## Pesachim Daf 48a

###### Pesachim 48a:1
[Pesachim 48a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/48a:1)

״מִן הַמָּאתַיִם״ — מִמּוֹתַר שְׁתֵּי מֵאוֹת שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּיְּירוּ בַּבּוֹר. מִכָּאן לְעׇרְלָה שֶׁבְּטֵילָה בְּמָאתַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The phrase: **Out of two hundred,** is expounded with regard to wine brought as a libation: **From the remaining two hundred** portions **that remain in the vat.** This is referring to a case where wine prohibited as produce grown during a tree or vine’s first three years [*orla*] is mixed with permitted wine. The *halakha* is that this wine mixture may be brought as a libation only if there is two hundred times more permitted wine than prohibited wine. **From here** it is derived **that *orla* is nullified in** a mixture of **two hundred.**


###### Pesachim 48a:2
[Pesachim 48a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/48a:2)

״מִמַּשְׁקֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל״ — מִן הַמּוּתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: אֵין מְבִיאִין נְסָכִין מִן הַטֶּבֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The phrase: **From the well-watered pastures of Israel,** means that sacrifices may be offered only **from that which is permitted to Israel. From here,** the Sages **stated: One** may **not offer libations from untithed produce [*tevel*],** since Jews are prohibited from eating *tevel*.


###### Pesachim 48a:3
[Pesachim 48a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/48a:3)

יָכוֹל לֹא יָבִיא מִן הַמּוּקְצֶה. אָמַרְתָּ: מָה טֶבֶל מְיוּחָד שֶׁאִיסּוּר גּוּפוֹ גָּרַם לוֹ — אַף כֹּל שֶׁאִיסּוּר גּוּפוֹ גָּרַם לוֹ. יָצָא מוּקְצֶה שֶׁאֵין אִיסּוּר גּוּפוֹ גָּרַם לוֹ, אֶלָּא אִיסּוּר דָּבָר אַחֵר גָּרַם לוֹ. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ אִיסּוּר מוּקְצֶה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, מָה לִי אִיסּוּר גּוּפוֹ מָה לִי אִיסּוּר דָּבָר אַחֵר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
I **might** have thought that **one** may **not offer** an animal that is **set-aside** on Shabbat or during a Festival; therefore, **you** have **said: Just as *tevel* is unique in that its inherent prohibition caused it** to be prohibited for Jews to eat, **so too, anything whose inherent prohibition caused it** to be prohibited for Jews to eat is invalid as an offering. This **excludes** an animal that has been **set aside, which** does not have **an inherent prohibition** that **caused it** to be prohibited for eating; **rather, a different prohibition,** i.e., the prohibition of utilizing set-aside objects on Shabbat, **caused it** to be prohibited for eating. **And if you say the prohibition of** utilizing **set-aside** material **is by Torah** law, **what** difference is there **to me** if a food is **inherently prohibited; and what** difference is there **to me** if it is prohibited due to **a different prohibition?** If there is a distinction between these prohibitions, it must be that the prohibition of utilizing set-aside material is by rabbinic law, and therefore, like many other rabbinic decrees, it does not apply in the Temple.


###### Pesachim 48a:4
[Pesachim 48a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/48a:4)

וְעוֹד, הָא אַתְּ הוּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ: חִילּוּק מְלָאכוֹת לְשַׁבָּת, וְאֵין חִילּוּק מְלָאכוֹת לְיוֹם טוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** Abaye said to Rabba: It is possible to challenge your interpretation of the *baraita* from a different angle. **Wasn’t it you who said,** as cited in tractate *Makkot*, that there is **division of labors** with regard **to Shabbat,** and therefore one is required to bring two sin-offerings if he performed two prohibited labors of different primary categories in one lapse of awareness, or if he performed a prohibited labor twice, during separate lapses of awareness; however, there is **no division of labors** with regard **to a Festival,** and therefore one is not punished with multiple floggings for performing multiple prohibited labors? Consequently, how could one be liable for multiple floggings for the prohibition of utilizing set-aside materials and for cooking the sciatic nerve on a Festival?


###### Pesachim 48a:5
[Pesachim 48a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/48a:5)

אֶלָּא אַפֵּיק הַבְעָרָה, וְעַיֵּיל עֲצֵי אֲשֵׁירָה. וְאַזְהָרָה מֵהָכָא, ״וְלֹא יִדְבַּק בְּיָדְךָ מְאוּמָה מִן הַחֵרֶם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** in order to make this *baraita* consistent with Rabba’s opinion, **remove** the prohibition of **kindling** a fire **and add** in its place the prohibition of using **the wood of a tree designated for idolatry [*asheira*]. And the warning,** i.e., the source of the negative commandment associated with using this wood, **is** derived **from here,** a verse that relates to an idolatrous city that is burned: **“Nothing from the spoil shall cling to your hand”** (Deuteronomy 13:18).


###### Pesachim 48a:6
[Pesachim 48a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/48a:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְאַבָּיֵי: וְנִלְקֵי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם ״וְלֹא תָבִיא תוֹעֵבָה אֶל בֵּיתֶךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Abaye:** If this case is referring to using wood from an *asheira*, **one should also be flogged due to** having transgressed the prohibition of: **“You shall not bring an abominable thing into your home”** (Deuteronomy 7:26). However, this would add an extra negative commandment to the list enumerated in the *baraita*.


###### Pesachim 48a:7
[Pesachim 48a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/48a:7)

אֶלָּא: אַפֵּיק הַבְעָרָה, וְעַיֵּיל עֲצֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ. וְאַזְהָרָה מֵהָכָא, ״וַאֲשֵׁרֵיהֶם תִּשְׂרְפוּן בָּאֵשׁ ... לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן כֵּן לַה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, remove** the prohibition of **kindling** a fire **and add** in its place the prohibition of burning **consecrated wood. And the warning,** i.e., the source of this negative command, **is from here: “And you shall burn their *asheira*** trees **with fire...you shall not do this to the Lord your God”** (Deuteronomy 12:3–4). Therefore, one who burns a consecrated item in a destructive manner is punished with lashes. In conclusion, no adequate proof can be adduced from the *baraita* to reject Rabba’s opinion.


###### Pesachim 48a:8
[Pesachim 48a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/48a:8)

אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: הָא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה — מַחֲלוֹקֶת דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא. דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: אָמְרִינַן ״הוֹאִיל״. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר: לָא אָמְרִינַן ״הוֹאִיל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rami bar Ḥama said: This** dispute between **Rav Ḥisda and Rabba** with regard to the principle: Since, etc., **is** a matter of **dispute** between **Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua** in the mishna. **As, Rabbi Eliezer,** who says that *ḥalla* should be separated only after the bread has been baked, **holds** that **we say** the principle: **Since, etc.** Since any portion of the dough could potentially be eaten if another part of the dough is designated as *ḥalla*, therefore, one is permitted to bake bread without separating *ḥalla* from it *ab initio*. **And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: We do not say** the principle: **Since, etc.**


###### Pesachim 48a:9
[Pesachim 48a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/48a:9)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וְדִילְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הָתָם דְּאָמְרִינַן ״הוֹאִיל״, אֶלָּא דִּבְעִידָּנָא דְּקָא עָיְילִי לְתַנּוּרָא כׇּל חֲדָא וַחֲדָא חַזְיָא לֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ. אֲבָל הָכָא, דִּלְאוֹרְחִין הוּא דַּחֲזֵי לְדִידֵיהּ לָא חֲזֵי — אֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא אָמְרִינַן ״הוֹאִיל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said** that this claim can be rejected in the following manner: **Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer only stated that we say** the principle: **Since, etc., there,** in the case of the separation of *ḥalla*, **because at the time that it was placed into the oven, each and every** loaf **was fit for him,** and there was no indication as to which loaf he would designate as *ḥalla*. **However, here,** in a case **where** the bread one is baking on the Festival **is fit for guests** but **is not fit for him, say that so too,** even according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer **we do not say** the principle: **Since, etc.**


