Nazir 36b (לו:) — the Talmud in English

And is it not

a negative commandment—

is it not

because permitted matter combines with forbidden matter

? Therefore, when he takes an olive-bulk from the non-sacred produce and the teruma together, the non-kohen becomes liable for eating teruma, even though he did not eat an olive-bulk of teruma itself.

It is evident from this Mishna that even with regard to other prohibitions, permitted matter combines with forbidden matter. How, then, could Rabbi Yohanan say that with regard to all prohibitions in the Torah, permitted matter does not combine with forbidden matter, except in the prohibitions of a nazirite

?

Rav Dimi said to Abaye:

No

, not as you understood it: that he becomes liable for the garlic and oil of teruma when he eats an amount of them equal to an olive-bulk together with the makefa.

Rather,

what

is the meaning of “Since he is flogged for it with

an olive-bulk

,” as Rabbi Yohanan said?

It is referring to a case

where there is

in the makefa

an olive-bulk

of teruma, which can be eaten

within

the time of

eating

“ a portion

,”

half a loaf of bread made from wheat.

A whole loaf contains the measure of eight eggs, and half of it contains the measure of four eggs.

That is, the amount of time required to eat bread measuring four eggs.

In other words: The teruma spice was distributed across the makefa in such a manner that when he eats from the makefa and the spice upon it over the course of “eating a portion,” the teruma he has eaten accumulates to an olive-bulk. In this manner, he is liable for an olive-bulk of teruma even without the makefa combining with it, because this measure of “eating a portion” is the amount of time from the beginning of the eating until its end within which all the instances of eating teruma combine to constitute a single eating of an olive-bulk.

Abaye said to Rav Dimi:

And

is the eating of forbidden matter mixed with permitted matter over the course of

eating a portion

a matter of Torah law!?

Rav Dimi said

to Abaye:

Yes

, indeed, it is a matter of Torah law.

Abaye said to Rav Dimi:

If so

, if an olive-bulk within the time of eating a portion is a matter of Torah law, there is a difficulty with the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and the Sages concerning Babylonian kutah [a dairy food containing flour]. According to Rabbi Elazar, one violates a negative commandment for eating it, whereas the Sages dispute him. The Gemara now assumes that the kutah contains an olive-bulk of leaven within the time of eating a portion. If so, the difficulty is:

Why do the Sages dispute Rabbi Elazar concerning Babylonian kutah?

Even though they do not expound “You shall not eat any leavened substance,” nevertheless it should be forbidden to eat the kutah, because he is eating an olive-bulk of leaven within the time of eating a portion

; see further what the Tosafot wrote about this here, and what the Keren Ora wrote regarding their words. See also Arzei HaLevanon, letter tzadi-gimel and letter kuf-tet. Rav Dimi said

to Abaye:

Set aside Babylonian kutah

, for you cannot bring proof from it.

Since

in

either case,

there is no

in its eating

an olive-bulk within the time of eating a portion

. For

if he is gulping it down

[drinking the kutah in its ordinary form], and there is indeed an olive-bulk of leaven in his eating within the time of eating a portion, then

the person’s judgment is disregarded

of one who eats in such a manner

by everyone!

Since it is not customary to gulp down kutah, but only to dip other foods into it and thereby eat it little by little, one who gulps down kutah is not eating it in its customary manner, and one is not liable for eating it in such a manner.

And

if he is spreading it

[eating the kutah by dipping food into it], as people ordinarily do, then

you cannot find

[you will not find] that

an olive-bulk

of leaven will accumulate

within

the measure of time of

eating a portion.

When a forbidden substance becomes mixed with a majority of permitted matter, it is permitted to eat the entire mixture.

There are, however, cases in which the Sages restricted this allowance, so that people would not come to err and permit forbidden matters. They required that, in addition to nullification by the majority, there also be a possibility of “suspending”—that is, suspending the permitted status on the basis of a permitted possibility—as will be explained below.

