dish

HALAKHAH: “If a cooking stove was heated,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “one keeps a dish on it.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: “If there were two coordinated cooking stoves, one emptied or covered with ashes, the other one neither emptied nor covered with ashes, one keeps on the one emptied or covered with ashes. What does one keep on it? The House of Shammai say, one does not keep anything on it. But the House of Hillel say, hot water but no dish. If he removed the hot water pot everybody agrees that he should not return it, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the House of Shammai say, hot water but no dish; but the House of Hillel say, hot water and dish. If he removed the hot water pot, the House of Shammai say he should not return it, but the House of Hillel say, he may return it.”

HALAKHAH: “If a cooking stove was heated,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “one keeps a dish on it.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: “If there were two coordinated cooking stoves, one emptied or covered with ashes, the other one neither emptied nor covered with ashes, one keeps on the one emptied or covered with ashes. What does one keep on it? The House of Shammai say, one does not keep anything on it. But the House of Hillel say, hot water but no dish. If he removed the hot water pot everybody agrees that he should not return it, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the House of Shammai say, hot water but no dish; but the House of Hillel say, hot water and dish. If he removed the hot water pot, the House of Shammai say he should not return it, but the House of Hillel say, he may return it.”

HALAKHAH: “If a cooking stove was heated,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “one keeps a dish on it.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: “If there were two coordinated cooking stoves, one emptied or covered with ashes, the other one neither emptied nor covered with ashes, one keeps on the one emptied or covered with ashes. What does one keep on it? The House of Shammai say, one does not keep anything on it. But the House of Hillel say, hot water but no dish. If he removed the hot water pot everybody agrees that he should not return it, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the House of Shammai say, hot water but no dish; but the House of Hillel say, hot water and dish. If he removed the hot water pot, the House of Shammai say he should not return it, but the House of Hillel say, he may return it.”

HALAKHAH: “If a cooking stove was heated,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “one keeps a dish on it.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: “If there were two coordinated cooking stoves, one emptied or covered with ashes, the other one neither emptied nor covered with ashes, one keeps on the one emptied or covered with ashes. What does one keep on it? The House of Shammai say, one does not keep anything on it. But the House of Hillel say, hot water but no dish. If he removed the hot water pot everybody agrees that he should not return it, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the House of Shammai say, hot water but no dish; but the House of Hillel say, hot water and dish. If he removed the hot water pot, the House of Shammai say he should not return it, but the House of Hillel say, he may return it.”

As it was stated: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally it may not be eaten. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. When Rav was instructing his own group he said following Rebbi Meïr; in public he instructed following Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he explained to us following Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name, in any case where for an intentional sin one is liable for extirpation and an unintentional sin for a purification offering, if it was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both to him and to others. In any case where for an intentional sin one is not liable for extirpation and an unintentional sin no purification offering is due, if it was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result unintentional it may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, what do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten.” Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Rav Huna in the name of Rav, and Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

“They came back to say, a dish which will improve the more it shrinks is forbidden; a dish which will deteriorate the more it shrinks is permitted. What is a dish which improves the more it shrinks? For example cabbage, peas, and chopped meat.” Rebbi Tanḥum bar Illa said, they also considered heads of beets and heads of of leeks as dishes which improve the more they shrink. What about eggs? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: My father came home and found hot water and permitted it, eggs and forbade them. Rebbi Samuel bar Natan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: I went with my father to Ḥammat Gader where they brought before us eggs small like crab apples and they tasted delicious like sweetbread.

“They came back to say, a dish which will improve the more it shrinks is forbidden; a dish which will deteriorate the more it shrinks is permitted. What is a dish which improves the more it shrinks? For example cabbage, peas, and chopped meat.” Rebbi Tanḥum bar Illa said, they also considered heads of beets and heads of of leeks as dishes which improve the more they shrink. What about eggs? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: My father came home and found hot water and permitted it, eggs and forbade them. Rebbi Samuel bar Natan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: I went with my father to Ḥammat Gader where they brought before us eggs small like crab apples and they tasted delicious like sweetbread.

“They came back to say, a dish which will improve the more it shrinks is forbidden; a dish which will deteriorate the more it shrinks is permitted. What is a dish which improves the more it shrinks? For example cabbage, peas, and chopped meat.” Rebbi Tanḥum bar Illa said, they also considered heads of beets and heads of of leeks as dishes which improve the more they shrink. What about eggs? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: My father came home and found hot water and permitted it, eggs and forbade them. Rebbi Samuel bar Natan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: I went with my father to Ḥammat Gader where they brought before us eggs small like crab apples and they tasted delicious like sweetbread.

Can one pour in from a stream? Rebbi Ḥanina, the son of Rebbi Hillel, said, the disagreement of Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Isaac bar Gufta asked before Rebbi Mana: If he did this on the Sabbath, is he guilty because of cooking? If he did this with meat and milk, is he guilty because of cooking? He said to him, parallel to what Rebbi Zeˋira said, what is certainly a dumpling? Only if fire burned underneath it. So here also, what is certainly a cooked dish? Only if fire burned underneath it.

