cake

There we have stated: “If he ate a fig cake with dirty hands, put his hand into his mouth to remove a pebble, …” Ḥizqiah said, one stated this only for a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger, therefore not for anything else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, equally a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger or anything other. The Mishnah disagrees with Ḥizqiah: “Touching by a person impure in the impurity of the dead who had food or drink in his mouth: if he put his head inside a pure stove he made it impure. If a pure person with food or drink in his mouth put his head inside the impure stove he became impure.” One understands drinks. From where was the food susceptible to impurity? Not from his saliva! Explain it either from a moist fig cake or as food which already outside were susceptible to impurity. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One eats dry food with dirty hands with heave but not with sancta.” Explain it if he throws. If he throws then even for sancta. Maybe he will forget and touch. If maybe he will forget and touch then it should be forbidden also for heave. Eaters of heave are vigilant and he will not forget but eaters of sancta are not vigilant and he forgets.

“Reading in the Torah.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody was saying anything to him, not even a word from the Torah. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said to him, he himself would not have died if he had stated. What about it? As Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because they were at a loss how to start with him, whether about his body, or his money, or the souls of his sons and daughters. A student of Rav Ḥisda became sick. He sent him two students to study with him. He turned before them into a kind of snake; they interrupted and he died. A student of Bar Pedaya became sick. He sent him two students to study with him. He turned before them into a kind of (oil cake) [a star]; they interrupted and he died. It was stated: But he may study a subject not familiar to him. As the following: Something happened to Rebbi Yasa. Rebbi Joḥanan sent him two students to study with him. If because it is permitted we do not know; or if because it was a subject not familiar to him we do not know. What was not familiar to Rebbi Yasa? But for example rabbinic decisions people are asked about and it is for him as if not familiar. Something happened to Rebbi Yose bar Petrus the first father-in-law of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Bar Qappara sent him two students to study with him. If because it is permitted we do not know; or if because he was ardent for words of the Torah we do not know. And it was stated thus: If he was ardent for words of the Torah it is permitted.

Rebbi Meїr is suspicious about bills of divorce. Rebbi Jehudah is suspicious about a child. Rebbi Yose is suspicious about bills of divorce and a child. Could you say that Rebbi Meїr is not suspicious about bills of divorce, as we have stated: “Those that had received qiddushin can be married.” Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Gedula: The one who repudiates does not have to wait three months; the one who leaves by a bill of divorce needs to wait three months. This supports Rebbi Me‘ir since Rebbi Meїr is suspicious about bills of divorce. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Jeremiah: A woman who has been raped does not have to wait three months. This supports Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose is suspicious about bills of divorce and a child. It was stated: The proselyte, the captive, and the slave woman who were redeemed, or converted, or freed, have to wait three months, the words of Rebbi Judah. Rebbi Yose says, they do not have to wait. Their blood, Rebbi Jehudah says, makes impure 24 hours retroactively; Rebbi Yose says, from its moment onwards. Rebbi said, the words of Rebbi Judah are reasonable for the blood, and the words of Rebbi Yose for the child. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Abbahu said, my father had a case and he asked Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, and Rebbi Immi, and they instructed him following Rebbi Yose for the child. For if it were not so, what could we say? Between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, practice does not follow Rebbi Yose? But because Rebbi said, “they are reasonable”. Did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, every time Rebbi taught “they are reasonable”, the disagreement is unresolved except in the case of the fig cake where each party to the controversy accepts the opposition’s argument. Rebbi Yose said, I stated a difficulty before Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Abbahu: Even if it is certain that they had sex? He said to him, is a normal Gentile not like one who had sex? Simeon bar Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Joḥanan and he instructed following Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Eleazar was sorry about this; he said, one disregards the anonymous [Mishnah] and follows an isolated opinion! He found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated it in the name of Rebbi Meїr. He understood that following Rebbi Simeon, he found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated it in the name of Rebbi Meїr. He said, the old man certainly understands the chapters about bills of divorce.

