אִם יִרְצֶה הַשֵּׁם
Chazer from Pesachim 44b, walking R’ Avigdor Miller’s line (10-13-25). Written for a talmid who wants the sevara more than the victory.
On 44a, Rav Dimi explained the terumah garlic with kezayis bichdei achilat p’ras, not with heter mitztaref.
The page is Pesachim 44b. This amud asks whether that p’ras rule is biblical, then returns to מִשְׁרַת mishras (soaking) and splits it between ta’am k’ikar and heter mitztaref.
Today the Gemara tests the clock, then spends מִשְׁרַת mishras a second time; on taste, not joining.
The amud in brief
Rav Dimi: the garlic remains significant because a full kezayis of terumah can be eaten within one p’ras.
Abaye: if that is a Torah rule, why do the Chachamim exempt kutach haBavli, and why are the two-pot and two-basket cases permitted?
Answers: kutach is not eaten as a food in a way that yields a kezayis of chametz in one p’ras; terumah of spices is rabbinic; even grain-terumah today is rabbinic. Those cases therefore do not disprove a biblical p’ras rule. They also do not prove it.
The sugya then returns to mishras. A beraisa uses it for טַעַם כְּעִיקָר ta’am k’ikar (taste is treated as the substance). R. Yochanan uses it for heter mitztaref, following R. Akiva.
I. Kezayis bichdei achilat p’ras
Kashya. A kezayis of issur is mixed into a larger amount of permitted food. When is eating the mixture a punishable eating?
Terutz. כְּזַיִת בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס kezayis bichdei achilat p’ras (an olive-bulk of the issur within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf).
A פְּרָס p’ras is four egg-volumes of bread. R’ Miller gives a rough time: about five minutes. If in that span you consume a kezayis of the issur itself, you are chayav. If the mixture is more dilute, and collecting a kezayis of issur would take longer than a p’ras, it is not one אֲכִילָה achilah (eating). No malkus.
Sevara. The permitted food does not complete the shiur. It is only the medium. The p’ras measures whether the kezayis of issur that was already there was eaten as one act.
This is not הֶיתֵּר מִצְטָרֵף לְאִסּוּר heter mitztaref l’issur (permitted food combines with forbidden food to complete the shiur). Combining is used when there is not a kezayis of issur, and the permitted food supplies the missing amount.
II. Why the Chachamim exempt kutach haBavli
Kashya. אִי הָכִי i hachi (if so): if a kezayis within a p’ras is enough for malkus, why do the Rabbanan argue with R. Eliezer and exempt כּוּתָח הַבַּבְלִי kutach haBavli (Babylonian sour dip that contains chametz)?
If one instead held heter mitztaref, the permitted part of the dip would complete the shiur. On either approach they should agree with R. Eliezer. Why don’t they?
Terutz. It depends how the dip is eaten.
- Eaten straight from the pot: there may be a kezayis of chametz in a p’ras. But that is שֶׁלֹּא כְּדֶרֶךְ אֲכִילָה shelo ke-derech achilah (not the normal manner of eating). The dip is sharp. R’ Miller’s comparison: it is like forcing food in an unnatural way. That is not eating for malkus.
- Eaten the normal way, smeared on vegetables: by the time one has consumed a kezayis of the chametz in the dip, more than a p’ras has passed.
Sevara. Liability follows ordinary use, not the contents of the pot considered in the abstract.
III. Two beraisos used to test whether the p’ras rule is biblical
R’ Miller says the question under discussion is now whether kezayis bichdei achilat p’ras is d’oraita.
Two pots and two mortars
One pot of chulin, one of terumah. Two small dishes of ground spices, one chulin and one terumah. Each small dish is emptied into a pot. It is not known which went where.
Din. Permitted. שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר she-ani omer (I assume): the terumah spices fell into the terumah pot and the chulin into the chulin.
Kashya. If spices can create a biblical kezayis within a p’ras of the pot, this is a doubt in a Torah prohibition. A doubt of that kind is not resolved by assuming the permitted case.
Terutz. הַנַּח לְתַבְלִין דְּרַבָּנַן hanach l’tavlin de-rabbanan (leave spices — their terumah is rabbinic). Biblical terumah is grain, wine, and oil grown in the land, not spices. A doubt in a rabbinic prohibition may be treated leniently.
Two baskets and two se’ah
The same structure, but with grain. Grain is the standard case of biblical terumah.
