## Pesachim Daf 44b

###### Pesachim 44b:1
[Pesachim 44b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/44b:1)

לִיתֵּן טַעַם כְּעִיקָּר. שֶׁאִם שָׁרָה עֲנָבִים בְּמַיִם, וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶן טַעַם יַיִן — חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
comes **to establish** the principle that the legal status of the **taste** of a forbidden food is **like** that of its **substance.** This term teaches that any food that absorbs the taste of a prohibited item assumes the status of this prohibited item itself. **As,** in a case **where one soaked grapes in water and** the water **has the taste of wine,** a nazirite **is liable** for drinking this mixture, as it assumes the status of wine.


###### Pesachim 44b:2
[Pesachim 44b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/44b:2)

מִכָּאן אַתָּה דָּן לְכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ: וּמָה נָזִיר שֶׁאֵין אִיסּוּרוֹ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם, וְאֵין אִיסּוּרוֹ אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה, וְיֵשׁ הֶיתֵּר לְאִיסּוּרוֹ — עָשָׂה בּוֹ טַעַם כְּעִיקָּר, כִּלְאַיִם, שֶׁאִיסּוּרוֹ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם, וְאִיסּוּרוֹ אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה, וְאֵין הֶיתֵּר לְאִיסּוּרוֹ — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה טַעַם כְּעִיקָּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From here you derive** the *halakha* with regard **to the entire Torah;** in all cases, the legal status of the taste of a forbidden food is like that of its substance. The Gemara elaborates. **Just as** with regard to **a nazirite, whose prohibition** against eating grapes **is not an eternal prohibition,** as he will be permitted to eat grapes once his period of naziriteship is over, **and** furthermore, **his prohibition is not a prohibition** against deriving **benefit** from wine, **and there is dissolution for his prohibition** against eating grape products by requesting a Sage to release him from his vow, nevertheless, in **his** case, the Torah **rendered** the legal status of the **taste** of food forbidden to him **like** that of its **substance;** with regard to a forbidden mixture of **diverse kinds, whose prohibition is an eternal prohibition [*issuro issur olam*] and whose prohibition is a prohibition** against deriving **benefit, and there is no dissolution for its prohibition, is it not right that** the Torah **should render** the legal status of the **taste** of its forbidden food **like** that of its **substance?**


###### Pesachim 44b:3
[Pesachim 44b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/44b:3)

וְהוּא הַדִּין לְעׇרְלָה בִּשְׁתַּיִם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the same is true of fruit that grows on a tree during the first three years after it was planted [*orla*], on two** of three counts: Although the prohibition of *orla* is not an eternal prohibition, as one may eat the fruit of this tree after three years have passed, it is prohibited to derive benefit from *orla*, and this prohibition cannot be dissolved, as the fruits that grow during the first three years remain prohibited. Therefore, based on the same *a fortiori* inference, the principle: The legal status of its taste is like that of its substance, should apply in this case as well. Similarly, all other prohibitions in the Torah are more severe than the case of a nazirite in one of these aspects, and therefore this principle is universal. In any case, this entire derivation presents a difficulty for Rabbi Yoḥanan, who derives a different *halakha* from the term: Soaked.


###### Pesachim 44b:4
[Pesachim 44b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/44b:4)

הָא מַנִּי רַבָּנַן הִיא, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: In accordance with **whose opinion** is the previously cited derivation? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who derive this *halakha* from the term: Soaked. However, **Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said** that a permitted substance joins together with a prohibited substance, holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva.**


###### Pesachim 44b:5
[Pesachim 44b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/44b:5)

הֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּמַתְנִיתִין, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: נָזִיר שֶׁשָּׁרָה פִּתּוֹ בְּיַיִן, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ לְצָרֵף כְּדֵי כְּזַיִת — חַיָּיב, וּמִמַּאי דְּמִפַּת וּמִיַּיִן? דִּילְמָא מִיַּיִן לְחוֹדֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: To **which** statement of **Rabbi Akiva** is the Gemara referring? **If you say** it is referring to the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva** in the following **mishna, as we learned: Rabbi Akiva says,** with regard to **a nazirite who soaked his bread in wine, and** the bread and the wine **contain** enough **to join together to** constitute **an olive-bulk,** that **he is liable; from where do we** know **that** Rabbi Akiva means an amount of an olive-bulk taken **from the bread and the wine** together? **Perhaps** he meant that the measure is calculated **from** the **wine alone?**


