MISHNAH: And the following are removed on Passover: Babylonian kutah¹*,* and Median beer², and Edomite vinegar³, and Egyptian zythum⁴*,* and dyers’ gravy⁵, and cooks’ starch, and scribes’ glue⁶; Rebbi Eliezer says, also women’s make-up⁷ This is the principle: Anything made from grain one removes on Passover; these are included in the warning⁸ but they are not cause for extirpation⁹.

footnotes: ¹ Cf. Chapter 2, Note 290. ² Made from barley. ³ Made with barley: cf. Chapter 2, Note 286. ⁴ Greek ζῦθος, ὁ, a kind of beer. ⁵ Greek ζύμη, ἡ. ⁶ Greek κόλλα, -ης, ἡ, “flour paste”. ⁷ If the base contains flour. ⁸ They are biblically forbidden. ⁹ If edible, the grain is no longer visible. If not edible, consumption is not punishable.

HALAKHAH: “And the following are removed on Passover,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, all by the action of water¹⁰.

footnotes: ¹⁰ He agrees with the Babli and disagrees with the opinion expressed in Chapter 2, Note 287, that fluids other than water can induce fermentation leading to leavening of grains.

“Babylonian kutah”, for he puts in crumbs of dough.

“Median beer²,” for he puts in barley flour.

footnotes: ² Made from barley.

“Edomite vinegar³,” Southern aromatic. In earlier times, when one made wine in purity for libations, wine did not turn sour¹¹. One had to spike it with barley to make it sour; one did call it “Southern aromatic.”

footnotes: ³ Made with barley: cf. Chapter 2, Note 286. ¹¹ But in later Talmudic times, at the beginning of the global cooling characterizing the time of migration of the nations, in many years sour wine naturally turned into vinegar. Babli 42b.

“Egyptian zythum⁴*,”* ζύθος.

footnotes: ⁴ Greek ζῦθος, ὁ, a kind of beer.

“Dyers’ gravy⁵,” for he puts in qussam¹²3, Šabbat 8, pp. 111–112) if one adopts the reading of the text, the word is Syriac “barley flower” (as pointed out by E. S. Rosenthal), but the reading of G has to be explained as plural of קצי “morsel of bread”. There remains the difficulty that in the preceding lines both “barley flour” and “bread crumbs” appear in their Hebrew forms. {Perhaps cf. Latin quasso “to shake, toss” (E. G.).} so the dye should be absorbed.

footnotes: ⁵ Greek ζύμη, ἡ. ¹² As S. Liebermann points out (Tosephta kiFshutah

“Cooks’ starch.” Rebbi Hitta bar Abba said, one brings ears of grain which are less than one-third ripe, pounds them, forms them like loaves of saffron, and puts them in the pot, so they should absorb the impurities¹³.

footnotes: ¹³ Greek χλῆδος, ὁ, “dirt, slime”.

“Scribes’ glue⁶.” In Alexandria they make tubs of dough¹⁴.

footnotes: ⁶ Greek κόλλα, -ης, ἡ, “flour paste”. ¹⁴ The glue used in the manufacture of papyrus was grain-based.

“Rebbi Eliezer says, also women’s make-up.” There are Tannaim who state “make-up”; and there are Tannaim who state “treatments”. He who says “treatments”, so much more “make-up”; he who says “make-up”, but not “treatments”¹⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁵ The Babli 42b–43a explains that ‘treatments” are depilatories used on a woman’s body whereas make-up is used on her face. According to the second opinion, depilatories are so far removed from edibles that they need not be removed for Passover even if grain-based.In G, the statement is quoted as a non-authoritative opinion: “they wanted to say that he who said …”.

“It is written: Any leavened matter you shall not eat¹⁶ 12:20., to include Babylonian kutah, and Median beer, and Edomite vinegar, in the admonition. I might think that these are subject to extirpation, the verse says, for anybody who eats leavened bread will be extirpated¹⁷ 12:15. Babli 33a, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Ba 10 (p. 35), dR. Simeon ben Yohay12:20 (p.24)..“The colleagues asked before Rebbi Jonah: Here it is written any, and there it is written any. Here you are adding but there you are excluding¹⁸ Why in matters of the prohibition one includes admixture of leavening but in matters of extirpation one excludes it?. He told them, there He added eaters but there He added edibles¹⁹ includes women who are obligated to eat mazzah even though this is a positive commandment activated at a fixed date from which in general women are exempted (Mishnah Qiddušin 1:7). V. 20 any leavened matter includes admixture of leavening to edibles.. They objected, was it not stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”²⁰. And for these²¹ might not trigger extirpation since the amount of leavened matter is small, but why should beer, which essentially is water and malt, be treated differently from bread which is water and flour?, because they are mostly grain, he should be liable. He told them, there is a difference, for it is written bread, and these are not bread. Rebbi Yose objected, was it not stated that only mazzah is called bread, seven days you shall eat mazzot, the bread of deprivation²². 16:3. Since mazzah is called bread, it is clear that the positive commandment to eat mazzah can only be fulfilled by eating azyme bread. But leavened matter is always called חָמֵץ, and never is explicitly called “bread”; there seems to be no reason why extirpation should be restricted to those who eat bread.? But here you infer mazzah from leavened bread? In addition, from the following which was stated: “A person may acquit himself of his obligation with a soaked wafer, or a cooked wafer, as long as it did not lose its shape.²³ 38b.” It only says, “as long as it did not lose its shape,” therefore not if it lost its shape. But in the matter of leavened bread you are saying, if he mashed leavened bread and slurped it, he is liable²⁴. How is this? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Idi: Their²⁵ leavening is not clear leavening. Should he be flogged? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Concerning flogging, he cannot be flogged, as it was stated: On certain leavened bread he is subject to extirpation, for its admixture he receives forty [lashes]²⁶. 12:20 states a general prohibition for food with an admixture of leavened matter, transgression has to be punished by the generic punishment prescribed for all prohibitions for which no particular punishment is specified. G has an additional sentence: “The word of Rebbi (probably meaning Rabbenu, i. e., Rav) implies that he is not flogged.” On the other hand, a sentence of the ms. text is missing in G because of homoioteleuton.. Rav said, that is sour dough. He could have said, that is Babylonian kutah, and Median beer²⁷. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: Explain it if leavened bread and mazzah were mixed²⁸ can be explained as referring directly to bread, eaten alone or with other edibles.. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty for Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: Where do we hold? If most of it was leavened bread, he is subject to extirpation. If most of it is mazzah, he could use it to fulfill his obligation on Passover²⁹ 13, Note 56), but nobody else.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Joshua from Ono stated: Explain it if the amount of leavened bread was less than the volume of an olive, following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, the most minute amount for flogging³⁰ 17a, Ševuot 21a, 24b, Menaḥot4a, Meˋilah18a. R. Simeon restricts the possibility of a purification sacrifice to the case that a person ingested at least the volume of an olive of food forbidden under punishment of extirpation (such as forbidden fat or leavened matter on Passover) but admits the possibility of criminal prosecution for the most minute amount..

