פסחים 13 — Soncino English Talmud

¹during sunrise was standing in the glow [before sunrise] and what he saw was merely the glare; hence he informs us [that it is not so]. R. Nahman said in Rab's name: The halachah is as R. Judah. Said Raba to R. Nahman, Yet let the Master say [that] the halachah is as R. Meir, since a Tanna taught anonymously in agreement with him. For we learned: As long as it is permitted to eat [leaven] he may feed [animals with it]? That is not anonymous. because there is the difficulty of ‘it is permitted’. Then let the Master say [that] the halachah is as R. Gamaliel, since he makes a compromise? — R. Gamaliel does not make a compromise but states an independent view. Alternatively. Rab rules as this Tanna. For it was taught: If the fourteenth falls on the Sabbath, everything [sc. leaven] must be removed before the Sabbath, and terumoth, whether unclean, or in suspense. or clean, are burnt, and of the clean [terumah] food for two meals is left over, so as to eat until four hours: this is the ruling of R. Eleazar b. Judah of Bartotha which he stated in R. Joshua's name. Said they to him: Clean [terumoth] should not be burnt, in case eaters may be found for them? — He replied: They have already sought [eaters] but not found [them]. They may have spent the night without the [city] wall? said they to him — Then on your reasoning, he retorted, even those in suspense should not be burnt, lest Elijah come and declare them clean? — Said they to him, it has long been assured to Israel that Elijah will come neither on the eve of the Sabbath nor on the eve of Festivals, on account of the trouble. It was said: They did not stir thence until they decided the halachah in accordance with R. Eleazar b. Judah of Bartotha which he stated in R. Joshua's name. Does that not mean even in respect of eating? Said R. Papa in Raba's name: No, [only] in respect of removing. Now Rabbi too holds this [view] of R. Nahman. For Rabin son of R. Adda related: It once happened that a certain man deposited a saddle-bag full of leaven with Johanan of Hukok, and mice made holes in it, and the leaven was bursting out. He then went before Rabbi. The first hour he said to him, ‘Wait’; the second, he said to him, ‘Wait’; the third he said to him, ‘Wait’; the fourth he said to him, ‘Wait’; at the fifth he said to him, ‘Go out and sell it in the market’. — Does that not mean to Gentiles, in accordance with R. Judah? — Said R. Joseph: No, to an Israelite, in accordance with R. Meir. Said Abaye to him: If to an Israelite, let him take it for himself? — [He could not do this] because of suspicion. For it was taught: When the charity overseers have no poor to whom to distribute [their funds], they must change the copper coins with others, not themselves. The overseers of the soup kitchen, when they have no poor to whom to make a distribution, must sell to others, not to themselves, because it is said, and ye shall be guiltless towards the Lord, and towards Israel. R. Adda b. Mattenah said to R. Joseph: You explicitly told us [that he said]. ‘Go out and sell it to Gentiles,’ in accordance with R.Judah. R. Joseph said: With whom does this ruling of Rabbi agree? With R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. For we learned: If a man deposits produce with his neighbour. even if it is suffering loss, he must not touch it. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: He must sell it by order of the court, on account of returning lost property. Said Abaye to him, Yet was it not stated thereon, Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: They learned this only^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

^ᵃnote:In our Mishnah.
^ᵇnote:Conversely, when he may not eat leaven he may not feed his cattle with it. But in R. Judah's view he may not eat it during the fifth hour, and yet he may give it to his cattle. Hence this must agree with R. Meir. It is a general principle that an anonymous Mishnah states the halachah.
^ᶜnote:V. infra 21a. In order to answer that difficulty the Mishnah is explained as being R. Gamaliel's view.
^ᵈnote:V. Mishnah on 11b. It is a general rule that the view representing a compromise is the halachah.
^ᵉnote:Lit., ‘a reason of his own . R. Gamaliel's view would be a compromise if R. Meir and R. Judah mentioned terumoth and hullin, R. Meir explicitly stating that even hullin may be eaten the whole of the five hours, and R. Judah stating that even terumah may only be eaten up to four hours. This would show that they recognize that in logic a distinction might be drawn between hullin and terumah. R. Gamaliel, in thus making the distinction, would be effecting a compromise. But they do not rule thus: hence his distinction is an entirely independent one.
^ᶠnote:Plur. of terumah.
^ᵍnote:I.e., when it is in doubt whether they are clean or unclean.
^ʰnote:I.e., one meal Friday evening and one Saturday morning.
^ⁱnote:In Upper Galilee.
^ʲnote:E.g.. guests who are priests may arrive.
^ᵏnote:I.e., it is impossible to have unexpected guests, for these cannot arrive from without the town on the Sabbath, while one knows who is in town.
^ˡnote:And thus arrive unexpectedly.
^ᵐnote:One of the functions ascribed to Elijah was the clearing up of all doubts.
^ⁿnote:His coming then would be inopportune.
^ᵒnote:Lit. — ‘they said’.
^ᵖnote:And he states that leaven may be eaten until four hours, even if it is terumah. This is the basis of Rab's ruling, the question being a rhetorical one.
^ᵠnote:Viz., that even the clean terumoth must not be kept for Sabbath morning but must be burnt before the Sabbath. But it is possible that terumah may be eaten until the fifth hour.
^ʳnote:In Northern Palestine.
^ˢnote:It was Passover eve.
^ᵗnote:The owner may come.
^ᵘnote:Who holds that it is forbidden to Jews then.
^ᵛnote:Who holds that a Jew may eat it during the fifth hour.
^ʷnote:E.g., that he had undervalued it.
^ˣnote:Copper coins were unsuitable for keeping a long time, being liable to tarnish and mould. Therefore they would be exchanged for silver ones.
^ʸnote:huvn,; actual food was collected for this purpose, not money, and it was distributed to those in immediate need of a meal. V. B.B. 8b.
^ᶻnote:Num. XXXII, 22. I.e. , one must avoid even the appearance of suspicion.
^ᵃᵃnote:R. Joseph had forgotten his learning owing to an illness, and his disciples would often have to remind him of his teachings. v. Ned. 41a.
^ᵃᵇnote:Lit., ‘as whom does it go’?
^ᵃᶜnote:Through mildew or mice.
^ᵃᵈnote:I.e., it is like returning lost property to its owner.

²when there is the normal rate of decrease; but when [the loss] exceeds the normal rate of decrease, [all agree that] he must sell it by a court order. How much more so here that it is entirely lost. R. JUDAH SAID FURTHER: TWO [UNFIT] LOAVES, etc. A Tanna recited before Rab Judah: on the top [gab] of the [Temple] iztaba. Said he to him: Does he then need to hide them? Learn: on the roof of the [temple] iztaba [portico]. Rehaba said in R. Judah's name: The Temple Mount consisted of a double colonnade. It was taught likewise: The Temple Mount consisted of a double colonnade. R. Judah said: It was called istewawnith, [being] a colonnade within a colonnade. UNFIT etc., why UNFIT? — Said R. Hanin: Since they were many they became unfit through being kept overnight. For it was taught: A thanksoffering may not be brought during the Feast of Unleavened Bread on account of the leaven therein. But that is obvious? — Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: We treat here of the fourteenth. and he [the Tanna] holds: Sacred food may not be brought to unfitness. Hence everybody brought it on the thirteenth, and since they were numerous they became unfit through being kept overnight. In R. Jannai's name it was said: They were fit, yet why are they called unfit? Because the sacrifice had not been slaughtered for them. Then let us slaughter [it]? — The sacrifice was lost. Then let us bring another sacrifice and slaughter [it]? — It is a case where he [the owner] had declared: ‘This [animal] is a thanksoffering and these are its loaves,’ this being in accordance with Rabbah. For Rabbah said: If the loaves are lost, other loaves may be brought. If the thanksoffering is lost, another thanksoffering may not be brought — What is the reason? The loaves are subsidiary to the thanksoffering, but the thanksoffering is not subsidiary to the loaves. Then let us redeem and free them as hullin? — But in truth it is a case where the sacrifice was slaughtered for them, but the blood was poured out. And with whom [does this agree]? With Rabbi, who said: The two things which permit, promote [to sanctity] without each other. For it was taught: The lambs of Pentecost sanctify the loaves only by shechitah. How so? If he kills them for their own purpose and sprinkles their blood for their own purpose, he [thereby] sanctifies the loaves. If he kills them for a purpose that is not theirs and sprinkles their blood for a purpose that is not theirs, he does not sanctify [thereby] the loaves — If he kills them for their own purpose but sprinkles their blood for a purpose that is not theirs, the bread is sanctified and not sanctified; this is Rabbi's ruling. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon said: The bread always remains unsanctified until he kills [the lambs] for their own purpose and sprinkles their blood for their own purpose. — [No,] you may even say [that it agrees with] R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon; but the case we discuss here is where the blood was caught in a goblet and then spilled, while R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon holds as his father, who maintained: That which stands to be sprinkled is as though it were sprinkled. A Tanna taught: In R. Eleazar's name it was said: They [the loaves] were fit. As long as they [both] lay [there], all the people ate [leaven]; when one was removed, they kept [the leaven] in suspense, neither eating nor burning [it]; when both were removed, all commenced burning [their leaven]. It was taught, Abba Saul said:^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ

^ᵃᵉnote:If unsold before it becomes interdicted.
