MISHNAH: An onion which one added to lentils, if whole it is permitted, if cut up it depends on transferring taste [Profane onion in cooked but cold heave lentils; if the heave changes the taste of the profane food everything has to be eaten by a Cohen under the rules of heave. Otherwise, the profane remains profane and permitted to everybody.] . Any other cooked food, whether whole or cut up, depends on transferring taste. Rebbi Jehudah permits in anchovies [In translation and interpretation, one has the choice between biblical “stinking dish” (Joel 2:20) or mishnaic “small salted fish in brine” (Mishnah Nedarim 5:5), Arabic צחן. Maimonides chooses the first alternative, R. Simson the second. One has to wonder that the medical doctor Maimonides would think of saving spoiled food. If an entire onion of heave is put into the brine to absorb impurities, the anchovies remain profane according to R. Jehudah.] where it only serves to remove pollutants. If a mashed apple [The heave apple’s influence makes the entire profane dough change nature; even if the amount of apple is negligible, its action is not and it cannot be disregarded.] is added to dough and it soured, [the dough] is forbidden [In that case, the lentils have to be eaten by a Cohen in purity. In all these discussions, “forbidden” means forbidden to the layman and the impure.] . But if barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, [the water] is permitted [Since anything that destroys the taste does not make forbidden.] .
HALAKHAH: “An onion which one added to lentils,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rav Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal [This paragraph is a shortened version of the discussion in Chapter 9, Halakhah 4, Notes 41–46. The sentence in parentheses is superfluous. Its text follows the Rome ms. Venice and Leyden read: אמר אמר.] said, our Mishnah [in case] after the lentils lost their sap; [then] the lentils shrink it so it will not absorb [any taste]. (As you say, lentils shrink it so it will not absorb.) Similarly, lentils shrink it so it will not give.
The Mishnah speaks about a profane onion which he put into heave lentils; but not the case of a heave onion put into profane lentils [In that case, the lentils have to be eaten by a Cohen in purity. In all these discussions, “forbidden” means forbidden to the layman and the impure.] . If it is dry, but moist is forbidden. An onion, but leeks are forbidden moist or dry, entire or cut up.
If he removed the tip [Of the onion.] it is as if cut up. If there were two or three small ones, they are as if cut up. Only if the outer shell does not transmit taste [The onion mentioned in the Mishnah is dry, with an inert brown outer skin. Green onions are like leeks.] . But if the outer shell transmits taste, it is forbidden.
There [Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni 2:1.] , we have stated: “If fish improved in value when cooked with leeks of second tithe, the increase is proportional [If the leeks were worth a and the fish b before cooking but now the whole is worth c>a+b, then some of the proceeds of the dish, ac/(a+b), has to be used to buy food to be consumed according to the rules of second tithe.] .” Rebbi Hoshaia said, that Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, since we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah permits in anchovies where it only serves to remove pollutants [Even though cleaned anchovies in brine fetch more on the market than uncleaned ones.] .”
The rabbis of Caesarea asked: The saying of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan [This Yerushalmi standard is quoted in Ma‘aser Šeni 2:1 (fol. 53b), Orlah 1:4 (fol. 61a), 2:6 (fol. 62b), Nazir 6:1 (fol. 54d), 6:10 (fol. 55b). It is quoted in Babli Ḥulin 97b where the more lenient standard of 1 part forbidden in 61 permitted is established.] , that all forbidden [food] is estimated as if it were onion, as if it were leeks [Forbidden food that fell into permitted is permitted if the taste of the forbidden food could not be tasted in the permitted, assuming the forbidden items were onion or leeks.] , does this contradict Rebbi Jehudah [Since R. Jehudah allows the use of heave onion to improve non-heave fish.] ? Rebbi Jehudah will agree regarding an onion of the Temple or an onion of idol worship.
[The main place of the paragraph is in Šabbat 3, fol. 5d. The text is also in Ḥallah 1:1 (fol. 57a), Pesaḥim2:4 (fol. 29b).] “If a mashed apple is added to dough which soured, [the dough] is forbidden” It was stated [In Tosephta 8:9, the language is: “Rebbi Yose says, what is induced by [the apple] is not souring.” This is the position of the Babli in Pesaḥim 36a/b. According to the Yerushalmi it is not clear whether what is induced by fruit juice falls under the legal category of “to turn sour;” this is the position of the Babli in Menaḥot 54a. In any case, the quote here cannot be from the Tosephta.] : Rebbi Yose permits it. 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 [Even the anonymous Sages admit that dry mixing of a mashed apple with flour will not induce souring.] . Just as Rebbi Yose says there [Here in Terumot. R. Yose will not agree that what happens if a dough is kneaded with pure apple juice is souring; therefore he holds that mixing dough with apple juice can have no legal consequences.] , its souring is not clearly souring, so he says here [Mishnah Šabbat 3:3: “One may not put an egg next to the samowar [that it should become a soft-boiled egg on the Sabbath] and one may not break it on [hot, exposed to the sun] towels [to make a fried egg on the Sabbath], but Rebbi Yose permits it.”] , its cooking is not clearly cooking.
“ [Tosephta 8:9, in slightly different wording. The main source of this paragraph is Orlah 2:5 (fol. 62a); a slightly shortened version is in Avodah Zarah 5:3 (fol. 44d); Babli Avodah Zarah 67b/68a.] Everything that can be smelled is forbidden [If forbidden food is mixed with permitted food, the mixture is forbidden as long as the forbidden substance changes the taste of the food. According to R. Simeon, whose opinion is the majority opinion in the Babli, this holds only if the admixture does not spoil the taste of the permitted food.] , whether it improves or spoils, the words of Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Simeon says, if it improves it is forbidden, if it spoils it is permitted.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish [In the Babli, that author is Ulla (Rebbi La).] said, in what do they disagree? If it first improved but then spoiled. But if it spoiled and later improved, even Rebbi Meїr will agree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference whether it spoiled and improved or improved and spoiled, it is a disagreement. There [Here, in Terumot.] , we have stated: “If barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, the water is permitted.” What is the status of that Mishnah? Rebbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said this tradition here [He refers to the Mishnah, not the Tosephta.] : Rebbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is the opinion of everybody.
MISHNAH: If somebody takes hot pitta bread out of the oven and deposits it on the mouth of an amphora of heave wine [The hot flat bread absorbs the taste of the wine.] , Rebbi Meїr forbids [For the lay person and the impure.] and Rebbi Jehudah permits. Rebbi Yose permits in the case of wheat and forbids in the case of barley because barley absorbs [It absorbs smells and particles.] . If an oven was heated with heave cumin and one baked bread in it, the bread is permitted since it absorbs not the taste of cumin but the smell [In contrast to taste, smell is considered immaterial.] of cumin.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeїra said, they asked before Rebbi Yannai: What [are the rules] if he put it on the plug [A clay plug that closes the open top of the amphora and forms a barrier for the smell.] of the amphora? He said to them (Job 36:33): “Its neighbor [In the verse, ריע is derived from רוע “to sound the trumpet.”] will inform about it.” What means, “its neighbor will inform about it”? Rebbi Yose said, that which we have stated there [Mishnah Makhšiřin 3:2–3: “2. An amphora full of fruits added to fluids, or one full of fluids added to fruits; if they absorbed, all those which absorbed are prepared. They spoke about water, wine, and vinegar, but the rest of the fluids are pure. R. Neḥemiah declares legumes pure because legumes do not absorb. 3. If somebody takes hot pitta bread out of the oven and deposits it on the mouth of an amphora of wine, Rebbi Meїr declares it impure but Rebbi Jehudah declares it pure. Rebbi Yose declares it pure in the case of wheat and impure in the case of barley because barley absorbs.” For preparation of solid food for impurity, cf. Demay, Chapter 2, Note 141. For the impurity of fluids, Demay, Chapter 2, Notes 136–137. The amphora contains fruit not prepared for impurity. Since the walls of a clay amphora are porous, the fruits inside (or outside) may get moist. Since human action puts the amphora into the fluid, the moisture prepares for impurity. This applies only to water and wine; the rest of the impure fluids (olive oil, date honey, and human body fluids) are viscous and do not penetrate a clay wall. In Mishnah 3, the wine is impure. Bread, being made with water, is always prepared for impurity. R. Meїr holds that the bread will receive the taste of the wine by absorbing particles evaporated from the wine. Since he holds that all smells transfer prohibitions and impurity, the bread must be impure.] : “An amphora full of fruits added to fluids, or one full of fluids added to fruits.” As you say there, only if the fluids touch the amphora; so here only if the loaf touches the plug. Rebbi Mana said, from this it follows as you say there, only if the fluids touch the amphora itself; so here only if the loaf touches the plug itself [Since the plug sits on the narrowest part of the neck of the amphora, in most cases a pitta deposited on top of the rim will not touch the plug. As noted in the next sentence, this argument is valid only if the pitta is almost cold since a hot pitta will sink down and always touch the plug.] . His opinion implies, even [if the pitta] is cold. Rebbi Abba said, the problem was about a cold one [The original question directed to R. Yannai.] . But did we not state “hot”? Rav Ḥisda said, that one should not say since the vapor absorbs it should be permitted.
Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, water acts on fruits, [other] fluids do not act on fruits, against Rebbi Jehudah [This refers to the part of Mishnah Makhširin 3:2 not quoted in our text, that only water and wine (table wine or vinegar) can influence the status of fruits through a clay wall. Everybody agrees that viscous fluids cannot act through the clay wall. The only problem is wine, which in the anonymous Mishnah 2 is equated with water but in Mishnah 3, R. Jehudah denies that it can act on bread. “Other fluids” here means the fluids excluded in Mishnah 2 plus wine. The statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish seems to point to an inconsistency in the position of R. Jehudah.] ! But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, water acts on fruits and loses fluid volume, [other] fluids act on fruits and do not lose volume [Since for R. Meїr it is enough that the fruits absorb some of the smell of the wine even if they do not become moistened.] . Rebbi Jehudah says, [other] fluids do not act on fruits at all [Mishnah 2 is R. Meїr’s alone; R. Jehudah would classify wine as “other fluid.” Mishnah 2 is anonymous; therefore practice follows R. Meїr in this instance.] .
