Talmud for Pesachim 3:1

כהנת חופפת וסורקת שלא תחלוק בין נידה לנידה אוף הכא שלא לחלוק בין ביעור לביעור. תני רבן גמליאל ברבי איניונא קומי רבי מנא נידה שהיא מפסקת כל שבעה חופפת וסורקת. כהנת שהיא טובלת בכל יום אינה חופפת ואינה סורקת. א"ל לשמרת יום כנגד יום נצרכה. חורי הבית העליונים והתחתונים והיציע והחדות והעלייה וגג הכד וגג המגדל בית התבן ובית הבקר ובית העצים ובית האוצרות אוצרות היין ואוצרות השמן ואוצרות הפירות אינן צריכין בדיקה. ניחא העליונים והתחתונים. הדא אמרה לא חשו לנפילה. א"ר יוסה תיפתר שהיו שניהן סמוכין לכותל אחד למעלה מעשרה וא' למטה מי'. והא תנינן חדות הדא אמרה שלא חשו לנפילה. מתיירא הוא התינוק לילך לשם וחש לומר שמא נתגלגל חמץ שם תיפתר בחדות שיש לה ליזבוז. וגג הבד וגג המגדל. הדא דתימר בגבוהין ג' טפחים אבל אם אינן גבוהין ג' טפחים כארץ הם ובאותו שלא נשתמש בו חמץ. אבל באותו שנשתמש בו חמץ אפילו גבוה כמה צריך בדיקה. אמר רבי מנא ויאות כן אנן אמרין הדא פיפייארות אפי' גבוה כמה לא תהא צריכה בדיקה. תני רשב"ג אומר מיטה שהיא חוצצת בתוך הבית ועצים ואבנים מונחין תחתיה בודק צד החיצון ואינו בודק צד הפנימי מפני שעצים ואבנים מונחין תחתיה הא אם אין עצים ואבנים מונחין תחתיה צריך לבדוק צד הפנימי. הדא אמרה חשו לנפילה. אני אומר תינוק נגע והכניס שם חמץ.

a creative task, he should bring a sin offering. Two--he should bring a conditional sin offering. Three--he is exempt [from bringing a sacrifice of any sort.]” Rabbi Yose bar Bon raised the question [thus]: “If you were to say that two [stars indicate] doubt [as to whether it is day or night, then] if one saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was the Sabbath, thus making him liable for its violation], yet he [nonetheless] performed a creative task; [and if he subsequently] saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was still the Sabbath], yet he performed a creative task; then either way you like [he is liable for a violation of the Sabbath]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was now] night time [and the Sabbath had begun], then the first stars were also [an indication that it was now] night time [and no longer the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the first set [of stars]. [Another example:] If he saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and partially harvested a fig, [and] if he [subsequently returned] in the morning and harvested another part, and if he saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and harvested the [last] part of the fig, then either way you like [he is liable for a sin offering]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the departure of the sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was] night time [and now the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was] daytime [and no longer the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the night of the Sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the first set [of stars].” These [stars] that you are speaking of are [only] those whose way is not to appear in the daytime. However, we do not count those whose way is to appear in the daytime. Rabbi Yose bar Bon said: “Just so long as three stars may be seen aside from that [one we call] Kokhvata (prob. Venus).” (This may be a scribal error and the original version may have been: “Just so long as three stars may be seen [in one place, just] as one star [can be so seen.]”) Rabbi Yaakov of Romana in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi: “One star, surely day. Two, night.” But does he [truly] have no [time period of] doubt!? He has doubt about [discerning] one star from another. A baraita teaches: “So long as the eastern horizon is reddened, it is daytime. What has been said about the stars, applies to those which are not generally seen until nightfall; for, no note is taken of those which appear before the day is terminated. Therefore, R. Yosse bar R. Aboon says: It means three stars not counting, R. Jacob from Darom (south) says: One star indicates that it is still day; but two stars certainly show that it is night. Is there any doubt of this? No; the doubt can only exist between the stars visible by day, and the other stars. With regard to this, we are taught that it is still day as long as the sky is red towards the east;

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim

HALAKHAH: “Any time” etc. Rebbi Immi said, who is the Tanna of “any time when he is permitted to eat he is permitted to feed, when it is forbidden to the eater he is forbidden to feed”? Rebbi Meïr⁶Babli 21a. In Mishnah 1:4 R. Meïr permits to eat up to the time one has to dispose of the leftovers, in contrast to R. Jehudah who forbids to eat starting one hour before the leavened matter will be forbidden. The latter could not have formulated “any time”.. But following Rebbi Jehudah, in the fifth hour even though he is forbidden to eat he is permitted to feed. Rebbi Abba objected: Did we not state⁷Mishnah 3:5, presumed to be R. Meïr’s., “sour dough has to be burned but one who eats it is not liable⁸Ex. 12:19 contains two statements. 1° leavened matter may not be in a Jew’s possession on Passover, and 2°, it is a deadly sin, punishable by extirpation, to eat leavened matter during the holiday. The Tanna of the Mishnah holds that the second statement is not applicable to matters commonly considered to be inedible.,” and did not Rav Ḥuna say in the name of Rebbi, one may feed it to the dogs⁹Mishnah 1 excludes feeding to animals.? Rebbi Yose said, did we state “any leavened matter”, not “time¹⁰Mishnah 2:1 is formulated to apply only to the 14th of Nisan. Mishnah 3:5, referring to Nisan 15–21, does not contradict the earlier Mishnah.”? Who is the Tanna of “time”, Rebbi Meïr.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim

Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac had wine which was getting sour. He added barley to it that it should become vinegar²⁸⁶. In G (confirmed by quotes in Raviah and Meïri): That it certainly should become vinegar. Wine which starts to get sour can be sold neither as wine nor as vinegar; it is better to turn it into vinegar as quickly as possible.. He asked Rebbi Immi, who told him, you have to eliminate²⁸⁷Since the barley grains became leavened matter in the wine, in contrast to barley preserved in fully sour vinegar.
It seems that the Yerushalmi implies from the linguistic relation between חָמֵץ “leavened matter” and חוֹמֶץ “vinegar” that the processes which turn dough into leavened bread and wine into vinegar are essentially the same. Rabbenu Tam, in a ms. Of his Pentateuch Commentary edited by S. E. Stern (קובץ המיעדים פסח vol. 1, p. 16, Moriah, Jerusalem 2005), notes that this and the following example imply that all fluids except vinegar may cause grain to become leavened, in contrast to the Babli (35b) who states categorically that fruit juices (with no water added) cannot cause leavening.. [Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Kihai {Kirai}²⁸⁸Reading of G. The text added by the corrector is confirmed by G. had honey adulterated with flour. He asked Rebbi Mana who told him, you have to eliminate. One of the people of [the house of]²⁸⁹Added from G. Rebbi Kirai had leather sacks of oil in the storage room of wheat. He asked the rabbis,who told him, go and clean out from under them²⁹⁰The wheat kernels on the flour have to be removed before Passover since they may have become wet during the rainy season.. Rebbi Immi instructed about those leather sacks of kutah²⁹¹Yogurt for which the source of the bacteria is mouldy bread, which is certainly leavened matter. But since the contents of the leather sacks always were cold, three days of leaching by water is enough., one fills them with water for three days [and empties them]²⁸⁹Added from G.every24hours.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If a crawling animal³⁴One of the animals whose carcass is a source of original impurity (Lev. 11:29–30). It has to be removed to avoid spreading impurity. Even though the Cohen’s belt is sanctified, its impurity may be removed by the sundown following its immersion in a miqweh. was found in the Temple,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said to him, did you not prolong the impurity? He answered him, did you not increase impurity? He told him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by him than a prohibition which will come before him¹⁶⁵Since no human killed the animal which was found in the Temple, it is better to leave it there for some time than remove it while defiling a priestly garment.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as we have stated there¹⁶⁶Mishnah Pesaḥim 3:3. Ḥallah is the heave of bread dough to be given to a Cohen to eat in purity (cf. Introduction to Tractate Ḥallah.) Making food on a holiday is permitted, but baking mazzah on Passover creates a problem if the flour is impure since the ḥallah must be given but may not be eaten; therefore it may not be baked, but then it will get sour and this is forbidden on Passover. R. Eliezer says that ḥallah should be declared not from the dough but from finished mazzah; R. Jehudah ben Bathyra says that it should be refrigerated and then burned in the evening (which is practical only in his mountain town of Nisibis). R. Joshua says that ḥallah should be given as usual and declared the Cohen’s property; then it no longer is the baker’s property and the prohibition (Ex. 13:6) it should not be seen in your property and not be found in your property does not apply., “how does one separate ḥallah in impurity on a holiday? Rebbi Eliezer says, one should not declare its name until after it was baked. Ben Bathyra says, he should put it into cold water.” Rebbi Joshua said to him, are you not like one who burns sancta on a holiday? Rebbi Eliezer told him, it is burned automatically¹⁶⁷Since R. Eliezer does not say that one should not separate ḥallah as dough, only that one may not call it ḥallah, this implies that he prescribes that the ḥallah dough be baked as separate mazzah. If the dough had been declared as ḥallah it would be an impure sanctum which could not be burned (or baked) on the holiday.. Rebbi Joshua said to him¹⁶⁸This should read: They said to R. Joshua., are you not transgressing it should not be seen, and it should not be found? He told him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by you than a prohibition which will come before you¹⁶⁹R. Joshua to R. Eliezer. The dough will become sour by itself, but R. Eliezer requires one actively to bake the non-food ḥallah..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Full Chapter