MISHNAH: One who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food¹.) makes a convincing argument, based on Terumot 10:8 (Notes 103–104), that שלק is scalding (pouring hot water over the food), not cooking in a pot.. If one said, a qônām that I will not taste a cooked dish, he is forbidden fine dishes² and permitted thick ones³. Also he is permitted a soft boiled egg⁴ egg as a diagnostic egg made extra hard and indigestible by alternatingly cooking and freezing until it is small and hard, can be swallowed whole, and, when excreted, examined for traces of blood from stomach or intestines. and ash-gourd⁵.

footnotes: ¹ In rabbinic tradition, based on the Babli, שלק means “preserved by prolonged cooking” so that the food can be kept for a long time without refrigeration. But Rashba (Novellae ad loc ² Those which contain visible moisture. ³ If there is no more visible moisture and it can be eaten without bread (or today, without a fork). ⁴ Galen VI, 769 distinguishes kinds of eggs: ἑφθά “hard boiled”, τρομητά “trembling”, i. e. with solid egg white but soft yolk, which tremble if shelled, ῥοφητά “soft”, which can be sipped. In contrast to the Yerushalmi which identifies the last two kinds, the Babli (50b) on the testimony of Samuel, a medical doctor, defines a trometa ⁵ Explained in the Halakhah.

HALAKHAH: “One who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food,” etc. ⁶ 3:1 (20d 1. 21) and Nazir 6:11 (55c 1. 18). The argument of this paragraph is also in the Babli, 49a, where the opinion of R. Joḥanan is declared to be that of the Tanna of the Mishnah. A Mishnah states that scalding is called cooking, as we have stated: “If he cooked the well-being offering or scalded it⁷ 6:11. This refers to the ram which is the well-being offering of the nazir at the end of his period of sanctification. The verse, Num. 6:18, requires the Cohen to take a limb “from the cooked ram”. The Mishnah accepts שָׁלוּק as cooked. Since the meat of the ram must be eaten immediately, it is clear that שלק cannot mean “to preserve by prolonged cooking”..” A verse [states] that “roasted” is called “cooked”⁸. 35:13: “They cooked the pesaḥ in the fire as is the rule”; i. e., (Ex. 12:9) “roasted in fire”. Cooked would have been “over the fire”.: “They cooked the pesaḥ” etc. If you say, against the rules, Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, “as is the rule”. A Mishnah states that scalded is called cooked, and a verse that roasted is called cooked; but did we not state: “One who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, in matters of vows one follows common usage. Rebbi Joshia said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage⁹. What is the difference between them? ‘A qônām that I shall not taste wine on Tabernacles.’ In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is forbidden on the last day of the holiday¹⁰. 29:35) is a separate holiday.. In the opinion of Rebbi Joshia, is he permitted? Also Rebbi Joshia agrees that he is prohibited. Rebbi Joshia said it only for restrictions¹¹.

footnotes: ⁶ This paragraph and the next are also in Erubin ⁷ Mishnah Nazir ⁸ 2Chr ⁹ The Babli, 49a, states that R. Joshia disagrees with the Mishnah and forbids both roasted and preserved. ¹⁰ The eighth day of the fall festival which in popular consciousness is part of Tabernacles but in biblical terminology (Num ¹¹ He requires that both in biblical Hebrew and in the vernacular the terms should denote different things.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan ate bake-meats¹² 1:5, Note 164; baked goods, not bread, made in the market. An exaggerated parallel to this is in the Babli, Berakhot 44a. and said, I did not taste food on that day. But did we not state¹³ 3:1. That Mishnah contradicts R. Joḥanan.: “He who made a vow not to eat food is permitted water and salt”? Explain it following Rebbi Joshia, who said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. And from where that everything is called food? Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla said¹⁴. 45:23; the verse implies that “food” is different from grain and bread. The Babli, Berakhot 35b, disagrees and defines as מזון any food made from grain.: “And ten female donkeys carrying grain, bread, and food.” Why does the verse say, “and food”? From here that everything is called food.

footnotes: ¹² Cf. Ḥallah ¹³ Erubin ¹⁴ Gen

May one who made a vow not to have anything cooked be permitted smoked? May he be permitted fried? May he be permitted anything cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias¹⁶? The rabbis of Caesarea asked: Is anything smoked forbidden because of Gentile cooking¹⁷ 1 (3c 1. 65), Avodah zarah 2:9 (41d 1. 35)] it is a biblical prohibition, based on Deut. 2:28 to eat Gentile food which is in a state different from raw and not prepared with the help of a Jew. In the opinion of the Babli, Avodah zarah 37b/38a, this is a purely pharisaic-rabbinic restriction for which the verse serves as a crutch. The question now is whether hanging anything in a chimney over a smoky fire which was not lit for the purpose of cooking would be considered cooking anyhow.? Is it forbidden because of cooking on the Sabbath? Is it forbidden because of meat and milk? Does it cause ṭevel for tithes¹⁸ 7:2) parallel to baking. Since baking cannot be replaced by smoking, there is a question. Similarly, it is forbidden to cook milk and meat together (Ex. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21). Cooking untithed food makes the food forbidden until heave and tithes have been taken. {While the Mishnah (Ma‘serot 4:1) only states that preserving by prolonged cooking creates the obligation, the formulation in the Halakhah is “fire creates the obligation”. In the first formulation, preserving by smoking might be excluded, in the second it is included.) The questions are unanswered since in matters of biblical prohibitions a doubt must be resolved in a restrictive decision.? If somebody made a vow not to have anything smoked, is he permitted cooked? Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of the House of Rav Assi: Ḥabiṣ¹⁹ is unproblematic as Gentile cooking and is acceptable as eruv tavšīlīn. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: Anything which can be eaten raw is unproblematic as Gentile cooking and is acceptable as eruv tavšīlīn²⁰ 38a, in the name of Rav, Rav Huna’s teacher..

footnotes: ¹⁶ If a pot is immersed in a hot spring, is the food cooked by human action? If it is not by human action, it cannot be sanctioned. ¹⁷ In the opinion of the Yerushalmi [Šabbat ¹⁸ This is always the same question. Cooking is forbidden on the Sabbath (Mishnah Šabbat ¹⁹ Arabic خَبِيص “a delicacy made from dates, cream, and starch”. ²⁰ In the Babli, Avodah zarah

Reading of Rashba (Novellae ad 49a)²² וּבְשָׁלוּק מוּתָּר בְּמַעֲשֵׂה קְדֵרָה עָבֶה. מְבוּשָּׁל שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר בִּצְלִי וּבְשָׁלוּק אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵא מוּתָּר בְּעָבֶה. וְיֵשׁ קַל וַחוֹמֶר בִּנְדָרִים. אֶלָּא כֵינִי. תַּבְשִׁיל שֶׁהוּא בִּצְלִי וּבְשָׁלוּק מוּתָּר בְּעָבֶה. וּמְבוּשָּׁל שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר בִּצְלִי וּבְשָׁלוּק מוּתָּר בְּעָבֶה.: ²³ Is one who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food permitted a thick³ dish? Let us hear from the following: “He is forbidden soft dishes² and permitted thick ones³.” Since a dish which would be forbidden roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish, regarding “cooked food” which permits roasted and scalded, is it not logical that he be permitted the thick dish? Are there arguments de minore ad majus in matters of vows²⁴? But it must be so: Since a dish which is forbidden roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish, the cooked which is permitted roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish.

footnotes: ²² This is a coherent text which makes sense. However, the substitution of צלי for צלוי indicates that the text was copied without attention to the intricacies of Yerushalmi spelling. The deviations from the ms. text are indicated by a change of typeface. הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַמְבוּשָּׁל מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא מוּתָּר בְּעָבֶה. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. אָסוּר בְמַעֲשֵׂה קְדֵירָה רַךְ וּמוּתָּר בְּעָבֶה. מָה אִם תַּבְשִׁיל שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בִּצְלִי ²³ The translation follows the Rashba text. ³ If there is no more visible moisture and it can be eaten without bread (or today, without a fork). ² Those which contain visible moisture. ³ If there is no more visible moisture and it can be eaten without bread (or today, without a fork). ²⁴ According to R. Joḥanan, the meaning of vows can be ascertained only by analysis of the vernacular which is not subject to logical rules.

It was stated: He is forbidden soft cakes²⁵, since the physician frequently eats his bread with them. Rav Ḥisda said, he is forbidden a roasted²⁶ 2:6) and Yerushalmi Šabbat 3:3 (6a 1. 18). The Babli, 49a, has a general formulation by Abai, a student of Rav Ḥisda: Anything eaten with bread is called a dish. egg since a sick person frequently eats his bread with them.

footnotes: ²⁵ Greek ἴτριον, cf. Ḥallah 1, Note 178. The dough must still be so soft that it must be put into a pitta to be eaten. ²⁶ This usage of גלגל “to roll, make round” is documented in Mishnah (Uqeṣin

“He is permitted a soft boiled egg,” a soft one⁴ egg as a diagnostic egg made extra hard and indigestible by alternatingly cooking and freezing until it is small and hard, can be swallowed whole, and, when excreted, examined for traces of blood from stomach or intestines.’²⁷. “And ash-gourd,” ²⁸ 1, end of Halakhah 2, formulated in a slightly different way. Rebbi Ḥinenah said, it is a kind of bitter gourd and they sweeten it in hot ashes.

footnotes: ⁴ Galen VI, 769 distinguishes kinds of eggs: ἑφθά “hard boiled”, τρομητά “trembling”, i. e. with solid egg white but soft yolk, which tremble if shelled, ῥοφητά “soft”, which can be sipped. In contrast to the Yerushalmi which identifies the last two kinds, the Babli (50b) on the testimony of Samuel, a medical doctor, defines a trometa ²⁷ It must be fluid if it cannot be eaten in a pitta, cf. the preceding Note. ²⁸ This is from Kilaim

MISHNAH: If somebody makes a vow to forbid himself anything made in a pot, he is forbidden only what is made in its heat²⁹ 37a.. If he said, a qônām that I shall not taste anything going into the pot, he is forbidden anything that may be cooked in any pot³⁰. ‘From the pickled’, he is forbidden only pickled vegetables³⁸. ‘That I shall not taste anything pickled’, he is forbidden everything pickled. ‘From the scalded’ he is forbidden only scalded meat, the words of Rebbi Jehudah³⁹. ‘That I shall not taste anything scalded’, he is forbidden everything scalded. ‘From the roast’ he is forbidden only roasted meat, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. ‘That I shall not taste anything roasted’, he is forbidden everything roasted.

footnotes: ²⁹ The expression “made in a pot” is restricted to cereals; cf. Babli Berakhot ³⁰ Including vegetables and meat. ³⁸ Normally “pickling” only vegetables. In the second sentence, anything pickled is forbidden, whether it is of the kind usually covered by the verb or not. The other Mishnaiot are treated similarly. ³⁹ In the Babylonian Mishnah, this is missing and the entire Mishnah is anonymous. It is found in הילכות הרא״ש.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody makes a vow to forbid himself anything made in a pot,” etc. What is made in its heat? For example split spelt, porridge, barley gruel³¹, Notes 47–49., farina, rice, groats³² and mashed cereal³³47a, Nedarim 41b. According to Rashi (to Berakhot 37a), made from cereal split into many small pieces..

footnotes: ³¹ For these three kinds of cereal, cf. Soṭa 2 ³² This translation is tentative; from זרד “making branches”. ³³ This meaning is well established in the Babli, Yoma

³⁴[One who forbids himself] “anything going into the pot, is forbidden what goes into the frying pan³⁵ 8:8, Note 128.. From anything going into the frying pan is permitted what goes into the pot.”³⁶ For there are things going into the frying pan which do not go into the pot. What do you have? For example, greasy³⁷ 6:1, Note 112) and חֶלְמוֹן is egg yolk. fish. “One who makes a vow to forbid to himself what is baked in the oven, is forbidden only bread. From what is prepared in the oven, anything is forbiddden that may be made in an oven”³⁶.

footnotes: ³⁴ A similar text in the Babli, 51a. ³⁵ Greek λοπάς; cf. Peah ³⁶ Tosephta 3:2. ³⁷ This translation is very tentative; it is based on Arabic خِلم “sheep’s fat”. It is difficult to read one word החלמן since חֲלִימָה is a plant (cf. Berakhot ³⁶ Tosephta 3:2.

MISHNAH: ‘From the salted’ he is forbidden only salted fish. ‘That I shall not taste anything salted’, he is forbidden everything salted. ‘That I shall not taste fish, fishes’, he is forbidden them either large or small, either salted or unsalted, either raw or cooked. But he is permitted fish cake⁴⁰(s. v. טרית) and Rashi in his commentary to Megillah 6a the reference is to triton, a kind of tuna fish. This explanation is accepted by Ran (commentary to Nedarim 51b) who explains: “A large fish ground into fine cakes”. But in Avodah zarah 35b, Rashi explains “small salted fish” which Lewysohn explains as Greek θρίσσα (Attic θρίττα). According to the Halakhah, both explanations might be correct, depending on a person’s dialect. {טְרִית, if Greek, however, might be expected to be derived from a word beginning with tau, rather than theta. Compare Latin tritus, “rubbing, wearing”, from tero “rub to pieces” forming a double expression with Hebrew טְרוּפָה “ground, finely ground with “fish” understood (E. G.). For an example of a Greek-Hebrew double expression cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Notes on the Talmudic Vocabulary 5, לשוננו לז (1973), 23–26 (in Hebrew).} A person vowing not to eat fish intends only food recognizable as such. and fish fluid⁴¹. If somebody vows not to eat anchovy⁴² he is forbidden fish cake and permitted fish fluid and brine⁴³, cf. Demay 1:3, Note 156.. If somebody vows not to eat fish cake he is permitted⁴⁴ fish fluid and brine.

footnotes: ⁴⁰ “Ground finely”.In the opinion of Arukh ⁴¹ Fluid extracted from fish by pressing. ⁴² Arabic صَحْنَى “small salted fish”. ⁴³ Latin muries ⁴⁴ In the Babli: “forbidden”. The Mishnah mss. in the Maimonides tradition follow the Yerushalmi.

HALAKHAH: “ ‘From the salted’ he is forbidden only salted fish,” etc. ⁴⁵ They wanted to say, salted for preservation, not short-term salted. Rebbi Yudan said, since we have stated: “this is for me like salted meat, like libation wine,” this imples that short-term salted is called “salted”. What is short-term salted? As it was stated: “He puts the limbs on the salt and turns them over.” Rebbi Abba Mari said, there is a difference, for if he left them there, they would become salted meat. But which text says it? As Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Zabda said, “one who takes olives from the vat dips each single one in salt and eats it.” This implies that short-term salted is called “salted”.

footnotes: ⁴⁵ This is a copy from Chapter 2:4, Notes 59–63.

It was stated: ⁴⁶ Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says: If he said, ‘a qônām that I shall not taste a fish’, he is forbidden large ones and permitted small ones. ‘Fishes I shall not taste,’ he is forbidden large and small ones. ‘Fish⁴⁷ I shall not taste,’ he is forbidden only sardines⁴⁸. What is small and what is large? This is as Rebbi Ze‘ira said, from any fish less than a litra⁴⁹, 345 g. which I eat, I am tasting sardines. Here, it is the same⁵⁰.

footnotes: ⁴⁶ A different version in the Babli, 51b; Tosephta 3:5. ⁴⁷ The collective for fish, meaning fish that appear in large swarms. ⁴⁸ Greek χαλκίς, -ίδος “pilchard, sardine”. ⁴⁹ A Roman libra ⁵⁰ A fish is small if it weighs less than a Roman 1b.

“He is permitted fish cake”; therefore not if it is not ground. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Ze‘ira⁵¹ asked: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan who said, in matters of vows one follows common usage⁵² It is not the way of people that if a man says to his neighbor, sell me a fish, that he should sell him a sardine⁵³. Rebbi Abin understood it from the last clause, “if somebody vows not to eat fish cake he is permitted fish fluid and brine⁵⁴,” therefore not if it is not ground? Rebbi [Jeremiah]⁵⁵ said, Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan who said, in matters of vows one follows common usage. It is not the way of people that if a man says to his neighbor, sell me a טְרִי, that he sells him a צַחְנָא. There⁵⁶, they call צַחְנָה טְרִית.

footnotes: ⁵¹ Almost certainly, the scribe forgot the title “Rebbi”. ⁵² Cf. Halakhah 1, first paragraph. In the Babli 30b, 49a, 51b, and 5 times in other tractates. ⁵³ Unspecified “fish” does not mean sardine. ⁵⁴ It seems that the quote should be the sentence before the last, forbidding fish cake for the person who vows not to eat anchovy. ⁵⁵ In analogy to the first version, this is the name forgotten by the scribe. ⁵⁶ In Babylonia. It is asserted that there one calls צחנא what in Galilee is called טרית. The Tanna of the Mishnah is Babylonian.

MISHNAH: If somebody vows not to drink milk, he is permitted curd⁵⁷ but Rebbi Yose forbids⁵⁸. But from curd, he is permitted milk. Abba Shaul says, if he vows not to have cheese, it is forbidden to him whether salted or unsalted⁵⁹.

footnotes: ⁵⁷ This is the definition of the Yerushalmi. The definition of Rashi and the Arukh is: the serum remaining when curd is pressed into cheese. ⁵⁸ He holds that curd is colloidal milk, not cheese. But if somebody restricts his vow to curd, he certainly excludes fluid milk. ⁵⁹ Even though most cheese is salted.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody vows not to drink milk, he is permitted curd,” etc. What is curd? Curdled milk. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? The name of its father is called over it⁶⁰. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, is one who vows not to taste wine permitted cooked wine⁶¹? Cooked wine”.

footnotes: ⁶⁰ Since its name still contains the word “milk”. ⁶¹ Which has lost all its alcohol by cooking. Since in the Aramaic vernacular it still is called wine it is forbidden.

⁶²6:3, Notes 116–125; quoted in Babli 57b/58a.“This is the rule Rebbi Simeon declared in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and “new grain”, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, orlah, and kilaim in a vineyard, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted.” How do you treat vows⁶³? As referring to something that can become permitted or to something that cannot become permitted? It seems reasonable that we treat them as referring to things that can become permitted, as we have stated there⁶⁴ 7:9, in a discussion of the difference between the dissolution of a vow by a rabbi for cause compared to that by the father of the vow of his not quite adult daughter. One would have expected the text to read דתני as appropriate for a baraita, not דתנינן תמן used for a Mishnah. “for the Elder uproots the vow from the start.” They said, he only uproots for the future⁶⁵. Certainly a Mishnah treats it as referring to something that cannot become permitted, as we have stated there⁶⁶ 9:4, Notes 57–64; quoted in Babli, 60a.: “The growth from heave is heave; the growth from their growth is profane. But the growths from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heaves from outside the Land, dema‘, and First Fruits are profane as are growths from their growths. Growths from dedicated [seeds] and Second Tithe become profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing.” We have stated on this: When has this been said? Anything whose seeds disappear. But in produce whose seeds do not disappear, the growth from their growth is forbidden⁶⁷. ⁶⁸ 6:3, Note 126. (Kilaim 5:7, Note 76; Terumot 7:7, Note 122; ‘Orlah1:1, Note 29; Babli Nedarim 57b). There is a restriction on growth, as Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. But another Mishnah treats it as something that can become permitted, as we have stated there⁶⁹ 6:9.: “For if somebody vowed not to have a certain thing and it became mixed with something else, if it can be tasted it is forbidden.” This explains that it was mixed with another kind, following the rules of something that can become permitted.

footnotes: ⁶² This paragraph is from Ŝevi‘it ⁶³ If somebody vowed not to eat something which then became mixed with permitted food and is no longer recognizable. Is the mixture forbidden if it contains the most minute amount of forbidden material or does it become permitted if the forbidden food no langer can be tasted? ⁶⁴ Ketubot ⁶⁵ While the rabbi might annul the vow, he cannot annul the guilt incurred by violation of the vow before it was annulled. ⁶⁶ Terumot ⁶⁷ Since the growth of the growth from seeds dedicated by a vow remains forbidden, a vow makes it something which admits of an act (a request for annulment) that makes it permitted. ⁶⁸ Ŝevi‘it ⁶⁹ Nedarim

MISHNAH: If somebody vows not to eat meat, he is permitted clear bouillon and coagulated fibers⁷⁰, but Rebbi Jehudah forbids. Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that Rebbi Ṭarphon forbade to me eggs that were cooked in it. They said to him, that is correct; when? If he would say, that piece of meat [is forbidden] to me⁷¹ Chapter 10; or, as explained in the Halakhah, he forbids himself any usufruct, i. e., any taste of the forbidden food.. In truth, if somebody forbids himself something by a vow and it became mixed with something else, if it can be tasted it is forbidden If somebody vows not to drink wine he is permitted a dish prepared with wine. If he said, a qônām that I shall not taste this wine, if it fell into a dish and it can be tasted, that is forbidden.

footnotes: ⁷⁰ The solid material which accumulates on the wall of the pot at the water’s edge, which usually is scrubbed off as waste. ⁷¹ If somebody forbids for himself meat in general, food is judged by categories and eggs are not meat. But if somebody forbids a particular piece of meat, that piece is for him as if it were not kosher and it follows the rules of admixtures of forbidden ingredients as detailed in Terumot

HALAKHAH: “If somebody vows not to eat meat,” etc. Rebbi Hila said: The moment he said “this one”, he forbade for himself it and its usufruct.

MISHNAH: If somebody vows not to eat grapes, he is permitted wine; not to eat olives, he is permitted oil. If he said, a qônām that I shall not taste these olives or grapes, he is forbidden them and anything coming from them⁷².

footnotes: ⁷² These rules are all examples of the principle expounded in Halakhah 9.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody vows not to eat grapes,” etc. It was stated⁷³: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, a qônām for anything which usually is eaten and of which some derivative is eaten; if he forbade the thing to himself by a vow, the derivative is permitted⁷⁴. What is an example? E. g., grapes and olives. And anything which usually is eaten but no derivative of which is eaten; if he forbade the thing to himself by a vow, the derivative is permitted. What is an example? E. g., mulberries. And anything which usually is not eaten and but a derivative is eaten; if he forbade the thing to himself by a vow, he intended the derivative. What is an example? E. g., garden seeds that are not eaten⁷⁵ 1:1, Note 21..

footnotes: ⁷³ Babli 53a, Tosephta 3:3. ⁷⁴ In Babli and Tosephta: Forbidden. ⁷⁵ Cf. Kilaim

MISHNAH: If somebody vows not to eat dates, he is permitted date honey; from winter grapes⁷⁶, he is permitted winter grape vinegar. Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says, if he vowed to forbid to himself anything which is called by the name of its derivative⁷⁷ 8:8 are called “honey”. In the same verse, olives are referred to as “oil olives”., he also is forbidden the derivative, but the Sages permit it.

footnotes: ⁷⁶ They are sour and can only be used for making vinegar. ⁷⁷ For example dates which in Deut.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody vows not to eat dates,” etc. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? The name of its father is called over it⁶⁰. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra? The name of its descendant is called over it. It is reasonable that Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra should agree with Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Yose would not agree with Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra should agree with Rebbi Yose: The name of its descendant, so certainly also the name of its father. Rebbi Yose would not agree with Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra: He says only, the name of its father. This implies: not the name of its descendant.

footnotes: ⁶⁰ Since its name still contains the word “milk”.

MISHNAH: If somebody vows not to use wine, he is permitted apple wine. Not oil, he is permitted sesame oil. Not honey, he is permitted date honey. Not vinegar, he is permitted winter grape vinegar. Not leeks, he is permitted field leeks⁷⁸ and κεφαλωτόν, allium capitatum, cf. Kilaim 1:2, Notes 42,56.. Of vegetables, he is permitted field vegetables⁷⁹, because that is an accompanying name⁸⁰.

footnotes: ⁷⁸ For the relationship between כרשין, allium porrum, ⁷⁹ Vegetables grown in extensive cultivation. ⁸⁰ In all examples of the Mishnah, the simple name does not cover the composite name as product of trade. For example, if somebody buys “wine”, the seller cannot fulfill his contract by delivering apple wine. The Babli, 53a, points out that in Babylonia no olive trees grow and a standard contract for “oil” there is for delivery of sesame oil; there, a vow of abstention from oil permits the use of olive oil.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody vows not to use wine,” etc. The Mishnah speaks of a place where one does not call field leeks leeks. But not at a place where one calls field leeks leeks. Just in that case it is needed⁸¹ is never called כרשין the assertion of the Mishnah is trivial and does not have to be stated. The Mishnah is only needed when in common speech Hebrew and Greek expressions are used interchangeably. Since this would not extend to commercial contracts, the rule of the Mishnah stands., even a place where one calls field leeks leeks: “Not leeks, he is permitted field leeks.”

footnotes: ⁸¹ The case of leeks is different from the other cases in the Mishnah since it is not question of a composite name but of Greek vs. Hebrew name. Therefore, at a place where allium capitatum

⁸² 6:4, explained there in Notes 140–144. A different version is in the Babli 53a/b.“Not vegetables, he is permitted field vegetables because this is an accompanying name.” We have stated on that: “He who makes a vow to abstain from vegetables in the Sabbatical is also forbidden field vegetables.” Rebbi Crispus stated the reason in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: That means, as long as Rebbi did not permit to import vegetables into the Land. But since Rebbi permitted to import into the Land there is no difference between the Sabbatical and the remaining years of the Sabbatical cycle. Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina says, endives are important enough to become impure as food in the Seventh year. That means, as long as Rebbi did not permit to import vegetables into the Land. But since Rebbi permitted to import vegetables into the Land there is no difference between the Sabbatical and the remaining years of the Sabbatical cycle.

footnotes: ⁸² This paragraph is from Ševi‘it

⁸³1:2 (18d 1. 28). The tannaïtic statements are from Tosephta Sanhedrin 2:9–13. The entire piece is inserted here since this first paragraph refers to the preceding one. For this and the following paragraphs the reference in the Babli is Sanhedrin 12a. In Babli sources, before Rabban Gamliel the observant never ate imported vegetables since those might still carry lumps of impure foreign soil. It was stated: “One intercalates for a year neither in a Sabbatical nor in the year after the Sabbatical; but if they intercalated it is intercalated⁸⁴ 23:14; Philo The Special Laws II, 162 ff. Therefore, one should try to have Nisan as early as possible in such a year..” Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Abbahu said: That means, as long as Rebbi did not permit to buy vegetables for importation into the Land. But since Rebbi permitted to buy vegetables for importation into the Land there is no difference between the Sabbatical and the remaining years of the Sabbatical cycle⁸⁵ Northvale NJ 1998.}.

footnotes: ⁸³ From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is from Sanhedrin ⁸⁴ The lunar/solar calendar of rabbinic Judaism requires 7 additional lunar months in a 19 year period. Before the publication of the computed calendar by the fifth generation Amora R. Yose, it was the privilege of the Synhedrion to declare the intercalation (which had to be the month before the spring equinox). One tried not to extend the Sabbatical during which agricultural work was forbidden. In the year following the Sabbatical, the use of new grain was forbidden until the first sheaf of newly cut barley was presented in the Temple during the festival of unleavened bread (the 16th of Nisan in Pharisaic theory, the Sunday of the festival in Boethusian-Sadducee, and the 22nd of Nisan in Jubilee-Sadducee theory), Lev. ⁸⁵ Therefore, the calendar computation disregards the Sabbatical. {The calendar computation is explained in the Appendix to the author’s edition of Seder Olam,

“Rebbi Meïr used to teach: It says, ‘A man came from Baal-Shalishah and brought to the man of God bread from first grain, etc⁸⁶ 4:42. He brought 20 barley-grain breads. Baal-Shalisha seems to have been near Jericho..’ At no place in the Land of Israel does produce ripen earlier than at Baal-Shalishah, and only that kind ripened early.” ‘He brought to the man of God,’ when did he bring it? After the ‘Omer ceremony⁸⁷, since it is said: ‘Give to the people to eat.’ “But since the year was in need of an intercalation, why did Elisha not intercalate? This teaches you that the year was one of famine and everybody was jumping to the threshing floors⁸⁸ 11b/12a and Tosephta Sanhedrin 2:9 state outright that “one does not intercalate in a year of famine.” A minority of sources in the Babli attributes the argument to Rebbi..”

footnotes: ⁸⁶ 2K. ⁸⁷ The presentation of new barley, cf. Note 84. ⁸⁸ All grain was sold directly from the threshing floor because of its scarcity. The Babli, Sanhedrin

It was stated⁹¹ 2:10–11; Babli Sanhedrin 12a/b. Instead of the hapax hip‘llהֶעֱשִׂי לְצִיבּוּר (confirmed by the Tosephta), the parallel in Sanhedrin has standard rabbinic pi‘el עִישֶּׂה “he forced”, which because of the disappearance of gutturals appears in the Babli as הֵשִׂיא “counseled” (which is a correct reference to 2Chr. 30:2).: “One does not intercalate for a year because of impurity⁹² sacrifice on the 14th of the first month.; Rebbi Jehudah says, one does, since we find that Hezekia intercalated because of impurity, as it was said⁹³ 30:18: Most of the people from the former Northern Kingdom were not pure (in the first month) so they ate the pesaḥ in the second month, not as is written.: ‘For most of the people, etc.’ Rebbi Simeon said, even though they intercalated in Nisan, only Adar was intercalated⁹⁴ 30, that after the fall of Samaria Hezekia celebrated the festival in the second month is really incorrect but that he decided in Nisan that more time was needed to prepare for the sacrifices and, what is not permitted by the calendar rules, retroactively turned Nisan into Second Adar and, therefore, the second month into the first. He prayed for divine indulgence for this breach of the rules.. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon, Hezekia forced the multitude to celebrate the Second Passover⁹⁵9:9–14)..” Some Tannaïm state: One intercalates for the year because of impurity. Some Tannaïm state: One does not intercalate. He who says, one does not intercalate, from the following⁹³ 30:18: Most of the people from the former Northern Kingdom were not pure (in the first month) so they ate the pesaḥ in the second month, not as is written.: “For they ate the pesaḥ not as it was written.” How does the one who says one does intercalate, explain “for they ate the pesaḥ”? They intercalated in Nisan but only Adar was intercalated. This follows what Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi said, they found the skull of Oman the Jebusite under the altar⁹⁶ 5:2, Note 90..

footnotes: ⁹¹ Tosephta Sanhedrin ⁹² One does not intercalate a 13th month to give people time to purify themselves in time for the pesaḥ ⁹³ 2Chr. ⁹⁴ R. Simeon holds that the biblical reference in 2Chr. ⁹⁵ The substitute festival for people absent or impure in the first month, available for individuals only, not for a majority of the people (Num. ⁹³ 2Chr. ⁹⁶ This explanation disagrees with R. Simeon ben Jehudah. They moved the month because the Temple was not usable in Nisan since the altar was found to be a “tent” over human bones and thus impure. The text is from Soṭah

It is written⁹⁹ 30:19: “With all his heart he prepared himself to seek God, the Eternal, his fathers’ God, except for Temple purity.” Since one was discussing Hezekia, some related verses are explained.: “With all his heart he prepared himself to seek God, his fathers’ [God], etc.” Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi and Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman. One of them said, with all he did to purity the Temple, he did not fully establish the purity of the Temple. The other said, with all the good works he did, he did not fully do his duty for the purity of the Temple. It is written¹⁰⁰ 29:17.: “They started on the first of the first month.” And it is written¹⁰¹ 29:18. They needed 7 days to cleanse the Temple courtyards and 8 for the Temple building.: “On the sixteenth of the month they finished. Could they not have eliminated all idolatry from there in one day? Rebbi Idi said, because of Chaldean idols which were engraved.

footnotes: ⁹⁹ 2Chr. ¹⁰⁰ 2Chr. ¹⁰¹ 2Chr.

¹⁰² in Babli Pesaḥim 56a; quoted Berakhot 10b, Sanhedrin 47a; in most Mishnah mss. Pesaḥim 4:9. Six things did Ezekiah, the king of Judea, do. With three they¹⁰³ agreed, with three they did not agree. He dragged his father’s bones and they agreed¹⁰⁴ 28:27 that Aḥaz was not buried in the kings’ graves, contradicting 2K. 16:20.. He smashed the bronze snake and they agreed¹⁰⁵ 18:4.. He hid the table of medicines and they agreed¹⁰⁶ 4:9), a book of magical remedies.. With three they disagreed. He closed the upper Giḥon spring and they disagreed¹⁰⁷ 32:30 with 2K. 20:20.. He cut down the Temple doors¹⁰⁸ 18:16. and they disagreed. He intercalated Nisan in Nisan¹⁰⁹ and they disagreed.

footnotes: ¹⁰² A baraita ¹⁰³ The rabbinic authorities of the Mishnaic period. ¹⁰⁴ He buried him in an undignified way to atone for his bad ways. The basis is the note in 2Chr. ¹⁰⁵ 2K. ¹⁰⁶ According to Maimonides (Commentary to Pesaḥim ¹⁰⁷ It seems that they did not connect 2Chr. ¹⁰⁸ 2K. ¹⁰⁹ As explained in the preceding paragraph, following R. Simeon.

One does not intercalate for a year before New Year’s Day; if they did intercalate it would be invalid. But for an urgent need one may intercalate immediately after New Year’s Day. Nevertheless, only Adar is intercalated. ¹¹⁴ 10:2, explained there in Notes 41–55. The text is also in Roš Haššanah 3:1, 58c 1. 51, in addition to Sanhedrin 1:2. Rebbi says, Nisan never was lengthened. But did we not state: “If the New Moon appeared in time”? If it would appear, it did not appear. Rav said, Tishre was never lengthened. But did we not state: “If the month was long”? If it would be, it never was.

footnotes: ¹¹⁴ This and the following paragraphs are found in Śevi‘it

“When they sanctified the year at Usha, on the first day Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Baroqa, led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh.” But does this not mean that they sanctified it on the first and the second day? Rebbi Zeїra in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That year was disorganized. What is “the first, the second”? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year⁵²! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day?

footnotes: ⁵² Cf. Halakhah 1, first paragraph. In the Babli 30b, 49a, 51b, and 5 times in other tractates.

If they sanctified it before its time or after its lengthening, should I assume it was lengthened? The verse says (Lev. 23:2) “them”, “them”, “these are My holidays.” Before its time is not “My holidays.” Before its time, the 29th day, after its lengthening, the 32nd day. From where that one intercalates for the year because of the [men of the] diaspora who set out but did not yet arrive? The verse says (Num. 23:44), “Moses spoke about the holidays of the Eternal to the Children of Israel”. Make the holidays so they can be observed by all of Israel. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, only if they had reached the river Euphrates.

“One intercalates for a year only in Judea, but if [a month] was intercalated in Galilee it is validly intercalated. Rebbi Ḥanania from Ono testified that, if it cannot be intercalated in Judea¹¹⁶, one intercalates in Galilee.¹¹⁵ 2:13; Babli Sanhedrin 11b.” One does not intercalate a year in Galilee, but if it was intercalated in Galilee it is validly intercalated. One does not intercalate a year outside the Land; if it was intercalated outside the Land it is not validly intercalated if it was possible to intercalate in the Land of Israel; but if one cannot intercalate in the Land of Israel¹¹⁶, one intercalates outside the Land.

footnotes: ¹¹⁶ Because of war or persecution, as in the war of Bar Kokhba and its aftermath. ¹¹⁵ Tosephta Sanhedrin ¹¹⁶ Because of war or persecution, as in the war of Bar Kokhba and its aftermath.

Jeremiah intercalated outside the Land. Ezechiel intercalated outside the Land. Baruch intercalated outside the Land¹¹⁷. ¹¹⁸ 63a/b; some details there seem to be more historical.Ḥanania the nephew of Rebbi Joshua¹¹⁹ intercalated outside the Land. Rebbi¹²⁰ sent him three letters through Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Nathan¹²¹. In one he wrote, to His holiness Ḥanania. And in one he wrote, the kid goats you left behind became rams. And in one he wrote, if you do not accept, go to the thistle desert, do slaughter and let Onias sprinkle¹²². After the first [letter], he honored them. After the second, he honored them. After the third, he wanted to disgrace them. They said to him, you cannot do that since you already did honor us. Rebbi Isaac rose and quoted, it is written in the Torah: These are the holidays of Ḥanania the nephew of Rebbi Joshua. They said to him, “the holdays of the Eternal¹²³. 23:4.”. He said to them, that is with us¹²⁴. Rebbi Nathan rose and finished: “For from Babylonia will go Torah forth and the Eternal’s word from Nahar-Peqod.” They said to him, “for from Zion will Torah go forth and the Eternal’s word from Jerusalem¹²⁵. 2:3.”. He said to them, that is with us. He went to complain about them to Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra at Nisibis¹²⁶. He¹²⁷ said to him¹²⁸, follow them, follow them. He said to him¹²⁷, I do not know whom I left there. Who would tell me that they are wise to the computations as I am? If he¹²⁸ had said, they are not wise, they should listen to him. Since they are wise to the computations as he is, he¹²⁸ has to listen to them. He¹²⁷ got up and rode on a horse. Where he reached, he reached. Where he did not reach, they continued following the corrupt [calendar]¹²⁹.

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ There is no biblical basis for these statements which are based on the hypothesis that the biblical calendar is identical with the rabbinical. In Talmudic tradition, Baruch ben Neriah did not follow Jeremiah to Egypt but went to Babylonia where he founded the first Babylonian academy. ¹¹⁸ Babli Berakhot ¹¹⁹ His name and that of his father was Ḥananiah ben Ḥananiah, meaning that both were posthumous sons, a very unlucky reference which can be avoided by circumlocution. He supported his uncle’s determined opposition to any revolt against Rome and it seems that he left Palestine at the outbreak of the Bar Kokhba revolt and founded the Academy of Nahardea, later headed by his descendant Samuel. ¹²⁰ In the Babli, the identity of the head of the Academy who reestablished the authority of the Palestinian Academy in fixing the calendar is not mentioned. It is to be expected that this was Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel who became head after the Hadrianic decrees were abolished, perhaps by Septimius Severus. If it was Rebbi, Ḥananiah must have been a centenarian. ¹²¹ In the Babli, two grandsons of priests serving in the Temple. The Tanna R. Nathan (the Babylonian) is to be dated to the time of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. ¹²² The blood of the sacrifice. A reference to the (illegitimate) Onias Temple in Egypt. ¹²³ Lev ¹²⁴ The correct verse only applies to the followers of the patriarchate in Galilee. ¹²⁵ Is ¹²⁶ The representative of the autochthonous Babylonian Academy whose ancestors already were the leaders in Jerusalem 100 years before the destruction of the Temple. ¹²⁷ R. Jehudah ben Bathyra. ¹²⁸ Ḥanania. ¹²⁷ R. Jehudah ben Bathyra. ¹²⁸ Ḥanania. ¹²⁸ Ḥanania. ¹²⁷ R. Jehudah ben Bathyra. ¹²⁹ We do not know what the material difference was in the calendar computations. There is a slight possibility that it was in the rules of moving the date of the New Year, a difference that surfaced 700 years later in the quarrel between Saadya Gaon in Baghdad and the Patriarch Meїr in Jerusalem.

It is written¹³⁰. 29:1., “to the outstanding Elders of the diaspora”. The Holy One, praise to Him, said: The Elders of the diaspora are very dear to me. More beloved by me is a small group in the Land of Israel than a great Synhedrion outside the Land. It is written¹³¹. 24:16. It has been suggested from their association with the soldiers that these were the people trained in the production of weapons.: “The craftsmen and the smiths one thousand,” and you say so? Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥelbo and the rabbis. Rebbi Berekhiah said, one thousand craftsmen and one thousand smiths. But the rabbis say, together one thousand¹³². Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥelbo said, these are the fellows¹³³, p. 349. If this is the correct interpretation, the question is who are the small group in the Land of Israel. In the Babli, Giṭṭin 88a, this is the only opinion mentioned.; but the rabbis say, these are the councilmen¹³⁴ 1:1, Note 167..

footnotes: ¹³⁰ Jer ¹³¹ 2K ¹³² Modern Bible commentators follow the rabbis. ¹³³ The people strictly adhering to the rules of ritual purity, cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay ¹³⁴ Greek βουλευταί, cf. Peah

Rebbi Hoshaia, when he received witnesses at Kallirhoë¹³⁶(probably Ḥamat Gader; cf. Babli Roš Haššanah25a) was the place chosen in the early Amoraic period to proclaim the days of the New Moon and the intercalation of a month in a year. The witnesses testify that they have seen the new moon., used to say to them: You should know the importance of the testimony that comes from your mouth, how much rent money depends on your mouths¹³⁷. Rebbi Abuna said, if it is so, it is even a matter of criminal law. If somebody sleeps with a girl three years and one day old, he is stoned¹³⁸. 22:23–26), for which the minimal age of consent is 3 years and a day. The girl, as a minor, cannot be prosecuted. Any seduction of an underage girl is statutory rape, but talmudic law assumes that a girl who was raped at less than 3 years and one day is still a virgin since her hymen is supposed to repair itself. But if she was raped at the age of at least 3 years and one day she is no longer a virgin and cannot demand a virgin’s portion in any marriage settlement.. The Court decided to lengthen¹³⁹, if he sleeps with her he is not stoned. Rebbi Abun said: ¹⁴⁰. 57:3.“I am calling to Almighty God, to the God who decides¹⁴¹ 57[1]. with me.” If a girl is three years and one day old, if the Court decided to lengthen, her hymen repairs itself, otherwise it does not repair itself¹³⁸. 22:23–26), for which the minimal age of consent is 3 years and a day. The girl, as a minor, cannot be prosecuted. Any seduction of an underage girl is statutory rape, but talmudic law assumes that a girl who was raped at less than 3 years and one day is still a virgin since her hymen is supposed to repair itself. But if she was raped at the age of at least 3 years and one day she is no longer a virgin and cannot demand a virgin’s portion in any marriage settlement..

footnotes: ¹³⁶ En Ṭab, Kallirhoë ¹³⁷ Since rent usually is paid by the month or the year, it makes a difference whether a month has 29 or 30 days, or a year has 12 or 13 months. ¹³⁸ If the girl was engaged to be married (Deut ¹³⁹ Either a month or a year. In the first case, assume the girl was born on the 30th of a certain month. After three years, if the same month has 30 days, she is only 3 years old. But if that month is declared to have only 29 days, the 30th is the first day of her fourth year and any man committing adultery with her is stoned. Similarly, if the girl was born in Nisan then the 3rd birthday is either 12 or 13 months after the 2nd; there is a full month where the decision of the Synhedrion makes a difference in her standing in criminal law. Obviously, the same problems appear with reaching adulthood; the example of the minor was chosen because of the sermon following. ¹⁴⁰ Ps ¹⁴¹ גמר is used for the vote of the judges by which a case is decided. Nature, created by God, acts as if God had voted with the majority of the judges; cf. Midrash Tehillim ¹³⁸ If the girl was engaged to be married (Deut

MISHNAH: One who makes a vow to abstain from cabbage is forbidden cabbage shoot¹⁴², from cabbage shoot he is permitted cabbage¹⁴³. From groats, he is forbidden groat soup but Rebbi Yose permits it; from groat soup he is permitted groats¹⁴⁴. From soup he is forbidden garlic¹⁴⁵ but Rebbi Yose permits it; from garlic he is permitted soup.

footnotes: ¹⁴² Greek ἀσπαραγός “shoot of edible vegetable”, used here in the restricted sense of cabbage shoot. ¹⁴³ The shoot has no leaves yet; from cabbage one eats the leaves but not the shoot ¹⁴⁴ Dry groats. ¹⁴⁵ Which was always used to spice soup.

HALAKHAH: ¹⁴⁶ Halakhah 14 is the next paragraph.: What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Is its father’s name called upon it¹⁴⁷ the vow concerning cabbage cannot extend to as paragos.? In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, if somebody makes a vow to abstain from wine, he is permitted spiced wine¹⁴⁸), cf. Berakhot 6:5, Note 157..

footnotes: ¹⁴⁶ In ms. and editio princeps, ¹⁴⁷ Since the name “cabbage” does not appear in asparagos, ¹⁴⁸ Latin condition (vinum

“From cabbage, he is forbidden cabbage shoot,” etc. “From groats, he is forbidden groat soup,” only if most of it is groats. “From soup he is forbidden garlic,” only if most of it is garlic? In that case, you go after the taste, in the other after the main ingredient¹⁴⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁹ Spices are forbidden as long as they can be tasted; bland food only as long as it is the main ingredient.

MISHNAH: From lentils, he is is forbidden ašišim, but Rebbi Yose permits. From ašišim he is permitted lentils.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yasa went to Rebbi Yose who brought roasted lentils out for him, ground them, formed them into a dough with honey, and fried them. He said to him, these are the ašišim mentioned by the Sages.

MISHNAH: ‘That I shall not taste wheat or wheats: he is forbidden both flour and bread¹⁵⁰/Tosephta, חִטָּה is a singular and refers to single kernels for chewing; חִיטִּים as plural refers to material for baking. R. Jehudah in the Mishnah, and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel in the Babli, hold that the collective חִטָּה means wheat bread but the plural חִטִּים means single kernels to be chewed. Similarly, for them the collective גְּרִיס means porridge, but the plural single kernels to be chewed. According to both Talmudim, in the first part of the Mishnah the person forbade to himself both the singular-collective and the plural. Therefore, R. Jehudah, who quotes only the singular in his statement, does not disagree with the anonymous majority.. ‘That I shall not taste groat or groats: he is forbidden both raw and cooked. Rebbi Jehudah says, ‘a qônām that I shall not taste groat or wheat’, he is permitted to chew them raw.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁰ The interpretation of the Mishnah in the Halakhah and the Tosephta (3.7) in the name of R. Jehudah is the opposite of that given in the Babli (53b) in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Following R. Jehudah in baraita

HALAKHAH: ‘That I shall not taste groat or groats, etc. It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, ‘a qônām that I shall not taste a groat kernel,’ he is forbidden to chew and permitted soup. ‘That I shall not taste groats,’ he is forbidden soup and permitted to chew. ‘That I shall not taste a wheat kernel,’ he is forbidden to chew and permitted bread. ‘That I shall not taste wheats,’ he is forbidden bread and permitted to chew.

“Wheat” and you say so? Rebbi Yose said, so is the way of people, if they see white bread they say, blessed Who created this wheat¹⁵¹; it refers to the statement of R. Jehudah in the Mishnah who sees in the collective חִיטָּה a synonym of “bread”..

footnotes: ¹⁵¹ This is inconsistent with the preceding baraita