Raba says thus: R. Judah rules that the unintentional is the same as the intentional only in the direction of stringency, but he did not rule that the intentional is the same as the unintentional where it is in the direction of leniency.
Abaye said: Whence do I know it? Because it was taught: It was related of R. Johanan b. Zakkai that he was sitting in the shadow of the Temple and teaching all day.1 Now here it was impossible [not to lecture], and he intended [to benefit from the shade], and it is permitted?2 But Raba said: The Temple was different, because it was made for its inside.3
Raba said: Whence do I know it? Because we learned: There were passage ways opening in the upper chamber to4 the Holy of Holies, through which the artisans were lowered in boxes,5 so that they might not feast their eyes on the Holy of Holies. Now here it was impossible [to avoid going there], and he [the workman] intended [to gaze at the Holy of Holies], and it was forbidden. But is that logical? Surely R. Simeon b. Pazzi said in R. Joshua b. Levi's name on Bar Kappara's authority: Sound, sight, and smell do not involve trespass?6 Rather, they set up a higher standard for the Holy of Holies.7
Others state, Raba said: Whence do I know it? Because it was taught, R. Simeon b. Pazzi said in R. Joshua b. Levi's name on Bar Kappara's authority: Sound, sight, and smell do not involve trespass. [Thus] they merely do not involve trespass, but there is an interdict. Is that not for those who stand inside [the Temple],8 so that it is impossible [to avoid it], while there is, an intention [to enjoy], and it is forbidden? — No: it refers to those standing outside.9
[It was stated in] the text, 'R. Simeon b. Pazzi said in R. Joshua b. Levi's name on Bar Kappara's authority: Sound, sight, and smell do not involve trespass.' But, does not smell involve trespass? Surely it was taught: He who compounds incense in order to learn [the art thereof] or to give it over to the community10 is exempt; [if] in order to smell it,11 he is liable; while he who smells it12 is exempt, but that he commits trespass!13 Rather, said R. Papa: Sound and sight do not involve trespass, because they are intangible; and smell, after its smoke column has ascended,14 does not involve trespass, since its religious service has been performed.15
Shall we say that wherever the religious service has been performed no trespass is involved? But what of the separation of the ashes,16 though its religious service has been performed, yet it involves trespass, for it is written; and he shall put them [the ashes] beside the altar,17 [which means] that he [the priest] must not scatter nor use [them]?18 — Because [the references to] the separation of the ashes and the priestly garments are two verses written with the same purpose,19 and the teaching of two such verses does not illumine [other cases].20 'The separation of the ashes': that which we have stated. 'The priestly garments,' as it is written, and he shall leave them there:21 this teaches that they must be hidden.22 That is well on the view of the Rabbis who say, This teaches that they must be hidden. But according to R. Dosa who disagrees with them and maintains: But they are fit for an ordinary priest, while what does 'and he shall leave them there' mean? that he [the High Priest] must not use them on another Day of Atonement, what can be said? — Because the separation of ashes and the beheaded heifer23 are two verses with the same teaching, and such two verses do not illumine [other cases]. That is well according to him who maintains, They do not illumine [other cases]; but on the view that they do illumine,24 what can be said? — Two limitations are written: it is written, 'and he shall put them [the ashes]'; and it is written, [over the heifer] whose neck was broken [etc.].25
Come and hear: If he took it [the heifer] into the team26 and it [accidentally] did some threshing, it is fit;27 [but if it was] in order that it should suck and thresh, it is unfit. Now here it is impossible [to do otherwise],28 and he intends [to benefit], and he [the Tanna] teaches that it is unfit! — There it is different, because Scripture saith, 'which hath not been wrought with,' [implying] in all cases. If so, even in the first clause too [the same applies]?
____________________
(1) He was lecturing on the laws of Festivals to the masses, this being within thirty days before a Festival; v. supra 6a and b. As his own school-house was too small for the large number who wished to hear him, he taught in the open, choosing this site on account of the shade afforded by the high walls of the Temple.
(2) Though one must not derive any benefit from the Temple.
(3) It was normally used inside; hence the shade was not forbidden at all.
(4) Lit., 'the loft of'; v. Mid. IV, 5.
(5) I.e., closed lifts. When they had to pass there for making repairs.
(6) He who benefits from sacred things (hekdesh) commits trespass and is liable to a sacrifice. But no trespass is involved when he benefits by sound, sight or smell, e.g., when he hears the music in the Temple, sees the beauty of the Temple, or smells the frankincense. Consequently, even if workmen did look upon the Holy of Holies it would not really matter.
(7) Forbidding even that which the law permitted.
(8) I.e., those engaged on some Temple service.
(9) Who can avoid enjoying these things.
(10) For use in the Temple.
(11) I.e., he intends keeping it for smelling.
(12) Sc. the incense belonging to the community and in use in the Temple.
(13) The reference is to Ex. XXX, 33: Whosoever compoundeth any like it, or whosoever putteth any of it upon a stranger, he shall be cut off from his people (kareth). In the first case he is exempt from kareth, in the second he is liable, while in the third he is exempt from kareth but liable to a trespass-offering. This contradicts R. Simeon b. Pazzi.
(14) The incense was thrown upon burning coals, which caused a cloud or a column of smoke to ascend. This constituted its sacred service.
(15) The incense then does not count as the sacred things of the Lord, and it is to this case that R. Simeon b. Pazzi refers. But before the smoke has ascended trespass is involved, because the smell, being directly caused by the spices with which the incense is compounded, is regarded as tangible.
(16) A censerful (Yoma 24a) of the ashes of the daily burnt-offering was taken every day and placed at the side of the altar, where the earth absorbed it.
(17) Lev. VI, 3.
(18) Rashal reads: (teaching) that others must not commit trespass therein, but all of it must be beside the altar. — 'All of it' refers to the censerful.
(19) Lit., 'which come as one .
(20) This is a general principle of exegesis. When a law is taught in one case it may be extended to other cases too by general analogy. But when it is taught in two cases it cannot be extended; for if it were intended to illumine others too, it would be written in one instance only, and the second, together with all others, would follow from it.
(21) Lev. XVI, 23. This refers to the additional garments worn by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement when he entered the Holy of Holies.
(22) And all use is forbidden. Here too they had fulfilled their religious purpose.
(23) V. Deut. XXI, 1-9. There too it is written, 'and shall break the heifer's neck there in the valley
(v. 4). 'There' indicates that it must remain there and all benefit thereof is forbidden, though its religious purpose had already been fulfilled.
(24) R. Judah holds his view: v. Sanh. 67b.
(25) Lit., 'the one who is neckbroken'. Ibid. 6. 'The' too is a limitation and the combined effect of the two limitations is to exclude all other cases from the operation of this law, which forbids benefit even after the religious requirements have been carried out.
(26) Of three or four cows used for threshing; his purpose was that it should suck.
(27) To make atonement for a murder by an unknown person; v. Deut. ibid. The heifer was to be one 'which hath not been wrought with and which hath not drawn in
(28) It must be taken into the team to suck.— This can only be compared to the following: If a bird rested upon it [the red heifer], it remains fit;1 but if it copulated with a male, it is unfit. What is the reason? — Said R. Papa: If it were written ''abad'2 and we read it 'abad', [I would say, it becomes unfit] only if he himself wrought with it. While if ''ubad'3 were written and we read it ''ubad,' [it would imply] even if it were of itself.4 Since however, it is written ''abad'' [active], whilst read ''ubad'' [passive]. 'it was wrought with' must be similar to 'he wrought [with it]':5 just as 'he wrought [with it]' must mean that he approved of it, so also 'it was wrought with' refers only to what he approved.6
Come and hear: He may not spread it [viz.,] a lost [raiment]7 upon a couch or a frame for his needs, but he may spread it out upon a couch or a frame in its own interests. If he was visited by guests, he may not spread it over a bed or a frame, whether in its interests or his own!8 — There it is different, because he may
the yoke' (v.2 ). Though this heifer had threshed, it remains fit, because it had been taken into the team to feed, not to thresh. [thereby] destroy it,9 either through an evil eye or through thieves.
Come and hear: Clothes merchants sell in their normal fashion, providing that they do10 not intend [to gain protection] from the sun in hot weather11 or from the rain when it is raining;12 but the strictly religious13 sling them on a staff behind their back.14 Now here, though it is possible to do as the strictly religious, yet when he has no intention [of benefiting], it is permitted; this is a refutation of him who learns Raba's first version?15 This is [indeed] a refutation.
AND ONE MAY NOT FIRE etc. Our Rabbis taught: If an oven was fired with the shells of 'orlah'16 or with the stubble of kil'ayim of the vineyard, if new, it must be demolished; if old, it must be allowed to cool.17 If a loaf was baked in it, — Rabbi said: The loaf is forbidden;18 but the Sages maintain: The loaf is permitted.19 If he baked20 it upon the coals, all agree that it is permitted.21 But it was taught: Whether new or old, it must be allowed to cool? — There is no difficulty: one agrees with Rabbi, the other with the Rabbis.22 Granted that you know Rabbi [to rule thus] because the benefit23 of the fuel lies in the loaf; do you know him [to maintain this ruling] where two things produce [the result]?24 — Rather, [reply thus:] There is no difficulty: one is according to R. Eliezer, the other according to the Rabbis. Which [ruling of] R. Eliezer [is alluded to]? Shall we say. R. Eliezer['s ruling] On se'or'?25 For we learned: If se'or of hullin and [se'or'] of terumah fall into dough, and neither is sufficient to make [it] leaven, but they combined and made [it] leaven, — R. Eliezer said: I regard26 the last;27 but the Sages maintain: whether the forbidden matter falls in first or the forbidden matter falls in last,it never renders it forbidden
____________________
(1) It is not disqualified because it has been put to some use. The red heifer had to be one 'upon which never came yoke'
(Num. XIX, 2), i.e., it had not been put to service.
(2) Active: 'with which he
(the owner) had
(not) wrought'.
(3) Passive: 'was (not) wrought with'.
(4) I.e., even if it were wrought with entirely without the owner's volition.
(5) I.e., though it may have been put to work without the knowledge of its master, it shall nevertheless be only such work as its master would have approved.
(6) Now, if a bird rests on it, the master does not approve, since he does not benefit; but he does benefit from its copulation. Similarly, if he takes the heifer into the team and it accidentally threshes, he does not benefit thereby, as the team itself would have sufficed. Therefore it is not made unfit, unless that was his express purpose. — Though one passage refers to the beheaded heifer, while the other deals with the red heifer, it is deduced in Sot. 46a by a gezerah shawah (v. Glos.) that they are alike in law.
(7) Which he has found, and awaiting the owner to come and claim it.
(8) Thus, though he must spread it out, yet since he intends to benefit himself, it is forbidden.
(9) Lit., 'burn it'.
(10) Lit., 'he does'. The singular taken in the distributive sense.
(11) Lit., 'in the sun'.
(12) The reference is to garments containing the forbidden mixture of wool and linen (v. Deut. XXII, 11), sold to heathens. Merchants slung their wares across their shoulders for display, and though it is like wearing them, and some protection is afforded thereby, it is permitted.
(13) Lit., 'the modest'.
(14) So that they do not actually lie upon them.
(15) V. supra 25b.
(16) I.e.,the shells of nuts of 'orlah'.
(17) 'New' means that the oven has never been used yet. Before it is fit for use it must be burnt through so as to harden it, and if this was done with the shells of 'orlah', the oven must be demolished, since it was made fit with prohibited fuel. But if it had been used before, the only benefit is that it is now hot: hence that benefit must be forfeited by allowing the oven to cool without using its heat.
(18) He holds that the benefit of the forbidden fuel is contained directly in the loaf.
(19) In their view the benefit of the forbidden fuel is not actually contained in the loaf, for the flame of the burning shells is not identical with the shells themselves. By the same reasoning they reject the ruling that if new, the oven must be destroyed, holding it sufficient that it should be allowed to cool.
(20) Lit., 'boiled'.
(21) When the nutshells or stubble are burnt through and a mass of coals, they are regarded as already destroyed and not in existence. Consequently, if he bakes the bread upon them, the bread is not regarded as having benefited directly from them, and even Rabbi admits that it is permitted.
(22) V. p. 121, n. 11.
(23) Lit., 'improvement'.
(24) For when the new oven is fired, bread is not baked in it yet, and it will have to be fired a second time. Thus the bread that is baked will be the product of two things: the forbidden fuel and the permitted fuel. We do not find Rabbi holding that this too is forbidden, and if it is not, there is no need to demolish the oven.
(25) Se'or is leaven with which other dough is made leaven. Hamez is leavened bread.
(26) Lit., 'come after'.
(27) The status of the dough is determined by which fell in last: if hullin, the dough is permitted to a lay Israelite; if terumah, it is forbidden.unless it1 contains sufficient to induce fermentation,2 Now Abaye said: They learned this3 only where he anticipated and removed the forbidden matter; but if he did not anticipate and remove the forbidden matter, it is forbidden:4 this proves that the product of two causes is forbidden. Yet how do you know that R. Eliezer's reason is as Abaye [states it]: perhaps R. Eliezer's reason is because I follow the last, there being no difference whether he anticipated and removed the forbidden matter or he did not anticipate and remove the forbidden matter;5 but [if they fell in] simultaneously, then indeed it may be permitted?6 — Rather it is R. Eliezer'[s ruling] on the wood of the asherah [which is alluded to]. For we learned: If he took wood from it [sc. the asherah], benefit thereof is forbidden. If he fired an oven with it, if new, it must be destroyed; if old, it must be allowed to cool. If he baked bread in it, benefit thereof is forbidden; if it [the bread] became mixed up with others, and [these] others [again] with others,7 they are all forbidden for use. R. Eliezer said: Let him carry the benefit [derived thence]8 to the Dead Sea.9 Said they to him: You cannot redeem an idol. Granted that you hear R. Eliezer [to rule thus] in the case of idolatry, whose interdict is [very] severe; do you know him [to rule likewise] in respect of other interdicts of the Torah? — Then if so, to whom will you ascribe it?10 Moreover, it was explicitly taught: And thus did R. Eliezer declare it forbidden in the case of all interdicts in the Torah.
Abaye said: Should you say' that the product of two causes is forbidden, then Rabbi is identical [in view] with R. Eliezer.11 But should you say. The product of two causes is permitted,12 while here [Rabbi forbids the bread] because there is the improvement of the fuel in the bread, then plates, goblets, and
regards that which completes the leavening having produced the whole of it. flasks13 are forbidden.14 They differ only in respect of an oven and a pot.15 On the view [that] the product of two causes is forbidden, these are forbidden; on the view [that] the product of two causes is permitted, these are permitted. Others state: Even on the view [that] the product of two causes is permitted, the pot is forbidden, for it receives the stew before the permitted fuel is placed.16
R. Joseph said in Rab Judah's name in Samuel's name: If an oven was fired [heated] with shells of 'orlah' or with stubble of kil'ayim of the vineyard, if new, it must be demolished; if old, it must be allowed to cool. If he baked bread in it, — Rabbi said: The bread is permitted; but the Sages maintain: The bread is forbidden. But the reverse was taught!17 — Samuel learned it the reverse. Alternatively, in general Samuel holds [that] the halachah is as Rabbi as against his, but not as against his colleagues, but here [he holds], even against his colleagues, and so he reasoned, I will recite it reversed, in order that the Rabbis may stand [as ruling] stringently.18
'If he baked it upon the coals all agree that the bread is permitted'.19 Rab Judah in Samuel's name, and R. Hiyya b. Ashi in R. Johanan's name [differ therein]: one says. They learned [this] only of dying coals, but live20 coals are forbidden;21 while the other maintains, Even live coals too are permitted. As for the view that live [coals] are forbidden, it is well, [the reason being] because there is the improvement of the fuel in the bread.22 But on the view that even live [coals] are permitted, then how is the bread which is forbidden because there is the improvement of the fuel in the bread conceivable according to Rabbi?23 — Said R. Papa: When the flame is opposite it.24
____________________
(1) The se'or' of terumah, v. Tosaf.
(2) If forbidden matter falls into permitted, it does not render it forbidden unless it imparts its taste to it. The se'or' imparts its taste to the dough when it makes it leaven. — Se'or' of terumah is designated forbidden matter, since it is forbidden to a lay Israelite.
(3) Sc. R. Eliezer's view.
(4) R. Eliezer holds that if the hullin fell in last, the dough is permitted. This is only if he removed the terumah immediately the hullin fell in, and before the dough was leavened. Though the terumah must have helped slightly in the leavening, yet since it is no longer there when the dough really becomes leaven, it is disregarded. But if the terumah was left there, the dough becomes forbidden even if the hullin fell in last.
(5) The reason being that he
(6) Because R. Eliezer permits the product of two causes.
(7) 'And (these) others' etc. is absent in the Mishnah in A.Z. 49b, and R. Tam deletes it here too.
(8) I.e., the value of the wood.
(9) But R. Eliezer admits that if the benefit is not thrown into the Dead Sea, the new oven must be destroyed, which proves that he holds that the product of two causes is forbidden (v. p. 122, n. 3).
(10) Lit., 'upon whom will you cast it?' This is the answer: there is none other to whom the Baraitha supra 26b can be ascribed. Hence it must be assumed that R. Eliezer draws no distinction between idolatry — and other interdicts.
(11) I.e.,if the Baraitha supra 26b is to be explained thus: just as Rabbi forbids the bread baked by the heat of the nutshells of 'orlah', so he also forbids the new oven that is fired by same, because he holds that the product of two causes is forbidden. Hence the whole Baraitha states Rabbi's ruling, his view being identical with R. Eliezer's. Consequently the problem which he proceeds to state does not arise.
(12) Hence the first clause stating that a new oven must be destroyed cannot agree with Rabbi, but only with R. Eliezer.
(13) Of earthenware, which received their final hardening in a kiln heated by forbidden fuel.
(14) On all views. For they have been made fit for use and will be used without any further improvements, and there is direct benefit from forbidden matter.
(15) Both of which must be heated again before food is cooked or baked in them.
(16) The food for stewing is placed in the pot before the heat is applied to it. The mere placing is regarded as benefit, and this was made possible solely by the forbidden fuel.
(17) Supra 26b.
(18) And so that people might accept the stringent ruling.
(19) V. supra 26b.
(20) Lit., 'whispering'. When the coals are burning brightly they seem to be moving and whispering to each other
(Rashi).
(21) I.e., the bread is forbidden in Rabbi's view.
(22) For the fuel is regarded as still in existence and directly baking the bread.
(23) For obviously the bread does not bake until the fuel burns up, and by then it is a mass of coals.
(24) Directly opposite the bread through the oven mouth.Whence it follows that the Rabbis who disagree with him permit it even when the flame is opposite it; then how is forbidden fuel conceivable according to the Rabbis?1 — Said R. Ammi b. Hama: In the case of a stool.2
Rami b. Hama asked R. Hisda: If an oven was heated with wood of hekdesh3 and bread is baked therein, what [is the law] according to the Rabbis who permit in the first case?4 — The bread is forbidden, he replied. And what is the difference between this and 'orlah'? — Said Raba: How compare! 'Orlah is annulled in two hundred [times its own quantity]; hekdesh is not annulled even in one thousand [times its quantity].5 But said Raba, If there is a difficulty, this is the difficulty: Surely he who fires [the oven] commits trespass, and wherever he who fires [the oven] commits trespass, it [the fuel] passes out to hullin?6 — Said R. Papa: We treat here of wood of peace-offerings,7 and in accordance with R. Judah, who maintained: Hekdesh, if [misappropriated for secular use] unwittingly, becomes hullin; if deliberately, it does not become hullin. Now what is the reason that if deliberately it does not [become hullin]? Since it does not involve a trespass-offering,8 it does not pass out to hullin; so peace-offerings too, since it [the misappropriation of this type of sacrifice] does not involve a trespass-offering, it does not pass out to hullin.
Yet whenever he that fires [the oven] commits trespass, it [the fuel] passes out to hullin? But it was taught: [In the case of] all which are burnt,9 their ashes are permitted [for use], except the wood of an asherah, while the ashes of hekdesh are forbidden for ever?10 — Said Rami b. Hama: E.g., if a fire fell of its own accord on wood of hekdesh, so that there is no man to be liable for trespass.11 R. Shemaiah said: It12 refers to those [ashes] which must be hidden,13 for it was taught: And he shall put them [the ashes]14 gently; and he shall put them — the whole thereof; and he shall put them [means] that he must not scatter them.15
R. JUDAH SAID: THERE IS NO REMOVAL etc. It was taught, R. Judah said: There is no removal of leaven save by burning, and logic impels this: if nothar, which is not subject to 'there shall not be seen' and 'there shall not be found', requires burning, then leaven, which is subject to 'there shall not be seen' and 'there shall not be found', how much the more does it require burning! Said they to him: Every argument that you argue [which] in the first place is stringent yet in the end leads to leniency is not a [valid] argument: [for] if he did not find wood for burning, shall he sit and do nothing, whereas the Torah ordered, Ye shall put away leaven out of your houses,16 [which means] with anything wherewith you can put it away? R. Judah argued again [with] another argument.17 Nothar is forbidden for eating and leaven is forbidden for eating: just as nothar [is disposed of] by burning, so is leaven [destroyed] by burning. Said they to him, Let nebelah prove [it]18 for it is forbidden for eating yet does not require burning. Said he to them, There is a difference:19 nothar is forbidden for eating and for [all] use, and leaven is forbidden for eating and for [all] use: just as nothar requires burning, so does leaven require burning. Let the ox that is stoned20 prove it, they replied: it is forbidden for eating and for [all] use, yet it does not require burning. Said he to them, There is a difference: Nothar is forbidden for eating and for [all] use, and he [who eats it] is punished with kareth, and leaven is forbidden for eating and for [all] use, and he is punished with kareth: just as nothar [must be destroyed] by burning, so is leaven [destroyed] by burning. Said they to him, Let the heleb of the ox that is stoned prove it, which is forbidden for eating, for [all] use, and involves the penalty of kareth, yet it does not require burning.
____________________
(1) I.e., when do they prohibit benefit from forbidden fuel?
(2) Made of forbidden wood. One must not sit upon it, because he thereby benefits from the wood while it is yet fully in existence.
(3) V. Glos.
(4) Sc. where it is heated with 'orlah or kil'ayim.
(5) If 'orlah is accidentally mixed with two hundred times its own quantity of permitted produce and cannot be removed, it is annulled, and the whole is permitted. But hekdesh in similar circumstances is never annulled: thus its interdict is obviously more stringent.
(6) When one misappropriates hekdesh for secular use, he commits trespass and is liable to an offering for having withdrawn it from sacred ownership. Thus by this very act he converts it into hullin, and therefore the bread should be regarded as having been baked with ordinary fuel, hence permitted. This principle holds good of all hekdesh save animals dedicated for sacrifices and the service utensils in the Temple.
(7) I.e., wood dedicated for peace-offerings, which means that it is to be sold and peace-offerings bought with the money, peace-offerings belong to the category of 'sacrifices of lower sanctity', and do not involve a trespass-offering; nevertheless they are forbidden for secular use.
(8) Sacrifices were brought only for unwitting transgressions.
(9) Viz., leaven on Passover, unclean terumah, 'orlah and kil'ayim of the vineyard. Tem. 33b.
(10) V. Tem. 34a.
(11) Only then are the ashes of hekdesh for ever forbidden.
(12) The teaching cited.
(13) Viz., the censerful of ashes hidden at the base of the altar, v. supra 26a. Only these are for ever forbidden.
(14) Lev. VI, 3.
(15) V. supra 26a.
(16) Ex.XII, 15.
(17) Not on the basis of an a minori argument, but a gezerah shawah, the conclusion of which is accepted irrespective of the result.
(18) I.e., refute the argument.
(19) Between nebelah on the one hand and nothar and leaven on the other.
(20) V. Ex. XXI, 28.R. Judah argued again [with] another argument: Nothar is subject to 'ye shall let nothing of it remain,'1 and leaven is subject to 'ye shall let nothing of it remain':2 just as nothar [is disposed of] by burning, so is leaven [disposed of] by burning. Said they to him, Let the guilt-offering of suspense3 and the sin-offering of a bird which is brought for a doubt,4 on your view,5 prove it: for they are subject to 'ye shall let nothing of it remain,'6 and we maintain that they require burning, while you say [it is disposed of] by burial.7 [Thereupon] R. Judah was silent. Said R. Joseph: Thus people say, The ladle which the artisan hollowed out, in it [his tongue] shall be burnt with mustard.8 Abaye said: When the maker of the stocks sits in his own stock, he is paid with the clue which his own hand wound.9 Raba said: When the arrow maker is slain by his own arrows, he is paid with the clue which his own hand wound.
BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: HE CRUMBLES AND THROWS IT etc. The scholars asked: How is it meant: He crumbles and throws it to the wind, or he crumbles and throws it into the sea; or perhaps, he crumbles and throws it to the wind, but he may throw it into the sea whole [without crumbling]? And we learned similarly in connection with an idol too: R. Jose said: He crushes and throws it to the wind or casts it into the sea. And the scholars asked: How is it meant: He crushes and throws it to the wind, or he crushes and casts it into the sea; or perhaps, he crushes and throws it to the wind, but he may cast it into the sea whole [without crushing?]—Said Rabbah: It is logical that an idol, which goes into the Dead Sea, need not be crushed;10 leaven, which goes into other streams, needs crumbling. Said R. Joseph to him, On the contrary, the logic is the reverse: An idol, which does not dissolve, needs crushing; leaven, which dissolves, does not need crumbling. It was taught in accordance with Rabbah;11 it was taught in accordance with R. Joseph.12 It was taught in accordance with Rabbah: If he was walking in a wilderness, he crumbles it [the leaven] and casts it to the wind; if he was travelling in a ship, he crumbles it and casts it into the sea. It was taught in accordance with R. Joseph: If he was travelling in the desert, he crushes [the idol] and throws it to the wind; if he was travelling in a ship, he crushes and casts it into the sea. [The teaching requiring] 'crushing' is a difficulty according to Rabbah, [while the teaching requiring] 'crumbling' is a difficulty according to R. Jose? 'Crushing' is not a difficulty according to Rabbah: one means into the Dead Sea,13 the other means into other waters. 'Crumbling' is not a difficulty according to R. Joseph: One refers to wheat [grains],14 the other refers to bread.
MISHNAH. LEAVEN BELONGING TO A GENTILE OVER WHICH PASSOVER HAS PASSED15 IS PERMITTED FOR USE; BUT THAT OF AN ISRAELITE IS FORBIDDEN FOR USE, BECAUSE IT IS SAID, NEITHER SHALL THERE BE LEAVEN SEEN WITH THEE.16
GEMARA. Who is [the authority of] our Mishnah: it is neither R. Judah nor R. Simeon nor R. Jose the Galilean. What is this [allusion]? — For it was taught: [As to] leaven, both before its time and after its time, he transgresses a negative command on its account; during its time, he transgresses a negative command and [commits a sin subject to] kareth.17
____________________
(1) Ex. XII, 10.
(2) Since leaven must not be seen or found in the house after midday on the fourteenth of Nisan, it may obviously not remain there until then.
(3) I.e., doubt. When a man is in doubt whether he has committed a transgression for which, if certain, a sin-offering is due, he brings a guilt-offering of suspense.
(4) E.g., when a woman miscarries, and it is not known whether the fetus was viable or not.
(5) V. Tem. 34a. The Rabbis hold that this bird sin-offering must be burnt, while R. Judah maintains that it is cast into a waterduct which carries it off.
(6) In common with all sacrifices.
(7) This refers to the guilt-offering of suspense.
(8) Or, from it he shall swallow mustard.
(9) Jast. Rashi, he is paid by the uplifting— i.e., the work —of his own hand.
(10) For the Dead Sea is unnavigable; hence none will pick it up.
(11) That leaven requires 'crumbling'.
(12) That an idol requires 'crushing'.
(13) The idol need not be crushed before it is thrown thither.
(14) Which had turned leaven. These must be crumbled, i.e., scattered into the sea. But they may not be tied in a sack and thrown into the sea, lest someone finds the sack.
(15) I.e., it had been kept over Passover.
(16) Ex. XIII, 7.
(17) During its (forbidden) time means during Passover. Before its time, from six hours (mid-day) on the fourteenth of Nisan until evening, when Passover commences; after its time, after Passover — i.e., leaven which was kept from before until after Passover. He transgresses by eating it.R. Simeon said: [As to] leaven, before and after its time, he does not transgress anything at all on its account; during its time, he transgresses on its account [an interdict subject to] kareth and a negative command. And from the hour that it is forbidden for eating, it is forbidden for [general] use; this agrees with the first Tanna. R. Jose the Galilean said: Wonder at yourself! How can leaven be prohibited for [general] use the whole seven [days]? And how do we know of him who eats leaven from six hours and onwards that he transgresses a negative command? Because it is said, Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it:1 this is R. Judah's opinion. Said R. Simeon to him: Is it then possible to say thus, seeing that it is already stated, Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith?2 If so, what does 'thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it' teach? When he is subject to [the injunction], arise, eat unleavened bread,'3 he is subject to [the prohibition], 'do not eat leavened bread'; and when he is not subject to, 'arise, eat unleavened bread,' he is not subject to, 'do not eat leavened bread.'
What is R. Judah's reason? — Three verses are written: There shall no leavened bread be eaten;4 Ye shall eat nothing leavened;5 and Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it. One refers to before its time; another to after its time; and the third to during its time.6 And R. Simeon?7 — One refers to during its time. 'Ye shall eat nothing leavened' he requires for what was taught: Hamez:8 I only know [that it is forbidden] where it turned leaven of its own accord; if [it turned leaven] through another substance, how do we know it? Therefore it is stated, Ye shall eat nothing leavened.9 There shall no leavened bread be eaten' he requires for what was taught: R. Jose the Galilean said: How do we know that at the Passover of Egypt its [prohibition of] leaven was in force one day only? Because it is said, 'There shall no leavened bread be eaten', and in proximity thereto [is written], This day ye go forth.10 And R. Judah: how does he know [that it is prohibited when made leaven] through another substance? — Because the Divine Law expressed it in the term mahmezeth.11 How does he know R. Jose the Galilean's [deduction]? — I can either say, because 'this day' is stated in proximity thereto.12 Alternatively, he does not base interpretations on the proximity of verses.13
The Master said: 'And how do we know of him who eats leaven from six hours and onwards that he transgresses a negative command? Because it is said, Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it: this is R. Judah's opinion. Said R. Simeon to him: Is it then possible to say thus, Seeing that it is already stated, Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith?' Now as to R. Judah, R. Simeon says well to him?- R. Judah can answer you: [The purpose of] that [verse] is to make it a statutory obligation even for nowadays.14 And R. Simeon? Whence does he know to make it a statutory obligation [even nowadays]! — He deduces it from, at even ye shall eat unleavened bread.15 And R. Judah? — He requires that in respect of an unclean person or one who was on a distant journey. I might say, since he cannot eat the Passover sacrifice, he need not eat unleavened bread or bitter herbs either. Hence we are informed [that it is not so]. And R. Simeon? — For an unclean person or one who was on a distant journey no verse is required,16 because he is no worse than an uncircumcised person and an alien,17 for it is written, but no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof:18 'thereof' he shall not eat, but he eats of unleavened bread and bitter herbs. And R. Judah? It is written in the case of one,19 and it is written in the case of the other.20 Now, who is [the authority for] our Mishnah?21 If R. Judah, he states leaven without qualification, even that of a Gentile. And if R. Simeon,
____________________
(1) Deut. XVI, 3. 'It' refers to the Passover sacrifice, which was offered on the fourteenth of Nisan from mid-day and onwards; and the verse is interpreted: You are to eat no leavened bread at the time that you must offer the Passover sacrifice.
(2) Now, unleavened bread (mazzah) was not eaten before evening; hence 'therewith' must mean when the Passover sacrifice is eaten, viz., in the evening, and 'with it' must bear the same meaning in the first half of the verse.
(3) I.e., in the evening.
(4) Ex. XIII, 3.
(5) Ibid. XII, 20.
(6) On the meaning of these terms v. p. 129, n. 4.
(7) How does he interpret these verses?
(8) In Ex. XIII, 3 and Deut. XVI, 3 (E.V. leavened bread).
(9) Heb. mahmezeth. This implies even if fermentation was induced by something else.
(10) Ex. XIII. 4. He translates: There shall no leavened bread be eaten (on) this day (that) ye go forth.
(11) 'Leavened'; v. n. 8. This implies an additional teaching, for otherwise the three verses should use the same term, viz., hamez.
(12) Thus this too conveys an additional teaching.
(13) And thus he rejects the view that at the Exodus the prohibition of leaven was for one day only.
(14) The verse does not assimilate the prohibition of leavened bread to the precept of eating unleavened bread, in the sense that the former is valid only when the latter is, but the reverse: the latter is assimilated to the former. As long as leaven is prohibited, there is an obligation to eat unleavened bread, i.e., even nowadays, after the destruction of the Temple and the cessation of sacrifices. For I might think, since it is written, they shall eat it (sc. the Passover sacrifice) with unleavened bread and bitter herbs (Num. IX, 11), the obligation to eat unleavened bread holds good only as long as the Passover sacrifice is offered. Hence this verse teaches that it is not so.
(15) Ex. XII, 18. This is otherwise superfluous, since it is stated in v. 8, and they shall eat the flesh in that night ... and unleavened bread.
(16) That he has to eat unleavened bread.
(17) V. Ex. XII, 43. According to the Talmud, Shab. 87a this means a Jew whose acts have alienated him from Heaven, i.e., a nonconformist.
(18) Ibid. 48.
(19) Sc. an uncircumcised person and an 'alien'.
(20) Sc. an unclean person and one who was on a distant journey; v. infra 120a, p. 619, n. 6. Hence Deut. XVI, 3 is still required to show that the eating of unleavened bread is a permanent obligation.
(21) Here the Talmud reverts to its original question (supra a bottom), which was interrupted for a discussion of the various opinions quoted.even that of an Israelite is indeed permitted.1 while if [it is] R. Jose the Galilean, even during its time it is indeed permitted for [general] use? — Said R. Aha b. Jacob: In truth it is R. Judah, and he learns se'or [leaven] of 'eating' from se'or of seeing':2 just as [with] the se'or [stated in connection] with 'seeing', you must not see your own, but you may see that belonging to others or to the Most High',3 so [with] the se'or [written in connection] with 'eating', you must not eat your own, but you may eat that belonging to others or to the Most High;4 and logically he [the Tanna of our Mishnah] ought to teach that it5 is permitted even for eating, but because he teaches that that of an Israelite is forbidden for use, he also teaches that that of a Gentile is permitted for use. Again, logically he ought to teach that even during its period it5 is permitted for use, but because he mentions after its period in connection with that of an Israelite, he also teaches about that of a heathen after its period.
Raba said: In truth it6 is R. Simeon; but R. Simeon does indeed penalize him, since he transgresses 'there shall not be seen' and 'there shall not be found' therewith.7 As for Raba, it is well: hence it is taught, BUT THAT OF AN ISRAELITE IS FORBIDDEN [FOR GENERAL USE], BECAUSE IT IS SAID, NEITHER SHALL THERE LEAVEN BE SEEN WITH THEE.8 But according to R. Aha b. Jacob, he should state, because [it is said], there shall no leavened bread be eaten?9 — Do you think that that10 refers to the second clause? [No,] it refers to the first clause, and he states thus: LEAVEN BELONGING TO A GENTILE OVER WHICH PASSOVER HAS PASSED IS PERMITTED FOR USE, BECAUSE IT IS SAID, NEITHER SHALL THERE BE LEAVEN SEEN WITH THEE, [implying] thine own thou must not see, but thou mayest see the leaven of strangers or of the Most High; and se'or of 'eating' is learnt from se'or of 'seeing'.
Now they11 are consistent with their views. For it was stated: If one eats se'or belonging to a heathen over which Passover has passed, according to R. Judah's view, — Raba said: He is flagellated; while R. Aha b. Jacob said: He is not flagellated. Raba said, He is flagellated: R. Judah does not learn se'or of 'eating' from se'or of 'seeing'. While R. Aha b. Jacob, said, He is not flagellated: he learns se'or of 'eating' from se'or of 'seeing'.
But R. Aha b. Jacob retracted from that [view]. For it was taught: He who eats leaven of hekdesh12 during the Festival [Passover] commits trespass; but some say, He does not commit trespass.13 Who is [meant by] 'some say'? — Said R. Johanan, It is R. Nehunia b. ha-Kanah. For it was taught: R. Nehunia b. ha-Kanah used to treat the Day of Atonement as the Sabbath in regard to payment: just as [with] the Sabbath, he forfeits his life and is exempt from (payment], so [with] the Day of Atonement, he forfeits his life and is exempt from payment.14 R. Joseph said: They differ as to whether sacred food can be redeemed in order to feed dogs therewith. He who says [that] he commits trespass holds, One may redeem sacred food in order to feed dogs therewith; while he who rules [that] he does not commit trespass holds, One may not redeem [etc.].15
R. Aha b. Raba recited
____________________
(1) For general use, after its time.
