## Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim Chapter 2

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

**משנה:** כָּל שָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר לוֹכַל מַאֲכִיל לַבְּהֵמָה לַחַיָּה וְלָעוֹפוֹת וּמוֹכְרוֹ לַנָּכְרִי וּמוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָתוֹ. עָבַר זְמַנּוֹ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָתוֹ. לֹא יַסִּיק בּוֹ תַּנּוּר וְכִירַיִם. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵין בִּיעוּר חָמֵץ אֶלָּא שְׂרֵיפָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים מְפָרֵר וְזוֹרֶה לָרוּחַ אוֹ מַטִּיל לַיָּם:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Any time one is permitted to eat one feeds it¹ to domestic or wild animals or birds, or sells it to a Non-Jew², and one may have usufruct from it³. If its time has passed⁴ one may not have usufruct from it, nor use it to heat an oven or a cooking stove. Rebbi Jehudah says, leavened matter may only be eliminated by burning. But the Sages say, he makes crumbs and scatters them in the wind or throws it into the Sea⁵ reads “But the Sages say, he *also* may make crumbs and …” This determines current practice following R. Jehudah, even though *also* is missing in the Mishnah quote in the Babli Halakhah (28a). Cf. *Diqduqe Soferim Pesaḥim* p. 28a Note 1..

footnotes:
¹ Leavened matter on the 14th of Nisan which has to be eliminated before noontime.
² Since only leavened matter in the possession of a Jew has to be eliminated, the Gentile may keep the leavened matter bought from the Jew and also use it during Passover time.
³ For example one may use the matter as fuel and its ashes as fertilizer.
⁴ After noontime on the 14th, even though according to the majority opinion the biblical prohibition of usufruct only starts shortly before sundown, there is a rabbinic prohibition of usufruct for the entire afternoon.
⁵ In this version, which also is the reading of the Munich ms. of the Babli, R. Hananel, some texts of Alfasi, and Maimonides’s autograph Mishnah, the Sages disagree with R. Jehudah. The Mishnah in the printed Babli, starting with the editio princeps,


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

**הלכה:** כָּל שָׁעָה כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי אִימִּי. מָאן תַּנָּא כָּל שָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר לוֹכַל מוּתָּר לְהַאֲכִיל. אָסוּר לָאוֹכֵל אָסוּר לְהַאֲכִיל. רִבִּי מֵאִיר. בְּרַם כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. חֲמִישִּׁית אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לוֹכַל מוּתָּר לְהַאֲכִיל. הָתִיב רִבִּי בָּא. וְהָתַנִּינָן. סִיעוּר יִשָּרֵף וְהָאוֹכְלוֹ פָּטוּר. וְאָמַר רַב חוּנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי. מוּתָּר לְהַאֲכִילֹו לַכְּלָבִים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מָה אֲתִינָן מִיתְנֵי כָּל חָמֵץ. לֹא שָׁעוֹת. מָאן תַּנָּא שָׁעוֹת. רִבִּי מֵאִיר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Any time” etc. Rebbi Immi said, who is the Tanna of “any time when he is permitted to eat he is permitted to feed, when it is forbidden to the eater he is forbidden to feed”? Rebbi Meïr⁶. But following Rebbi Jehudah, in the fifth hour even though he is forbidden to eat he is permitted to feed. Rebbi Abba objected: Did we not state⁷, “sour dough has to be burned but one who eats it is not liable⁸ 12:19 contains two statements. 1° leavened matter may not be in a Jew’s possession on Passover, and 2°, it is a deadly sin, punishable by extirpation, to eat leavened matter during the holiday. The Tanna of the Mishnah holds that the second statement is not applicable to matters commonly considered to be inedible.,” and did not Rav Ḥuna say in the name of Rebbi, one may feed it to the dogs⁹? Rebbi Yose said, did we state “any leavened matter”, not “time¹⁰”? Who is the Tanna of “time”, Rebbi Meïr.

footnotes:
⁶ Babli 21a. In Mishnah 1:4 R. Meïr permits to eat up to the time one has to dispose of the leftovers, in contrast to R. Jehudah who forbids to eat starting one hour before the leavened matter will be forbidden. The latter could not have formulated “any time”.
⁷ Mishnah 3:5, presumed to be R. Meïr’s.
⁸ Ex.
⁹ Mishnah 1 excludes feeding to animals.
¹⁰ Mishnah 2:1 is formulated to apply only to the 14th of Nisan. Mishnah 3:5, referring to Nisan 15–21, does not contradict the earlier Mishnah.


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

אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָה. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶּׁמּוּתָּר לְהַאֲכִילוֹ לִבְהֵמַת הֶבְקֵר. הָתִיב רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. וְהָתַנִּינָן. מְפָרֵר. סָבַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה כִּכָּרוֹת. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא מְפָרֵר. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁפֵּירְרוֹ בָּטֵל. וְאֵיְידֵא אָמַר דָּא. לֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ הַיּוֹם. אֲפִילוּ לַכְּלָבִים. הֲרֵי זֶה בָא לְאוֹסְרוֹ בַהֲנָיָיה. מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם לְכַלְבּוֹ. הָהַנֵּי אִיסּוּר הֲנָיָיה. אֶלָּא כִי נָן קַיָימִין. אֲפִילוּ לְכֶלֶב [אֲחֵרִים]. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת. שֶׁאָסוּר לְהַאֲכִילֹו לִבְהֵמַת הֶבְקֵר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Bun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: This¹¹ implies that one is permitted to feed it to ownerless animals. Rebbi Jeremiah objected, did we not state “he crumbles it”? Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion, loaf sized¹² usufruct seems to be unnecessary.. Rebbi Yose said to him, it only mentioned “he crumbles it”, that when he crumbled it it was nullified¹³. But the following says it, *leavend matter may not be eaten today*¹⁴ 13:3–4: *Moses said to the people, remember this day on which you left Egypt, the House of Slavery, for with a strong hand did the Eternal remove you from there, and leavened matter shall not be eaten. Today you are leaving, in the Spring month.* Since the text is written without commas and periods, the period implied by the oral tradition of separation of verses may be disregarded. A different interpretation of the same reading is in *Mekhilta dR. Ismael ad loc.* (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 62 line 2), Babli 28b.*,* even by the dogs. This includes to forbid it for usufruct. Where do we hold? If for his own dog, the prohibition of usufruct had been stated¹⁵ 13:3 implies that the identity of the eater is irrelevant, against the argument of Note 11.. But we must hold for the dog [of others]. This implies that one is prohibited from feeding it to ownerless animals.

footnotes:
¹¹ The statement of the Mishnah, “if its time has passed one may not have usufruct from it,” seems to imply that any use from which the owner does not derive usufruct is permitted.
¹² He reads the Mishnah as requiring only that loaves should not be disposed of whole, but may be disposed of in sizeable pieces. If these are thrown to the wind, the probability is great that a bird or a squirrel will pick them up; the reference to his
¹³ The Mishnah requires that any leftovers be reduced to tiny crumbs which are of no use. These crumbs do no longer qualify as food; the leavened matter is considered disposed off even if not thrown to the wind.
¹⁴ Ex.
¹⁵ The passive voice in Ex.


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

רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא תֹאכַל לֹא תֹאכְלוּ לֹא יֵאָכֵלוּ אַתְּ תּוֹפֵשׂ אִיסּוּר הֲנָיָיה כְּאִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה. עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא הַכָּתוּב וְיִפְרוֹשׁ לָךְ כְּשֵׁם שֶׁפִּירֵשׁ לָךְ בְּאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי וּבִנְבֵילָה. וְכִי מַה פִירֵשׁ לָנוּ בְּאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי. וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵיפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ לַכֶּלֶב תַּשְׁלִיכוּן אוֹתוֹ. וְכִי מַה פִירֵשׁ לָנוּ בִּנְבֵילָה. לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כָל נְבֵילָה לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ אוֹ מָכוֹר לְנָכְרִי. תַּנֵּי חִזְקִיָּה וּפְלִיג. וְכִי מִי אֲסָרוֹ לַכֶּלֶב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹⁶ 3:1, Notes 10–44, **ע**. It seems that the origin of the text is in *Pesaḥim* since only here the verses are quoted in full and an important sentence is missing in **ע**. In the Babli, the parallel is 21b–23a. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar¹⁷: Everywhere it is written *do not eat, do not eat*¹⁸*, it shall not be eaten,* you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating unless the verse is explicit and explains to you as it did explain about limbs of a living animal and a carcass. What did it explain about limbs of a living animal? *Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat; throw it to the dog*¹⁹ 22:30. Why is it necessary to permit torn limbs as dog food? R. Eleazar argues that this shows that without such permission the limb would be forbidden for all usufruct.*.* And what did it explain about a carcass? *Do not eat any carcass; to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it, or sell to the stranger.*²⁰ 14:21. Ḥizqiah stated a disagreement²¹ (London 1966) pp. 171–196.
Since here the mention of the torn limb and the carcass both lead to the same argument, either one of them would be superfluous and, therefore, both must be needed for other inferences. The argument of R. Eleazar is refuted.. What does one forbid to the dog²²?

footnotes:
¹⁶ The text from here to Note 64 also is in Orlah
¹⁷ In the printed editions of the Babli, R. Eleazar is not mentioned, but his name appears in the Munich ms.
¹⁸ Plural.
¹⁹ Ex.
²⁰ Deut.
²¹ In the Babli 21b, Ḥizqiah accepts the statement of R. Eleazar only for the passive formulation; later (Note 48) this is clarified to be the position of Ḥizqiah and R. Joḥanan in a second version. In this first version, Ḥizqiah must hold that an inference from a verse is only valid if there is no second verse leading to the same result. The theoretical basis is the recognition that the legal texts in the Torah are incomplete and sometimes contradictory as a system. In addition, it is held that words do not change their meaning in legal contexts. Therefore, a mechanism of translation of the Torah text into a coherent and reasonably complete system must exist. The rule quoted by Ḥizqiah is one of the translation rules; cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Ph. Longworth (ed.), Confrontations with Judaism
²² The dog is not a human and is not obliged by any rules.


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

וְהָא כְתִיב. כָּל חֵלֶב שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ. מֵעַתָּה אַתְּ תּוֹפֵשׂ אִיסּוּר הֲנָיָיה כְּאִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא דִכְתִיב וְחֵלֶב נְבֵילָה וְחֵלֶב טְרֵיפָה יֵעָשֶׂה לְכָל מְלָאכָה וְאָכֹל לֹא תֹאכְלוּהוּ. וְהָכְתִיב רַק הַדַּם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ. מֵעַתָּה אַתְּ תּוֹפֵשׂ אִיסּוּר הֲנָיָיה כְּאִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה. שַׁנְיָיה הִיא דִכְתִיב עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם. מַה הַמַּיִם מוּתָּרִין בַּהֲנָיָיה אַף הַדָּם יְהֵא מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. וְהָכְתִיב עַל כֵּן לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. קִיַימְתֵּיהּ בְּגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁבִּנְבֵילוֹת. וְהָא כְתִיב וְלֶחֶם וְקָלִי וְכַרְמֶל לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַד עֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי אַחוֹי דְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. שַׁנְיָיה הִיא. שֶׁקָּבַע הַכָּתוּב זְמַן. וְהָא כְתִיב לֹא תֹאכְלוּם כִּי שֶׁקֶץ הֵם. אָמַר רִבִּי. מִיעֵט אִיסּוּר הֲנָיָיה שֶׁבּוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
But is it not written²³ 7:23. This paragraph discusses verses which present difficulties for R. Eleazar.: *Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat*? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written²⁴ 7:23. In the opinion of the Babli 23a, the verse is needed to permit any use of profane fat since otherwise one would argue that since fat is forbidden for humans but required for the altar, fat of animals unfit for the altar should be permitted for use in the Temple but forbidden for profane use. In the *Sifra Ṣaw (Parasha* 10), the argument of the Babli is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean; R. Aqiba concludes that fat of domesticated animals is not food nor subject to the impurity of food.
In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, since some fat is permitted for unrestricted use, no fat can be forbidden for usufruct in the absence of an explicit verse. For Ḥizqiah, this is a third verse that could be used for R. Eleazar’s argument; nobody will contest that three parallel verses invalidate the argument. In the second version of Ḥizqiah’s position (below, after Note 49), he needs the verse to permit use of fat for work on Temple property.: *But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work, only it may not be eaten*. But is it not written²⁵ 12:16.: *Only the blood you may not eat*? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written: *You shall pour it on the ground like water*²⁶ 2:3, Note 136). The argument of the Yerushalmi, and an argument that animal blood prepares for impurity in all cases, is in *Sifry Deut.* 73 and later here, in the second version of Ḥizqiah. (Preparation for impurity is explained in *Demay* 2:3, Notes 136–141.)*.* Since water is permitted for use, so blood shall be permitted for use. But is it not written²⁷ 32:33.: *Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the sciatic nerve?* Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass²⁸. But is it not written²⁹ 23:14.: *Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat until this very day?* Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written³⁰ 11:42.: *Do not eat them for they are abominations?* Rebbi [Mana]³¹ missing here. said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct³³ Greek σπληνίον, τό, “pad, wound dressing.”.

footnotes:
²³ Lev.
²⁴ Lev.
²⁵ Deut.
²⁶ The Babli 22b deduces from here that animal blood is a fluid which prepares for impurity only if it is spilled on the ground (cf. Demay
²⁷ Gen.
²⁸ The argument is more explicit in the Babli 22a. R. Abbahu holds that when carcass and tom meat was permitted for the sojourner (Note 53) and the pagan, the entire animal was permitted, including the fat. Then the last paragraph of Note 24 establishes that the schiatic sinew cannot be forbidden for usufruct.
²⁹ Lev.
³⁰ Lev.
³¹ Added from Orlah,
³³ Latin splenium,


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

רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הָעוֹשֶׂה אִיסְפְּלָנִית מִשּׁוֹר הַנִּסְקַל וּמֵחָמֵץ שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו הַפֶּסַח אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. שֶׁאֵין לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבּוֹ מְחוּוָר. מִכִּלאֵי הַכֶּרֶם לוֹקֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. פֶּן תִּקְדַּשׁ. פֶּן תּוּקַּד אֵשׁ. מֵעָרְלָה צְרִיכָה. עֲשֵׂה לְרָחֲקוֹ כָתוּב. לֹא תֵיעָשֶׂה לְאוֹכְלוֹ כָתוּב לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כָתוּב. לֹא תֵיעָשֶׂה לְרָחֲקוֹ לֹא כָתוּב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who makes a wound dressing³³ Greek σπληνίον, τό, “pad, wound dressing.” from a stoned ox³⁴. 21:28–29). Its meat is forbidden for usufruct as explained in the sequel. Cf. *Mekhilta dR.Ismael Mišpaṭim*10 (p. 282). or from leftover sour matter after Passover³⁵ cannot be whipped since its prohibition is not clear. For vineyard *kilaim* he is whipped since Rebbi Ḥanina said³⁶ 22:9. For this derivation, cf. *Kilaim* 8:1, Note 6.: *Lest it be sanctified,* lest fire should be kindled. For *ˋorlah* it is problematic. A prescriptive commandment to removal is written³⁷ fruit., a prohibition to eat is written³⁸ 19:23. Since R. Joḥanan reads לֹ֥א יֵֽאָכֵֽל as prohibition of eating, not of usufruct, he follows his teacher Ḥizqiah in rejecting the argument of R. Eleazar., [“do not eat”]³⁹, a prohibition to remove it is not written⁴⁰.

footnotes:
³³ Latin splenium,
³⁴ The Babli 24b explains that one might use fat from the stoned ox to cover a wound.The ox was stoned by order of the court because it killed humans (Ex
³⁵ Since the Mishnah had stated that leavened matter becomes prohibited for all usufruct in the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan, after the holiday it cannot become permitted again.
³⁶ Deut.
³⁷ Since Lev. 19:23 requires that the (budding) fruit is treated as “foreskin” and the foreskin has to be removed, one may take the verse as prescribing the removal of any ˋorlah
³⁸ Last two words of Lev.
³⁹ An incorrect and unnecessary addition by the corrector, not part of the original ms.
⁴⁰ Non-fulfillment of a prescriptive commandment is not prosecutable.


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

מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל הַשּׁוֹר. וְכִי אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁבְּשָׂרוֹ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ. בָּא לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ. שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה כָּךְ הוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. פָּתַר לָהּ בְּשֶׁקָּדְמוּ הַבְּעָלִים וּשְׁחָטוּהוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
In a *baraita*⁴¹ as stated here is not found in any other source except the Yerushalmi parallels in *Orlah* and *Avodah Zarah* 5:12 (Note 155). In *Mekhilta Mišpaṭim* 19; quoted in Babli 22b, *Qiddušin* 56b, *Bava Qamma* 41a the text explicitly notes that, since “its meat shall not be eaten” is included in the statement of the sentence to be passed by the court, only after judgment is rendered does slaughter become ineffective. This may also be he rule implied by the Yerushalmi Targum to *Ex.*21:28: וְלָא יִתְנְכַס לְמֵיכוּל יַת בִּשְׂרֵיהּ “it should not be slaughtered to make its flesh edible.” Since the Babli follows R. Eleazar, no discussion of the prohibition of usufruct is necessary. one disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: What does one understand from what has been said⁴². 21:28.: *the ox shall certainly be stoned?* Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food⁴³? Then why does the verse say, *its meat shall not be eaten?* To tell you that just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden for usufruct. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explained it if the owners slaughtered it before sentence was pronounced⁴⁴.

footnotes:
⁴¹ The baraita
⁴² Ex
⁴³ As carcass meat.
⁴⁴ This statement directly contradicts the position of the Babli. R. Joḥanan will hold that the prescriptive commandment to stone the ox after judgment has been passed automatically makes any slaughter invalid; that would not need a proof from the verse.


