Study Pesachim folio 48A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
״מן המאתים״ — ממותר שתי מאות שנשתיירו בבור. מכאן לערלה שבטילה במאתים.
The phrase: Out of 200, is expounded with regard to wine brought as a libation: From the remaining 200 portions that remain in the vat. This is referring to a case where wine prohibited as produce grown during a tree or vine’s first 3 years [orla] is mixed with permitted wine. The halakha is that this wine mixture may be brought as a libation only if there is 200 times more permitted wine than prohibited wine. From here it is derived that orla is nullified in a mixture of 200.
״ממשקה ישראל״ — מן המותר לישראל. מכאן אמרו: אין מביאין נסכין מן הטבל.
The phrase: From the well-watered pastures of Israel, means that sacrifices may be offered only from that which is permitted to Israel. From here, the rabbis stated: One may not offer libations from untithed produce [tevel], since Jews are prohibited from eating tevel.
יכול לא יביא מן המוקצה. אמרת: מה טבל מיוחד שאיסור גופו גרם לו — אף כל שאיסור גופו גרם לו. יצא מוקצה שאין איסור גופו גרם לו, אלא איסור דבר אחר גרם לו. ואי אמרת איסור מוקצה דאורייתא, מה לי איסור גופו מה לי איסור דבר אחר?
I might have thought that one may not offer an animal that is set-aside on Shabbat or during a Festival; therefore, you have said: Just as tevel is unique in that its inherent prohibition caused it to be prohibited for Jews to eat, so too, anything whose inherent prohibition caused it to be prohibited for Jews to eat is invalid as an offering. This excludes an animal that has been set aside, which does not have an inherent prohibition that caused it to be prohibited for eating; rather, a different prohibition, i.e., the prohibition of utilizing set-aside objects on Shabbat, caused it to be prohibited for eating. And if you say the prohibition of utilizing set-aside material is by Torah law, what difference is there to me if a food is inherently prohibited; and what difference is there to me if it is prohibited due to a different prohibition? If there is a distinction between these prohibitions, it must be that the prohibition of utilizing set-aside material is by rabbinic law, and therefore, like many other rabbinic decrees, it does not apply in the Temple.