Pesachim 58
להא שמעתא משמיה דרב יוסף בהא לישנא דכולי עלמא אין פודין את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים והכא בהא קמיפלגי בדבר הגורם לממון כממון דמי
this discussion in R'Joseph's name in the following version: All agree that one may not redeem sacred food in order to feed it to dogs, but here they differ in this, viz. , whether that which has indirect monetary value<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a thing which leads to money'.');"><sup>1</sup></span> is as money.
מאן דאמר מעל קסבר דבר הגורם לממון כממון דמי ומאן דאמר לא מעל קסבר דבר הגורם לממון לאו כממון דמי
He who says [that] he commits trespass holds, That which has indirect monetary value is as money; while he who maintains [that] he does not commit trespass holds, That which has indirect monetary value is not as money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On this version both Tannaim agree with R. Simeon. Thus it has no present value at all, save an indirect value, since it can be used after Passover, and they disagree as to whether this deferred value can be regarded as immediate value.');"><sup>2</sup></span> R'Aha B'Jacob said: All agree that that which has indirect monetary value is as money, but here they differ in the controversy of R'Judah and R'Simeon, He who says [that] he is not liable for trespass holds as R'Judah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That all benefit is forbidden to an Israelite even after Passover, so that the');"><sup>3</sup></span>
והא רב אחא בר יעקב הוא דאמר דר' יהודה יליף שאור דאכילה משאור דראייה אלא הדר ביה רב אחא בר יעקב מההיא
if he sets fire to another man's property on the Sabbath, since h violation of the Sabbath involves death, he is not liable for the damage. Now R'Nehunia B'ha-Kanah holds that it is the same if his act involves kareth instead of death: e.g. , if he sets fire to another man's property the Day of Atonement, the violation of which is punishable by kareth.
רב אשי אמר דכולי עלמא אין פודין ודבר הגורם לממון לאו כממון דמי והכא בפלוגתא דרבי יוסי הגלילי ורבנן קמיפלגי מאן דאמר מעל כרבי יוסי ומאן דאמר לא מעל כרבנן:
- Thus in the present case he need not indemnify hekdesh for the leaven, in view of the kareth involved, and where that is so, there is no trespass-offering. agrees with R'Simeon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is permissible for general use after Passover, even to an Israelite, and that it has a monetary value.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
אמר רב חמץ בזמנו בין במינו בין שלא במינו אסור שלא בזמנו במינו אסור שלא במינו מותר
But it was R'Aha B'Jacob himself who said that R'Judah learns se'or of 'eating' from se'or of 'seeing'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereby leaven of hekdesh is permitted for use during Passover even according to R. Judah.');"><sup>5</sup></span> - Hence R'Aha B'Jacob retracted from that [statement].
במאי עסקינן אילימא בנותן טעם שלא בזמנו שלא במינו מותר הא יהיב טעמא
R'Ashi said: All hold that we may not redeem [etc.], and that which has indirect monetary value is not as money. But here they differ in the controversy of R'Jose the Galilean and the Rabbis.
אלא במשהו חמץ בזמנו בין במינו בין שלא במינו אסור רב לטעמיה דרב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו כל איסורין שבתורה במינו במשהו שלא במינו בנותן טעם
He who rules [that] he is liable to trespass holds as R'Jose;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That benefit is permitted even during Passover. This leaven could be redeemed and used as fuel.');"><sup>6</sup></span> while he who rules [that] he is not liable for trespass agrees with the Rabbis.
רב גזר חמץ בזמנו שלא במינו אטו מינו ושלא בזמנו במינו אסור כרבי יהודה
Rab said: Leaven, in its time,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 129, n. 4.');"><sup>7</sup></span> whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'not with its kind' - and similarly in the whole passage.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ושלא במינו מותר דשלא בזמנו ושלא במינו אטו מינו כולי האי לא גזרינן
kind, is forbidden; when not in its time, [if mixed] with its own kind, it is forbidden; [if with] a different kind, it is permitted What are we discussing: Shall we say, where it imparts [its] taste [to the mixture], then [how state] when not in its time, if [mixed] with a different kind it is permitted? Surely it imparts taste!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is a general principle that if something forbidden is mixed with something permitted and imparts its taste thereto, the whole mixture is prohibited.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
שמואל אמר חמץ בזמנו במינו אסור שלא במינו מותר שלא בזמנו בין במינו בין שלא במינו מותר חמץ בזמנו במינו אסור שמואל לטעמיה דרב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו כל איסורין שבתורה במינו אסורין במשהו שלא במינו בנותן טעם
- Rather it refers to a minute quantity [of leaven]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Insufficient to impart a flavour to the other.');"><sup>10</sup></span> 'leaven in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, is forbidden', Rab being consistent with his view.
שלא במינן אטו מינן לא גזר שלא בזמנו בין במינן בין שלא במינן מותרין כר' שמעון
For Rab and Samuel both said: All forbidden things of the Torah, [if mixed] with their own kind, [render forbidden the mixture even] when there is a minute quantity; [if] with a different kind, [only] when [the forbidden element] imparts its taste. Now Rab forbade leaven in its time [when mixed] with a different kind on account of [a mixture with] its own kind.
ורבי יוחנן אמר חמץ בזמנו בין במינו ובין שלא במינו אסור בנותן טעם שלא בזמנו בין במינן בין שלא במינן מותר
When not in its period [and mixed] with its own kind, it [the mixture] is forbidden in accordance with R'Judah: but [when leaven has no monetary value at all; nor has it any indirect monetary value, since it cannot be redeemed to feed it to dogs by selling it to a non-Jew for the purpose.
חמץ בזמנו בין במינו בין שלא במינו בנותן טעם ר' יוחנן לטעמיה דר' יוחנן וריש לקיש דאמרי תרוייהו כל איסורין שבתורה בין במינן בין שלא במינן בנותן טעם שלא בזמנו בין במינו בין שלא במינו מותרין כר' שמעון
mixed] with a different kind it is permitted, because [to forbid it] when not in its time and [mixed] with a different kind on account of [a mixture] with its own kind, - to that extent we do not enact a preventive measure.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gazar means to enact a preventive measure, i.e., to forbid one case which should be permitted because it might otherwise be thought that another case, which is actually forbidden, is permitted too.');"><sup>11</sup></span> Samuel said: Leaven, in its time, [if mixed] with its own kind, is forbidden; if with a different kind, it i permitted. When not in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, it is permitted.' Leaven, in its time, [if mixed] with its own kind, is forbidden.' Samuel is consistent with his view. For Rab and Samuel both said: All prohibited things of the Torah, [if mixed] with their own kind, [render forbidden the mixture even] when there is a minute quantity; [if mixed] with a different kind, [only] when [the forbidden element] imparts [its] flavour. Now he does not forbid [leaven mixed] with a different kind on account of [a mixture with] its own kind.' When not in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, it is permitted,' - in accordance with R'Simeon, While R'Johanan said: Leaven, in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, is forbidden when it imparts [its] taste; when not in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, it is permitted.' Leaven, in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, [is forbidden] when it imparts [its] taste.' R'Johanan is consistent with his view. For R'Johanan and Resh Lakish both maintain: All forbidden things in the Torah, whether [mixed] with their own kind or with a different kind, [render forbidden the mixture only] when they impart [their] taste.' 'When not in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, it is permitted,'- in accordance with R'Simeon,