Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) AN OLIVE'S WORTH (OF FORBIDDEN FOOD) WITHIN A HALF LOAF OF THE MIXTURE

(a) This is not difficult according to the opinion that permitted food joins to forbidden food - the case is, there is more than 1 Se'ah of Chulin (so even if the Terumah fell into the Chulin, the majority is Chulin, and we do not say that permitted food joins to forbidden food).

1. But if you say that an olive's worth (of forbidden food) within a half loaf of the mixture is forbidden mid'Oraisa - this applies even if the majority is Chulin!

(b) Answer: The Beraisa speaks nowadays, that Terumah is only mid'Rabanan, therefore we are lenient.
(c) Question (Abaye): Why do you say that "Soaked" teaches that permitted food joins to forbidden food - perhaps it only comes to forbid a food which absorbed the taste of forbidden food!

1. Question: Abaye asked all the above questions, to prove that permitted food joins to forbidden food by all prohibitions - and now he comes to say, even by Nazir it does not?!
2. Answer: Abaye accepted Rav Dimi's answers; he then asked, perhaps even by Nazir, we only learn that a food which absorbed the taste of forbidden food is forbidden.

i. (Beraisa): "Soaked" - this teaches that a food which absorbed the taste of forbidden food is forbidden;
ii. If one soaked grapes in water, and the water has a taste of wine, a Nazir is liable for drinking it.
iii. We learn from here to all Torah prohibitions (many texts read - all prohibitions of Nezirus).
iv. The prohibitions of Nezirus are not permanent, they do not forbid getting any benefit, and the prohibitions can be permitted - still, the Torah said that a food which absorbed the taste of forbidden food is forbidden;
v. Kil'ayim (crossbreeds) in a vineyard, which are permanently forbidden, and are forbidden from getting any benefit, and the prohibitions cannot be permitted - all the more so, the Torah said that a food which absorbed the taste of forbidden food is forbidden;
vi. On 2 of the 3 counts, we can say that Orlah (fruits of a tree before its 4th year) is likewise more severe than Kil'ayim, and a food which absorbed the taste of forbidden food is forbidden.

(a) Question: Where did R. Avahu learn that R. Akiva says that permitted food joins to forbidden food?

1. Suggestion: From our Mishnah.

i. (Mishnah): R. Akiva says, even if he soaked his bread in wine, and there is enough to join to an olive's worth, he is liable.

2. Rejection: Perhaps he is only liable if there is an olive's worth of wine!
3. Question: If so, what does R. Akiva teach us?
4. Answer: That one is liable for an olive's worth, unlike the 1st Tana who says that one is only liable for a Revi'is.

(b) Answer: He learned from this Beraisa.

1. (Beraisa - R. Akiva): A Nazir that soaked his bread in wine and ate an olive's worth of bread and wine is liable.

(c) Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Avi): Since R. Akiva uses the verse "And all soaked" to teach that permitted food joins to forbidden food - what is his source that a food which absorbed from a forbidden food is forbidden?
(d) Answer #1 (Rav Ashi): He learns from meat and milk.

1. The meat only absorbs a taste of milk (or vice-versa), and it is forbidden - we learn to all cases!
2. Chachamim say that we cannot learn from meat and milk, because it is exceptional.
3. Question: Why is it exceptional?

i. Suggestion: Because each is permitted by itself, but together they are forbidden.
ii. Rejection: This is not exceptional - it also applies to Kil'ayim (mixing seeds of or grafting diverse species of vegetation, working with different species of animals, wearing a garment of wool and linen)!

4. Answer: If one soaks them together they are permitted, but if they are cooked together, they are forbidden.

(e) Rejection: For this reason, also R. Akiva should not learn from meat and milk!

(f) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): Rather, he learns from absorbed tastes in vessels of non-Jews.

1. "Whatever vessels are used with fire (must be Kashered before usage) - this teaches that absorbed tastes in vessels of non-Jews are forbidden.
2. Even though it is merely taste, it is forbidden - we learn from this to all cases!

(g) Question (Rav Acha): Why don't Chachamim learn from this?
(h) Answer (Rav Ashi): Because it is exceptional.

1. In all other cases, the Torah permits absorbed unfavorable tastes; regarding absorbed tastes in vessels of non-Jews, they are forbidden.

(i) Question: Since it is exceptional, why does R. Akiva learn from it?
(j) Answer (Rav Huna bar Chiya): The Torah only forbids a vessel used in the last 24 hours, and the taste imparted is not unfavorable.

1. Chachamim say that even within 24 hours, the taste imparted is slightly unfavorable.

(a) Question (Rav Acha): We should learn from Chachamim to R. Akiva!

1. Chachamim say that "Soaked" teaches that wine absorbed in bread forbids the bread, and we learn that any food which absorbed from a forbidden food is forbidden.
2. R. Akiva, who learns from "Soaked" that permitted food joins to forbidden food (by a Nazir), should also learn to all cases!

(b) Answer (Rav Ashi): The Torah taught that permitted food joins to forbidden food in 2 places - by Nazir and by a sin-offering.

1. Whenever the Torah teaches something in 2 places, we do not learn to other cases.

(c) The case of Nazir is as above.
(d) The case of a sin-offering is as follows.

1. (Beraisa): "Any food that touches (a sin-offering's) skin will become Kodesh" - one might think, even if the food did not absorb - "In its skin" teaches, only if it absorbs.
2. "It becomes Kodesh" - if the sin-offering is invalid (and may not be eaten), the food may not be eaten; if the sin-offering is Kosher, the food may be eaten with the stringencies of the sin-offering.

(e) Objection (Chachamim): This is not considered something taught in 2 places, since we could not have learned either from the other!

1. Because Nazir is Chulin, we cannot learn it from a sin-offering, which is Kodshim.
2. We cannot learn from Nazir to a sin-offering, because the Torah was extra stringent by Nazir, and forbade even Chartzanim.

(f) Response: R. Akiva admits that we cannot learn Chulin from Kodshim.

1. However, he holds that we could have learned a sin-offering from Nazir, just as we learn in general from Nazir.

(g) Chachamim agree that we learn from a sin-offering that permitted food joins to forbidden food; we cannot learn Chulin from Kodshim.

1. We learn from Nazir ("Soaked") that a food which absorbed from a forbidden food is forbidden; this principle is learned to all cases.

(h) R. Akiva says that both teach that permitted food joins to forbidden food; since this was taught in 2 places, we do not learn to other cases.
(i) Question (Rav Ashi - Beraisa): "From all that comes from the grapevine" - this teaches that prohibitions of a Nazir join up.

1. According to R. Akiva, even permitted food joins to forbidden food - all the more so, forbidden foods join!

(j) Answer (Rav Kahana): Permitted food joins to forbidden food only when eaten simultaneously; forbidden foods join even when eaten one after the other.