Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) MUST THE "PEGAM" START IMMEDIATELY?

(a) (Ula): R. Meir and R. Shimon argue when it originally improved the taste and later was Pogem, but all agree that if it was Pogem from the beginning, it is permitted.
(b) Question (R. Chana - Beraisa): If (forbidden) wine (or vinegar) fell into lentils (or grits), the food is forbidden;

1. R. Shimon permits it.
2. Even though it (vinegar) is Pogem from the beginning, the Tana'im argue!

(c) Answer (Ula): If one understands the Beraisa, this is not difficult;

1. The case is, the vinegar fell into cold grits, later they were heated - originally, it was li'Shvach, later it was li'Fgam.

(d) (R. Yochanan): They argue when it was Pogem from the beginning.
(e) Question: Does he mean that they *only* argue when it was Pogem from the beginning, but if it originally improved the taste and later was Pogem, all agree it is permitted?

1. Or, do they *even* argue when it was Pogem from the beginning?

(f) This question is not resolved (now - it will be resolved in the coming discussion).
(g) Support (for R. Yochanan - Rav Amram - Mishnah): Se'or of Chulin fell into a dough, it was enough to ferment it and it fermented it;

1. If afterwards, Se'or of Terumah or Kilai ha'Kerem fell in, and it was enough to ferment it, the dough is forbidden;
2. R. Shimon permits it.
3. Even though the forbidden Se'or is Pogem from the beginning (it overferments the dough), the Tana'im argue!

(h) Rejection (R. Zeira): That is not considered Pogem from the beginning - even though it is Pogem the taste, it is li'Shvach in another respect, it enables the dough to ferment other doughs.
(i) Support (for R. Yochanan - Beraisa): If Se'or of Terumah and Se'or of Chulin fell into a dough, each was enough to ferment it by itself, and they fermented it, it is forbidden;

1. R. Shimon permits it.
2. If the (Se'or of) Terumah fell in first, all forbid it;
3. If the Chulin fell in first, and then the Terumah or (Se'or of) Kilai ha'Kerem, the dough is forbidden;
4. R. Shimon permits it.
5. Even though the forbidden Se'or is Pogem from the beginning, the Tana'im argue!

(j) Rejection: We can reject the support as R. Zeira did above!

(k) Support (Beraisa): If (forbidden) wine (or vinegar) fell into lentils (or grits), they are forbidden;

1. R. Shimon permits it.
2. Even though it is Pogem from the beginning, the Tana'im argue!
3. Suggestion: We can reject the support as Ula answered this question above - the case is, the vinegar fell into cold grits, later they were heated - originally, it was li'Shvach, later it was li'Fgam.
4. Rejection They do not argue when it was li'Shvach at first!

i. (Beraisa): If the (Se'or of) Terumah fell in first, all forbid it.

5. Conclusion: They (only) argue when it was li'Fgam from the beginning.

(l) Question: Why are the three clauses necessary?

1. Granted, the last clause (wine or vinegar that fell...) is needed to teach that they argue when the Isur was Pogem from the beginning;
2. The middle clause (Se'or of Terumah fell in, then Se'or of Chulin) is needed to teach that all agree when it was initially li'Shvach and later li'Fgam, it is forbidden (we do not ask about when the Chulin fell in first (we already know this from the last clause), it was merely taught on account of when the Terumah fell first);
3. Why is the first clause (Se'or of Terumah and Chulin fell in together) needed?

i. Chachamim forbid when the Isur was Pogem from the beginning, without any Shevach - all the more so, when there was Shevach!

(m) Answer (Abaye): The first clause teaches a Chidush according to R. Shimon:

1. Chachamim say, the Terumah was li'Shvach, it helped the dough to ferment faster;
2. R. Shimon says, since the Terumah and Chulin together were li'Shvach, and later they were Pogem together, the dough is permitted.

(n) Question: R. Shimon should say that the Terumah and Chulin join to forbid the dough!
(o) Answer: This is as he holds elsewhere, that two forbidden foods do not join to forbid.

1. (Mishnah): Orlah and Kilayim (that fell into Chulin less than 200 times their combined volume) join to forbid it;
2. R. Shimon says, they do not join.

(a) A case occurred, a mouse fell into beer, Rav forbade the beer.
(b) (Rabanan): He holds that Nosen Ta'am li'Fgam is forbidden.
(c) Rejection (Rav Sheshes): Normally, he holds that it is permitted;

1. Sheratzim (rodents) are different - they are repulsive, people would avoid them even if they were permitted;
2. Therefore, their prohibition surely applies even when they are Nosen Ta'am li'Fgam.

(d) Question (Rabanan): If it is a Chidush (and we do not distinguish Nosen Ta'am li'Shvach from li'Fgam), we should not distinguish whether they are moist or dry (in either case, they should Metamei)!

1. Counter-question (Rav Sheshes): Semen is repulsive - will you say that it is Metamei even when dry?!

i. (Mishnah): (Sheratzim and semen) are Metamei when they are moist, not when they are dry.

2. Answer (Rav Sheshes): You must say, "Shichvas Zera" refers to semen able to Mazri'a (conceive), i.e. moist;

(e) Answer (Rav Sheshes): Likewise, we expound "B'Mosam" (said regarding Sheratzim) - like when they first die, i.e. moist.
(f) Question (Rav Simi of Neharda'a): Mice are not repulsive, they are served on kings' tables!
(g) Answer: City mice are repulsive, wild mice (squirrels) are not.
(h) (Rava): The Halachah is, Nosen Ta'am li'Fgam is permitted; I do not know Rav's reason.

1. Perhaps Rav holds that Nosen Ta'am li'Fgam is forbidden, the Halachah is not like Rav;
2. Perhaps Rav holds that Nosen Ta'am li'Fgam is permitted, but mice improve beer (they strengthen it).