Pesachim 92

לא זה הוא חמץ שמוזהרין עליו בבל יראה ובבל ימצא אלא מפרישתה ומניחתה עד הערב ואם החמיצה החמיצה:

NOW THIS IS THE LEAVEN CONCERNING WHICH WE ARE WARNED WITH [THE INJUNCTIONS], 'IT SHALL NOT BE SEEN , AND 'IT SHALL NOT BE FOUND,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even if it does turn leaven it is not subject to these prohibitions. The Gemara explains the reason.');">¹</span> BUT HE SEPARATES IT AND LEAVES IT UNTIL THE EVENING, AND IF IT FERMENTS IT FERMENTS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It does not matter.');">²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> לימא בטובת הנאה קמיפלגי דר' אליעזר סבר טובת הנאה ממון ור' יהושע סבר טובת הנאה אינה ממון

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Goodwill benefit is a man's right to dispose of property to whomever he desires, though he may not keep it, and it is 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 ');">³</span> - No: all hold [that] goodwill benefit is not money, but here they differ in respect to 'since'.

לא דכולי עלמא סברי טובת הנאה אינה ממון והכא בהואיל קמיפלגי דר' אליעזר סבר אמרינן הואיל ואי בעי איתשיל עלה ממוניה הוא ור' יהושע סבר לא אמרינן הואיל

For R'Eliezer holds: We say, since if he desires, he can have it [sc. the designation of hallah] revoked,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a man declares anything sacred, as hallah, it is really the equivalent of a vow that this shall be sacred, and therefore he can be absolved of it, whereby his declaration is annulled, just as in the case of other vows.');">⁴</span> it is his property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Until he gives it to the priest. Therefore it is subject to these injunctions.');">⁵</span>

איתמר האופה מיום טוב לחול רב חסדא אמר לוקה רבה אמר אינו לוקה

While R'Joshua holds: We do not say, since.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We disregard this possibility, since in fact he has not revoked it. Hence it is not his property. But v. infra 48a, p. 227f.');">⁶</span> 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.

רב חסדא אמר לוקה לא אמרינן הואיל ומיקלעי ליה אורחים חזי ליה רבה אמר אינו לוקה אמרינן הואיל

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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore his action is not culpable.');">⁷</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But that we use this argument: since it is fit (of use) for him on that same day if he is visited by guests.');">⁸</span>

אמר ליה רבה לרב חסדא לדידך דאמרת לא אמרינן הואיל היאך אופין מיום טוב לשבת א"ל משום עירובי תבשילין

- On account of the 'erub<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">⁹</span> of dishes, he answered him.

ומשום עירובי תבשילין שרינן איסורא דאורייתא אמר ליה מדאורייתא צורכי שבת נעשין בי"ט ורבנן הוא דגזרו ביה גזירה שמא יאמרו אופין מי"ט אף לחול וכיון דאצרכוה רבנן עירובי תבשילין אית ליה היכירא

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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is definitely forbidden.');">¹⁰</span> but since the Rabbis necessitated an 'erub of dishes for it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., for cooking on a Festival for the Sabbath.');">¹¹</span>

איתיביה בהמה המסוכנת לא ישחוט אלא כדי שיכול לאכול הימנה כזית צלי מבעוד יום יכול לאכול אע"ג דלא בעי למיכל בשלמא לדידי דאמרי הואיל הואיל ואי בעי למיכל מצי אכיל משום הכי ישחוט אלא לדידך דאמרת לא אמרינן הואיל אמאי ישחוט

he has a distinguishing feature.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which makes it clear to him that cooking on Festivals is not permitted indiscriminately, but only for the Festival or the Sabbath.');">¹²</span> He [Rabbah] raised on objection against him: [In the case of] an animal at the point of death,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in danger' - of death. Hence the owner wishes to slaughter it before it dies, which would render its flesh nebelah (v. Glos) .');">¹³</span>

אמר ליה משום הפסד ממונו ומשום הפסד ממונו שרינן איסורא דאורייתא

he must not slaughter it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On a Festival.');">¹⁴</span> save when there is time to eat as much as an olive of it roast before night.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'while it is yet day', - i.e., on the Festival itself.');">¹⁵</span>

אמר ליה אין משום הפסד ממונו גמר בלבו לאכול כזית ואי אפשר לכזית בשר בלא שחיטה

[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 slaughte according to you who maintain, we do not say, 'since', why may he slaughter?

איתיביה לחם הפנים

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