MISHNAH: Any time one is permitted to eat one feeds it to domestic or wild animals or birds, or sells it to a Non-Jew, and one may have usufruct from it. If its time has passed one may not have usufruct from it, nor use it to heat an oven or a cooking stove. Rebbi Jehudah says, leavened matter may only be eliminated by burning. But the Sages say, he makes crumbs and scatters them in the wind or throws it into the Sea reads “But the Sages say, he also may make crumbs and …” This determines current practice following R. Jehudah, even though also is missing in the Mishnah quote in the Babli Halakhah (28a ). Cf. Diqduqe Soferim Pesaḥim p. 28a Note 1 . .
HALAKHAH: “Any time” etc. Rebbi Immi said, who is the Tanna of “any time when he is permitted to eat he is permitted to feed, when it is forbidden to the eater he is forbidden to feed”? Rebbi Meïr. But following Rebbi Jehudah, in the fifth hour even though he is forbidden to eat he is permitted to feed. Rebbi Abba objected: Did we not state, “sour dough has to be burned but one who eats it is not liable 12:19 contains two statements. 1° leavened matter may not be in a Jew’s possession on Passover, and 2°, it is a deadly sin, punishable by extirpation, to eat leavened matter during the holiday. The Tanna of the Mishnah holds that the second statement is not applicable to matters commonly considered to be inedible. ,” and did not Rav Ḥuna say in the name of Rebbi, one may feed it to the dogs? Rebbi Yose said, did we state “any leavened matter”, not “time”? Who is the Tanna of “time”, Rebbi Meïr.
Rebbi Bun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: This implies that one is permitted to feed it to ownerless animals. Rebbi Jeremiah objected, did we not state “he crumbles it”? Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion, loaf sized usufruct seems to be unnecessary. . Rebbi Yose said to him, it only mentioned “he crumbles it”, that when he crumbled it it was nullified. But the following says it, leavend matter may not be eaten today 13:3–4 : Moses said to the people, remember this day on which you left Egypt, the House of Slavery, for with a strong hand did the Eternal remove you from there, and leavened matter shall not be eaten. Today you are leaving, in the Spring month. Since the text is written without commas and periods, the period implied by the oral tradition of separation of verses may be disregarded. A different interpretation of the same reading is in Mekhilta dR. Ismael ad loc. (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 62 line 2), Babli 28b . , even by the dogs. This includes to forbid it for usufruct. Where do we hold? If for his own dog, the prohibition of usufruct had been stated 13:3 implies that the identity of the eater is irrelevant, against the argument of Note 11 . . But we must hold for the dog [of others]. This implies that one is prohibited from feeding it to ownerless animals.
3:1, Notes 10–44 , ע . It seems that the origin of the text is in Pesaḥim since only here the verses are quoted in full and an important sentence is missing in ע . In the Babli, the parallel is 21b–23a. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Everywhere it is written do not eat, do not eat , it shall not be eaten, you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating unless the verse is explicit and explains to you as it did explain about limbs of a living animal and a carcass. What did it explain about limbs of a living animal? Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat; throw it to the dog 22:30 . Why is it necessary to permit torn limbs as dog food? R. Eleazar argues that this shows that without such permission the limb would be forbidden for all usufruct. . And what did it explain about a carcass? Do not eat any carcass; to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it, or sell to the stranger. 14:21 . Ḥizqiah stated a disagreement (London 1966) pp. 171–196. Since here the mention of the torn limb and the carcass both lead to the same argument, either one of them would be superfluous and, therefore, both must be needed for other inferences. The argument of R. Eleazar is refuted. . What does one forbid to the dog?
But is it not written 7:23 . This paragraph discusses verses which present difficulties for R. Eleazar. : Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat ? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written 7:23 . In the opinion of the Babli 23a , the verse is needed to permit any use of profane fat since otherwise one would argue that since fat is forbidden for humans but required for the altar, fat of animals unfit for the altar should be permitted for use in the Temple but forbidden for profane use. In the Sifra Ṣaw (Parasha 10), the argument of the Babli is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean; R. Aqiba concludes that fat of domesticated animals is not food nor subject to the impurity of food. In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, since some fat is permitted for unrestricted use, no fat can be forbidden for usufruct in the absence of an explicit verse. For Ḥizqiah, this is a third verse that could be used for R. Eleazar’s argument; nobody will contest that three parallel verses invalidate the argument. In the second version of Ḥizqiah’s position (below, after Note 49 ), he needs the verse to permit use of fat for work on Temple property. : But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work, only it may not be eaten . But is it not written 12:16 . : Only the blood you may not eat ? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written: You shall pour it on the ground like water 2:3, Note 136 ). The argument of the Yerushalmi, and an argument that animal blood prepares for impurity in all cases, is in Sifry Deut. 73 and later here, in the second version of Ḥizqiah. (Preparation for impurity is explained in Demay 2:3, Notes 136–141 .) . Since water is permitted for use, so blood shall be permitted for use. But is it not written 32:33 . : Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the sciatic nerve? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass. But is it not written 23:14 . : Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat until this very day? Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written 11:42 . : Do not eat them for they are abominations? Rebbi [Mana] missing here. said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct Greek σπληνίον, τό, “pad, wound dressing.” .
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who makes a wound dressing Greek σπληνίον, τό, “pad, wound dressing.” from a stoned ox. 21:28–29 ). Its meat is forbidden for usufruct as explained in the sequel. Cf. Mekhilta dR.Ismael Mišpaṭim 10 (p. 282). or from leftover sour matter after Passover cannot be whipped since its prohibition is not clear. For vineyard kilaim he is whipped since Rebbi Ḥanina said 22:9 . For this derivation, cf. Kilaim 8:1, Note 6 . : Lest it be sanctified, lest fire should be kindled. For ˋorlah it is problematic. A prescriptive commandment to removal is written fruit. , a prohibition to eat is written 19:23 . Since R. Joḥanan reads לֹ֥א יֵֽאָכֵֽל as prohibition of eating, not of usufruct, he follows his teacher Ḥizqiah in rejecting the argument of R. Eleazar. , [“do not eat”], a prohibition to remove it is not written.