HALAKHAH: “In what does one store away and in what may one not store away,” etc. Because these things are hot and produce heat; if he takes away and they cool in his hand he returns them and they add heat; therefore they forbade to store away in them following Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, for Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, “a box he tilts on its side and takes out.” But according to the rabbis there? For they say, if it was a vat it is permitted. And there we have stated “if there be doubt whether it is dark or not dark.” Because it was not dark; therefore if it is dark it is forbidden to store away in them. There, they are saying, because of the neglect of the house of study; Rebbi Abba said, because of the suspicion. For if you tell him that he is permitted he will not finish it completely when it still is daylight. Because you tell him that he is forbidden he will finish it completely when it still is daylight. What is the difference between them? To hide away snow and cold water. In Rabbi Abba’s opinion it is permitted, in the opinion of the rabbis there it is prohibited. They forbade hiding away because of the cooking stove; they forbade the cooking stove because of hiding away. They forbade a cooking stove which creates little heat because of a cooking stove which creates much heat. They forbade a completely cooked dish because of an incompletely cooked dish. They forbade hot water because of a completely cooked dish. They turned around and permitted hot water.

HALAKHAH: “In what does one store away and in what may one not store away,” etc. Because these things are hot and produce heat; if he takes away and they cool in his hand he returns them and they add heat; therefore they forbade to store away in them following Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, for Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, “a box he tilts on its side and takes out.” But according to the rabbis there? For they say, if it was a vat it is permitted. And there we have stated “if there be doubt whether it is dark or not dark.” Because it was not dark; therefore if it is dark it is forbidden to store away in them. There, they are saying, because of the neglect of the house of study; Rebbi Abba said, because of the suspicion. For if you tell him that he is permitted he will not finish it completely when it still is daylight. Because you tell him that he is forbidden he will finish it completely when it still is daylight. What is the difference between them? To hide away snow and cold water. In Rabbi Abba’s opinion it is permitted, in the opinion of the rabbis there it is prohibited. They forbade hiding away because of the cooking stove; they forbade the cooking stove because of hiding away. They forbade a cooking stove which creates little heat because of a cooking stove which creates much heat. They forbade a completely cooked dish because of an incompletely cooked dish. They forbade hot water because of a completely cooked dish. They turned around and permitted hot water.

HALAKHAH: “In what does one store away and in what may one not store away,” etc. Because these things are hot and produce heat; if he takes away and they cool in his hand he returns them and they add heat; therefore they forbade to store away in them following Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, for Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, “a box he tilts on its side and takes out.” But according to the rabbis there? For they say, if it was a vat it is permitted. And there we have stated “if there be doubt whether it is dark or not dark.” Because it was not dark; therefore if it is dark it is forbidden to store away in them. There, they are saying, because of the neglect of the house of study; Rebbi Abba said, because of the suspicion. For if you tell him that he is permitted he will not finish it completely when it still is daylight. Because you tell him that he is forbidden he will finish it completely when it still is daylight. What is the difference between them? To hide away snow and cold water. In Rabbi Abba’s opinion it is permitted, in the opinion of the rabbis there it is prohibited. They forbade hiding away because of the cooking stove; they forbade the cooking stove because of hiding away. They forbade a cooking stove which creates little heat because of a cooking stove which creates much heat. They forbade a completely cooked dish because of an incompletely cooked dish. They forbade hot water because of a completely cooked dish. They turned around and permitted hot water.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The more restrictive completes the less restrictive but the less restrictive does not complete the more restrictive. Grasses complete straw; straw does not complete grasses. There we have stated: “Cloth and sackcloth, sackcloth and leather, leather and bast matting combine with one another. Rebbi Simeon says, because they are apt to become impure as seats.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked, one understands that they combine for seats since as seats they equally are by a hand-width. From where in היסק462? Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, because they are equal in היסק. He told him, we are asking about taking out and you are saying היסק? Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said before Rebbi Yose, because they are equal in היסק. He said to him, should we state, taking out a small cup? Rebbi Ḥanania said, meat completes bone pieces, bone pieces does not complete meat; grasses complete straw, straw does not complete grasses. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: If one took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a cow, took out straw for a goat filling the mouth of a goat, he is liable. Rebbi Ila said that Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one took out food for a sick person filling the mouth of a sick person, should he be liable? Rebbi Hoshaia agrees that if he took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a goat that he is not liable; for you should not think that just as he has it for restriction he also has it for leniency. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, think of it if the dish was not the volume of a dried fig. Does the volume of a dried fig cancel the volume of a dried fig?

MISHNAH: One makes no brine on the Sabbath but he may make salt water, dips his bread in it, and adds it to a dish. Rebbi Yose said, is that not brine, whether strong or mild? But the following is permitted salt water: if he starts by adding oil to water or salt.

MISHNAH: One dissolves vows on the Sabbath and one may ask about vows if it is a need for the Sabbath. One plugs the skylight and measures a rag and a miqweh. It happened in the days of Rebbi Ṣadoq’s father and in the days of Abba Shaul ben Botnit, that they plugged the skylight with a jar and tied a dish to bast to know whether a barrel had a hand-breadth width opening or not. From their words we infer that one plugs, and measures, and ties on the Sabbath.

It was stated: It happened that they were assembled for a meal in the open courtyard when the Sabbath turned holy. The case came before Samuel who said, since they started eating the dish when it still was daytime it is permitted. This implies even assembled for a meal in the open courtyard. This implies, even if they did not make an eruv. This implies, even if they did not intend to. This implies that two domains may not use one domain. This implies, one may rely on participation in courtyards in an emergency.

