accessory

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Rebbi Yehudah and the rabbis disagree only when he intended afterwards to eat bread, but if he did not intend to eat bread afterwards, everybody agrees that if among them one is of the Seven Kinds, that is the one over which he recites the benediction. Rebbi Abba said, he has to recite a benediction at the end. Rebbi Yose said, the statement of Rebbi Abba disagrees with Rebbi Joshua ben Levi since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Rebbi Yehudah and the rabbis disagree only when he intended afterwards to eat bread, but if he did not intend to eat bread afterwards everybody agrees that if among them is one of the Seven Kinds, that is the one over which he recites the benediction; but Rebbi Abba said, he has to recite a benediction at the end. If he did not recite a benediction at the end it became an accessory and we have stated there (Mishna 7): “In every situation where there is a main course and side dishes, one recites the benediction for the main course and thereby frees the side dishes.”

MISHNAH: If salted fish was brought before him with bread, one recites the benediction over the salted fish and frees the bread because the bread is accessory. The following is the principle: Anything that is the main dish and comes with a side dish, one recites the benediction on the main dish and this frees the side dish.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Rav Naḥman, it is Rebbi Neḥemiah’s, as we have stated there: “A metal ring with a coral seal is impure; a coral ring with a metal seal is pure.” It was stated about this: “Rebbi Neḥemiah switches. And so did Rebbi Neḥemiah say, for a ring after its seal, for a ladder after its steps, for a קוֹלָב after what fixes it, for a (lock) [yoke] after its strips.” Rebbi Ila said, explain it according to everybody if she took it out in order to seal with it. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: if it was made for dual purpose, if she brought it out in order to seal one is liable, if she brought it out as jewelry one is not liable even for the seal for also the seal becomes an accessory of jewelry.

MISHNAH: He who takes out foodstuffs less than a measure in a vessel is not liable even for the vessel since the vessel is an accessory to it, for a living person on a bier he is not liable even for the bier since the vessel is an accessory to him. For a dead person on a bier he is liable, and so for the volume of an olive from a dead person, or the volume of an olive from a carcass, or of a lentil from a crawling animal one is liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. He who takes out a loaf into the public domain is liable. If two together took it out they are not liable. If one alone is unable to take it out and two took it out they are liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares them not liable.

MISHNAH: He who takes out foodstuffs less than a measure in a vessel is not liable even for the vessel since the vessel is an accessory to it, for a living person on a bier he is not liable even for the bier since the vessel is an accessory to him. For a dead person on a bier he is liable, and so for the volume of an olive from a dead person, or the volume of an olive from a carcass, or of a lentil from a crawling animal one is liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. He who takes out a loaf into the public domain is liable. If two together took it out they are not liable. If one alone is unable to take it out and two took it out they are liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares them not liable.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi [ ] said: He who permits makes the bolt an accessory to the lock; he who forbids makes the lock an accessory of the bolt.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi [ ] said: He who permits makes the bolt an accessory to the lock; he who forbids makes the lock an accessory of the bolt.

If one said, “I am a nazir for 100 days, and another heard it and said, “so am I for 100 days”, and repeated and said, “so am I”, the main [statement] becomes an accessory. If one said, “I am a nazir;” somebody said “and I” following immediately the first, another heard it and said, “so am I” following immediately the second. If the first became permitted, so does the second. If the second became permitted, the third was not permitted. If one said, “I am a nazir twice,” and two people heard it and said, “so are we”, are they two nezirim or is each of them a nazir twice? If he was permitted, they were permitted. He was not permitted. If two said, “we are nezirim,” another heard it and said, “so am I,” did he make a vow regarding both of them or did he make a vow parallel to each of them? If they were permitted, [he] was permitted; if [he] was permitted, they were not permitted.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: One estimates neither for the thief nor for the robber nor for the borrower but only for damages, and I am saying that even for the borrower one does not estimate, and Abba agrees with me. Who is Abba? Rebbi or Rabba bar Abuha. Rav Ḥisda said, this treats the main event as an accessory. There came Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: One estimates neither for the thief nor for the robber nor for the borrower but only for damages, and watchmen fall under the rules of damages.

MISHNAH: By the words of two witnesses or three witnesses shall a death sentence be imposed. If testimony is confirmed by two, why did the verse mention three? Only to compare three to two. Since three may prove that two are plotters, two also may prove that three are plotters. And from where even a hundred? The verse says “witnesses”. Rebbi Simeon says, since two are executed only if both are plotters, so three are executed only if all three are plotters. And from where even a hundred? The verse says “witnesses”. Rebbi Aqiba says, the third is only mentioned to punish him harshly and to identify his judgment with that of the others. If the verse in this way punished the accessory of criminals like criminals, so much more it will reward the accessory to one who keeps the commandments as one who keeps the commandments. Since the testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person, the same holds for three if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person. From where even for a hundred? The verse says, witnesses. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? In criminal trials, but in civil trials the testimony should be upheld by the remaining [witnesses]. Rebbi says, both in criminal and in civil trials, if they warned them. But if they did not warn them, what should two brothers do who were eye-witnesses to a murder?