###### Pesachim 48a:10
[Pesachim 48a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/48a:10)

אָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: וְדִילְמָא לָא הִיא, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הָתָם דְּלָא אָמְרִינַן ״הוֹאִיל״, אֶלָּא דְּאִיכָּא חֲדָא דְּלָא חַזְיָא לָא לְדִידֵיהּ וְלָא לְאוֹרְחִין. אֲבָל הָכָא, דַּחֲזֵי מִיהַת לְאוֹרְחִין — אֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי אָמְרִינַן ״הוֹאִיל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi,** rejected Rami bar Ḥama’s statement for a different reason and **said: Perhaps that is not so. Rabbi Yehoshua only stated that we do not say** the principle: **Since, etc., there, where there is one** portion of the bread **that is not fit for him or for guests,** because the piece that is designated as *ḥalla* cannot be eaten by anyone due to the fact that it is ritually impure. **However, here,** in the case of one who is baking bread during the Festival so that it can be eaten on a weekday, **when it is at least fit for guests, say that so too,** even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, **we say** the principle: **Since, etc.**


###### Pesachim 48a:11
[Pesachim 48a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/48a:11)

אַמְרוּהָ [רַבָּנַן] קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה וְרַבִּי זֵירָא. רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה קַיבְּלַהּ, רַבִּי זֵירָא לָא קַיבְּלַהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי זֵירָא: מִילְּתָא דְּקַשְׁיָא לַן וְאָתְיָא כַּמָּה שְׁנֵי בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, הַשְׁתָּא אַמְרוּהָ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּגַבְרָא רַבָּה, וְלָא נִיקַבְּלַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara recounts: **The Sages said** Rami bar Ḥama’s statement **before Rabbi Yirmeya and Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Yirmeya accepted it** and **Rabbi Zeira did not accept it. Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira:** The following **matter has been difficult for us** to explain **for several years: With regard to what** principle **did Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree? Now** an explanation **has been stated in the name of a great man. Shall we not accept it?**


###### Pesachim 48a:12
[Pesachim 48a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/48a:12)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֵיכִי אֲקַבְּלַהּ, דִּתְנֵינָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לִדְבָרֶיךָ, הֲרֵי הוּא עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה כׇל מְלָאכָה״, וּשְׁתֵיק לֵיהּ. וְאִי אִיתָא, לֵימָא לֵיהּ: טַעְמָא דִּידִי מִשּׁוּם ״הוֹאִיל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**He said to him: How can I accept it? We** already **learned** in a *baraita* with regard to their dispute: **Rabbi Yehoshua said to** Rabbi Eliezer: **According to your statement, one violates** the prohibition: **“You shall not perform any labor”** (Exodus 20:9). Rabbi Eliezer could not respond to this claim **and was silent.** But **if it is** as Rami bar Ḥama explained, Rabbi Eliezer **should have said to him: The reason** for **my** opinion is **due to** the principle: **Since, etc.,** on the basis of which no prohibited labor has been performed.