HALAKHAH: Why? Drinking is subsumed under eating but eating is not subsumed under drinking. From where that drinking is subsumed under eating? Rebbi Jonah understood if from the following: Therefore, I told the Children of Israel, none of you shall eat blood. Where do we hold? If about congealed blood, was it not stated that congealed blood is neither food nor drink? But we hold, as it is. And the Torah called it eating. And was it not stated: If one liquefied fat and drank it, or congealed blood and ate it, [if there is the volume of an olive] he is liable. What does Rebbi Jonah do with this? It is not food to become impure in the impurity of food, or fluid to become impure in the impurity of fluids. Rebbi Jonah changed and understood if from the following:: You shall spend the money for anything you desire. Where do we hold? If about one who gives the taste of wine into a cooked dish, is that not spoiling the taste of the wine? [But we hold as it is and the Torah called it “eating.”] The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain if about orzaraya and gomnany, since anything that is ancillary to food is like food.

MISHNAH: It happened that one brought Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai a dish to taste, and Rabban Gamliel two dates and a pail of water and they said, bring them to the sukkah. But when one gave Rebbi Ṣadoq food in the volume of less than an egg he took it with a napkin, ate it outside of the sukkah, and did not recite a benediction afterwards.

[“If it started to rain when is one permitted to leave,: etc,] Not only if it gets smelly but even if it could get smelly. Not only a cereal of groats but any dish. Just as one evacuates because of rain one evacuates because of a hot wind and because of mosquitoes. Rabban Gamliel entered and left the entire night; Rebbi Eliezer entered and left the entire night. One of Rebbi Mana’s students instructed a relative of the Patriarch: If he left, one does not importune him to return. He had not heard that Rabban Gamliel entered and left the entire night; Rebbi Eliezer entered and left the entire night.

MISHNAH: If the holiday falls on a Friday a person may not cook on the holiday especially for the Sabbath but he may cook for the holiday and if he left over he left over; or he cooks a dish before the holiday and relies on it for the Sabbath. The House of Shammai say two dishes, but the House of Hillel say one dish. But they agree about a fish and the egg on it that they are two dishes. If he ate it or it was lost, he may not start cooking based on it, but if even a minute amount was left, he relies on it for the Sabbath.

MISHNAH: If the holiday falls on a Friday a person may not cook on the holiday especially for the Sabbath but he may cook for the holiday and if he left over he left over; or he cooks a dish before the holiday and relies on it for the Sabbath. The House of Shammai say two dishes, but the House of Hillel say one dish. But they agree about a fish and the egg on it that they are two dishes. If he ate it or it was lost, he may not start cooking based on it, but if even a minute amount was left, he relies on it for the Sabbath.

“ It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that there are two dishes. Where do they disagree? About the fish and the egg on it, where the House of Shammai are saying it is one dish while the House of Hillel are saying they are two dishes. Everybody agrees that if he applied the egg on salted fish, or cut leeks under the fish, or cooked two kinds in a pot, that they are counted as two dishes.” And practice follows the student.

HALAKHAH: Abba bar Rav Huna said, [this is] if he did not make an eruv tavshilin for himself. But if he made an eruv tavshilin for himself it is permitted. What is the difference between a dish and hot water? From a dish one usually eats, from hot water one usually does not drink.

HALAKHAH: Abba bar Rav Huna said, [this is] if he did not make an eruv tavshilin for himself. But if he made an eruv tavshilin for himself it is permitted. What is the difference between a dish and hot water? From a dish one usually eats, from hot water one usually does not drink.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: A person may say to another, give me a kelah of spices since it is the way of private persons to give a kelah of spices into his dish.

“Rebbi Jehudah excludes water since it lacks stability.” What is the difference between them? Hot water. He who said, because it lacks stability, it has stability. He who says because they are absorbed in the dough, it is not absorbed in the dish.

HALAKHAH: “On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained: “You shall measure outside the city”, etc. Rebbi Eliezer, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, said, 2000 cubits the domain of the levitic cities. Deduct from them 1000 cubits open space, there results one quarter open space and the remainder fields. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: A quarter of 1000113. Rebbi Isaac said, even if you say a quarter from every side, it is a quarter. He who wants to make a square from four amphoras needs sixteen. Rebbi Mana estimated it from a brick, Rebbi Abin estimated it from a strip, Rebbi Oshaiah estimated it from a dish. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, 50 by 50 form a bet se’ah; 100 by 100 are four bet se’ah. As it happened to the Resh Galuta when it was imposed on him to fill a hall of 40 by 40 cubits with wheat. He came to Rav Huna who said to him, negotiate that they should take from you 20 by 20 now and 20 by 20 later; you will earn half.

It is written: “If a man takes a wife, comes to her, and hates her.” He is not guilty unless he marries her definitively, has intercourse, and accuses her not to be a virgin. “He puts a libel on her”; I could think even if she spoiled a dish? It says here “a libel” and it says later “a libel”. Since “a libel” later implies whoring, so also here it means whoring. Since “a libel” later implies from the place of virginity, so also here? From where if he came upon her otherwise? The verse says, “and he calumniates her”, in any way. “He said, I took this wife and came to her,” that excludes assignations; “I took”, to exclude the one waiting for her levir; “I took”, to exclude the preliminarily married one.

MISHNAH: One who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food. If one said, a qônām that I will not taste a cooked dish, he is forbidden fine dishes and permitted thick ones. Also he is permitted a soft boiled egg and ash-gourd.

Reading of Rashba (Novellae ad 49a): Is one who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food permitted a thick dish? Let us hear from the following: “He is forbidden soft dishes and permitted thick ones.” Since a dish which would be forbidden roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish, regarding “cooked food” which permits roasted and scalded, is it not logical that he be permitted the thick dish? Are there arguments de minore ad majus in matters of vows? But it must be so: Since a dish which is forbidden roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish, the cooked which is permitted roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish.

