Previous Folio / Nazir Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir

Folio 36a

Ze'iri said: Another [exception] is leaven which it is prohibited to burn [on the altar].1  According to whom [will Ze'iri infer this? Evidently] after the manner of R. Eleazar who interprets the particle kol [any].2  But then should not another exception be leaven [on passover]?3  — Quite so. But [Ze'iri wished to indicate his] dissent from the opinion of Abaye that the burning of even less than an olive's bulk counts as an offering,4  and so he [incidentally] tells us that the burning of less than an olive's bulk does not count as an offering.5

As R. Dimi was once sitting and repeating the above reported decision [of R. Johanan]6  Abaye raised the following objection. [A Mishnah says:] If part of a stew of terumah7  containing garlic and oil of hullin8  is touched by a [defiled person who] had bathed that day,9  the whole is rendered unfit [to be eaten].10  If part of a stew of hullin containing garlic and oil of terumah is touched by a [defiled person who] had bathed that day, only that part that was touched becomes unfit [to be eaten].11  Now, in discussing this it was asked why the part touched should become unfit12  and Rabbah b. Bar Hanah quoting R. Johanan replied: The reason is that a layman13  would be scourged for eating an olive's bulk.14  Surely this

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. Lev. II, 11.
  2. Ibid. 'any leaven' as a sign that even in combination it is forbidden, with the full penalty for transgression.
  3. For here R. Eleazar explicitly makes this interpretation of kol, (v. Pes. 43b), and so why does not Ze'iri mention it.
  4. So that even if the total bulk burnt is less than an olive, there is a penalty. V. Men. 58a.
  5. Although not all the olive's bulk need be leaven. That leaven on passover is another exception we are expected to infer.
  6. That what is permitted does not combine with what is forbidden.
  7. The priestly heaveoffering (v. Glos.). It had to be kept in ritual purity.
  8. 'Profane food' i.e. not terumah.
  9. And would become ritually pure after sunset. Although counted as clean for many purposes he could still defile terumah.
  10. Including the garlic and the oil, which are regarded as though absorbed in the terumah.
  11. Teb. Y. II, 3.
  12. Seeing that hullin predominates.
  13. A non-priest who is forbidden to eat terumah.
  14. Thus the predominance of hullin does not take away the sacred character of the terumah contained in the mixture.

Nazir 36b

 is because permitted food combines with forbidden?1  — [R. Dimi] replied: No! [What R. Johanan means] by an olive's bulk is that an olive's bulk [of actual terumah]2  would be consumed during the time taken to eat a peras.3  [Abaye objected:] Is then the time taken to eat a peras [reckoned] as a meal by the Torah?4  — [R. Dimi] replied: It is. Then, [Abaye asked], why do the Rabbis differ from R. Eleazar as regards Babylonian kutah?5  [R. Dimi] replied: Let Babylonian kutah alone,6  since there is no olive's bulk [of leaven] consumed in the time it takes to eat a peras. For if a man does gulp down [a large quantity] at once, we disregard such a fancy as being quite exceptional,7  whilst if one merely dips [other food] into it, you will not find an olive's bulk [of the leaven] consumed in the time taken to eat a peras.8

He [Abaye] raised objection against [R. Dimi's ruling from the following passage]. [It has been taught:] If two [spice] mortars, one containing terumah and the other hullin stood near two pots, one containing terumah and the other hullin, and [the contents of] the first pair fell into the other pair,9  both [dishes] may be eaten,10  for we assume that hullin fell into hullin and terumah into terumah. Now if it is a fact that the consumption of an olive's bulk within the time taken to eat a peras is [prohibited by] the Torah, why do we make this assumption?11  — But if, [granting your view, replied R. Dimi] permitted and forbidden foods combine, how again could the assumption be justified?12  The fact is that no argument can be based on the terumah of spices, [for its sanctity is the result] of a rabbinic enactment.13

He [Abaye] raised a [further] objection. [It has been taught:] If two baskets, one containing terumah and the other hullin stood near two vessels,14  one of terumah and the other of hullin and the former pair were tipped into the latter, both are permitted, for we assume that hullin fell into hullin and terumah into terumah.15  Now if it is a fact that an olive's bulk consumed within the time taken to eat a peras is [prohibited by] the Torah, how can we make such an assumption?

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. Seeing that scourging is the penalty for eating an olive's bulk of the mixture.
  2. Not of the mixture.
  3. Lit. 'piece', a piece of bread equal in size to four average eggs. This interval constitutes a single meal (Ker. III, 3). Since the quantity of terumah contained in the amount of stew eaten in this interval was an olive's bulk, there would be a penalty of scourging for a layman. [According to Maimonides, Yad, Erubin I, 9, peras is equal to three average 'eggs'].
  4. So that stripes would be inflicted even if other food is taken in the same interval.
  5. A preserve of sour milk, bread crusts and salt used as a source. R. Eleazar considered it to be prohibited on Passover by the Torah, so that its consumption entailed a penalty, whilst the Rabbis considered it to be forbidden only by rabbinic decree; v. Pes. 43a.
  6. For if indeed permitted and forbidden foods combined, you would be still harder put to it to explain why the Rabbis would not consider it forbidden by the Torah-law! (So the text in yes. 44a).
  7. Because ordinary people do not use it as a food, his eccentric eating of it is not treated as eating to entail a penalty.
  8. And so it is only forbidden by rabbinic decree.
  9. Without it being known which was tipped into which.
  10. I.e., the dish of hullin may still be eaten by a layman.
  11. Since a mixture of terumah and hullin would be forbidden in Torah-law, our doubt concerning the dishes should be resolved (as it always is in cases of Torah-law) in the stricter sense, and both declared terumah.
  12. For then the doubt would certainly be concerned with Torah-law, so that both dishes should be forbidden.
  13. The Torah does not require terumah to be separated from spices. Hence the doubt concerns only what is forbidden by the Rabbis and so is resolved in the more lenient sense.
  14. Heb. Sa'in, plural of Sa'ah, a large dry measure, here assumed to contain grain.
  15. Tosef. Ter. VI, 15.