foods

As the elders remember, which saw John the Lord's disciple, that they heard from him how the Lord taught concerning those times, and said: The days shall come wherein vines shall grow each having ten thousand branches, and on one branch ten thousand shoots, and on every shoot ten thousand clusters, and in every cluster ten thousand grapes, and every grape when it is pressed shall yield five and twenty measures (metrētes) of wine. And when any of the saints taketh hold of one of the clusters, another will cry out: I am a better cluster, take me, through me bless thou the Lord. Likewise also he said that a grain of wheat shall bring forth ten thousand ears, and every ear shall have ten thousand grains, and every grain shall yield five double pounds of white clean flour; and all other fruits and seeds and plants according to the agreement that followeth with them (sc. in the same proportion): and all animals using those foods which are got from the earth shall be peaceable and in concord one with another, subject unto men with all obedience. These things Papias also, a hearer of John, and an associate of Polycarp, an ancient man, testifies in writing in the fourth of his books—for he wrote five. And he adds, saying: But these things are credible unto believers. And, he says, when Judas the traitor believed not, and asked: How then shall these growths be accomplished by the Lord? the Lord said: They shall see who shall come thereto.

And I saw all the sweet-flowering trees and beheld their fruits, which were sweet-smelling, and all the foods borne by them bubbling with fragrant exhalation.

And weeping and bewailing he began to say: O marvellous head of heavenly adornment: O radiant as the sun which shines on heaven and earth: your hairs are known from Teman, your eyes from Bosor, your ears from thunder, your tongue from a trumpet, and your brain is a small creation, your head the energy of the whole body: O friendly and most fair beloved by all, and now falling into the earth it must become forgotten. O hands, mild, fair-fingered, worn with toil by which the body is nourished: O hands, deftest of all, heaping up from all quarters you made ready houses. O fingers adorned and decked with gold and silver (rings): and great worlds are led by the fingers: the three joints enfold the palms, and heap up beautiful things: and now you must become aliens to the world. O feet, skilfully walking about, self-running, most swift, unconquerable: O knees, fitted together, because without you the body does not move: the feet run along with the sun and the moon in the night and in the day, heaping up all things, foods and drinks, and nourishing the body: O feet, most swift and fair runners, moving on the face of the earth, getting ready the house with every good thing: O feet which bear up the whole body, that run up to the temples, making repentance and calling on the saints, and now you are to remain motionless. O head and hands and feet, until now I have kept you. O soul, what sent you into the humble and wretched body? And now being separated from it, you are going up where the Lord calls you, and the wretched body goes away to judgment. O body well-adorned, hair clothed with stars, head of heavenly adornment and dress: O face well-anointed, light-bringing eyes, voice trumpet-like, tongue placable, chin fairly adorned, hairs like the stars, head high as heaven, body decked out, light-bringing eyes that know all things — and now you shall fall into the earth and under the earth your beauty shall disappear.

And I saw therein their foods and blessedness.

In the supper or feast, let those who have come together receive [a portion] thus from the shepherd, as for a blessing. But let not a catechumen receive. If any one be of the household of, or related to, one who is a teacher of heathenism, let him not accord with him and give praise with him, also let him not eat with him because of relationship or for concord, lest he deliver ineffable things to a wolf and he receive judgment. Let those who are called with the bishop to the house of one who is faithful, eat with gravity and knowledge, not with drunkenness or to debauchery, and not so that he who is present may laugh, or so as to annoy the household of him that called him; but so let them enter that he who called [them] may pray that the saints may enter into his house, For ye are the salt of the earth, [as] ye have heard. Because when they eat, let them eat abundantly, [but] so that there may be left over both for you [and] also for those to whom he that called you wisheth [to] send, so that he may have them as foods left over by the saints, and that he may rejoice at that which remaineth over. Let those who come to a feast, being called, not stretch out a hand before them that are elder. But let the last eat when the first shall have done. Let not those who eat strive in speech, but let them eat in silence; but if any one desire, or the bishop or presbyter ask [a question], let him return answer. But when the bishop saith a word, let every one quietly, praising [him], choose silence for himself, until he also be asked [a question].

Now all these had one and the same design of atheism, to blaspheme Almighty God, to spread their doctrine that He is an unknown being, and not the Father of Christ, nor the Creator of the world; but one who cannot be spoken of, ineffable, not to be named, and begotten by Himself; that we are not to make use of the law and the prophets; that there is no providence and no resurrection to be believed; that there is no judgment nor retribution; that the soul is not immortal; that we must only indulge our pleasures, and turn to any sort of worship without distinction. Some of them say that there are many gods, some that there are three gods without beginning, some that there are two unbegotten gods, some that there are innumerable Æons. Further, some of them teach that men are not to marry, and must abstain from flesh and wine, affirming that marriage, and the begetting of children, and the eating of certain foods, are abominable; that so, as sober persons, they may make their wicked opinions to be received as worthy of belief. And some of them absolutely prohibit the eating of flesh, as being the flesh not of brute animals, but of creatures that have a rational soul, as though those that ventured to slay them would be charged with the crime of murder. But others of them affirm that we must only abstain from swine's flesh, but may eat such as are clean by the law; and that we ought to be circumcised, according to the law, and to believe in Jesus as in an holy man and a prophet. But others teach that men ought to be impudent in uncleanness, and to abuse the flesh, and to go through all unholy practices, as if this were the only way for the soul to avoid the rulers of this world. Now all these are the instruments of the devil, and the children of wrath.

