פסחים 23:1 — Soncino English Talmud

for the public. R. Judah said: It is to exclude what is planted for the public. What is the reason of the first Tanna? Because it is written, ‘and ye shall have planted;’ [this] implies [a law] to the individual, but it does not imply [a law] for the public; [therefore] the Merciful One wrote, ‘unto you’, to include what is planted for the public. While R. Judah [argues]: ‘and ye shall have planted’ implies [a law] both to the public and to the individual, and ‘unto you’ [too] implies both for the public and for the individual: thus it is an extension after an extension, and an extension after an extension has no [other significance] save to limit. But there is terumah, of which the Merciful One saith, There shall no common man eat of the holy thing: yet we learned: An ‘erub may be made for a nazirite with wine, and for a [lay] Israelite with terumah? — Said R. Papa: There it is different, because Scripture saith, your heave-offering: it shall be yours. And the other?; It means, ‘your heave-offering,’ [viz..] that of all Israel. But what of a nazirite, though the Merciful One saith, from the kernels even to the husk, he shall not eat, yet we learned: An erub may be made for a nazirite with wine? — Said Mar Zutra, There it is different, because Scripture saith, [All the days of] his naziriteship: it shall be his. R. Ashi said: He shall be holy, he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long: his [hair] growth is holy, but nothing else is holy. Is then ‘and nothing else’ written? But it is clearly as Mar Zutra [stated]. But what of hadash, where the Merciful One saith, And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears, until this selfsame day; yet we learned: He may cut [the corn] for fodder and feed his cattle? — Said R. Shemaiah, There it is different, because Scripture saith, [ye shall bring the sheaf of the firstfruits of] your harvest.’ [implying,] it shall be yours And the other? — Your harvest’ implies that of all Israel. But what of creeping things, where the Merciful One saith, It is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten; yet we learned: Hunters of beasts, birds, and fish, who chance upon unclean species, are permitted to sell them to Gentiles?-There it is different, because Scripture saith, [they are a detestable thing] unto you: it shall be yours. If so, [it should be permitted] at the very outset too? — Here it is different, because Scripture saith, and they shall be [a detestable thing]: [meaning.] they shall be in their [forbidden] state. Now according to Hezekiah, for what purpose is ‘shall not be eaten’ written-so that ‘unto you’ is adduced to teach that it is permitted; let the Merciful One not write ‘shall not be eaten,’ so that ‘unto you’ will be unnecessary? — Hezekiah can answer you: My opinion is indeed [deduced] from this. But what of leaven, though the Merciful One saith, there shall no leavened bread be eaten, yet it was taught. R. Jose the Galilean said: Wonder at yourself! how can leaven be prohibited for [general] use the whole seven [days]? — There it is different, because Scripture saith, neither shall there be leaven seen unto thee: [this implies,] it shall be thine.And the Rabbis? — Thine own thou must not see, but thou mayest see that belonging to others and to the Most High. And the other? ‘unto thee’ is written twice. And the other? — One refers to a heathen whom you have conquered, and the other refers to a heathen whom you have not conquered. And the other? — ‘Unto thee’ is written three times. And the other? — One refers to leaven [se'or], and one refers to leavened bread [hamez]. and they are [both] necessary. Shall we say that it is dependent on Tannaim? [And the fat of that which dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn of beasts.] may be used for all service [: but ye shall in no wise eat of it]. Why is ‘for all service’ stated? For I might think, for the service of the Most High let it be permitted, but for secular service let it be forbidden; therefore it is stated, ‘for all service’: this is the view of R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba said: For I might think, for secular service let it be clean, [but] for service of the Most High let it be unclean; therefore it is stated, ‘for all service’. Now R. Jose the Galilean [holds] that in respect of uncleanness and cleanness a verse is not required, a verse being required only in respect of what is forbidden and what is permitted. While R. Akiba [maintains]: [in respect of] what is forbidden and what is permitted no verse is required, a verse being required only in respect of uncleanness and cleanness.^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^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ

^ᵃnote:Since the public do not plant.
^ᵇnote:This is a principle of exegesis. Cf. the inverse principle of the English language: a double negative is a positive.
^ᶜnote:I.e., an Israelite who is not a priest.
^ᵈnote:Lev. XXII, 10.
^ᵉnote:Though these may not be eaten by each respectively. — Thus a nonpriest may benefit from terumah
^ᶠnote:Num. XVIII, 27.
^ᵍnote:Hezekiah: what is the purpose of ‘your heave-offering? Cf. p. 99, n. 10.
^ʰnote:I.e.. it is merely the idiomatic usage of the language.
^ⁱnote:Num. VI, 4.
^ʲnote:I.e., the things which he may not eat are nevertheless available for his use in other ways’.
^ᵏnote:Ibid. 5.
^ˡnote:In the sense that he must not benefit from it.
^ᵐnote:There is nothing to warrant this inference.
^ⁿnote:V. Glos.
^ᵒnote:Lev. XXIII, 14, q.v.
^ᵖnote:With this hadash, though he may not eat it himself. Thus benefit is permitted.
^ᵠnote:Ibid. 10.
^ʳnote:Available for your benefit.
^ˢnote:Hezekiah,: what is the purpose of ‘your harvest’ according to him? Cf. p. 99, n. 10.
^ᵗnote:Lev. XI, 41.
^ᵘnote:Ibid. 10.
^ᵛnote:To hunt unclean animals, whereas the Mishnah merely permits selling if they happened to trap them.
^ʷnote:Lev. XI, 11.
^ˣnote:Lit., ‘reason’.
^ʸnote:The very fact that ‘unto you’ is required shows that elsewhere ‘shall not be eaten’ includes the prohibition of benefit in general.
^ᶻnote:Ex. XIII, 3.
^ᵃᵃnote:Ibid. 7.
^ᵃᵇnote:Who hold that benefit is forbidden: how do they interpret ‘unto thee’?
^ᵃᶜnote:R. Jose: how does he know this?
^ᵃᵈnote:And there shall no leavened bread be seen unto thee, neither shall there be leaven seen unto thee.
^ᵃᵉnote:I.e., whether the heathen is a Jewish subject or not, his leaven may be seen in a Jewish house.
^ᵃᶠnote:How does he know this?
^ᵃᵍnote:The third is in Deut. XVI, 4 q.v.
^ᵃʰnote:If leaven (se'or) alone were written, I might argue that it is forbidden because its degree of leaven is very strong, but leavened bread (hamez) which is not so strong, is permitted. And if leavened bread (hamez) were written, I would say that that is forbidden because it is fit to be eaten, but not so leaven (se'or). which cannot be eaten. — Bez. 7b.
^ᵃⁱnote:Sc. R. Abbahu's ruling.
^ᵃʲnote:Lev. VII, 24.
^ᵃᵏnote:Since we find fat (heleb) used in the service of God, the fat of a sacrifice being burnt on the altar.
^ᵃˡnote:E.g if leather was softened with heleb, sacred food must not be placed on it, for it will thereby be defiled.