Reading of Rashba (Novellae ad 49a): Is one who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food permitted a thick dish? Let us hear from the following: “He is forbidden soft dishes and permitted thick ones.” Since a dish which would be forbidden roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish, regarding “cooked food” which permits roasted and scalded, is it not logical that he be permitted the thick dish? Are there arguments de minore ad majus in matters of vows? But it must be so: Since a dish which is forbidden roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish, the cooked which is permitted roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish.

Reading of Rashba (Novellae ad 49a): Is one who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food permitted a thick dish? Let us hear from the following: “He is forbidden soft dishes and permitted thick ones.” Since a dish which would be forbidden roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish, regarding “cooked food” which permits roasted and scalded, is it not logical that he be permitted the thick dish? Are there arguments de minore ad majus in matters of vows? But it must be so: Since a dish which is forbidden roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish, the cooked which is permitted roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish.

Reading of Rashba (Novellae ad 49a): Is one who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food permitted a thick dish? Let us hear from the following: “He is forbidden soft dishes and permitted thick ones.” Since a dish which would be forbidden roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish, regarding “cooked food” which permits roasted and scalded, is it not logical that he be permitted the thick dish? Are there arguments de minore ad majus in matters of vows? But it must be so: Since a dish which is forbidden roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish, the cooked which is permitted roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish.

Reading of Rashba (Novellae ad 49a): Is one who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food permitted a thick dish? Let us hear from the following: “He is forbidden soft dishes and permitted thick ones.” Since a dish which would be forbidden roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish, regarding “cooked food” which permits roasted and scalded, is it not logical that he be permitted the thick dish? Are there arguments de minore ad majus in matters of vows? But it must be so: Since a dish which is forbidden roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish, the cooked which is permitted roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish.

Reading of Rashba (Novellae ad 49a): Is one who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food permitted a thick dish? Let us hear from the following: “He is forbidden soft dishes and permitted thick ones.” Since a dish which would be forbidden roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish, regarding “cooked food” which permits roasted and scalded, is it not logical that he be permitted the thick dish? Are there arguments de minore ad majus in matters of vows? But it must be so: Since a dish which is forbidden roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish, the cooked which is permitted roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish.

Reading of Rashba (Novellae ad 49a): Is one who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food permitted a thick dish? Let us hear from the following: “He is forbidden soft dishes and permitted thick ones.” Since a dish which would be forbidden roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish, regarding “cooked food” which permits roasted and scalded, is it not logical that he be permitted the thick dish? Are there arguments de minore ad majus in matters of vows? But it must be so: Since a dish which is forbidden roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish, the cooked which is permitted roasted or scalded is permitted as a thick dish.

MISHNAH: If somebody vows not to eat meat, he is permitted clear bouillon and coagulated fibers, but Rebbi Jehudah forbids. Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that Rebbi Ṭarphon forbade to me eggs that were cooked in it. They said to him, that is correct; when? If he would say, that piece of meat [is forbidden] to me. In truth, if somebody forbids himself something by a vow and it became mixed with something else, if it can be tasted it is forbidden If somebody vows not to drink wine he is permitted a dish prepared with wine. If he said, a qônām that I shall not taste this wine, if it fell into a dish and it can be tasted, that is forbidden.

MISHNAH: If somebody vows not to eat meat, he is permitted clear bouillon and coagulated fibers, but Rebbi Jehudah forbids. Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that Rebbi Ṭarphon forbade to me eggs that were cooked in it. They said to him, that is correct; when? If he would say, that piece of meat [is forbidden] to me. In truth, if somebody forbids himself something by a vow and it became mixed with something else, if it can be tasted it is forbidden If somebody vows not to drink wine he is permitted a dish prepared with wine. If he said, a qônām that I shall not taste this wine, if it fell into a dish and it can be tasted, that is forbidden.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. [Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself] except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted is not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he shall not eat, and fresh or dried grape berries he shall not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from grape skins to seeds he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? It means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; it is logical that for every prohibition of the Torah which is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, whose prohibition cannot be lifted, taste is treated like the thing itself. From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Ze‘ira: you say everywhere “unless he tasted”, and here you say, “even if he did not taste.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. [Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself] except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted is not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he shall not eat, and fresh or dried grape berries he shall not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from grape skins to seeds he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? It means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; it is logical that for every prohibition of the Torah which is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, whose prohibition cannot be lifted, taste is treated like the thing itself. From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Ze‘ira: you say everywhere “unless he tasted”, and here you say, “even if he did not taste.”

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, a person should not divorce his wife unless he found her immoral, as it was said: “For he found with her a matter of nakedness.” But the House of Hillel say, even if she spoiled his dish, as it was said: “For he found with her a bad thing.” Rebbi Aqiba said, even if he found another more beautiful than her, as it was said: “It will be if she does not appear pleasing in his eyes, etc.”