If one eats [an amount] the size of a large date, like it and its seed, or if he drank [an amount equivalent to a] mouthful, he is liable. All foods add up to make an amount equivalent to a date, and all the liquids add up to make a mouthful. Food and drink do not add up.

If he ate and drank in one state of unawareness, he is not obligated to bring more than one sin-offering. But if he ate and performed labor while in one state of unawareness he is obligated for two sin-offerings. If he ate foods unfit for eating, or drank liquids unfit for drinking, or drank fish-brine or fish pickling liquid, he is not liable.

They may eat dry foods with impure hands when it comes to terumah, but not when it comes to sacred things. The one who has not yet buried his dead (an onen) and one who lacks atonement require immersion for sacred things but not for terumah.

It is forbidden to rear small herd animals in the Land of Israel, but it is permitted to rear them in Syria or in the wildernesses of the Land of Israel. It is forbidden to rear fowls in Jerusalem because of the “Holy Things”, nor may priests rear them [anywhere] in the Land of Israel because of [the laws concerning] clean foods. It is forbidden to rear pigs anywhere. One should not rear a dog unless it is tied with a chain. It is forbidden to set snares for pigeons unless it be thirty ris from an inhabited place.

“I swear I shall not eat,” and he ate foods which are not fit to be eaten, and drank liquids which are not fit to be drunk, he is exempt. “I swear I shall not eat,” and he ate carrion, trefot, and reptiles and creepy things, he is liable. Rabbi Shimon exempts him. He said, “I vow that my wife shall not benefit from me, if I have eaten today,” and he had eaten carrion, trefot, forbidden animals, or reptiles, his wife is prohibited to him.

Beth Shammai permits the rival wives [of a deceased brother to be married] to the [surviving] brothers; But Beth Hillel forbids them. If they have performed halitzah, Beth Shammai pronounce them unfit to [marry into] the priesthood, But Beth Hillel pronounced them fit. If they have married their brother-in-law, Beth Shammai pronounce them fit [to marry into the priesthood], But Beth Hillel pronounced them unfit. And although these pronounce unfit and these pronounce fit, Beth Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from [the daughters of] Beth Hillel, nor did Beth Hillel refrain from marrying women from [the daughters of] Beth Shammai. And in the case of all matters of purity and impurity in respect to which these pronounce pure and these pronounce impure, they did not refrain from preparing foods requiring a condition of purity each by means of [the vessels of] the other.

Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Nehunia ben Elinathan, a man of Kefar Habavli, testified concerning a limb [separated] from a corpse that it is impure; whereas Rabbi Eliezer says: they declared [this] only of a limb from a living [man]. They said to him: is not there an inference from the minor to the major (kal vehomer): If in the case of a living man [who is himself pure] a limb severed from him is impure, how much more in the case of a corpse [which is itself impure] should a limb severed from it be impure! He said to them: they have [nevertheless] declared it only of a limb from a living man. Another answer: The impurity of living men is greater than the impurity of corpses, because a living man causes that on which he lies and sits to become capable of making impure a man and clothing, and [he causes also] what is over him to transfer impurity to foods and liquids- which is defilement that a corpse does not cause.

The following vessels protect their contents when they have a tightly fitting cover: those made of cattle dung, of stone, of clay, of earthenware, of sodium carbonate, of the bones of a fish or of its skin, or of the bones of any animal of the sea or of its skin, and wooden vessels that are always clean. They protect whether the covers close their mouths or their sides, whether they stand on their bottoms or lean on their sides. If they were turned over with their mouths downwards they afford protection to all that is beneath them to the nethermost deep. Rabbi Eliezer declares this unclean. These protect everything, except that an earthen vessel protects only foods, liquids and earthen vessels.

A small flask whose neck was removed remains susceptible to uncleanness, But a large one whose neck was removed becomes pure. [A small flask] of spikenard oil whose neck was removed becomes pure, since it scratches the hand. Large flagons whose necks were removed remain susceptible to uncleanness, since they are adapted for the use of holding pickled foods. A glass funnel is clean. Rabbi Yose said: Happy are you Kelim; for you began with uncleanness, but you ended with cleanness.

A jar of hatat waters that touched a [dead] sheretz, remains clean. If the jar was put on it: Rabbi Eliezer rules that it remains clean, And the sages rule that it becomes unclean. If the jar touched foods or liquids or the Holy Scriptures, it remains clean. If it was put on them: Rabbi Yose rules that it remains clean; And the sages say that it becomes unclean.

