MISHNAH: When they came to a woman who was eating heave¹ and told her your husband died, or he divorced you²; similarly a slave³ who was eating heave when they came and told him your master died⁴, or he sold you to an Israel or gave you as a gift, or made you a free person; similarly a Cohen who was eating heave when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee⁵. 21:15) and cannot eat heave. or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah⁶, Rebbi Eliezer obliges them to pay principal and fifth⁷, but Rebbi Joshua frees them. If⁸ he was standing on top of the altar and sacrificing when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, Rebbi Eliezer says that all sacrifices he performed on the altar are invalid but Rebbi Joshua declares them valid. If it became known that he has a bodily defect, his work is invalid. All of these⁴³, if heave was in their mouths, Rebbi Eliezer says, they should swallow it⁴⁴, Rebbi Joshua says, they should spit it out⁴⁵. If they said to him, you and the heave have become impure, Rebbi Eliezer says, he should swallow it, Rebbi Joshua says, he should spit it out⁴⁶. You or the heave were impure, or if it became known that it was ṭevel, or First Tithe of which its heave had not been taken, or Second Tithe or dedicated [food] that had not been redeemed,⁴⁷. 18:13). First Tithe remains ṭevel as long as the heave of the tithe was not lifted from it. Unredeemed Second Tithe can be eaten only in Jerusalem, and eating unredeemed dedicated food is larceny of Temple property. or that he tasted the taste of a bed bug in his mouth⁴⁸. 4:15)., he has to spit it out⁴⁹.

footnotes: ¹ The daughter of an Israel or a Levite married to a Cohen who may eat heave only as long as she is married to a Cohen or, if she becomes a widow, has descendants who may eat heave. ² Since a woman is legally divorced only if the divorce document is delivered to her or her agent, the Halakhah has to find a case in which the divorced woman may have eaten heave in error. ³ A Gentile slave owned by a Cohen who became Jewish by circumcision and immersion in a ritual bath and has to observe all rules of the Jewish religion. As long as he is owned by a Cohen, he eats heave. If he is manumitted, he becomes a full Jew but not a Cohen. ⁴ In case the master has no heirs who may eat heave; for example, if the master had only daughters and they are married to Israel husbands. ⁵ The son of a Cohen and a divorcee is desecrated (Lev ⁶ The widow of a childless man who is not married by her brother-in-law but freed from him by the ceremony of drawing off her brother-in-law’s shoe. While this act is not a divorce, it is considered close enough to a divorce to forbid the widow to any Cohen by rabbinic law. ⁷ Like everybody eating heave in error. ⁸ This part of the Mishnah will be explained in Halakhah 2. ⁴³ Those mentioned in Mishnah 1 who have to stop eating heave immediately. ⁴⁴ And add the value of the food swallowed to the amount to be paid as principal and fifth, according to R. Eliezer. ⁴⁵ Since R. Joshua does not require payment, he cannot tolerate enjoyment of the heave for a single moment after it became forbidden. ⁴⁶ This case is parallel to the previous one. “He” in this case is a Cohen of unquestioned pedigree who started to fulfill his duty eating heave, thinking he and the heave were pure. ⁴⁷ In all these cases, eating the food was sinful to begin with. An impure person may not eat heave and impure heave may not be eaten (Num ⁴⁸ Swallowing such food would be a health hazard; it is forbidden knowingly to contribute to a deterioration of one’s health (Deut ⁴⁹ R. Eliezer agrees that food cannot be swallowed if there never was a time when swallowing it was permitted.

HALAKHAH: “A woman who was eating heave,” etc. It is acceptable, “your husband died.” “He divorced you?²” The rabbis say, this follows the old Mishnah⁹ 5:3: “One gives a virgin 12 months after the bridegroom claimed her to get her trousseau … If that time arrived and she is not married she eats from him and she eats heave …, this is the old Mishnah. The later authorities said, no woman eats heave until she enters the bridal canopy.” The Mishnah deals with a minor who is married off by her father. After the preliminary wedding ceremony (cf. Peah 6:2, Note 46) the bride really is “acquired by the husband’s money” and, by biblical law (Lev. 22:11) she may eat heave if the husband is a Cohen. By an old rabbinic institution, she is prevented from eating heave until the date originally fixed for the actual wedding, when it was planned that she should start living with her husband. The later authorities restricted the access of the Israel bride of a Cohen to the time after the final marriage ceremony. The final marriage ceremony emancipates the bride from her father’s authority. During the time between preliminary and final ceremonies, Mishnah Giṭṭin 6:2 states that both the minor and her father may accept a divorce document; R. Jehudah denies the right of the minor to receive the document (cf. Peah Chapter 4, Note 117). The Mishnah here can refer to with a woman eating heave in error only in case the woman still is a minor and the groom did not finally marry her at the previously stipulated time. In this approach, with the decree of the later authorities the mention of a divorce in our Mishnah became meaningless., according to which the betrothed daughter of an Israel eats heave and her father accepts her divorce document. Rebbi Eliezer¹⁰ 6:4 (Leyden ms. and Venice print, Mishnah ed. Low) as well as the main text of the Munich ms. of the Babli and the mss. of the later version of Maimonides’s Commentary read “R. Eleazar”; the Napoli Mishnah and the early version of Maimonides’s Commentary read “R. Eliezer”.] Since R. Eleazar is the main authority on divorce documents, it is reasonable to read “R. Eleazar” in the Mishnah. says, you may even say following the later Mishnah; explain it that she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X and usually that should have taken him ten days to deliver to her but he found a galloping horse and brought it to her in five days. Rebbi Eliezer cannot follow Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated¹¹ 6:4: “Bring me my divorce document, she eats heave until the document comes into her possession. Accept the document for me, she immediately is forbidden heave. Accept the document for me at place X, she eats heave until the document reaches place X; Rebbi Eleazar forbids her immediately.” This Mishnah speaks of the adult wife appointing an agent. (A minor, even though emancipated from her father, cannot appoint an agent. She can be divorced only by delivery of the document into her hands by the husband or his duly appointed agent. If she is too young to take care of the document, she cannot be divorced.): “Rebbi Eleazar forbids her immediately.” Does Rebbi Eleazar not agree that if she said, bring my divorce document from place X, that she may eat heave until the document arrives at that place¹²? Rebbi Ḥaninah said, when she said to him, bring my divorce document from place X, it is as if she had said to him, it shall become a divorce document only after ten days. What she ate, she ate with permission¹³.

footnotes: ² Since a woman is legally divorced only if the divorce document is delivered to her or her agent, the Halakhah has to find a case in which the divorced woman may have eaten heave in error. ⁹ Mishnah Ketubot ¹⁰ He must be R. Eleazar ben Pedat, the student of R. Joḥanan. Probably, his name was changed here to distinguish him from R. Eleazar ben Shamua‘, the Tanna, who is quoted in the next sentence. [The changes from “R. Eliezer” to “R. Eleazar” and vice-versa in all printed editions has no basis in mss. The Yerushalmi tradition of Mishnah Giṭṭin ¹¹ Mishnah Giṭṭin ¹² An agent who violates the terms of his appointment is not a valid agent for divorce documents. If the agent would accept the document at another place, the document would be invalid and the woman not divorced. There is no reason for her not to eat heave until the document reaches the specified place. ¹³ In this case, even R. Eliezer will agree that heave was eaten lawfully, there is no case of restitution of anything, and the explanation of R. Eleazar ben Pedat is contradicted.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked the colleagues, from where that he who eats with permission is free¹⁴ 1:1, fol. 45c; a text which differs in places from the text here. The commentaries assume that the text there is the better one; they take the question of R. Ḥaggai as directed against the argument of R. Ḥaninah; therefore, they are forced in the next sentence to follow the Horaiot text and to switch the terms “Israel” and “Cohen”, an emendation not supported here by any manuscript and contradicted by the third question of R. Ḥaggai.? What is the difference between him who thought that it was profane but it turned out that it was heave, who is obligated¹⁵ 1:1; the reading of Horaiot is appropriate there, the reading of Terumot is appropriate here., and him who thought that he was an Israel but it turned out that he was a Cohen, who is free? They said to him, by the declaration of the court¹⁶. He said to them, still I am having a problem. What is the difference between him who thought that it was a weekday but it turned out that it was a Sabbath¹⁷, who is obligated, and him who thought that it was a Passover sacrifice but it turned out that it was a well-being offering, who is free¹⁸6:4. The Passover sacrifice, a lamb or kid goat, has to be sacrificed during the afternoon of Nissan 14, even if that day is a Sabbath. It also has to be designated beforehand as Passover sacrifice and is counted as a special kind of well-being offering. If the 14th falls on a weekday, a festival offering, which is a well-being offering, is also slaughtered at the same time (cf. the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, Northvale NJ 1995, p. 248.) On the Sabbath, any slaughtering not directly mandated by the biblical verse is forbidden. On that the Mishnah states: “If the Passover sacrifice [which is valid only if slaughtered for this particular purpose] was slaughtered not for its purpose on the Sabbath, one is obligated for an expiatory sacrifice. For any well-being offering slaughtered as a Passover sacrifice which was not usable [a calf or an old sheep or goat], one is obligated. If it was usable, R. Eliezer obligates him for an expiatory sacrifice, R. Joshua declares him free.” Why should he be free?? They said to him, because he slaughtered with permission¹⁹ 6:6: “If he slaughtered [the Passover sacrifice on a Sabbath] and it turned out to have a blemish, he is obligated [for an expiatory sacrifice]. If it turned out to be unusable because of an internal defect [which could not have been detected by inspection when the animal was alive], he is free. If he slaughtered and then it turned out that the owners had withdrawn from it [they chose another lamb as their sacrifice], or that they had died [and the sacrifice became unusable because nobody may eat from the Passover unless he joined the group before the lamb was slaughtered], or had become impure, he is free since he slaughtered with permission.” Since R. Joshua declares him free and the animal could have been a valid Passover sacrifice, he slaughtered with permission.. He said to them, still I am having a problem. What is the difference between him who thought that it was permitted fat but it turned out that it was forbidden fat, who is obligated, and him who thought that it was forbidden but it turned out that it was permitted, who is free²⁰? They did not answer him. What did he say to them? Let us take counsel! (Lev. 4:23,28): “Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring.²¹” He who returns from his prior knowledge is obligated for his error; this excludes one who would not stop even if he knew! Rebbi Assi went to see them and said, why did you not answer him (Lev. 4:23,28): “Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring”? They said to him, he asked the question and gave the answer²², and written in better style..

footnotes: ¹⁴ This is not an attack on the argument of R. Ḥanina; if a person has no intention of breaking the law and is not breaking the law, obviously he is free not only of guilt but of all monetary obligations.The parallel to this text is in Horaiot ¹⁵ An Israel who ate what he thought was profane food. If it turns out that it was heave, he has to pay as stated in Mishnah 6:1. If it turns out that he was in fact a Cohen but did not know it, he does not have to pay even though at the time of eating he thought he was an Israel. If payment were a punishment for negligence, there is no reason why he should not be held liable.In the Horaiot text, speaking of a person who thought he was a Cohen when he was not, the reference would be to the position of R. Joshua in the Mishnah here and the “declaration of the court” is the court decision which strips him of his priesthood, on the testimony of two cross-examined credible witnesses. The conditions under which an action of the court obligates him to bring a sacrifice are noted Horaiot ¹⁶ The interpretation of the biblical law quoted later. ¹⁷ The person violating the Sabbath in error has to bring an expiatory sacrifice. ¹⁸ This refers to Mishnah Pesaḥim ¹⁹ The language refers to Mishnah Pesaḥim ²⁰ He thought the fat he ate was forbidden when in fact it was permitted. Then in his mind he should be more guilty of negligence than the one who thought the fat was permitted when it was in fact forbidden. ²¹ The involved statement is explained to mean that one became aware of the sinful character of what he had done inadvertently. If a person never knew that certain acts are forbidden, he cannot become obligated for an expiatory sacrifice since no negligence was involved. If he knew and then did something inadvertently, he is obligated for his negligence. But if he knew beforehand that, had he known then what he knows now, his action would have been legitimate, there is no negligence and no sacrifice. ²² This paragraph is more explicit in Horaiot