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

רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. הָכָא תֵימַר הָכֵין וְהָכָא תֵימַר הָכֵין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הָדָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר וְהָדָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Here you say so, there you say so⁴⁵? He said to him, here in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, there in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan.

footnotes:
⁴⁵ He states contradictory theses, whether or not prohibition as food implies prohibition of usufruct.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:1:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:1:9)

רַבָּנִן דְּקַיְסָרִין רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא תֹאכַל לֹא תֹאכְלוּ אֵין אַתְּ תּוֹפֵשׂ אִיסּוּר הֲנָיָיה כְּאִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה. לֹא תֵאָכֵל לֹא יֵאָכֵל אַתְּ תּוֹפֵשׂ אִיסּוּר הֲנָיָיה כְּאִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה. בִּנְיַין אַב שֶׁבְּכוּלָּם. וְכָל חַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר יוּבָא מִדָּמָהּ אֶל אוֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לְכַפֵּר בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ לֹא תֵאָכֵל בָּאֵשׁ תִּשָּׂרֵף. תַּנֵּי חִזְקִיָּה מְסַיֵיעַ לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר חֵלֶב שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ. לְאֵי זֶה דָּבָר נֶאֱמַר וְחֵלֶב נְבֵילָה וְחֵלֶב טְרֵיפָה יֵעָשֶׂה לְכָל מְלָאכָה. אֲפִילוּ לִמְלֶאכֶת גָּבוֹהַּ. מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר רַק הַדָּם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ. לְאֵי זֶה דָּבָר נֶאֱמַר עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם. מָה הַמַּיִם מַכְשִׁירִין. אַף הַדָּם יְהֵא מַכְשִׁיר. מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כָל נְבֵילָה. לְאֵי זֶה דָּבָר נֶאֱמַר לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ. בָּא לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ. גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב אוֹכֵל בִּנְבֵילוֹת. מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵיפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר לַכֶּלֶב תַּשְׁלִיכוּן אוֹתוֹ. אוֹתוֹ אַתָּה מַשְׁלִיךְ לַכֶּלֶב וְאֵין אַתְּ מַשְׁלִיךְ לַכֶּלֶב חוּלִין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בָעֲזָרָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating if it is written *do not eat, do not eat. It may not be eaten (f.). it may not be eaten (m.),* you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating⁴⁶. The paradigm for all cases is⁴⁷ 6:23.: *Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned*⁴⁸ 8(5), quoted in Babli *Zebaḥim* 82a, Yerushalmi *Pesaḥim*7:9, fol. 35a] following a punctuation which differs from the masoretic one: *Any purification offering, some of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify, in the Sanctuary it shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned.* This is a possible reading since purification offerings may be eaten only in the Sanctuary. Then “Sanctuary” is taken also to refer to the last clause, (in the sanctuary) *in fire it shall be burned.* This excludes all sacred and profane usufruct after purification.. Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said⁴⁹ 7:23.: *Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat,* why has it been said: *but fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work?* Even for the work of Heaven²⁴ 7:23. In the opinion of the Babli 23a, the verse is needed to permit any use of profane fat since otherwise one would argue that since fat is forbidden for humans but required for the altar, fat of animals unfit for the altar should be permitted for use in the Temple but forbidden for profane use. In the *Sifra Ṣaw (Parasha* 10), the argument of the Babli is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean; R. Aqiba concludes that fat of domesticated animals is not food nor subject to the impurity of food.
In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, since some fat is permitted for unrestricted use, no fat can be forbidden for usufruct in the absence of an explicit verse. For Ḥizqiah, this is a third verse that could be used for R. Eleazar’s argument; nobody will contest that three parallel verses invalidate the argument. In the second version of Ḥizqiah’s position (below, after Note 49), he needs the verse to permit use of fat for work on Temple property.. If one understands what has been said⁵⁰ 12:16.: *But the blood you shall not eat,* why has it been said,*you shall pour it on the ground like water?* As water prepares⁵¹ 2:3, Notes 136–141., so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said⁵² 14:21.: *Do not eat any carcass;* why has it been said, *to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it?* It serves to tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat⁵³. If one understands what has been said⁵⁴ 22:30.: *Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat,* why does the verse say, *throw it to the dog?* This you throw to the dog but you do not throw profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct⁵⁵.17:4..

footnotes:
⁴⁶ In contrast to the statement of R. Eleazar (Note 17) it is asserted that if the prohibition of food is in the active voice it does not imply prohibition of usufruct. Still the passive voice does imply prohibition of usufruct.
⁴⁷ Lev.
⁴⁸ It is shown that the passive voice implies prohibition of usufruct, since it is the only such case where the inference is valid according to everybody. The verse is understood (Sifra Ṣaw Pereq
⁴⁹ Lev.
²⁴ Lev.
⁵⁰ Deut.
⁵¹ Preparation for impurity is explained in Demay
⁵² Deut.
⁵³ The resident sojourner, in order to receive the full protection of the law, only has to follow the “precepts of the descendants of Noe”, to abstain from idolatry, murder, incest and adultery, eating limbs tom from a living animal, blasphemy, robbery, and anarchy.
⁵⁴ Ex.
⁵⁵ In the Babli 22a this is quoted as the opinion of R. Meïr. It is forbidden to slaughter anything but sacrifices in the Temple precinct, Lev


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:1:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:1:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:1:10)

מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְדֵין וּמַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְדֵין. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. לֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ. לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת הַמַּאֲכִיל כְּאוֹכֵל. וְאַתָּה אוֹמֵר. לַעֲשׂוֹת הַמַּאֲכִיל כְּאוֹכֵל. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְאוֹסְרוֹ בַהֲנָיָיה. וּכְשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ. הָא לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַהֲנָיָיה. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ. לַעֲשׂוֹת הַמַּאֲכִיל כְּאוֹכֵל. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָה. רִבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר. אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. וּמַה שְׂרָצִים קַלִּים עָשָׂה בָהֶם אֶת הַמַּאֲכִיל כְּאוֹכֵל. חָמֵץ הֶחָמוּר אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה בוֹ אֶת הַמַּאֲכִיל כְּאוֹכֵל. וּמַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ. לֹא בָא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לְאוֹסְרוֹ בַהֲנָיָיה. בְּגִין כֵּן כָּתוּב לֹא יֵאָכֵל. הָא מִלֹּא תֹאכַל לֵית שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ כְּלוּם. וְהָדָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
A *baraita*⁵⁶ 16, p. 51. *Tanḥuma Bo* 11 supports both of them. The *baraita* supports Rebbi Eleazar⁵⁷. *Sour bread shall not be eaten*⁵⁸ 13:3.*,* to make the feeder equal to the eater⁵⁹. And you say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says:⁶⁰ 16:3. *You shall not eat sour bread with it,* we learned that usufruct is forbidden⁶¹. Therefore, why does the verse say, *sour bread shall not be eaten?* To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition⁶², He made the feeder equal to the eater⁶³ 5(1). R. Abraham ben David in his commentary notes that this is not the position of the Babli; he does not refer to the Yerushalmi.; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that we consider the feeder to be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse serves only to forbid its usufruct. Since it is written, *sour bread shall not be eaten,* therefore from *you shall not eat* one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan ⁶⁴ 3:1..

footnotes:
⁵⁶ Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Bo
⁵⁷ The disagreement between R. Eleazar and R. Joḥanan is an old tannaitic disagreement between Rabbis Josia and Isaac of the fourth tannaitic generation.
⁵⁸ Ex.
⁵⁹ The person who serves sour matter to a Jew on Passover is guilty as if he ate it, to be punished by extirpation. If the server acts intentionally and the eater unintentionally, the server alone is punishable.
⁶⁰ Deut.
⁶¹ This is the position of R. Eleazar.
⁶² Eating forbidden living things is punished by whipping by the earthly court; but eating sour matter on Passover is punished by Heaven with extirpation.
⁶³ Sifra Šemini Pereq
⁶⁴ Here ends the parallel with ˋOrlah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:1:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:1:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:1:11)

לֹא יַסִּיק בּוֹ תַּנּוּר וְכִירַיִם. עָבַר וְהִסִּיק. יָיבֹא כְהָדָא. אִם חָדָשׁ יוּתָּץ. אִם יָשָׁן יוּצָּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Nor use it to heat an oven or a cooking stove.” If he transgressed and heated, it shall come like the following⁶⁵ 3:14, dealing with using wood from an *Asherah* to heat a clay stove which was not finished in a kiln. It would become hardened by being exposed to the fire kindled in them. Therefore a new oven would be finished by the *Ashera* wood; it must be destroyed. The text might be a quote not of this Mishnah but of Tosephta *Orlah* 7 dealing with the same situation if the fuel is *orlah* fruit (*Orlah* 3:3 Note 114) which is quoted *in extenso* in the Babli 26b.: “If it was new it must be destroyed²⁷⁰ are moist, leavening would be caused by the addition of flour., if it was old it must be cooled down.”

footnotes:
⁶⁵ Mishnah Avodah zarah
²⁷⁰ Prepared to be used with the meat. Since both this and haroset


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:1:12
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:1:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:1:12)

תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. אֵין בִּיעוּר חָמֵץ אֶלָּא בִשְׂרֵיפָה. דִּין הוּא. מָה אִם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בַּל יֵירָאֶה וּבַל יִימָּצֵא אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִשְׂרֵיפָה. חָמֵץ שֶׁהוּא בְּבַל יֵירָאֶה וּבַל יִימָּצֵא אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אֶלָּא בִשְׂרֵיפָה. אָמְרוּ לֹו לְרִבִּי יוּדָה. כָּל דִּין שֶׁאַתָּה דָן שֶׁתְּחִילָּתוֹ לְהַחֲמִיר וְסוֹפוֹ לְהָקֵל אֵינוֹ דִין. הָא אִם לֹא נִתָמַנֶּה לוֹ אוֹר יֵשֵׁב לוֹ וְלֹא יַבְעִיר. אָמְרָה תוֹרָה תַּשְׁבִּיתוּ שְּׂאוֹר מִבָּתֵּיכֶם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, leavened matter may only be eliminated by burning.⁶⁶ 12:15, pp. 17–18.. It is an argument *de minore ad majus.* Since *piggul*⁶⁷ 19:7. and leftover⁶⁸, which are not under an injunction not to be seen and not to be found, only may be disposed of by burning, for leavened matter which is under an injunction not to be seen and not to be found, it is only logical that it only may be disposed by burning. They told Rebbi Jehudah, any argument *de minore ad majus* which you argue in the beginning as a restriction but it turns out in the end to be a leniency, is no argument *de minore ad majus*⁶⁹ in: *Confrontations with Judaism,* Ph. Longworth, ed., London 1966, pp. 171–196.*.* It would imply that if he does not find fire he could sit and not dispose of it. The Torah said⁷⁰ 12:15., *eliminate sour dough from your houses.*

footnotes:
⁶⁶ The first and last paragraphs in this section are also quoted in the Babli, 27b–28a; Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥay ad Ex.
⁶⁷ Sacrifices which were offered with the intention that the meat be eaten out of place or time; Lev.
⁶⁸ Sacrificial meat left over after the time allotted for its consumption, depending on the kind of sacrifice either day and night or two daytimes with the night in between.
⁶⁹ The premise that there be a case of major and minor is disproved. Cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition,
⁷⁰ Ex.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:1:13
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:1:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:1:13)

כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה. אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ וְיָלְדָה זָכָר. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר. לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְטָמְאָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי יִמּוֹל. שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי בְיוֹצֵא חַי שֶׁהוּא מְטַמֵּא אֶת אִמּוֹ טוּמְאַת לֵידָה. מְנַיִין לְיוֹצֵא מֵת שֶׁהוּא מְטַמֵּא אֶת אִמּוֹ טוּמְאַת לֵידָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה. הֲרֵי אֲנִי דָן. מָה אִם בְּיוֹצֵא חַי. שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶת אִמּוֹ וְאֶת הַבָּאִין עִמּוֹ [וְאֶת הָבָּא עִם אִמּוֹ] לְאוֹהֶל טוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה. מְטַמֵּא אֶת אִמּוֹ טוּמְאַת לֵידָה. הַיּוֹצֵא מֵת. שֶׁהוּא מְטַמֵּא אֶת אִמּוֹ וְאֶת הַבָּאִין עִמּוֹ [וְאֶת הָבָּא עִם אִמּוֹ] לְאוֹהֶל טוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה. אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּטַמֵּא אֶת אִמּוֹ טוּמְאַת לֵידָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרִבִּי יוּדָה. כָּל דִּין שֶׁתְּחִילָּתוֹ אַתָּה דָן לְהַחֲמִיר וְסוֹפוֹ לְהָקֵל אֵינוֹ דִין. הָא אִם טִיהֵר הַחַי אֶת אִמּוֹ יְטָהֵר אַף הַמֵּת אֶת אִמּוֹ. אִם לֹא זָכִיתִי מן הַדִּין. [לְפִיכָךְ] אָמְרָה תוֹרָה זָכָר. לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַמֵּת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Similarly said Rebbi Jehudah, *if a woman carries seed and gives birth to a male*⁷¹ 13:1. *Sifra TazriaˋIntroduction* (5); another version of *Sifra* in *Midrash Haggadol Lev.,* ed A. Steinsalz, Jerusalem 1976, pp. 313–314.*.* What does the verse imply? Since it is said, *she shall be impure for seven days,*⁷² 13:2.*and on the eighth day one shall circumcise,* I understand that a live birth makes his mother impure by the impurity of birth. From where that a stillbirth makes his mother impure by the impurity of birth? Rebbi Jehudah said, I am presenting an argument *de minore ad majus.* Since a live birth, who does not make impure for seven days his mother, and those who come with him⁷³ this refers to multiple births if one of the fetuses is dead., [or who comes with his mother,]⁷⁴ into a tent⁷⁵ A stillbirth causes impurity of the dead not only by touch but also by being under the same “tent” and requires the purification rite of the ashes of the Red Cow described in *Num.* 19., the stillbirth who makes impure for seven days his mother, and those who come with him, [or who comes with his mother,]⁷⁴ into a tent, it is only logical that he should make his mother impure by the impurity of birth. They told Rebbi Jehudah, any argument *de minore ad majus* which you argue in the beginning as a restriction but it turns out in the end to be a leniency is no argument *de minore ad majus.* As a consequence, since a live birth purifies his mother⁷⁶, also the stillbirth should purify his mother? Since I cannot prove it by an argument *de minore ad majus,* [therefore} the Torah said *a male,* to include the stillbirth⁷⁷ fetus recognizably male..

footnotes:
⁷¹ Lev.
⁷² Lev.
⁷³ According to Pene Mosheh,
⁷⁴ Unnecessary addition by the corrector.
⁷⁵ A live birth causes his mother to be impure for seven days; after this time she may remove her impurity at any time by immersion in a miqweh.
⁷⁴ Unnecessary addition by the corrector.
⁷⁶ After the impurity of the first 7 days, the next 33 days for a male or 66 days for a female no genital discharge of the mother induces biblical impurity.
⁷⁷ Since the mention of a female in v. 5 implies that the preceding verses refer to a male, the explicit mention of “male” is unnecessary. It is concluded that the verses refer to any


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:1:14
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:1:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:1:14)

כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה. תֵּשְׁבוּ בַּסּוּכּוֹת. סוּכָּה שֶׁלָּכָל דָּבָר. שֶׁהָיָה רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. הַדִּין נוֹתֵן שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא הַסּוּכָּה בָאָה אֶלָּא מֵאַרְבָּעַת הַמִּינִין. מָה אִם לוּלָב שֶׂאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בַּלֵּילוֹת כְּבַיָּמִים אֵינוֹ בָא אֶלָּא מֵאַרְבָּעַת הַמִּינִין. סוּכָּה שֶׁהִיא נוֹהֶגֶת בַּלֵּילוֹת כְּבַיָּמִים אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֶֹּא תָבוֹא אֶלָּא מֵאַרְבָּעַת הַמִּינִין. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרִבִּי יוּדָה. כָּל דִּין שֶׁאַתָּה דָן שֶׁתְּחִילָּתוֹ לְהַחֲמִיר וְסוֹפוֹ לְהָקֵל אֵינוֹ דִין. הָא לֹא מָצָא מֵאַרְבָּעַת הַמִּינִין יֵשֵׁב לוֹ בְלֹא סוּכָּה. וְאָמְרָה תוֹרָה תֵּשְׁבוּ בַּסּוּכּוֹת. סוּכָּה שֶׁלָּכָל דָּבָר. [וְכֵן עֶזְרָא אָמַר וַאֲשֶׁר יַשְׁמִיעוּ וְיַעֲבִירוּ קוֹל בְּכָל עָרִים וּבִירוּשָׁלַם לֵאמֹר צְאוּ הָהָר וגו׳.]

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Similarly said Rebbi Jehudah, “you should dwell in huts⁷⁸23:42 where the text reads either בַּסֻּכֹּ֥ת תֵּֽשְׁב֖וּ or יֵֽשְׁב֖וּ בַּסֻּכֹּֽת. The quote is correct in *Sifra Emor Pereq* 17(10) but incorrect in *Midrash Haggadol* (Note 71) p. 763. The reference is to the holiday of Tabernacles.,” a hut made of anything. For Rebbi Jehudah was saying, it is an argument *de minore ad majus* that the hut should come only from the Four Kinds⁷⁹ tree (*Lev.* 23:40), probably cannot be used for this purpose. [In medieval Germany the roof of the festival hut usually was covered with willow branches, *Sefer Maharil* (ed. S. J. Spitzer, Jerusalem 1989, p. 363)].. Since the *lulav* which is not used in nights as in days may come only from the Four Kinds, it is only logical that a hut which is used by nights as well as by days should come only from the Four Kinds. They told Rebbi Jehudah, any argument *de minore ad majus* which you argue in the beginning as a restriction but it turns out in the end to be a leniency is no argument *de minore ad majus.* As a consequence, if he did not find of the Four Kinds, should he sit without a hut? But the Torah said, “you should dwell in huts,” a hut made of anything. [And so Ezra said⁸⁰ 8:15. The proof is from the continuation of the verse, not quoted in the text: *Bring olive leaves, and oil-wood leaves, and myrrh leaves, and palm leaves, and ˋavot-tree leaves, to make huts as it is written.* Corrector’s addition from the parallel sources., *they informed and did proclaim in all cities and in Jerusalem, go to the mountain, etc.*]

footnotes:
⁷⁸ The reference obviously is to Lev.
⁷⁹ This can only mean that the thatched roof of the hut, which must be of vegetal material, should be composed of willow, myrrh, or palm branches. The fourth kind, the fruit of the hadar
⁸⁰ Neh.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:1:15
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:1:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:1:15)

חָזַר רִבִּי יוּדָה וְדָנוֹ דִין אַחֵר. חָמֵץ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וְנוֹתָר אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. מַה זֶה בִשְׂרֵיפָה אַף זֶה בִשְׂרֵיפָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. נְבֵילָה תוֹכִיחַ. שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה בַאֲכִילָה וְאֵינָהּ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. אָמַר לָהֶן. חָמֵץ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָיָיה וְנוֹתָר אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָיָיה. אַל תּוֹכִיחַ נְבֵילָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ וַהֲרֵי שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל יוֹכִיחַ. שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָיָיה וְאֵינוֹ בִשְׂרֵיפָה. אָמַר לָהֶן. חָמֵץ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָיָיה וְחַיָיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת [וְנוֹתָר אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָיָיה וְחַיָיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת]. אַל יוֹכִיחַ שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל שֶׁאֵין חַיָיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. וַהֲרֵי חֵלֶב שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל יוֹכִיחַ. שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָיָיה וְחַיָיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת וְאֵינוֹ בִשְׂרֵיפָה. אָמַר לָהֶן. חָמֵץ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָיָיה וְחַיָיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת וְיֵשׁ לוֹ זְמַן וְנוֹתָר אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָיָיה וְחַיָיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת וְיֵשׁ לוֹ זְמַן. אַל יוֹכִיחַ חֵלֶב שׁוֹר הִַנִּסְקָל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ זְמַן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. וַהֲרֵי אָשָׁם תָּלוּי כְשִׁיטָּתָךְ יוֹכִיחַ. שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָיָיה וְחַיָיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת וְיֵשׁ לוֹ זְמַן [וְאֵינוֹ בִשְׂרֵיפָה]. וְשָׁתַק רִבִּי יוּדָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jehudah came back and presented another argument: Leavened matter is forbidden as food and leftover⁶⁸ is forbidden as food. Since the latter is to be burned⁸¹ 19:8., the former is to be burned. They told him, carcass meat disproves since it is forbidden as food and is not to be burned²⁰ 14:21.. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food and for usufruct and leftover is forbidden as food and for usufruct; carcass meat does not disprove since it is not forbidden for usufruct. They told him, the stoned ox³⁴. 21:28–29). Its meat is forbidden for usufruct as explained in the sequel. Cf. *Mekhilta dR.Ismael Mišpaṭim*10 (p. 282). disproves which is forbidden as food and for usufruct⁸²(*Ex.* 21:18) in the passive voice, according to everybody this implies prohibition of usufruct. and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation⁸³. 12:19., [and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation]⁸⁴. 19:8.; the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not make liable for extirpation. They told him, the fat⁸⁵. 7:25. of the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time; the fat of the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not depend on time. They told him, a suspended sacrifice⁸⁶ following your opinion⁸⁷ 7:6 it is stated that Sages hold that the body of an animal dedicated as a hung sacrifice which was wrongly slaughtered has to be burned, but R. Jehudah requires that it be buried. does disprove since it is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, [but is not to be burned]. Rebbi Jehudah remained silent⁸⁸.

footnotes:
⁶⁸ Sacrificial meat left over after the time allotted for its consumption, depending on the kind of sacrifice either day and night or two daytimes with the night in between.
⁸¹ Lev.
²⁰ Deut.
³⁴ The Babli 24b explains that one might use fat from the stoned ox to cover a wound.The ox was stoned by order of the court because it killed humans (Ex
⁸² Since it says, its meat may not be eaten
⁸³ Ex
⁸⁴ Lev
⁸⁵ Lev
⁸⁶ The sacrifice by a person who suspects that he inadvertently committed a deadly sin. He may not bring a purification sacrifice since that is possible only if there is proof of inadvertent sin; Lev. 5:17–19.
⁸⁷ In Mishnah Temurah
⁸⁸ And practice does not follow him.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:1:16
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:1:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:1:16)

תַּנֵּי. עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַן בִּיעוּרוֹ אַתְּ מְבַעֲרוֹ בְכָל דָּבָר. מִשֶּׁהִגִּיעַ זְמַן בִּיעוּרוֹ אַתְּ מְבַעֲרוֹ בִשְׂרֵיפָה. וְאַתְיָא כְרִבִּי יוּדָה. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַן בִּיעוּרוֹ אַתְּ מְבַעֲרוֹ בִשְׂרֵיפָה. מִשֶּׁהִגִּיעַ זְמַן בִּיעוּרוֹ אַתְּ מְבַעֲרוֹ בְכָל דָּבָר. וְאַתְיָא כְרַבָּנִין. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. תַּשְׁבִּיתוּ שְּׂאוֹר מִבָּתֵּיכֶם. דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בַּל יֵרָאֶה וּבַל יִמָּצֵא. וְאֵי זֶה. זֶה בִשְׂרֵיפָה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר שֶׁהֵמִית בַּמֶּה הִיא מִיתָתוֹ. בָּעֲרִיפָה [אוֹ] בִסְקִילָה. רִבִּי בִּנְיָמִן בַּר לֵוִי שָׁאַל. חַלּוֹת תּוֹדָה שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ נוֹתָר. נֵימַר. אִם נַעֲשׂוּ נוֹתָר עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַן בִּיעוּרָן. אַתְּ מְבַעֲרָן בְכָל דָּבָר. מִשֶּׁהִגִּיעַ זְמַן בִּיעוּרָן אַתְּ מְבַעֲרָן בִשְׂרֵיפָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated: Before the time of its elimination you eliminate it in any way you wish; at the time of its elimination you eliminate it by burning. This follows Rebbi Jehudah. There are Tannaim who state, before the time of its elimination you eliminate it by burning; at the time of its elimination you eliminate it in any way you wish⁸⁹. This follows the rabbis. Rebbi says, *remove sour dough from your houses,* anything which may not be seen nor found⁹⁰ 12:15. Rebbi disagrees with both the preceding *baraitot.* Since it is spelled out in Chapter 13 that on Passover sour matter may neither be seen nor found, the only acceptable form of removal both before noontime of the 14 or at noontime is by burning which transforms everything into ashes. If one would bury the leavened matter or crumble it and scatter it in the wind, it still would exist and could be found. 90a The firstling of a donkey which was not redeemed by a lamb given to a Cohen must be killed by breaking its neck (*Ex.*13:13). An animal which killed a human must be stoned (*Ex.* 21:28). If both conditions apply there are no rules to decide which precept to apply.. How is this? By burning. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if the firstling of a donkey killed, what is the form of his execution? By breaking the neck or by stoning? Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi asked about leftover flat-bread from a thanksgiving sacrifice, should we say that if they were left before the time ofelimination you may eliminate it in any way you wish; at the time of its elimination you have to eliminate it by burning⁹¹?

footnotes:
⁸⁹ The Babli disagrees, 12b.
⁹⁰ Ex.
⁹¹ A thanksgiving offering must be accompanied by leavened bread (Chapter 1, Notes 34, 143). The argument is that if the offering was brought on the 14th of Nisan (cf. Chapter 1, Note 148) and there was no time to eat the bread, it is not biblical leftover; before noontime any elimination is purely rabbinical and can be done in any way. At noontime it no longer can be eaten by biblical standards, it becomes biblical leftover before its time and has to be burned. That latter statement is independent of the disagreements between R. Jehudah, Rebbi, and the Sages.


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

**משנה:** חָמֵץ שֶׁל נָכְרִי שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו הַפֶּסַח מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא יֵרָאֶה לְךָ: נָכְרִי שֶׁהִלְוָה אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל חֲמֵיצוֹ לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה וְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהִלְוָה אֶת הַנָּכְרִי עַל חֲמֵיצוֹ לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה. חָמֵץ שֶׁנָּפְלָה עָלָיו מַפּוֹלֶת הֲרֵי הוּא כִמְבוֹעָר. רַבָּן שִׂמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר כָּל שֶׁאֵין הַכֶּלֶב יָכוֹל לְחַפֵּשׂ אַחֲרָיו:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** A Non-Jew’s leavened matter which existed during Passover is permitted for usufruct but a Jew’s is forbidden for usufruct since it is said⁹² 13:7., *it should not be seen in your possession.* If a Non-Jew gave a loan to a Jew secured by leavened matter, after Passover it is permitted for usufruct⁹³ but if a Jew gave a loan to a Non-Jew secured by leavened matter, after Passover it is forbidden for usufruct. Leavened matter on which debris fell⁹⁴ is as if eliminated; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only one which cannot be dug out by a dog.

footnotes:
⁹² Ex.
⁹³ If the leavened matter is mortgaged, the Jew may not sell or destroy it; therefore it is considered the creditor’s property. The Babli disagrees and restricts the Mishnah to the case that the Non-Jew has custody of the material.
⁹⁴ When a wall or a house collapsed.


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

**הלכה:** הָא בָאֲכִילָה אָסוּר. מַתְנִיתָא בְמָקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא נָהֲגוּ לוֹכַל פַּת גּוֹיִם. [אֲבָל בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לֶאֱכֹל פַּת גּוֹיִם] מוּתָּר אֲפִילוּ בַּאֲכִילָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Therefore it is forbidden for eating⁹⁵? The Mishnah refers to a place where they are used not to eat Gentile bread; [but at a place where they used to eat Gentile bread] it is permitted even for eating.

footnotes:
⁹⁵ Since the Mishnah is formulated “is permitted for usufruct” and not simply “is permitted”, it appears that the addition “for usufruct” is a restriction, excluding the use as kosher food.


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

בְּתוֹךְ הַפֶּסַח מָהוּ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר. מוּתָּר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אָמַר. אָסוּר. הָתִיב רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. וְהָתַנֵּי. לֹא יַשְׂכִּיר יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ לְגוֹי לְהָבִיא עָלֶיהָ חָמֵץ. פָּתַר לָהּ. בְּבָא עִמּוֹ. וְהָתַנֵּי. לֹא יַשְׂכִּיר יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת סְפִינָתוֹ לְגוֹי לְהָבִיא עָלֶיהָ חָמֵץ. פָּתַר לָהּ. בְּבָא עִמּוֹ. וְהָא תַנֵּי. לֹא יַשְׂכִּיר יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת בֵּיתוֹ לְגוֹי לִיתֵּן בְּתוֹכוֹ חָמֵץ. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר. בְּדָר עִמּוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
What is it during Passover⁹⁶? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose objected: but was it not stated: An Israel may not lease his animal to a Gentile to use it to transport leavened matter? He⁹⁷ explains it, if he comes with him. But was it not stated: An Israel may not lease his ship to a Gentile to use it to transport leavened matter? He explains it, if he comes with him. But was it not stated: An Israel may not lease his house to a Gentile to store leavened matter in it. Can you say, if he dwells with him⁹⁸?

footnotes:
⁹⁶ May the Jew use the Gentile’s leavened matter for industrial purposes on Passover?
⁹⁷ R. Jeremiah.
⁹⁸ Therefore practice has to follow R. Yose. However, since the Tosephta 2:14 states: “An Israel may lease his animal to a Gentile to transport leavened matter from place to place”, Raviah (§449) reads the quotes as declarative sentences supporting R. Jeremiah, that leasing animal or ship to a Gentile is forbidden only if the Jew drives the animal or steers the ship. Then the last question is not rhetorical and is left without answer.


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

גַּגּוֹ שֶׁלְגּוֹי שֶׁהָיָה סָמוּךְ לְגַגּוֹ שֶׁלְיִשְׂרָאֵל. וְנִתְגַּלְגֵּל חָמֵץ מִגַּגּוֹ שֶׁלְגּוֹי לְגַגּוֹ שֶׁלְיִשְׂרָאֵל. הֲרֵי זֶה דוֹחְפוֹ בְקָנֶה. אִם הָיְתָה שַׁבָּת אוֹ יוֹם טוֹב. רַב אָמַר. כּוֹפֶה עָלֶיהָ כֶּלִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If the roof of a Gentile was adjacent to a Jew’s roof and leavened matter rolled from the Gentile’s roof to the Jew’s roof, he pushes it away with a stick⁹⁹. If it was Sabbath or holiday¹⁰⁰ on Sabbath or holiday and may not be moved. A similar statement appears in the Babli 6a., Rav said, he covers it with a vessel.

footnotes:
⁹⁹ But he may not touch leavened matter on Passover.
¹⁰⁰ Since leavened matter is forbidden, it is muqṣeh


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

רַב אָמַר. צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. כָּל חָמֵץ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְתוֹךְ בֵּיתִי וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ בוֹ יִבָּטֵל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rav said, one has to say “any leavened matter which I have in my house unknown to me shall be nullified.¹⁰¹”

footnotes:
¹⁰¹ Babli 6b. While the Babli does not mention “unknown to me”, the discussion there implies that this is understood.


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

רַב אָמַר. צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. אֲשֶׁר קִידְּשָׁנוּ בְמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִיוָּנוּ עַל מִצְוַת בִּיעוּר חָמֵץ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rav said, one has to say “Who sanctified us by His Commandments and commanded us about the precept of eliminating leavened matter.¹⁰² Northvale 1995, p.194.”

footnotes:
¹⁰² Babli 7a (bottom) in the name of later Amoraim. The benediction has to be introduced by the formula: “Praise to You, Eternal, our God, King of the universe”. Cf. H. Guggenheimer, The Scholar’s Haggadah,


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

רַב אָמַר. הַטָּח בֵּיתוֹ חָמֵץ צָרִיךְ לְבָעֵר. תַּנֵּי. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׂמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. בָּצֵק שֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ כּוּפָת בָּטֵל. פָּתַר לָהּ. אוֹ חֲלוּקִין עַל רִבִּי שִׂמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. אוֹ אָהֵן כּוּפָת מָאִיס הִיא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rav said, he who affixes leavened matter to his house has to eliminate¹⁰³. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, if one turns dough into a clump, it is nullified¹⁰⁴ 129a. In the Babli: “A clump used to sit on it.” The leavened matter no longer is food. He¹⁰⁵ explains it, either that one disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or that this clump is repugnant.

footnotes:
¹⁰³ Ravan (ed. S. Albeck, Warsaw 1904) §7: “For what is customary to rub off walls which were touched by leavened matter before Passover and also to wash the chairs, I found support in the Yerushalmi: Rav said, he who affixes leavened matter to his house has to eliminate.” Copied by Raviah (§451) and later authors.
¹⁰⁴ Babli 45b, Ḥulin
¹⁰⁵ Rav, who requires that leavened matter on walls be eliminated.


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

יִשְׂרָאֶל וְגוֹי שֶׁהָיוּ בָאִין בִּסְפִינָה וְחָמֵץ בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל. הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹכְרוֹ לְגוֹי אוֹ נוֹתְנוֹ לוֹ מַתָּנָה. וְחוֹזֵר וְלוֹקְחוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּתְּנוֹ לוֹ מַתָּנָה גְמוּרָה. אוֹמֵר הוּא יִשְׂרָאֵל לְגוֹי. עַד שֶׁאַתְּ לוֹקֵחַ בִּמְנָה. בּוֹא וְקַח לָךְ בְמָאתַיִם. עַד שֶׁאַתְּ לוֹקֵחַ לָךְ מִגּוֹי. בּוֹא וְקַח לָךְ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. שֶׁמָּא אֶצְטָרֵךְ וְאֶקַּח מִמָּךְ אַחַר הַפֶּסַח.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹⁰⁶“If a Jew and a Gentile were travelling by ship¹⁰⁷ and leavened matter was in the Jew’s hand, he sells it to the Gentile or gives it to him as a gift; then he reverts and buys it from him after Passover¹⁰⁸, on condition that it was an unconditional gift¹⁰⁹. The Jew may say to the Gentile, instead of buying it for a mina, come and buy it for 200 [denar]¹¹⁰. Instead that you buy from a Gentile, come and buy it from a Jew, maybe I shall have need, then I shall buy from you after Passover¹¹¹.”

footnotes:
¹⁰⁶ Tosephta 2:13–14.
¹⁰⁷ On the 14th of Nisan.
¹⁰⁸ Since the leavened matter was the Gentile’s property on Passover, it is permitted for the Jew after the holiday, as stated in the Mishnah.
¹⁰⁹ It may not be given on condition that the Gentile return it after the holiday. It is necessary that the entire transaction result in some monetary reward for the Gentile.
¹¹⁰ While this cannot refer to dough (except in times of hyperinflation), it is common practice at the least to double the price in the sale for Passover of valuable enterprises engaged in processing leavened matter (e. g., a beer brewery), in order to guard against the Gentile selling the enterprise to an outsider.
¹¹¹ While the Jew cannot sign a contract requiring him to buy back the items after Passover, he can use language which the Gentile will interpret to that effect.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:2:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:2:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:2:9)

הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ. עַד שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּנֵס לְתוֹכוֹ. הַמַּשְׂכּיר צָרִיךְ לְבָעֵר. מִשֶּׁיִּכָּנֵס לְתוֹכוֹ. הַשּׂוֹכֵר צָרִיךְ לְבָעֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אֵימָתַי. בִּזְמַן שֶׁמָּסַר לוֹ אֶת הַמַּפְתֵּחַ. אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁלֹּא מָסַר לוֹ אֶת הַמַּפְתֵּחַ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְבָעֵר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If somebody rents out his house to another, as long as this one does not enter into it¹¹², the lessor has to eliminate; after this one entered into it, the lessee has to eliminate. Rebbi Simeon said, when? If he handed him the key, but as long as he did not hand him the key, he does not have to eliminate¹¹³.

