## Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim Chapter 1

###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:1:1)

**משנה:** אוֹר לְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הֶחָמֵץ לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכְנִיסִין בּוֹ חָמֵץ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה. וּבַמֶּה אָמְרוּ שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת בַּמַּרְתֵּף מָקוֹם שֶׁמַּכְנִיסִין בּוֹ חָמֵץ. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת עַל פְּנֵי כָל הַמַּרְתֵּף וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת שֶׁהֵן הָעֶלְיוֹנוֹת:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** At nightfall of the Fourteenth one checks leavened matter by candle light. A place into which no leavened matter is introduced does not need checking. And where¹ did they say two rows in the cellar²? A place where one introduces leavened matter. The House of Shammai are saying two rows in the front of the entire cellar³, but the House of Hillel are saying the outermost two rows which are the uppermost⁴.

footnotes:
¹ The Babli and Maimonides read ולמה “why” instead of ובמה “where”.
² The storage place for wine or oil amphoras. While this is not a place where one usually stores leavened matter it is possible that the person who is asked to bring a barrel of wine or oil for household use is eating some bread and deposits it temporarily near the entrance door. Therefore it needs checking except for a wholesaler’s cellar.
³ The amphoras are arranged in a rectangular pattern. The House of Shammai requires checking of two rows in all directions accessible from the door. Since usually one starts arranging the amphoras starting at two walls meeting at an angle, the outer rows at the other two sides of the rectangular arrangement have to be checked.
⁴ Only the rows facing the door have to be checked. If the amphoras also are stacked on top of one another, the two top rows facing the door have to be checked.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:1:2)

**הלכה:** אוֹר לְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר כול׳. כָּתוּב וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת הַמַּצּוֹת כִּי בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה הוֹצֵאתִי אֶת צִבְאוֹתֵיכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. בָּרִאשׁוֹן בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחוֹדֶשׁ בָּעֶרֶב תֹּאכְלוּ מַצּוֹת וגו׳. מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם לַאֲכִילַת מַצָּה. כְּבָר כָּתוּב שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מַצּוֹת תֹּאכֵלוּ. וְאִם לוֹמַר שֶׁמַּתְחִיל בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר. וְהָכְתִיב עַד יוֹם הָאֶחָד וְעֶשְׂרִים לַחוֹדֶשׁ. אֶלָּא אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָין לַאֲכִילַת מַצָּה תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְיָין לְבִיעוּר חָמֵץ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “At nightfall of the fourteenth,” etc. It is written⁵ 12:17–18.: *You shall guard the mazzot, because on this same day I took out your multitudes from**the Land of Egypt. On the first, on the fourteenth of the month, in the evening, you shall eat mazzot,* etc. Where do we hold⁶? Does it mean on the first month, or on the first day of the holidays?? If for eating *mazzah,* is it not already written, *seven days you shall eat mazzot*⁷. 12:15.? Or if to say that one starts on the Fourteenth, is it not written, *until the twenty-first of the month*⁵ 12:17–18.? But if it is not needed as a reference to the eating of *mazzah,* take it as a reference to the elimination of leavened matter⁸ No calendar date has been given. One could read v. 17 to state that *mazzot* have to be eaten and leavened matter eliminated on the 14th. This is impossible since the same verse states that the seventh day is the 21st. Therefore the obligation to eat *mazzot* starts in the evening preceding the 15th. Since it is accepted doctrine that the calendar day starts at nightfall of the preceding night, the reference to the 14th cannot possibly refer to eating, but must give the date of the elimination of leavened matter for which the search in the preceding night is a preparation..

footnotes:
⁵ Ex.
⁶ What means on the first
⁷ Ex
⁵ Ex.
⁸ As usual, the argument partially refers to parts of the verse which are not quoted in the text. It says in 12:15, seven days you shall eat mazzot, only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:1:3)

לָמָּה לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַנֵּר בּוֹדֵק כָּל שֶׁהוּא. לָמָּה בַלַּיְלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. שֶׁאֵין בְּדִיקַת הַנֵּר יָפָה אֶלָּא בַלַּיְלָה. רִבִּי מָנָא לֹא אָמַר כֵּן. וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם לְחוּקַּת עוֹלָם. עֲשֵׂה שֶׁיְּהוּ הַיּוֹם וְהַלַּיְלָה מְשׁוּמָּרִין. וְיַתְחִיל בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר וִיְהֵא הַיּוֹם וְהַלַּיְלָה מְשׁוּמָּרִין. אַף אִית לֵיהּ כַּיי דָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְיַתְחִיל אוֹר לִשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר. אִין כֵּינִי יִבְדּוֹק אֲפִילוּ מֵרֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Why by candlelight? Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, because a candle permits checking everywhere⁹. Why in the night? Rebbi Yose said, because checking with a candle is exact only during night time¹⁰. Rebbi Mana did not say so: *And guard this day for your generations as an eternal law*⁵ 12:17–18., see to it that day and night be guarded¹¹. Then should one not start on the Thirteenth that day and night be guarded? He also agrees with the statement of Rebbi Yose¹². Then should one start in the evening of the Thirteenth? If so, he could even check on the beginning of the month¹³.

footnotes:
⁹ In holes and crevices which are dark in daytime (Babli 8a). The “candle” mentioned here is a small clay vessel filled with oil.
¹⁰ As stated later, candle light is not effective during daytime.
⁵ Ex.
¹¹ The entire day should be dedicated to the elimination of leavened matter.
¹² One cannot say that R. Mana disagrees with R. Yose; he adds to his statement.
¹³ Since checking two weeks in advance would be useless, so is checking a full day in advance. Since checking should be done at nighttime, the only remaining date is the evening of the 14th of Nisan (preceding the day).


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:1:4)

רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק בָּעֵי. מָהוּ לִבְדּוֹק לְאוֹר הָאֲבוּקוֹת. מַה צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאוֹרָן מַבְלִיחַ. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּרִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק אָמַר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַנֵּר בּוֹדֵק כָּל שֶׁהוּא. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאָיָה לְדָבָר זֶיכֶר לְדָבָר. וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם הָהוּא אֲחַפֵּשׂ אֶת יְרוּשָׁלַם בַּנֵּרוֹת. וְאִית דְּבָעֵי אֵימַר. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. נֵר יְי נִשְׁמַת אָדָם חוֹפֵשׂ כָּל חַדְרֵי בָטֶן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jeremiah said that Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: May one check by the light of torches? What is his problem? Because their light is unsteady¹⁴. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac is consistent since Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, because a candle permits checking everywhere¹⁵. [¹⁶ 1:1; corrector’s addition. Even though it is not proof of the matter, it is an allusion to the matter: *It shall be on that day*¹⁷*that I shall search Jerusalem by candles*¹⁸ 1:12, Babli 7b–8a.*.* But some want to say,] one can understand it from the following: *A candle of the Eternal is a person’s soul, it searches all rooms of the body*¹⁹. 20:27, Babli 7b–8a.*.*

footnotes:
¹⁴ Since the light is unsteady, it does not serve in searching nooks and crannies.
¹⁵ The scribe wrote בודק כל שהוא כל שהוא “checking extremely well everywhere.” The second כל שהוא was deleted by the corrector; probably incorrectly.
¹⁶ Tosephta Pisha
¹⁷ Misquote from memory.
¹⁸ Zeph.
¹⁹ Prov


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:1:5)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה שֶׁבְּדִיקַת הַיּוֹם בְּדִיקָה. דְּתַנִּינָן. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. בּוֹדְקִין אוֹר לְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר וּבְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר בְּשַׁחֲרִית וּבִשְׁעַת הַבִּיעוּר. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר רִבִּי יוּדָה אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ דְרַבָּנִין. דְּתַנִּינָן. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אִם לֹא בָדַק אוֹר לְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יִבְדּוֹק בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies that checking during daytime is called checking, as we have stated²⁰: “Rebbi Jehudah says, one checks at nightfall of the Fourteenth, and on the Fourteenth, and at the moment of elimination.” Not only Rebbi Jehudah but even the rabbis, as we have stated: “If he did not check at nightfall of the Fourteenth he shall check on the Fourteenth.”

footnotes:
²⁰ Mishnah 3.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:1:6)

וְצָרִיךְ לִבְדּוֹק לָאוֹר הַנֵּר. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. אֵין בּוֹדְקִין לֹא לְאוֹר הַחַמָּה וְלֹא לְאוֹר הַלְּבָנָה וְלֹא לְאוֹר הַכּוֹכָבִים אֶלָּא לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. נִיחָא לֹא לְאוֹר הַלְּבָנָה וְלֹא לְאוֹר הַכּוֹכָבִים (וְלֹא) [אֶלָּא] לְאוֹר חַמָּה. וְכִי יֵשׁ חַמָּה בַלַּיְלָה. הָדָא אָמְרַה. אֲפִילוּ בַיּוֹם צָרִיךְ לִבְדּוֹק לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר בַּיִת שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אוֹרָה. אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ בַּיִת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אוֹרָה אֲפִילו בְיוֹם צָרִיךְ לִבְדּוֹק לְאוֹר הַנֵּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Is it obligatory to check by candlelight²¹? Let us hear from the following²² “One checks neither by sunlight, nor by moonlight, nor by starlight, but by candlelight.” One understands “neither by moonlight, nor by starlight,” but “neither by sunlight”? Is there any sun in the night? This implies, even during daytime one has to check by candlelight; not only in a house without light, but even in a house which has light, even during daytime, it is necessary to check by candlelight.

footnotes:
²¹ When checking during daytime, even following the rabbis.
²² Tosephta 1:1, Babli 7b.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:1:7)

מְבוֹאוֹת הָאֲפֵילִין מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא צָרִיךְ לְבוֹדְקָן כַּתְּחִילָּה לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. לֹא כְמַה דְהוּא מִנְהַר בַּלַּיְלִיָּא הוּא מִנְהַר בַּיְּמָמָא. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא. כַּד הֲוִינָן עָרָקִין בְּאִילֵּין בּוֹטִיתָא דְּסִדְרָא רַבָּא הָיוּ מַדְלִיקִין עָלֵינוּ נֵירוֹת. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיוּ כֵיהִים הָיִינוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁהוּא יוֹם. וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיוּ מַבְהִיקִין הָיִינוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁהוּא לַיְלָה. וַתְיָיא כַיי דָמַר רִבִּי אַחֲוָוא בַּר זְעִירָא. נֹחַ בִּכְנִיסָתוֹ לַתֵּיבָה הִכְנִיס עִמּוֹ אֲבָנִים טוֹבוֹת וּמַרְגָּלִיּוֹת. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיוּ כֵיהוֹת הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא יוֹם. וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיוּ מַבְהִיקוֹת הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא לַיְלָה. לָמָּה. יֵשׁ חַיָּה אוֹכֶלֶת בַּיּוֹם וְיֵשׁ חַיָּה אוֹכֶלֶת בַּלַּיְלָה. וְהָא כְתִיב צוֹהַר תַּעֲשֶׂה לַתֵּיבָה. כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. לֹא שִׁימְשׁוּ הַמַּזָּלוֹת בִּשְׁנַת הַמַּבּוּל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
May one²³ check dark passages²⁴ purposely²⁵ by candlelight? The words of the rabbis imply that not as it radiates at night it radiates during the day, ²⁶ 31:12, a much better text. As given here, the story is Babylonian and there is no reason why they should be fleeing, and why the earth under the place (under the open sky) where the twice-yearly assembly of scholars was held should have been tunnelled. In *Gen. rabba* the name is *Rebbi* Huna, the place is Tiberias, and they were hiding from soldiers. as Rav Huna said, when we were fleeing to these catacombs of the great assembly they were lighting candles for us. When they were faint, we knew that it was day; when they were bright we knew that it was night. This parallels what Rebbi Aḥawa bar Ze`ira²⁷ “R. Phineas in the name of R. Zeˋira”. In the Babli *Sanhedrin* 108b is a similar statement of R. Joḥanan. said, when Noah entered the Ark he brought with him precious stones and pearls. When they were dull, he knew that it was daytime; when they were shiny he knew that it was nighttime.Why? There are animals eating at daytime and there are animals eating at nighttime. But is there not written, *make a skylight to the ark*²⁸ 6:16.? Following him who said that the stars were not operative in the year of the flood²⁹ 25:2, interpretation of *Gen.*8:22..

footnotes:
²³ This translation of צריך follows S. Liebermann.
²⁴ Roofed public spaces.
²⁵ As the parallel expression in the next paragraph shows, a word “during daytime” is missing here.
²⁶ Gen. r.
²⁷ The son of R. Zeˋira. In Gen. r.
²⁸ Gen.
²⁹ Gen. r.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:1:8)

רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. בָּתֵּי כְנֵיסִיּוֹת וּבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ צְרִיכִין בְּדִיקָה. מַה צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ. שֶׁכֵּן מַכְנִיסִין לְשָׁם בְּאִבָּרִיּוּת וּבְרָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים. וַתֵי פְשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ וְהָכֵנִי צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ. הוֹאִיל וְאוֹרָן מְרוּבֶּה. מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא צָרִיךְ לְבוֹדְקָן כַּתְּחִילָּה בַיּוֹם לְאוֹר הַנֵּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Do synagogues and houses of study need checking? What is his problem? Since one brings³⁰ 70b) or grapes and bread (Yerushalmi *Berakhot*6:4, Note 149). there for intercalations³¹ #105) and the Frankfurt ms. of *Or zarua* II §453, עיבריות. Even the word spelled with א is interpreted as if written with ע, “intercalations”; J. N. Epstein, *Tarbiz* 5 (1933–34) p. 263. In the printed editions of the Yerushalmi, following a correction on the margin of the ms., “on Sabbaths” (cf. R. Nissim *loc. cit.,* p. 34). and on the days of the New Moon. It should be obvious for him³², but what really is his problem? Since they are very well illuminated, may one check them purposely during daytime by candlelight³³?

footnotes:
³⁰ In general it is forbidden to bring food into a synagogue or study hall proper, but for a meal accompanying the public declaration of the new month or the additional month one brought food there, bread and vegetables (Babli Sanhedrin
³¹ In a responsum of R. Nissim of Kairawan (Teshuvot Hegaonim Lyck,
³² That one has to check, even if the place was not usually used for public meals.
³³ And not in the evening of the 14th, when people are occupied in their own houses. Since no answer is given, theˋ answer is negative.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:1:9)

רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בְעֵי. חֲצֵירוֹת שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלִַם שֶׁאוֹכְלִין שָׁם חַלּוֹת תּוֹדָה וּרְקִיקֵי נְזִיר. מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ צְרִיכִין בְּדִיקָה. בְּלֹא כָּךְ אֵינָן בְּדוּקוֹת מִן הַנּוֹתָר. יָיבֹא כְהָדָא תַנָּא רִבִּי זְכַרְיָה חַתְנֵי דְּרִבִּי לֵוִי. נִידָּה חוֹפֶפֶת וְסוֹרֶקֶת. [כֹּהֶנֶת אֵינָהּ חוֹפֶפֶת וְסוֹרֶקֶת. נִדָּה כֹהֶנֶת חוֹפֶפֶת וְסוֹרֶקֶת.] שֶׁלֹּא תַחֲלוֹק בֵּין נִידָּה לְנִידָּה. אוֹף הָכָא שֶׁלֹּא לַחֲלוֹק בֵּין בִּיעוּר לְבִיעוּר. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי גַמְלִיאֵל בַּר אִינְיָינָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. נִידָּה שֶׂהִיא מַפְסֶקֶת כָּל שִׁבְעָה חוֹפֶפֶת וְסוֹרֶקֶת. כּוֹהֶנֶת שֶׁהִיא טוֹבֶלֶת בְּכָל יוֹם אֵינָהּ חוֹפֶפֶת וְאֵינָהּ סוֹרֶקֶת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם נִצְרְכָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yose asked: The courtyards in Jerusalem where one eats the bread of thanksgiving offerings³⁴ 7:13. and the wafers of a *nazir*³⁵ at the fulfillment of his vow, *Num.* 6:15. These are unleavened.*,* do they need checking? Are they not checked anyhow for leftovers³⁶7:17), every day of the year these localities are treated the way every other dwelling is treated on Passover Eve.? It should be parallel to what Rebbi Zachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi stated: A menstruating woman washes her hair and combs³⁷ her body in water. Therefore it is imperative that not two hairs cling together; before immersion she has to make sure that this does not happen.. A priestly woman does not wash her hair and comb³⁸ 1:1, Note 3). Therefore washing the hair is not necessary. Quoted Tosaphot *Niddah* 66b.. A menstruating priestly woman washes her hair and combs, not to differentiate between one menstruating woman and another. So also here, not to differentiate between elimination and elimination. Rabbi Gamliel bar Inyany stated before Rebbi Mana: A menstruating woman who interrupts for seven days washes her hair and combs. A priestly woman who immerses herself every day does not wash her hair and comb³⁹ for the period of her impurity. The statement which exempts her from washing her hair applies only to pure priestly women.. He told him, it is necessary for one who watches one day for a day⁴⁰ 4:1 Note 3) is not available to the priestly woman. It is rabbinic doctrine that after one menstruation, the next is possible only after 11 days.(Mishnah *Niddah* 4:7). If she loses blood on one of these days, she does not follow the rules of *niddah* but those of *zavah.* For the first two occurrences in one period she is impure only for 24 hours. The statement about the impure priestly woman is needed to decree that even an interruption of one day without immersion triggers the obligation of washing the hair..

footnotes:
³⁴ Which have an obligatory component of leavened bread, Lev.
³⁵ Part of the offering of the nazir
³⁶ Since any leftovers from any well-being offering, including the thanksgiving offering, must be burned (Lev.
³⁷ She becomes pure by immersing all
³⁸ The wife, unmarried daughter, or slave of a Cohen who participate with the Cohen in eating heave and other sancta. As long as the rules of purity could be kept, these women, together with the Cohen, have to immerse themselves every day close to sundown (cf. Mishnah Berakhot
³⁹ From the comparison of the menstruating and the priestly women one cannot infer anything since the menstruating priestly woman is excluded from the common meal of sancta
⁴⁰ As long as the rules of purity could be observed, a woman in the household of a Cohen was obligated to reduce the period of her impurity to a minimum. The method by which any other woman could avoid showing her blood to a rabbinic authority to ascertain the status of her impurity (cf. Niddah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:1:10)

חוֹרֵי הַבָּיִת הָעֶלְיוֹנִים וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנִים וְהַיָּצִיעַ וְהַחַדּוּת וְהָעֲלִיָיה וְגַג הַבַּד וְגַג הַמִּגְדָּל בֵּית הַתֶּבֶן וּבֵית הַבָּקָר וּבֵית הָעֵצִים וּבֵית הָאוֹצָרוֹת אוֹצְרוֹת הַיַּיִן וְאוֹצְרוֹת הַשֶּׁמֶן וְאוֹצְרוֹת הַפֵּירוֹת אֵינָן צְרִיכִין בְּדִיקָה. נִיחָא הָעֶלְיוֹנִים. וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנִים. הָדָא אָמְרָה. לֹא חָשׁוּ לִנְפִילָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן סְמוּכִין לַכּוֹתֶל. אֶחָד לְמַעֲלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה וְאֶחָד לְמַטָּה מֵעֲשָׂרָה. וְהָא תַנִּינָן חַדּוּת. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁלֹּא חָשׁוּ לִנְפִילָה. מִתְיָירֵא הוּא הַתִּינּוֹק לֵילֵךְ לְשָׁם. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא נִתְגַּלְגֵּל חָמֵץ שָׁם. תִּיפְתָּר בְּחַדּוּת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ לִיזְבִּיז. וְגַג הַבַּד וְגַג הַמִּגְדָּל. הָדָא דְתֵימַר. בִּגְבוֹהִין שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים. אֲבָל אִם אֵינָן גְּבוֹהִין שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים כָּאָרֶץ הֵם. וּבְאוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ חָמֵץ. אֲבָל בְּאוֹתוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ חָמֵץ אֲפִילוּ גָבוֹהַּ כַּמָּה צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. וְיֵאוּת. כֵּן אֲנָן אָמְרִין. הָדָא פִיפְיָיארוֹת אֲפִילוּ גָבוֹהַּ כַּמָּה לֹא תְהֵא צָרִיכָה בְדִיקָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁴¹“Holes in the house, the upper and the lower ones, and the veranda⁴², and the ditch⁴³, and the upper floor⁴⁴, and the roof of the olive press⁴⁵, and the roof of the tower⁴⁶, the storage room of straw, and the cattle stable, and the storage room of wood, and the storage room of provisions, wine storage, and oil storage, and produce storage, do not need checking.” One understands the upper ones⁴⁷. The lower ones? Does this mean that they did not worry about things falling down? Rebbi Yose said, explain it if both were close to the wall⁴⁸, whether higher than ten or lower than ten [hand-breadths]⁴⁹ §433; it does not make any sense since 10 hand-breadths is a height very accessible to all uses. The statement is rejected by all authorities who quote it.. Did we not state “the ditch”? Does this not mean that they did not worry about things falling down? The toddler is afraid to go there. But should one not be afraid that leavened matter rolled there? Explain it by a ditch which has a rim. “And the roof of the olive press, and the roof of the tower.” That is, if they are three hand-breadths high; but if they are not three hand-breadths high they are like ground. And if they were not used for leavened matter, but if they were used for leavened matter even if it is very high it needs checking. Rebbi Mana said, this is correct. Would we say that this papyrus scaffold which is very high should not need checking⁵⁰ 14(15):3 mentions an instrument used to remove bread from the papyrus scaffold where it is stored. Cf. *Kilaim* 6:3 Note 38.?

footnotes:
⁴¹ Tosephta 1:3, Babli 8a.
⁴² Any additional structure having a sloping roof.
⁴³ חדות is the same as דות in the Tosephta.
⁴⁴ Used only for storage but not as dwelling.
⁴⁵ It seems that the reading of the Tosephta, גג הבית “the roof of the house” is the correct one (as it is quoted as reading of the Yerushalmi by R. Isaac Ibn Ghiat). A flat roof is exposed to the wind and to foraging birds; one may assume that no leavened matter stays there for long.
⁴⁶ This has a sloping roof on which nothing stays.
⁴⁷ If “upper” means “higher than the reach of a person”, one need not expect that leavened matter was deposited there. But very low lying holes are at the reach of children.
⁴⁸ Holes at the outside of the wall.
⁴⁹ The text is confirmed by a quote in Tur Orah Hayyim
⁵⁰ Tosephta Šabbat


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:1:11)

תַּנֵּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. מִיטָּה שֶׁהִיא חוֹצֶצֶת בְּתוֹךְ הַבָּיִת וְעֵצִים וַאֲבָנִים מוּנָחִין תַּחְתֶּיהָ. בּוֹדֵק צַד הַחִיצוֹן וְאֵינוֹ בּוֹדֵק צַד הַפְּנִימִי. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעֵצִים וַאֲבָנִים מוּנָחִין תַּחְתֶּיהָ. הָא אִם אֵין עֵצִים וַאֲבָנִים מוּנָחִין תַּחְתֶּיהָ צָרִיךְ לִבְדוֹק צַד הַפְּנִימִי. הָדָא אָמְרָה (שֶׁלֹּא) חָשׁוּ לִנְפִילָה. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. תִּינּוֹק (יָגַע) [רַגָּע] וְהִכְנִיס שָׁם חָמֵץ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated: ⁴¹“Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a couch which was separated⁵² in the house but wood and stones are stored under it, one checks at the outside but does not have to check on the inside.” Because wood and stones are stored under it, but if no wood and stones are stored under it, one has to check on the inside. Does this mean that they did (not)⁵³ worry about things falling down? I am saying that (a child exerted himself and) [an unruly child]¹ brought leavened matter there⁵⁴.

footnotes:
⁴¹ Tosephta 1:3, Babli 8a.
⁵² The couch was separated from the floor, i. e., it was on high legs which left room for storage under the bed.
⁵³ The word was written by the scribe but correctly deleted by the corrector.
¹ Versions of (scribe) and [corrector.]
⁵⁴ Just as the first part of the Tosephta, quoted in the preceding paragraph, does not prove that the earlier generations were not afraid of bread accidentally falling down without being picked up, so this part does not prove the opposite conclusion.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:12
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:1:12)

מַרְתֵּף שֶׁלְיַיִן צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה. מַרְתֵּף שֶׁלְשֶׁמֶן אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה. מַה בֵין יַיִן וּמַה בֵין שֶׁמֶן. יַיִן אֵין לוֹ קֶבַע. שֶׁמֶן יֵשׁ לוֹ קֶבַע. אוֹצַר בֵּין שֶׁלְיַיִן בֵּין שֶׁלְשֶׁמֶן אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה. אֵיזֶהוּ מַרְתֵּף. כָּל שֶׁנָּתוּן עִם הַלֶּחֶם בֶּחָצֵר. יֵשׁ מַרְתֵּף שֶׁהוּא כְאוֹצָר וְאוֹצָר שֶׁהוּא כְמַרְתֵּף. מַרְתֵּף שֶׁהוּא בוֹשׁ לוֹכַל בְּתוֹכוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כְאוֹצָר. וְאוֹצָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בוֹשׁ לוֹכַל בְּתוֹכוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כְמַרְתֵּף. יֵשׁ חָצֵר שֶׁהוּא כְמָבוֹי וּמָבוֹי שֶׁהוּא כְחָצֵר. חָצֵר שֶׁהָרַבִּים בּוֹקְעִין בְּתוֹכָהּ הֲרֵי הוּא כְמָבוֹי. וּמָבוֹי שֶׁאֵין הָרַבִּים בּוֹקְעִין בְּתוֹכוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כְחָצֵר. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא הַבְּהֵמִים מַכְנִיסִין לְתוֹכוֹ חָמֵץ. אֵין דֶּרֶךְ הַבְּהֵמִים לִהְיוֹת מַכְנִיסִין לְשָׁם חָמֵץ אֶלָּא מִינֵי מְתִיקָה. שֶׁהֵן בוֹדְקִין הַיַּיִן הַיָּפֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
A wine cellar needs checking, an oil cellar does not need checking⁵⁵. What is the difference between wine and oil? Wine has no staying power, oil has staying power⁵⁶. Storage⁵⁷, whether of wine or oil, does not need checking. What is a cellar? Anything used with bread in the courtyard⁵⁸. There exists a cellar which is like storage and storage which is like a cellar. A cellar in which he is ashamed to eat is like storage; storage where he is not ashamed to eat is like a cellar. ⁵⁹ 7:7, Notes 71–72. There is a courtyard which is like an alley and an alley which is like a courtyard. A courtyard which is used by the public is like an alley, and an alley which is not used by the public is like a courtyard. But should one not be afraid that animal drivers introduce leavened matter into it⁶⁰? Animal drivers usually do not introduce leavened matter into it but sweets since they help in checking the quality of the wine⁶¹.

footnotes:
⁵⁵ Babli 8a.
⁵⁶ Wine is drawn from the amphora at least once a day; fresh oil is needed only from time to time.
⁵⁷ Wholesale storage for commercial purposes.
⁵⁸ Any place where bread is introduced during the year needs checking. Some Medieval authors, e.g. Meïri (ed. J. Klein, Jerusalem 1964, p. 39, Notes 468–469) read here an additional sentence: “Storage is what is not used with bread in the courtyard.”
⁵⁹ This does not belong here; because of the similarity in language it is copied from Ketubot
⁶⁰ This refers back to storage areas. While the producer of the wine will not introduce bread into his storage area, what can be said about the teamster who will transport the wine for sale at other places?
⁶¹ If the teamster is transporting for his own account, he will want to check the quality of the wine he is buying; for that he eats taste enhancing candy, not taste dulling bread.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:13
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:1:13)

הַיּוֹצֵא לְפָרֵשׂ קוֹדֶם שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִבְדוֹק. בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים צָרִיךְ לִבְדוֹק. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּדַעְתּוֹ לַחֲזוֹר. אֲבָל אֵין בְּדַעְתּוֹ לַחֲזוֹר אֲפִילוּ קוֹדֶם לִשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם צָרִיךְ לִבְדוֹק. וּבְסָפֵק. אֲבָל בְּוַדַּאי אֲפִילוּ מֵרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. וַאֲפִילוּ יֵשׁ בְּדַעְתּוֹ לַחֲזוֹר צָרִיךְ לִבְדוֹק. שֶׁמָּא יִימָּלֵךְ וְלֹא יַחֲזוֹר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“If somebody leaves to travel by sea, before thirty days he does not have to check; within thirty [days] he has to check”⁶². ⁶³ That is to say, if he intends to return. But if he does not intend to return, even before thirty days he has to check. If there is a doubt; but if it is certain then even from New Year’s Day. Rebbi Abba said, but even if he intends to return he has to check, maybe he will change his mind and not return.

footnotes:
⁶² Tosephta 1:4 (in the formulation of the Babli 6a).
⁶³ The Babli 6a rules in everything the exact opposite of the Yerushalmi, which holds that everybody is obligated at all times to see to it that his property contains no leavened matter on Passover, wherever it be situated and wherever he spends the holiday.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:14
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:1:14)

הַכֹּל נֶאֱמָנִין עַל בִּיעוּר חָמֵץ. אֲפִילוּ נָשִׁים אֲפִילוּ עֲבָדִים. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָה. לֵית כָּאן אֲפִילוּ נָשִׁים. נָשִׁים עַצְמָן הֵן נֶאֱמָנוֹת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן עֲצֵילוֹת וְהֵן בּוֹדְקוֹת כָּל שֶׁהוּא כָּל שֶׁהוּא. כּוּתִים כָּל זְמַן שֶׁעוֹשִׂין מַצָּתָן עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶאֱמָנִין הֵן עַל בִּיעוּר חָמֵץ. אִם אֵינָן עוֹשִׂין מַצָּתָן עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינָן נֶאֱמָנִים עַל בִּיעוּר חָמֵץ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בַּבָּתִּים. אֲבָל בַּחֲצֵירוֹת חֲשׁוּדִין הֵן. דְּאִינּוּן דָּרְשִׁין לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְּבָתֵּיכֶם. לֹא בַחֲצֵרוֹתֵיכֶם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Everybody is trustworthy about elimination of leavened matter, even women, even slaves. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: There is no “even” women. Women intrinsically are trustworthy; since they are slow they check everything very carefully. Samaritans any time when they prepare their *mazzah* with Jews⁶⁴ are trustworthy about checking for leavened matter; if they do not prepare their *mazzah* with Jews they are not trustworthy about checking for leavened matter. Rebbi Yose said, this means in the houses, but they are suspect in courtyards since they explain that *it should not be found in your houses,*⁶⁵ 12:19. does not apply to your courtyards.

footnotes:
⁶⁴ If the Samaritan calendar has Passover on the same day as the rabbinic one.
⁶⁵ Ex.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:15
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:1:15)

תַּנֵּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. כָּל מִצְוָה שֶׁהַכּוּתִים נוֹהֲגִין בָּהּ הֵם מְדַקְדְּקִין בָּהּ יֹתֵיר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. אֲמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁהָיוּ מְשׁוּקָעִין בְּכוּפְרְנֵיהֶן. אֲבָל עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן לֹא מִצְוָה וְלֹא שְׁיֵרֵי מִצְוָה חֲשׁוּדִין הֵן וּמְקוּלְקָלִין הֵן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated: ⁶⁶ 10a, *Qiddushin* 76a, *Ḥulin* 4a. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, any commandment which the Samaritans keep they are much more exact with them than Jews. Rebbi Simeon⁶⁷ 5:4, p. 447). said, that means earlier when they were concentrated in their villages. But today, when they have no commandments nor remainders of commandments they are suspect and degenerate.

footnotes:
⁶⁶ Tosephta 2:3, Babli Gittin
⁶⁷ This author cannot be R. Simeon ben Yoḥai, but he might be R. Simeon ben Eleazar (Avodah zarah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:16
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:1:16)

שׁוֹאֲלִין בְּהִילְכוֹת הַפֶּסַח בְּפֶסַח. הִילְכוֹת עֲצֶרֶת בָּעֲצֶרֶת. הִילְכוֹת חַג בְּחַג. בְּבֵית וַועַד שׁוֹאֲלִין קוֹדֶם לִשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. שְׁתֵּי שַׁבָּתוֹת. אַתְיָיא דְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּרַבָּנִין. וְדַחֲבֵרַיָיא כְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין. שֶׁכֵּן מֹשֶׁה עוֹמֵד בַּפֶּסַח רִאשׁוֹן וְאוֹמֵר לָהֶן הִילְכוֹת הַפֶּסַח הַשֵּׁינִי. וְדַחֲבֵרַיָיא כְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. שֶׁכֵּן מֹשֶׁה עוֹמֵד בַּרֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ וְאוֹמֵר לָהֶם הִילְכוֹת הַפֶּסַח.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
One asks about practices of Passover at Passover, practices of Pentecost at Pentecost, practices of Tabernacles at Tabernacles⁶⁸ 4a. *Sifry Num.* 66.. In the House of Assembly one asks thirty days in advance; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, two weeks⁶⁹ 6a.. The statement of Rebbi Joḥanan follows the rabbis, that of the colleagues Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of the rabbis, because Moses stands on the First Passover and explains to them the rules of Second Passover⁷⁰9:9–14.. That of the colleagues follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, because Moses stands on the day of the New Moon and explains to them the rules of Passover71 9:1–4..

footnotes:
⁶⁸ Babli Megillah
⁶⁹ Babli Pesaḥim
⁷⁰ The rules of the Second Passover to be celebrated on the 14th of Iyar by people impure on the 14th of Nisan were promulgated on the 13th of Nisan, Num.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:17
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:1:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:1:17)

כְּמָה אָמְרוּ שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת בַּמַּרְתֵּף וכו׳. רַב חוּנָה בְשֵׁם רַב. קוֹלְפוֹ כְמִין גַּם. תַּנֵּי בַּר קַפָּרָא. קוֹלְפוֹ כְמִין שְׁנֵי גַּמִּין. הָיָה נָתוּן בְּאֶמְצַע הַבַּיִת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב חוּנָא מַפְשִׁיטוֹ חָלוּק אֶחָד. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּבַר קַפָּרָא מַפְשִׁיטוֹ שְׂנֵי חֲלָקוֹת. הָיָה עָשׂוּי מַדְרֵיגוֹת מַדְרֵיגוֹת. קוֹלְפוֹ גַּמִּים גַּמִּים. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שׁוּרָה הַחִיצוֹנָה הִיא הָעֶלְיוֹנָה הָרוֹאָה אֶת הַפֶּתַח וְאֶת הַקּוֹרָה. שֶׁלִּפְנִים מִמֶּנָּה. תַּנֵּי. שֶׁלְּמַטָּה מִמֶּנָּה. הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר. מָאן דְּאָמַר. שֶׁלִּפְנִים הִימֶּינָּה. כָּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁלְּמַטָּה הִימֶּינָּה. מָאן דָּמַר. שֶׁלְּמַטָּה הִימֶּינָּה. הָא לִפְנִים הִימֶּינָּה לֹא. נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בַּחֲצִי שׁוּרָה. פְּשִׁיטָא. אוֹתָהּ שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ יֵשׁ לָהּ שֶׁלִּפְנִים מִמֶּנָּה וְשֶׁלְּמַטָּה מִמֶּנָּה. אוֹתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ יֵשׁ לָהּ שֶׁלִּפְנִים מִמֶּנָּה וְשֶׁלְּמַטָּה מִמֶּנָּה. הָדָא דְתֵימַר. בִּמְחוֹלְלוֹת. אֲבָל בָּאֲפוּצוֹת מַעֲבִיר עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת [הַנֵּר וְדַיוֹ.] הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁחָשׁוּ לִנְפִילָה. אָמַר רִבִּי פִינְחָס דְּיָפוֹ. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁסִּידְרָן הִכְנִיס שָׁם חָמֵץ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Where¹ did they say two rows in the cellar²,” etc. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: He peels it like a Gamma. Bar Qappara stated, he peels it like two Gamma⁷³. If it was situated in the middle of the room. In the opinion of Rav Huna he strips it of one garment, in the opinion of Bar Qappara he strips it of two garments⁷⁴. If it⁷⁵ was built in steps, he strips it by many Gamma. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Ḥizqiah: Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. The outermost row which is the uppermost which sees both door and beam of the roof, [and] the one inside of it⁷⁶. It was stated: the one below it. They wanted to say that he who says, the one inside of it, so much more that one below it. He who says, the one below it, therefore not the one inside of it⁷⁷. If half a row was used, it is obvious that what was used has inside of it and below it. That which was not used has inside of it and below it⁷⁸. That is to say, if they are spaced⁷⁹ 10:5, amphoras are spaced if on two opposite sides there is one hand-breadth of free space.. But if they are tightly packed he passes the light over them⁸⁰ and it is enough. Does this mean that they did worry about things falling down? Rebbi Phineas from Yafo¹ said, I am saying that the servant introduced leavened matter when he placed them.

footnotes:
¹ The Babli and Maimonides read ולמה “why” instead of ובמה “where”.
² The storage place for wine or oil amphoras. While this is not a place where one usually stores leavened matter it is possible that the person who is asked to bring a barrel of wine or oil for household use is eating some bread and deposits it temporarily near the entrance door. Therefore it needs checking except for a wholesaler’s cellar.
⁷³ He checks the outer rows in the cellar in two directions orthogonal to one another, in the shape of Ã. Babli 8b in the name of R. Joḥanan.
⁷⁴ He has to check the lower row and one vertical row and the upper row and, depending on the interpretation given later, either another vertical row or a horizontal row inwards.
⁷⁵ The storage room. Each step defines a new front row.
⁷⁶ If the amphoras are stored at least two layers high, one has to check the two rows close to the entrance of the top layer.
⁷⁷ Only the front rows in all layers have to be checked.
⁷⁸ Even if during the year wine was taken only from one side of one row, once part of a row must be checked, the entire row must be checked.
⁷⁹ According to Tosephta Ahilut
⁸⁰ Corrector’s text. The scribe’s הנייר ולווי “the paper and appurtenances” is unintelligible.
¹ Nothing more is known about him.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:2:1)

**משנה:** אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא גֵרְרָה חוּלְדָּה מִבַּיִת לְבַיִת וּמִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם אִם כֵּן מֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר וּמֵעִיר לְעִיר אֵין לַדָּבָר סוֹף:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** One does not suspect⁸¹ that a mole dragged it from room to room or from place to place⁸²; if that were the case, also from courtyard to courtyard⁸³ and from town to town without end.

footnotes:
⁸¹ After a room has been searched for leavened matter, one does not fear that an animal brought such matter back into the room; no place has to be searched more than once.
⁸² In one courtyard.
⁸³ Since not all people search their property at the same time, animals could find leavened matter somewhere at all times and no search could ever be completed.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:2:2)

**הלכה:** אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה. הָכֵין צוֹרְכָה מַתְנֵי. מֵעִיר לְעִיר וּמֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם וּמִבַּיִת לְבַיִת. אִם חוֹשֵׁשׁ אַתְּ מֵעִיר לְעִיר אַתְּ חוֹשֵׁשׁ מֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר. אִם חוֹשֵׁשׁ אַתְּ מֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר חוֹשֵׁשׁ אַתְּ מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם. אִם חוֹשֵׁשׁ אַתְּ מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם אַתְּ חוֹשֵׁשׁ מִבַּיִת לְבַיִת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. אֲפִילוּ כְמַתְנִיתָא אַתְיָא הִיא. אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא גֵרְרָה חוּלְדָּה מִבַּיִת לְבַיִת וּמִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם אִם כֵּן מֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר וּמֵעִיר לְעִיר אֵין לַדָּבָר סוֹף. שֶׁאִם מִבַּיִת לְבַיִת אֵי אַתָּה חוֹשֵׁשׁ אַתְּ לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם. אִם מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם אֵי אַתְּ חוֹשֵׁשׁ לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן מֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר. אִם מֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר אֵי אַתְּ חוֹשֵׁשׁ לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן מֵעִיר לְעִיר. יְכוֹלִין הֵן כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל לִבָדוֹק חָמֵיצָן כְּאַחַת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “One does not suspect,” etc. Rebbi Jonah said, so the Mishnah should have been stated: From town to town and from courtyard to courtyard, from place to place and from room to room. If you suspect from town to town, you will suspect from courtyard to courtyard. If you suspect from courtyard to courtyard, you will suspect from place to place. If you suspect from place to place, you will suspect from room to room. Rebbi Yose said, even following the Mishnah it is correct. “One does not suspect that a mole pulled it from room to room or from place to place; if that were the case, also from courtyard to courtyard and from town to town without end.” For if you do not suspect from room to room, not so much more you suspect from place to place? If you do not suspect from place to place, not so much more from courtyard to courtyard? If you do not suspect from courtyard to courtyard, not so much more from town to town? All of Israel can check their leavened matter together⁸⁴.

footnotes:
⁸⁴ Mishnah 2 is a consequence of Mishnah 1. One really should be worried that animals could transport food from one place to another. But since everybody checks at the same time, after sundown of the 13th of Nisan, there is no danger of later contamination.This paragraph is the corrector’s text; the scribe’s text “if you do not suspect from town to town you certainly do mot worry from courtyard to courtyard, etc.“ has all arguments the wrong way.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:3:1)

**משנה:** רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר בּוֹדְקִין אוֹר אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר וְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר בְּשַׁחֲרִית וּבִשְׁעַת הַבִּעוּר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים לֹא בָדַק אוֹר אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יִבְדּוֹק בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר. אִם לֹא בָדַק בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יִבְדּוֹק בְּתוֹךְ הַמּוֹעֵד. לֹא בָדַק בְּתוֹךְ הַמּוֹעֵד יִבְדּוֹק לְאַחַר הַמּוֹעֵד. וּמַה שֶּׁהוּא מְשַׁיֵיר יַנִּיחֶנּוּ בְצִינְעָה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא צָרִיךְ בְְְּּּדִיקָה אַחֲרָיו:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Rebbi Jehudah says, one checks at nightfall of the Fourteenth, and on the mourning of the Fourteenth, and at the time of elimination⁸⁵. But the Sages say, he who did not check at nightfall of the Fourteenth has to check on the Fourteenth; he who did not check on the Fourteenth has to check on the holiday. He who did not check on the holiday has to check after the holiday⁸⁶. And what he leaves he should deposit at a guarded place so that he would not be obligated to repeat checking⁸⁷.

footnotes:
⁸⁵ In the interpretation of the Yerushalmi, R. Jehudah requires three checks for every place. Rav Joseph in the Babli (10b) reads the conjunctions in R. Jehudah’s statement as “or”. The time of elimination is given in Mishnah 4.
⁸⁶ Since leavened matter which was in the possession of a Jew during Passover is forbidden for all usufruct (Mishnah 2:2), such matter if it was not eliminated before the holiday must be eliminated afterwards.
⁸⁷ Any bread and leavened matter to be used on the morning of the Fourteenth must be secured after the checking in the evening since if some of it would be missing in the morning the entire checking procedure would have to be repeated.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:3:2)

**הלכה:** רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה כְּנֶגֶד שְׁלֹשָׁה פְעָמִים שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה לֹא יֵ‍רָאֶה לְךָ שְׂאוֹר. וְהָכְתִיב תַּשְׁבִּיתוּ שְּׂאוֹר מִבָּתֵּיכֶם. בַּעֲשֵׂה הוּא. וְהָא כְתִיב שִׁבְעַת יָמִים שְׂאוֹר לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְּבָתֵּיכֶם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁזֶּה צָרִיךְ לָזֶה וְזֶה צָרִיךְ לָזֶה כְּמִי שֶׁכּוּלָּן אֶחָד. לֹא יֵ‍רָאֶה לְךָ. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. הִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ יְהֵא מוּתָּר. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְּבָתֵּיכֶם. אִי לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְּבָתֵּיכֶם הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. יִיחַד לֹו בָיִת יְהֵא אָסוּר. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא יֵ‍רָאֶה לְךָ. הָא כֵיצַד. הִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ אָסוּר. יִיחַד לוֹ בָיִת מוּתָּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Rebbi Jehudah says,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Jehudah, corresponding to the three times that in the Torah is written, *leavening shall not be seen as yours*⁸⁸. 13:7, once in *Deut.* 16:4.. But is it not written⁸⁹. 12:15., *you shall remove leavening from your houses?* That is a positive commandment. But is it not written⁹⁰. 12:19., *for seven days leavening shall not be found in your houses?* Rebbi Yose said, since they are mutually needed⁹¹, they are as one. *It should not be seen as yours,* I would have said, if somebody⁹² deposited with him it should be permitted. The verse says, *it shall not be found in your houses.* If *it shall not be found in your houses,* if he gave him a separate place⁹³ it should be forbidden. The verse says, *it shall not be seen as yours.* How is this? If he deposited with him it is forbidden; if he gave him a separate place it is permitted.

footnotes:
⁸⁸ Twice in Ex
⁸⁹ Ex
⁹⁰ Ex
⁹¹ As explained in the sequel.
⁹² A Gentile’s leavened matter, which is exempt from Jewish law. But if it is a deposit, i. e., that the Jew is responsible for damages, it becomes the Jew’s property for the rules of Passover.
⁹³ A Gentile’s leavened matter stored at a separate place for which the Jewish owner of the place accepts no responsibility may stay there over Passover. Babli 6a.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:3:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:3:3)

מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּתַנֵּי. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. בּוֹדְקִין אוֹר לְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר. וּבְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר בְּשַׁחֲרִית. וּבִשְׁעַת הַבִּיעוּר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. אִם לֹא בָדַק אוֹר לְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יִבְדּוֹק בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר. צָרִיךְ לִבְדּוֹק שְׁלֹשָׁה פְעָמִים. מָה אִם בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַן בִּיעוּרוֹ אַתְּ אָמַר. צָרִיךְ לִבְדּוֹק שְׁלשָׁה פְעָמִים. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהִגִּיעַ זְמַן בִּעוּרוֹ לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן. (לֹא צוֹרְכָה דְלֹא. לֹא בָדַק בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יִבְדּוֹֹק בְּמוֹעֵד. צָרִיךְ לִבְדּוֹק שְׁלשָׁה פְעָמִים. מָה אִם בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַן בִּיעוּרוֹ אַתְּ אָמַר. צָרִיךְ לִבְדּוֹק שְׁלשָׁה פְעָמִים. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ זְמַן בִּיעוּרוֹ לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן.) לֹא צוֹרְכָה דְלֹא. אִם לֹא בָדַק בְּתוֹךְ הַמּוֹעֵד יִבְדּוֹק לְאַחַר הַמּוֹעֵד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted⁹⁴. As we have stated, “Rebbi Jehudah says, one checks at nightfall of the Fourteenth, and on the mourning of the Fourteenth, and at the time of elimination⁵ 12:17–18.. But the Sages say, if he did not check at nightfall of the Fourteenth, he has to check on the Fourteenth.” Does he have to check three times? Since at a time before its term of elimination you are saying that he has to check three times, at the moment of the term of elimination not so much more? ⁹⁵(No, it need not be so. If he did not check on the Fourteenth, he has to check on the holiday. Does he have to check three times? Since at a time before its term of elimination you are saying that he has to check three times, at the moment of the term of elimination not so much more?) No, it need not be so. If he did not check on the holiday, he has to check after the holiday⁹⁶.

footnotes:
⁹⁴ It is not spelled out what other opinion of R. Jehudah is in conflict with his statement in the Mishnah. It seems that while he is stringent in the requirement of triple checking before the holiday he is lenient in not requiring anything afterwards if checking was not done by the time of elimination.
⁵ Ex.
⁹⁵ The text in parentheses was deleted by the corrector and therefore is not found in the printed texts. It is a necessary component of the argument.
⁹⁶ The answer to the question was that certainly R. Jehudah would agree with the Sages that checking during or after the holidays is required if it was not done beforehand (a position rejected by the Babli 10b–11a.) The only question is whether in these cases also R. Jehudah requires triple checking. Since he does not spell out his position, an attempt to determine this by inferences is unsuccessful. Since practice does not follow R. Jehudah, a final answer is not given.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:3:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:3:4)

וּמַה שֶּׁהוּא מְשַׁיֵיר יַנִּיחֶינּוּ בְצִינְעָה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה אַחֲרָיו. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה. כּוֹפֶה עָלָיו כֶּלִי. כָּפָה עָלָיו כֶּלִי וְלֹא מְצָאוֹ. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר יָד נְטַלְּתוֹ. לֹא כָפָה עָלָיו כֶּלִי וְלֹא מְצָאוֹ. אוֹתוֹ הַבָּיִת צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה. אוֹ שְׁאָר כָּל הַבָּתִּים לֹא יְהוּ צְרִיכִין בְּדִיקָה. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. אָבַד כְּזַיִת מִן הַמֵּת בַּבָּיִת. בִּקְשׁוֹ וְלֹא מְצָאוֹ. הַבָּיִת טָהוֹר. לִכְשֶׁיִימָּצֵא. הַבָּיִת טָמֵא לְמַפְרֵעַ. הָדָא יָלְפָה מִן הַהִיא. וְהַהִיא יָלְפָא מִן הָדָא. הָדָא יָלְפָא מִן הַהִיא. הִיא אִיבֵּד הִיא הִינִּיחַ. וְהַהִיא יָלְפָה מִן הָדָא. אֵין לָךְ צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה אֶלָּא אוֹתוֹ הַבָּיִת בִּלְבַד. וּכְרִבִּי יוּדָה אֲפִילוּ אוֹתוֹ הַבָּיִת לֹא יְהֵא צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה. נִישְׁמְעִינָיהּ מִן הָדָא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה. מַעֲשֶׂה בְשִׁפְחָתוֹ שֶׁלְמִסִּיק אֶחָד בְּרִימוֹן שֶׁהִשְׁלִיכָה נֶפֶל אֶחָד לְבוֹר. וּבָא כֹהֵן אֶחָד וְהֵצִיץ לֵידַע מַה שֶׁהִשְׁלִיכָה. וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְטִיהֲרוּ. שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ חוּלְדָה וּבַרְדְּלֵיס לִהְיוֹת גּוֹרְרִין אוֹתוֹ. רַצָּה הִיא אַחַר הַבָּשָׂר. וְאֵינָהּ רַצָּה אַחַר הַפַּת. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר. רַצָּה הִיא אַחַר הַבָּשָׂר וְאַחַר הַפַּת. בָּשָׂר גּוֹרֶרֶת וְאוֹכֶלֶת. פַּת גּוֹרֶרֶת וּמֶנַחַת. רַבֵּנִין דְּקַיְסָרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא גֵרְרָה חוּלְדָּה. וּכְרִבִּי יוּדָה חוֹשְׁשִׁין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“And what he leaves he should deposit at a guarded place so that he would not be obligated to repeat checking⁸⁷.” What does he do? He covers it with a vessel. If he covered it with a vessel but did not find it⁹⁷. I am saying that a hand took it. If he did not cover it with a vessel and did not find it, this house⁹⁸ needs checking. Or the other houses would not need checking? Let us hear from the following⁹⁹ 3:5.: “If the volume of an olive from a cadaver was lost in a house; it was searched but not found. The house is pure; if it will be found, the house is retroactively impure.” This can teach about that and that can teach about this. This can teach about that, there is no difference between “was lost” and “what he leaves”¹⁰⁰. And that can teach about this, only this house needs to be checked. Following Rebbi Jehudah even this house should not need to be checked, as we may hear from the following:¹⁰¹ 16:13. “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the slave girl of a discharged veteran¹⁰² cf. *Bava qamma* 10:6, Notes 60. at Rimmon threw a still birth into a cistern. A Cohen came and looked to know what she had thrown down. The case came before the Sages and they declared him pure¹⁰³ for moles and martens usually drag it away.” It runs after flesh, it does not run after bread¹⁰⁴. And even if you are saying that it runs after flesh and bread, it drags away flesh and eats it; it drags away bread and stores it. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: One does not suspect that a mole dragged it, but following Rebbi Jehudah one suspects it¹⁰⁵.

footnotes:
⁸⁷ Any bread and leavened matter to be used on the morning of the Fourteenth must be secured after the checking in the evening since if some of it would be missing in the morning the entire checking procedure would have to be repeated.
⁹⁷ If the bread was covered, we assume that a human took it. If it was uncovered, one assumes that an animal took it. In the Babli 9b one supposes in both cases that an animal took it; this also seems to be the underlying hypothesis in the Yerushalmi. Rabbenu Yeruham (Part 1, Path 5, 39a) reads in the first case אימא שד נטלתו “I would say, a spirit took it” but from Ravia §444 (vol. 2, p.68) it seems that for שד “spirit” one should read שיד “that a hand”, meaning a human hand. Raviah notes that his own copy of the Yerushalmi does not contain the passage. In any case the reading of R. Yeruham is suspect since אימא is Babylonian Aramaic based on Accadic, for standard אימר, תימר.
⁹⁸ Since a standard house had one room, it might be better to translate “a room”.
⁹⁹ Tosephta Tahorot
¹⁰⁰ This is the original assertion that the rules of Passover Eve can be compared to the rules of impurity.
¹⁰¹ Babli 9a, Tosephta Ahilut
¹⁰² Latin missicus,
¹⁰³ By bending over the opening of the cistern the Cohen would become impure by “tent impurity” if the body still was there.
¹⁰⁴ Babli 9a.
¹⁰⁵ R. Jehudah cannot accept Mishnah 2, otherwise he would accept single checking.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:4:1)

**משנה:** רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר אוֹכְלִין כָּל חָמֵשׁ וְשׂוֹרְפִין בִּתְחִילַּת שֵׁשׁ. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אוֹכְלִין כָּל אַרְבַּע וְתוֹלִין כָּל חָמֵשׁ וְשׂוֹרְפִין בִּתְחִילַּת שֵׁשׁ:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Rebbi Meïr says, one eats¹⁰⁶ all during the fifth [hour]¹⁰⁷ and burns at the start of the sixth. Rebbi Jehudah says, one eats the entire fourth [hour], suspends¹⁰⁸ during the fifths, and burns at the start of the sixth.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁶ Leavened food on the 14th of Nisan.
¹⁰⁷ According to most opinions. the standard day is counted from sunrise to sundown and is divided into 12 hours. At the spring equinox the day starts at 6 am local time; then the fourth hour is 9–10 am, the fifth 10–11 am and the start of the sixth is 11 am.
¹⁰⁸ One neither eats nor burns.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:4:2)

**הלכה:** רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר אוֹכְלִין כָּל חָמֵשׁ כול׳. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעֲלָן מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעֲלָן מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. אַךְ בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן. זֶה חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר. יָכוֹל מִשֶּׁתֶּחְשָׁךְ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אַךְ. הָא כֵיצַד. תֶּן לוֹ לִפְנֵי שְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה שָׁעָה אַחַת. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יוּדָה. אַךְ בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן. זֶה אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר. יָכוֹל כָּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אַךְ. הָא כֵיצַד. חֲלוֹק אֶת הַיּוֹם חֶצְיוֹ לְחָמֵץ וְחֶצְיוֹ לְמַצָּה. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. אַךְ לְרַבּוֹת. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר. אַךְ לָמָעֵט. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אֶבְודַּוּמָא. מִיעֲטוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְחָמֵץ. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ. עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ. עַל עֲשִׂיָיתוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Rebbi Meïr says, one eats all during the fifth [hour],” etc. ¹⁰⁹ 5:3 where in general it is agreed that in a criminal case where it is necessary to determine the time of an alleged crime a difference of two hours in the testimony of different witnesses invalidates the testimonies; R. Jehudah applies this also to noontime but the anonymous Tanna (supposed to be R. Meïr) disagrees and allows discrepancies up to two hours in this case.
The scribe of the Leiden ms., after the text translated here in the first 5 sentences, wrote: “one repeats from *Sanhedrin* until the sun never starts setting’.” The corrector who prepared the ms. for the Venice printer added the omitted portion; his text differs from *Sanhedrin* by both an addition and a lacuna. It is impossible to decide whether the corrector’s text be copied from a different ms. or represents the corrector’s emendations of the *Sanhedrin* text. In neither text is the use of references “here” and “there” (either *Pesaḥim* or *Sanhedrin)* completely consistent. Rebbi Meïr says, from noontime on it¹¹⁰ is from their words; Rebbi Jehudah says, from noontime on it is biblical. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? *Only on the first day*¹¹¹ 12:15: *Seven days you shall eat maẓzot; only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses …* אַךְ might also be translated as “certainly”.*,* that is the fifteenth¹¹² 12:14 states: *This day shall be a remembrance for you; you shall keep it as a holiday of pilgrimage for the Eternal … Num.* 28:15–16 require that the 14 of Nisan be *pesaḥ* for the Eternal; starting from the 15 for seven days it is the holiday of *mazzot.* Since *pesaḥ* (i. e., the day of the slaughter of the *pesaḥ* sacrifice) is connected inextricably with the holiday of *mazzot,* the reference in v. 14 to the “first day” is intrinsically ambiguous, whether it refer to *pesaḥ* or to the holiday.. I could think at nightfall; the verse says *only,*¹¹³ (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 28), *Mekhilta dR. Simeon b. Iohai* (ed. Epstein-Melamed p. 17).*.* How is this? Give it one hour before sundown¹¹⁴. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? *Only on the first day,* that is the fourteenth. I could think the entire day; the verse says *only.* How is that? Split the day, half for leavened matter, half for *mazzah.* Rebbi Meïr’s argument seems inverted. There, he said *only* to add; here he said *only* to diminish¹¹⁵ 12:16: …*no work shall be done [on the holidays],* only *what may be eaten by any soul, it alone may be made by you.* Everybody agrees that food may be prepared on a holiday. According to R. Meïr (i. e., the anonymous opinion in Mishnah *Megillah* 1:8) *only* food may be prepared, not preparations necessary for the preparation of food. According to R. Jehudah (*Megillah* 1:8), anything that in the end leads to preparation of food is permitted on a holiday. R. Meïr reads *only* as a restriction in v. 16 and as an addition in v. 15!. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he diminished, he excludes leavened matter. Rebbi Meïr says, *do not eat leavened matter with it*¹¹⁶ 16:3, referring to the *pesaḥ* sacrifice which is slaughtered on the afternoon of the 14 and eaten in the night of the 15., while it is eaten. Rebbi Jehudah says, *do not eat leavened matter with it,* while it is prepared¹¹⁷ 130..

footnotes:
¹⁰⁹ The text is copied from Sanhedrin
¹¹⁰ The prohibition of leavened matter on Passover Eve.
¹¹¹ Ex.
¹¹² Ex.
¹¹³ A similar argument is in the Babli, 4b, Mekhilta dR. Ismael
¹¹⁴ I. e., the only biblical requirement is that all leavened matter be completely disposed of before the holiday at sundown.
¹¹⁵ It seems that this refers to Ex.
¹¹⁶ Deut.
¹¹⁷ In the afternoon of the 14th. This supports R. Jehudah’s contention that leavened matter is biblically forbidden in the afternoon of the 14th; Sifry Deut.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:4:3)

רִבִּי יוּדָה אִית לֵיהּ [עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ. עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל בִּיעוּרוֹ. עֲשֵׂה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ. שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תֹּאכַל עָלָיו מַצּוֹת. וְלֹא חָמֶץ. כָּל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהוּא בָא מִכֹּחַ עֲשֵׂה. עֲשֵׂה. לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ. לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ. עֲשֵׂה עַל בִּיעוּרוֹ. תַּשְׁבִּיתוּ שְׂאוֹר. לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל בִּיעוּרוֹ. שִׁבְעַת יָמִים שְׂאוֹר לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְּבָתֵּיכֶם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jehudah has [both a positive and a negative commandment concerning its eating¹¹⁸, a positive and a negative commandment concerning its¹¹⁹ removal. A positive commandment concerning its eating, *seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it,* but not leavened. Any prohibition which is implied by a positive commandment has the status of positive commandment¹²⁰ 1:5, Note 103. If a positive commandment is in conflict with a negative one (a prohibition), the positive is stronger. But an obligation which is both positive and negative is stronger than anything else.. A negative commandment concerning its eating, *do not eat leavened for it.* A positive commandment concerning its removal, *you shall remove sour dough*¹¹¹ 12:15: *Seven days you shall eat maẓzot; only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses …* אַךְ might also be translated as “certainly”.*.* A negative commandment concerning its removal, *for seven days sour dough shall not be found in your houses*¹²¹ 12:19..

footnotes:
¹¹⁸ “It” here refers to maẓzah.
¹¹⁹ “It” here refers to leavened matter.
¹²⁰ It is not an indictable offense; cf. Bikkurim
¹¹¹ Ex.
¹²¹ Ex.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:4:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:4:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:4:4)

הָא רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעֲלָה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. שְׁבִיעִית אֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם גָּדֵר. שִׁשִּׁית לָמָּה. מִשּׁוּם גָּדֵר. וְיֵשׁ גָּדֵר לְגָדֵר. אֶלָּא שָׁעָה שִׁשִּׁית מִתְחַלֶּפֶת בַשְּׁבִיעִית. הָא רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. מֵחָמֵשׁ וּלְמַעֲלָה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן שִׁשִּׁית אֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם גָּדֵר. חֲמִישִּׁית לָמָּה. מִשּׁוּם גָּדֵר. וְיֵשׁ גָּדֵר לְגָדֵר. אֶלָּא שֶׁחֲמִישִּׁית מִתְחַלֶּפֶת בַשְּׁבִיעִית.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Now Rebbi Meïr says, after noontime it is forbidden because of their words. The seventh hour is forbidden because of a fence. Why the sixth? Because of a fence¹²² of the 6, extending the rabbinic prohibition for another hour as a fence around the fence, a practice generally rejected.. Is there a fence around a fence? But the sixth hour may be confounded with the seventh123 5:3. In a society without watches the difference between 11am and 12am is not generally recognized; a prohibition enforced after noontime must practically be enforced starting from 11am.. ¹²⁴ Now Rebbi Jehudah says, after the fifth hour it is forbidden because of their words; the sixth hour is forbidden because of a fence. Why the fifth? Because of a fence. Is there a fence around a fence? But the fifth hour may be confounded with the seventh.

footnotes:
¹²² For R. Meïr, the biblical prohibition of leavened matter starts at the 11th hour (5 pm local time). The earlier afternoon hours, including the 7th, are rabbinically forbidden as a “fence around the law”. Then it is difficult to understand why leavened matter has to be burned at the start
¹²⁴ The remainder of the paragraph is missing in Sanhedrin.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:4:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:4:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:4:5)

מִחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. אֵין חֲמִישִּׁית מִתְחַלֶּפֶת בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. תַּמָּן הַדָּבָר מָסוּר לְבֵית דִּין. וּבֵית דִּין זְרִיזִין הֵן. בְּרַם הָכָא הַדָּבָר מָסוּר לַנָּשִׁים. וְהַנָּשִׁים עֲצֵילוֹת הֵן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּרִבִּי בּוּן. תַּמָּן תְּחִילַּת חֲמִישִּׁית סוֹף שְׁבִיעִית. בְּרַם הָכָא סוֹף חֲמִישִּׁית תְּחִילַּת שְׁבִיעִית. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. שֶׁבַּתְּחִילַּת חָמֵשׁ חַמָּה בַמִּזְרָח וְסוֹף שָׁעָה חַמָּה בַמַּעֲרָב. לְעוֹלָם אֵין הַחַמָּה נוֹטָה לְמַעֲרָב אֶלָּא בְסוֹף שֶׁבַע.]

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There¹²⁵ R. Jehudah agrees that while without watches people cannot distinguish between two morning or two afternoon hours, he explicitly agrees that people distinguish between fifth (10–11am) and seventh (12am–1pm)., he says that the fifth cannot be confounded with the seventh. Rebbi Yose said, there the matter is given over to the court, and the court is diligent. But here the matter is given over to women who are slow. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there¹²⁶ the Mishnah does not require the court to accept any testimonies where the witnesses differ widely in determining the time of a crime; R. Jehudah admonishes the court under certain circumstances to investigate whether the witnesses do not in reality testify about the same time; Babli *Pesaḥim* 12b. it is a matter between the beginning of the fifth and the end of the seventh hour. Here it is between the end of the fifth and the start of the seventh¹²⁷ the period of doubt is little more than 60 min., in *Sanhedrin* close to 180 min. The apparent inconsistency is due to the informal use of “hour.”. It also was stated thus¹²⁸: At the start of the fifth hour the sun is in the East, and at the end of the [seventh] hour the sun is in the West. The sun never starts setting before the end of the seventh hour.]

footnotes:
¹²⁵ Referring to Sanhedrin.
¹²⁶ In Sanhedrin
¹²⁷ In Pesaḥim
¹²⁸ Babli 12b.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:4:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:4:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:4:6)

רַב אָמַר. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּחָמֵץ מִשֵׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעֲלָן לֹא עָשָׂה כְלוּם. אָמַר רִבִּי חוּנָה. וְיֵאוּת. אִילּוּ חִטִּים קוֹרְטֻבָּנִיוֹת בַּמִּדִבָּר דִּילְמָא טָבָן אִינִין בְמוֹעֲדָא כָלוּם. חַד בַּר נַשׁ אַפְקִיד דִיסִיקִיָא דְּפִיסְתָּא גַּבֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה רוּבָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. יוֹחָנָן חִיקוֹקִיָא הֲוָה. אֲתַא שְׁאַל לְרִבִּי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. תִּימָּכֵר עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין בִּשְׁעַת הַבִּיעוּר. חַד בַּר נַשׁ אַפְקִיד גַּרְבָּא דְכוּתְחָא גַּבֵּי רַב חִיָיה בַּר אַשִׁי. אֲתַא שְׁאַל לְרַב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. יִמָּכֵר עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין בִּשְׁעַת הַבִּיעוּר. הֵיי דָנוֹ שְׁעַת הַבִּיעוּר. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר. בְּשַׁחֲרִית. רִבִּי בָּא אָמַר. חֲמִישִּׁית כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. כְּלוּם אָמְרוּ לִיגַּע בָּהֶן לְמוֹכְרָן לֹא מִפְּנֵי הָשֵׁב אֲבֵידָה לַבְּעָלִים. חֲמִישִּׁית כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה לֹא טָבָה כְלוּם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rav said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: He who preliminarily marries with leavened matter starting from the sixth hour did not do anything¹²⁹ 1:1, Note 73. A preliminary marriage can be contracted in different ways; one of them is delivering something of value to the bride. While leavened matter for R. Jehudah is prohibited only after noontime of the 14 of Nisan, since it is rabbinically forbidden after the start of the fifth hour it no longer has any monetary value. Babli 7a.. Rebbi Huna said, this is correct. Would Cordovanian¹³⁰ קורדניתא “Kurdish”. According to Rashi and R. Hananel they are very hard; to be used they have to be soaked in water and then are considered leavened and forbidden for ususfruct on Passover. wheat in the desert be any good on the holiday? A person deposited a double sack¹³¹ of bread with the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, he was Joḥanan from Ḥiqoq. He went and asked Rebbi who told him, it should be sold under judicial supervision at the time of elimination¹³². A person deposited a jar of *kutaḥ*¹³³ with Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi. He went and asked Rav who told him, it should be sold under judicial supervision at the time of elimination. What is the time of elimination¹³⁴? Rebbi Jeremiah said, in the morning¹³⁵. Rebbi Aḥa said, the fifth [hour] following Rebbi Jehudah¹³⁶. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Jeremiah said it correctly. Did they not say to touch them in order to sell them only to return a lost article to its owner¹³⁷? In the fifth [hour] following Rebbi Jehudah it is not worth anything.

footnotes:
¹²⁹ Qiddušin
¹³⁰ In the Babli, loc. cit.,
¹³¹ Greek δισάκκιον, τό. A different version is in the Babli 13a.
¹³² The owner did not collect his property before Passover Eve. To avoid it becoming worthless, it has to be sold to Gentiles and the proceeds kept in trust for the owner.
¹³³ A kind of yogurt made in Babylonia from milk, salt, and mouldy bread as source of the bacteria. This is leavened matter.
¹³⁴ When is the time to sell leavened matter whose owner did not collect it in time?
¹³⁵ The entire morning of the 14th of Nisan.
¹³⁶ This is the Babli’s decision in the name of Rebbi, 13a.
¹³⁷ In general, an unpaid keeper is not responsible for losses unless he manipulates the deposit without authorization. Without incurring financial responsibility he only can sell by direction of the court in order to avoid major financial loss to the depositor.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:4:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:4:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:4:7)

