Pesachim 95

(יחזקאל מה, טו) מן המאתים ממותר שתי מאות שנשתיירו בבור מכאן לערלה שבטילה במאתים

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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Out of the two hundred' is unintelligible in itself. Hence the Talmud assumes that it refers to the wine of the 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.');">¹</span> from the well-watered pastures of Israel: from that which is permitted to Israel.

ממשקה ישראל מן המותר לישראל מכאן אמרו אין מביאין נסכין מן הטבל

Hence it was said, One may not bring drink-offerings from tebel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">²</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. tebel is unfit for drink-offerings because it is forbidden in itself.');">³</span>

יכול לא יביא מן המוקצה אמרת מה טבל מיוחד שאיסור גופו גרם לו אף כל שאיסור גופו גרם לו יצא מוקצה שאין איסור גופו גרם לו אלא איסור דבר אחר גרם לו ואי אמרת איסור מוקצה דאורייתא מה לי איסור גופו מה לי איסור דבר אחר

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is not forbidden, in itself, save that its owner has voluntarily put it out of use for the time being.');">⁴</span> Now if you say that the prohibition of mukzeh is Scriptural, what does it matter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what is it to me?'');">⁵</span>

ועוד הא את הוא דאמרת חילוק מלאכות לשבת ואין חילוק מלאכות ליו"ט

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a man performed two labours on the Sabbath in one state of unawareness, or one labour twice, each time having been unaware of the Sabbath (though he was reminded in the interval) , he is liable on account of each separately.');">⁶</span>

אלא אפיק הבערה ועייל עצי אשירה ואזהרה מהכא (דברים יג, יח) ולא ידבק בידך מאומה מן החרם

but there is not separation of labours on a Festival!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yet here, where we treat of a Festival, you rule that he is separately culpable for mukzeh and for boiling the sinew.');">⁷</span> - Rather, delete lighting and substitute the wood of the asherah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. He used that for fuel, and is flagellated on that account.');">⁸</span>

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לאביי ונלקי נמי משום (דברים ז, כו) ולא תביא תועבה אל ביתך

while its 'warning' [injunction] is [learnt] from here, [viz And there shall cleave nought of the accursed thing to thy hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIII, 18.');">⁹</span> 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 house<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VII, 26.');">¹⁰</span>

אלא אפיק הבערה ועייל עצי הקדש ואזהרה מהכא (דברים יב, ג) ואשיריהם תשרפון באש לא תעשון כן לה' אלהיכם

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XII, 3f.');">¹¹</span>

אמר רמי בר חמא הא דרב חסדא ורבה מחלוקת דר"א ורבי יהושע היא דר"א סבר אמרינן הואיל ורבי יהושע סבר לא אמרינן הואיל

Rami B'Hama said: This [controversy] of R'Hisda and Rabbah is the controversy of R'Eliezer and R'Joshua.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Mishnah Supra 46a.');">¹²</span> For R'Eliezer holds, We say, 'since',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he will eventually separate one mazzah for all, and that is not fit for eating, yet if he wishes he can take a 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.');">¹³</span>

אמר רב פפא ודילמא עד כאן לא קאמר ר"א התם דאמרינן הואיל אלא דבעידנא דקא עיילי לתנורא כל חדא וחדא חזיא ליה לדידיה אבל הכא דלאורחין הוא דחזי לדידיה לא חזי אימא הכי נמי דלא אמרינן הואיל

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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained in n. 11.');">¹⁴</span>

אמר רב שישא בריה דרב אידי ודילמא לא היא עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יהושע התם דלא אמרינן הואיל אלא דאיכא חדא דלא חזיא לא לדידיה ולא לאורחין אבל הכא דחזי מיהת לאורחין אימא הכי נמי אמרינן הואיל

but here that it is fit for visitors only, but it is not fit for himself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As far as he is concerned he is definitely baking it for the week, while he has not invited visitors.');">¹⁵</span> perhaps it is indeed [the fact] that we do not say 'since'?

אמרוה [רבנן] קמיה דרבי ירמיה ור' זירא ר' ירמיה קיבלה ר' זירא לא קיבלה א"ל רבי ירמיה לרבי זירא מילתא דקשיא לן ואתיא כמה שני במאי פליגי ר"א ור' יהושע השתא אמרוה משמיה דגברא רבה ולא ניקבלה

R'Shisha son of R'Idi said: Yet perhaps it is not so:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This too is a criticism of Rami b. Hama's statement.');">¹⁶</span> 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 visito but here that it is at least fit for visitors, perhaps it is indeed [the fact] that we say 'since'?

אמר ליה היכי אקבלה דתנינא אמר ליה רבי יהושע לדבריך הרי הוא עובר משום (שמות כ, ט) לא תעשה כל מלאכה ושתיק ליה ואי איתא לימא ליה טעמא דידי משום הואיל

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.

א"ל וליטעמיך הא דתנינא בברייתא אמר לו ר"א לדבריך הרי הוא עובר משום בל יראה ובל ימצא ושתיק ליה ה"נ דלא אהדר ליה הא קא מהדר ליה במתני' דתנן לא זהו חמץ שמוזהרין עליו משום בל יראה ובל ימצא אלא שתיק ליה בברייתא ומהדר ליה במתני' ה"נ אימור שתיק ליה במתני' ואהדר ליה במכילתא אחריתי

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?

תניא רבי אומר הלכה כר"א ור' יצחק אמר הלכה כבן בתירא

For it was taught, R'Joshua said to him: According to your words,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,if he does as you say.');">¹⁷</span> he transgresses on account of thou shalt not do any manner of work,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XX, 10.');">¹⁸</span>

וכמה שיעור עיסה רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר בחיטין קבין ובשעורין שלשת קבין ר' נתן אומר משום ר"א חילוף הדברים

and he was silent before him. But if this is correct,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rami b. Hama's explanation.');">¹⁹</span>

והתניא רבי ישמעאל בנו של ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר בחטין שלשת קבין ובשעורין ארבעה קבין לא קשיא הא בחסיכתא הא במעלייתא

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<big><b>MISHNAH:</b></big>

אמר רב פפא שמע מינה גריעין חיטי חסיכתא מחיטי מעלייתא טפי מדגריען שערי חסיכתא משערי מעלייתא דאילו התם תילתא והכא ריבעא

So here too, say that he was silent before him in a teaching,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mathnitha, especially collection of Mishnah not embodied in the Mishnah of R. Judah, as Baraitha, Tosaf. etc., contrad. to Mathnithin, our Mishnah (Jast.) .');">²⁰</span> yet he answered him in another collection [of Baraithas].

אמר רב קבא מלוגנאה לפיסחא וכן לחלה (והתניא)

It was taught, Rabbi said: The halachah is as R'Eliezer; while R'Isaac said: The halachah is as the Son of Bathyra. And what<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'how much?'');">²¹</span> is the standard of dough?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which one can knead on Passover and keep it from fermenting.');">²²</span> - 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Three in the case of wheat, and two in the case of barley, for barley ferments more quickly.');">²³</span> 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 t superior corn.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two kabs of superior wheat is the equivalent of three kabs of inferior wheat; while three kabs of superior barley is the equivalent of four kabs of inferior barley.');">²⁴</span> 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 quarter. Rab said: A kab of Meloga<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supposed to be a place in Babylon.');">²⁵</span> [is the standard] for Passover,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One must not knead more dough than that.');">²⁶</span> and it is likewise in respect of hallah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is the smallest quantity subject to hallah.');">²⁷</span> But we learned: