Pesachim 44aפסחים מ״ד א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Pesachim 44a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
44aמ״ד א
1 א

לענין חמץ בפסח נמי

with regard to the matter of leavened bread on Passover one should also be liable for eating a prohibited substance joined together with a permitted substance.

2 ב

אין הכי נמי ולאפוקי מדאביי דאמר יש הקטרה לפחות מכזית קמשמע לן דהקטרה לאו לפחות מכזית

The Gemara answers: Yes, indeed it is so, and the prohibition mentioned by Ze’eiri against sacrificing leaven in offerings was only to exclude the statement of Abaye, who said: There is significance to offering less than an olive-bulk of leaven on the altar, and one is flogged for sacrificing an offering of that kind. By noting that one is liable because permitted substances combine with prohibited substances, the baraita teaches us that an offering of less than an olive-bulk is not considered an offering, and therefore sacrificing it is not punishable by lashes.

3 ג

יתיב רב דימי וקאמר לה להא שמעתא אמר ליה אביי לרב דימי וכל איסורין שבתורה אין היתר מצטרף לאיסור

Rav Dimi sat and stated this halakha that a permitted substance does not join together with a prohibited substance to constitute the requisite measure, except in the case of a nazirite. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: And is it true that with regard to all other prohibitions in the Torah, a permitted substance does not join together with a prohibited substance?

4 ד

והתנן המקפה של תרומה והשום והשמן של חולין ונגע טבול יום במקצתן פסל את כולן המקפה של חולין והשום והשמן של תרומה ונגע טבול יום במקצתן לא פסל אלא מקום מגעו בלבד

But didn’t we learn in a mishna: With regard to thick soup prepared with teruma produce whose garlic and oil are of non-sacred produce, and one who immersed himself during that day touched some of the ingredients, he disqualified all the contents of the pot, as they are subsumed within the teruma soup. However, if the thick soup was prepared with non-sacred produce and the garlic and the oil were of teruma, and one who immersed himself during that day touched some of them, he disqualifies only the ingredients in the place that he touched.

5 ה

והוינן בה מקום מגעו אמאי פסולה הא בטלי להו תבלין ברוב ואמר רבה בר בר חנה מה טעם הואיל וזר לוקה עליהן בכזית היכי דמי לאו משום דהיתר מצטרף לאיסור

Abaye continues. And we discussed this issue: Why are the ingredients in the place that he touched disqualified? The spices, i.e., the garlic or oil, are nullified by the majority. Since the major portion of the dish is composed of non-sacred produce, it should not be disqualified by contact with one who immersed himself during that day. And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in reply: What is the reason that it becomes disqualified? It is since a non-priest is flogged for eating an olive-bulk of the soup, as anything into which teruma is mixed is considered teruma by Torah law. What are the circumstances of this ruling that a non-priest is flogged? Is it not due to the fact that the permitted substance joins together with the prohibited substance?

6 ו

לא מאי כזית דאיכא כזית בכדי אכילת פרס

Rav Dimi rejects this contention: No; what is the meaning of an olive-bulk in this mishna? It means that there is sufficient teruma in the mixture that when one eats from the mixture he will consume an olive-bulk of teruma in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. In that case one is liable for punishment for eating this olive-bulk, as if he ate the teruma alone.

7 ז

וכזית בכדי אכילת פרס דאורייתא היא אמר ליה אין

Abaye asked him: Is eating an olive-bulk in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread prohibited by Torah law, and one is punished for it? He said to him: Yes.

8 ח

אי הכי אמאי פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי אליעזר בכותח הבבלי

Abaye asked in response: If so, why do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to eating Babylonian kutaḥ, a dip that contains flour, on Passover? The Rabbis maintain that one is not punished by Torah law for eating a mixture containing leaven. Although the Rabbis do not derive from the word: Anything [kol ], that leaven in a mixture is prohibited, they should nonetheless hold one liable for eating an olive-bulk of a prohibited substance in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread.