footnotes:
¹¹² As the following remark of R. Simeon shows, this cannot mean that the lessee actually started using the house, but it must mean that the contract entered into effect on the 13th of Nisan. Babli 4a.
¹¹³ As long as the lessor controls the access to the house, even though the lessee has the right of use, the lessor is required to eliminate.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:2:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:2:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:2:10)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי בְּעִי. מָסַר לֹו אֶת הַמַּפְתֵּחַ מָהוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְכַרְיָה חַתְנֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי לֵוִי. מַחֲלוֹקֶת רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וַחֲכָמִים. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. הַמּוֹסֵר מַפְתֵּיחוֹ לְעַם הָאָרֶץ הַבַּיִת טָהוֹר. שֶׁלֹּא מָסַר לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁמִירַת הַמַּפְתֵּחַ. תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַמֵּא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹¹⁴ 1:4, Notes 435–438. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, I asked: What if he handed him the key¹¹⁵ 3:1, Note 12). Nevertheless *Sefer Haˋittur* (vol. 2, p. 121a, Note 17) reads the question as complement of the preceding statement.? Rebbi Zachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi said, this is the disagreement between Rebbi Simeon and the Sages, as we have stated there¹¹⁶ 7:1. The vulgar person is one who does not observe the rules of purity. He is considered a source of original impurity; cf. *Introduction to Tractate Demay.*: “If somebody hands over his key to a vulgar person, the house remains pure since he only entrusted him with safekeeping the key.” It was stated: Rebbi Simeon declares it impure¹¹⁷ 8:1. He holds that handing over the key implies authorization for unlimited entry into the premises..

footnotes:
¹¹⁴ Qiddušin
¹¹⁵ S. Liebermann points out that this cannot mean that the key was handed over after a contract for lease or sale was signed, since for a lease the matter was settled in the preceding paragraph and for a sale it is stated that transfer of the key is transfer of the property (Bava batra
¹¹⁶ Mishnah Tahorot
¹¹⁷ Tosephta Tahorot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:2:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:2:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:2:11)

גּוֹי שֶׁבָּא אֶצֶל יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבְיָדוֹ חָמֵץ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְבָעֵר. הִפְקִיד אֶצְלוֹ צָרִיךְ לְבָעֵר. יִיחַד לוֹ בַּיִת אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְבָעֵר. לֹא בִיעֵר לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח מָהוּ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר. מוּתָּר. רִבִּי יוֹסֶה אָמַר. אָסוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֶה. חֲמֵיצוֹ שֶׁלָּגוֹי הוּא. יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו וְלֹא בִיעֲרוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹¹⁸ (p. 23 1.16).“If a Gentile comes to a Jew with leavened matter in his hand, one does not need to eliminate. If he deposited with him, he has to eliminate¹¹⁹. If he gave him a separate room¹²⁰ he does not need to eliminate.” If he did not eliminate¹²¹, what is its status after Passover? Rebbi Jonah said, it is permitted; Rebbi Yose said, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, it is the Gentile’s leavened matter [but] the Jew acted wrongly and did not eliminate¹²².

footnotes:
¹¹⁸ Babli 6a; Tosephta 2:11; Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yohay Ba
¹¹⁹ If the Jew is responsible for loss.
¹²⁰ Which is not used for the Jew’s property during Passover.
¹²¹ The Gentile’s leavened matter for which the Jew is responsible.
¹²² While it is not the Jew’s property, it is his responsibility. Rabbinically one forces the Jew to destroy the leavened matter and to indemnify the Gentile. There is no need to emend the text.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:2:12
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:2:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:2:12)

מָאן תַּנָּא לֹא יֵרָאֶה לְךָ. רִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּתַנֵּי. הָאוֹכֵל חָמֵץ מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעֲלָה. וְכֵן חָמֵץ שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו הַפֶּסַח. הֲרֵי זֶה בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוּדָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. כָּל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת אֵין בּוֹ בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּאִסּוּר שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר. אִיסּוּרוֹ מָהוּ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר. אִיסּוּרוֹ דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. רִבִּי יּוֹנָה וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵה תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. אִיסּוּרוֹ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. מַה טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. לֹא יֵ‍אָכֵל חָמֵץ. הַיּוֹם. מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּתוֹךְ הַמּוֹעֵד. כְּבָר כָּתוּב [לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ]. אֶלָּא אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָין בְּתוֹךְ הַמּוֹעֵד תְּנֵיהוּ לְאַחַר הַמּוֹעֵד. מַה מְקַיֵים רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. לֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ. הַיּוֹם. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה. פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי. דְּתַנֵּי. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי אוֹמֵר. אוֹמֵר אֲנִי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה פֶסַח בְּמִצְרַיִם אֶלָא יוֹם אֶחָד בִּלְבַד. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ. הַיּוֹם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Who is the Tanna of *it should not be seen in your possession*¹²³? Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated¹²⁴: He who eats leavened matter after the sixth hour¹²⁵, as well as leavened matter which was in existence during Passover violates a biblical prohibition but there is no extirpation, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, anything for which there is no extirpation there is no biblical prohibition. Rebbi Simeon agrees about the prohibition that it is prohibited. What is its prohibition¹²⁶? Rebbi Jeremiah said, its prohibition is a word of the Torah. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, its prohibition is from their words. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? *No leavened matter may be eaten, today*¹²⁷ 13:4–5. “Today” belongs to the next sentence.*.* Where do we hold? If during the holiday, it already is written, *you may not eat leavened matter with it*¹²⁸ 16:3.*.* But if it does not refer to the time during the holiday, transfer it to the time after the holiday. How does Rebbi Simeon explain Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, *no leavened matter may be eaten, today*? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he will explain if following Rebbi Yose the Galilean, as it was stated: ¹²⁹ 11; *Mekhilta dR. Ismael**Bo* 16 (p. 62), *dR. Simeon Bar Yohay, Bo* (p. 38 1. 15). Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, I am saying that in Egypt the Passover was only one day as it was said, *no leavened matter may be eaten, today.*

footnotes:
¹²³ The first part of Mishnah 2, which requires elimination of the Gentile’s leavened matter for which the Jew is responsible.
¹²⁴ Somewhat differently quoted in the Babli, 28a/b.
¹²⁵ On the 14th of Nisan.
¹²⁶ This is asked for R. Simeon. It is clear that R. Jehudah holds that the prohibition is biblical since he forbids leavened matter one hour before it becomes biblically forbidden.
¹²⁷ Ex.
¹²⁸ Deut
¹²⁹ Tosephta 8:21, cf. Mishnah 9:4. Babli 28b; Tanḥuma Bo


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:2:13
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:2:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:2:13)

לֹא יֵרָאֶה לְךָ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. לֹא יֵרָאֶה לְךָ. לְךָ אֵין אַתְּ רוֹאֶה. [אֲבָל] רוֹאֶה אַתְּ לַגָּבוֹהַּ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֲפִילוּ לַגָּבוֹהַּ. מָאן דְּאָמַר. לְךָ אֵין אַתְּ רוֹאֶה רוֹאֶה אַתְּ לַגָּבוֹהַּ. בְּשֶׁהֶקְדֵּישׁוֹ קוֹדֵם לְבִיעוּרוֹ. מָאן דְּאָמַר. אֲפִילוּ לַגָּבוֹהַּ. כְּשֶׁהֶקְדֵּישׁוֹ לְאַחַר בִּיעוּרוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעוּרָא. תִּיפְתָּר בַּקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב בַּאֲחֵרָיוּתָן כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
*It should not be seen in your possession*⁹² 13:7.*.* There are Tannaim who state, *it should not be seen in your possession,* yours you may not see, [but]¹³⁰ you may see Heaven’s. There are Tannaim who state, not even Heaven’s. He who said, yours you may not see, you may see Heaven’s, if its dedication precedes its elimination¹³¹. He who said, not even Heaven’s, if its dedication is after its elimination. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: Explain it about *sancta* for which he is responsible in case of alienation following Rebbi Simeon¹³² as long as they are not redeemed for the benefit of the Temple. It is assumed that the dedication was not “this is given to the Temple” but “I will give a certain value to the Temple”. In the latter case only actual delivery fulfills the vow and according to R. Simeon [Mishnah *Bava qamma* 7:5 (Note 56)] even after dedication it remains the votary’s personal property until delivered..

footnotes:
⁹² Ex.
¹³⁰ Corrector’s addition. As the sentence after the next shows, the addition is unnecessary.
¹³¹ Everybody agrees that Temple property is exempt from elimination. A person may dedicate his leavened matter to the Temple, to be sold and the proceeds used for the service. If he did this before noon-time on the 14th, the dedication is valid. But if it was done on or after noontime, the matter already is (rabbinically) forbidden for usufruct, it is worthless, and nothing worthless can be dedicated to the Temple. The dedication is invalid and he is guilty of disregarding the obligation to eliminate leavened matter in a timely fashion.
¹³² It seems that here also one refers to matters dedicated to the Temple, which are sancta


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:2:14
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:2:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:2:14)

לֹא יֵרָאֶה לְךָ. [אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי.] לְךָ אֵין אַתְּ רוֹאֶה. רוֹאֶה אַתְּ בִּפְלַטֵיָא. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֲפִילוּ בִּפְלַטֵיָיא. מָאן דְּאָמַר. לְךָ אֵין אַתְּ רוֹאֶה רוֹאֶה אַתְּ בִּפְלַטֵיָיא. בְּשֶׁהֶבְקֵירוֹ קוֹדֵם לְבִיעוּרוֹ. מָאן דְּאָמַר. אֲפִילוּ בִּפְלַטֵיָא. בְּשֶׁהֶבְקֵירוֹ לְאַחַר בִּיעוּרוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה. תִּיפְתָּר בַּקֳּדָשִׁים וגו׳.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
*It should not be seen in your possession.* There are Tannaim who state, *it should not be seen in your possession,* yours you may not see; you may see it in the street¹³³; there are Tannaim who state, not even if in the street;. He who says, yours you may not see, you may see it in the street, if his renunciation of ownership precedes its elimination¹³⁴; he who said, not even in the street, if his renunciation of ownership follows its elimination. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it for *sancta*¹³⁵*,* etc.

footnotes:
¹³³ Greek πλατεῖα (sc., ὁδός) “a wide (road)”, equivalent of Hebrew רחוֹב.
¹³⁴ If the leavened matter was abandoned in the street and declared ownerless before noontime of the 14th. However, this statement has to be qualified, cf. Note 139.
¹³⁵ This sentence is a mindless copy from the preceding paragraph and is to be deleted.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:2:15
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:2:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:2:15)

הִבְקִיר חֶמְצוֹ בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח מָהוּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אָסוּר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. מוּתָּר. מָתִיב רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. אֵין אַתְּ מוֹדֶה לִי מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעֲלָן שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר. אָמַר לֵיהּ. תַּמָּן אִיסּוּרוֹ גָרַם לוֹ. הָכָא מָה אִית לָךְ [לְמֵימַר]. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה לְרִבִּי פִּנְחָס. נְהִיר אַתְּ כַּד הֲוִינָן אָמְרִין. אַתְיָיא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵה. וּדְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. אֵינָהּ כֵּן. אֶלָּא רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן חֲשַׁשׁ לְהַעֲרָמָה. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לֹא חֲשַׁשׁ לְהַעֲרָמָה. מַה נְפַק מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. נָפְלָה עָלָיו מַפּוֹלֶת. מָאן דְּאָמַר. הַעֲרָמָה. לֵית כָּאן הַעֲרָמָה. וְהוּא מוּתָּר. מָאן דְּאָמַר. זְכִיָיה. לֵית כָּאן זְכִיָיה. וְהוּא אָסוּר. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּגֵר שֶׁמֵּת וּבִיזְבְּזוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת נְכָסָיו. מָאן דְּאָמַר. הַעֲרָמָה. מוּתָּר. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר. זְכִיָיה. מוּתָּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If he declared his leavened matter ownerless on the thirteenth; what is its status after Passover¹³⁶? Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Do you not agree with me that it is forbidden after noontime¹³⁷? He answered, there its prohibition caused it; here what can you say¹³⁸? Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Phineas, do you remember that we said, Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish Rebbi Meïr¹³⁹ 6:1 (Notes 18,19) where R. Meïr holds that an object becomes ownerless as soon as it is abandoned in a public place and declared to be ownerless, whereas for R. Yose it remains the original owner’s property until picked up by another person.? It is not so. Only Rebbi Joḥanan is concerned about cunning¹⁴⁰, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is not concerned about cunning. What is the difference? If debris fell on it. He who says cunning, there is no cunning and it is permitted. He who said acquisition¹⁴¹, there is no acquisition and it is prohibited. Everybody agrees about a proselyte who died¹⁴² 9:15 Notes 111,121. and the Jews plundered his property. For him who says cunning, it is permitted, and for him who says acquisition, it is permitted¹.

footnotes:
¹³⁶ It is clear that it is forbidden during Passover (unless picked up by a Gentile before the holiday). May the original owner go back and pick it up again after the holiday?
¹³⁷ How can the prohibition be removed automatically?
¹³⁸ Even on the afternoon of the 14th it only is forbidden if no Gentile picked it up; it never was intrinsically forbidden; if the outside cause disappeared, the prohibition disappeared.
¹³⁹ The disagreement of RR. Yose (ben Halaphta) and Meïr is in Peah
¹⁴⁰ The owner might circumvent the obligation of elimination by declaring it ownerless but from the start intend to take it back after the holiday.
¹⁴¹ For R. Yose the leavened matter remains the owner’s property. He does not have to dig it out to burn since it is neither visible nor can it be used, but it remains permanently prohibited if it would be dug out afterwards.
¹⁴² If he failed to contract a Jewish marriage and start a Jewish family, his estate has no heirs and has the status of abandoned property. Cf. Bava qamma
¹ If the proselyte died before Passover and Jews took possession of his estate with leavened matter after Passover, the estate became ownerless by itself. The suspicion of cunning does not apply. Since a dead person cannot own anything, even R. Yose must agree that it was not property of a Jew during Passover; it is permitted.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:2:16
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:2:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:2:16)

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. עֶבֶד שֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ רַבּוֹ אֻפּוֹתֵיקִי לַאֲחֵרִים וְשִׁיחְרְרוֹ. [מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין אֵין הָעֶבֶד חַיָיב כְּלוּם. אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין וְכוֹתֵב שְׁטָר עַל דָּמָיו. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. אֵינוֹ כוֹתֵב אֶלָּא מְשַׁחְרֵר.] מִי מְשַׁחְרֵר. רַב אָמַר. בֵּין רַבּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן בֵּין רַבּוֹ אַחֲרוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵין לָךְ מְשַׁחְרֵר אֶלָּא רַבּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן בִּלְבַד. הָתִיב רִבִּי חַגַּי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהִלְוָה אֶת הַנָּכְרִי עַל חֲמֵיצוֹ לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. אִין תֵּימַר. בִּרְשׁוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא. יְהֵא אָסוּר. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רַב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. קַל הוּא בְשִׁיחְרוּר. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. הְעוֹשֶׂה עַבְדּוֹ אֻפּוֹתֵיקִי. מְכָרוֹ אֵינוֹ מָכוּר. שִׁיחְרְרוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה מְשׁוּחְרָר. חֵיילֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִן הָדָא. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. אֵינוֹ כוֹתֵב אֶלָּא מְשַׁחְרֵר. אִילּוּ הַמְשַׁעְבֵּד שָׂדֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְהָלַךְ וּמְכָרָהּ. שֶׁמָּא אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב בָּא וְטוֹרֵף. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. פָּתַח לָנוּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן פֶּתַח מֵאִיר כְּאוֹרָה. לֹא מָצָאנוּ עֶבֶד מִשְׁתַּחְרֵר וְחוֹזֵר וּמִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. מֵעַתָּה לֹא יִכְתּוֹב שְׁטָר עַל דָּמָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. מוּטָּב שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ. תֵּן לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְיָדָךְ. וְאַל יֹאמַר לוֹ. עַבְדִּי אַתָּה. רַבָּנִין דְּקַיסָרִין בְשֵׁם רִבִּי נַסָּא. אַתְיָא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. כְּמַה דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר קוֹנֵס בִּדְבָרִים. כֵּן רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל קוֹנֵס בִּדְבָרִים. דְּתַנֵּי. [שְׁטָר] יֵשׁ בּוֹ רִבִּית קוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ וְאֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה לֹא אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא אֶת הָרִיבִּית. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה אֶת הָרִיבִּית.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
There, we have stated: ¹⁴³ 4:4 where the few differences in spelling are noted and which is explained there in Notes 75–78, 120–130.“A slave whom his master gave as mortgage¹⁴⁴ to others and then freed him [in strict law does not owe anything, but for the public good one forces the master to formally manumit him and he writes a bond for his own value. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the one who manumits writes.] Who frees? Rav says, either his first or his second master. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only his first master alone is able to free. Rebbi Haggai objected before Rebbi Yose: Does not a *baraita* disagree with Rav? If a Jew gave a loan to a Gentile on the latter’s leavened matter, it is permitted after Passover. If you say that the Jew has property rights in it, it would be forbidden. What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Yudan said, manumission is made easy, as it was stated: If somebody gives his slave as mortgage¹⁴⁴, if he sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the manumittor writes. If somebody mortgaged his field to another, then went and sold it, can the creditor not come and foreclose? Rebbi Abbahu said, in this matter Rebbi Joḥanan opened for us a door to illuminate. We do not find that a slave can again be enslaved after having been freed. If that is so, he should not have to write a bond for his value! Rebbi Ila said, it is better that a person say to him, give me the 200 *zuz* which you owe me than say to him, you are my slave! The rabbis of Caesarea say in Rebbi Nasaʹs name: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr imposes a fine for words, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel imposes a fine for words. As it was stated: With a bond documenting both principal and interest one can collect neither principal nor interest, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, one collects the principal but not the interest.

footnotes:
¹⁴³ This paragraph is from Giṭtin
¹⁴⁴ Greek ὑποθήκη.
¹⁴⁴ Greek ὑποθήκη.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:2:17
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:2:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:2:17)

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר כָּל שֶׁאֵין הַכֶּלֶב יָכוֹל לְחַפֵּשׂ אַחֲרָיו. עַד אֵיכָן. רִבִּי אָבוּן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹצָדָק. עַד שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only one which cannot be dug out by a dog..” How far¹⁴⁵? Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq: Up to three hand-breadths.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁵ How far must one presume that a dog may dig?


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

**משנה:** הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמַת חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח בְּשׁוֹגֵג מְשַׁלֵם קֶרֶן וָחֹמֶשׁ. בְּמֵזִיד פָּטוּר מִתַּשְׁלוּמִים וּמִדְּמֵי עֵצִים:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Somebody who eats leavened heave on Passover, if in error pays its value and a fifth¹⁴⁶ 6:1 Note 1., if intentionally is not liable for restitution even as value of wood¹⁴⁷ 7:1 Note 2). Also, while the restitution money and the fine for inadvertent consumption are *sancta,* the restitution for intentionally consumed heave is profane (*loc. cit.*) and therefore has to follow the rules of civil debts. Since leavened matter on Passover is forbidden for usufruct, it has no monetary value, not even as fuel to be burned..

footnotes:
¹⁴⁶ A Non-Cohen who eats sanctified heave (which either was dedicated leavened before Passover or was dedicated unleavened but became leavened by itself on Passover) has to pay restitution to the priests together with a biblically ordained surcharge; Mishnah Terumot
¹⁴⁷ Intentional desecration of heave (e. g., used as food by a Non-Cohen) is too great a sin to be forgiven for just a monetary fine (Mishnah Terumot


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

**הלכה:** תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹצָדָק. מַתְנִיתָא בְּשֶׁהִפְרִישָׁהּ מַצָּה וְנִתְחַמְּצָה. אֲבָל אִם הִפְרִישָׁהּ חָמֵץ לֹא בְדָא. הִפְרִישׁ מַצָּה עַל חָמֵץ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. כָּל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַתֶּרֶת אֶת הַשְּׁיֵרִים לַאֲכִילָה אֵינָהּ תְּרוּמָה. [אֲפִילוּ] הִפְרִישׁ חָמֵץ עַל מַצָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאִילּוּ מִינָהּ עָלֶיהָ אֵינָהּ תְּרוּמָה. וַאֲפִילוּ הֵימִינָהּ לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר אֵינָהּ תְּרוּמָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar¹⁴⁸ says in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq: Our Mishnah if he separated it as unleavened and it became leavened¹⁴⁹. But if he separated it leavened, it does not apply¹⁵⁰. If he separated unleavened for leavened? Rebbi Zeˋira said, any heave which does not permit the remainder as food is no heave¹⁵¹. [Even]¹⁵² if he separated leavened for unleavened? Rebbi Zeˋira said, since if he gave from its kind it would not be heave, and even if he gives from this kind for another place it is not heave¹⁵³.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁸ This name tradition raises serious questions. While it is likely that the young R. Simeon ben Josadaq (of the generation of transition from Tannaim to Amoraim) knew the very old R. Simeon ben Eleazar (a 5th generation Tanna), it is most unlikely that the latter would formulate a tradition in the former’s name. Also this would be the only statement of R. Simeon ben Josadaq in the Talmudim not transmitted by his student R. Joḥanan.
¹⁴⁹ On Passover (Babli 32a). It seems that the Yerushalmi agrees with the Babli that leavened heave dedicated before Passover is included though it should have been burned if not consumed by the 14th of Nisan.
¹⁵⁰ Giving leavened heave on Passover is impossible. Since leavened matter is forbidden for usufruct, giving leavened heave is giving nothing; nothing cannot be heave.
¹⁵¹ Since leavened matter may not be eaten on Passover, and is worthless; giving heave for it does not change its status. But heave is given in order to make the remainder of the food available for profane use.
¹⁵² Unnecessary addition by the corrector.
¹⁵³ Since leavened matter cannot be used for leavened matter (Note 150) it cannot be used in this capacity for any other matter.


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

(עִירֵס) אַרְבָּעַת רְבָעִים בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְחִימְּצָן. וְאַרְבָּעַת רְבָעִים בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְעִירְבָן. אִם הִתְרוּ בוֹ מִשּׁוּם הָאוֹכֵל טֵבֵל. אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. מִשׁוּם הָאוֹכֵל חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח. לוֹקֶה. אִיסּוּר חָמוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר קַל. וְאֵין אִיסּוּר קַל חָל עַל אִיסּוּר חָמוּר. אֲבָל אִם עִירְבָן וְאַחַר כָּךְ חִימְּצָן. אִם הִתְרוּ בוֹ מִשּׁוּם הָאוֹכֵל טֵבֵל. לוֹקֶה. מִשׁוּם הָאוֹכֵל חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח. לוֹקֶה. אִיסּוּר חָמוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר קַל. וְאֵין אִיסּוּר קַל חָל עַל אִיסּוּר חָמוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
(If he beat)¹⁵⁴ four quarters for themselves and made them leavened, and another four quarters for themselves, and mixed them¹⁵⁵ of flour (of the kinds enumerated in Mishnah 4) is subject to *ḥallah* (cf. Introduction to Tractate *Ḥallah*)*.* Before *ḥallah* is removed, bread baked from the dough is *ṭevel* and forbidden as food. If the dough becomes leavened on Passover it becomes forbidden for usufruct and its consumption is a deadly sin. Therefore even if later it is mixed with another *qab* of new flour, there is no *ṭevel* since the first *qab* forbidden for usufruct cannot become *ṭevel,* and the second *qab* is less than the minimum quantity triggering the obligation of *ḥallah.* Clearly the mixture if forbidden as food and for usufruct because of the laws of Passover.. If one warned him¹⁵⁶ because of eating *ṭevel,* he is not flogged, because of one who eats leavened matter on Passover, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition¹⁵⁷ 101a.. But if he mixed them¹⁵⁸ if later it also becomes forbidden both as food and for usufruct as leavened on Passover, the prohibition of *ṭevel* is not removed. and afterwards made them leavened, if one warned him because of eating *ṭevel.* he is flogged, because of one who eats leavened matter on Passover, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition.

footnotes:
¹⁵⁴ The word was unnecessarily deleted by the corrector, who apparently did not understand it although it appears in both Talmudim.
¹⁵⁵ A dough made of at least 5/4 qab
¹⁵⁶ No criminal prosecution is possible unless the perpetrator was warned by two witnesses that his intended act would be criminal, and only if the nature of the crime was spelled out.
¹⁵⁷ Cf. Babli 35b (last line), Ḥulin
¹⁵⁸ Then the mixture is forbidden as ṭevel;


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:3:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:3:4)

עָשָׂה כְרִי וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֶוה לוֹ וּמִירְחוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ אֲכָלוֹ. אִם הִתְרוּ בוֹ מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל טֵבֵל. אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. מִשׁוּם הָאוֹכֵל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. לוֹקֶה. אִיסּוּר חָמוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר קַל. וְאֵין אִיסּוּר קַל חָל עַל אִיסּוּר חָמוּר. [אֲבָל אִם מִירְחוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לוֹ. אִם הִתְרוּ בוֹ מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל טֵבֵל. לוֹקֶה. מִשׁוּם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. לוֹקֶה. אִיסּוּר חָמוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר קַל. וְאֵין אִיסּוּר קַל חָל עַל אִיסּוּר חָמוּר.]

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If he made a grain heap and worshipped it¹⁵⁹ 7:26)., then smoothed it¹⁶⁰ (Mishnah *Maˋserot*1:6). But since worshipped grain is not food, it cannot become subject to tithe., and then ate from it: if one warned him because of eating *ṭevel,* he is not flogged, because of one who eats idolatrical food, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition. [But if he smoothed it¹⁶¹ as food. (Corrector’s addition.) and then worshipped it, if one warned him because of eating *ṭevel*, he is flogged, because of idolatrical food, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition.]

footnotes:
¹⁵⁹ It becomes forbidden for usufruct as object of pagan worship (Deut.
¹⁶⁰ If it were not forbidden as object of pagan worship, the completion of threshing by storage of the grain in a smooth heap causes the obligation of tithes; the heave of the tithe included in the tithe would make the entire heap ṭevel
¹⁶¹ And now it becomes ṭevel


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:3:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:3:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:3:5)

רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בָעֵי. הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמַת חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח לְמִי הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם. תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּדְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. הַגּוֹזֵל תְּרוּמָה מֵאֲבִי אִמּוֹ כֹהֵן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מְשַׁלֵּם לַשֵּׁבֶט. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. מְשַׁלֵּם לְעַצְמוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מִסְתַּבְּרָא יוֹדֶה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בַּחוֹמֶשׁ שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁלֵּם לַשֵּׁבֶט. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אוּף אֲנָא סָבַר כֵּן. שֶׁכֵּן תְּרוּמָה טְמֵיאָה אֲפָרָהּ לַשֵּׁבֶט. אָתָא רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא. אֲפִילוּ עָלֶיהָ פְלִיגִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: He who eats leavened heave on Passover¹⁶², to whom does he pay? It is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since the disagreed: One who robbed heave from his mother’s father who was a Cohen¹⁶³, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe¹⁶⁴; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself¹⁶⁵ and is forbidden to any layman, including himself. He may then sell the heave to a Cohen who will offer little money since there are very few competitors for heave food.. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: It is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about the fifth that he has to pay it to the tribe¹⁶⁶. He told him, I also do agree with this, since impure heave is forbidden to the tribe¹⁶⁷. There came Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Even in this case they disagree¹.

footnotes:
¹⁶² Where the Mishnah requires restitution even though it is prohibited for usufruct.
¹⁶³ When the grandfather dies and the grandson from an Israel father is the only heir.
¹⁶⁴ Even though he is the legal heir of the Cohen, and if he had not stolen the heave he would have inherited it and could sell to a Cohen, he is forced to give it away but he has the right to choose the recipient.
¹⁶⁵ He must separate heave, which becomes a sanctum
¹⁶⁶ Since the additional fifth is a fine, it is unreasonable to assume that he may have usufruct from it other than the goodwill which he gets from the recipient of his heave.
¹⁶⁷ Since impure heave may only be used as fuel it is of little value; nevertheless illegitimate use triggers the obligation of paying the fine.
¹ Since for R. Simeon ben Laqish the Mishnah is purely rabbinic.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:3:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:3:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:3:6)

רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בָעֵי. הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ פָּחוּת מִשָּׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. [מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָיב בַּתַּשְׁלוּמִין. (אָמַר לֵיהּ.) נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר חָטָא מִן הַקּוֹדֶשׁ יְשַׁלֵּם. פְּרָט לְפָחוּת מִשָּׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. לְרַבּוֹת (מָאן דְּאָמַר פְּרָט) [לַתַּשְׁלוּמִין. מָאן דְּאָמַר. פְּרָט. לְפָחוּת מִשָּׁוֶה פְרוּטָה לַתַּשְׁלוּמִין] לְקָרְבָּן. מָאן דְּאָמַר. לְרַבּוֹת. בַּתַּשְׁלוּמִין. כְּמָה דְתֵימַר תַּמָּן. פָּחוּת מִשָּׁוֶה פְרוּטָה מֵזִיד. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם חוֹמֶשׁ וְאָשָׁם יְשַׁלֵּם לַשֵׁבֶט. וְאָמַר אוֹף הָכָא כֵן. אָמְרִין חֲבֵרַיָיא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. וְלָאו מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמַת חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח. שׁוֹגֵג מְשַׁלֵם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ. מֵזִיד פָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין וּמִדְּמֵי הָעֵצִים. אָמַר לוֹן. תַּמָּן אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְהַשְׁלִים עָלֶיהָ. בְּרַם הָכָא רָאוּי הוּא לְהַשְׁלִים עָלֶיהָ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yose asked, if somebody benefited from Temple property less than the value of a *perutah*¹⁶⁸*,* is he liable for reimbursement? (He said to him.)¹⁶⁹ Let us hear from the following: *What he appropriated from sancta he has to repay*¹⁷⁰ 5:16. This seems to exclude amounts smaller than the smallest coin in circulation since such an amount cannot be paid., except what is less than the value of a *perutah.* There are Tannaim who state, to add. (He who said except, for) [he who said “except what is less than the value of a *perutah*” for reimbursement¹⁷¹11(7). The argument there is based on the expression *from sancta,* even a minute part. and] sacrifice. He who said “to add”, for reimbursement¹⁷². As you are saying there¹ from *sancta* does not trigger the obligation to pay an additional fifth since no amount less that a *perutah* can be invoiced., intentionally less than the value of a *perutah,* even though he does not pay the fifth and a reparation sacrifice he has to pay to the tribe, one says the same here. The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose, is that not a Mishnah? “Somebody who eats leavened heave on Passover, if in error pays its value and a fifth¹⁴⁶ 6:1 Note 1., if intentionally he is not liable for restitution even as value of wood¹⁴⁷ 7:1 Note 2). Also, while the restitution money and the fine for inadvertent consumption are *sancta,* the restitution for intentionally consumed heave is profane (*loc. cit.*) and therefore has to follow the rules of civil debts. Since leavened matter on Passover is forbidden for usufruct, it has no monetary value, not even as fuel to be burned.”? He told them, there it is impossible to complete¹⁷³, but here it is possible to complete.

footnotes:
¹⁶⁸ Which therefore cannot be claimed in court and there is no coin with which to pay.
¹⁶⁹ Addition by the corrector; to be deleted.
¹⁷⁰ Lev.
¹⁷¹ Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra II) Parashah
¹⁷² While is cannot be paid for in coin, it can be restituted in kind. Everybody agrees that no sacrifice as prescribed in 5:15 is due in this case. (The scribe’s text, in parentheses, is preferable.)
¹ Appropriating less than the value of a perutah
¹⁴⁶ A Non-Cohen who eats sanctified heave (which either was dedicated leavened before Passover or was dedicated unleavened but became leavened by itself on Passover) has to pay restitution to the priests together with a biblically ordained surcharge; Mishnah Terumot
¹⁴⁷ Intentional desecration of heave (e. g., used as food by a Non-Cohen) is too great a sin to be forgiven for just a monetary fine (Mishnah Terumot
¹⁷³ Since leavened matter on Passover is worthless, rules about it cannot be invoked in discussions about money’s worth.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:3:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:3:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:3:7)

שׁוֹגֵג בִּתְרוּמָה וּמֵזִיד בְּחָמֵץ. שׁוֹגֵג בִּתְרוּמָה וּמֵזִיד בְּנָזִיר. שׁוֹגֵג בִּתְרוּמָה וּמֵזִיד בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. אִין תִּפְתְּרִינָּהּ לִשְׁנֵי דְבָרִים. נִיחָא. וְאִין תִּיפְתְּרִינָּהּ לְדָבָר אֶחָד. מַחֲלוֹקֶת רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
In error for heave and intentional for leavened matter, in error for heave and intentional for nazir, in error for heave and intentional for the Day of Atonement. If one explains it with two things, it is fine. If one explains it for one, this is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish¹⁷⁴ 3:1 (after Note 33); there is a somewhat defective copy in *Terumot* 7:1, Notes 47–51.
The disagreement between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish referred to here is not the one quoted earlier, but the one discussed in *Ketubot* and *Terumot,* whether a criminal conviction precludes monetary claims arising from the same case or not. If one holds that with one action two different laws have been broken, each infraction is punished according to its separate rules and everybody agrees that for heave he has to pay. But if one holds that for one action there can be only one punishment, he has to pay only following R. Joḥanan..

footnotes:
¹⁷⁴ This text is copied from Ketubot


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

**משנה:** אֵילּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁאָדָם יוֹצֵא בָהֶן יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַפֶּסַח. בַּחִיטִּים וּבַשְּעוֹרִים וּבַכּוּסְּמִין וּבְשִׁיבּוֹלֶת שׁוּעָל וּבַשִּׁיפוֹן וּבַדְּמַאי וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּיטְּלָה תְרוּמָתוֹ וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ וְהַכֹּהֲנִים בַּחַלָּה וּבַתְּרוּמָה. אֲבָל לֹא בַטִֵּבֶל וְלֹא בְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִיטְּלָה תְרוּמָתוֹ וְלֹא בְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדוּ. חַלּוֹת תּוֹדָה וּרְקִיקֵי נָזִיר עֲשָׂאָן לְעֲצְמוֹ אֵין יוֹצֵא בָהֶן. עֲשָׂאָן לִמְכּוֹר לַשּׁוּק יוֹצֵא בָהֶן:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** With the following one fulfills his obligation¹⁷⁵ 12:18) to consume azyme bread (cf. the author’s *The Scholar’s Haggadah,* Northvale NJ 1995, p. 329). Only bread made from cereal which can become leavened is admitted; by tradition only the grains enumerated in the sequel qualify in this respect. on Passover: With wheat, and with barley, and with spelt, and with rye, and with fox grain¹⁷⁶ 1:1: prairie barley., and with *demay*¹⁷⁷ to the poor and passing travellers, it is profane food by biblical standards.*,* and with First Tithe whose heave was removed¹⁷⁸, and with Second Tithe or *sancta* which were redeemed¹⁷⁹, and the Cohanim with *ḥallah* and heave¹⁸⁰ but since the Cohanim are obliged to consume them, they may consume them to fulfill their obligation.. But not with *ṭevel*¹⁸¹, nor with First Tithe whose heave was not removed¹⁸², nor with Second tithe or *sancta* which were not redeemed¹⁸³. Flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a *nazir*¹⁸⁴ 7:12, *Num.* 6:15.*,* if he made them for himself one cannot fulfill his obligation¹⁸⁵; if he made them to sell on the market one fulfills his obligation¹⁸⁶.

footnotes:
¹⁷⁵ While on the holiday of Passover there only is a prohibition of leavened matter, on the first night there is a positive commandment (Ex.
¹⁷⁶ According to Rashi, oats. Maimonides in his Commentary to Kilaim
¹⁷⁷ Grain of which it is not known whether tithe was removed. Since one is permitted to feed demay
¹⁷⁸ This is totally profane in the hand of the Levite.
¹⁷⁹ Once redeemed all sanctity is transferred to the redemption money; the produce reverts to profane status.
¹⁸⁰ These are sancta,
¹⁸¹ Grain after threshing and storage, before heave and tithe was taken. It is forbidden as food; it would be sinful to use it for the biblical obligation.
¹⁸² This statement is not really necessary since it is ṭevel.
¹⁸³ They have to be consumed in purity in Jerusalem; one action cannot be used to satisfy two distinct biblical obligations.
¹⁸⁴ These are obligatory additions to the sacrifices; Lev.
¹⁸⁵ Since then they are sancta.
¹⁸⁶ They are profane; only dedication by the buyer might make them sancta.


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

**הלכה:** כְּתִיב וְהָיָה בַּאֲכָלְכֶם מִלֶּחֶם הָאָרֶץ תָּרִימוּ תְרוּמָה לַיי. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. יְהוּ כָל הַדְּבַרִים חַיָיבִין בַּחַלָּה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מִלֶּחֶם. וְלֹא כָל לֶחֶם. אִם מִלֶּחֶם לֹא כָל לֶחֶם. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא לְחִטִּים וְלִשְׂעוֹרִים בִּלְבַד. [שְׁאָר מִינִין מְנַיִין.] תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר רֵאשִׁית עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם רִיבָה. וְרִיבָה אֶת הַכֹּל. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בְשֵׂם רִבִּי שִׂמְעוֹן תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כֵּן. רִבִּי יוֹנָה רִבִּי זְעוּרָא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** ¹⁸⁷ 1:1, Notes 6–21, **ח**. It is written¹⁸⁸ 15:19.: *It shall be when you eat of the bread of the Land you shall lift a heave*¹⁸⁹ which follows the rules of heave.*for the Eternal.* I could think that everything¹⁹⁰ is subject to *ḥallah;* the verse says *of the bread* but not all bread¹⁹¹. If *of the bread* and not all bread, that might be only wheat and barley¹⁹² 15:20, 21.? From where the other kinds? The verse says *the first of your dough*¹⁹² 15:20, 21.*,* this includes¹⁹³. Does it include everything? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon:¹⁹⁴ 110. Rebbi Ismael stated this. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, in the name of Rebbi Ismael¹⁹⁵.

footnotes:
¹⁸⁷ This and the the following paragraphs up to Note 207 are also in Ḥallah
¹⁸⁸ Num.
¹⁸⁹ This is ḥallah
¹⁹⁰ Since לֶחֶם also means food in general.
¹⁹¹ Which are the main bread grains.
¹⁹² Num.
¹⁹² Num.
¹⁹³ Not only rye, spelt, and fox grain but also rice and millet would be included.
¹⁹⁴ This must be R. Simeon ben Laqish. R. Yose asserts that R. Ismael accepted the inference as valid; “dough” includes every bread-dough made from grains similar to wheat and barley. R. Aqiba’s interpretation of these verses is reported in Sifry Num.
¹⁹⁵ Confirmed this tradition.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:4:3)

אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. אָזְלִית לְקַיְסָרִין וּשְׁמָעִית רִבִּי אַחֲוָוא בַּר זְעוֹרָא (אֲמַר וַאֲנָא) [אַבָּא] הֲוָה אֲמַר לָהּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. נֶאֱמַר לֶחֶם בַּפֶּסַח וְנֶאֱמַר לֶחֶם בַּחַלָּה. מַה לֶחֶם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּפֶּסַח דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בָא לִידֵי מַצָּה וְחָמֵץ. אַף לֶחֶם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּחַלָּה דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בָא לִידֵי מַצָּה וְחָמֵץ. וּבָדְקוּ וּמָצְאוּ שֶׁאֵין לָךְ בָּא לִידֵי מַצָּה וְחָמֵץ אֶלָּא חֲמֶשֶׁת הַמִּינִין בִּלְבַד. ושְׁאָר כָּל הַמִּינִין אֵינָן בָּאִין לִידֵי מַצָּה וְחָמֵץ אֶלָּא לִידֵי סִירְחוֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Aḥava ben Rebbi Zeˋira¹⁹⁶ teacher in his father’s academy. (who said, I) [my father] said in the name of Rebbi Ismael¹⁹⁷ 110. As regards Passover only, Babli *Pesaḥim* 35a, *Mekhilta deR. Ismael Bo* Chap. 8, 17; *Sifry Num.* 146.: “Bread” is mentioned for Passover¹⁹⁸ 16:2. and “bread” is mentioned for *ḥallah*¹⁹⁹ 15:19.*.* Since bread mentioned in a discussion of Passover is something that can be either *mazzah* or leavened, bread mentioned for *ḥallah* must be something that can be either *mazzah* or leavened. They checked and found that only the five kinds can be either *mazzah* or leavened; all others cannot be *mazzah*²⁰⁰ since rice bread (not containing gluten) does not quality as leavened bread. If left standing with leavening it will not rise but spoil. or leavened but would spoil.

footnotes:
¹⁹⁶ The son of R. Zeˋ ira who had been a baraita
¹⁹⁷ A similar text Sifry Num.
¹⁹⁸ Deut.
¹⁹⁹ Num.
²⁰⁰ Rice cakes, while unleavened, cannot be called mazzah


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

רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אָמַר. קְרָמִית חַיֶיבֶת בַּחַלָּה. שֶׁהִיא בָאָה לִידֵי מַצָּה וְחָמֵץ. וְרַבָּנִין אָמְרְי. אֵינָהּ בָאָה לִידֵי מַצָּה וְחָמֵץ. וְיִבְדָּקוּהָ. עַל עִיקַּר בְּדִיקָתָהּ הֵן חוֹלְקִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אָמַר. בְּדָקוּהָ וּמָצְאוּ אוֹתָהּ שֶׁהִיא בָאָה לִידֵי מַצָּה וְחָמֵץ. וְרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. בְּדָקוּהָ וְלֹא מָצְאוּ אוֹתָהּ שֶׁהִיא בָאָה לִידֵי מַצָּה וְחָמֵץ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated²⁰² 1:1; Babli 35a.: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, *qeramit*²⁰³ p. 33) a grain growing wild among reeds in swamps, used as human food in times of famine. In the opinion of I. Löw, (*Flora der Juden* l, p. 703) *Glyceria fluitans.* a grain preferring swampy ground, frequently used for animal feed, also for soups and flour. {Also cf. Latin *gramen, -inis, n.* “grass, dog’s grass” (*Plin. Hist. Nat.*24,19,118, §178) (E.G.)}. is obligated for *ḥallah.”* Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, ²⁰⁴ New York 1909, pp. 102–115.) it can be either *mazzah* or leavened., but the rabbis say, it cannot be either *mazzah* or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found that it can be either *mazzah* or leavened., but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either *mazzah* or leavened.

footnotes:
²⁰² Tosephta 2:17, Ḥallah
²⁰³ According to the Geonim (Ozar Hageonim Pesaḥim
²⁰⁴ Here starts a Genizah text edited by L Ginzberg (Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:4:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:4:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:4:5)

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. תַּפּוּחַ שֶׁרִיסְּקוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לְתוֹךְ עִיסָּה וְחִימְּצָהּ. הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה. [שְׂעוֹרִין שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ הַבּוֹר שֶׁל מַיִם. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִבְאִישׁוּ מֵימָיו. מוּתָּרִין.] תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. מוּתָּר. רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בַּר חֲנִינָה. מַה פְלִיגִין. בּמְחַמֵּץ בְּמֵימָיו. אֲבָל בִּמְחַמֵּץ בְּגוּפוֹ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּתָּר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְדַעְתֵּיהּ. כְּמַה דוּ אָמַר תַּמָּן. אֵין תַּבְשִׁילוֹ תַבְשִׁיל בָּרוּר. כָּךִ הוּא אָמַר הָכָא. אֵין חִמֻּצוֹ חָמֵץ בָּרוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
There²⁰⁵ 10:2. The paragraph also appears there, Notes 15–19, as well as in *Šabbat* 3, Notes 67–70 with the mention of “cooking” and “souring” switched correctly., we have stated: “If a mashed apple is added to dough which soured, [the dough] is forbidden. But if barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, [the water] is permitted²⁰⁶ The discussion only refers to the first sentence.. It was stated: Rebbi Yose says, it is permitted. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They disagree when it becomes sour from the juice [of the apple]. But if it becomes sour from its solid substance it is permitted according to everybody²⁰⁷. Rebbi Yose stays with his opinion; just as he says there, its cooking is not clearly cooking²⁰⁸ 3:3., so he says here, its souring is not clearly souring.

footnotes:
²⁰⁵ Mishnah Terumot
²⁰⁶ Sentence added unnecessarily by the corrector from the Mishnah in Terumot.
²⁰⁷ Even the anonymous Sages admit that dry mixing of a mashed apple with flour will not induce souring.
²⁰⁸ R. Yose permits to use the sun’s rays to make poached eggs on the Sabbath. Mishnah Šabbat


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:4:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:4:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:4:6)

תַּנֵּי. פַּגָּה שֶׁטְּמָנָהּ בְּתֶבֶן וַחֲרָרָה שֶׁטְּמָנָהּ בִּגְחָלִים. אִם הָיוּ מִקְצָתָן מְגוּלִּין נִיטָּלִין בַּשַּׁבָּת. וְאִם לָאו אֵין נִיטָּלִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
²⁰⁹ It was stated: “An unripe fig which he hid in straw or a flat pita which he hid in coals may be taken on the Sabbath if they were partially uncovered, otherwise they may not be taken.”

footnotes:
²⁰⁹ This paragraph does not belong here; it is copied from Sabbat 3 immediately following the text of the preceding paragraph (Note 71). Kilaim 1:9 (Note 167); Babli Sabbat 123a, Eruvin 77a.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:4:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:4:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:4:7)

מְנַיִין שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים יוֹצְאִין יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן בַּחַלָּה וּבַתְּרוּמָה וְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׂינִי בַפֶּסַח. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר תֹּאכְלוּ מַצּוֹת. רִיבָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
From where that the Cohanim may fulfill their obligation with ḥallah or heave, and Israel with Second Tithe on Passover? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot²¹⁰ 12:18,20. *Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yohay* 12:20 (p. 24)., this adds.

footnotes:
²¹⁰ Ex.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:4:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:4:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:4:8)

יָכוֹל יֵצְאוּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן בַּבִּיכּוּרִים. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר בְּכֹל מוֹשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם תֹּאכְלוּ מַצּוֹת. מַצָּה הַנֶּאֱכֶלֶת בְּכָל מוֹשָׁב. יָצְאוּ הַבִּיכּוּרִים שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין בְּכָל מוֹשָׁב. הָתִיבוּן. הֲרֵי מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׂינִי הֲרֵי אֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל בְּכָל מוֹשָׁב. רָאוּי הוּא לְהִיפָּדוֹת וּלְהֵיאָכֵל בְּכָל מוֹשָׁב. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בָעֵי. (מֵעַתָּה) הַלָּקוּחַ בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁנִּיטְמָא כְרִבִּי יוּדָה [מָהוּ. דְּתַנֵּי. לָקוּחַ בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁנִּטְמָא יִפָּדֶה. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. יִקָּבֵר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרִבִּי יוּדָא. מָה אִם מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי עַצְמוֹ שֶׁנִּטְמָא הֲרֵי הוּא נִפְדֶּה. הַלָּקוּחַ בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁנִּטְמָא אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיִּפָּדֶה. אָמַר לָהֶן. לֹא. אִם אֲמַרְתֶּם בְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. שֶׁכֵּן הוּא נִפְדֶּה טָהוֹר בְּרִיחוּק מָקוֹם. תֹּאמְרוּ בַלָּקוּחַ בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר. שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִפְדֶּה טָהוֹר בְּרִחוּק מָקוֹם.] הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְהִיפָּדוֹת וְלֵיאָכֵל בְּכָל מוּשָׁב אֵין יוֹצְאִין בּוֹ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בָּעֵי. מֵעַתָּה חַלַּת עִיסַּת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׂינִי בִירוּשָׁלִַם. הוֹאִיל וְאֵינָהּ רָאוּיָה לְהִיפָּדוֹת וּלְהֵיאָכֵל בְּכָל מוֹשָׁב אֵין יוֹצְאִין בָּהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Could I think that they may fulfill their obligation with First Fruits? The verse says, *in***all***your dwelling places you shall eat mazzot*²¹¹. 12:20.*, mazzah* which may be eaten at any dwelling place; this excludes First Fruits which are not eaten at any dwelling place²¹² presented to the priest in the Temple and consumed in Jerusalem only (Mishnah *Bikkurim* 2:2). Babli 39a, *Mekhilta dR. Ismael Ba* 10, *dR. Simeon ben Yohay* 12:20 (p. 24).. They objected, but Second Tithe may not be eaten at any dwelling place²¹³ 2:2, *Deut.* 14:23.! It may be redeemed and be eaten at any dwelling place²¹⁴ 14:24. Redemption of pure Second Tithe is possible only outside of Jerusalem.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: What was bought with tithe money and became impure, following Rebbi Jehudah, ²¹⁵[what is its status? As it was stated: “If what was bought with tithe money became impure, it should be redeemed. Rebbi Jehudah says, it should be buried¹¹⁵ 3:1, Note 12). Nevertheless *Sefer Haˋittur* (vol. 2, p. 121a, Note 17) reads the question as complement of the preceding statement.. They said to Rebbi Jehudah, if original Second Tithe which became impure is redeemed, what was bought with tithe money and became impure certainly should be redeemed. He said to them, no! If you referred to original Second Tithe, which can be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place, can you say the same about what was bought with tithe money which cannot be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place?²¹⁶ 3:11 (p. 111).”] since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: *Ḥallah* from dough made from Second Tithe in Jerusalem, since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it²¹⁷ is heave and if impure must be burned, even for the majority which disagrees with R. Jehudah it cannot be used for the Passover obligation. Since no objection is raised, this is accepted doctrine in the Yerushalmi, rejected in the Babli 38a..

footnotes:
²¹¹ Ex
²¹² First Fruits are sancta
²¹³ It may be eaten only in Jerusalem, Mishnah Bikkurim
²¹⁴ Deut.
²¹⁵ The text in brackets is an addition from the corrector who was misled by the expression “asked” because the statement of R. Abun bar Ḥiyya is a straight declarative sentence: “What was bought with tithe money which became impure, following Rebbi Jehudah since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it.” The question here and in the next sentence is whether there is any objection to the inference drawn. Since the scribe’s text is confirmed by G, the addition should be deleted.
¹¹⁵ S. Liebermann points out that this cannot mean that the key was handed over after a contract for lease or sale was signed, since for a lease the matter was settled in the preceding paragraph and for a sale it is stated that transfer of the key is transfer of the property (Bava batra
²¹⁶ Mishnah Maˋaser šeni
²¹⁷ Since ḥallah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:4:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:4:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:4:9)

יָכוֹל יֵצְאוּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן בַּחַלּוֹת תּוֹדָה וּרְקִיקֵי נָזִיר. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מַצּוֹת תֹּאכֵלוּ. מַצָּה נֶאֱכֶלֶת כָּל שִׁבְעָה. וְאֵין חַלּוֹת תּוֹדָה וּרְקִיקֵי נָזִיר נֶאֱכָלִין כָּל שִׁבְעָה. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. מִמַּה שֶׁנֵּאָכְלוּ חַלּוֹת תּוֹדָה וּרְקִיקֵי נָזִיר בְּכָל גְּבוּל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא צָרַךְ הַשּׁוֹנֶה לְהוֹצִיאָן מִמּוֹשָׁב. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁנֵּאָכְלוּ חַלּוֹת תּוֹדָה וּרְקִיקֵי נָזִיר בְּכָל עָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. לְפִיכָךְ לֹא צָרַךְ הַשּׁוֹנֶה לְהוֹצִיאָן מִמּוֹשָׁב. נִיחְא חַלּוֹת תּוֹדָה. וּרְקִיקֵי נָזִיר אֵינוֹ כֵן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֵית כָּאן נְזִירוּת. נְזִירוּת חוֹבָה הִיא. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר כַּהֲנָא. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁקָּרְבָה חַטָּאתוֹ בְשִׁילֹה. וְעוֹלָתוֹ וּשְׁלָמָיו בְּנוֹב וְגִבְעוֹן. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה רִבִּי עֶזְרָה בְעוֹן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. שַׁלְמֵי חֲגִיגָה הַבָּאִים בְּבָמָה כְּשֵׂירִים אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ לַבַּעֲלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה. אֶלָּא כְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר. חַטָּאת וּפֶסַח לְיָחִיד בְּבָמָה גְדוֹלָה. אֵין חַטָּאת וּפֶסַח לְיָחִיד בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה. לֹא אַתְיָא אֶלָּא כְרִבִּי שִׂמְעוֹן. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּזְרַק עָלָיו אֶחָד מִן הַדָּמִים הוּתַּר הַנָּזִיר לִשְׁתּוֹת בַּיַּיִן וְלִיטַּמֵּא לַמֵּתִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
I could think that they may fulfill their obligation with flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a *nazir*²¹⁸ which were baked to be used with a thanksgiving offering (*Lev.* 7:12) or with the offerings required at the end of a vow of *nazir*(*Num.* 6:15) but were not used for that purpose, as implied by the text of the Mishnah. Babli 38a as Amoraic statement..The verse says, *seven days you shall eat mazzot*²¹⁹. 12:15.*; mazzah* which may be eaten all seven days. But flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a *nazir* may not be eaten all seven days²²⁰. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: since flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a *nazir* may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”²²¹. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: this implies that wafers of a *nazir* may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. One understands about flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering. But it is not so for wafers of a *nazir*²²² 1:13. Therefore there were times when thanksgiving offerings could be presented anywhere in the Land, but while making a vow of *nazir was* voluntary, once it was made the sacrifices of *nezirut* became mandatory.*.* Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no *nazir* here; *nezirut* is an obligation. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it if his purification offering was presented in Shiloh but his elevation and well-being offerings in Nob or Gibeon²²³. Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi [Azariah]²²⁴ should be spelled with א. asked before Rebbi Mana: Did not the teacher say in the name of Rebbi Yose: Holiday well-being offerings brought at an elevated place are qualified but they are not counted against an obligation of the owner²²⁵ 3. But the holiday offering is obligatory; at a local shrine they cannot satisfy an obligation. Therefore the accompanying bread cannot be eaten at all places.? But it must be for Rebbi Jehudah, as Rebbi Jehudah said, purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a principal elevated place, but no purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a minor elevated place²²⁶. It only follows Rebbi Simeon, since “Rebbi Simeon said, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the *nazir* is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself for the dead.²²⁷ 6:11 (Note 224). Therefore only the first sacrifice of the *nazir* is obligatory, the others together with the bread may be offered locally.”

