obligation

Who needs this? Rebbi Yose! Which [statement of] Rebbi Yose? What we had stated there: “He who did read the Shema‘ and did not make his ear hear did fulfill his obligation.” For whom do we need that? For Rebbi Yose! For which statement of Rebbi Yose? For that which we have stated: “He who recites the Shema‘ and does not make his ear hear has fulfilled his obligation, Rebbi Yose says that he has not fulfilled his obligation.” Rav Mattanah said: That formulation is Rebbi Yose’s. Rebbi Yose said: We could be of the opinion that the rabbis and Rebbi Yose disagree only about Shema‘ since there it is written: “hear!”, but not about any other obligations. Since Rav Mattanah said “that formulation is Rebbi Yose’s”, it is the same for all commandments of the Torah. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose? (Ex. 15:26) “Bend your ear to His commandments and keep all His basic laws”; your ears should hear what your mouth says.

MISHNAH: One may not give heave from gleanings, abandoned sheaves, peah, and ownerless property; not from First Tithe of which its heave was taken; not from Second Tithe and dedicated produce which were redeemed; not from what is obligated on what is free from obligation or from what is free on what is obligated; not from harvested produce for what is standing or from what is standing for what was harvested; not from new produce for old or from old for new; not from produce of the Land for that of foreign countries or from foreign countries for produce of the Land. If heave was given, it is not heave.

MISHNAH: The heave of the Gentile and the Samaritan is heave, their tithes are tithes, and their dedications are dedications. Rebbi Jehudah says, a Gentile cannot have a fourth year vineyard but the Sages say, he may have. The Gentile’s heave creates dema‘ and one is obliged to a fifth for it, but Rebbi Simeon frees from the obligation.

“The Gentile’s heave creates dema‘ and one is obligated to a fifth for it, but Rebbi Simeon frees from the obligation.” Rebbi Zeïra said, I said this before Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree only for the heave of his threshing floor. But for a Gentile who bought the produce of a Jew, even Rebbi Simeon will agree. Rebbi Abbahu said to me in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the disagreement is about the latter case. It is difficult according to Rebbi Simeon, does he free his ṭevel from the Torah and you say so? But are sacrifices not from the Torah, and nevertheless Rebbi Simeon frees, as we have stated there: “Sacrifices of Gentiles are not subject to piggul, left-overs, and impurity and one who slaughters them outside is free [from punishment], the words of Rebbi Yose, but Rebbi Simeon declares him guilty.” They wanted to say that they disagree only about the fifth but not about dema‘. They found stated: It is all the same.

Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the status of additional heave? He said to him, I am stating that as an isolated opinion. Do you mean for obligation or for freeing? If you say for obligation, that is understandable. If you say for freeing, if even Rebbi Jehudah, who permits from the non-earmarked, frees it, then the rabbis, who do not agree [to take] from the non-earmarked, certainly must so hold. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish came: The additional heave is subject to tithes. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, which Mishnah? He did not answer him. He said to him, maybe that which we stated: “If he gave heave and it turned out to be one in sixty-one, this is heave and he does not have to give more.” Did we not state on this: “If he added, it is subject to tithes”?

Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the status of additional heave? He said to him, I am stating that as an isolated opinion. Do you mean for obligation or for freeing? If you say for obligation, that is understandable. If you say for freeing, if even Rebbi Jehudah, who permits from the non-earmarked, frees it, then the rabbis, who do not agree [to take] from the non-earmarked, certainly must so hold. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish came: The additional heave is subject to tithes. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, which Mishnah? He did not answer him. He said to him, maybe that which we stated: “If he gave heave and it turned out to be one in sixty-one, this is heave and he does not have to give more.” Did we not state on this: “If he added, it is subject to tithes”?

It was stated: If someone ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation. Rebbi Nathan says, Symmachos says, if inadvertently, what he did is done, intentionally, he did not do anything. There, we have stated: “One does not give heave from impure produce for pure.” It was stated in the name of Rebbi Yose, “if he gave heave from impure produce for pure, whether inadvertently or intentionally, what he did is done.” It turns out that the single opinion here is like the anonymous one there, and the single there like the anonymous here.

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: If Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, he would call them “the words of Meïr.” But is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error, etc.”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to force him to pay; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to force him to pay.

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: If Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, he would call them “the words of Meïr.” But is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error, etc.”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to force him to pay; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to force him to pay.

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: If Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, he would call them “the words of Meïr.” But is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error, etc.”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to force him to pay; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to force him to pay.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah deals with any harvesting-basket. “Rebbi Simeon permits by a reasoning a fortiori: Since you say it is permitted if it carries the potential obligation of three tithes, so much more if it carries only the potential obligation of two tithes.” Does the First Tithe create ṭevel for the Second? Since you say it is permitted if it carries the potential obligation of two tithes, so much more if it carries only the potential obligation of one tithe.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah deals with any harvesting-basket. “Rebbi Simeon permits by a reasoning a fortiori: Since you say it is permitted if it carries the potential obligation of three tithes, so much more if it carries only the potential obligation of two tithes.” Does the First Tithe create ṭevel for the Second? Since you say it is permitted if it carries the potential obligation of two tithes, so much more if it carries only the potential obligation of one tithe.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah deals with any harvesting-basket. “Rebbi Simeon permits by a reasoning a fortiori: Since you say it is permitted if it carries the potential obligation of three tithes, so much more if it carries only the potential obligation of two tithes.” Does the First Tithe create ṭevel for the Second? Since you say it is permitted if it carries the potential obligation of two tithes, so much more if it carries only the potential obligation of one tithe.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah deals with any harvesting-basket. “Rebbi Simeon permits by a reasoning a fortiori: Since you say it is permitted if it carries the potential obligation of three tithes, so much more if it carries only the potential obligation of two tithes.” Does the First Tithe create ṭevel for the Second? Since you say it is permitted if it carries the potential obligation of two tithes, so much more if it carries only the potential obligation of one tithe.

There, we have stated: “If he worked with his hands but not with his feet, with his feet but not with his hands, even on his shoulder, he eats.” We have stated about this, with his hands he makes bundles, with his feet he creates support, even on his shoulder he carries. “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, only if he works with his hands, feet, and body,” as in threshing where he works with his hands, feet, and body, so for anything he works with his hands, feet, and body. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies to plucked [grain], so for anything plucked. This excludes him who thins among garlic and onions, makes supports for vines, and weeds under an olive tree. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies to growth from the earth, so for anything growing from the earth. This excludes him who milks, makes cheese, or churns milk. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it does not apply after processing, so for anything not after processing. This excludes him who separates dates or dried figs, wine after it is fermented and olive oil when it descends into the vat. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies before the obligation of tithes, so for anything before the obligation of tithes. This excludes him who kneads dough, separates, or bakes.

There, we have stated: “If he worked with his hands but not with his feet, with his feet but not with his hands, even on his shoulder, he eats.” We have stated about this, with his hands he makes bundles, with his feet he creates support, even on his shoulder he carries. “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, only if he works with his hands, feet, and body,” as in threshing where he works with his hands, feet, and body, so for anything he works with his hands, feet, and body. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies to plucked [grain], so for anything plucked. This excludes him who thins among garlic and onions, makes supports for vines, and weeds under an olive tree. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies to growth from the earth, so for anything growing from the earth. This excludes him who milks, makes cheese, or churns milk. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it does not apply after processing, so for anything not after processing. This excludes him who separates dates or dried figs, wine after it is fermented and olive oil when it descends into the vat. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies before the obligation of tithes, so for anything before the obligation of tithes. This excludes him who kneads dough, separates, or bakes.

It is written (Deut. 23:25): “If you come into your neighbor’s vineyard.” I could think that this means everybody; the verse says: “Do not put into your own vessel,” but you may put into somebody else’s vessel. Who is this? This is the laborer. “You may eat grapes.” Do we not know that in a vineyard there is nothing to eat but grapes? Why does the verse say, you may eat grapes? From here [it follows] that if he works fig trees he cannot eat grapes, vines he cannot eat figs. “All your soul’s desire,” all that your inclination may be. “All your soul’s desire,” anything that is free from tithes. What you eat without obligation also the laborer may eat without obligation. “All your soul’s desire,” from here that the laborer should not eat more than the value of his wages. From here did Rebbi Eleazar Ḥisma deduce that the laborer should not eat more than the value of his wages, but the Sages permit it. From where that his wages are called his soul? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, it says here “his soul” and it says at another place “his soul” as it is written (Deut. 24:15): “For that he carries his soul.” Just as “his soul” there means his wages, so here “his soul” means his wages. “Until you are satiated,” that he should not eat and vomit. “Until you are satiated,” that he should not peel figs or suck out grapes.

It is written (Deut. 23:25): “If you come into your neighbor’s vineyard.” I could think that this means everybody; the verse says: “Do not put into your own vessel,” but you may put into somebody else’s vessel. Who is this? This is the laborer. “You may eat grapes.” Do we not know that in a vineyard there is nothing to eat but grapes? Why does the verse say, you may eat grapes? From here [it follows] that if he works fig trees he cannot eat grapes, vines he cannot eat figs. “All your soul’s desire,” all that your inclination may be. “All your soul’s desire,” anything that is free from tithes. What you eat without obligation also the laborer may eat without obligation. “All your soul’s desire,” from here that the laborer should not eat more than the value of his wages. From here did Rebbi Eleazar Ḥisma deduce that the laborer should not eat more than the value of his wages, but the Sages permit it. From where that his wages are called his soul? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, it says here “his soul” and it says at another place “his soul” as it is written (Deut. 24:15): “For that he carries his soul.” Just as “his soul” there means his wages, so here “his soul” means his wages. “Until you are satiated,” that he should not eat and vomit. “Until you are satiated,” that he should not peel figs or suck out grapes.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: If someone had two courtyards, one in Magdala and one in Tiberias, and transported it to the one in Magdala intending to eat them in Tiberias; since he transported it in a permitted way it is permitted. It turns out that Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai holds with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah but is stronger than the latter since Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah speaks about an exempt place but Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai about a place of obligation, but since he transported it in a permitted way it is permitted. Rebbi Eliezer’s statement is stronger than either of them, since Rebbi Eliezer said, since he started in a permitted way it is permitted.

Rebbi Abin said, only if the roof is at least four [cubits] square. Just as a house does not induce ṭevel unless it is at least four [cubits] square, so the roof does not exempt unless it is at least four [cubits] square, as it is stated: A house less than four [cubits] square is free from the obligations of mezuzah and the parapet, from the obligation of eruv, does not induce ṭevel, is not counted as a connection to a town; he who makes a vow not to be in a house may sit there; one does not give it four cubits before its entrance door; it does not remain with the buyer in the Jubilee; it cannot become impure by scale disease, and its owner does not return from the army because of it.

If it rolled away by itself, can he bring it back as you say there, may he bring them back to their intended place and eat? Is it the same here? There, he brings it back to an exempt place but here he brings it back to a place of obligation. To what do you compare if he stood in the crown of a fig tree, to one who stands in town or in a field? It refers to the following: If he stood in town and said: I know that the workers are forgetting a sheaf at place X; if they forgot it is not a forgotten sheaf. If he stood in a field and said: I know that the workers are forgetting a sheaf at place X; [if they forgot] it is a forgotten sheaf, since it says (Deut. 24:19): “In your field and you forget a sheaf.” In the field you forget, but in town you do not forget.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: One mixed four qab separately and made them leavened, and another four qab separately and mixed them. Then at the moment of their obligation for ḥallah can they become maẓẓah or leavened? [He said to him, its kind becomes maẓẓah or leavened.] Rebbi Jonah parallels Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Zeïra. Rebbi Jonah parallels Rebbi Jeremiah, just as Rebbi Jeremiah says, only if it is called bread, so Rebbi Jonah says, only if it is called bread. Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Zeïra, just as Rebbi Zeïra said only if its kind is called bread, so Rebbi Yose said only if its kind is called bread. Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Hila even though he disagrees with him.

“First tithe of which its heave had been taken;” since its heave was taken, is it not like profane? Explain it if he gave it early, from ears, as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: First tithe given early, from ears, is free from [the obligation of] great heave. Rebbi Yose said, it is written (Num. 18:29): “From all its best, the holy part from it;” not its best and the best of another person. Rebbi Yose said, it is written (Num. 18:26): “You shall lift from it the heave of the Eternal, tithe of the tithe,” but not heave and tithe from the tithe. When he made a heap and then gave its heave of the tithe. But if he gave heave of the tithe and then made a heap this does not apply. When he gave from itself for it, but if he gave from another place this does not apply.

“Second Tithe and dedicated [grain] that were redeemed”. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi, Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba, Rebbi Hillel ben Vales argued in the name of Rebbi Jehudah from the following: “First tithe given early, from ears, is free from [the obligation of] great heave”.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, tracta is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, tracta is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Yose said both together: Rebbi Joḥanan said, tracta is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, tracta is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Yose said another [statement] (Rebbi Yose): Rebbi Joḥanan said, everything under which the fire burns is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, anything under which the fire burns is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only in a fluid.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, tracta is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, tracta is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Yose said both together: Rebbi Joḥanan said, tracta is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, tracta is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Yose said another [statement] (Rebbi Yose): Rebbi Joḥanan said, everything under which the fire burns is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, anything under which the fire burns is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only in a fluid.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, tracta is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, tracta is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Yose said both together: Rebbi Joḥanan said, tracta is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, tracta is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Yose said another [statement] (Rebbi Yose): Rebbi Joḥanan said, everything under which the fire burns is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, anything under which the fire burns is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only in a fluid.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, tracta is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, tracta is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Yose said both together: Rebbi Joḥanan said, tracta is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, tracta is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Yose said another [statement] (Rebbi Yose): Rebbi Joḥanan said, everything under which the fire burns is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, anything under which the fire burns is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only in a fluid.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, tracta is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, tracta is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Yose said both together: Rebbi Joḥanan said, tracta is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, tracta is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Yose said another [statement] (Rebbi Yose): Rebbi Joḥanan said, everything under which the fire burns is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, anything under which the fire burns is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only in a fluid.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, tracta is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, tracta is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Yose said both together: Rebbi Joḥanan said, tracta is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, tracta is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Yose said another [statement] (Rebbi Yose): Rebbi Joḥanan said, everything under which the fire burns is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, anything under which the fire burns is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only in a fluid.

The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Johanan: “Bismarcks, honey cakes, roasted cakes, pancakes, and dema‘ are free from ḥallah!” He explains it for Bismarcks made on the fire: One does not fulfill one’s obligation with Bismarcks baked by the sun; one may fulfill one’s obligation with Bismarcks baked on the fire. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He explains it if the fire extends to the sides.

The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Johanan: “Bismarcks, honey cakes, roasted cakes, pancakes, and dema‘ are free from ḥallah!” He explains it for Bismarcks made on the fire: One does not fulfill one’s obligation with Bismarcks baked by the sun; one may fulfill one’s obligation with Bismarcks baked on the fire. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He explains it if the fire extends to the sides.

It was stated: It is forbidden to recite a benediction over a robbed maẓẓah. Rebbi Hoshaia said, because of (Ps. 10:3): “He who recites the blessing over a piece of bread blasphemes.” Rebbi Jonah said, that is, originally. But in the end, does he not incur a monetary obligation? Rebbi Jonah said, no sin can be a good deed. Rebbi Yose said, no good deed can be a sin. Rebbi Hila said, (Lev. 27:34): “These are the commandments.” If you did them they way they were commanded they are a good deeds; otherwise they are not good deeds.

MISHNAH: Foreign produce imported into the Land is obligated for ḥallah. If it was exported, Rebbi Eliezer declares it obligated but Rebbi Aqiba declares it free. [Growth of] earth from outside the Land which came to the Land in a ship is under the obligation of tithes and Sabbatical. Rebbi Jehudah said, when is this? When the ship touches the ground. Dough kneaded with fruit juice is subject to hallah which can be eaten with unclean hands. A woman may sit down naked and separate her hallah because she can cover herself, but a man may not.

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Yannai: A Tiberian qab is obligated for ḥallah. A maker of fried food asked Rebbi Joḥanan: He said, go, make four, and separate. Could he say to him, three and separate? Rebbi Zeïra said, in their places, qabim in their places are measured by quarters. Could he have said to him five minus a little bit? That there should not be any doubt of obligation of ḥallah.

MISHNAH: If she dedicated her dough and redeemed it before she rolled [the dough], it is obligated. If she dedicated before she rolled, the Temple treasurer had it rolled, and then she redeemed it, it is exempt since at the moment of obligation it was exempt. Parallel to this, if somebody dedicated his produce before the time of tithes and redeemed it, it is obligated; after the time of tithes, it is obligated. But if he dedicated it before it was fully processed, the treasurer finished it, and then the owner redeemed it, it is free since at the time of obligation it was free.

MISHNAH: If she dedicated her dough and redeemed it before she rolled [the dough], it is obligated. If she dedicated before she rolled, the Temple treasurer had it rolled, and then she redeemed it, it is exempt since at the moment of obligation it was exempt. Parallel to this, if somebody dedicated his produce before the time of tithes and redeemed it, it is obligated; after the time of tithes, it is obligated. But if he dedicated it before it was fully processed, the treasurer finished it, and then the owner redeemed it, it is free since at the time of obligation it was free.

MISHNAH: If somebody makes dough from wheat and rice, if it has the taste of flour it is subject to ḥallah and a person may satisfy his Passover obligation with it. If it does not have the taste of flour it is not subject to ḥallah and a person may not satisfy his Passover obligation with it. If somebody takes sourdough from a dough from which no ḥallah was taken and adds it to dough from which ḥallah was taken, if he can provide for it from another place he should take in proportion; otherwise he should take ḥallah for everything. Similarly, if harvested olives were mixed with plucked olives, or harvested grapes with gleanings, if he can provide for it from another place he should take in proportion; otherwise he should take heave and heave of the tithe for everything but the remainder of tithe and Second Tithe in proportion. If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt from ḥallah. Then why did they say ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount? In its own kind; not in its own kind if it can be tasted.

MISHNAH: If somebody makes dough from wheat and rice, if it has the taste of flour it is subject to ḥallah and a person may satisfy his Passover obligation with it. If it does not have the taste of flour it is not subject to ḥallah and a person may not satisfy his Passover obligation with it. If somebody takes sourdough from a dough from which no ḥallah was taken and adds it to dough from which ḥallah was taken, if he can provide for it from another place he should take in proportion; otherwise he should take ḥallah for everything. Similarly, if harvested olives were mixed with plucked olives, or harvested grapes with gleanings, if he can provide for it from another place he should take in proportion; otherwise he should take heave and heave of the tithe for everything but the remainder of tithe and Second Tithe in proportion. If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt from ḥallah. Then why did they say ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount? In its own kind; not in its own kind if it can be tasted.

Some Tannaïm state: The Jordan is part of the Land of Israel. Some state, the Jordan is outside the Land. Some state, the Jordan is a boundary by itself. He who says the Jordan is part of the Land of Israel: (Deut. 3:17) “The prairie, the Jordan, and the border.” He who says the Jordan is outside the Land: (Jos. 18:20): “The Jordan shall form its border Eastward.” He who says the Jordan is a boundary by itself, if it is in one place. “If the Jordan took from one place and gave to another, what it took, it took, and what it gave, it gave.” What are we dealing with? If it was from the Land of Israel and became Syria, it already is under the presumptive obligation of tithes and Sabbatical! Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, for claims of possession, removals, and animal tithe. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Only if it removed earth.

Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary? It was stated: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining others, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, even on the Sabbath, and certainly the First. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Ex. 12:3) “Every man a sheep for the family,” if they want “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, “Every man a sheep for the family,” a fortiori “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar? “Every man”, not woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation. Did we not hold: “Before the Two Breads one should not bring but if somebody brought it is acceptable?” It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation. Did we not state: “If they were without blemish they should be sacrificed”? It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation.

Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary? It was stated: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining others, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, even on the Sabbath, and certainly the First. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Ex. 12:3) “Every man a sheep for the family,” if they want “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, “Every man a sheep for the family,” a fortiori “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar? “Every man”, not woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation. Did we not hold: “Before the Two Breads one should not bring but if somebody brought it is acceptable?” It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation. Did we not state: “If they were without blemish they should be sacrificed”? It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation.

Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary? It was stated: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining others, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, even on the Sabbath, and certainly the First. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Ex. 12:3) “Every man a sheep for the family,” if they want “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, “Every man a sheep for the family,” a fortiori “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar? “Every man”, not woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation. Did we not hold: “Before the Two Breads one should not bring but if somebody brought it is acceptable?” It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation. Did we not state: “If they were without blemish they should be sacrificed”? It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation.

Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary? It was stated: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining others, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, even on the Sabbath, and certainly the First. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Ex. 12:3) “Every man a sheep for the family,” if they want “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, “Every man a sheep for the family,” a fortiori “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar? “Every man”, not woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation. Did we not hold: “Before the Two Breads one should not bring but if somebody brought it is acceptable?” It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation. Did we not state: “If they were without blemish they should be sacrificed”? It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation.

Rav Ḥuna asked: If an etrog tree was planted for its obligation, is it obligated for ‘orlah? Rav Ḥuna came back and said: An etrog tree planted for its obligation is obligated for ‘orlah. Did we not state there: (Lev. 23:40) “You shall buy for yourselves” and not from the obligation? There, “you shall buy for yourselves” with money, not from the obligation. But here, as you say in the matter of shofar, (Lev. 23:24) “a day of blasts it shall be for you”, from anywhere. And here, (Lev. 19:23): “Three years it shall be like ‘foreskin’ for you, it may not be eaten,” in any way. What is the difference between this and him who guards his fruits to use as wood? He wants the tree itself just as he wants the fruits. But here, he wants the fruit and is not interested in the tree. In addition, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, (Lev. 23:40) “fruit”; if you say it is part of the tree nobody can acquit himself of his obligation on the holiday! What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted for light on Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, one is biblical, the other rabbinic! And you say so? What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted to light the candelabrum; then both are biblical.

Rav Ḥuna asked: If an etrog tree was planted for its obligation, is it obligated for ‘orlah? Rav Ḥuna came back and said: An etrog tree planted for its obligation is obligated for ‘orlah. Did we not state there: (Lev. 23:40) “You shall buy for yourselves” and not from the obligation? There, “you shall buy for yourselves” with money, not from the obligation. But here, as you say in the matter of shofar, (Lev. 23:24) “a day of blasts it shall be for you”, from anywhere. And here, (Lev. 19:23): “Three years it shall be like ‘foreskin’ for you, it may not be eaten,” in any way. What is the difference between this and him who guards his fruits to use as wood? He wants the tree itself just as he wants the fruits. But here, he wants the fruit and is not interested in the tree. In addition, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, (Lev. 23:40) “fruit”; if you say it is part of the tree nobody can acquit himself of his obligation on the holiday! What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted for light on Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, one is biblical, the other rabbinic! And you say so? What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted to light the candelabrum; then both are biblical.

Rav Ḥuna asked: If an etrog tree was planted for its obligation, is it obligated for ‘orlah? Rav Ḥuna came back and said: An etrog tree planted for its obligation is obligated for ‘orlah. Did we not state there: (Lev. 23:40) “You shall buy for yourselves” and not from the obligation? There, “you shall buy for yourselves” with money, not from the obligation. But here, as you say in the matter of shofar, (Lev. 23:24) “a day of blasts it shall be for you”, from anywhere. And here, (Lev. 19:23): “Three years it shall be like ‘foreskin’ for you, it may not be eaten,” in any way. What is the difference between this and him who guards his fruits to use as wood? He wants the tree itself just as he wants the fruits. But here, he wants the fruit and is not interested in the tree. In addition, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, (Lev. 23:40) “fruit”; if you say it is part of the tree nobody can acquit himself of his obligation on the holiday! What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted for light on Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, one is biblical, the other rabbinic! And you say so? What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted to light the candelabrum; then both are biblical.

Rav Ḥuna asked: If an etrog tree was planted for its obligation, is it obligated for ‘orlah? Rav Ḥuna came back and said: An etrog tree planted for its obligation is obligated for ‘orlah. Did we not state there: (Lev. 23:40) “You shall buy for yourselves” and not from the obligation? There, “you shall buy for yourselves” with money, not from the obligation. But here, as you say in the matter of shofar, (Lev. 23:24) “a day of blasts it shall be for you”, from anywhere. And here, (Lev. 19:23): “Three years it shall be like ‘foreskin’ for you, it may not be eaten,” in any way. What is the difference between this and him who guards his fruits to use as wood? He wants the tree itself just as he wants the fruits. But here, he wants the fruit and is not interested in the tree. In addition, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, (Lev. 23:40) “fruit”; if you say it is part of the tree nobody can acquit himself of his obligation on the holiday! What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted for light on Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, one is biblical, the other rabbinic! And you say so? What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted to light the candelabrum; then both are biblical.

Rav Ḥuna asked: If an etrog tree was planted for its obligation, is it obligated for ‘orlah? Rav Ḥuna came back and said: An etrog tree planted for its obligation is obligated for ‘orlah. Did we not state there: (Lev. 23:40) “You shall buy for yourselves” and not from the obligation? There, “you shall buy for yourselves” with money, not from the obligation. But here, as you say in the matter of shofar, (Lev. 23:24) “a day of blasts it shall be for you”, from anywhere. And here, (Lev. 19:23): “Three years it shall be like ‘foreskin’ for you, it may not be eaten,” in any way. What is the difference between this and him who guards his fruits to use as wood? He wants the tree itself just as he wants the fruits. But here, he wants the fruit and is not interested in the tree. In addition, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, (Lev. 23:40) “fruit”; if you say it is part of the tree nobody can acquit himself of his obligation on the holiday! What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted for light on Ḥanukkah. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, one is biblical, the other rabbinic! And you say so? What can be compared to it? An olive tree planted to light the candelabrum; then both are biblical.

If he planted as a fence and then thought to use it for food, it goes after his thought. [If he first thought to use it] for food and then thought to use it as a fence, his [intent] cannot be accepted. If he planted as a fence the first year and afterwards thought to use it for food, since he thought to obligate it is obligated. But did we not state: “Rebbi Yose says, even if the inner part is for food, the outer part as fence, the inner part is obligated but the outer is exempt”? There, what is for food is always for food, for a fence always for a fence, but here, since he proceeded with a thought of obligation, it is obligated.

“If they planted even though they had not yet conquered, it was obligated.” Following Rebbi Ismael who said all “comings” said in the Torah refer to after 14 years, seven when they conquered and seven when they distributed? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Ismael agrees in the cases of ḥallah and ‘orlah. It was also stated thus: (Num. 15:18) “At your coming,” because the verse changed its language, the Sages changed the terms of obligation.” Rebbi Jonah asked: Rebbi Ismael is inconsistent. There, he says “being” and “getting” is the same, “breaking” and “smashing” is the same, “redemption” and “deliverance” is the same, and here he takes note of a change in expression!

“ ‘Orlah and vineyard kilaim are lifted by one and 200.” It is written “the fulness, the fulness.” Just as “the fulness” which has been said there is lifted, so “the fulness” here is lifted. Then, as there by 100, so here by 100. Since the verse doubled its prohibition, the Sages changed its obligation. So for vineyard kilaim, what about ‘orlah? Just as that is forbidden for all use, so this is forbidden for all use; just as that is lifted, so this is lifted.

Rebbi Jehudah treats trees like straws. There, we have stated: “If he pronounced the benediction ‘Creator of the fruit of the soil’ on fruits of the tree, he has fulfilled his obligation.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: This is Rebbi Yehuda’s since Rebbi Jehudah treats trees like straws. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion since fruits of a tree are also fruits of the soil but fruits of the soil are not fruits of the tree.

MISHNAH: Some rules apply to tithe and First Fruits but not to heave since tithe and First Fruits need to be brought to the Place; they need a declaration and are forbidden to the current mourner, but Rebbi Simeon permits. They are subject to removal, but Rebbi Simeon frees from the obligation. They forbid in Jerusalem the most minute amount to be eaten by the unauthorized and animals; Rebbi Simeon permits. These rules apply to tithe and First Fruits but not to heave.