²³: Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This is one of three derivations²⁴ 66b. The argument of Rav, Rav Abba, somewhat changed, is there given in the name of Samuel’s father, Abba ben Abba. Elsewhere (Sifry Deut. 298. Babli Sanhedrin 28b) the argument of R. Yannai is given in the name of R. Yose the Galilean (the Tanna); the argument of Rav is not found in tannaїtic sources. which are clear from the Torah (Deut. 26:3): “You shall come to the Cohen who will be in those days.” Is there a Cohen now who is not a Cohen after some time? Who is that? That is one who was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he is the son of a divorcee or of one who had performed ḥaliẓah, that his work is valid²⁵ 2:18, the similar verse Deut. 17:9 is explained that Cohen and judge in one’s own time have the same authority as Aaron and Moses in their time.. Rav said, (Deut. 33:11) “You will want the work of his hands,” that the work of everybody who is of the descendants of Levi is valid²⁶.

footnotes: ²³ Here starts the discussion of the second part of Mishnah 1. ²⁴ Cf. Chapter 1, Note 159. The parallel in the Babli to the derivations here is Qiddušin ²⁵ In Tosephta Roš Haššanah ²⁶ Since the verse is addressed to the entire tribe of Levi and not only to the recognized Cohanim. Since the sons of divorcees are also descendants of Levi, they are included (if they happened to be admitted to the service.)

In Rav’s opinion, only a sacrificing Cohen²⁷. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, any Cohen²⁸. In Rav’s opinion, only for sacrifices in the Temple. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, even holy food in the countryside. In the rabbis’ opinion, only during the existence of the Temple. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, even today.

footnotes: ²⁷ In the preceding verse, burning of incense and sacrifices is mentioned. This restricts the verse to service in the Temple. ²⁸ For any ceremony for which a Cohen is needed: Not only the reception of First Fruits but also the presentation of the firstling, judging skin disease, etc.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Does this apply even to the remaining actions²⁹? If he received [the blood], does he sprinkle [the blood on the walls of the altar]; if he takes a fist full [of the flour offering], can he burn it [on the altar]; if he burned [the red cow], can he sprinkle [water mixed with its ashes, to purify]? Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Isaac: Since we have stated³⁰ 5:5, in which it is stated, as testimony from Temple times, that the priests have to accept every animal offered as a sacrifice of expiation (which has to be eaten by the priests) and are not permitted to investigate whether it was stolen or robbed, unless such defect was public knowledge. Both Talmudim agree that this arrangement can be justified by biblical verses and that it was strictly enforced since nobody would be able to bring such a sacrifice if the priests were allowed to set their own standards of what is kosher.: “they made it like a purification sacrifice which atones even if obtained by robbery, as long as this fact is unknown to the public;” this means³¹ that if he received, he sprinkles; if he takes a fist full, he burns; if he burned, he sprinkles.

footnotes: ²⁹ If he performed an action which has to be followed by another one and he is notified of his desecrated status in the middle of the first action, can he finish the entire procedure? ³⁰ This refers to Mishnah Giṭṭin ³¹ If a questionable sacrifice is valid as a sacrifice, then a questionable Cohen’s actions are counted as valid actions.

Rebbi Jacob ben Zavdi asked in the name of Rebbi Isaac: If he was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known to him that he was the son of a divorcee or a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah Moëd, how do you treat him³², by the testimony of two reliable witnesses. The problem concerns a person found guilty of involuntary or negligent homicide sentenced to exile in a city of refuge (Num. 35:9–34). He may return to his home town only after the death of the High Priest during whose term of office he was sentenced (v. 28). This implies that if he was sentenced while there was no High Priest, he is sentenced to life in exile.? As if he had died and the homicide might return to his home town, or as if [the latter’s] trial had been concluded when there was no High Priest, when he never could leave from there?³³

footnotes: ³² This thoroughly theoretical case deals with a High Priest who is informed that the special court judging the status of priests has stripped him of his office because he was found to be the son of a divorcee, or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah ³³ The answer will be given in the paragraph after the next.

Let us hear from the following³⁴ 1:17–20; in much shortened form Babli Qiddušin 66b. The “reservoir of Discus” according to Rashi is named either after a place or a person Discus, Latin proper n.: “It happened that the reservoir of Discus at Jabneh was damaged, measured, and found deficient³⁵ and, therefore, to be unusable for purification (cf. Chapter 4, Note 112). Since earlier, the miqweh was a valid one, a person who had immersed himself before the accident came to ask whether he could be considered pure because of the prior validity of the miqweh, or whether he was impure since now the miqweh was invalid.. Rebbi Ṭarphon declared pure and Rebbi Aqiba impure. Rebbi Ṭarphon said, the prior status of this miqweh was one of purity; it remains forever in its purity until it becomes known that it is deficient. Rebbi Aqiba said, the prior status of the impure is impurity, he remains forever in his impurity until it becomes known that he is pure. Rebbi Ṭarphon said, to what can this be compared? To one who was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, whose work is valid. Rebbi Aqiba said, to what can this be compared? To one who was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he has a bodily defect, whose work is invalid³⁶. 21:16–24. Since it is stated (v. 17) that a person with a bodily defect “shall not come close to present the bread of his God,” it is clear that this prohibition overrides the general inclusion inferred from Deut. 26:3 or 33:11.. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to him, how is that, Aqiba? I am comparing this to the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, and you compare it to one with a bodily defect. Let us see to which case it really is similar; if to the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, let us learn from the son of the divorcee, but if to one with a bodily defect, let us learn from the person with a bodily defect. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, the miqweh is invalid because of an inherent defect; the one with a bodily defect is disqualified because of an inherent defect. The son of a divorcee cannot prove anything since he is disqualified because of others³⁷. The miqweh is invalid because of itself, the one with a bodily defect is disqualified because of himself; the son of a divorcee cannot prove anything since he is disqualified by the court³⁸. They voted on the matter and declared him impure. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to Rebbi Aqiba, he who separates himself from you is as if he separated himself from his own life.”

footnotes: ³⁴ In slightly enlarged form, Tosephta Miqwa’ot ³⁵ Because something happened to the structure, they measured the volume of the water after the accident and found it to be less than 40 seah ³⁶ Lev ³⁷ His parents. ³⁸ As noted below, only the court can strip him of his role as Cohen, and only after regular judicial proceedings.

Rebbi Yose said, this³⁹ means that if he was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or of a woman who had performed ḥaliẓah, his work remains valid until he is disqualified by a court⁴⁰. That [also] means that if it was doubtful whether he was impure or had a bodily defect, his work is valid if you can compare him to the son of a divorcee [or] the son of a woman who had given ḥaliẓah. But if you have to compare him to a person with a bodily defect, his work is invalid. But is the case of the miqweh not that of a doubt⁴¹ fell below 40 seah.? Rebbi Ḥanina said, this means that any blemish on the family needs a court [judgment]⁴².

footnotes: ³⁹ The argument of R. Aqiba, accepted by all other rabbis, that the son of a divorcee is not automatically disqualified but only by court decree. ⁴⁰ For the original question, it means that the High Priest is validly officiating; therefore his removal will allow all homicides convicted during his tenure to return home. ⁴¹ The entire argument started only because it was not known at which point in time the volume of the miqweh ⁴² If it was not known at his birth that he was the son of a divorcee, he remains a Cohen until disqualified by a court.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, where do they disagree? Concerning slave and wife. But in the other cases, even Rebbi Eliezer agrees. Rebbi Samuel ben Rebbi Isaac said, the Mishnah says so: “or if it became known that it was ṭevel, or First Tithe of which its heave had not been taken, or Second Tithe or dedicated [food] that had not been redeemed,” and Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree⁵⁰.

footnotes: ⁵⁰ Therefore, he will not disagree that a person disqualified as a Cohen has to spit out, including the son of a divorcee.

What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Because he started with permission. It was stated: “Rebbi Nathan said, not that Rebbi Eliezer said because he started with permission but Rebbi Eliezer holds that chewed is like swallowed.” It is the same with the Sabbath⁵¹, Passover⁵² 39b) only forbids chewing grain kernels as a rabbinic precaution., the Day of Atonement⁵³, the nazir⁵⁴ chews raisins, it is as if he had swallowed grapes., carcasses and torn animals⁵⁵, abominations⁵⁶ and crawling things⁵⁷.

footnotes: ⁵¹ If somebody carries food in his mouth through the public domain on the Sabbath, he has desecrated the Sabbath. But if he chewed the food it is as if he swallowed it, it becomes part of his body and there is no desecration of the Sabbath. Since practice follows R. Joshua, these opinions are irrelevant for practice. ⁵² If one chews leavened matter without swallowing, it is a transgression of the commandment not to eat leavened matter on Passover. The Babli (Pesaḥim ⁵³ Chewing is breaking the fast. ⁵⁴ If a nazir ⁵⁵ A carcass is the body of a permitted animal which was not killed by cutting its throat. A torn animal is a permitted animal which has an exterior or interior defect which excludes the animal’s long term survival. Such an animal may not be eaten. For R. Eliezer, chewing forbidden meat is as bad as eating it. ⁵⁶ Reptiles and amphibia. ⁵⁷ Insects and worms.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody slaughters an animal and finds in it an abomination, that is forbidden as food. What is the reason? An animal (Lev. 11:3) “inside an animal you may eat,” but an abomination inside an animal you may not eat.⁵⁸ 2(9), Babli Ḥulin69a] The verse reads: “All that has hoofs, with clefts through the hoofs, and that chews the cud, inside an animal, such you may eat.” This is taken to mean that a fetus inside an animal may be eaten after the slaughter of the mother. {Sadducees did require separate slaughter of the fetus; MMT lines 37–38.} It is stated here that this applies only if the fetus itself is a permitted animal. The question remains open, what is meant by בהמה “animal”? A four-legged animal, a mammal, or a kosher mammal?

footnotes: ⁵⁸ [Sifra Šemini

Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Hoshaiah asked: What is the difference between this⁵⁹ 67b) declares that one is not guilty of a transgression if one eats them as long as they never left the fruit. and worms in peas, squash bugs⁶⁰ 56b) who is said to have died from an enormous יתוּשׁ growing in his head. in sweet vetch⁶¹ 67b), supported by Halakhot Gedolot (ed. Hildesheimer Hilkhot Dagim) who translates by Arabic באקלי “legumes; portulac, fava beans”. Maimonides: A kind of figs. I. Löw proposes Prosopis Stephaniana, also of the family of legumes., worms in dates and dried figs? There, they are in their bodies⁶²; here it is not in its body.

footnotes: ⁵⁹ The abominations in a slaughtered animal are compared to worms in fruits and vegetables of which Tosephta 7:11 (quoted in Babli Ḥulin ⁶⁰ Usually, יתוּשׁ is translated as “mosquito”, the meaning of the word in modern Hebrew. However, a mosquito cannot be in vetch, only its larva which is not called יתוּשׁ. The translation follows H. L. Fleischer, from the Arabic root ختش. The translation fits not only here, but also in the story of Titus (Giṭṭin ⁶¹ Translation of Rashi (Babli Ḥulin ⁶² They grew inside the fruit whereas the reptile found inside a slaughtered mammal must have come from the outside.

