Pesachim 85

Chapter 85

א שהגיעו לפרקן ולא הגיעו לשנים בנות עניים טופלות אותן בסיד בנות עשירים טופלות אותן בסולת בנות מלכים בשמן המור שנא' (אסתר ב, יב) ששה חדשים בשמן המור
1 who have attained maturity but have not attained [their] years,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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 ughdva be ashamed and wish to remove it. Tosaf. in Shab, ');"><sup>1</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Est. II, 12 q.v.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב מאי שמן המור רב הונא בר ירמיה אומר סטכת רב ירמיה בר אבא אמר שמן זית שלא הביא שליש
2 What is oil of myrrh? R'Huna B'Jeremiah said: Sakath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jast.: oil of myrrh or cinnamon.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ג תניא ר' יהודה אומר אנפיקנין שמן זית שלא הביא שליש ולמה סכין אותו מפני שמשיר את השיער ומעדן את הבשר:
3 R'Jeremiah B'Abba said: Oil of olives which were not a third grown. It was taught, R'Judah said: Anpikanin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is stated in Men. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ד זה הכלל כל שהוא ממין דגן: תניא א"ר יהושע וכי מאחר ששנינו כל שהוא מין דגן הרי זה עובר בפסח למה מנו חכמים את אלו כדי שיהא רגיל בהן ובשמותיהן
4 is oil of olives which were not a third grown. And why do [women] rub it in [their skin]?
ה כי הא דההוא בר מערבא איקלע לבבל הוה בישרא בהדיה אמר להו קריבו לי מתכילתא שמע דקאמרי קריבו ליה כותח כיון דשמע כותח פירש:
5 Because it removes the hair and rejuvenates the skin. THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHATEVER IS OF THE SPECIES OF CORN.
ו הרי אלו באזהרה:
6 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
ז מאן תנא דחמץ דגן גמור ע"י תערובות ונוקשה בעיניה בלאו
7 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That all may know that their use is forbidden on Passover.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ח אמר רב יהודה אמר רב ר"מ היא דתניא שיאור ישרף ונותנו לכלבו והאוכלו בארבעים
8 As it once happened that a certain Palestinian<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'son of the West'.');"><sup>6</sup></span> visited Babylonia.
ט הא גופא קשיא אמרת שיאור ישרף אלמא אסור בהנאה והדר תני ונותנו לפני כלבו אלמא מותר בהנאה
9 He had meat with him and he said to them [his hosts], Bring me a relish.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To go with the meat.');"><sup>7</sup></span> He [then] heard them saying, 'Take him kutah'.
י הכי קאמר שיאור ישרף דר"מ לר' מאיר דר' יהודה לר' יהודה ונותנו לפני כלבו דר' מאיר לר' יהודה
10 As soon as he heard kutah, he abstained.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He knew that it contains milk, whilst they did not.');"><sup>8</sup></span> THESE ARE SUBJECT TO A WARNING'.
יא והאוכלו בארבעים אתאן לר' מאיר
11 Which Tanna [holds] that real leaven of corn in a mixture, and spoiled leaven<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Nuksheh', a leavened substance unfit for food.');"><sup>9</sup></span> in its natural condition, is subject to a negative injunction?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יב שמעינן ליה לרבי מאיר נוקשה בעיניה בלאו וכל שכן חמץ דגן גמור על ידי תערובת
12 - Said Rab Judah in Rab's name: It is R'Meir. For it was taught: Si'ur<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יג רב נחמן אמר ר"א היא דתניא על חמץ דגן גמור ענוש כרת על עירובו בלאו דברי ר' אליעזר וחכמים אומרים על חמץ דגן גמור ענוש כרת על עירובו בלא כלום ושמעינן ליה לר' אליעזר דאמר חמץ דגן גמור על ידי תערובת בלאו וכל שכן נוקשה בעיניה
13 must be burnt, and he may give it to his dog, and he who eats it is [punished] by forty [lashes].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the punishment for violating a negative injunction.');"><sup>12</sup></span> Now this is self-contradictory.
יד ורב נחמן מ"ט לא אמר כרב יהודה
14 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 permit 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.
טו אמר לך דילמא עד כאן לא קאמר ר"מ התם אלא נוקשה בעיניה אבל חמץ דגן גמור על ידי תערובת לא
15 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
טז ורב יהודה מ"ט לא אמר כרב נחמן
16 [Thus] we learn that R'Meir holds that spoiled [leaven] in its natural state<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as si'ur.');"><sup>14</sup></span> is subject to a negative injunction, and all the more real leaven of corn in a mixture.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab Judah being of the opinion');"><sup>15</sup></span>
יז אמר לך עד כאן לא קאמר ר"א התם אלא חמץ דגן גמור ע"י תערובת אבל נוקשה בעיניה לא אמר
17 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No penalty is incurred.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
יח תניא כוותיה דרב יהודה (שמות יב, כ) כל מחמצת לא תאכלו לרבות כותח הבבלי ושכר המדי וחומץ האדומי וזיתום המצרי יכול יהא ענוש כרת ת"ל (שמות יב, טו) כי כל אוכל חמץ ונכרתה על חמץ דגן גמור ענוש כרת ועל עירובו בלאו
18 [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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus R. Nahman holds that spoiled leaven unmixed is more stringent than real leaven in a mixture.');"><sup>17</sup></span> 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.
יט מאן שמעת ליה דאמר על עירובו בלאו ר"א היא ואילו נוקשה בעיניה לא קאמר ש"מ נוקשה לר"א לית ליה
19 An Rab Judah: what is the reason that he does not say as R'Nahman? He can tell you: [Perhaps]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Added with MS.M.]');"><sup>18</sup></span>
כ ור"א עירובו בלאו מנא ליה דכתיב כל מחמצת לא תאכלו
20 R'Eliezer rules [thus] only there, [in respect of] real leaven of corn in a mixture, but not [in the case of] spoiled [lea in its natural state. It was taught in accordance with Rab Judah:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That real leaven mixed is the more stringent.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
כא אי הכי כרת נמי לחייב דהא כתיב כי כל אוכל מחמצת ונכרתה
21 Ye shall eat nothing leavened:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 20.');"><sup>20</sup></span> this is to include Babylonian kutah and Median beer and Idumean vinegar and Egyptian zithom.
כב ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא (מחמצת) אין לי אלא שנתחמץ מאליו מחמת ד"א מניין ת"ל כל מחמצת ונכרתה
22 You, might think that the penalty is kareth; therefore it is stated, for whosoever eateth that which is leavened shall be cut off<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 19.');"><sup>21</sup></span> for real leaven of corn there is the penalty of kareth, but for the mixture of it [you are subject] to a negative injunction.
כג אי הכי דלאו נמי להכי הוא דאתא
23 Now, whom do you know to maintain [that] for the mixture of it [you are subject] to a negative injunction? It is R'Eliezer.
כד אלא טעמא דר"א מכל
24 Yet he does not state<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., include.');"><sup>22</sup></span> spoiled [leaven] in its natural state.
כה התם נמי הכתיב כל ההוא מיבעי ליה לרבות את הנשים
25 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'?
כו נשים מדרב יהודה אמר רב נפקא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב וכן תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל אמר קרא (במדבר ה, ו) איש או אשה כי יעשו מכל חטאת האדם השוה הכתוב איש לאשה לכל עונשין שבתורה
26 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.
כז איצטריך
27 too, since written, 'for whosoever eateth that which is leavened. shall be cut off'? - He requires that for what was taught: ([Ye shall eat nothing] leavened) :<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bracketed passage is omitted in some edd. as well as supra ');"><sup>23</sup></span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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?');"><sup>24</sup></span> Rather, R'Eliezer's reason is [that he] deduces from 'whosoever'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. kol. This is an extension, and so teaches even the inclusion of a mixture.');"><sup>25</sup></span> [But] there too<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reference to kareth.');"><sup>26</sup></span> 'whosoever' is written? - He requires that to include women.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That they too are subject to the penalty of kareth.');"><sup>27</sup></span> 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num.V, 6.');"><sup>28</sup></span> the Writ assimilated woman to man in respect of all the penalties which are [decreed] in the Torah? It is necessary: