MISHNAH: At nightfall of the Fourteenth one checks leavened matter by candle light. A place into which no leavened matter is introduced does not need checking. And where [The Babli and Maimonides read ולמה “why” instead of ובמה “where”.] did they say two rows in the cellar [The storage place for wine or oil amphoras. While this is not a place where one usually stores leavened matter it is possible that the person who is asked to bring a barrel of wine or oil for household use is eating some bread and deposits it temporarily near the entrance door. Therefore it needs checking except for a wholesaler’s cellar.] ? A place where one introduces leavened matter. The House of Shammai are saying two rows in the front of the entire cellar [The amphoras are arranged in a rectangular pattern. The House of Shammai requires checking of two rows in all directions accessible from the door. Since usually one starts arranging the amphoras starting at two walls meeting at an angle, the outer rows at the other two sides of the rectangular arrangement have to be checked.] , but the House of Hillel are saying the outermost two rows which are the uppermost [Only the rows facing the door have to be checked. If the amphoras also are stacked on top of one another, the two top rows facing the door have to be checked.] .
HALAKHAH: “At nightfall of the fourteenth,” etc. It is written [Ex. 12:17–18.] : You shall guard the mazzot, because on this same day I took out your multitudes fromthe Land of Egypt. On the first, on the fourteenth of the month, in the evening, you shall eat mazzot, etc. Where do we hold [What means on the first? Does it mean on the first month, or on the first day of the holidays?] ? If for eating mazzah, is it not already written, seven days you shall eat mazzot [Ex. 12:15.] ? Or if to say that one starts on the Fourteenth, is it not written, until the twenty-first of the month [Ex. 12:17–18.] ? But if it is not needed as a reference to the eating of mazzah, take it as a reference to the elimination of leavened matter [As usual, the argument partially refers to parts of the verse which are not quoted in the text. It says in 12:15, seven days you shall eat mazzot, only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses. No calendar date has been given. One could read v. 17 to state that mazzot have to be eaten and leavened matter eliminated on the 14th. This is impossible since the same verse states that the seventh day is the 21st. Therefore the obligation to eat mazzot starts in the evening preceding the 15th. Since it is accepted doctrine that the calendar day starts at nightfall of the preceding night, the reference to the 14th cannot possibly refer to eating, but must give the date of the elimination of leavened matter for which the search in the preceding night is a preparation.] .
Why by candlelight? Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, because a candle permits checking everywhere [In holes and crevices which are dark in daytime (Babli 8a). The “candle” mentioned here is a small clay vessel filled with oil.] . Why in the night? Rebbi Yose said, because checking with a candle is exact only during night time [As stated later, candle light is not effective during daytime.] . Rebbi Mana did not say so: And guard this day for your generations as an eternal law [Ex. 12:17–18.] , see to it that day and night be guarded [The entire day should be dedicated to the elimination of leavened matter.] . Then should one not start on the Thirteenth that day and night be guarded? He also agrees with the statement of Rebbi Yose [One cannot say that R. Mana disagrees with R. Yose; he adds to his statement.] . Then should one start in the evening of the Thirteenth? If so, he could even check on the beginning of the month [Since checking two weeks in advance would be useless, so is checking a full day in advance. Since checking should be done at nighttime, the only remaining date is the evening of the 14th of Nisan (preceding the day).] .
Rebbi Jeremiah said that Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: May one check by the light of torches? What is his problem? Because their light is unsteady [Since the light is unsteady, it does not serve in searching nooks and crannies.] . Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac is consistent since Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, because a candle permits checking everywhere [The scribe wrote בודק כל שהוא כל שהוא “checking extremely well everywhere.” The second כל שהוא was deleted by the corrector; probably incorrectly.] . [ [Tosephta Pisha 1:1; corrector’s addition.] Even though it is not proof of the matter, it is an allusion to the matter: It shall be on that day [Misquote from memory.] that I shall search Jerusalem by candles [Zeph. 1:12, Babli 7b–8a.] . But some want to say,] one can understand it from the following: A candle of the Eternal is a person’s soul, it searches all rooms of the body [Prov. 20:27, Babli 7b–8a.] .
Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies that checking during daytime is called checking, as we have stated [Mishnah 3.] : “Rebbi Jehudah says, one checks at nightfall of the Fourteenth, and on the Fourteenth, and at the moment of elimination.” Not only Rebbi Jehudah but even the rabbis, as we have stated: “If he did not check at nightfall of the Fourteenth he shall check on the Fourteenth.”
Is it obligatory to check by candlelight [When checking during daytime, even following the rabbis.] ? Let us hear from the following [Tosephta 1:1, Babli 7b.] “One checks neither by sunlight, nor by moonlight, nor by starlight, but by candlelight.” One understands “neither by moonlight, nor by starlight,” but “neither by sunlight”? Is there any sun in the night? This implies, even during daytime one has to check by candlelight; not only in a house without light, but even in a house which has light, even during daytime, it is necessary to check by candlelight.
May one [This translation of צריך follows S. Liebermann.] check dark passages [Roofed public spaces.] purposely [As the parallel expression in the next paragraph shows, a word “during daytime” is missing here.] by candlelight? The words of the rabbis imply that not as it radiates at night it radiates during the day, [Gen. r. 31:12, a much better text. As given here, the story is Babylonian and there is no reason why they should be fleeing, and why the earth under the place (under the open sky) where the twice-yearly assembly of scholars was held should have been tunnelled. In Gen. rabba the name is Rebbi Huna, the place is Tiberias, and they were hiding from soldiers.] as Rav Huna said, when we were fleeing to these catacombs of the great assembly they were lighting candles for us. When they were faint, we knew that it was day; when they were bright we knew that it was night. This parallels what Rebbi Aḥawa bar Ze`ira [The son of R. Zeˋira. In Gen. r. “R. Phineas in the name of R. Zeˋira”. In the Babli Sanhedrin 108b is a similar statement of R. Joḥanan.] said, when Noah entered the Ark he brought with him precious stones and pearls. When they were dull, he knew that it was daytime; when they were shiny he knew that it was nighttime.Why? There are animals eating at daytime and there are animals eating at nighttime. But is there not written, make a skylight to the ark [Gen. 6:16.] ? Following him who said that the stars were not operative in the year of the flood [Gen. r. 25:2, interpretation of Gen.8:22.] .
Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Do synagogues and houses of study need checking? What is his problem? Since one brings [In general it is forbidden to bring food into a synagogue or study hall proper, but for a meal accompanying the public declaration of the new month or the additional month one brought food there, bread and vegetables (Babli Sanhedrin 70b) or grapes and bread (Yerushalmi Berakhot6:4, Note 149).] there for intercalations [In a responsum of R. Nissim of Kairawan (Teshuvot Hegaonim Lyck, #105) and the Frankfurt ms. of Or zarua II §453, עיבריות. Even the word spelled with א is interpreted as if written with ע, “intercalations”; J. N. Epstein, Tarbiz 5 (1933–34) p. 263. In the printed editions of the Yerushalmi, following a correction on the margin of the ms., “on Sabbaths” (cf. R. Nissim loc. cit., p. 34).] and on the days of the New Moon. It should be obvious for him [That one has to check, even if the place was not usually used for public meals.] , but what really is his problem? Since they are very well illuminated, may one check them purposely during daytime by candlelight [And not in the evening of the 14th, when people are occupied in their own houses. Since no answer is given, theˋ answer is negative.] ?
Rebbi Yose asked: The courtyards in Jerusalem where one eats the bread of thanksgiving offerings [Which have an obligatory component of leavened bread, Lev. 7:13.] and the wafers of a nazir [Part of the offering of the nazir at the fulfillment of his vow, Num. 6:15. These are unleavened.] , do they need checking? Are they not checked anyhow for leftovers [Since any leftovers from any well-being offering, including the thanksgiving offering, must be burned (Lev.7:17), every day of the year these localities are treated the way every other dwelling is treated on Passover Eve.] ? It should be parallel to what Rebbi Zachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi stated: A menstruating woman washes her hair and combs [She becomes pure by immersing all her body in water. Therefore it is imperative that not two hairs cling together; before immersion she has to make sure that this does not happen.] . A priestly woman does not wash her hair and comb [The wife, unmarried daughter, or slave of a Cohen who participate with the Cohen in eating heave and other sancta. As long as the rules of purity could be kept, these women, together with the Cohen, have to immerse themselves every day close to sundown (cf. Mishnah Berakhot 1:1, Note 3). Therefore washing the hair is not necessary. Quoted Tosaphot Niddah 66b.] . 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 elimination and elimination. Rabbi Gamliel bar Inyany stated before Rebbi Mana: A menstruating woman who interrupts for seven days washes her hair and combs. A priestly woman who immerses herself every day does not wash her hair and comb [From the comparison of the menstruating and the priestly women one cannot infer anything since the menstruating priestly woman is excluded from the common meal of sancta for the period of her impurity. The statement which exempts her from washing her hair applies only to pure priestly women.] . He told him, it is necessary for one who watches one day for a day [As long as the rules of purity could be observed, a woman in the household of a Cohen was obligated to reduce the period of her impurity to a minimum. The method by which any other woman could avoid showing her blood to a rabbinic authority to ascertain the status of her impurity (cf. Niddah 4:1 Note 3) is not available to the priestly woman. It is rabbinic doctrine that after one menstruation, the next is possible only after 11 days.(Mishnah Niddah 4:7). If she loses blood on one of these days, she does not follow the rules of niddah but those of zavah. For the first two occurrences in one period she is impure only for 24 hours. The statement about the impure priestly woman is needed to decree that even an interruption of one day without immersion triggers the obligation of washing the hair.] .
[Tosephta 1:3, Babli 8a.] “Holes in the house, the upper and the lower ones, and the veranda [Any additional structure having a sloping roof.] , and the ditch [חדות is the same as דות in the Tosephta.] , and the upper floor [Used only for storage but not as dwelling.] , and the roof of the olive press [It seems that the reading of the Tosephta, גג הבית “the roof of the house” is the correct one (as it is quoted as reading of the Yerushalmi by R. Isaac Ibn Ghiat). A flat roof is exposed to the wind and to foraging birds; one may assume that no leavened matter stays there for long.] , and the roof of the tower [This has a sloping roof on which nothing stays.] , the storage room of straw, and the cattle stable, and the storage room of wood, and the storage room of provisions, wine storage, and oil storage, and produce storage, do not need checking.” One understands the upper ones [If “upper” means “higher than the reach of a person”, one need not expect that leavened matter was deposited there. But very low lying holes are at the reach of children.] . The lower ones? Does this mean that they did not worry about things falling down? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if both were close to the wall [Holes at the outside of the wall.] , whether higher than ten or lower than ten [hand-breadths] [The text is confirmed by a quote in Tur Orah Hayyim §433; it does not make any sense since 10 hand-breadths is a height very accessible to all uses. The statement is rejected by all authorities who quote it.] . Did we not state “the ditch”? Does this not mean that they did not worry about things falling down? The toddler is afraid to go there. But should one not be afraid that leavened matter rolled there? Explain it by a ditch which has a rim. “And the roof of the olive press, and the roof of the tower.” That is, if they are three hand-breadths high; but if they are not three hand-breadths high they are like ground. And if they were not used for leavened matter, but if they were used for leavened matter even if it is very high it needs checking. Rebbi Mana said, this is correct. Would we say that this papyrus scaffold which is very high should not need checking [Tosephta Šabbat 14(15):3 mentions an instrument used to remove bread from the papyrus scaffold where it is stored. Cf. Kilaim 6:3 Note 38.] ?
It was stated: [Tosephta 1:3, Babli 8a.] “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a couch which was separated [The couch was separated from the floor, i. e., it was on high legs which left room for storage under the bed.] in the house but wood and stones are stored under it, one checks at the outside but does not have to check on the inside.” Because wood and stones are stored under it, but if no wood and stones are stored under it, one has to check on the inside. Does this mean that they did (not) [The word was written by the scribe but correctly deleted by the corrector.] worry about things falling down? I am saying that (a child exerted himself and) [an unruly child] [Versions of (scribe) and [corrector.]] brought leavened matter there [Just as the first part of the Tosephta, quoted in the preceding paragraph, does not prove that the earlier generations were not afraid of bread accidentally falling down without being picked up, so this part does not prove the opposite conclusion.] .
A wine cellar needs checking, an oil cellar does not need checking [Babli 8a.] . What is the difference between wine and oil? Wine has no staying power, oil has staying power [Wine is drawn from the amphora at least once a day; fresh oil is needed only from time to time.] . Storage [Wholesale storage for commercial purposes.] , whether of wine or oil, does not need checking. What is a cellar? Anything used with bread in the courtyard [Any place where bread is introduced during the year needs checking. Some Medieval authors, e.g. Meïri (ed. J. Klein, Jerusalem 1964, p. 39, Notes 468–469) read here an additional sentence: “Storage is what is not used with bread in the courtyard.”] . There exists a cellar which is like storage and storage which is like a cellar. A cellar in which he is ashamed to eat is like storage; storage where he is not ashamed to eat is like a cellar. [This does not belong here; because of the similarity in language it is copied from Ketubot 7:7, Notes 71–72.] There is a courtyard which is like an alley and an alley which is like a courtyard. A courtyard which is used by the public is like an alley, and an alley which is not used by the public is like a courtyard. But should one not be afraid that animal drivers introduce leavened matter into it [This refers back to storage areas. While the producer of the wine will not introduce bread into his storage area, what can be said about the teamster who will transport the wine for sale at other places?] ? Animal drivers usually do not introduce leavened matter into it but sweets since they help in checking the quality of the wine [If the teamster is transporting for his own account, he will want to check the quality of the wine he is buying; for that he eats taste enhancing candy, not taste dulling bread.] .
“If somebody leaves to travel by sea, before thirty days he does not have to check; within thirty [days] he has to check” [Tosephta 1:4 (in the formulation of the Babli 6a).] . [The Babli 6a rules in everything the exact opposite of the Yerushalmi, which holds that everybody is obligated at all times to see to it that his property contains no leavened matter on Passover, wherever it be situated and wherever he spends the holiday.] That is to say, if he intends to return. But if he does not intend to return, even before thirty days he has to check. If there is a doubt; but if it is certain then even from New Year’s Day. Rebbi Abba said, but even if he intends to return he has to check, maybe he will change his mind and not return.
Everybody is trustworthy about elimination of leavened matter, even women, even slaves. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: There is no “even” women. Women intrinsically are trustworthy; since they are slow they check everything very carefully. Samaritans any time when they prepare their mazzah with Jews [If the Samaritan calendar has Passover on the same day as the rabbinic one.] are trustworthy about checking for leavened matter; if they do not prepare their mazzah with Jews they are not trustworthy about checking for leavened matter. Rebbi Yose said, this means in the houses, but they are suspect in courtyards since they explain that it should not be found in your houses, [Ex. 12:19.] does not apply to your courtyards.
It was stated: [Tosephta 2:3, Babli Gittin 10a, Qiddushin 76a, Ḥulin 4a.] Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any commandment which the Samaritans keep they are much more exact with them than Jews. Rebbi Simeon [This author cannot be R. Simeon ben Yoḥai, but he might be R. Simeon ben Eleazar (Avodah zarah 5:4, p. 447).] said, that means earlier when they were concentrated in their villages. But today, when they have no commandments nor remainders of commandments they are suspect and degenerate.
One asks about practices of Passover at Passover, practices of Pentecost at Pentecost, practices of Tabernacles at Tabernacles [Babli Megillah 4a. Sifry Num. 66.] . In the House of Assembly one asks thirty days in advance; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, two weeks [Babli Pesaḥim 6a.] . The statement of Rebbi Joḥanan follows the rabbis, that of the colleagues Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of the rabbis, because Moses stands on the First Passover and explains to them the rules of Second Passover [The rules of the Second Passover to be celebrated on the 14 of Iyar by people impure on the 14 of Nisan were promulgated on the 13 of Nisan, Num.9:9–14.] . That of the colleagues follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, because Moses stands on the day of the New Moon and explains to them the rules of Passover71 [Num. 9:1–4.] .
“Where [The Babli and Maimonides read ולמה “why” instead of ובמה “where”.] did they say two rows in the cellar [The storage place for wine or oil amphoras. While this is not a place where one usually stores leavened matter it is possible that the person who is asked to bring a barrel of wine or oil for household use is eating some bread and deposits it temporarily near the entrance door. Therefore it needs checking except for a wholesaler’s cellar.] ,” etc. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: He peels it like a Gamma. Bar Qappara stated, he peels it like two Gamma [He checks the outer rows in the cellar in two directions orthogonal to one another, in the shape of Ã. Babli 8b in the name of R. Joḥanan.] . If it was situated in the middle of the room. In the opinion of Rav Huna he strips it of one garment, in the opinion of Bar Qappara he strips it of two garments [He has to check the lower row and one vertical row and the upper row and, depending on the interpretation given later, either another vertical row or a horizontal row inwards.] . If it [The storage room. Each step defines a new front row.] was built in steps, he strips it by many Gamma. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Ḥizqiah: Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. The outermost row which is the uppermost which sees both door and beam of the roof, [and] the one inside of it [If the amphoras are stored at least two layers high, one has to check the two rows close to the entrance of the top layer.] . It was stated: the one below it. They wanted to say that he who says, the one inside of it, so much more that one below it. He who says, the one below it, therefore not the one inside of it [Only the front rows in all layers have to be checked.] . If half a row was used, it is obvious that what was used has inside of it and below it. That which was not used has inside of it and below it [Even if during the year wine was taken only from one side of one row, once part of a row must be checked, the entire row must be checked.] . That is to say, if they are spaced [According to Tosephta Ahilut 10:5, amphoras are spaced if on two opposite sides there is one hand-breadth of free space.] . But if they are tightly packed he passes the light over them [Corrector’s text. The scribe’s הנייר ולווי “the paper and appurtenances” is unintelligible.] and it is enough. Does this mean that they did worry about things falling down? Rebbi Phineas from Yafo [Nothing more is known about him.] said, I am saying that the servant introduced leavened matter when he placed them.
MISHNAH: One does not suspect [After a room has been searched for leavened matter, one does not fear that an animal brought such matter back into the room; no place has to be searched more than once.] that a mole dragged it from room to room or from place to place [In one courtyard.] ; if that were the case, also from courtyard to courtyard [Since not all people search their property at the same time, animals could find leavened matter somewhere at all times and no search could ever be completed.] and from town to town without end.