MISHNAH: One gives her half a qab of legumes and half a qab of oil, a qab of dried figs or a mina of fig cake; if there are none available one finds her fruit from other places. Also one gives her a bed and a mat; if he has no bed, a mat and a rug. Also, one gives her a cap for her head and a belt for her loins, and shoes every holiday, and garments worth 50 tetradrachmas every year. One does not give her new ones in the summer or worn ones in the winter, but one gives her garments worth 50 tetradrachmas in the winter and she covers herself with the worn garments in the summer; and the rags are hers.

MISHNAH: ‘From the salted’ he is forbidden only salted fish. ‘That I shall not taste anything salted’, he is forbidden everything salted. ‘That I shall not taste fish, fishes’, he is forbidden them either large or small, either salted or unsalted, either raw or cooked. But he is permitted fish cake and fish fluid. If somebody vows not to eat anchovy he is forbidden fish cake and permitted fish fluid and brine. If somebody vows not to eat fish cake he is permitted fish fluid and brine.

MISHNAH: ‘From the salted’ he is forbidden only salted fish. ‘That I shall not taste anything salted’, he is forbidden everything salted. ‘That I shall not taste fish, fishes’, he is forbidden them either large or small, either salted or unsalted, either raw or cooked. But he is permitted fish cake and fish fluid. If somebody vows not to eat anchovy he is forbidden fish cake and permitted fish fluid and brine. If somebody vows not to eat fish cake he is permitted fish fluid and brine.

MISHNAH: ‘From the salted’ he is forbidden only salted fish. ‘That I shall not taste anything salted’, he is forbidden everything salted. ‘That I shall not taste fish, fishes’, he is forbidden them either large or small, either salted or unsalted, either raw or cooked. But he is permitted fish cake and fish fluid. If somebody vows not to eat anchovy he is forbidden fish cake and permitted fish fluid and brine. If somebody vows not to eat fish cake he is permitted fish fluid and brine.

“He is permitted fish cake”; therefore not if it is not ground. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Ze‘ira asked: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan who said, in matters of vows one follows common usage It is not the way of people that if a man says to his neighbor, sell me a fish, that he should sell him a sardine. Rebbi Abin understood it from the last clause, “if somebody vows not to eat fish cake he is permitted fish fluid and brine,” therefore not if it is not ground? Rebbi [Jeremiah] said, Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan who said, in matters of vows one follows common usage. It is not the way of people that if a man says to his neighbor, sell me a טְרִי, that he sells him a צַחְנָא. There, they call צַחְנָה טְרִית.

“He is permitted fish cake”; therefore not if it is not ground. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Ze‘ira asked: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan who said, in matters of vows one follows common usage It is not the way of people that if a man says to his neighbor, sell me a fish, that he should sell him a sardine. Rebbi Abin understood it from the last clause, “if somebody vows not to eat fish cake he is permitted fish fluid and brine,” therefore not if it is not ground? Rebbi [Jeremiah] said, Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan who said, in matters of vows one follows common usage. It is not the way of people that if a man says to his neighbor, sell me a טְרִי, that he sells him a צַחְנָא. There, they call צַחְנָה טְרִית.

MISHNAH: “I shall be a nazir [abstaining] from dried figs and fig cake,” the House of Shammai say, he is a nazir, but the House of Hillel say, he is no nazir. Rebbi Jehudah said, when the House of Shammai expressed an opinion, it was about one who said, they are qorban for me.

HALAKHAH: “I shall be a nazir [abstaining] from dried figs and fig cake,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of the House of Shammai: because he mentioned the state of nazir. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, because of substitutes of substitutes. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, a verse supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “So says the Eternal, as cider is found in the grape bunch, etc.” The Torah called a grape bunch “cider”. And people call a dried fig cider, because of substitutes of substitutes. What is the difference between them? If he said, “I shall be a nazir[abstaining] from dried figs and fig cake.” In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is a nazir, in Rebbi Simeon’s opinion he is not a nazir. “I shall be a nazir[abstaining] from a loaf of bread,” in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is a nazir, in Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion he is not a nazir. “From a loaf of bread,” he did not say anything. Rebbi Uqba asked before Rebbi Mana: The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems to be inverted, as we have stated there: “ ‘I take upon myself the obligation to bring a flour offering from barley.’ He shall bring from wheat.” And Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, because he mentioned “flour offering.” And here, he says so? He accepts one and he accepts the other. He accepts because he mentioned the state of nazir, and he accepts because of substitutes of substitutes. You should know that it is so since we have stated: “If he said, the cow said.” She did not say anything; it is because he mentioned the state of nazir, and here he mentioned the state of nazir.

HALAKHAH: “I shall be a nazir [abstaining] from dried figs and fig cake,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of the House of Shammai: because he mentioned the state of nazir. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, because of substitutes of substitutes. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, a verse supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “So says the Eternal, as cider is found in the grape bunch, etc.” The Torah called a grape bunch “cider”. And people call a dried fig cider, because of substitutes of substitutes. What is the difference between them? If he said, “I shall be a nazir[abstaining] from dried figs and fig cake.” In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is a nazir, in Rebbi Simeon’s opinion he is not a nazir. “I shall be a nazir[abstaining] from a loaf of bread,” in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is a nazir, in Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion he is not a nazir. “From a loaf of bread,” he did not say anything. Rebbi Uqba asked before Rebbi Mana: The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems to be inverted, as we have stated there: “ ‘I take upon myself the obligation to bring a flour offering from barley.’ He shall bring from wheat.” And Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, because he mentioned “flour offering.” And here, he says so? He accepts one and he accepts the other. He accepts because he mentioned the state of nazir, and he accepts because of substitutes of substitutes. You should know that it is so since we have stated: “If he said, the cow said.” She did not say anything; it is because he mentioned the state of nazir, and here he mentioned the state of nazir.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody empowered his agent,” etc. It was stated: “If a man and a woman come from overseas; he says, she is my wife, and she says, he is my husband. One will not execute anybody because of her being a married woman. If they become generally known, one will execute because of her being a married woman.” How long does it take to be generally known? Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Up to thirty days. There, we have stated: “A toddler who is found near cake-dough with a piece of dough in his hand, Rebbi Meïr declares pure but the Sages declare it impure, for toddlers will slap their hands on cake-dough.” Does one burn because of general knowledge? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one executes because of general knowledge. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not execute because of general knowledge. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Everybody agrees that one executes because of general knowledge. Where do they disagree? About burning. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one executes because of general knowledge but one does not burn because of general knowledge. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since one executes because of general knowledge, one also burns because of general knowledge. And from where that one executes because of general knowledge? Rebbi Samuel, the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is written: “He who hits his father or his mother shall be put to death.” But is it certain that this one is his father? Is it not only general knowledge that he is his father? But it says, one executes. So here also one executes.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody empowered his agent,” etc. It was stated: “If a man and a woman come from overseas; he says, she is my wife, and she says, he is my husband. One will not execute anybody because of her being a married woman. If they become generally known, one will execute because of her being a married woman.” How long does it take to be generally known? Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Up to thirty days. There, we have stated: “A toddler who is found near cake-dough with a piece of dough in his hand, Rebbi Meïr declares pure but the Sages declare it impure, for toddlers will slap their hands on cake-dough.” Does one burn because of general knowledge? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one executes because of general knowledge. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not execute because of general knowledge. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Everybody agrees that one executes because of general knowledge. Where do they disagree? About burning. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one executes because of general knowledge but one does not burn because of general knowledge. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since one executes because of general knowledge, one also burns because of general knowledge. And from where that one executes because of general knowledge? Rebbi Samuel, the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is written: “He who hits his father or his mother shall be put to death.” But is it certain that this one is his father? Is it not only general knowledge that he is his father? But it says, one executes. So here also one executes.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah says, anything out of the ordinary one has to make public. How is this? If he found a fig cake containing a potsherd, or a loaf containing coins. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, merchandise of any kind one does not have to make public.