(2) I.e., he learns the prohibition of eating se'or from that of seeing se'or.
(3) V. supra 5b.
(4) I.e., when R. Judah teaches supra 28b that leaven even after its period is forbidden, this analogy shows that that applies to leaven belonging to a Jew only.
(5) The leaven of a Gentile.
(6) Our Mishnah.
(7) Thus the Mishnah states the Rabbinic law, while in the Baraitha the Scriptural law is stated.
(8) I.e., as a penalty for violating this injunction.
(9) That being the verse quoted by R. Judah supra 28b.
(10) The verse quoted in the Mishnah.
(11) Sc. Raba and R. Aha b. Jacob.
(12) V. Glos.
(13) On committing trespass V. p, 117, n. 6. The first Tanna holds that leaven belonging to hekdesh has a value even during Passover. For he agrees with R. Simeon that leaven kept during Passover is Biblically permitted after Passover, and though R. Simeon penalizes its owner, that does not apply to hekdesh, since leaven of hekdesh falls within the permissive law 'but thou mayest see that of Heaven'. Thus this man, by eating it, has caused loss to the Temple treasury, and therefore he is liable to a trespass-offering. But the second Tanna, while admitting this, holds that since he incurs kareth for the eating of leaven, he is free from any lesser penalty, as explained in the Text.
(14) It is a principle that if a man commits an act involving the death penalty and a monetary compensation. he is exempted from the latter owing to the greater punishment; this holds good
(15) If these Tannaim held with R. Simeon that during Passover it is forbidden for general use, they would agree that he is not liable for trespass, since it was valueless when he actually ate it, notwithstanding that it would become valuable after Passover. But they hold with R. Jose the Galilean that leaven is permitted for use during Passover. Now, the only use to which leaven can be put then is to give it to dogs. This may be done with ordinary leaven, but there is a controversy in respect of sacred leaven. The first Tanna holds that it can be redeemed for that purpose: hence the leaven is valuable, and therefore the eater commits trespass. But the others ('some say') hold that sacred leaven may not be redeemed for dogs. Consequently it has no value, and the eater does not commit trespass.this discussion in R. Joseph's name in the following version: All agree that one may not redeem sacred food in order to feed it to dogs, but here they differ in this, viz., whether that which has indirect monetary value1 is as money. He who says [that] he commits trespass holds, That which has indirect monetary value is as money; while he who maintains [that] he does not commit trespass holds, That which has indirect monetary value is not as money.2 R. Aha b. Jacob said: All agree that that which has indirect monetary value is as money, but here they differ in the controversy of R. Judah and R. Simeon. He who says [that] he is not liable for trespass holds as R. Judah;3 while he who rules [that] he is liable for trespass
even if he is not actually executed. E.g.. if he sets fire to another man's property on the Sabbath, since his violation of the Sabbath involves death, he is not liable for the damage. Now R. Nehunia b. ha-Kanah holds that it is the same if his act involves kareth instead of death: e.g., if he sets fire to another man's property on the Day of Atonement, the violation of which is punishable by kareth. — Thus in the present case he need not indemnify hekdesh for the leaven, in view of the kareth involved, and where that is so, there is no trespass-offering. agrees with R. Simeon.4 But it was R. Aha b. Jacob himself who said that R. Judah learns se'or of 'eating' from se'or of 'seeing'?5 — Hence R. Aha b. Jacob retracted from that [statement].
R. Ashi said: All hold that we may not redeem [etc.], and that which has indirect monetary value is not as money. But here they differ in the controversy of R. Jose the Galilean and the Rabbis. He who rules [that] he is liable to trespass holds as R. Jose;6 while he who rules [that] he is not liable for trespass agrees with the Rabbis.
Rab said: Leaven, in its time,7 whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different8 kind, is forbidden; when not in its time, [if mixed] with its own kind, it is forbidden; [if with] a different kind, it is permitted. What are we discussing: Shall we say, where it imparts [its] taste [to the mixture], then [how state] when not in its time, if [mixed] with a different kind it is permitted? Surely it imparts taste!9 — Rather it refers to a minute quantity [of leaven]:10 'leaven in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, is forbidden', Rab being consistent with his view. For Rab and Samuel both said: All forbidden things of the Torah, [if mixed] with their own kind, [render forbidden the mixture even] when there is a minute quantity; [if] with a different kind, [only] when [the forbidden element] imparts its taste. Now Rab forbade leaven in its time [when mixed] with a different kind on account of [a mixture with] its own kind. When not in its period [and mixed] with its own kind, it [the mixture] is forbidden in accordance with R. Judah: but [when
leaven has no monetary value at all; nor has it any indirect monetary value, since it cannot be redeemed to feed it to dogs by selling it to a non-Jew for the purpose. mixed] with a different kind it is permitted, because [to forbid it] when not in its time and [mixed] with a different kind on account of [a mixture] with its own kind, — to that extent we do not enact a preventive measure.11
Samuel said: Leaven, in its time, [if mixed] with its own kind, is forbidden; if with a different kind, it is permitted. When not in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, it is permitted. 'Leaven, in its time, [if mixed] with its own kind, is forbidden.' Samuel is consistent with his view. For Rab and Samuel both said: All prohibited things of the Torah, [if mixed] with their own kind, [render forbidden the mixture even] when there is a minute quantity; [if mixed] with a different kind, [only] when [the forbidden element] imparts [its] flavour. Now he does not forbid [leaven mixed] with a different kind on account of [a mixture with] its own kind. 'When not in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, it is permitted,' — in accordance with R. Simeon.
While R. Johanan said: Leaven, in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, is forbidden when it imparts [its] taste; when not in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, it is permitted. 'Leaven, in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, [is forbidden] when it imparts [its] taste.' R. Johanan is consistent with his view. For R. Johanan and Resh Lakish both maintain: All forbidden things in the Torah, whether [mixed] with their own kind or with a different kind, [render forbidden the mixture only] when they impart [their] taste.' 'When not in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, it is permitted,'- in accordance with R. Simeon.
____________________
(1) Lit., 'a thing which leads to money'.
(2) On this version both Tannaim agree with R. Simeon. Thus it has no present value at all, save an indirect value, since it can be used after Passover, and they disagree as to whether this deferred value can be regarded as immediate value.
(3) That all benefit is forbidden to an Israelite even after Passover, so that the
(4) That it is permissible for general use after Passover, even to an Israelite, and that it has a monetary value.
(5) Whereby leaven of hekdesh is permitted for use during Passover even according to R. Judah.
(6) That benefit is permitted even during Passover. This leaven could be redeemed and used as fuel.
(7) V. supra p. 129, n. 4.
(8) Lit., 'not with its kind' — and similarly in the whole passage.
(9) It is a general principle that if something forbidden is mixed with something permitted and imparts its taste thereto, the whole mixture is prohibited.
(10) Insufficient to impart a flavour to the other.
(11) Gazar means to enact a preventive measure, i.e., to forbid one case which should be permitted because it might otherwise be thought that another case, which is actually forbidden, is permitted too.Raba said: The law is: Leaven, in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, is forbidden [even] when there is a minute quantity, in accordance with Rab; when not in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, it is permitted, in accordance with R. Simeon. Yet did Raba say thus?1 Surely Raba said, R. Simeon does indeed penalize him, since he transgressed 'there shall not be seen' and 'there shall not be found' with it?2 — That is only in its natural state, but not when it is in a mixture.3 Now Raba4 is consistent with his view, For Raba said: When we were at R. Nahman's house, when the seven days of Passover were gone he would say to us, 'Go out and buy leaven from the troops.'5
Rab said: Pots must be broken on Passover.6 Why so? Let them be kept until after Passover and used with a different kind?7 — Lest he come to use it with its own kind. But Samuel maintained: They need not be broken, but can be kept until after its period and [then] used with their own kind8 or with a different kind. Now Samuel is consistent with his view. For Samuel said to the hardware merchants:9 Charge all equitable price for your pots, for if not I will publicly lecture [that the law is] in accordance with R. Simeon.10 Then let him lecture [thus] to them [in any case], seeing that Samuel holds as R. Simeon?11 — It was Rab's town.
A certain oven was greased with fat.12 [Thereupon] Raba b. Ahilai forbade for all time13 the bread [baked therein] to be eaten even with salt, lest he come to eat it with kutah.14 An objection is raised: One must not knead dough with milk, and if he does knead it, the whole loaf is forbidden, because it leads to sin.15 Similarly,
____________________
(1) That the leaven mixture is permitted after Passover.
(2) V. supra 29a.
(3) Even if he kept it in its natural, unmixed state during Passover and then it became mixed with other food, R. Simeon does not penalize him by disqualifying the mixture.
(4) Who accents the ruling of R. Simeon.
(5) Gentile troops quartered in the town, though they had baked it on Passover. — Their leaven was permitted after Passover since no transgression had been committed with it. — In the Diaspora Passover is kept for eight days, not seven. Raba probably mentions 'seven' loosely, using the Biblical phraseology, while meaning eight; v. S. Strashun R. Han. simply reads: 'when the days of Passover etc.'. V., however, Obermeyer, p. 99.
(6) Pots in which leaven is cooked absorb and retain some of the leaven. Now Rab holds that all leaven kept over Passover is forbidden after Passover, which includes absorbed leaven. Further, when other food is cooked in it after Passover the absorbed leaven imparts a flavour, and though it has a deteriorating effect, Rab holds that even such disqualifies the food. Thus the pots cannot be used after Passover; hence they must be broken.
(7) For only a very minute quantity is absorbed, and such, even according to Rab, does not disqualify a different kind.
(8) I.e.,the same kind of leaven which was cooked in them before Passover.
(9) Lit., 'sellers of pots'.
(10) People did break their pots before Passover, and the merchants took advantage of the increased demand after Passover to raise prices. Thereupon Samuel threatened them that he would publicly lecture that leaven kept over Passover is not forbidden, so that people need not break their pots.
(11) As stated supra.
(12) Lit., 'grease'.
(13) Even if the oven should be fired and burnt through again.
(14) A preserve consisting of sour milk, bread-crusts and salt (Jast.). The bread of course receives the flavour of the fat, and must not be eaten with anything containing milk or a milk product.
(15) One may come to eat it with meat.one must not grease an oven with fat, and if he does grease it, all the bread [baked therein] is forbidden until the oven is refired. Which [implies], if the oven is refired it is nevertheless permitted? This is a refutation of Raba b. Ahilai! — [It is indeed] a refutation. Rabina said to R. Ashi: Now since Raba b. Ahilai was refuted, why did Rab say, Pots must be broken on Passover?1 — There it was a metal oven, replied he, [whereas] here an earthen pot [is referred to]. Alternatively, both refer to earthenware: this [the oven] is fired from the inside;2 while the other [the pot] is fired on the outside. And should you say, here too let him burn it [the pot] out from within, — he would spare it, lest it burst.3 Therefore a tiled pan,4 since it is burnt from without,5 is forbidden; but if he filled it with coals,6 it is permitted.
Rabina asked R. Ashi: What does one do about the knives on Passover? — I provide [make] new ones for myself, he replied. That is well for you, who can [afford] this, said he to him, [but] what about one who cannot [afford] this? I mean like new ones, he answered: [I thrust] their handles in loam, and their blades in fire, and then I place their handles in boiling water.7 But the law is: both the one and the other8 [need only be put] into boiling water, and in a 'first' vessel.9
R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: A wooden pot ladle must be purified10 in boiling water and in a 'first' vessel. [Thus] he holds, as it absorbs, so it exudes.11
Meremar was asked: Glazed vessels, may they be used on Passover? About green ones there is no problem, as they are certainly forbidden;12 the question is, how about black ones and white ones? Again, if they have splits there is no question, as they are certainly forbidden;13 the question is, what about smooth ones? Said he to him: We see that they exude,14 which shows that they absorb; hence they are forbidden; and the Torah testified concerning an earthen vessel that it [the absorbed matter] never passes out from its sides.15 And what is the difference in respect of wine of nesek,16 that Meremar lectured: Glazed vessels,17 whether black, white, or green, are permitted?18 And should you answer, [the interdict of] wine of nesek is [only] Rabbinical, [whereas that of] leaven is Scriptural, — surely whatever the Rabbis enacted, they enacted similar to Scriptural law? — Said he to him: This is used with hot [matter], while the other is used with cold.19
Raba b. Abba said in R. Hiyya b. Ashi's name in Samuel's name: All utensils which were used with leavened matter [hamez], cold, may be used with unleavened bread [mazzah], except a container of se'or, because it is strongly leaven.20 R. Ashi said: And a haroseth21 container is like a container of se'or, because it is strongly leaven. Raba said: The kneading basins of Mahuza,22 since leaven is continually kneaded in them and leaven is kept in them are like a container of se'or, which is strongly leaven. That is obvious? — You might say, since they are wide, the air acts on them and they do not absorb. Therefore he informs us [otherwise].
MISHNAH. IF A GENTILE LENT [MONEY] TO AN ISRAELITE ON HIS LEAVEN,23 AFTER PASSOVER IT IS PERMITTED FOR USE. WHILE IF AN ISRAELITE LENT [MONEY] TO A GENTILE ON HIS LEAVEN, AFTER PASSOVER IT IS PROHIBITED FOR USE.24
GEMARA. It was stated: [In the case of] a creditor, — Abaye said: He collects retrospectively;25 while Raba said: He collects from now and onwards.26 Now, where the debtor sanctified [the pledge] or sold [it], all agree that the creditor can come and seize it,27
____________________
(1) For we see that greased ovens (these were generally of earth) can be reheated and then used, the heat expelling the traces of fat. Then let the pots too be subjected to fire, which would likewise expel the absorbed leaven.
(2) Which is efficacious to expel absorbed matter.
(3) Hence if he is told to burn it from within, he will burn it from without and think that enough.
(4) A kind of plaque made of tiles upon which bread was baked.
(5) The coals being under it and the bread on top.
(6) On top.
(7) This process frees them from their absorbed leaven.
(8) Sc. the handle and the blade
(9) A 'first' vessel means the vessel in which the water was boiled, while it is still at boiling point; a 'second' vessel is that into which the water is poured from the 'first'.
(10) Hag'alah is the technical term for ridding a utensil of the forbidden matter which it has absorbed.
(11) I.e., the same conditions are necessary to make it exude as those whereby it absorbed. Since the ladle absorbs the leaven from a 'first' vessel, for it is used for stirring contents of the pot on the fire, it exudes only when likewise placed in a first vessel.
(12) These were made from an earth containing alum crystals and absorbed freely.
(13) The splits permitting them to absorb.
(14) I.e.,they are porous.
(15) Hence once forbidden they remain so for all time.
(16) Nesek, lit., 'libation', is wine handled by a heathen. It is forbidden, because he may have dedicated it as a libation for his deity.
(17) Which had contained wine of nesek.
(18) For use, in spite of the wine which they had absorbed.
(19) And of course it has greater powers of absorption in the former case.
(20) And though the se'or placed therein was cold, yet it infects the vessel which in turn imparts a flavour of leaven to anything placed therein.
(21) A paste made of flour and vinegar, used as a sauce or relish.
(22) V. supra 5b, p. 20, n. 5.
(23) The leaven being a pledge; the loan was made before Passover.
(24) In both cases the leaven was seized for payment after Passover. V. infra GEMARA.
(25) I.e., if the creditor has to exact the pledge in repayment of the loan, the pledge is regarded as having retrospectively belonged to him from the time of the loan.
(26) It is regarded as having belonged to him only from the moment he actually seized it.
(27) From the purchaser, without compensation.and the creditor can come and redeem it,1 for we learned: He adds another denar and redeems this property.2 They differ where the creditor sold or dedicated [it].3 Abaye said: 'He collects retrospectively'; since the time [for payment] came and he did not repay him, the matter was retrospectively revealed that from the [very] beginning it stood in his4 possession, and he rightly dedicated or sold [it]. But Raba ruled: 'He collects from now and onwards'; since if he [the debtor] had money, he could have quitted him with money, it is found that he [the creditor] acquires it only now.
Yet did Raba say thus? Surely Rami b. Hama said: if Reuben sold his estate to Simeon with security,5 and he [Simeon] set it [the money] up as a loan against himself,6 then Reuben died, and Reuben's creditor came and seized [the estate] from Simeon, whereupon Simeon went and satisfied him with money, it is by right that the children of Reuben can go and say to Simeon, 'As for us, we [maintain that] our father left [us] movables in your possession, and the movables of orphans are not under lien to a creditor.'7 Now Raba said: If Simeon is wise, he lets them seize the land, and then he reclaims it from them.8 For R. Nahman said: If orphans seize land for their father's debt,9 a creditor [of their father] can in turn seize it from them. Now, if you agree that he [a creditor] collects retrospectively, it is right: for that reason he in turn can seize it from them, because it is just as though they had seized it in their father's lifetime. But if you say that he collects it from now and henceforth, why can he in turn seize it from them: surely it is as though the orphans had bought [immovable] property,10 and if orphans buy [immovable] property, is it then under a lien to [their father's] creditor? — There it is different, because he can say to them, just as I was indebted11 to your father, so I was indebted to your father's creditor. [This follows] from R. Nathan['s dictum]. For it was taught, R. Nathan said: How do we know that if one man [claims a maneh from his neighbour, and his neighbor [claims a like sum] from another neighbour, that we collect from the one [the last] and give to the other [the first]? From the verse, and he shall give it unto him to whom he is indebted.12
We learned: IF A GENTILE LENT [MONEY] TO AN ISRAELITE ON HIS LEAVEN, AFTER PASSOVER IT IS PERMITTED FOR USE. It is right if you say that he collects retrospectively: therefore it is permitted for use. But if you say that he collects from now and henceforth, why is it permitted for use? [Surely] it stood in the possession of the Israelite! — The circumstances here are that he deposited it with him.13
Shall we say that it is dependent on Tannaim: If an Israelite lent [money] to a Gentile on his leaven, after Passover he does not transgress.14 In R. Meir's name it was said: he does transgress. Now do they not differ in this, viz., one Master holds [that] he collects retrospectively, while the other Master holds [that] he collects from now and onwards.15 — Now is that logical! Consider the second clause: But if a Gentile lent [money] to an Israelite on his leaven, after Passover he transgresses on all views. But surely the reverse [of the rulings in the first clause] is required: according to the view there [in the first clause] that he does not transgress, here he does transgress; [while] according to the view there that he does transgress, here he does not transgress!16
____________________
(1) From hekdesh, at a mere trifle, not at its full value, so that some form of redemption may be observed.
(2) 'Er. 23b. If the debtor dedicates to hekdesh property worth ninety manehs, while his debt is one hundred manehs, the creditor adds (i.e., gives) just one denar as a formal redemption and seizes it. Thus in both cases they agree that the pledge belonged retrospectively to the creditor.
(3) Before he actually foreclosed.
(4) The creditor's.
(5) A guarantee to indemnify S. against loss if a creditor of R. should seize it for debt.
(6) S. could not pay for the field, so he gave him an IOU for the sum, pledging his own property as security.
(7) Although their father had given security for this transaction, yet the orphans can plead, we inherited movables from our father which were in your possession, I.e., you merely owed him money, the field actually being yours; hence you should not have given that money to the creditor, because movables inherited by orphans are not subject to any lien; nor had you the right to withhold payment. Hence you still owe us the money.
(8) I.e., he pleads that he has no money; hence they must take the field in payment. This will prove retrospectively that they had inherited land, not movables. Then he can demand its return, since their father had indemnified him against loss.
(9) I.e., for a debt owing to their father.
(10) I.e., with the money owing to them they now purchased this estate.
(11) Lit., 'pledged'.
(12) Num. V. 7, translating: and he (the third) shall give it unto him (the first) to whom he (the second) is indebted.
(13) It is now assumed that he deposited it with the Gentile as a pledge, and the Gentile acquires a title to it as such.
(14) If he takes the leaven for the debt and uses it.
(15) It being now assumed that he did not deposit his leaven with the Gentile.
(16) Since the case is reversed, the Gentile having lent money to the Jew, obviously the rulings too should be reversed, if they are dependent on whether the creditor collects retrospectively or from now and onwards.Rather the circumstances here [in both clauses] are that he [the borrower] deposited it [the leaven] with him, and they differ in R. Isaac['s dictum]. For R. Isaac said: Whence do we know that the creditor acquires a title to the pledge?1 Because it is said, [Thou shalt surely restore to him the pledge when the sun goeth down...] and it shall be righteousness unto thee:2 if he has no title thereto, whence is his righteousness?3 Hence it follows that the creditor acquires a title to the pledge. Now the first Tanna holds, That4 applies only to an Israelite [taking a pledge] from an Israelite, since we read in his case, 'and it shall be righteousness unto thee'; but an Israelite [taking a pledge] from a Gentile does not acquire a title.5 While R. Meir holds, [It follows] a fortiori; if an Israelite acquires from an Israelite, how much the more an Israelite from a Gentile! But if a Gentile lent [money] to an Israelite on his leaven, after Passover all agree that he transgresses: there the Gentile certainly does not acquire a title from the Israelite.6
We learned: IF A GENTILE LENT [MONEY] TO AN ISRAELITE ON HIS LEAVEN, AFTER PASSOVER IT IS PERMITTED FOR USE. Now even granted that he deposited it with him, surely you said that a Gentile does not acquire a title from an Israelite? There is no difficulty: there [in the Mishnah] it means that he said to him, 'From now';7 here [in the Baraitha] it means that he did not say to him, 'From now',8 And whence do you assure that we draw a distinction between where he said 'from now and where he did not say 'from now'? — Because it was taught: If a Gentile deposited with an Israelite large loaves as a pledge,9 he [the Israelite] does not transgress; but if he said to him, 'I have made them yours,'10 he transgresses. Why is the first clause different from the second? This surely proves that where he says to him, 'from now,' it is different from where he does not say, 'from now.This proves it.
Our Rabbis taught: A shop belonging to an Israelite and its wares belong to an Israelite, while Gentile workers enter therein, leaven that is found there after Passover is forbidden for use, while it need not be stated for eating. A shop belonging to a Gentile and the wares belong to a Gentile, while Israelite workers go in and out, leaven that is found there after Passover may be eaten, while it is unnecessary to state [that] benefit [is permitted].11
MISHNAH. IF RUINS COLLAPSED ON LEAVEN, IT IS REGARDED AS REMOVED.12 R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: PROVIDED THAT13 A DOG CANNOT SEARCH IT OUT.
GEMARA. R. Hisda said: Yet he must annul it in his heart.14 A Tanna taught: How far is the searching of a dog? Three handbreadths.15 R. Aha the son of R. Joseph said to R. Ashi: As to what Samuel said, Money can only be guarded [by placing it] in the earth16 — do we require [it to be covered by] three handbreadths or not? — Here, he replied, we require three hand breadths on account of the smell [of the leaven];17 but there [it is put into the earth] in order to cover it from the eye; therefore three handbreadths are not required. And how much [is necessary]? — Said Rafram of Sikkara:18 one handbreadth.
MISHNAH. HE WHO EATS TERUMAH OF LEAVEN ON PASSOVER UNWITTINGLY, MUST REPAY [TO THE PRIEST] THE PRINCIPAL PLUS A FIFTH;19 IF DELIBERATELY,20 HE IS FREE FROM PAYMENT AND FROM [LIABILITY FOR] ITS VALUE AS FUEL.21
GEMARA. We learned elsewhere: He who eats terumah unwittingly must restore the principal plus a fifth; whether he eats, drinks,
____________________
(1) That whilst in his possession it is his, and he is responsible for all accidents.
(2) Deut. XXIV, 13.
(3) There is no particular righteousness in returning what does not belong to one.
(4) The dictum of R. Isaac.
(5) Therefore he does not transgress in respect of the leaven.
(6) Hence the leaven stood in the ownership of the Israelite.
(7) When he deposited the leaven with him he said to him, 'If I do not repay by the stipulated time, the leaven is yours from now'. Hence the leaven stands in the lender's ownership, whether Jew or Gentile.
(8) Therefore, where the Gentile lent to the Jew, all agree that even if the debt was not repaid, the leaven may not be used, because during Passover it was definitely in the Jew's ownership, notwithstanding that it was deposited with the Gentile, because he does not acquire a title from a Jew. But the dispute arises only where the Israelite lent to the Gentile.
(9) Purni was a large oven in which large loaves were baked. 'Large loaves' are mentioned as a natural thing, since only such are sufficiently valuable to be a pledge.
(10) From now, if I do not repay at the proper time.
(11) In both cases we assume that the leaven was of the stock, and did not belong to one of the workers.
(12) Since it is inaccessible.
(13) Lit., 'whatever'.
(14) Lest the debris be removed during the festival.
(15) The leaven must be covered by not less than three handbreadths of debris; otherwise a dog can search it out, and it would therefore be necessary to remove the debris and destroy the leaven.
(16) That is the only way in which a bailee can carry out his charge; otherwise he is guilty of negligence and liable for theft. — In ancient days there was probably no other place as safe, but nowadays it suffices if the bailee puts the money in the place where he keeps his own (Asheri, B.M. 42a).
(17) If the leaven is covered by less, a dog can smell it.
(18) A town S. of Mahuza.
(19) I.e., he did not know that it was terumah, even if he knew that it was leaven. Though leaven has no value during Passover, yet here he must make the usual restoration of the principal plus a fifth (v. Lev. XXII, 14), not in money but in kind, the same as he ate, v. infra p. 147.
(20) I.e., he knew that it was terumah, even if he did not know that it was leaven.
(21) If the terumah was unclean, when it has no other value, since unclean terumah may not be eaten. The reason is this: the law of restoring the principal plus a fifth, in kind, holds good only when the terumah is misappropriated unwittingly, the restoration being for the purpose of atonement. But when one appropriates it deliberately his act constitutes larceny, and he must return its value in money, not in kind, as in all cases of larceny. Leaven during Passover, however, has no monetary value, all benefit thereof being interdicted: hence he is free from payment.Rather the circumstances here [in both clauses] are that he [the borrower] deposited it [the leaven] with him, and they differ in R. Isaac['s dictum]. For R. Isaac said: Whence do we know that the creditor acquires a title to the pledge?1 Because it is said, [Thou shalt surely restore to him the pledge when the sun goeth down...] and it shall be righteousness unto thee:2 if he has no title thereto, whence is his righteousness?3 Hence it follows that the creditor acquires a title to the pledge. Now the first Tanna holds, That4 applies only to an Israelite [taking a pledge] from an Israelite, since we read in his case, 'and it shall be righteousness unto thee'; but an Israelite [taking a pledge] from a Gentile does not acquire a title.5 While R. Meir holds, [It follows] a fortiori; if an Israelite acquires from an Israelite, how much the more an Israelite from a Gentile! But if a Gentile lent [money] to an Israelite on his leaven, after Passover all agree that he transgresses: there the Gentile certainly does not acquire a title from the Israelite.6
We learned: IF A GENTILE LENT [MONEY] TO AN ISRAELITE ON HIS LEAVEN, AFTER PASSOVER IT IS PERMITTED FOR USE. Now even granted that he deposited it with him, surely you said that a Gentile does not acquire a title from an Israelite? There is no difficulty: there [in the Mishnah] it means that he said to him, 'From now';7 here [in the Baraitha] it means that he did not say to him, 'From now',8 And whence do you assure that we draw a distinction between where he said 'from now and where he did not say 'from now'? — Because it was taught: If a Gentile deposited with an Israelite large loaves as a pledge,9 he [the Israelite] does not transgress; but if he said to him, 'I have made them yours,'10 he transgresses. Why is the first clause different from the second? This surely proves that where he says to him, 'from now,' it is different from where he does not say, 'from now.This proves it.
Our Rabbis taught: A shop belonging to an Israelite and its wares belong to an Israelite, while Gentile workers enter therein, leaven that is found there after Passover is forbidden for use, while it need not be stated for eating. A shop belonging to a Gentile and the wares belong to a Gentile, while Israelite workers go in and out, leaven that is found there after Passover may be eaten, while it is unnecessary to state [that] benefit [is permitted].11
MISHNAH. IF RUINS COLLAPSED ON LEAVEN, IT IS REGARDED AS REMOVED.12 R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: PROVIDED THAT13 A DOG CANNOT SEARCH IT OUT.
GEMARA. R. Hisda said: Yet he must annul it in his heart.14 A Tanna taught: How far is the searching of a dog? Three handbreadths.15 R. Aha the son of R. Joseph said to R. Ashi: As to what Samuel said, Money can only be guarded [by placing it] in the earth16 — do we require [it to be covered by] three handbreadths or not? — Here, he replied, we require three hand breadths on account of the smell [of the leaven];17 but there [it is put into the earth] in order to cover it from the eye; therefore three handbreadths are not required. And how much [is necessary]? — Said Rafram of Sikkara:18 one handbreadth.
MISHNAH. HE WHO EATS TERUMAH OF LEAVEN ON PASSOVER UNWITTINGLY, MUST REPAY [TO THE PRIEST] THE PRINCIPAL PLUS A FIFTH;19 IF DELIBERATELY,20 HE IS FREE FROM PAYMENT AND FROM [LIABILITY FOR] ITS VALUE AS FUEL.21
GEMARA. We learned elsewhere: He who eats terumah unwittingly must restore the principal plus a fifth; whether he eats, drinks,
____________________
(1) That whilst in his possession it is his, and he is responsible for all accidents.
(2) Deut. XXIV, 13.
(3) There is no particular righteousness in returning what does not belong to one.
(4) The dictum of R. Isaac.
(5) Therefore he does not transgress in respect of the leaven.
(6) Hence the leaven stood in the ownership of the Israelite.
(7) When he deposited the leaven with him he said to him, 'If I do not repay by the stipulated time, the leaven is yours from now'. Hence the leaven stands in the lender's ownership, whether Jew or Gentile.
(8) Therefore, where the Gentile lent to the Jew, all agree that even if the debt was not repaid, the leaven may not be used, because during Passover it was definitely in the Jew's ownership, notwithstanding that it was deposited with the Gentile, because he does not acquire a title from a Jew. But the dispute arises only where the Israelite lent to the Gentile.
(9) Purni was a large oven in which large loaves were baked. 'Large loaves' are mentioned as a natural thing, since only such are sufficiently valuable to be a pledge.
(10) From now, if I do not repay at the proper time.
(11) In both cases we assume that the leaven was of the stock, and did not belong to one of the workers.
(12) Since it is inaccessible.
(13) Lit., 'whatever'.
(14) Lest the debris be removed during the festival.
(15) The leaven must be covered by not less than three handbreadths of debris; otherwise a dog can search it out, and it would therefore be necessary to remove the debris and destroy the leaven.
(16) That is the only way in which a bailee can carry out his charge; otherwise he is guilty of negligence and liable for theft. — In ancient days there was probably no other place as safe, but nowadays it suffices if the bailee puts the money in the place where he keeps his own (Asheri, B.M. 42a).
(17) If the leaven is covered by less, a dog can smell it.
(18) A town S. of Mahuza.
(19) I.e., he did not know that it was terumah, even if he knew that it was leaven. Though leaven has no value during Passover, yet here he must make the usual restoration of the principal plus a fifth (v. Lev. XXII, 14), not in money but in kind, the same as he ate, v. infra p. 147.
(20) I.e., he knew that it was terumah, even if he did not know that it was leaven.
(21) If the terumah was unclean, when it has no other value, since unclean terumah may not be eaten. The reason is this: the law of restoring the principal plus a fifth, in kind, holds good only when the terumah is misappropriated unwittingly, the restoration being for the purpose of atonement. But when one appropriates it deliberately his act constitutes larceny, and he must return its value in money, not in kind, as in all cases of larceny. Leaven during Passover, however, has no monetary value, all benefit thereof being interdicted: hence he is free from payment.or anoints [therewith]; whether it was defiled or undefiled terumah, he must pay a fifth and a fifth of the fifth.1 The scholars asked: When he repays, does he repay according to quantity2 or according to value?3 Where it was originally worth four zuz while subsequently it was worth a zuz,4 there is no question, for he must certainly repay on the original [price]. according to its value,5 because it is no worse than a robber, for we learned: All robbers repay as at the time of the robbery.6 The question arises where it was originally worth a zuz while subsequently it was worth four. What then? Must he repay according to quantity, for he [the priest] can say, He ate a griwa,7 he must repay a griwa; or perhaps he repays according to the value: he ate [the worth of] a zuz, he repays [the worth of] a zuz? — Said R. Joseph, Come and hear: If he ate figs [of terumah] and repaid him dates, blessings be upon him! It is well if you say that he must repay according to quantity: therefore 'blessings be upon him,' because he ate a griwa of dried figs, which is worth a zuz, and he returns [him] a griwa of dates, which is worth four. But if you say that he pays according to its value, why should 'blessings be upon him': he ate for a zuz and he returns [as much as] for a zuz? — Said Abaye, Indeed he pays according to value, yet why should 'blessings come upon him'? Because he ate something for which buyers are not eager,8 and he pays [with] something for which buyers are eager.9
We learned:HE WHO EATS TERUMAH OF LEAVEN ON PASSOVER UNWITTINGLY, MUST PAY [TO THE PRIEST] THE PRINCIPAL PLUS A FIFTH. It is well if you say that he must pay according to quantity: then it is right. But if you say that he must pay according to the value, has then leaven on Passover any value? — Yes: the author of this is R. Jose the Galilean, who maintained: Leaven on Passover is permitted for use. If so, consider the second clause: IF DELIBERATELY, HE IS FREE FROM PAYMENT AND FROM [LIABILITY FOR] ITS VALUE AS FUEL. But if [the author is] R. Jose the Galilean, why is he free from payment and from [liability for] its value as fuel?10 — He holds as R. Nehunia b. ha-Kanah. For it was taught: R. Nehunia b. ha-Kanah used to treat the Day of Atonement as the Sabbath in regard to payment, etc.11 This12 is dependent on Tannaim: He who eats terumah of leaven on Passover is free from payment and from [liability for] the value of the fuel: this is R. Akiba's ruling. R. Johanan b. Nuri declares him liable. Said R. Akiba to R. Johanan b. Nuri: What benefit then has he [the priest] therein?13 R. Johanan b. Nuri retorted to R. Akiba: And what benefit has [the priest therein] that he who eats unclean terumah during the rest of the year must pay?14 Not so, replied he: if you speak of unclean terumah during the rest of the year, [that is] because though he [the priest] does not enjoy the right to eat it, yet he enjoys the right to use it as fuel.15 Will you say the same of this, in which he does not enjoy the right of eating or the right to use it as fuel? Hence, to what is this like: to terumah of mulberries and grapes which was defiled, in which he does not enjoy the right of eating or the right to use it as fuel.16 When is this said?17 When he separates terumah and it because leaven. But if he separates terumah of leaven [on Passover], all agree [that] it is not holy.18
Another [Baraitha] taught: [And if a man eat of the holy things unwittingly, then he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it,] and shall give unto the priest the holy thing;19 [that implies,] something which is fit to be holy, thus excluding him who eats terumah of leaven on Passover, [teaching] that he is free from payment and from
holds good when one incurs 'death at the hands of heaven', which is the penalty for eating terumah deliberately. According to this, the first clause, UNWITTINGLY, must now mean that the eater knew neither that it was terumah nor that it was leaven; for if he knew that it was leaven he is liable to kareth, which frees him from payment. [liability for] its value as fuel: this is the view of R. Eliezer b. Jacob; but R. Eleazar Hisma declares him liable. Said R. Eliezer b. Jacob to R. Eleazar Hisma: Yet what benefit has he [the priest] therein? R. Eleazar Hisma replied to R. Eliezer b. Jacob: And what benefit has he [therein] that he who eats unclean terumah during the rest of the year, must pay? Not so, answered he: if you speak of unclean terumah during the rest of the year, [that is] because though he [the priest] does not enjoy the right to eat it, yet he enjoys the right to use it as fuel; will you say [the same] of this, in which he does not enjoy the right of eating or the right to use it as fuel? Said he to him, In this too he has the right to use it as fuel, for if the priest wishes, he can place it before his dog or burn it under his pot.
____________________
(1) The first fifth becomes the same as the original terumah, and if he ate it, he must restore that fifth and a fifth thereof.
(2) Lit., 'measure'.
(3) The question arises because since he must repay in kind it is possible that the quantity is the deciding factor, as explained in the text.
(4) 'Originally' and 'subsequently' mean when he ate it and when he makes restoration respectively.
(5) This he must return quantitively four times as much, and the fifth in addition.
(6) B.K. 93b; i.e., what its value was then.
(7) A dry measure equal to one se'ah.