Muries sauce⁶³ Chapter 1, Note 156. If the sauce is cloudy, it does not have to be checked for worms but if one can see through it, it is forbidden if it is seen to contain worms., if it is not clear, is permitted; if it is clear it is forbidden.

footnotes: ⁶³ Fish sauce, cf. Demai

Blood on a loaf of bread one shaves off and eats [the bread]. If it came from between his teeth he eats and does not worry⁶⁵ 21b. In the Babli, blood from bleeding gums has to be sucked off (it may be swallowed), in the Tosephta it has to be wiped off. Blood on the bread (no longer liquid) is only rabbinically forbidden.. The abominations among mites, flies, wild bees, abominations and crawling things⁶⁶ 67b. The derivation from the verse is only here; a different one in Sifra Šemini 12(1)., I might think [that they are forbidden] while they are inside the fruit, the verse says (Lev. 11:26,27,28): “They are impure,” when they exist independently rather than inside the fruit. I might think, even if they left and returned; the verse says “they are impure,” even if they left and returned. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: As soon as they reach the rim of the food they are forbidden even if they return⁶⁷.

footnotes: ⁶⁵ Tosephta 7:11 (in the name of R. Joshua), Babli Keritut ⁶⁶ The list is in Tosephta 7:11, Babli Ḥulin ⁶⁷ As soon as any part of a worm or insect developing inside a fruit is visible from the outside, it becomes forbidden. (In talmudic theory, worms and insects develop spontaneously, not from eggs, and, therefore, may be considered as part of the fruit.)

Abba bar Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who slaughters an animal and found in it a pig may eat it. Rebbi Jonah said, it is forbidden to eat, what is the reason? An animal (Lev. 11:3) “inside an animal you may eat.⁵⁸ 2(9), Babli Ḥulin69a] The verse reads: “All that has hoofs, with clefts through the hoofs, and that chews the cud, inside an animal, such you may eat.” This is taken to mean that a fetus inside an animal may be eaten after the slaughter of the mother. {Sadducees did require separate slaughter of the fetus; MMT lines 37–38.} It is stated here that this applies only if the fetus itself is a permitted animal. The question remains open, what is meant by בהמה “animal”? A four-legged animal, a mammal, or a kosher mammal?” You should not eat a bird inside an animal and not an abomination inside an animal⁶⁸ 69a, R. Joḥanan is quoted forbidding a pigeon found inside a slaughtered animal. That statement must have fallen out here since the interpretation of the verse also refers to birds which were not mentioned beforehand. On the other hand, the mention of the pig must have fallen out in the Babli since that source points out that the verse permits only the consumption of ruminants with cloven hoofs found inside a slaughtered animal. It is therefore determined, according to R. Jonah, that בהמה means only “kosher animal”, cf. Note 58..

footnotes: ⁵⁸ [Sifra Šemini ⁶⁸ In the Babli, Ḥulin

Not only a bed bug, but everything a person is afraid of⁶⁹.

footnotes: ⁶⁹ One has to spit it out even if it is sanctified food if it tastes like a health hazard.

MISHNAH: If he was eating a bunch of grapes and entered from the garden into the courtyard. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should finish, but Rebbi Joshua said, he should not finish. If it got dark on Sabbath eve, Rebbi Eliezer said, he should finish, but Rebbi Joshua said, he should not finish⁷⁰ becomes subject to tithes by biblical law only when the produce sees the face of the house as it was said (Deut. 26:13): “I removed the holy food from the house.” Any fruits eaten on the field or in the garden are not subject to tithes because that is a snack. Another principle is that the Sabbath brings the obligation of tithes; it is forbidden to eat even a snack from ṭevel on the Sabbath since the Eternal said, (Is. 58:13) “you should call the Sabbath a pleasure”. Therefore, all one has is prepared so that he may eat or drink from it on the Sabbath; this will be explained in Tractate Ma‘serot (Chapter 4). And when Rebbi Eliezer says “he should finish”, the meaning is that he should leave the courtyard again and finish. But in the courtyard he may not finish eating. And so they said on the Sabbath “he should finish”, i. e., he should leave it alone until the end of the Sabbath day and only then finish. But on the Sabbath itself he is forbidden to eat it. And when R. Joshua said “he should not finish,” it means he should not continue to eat before he tithed..

footnotes: ⁷⁰ Commentary of Maimonides: We have a principle that ṭevel

HALAKHAH: There⁷¹ 3:9. The entire Halakhah is reproduced, mutatis mutandis, in Halakhah Ma‘serot 3:9., we have stated: “If a vine is planted in the courtyard⁷², one may take an entire bunch, and similarly for pomegranate and water melon, the words of Rebbi Ṭarphon.” Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Ṭarphon says following Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Ṭarphon says, one makes the cut⁷³: עוקצין, “the stalk”, what remains if everything else is eaten. of food equal to its start. Rebbi Illa, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Either Rebbi Ṭarphon follows Rebbi Eliezer or Rebbi Ṭarphon makes a meal consisting of two or three snacks equal to one snack⁷⁴. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? Because he started with permission. It was stated: “Rebbi Nathan said, not that Rebbi Eliezer said because he started with permission but Rebbi Eliezer holds he should wait until the end of the Sabbath or he should leave the courtyard again and finish.”⁷⁵ 2, Note 33.

footnotes: ⁷¹ Mishnah Ma‘serot ⁷² If one harvests, the produce should be free of tithes and heave, and available for snacks, until it is brought to the house. But if it grows in the courtyard, it is immediately in front of the house. R. Ṭarphon permits taking an entire bunch, or an entire water melon, for a snack. Rebbi Aqiba allows only a few grapes or a small piece of watermelon for a snack and requires taking heave and tithing for everything else. ⁷³ In Ma‘serot ⁷⁴ Since snacks can be eaten after harvest without tithing, he allows snacks as large as one wants. ⁷⁵ Nevertheless, R. Joshua and R. Aqiba are greater authorities than R. Eliezer and R. Ṭarphon and Maimonides is justified in deciding following R. Joshua. However, in the Kaufman ms. of the Mishnah and many mss. of the Maimonides tradition, the names of rabbis Eliezer and Joshua are switched in the last part of the Mishnah; but cf. Ma‘serot

MISHNAH: Heave wine that was left uncovered⁷⁶ should be poured out, certainly if it was profane. Three kinds of fluids are forbidden when they were uncovered, water, wine, and milk. All other fluids are permitted. How long should they be left unattended to become forbidden? So that the crawling creature⁷⁷ might come from a nearby place and drink. The measure of uncovered water, until the bitterness be lost in them¹⁵⁶. Rebbi Yose said, in vessels any amount¹⁵⁷ and on the ground 40 seah¹⁵⁸ Chapter 3, Note 164.. Pecked-at figs, grapes, green melons, water melons, gourds, and sweet melons, even large as a pitcher, large or small, separated from or connected to the ground which contain moisture are forbidden¹⁶⁹ Chapter 1.. What was bitten by a snake is forbidden because of mortal danger¹⁷⁰.The wine filter is forbidden when left unattended but Rebbi Neḥemiah permits it¹⁷¹.

footnotes: ⁷⁶ Left uncovered while nobody was in the room. It was assumed that snake poison in the drink was poisonous to humans. While it is sinful to destroy food, it is worse not to destroy food that is potentially poisonous. ⁷⁷ The reference is mostly to snakes, but included are any poisonous creatures which might put some poison into the fluid. For health reasons, none of the potentially dangerous fluids may be used for any purpose. ¹⁵⁶ Water left uncovered is forbidden unless it is diluted so much that the poison will become inactive. ¹⁵⁷ Water left uncovered in a vessel is forbidden in any amount. ¹⁵⁸ Cf. Berakhot ¹⁶⁹ If these fruits show signs that they have been pecked at by an animal, we are afraid that it might have been a poisonous animal and the poison diffused through the entire fruit through its moisture. If it was pecked at while completely dry, one could cut out the affected area and eat the remainder.For the determination of the plants’ identity, see Kilaim ¹⁷⁰ A kosher animal bitten by a snake may not be slaughtered or its meat eaten since it may contain snake poison. ¹⁷¹ If a wine filter (used to filter out the dregs, cf. Note 126 ff.) was left unattended and afterwards used to filter wine, that wine becomes forbidden (unless new filter material was used) because of poison from the filter. R. Neḥemiah holds that the poison is retained by the filter.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Wine left uncovered must be poured out, even if it is heave. A dish cooked with water that was left uncovered must be thrown out, even if it is heave and certainly if it is profane. Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah says so: “Heave wine that was left uncovered should be poured out, and certainly profane wine.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is forbidden to keep wine that was left uncovered; if it was kept and it turned into vinegar by itself it is forbidden⁷⁸. It is forbidden to keep figs and grapes that were pecked at; if they were kept and dried up by themselves they are permitted⁷⁹.

footnotes: ⁷⁸ Poison in sour wine will not prevent it from turning into vinegar. ⁷⁹ Poison in figs or grapes will make them rot. If they dry out (without being heated artificially), it is a sign that no poison is present (Tosephta 7:16).

[It happened that] the daughter of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya punched holes into figs so that the fellows should not eat them but (his) [her] father Rebbi Ḥiyya ate from them. Is that not forbidden? He knew of the matter. Is it not forbidden anyhow, have we not stated⁸¹ 9a/b. The Babli states that the rules for health hazards must be much stricter than those for religious obligations; cf. Halakhah 7.: “If somebody saw a bird pecking at a fig or a rat nibbling at a watermelon, it is forbidden for I say, they ate from the place of a pecking hole.” She had been watching.

footnotes: ⁸¹ Tosephta 7:17, Babli Avodah Zarah

⁸⁴ 2:3 (fol. 41a). Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules for being uncovered. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine⁸⁵. Rebbi Simeon explains: The hot, spice wine. And the bitter, vermouth wine. And the sweet, cooked wine⁸⁶ (linden tree) wine. Bitter, wine from blighted grapes. Sweet, sweetened wine. 2. Hot, pepper wine. Bitter, vermouth wine. Sweet, sweetened wine (according to Arukh,carenum; cf. Note 94). Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal⁸⁷. In the Babli (Avodah Zarah 30a), he appears as R. Ismael ben Zeirod. In the Rome ms., his name is R. Joshua ben Gidul. had cooked wine which was left unsupervised in the possession of a Gentile. He asked Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael who said to him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The sweet is not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael fell ill. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Hoshaiah, Rebbi Abun bar Cahana, and Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis went to visit him. They saw that Rebbi Joshua ben Zeidal was sitting [there]. They said, there is the master of the decision and the person of the happening; they went and asked him. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael said to them, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the sweet is not under the rules for being uncovered or under those of libation wine. Rebbi Zeïra said to him, maybe that statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is for argument’s sake? He told him no, it is for action and you can rely on me⁸⁸ 30a.. When they came back, there was Rebbi Hila standing with Rebbi Abun bar Cahana. He told him, if you did not prefer decisions, is it not a baraita? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated⁸⁹ 29b. In Tosephta Avodah Zarah 4:12, the text reads: “[Gentile] cooked wine and olentia are forbidden because they originally were wine.”: “Why is cooked wine of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine. Why is vinegar of Gentiles forbidden? Because it started out as wine.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so: “wine⁹⁰ and vinegar of Gentiles which originally was wine.”

footnotes: ⁸⁴ This and the following paragraphs also are in Avodah Zarah ⁸⁵ If left standing uncovered and unsupervised, they still may be consumed. If left in the hands of a Gentile, they do not become prohibited; the Gentile will not use them for libations. ⁸⁶ In the Babli, there are two explanations. 1. Hot, hot tilia ⁸⁷ A third generation Amora whose name appears only here and in the parallel in Avodah Zarah ⁸⁸ A similar statement is in Babli Avodah Zarah ⁸⁹ A similar statement is in Babli Avodah Zarah ⁹⁰ “Wine which originally was wine” is cooked wine which is thickened and lost its alcohol in cooking.

