פסחים 25 — Soncino English Talmud

¹[This can be refuted]. As for ‘orlah, [that may be] because it had no period of fitness; will you say [the same of] meat and milk [seethed together], seeing that they had a period of fitness? Then let leaven during Passover prove it: though it had a period of fitness, it is forbidden for use. [This again can be refuted]. As for leaven during Passover, [that may be] because he [the offender] is punished with kareth, will you say [the same] of meat [seethed] in milk, where he is not punished with kareth? Then let kil'ayim of the vineyard prove it: though he [the offender] is not punished with kareth yet it is forbidden for use. Now if this is so, let us refute [it thus]: as for kil'ayim of the vineyard. [that may be] because we flagellate on its account even [when he does] not [use it] in the normal manner of its usage? And Abaye? — [He can answer] ‘will you say’ — with what? ‘Will you say [the same] of meat [seethed] in milk, for which we do not flagellate save [when it is eaten] in the normal manner of its use’ — is then ‘eating’ written in connection with meat [seethed] in milk? And the other who raises the objection holds: for that purpose it is deduced from nebelah: just as nebelah [must be enjoyed] in the normal manner of its usage, so [must] meat [seethed] in milk, in the normal manner of its usage. And Abaye? — [He argues]: for that reason ‘eating’ is not written in its own case, to teach that we flagellate on its account even [when one does] not [enjoy it] in the normal manner of its usage. But let us refute it [thus]: as for kil'ayim, [that may be] because it had no period of fitness? — Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: This proves that [in] kil'ayim of the vineyard, their very stock is forbidden, [and so we cannot refute it thus] since it had a time of fitness before taking root. ‘R. Shemaiah objected: If one sets a perforated pot in a vineyard, if one two-hundredth part is added, it is [all] forbidden: thus, only if there is added, but not if there is not added? — Said Raba, Two verses are written: ‘the fulness’ is written, and ‘the seed’ is written. How is this [to be reconciled]? That which is sown from the very outset [becomes forbidden] on taking root; that which was sown when [partly] grown, if it increased it is [forbidden]; if it did not increase, it is not [forbidden]! R. Jacob said in R. Johanan's name: We may cure ourselves with all things, save with the wood of the asherah. How is it meant? If we say that there is danger, even the wood of the asherah too [is permitted]; while if there is no danger, even all [other] forbidden things of the Torah too are not [permitted]? — After all [it means] that there is danger, yet even so the wood of the asherah [must] not be used. For it was taught, R. Eliezer said: If ‘with all thy soul’ is said, why is ‘with all thy might’ said? Or if ‘with all thy might’ is said, why is ‘with all thy soul’ said? But it is to teach you: if there is a man to whom his person is dearer than his wealth, therefore, ‘with all thy soul’ is stated; and if there is a man to whom his wealth is dearer than his person, therefore ‘with all thy might’ [i.e.. substance] is stated. When Rabin came, he said in R. Johanan's name: We may cure [i.e., save] ourselves with all [forbidden] things, except idolatry, incest, 29^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

^ᵃnote:From the time of its planting it was never fit for food.
^ᵇnote:For eating it.
^ᶜnote:Sc. Abaye's statement supra 24b.
^ᵈnote:How will he meet this question?
^ᵉnote:I.e.. how would you conclude this refutation?
^ᶠnote:It is not! Hence this last assumption would be unwarranted, and could not overthrow the argument.
^ᵍnote:The prohibition of meat seethed with milk.
^ʰnote:I.e., from Ex. XXII, 30; v. next note.
^ⁱnote:Before a penalty is incurred. Nebelah is employed here loosely, as in fact we learn from terefah (v. Glos.), which is the subject dealt with in Ex. XXII, 30 (Rashi).
^ʲnote:I.e., in connection with milk seethed with meat.
^ᵏnote:It is now assumed that when two diverse species are planted together, the interdict of kil'ayim applies only to what grows after they are planted or sown, but not to the stock itself. Thus this added growth was never at any time fit for eating.
^ˡnote:Sc. that we do not refute it thus.
^ᵐnote:Sc. that which was already grown before they were planted as kil'ayim.
^ⁿnote:The stock itself becomes forbidden, but only after it takes root.
^ᵒnote:The pot contains cereals, and being perforated it draws its sustenance from the soil of the vineyard, which renders it (the pot) forbidden as kil'ayim.
^ᵖnote:One two-hundredth part is inclusive, i.e., the addition is one two-hundredth of the present total, so that the original is only one hundred and ninety-nine times as much. If kil'ayim is mixed with permitted eatables, it is all forbidden unless the latter is two hundred times as much as the former.
^ᵠnote:Though it struck root; which shows that the original stock is not forbidden.
^ʳnote:Deut. XXII, 9: lest the fulness of the seed which thou hast sown be forfeited. ‘The fulness’ implies the additional growth only, while ‘the seed’ implies the original stock.
^ˢnote:In a vineyard.
^ᵗnote:Since it begins to grow under forbidden circumstances. Nevertheless, before it strikes root it is just as though it were lying in a jug.
^ᵘnote:Lit., ‘sown and coming’
^ᵛnote:Sc. the increase.
^ʷnote:The stock remaining unaffected.
^ˣnote:A tree or grove devoted to idolatry.
^ʸnote:In the person's illness.
^ᶻnote:V. Deut. VI, 5: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e., one should love God even to the extent of giving his soul (life) in His service.
^ᵃᵇnote:From Palestine to Babylon.
^ᵃᶜnote:Which includes adultery.

²and murder. Idolatry, as we have stated. Incest and murder, as it was taught: Rabbi said: For as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter. Now, what connection has a murderer with a betrothed maiden? Thus this comes to throw light, and is itself illumined. The murderer is compared to a betrothed maiden: just as a betrothed maiden must be saved [from dishonour] at the cost of his [her ravisher's] life, so [in the case of] a murderer, he [the victim] must be saved at the cost of his [the attacker's] life. Conversely, a betrothed maiden [is learned] from a murderer: just as [in the case of] murder, one must be slain rather than transgress, so a betrothed maiden must be slain yet not transgress. And how do we know it of murder itself? It is common sense. Even as one who came before Raba and said to him: The governor of my town has ordered me, ‘Go and kill So-and-so, if not, I will kill you.’ He answered him: ‘Let him kill you rather than that you should commit murder; what [reason] do you see [for thinking] that your blood is redder? Perhaps his blood is redder.’ Mar son of R. Ashi found Rabina rubbing his daughter with undeveloped olives of ‘orlah. Said he to him: ‘Granted that the Rabbis ruled [thus] in time of danger; was it [likewise] ruled when there is no danger?’ ‘This inflammatory fever is also like a time of danger,’ he answered him. Others say, he answered him: ‘Am I then using it in the normal manner of its usage?’ It was stated: [As to forbidden] benefit that comes to a man against his will, — Abaye said: It is permitted; while Raba maintained: It is forbidden. Where it is possible [to avoid it], while he intends [to benefit], or if it is impossible [to avoid it], yet he intends [to benefit], none dispute that it is forbidden. If it is impossible [to avoid it], and he does not intend [to benefit], none dispute that it is permitted. They differ where it is possible [to avoid it] and he does not intend [to benefit]; now, on the view of R. Judah, who ruled, That which is unintended is forbidden, none dispute that it is forbidden. Where do they differ? On the view of R. Simeon, who maintained: That which is unintended is permitted. Abaye rules as R. Simeon. But Raba [argues]: R. Simeon rules thus only where it is impossible [to do otherwise], but not where it is possible. Others state: If it is possible [to avoid it], and he does not intend [to benefit], that is [the case of] the controversy between R. Judah and R. Simeon. If it is impossible [to avoid it], and he does not intend [to benefit], none dispute that it is permitted. When do they differ? Where it is impossible [to avoid it] and he intends [to benefit]. Now, on the view of R. Simeon, who regards the intention, none dispute that it is forbidden. Where do they differ? On the view of R. Judah, who maintained: It makes no difference whether he intends or does not intend, if it is possible [to avoid it] it is forbidden. Abaye rules as R. Judah.14^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ

^ᵃᵈnote:Lit., ‘bloodshed’.
^ᵃᵉnote:Viz., the interdict of the wood of the asherah.
^ᵃᶠnote:Deut. XXII, 26. This refers to the ravishing of a betrothed maiden.
^ᵃᵍnote:I.e., the verse shows that the case of a murderer throws light upon that of a betrothed maiden, but is also itself illumined thereby.
^ᵃʰnote:She should rather suffer death than dishonour.
^ᵃⁱnote:That one must allow oneself to be slain rather than commit murder.
^ᵃʲnote:You have no right to murder him to save yourself; his life is no less valuable than your own.
^ᵃᵏnote:For a remedy.
^ᵃˡnote:That anything may be used for a remedy.
^ᵃᵐnote:V. Shab. 22a.
^ᵃⁿnote:The controversy of R. Judah and R. Simeon is with respect to dragging a bench over an earthen floor on the Sabbath, because it is needed in another part of the room. The dragging may make a rut in the earth, which is forbidden. Now in Abaye's view, R. Simeon permits the unintentional even when the whole act is avoidable, e.g., the bench is light enough to be carried. But in Raba's view R. Simeon permits it only when the bench is too heavy for this, so that the dragging is unavoidable. — An action is regarded as unavoidable when its purpose — here to have the bench elsewhere — is permissible or necessary. Similarly below, lecturing to the masses is regarded as unavoidable.
^ᵃᵒnote:Raba too admits this.
^ᵃᵖnote:As the determining factor.
^ᵃᵠnote:Since R. Judah rules thus, we see that the matter always depends on whether it is avoidable or not; therefore if it is unavoidable it is permitted.