Nazir 37b — the Talmud in English

Rather, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location on the page") Rabbi Akiva

derives,

learning the law of “taste is like substance”

from “

the purging of gentile vessels.”

That is, from the law of the pot in which a gentile cooked forbidden food: when a Jew then returns and cooks in it, it purges [expels]

the taste of the prohibition absorbed in its walls into the Jew’s cooked dish.

For

behold,

the Merciful One said,

after the war with Midian, when the Children of Israel brought the spoil that they had taken from Midian [Numbers 31]: “

Every object [

vessel ]

that comes into the fire [

to cook in it]—pass it through the fire.”

The verse teaches that just as is the manner of the vessel’s use, so is the manner of its purging.

That is to say,

here the verse said

that forbidden are “

the purging of gentile vessels,” that is, the taste expelled from the vessel into the cooked dish.

And behold, “

the purging of gentile vessels”

which are absorbed in the vessel and expelled from it into the cooked dish—

is it not that

surely

it is merely taste,

for there was no substance of prohibition actually in the vessels,

yet

nevertheless

it is forbidden

to eat it; rather, one is required to purge the vessel so that it expels the taste absorbed in it.

And the same law applies,

here,

to all prohibitions that imparted taste into permitted matter—

it is likewise no different,

for the taste of a prohibition is forbidden like its substance.

And we raise an objection:

and according to the Rabbis as well,

who expound “ministered” as giving the law that taste is like substance—for what do I need “ministered”? Surely

they can derive it from “

the purging of gentile vessels”!

It can be learned thus from the purging of gentile vessels!?

Rav Ashi said to

Rav Aḥa son of Rav Avya:

There,

the prohibition of the purging of gentile vessels, is a matter

of novelty,

and one cannot learn from it to other prohibitions, just as one cannot learn from meat and milk, which contain a novelty.

For throughout the entire Torah, “

a taste that impairs,”

an impaired taste absorbed in permitted matter, which does not improve it but impairs it, is

permitted.

But

if

with regard to “

the purging of gentile vessels,”

a taste that impairs

is forbidden.

For the taste absorbed in the vessels [which were brought from Midian] is “a taste that impairs,” because since the absorbed matter remained in the wall of a vessel for one night, its taste was impaired and spoiled, and it no longer improves the food cooked in the pot.

But if so, this is difficult for Rabbi Akiva: how does he learn the law that taste is like substance from the purging of gentile vessels—

and for Rabbi Akiva as well

the difficulty arises: how can the law that taste is like substance be learned from the purging of gentile vessels,

since

the prohibition of this taste is a matter

of novelty,

and it cannot be learned from for other prohibitions!?

Rav Huna son of Rav Ḥiyya

explained

and said:

There is no novelty in the purging of gentile vessels, and therefore Rabbi Akiva learns from there the law that taste is like substance.

For

the Torah did not forbid

the purging of gentile vessels in the vessels of Midian

except with regard to a pot “

of that day” [

a pot in which they cooked on that very day ],

which is not “

a taste that impairs”

it,

but is a taste that improves.

And

the Gemara now explains the reason of

the Rabbis,

why they do not learn from the purging of gentile vessels, for one might say that indeed the Torah forbade only a pot of that day, and consequently there is no novelty at all in the purging of gentile vessels:

Even

a pot of that day too—it is impossible that it does not impair [the food] a little!

Even absorption in a pot of that day has its taste impaired somewhat; therefore there is a novelty in the purging of gentile vessels, that the absorbed matter is forbidden even though it gives a taste that impairs, and therefore it is impossible to learn from there the law that taste is like substance.

And further

Rav Aḥa son of Rav Avya

raised an objection

to Rav Ashi

concerning Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds like Rabbi Akiva and said that “permitted matter combines with prohibited matter” only in the case of a nazirite and not throughout the Torah:

Surely

from the Rabbis,

who hold that “ministered” comes to teach that “taste is like substance,”

we learn [

we have to learn ]

regarding

the view of

Rabbi Akiva,

who holds that “ministered” comes to teach that “permitted matter combines with prohibited matter,” unlike Rabbi Yoḥanan’s understanding.

For, is it not so that

did they not say,

did they not say

the Rabbis

that

this “

ministered,”

comes to give the law that taste is like substance

?

And

the Sages added and said:

from here you derive [the law] for all prohibitions in the Torah,

that in them too “taste is like substance”! If so,

according to Rabbi Akiva as well, who establishes this “

ministered”

as “

permitted matter combines with prohibited matter,”

let us say

also [according to his view we have to say]:

from here you derive [the law] for all prohibitions in the Torah,

that permitted matter combines with prohibited matter in them!?