footnotes:
²¹⁸ The question is raised about mazzot
²¹⁹ Ex
²²⁰ Both kinds of bread may be eaten only on the day of the sacrifice and the following night; if it was intended not to be eaten for a longer period it may not be used even if it was not used for the original purpose.
²²¹ The argument really goes the other way. Since the statement at the start of the paragraph (which also in the Yerushalmi seems to be Amoraic as shown by the expression שׁוֹנֶה instead of תַּנֵּי) uses a verse different from the one quoted in the preceding Tannaitic source, it follows that the verse quoted earlier is not applicable. The bread accompanying the animal sacrifices must be consumed at the place prescribed for consumption of the meat.
²²² While during the existence of the Sanctuary at Shilo or after the building of the Temple all sacrifices had to be offered at the place of the Sanctuary, before the building of the Sanctuary at Shiloh and after its destruction voluntary offerings could be given at private altars (“minor elevated places”) whereas obligatory offerings were restricted to altars erected at the place of the Tabernacle or the Ark of Covenant (“principal elevated places”, Gilgal, Nob, and Gibeon); Mishnah Megillah
²²³ Not that they were sacrificed at Nob or Gibeon, but they were sacrificed at the time when Nob or Gibeon were principal elevated places, i. e., the sanctuary at Shiloh was presumed destroyed immediately after the purification sacrifice was offered. Since elevation and well-being offerings are by their nature voluntary (even though in this case they are obligatory), they can be offered at a local sanctuary and the accompanying bread eaten anywhere in the Land.
²²⁴ It seems that this was his name; the spelling עֶזְרָה in the Leiden text is irregular since Ezra
²²⁵ Well-being sacrifices mostly are voluntary; they can be offered at a local shrine according to all the rules spelled out in Lev.
²²⁶ But all other obligatory sacrifices can be brought locally, including two of the three sacrifices of the nazir.
²²⁷ Mishnah Nazir


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:4:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:4:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:4:10)

רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. אוֹתֹוֹ כְזַיִת שֶׁאָדָם יוֹצֵא בוֹ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַפֶּסַח צָרִיךְ שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא בוֹ מַשְׁקִין. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר. לְמִצְוָה אִיתְאֲמָרַת. רִבִּי בָּא אָמַר. לְמִצְוָה אִיתְאֲמָרַת. רִבִּי יוּדְה בַּר פָּזִי אָמַר. לְעִיכּוּב אִיתְאֲמָרַת. מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה אָמְרָה. לְעִיכּוּב אִיתְאֲמָרַת. הָתִיב רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה. וְהָתַנִּינָן. חַלּוֹת תּוֹדָה. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר. חַלּוֹת תּוֹדָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן מַשְׁקִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. תַּמָּן רְבִיעִית הִיא. וּרְבִיעִית מִתְחַלֶּקֶת לְכַמָּה מִינִין. וְהַיי דָא אָמְרָה דָא. יְכוֹל יֵצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בִרְבִיכָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר. וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת הַמַּצּוֹת. מַצָּה שֶׁצְּרִיכָה שִׁימּוּר. יָצָאת זוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה שִׁימּוּר. מֵפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה שִׁימּוּר. הָא אִם הָיְתָה צְרִיכָה שִׁימּוּר יוֹצְאִין בָּהּ. וְהָא תַנֵּי. יוֹצְאִין בְּמַצָּה מְתוּבֶּלֶת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ טַעַם דָּגָן. וְהִיא שֶׁיְּהֵא רוּבָּהּ דָּגָן. סָבְרִין מֵימַר. מְתוּבֶּלֶת מַשְׁקִין. נֹאמַר. מְתוּבֶּלֶת שׁומְשְׁמִין. מְתוּבֶּלֶת אֱגוֹזִים. וְהֵידָא אָמְרָה דָא. יָכוֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בַפֶּסַח אֶלָּא בְפַת (חֲרָרָה) [הֻדְרָאָה]. מְנַיִין אֲפִילוּ כְּמַצַּת שְׁלֹמֹה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר. תֹּאכְלוּ מַצּוֹת. רִיבָה. אִם כֵּן מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר. לֶחֶם עוֹנִי. פְּרָט לְסוּרְסִין וּלְחַלַּת הַמַּסְרֵת וְלַאֲשִׁישָׁה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The olive-sized piece of *mazzah* with which a person fulfills his obligation on Passover must be without fluid²²⁸. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this was said for a meritorious deed²²⁹ which either was made from dough containing other fluids or where fluid was rubbed into it after baking is undesirable but not forbidden.. Rebbi Abba said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, this was said as a necessary condition. The word of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya implies that this was said as a necessary condition. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected, did we not state: “flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering”? Are there flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering without fluids²³⁰ 7:12 prescribes “flat cakes mixed with oil”. If the Mishnah permits such cakes when commercially made, it must permit all *mazzah* kneaded with a mixture of oil and water.? Rebbi Yose said, there it is a *quartarius;* one *quartarius* splits into many kinds²³¹9:3 specifies that half a *log* (2 *quartarii,* slightly more than 1/4 liter) was used to bake the bread required for a thanksgiving offering, 10 flat cakes, 10 wafers, and flour mixed with oil. The amount used for a single flat cake was negligible. Babli 38b.. But what implies this? “One might think and a person could satisfy his obligation with pancake, the verse says, *guard the mazzot*²³² 12:17; a similar *baraita* is quoted in *Midrash Haggadol Ba* 12:17; where it is spelled out that a pancake made from flour fried in oil is unacceptable since it never can become leavened.*,* a *mazzah* which needs guarding, excluding this one which does not need guarding.” Because it does not need guarding; therefore if it would need guarding one would satisfy his obligation with it. And so we stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced *mazzah,* even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”²³³. They thought to say, spiced by fluids. We may say, spiced by sesame, spiced by nuts. But the following says it: One might think that a person only could satisfy his obligation on Passover with (roasted) [whole grain]²³⁴ bread? From where even with Solomon’s *mazzah*²³⁵ 130.? The verse says, *you shall eat mazzot,* it included. If it is so, why does it say *bread of affliction*²³⁶ 16:3.? To exclude *sursīn*²³⁷ only mentions חָלוּט “pancake fried in oil” and cake. The rule is mentioned in the Tosephta 2:20, Babli 119b; the Babli version also in *Mekhilta dR. Ismael Ba* 10 (end).*,* and pancake, and cake.

footnotes:
²²⁸ The dough must be made with water to the exclusion of any other fluid. Cf. Babli 36a.
²²⁹ In this opinion the mazzah
²³⁰ Lev.
²³¹ Mishnah Menaḥot
²³² Ex.
²³³ Tosephta 2:21.
²³⁴ The scribe wrote “roasted bread”, i. e., baked on the open fire (parallel to the roasting prescribed for the Passover sacrifice.). The corrector changed this to “bread from the second milling”, i. e., from non-white flour. This correction is induced from the Babli 36b and should be disregarded.
²³⁵ Which certainly was made from pure white flour. Sifry Deut.
²³⁶ Deut.
²³⁷ This word is unexplained. סוּרְסִי is the name of the Syriac language. We do not know what “Syriac cakes” are. Sifry


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:4:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:4:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:4:11)

יוֹצְאִין בְּמַצָּה עָבָה עַד טֶפַח כְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים. יוֹצְאִין בְּמַצָּה נָא כְּדִי שֶׁתִּיפָּרֵס וְלֹא תֵיעָשֶׂה גִידִין גִּידִין. מַצָּה הַיְּשָׁנָה תַפְלוּגְתָא דְבֵית שַׁמַּי וּבֵית הִלֵּל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. דִּבֵרְי הַכֹּל הִיא. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא עֲשָׂאָהּ לְשֵׁם הַפֶּסַח דָּבָר בָּרִיא שֶׁלֹּא דֵיקְדֵּק בָּהּ. יוֹצְאִין בִּסְרוּקִין בֵּין מְצוּיָירִין בֵּין שֶׁאֵינָן מְצוּיָירִין. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ. אֵין עוֹשִׂין סְרִיקִין מְצוּיָירִין בַּפֶּסַח.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
One may fulfill his obligation with *mazzah* thick up to one hand-width like the shew bread²³⁸. One may fulfill his obligation with raw *mazzah* if only it does not draw fibers when broken²³⁹ is not dark like a bread crust. The Babli’s expression is הינא (هنا “easily digested”). A *mazzah* is fully baked if it breaks cleanly.. An old *mazzah* is subject of a disagreement between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion; since he did not make it for Passover it is certain that he did not care to make it accurately²⁴⁰ is one baked before Passover. Tosephta 2:21 permits the use of old *mazzah* if it was baked for Passover use.. One may fulfill his obligation with *seriqin*²⁴¹ are today’s common *mazzot:* flat bread grated with a comb (מַסְרֵק) exhibiting an orderly pattern of tiny holes (*Orhot Hayyim* I, *Hilkhot Hamez Umazzah* 103, p. 75d ed. Firenze 1734.) both with figures or without figures, even though they said, one does not make painted *seriqin* on Passover.

footnotes:
²³⁸ Rejected in the Babli, 37a.
²³⁹ Babli 37a, bottom. It does not really mean raw but lightly baked so that the mazzah
²⁴⁰ An old mazzah
²⁴¹ Tosephta 2:19, Babli 37a. It seems that seriqin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:4:12
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:4:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:4:12)

תַּנֵּי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה. שָׁאַל בֳּיֵיתּוֹס בֶּן זּוֹנִין אֶת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וַחֲכָמִים בְּיַבְנֶה. מָהוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת סְרִיקִין הַמְצוּיָירִין בַּפֶּסַח. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. אָסוּר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה מִשְׁתָּהָא בָּהֶן וְהֵן בָּאִין לִידֵי חָמֵץ. אָמַר לָהֶן. אִם כֵּן יַעֲשׂוּ אוֹתָן בְּטִפּוֹס. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. יְהוּ אוֹמְרִים. כָּל הַסְּרִיקִין אֲסוּרִין וּסְרִיקֵי בֳּיֵיתּוֹס בֶּן זּוֹנִין מוּתָּרִין. תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר. עוֹשִׂין סְרִיקִין כִּרְקִיקִין. וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין רְקִיקִין כִּקְלוּסְקָאוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated²⁴² “Boethos ben Zenon asked Rabban Gamliel and the Sages at Jabneh: May one make *seriqin* with figures on Passover? They told him, no, because a woman would spend time with it and it would become leavened. He said to them, then one should make it in a form²⁴³. They told him, one would say, all *seriqin* are forbidden but the *seriqin* of Boethos ben Zenon are permitted. Rebbi Yose said, one may make *seriqin* like wafers; one does not make (wafers) *[seriqin]*²⁴⁴ as loaves²⁴⁵.”

footnotes:
²⁴² Tosephta 2:19, Babli 37a (without the last statement.)
²⁴³ Greek τύπος, ὁ, “figure, form”.
²⁴⁴ The reading of G [in brackets] is confirmed by the Tosephta.
²⁴⁵ Greek κόλλιξ; S. Fraenkel conjectures a diminutive κολλίσκιον, τό.


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

**משנה:** וְאֵילּוּ יְרָקוֹת שֶׁאָדָם יוֹצֵא בָהֶן יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַפֶּסַח בַּחֲזֶרֶת וּבָעוּלְשִׁין וּבַתַּמְכָה וּבַחַרְחֲבִינָה וּבַמָּרוֹר. יוֹצְאִין בָּהֶן בֵּין לַחִין בֵּין כְּמוּשִׁין. אֲבָל לֹא כְבוּשִׁים וְלֹא שְׁלוּקִין וְלֹא מְבוּשָּׁלִין. וּמִצְטָרְפִין בִּכַזַּיִת. וְיוֹצְאִין בַּקֶּלַח שֶׁלָּהֶן ובַדְּמַאי וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּיטְּלָה תְרוּמָתוֹ וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** And with the following vegetables²⁴⁶ or the Passover sacrifice. The names of the plants are described in the Halakhah; for a comparison with the somewhat different explanations of the Babli (39a) and their Medieval interpretations cf. the author’s *The Scholar’s Haggadah,* Northvale 1995, p.333. a person can fulfill his obligation on Passover: With Romaine lettuce, with endives, with *gingidium. harhabina* and bitter herb. One fulfills his obligation with both fresh and wilted, but not marinated or cooked in water or cooked in broth; and they may be combined for the volume of an olive. One fulfills his obligation with their stalk, and with *demay*¹⁷⁷ to the poor and passing travellers, it is profane food by biblical standards.*,* and with First Tithe whose heave was removed¹⁷⁸, and with Second Tithe or *sancta* which were redeemed¹⁷⁹.

footnotes:
²⁴⁶ For the bitter herbs accompanying the mazzah
¹⁷⁷ Grain of which it is not known whether tithe was removed. Since one is permitted to feed demay
¹⁷⁸ This is totally profane in the hand of the Levite.
¹⁷⁹ Once redeemed all sanctity is transferred to the redemption money; the produce reverts to profane status.


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

**הלכה:** בַּחֲזֶרֶת. חַסִּין. בָּעוּלְשִׁין. טְרוֹקְסִימוֹן. וּבַתַּמְכָה. גִּנְגִּידִין. בַּחַרְחֲבִינָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר. יסי חלי. וּבַמָּרוֹר. יָרָק מָר וּפָנָיו מַכְסִיפִין וְיֵשׁ לוֹ שְׂרָף. הָתִיבוּן. הֲרֵי חֲזֶרֶת מָתוֹק. הֲרֵי אֵינוֹ קָרוּי חֲזֶרֶת אֶלָּא מָתוֹק. רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. כָּל עַצְמָן אֵין הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי אֶלָּא בַחֲזֶרֶת. מַה חֲזֶרֶת תְּחִילָּתָהּ מָתוֹק וְסוֹפָהּ מָר. כָּךְ עָשׂוּ הַמִּצְרִיִים לַאֲבוֹתֵינוּ בְמִצְרַיִם. בַּתְּחִילָּה בְּמֵיטַב הָאָרֶץ הוֹשֵׁב אֶת אָבִיךָ וְאֶת אַחֶיךָ. וְאַחַר כָּךְ וַיְמָרֲרוּ אֶת חַיֵּיהֶם בַּעֲבוֹדָה קָשָׁה בְּחוֹמֶר וּבִלְבֵינִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “With *hazeret*”, lettuce²⁴⁷. “With *ˋulšin*”, τρώξιμον²⁴⁸. “And with *tamka*”, γιγγίδιον²⁴⁹ “With *harhabina*”. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, ²⁵⁰ for the explanation of *Kilaim* 1:2 חזרת גלין which Maimonides in his Mishnah Commentary explains as “wild growing lettuce” (*Kilaim* Chapter 1, Notes 37,51,52.)יסי חלי. “And with *maror*”. A bitter vegetable turning grey and containing sap. They objected, is not lettuce sweet? Is it not called “lettuce” only if it be sweet? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Hoshaya: (Itself it depends only on change) [Itself it is only called “change”]²⁵¹. (As) *hazeret* is sweet at the beginning and bitter at the end, so did the Egyptians behave towards our forefathers in Egypt. At the start, *in the best part of the land settle your father and your brothers*²⁵² 47:6.*,* and after that *they embittered their lives with hard labor, with mortar and bricks*²⁵³ 1:6.*.*

footnotes:
²⁴⁷ Arabic خسّ.
²⁴⁸ Greek τρώξιμος, -ον, “edible”; τά τρώξιμα “vegetables eaten raw”, in rabbinic sources traditionally used for endives.
²⁴⁹ A plant of the family of carrots.
²⁵⁰ This is the reading of the Rome ms. Of the Yerushalmi Zeraˋim
²⁵¹ A play on words from the Hebrew root חזר “to return” which in Rabbinic Hebrew is used in the combination חזר בו “he changed his mind”. The text of G [in brackets] is preferable.The same homily but without the play on words is in the Babli 39a.
²⁵² Gen.
²⁵³ Ex.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:5:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:5:3)

בֵּין כְּמוּשִׁין. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֲבָל לֹא כְמוּשִׁין. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא. מָאן דְּאָמַר. כְּמוּשִׁין. בְּקֶלַח. מָאן דְּאָמַר. אֲבָל לֹא כְמוּשִׁין. בָּעָלִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“And wilted”. There are Tannaim who state, “but not wilted”. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said “and wilted”, about a stalk. He who said, “but not wilted”, about leaves²⁵⁴.

footnotes:
²⁵⁴ Babli 39b.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:5:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:5:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:5:4)

רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. זַיִת כָּבוּשׁ אוֹמֵר עָלָיו. בּוּרֵא פְרִי הָעֵץ. רִבִּי בִּנְיָמִין בַּר יֶפֶת בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. יָרָק שָׁלוּק אוֹמֵר עָלָיו. שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיֶה בִדְבָרוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָה לְרִבִּי בִּנְיָמִין בַּר יֶפֶת. אֲבָל לֹא כְבוּשִׁין וְלֹא שְׁלוּקִין וְלֹא מְבוּשָּׁלִין. אִם בְּעֵיינָן הֵם יֵצֵא בָהֶם יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַפֶּסַח. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. מָאן יְדַע מִשְׁמַע מִן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן יְאוּת. רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר בָּא אוֹ רִבִּי בִנְיָמִין. לֹא רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר בָּא. וְעוֹד מִן הָדָא. מִן מַה דַאֲנָן חַמְיִין רַבָּנִין עָלִין לַבְרִיָיתָה וְנָסְבִין תּוּרְמוּסִין וּמְבָרְכִין עֲלֵיהוֹן. בּוֹרֵא פְרִי הָאֲדָמָה. וְתוּרְמוּסִין לֹא שְׁלוּקִין הֵן. אִין תֵּימַר. שַׁנִיָיא הִיא. שֶׁאָמְרָה תוֹרָה מְרוֹרִים. תּוּרְמוּסִין כֵּיוָן שֶׁשְּׁלָקָן בָּטְלָה מָרָתָן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. ולֹא פְלִיגִין. זַיִת עַל יְדֵי שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֵיאָכֵל חַי. אֲפִילוּ כָבוּשׁ בְּעֵינוֹ הוּא. יָרָק כֵּיוָן שֶׁשְּׁלָקוֹ נִשְׁתַּנָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
²⁵⁵ 6:1 (Notes 34–41 ,**ב**). Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “Creator of the fruit of the tree” on marinated olives²⁵⁶. Rebbi Benjamin bar Jephet in the name of Rebbi Yohanan: One says “By Whose word everything was created” on water-cooked vegetables²⁵⁷. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: a Mishnah supports Rebbi Benjamin bar Yephet: “but not marinated or cooked in water or cooked in broth”; if they were recognizable in their state one could fulfill his duty with them on Passover. Rebbi Zeˋira said, who understands well what Rebbi Yohanan said, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba or Rebbi Benjamin? Not Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba? And in addition from the fact that we see great rabbis going to a mourner’s meal, eat lupines²⁵⁸ and recite on them “Creator of the fruit of the earth;” Are not lupines certainly cooked? If you wish, you may say there is a difference, since the Torah said *bitter herbs,* and cooked lupines have lost their bitterness. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they have no disagreement. Since olives usually are eaten fresh, they are recognizable in their state even if they are marinated. Vegetables are changed once they are cooked²⁵⁹38b..

