Pesachim 44b — the Talmud in English

As it was taught:

that which is written concerning the nazirite, “And any

soaked substance

of grapes he shall not drink,” the verse comes

to give the taste the status of the essence.

To teach us that the taste of the prohibition has the status of its essence and substance. And anything permitted in which there is the taste of the prohibition becomes forbidden itself, because when it is eaten or drunk, the taste of a prohibition is tasted in it.

For if one soaked grapes in water,

and the grapes imparted taste to the water until

there is in it the taste of wine,

then the nazirite who drinks from it is

liable

for drinking an olive-bulk measure of the water that contains the taste of grapes, on account of the prohibition against eating grapes.

And from here you reason concerning all the prohibitions of the Torah,

that if they imparted their taste into something permitted, it itself becomes forbidden because the taste of a prohibition is tasted in it. And anyone who eats an olive-bulk of it is flogged, even though in the taste of the prohibition itself there is not an olive-bulk measure. For it was newly established in the law of taste having the status of the essence that a permitted substance in which the taste of a prohibition is tasted is forbidden to eat because when it is eaten, the taste of a prohibition is tasted.

For we have to learn by a kal va-chomer from the nazirite concerning all the prohibitions of the Torah:

And as for a nazirite,

who is lenient in three matters— a.

His prohibition is not an everlasting prohibition,

for if he accepted an unspecified naziriteship, he is a nazirite for only thirty days. And if he specified the duration of his naziriteship, he becomes a nazirite according to the time he specified.

b.

His prohibition

with regard to wine is not

a prohibition of benefit,

but only a prohibition of eating and drinking.

c.

There is a way to permit his prohibition,

through the annulment by a sage.

And even so,

the verse made taste have the status of the essence in its case.

The prohibition of

mixed species

[mixed species of the vineyard], which is more stringent than it in that

its prohibition is an everlasting prohibition, its prohibition is a prohibition of benefit, and there is no way to permit its prohibition—

is it not all the more so that the verse should make

in its case

taste have the status of the essence?!

And the same applies to orla,

for this kal va-chomer can likewise be stated concerning it.

Rather, not all the stated stringencies exist with regard to orla. For the prohibition of orla is not an everlasting prohibition, but only for three years.

Nevertheless, taste was made to have the status of the essence in its case by a kal va-chomer from the nazirite in two

of the stringencies alone. For it is more stringent than a nazirite in that its prohibition is a prohibition of benefit, and there is no way to permit its prohibition within the three years. This is unlike a nazirite, whose prohibition can be permitted even within the thirty days of his naziriteship, through annulment by a sage.

And since the verse “soaked substance” came to include “taste having the status of the essence,” from where do we know that permitted food joins with the prohibition? For the law of taste having the status of the essence is not because permitted food joins with the prohibition; rather, it is an independent law. For any permitted substance that contains the taste of a prohibition is forbidden to eat because the taste of a prohibition is tasted when it is eaten.

It can always be said that wherever the taste of the prohibition was not absorbed into the permitted substance, it does not join to complete its measure.

And we answer:

This

beraita that expounds “soaked substance” as taste having the status of the essence—

whose is it?

It is the Rabbis’.

For they do not hold that permitted food joins with the prohibition in the prohibitions of a nazirite.

And Rabbi Yohanan,

who expounds “soaked substance” as permitted food joining with the prohibition,

is the one who said—

in accordance with Rabbi Akiva.

And we inquire about it:

Which

statement of

Rabbi Akiva

teaches us that permitted food joins with the prohibition in the prohibitions of a nazirite?

If you say it is Rabbi Akiva of the Mishna

of Nazir—

As we learned: Rabbi Akiva says: A nazirite who soaked his bread in wine, and there is enough in it to join to make an olive-bulk,

he is

liable

for eating it, for if there is enough in the bread and the wine together to join to make an olive-bulk measure, he is liable.

This shows that permitted food joins with the prohibition.

This is not proof from there.

For

how do you know that from bread and wine

together there is a joining to make an olive-bulk?

Perhaps

there is enough in it to join to make an olive-bulk

from the wine alone.

And the fact that it teaches the language of “joining” concerning it is because it is absorbed in the bread, and it is not all gathered together in one place.

And if you would say

to challenge: if there is an olive-bulk

from the wine

alone—

what

did Rabbi Akiva come

to state,

for it is obvious that he is flogged for the olive-bulk of wine?

This is not difficult.

Because

this Rabbi Akiva teaches us:

even though

the wine is not visible, but is in a

mixture,

and it is absorbed in the bread, nevertheless he is flogged for it.

And we conclude:

Rather, it is Rabbi Akiva of the beraita

from whom we learn that he holds that permitted food joins with the prohibition in the prohibitions of a nazirite.

As it was taught: Rabbi Akiva says: A nazirite who soaked his bread in wine and ate an olive-bulk

that was joined

from bread and wine

together,

is

liable.

And this is so even though the wine alone does not contain the measure of liability.

This shows that permitted food joins with the prohibition.

And the Rabbis disagree and say that the portion of the bread into which wine was not absorbed does not join to complete the measure. And specifically if wine was absorbed into an olive-bulk measure of the bread, he is flogged for it, by the law of “taste having the status of the essence.”

And we inquire about it: Since

he

expounds

Rabbi Akiva “soaked substance” as permitted food joining with the prohibition— the law of

taste having the status of the essence

in all the prohibitions of the Torah,

from where does he have it?

And we answer:

Rabbi Akiva derives

this law

from meat

with milk

that were cooked together, and the meat, which is visible, became forbidden through the absorption of the milk in it. And is the milk absorbed in the meat

not merely a taste?

For milk itself is not absorbed visibly into the body of the meat, but only its taste.

And

even so

it is

forbidden

on account of the mixture of meat with milk. This shows that the taste of the milk has the status of the essence of the milk.

And

here too,

with regard to all the prohibitions of the Torah,

it makes no difference!

And therefore the taste of the prohibition is sufficient to forbid the permitted substance into which it was absorbed.

And the Rabbis

hold:

We do not derive from meat with milk

for the entire Torah, because

it is a novelty

that is not found in the other prohibitions. Therefore, we do not learn from it even the stringency of taste having the status of the essence.

And we inquire about it:

And what novelty

is there in meat with milk more than in the other prohibitions?

If you say

it is because

this

meat

alone is permitted, and this

milk

alone is permitted, and

through their being mixed

with one another they are forbidden

to eat— this novelty is found elsewhere as well.

For we find this also with

mixed species, since

this

grain

alone is permitted

to eat,

and

this vine alone is permitted. And

through their being mixed

with

one

another

together, they are

forbidden

to eat them and to benefit from them.

And we conclude:

Rather, the novelty of the prohibition of meat with milk is that if

they soaked

it

[they were soaking]

for him

the meat

the entire day in milk, it is permitted

by Torah law to eat it. And although the taste of the milk was absorbed in it during the soaking, the Torah did not forbid it, since it did not impart taste into it by way of cooking.

For specifically if one

cooked it with cooking

the meat with the milk, it is

forbidden.

As it is written, “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.” And if he cooked them together and ate them, he transgresses two prohibitions: both for the cooking and for the eating.

And since the Torah did not forbid meat with milk merely through imparting taste, but only by way of cooking, it is a novelty. And we do not derive from it the law of taste having the status of the essence for the entire Torah.

Therefore, the Sages had to derive this law from “soaked substance,” which is written concerning a nazirite. And “soaked substance” was no longer available to them to include permitted food joining with the prohibition in the prohibitions of a nazirite.

And the Gemara retracts what was said above, that Rabbi Akiva derives taste having the status of the essence from meat with milk.

Rather,

Rabbi Akiva too

agrees that

meat with milk is certainly a novelty,

and it is not possible to derive from it for the entire Torah.

Rather, he derives

taste having the status of the essence

from the forbidden absorbed taste of gentiles’ vessels.