And what Rebbi Joḥanan said, when we went to Caesarea to study Torah with the Great Rebbi Hoshaia, we put our flat-cake on boxes [Greek κιβώτιον “box, chest”. For muries, cf. Demay p. 384.] of fish sauce and we tasted there the taste of fish sauce. Is this against Rebbi Jehudah [Then R. Joḥanan would agree with R. Simeon ben Laqish that Mishnah Makhširin 3:2 determines practice following R. Meїr, against our rules that R. Jehudah is the greater authority than R. Meїr.] ? They put it into the brine [Greek ἁλμεύω “to put into brine”.] . Is that not forbidden because they rob the owner? They had obtained the owner’s permission.
Wheat below and barley above [This discusses the statement of R. Yose in the Mishnah whom practice has to follow not only because he is the highest authority but also because he gives a reasoned decision partially following each of the opponents in the matter. One deals with a two-layer dough made from two different grains.] ; just as wheat does not absorb so the barley will not absorb. Barley below and wheat above, just as barley absorbs so wheat will absorb.
May one roast two spits together in one oven [This oven has the form of a conical frustrum and is open at the top; the hot air and the particles of meat it might carry escape with the draft through the open top. It is clear that in an enclosed oven one may not cook kosher and nonkosher food together.] , one of kosher meat and one of carcass meat [Meat from an animal not killed in a ritually acceptable way.] ? Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav, it is forbidden. Samuel said in the name of Levi, it is permitted. A baraita [Tosephta Pisḥa 5:11.] disagrees with Rav: “One may not roast two Passover sacrifices together in one oven because they could be mixed up [The Passover sacrifice must be eaten by its subscribers. A person who was not part of the party at the time of slaughter is prohibited from eating of the sacrifice. The Tosephta notes that roasting the two sacrifices together is forbidden only because they should not accidentally be switched but not because particles of one could be carried by the hot air onto the other sacrifice. The Passover sacrifice has to be “roasted over the fire,” Ex. 12:8,9. It is permitted to roast the sacrifice in an oven because the oven serves only to intensify the fire. It is forbidden to roast the sacrifice in a closed oven since then it also would be roasted by the heat stored in the walls.] .” They said only, because they could be mixed up; therefore, not if they could not be mixed up [The parallel is in Babli Pesaḥim96a/b. In both Talmudim, practice follows Levi.] .
Calamint water, Rav said it is forbidden, Samuel said it is permitted. Samuel served Rav calamint water [Ṣitra has been defined as calamint at the end of Ševi‘it 7:2. Calamint is a weed that may be used as spice. Since it is food only by the intent of the person collecting it, it is not subject to heave, certainly not outside the Land. So if somebody in Babylonia gave heave from calamint, any drink made from it is permitted to everybody. We have a principle that if a person thinks of something permitted as forbidden, another person may not serve him what he thinks is forbidden. If Samuel disregarded this injunction, he must have thought that Rav’s position did not merit attention, or he managed to convince Rav of his error.] .
That inner part [טויה II in Levy’s dictionary is explained from Arabic طُوِي “to be hidden”. This refers back to Rav’s statement that roasting kosher and non-kosher meats together in an open oven makes the kosher meat forbidden. Rav requires even that afterwards the oven be kashered by burning dry branches in the empty oven, to remove any particles of nonkosher meat from the walls. (Explanation of R. M. Margalit.)] , Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: One fires it with dry branches.
MISHNAH: Fenugreek that fell into a water cistern, for heave and second tithe if the seeds are enough to impart taste, disregarding the wood [The wooden parts of fenugreek give less taste than the seeds but may be used as cheap substitute. Nevertheless, the wood is not subject to heave and tithes and cannot be counted in matters of heave and tithes.] . But for the Sabbatical, kilaim in a vineyard, and dedicated seeds, if seeds and wood together impart taste [For these, all that can be used as spice must be counted and makes the water forbidden.] . If somebody had bundles of fenugreek of kilaim from a vineyard, they should be burned. If he had bundles of fenugreek from ṭevel [The Yerushalmi holds (Notes 54–57) that, while the wood in itself is not subject to heave and tithes, bundles of fenugreek on the stalk are objects of trade. Therefore, the making of bundles is the end of the harvest and fenugreek is subject to heave and tithes in the hand of the farmer as soon as it was bundled for sale. The Mishnah speaks both of the Geat Heave and Heave of the Tithe. For the Babli (Beẓah 13a), stalks of fenugreek are not subject to heave and tithes; the obligation of heave starts only after the separation of seeds from the stalks by threshing (“pounding” in the Mishnah.) Therefore, the situation of the Mishnah can happen only if no heave was given but the farmer irregularly gave First Tithe to the Levite before separating the seeds from the stalks. The tithe bundles in the hand of the Levite are now ṭevel for Heave of the Tithe; the Levite has to prepare them by pounding and then give the Cohen his due. But if he simply hands one bundle out of ten to the Cohen, it becomes heave and he may not go back on his word and try to take the stalks for himself.] , he pounds them and computes how much seed this contains and separates the seeds but not the wood. If he separated, he should not say I shall pound, take the wood, and give the seeds but he gives seeds with the wood.