And why did Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds like Rabbi Akiva, say that “with regard to all prohibitions in the Torah, permitted matter does not combine with prohibited matter”!?”

Rav Ashi said to

Rav Aḥa son of Rav Avya:

It is impossible to say that according to Rabbi Akiva “permitted matter combines with prohibited matter” throughout the Torah,

because there are the nazirite and the sin-offering,

in which the Torah revealed that “permitted matter combines with prohibited matter,”

two verses that come as one [

teaching one matter ].

And

it is an established principle for us:

any two verses that come as one do not teach

about another place.

And the Gemara explains Rav Ashi’s words:

Nazirite—

in which the Torah revealed “permitted matter combines with prohibited matter,” this is

that which we said [

as was explained ], that the Torah said “ministered” in order to teach that “permitted matter combines with prohibited matter.”

Sin-offering—

in which the Torah revealed that “permitted matter combines with prohibited matter,”

what is it [

where do we find this ]?— as

it was taught:

The Torah said concerning the flesh of a peace-offering in which the fat of a sin-offering sacrifice was absorbed [Leviticus 6]: “

Whatever touches [

such as the flesh of a peace-offering ]

its flesh [

of the sin-offering ]—

shall become holy” [

the flesh that touches shall have the law of the flesh of the sin-offering, as will be explained below ].

One might have said, “

whatever touches” is to be understood literally, and

even if it did not absorb

the flesh touching the flesh of the sin-offering shall become holy, becoming like the sin-offering—

Therefore

the verse says: “

its flesh.”

This implies that something from the sin-offering entered into the flesh of the other animal. And we learn from here that it is not forbidden to become subject to the stringency of the sin-offering

until it is absorbed in its flesh.

And this is what the Torah said: “

it shall become holy”

that is,

to be

the flesh that absorbed from the flesh of the sin-offering

like it,

like the flesh of the sin-offering—

And the practical consequence is:

if it is disqualified,

the sin-offering—for example, if it was piggul or notar—

this shall become disqualified

this flesh that absorbed from the flesh of the sin-offering.

And if it is fit

the sin-offering,

the one that absorbed from it shall be eaten

the one absorbing from it

according to the more stringent of them,

according to the stringency of the sin-offering absorbed in it: the one absorbing may be eaten only in the Temple courtyard, and not throughout Jerusalem; it may be eaten only by male members of the priesthood, and for one day and one night. For there are in the one absorbing two kinds, one stringent and one lenient, and all of it follows the stringent one.

And from here we learn that with a sin-offering “permitted matter combines with prohibited matter”; for necessarily the Torah’s intention is to teach us that even if half an olive-bulk of the fat of a sin-offering was absorbed into half an olive-bulk of a peace-offering, and he ate both of them not according to the stringency of the sin-offering, he transgresses, because “permitted matter combines with prohibited matter.”

For if you explain that an olive-bulk of the fat of a sin-offering was absorbed into the flesh of the peace-offering, it is obvious that he is liable, since we know that “taste is like substance” from the purging of gentile vessels; and what does the Torah come to teach us?

And the Rabbis

say to you: Both “ministered,” stated concerning a nazirite, and “whatever touches its flesh shall become holy,” do not come to teach us that “permitted matter combines with prohibited matter”; rather, they come “to give the law that taste is like substance,” for the verse concerning the sin-offering is not discussing half an olive-bulk of the fat of a sin-offering absorbed into half an olive-bulk of a peace-offering, but a case in which a complete olive-bulk of a sin-offering was absorbed into a peace-offering; consequently, there is no need for the novel law that “permitted matter combines with prohibited matter,” but because “taste is like substance,” it must be eaten according to the stringency of that which was absorbed in it.

Perhaps you will say: A. Why did the Torah need to teach us in the case of a sin-offering that “taste is like substance”? According to the Rabbis, we have already learned “taste is like substance” for the entire Torah from “ministered,” stated concerning a nazirite.

B. How did we learn from a nazirite for the entire Torah that “taste is like substance”? Surely a nazirite and a sin-offering are two verses that come as one—teaching “taste is like substance”— \-

and two verses that come as one do not teach for the entire Torah.

I can say to you:

they are necessary,

the Torah needed to teach us both in the case of a nazirite and in the case of a sin-offering that “taste is like substance,” and it is impossible to learn one from the other, as will be explained below. Therefore they are not considered “two verses that come as one and do not teach”; for the entire basis of this law is that if they come to teach it for the entire Torah, the Torah would not have needed to write this law in two places, since we would have learned one from the other. But these two verses, since one cannot be learned from the other, do teach for the entire Torah that “taste is like substance.”

And the Gemara explains:

For if the Merciful One had written concerning a sin-offering

alone that “taste is like substance,”

I might have said: a nazirite cannot be derived from it [

one cannot learn from a sin-offering to a nazirite that it has “taste is like substance” ], and

because a nazirite is [more lenient] than sacred offerings [

a sin-offering, which is sacred offerings ]

we do not derive,

because the law of sacred offerings is to be stringent.

And if the Merciful One had written concerning a nazirite

alone that “taste is like substance,”

I might have said:

we do not derive [it] from a nazirite [

there is no derivation from a nazirite to a sin-offering ],

because its prohibition is stringent,

of a nazirite,

for even a grape seed

which is not fit for eating

is forbidden to him,

whereas throughout the Torah one is not liable for something like this, for one is not liable for eating in an unusual manner —

therefore, a sin-offering does not come

a sin-offering

from it,

from a nazirite.

And Rabbi Akiva —

that is, Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that Rabbi Akiva’s words that “permitted matter combines with prohibited matter” were stated only concerning a nazirite, and that this law is not learned for the entire Torah—

would say to you:

The sin-offering and the nazirite, which teach that “permitted matter combines with prohibited matter,” are two verses that come as one and do not teach.

And as for what you said—that the sin-offering and the nazirite are necessary, since one cannot learn a nazirite from a sin-offering because it is sacred offering, nor a sin-offering from a nazirite because it is stringent with regard to a grape seed, and if so these are not two verses that come as one—the matter is not so, for:

For what purpose are they necessary,

the two verses!?

Granted, if the Merciful One had written “

permitted matter combines with prohibited matter” only in

a sin-offering,

indeed

a nazirite would not be derived from it,

as you said,

for we do not derive non-sacred [matters] from sacred [matters].

Rather, had Scripture written "the permitted joins with the prohibited"

only

for a nazirite, and let us derive a sin-offering from it, for all prohibitions of the Torah are derived from the nazirite.

That is: It is necessary to learn from the nazirite for the entire Torah, and all the more so for a sin-offering; and there is no basis for saying that the nazirite is more stringent because the Torah prohibited its eating a grape-stone —

And since the Torah had to innovate in a sin-offering that “the permitted joins with the prohibited,” these are then two verses that come together, and they do not teach for the entire Torah.

And now the Gemara returns and explains:

But since Rabbi Yohanan rejected the basis that a sin-offering cannot be learned from a nazirite, then even according to the Rabbis, who interpret the verses as “taste as essence,” they become two verses that come together, which do not teach; and how did the Sages say: “From here you derive for all prohibitions of the Torah”!?

And

therefore the Gemara retracts and explains the method of

the Rabbis

in another manner, that

they say to you:

the verse stated regarding

a sin-offering—

for “

the permitted joins with the prohibited”—

it comes, as we explained regarding Rabbi Akiva.

And

the reason we do not say this throughout the Torah is that

we do not derive non-sacred matters from sacred matters.

And “

mishrat”

stated regarding the nazirite alone comes

to give taste as essence,

and therefore:

from here—

from the nazirite—

you derive for all prohibitions of the Torah,

for we have only one verse, and it teaches for the entire Torah.

And the Gemara returns and summarizes Rabbi Akiva’s method as Rabbi Yohanan explained his view:

And

for

Rabbi Akiva, both—

the verse regarding a sin-offering and the verse regarding the nazirite—

for “

the permitted joins with the prohibited.”

And

the reason that in any event we do not learn from the nazirite for the entire Torah is that

they become—

the nazirite and the sin-offering—

two verses that come together, and any two verses that come together do not teach.

He said

he challenged

Rab Ashi to Rav Kahana:

But this that was taught:

It is written in the portion of the nazirite: “All the days of his naziriteship,

from all that

will be made from the grapevine

from grape-stones to grape-skins he shall not eat,” and through what Scripture said, “from all,”

Scripture taught

that

regarding the prohibitions of a nazirite,

various ones that he ate together,

they join with one another

to complete the measure of the prohibition.

According to Rabbi Akiva—

who holds: “the permitted joins with the prohibited” with regard to the prohibitions of a nazirite—it is difficult:

Now, it can be said [

if we learned ] “

the permitted joins with the prohibited”—

The prohibited

joins

the prohibited—

is it necessary,

is there a need to say that it joins to complete the measure, and why did the Torah need to teach us that the prohibitions of a nazirite join with one another!?

He said to him Rav Kahana to Rav Ashi:

It is not difficult: For

the permitted to the prohibited

does not join except when he ate them

at

one time,

but

the prohibited to the prohibited—

which the Torah multiplied, that they join with one another—this means

even

when he ate them

one after the other,

within the time of eating half a loaf, just as if he were eating from a single prohibition within the time of eating half a loaf he would become liable. The Gemara raises another difficulty: