Pesachim 88

ליתן טעם כעיקר שאם שרה ענבים במים ויש בהן טעם יין חייב

[this is] to intimate that the taste is as the substance itself, so that if he [the nazirite] steeped grapes in and it possesses the taste of wine, he is culpable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For eating it. '');">¹</span> From this you may draw a conclusion for the whole Torah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the taste of all forbidden food is forbidden just as the substance itself. [That is provided the forbidden substance consisted originally of the size of an olive. This requirement distinguishes this principle from that of R. Johanan, in virtue of which what is permitted combines with what is forbidden, even though the latter is less in size than an olive's bulk.]');">²</span>

מכאן אתה דן לכל התורה כולה ומה נזיר שאין איסורו איסור עולם ואין איסורו איסור הנאה ויש היתר לאיסורו עשה בו טעם כעיקר כלאים שאיסורו איסור עולם ואיסורו איסור הנאה ואין היתר לאיסורו אינו דין שיעשה טעם כעיקר

For if a nazirite, whose prohibition is not a permanent prohibition, and his prohibition is not a prohibition of [general] use,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he may not eat grapes or drink wine, etc., he may benefit from them.');">³</span> and there is a release for his prohibition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He can be absolved of his vow, whereupon it all becomes permitted.');">⁴</span>

והוא הדין לערלה בשתים

yet [Scripture] made the taste tantamount to the substance in his case; then kil'ayim, the prohibition of which is a permanent prohibition, and whose prohibition is a prohibition of [general] use, and there is no release from its prohibition, is it not logical that the taste should be treated as tantamount to the substance itself? And the same applies to 'orlah by two [arguments]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: 'orlah too is forbidden for use and there is no release for its prohibition. The third argument however cannot be applied here, as 'orlah is not permanently forbidden, since it is permitted after three years. Tosaf. explains it differently. - But incidentally we see that 'an infusion' is required for a different purpose.');">⁵</span>

הא מני רבנן היא ורבי יוחנן דאמר כרבי עקיבא

- The authority for this is the Rabbis, which R'Johanan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra ');">⁶</span> stated [his ruling] in accordance with R'Akiba.

הי ר"ע אילימא ר"ע דמתני' דתנן רבי עקיבא אומר נזיר ששרה פתו ביין ויש בו לצרף כדי כזית חייב וממאי דמפת ומיין דילמא מיין לחודיה

Which [ruling of] R'Akiba [is alluded to]? Shall we say, R'Akiba of our Mishnah, for we learned: R'Akiba said: If a nazirite soaked his bread in wine, and it contains sufficient to combine as much as an olive, he is culpable'?

וכי תימא מיין לחודיה מאי למימרא הא קמ"ל דאע"ג דתערובת

But whence [do you know that he means sufficient] of the bread and the wine; perhaps [he means] of the wine alone?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that the bread had soaked up that quantity of wine. Yet the term 'combine' is applicable, because the wine is not separate now but is spread through the bread.');">⁷</span> And should you say, [if] of the wine alone, why state it?

אלא ר"ע דברייתא דתניא ר"ע אומר נזיר ששרה פתו ביין ואכל כזית מפת ומיין חייב

He informs us thus: [He is culpable] although it is a mixture!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of bread and wine, the wine not standing alone.');">⁸</span> - Rather it is R'Akiba of the Baraitha.

ור"ע טעם כעיקר מנא ליה יליף מבשר בחלב לאו טעמא בעלמא הוא ואסור הכא נמי לא שנא

For it was taught, R'Akiba said: If a nazirite soaked his bread in wine and ate as much as an olive of the bread<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wine had not soaked through the whole olive-bulk of the bread, so that part of the bread is by itself; and the only reason for culpability must be the principle enunciated by R. Johanan.');">⁹</span> and the wine [combined] he is culpable.

ורבנן מבשר בחלב לא גמרינן דחידוש הוא

Now [according to] R'Akiba, whence do we know that the taste [of forbidden food] is like the substance itself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he utilizes 'an infusion' for the purpose just stated.');">¹⁰</span> - He learns it from [the prohibition of] meat [seethed] in milk; is it not merely a taste,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which the meat has received from the milk.');">¹¹</span>

ומאי חידוש אילימא דהאי לחודיה והאי לחודיה שרי ובהדי הדדי אסור כלאים נמי האי לחודיה והאי לחודיה שרי ובהדדי אסור

and it is forbidden? so here too<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in respect of all other forbidden food.');">¹²</span>

אלא דאי תרו ליה כולי יומא בחלבא שרי בשיל ליה בשולי אסור

it is not different. And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why cannot they learn it in the same way?');">¹³</span>

ור"ע נמי בשר בחלב ודאי חידוש הוא

- We cannot learn from meat [seethed] in milk, because it is an anomaly.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a new law', i.e., it is peculiarly different from other laws, and therefore does not provide a basis for analogy.');">¹⁴</span> Yet what is the anomaly?

אלא יליף מגיעולי נכרים גיעולי נכרים לאו טעמא בעלמא הוא ואסור הכא נמי ל"ש

Shall we say because this [sc. meat] by itself is permitted, and that [sc. milk] by itself is permitted, while in conjunction they are forbidden, but [with] kil'ayim too, this [species] by itself is permitted, and that species] by itself is permitted, yet in conjunctio they are forbidden? - Rather [the anomaly is] that if he soaked it all day in milk it is permitted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By Scriptural law, even to eat it; Scripture forbids it only when cooked in milk.');">¹⁵</span> yet if he but seethed it [in milk] it is forbidden.

ורבנן גיעולי נכרים נמי חידוש הוא דהא כל נותן טעם לפגם מותר דגמרינן מנבילה והכא אסור

Then R'Akiba too? [The prohibition of] meat [seethed] in milk is certainly an anomaly?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then can he derive it thence?');">¹⁶</span>

ורבי עקיבא כדרב חייא בריה דרב הונא דאמר לא אסרה תורה אלא בקדירה בת יומא הלכך לאו נותן טעם לפגם הוא

- Rather he learns it from the vessels of Gentiles.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the exudings (from the vessels) of Gentiles', i.e., vessels in which Gentiles cooked food. These must be purged with boiling water (this is called hage'alah) before they may be used, because they exude a flavour of the food which was boiled in them.');">¹⁷</span> The vessels of Gentiles, is it no merely a flavour [which they impart]?

ורבנן קדירה בת יומא נמי לא אפשר דלא פגמה פורתא

Yet they are forbidden; so here too it is not different. And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 6.');">¹⁸</span>

א"ל רב אחא בריה דרב אויא לרב אשי מדרבנן נשמע לרבי עקיבא מי לא אמרי רבנן משרת ליתן טעם כעיקר מכאן אתה דן לכל איסורין שבתורה לרבי עקיבא נמי משרת להיתר מצטרף לאיסור מכאן אתה דן לכל איסורין שבתורה כולה

- The vessels of Gentiles too are an anomaly, for whatever imparts a deteriorating flavour is permitted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the imparted flavour spoils the taste of the permitted food.');">¹⁹</span> since we learn it from nebelah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 21: Ye shall not eat of');">²⁰</span>

א"ל

yet here it is for bidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They assume that the flavour exuded by the vessel has a deteriorating effect.');">²¹</span> But R'Akiba [holds] as R'Hiyya the son of R'Huna, who said: The Torah prohibited [it] only in the case of a pot used on that very day, hence it is not a deteriorating flavour.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is still fresh.');">²²</span> And the Rabbis? - A pot used on that very day too, it is impossible that it should not slightly worsen [the food cooked in it]. R'Aha son of R''Awia said to R'Ashi: 'From the Rabbis let us learn the view of R'Akiba. Did not the Rabbis say, "An infusion": [this is] to intimate that the taste is tantamount to the substance itself. From this you may draw a conclusion for the whole Torah? ' Then according to R'Akiba too [let us say]: 'An infusion': this is [to intimate] that the permitted commodity combines with the forbidden commodity. From this you may draw a conclusion for the whole Torah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then why did R. Johanan (Supra ');">²³</span> - Said he to him,