HALAKHAH: Does not the wood spoil repeatedly? Our Mishnah follows him who says that anything that spoils is forbidden [If the action is to spoil, why should the water be forbidden at all?] . But even according to him who says anything that spoils is permitted, he agrees here that it is forbidden. Why? Fenugreek improves anything into which it falls.
How much is a bundle? 25 plants [In the technical sense, a “bundle of fenugreek” is only a bundle of at least 25 plants (cf. Mishnah Orlah 3:6). Also, a contract for delivery of bundles of fenugreek requires delivery of bundles of 25 each.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, four to a bed [If the expression חבילה is used for impurity of beds (Mishnah Kelim18:9), it means groups of four.] .
It [The Mishnah.] implies that they become ṭevel in bundles [Without “threshing.”] . Why not single ears? One never gathers for that. But may grains be gathered thus [Arabic حبّ “grain”. The commentators are at a loss to connect Hebrew חבית (Arabic خابية) “amphora” in this context.] ? One does not grow for that. But these [Bundles of 25 stalks of fenugreek.] , one gathers for this, one grows for this.
MISHNAH: Profane olives preserved [Preserved in brine, oil, or vinegar.] with heave olives, if they were broken profanes with broken heaves, broken profanes with whole heaves, or preserves in heave fluid [Water in which heave olives were preserved; cf. Halakhah 7.] , are forbidden [For non-Cohanim.] . But whole profanes [Whole olives are considered as non-absorbing.] with broken heaves are permitted [For non-Cohanim.] .
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said, this implies that broken [olives] absorb, release, and absorb again; whole [olives] absorb, release, but do not absorb again [It is axiomatic that anything put in a fluid environment absorbs from the environment. But then the fluid also absorbs what is released from the solid food. Since one cannot say that whole olives do not absorb from their environment (they certainly absorb salt from the surrounding brine), one has to say that they release the taste acquired from heave back into the surrounding fluid and then no longer absorb.] . That means, if it is neither improving nor spoiling it is forbidden [Since the Mishnah implies that preserving profane and heave olives of equal quality together makes every thing forbidden to laymen.] . The Mishnah is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon says if its taste spoils, it is forbidden. But did Rebbi Simeon not say, if its taste spoils, it is permitted [Tosephta 8:9, in slightly different wording. The main source of this paragraph is Orlah 2:5 (fol. 62a); a slightly shortened version is in Avodah Zarah 5:3 (fol. 44d); Babli Avodah Zarah 67b/68a.] ? Following what Rebbi Simeon says [Mishnah 11. One assumes that the cabbage from the unirrigated field is heave. If it is cooked together with the more expensive and better cabbage from an irrigated garden plot, the result is forbidden to laymen even though the admixture of standard cabbage can only reduce the quality of the garden cabbage.] , irrigated cabbage preserved with unirrigated cabbage is forbidden because it absorbs.
MISHNAH: If an impure fish [Any aquatic animal without scales and fins. While the non-kosher fish cannot be eaten and cannot be knowingly preserved with kosher fish, fishsauce, whose biblical status is unclear, may be used if the admixture was not intentional and the forbidden amount is minute.] was preserved with a pure fish, if in any keg [In Syriac, גרב is a vessel containing exactly 1 seah.] containing two seah the impure fish weighed ten zuz in Judea which are five tetradrachmas [In Sifra Šemini Parašah 3(9), “Ten zuz in Judea which equal ten tetradrachmas in Galilee.”] in Galilee, the sauce is forbidden [The contents of the keg are forbidden food. “Sauce” here is not the fluid in which the fish is preserved but the fluid oozing out of the fish.] . Rebbi Jehudah says, a quarter [log] in two seah [Since a seah equals 24 log, this is 1/196 whereas the first Tanna allows only 1/960 of contamination (Note 81).] . Rebbi Yose said, one sixteenth of it [If the forbidden fluid is at least 1/16 of the kosher fish fluid, the mixture is forbidden. In this interpretation, R. Yose does not express a separate opinion on the impure fish itself. According to R. Abraham ben David (whose interpretation is accepted by R. S. Lieberman), R. Yose refers to the garab as “it”. Since the garab contains 9600 zuz (Notes 78–81), 1/16 of it would be 600 zuz and the 10 zuz given in the Mishnah are 1/60 of this quantity. Therefore, R. Yose asserts that in this case also the mixture is permitted if the kosher food is as least 60 times the quantity of the forbidden.] . Impure locusts preserved with pure locusts do not forbid the fluid exuding [This fluid, which can exist only in minute quantities, is disregarded. The list of kosher locusts is in Lev. 11:22.] from the latter. [This text is also in Idiut 7:2] Rebbi Ẓadoq [A student of the House of Shammai who survived the fall of Jerusalem and became a follower of the rules of the House of Hillel. When Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai defected to the Romans, one of the favors he asked from Vespasian was medical attention for R. Ẓadoq. The meaning of R. Ẓadoq’s testimony is explained in the last paragraph of the Halakhah.] testified that the fluid exuding from impure locusts [Any locust not on the list of Lev. 11:22. The only Jewish group with a continued tradition of identification of the edible locust is Yemenite Jewry. In Yemen, locusts were only eaten roasted.] is pure.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated from Bar Delaiah [A similar text is in Tosephta 9:2] : “Unsalted pure fish preserved with salted impure fish is forbidden”. But did we not state: “He washes it and it is permitted” [In the Tosephta (9:2), this is stated for the case when the fish are either both unsalted or both salted. In Sifra Šemini Parashah 3(6) it is stated: (Lev. 11:9) “Those you shall eat,” to include pure fish preserved with impure. The Babli (Avodah Zarah 40a) reports on a disagreement on whether the fluid oozing out from non-kosher seafood is forbidden. It decides that it is forbidden; a decision accepted by R. Zeïra.] ? Rebbi Mana said, he who said it is permitted, when he preserved them simultaneously; he who said it is prohibited when he preserved them one after the other. You can understand that this is so, since we have stated “in heave fluid [Water in which heave olives were preserved; cf. Halakhah 7.] it is forbidden;” [is that] not when he preserved one after the other [This really proves only R. Mana’s second statement.] ?
“Any keg containing two seah”. How much is in a seah? [24] (14) log [Both mss. have “14”, but this number is not a divisor of 960. R. Solomon ibn Adrat, Responsa vol. 1, No. 281, reads “24”. A seah is 6 qab, each qab is 4 log.] . How much is in a log? 2 pounds [Of the 25 mss. collated in The Mishanh with variant readings(Jerusalem 1975), 11 read zin, 1 ziz (reading also of the Rome ms. in the Halakhah), and 12 zuz in the Mishnah text. Therefore, zin here equals zuz in the Mishnah.] . How much is in a pound? 100 zin [Since log refers to volume and pound to weight, one has to assume that the volume of 1 log of water weighs 2 Jerusalem pounds. Under the Julian-Claudian dynasty, a denar (zuz) was 1/96 of a Roman 1b. of 12 Troy oz., (about 345 g). It follows from the text that this denar was 1/100 of a smaller pound.] . It turns out that each single zin corresponds to one in 960 [Since 1 zin = 1/9600 of 2 seah, and 10 zin of impure fish make the 2 seah forbidden, it follows that each single zin of impure fish contaminates 960 times its weight or volume. (Explanation of R. Solomon ibn Adrat.)] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun instructed at Akhbara [The place of R. Yose bar Abun’s academy. For practical purposes, he replaced 960 by 1000.] : one in a thousand.
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: A quarter [log] [Usually, רובע means “a quarter qab” which is a dry measure equal to one log in liquid measure. But since the Yerushalmi here follows R. Jehudah in the Mishnah, one has to understand “quarter log”.] of fish sauce in two seah of fish sauce [Fish sauce is permitted if the proportion of impure fish (in an inadvertent contamination) is less than 1 in 196 (replaced for practical purposes by 1 in 200 by R. Abbahu.)] . But the sauce of an impure fish never can save [Fish sauce is forbidden only as “sweat exuding from the fish” (Babli Ḥulin 99b). It never can contribute to the 196 times the permitted food has to exceed the forbidden.] ! Rebbi Abbahu said, I computed that close to 200 [R. S. Lieberman (Tosefta kifshutah 2, p. 440) accepts an explanation that R. Abbahu determined that the sauce exuded by 10 zin impure fish will be about 1/200 of a garab of fish and sauce. In the Babli (Ḥulin 99b), R. Yose bar Ḥanina implies that the anonymous Tanna also accepts R. Jehudah’s opinion about fish sauce and requires 1/960 only for the fish itself. This also is the position of the Yerushalmi which distinguishes between the impure fish, discussed in the preceding paragraph, and fish sauce.] . Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Ḥiyya [In the Babli, he appears without a title. He was a student of Rav in Babylonia who immigrated into Galilee.] , a quarter [log] of fish sauce in two seah of fish and fish sauce. A case came before Rebbi Joshia and he instructed accordingly [Practice is decided following R. Jehudah in a lenient way. The Babli (Ḥulin 99b) accepts the ruling of R. Jehudah in the interpretation of R. Abbahu which counts only the amount of sauce.] .
We have stated thus [A similar text in Tosephta 9:1, in the name of R. Yose ben R. Jehudah.] : “When has this been said? If he scoops out piece by piece and puts them before himself, he has to proceed in the way indicated [If he scooped out from the barrel to prepare the fish as food and found 10 zin of impure fish, all is forbidden. But if he scooped out and threw the impure away, so that at no time there are 10 zin of impure fish before him, the fish fluid itself is bland and does not forbid anything even if the total sum of impure fish would have been greater than 10 zin. (Explanation of R. S. Lieberman.)] . But if he scoops out piece by piece and throws them away, even more than was indicated is permitted.”
[The same paragraph appears in Avodah Zarah 2:10 (fol. 42a). In that text, instead of גבונתא one reads זבונתא “merchandise”. Since both texts speak about food that possibly is forbidden, the reading here seems preferable (but גבונתא possibly does not mean “cheese”.) In Avodah Zarah, the paragraph follows a lenient ruling of Rebbi referring to a shipload of wine amphoras. In both cases, it is not clear whether the expression “by some pretext” refers to the previous very lenient statement (and should be translated “as a subterfuge”) or to the following. Therefore, it is left to the reader to decide where or whether to split both paragraphs.] By some pretext, cheese was mixed up [The percentages of forbidden cheese could no longer be ascertained for each individual piece.] . Rebbi Ḥaggai asked Rebbi Abba bar Zavda. He said to them, the property of the public cannot be forbidden [This argument usually is used for public property, such as public baths dedicated to a pagan deity; cf. Ševi‘it Chapter 8, Note 132. Here it is extended to mixed cargo on a common carrier. This is a subterfuge.] . Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, Rebbi Isaac asked: Is not Caius Lycus written on these documents, and you say, by a pretext [This refers to a statement in Giṭṭin 1:1 (fol. 43b) that a divorce document is valid even if its witnesses sign with Roman (Caius) or Greek (Λύκος “wolf”) names. It is stated there that this refers only to divorce documents executed outside the Land since the Jews of the diaspora have Gentile names and, therefore, there is a presumption that the document was signed by Jews. Since without the document the divorced wife could never remarry, it is the duty of the rabbinic court of her home town to find ways to validate a divorce document for which no replacement could be demanded from overseas. This is a situation in which the rabbis would be forced to find pretexts to declare the document valid. However, the statement is an absolute one, valid also for cases in which there is no urgency.] ?
“Rebbi Ẓadoq testified that the fluid exuding from impure locusts is pure. [Locust fluid is not a fluid that can prepare food for impurity; cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 141.] ” In what respect is it pure? It is pure not to prepare. But to make impure [This means, forbidden as food. (Commentary of R. Abraham ben David to Idiut 7:2.)] , the most minute amount makes impure.
MISHNAH: All those which are pickled one with the other are permitted [They do not impart taste.] except with bulb plants [Defined in Chapter 9, Note 89.] . Profane bulb plant with heave bulb plant, profane vegetable with heave bulb plant, are forbidden [For laymen.] . But profane bulb plant with heave vegetable is permitted. Rebbi Yose says, all that is cooked in water with white beets is forbidden [For laymen if the beets were heave.] because it imparts taste. Rebbi Simeon says [Mishnah 11. One assumes that the cabbage from the unirrigated field is heave. If it is cooked together with the more expensive and better cabbage from an irrigated garden plot, the result is forbidden to laymen even though the admixture of standard cabbage can only reduce the quality of the garden cabbage.] , irrigated cabbage [preserved] with unirrigated cabbage is forbidden because it absorbs. Rebbi Aqiba [This is the reading of all mss. of the Mishnah. For some reason, the Venice Babli and Mishnah have “R. Jehudah”.] says, all those which are cooked together are permitted except with meat [Any meat cooked with vegetables will improve in taste. Therefore, meat cooked with any heave vegetables will become forbidden for laymen.] . Rebbi Yose says, all that is cooked in water with white beets is forbidden [For laymen if the beets were heave.] because it imparts taste. Rebbi Simeon says [Mishnah 11. One assumes that the cabbage from the unirrigated field is heave. If it is cooked together with the more expensive and better cabbage from an irrigated garden plot, the result is forbidden to laymen even though the admixture of standard cabbage can only reduce the quality of the garden cabbage.] , irrigated cabbage [preserved] with unirrigated cabbage is forbidden because it absorbs. Rebbi Aqiba [This is the reading of all mss. of the Mishnah. For some reason, the Venice Babli and Mishnah have “R. Jehudah”.] says, all those which are cooked together are permitted except with meat [Any meat cooked with vegetables will improve in taste. Therefore, meat cooked with any heave vegetables will become forbidden for laymen.] . If an egg was treated with forbidden spices, even its yolk is forbidden because it absorbs. Pickling and cooking fluid of heave is forbidden to laymen.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not speak of pickled [food] but of that cooked in water [Since Mishnah 11 records the dissent of Tannaїm from Mishnah 10, the two Mishnaiot must speak about the same procedures.] . Pickled is like being hot [In the Babli, R. Joḥanan is reported to hold that being preserved in salt is like being cooked over a flame. There, he explains that being pickled is not like being cooked in water (implicitly stated here) but Samuel holds that pickling and cooking in water are the same as far as dietary laws are concerned.] .