This possibility of “suspending” is called by the Sages “I say.” That is, I can suspend the matter and say that the permitted substance was not forbidden at all.

Abaye raised an objection

to Rav Dimi, who had said that eating an olive-bulk of a prohibition in a mixture within the time of eating a portion is a matter of Torah law, from that which is taught in a beraita:

There were two mortars

in which spices were ground [such as pepper and ginger],

one

containing a spice

of teruma, and one

containing a spice

of non-sacred produce.

And

there were

before them [before the mortars]

[in front of the mortars]

two pots, one

containing a cooked dish

of teruma, and one

containing a cooked dish

of non-sacred produce.

And the spices

in these two mortars

fell into

the cooked dishes in these two pots

these [the contents of each mortar fell into one pot], and it is not known into which pot the contents of each mortar fell—

[the contents of each mortar fell into one pot], and it is not known into which pot the contents of each mortar fell—

then

both

[the two pots] are

permitted.

The pot of non-sacred produce is permitted for consumption by everyone, while the pot of teruma is permitted for consumption by a kohen.

That is, we need not be concerned that the spice of teruma, which is forbidden for consumption by a non-kohen, fell and became mixed into the pot of non-sacred produce.

And this is because

I distinguish

leniently—in a matter prohibited by rabbinic law—and

say: The non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce, and the teruma

fell into the teruma.

And if it should enter your mind

that eating

an olive-bulk

of mixed teruma

within the time of eating a portion

is forbidden by

Torah law

, it follows that if the contents of the mortar of non-sacred produce in fact fell into the pot of teruma, then when he eats the cooked dish in it, he violates a prohibition of Torah law, because within the time of eating a portion he will eat an olive-bulk of teruma—

and if so,

why do we say: “

I say

,” when one may suspend the matter leniently and say, “The teruma fell into the teruma,” only when there is no concern of a prohibition under Torah law ?

Rav Dimi said to Abaye:

Rather, what

do you wish to prove from here—that an olive-bulk within the time of eating a portion is not a matter of Torah law, and that we must necessarily explain the reason for the Mishna concerning one who immersed that it is because

“permitted matter combines with forbidden matter”?

But even according to your position, there is a difficulty:

why do we say “

I say

”? For permitted matter combines with forbidden matter, and when he eats an olive-bulk of the mixture he violates a prohibition under Torah law. Why, then, do we suspend the matter leniently and say that the teruma fell into the teruma rather than into the non-sacred produce?

Rather

, we must necessarily say:

Set aside the teruma of spices

—the subject of the beraita—for no proof can be brought from it, since its entire status is

rabbinic

. For according to Torah law, teruma applies only to grain, wine, and oil. Therefore, we suspend the matter leniently and say: “The non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce, and the teruma fell into the teruma.”

Abaye raised an objection

to Rav Dimi, who had said that eating an olive-bulk in a mixture within the time of eating a portion is a matter of Torah law, from that which is taught in a beraita:

There were two baskets, one

containing grain

of teruma, and one

containing grain

of non-sacred produce, and before them were two se’a

of grain,

one of non-sacred produce and one of teruma [the latter is subject to Torah law, since it is grain]—

[which is subject to Torah law, since it is grain]—

and these fell into those

[each se’a fell into one of the baskets],

both

[the contents of the two baskets]

are permitted

, meaning: the basket of non-sacred produce is permitted to a non-kohen, and the basket of teruma to a kohen—

and this is because

I distinguish

and

say: The non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce, and the teruma fell into the teruma.

And if it should enter your mind

that, according to Rav Dimi, a mixture containing

an olive-bulk

of a

prohibition within the time of eating a portion is forbidden

to eat by Torah law—

why do we say “

I say”?

For if a non-kohen eats from the mixture until an olive-bulk accumulates within the time of eating a portion, he will violate a prohibition under Torah law!?