First, second and third [degrees of uncleanness] in holy foods are unclean and convey uncleanness; Fourth [degree of uncleanness] is invalid and causes no uncleanness; And fifth [degree of uncleanness] may be eaten in a dish containing holy food.

If there were two paths, the one unclean and the other clean, and one walked on one of them and then prepared clean foods which were then eaten and, then he was sprinkled upon once and a second time and he performed immersion and became clean, then he walked on the second path and then prepared clean foods, the latter are clean. If the first foods were still in existence both must be held in suspense. If he had not become clean in the meantime, the first is held in suspense and the second must be burnt.

If there were two paths, the one unclean and the other clean, and one walked on one of them and then prepared clean foods which were then eaten and, then he was sprinkled upon once and a second time and he performed immersion and became clean, then he walked on the second path and then prepared clean foods, the latter are clean. If the first foods were still in existence both must be held in suspense. If he had not become clean in the meantime, the first is held in suspense and the second must be burnt.

If there were two paths, the one unclean and the other clean, and one walked on one of them and then prepared clean foods which were then eaten and, then he was sprinkled upon once and a second time and he performed immersion and became clean, then he walked on the second path and then prepared clean foods, the latter are clean. If the first foods were still in existence both must be held in suspense. If he had not become clean in the meantime, the first is held in suspense and the second must be burnt.

If there was a sheretz and a frog in a public domain and a man touched one of them and then prepared clean foods which were subsequently consumed; and then he immersed, and then he touched the other and then prepared clean foods, the latter are deemed clean. If the first foods were still in existence both must be held in suspense. If he did not immerse in the meanwhile, the first are held in suspense and the second must be burnt .

If there was a sheretz and a frog in a public domain and a man touched one of them and then prepared clean foods which were subsequently consumed; and then he immersed, and then he touched the other and then prepared clean foods, the latter are deemed clean. If the first foods were still in existence both must be held in suspense. If he did not immerse in the meanwhile, the first are held in suspense and the second must be burnt .

If there was a sheretz and a frog in a public domain and a man touched one of them and then prepared clean foods which were subsequently consumed; and then he immersed, and then he touched the other and then prepared clean foods, the latter are deemed clean. If the first foods were still in existence both must be held in suspense. If he did not immerse in the meanwhile, the first are held in suspense and the second must be burnt .

If there were two paths, the one unclean and the other clean, and a man walked by one of them and then prepared clean food, and subsequently another man came and walked by the second path and then prepared clean foods: Rabbi Judah rules: if each by himself asked for a ruling they are both to be declared clean. But if they asked for a ruling simultaneously, both are to be declared unclean. Rabbi Yose ruled: in either case they are both unclean.

The outer parts of vessels that have contracted uncleanness from liquids: Rabbi Eliezer says: they defile liquids but they do not disqualify foods. Rabbi Joshua says: they defile liquids and also disqualify foods. Shimon the brother of Azariah says: neither this nor that. Rather, liquids that were defiled from the outer parts of vessels defile at one remove and disqualify at a second remove. It is as if it say, "that which defiled you did not defile me but you have defiled me."

The outer parts of vessels that have contracted uncleanness from liquids: Rabbi Eliezer says: they defile liquids but they do not disqualify foods. Rabbi Joshua says: they defile liquids and also disqualify foods. Shimon the brother of Azariah says: neither this nor that. Rather, liquids that were defiled from the outer parts of vessels defile at one remove and disqualify at a second remove. It is as if it say, "that which defiled you did not defile me but you have defiled me."

If a mikveh was measured and was found lacking [in its prescribed quantity], all things which had been purified in it, whether in private domain or in a public domain, are accounted unclean retroactively. To what does this rule apply? To a serious uncleanness. But in the case of a lesser uncleanness, for instance if he ate unclean foods or drank unclean liquids, or if his head and the greater part of his body entered into drawn water, or if three logs of drawn water fell on his head and the greater part of his body, and he then went down to immerse himself and he is in doubt whether he immersed himself or not, or even if he did immerse himself there is [still] a doubt whether the mikveh contained forty seahs or not, or if there were two mikvehs, one containing forty seahs and not the other, and he immersed himself in one of them but does not know in which of them he immersed himself, in such a doubt he is accounted clean. Rabbi Yose considers him unclean, for Rabbi Yose says: anything which is presumed to be unclean always remains in a condition of unfitness until it is known that it has become clean; but if there is a doubt whether a person became unclean or caused uncleanness, it is to be accounted clean.

All foods combine together to make up the half of a half-loaf which makes the body unfit. All liquids combine together to make up the quarter-log which makes the body unfit. This is more of a stringency in the case of one who drinks unclean liquids than in the case of the mikveh, for in this case they have made all other liquids like water.

