פסחים 11 — Soncino English Talmud

¹[but] not with the consent of the Sages: this is R. Meir's opinion. R. Judah said: They acted with the consent of the Sages. Thus R. Judah did not preventively forbid lest one come to eat thereof? — Said Raba: Hadash is different: since you permit it to him only by means of plucking. he remembers. Said Abaye to him: That is well at the time of plucking, [but] what can be said of the grinding and sifting? — That is no difficulty: grinding [is done] with a handmill; sifting [is done] on top of the sieve. But as to what we learned: ‘one may reap an artificially irrigated field and [the corn] in the valleys, but one may not stack [the corn]’, and we established this as [agreeing with] R. Judah, what can be said? — Rather, said Abaye: From hadash one holds aloof; but one does not hold aloof front leaven. Raba demurred: R. Judah is self-contradictory. while the Rabbis are not self-contradictory? — Rather, said Raba: R. Judah is not self-contradictory, as we have answered. The Rabbis too are not self-contradictory: he himself is seeking it in order to burn it, shall he then eat thereof! R. Ashi said: R. Judah is not self-contradictory, [for] we learned, ‘flour and parched corn’, But this [answer] of R. Ashi is a fiction: this is well from [the time when it is] parched ears and onwards; ‘but from the beginning until it is parched corn, what can be said? And should you answer, [It is gathered] by plucking, as Raba [answered], then what can be said of [what we learnt that] ‘one may reap an artificially irrigated field and [the corn in] the valleys’, which we established as [agreeing with] R. Judah? Hence R. Ashi's [answer] is a fiction. But, wherever one does not [normally] hold aloof, did R. Judah preventively forbid? Surely we learned: A man may not pierce an eggshell, fill it with oil, and place it over the mouth of a [burning] lamp in order that it should drip, and even if it is of earthenware; but R. Judah permits it! — There, on account of the strictness of the Sabbath he will indeed keep aloof. Then [one ruling] of the Sabbath can be opposed to [another ruling] of the Sabbath. For it was taught: If the cord of a bucket is broken, one must not tie it [together] but merely make a loop [slip-knot]; whereas R. Judah maintains: He may wind a hollow belt or a fascia around it, providing that he does not tie it with a slip-knot. [Thus] R. Judah's [views] are self-contradictory. and similarly the Rabbis’? — The Rabbis’ [views] are not self-contradictory: oil [from one source] can be interchanged with oil [from another]; whereas looping cannot be mistaken for knotting. R. Judah's [views] are not self-contradictory; R. Judah's reason is not that he forbids looping on account of knotting, but because looping itself is [a form of] knotting. Now, the Rabbis may be opposed to the Rabbis. For we learned: A bucket [over a well] may be tied with a fascia but not with a cord; but R. Judah permits it. Now what cord is meant: Shall we say an ordinary [bucket] cord: [how does it state] ‘R. Judah permits it’, — surely it is a permanent knot, for he will certainly come to abandon it? Hence it is obvious that a weaver's [rope is meant]. and [yet] the Rabbis preventively forbid a weaver's cord on account of an ordinary cord? — Even so: one rope may be mistaken for another, [whereas] looping cannot be mistaken for knotting. But, wherever one [normally] holds aloof from it, does not R. Judah preventively forbid? Surely we learned: If a firstling is attacked with congestion, even if it should die [otherwise]. we must not bleed it: this is R. Judah's view; but the Sages rule: He may bleed [it], providing that he does not inflict a [permanent] blemish upon it? — There, because one is excited^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ

^ᵃnote:Lest they eat of it while preparing it.
^ᵇnote:V. Men. 67b.
^ᶜnote:Bah emends to Rabbah, which is the reading in Men. 67b.
^ᵈnote:The new corn may not be reaped at all before the bringing of the ‘omer’, but must be plucked by hand.
^ᵉnote:That it may not be eaten.
^ᶠnote:There is nothing to remind him then of the interdict.
