Pesachim 44a (מד.) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara raises an objection:

If so

this is difficult: Why did Ze'iri not say:

also with regard to leaven on Passover

that permitted substance combines with prohibited substance?!

For Rabbi Eliezer maintains that even a mixture containing leaven is subject to a prohibition. And the prohibition applies even when the leaven itself does not amount to an olive-bulk, but reaches that measure only together with the permitted substance mixed with it. It necessarily follows that he maintains that permitted substance combines with prohibited substance.

And we answer:

Indeed,

Ze'iri also maintains with regard to leaven that permitted substance combines with prohibited substance.

And the reason Ze'iri taught us this law specifically with regard to burning leaven

was to exclude

the statement

of

the statement

Abaye

is addressing.

For

Abaye said: The statement that we learned in the beraita concerning burning leaven, “As for part of it, from where is it derived? The verse states: ‘All leaven’”—is not speaking of one who burns leaven and a meal-offering together.

Rather, the verse comes to teach that even one who burns only part of an olive-bulk of leaven by itself is also liable, because

there is

there

“burning”

with regard to the prohibition against burning leaven even

for less than an olive-bulk,

and there is no need at all for the law that permitted substance completes the prohibited substance to an olive-bulk.

Therefore,

Ze'iri teaches us

that the

“all”

written with regard to

burning is not intended to

make one liable for burning

less than an olive-bulk,

since there is no act of burning involving less than an olive-bulk. Rather, the verse comes to make one liable for burning an olive-bulk consisting of half leaven and half a properly constituted meal-offering.

Rav Dimi was sitting and reciting this teaching

of Rabbi Yohanan, that with regard to the other prohibitions of the Torah, permitted substance does not combine with prohibited substance.

Abaye said to Rav Dimi: And

is it so that with regard to

all

the other

prohibitions of the Torah, permitted substance does not combine with prohibited substance

to complete its measure? But we find that the same principle applies to teruma as well.

A tevul yom—one who immersed and emerged from his state of ritual impurity, but for whom the day has not yet ended—is completely pure and does not render non-sacred produce impure through contact. Nevertheless, he disqualifies teruma through contact until sunset.

And didn’t we learn: The thick stew [

a thick dish, such as porridge, into which garlic and oil were placed as seasonings] whose stew itself

was teruma, and

if

the garlic and oil

used as seasonings were

non-sacred—

then

if a tevul yom touched part of them, he disqualified all of it!

For even if the tevul yom touched only some of the oil and garlic, which were non-sacred, he disqualified the entire stew, since the principal part of the stew was teruma, and all of it is considered one entity.

Therefore, if he touched part of it, it is as though he touched all of it, and he disqualifies the entire stew.

But if

the stew was non-sacred, while the garlic and oil

were

teruma, and a tevul yom touched some of them

of the garlic and oil, he

disqualified only

the oil or garlic at

the place of his contact alone.

The reason for this will be explained shortly.

At first, we discuss the matter: If the garlic and oil were teruma,

why is the place of his contact disqualified?

They are nullified

the

seasonings

of teruma [the oil and garlic], which are the minority,

in

the non-sacred stew, which constitutes the

majority

of the pot. After all, when a minority of prohibited substance becomes mixed with a majority of permitted substance, the prohibition is nullified in the permitted substance and its prohibited status lapses. Here too, the majority of non-sacred substance should nullify the teruma status of the oil and garlic, so that they should not be disqualified through contact with the tevul yom.

And although we maintain that “mixed teruma” [teruma mixed with non-sacred produce] is prohibited to non-kohanim until the mixture contains one hundred parts non-sacred produce for each part teruma, it is assumed that the status of mixed teruma is not a matter of Torah law, but is merely a rabbinic prohibition against eating it. But with regard to being disqualified through contact with a tevul yom, this consideration does not apply, since by Torah law teruma is nullified in an ordinary majority, and it does not retain the designation of teruma with regard to being disqualified through his contact.

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana

said to explain:

What is the reason

that the teruma garlic and oil are disqualified through contact with a tevul yom, and the teruma status of the minority of garlic and of the stew is not nullified?—

Since

the status of mixed teruma is a matter of Torah law.

And

by Torah law, a

non-kohein

who ate from the mixture

receives lashes for them

for eating a measure of

an olive-bulk

of the mixture. The entire pot of “mixed teruma” is therefore considered subject to the status of teruma, which is disqualified through contact with a tevul yom.

However, the entire mixture does not have the severity of teruma itself, so that all of it should be considered teruma and become disqualified if a tevul yom touches part of it. Rather, since it has only the status of “mixed teruma,” only the place touched by the tevul yom is disqualified.

And Abaye proves this:

What are the circumstances

under which a non-kohein receives lashes for eating an olive-bulk of the mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce? Did he not eat an olive-bulk of teruma alone?

Rather,

is it not

that he receives lashes

because

the non-sacred produce combines with the teruma to complete the measure of an olive-bulk of teruma consumption? This proves

that permitted substance combines with prohibited substance

with regard to all the prohibitions of the Torah, and not only in the case of a nazir.

