פסחים 35 — Soncino English Talmud

¹but it is a higher standard; so here too it is a higher standard. R. Shimi b. Ashi said, We too learned thus: When he [an unclean person] has a ritual bath, he may eat tithe; when the sun sets, he may eat terumah. [Thus] only terumah, but not sacred food. Yet why so? He is clean? But [you must say] it is a higher standard; so here too it is a higher standard. R. Ashi said, we too learned [thus]: And the flesh: this is to include fuel and frankincense. Are then fuel and frankincense capable of being defiled? But [you must say] it is a higher standard; so here too it is a higher standard. MISHNAH. THESE ARE THE COMMODITIES WITH WHICH A MAN DISCHARGES HIS OBLIGATION ON PASSOVER: WITH WHEAT, WITH BARLEY, WITH SPELT, WITH RYE, AND WITH OATS. AND THEY DISCHARGE [IT] WITH DEMAI, WITH FIRST TITHE WHOSE TERUMAH HAS BEEN SEPARATED, AND WITH SECOND TITHE OR HEKDESH WHICH HAVE BEEN REDEEMED; AND PRIESTS [CAN DISCHARGE THEIR OBLIGATION] WITH HALLAH AND TERUMAH. BUT [A MAN CAN]NOT [DISCHARGE HIS OBLIGATION] WITH TEBEL, NOR WITH FIRST TITHE WHOSE TERUMAH HAS NOT BEEN SEPARATED, NOR WITH SECOND TITHE OR HEKDESH WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN REDEEMED. [AS TO] THE [UNLEAVENED] LOAVES OF THE THANKSOFFERING AND THE WAFERS OF A NAZIRITE, IF HE MADE THEM FOR HIMSELF, HE CANNOT DISCHARGE [HIS OBLIGATION] WITH THEM; IF HE MADE THEM TO SELL IN THE MARKET, HE CAN DISCHARGE [HIS OBLIGATION] WITH THEM. GEMARA. A Tanna taught: Kusmin [spelt] is a species of wheat; oats and rye are a species of barley; kusmin is gulba; shipon is dishra; shiboleth shu'al is foxears. Only these [are fit], but not rice or millet. Whence do we know it? — Said R. Simeon b. Lakish, and thus the School of R. Ishmael taught, and thus the school of R. Eliezer b. Jacob taught, Scripture saith, Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it,’ seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith: [with regard to] commodities which come to the state of leaven, a man discharges his obligation with unleavened bread [made] thereof; thus these are excluded, which do not come to the state of leaven but to the state of decay. Our Mishnah does not agree with R. Johanan b. Nuri, who maintains: Rice is a species of corn, and kareth is incurred for [eating it in] its leavened state. For it was taught: R. Johanan b. Nuri Prohibits [the use of] rice and millet, because it is near to turn leaven. The scholars asked: does ‘because it is near to turn leaven’ mean that it quickly becomes leaven, or perhaps it is near to leaven, but is not completely leaven? — Come and hear: For it was taught, R. Johanan b. Nuri said: Rice is a species of corn and kareth is incurred for [eating it in] its leavened state, and a man discharges his obligation with it on Passover. And thus R. Johanan b. Nuri used to say, Karmith [cow-wheat] is subject to hallah. What is karmith? — Said Abaye: Shezanitha [weed]. What is Shezanitha? Said R. Papa: A weed found among kalnitha. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of Resh Lakish: [As to] dough which was kneaded with wine, oil or honey, kareth is not incurred for [eating it in] its leavened state. Now, R. Papa and R. Huna son of R. Joshua sat before R. Idi b. Abin, while R. Idi b. Abin was sitting and dozing. Said R. Huna son of R. Joshua to R. Papa: What is Resh Lakish's reason? — He replied, Scripture saith, Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it etc.: [In the case of] the commodities with which a man discharges his obligation in respect of unleavened bread, kareth is incurred for [eating them in] their leavened state; but [with regard to] this [dough], since a man cannot discharge his obligation therewith, because it is rich mazzah, kareth is not incurred for its leaven. R. Huna son of R. Joshua objected to R. Papa: If he dissolves it and swallows it, if it is leaven, he is punished with kareth; while if it is unleavened bread, he does not discharge his obligation therewith on Passover. Now here, though a man does not discharge his obligation therewith as unleavened bread, yet kareth is incurred for its leaven? — [Thereupon] R. Idi b. Abin awoke [and] said to them, Children! This is the reason of Resh Lakish, because they are fruit juice,^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

^ᵃnote:Sc. that the resowing of terumah does not permit it to be eaten (supra 34a).
^ᵇnote:Lit., ‘his sun makes evening’.
^ᶜnote:If his uncleanness requires a sacrifice, e.g.. in the case of a zab, he may not eat sacred food until he has brought the sacrifice, though he is completely clean.
^ᵈnote:Lev. VII, 19.
^ᵉnote:V. supra 24b and notes a.l.
^ᶠnote:Surely not, as they are not eatables!
^ᵍnote:Though fuel and frankincense cannot usually be defiled, a higher standard is set when they are to be used in the sacred service.
^ʰnote:Unleavened bread is obligatory on the first night of Passover, as it is written, on the fourteenth day of the month at even ye shall eat unleavened bread (Ex. XII, 18). The Mishnah enumerates the species of corn with which this unleavened bread, eaten as an obligation, can be made.
^ⁱnote:Jast.: others: oats.
^ʲnote:V. Glos.
^ᵏnote:One tenth (tithe) of the produce, called the first tithe, was given to the Levite, and he in turn gave a tenth thereof, called the terumah of tithe, to the priest. Another tenth of the produce, called the second tithe, was eaten by its owners (Israelites, as opposed to Levites and priests) in Jerusalem, or redeemed and the redemption money was expended in Jerusalem. Hekdesh (q.v. Glos.) could be similarly redeemed. The second tithe reference in the Mishnah is to places outside Jerusalem.
^ˡnote:The thanksoffering was accompanied by forty loaves, thirty of which were unleavened.
^ᵐnote:V. Num. VI, 15.
^ⁿnote:For his own sacrifice.
^ᵒnote:Ears of corn foxtailed in shape. — The other words are the Aramaic in general use.
^ᵖnote:Enumerated in our Mishnah.
^ᵠnote:For making unleavened bread as defined on p. 160, n. 8.
^ʳnote:Deut. XVI, 3.
^ˢnote:V. Glos.
^ᵗnote:And therefore it is altogether forbidden on Passover, as it turns leaven before it can be baked.
^ᵘnote:I.e., it can never become completely leaven. Hence R. Johanan b. Nuri prohibits its use on the first night for the fulfilment of one's obligations.
^ᵛnote:Papaver Spinosum (Jast.).
^ʷnote:If no water at all was used in kneading it.
^ˣnote:Unleavened bread made with wine etc., is a rich confection, whereas Scripture prescribes ‘bread of poverty’ (E.V. affliction — Deut. XVI, 3).
^ʸnote:Sc. bread.
^ᶻnote:Because swallowing soaked bread is not eating.
^ᵃᵃnote:Sc. wine, oil or honey, date-honey being meant.

²and fruit juice does not cause fermentation. AND THEY DISCHARGE THEIR OBLIGATION WITH DEMAI AND WITH THE FIRST TITHE etc. DEMAI? But it is not fit for him? — Since if he wishes he can renounce his property, become a poor man, and eat demai, it is fit for him now too. For we learned: The poor may be fed with demai, and [Jewish] troops [in billets] [may be supplied] with demai. And R. Huna said, It was taught: Beth Shammai maintain: The poor may not be fed with demai, nor troops in billets; but Beth Hillel rule: The poor may be fed with demai, also troops in billets. FIRST TITHE WHOSE TERUMAH HAS BEEN SEPARATED. That is obvious? Since its terumah has been separated, it is hullin? — It is necessary [to teach it] only where he anticipated it [in setting it aside while the corn was still] in the ears, and terumah of the tithe was taken from it, but the great terumah was not taken from it, this being in accordance with R. Abbahu. For R. Abbahu said in the name of Resh Lakish: First tithe which he anticipated [the setting aside thereof] in the ears is exempt from the great terumah, for it is said, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the Lord, a tithe of the tithe: I ordered thee [to offer] ‘a tithe of the tithe’, but not the great terumah plus the terumah of the tithe ‘of the tithe’. Said R. Papa to Abaye: If so, even if he anticipated it in the stack too, let it be exempt? — For your sake Scripture writes, out of all you,’ gifts ye shall offer every heave offering of the Lord, he answered him. And what [reason] do you see [to interpret thus]? — The one has become corn [dagan], while the other has not become corn. THE SECOND TITHE AND HEKDESH WHICH HAVE BEEN REDEEMED etc. That is obvious? — We treat here of a case where he assigned the principal but did not assign the fifth: and he [the Tanna] informs us that the fifth is not indispensable. AND PRIESTS [DISCHARGE THEIR OBLIGATION] WITH HALLAH AND TERUMAH etc. This is obvious? — You might say, We require unleavened bread that is equally permitted] to all men. Therefore he informs us, [the repetition] ‘unleavened bread’, ‘unleavened bread’, is an extension. BUT NOT WITH TEBEL etc. That is obvious? — It is necessary [to teach it] only of tebel made so by Rabbinical law, e.g., if it was sown in an unperforated pot. NOR WITH FIRST TITHE WHOSE TERUMAH HAS NOT BEEN SEPARATED. That is obvious? — It is necessary [to state it] only where it had been anticipated [and set aside] in the pile. You might argue as R. Papa proposed to Abaye; hence he [the Tanna] informs us [that it is] as Abaye answered him. NOR WITH SECOND TITHE OR HEKDESH WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN REDEEMED etc. That is obvious? — It is necessary only where they have been redeemed; and what does they ‘HAVE NOT BEEN REDEEMED’ mean? That they have not been redeemed with their regulations. [Thus:] it is second tithe which he redeemed with uncoined metal, for the Divine Law states, And thou shalt bind up [we-zarta] the money in thine hand, [implying], that which bears a figure [zurah]. [Again it is] hekdesh which was secularized by means of land, for the Divine Law stated, Then he shall give the money and it shall be assured to him. Our Rabbis taught: One might think that a man can discharge his obligation with tebel which was not made ready. (But surely all tebel indeed has not been made ready! — Rather say, with tebel which was not made ready with all its requirements, the great terumah having been separated from it whereas the terumah of tithe was not separated from it; [or] the first tithe, but not the second tithe, or even the poor tithe). Whence do we know it? Because it is stated, thou shalt not eat leavened bread with it: teaching, [you must eat of] that the interdict of which is on account of ‘thou shalt not eat leavened bread with it’, thus this is excluded, for its interdict is not on account of ‘thou shalt not eat leavened bread with it’ but on account of ‘thou shalt not eat tebel’. Yet whither has the interdict of leaven gone? — Said R. Shesheth, The author of this is R. Simeon, who maintained, A prohibition cannot fall upon another prohibition. For it was taught, R. Simeon said:^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ

^ᵃᵇnote:I.e., ‘leavening’.