MISHNAH: By the words of two witnesses or three witnesses shall a death sentence be imposed. If testimony is confirmed by two, why did the verse mention three? Only to compare three to two. Since three may prove that two are plotters, two also may prove that three are plotters. And from where even a hundred? The verse says “witnesses”. Rebbi Simeon says, since two are executed only if both are plotters, so three are executed only if all three are plotters. And from where even a hundred? The verse says “witnesses”. Rebbi Aqiba says, the third is only mentioned to punish him harshly and to identify his judgment with that of the others. If the verse in this way punished the accessory of criminals like criminals, so much more it will reward the accessory to one who keeps the commandments as one who keeps the commandments. Since the testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person, the same holds for three if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person. From where even for a hundred? The verse says, witnesses. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? In criminal trials, but in civil trials the testimony should be upheld by the remaining [witnesses]. Rebbi says, both in criminal and in civil trials, if they warned them. But if they did not warn them, what should two brothers do who were eye-witnesses to a murder?

But [perhaps it is here meant that] he eats it together with bread. If so, the bread is the principal food and the oil is only accessory ; and we have the Mishnaic teaching : This is the general rule : In the case of a food which is the principal thing and together with it something accessory, the benediction is to be uttered over the former, and there is no necessity for a benediction over the latter ! But [perhaps what is meant is] he drinks it with elaiogaron. (Rabbah b, Samuel said : Elaiogaron is the juice of beets ; oxygaron is the juice

But [perhaps it is here meant that] he eats it together with bread. If so, the bread is the principal food and the oil is only accessory ; and we have the Mishnaic teaching : This is the general rule : In the case of a food which is the principal thing and together with it something accessory, the benediction is to be uttered over the former, and there is no necessity for a benediction over the latter ! But [perhaps what is meant is] he drinks it with elaiogaron. (Rabbah b, Samuel said : Elaiogaron is the juice of beets ; oxygaron is the juice

If so, the elaiogaron is the principal thing and the oil an accessory ; and we have the Mishnaic teaching : This is the general rule : In the case of a food which is the principal thing and together with it is something accessory, the benediction is to be uttered over the former, and there is no necessity for a benediction over the latter !

If so, the elaiogaron is the principal thing and the oil an accessory ; and we have the Mishnaic teaching : This is the general rule : In the case of a food which is the principal thing and together with it is something accessory, the benediction is to be uttered over the former, and there is no necessity for a benediction over the latter !

Is, then, [barley-flour] of less value than salt and brine? For there is a teaching: Over salt and brine one says "...By Whose word all things exist." It was necessary ; for otherwise it might have entered thy mind to item, the rest being accessory; consequently it is established that there is a circumstance where oil requires a benediction. say that salt or brine a man is accustomed to convey to his mouth [with his food, and therefore a benediction is required], but since barley-flour is injurious by creating tape-worms no benediction should be uttered at all ; therefore he teaches us that since there is some enjoyment therefrom, it is necessary to pronounce a benediction.

If so, I will quote the continuation : R. Judah says : He pronounces the benediction over the olive, because it belongs to the seven species ! Does not R. Judah agree with the Mishnaic teaching : In the case of a food which is the principal thing and together with it is something accessory, the benediction is to be uttered over the former and there is no necessity for a benediction over the latter? Shouldest thou declare that here also R. Judah is not in agreement, lo there is a teaching : R. Judah says : If the olive is only there on account of the radish, he pronounces the benediction over the radish and it is unnecessary over the olive !

MISHNAH If they set before him salted food first and with it bread, he says the benediction over the salted food and this makes it unnecessary over the bread, because the bread is something accessory to it. This is the general rule : In the case of a food which is the principal thing and together with it is something accessory, the benediction is to be uttered over the former and there is no necessity for a benediction over the latter.

MISHNAH If they set before him salted food first and with it bread, he says the benediction over the salted food and this makes it unnecessary over the bread, because the bread is something accessory to it. This is the general rule : In the case of a food which is the principal thing and together with it is something accessory, the benediction is to be uttered over the former and there is no necessity for a benediction over the latter.

GEMARA Is there any salted food which is the principal thing and the bread, accessory ? Rab Aha b. Rab 'Awira said in the name of Rab Ashe : They refer to one who eats the fruits of Gennesareth.

Why then should we not deduce from the crown, of which a master stated: The crown was on the smallest possible size? We deduce the size of a vessel from that of another vessel, but not from an accessory to a vessel. If so, [it may be objected] was not the border also an appurtenance of a vessel? The border was below [the top of] the table.

This is correct according to the authority who holds that the border was below, but according to the authority who holds that it was above what can one say? It is only an accessory

Rava said: At first I used to think that the stand [on which the Sefer Torah is placed] is an accessory to an accessory and that it is permitted [to throw it away when worn out]. When, however, I saw that the Sefer Torah is placed actually on it, I said that it is an accessory of holiness and is forbidden.

Rava said: At first I used to think that the stand [on which the Sefer Torah is placed] is an accessory to an accessory and that it is permitted [to throw it away when worn out]. When, however, I saw that the Sefer Torah is placed actually on it, I said that it is an accessory of holiness and is forbidden.

Rava said: At first I used to think that the stand [on which the Sefer Torah is placed] is an accessory to an accessory and that it is permitted [to throw it away when worn out]. When, however, I saw that the Sefer Torah is placed actually on it, I said that it is an accessory of holiness and is forbidden.

Rava further said: At first I used to think that the curtain is an accessory of an accessory. When, however, I saw that it is folded over and a scroll is placed on it, I said that it is itself an accessory of holiness, and forbidden.

Rava further said: At first I used to think that the curtain is an accessory of an accessory. When, however, I saw that it is folded over and a scroll is placed on it, I said that it is itself an accessory of holiness, and forbidden.

Rava further said: At first I used to think that the curtain is an accessory of an accessory. When, however, I saw that it is folded over and a scroll is placed on it, I said that it is itself an accessory of holiness, and forbidden.