loaf

Rebbi Yose understood all this from the following: “An oath that I shall not eat; when he ate and drank he is liable only for one.” The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose, but it is said following this, “an oath that I shall not eat nor drink, when he ate and drank” should he be liable only for one? Rebbi Yose told them, if somebody said, an oath that I shall not eat this loaf, and he continued, an oath that I shall not eat this other loaf, when he ate both of them would he not be guilty on two counts?

MISHNAH: “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf, an oath that I shall not eat it, an oath that I shall not eat it;” he is liable only once. This is the blurted oath where in case it be intentional one is liable for flogging, and if unintentional for a variable sacrifice.

HALAKHAH: “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf,” etc. “An oath that I shall eat this loaf today,” the day passed and then he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, he is not liable; not for the same reason. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan, because he cannot be duly warned. The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, because it is a prohibition without action. What is the difference between them? He burned it or threw it into the sea. If you say, because he cannot be duly warned, he is not liable. If you say, because it is a prohibition without action, there is an action.

HALAKHAH: “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf,” etc. “An oath that I shall eat this loaf today,” the day passed and then he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, he is not liable; not for the same reason. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan, because he cannot be duly warned. The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, because it is a prohibition without action. What is the difference between them? He burned it or threw it into the sea. If you say, because he cannot be duly warned, he is not liable. If you say, because it is a prohibition without action, there is an action.

Rebbi Yose asked, “an oath, an oath, an oath, that I shall not eat,” and he ate. What is the rule? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, let us hear from the following: “'An oath that I shall not eat this loaf, an oath that I shall not eat it, an oath that I shall not eat it;' he is liable once.” Because he mentioned this. Therefore, if he did not mention this, he would be liable for each single one.

Abime the brother of Ḥefa said, I had studied Nedarim and Ševuot; Ḥefa wanted to examine him. He had before him five loaves and said, an oath that I would not eat this loaf. He returned and said, these two. He returned and said, these three. He returned and said, these four. He returned and said, these five. Then he ate the first. He said to him, he is liable for each single one. He answered, he is liable only once, for when he mentioned the first he made it like carcass meat; the following make an oath fall on something prohibited and oaths cannot fall on prohibitions.

“An oath that I shall eat this loaf;” etc. Vain and untruth both were said together, which is impossible for the ear to hear and the mouth to say. Its desecrator shall be put to death and on the Sabbath day two sheep were said together. Do not wear ša`aṭnez, fringes you shall make for yourselves, both were said together. The nakedness of your brother’s wife and her brother-in-law shall come to her were said together. You shall not move property; any daughter inheriting real estate both were said together, which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. And so it says, God spoke once, two I heard from this. And it says, is not My word like fire, says the Eternal.

MISHNAH: “An oath that I shall eat this loaf; an oath that I shall not eat it.” The first one is a blurted oath, the second a vain oath. If he ate it he violated a vain oath, if he did not eat it he violated a blurted oath.

HALAKHAH: “A blurted oath,” etc. “ ‘An oath that I shall not eat this loaf, an oath that I shall not eat it’, he is liable only once”. Something which would be forbidden for vows and is permitted for oaths. Not on this was it said but on the following: “Whether matters of himself, or matters of others,” as Rebbi Abba said in the name of Samuel: ‘An oath that X gave a mina to Y.’ If it turns out that he had not given, since it is not in his hand for the future it is not in his hand for the past. It was found stated on both cases: This is more stringent for the past than for the future: If he says “I shall not eat, I shall not eat,” he is liable only once. “I did not eat, I did not eat,” he is liable for each single time.

“An oath that I shall eat this loaf; an oath that I shall not eat it.” The first one is a blurted oath, the second a vain oath. How does one deal with him? One tells him to eat; it is better to break a vain oath than a blurted one.

“An oath that I shall not eat this loaf; an oath that I shall eat it.” The first one is a blurted oath, the second a vain oath. How does one deal with him? One tells him not to eat; it is better to break a vain oath than to break a vain and a blurted one.

“An oath that I shall eat this loaf today; an oath that I shall not eat it today.” Then he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he kept the first oath and invalidated the second. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he invalidated the first one and did not keep the second.

“An oath that I shall not eat this loaf today; an oath that I shall eat it today.” Then he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he invalidated the first oath and kept the second. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he invalidated the first one. One tells him to keep the second with another loaf.

“An oath that I shall not eat this loaf today; an oath that I shall eat it today.” Then he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he invalidated the first oath and kept the second. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he invalidated the first one. One tells him to keep the second with another loaf.

“An oath that I shall eat this loaf today; an oath that I shall eat it today.” Then he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he kept both of them. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he kept the first one and one tells him to keep the second with another loaf.

“An oath that I shall eat this loaf today; an oath that I shall eat it today.” Then he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he kept both of them. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he kept the first one and one tells him to keep the second with another loaf.

“An oath that I shall not eat this loaf today; an oath that I shall not eat it today.” Then he ate it. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is twice liable. Is he only once liable in Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion? Even Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that he only emphasizes the prohibitions.

Rebbi Yose asked: “An oath, an oath that I am not holding for you,” what? Rebbi Yose said, let us hear from the following: “ ‘An oath that I shall not eat this loaf; an oath that I shall not eat it’. Then he ate it. He is liable only once.” Because he mentioned “this”. Therefore, had he not mentioned “this” we would be liable for each one. Is it the same for a blurted oath? “An oath that I shall eat carcass meat, and wheat bread, and barley bread, and spelt bread.” Since he is not liable for carcass meat he is not liable for the remainder.

Between both of them it will never move from between them. If the one forcing the oath forces the oath lying, at the end it will come over him. If the one swearing swears lying, at the end it will come over him. What is the reason? I shall take it out, oracle of the Eternal Sabaot, and it will come into the house of the thief and the house of him who swears falsely in My Name, etc. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, destructive angels have no joints. What is the reason? From roving about the Earth and walking there. But here, it will destroy its wood and its stones. Come and see, things which the fire will not burn, a vain oath will destroy. Rebbi Jonah said, about falsehood. Rebbi Yose said, even on truth. Ḥaggai was preaching following Rebbi Yose. There was a case about a woman who went to knead dough with another and had two denarii bound into the seam of her head cover. These fell out and were rolled into a loaf. She went back to he house, wanted them and did not find them. She returned to her and said to her, give me the two denarii which fell from me in your house. She told her, I do not know. If she would know of it, she should bury her son. She buried him. When they returned from his grave, she heard a voice saying, if she had not known about them she would not have buried him. She said, if this woman knows about them, she should bury her other son. She buried him. They came to console her and cut one loaf and found two denarii rolled into the loaf. This says, whether innocent or guilty, never swear an oath.

Between both of them it will never move from between them. If the one forcing the oath forces the oath lying, at the end it will come over him. If the one swearing swears lying, at the end it will come over him. What is the reason? I shall take it out, oracle of the Eternal Sabaot, and it will come into the house of the thief and the house of him who swears falsely in My Name, etc. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, destructive angels have no joints. What is the reason? From roving about the Earth and walking there. But here, it will destroy its wood and its stones. Come and see, things which the fire will not burn, a vain oath will destroy. Rebbi Jonah said, about falsehood. Rebbi Yose said, even on truth. Ḥaggai was preaching following Rebbi Yose. There was a case about a woman who went to knead dough with another and had two denarii bound into the seam of her head cover. These fell out and were rolled into a loaf. She went back to he house, wanted them and did not find them. She returned to her and said to her, give me the two denarii which fell from me in your house. She told her, I do not know. If she would know of it, she should bury her son. She buried him. When they returned from his grave, she heard a voice saying, if she had not known about them she would not have buried him. She said, if this woman knows about them, she should bury her other son. She buried him. They came to console her and cut one loaf and found two denarii rolled into the loaf. This says, whether innocent or guilty, never swear an oath.

Between both of them it will never move from between them. If the one forcing the oath forces the oath lying, at the end it will come over him. If the one swearing swears lying, at the end it will come over him. What is the reason? I shall take it out, oracle of the Eternal Sabaot, and it will come into the house of the thief and the house of him who swears falsely in My Name, etc. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, destructive angels have no joints. What is the reason? From roving about the Earth and walking there. But here, it will destroy its wood and its stones. Come and see, things which the fire will not burn, a vain oath will destroy. Rebbi Jonah said, about falsehood. Rebbi Yose said, even on truth. Ḥaggai was preaching following Rebbi Yose. There was a case about a woman who went to knead dough with another and had two denarii bound into the seam of her head cover. These fell out and were rolled into a loaf. She went back to he house, wanted them and did not find them. She returned to her and said to her, give me the two denarii which fell from me in your house. She told her, I do not know. If she would know of it, she should bury her son. She buried him. When they returned from his grave, she heard a voice saying, if she had not known about them she would not have buried him. She said, if this woman knows about them, she should bury her other son. She buried him. They came to console her and cut one loaf and found two denarii rolled into the loaf. This says, whether innocent or guilty, never swear an oath.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba sent to buy sandals for himself at the fair of Tyre. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said to him, are you a buyer at fairs? He answered him, did you never buy a loaf of bread? He said to him, there is a difference, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, they did not forbid the necessities of life. Rebbi Simeon ben Joḥanan sent to ask Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq, did you not check out the nature of the fair at Tyre? He told him, yes. He gave two pounds of peppers to an איסקרנדה. He went and found an inscription there, “I, King Diocletian, settled this fair at Tyre to the genius of my brother Heraklius, eight days.” Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman asked Rebbi Ḥanina: What is the nature of the fair at Gaza? He said to him, did you ever go to Tyre and see a Jew and a Gentile sharing a pot, and he does not worry that the Gentile pour something into the pot? This is difficult. He asked him; what did he answer him? But since Rebbi Ḥanina never said something that he had not heard, for that reason when he asked him this he responded with that. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun came, Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They forbade only the fair at Botnah, as it was stated thus: There are three fairs, the fair at Gaza, the fair at Acco, the fair at Botnah. The clearest of them is the fair at Botnah.

לֹא תְחָנֵּֽם do not give them free gifts. But was it not stated: “It happened that Rabban Gamliel was walking on the road and saw a loaf of bread thrown on the road. He said to his slave Tabi, pick up this loaf. He saw a Gentile coming towards him and said to him, Mabgai, take this loaf. Rebbi Illai ran after him and asked him, what is your name? He told him, Mabgai. From where are you? He told him, from the guard-tower villages. Did Rabban Gamliel ever come to know you?, He told him, no. Rabban Gamliel had it right by the Holy Spirit. We learned from him three things. We learned that one does not pass over food. And that leavened matter of a Gentile is permitted immediately after Passover. And that one follows the majority of travelers.” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That is, in earlier times. But today we pass over edibles because of sorcery.

לֹא תְחָנֵּֽם do not give them free gifts. But was it not stated: “It happened that Rabban Gamliel was walking on the road and saw a loaf of bread thrown on the road. He said to his slave Tabi, pick up this loaf. He saw a Gentile coming towards him and said to him, Mabgai, take this loaf. Rebbi Illai ran after him and asked him, what is your name? He told him, Mabgai. From where are you? He told him, from the guard-tower villages. Did Rabban Gamliel ever come to know you?, He told him, no. Rabban Gamliel had it right by the Holy Spirit. We learned from him three things. We learned that one does not pass over food. And that leavened matter of a Gentile is permitted immediately after Passover. And that one follows the majority of travelers.” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That is, in earlier times. But today we pass over edibles because of sorcery.