In a baraita as stated here is not found in any other source except the Yerushalmi parallels in Orlah and Avodah Zarah 5:12 (Note 155 ). In Mekhilta Mišpaṭim 19; quoted in Babli 22b , Qiddušin 56b, Bava Qamma 41a the text explicitly notes that, since “its meat shall not be eaten” is included in the statement of the sentence to be passed by the court, only after judgment is rendered does slaughter become ineffective. This may also be he rule implied by the Yerushalmi Targum to Ex. 21:28 : וְלָא יִתְנְכַס לְמֵיכוּל יַת בִּשְׂרֵיהּ “it should not be slaughtered to make its flesh edible.” Since the Babli follows R. Eleazar, no discussion of the prohibition of usufruct is necessary. one disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: What does one understand from what has been said. 21:28 . : the ox shall certainly be stoned? Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food? Then why does the verse say, its meat shall not be eaten? To tell you that just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden for usufruct. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explained it if the owners slaughtered it before sentence was pronounced.
Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Here you say so, there you say so? He said to him, here in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, there in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan.
The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating if it is written do not eat, do not eat. It may not be eaten (f.). it may not be eaten (m.), you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating. The paradigm for all cases is 6:23 . : Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned 8(5 ), quoted in Babli Zebaḥim 82a , Yerushalmi Pesaḥim 7:9, fol. 35a] following a punctuation which differs from the masoretic one: Any purification offering, some of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify, in the Sanctuary it shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned. This is a possible reading since purification offerings may be eaten only in the Sanctuary. Then “Sanctuary” is taken also to refer to the last clause, (in the sanctuary) in fire it shall be burned. This excludes all sacred and profane usufruct after purification. . Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said 7:23 . : Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat, why has it been said: but fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work? Even for the work of Heaven 7:23 . In the opinion of the Babli 23a , the verse is needed to permit any use of profane fat since otherwise one would argue that since fat is forbidden for humans but required for the altar, fat of animals unfit for the altar should be permitted for use in the Temple but forbidden for profane use. In the Sifra Ṣaw (Parasha 10), the argument of the Babli is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean; R. Aqiba concludes that fat of domesticated animals is not food nor subject to the impurity of food. In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, since some fat is permitted for unrestricted use, no fat can be forbidden for usufruct in the absence of an explicit verse. For Ḥizqiah, this is a third verse that could be used for R. Eleazar’s argument; nobody will contest that three parallel verses invalidate the argument. In the second version of Ḥizqiah’s position (below, after Note 49 ), he needs the verse to permit use of fat for work on Temple property. . If one understands what has been said 12:16 . : But the blood you shall not eat, why has it been said, you shall pour it on the ground like water? As water prepares 2:3, Notes 136–141 . , so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said 14:21 . : Do not eat any carcass; why has it been said, to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it? It serves to tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat. If one understands what has been said 22:30 . : Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat, why does the verse say, throw it to the dog? This you throw to the dog but you do not throw profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct.17:4. .
A baraita 16, p. 51. Tanḥuma Bo 11 supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar. Sour bread shall not be eaten 13:3 . , to make the feeder equal to the eater. And you say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says: 16:3 . You shall not eat sour bread with it, we learned that usufruct is forbidden. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition, He made the feeder equal to the eater 5(1). R. Abraham ben David in his commentary notes that this is not the position of the Babli; he does not refer to the Yerushalmi. ; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that we consider the feeder to be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse serves only to forbid its usufruct. Since it is written, sour bread shall not be eaten, therefore from you shall not eat one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan 3:1. .
“Nor use it to heat an oven or a cooking stove.” If he transgressed and heated, it shall come like the following 3:14, dealing with using wood from an Asherah to heat a clay stove which was not finished in a kiln. It would become hardened by being exposed to the fire kindled in them. Therefore a new oven would be finished by the Ashera wood; it must be destroyed. The text might be a quote not of this Mishnah but of Tosephta Orlah 7 dealing with the same situation if the fuel is orlah fruit ( Orlah 3:3 Note 114 ) which is quoted in extenso in the Babli 26b . : “If it was new it must be destroyed are moist, leavening would be caused by the addition of flour. , if it was old it must be cooled down.”
It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, leavened matter may only be eliminated by burning. 12:15, pp. 17–18 .. It is an argument de minore ad majus. Since piggul 19:7 . and leftover, which are not under an injunction not to be seen and not to be found, only may be disposed of by burning, for leavened matter which is under an injunction not to be seen and not to be found, it is only logical that it only may be disposed by burning. They told Rebbi Jehudah, any argument de minore ad majus which you argue in the beginning as a restriction but it turns out in the end to be a leniency, is no argument de minore ad majus in: Confrontations with Judaism, Ph. Longworth, ed., London 1966, pp. 171–196. . It would imply that if he does not find fire he could sit and not dispose of it. The Torah said 12:15 . , eliminate sour dough from your houses.
