul yom [

one who immersed but must await sunset for his purification ], who disqualifies teruma through contact with it, touched

part of

the garlic and oil, he

disqualified all of it,

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

But if the

porridge was non-sacred, and the garlic and oil

alone were

of teruma, and a tevul yom touched part

of the garlic and oil, he

disqualified only

the

place of his contact

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

And we discussed it [

and this matter was already raised as a difficulty in the study hall ]: “

The place of his contact”—

why is it disqualified?

The garlic and oil do not contain the volume of an egg, and according to Torah law food does not contract ritual impurity when it is less than the volume of an egg—

And although, by rabbinic law, food does contract ritual impurity when it is less than the volume of an egg, nevertheless we should have said that, with regard to this rabbinic impurity, the garlic and oil of the teruma are nullified by virtue of the non-sacred porridge, even though they are distinguishable from it?!

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan

to resolve this difficulty:

What is the reason

that the garlic and oil are not nullified by virtue of the porridge?—

Because a non-kohein is liable to lashes for eating an olive’s bulk of it.

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

But

for what reason,

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