Rebbi Ḥanina Tortayya in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Bulb vegetables with bulb vegetables, a kind with itself [Heave and profane cooked together.] , Rebbi Aqiba permits but the Sages forbid. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that meat with meat is permitted [Following R. Joḥanan’s stand that Mishnah 10 also speaks of cooking different foods together in water, he asserts that cooking meat forbidden to laymen (Note 102) with other meat does not extend the prohibition.] . Rebbi Zeїra said to Rebbi Assi: If that had not been said, we would not know that it is so, but maybe it was said as follows: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that meat with meat is forbidden [He denies that R. Joḥanan holds that pickling and cooking have the same rules. Since Mishnah 10 only states “all those which are pickled together”, it follows that the same is not true for “all that are cooked together; in particular, not for meat.] . Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that meat with meat is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥinena understood it from the next Mishnah: “Rebbi Aqiba says, all those which are cooked together are permitted except with meat.” Therefore, “meat with meat is forbidden [Tosephta 9:4.] .” Maybe it was formulated as: The Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that meat with meat is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥinena: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba that meat with meat is forbidden [Liver is so full of blood that only blood oozes out and nothing is absorbed. But the blood will make anything cooked with it forbidden.] .
Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion that the unirrigated [cabbage] absorbs [Tosephta 9:4.] . Since Rav Huna said, take away its growing parts and get moisture; this shows that the irrigated absorbs.
Rebbi Jeremiah asked: What is the rule if he cooked it in milk [The milk is certainly forbidden because it is mixed with blood. But if R. Joḥanan ben Nuri is correct, the liver did not absorb any milk; when taken out of the milk and washed it might be permitted even though the act of cooking itself is forbidden by biblical law. This is one of the impossible questions of R. Jeremiah, cf. Ma‘serot 3:10, Note 156, Babli Baba Batra 23b. In this case, it proves that the rule of R. Joḥanan ben Nuri leads to an impossible consequence; it cannot possibly be true.] ? Rebbi Zeїra never in his life ate liver [Since he was a posthumous child whose mother died in childbirth, he never could see how his mother handled liver. Since he was a Babylonian, he would have seen that in Babylonia liver was broiled to stop it from oozing blood (Ḥulin 111a).] . Rebbi Abba cooked it in water and ate it; some say Rebbi Abba salted and ate it.
“Yolk is forbidden because it absorbs.” Bar Qappara stated: Yolk is forbidden and certainly egg white.
Isaac Rabba [It seems that this is a misattribution since R. Isaac Rabba was a student of Rebbi, cf. Z. Frankel, מבוא הירושלמי, p. 105b–106a. It seems that the tradent is R. Isaac (Napaḥa), of the students of R. Joḥanan, or that the source of the statement was Rebbi, not R. Simeon ben Laqish. The text as it stands is confirmed by the quote of this and the following two paragraphs in Or Zarua‘ I #452. The Rome ms. has Jacob Rabba; possibly the source had only י״ר as metathesis fromר״י . An equivalent statement is in Tosephta 9:5; that Tosephta clearly was unknown to the compilers of the Yerushalmi.] in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If eggs were cooked in water and a chick was found in one of them, it is [judged] by the taste it gives [If the taste of the cooked chick is noticeable in the food it was cooked with, all is forbidden since the chick in the egg was not ritually slaughtered. The definition of “giving taste” is discussed in the next paragraph. An equivalent statement is in Tosephta 9:5. The Yerushalmi does not consider the possibility of having the food tasted by a Gentile; its definition of “giving taste” is purely numerical and independent of any actual taste. Therefore, the question whether a chick inside an undamaged shell can impart any taste is irrelevant.] .
Rebbi Zeїra, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Ada bar Gershon [He is mentioned only here. In the parallel, Babli Ḥulin 98a, he appears as R. Idi bar Gershom; in Or Zarua‘ as R. Ada bar Gershom. [The reading in the printed Babli, R. Idi bar Idi bar Gershom, is not confirmed by any ms.]] , Rebbi Birai [He is otherwise unknown. In Ḥulin 98a, he appears as R. Biriam.] , Rebbi Levi bar Plautus [An Amora of the second generation (רִבִּי לֵוִי בַּר פְּרֹטָא); almost all of his sayings are aggadic and quoted in the old Galilean Midrashim. His father’s name is either Latin Plautus or Greek πρῶτος “first”, used as name of a first-born son. For other examples of names in Greek corresponding to Jewish but not Greek usage, cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Jewish Family Names and Their Origins, Hoboken NJ 1992; Etymologisches Lexikon der jüdischen Familiennamen, München 1996.] , an elder [In Ḥulin 98a, “an elder by the name of R. Jacob.”] in the name of Rebbi: 61 are forbidden [If one part of the total is forbidden and 60 are permitted, for a total of 61, then everything is forbidden. But if more than 60 are permitted, for a total of approximately 62, then the mixture is permitted. This is practice accepted by the Babli.] , 62 are permitted. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Our colleague Ada [He is the Ada bar Gershon quoted earlier.] testified before us: 60 [This dissenting testimony is the Babylonian version. Ḥulin 98a. The food is permitted if not more than one part in 60 is forbidden.] . He said, if somebody brings before me more than 60, I shall declare it kosher. They said to Simeon bar Abba, you say this, but the others say otherwise! He said to them, I [said] what I heard, they what they heard. Simeon bar Abba said before Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: Up to thirty [In Or Zarua‘: 60. It is impossible to determine the correct version; R. Ḥanina thinks either that 30 is much too small or that 60 is much too large.] . He said, an exaggeration. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A case came before Rabban Gamliel ben Rabbi. He said, my father [In Or Zarua‘:אבא . This reading has been translated.] did not agree to 47, I agree to 45. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A case came before Rebbi; he asked: Are there 50 [He would permit a mixture of 50 parts permitted and one part forbidden food.] ?
Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Vegetables, shells, and water are counted [To establish that there is 45, 47, or 50 times more permitted food than the forbidden chick.] . Rebbi Zeїra said, even if the inside is forbidden. Rav Huna said, the shells of the forbidden help the permitted [Even the shell of the egg in which the chick was found is counted as permitted.] . Rebbi Zeїra: That is, if he cooked them in their shells, cooked with cooked. But if he cooked shelled eggs with unshelled in water, or unshelled with shelled, cooked with uncooked [If uncooked eggs are cooked with shelled, it is clear that the shelled had been cooked first, otherwise the shelled eggs would not preserve their shape. Therefore, the meaning of the sentence is: uncooked unshelled eggs with cooked shelled.] , that needs a different measure [A minimum of 60 times, not 45, 47 or 50.] .
Unimpregnated eggs are permitted: (Job 21:10) “His steer made pregnant, he will not miss impregnating. [The verse is quoted to show that the verb געל used here does not mean “to loathe” but “to miss impregnation.”] ” Eggs that started developing [In Babylonian spelling, this would be שהרקימו. The paragraph has a parallel in Tosephta 9:5, but this one sentence is missing there.] are forbidden. Twisted ones, he who likes it may eat them [Eggs in which the yolk does not form a ball and which will not develop even if the hen sits on them a long time. These may be eaten by people who are not repelled by them.] . If one found blood in them [Boiled eggs.] , one shaves off the place of the blood.
Rebbi Zeїra went to visit Rebbi Ḥiyya [A sick-bed visit.] , the son of Rebbi Isaac Aṭoshiyya. He found him sitting. He said, they taught only for yolk, but in the egg white [The language here is a confluence of two texts. לובן means the white, חלבון the egg white. At the start of the Halakhah, egg white was called “egg water” (at least of uncooked eggs.) לובן חלבון is a double expression; in לובן חלמון the first word should be deleted. In the quote in Tosaphot (Ḥulin 64b, והוא), לובן is missing altogether but this cannot be used as a witness to the text.] it is permitted. He thought that he had heard it from his ancestor. Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both egg white and yolk are forbidden. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: Yolk is forbidden, egg white permitted [A similar baraita is in the Babli, Ḥulin 64b, in the name of R. Dositheos ben Patricius.] . Rebbi Zeїra said, he who says yolk is forbidden if it is found at the male part of the yolk; this applies even to yolk, but only if it is found on its male part since from there the development of the chick starts [This text is badly transmitted; in its present form it is self-contradictory. In Tosaphot (loc.cit. 135), the text reads: “Rebbi Zeїra said, what was said about yolk being forbidden [with a blood spot], if it is found at the male part of the yolk.” The second part seems to be another version of the same tradition. The “male part” of the yolk is the place where the yolk meets the thicker part of the egg white strung from a vertex to the yolk.] .
There [Mishnah Miqwa’ot 7:2.] , we have stated: “The following disable and do not fill [A miqweh, or ritual bath, must contain at leat 40 seah of natural water, cf. Chapter 4, Note 112. Fluids other than water have no influence on the miqweh but water either drawn in a vessel or used for other purposes in the volume of at least three log makes the miqweh unusable. If there were 40 seah minus 2 log in the miqweh, adding 2 log of water as described in the Mishnah will not produce 40 seah of usable water, it does not “fill”, and the miqweh is still deficient.] : Water, whether pure or impure [In a vessel.] , pickling water, cooking water, afterwine [Obtained by pouring water over husks of grapes. This is water, not wine.] before it became vinegar.” Here [The only heave from fluids is from wine and olive oil. If the water described in the Mishnah is forbidden for laymen, then it must have the status of solid food.] , you treat it as food, there as fluid [If the fluids considered food for heave were also food in regard of the laws of the miqweh, they would neither disable nor fill.] . Rebbi Mana said, here when it is thick, there when it is thin. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, you may even say in both cases thick or thin. Taste counts for heave [The taste particles in the fluid make it forbidden for laymen, regardless of its status as food.] but not for a miqweh.