Rebbi Hoshaia stated: If [a woman] gave birth and then converted, she has no period of purity. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. If Rebbi Hoshaia had not stated this, would it have been a problem for us? Since she has no period of impurity, she cannot have a period of purity. It was stated: The proselyte, the captive, and the slave woman who were redeemed, or converted, or freed, have to wait three months, the words of Rebbi Judah. Rebbi Yose says, they do not have to wait. Their blood, Rebbi Jehudah says, is timed exactly; Rebbi Yose says, it makes impure 24 hours retroactively. Rebbi said, the words of Rebbi Yose are reasonable for the blood, and the words of Rebbi Judah for the child. But Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan, practice follows Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: For if it were not so, what could we say? Between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, practice does not follow Rebbi Yose? But because Rebbi said, “they are reasonable”. Did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, every time Rebbi taught “they are reasonable”, the disagreement is unresolved except in the case of the fig cake where each party to the controversy accepts the opposition’s argument. Rebbi Yose said, I stated a difficulty before Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Abbahu: Even if it is certain that they had sex? He said to him, is a normal Gentile not like one who had sex?

Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, the child was dissolved before it came out. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon agrees that he causes his mother the days of birth. Then the house should be impure? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it if it came out partially dissolved. Rebbi Simeon said to the Sages: Do you not agree with me that if the basin is carried from the inner to an outer room it is pure? They said to him, because it becomes scrambled. He said to them, this one is already scrambled. What is the rule about vessels which were there at the time of delivery? Let us hear from the following which we stated there: “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, if a cow brought forth a cake of blood, that should be buried and she is freed from the rule of firstlings.” It was stated on this: It does not bring impurity by being carried. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said the same thing. This implies that vessels which were there at the time of delivery are pure.

but he did not heed them. Towards evening he was picking up chips of wood and, on his way home, carried the chips on one shoulder and his cloak on the other. The whole way long he did not put on his shoes, but when he had to cross the water he put them on. When he came across thorns and shrubs he lifted up his garments, and when he reached the city, his wife came to meet him bedecked with her finery. When he arrived at the door of his house, he let her enter first, then he followed. He sat down to eat, but did not invite the scholars to join him. Distributing cakes to the children, he gave to the older child one and to the younger two. Turning to his wife, he said: "I know that these scholars came to see me on account of rain; let us go up to the roof and pray; the Holy One, blessed be He, will, perhaps, accept our prayer and there will be rain." When on the roof, he stood praying in one corner and she in another. The clouds appeared first over the corner where his wife stood. He came down and asked the scholars: "Why did the Rabbis come?" "The Rabbis sent us to the Master, that you might pray for rain to come," they replied. Said he: "Blessed be the Lord who put you beyond the need of Abba Hilkiah's prayer!" They, however, replied: "We know well that this rain is come through you, but be that as it may, we should like you to explain to us those actions of yours that greatly surprised us: Why, when we greeted you, did you not heed us?" "I hired myself out for the day, so I thought I had no right to interrupt my work." "Why did you carry the chips of wood on one shoulder and your cloak on the other?" "It is a borrowed garment," he said, "and it was loaned to me for the purpose of wearing, but not for the purpose of placing wood on it." "Why did you not put on your shoes the entire way," the scholars continued, "but when you had to cross the water you put them on?" "Because the entire way," he replied, "I could see (what I was stepping on), in the water I could not see." "Why did you lift up your garments when you came upon thorns and shrubs?" "Because the one (a scratch on the body) heals up, the other (a rent in the garment) does not heal up." "Why did your wife come to meet you so well dressed?" "In order that I should not cast an eye upon another woman." "Why did your wife enter the house first and you after her?" "Because ye are not known to me". "Why did you not invite us to eat with you?" "Because there was not enough food and I did not want to get your thanks for nothing." "Why did you give one cake to the older child and two to the younger?" "The older one stays at home, while the younger goes to school." "Why did the clouds appear first over the corner where your wife was standing?" "Because the woman is usually in the house, and the good she does is direct. (Or it may be because there were some highwaymen living in my neighborhood; I prayed that they should die, while she prayed that they should improve their ways)."