If one ate unclean foods or drank unclean liquids and then he immersed and then vomited them up, they are still unclean because they did not become clean in the body. If one drank unclean water and immersed and then vomited it up, it is clean because it became clean in the body. If one swallowed a clean ring and then went into the tent of a corpse, if he sprinkled himself once and twice and immersed himself and then vomited it up, behold, it remains as it was before. If one swallowed an unclean ring, he may immerse himself and eat terumah. If he vomited it up, it is unclean and it renders him unclean. If an arrow was stuck into a man, it blocks so long as it is visible. But if it is not visible, he may immerse himself and eat terumah.

Whatsoever is subject to tithes is susceptible to food-uncleanness. But there are foods that are to food-uncleanness and not subject to tithes.

One who touches a zav, or whom a zav touches, who moves a zav or whom a zav moves, defiles by contact food and liquids and vessels that are rinsed, but not by carrying. A general principle was stated by Rabbi Joshua: anyone that defile garments while still in contact [with their source of uncleanness] also defiles foods and liquids so as to become [unclean] in the first grade, and the hands so that they become [unclean] in the second grade; but they do not defile people or earthenware vessels. After they separated from their source of uncleanness they defile liquids so as to become [unclean] in the first grade, and food and the hands so that they become [unclean] in the second grade, but they do not defile garments.

They said yet another general principle: All that is carried above a zav becomes defiled, but all those things above which he is carried are clean except objects on which he can sit or lie upon, and a person. How so? If a zav had his finger beneath a layer of stones and one that was clean was above, he conveys uncleanness at two [degrees of remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness] he still defiles at one remove and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. If the unclean one was above, and the clean person below, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness], he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [more remove]. If foods or liquids, or objects on which he could sit or lie upon or other articles were above, they defile at one remove, and disqualify [terumah] at one [further remove]. If they had become separated [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at one [remove] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. All objects fit to sit or lie upon that were below defile at two [removes], and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. If they had become separate [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at two [removes] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove] Foods and liquids and other articles that are below, remain clean.

They said yet another general principle: All that is carried above a zav becomes defiled, but all those things above which he is carried are clean except objects on which he can sit or lie upon, and a person. How so? If a zav had his finger beneath a layer of stones and one that was clean was above, he conveys uncleanness at two [degrees of remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness] he still defiles at one remove and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. If the unclean one was above, and the clean person below, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness], he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [more remove]. If foods or liquids, or objects on which he could sit or lie upon or other articles were above, they defile at one remove, and disqualify [terumah] at one [further remove]. If they had become separated [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at one [remove] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. All objects fit to sit or lie upon that were below defile at two [removes], and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. If they had become separate [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at two [removes] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove] Foods and liquids and other articles that are below, remain clean.

He who has had a seminal emission is like one who has touched a dead sheretz. And one who has had sex with a menstruant is like one who has suffered corpse uncleanness. But one who has had sex with a menstruant is more stringent in that he conveys minor grades of uncleanness to what he lies or sits upon, so as to make foods and liquids unclean.

The following disqualify terumah: One who eats foods with first degree uncleanness; Or one who eats food with second degree uncleanness; And who drinks unclean liquids. And the one who has immersed his head and the greater part of him in drawn water; And a clean person upon whose head and greater part of him there fell three logs of drawn water; And a scroll [of Holy Scriptures], And [unwashed] hands; And one that has had immersion that same day; And foods and vessels which have become defiled by liquids.

The following disqualify terumah: One who eats foods with first degree uncleanness; Or one who eats food with second degree uncleanness; And who drinks unclean liquids. And the one who has immersed his head and the greater part of him in drawn water; And a clean person upon whose head and greater part of him there fell three logs of drawn water; And a scroll [of Holy Scriptures], And [unwashed] hands; And one that has had immersion that same day; And foods and vessels which have become defiled by liquids.

If the porridge was of terumah and the garlic or oil [it contained] was of hullin, and a tevul yom touched part of them, he has disqualified the whole thing; But if the porridge was of hullin and the garlic or oil it contained was of terumah, and a tevul yom touched part of them, he disqualifies only the part he has touched. If the greater part was garlic then they go after the majority. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When it formed one cohesive mass in the pot, but if it was scattered small in the mortar, then it is clean, since he wishes that it should be scattered. [Similarly] with all other mashed foods which were mashed with liquids. But those which are usually mashed with liquids and yet were mashed without liquids, though they formed one cohesive mass in the pot, are regarded as a cake of preserved figs.

Sanctified meat over which the porridge crusted, and a tevul yom touched the crust, the slices [of meat] are permitted. But if he touched one of the slices, that slice and all [the crust] that comes up with it form a connective with the other. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: the two of them serve as connectives to each other. Similarly, with [cooked] beans that have formed a layer over pieces of bread. Beans or other foods cooked in a pot: when they are still separate, do not serve as connectives; but when they become a solid pulp, they do act as connectives. If they formed several solid masses, they are to be counted. If oil floats on wine and a tevul yom touched the oil, only the oil is disqualified. But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: each serves as a connective with the other.

Handles to food, which count as connectives when touched by a "father of uncleanness," also count as connectives when touched by a tevul yom. If a food was divided into two yet a small part was still attached: Rabbi Meir says: if one takes hold of the larger part and the smaller part is pulled away with it, behold it is like it. Rabbi Judah says: if one takes hold of the smaller part and the greater is also pulled away with it, then behold it is like it. Rabbi Nehemiah says: [this refers] to the case of the clean portion. But the sages say: [it refers] to the unclean portion. In the case of all other foods, those usually held by the leaf should be taken by the leaf, and those usually held by the stalk should be taken by the stalk.

If a person puts his hands inside a house with scale disease, his hands have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: his hands have second degree uncleanness. Whoever defiles garments: at the time when he touches [the uncleanness], he defiles hands so that they have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: such that they have second degree of uncleanness. They said to Rabbi Akiba: where do we find anywhere that hands have first degree uncleanness? He said to them: but how is it possible for them to become unclean with first degree uncleanness without his whole body becoming unclean? Only in these cases [can they have first degree uncleanness]. Foods and vessels which have been defiled by liquids convey second degree of uncleanness to the hands, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been defiled by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: it happened that a certain woman came before my father and said to him, "My hands went into the air-space inside an earthenware vessel." He said to her: "My daughter, what was the cause of its uncleanness?" But I did not hear what she said to him. The sages said: the matter is clear that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been rendered unclean by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands.

Stalks of all foods that have been threshed on the threshing-floor are clean. Rabbi Yose declares them unclean. A sprig of a vine when stripped of its grapes is clean, but if one grape alone is left on it, it is unclean. A twig of a date-tree stripped of its dates is clean, but if one date remains on it, it is unclean. Similarly, with beans, if the pods were stripped from the stem it is clean, but if even one pod alone remains, it is unclean. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah declares [the stalk] of the broad bean clean, but declares unclean the stalk of other beans, since it is of use when [the pulse] is handled.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Everything that is cereal and like dough put in boiling water and is of the Five Kinds, over it one says “Creator of kinds of foods”, and one recites after it one benediction imitating three. And everything that is cereal and like dough put in boiling water, but is not of the Five Kinds, Rebbi Jonah said that Rebbi Zeïra sent to those of the Yeshivah of Rebbi Yannai and they told him, but I do not know what they told him. What is it? Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable to assume “That everything was created by His word.” Rebbi Jeremiah inquired: He who ate cereal, what does he recite at the end? Rebbi Yose said, and therefore Rebbi Jeremiah never ate any cereal. That is the only one thing about which he was in doubt.

MISHNAH: Three persons who ate together are required to “invite”. If one ate demai, or first tithe of which the heave was taken, or second tithe or dedicated foods that were redeemed, or the waiter who ate the volume of an olive, or a Samaritan, these can be invited. But if one ate untithed produce, or first tithe of which the heave was not taken, or the second tithe or dedicated foods that were not redeemed, or the waiter who ate less than the volume of an olive, or a Gentile, these cannot be invited.

MISHNAH: Three persons who ate together are required to “invite”. If one ate demai, or first tithe of which the heave was taken, or second tithe or dedicated foods that were redeemed, or the waiter who ate the volume of an olive, or a Samaritan, these can be invited. But if one ate untithed produce, or first tithe of which the heave was not taken, or the second tithe or dedicated foods that were not redeemed, or the waiter who ate less than the volume of an olive, or a Gentile, these cannot be invited.

In the house of Rebbi Yannai they said, if it is in crumbs one is permitted to waste in amounts less than a meal, but whole foods only up to the volume of a dried fig. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of R. Simeon ben Yoẓadaq: If it is whole, up to the volume of a dried fig, in crumbs any amount. Is that their difference? Rebbi Mana said, is not the following their difference: In the house of Rebbi Yannai they said, if it is in crumbs one is permitted to waste in amounts less than a meal, whole foods only up to the volume of a dried fig. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of R. Simeon ben Yoẓadaq, whether it be whole or in crumbs, up to the volume of a dried fig.

In the house of Rebbi Yannai they said, if it is in crumbs one is permitted to waste in amounts less than a meal, but whole foods only up to the volume of a dried fig. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of R. Simeon ben Yoẓadaq: If it is whole, up to the volume of a dried fig, in crumbs any amount. Is that their difference? Rebbi Mana said, is not the following their difference: In the house of Rebbi Yannai they said, if it is in crumbs one is permitted to waste in amounts less than a meal, whole foods only up to the volume of a dried fig. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of R. Simeon ben Yoẓadaq, whether it be whole or in crumbs, up to the volume of a dried fig.

