Pesachim 2 · The Lantern

MISHNAH: Any time one is permitted to eat one feeds it [Leavened matter on the 14th of Nisan which has to be eliminated before noontime.] to domestic or wild animals or birds, or sells it to a Non-Jew [Since only leavened matter in the possession of a Jew has to be eliminated, the Gentile may keep the leavened matter bought from the Jew and also use it during Passover time.] , and one may have usufruct from it [For example one may use the matter as fuel and its ashes as fertilizer.] . If its time has passed [After noontime on the 14th, even though according to the majority opinion the biblical prohibition of usufruct only starts shortly before sundown, there is a rabbinic prohibition of usufruct for the entire afternoon.] 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 [In this version, which also is the reading of the Munich ms. of the Babli, R. Hananel, some texts of Alfasi, and Maimonides’s autograph Mishnah, the Sages disagree with R. Jehudah. The Mishnah in the printed Babli, starting with the editio princeps, 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 [Babli 21a. In Mishnah 1:4 R. Meïr permits to eat up to the time one has to dispose of the leftovers, in contrast to R. Jehudah who forbids to eat starting one hour before the leavened matter will be forbidden. The latter could not have formulated “any time”.] . 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 [Mishnah 3:5, presumed to be R. Meïr’s.] , “sour dough has to be burned but one who eats it is not liable [Ex. 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 [Mishnah 1 excludes feeding to animals.] ? Rebbi Yose said, did we state “any leavened matter”, not “time [Mishnah 2:1 is formulated to apply only to the 14th of Nisan. Mishnah 3:5, referring to Nisan 15–21, does not contradict the earlier Mishnah.] ”? Who is the Tanna of “time”, Rebbi Meïr.

Rebbi Bun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: This [The statement of the Mishnah, “if its time has passed one may not have usufruct from it,” seems to imply that any use from which the owner does not derive usufruct is permitted.] 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 [He reads the Mishnah as requiring only that loaves should not be disposed of whole, but may be disposed of in sizeable pieces. If these are thrown to the wind, the probability is great that a bird or a squirrel will pick them up; the reference to his usufruct seems to be unnecessary.] . Rebbi Yose said to him, it only mentioned “he crumbles it”, that when he crumbled it it was nullified [The Mishnah requires that any leftovers be reduced to tiny crumbs which are of no use. These crumbs do no longer qualify as food; the leavened matter is considered disposed off even if not thrown to the wind.] . But the following says it, leavend matter may not be eaten today [Ex. 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 [The passive voice in Ex. 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.

[The text from here to Note 64 also is in Orlah 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 [In the printed editions of the Babli, R. Eleazar is not mentioned, but his name appears in the Munich ms.] : Everywhere it is written do not eat, do not eat [Plural.] , 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 [Ex. 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. [Deut. 14:21.] Ḥizqiah stated a disagreement [In the Babli 21b, Ḥizqiah accepts the statement of R. Eleazar only for the passive formulation; later (Note 48) this is clarified to be the position of Ḥizqiah and R. Joḥanan in a second version. In this first version, Ḥizqiah must hold that an inference from a verse is only valid if there is no second verse leading to the same result. The theoretical basis is the recognition that the legal texts in the Torah are incomplete and sometimes contradictory as a system. In addition, it is held that words do not change their meaning in legal contexts. Therefore, a mechanism of translation of the Torah text into a coherent and reasonably complete system must exist. The rule quoted by Ḥizqiah is one of the translation rules; cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Ph. Longworth (ed.), Confrontations with Judaism (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 [The dog is not a human and is not obliged by any rules.] ?

But is it not written [Lev. 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 [Lev. 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 [Deut. 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 [The Babli 22b deduces from here that animal blood is a fluid which prepares for impurity only if it is spilled on the ground (cf. Demay 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 [Gen. 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 [The argument is more explicit in the Babli 22a. R. Abbahu holds that when carcass and tom meat was permitted for the sojourner (Note 53) and the pagan, the entire animal was permitted, including the fat. Then the last paragraph of Note 24 establishes that the schiatic sinew cannot be forbidden for usufruct.] . But is it not written [Lev. 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 [Lev. 11:42.] : Do not eat them for they are abominations? Rebbi [Mana] [Added from Orlah, missing here.] said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct [Latin splenium, Greek σπληνίον, τό, “pad, wound dressing.”] .

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who makes a wound dressing [Latin splenium, Greek σπληνίον, τό, “pad, wound dressing.”] from a stoned ox [The Babli 24b explains that one might use fat from the stoned ox to cover a wound. The ox was stoned by order of the court because it killed humans (Ex. 21:28–29). Its meat is forbidden for usufruct as explained in the sequel. Cf. Mekhilta dR.Ismael Mišpaṭim10 (p. 282).] or from leftover sour matter after Passover [Since the Mishnah had stated that leavened matter becomes prohibited for all usufruct in the afternoon of the 14 of Nisan, after the holiday it cannot become permitted again.] cannot be whipped since its prohibition is not clear. For vineyard kilaim he is whipped since Rebbi Ḥanina said [Deut. 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 [Since Lev. 19:23 requires that the (budding) fruit is treated as “foreskin” and the foreskin has to be removed, one may take the verse as prescribing the removal of any ˋorlah fruit.] , a prohibition to eat is written [Last two words of Lev. 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”] [An incorrect and unnecessary addition by the corrector, not part of the original ms.] , a prohibition to remove it is not written [Non-fulfillment of a prescriptive commandment is not prosecutable.] .

In a baraita [The 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 [Ex. 21:28.] : the ox shall certainly be stoned? Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food [As carcass meat.] ? 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 [This statement directly contradicts the position of the Babli. R. Joḥanan will hold that the prescriptive commandment to stone the ox after judgment has been passed automatically makes any slaughter invalid; that would not need a proof from the verse.] .

Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Here you say so, there you say so [He states contradictory theses, whether or not prohibition as food implies prohibition of usufruct.] ? 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 [In contrast to the statement of R. Eleazar (Note 17) it is asserted that if the prohibition of food is in the active voice it does not imply prohibition of usufruct. Still the passive voice does imply prohibition of usufruct.] . The paradigm for all cases is [Lev. 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 [It is shown that the passive voice implies prohibition of usufruct, since it is the only such case where the inference is valid according to everybody. The verse is understood (Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 8(5), quoted in Babli Zebaḥim 82a, Yerushalmi Pesaḥim7:9, 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 [Lev. 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 [Lev. 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 [Deut. 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 [Preparation for impurity is explained in Demay 2:3, Notes 136–141.] , so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said [Deut. 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 [The resident sojourner, in order to receive the full protection of the law, only has to follow the “precepts of the descendants of Noe”, to abstain from idolatry, murder, incest and adultery, eating limbs tom from a living animal, blasphemy, robbery, and anarchy.] . If one understands what has been said [Ex. 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 [In the Babli 22a this is quoted as the opinion of R. Meïr. It is forbidden to slaughter anything but sacrifices in the Temple precinct, Lev.17:4.] .

A baraita [Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Bo 16, p. 51. Tanḥuma Bo 11] supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar [The disagreement between R. Eleazar and R. Joḥanan is an old tannaitic disagreement between Rabbis Josia and Isaac of the fourth tannaitic generation.] . Sour bread shall not be eaten [Ex. 13:3.] , to make the feeder equal to the eater [The person who serves sour matter to a Jew on Passover is guilty as if he ate it, to be punished by extirpation. If the server acts intentionally and the eater unintentionally, the server alone is punishable.] . And you say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says: [Deut. 16:3.] You shall not eat sour bread with it, we learned that usufruct is forbidden [This is the position of R. Eleazar.] . 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 [Eating forbidden living things is punished by whipping by the earthly court; but eating sour matter on Passover is punished by Heaven with extirpation.] , He made the feeder equal to the eater [Sifra Šemini Pereq 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 [Here ends the parallel with ˋOrlah 3:1.] .

“Nor use it to heat an oven or a cooking stove.” If he transgressed and heated, it shall come like the following [Mishnah Avodah zarah 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 [Prepared to be used with the meat. Since both this and haroset 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. [The first and last paragraphs in this section are also quoted in the Babli, 27b–28a; Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥay ad Ex. 12:15, pp. 17–18..] It is an argument de minore ad majus. Since piggul [Sacrifices which were offered with the intention that the meat be eaten out of place or time; Lev. 19:7.] and leftover [Sacrificial meat left over after the time allotted for its consumption, depending on the kind of sacrifice either day and night or two daytimes with the night in between.] , 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 [The premise that there be a case of major and minor is disproved. Cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, 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 [Ex. 12:15.] , eliminate sour dough from your houses.

Similarly said Rebbi Jehudah, if a woman carries seed and gives birth to a male [Lev. 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, [Lev. 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 [According to Pene Mosheh, this refers to multiple births if one of the fetuses is dead.] , [or who comes with his mother,] [Unnecessary addition by the corrector.] into a tent [A live birth causes his mother to be impure for seven days; after this time she may remove her impurity at any time by immersion in a miqweh. 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,] [Unnecessary addition by the corrector.] 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 [After the impurity of the first 7 days, the next 33 days for a male or 66 days for a female no genital discharge of the mother induces biblical impurity.] , 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 [Since the mention of a female in v. 5 implies that the preceding verses refer to a male, the explicit mention of “male” is unnecessary. It is concluded that the verses refer to any fetus recognizably male.] .