^ᵃᶜnote:Demai may not be eaten until the tithe has been separated.
^ᵃᵈnote:A poor man need not separate tithe on demai.
^ᵃᵉnote:They too are regarded as poor, since they are not at home.
^ᵃᶠnote:I.e., permitted for food.
^ᵃᵍnote:Sc. the separation of the first tithe.
^ᵃʰnote:The great terumah is a portion of the produce, unspecified by Scripture (the Rabbis prescribed from one fortieth to one sixtieth, according to the owner's generosity), which is the priest's due; for terumah of tithe v. note on Mishnah supra 35a. The great terumah must be separated first, and then the first tithe. But here the order was reversed and the Israelite separated his tithe while the grain was yet in the ears.
^ᵃⁱnote:Num. XVIII, 26.
^ᵃʲnote:I.e.. when it is no longer in the ears but piled up in stacks.
^ᵃᵏnote:Ibid. 29; i.e. ‘all’ is an extension, and shows that the offering is due even in such a case. — ‘For your sake’ or, ‘concerning you’ — to refute this possible view.
^ᵃˡnote:To apply the limitation of the first verse to the one case and the extension of the second to the other — perhaps it should be reversed?
^ᵃᵐnote:The priestly due, i.e., the great terumah, is ‘the firstfruits of thy corn’ (Deut. XVIII, 4). Hence once it is piled up as corn it is due, and the Israelite cannot then evade his obligations by reversing the order. But before it is piled up there is no obligation for the great terumah; therefore if the Levite receives his first tithe then he is not defrauding the priest.
^ᵃⁿnote:Lit., ‘gave’ — for redemption.
^ᵃᵒnote:When a man redeemed second tithe or hekdesh he added a fifth of its value.
^ᵃᵖnote:To the validity of the redemption, and the redeemed produce may be consumed anywhere, even though the fifth has not been added.
^ᵃᵠnote:This may refer either to Deut. XVI, 4, 8, or in general to the fact that ‘unleavened bread’ is repeated several times.
^ᵃʳnote:According to Scriptural law such is not tebel at all, and therefore I would think that a man discharges his obligation therewith.
^ᵃˢnote:The tithe having been separated but not the great terumah.
^ᵃᵗnote:That it is exempt, supra.
^ᵃᵘnote:Lit., ‘laws’.
^ᵃᵛnote:V. B.M. 47b for the meaning asimon.
^ᵃʷnote:Deut. XIV, 25.
^ᵃˣnote:The image stamped on the coin. This connects zarta with zurah.
^ᵃʸnote:I.e., redeemed, whereby the hekdesh assumes an ordinary, non-holy character.
^ᵃᶻnote:I.e.. land was given for its redemption.
^ᵇᵃnote:I.e.,it can be redeemed by money, but not by land. Actually there is no such verse, but v. B.M., Sonc. ed. p. 321, n. 1.
^ᵇᵇnote:For eating, by separating the priestly and the Levitical dues.
^ᵇᶜnote:In the first, second, fourth, and fifth years after the ‘years of release’ (shemittah) the first and second tithes were separated. In the third and sixth years, the first and third tithes were separated, the latter being a poor tithe, i.e., it belonged to the poor.
^ᵇᵈnote:That he cannot discharge his obligation therewith.
^ᵇᵉnote:Deut. XVI, 3.
^ᵇᶠnote:I.e., the unleavened bread which one must eat must be such that, if leavened, it would be forbidden because it is leavened. But in the case of tebel, if it were leavened it would be forbidden because it is tebel.
^ᵇᵍnote:Surely it is still forbidden on account of leaven, tebel merely being an additional prohibition?
^ᵇʰnote:I.e., become operative.
^ᵇⁱnote:I.e., when a thing is already forbidden on one score, another interdict cannot become operative at the same time. Thus here the prohibition of tebel is earlier; consequently the fact that it subsequently became leaven too is ignored, and it is regarded as prohibited on account of tebel only.