^ᵍnote:The sieve is reversed. The unusual ways in which these are done serve as reminders.
^ʰnote:In the usual way, before the ‘omer.
^ⁱnote:V. Men. 71a.
^ʲnote:There is nothing there to remind one of the prohibition.
^ᵏnote:As it is forbidden at all times until the ‘omer, when it ceases to be hadash. Thus he is accustomed to abstain from it and is not likely to forget himself.
^ˡnote:During the year, and thus may possibly eat of it when the prohibition is already in force.
^ᵐnote:That you seek to reconcile R. Judah's views only. Yet surely the Rabbis too need harmonizing, for whereas the Rabbis do not preventively forbid in the case of leaven, they do so here, as R. Meir states, ‘They did not act with the consent of the Sages’.
^ⁿnote:Surely we need not entertain that fear.
^ᵒnote:In the above cited Mishnah.
^ᵖnote:Which are not fit for eating.
^ᵠnote:t,usc, V. B.M., Sonc. ed. p 47. n. 1.
^ʳnote:In the intermediate stages it is fit for eating! How could it then be handled.
^ˢnote:Which serves as a reminder.
^ᵗnote:Though there is nothing there to serve as a reminder, v. infra.
^ᵘnote:And replenish the contents of the lamp during Sabbath.
^ᵛnote:The reason of the Rabbis is lest he take the oil for eating, which, constitutes extinguishing. R. Judah permits it, though one does not normally abstain from oil, v. Shab. 29a.
^ʷnote:The tying of a permanent knot constitutes one of the thirty-nine principal classes of forbidden work on Sabbath.
^ˣnote:A band or fillet.
^ʸnote:V. Shab. 113a.
^ᶻnote:Just as he consumes oil from elsewhere, so may he come to draw supplies from this eggshell, seeing no difference.
^ᵃᵃnote:Lit., ‘interchanged with’.
^ᵃᵇnote:On the Sabbath. The first is certainly only temporary, but the second may be left there, and thus a permanent knot will have been tied on the Sabbath.
^ᵃᶜnote:V. Shab. 113b.
^ᵃᵈnote:I.e., leave it there as a thing having no other purpose than this.
^ᵃᵉnote:Which is not usually used for drawing water, and will not consequently be left there.
^ᵃᶠnote:One must not inflict a permanent blemish on a firstling. R. Judah rules that the animal must not be bled even without inflicting a permanent blemish upon it, lest one come to do so even by making a permanent blemish. Thus R. Judah forbids preventively, though people do hold aloof from sacred animals, to which category a firstling belongs.

²about his property, if you permit him [to bleed it] in a place where a blemish is not inflicted, he will come to do it in a place where a blemish is inflicted. But the Rabbis [argue]: if you do not permit him at all, he is all the more likely to come to act [thus]. Yet do we say according to R. Judah. A man is excited over his property? Surely we learned: An animal may not be curried on Festivals, because it makes a bruise [wound], but you may scrape it; but the Sages maintain: It may neither be curried nor scraped. Now it was taught: What is currying and what is scraping? Currying is with a small-toothed strigil. and it makes a wound; scraping is with a large-toothed strigil and does not make a wound? — There, since it will die if left alone, we say. a man is excited about his property; here, if he leaves it there is merely discomfort, we do not say, a man is excited about his money. Now as to R. Judah; wherein is the difference that he preventively prohibits in the case of leaven but does not preventively forbid in the case of scraping? — One bread can be mistaken for another bread, [but] currying cannot be mistaken for scraping. MISHNAH. R. MEir SAID: ONE MAY EAT [LEAVEN] THE WHOLE OF THE FIVE [HOURS] AND MUST BURN [IT] AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SIXTH. R. JUDAH SAID: ONE MAY EAT THE WHOLE OF THE FOUR [HOURS]. KEEP IT IN SUSPENSE THE WHOLE OF THE FIFTH, AND MUST BURN IT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SIXTH. R. JUDAH SAID FURTHER: TWO UNFIT LOAVES OF THE THANKSOFFERING USED TO LIE ON THE ROOF OF THE [TEMPLE] IZTABA: AS LONG AS THEY LAY [THERE] ALL THE PEOPLE WOUld