Talmud for Pesachim 88:1

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir¹⁴¹Num. 6.. Rebbi Zeïra said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself¹⁴²R. Zeïra takes the statements of R. Abbahu in this and the preceding paragraph as one. A similar interpretation in Babli Pesaḥim 43b, Nazir 35b.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted are not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine¹⁴³Since nobody can be punished for eating less than the volume of an olive of a forbidden substance, this is his interpretation of the statements of R. Abbahu.. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeïra: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he¹⁴⁴A nazir. ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita¹⁴⁵A shortened version in Sifry Num. 23, a short reference to the argument is in Babli Pesaḥim 44a/b. supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to grape skins he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? That means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it¹⁴⁶The amount of water soaked up by the bread. adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent¹⁴⁷It is forbidden only for the nazir and only for a period of time specified at the beginning., nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted¹⁴⁸The vow of a nazir can be annulled just as any other vow can be annulled., He made taste like the thing itself; is it not logical that for all prohibitions of the Torah, whose prohibition is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition cannot be lifted¹⁴⁹At least one of these categories applies to any food prohibition in the Torah., that we¹⁵⁰The principle formulated is divine for the nazir and rabbinic for all other prohibitions. treat taste like the thing itself¹⁵¹Babli Pesaḥim 44b.? From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Zeïra who says everywhere “unless he tasted¹⁵²The forbidden food itself.”, and here he says, “even if he did not taste.”