###### Pesachim 48a:13
[Pesachim 48a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/48a:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דִּתְנֵינָא בְּבָרַיְיתָא, אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: לִדְבָרֶיךָ, הֲרֵי הוּא עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל יֵרָאֶה וּבַל יִמָּצֵא״, וּשְׁתֵיק לֵיהּ. הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא אַהְדַּר לֵיהּ? הָא קָא מַהְדַּר לֵיהּ בְּמַתְנִיתִין? דִּתְנַן: לֹא זֶהוּ חָמֵץ שֶׁמּוּזְהָרִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל יֵרָאֶה וּבַל יִמָּצֵא״, אֶלָּא: שָׁתֵיק לֵיהּ בְּבָרַיְיתָא, וּמַהְדַּר לֵיהּ בְּמַתְנִיתִין. הָכִי נָמֵי, אֵימוֹר שְׁתֵיק לֵיהּ בְּמַתְנִיתִין, וְאַהְדַּר לֵיהּ בִּמְכִילְתָּא אַחֲרִיתִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yirmeya **said to him: According to your reasoning,** with regard to **that which we** already **learned in a *baraita*,** that **Rabbi Eliezer said to him: According to your statement, he transgresses** the prohibitions: **It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, and** in response to this challenge Rabbi Yehoshua **was silent, did he too not respond to** Rabbi Eliezer? **He responded to him in the mishna, as we learned** in the mishna that Rabbi Yehoshua said: **This is not the leavened bread about which we are warned** with the prohibitions: **It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found. Rather,** it must be explained in the following manner: **He** appeared to be **silent in the *baraita*** simply because his response was not recorded, **but he responded in the mishna. So too,** here it is possible to **say that he** appeared **silent in the mishna, but he responded in a different tractate.**


###### Pesachim 48a:14
[Pesachim 48a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/48a:14)

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּבֶן בְּתֵירָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** The ***halakha*** with regard to the separation of *ḥalla* from impure dough during Passover **is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer. And Rabbi Yitzḥak said:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **ben Beteira.**


###### Pesachim 48a:15
[Pesachim 48a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/48a:15)

וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּר עִיסָּה? רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: בְּחִיטִּין — קַבִּין. וּבִשְׂעוֹרִין — שְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: חִילּוּף הַדְּבָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **How much dough** may be kneaded at once on Passover without concern that the dough will become leavened in the process? **Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: With regard to wheat,** one may use the amount of flour that comes from **two *kav*** of grain; **and with regard to barley,** one may use the amount of flour that comes from **three *kav*. Rabbi Natan says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: The matters are reversed.** One may knead the flour produced from three *kav* of wheat or two *kav* of barley without concern that it will become leavened.


###### Pesachim 48a:16
[Pesachim 48a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/48a:16)

וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: בְּחִטִּין — שְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין, וּבִשְׂעוֹרִין — אַרְבָּעָה קַבִּין! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בְּחַסִּיכָתָא, הָא — בִּמְעַלְּיָיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Wasn’t** it **taught** in a different *baraita* that **Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: With regard to wheat,** one may use the amount of flour that comes from **three *kav*** of grain, **and with regard to barley,** one may use the amount of flour that comes from **four *kav*?** The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult,** as **this** latter *baraita* is referring **to low-quality** grain, and **that** *baraita* is referring **to high-quality** grain. One can obtain a higher proportion of flour from high-quality grain than from low-quality grain, which contains a greater amount of chaff.


###### Pesachim 48a:17
[Pesachim 48a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/48a:17)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ גְּרִיעִין חִיטֵּי חַסִּיכָתָא מֵחִיטֵּי מְעַלְּיָיתָא טְפֵי מִדִּגְרִיעָן שְׂעָרֵי חַסִּיכָתָא מִשְּׂעָרֵי מְעַלְּיָיתָא. דְּאִילּוּ הָתָם תִּילְתָּא, וְהָכָא רִיבְעָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: Learn from this** that the extent to which **low-quality wheat is worse than high-quality wheat is greater than** the extent to which **low-quality barley is worse than high-quality barley,** i.e., the discrepancy between the different levels of quality is more significant with regard to wheat, **as there,** in the case of wheat, they differ by **one-third; and here,** in the case of barley, they differ by only **one-fourth.**


###### Pesachim 48a:18
[Pesachim 48a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/48a:18)

אָמַר רַב: קַבָּא מְלוֹגְנָאָה לְפִיסְחָא, וְכֵן לְחַלָּה. (וְהָתַנְיָא:)

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav said: A *kav*** from the place **Melogna** is the amount that can be used to prepare dough **for Passover. And similarly, with regard to *ḥalla*,** that is the minimum amount of dough from which *ḥalla* must be separated. The Gemara asks: **Wasn’t** it **taught** in a *baraita*: