Pesachim 44a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara raises an objection:

If so

there is a difficulty: why did Zeiri not say

also with regard to leaven on Passover

that permitted matter combines with prohibited matter

? For Rabbi Eliezer holds that even a mixture of leaven is subject to a prohibition. And the prohibition applies even when there is not an olive-bulk of leaven by itself, but only through its combination with the permitted matter mixed with it; and necessarily, he holds that permitted matter combines with prohibited matter.

And we answer:

Indeed so;

Zeiri also holds with regard to leaven that permitted matter combines with prohibited matter.

And the reason Zeiri stated this law specifically with regard to the burning of leaven

to exclude

the words

of

statement

Abaye

he comes to exclude.

For

Abaye said: This which we learned in the beraita concerning the law of burning leaven, “From where [do we know] its part? The verse says: ‘Every leaven’”—does not speak of one who burns leaven and a meal-offering together.

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

is

there

“burning”

with regard to the prohibition of burning leaven even

for less than an olive-bulk,

and there is no need at all for the law of permitted matter completing the measure of the prohibition to an olive-bulk.

Therefore,

Zeiri teaches us

that the

“every”

that is written regarding

burning does not come to

make one liable for burning

less than an olive-bulk,

because there is no burning for less than an olive-bulk. Rather, the verse comes to make one liable for burning an olive-bulk, half of which is leaven and half of which is a meal-offering according to its law.

Rav Dimi sat and stated this teaching

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

Abaye said to Rav Dimi: And

is it so that with regard to

all

the other

prohibitions in the Torah, permitted matter does not combine with prohibited matter

to complete its measure?! But we find likewise with regard to teruma that permitted matter combines with prohibited matter.

One who immersed that day [one who immersed and emerged from his impurity, but the day has not yet grown dark] is entirely pure and does not render ordinary produce impure through his touch. Yet he still disqualifies teruma through his touch, until sunset.

And we learned: The thick dish

[a thick cooked dish, such as porridge] in which garlic and oil were placed as seasoning, and the thick dish itself was

of teruma, and

if

the garlic and the oil

as seasoning were

of ordinary produce—

then

if one who immersed that day touched a part of them, he disqualified all of it!

For even if the one who immersed that day touched only a part of the oil and garlic, which are ordinary produce, he disqualified the entire thick dish, since the principal part of the thick dish is teruma, and all of it is considered one body.

And therefore, if he touched part of it, it is as though he touched all of it, and he disqualifies the entire thick dish.

But if

the thick dish was of ordinary produce, and the garlic and oil

were

of teruma, and one who immersed that day touched a part of them

of the garlic and oil—

he disqualified only

the oil or garlic at

the place of his touch בלבד.

And the reason for this will be explained shortly.

And at first we examine this: If the garlic and oil were teruma—

why is the place of his touch disqualified?

They should have become nullified

the

seasoning

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

in

the thick dish of ordinary produce, which is the

majority

of the pot. For behold, a minority of prohibited matter that became mixed with a majority of permitted matter: the prohibition becomes nullified in the permitted matter, and its prohibition is removed. Here too, the majority of ordinary produce should nullify the status of teruma from the oil and garlic, and they should not be disqualified through the touch of the one who immersed that day.

And although we hold that “mixed teruma” [mixed with ordinary produce] is prohibited to non-kohanim until there are one hundred parts of ordinary produce against the part of teruma, it was assumed that the law of mixing is not by Torah law, but is only a prohibition of eating by rabbinic law. But with regard to becoming disqualified through the touch of one who immersed that day, this has no place, since by Torah law teruma is nullified by an ordinary majority, and it has no designation of teruma with regard to becoming disqualified through his touch.

And Rabba bar bar Hana said

to resolve:

What is the reason

that the garlic and oil of teruma become disqualified through the touch of one who immersed that day, and the status of teruma is not nullified from the minority of garlic and from the thick dish?

Since

the law of “mixed teruma” is by Torah law.

And

by Torah law,

a non-kohen

who ate from the mixture

receives lashes for them for

eating a measure of

an olive-bulk

from the mixture. And the entire pot of “mixed teruma” is considered according to the law of teruma, which becomes disqualified through the touch of one who immersed that day.

However, the entire mixed mixture is not so stringent as to be considered like teruma itself, so that all of it should become disqualified if one who immersed that day touches a part of it. Rather, since it is only in the category of “mixed teruma,” only the place touched by the one who immersed that day becomes disqualified.

And Abaye proves:

What are the circumstances

of a non-kohen receiving lashes for eating an olive-bulk from the mixture of teruma and ordinary produce? Did he not eat from the teruma alone an amount of an olive-bulk?

Rather,

is it not

that he receives lashes

because

the ordinary produce combines to complete the measure of the eating of teruma to an olive-bulk? And it proves

that permitted matter combines with prohibited matter

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

And Rav Dimi replied:

No,

he receives lashes not for eating an olive-bulk formed by combining from the mixture.

Rather,

what olive-bulk

does the non-kohen receive lashes for? When the garlic and oil themselves contain the measure of an olive-bulk, without combination with the ordinary-produce thick dish.

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

“within the time of eating a peras,”

and nevertheless he receives lashes for it.

The time of “eating a peras” is a measure of eating time for half of a certain loaf of bread [“peras” derives from the language of a divided piece], according to which the Sages established several and many measures of halakhot.

The measure of this loaf is eight eggs, and half of it is four eggs.

The time of eating four eggs [which is a “peras” of this loaf] is the period of time during which a person’s continued eating [including interruptions during eating] combines to be considered one eating.

If the eating continues beyond this time, the continued eating does not combine to be one eating, but is considered several acts of eating, with all the acts of eating that were eaten within the time of eating a peras being considered one eating.

The time “within the time of eating a peras” applies both to prohibitions, such as eating an olive-bulk of leaven on Passover or eating the measure of a date-sized portion on Yom Kippur, and to mitzvot, such as eating matza on Passover or eating in a sukka.

The issue in the sugya before us is whether the time measure of eating a peras is by Torah law or by rabbinic law.

And since here the teruma was in a mixture of ordinary produce, we must establish that the mixture was in such a ratio that there was an olive-bulk of teruma within four eggs of the mixture, so that if he ate from the mixture an amount measuring four eggs, it is clear that he ate an olive-bulk of teruma, and likewise the duration of the eating was the time of “within the time of eating a peras.”

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

And Abaye wondered:

And

is continued eating of

an olive-bulk within the time of eating a peras

considered one eating by

Torah law,

and does one receive lashes for it?

And perhaps it is not a matter of Torah law.

And then necessarily, what Rabba bar bar Hana said concerning a thick dish of ordinary produce, that “a non-kohen receives lashes for it for an olive-bulk,” is because permitted matter combines with prohibited matter.

He said to him,

Rav Dimi:

Yes!

Indeed, the time of an olive-bulk within the time of eating a peras is by Torah law.

And Abaye raised an objection to him:

If so,

that the time of eating a peras is by Torah law,

why do the Sages disagree with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to

one who eats

Babylonian kutah,

and say that he does not transgress anything through it?

For even if they do not expound “every—to include its mixture,” and the entire mixture is not prohibited by a new prohibition of a mixture of leaven called “fermenting agent,” nevertheless he should be liable for it because he ate from the leaven itself an olive-bulk within the time of eating a peras.

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

But Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and makes him liable for lashes. For he expounds from the verse that one receives lashes for eating an olive-bulk of the mixture, each and every olive-bulk of the mixture being prohibited by a new prohibition of “you shall not eat any fermenting agent,” even though the leaven itself is only a small part of the olive-bulk.

Rav Dimi said to him:

Rather, what

will you say—that an olive-bulk within the time of eating a peras is not a matter of Torah law, and the reason for the Mishna’s ruling concerning one who immersed that day, that he receives lashes for eating the mixed teruma, is

because permitted matter combines with prohibited matter?

Even according to this, it will be difficult for you:

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

Does he not, when he eats an olive-bulk of it at once, eat leaven that combines together with the permitted matter to the measure of an olive-bulk?

Rather,

actually, permitted matter does not combine with prohibited matter, and the non-kohen is liable for eating the mixed teruma because he ate it within the time of eating a peras, which is a time measure of one eating by Torah law.

And as for your difficulty: If so, why is he not liable according to the Sages for eating an olive-bulk of leaven within the time of eating a peras from Babylonian kutah—your answer is:

Leave Babylonian kutah,

for it cannot provide proof for the matter under discussion, because

there is not in it

a realistic possibility of eating

an olive-bulk

of leaven

within the time of eating a peras.

Thus, even if there is an olive-bulk of leaven mixed into every peras of the kutah, it is impossible to become liable for it.

For how is it possible that a person should eat kutah and that his eating should contain the eating of an olive-bulk of leaven within the time of eating a peras?

If

he eats the kutah

in its own substance

[by itself], and for example

he swallows

[gulps it down]

and eats it,

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

And although for him it is considered eating—

his opinion is nullified before

the opinion of

all people.

And if

he acts according to the practice of people who

dip and stir,

who dip other food into kutah,

and eat

the kutah through dipping—

there is not in it

in the food dipped in kutah

an olive-bulk

of leaven

within the time of eating a peras

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 into which he dips it, a period of time longer than the eating of a peras is required. Therefore, there is no possibility of transgressing through it, according to the Sages.

And likewise with Median beer: you do not have a person who drinks two or three cups of it without interrupting and delaying between them. It follows that he does not drink an olive-bulk of the leavened product within the time required for eating a peras. For it is mixed with the water and the other ingredients in the beer. For the main substance of beer is from dates and figs, except that in Media a small amount of barley water is mixed with it.

And Rabbi Eliezer expounds from “You shall not eat any leavening,” that the Torah innovated that a mixture of leavened product is all forbidden, and every olive-bulk in it is an independent prohibition.

He raised an objection

Abaye from that which was taught:

Two pots

that were inside

one

of them there was a cooked dish

of non-sacred produce, and

in

one

of them there was a cooked dish of

teruma.

And before them

there were

two mortars [

in which spices were pounded]. In

one

mortar there was a spice

of non-sacred produce, and

in

one

there was a spice

of teruma.

And these

spices

fell into these

pots

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

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

is permitted

to non-kohanim. And we do not forbid the non-sacred produce on account of the uncertainty, lest teruma spice fell into it and rendered it demai.

Because of

“I say: teruma” —

fell into the teruma.

And non-sacred produce —

fell into the non-sacred produce.

And Abaye concludes his objection: Granted, if you say that an olive-bulk within the time required for eating a peras is not from the Torah, and one is liable only for eating an olive-bulk all at once, it is well that we attribute leniently, and say that non-sacred produce fell into non-sacred produce.

For even if the teruma spice fell into the non-sacred produce, it is not forbidden by Torah law, since he does not eat the spice by itself, but in a mixture of non-sacred produce. And he must eat many olive-bulks of the mixture in order for the teruma spice that fell into the pot to combine to the measure of an olive-bulk, and he does not eat an olive-bulk of it all at once.

But

if you say,

that the law of

an olive-bulk within the time required for eating a peras

is

from the Torah —

why

do we attribute leniently and

say

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

For if the teruma spice fell into the non-sacred produce, the non-kohen who eats it is liable for it by Torah law. For his eating of the spice by itself combines to the measure of an olive-bulk during the time required for eating a peras. And since the matter is a Torah uncertainty, one must treat it stringently, and not be lenient on the basis of the rule of attribution, “I say,” which is a leniency only with regard to a rabbinic law.

He said to him

Rav Dimi:

Set aside teruma of spice,

for it is only

rabbinic. For by Torah law the obligation of teruma applies only to grain, wine, and oil, and not to other things. Therefore, with regard to an uncertain spice, we proceed leniently.

. 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 raised an objection

from that which was taught:

Two large baskets,

large

one

of them full of grain

of non-sacred produce, and one

grain

of teruma, and before them

there were placed

two seahs [

vessels containing a seah],

one

of the seahs containing grain

of non-sacred produce, and one of teruma.

And these baskets

these baskets

fell into these

seahs

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

is permitted

to non-kohanim.

Because

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

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

And if you say

“an olive-bulk within the time required for eating a peras is from the Torah,”

then it is a Torah uncertainty. For if the teruma fell into the non-sacred produce, this mixture is forbidden by Torah law to non-kohanim. And if the non-kohen eats a peras of the mixture, it follows that he eats an olive-bulk of teruma within the time required for eating a peras. And how do we attribute leniently on account of the uncertainty,

and say: “I say

non-sacred produce fell into non-sacred produce

”? He said to him

Rav Dimi:

Set aside teruma in the present time,

for it is only

rabbinic.

As it is written, “When you enter the land.” And we expound: the obligation of teruma applies only at a time when there is “the entry of all of you.”

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

And we raised it:

And

because

this

“of anything steeped”

is it coming for this?

But

this

verse

is needed

for another law.