Pesachim

who have attained maturity but have not attained [their] years,1 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.2 What is oil of myrrh? R. Huna b. Jeremiah said: Sakath.3 R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: Oil of olives which were not a third grown. It was taught, R. Judah said: Anpikanin4 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.5 As it once happened that a certain Palestinian6 visited Babylonia. He had meat with him and he said to them [his hosts], Bring me a relish.7 He [then] heard them saying, ‘Take him kutah’. As soon as he heard kutah, he abstained.8 THESE ARE SUBJECT TO A WARNING’. Which Tanna [holds] that real leaven of corn in a mixture, and spoiled leaven9 in its natural condition, is subject to a negative injunction?10 — Said Rab Judah in Rab's name: It is R. Meir. For it was taught: Si'ur11 must be burnt, and he may give it to his dog, and he who eats it is [punished] by forty [lashes].12 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.13 [Thus] we learn that R. Meir holds that spoiled [leaven] in its natural state14 is subject to a negative injunction, and all the more real leaven of corn in a mixture.15 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.16 [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.17 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]18 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:19 Ye shall eat nothing leavened:20 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 off21 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 state22 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):23 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?24 Rather, R. Eliezer's reason is [that he] deduces from ‘whosoever’.25 [But] there too26 ‘whosoever’ is written? — He requires that to include women.27 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:28 the Writ assimilated woman to man in respect of all the penalties which are [decreed] in the Torah? It is necessary: 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. is simply flour, unmixed, but spoiled and unfit for food. same as spoiled leaven; v. infra 48b. 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. How then do we know that even for a mixture a negative injunction is transgressed?