Similarly said Rebbi Jehudah, if a woman carries seed and gives birth to a male 13:1 . Sifra TazriaˋIntroduction (5); another version of Sifra in Midrash Haggadol Lev., ed A. Steinsalz, Jerusalem 1976, pp. 313–314. . What does the verse imply? Since it is said, she shall be impure for seven days, 13:2 . and on the eighth day one shall circumcise, I understand that a live birth makes his mother impure by the impurity of birth. From where that a stillbirth makes his mother impure by the impurity of birth? Rebbi Jehudah said, I am presenting an argument de minore ad majus. Since a live birth, who does not make impure for seven days his mother, and those who come with him this refers to multiple births if one of the fetuses is dead. , [or who comes with his mother,] into a tent A stillbirth causes impurity of the dead not only by touch but also by being under the same “tent” and requires the purification rite of the ashes of the Red Cow described in Num. 19 . , the stillbirth who makes impure for seven days his mother, and those who come with him, [or who comes with his mother,] into a tent, it is only logical that he should make his mother impure by the impurity of birth. They told Rebbi Jehudah, any argument de minore ad majus which you argue in the beginning as a restriction but it turns out in the end to be a leniency is no argument de minore ad majus. As a consequence, since a live birth purifies his mother, also the stillbirth should purify his mother? Since I cannot prove it by an argument de minore ad majus, [therefore} the Torah said a male, to include the stillbirth fetus recognizably male. .
Similarly said Rebbi Jehudah, “you should dwell in huts23:42 where the text reads either בַּסֻּכֹּ֥ת תֵּֽשְׁב֖וּ or יֵֽשְׁב֖וּ בַּסֻּכֹּֽת. The quote is correct in Sifra Emor Pereq 17(10 ) but incorrect in Midrash Haggadol (Note 71) p. 763. The reference is to the holiday of Tabernacles. ,” a hut made of anything. For Rebbi Jehudah was saying, it is an argument de minore ad majus that the hut should come only from the Four Kinds tree ( Lev. 23:40 ), probably cannot be used for this purpose. [In medieval Germany the roof of the festival hut usually was covered with willow branches, Sefer Maharil (ed. S. J. Spitzer, Jerusalem 1989, p. 363)]. . Since the lulav which is not used in nights as in days may come only from the Four Kinds, it is only logical that a hut which is used by nights as well as by days should come only from the Four Kinds. They told Rebbi Jehudah, any argument de minore ad majus which you argue in the beginning as a restriction but it turns out in the end to be a leniency is no argument de minore ad majus. As a consequence, if he did not find of the Four Kinds, should he sit without a hut? But the Torah said, “you should dwell in huts,” a hut made of anything. [And so Ezra said 8:15 . The proof is from the continuation of the verse, not quoted in the text: Bring olive leaves, and oil-wood leaves, and myrrh leaves, and palm leaves, and ˋavot-tree leaves, to make huts as it is written. Corrector’s addition from the parallel sources. , they informed and did proclaim in all cities and in Jerusalem, go to the mountain, etc. ]
Rebbi Jehudah came back and presented another argument: Leavened matter is forbidden as food and leftover is forbidden as food. Since the latter is to be burned 19:8 . , the former is to be burned. They told him, carcass meat disproves since it is forbidden as food and is not to be burned 14:21 . . He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food and for usufruct and leftover is forbidden as food and for usufruct; carcass meat does not disprove since it is not forbidden for usufruct. They told him, the stoned ox. 21:28–29 ). Its meat is forbidden for usufruct as explained in the sequel. Cf. Mekhilta dR.Ismael Mišpaṭim 10 (p. 282). disproves which is forbidden as food and for usufruct( Ex. 21:18 ) in the passive voice, according to everybody this implies prohibition of usufruct. and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation. 12:19 . , [and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation]. 19:8 . ; the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not make liable for extirpation. They told him, the fat. 7:25 . of the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time; the fat of the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not depend on time. They told him, a suspended sacrifice following your opinion 7:6 it is stated that Sages hold that the body of an animal dedicated as a hung sacrifice which was wrongly slaughtered has to be burned, but R. Jehudah requires that it be buried. does disprove since it is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, [but is not to be burned]. Rebbi Jehudah remained silent.
It was stated: Before the time of its elimination you eliminate it in any way you wish; at the time of its elimination you eliminate it by burning. This follows Rebbi Jehudah. There are Tannaim who state, before the time of its elimination you eliminate it by burning; at the time of its elimination you eliminate it in any way you wish. This follows the rabbis. Rebbi says, remove sour dough from your houses, anything which may not be seen nor found 12:15 . Rebbi disagrees with both the preceding baraitot. Since it is spelled out in Chapter 13 that on Passover sour matter may neither be seen nor found, the only acceptable form of removal both before noontime of the 14 or at noontime is by burning which transforms everything into ashes. If one would bury the leavened matter or crumble it and scatter it in the wind, it still would exist and could be found. 90a The firstling of a donkey which was not redeemed by a lamb given to a Cohen must be killed by breaking its neck ( Ex. 13:13 ). An animal which killed a human must be stoned ( Ex. 21:28 ). If both conditions apply there are no rules to decide which precept to apply. . How is this? By burning. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if the firstling of a donkey killed, what is the form of his execution? By breaking the neck or by stoning? Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi asked about leftover flat-bread from a thanksgiving sacrifice, should we say that if they were left before the time ofelimination you may eliminate it in any way you wish; at the time of its elimination you have to eliminate it by burning?
MISHNAH: A Non-Jew’s leavened matter which existed during Passover is permitted for usufruct but a Jew’s is forbidden for usufruct since it is said 13:7 . , it should not be seen in your possession. If a Non-Jew gave a loan to a Jew secured by leavened matter, after Passover it is permitted for usufruct but if a Jew gave a loan to a Non-Jew secured by leavened matter, after Passover it is forbidden for usufruct. Leavened matter on which debris fell is as if eliminated; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only one which cannot be dug out by a dog.
HALAKHAH: Therefore it is forbidden for eating? The Mishnah refers to a place where they are used not to eat Gentile bread; [but at a place where they used to eat Gentile bread] it is permitted even for eating.
What is it during Passover? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose objected: but was it not stated: An Israel may not lease his animal to a Gentile to use it to transport leavened matter? He explains it, if he comes with him. But was it not stated: An Israel may not lease his ship to a Gentile to use it to transport leavened matter? He explains it, if he comes with him. But was it not stated: An Israel may not lease his house to a Gentile to store leavened matter in it. Can you say, if he dwells with him?
If the roof of a Gentile was adjacent to a Jew’s roof and leavened matter rolled from the Gentile’s roof to the Jew’s roof, he pushes it away with a stick. If it was Sabbath or holiday on Sabbath or holiday and may not be moved. A similar statement appears in the Babli 6a . , Rav said, he covers it with a vessel.
Rav said, one has to say “any leavened matter which I have in my house unknown to me shall be nullified.”
Rav said, one has to say “Who sanctified us by His Commandments and commanded us about the precept of eliminating leavened matter. Northvale 1995, p.194. ”
Rav said, he who affixes leavened matter to his house has to eliminate. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, if one turns dough into a clump, it is nullified 129a . In the Babli: “A clump used to sit on it.” The leavened matter no longer is food. He explains it, either that one disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or that this clump is repugnant.
“If a Jew and a Gentile were travelling by ship and leavened matter was in the Jew’s hand, he sells it to the Gentile or gives it to him as a gift; then he reverts and buys it from him after Passover, on condition that it was an unconditional gift. The Jew may say to the Gentile, instead of buying it for a mina, come and buy it for 200 [denar]. Instead that you buy from a Gentile, come and buy it from a Jew, maybe I shall have need, then I shall buy from you after Passover.”
If somebody rents out his house to another, as long as this one does not enter into it, the lessor has to eliminate; after this one entered into it, the lessee has to eliminate. Rebbi Simeon said, when? If he handed him the key, but as long as he did not hand him the key, he does not have to eliminate.
1:4, Notes 435–438. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, I asked: What if he handed him the key 3:1, Note 12 ). Nevertheless Sefer Haˋittur (vol. 2, p. 121a, Note 17) reads the question as complement of the preceding statement. ? Rebbi Zachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi said, this is the disagreement between Rebbi Simeon and the Sages, as we have stated there 7:1 . The vulgar person is one who does not observe the rules of purity. He is considered a source of original impurity; cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay. : “If somebody hands over his key to a vulgar person, the house remains pure since he only entrusted him with safekeeping the key.” It was stated: Rebbi Simeon declares it impure 8:1 . He holds that handing over the key implies authorization for unlimited entry into the premises. .
(p. 23 1.16). “If a Gentile comes to a Jew with leavened matter in his hand, one does not need to eliminate. If he deposited with him, he has to eliminate. If he gave him a separate room he does not need to eliminate.” If he did not eliminate, what is its status after Passover? Rebbi Jonah said, it is permitted; Rebbi Yose said, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, it is the Gentile’s leavened matter [but] the Jew acted wrongly and did not eliminate.
Who is the Tanna of it should not be seen in your possession ? Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated: He who eats leavened matter after the sixth hour, as well as leavened matter which was in existence during Passover violates a biblical prohibition but there is no extirpation, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, anything for which there is no extirpation there is no biblical prohibition. Rebbi Simeon agrees about the prohibition that it is prohibited. What is its prohibition? Rebbi Jeremiah said, its prohibition is a word of the Torah. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, its prohibition is from their words. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? No leavened matter may be eaten, today 13:4–5 . “Today” belongs to the next sentence. . Where do we hold? If during the holiday, it already is written, you may not eat leavened matter with it 16:3 . . But if it does not refer to the time during the holiday, transfer it to the time after the holiday. How does Rebbi Simeon explain Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, no leavened matter may be eaten, today ? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he will explain if following Rebbi Yose the Galilean, as it was stated: 11; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 16 (p. 62), dR. Simeon Bar Yohay, Bo (p. 38 1. 15). Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, I am saying that in Egypt the Passover was only one day as it was said, no leavened matter may be eaten, today.
It should not be seen in your possession 13:7 . . There are Tannaim who state, it should not be seen in your possession, yours you may not see, [but] you may see Heaven’s. There are Tannaim who state, not even Heaven’s. He who said, yours you may not see, you may see Heaven’s, if its dedication precedes its elimination. He who said, not even Heaven’s, if its dedication is after its elimination. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: Explain it about sancta for which he is responsible in case of alienation following Rebbi Simeon as long as they are not redeemed for the benefit of the Temple. It is assumed that the dedication was not “this is given to the Temple” but “I will give a certain value to the Temple”. In the latter case only actual delivery fulfills the vow and according to R. Simeon [ Mishnah Bava qamma 7:5 (Note 56 )] even after dedication it remains the votary’s personal property until delivered. .
It should not be seen in your possession. There are Tannaim who state, it should not be seen in your possession, yours you may not see; you may see it in the street; there are Tannaim who state, not even if in the street;. He who says, yours you may not see, you may see it in the street, if his renunciation of ownership precedes its elimination; he who said, not even in the street, if his renunciation of ownership follows its elimination. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it for sancta , etc.
If he declared his leavened matter ownerless on the thirteenth; what is its status after Passover? Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Do you not agree with me that it is forbidden after noontime? He answered, there its prohibition caused it; here what can you say? Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Phineas, do you remember that we said, Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish Rebbi Meïr 6:1 (Notes 18,19) where R. Meïr holds that an object becomes ownerless as soon as it is abandoned in a public place and declared to be ownerless, whereas for R. Yose it remains the original owner’s property until picked up by another person. ? It is not so. Only Rebbi Joḥanan is concerned about cunning, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is not concerned about cunning. What is the difference? If debris fell on it. He who says cunning, there is no cunning and it is permitted. He who said acquisition, there is no acquisition and it is prohibited. Everybody agrees about a proselyte who died 9:15 Notes 111,121. and the Jews plundered his property. For him who says cunning, it is permitted, and for him who says acquisition, it is permitted.