It is written: To amusement I said, be praised. The Holy One, praise to him, said to Solomon: What is this crown on your head? Descend from My throne! Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, at that moment an angel came down looking like Solomon, removed him from his throne, and sat in his stead. He was going around in synagogues and houses of study, saying I am Ecclesiastes, I used to be king over Israel in Jerusalem. They were telling him, the king sits on his chair of honor and you say, I am Ecclesiastes? They hit him with a stick and brought a dish of split beans before him. At that moment, he said: that is my part. Some say, a staff. Others say, a rod. Others say, with his belt. Who had accused him? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, י in יַרְבֶּה accused him. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: The book Deuteronomy ascended, bowed down before the Holy One, praise to Him, and said to Him: Master of the Universe, You wrote in Your Torah that any disposition which is partially invalid is totally invalid, and now Solomon wants to uproot a י from me! The Holy One, praise to Him, said to it: Solomon and a thousand like him will disappear but nothing from you will disappear.

What happened in Ascalon supports him who said, Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ was president. Two students were in Ascalon. They ate together, drank together, and studied Torah together. One of them died, and nobody attended his funeral. The son of Ma`yan the publican died; the entire city stopped working to attend his funeral. The other student started crying and said woe, do the haters of Israel have no hope? It was shown to him in his dream and said, do not denigrate your Master’s children. This one did one good deed and died with it, the other one committed one sin and died with it. What sin did he commit? Far be it that he committed a sin, but once he put on his head phylacteries before his arm phylacteries. What good deed did the son of publican Ma`yan do? Far be it that he committed a good deed, but once he prepared a breakfast for the city council but they did not show up. He said, let the poor come and eat it, so it should not go to waste. Some say, he was walking in the street, having a loaf under his shoulder. It fell down and a poor person picked it up. He did not say anything in order not to embarrass him. This student saw gardens and water sources. He saw the son of Ma`yan the publican standing on the river bank trying in vain to reach the water. He also saw Miriam, Onion-leaf’s daughter, hanging on her breast nipples; but some say, the door of Hell was fixed in her ear. He asked, [why? They told him, because she fasted and made herself famous among her neighbors. Some say, she fasted one day and was dissolute two days. He asked them] for how long? They told him, when Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ comes, we shall remove it from her ear and put is in his ear. He asked them, what is his misdeed? They told him, because he made a personal vow that if he were elected president, he would kill all sorcerers. But now he was made president and he did not kill them. In fact, there are eighty women in the cave of Ascalon who hurt the world; go and tell him! He told them, he is an important personality, he will not believe me. They told him, he is very meek and will believe you. In case that he will not believe you, take out one of your eyes and put it in your hand. He took out one of his eyes and put it in his hand. They said, return it; it was even with the other. He went and told him. He wanted to perform his miracle before him, but he told him, you do not need to. I know that you are a pious person. Even though I intended so in my thoughts, I never spoke it with my mouth. It was a day of rainstorms. He took eighty select men in clean garments and took with them eighty amphoras. He told them, when I whistle once, put on your garments. When I whistle for the second time, come. When he came to the cave of Ascalon, he said אוים, אוים, open for me, I am one of yours. When he entered, one said what she said and produced bread. One said what she said and produced a dish. One said what she said and produced wine. They asked him, what can you do? He told them, when I whistle twice, I shall bring here eighty select men in dry garments for your pleasure and entertainment. They told him, we desire them. When he whistled, they put on their garments; when he whistled for the second time, they all entered together. He made them a sign for each one to grab one of them and lift her from the earth. Then they did not succeed in what they were trying to do. He told the one who brought bread, bring bread! She did not succeed. He said, take her to be crucified. Bring a dish! She did not succeed. He said, take her to be crucified. Bring wine! She did not succeed. He said, take her to be crucified. This he did to all of them. That is what we have stated: “Simeon ben Shetaḥ hanged eighty women in Ascalon, but one does not try two on the same day.” But the hour needed it.

What happened in Ascalon supports him who said, Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ was president. Two students were in Ascalon. They ate together, drank together, and studied Torah together. One of them died, and nobody attended his funeral. The son of Ma`yan the publican died; the entire city stopped working to attend his funeral. The other student started crying and said woe, do the haters of Israel have no hope? It was shown to him in his dream and said, do not denigrate your Master’s children. This one did one good deed and died with it, the other one committed one sin and died with it. What sin did he commit? Far be it that he committed a sin, but once he put on his head phylacteries before his arm phylacteries. What good deed did the son of publican Ma`yan do? Far be it that he committed a good deed, but once he prepared a breakfast for the city council but they did not show up. He said, let the poor come and eat it, so it should not go to waste. Some say, he was walking in the street, having a loaf under his shoulder. It fell down and a poor person picked it up. He did not say anything in order not to embarrass him. This student saw gardens and water sources. He saw the son of Ma`yan the publican standing on the river bank trying in vain to reach the water. He also saw Miriam, Onion-leaf’s daughter, hanging on her breast nipples; but some say, the door of Hell was fixed in her ear. He asked, [why? They told him, because she fasted and made herself famous among her neighbors. Some say, she fasted one day and was dissolute two days. He asked them] for how long? They told him, when Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ comes, we shall remove it from her ear and put is in his ear. He asked them, what is his misdeed? They told him, because he made a personal vow that if he were elected president, he would kill all sorcerers. But now he was made president and he did not kill them. In fact, there are eighty women in the cave of Ascalon who hurt the world; go and tell him! He told them, he is an important personality, he will not believe me. They told him, he is very meek and will believe you. In case that he will not believe you, take out one of your eyes and put it in your hand. He took out one of his eyes and put it in his hand. They said, return it; it was even with the other. He went and told him. He wanted to perform his miracle before him, but he told him, you do not need to. I know that you are a pious person. Even though I intended so in my thoughts, I never spoke it with my mouth. It was a day of rainstorms. He took eighty select men in clean garments and took with them eighty amphoras. He told them, when I whistle once, put on your garments. When I whistle for the second time, come. When he came to the cave of Ascalon, he said אוים, אוים, open for me, I am one of yours. When he entered, one said what she said and produced bread. One said what she said and produced a dish. One said what she said and produced wine. They asked him, what can you do? He told them, when I whistle twice, I shall bring here eighty select men in dry garments for your pleasure and entertainment. They told him, we desire them. When he whistled, they put on their garments; when he whistled for the second time, they all entered together. He made them a sign for each one to grab one of them and lift her from the earth. Then they did not succeed in what they were trying to do. He told the one who brought bread, bring bread! She did not succeed. He said, take her to be crucified. Bring a dish! She did not succeed. He said, take her to be crucified. Bring wine! She did not succeed. He said, take her to be crucified. This he did to all of them. That is what we have stated: “Simeon ben Shetaḥ hanged eighty women in Ascalon, but one does not try two on the same day.” But the hour needed it.

Example. Rebbi Eliezer, and Rebbi Joshua, and Rabban Gamliel travelled to Rome. They came to a place where they found children making stone heaps and saying as follows: What they do in the Land of Israel is to say, this is heave, this is tithe. They said, it is clear that Jews live here. They entered a place and were received at a house. They sat down to eat. It happened that no dish was brought to them unless it was brought [first] to a certain bedroom. They became afraid that perhaps they were eating offerings to the dead. They asked him, why is it that you bring no dish before us unless you brought it first to that bedroom? He told them, I have an old father who vowed not to leave that bedroom until he might see the Sages of Israel. They told him, go and tell him to come out because they are here. He came out; they asked him, what is your problem? He told them, pray for my son because he is sterile. Rebbi Eliezer said to Rebbi Joshua: Joshua ben Ḥanania, look what you can do. He told them, bring me linseed; they brought him linseed. It appeared to them as if he was sowing it on a table. It appeared as if he was watering it; it appeared to grow; it appeared that he was plucking out of it, until there appeared a woman with braided hair. He told her, undo what you did. She answered, I shall not undo. He told her, then I shall make you known. She said, I cannot, because they were thrown into the sea. Rebbi Joshua commanded the prince of the sea who disgorged them. Then they prayed for him and he had the merit of raising Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. They said, if we came here only to bring the just person to the world, it would have been enough.

Example. Rebbi Eliezer, and Rebbi Joshua, and Rabban Gamliel travelled to Rome. They came to a place where they found children making stone heaps and saying as follows: What they do in the Land of Israel is to say, this is heave, this is tithe. They said, it is clear that Jews live here. They entered a place and were received at a house. They sat down to eat. It happened that no dish was brought to them unless it was brought [first] to a certain bedroom. They became afraid that perhaps they were eating offerings to the dead. They asked him, why is it that you bring no dish before us unless you brought it first to that bedroom? He told them, I have an old father who vowed not to leave that bedroom until he might see the Sages of Israel. They told him, go and tell him to come out because they are here. He came out; they asked him, what is your problem? He told them, pray for my son because he is sterile. Rebbi Eliezer said to Rebbi Joshua: Joshua ben Ḥanania, look what you can do. He told them, bring me linseed; they brought him linseed. It appeared to them as if he was sowing it on a table. It appeared as if he was watering it; it appeared to grow; it appeared that he was plucking out of it, until there appeared a woman with braided hair. He told her, undo what you did. She answered, I shall not undo. He told her, then I shall make you known. She said, I cannot, because they were thrown into the sea. Rebbi Joshua commanded the prince of the sea who disgorged them. Then they prayed for him and he had the merit of raising Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. They said, if we came here only to bring the just person to the world, it would have been enough.

HALAKHAH: “An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate,” etc. Drinking is subsumed under eating but eating is not subsumed under drinking. Rebbi Jonah understood all this from: Therefore, I told the Children of Israel, none of you shall eat blood. Where do we hold? If about congealed blood, was it not stated that congealed blood is neither food nor drink? (But we hold, about minute amounts. Are minute amounts eating? Explain it following Rebbi Aqiba who said that a minute amount is eating.) And was it not stated: If one liquefied the blood and swallowed it, or froze fat and ate it, if there is the volume of an olive he is liable. What does Rebbi Jonah do with this? It is not food to become impure in the impurity of food, or fluid to become impure in the impurity of fluids. Rebbi Jonah changed and explained the Mishnah: You shall spend the money for anything you desire. Where do we hold? If about one who gives the taste of wine into a cooked dish, is that not spoiling the taste? But we hold with everything and the Merciful called it “eating.” The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain if about gomraya and orzaraya, since anything that is auxiliary to food is like food.

Rebbi Immi said, one has to be careful with what the creatures are careful with: It is forbidden to put coins in one’s mouth, a bread under the armpit, a dish under one’s bed, and to stick a knife in an etrog, or a knife into a radish. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, all sweat that exudes from a human is deadly poison except the sweat of the face.

HALAKHAH: “The following are permitted for usufruct,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, about a dish in which usually one does not add wine or vinegar. Therefore if it is certain that he added, it is forbidden even for usufruct. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a Jew and a Gentile put a pot on the fire, the Jew puts it down and the Gentile stirs. Who puts it back? One would say that the Jew puts it back. Rebbi Benjamin bar Levai said, only if it is cooked like Ben-Drosai’s food. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is cooked like Ben-Drosai’s food, why does the Jew have to put it back? Even the Gentile may put it back.