Kashya. The same leniency is applied. How, if the p’ras rule is biblical?
Terutz. הַנַּח לִתְרוּמָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה hanach li-terumah bazman hazeh (leave terumah in our time). Even grain-terumah today is rabbinic. Again the case is only a rabbinic doubt.
Sevara. Abaye wanted these beraisos to show that a biblical p’ras rule cannot be right, because the Tanna is lenient. Rav Dimi answers that the beraisos are rabbinic cases, so they cannot prove the status of the p’ras rule either way.
The question whether the p’ras rule is d’oraita remains open.
IV. Mishras used in two different ways
Kashya. R. Yochanan learned heter mitztaref from mishras: a nazir dips bread in wine; together they make a kezayis; he is lashed.
A beraisa uses the same word for a different rule.
Terutz of the beraisa. מִשְׁרַת teaches ta’am k’ikar. Grapes are soaked in water and then removed. The water tastes of wine. A nazir who drinks that water is chayav. No grapes remain in the cup. Only taste.
From here the beraisa extends the rule to other prohibitions.
⚘ Kal va-chomer, stated in the beraisa:
A nazir’s prohibition is limited: it is not permanent (אִסּוּר עוֹלָם issur olam), it is not a prohibition on benefit (אִסּוּר הֲנָאָה issur hana’ah), and it can be released (יֵשׁ הֶיתֵּר לְאִיסּוּרוֹ yesh heter l’issuro). Even so, taste is treated as the substance.
כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם kil’ei ha-kerem (grain planted in a vineyard) is stricter on all three counts. It should certainly treat taste as the substance.
עָרְלָה orlah (fruit of the first three years) is stricter than nazir on two of those counts. The same inference is made for orlah.
Sevara. If the lighter prohibition already treats taste as the substance, a stricter prohibition will not treat it as less.
The two rules are not the same
R’ Miller’s example:
Heter mitztaref: grapes and dates are pressed into one mass and stick together, but grape taste has not entered the dates. If combining applies, and the grapes are at least half, the mass can make a kezayis for a nazir.
Ta’am k’ikar: the grape taste must actually enter the other food. If it has not, there is no prohibition of taste.
Pieces stuck together are a case of combining. Absorbed taste is a case of ta’am k’ikar.
Who uses mishras for which rule
Terutz. The beraisa that uses mishras for taste is the Rabbanan. R. Yochanan, who uses mishras for combining, follows רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא Rabbi Akiva.
V. Where R. Akiva holds heter mitztaref
Kashya. If R. Akiva uses mishras for combining, where is that stated?
First source: the mishnah. A nazir who soaked his bread in wine, and there is enough לְצָרֵף letzaref (to combine / to add up) to a kezayis, is chayav.
Dochi. Letzaref may mean: add up the wine absorbed in the bread until the wine itself equals a kezayis. Then the bread is only a carrier. That is not combining permitted food with forbidden food.
If the wine alone is a kezayis, the chiddush of the mishnah would only be that wine mixed into bread does not lose its status as wine. So the mishnah is not a clear proof of combining.
Second source: the beraisa of R. Akiva. He soaked his bread in wine and ate a kezayis מִפַּת וּמִיַּיִן mi-pat u-mi-yayin (from the bread and from the wine). Both are named. That is combining.
VI. Where R. Akiva gets ta’am k’ikar
He used mishras for combining, so he needs another source for taste.
First suggestion: בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב basar b’chalav (meat cooked with milk). Remove the meat. The milk still tastes of meat and is forbidden. Taste is treated as the substance.
Dochi. A general rule is not derived from a חִדּוּשׁ chiddush (an exceptional law).
The exception is not merely that two permitted foods become forbidden when combined. Kil’ei ha-kerem already does that: grain alone is permitted, a vine alone is permitted, planted together they are forbidden.
The actual exception: if meat soaks in cold milk long enough for taste to transfer, the Torah still does not forbid the soak. It forbids cooking. A law that ignores transferred taste in the cold, and only prohibits cooking, cannot teach that taste is always like the substance.
The Rabbanan therefore still need mishras for taste. R. Akiva also treats basar b’chalav as a chiddush, so he cannot learn taste from there either.