And Rav Dimi replied:

No,

he does not receive lashes for eating an olive-bulk composed of the mixture.

Rather,

what olive-bulk

is it for which the non-kohein receives lashes? When the garlic and oil themselves contain an olive-bulk, without the non-sacred stew combining with them.

The novelty is that he did not eat the teruma all at once, but ate it over an extended period

“within the time required to eat a half-loaf,”

and nevertheless receives lashes for it.

The time defined as “the time required to eat a half-loaf” is the time required to eat a certain half-loaf of bread [the term “half-loaf” derives from the meaning “a portion”], a measure that the Sages established as the basis for several halakhic measures.

This loaf measures eight eggs, and half of it measures four eggs.

The time required to eat four eggs [which is “a half-loaf” of this loaf] is the period during which a person’s continuous eating [including pauses while eating] is combined and considered one act of eating.

If the eating continues beyond this period, the continuous eating is not combined into a single act of eating; rather, it is considered several acts of eating, with all the food eaten within the time required to eat a half-loaf considered one act of eating.

The measure of time called “the time required to eat a half-loaf” applies both to prohibitions, such as eating an olive-bulk of leaven on Passover or the measure of a date-bulk on Yom Kippur, and to mitzvot, such as eating matza on Passover or eating in a sukka.

The issue under discussion in the sugya before us is whether the measure of time required to eat a half-loaf is a matter of Torah law or rabbinic law.

And since here the teruma was mixed with non-sacred produce, we must establish that the mixture was in such a proportion that there was an olive-bulk of teruma within four eggs of the mixture. In that case, if he eats an amount of the mixture measuring four eggs, it is clear that he has eaten an olive-bulk of teruma, and likewise the duration of the eating was “the time required to eat a half-loaf.” [

If we take an egg to be the measure of two olive-bulks, this is a case in which the teruma garlic and oil constituted one-eighth of the entire stew. It follows that in every half-loaf [a measure of four eggs] of it, there is at least an olive-bulk of teruma. Consequently, when he eats a half-loaf of the stew, he eats an olive-bulk of teruma.]

And Abaye wondered:

And

is continuous eating of

an olive-bulk within the time required to eat a half-loaf

considered one act of eating by

Torah law,

so that one receives lashes for it?

Perhaps it is not a matter of Torah law.

Then, necessarily, the statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana that in the case of a non-sacred stew “a non-kohein receives lashes for it for an olive-bulk” is based on the principle that permitted substance combines with prohibited substance.

He said to him,

Rav Dimi:

Yes!

Indeed, the measure of an olive-bulk eaten within the time required to eat a half-loaf is a matter of Torah law.

And Abaye challenged him:

If so,

that the time required to eat a half-loaf is a matter of Torah law,

why do the Sages disagree with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to

one who eats

Babylonian kutah,

and say that he does not violate anything?

For even if they do not expound “all—to include its mixture,” and the entire mixture is not rendered prohibited by a new prohibition concerning a mixture of leaven called “fermenting substance,” nevertheless one should be liable for it because he ate an olive-bulk of the leaven itself within the time required to eat a half-loaf.

Rather, it necessarily follows that by Torah law one is liable only when one eats the olive-bulk at once. Therefore, the Sages disagree with Rabbi Eliezer and exempt one from lashes for Babylonian kutah, since he does not eat an olive-bulk of leaven itself at once, as permitted food is also mixed into his eating.

Rabbi Eliezer, however, disagrees and holds that one receives lashes. He derives from the verse that one receives lashes for eating an olive-bulk of the mixture: Each and every olive-bulk of the mixture is prohibited by the new prohibition “You shall not eat any fermenting substance,” despite the fact that the leaven itself constitutes only a small part of the olive-bulk.

Rav Dimi said to him:

Rather, what

will you say—that an olive-bulk eaten within the time required to eat a half-loaf is not a matter of Torah law, and that the reason the tevul yom in the mishna receives lashes for eating mixed teruma is

because permitted substance combines with prohibited substance?

Even according to this, the following difficulty remains:

Ultimately, why do the Sages disagree with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to Babylonian kutah?

After all, when one eats an olive-bulk of it at once, he is eating leaven that combines with the permitted substance to make up an olive-bulk.

Rather,

actually, permitted substance does not combine with prohibited substance, and the non-kohein is liable for eating mixed teruma because he ate it within the time required to eat a half-loaf, which is the Torah measure of time constituting one act of eating.

And as for the difficulty you raised—why, then, according to the Sages, is one not liable for eating an olive-bulk of leaven within the time required to eat a half-loaf from Babylonian kutah—the answer is:

Set aside Babylonian kutah,

for no proof can be brought from it to the issue at hand, because

there is no

realistic possibility of eating

an olive-bulk

of leaven

within the time required to eat a half-loaf.

Thus, even if every half-loaf of kutah contains an olive-bulk of leaven, it is impossible to become liable for eating it.

For how could a person eat kutah in such a manner that his eating would constitute the eating of an olive-bulk of leaven within the time required to eat a half-loaf?

