Zevachim 76a (עו.) — the Talmud in English

Abaye raised an objection:

We learned below in the Mishna [90a]:

And all of them,

all sacred offerings that are eaten,

the kohanim are permitted to alter the manner of eating them

that is, to eat them as they wish, in any manner of eating ,

to eat them roasted, boiled, or cooked, and to place in them

of the sacred offerings either

non-sacred spices or

either

teruma spices, the words of Rabbi Shimon.

And from the fact that it is permitted to place teruma spices into a dish of sacred offerings, it is evident that Rabbi Shimon permits one even ab initio to bring teruma into a state of disqualification. For once the teruma has been placed into the flesh of the sacred offering, the time during which it may be eaten is limited to the time during which the sacred offering may be eaten!?

Rabba said to him

to Abaye:

Set aside teruma of spices,

which is only

by rabbinic decree,

since by Torah law the laws of terumot and tithes apply only to grain, wine, and oil. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon is not concerned about it.

Furthermore,

Abaye raised an objection

to him: We learned in tractate Ma’aser Sheni [3:2]:

One may not purchase teruma with money of second tithe, because this diminishes the manner in which it may be eaten

that is, it diminishes the place in which it may be eaten. For from the moment it becomes second tithe, it may be eaten only in Jerusalem, in accordance with the law of second tithe.

And Rabbi Shimon permits it.

And it is evident that even with regard to teruma mandated by Torah law, Rabbi Shimon is not concerned!?

Rabba fell silent before him

and did not answer him or resolve his objection.

When

Abaye

came before Rav Yosef,

and told him what he had raised as an objection to Rabba,

Rav Yosef said to him

to Abaye:

Why did you not refute Rabba

as well

from this

Mishna of the Sabbatical Year [8:7]?—

For we learned:

One may not cook a vegetable of the Sabbatical Year in oil of teruma,

so that

they should not bring

the teruma oil or the vegetable of the Sabbatical Year

into a state of disqualification.

For when teruma oil becomes mixed with a vegetable of the Sabbatical Year, it may be eaten only until the time for removing the vegetable. Conversely, if the oil becomes impure, the vegetable may not be eaten either.

And Rabbi Shimon permits

cooking the vegetable of the Sabbatical Year in teruma oil even ab initio. This demonstrates that Rabbi Shimon is not concerned about bringing the teruma or the Sabbatical Year produce into a state of disqualification.

If so, this poses a difficulty to Rabba, who said that Rabbi Shimon permitted this only after the fact, and not ab initio?

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef: It was indeed proper that I did not challenge Rabba from this Mishna.

Did I not already raise an objection to him

did I not challenge Rabba

from the case of spices,

from the Mishna that says that the kohanim are permitted to place teruma spices into a dish of sacred offerings,

and he said to me

Rabba:

Set aside teruma of spices,

which has sanctity only

by rabbinic decree,

and therefore Rabbi Shimon is not concerned about its becoming disqualified. If so,

here too

Rabba would have answered me: Set aside

teruma of vegetables,

whose sanctity is only

by rabbinic decree,

for by Torah law teruma applies only to grain, wine, and oil.

Rav Yosef challenged Abaye:

If so,

if, as you say, since teruma of vegetables is only rabbinic, Rabbi Shimon is not concerned about it, then

it should have been taught in the reverse manner:

One may not cook

a vegetable of teruma in oil of the Sabbatical Year,

and Rabbi Shimon permits it, because he is not concerned about the disqualification of teruma of vegetables, since its status is only rabbinic.

But since the Mishna says, “One may not cook a vegetable of the Sabbatical Year in oil of teruma,” this is difficult: Teruma oil has sanctity by Torah law, so how can Rabbi Shimon permit bringing it into a state of disqualification by cooking it with a vegetable of the Sabbatical Year!?

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef:

Did I not already raise an objection to him

to the tanna who taught before Rav that one may not purchase teruma with money of the Sabbatical Year, because this diminishes the manner in which it may be eaten, from our Mishna, in which Rabbi Shimon permits slaughtering the guilt offering and the peace offering that became mixed with one another and eating them according to the more stringent of them, despite thereby bringing them into a state of disqualification,

and he said to me

Rabba: In fact, Rabbi Shimon maintains that one may not initially bring sacred offerings into a state of disqualification; but the Mishna is different,

as it became mixed

after the fact, a guilt offering with peace offerings. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon permits it after the fact. If so,

here too,

in the Mishna concerning one who cooks a vegetable of the Sabbatical Year in teruma oil, Rabba could have said that Rabbi Shimon permitted it only in a case

where it became mixed,

where the vegetable of the Sabbatical Year became mixed with the teruma oil. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon permitted cooking them together, because it is impossible to squeeze the teruma oil out of the vegetable of the Sabbatical Year.