What does he do? Rebbi Huna said, he brings a suspect Cohen, lets him immerse himself, and serves it to him. But then does he not deliver pure foods to an am haäreẓ? Rebbi Mana said, he brings a suspect Cohen, lets him immerse himself, watches him until sundown and then serves it to him. But then does he not support the sinners? Rebbi Simeon from Carsan in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: He keeps it until the day before Passover and then burns it.

Rebbi Hoshaia said, this was taught only for consecrated food which can be permitted. But of consecrated food which cannot be permitted one has to give back even the most minute amount. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: That log of oil of the leper, must he give it back or not? If you say he must give it back, and he did not, he transgresses by default. If you say he need not give it back, and he did, he transgresses by excess Rebbi Ḥinena did not say so, but Rebbi Hoshaia said, this was taught only for consecrated food which can be permitted. But of consecrated food which cannot be permitted one has to give back even the most minute amount. That log of oil of the leper belongs to those [consecrated foods] which can be permitted and you say he must give it back? That means, he must give back and if he did not, he transgresses by default.

These are Cilician grits, these are square. It was stated: “Rabban Gamliel says, there is nothing square from the six days of Creation.” Rebbi Berekhiah objected: Did we not state: “The body of baheret is like a square Cilician grit.” Rebbi Bisna said, that in itself says that there is no square. Why did we state that? That he should square it. But there are noxious insects! They are full of knots. But there is the bunch of pila! It is round below. Some want to say, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel spoke only about animals. It was stated so: There is square in foods, there is no square in animals.

So far something than one lifts and thereby permits for lay persons. Something one lifts and permits for Heaven? Let us hear from the following: (Lev. 22:7) “ ‘After that he shall eat from the holy foods because it is his bread.’ There exists holy food which he does not eat; that excludes mixtures of more than one in 100”.

“Not only heave food in heave food; from where heave food in profane food, profane food in heave food, heave food in sacrificial food, sacrificial food in heave food, heave drink in heave drink, heave drink in profane drink, profane drink in heave drink, heave drink in sacrificial drink, sacrificial drink in heave drink, sacrificial drink in sacrificial drink? From where? The verse says (Lev. 22:7) ‘From the holy foods’, it adds.” Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Explain it if the log of oil of the skin-diseased was mixed with the excess of the loaves of the gift of the nazir; so we have stated, two drinks. Rebbi Ḥanania said, that means burned offerings in burned offerings; but purification offerings in burned offerings is certainly a prohibition.

Who stated “they combine with one another”? Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of Rebbi Meïr is that all forbidden [foods] combine with one another to whip for them in the volume of an olive since it says: (Deut. 14:3) “You shall not eat any abomination.”

Rebbi Yudan said, did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, they taught this about sweeteners? Since sweeteners usually are estimated as if they were onion or leeks, one estimates them as if they were onion or leeks. All other forbidden [foods], since they are not usually estimated as if they were onion or leeks one estimates in their kinds. Cumin one estimates by its kind.

Rebbi Mana did not say so but: Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, they taught this about sweeteners? Since sweeteners all taste the same, they are estimated as if they were onion, as if they were leeks. All other forbidden [foods], since they do not taste the same one does not estimate them as if they were onion, as if they were leeks. Cumin is a problem.

MISHNAH: He who eats the volume of a big date with its pit or who drinks the volume of a full gulp on the day of Atonement is liable. All foods combine for the volume of a date, and all drinks combine for the mouthful. What he ate and drank does not combine.

MISHNAH: If one ate and drank in one forgetting he is liable only for one purification sacrifice. If he ate and drank, and worked, he is liable for two purification sacrifices. If he ate foods which are not edible or drank drinks which are not drinkable, drank fish sauce or muries, he is not liable. One does not let children fast but one educates them one year of two in advance so they should be used to commandments.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Antigonos said, do dry foods exist for sancta? He impales the flat piece on the spit and eats with it an olive-sized bit of meat of heave but not of sancta.”

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers, but the House of Hillel forbid. If they took ḥalîṣah, the House of Shammai disqualify them for the priesthood but the House of Hillel declare them qualified. If they entered levirate, the House of Shammai declare them qualified but the House of Hillel as disqualified. Even though these forbid and those permit, these declare disqualified and those qualified, the House of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the House of Hillel nor the House of Hillel from the House of Shammai. Regarding all purities and impurities which these were declaring as pure and those as impure, these did not refrain to process pure foods with the help of those.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Mana: Why did they say that secondarily impure profane food defiles profane fluids? Because of the hands. Since hands, [whose impurity] is rabbinical, defile profane fluids, secondarily impure food, [whose impurity] is biblical, not so much more? Also, since hands, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, impart impurity, so also secondarily impure fluids, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, impart impurity. Rebbi Ḥanina objected before Rebbi Mana: Look, if somebody eats secondarily impure food and drinks secondarily impure fluids, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, they impart impurity. But secondarily impure foods by biblical standards, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, leave it pure! Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana: Do we not deal with heave? He said to him, even if you say that we deal with heave; is the one who argues “is impure”, “shall become impure” as word of the Torah not Rebbi Aqiba?

It was stated: One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose. Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure foods to be retroactively made impure? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that [the earth] become unusable forever.

It was stated: “Rabban Gamliel says, there is nothing square from the six days of Creation.” Rebbi Berekhiah objected: Did we not state: “The body of baheret is like a square Italian grit.” Rebbi Bisna said, that in itself says that there is no square. Why did we state that? That he should square it. But there are lice! They are full of knots. But there is the knee of a mountain goat! It is round below. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel spoke only about animals. It was stated so: There is square in foods, there is no square in animals.

It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, there is nothing square from the six Days of Creation. Rebbi Berekhiah objected: Did we not state: “The body of baheret is like a square Cilician grit. The place for a grit is nine lentils. The space for a lentil is four hairwidths; in all 36 hairwidths.” Rebbi (Yosna) said, that in itself says that there is no square. Why was it stated “squared”? That he should square it. And כגעה? It is full of knots. But there is the bunch of pila! It is round below. Some wanted to say, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said this only about creatures, There is square in foods, there is no square in creatures.

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."

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."

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."

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.

Do they not? Lo, there is a teaching : He who chews wheat should say the benediction "...Who createst the fruit of the ground"; if he ground it, baked and then boiled it, should the pieces of bread be still whole, before partaking thereof he says "...Who bringest forth bread from the earth" and afterwards he says the three benedictions; but if the pieces are no longer whole, he first says "...Who createst various kinds of foods" and afterwards one benediction which is an abstract of three.

He who chews rice says the benediction "...Who createst the fruit of the ground"; if he ground it, baked and then boiled it, although the pieces are still whole, he first says "...Who createst various kinds of foods" and afterwards one benediction which is an abstract of three.

The teacher stated : "He who chews rice says the benediction '...Who createst the fruit of the ground'; if he ground it, baked and then boiled it, although the pieces are still whole, he first says '...Who createst various kinds of foods' and afterwards one benediction which is an abstract of three."

According to whom, then, dost thou confirm [the teaching: After partaking of rice one benediction which is an abstract of three is necessary] ? According to Rabban Gamaliel. I will quote the latter part of the first teaching, viz. : "If the pieces are no longer whole, he first says '...Who createst various kinds of foods' and afterwards one benediction which is an abstract of three." Whose teaching is this ? If Rabban Gamaliel's, since he has just declared that for dates and pounded grain three benedictions are necessary, how much more necessary should they be if the pieces are no longer whole!

Raba said : Over the Rihata of the field labourers which contains a large admixture of flour, the benediction is "...Who createst various kinds of food." Why? Because the flour is the principal ingredient. [Over the Rihata] of townspeople which does not contain so much flour, the benediction is "...By Whose word all things exist." Why? Because honey is the principal ingredient. Raba afterwards said : Over both kinds the benediction is "...Who createst various kinds of foods"; because Rab and Samuel both declare : Over any food which contains one of the five species, the benediction is "...Who createst various kinds of foods."

Raba said : Over the Rihata of the field labourers which contains a large admixture of flour, the benediction is "...Who createst various kinds of food." Why? Because the flour is the principal ingredient. [Over the Rihata] of townspeople which does not contain so much flour, the benediction is "...By Whose word all things exist." Why? Because honey is the principal ingredient. Raba afterwards said : Over both kinds the benediction is "...Who createst various kinds of foods"; because Rab and Samuel both declare : Over any food which contains one of the five species, the benediction is "...Who createst various kinds of foods."

Rab Joseph said : Over the Habis which contains pieces of bread the size of an olive, before partaking thereof the benediction is "...Who bringest forth bread from the earth," and afterwards three benedictions. If it does not contain pieces of bread the size of an olive, before partaking thereof the benediction is "...Who createst various kinds of foods" and afterwards one benediction which is an abstract of three.

If he made them into cakes, they are subject [to Hallah]; but if he made them into "shingles," they are exempt. Abbai asked Rab Joseph : Which benediction is to be said over dough baked in a cavity made in the ground ? He said to him : Dost thou consider it to be bread ? It is only a thick mass, and the benediction is "...Who createst various kinds of foods."

Over Shattit Rab said : [The benediction is] "...By Whose word all things exist"; Samuel said: It is "...Who createst various kinds of foods."

Abbai said to him : Art thou not of the opinion [that it is permitted to compound a remedy on the Sabbath] ? Lo, there is a Mishnaic teaching : All foods may be eaten as a remedy, and likewise all liquids may be drunk ! What is there for thee to say? The man intended it as a food [and therefore it may be prepared on the Sabbath] ; so here also [in the case of the Shattit] the man intended it as a food.

Rab Ashe said : When we were at the school of Rab Kahana he said to us : For a broth of beet, into which one does not put much flour, the benediction is "...Who createst the fruit of the ground " ; for a broth of turnip, into which much flour is put, it is "...Who createst various kinds of foods." Afterwards he said : In either case it is "...Who createst the fruit of the ground," and that they put much flour into it is only done to make it adhere.

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.

R. Jacob b. Iddi said in the name of R. Hannina : Over any food which belongs to the five species, before partaking thereof one says the benediction "...Who createst various kinds of foods," and afterwards one benediction which is an abstract of three.

And R. Joshua said: I have heard that sacrifices may be brought even though there is no Temple; that the most holy foods may be eaten, even though there are no curtains; and that foods of lesser sanctity and second tithe may be eaten even though there is no wall, because the first holiness was conferred on Jerusalem both for the time being and for all time. We infer from this that R. Eliezer holds that it was not [at first] sanctified for all time.

And R. Joshua said: I have heard that sacrifices may be brought even though there is no Temple; that the most holy foods may be eaten, even though there are no curtains; and that foods of lesser sanctity and second tithe may be eaten even though there is no wall, because the first holiness was conferred on Jerusalem both for the time being and for all time. We infer from this that R. Eliezer holds that it was not [at first] sanctified for all time.

[Continuing the list] someone who was impure and ate sacred food, or one who entered the Temple while impure, or one who ate chalev [forbidden fats], blood, noser [sacrifices left passed their allotted time], piggul [sacrifices offered with the wrong intentions], or impure foods.

A baraisa was taught in accordance with [the view of] Reish Lakash, "B'chol kodesh lo sigah" is a scriptural warning for eating [sacrificial foods while one is impure]. You say that it is a warning for eating? Or maybe it's only a warning for touching? The Torah therefore says, "In all sanctity he shall not touch and into the Temple etc." The Torah juxtaposes sacrificial foods with the Temple. Just as the Temple is a thing that involve the loss of life [one who enters while impure is subject to kares], so too the whole [verse] most involve the loss of life. And does touching [sacrificial foods, which is punishable with malkus] involve any loss of life? Rather you must say that the "b'chol kodesh lo sigah" refers to eating [sacrificial foods].

A baraisa was taught in accordance with [the view of] Reish Lakash, "B'chol kodesh lo sigah" is a scriptural warning for eating [sacrificial foods while one is impure]. You say that it is a warning for eating? Or maybe it's only a warning for touching? The Torah therefore says, "In all sanctity he shall not touch and into the Temple etc." The Torah juxtaposes sacrificial foods with the Temple. Just as the Temple is a thing that involve the loss of life [one who enters while impure is subject to kares], so too the whole [verse] most involve the loss of life. And does touching [sacrificial foods, which is punishable with malkus] involve any loss of life? Rather you must say that the "b'chol kodesh lo sigah" refers to eating [sacrificial foods].

A baraisa was taught in accordance with [the view of] Reish Lakash, "B'chol kodesh lo sigah" is a scriptural warning for eating [sacrificial foods while one is impure]. You say that it is a warning for eating? Or maybe it's only a warning for touching? The Torah therefore says, "In all sanctity he shall not touch and into the Temple etc." The Torah juxtaposes sacrificial foods with the Temple. Just as the Temple is a thing that involve the loss of life [one who enters while impure is subject to kares], so too the whole [verse] most involve the loss of life. And does touching [sacrificial foods, which is punishable with malkus] involve any loss of life? Rather you must say that the "b'chol kodesh lo sigah" refers to eating [sacrificial foods].

A baraisa was taught in accordance with [the view of] Reish Lakash, "B'chol kodesh lo sigah" is a scriptural warning for eating [sacrificial foods while one is impure]. You say that it is a warning for eating? Or maybe it's only a warning for touching? The Torah therefore says, "In all sanctity he shall not touch and into the Temple etc." The Torah juxtaposes sacrificial foods with the Temple. Just as the Temple is a thing that involve the loss of life [one who enters while impure is subject to kares], so too the whole [verse] most involve the loss of life. And does touching [sacrificial foods, which is punishable with malkus] involve any loss of life? Rather you must say that the "b'chol kodesh lo sigah" refers to eating [sacrificial foods].

If one eats Tevel [untithed foods] or Maiser Rishon etc. Rav said, If one ate tevel of maiser ani [all the tithes besides maser ani were already separated] he is liable to malkus.

when is one liable for eating them? From when they see the face of the Temple. Who is this in accordance with? It's in accordance with the following Tanna, That it was taught in a baraisa, Rebbi Eliezer said, [Regarding] Bikorim that are part inside [the temple] and part outside [the temple], those that are outside are like non-sanctified foods in every facet, and those which are inside are like sanctified foods in every facet.

when is one liable for eating them? From when they see the face of the Temple. Who is this in accordance with? It's in accordance with the following Tanna, That it was taught in a baraisa, Rebbi Eliezer said, [Regarding] Bikorim that are part inside [the temple] and part outside [the temple], those that are outside are like non-sanctified foods in every facet, and those which are inside are like sanctified foods in every facet.