Talmud Nazir (E)

while the combination is forbidden? Surely also in the case of mixed [seeds]
29
 each constituent is
permitted separately and the combination is forbidden!
30
 — It is, therefore, the fact that If soaked in
milk all day long, [the meat] remains permitted, and yet on seething it becomes forbidden.
31
 
    Must not R. Akiba, too, agree that [the seething together of] meat and milk is an anomalous
[prohibition]?
32
 — It must therefore be
____________________
(1) So that there would no longer be a Torah-prohibition, for the predominance of the hullin causes the terumah to lose
its identity in Torah-law. This argument could not be used of spices since its flavour which permeates the whole dish is
too strong to become neutralised.
(2) For it is unlikely that the Baraitha is assuming that there was so little in the baskets that a peras of the mixed contents
afterwards contained less than an olive's bulk of the contents of one of them. The Torah-doubt would therefore remain.
(3) After the destruction of the Temple and the depopulation of Judea, many scriptural precepts, including the separation
of tithes and terumah were still observed by the people, although not strictly binding on them in Torah law.
(4) V. supra p. 128, n. 6.
(5) In the case of the nazirite prohibitions only, as asserted by R. Dimi quoting R. Johanan. V. supra 35a, end.
(6) I.e., anything flavoured with a forbidden substance is equally forbidden, even as the forbidden substance itself. [That
is, provided the forbidden substance consisted originally of the size of an olive. This requirement distinguishes Abaye's
principle from the one reported by R. Dimi in virtue of which what is permitted combines with what is forbidden, even
though the Iatter is less in size than an olive's bulk.]
(7) And considers that the same should be true of all prohibitions, not merely the nazirite prohibition.
(8) Thus rejecting the inference in toto!
(9) All the questions he put to him.
(10) The bracketed passage is an interjection.
(11) And so why does not R. Johanan make the same inference as the author of this Baraitha? The rest of the paragraph
contains the concluding portion of the Baraitha.
(12) But lasts as long as the naziriteship, which may be as little as thirty days.
(13) He may, for example, sell it.
(14) By giving sufficient grounds for this to a Sage.
(15) It was forbidden to sow grain between the vines, v. Deut. XXII, 9.
(16) The fruit of a tree during its first three years after planting, v. Lev. XIX, 23.
(17) The prohibition is permanent, and it is forbidden to derive any benefit from it, but after the 3rd year the fruit may be
eaten. — This ends Abaye's argument.
(18) [So Var. lec. Cur. edd.: ‘A certain scholar said to him’.]
(19) Supra 35b, that permitted and forbidden foods combine in the case of the nazirite prohibition.
(20) Supra 34b.
(21) To enable us to infer that permitted and forbidden foods combine.
(22) In which case there would have been no point in having it in the Mishnah.
(23) The Tanna of the ‘earlier Mishnah’ mentioned in our Mishnah.
(24) It is assumed that R. Akiba admits this rule.
(25) V.Ex. XXIII, 19.
(26) Since the meat by itself is forbidden owing to the taste of the milk it absorbed.
(27) I.c., that water having the taste of wine is forbidden the nazirite.
(28) And 50 cannot be made the basis of a general rule.
(29) The planting of mixed seeds in a vineyard, v. Deut. XXII, 9.
(30) So that milk and meat are not unique in this respect.
(31) Thus it is not the taste but the seething that is at the root of the prohibition.
(32) From which no analogies can be drawn.
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 37b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 37b
Talmud - Mas. Nazir 37b
that he derives the rule from the [necessity for] scalding the vessels of a Gentile.
1
 For the

---

All-Merciful Law has said, Everything that may abide the fire [ye shall make go through the fire
etc,]
2
 telling us that they are [otherwise] forbidden. Now the scalding of a Gentile's vessels [must be
done] because the mere taste is forbidden, and so here too, the same is true.
 
    Then why should not the Rabbis also infer this rule from the scalding of a Gentile's vessels? —
[Rab Ashi] replied: There [too] the prohibition is anomalous for everywhere else in the Torah
whatever imparts a worsened flavour is permitted,
3
 whereas in the case of the scalding of a Gentile's
vessels a worsened [flavour]
4
 is forbidden.
 
    Must not R. Akiba agree that this case is anomalous?
5
 — R. Huna b. Hiyya replied: According to
R. Akiba, the Torah only forbade utensils that had been used [by a gentile] on the same day, in which
case the flavour is not detrimental.
6
 And the Rabbis? — They considered that even with a pot that
had been used on the same day it was impossible for the flavour not to be slightly detrimental. R.
Aha, the son of R. Iwia, said to R. Ashi: The Rabbis’ opinion should throw a certain light on the
views of R. Akiba. For the Rabbis say that [the phrase] ‘whatever is soaked in’ has as its object to
indicate that the taste is equivalent to the substance itself, and [further] that a rule may be derived
from this applicable to all prohibitions of the Torah. And so, ought not R. Akiba also, who interprets
this same [phrase] ‘whatever is soaked in’ as implying that what is permitted combines with what is
forbidden, infer [further] from it a rule applicable to all prohibitions of the Torah?
7
 [R. Ashi] replied:
[He does not do so] because the nazirite and the sin-offering
8
 are dealt with in two verses [of
Scripture] from which the same inference
9
 is possible, and whenever there are two verses from
which the same inference is possible no other cases may be inferred.
10
 
    The nazirite [passage] is the one just explained.
11
 What is [the inference from] sin-offering? It has
been taught: [The verse] Whatsoever [food] shall touch the flesh thereof
12
 shall be holy
13
 might be
taken to imply that [it becomes holy] even if none [of the sin-offering] is absorbed by it.
14
 Scripture
[however] says the flesh thereof, [this indicates that it becomes sacred] only when It absorbs from its
flesh;
15
 ‘it [then] shall be holy’, [that is, have the same degree of sanctity] as [the sin-offering]
itself.
16
 If the latter is ritually unfit [to be eaten]
17
 the other becomes unfit also, whilst if it is still
permitted, the other is also permitted, only under the same conditions of stringency [as the
sinoffering].
18
 
    What can the Rabbis [say to this argument]?
19
 — They will contend that both verses are
necessary.
20
 For if the All-Merciful had inscribed only the verse relating to the sin-offering it would
have been said that we have no right to infer from it the case of the nazirite, for we could not infer
anything about the nazirite from [regulations applying to] sacrificial meats.
21
 Again, had the
All-Merciful inscribed only the verse relating to the nazirite, It could have been argued that no rule
can be derived from the nazirite, since the prohibitions in his case are very severe indeed for he is
forbidden even the skin of the grape. On this ground we should have been able to infer nothing.
[Thus both verses are necessary.]
 
    What is R. Akiba's reply [to this argument]? — He will reply that both verses are certainly not
necessary. Granted that had the All-Merciful inscribed only the verse relating to the sin-offering, we
could not have deduced the case of the nazirite because what is profane cannot be inferred from
[regulations applying] to sacrificial meats,
22
 yet the All-Merciful could have inscribed only the verse
relating to the nazirite, and the case of the sin-offering could have been deduced from this, since [in
any case] all other prohibitions of the Torah are inferred from the nazirite prohibition.
23
 And the
Rabbis? — They [can] reply that while the [verse relating to] sin-offering [tells us] that permitted
and forbidden foods combine, we cannot infer from [regulations applying to] sacrificial meats any
rule concerning profane food,
24
 [whereas] when the phrase ‘whatever is soaked in’ tells us that the
taste is equivalent to the substance itself, a rule is inferred from this applicable to all prohibitions of
the Torah. And R. Akiba? — He considers that both verses are intended to tell us that what is

---