Pesachim

out of the two hundred,[i.e.,] out of the residue of the two hundred which was left in the vault, whence we learn that ‘orlah is nullified in [an excess of] two hundred;1 from the well-watered pastures of Israel: from that which is permitted to Israel. Hence it was said, One may not bring drink-offerings from tebel.2 You might think, he must not bring [them] from mukzeh [either], then say: Just as tebel is distinguished in that its intrinsic prohibition causes it,3 so everything whose intrinsic prohibition causes it [may not be used], thus mukzeh is excluded, because not its intrinsic prohibition causes it, but a prohibition of something else causes it.4 Now if you say that the prohibition of mukzeh is Scriptural, what does it matter5 whether it is an intrinsic prohibition or a prohibition through something else? Moreover, it was you who said, There is separation of labours on the Sabbath,6 but there is not separation of labours on a Festival!7 — Rather, delete lighting and substitute the wood of the asherah,8 while its ‘warning’ [injunction] is [learnt] from here, [viz.,] And there shall cleave nought of the accursed thing to thy hand.9 R. Aha son of Raba said to Abaye, Then let him be flagellated on account of, And thou shalt not bring an abomination into thy house10 too? — Rather, delete lighting and substitute the wood of hekdesh, while the ‘warning’ is [learnt] from here, [viz.,] and ye shall burn their Asherim with fire . . . ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God.11 Rami b. Hama said: This [controversy] of R. Hisda and Rabbah is the controversy of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua.12 For R. Eliezer holds, We say, ‘since’,13 while R. Joshua holds, We do not say since’. Said R. Papa: Yet perhaps R. Eliezer rules that we say ‘since’, there only, because when they go into the oven, each one is fit for himself;14 but here that it is fit for visitors only, but it is not fit for himself,15 perhaps it is indeed [the fact] that we do not say ‘since’? R. Shisha son of R. Idi said: Yet perhaps it is not so:16 R. Joshua may rule that we do not say, ‘since’, only there, where there is one [mazzah] that is not fit either for himself or for visitors; but here that it is at least fit for visitors, perhaps it is indeed [the fact] that we say ‘since’? The Rabbis reported this [Rami b. Hama's statement] before R. Jeremiah and R. Zera. R. Jeremiah accepted it: R. Zera did not accept it. Said R. Jeremiah to R. Zera: A matter which has been a continual difficulty to us for many years, [viz.,] wherein do R. Eliezer and R. Joshua differ, now [that] it has been explained in the name of a great man, shall we then not accept it? Said he to him, How can I accept it? For it was taught, R. Joshua said to him: According to your words,17 he transgresses on account of thou shalt not do any manner of work,18 and he was silent before him. But if this is correct,19 let him answer him, My reason is on account of ‘since’? — Then on your view, replied he, as to what was taught in a Baraitha, R. Eliezer said to him: According to your words, behold, he violates, ‘it shall not be seen’ and ‘it shall not be found’, and he was silent before him; could he indeed not answer him; surely he answers him in the Mishnah, for we learned: NOT THIS IS LEAVEN ABOUT WHICH WE ARE WARNED, IT SHALL NOT BE SEEN’, AND ‘IT SHALL NOT BE FOUND’. But [what we must say is that] he was silent before him in the Baraitha, yet he answered him in our Mishnah. So here too, say that he was silent before him in a teaching,20 yet he answered him in another collection [of Baraithas]. It was taught, Rabbi said: The halachah is as R. Eliezer; while R. Isaac said: The halachah is as the Son of Bathyra. And what21 is the standard of dough?22 — R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Berokah said: In the case of wheat, two kabs; in the case of barley, three kabs. R. Nathan said on R. Eleazar's authority: The rulings are [to be] reversed.23 But it was taught, R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Berokah said: In the case of wheat, three labs, and in the case of barley, four kabs? — There is no difficulty: One refers to inferior [corn]; the other to superior corn.24 R. Papa observed: This proves, Poor wheat is more inferior to good wheat than poor barley is inferior to good barley, for whereas there [there is a difference of] a third, here [there is a difference of] a quarter. Rab said: A kab of Meloga25 [is the standard] for Passover,26 and it is likewise in respect of hallah.27 But we learned: drink-offering (libation) which accompanied the continual burnt-offering (Num. XXVIII, 7f), and the meaning is this: if one part of forbidden wine, sc. wine of ‘orlah, as much as is required for the drink-offering, becomes mixed with two hundred times as much permitted wine, so that when the required quantity is removed from the wine-vault there still remains two hundred times as much, then it may be used, the ‘orlah having been nullified by the excess. — This is actually deduced from elsewhere (in Sifre), and this verse is merely quoted as support. been unaware of the Sabbath (though he was reminded in the interval), he is liable on account of each separately. piece from each mazzah, and so he will have baked every one for eating. Hence we say, since it would be permitted in the latter case, it is also permitted in the former. contrad. to Mathnithin, our Mishnah (Jast.). the equivalent of four kabs of inferior barley.