EAT [ LEAVEN]; WHEN ONE WAS REMOVED, THEY WOULD KEEP IT IN SUSPENSE, NEITHER EATING NOR BURNING [IT]; WHEN BOTH WERE REMOVED, ALL THE PEOPLE COMMENCED BURNING[THEIR LEAVEN]. R. GAMALIEL SAID: HULLIN MAY BE EATEN THE WHOLE OF THE FOUR [HOURS] AND TERUMAH THE WHOLE OF THE FIVE [HOURS]. AND WE BURN [THEM] AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SIXTH [HOUR]. GEMARA. We learned elsewhere: If one [witness] deposes [that it took place] on the second day of the month, and another deposes, on the third of the month, their testimony is valid, because one knows of the intercalation of the [preceding] month while the other does not know of the intercalation of the month. If one deposed, on the third, while the other deposed, on the fifth, their testimony is null. If one said: During the second hour, and the other said: During the third hour, their testimony is valid. If one said, during the third hour, and the other said, during the fifth, their testimony is null: this is R. Meir's view. R. Judah maintained: Their testimony stands. If one deposed, during the fifth [hour], while the other deposed, during the seventh, their testimony is null, because during the fifth [hour] the sun is in the east, whereas in the seventh it is in the west. Abaye observed: When you examine the matter, you find that on R. Meir's ruling a man does not err [in the time] at all, [while] on R. Judah's ruling a man may err in half an hour. [Thus:] on R. Meir's ruling a man does not err at all: the event [to which they testify] happened at the end of the second and the beginning of the third [hour], and when one says, during the second, [he means] at the end of the second [hour], and when the other says, during the third hour, [he means] at the beginning of the third hour. On R. Judah's ruling a man may err in half an hour: the event happened in the middle of the fourth hour, and he who says in the third hour[meant] at the end of the third hour, and he errs in [being] half an hour before; while he who testified, in the fifth hour, [meant] at the beginning of the fifth hour, and he errs in half an hour behind. Others say, Abaye observed: When you examine the matter, you find that on R. Meir's ruling a man may err in [just] a little, while on R. Judah's ruling a man may err in slightly more than an hour. On R. Meir's ruling a man may err in [just] a little: the event occurred either at the end of the second or at the beginning of the third [hour], and one of them erred a little. On R. Judah's ruling a man may err in slightly more than an hour: the event happened either at the end of the third or at the beginning of the fifth,^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ

^ᵃᵍnote:The animal is scraped to free it of mud, mire, etc. Thus R. Judah does not argue that if you permit one the other will be used, because a man is anxious to keep his property in good condition.
^ᵃʰnote:V. supra 4b for notes.
^ᵃⁱnote:This is the reading of MS.M. and in the printed ed. of the Mishnah.
^ᵃʲnote:V. Gemara.
^ᵃᵏnote:Forty loaves were brought with a thanks-offering, ten of which were leaven; two leaven loaves which had become unfit (the Gemara discusses how) were publicly exposed on the portico and served as a signal.
^ᵃˡnote:By Biblical law leaven is permitted until midday. But people often erred in the matter of time (there were, of course, no clocks or watches in those days), and the controversy here is in respect of the extent of possible or likely errors.
^ᵃᵐnote:E.g., a murder.
^ᵃⁿnote:I.e., that it consisted of thirty days. The thirtieth day is said to be intercalated.
^ᵃᵒnote:Thinking that it consisted of twenty-nine days. This holds good only when they agree on other matters, including what day of the week it was.
^ᵃᵖnote:Because one can err in an hour.
^ᵃᵠnote:Thus there is no contradiction at all. But if it is shown that there is a contradiction, even in half an hour, one is assumed to be false and their evidence is null.
^ᵃʳnote:Lit., ‘an hour and a little’.