Similarly said Rebbi Jehudah, “you should dwell in huts [The reference obviously is to Lev.23:42 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 [This can only mean that the thatched roof of the hut, which must be of vegetal material, should be composed of willow, myrrh, or palm branches. The fourth kind, the fruit of the hadar 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 [Neh. 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 [Sacrificial meat left over after the time allotted for its consumption, depending on the kind of sacrifice either day and night or two daytimes with the night in between.] is forbidden as food. Since the latter is to be burned [Lev. 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 [Deut. 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 [The Babli 24b explains that one might use fat from the stoned ox to cover a wound. The ox was stoned by order of the court because it killed humans (Ex. 21:28–29). Its meat is forbidden for usufruct as explained in the sequel. Cf. Mekhilta dR.Ismael Mišpaṭim10 (p. 282).] disproves which is forbidden as food and for usufruct [Since it says, its meat may not be eaten(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 [Ex. 12:19.] , [and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation] [Lev. 19:8.] ; the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not make liable for extirpation. They told him, the fat [Lev. 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 [The sacrifice by a person who suspects that he inadvertently committed a deadly sin. He may not bring a purification sacrifice since that is possible only if there is proof of inadvertent sin; Lev. 5:17–19.] following your opinion [In Mishnah Temurah 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 [And practice does not follow him.] .

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 [The Babli disagrees, 12b.] . This follows the rabbis. Rebbi says, remove sour dough from your houses, anything which may not be seen nor found [Ex. 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 [A thanksgiving offering must be accompanied by leavened bread (Chapter 1, Notes 34, 143). The argument is that if the offering was brought on the 14th of Nisan (cf. Chapter 1, Note 148) and there was no time to eat the bread, it is not biblical leftover; before noontime any elimination is purely rabbinical and can be done in any way. At noontime it no longer can be eaten by biblical standards, it becomes biblical leftover before its time and has to be burned. That latter statement is independent of the disagreements between R. Jehudah, Rebbi, and the Sages.] ?

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 [Ex. 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 [If the leavened matter is mortgaged, the Jew may not sell or destroy it; therefore it is considered the creditor’s property. The Babli disagrees and restricts the Mishnah to the case that the Non-Jew has custody of the material.] 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 [When a wall or a house collapsed.] 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 [Since the Mishnah is formulated “is permitted for usufruct” and not simply “is permitted”, it appears that the addition “for usufruct” is a restriction, excluding the use as kosher food.] ? 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 [May the Jew use the Gentile’s leavened matter for industrial purposes on 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 [R. Jeremiah.] 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 [Therefore practice has to follow R. Yose. However, since the Tosephta 2:14 states: “An Israel may lease his animal to a Gentile to transport leavened matter from place to place”, Raviah (§449) reads the quotes as declarative sentences supporting R. Jeremiah, that leasing animal or ship to a Gentile is forbidden only if the Jew drives the animal or steers the ship. Then the last question is not rhetorical and is left without answer.] ?

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 [But he may not touch leavened matter on Passover.] . If it was Sabbath or holiday [Since leavened matter is forbidden, it is muqṣeh 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. [Babli 6b. While the Babli does not mention “unknown to me”, the discussion there implies that this is understood.] ”

Rav said, one has to say “Who sanctified us by His Commandments and commanded us about the precept of eliminating leavened matter. [Babli 7a (bottom) in the name of later Amoraim. The benediction has to be introduced by the formula: “Praise to You, Eternal, our God, King of the universe”. Cf. H. Guggenheimer, The Scholar’s Haggadah, Northvale 1995, p.194.] ”

Rav said, he who affixes leavened matter to his house has to eliminate [Ravan (ed. S. Albeck, Warsaw 1904) §7: “For what is customary to rub off walls which were touched by leavened matter before Passover and also to wash the chairs, I found support in the Yerushalmi: Rav said, he who affixes leavened matter to his house has to eliminate.” Copied by Raviah (§451) and later authors.] . It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, if one turns dough into a clump, it is nullified [Babli 45b, Ḥulin 129a. In the Babli: “A clump used to sit on it.” The leavened matter no longer is food.] He [Rav, who requires that leavened matter on walls be eliminated.] explains it, either that one disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or that this clump is repugnant.

[Tosephta 2:13–14.] “If a Jew and a Gentile were travelling by ship [On the 14 of Nisan.] 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 [Since the leavened matter was the Gentile’s property on Passover, it is permitted for the Jew after the holiday, as stated in the Mishnah.] , on condition that it was an unconditional gift [It may not be given on condition that the Gentile return it after the holiday. It is necessary that the entire transaction result in some monetary reward for the Gentile.] . The Jew may say to the Gentile, instead of buying it for a mina, come and buy it for 200 [denar] [While this cannot refer to dough (except in times of hyperinflation), it is common practice at the least to double the price in the sale for Passover of valuable enterprises engaged in processing leavened matter (e. g., a beer brewery), in order to guard against the Gentile selling the enterprise to an outsider.] . 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 [While the Jew cannot sign a contract requiring him to buy back the items after Passover, he can use language which the Gentile will interpret to that effect.] .”

If somebody rents out his house to another, as long as this one does not enter into it [As the following remark of R. Simeon shows, this cannot mean that the lessee actually started using the house, but it must mean that the contract entered into effect on the 13 of Nisan. Babli 4a.] , 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 [As long as the lessor controls the access to the house, even though the lessee has the right of use, the lessor is required to eliminate.] .