^ᵃᶠnote:The word may denote a bench or a portico. The reading ‘on the top’ (gab) implies the former rendering. Hence the question that follows, v. Rashi.
^ᵃᵍnote:Surely they are intended to be exposed for public gaze.
^ᵃʰnote:V. Bez., Sonc. ed. p. 54, n. 9.
^ᵃⁱnote:[GR. **. For a description of the Temple porticoes v. Josephus, Wars v, 5.3 v. also Derenbonrg, Essai p. 51.
^ᵃʲnote:Lit., ‘a double colonnade’. [kupf uhyx == GR. ** of Josephus, Wars V. 5.2. v. Hollis, F. J. Herod's Temple p. 15.]
^ᵃᵏnote:Forty loaves accompanied the offering, ten of which were leaven.
^ᵃˡnote:A thanksoffering may be eaten on the day that it is brought and the following night. But if it is brought on the fourteenth of Nisan the loaves of leaven may be eaten only until noon, and this Tanna holds that a sacrifice may not be brought at a time when the normal period for its consumption is lessened, so that it is likely to become unfit.
^ᵃᵐnote:I.e., we need not assume that the reference is to loaves which were in fact unfit through having been kept overnight, but even if the sacrifice had not been slaughtered they are also so designated, because the loaves may not be eaten until the thanksoffering is killed on their behalf.
^ᵃⁿnote:Lit. , ‘on account of’.
^ᵃᵒnote:For the loaves in that case can be redeemed.
^ᵃᵖnote:The loaves cannot be redeemed then.
^ᵃᵠnote:The slaughtering and the sprinkling of the blood are both required before the loaves may be eaten; on the other hand, one alone suffices to promote them to that degree of sanctity (‘intrinsic sanctity, as opposed to ‘monetary’ sanctity); from which they cannot be redeemed.
^ᵃʳnote:Lit., ‘the solemn assembly’ — the term without further qualification always refers to Pentecost.
^ᵃˢnote:V. Glos. It is stated in Lev. XXIII, 19f: And ye shall offer . . . two he-lambs . . . and the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits (i.e., the ‘two wave loaves’ mentioned in v. 17, q.v.) for a wave offering before the Lord, with the two lambs: they shall be holy to the Lord for the priest. In Men. 46a it is shown that these loaves are sanctified only by the ritual slaughter of the sacrifice.
^ᵃᵗnote:Lit., ‘for their name — I.e., as the Pentecost sacrifices.
^ᵃᵘnote:The loaves are sanctified in that they become unfit if taken without the sacred precincts and that they cannot be redeemed, for they are now intrinsically holy. Yet they are unsancitified in the sense that they may not be eaten.
^ᵃᵛnote:Thus the statement that our Mishnah refers to a case where the offering had been slaughtered but its blood was not sprinkled and thereby the loaves were sanctified, would appear to agree with Rabbi only.
^ᵃʷnote:In the sense that the animal is unfit as a sacred offering which has become unfit. Yet it may not be eaten unless the blood is sprinkled.