(8) Sc. 'dried figs'. Lit., 'buyers do not leap upon it'.
(9) Sc. dates.
(10) Seeing that it has a monetary value.
(11) V. supra 29a and note a.l. The same
(12) Whether payment is to be made according to quantity or value.
(13) Seeing that it is forbidden to him for use, he suffers no loss.
(14) I.e., what benefit can a priest derive from unclean terumah, seeing that it must not be eaten. Yet if a lay Israelite eats it, all agree that he must pay. The text is in disorder, cf. Rashi and Tosef. Pes. I.
(15) Lit., 'though he has not in it a permission of eating, yet he has in it a permission of heating'. The other passages below have the same literal meanings.
(16) Strictly speaking, he enjoys the latter right, but it is unfit for fuel on account of the juice
(17) When is it conceivable that terumah of leaven should possess sanctity during Passover?
(18) Even according to R. Jose the Galilean, though he permits general benefit from leaven on Passover. The reason is given below.
(19) Lev. XXII, 14.Abaye said: R. Eliezer b. Jacob, R. Akiba and R. Johanan b. Nuri all1 hold [that] leaven during Passover is forbidden for use, and they differ in this, viz., R. Akiba2 holds: He must pay according to value;3 while R. Johanan b. Nuri holds: He must pay according to quantity. That is obvious? — You might say, R. Johanan b. Nuri also holds as R. Akiba [that] he must pay according to value, but the reason that he declares him liable there is this, [viz..] because he agrees with R. Jose the Galilean who maintained, Leaven is permitted for use on Passover: [therefore] he informs us [that it is not so]. Yet perhaps that indeed is so? — If so, let R. Johanan b. Nuri answer R. Akiba just as R. Eleazar Hisma answered R. Eliezer b. Jacob.
Our Rabbis taught: He who eats as much as an olive of terumah4 must pay the principal plus a fifth. Abba Saul said: [He is not liable] unless it has the worth of a perutah.5 What is the first Tanna's reason? — Scripture saith, And if a man eat of the holy thing unwittingly6 and eating [requires] as much as an olive.7 And Abba Saul: what is [his] reason? — Scripture saith, and he shall give [unto the priest the holy thing].6 and giving is not less than the worth of a perutah. And the other too, surely 'eat' is written? That comes [to teach], excluding him who destroys [terumah].8 And the first Tanna, surely it is written, 'and he shall give'? — He requires that [to intimate that he must return] something which is fit to be holy.9
Our Rabbis taught: He who eats less than an olive of terumah must pay the principal, but he does not pay the [additional] fifth. How is it meant? If it is not worth a perutah, let him not pay the principal either; while if it is worth a perutah, let him pay a fifth too? — After all it means that it is worth a perutah, yet even so, since it was less than an olive he pays the principal but does not pay the fifth. The Rabbis stated this before R. Papa: This is not according to Abba Saul, for if according to Abba Saul, surely he says, since it is worth a perutah, even if it is less than an olive [the law applies]! — Said R. Papa to them: You may even say [that it agrees with] Abba Saul. Abba Saul requires both.10 Yet does Abba Saul require both? Surely we learned, Abba Saul said: For that which possesses the worth of a perutah he [the eater] is liable for payment; [for] that which does not possess the worth of a perutah he is not liable for payment. Said they [the Sages] to him. The worth of a perutah was stated in connection with a trespass-offering only;11 but for terumah he is not liable unless it contains as much as an olive. Now if this is correct,12 they should have stated, 'once it contains as much as an olive'?13 This is a refutation.
Now, R. Papa too retracted,14 for it was taught: [If any one commit a trespass,] and sin unwittingly:15 this excludes deliberate[tres pass]. But does this not follow a fortiori: if other precepts, for [the transgression of] which one is liable to kareth,16 yet [Scripture] exempts the deliberate offender in their case;17 [with regard to] trespass, which does not involve kareth, does it not follow that the deliberate transgressor is exempt? No: if you say [thus] in the case of other precepts, that is because he is not liable to death on their account; will you say [the same] of trespass, for which death is incurred?18 Therefore 'unwittingly' is stated, excluding deliberate [transgression]. Now R. Nahman b. Isaac said to R. Hiyya b. Abin: This Tanna, at first, regards kareth as severer, while subsequently he regards death [at the hands of Heaven] as more severe?19 And he answered him, This is what he means: No; if you say [thus] in the case of other precepts, that is because he is not liable to death on their account for less then an olive; will you say [the same] of trespass, where death is incurred for less than an olive. Whereon he said to him, Thy mind be at rest, because thou hast set my mind at rest. Said he to him, What satisfaction [is there in this answer], seeing that Rabbah and R. Shesheth have swung an axe at it:20 Whom do you know to maintain?
____________________
(1) Rashi omits 'R. Eliezer b. Jacob' and 'all'.
(2) And likewise R. Eliezer b. Jacob.
(3) And since it has no value, the eater is exempt.
(4) This refers to the rest of the year.
(5) The smallest coin.
(6) Lev. XXII, 14.
(7) This is the smallest quantity to which the term 'eating' can be applied.
(8) Without eating it; this law of the extra fifth does not apply in his case.
(9) I.e., the return must be made in kind, which can itself be holy (viz, terumah), not in money, which cannot be terumah.
(10) It must be worth not less than a perutah and be not less than an olive in size.
(11) If he unwittingly converts hekdesh (q.v. Glos.) to secular use he is liable to a trespass-offering, providing the object so misappropriated is worth at least a perutah.
(12) That Abba Saul requires both.
(13) Since he too agrees to this, their view must be: once it contains the size of an olive he is liable even if it is not worth a perutah.
(14) From his view that Abba Saul requires both.
(15) Lev. V, 15: the passage deals with the trespass-offering for the misappropriation of hekdesh and the restitution of the principal plus a fifth.
(16) V. Glos. E.g., if one consumes blood or forbidden fat (heleb).
(17) From a sacrifice, which is due only for an unwitting offence.
(18) Surely not. By 'death', death at the hands of Heaven is meant.
(19) This follows from a comparison of the two halves of the argument.
(20) I.e., proved it to be incorrect.If he deliberately transgressed in respect of a trespass-offering,1 [he is punished] by death? It is Rabbi. For it was taught: If he deliberately transgressed in respect of a trespass-offering, — Rabbi said: [He is punished] by death; while the Sages maintain: By a warning.2 What is Rabbi's reason? — Said R. Abbahu: He derives identity of law from the fact that 'sin' is written here and in the case of terumah:3 just as terumah involves death, so trespass involves death. And from that [it also follows]: just as terumah [involves punishment] for as much as an olive, so trespass [involves punishment] for as much as an olive.4 Now R. Papa demurred:5 How do you know that Rabbi holds as the Rabbis;6 perhaps he agrees with Abba Saul, who said: If it possesses the worth of a perutah, even if it does not contain as much as an olive?7 But surely it was R. Papa who said [that] Abba Saul requires both? Hence this proves that he retracted.
Mar the son of Rabina said, This is what he8 means: No: if you say thus of other precepts — where the unintentional is not treated as intentional, for if he intended cutting what was detached but cut what is attached, he is not culpable;9 will you say [the same] in the case of trespass, where if he intended to warn himself with wool shearings of hullin but warmed himself with the wool shearings of a burnt-offering he is liable to a trespass-offering?
R. Nahman b. Isaac said: He means this: If you say thus in the case of other precepts, that is because he who is not engaged therein is not declared culpable like he who is engaged therein, for if he intended picking up that which was detached but he plucked10 that which is attached [instead], he is not culpable;11 will you say [the same] of trespass, where if he stretched out his hand to take a vessel and [incidentally] anointed his hand with holy oil,12 he is liable for trespass?
The Master said: 'When is this said? When he separates terumah and it became leaven. But if he separates terumah of leaven on Passover, all agree that it is not holy.' Whence do we know this? — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac, Scripture saith, [The firstfruits of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thy oil ...] shalt thou give to him:13 but not for its light.14 R. Huna son of R. Joshua objected: One must not separate terumah from unclean [produce] for clean; yet if he separates [thus] unwittingly, his terumah is valid. Yet why? Let us say, 'for him, but not for his light'? — There is no difficulty: There it enjoyed a time of fitness,15 whereas here16 it did not enjoy a time of fitness.17 And how is it conceivable that it had no time of fitness? E.g. if it became leaven whilst attached [to the soil].18 But if it became leaven when detached,19 would it indeed be holy?20 — Yes, he replied: 'the sentence is by the decree of the watchers, and the matter by the word of the holy ones';21 and thus do they rule22 in the academy in accordance with my view. When R. Huna the son of R. Joshua came,23
____________________
(1) I.e., he deliberately transgressed where an unwitting transgression involves a trespass-offering.
(2) I.e., flagellation. This is a technical term to denote that he has infringed an ordinary negative injunction, for which he is flagellated.
(3) Trespass: If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance in the holy things of the Lord (Lev. V, 15); Terumah: Lest they bear sin for it, and die therefor (Ibid. XXII, 9).
(4) This is the 'axe': according to this R. Hiyya b. Abin is obviously wrong.
(5) In objection to 'those who swung the axe'.
(6) That as much as an olive is the minimum to involve payment or punishment in the case of terumah.
(7) Hence the same applies to trespass too, and thus R. Hiyya b. Abin's answer is correct.
(8) The Tanna of the cited teaching.
(9) This refers to the Sabbath, when one must not cut or pluck produce growing in the soil ('attached'). In the present case he is not liable to a sin-offering, which is only due when a man sins in ignorance, i.e., where he intended to do what he did, but did not know that it was forbidden.
(10) Lit., 'cut'.
(11) Here he was not engaged in plucking or cutting at all.
(12) There too he was not engaged in anointing at all.
(13) Deut. XVII, 4.
(14) I.e., the priest must be able to consume it himself and not have to burn it for its heat or light. Hence if it is separated in a state in which it cannot be eaten, as here, it does not become terumah.
(15) Before it became unclean it was fit to be separated as terumah.
(16) In the case of the leaven terumah.
(17) It was not fit to be terumah before Passover as it goes on explaining.
(18) Whilst before it is harvested it cannot be declared terumah.
(19) I.e., before Passover, so that it was fit to be terumah before the Festival.
(20) If separated as terumah during Passover.
(21) Dan. IV, 14; i.e., this is the view of great teachers.
(22) מורין implies to give a practical, as opposed to a mere theoretical, ruling.
(23) Var. lec. omit, 'came' v. Rashi.]he said, Scripture saith, The firstfruits [of thy corn etc.], [implying] that its residue is distinct [in that it becomes permitted] to the Israelite,1 [thus] this2 is excluded, since its residue is not [so] distinct.3
R. Ala b. R. 'Awia sat before R. Joshua and he sat and said in R. Johanan's name: If grapes are defiled, one may tread them out less than an egg in quantity at a time, and their wine is fit for libations.4 This proves that he holds that the juice is indeed stored up;5 [consequently] when is it [the juice] defiled? When he expresses it; [but] when he expresses it, its standard quantity [for defiling] is absent.6 If so, [he can tread] as much as an egg too, for we learned: If a man unclean through a corpse squeezes out olives or grapes exactly as much as an egg in quantity, they are clean?7 — There it is [thus] if he did it;8 here it is in the first instance [when he must not tread as much as an egg] for fear lest he come to tread9 more than an egg.10 Said R. Hisda to him, Who needs you and R. Johanan your teacher: whither then has their uncleanness11 gone? This proves that he holds that the juice is indeed absorbed,12 and since the [solid] eatable is defiled, the juice too is defiled. And do you not hold that the juice is stored up? he replied. Surely we learned: If he who is unclean through a corpse squeezes out olives and grapes exactly as much as an egg in quantity, they are clean. Now it is well if you say that the liquid is stored up: for that reason it is clean. But if you say [that] it is absorbed, why is it clean? — Said he to him: We discuss here grapes which were not made fit;13 when [then] do they become fit? when he squeezes them;14 but when he squeezes them the standard quantity [for defilement] is diminished.15 For if you should not say thus, [them] when it was taught, 'To what is this like? To terumah of mulberries and grapes which were defiled, which is not permitted to him either for eating or for burning.'16 — but surely it may be eaten too, for if he wishes, he can tread them out less than an egg at a time?17 — Said Raba: It is a preventive measure,18 lest he come to a stumbling-block through them.19 Abaye said to him, Yet do we fear a stumbling-block? Surely it was taught: One may light [a fire] with bread or oil of terumah which was defiled!20 — The bread he casts among the wood, he replied, and the oil of terumah he pours into a repulsive vessel.21
[It was stated in] the text: 'One may light [a fire] with bread or oil of terumah which was defiled'. Abaye said in Hezekiah's name, and Raba said, The School of R. Isaac b. Martha said in R. Huna's name: They learned this of bread only, but not of wheat, lest he come to a stumbling-block through it.22 But R. Johanan said: Even wheat.23 But why? Let us fear lest he come to a stumbling-block through it? — As R. Ashi said [elsewhere].
____________________
(1) I.e., by giving the firstfruits, viz., the terumah to the priest, the residue becomes permitted to the Israelite.
(2) Leaven separated as terumah during Passover.
(3) The residue, being leaven, remains forbidden to the Israelite.
(4) On the altar. Unclean food less than an egg in quantity cannot defile other eatables. Hence when he treads out the grapes in such small quantities, there is never enough to defile the exuded juice, and the wine manufactured therefrom is clean, and consequently fit for libations on the altar, for which, of course, only undefiled wine is valid.
(5) It is not joined, as it were, to the outer skin and part of it, but like a liquid that is kept in a vessel. For if it were held to be absorbed and part of the skin, it would become unclean simultaneously with the skin.
(6) As explained on p. 152, n. 14.
(7) This person defiles food, and the food in turn, if not less than an egg in quantity, defiles liquids. Here the man does not touch the expressed juice. Now after the first drop issues the residue is less than the necessary minimum and therefore it does not defile the liquid that follows
(8) If he squeezes as much as an egg, it is clean.
(9) I.e., tread out.
(10) If he comes to ask what to do, he is told to tread it less than an egg at a time. For if he is permitted to tread out exactly as much as an egg, he may exceed it, thus rendering the whole unclean.
(11) Of the grapes.
(12) As part of the grape, and does not stand separate.
(13) To become unclean. Before an eatable can become unclean it must have had moisture upon it.
(14) I.e., the first drop which exudes and touches the outer skin makes the grapes fit to become unclean.
(15) For after the first drop has oozed out, less than an egg in quantity is left.
(16) V. supra 32a.
(17) If we assume that the liquid is merely stored up. Hence it follows that the liquid is absorbed and is unclean simultaneously with the outer skins of the mulberries and grapes.
(18) Sc. thus denying him the right to squeeze them out in such small quantities.
(19) He may eat them whilst treading them.
(20) And we do not fear that he may come to eat it.
(21) So that in both cases he is not likely to eat it.
(22) Even if wheat is thrown among wood it does not become repulsive.
(23) Is permitted.It refers to boiled [grains]. so that they are repulsive; so here too it refers to boiled [grains]. which are repulsive.1
And where was R. Ashi's [explanation] stated? In reference to what R. Abin son of R. Aha said in R. Isaac's name: Abba Saul was the baker2 in Rabbi's house, and they used to heat him hot water with wheat of defiled terumah, wherewith to knead dough in purity. But why? Let us fear lest he come to a stumbling-block through it?3 — Said R. Ashi: It refers to boiled [grains], which are repulsive.
Abaye b. Abin and R. Hanania b. Abin studied Terumoth4 at Rabbah's academy. Rabbah b. Mattenah met them [and] asked them, What have you discussed in Terumoth, at the Master's academy? — Said they to him, But what is your difficulty? He replied. We learned: Plants of terumah5 which were defiled, and he [their owner] replanted them, are clean in that they do not defile [other eatables],6 but they are forbidden to be eaten [as terumah].7 But since they are clean in that they do not defile, why are they forbidden to be eaten? — Said they to him, Thus did Rabbah say: What is meant by 'forbidden'? They are forbidden to lay Israelites. Now what does he inform us? That that which grows of terumah is [itself] terumah! [But] we have [already] learned it [elsewhere]: That which grows of terumah is terumah?8 And should you answer: It refers to the second growth,9 and what does he inform us? [That this law holds good] in respect of that whose seed10 is not destroyed?11 But surely we learned this too: [In the case of] tebel, that which grows out of it is permitted in a species whose seed is destroyed12 but in the case of a species whose seed is not destroyed, even its second growth13 is forbidden for eating!14 — They were silent. Said they to him, Have you heard anything about this? Thus did R. Shesheth say, he answered, what does 'forbidden' mean? They are forbidden to priests, since they became unfit [for eating] through [his] mental neglect.15 That is correct on the view that mental neglect is an intrinsic disqualification,16 then it is well. But on the view that mental neglect is a disqualification of defilement,17 what can be said?18 For it was stated, [As to] mental neglect: R. Johanan said, It is a disqualification of defilement; while R. Simeon b. Lakish said, It is an intrinsic disqualification.19 'R. Johanan said, It is a disqualification of defilement', for if Elijah should come and declare it clean,20 we heed him.21 'R. Simeon b. Lakish said, It is an intrinsic disqualification', for if Elijah should come and declare it clean, we do not heed him. R. Johanan raised an objection to R. Simeon b. Lakish: R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Beroka said: There was a small passage between the stairway and the altar at the west of the stairway, whither they used to throw disqualified bird sin-offerings until [the flesh] became disfigured22 and then they passed out to the place of burning.23 Now it is well if you say that [mental neglect] is a disqualification of uncleanness: therefore it requires disfigurement, lest Elijah may come and declare it clean.24 But if you say that it is an intrinsic disqualification, what is the need of disfigurement? Surely it was taught, This is the general rule:
____________________
(1) When thrown among the wood.
(2) Lit., 'mixer' (of dough).
(3) If the unclean wheat is kept for that purpose, as above.
(4) The Tractate on the laws of Terumah.
(5) E.g.. cabbages and leeks which were separated as terumah.
(6) Because the planting in the ground removes their uncleanness.
(7) Maharam deletes the bracketed passage. — It is now assumed that the prohibition refers to priests, and they may not be eaten because they are defiled terumah, v. Ter. IX, 7.
(8) Even in the case of a species whose original seed rots away in the earth.
(9) Lit., 'what is growth of what is grown'.
(10) I.e., the original stock.
(11) E.g., an onion, the original stock of which remains when it is planted. Now its original leaves grow larger, and this is referred to as the growth. But in addition it sends out fresh shoots altogether, which never were terumah: these are referred to as the second growth, and we are informed that even these are terumah.
(12) E.g., if tebel of wheat is sown the crop is not tebel. Before produce becomes tebel one may make a light meal of it through he has not yet rendered the tithe and terumah; but nothing whatsoever may be eaten of it when it reaches the stage of tebel. Though that which grows from terumah remains terumah even if its seed is destroyed, that is merely a Rabbinical stringency, lest the priestly dues are thus evaded. But that which grows of tebel is not tebel but ordinary produce of which a light meal may be enjoyed until it becomes tebel, which happens when it is heaped up in a stack.
(13) As explained in n. 7.
(14) Because it retains the same status as that of its parent stock. The same logically applies to terumah that is sown.
(15) And not because it is defiled terumah. The priest must always keep the terumah in mind; v. Num. XVIII, 8: behold, I have given thee the charge of mine heave offerings — 'charge' implies that
(16) I.e., sacred food, even if proved not to have been defiled, becomes unfit thereby, because this neglect is in itself a disqualification.
(17) I.e., it is not a disqualification in itself, but merely because while the priest was not thinking about it it might have become defiled.
(18) For it has now been established that even when it is certainly unclean it regains its cleanliness when replanted.
(19) [This question remains unanswered, v. R. Hananel.]
(20) Elijah was regarded as the future resolver of all doubts; cf. B.M., Sonc. ed. p. 6, n. 2.
(21) Declaring the terumah fit to be eaten.
(22) I.e., by being kept overnight and thus becoming nothar (v. Glos.)
(23) The reference is to the offerings disqualified through mental neglect.
(24) In which case it should not have been burnt. But when it is disfigured it must be burnt in any case.Wherever its disqualification is in itself, it must be burnt immediately; [if it is] in the blood1 or in its owner,2 [the flesh] must become disfigured and [then] it goes out to the place of burning.-
he must think of it. The terumah, having once become defiled, however, the priest would dismiss it from his mind, as he would abandon the hope of using it. Said he to him: This tanna is a tanna of the School of Rabbah b. Abbuha3 who maintained: Even piggul4 requires disfigurement.5
He [R. Johanan] raised an objection to him: If the flesh became unclean or disqualified, or if it passed without the curtains,6 R. Eliezer said: He [the priest] must sprinkle [the blood];7 R. Joshua said: He must not sprinkle [the blood].8 Yet R. Joshua admits that if he does sprinkle [it], [the sacrifice] is accepted.9 Now, what does 'disqualified' mean? Is it not through mental neglect?10 Now, it is well if you say that it is a disqualification of uncleanness, then it is conceivable that the headplate makes it accepted.11 But if you say that it is an intrinsic disqualification why is it accepted?12 What does 'disqualified' mean? It was disqualified by a tebul yom.13 If so, it is identical with 'unclean?' There are two kinds of uncleanness.14
When Rabin went up,15 he reported this teaching16 with reference to the terumah plants before R. Jeremiah, whereupon he observed: The Babylonians are fools. Because they dwell in a land of dark ness17 they engage in dark [obscure] discussions.18 Have you not heard this [dictum] of R. Simeon b. Lakish in R. Oshaia's name: If the water of the Festival was defiled19 and he made level contact and then sanctified it, it is clean; if he sanctified it and then made level contact, it is unclean.20 Now consider: this is 'sowing';21 what does it matter whether he made level contact and then sanctified it or he sanctified it and then made level contact? This proves that 'sowing' has no effect upon hekdesh;22 so here too sowing has no effect upon terumah.23
R. Dimi sat and reported this teaching.24 Said Abaye to him, Does he R. Oshaia mean [that] he sanctified it in a vessel, but if [merely] verbally the Rabbis did not set a higher standard;25 or perhaps for verbal [sanctification]26 too the Rabbis set a higher standard? — I have not heard this, he replied, [but] I have heard something similar to it. For R. Abbahu said in R. Johanan's name: If grapes were defiled and he trod them and then sanctified them,27 they are clean;28 if he sanctified them and then trod them, they are unclean. Now grapes are [a case of] verbal sanctification, yet even so the Rabbis set a higher standard!29 — Said R. Joseph: You speak of grapes! We treat here of grapes of terumah,30 their verbal sanctification is being tantamount to the sanctification of a vessel.31 But those that require a vessel [for sanctification,32 where they are sanctified] verbally [maybe] the Rabbis did not set a higher standard.
'If he trod them' — [does that mean] even in great quantity? But did R. Johanan say thus? Surely R. Johanan said: if grapes are defiled, he may tread them out less than an egg in quantity at a time?33 — If you wish I can say that here too [it means] less than an egg at a time. Alternatively, I can answer: There the case is that they [the grapes] had come into contact with a first degree [of uncleanness], so that they [the grapes] are a second. But here they come into contact with a second degree, so that they are a third.34
Raba said: We too learned [thus]:35 And he shall put thereto running [living] water in a vessel:36 [this teaches] that its running must be [directly] into a vessel.37 'And he shall put' — this proves that it is detached, but surely this is attached!38
____________________
(1) E.g., if the blood was spilled before it could be sprinkled.
(2) E.g.. if he became unclean before the Passover could be eaten and there were no others available to eat it, as the Passover may be eaten only by those registered for it.
(3) [R. Hananel seems to omit 'is a ... who'. R. Simeon b. Lakish could certainly not refer to the School of Rabbah b. Abbuha, who was a disciple of Rab.]
(4) V. Glos. There the flesh itself is certainly disqualified.
(5) 73b.
(6) The partitions of the Temple corresponding to those of the Tabernacle (Jast.). Thus 'without the curtains' means without the enclosures of the Temple Court. This refers to sacrifices of the higher sanctity (v. p. 108, n. 2), whose flesh might not be eaten without these enclosures.
(7) He holds that the blood must be sprinkled even when there is no flesh.
(8) He holds that the blood is dependent on the flesh.
(9) This is a technical term denoting that the sacrifice fulfils its purpose.
(10) For there is no other disqualification, since defilement is stated separately. It cannot mean a disqualification through an illegitimate intention, e.g., if the officiating priest expressed his intention to eat the flesh outside the boundaries or after the time allotted for its eating, for then the blood too is disqualified and can certainly not be sprinkled.
(11) The headplate worn by the High Priest makes atonement in such a case, even if the flesh is definitely unclean; v. supra 16b. Nevertheless R. Joshua rules that the blood must not be sprinkled at the outset, for he holds that the acceptability conferred by the headplate is only if it was sprinkled, but it may not be sprinkled in the first place in reliance on the headplate.
(12) For the headplate cannot make atonement for such a disqualification.
(13) V. Glos. His touch disqualifies it, as he is not really clean until evening falls.
(14) V. Mishnah supra 14a and note a.l.
(15) From Babylonia to Palestine.
(16) Sc. of R. Shesheth.
(17) Babylonia is possibly so called on account of the Parsees (fire-worshippers). who forbade the Jews to have any light in their dwellings on their (the Parsees') festivals.
(18) I.e.. they discuss laws without knowing their true meanings.
(19) 'Festival' without a further determination always means the Feast of Tabernacles. The 'water of the Festival' is that used for libations each day which was drawn the previous evening with great ceremony and joy. Here the reference is to the water for the Sabbath libation; fresh water could not be brought on the Sabbath, and therefore this water had to be made clean.
(20) Unclean water can be purified by placing it in a vessel and immersing the vessel in a mikweh (ritual bath) until the water in the vessel is level with and just touches the water of the mikweh. This is called hashshakah (lit. 'kissing') and the unclean water thereby becomes one with the mikweh, which of course is clean. The water libation was sanctified by formal dedication, or by being poured into a sacred service vessel.
(21) The process of levelling is regarded as 'sowing', as though the water were sown in the mikweh, just as unclean produce becomes clean if it is resown in the earth.
(22) Lit., 'there is no sowing for hekdesh' — to make it clean. The reason is because a higher standard of purity is required in the case of hekdesh.
(23) Hence the plants remain unclean in so far that they are forbidden to be eaten.
(24) Of. R. Oshaia.
(25) I.e., by formal dedication, v. n. 4.
(26) And in such a case levelling is considered effective.
(27) For its wine to be used for libations.
(28) V. supra 33b, where R. Johanan holds that the expressed juice of unclean grapes is clean.
(29) In declaring the expressed juice unclean, whereas it would be clean if it were not sanctified.
(30) The sanctification referred to is not as previously assumed (cf. p. 158. n. 11) for libations but for purposes of terumah.
(31) Since terumah can only be verbally sanctified, there being no sacred vessels to sanctify them.
(32) Such as wine for libations.
(33) V. supra p. 33f notes.
(34) V. supra 14a, p. 62, n. 2. When the grapes are unclean in the second degree they render the juice unclean in the first degree, it being a general rule that whatever disqualifies terumah, i.e., eatables unclean in the second degree, defiles liquids in the first degree (supra 14b). But when they are unclean in the third degree they cannot defile liquids. Hence if he first trod them, even in great quantity, they remain clean. But if he first sanctified them, the expressed juice is unclean, because the Rabbis set a higher standard for terumah.
(35) Viz., that the Rabbis set a higher standard for sacred objects, even when they were verbally sanctified.
(36) Num. XIX, 17.
(37) In which it is sanctified with the ashes of the red heifer, but it must not be collected in another vessel and then poured over into this.
(38) The passage is rather difficult. Rashi: 'And he shall put' implies that Scripture refers to detached water, i.e., water which does not form part of a stream but has been detached and collected in a vessel, whence it is poured into a second vessel containing the ashes. But when the Mishnah states that the running must be direct into the vessel, it insists on attached water, i.e., water forming part of the stream. This must be because the Rabbis set a higher standard. Tosaf.: 'and he shall put' implies that the water is regarded as detached water, which can be defiled, though actually it is running water, as stated, and consequently this proves that by Scriptural law sacred water cannot be made clean by 'levelling' (v. p. 158, n. 4). for levelling only renders it as attached water, whereas we see here that even when attached it is regarded as detached. And just as Scripture thus sets a higher standard for sacred water, so did the Rabbis set a higher standard for terumah. — Maharsha observes (on Rashi's explanation) that he does not see how this proves that the Rabbis set a higher standard even when they were verbally sanctified.but it is a higher standard; so here too it is a higher standard.1 R. Shimi b. Ashi said, We too learned thus: When he [an unclean person] has a ritual bath, he may eat tithe; when the sun sets,2 he may eat terumah. [Thus] only terumah, but not sacred food.3 Yet why so? He is clean? But [you must say] it is a higher standard; so here too it is a higher standard. R. Ashi said, we too learned [thus]: And the flesh:4 this is to include fuel and frankincense.5 Are then fuel and frankincense capable of being defiled?6 But [you must say] it is a higher standard;7 so here too it is a higher standard.
MISHNAH. THESE ARE THE COMMODITIES WITH WHICH A MAN DISCHARGES HIS OBLIGATION ON PASSOVER:8 WITH WHEAT, WITH BARLEY, WITH SPELT, WITH RYE,9 AND WITH OATS. AND THEY DISCHARGE [IT] WITH DEMAI,10 WITH FIRST TITHE WHOSE TERUMAH HAS BEEN SEPARATED, AND WITH SECOND TITHE OR HEKDESH WHICH HAVE BEEN REDEEMED;11 AND PRIESTS [CAN DISCHARGE THEIR OBLIGATION] WITH HALLAH AND TERUMAH. BUT [A MAN CAN]NOT [DISCHARGE HIS OBLIGATION] WITH TEBEL, NOR WITH FIRST TITHE WHOSE TERUMAH HAS NOT BEEN SEPARATED, NOR WITH SECOND TITHE OR HEKDESH WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN REDEEMED. [AS TO] THE [UNLEAVENED] LOAVES OF THE THANKSOFFERING12 AND THE WAFERS OF A NAZIRITE,13 IF HE MADE THEM FOR HIMSELF,14 HE CANNOT DISCHARGE [HIS OBLIGATION] WITH THEM; IF HE MADE THEM TO SELL IN THE MARKET, HE CAN DISCHARGE [HIS OBLIGATION] WITH THEM.
GEMARA. A Tanna taught: Kusmin [spelt] is a species of wheat; oats and rye are a species of barley; kusmin is gulba; shipon is dishra; shiboleth shu'al is foxears.15
Only these16 [are fit],17 but not rice or millet. Whence do we know it? — Said R. Simeon b. Lakish, and thus the School of R. Ishmael taught, and thus the school of R. Eliezer b. Jacob taught, Scripture saith, Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it,' seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith:18 [with regard to] commodities which come to the state of leaven, a man discharges his obligation with unleavened bread [made] thereof; thus these are excluded, which do not come to the state of leaven but to the state of decay.
Our Mishnah does not agree with R. Johanan b. Nuri, who maintains: Rice is a species of corn, and kareth19 is incurred for [eating it in] its leavened state. For it was taught: R. Johanan b. Nuri Prohibits [the use of] rice and millet, because it is near to turn leaven. The scholars asked: does 'because it is near to turn leaven' mean that it quickly becomes leaven,20 or perhaps it is near to leaven, but is not completely leaven?21 — Come and hear: For it was taught, R. Johanan b. Nuri said: Rice is a species of corn and kareth is incurred for [eating it in] its leavened state, and a man discharges his obligation with it on Passover. And thus R. Johanan b. Nuri used to say, Karmith [cow-wheat] is subject to hallah. What is karmith? — Said Abaye: Shezanitha [weed]. What is Shezanitha? Said R. Papa: A weed found among kalnitha.22
Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of Resh Lakish: [As to] dough which was kneaded with wine, oil or honey, kareth is not incurred for [eating it in] its leavened state.23 Now, R. Papa and R. Huna son of R. Joshua sat before R. Idi b. Abin, while R. Idi b. Abin was sitting and dozing. Said R. Huna son of R. Joshua to R. Papa: What is Resh Lakish's reason? — He replied, Scripture saith, Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it etc.: [In the case of] the commodities with which a man discharges his obligation in respect of unleavened bread, kareth is incurred for [eating them in] their leavened state; but [with regard to] this [dough], since a man cannot discharge his obligation therewith, because it is rich mazzah,24 kareth is not incurred for its leaven. R. Huna son of R. Joshua objected to R. Papa: If he dissolves it25 and swallows it, if it is leaven, he is punished with kareth; while if it is unleavened bread, he does not discharge his obligation therewith on Passover.26 Now here, though a man does not discharge his obligation therewith as unleavened bread, yet kareth is incurred for its leaven? — [Thereupon] R. Idi b. Abin awoke [and] said to them, Children! This is the reason of Resh Lakish, because they are fruit juice,27
____________________
(1) Sc. that the resowing of terumah does not permit it to be eaten (supra 34a).
(2) Lit., 'his sun makes evening'.
(3) If his uncleanness requires a sacrifice, e.g.. in the case of a zab, he may not eat sacred food until he has brought the sacrifice, though he is completely clean.
(4) Lev. VII, 19.
(5) V. supra 24b and notes a.l.
(6) Surely not, as they are not eatables!
(7) Though fuel and frankincense cannot usually be defiled, a higher standard is set when they are to be used in the sacred service.
(8) Unleavened bread is obligatory on the first night of Passover, as it is written, on the fourteenth day of the month at even ye shall eat unleavened bread (Ex. XII, 18). The Mishnah enumerates the species of corn with which this unleavened bread, eaten as an obligation, can be made.
(9) Jast.: others: oats.
(10) V. Glos.
(11) One tenth (tithe) of the produce, called the first tithe, was given to the Levite, and he in turn gave a tenth thereof, called the terumah of tithe, to the priest. Another tenth of the produce, called the second tithe, was eaten by its owners
(Israelites, as opposed to Levites and priests) in Jerusalem, or redeemed and the redemption money was expended in Jerusalem. Hekdesh (q.v. Glos.) could be similarly redeemed. The second tithe reference in the Mishnah is to places outside Jerusalem.
(12) The thanksoffering was accompanied by forty loaves, thirty of which were unleavened.
(13) V. Num. VI, 15.
(14) For his own sacrifice.
(15) Ears of corn foxtailed in shape. — The other words are the Aramaic in general use.
(16) Enumerated in our Mishnah.
(17) For making unleavened bread as defined on p. 160, n. 8.
(18) Deut. XVI, 3.
(19) V. Glos.
(20) And therefore it is altogether forbidden on Passover, as it turns leaven before it can be baked.
(21) I.e., it can never become completely leaven. Hence R. Johanan b. Nuri prohibits its use on the first night for the fulfilment of one's obligations.
(22) Papaver Spinosum (Jast.).
(23) If no water at all was used in kneading it.
(24) Unleavened bread made with wine etc., is a rich confection, whereas Scripture prescribes 'bread of poverty' (E.V. affliction — Deut. XVI, 3).
(25) Sc. bread.
(26) Because swallowing soaked bread is not eating.
(27) Sc. wine, oil or honey, date-honey being meant.and fruit juice does not cause fermentation.1
AND THEY DISCHARGE THEIR OBLIGATION WITH DEMAI AND WITH THE FIRST TITHE etc. DEMAI? But it is not fit for him?2 — Since if he wishes he can renounce his property, become a poor man, and eat demai,3 it is fit for him now too. For we learned: The poor may be fed with demai, and [Jewish] troops [in billets] [may be supplied] with demai.4 And R. Huna said, It was taught: Beth Shammai maintain: The poor may not be fed with demai, nor troops in billets; but Beth Hillel rule: The poor may be fed with demai, also troops in billets.
FIRST TITHE WHOSE TERUMAH HAS BEEN SEPARATED. That is obvious? Since its terumah has been separated, it is hullin?5 — It is necessary [to teach it] only where he anticipated it [in setting it aside6 while the corn was still] in the ears, and terumah of the tithe was taken from it, but the great terumah was not taken from it,7 this being in accordance with R. Abbahu. For R. Abbahu said in the name of Resh Lakish: First tithe which he anticipated [the setting aside thereof] in the ears is exempt from the great terumah, for it is said, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the Lord, a tithe of the tithe:8 I ordered thee [to offer] 'a tithe of the tithe', but not the great terumah plus the terumah of the tithe 'of the tithe'. Said R. Papa to Abaye: If so, even if he anticipated it in the stack too,9 let it be exempt? — For your sake Scripture writes, out of all you,' gifts ye shall offer every heave offering of the Lord,10 he answered him. And what [reason] do you see [to interpret thus]?11 — The one has become corn [dagan], while the other has not become corn.12
THE SECOND TITHE AND HEKDESH WHICH HAVE BEEN REDEEMED etc. That is obvious? — We treat here of a case where he assigned13 the principal but did not assign the fifth:14 and he [the Tanna] informs us that the fifth is not indispensable.15
AND PRIESTS [DISCHARGE THEIR OBLIGATION] WITH HALLAH AND TERUMAH etc. This is obvious? — You might say, We require unleavened bread that is equally permitted] to all men. Therefore he informs us, [the repetition] 'unleavened bread', 'unleavened bread',16 is an extension.