[Qiddušin 1:4, Notes 435–438.] Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, I asked: What if he handed him the key [S. Liebermann points out that this cannot mean that the key was handed over after a contract for lease or sale was signed, since for a lease the matter was settled in the preceding paragraph and for a sale it is stated that transfer of the key is transfer of the property (Bava batra 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 [Mishnah Tahorot 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 [Tosephta Tahorot 8:1. He holds that handing over the key implies authorization for unlimited entry into the premises.] .

[Babli 6a; Tosephta 2:11; Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yohay Ba (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 the Jew is responsible for loss.] . If he gave him a separate room [Which is not used for the Jew’s property during Passover.] he does not need to eliminate.” If he did not eliminate [The Gentile’s leavened matter for which the Jew is responsible.] , 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 [While it is not the Jew’s property, it is his responsibility. Rabbinically one forces the Jew to destroy the leavened matter and to indemnify the Gentile. There is no need to emend the text.] .

Who is the Tanna of it should not be seen in your possession [The first part of Mishnah 2, which requires elimination of the Gentile’s leavened matter for which the Jew is responsible.] ? Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated [Somewhat differently quoted in the Babli, 28a/b.] : He who eats leavened matter after the sixth hour [On the 14 of Nisan.] , 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 [This is asked for R. Simeon. It is clear that R. Jehudah holds that the prohibition is biblical since he forbids leavened matter one hour before it becomes biblically forbidden.] ? 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 [Ex. 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 [Deut 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: [Tosephta 8:21, cf. Mishnah 9:4. Babli 28b; Tanḥuma Bo 11; Mekhilta dR. IsmaelBo 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 [Ex. 13:7.] . There are Tannaim who state, it should not be seen in your possession, yours you may not see, [but] [Corrector’s addition. As the sentence after the next shows, the addition is unnecessary.] 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 [Everybody agrees that Temple property is exempt from elimination. A person may dedicate his leavened matter to the Temple, to be sold and the proceeds used for the service. If he did this before noon-time on the 14, the dedication is valid. But if it was done on or after noontime, the matter already is (rabbinically) forbidden for usufruct, it is worthless, and nothing worthless can be dedicated to the Temple. The dedication is invalid and he is guilty of disregarding the obligation to eliminate leavened matter in a timely fashion.] . 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 [It seems that here also one refers to matters dedicated to the Temple, which are sancta 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 [Greek πλατεῖα (sc., ὁδός) “a wide (road)”, equivalent of Hebrew רחוֹב.] ; 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 [If the leavened matter was abandoned in the street and declared ownerless before noontime of the 14. However, this statement has to be qualified, cf. Note 139.] ; 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 [This sentence is a mindless copy from the preceding paragraph and is to be deleted.] , etc.

If he declared his leavened matter ownerless on the thirteenth; what is its status after Passover [It is clear that it is forbidden during Passover (unless picked up by a Gentile before the holiday). May the original owner go back and pick it up again after the holiday?] ? 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 [How can the prohibition be removed automatically?] ? He answered, there its prohibition caused it; here what can you say [Even on the afternoon of the 14 it only is forbidden if no Gentile picked it up; it never was intrinsically forbidden; if the outside cause disappeared, the prohibition disappeared.] ? Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Phineas, do you remember that we said, Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish Rebbi Meïr [The disagreement of RR. Yose (ben Halaphta) and Meïr is in Peah 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 [The owner might circumvent the obligation of elimination by declaring it ownerless but from the start intend to take it back after the holiday.] , 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 [For R. Yose the leavened matter remains the owner’s property. He does not have to dig it out to burn since it is neither visible nor can it be used, but it remains permanently prohibited if it would be dug out afterwards.] , there is no acquisition and it is prohibited. Everybody agrees about a proselyte who died [If he failed to contract a Jewish marriage and start a Jewish family, his estate has no heirs and has the status of abandoned property. Cf. Bava qamma 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 [If the proselyte died before Passover and Jews took possession of his estate with leavened matter after Passover, the estate became ownerless by itself. The suspicion of cunning does not apply. Since a dead person cannot own anything, even R. Yose must agree that it was not property of a Jew during Passover; it is permitted.] .

There, we have stated: [This paragraph is from Giṭtin 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 [Greek ὑποθήκη.] 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 [Greek ὑποθήκη.] , 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 [How far must one presume that a dog may dig?] ? 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 [A Non-Cohen who eats sanctified heave (which either was dedicated leavened before Passover or was dedicated unleavened but became leavened by itself on Passover) has to pay restitution to the priests together with a biblically ordained surcharge; Mishnah Terumot 6:1 Note 1.] , if intentionally is not liable for restitution even as value of wood [Intentional desecration of heave (e. g., used as food by a Non-Cohen) is too great a sin to be forgiven for just a monetary fine (Mishnah Terumot 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 [This name tradition raises serious questions. While it is likely that the young R. Simeon ben Josadaq (of the generation of transition from Tannaim to Amoraim) knew the very old R. Simeon ben Eleazar (a 5 generation Tanna), it is most unlikely that the latter would formulate a tradition in the former’s name. Also this would be the only statement of R. Simeon ben Josadaq in the Talmudim not transmitted by his student R. Joḥanan.] says in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq: Our Mishnah if he separated it as unleavened and it became leavened [On Passover (Babli 32a). It seems that the Yerushalmi agrees with the Babli that leavened heave dedicated before Passover is included though it should have been burned if not consumed by the 14 of Nisan.] . But if he separated it leavened, it does not apply [Giving leavened heave on Passover is impossible. Since leavened matter is forbidden for usufruct, giving leavened heave is giving nothing; nothing cannot be heave.] . If he separated unleavened for leavened? Rebbi Zeˋira said, any heave which does not permit the remainder as food is no heave [Since leavened matter may not be eaten on Passover, and is worthless; giving heave for it does not change its status. But heave is given in order to make the remainder of the food available for profane use.] . [Even] [Unnecessary addition by the corrector.] 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 [Since leavened matter cannot be used for leavened matter (Note 150) it cannot be used in this capacity for any other matter.] .

(If he beat) [The word was unnecessarily deleted by the corrector, who apparently did not understand it although it appears in both Talmudim.] four quarters for themselves and made them leavened, and another four quarters for themselves, and mixed them [A dough made of at least /4 qab 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 [No criminal prosecution is possible unless the perpetrator was warned by two witnesses that his intended act would be criminal, and only if the nature of the crime was spelled out.] 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 [Cf. Babli 35b (last line), Ḥulin 101a.] . But if he mixed them [Then the mixture is forbidden as ṭevel; 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 [It becomes forbidden for usufruct as object of pagan worship (Deut. 7:26).] , then smoothed it [If it were not forbidden as object of pagan worship, the completion of threshing by storage of the grain in a smooth heap causes the obligation of tithes; the heave of the tithe included in the tithe would make the entire heap ṭevel (Mishnah Maˋserot1:6). 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 [And now it becomes ṭevel 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 [Where the Mishnah requires restitution even though it is prohibited for usufruct.] , 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 [When the grandfather dies and the grandson from an Israel father is the only heir.] , Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe [Even though he is the legal heir of the Cohen, and if he had not stolen the heave he would have inherited it and could sell to a Cohen, he is forced to give it away but he has the right to choose the recipient.] ; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself [He must separate heave, which becomes a sanctum 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 [Since the additional fifth is a fine, it is unreasonable to assume that he may have usufruct from it other than the goodwill which he gets from the recipient of his heave.] . He told him, I also do agree with this, since impure heave is forbidden to the tribe [Since impure heave may only be used as fuel it is of little value; nevertheless illegitimate use triggers the obligation of paying the fine.] . There came Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Even in this case they disagree [Since for R. Simeon ben Laqish the Mishnah is purely rabbinic.] .

Rebbi Yose asked, if somebody benefited from Temple property less than the value of a perutah [Which therefore cannot be claimed in court and there is no coin with which to pay.] , is he liable for reimbursement? (He said to him.) [Addition by the corrector; to be deleted.] Let us hear from the following: What he appropriated from sancta he has to repay [Lev. 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 reimbursement [Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra II) Parashah11(7). The argument there is based on the expression from sancta, even a minute part.] and] sacrifice. He who said “to add”, for reimbursement [While is cannot be paid for in coin, it can be restituted in kind. Everybody agrees that no sacrifice as prescribed in 5:15 is due in this case. (The scribe’s text, in parentheses, is preferable.)] . As you are saying there [Appropriating less than the value of a perutah 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 [A Non-Cohen who eats sanctified heave (which either was dedicated leavened before Passover or was dedicated unleavened but became leavened by itself on Passover) has to pay restitution to the priests together with a biblically ordained surcharge; Mishnah Terumot 6:1 Note 1.] , if intentionally he is not liable for restitution even as value of wood [Intentional desecration of heave (e. g., used as food by a Non-Cohen) is too great a sin to be forgiven for just a monetary fine (Mishnah Terumot 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 [Since leavened matter on Passover is worthless, rules about it cannot be invoked in discussions about money’s worth.] , 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 [This text is copied from Ketubot 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 [While on the holiday of Passover there only is a prohibition of leavened matter, on the first night there is a positive commandment (Ex. 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 [According to Rashi, oats. Maimonides in his Commentary to Kilaim 1:1: prairie barley.] , and with demay [Grain of which it is not known whether tithe was removed. Since one is permitted to feed demay to the poor and passing travellers, it is profane food by biblical standards.] , and with First Tithe whose heave was removed [This is totally profane in the hand of the Levite.] , and with Second Tithe or sancta which were redeemed [Once redeemed all sanctity is transferred to the redemption money; the produce reverts to profane status.] , and the Cohanim with ḥallah and heave [These are sancta, but since the Cohanim are obliged to consume them, they may consume them to fulfill their obligation.] . But not with ṭevel [Grain after threshing and storage, before heave and tithe was taken. It is forbidden as food; it would be sinful to use it for the biblical obligation.] , nor with First Tithe whose heave was not removed [This statement is not really necessary since it is ṭevel.] , nor with Second tithe or sancta which were not redeemed [They have to be consumed in purity in Jerusalem; one action cannot be used to satisfy two distinct biblical obligations.] . Flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir [These are obligatory additions to the sacrifices; Lev. 7:12, Num. 6:15.] , if he made them for himself one cannot fulfill his obligation [Since then they are sancta.] ; if he made them to sell on the market one fulfills his obligation [They are profane; only dedication by the buyer might make them sancta.] .

HALAKHAH: [This and the the following paragraphs up to Note 207 are also in Ḥallah 1:1, Notes 6–21, ח.] It is written [Num. 15:19.] : It shall be when you eat of the bread of the Land you shall lift a heave [This is ḥallah which follows the rules of heave.] for the Eternal. I could think that everything [Since לֶחֶם also means food in general.] is subject to ḥallah; the verse says of the bread but not all bread [Which are the main bread grains.] . If of the bread and not all bread, that might be only wheat and barley [Num. 15:20, 21.] ? From where the other kinds? The verse says the first of your dough [Num. 15:20, 21.] , this includes [Not only rye, spelt, and fox grain but also rice and millet would be included.] . Does it include everything? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: [This must be R. Simeon ben Laqish. R. Yose asserts that R. Ismael accepted the inference as valid; “dough” includes every bread-dough made from grains similar to wheat and barley. R. Aqiba’s interpretation of these verses is reported in Sifry Num. 110.] Rebbi Ismael stated this. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, in the name of Rebbi Ismael [Confirmed this tradition.] .

Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Aḥava ben Rebbi Zeˋira [The son of R. Zeˋ ira who had been a baraita teacher in his father’s academy.] (who said, I) [my father] said in the name of Rebbi Ismael [A similar text Sifry Num. 110. As regards Passover only, Babli Pesaḥim 35a, Mekhilta deR. Ismael Bo Chap. 8, 17; Sifry Num. 146.] : “Bread” is mentioned for Passover [Deut. 16:2.] and “bread” is mentioned for ḥallah [Num. 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 [Rice cakes, while unleavened, cannot be called 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 [Tosephta 2:17, Ḥallah 1:1; Babli 35a.] : “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit [According to the Geonim (Ozar Hageonim Pesaḥim 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, [Here starts a Genizah text edited by L Ginzberg (Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah. 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 [Mishnah Terumot 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 [Sentence added unnecessarily by the corrector from the Mishnah in Terumot. 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 [Even the anonymous Sages admit that dry mixing of a mashed apple with flour will not induce souring.] . Rebbi Yose stays with his opinion; just as he says there, its cooking is not clearly cooking [R. Yose permits to use the sun’s rays to make poached eggs on the Sabbath. Mishnah Šabbat 3:3.] , so he says here, its souring is not clearly souring.

[This paragraph does not belong here; it is copied from Sabbat 3 immediately following the text of the preceding paragraph (Note 71). Kilaim 1:9 (Note 167); Babli Sabbat 123a, Eruvin 77a.] 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 [Ex. 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, inallyour dwelling places you shall eat mazzot [Ex. 12:20.] , mazzah which may be eaten at any dwelling place; this excludes First Fruits which are not eaten at any dwelling place [First Fruits are sancta 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 [It may be eaten only in Jerusalem, Mishnah Bikkurim 2:2, Deut. 14:23.] ! It may be redeemed and be eaten at any dwelling place [Deut. 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, [The text in brackets is an addition from the corrector who was misled by the expression “asked” because the statement of R. Abun bar Ḥiyya is a straight declarative sentence: “What was bought with tithe money which became impure, following Rebbi Jehudah since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it.” The question here and in the next sentence is whether there is any objection to the inference drawn. Since the scribe’s text is confirmed by G, the addition should be deleted.] [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 [S. Liebermann points out that this cannot mean that the key was handed over after a contract for lease or sale was signed, since for a lease the matter was settled in the preceding paragraph and for a sale it is stated that transfer of the key is transfer of the property (Bava batra 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? [Mishnah Maˋaser šeni 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 [Since ḥallah 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 [The question is raised about mazzot 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 [Ex. 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 [Both kinds of bread may be eaten only on the day of the sacrifice and the following night; if it was intended not to be eaten for a longer period it may not be used even if it was not used for the original purpose.] . 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” [The argument really goes the other way. Since the statement at the start of the paragraph (which also in the Yerushalmi seems to be Amoraic as shown by the expression שׁוֹנֶה instead of תַּנֵּי) uses a verse different from the one quoted in the preceding Tannaitic source, it follows that the verse quoted earlier is not applicable. The bread accompanying the animal sacrifices must be consumed at the place prescribed for consumption of the meat.] . 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 [While during the existence of the Sanctuary at Shilo or after the building of the Temple all sacrifices had to be offered at the place of the Sanctuary, before the building of the Sanctuary at Shiloh and after its destruction voluntary offerings could be given at private altars (“minor elevated places”) whereas obligatory offerings were restricted to altars erected at the place of the Tabernacle or the Ark of Covenant (“principal elevated places”, Gilgal, Nob, and Gibeon); Mishnah Megillah 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 [Not that they were sacrificed at Nob or Gibeon, but they were sacrificed at the time when Nob or Gibeon were principal elevated places, i. e., the sanctuary at Shiloh was presumed destroyed immediately after the purification sacrifice was offered. Since elevation and well-being offerings are by their nature voluntary (even though in this case they are obligatory), they can be offered at a local sanctuary and the accompanying bread eaten anywhere in the Land.] . Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi [Azariah] [It seems that this was his name; the spelling עֶזְרָה in the Leiden text is irregular since Ezra 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 [Well-being sacrifices mostly are voluntary; they can be offered at a local shrine according to all the rules spelled out in Lev. 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 [But all other obligatory sacrifices can be brought locally, including two of the three sacrifices of the nazir.] . 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. [Mishnah Nazir 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 [The dough must be made with water to the exclusion of any other fluid. Cf. Babli 36a.] . Rebbi Jeremiah said, this was said for a meritorious deed [In this opinion the mazzah 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 [Lev. 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 kinds [Mishnah Menaḥot9:3 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 [Ex. 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” [Tosephta 2:21.] . 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] [The scribe wrote “roasted bread”, i. e., baked on the open fire (parallel to the roasting prescribed for the Passover sacrifice.). The corrector changed this to “bread from the second milling”, i. e., from non-white flour. This correction is induced from the Babli 36b and should be disregarded.] bread? From where even with Solomon’s mazzah [Which certainly was made from pure white flour. Sifry Deut. 130.] ? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot, it included. If it is so, why does it say bread of affliction [Deut. 16:3.] ? To exclude sursīn [This word is unexplained. סוּרְסִי is the name of the Syriac language. We do not know what “Syriac cakes” are. Sifry 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 [Rejected in the Babli, 37a.] . One may fulfill his obligation with raw mazzah if only it does not draw fibers when broken [Babli 37a, bottom. It does not really mean raw but lightly baked so that the mazzah 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 [An old mazzah 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 [Tosephta 2:19, Babli 37a. It seems that 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 [Tosephta 2:19, Babli 37a (without the last statement.)] “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 [Greek τύπος, ὁ, “figure, 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] [The reading of G [in brackets] is confirmed by the Tosephta.] as loaves [Greek κόλλιξ; S. Fraenkel conjectures a diminutive κολλίσκιον, τό.] .”

MISHNAH: And with the following vegetables [For the bitter herbs accompanying the mazzah 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 [Grain of which it is not known whether tithe was removed. Since one is permitted to feed demay to the poor and passing travellers, it is profane food by biblical standards.] , and with First Tithe whose heave was removed [This is totally profane in the hand of the Levite.] , and with Second Tithe or sancta which were redeemed [Once redeemed all sanctity is transferred to the redemption money; the produce reverts to profane status.] .

HALAKHAH: “With hazeret”, lettuce [Arabic خسّ.] . “With ˋulšin”, τρώξιμον [Greek τρώξιμος, -ον, “edible”; τά τρώξιμα “vegetables eaten raw”, in rabbinic sources traditionally used for endives.] . “And with tamka”, γιγγίδιον [A plant of the family of carrots.] “With harhabina”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, [This is the reading of the Rome ms. Of the Yerushalmi Zeraˋim 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”] [A play on words from the Hebrew root חזר “to return” which in Rabbinic Hebrew is used in the combination חזר בו “he changed his mind”. The text of G [in brackets] is preferable. The same homily but without the play on words is in the Babli 39a.] . (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 [Gen. 47:6.] , and after that they embittered their lives with hard labor, with mortar and bricks [Ex. 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 [Babli 39b.] .

[This paragraph is copied from Berakhot 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 [The required benediction before the consumption of raw fruits growing on a tree. He seems to hold that marinating does not change the nature of the fruit; then it is difficult to understand why marinated bitter herbs cannot be used on Passover.] . Rebbi Benjamin bar Jephet in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “By Whose word everything was created” on water-cooked vegetables [The benediction for anything that cannot be classified as agricultural produce. He is supported by the Mishnah here which seems to indicate that once processed, vegetables are no longer counted as agricultural produce.] . 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 [Greek θέρμος, ὁ. Raw lupines are cattle feed, too bitter for human consumption. They become edible only after long cooking. This statement seems to supprt R. Ḥiyya bar Abba.] 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 cooked [One must assume that roots of lupine keep their shape and general appearance in cooking. The rule that vegetables which are inedible unless cooked require the blessing “Creator of the fruit of the earth” is the opinion of Rav Ḥisda in the Babli Berakhot38b.] .

