פסחים 43 — Soncino English Talmud

¹who have attained maturity but have not attained [their] years, the daughters of poor men plaster them [the unwanted hairs] with lime; the daughters of wealthy men plaster them with fine flour; while royal princesses, with oil of myrrh as it is written, six months with oil of myrrh. What is oil of myrrh? R. Huna b. Jeremiah said: Sakath. R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: Oil of olives which were not a third grown. It was taught, R. Judah said: Anpikanin is oil of olives which were not a third grown. And why do [women] rub it in [their skin]? Because it removes the hair and rejuvenates the skin. THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHATEVER IS OF THE SPECIES OF CORN. It was taught, R. Joshua said: Now since we learned, WHATEVER IS OF THE SPECIES OF CORN MUST BE REMOVED ON PASSOVER, why did the Sages enumerate these? So that fine flour, and wealthy women give the leavings to their poorer sisters, the daughters of scribes, who were generally poor. one should be familiar with them and with their names. As it once happened that a certain Palestinian visited Babylonia. He had meat with him and he said to them [his hosts], Bring me a relish. He [then] heard them saying, ‘Take him kutah’. As soon as he heard kutah, he abstained. THESE ARE SUBJECT TO A WARNING’. Which Tanna [holds] that real leaven of corn in a mixture, and spoiled leaven in its natural condition, is subject to a negative injunction? — Said Rab Judah in Rab's name: It is R. Meir. For it was taught: Si'ur must be burnt, and he may give it to his dog, and he who eats it is [punished] by forty [lashes]. Now this is self-contradictory. You say, ‘si'ur must be burnt’: this proves that it is forbidden for use. Then it is stated, ‘and he may give it to his dog’, which proves that it is permitted for use! This is its meaning: Si'ur’ [i.e., what is si'ur] according to R. Meir [must be burnt] in R. Meir's opinion, and [what is si'ur’] according to R. Judah [must be burnt] in R. Judah's opinion. And he may give it to his dog, [i.e., what is si'ur’] according to R. Meir [may be given to a dog] in R. Judah's opinion. And he who eats it is [punished] by forty [lashes] — this agrees with R. Meir. [Thus] we learn that R. Meir holds that spoiled [leaven] in its natural state is subject to a negative injunction, and all the more real leaven of corn in a mixture. R. Nahman said, It is R. Eliezer. For it was taught: For real leaven of corn there is the penalty of kareth; for a mixture of it [one is subject to] a negative injunction: this is the view of R. Eliezer. But the Sages maintain: For real leaven of corn there is the penalty of kareth; for the mixture of it there is nothing at all. [Thus] we learn that R. Eliezer holds that real leaven of corn in a mixture is subject to a negative injunction, and all the more spoiled [leaven] in its natural state. Now R. Nahman, what is the reason that he does not say as Rab Judah? — He can tell you: perhaps R. Meir rules [thus] only there, [in respect of] spoiled [leaven] in its natural state, but not [in the case of] real leaven of corn in a mixture. And Rab Judah: what is the reason that he does not say as R. Nahman? He can tell you: [Perhaps] R. Eliezer rules [thus] only there, [in respect of] real leaven of corn in a mixture, but not [in the case of] spoiled [leaven] in its natural state. It was taught in accordance with Rab Judah: Ye shall eat nothing leavened: this is to include Babylonian kutah and Median beer and Idumean vinegar and Egyptian zithom. You, might think that the penalty is kareth; therefore it is stated, for whosoever eateth that which is leavened shall be cut off for real leaven of corn there is the penalty of kareth, but for the mixture of it [you are subject] to a negative injunction. Now, whom do you know to maintain [that] for the mixture of it [you are subject] to a negative injunction? It is R. Eliezer. Yet he does not state spoiled [leaven] in its natural state. This proves that R. Eliezer does not hold [that] spoiled [leaven is subject to a negative injunction]. Now R. Eliezer, whence does he know that the mixture of it involves a negative injunction: because it is written, ‘ye shall eat nothing leavened’? If so, let him [the offender] be liable to kareth that real leaven in a mixture is more stringent leaven than spoiled leaven in its natural state. too, since it is written, ‘for whosoever eateth that which is leavened . shall be cut off’? — He requires that for what was taught: ([Ye shall eat nothing] leavened): I only know [that it is forbidden] where it turned leaven of itself; if [it fermented] through the agency of another substance, how do we know it? Because it is stated, for whosoever eateth that which is leavened shall be cut off. If so, [the teaching] of the negative injunction too comes for this purpose? Rather, R. Eliezer's reason is [that he] deduces from ‘whosoever’. [But] there too ‘whosoever’ is written? — He requires that to include women. But women are deduced from Rab Judah's [dictum] in Rab's name. For Rab Judah said in Rab's name, and the School of R. Ishmael taught likewise: when a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit: the Writ assimilated woman to man in respect of all the penalties which are [decreed] in the Torah? It is necessary:^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

^ᵃnote:I.e., they have grown the hair which is the evidence of maturity before the usual age, which is twelve years and a day. They would normally be ashamed and wish to remove it. Tosaf. in Shab, 80b s.v. ughdva omits ‘years’ and seems to translate: ‘who have reached their time (for marriage), and yet have not attained it’, so that they wish to make themselves more beautiful.