footnotes:
²⁵⁵ This paragraph is copied from Berakhot
²⁵⁶ The required benediction before the consumption of raw fruits growing on a tree. He seems to hold that marinating does not change the nature of the fruit; then it is difficult to understand why marinated bitter herbs cannot be used on Passover.
²⁵⁷ The benediction for anything that cannot be classified as agricultural produce. He is supported by the Mishnah here which seems to indicate that once processed, vegetables are no longer counted as agricultural produce.
²⁵⁸ Greek θέρμος, ὁ. Raw lupines are cattle feed, too bitter for human consumption. They become edible only after long cooking. This statement seems to supprt R. Ḥiyya bar Abba.
²⁵⁹ One must assume that roots of lupine keep their shape and general appearance in cooking. The rule that vegetables which are inedible unless cooked require the blessing “Creator of the fruit of the earth” is the opinion of Rav Ḥisda in the Babli Berakhot


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

**משנה:** אֵין שׁוֹרִין אֶת הַמּוּרְסָן לַתַּרְנְגוֹלִים אֲבָל חוֹלְטִין. הָאִשָּׁה לֹא תִשְׁרֶה אֶת הַמּוּרְסָן שֶׁתּוֹלִיךְ בְּיָדָהּ לַמֶּרְחָץ אֲבָל שָׁפָל הִיא בִּבְשָׂרָהּ יָבֵשׁ. לֹא יִלְעוֹס אָדָם חִטִּים וְיִתֵּן עַל גַּבֵּי מַכָּתוֹ בַפֶּסַח מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מַחְמִיצוֹת:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** One may not soak bran as chicken feed but one may parboil²⁶⁰. A woman may not soak bran to take it in her hand to the bath house but she may rub it dry on her skin²⁶¹. A person may not chew wheat kernels to put on his wound since they become leavened²⁶².

footnotes:
²⁶⁰ Bran, the outer shell of wheat kernels, also may become leavened. Since leavened matter is forbidden for usufruct, it also is forbidden as animal feed. It is assumed that the bran becomes inert if parboiled in boiling water.
²⁶¹ To be used as cleansing powder, even if applied to her wet body, since it will be washed off before it can become leavened.
²⁶² By the spittle.


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

**הלכה:** תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר מִשּׁוּם אָבִיו. אֵי זוֹ הִיא הַמְּעִיסָּה. הַנּוֹתֵן חַמִּין לְתוֹךְ קֶמַח. חֲלִיטָה. קֶמַח לְתוֹךְ חַמִּין. וְהָכָא בֵין חַמִּים לְתוֹךְ מוּרְסָן בֵּין מוּרְסָן לְתוֹךְ חַמִּין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** It was stated²⁶³ 1:1; Yerushalmi *Ḥallah* 1:5 (Note 189). In Babli *Pesaḥim*37b, the definitions are switched.: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name: What is parboiled? If one adds hot water to flour. Dumpling, flour into hot water.” But here either water into bran or bran into water²⁶⁴.

footnotes:
²⁶³ Tosephta Ḥallah
²⁶⁴ all cases it is forbidden.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:6:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:6:3)

בְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן שַׁמְנוּנִית. מָלוּגְמָא שֶׁנִּסְרְחָה. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. זָקוּק לְבָעֵר. וְאִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֵין זָקוּק לְבָעֵר. מָאן דְּאָמַר. זָקוּק לְבָעֵר. בְּשֶׁנִּתְחַמְּצָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִסְרְחָה. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר. אֵינוֹ זָקוּק לְבָעֵר. בְּשֶׁנִּסְרְחָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְחַמְּצָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If there is any fat in them²⁶⁶ 32:14. If the kernels are completely devoid of moisture, they are inert and may be chewed.. Unguent²⁶⁷ which became putrid, there are Tannaim who state, he is required to eliminate; and there are Tannaim who state, he is not required to eliminate. He who said, he is required to eliminate, if it became leavened before becoming putrid; he who said, he is not required to eliminate, if it became putrid before becoming leavened²⁶⁸.

footnotes:
²⁶⁶ One is forbidden to chew wheat kernels for medical use if there is any moisture left in them, the moisture being called “fat” in Deut.
²⁶⁷ Greek μάλαγμα The base of the unguent contains flour.
²⁶⁸ If the unguent becomes unu sable and worthless before Passover, or even on Passover but it was spoiled before showing signs of leavening, it is neither food nor valuable and not subject to the Passover prohibition.


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

**משנה:** אֵין נוֹתְנִין אֶת הַקֶּמַח לֹא לְתוֹךְ חֲרוֹסֶת וְלֹא לְתוֹךְ חַרְדָּל אִם נָתַן יֹאכַל מִיָּד וְרִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹסֵר. אֵין מְבַשְּׁלִין אֶת הַפֶּסַח לֹא בְמַשְׁקִין וְלֹא בְמֵי פֵרוֹת אֲבָל סָכִין וּמַטְבִּילִין אוֹתוֹ בָהֶן. מֵי תַשְׁמִישָׁיו שֶׁל נַחְתּוֹם יִשָּׁפְכוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מַחְמִיצִין:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** One adds flour neither to *haroset*²⁶⁹ pp. 333–334. nor to mustard²⁷⁰ are moist, leavening would be caused by the addition of flour.. If one did add, he has to eat it immediately, but Rebbi Meïr forbids²⁷¹. One may not cook the Passover sacrifice either in fluid²⁷² or in fruit juice, but one may rub it or immerse it in them²⁷³. Water used by a baker²⁷⁴ has to be poured out because it causes leavening.

footnotes:
²⁶⁹ The sauce in which the bitter herbs are dipped, cf. Mishnah 10:3; The Scholar’s Haggadah
²⁷⁰ Prepared to be used with the meat. Since both this and haroset
²⁷¹ As explained in the Halakhah, he does not believe that it will be eaten quickly enough.
²⁷² Neither water (which is explicitly for bidden by the verse) nor fruit juice.
²⁷³ Before the Passover lamb is roasted over the open fire, it may be basted with fluids as taste enhancers.
²⁷⁴ .Water in which he dips his hands while kneading the dough. This water will contain particles.


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

**הלכה:** [תַּנֵּי.] אֵין נוֹתְנִין אֶת הַקֶּמַח לְתוֹךְ חֲרוֹסֶת אוֹ לְתוֹךְ חַרְדָּל. אִם נָתַן יֹאכַל מִיָּד וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁהֵא. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹסֵר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַשְׁהֵא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** It was stated: “One adds flour neither to *haroset*²⁶⁹ pp. 333–334. nor to mustard²⁷⁰ are moist, leavening would be caused by the addition of flour.; it one did add, he has to eat it immediately, on condition that he not tarry. Rebbi Meïr forbids since he tarries.²⁷⁵ to be burned.”

footnotes:
²⁶⁹ The sauce in which the bitter herbs are dipped, cf. Mishnah 10:3; The Scholar’s Haggadah
²⁷⁰ Prepared to be used with the meat. Since both this and haroset
²⁷⁵ The Babli 40b restricts this argument to mustard, requires haroset


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:7:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:7:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:7:3)

כָּתוּב וּבָשֵׁל מְבוּשָּׁל בַּמָּיִם. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מַיִם. מְנַיִין לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר מַשְׁקִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וּבָשֵׁל מְבוּשָּׁל [מִכָּל מָקוֹם.] עַד כְּדוֹן כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. קַל וָחוֹמֶר. מָה אִם מַיִם שֶׁאֵינָן מְפִיגִין טַעֲמָן אַתְּ אָמַר. אָסוּר. שְׁאָר מַשְׁקִין שֶׂמְּפִיגִין טַעֲמָן לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is written: *or cooking cooked in water*²⁷⁶ 12:9.*.* I not only have water, from where other fluids? The verse says, *cooking cooked,* in any way. So far following Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael²⁷⁷? An argument *de minore ad majus.* Since for water which does not mask its taste you are saying it is forbidden, other fluids which mask its taste not so much more²⁷⁸ 6, pp. 20=-21/?

footnotes:
²⁷⁶ Ex.
²⁷⁷ Who considers the combination of infinitive and perfect a form of common speech, not a duplication.
²⁷⁸ Babli 41a; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Ba, Parašah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:7:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:7:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:7:4)

אֵין לָשִׁין מַצָּה בְמַשְׁקִין אֲבָל מְקַטְּפִין אוֹתָהּ בְּמַשְׁקִין. אָמַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אֲנִי הָיִיתִי עִם רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּסְפִינָה וְלַשְׁתִּי מַצָּתָן בְּמַשְׁקִין. אֵין לָשִׁין מַצָּה בְרוֹתְחִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן חוֹלְטִין. וְלֹא בְפוֹשְׁרִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מַחְמִיצִין. אֲבָל לָשִׁין אוֹתָן בְּצוֹנִין. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. כָּל הַמְּנָחוֹת נִילוֹשׁוֹת בְּפוֹשְׁרִין [וּמְשַׁמְּרָן שֶׁלֹּא יַחֲמִיצוּ]. רִבִּי אִמִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. תַּמָּן הַדָּבָר מָסוּר לַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַכֹּהֲנִים זְרִיזִין הֵן. וְהָכָא הַדָּבָר מָסוּר לַנָּשִׁים וְהַנָּשִׁים עֲצֵילוֹת הֵן. לֹא צוּרְכָה דְלֹא. הַכֹּהֲנִים עַצְמָן מָהוּ שֶׁיְּלוֹשׁוּ מַצַָּתָן בְּפוֹשְׁרִין. יָיבֹא כְהָדָא תַנָּא. רִבִּי זְכַרְיָה חַתְנֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי לֵוִי. נִדָּה חוֹפֶפֶת וְסוֹרֶקֶת. [כֹּהֶנֶת אֵינָהּ חוֹפֶפֶת וְסוֹרֶקֶת. נִדָּה כֹהֶנֶת חוֹפֶפֶת וְסוֹרֶקֶת.] שֶׁלֹּא לַחֲלוֹק בֵּין נִידָּה לְנִידָּה. וְהָכָא שֶׁלֹּא לַחֲלוֹק בֵּין מַצָּה לְמַצָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
²⁷⁹52a.“One does not knead *mazzah* with fluids²⁷² but one may rub it with them. Rebbi Aqiba said, I was with Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua on a ship and kneaded their *mazzah* with fluids. One may not knead *mazzah* with boiling water since it parboils²⁶⁰, nor with lukewarm water because this makes leavened, but one kneads with cold water.” But did we not state²⁸⁰5:2, speaking of the flour offerings in the Temple where leavening is forbidden (*Lev*.2:11).: “All flour offerings are kneaded with lukewarm water and one guards them lest they become leavened”? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There the matter is in the hands of the Cohanim and Cohanim are quick; here it is in the hands of women and women are slow. Then it is a problem about Cohanim themselves, may they knead their *mazzah* with lukewarm water? ²⁸¹ It should be parallel to what Rebbi Zachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi stated: A menstruating woman washes her hair and combs. A priestly woman does not wash her hair and combs. A menstruating priestly woman washes her hair and combs, not to differentiate between one menstruating woman and another. So also here, not to differentiate between *mazzah* and *mazzah.*

footnotes:
²⁷⁹ Tosephta 3:5; Babli 36a, Menaḥot
²⁷² Neither water (which is explicitly for bidden by the verse) nor fruit juice.
²⁶⁰ Bran, the outer shell of wheat kernels, also may become leavened. Since leavened matter is forbidden for usufruct, it also is forbidden as animal feed. It is assumed that the bran becomes inert if parboiled in boiling water.
²⁸⁰ Mishnah Menaḥot
²⁸¹ Chapter 1:1 Notes 37–38. Here the corrector’s additions are justified by G.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:7:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:7:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:7:5)

מֵי תַשְׁמִישָׁיו שֶׁל שֶׁלְּנַחְתּוֹם יִשָּׁפְכוּ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מַחְמִיצִין. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. שׁוֹפְכָן בְּמָקוֹם אַשְׁבּוֹרֶן. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. שׁוֹפְכָן בְּמָקוֹם קַטַפֱרֵס. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מָאן דְּאָמַר. שׁוֹפְכָן בְּמָקוֹם אַשְׁבּוֹרֶן. כְּשֶׁהָיָה אַשְׁבּוֹרֶן גָּדוֹל. מָאן דְּאָמַר. בְּמָקוֹם קַטַפֱרֵס. בְּשֶׁהָיָה קַטַפֱרֵס גָּבוֹהַּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי פִינְחָס בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אִילָא. הָכֵין הֲוָה הֲוִי בָהּ. שָׁרָה חִיטִין וּשְׂעוֹרִים בַּמַּיִם. נִתְחַמְּצוּ אֲסוּרוֹת. לֹא נִתְחַמְּצוּ מוּתָּרוֹת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אָמַר. שָׁרָה שְׂעוֹרִים בַּמַּיִם. נִתְבַּקְּעוּ הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ אֲסוּרוֹת. שְׁרָיָין בַּחוֹמֶץ מוּתָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַחוֹמֶץ צוֹפְדָן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Water used by a baker²⁷⁴ has to be poured out because it makes leavened.” There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a depression²⁸². There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a declivity²⁸³. Rebbi Yose said, he who said, he pours it into a depression, if the depression was large. He who said, he pours it into a declivity, if the declivity was consierable. Rebbi Phineas said to him in the name of Rebbi Ila: So was he²⁸⁴ discussing it: If he soaked wheat or barley grains in water, if they became leavened, they are forbidden; if they did not become leavened, they are permitted. Rebbi Yose said, if he soaked barley in water, if they split they are forbidden²⁸⁵. If he soaked them in vinegar they are permitted since the vinegar contracts them.

footnotes:
²⁷⁴ .Water in which he dips his hands while kneading the dough. This water will contain particles.
²⁸² It is presumed that the water will be absorbed into the ground.
²⁸³ Greek adjective καταφερές, “inclined”.
²⁸⁴ In G: “so was my teacher …”.
²⁸⁵ Babli 40a.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:7:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:7:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Pesachim/r/2:7:6)

רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק הָיָה לֹו יַיִן קוֹסֵס. יְהַב בְּגַוֵּיהּ שְׂעָרִין בְּגִין דְּיִתְמַע. שְׁאַל לְרִבִּי אִימִּי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. צְרִיךְ אַתְּ לְבָעֵר. [רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי כִּהַיי הֲוָה לֵיהּ דְּבַשׁ מְזוּיָיף בְּסוֹלֶת. שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי מָנָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. צָרִיךְ אַתְּ לְבָעֵר.] חַד מִן אילֵּין דְּרִבִּי כִירַיי הֲוָה לֵיהּ גָּרְבִין דִּמְשַׁח בְּגַו אוֹצְרֵהּ דְחִיטַּיָּא שְׁאַל לְרַבָּנִין. אָמְרִין לֵיהּ. אֵיזִיל גְּרוֹף מִן תּוֹחְתֵּיהֶן. הוֹרֵי רִבִּי אִימִּי בְאִילֵּין גַּרְבָּיַיא דְּכוּתָחָא. מְמַלֵּא אוֹתָן מַיִם שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים מֵעֵת לָעֵת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac had wine which was getting sour. He added barley to it that it should become vinegar²⁸⁶. He asked Rebbi Immi, who told him, you have to eliminate²⁸⁷. [Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Kihai {Kirai}²⁸⁸ had honey adulterated with flour. He asked Rebbi Mana who told him, you have to eliminate. One of the people of [the house of]²⁸⁹ Rebbi Kirai had leather sacks of oil in the storage room of wheat. He asked the rabbis,*who told him, go and clean out from under them*²⁹⁰*. Rebbi Immi instructed about those leather sacks of kutah*²⁹¹*, one fills them with water for three days [and empties them]*²⁸⁹*every*24*hours.*

footnotes:
²⁸⁶ . In G (confirmed by quotes in Raviah and Meïri): That it certainly should become vinegar. Wine which starts to get sour can be sold neither as wine nor as vinegar; it is better to turn it into vinegar as quickly as possible.
²⁸⁷ Since the barley grains became leavened matter in the wine, in contrast to barley preserved in fully sour vinegar.It seems that the Yerushalmi implies from the linguistic relation between חָמֵץ “leavened matter” and חוֹמֶץ “vinegar” that the processes which turn dough into leavened bread and wine into vinegar are essentially the same. Rabbenu Tam, in a ms. Of his Pentateuch Commentary edited by S. E. Stern (קובץ המיעדים פסח vol. 1, p. 16, Moriah, Jerusalem 2005), notes that this and the following example imply that all fluids except vinegar may cause grain to become leavened, in contrast to the Babli (35b) who states categorically that fruit juices (with no water added) cannot cause leavening.
²⁸⁸ Reading of G. The text added by the corrector is confirmed by G.
²⁸⁹ Added from G.
²⁹⁰ The wheat kernels on the flour have to be removed before Passover since they may have become wet during the rainy season.
²⁹¹ Yogurt for which the source of the bacteria is mouldy bread, which is certainly leavened matter. But since the contents of the leather sacks always were cold, three days of leaching by water is enough.
²⁸⁹ Added from G.