MISHNAH: One may not soak bran as chicken feed but one may parboil [Bran, the outer shell of wheat kernels, also may become leavened. Since leavened matter is forbidden for usufruct, it also is forbidden as animal feed. It is assumed that the bran becomes inert if parboiled in boiling water.] . 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 [To be used as cleansing powder, even if applied to her wet body, since it will be washed off before it can become leavened.] . A person may not chew wheat kernels to put on his wound since they become leavened [By the spittle.] .

HALAKHAH: It was stated [Tosephta Ḥallah 1:1; Yerushalmi Ḥallah 1:5 (Note 189). In Babli Pesaḥim37b, 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 [all cases it is forbidden.] .

If there is any fat in them [One is forbidden to chew wheat kernels for medical use if there is any moisture left in them, the moisture being called “fat” in Deut. 32:14. If the kernels are completely devoid of moisture, they are inert and may be chewed.] . Unguent [Greek μάλαγμα The base of the unguent contains flour.] 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 [If the unguent becomes unu sable and worthless before Passover, or even on Passover but it was spoiled before showing signs of leavening, it is neither food nor valuable and not subject to the Passover prohibition.] .

MISHNAH: One adds flour neither to haroset [The sauce in which the bitter herbs are dipped, cf. Mishnah 10:3; The Scholar’s Haggadah pp. 333–334.] nor to mustard [Prepared to be used with the meat. Since both this and haroset 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 [As explained in the Halakhah, he does not believe that it will be eaten quickly enough.] . One may not cook the Passover sacrifice either in fluid [Neither water (which is explicitly for bidden by the verse) nor fruit juice.] or in fruit juice, but one may rub it or immerse it in them [Before the Passover lamb is roasted over the open fire, it may be basted with fluids as taste enhancers.] . Water used by a baker [.Water in which he dips his hands while kneading the dough. This water will contain particles.] has to be poured out because it causes leavening.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “One adds flour neither to haroset [The sauce in which the bitter herbs are dipped, cf. Mishnah 10:3; The Scholar’s Haggadah pp. 333–334.] nor to mustard [Prepared to be used with the meat. Since both this and haroset 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. [The Babli 40b restricts this argument to mustard, requires haroset to be burned.] ”

It is written: or cooking cooked in water [Ex. 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 [Who considers the combination of infinitive and perfect a form of common speech, not a duplication.] ? 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 [Babli 41a; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Ba, Parašah 6, pp. 20=-21/] ?

[Tosephta 3:5; Babli 36a, Menaḥot52a.] “One does not knead mazzah with fluids [Neither water (which is explicitly for bidden by the verse) nor fruit juice.] 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 [Bran, the outer shell of wheat kernels, also may become leavened. Since leavened matter is forbidden for usufruct, it also is forbidden as animal feed. It is assumed that the bran becomes inert if parboiled in boiling water.] , nor with lukewarm water because this makes leavened, but one kneads with cold water.” But did we not state [Mishnah Menaḥot5:2, 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? [Chapter 1:1 Notes 37–38. Here the corrector’s additions are justified by G.] 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 [.Water in which he dips his hands while kneading the dough. This water will contain particles.] has to be poured out because it makes leavened.” There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a depression [It is presumed that the water will be absorbed into the ground.] . There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a declivity [Greek adjective καταφερές, “inclined”.] . 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 [In G: “so was my teacher …”.] 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 [Babli 40a.] . 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 [. In G (confirmed by quotes in Raviah and Meïri): That it certainly should become vinegar. Wine which starts to get sour can be sold neither as wine nor as vinegar; it is better to turn it into vinegar as quickly as possible.] . He asked Rebbi Immi, who told him, you have to eliminate [Since the barley grains became leavened matter in the wine, in contrast to barley preserved in fully sour vinegar. It seems that the Yerushalmi implies from the linguistic relation between חָמֵץ “leavened matter” and חוֹמֶץ “vinegar” that the processes which turn dough into leavened bread and wine into vinegar are essentially the same. Rabbenu Tam, in a ms. Of his Pentateuch Commentary edited by S. E. Stern (קובץ המיעדים פסח vol. 1, p. 16, Moriah, Jerusalem 2005), notes that this and the following example imply that all fluids except vinegar may cause grain to become leavened, in contrast to the Babli (35b) who states categorically that fruit juices (with no water added) cannot cause leavening.] . [Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Kihai {Kirai} [Reading of G. The text added by the corrector is confirmed by G.] had honey adulterated with flour. He asked Rebbi Mana who told him, you have to eliminate. One of the people of [the house of] [Added from G.] 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 [The wheat kernels on the flour have to be removed before Passover since they may have become wet during the rainy season.] . Rebbi Immi instructed about those leather sacks of kutah [Yogurt for which the source of the bacteria is mouldy bread, which is certainly leavened matter. But since the contents of the leather sacks always were cold, three days of leaching by water is enough.] , one fills them with water for three days [and empties them] [Added from G.] every24hours.

Pesachim2