^ᵇnote:Est. II, 12 q.v.
^ᶜnote:Jast.: oil of myrrh or cinnamon.
^ᵈnote:It is stated in Men. 86a that anpikanin must not be brought with a meal-offering. R. Judah explains what this is.
^ᵉnote:That all may know that their use is forbidden on Passover.
^ᶠnote:Lit., ‘son of the West’.
^ᵍnote:To go with the meat.
^ʰnote:He knew that it contains milk, whilst they did not.
^ⁱnote:‘Nuksheh’, a leavened substance unfit for food.
^ʲnote:Babylonian kutah and Median beer both contain real leaven, but mixed with other substances; while women's paste is simply flour, unmixed, but spoiled and unfit for food.
^ᵏnote:This is dough which is beginning to ferment, i.e., semi-leaven. At that stage it is unfit for eating, and therefore the same as spoiled leaven; v. infra 48b.
^ˡnote:This is the punishment for violating a negative injunction.
^ᵐnote:V. infra 48b for the controversy between R. Meir and R. Judah as to what constitutes si'ur’, semi-leaven. Now both R. Meir and R. Judah hold that use of si'ur, as each defines it respectively, is forbidden, and hence it must be burnt. But si'ur, as defined by R. Meir, is in R. Judah's opinion mazzah (unleavened bread), but as it is not fit for eating, it must be given to a dog. The final clauses teaches this: according to R. Meir, he who eats si'ur, as defined by himself, is flagellated, though R. Judah holds that at that stage it is mazzah and may be eaten.
^ⁿnote:Such as si'ur.
^ᵒnote:Rab Judah being of the opinion
^ᵖnote:No penalty is incurred.
^ᵠnote:Thus R. Nahman holds that spoiled leaven unmixed is more stringent than real leaven in a mixture.
^ʳnote:[Added with MS.M.]
^ˢnote:That real leaven mixed is the more stringent.
^ᵗnote:Ex. XII, 20.
^ᵘnote:Ibid. 19.
^ᵛnote:I.e., include.
^ʷnote:The bracketed passage is omitted in some edd. as well as supra 28b in the quotation of this Baraitha.
^ˣnote:That a negative injunction is involved even in respect of that which is made leaven through a foreign substance. How then do we know that even for a mixture a negative injunction is transgressed?
^ʸnote:Heb. kol. This is an extension, and so teaches even the inclusion of a mixture.
^ᶻnote:In reference to kareth.
^ᵃᵃnote:That they too are subject to the penalty of kareth.
^ᵃᵇnote:Num.V, 6.