###### Pesachim 44b:6
[Pesachim 44b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/44b:6)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: מִיַּיִן לְחוֹדֵיהּ מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּתַעֲרוֹבֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And lest you say** that if this amount is **from** the **wine alone, what** purpose is there **to state** this *halakha*, **this** statement comes to **teach us that even though** the prohibited item is **in a mixture,** one is nonetheless liable for consuming it. Since this mishna can be explained as referring to an olive-bulk from wine alone, it cannot be cited as proof for Rabbi Akiva’s opinion with regard to the combination of a permitted substance with a prohibited substance.


###### Pesachim 44b:7
[Pesachim 44b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/44b:7)

אֶלָּא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּבָרַיְיתָא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: נָזִיר שֶׁשָּׁרָה פִּתּוֹ בְּיַיִן, וְאָכַל כְּזַיִת מִפַּת וּמִיַּיִן — חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara states: **Rather,** Rabbi Yoḥanan holds in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva in the *baraita*, as it was taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Akiva says: A nazirite who soaked his bread in wine and ate an olive-bulk** of the mixture **from** the **bread and** the **wine is liable.** This *baraita* indicates that according to Rabbi Akiva, a permitted substance joins together with a prohibited substance.


###### Pesachim 44b:8
[Pesachim 44b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/44b:8)

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא טַעַם כְּעִיקָּר מְנָא לֵיהּ? יָלֵיף מִבָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב: לָאו טַעְמָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, וְאָסוּר? הָכָא נָמֵי לָא שְׁנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Rabbi Akiva, from where** does he derive the principle: The legal status of the **taste** is **like** that of the **substance** itself? The Gemara answers: **He derives** this principle from the prohibition of **meat** cooked **in milk.** In that case, there is **merely** the **taste** of the milk absorbed by the meat, **and** the mixture **is** nonetheless **forbidden. Here, too,** in the case of other prohibitions, it is **no different,** and the same principle applies.


###### Pesachim 44b:9
[Pesachim 44b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/44b:9)

וְרַבָּנַן? מִבָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב לָא גָּמְרִינַן, דְּחִידּוּשׁ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And the Rabbis,** why don’t they derive this principle from meat cooked in milk? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis claim that **from meat in milk we do not derive** other prohibitions, **as** that prohibition **is a novelty.**


###### Pesachim 44b:10
[Pesachim 44b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/44b:10)

וּמַאי חִידּוּשׁ? אִילֵּימָא דְּהַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ וְהַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ — שְׁרֵי, וּבַהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי — אָסוּר, כִּלְאַיִם נָמֵי: הַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ וְהַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ — שְׁרֵי, וּבַהֲדָדִי — אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is** the **novelty** in that prohibition? **If you say that** it is unique in that **this** meat **alone and that** milk **alone** are each **permitted, and** yet **together they are forbidden,** that characteristic is not unique to meat cooked in milk. In the case of prohibited mixtures of **diverse kinds too, this** element **alone and that** element **alone** are each **permitted, and** yet **together they are prohibited.**


###### Pesachim 44b:11
[Pesachim 44b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/44b:11)

אֶלָּא: דְּאִי תָּרוּ לֵיהּ כּוּלֵּי יוֹמָא בַּחֲלָבָא — שְׁרֵי, בַּשֵּׁיל לֵיהּ בַּשּׁוֹלֵי — אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather,** the novelty is **that if one soaks** meat **in milk all day, it is permitted** by Torah law, despite the fact that the meat certainly absorbed some taste of the milk, whereas if **one cooked** the meat in milk even for a short time, the mixture **is prohibited** by Torah law.


###### Pesachim 44b:12
[Pesachim 44b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/44b:12)

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא נָמֵי, בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב וַדַּאי חִידּוּשׁ הוּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Rabbi Akiva too** certainly agrees that the *halakha* of **meat in milk is a novelty.** How can he derive a general principle from this case?


###### Pesachim 44b:13
[Pesachim 44b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/44b:13)

אֶלָּא יָלֵיף מִגִּיעוּלֵי גוֹיִם: גִּיעוּלֵי גוֹיִם, לָאו טַעְמָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, וְאָסוּר? הָכָא נָמֵי לָא שְׁנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, he derives** the principle: The legal status of the taste is like that of the substance itself **from** the required **purging** of the vessels of **gentiles.** In the section of the Torah that deals with the spoils of Midian (Numbers 31:21–24), it states that a vessel used by a gentile to cook food must be purged through fire and purified before it may be used by a Jew. **Isn’t** the **purging** of vessels of **gentiles** necessary only to cleanse them from the **mere taste** that was absorbed through the process of cooking? Even so, these vessels are **prohibited** if this cleansing was not performed. **Here, too,** it is **no different;** the same reasoning applies in all cases.


###### Pesachim 44b:14
[Pesachim 44b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/44b:14)

וְרַבָּנַן, גִּיעוּלֵי גוֹיִם נָמֵי חִידּוּשׁ הוּא. דְּהָא כׇּל נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם — מוּתָּר, דְּגָמְרִינַן מִנְּבֵילָה — וְהָכָא אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And the Rabbis** do not derive this principle from this source, as they maintain that the *halakha* of **purging** vessels of **gentiles is** also **a novelty.** What is the novelty of this *halakha*? **As** in general, **anything that contributes taste** that renders the food **tainted is permitted.** If the taste added by the prohibited food does not enhance the permitted food, then as a rule it does not render the permitted substance prohibited. **As we derive** this principle **from** the *halakha* that **an** unslaughtered **animal carcass** that is unfit for consumption is not classified as a prohibited animal carcass and is not prohibited. **However, here,** with regard to the *halakha* of purging vessels of gentiles, the Torah states that even if they contribute taste that renders the food tainted they are **prohibited.** If twenty-four hours have passed since food was cooked in a pot, the assumption is that it will contribute a negative taste to any foods cooked in the pot subsequently. Nevertheless, vessels taken from gentiles remain prohibited until they are purged, even though the taste they contribute taints the food.


###### Pesachim 44b:15
[Pesachim 44b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/44b:15)

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא כִּדְרַב חִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר: לֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא בִּקְדֵירָה בַּת יוֹמָא, הִלְכָּךְ לָאו נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how does **Rabbi Akiva,** who derives this principle from the required purging of the vessels of gentiles, respond to the previous claim? The Gemara explains: He holds **in accordance with** the opinion subsequently cited in the name of **Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Huna, who said: The Torah prohibited** unpurged vessels of gentiles **only in** the case of **a pot** that was used **on that day. Therefore, it is not** a case where the pot **contributes taste** that renders the food **tainted.**


###### Pesachim 44b:16
[Pesachim 44b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/44b:16)

וְרַבָּנַן? קְדֵירָה בַּת יוֹמָא נָמֵי, לָא אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא פָּגְמָה פּוּרְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** what do **the Rabbis** say about deriving the *halakha* from a pot used on that day? The Gemara answers: In their opinion, **even** in the case of **a pot** used **on that day, it is impossible that** the vessel **does not slightly taint** the food absorbed in the vessel. Consequently, the *halakha* of purging vessels of gentiles is indeed a novel case from which principles cannot be derived.


###### Pesachim 44b:17
[Pesachim 44b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/44b:17)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מִדְּרַבָּנַן נִשְׁמַע לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, מִי לָא אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן ״מִשְׁרַת״ לִיתֵּן טַעַם כְּעִיקָּר, מִכָּאן אַתָּה דָּן לְכׇל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא נָמֵי — ״מִשְׁרַת״ לְהֶיתֵּר מִצְטָרֵף לְאִיסּוּר, מִכָּאן אַתָּה דָּן לְכׇל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: From** the opinion of **the Rabbis, let us learn** the correct interpretation of the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva. Don’t the Rabbis say** that the term **soaked teaches** that the principle that the legal status of **taste is like** that of **substance** applies not only to a nazirite, but that **from here you derive** the *halakha* with regard **to all prohibitions of the Torah? According to Rabbi Akiva as well,** the term **soaked teaches** that **the permitted** substance **joins together with the prohibited** substance with regard to a nazirite, and **from here you derive** the *halakha* with regard **to all prohibitions of the Torah.** This explanation is contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who applies this principle only to a nazirite.


###### Pesachim 44b:18
[Pesachim 44b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/44b:18)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi **said to him:** This cannot serve as a proof,