Rebbi Immi had guests. He said to them, if my cooked wine had not been left uncovered, I would have served you some. Rebbi Vivian told him, bring it and I shall drink. He said, he who wants to die should go and die in his own house.

The spiced wine of Bar Yudani was left uncovered. He went and asked the rabbis who told him, it is forbidden. But did not Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The hot, the bitter, and the sweet are not under the rules for being uncovered! The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Titus⁹².: One which consists of one third ground spices⁹³.

footnotes: ⁹² He is mentioned only here and in the parallel in Avodah Zarah ⁹³ Spice wine is immune to exposure only if the spices make up one third of the volume.

They asked before Rebbi Abbahu: What [is the status of] cooked wine that was left uncovered? He said to them, Rebbi Joḥanan had a problem with carenum⁹⁴ “wine”, kurūnu “date liquor.”} It follows that “cooked wine” did not yet come to the state of carenum. R. Joḥanan could not decide whether the rules of uncovered fluid apply to carenum or not. Therefore, wine which lost less than one third of its volume in cooking certainly is forbidden., and you are asking me? Is that not [applicable to] cooked wine? He went to ask Rebbi Isaac who told him, it is forbidden. Rebbi Abbahu [then] remembered that Rebbi Joḥanan had said, it is forbidden.

footnotes: ⁹⁴ Wine that lost one third of its volume by cooking, Greek κάροινον. {The word may originally be Accadic, karānu

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ammi, Rebbi Eleazar: If he was entering and leaving it is permitted⁹⁵. The barrel of Bar Neṭoza became uncovered. He went and asked Rebbi Abba bar Mamai, who told him, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ammi, Rebbi Eleazar: If he was sleeping it is permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, one said, if he was sleeping it is permitted; the other said, it is forbidden. We do not know who said what. It is reasonable [to infer that] Rebbi Ḥanina said, if he was sleeping it is permitted, since Rebbi Eleazar everywhere relies on Rebbi Ḥanina.

footnotes: ⁹⁵ This is the general rule for the prohibition of wine touched by a Gentile who might have used the wine for a pagan libation. The Gentile would not use wine that was not his if he had to expect the Jewish owner or one of his Jewish employees at any moment. That rule is extended here to wine left uncovered; one does not expect a snake to venture out of its hole if there is continuous traffic in the room.

Rebbi Yose ben Shaul understands it from this occurrence: A woman loved very much doing good deeds⁹⁶. One time, a poor man came to her and she served him food. While he was eating, she noticed that her husband was coming. She put him [the poor] on the upper floor⁹⁷ 91b it was not a poor man but the woman’s lover.. She put food before her husband who ate, took a nap, and slept. A snake came and ate from what was before him; he [the poor] saw it. When he awoke and got up he wanted to continue eating what was before him. The one on the upper floor started to talk to him. That means, if he was sleeping, it is permitted⁹⁸. It was familiar with it⁹⁹, and the quote in Arukh read כריך “used to” instead of בריר.). Is she not forbidden for being alone [with another man?]¹⁰⁰ sum? The rules for this are detailed in the last chapter of Qiddušin. Since he is not suspected in one thing, he is not suspected in the other, (Ez. 23:37) “For they committed adultery, blood is on their hands.”¹⁰¹

footnotes: ⁹⁶ “Good deeds” without specific identification are deeds of charity. ⁹⁷ Not to be seen alone with another man. In a parallel story in Babli Nedarim ⁹⁸ Since without the warning, the husband would have eaten the contaminated food. ⁹⁹ The snake was used to the dwellers in the house, otherwise it would not have ventured near a sleeping person. Therefore, food near a sleeping person is permitted except for houses with a house snake. (The text in the Rome ms., the Leyden text Avodah Zarah ¹⁰⁰ Since a married Jewish woman is not supposed to be alone in a house with another man, could the husband not divorce her for suspicion of adultery without paying her the ketubah ¹⁰¹ An adulterer would gladly have let the husband die. Since the person upstairs did not let the husband die, he was not an adulterer and the wife is cleared. The Babli concurs (Note 97).

It happened that a butcher in Sepphoris sold to Jews carcasses and torn meats. Once he drank wine Friday night, went to the roof¹⁰²: He got drunk on Yom Kippur Eve., fell down, and died. The dogs were licking his blood. People came and asked Rebbi Ḥanina, should we lift him from before them¹⁰³? He said to them, it is written (Ex. 22:30): “Torn meat on the fields you shall not eat, you must throw it to the dogs!” This one robbed the dogs and fed it to Jews. He said to them, let them, they are eating from their own!

footnotes: ¹⁰² In the dark. In Avodah Zarah ¹⁰³ Presumably he was lying in the street where the removal of a corpse on the Sabbath needs detailed rabbinic instruction on how to proceed without a violation of the Sabbath laws. Inside the courtyard it would not have been necessary to ask.

A pious person happened to be insistent¹⁰⁴ לגלג. in [the matter of] uncovered wine. Once he was smitten with a fever. They saw him sitting and giving a sermon on the Day of Atonement with a flask of water in his hand¹⁰⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁴ This word is not the usual “to make fun of”, but a direct derivative of Arabic لجّ “to be insistent”, also لجلج “to repeat words in speaking”; cf. H. L. Fleischer’s notes to Levy’s Dictionary, s. v. ¹⁰⁵ For a medical necessity, he could take sips of less than a mouthful of water to combat his fever on the Day of Atonement. He would not let the flask out of his hands for fear it could stand unsupervised.

A person’s amphora of wine became uncovered. He went on the eve of the Great Fast to pour it out. Another person saw him and said, give it to me to drink. He said to him, but was it not left uncovered? He said to him, give it to me, the Master of the Fast will support [me]. He did not finish drinking when he started shaking.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: All poisons cause scab but the poison of a snake kills. ¹⁰⁶: ר׳ חייה אמר אין נשאלין על הגילוין “Rebbi Ḥiyya said, one is not asked about uncovered [fluids].” From the next sentence, one must assume that R. Jeremiah transmitted the statement in the name of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. The meaning of the statement is that in case of possible danger to life, as expressed in the preceding sentence, no logical or rabbinic arguments are admitted and everybody is supposed to exercise the utmost care which means that in matters of doubt, the fluids cannot be used. Therefore, no questions about this can be asked from any rabbi. Rebbi Jeremiah asked Rebbi Zeïra. As the master of the ruling, could he have asked?

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ A sentence is missing here which is preserved in Avodah Zarah

Rebbi Zeïra was dozing; he was sitting and eating (and was sleeping) [in the evening]. He put his hand on a toman¹⁰⁸ of wine. Since it got dark, he held that being in the room with the vessel was not sufficient. and said, kindle a light. They lit a light and found a snakelet like a hair curled around it. He said to it: Evil one, was I not careful about you?

footnotes: ¹⁰⁸ A vessel containing one eighth of a kab

Rebbi Ammi said, one has to be careful with what the creatures¹¹⁰ are careful. It is forbidden to put a coin into the mouth, or a dish under the bed, a bread in the arm pit, a knife in the middle of a radish, a knife into an etrog. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, all sweat that comes from a human is poison except the sweat of the face.

footnotes: ¹¹⁰ People.

When they asked Rebbi Jonathan, he said: Am I the guarantor of your life¹¹¹? Rebbi Yannai said, if you bit something off, you bit off soot. If you lose, you lose a pearl. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if you would sell yourself for the games¹¹². He would sell himself as a gladiator (as R. Simeon ben Laqish had done according to Babylonian tradition, Babli Giṭṭin 47a)., you would sell yourself at a high price; but here at a very cheap price.

footnotes: ¹¹¹ These sayings also point out how stupid it is to consult rabbinic authorities in health matters when the alternatives are a very minor monetary loss against loss of one’s life. ¹¹² Latin ludi

It was stated¹¹³ 30b, Baba Qama 115b. From here on, the text is missing in Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah.: “With water that was left uncovered one should not scrub his house; one should not pour it into the public domain¹¹⁴. 21:33)., or give it to drink to a Gentile¹¹⁵, neither should one use it to water another person’s animals but one may use it to water his own animals¹¹⁶. With water that was left uncovered one should not knead clay, or wash clothes, or soak pots, glasses, and food baskets¹¹⁷ Chapter 8, Note 83., and certainly not wash his face, hands, and feet. Others say, they forbade only the place of a scratch. His face is always like a scratch. The tips of his fingers and toes are always like a scratch. With water that was left uncovered one should not knead dough. Rebbi Neḥemiah said, baking is permitted because snake poison is destroyed by fire.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: That is, if it does not collapse¹¹⁸, but if it collapsed it is forbidden.

footnotes: ¹¹³ A shorter version is in Tosephta 7:14 and Babli Avodah Zarah ¹¹⁴ The person who creates a danger in the public domain becomes liable for all consequences (Ex ¹¹⁵ Even though Gentiles do not worry about water left uncovered and the Gentile would drink it on his own, the Jew may not give him anything he knows is dangerous. ¹¹⁶ Since the animal will not die from the poison but it will be weakened. The Babli also forbids watering his own animal. ¹¹⁷ Cf. Peak ¹¹⁸ If the dough collapses in baking or the bread when cooling.

Everybody agrees that water which was heated is forbidden. What is the difference between bread and water? Here the fire rules¹¹⁹, there the fire does not rule. There, a vessel separates, here no vessel separates¹²⁰ directly over the fire.. Samuel said, what can this evil one do to me? I only drink hot [water]. His word says, cold water that was heated is permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this evil one has a delicate taste; he will not drink hot water that cooled. His word says, hot water that cooled is permitted. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both are forbidden. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: ¹²¹“Hot water is permitted¹²² as long as it is steaming. But water left uncovered is forbidden even after it was heated. Pickling, preserving¹²³, and lupine¹²⁴ water is permitted. Water in which he soaked[food for] pickling or preserving, or lupines, is forbidden. If he soaked wild grapes¹²⁵ Bk. 23, Chap. 14). The water will absorb the taste of these grapes; nevertheless, it remains forbidden if left uncovered. for a sick person, it is forbidden.”

footnotes: ¹¹⁹ The nature of bread dough is changed by heating. ¹²⁰ Bread hangs in the tannur ¹²¹ Tosephta 7:13, in different formulation and order. ¹²² Even if left uncovered and unsupervised. ¹²³ Preserving by cooking in water a very long time. ¹²⁴ Lupines become edible only after cooking. ¹²⁵ Following R. Saul Lieberman, reading ענבים אוּבשים, fruits of the wild vine used in medicine (cf. Plinius, Hist. nat.

“¹²⁶ 115b. There (and in the Rome ms.) the opinion ascribed to R. Jehudah here is reported to be R. Neḥemiah’s. The wine filter, Rebbi Neḥemiah says, if it is blocked on top even though it is open below. Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was covered below even if the top is uncovered it is permitted since snake poison is like netting¹²⁷ and remains on top.” Rebbi Eliezer¹²⁸ says, if he did not stir it. But if he did stir, it is forbidden.

footnotes: ¹²⁶ A parallel is in Babli Bava Qama ¹²⁷ In the Babli, “like a sponge”. We do not know what was the filtering material used to remove the dregs from the wine. ¹²⁸ In the Babli, R. Simon in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish.

A flask in its casing is permitted¹²⁹; covered but not stoppered it is forbidden. Stoppered but not covered, if the stopper appeared on the outside it is permitted. Two Amoraïm, one said if it can be taken up by its stopper¹³⁰, and the other said, so that the head of the weaver’s shuttle could not enter¹³¹. Rebbi Abba said, he who wants to do it right, stoppers and covers it.

footnotes: ¹²⁹ In the Tosephta (7:16): “Forbidden.” For the Yerushalmi, the casing (θήκη) keeps the snake out; the Tosephta worries that a miniature snake was in the casing but not noticed. ¹³⁰ The cork or other material is so tightly pushed in that the flask may be lifted by it. ¹³¹ Between the cork and the wall of the vessel.

A forgotten flask deposited in a litter, a chest, or a chassis¹³² that later was found is forbidden. If he checked and afterwards put it in it is permitted. A case came before Rebbi, where it¹³³ was seen uncovering and covering. He said, because of that evil one should we invalidate all covers? Rebbi Mana said, it is reasonable that in that case itself¹³⁴ was forbidden.

footnotes: ¹³² All three are of wood and used for transportation. ¹³³ The snake was seen lifting the cover, drinking, and replacing the cover. This is considered aberrant behavior by the snake. ¹³⁴ If the snake was seen drinking.

¹³⁵ 1:4, fol. 3a, and, in slightly less complete form, Avodah Zarah 2:9, fol. 41d; the discussion in the Babli is Avodah Zarah 35b–36a. Rebbi Jeremiah said, why is Gentile’s milk forbidden¹³⁶ 2:9.? Because of admixture from impure animals. As we have stated: “If the Gentile stands and milks the herd, if a Jew stands nearby there is no worry.” Rav Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Why is Gentiles’ milk forbidden? Because of the uncovering¹³⁷. Let him make cheese? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, because of the poison between the holes¹³⁸.

footnotes: ¹³⁵ This and the following paragraph are also in Šabbat ¹³⁶ “Milk milked by a Gentile without a Jew seeing him” is forbidden for consumption but not for use; Mishnah Avodah Zarah ¹³⁷ Since Gentiles do not care about uncovered milk and snake poison. ¹³⁸ In the Babli, uncovered milk is not discussed. There, it is held that impure milk (horse or donkey milk) cannot be made into cheese but a mixture may produce cheese with the impure milk remaining in the holes of the cured cheeses.

There are three kinds of poison. Poison which sinks down, poison which floats on top, and poison remaining on the surface like a net¹⁴⁰ 30b, it is stated that the poison of young snakes sinks down (is heavier than water), that of middle-aged snakes is suspended, and that of old snakes stays on top (is lighter than water). There is no indication that the Yerushalmi subscribes to this theory. The “poison remaining like a net” seems to be colloidal.. In the days of Rebbi Jeremiah, the barrels of the great assembly¹⁴¹ were uncovered. The first ones drank and did not die but the last ones died. I say that was sinking poison. Workers were on the field when the water pitcher was uncovered. The first ones drank from it and did not die but the last ones died. I say that was sinking poison. We have stated so¹⁴² 30b, in different formulation.: An uncovered amphora or a water melon with pecking marks, even if the first ones ate or drank [from it], the later ones should not eat or drink; I say that there is sinking poison. Uncovered wine from which ten persons drank is forbidden for others to (eat or) drink after them; I say that there is sinking poison.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁰ In the Babli, Avodah Zarah ¹⁴¹ The yearly or half-yearly assembly of all rabbinic scholars. ¹⁴² Tosephta 7:17, Babli Avodah Zarah

“Five fluids are not endangered by being uncovered: Fish oil, muries¹⁴³, Chapter 1, Note 156., vinegar, olive oil, and honey. Rebbi Simeon forbids honey¹⁴⁴ 49b. In both sources, R. Simeon forbids all five fluids.. The Sages agree with Rebbi Simeon if it was seen pecking¹⁴⁵.cit. 144)..” Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos had an uncovered flask of honey in his hand. Before he could ask, it broke apart¹⁴⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁴³ Cf. Demay ¹⁴⁴ Tosephta 7:12, Babli Ḥulin ¹⁴⁵ They will agree that snakes sometimes act in a perverted way but do not agree that this is enough for a general prohibition (loc ¹⁴⁶ The next paragraph will show that this was a miracle to save his life.

Rav and Samuel both say, the earth is permitted to be broken apart before it¹⁴⁷, but no vessel is permitted to be broken apart before it. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Great and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi were sitting in a certain house¹⁴⁸ when murmurs went around. They said, is it possible that it will be seen here? It was seen. They said, praised be He Who chose the Sages who said, the earth is permitted to be broken apart before it, but no vessel is permitted to be broken apart before it¹⁴⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁷ A snake may tunnel under the earth. The comparison with a vessel suggests the theory that snake poison can dissolve earth but not fired clay and metals. ¹⁴⁸ Their houses usually had dirt floors. Houses with paved (mosaic) floors usually are called “palaces”. ¹⁴⁹ Since Rav was a student of his uncle R. Ḥiyya, Rav and Samuel cannot have been the authors of the theory but they may have given the final formulation.

Rebbi Yannai feared it so much that he put his bed on four beams [standing] in water. Once he stretched out his hand and found it near himself. He said, take it away from me, (Ps. 116:6) “the Eternal watches over the simple-minded.”

What is the measure of a hole¹⁵⁰? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina showed it thus: he said, the tip of my small finger. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, so that the tip of the small finger of a newborn cannot enter it. Even if [the hole] were smaller, it [the snake] could enter it but since it does not know how to leave again, it does not enter. A woven basket even if very tight is forbidden for it can enter at one place and leave at another. A knapsack¹⁵¹ “beggar’s knapsack”. R. Eliahu Fulda writes only “some vessel”. Kohout’s suggestion to refer the word to Arabic صليقة ṣalīqa “slice of roast beef” has to be rejected. The word may be Greek σάλαξ, -ακος, ὁ “miner’s sieve, coarse sieve, screen”; cf. text at Note 126 (E. G.). is forbidden even if it hangs very high since it will let itself down¹⁵².”

footnotes: ¹⁵⁰ When is a hole in a wall a potential hiding place of a snake so that one has to worry about fluids left uncovered? Tosephta 7:16. ¹⁵¹ The meaning of this word is everybody’s guess. The meaning “knapsack” is R. M. Margalit’s guess, identified by J. Levy as Arabic شلَاق šallāq ¹⁵² The snake will climb to the ceiling and lower itself to the knapsack/sieve.

What is “close by¹⁵³”? Rebbi Samuel said, from the handles of an amphora to its mouth. Would it not be seen¹⁵⁴? Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is a small kind called šefifōn and looks like a hair¹⁵⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁵³ The distance mentioned in the Mishnah. ¹⁵⁴ How can a snake hide under the handle of an amphora? ¹⁵⁵ Cf. text after note 108.

It was stated: “¹⁵⁹ Water on the ground forty seah. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, that a Šiḥin amphora¹⁶⁰.” can be filled from it. Wine both in vessels and on the ground in any quantity. Wine is not under the rules of uncovering as long as it is fermenting. How long does it ferment? Three days. It happened that a snake was found near a wine vat; the case came before Rebbi Jehudah¹⁶¹ and he permitted it. A source is not under the rules of uncovering as long as it is running. Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it happened that Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa went down to my father Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri to Bet Serii; he showed him a pool that contained only three log¹⁵⁸ Chapter 3, Note 164. of water, into which rain water was dripping. He bowed down and drank, saying this is an example of what is not under the rules of uncovering¹⁶².”

footnotes: ¹⁵⁹ Tosephta 7:14–15; in different order and slightly different language. ¹⁶⁰ A standard measure which is not determined in any parallel source. In the Tosephta there is an additional opinion, “others say, two seah ¹⁶¹ In the Tosephta, R. Jehudah ben Baba. ¹⁵⁸ Cf. Berakhot ¹⁶² As long as the pool is not stagnant but overflowing from the rain water, it is counted as a source or river and one may assume that all poison was washed away (explanation of R. S. Lieberman).

¹⁶⁴1:1, fol. 80b. How long? Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum¹⁶⁵, Ḥiyya bar Abun in the name of R. Joḥanan. said, until the soap-wort blossoms. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose¹⁶⁶; there he speaks in the name of R. Tanḥum ben R. Ḥiyya, an Amora of the third generation. In any case, R. Eleazar ben R. Yose cannot be the Tanna, son of R. Yose ben Ḥalaphta, who is the author in all other cases where the name is mentioned. in the name of Rav: Until they¹⁶⁷ become like goose feet. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, when it became permitted on the field, it became permitted in the house¹⁶⁸. Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: [The rules of] uncovering apply in the Land and outside the Land, in summer and in winter.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁴ The first two sentences, dealing with the problem of R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa, how long is a puddle considered a brook, is also in Mo‘ed Qaṭan ¹⁶⁵ In Mo‘ed Qaṭan ¹⁶⁶ The same name appears in Mo‘ed Qaṭan ¹⁶⁷ The soap-wort plants. ¹⁶⁸ If it rains so much that puddles on the field get the status of brooks, snakes hibernate and are no danger in the house. R. Hoshaiah disagrees and declares the danger to exist everywhere, at all times.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, who is the Tanna of pecking? “Rabban Gamliel says, also the snake because it spits out¹⁷² 9:3. The Mishnah states that water drawn for the purification rite of the ashes of the red cow becomes unusable if any animal drank from it because some of the animal’s spittle will be mixed with the water. In general, reptiles are reputed not to invalidate the water. Rabban Gamliel declares the snake to invalidate the water because it always will deposit some of its poison. Since the opinion of Rabban Gamliel is a minority opinion not followed in practice, R. Jehudah bar Pazi implies that the Mishnah here does not represent practice..” Rebbi Jonah said, who would turn commandments into peckings for us¹⁷³?

footnotes: ¹⁷² Mishnah Parah ¹⁷³ The rules given here are rules of hygiene, rather than religious observance. Therefore, the reference to Rabban Gamliel is irrelevant and the Mishnah here does represent practice.

It was stated⁸¹ 9a/b. The Babli states that the rules for health hazards must be much stricter than those for religious obligations; cf. Halakhah 7.: “If somebody saw a bird pecking at a fig or a rat nibbling at a watermelon, it is forbidden [to eat from them] for I say, they might have eaten from the place of a pecking hole.” Rebbi Abba said, that means that a snake spits out repeatedly. Rebbi Jonah said, who considers for us commandments for peckings¹⁷³? But for torn [animals]¹⁷⁴ 9:4, Notes 209 ff., Rebbi Abba said in the name of the rabbis from there, “if it was slaughtered and the wolves took its innards, it is in order because intestines are presumed to be in order.” Should one not question whether they were pierced? Intestines are presumed to be in order. But here, you say so? It is worse if there is danger to life¹⁷⁵; for peckings they went all the way with Rabban Gamliel.

footnotes: ⁸¹ Tosephta 7:17, Babli Avodah Zarah ¹⁷³ The rules given here are rules of hygiene, rather than religious observance. Therefore, the reference to Rabban Gamliel is irrelevant and the Mishnah here does represent practice. ¹⁷⁴ A kosher animal, correctly slaughtered, can be eaten only if inspection shows that it was healthy. The quote here is from Berakhot ¹⁷⁵ This is a general principle; any logical arguments and rules of decision based on probabilities and prior assumptions are inapplicable in health matters.

It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer said, one may eat figs and grapes in the night without worry, since it is said (Ps. 116:6) “the Eternal watches over the simple-minded.” Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav: A fish with pecking marks is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Tabi in the name of Rav: A living fish with pecking marks is forbidden. If it is salted, through the salt it trembles¹⁷⁶. Dead¹⁷⁷, one cuts out the place of the pecking.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁶ It is visible whether the salted fish is infected or not. ¹⁷⁷ If it is clear that some animal pecked at the fish after it died.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: A watermelon with pecking marks whose inside is rotten is forbidden. A person carried a sweet melon with pecking marks. He let ten people eat from it and they died. He covered it with spittle and it broke apart.

A person hated sheep’s meat. Once he was eating red meat when a passer-by said, this is sheep’s meat. He choked¹⁷⁸, Jerusalem 1961, vol. II, p. 442, Galilean כלעס is the equivalent of Samaritan כלעט, “to choke”. This invalidates the opinion of the dictionaries which see in כלעס a scribal error for Syriac בלעס, assumed to be derived from בלע “to swallow”. and died. The donkey drivers stayed at an inn. They said, bring us lentils; they brought. They said, give us a second helping; they brought. They said to them, the first ones were better, what were those? They said, we found the spine of a snake in them; they choked and died.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁸ According to Z. Ben-Ḥayyim, The Literary and Oral Traditions of Hebrew and Aramaic Amongst the Samaritans

It is written (Prov. 16:6): “When the Eternal likes the conduct of a person, even his enemy will make peace with him.” Rebbi Meïr says, that is the dog. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says, that is the snake. The shepherds milked; there came a snake, ate from it, but the dog observed it. When they came to eat, he started barking at them but they did not pay attention. At the end, he ate and died. A person made ground garlic in his house. There came a mountain snake and ate from it but the house snake observed it. When the people from the house came to eat from it, it [the house snake] started to throw dust down on them¹⁷⁹ 54(1). In that source, all authors are late Amoraïm; the snake is identified as the enemy by R. Samuel.. When they did not pay attention, it threw itself on it. A person invited a rabbi and let the dog sit next to him [the rabbi]. He said, how did I merit this insult? He said, rabbi, I am repaying his [the dog’s] good deed. Kidknappers came to town. One of them came and wanted to take my wife but he [the dog] ate his testicles.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁹ Another version of the same story is in Gen. rabba

MISHNAH: An amphora of heave about which a doubt of impurity arose¹⁸⁰ 33b).. Rebbi Eliezer says, if it was at a vulnerable place, he should move it to a hidden place. If it was uncovered, he should cover it. Rebbi Joshua said, if it was at a hidden place, he should move it to a vulnerable place. If it was covered, he should uncover it. Rabban Gamliel said, he should not change anything. If an amphora¹⁸¹ broke in the upper part of the wine press whose lower part was impure, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that if one can save a revi‘it from it, he shall save that in purity¹⁸². Otherwise, Rebbi Eliezer said, let it descend and become impure; he should not make it impure with his hands. And so if an amphora of oil broke¹⁸³, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that if one can save a revi‘it from it, he shall save that in purity. Otherwise, Rebbi Eliezer said, let it descend and be absorbed [in the ground]; he should not cause it to be absorbed by his hands’ [action]. About both of these cases, Rebbi Joshua said, this is not heave for which I have been warned not to make it impure; only not to eat it and not to [intentionally] make it impure¹⁸⁴. If somebody was on the road²⁴² with loaves of heave and a Gentile said to him, give me one of them that I may defile it, otherwise I shall defile all of them, Rebbi Eliezer says, he shall defile all of them but one should not hand over any to him. Rebbi Joshua said, he should put it on a rock before him²⁴³. Similarly, women to whom Gentiles said, give us one of you that we may defile her²⁴⁴, otherwise we shall defile all of you, they should defile all of them but no Jewish person should be handed over²⁴⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁰ If it were certainly impure, heave wine could be used to settle dust on dirt floors, heave oil or grain as fuel. If there only is a doubt, the heave is called “suspended”. It cannot be used as impure since it might be pure, nor as pure since it might be impure. R. Eliezer holds that one has to treat this heave according to all rules of holiness. R. Joshua holds that one has to make sure that the heave be used somehow. Since it never will be usable as pure heave, one has to make sure it will be usable impure (Rashi in Bekhorot ¹⁸¹ The amphora contains heave wine which will become useless if impure. ¹⁸² If a reasonable amount can be saved in a pure vessel, R. Eliezer agrees that one should save as much as possible even if by this action the remainder will become impure much more rapidly than if it were left alone. ¹⁸³ Even though impure oil is used as fuel, one still should save as much as possible from impurity. ¹⁸⁴ It is forbidden to make heave impure by an independent action. But one is not required to avoid impurity if the wine or oil are going to be spilled without human intervention; in that case one may cause impurity to most of the heave if thereby one saves a small part in purity. ²⁴² Alone, with no help in sight. ²⁴³ On a rock, not in the dirt, to preserve the loaf as food. R. Joshua agrees that heave cannot be handed over to be made impure but an effort should be made within the letter of the law to preserve as much as possible in purity. ²⁴⁴ Rape her. ²⁴⁵ This principle is agreed to by everybody.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, from the opinions of all three of them: It is forbidden to burn suspended [heave].

¹⁸⁵ 1:7; a parallel treatment is in Babli Pesaḥim 14a–21a. In the Mishnah, R. Ḥanina the Second of the Cohanim (who had to substitute when the High Priest was disabled) and R. Aqiba, who both had seen the Temple, report that the Cohanim never refrained from burning meat impure in a secondary way together with meat of original impurity, or oil becoming unusable by tertiary impurity together with impure oil of primary impurity, even though a momentary increase in impurity was inevitable. The late Tanna R. Meïr wants to infer that on Passover eve, when all leavened matter must be burned, one may burn leavened pure and impure heave together. His contemporary R. Yose (ben Ḥalaphta) objects and notes that both R. Eliezer and R. Joshua require that these heaves be burned separately. Their disagreement is that R. Eliezer requires suspended and impure heaves to be burned separately but R. Joshua permits them to be burned together. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The first amphora¹⁸⁶ following Rebbi Yose, the second¹⁸⁷ following Rebbi Meïr. The colleagues say, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose but Rebbi Meïr will not agree; the second following Rebbi Meïr but Rebbi Yose will not agree. Rebbi Yose told them, be careful what you teach. The first amphora following Rebbi Yose; therefore, following Rebbi Meïr one burns¹⁸⁸ and following Rebbi Simeon one burns. Then Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon should form a majority against Rebbi Yose¹⁸⁹ and one should burn. In addition, we see that the rabbis, in cases which come before them, say, go and consider it suspended. We find that Rebbi Simeon says one burns, as we have stated¹⁹⁰ 1:7, speaking of pure and impure heave. If this is the teaching of R. Simeon, he must hold that they disagree for suspended and impure heave and, therefore, these can be burned together since practice always follows R. Joshua against R. Eliezer. But then suspended heave should be treated as impure, against Mishnah 7.: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that one burns each one separately.” On this, Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon taught that¹⁹¹ 1:5, quoted in Babli Pesaḥim 20b. The Tosephta is Babylonian, unknown to the Yerushalmi.. And if you want to say that Rebbi Meïr does not recognize suspension¹⁹² 4:5, which directs burning only for six narrowly defined kinds of suspended heave, excludes most kinds of suspended heave from being treated as impure. Accordingly, R. Simeon’s is an isolated opinion, rather than practice to be followed., have we not stated: “Suspended heave and impure heave are burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time¹⁹³ 3:9. Since on the Sabbath, heave may not be burned, it must be fed to animals to be disposed of..” Rebbi Zeïra said before Rebbi Mana¹⁹⁴, explain it if it is suspended because he intends to ask about it. He said to him, so said my teacher Rebbi Assi: All suspended [heave] we are dealing with here is suspended [heave] about which he has no intention of asking¹⁹⁵. But if he intends to ask about it, it has to be treated as pure. As we have stated¹⁹⁶ ask about the situation, it is im pure.” That formulation does not necessarily conflict with the one here. If the heave is left unusable for an indefinite period, chances are it will become impure. But if the question to a rabbinic authority is asked within a foreseeable time, there is no reason to declare the suspended heave impure.: “If he said, it is pure or impure, then it is impure. But if he said, I am keeping it in order to ask about the situation, it is pure.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it if the doubt arose at sundown. Then you cannot infer anything¹⁹⁷.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁵ Most of this Halakhah is from Pesaḥim ¹⁸⁶ The amphora of Mishnah 7, where R. Joshua only permits to put it in danger’s way but not directly to make it impure, gives R. Yose’s interpretation of the position of R. Joshua. ¹⁸⁷ The amphoras of Mishnaiot 8–10, where R. Joshua permits causing impurity if this helps a good cause. ¹⁸⁸ One burns pure and impure heave together on the 14th of Nisan. The position of R. Simeon has to be proven since he does not appear in the Mishnah. ¹⁸⁹ Even though singly their opinions would be disregarded when in opposition to R. Yose. ¹⁹⁰ Mishnah Pesaḥim ¹⁹¹ Tosephta Pesaḥim ¹⁹² Since most anonymous Mishnaiot are R. Meir’s formulation, Mishnah Tahorot ¹⁹³ Tosephta Pesaḥim ¹⁹⁴ R. Mana I, student of Rabbis Yannai, Joḥanan, and Assi. ¹⁹⁵ In this case, the heave can never be used again and may be treated as impure for practical purposes. ¹⁹⁶ A different formulation is in Tosephta 7:18: “I am keeping it; until I ¹⁹⁷ Since there is no time to burn anything, the opinion of the Sages must be followed even by their opponents. This does not prove anything about the position of R. Meïr if the heave was already suspended in the morning.

You say, the first amphora following Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Meїr will not agree¹⁹⁸. But did we not state: “When has this been said? Regarding a vat which contains enough to lift it. But for a vat which does not contain enough to lift it, it is forbidden to make any amount impure.¹⁹⁹ but it is difficult to explain. The Babli (Pesaḥim 21a) reads: “An amphora which broke in the upper part of the wine press while the lower part contains a hundred times as much impure (wine), Rebbi Eliezer admits to Rebbi Joshua that if he can save a revi‘it from it, he shall save that in purity; otherwise, let it descend and he should not make it impure with his hands.” The Mishnah does not explain what is in the lower part of the winepress. If there is enough profane wine to let one lift heave according to the rules of Chapter 5, not much is lost since the wine remains usable. But if heave cannot be lifted because the profane is not more than 100 times the heave all becomes forbidden and, at most, can be used as ointment or to sprinkle on a dirt floor to eliminate dust. This represents a considerable monetary loss.” And if it follows Rebbi Meїr, whether it contains enough to lift it or does not contain enough to lift it, is it forbidden to make any amount impure²⁰⁰? In addition, from what we have stated²⁰¹ 1:7 (Note 184) the discussion between R. Meїr and R. Yose is formulated not as a clash of traditions but of logical arguments, with R. Yose disputing R. Meїr’s inference but not his premise. The problem, as pointed out in the Babli, is that it is not clear whether the basis of the argument is the common statement of R. Ḥanina, the Second of the Cohanim, and R. Aqiba in the Mishnah there, or the partial agreement of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua in the Mishnah here. For the moment, we assume that R. Meїr and R. Yose refer to R. Eliezer and R. Joshua.: “Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication.” A person says “this is not the implication” only if he agrees with the premise. How is that? There, the Torah cares about the money of the Jews²⁰² 12:5. The difference between large and small losses is also noted in Babli Pesaḥim20b., here what can you say²⁰³. “There” means Terumot, where potentially an entire harvest may be lost in the winepress. “Here” means Pesaḥim, where the question is only whether different kinds of leavened matter may be burned together or have to be burned separately.? Does he not here also cayse him to lose money since he needs fire wood to burn each lot separately? They worried about a big loss, they did not worry about a small loss. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, explain it following him who said, from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and the words of Rebbi Ḥananiah, the Second of the Cohanim²⁰⁴.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁸ While this is the text of R. Yose’s second argument in both mss. and the early prints, it is clear from the following that the discussion is about the second part of the statement of the colleagues, “the second amphora following Rebbi Meїr, and Rebbi Yose will not agree.” The discussion centers on Mishnaiot 8–9, where everybody agrees that in order to save some pure heave one may actively bring impurity on the remainder. ¹⁹⁹ This is the text both here and in Pesaḥim ²⁰⁰ Since R. Meїr permits to bring impurity to anything that later automatically would become impure. ²⁰¹ In Mishnah Pesaḥim ²⁰² Mishnah Nega‘im ²⁰³ This shows that the origin of the text is in Pesaḥim ²⁰⁴ Cf. Note 184. In their cases, no monetary loss is incurred and nothing can be inferred for our case.

Rebbi Ila and Rebbi Zeїra, both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The first amphora¹⁸⁶ follows Rebbi Yose, the second¹⁸⁷ both Rebbi Meїr and Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Zeїra asked before Rebbi Mana: Does it not disagree with Rebbi Meїr? He said to him, we may say it follows neither Rebbi Meїr nor Rebbi Yose since we find that Rebbi Meїr burns suspended [heave] in all cases²⁰⁷. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Zeїri: Rebbi Meїr burns suspended [heave] in all cases. I said to him, because he considers suspended [heave] from the words of the Torah²⁰⁸. He said to me, do I not explain that it became impure in Gentiles’ dwellings? For we have stated²⁰⁹ 18:7. Since Gentiles bury their stillborn babies in their houses, Gentile dwellings in the Holy Land are potential sources of impurity of a tent (cf. Kilaim Chapter 6, Note 25). Any heave in such a permanent dwelling is therefore automatically suspended. However, since it is questionable whether impurity of the dead extends to Gentiles, that impurity is purely rabbinic.: “From Gentiles’ dwellings one suspends; Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one burns²¹⁰.” Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Rebbi Meїr burns suspended [heave] any day of the year, as we have stated: “Suspended heave and impure heave are burned on Sabbath eve when it gets dark, the words of Rebbi Meїr; but the Sages say, at its appointed time¹⁹³ 3:9. Since on the Sabbath, heave may not be burned, it must be fed to animals to be disposed of..” Should he not burn it during the morning hours²¹¹. 23:18, 34:25). Therefore, even if Passover eve falls on a Sabbath, the elimination of leavened matter preferably should take place on Friday before noontime.? Explain it if he was lazy and did not burn it [then]. Know that this is so, for he did not state “during the morning hours.” Is that not because he was lazy and did not burn [then]? Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose said, explain it if impurity was created at that time, and you cannot infer anything¹⁹⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁶ The amphora of Mishnah 7, where R. Joshua only permits to put it in danger’s way but not directly to make it impure, gives R. Yose’s interpretation of the position of R. Joshua. ¹⁸⁷ The amphoras of Mishnaiot 8–10, where R. Joshua permits causing impurity if this helps a good cause. ²⁰⁷ This implies that he treats suspended heave as impure and does not object to an increase in its impurity. ²⁰⁸ If there is a doubt of impurity in biblical law, the doubt has to be resolved in a restrictive manner and there is no reason not to treat suspended heave as impure. ²⁰⁹ Tosephta Ahilut ²¹⁰ R. Meїr is supposed to follow R. Yose ben R. Jehudah. ¹⁹³ Tosephta Pesaḥim ²¹¹ If Passover eve falls on a weekday, leavened matter must be eliminated before noon since the Passover sacrifice must be slaughtered in a leaven-free environment (Ex ¹⁹⁵ In this case, the heave can never be used again and may be treated as impure for practical purposes.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joshua and Rebbi Simeon²¹⁶ 5:2, quoted in the next paragraph. While a firstling calf or lamb has to be treated as a sacrifice, R. Simeon permits any surgical operation if the health of the animal requires it, even if it is clear that by the operation the animal will become unfit as a sacrifice. both said the same thing²¹⁷. Rebbi Ilaї said: Rebbi Simeon in Bekhorot and Rebbi Joshua in Terumot, neither of them will agree with the other²¹⁸, the Mishnah states that one may not slaughter the firstling because of the man-induced blemish; the animal cannot become food for anybody. Therefore, it is not necessary that R. Joshua agree with R. Simeon. On the other hand, R. Simeon holds that pure and impure heave cannot be burned together; it is forbidden to make heave impure even if it must be burned (Note 190). Therefore, R. Simeon cannot be shown to agree with R. Joshua in Terumot.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Is it not reasonable that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua but Rebbi Joshua will not agree with Rebbi Simeon? Did we not state¹⁹⁰ 1:7, speaking of pure and impure heave. If this is the teaching of R. Simeon, he must hold that they disagree for suspended and impure heave and, therefore, these can be burned together since practice always follows R. Joshua against R. Eliezer. But then suspended heave should be treated as impure, against Mishnah 7.: “Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua agree that each batch should be burned separately.¹⁹¹ 1:5, quoted in Babli Pesaḥim 20b. The Tosephta is Babylonian, unknown to the Yerushalmi.” Could one not burn the two together²¹⁹? He said to him, there [the heave] is pure; by Torah law the heave is still in existence; you are the person who decided to burn it²²⁰. In any case, would it not become unusable by being left unattended? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, leaving unattended is from the Torah²²¹ 7:2, fol. 50c; Babli Pesaḥim 34a). Since on the 14th of Nisan, leavened heave cannot be eaten after 10 a.m. local time, there is no need to watch it any longer and, by being released from supervision, it should become invalid immediately even by biblical standards.? The second amphora for Rebbi Meїr follows the Torah²²², coughing blood for Rebbi Simeon follows the Torah²²³! He said to him, one still watches it so it should not come in contact with other pure [heave]²²⁴. Rebbi Isaac, the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe: Think about it, if it was put on coals²²⁵? He said to him, after if was put there. Rebbi Mana said to Rebbi Shammai: You who say that Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Joshua! Even Rebbi Joshua does not agree with Rebbi Joshua²²⁶ 1:7 and Terumot 8:8–10 do not necessarily coincide, as explained by R. Ilaï.! He said to him, these are Tannaïm²²⁷. There, Rebbi Meїr in the name of Rebbi Joshua, but here Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua²⁰³. “There” means Terumot, where potentially an entire harvest may be lost in the winepress. “Here” means Pesaḥim, where the question is only whether different kinds of leavened matter may be burned together or have to be burned separately..

footnotes: ²¹⁶ Mishnah Bekhorot ²¹⁷ R. Joshua permits to bring impurity to heave in order to save some part in purity; R. Simeon permits to make a blemish on a firstling calf in order to save its life. ²¹⁸ R. Joshua permits to bring impurity to heave in order to save food. In the case of Bekhorot ¹⁹⁰ Mishnah Pesaḥim ¹⁹¹ Tosephta Pesaḥim ²¹⁹ Since the pure heave also must be destroyed by biblical decree. ²²⁰ By biblical decree, leavened matter is permitted on the 14th of Nisan until the time of the slaughter of the Passover lamb, which is shortly after noon (Note 210). However, by rabbinic decree no leavened matter may be eaten two hours before noontime and all leavened matter must be eliminated at least one hour before noon. Therefore, at the time of burning, the heave would still be good heave according to biblical law for another hour and could not be considered as being lost automatically. ²²¹ Heave must be eaten in purity, which can be guaranteed only if the heave is guarded at all times or at least kept at a place locked away from possible impurities (cf. Šeqalim ²²² As just shown, the lack of attention makes everything impure for practical purposes. ²²³ In the next paragraph, R. Simeon’s interpretation of the biblical text is given. ²²⁴ Therefore, the argument of Note 221 is inapplicable in our situation. ²²⁵ If one starts the fire to burn the heave, guarding against impurity certainly is unnecessary. The answer is that this argument is irrelevant since we deal with the moment before the fire is started. ²²⁶ The positions of R. Joshua in Pesaḥim ²²⁷ It is impossible to fully reconstruct the original position of R. Joshua since the only knowledge we have of his statements is through the interpretations of the students of R. Aqiba. ²⁰³ This shows that the origin of the text is in Pesaḥim

There²²⁹ 5:2. Since a firstling is a sacrifice by birth, it has to be treated according to the rules of sacrifices. The only difference is that a dedicated sacrifice which develops a blemish must be redeemed to become profane whereas a firstling in the hands of a Cohen which develops a blemish automatically becomes quasi profane and may be eaten by everybody and in impurity. Therefore, Cohanim are suspected to induce blemishes on the firstlings in their possession., we stated: “A firstling afflicted by blood, even if it is going to die, cannot be bled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, it should be bled even if this causes a blemish. If it did cause a blemish, it should not be slaughtered because of it. Rebbi Simeon says, he should bleed it even if he makes a blemish.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Jehudah parallels Rabban Gamliel, the Rabbis parallel Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Joshua²³⁰ 35b) identifies the position of the Sages with that of Rebbi Joshua (i. e., the operative opinion in Bekhorot with the operative opinion in Terumot.) The Yerushalmi implies that practice should follow Rebbi Simeon.. But we have stated: “Rebbi Simeon says, he should bleed it even if he knows he will cause a blemish.” This parallels the later opinion of Rebbi Joshua²³¹. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah (Deut. 12:24): “You shall not eat it; spill it onto the ground like water.” I permitted you its blood only to spill it²³². 15:23, speaking of the firstling: “Only its blood you shall not eat; spill it onto the ground like water.” The verse used gives the rules for animals which develop blemishes after being dedicated. This also includes firstlings.. Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, objected: That is written about [blood of] invalid sacrifices: “You shall not eat it; spill it onto the ground like water.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, you get from it for preparation²³³ Chapter 2, Notes 136, 141). Since the rules for preparation are spelled out for water (Lev. 11:38), other fluids have this property of water only if there is a biblical verse which compares them to water.. Just as water prepares, so blood prepares. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both of them explained the same verse (Lev. 22:21): “Perfect it²³⁴ shall be for goodwill; any blemish shall not be on it.” Rebbi Simeon explains: As long as it is for goodwill, you may not induce a blemish. If it is no longer for goodwill, you may induce a blemish. But the Sages say, even if it is all blemishes, you may not add a blemish²³⁵35b, the Sages hold that R. Simeon would be justified if the verse read “no blemish shall be on it.” But the involved language, any blemish, forbids the imposition of a new blemish on existing blemishes. Here ends the parallel in Pesaḥim..