Second source: גּוּלַי נָכְרִים gulei nochrim (vessels used by non-Jews). After they are washed, no fat is visible, but taste remains in the walls. That taste prohibits food later cooked in the vessel. That is taste without a visible piece of issur. R. Akiva learns ta’am k’ikar from there.
The shiur ends at this point. The Gemara will still ask whether the law of those vessels is itself a chiddush.
Table
| Din | Tzad | Rayah | Chal | Pivot |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kezayis within a p’ras | full kezayis of issur already present | Rav Dimi | malkus if eaten in one p’ras | not combining |
| Kutach eaten straight | would contain a kezayis in a p’ras | sharpness | no malkus | not a normal eating |
| Kutach used as a dip | ordinary use | vegetables added | no kezayis of chametz in one p’ras | not R. Eliezer |
| Two spice-pots, unknown which fell where | she-ani omer | spice-terumah is rabbinic | permitted | does not settle the p’ras rule |
| Two grain-baskets, unknown which fell where | she-ani omer | terumah today is rabbinic | permitted | does not settle the p’ras rule |
| Water that tasted of grapes | taste alone, grapes removed | Rabbanan use mishras for taste | nazir is chayav | not combining |
| Bread and wine together making a kezayis | both named | R. Akiva’s beraisa | combining | not wine alone absorbed in bread |
| Meat taste left in milk | taste remains after the meat is removed | basar b’chalav | forbidden, but a chiddush | cannot teach a general rule |
| Taste in a non-Jewish vessel | taste in the walls | gulei nochrim | R. Akiva’s source for taste | sugya not finished |
Terms of art
- כְּזַיִת בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס kezayis bichdei achilat p’ras (an olive-bulk of issur within the time of eating a half-loaf)
- פְּרָס / אַרְבַּע בֵּיצִים p’ras / arba beitzim (half-loaf / four egg-volumes)
- כְּדֶרֶךְ אֲכִילָה ke-derech achilah (the normal manner of eating)
- כּוּתָח הַבַּבְלִי kutach haBavli (Babylonian sour dip)
- שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר she-ani omer (I assume the matching case)
- תַבְלִין tavlin (spices)
- תְּרוּמָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה terumah bazman hazeh (terumah in our time)
- מִשְׁרַת mishras (soaking)
- טַעַם כְּעִיקָר ta’am k’ikar (taste is treated as the substance)
- הֶיתֵּר מִצְטָרֵף לְאִסּוּר heter mitztaref l’issur (permitted food completes the shiur of the prohibition)
- כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם kil’ei ha-kerem (grain planted in a vineyard)
- עָרְלָה orlah (fruit of the first three years)
- אִסּוּר עוֹלָם / אִסּוּר הֲנָאָה / יֵשׁ הֶיתֵּר לְאִיסּוּרוֹ issur olam / issur hana’ah / yesh heter l’issuro (permanent prohibition / prohibition of benefit / the prohibition can be released)
- לְצָרֵף letzaref (to combine, or to add up)
- מִפַּת וּמִיַּיִן mi-pat u-mi-yayin (from the bread and from the wine)
- חִדּוּשׁ chiddush (an exceptional law that is not used to build a general rule)
- בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב basar b’chalav (meat cooked with milk)
- גּוּלַי נָכְרִים gulei nochrim (vessels used by non-Jews)
What the tired talmid should walk out with
- The p’ras rule is still under discussion. Kutach and the two mixture-beraisos do not disprove it; they also do not prove it.
- Kutach eaten straight is not a normal eating. Used as a dip, it does not yield a kezayis of chametz in one p’ras.
- The Rabbanan use mishras for ta’am k’ikar. R. Akiva uses mishras for heter mitztaref.
- Pieces stuck together are combining. Taste that has been absorbed is ta’am k’ikar.
- The clear source that R. Akiva holds combining is his beraisa: a kezayis from bread and from wine.
- He does not learn taste from basar b’chalav, because that law is exceptional. He learns it from taste remaining in a non-Jewish vessel.
The shiur stops before the Gemara finishes the discussion of those vessels.
Open kashya
If the law of non-Jewish vessels is also a chiddush, R. Akiva still lacks a source that can be generalized for ta’am k’ikar. Does the Gemara give him another source?
From 44a: R’ Miller still does not see why a visible piece of garlic should be a candidate for bitul. A recognizable piece of treif meat in kosher meat is not batel. The p’ras discussion assumes bitul was already a reasonable starting point. That point was not explained.