Nazir 36b — the Talmud in English

And is it

not

—is it not

because the permitted joins with the prohibited

, and therefore when he takes an olive-sized portion from the chullin and the teruma together, the non-koen becomes liable for eating teruma, even though he did not eat an olive-sized portion from the teruma itself?

It is thus explained from this Mishna that even with regard to other prohibitions, the permitted joins with the prohibited. And how did Rabbi Yohanan say that with regard to all the prohibitions in the Torah, the permitted does not join with the prohibited, except for the prohibitions of a nazir!?

Rav Dimi said to

Abaye:

No,

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

Rather,

what

is “since he is flogged for it with an

olive-sized portion

,” which Rabbi Yohanan said?

For example,

there is

in the meikafa an

olive-sized portion

of teruma, which can be eaten

within

the time of

eating

“ a portion

a pras,

half a loaf of bread made of wheat.

[In the entire loaf there is the measure of eight eggs, and in half of it the measure of four eggs].

That is, the measure of time required for eating bread measuring four eggs.

That is to say: The measure of distribution of an olive-sized portion of the spice over the meikafa was such that when he eats from the meikafa and the spice upon it during the time of “eating a pras,” the teruma that he ate accumulates to an olive-sized portion. And in this manner he is liable for an olive-sized portion of the teruma even without the joining of the meikafa, because this measure of “eating a pras” is the measure of the interval from the beginning of the eating until its end, in order thereby to join all the eatings of the teruma into one eating of an olive-sized portion.

Abaye said to Rav Dimi:

And

is eating a prohibition mixed with a permitted substance during the time of

eating a pras—

is it 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,

that an olive-sized portion within the measure of eating a pras is a matter of Torah law, the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and the Sages concerning Babylonian kutah is difficult [a dairy food containing flour]. According to Rabbi Elazar, one transgresses a negative commandment because of it, whereas the Sages disputed him. The Gemara now assumes that there is in the kutah an olive-sized portion of leaven within the measure of eating a pras. And now it is difficult:

Why did the Sages dispute Rabbi Elazar concerning Babylonian kutah?

For although they do not expound “You shall not eat any leavening,” nevertheless it should be forbidden to eat the kutah, because he is eating an olive-sized portion of leaven within the measure of eating a pras!?

Rav Dimi said

to Abaye:

Leave Babylonian kutah,

for you cannot bring proof from it.

Since

that

in any event,

there is not

in its eating

an olive-sized portion within the measure of eating a pras.

For—

if he gulps it down in gulps

[he drinks from the kutah as it is], and then indeed there is in his eating an olive-sized portion of leaven within the measure of eating a pras, then

a person’s judgment is nullified

—of a person who eats in such a manner—

among all people!

The expression “gulping” is used. Since it is not the way to gulp down kutah, but only to dip other foods in it, and thus to eat it little by little, one who gulps down kutah—this is not the manner of eating kutah, and one is not liable for such an eating.

And

if he smears it as one smears

[he ate the kutah by dipping], in the manner of people, then

you do not find

[you will not find] that there accumulates

an olive-sized portion

of leaven

within

the measure of time of

eating a pras.

A prohibited substance that became mixed with a majority of permitted substance is permitted to eat all of the mixture.

However, there are places in which the Sages restricted this permission, so that people would not come to err and permit prohibited things, and they required that in addition to nullification by the majority, there also be a possibility of “hanging,” to hang the permission on the permitted substance, as will be explained below.

This possibility of “hanging” is called by the Sages, “I say.” That is, I can hang and say that the permitted substance was not prohibited at all.

Abaye raised an objection

to Rav Dimi, who said that eating an olive-sized portion of a prohibition in a mixture within the measure of eating a pras is a matter of Torah law, from that which was taught:

Two mortars

in which spices are crushed [such as pepper and ginger],

one

had in it a spice

of teruma, and one

had in it a spice

of chullin.

And

there were

before them

[before the mortars]

two pots, one

had in it a cooked dish

of teruma, and one

had in it a cooked dish

of chullin.

And the spices fell

from these two mortars

into

the cooked dishes of these two pots

these

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

then

both of them

[the two pots]

are permitted.

The chullin pot is permitted to be eaten by every person, and the teruma pot is permitted to be eaten by a koen.

That is, we do not have to be concerned that perhaps the spice of teruma, which is forbidden for a non-koen to eat, fell and became mixed into the chullin pot.

And because

I say

leniently—in a rabbinic prohibition—

and say: chullin fell into chullin, and teruma

fell into teruma.

And if it enters your mind:

eating

an olive-sized portion

of mixed teruma

within the measure of eating a pras

is forbidden by

Torah law,

it follows that if the contents of the chullin mortar indeed fell into the teruma pot, then when he eats the cooked dish in it, he will transgress a prohibition of Torah law, because within the time of eating a pras he will eat an olive-sized portion of the prohibition of teruma—

and if so,

why do we say: “

I say,”

when there is no basis for hanging leniently and saying, “teruma fell into teruma,” except when there is no concern of a prohibition of Torah law!?

Rav Dimi said to Abaye:

Rather, what

do you wish to prove from here—that an olive-sized portion within the measure of eating a pras is not a matter of Torah law, and it is necessarily required to explain the reason of the Mishna concerning one who immersed that it is because “

the permitted joins with the prohibited”!?

But even according to your words it is difficult:

why do we say “

I say”!?

For the permitted joins with the prohibited, and by eating an olive-sized portion from the mixture he transgresses a prohibition of Torah law; why then do we hang leniently and say: teruma fell into teruma, and not into chullin!?

Rather,

we are necessarily required to say:

Leave the teruma of spice—

the beraita is dealing with it—which cannot provide proof, since its entire basis

is rabbinic,

because according to Torah law there is teruma only in grain, wine, and oil. Therefore, we hang leniently and say: “chullin fell into chullin, and teruma fell into teruma.”

Abaye raised an objection

—to Rav Dimi, who said: Eating an olive-sized portion in a mixture within the measure of eating a pras is a matter of Torah law—from that which was taught:

Two baskets, one

contained grain

of teruma, and one

contained grain

of chullin, and before them were two seahs

of grain,

one of chullin and one of teruma

[by Torah law, since it is grain]—

and these fell into these

[each seah fell into one of the baskets],

both

[the contents of the two baskets]

are permitted,

that is, the chullin basket is permitted to a non-koen, and the teruma one to a koen—

and because

I say,

I hang and

say: chullin fell into chullin, teruma fell into teruma.

And if it enters your mind

according to Rav Dimi’s view, that a mixture in which there is

an olive-sized portion

of a

prohibition within the measure of eating a pras is forbidden

to eat by Torah law—

why do we say “

I say”?

For if a non-koen eats from the mixture until an olive-sized portion accumulates within the measure of eating a pras, he will transgress a prohibition of Torah law!?