²you might argue, since it is written, Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith: whoever is subject to ‘arise, eat unleavened bread’, is subject to ‘thou shalt eat no leavened bread’; hence these women, since they are not subject to, ‘arise, eat unleavened bread’, because it is an affirmative precept limited to time, I would say that they are also not subject to, ‘thou shalt eat no leavened bread’. Hence it [the verse] informs us [otherwise]. And now that they have been included in [the injunction of] ‘thou shalt eat no leavened bread’, they are also included in respect of eating unleavened bread, in accordance with R. Eleazar. For R. Eleazar said: Women are subject to the [precept of] eating unleavened bread by the law of Scripture, for it is said, Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; [seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread [therewith]: whoever is subject to ‘thou shalt eat no leavened bread’, is subject to the eating of unleavened bread; and these women, since they are subject to [the injunction of] ‘thou shalt eat no leavened bread’, are [also] subject to, ‘arise, eat unleavened bread’. And why do you prefer [to assume] that this ‘whosoever is to include women, while you exclude its mixture; say that it is to include the mixture? — It is logical that when treating of eaters [Scripture] includes eaters; [but] when treating of eaters, shall it include things which are eaten? To this R. Nathan the father of R. Huna demurred: Then wherever [Scripture] treats of eaters does it not include things eaten? Surely it was taught: For whosoever eateth the fat [heleb] of the beast, of which men present an offering [made by fire to the Lord, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people]: I only know it of the heleb of unblemished [animals], which are fit to be offered [as sacrifices]; whence do we know it of the heleb of blemished animals? Therefore it is stated, ‘of the beast’. Whence do we know it of the heleb of hullin? Because it is stated, ‘For whosoever’, Thus here, though [Scripture] treats of eaters, yet it includes things eaten? — Since there are no eaters there [to be included], it includes things eaten. Here, however, that there are eaters [to be included], he cannot abandon eaters and include things eaten. Now as to the Rabbis who do not accept the view [that a negative injunction is violated through] a mixture, they do not interpret ‘whosoever’ [as an extension]. But then how do they know [that] women [are liable to kareth]? — They do not interpret ‘whosoever’ [as an extension], but they do interpret ‘for whosoever’ [as such]. Then [according to] R. Eliezer, say that ‘whosoever’ is to include women; ‘for whosoever’ is to include the mixture [of leaven]? And should you answer, R. Eliezer does not interpret ‘for whosoever’ [as an additional extension] surely it was taught: For ye shall not burn any leaven...[as an offering made by fire unto the Lord]: I only know it of the whole of it; whence do I know [even] part of it? Because ‘any’ [kol] is stated. Whence do we know [that] its mixture [is forbidden]? Because it is stated for any [ki kol]. Whom do you know to interpret kol [as any extension]? R. Eliezer; and he [also] interprets ‘for any’ [ki kol]. This is [indeed] a difficulty. R. Abbahu said in R. Johanan's name: In all the prohibitions of the Torah, a permitted [commodity] does not combine with a prohibited [commodity], except in the [case of the] prohibitions of a nazirite, for lo! the Torah said, [any] infusion [of grapes]. While Ze'iri said: Also ‘ye shall not burn any leaven’. With whom [does this agree]? With R. Eliezer, who interprets kol. If so,^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ

^ᵃᶜnote:Deut. XVI,3.
^ᵃᵈnote:Lit., ‘caused by the time’. I.e., it is performed at certain times or seasons, and it is shown in Kid. 29a that women are exempt from such.
^ᵃᵉnote:Lit., ‘what (reason) do you see?’
^ᵃᶠnote:While the limitation excludes women.
^ᵃᵍnote:Surely not.
^ᵃʰnote:Lev. VII, 25.
^ᵃⁱnote:Implying whether it is fit for sacrificing or not.
^ᵃʲnote:Which is an extension.
^ᵃᵏnote:For the inclusion of women in the prohibition and penalty follows from Rab's dictum supra 43a bottom.
^ᵃˡnote:Viz., women, as explained supra.
^ᵃᵐnote:For eating leaven. For R. Eliezer interprets ‘whosoever’ in both cases, one as including a mixture, and the other as including women. But since the Rabbis do not interpret ‘whosoever’ as an extension, there is nothing to intimate the inclusion of women.
^ᵃⁿnote:Written in connection with kareth, Ex. XXI, 15 and 19.
^ᵃᵒnote:Teaching that kareth is involved, and not merely a negative precept.
^ᵃᵖnote:Lev. II, 11. For...any (E.V. For ye shall make no...) is ki...kol, the same words which are translated for whosoever’ in the previous verses.
^ᵃᵠnote:I.e., where the whole of that which is burnt on the altar consists of leaven.
^ᵃʳnote:Leaven must not even be used as part of the offering.
^ᵃˢnote:I.e., anything containing a mixture of leaven.
^ᵃᵗnote:The minimum quantity to involve punishment is as much as an olive. Now, if a man eats half that quantity of heleb together with half that quantity of permitted meat simultaneously, the latter does not combine with the former, that it should be regarded as though he had eaten the full quantity of prohibited food.
^ᵃᵘnote:Num. VI, 3: neither shall he drink any infusion of grapes. By this the Talmud understands that he must not eat bread steeped in wine. Now bread itself is permitted, yet Scripture forbids the combination of bread and wine as though that also were forbidden, and if the two together amount to an olive, punishment is involved. For if Scripture refers to a case where the wine itself contains that quantity, why state it at all; obviously the wine is not less prohibited merely because it has been absorbed by the bread?
^ᵃᵛnote:Cf. Lev. I, 11. Rashi: if the priest put half an olive of leaven and half an olive of mazzah, not mixed together but each separately distinguishable, upon the altar, he incurs punishment. Tosaf. explains it differently.
^ᵃʷnote:Supra: ‘whence do I know (even) part of it’ etc. He understands this to mean that there is half an olive of each.