לֹא תְחָנֵּֽם do not give them free gifts. But was it not stated: “It happened that Rabban Gamliel was walking on the road and saw a loaf of bread thrown on the road. He said to his slave Tabi, pick up this loaf. He saw a Gentile coming towards him and said to him, Mabgai, take this loaf. Rebbi Illai ran after him and asked him, what is your name? He told him, Mabgai. From where are you? He told him, from the guard-tower villages. Did Rabban Gamliel ever come to know you?, He told him, no. Rabban Gamliel had it right by the Holy Spirit. We learned from him three things. We learned that one does not pass over food. And that leavened matter of a Gentile is permitted immediately after Passover. And that one follows the majority of travelers.” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That is, in earlier times. But today we pass over edibles because of sorcery.

“When he was leaving Akzib there came a person to ask about his vow. He asked his travel companion, would you say that we drank a quartarius of Italian wine? He said to him, yes. He told the person who asked, walk with us until we dissipate our wine. When they came to the Tyrian Ladder Rabban Gamliel dismounted, covered himself, sat down, and dissolved his vow. From his words we learned that a quartarius of wine intoxicates and that travelling dissipates the wine. Also that one does not ask about vows and gives no instruction after drinking wine. Also one does not dissolve vows while walking but covered and sitting.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, so he opened for him: Some blurt out unthinkingly like sword piercing etc. For example, one who made a vow not [to eat] a loaf. Woe if he eats, woe if he does not eat. If he eats he violates his vow. If he does not eat he sins against himself. What should he do? He should go to the Sages who will dissolve his vow as is written, but the sayings of the Sages are healing.

Rebbi Isaac asked: Is it the same with the eating of half loaves? Rebbi Yose said, this question of Rebbi Isaac is nothing. (Is it written) [Does] the matter depend on eating half loaves? If one ate the volume of half an olive during the time allotted for this half loaf and another volume of half an olive during the time allotted for that half loaf, is that anything? If one ate the volume of several olives during times allotted for several half-loaves in one oblivion, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. The rabbis of Caesarea say, instead of comparing it to kinds of fat, why not compare it to [the laws of] Sabbath? If he wove a single thread for one cloth and a single thread for another cloth, is that anything? If he wove several threads for several pieces of cloth in one oblivion, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. Was there not an obligation for a sacrifice in the meantime, and you say that they are counted together? Rebbi Abun said, there it is about the obligation of a sacrifice; but here [a change] of sacrifice.

Rebbi Isaac asked: Is it the same with the eating of half loaves? Rebbi Yose said, this question of Rebbi Isaac is nothing. (Is it written) [Does] the matter depend on eating half loaves? If one ate the volume of half an olive during the time allotted for this half loaf and another volume of half an olive during the time allotted for that half loaf, is that anything? If one ate the volume of several olives during times allotted for several half-loaves in one oblivion, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. The rabbis of Caesarea say, instead of comparing it to kinds of fat, why not compare it to [the laws of] Sabbath? If he wove a single thread for one cloth and a single thread for another cloth, is that anything? If he wove several threads for several pieces of cloth in one oblivion, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. Was there not an obligation for a sacrifice in the meantime, and you say that they are counted together? Rebbi Abun said, there it is about the obligation of a sacrifice; but here [a change] of sacrifice.

The religious women were checking themselves out for every amphora and every loaf. It happened that Tabitha, the slave girl of Rabban Gamliel, was carrying wine for libations and checked herself for every amphora. She said to him, my master, I detected a stain. Rabban Gamliel started. She said to him, I was checking myself for every amphora and was impure only for that amphora.

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.

With what are we here dealing ? When [the crumbs] are from a whole loaf.

Raba retorted : Why is stale bread different, that no [benediction should be pronounced before partaking thereof] ? Is it because when the benediction is concluded, it is concluded over a divided loaf ? But in the case of [fresh] bread also, when the benediction is concluded, it is likewise concluded over a divided loaf !

Raba retorted : Why is stale bread different, that no [benediction should be pronounced before partaking thereof] ? Is it because when the benediction is concluded, it is concluded over a divided loaf ? But in the case of [fresh] bread also, when the benediction is concluded, it is likewise concluded over a divided loaf !

It has been reported : If pieces of bread and whole loaves were set before them, Rab Huna declares that the benediction is to be pronounced over the pieces and it is not necessary over the loave. R. Johanan declared : [To say the benediction over] the whole loaf is the best way to perform the religious duty ; but should there be a piece of wheaten-bread and a loaf of barley-bread, all agree that the benediction should be pronounced over the former and is unnecessary over the latter.

It has been reported : If pieces of bread and whole loaves were set before them, Rab Huna declares that the benediction is to be pronounced over the pieces and it is not necessary over the loave. R. Johanan declared : [To say the benediction over] the whole loaf is the best way to perform the religious duty ; but should there be a piece of wheaten-bread and a loaf of barley-bread, all agree that the benediction should be pronounced over the former and is unnecessary over the latter.

Rab Nahman b. Isaac said : He who fears Heaven complies with the regulation of the law according to the teaching of both ; and who is it [that acts thus]? Mar b. Rabina, for he used to place the piece of bread with the whole loaf and break both.

A Tanna taught in the presence of Rab Nahman b. Isaac : One should place the piece of bread with the whole loaf and break them both and then say the benediction. Rab Nahman said to him, "What is thy name?" He replied, "Shalman." He said to him, "Peaceful art thou and peaceful thy teaching, for thou hast restored peace between the disciples."

Our Rabbis have taught: He who makes his food float in water will not suffer with indigestion. How much [should he drink] ? Rab Hisda said : A cupful to a loaf.

If men were sitting [at the meal], each one says Grace for himself. If they were reclining, then yes; but if they were not reclining. no ! Against this I quote the following : If ten were journeying by the way, although they all partake of one loaf, each of them says Grace for himself ; should they sit down to eat, although each eats of his own loaf, one may say Grace for all. Note that he here states "they sit," i.e. although they are not reclining !

If men were sitting [at the meal], each one says Grace for himself. If they were reclining, then yes; but if they were not reclining. no ! Against this I quote the following : If ten were journeying by the way, although they all partake of one loaf, each of them says Grace for himself ; should they sit down to eat, although each eats of his own loaf, one may say Grace for all. Note that he here states "they sit," i.e. although they are not reclining !

Another version : R. Abba said in the name of Samuel : This is what he teaches [in our Mishnah] : Three who sat down to eat together, although each partakes of his own loaf, are not permitted to separate [before saying Grace]. Or also [he means to inform us] the same as that which Rab Huna said : Three persons who came together from three parties are not permitted to separate [before saying Grace].

If, however, he was wearing his clothes and had his sandals unclean immediately, but they remain clean, unless he stayed as much time as is required for the eating of half a loaf of wheat bread and not of barley bread, while in a reclining posture and eating with some condiment.

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.

If [a child] is able to eat an olive size of grain, one must remove oneself a distance of at least four cubits from his excrement or water. R. Hisda explained: This applies only where the child is able to consume it in the time [which it takes an ordinary adult] to eat half a loaf. R. Hiyya the son of R. Yeva said: But in the case of an adult [the law applies] even if he cannot eat it in the time [which it takes a normal person] to eat half a loaf, since it is written, He that increases knowledge increases sorrow.

If [a child] is able to eat an olive size of grain, one must remove oneself a distance of at least four cubits from his excrement or water. R. Hisda explained: This applies only where the child is able to consume it in the time [which it takes an ordinary adult] to eat half a loaf. R. Hiyya the son of R. Yeva said: But in the case of an adult [the law applies] even if he cannot eat it in the time [which it takes a normal person] to eat half a loaf, since it is written, He that increases knowledge increases sorrow.

to one travelling on a ship, or one travelling from station to station. R. Papa ate a loaf of bread each parasang, for he was of the opinion that the reason for recommending a short diet was to prevent disorder of the bowels (of which he was not afraid).

It is also taught, a barrel full of wine that falls into the Mediterranean Sea and someone immerses, it is not considered valid because we are afraid three logs (of wine) are in one place likewise if a holy loaf of bread fell there it is impure.