But Rav Yosef challenged Abaye:

If it became mixed,

the vegetable with the oil,

what is the reason of the Rabbis

who prohibit cooking them together? They are already mixed, and the cooking cannot create any further possibility of disqualification. Why, then, did the Rabbis not permit cooking them?

Should you say that the reason the Rabbis prohibited cooking them is

analogous to the case of a guilt offering and peace offerings

that became mixed, in which the Sages decreed that they may not be slaughtered and eaten according to the more stringent of them, despite the fact that they had already become mixed after the fact and there is now no possibility of offering them in accordance with their proper laws, this cannot be said, because

are they comparable

a guilt offering that became mixed with peace offerings to a vegetable that became mixed with oil?! For

there,

in the case of a guilt offering that became mixed with peace offerings,

there is a remedy—

through grazing.

For after they graze and develop a blemish, and they are sold, one brings from their proceeds a separate guilt offering and separate peace offerings, and each is eaten according to its law. But

here,

in the case of a vegetable that became mixed with oil,

there is no remedy through grazing.

Rather,

this

law of a vegetable that became mixed with oil

is comparable only to a piece

of edible sacred-offering meat

that

became mixed

with pieces

of edible sacred-offering meat of another type.

Since it has no

other

remedy,

the Rabbis too agree

that it is eaten according to the more stringent of them. If so, this presents a difficulty: How can you establish the Mishna concerning a vegetable of the Sabbatical Year that became mixed with teruma oil as referring to a case in which Rabbi Shimon permits cooking them because they had already become mixed? Once they became mixed, the Rabbis would not disagree with him; they too would permit cooking them together!?

If so, this is difficult: how can you explain the Mishna concerning Sabbatical-year produce that became mixed with teruma oil as saying that Rabbi Shimon permits cooking them because they had already become mixed? Once they became mixed, the Rabbis would not disagree with him; they too would permit cooking them together!?

Ravina challenged

this question that Rav Yosef had raised to Abaye:

Are

the laws of a guilt offering that became mixed with peace offerings comparable to that of a vegetable that became mixed with oil?! For

a piece

of sacred-offering meat

that

became mixed

with pieces

of sacred-offering meat of another type

has no remedy whatsoever,

other than that they all be eaten according to the more stringent of them. But

this

vegetable that became mixed with oil

has a remedy—

through squeezing.

Therefore, this vegetable that became mixed with oil is comparable to a guilt offering that became mixed with peace offerings, and Rabba properly answered that Rabbi Shimon maintains that one may not initially bring sacred offerings into a state of disqualification. But after the fact, when they have become mixed, one is not concerned about bringing them into a state of disqualification, even though they have another remedy. In this, the Rabbis disagree with him, maintaining that it is preferable to employ the remedy rather than bring them into a state of disqualification!?

And we answer:

But Rav Yosef

maintains:

How could we squeeze

this oil out of the vegetable? If we

squeeze out a great deal—

he will cause loss

to the vegetable, which is sacred

with

the sanctity of

the Sabbatical Year,

and the Merciful One said concerning the Sabbatical Year, “For you to eat”—for eating, and not for loss. And if we

squeeze out only a little,

in a manner that will not spoil the vegetable of the Sabbatical Year, then not all the oil will be squeezed out. If so,

in the end, it remains mixed

the teruma oil with the vegetable of the Sabbatical Year.

He raised an objection

to Rabba, who said that Rabbi Shimon permits bringing sacred offerings into a state of disqualification only after the fact, from a baraita taught in the Tosefta, tractate Nega’im [6:1]: In the case of one who was uncertainly a confirmed leper and became purified, he counts seven days for his purification [after bringing two birds and shaving], and on the seventh day he shaves all the hair of his body and immerses. From that point, he lacks only the bringing of the offerings of a leper and the placing of the blood and oil on the thumbs and toes. Since he is a doubtful leper, he cannot bring the offerings of a leper and become completely purified, because perhaps he is not a leper. Nor can he bring an offering and stipulate concerning it: If I am a leper, this offering is the guilt offering of a leper; and if I am not a leper, this offering is a peace offering; and then slaughter it and eat it, due to the doubt, according to the more stringent of them, because one may not bring sacred offerings into a state of disqualification.

Rabbi Shimon says: On the following day,

on the eighth day, after he has counted seven days for his purification,

he brings his guilt offering and his log measure

of the oil of a leper

with it,

and stipulates

and says: If

I was a leper, and this offering that I am bringing is the offering of a leper,

this is his guilt offering, and this is his log measure.