BUT NOT WITH TEBEL etc. That is obvious? — It is necessary [to teach it] only of tebel made so by Rabbinical law, e.g., if it was sown in an unperforated pot.17
NOR WITH FIRST TITHE WHOSE TERUMAH HAS NOT BEEN SEPARATED. That is obvious? — It is necessary [to state it] only where it had been anticipated [and set aside] in the pile.18 You might argue as R. Papa proposed to Abaye;19 hence he [the Tanna] informs us [that it is] as Abaye answered him.
NOR WITH SECOND TITHE OR HEKDESH WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN REDEEMED etc. That is obvious? — It is necessary only where they have been redeemed; and what does they 'HAVE NOT BEEN REDEEMED' mean? That they have not been redeemed with their regulations.20 [Thus:] it is second tithe which he redeemed with uncoined metal,21 for the Divine Law states, And thou shalt bind up [we-zarta] the money in thine hand,22 [implying], that which bears a figure [zurah].23 [Again it is] hekdesh which was secularized24 by means of land,25 for the Divine Law stated, Then he shall give the money and it shall be assured to him.26
Our Rabbis taught: One might think that a man can discharge his obligation with tebel which was not made ready.27 (But surely all tebel indeed has not been made ready! — Rather say, with tebel which was not made ready with all its requirements, the great terumah having been separated from it whereas the terumah of tithe was not separated from it; [or] the first tithe, but not the second tithe, or even the poor tithe).28 Whence do we know it?29 Because it is stated, thou shalt not eat leavened bread with it:30 teaching, [you must eat of] that the interdict of which is on account of 'thou shalt not eat leavened bread with it', thus this is excluded, for its interdict is not on account of 'thou shalt not eat leavened bread with it' but on account of 'thou shalt not eat tebel'.31 Yet whither has the interdict of leaven gone?32 — Said R. Shesheth, The author of this is R. Simeon, who maintained, A prohibition cannot fall33 upon another prohibition.34 For it was taught, R. Simeon said:
____________________
(1) I.e., 'leavening'.
(2) Demai may not be eaten until the tithe has been separated.
(3) A poor man need not separate tithe on demai.
(4) They too are regarded as poor, since they are not at home.
(5) I.e., permitted for food.
(6) Sc. the separation of the first tithe.
(7) The great terumah is a portion of the produce, unspecified by Scripture (the Rabbis prescribed from one fortieth to one sixtieth, according to the owner's generosity), which is the priest's due; for terumah of tithe v. note on Mishnah supra 35a. The great terumah must be separated first, and then the first tithe. But here the order was reversed and the Israelite separated his tithe while the grain was yet in the ears.
(8) Num. XVIII, 26.
(9) I.e.. when it is no longer in the ears but piled up in stacks.
(10) Ibid. 29; i.e. 'all' is an extension, and shows that the offering is due even in such a case. — 'For your sake' or, 'concerning you' — to refute this possible view.
(11) To apply the limitation of the first verse to the one case and the extension of the second to the other — perhaps it should be reversed?
(12) The priestly due, i.e., the great terumah, is 'the firstfruits of thy corn' (Deut. XVIII, 4). Hence once it is piled up as corn it is due, and the Israelite cannot then evade his obligations by reversing the order. But before it is piled up there is no obligation for the great terumah; therefore if the Levite receives his first tithe then he is not defrauding the priest.
(13) Lit., 'gave' — for redemption.
(14) When a man redeemed second tithe or hekdesh he added a fifth of its value.
(15) To the validity of the redemption, and the redeemed produce may be consumed anywhere, even though the fifth has not been added.
(16) This may refer either to Deut. XVI, 4, 8, or in general to the fact that 'unleavened bread' is repeated several times.
(17) According to Scriptural law such is not tebel at all, and therefore I would think that a man discharges his obligation therewith.
(18) The tithe having been separated but not the great terumah.
(19) That it is exempt, supra.
(20) Lit., 'laws'.
(21) V. B.M. 47b for the meaning asimon.
(22) Deut. XIV, 25.
(23) The image stamped on the coin. This connects zarta with zurah.
(24) I.e., redeemed, whereby the hekdesh assumes an ordinary, non-holy character.
(25) I.e.. land was given for its redemption.
(26) I.e.,it can be redeemed by money, but not by land. Actually there is no such verse, but v. B.M., Sonc. ed. p. 321, n. 1.
(27) For eating, by separating the priestly and the Levitical dues.
(28) In the first, second, fourth, and fifth years after the 'years of release' (shemittah) the first and second tithes were separated. In the third and sixth years, the first and third tithes were separated, the latter being a poor tithe, i.e., it belonged to the poor.
(29) That he cannot discharge his obligation therewith.
(30) Deut. XVI, 3.
(31) I.e., the unleavened bread which one must eat must be such that, if leavened, it would be forbidden because it is leavened. But in the case of tebel, if it were leavened it would be forbidden because it is tebel.
(32) Surely it is still forbidden on account of leaven, tebel merely being an additional prohibition?
(33) I.e., become operative.
(34) I.e., when a thing is already forbidden on one score, another interdict cannot become operative at the same time. Thus here the prohibition of tebel is earlier; consequently the fact that it subsequently became leaven too is ignored, and it is regarded as prohibited on account of tebel only.He who eats nebelah on the Day of Atonement is not liable [to a sin-offering].1 Rabina said, You may even say [that it agrees with] the Rabbis: [the meaning is] that the interdict which is on account of thou shalt not eat leavened bread with it' alone, thus this is excluded, for its interdict is not on account of 'thou shalt not eat leavened bread with it' alone, but also on account of 'thou shalt not eat tebel'. Is then 'alone' written?2 — Rather, it is clearly as R. Shesheth [stated].
Our Rabbis taught. You might think that a man can discharge his obligation with second tithe in Jerusalem; therefore it is stated, the bread of affliction ['oni],3 teaching, [it must be] that which may be eaten in grief [aninuth].4 thus this is excluded, which is not eaten in grief but [only] in joy:5 this is the view of R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba said: [The repetition of] 'unleavened bread', 'unleavened bread', is an extension.6 If so, what is taught by 'bread of affliction' ['oni]? It excludes dough which was kneaded with wine, oil, or honey.7 What is R. Akiba's reason? — Is then lehem [bread of] 'oni [grief] written? Surely 'ani [poverty] is written.8 And R. Jose the Galilean?9 — Do we then read it 'ani? Surely we read it 'oni. And R. Akiba? — The fact that we read it 'oni [is explained] as Samuel's [dictum]. For Samuel said: Bread of 'oni [means] bread over which many words are recited ['onin].10 Yet does R. Akiba hold [that] dough which was kneaded with wine, oil, or honey is not [fit]? Surely it was taught: Dough must not be kneaded on Passover with wine, oil, or honey; and if one did knead it, — R. Gamaliel said: It must be burnt immediately;11 while the Sages say: It may be eaten. Now R. Akiba related: I was staying [one Passover] with R. Eliezer and R. Joshua, and I kneaded dough for them with wine, oil or honey, and they said nothing to me. And though one may not knead, yet one may smooth the surface with them, — this is according to the first Tanna. But the Sages maintain: With that with which one may knead, one may smooth, while with that with which one may not knead, one may not smooth. And they ail agree that dough may not be kneaded with lukewarm [water]!12 — There is no difficulty: the one refers to the first day of the Festival; the other, to the second day of the Festival.13 As R. Joshua b. Levi said to his sons: For the first day14 do not knead [it] for me with milk;15 from then onwards knead it for me with milk. But it was taught: Dough must not be kneaded with milk, and if one does knead it, the whole loaf is forbidden, because it leads to sin?16 Rather, he said this: For the first day do not knead it for me with honey; from then onwards knead [it] for me with honey. Alternatively I can say: After all it means with milk, [but] as Rabina said, [When made] like the eye of an ox, it is permitted;17 so here too, [it was] like the eye of an ox.
'And they all agree that dough may not be kneaded with lukewarm [water]'. Why is it different from meal-offerings: for we learned: All meal-offerings18 are kneaded with lukewarm water, and he [the official in charge] guards them that they should not become
in connection with the eating of unleavened bread on the night of Passover. leaven? — If this was said of [very] careful men [priests], shall it [also] be said of those who are not careful?19 If so, let it also be permitted to wash [the grain];20 why did R. Zera say in the name of Rabbah b. Jeremiah in Samuel's name: The wheat for meal-offerings must not be washed? — The kneading was done by careful men, but the washing would not be done by careful men.21 Yet must the kneading be done by careful men [priests]; surely it is written, and he shall bring it to Aaron's sons the priests: and he shall take thereof his handful.'22 from the taking of the handful and onwards is the duty of the priesthood; this teaches concerning the pouring [of oil] and the mixing,23 that it is valid [when done] by any man? — The kneading, granted that it is not [done] by careful men, yet it is [done] in the place of careful men.24 For a Master said: The mixing is valid [if done] by a lay Israelite; [but if done] without the wall[s] of the Temple Court, it is invalid. Thus this excludes washing, which is not [done] by careful men nor in the place of careful men. And wherein do they [all other meal-offerings] differ from the meal-offering of the 'omer,25 for it was taught: The meal-offering of the 'omer is washed and heaped up?26 — A public [offering] is different.27 Our Rabbis taught: You might think that a man discharges his duty with first fruits,28 therefore it is stated, in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread,29 teaching, [it must be] unleavened bread which is eaten in all your habitations, thus excluding first fruits, which may not be eaten in all your habitations save in Jerusalem [alone]: this is the view of R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba said: Unleavened bread and bitter herbs [are assimilated]:30 just as bitter herbs which are not first fruits [are required],31 so unleavened bread which is not first fruits [must be eaten]. If so, just as bitter herbs of a species not subject to first fruits [are required], so unleavened bread of a species [of grain] not subject to first fruits [is meant],
____________________
(1) Which eating on the Day of Atonement usually incurs, the reference being to eating in ignorance. The reason is that since it is forbidden on the score of nebelah, the interdict of the Day of Atonement cannot take effect. Thus the same applies here.
(2) Surely not! Scripture does not imply this at all.
(3) Deut. XVI, 3.
(4) Connecting 'oni (עני) with anah (אנה) to mourn or grieve, though the former is spelled with an ע, while the latter is with an א, these letters often being interchangeable in Semitic languages. — Aninuth denotes the state of grief between the death of a near relative, e.g., one's father, and his burial, the bereaved person then being called an onen.
(5) An onen (v. preceding note) may not eat second tithe, cf. Deut. XXVI, 14:]I have not eaten thereof
(sc. second tithe) in my mourning
(6) V. supra 35b and note a.l. Thus it includes second tithe.
(7) Which makes it into 'rich' mazzah. The phrase is now translated: bread of poverty. from 'ani (עני) poor.
(8) Though the word is read 'oni, as though spelled with a waw (עוני), it is actually written 'ani (עני), without a waw.
(9) How does he rebut this?
(10) A long liturgical service — called the haggadah — is read
(11) R. Gamaliel holds that it ferments too quickly, and so to prevent it from becoming leaven it must be burnt immediately. But the Sages hold that it can be baked before it is leaven.
(12) This causes fermentation very quickly.
(13) On the night of the first day the mazzah must be 'bread of poverty', whereas this is a rich mazzah; hence it cannot be used. But on the second night any mazzah is permissible.
(14) I.e., Passover night.
(15) This too makes a 'rich' bread.
(16) One may come to eat it with meat. This refers to the whole year.
(17) I.e., when made very small, so that it is at once entirely eaten up, and nothing is left for later.
(18) Which were offered unleavened.
(19) This is the answer. The preparing of unleavened bread for meal-offerings was in the hands of priests, who were very careful and could be relied upon not to permit it to ferment. But unleavened bread for Passover is made in every home, and the people could not be trusted to take so much care.
(20) I.e., to soak it slightly in water and then pound it so as to remove the bran and make a fine flour.
(21) This was not the priest's duty.
(22) Lev. II, 2.
(23) Which preceded the taking of the handful; v. ibid. 1, 2.
(24) I.e., in the Temple Court, which is frequented by priests, and these would take heed that whoever kneaded it should not permit fermentation.
(25) V. Glos.
(26) For the water to drain off.
(27) This was a public offering, and everything in connection with it, right from the harvesting of the grain, was done under competent guidance and vigilance.
(28) E.g., a priest to whom an Israelite brought the first fruits of his wheat harvest.
(29) Ex. XII, 20.
(30) Num. IX, 11: they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.
(31) For only the seven species enumerated in Deut. VIII, 8, ('a land of wheat and barley, and vines and fig trees and pomegranates; a land of oil olive and honey') are subject to the law of first fruits.[and] I will [thus] exclude wheat and barley, which species are subject to first fruits? Hence [the repetition,] 'unleavened bread', unleavened bread',1 is stated as an extension. If [the repetition] 'unleavened bread, unleavened bread' is an extension, then even first fruits too [may be included]? — R. Akiba retracted.2 For it was taught: You might think that a man can discharge his obligation with first fruits. Therefore it is stated, 'in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread', teaching, [it must be] unleavened bread which is eaten in all your habitations, thus excluding first fruits, which may not be eaten in all your habitations save in Jerusalem [alone]. You might think that I exclude second tithe too,3 but [the repetition] 'unleavened bread', 'unleavened bread',is stated as an extension. But what [reason] do you see to include second tithe and exclude first fruits? — I include second tithe because it can be permitted [to be eaten] in all habitations,4 in accordance with R. Eleazar, and I exclude first fruits, for which there is no permission in all habitations. For R. Eleazar said: Whence do we know in the case of second tithe that became defiled, that we can redeem it even in Jerusalem? From the verse, when thou art not able se'etho [to bear it].5 Now se'eth6 can only refer to eating, as it is said, And he took and sent mase'oth [messes] unto them from before him.7 Now, whom do you know to maintain that he fulfils his obligation with second tithe? R. Akiba.8 Yet he excludes first fruits through [the phrase] 'in all your habitations'.9 This proves that he retracted.
And R. Jose the Galilean, let him deduce it from [the phrase] 'the bread of affliction ['oni]', implying, that which can be eaten in grief, thus excluding this [sc. first fruits], which can be eaten only in rejoicing?10 — He holds as R. Simeon, For it was taught: First fruits are forbidden to an onen;11 but R. Simeon permits [them]. What is the reason of the Rabbis?12 — Because it is written, Thou mayest not eat within thy gates [the tithe of thy corn ... nor the heave-offering of thy hand],13 and a Master said: 'The heave-offering of [terumoth] thy hand' means first fruits. Thus first fruits are assimilated to tithe: just as tithe is forbidden to an onen,14 so are first fruits forbidden to an onen. And R. Simeon?15 — The Divine Law designated them 'terumah', [hence they are] like terumah: just as terumah is permitted to an onen, so are first fruits permitted to an onen. Now R. Simeon: granted that he does not accept the hekdesh,16 yet 'rejoicing' is nevertheless written in connection therewith, for it is written, and thou shalt rejoice in all the good etc.?17 — That comes for the time of rejoicing.18 For we learned: From Pentecost until the Festival [of Tabernacles] he [the Israelite] brings [the first fruits] and recites [the 'confession'];19 between the Festival and Hanukkah20 he brings [the first fruits] but does not recite [the 'confession'].
Our Rabbis taught: 'Bread of poverty', this excludes halut21 and ashishah [pancake].22 You might think that a man can discharge his obligation only with coarse bread;23 therefore [the repetition] 'unleavened bread', 'unleavened bread', is stated as an extension, [intimating] even [if it is] like the unleavened bread of Solomon.24 If so, why is 'bread of poverty' stated? To exclude halut and pancakes. And where is it implied that this [word] 'ashishah' denotes something of value?25 — Because it is written, And he dealt among all the people, even among the whole multitude of Israel, both to men and women, to every one a cake of bread, and a good piece of flesh [eshpar] and an ashishah,26 whereon R. Hanan b. Abba said: 'Eshpar' means one sixth [ehad mishshishah] of a bullock [par];ashishah means [a cake made with] one sixth of an ephah [of flour].27 Now he differs from Samuel, for Samuel said: Ashishah is a cask of wine, for it is written, and love casks of [ashishe] grapes.28
Our Rabbis taught: One may not bake a thick loaf on Passover: this is the view of Beth Shammai;
____________________
(1) V. supra 35b and note a.l.
(2) From, the view that unleavened bread and bitter herbs are assimilated in this respect, and he accepts the deduction of R. Jose the Galilean.
(3) In Jerusalem, since it may not be eaten outside Jerusalem.
(4) When it becomes defiled as explained below.
(5) Deut. XIV, 24; the next verse states, then thou shalt turn it into money.
(6) שאת, to bear.
(7) Gen. XLIII, 34. Thus he translates the first verse: If thou are not able to eat it — being defiled — then thou shalt turn it into money — i.e., redeem it.
(8) Supra 36a.
(9) Not by assimilating unleavened bread and bitter herbs.
(10) V. supra 36a. Why then does he deduce it from, 'in all your habitations'?
(11) V. supra p. 166, n. 4.
(12) I.e., the first view, which forbids.
(13) Deut. XII, 17.
(14) V. Deut. XXVI, 14.
(15) How does he justify his view?
(16) V. Glos. I.e., even if he rejects the comparison of first fruits and tithe.
(17) Ibid. 11; this refers to first fruits. Since rejoicing is required, an onen is automatically excluded.
(18) I.e., to teach that the first fruits must be brought to the priest, and the passage relative thereto, called the 'confession', recited at a time of natural rejoicing, viz., during the months of harvesting and collecting the produce from the fields.
(19) Sc. Deut. XXVI, 3-10.
(20) V. Glos. It generally falls towards the end of December.
(21) A rich bread made of dough prepared by stirring the flour with hot water.
(22) Where the dough is made compact and substantial by pressing (Jast.).
(23) Which is really 'bread of poverty'.
(24) I.e., made of the finest flour.
(25) Viz., a rich food.
(26) II Sam. VI, 19.
(27) E.V.: a cake of raisins.
(28) Hos. III, 1; i.e., of wine. E.V.: cakes of raisins.but Beth Hillel permit it. And how much is a thick loaf?1 Said R. Huna, A handbreadth, because thus we find in the case of the shewbread [that it was] a handbreadth.2 To this R. Joseph demurred: If they [the Sages] said [this] of men of care,3 did they say [it] of those who are not careful?4 If they said [this] of well-kneaded bread, did they say [it] of bread that is not well-kneaded? If they said [this] of dry logs, did they say [it] of damp logs? If they said [this] of a hot oven, did they say [it] of a cool oven? If they said [this] of a metal oven, did they say [it] of an earthen oven?5 Said R. Jeremiah b. Abba, I asked my teacher in private, and who is it? Rab — others state, R. Jeremiah b. Abba said in Rab's name, I asked my teacher in private, and who is it? Our holy Teacher.6 What is [meant by] a thick bread? Bread in large quantity.7 And why is it called a thick bread? Because it is much in kneading.8 Alternatively, in the locality of this Tanna bread in large quantity is called thick bread.
[Then] what is the reason:9 if because he takes unnecessary trouble,10 — why particularly on Passover: even on any [other] festival too [it is forbidden]? — That indeed is so, but this Tanna was engaged on11 the festival of Passover. It was taught likewise:12 Beth Shammai maintain: One may not bake thick bread on a festival,13 while Beth Hillel permit it.
Our Rabbis taught: You discharge [your obligation] with fine bread,14 with coarse bread,15 and with Syrian cakes shaped in figures. although they [the Sages] said, Syrian cakes shaped in figures must not be made on Passover. Rab Judah said: This thing Boethus b. Zonin asked the Sages: Why was it said [that] Syrian cakes shaped in figures must not be made on Passover? Said they to him, Because a woman would tarry over it and cause it to turn leaven. [But], he objected, it is possible to make it in a mould, which would form it without delay.16 Then it shall be said, replied they, [that] all Syrian cakes [shaped in figures] are forbidden, but the Syrian cakes of Boethus are permitted!17
R. Eleazar b. Zadok said: I once followed18 my father into the house of R. Gamaliel, and they placed19 before him Syrian cakes shaped in figures on Passover. Said I, 'Father, did not the Sages say thus, One may not make Syrian cakes shaped in figures on Passover?' 'My son', he replied, 'they did not speak of [the cakes of] all people, but only of those of bakers'.20 Others say, he said thus to him: 'They did not speak of those of bakers, but [only] of those of private people'.21
R. Jose said: One may make Syrian cakes like wafers, but one may not make Syrian cakes like rolls. We learned elsewhere:22 Sponge cakes,23 honey cakes, paste-balls,24 cakes made in a mould, and mixed dough25 are exempt from hallah.26 What are cakes made in a mould? — Said R. Joshua b. Levi: That is halut27 of private people.28 Resh Lakish said: These are prepared in an ilpes.29 While R. Johanan maintained: Those which are prepared in an ilpes are liable [to hallah], but these [are exempt] because they were prepared in the sun.
An objection is raised: Sponge cakes, honey cakes, and pasteballs: if prepared in an ilpes, they are liable [to hallah]; if in the sun, they are exempt. This is a refutation of R. Simeon b. Lakish? Said 'Ulla, R. Simeon b. Lakish can answer you: The case we treat of here is where he [first] heated [the ilpes] and then placed [the dough in it].30 But what [is the law] if he [first] placed [the dough] and then heated it? Are they indeed exempt! Then instead of teaching [in] the second clause, 'if prepared in the sun, they are exempt', let him draw a distinction in that itself and teach: When is that? E.g., if he heated [it] and then placed [the dough]; but if he [first] placed [the dough] and then heated it, they are exempt? There is a lacuna[in this teaching], and it was thus taught: When is that? If he heated [it] and then placed [the dough]; but if he first
for the shape to be exactly right and so may take too long over it. But private people are not so particular. placed [the dough] and then heated it, it becomes as though he prepared it in the sun, and they are exempt.
Come and hear: You discharge your duty with partially baked unleavened bread and unleavened bread which was prepared in an ilpes?31 — Here too it means that he [first] heats it and then places [the dough]. What is partially baked unleavened bread?32 — Said Rab Judah in Samuel's name: Whatever can be broken without threads dragging from it.33 Raba said: And the same [rule applies to] loaves of the thanksoffering.34 That is obvious: 'bread' is written here and 'bread' is written there?35 — You might say, since it is written, and he shall offer one
____________________
(1) Which Beth Hillel permit.
(2) Though the shewbread was unleavened (Men. 27a).
(3) Sc. the priests.
(4) Unleavened bread for Passover is made by all, and many cannot exercise sufficient care to prevent the dough from fermenting when it is so thick.
(5) In the preparation of the shewbread all these conditions would be observed; but they might be absent in a private home.
(6) Viz., R. Judah ha-Nasi.
(7) Though baked in thin wafers.
(8) I.e., when sufficient dough is kneaded for many wafers.
(9) That Beth Shammai forbid it, seeing that we are actually dealing with thin wafers.
(10) In kneading so much at a time. Though food may be prepared on Festivals, unnecessary trouble is forbidden.
(11) Lit., 'standing at'.
(12) That it is forbidden because of the unnecessary labour.
(13) Here Passover is not mentioned.
(14) Bread made of fine meal.
(15) 'Ar.: thick bread.
(16) Lit., 'immediately'.
(17) Which is absurd. Most bakers lack these moulds!
(18) Lit., 'entered after'.
(19) Lit., 'brought'.
(20) Who bake for sale. They are more particular
(21) Because professionals are more expert; also they may have moulds, and so can make them more quickly.
(22) This is the reading of Ran, and it is so emended here by Bah.
(23) Cakes made from a spongy dough.
(24) A kind of cake made of very loose dough.
(25) A dough of hullin into which there fell dough of terumah.
(26) V. Glos.
(27) V. p. 170. n. 14.
(28) I.e., home-made pancakes. They are not made like bread, and only dough made for bread is subject to hallah.
(29) Jast.: a tightly covered stew pot. I.e., it is not bread at all, Resh Lakish holding that only that which is baked in an oven is bread to be subject to hallah.
(30) When the ilpes is first heated it is similar to an oven.- Hidbik (הדביק) lit., 'to cause to cleave', the cake being pressed to the side of the pot, which was the ancient method of baking.
(31) Which proves that what is baked in an ilpes is bread, thus refuting R. Simeon b. Lakish.
(32) What is the minimum?
(33) It must be baked at least as much as that.
(34) The thanksoffering was accompanied by forty loaves, which were sanctified by the killing of the sacrifice. As soon as the loaves have arrived at this stage of baking as defined by Rab Judah, they become sanctified by the slaughtering of the sacrifice, and the sacrifice itself valid.
(35) Obviously then the same definition applies to both. Hallah: when ye eat of the bread of the land (Num. XV, 19); the thanksoffering: Lev. VII, 13: with cakes of leavened bread etc.out of each oblation,1 'one' [intimating] that he should not take a broken-off piece, whereas here it is as broken off:2 therefore he informs us [that it is not so].
An objection is raised: The me'isah,3 Beth Shammai exempt it [from hallah], while Beth Hillel hold it liable [thereto]. The halitah,4 Beth Shammai hold it liable [to hallah], while Beth Hillel exempt [it]. Which is 'me'isah' and which is 'halitah'? 'Me'isah' is flour [poured] over boiling water; 'halitah' is boiling water [poured] over flour. R. Ishmael b. R. Jose ruled in his father's name [that] both are exempt — others state, that both are liable. But the Sages maintained: Both the one and the other, if prepared in an ilpes, each is exempt; in an oven, each is liable. Now according to the first Tanna, wherein does me'isah differ from halitah?5 — Said Rab Judah in Samuel's name, and thus did R. Johanan — others state, R. Joshua b. Levi-say: Just as there is a controversy in respect of the one so is there a controversy in respect of the other, and they [the two clauses] are contradictory, he who learnt the one not having learnt the other.6 Now it is at all events taught, 'But the Sages maintain: Both the one and the other, if prepared in an ilpes, each is exempt; in an oven, each is liable', which is a refutation of R. Johanan? — R. Johanan can answer you, It is dependent on Tannaim. For it was taught: You might think that me'isah and halitah are liable to hallah, therefore 'bread' is stated. R. Judah said: Nought is bread save that which is baked in an oven. Now R. Judah is identical with the first Tanna? Hence Surely they differ over that which is prepared in an ilpes: the first Tanna holds, That which is prepared in an ilpes is liable; while R. Judah holds, That which is prepared in an oven is exempt! — No: All
(agree) that what is prepared in an ilpes is exempt, but they differ here, e.g., where he rebaked it in an oven,7 the first Tanna holding [that] since he rebaked it in an oven, it is called 'bread'; while R. Judah holds, Nought is bread save that which is baked in an oven from the very beginning, and since this was not baked in an oven from the very beginning, we do not call it 'bread'. Raba said, What is R. Judah's reason? — Because it is written, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven:8 bread which is baked in one oven is called bread, but that which is not baked in one oven is not called bread.9Rabbah and R. Joseph were sitting behind R. Zera, and R. Zera was sitting in front of 'Ulla. Said Rabbah to R Zera, Ask 'Ulla: What if he placed [the dough] within,10 and boiled it up11 from without?12 What shall I ask him, he replied, for if I ask him he will say to me, That then is the [very] preparation of an ilpes!13 — R. Joseph [then] said to R. Zera, Ask 'Ulla: What if he placed [the dough] inside and the flame is opposite it?14 What shall I ask him, he replied. for if I ask him he will reply. Most poor people do this.15
R Assi said: Dough of second tithe, according to R. Meir,16 is exempt from hallah; according to the Rabbis,17 it is liable to hallah.
____________________
(1) Ibid. 14.
(2) Since it is not completely baked.
(3) A paste made of flour poured over boiling water, contrad. to halitah, where the boiling water is poured over flour, as explained in the text.
(4) V. preceding note.
(5) The Mishnah is first dismissed and explained, and then the point of the objection is stated.
(6) Me'isah and halitah are alike in law. One Tanna holds that in both Beth Hillel are more lenient, while another holds that Beth Shammai are more lenient in both.
(7) Sc. that which was prepared in an ilpes in the first place.
(8) Lev. XXVI, 26.
(9) Hence this excludes the case where it is first treated In an ilpes.
(10) Rashi: in an ilpes. Tosaf: in an oven.
(11) I.e., heated it.
(12) Rashi: He placed a bread dough in an ilpes, baking it with an outside fire: is it bread or not? Tosaf: He placed in an oven such dough as is generally prepared in an ilpes: does this render it bread or not?
(13) Which is a point of issue between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish.
(14) The flame itself bearing directly on the ilpes, which causes it to bake more quickly.
(15) They cannot afford much fuel, and so they have the flame directly opposite it. Hence this cannot change its status.
(16) Who holds in Kid. 54b that second tithe is sacred, not secular property, but that the Almighty favored the Israelite by permitting him to eat it himself.
(17) Who hold that it is secular property.[As to] unleavened bread of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a man cannot discharge his obligation therewith on Passover; according to the Sages, a man can discharge his obligation therewith on Passover. [With regard to] a citron1 of second tithe, according to R. Meir he cannot discharge his obligation therewith on the Festival; according to the Sages, a man can discharge his obligation therewith on the Festival. R. Papa demurred: as for dough, it is well, because it is written, of the first of your dough,2 [implying] of your own.3 The citron too [is likewise], for it is written, and ye shall take unto yourselves,4 [implying] it shall be of your own.But as for unleavened bread, is then 'your unleavened bread' written?5 — Said Raba — others state, R. Yemar b. Shalmia: [The meaning of] 'bread' [here] is derived from 'bread' [elsewhere]. Here It is written, the bread of affliction.6 while there it is written, then it shall be, that when ye eat of the bread of the land [ye shall offer up an heave offering unto the Lord. Of the first of your dough etc.]:7 just as there [it means] of your own, so here too [it must be] of your own.
Shall we say that [the following] supports him: Dough of second tithe is exempt from hallah: this is the view of R. Meir; but the Sages maintain, It is liable? [You say], 'Shall we say that this Supports him': this is the identical statement! — This is what he says: Shall we say that since they differ in the case of dough, they differ in respect to those too;8 or perhaps it is different there, because 'your dough' 'your dough' is written twice?9
R. Simeon b. Lakish asked: Can a man discharge his obligation10 with the hallah of second tithe in Jerusalem? On the view of R. Jose the Galilean11 there is no problem; seeing that he does not fulfil his obligation with hullin,12 can there be a question about its hallah? Your question arises on the view of R. Akiba:11 is it only with hullin that he can discharge his obligation. because if it is defiled it is permitted in [all] 'habitations',13 but with hallah, which if defiled, is not permitted in [all] the 'habitations' and is consigned to the fire,14 he cannot discharge his obligation: or perhaps we say, since if he had not designated it with the name [of hallah] and it became defiled, it would be permitted in [all] the 'habitations', and he could discharge [his obligation therewith], then now too he can discharge [his obligation with it]?15
Others state, this is certainly no question. for we certainly say 'since'.16 Your question arises in respect of hallah which was bought with the money of second tithe.17 Now, on the view of the Rabbis there is no question, for since they say that it18 is to be redeemed, it is [identical with] the tithe [itself].19 Your question arises on the view of R. Judah who said, It must be buried. For we learned: If that which was bought with second tithe money was defiled, it must be redeemed: R. Judah said, It must be buried.20 Do we say, since if it were not purchased. and since if he had not designated it with the name [of second tithe] and it became defiled,it would be permitted in [all] 'habitations', and he could discharge his duty therewith, he can [therefore] discharge his duty therewith now too;21 or perhaps we say one 'since',22 but we do not say 'since twice?23 — said Raba: It is logical that the name of tithe is one.24
THE UNLEAVENED LOAVES OF THE THANKSOFFERING AND THE WAFERS OF A NAZIRITE etc. Whence do we know it? — Said Rabbah, Because Scripture saith,
____________________
(1) One of the four species which are taken on the Feast of Tabernacles.
(2) Num. XV, 20.
(3) And whereas according to R. Meir second tithe is not 'your own'.
(4) Lev. XXIII, 40.
(5) Surely not! Therefore even if second tithe is not 'yours' according to R. Meir, the law is still complied with by eating second tithe, unleavened bread.
(6) Deut. XVI, 3.
(7) Num. XV, 19.
(8) Sc. the citron and unleavened bread.
(9) Which lays particular emphasis on 'your', as explained above.
(10) Relating to the eating of unleavened bread.
(11) V. supra 36a.
(12) I.e., with ordinary second tithe after the hallah has been separated.
(13) This is a technical term denoting all places outside Jerusalem. I.e., when defiled it can be redeemed even after it has entered Jerusalem and then eaten anywhere. The fact that it might be eaten anywhere strengthens the reason for assuming that one can discharge his obligation with it, v. supra 36b.
(14) Hallah is like terumah. Now when the hallah of second tithe is clean it must be eaten in Jerusalem, like all second tithe, while if it is defiled it may not be eaten at all, like all unclean terumah. Thus it can never be eaten without Jerusalem.
(15) For the mere fact that it is hallah is no drawback, as stated in the Mishnah supra 36a, while its being second tithe is not a drawback either, on R. Akiba's view. Why then should it be unfit if it is hallah of second tithe?
(16) I.e., this last argument is certainly valid.
(17) I.e., second tithe was redeemed, flour was bought with the money, and now hallah was separated from the dough.
(18) I.e., that which was purchased with second tithe money and which in turn became defiled, v. infra.
(19) And the same law applies.
(20) Its sanctity is too slight to permit of redemption. while it may not be eaten on account of its uncleanness.
(21) I.e., the food that is purchased with second tithe money cannot be more stringently regarded than second tithe itself. For the fact that it cannot be redeemed is not due to its greater sanctity but on the contrary because its sanctity is too slight to be capable of transference.
(22) I.e.,in the case of hallah set aside from the second tithe.
(23) I.e.,in the case of hallah set aside from that which has been purchased with second tithe money.
(24) Whether it is actual tithe or bought with tithe money. Hence they are alike, and therefore he can fulfil his obligations with the hallah set aside from either.And ye shall guard the unleavened bread:1 [it must be] unleavened bread which is guarded for the sake of [the precept of eating] unleavened bread, thus excluding this, which is guarded not for the sake of unleavened bread but for the sake of a sacrifice. R. Joseph said, Scripture saith, seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread:2 [that implies] unleavened bread which may be eaten seven days. thus excluding this, which is not eaten seven days but [only] a day and a night.3 It was taught in accordance with Rabbah; it was taught in accordance with R. Joseph. It was taught in accordance with Rabbah: You might think that he can discharge his obligation with the loaves of the thanksoffering and the wafers of a nazirite, therefore it is stated, 'And ye shall guard the unleavened bread', teaching [that it must be] unleavened bread which is guarded for the sake of [fulfilling the obligation of eating] unleavened bread, thus excluding this which is guarded not for the sake of unleavened bread but for the sake of a sacrifice. It was taught in accordance with R. Joseph: You might think that a man can discharge his obligation with the loaves of the thanksoffering and the wafers of a nazirite; therefore it is said, 'seven days ye shall eat unleavened bread', implying, unleavened bread which may be eaten seven days. thus excluding this, which may not be eaten seven days but [only] a day and a night.
Yet deduce it from [the fact that it is designated], 'the bread of affliction', teaching, [it must be] that which may be eaten in grief, thus excluding this, which is not eaten in grief but [only] in joy? — He holds as R. Akiba, who said, 'ani' is written.4 Then let him deduce it [from the fact] that it is rich unleavened bread?5 Said R. Samuel b. R. Isaac: There is [only] a rebi'ith [of oil], and it is divided among many loaves.6 Yet deduce it [from the fact] that they might not be eaten in all habitations?7 — Said Resh Lakish: This proves that the loaves of the thanksoffering and the wafers of the nazirite could be eaten in Nob and Gibeon.8
It was taught. R. Il'ai said: I asked R. Eleazar, How about a man discharging his obligation with the loaves of the thanksoffering and the wafers of a nazirite? I have not heard, replied he. [So] I went and asked it before R. Joshua. Said he to me, Surely they [the Sages] said: [AS TO] THE [UNLEAVENED] LOAVES OF THE THANKS OFFERING AND THE WAFERS OF A NAZIRITE, IF HE MADE THEM FOR HIMSELF, HE CANNOT DISCHARGE HIS OBLIGATION WITH THEM; IF TO SELL IN THE MARKET, HE CAN DISCHARGE HIS OBLIGATION WITH THEM. When I went and discussed the matter before R. Eleazar, he said to me, By the covenant! These are the very words which were stated to Moses at Sinai. Others state: By the covenant! Are these the very words which were stated to Moses at Sinai? And is not a reason required?9 And what is the reason? — Said Rabbah: Whatever is for market, he may change his mind [about it]. and he says, 'If it is sold, it is sold; if it will not be sold, I will discharge my duty with it'.
