Pesachim

NOW THIS IS THE LEAVEN CONCERNING WHICH WE ARE WARNED WITH [THE INJUNCTIONS], ‘IT SHALL NOT BE SEEN , AND ‘IT SHALL NOT BE FOUND,1 BUT HE SEPARATES IT AND LEAVES IT UNTIL THE EVENING, AND IF IT FERMENTS IT FERMENTS.2 GEMARA. Shall we say that they differ in respect of goodwill benefit, R. Eliezer holding, Goodwill benefit is considered money, while R. Joshua holds, Goodwill benefit is not money?3 — No: all hold [that] goodwill benefit is not money, but here they differ in respect to ‘since’. For R. Eliezer holds: We say, since if he desires, he can have it [sc. the designation of hallah] revoked,4 it is his property.5 While R. Joshua holds: We do not say, since.6 It was stated: [With regard to] one who bakes [food] on a Festival for [consumption on] a weekday, — R. Hisda said: He is flagellated; Rabbah said: He is not flagellated. ‘R. Hisda said, He is flagellated’: We do not say, Since if guests visited him it would be fit for him [on the Festival itself].7 Rabbah said: He is not flagellated: we say, ‘since’ Said Rabbah to R. Hisda, According to you who maintain, We do not say, ‘since’, how may we bake on a Festival for the Sabbath?8 — On account of the ‘erub9 of dishes, he answered him. And on account of an ‘erub of dishes we permit a Biblical prohibition! — Said he to him, By Biblical law the requirements of the Sabbath may be prepared on a Festival, and it was only the Rabbis who forbade it, lest it be said, You may bake on a Festival even for weekdays;10 but since the Rabbis necessitated an ‘erub of dishes for it,11 he has a distinguishing feature.12 He [Rabbah] raised on objection against him: [In the case of] an animal at the point of death,13 he must not slaughter it14 save when there is time to eat as much as an olive of it roast before night.15 [Thus, it states when] he is able to eat [thereof], [that is] even if he does not wish to eat. Now according to me, who maintain that we say, ‘since’, it is well: since if he desires to eat, he is able to eat, for that reason he may slaughter. But according to you who maintain, we do not say, ‘since’, why may he slaughter? Said he to him, On account of the loss of his money. And on account of the loss of his money we permit a Biblical prohibition! Yes, he replied: on account of the loss of his money he determined in his heart to eat as much as an olive, and as much as an olive of flesh is impossible [to obtain] without slaughtering. He [Rabbah] raised an objection against him: The shewbread disputed whether such a right is accounted as of monetary worth. Naturally, even if it is, its value is small. Thus an Israelite must separate hallah, but he can give it to any priest he desires, and a friend of a particular priest might pay him a trifle to give it to that priest. Now, it has been stated supra 5b that the interdict against leaven being seen or found in the house applies only to one's own leaven. Now if goodwill benefit ranks as money, the hallah is accounted the Israelite's property, and therefore it is subject to this interdict: hence R. Eliezer holds that the dough must first be baked. But if goodwill benefit does not rank as money, the hallah is not accounted the Israelite's property, and therefore it is separated from the dough, and it does not matter if it turns leaven. therefore he can be absolved of it, whereby his declaration is annulled, just as in the case of other vows. 227f. the Sabbath. nebelah (v. Glos).