חֲבֵרַיָּיא אָמְרִין. חֲמִישִּׁית כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה הִקְדִּישׁוֹ מוּקְדָּשׁ. עֲשָׂאוֹ תְרוּמָה אֵינָהּ תְּרוּמָה. הִקְדִּישׁוֹ מוּקְדָּשׁ. הֶקְדֵּשׁ דָּמִים. עֲשָׂאוֹ תְרוּמָה אֵינָהּ תְּרוּמָה. שֶׁלֹּא נִיתְנָה תְרוּמָה אֶלָּא לַאֲכִילָה בִּלְבַד. אֲמַר לוֹן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְלָא חִילּוּפִּין. הִקְדִּישׁוֹ אֵינוֹ מוּקְדָּשׁ. עֲשָׂאוֹ תְרוּמָה הֲרֵי זוֹ תְרוּמָה. הִקְדִּישׁוֹ אֵינוֹ מוּקְדָּשׁ. שֶׁאֵין פּוֹדִין אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לִכְלָבִים. עֲשָׂאוֹ תְרוּמָה הֲרֵי זוֹ תְרוּמָה. טְהוֹרָה הִיא דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אַתְּ הוּא שֶׁגָּזַרְתָּה עָלֶיהָ שְׂרֵיפָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The colleagues said, in the fifth [hour] following Rebbi Jehudah if he dedicated it it is dedicated¹³⁸ as mentioned in *Ex.*13:7.; if he designated it as heave it is no heave. If he dedicated it it is dedicated, dedication of money’s worth¹³⁹. If he designated it as heave it is no heave, since heave was given only to be consumed¹⁴⁰ to be given to the Cohen to be consumed in purity; nothing pure that cannot be consumed may become heave.. Rebbi Yose told them, the opposite is reasonable. If he dedicated it it is not dedicated; if he designated it as heave it is heave. If he dedicated it it is not dedicated, since one does not redeem *sancta* to feed to the dogs¹⁴¹ 11b, *Bekhorot* 15a, *Temurah* 17a,30b,31a; Yerushalmi *Maˋaser Šeni* 2:5 Note 82.. If he designated it as heave it is heave, since it is pure by the words of the Torah¹⁴². You are the one who decided that it has to be burned.

footnotes:
¹³⁸ In order to avoid having to burn the leavened matter, he dedicates it to the Temple to be sold and the proceeds used for the Temple’s needs. Temple property is not subject to the prohibition of leavened matter since it is not yours
¹³⁹ Even for R. Jehudah the biblical prohibition of usufruct only starts on midday of the 14th; during the fifth hour the matter is worth money even for Jews, since it may be used as cattle feed.
¹⁴⁰ Heave is a sanctum
¹⁴¹ Babli 29a, Ševuot
¹⁴² Since by biblical standards it is food until 12 am, a rabbinic prohibition cannot invalidate a biblically valid dedication. This cannot be compared with the case of preliminary marriage since there money’s worth is required, which was eliminated by rabbinic usage.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:5:1)

**משנה:** וְעוֹד אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת שֶׁל תּוֹדָה פְּסוּלוֹת וּמוּנָּחוֹת עַל גַּג הָאִיצְטֳבָא. כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהֶן מוּנָּחוֹת כָּל הָעָם אוֹכְלִין. נִיטְלָה אַחַת תּוֹלִין לֹא אוֹכְלִין וְלֹא שׂוֹרְפִין. נִיטְלוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן הִתְחִילוּ כָּל הָעָם שׂוֹרְפִין. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר חוּלִין נֶאֱכָלִין כָּל אַרְבַּע וּתְרוּמָה כָּל חָמֵשׁ וְשׂוֹרְפִין בִּתְחִילַּת שֵׁשׁ:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** In addition, Rebbi Jehudah said, two disqualified loaves of thanksgiving offering¹⁴³ 7:13). Since the bread was kept until the time its consumption was forbidden, one used loaves which could not be eaten, either because they were impure or because they were from the preceding day’s offering. A thanksgiving offering must be consumed on the day it is offered *(Lev.* 7:15), this applies not only to the meat but also to the accompanying cereal. were lying on the roof of the stoa¹⁴⁴. As long as they were lying there, everybody was eating. If one was removed one suspends, neither does one eat nor burn. If both were removed, everybody started to burn.
Rabban Gamliel says, profane food is eaten the entire fourth [hour] and heave the entire fifth; and one burns at the start of the sixth.

footnotes:
¹⁴³ At Jerusalem in Temple times, the Temple was the timekeeper and signalled to the people the times to dispose of leavened matter. A thanksgiving offering requires the addition of leavened bread (Lev.
¹⁴⁴ The stoa surrounding the Temple Mount. Babli 13b


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:5:2)

**הלכה:** רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. כְּשֵׁירוֹת הָיוּ. מִשֵּׁם מַאי הוּא פוֹסְלָן. שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁחוֹט עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת הַזֶּבַח. וְלֹא בִשְׁחִיטָה הֵן קְדֵישׁוֹת. וְיִפָּדֶה וְיֵאָכֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה. חוֹלִיָיא קוֹמוֹי לֹא אָכַל. וְאַתְּ אָמַרְתָּ. יִפָּדֶה וְיֵאָכֵל. רִבִּי [חֲנִינָא] אָמַר. פְּסוּלוֹת הָיוּ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מְמַהֲרִין לְהָבִיא תוֹדוֹתֵיהֶן מִפּנֵי חָמֵץ שֶׁבַּתוֹדָה. וְאֵי אֶיפְשַׁר שֶׁלֹּא יִישָּׁפֵךְ דָּמָהּ שֶׁלְאֶחָד מֵהֶן וְהִיא נִפְסֶלֶת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: They were qualified¹⁴⁵. And why does he treat them as disqualified? Not to slaughter the sacrifice for them⁶? Does it mean on the first month, or on the first day of the holidays?. But do they not become *sancta* only by the slaughter? They should be redeemed and be eaten¹⁴⁶! Rebbi Ḥanania said, he has profane [bread] before him which he could not eat and you are saying, they should be redeemed and be eaten? Rebbi [Ḥanina]¹⁴⁷ אלא). said, they were disqualified. Since they are in a hurry to bring their thanksgiving sacrifices because of the leavened bread with the sacrifice¹⁴⁸, it is impossible that not the blood of one of them be spilled¹⁴⁹ and it becomes disqualified.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁵ The breads exhibited as a sign. Babli 13b.
⁶ What means on the first
¹⁴⁶ They were dedicated as bread accompanying a thanksgiving sacrifice; their holiness is that of a gift to the Temple, not that of a sacrifice. Once the sacrifice was slaughtered and the blood sprinkled on the altar, the bread becomes intrinsically holy and its status equals that of sacrificial meat which cannot be redeemed. This implies that any time before the slaughter, the bread can be redeemed to regain profane status and other bread dedicated in its stead. The bread cannot become disqualified if the corresponding sacrifice is not slaughtered.
¹⁴⁷ The name is missing in the ms. and the printed editions but retained in the quote of this passage by Tosaphot (13b s.v.
¹⁴⁸ The Yerushalmi assumes that thanksgiving sacrifices may be offered on the 14th. These are family sacrifices and in this case must be eaten as long as the bread may be eaten. Since no sacrifices may be offered before the daily morning sacrifice, the time to consume an entire animal is very short. The Babli 13b holds that no thanksgiving sacrifice is accepted on the 14th and refers R. Yannai’s statement to bread dedicated for such a sacrifice which then cannot be used for sacrificial purposes.
¹⁴⁹ An argument accepted in the Babli 13b as minority opinion of R. Simeon ben Eleazar.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:5:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:5:3)

תַּנֵּי. שְׁתֵּי פָּרוֹת חוֹרְשׁוֹת [בִּירוּשָׁלִַם.] וִירושָׁלִַם לֹא בְמָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲשׂוֹת מָלָאכָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׁר הִיא. נִרָאֵית כְּחוֹרְשׁוֹת. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. שְׁתֵּי נֵירוֹת דּוֹלְקִין. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. שְׁנֵי סַדִּינִין. אָמַר רִבִּי פִינְחָס. וְלֹא פְלִיגִין. מָאן דְּאָמַר. שְׁתֵּי פָּרוֹת שְׁתֵּי נֵירוֹת. בַּחוֹל. מָאן דָּמַר. שְׁנֵי סַדִּינִין. בַּשַּׁבָּת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated: Two cows were ploughing [in Jerusalem]¹⁵⁰. But is Jerusalem not a place where they used not to work on the Fourteenth¹⁵¹? They were looking as if ploughing. There are Tannaim who stated: Two lights were burning. There are Tannaim who stated: Two sheets¹⁵². Rebbi Phineas said, they do not disagree. He who said, two cows, two lights, on a weekday. He who said, two sheets, on the Sabbath.

footnotes:
¹⁵⁰ Babli 14a. In this version they were ploughing on Mount Olivet and could be seen everywhere in Jerusalem. One had to stop eating leavened bread when only one cow was seen.
¹⁵¹ The 14th is a semi-holiday. As noted in Mishnah 4:1, whether work in the morning was permitted or forbidden was a matter of local custom.
¹⁵² Two large linen sheets displayed as flags.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:5:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:5:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:5:4)

רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. וְיִקְבְּעוּ לָהּ תְּקִיעָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן נִמְצֵאתָה [אוֹמֵר. שֶׁמָּא] לְתָמִיד הֵן תוֹקְעִין [וְהֵן מִתְקַלְקְלִין]. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. שָׁלשׁ לְהַבְטִיל אֶת הָעָם מִן הַמְּלָאכָה. וְשָׁלשׁ לְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין קוֹדֶשׁ לְחוֹל. אָמַר לֵיהּ. תַּמָּן כָּל עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת הֵן תוֹקְעִין וְאֵינָּן טוֹעִין. בְּרַם הָכָא אַחַת לְקִיצִּין הֵן. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן. אַף הֵן סְבוּרִין שֶׁמָּא לְתָמִיד הֵן תוֹקְעִין וְהֵן מִתְקַלְקְלִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Ḥananiah asked before Rebbi Mana, should they not insitute trumpet blowing? If you say so, it would turn out that [they would say, maybe] they blow for the daily sacrifice¹⁵³ 10:10.[, and they would be led astray]. He retorted, but did we not state: “Three to separate people from work, and three to separate between weekday and holiness”¹⁵⁴ 5:5. Every Friday afternoon after the daily sacrifice trumpets were blown to announce the coming of the Sabbath.? He answered him, there every single Friday they are blowing, one will not err. But here it is once in a long time; if you say so, it would turn out that they would say, maybe they blow for the daily sacrifice, and they would be led astray.

footnotes:
¹⁵³ As required by Num.
¹⁵⁴ Mishnah Sukkah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:5:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:5:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:5:5)

לָמַּה. מִפְּנֵי קְדושָּׁתָהּ. אוֹ מִשׁוּם שֶׁאֵין אוֹכְלֶיהָ מְצוּיִין. מַה נְפִיק מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. חַלּוֹת תּוֹדָה. אִין תֵּימַר שֶׁאֵין אוֹכְלֶיהָ מְצוּיִין. אֵילּוּ אוֹכְלֶיהֶן מְצוּיִין. אִין תֵּימַר מִפְּנֵי קְדושָּׁתָהּ. אֵילּוּ יֵשׁ לָהֶן קְדוּשָּׁה. רִבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר. כְּשֵׁירוֹת נִיטְלוּ (שֶׁיְּהוּ) [שׁוֹהִין] לָהֶן שָׁעָה אַחַת לַאֲכִילָתָן וְתוֹלִין אֲבָל לֹא שׂוֹרְפִין. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר מִשׁוּם שֶׁאֵין אוֹכְלֶיהָ מְצוּיִין. לֹא מִפְּנֵי קְדושָּׁתָהּ. אוֹף הָכָא מִפְּנֵי קְדושָּׁתָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Why¹⁵⁵ and may be eaten only by pure Cohanim, be eaten an additional hour?? Because of its holiness or because its eaters are few? What is the difference between them? The breads of the thanksgiving sacrifice. If you are saying because its eaters are few, the eaters of these are many¹⁵⁶. If you are saying because of its holiness, these are holy. Rebbi Nathan says, they¹⁵⁷ and that they were lifted together and eaten, exactly one hour before leavening had to be burned. were taken when qualified, (that there be) [one waits]¹⁵⁸ one hour when they can be eaten, one suspends but does not burn. Could you say because its eaters are few¹⁵⁹? No, because of its holiness; here also because of its holiness.

footnotes:
¹⁵⁵ Why may heave, which is a sanctum
¹⁵⁶ Of the 10 breads accompanying a thanksgiving sacrifice, 9 are eaten by the offerer and his family, only one by a Cohen.
¹⁵⁷ He agrees with R. Jehudah that two breads were displayed as a sign that leavened matter may be eaten. He disagrees with him on two points. First, that the breads were pure sancta,
¹⁵⁸ The scribe’s text (in parentheses) is as good as the corrector’s [in brackets]/
¹⁵⁹ Since they are only two, they could be eaten by the person lifting them.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:5:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:5:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:5:6)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה בֵּן פָּזִי. נִרָאִין דְּבָרִים שֶׁתְּהֵא הֲלָכָה כְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר מֵעֵין שְׁנֵיהֶן. אֲתֲאַ רִבִּי אָבוּן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹצָדָק. הֲלָכָה כְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר מֵעֵין שְׁנֵיהֶן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, it seems that practice has to follow Rabban Gamliel since he says it similar to both of them¹⁶⁰ There came Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq: practice follows Rabban Gamliel since what he says is similar to both of them.

footnotes:
¹⁶⁰ R. Meïr and R. Jehudah in Mishnah 4.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:6:1)

**משנה:** רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹמֵר מִימֵיהֶן שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים לֹא נִמְנְעוּ מִלִּשְׂרוֹף אֶת הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּיטְמָא בִוְולַד הַטּוּמְאָה עִם בָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּיטְמָא בְאַב הַטּוּמְאָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמּוֹסִיפִין לוֹ טוּמְאָה עַל טוּמְאָתוֹ:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim¹⁶¹, says, the Cohanim never refrained from burning meat which became impure by derivative impurity¹⁶² 19:22) *anything an impure person touches will become impure,* it is clear that biblical original impurity induces biblical derivative impurity. In both cases, sacrificial meat which became impure must be burned. The question is raised in the Halakhah, how many stages of derivative impurity are implied by biblical law and how many are purely rabbinical. If biblically impure meat would be burned together with rabbinically impure (but biblically pure) meat, the latter could become more impure before being destroyed. with meat which became impure by original impurity even though they added impurity to it.

footnotes:
¹⁶¹ The organizer of the Temple service; one of the few permanent positions in the Temple service.
¹⁶² Since it is written (Num.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:6:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:6:2)

**הלכה:** בַּר קַפָּרָא אָמַר. אַב הַטּוּמְאָה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. וְולַד טוּמְאָה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. בֵּין זֶה בֵּין זֶה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּבַר קַפָּרָא נִיחָא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַב טוּמְאָה עוֹשֶׂה רִאשׁוֹן. וְולַד הַטּוּמְאָה עוֹשֶׂה שֵׁינִי. שֵׁינִי שֶׁנָּגַע בְּרִאשׁוֹן הֲרֵי הוּא בִמְקוֹמוֹ שֵׁינִי. שֶׁהַשְּׁלִישִׁי שֶׁנָּגַע בְּרִאשׁוֹן נַעֲשֶׂה שֵׁינִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** ¹⁶⁵ Bar Qappara said, original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words¹⁶⁶ 8:5.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both these and those are word of the Torah¹⁶⁷. In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable¹⁶⁸. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, original impurity induces first degree derivative. Derivative impurity¹⁶⁹ 19:22. The biblical rule that for material susceptible to impurity contact with derivative impurity in the first degree induces derivative impurity in the second degree is derived from *Lev.*7:19. Since there is no verse which implies the possibility of biblical derivative impurity in the third degree, derivative impurity in the second degree biblically should be characterized as *disqualified for sacral use* rather than *impure.* induces second degree derivative. Second degree impurity which touched first degree one remains in its place, second degree, since third degree which touches first degree becomes second degree¹⁷⁰.

footnotes:
¹⁶⁵ Here starts the discussion of Mishnah 7, even though this is noted only later.
¹⁶⁶ This refers to the terms used by R. Ḥananiah in the Mishnah. In the Babli, 15a/15b, the attributions are switched. In the Yerushalmi the attributions are confirmed in Šeqalim
¹⁶⁷ In his opinion, biblically pure food, even if it may no longer be eaten or sacrificed, may not be destroyed.
¹⁶⁸ The statement of R. Ḥananiah contains essential information, that one may cause impurity to food which is biblically pure in order to burn it together with biblically impure food. While it is a matter of dispute whether this applies to food in a profane setting, it is agreed that it is prohibited to increase impurity in a sacral setting.
¹⁶⁹ Derivative impurity in the first degree such as described in Num.
¹⁷⁰ Babli 14a. Then R. Ḥananiah’s statement is trivial and unnecessary.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:6:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:6:3)

תַּנֵּי. בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִין. אֵין שׂוֹרְפִין בָּשָׂר טָהוֹר עִם בָּשָׂר טָמֵא. וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּבַר קַפָּרָא נִיחָא. שׂוֹרְפִין פְּסוּל תוֹרָה עִם פְּסוּל טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. וּצְרִיכִינָן מַשְׁמַע. טוּמְאַת דִּבְרֵיהֶן עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אִם פְּסוּל תוֹרָה עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה שׂוֹרְפִין. כָּל שֶׁכֵּן טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים שְׁנָיָיהּ מִשֵּׁם בֵּית שַׁמַּי וּבֵית הִלֵּל. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן נִיחָא. דְּמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שִׁשָּׁה סְפֵיקוֹת הָיוּ תוֹלִין עֲלֵיהֶן וּבָאִין. וּבְאוּשָׁא גָּזְרוּ עֲלֵיהֶן שְׂרֵיפָה. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים לֹא לְקוֹדֶם לְאוּשָׁא הָיָה. וְקוֹדֶם לְאוּשָׁא לֹא הָיְתָה שְׂרֵיפָה לְדִבְרֵיהֶן. אָמַר לֵיהּ. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁנִּיטְמָא בִּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֲפִילוּ תֵימַר. נִיטְמָא בִּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָא רִבִּי אֲבוּנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵידָה וְיוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹחָנָן אִישׁ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם גָּזְרוּ טוּמְאָה עַל אֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים וְעַל כְּלֵי זְכוּכִית. [רִבִּי יוּדָא אָמַר. יְהוּדָה בֶּן טַבַּאי וְשִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שֶׁטַח גָּזְרוּ עַל כְּלֵי מַתָּכוֹת. הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי גָּזְרוּ עַל טַהֲרַת יָדַיִם.] רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה סָבַר מֵימַר. אֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים וּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית תְּלוּיָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר מֵימַר. אֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים תְּלוּיָה וּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית שְׂרֵיפָה. אֵלּו הֵן שִׁשָּׁה סְפֵקוֹת. עַל סְפֵק בֵּית הַפְּרָס. עַל סְפֵק אֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים. עַל סְפֵק בִּגְדֵי עַם הָאָרֶץ. עַל סְפֵק רוֹקִין. עַל סְפֵק מֵי רַגְלֵי אָדָם שֶׁהוּא כְּנֶגֶד מֵי רַגְלֵי בְהֵמָה. עַל וַדַּאי מַגָּעָן שֶׁהִיא סְפֵק טוּמְאָתָן. עַל אֵלּוּ שׂוֹרְפִין תְּרוּמָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated¹⁷¹: “The House of Shammai say, one does not burn pure meat with impure meat, but the House of Hillel permit.” In the opinion of Bar Qappara it is understandable. One burns what is disqualified¹⁷² by the Torah with what is disqualified as impure¹⁷³ by the Torah. And it was necessary to let hear, impurity by their words with impurity by the Torah¹⁶⁶ 8:5.. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one burns disqualified by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah, so much more impurity by the Torah together with impurity by the Torah. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel¹⁷⁴. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, for six doubts one was permanently suspending, but in Usha they decided burning for them¹⁷⁵ 15b.. Was Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, not before Usha¹⁷⁶? Before Usha there was no burning for their words¹⁷⁷ neither could be used nor destroyed.. He told him, explain it if it became impure in a glass vessel¹⁷⁸ 6:21), leather and textiles (*Lev.* 13:49), bone and wood (*Num.* 31:20). Other vessels cannot become impure; to this fact one attributes the great number of stone vessels found on archeological sites of the Second Temple period. (Similarly intrinsically pure vessels made of cow dung have not survived for the archeological record.) The impurity of glass vessels, unknown to Moses, is purely rabbinical. One has to take the information that the impurity of glass ware “was decided” by the heads of the Synhedrion to mean that they codified the rules which were popularly observed before. Glass vessels are compared to earthenware vessels since the former are made from sand, the latter from clay. They are also compared to metal vessels since if broken they can be melted down and made into new vessels.. He retorted, even if you are saying that it became impure in a glass vessel, did not Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abuna say in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah¹⁷⁹ 8:11, Notes 98–105; Babli *Šabbat* 14b., Yose ben Yoˋezer from Sereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decided impurity for Gentile land and glass ware¹⁸⁰7:17). What they decided was that earth of Gentile places, within or outside the Holy Land, is considered infected with the impurity of rotting human bodies. While it is in dispute whether Gentile corpses induce tent impurity, it is universally accepted that they transmit impurity by touching.. [Rebbi Jehuda said, Jehudah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetah decided on metal vessels¹⁸¹ 16b, what they decreed was that metal impure by the impurity of the dead should not become pure by being melted down, but only by sprinkling with water containing ashes of the Red Cow.. Hillel and Shammai decided on purity of hands¹⁸² 2:3, Notes 136–137; Babli *Šabbat* 14b). Corrector’s addition from *Ketubot.*.] Rebbi Jeremiah¹⁷⁹ 8:11, Notes 98–105; Babli *Šabbat* 14b. was of the opinion that for Gentile land there is suspension and for glass ware there is suspension. Rebbi Yose was of the opinion that for Gentile lands there is suspension, for glassware burning¹⁸³. The following are the six doubts¹⁸⁴ 4:5.: “On the doubt of a *bet happeras*¹⁸⁵, on the doubt of Gentile land, on the doubt of clothing of the vulgar¹⁸⁶, on the doubt of spittle¹⁸⁷, on the doubt of human urine which is separate from animal urine¹⁸⁸, on certain touch which is a doubt of impurity¹⁸⁹ on these one burns heave.

footnotes:
¹⁷¹ Tosephta 1:6.
¹⁷² Derivative impurity in the second degree.
¹⁷³ Original impurity or derivative impurity in the first degree.
¹⁶⁶ This refers to the terms used by R. Ḥananiah in the Mishnah. In the Babli, 15a/15b, the attributions are switched. In the Yerushalmi the attributions are confirmed in Šeqalim
¹⁷⁴ For R. Joḥanan, while the statement of R. Ḥananiah is trivial, it is important as summarizing the consensus of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel.
¹⁷⁵ Babli Šabbat
¹⁷⁶ In Usha, the place of R. Jehudah, a loyal supporter of the Roman government, the Rabbinate was reconstituted by the third generation Tannaim after the death of Hadrian and the suspension of the latter’s anti-Jewish decrees. The executive officer of the Cohanim must have served in the Temple; he therefore belongs to the first generation of Tannaim.
¹⁷⁷ Rabbinically impure sancta
¹⁷⁸ Biblical impurity applies only to kinds of vessels and implements mentioned in the rules of impurity: earthenware and metal (Lev.
¹⁷⁹ Rebbi or Rav Jeremiah bar Abba, the first generation Babylonian Amora. The main place of the statement is Ketubot
¹⁸⁰ The land outside the Holy Land was always being considered impure (cf. Am.
¹⁸¹ The possible impurity of metal vessels is biblical (Note 178). Following the Babli Šabbat
¹⁸² They codified the rules that hands which were not all the time consciously guarded from impurity after being washed are impure in the second degree and, therefore, impart impurity to fluids, heave, and sacrifices but not to solid profane food (cf. Demay
¹⁷⁹ Rebbi or Rav Jeremiah bar Abba, the first generation Babylonian Amora. The main place of the statement is Ketubot
¹⁸³ That it was decided that glassware has the biblical status of metalware.
¹⁸⁴ Mishnah Taharot
¹⁸⁵ A place known to contain a grave whose position is no longer known or ascertainable. If heave was transported over this place, it might have become impure by tent impurity.
¹⁸⁶ A person not known to observe the rules of impurity. His clothing may be impure either by contact with his impure wife in her period or because he suffers from gonorrhea.The quote here is lacunary; there is missing the possible impurity of vessels found in the public domain.
¹⁸⁷ Which might be the source of biblical original impurity as body fluid of a woman menstruating or suffering from flux or a male sufferer from gonorrhea.
¹⁸⁸ Urine was used industrially and as a household chemical. Animal urine is pure; human urine may be a source of biblical original impurity as body fluid of a person whose impurity is caused by his own body (Note 187).
¹⁸⁹ If the fact that it touched the object in question is not in doubt; the only doubt is whether that object transmits impurity or not.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:7:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:7:1)

**משנה:** הוֹסִיף רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מִימֵיהֶן שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים לֹא נִמְנְעוּ מִלְּהַדְלִיק אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן שֶׁנִּפְסַל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם בְּנֵר שֶׁנִּיטְמָא בִטְמֵא מֵת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמּוֹסִיפִין לוֹ טוּמְאָה עַל טוּמְאָתוֹ:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Rebbi Aqiba added and said, the Cohanim never refrained from burning oil which became disqualified by a *ṭevul-yom*¹⁶³ who is no longer impure but prevented from touching *sancta* before the sundown following his immersion (*Lev.* 22:7). in a lamp impure by the impurity of the dead even though they added impurity to it¹⁶⁴ but is biblically pure. By being filled into an impure lamp it becomes biblically impure..

footnotes:
¹⁶³ A person who is cleansed from impurity by immersion in a miqweh,
¹⁶⁴ The oil was heave which became disqualified from being consumed by the touch of a ṭevul-yom


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:7:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:7:2)

**הלכה:** עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן תַּמָּן שׂוֹרְפִין טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. וּבָא לְהוֹסִיף פְּסוּל תּוֹרָה עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּבַּר קַפָּרָה תַּמָּן שׂוֹרְפִין טוּמְאַת דִּבְרֵיהֵן עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. וְהָכָא פְּסוּל תּוֹרָה עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה לֹא בָא אֶלָּא לִפְחוֹת. תִּיפְתָּר בִּטְבוּל יוֹם מִבֵּית פְּרָס. שֶׁהוּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֵן. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים שְׁנָיָיהּ מִשֵּׁם בֵּית שַׁמַּי וּבֵית הִלֵּל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** 7¹⁹⁰: In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan there¹⁹¹ one burns biblical impurity with biblical impurity. He¹⁹² comes to add biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. In the opinion of Bar Qappara there¹⁹¹ one burns rabbinical impurity with biblical impurity. Here, biblical disqualification with biblical impurity only comes to diminish¹⁹³. Explain it if he was *ṭevul yom* from a *bet happeras* which is rabbinical¹⁹⁴. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel¹⁷⁴.

footnotes:
¹⁹⁰ It seems that in this tradition the statement of R. Aqiba in Mishnah 7 was a separate Mishnah.
¹⁹¹ “Here” refers to the statement of R. Aqiba, “there” to that of R. Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim (Notes 166,167).
¹⁹² R. Aqiba compared to R. Ḥananiah.
¹⁹¹ “Here” refers to the statement of R. Aqiba, “there” to that of R. Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim (Notes 166,167).
¹⁹³ This is unlikely.
¹⁹⁴ In the interpretation of Bar Qappara, the rabbinic impurity mentioned by R. Ḥananiah is secondary or tertiary impurity derived from biblical original impurity whereas R. Aqiba adds rabbinic impurity which has no biblical source.
¹⁷⁴ For R. Joḥanan, while the statement of R. Ḥananiah is trivial, it is important as summarizing the consensus of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:7:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:7:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:7:3)

אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה כְדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר. יִטְמָא יִטְמָא דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵית לֵּיהּ לְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל יִטְמָא יִטְמָא בְּאוֹכְלִים. אִית לֵיהּ יִטְמָא יִטְמָא בְּכֵלִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aqiba follows his opinion, since Rebbi Aqiba said, *shall be impure,* shall make impure by word of the Torah¹⁹⁵ 5:2, R. Aqiba takes טמא as a transitive verb. Therefore he reads the expression יטמא as “will transmit impurity”, in contrast to טָמֵא “is passively impure.” This applies not only to *Num.*19:22 but also to *Lev.* 11:32–35.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even though Rebbi Ismael¹⁹⁶ 5:2 Notes 103–106. The position of R. Ismael on *Num.* 19:22 is not known from other sources. does not accept *shall be impure,* shall make impure, for foodstuffs, he accepts *shall be impure,* shall make impure, for implements.

footnotes:
¹⁹⁵ As explained in Sotah
¹⁹⁶ Sotah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:7:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:7:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:7:4)

אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. טְמֵא מֵת. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. בּטְמֵא מֵת. מָאן דְּאָמַר. טְמֵא מֵת. בִּכְלֵי שֶׁטֶף. מָאן דְּאָמַר. בִּטְמֵא מֵת. בִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת. מַה טַעֲמָא. וְכֹל כְּלִי פָתוּחַ וגו׳ טָמֵא הוּא. [הוּא] טָמֵא [וְ]אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה אַב הַטּוּמְאָה לְטַמֵּא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
There are Tannaim who state “impurity of the dead”. There are Tannaim who state “by the impurity of the dead”¹⁹⁷. He who said “impurity of the dead”, about vessels that have to be rinsed¹⁹⁸ 6:21 where it characterized metal pots. In rabbinic usage, the expression is applied to all vessels that can be purified; here it applies to wooden vessels since metal vessels are excluded in the next sentence.
The separate treatment of metal in cases of impurity of the dead is based on *Num.* 19:16 where in the expression “slain by the sword” the mention of “sword” seems to be superfluous in the context and therefore one concludes that the sword, and by extension any metal, acquires the super-impurity of the dead to impart original impurity to its contents and anything it comes in contact with (*Sifry Num.* 127). The contents of the wooden vessel are impure in the second degree but those in the metal vessel in the first.. He who said “by the impurity of the dead”, about metal vessels. What is the reason? *Any open vessel* etc. *is impure*¹⁹⁹ 19:15, referring mainly to clay vessels but also to all other non-metallic containers (*Sifry Num.* 126).*.* [It is] impure but does not become a source of impurity to transmit impurity.¹⁹⁵ 5:2, R. Aqiba takes טמא as a transitive verb. Therefore he reads the expression יטמא as “will transmit impurity”, in contrast to טָמֵא “is passively impure.” This applies not only to *Num.*19:22 but also to *Lev.* 11:32–35.

footnotes:
¹⁹⁷ This is about the wording of R. Aqiba’s statement. A dead human body is the source of original impurity. A person or vessel touching the dead becomes originally impure, carrying “the impurity of the dead”.A vessel touching such a person or vessel becomes impure in the first derivative degree “by the impurity of the dead”.
¹⁹⁸ Impure clay vessels cannot be purified, but become pure only as potsherds or otherwise impossible to use as containers. The expression “vessels to be rinsed” comes from Lev.
¹⁹⁹ Num.
¹⁹⁵ As explained in Sotah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:8:1)

**משנה:** אָמַר רִבִּי מֵאִיר מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה עִם הַטְּמֵאָה בַפֶּסַח. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אֵינָהּ הִיא הַמִּידָּה. מוֹדִין רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין זוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ. וְעַל מַה נֶחֱלָקוּ עַל הַתְּלוּיָה וְעַל הַטְּמֵאָה שֶׁרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר תִּישָּרֵף זוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר שְׁתֵּיהֶן כְּאֶחָת:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Rebbi Meïr said, from their words we learned that one burns pure heave together with impure on Pesaḥ²⁰⁰. Rebbi Yose said to him, this is not the implication²⁰¹. Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that each of these is burned separately. Where did they disagree? On the suspended²⁰² 8:7, Note 180). and impure ones, where Rebbi Eliezer says each one should be burned separately while Rebbi Joshua said, both together.

footnotes:
²⁰⁰ The 14th of Nisan where pure leavened heave becomes rabbinically forbidden as food at the start of the sixth hour and must be disposed of before its possession becomes biblically (for the majority) or rabbinically (for R. Meïr) forbidden at noontime.
²⁰¹ R. Ḥananiah and R. Aqiba stated their positions only about (biblically or rabbinically) impure food, not about pure heave which becomes forbidden for an unrelated reason.
²⁰² Heave whose status of purity is in doubt, which cannot be used either as pure or impure (Mishnah Terumot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:8:2)

**הלכה:** מַהוּ בַפֶּסַח. בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִדִּבְרֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מִדִּבְרֵי רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. מִדִּבְרֵי רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וּמִדִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָי. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן נִיחָא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מַה בָא רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר וְרִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ לְכָאן. אָמַר לֵיהּ. תַּנָּיִין אִינּוּן. רִבִּי יָסָי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּשִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין תְּרוּמַה טְהוֹרָה וּטְמֵיאָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** What is “on Pesaḥ”? On the Fourteenth²⁰³ denotes the 14 of Nisan, the day of the *Pesaḥ* sacrifice *(Lev.* 23:5, *Deut.* 28:16). In popular language *“Pesaḥ”* denotes the festival of unleavened bread, the 15–21. The Mishnah uses the biblical expression.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, from the words204 of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Yasa: The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is understandable²⁰⁵8:7, quoted later in the Halakhah, which on the face of it deals with an unrelated subject, whether it is better to keep heave from becoming certainly impure or see to it that it be usable in conformity with the rules (Notes 216 ff.).. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, where enter Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua in the discussion? He told him, there are [different] Tannaim²⁰⁶. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together]²⁰⁷ other than Temple sacrifices may not be burned on the holiday; the burning must be on the first of the intermediate days where work is permitted..

footnotes:
²⁰³ In biblical Hebrew “Pesaḥ”
²⁰⁵ S. Liebermann here endorses the opinion of earlier commentators who want to emend the text and switch the names of RR. Joḥanan and Simeon ben Laqish, since otherwise how could the latter ask where RR. Eliezer and Joshua enter the discussion? But it seems that with the two classical commentaries one may explain the text as it stands. According to R. Joḥanan, R. Meïr refers to Mishnah 7. Since RR. Eliezer and Joshua are mentioned only in the argument of R. Yose, the statement quoted at the end of Mishnah 8 cannot be the one to which R. Meïr refers; it must be Mishnah Terumot
²⁰⁶ There are Tannaim who state Mishnah 7 in the name of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua.
²⁰⁷ If leavened heave was discovered during the holiday it must be burned. If unleavened heave became impure during the holiday, it must be burned, in both cases by biblical decree. But sancta


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:8:3)

רִבִּי יָסָי מַקְשֵׁי. לָמָּה רִבִּי יֹסִי אוֹמֵר. אֵינָהּ הַמִּידָּה. רִבִּי יָסָי דוּ שָׁמַע דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִדִּבְרֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה וּמִדִּבְרֵי רִבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים. וְהוּא שָׁמַע דְּבַר קַפָּרָא אָמַר. אַב הַטּוּמְאָה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. וְולַד הַטּוּמְאָה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. וְלֹא שָׁמַע דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בֵּין זֶה וּבֵין זֶה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. וְהוּא מַקְשֵׁי. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמּוּתָּר לִשׂרוֹף אִיסּוּר (דִּבְרֵיהֶם) [תּוֹרָה] עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. שֶׁכֵּן שׂוֹרְפִין טוּמְאַת (דִּבְרֵיהֶן) [תּוֹרָה] עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. כָּךְ יְהֵא מוּתָּר לִשׂרוֹף אִיסּוּר (תּוֹרָה) [דִּבְרֵיהֶן] עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. שֶׁכֵּן שׂוֹרְפִין טוּמְאַת (תּוֹרָה) [דִּבְרֵיהֶן] עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. אֶלָּא שַׁנְיָיה הִיא אִיסּוּר שַׁנְיָיה הִיא טוּמְאָה. וְאָמַר רִבִּי יָסָי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּשִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין תְּרוּמַה טְהוֹרָה וּטְמֵיאָה. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁלֹּא חָלַקְתָּ לָנוּ בֵּין אִיסּוּר תּוֹרָה לְטוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. שֶׁכֵּן שׂוֹרְפִין טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. כָּךְ לֹא תַחֲלוֹק לָנוּ בֵין אִיסּוּר דִּבְרֵיהֶן לְטוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. שֶׁכֵּן שׂוֹרְפִין טוּמְאַת דִּבְרֵיהֶן עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. אֶלָּא בֵין זֶה וּבֵין זֶה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אֲתַא רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר בָּא מִן צוֹר וְאָמַר מִן שְׁמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בֵּין זֶה וּבֵין זֶה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. וְאָמְרִית. יֵאוּת. תַּמָּן טוּמְאַת (דִּבְרֵיהֶם) [תּוֹרָה] עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. בְּרַם הָכָא פְּסוּל תּוֹרָה עִם טוּמְאַת תּוֹרָה. בְּגִין כֵּן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. אֵינָהּ הִיא הַמִּידָה. וְקַשְׁיָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עַל דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. וְהָדָא דְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. אֵינָהּ הִיא הַמִּידָה. סָבַר בַּר קַפָּרָא כְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. מִדִּבְרֵי רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. וְקַשְׁיָא דְּבַר קַפָּרָא עַל דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְהָדָא דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם לָמַדְנוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבִּין. רִבִּי מֵאִיר כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר מַחְמִיר בְּדִבְרֵיהֶם כְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה. אָן אַשְׁכְּחָן דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר מַחְמִיר בְּדִבְרֵיהֶן כְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָה. כַּיי דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. הָרוֹאָה כֶתֶם הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּלְקֶלֶת וְחוֹשֶׁשֶׁת מִשּׁוּם זוֹב [דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵין בַּכְּתָמִים מִשּׁוּם זוֹב.]

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yasa asked: Why does Rebbi Yose say, this is not the implication? Rebbi Yasa had heard that Rebbi Joḥanan said, “from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim,” and he had heard that Bar Qappara said, “original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words¹⁶⁶ 8:5..” But he had not heard that Rebbi Joḥanan had said, “both these and those are words of the Torah¹⁶⁷.” Therefore, he was asking: Just as it is permitted to burn what is (rabbinically) [biblically] forbidden with what is biblically impure, since one burns what is (rabbinically) [biblically] impure with what is biblically impure, so it should be permitted to burn what is (biblically) [rabbinically] forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is (biblically) [rabbinically] impure with what is biblically impure. But there must be a difference between prohibition and impurity. And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together]²⁰⁷ other than Temple sacrifices may not be burned on the holiday; the burning must be on the first of the intermediate days where work is permitted.. Just as you did not make a difference for us between biblical prohibition and biblical impurity since one burns what is biblically impure with what is biblically impure, so you should not make a difference for us between what is rabbinically forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is rabbinically impure with what is biblically impure. But it must be that both these and those are words of the Torah²⁰⁸. There came Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba from Tyre and said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: both these and those are words of the Torah, and I²⁰⁹ said, it is correct. There¹⁹¹ (rabbinic) [biblical] impurity with biblical impurity but here¹⁹² biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. Therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication²¹⁰. The position of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult for Rebbi Meïr²¹¹; therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication. Bar Qappara must argue like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Then the opinion of Bar Qappara is difficult for Rebbi Yose²¹² 8:7, discussed in the next paragraph, R. Joshua prescribes making possibly rabbinically impure heave biblically impure. Since the first generation R. Joshua is an overriding authority, it is difficult to see how the third generation R. Yose could disagree. based on what Rebbi Meïr said, “from their words we learned.” Rebbi Abbin said, Rebbi Meïr is consistent²¹³ since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah. Where do we find that Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥinena said, as we have stated there²¹⁴ 6:13.: “A woman who sees a stain is out of order and worries because of flux[, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, nothing in stains implies flux²¹⁵ Chapter 4, Note 3) there is a big difference between menstrual discharges (*Lev.* 19:15–24) and non-menstrual flux (*Lev.* 19:25–30). In rabbinic theory, there are 11 days after the end of a menstrual period in which no discharges are menstrual. If a woman discovers a stain on an undergarment, it is rabbinically considered evidence of a discharge. Since this is a purely rabbinic rule, she is “out of order” in that the 11 day rule cannot be applied. In addition, if the undergarment was worn for three days and the stain is large enough to possibly be the result of three discharges, for R. Meïr all rules spelled out in *vv*. 19:28–30 do apply even though there is no biblical impurity.].”

footnotes:
¹⁶⁶ This refers to the terms used by R. Ḥananiah in the Mishnah. In the Babli, 15a/15b, the attributions are switched. In the Yerushalmi the attributions are confirmed in Šeqalim
¹⁶⁷ In his opinion, biblically pure food, even if it may no longer be eaten or sacrificed, may not be destroyed.
²⁰⁷ If leavened heave was discovered during the holiday it must be burned. If unleavened heave became impure during the holiday, it must be burned, in both cases by biblical decree. But sancta
²⁰⁸ Since the statement of R. Joḥanan about the 16th implies that it does not apply on the 14th, it is inconsistent with the statement of Bar Qappara. R. Yasa concluded that R. Joḥanan must disagree with Bar Qappara without having heard his statement. Then the correct text is the scribe’s (in parentheses), not the corrector’s the the printed texts’ [in brackets] since for R. Joḥanan Mishnah 7 refers to biblical impurities.
²⁰⁹ R. Yasa.
¹⁹¹ “Here” refers to the statement of R. Aqiba, “there” to that of R. Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim (Notes 166,167).
¹⁹² R. Aqiba compared to R. Ḥananiah.
²¹⁰ In addition to the reason given in Note 201, if R. Joḥanan’s statement about the 16th is correct, R. Yose will not accept R. Meïr’s treatment of rabbinic and biblical impurity as equivalent.
²¹¹ Since R. Joḥanan is an Amora and R. Meïr a Tanna, the statement rather should be that R. Joḥanan’s position is inconsistent with R. Meïr’s.
²¹² Bar Qappara allows burning of rabbinically impure sacrificial meat with biblically impure even though momentarily the rabbinically impure will become biblically impure. In Mishnah Terumot
²¹³ For R. Meïr the disputes between Bar Qappara and R. Joḥanan and R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish are irrelevant. Even if R. Ḥananiah speaks only about biblical impurities, it makes no difference for R. Meïr who applies all biblical stringencies to rabbinic prohibitions.
²¹⁴ Mishnah Niddah
²¹⁵ In biblical rules (which are difficult for rabbinic women to follow, cf. Niddah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:8:4)

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. חָבִית שֶׁלִּתְרוּמָה שֶׁנּוֹלַד סְפֵק טוּמְאָה. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר. אִם הָיְתָה מוּנַּחַת בִּמְקוֹם תּוּרְפָּה יַנִּיחֶינָּה בְּמָקוֹם מּוּצְנָע. וְאִם הָיְתָה מְגוּלָּה יְכַסֶּנָּה. רִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ אוֹמֵר אִם הָיְתָה מוּנַּחַת בְּמָקוֹם הַמּוּצְנָע יַנִּיחֶינָּה בִּמְקוֹם תּוּרְפָּה. וְאִם הָיְתָה מְכוּסָּה יְגַלֶּנָּה. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אַל יְחַדֵּשׁ בָּהּ דָּבָר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
There²¹⁶ 8:7. The text from here to the end of the Chapter is from *Terumot* 8:8–9 (Notes 180–235,**ת**); it cannot be understood without Mishnaiot 8:8–9 which are not reproduced here., we have stated: An amphora of heave about which a doubt of impurity arose, Rebbi Eliezer says, if it was at a vulnerable place, he should move it to a hidden place. If it was uncovered, he should cover it. Rebbi Joshua says, if it was at a hidden place, he should move it to a vulnerable place. If it was covered, he should uncover it. Rabban Gamliel says, he should not change anything²¹⁷ 33b)..

footnotes:
²¹⁶ Mishnah Terumot
²¹⁷ If it were certainly impure, heave wine could be used to settle dust on dirt floors, heave oil or grain as fuel. If there only is a doubt, the heave is called “suspended”. It cannot be used as impure since it might be pure, nor as pure since it might be impure. R. Eliezer holds that one has to treat this heave according to all rules of holiness. R. Joshua holds that one has to make sure that the heave be used somehow. Since it never will be usable as pure heave, one has to make sure it will be usable impure (Rashi in Bekhorot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:8:5)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן מִדִּבְרֵי שְׁלָשְׁתָּן תְּלוּיָה אָסוּר לְשׂוֹרְפָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, from the opinion of all three of them: It is forbidden to burn suspended [heave]²¹⁸.

footnotes:
²¹⁸ Since neither of them proposes burning the heave as an alternative.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:8:6)

חֲבֵרַיָיא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. חָבִית הָרִאשׁוֹנָה כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הַשְּׁנִיָיה כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. חֲבֵרַיָּא אָמְרִין. חָבִית הָרִאשׁוֹנָה כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלֵית רִבִּי מֵאִיר מוֹדֶה בָהּ. חָבִית הַשְּׁנִיָיה כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. וְלֵית רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מוֹדֶה בָהּ. אָמַר לוֹן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. חֲמוּן מַה אַתּוּן אָמְרִין. חָבִית הָרִאשׁוֹנָה כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. בְּרַם כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר שׂוֹרְפִין וּכְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שׂוֹרְפִין. וְיִרָבּוּ רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן עַל רִבִּי יוֹסֵה וְיִשְׂרוֹף. וְעוֹד [שְׁמָעִינָן] מִן הָדָא. מִן מַה דַאֲנָן חַמְיָין רַבָּנִין עוֹבְדָא אֲתִי קוֹמֵיהוֹן וְאִינּוּן אָמְרִין. אֵיזִיל תְּלִי. הֵן אַשְׁכַּחְנָן דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. שׂוֹרְפִין. הָדָא דְתַנִּינָן. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר לְרִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין זוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁנָיָיא. אִין תֵּימַר לֵית לְרִבִּי מֵאִיר תְּלוּיָה. וְהָא תַנֵּי. תְּרוּמַה תְלוּיָה טְהוֹרָה שׂוֹרְפִין אוֹתָהּ עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עִם חֲשֵׁיכָה. דִּבָרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וְחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. בִּזְמַנָּהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי עֶזְרָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. תִּיפְתָּר בִּתְלוּיָה שֶׁאֵין דַּעְתּוֹ לְהַשְׁאִיל עָלֶיהָ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְכֵן אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. כָּל מַה דַאֲנָן קַיָימִין הָכָא בִּתְלוּיָה שֶׁאֵין דַּעְתּוֹ לְהַשְׁאִיל עָלֶיהָ. אֲבָל בִּתְלוּיָה שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ לְהַשְׁאִיל עָלֶיהָ הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. תְּרוּמָה תְלוּיָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ. טְהוֹרָה הִיא. הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה. אִם אָמַר. הֲרֵי אֲנִי מַנִּיחָהּ עַל מְנָת לְהַשְׁאִיל עָלֶיהָ. הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה. מָיִי כַּדּוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁנּוֹלַד לָהּ סְפֵק טוּמְאָה עִם דִּימְדּוּמֵי חַמָּה. וְלֵית שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ כְּלוּם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The first amphora²¹⁹ 8:7 is consistent with the position of R. Yose in *Pesaḥim* 1:8. Since R. Joshua only permits to put suspended heave in a situation where there is great probability that it accidentally will become impure but does not allow actively to make it impure, it follows that he will not allow pure heave to be made impure in the process of burning, as prescribed by R. Meïr. following Rebbi Yose, the second²²⁰ 8:10. If there is a choice of either making heave impure or letting it go to waste, R. Joshua permits to make it impure. This parallels the position of R. Meïr in *Pesaḥim* 1:8, who permits making heave impure in the process of required destruction. Since that Mishnah is not quoted here, it is clear that the origin of the text is in *Terumot.* following Rebbi Meïr. The colleagues say, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Meïr will not agree; the second following Rebbi Meïr but Rebbi Yose will not agree. Rebbi Yose told them, be careful what you are saying. The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, but following Rebbi Meïr one burns and following Rebbi Simeon one burns. Then Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon should form a majority against Rebbi Yose²²¹ and one should burn. In addition, we understand from the following: we see the rabbis, if a case comes before them, they say, go and suspend²²². Where do we find that Rebbi Simeon says, one burns? It is what we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that each of these is burned separately.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon stated this²²³ it establishes that he agrees with him about heave. The translation follows the spelling in *Terumot*, שנייה.. If you want to say that Rebbi Meïr does not recognize suspension²²⁴, have we not stated²²⁵: “Suspended (pure)²²⁶ one has to read: “or impure”. heave is burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time²²⁷.” Rebbi Ezra²²⁸ R. Zeˋira (third generation) before R. Mana I (early second generation). said before Rebbi Mana, explain it that it is suspended because he does not intend to ask about it. He said to him, so also said Rebbi Yose²²⁹: All we are occupied with here is with suspended [heave] about which he does not intend to ask²³⁰; but suspended [heave] about which he intends to ask is pure. It was stated thus²³¹7:18.: “Suspended heave about which they said, is it pure? It is impure. If he said, I am keeping it in order to ask about it, it is pure.” What about it? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it if the doubt arose at sundown. Then one cannot infer anything²³².

footnotes:
²¹⁹ Mishnah Terumot
²²⁰ The amphora which is the topic of Mishnah Terumot
²²¹ Even though R. Yose (ben Halafta) is a greater authority than either R. Meïr or R. Simeon, they together should be a majority to determine practice.
²²² In the last generation of Amoraim practice still followed R. Yose.
²²³ Tosefta 1:5. While this does not prove that R. Simeon agrees with the position of R. Meïr about sancta,
²²⁴ But treats heave of doubtful status as impure.
²²⁵ Tosephta 3:10, about leavened heave to be disposed of if the 14th of Nisan is a Sabbath.
²²⁶ With the text in a later paragraph and in Terumot
²²⁷ The 14th of Nisan.
²²⁸ This reading, R. Ezra (fifth generation) sitting before R. Mana II, is preferable to that of Terumot,
²²⁹ Fifth generation, the teacher of R. Mana II.
²³⁰ Since designating any produce as heave is a dedication, it has the status of a vow and as such is subject to annulment by an ordained rabbi or a court. If the vow is annulled, the original produce reverts to profane status where secondary impurity is excluded; in most cases this means that it will automatically revert to purity. Then heave must be given from some other produce of the same harvest. Since all problems arising for suspended heave can be easily resolved by asking for annulment, it is clear that the Mishnah must assume that this way out is not chosen.
²³¹ A related text is Tosephta Terumot
²³² Since there is no time to burn anything, the opinion of the Sages must be followed even by their opponents. This does not prove anything about the position of R. Meïr if the heave already was suspended in the morning.A different treatment in the Babli, 20b.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:8:7)

וְאַתּוּן אָמְרִין. חָבִית הָרִאשׁוֹנָה כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלֵית רִבִּי מֵאִיר מוֹדֶה בָהּ. וְהָתַנֵּי. בַּמֶּה דָבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. בְּבוֹר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְדֵי לְהַעֲלוֹת. אֲבָל בְּבוֹר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְדֵי לְהַעֲלוֹת אֲפִילוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לְטַמְּאוֹת. וְאִין כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. הִיא בוֹר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְדֵי לְהַעֲלוֹת וְהִיא בוֹר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְדֵי לְהַעֲלוֹת. אֲפִילוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לְטַמּוֹת. וְעוֹד מִן הָדָא דְתַנִּינָן. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֵינָהּ הִיא הַמִּידָּה. לֵית בַּר נַשׁ אָמַר. אֵינָהּ הִיא מִכְּלָל דּוּ מוֹדֶה עַל קַדְמִיָיתָא. מָיִי כְדוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. תַּמָּן כְּדֵי לָחוּס עַל נִכְסֵיהֶן שֶׁלְיִשְׂרָאֵל. וְהָכָא מָה אִית לָךְ. אֲפִילוּ הָכָא אֵינוֹ מַפְסִיד לְיִשְׂרָאֵל מָמוֹן. שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לִשְׂרוֹף עֵצִים בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְזוֹ בִפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ. לְהֶפְסֵד מְרוּבֶּה חָשׁוּ. לְהֶפְסֵד מְמוּעָט לֹא חָשְׁשׁוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. תִּיפְתָּר כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. מִדִּבְרֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה וּמִדִּבְרֵי רִבִּי חֲנִינָה סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים. וְלֵית שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ כְּלוּם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
And you²³³ are saying, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Meïr will not agree²³⁴ 8:8 and 8:10 about a barrel of pure heave wine which is breaking on top of a container of impure wine.? But did we not state:²³⁵ Chapter 5. If heave falls into a container of profane produce of the same kind as the heave and the volume of the profane matter is less than 101 times that of the heave, the entire matter is forbidden to non-Cohanim. But if it is at least that amount, a volume equal to that of the heave which was lost can be lifted from the mixture and declared as replacement heave. Then the particles of the original heave in the mixture revert to profane status and become permitted to lay persons.
Mishnaiot *Terumot* 8:8,10: “If an amphora broke in the upper part of a wine press whose lower part was impure, R. Eliezer and R. Joshua agree that if one can save a *quartarius* from it, he shall save that in purity.… Rebbi Joshua said, this is not a case for which I have been warned not to make it impure …” When has this been said? Regarding a vat which contains enough to lift it. But for a vat which does not contain enough to lift it, it is forbidden to make any amount impure. And if it follows Rebbi Meïr, whether it is a vat which contains enough to lift it or a vat which does not contain enough to lift it, is it forbidden to make any amount impure?²³⁶ In addition, from what we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication,” nobody says “this is not” unless he agrees with the premise. How is that? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there in order to care for the property of Jews²³⁷ 12:5. Babli 20b.; here what do you have? Does the Jew not lose money even here? For he needs to burn wood separately²³⁸ For he needs wood to burn each lot separately. and this separately? They worried about a big loss, they did not worry about a small loss. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana²³⁹ R. Yose ben R. Abun said., explain it following him who said, from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥanina the executive officer of the Cohanim; and one cannot infer anything²⁴⁰ which according to R. Meïr speaks about impurity and disqualification and in *Terumot* dealing with impurity and purity. R. Yose’s second objection to the colleagues is not proven..

footnotes:
²³³ Continuation of the attack of R. Yose the Amora against the statement of the colleagues.
²³⁴ While this R. Yose’s argument in both texts it is clear from the following that the discussion is about the second of their statements, that R. Yose cannot agree with the ruling of Mishnah Terumot
²³⁵ “Lifting” is explained in Terumot
²³⁶ Since R. Meïr permits to bring impurity to anything that later automatically would become impure. Babli 21a.
²³⁷ Mishnah Negaˋim
²³⁸ This text is corrupt. The correct version is in Terumot:
²³⁹ In Terumot:
²⁴⁰ There is no inference to be drawn from the Mishnah in Pesaḥim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:8:8)

רִבִּי זְעוּרָא רִבִּי אִילָא תְּרֵיהוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. חָבִית הָרִאשׁוֹנָה כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה בֵּין כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר בֵין כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר רִבִּי עֶזְרָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. לֵית הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וּדְלֹא כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי נֵימַר וּדְלֹא כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי שׂוֹרֵף תְּלוּיָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. אָזְלִית לְקַיְסָרִין וּשְׁמָעִית רִבִּי זְרִיקָן בְּשֵׁם זְעוּרָה. רִבִּי מֵאִיר שׂוֹרֵף תְּלוּיָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וְאָמְרִית לֵיהּ. אֲפִילוּ כְגוֹן הַהִיא שֶׁהִיא תְלוּיָה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. וְאָמַר לִי. אִין. אֲנָא פָתַר לָהּ שֶׁנִּיטְמֵאת מָדוֹר גּוֹיִם. מַה בְיָדָךְ. תַּנֵּי. מָדוֹר גּוֹיִם תּוֹלִין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵירִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. שׂוֹרְפִין. רִבִּי חוּנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעוּרָא. רִבִּי מֵאִיר שׂוֹרֵף תְּלוּיָה בִּשְׁאַר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה. וְהָא תַנֵּי כֵן. תְּרוּמָה תְלוּיָה טְמֵיאָה שׂוֹרְפִין אוֹתָהּ עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עִם חֲשֵׁיכָה. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וְחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. בִּזְמַנָּהּ. וְיִשְׂרוֹף בְּשַׁחֲרִית. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁנִּתְעַצֵּל וְלֹא שָׂרַף. תֵּדַע לָךְ שֶׁהוּא כֵן. דְּתַנֵּי טְמֵיאָה. לֹא מִשֶּׁנִּתְעַצֵּל וְלֹא שָׂרַף. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי אַחֲוָה דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁנּוֹלַד לָהּ טוּמְאָה בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. וְלֵית שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ כְּלוּם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Ila, both in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. The first amphora following Rebbi Yose, but the second both following Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana²²⁸ R. Zeˋira (third generation) before R. Mana I (early second generation).: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Yose? He told him, if not following Rebbi Yose²⁴¹ the names Yose and Meïr are systematically switched. For the interpretation there is no difference since, as stated in the next sentence, the two rabbis agree in this matter. Nevertheless it seems that the text in *Terumot* is more reliable since the remainder of the discussion concentrates on determining R. Meïr’s position., we may say not following Rebbi Meïr since we find that Rebbi Yose is burning suspended [heave] in all cases. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Rebbi Meïr is burning suspended [heave] in all cases. I asked him, even in a case where it is suspended by word of the Torah²⁴²? He told me, if I explain it that it became impure in Gentiles’ dwelling²⁴³ Chapter 6 Note 25). Practice disregards the opinion of R. Simeon who denied the possibility of “tent impurity” for Gentiles., what do you have in your hand? It was stated²⁴⁴18:7.: “For Gentiles’ dwelling one suspends, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one burns.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Zeˋura: Rebbi Meïr burns suspended [heave] any day of the year, and so it was stated: “Suspended [and]²⁴⁵ necessary by the context. impure heave are burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time²²⁷.” Should he not burn in the morning? Explain it that he was lazy and did not burn. You should know that this is so, since it was stated “impure”²⁴⁶. Not because he was lazy and did not burn? Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said, explain it that the impurity came to it at that moment and one cannot infer anything.

footnotes:
²²⁸ This reading, R. Ezra (fifth generation) sitting before R. Mana II, is preferable to that of Terumot,
²⁴¹ In Terumot
²⁴² If we hold that the rule which states that doubts in cases of biblical commandments have to be decided restrictively is itself biblical, then suspended heave would have to be considered impure by biblical standards and immediately used as fuel.
²⁴³ Since Gentiles are suspected of burying their stillbirths in the dirt floors of their houses, their dwellings in the Holy Land are considered possibly impure by “tent impurity” (Kilaim
²⁴⁴ Tosephta Ahilut
²⁴⁵ Added from the text in Terumot,
²²⁷ The 14th of Nisan.
²⁴⁶ Since impure heave is used as fuel, there is no reason why it should not be used to burn leavened matter in the morning. Since in most years Passover Eve is not a Sabbath and one is obligated to burn in the morning, if Friday is the 13th of Nisan the rule is that in this case also one burns in the morning.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:8:9)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ שְׁנֵיהֶן אָמְרוּ דָבָר אֶחָד. אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דִּבְכוֹרוֹת וְרִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ דִּתְרוּמוֹת לֹא דֵין מוֹדֶה לְדֵין וְלֹא דֵין מוֹדֶה לְדֵין. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. מִסְתַבְּרָא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן יוֹדֶה לְרִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ. [אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיא לְרִבִּי זְעִירָא. עַל דַּעְתָּךְ דְּתֵימַר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן יוֹדֶה לְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. אֲבָל הֵיאַךְ נִשְׂרַף תְּלוּיָה עִם הַטְּמֵאָה.] מוֹדֶה רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר לְרִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין זוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ. וְיִשְׂרוֹף שְׁתֵּיהֶן כְּאַחַת. טְהוֹרָה הִיא דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אַתְּ הוּא שֶׁגָּזַרְתָּה עָלֶיהָ שְׂרֵיפָה. מִכָּל מָקוֹם לֹא נִפְסְלָה בְהֵיסַח הַדַּעַת. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הֶסִּיעַ דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אֲחוּזַת דָּם כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן תּוֹרָה. חָבִית הַשְּׁנִיָיה כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר תּוֹרָה. אֵינָהּ כֵּן. אֶלָּא מְשַׁמְּרָהּ הוּא שֶׁלֹּא תִגַּע בְּטַהֲרוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת. הָתִיב רִבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי חִיָיה כְתוֹבָה. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהָיְתָה נְתוּנָה עַל גַּבֵּי הַגְּחָלִים. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לִכְשֶׁיִּתְּנֶנָּהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא לְרִבִּי שַׁמַּי. אַתּוּן אָמְרִין. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן יוֹדֶה לְרִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ. אֲפִילוּ רִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ לֵית הוּא רִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. תַּנָּיִין אִינּוּן. תַּמָּן רִבִּי מֵאִיר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ. בְּרַם הָכָא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Joshua²⁴⁷ R. Joshua (first generation), R. Simeon (third generation) is preferable. both said the same thing. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Simeon in *Bekhorot*²⁴⁸ 5:2, quoted in the next paragraph. While a firstling calf or lamb has to be treated as a sacrifice, R. Simeon permits any surgical operation if the health of the animal requires it, even if it is clear that by the operation the animal will become disqualified as sacrifice. and Rebbi Joshua in *Terumot,* neither of them will agree with the other. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua²⁴⁹ “But R. Joshua will not agree with R. Simeon”. R. Joshua (*Terumot*8:8–10) permits to cause impurity to heave in order to save food; R. Simeon permits to make a blemish on a firstling in order to save its life. But the Mishnah in *Bekhorot* states that a firstling with this intentionally induced blemish may not be slaughtered; it cannot become food for anybody. Therefore it is not necessary to conclude that R. Joshua agrees with R. Simeon. Babli *Bekhorot* 33b.. [Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Zeˋira: In your opinion, since you say that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua, did we not state: How may one burn suspended [heave] with impure one]²⁵⁰ the question is correct as objection of R. Eliezer to R. Joshua.? “Rebbi Eliezer agrees with Rebbi Joshua²⁵¹ that each of these is burned separately.” Should one not burn both together? It is pure by words of the Torah. You are the one who decided on burning. In any case, would it not become disqualified by inattention²⁵² 7:2). Since on the 14 of Nisan heave cannot be eaten after 10 a.m., there is no need to watch it any longer and, by being released from supervision, it should become disqualified immediately even by biblical standards.? Did nor Rebbi Joḥanan say, inattention is a word of the Torah; blood affliction following Rebbi Simeon is Torah, the second amphora following Rebbi Meïr is Torah? It is not so²⁵³; but he watches it that it should not come in contact with other pure things. Rebbi Isaac, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe, objected: Think of it, if it was put on coals²⁵⁴. He told him, after it was put there²⁵⁴. Rebbi Mana said to Rebbi Shammai: You are saying that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua. Even Rebbi Joshua does not agree with Rebbi Joshua²⁵⁵1:7 and *Terumot* 8:8–10 do not necessarily coincide.. He told him, these are Tannaim. There Rebbi Meïr in the name of Rebbi Joshua, here Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua²⁵⁶.

footnotes:
²⁴⁷ The order appearing in the text of Terumot,
²⁴⁸ Mishnah Bekhorot
²⁴⁹ Talmudic style requires the addition found in Terumot:
²⁵⁰ This sentence is neither in the Mishnah nor in Terumot;
²⁵¹ While the Mishnah states, “R. Eliezer and R. Joshua agree”, the formulation here is more to the point.
²⁵² Heave must be eaten in purity, which can be guaranteed only if the heave is guarded at all times or at least kept at a place locked away from possible impurities (Babli 34a, Šeqalim
²⁵³ Even if disqualified for other reasons, it still has to be watched; the prior objection is baseless.
²⁵⁴ If one starts the fire to burn the leavened matter, guarding against impurity certainly is unnecessary. The answer is that this argument is irrelevant since we are dealing with the time before the fire was started.
²⁵⁴ If one starts the fire to burn the leavened matter, guarding against impurity certainly is unnecessary. The answer is that this argument is irrelevant since we are dealing with the time before the fire was started.
²⁵⁵ The positions of R. Joshua in Pesaḥim
²⁵⁶ It is impossible to fully reconstruct the original position of R. Joshua since the only knowledge we have of his statements is through the interpretation of third generation Amoraim.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:8:10)

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הַבְּכוֹר שֶׁאֲחָזוֹ דָם. אֲפִילּוּ מֵת אֵין מַקִּיזִין לוֹ אֶת הַדָּם. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. יַקִּיז וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה בוֹ מוּם. אִם עָשָׂה בוֹ מוּם הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשְׁחוֹט עָלָיו. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. יַקִּיז אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בוֹ מוּם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
There, we have stated²⁵⁷ 5:2 [*Sifra Emor Parashah* 7(10)]. Since a firstling is a sacrifice by birth, it has to be treated according to the rules of sacrifices. The only difference is that a dedicated sacrifice which develops a blemish must be redeemed to become profane whereas a firstling in the hands of a Cohen which develops a blemish automatically becomes profane and may be eaten by everybody and in impurity. Therefore, Cohanim are suspected to induce blemishes on the firstlings in their possession.: “A firstling afflicted by blood, even if it is going to die, cannot be bled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, it should be bled, only he should not intend to cause a blemish. If it did cause a blemish, it may not be slaughtered because of it. Rebbi Simeon says, he should bleed it even if he makes a blemish.”

footnotes:
²⁵⁷ Mishnah Bekhorot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:8:11)

רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. אַתְיָא דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה כְרַבָּן גַּמָלִיאֵל. וּדְרַבָּנִין כְּרִבִּי אֶלִיעֶזֶר. וּדְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כְּרִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ. תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. יַקִּיז אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מִתָכַּוֵּין לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ מוּם. וְאַתְיָא כְרִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ אַחֵרַיָיא. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. תִּיפְתָּר בְּקֳדָשִׁים שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב בְּאֲחֵרָיוּתָן כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Jehudah parallels Rabban Gamliel, the rabbis parallel Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Joshua²⁵⁸ 8:7 (“the first amphora.”) The Babli *Bekhorot* 35b identifies the position of the Sages with that of R. Joshua (i. e., the operative opinion in *Bekhorot* with that in *Terumot*) while the Yerushalmi implies that practice should follow R. Simeon.. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “He should bleed it even if he intends to make a blemish.” This parallels another opinion of Rebbi Joshua²⁵⁹. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: Explain about *sancta* for which he is liable following Rebbi Simeon²⁶⁰ The verse is formulated for all sacrifices which develop a blemish; it is more reasonable to apply it to the vast majority of dedicated sacrifices which have to be redeemed rather than to firstlings for which change to semi-profane status is automatic.
If somebody dedicates a specific animal and it later develops a blemish, there is no sacrifice. But if he vows “a sacrifice” and then dedicates a particular animal which later develops a blemish, he has to redeem the animal by an unblemished replacement..

footnotes:
²⁵⁸ The opinions stated in Mishnah Terumot
²⁵⁹ His opinion about the “second amphora” where he permits to induce impurity on most of the heave in order to save a small portion in purity.
²⁶⁰ This sentence is missing in Terumot.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:12
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:8:12)

רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. לֹא תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם. לֹא הִיתַּרְתִּי לָךְ אֶת דָּמוֹ אֶלָּא בִשְׁפִיכָה. הָתִיב רִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי אַחֲוָה דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵה. וְהָכְתִיב אַף בִּפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין כֵּן. לֹא תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם. אָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר אָדָא. לְהַכְשִׁיר אִיתְאֲמָרַת. מַה הַמַּיִם מַכְשִׁירִין אַף הַדָּם יְהֵא מַכְשִׁיר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Jehudah: *You shall not eat it, on the earth you shall you shall spill it like water*²⁶¹ 12:24.*.* I did permit you its blood only for spilling. Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said, is not about disqualified sancta written so, *you shall not eat it, on the earth you shall spill it like water*²⁶² 15:23, speaking of the firstling: *Only its blood you shall not eat, spill it onto the ground like water.* The verse used gives the rules for animals which develop blemishes after being dedicated. This also includes firstlings.? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, it was said for preparation²⁶³ Chapter 2, Notes 136,141). Since the rules for preparation are spelled out for water (*Lev.* 11:38), other fluids have this property of water only if there is a biblical verse which compares them to water. *Sifry Deut.* #71.. Just as the water prepares, so the blood shall prepare.

footnotes:
²⁶¹ Deut.
²⁶² One would have expected R. Jehudah to use Deut.
²⁶³ Produce in the ground is impervious to impurity. It remains so after harvesting as long as it stays completely dry. Blood is one of the fluids that prepare dry food to accept impurity (cf. Demay


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:13
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:8:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/1:8:13)

רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנֵיהֶן מִקְרָא אֶחָד הֵן דּוֹרְשִׁין. תָּמִים יִהְיֶה לְרָצוֹן כָּל מוּם לֹא יִהְיֶה בּוֹ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא לְרָצוֹן אֵין אַתְּ רַשַּׁאי לִיתֵּן בּוֹ מוּם. [וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ לְרָצוֹן אַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לִיתֵּן בּוֹ מוּם.] וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. אֲפִילוּ כוּלּוֹ מוּמִין אֵין אַתְּ רַשַּׁאי לִיתֵּן בּוֹ מוּם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, both of them explain the same verse²⁶⁴. 22:21.: *Perfect it*²⁶⁵*shall be for goodwill; any blemish shall not be on it.* Rebbi Simeon explains: As long as it is for goodwill, you may not induce a blemish. If it is no longer for goodwill, you may induce a blemish. But the Sages say, even if it is all blemishes, you may not add a blemish²⁶⁶ 35b, the Sages hold that R. Simeon would be justified if the verse read “*no blemish* shall be on it.” But the involved language, *any blemish,* forbids the imposition of a new blemish on existing blemishes..

footnotes:
²⁶⁴ Lev
²⁶⁵ Any animal sacrifice.
²⁶⁶ As Rashi explains in Bekhorot