If

he eats the kutah

by itself [

on its own], for example,

by swallowing it [

gulping it down]

and eating it,

he is exempt, because this is not the ordinary manner of eating kutah.

And although for him this is considered eating,

his opinion is disregarded in favor of

the opinion of

all people.

And if

he acts as people customarily do,

shtir kushtar,

dipping another food into the kutah,

and eats

the kutah by dipping—

there is no

olive-bulk of leaven in the food dipped into the kutah,

an olive-bulk

of leaven

within the time required to eat a half-loaf

of the food that he dips into the kutah.

For in order to eat an olive-bulk of the leaven mixed into the kutah together with the food being dipped into the kutah, one needs a period longer than the time required to eat a half-loaf. Therefore, according to the Sages, there is no possibility of violating the prohibition through it.

Likewise, with Median beer, there is no person who drinks two or three cups of it without interrupting and leaving time between them. Consequently, he does not eat an olive-sized measure of hametz within the time required to eat a peras, since it is mixed with the water and the other ingredients in the beer. For the principal ingredients of the beer are dates and figs; only in Media do they mix a small amount of barley water into it].

And Rabbi Eliezer derives this from the verse, “You shall not eat any leavened mixture”: the Torah innovated that a mixture of hametz is entirely prohibited, and every olive-sized portion in it constitutes an independent prohibition.

He challenged him

Abaye from that which was taught in a beraita:

Two pots

that were

one

of which contained a cooked dish

of non-sacred produce, and

in

one

of which there was a cooked dish of

teruma.

In front of them

were

two mortars [in which spices were pounded]. In

one mortar

one

there was a spice

of non-sacred produce, and

in

one

there was a spice

of teruma.

And

these spices

fell into

the pots

these, and it is not known into which pot each of the mortars’ contents fell—

the non-sacred produce in the pot of non-sacred produce

the non-sacred produce

in the pot of non-sacred produce is permitted to non-priests. We do not prohibit the non-sacred produce on account of the uncertainty, lest teruma spice fell into it and rendered it dimua.

Since

“I say: The teruma”

fell into the teruma.

And the non-sacred produce

fell into the non-sacred produce.

Abaye concludes his objection: Granted, if you say that an olive-sized measure within the time required to eat a peras is not a Torah law, and that one is liable only for eating an olive-sized measure at one time, it is understandable that we presume leniently and say that the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce.

For even if the teruma spice fell into the non-sacred produce, it is not prohibited by Torah law, since he does not eat the spice by itself, but as part of a mixture with non-sacred produce. He would have to eat many olive-sized portions of the mixture for the teruma spice that fell into the pot to combine to the measure of an olive-sized portion, and he does not eat an olive-sized measure of it at one time.

But

if you say,

that the law of

an olive-sized measure within the time required to eat a peras

is

a Torah law—

why

do we presume leniently and

say,

“I say: The teruma fell into the teruma, and the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce”?

For if the teruma spice fell into the non-sacred produce, a non-priest who eats it is liable for it by Torah law. For his eating of the spice alone combines to the measure of an olive-sized portion over the time required to eat a peras. And since this is a Torah uncertainty, one must rule stringently, rather than rule leniently on the basis of the presumption, “I say,” which is a leniency applicable only in a rabbinic matter.

He said to him,

Rav Dimi:

Set aside the teruma of spices,

which is only

rabbinic

. For by Torah law the obligation of teruma applies only to grain, wine, and oil, and not to other items. Therefore, in the case of an uncertainty concerning spices, we rule leniently.

Furthermore,

he challenged him

from that which was taught in a beraita:

Two

large

baskets,

one

of which

was full of grain

of non-sacred produce, and one

of which had placed before it

two se’a [vessels containing a se’a],

vessels containing a seah],

one

of the se’a-measures contained grain

of non-sacred produce, and one of teruma.

And

these baskets

fell into

these se’a-measures,

these, and it is not known which fell into which—the non-sacred produce in the se’a of non-sacred produce

is permitted

to non-priests.

Because

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

But here we are dealing with grain, and the teruma of grain is certainly a Torah obligation.

And if you say

“an olive-sized measure within the time required to eat a peras is a Torah law,”

then this is a Torah uncertainty. For if the teruma fell into the non-sacred produce, this mixture is prohibited by Torah law to non-priests. And if a non-priest eats a peras of the mixture, he has thereby eaten an olive-sized measure of teruma within the time required to eat a peras. How, then, can we presume leniently on the basis of the uncertainty,

why do we say: “I say

the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce”?

He said to him,

Rav Dimi:

Set aside teruma nowadays,

which is only

rabbinic.

As it is written, “When you enter the land.” And we derive from this that the obligation of teruma applies only when there is “the entry of all of you.”

We learned above: Rabbi Yohanan said: With regard to all prohibitions in the Torah, permitted matter does not combine with prohibited matter, except in the case of the prohibitions of a nazirite. For the Torah said, “Mishrat.”

And we raised the following objection:

And

when

this

“mishrat”

is it brought for this purpose?

But

this

verse

is needed by him

for another law.