footnotes: ¹⁶ Ex. ¹⁷ Ex. ¹⁸ Both in v. 15 and in v. 20 is written any. ¹⁹ In both cases, “any” implies addition and extension. In v. 15, any who eats, ²⁰ Cf. Chapter 2, Note 233. ²¹ Median beer. One agrees that Babylonian kutah ²² Deut ²³ Babli 41a, Berakhot ²⁴ It is true that the positive commandment can be fulfilled only with bread but the prohibition extends to anything produced from leavened flour. ²⁵ The items enumerated in the Mishnah. ²⁶ Since Ex ²⁷ Since Rav explains that one is flogged for consuming something containing an admixture of sour dough but not the items enumerated in the Mishnah, one may conclude that only active souring agent exposes one to flogging. ²⁸ The preceding argument may be irrelevant since the baraita ²⁹ Since by biblical standards, anything greater than 50% is counted as whole. Since the mixture still is forbidden, the argument is possible only for R. Yose (cf. Šabbat ³⁰ Babli Makkot

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: In a pot in which one cooked with water³¹ one may cook the same kind only after Passover. Therefore another kind is permitted although only after three dishes³². If it becomes insignificant by other kinds, should it not become insignificant also by its own kind³³? A kind awakes its own kind to prohibit³⁴ 9a, Avodah zarah 73a, Bekhorot 22a, 33a).. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, Rebbi Abbahu ordered the millers³⁵ not to put boxes one on top of the other lest they heated up and became leavened. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos went to the millers³⁶. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun milled himself as guest³⁷. Rebbi Abun instructed the millers to fill a quartarius³⁸, “a quarter”.. of water in the modii and moisten it four times. Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, grasses are permitted, moistened it is forbidden³⁹ 3:5. It is difficult to understand how anybody could permit storing grain on moist grasses. S. Liebermann conjectures that instead of מטננה one has to read בטיט הנגוב “in dried clay”. But since the text is confirmed by G, emendation is problematic., but the other one switches. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, even the one who permits grasses, if he collected them in the afternoon. Why? For dew faded away from it⁴⁰.

footnotes: ³¹ מודה, a reading confirmed by G, cannot have the usual meaning “to agree”. The unique meaning here is derived from Arabic مذى “mix with much water”. If leavening was cooked with little water in a clay pot, everybody agrees that it cannot be completely cleaned with much water, Rav prohibits the use Passover. ³² If the pot was used before Passover three times with water but no leavened matter, one assumes that the leavened matter absorbed in the walls was leached out and the pots may be used on Passover. ³³ Where one assumes that no leavened matter was used. ³⁴ A general principle recognized in the Babli (Eruvin ³⁵ In this version, this is a general instruction to the millers preparing Passover flour. In G the singular is used, “the miller”, referring to the one who delivered to his household. ³⁶ He personally supervised the milling for Passover. ³⁷ Guest of the miller’s. Reading צרף as ضرف, “to somebody’s guest”. ³⁸ Following the reading of G; τέταρτον is the Greek equivalent of the Roman quartarius ³⁹ Grain silos used to be padded with grasses, Mishnah Makhshirin ⁴⁰ Here ends this fragment from G.

MISHNAH: Dough in crannies of the baking trough: if there is the volume of an olive at one place one is obligated to eliminate; less than this becomes insignificant. Similarly in matters of impurity, if he is bothered by it it separates; if he desires its existence it is like the baking trough⁴¹. Deaf dough⁴² is forbidden if a similar kind became sour.

footnotes: ⁴¹ Since for cleansing from impurity the verse requires that one immerse “all his flesh” in water, any dirt on the skin prevents the water to touch the skin and invalidates the immersion. The Mishnah restricts that to unwanted dirt; wanted adhesions separate only in the volume of an olive. Dry dough which acts as glue becomes part of the trough. ⁴² As explained in the Halakhah, dough refrigerated immediately after kneading.

HALAKHAH: The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If it could be scraped off together⁴³. So far moist; dry? Since if it were moist it could be scraped together, even if dry the same applies.

footnotes: ⁴³ “At one place” mentioned in the Mishnah does not mean that the leavened matter must be in one lump, only that the dough somehow must be connected (Babli 45b). If it is moist, it can be scraped off and remain connected; it dry, it will break when being scraped off. Nevertheless, since it was connected before being scraped off, the rule of the Mishnah applies.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Two volumes of half an olive in one house, the house does not combine them; in one vessel, the vessel does combine them. But did we not state, “less than this becomes insignificant”? One if plucked, one if connected⁴⁴. If he reduced it, did it become insignificant, or since it was to be eliminated it has to be completely eliminated? How much? They wanted to say, up to most of the trough. How is this? If he reduced most of the trough, the remainder becomes insignificant, or since it was to be eliminated it has to be completely eliminated⁴⁵? (There, Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Two volumes of half an olive in one house, the house does not combine them; in one vessel, the vessel does combine them; and here he says so?⁴⁶).

footnotes: ⁴⁴ The Mishnah states that leavened matter less than the volume of an olive is insignificant; R. Zeˋira states that several insignificant pieces in one vessel combine to be significant. Since the Amora R. Zeˋira cannot disagree with the Mishnah, how can his statement be interpreted? The Mishnah deals with specks of חָמֵץ material embedded in the walls of the vessel; they are permanently separate. R. Zeˋira speaks of movable specks; they combine since they can be assembled at one place (Babli 45b in the name of Ulla.) ⁴⁵ If the walls of the trough were covered with a thin film of חָמֵץ, is it enough to clean the walls so that the remainder be less than the volume of an olive or must it be thoroughly cleaned? No answer is given; since the obligation of elimination is biblical, the automatic answer is that it must be thoroughly cleaned. ⁴⁶ The text in parentheses does not belong here, it is from Halakhah 3, Note 87.

“If he is bothered by it it separates” for immersion; so if he is not bothered it does not separate for immersion⁴¹. The same is true for immersion and for sprinkling⁴⁷. 19). If the water only is sprinkled on dirt which would invalidate immersion, the implement is purified.. It⁴⁸ is not a connection for impurity, from the following: “if he desires its existence it is like the baking trough,” otherwise it is not really⁴⁹ 6:4 (Note 83), where גּוּפוֹ “its body” is used as opposite of מַמָּשׁ “really it”. like the trough. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so did Rebbi formulate: Dirt under the chair⁵⁰ is connection for impurity, but no connection for sprinkling⁵¹. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Cahana: An atrophied limb, an atrophied nail⁵², the ballast of a pumpkin and its hollow⁵³. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also down which he plucked⁵⁴ is connection for impurity but no connection for sprinkling. What is the difference between impurity and sprinkling? Rebbi La said, about sprinkling it is written, he shall sprinkle on the tent and on all vessels⁵⁵. 19:18.. But here, for you⁵⁶. 11: Babli Ḥulin 118a, a discussion of people having different needs at different times in Šabbat 48b., all you have use for.

footnotes: ⁴¹ Since for cleansing from impurity the verse requires that one immerse “all his flesh” in water, any dirt on the skin prevents the water to touch the skin and invalidates the immersion. The Mishnah restricts that to unwanted dirt; wanted adhesions separate only in the volume of an olive. Dry dough which acts as glue becomes part of the trough. ⁴⁷ For the ritual of cleansing from the impurity of the dead, sprinkling with water containing ashes of the Red Cow (Num ⁴⁸ The dough in the volume of an olive sticking to the trough, as described in the Mishnah. ⁴⁹ S. Liebermann points to Yoma ⁵⁰ Used as glue. ⁵¹ The two statements are not quite parallel. Immersion requires that the object to be purified be completely immersed; “connection” then means that if the glue is wetted, the wood below also is purified. In sprinkling, only drops are used; if a drop falls on the glue, the object is not purified. ⁵² Inoperative but still connected to the body. ⁵³ A hollowed-out pumpkin used as a bottle. Since it is lighter than water, it cannot be immersed and filled with water without a ballast, usually a stone. While it is not part of the pumpkin, it is an intrinsic part of the bottle, as much as its hollow. All these are included in “connection for impurity, but no connection for sprinkling.” ⁵⁴ Downy facial hair. If a woman insists on removing it it acquires the status of unwanted dirt described in the Mishnah, being an obstacle to immersion and no receptor of sprinkling drops. ⁵⁵ Num ⁵⁶ Many occurrences in the rules of impurity in Lev

There, they are saying, tracta⁵⁷, Greek τρακτόν, τό “long piece of dough drawn out in making pastry”. Mentioned in Apicius (De re coquinaria, Ed. M. E. Milham, Leipzig 1969 Bk. IV iii) as used in serving fish, Bk. VII using “three small tracta balls” for pultes tractogalatae., Rebbi Isaac instructed that one may make one; two or three are forbidden unless one cleans his hands with water⁵⁸ takes time, one may bake these for Passover use only if one thoroughly cleanses his hands between any two of these, to avoid fermentation of the dough on the pastry cook’s hands.. It was stated: Bireh boxes⁵⁹ have to be eliminated. Rebbi Yasa instructed that the surroundings of baking troughs⁶⁰ have to be eliminated.

footnotes: ⁵⁷ Latin tractum, tracta ⁵⁸ Since preparation of tracta ⁵⁹ Greek κιβωτός “box, chest” (in LXX used to translate תֵּיבָה). Obviously not the boxes have to be eliminated but their contents have to be cleaned out. It seems that the boxes made in Bireh were used to store pastry. (S. Liebermann). ⁶⁰ Liebermann reads προλήνια, places surrounding the ληνός, “kneading trough.” Not only the implement where one makes dough has to be cleaned, but also its surroundings.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Cooled dough⁴². If there was not other dough like it, how long⁶¹? Rebbi Jacon bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ulla of Caesarea: Up to four mil’s walk⁶².

footnotes: ⁴² As explained in the Halakhah, dough refrigerated immediately after kneading. ⁶¹ How long is it permitted to keep cooled dough in preparation for Passover, without risk of fermentation. ⁶² Slightly more than one standard hour.

MISHNAH: How does one separate ḥallah in impurity on the holiday⁶³ is a kind of heave, it must be consumed by a Cohen in purity. Dough of a minimum volume (cf. Introduction to Tractate Ḥallah) is forbidden as food as long as its heave was not taken. It is permitted to bake bread on a holiday which is not a Sabbath. If the dough is impure (e. g., if the person kneading the dough is impure, as is everybody today), the ḥallah is impure and has to be burned as impure heave. But since sancta other than Temple sacrifices may not be burned on any holiday, the impure ḥallah may not be burned immediately and, therefore, can be expected to become fermented. (In the talmudic languages, ḥallah never means “Sabbath bread” as in Eastern European Yiddish.)? Rebbi Eliezer says, it should not be given a name until after it is baked⁶⁴ being taken from the dough (even though in this case the bread in the oven is forbidden as food) and to remove ḥallah (preferably a small loaf intended as ḥallah from the start) and declare it as such, which then releases the remainder of the bread for human consumption and retroactively justifies baking it on the holiday.. Ben Bathyra⁶⁵ says, one should keep it in cold water. Rebbi Joshua said, this is not leavening where one is warned that it should not be seen nor found, but one separates it and leaves it until the evening, and if it fermented, it fermented⁶⁶ is for Cohanim, it is not property of the maker of the dough and since the prohibition is that yours shall not be seen, yours shall not be found, it does not apply in this case and it is preferable to bake the dough into bread when clearly permitted as food..

footnotes: ⁶³ The problem is mainly for the holiday of Passover. Since ḥallah ⁶⁴ He permits to bake the bread without ḥallah ⁶⁵ R. Jehudah ben Bathyra of Nisibis on the upper Tigris. In the interpretation of the Halakhah, he requires that the dough be kneaded continuously with cold water until the end of the holiday. ⁶⁶ Since ḥallah

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah if it became impure after rolling. But if it became impure before rolling, he should make them into pieces of single qab⁶⁷ starts only with completion of the dough, the possibility of giving ḥallah legally exists from the moment the preparation of the dough has begun. Later in this paragraph R. Yose ben R. Abun notes that it became customary to give ḥallah from pure dough at the earliest possible moment, to protect it from possible impurity during processing. Mishnah Ḥallah 3:1 states that the obligation of ḥallah exists only for a dough of ⁵/4 qab of flour. Using impure flour on a holiday one is required to make loaves not larger than 1 qab (of 4 log of 4 quartarii); then the dough is never obligated for ḥallah and the problem of the Mishnah does not even start.. If it was kneaded on the holiday. But if it was kneaded before the holiday, it is as it was stated:⁶⁸ 1:14. The text from here to the end of the paragraph is repeated in Beṣah 1:7 (צ). “if one kneads dough on a holiday, he separates its ḥallah on the holiday. If he kneaded it before the holiday but forgot to take its ḥallah, it is forbidden to move it; it is unnecessary to say, to take ḥallah from it.” If he mixed water and flour? He only mentioned “kneaded”, so not when he mixed⁶⁹ 3:1 permits separating ḥallah immediately after mixing the flour with water.? Rebbi Samuel, brother of Rebbi Berekhiah, said: explain it if the dough was impure where he takes ḥallah only at the end. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it should have been the rule that for pure dough one should take ḥallah only at the end. They instituted that one should take it at the start, lest the dough become impure⁷⁰ has to be guarded from impurity but not the dough itself.. The Mishnah is about the holiday of Passover; therefore on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is permitted⁷¹ 3:3 and Tosephta Yom Ṭov 1:14.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, even on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is prohibited, because of no work shall be done on them⁷². 12:16. Since impure ḥallah may not be eaten, it may not be baked on a holiday..

footnotes: ⁶⁷ After kneading the dough was shaped ready to be baked. This is the end of preparation of dough and, as for all heave, the completion of processing induces the obligation of heave. While the obligation of ḥallah ⁶⁸ Tosephta Yom Ṭov ⁶⁹ Even though Mishnah Ḥallah ⁷⁰ Since then only the ḥallah ⁷¹ The remark applies both to Mishnah Pesaḥim ⁷² Ex

What is the difference between this and cleansing heave vegetables⁷³ may not be used as animal feed. Cleansing vegetables as a regular component of preparing food is permitted on a holiday.? The latter is possible food, the former is not possible food. The rabbis of Caesarea asked, what is the difference between this and picking out legumes on a holiday⁷⁴?

footnotes: ⁷³ It is permitted to trim heave vegetables on a holiday; the parts eliminated are no longer human food but as coming from sancta ⁷⁴ This question is similar to the preceding one, therefore the answer given to the first also applies here. The assumption here is that the chaff eliminated when picking out the edible parts is not even animal feed.

What should he do in Rebbi Eliezer’s opinion? He is cunning and says, this I want to eat[ and this I want to eat], and bakes all of them. When he removes the loaves, he is cunning and says, this I want to leave for later, and this I want to leave for later, and leaves one as remainder⁷⁵, he treats it as if he wanted to eat it while it is being baked, and only at the end, before he takes the first bite of the bread, declares it to be ḥallah. Then he leaves it in the oven where eventually it will be burned and turned into coal..

footnotes: ⁷⁵ While he forms a small loaf that in the end will be impure ḥallah

⁷⁶ 10, Notes 165–175. Rebbi Joshua said to him, are you not like one who burns sancta on a holiday? Rebbi Eliezer told him, it is burned automatically. Rebbi Joshua said to him, are you not transgressing it should not be seen, and it should not**be found⁷⁷. 13:7.? He told him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by you than a prohibition which will come before you.

footnotes: ⁷⁶ The following is a much shortened version, mostly by the corrector, of a text in Eruvin ⁷⁷ Ex

[Rebbi Phineas said, this disagreement is parallel to other disagreements.