A pot in which a gentile cooked forbidden foods is forbidden, because it absorbed from the gentile’s cooking. And when an Israelite subsequently cooks in it, it emits from the absorbed forbidden tastes into the permitted dish and forbids it.

And we derive this from the fact that the Torah commanded concerning the vessels of Midian to purge them of the absorbed prohibition before using them, as it is written, “Everything that comes into fire, you shall pass through fire, and it shall be purified.”

And is the prohibition of the forbidden absorbed taste of gentiles’ vessels

not

because of the

taste

of the prohibition

alone?

And

even so, everything that absorbs from them is

forbidden.

This shows that taste has the status of the essence. And

here too,

with regard to all the prohibitions of the Torah,

it makes no difference! And since he derives it from there, “soaked substance,” which is written concerning a nazirite, is now superfluous, to teach that permitted food joins with the prohibition.

And the Rabbis

hold:

the forbidden absorbed taste of gentiles’ vessels is also a novelty.

Therefore, we do not derive from it. And again “soaked substance” is necessary for taste having the status of the essence.

For

we hold throughout the Torah that

any

prohibition that

imparts a deteriorated taste

is

permitted.

And we derive this

from

that which we derive from

what is written concerning

an unslaughtered carcass: “You shall not eat any unslaughtered carcass; to the stranger who is in your gates you shall give it, and he shall eat it.” And we expound: An unslaughtered carcass fit for a stranger is called an unslaughtered carcass. But if its taste has deteriorated to the point that it is no longer fit for a stranger, it is not called an unslaughtered carcass.

And the prohibition absorbed in the walls of the pot also has a deteriorated taste. And it no longer improves the permitted food when it is absorbed into it.

And

nevertheless, the Torah said

here

[in gentile vessels], that

it is forbidden

to eat what was again cooked in them. It is thus apparent that the prohibition of gentile vessels is a novelty, for we have found nothing like it throughout the entire Torah. Therefore, we cannot derive from it even the very law of “taste as substance.”

And Rabbi Akiva

held that it is not a novelty. And

as

said

Rav Hiyya, son of Rav Huna: It did not prohibit

the

Torah

gentile vessels

except

a

pot used that day!

For specifically on the same day on which the gentile cooked in it, it is forbidden to cook in it again. Since until the completion of twenty-four hours, the taste of the absorptions in the vessel has still not become spoiled. But after a day has passed from the cooking, its taste has again become spoiled. And it is permitted to cook permitted matter in it again.

And since the verse speaks of a pot used that day,

therefore, it is not matter that imparts spoiled taste!

And consequently it is not a novelty, and we again derive from it for the entire Torah the law of “taste as substance.”

And the Rabbis

hold that although the Torah did not prohibit the purging of gentile vessels after twenty-four hours, nevertheless, even

in a pot used that day, it is impossible that it does not spoil slightly

the pot

the taste

absorbed in it! For the taste of the vessel spoils the taste of the absorption, and the absorption of the prohibition no longer improves the permitted matter when it is emitted into it. And according to strict law, we should not have prohibited it on account of this. Rather, it is a novelty that the Torah innovated concerning the purging of gentile vessels. And we cannot derive from it for the entire Torah.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi:

But Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis both derived their laws from “that which gives service.” And why do we say according to Rabbi Akiva’s method that it applies specifically to nazirite prohibitions, and not to all prohibitions in the Torah? Surely

from the Rabbis we can understand Rabbi Akiva.

And

did the Rabbis not say

that we derive from

“that which gives service”

to impart the status of substance to taste,

and

from here you reason concerning all prohibitions in the Torah

that taste has the status of substance? And let us say so

for Rabbi Akiva as well,

for that which we derive

from “that which gives service”

that permitted matter combines with prohibited matter; from here you reason concerning all prohibitions in the Torah,

the language of the Gemara being “all prohibitions in the entire Torah,” that the permitted matter combines to complete their measure?

He said to him

Rav Ashi: It is impossible to derive from the nazirite for the entire Torah that permitted matter combines with prohibited matter.