There, we have stated: 4:4 where the few differences in spelling are noted and which is explained there in Notes 75–78 , 120–130. “A slave whom his master gave as mortgage to others and then freed him [in strict law does not owe anything, but for the public good one forces the master to formally manumit him and he writes a bond for his own value. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the one who manumits writes.] Who frees? Rav says, either his first or his second master. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only his first master alone is able to free. Rebbi Haggai objected before Rebbi Yose: Does not a baraita disagree with Rav? If a Jew gave a loan to a Gentile on the latter’s leavened matter, it is permitted after Passover. If you say that the Jew has property rights in it, it would be forbidden. What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Yudan said, manumission is made easy, as it was stated: If somebody gives his slave as mortgage, if he sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the manumittor writes. If somebody mortgaged his field to another, then went and sold it, can the creditor not come and foreclose? Rebbi Abbahu said, in this matter Rebbi Joḥanan opened for us a door to illuminate. We do not find that a slave can again be enslaved after having been freed. If that is so, he should not have to write a bond for his value! Rebbi Ila said, it is better that a person say to him, give me the 200 zuz which you owe me than say to him, you are my slave! The rabbis of Caesarea say in Rebbi Nasaʹs name: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr imposes a fine for words, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel imposes a fine for words. As it was stated: With a bond documenting both principal and interest one can collect neither principal nor interest, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, one collects the principal but not the interest.
“Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only one which cannot be dug out by a dog..” How far? Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq: Up to three hand-breadths.
MISHNAH: Somebody who eats leavened heave on Passover, if in error pays its value and a fifth 6:1 Note 1 . , if intentionally is not liable for restitution even as value of wood 7:1 Note 2 ). Also, while the restitution money and the fine for inadvertent consumption are sancta, the restitution for intentionally consumed heave is profane ( loc. cit. ) and therefore has to follow the rules of civil debts. Since leavened matter on Passover is forbidden for usufruct, it has no monetary value, not even as fuel to be burned. .
HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq: Our Mishnah if he separated it as unleavened and it became leavened. But if he separated it leavened, it does not apply. If he separated unleavened for leavened? Rebbi Zeˋira said, any heave which does not permit the remainder as food is no heave. [Even] if he separated leavened for unleavened? Rebbi Zeˋira said, since if he gave from its kind it would not be heave, and even if he gives from this kind for another place it is not heave.
(If he beat) four quarters for themselves and made them leavened, and another four quarters for themselves, and mixed them of flour (of the kinds enumerated in Mishnah 4 ) is subject to ḥallah (cf. Introduction to Tractate Ḥallah ) . Before ḥallah is removed, bread baked from the dough is ṭevel and forbidden as food. If the dough becomes leavened on Passover it becomes forbidden for usufruct and its consumption is a deadly sin. Therefore even if later it is mixed with another qab of new flour, there is no ṭevel since the first qab forbidden for usufruct cannot become ṭevel, and the second qab is less than the minimum quantity triggering the obligation of ḥallah. Clearly the mixture if forbidden as food and for usufruct because of the laws of Passover. . If one warned him because of eating ṭevel, he is not flogged, because of one who eats leavened matter on Passover, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition 101a . . But if he mixed them if later it also becomes forbidden both as food and for usufruct as leavened on Passover, the prohibition of ṭevel is not removed. and afterwards made them leavened, if one warned him because of eating ṭevel. he is flogged, because of one who eats leavened matter on Passover, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition.
If he made a grain heap and worshipped it 7:26 ). , then smoothed it (Mishnah Maˋserot 1:6). But since worshipped grain is not food, it cannot become subject to tithe. , and then ate from it: if one warned him because of eating ṭevel, he is not flogged, because of one who eats idolatrical food, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition. [But if he smoothed it as food. (Corrector’s addition.) and then worshipped it, if one warned him because of eating ṭevel , he is flogged, because of idolatrical food, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition.]
Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: He who eats leavened heave on Passover, to whom does he pay? It is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since the disagreed: One who robbed heave from his mother’s father who was a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself and is forbidden to any layman, including himself. He may then sell the heave to a Cohen who will offer little money since there are very few competitors for heave food. . Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: It is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about the fifth that he has to pay it to the tribe. He told him, I also do agree with this, since impure heave is forbidden to the tribe. There came Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Even in this case they disagree.
Rebbi Yose asked, if somebody benefited from Temple property less than the value of a perutah , is he liable for reimbursement? (He said to him.) Let us hear from the following: What he appropriated from sancta he has to repay 5:16 . This seems to exclude amounts smaller than the smallest coin in circulation since such an amount cannot be paid. , except what is less than the value of a perutah. There are Tannaim who state, to add. (He who said except, for) [he who said “except what is less than the value of a perutah ” for reimbursement11(7 ). The argument there is based on the expression from sancta, even a minute part. and] sacrifice. He who said “to add”, for reimbursement. As you are saying there from sancta does not trigger the obligation to pay an additional fifth since no amount less that a perutah can be invoiced. , intentionally less than the value of a perutah, even though he does not pay the fifth and a reparation sacrifice he has to pay to the tribe, one says the same here. The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose, is that not a Mishnah? “Somebody who eats leavened heave on Passover, if in error pays its value and a fifth 6:1 Note 1 . , if intentionally he is not liable for restitution even as value of wood 7:1 Note 2 ). Also, while the restitution money and the fine for inadvertent consumption are sancta, the restitution for intentionally consumed heave is profane ( loc. cit. ) and therefore has to follow the rules of civil debts. Since leavened matter on Passover is forbidden for usufruct, it has no monetary value, not even as fuel to be burned. ”? He told them, there it is impossible to complete, but here it is possible to complete.
In error for heave and intentional for leavened matter, in error for heave and intentional for nazir, in error for heave and intentional for the Day of Atonement. If one explains it with two things, it is fine. If one explains it for one, this is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish 3:1 (after Note 33 ); there is a somewhat defective copy in Terumot 7:1, Notes 47–51 . The disagreement between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish referred to here is not the one quoted earlier, but the one discussed in Ketubot and Terumot, whether a criminal conviction precludes monetary claims arising from the same case or not. If one holds that with one action two different laws have been broken, each infraction is punished according to its separate rules and everybody agrees that for heave he has to pay. But if one holds that for one action there can be only one punishment, he has to pay only following R. Joḥanan. .
MISHNAH: With the following one fulfills his obligation 12:18 ) to consume azyme bread (cf. the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, Northvale NJ 1995, p. 329). Only bread made from cereal which can become leavened is admitted; by tradition only the grains enumerated in the sequel qualify in this respect. on Passover: With wheat, and with barley, and with spelt, and with rye, and with fox grain 1:1: prairie barley. , and with demay to the poor and passing travellers, it is profane food by biblical standards. , and with First Tithe whose heave was removed, and with Second Tithe or sancta which were redeemed, and the Cohanim with ḥallah and heave but since the Cohanim are obliged to consume them, they may consume them to fulfill their obligation. . But not with ṭevel , nor with First Tithe whose heave was not removed , nor with Second tithe or sancta which were not redeemed. Flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir 7:12 , Num. 6:15 . , if he made them for himself one cannot fulfill his obligation ; if he made them to sell on the market one fulfills his obligation .
HALAKHAH: 1:1, Notes 6–21 , ח . It is written 15:19 . : It shall be when you eat of the bread of the Land you shall lift a heave which follows the rules of heave. for the Eternal. I could think that everything is subject to ḥallah; the verse says of the bread but not all bread. If of the bread and not all bread, that might be only wheat and barley 15:20 , 21 . ? From where the other kinds? The verse says the first of your dough 15:20 , 21 . , this includes. Does it include everything? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: 110. Rebbi Ismael stated this. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, in the name of Rebbi Ismael.
Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Aḥava ben Rebbi Zeˋira teacher in his father’s academy. (who said, I) [my father] said in the name of Rebbi Ismael 110. As regards Passover only, Babli Pesaḥim 35a , Mekhilta deR. Ismael Bo Chap. 8, 17; Sifry Num. 146. : “Bread” is mentioned for Passover 16:2 . and “bread” is mentioned for ḥallah 15:19 . . Since bread mentioned in a discussion of Passover is something that can be either mazzah or leavened, bread mentioned for ḥallah must be something that can be either mazzah or leavened. They checked and found that only the five kinds can be either mazzah or leavened; all others cannot be mazzah since rice bread (not containing gluten) does not quality as leavened bread. If left standing with leavening it will not rise but spoil. or leavened but would spoil.
It was stated 1:1 ; Babli 35a . : “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit p. 33 ) a grain growing wild among reeds in swamps, used as human food in times of famine. In the opinion of I. Löw, ( Flora der Juden l, p. 703) Glyceria fluitans. a grain preferring swampy ground, frequently used for animal feed, also for soups and flour. {Also cf. Latin gramen, -inis, n. “grass, dog’s grass” ( Plin. Hist. Nat. 24,19,118, §178) (E.G.)}. is obligated for ḥallah.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, New York 1909, pp. 102–115.) it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, it cannot be either mazzah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found that it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either mazzah or leavened.
There 10:2. The paragraph also appears there, Notes 15–19, as well as in Šabbat 3, Notes 67–70 with the mention of “cooking” and “souring” switched correctly. , we have stated: “If a mashed apple is added to dough which soured, [the dough] is forbidden. But if barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, [the water] is permitted The discussion only refers to the first sentence. . It was stated: Rebbi Yose says, it is permitted. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They disagree when it becomes sour from the juice [of the apple]. But if it becomes sour from its solid substance it is permitted according to everybody. Rebbi Yose stays with his opinion; just as he says there, its cooking is not clearly cooking 3:3. , so he says here, its souring is not clearly souring.
It was stated: “An unripe fig which he hid in straw or a flat pita which he hid in coals may be taken on the Sabbath if they were partially uncovered, otherwise they may not be taken.”
From where that the Cohanim may fulfill their obligation with ḥallah or heave, and Israel with Second Tithe on Passover? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot 12:18 , 20 . Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yohay 12:20 (p. 24). , this adds.
Could I think that they may fulfill their obligation with First Fruits? The verse says, in all your dwelling places you shall eat mazzot . 12:20 . , mazzah which may be eaten at any dwelling place; this excludes First Fruits which are not eaten at any dwelling place presented to the priest in the Temple and consumed in Jerusalem only ( Mishnah Bikkurim 2:2 ). Babli 39a , Mekhilta dR. Ismael Ba 10, dR. Simeon ben Yohay 12:20 (p. 24). . They objected, but Second Tithe may not be eaten at any dwelling place 2:2 , Deut. 14:23 . ! It may be redeemed and be eaten at any dwelling place 14:24 . Redemption of pure Second Tithe is possible only outside of Jerusalem. . Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: What was bought with tithe money and became impure, following Rebbi Jehudah, [what is its status? As it was stated: “If what was bought with tithe money became impure, it should be redeemed. Rebbi Jehudah says, it should be buried 3:1, Note 12 ). Nevertheless Sefer Haˋittur (vol. 2, p. 121a, Note 17) reads the question as complement of the preceding statement. . They said to Rebbi Jehudah, if original Second Tithe which became impure is redeemed, what was bought with tithe money and became impure certainly should be redeemed. He said to them, no! If you referred to original Second Tithe, which can be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place, can you say the same about what was bought with tithe money which cannot be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place? 3:11 (p. 111). ”] since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: Ḥallah from dough made from Second Tithe in Jerusalem, since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it is heave and if impure must be burned, even for the majority which disagrees with R. Jehudah it cannot be used for the Passover obligation. Since no objection is raised, this is accepted doctrine in the Yerushalmi, rejected in the Babli 38a . .
I could think that they may fulfill their obligation with flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir which were baked to be used with a thanksgiving offering ( Lev. 7:12 ) or with the offerings required at the end of a vow of nazir ( Num. 6:15 ) but were not used for that purpose, as implied by the text of the Mishnah. Babli 38a as Amoraic statement. .The verse says, seven days you shall eat mazzot . 12:15 . ; mazzah which may be eaten all seven days. But flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir may not be eaten all seven days. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: since flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: this implies that wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. One understands about flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering. But it is not so for wafers of a nazir 1:13 . Therefore there were times when thanksgiving offerings could be presented anywhere in the Land, but while making a vow of nazir was voluntary, once it was made the sacrifices of nezirut became mandatory. . Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no nazir here; nezirut is an obligation. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it if his purification offering was presented in Shiloh but his elevation and well-being offerings in Nob or Gibeon. Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi [Azariah] should be spelled with א. asked before Rebbi Mana: Did not the teacher say in the name of Rebbi Yose: Holiday well-being offerings brought at an elevated place are qualified but they are not counted against an obligation of the owner 3 . But the holiday offering is obligatory; at a local shrine they cannot satisfy an obligation. Therefore the accompanying bread cannot be eaten at all places. ? But it must be for Rebbi Jehudah, as Rebbi Jehudah said, purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a principal elevated place, but no purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a minor elevated place . It only follows Rebbi Simeon, since “Rebbi Simeon said, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself for the dead. 6:11 (Note 224 ). Therefore only the first sacrifice of the nazir is obligatory, the others together with the bread may be offered locally. ”
Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The olive-sized piece of mazzah with which a person fulfills his obligation on Passover must be without fluid. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this was said for a meritorious deed which either was made from dough containing other fluids or where fluid was rubbed into it after baking is undesirable but not forbidden. . Rebbi Abba said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, this was said as a necessary condition. The word of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya implies that this was said as a necessary condition. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected, did we not state: “flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering”? Are there flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering without fluids 7:12 prescribes “flat cakes mixed with oil”. If the Mishnah permits such cakes when commercially made, it must permit all mazzah kneaded with a mixture of oil and water. ? Rebbi Yose said, there it is a quartarius; one quartarius splits into many kinds9:3 specifies that half a log (2 quartarii, slightly more than 1/4 liter) was used to bake the bread required for a thanksgiving offering, 10 flat cakes, 10 wafers, and flour mixed with oil. The amount used for a single flat cake was negligible. Babli 38b . . But what implies this? “One might think and a person could satisfy his obligation with pancake, the verse says, guard the mazzot 12:17 ; a similar baraita is quoted in Midrash Haggadol Ba 12:17; where it is spelled out that a pancake made from flour fried in oil is unacceptable since it never can become leavened. , a mazzah which needs guarding, excluding this one which does not need guarding.” Because it does not need guarding; therefore if it would need guarding one would satisfy his obligation with it. And so we stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”. They thought to say, spiced by fluids. We may say, spiced by sesame, spiced by nuts. But the following says it: One might think that a person only could satisfy his obligation on Passover with (roasted) [whole grain] bread? From where even with Solomon’s mazzah 130. ? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot, it included. If it is so, why does it say bread of affliction 16:3 . ? To exclude sursīn only mentions חָלוּט “pancake fried in oil” and cake. The rule is mentioned in the Tosephta 2:20 , Babli 119b ; the Babli version also in Mekhilta dR. Ismael Ba 10 (end). , and pancake, and cake.
One may fulfill his obligation with mazzah thick up to one hand-width like the shew bread. One may fulfill his obligation with raw mazzah if only it does not draw fibers when broken is not dark like a bread crust. The Babli’s expression is הינא (هنا “easily digested”). A mazzah is fully baked if it breaks cleanly. . An old mazzah is subject of a disagreement between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion; since he did not make it for Passover it is certain that he did not care to make it accurately is one baked before Passover. Tosephta 2:21 permits the use of old mazzah if it was baked for Passover use. . One may fulfill his obligation with seriqin are today’s common mazzot: flat bread grated with a comb (מַסְרֵק) exhibiting an orderly pattern of tiny holes ( Orhot Hayyim I, Hilkhot Hamez Umazzah 103, p. 75d ed. Firenze 1734.) both with figures or without figures, even though they said, one does not make painted seriqin on Passover.
It was stated “Boethos ben Zenon asked Rabban Gamliel and the Sages at Jabneh: May one make seriqin with figures on Passover? They told him, no, because a woman would spend time with it and it would become leavened. He said to them, then one should make it in a form. They told him, one would say, all seriqin are forbidden but the seriqin of Boethos ben Zenon are permitted. Rebbi Yose said, one may make seriqin like wafers; one does not make (wafers) [seriqin] as loaves.”
MISHNAH: And with the following vegetables or the Passover sacrifice. The names of the plants are described in the Halakhah; for a comparison with the somewhat different explanations of the Babli (39a ) and their Medieval interpretations cf. the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, Northvale 1995, p.333. a person can fulfill his obligation on Passover: With Romaine lettuce, with endives, with gingidium. harhabina and bitter herb. One fulfills his obligation with both fresh and wilted, but not marinated or cooked in water or cooked in broth; and they may be combined for the volume of an olive. One fulfills his obligation with their stalk, and with demay to the poor and passing travellers, it is profane food by biblical standards. , and with First Tithe whose heave was removed, and with Second Tithe or sancta which were redeemed.
HALAKHAH: “With hazeret ”, lettuce. “With ˋulšin ”, τρώξιμον. “And with tamka ”, γιγγίδιον “With harhabina ”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, for the explanation of Kilaim 1:2 חזרת גלין which Maimonides in his Mishnah Commentary explains as “wild growing lettuce” ( Kilaim Chapter 1, Notes 37,51,52.) יסי חלי. “And with maror ”. A bitter vegetable turning grey and containing sap. They objected, is not lettuce sweet? Is it not called “lettuce” only if it be sweet? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Hoshaya: (Itself it depends only on change) [Itself it is only called “change”]. (As) hazeret is sweet at the beginning and bitter at the end, so did the Egyptians behave towards our forefathers in Egypt. At the start, in the best part of the land settle your father and your brothers 47:6 . , and after that they embittered their lives with hard labor, with mortar and bricks 1:6 . .
“And wilted”. There are Tannaim who state, “but not wilted”. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said “and wilted”, about a stalk. He who said, “but not wilted”, about leaves.
6:1 (Notes 34–41 , ב ). Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “Creator of the fruit of the tree” on marinated olives. Rebbi Benjamin bar Jephet in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “By Whose word everything was created” on water-cooked vegetables. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: a Mishnah supports Rebbi Benjamin bar Yephet: “but not marinated or cooked in water or cooked in broth”; if they were recognizable in their state one could fulfill his duty with them on Passover. Rebbi Zeˋira said, who understands well what Rebbi Yohanan said, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba or Rebbi Benjamin? Not Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba? And in addition from the fact that we see great rabbis going to a mourner’s meal, eat lupines and recite on them “Creator of the fruit of the earth;” Are not lupines certainly cooked? If you wish, you may say there is a difference, since the Torah said bitter herbs, and cooked lupines have lost their bitterness. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they have no disagreement. Since olives usually are eaten fresh, they are recognizable in their state even if they are marinated. Vegetables are changed once they are cooked38b . .
MISHNAH: One may not soak bran as chicken feed but one may parboil. A woman may not soak bran to take it in her hand to the bath house but she may rub it dry on her skin. A person may not chew wheat kernels to put on his wound since they become leavened.
HALAKHAH: It was stated 1:1 ; Yerushalmi Ḥallah 1:5 (Note 189 ). In Babli Pesaḥim 37b , the definitions are switched. : “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name: What is parboiled? If one adds hot water to flour. Dumpling, flour into hot water.” But here either water into bran or bran into water.
If there is any fat in them 32:14 . If the kernels are completely devoid of moisture, they are inert and may be chewed. . Unguent which became putrid, there are Tannaim who state, he is required to eliminate; and there are Tannaim who state, he is not required to eliminate. He who said, he is required to eliminate, if it became leavened before becoming putrid; he who said, he is not required to eliminate, if it became putrid before becoming leavened.
MISHNAH: One adds flour neither to haroset pp. 333–334. nor to mustard are moist, leavening would be caused by the addition of flour. . If one did add, he has to eat it immediately, but Rebbi Meïr forbids. One may not cook the Passover sacrifice either in fluid or in fruit juice, but one may rub it or immerse it in them. Water used by a baker has to be poured out because it causes leavening.
HALAKHAH: It was stated: “One adds flour neither to haroset pp. 333–334. nor to mustard are moist, leavening would be caused by the addition of flour. ; it one did add, he has to eat it immediately, on condition that he not tarry. Rebbi Meïr forbids since he tarries. to be burned. ”
It is written: or cooking cooked in water 12:9 . . I not only have water, from where other fluids? The verse says, cooking cooked, in any way. So far following Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? An argument de minore ad majus. Since for water which does not mask its taste you are saying it is forbidden, other fluids which mask its taste not so much more 6, pp. 20=-21/ ?
52a . “One does not knead mazzah with fluids but one may rub it with them. Rebbi Aqiba said, I was with Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua on a ship and kneaded their mazzah with fluids. One may not knead mazzah with boiling water since it parboils, nor with lukewarm water because this makes leavened, but one kneads with cold water.” But did we not state5:2 , speaking of the flour offerings in the Temple where leavening is forbidden ( Lev .2:11). : “All flour offerings are kneaded with lukewarm water and one guards them lest they become leavened”? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There the matter is in the hands of the Cohanim and Cohanim are quick; here it is in the hands of women and women are slow. Then it is a problem about Cohanim themselves, may they knead their mazzah with lukewarm water? It should be parallel to what Rebbi Zachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi stated: A menstruating woman washes her hair and combs. A priestly woman does not wash her hair and combs. A menstruating priestly woman washes her hair and combs, not to differentiate between one menstruating woman and another. So also here, not to differentiate between mazzah and mazzah.
“Water used by a baker has to be poured out because it makes leavened.” There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a depression. There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a declivity. Rebbi Yose said, he who said, he pours it into a depression, if the depression was large. He who said, he pours it into a declivity, if the declivity was consierable. Rebbi Phineas said to him in the name of Rebbi Ila: So was he discussing it: If he soaked wheat or barley grains in water, if they became leavened, they are forbidden; if they did not become leavened, they are permitted. Rebbi Yose said, if he soaked barley in water, if they split they are forbidden. If he soaked them in vinegar they are permitted since the vinegar contracts them.
Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac had wine which was getting sour. He added barley to it that it should become vinegar. He asked Rebbi Immi, who told him, you have to eliminate. [Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Kihai {Kirai} had honey adulterated with flour. He asked Rebbi Mana who told him, you have to eliminate. One of the people of [the house of] Rebbi Kirai had leather sacks of oil in the storage room of wheat. He asked the rabbis, who told him, go and clean out from under them . Rebbi Immi instructed about those leather sacks of kutah , one fills them with water for three days [and empties them] every 24 hours.