As we have stated there⁷⁸ 8:10.: “[Blood] to be given in one batch etc. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, would you not transgress do not diminish? Rebbi Joshua answered him, would you not transgress do not add?⁷⁹. 4:2,13:1.” He said to him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by me than a prohibition which will come before me.]

footnotes: ⁷⁸ MishnahZevaḥim ⁷⁹ Deut

In Rebbi Eliezer’s opinion, should he not give it its name and then take it down⁸⁰ remain in the oven (Note 67)?? It will be forbidden to move it⁸¹. Then should he not take it down and then give it its name? Maybe he would forget and eat it. Should he not take it down, then give it its name, and with another piece put it in an isolated corner, following what we did state there, “one may move impure heave together with pure one or with profane food⁸² 21:1.”? It cannot be compared; there impure for the needs of pure⁸³ 142a.), but here profane for the needs of impure. The colleagues asked, could he not throw it onto the garbage heap and then dedicate it⁸⁴? May a person dedicate what is not his⁸⁵? Then could he not dedicate it and throw it on the garbage heap? Can a person declare ownerless something that is not his⁸⁶ is the Cohen’s property, he cannot declare it ownerless; even on the garbage heap it remains his property and he has sinned if it ferments there.?

footnotes: ⁸⁰ Why does R. Eliezer require that the ḥallah ⁸¹ Since it is neither food nor implement, it is muqṣeh. ⁸² Mishnah Šabbat ⁸³ It is permitted to move impure heave on the Sabbath only if this is needed to allow access to permitted items (Babli Šabbat ⁸⁴ Could one not remove some raw dough, throw in on the garbage heap (where it is abandoned and may be taken by scavengers). Since it no longer is his possession, he should not be concerned about it fermenting. ⁸⁵ If it is abandoned and no longer his property, it is not his dough anymore and cannot be declared as ḥallah. ⁸⁶ Since ḥallah

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Could he not separate it, throw it in the air in the house⁸⁷, separate it into minuscule parts, throw them into the air in the house, and only then declare them to be ḥallah. By Mishnah 3:2 he would not be liable if some of the flakes fermented, and in any case these would soon be swept away if the house is cleaned. and then give it its name⁸⁸? There⁴⁴, Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Two volumes of half an olive in one house, the house does not combine them; in one vessel, the vessel does combine them; and here he says so? Rebbi Yose said, when it still is in the air of the house he gives it its name. Does the air of the house combine for ḥallah but the ground of the house does not combine for leavening⁸⁹ for impure dough easier than the complicated procedure explained earlier.?

footnotes: ⁸⁷ Take the piece of raw dough reserved for ḥallah ⁸⁸ Declare it to be ḥallah. ⁴⁴ The Mishnah states that leavened matter less than the volume of an olive is insignificant; R. Zeˋira states that several insignificant pieces in one vessel combine to be significant. Since the Amora R. Zeˋira cannot disagree with the Mishnah, how can his statement be interpreted? The Mishnah deals with specks of חָמֵץ material embedded in the walls of the vessel; they are permanently separate. R. Zeˋira speaks of movable specks; they combine since they can be assembled at one place (Babli 45b in the name of Ulla.) ⁸⁹ The question of R. Jeremiah rests on an unproven and unreasonable hypothesis. For R. Eliezer there is no way to give ḥallah

It and its young⁹⁰ 22:28. It is prohibited to slaughter an animal and its young on the same day. Therefore, if both an animal and its young fell into a cistern on a holiday, only one of them can be potential food. The other one is muqṣeh and cannot be moved by humans. Babli 117b, Beṣah 37a, Tosephta Yom Ṭov 3:2.. The paragraph also appears as Halakhah Beṣah 3:5 with the references to “here” and “there” switched correctly. fell into a cistern. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and slaughter it. The second one has to be provided for so it should not die. Rebbi Joshua says, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and not slaughter it, and be cunning and lift the second one⁹¹. Even though he had no intention of slaughtering either of them, he is permitted⁹². Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is the argument of Rebbi Eliezer not inverted? There he says, one is prohibited from cunning but here he says, one is permitted to be cunning⁹³ he permits bending them.. Here it is because “not to be seen nor found”; there, what do you have⁹⁴? Is the argument of Rebbi Joshua not inverted? There he says, one is permitted to be cunning, but here, he says, one is prohibited from cunning⁹⁵ he removes the prohibition by declaring it inapplicable.. Rebbi Idi said, there it is a rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, but here liability for a purification offering⁹⁶ is rabbinic; eating bread without taking ḥallah is a deadly sin.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, there it is to protect Jews’ money; here what do you have⁹⁷ is worthless.?

footnotes: ⁹⁰ Lev. ⁹¹ As long as it is not determined which animal is to be turned into food, both are potential food and can be moved. ⁹² He is permitted to declare both animals as potential food even though he had no intention of slaughtering either one. ⁹³ In the matter of an animal and its young he requires strict adherence to the rules; in the matter of impure ḥallah ⁹⁴ In matters of dough on Passover there is no other way out (short of not making food on the holiday); in the matters of the animals it is possible to follow all the rules. ⁹⁵ For the animals in the cistern he allows a fake declaration which permits their rescue; for impure ḥallah ⁹⁶ Muqṣeh ⁹⁷ The animals in the cistern are valuable; impure ḥallah

Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Joshia, one like one of them, the other like the other⁹⁸. Rebbi Berekhiah preached following Ben Bathyra⁹⁹, the Mishnah says so: “she shall beat it and wet it with cold water.¹⁰⁰” The words of the rabbis disagree¹⁰¹ 2:1 (Note 30), Ta’aniot 2:14, Babli Yebamot 42b, Avodah zarah 7a., but Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: In every instance where Rebbi formulated a disagreement and later formulated it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement¹⁰¹ 2:1 (Note 30), Ta’aniot 2:14, Babli Yebamot 42b, Avodah zarah 7a..

footnotes: ⁹⁸ Since R. Isaac and R. Josia are last generation Tannaim, their disagreement must refer to the difference between the first generation RR. Eliezer and Joshua.The sentence is copied in Beṣah. ⁹⁹ He decided that practice has to follow Ben Bathyra. ¹⁰⁰ Mishnah 3:4. Vocalization and translation follow Maimonides in his Mishnah Commentary (cf. Note 17 in the edition by R. Y. Qafeh). Dough is not fermenting only as long as it is worked on with cold water. ¹⁰¹ RR. Isaac and Josia disagree but by the rule formulated by the Amoraim one has to accept R. Berekhia’s determination. The rule is affirmed Orlah ¹⁰¹ RR. Isaac and Josia disagree but by the rule formulated by the Amoraim one has to accept R. Berekhia’s determination. The rule is affirmed Orlah

MISHNAH: Rabban Gamliel says, three women knead dough simultaneously and bake in one oven one after the other, but the Sages say, three women are occupied with dough; one is kneading, one is forming, and one is baking¹⁰². Rebbi Aqiba says, neither all women nor all wood nor all ovens are equal. This is the principle, she shall beat it and wet it with cold water¹¹⁰³.

footnotes: ¹⁰² This determines the time from the start of making dough to baking when no fermenting is occurring. The details are described in the Halakhah. ¹ Mishnah 3:4. Vocalization and translation follow Maimonides in his Mishnah Commentary (cf. Note 17 in the edition by R. Y. Qafeh). Dough is not fermenting only as long as it is worked on with cold water. ¹⁰³ The preceding paragraph makes it clear that this sentence is accepted by everybody; it is not part of R. Aqiba's dissent.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: The first one waits for heating, the second for two heatings and one baking, and the third for three heatings and two bakings. If she made one of the first loaves last, for three heatings and three bakings¹⁰⁴.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁴ This follows Rabban Gamliel. If three women finish kneading the dough and forming the loaves all at the same time and the first to use the oven bakes only part of it the first time and for the remainder she waits until after the other two are finished with theirs, she will use the oven again after three baking runs. The ovens are small and have to be refuelled for each run. This is purely as explanation of the Mishnah since the last sentence of the Mishnah explains, in the words of Maimonides, “know that all the time the hand is working on the dough it does not start to ferment even if this takes an entire day”.

It was stated: If one finished kneading, one finished forming, and one finished baking. The first one waits for heating, the second for her colleague’s heating and baking, and the third for two heatings and one baking. If she made one of the first loaves last, for two heatings and two bakings¹⁰⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁵ This follows the Sages, for whom one starts baking while the second one is still forming loaves and the third kneading dough. Since the first baking run is made while the second and third batches are not ready, it is not counted.

“Rabban Gamliel says, three women knead dough simultaneously and bake in one oven one after the other, but the Sages say, three women are occupied with dough; one is kneading, one is forming, and one is baking.” Rebbi Hoshaia stated: And another one comes and kneads in their stead¹⁰⁶. There are Tannaim who state: Three qab wheat or four qab barley¹⁰⁷. There are Tannaim who state: Four qab wheat or three qab barley. He who said, three qab wheat, if they have fat, or four qab barley, if they have no fat. He who said, four qab wheat, if they are soft, or three qab barley, if they are hard¹⁰⁸.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ To work on the dough during the waiting period as required. ¹⁰⁷ These are maximal quantities permitted to be worked on in one batch without fear of fermentation. Cf. Babli 48a. ¹⁰⁸ “Fat” grain produces flour which easily ferments; soft grain needs little water and therefore is not prone to quick fermentation, hard grain has to be soaked.The translation of רטש as “hard” presumes a metathesis and reads the word as טרש.

MISHNAH: Sour dough¹⁰⁹ is to be burned but a person who eats it is not liable; cracked dough¹¹⁰ is to be burned and a person who eats it is liable for extirpation. What is sour dough? Like locusts’ antlers¹¹¹; cracked if its fissures joined one another, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages say, in both cases one who eats it is liable. What is sour dough? Any which is pale like a man whose hair is standing up¹¹².

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ Dough in the process of fermentation which is not edible for most people. Extirpation is decreed only for people eating leavened food on Passover. ¹¹⁰ Not fully fermented but edible dough. ¹¹¹ The CO2 created in the fermentation process causes small fissures the size of locusts’ antlers. ¹¹² . In fear.

HALAKHAH: Rav Huna in the name of Rav: One is permitted to feed it [to his dog]¹¹³. Bar Qappara stated: There is no fissure on top which does not have several fissures below¹¹⁴.

footnotes: ¹¹³ Since it is inedible, the prohibition of eating cannot imply prohibition of usufruct; cf. Chapter 2, Notes 9,14. ¹¹⁴ He gives the reason why the Sages reject the definition of R. Jehudah. Even if only one fissure the size of a locust antler is visible, it is a confluence of a number of interior bubbles. Babli 48b.

MISHNAH: If the Fourteenth falls on a Sabbath one eliminates everything before the Sabbath¹¹⁵, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, on their time¹¹⁶. Rebbi Eleazar bar Sadoq says, heave before the Sabbath¹¹⁷ and profane on their time.

footnotes: ¹¹⁵ By burning on Friday. ¹¹⁶ Since the remaining leavened matter cannot be burned on the Sabbath, if not eaten by that time it either has to be given to Gentiles or it has to be crumbled into minute pieces which are strewn to the wind, the preferred method of disposal of the Sages (Mishnah 2:1).. ¹¹⁷ Since heave must be consumed by Cohanim, who are few, the ways of disposal on the Sabbath are not available; it must be disposed of on Friday. But profane matter may be disposed of following the Sages.

HALAKHAH: It turns out that Rebbi Meïr parallels Rebbi Eliezer but is more stringent than Rebbi Eliezer. For Rebbi Eliezer says “that he not transgress not to be seen nor be found.” Rebbi Meïr says, that he not possibly transgress not to be seen nor be found¹¹⁸ be bent to avoid the ḥallah dough becoming fermented. Here R. Meïr requires that heave be eliminated early even through it is a biblical requirement that it be treated as sanctum(Num. 18:8) and be consumed by the priest and their families (v. 13).. It turns out that the rabbis parallel Rebbi Joshua but are more stringent than Rebbi Joshua. For Rebbi Joshua says that one does not burn sancta on a holiday, and the rabbis say, even on weekdays one does not burn sancta¹¹⁹ dough may not be touched..

footnotes: ¹¹⁸ In Halakhah 3, R. Eliezer requires that the rules of ḥallah ¹¹⁹ Since profane food may be disposed of at any time (Halakhah 2:1), it is clear that the Sages only insist that heave may not destroyed before it time. This parallels the opinion of R. Joshua who in Halakhah 3 insist that ḥallah

It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree ¹²⁰ about pure heave that it is forbidden to burn it¹²¹, and about impure heave that one is permitted to burn it¹²¹; about what did they disagree? About the suspended¹²² one, about which the House of Shammai¹²³ say, one may not burn it, but the House of Hillel say, one burns it. The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel: Do you not say that the pure one may not be burned because I am saying that maybe a Cohen was keeping the Sabbath within the domain and he might come and eat in on the Sabbath, so also the suspended one may not be burned because I am saying that maybe Elijah¹²⁵ was keeping the Sabbath on Mount Carmel and he might come and testify on the Sabbath that it is pure. The House of Hillel told them, we are sure that Elijah will come neither on a Sabbath nor on a holiday¹²⁶: “neither on a Friday nor on the day preceding a holiday because of the trouble [this would cause.]”.”

footnotes: ¹²⁰ Here starts a new Genizah fragment (G). ¹²¹ On a Friday the 13th of Nisan. ¹²¹ On a Friday the 13th of Nisan. ¹²² Heave whose purity is in question. It may not be eaten since it may be impure; it may not be disposed of since it may be pure. ¹²³ The spelling is the Babylonian one of the corrector; it should be disregarded. ¹²⁵ He may appear anywhere and as a member of the Divine Court he knows the true facts about everything. ¹²⁶ In the Babli 13a in a related baraita

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Sadoq parallels Rabban Gamliel¹²⁷. Just as Rabban Gamliel (said)¹²⁸ distinguishes between profane and heave, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Sadoq (said)¹²⁸ distinguishes between profane and heave. Since you say that practice follows Rabban Gamliel, similarly practice has to follow Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Sadoq¹²⁹ umazzah 3:3, Note by Ravad..

footnotes: ¹²⁷ Who in Mishnah 1:6 allows more time to consume leavened heave than leavened profane food. ¹²⁸ Omit with G. ¹²⁸ Omit with G. ¹²⁹ Cf. Chpater 1, Halakhah 6, Note 160; Maimonides Hames

MISHNAH: A person who goes to slaughter his Passover sacrifice, or to circumcise his son, or to eat the betrothal meal at his father-in-law’s house¹³⁰, and remembers that he has leavened matter in his house, if he can return, eliminate it, and return to his meritorious deed, he shall return and eliminate; otherwise, he has to nullify it in his thought¹³¹. To save from the army¹³², or from a river¹³³, or from a conflagration, or from a house collapse, he has to nullify it in his thought¹³⁴. To celebrate the holiday according to his wishes¹³⁵, he has to return immediately.

footnotes: ¹³⁰ On the 14th of Nisan. ¹³¹ While the condition given in Chapter 2, Note 101, is not strictly satisfied, in an emergency situation mental annulment is sufficient as legal abandonment to satisfy the biblical requirement not to have one’s own leavened matter in his possession. ¹³² The Roman army on the march in the Roman empire. Since the soldiers will steal anything not hidden, this is an emergency. ¹³³ A flood. ¹³⁴ These are real emergency situations. ¹³⁵ He goes to celebrate the holiday at another place of his choosing, not to fulfill a religious precept.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, come and see how great is peace that it is bundled with two things about whom one is liable to extirpation¹³⁶ 17:14, *Num.*9:13)..

footnotes: ¹³⁶ In the Mishnah, a meal with his future in-laws is put on the same level as the Passover sacrifice and circumcision; two commandments whose omission is punished by Divine extirpation (Gen.

His son’s circumcision and the slaughter of his Passover sacrifice. what has precedence? Rebbi Phineas said, since it is written, all his males have to be circumcided, then he will be admitted to nake it, this implies that his sons’ circumcisions has priority over the slaughter of his Passover sacrifice.

Even if he could return and eliminate, or go and save¹³⁷. Even if he could go and acquire rest status, return and (nullify) [eliminate]¹³⁸.

footnotes: ¹³⁷ Since the second series of cases in the Mishnah is formulated as apodictic rule, not subject to a condition as in the first series, it follows that a person starting to save from soldiers, flood, fire, and collapse, is not permitted to return and eliminate but forced to annul mentally. ¹³⁸ . In the last case, if he leaves his place but not to go to Jerusalem, he is required to return immediately even if he could go to the place of his destination, deposit some food there to symbolically move his dwelling to that place, then return to his own house, eliminate the leavened matter, and return to his place of holiday rest

[What is]¹³⁹ (no)¹⁴⁰ to celebrate the holiday according to his wishes? At his teacher’s or at somebody greater than he in wisdom. Here did Rebbi state that action precedes study¹⁴¹. They voted in the upper floor of the house of Arius in Lydda that study precedes action¹⁴² 40b, this was an early Tannaitic decision following R. Aqiba against R. Tarphon. Ḥagigah 1:7..

footnotes: ¹³⁹ This was written by the scribe and then erased by him; it should be read following G.. ¹⁴⁰ Addition of the corrector; to be deleted with G. ¹⁴¹ Since the action of eliminating leavened matter, even though it could have been replaced by a declaration of nullification, has precedence over a possibility of further study. ¹⁴² According to the Babli, Qiddušin

Rebbi Abbahu sent his son Rebbi Ḥanina to acquire merit in Tiberias. They came and said to him, he does works of charity¹⁴³. He sent to tell him, are there no graves in Caesarea¹⁴⁴ 14:11. that I sent you to Tiberias? For they already voted and decided¹⁴⁵ in the upper floor of the house of Arius in Lydda that study precedes action¹⁴⁶. The rabbis of Caesaria say, that is, if there is somebody there who will do it. But if nobody is there who will do it, the action has precedence¹⁴⁷. Example. Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Immi, were late in coming to Rebbi Eleazar. He asked them, where have you been? They told him, performing an act of charity. He asked them, where there no others? They answered him, it was a neighbor¹⁴⁸.

footnotes: ¹⁴³ Burying the dead. ¹⁴⁴ A reference to Ex. ¹⁴⁵ Delete with G. ¹⁴⁶ Therefore he has to spend his time studying in the Academy there. ¹⁴⁷ In particular, religious obligations of a personal nature, which cannot be delegated, have precedence over study. ¹⁴⁸ It was an obligation irrespective of the number of attendees at the funeral.

MISHNAH: Similarly, somebody who left Jerusalem and remembers that he has with him sacrificial meat¹⁴⁹, if he passed Mount Scopus¹⁵⁰ he burns it on the spot, otherwise he returns and burns it before the citadel on altar wood. Up to what¹⁵¹ do they return? Rebbi Meïr says, in both cases the size of an olive; Rebbi Jehudah says, in both cases the size of an egg¹⁵². But the Sages say, sacrificial meat in the volume of an olive, but leavened matter in that of an egg.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁹ Family sacrifices which can be eaten anywhere within the walls of Jerusalem but become invalid and impure the moment they are taken outside. ¹⁵⁰ When he no longer can see the walls of the city. For “citadel” see Halakhah 7:8. ¹⁵¹ What is the minimal volume for which one has to return, either to eliminate leavened matter or to burn sancta. ¹⁵² Slightly more than three olives.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It is written, on that day will all shadow of horses be holy¹⁵³. 14:20. Cf. Babli 50a. etc.; to the place where the horse runs without having a shadow¹⁵⁴.

footnotes: ¹⁵³ Zach ¹⁵⁴ The future size of the suburbs of Jerusalem will be as far as a horse can run outside the walls of Jerusalem during noontime at the summer solstice when it casts no shadow (Rashi in the Babli, explanation by R. Makhir.)

Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, if it is a sanctum should he burn it on the spot? Since even in Jerusalem one burns it before the Temple on altar wood¹⁵⁵. This one outside, how do you treat it? As having become impure outside or having become impure inside¹⁵⁶ 8:6–7.? Rebbi Yose said, since it is disqualified because of its place it becomes as if having become impure outside. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is pure by the words of the Torah. You have decided that it be impure. It is not enough that you decided that it be impure, but you also want to make it as if having become impure outside? It [only]¹⁵⁷ is like having become impure inside.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁵ He asks why outside of sight of Jerusalem one burns it on the spot where one realizes that one has impure sacrificial meat when in Jerusalem itself in such a case one cannot burn it on the spot but has to bring it to a central place on the Temple Mount outside the Temple enclosure. ¹⁵⁶ To answer R. Samuel bar Rav Isaac’s question one first has to determine the status of impurity of the meat. It is accepted by everybody (and discussed in the last paragraph of this Tractate) that sacrificial meat outside the place appropriate for its consumption is biblically disqualified and rabbinically impure. The modalities of burning depending on the status of the impurity are in dispute in Mishnah Šeqalim ¹⁵⁷ Added from G.

Some Tannaim state it switched¹⁵⁸. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa following our Mishnah¹⁵⁹. Rebbi Yudan said, an indication is that of Berakhot¹⁶⁰ 7:2. “Inviting” is the exhortation for groups of at least 3 people who ate together to say Grace together aloud, with the appropriate introduction.: “What is the minimum to ‘invite’? Down to the size of an olive, Rebbi Jehudah says to the size of an egg.” Less than that¹⁶¹ one does not importune him to return. What is the difference between one and the other¹⁶²? One can be declared insignificant, the other cannot be declared insignificant. So far sacrificial meat; leavened matter from where? Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, from what we have stated, “similarly, somebody who left Jerusalem”, this implies that what is incident to one is incident to the other¹⁶³.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁸ They state the Babylonian tradition that R. Meïr states “egg” and R. Jehudah “olive”. ¹⁵⁹ He confirms the attributions as quoted in the Mishnah. ¹⁶⁰ Mishnah Berakhot ¹⁶¹ The size of an olive for R. Meïr, of an egg for R. Jehudah, or depending on the case an egg or an olive for the Sages. ¹⁶² This is a question for the Sages: why are they more restrictive for sacrificial meat than for leavened matter? ¹⁶³ Since the rules of sacrificial meat are appended to those of leavened matter, they must follow the same pattern.