footnotes: ²²⁹ Mishnah Bekhorot ²³⁰ In Mishnah 7 (the “first amphora”). The Babli (Bekhorot ²³¹ His opinion about the “second amphora”, where he permits to induce impurity on most of the heave in order to save a small portion in purity. ²³² One would have expected R. Jehudah to use Deut ²³³ Blood is one of the fluids that prepare dry food to accept impurity (cf. Demay ²³⁴ Any sacrifice. ²³⁵ As Rashi explains in Bekhorot

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: With a vessel which inside is pure but impure outside one does not defile a small amount even to save a large amount²³⁶, Chapter 8, Note 46. Whether the discussion is about the position of R. Eliezer or R. Joshua and the kind of impurity of vessels involved is a matter of controversy in Babli Pesaḥim 21a.. But did we not state: “Let it descend and become impure; he should not make it impure with his hands?²³⁷” Rebbi Samuel bar Berekhiah said, explain for two vessels, one pure inside and impure outside, the other impure inside and pure outside²³⁸. But that Mishnah speaks of one impure vessel! Rebbi Mana said, explain it if the vat is pure; the Mishnah deals with an impure vat²³⁹. Did we not state: “Let it descend and be absorbed [into the ground]; he should not cause it to be absorbed by his hands’ [action].” Explain it if it rolled onto to a bet happĕrās²⁴⁰.

footnotes: ²³⁶ This discussion seems to center on the position of R. Eliezer, who does not permit defiling heave under any circumstances, even in order to save some heave in purity. In biblical law, pottery can become impure only from the inside; once the inside is impure by primary impurity, the outside also is impure. The outside of a pottery vessel can be impure only by rabbinic decree, not by biblical law. A metal vessel can become impure from the outside; such a vessel, if touched by a fluid from outside, becomes impure; cf. Berakhot ²³⁷ This suggests that making impure indirectly, by a vessel, is permitted. ²³⁸ The statement of R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina does not refer to the position of R. Eliezer (who is not to be followed in practice) but to that of R. Joshua (whom practice follows). It is stated that if there is a chance that the wrong vessel will be chosen, which would make everything impure, nothing should be done. ²³⁹ The Mishnah speaks of the “lower part of the winepress”. If that is a cistern built in the ground, it is part of the ground and cannot become impure. In that case, if the cistern is empty, the heave should be left to flow into it. This is the case considered by R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina. The Mishnah must speak of a winepress whose receptacle is movable and therefore can become impure together with its contents. ²⁴⁰ בית הפרס is a ploughed field where a grave had been. It is possible that some bones were dug up; the entire field is impure by rabbinic practice. Therefore, the rules are less strict than for biblical impurity and according to everybody the vessel may be used if only its interior is pure.

In the opinion of the colleagues, first and second amphoras. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, an amphora of wine and one of oil²⁴¹ be used as fuel for lamps even if pure; it must be used as fuel once it becomes impure. It follows that suspended heave of oil is usable and the Amora R. Yose holds that it should not be exposed to impurity even according to R. Joshua..

footnotes: ²⁴¹ This refers back to the beginning of the Halakhah, notes 184 ff. The colleagues make an essential difference between “first” and “second” amphoras, as explained there. R. Yose (the Amora) may hold that R. Joshua permits exposing heave to impurity only for wine, which cannot be used if it is unclear whether it is pure or impure. Olive oil can

It is not reasonable if one already was impure²⁴⁶. It is not reasonable if one was a slave girl²⁴⁷.

footnotes: ²⁴⁶ In one of the heave cakes was impure, it is reasonable to hold that that cake might be handed over to the Gentile to give him the impression that he was defiling when in fact his actions had no effect. ²⁴⁷ Since slaves cannot marry, a slave girl (of Gentile origin, becoming quasi Jewish by immersion in a ritual bath) is barred from having sex with Jews for whom extramarital relations are sinful. [Sexual relations of a Jew with a person whom he could not marry are criminal acts, punishable by the courts.] Therefore, since sex is a fundamental human right, a slave girl is free to have guiltless sexual relations with slaves and Gentiles; she cannot be defiled by sexual relations with Gentiles. Since a freed slave girl can marry any Jew except a Cohen, her sleeping with these Gentiles would not impair her marriage chances if she should be manumitted later. Therefore, her being given to the Gentiles is similar to the impure heave being handed over.

It was stated²⁴⁸.rabba 94(9).: “A group of people on the road were met by Gentiles who said to them, give us one of you that we may kill him, otherwise we shall kill all of you; even if all of them are killed they should not hand over a Jewish person. If they designated one, like Sheba ben Bikhri²⁴⁹. 20), the action of the people of Abel Bet Maakhah is taken as legal precedent in all cases., they should hand him over so as not to be killed.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, on condition that he be guilty of a capital crime like Sheba ben Bikhri; but Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he is not guilty of a capital crime like Sheba ben Bikhri. Ulla bar Qoshav²⁵⁰.rabba: Qoshar. was proscribed by the government. He fled and went to Lydda to Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. They came and surrounded the city. They said to them, if you do not hand him over to us, we shall destroy the city. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi went to him and talked him into being handed over to them. Elijah, may be be remembered for good things, used to appear to him²⁵¹; he²⁵² stopped appearing. He²⁵¹ fasted many fasts; he²⁵² appeared to him and said, do I appear to informers? He²⁵¹ said to him, did I not act according to a baraita? He²⁵² said to him, is that a statement for the pious?

footnotes: ²⁴⁸ Tosephta 7:20; Gen ²⁴⁹ Even though Sheba ben Bikhri revolted against David and the entire affair was intra-Jewish (2S ²⁵⁰ In the Rome ms. and Gen ²⁵¹ R. Joshua ben Levi. ²⁵² Elijah. ²⁵¹ R. Joshua ben Levi. ²⁵² Elijah. ²⁵¹ R. Joshua ben Levi. ²⁵² Elijah.

Rebbi Issi was captured in Safsufa²⁵³ in Galilee. Note Arabic سفسف “to sift”, سفساف “matter of little value, importance.”. Rebbi Jonathan said, may the dead be wrapped in his shroud²⁵⁴. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if I should kill or be killed, I shall go and save him by force. He went and negotiated; they handed him over to him. He said to them, come to our old man, he shall pray for you. They came to Rebbi Joḥanan. He said to them, what was in your mind to do to him shall be done to these people. They did not reach אפיפסרוס²⁵⁵ when all of them were gone²⁵⁶.

footnotes: ²⁵³ In the next story, the place is under the dominion of Zenobia, queen of Palmyra. The extent of her dominion in Syria in not well documented. There are some places al-Safsūf ²⁵⁴ He considers him as dead. In the Rome ms., after R. Jonathan, R. Joḥanan is quoted in the same sense. Since in the following R. Joḥanan is described as “old man”, and R. Issi (Assi) was a student of R. Joḥanan, the mention of R. Jonathan is an anachronism. ²⁵⁵ In the Rome ms., אפיפסרון. Cf. Greek ἄποψις, -εως, ἡ, “outlook, tower from which one looks out”. Perhaps “they did not reach the lookout” or “they had not vanished from sight.” (E. G.) ²⁵⁶ They all had died.

Zeir bar Ḥinena was captured at Safsufa. Rebbi Ammi and Rebbi Samuel went to negotiate for him. Queen Zenobia said to them, your Creator usually does wonders for you; put Him under pressure! There came a Saracen carrying a sabre. He said to them, with this sabre did Odenathus²⁵⁷ kill his brother. Zeїr bar Ḥinena was saved.

footnotes: ²⁵⁷ Zenobia’s husband. In the Babli, his name is בר נצר. It is not clear whether Odenathus killed his own brother or the brother of the Saracen.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, I was robbed by the people of Qanah. He went to the assembly hall where Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was asking him repeatedly but he did not answer. He said, what happened? He said, what can you do? He said, all limbs depend on the heart and the heart depends on the wallet. He said, I was robbed by the people of Qanah. He said, what do you have? He said to him, show me their corner²⁵⁸. He went out to show him. They saw him from afar and started to chirp. They said, if that is Rebbi Joḥanan, may he take half of it²⁵⁹. He said to them, by your life I am taking all of it; he took all.

footnotes: ²⁵⁸ Their quarter in Tiberias. ²⁵⁹ The Rome ms. adds: ואין ריש לקיש הוא יסוב כולה “when it is R. Simeon ben Laqish, he will take everything”.

²⁶¹.rabba 63(24); Yalquṭ Šim‘oni#110. The boys of Rebbi Jehudah Neśia hit Diodes²⁶², reportedly the original name of Diocletianus before he became a general and then emperor. דיוקלוט Dioclot perhaps reflects contemporary spelling pronunciation. the swine-herd. He became king and descended to Paneas. He sent letters to the rabbis that they should be at his place immediately after the end of the Sabbath. He said to his courier, do not deliver the letters before the evening, near sundown. The courier came to them in he evening, near sundown. Rebbi Jehudah Neśia and Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman had gone to bathe in the public baths of Tiberias. An אנגיטרוס²⁶³.rabba(Theodor-Albeck) ארגינטין, ארגנטין, ארגנטי, ארגינט, ארגינטי also אגרנטין, Yalquṭ ארגינטין. The name of this friendly demon has not been determined. Since Gen.rabba clearly is the primary source, רגנטי(א) may mean “guiding spirit” from Latin rego “to lead; conduct; guide”; cf. regens,-ntis“prince, ruler”, rectus,-a,-urn “led straight; direct; in a straight line” (E. G.). came to them; Rebbi Jehudah Neśia wanted to scold him²⁶⁴.rabba, the demon danced before them. The corresponding sentence must have been lost here.. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, let him; he appears for wonders. He said to them, how are the rabbis? They told him about their problem. He said to them, go and bathe; your Creator will perform a miracle for you at Sabbath’s end. He²⁶⁵ carried them and brought them up. They²⁶⁶ said to him, the rabbis are outside. There was that bathhouse, he²⁶⁷ let it be heated for seven days and seven nights. He²⁶⁸ went out and cooled it before them. They went in and then appeared before him²⁶⁷. He²⁶⁷ said to them: Because your Creator performs miracles for you, you insult the majesty! They said, we insulted Diocles the swine-herd; we do not insult Diocletianus the king. Even so, one should never vex a little Roman or a little Gueber²⁶⁹.rabba and Yalquṭ: גולייר cf. galearii,-orum, “a kind of soldier’s servants.”.

footnotes: ²⁶¹ A more complete version is in Gen ²⁶² Diocles ²⁶³ Rome ms.: אנטיגרס; Gen ²⁶⁴ In Gen ²⁶⁵ The friendly demon, after Sabbath’s end. Diocletian descended to Paneas from the North or East; the demon had to bring them up from South and West. ²⁶⁶ Diocletian’s staff. ²⁶⁷ Diocletian. ²⁶⁸ The demon. ²⁶⁷ Diocletian. ²⁶⁷ Diocletian. ²⁶⁹ The tribe of the Sassanid kings in Persia. In Gen