9 ט

אלא מאי משום דהיתר מצטרף לאיסור סוף סוף אמאי פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי אליעזר בכותח הבבלי אלא הנח לכותח הבבלי דלית ביה כזית בכדי אכילת פרס אי בעיניה דקשריף וקאכיל ליה בטלה דעתיה אצל כל אדם ואי משטר קשטר ואכיל לית ביה כזית בכדי אכילת פרס

Rav Dimi said: Rather, what conclusion must be drawn; the reason that a non-priest is flogged for eating the teruma soup is due to the fact that a permitted substance joins together with a prohibited substance? If so, ultimately, why do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to eating Babylonian kutaḥ? Rather, leave Babylonian kutaḥ, as in eating that mixture there is no possibility that one will consume an olive-bulk of the leaven in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. If he eats kutaḥ in its pure, unadulterated form, by swallowing it as food, not as a dip, his intention is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other people. It is unusual for a person to eat a pungent dip by itself, all the more so, for him to eat it so quickly. One receives no punishment for conduct that anomalous. And if he dips other food into the kutaḥ and eats it, he will not consume an olive-bulk in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. Due to the pungency of the dip, one needs to add only a small portion to his food.

10 י

איתיביה שתי קדירות אחת של חולין ואחת של תרומה ולפניהן שתי מדוכות אחת של חולין ואחת של תרומה ונפלו אלו לתוך אלו מותרין שאני אומר תרומה לתוך התרומה נפלה וחולין לתוך חולין נפלו

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Dimi from a baraita: With regard to two pots, one of non-sacred produce and the other one of teruma, before which were two mortars, one in which non-sacred produce was pounded, and one in which teruma produce was pounded, and the contents of these mortars fell into these pots, but it is unknown which produce fell into which pot, it is all permitted. The reason for this ruling is as I say, since there is no definitive proof to the contrary, that the teruma fell into the teruma and the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce.

11 יא

ואי אמרת כזית בכדי אכילת פרס דאורייתא אמאי אמרינן שאני אומר תרומה לתוך כו׳ אמר ליה הנח לתרומת תבלין דרבנן

Abaye explains his objection: And if you say that eating an olive-bulk of a prohibited substance in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread is prohibited by Torah law, why do we say this principle: As I say that the teruma fell into the teruma, etc.? If the teruma produce fell into the pot containing non-sacred produce, one who eats from the mixture will consume an olive-bulk of teruma within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, and he will thereby violate a Torah prohibition. Rav Dimi said to him: Leave teruma separated from spices, which is teruma by rabbinic law. By Torah law one is required to separate teruma only from grain, wine and oil. The Sages are lenient with regard to teruma by rabbinic law.

12 יב

איתיביה שתי קופות אחת של חולין ואחת של תרומה ולפניהם שני סאין אחת של חולין ואחת של תרומה ונפלו אלו לתוך אלו מותרין שאני אומר חולין לתוך חולין נפלו תרומה לתוך תרומה נפלה ואי אמרת כזית בכדי אכילת פרס דאורייתא אמאי אמרינן שאני אומר

Abaye raised another objection from a similar baraita: In a case where there are two baskets, one filled with non-sacred produce and the other filled with teruma, and before them were two vessels each containing a se’a of produce, one filled with non-sacred produce and the other one filled with teruma, and these, the contents of each of the baskets, fell into those, each of the se’a vessels. It is possible that the teruma fell into the non-sacred produce, and it is prohibited for non-priests to eat a mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce. Nevertheless, the contents of the se’a vessel containing the non-sacred produce are permitted, as I say that the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce and the teruma fell into the teruma. The obligation to separate teruma from grain is by Torah law, and if you say that eating an olive-bulk of forbidden food in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread is prohibited by Torah law, why do we say the principle: As I say the non-sacred grain fell into the non-sacred grain? Why aren’t the Sages concerned that one might eat an olive-bulk of teruma in the time it takes to eat a half-loaf, which is prohibited by Torah law?

13 יג

אמר ליה הנח לתרומה בזמן הזה דרבנן

He said to him: Leave teruma in modern times, as it is in effect by rabbinic law. Once the Jewish people were exiled from their land, the halakhot of teruma and tithes apply by rabbinic law, not Torah law. This is the basis for the lenient ruling in the case of this mixture.

14 יד

והאי משרת להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא משרת

The Gemara returns to its discussion of Rabbi Abbahu’s statement with regard to the meaning of the word soaked in the verse: “He shall abstain from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, nor shall he drink anything soaked in grapes,” and whether or not a permitted substance combines with a prohibited one. The Gemara asks: And does this word: Soaked, come to teach that mixtures are prohibited in this case? That verse is required to derive that which was taught in a baraita elsewhere: Soaked,