HALAKHAH: “One does not suspect,” etc. Rebbi Jonah said, so the Mishnah should have been stated: From town to town and from courtyard to courtyard, from place to place and from room to room. If you suspect from town to town, you will suspect from courtyard to courtyard. If you suspect from courtyard to courtyard, you will suspect from place to place. If you suspect from place to place, you will suspect from room to room. Rebbi Yose said, even following the Mishnah it is correct. “One does not suspect that a mole pulled it from room to room or from place to place; if that were the case, also from courtyard to courtyard and from town to town without end.” For if you do not suspect from room to room, not so much more you suspect from place to place? If you do not suspect from place to place, not so much more from courtyard to courtyard? If you do not suspect from courtyard to courtyard, not so much more from town to town? All of Israel can check their leavened matter together [Mishnah 2 is a consequence of Mishnah 1. One really should be worried that animals could transport food from one place to another. But since everybody checks at the same time, after sundown of the 13th of Nisan, there is no danger of later contamination. This paragraph is the corrector’s text; the scribe’s text “if you do not suspect from town to town you certainly do mot worry from courtyard to courtyard, etc.“ has all arguments the wrong way.] .
MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah says, one checks at nightfall of the Fourteenth, and on the mourning of the Fourteenth, and at the time of elimination [In the interpretation of the Yerushalmi, R. Jehudah requires three checks for every place. Rav Joseph in the Babli (10b) reads the conjunctions in R. Jehudah’s statement as “or”. The time of elimination is given in Mishnah 4.] . But the Sages say, he who did not check at nightfall of the Fourteenth has to check on the Fourteenth; he who did not check on the Fourteenth has to check on the holiday. He who did not check on the holiday has to check after the holiday [Since leavened matter which was in the possession of a Jew during Passover is forbidden for all usufruct (Mishnah 2:2), such matter if it was not eliminated before the holiday must be eliminated afterwards.] . And what he leaves he should deposit at a guarded place so that he would not be obligated to repeat checking [Any bread and leavened matter to be used on the morning of the Fourteenth must be secured after the checking in the evening since if some of it would be missing in the morning the entire checking procedure would have to be repeated.] .
HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah says,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Jehudah, corresponding to the three times that in the Torah is written, leavening shall not be seen as yours [Twice in Ex. 13:7, once in Deut. 16:4.] . But is it not written [Ex. 12:15.] , you shall remove leavening from your houses? That is a positive commandment. But is it not written [Ex. 12:19.] , for seven days leavening shall not be found in your houses? Rebbi Yose said, since they are mutually needed [As explained in the sequel.] , they are as one. It should not be seen as yours, I would have said, if somebody [A Gentile’s leavened matter, which is exempt from Jewish law. But if it is a deposit, i. e., that the Jew is responsible for damages, it becomes the Jew’s property for the rules of Passover.] deposited with him it should be permitted. The verse says, it shall not be found in your houses. If it shall not be found in your houses, if he gave him a separate place [A Gentile’s leavened matter stored at a separate place for which the Jewish owner of the place accepts no responsibility may stay there over Passover. Babli 6a.] it should be forbidden. The verse says, it shall not be seen as yours. How is this? If he deposited with him it is forbidden; if he gave him a separate place it is permitted.
The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted [It is not spelled out what other opinion of R. Jehudah is in conflict with his statement in the Mishnah. It seems that while he is stringent in the requirement of triple checking before the holiday he is lenient in not requiring anything afterwards if checking was not done by the time of elimination.] . As we have stated, “Rebbi Jehudah says, one checks at nightfall of the Fourteenth, and on the mourning of the Fourteenth, and at the time of elimination [Ex. 12:17–18.] . But the Sages say, if he did not check at nightfall of the Fourteenth, he has to check on the Fourteenth.” Does he have to check three times? Since at a time before its term of elimination you are saying that he has to check three times, at the moment of the term of elimination not so much more? [The text in parentheses was deleted by the corrector and therefore is not found in the printed texts. It is a necessary component of the argument.] (No, it need not be so. If he did not check on the Fourteenth, he has to check on the holiday. Does he have to check three times? Since at a time before its term of elimination you are saying that he has to check three times, at the moment of the term of elimination not so much more?) No, it need not be so. If he did not check on the holiday, he has to check after the holiday [The answer to the question was that certainly R. Jehudah would agree with the Sages that checking during or after the holidays is required if it was not done beforehand (a position rejected by the Babli 10b–11a.) The only question is whether in these cases also R. Jehudah requires triple checking. Since he does not spell out his position, an attempt to determine this by inferences is unsuccessful. Since practice does not follow R. Jehudah, a final answer is not given.] .
“And what he leaves he should deposit at a guarded place so that he would not be obligated to repeat checking [Any bread and leavened matter to be used on the morning of the Fourteenth must be secured after the checking in the evening since if some of it would be missing in the morning the entire checking procedure would have to be repeated.] .” What does he do? He covers it with a vessel. If he covered it with a vessel but did not find it [If the bread was covered, we assume that a human took it. If it was uncovered, one assumes that an animal took it. In the Babli 9b one supposes in both cases that an animal took it; this also seems to be the underlying hypothesis in the Yerushalmi. Rabbenu Yeruham (Part 1, Path 5, 39a) reads in the first case אימא שד נטלתו “I would say, a spirit took it” but from Ravia §444 (vol. 2, p.68) it seems that for שד “spirit” one should read שיד “that a hand”, meaning a human hand. Raviah notes that his own copy of the Yerushalmi does not contain the passage. In any case the reading of R. Yeruham is suspect since אימא is Babylonian Aramaic based on Accadic, for standard אימר, תימר.] . I am saying that a hand took it. If he did not cover it with a vessel and did not find it, this house [Since a standard house had one room, it might be better to translate “a room”.] needs checking. Or the other houses would not need checking? Let us hear from the following [Tosephta Tahorot 3:5.] : “If the volume of an olive from a cadaver was lost in a house; it was searched but not found. The house is pure; if it will be found, the house is retroactively impure.” This can teach about that and that can teach about this. This can teach about that, there is no difference between “was lost” and “what he leaves” [This is the original assertion that the rules of Passover Eve can be compared to the rules of impurity.] . And that can teach about this, only this house needs to be checked. Following Rebbi Jehudah even this house should not need to be checked, as we may hear from the following: [Babli 9a, Tosephta Ahilut 16:13.] “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the slave girl of a discharged veteran [Latin missicus, cf. Bava qamma 10:6, Notes 60.] at Rimmon threw a still birth into a cistern. A Cohen came and looked to know what she had thrown down. The case came before the Sages and they declared him pure [By bending over the opening of the cistern the Cohen would become impure by “tent impurity” if the body still was there.] for moles and martens usually drag it away.” It runs after flesh, it does not run after bread [Babli 9a.] . And even if you are saying that it runs after flesh and bread, it drags away flesh and eats it; it drags away bread and stores it. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: One does not suspect that a mole dragged it, but following Rebbi Jehudah one suspects it [R. Jehudah cannot accept Mishnah 2, otherwise he would accept single checking.] .
MISHNAH: Rebbi Meïr says, one eats [Leavened food on the 14 of Nisan.] all during the fifth [hour] [According to most opinions. the standard day is counted from sunrise to sundown and is divided into 12 hours. At the spring equinox the day starts at 6 am local time; then the fourth hour is 9–10 am, the fifth 10–11 am and the start of the sixth is 11 am.] and burns at the start of the sixth. Rebbi Jehudah says, one eats the entire fourth [hour], suspends [One neither eats nor burns.] during the fifths, and burns at the start of the sixth.
HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Meïr says, one eats all during the fifth [hour],” etc. [The text is copied from Sanhedrin 5:3 where in general it is agreed that in a criminal case where it is necessary to determine the time of an alleged crime a difference of two hours in the testimony of different witnesses invalidates the testimonies; R. Jehudah applies this also to noontime but the anonymous Tanna (supposed to be R. Meïr) disagrees and allows discrepancies up to two hours in this case. The scribe of the Leiden ms., after the text translated here in the first 5 sentences, wrote: “one repeats from Sanhedrin until the sun never starts setting’.” The corrector who prepared the ms. for the Venice printer added the omitted portion; his text differs from Sanhedrin by both an addition and a lacuna. It is impossible to decide whether the corrector’s text be copied from a different ms. or represents the corrector’s emendations of the Sanhedrin text. In neither text is the use of references “here” and “there” (either Pesaḥim or Sanhedrin) completely consistent.] Rebbi Meïr says, from noontime on it [The prohibition of leavened matter on Passover Eve.] is from their words; Rebbi Jehudah says, from noontime on it is biblical. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Only on the first day [Ex. 12:15: Seven days you shall eat maẓzot; only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses … אַךְ might also be translated as “certainly”.] , that is the fifteenth [Ex. 12:14 states: This day shall be a remembrance for you; you shall keep it as a holiday of pilgrimage for the Eternal … Num. 28:15–16 require that the 14 of Nisan be pesaḥ for the Eternal; starting from the 15 for seven days it is the holiday of mazzot. Since pesaḥ (i. e., the day of the slaughter of the pesaḥ sacrifice) is connected inextricably with the holiday of mazzot, the reference in v. 14 to the “first day” is intrinsically ambiguous, whether it refer to pesaḥ or to the holiday.] . I could think at nightfall; the verse says only, [A similar argument is in the Babli, 4b, Mekhilta dR. Ismael (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 28), Mekhilta dR. Simeon b. Iohai (ed. Epstein-Melamed p. 17).] . How is this? Give it one hour before sundown [I. e., the only biblical requirement is that all leavened matter be completely disposed of before the holiday at sundown.] . What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fourteenth. I could think the entire day; the verse says only. How is that? Split the day, half for leavened matter, half for mazzah. Rebbi Meïr’s argument seems inverted. There, he said only to add; here he said only to diminish [It seems that this refers to Ex. 12:16: …no work shall be done [on the holidays], only what may be eaten by any soul, it alone may be made by you. Everybody agrees that food may be prepared on a holiday. According to R. Meïr (i. e., the anonymous opinion in Mishnah Megillah 1:8) only food may be prepared, not preparations necessary for the preparation of food. According to R. Jehudah (Megillah 1:8), anything that in the end leads to preparation of food is permitted on a holiday. R. Meïr reads only as a restriction in v. 16 and as an addition in v. 15!] . Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he diminished, he excludes leavened matter. Rebbi Meïr says, do not eat leavened matter with it [Deut. 16:3, referring to the pesaḥ sacrifice which is slaughtered on the afternoon of the 14 and eaten in the night of the 15.] , while it is eaten. Rebbi Jehudah says, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is prepared [In the afternoon of the 14th. This supports R. Jehudah’s contention that leavened matter is biblically forbidden in the afternoon of the 14th; Sifry Deut. 130.] .
Rebbi Jehudah has [both a positive and a negative commandment concerning its eating [“It” here refers to maẓzah.] , a positive and a negative commandment concerning its [“It” here refers to leavened matter.] removal. A positive commandment concerning its eating, seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it, but not leavened. Any prohibition which is implied by a positive commandment has the status of positive commandment [It is not an indictable offense; cf. Bikkurim 1:5, Note 103. If a positive commandment is in conflict with a negative one (a prohibition), the positive is stronger. But an obligation which is both positive and negative is stronger than anything else.] . A negative commandment concerning its eating, do not eat leavened for it. A positive commandment concerning its removal, you shall remove sour dough [Ex. 12:15: Seven days you shall eat maẓzot; only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses … אַךְ might also be translated as “certainly”.] . A negative commandment concerning its removal, for seven days sour dough shall not be found in your houses [Ex. 12:19.] .
Now Rebbi Meïr says, after noontime it is forbidden because of their words. The seventh hour is forbidden because of a fence. Why the sixth? Because of a fence [For R. Meïr, the biblical prohibition of leavened matter starts at the 11 hour (5 pm local time). The earlier afternoon hours, including the 7, are rabbinically forbidden as a “fence around the law”. Then it is difficult to understand why leavened matter has to be burned at the start of the 6, extending the rabbinic prohibition for another hour as a fence around the fence, a practice generally rejected.] . Is there a fence around a fence? But the sixth hour may be confounded with the seventh123 [It is not a fence around a fence but consistent with the opinion of the Sages (R. Meïr) in Sanhedrin 5:3. In a society without watches the difference between 11am and 12am is not generally recognized; a prohibition enforced after noontime must practically be enforced starting from 11am.] . [The remainder of the paragraph is missing in Sanhedrin.] Now Rebbi Jehudah says, after the fifth hour it is forbidden because of their words; the sixth hour is forbidden because of a fence. Why the fifth? Because of a fence. Is there a fence around a fence? But the fifth hour may be confounded with the seventh.
Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There [Referring to Sanhedrin. R. Jehudah agrees that while without watches people cannot distinguish between two morning or two afternoon hours, he explicitly agrees that people distinguish between fifth (10–11am) and seventh (12am–1pm).] , he says that the fifth cannot be confounded with the seventh. Rebbi Yose said, there the matter is given over to the court, and the court is diligent. But here the matter is given over to women who are slow. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there [In Sanhedrin the Mishnah does not require the court to accept any testimonies where the witnesses differ widely in determining the time of a crime; R. Jehudah admonishes the court under certain circumstances to investigate whether the witnesses do not in reality testify about the same time; Babli Pesaḥim 12b.] it is a matter between the beginning of the fifth and the end of the seventh hour. Here it is between the end of the fifth and the start of the seventh [In Pesaḥim the period of doubt is little more than 60 min., in Sanhedrin close to 180 min. The apparent inconsistency is due to the informal use of “hour.”] . It also was stated thus [Babli 12b.] : At the start of the fifth hour the sun is in the East, and at the end of the [seventh] hour the sun is in the West. The sun never starts setting before the end of the seventh hour.]
Rav said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: He who preliminarily marries with leavened matter starting from the sixth hour did not do anything [Qiddušin 1:1, Note 73. A preliminary marriage can be contracted in different ways; one of them is delivering something of value to the bride. While leavened matter for R. Jehudah is prohibited only after noontime of the 14 of Nisan, since it is rabbinically forbidden after the start of the fifth hour it no longer has any monetary value. Babli 7a.] . Rebbi Huna said, this is correct. Would Cordovanian [In the Babli, loc. cit., קורדניתא “Kurdish”. According to Rashi and R. Hananel they are very hard; to be used they have to be soaked in water and then are considered leavened and forbidden for ususfruct on Passover.] wheat in the desert be any good on the holiday? A person deposited a double sack [Greek δισάκκιον, τό. A different version is in the Babli 13a.] of bread with the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, he was Joḥanan from Ḥiqoq. He went and asked Rebbi who told him, it should be sold under judicial supervision at the time of elimination [The owner did not collect his property before Passover Eve. To avoid it becoming worthless, it has to be sold to Gentiles and the proceeds kept in trust for the owner.] . A person deposited a jar of kutaḥ [A kind of yogurt made in Babylonia from milk, salt, and mouldy bread as source of the bacteria. This is leavened matter.] with Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi. He went and asked Rav who told him, it should be sold under judicial supervision at the time of elimination. What is the time of elimination [When is the time to sell leavened matter whose owner did not collect it in time?] ? Rebbi Jeremiah said, in the morning [The entire morning of the 14 of Nisan.] . Rebbi Aḥa said, the fifth [hour] following Rebbi Jehudah [This is the Babli’s decision in the name of Rebbi, 13a.] . Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Jeremiah said it correctly. Did they not say to touch them in order to sell them only to return a lost article to its owner [In general, an unpaid keeper is not responsible for losses unless he manipulates the deposit without authorization. Without incurring financial responsibility he only can sell by direction of the court in order to avoid major financial loss to the depositor.] ? In the fifth [hour] following Rebbi Jehudah it is not worth anything.
The colleagues said, in the fifth [hour] following Rebbi Jehudah if he dedicated it it is dedicated [In order to avoid having to burn the leavened matter, he dedicates it to the Temple to be sold and the proceeds used for the Temple’s needs. Temple property is not subject to the prohibition of leavened matter since it is not yours as mentioned in Ex.13:7.] ; if he designated it as heave it is no heave. If he dedicated it it is dedicated, dedication of money’s worth [Even for R. Jehudah the biblical prohibition of usufruct only starts on midday of the 14; during the fifth hour the matter is worth money even for Jews, since it may be used as cattle feed.] . If he designated it as heave it is no heave, since heave was given only to be consumed [Heave is a sanctum to be given to the Cohen to be consumed in purity; nothing pure that cannot be consumed may become heave.] . Rebbi Yose told them, the opposite is reasonable. If he dedicated it it is not dedicated; if he designated it as heave it is heave. If he dedicated it it is not dedicated, since one does not redeem sancta to feed to the dogs [Babli 29a, Ševuot 11b, Bekhorot 15a, Temurah 17a,30b,31a; Yerushalmi Maˋaser Šeni 2:5 Note 82.] . If he designated it as heave it is heave, since it is pure by the words of the Torah [Since by biblical standards it is food until 12 am, a rabbinic prohibition cannot invalidate a biblically valid dedication. This cannot be compared with the case of preliminary marriage since there money’s worth is required, which was eliminated by rabbinic usage.] . You are the one who decided that it has to be burned.
MISHNAH: In addition, Rebbi Jehudah said, two disqualified loaves of thanksgiving offering [At Jerusalem in Temple times, the Temple was the timekeeper and signalled to the people the times to dispose of leavened matter. A thanksgiving offering requires the addition of leavened bread (Lev. 7:13). Since the bread was kept until the time its consumption was forbidden, one used loaves which could not be eaten, either because they were impure or because they were from the preceding day’s offering. A thanksgiving offering must be consumed on the day it is offered (Lev. 7:15), this applies not only to the meat but also to the accompanying cereal.] were lying on the roof of the stoa [The stoa surrounding the Temple Mount. Babli 13b] . As long as they were lying there, everybody was eating. If one was removed one suspends, neither does one eat nor burn. If both were removed, everybody started to burn. Rabban Gamliel says, profane food is eaten the entire fourth [hour] and heave the entire fifth; and one burns at the start of the sixth.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: They were qualified [The breads exhibited as a sign. Babli 13b.] . And why does he treat them as disqualified? Not to slaughter the sacrifice for them [What means on the first? Does it mean on the first month, or on the first day of the holidays?] . But do they not become sancta only by the slaughter? They should be redeemed and be eaten [They were dedicated as bread accompanying a thanksgiving sacrifice; their holiness is that of a gift to the Temple, not that of a sacrifice. Once the sacrifice was slaughtered and the blood sprinkled on the altar, the bread becomes intrinsically holy and its status equals that of sacrificial meat which cannot be redeemed. This implies that any time before the slaughter, the bread can be redeemed to regain profane status and other bread dedicated in its stead. The bread cannot become disqualified if the corresponding sacrifice is not slaughtered.] ! Rebbi Ḥanania said, he has profane [bread] before him which he could not eat and you are saying, they should be redeemed and be eaten? Rebbi [Ḥanina] [The name is missing in the ms. and the printed editions but retained in the quote of this passage by Tosaphot (13b s.v. אלא).] said, they were disqualified. Since they are in a hurry to bring their thanksgiving sacrifices because of the leavened bread with the sacrifice [The Yerushalmi assumes that thanksgiving sacrifices may be offered on the 14. These are family sacrifices and in this case must be eaten as long as the bread may be eaten. Since no sacrifices may be offered before the daily morning sacrifice, the time to consume an entire animal is very short. The Babli 13b holds that no thanksgiving sacrifice is accepted on the 14 and refers R. Yannai’s statement to bread dedicated for such a sacrifice which then cannot be used for sacrificial purposes.] , it is impossible that not the blood of one of them be spilled [An argument accepted in the Babli 13b as minority opinion of R. Simeon ben Eleazar.] and it becomes disqualified.
It was stated: Two cows were ploughing [in Jerusalem] [Babli 14a. In this version they were ploughing on Mount Olivet and could be seen everywhere in Jerusalem. One had to stop eating leavened bread when only one cow was seen.] . But is Jerusalem not a place where they used not to work on the Fourteenth [The 14 is a semi-holiday. As noted in Mishnah 4:1, whether work in the morning was permitted or forbidden was a matter of local custom.] ? They were looking as if ploughing. There are Tannaim who stated: Two lights were burning. There are Tannaim who stated: Two sheets [Two large linen sheets displayed as flags.] . Rebbi Phineas said, they do not disagree. He who said, two cows, two lights, on a weekday. He who said, two sheets, on the Sabbath.
Rebbi Ḥananiah asked before Rebbi Mana, should they not insitute trumpet blowing? If you say so, it would turn out that [they would say, maybe] they blow for the daily sacrifice [As required by Num. 10:10.] [, and they would be led astray]. He retorted, but did we not state: “Three to separate people from work, and three to separate between weekday and holiness” [Mishnah Sukkah 5:5. Every Friday afternoon after the daily sacrifice trumpets were blown to announce the coming of the Sabbath.] ? He answered him, there every single Friday they are blowing, one will not err. But here it is once in a long time; if you say so, it would turn out that they would say, maybe they blow for the daily sacrifice, and they would be led astray.
Why [Why may heave, which is a sanctum and may be eaten only by pure Cohanim, be eaten an additional hour?] ? Because of its holiness or because its eaters are few? What is the difference between them? The breads of the thanksgiving sacrifice. If you are saying because its eaters are few, the eaters of these are many [Of the 10 breads accompanying a thanksgiving sacrifice, 9 are eaten by the offerer and his family, only one by a Cohen.] . If you are saying because of its holiness, these are holy. Rebbi Nathan says, they [He agrees with R. Jehudah that two breads were displayed as a sign that leavened matter may be eaten. He disagrees with him on two points. First, that the breads were pure sancta, and that they were lifted together and eaten, exactly one hour before leavening had to be burned.] were taken when qualified, (that there be) [one waits] [The scribe’s text (in parentheses) is as good as the corrector’s [in brackets]/] one hour when they can be eaten, one suspends but does not burn. Could you say because its eaters are few [Since they are only two, they could be eaten by the person lifting them.] ? No, because of its holiness; here also because of its holiness.
Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, it seems that practice has to follow Rabban Gamliel since he says it similar to both of them [R. Meïr and R. Jehudah in Mishnah 4.] There came Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq: practice follows Rabban Gamliel since what he says is similar to both of them.
MISHNAH: Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim [The organizer of the Temple service; one of the few permanent positions in the Temple service.] , says, the Cohanim never refrained from burning meat which became impure by derivative impurity [Since it is written (Num. 19:22) anything an impure person touches will become impure, it is clear that biblical original impurity induces biblical derivative impurity. In both cases, sacrificial meat which became impure must be burned. The question is raised in the Halakhah, how many stages of derivative impurity are implied by biblical law and how many are purely rabbinical. If biblically impure meat would be burned together with rabbinically impure (but biblically pure) meat, the latter could become more impure before being destroyed.] with meat which became impure by original impurity even though they added impurity to it.
HALAKHAH: [Here starts the discussion of Mishnah 7, even though this is noted only later.] Bar Qappara said, original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words [This refers to the terms used by R. Ḥananiah in the Mishnah. In the Babli, 15a/15b, the attributions are switched. In the Yerushalmi the attributions are confirmed in Šeqalim 8:5.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, both these and those are word of the Torah [In his opinion, biblically pure food, even if it may no longer be eaten or sacrificed, may not be destroyed.] . In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable [The statement of R. Ḥananiah contains essential information, that one may cause impurity to food which is biblically pure in order to burn it together with biblically impure food. While it is a matter of dispute whether this applies to food in a profane setting, it is agreed that it is prohibited to increase impurity in a sacral setting.] . In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, original impurity induces first degree derivative. Derivative impurity [Derivative impurity in the first degree such as described in Num. 19:22. The biblical rule that for material susceptible to impurity contact with derivative impurity in the first degree induces derivative impurity in the second degree is derived from Lev.7:19. Since there is no verse which implies the possibility of biblical derivative impurity in the third degree, derivative impurity in the second degree biblically should be characterized as disqualified for sacral use rather than impure.] induces second degree derivative. Second degree impurity which touched first degree one remains in its place, second degree, since third degree which touches first degree becomes second degree [Babli 14a. Then R. Ḥananiah’s statement is trivial and unnecessary.] .
It was stated [Tosephta 1:6.] : “The House of Shammai say, one does not burn pure meat with impure meat, but the House of Hillel permit.” In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable. One burns what is disqualified [Derivative impurity in the second degree.] by the Torah with what is disqualified as impure [Original impurity or derivative impurity in the first degree.] by the Torah. And it was necessary to let hear, impurity by their words with impurity by the Torah [This refers to the terms used by R. Ḥananiah in the Mishnah. In the Babli, 15a/15b, the attributions are switched. In the Yerushalmi the attributions are confirmed in Šeqalim 8:5.] . In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one burns disqualified by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah, so much more impurity by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel [For R. Joḥanan, while the statement of R. Ḥananiah is trivial, it is important as summarizing the consensus of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel.] . Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, for six doubts one was permanently suspending, but in Usha they decided burning for them [Babli Šabbat 15b.] . Was Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, not before Usha [In Usha, the place of R. Jehudah, a loyal supporter of the Roman government, the Rabbinate was reconstituted by the third generation Tannaim after the death of Hadrian and the suspension of the latter’s anti-Jewish decrees. The executive officer of the Cohanim must have served in the Temple; he therefore belongs to the first generation of Tannaim.] ? Before Usha there was no burning for their words [Rabbinically impure sancta neither could be used nor destroyed.] . He told him, explain it if it became impure in a glass vessel [Biblical impurity applies only to kinds of vessels and implements mentioned in the rules of impurity: earthenware and metal (Lev. 6:21), leather and textiles (Lev. 13:49), bone and wood (Num. 31:20). Other vessels cannot become impure; to this fact one attributes the great number of stone vessels found on archeological sites of the Second Temple period. (Similarly intrinsically pure vessels made of cow dung have not survived for the archeological record.) The impurity of glass vessels, unknown to Moses, is purely rabbinical. One has to take the information that the impurity of glass ware “was decided” by the heads of the Synhedrion to mean that they codified the rules which were popularly observed before. Glass vessels are compared to earthenware vessels since the former are made from sand, the latter from clay. They are also compared to metal vessels since if broken they can be melted down and made into new vessels.] . He retorted, even if you are saying that it became impure in a glass vessel, did not Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abuna say in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah [Rebbi or Rav Jeremiah bar Abba, the first generation Babylonian Amora. The main place of the statement is Ketubot 8:11, Notes 98–105; Babli Šabbat 14b.] , Yose ben Yoˋezer from Sereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decided impurity for Gentile land and glass ware [The land outside the Holy Land was always being considered impure (cf. Am.7:17). What they decided was that earth of Gentile places, within or outside the Holy Land, is considered infected with the impurity of rotting human bodies. While it is in dispute whether Gentile corpses induce tent impurity, it is universally accepted that they transmit impurity by touching.] . [Rebbi Jehuda said, Jehudah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetah decided on metal vessels [The possible impurity of metal vessels is biblical (Note 178). Following the Babli Šabbat 16b, what they decreed was that metal impure by the impurity of the dead should not become pure by being melted down, but only by sprinkling with water containing ashes of the Red Cow.] . Hillel and Shammai decided on purity of hands [They codified the rules that hands which were not all the time consciously guarded from impurity after being washed are impure in the second degree and, therefore, impart impurity to fluids, heave, and sacrifices but not to solid profane food (cf. Demay 2:3, Notes 136–137; Babli Šabbat 14b). Corrector’s addition from Ketubot.] .] Rebbi Jeremiah [Rebbi or Rav Jeremiah bar Abba, the first generation Babylonian Amora. The main place of the statement is Ketubot 8:11, Notes 98–105; Babli Šabbat 14b.] was of the opinion that for Gentile land there is suspension and for glass ware there is suspension. Rebbi Yose was of the opinion that for Gentile lands there is suspension, for glassware burning [That it was decided that glassware has the biblical status of metalware.] . The following are the six doubts [Mishnah Taharot 4:5.] : “On the doubt of a bet happeras [A place known to contain a grave whose position is no longer known or ascertainable. If heave was transported over this place, it might have become impure by tent impurity.] , on the doubt of Gentile land, on the doubt of clothing of the vulgar [A person not known to observe the rules of impurity. His clothing may be impure either by contact with his impure wife in her period or because he suffers from gonorrhea. The quote here is lacunary; there is missing the possible impurity of vessels found in the public domain.] , on the doubt of spittle [Which might be the source of biblical original impurity as body fluid of a woman menstruating or suffering from flux or a male sufferer from gonorrhea.] , on the doubt of human urine which is separate from animal urine [Urine was used industrially and as a household chemical. Animal urine is pure; human urine may be a source of biblical original impurity as body fluid of a person whose impurity is caused by his own body (Note 187).] , on certain touch which is a doubt of impurity [If the fact that it touched the object in question is not in doubt; the only doubt is whether that object transmits impurity or not.] on these one burns heave.
MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba added and said, the Cohanim never refrained from burning oil which became disqualified by a ṭevul-yom [A person who is cleansed from impurity by immersion in a miqweh, who is no longer impure but prevented from touching sancta before the sundown following his immersion (Lev. 22:7).] in a lamp impure by the impurity of the dead even though they added impurity to it [The oil was heave which became disqualified from being consumed by the touch of a ṭevul-yom but is biblically pure. By being filled into an impure lamp it becomes biblically impure.] .
HALAKHAH: 7 [It seems that in this tradition the statement of R. Aqiba in Mishnah 7 was a separate Mishnah.] : In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan there [“Here” refers to the statement of R. Aqiba, “there” to that of R. Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim (Notes 166,167).] one burns biblical impurity with biblical impurity. He [R. Aqiba compared to R. Ḥananiah.] comes to add biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. In the opinion of Bar Qappara there [“Here” refers to the statement of R. Aqiba, “there” to that of R. Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim (Notes 166,167).] one burns rabbinical impurity with biblical impurity. Here, biblical disqualification with biblical impurity only comes to diminish [This is unlikely.] . Explain it if he was ṭevul yom from a bet happeras which is rabbinical [In the interpretation of Bar Qappara, the rabbinic impurity mentioned by R. Ḥananiah is secondary or tertiary impurity derived from biblical original impurity whereas R. Aqiba adds rabbinic impurity which has no biblical source.] . Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel [For R. Joḥanan, while the statement of R. Ḥananiah is trivial, it is important as summarizing the consensus of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel.] .
Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aqiba follows his opinion, since Rebbi Aqiba said, shall be impure, shall make impure by word of the Torah [As explained in Sotah 5:2, R. Aqiba takes טמא as a transitive verb. Therefore he reads the expression יטמא as “will transmit impurity”, in contrast to טָמֵא “is passively impure.” This applies not only to Num.19:22 but also to Lev. 11:32–35.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even though Rebbi Ismael [Sotah 5:2 Notes 103–106. The position of R. Ismael on Num. 19:22 is not known from other sources.] does not accept shall be impure, shall make impure, for foodstuffs, he accepts shall be impure, shall make impure, for implements.
There are Tannaim who state “impurity of the dead”. There are Tannaim who state “by the impurity of the dead” [This is about the wording of R. Aqiba’s statement. A dead human body is the source of original impurity. A person or vessel touching the dead becomes originally impure, carrying “the impurity of the dead”. A vessel touching such a person or vessel becomes impure in the first derivative degree “by the impurity of the dead”.] . He who said “impurity of the dead”, about vessels that have to be rinsed [Impure clay vessels cannot be purified, but become pure only as potsherds or otherwise impossible to use as containers. The expression “vessels to be rinsed” comes from Lev. 6:21 where it characterized metal pots. In rabbinic usage, the expression is applied to all vessels that can be purified; here it applies to wooden vessels since metal vessels are excluded in the next sentence. The separate treatment of metal in cases of impurity of the dead is based on Num. 19:16 where in the expression “slain by the sword” the mention of “sword” seems to be superfluous in the context and therefore one concludes that the sword, and by extension any metal, acquires the super-impurity of the dead to impart original impurity to its contents and anything it comes in contact with (Sifry Num. 127). The contents of the wooden vessel are impure in the second degree but those in the metal vessel in the first.] . He who said “by the impurity of the dead”, about metal vessels. What is the reason? Any open vessel etc. is impure [Num. 19:15, referring mainly to clay vessels but also to all other non-metallic containers (Sifry Num. 126).] . [It is] impure but does not become a source of impurity to transmit impurity. [As explained in Sotah 5:2, R. Aqiba takes טמא as a transitive verb. Therefore he reads the expression יטמא as “will transmit impurity”, in contrast to טָמֵא “is passively impure.” This applies not only to Num.19:22 but also to Lev. 11:32–35.]
MISHNAH: Rebbi Meïr said, from their words we learned that one burns pure heave together with impure on Pesaḥ [The 14 of Nisan where pure leavened heave becomes rabbinically forbidden as food at the start of the sixth hour and must be disposed of before its possession becomes biblically (for the majority) or rabbinically (for R. Meïr) forbidden at noontime.] . Rebbi Yose said to him, this is not the implication [R. Ḥananiah and R. Aqiba stated their positions only about (biblically or rabbinically) impure food, not about pure heave which becomes forbidden for an unrelated reason.] . Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that each of these is burned separately. Where did they disagree? On the suspended [Heave whose status of purity is in doubt, which cannot be used either as pure or impure (Mishnah Terumot 8:7, Note 180).] and impure ones, where Rebbi Eliezer says each one should be burned separately while Rebbi Joshua said, both together.
HALAKHAH: What is “on Pesaḥ”? On the Fourteenth [In biblical Hebrew “Pesaḥ” denotes the 14 of Nisan, the day of the Pesaḥ sacrifice (Lev. 23:5, Deut. 28:16). In popular language “Pesaḥ” denotes the festival of unleavened bread, the 15–21. The Mishnah uses the biblical expression.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, from the words204 [Explaining what R. Meïr in the Mishnah is referring to.] of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Yasa: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable [S. Liebermann here endorses the opinion of earlier commentators who want to emend the text and switch the names of RR. Joḥanan and Simeon ben Laqish, since otherwise how could the latter ask where RR. Eliezer and Joshua enter the discussion? But it seems that with the two classical commentaries one may explain the text as it stands. According to R. Joḥanan, R. Meïr refers to Mishnah 7. Since RR. Eliezer and Joshua are mentioned only in the argument of R. Yose, the statement quoted at the end of Mishnah 8 cannot be the one to which R. Meïr refers; it must be Mishnah Terumot8:7, quoted later in the Halakhah, which on the face of it deals with an unrelated subject, whether it is better to keep heave from becoming certainly impure or see to it that it be usable in conformity with the rules (Notes 216 ff.).] . In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, where enter Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua in the discussion? He told him, there are [different] Tannaim [There are Tannaim who state Mishnah 7 in the name of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua.] . Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together] [If leavened heave was discovered during the holiday it must be burned. If unleavened heave became impure during the holiday, it must be burned, in both cases by biblical decree. But sancta other than Temple sacrifices may not be burned on the holiday; the burning must be on the first of the intermediate days where work is permitted.] .