How do you treat them? Like wine in wine or wine in a dish? If you treat it like wine in a dish, according to everybody it is forbidden. If you treat it like wine in wine, there is the disagreement between Rebbi Meїr and the Sages.

How do you treat them? Like wine in wine or wine in a dish? If you treat it like wine in a dish, according to everybody it is forbidden. If you treat it like wine in wine, there is the disagreement between Rebbi Meїr and the Sages.

Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Immi: A roasted egg of Samaritans is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Samaritans’ dishes are permitted. This is what you say about a dish usually made without wine or vinegar. Therefore if it is certain that he put some in, it is forbidden even for usufruct. As what had been stated: In earlier times they used to say, why is the wine of Ogdor forbidden? Because of Kefar-Pagesh, and of Burgata because of the Saracen tower, and of the Kushit spring because of Kefar Shalem. They changed to say, open it is everywhere forbidden, sealed it is permitted. Perforated and repaired it is like sealed, Rebbi Isaac ben Ḥaqula said, it is like open. Rebbi Ḥanina said, I can confirm. If it has a cavity on it it was not opened, otherwise it was opened. As the following: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar went to the city of Samaria. The scribe came to him. He told him, bring me a closed jug. He answered him, there is a spring in front of you, drink. He importuned him; he said, there is a spring in front of you, drink. When he saw that he was going to importune him, he told him, if you are master of yourself, there is a spring in front of you, drink. But if your soul brings you to rebellion, you are going to swallow a knife if you are too covetous. The Samaritans already are degenerate.

Our Rabbis have taught : A man should not hold the Tefillin in his hand, or a scroll of the Torah on his arm and say his prayers. He may not urinate while holding them, or sleep with them, neither a regular sleep nor a chance sleep. Samuel said: A knife, money, a dish and a loaf come under the same rule.

Over Habis boiled in a pot and also pounded grain, Rab Judah said : [The benediction is] "...By Whose word all things exist" ; Rab Kahana said : It is "...Who createst various kinds of food." With plain pounded grain all agree that "...Who createst all kinds of foods" is the correct benediction, the disagreement arising in connection with pounded grain made like a boiled Habis. Rab Judah maintained [that the benediction should be] "...By Whose word all things exist," being of the opinion that the honey is the principal ingredient ; whereas Rab Kahana maintained it is "...Who createst various kinds of foods," holding that the flour is the principal ingredient. Rab Joseph said : The view of Rab Kahana seems more probable, because Rab and Samuel both say that a dish which contains one of the five species requires the benediction "...Who createst various kinds of foods."

It has just been mentioned : "Rab and Samuel both say : A dish which contains one of the five species requires the benediction '...Who createst various kinds of foods'." It has likewise been reported : Rab and Samuel both say: A dish which is of the five species requires the benediction "...Who createst various kinds of foods."

It has just been mentioned : "Rab and Samuel both say : A dish which contains one of the five species requires the benediction '...Who createst various kinds of foods'." It has likewise been reported : Rab and Samuel both say: A dish which is of the five species requires the benediction "...Who createst various kinds of foods."

It was necessary [to give both these statements]. If we had been taught only the second, I might have said that [that benediction is required] because the dish has the appearance [of one of the five species], but not if mixed with other ingredients ;

therefore we are informed that a dish which contains it [requires that benediction]. If, on the other hand, we had been taught only the first, I might have said a dish containing any of the five species does [require that benediction], but not rice or millet because these are mixed with other ingredients. Should, however, it have the appearance [of one of the five species], we might say that even with rice or millet we pronounce the benediction "...Who createst various kinds of foods"; therefore we are informed, "A dish which is of the five species requires the benediction '...Who createst various kinds of foods'," to the exclusion of rice and millet ; for even if it retain its appearance we do not say that benediction.

therefore we are informed that a dish which contains it [requires that benediction]. If, on the other hand, we had been taught only the first, I might have said a dish containing any of the five species does [require that benediction], but not rice or millet because these are mixed with other ingredients. Should, however, it have the appearance [of one of the five species], we might say that even with rice or millet we pronounce the benediction "...Who createst various kinds of foods"; therefore we are informed, "A dish which is of the five species requires the benediction '...Who createst various kinds of foods'," to the exclusion of rice and millet ; for even if it retain its appearance we do not say that benediction.

therefore we are informed that a dish which contains it [requires that benediction]. If, on the other hand, we had been taught only the first, I might have said a dish containing any of the five species does [require that benediction], but not rice or millet because these are mixed with other ingredients. Should, however, it have the appearance [of one of the five species], we might say that even with rice or millet we pronounce the benediction "...Who createst various kinds of foods"; therefore we are informed, "A dish which is of the five species requires the benediction '...Who createst various kinds of foods'," to the exclusion of rice and millet ; for even if it retain its appearance we do not say that benediction.

And over rice and millet do we not bless "...Who createst various kinds of foods"? Lo, there is a teaching : If they brought before a man bread of rice or of millet, he pronounces a benediction before and after as with any other cooked dish. And with reference to a cooked dish there is a teaching : Before partaking thereof one should bless "...Who createst various kinds of foods" and after it one benediction which is an abstract of three!

And over rice and millet do we not bless "...Who createst various kinds of foods"? Lo, there is a teaching : If they brought before a man bread of rice or of millet, he pronounces a benediction before and after as with any other cooked dish. And with reference to a cooked dish there is a teaching : Before partaking thereof one should bless "...Who createst various kinds of foods" and after it one benediction which is an abstract of three!

[Bread of rice or of millet] is like a cooked dish [in one respect] but unlike a cooked dish [in another]. It is like a cooked dish in so far as there is a benediction before and after partaking thereof. But it is unlike a cooked dish; for over a cooked dish one says at first "...Who createst various kinds of foods," and in the end one benediction which is an abstract of three. [With rice and millet], however, one first says "...By Whose word all things exist" and in the end "...Who createst many living beings with their wants," etc.

[Bread of rice or of millet] is like a cooked dish [in one respect] but unlike a cooked dish [in another]. It is like a cooked dish in so far as there is a benediction before and after partaking thereof. But it is unlike a cooked dish; for over a cooked dish one says at first "...Who createst various kinds of foods," and in the end one benediction which is an abstract of three. [With rice and millet], however, one first says "...By Whose word all things exist" and in the end "...Who createst many living beings with their wants," etc.

[Bread of rice or of millet] is like a cooked dish [in one respect] but unlike a cooked dish [in another]. It is like a cooked dish in so far as there is a benediction before and after partaking thereof. But it is unlike a cooked dish; for over a cooked dish one says at first "...Who createst various kinds of foods," and in the end one benediction which is an abstract of three. [With rice and millet], however, one first says "...By Whose word all things exist" and in the end "...Who createst many living beings with their wants," etc.

[Bread of rice or of millet] is like a cooked dish [in one respect] but unlike a cooked dish [in another]. It is like a cooked dish in so far as there is a benediction before and after partaking thereof. But it is unlike a cooked dish; for over a cooked dish one says at first "...Who createst various kinds of foods," and in the end one benediction which is an abstract of three. [With rice and millet], however, one first says "...By Whose word all things exist" and in the end "...Who createst many living beings with their wants," etc.

[Bread of rice or of millet] is like a cooked dish [in one respect] but unlike a cooked dish [in another]. It is like a cooked dish in so far as there is a benediction before and after partaking thereof. But it is unlike a cooked dish; for over a cooked dish one says at first "...Who createst various kinds of foods," and in the end one benediction which is an abstract of three. [With rice and millet], however, one first says "...By Whose word all things exist" and in the end "...Who createst many living beings with their wants," etc.

Is not rice a cooked dish? And lo, there is a teaching ; The following are cooked dishes : grist, groats, fine flour, split grain, barley-meal and rice!

Come and hear: Dill, when it gives a taste to the dish, does not come under the law of Terumah and does not contract the impurity of foods. Conclude from this that it is used to sweeten the taste! Draw that conclusion.

MISHNAH If a man said the benediction over wine before the meal, he is exempt from saying it over the wine after the meal. If he said it over the dainty served before the meal, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty served after the meal. If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty; over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread. Bet Shammai declare : Nor from saying it over a cooked dish.

If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty ; over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread. Bet Shammai declare : Nor from saying it over a cooked dish.

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

Our Rabbis have taught : Two may wait upon each other with a dish, but three may not. The one who breaks bread puts forth his hand first; but if he wishes to show respect to his teacher or his superior, he has the power to do so.

Our Rabbis have taught : Four things are said concerning bread — we may not place raw meat upon bread ; we may not pass a cup full of wine over bread ; we may not throw bread ; we may not rest a dish upon bread.

Rab Kahana went and hid himself under Rab's bed and heard him converse [with his wife] and laugh and have intercourse. Rab Kahana said to him, "Abba's mouth is like that of one who has never sipped a dish." Rab exclaimed, "Kahana, art thou here? Go out ; for it is not proper!" He replied, "It is a matter of Torah and I wished to learn."

It once happened that they brought a dish to Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai to taste, and two dates and a pail of water to Rabban Gamaliel and they said, “Bring them up to the sukkah.”

GEMARA. Does the case come to serve as a contradiction! Rather, there is something missing in the mishnah, and it should be taught thus: But if he wishes to be strict with himself, he may do so, and it does not constitute presumption and so it also happened that they brought a dish to Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai to taste, and two dates and a pail of water to Rabban Gamaliel

And Shmuel said about this: The same applies to a knife, a dish, a loaf of bread and money? In the latter cases he is not performing a mitzvah and, therefore, would worry over them but in the former one he is fulfilling a mitzvah and therefore he would not worry over it.

Abaye said: When I went out of the Master’s [Rabbah’s] house, I was already full, but when I reached the other place they set before me sixty dishes of sixty different preparations, and I had sixty pieces from them. The last preparation was called pot-roast, and [I liked it so much that] I wanted to lick the dish after it.

R. Yohanan said: Bigtan and Teresh were two Tarseans and conversed in the Tarsean language. They said: From the day this woman came we have been able to get no sleep. Come, let us put poison in the dish so that he will die. They did not know that Mordecai was one of those who had seats in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, and that he understood seventy languages.

And the place for laying hold etc. What is the place for laying hold? R. Jehudah said that R. Samuel said, The part by which he reaches it, and accordingly He says, "And he reached her parched corn" (Ruth ii. 14). R. Asi said that R. Jochanan said, The part of the dish of which fastidious persons lay hold. R. Baybi, who stood before R. Nachman, taught, No vessels have outsides or inside whether for holy things of the sanctuary or holy things of the province. He said to him, Holy things of the province, what are they? the heave-offering? But lo, there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., The outsides and inside and the place for laying hold are reckoned as distinct for the heave-offering (Chag. 20b, ii. 1). R. Baybi replied, Perhaps it refers to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things.