____________________
(1) Ex. XII, 17 E.V. translates differently.
(2) Ibid. 15.
(3) V. Lev. VII, 15.
(4) v. Supra 36a for this passage.
(5) Since he follows the written text, ani, viz., poverty; for the unleavened cakes brought with a sacrifice were kneaded with oil, which makes them 'rich' bread (supra 36a).
(6) Only a quarter log of oil was used in the kneading of twenty large loaves: this would not make it rich mazzah.
(7) I.e., outside the walls of Jerusalem; v. supra 36a.
(8) Before the building of the Temple, Israel sacrificed at the 'high places'. altars being erected at Nob and Gibeon, amongst other places. Resh Lakish observes that since we do not deduce the present law from the fact that these loaves might not be eaten in all 'habitations', it follows that there was a time when they were eaten without Jerusalem, viz., during the period of the high places at Nob and Gibeon, v. Zeb. 112b. There is an opposing view, that of R Simeon, that the thanksoffering and the sacrifices of a nazirite could not be offered at the high places. v. Meg. 9b.
(9) Do you claim a divine origin for them that you draw this distinction without stating its grounds?MISHNAH. AND THESE ARE THE HERBS WITH WHICH A MAN DISCHARGES HIS OBLIGATION ON PASSOVER:1 WITH LETTUCE [HAZARETH]. WITH T A M K A,2 WITH H A R H A B I N A,3 WITH ENDIVES ['ULSHIN] AND WITH MAROR.4 THE LAW IS COMPLIED WITH BY [EATING THEM] BOTH MOIST [FRESH] AND DRY, BUT NOT PRESERVED [IN VINEGAR], NOR STEWED NOR BOILED.5 AND THEY COMBINE TO THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE.6 AND YOU CAN DISCHARGE [YOUR OBLIGATION] WITH THEIR STALK[S]. AND WITH DEMAI, AND WITH FIRST TITHE THE TERUMAH OF WHICH HAS BEEN SEPARATED, AND WITH HEKDESH AND SECOND TITHE WHICH HAVE BEEN REDEEMED.7
GEMARA. H A Z E R E T H is hassa [lettuce]; 'U L S H I N is hindebi [endives]. TAMKA: Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: It is called temakta.8 H A R H A B I N A: R. Simeon b. Lakish said: [It is] the creeper of the palm tree. AND WITH MAROR: merirta.9
Bar Kappara taught: These are the herbs with which a man discharges his obligation on Passover: with endives, with tamka, with harhallin,10 with harhabinin,11 and with lettuce. R. Judah said: Also with wild [field] endives and with garden endives and with lettuce. 'Garden endives and lettuce': but that is taught in the first section?12 — This is what he says: Wild endives too are like garden endives and lettuce. R. Meir said: Also with 'aswaws, and tura and mar yero'ar.13 Said R. Jose to him: 'Aswaws and tura are one; and mar is yero'ar.14
The School of Samuel taught: These are the herbs with which a man discharges his obligation on Passover: With lettuce, with endives, with tamka, with harhabinin, with harginin,15 and with hardofannim.16 R. Judah said: Hazereth yolin [thistles] and willow lettuce too are like them. R. Judah said in R. Eliezer's name: 'Arkablin too,17 but I went about to all his [sc. R. Eliezer's] disciples and sought a companion18 but did not find one, but when I came before R. Eleazar b. Jacob he agreed with my words. R Judah said: Whatever [plant which] contains an acrid [pungent] sap. R. Johanan b. Berokah said: Any [plant] the leaves of which look faded [bleached]. Others say: Every bitter herb contains an acrid sap and its leaves are faded. R. Johanan said: From the words of all of them we may learn [that every] bitter herb contains an acrid sap and its leaves are faded.19 R. Huna said: The halachah is as the 'Others'.
Rabina found R. Aha son of Raba going in search of merirta. Said he to him, What is [in] your mind: that it is more bitter? But we learned H A Z E R E T H; and the School of Samuel taught, Hazereth; while R. Oshaia said: The obligation is properly [fulfilled with] hazereth. And Raba said: What is hazereth? Hassa. What does hassa [symbolize]? That the Merciful One had pity [has] upon us. Further, R. Samuel b. Nahman said in R. Jonathan's name: Why were the Egyptians compared to maror?20 To teach you: just as this maror, the beginning of which is soft while its end is hard,21 so were the Egyptians: their beginning was soft [mild]. but their end was hard [cruel]!22 — Then I retract, he replied.
R. Rehumi said to Abaye: How do you know that this 'maror'23 means a kind of herb; say that it is the gall of Kufia?24 — It is like unleavened bread:25 just as unleavened bread is a product of the earth,so "maror' means a product of the earth.Then say it is hirduf?26 -It is like unleavened bread:25 just as unleavened bread is a species of plant, so 'maror' means a species of plant. Then say it is harzipu?27 — It must be like unleavened bread: just as unleavened bread is that which can be bought with second tithe money, so maror' is that which can be bought with second tithe money.28
Rabbah son of R.Hanin said to Abaye: Say that maror means one [herb]?29 — Merorim [plural] is written. Then say that merorim means two? — It is like unleavened bread: just as unleavened bread [can be of] many species.30 so [can] maror [be of] many species.
Rabbah son of R.Huna said in Rab's name: [Regarding] the herbs whereof the Sages ruled that a man can discharge his duty with them on Passover, they all may be sown in one garden bed. Is this to say that they are not [forbidden] on account of kil'ayim?31 Raba objected: [Lettuce] and willow lettuce, [garden] endives and wild endives, [garden] leeks and wild leeks, [garden] coriander and wild coriander, mustard and Egyptian mustard [and] the Egyptian gourd and the bitter gourd, — all these are not kil'ayim with one another.32 [Thus] only lettuce with willow lettuce, but not lettuce with endives?33 And should you answer, They are all taught together, surely Rab said: He teaches them in pairs? What did Rab mean by 'they are sown'? They are sown according to their law.34 [You say], 'According to their law'! but we [already) learned it:
____________________
(1) Bitter herbs are eaten on the first two (in Palestine one) nights of Passover, v. Ex. XII, 8.
(2) A kind of cheveril (Jast.).
(3) A kind of creeper.
(4) Lit., 'bitter' (herb). A plant, prob. Cichorium ltybus. Succory (Jast.).
(5) Shelukin means boiled to a pulp; mebushalin, boiled in the usual manner.
(6) That is the minimum quantity which must be eaten; and it can be made up of all these.
(7) v. p. 161, n. I.
(8) Rashi: marrubium, hoarhound (Jast.).
(9) The Aramaic for maror.
(10) A prickly plant, thistles.
(11) Pl. of harhabina.
(12) What does R. Judah add?
(13) Names of bitter herbs. v. next note.
(14) Jast. ferule. Rashal reads: Aswaws and tura are one, and it is bitter (mar), and that is (what is called) mar yero'ar.
(15) Jast.: garden ivy.
(16) Wall ivy.
(17) Jast.: prickly creepers on palm trees, palm ivy.
(18) To support me, that he too had heard it from R. Eliezer.
(19) I.e., all the herbs mentioned by the foregoing teachers possess these two features.
(20) In Ex. I, 14 where the Hebrew for embittered is from the same root as maror.
(21) The top is soft, while the stalk hardens like wood.
(22) At first they dealt mildly with the Israelites, but subsequently treated them with great cruelty. All this was adduced by Rabina, to show that merirta was not preferable.
(23) Prescribed in Ex. XII, 8. Merorim, pl. of maror, is the actual word used there.
(24) Name of a fish, supposed to be identical with colias.
(25) To which it is placed in juxtaposition, ibid.
(26) Jast.: a shrub or tree with bitter and stinging leaves, supposed to be rhododaphne, oleander.
(27) Name of a bitter herb, not generally eaten.
(28) This excludes harzipu, for only what is generally eaten can be bought; v. Deut. XIV, 26: all the things enumerated there are normal victuals.
(29) Viz., the most bitter of all.
(30) V. Mishnah Supra 35a.
(31) V.Glos.
(32) Kil. I, 2.
(33) I.e., these are heterogeneous.
(34) I.e., on the contrary, care must be taken not to sow them together, and when they are in one garden-bed the proper space must be left between the separate species.A garden-bed which is six handbreadths square, may be sown with five species of seeds, four on the four sides of the bed and one in the middle!1 — You might say that this applies only to seeds [cereals]. but not to vegetables;2 therefore he3 informs us [otherwise]. Shall we [then] say that vegetables are stronger than seeds?4 But surely we learned: All Species of seeds may not be sown in one garden-bed [together]. [yet] all species of vegetables [herbs] may be sown in one seed-bed?5 - You might say, This maror6 is a species of seed [cereal]; hence he informs us [that it is not so].7 [You say]. 'Seeds'! — Can you think so! But surely we learned, HERBS; and Bar Kappara [also] taught. 'Herbs'; and the School of Samuel [also] taught 'Herbs'?8 - He needs [to state it about] lettuce:9 I might argue. since it is destined to harden,10 we must allow it more space. [For] did not R. Jose b. R. Hanina say: If the cabbage stalk hardens, more room is given to it [up to] a beth roba'?11 This proves that since it is destined to harden, we allow it more space: so here too we should give it more space. Hence he12 informs us [otherwise].
THE LAW IS COMPLIED WITH BY [EATING THEM] BOTH MOIST [FRESH] OR DRY etc. R. Hisda said: They learned this only of the stalk; but in the case of the leaves, only moist [fresh] ones, but not dry ones. But since a later clause states, WITH THEIR STALK, it follows that the first clause [refers to] leaves? [That clause] indeed gives an explanation: when does he [the Tanna] teach, BOTH MOIST AND DRY? In reference to the stalk.
An objection is raised: One can discharge [the obligation] with them and their stalks, both moist and dry: this is R. Meir's view. But the Sages maintain: One can discharge [the obligation] with moist [fresh] ones, but one cannot discharge [the obligation] with dry ones. And they agree that one can discharge [the obligation] with them [when] withered,13 but not [when] preserved. stewed or boiled. This is the general principle of the matter: Whatever has the taste of maror, one can discharge the obligation with it; but whatever does not possess the taste of maror, one cannot discharge the obligation with it!14 — Explain it15 [as referring] to the stalk.
Our Rabbis taught: One cannot discharge [the obligation] with them [when] withered. In the name of R. Eleazar b. R. Zadok it was said: One can discharge [the obligation] with them [when] withered.
Rami b. Hama asked: How about a man discharging his obligation with second tithe maror in Jerusalem? On R. Akiba's view,16 there is no question: seeing that he discharges his obligation [there with] in the case of unleavened bread, [the tithing of] which is [enjoined] by Scripture. need you ask about maror, which is [only] Rabbinical.17 The question arises on the view of R. Jose the Galilean. What then? Is it only with unleavened bread, which is [tithed] by Scriptural law, that he cannot discharge his obligation, but with maror, which is [tithed] by Rabbinical law [only], he discharges his obligation; or perhaps whatever [measure] the Rabbis enacted, they enacted it similar to a Scriptural law?18 Said Raba: It is logical [that] unleavened bread and maror [are assimilated].19
MISHNAH. ONE MAY NOT SOAK BRAN FOR FOWLS, BUT ONE MAY SCALD IT. A WOMAN MAY NOT SOAK BRAN TO TAKE WITH HER20 TO THE BATHS,21 BUT SHE MAY RUB IT ON HER SKIN. AND A MAN MAY NOT CHEW WHEAT AND PLACE IT ON HIS WOUND, BECAUSE IT TURNS LEAVEN.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: These are the things which cannot come to fermentation: That which is baked,22 boiled, and that which is scalded, having been scalded in boiling water. 'That which is boiled'? But while it is being boiled it turns leaven! — Said R. Papa: He means: baked [mazzah] which was [then] boiled. It was taught. R. Jose b. R. Judah said: Flour into which there fell a dripping [of water]. even all day, does not come to fermentation.23 Said R. Papa: Provided that it acted drop after drop.24 The School of R. Shila said: Wattika25 is permitted. But it was taught: Wattika is forbidden? — There is no difficulty: here it is such as is prepared with oil and salt;26 there it is prepared with water and salt.27 Mar Zutra said: A man must not line a pot with flour of roast grain, lest it had not been properly baked28 and it comes to leaven.29 R. Joseph said: A man must not scald
____________________
(1) V. Shab. 84b (Sonc. ed.) note a.l. Then what does Rab add?
(2) Because they draw their sustenance more vigorously, hence from a wider area.
(3) Rab.
(4) In drawing from the ground.
(5) Cereal seeds must not be sown within this area, and the statement that five species of seeds may be sown in a plot six handbreadths square applies to vegetables (herbs) only.
(6) I.e., the species enumerated supra in our Mishnah and GEMARA.
(7) This answer abandons the previous answer. Seeds (cereals) in fact require more space, for their drawing power is greater, and Rab informs us that maror belongs to the species of herbs, not seeds, and therefore the more lenient law applies to them.
(8) All these authorities describe maror as herbs; how then could it be assumed that maror belongs to the class of cereals?
(9) The last reply to the question, 'What does Rab add', being untenable, another answer is offered.
(10) Its stalk becomes hard and thick.
(11) A piece of ground of the capacity of one roba' (quarter of a kab) of seed.
(12) Rab.
(13) This is not the same as dry.
(14) Here too R. Meir seems to state that both the herbs themselves (i.e.. the leaves) and the stalks may be fresh or dry. And the Mishnah too evidently agrees with R. Meir, since the Rabbis maintain that dried herbs cannot be eaten.
(15) The statement permitting its use dried.
(16) v. supra 36a.
(17) By scriptural law vegetables need not be tithed at all; hence Biblically speaking this maror is not second tithe.
(18) So that maror is the same as unleavened bread.
(19) v. supra p. 182, n. 6.
(20) Lit., 'in her hand'.
(21) A bran paste was used as a depilatory or cosmetic.
(22) Once unleavened bread is baked it can never turn leaven.
(23) The incessant dripping prevents fermentation.
(24) Without an appreciable interval between them.
(25) Name of a certain pastry or tart made of flour.
(26) Oil does not cause fermentation.
(27) Then it is forbidden.
(28) Lit., 'boiled'.
(29) Though roast grain is baked, and therefore can never become leaven, yet we fear that it may not have been fully baked, and when the dish is put into the pot with the water this flour will ferment.two grains of wheat together, lest one becomes wedged in the cleft of the other, so that the column of water will not surround it on all1 sides, and [thus] it will come to fermentation. And Abaye said: A man must not singe two ears of corn together. lest sap [water] issue from one and the other absorb it, and [thus] it will come to fermentation. Said Raba to him: If so, [forbid] even one also, lest it [the sap] issues from one end and the other end absorbs it? No, said Raba: It is sap [water] of fruit,2 and sap of fruit does not cause fermentation. Now Abaye retracted from that [view], because as long as they [the grains] absorb [liquid], they do not ferment.3 For Abaye said: The jar for roasting [ears of corn]: if it is inverted, it is permitted;4 if upright, it is forbidden.5 Raba said: Even if upright it is still permitted [because] it is the sap of fruit, and the sap of fruit does not cause fermentation.
Our Rabbis taught: One may not wash6 barley on Passover; and if one did wash [them] and they split, they are forbidden;7 if they did not split, they are permitted. R. Jose said: He can soak them in vinegar. and the vinegar binds them.8 Samuel said: The halachah is not as R. Jose. R. Hisda said in Mar 'Ukba's name: It does not mean literally split, but [if they reach] such [a condition] that if placed on the mouth of a [wine] cask they will split of themselves.9 But Samuel said: It means literally split. Samuel acted in the vicinity of the home of Bar Hashu [on the view that] 'split' is meant literally.10
Rabbah said: A conscientious man should not wash [corn].11 Why particularly a conscientious man: even any other man12 too, for surely it was taught: One may not wash barley on Passover? He says thus: He should not wash even wheat, which is hard.13 Said R. Nahman to him: He who will heed Abba14 will eat mouldy bread.15 For Surely the household of R. Huna washed [it], and the household of Raba b. Abin washed [it]. But Raba said: It is forbidden to wash [wheat]. But what of what was taught: You may not wash barley on Passover, [implying] barley only may not [be washed], but wheat is permitted? — He leads to a climax!16 It is unnecessary [to teach about] wheat, for since it has splits the water enters it;17 but barley, which is smooth, I would say that it is allowable. Therefore he informs us [otherwise]. Subsequently Raba said: It is permitted to wash [wheat]. For it was taught: One can discharge [the obligation] with fine bread and with coarse bread.18 Now fine bread is impossible without washing [the grain].
R. Papa raised an objection against Raba: [With regard to] the flours and fine meals of Gentiles, those of villages are clean, while those of towns are unclean. What is the reason that those of villages [are clean]? Is it not because they do not wash [the grain],19 yet he calls it 'fine meal'?20 — Explain [this21 as referring to] 'flour'. After he [Raba] departed, he [R. Papa] said [to himself]. Why did I not cite him [an objection] from what R. Zera said in R. Jeremiah's name in Samuel's name: The wheat for meal offerings must not be washed; yet he calls it fine meal?22 Subsequently Raba said: It is obligatory to wash [the grain].23 for it is said, And ye shall guard the unleavened bread.24 Now, if not that it requires washing, for what purpose is the guarding?25 If guarding for the kneading.26 the guarding of kneading is not guarding,27 for R. Huna said: The doughs of a heathen,28 a man may fill his stomach with them,29 providing that he eats as much as an olive of unleavened bread at the end. [Thus] only at the end, but not at the beginning:30 what is the reason? Because he had not afforded it any guarding. Then let him guard it from the baking and onwards?31 Hence this surely proves that we require guarding from the beginning. Yet whence [does this follow]: perhaps it is different there, because when guarding became necessary.32 he did not guard it;33 but where he did guard it when guarding became necessary. it may indeed be that the guarding at the kneading is [truly] considered 'guarding'.
Yet even so,34 Raba did not retract. For he said to those who handled sheaves,35 Handle them for the purpose of the precept.36 This proves that he holds [that] we require guarding ab initio, from beginning to end. Mar the son of Rabina,
____________________
(1) Lit., 'four'.
(2) I.e., produce.
(3) MS.M. reads: as long as they (the liquids) are in motion (boiling), they do not create fermentation.
(4) As the sap which is exuded runs out and is not re-absorbed by the other ears. — Therefore the same will hold good where he singes two ears of corn together, which on this view must be permitted. Thus he retracted from his former view.
(5) Because the sap is retained in the vessel.
(6) The verb connotes to moisten the grain before grinding.
(7) Because then they turn leaven very quickly.
(8) Prevents fermentation.
(9) Then they are forbidden.
(10) And since those about which he was consulted were not actually split. he ruled that they were permitted.
(11) v. p. 186, n.8.
(12) Lit., 'the whole world'.
(13) And consequently is slower to ferment than barley. Others who are not so conscientious may moisten wheat, for only barley is forbidden in the Baraitha.
(14) Lit., 'father'- a title of respect.
(15) I.e., unclean bread, since the wheat was not washed.
(16) Lit., 'he states, it is unnecessary "(to teach etc.)"'.
(17) And certainly causes it to ferment.
(18) V. supra 37a.
(19) And eatables cannot become unclean unless moisture has previously been upon them.
(20) Which shows that fine bread is possible without washing.
(21) The reference to villages.
(22) Such is prescribed in Scripture for meal-offerings, v. Lev. II, i.
(23) For preparing the unleavened bread.
(24) Ex. XII, 17.
(25) For the grain cannot ferment unless there is moisture upon it.
(26) I.e., that when it is kneaded care must be taken that it does not turn leaven.
(27) This verse implies that at a certain stage of its manufacture the unleavened bread must be guarded for the express purpose of fulfilling the law prescribing the eating of unleavened bread. Hence, if a man eats on the first night of Passover only unleavened bread which was not guarded expressly for that purpose, he does not do his duty. Now Raba states that the guarding that is given to it at the stage of kneading is not considered 'guarding' in this respect.
(28) Which one recognizes as not having turned leaven.
(29) On the first night of Passover.
(30) I.e., the law is complied with only with this unleavened bread which he eats at the end, but not with the heathen's dough which he eats at the beginning. The unleavened bread eaten in fulfilment of the precept comes at the end of the meal with the Paschal lamb, v. infra 119b.
(31) I.e., from when it is prepared for baking. viz., when it is shaped, moistened and put into the oven.
(32) Lit., 'when it entered upon (the need for) guarding'. — I.e., at the beginning of the kneading process — from the moment when water was added to the flour making fermentation possible.
(33) Though it nevertheless remained unleavened.
(34) Though Raba's proof was refuted.
(35) At harvest time, gathering and tying them. Lit., 'turned about'.
(36) Bear in mind that they may be used for that purpose.his mother stored [grain] for him in a trough.1
A certain ship of grain foundered in Hishta,2 [whereupon] Raba gave permission to sell [the grain]3 to Gentiles. Rabbah b. Lewai4 raised an objection against Raba: [With regard to] a garment wherein kil'ayim5 is lost,6 he must not sell it to a Gentile,7 nor may he make a saddle-cloth for an ass;8 but it may be made into shrouds for a corpse.9 What is the reason [that it may] not [be sold] to a Gentile? Surely it is because he might resell it to an Israelite?10 Subsequently Raba said, Let them sell it to Israelites, a kab11 at a time,12 so that it should be consumed before Passover.
Our Rabbis taught: One may not mash a dish on Passover;13 and he who wishes to mash, must put in the flour and then add the vinegar.14 But some say. He may even put in the vinegar [first] and then add the flour.15
Who is 'some say'? Said R. Hisda, It is R. Judah. For we learned: [In the case of] a stew pot or a boiling pot16 which he removed seething [from the fire].17 he must not put spices therein,18 but he
R. Han. reads: for the sake of unleavened bread — i.e., take care that no water falls on them and do not store them in a damp place. may put [spices] into a dish or a tureen.19 R. Judah said: He may put [spices] into anything except what contains vinegar or brine.20 Yet let us establish it as R. Jose, for it was taught, R. Jose said: He can soak them in vinegar, and the vinegar binds them?21 — We know R. Jose [to rule thus] only when it is by itself, but not when it is in a mixture. 'Ulla said: Both the one and the other are forbidden,22 because, 'Go, go. thou nazirite', say we, 'take the most devious route, but approach not the vineyard'.23 R. Papa permitted the stewards of the house of the Resh Galutha24 to mash a dish with parched grains. Said Raba: Is there anyone who permits such a thing in a place where slaves are found?25 Others say. Raba himself mashed a dish with parched grains.
MISHNAH. FLOUR MAY NOT BE PUT INTO HAROSETH26 OR IN TO THE MUSTARD,27 AND IF HE DID PUT [IT], IT MUST BE EATEN IMMEDIATELY;28 BUT R. MEIR FORBIDS [IT]. ONE MAY NOT BOIL THE PASSOVER SACRIFICE, NEITHER IN LIQUIDS NOR IN FRUIT JUICE.29 BUT ONE MAY BASTE AND DIP IT IN THEM.30 THE WATER USED BY A BAKER MUST BE POURED OUT, BECAUSE IT PROMOTES FERMENTATION.
contents, as long as they are seething, cause any condiments put therein to boil likewise. This of course is forbidden on the Sabbath.
GEMARA. R. Kahana said: The controversy is [about putting flour] into mustard; but [if it was put] into haroseth, all agree that it must be burnt immediately. And it was taught likewise: Flour must not be put into haroseth, and if he did put [it], it must be burnt immediately. [If put] into mustard, — R. Meir said: It must be burnt immediately; but the Sages rule: It must be eaten immediately.31
R. Huna the son of Rab Judah said in R. Nahman's name in Samuel's name: The halachah is as the words of the Sages. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac to R. Huna the son of Rab Judah:
____________________
(1) For use on the night of Passover. This this too was guarded from the beginning.
(2) A canal in Babylonia. This happened before Passover.
(3) Which became leaven.
(4) Or, the Levite.
(5) V. Glos.
(6) I.e. , a thread of the forbidden material was woven in the cloth, and its place is not known.
(7) For the latter may resell it to a Jew who will wear it in ignorance of the fact that it contains kil'ayim.
(8) Lest he subsequently remove it and sew it into a garment.
(9) Because it can henceforth not be used for any other purpose, since the raiment of the dead is forbidden for general use. On the other hand, the corpse is not subject to any of the laws of the Torah, v. Shab. 30a.
(10) Then the same should apply here.
(11) A measure of capacity one sixth of a se'ah.
(12) I.e., not selling a large quantity to any single person.
(13) I.e., make a mash of flour and vinegar in the usual way, which is to put in the vinegar first and then add the flour. This is forbidden, because it easily ferments and becomes leaven.
(14) The vinegar prevents fermenting.
(15) Although the vinegar becomes mixed with the rest of the dish when it is put in first, it can still prevent the fermenting of the flour.
(16) The first means a tightly covered pot.
(17) At twilight on Friday.
(18) After the Sabbath commences. The pot is a 'first vessel', i.e., it was used directly on the fire, and its
(19) Containing a hot stew. The dish or the tureen is a 'second vessel', I.e., it was not used directly on the fire, and cannot make the spices boil.
(20) Being sharp. they cause them to boil, though the vinegar or brine is mixed with the rest of the dish. By causing them to boil they prevent fermentation, and the same applies here.
(21) Which prevents fermentation.
(22) Whichever is put first. This was proverbial: a man must not venture into temptation, and a nazirite, who must not eat grapes,must not even go near a vineyard. Similarly, if a man is permitted to make the mash in one way, he will make it in the other way too.
(23) Jast. s.v. אכונגר conjectures that בורדקי is a corruption of that word.
(24) Exilarch, the official title of the head of Babylonian Jewry.
(25) As in the house of the Exilarch. They are very lax in any case, and such leniency will lead to even greater laxity.
(26) A pap made of fruits and spices with wine or vinegar, used for sweetening the bitter herb on Passover night
(Jast.).
(27) Lest the flour become leaven.
(28) Before it can ferment.
(29) Though Scripture only mentions water, v. Ex. XII, 9.
(30) I.e.,the flesh may be greased
(31) The greater strength of mustard retards fermentation, hence the controversy. But it ferments very quickly in haroseth.Do you1 say it in reference to haroseth.2 or do you say it in reference to mustard? What is the practical difference? asked he. — In respect to R. Kahana's [dictum] — For R. Kahana said: The controversy is [about putting flour] into mustard; but [if it was put] into haroseth, all agree that it must be burnt immediately.3 I have not heard it, he replied to him, as if to say, I do not agree with it. R. Ashi said: Logic supports R. Kahana, since Samuel said: The halachah is not as R. Jose.4 Surely then, since it [vinegar] does not bind, it does indeed cause fermentation?5 — No: perhaps it neither binds nor promotes fermentation.
ONE MAY NOT BOIL etc. Our Rabbis taught: [Eat not of it raw, nor boiled at all] with water:6 I only know [that it may not be boiled] in water; whence do we know [it of] other liquids? You can answer, [it follows] a minor,' if water, which does not impart its taste,7 is forbidden; then other liquids, which impart their taste, how much
with these liquids when it is being roasted, and the roasted meat may be dipped into liquids at the time of eating. more so!8 Rabbi said: 'With water': I only know it of water; whence do we know [it of] other liquids? Because it is stated, 'nor boiled at all',9 [implying] in all cases.10 Wherein do they differ? — They differ in respect of [that which is] roasted in a pot.11 And the Rabbis: how do they utilize this [phrase] 'nor boiled at all'? — They employ it for what was taught: If he boiled it and then roasted it, or roasted it and then boiled it, he is liable.12 As for 'if he boiled it and then roasted it, he is liable,' that is well, seeing that he boiled it.13 But if he roasted it and then boiled it, surely it is 'roast with fire'; why [then is he liable]? — Said R. Kahana: The author of this is R. Jose. For it was taught: The law14 is complied with by [eating] an [unleavened] wafer that is soaked15 or boiled, but not dissolved: this is the view of R. Meir. R. Jose said: The law is complied with by [eating] a wafer that is soaked, but not with one that is boiled, even if not dissolved.16 'Ulla said: You may even say [that it agrees with] R. Meir;17 here it is different, because Scripture saith, 'nor boiled at all', [implying] in all cases.18
Our Rabbis taught: You might think that if he roasted it as much as it needs,19 he should be liable. Therefore it is stated: Eat not of it semi-roast nor boiled at all with water': semi-roast or boiled did I forbid20 thee, but not that which is roasted as much as it needs.21 How is that meant? — Said R. Ashi: That he rendered it charred meat. Our Rabbis taught: You might think that if he ate as much as an olive of raw meat,22 he should be liable; therefore it is stated, Eat not of it semi-roast [na] nor boiled at all [with water]: semi-roast and boiled did I forbid thee, but not raw. You might think that it is permitted; therefore it is stated, 'but roast with fire'. How is 'na' understood? — Said Rab: as that which the Persians call abarnim.23
R. Hisda said: He who cooks [food] in the hot springs of Tiberias on the Sabbath is not culpable;24 if he boiled the Passover sacrifice in the hot springs of Tiberias, he is culpable. Wherein does the Sabbath differ, that [he is] not [culpable]? Because we require the product of fire,25 which is absent! Then [in respect to] the Passover sacrifice too it is not a product of fire? — Said Raba, What is the meaning of his statement,26 'he is culpable'? That he transgresses on account of '[Thou shalt not eat . . .] but roast with fire.27 R. Hiyya son of R. Nathan recited this [dictum] of R. Hisda explicitly. [Thus:] R. Hisda said: He who cooks in the hot springs of Tiberias on the Sabbath is not culpable; but if he boiled the Passover sacrifice in the hot springs of Tiberias, he is culpable. because he transgressed on account of 'but roast with fire'.
Raba said: If he ate it semi-roast,
____________________
(1) Lit., 'does the Master'.
(2) That the paps ferment also with haroseth.
(3) Do you too accept this, or do you maintain that there is a controversy in respect of haroseth too?
(4) Supra 40a, q.v. in reference to vinegar.
(5) Which is the reason that flour must not be put into haroseth, since it contains vinegar, and it further follows that if put into it, it is forbidden. Hence when Samuel said that the halachah is as the Sages, that it is permitted, he must have referred to mustard, but not to haroseth.
(6) Ex. XII, 9.
(7) Lit., 'which does not lose its taste' (to the substance boiled in it).
(8) Since the sacrifice now has a foreign flavour.
(9) The emphatic 'at all' is expressed in Hebrew by the doubling of the verb.
(10) In whatever it is boiled.
(11) Without any liquid, save its own juice. If we deduce the interdict of other liquids a minori, this however is permitted. But when we learn it from the emphatic doubling of the verb, even this is forbidden. — The Passover sacrifice was roasted on a spit directly over the fire.
(12) To flagellation for eating it.
(13) In the first place. It can never be subsequently regarded as 'roast with fire'.
(14) Relating to the eating of unleavened bread on Passover.
(15) In another dish.
(16) Because It is not called bread, notwithstanding that it was previously baked in an oven. Similarly, if the Passover is boiled after being roasted, it is no longer regarded as 'roast with fire'.
(17) Viz., that once baked it retains its name as bread.
(18) Even after roasting. This answers the question, 'And the Rabbis: how do they utilize this
(phrase), "nor boiled at all"?'.
(19) I.e., he overroasted it, thus burning it. I might think that this is not called 'roast with fire' but 'burnt with fire', and therefore he incurs flagellation for eating it.
(20) Lit., 'tell'.
(21) No interdict is violated by eating it thus.
(22) Of the Passover sacrifices.
(23) Half-done meat. v. Jast. s.v. אברנים
(24) For the desecration of the Sabbath, because this is not really cooking.
(25) Before it can be called cooking.
(26) Lit. , 'which he states'.
(27) He is not culpable on account of, Thou shalt not eat of it. . . boiled with water' because this is not designated boiling. But the other portion of the verse, 'but roast with fire', is an implied negative injunction, the command being that you must not eat anything which is not roast, and what is boiled in the springs of Tiberias is therefore forbidden by implication. He thus holds that a man is flagellated for an implied negative injunction, i.e., one which is not explicitly stated.he is flagellated twice;1 if he ate it boiled, he is flagellated twice;2 [if he ate] semi-roast and boiled, he is flagellated thrice. Abaye said: We do not flagellate on account of an implied prohibition. Some maintain: He is not indeed flagellated twice,3 but he is nevertheless flagellated once.4 Others say. He is not even flagellated once, because [Scripture] does not particularize its interdict, like the interdict of muzzling.5 Raba said: If he [a nazirite] ate the husk [of grapes]. he is flagellated twice; if he ate the kernel, he is flagellated twice; [for] the husk and the kernel, he is flagellated thrice.6 Abaye maintained: We do not flagellate on account of an implied prohibition — Some say: He is indeed not flagellated twice, but he is nevertheless flagellated once.7 Others maintain: He is not even flagellated once, because [Scripture] does not particularize its interdict, like the interdict of muzzling.
Our Rabbis taught: If he ate as much as an olive of semi-roast [paschal offering] before nightfall,8 he is not culpable; [if he ate] as much as an olive of semi-roast flesh after dark, he is culpable. If he ate as much as an olive of roast meat before nightfall, he does not disqualify himself from [being one of] the members of the company;9 [if he eats] as much as an olive of roast meat after dark,10 he disqualifies himself from [being one of] the members of his company.
Another [Baraitha] taught: You might think that if he ate as much as an olive of semi-roast before nightfall he should be culpable; and it is a logical inference: if when he is subject to [the precept] 'arise and eat roast [flesh]',11 he is subject to [the interdict] 'do not eat it semi-roast'; then when he is not subject to [the precept], 'arise and eat roast', is it not logical that he is subject to [the interdict] 'do not eat it semi-roast?' Or perhaps it is not so:12 when he is not subject to [the precept]. 'arise and eat roast', he is subject to, 'do not eat it semi-roast', [while] when he is subject to [the precept],arise and eat roast', he is not subject to [the interdict] 'do not eat it semi-roast', and do not wonder [threat], for lo! it was freed13 from its general interdict in respect to roast.14 Therefore it is stated, 'Eat not of it semi-roast'; nor boiled at all [bashel mebushshal] with water, but roast with fire'. Now, 'but roast with fire' should not be stated;15 then why is 'but roast with fire' stated? To teach you: When he is subject [to the command]. 'Arise and eat roast', he is [also] subject to 'Eat not of it semi-toast'; when he is not subject to [the command]. 'Arise and eat roast', he is not subject to, 'Eat not of it semi-roast.16
Rabbi said: I could read 'bashel'; why is 'mebushshal' stated [too]? For I might think, I only know it17 where he boiled it after nightfall. Whence do we know it if he boiled it during the day?18 Therefore it is stated, 'bashel mebushshal', [implying] in all cases. But Rabbi has utilized this 'bashel mebushshal' in respect of [flesh] roast[ed] in a pot and [flesh boiled] in other liquids?19 — If so,20 let Scripture say either bashel bashel or mebushshal mebushshal:21 why 'bashel mebushshal'? Hence you infer two things from it.
Our Rabbis taught: If he ate roast [paschal offering] during the day. he is culpable; and [if he ate] as much as an olive of semi-roast after nightfall, he is culpable. [Thus] he teaches roast similar to half-roast: just as semi-roast [after nightfall] is [interdicted] by a negative injunction, so is roast [before nightfall] subject to a negative injunction. As for half-roast, it is well: it is written, 'Eat not of it semi-roast'. But whence do we know[the negative injunction for] roast? Because it is written, 'And they shall eat the flesh in that night': only at night, but not by day. But this is a negative injunction deduced by implication from an affirmative command, and every negative injunction deduced by implication from an affirmative command is [technically] an affirmative command?22 — Said R. Hisda, The author of this
____________________
(1) Once on account of the injunction against semi-roast, and again because of the interdict, 'Eat not . . . but roast with fire'.
(2) On account of the injunction against boiled flesh, and again as in the case of semi-roast meat.
(3) Since he is flagellated on account of the direct prohibition, 'Eat not of it semi-roast', or, 'nor boiled', he is not flagellated on account of the implied interdict too.
(4) Rashi: E.g., he who boils it in the hot springs of Tiberias. Since there is no explicit injunction, we fall back upon the implied injunction. Tosaf.: If he was merely warned against violating the injunction, 'Eat not of it . . . but roast with fire'.
(5) V. Deut. XXV, 4. This is an interdict explicitly forbidding a particular action, and this is the model of all interdicts the disregard of which involves flagellation, since it immediately follows the law of flagellation (ibid. v. 3). But the interdict of 'eat not of it . . . but roast with fire' does not particularize any method of preparation as forbidden.
(6) V. Num. VI, 4: All the days of his naziriteship he shall eat nothing that is made of the grape vine, from the kernels eaten to the husk. According to Raba, the kernels and the husk are explicitly prohibited, while they are also included in the implied prohibition of 'he shall eat nothing that is made of the grape vine', and the offender is flagellated on account of each.
(7) Rashi: E.g.. if he ate the leaves of the vine; cf.n. 2.
(8) Lit., 'while it was yet day' — on the fourteenth of Nisan.
(9) Each paschal offering had to be eaten by one company, the members of which had registered for that particular animal. It might not be eaten by two companies, while on the other hand no man might eat in two separate places. It is now taught that if he eats some roast meat before nightfall, he is not disqualified from eating elsewhere with his company after nightfall, the earlier eating not being regarded as eating of the paschal offering in this sense.
(10) Not in the company where he registered.
(11) I.e., perhaps a different argument is to be used.
(12) I.e., after nightfall.
(13) Lit., 'permitted'.
(14) For even roast paschal offering is not permitted before nightfall, as it is written, 'and they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire', which implies, but not before; at night this implied prohibition is lifted. Hence we might argue: granted that the general interdict is not lifted at the outset in respect of semiroast too, yet if he ate it he is not liable to punishment.
(15) For the previous verse states: And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire.
(16) I. e., flagellation for eating semi-roast meat of the paschal offering is incurred only on the evening of the fifteenth, when one is bidden to eat the roast of the Passover sacrifice, but not on the day of the fourteenth, before the obligation commences.
(17) That boiled paschal offering flesh must not be eaten.
(18) That even then it may not be eaten at night.
(19) Supra 41a.
(20) That that is its only teaching.
(21) Granted that the repetition is necessary, the same grammatical form could be repeated.
(22) Which does not involve flagellation.is Rabbi. For it was taught: Either a bullock or a lamb that hath anything superfluous or lacking in its parts, that mayest thou offer for a freewill-offering; [but for a vow it shall not be accepted]:1 that thou mayest dedicate2 for the Temple repair,3 but thou mayest not dedicate unblemished [animals] for the Temple repair.4 Hence it was said, Whoever dedicates unblemished [animals] for the Temple repair transgresses an affirmative precept — I only know [that he transgresses] an affirmative precept: whence do we know [that he transgresses also] a negative injunction? Because it is stated, And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying [lemor]:5 this teaches concerning the whole section that it is subject to a negative injunction: this is R. Judah's view.6 Rabbi asked Bar Kappara: How does that imply it? Said he to him, Because it is written, 'lemor': a 'not' ['lo'] was stated in [these] matters .7 The School of Rab interpreted: Lemor, a negative injunction [law] was stated.
THE WATER USED BY A BAKER etc. One [Baraitha] taught: You must pour [it] out on a slope. but you may not pour [it] out on broken [ground].8 While another [Baraitha] taught: You may pour [it] out on broken ground? — There is no difficulty: here it means that it [the water] is abundant, so that it collects;9 there it means that it is not abundant, so that it does not collect.
Rab Judah said: A woman must knead [unleavened bread] only with water which was kept overnight.10 R. Mattenah taught this [in a public lecture] at Papunia.11 On the morrow all took their pitchers and repaired to him and demanded of him, 'Give us water'. Said he to them, 'I meant with water which has been kept overnight'.
Raba lectured: A woman may not knead in the sun, nor with water heated by the sun, nor with water collected12 from the caldron;13 and she must not remove her hand from the oven until she has finished all the bread;14 and she requires two vessels, one with which she moistens [the dough], and the other wherein she cools her hands.15
is now being discussed, has likewise the same superscription in v. I, q.v. The scholars asked: What if she transgressed and kneaded [in warm water]? Mar Zutra said: [The bread] is permitted; R. Ashi said: It is forbidden — Mar Zutra said, Whence do I know16 it?-Because it was taught: One may not wash barley on Passover; and if one did wash [them], if they split they are forbidden; if they did not split, they are permitted.17 But R. Ashi says: Will you weave all these things in one web?18 Where it was stated,19 it was stated; and where It was not stated, it was not stated.
MISHNAH. NOW THE FOLLOWING [THINGS] MUST BE REMOVED20 ON PASSOVER: BABYLONIAN KUTAH,21 MEDIAN BEER, IDUMEAN VINEGAR, EGYPTIAN ZITHOM,22 THE DYER'S BROTH,23 COOK'S DOUGH,24 AND THE SCRIBES' PASTE.25 R. ELIEZER SAID: WOMEN'S ORNAMENTS TOO.26 THIS IS THE GENERAL, RULE: WHATEVER IS OF27 THE SPECIES OF CORN28 MUST BE REMOVED ON PASSOVER. THESE ARE SUBJECT TO A WARNING',29 BUT THEY DO NOT INVOLVE KARETH.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Three things were said of Babylonian kutah: it closes up the heart,30 blinds the eyes, and emaciates the body. It closes up the heart, on account of the whey of milk; and it blinds the eyes, on account of the salt; and it emaciates the body, on account of the stale crusts.31
Our Rabbis taught: Three things increase one's motion, bend the stature, and take away a five hundredth part of a man's eyesight. They are these: Coarse black bread, new beer, and raw vegetables.
Our Rabbis taught: Three things decrease one's motion, straighten the stature, and give light to the eyes. These are they: White32 bread, fat meat, and old wine. White bread,
____________________
(1) Lev. XXII, 23.
(2) Lit., 'cause to be seized' with sanctity.
(3) I.e., it must be redeemed and the redemption money devoted to the general needs of the Temple, as apart from sacrifices.
(4) Since they are fit for the higher sanctity of sacrifices.
(5) Ibid. I.
(6) Ex. XII, 8, which
(7) 'Lemor' is treated as contraction of 'lo amur'. I.e., the laws contained in this section are subject to the admonition, 'do not violate them'.
(8) Rashi: Broken ground contains shallows and cavities where the water will gather. Instead of soaking in, and will thereby cause fermentation. Jast.: the place where water poured out would remain stagnant.
(9) Hence it may not be poured out there.
(10) Because in Nisan the water in the wells is warm (v. infra 94b). which hastens fermentation. Therefore it must be drawn the evening before it is required, so that it can cool off.
(11) A town between Bagdad and Pumbeditha, and included in the juridical district of the latter. Obermeyer, Landschaft, p. 242. — He lectured in Hebrew, using the actual words 'mayim shelanu', which may also mean, water belonging to us. — This suggests that Hebrew was sufficiently well known by the masses to make public lectures in that language possible.
(12) Lit., 'swept out'.
(13) The last-named is generally warm, and heat hastens fermentation.
(14) I.e., she must work on the dough all the time until it is baked.
(15) Her hands too, if heated, induce fermentation.
(16) Lit., 'says'.
(17) V. Supra 40a. Thus though it may not be done in the first place, if done it is permitted as long as there are no signs of leavening, and the same applies here.
(18) You surely cannot bring all cases into one category.
(19) That it is permitted if done.
(20) I.e., they must not be used; lit., 'they must pass away' (R. Tam. and Jast.). Rashi: (On account of) the following things you transgress the injunctions, (leaven) 'shall not be seen' and (leaven) 'shall not be found' (in the house).
(21) V. supra p. 95, nn. 7 and 8.
(22) A kind of beer.
(23) Made of bran, to keep the dye fast.
(24) Which is placed over the pot to absorb the froth.
(25) With which they paste strips of parchment etc. together. All these are forbidden because they contain the product of cereals which turn leaven.
(26) This is explained in the GEMARA.
(27) I.e., contains.
(28) As enumerated in the Mishnah supra 35a.
(29) This is a technical term, denoting a negative injunction, the violation of which is punished by flagellation.
(30) Probably, makes its action sluggish.
(31) Jast.: the decay of the flour-substance.
(32) Lit., 'clean'.of fine meal. Fat meat, of a goat which was not opened.1 Old wine: very old.2 Everything that is beneficial for the one is harmful for the other,3 and what is harmful for one is beneficial for the other, save moist zangebila,4 long peppers, white bread, fat meat and old wine, which are beneficial for the whole body.
MEDIAN BEER. Because barley water is mixed into it. IDUMEAN VINEGAR. Because barley is cast into it. R. Nahman [b. Isaac] said:5 In former times, when they used to bring [wine] libations from Judah, the wine of Judah did not turn vinegar unless barley was put into it, and they used to call it simply vinegar.6 But now the wine of the Idumeans does not turn vinegar until barley is put into it, and it is called 'Idumean vinegar', in fulfilment of what is said, [Tyre hath said against Jerusalem...] I shall be replenished, now that she is laid waste:7 if one is full [flourishing] the other is desolate, and if the other is full the first is desolate.8 R. Nahman b. Isaac quoted this: and the one people shall be stronger than the other people.9
It was taught, R. Judah said: Originally, he who bought vinegar from an 'am ha-arez10 did not need to tithe it, because it was a presumption that it was produced from nought but tamad.11 But now, he who buys vinegar from an 'am ha-arez must tithe it.12 Now does R. Judah hold [that] tamad is not liable to tithing, but we learned: He who makes tamad, pouring water on by measure, and [then] he finds the same quantity, is exempt [from tithing]:13 but R. Judah declares him liable?14 This is what he says: The 'amme ha-arez were not under suspicion in connection with tamad.15 Alternatively, they were under suspicion, yet there is no difficulty: the one refers to [tamad made with] the straining bag; the other refers to [tamad made of] kernels.16
AND EGYPTIAN ZITHOM. What is EGYPTIAN ZITHOM?-R. Joseph learned: [A concoction made of] a third part barley, a third part safflower, and a third part salt. R. Papa omitted barley and substituted wheat. And your token is 'sisane'.17 They soaked them [these ingredients], then roasted them, ground them and then drank them. From the [Passover] sacrifice18 until Pentecost, they who are constipated are relieved, while they who are diarrhoeic are bound. [But] for an invalid and a pregnant woman it is dangerous.19
AND DYER'S BROTH. Here it is explained: Bran water, with which lacca20 is primed.
AND COOK'S DOUGH. A loaf [i.e., dough] made of corn less than a third grown, which she places on the mouth of the pot and it absorbs the froth.
AND SCRIBES' PASTE. Here it is explained: Shoemaker's paste.21 R. Shimi of Hozae22 said: It is a toilet paste used by the daughters of rich men, of which they leave [some] for the daughters of poor men.23 But that is not so, for R. Hiyya taught: They are four commodities of general use24 and three manufacturing commodities.25 Now if you say that it is a toilet paste used by the daughters of rich men, what manufacturing commodities are there?26 What then; [it is] shoemaker's paste? Then why does he call it SCRIBES' PASTE; he should say, cobbler's PASTE? — Said R. Oshaia to him: In truth it is shoemaker's paste; yet why does he call it: SCRIBES' PASTE? Because scribes too stick their papyruses together with it.
R. ELIEZER SAID: WOMEN'S ORNAMENTS TOO etc. WOMENS' ORNAMENTS! can you think so!27 Rather, say, WOMEN'S cosmetics TOO. For Rab Judah said in Rab's name: [As to] the daughters of Israel
____________________
(1) I.e., which has not given birth to young.
(2) Rashi: three years old. — But it is doubtful if this would be called very old.
(3) I.e., what is beneficial for the heart is harmful to the eyes. etc.
(4) Zingiber, an Arabian spice plant, prob. ginger (Jast.).
(5) The Yalkut omits b. Isaac; the text infra supports this omission.
(6) The wine was so good that without barley it would never turn sour.
(7) Ezek. XXVI, 2.
(8) Tyre — here represented as synonymous with Edom — and Jerusalem can neither both flourish simultaneously nor both be desolate simultaneously. — True religion and paganism are irrevocably opposed to each other, and the triumph of one must involve the defeat of the other.
(9) Gen. XXV, 23.
(10) V. Glos.
(11) An inferior wine made from the husks of grapes steeped in water. But it was definitely not from wine, for the wine was too good to turn into vinegar.
(12) Because it is probably from wine, which is nowadays of a poorer quality and readily turns vinegar. Of course, the 'am ha-arez himself should have tithed it, but they were suspected of neglecting tithes, and therefore the purchaser had to render tithe; v. Glos. s.v. Demai.
(13) Because it is mere water, though it has slightly absorbed the appearance and taste of wine from the husks and kernels.
(14) Because its appearance and taste determine its status as wine.
(15) Because it was so cheap that even they would not grudge its tithes.
(16) When tamad is made by pouring water over the lees in the strainer, it is wine, and is subject to tithes. But tamad made with kernels is merely coloured water, and is not subject to tithes at all.
(17) 'Twigs'. R. Joseph (יוסף) included barley (שערי). both words containing an S (ס and ש) and the two ס in 'sisane' serve as mnemonic for this.
(18) I.e., from Passover.
(19) Because its laxative properties are too great.
(20) So the reading in Maim. and Jast. Lacca is the juice of a plant, used for dyeing.
(21) Perura is a paste made of crumbs.
(22) The modern Khuzestan.
(23) It is a depilatory made of
(24) Lit., 'for the Country'.
(25) Thus he sums up the seven things mentioned in the Mishnah.
(26) This is not all article used in manufacture.
(27) They have nothing to do with leaven.who have attained maturity but have not attained [their] years,1 the daughters of poor men plaster them [the unwanted hairs] with lime; the daughters of wealthy men plaster them with fine flour; while royal princesses, with oil of myrrh as it is written, six months with oil of myrrh.2 What is oil of myrrh? R. Huna b. Jeremiah said: Sakath.3 R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: Oil of olives which were not a third grown. It was taught, R. Judah said: Anpikanin4 is oil of olives which were not a third grown. And why do [women] rub it in [their skin]? Because it removes the hair and rejuvenates the skin.
THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHATEVER IS OF THE SPECIES OF CORN. It was taught, R. Joshua said: Now since we learned, WHATEVER IS OF THE SPECIES OF CORN MUST BE REMOVED ON PASSOVER, why did the Sages enumerate these? So that
fine flour, and wealthy women give the leavings to their poorer sisters, the daughters of scribes, who were generally poor. one should be familiar with them and with their names.5 As it once happened that a certain Palestinian6 visited Babylonia. He had meat with him and he said to them [his hosts], Bring me a relish.7 He [then] heard them saying, 'Take him kutah'. As soon as he heard kutah, he abstained.8
THESE ARE SUBJECT TO A WARNING'. Which Tanna [holds] that real leaven of corn in a mixture, and spoiled leaven9 in its natural condition, is subject to a negative injunction?10 — Said Rab Judah in Rab's name: It is R. Meir. For it was taught: Si'ur11 must be burnt, and he may give it to his dog, and he who eats it is [punished] by forty [lashes].12 Now this is self-contradictory. You say, 'si'ur must be burnt': this proves that it is forbidden for use. Then it is stated, 'and he may give it to his dog', which proves that it is permitted for use! This is its meaning: Si'ur' [i.e., what is si'ur] according to R. Meir [must be burnt] in R. Meir's opinion, and [what is si'ur'] according to R. Judah [must be burnt] in R. Judah's opinion. And he may give it to his dog, [i.e., what is si'ur'] according to R. Meir [may be given to a dog] in R. Judah's opinion. And he who eats it is [punished] by forty [lashes] — this agrees with R. Meir.13 [Thus] we learn that R. Meir holds that spoiled [leaven] in its natural state14 is subject to a negative injunction, and all the more real leaven of corn in a mixture.15 R. Nahman said, It is R. Eliezer. For it was taught: For real leaven of corn there is the penalty of kareth; for a mixture of it [one is subject to] a negative injunction: this is the view of R. Eliezer. But the Sages maintain: For real leaven of corn there is the penalty of kareth; for the mixture of it there is nothing at all.16 [Thus] we learn that R. Eliezer holds that real leaven of corn in a mixture is subject to a negative injunction, and all the more spoiled [leaven] in its natural state.17 Now R. Nahman, what is the reason that he does not say as Rab Judah? — He can tell you: perhaps R. Meir rules [thus] only there, [in respect of] spoiled [leaven] in its natural state, but not [in the case of] real leaven of corn in a mixture. And Rab Judah: what is the reason that he does not say as R. Nahman? He can tell you: [Perhaps]18 R. Eliezer rules [thus] only there, [in respect of] real leaven of corn in a mixture, but not [in the case of] spoiled [leaven] in its natural state.
It was taught in accordance with Rab Judah:19 Ye shall eat nothing leavened:20 this is to include Babylonian kutah and Median beer and Idumean vinegar and Egyptian zithom. You, might think that the penalty is kareth; therefore it is stated, for whosoever eateth that which is leavened shall be cut off21 for real leaven of corn there is the penalty of kareth, but for the mixture of it [you are subject] to a negative injunction. Now, whom do you know to maintain [that] for the mixture of it [you are subject] to a negative injunction? It is R. Eliezer. Yet he does not state22 spoiled [leaven] in its natural state. This proves that R. Eliezer does not hold [that] spoiled [leaven is subject to a negative injunction].
Now R. Eliezer, whence does he know that the mixture of it involves a negative injunction: because it is written, 'ye shall eat nothing leavened'? If so, let him [the offender] be liable to kareth
that real leaven in a mixture is more stringent leaven than spoiled leaven in its natural state. too, since it is written, 'for whosoever eateth that which is leavened . shall be cut off'? — He requires that for what was taught:
([Ye shall eat nothing] leavened):23 I only know [that it is forbidden] where it turned leaven of itself; if [it fermented] through the agency of another substance, how do we know it? Because it is stated, for whosoever eateth that which is leavened shall be cut off. If so, [the teaching] of the negative injunction too comes for this purpose?24 Rather, R. Eliezer's reason is [that he] deduces from 'whosoever'.25 [But] there too26 'whosoever' is written? — He requires that to include women.27 But women are deduced from Rab Judah's [dictum] in Rab's name. For Rab Judah said in Rab's name, and the School of R. Ishmael taught likewise: when a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit:28 the Writ assimilated woman to man in respect of all the penalties which are [decreed] in the Torah? It is necessary:____________________
(1) I.e., they have grown the hair which is the evidence of maturity before the usual age, which is twelve years and a day. They would normally be ashamed and wish to remove it. Tosaf. in Shab, 80b s.v. שהגיעו omits 'years' and seems to translate: 'who have reached their time (for marriage), and yet have not attained it', so that they wish to make themselves more beautiful.
(2) Est. II, 12 q.v.
(3) Jast.: oil of myrrh or cinnamon.
(4) It is stated in Men. 86a that anpikanin must not be brought with a meal-offering. R. Judah explains what this is.
(5) That all may know that their use is forbidden on Passover.
(6) Lit., 'son of the West'.
(7) To go with the meat.
(8) He knew that it contains milk, whilst they did not.
(9) 'Nuksheh', a leavened substance unfit for food.
(10) Babylonian kutah and Median beer both contain real leaven, but mixed with other substances; while women's paste is simply flour, unmixed, but spoiled and unfit for food.
(11) This is dough which is beginning to ferment, i.e., semi-leaven. At that stage it is unfit for eating, and therefore the same as spoiled leaven; v. infra 48b.
(12) This is the punishment for violating a negative injunction.
(13) V. infra 48b for the controversy between R. Meir and R. Judah as to what constitutes si'ur', semi-leaven. Now both R. Meir and R. Judah hold that use of si'ur, as each defines it respectively, is forbidden, and hence it must be burnt. But si'ur, as defined by R. Meir, is in R. Judah's opinion mazzah (unleavened bread), but as it is not fit for eating, it must be given to a dog. The final clauses teaches this: according to R. Meir, he who eats si'ur, as defined by himself, is flagellated, though R. Judah holds that at that stage it is mazzah and may be eaten.
(14) Such as si'ur.
(15) Rab Judah being of the opinion
(16) No penalty is incurred.
(17) Thus R. Nahman holds that spoiled leaven unmixed is more stringent than real leaven in a mixture.
(18) [Added with MS.M.]
(19) That real leaven mixed is the more stringent.
(20) Ex. XII, 20.
(21) Ibid. 19.
(22) I.e., include.
(23) The bracketed passage is omitted in some edd. as well as supra 28b in the quotation of this Baraitha.
(24) That a negative injunction is involved even in respect of that which is made leaven through a foreign substance. How then do we know that even for a mixture a negative injunction is transgressed?
(25) Heb. kol. This is an extension, and so teaches even the inclusion of a mixture.
(26) In reference to kareth.
(27) That they too are subject to the penalty of kareth.
(28) Num.V, 6.you might argue, since it is written, Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith:1 whoever is subject to 'arise, eat unleavened bread', is subject to 'thou shalt eat no leavened bread'; hence these women, since they are not subject to, 'arise, eat unleavened bread', because it is an affirmative precept limited to time,2 I would say that they are also not subject to, 'thou shalt eat no leavened bread'. Hence it [the verse] informs us [otherwise].
And now that they have been included in [the injunction of] 'thou shalt eat no leavened bread', they are also included in respect of eating unleavened bread, in accordance with R. Eleazar. For R. Eleazar said: Women are subject to the [precept of] eating unleavened bread by the law of Scripture, for it is said, Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; [seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread [therewith]: whoever is subject to 'thou shalt eat no leavened bread', is subject to the eating of unleavened bread; and these women, since they are subject to [the injunction of] 'thou shalt eat no leavened bread', are [also] subject to, 'arise, eat unleavened bread'.
And why do you prefer3 [to assume] that this 'whosoever is to include women, while you exclude its mixture; say that it is to include the mixture?4 — It is logical that when treating of eaters [Scripture] includes eaters; [but] when treating of eaters, shall it include things which are eaten?5 To this R. Nathan the father of R. Huna demurred: Then wherever [Scripture] treats of eaters does it not include things eaten? Surely it was taught: For whosoever eateth the fat [heleb] of the beast, of which men present an offering [made by fire to the Lord, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people]:6 I only know it of the heleb of unblemished [animals], which are fit to be offered [as sacrifices]; whence do we know it of the heleb of blemished animals? Therefore it is stated, 'of the beast'.7 Whence do we know it of the heleb of hullin? Because it is stated, 'For whosoever',8 Thus here, though [Scripture] treats of eaters, yet it includes things eaten? — Since there are no eaters there [to be included],9 it includes things eaten. Here, however, that there are eaters [to be included],10 he cannot abandon eaters and include things eaten.
Now as to the Rabbis who do not accept the view [that a negative injunction is violated through] a mixture, they do not interpret 'whosoever' [as an extension]. But then how do they know [that] women [are liable to kareth]?11 — They do not interpret 'whosoever' [as an extension], but they do interpret 'for whosoever' [as such].12 Then [according to] R. Eliezer, say that 'whosoever' is to include women; 'for whosoever' is to include the mixture [of leaven]?13 And should you answer, R. Eliezer does not interpret 'for whosoever' [as an additional extension] surely it was taught: For ye shall not burn any leaven...[as an offering made by fire unto the Lord]:14 I only know it of the whole of it;15 whence do I know [even] part of it?16 Because 'any' [kol] is stated. Whence do we know [that] its mixture17 [is forbidden]? Because it is stated for any [ki kol]. Whom do you know to interpret kol [as any extension]? R. Eliezer; and he [also] interprets 'for any' [ki kol]. This is [indeed] a difficulty.
R. Abbahu said in R. Johanan's name: In all the prohibitions of the Torah, a permitted [commodity] does not combine with a prohibited [commodity],18 except in the [case of the] prohibitions of a nazirite, for lo! the Torah said, [any] infusion [of grapes].19 While Ze'iri said: Also 'ye shall not burn any leaven'.20 With whom [does this agree]? With R. Eliezer, who interprets kol.21 If so,
____________________
(1) Deut. XVI,3.
(2) Lit., 'caused by the time'. I.e., it is performed at certain times or seasons, and it is shown in Kid. 29a that women are exempt from such.
(3) Lit., 'what (reason) do you see?'
(4) While the limitation excludes women.
(5) Surely not.
(6) Lev. VII, 25.
(7) Implying whether it is fit for sacrificing or not.
(8) Which is an extension.
(9) For the inclusion of women in the prohibition and penalty follows from Rab's dictum supra 43a bottom.
(10) Viz., women, as explained supra.
(11) For eating leaven. For R. Eliezer interprets 'whosoever' in both cases, one as including a mixture, and the other as including women. But since the Rabbis do not interpret 'whosoever' as an extension, there is nothing to intimate the inclusion of women.
(12) Written in connection with kareth, Ex. XXI, 15 and 19.
(13) Teaching that kareth is involved, and not merely a negative precept.
(14) Lev. II, 11. For...any (E.V. For ye shall make no...) is ki...kol, the same words which are translated for whosoever' in the previous verses.
(15) I.e., where the whole of that which is burnt on the altar consists of leaven.
(16) Leaven must not even be used as part of the offering.
(17) I.e., anything containing a mixture of leaven.
(18) The minimum quantity to involve punishment is as much as an olive. Now, if a man eats half that quantity of heleb together with half that quantity of permitted meat simultaneously, the latter does not combine with the former, that it should be regarded as though he had eaten the full quantity of prohibited food.
(19) Num. VI, 3: neither shall he drink any infusion of grapes. By this the Talmud understands that he must not eat bread steeped in wine. Now bread itself is permitted, yet Scripture forbids the combination of bread and wine as though that also were forbidden, and if the two together amount to an olive, punishment is involved. For if Scripture refers to a case where the wine itself contains that quantity, why state it at all; obviously the wine is not less prohibited merely because it has been absorbed by the bread?
(20) Cf. Lev. I, 11. Rashi: if the priest put half an olive of leaven and half an olive of mazzah, not mixed together but each separately distinguishable, upon the altar, he incurs punishment. Tosaf. explains it differently.
(21) Supra: 'whence do I know (even) part of it' etc. He understands this to mean that there is half an olive of each.in the matter of leaven too?1 — That indeed is so; yet this2 is to reject [the ruling] of Abaye, who said, There is burning [on the altar] in respect of less than an olive;3 therefore he informs us that there is no burning for less than an olive.
R. Dimi sat and reported this discussion. Said Abaye to R. Dimi: And [in] all [other] prohibitions of the Torah, does not a permitted commodity combine with a prohibited [commodity]? Surely we learned: If the mikpeh4 is of terumah, while the garlic and the oil are of hullin, and a tebul yom touched part of it, he disqualifies all of it.5 If the mikpeh is of hullin, while the garlic and the oil is of terumah, and a tebul yom touches part of it, he disqualifies only the place which he touches. Now we pondered thereon: why is the place where he touches unfit? Surely the seasoning6 is nullified in the greater quantity?7 And Rabbah b. Bar Hanah answered: What is the reason? Because a lay Israelite is flagellated on its account for [eating] as much as an olive.8 How is that conceivable?9 Is it not because the permitted [commodity] combines with the forbidden [commodity]? — No: what does 'as much as an olive' mean: that there is as much as an olive within the time of eating half [a loaf].10 Is then 'as much as an olive within the time of eating half [a loaf]' a Scriptural [standard]?11 Yes, he answered him. If so, why do the Rabbis disagree with R. Eliezer in reference to Babylonian kutah?12 — What then: [the reason is] because the permitted [commodity] combines with the prohibited commodity? Then after all why do the Rabbis differ from R. Eliezer in the matter of Babylonian kutah? But leave Babylonian kutah alone,13 because it does not contain as much as an olive within the eating of half [a loaf]. [For] if [it is eaten] in its natural state,14 so that he gulps it down and eats it, we disregard such a fancy as being exceptional.15 While if he dips [bread] into it16 and eats it, it does not contain as much as an olive within the time of eating half [a loaf].
He raised all objection against him: If there are two [stew] pots, one of hullin and the other of terumah, and in front of them are two mortars, one containing [condiments of] hullin and the other containing terumah, and the latter fell into the former, they are permitted,17 for I assume: the terumah fell into the terumah, and the hullin fell into the hullin. Now if you say that as much as an olive within the [time of] eating half [a loaf] is a Biblical [standard],why do we say, 'for I assume, the terumah' etc.?18 — Leave the terumah of condiments alone, he replied, which is [only] Rabbinical.19 He raised an objection against him: [If there are] two baskets, one containing hullin and the other containing terumah, and in front of them are two se'ah [of provisions], one of hullin and the other of terumah and these fell into those, they are permitted, for I assume: the hullin fell into hullin, [and] the terumah fell into the terumah. Now if you say that as much as an olive within the eating of half [a loaf] is a Scriptural [standard], why do we say, 'because I assume' [etc.]?20 — Leave the terumah [set aside]
kutah there is as much as an olive of leaven, and for that he should be liable. at the present time21 he answered him, which is only Rabbinical.
Now does this [law of] the infusion [of grapes] come for this purpose?22 It is required for what was taught: 'An infusion':
____________________
(1) There too he learns that there is a negative injunction in respect of the mixture of leaven; hence he should likewise assume that it refers to half all olive of each.
(2) Sc. the particular mention of the burning of leaven on the altar.
(3) Even if one burns less than an olive of leaven on the altar, he is culpable, since the leaven itself, whatever its quantity, involves punishment.
(4) Jast.: a stiff mass of grist, oil and onions.
(5) A tebul yom (v. Glos.) disqualifies terumah. Since the main part of the dish is terumah, even the hullin too becomes unfit, because it is subsidiary to the terumah.
(6) I.e., the garlic and oil.
(7) As explained in n. 4, it is merely subsidiary to the main dish.
(8) Hence it is not regarded as nullified, in spite of its subsidiary nature.
(9) "When a lay Israelite eats as much as an olive of that dish, he has not eaten that quantity of terumah. Why then is he flagellated?
(10) I.e., if he eats as much as half a loaf of eight average eggs in size, this half constituting an average meal, within the time that the normal eater requires for a meal, he will have eaten as much as an olive of terumah, and for that he is culpable. [According to Maim. Yad 'Erubin,, half a loaf is equivalent to three average eggs].
(11) That flagellation is incurred. — Flagellation is only imposed for the violation of a law of Scripture.
(12) Even if flagellation is not incurred on account of the mixture, yet there too in a quantity of four eggs of
(13) I.e., do not ask a question from it.
(14) I.e., by itself, and not as a relish with something else.
(15) Lit., 'his mind is nullified by the side of every man. It is not considered eating, and therefore does not involve punishment. — Punishment is incurred only when forbidden, food is eaten in the normal way.
(16) Rashi; Jast.: if he spreads it (on bread).
(17) The pot of hullin is permitted to a lay Israelite.
(18) For of course it might have been the reverse; how then can we make this lenient assumption when there is a doubt of a Scriptural prohibition?
(19) By Scriptural law no terumah is required for these; hence the entire prohibition in this case is only Rabbinical.
(20) V. n. 6.
(21) After the destruction of the Temple.
(22) V. Supra 43b bottom.[this is] to intimate that the taste is as the substance itself, so that if he [the nazirite] steeped grapes in water and it possesses the taste of wine, he is culpable.1 From this you may draw a conclusion for the whole Torah.2 For if a nazirite, whose prohibition is not a permanent prohibition, and his prohibition is not a prohibition of [general] use,3 and there is a release for his prohibition,4 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]!5 — The authority for this is the Rabbis, which R. Johanan6 stated [his ruling] in accordance with R. Akiba.
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'? But whence [do you know that he means sufficient] of the bread and the wine; perhaps [he means] of the wine alone?7 And should you say, [if] of the wine alone, why state it? He informs us thus: [He is culpable] although it is a mixture!8 — Rather it is R. Akiba of the Baraitha. For it was taught, R. Akiba said: If a nazirite soaked his bread in wine and ate as much as an olive of the bread9 and the wine [combined] he is culpable.
Now [according to] R. Akiba, whence do we know that the taste [of forbidden food] is like the substance itself?10 — He learns it from [the prohibition of] meat [seethed] in milk; is it not merely a taste,11 and it is forbidden? so here too12 it is not different. And the Rabbis?13 — We cannot learn from meat [seethed] in milk, because it is an anomaly.14 Yet what is the anomaly? 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 conjunction they are forbidden? — Rather [the anomaly is] that if he soaked it all day in milk it is permitted,15 yet if he but seethed it [in milk] it is forbidden. Then R. Akiba too? [The prohibition of] meat [seethed] in milk is certainly an anomaly?16 — Rather he learns it from the vessels of Gentiles.17 The vessels of Gentiles, is it not merely a flavour [which they impart]? Yet they are forbidden; so here too it is not different. And the Rabbis?18 — The vessels of Gentiles too are an anomaly, for whatever imparts a deteriorating flavour is permitted,19 since we learn it from nebelah,20 yet here it is for bidden.21 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.22 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?23 — Said he to him,
____________________
(1) For eating it. '
(2) 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.]
(3) Though he may not eat grapes or drink wine, etc., he may benefit from them.
(4) He can be absolved of his vow, whereupon it all becomes permitted.
(5) 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.
(6) Supra 43b bottom.
(7) 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.
(8) Of bread and wine, the wine not standing alone.
(9) 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.
(10) Since he utilizes 'an infusion' for the purpose just stated.
(11) Which the meat has received from the milk.
(12) I.e., in respect of all other forbidden food.
(13) Why cannot they learn it in the same way?
(14) Lit., 'a new law', i.e., it is peculiarly different from other laws, and therefore does not provide a basis for analogy.
(15) By Scriptural law, even to eat it; Scripture forbids it only when cooked in milk.
(16) How then can he derive it thence?
(17) 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.
(18) V. n. 6.
(19) I.e., when the imparted flavour spoils the taste of the permitted food.
(20) Deut. XIV, 21: Ye shall not eat of
(21) They assume that the flavour exuded by the vessel has a deteriorating effect.
(22) Because it is still fresh.
(23) Then why did R. Johanan (Supra 43b bottom) limit this principle to a nazirite, seeing that his statement is in accordance with R. Akiba?Because a nazirite and a sin-offering are two verses with the same teaching,1 and they do not illumine [other cases].2 'A nazirite', that which we have stated. What is the reference to the sin-offering? — For it was taught: whatsoever shall touch in the flesh thereof shall be holy:3 you might think, even if it did not absorb [of the flesh of the sin-offering]; therefore it is stated, 'in the flesh thereof'.4 Only when it absorbs in the flesh?5 'Shall be holy', to be as itself, so that if it [the sin-offering] is unfit, that [which touches it] becomes unfit; while if it is fit, that may be eaten [only] in accordance with its stringencies.6
any thing that dieth of itself (nebelah); thou mayest give it unto the stranger. Hence whatever is fit for a stranger is designated nebelah, but what is unfit is not designated nebelah, in the sense that if it imparts a deteriorating flavour it does not render the food forbidden. Then, according to the Rabbis too, let a nazirite and a sin-offering be two verses with the same teaching and they do not illumine [other cases]? — They can answer: these are indeed [both] necessary.7 And R. Akiba?8 How are they [both] necessary? It is well [to say] that if the Merciful One wrote it in respect to a sin-offering, [the case of] a nazirite could not be derived from it, because we cannot derive hullin from sacred sacrifices.9 But let the Merciful One write it in respect to a nazirite, and then the sin-offering would come and be derived from it, seeing that all the prohibitions of the Torah are learnt from a nazirite. But the Rabbis can answer you: they [both] are indeed required; the sin-offering, to [show that] the permitted combines with the forbidden, while hullin cannot be deduced from sacred sacrifices; and 'an infusion', to intimate that the taste is as the substance itself, and from this you may draw a conclusion for the whole Torah. But R. Akiba maintains: both [are required] for [teaching] that the permitted combines with the forbidden, so that they are two verses with the same teaching, and all [instances of] two verses with the same teaching do not illumine [other cases].
R. Ashi said to R. Kahana: Then as to what was taught, [All the days of his Naziriteship shall he eat] nothing that is made of the grape vine, from the husks to the kernels:10 this teaches concerning a nazirite's prohibited commodities, that they combine with each other; — seeing that according to R. Akiba [even] the forbidden with the permitted combine, is it necessary [to state] the forbidden with the forbidden?11 — Said he to him: The forbidden with the permitted [combine only when eaten] together; the forbidden with the forbidden, [even when eaten] consecutively.12
which absorbs some of it. — Thus here too the permitted flesh combines with the forbidden, and all is regarded as forbidden.
MISHNAH. [WITH REGARD TO] THE DOUGH IN THE CRACKS OF THE KNEADING TROUGH, IF THERE IS AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE IN ONE PLACE, HE IS BOUND TO REMOVE [IT]; BUT IF NOT, IT IS NULLIFIED THROUGH THE SMALLNESS OF ITS QUANTITY.13 AND IT IS LIKEWISE IN THE MATTER OF UNCLEANNESS: IF HE OBJECTS TO IT, IT INTERPOSES;14 BUT IF HE DESIRES ITS PRESERVATION,15 IT IS LIKE A KNEADING-TROUGH.16
GEMARA. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They learned this17 only of a place where it [the dough] does not serve18 for reinforcing [the trough]; but where it serves for reinforcing [it], he is not bound to remove it.19 Hence it follows that [where there is] less than an olive, even if it does serve for reinforcing [it], he is not obliged to remove it. Others recite it in reference to the second clause: BUT IF NOT, IT IS NULLIFIED THROUGH THE SMALLNESS OF ITS QUANTITY. Said Rab Judah in Samuel's name: They learned this only where it serves for reinforcing [the trough]; but where it does not serve for reinforcing [it], he is bound to remove it. Whence it follows that if there is as much as an olive, even where it serves for reinforcing [it], he is bound to remove it.
It was taught as the former version; It was taught as the latter version. It was taught as the former version: Dough in the cracks of the kneading trough, where it serves for reinforcing, it does not interpose,20 and he [its owner] does not transgress.21 But [if it is] in a place where it does not serve for reinforcing, it interposes, and he transgresses. When is this said? Where there is as much as an olive. But if there is less than an olive, even where it does not serve for reinforcing, it does not interpose, and he does not transgress. Again, it was taught as the latter version: Dough in the cracks of a kneading trough, where it serves for reinforcing,
____________________
(1) Lit., 'which come as one'.
(2) V. Supra p. 119, n. 2.
(3) Lev. VI, 20. 'Holy' means 'forbidden', in the sense that any other flesh which touches this flesh of the sin-offering becomes subject to the same laws and limitations as those to which the sin-offering is subject.
(4) Literal translation. I.e., it is forbidden only if it absorbs some of the sin-offering within itself.
(5) [The text of cur. edd. is difficult. A better reading is preserved in the Sifra a.l. 'till it absorbs', omitting the words 'in the flesh', and the deduction being from the word 'thereof'.]
(6) A sin-offering must be eaten within the sacred precincts, by male priests, and for one day and night only; similarly the food
(7) And where that is so, they do illuminate other cases, since neither could be deduced from the other.
(8) Does he not admit this?
(9) The latter being naturally more stringent. Hence the fact that there the permitted combines with the forbidden does not prove that it will also do so in the case of hullin, where the interdicted food is not sacred.
(10) Num. VI, 4.
(11) Surely it is obvious; why then is the verse required?
(12) For further notes on the whole discussion beginning with R. Abbahu's dictum in the name of R. Johanan on page 43b, v. Nazir, Sonc. ed. pp. 128ff.
(13) I.e., he has abandoned the normal use of the dough in flavour of the trough.
(14) V. infra n. 8; if he objects to it, it is regarded as a foreign body.
(15) I.e., he wants the dough to be there to close the crack.
(16) And it does not interpose.
(17) That if there is as much as an olive in one place it must be removed.
(18) Lit., 'it is not made for'.
(19) E.g., if the crack is at the bottom of the trough, and the dough fills it and so prevents the water from running out. It is then regarded as part of the trough, not as dough, and therefore it need not be removed. But if the crack is high up, it does not serve this purpose and must be removed.
(20) When a utensil is ritually unclean and cleansed in a ritual bath, nothing must interpose between the utensil and the water of the bath (called a mikweh); otherwise the ablution is invalid. This dough, since it reinforces the trough, is counted as part of itself and not as a foreign body, and therefore it is not an interposition between the trough and the water; hence the ablution is valid.
(21) The law of Passover by leaving it there and not removing it.it does not interpose, and he does not transgress; [if it is] in a place where it does not serve for reinforcing, it interposes, and he transgresses. When is this said? When there is less than an olive; but if there is as much as an olive, even in a place where it serves for reinforcing, it interposes, and he transgresses. Then these are contradictory? — Said R. Huna: Delete the more lenient [Baraitha] in favour of1 the more stringent. R. Joseph said: You quote Tannaim at random!2 This is a controversy of Tannaim. For it was taught: If a loaf went mouldy, he is bound to remove it, because it is fit to crumble and leaven many other doughs with it. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: When is this said? If it is kept for eating. But a mass3 of se'or which he put aside for sitting, he has nullified it.4 Now, since R. Simeon b. Eleazar said, 'He has nullified it', it follows that the first Tanna holds that he has not nullified it. This proves that he holds, wherever there is as much as an olive, even if he nullifies it, it is not nullified. Said Abaye to him: You have reconciled it where there is as much as an olive; [yet] have you reconciled it [where there is] less than an olive? Rather both the one and the other are [the rulings of] R. Simeon b. Eleazar, yet there is no difficulty: one [is taught where it is] in the place of kneading; the other, where it is not in the place of kneading.5 R. Ashi said: Do not assume that 'not in the place of kneading' means on the back of the trough [only], but [it means even] on the [upper] rim of the trough. That is obvious? — You might say, it sometimes splashes up and reaches there:6 hence he informs us [otherwise].
R. Nahman said in Rab's name: The halachah is as R. Simeon b. Eleazar. Yet that is not so, for R. Isaac b. Ashi said in Rab's name: If he plastered its surface7 with clay, he has nullified it. [Thus,] only if he plastered it, but not if he did not plaster it?8 He who recited this did not recite that.9 Others state, R. Nahman said in Rab's name: The halachah is not as R. Simeon b. Eleazar, for R. Isaac b. Ashi said in Rab's name: If he plastered its surface with clay, he has nullified it etc. R. Nahman said in Samuel's name: [If there are] two half olives10 and a thread of dough joining11 them, we see: wherever if the thread were taken up these would be carried with it, he is bound to remove [them];12 but if not, he is not bound to remove [them]. Said 'Ulla: This was said only of [dough in] a kneading trough; but [if they are] in the house, he is bound to remove [them].13 What is the reason? Because he may sometimes sweep them and they will fall together.
'Ulla said: They asked in the West [Palestine]: What of a room14 and an upper storey; what of a room and the [entrance] hall; what of two rooms, one within the other?15 The questions stand.
Our Rabbis taught: If a loaf went mouldy and it became unfit for human consumption, yet a dog can eat it, it can be defiled with the uncleanness of eatables, if the size of an egg, and it may be burnt together with an unclean [loaf] on Passover.16 In R. Nathan's name it was ruled: It cannot be defiled [as an eatable]. With whom agrees the following which we learned: A general principle was stated in respect to the laws of [ritual] cleanness: Whatever is set aside for human consumption is unclean,17 until it becomes unfit for a dog to eat? With whom [does this agree]? It is not in accordance with R. Nathan.
Our Rabbis taught: [With regard to] the trough of tanners18 into which he put flour,19 [if] within three days [before Passover], he is bound to remove it;20 [if] before three days, he is not bound to remove it.21 Said R. Nathan: When is this said? If he did not put hides into it; but if he put hides into it, even [if it is] within three days, he is not bound to remove [the flour].22 Raba said: The halachah is as R. Nathan, even [if it is] one day, and even one hour [before Passover]. AND IT IS LIKEWISE IN RESPECT TO UNCLEANNESS: IF HE OBJECTS TO IT, IT INTERPOSES; BUT IF HE DESIRES ITS PRESERVATION, IT IS LIKE THE KNEADING-TROUGH. How compare: there the matter is dependent on the quantity [of the dough], [whereas] here the matter is dependent on [his] objecting [to it]? Said Rab Judah, Say: But in respect to uncleanness it is not so. Said Abaye to him, But he states, AND IT IS LIKEWISE IN RESPECT TO UNCLEANNESS? Rather, said Abaye, He means it thus: AND IT IS LIKEWISE
____________________
(1) Lit., 'before'.
(2) There is no reason for assuming that both Baraithas represent the view of the same Tanna.
(3) Kopeth really means a low seat or block.
(4) I.e., he gave up the nominal use of it as se'or and hence it no longer counts as leaven.
(5) in the second Baraitha, 'where it does not serve for reinforcing', refers only to a place where no kneading is done at all, e.g at the upper edge; but dough in the cracks at the sides is regarded as reinforcing the trough, and hence it must be removed. But the first Baraitha holds that even in the latter case it does not reinforce it, though kneading is done there, while 'where it serves for reinforcing' refers to the bottom only. Hence this is what the first Tanna states: Where it serves for reinforcing, e.g., at the bottom, he does not transgress even if there is as much as an olive. Where it does not serve for reinforcing (i.e., to support the water), e.g., in the sides, which is a place for kneading yet not a place for the water, if there is as much as an olive, it interposes, and he transgresses. But if there is less than an olive, even if it is in the sides it does not interpose, for since it does help somewhat to support the dough which is kneaded there (viz., that it should not sink into the crack), it is nullified. But this Tanna does not discuss dough which is not in the place of kneading, viz., at the upper rim, and he would admit in that case that even if there is less than an olive it is not nullified. While the second Tanna rules thus: If it is in the place where it affords support to the dough, i.e., in the sides, if there is less than an olive it does not interpose; if there is as much as an olive, it interposes, and this is the view of the first Tanna too. While where it is not made for reinforcing (or, supporting), i.e., at the upper rim, even less than an olive interposes, and this too agrees with the first Tanna.
(6) So that the rim is regarded as a place of kneading and must be removed, even if less than an olive. [MS.M. omits 'and reaches there'. V. also Rashi.]
(7) Sc. that of the mass of se'or which he set aside for sitting.
(8) Whereas R. Simeon b. Eleazar holds that it is nullified in any case.
(9) There are two opposing views on Rab's ruling.
(10) I.e., two pieces of dough, each the size of half an olive. — The reference is to the cracks in the kneading trough.
(11) Lit., 'between'.
(12) Because it is all one.
(13) Even if they are not thus united by a thread of dough.
(14) Bayith in the Talmud often has the meaning of a room in a house.
(15) I.e., if there is half an olive in one and half in the other: do we fear here too that they may be swept together?
(16) V. supra 15b.
(17) I.e., subject to defilement as an eatable.
(18) Into which they put hides for tanning.
(19) Which is used in the tanning process.
(20) Because it is still regarded as flour, and of course it is leaven.
(21) Because by Passover it will be so spoiled through the odour of the trough, even if there are no hides in it, that it will not be regarded as flour.
(22) Because the hides utterly spoil it.IN RESPECT TO combining for UNCLEANNESS on Passover, whereas during the rest of the year there is a distinction. How is that? E.g., if there are eatables less than an egg in quantity,1 and they were in contact with this dough: on Passover, when its prohibition renders the dough important,2 it combines.3 [But] during the rest of the year, when the matter is dependent on [his] objecting, IF HE OBJECTS TO IT,4 it combines; [while] IF HE DESIRES ITS PRESERVATION, IT IS LIKE THE KNEADING-TROUGH. To this Raba demurred: Does he then teach, it combines; surely he teaches, IT INTERPOSES! Rather, said Raba: [The meaning is], AND IT IS LIKEWISE IN RESPECT TO cleaning5 the kneading-trough. How is that? E.g., if this kneading-trough became unclean, and he wishes to immerse it. On Passover, when its interdict [renders it] important, IT INTERPOSES, and the immersion is not efficacious for it. But during the rest of the year the matter is dependent on his objecting: IF HE OBJECTS TO IT, IT INTERPOSES, WHILE IF HE DESIRES ITS PRESERVATION, IT IS LIKE THE KNEADING-TROUGH. To this R. Papa demurred: Does he teach, And it is likewise in respect to cleanness? Surely he teaches, AND IT IS LIKEWISE IN RESPECT TO UNCLEANNESS! Rather, said R. Papa: [The meaning is], AND IT IS LIKEWISE IN RESPECT TO causing UNCLEANNESS to descend upon the kneading-trough. How so? E.g., if a sherez touched this dough: on Passover, when its interdict [renders it] important, IT INTERPOSES,6 and uncleanness does not descend upon it;7 [but] during the rest of the year, when the matter is dependent on [his] objecting, IF HE OBJECTS TO IT, IT INTERPOSES; WHILE IF HE DESIRES ITS PRESERVATION, IT IS LIKE [i.e., identical with] THE KNEADING-TROUGH.8
MISHNAH. [REGARDING] 'DEAF' DOUGH,9 IF THERE IS [A DOUGH] SIMILAR TO IT WHICH HAS BECOME LEAVEN,10 IT IS FORBIDDEN.
GEMARA. What if there is no [dough] similar to it? — Said R. Abbahu in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: [The period for fermentation is] as long as it takes a man to walk from the Fish Tower [Migdal Nunia] to Tiberias, which is a mil.11 Then let him say a mil? — He informs us this, [viz.,] that the standard of a mil is as that from Migdal Nunia to Tiberias.12
R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: For kneading, for prayer, and for washing the hands, [the standard is] four mils.13 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Aibu stated this,14 and he stated four [laws] about it,15 and one of them is tanning. For we learned: And all these, if he tanned them or trod on them to the extent of tanning,16 are clean,17 excepting a man's skin. And how much is 'the extent of tanning'? — Said R. Aibu in R. Jannai's name: The extent of walking four mils. R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: They learned this only [about going on] ahead: but [as for going] back, he need not return even a mil.18 Said R. Aha: And from this [we deduce]: it is only a mil that he need not go back, but less than a mil he must go back.
MISHNAH. HOW DO WE SEPARATE HALLAH ON THE FESTIVAL [FROM DOUGH WHICH IS] IN [A STATE OF] UNCLEANNESS?19 R. ELIEZER SAID: IT MUST NOT BE DESIGNATED WITH THE NAME [OF HALLAH] UNTIL IT IS BAKED.20 THE SON OF BATHYRA SAID: LET IT [THE DOUGH] BE CAST INTO COLD WATER.21 SAID A. JOSHUA:
____________________
(1) This being the minimum standard which can defile.
(2) Lit.,'its prohibition is important .
(3) With the eatables. I.e., the dough, if an olive in quantity, is important in so far as its prohibition necessitates its removal, and owing to this it combines with the eatables to the standard of an egg, whereby if unclean they can together defile other food.
(4) Which gives it an importance.
(5) Lit., 'bringing it up' — from its uncleanness.
(6) Between the Sherez, (v. Glos.) and the trough.
(7) The trough does not become unclean, for we do not regard the sherez, as having touched it.
(8) So that the trough becomes unclean through the contact of the sherez with the dough.
(9) An idiomatic expression: dough in which it is doubtful whether leavening has set in or not. Another reading: 'potsherd' dough, i.e., dough whose surface has gone hard and smooth and contains no splits, which are the usual signs of fermentation, and thus there is doubt.
(10) I.e., dough which was kneaded at the same time.
(11) Two thousand cubits. This is generally regarded as an eighteen minutes' walk. If it is eighteen minutes since the dough was kneaded (before being set in the oven), it is leaven.
(12) I.e., that they are a mil apart.
(13) A paid kneader must go four mils to immerse the kneading vessels, if they are unclean. A man on a journey, when he wishes to stop for the night, must go on another four mils if there is a synagogue within that distance, to pray there. Similarly, he must go on four mils ahead to procure water for washing his hands prior to eating; but if no synagogue or water is available within that distance, he is not bound to undertake a longer journey.
(14) In the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish, and not R. Abbahu.
(15) Not three; i.e., the three already mentioned and another.
(16) Hides were spread out to be trodden on, and this was part of the tanning process.
(17) In Hul. 122a a number of animals are enumerated whose skins are the same as their flesh in respect of defilement, as they are likewise accounted as eatables (several animals unfit for food are included in the list). But if he tanned them, etc., they are clean, i.e., they lose the status of flesh and thus become clean.
(18) E.g., to procure water, etc.
(19) The reference is to Passover. Unclean hallah may not be eaten by the priest. Now this hallah may not be baked, since it cannot be eaten, and only the preparation of food is permitted on a Festival; it cannot be kept until evening, as it may turn leaven; nor may it be burnt or given to dogs, for sacred food must not be destroyed thus on a Festival. The actual Festival days are meant, i.e., the first and the last days (outside Palestine, the first two and the last two), but not the Intermediate Days, which possess only a semi sanctity.
(20) I.e., the dough must first be baked, and then all the unleavened mazzoth are put in a basket, and one mazzah or so is declared hallah for all. Usually hallah must be separated from the dough, but when this is impossible, or if it was not done, it is separated from the baked bread.
(21) I.e., the hallah must be separated from the dough in the usual way and placed in cold water until evening, to prevent it from fermenting.NOW THIS IS THE LEAVEN CONCERNING WHICH WE ARE WARNED WITH [THE INJUNCTIONS], 'IT SHALL NOT BE SEEN , AND 'IT SHALL NOT BE FOUND,1 BUT HE SEPARATES IT AND LEAVES IT UNTIL THE EVENING, AND IF IT FERMENTS IT FERMENTS.2
GEMARA. Shall we say that they differ in respect of goodwill benefit, R. Eliezer holding, Goodwill benefit is considered money, while R. Joshua holds, Goodwill benefit is not money?3 — No: all hold [that] goodwill benefit is not money, but here they differ in respect to 'since'. For R. Eliezer holds: We say, since if he desires, he can have it [sc. the designation of hallah] revoked,4 it is his property.5 While R. Joshua holds: We do not say, since.6
It was stated: [With regard to] one who bakes [food] on a Festival for [consumption on] a weekday, — R. Hisda said: He is flagellated; Rabbah said: He is not flagellated. 'R. Hisda said, He is flagellated': We do not say, Since if guests visited him it would be fit for him [on the Festival itself].7 Rabbah said: He is not flagellated: we say, 'since' Said Rabbah to R. Hisda, According to you who maintain, We do not say, 'since', how may we bake on a Festival for the Sabbath?8 — On account of the 'erub9 of dishes, he answered him. And on account of an 'erub of dishes we permit a Biblical prohibition! — Said he to him, By Biblical law the requirements of the Sabbath may be prepared on a Festival, and it was only the Rabbis who forbade it, lest it be said, You may bake on a Festival even for weekdays;10 but since the Rabbis necessitated an 'erub of dishes for it,11 he has a distinguishing feature.12
He [Rabbah] raised on objection against him: [In the case of] an animal at the point of death,13 he must not slaughter it14 save when there is time to eat as much as an olive of it roast before night.15 [Thus, it states when] he is able to eat [thereof], [that is] even if he does not wish to eat. Now according to me, who maintain that we say, 'since', it is well: since if he desires to eat, he is able to eat, for that reason he may slaughter. But according to you who maintain, we do not say, 'since', why may he slaughter? Said he to him, On account of the loss of his money. And on account of the loss of his money we permit a Biblical prohibition! Yes, he replied: on account of the loss of his money he determined in his heart to eat as much as an olive, and as much as an olive of flesh is impossible [to obtain] without slaughtering.
He [Rabbah] raised an objection against him: The shewbread
____________________
(1) I.e., even if it does turn leaven it is not subject to these prohibitions. The GEMARA explains the reason.
(2) It does not matter.
(3) Goodwill benefit is a man's right to dispose of property to whomever he desires, though he may not keep it, and it is disputed whether such a right is accounted as of monetary worth. Naturally, even if it is, its value is small. Thus an Israelite must separate hallah, but he can give it to any priest he desires, and a friend of a particular priest might pay him a trifle to give it to that priest. Now, it has been stated supra 5b that the interdict against leaven being seen or found in the house applies only to one's own leaven. Now if goodwill benefit ranks as money, the hallah is accounted the Israelite's property, and therefore it is subject to this interdict: hence R. Eliezer holds that the dough must first be baked. But if goodwill benefit does not rank as money, the hallah is not accounted the Israelite's property, and therefore it is separated from the dough, and it does not matter if it turns leaven.
(4) When a man declares anything sacred, as hallah, it is really the equivalent of a vow that this shall be sacred, and therefore he can be absolved of it, whereby his declaration is annulled, just as in the case of other vows.
(5) Until he gives it to the priest. Therefore it is subject to these injunctions.
(6) We disregard this possibility, since in fact he has not revoked it. Hence it is not his property. But v. infra 48a, p. 227f.
(7) Therefore his action is not culpable.
(8) But that we use this argument: since it is fit (of use) for him on that same day if he is visited by guests.
(9) V. Glos.
(10) Which is definitely forbidden.
(11) I.e., for cooking on a Festival for the Sabbath.
(12) Which makes it clear to him that cooking on Festivals is not permitted indiscriminately, but only for the Festival or the Sabbath.
(13) Lit., 'in danger' — of death. Hence the owner wishes to slaughter it before it dies, which would render its flesh nebelah (v. Glos).
(14) On a Festival.
(15) Lit., 'while it is yet day', — i.e., on the Festival itself.is eaten on the ninth, the tenth, or the eleventh [day],1 neither earlier nor later.2 How so? Normally it is eaten on the ninth [day]: it is baked on the eve of the Sabbath [and] eaten on the Sabbath [of the following week], [which is] on the ninth. If a Festival occurred on the eve of the Sabbath, it is eaten on the Sabbath, on the tenth.3 [If] the two Festival days of New Year4 [occurred before the Sabbath], it is eaten on the Sabbath on the eleventh day, because it [the baking of the shewbread] does not override either the Sabbath or the Festival. Now if you say [that] the requirements of the Sabbath may be prepared on a Festival, why does it not override the Festival?5 — Said he to him, A near shebuth they permitted; a distant shebuth they did not permit.6 Then according to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who said on the authority of R. Simeon the son of the Segan:7 It overrides the Festival, but it does not override the fast-day,8 what is to be said?9 — They differ in this: one Master holds, They permitted a near shebuth, [but] a distant shebuth they did not permit; while the other Master holds: a distant shebuth too they permitted.10
R. Mari raised an objection: The two loaves11 are eaten neither less than two [days after baking] nor more than three [days after baking].12 How so? They were baked on the eve of the Festival [and] eaten on the Festival, [i.e.,] on the second [day]. If the Festival fell after the Sabbath,13 they are eaten on the Festival, on the third [day], because it [the baking] does not override either the Sabbath or the Festival.14 But if you say [that] the requirements of the Sabbath may be prepared on the Festival, seeing that [those] of the Sabbath are permitted on the Festival, is there a question about [those] of the Festival on the Festival! There it is different, because Scripture saith, [Save that which every man must eat, that only may be done] for you:15 'for you', but not for the Most High.16 Then according to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel who said on the authority of R. Simeon the son of the Segan: It overrides the Festival, what is there to be said? — He holds as Abba Saul, who interpreted: 'for you', but not for Gentiles.17
R. Hisda sent to Rabbah by the hand of R. Aha son of R. Huna: But do we say 'since'? Surely we learned: One may plough one furrow, and be culpable for it on account of eight negative injunctions. [Thus:] he who ploughs with an ox and an ass [together], which are sacred, [and the furrow consists of] kil'ayim in a vineyard,
____________________
(1) After it is baked. The shewbread was generally baked on Friday, placed on the Table in the Temple on the Sabbath, and removed the following Sabbath and eaten; when it was removed it was replaced by fresh bread.
(2) Lit., 'less' . . . 'more'.
(3) For it would have to be baked on Thursday.
(4) Even in Palestine, where all festivals were kept one day only, in accordance with Scripture, New Year was sometimes kept two days v. R.H. 30b.
(5) Since baking on a Festival for the Sabbath (without an 'erub) is thus but a Rabbinical prohibition (a shebuth; v. Glos.) and as since does not apply to the Temple.
(6) I.e., they permitted the abrogation of the shebuth in the Temple when it was shortly required, viz., for that same Sabbath, but not when it would only be required a week later.
(7) V. supra 14a, p. 62, n. 1.
(8) Sc. the baking of the shewbread. The Fast-day is the Day of Atonement.
(9) Why may it not be baked on the Festival? Tosaf.: On my view, says Rabbah, there is no difficulty, as I maintain that this is precisely the point of the controversy: the first Tanna holds that the requirements of the Sabbath may not be prepared on a Festival, while R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds that they may be prepared. But on your view that the first Tanna too holds that the requirements of the Sabbath may be prepared on a Festival, but that here it is forbidden as a distant shebuth, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel should merely state that even a distant Shebuth is permitted.
(10) And that is what R. Simeon b. Gamaliel really means.
(11) Which were brought on Pentecost, v. Lev. XXIII, 17.
(12) The figures are inclusive of the day on which they were baked.
(13) I.e., on Sunday, so that they would be baked on the previous Friday.
(14) Hence they could not be baked on the Festival itself and eaten on the same day.
(15) Ex. XII, 16.
(16) The two loaves, as well as the shewbread, are sacred, and regarded as being 'for the Most High'.
(17) Lit., 'strangers', v. Bez 20b.and it is the seventh year, on a Festival, [and he is] a priest and a nazirite, [while this furrow is] in unclean ground.1 Now if we say 'since', let him not be liable for ploughing [on the Festival], since it is fit for covering the blood of a bird?2 — Said R. Papa b. Samuel: The reference is to smooth, round stones.3 [But] they are fit for crushing?4 — Is then crushing permitted on the Festival?5 But they are fit for crushing in an unusual manner?6 — The reference is to rocky ground.7 Is then rocky ground capable of being sown? — It is rocky ground above, but powdered [loose] earth beneath. Then deduce it [that he is not culpable] because of the loose earth?8 But said Mar the soil of R. Ashi: The reference is to clayey earth.9 And is clayey earth capable of being sown? — It refers to swampy earth.10
Abaye raised an objection against him:11 He who cooks the thigh sinew12 on a Festival and eats it is flagellated five times. He is flagellated on account of cooking the sinew on a Festival;13 he is flagellated on account of eating the sinew; he is flagellated for cooking meat in milk; he is flagellated for eating meat [cooked] in milk;14 and he is flagellated on account of lighting [a fire].15 But if we say, 'since', let him not be liable on account of lighting, since it is fit for him for his [legitimate] needs? — Said he to him, Omit lighting and substitute the thigh sinew of a nebelah.16 But R. Hiyya taught: He is flagellated twice for his eating and thrice for his cooking; now if this is correct,17 he should say, thrice for his eating? — Rather, omit lighting and substitute the wood of mukzeh.18 And is mukzeh a Scriptural [interdict]? — Yes, he replied, for it is written, And it shall come to pass on the sixth day that they shall prepare that which they bring in;19 and its 'warning' [injunction] is [learnt] from here, [viz.,] from, thou shalt not do any manner of work.20 Said he to him, But it was you who said,I asked of R. Hisda, — others state, I asked of R. Huna: What if he brought a lamb from the meadow21 and slaughtered it as a continual burnt-offering22 on a Festival?23 And you said to us: He answered me, [It is written], And a lamb,24 [implying], but not a firstling;25 one, but not the tithe;26 of the flock, this is to exclude a palges;27
____________________
(1) V. Mak., Sonc. ed. p. 149, n. 1-9.
(2) When a bird is slaughtered its blood must be covered, v. Lev. XVII, 13. This ploughing crushes the earth and makes it fit for that purpose, and since a bird might be slaughtered on the Festival, that too would be necessary.
(3) The ploughing breaks up the earth into smooth, round lumps; these are not fit for covering the blood, for which crushed, dust-like earth is required. Rashi, however, merely reads: stones; v. Tosaf. s.v. באבנים מקורזלות
(4) And then be used for covering the blood.
(5) Surely not.
(6) Lit., 'as with the back of the hand'. Such a crushing is not Scripturally forbidden but merely as a Shebuth (v. Glos.). That being so, flagellation, which is administered for the violation of a Scriptural prohibition, should not be incurred.
(7) Harder than ordinary stones; this cannot be crushed.
(8) This makes his action non-punishable.
(9) With which blood may not be covered.
(10) Which is fit for sowing, yet cannot be crushed into dust for covering blood.
(11) Against Rabbah.
(12) Which may not be eaten, v. Gen. XXXII, 32.
(13) Which is a forbidden labour, since it is not the preparation of food which may be eaten.
(14) These are two separate offences.
(15) Which is likewise prohibited on a Festival, save when required for cooking permitted food, v. Bez. 12a.
(16) I.e., it was the thigh sinew of a nebelah, and he is flagellated for eating nebelah.
(17) Sc. the proposed emendation.
(18) v. Glos. this may not be handled on Festivals. He is thus flagellated not for lighting but for putting it to use.
(19) Ex. XVI, 5. This teaches that only what is 'prepared', as opposed to mukzeh, may be handled on Sabbaths and Festivals.
(20) Ex. XX, 10. Flagellation is administered only for the violation of a negative injunction, not an affirmative precept. The first verse quoted belongs to the latter category, hence the second verse must be added. Thus, since the use of mukzeh is forbidden by the first verse, making a fire with it is all ordinary labour forbidden by the second. - Though the second verse refers to the Sabbath, whereas we are here treating of the Festival, these two are alike in respect to work, save that the preparation of food is permitted on Festivals, but not on the Sabbath. Once however it is shown that a particular action is forbidden, it does not matter whether it is the Sabbath or a Festival.
(21) Outside the town. Animals that graze there are brought home (i.e., into town) only' at intervals, not every evening, and therefore they are mukzeh, and may not be slaughtered on Festivals unless designated for that purpose on the eve of the Festivals.
(22) V. Num. XXVIII, 3.
(23) May it be offered?
(24) Ezek. XLV, 15, whence the whole verse which follows is quoted.
(25) A 'lamb' implies both male and female, whereas a firstling applies only to males.
(26) I.e., the tithe of animals cannot be dedicated for a daily burnt-offering. 'One' implies that it stands by itself, whereas the tithe is one out of ten.
(27) A sheep beyond the age of כבש (lamb) and below that of איל (ram). - Jast.; i.e., a sheep in it thirteenth month. 'Of' is partitive and implies limitation.out of the two hundred,[i.e.,] out of the residue of the two hundred which was left in the vault, whence we learn that 'orlah is nullified in [an excess of] two hundred;1 from the well-watered pastures of Israel: from that which is permitted to Israel. Hence it was said, One may not bring drink-offerings from tebel.2 You might think, he must not bring [them] from mukzeh [either], then say: Just as tebel is distinguished in that its intrinsic prohibition causes it,3 so everything whose intrinsic prohibition causes it [may not be used], thus mukzeh is excluded, because not its intrinsic prohibition causes it, but a prohibition of something else causes it.4 Now if you say that the prohibition of mukzeh is Scriptural, what does it matter5 whether it is an intrinsic prohibition or a prohibition through something else? Moreover, it was you who said, There is separation of labours on the Sabbath,6 but there is not separation of labours on a Festival!7 - Rather, delete lighting and substitute the wood of the asherah,8 while its 'warning' [injunction] is [learnt] from here, [viz.,] And there shall cleave ought of the accursed thing to thy hand.9 R. Aha son of Raba said to Abaye, Then let him be flagellated on account of, And thou shalt not bring an abomination into thy house10 too? - Rather, delete lighting and substitute the wood of hekdesh, while the 'warning' is [learnt] from here, [viz.,] and ye shall burn their Asherim with fire . . . ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God.11
Rami b. Hama said: This [controversy] of R. Hisda and Rabbah is the controversy of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua.12 For R. Eliezer holds, We say, 'since',13 while R. Joshua holds, We do not say since'. Said R. Papa: Yet perhaps R. Eliezer rules that we say 'since', there only, because when they go into the oven, each one is fit for himself;14 but here that it is fit for visitors only, but it is not fit for himself,15 perhaps it is indeed [the fact] that we do not say 'since'? R. Shisha son of R. Idi said: Yet perhaps it is not so:16 R. Joshua may rule that we do not say, 'since', only there, where there is one [mazzah] that is not fit either for himself or for visitors; but here that it is at least fit for visitors, perhaps it is indeed [the fact] that we say 'since'?
The Rabbis reported this [Rami b. Hama's statement] before R. Jeremiah and R. Zera. R. Jeremiah accepted it: R. Zera did not accept it. Said R. Jeremiah to R. Zera: A matter which has been a continual difficulty to us for many years, [viz.,] wherein do R. Eliezer and R. Joshua differ, now [that] it has been explained in the name of a great man, shall we then not accept it? Said he to him, How can I accept it? For it was taught, R. Joshua said to him: According to your words,17 he transgresses on account of thou shalt not do any manner of work,18 and he was silent before him. But if this is correct,19 let him answer him, My reason is on account of 'since'? - Then on your view, replied he, as to what was taught in a Baraitha, R. Eliezer said to him: According to your words, behold, he violates, 'it shall not be seen' and 'it shall not be found', and he was silent before him; could he indeed not answer him; surely he answers him in the Mishnah, for we learned: NOT THIS IS LEAVEN ABOUT WHICH WE ARE WARNED, IT SHALL NOT BE SEEN', AND 'IT SHALL NOT BE FOUND'. But [what we must say is that] he was silent before him in the Baraitha, yet he answered him in our Mishnah. So here too, say that he was silent before him in a teaching,20 yet he answered him in another collection [of Baraithas].
It was taught, Rabbi said: The halachah is as R. Eliezer; while R. Isaac said: The halachah is as the Son of Bathyra.
And what21 is the standard of dough?22 - R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Berokah said: In the case of wheat, two kabs; in the case of barley, three kabs. R. Nathan said on R. Eleazar's authority: The rulings are [to be] reversed.23 But it was taught, R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Berokah said: In the case of wheat, three labs, and in the case of barley, four kabs? - There is no difficulty: One refers to inferior [corn]; the other to superior corn.24 R. Papa observed: This proves, Poor wheat is more inferior to good wheat than poor barley is inferior to good barley, for whereas there [there is a difference of] a third, here [there is a difference of] a quarter.
Rab said: A kab of Meloga25 [is the standard] for Passover,26 and it is likewise in respect of hallah.27 But we learned:
____________________
(1) 'Out of the two hundred' is unintelligible in itself. Hence the Talmud assumes that it refers to the wine of the drink-offering (libation) which accompanied the continual burnt-offering (Num. XXVIII, 7f), and the meaning is this: if one part of forbidden wine, sc. wine of 'orlah, as much as is required for the drink-offering, becomes mixed with two hundred times as much permitted wine, so that when the required quantity is removed from the wine-vault there still remains two hundred times as much, then it may be used, the 'orlah having been nullified by the excess. - This is actually deduced from elsewhere (in Sifre), and this verse is merely quoted as support.
(2) V. Glos.
(3) I.e. tebel is unfit for drink-offerings because it is forbidden in itself.
(4) I.e., it is not forbidden, in itself, save that its owner has voluntarily put it out of use for the time being.
(5) Lit., 'what is it to me?'
(6) If a man performed two labours on the Sabbath in one state of unawareness, or one labour twice, each time having been unaware of the Sabbath (though he was reminded in the interval), he is liable on account of each separately.
(7) Yet here, where we treat of a Festival, you rule that he is separately culpable for mukzeh and for boiling the sinew.
(8) V. Glos. He used that for fuel, and is flagellated on that account.
(9) Deut. XIII, 18.
(10) Ibid. VII, 26.
(11) Ibid. XII, 3f.
(12) In the Mishnah Supra 46a.
(13) Though he will eventually separate one mazzah for all, and that is not fit for eating, yet if he wishes he can take a piece from each mazzah, and so he will have baked every one for eating. Hence we say, since it would be permitted in the latter case, it is also permitted in the former.
(14) As explained in n. 11.
(15) As far as he is concerned he is definitely baking it for the week, while he has not invited visitors.
(16) This too is a criticism of Rami b. Hama's statement.
(17) I.e.,if he does as you say.
(18) Ex. XX, 10.
(19) Rami b. Hama's explanation.
(20) Mathnitha, especially collection of Mishnah not embodied in the Mishnah of R. Judah, as Baraitha, Tosaf. etc., contrad. to Mathnithin, our Mishnah (Jast.).
(21) Lit., 'how much?'
(22) Which one can knead on Passover and keep it from fermenting.
(23) Three in the case of wheat, and two in the case of barley, for barley ferments more quickly.
(24) Two kabs of superior wheat is the equivalent of three kabs of inferior wheat; while three kabs of superior barley is the equivalent of four kabs of inferior barley.
(25) Supposed to be a place in Babylon.
(26) One must not knead more dough than that.
(27) That is the smallest quantity subject to hallah.Slightly more than five quarters1 of flour are subject to hallah?2 - This is what he says: A kab of Meloga too is the equivalent of this quantity.
R. Joseph said: Our women are accustomed to bake a kapiza3 at a time on Passover. Said Abaye to him, What is your intention? To be stricter!4 [But] it is strictness which leads to [unwarranted] leniency, as [the woman] exempts it from hallah?5 - Said he: They do as R. Eliezer. For we learned, R. Eliezer said: If he removes [loaves from the oven] and places [them] in a basket, the basket combines them in respect of hallah;6 whereon Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The halachah is as R. Eliezer. Said he to him, But it was stated thereon, R. Joshua b. Levi said: They taught this only of Babylonian loaves, which cleave to each other,7 but not [of] cracknels?8 - Surely it was stated thereon, R. Hanina said: Even cracknels.
R. Jeremiah asked: What of a board which has no ledges?9 Do we require the inside of a vessel, which is absent here; or perhaps we require the air space of a vessel, which is present? The question stands.
It was taught: R. Eliezer said: The basket [only] combines them; R. Joshua said: The oven combines them;10 R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Babylonian loaves which cleave to each other combine.11
MISHNAH. R. GAMALIEL SAID: THREE WOMEN MAY KNEAD AT THE SAME TIME12 AND BAKE IN ONE OVEN, ONE AFTER THE OTHER. BUT THE SAGES RULE: THREE WOMEN MAY BE ENGAGED ON DOUGH AT THE SAME TIME,13 ONE KNEADING, ANOTHER SHAPING AND A THIRD BAKING.14 R. AKIBA SAID: NOT ALL WOMEN AND NOT ALL KINDS OF WOOD AND NOT ALL OVENS ARE ALIKE.15 THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE: IF IT [THE DOUGH] RISES, LET HER WET16 IT WITH COLD WATER.17
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Having kneaded [the dough] she forms it [in shape], while her companion kneads in her place; having formed [the dough] she bakes it, and her companion shapes [the dough] in her place, while the third [woman] kneads. [The first] having baked, she kneads [again], and her companion bakes in her place, while the third shapes [her dough]. And thus the round revolves.18 As long as they are engaged [in working] on the dough, it does not come to fermentation.
R. AKIBA SAID: NOT ALL WOMEN etc. It was taught, R. Akiba said: I discussed [the matter] before R. Gamaliel: Let our Master teach us: Does this19 refer to energetic women or to women who are not energetic; to damp wood or to dry wood; to a hot oven or to a cool oven? Said he to me, You have nought else save what the Sages learned: IF IT RISES, LET HER WET IT WITH COLD WATER.
MISHNAH. SI'UR20 MUST BE BURNT, WHILE HE WHO EATS IT IS NOT CULPABLE; SIDDUK21 MUST BE BURNT, WHILE HE WHO EATS IT [ON PASSOVER] IS LIABLE TO KARETH. WHAT IS SI'UR? [WHEN THERE ARE LINES ON THE SURFACE] LIKE LOCUSTS' HORNS;22 SIDDUK IS WHEN THE CRACKS HAVE INTERMINGLED WITH EACH OTHER: THIS IS THE VIEW OF R. JUDAH. BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: REGARDING THE ONE AND THE OTHER,23 HE WHO EATS IT IS LIABLE TO KARETH.24 AND WHAT IS SI'UR? WHEN ITS SURFACE IS BLANCHED, LIKE [THE FACE OF] A MAN WHOSE HAIR IS STANDING [ON END].
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: What is si'ur.P Whenever its surface is blanched, like [the face of] a man whose hair is standing on end; sidduk is [when there are lines on the surface] like locusts' horns: this is R. Meir's view. But the Sages maintain: What is si'ur? [When the lines on its surface are] like locusts' horns; sidduk is when the cracks have intermingled with each other; and in both cases, he who eats it is liable to kareth. But we learned: SI'UR MUST BE BURNT, WHILE HE WHO EATS IT IS NOT CULPABLE . . THIS IS THE VIEW OF R. JUDAH? Say according to R. Meir, in both cases,25 he who eats it incurs kareth.26 Raba said: What is R. Meir's reason? There is not a single crack on the surface for which there are not many cracks below [the surface].27
____________________
(1) Lit., 'five quarters and more'. I.e., quarters of a kab, = one and one fourth logs.
(2) v. Hal. II, 6.
(3) A measure=three-fourths of a kab; v. Obermeyer, p. 241, n. 1.
(4) For the permitted quantity is larger.
(5) If she baked a kab of Meloga at a time, she would have to separate hallah, whereas now she is exempt.
(6) I.e., they are counted as one, if together they make up the minimum quantity.
(7) Lit., 'bite of each other'. They were wide, and when set in the oven they stuck to each other, owing to lack of space; therefore they all count as one.
(8) A kind of narrow roll.
(9) Does it combine the loaves placed upon it?
(10) If they are baked together in an oven, even if they are not subsequently placed together in a basket, they are all counted as one in respect of hallah.
(11) But not cracknels.
(12) Lit., 'as one'.
(13) Not all kneading at the same time, which would necessitate too long a wait when they come to bake if after each other.
(14) V. GEMARA.
(15) Hence the views of R. Gamaliel and the Sages are unacceptable.
(16) Lit., 'polish'.
(17) Which retards fermentation.
(18) This is the explanation of the Sage's ruling: THREE WOMEN MAY BE ENGAGED ON DOUGH AT THE SAME TIME.
(19) Sc. the ruling that three women may knead or may be working on dough at the same time.
(20) V. supra p. 203.
(21) Dough, the surface of which is cracked through fermentation. This is completely leaven.
(22) I.e., small lines are just beginning to appear.
(23) I.e., both stages as defined by R. Judah.
(24) Even at the earlier stage it is no longer si'ur.
(25) Sc. both si'ur and sidduk, as defined by R. Judah.
(26) Because he regards both as sidduk.
(27) Hence even when the cracks on the surface are still separate, they already cross below the surface.MISHNAH. IF THE FOURTEENTH [OF NISAN] FALLS ON THE SABBATH, EVERYTHING MUST BE REMOVED1 BEFORE THE SABBATH:2 THIS IS R. MEIR'S VIEW; WHILE THE SAGES MAINTAIN: [IT MUST BE REMOVED] AT ITS [USUAL] TIME;3 R. ELEAZAR B. ZADOK SAID: TERUMAH [MUST BE REMOVED] BEFORE THE SABBATH,4 AND HULLIN AT ITS [USUAL] TIME.5
GEMARA. It was taught, R. Eleazar b. Zadok said: My father once spent a week in Yabneh,6 when the fourteenth fell on the Sabbath, and there came Zonin, R. Gamaliel's deputy,7 and announced: 'The time has come to remove the leaven', and I followed my father and we removed the leaven.
MISHNAH.HE WHO ON HIS WAY8 TO SLAUGHTER HIS PASSOVER SACRIFICE OR TO CIRCUMCISE HIS SON9 OR TO DINE AT A BETROTHAL10 FEAST AT THE HOUSE OF HIS FATHER-IN-LAW, AND RECOLLECTS THAT HE HAS LEAVEN AT HOME, IF HE IS ABLE TO GO BACK, REMOVE [IT], AND [THEN] RETURN TO HIS RELIGIOUS DUTY,11 HE MUST GO BACK AND REMOVE [IT]; BUT IF NOT, HE ANNULS IT IN HIS HEART. [IF HE IS ON HIS WAY] TO SAVE [PEOPLE] FROM HEATHENS12 OR FROM A RIVER OR FROM BRIGANDS13 OR FROM A FIRE OR FROM A COLLAPSE [OF A BUILDING], HE ANNULS IT IN HIS HEART.14 [BUT IF] TO APPOINT A SABBATH STATION FOR A VOLUNTARY [SECULAR] PURPOSE,15 HE MUST RETURN IMMEDIATELY. SIMILARLY, HE WHO WENT OUT OF JERUSALEM AND RECOLLECTED THAT HE HAD HOLY FLESH WITH HIM,16 IF HE HAS PASSED SCOPUS,17 HE BURNS IT WHERE HE IS;18 BUT IF NOT, HE RETURNS AND BURNS IT IN FRONT OF THE TEMPLE19 WITH THE WOOD OF THE [ALTAR] PILE.20 AND FOR WHAT [QUANTITY] MUST THEY RETURN? R. MEIR SAID: FOR BOTH,21 WHEN THERE IS AS MUCH AS AN EGG; R. JUDAH SAID: FOR BOTH, WHEN THERE IS AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE; BUT THE SAGES RULE: HOLY FLESH, [THE STANDARD IS] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE; WHILE LEAVEN, [THE STANDARD IS] AS MUCH AS AN EGG.22
GEMARA. But the following contradicts it: He who is on his way to partake of a betrothal feast in his father-in-law's house or to appoint a Sabbath station for a voluntary purpose must return immediately? Said R. Johanan, There is no difficulty: one is [according to] R. Judah: the other is [according to] R. Jose. For it was taught: The betrothal feast is a voluntary [function]; this is R. Judah's view. R. Jose said: It is a religious [function]. But now that R. Hisda said: The controversy is in respect of the second feast,23 but in respect to the first feast all agree that it is a religious [function], you may even say [that] both are [according to] R. Judah, yet there is no difficulty; one refers to the first feast, while the other refers to the second feast.
It was taught, R. Judah said: I have heard only of the betrothal feast,24 but not of [the feast in connection with] espousal gifts.25 Said R. Jose to him: I have heard of [both] the feast of betrothal and [that] of espousal gifts.
It was taught, R. Simeon said: Every feast which is not in connection with a religious deed, a scholar must derive no enjoyment thereof.26 What, for instance? - Said R. Johanan: E.g., [the feast at the betrothal of] the daughter of a priest to an Israelite,27 or the daughter of a scholar to an ignoramus. For R. Johanan said: If the daughter of a priest [marries] an Israelite, their union will not be auspicious. What is it?28 Said R. Hisda: [She will be] either a widow or a divorced woman, or she will have no seed [children].29 In a Baraitha it was taught: He will bury her or she will bury him, or she will reduce him to poverty. But that is not so, for R. Johanan said: he who desires to become wealthy, let him cleave to the seed of Aaron, [for it is all the more] that the Torah and the priesthood will enrich them? - There is no difficulty: one refers to a scholar;30 the other refers to an 'am ha-arez.31
R. Joshua married a priest's daughter. Falling sick, he said, Aaron is not pleased that I should cleave to his seed [and] possess a son-an-law like myself. R. Idi b Abin married a priest's daughter, and there came forth from him two ordained sons - R. Shesheth the son of R. Idi and R. Joshua the son of R. Idi. R. Papa said: Had I not married a priest's daughter, I would not have become wealthy.32 R. Kahana said: Had I not married a priest's daughter, I had not gone into exile.33 Said they to him, But you were exiled to a place of learning! - I was not exiled as people are [generally] exiled.34
R. Isaac said: Whoever partakes of a secular feast eventually goes into exile, for it is said, and [ye that] eat the lambs out of the flock, and the calves out of the midst of the stall; and it is written, therefore now shall they go captive at the head of them that go captive.35
Our Rabbis taught: Every scholar who feasts much in every place eventually destroys his home, widows his wife, orphans his young, forgets his learning,36 and becomes involved in many quarrels;37 his words are unheeded, and he desecrates the Name of Heaven and the name of his teacher and the name of his father, and he causes an evil name for himself, his children, and his childrens' children until the end of time.38 What is it?39 Said Abaye: He is called, a heater of ovens. Raba said: A tavern dancer! R. Papa said: A plate licker. R. Sheimaiah said: A folder [of garments] and a man who lies down [to sleep].40
Our Rabbis taught: Let a man always sell all he has and marry the daughter of a scholar, for if he dies or goes into exile, he is assured that his children will be scholars. But let him not marry the daughter of an 'am ha-arez, for if he dies or goes into exile, his children will be 'amme ha-arez.
Our Rabbis taught: Let a man always sell all he has and marry the daughter of a scholar, and marry his daughter to a scholar. This may be compared to [the grafting of] grapes of a vine with grapes of a vine, [which is] a seemly and acceptable thing. But let him not marry the daughter of an 'am ha-arez; this may be compared to [the grafting of] grapes of a vine with berries of a thorn bush, [which is] a repulsive
____________________
(1) I.e., destroyed.
(2) Save what is required for the Sabbath itself.
(3) On the morning of the fourteenth.
(4) Because if any is left over none can eat it; neither zarim nor cattle.
(5) Because it is easy to find eaters for it.
(6) The famous town to the north-west of Jerusalem, seat of R. Johanan b. Zakkai's academy and Sanhedrin after the destruction of Jerusalem.
(7) The superintendent of the Academy.
(8) Lit., 'is going'.
(9) In ancient days and until comparatively recently this was done in the Synagogue.
(10) Erusin denotes the first stage of marriage, v. Glos.
(11) He himself being the bridegroom. A 'betrothal feast' is considered a religious duty, v. GEMARA.
(12) Rashi: Jews who are being pursued.
(13) Var. lec.: a robber band.
(14) If 'robber band' is read before, this must be deleted. Even if there is time to return, he must not go back.
(15) On the Sabbath a man must not go more than two thousand cubits beyond the town boundary; this outside limit is called the tehum. But before the Sabbath commences he can appoint any spot within the tehum as the station where he will spend the Sabbath, and then he may proceed two thousand cubits beyond that spot; he does that by taking some food to the place, which he will eat on the Sabbath.
(16) Holy flesh, if taken without Jerusalem, becomes unfit and must be burnt.
(17) An eminence northeast of Jerusalem, whence the Temple can be seen. To-day it is the site of the Hebrew University.
(18) And need not return to Jerusalem.
(19) [Birah. This is variously explained in Zeb. 104b as the Temple Mount itself', a place in the Temple Mount, and a tower in the Temple Mount.]
(20) I.e., wood arranged in a pile for use on the altar. - V. Supra 24a.
(21) Sc. leaven and sacred flesh.
(22) These are the minima for which one must return.
(23) After the betrothal the bridegroom (arus) sent gifts to his bride, in connection with which there was a second feast at the father-in-law's house.
(24) As being a religious function.
(25) Siblonoth.
(26) I.e., must not partake of it.
(27) I.e., a non-priest. She blemishes her family by marrying beneath her.
(28) In what respect will it be unfortunate?
(29) Rashi: because it is written, And if a priest's daughter be married unto a common man, which is followed by, But if a priest's daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child (Lev. XXII, 12f). - Hence such a union was looked upon with disfavour, and R. Johanan maintains that the feast is not a true religious one.
(30) If a scholar marries into a priestly family he brings honour upon it.
(31) V. Glos.
(32) He was a wealthy brewer.
(33) From my home in Babylonia to Palestine; v. B.K. 117a.
(34) Voluntarily; but I had to flee.
(35) Amos VI, 4, 7.
(36) Lit., 'his learning is forgotten from him'.
(37) Lit., 'come upon him'.
(38) Lit., 'until the end of all generations'. —His fondness for feasting elsewhere leads him to do the same in his own home, and to make it possible he must sell his furniture, etc. Seeing himself on the road to ruin, he wanders into exile, leaving his wife and children, widowed and orphaned, he wastes his time, so forgets his learning. This involves him in disputes on learning. Or, his poverty involves him in disputes with tradesmen because he cannot settle his bills. Again, the banqueting table itself is a fruitful source of quarrels (Rashi and Maharsha).
(39) How does he bring his name etc., into contempt?
(40) Where he is, being too drunk to go home. - Or, the son of a heater of ovens etc., with reference to his children. The translation follows Maharsha, bar
(rc) being understood as 'a man who'. The alternative is Rashi's.and unacceptable thing.
Our Rabbis taught: Let a man always sell all he has and marry the daughter of a scholar. If he does not find1 the daughter of a scholar, let him marry the daughter of [one of] the great men of the generation.2 If he does not find the daughter of [one of] the great men of the generation, let him marry the daughter of the head of synagogues. If he does not find the daughter of the head of synagogues,3 let him marry the daughter of a charity treasurer. If he does not find the daughter of a charity treasurer, let him marry the daughter of an elementary school-teacher, but let him not marry the daughter of an 'am ha-arez, because they are detestable and their wives are vermin, and of their daughters it is said, Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast.4
It was taught, Rabbi said: An 'am ha-arez may not eat the flesh of cattle, for it is said, This is the law [Torah] of the beast, and of the fowl;5 whoever engages in [the study of] the Torah may eat the flesh of beast and fowl, but he who does not engage in [the study of] the Torah may not eat the flesh of beast and fowl.
R. Eleazar said: An 'am ha-arez, it is permitted to stab him [even] on the Day of Atonement which falls on the Sabbath. Said his disciples to him, Master, say to slaughter him [ritually]? He replied: This [ritual slaughter] requires a benediction, whereas that [stabbing] does not require a benediction. R. Eleazar said: One must not join company with an 'am ha-arez on the road, because it is said, for that [the Torah] is thy life, and the length of thy days:6 [seeing that] he has no care [pity] for his own life,7 how much the more for the life of his companions! R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Johanan's name: One may tear an 'am haarez like a fish! Said R. Samuel b. Isaac: And [this means] along his back.
It was taught, R. Akiba said: When I was an 'am ha-arez8 I said: I would that I had a scholar [before me], and I would maul him like an ass. Said his disciples to him, Rabbi, say like a dog! The former bites and breaks the bones, while the latter bites but does not break the bones, he answered them.
It was taught, R. Meir used to say: Whoever marries his daughter to an 'am ha-arez, is as though he bound and laid her before a lion: just as a lion tears [his prey] and devours it and has no shame, so an 'am ha-arez strikes and cohabits and has no shame.
It was taught, R. Eliezer said: But that we are necessary to them for trade, they would kill us. R. Hiyya taught: Whoever studies9 the Torah in front of an 'am ha-arez, is as though he cohabited with his betrothed in his presence,10 for it is said, Moses commanded us a law, an inheritance [morashah] of the congregation of Jacob:11 read not morashah but me'orasah [the betrothed].12 Greater is the hatred wherewith the 'amme ha-arez, hate the scholar than the hatred wherewith the heathens hate Israel, and their wives [hate even] more than they. It was taught: He who has studied and then abandoned [the Torah] [hates the scholar] more than all of them.13 Our Rabbis taught: Six things were said of the 'amme ha-arez': We do not commit testimony to them; we do not accept testimony from them; we do not reveal a secret to them; we do not appoint them as guardians for orphans; we do not appoint them stewards14 over charity funds; and we must not join their company on the road. Some say, We do not proclaim their losses too.15 And the first Tanna?16 - Virtuous seed may sometimes issue from him, and they will enjoy17 it, as it is said, He will prepare it, and the just shall put it on.18
SIMILARLY, HE WHO WENT OUT OF etc. Shall we say that R. Meir holds, only as much as an egg is of importance, whereas R. Judah holds, Even as much as an olive too is of importance?19 But the following contradicts it: For what [minimum] quantity20 must they recite grace in common?21 Until as much as an olive.22 R. Judah said: Until as much as an egg! - Said R. Johanan: The discussion23 must be reversed. Abaye said, After all you need not reverse [it]: there they differ in [the interpretation of Scriptural] verses, [whereas] here they differ in a matter of logic. 'There they differ in [the interpretation of] verses':R. Meir holds: And thou shalt eat,24 this refers to eating; and be satisfied, this means drinking, and eating is [constituted] by as much as an olive.25 While R. Judah holds: 'And thou shalt eat and be satisfied' [implies] eating in which there is satisfaction [of one's hunger], and what is that? As much as an egg. 'Here they differ in a matter of logic', for R. Meir holds: Its return is like its defilement:26 just as its defilement requires as much as an egg, so does its return require as much as an egg. While R. Judah holds, its return
____________________
(1) I.e., cannot obtain.
(2) Gedole ha-dor, title probably designating the civil leaders of the community. v. Buchler, Sepphoris, p. 9.
(3) [The archi synagogos, the supreme authority over the synagogues in the town; v. Git., Sonc. ed. p. 202, n. 5.]
(4) Deut. XXVII, 21.
(5) Lev. XI, 46.
(6) Deut. XXX, 20.
(7) In that he forsakes the Torah.
(8) R. Akiba was a poor, illiterate shepherd before he became a scholar; v. Ned. 50a.
(9) Lit., 'engages in'.
(10) So great is the affront which the 'am ha-arez feels when Torah is studied in his presence, v. Rashi.
(11) Ibid. XXXIII, 4.
(12) Thus the Torah is as the bride of the whole of Israel.
(13) More than any 'am ha-arez hates the scholar.
(14) The Heb. is the same as in the previous phrase. Epitropos is a steward who looks after another person's estates, etc.
(15) He who finds lost property is bound to proclaim it; if the owner is an 'am ha-arez, he is not bound to proclaim it.
(16) Why does he omit this?
(17) Lit., 'eat'.
(18) Job XXVII, 17.
(19) I.e., worthy of being taken into account.
(20) Lit., 'how far?'
(21) When three or more people dine together they must recite grace in common, prefacing it with the statement, 'Let us say grace', and they must not separate before this is done, even if each intends reciting grace alone. Here the question is: what is the minimum meal for which this is necessary?
(22) That is the minimum. Until ('ad) is meant in a diminishing sense.
(23) I.e., the opinions,
(24) Deut. VIII, 10.
(25) This is the minimum called eating, e.g.. for eating this quantity of forbidden food liability is incurred; the command to eat unleavened bread on the first night of Passover means at least as much as an olive. The verse continues: and thou shalt bless the Lord thy God - i.e., recite grace.
(26) I.e., the same quantity of leaven which is subject to defilement as an eatable necessitates returning in order to remove it.is like its prohibition: just as its prohibition is for as much as an olive,1 so its return is for as much as an olive.
It was taught, R. Nathan said: Both2 have the standard of two eggs; but the Sages did not agree with him.
And it shall come to pass in that day that there shall not be light, but heavy clouds [yekaroth] and thick [we-kippa'on];3 what does yekaroth we-kippa'on mean? - Said R. Eleazar: This means, the light which is precious [yakar] in this world, is yet of little account [kapuy]4 in the next world.5 R. Johanan said: This refers to Nega'im and Ohaloth,6 which are difficult [heavy] in this world yet shall be light [easily understood] in the future world. While R. Joshua b. Levi said: This refers to the people who are honoured in this world, but will be lightly esteemed in the next world. As was the case of R. Joseph the son of R. Joshua b. Levi, [who] became ill and fell into a trance. When he recovered, his father asked him, 'What did you see?' 'I saw a topsy-turvy world', he replied, 'the upper [class] underneath and the lower on top'' he replied: 'My son', he observed, 'you saw a clear world.7 And how are we [situated] there?' 'Just as we are here, so are we there. And I heard them saying, "Happy is he who comes hither with his learning in his hand". And I also heard them saying, "Those martyred by the State, no man can stand within their barrier"' .8 Who are these [martyrs]? Shall we say, R. Akiba and his companions?9 is that because they were martyrs of the State and nothing else?10 Rather [he meant] the martyrs of Lydda.11
In that day there shall be upon the bells of the horses [meziloth ha-sus]: HOLY UNTO THE LORD.12 What does 'meziloth ha-sus' [intimate]? - Said R. Joshua b. Levi: The Holy One, blessed be He, is destined to add to Jerusalem as far as a horse can run and cast its shadow [mazzil - under itself].13 R. Eleazar said: All the bells which are hung on a horse between its eyes shall be holy unto the Lord.14 While R. Johanan said: All the spoil which Israel shall take spoil [from morning] until a horse can run and cast its shadow [under itself] shall be holy unto the Lord. As for him who explains it [as referring to] all the spoil which Israel shall take spoil, it is well: hence it is written, and the pots in the Lord's house shall be like the basins before the altar.15 But according to those who give the [other] two explanations, what is [the relevance of] 'and the pots in the Lord's house shall be' [etc.]? - [The verse] states another thing, viz., that Israel will become wealthy, make votive offerings, and bring them [to the Temple]. As for him who says [that it means] spoil, it is well: that is what is written, and in that day there shall be no more a trafficker in the house of the Lord of hosts.16 But according to those who give the [other] two explanations, what does and there shall be no more a trafficker [kena'ani] [etc.] mean? - Said R. Jeremiah: No poor man shall be here.17 And how do we know
interdict. A passage describing the death of great scholars, ten in number, is found in the liturgie for the Day of Atonement and the Fast of Ab. Some of the most famous of them were R. Gamaliel, R. Judah b. Baba and R. Akiba. that [kena 'ani] connotes a merchant? - Because it is written, And Judah saw there the daughter of a certain Canaanite [kena'ani]:18 what does 'kena'ani' mean? Shall we say, literally a Canaanite: is it possible that Abraham came and admonished Isaac, Isaac came and admonished Jacob,19 and then Judah went and married [a Canaanite]! Rather, said R. Simeon b. Lakish: [It means] the daughter of a merchant, as it is written, As for the trafficker [kena'an], the balances of deceit are in his hand,20 Alternatively, I can quote this: Whose merchants are princes, whose traffickers [kin'anehah] are the honourable of the earth.21
And the Lord shall be King over all the earth; in that day shall the Lord be One, and His name one:22 is He then not One now? - Said R. Aha b. Hanina: Not like this world is the future world. In this world, for good tidings one says, 'He is good, and He doeth good', while for evil tidings he says, 'Blessed be the true Judge';23 [whereas] in the future world it shall be only 'He is good and He doeth good'.24 'And His name one': what does 'one' mean? Is then now His name not one? - Said R. Nahman b. Isaac; Not like this world is the future world. [In] this world [His name] is written with a yod he25 and read as alef daleth;26 but in the future world it shall all be one: it shall be written with yod he and read as yod he. Now, Raba thought of lecturing it at the session, [whereupon] a certain old man said to him, It is written, le'alem.27 R. Abina pointed out a contradiction: It is written, this is my name, to be hidden; [and it is also written],28 and this is my memorial unto all generations?29 The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Not as I [i.e., My name] and written am I read: I am written with a yod he, while I am read as alef daleth.30
MISHNAH. WHERE IT IS THE CUSTOM TO DO WORK ON THE EVE OF PASSOVER UNTIL MIDDAY ONE MAY DO [WORK]; WHERE IT IS THE CUSTOM NOT TO DO [WORK], ONE MAY NOT DO [WORK]. HE WHO GOES FROM A PLACE WHERE THEY WORK TO A PLACE WHERE THEY DO NOT WORK, ON FROM A PLACE WHERE THEY DO NOT WORK TO A PLACE WHERE THEY DO WORK, WE LAY UPON HIM THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE PLACE WHENCE HE DEPARTED AND THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE PLACE WHITHER HE HAS GONE;
____________________
(1) V. p. 238, n. 12.
(2) The leaven and the holy flesh.
(3) Zech. XV, 6.
(4) Lit., 'light', 'floating'.
(5) For the light of this world will pale into insignificance before the greater light of the next. He translates the verse: And it shall come . . . the light will not be precious but (only) of small account.
(6) The laws of leprosy and the defilement of tents through a dead body.
(7) In which people occupy the positions they merit.
(8) They occupy such an exalted position in the next world that they are unapproachable.
(9) Who were executed or martyred by the Roman State at various times for their insistence on teaching the Torah in spite of the Roman
(10) Surely they had other claims to eminence too!
(11) Two brothers, Lulianus and Papus, who took upon themselves the guilt for the death of the Emperor's daughter, so as to save the people as a whole; v. Ta'an. 18b. Lyyda was a district in Asia Minor, to which belonged the city Laodicea, which city it denotes here.
(12) Zech. XIV, 20.
(13) Rashi: i.e., as far as a horse can run from the morning until midday, when its shadow (zel) is directly beneath it.
(14) I.e., they shall be votive offerings to the Sanctuary.
(15) Ibid. Even the pots shall be of gold and silver, owing to the abundance of spoil.
(16) Ibid. 21. The Temple Treasurers will not need to buy or sell for the Temple, on account of the great wealth of the spoil.
(17) Reading kena'ani as kan 'ani, here is a poor man.
(18) Gen. XXXVIII, 2.
(19) Not to marry a Canaanite; v. Ibid. XXIV, 3; XXVIII, 1.
(20) Hos. XII, 8.
(21) Isa. XXIII, 8.
(22) Zech. XIV, 9.
(23) V. Ber. 54a.
(24) For there will never be any evil tidings there.
(25) YHWH = yod he waw he, the letters of the Tetragrammaton.
(26) Adonay =alef daleth nun yod.
(27) To hide it. This is explained anon.
(28) The bracketed word is added in var. lec.
(29) Ex. III, 15. The actual reading is: this is my name for ever. (le'olam, לעולם); but it is written, to be hidden (le'alem, לעלם). Thus this indicates that God's name must be kept secret; whereas 'this is my memorial' etc. implies that He is to be known by this name. Another version, accepting the reading le'olam (for ever) explains the difficulty thus: since God states this is my name, it is obvious that He is to be known by it: why then add, 'and this is my memorial' etc.?
(30) The importance attributed to the Divine Name was owing to the fact that it was not regarded simply as a designation, but was held to express the essence of the Godhead. The right way of pronouncing the Tetragrammaton was not generally known, being preserved as an esoteric teaching. Cf. Kid., Sonc. ed. p. 361, n. 6. and Sanh., Sonc. ed. p. 407, n. 2.AND A MAN MUST NOT ACT DIFFERENTLY [FROM LOCAL CUSTOM] ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUARRELS [WHICH WOULD ENSUE]. SIMILARLY, HE WHO TRANSPORTS SABBATICAL YEAR PRODUCE FROM A PLACE WHERE IT HAS CEASED TO A PLACE WHERE IT HAS NOT CEASED OR FROM A PLACE WHERE IT HAS NOT CEASED TO A PLACE WHERE IT HAS CEASED,1 IS BOUND TO REMOVE IT.2 R. JUDAH SAID: 'DO YOU TOO GO OUT AND BRING [PRODUCE] FOR YOURSELF.3
GEMARA. Why particularly THE EVE OF PASSOVER? Even on the eve of Sabbaths and Festivals too? For it was taught: He who does work on the eve of Sabbaths or Festivals from minhah4 and onwards will never see a sign of blessing?5 - There it is forbidden only from minhah and onwards, but not near to6 minhah; [whereas] here it is [forbidden] from midday. Alternatively, there he merely does not see a sign of blessing,7 yet we do not place him under the ban; [whereas] here we even place him under the ban.
[To turn to] the main text: He who does work on the eve of the Sabbath and on the eve of Festivals from minhah and onwards, and at the termination of the Sabbath or at the termination of a Festival, or at the termination of the Day of Atonement, or wherever there is the [least] suspicion of sin,8 which is to include a public fast,9 will never see the sign of a blessing.
Our Rabbis taught: Some are industrious and profit [thereby,] while others are industrious and suffer loss; some are indolent10 and profit [thereby], while others are indolent and suffer loss. An industrious man who profits, - he who works the whole week but does not work on the eve of the Sabbath. An industrious man who suffers loss, - he who works the whole week and works on the eve of the Sabbath. An indolent man who profits, - he who does not work the whole week and does not work on the eve of the Sabbath.11 An indolent man who suffers loss, - he who does not work the whole week but works on the eve of the Sabbath. Raba said: As to these women of Mahuza,12 though they do not work on the eve of the Sabbath, it is because they are used to indulgence [indolence], seeing that they do not work every day either. Yet even so, we call them, an indolent person who profits'.13
Raba opposed [two verses]. It is written, For thy mercy is great unto the heavens;14 whereas it is also written, For thy mercy is great above the heavens?15 How is this [to be explained]? Here it refers to those who perform [God's behest] for its own sake;16 there it refers to those who perform [it] with an ulterior motive.17 And [this is] in accordance with Rab Judah. For Rab Judah said in Rab's name: A man should always occupy himself with Torah and good deeds, though it is not for their own sake, for out of [doing good] with an ulterior motive there comes [doing good] for its own sake.
Our Rabbis taught: He who looks to the earnings of his wife or of a mill will never see a sign of blessing. 'The earnings of his wife' means [when she goes around selling wool] by weight.18 '[The earnings of] a mill' means its hire.19 But if she makes [e.g., woollen garments] and sells them, Scripture indeed praises her, for it is written, she maketh linen garments and selleth them.20
Our Rabbis taught: He who trades in cane and jars will never see a sign of blessing. What is the reason? Since their bulk is large, the [evil] eye has power over them.
Our Rabbis taught: Traders in market-stands21 and those who breed small cattle,22 and those who cut down beautiful trees,23 and those who cast their eyes at the better portion,24 will never see a sign of blessing. What is the reason? Because people gaze at them.25
Our Rabbis taught: Four perutoth never contain a sign of blessing:26 the wages of clerks, the wages of interpreters,27 the profits of orphans,28 and money that came from oversea countries. As for the wages of interpreters, that is well, [the reason being] because it looks like wages for Sabbath [work]; orphans money too, because they are not capable of renunciation;29 money which comes from overseas, because a miracle does not occur every day.30 But what is the reason for the wages of writers? - Said R. Joshua b. Levi: The men of the Great Assembly31 observed twenty-four fasts so that those who write Scrolls, tefillin and mezuzoth32 should not become wealthy for if they became wealthy they would not write.
Our Rabbis taught: Those who write Scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzoth, they, their traders and their traders' traders,33 and all who engage [in trade] in sacred commodities,34 which includes the sellers of blue wool,35 never see a sign of blessing. But if they engage [therein] for its own sake,36 they do see [a sign of blessing]. The citizens of Beyshan37 were accustomed not to go from Tyre to Sidon38 on the eve of the Sabbath. Their children went to R. Johanan and said to him, For our fathers this was possible; for us it is impossible. Said he to them, Your fathers have already taken it upon themselves, as it is said, Hear my son, the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the teaching of thy mother.39
The inhabitants of Hozai40 were accustomed to separate hallah on rice.41 [When] they went and told it to R. Joseph he said to them, Let a lay Israelite eat it in their presence:42 Abaye raised an objection against him: Things which are permitted, yet others treat them as forbidden,43
____________________
(1) The law concerning produce of the Sabbatical year is this: as long as there is produce in the field available for animals, a man may keep produce at home as his private property; but when the produce in the field has ceased, - the animals having consumed it, he must carry out the produce from his home and declare it free for all. Having done this, he may then take back into the house whatever he needs for his private use (Tosaf. 52b, s.v. מתבערין).(2) I.e., place it at everybody's disposal.
(3) This is explained in the GEMARA.
(4) The afternoon service, and the time for same - beginning generally two and a half hours before nightfall.
(5) I.e., the money earned then will not be profitable.
(6) I.e., before.
(7) I.e., it is inadvisable.
(8) As he may continue work after the Sabbath or Festival has actually commenced; or begin before they have quite terminated.
(9) Proclaimed on account of rain, when work was forbidden, Ta'an. 12b. On other fast-days work is permitted.
(10) Lit., 'low'.
(11) Though his abstention then is due to indolence, not to respect for the Sabbath, he is nevertheless rewarded, since in fact he does abstain.
(12) V. p. 20, n. 5.
(13) [Var. lec. (v. Rashi); These women of Mahuza, although the reason they do no work. . . Sabbath is that they are used . . ,yet even so are called etc.]
(14) Ps. LVII, 11.
(15) Ibid. CVIII, 5.
(16) Lit., 'name'. To them, His mercy is great above the heavens.
(17) Lit., 'not for its own name'.
(18) Jast.; i.e., trading in wool, but not making it up; this realizes very little profit and is not a dignified occupation for a woman.
(19) But trading in mills, buying and selling them, is profitable.
(20) Prov. XXXI, 24. This occurs in the description of the 'woman of valour'.
(21) [Heb. Simta. Tosef. Bek. II has Shemittah, the Sabbatical year when trading with produce is forbidden.]
(22) Sheep, goats, etc.
(23) To sell for their timber.
(24) When sharing with their neighbour.
(25) Market traders are exposed to the public gaze, and so to the evil eye, which is a potent source of misfortune. The other three incur the ill-will of people, the first because breeding small animals was generally frowned upon.
(26) Perutah was the smallest coin. I.e., the monies earned by the four things enumerated.
(27) Officials who spoke the Sabbath lectures of the Sages to the congregation; the Sage whispered his statements to the interpreter, and he explained them to the people. Also, those who publicly interpreted and translated the weekly readings of the Law on the Sabbath.
(28) Orphans' money was sometimes entrusted to people to trade with, and they kept half the profit for themselves for their labour.
(29) He may take more than his due, and a minor cannot legally renounce it in his favour.
(30) Considerable danger attended the transport of freights at sea, and one might very easily suffer loss.
(31) A body of one hundred and twenty men founded by Ezra, regarded as the bearers of Jewish teaching and tradition after the Prophets; v. Ab. I, 1.
(32) V. Glos.
(33) All who trade in these, whether directly or indirectly.
(34) Lit., 'work'.
(35) Wool dyed blue for insertion in garments as fringes; v. Num. XV, 38.
(36) To benefit the community, profit being a secondary consideration.
(37) Beyshan (Scythopolis) in Galilee (Jast.). [Beyshan was, however, far too distant from Tyre to enable its inhabitants to go there and back in one day. It must therefore be located in the neighbourhood of Tyre and it is identified with the village at Abasiya, N.E. of Tyre (Hurwitz, Palestine, p. 112).]
(38) On the coast of Palestine. Friday was market day at Sidon (Rashi).
(39) Prov. I, 8.
(40) Known to-day as Khuzistan, in S. W. Persia; Obermeyer, pp. 204ff.
(41) Which is necessary by law.
(42) Hallah may be eaten by a priest only. Thus he intimated that this was not hallah.
(43) Lit., 'practise a prohibition in connection with them'.