Rebbi Yasa asked: Why does Rebbi Yose say, this is not the implication? Rebbi Yasa had heard that Rebbi Joḥanan said, “from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim,” and he had heard that Bar Qappara said, “original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words [This refers to the terms used by R. Ḥananiah in the Mishnah. In the Babli, 15a/15b, the attributions are switched. In the Yerushalmi the attributions are confirmed in Šeqalim 8:5.] .” But he had not heard that Rebbi Joḥanan had said, “both these and those are words of the Torah [In his opinion, biblically pure food, even if it may no longer be eaten or sacrificed, may not be destroyed.] .” Therefore, he was asking: Just as it is permitted to burn what is (rabbinically) [biblically] forbidden with what is biblically impure, since one burns what is (rabbinically) [biblically] impure with what is biblically impure, so it should be permitted to burn what is (biblically) [rabbinically] forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is (biblically) [rabbinically] impure with what is biblically impure. But there must be a difference between prohibition and impurity. And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together] [If leavened heave was discovered during the holiday it must be burned. If unleavened heave became impure during the holiday, it must be burned, in both cases by biblical decree. But sancta other than Temple sacrifices may not be burned on the holiday; the burning must be on the first of the intermediate days where work is permitted.] . Just as you did not make a difference for us between biblical prohibition and biblical impurity since one burns what is biblically impure with what is biblically impure, so you should not make a difference for us between what is rabbinically forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is rabbinically impure with what is biblically impure. But it must be that both these and those are words of the Torah [Since the statement of R. Joḥanan about the 16 implies that it does not apply on the 14th, it is inconsistent with the statement of Bar Qappara. R. Yasa concluded that R. Joḥanan must disagree with Bar Qappara without having heard his statement. Then the correct text is the scribe’s (in parentheses), not the corrector’s the the printed texts’ [in brackets] since for R. Joḥanan Mishnah 7 refers to biblical impurities.] . There came Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba from Tyre and said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: both these and those are words of the Torah, and I [R. Yasa.] said, it is correct. There [“Here” refers to the statement of R. Aqiba, “there” to that of R. Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim (Notes 166,167).] (rabbinic) [biblical] impurity with biblical impurity but here [R. Aqiba compared to R. Ḥananiah.] biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. Therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication [In addition to the reason given in Note 201, if R. Joḥanan’s statement about the 16 is correct, R. Yose will not accept R. Meïr’s treatment of rabbinic and biblical impurity as equivalent.] . The position of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult for Rebbi Meïr [Since R. Joḥanan is an Amora and R. Meïr a Tanna, the statement rather should be that R. Joḥanan’s position is inconsistent with R. Meïr’s.] ; therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication. Bar Qappara must argue like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Then the opinion of Bar Qappara is difficult for Rebbi Yose [Bar Qappara allows burning of rabbinically impure sacrificial meat with biblically impure even though momentarily the rabbinically impure will become biblically impure. In Mishnah Terumot 8:7, discussed in the next paragraph, R. Joshua prescribes making possibly rabbinically impure heave biblically impure. Since the first generation R. Joshua is an overriding authority, it is difficult to see how the third generation R. Yose could disagree.] based on what Rebbi Meïr said, “from their words we learned.” Rebbi Abbin said, Rebbi Meïr is consistent [For R. Meïr the disputes between Bar Qappara and R. Joḥanan and R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish are irrelevant. Even if R. Ḥananiah speaks only about biblical impurities, it makes no difference for R. Meïr who applies all biblical stringencies to rabbinic prohibitions.] since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah. Where do we find that Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥinena said, as we have stated there [Mishnah Niddah 6:13.] : “A woman who sees a stain is out of order and worries because of flux[, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, nothing in stains implies flux [In biblical rules (which are difficult for rabbinic women to follow, cf. Niddah Chapter 4, Note 3) there is a big difference between menstrual discharges (Lev. 19:15–24) and non-menstrual flux (Lev. 19:25–30). In rabbinic theory, there are 11 days after the end of a menstrual period in which no discharges are menstrual. If a woman discovers a stain on an undergarment, it is rabbinically considered evidence of a discharge. Since this is a purely rabbinic rule, she is “out of order” in that the 11 day rule cannot be applied. In addition, if the undergarment was worn for three days and the stain is large enough to possibly be the result of three discharges, for R. Meïr all rules spelled out in vv. 19:28–30 do apply even though there is no biblical impurity.] ].”
There [Mishnah Terumot 8:7. The text from here to the end of the Chapter is from Terumot 8:8–9 (Notes 180–235,ת); it cannot be understood without Mishnaiot 8:8–9 which are not reproduced here.] , we have stated: An amphora of heave about which a doubt of impurity arose, Rebbi Eliezer says, if it was at a vulnerable place, he should move it to a hidden place. If it was uncovered, he should cover it. Rebbi Joshua says, if it was at a hidden place, he should move it to a vulnerable place. If it was covered, he should uncover it. Rabban Gamliel says, he should not change anything [If it were certainly impure, heave wine could be used to settle dust on dirt floors, heave oil or grain as fuel. If there only is a doubt, the heave is called “suspended”. It cannot be used as impure since it might be pure, nor as pure since it might be impure. R. Eliezer holds that one has to treat this heave according to all rules of holiness. R. Joshua holds that one has to make sure that the heave be used somehow. Since it never will be usable as pure heave, one has to make sure it will be usable impure (Rashi in Bekhorot 33b).] .
Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, from the opinion of all three of them: It is forbidden to burn suspended [heave] [Since neither of them proposes burning the heave as an alternative.] .
The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The first amphora [Mishnah Terumot 8:7 is consistent with the position of R. Yose in Pesaḥim 1:8. Since R. Joshua only permits to put suspended heave in a situation where there is great probability that it accidentally will become impure but does not allow actively to make it impure, it follows that he will not allow pure heave to be made impure in the process of burning, as prescribed by R. Meïr.] following Rebbi Yose, the second [The amphora which is the topic of Mishnah Terumot 8:10. If there is a choice of either making heave impure or letting it go to waste, R. Joshua permits to make it impure. This parallels the position of R. Meïr in Pesaḥim 1:8, who permits making heave impure in the process of required destruction. Since that Mishnah is not quoted here, it is clear that the origin of the text is in Terumot.] following Rebbi Meïr. The colleagues say, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Meïr will not agree; the second following Rebbi Meïr but Rebbi Yose will not agree. Rebbi Yose told them, be careful what you are saying. The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, but following Rebbi Meïr one burns and following Rebbi Simeon one burns. Then Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon should form a majority against Rebbi Yose [Even though R. Yose (ben Halafta) is a greater authority than either R. Meïr or R. Simeon, they together should be a majority to determine practice.] and one should burn. In addition, we understand from the following: we see the rabbis, if a case comes before them, they say, go and suspend [In the last generation of Amoraim practice still followed R. Yose.] . Where do we find that Rebbi Simeon says, one burns? It is what we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that each of these is burned separately.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon stated this [Tosefta 1:5. While this does not prove that R. Simeon agrees with the position of R. Meïr about sancta, it establishes that he agrees with him about heave. The translation follows the spelling in Terumot, שנייה.] . If you want to say that Rebbi Meïr does not recognize suspension [But treats heave of doubtful status as impure.] , have we not stated [Tosephta 3:10, about leavened heave to be disposed of if the 14 of Nisan is a Sabbath.] : “Suspended (pure) [With the text in a later paragraph and in Terumot one has to read: “or impure”.] heave is burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time [The 14 of Nisan.] .” Rebbi Ezra [This reading, R. Ezra (fifth generation) sitting before R. Mana II, is preferable to that of Terumot, R. Zeˋira (third generation) before R. Mana I (early second generation).] said before Rebbi Mana, explain it that it is suspended because he does not intend to ask about it. He said to him, so also said Rebbi Yose [Fifth generation, the teacher of R. Mana II.] : All we are occupied with here is with suspended [heave] about which he does not intend to ask [Since designating any produce as heave is a dedication, it has the status of a vow and as such is subject to annulment by an ordained rabbi or a court. If the vow is annulled, the original produce reverts to profane status where secondary impurity is excluded; in most cases this means that it will automatically revert to purity. Then heave must be given from some other produce of the same harvest. Since all problems arising for suspended heave can be easily resolved by asking for annulment, it is clear that the Mishnah must assume that this way out is not chosen.] ; but suspended [heave] about which he intends to ask is pure. It was stated thus [A related text is Tosephta Terumot7:18.] : “Suspended heave about which they said, is it pure? It is impure. If he said, I am keeping it in order to ask about it, it is pure.” What about it? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it if the doubt arose at sundown. Then one cannot infer anything [Since there is no time to burn anything, the opinion of the Sages must be followed even by their opponents. This does not prove anything about the position of R. Meïr if the heave already was suspended in the morning. A different treatment in the Babli, 20b.] .
And you [Continuation of the attack of R. Yose the Amora against the statement of the colleagues.] are saying, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Meïr will not agree [While this R. Yose’s argument in both texts it is clear from the following that the discussion is about the second of their statements, that R. Yose cannot agree with the ruling of Mishnah Terumot 8:8 and 8:10 about a barrel of pure heave wine which is breaking on top of a container of impure wine.] ? But did we not state: [“Lifting” is explained in Terumot Chapter 5. If heave falls into a container of profane produce of the same kind as the heave and the volume of the profane matter is less than 101 times that of the heave, the entire matter is forbidden to non-Cohanim. But if it is at least that amount, a volume equal to that of the heave which was lost can be lifted from the mixture and declared as replacement heave. Then the particles of the original heave in the mixture revert to profane status and become permitted to lay persons. Mishnaiot Terumot 8:8,10: “If an amphora broke in the upper part of a wine press whose lower part was impure, R. Eliezer and R. Joshua agree that if one can save a quartarius from it, he shall save that in purity.… Rebbi Joshua said, this is not a case for which I have been warned not to make it impure …”] When has this been said? Regarding a vat which contains enough to lift it. But for a vat which does not contain enough to lift it, it is forbidden to make any amount impure. And if it follows Rebbi Meïr, whether it is a vat which contains enough to lift it or a vat which does not contain enough to lift it, is it forbidden to make any amount impure? [Since R. Meïr permits to bring impurity to anything that later automatically would become impure. Babli 21a.] In addition, from what we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication,” nobody says “this is not” unless he agrees with the premise. How is that? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there in order to care for the property of Jews [Mishnah Negaˋim 12:5. Babli 20b.] ; here what do you have? Does the Jew not lose money even here? For he needs to burn wood separately [This text is corrupt. The correct version is in Terumot: For he needs wood to burn each lot separately.] and this separately? They worried about a big loss, they did not worry about a small loss. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana [In Terumot: R. Yose ben R. Abun said.] , explain it following him who said, from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥanina the executive officer of the Cohanim; and one cannot infer anything [There is no inference to be drawn from the Mishnah in Pesaḥim which according to R. Meïr speaks about impurity and disqualification and in Terumot dealing with impurity and purity. R. Yose’s second objection to the colleagues is not proven.] .
Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Ila, both in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, but the second both following Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana [This reading, R. Ezra (fifth generation) sitting before R. Mana II, is preferable to that of Terumot, R. Zeˋira (third generation) before R. Mana I (early second generation).] : Does this not disagree with Rebbi Yose? He told him, if not following Rebbi Yose [In Terumot the names Yose and Meïr are systematically switched. For the interpretation there is no difference since, as stated in the next sentence, the two rabbis agree in this matter. Nevertheless it seems that the text in Terumot is more reliable since the remainder of the discussion concentrates on determining R. Meïr’s position.] , we may say not following Rebbi Meïr since we find that Rebbi Yose is burning suspended [heave] in all cases. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Rebbi Meïr is burning suspended [heave] in all cases. I asked him, even in a case where it is suspended by word of the Torah [If we hold that the rule which states that doubts in cases of biblical commandments have to be decided restrictively is itself biblical, then suspended heave would have to be considered impure by biblical standards and immediately used as fuel.] ? He told me, if I explain it that it became impure in Gentiles’ dwelling [Since Gentiles are suspected of burying their stillbirths in the dirt floors of their houses, their dwellings in the Holy Land are considered possibly impure by “tent impurity” (Kilaim Chapter 6 Note 25). Practice disregards the opinion of R. Simeon who denied the possibility of “tent impurity” for Gentiles.] , what do you have in your hand? It was stated [Tosephta Ahilut18:7.] : “For Gentiles’ dwelling one suspends, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one burns.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Zeˋura: Rebbi Meïr burns suspended [heave] any day of the year, and so it was stated: “Suspended [and] [Added from the text in Terumot, necessary by the context.] impure heave are burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time [The 14 of Nisan.] .” Should he not burn in the morning? Explain it that he was lazy and did not burn. You should know that this is so, since it was stated “impure” [Since impure heave is used as fuel, there is no reason why it should not be used to burn leavened matter in the morning. Since in most years Passover Eve is not a Sabbath and one is obligated to burn in the morning, if Friday is the 13th of Nisan the rule is that in this case also one burns in the morning.] . Not because he was lazy and did not burn? Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said, explain it that the impurity came to it at that moment and one cannot infer anything.
Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Joshua [The order appearing in the text of Terumot, R. Joshua (first generation), R. Simeon (third generation) is preferable.] both said the same thing. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Simeon in Bekhorot [Mishnah Bekhorot 5:2, quoted in the next paragraph. While a firstling calf or lamb has to be treated as a sacrifice, R. Simeon permits any surgical operation if the health of the animal requires it, even if it is clear that by the operation the animal will become disqualified as sacrifice.] and Rebbi Joshua in Terumot, neither of them will agree with the other. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua [Talmudic style requires the addition found in Terumot: “But R. Joshua will not agree with R. Simeon”. R. Joshua (Terumot8:8–10) permits to cause impurity to heave in order to save food; R. Simeon permits to make a blemish on a firstling in order to save its life. But the Mishnah in Bekhorot states that a firstling with this intentionally induced blemish may not be slaughtered; it cannot become food for anybody. Therefore it is not necessary to conclude that R. Joshua agrees with R. Simeon. Babli Bekhorot 33b.] . [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Zeˋira: In your opinion, since you say that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua, did we not state: How may one burn suspended [heave] with impure one] [This sentence is neither in the Mishnah nor in Terumot; the question is correct as objection of R. Eliezer to R. Joshua.] ? “Rebbi Eliezer agrees with Rebbi Joshua [While the Mishnah states, “R. Eliezer and R. Joshua agree”, the formulation here is more to the point.] that each of these is burned separately.” Should one not burn both together? It is pure by words of the Torah. You are the one who decided on burning. In any case, would it not become disqualified by inattention [Heave must be eaten in purity, which can be guaranteed only if the heave is guarded at all times or at least kept at a place locked away from possible impurities (Babli 34a, Šeqalim 7:2). Since on the 14 of Nisan heave cannot be eaten after 10 a.m., there is no need to watch it any longer and, by being released from supervision, it should become disqualified immediately even by biblical standards.] ? Did nor Rebbi Joḥanan say, inattention is a word of the Torah; blood affliction following Rebbi Simeon is Torah, the second amphora following Rebbi Meïr is Torah? It is not so [Even if disqualified for other reasons, it still has to be watched; the prior objection is baseless.] ; but he watches it that it should not come in contact with other pure things. Rebbi Isaac, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe, objected: Think of it, if it was put on coals [If one starts the fire to burn the leavened matter, guarding against impurity certainly is unnecessary. The answer is that this argument is irrelevant since we are dealing with the time before the fire was started.] . He told him, after it was put there [If one starts the fire to burn the leavened matter, guarding against impurity certainly is unnecessary. The answer is that this argument is irrelevant since we are dealing with the time before the fire was started.] . Rebbi Mana said to Rebbi Shammai: You are saying that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua. Even Rebbi Joshua does not agree with Rebbi Joshua [The positions of R. Joshua in Pesaḥim1:7 and Terumot 8:8–10 do not necessarily coincide.] . He told him, these are Tannaim. There Rebbi Meïr in the name of Rebbi Joshua, here Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua [It is impossible to fully reconstruct the original position of R. Joshua since the only knowledge we have of his statements is through the interpretation of third generation Amoraim.] .
There, we have stated [Mishnah Bekhorot 5:2 [Sifra Emor Parashah 7(10)]. Since a firstling is a sacrifice by birth, it has to be treated according to the rules of sacrifices. The only difference is that a dedicated sacrifice which develops a blemish must be redeemed to become profane whereas a firstling in the hands of a Cohen which develops a blemish automatically becomes profane and may be eaten by everybody and in impurity. Therefore, Cohanim are suspected to induce blemishes on the firstlings in their possession.] : “A firstling afflicted by blood, even if it is going to die, cannot be bled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, it should be bled, only he should not intend to cause a blemish. If it did cause a blemish, it may not be slaughtered because of it. Rebbi Simeon says, he should bleed it even if he makes a blemish.”
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Jehudah parallels Rabban Gamliel, the rabbis parallel Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Joshua [The opinions stated in Mishnah Terumot 8:7 (“the first amphora.”) The Babli Bekhorot 35b identifies the position of the Sages with that of R. Joshua (i. e., the operative opinion in Bekhorot with that in Terumot) while the Yerushalmi implies that practice should follow R. Simeon.] . It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “He should bleed it even if he intends to make a blemish.” This parallels another opinion of Rebbi Joshua [His opinion about the “second amphora” where he permits to induce impurity on most of the heave in order to save a small portion in purity.] . Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: Explain about sancta for which he is liable following Rebbi Simeon [This sentence is missing in Terumot. The verse is formulated for all sacrifices which develop a blemish; it is more reasonable to apply it to the vast majority of dedicated sacrifices which have to be redeemed rather than to firstlings for which change to semi-profane status is automatic. If somebody dedicates a specific animal and it later develops a blemish, there is no sacrifice. But if he vows “a sacrifice” and then dedicates a particular animal which later develops a blemish, he has to redeem the animal by an unblemished replacement.] .
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Jehudah: You shall not eat it, on the earth you shall you shall spill it like water [Deut. 12:24.] . I did permit you its blood only for spilling. Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said, is not about disqualified sancta written so, you shall not eat it, on the earth you shall spill it like water [One would have expected R. Jehudah to use Deut. 15:23, speaking of the firstling: Only its blood you shall not eat, spill it onto the ground like water. The verse used gives the rules for animals which develop blemishes after being dedicated. This also includes firstlings.] ? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, it was said for preparation [Produce in the ground is impervious to impurity. It remains so after harvesting as long as it stays completely dry. Blood is one of the fluids that prepare dry food to accept impurity (cf. Demay Chapter 2, Notes 136,141). Since the rules for preparation are spelled out for water (Lev. 11:38), other fluids have this property of water only if there is a biblical verse which compares them to water. Sifry Deut. #71.] . Just as the water prepares, so the blood shall prepare.
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, both of them explain the same verse [Lev. 22:21.] : Perfect it [Any animal sacrifice.] shall be for goodwill; any blemish shall not be on it. Rebbi Simeon explains: As long as it is for goodwill, you may not induce a blemish. If it is no longer for goodwill, you may induce a blemish. But the Sages say, even if it is all blemishes, you may not add a blemish [As Rashi explains in Bekhorot 35b, the Sages hold that R. Simeon would be justified if the verse read “no blemish shall be on it.” But the involved language, any blemish, forbids the imposition of a new blemish on existing blemishes.] .