HALAKHAH: It is true that heave makes the threshing floor forbidden? Explain it if he gave it early, from ears, as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: First Tithe given early, from ears, is free from [the obligation of] great heave.

Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Maisha and one of the rabbis. One said, this means that impure fruits are subject to First Fruits and the other one said, first tithe given early, from ears, is free from [the obligation of] great heave.

Clarification. Rebbi Miasha and Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac were sitting and eating in one of the upper synagogues. There came the time of prayer and Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac got up to pray. Rebbi Misha said to him, Teacher, did you not teach us that once one started one does not interrupt? And Ḥizqiah stated, every one who is not under an obligation and does it anyway is called uneducated? He said to him, did we not state, “the bridegroom is not liable,” “the bridegroom if he wants to recite recites.” He answered him, I can explain this following Rabban Gamliel who said, “I shall not listen to you to lift from me the Kingdom of Heaven for one moment.”

“One interrupts for the recitation of the Shemaˋ but not for prayer.” Rebbi Aḥa said, the recitation of Shemaˋ is a Biblical obligation; prayer is not a Biblical obligation. Rebbi Abba said, the time for the recitation of the Shemaˋ is fixed, the time for prayer is not fixed. Rebbi Yose said, the recitation of Shemaˋ does not need concentration, prayer needs concentration. Rebbi Mana said: I objected before Rebbi Yose: Even if you say that the recitation of the Shemaˋ does not need concentration, the first three verses need concentration. Since there are so few, one will concentrate.

“One interrupts for the recitation of the Shemaˋ but not for prayer.” Rebbi Aḥa said, the recitation of Shemaˋ is a Biblical obligation; prayer is not a Biblical obligation. Rebbi Abba said, the time for the recitation of the Shemaˋ is fixed, the time for prayer is not fixed. Rebbi Yose said, the recitation of Shemaˋ does not need concentration, prayer needs concentration. Rebbi Mana said: I objected before Rebbi Yose: Even if you say that the recitation of the Shemaˋ does not need concentration, the first three verses need concentration. Since there are so few, one will concentrate.

One does not lay siege to a Gentile city within three days before the Sabbath. That is in a war of choice. But in a war of obligation even on the Sabbath, for so we find that Jericho was conquered only on a Sabbath, as it is written, so you shall act for six days, and it is written, on the Seventh Day you shall circle the city seven times. And it is written, until it fell, even on the Sabbath.

And so we see that rabbis are early for intercalations. Rav Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Mana: It is an obligation to be early, to hasten in commandments.

One may not look into a mirror on the Sabbath. If it was fixed on a wall, Rebbi permits and the Sages prohibit. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba: The reason of him who forbids that occasionally she will see a white hair and tear it out which brings her to the obligation of a purification sacrifice. But for a man it is forbidden also on weekdays because it is not honorable. Three things they permitted the House of Rebbi, that they might look into a mirror, that they got a haircut with a lock, and that they taught their children Greek, because they were in need of Roman government connections. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person may teach Greek to his daughter because it is an ornament for her. Simeon bar Abba heard that and said, because he wants to teach his daughters he attaches it to Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Abbahu heard this and said, it should come over me if I did not hear this from Rebbi Joḥanan.

May one drink them together? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said about Hallel, if he heard it in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation, this implies that if he drank them together he fulfilled his obligation. May one drink them with interruptions? They said that he should drink, not that he should get drunk. If he drinks them with interruptions, would he not become drunk? May one fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one may fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine. May one fulfill his obligation with spiced wine? Since Bar Qappara stated, spiced wine is like wine, which implies that one may fulfill his obligation with spiced wine. May one fulfill his obligation with mixed wine? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the Four Cups which they prescribed, one may fulfill his obligation either with unmixed or mixed, on condition that it have the taste and looks of wine. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is meritorious to fulfill one’s obligation with red wine. What is the reason? Do not see wine when it shows its red color. It was stated, cooked for spice. May one fulfill his obligation with cooked wine? Rebbi Jonah said, one may fulfill his obligation with cooked wine. Rebbi Jonah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jonah drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Pentecost.

May one drink them together? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said about Hallel, if he heard it in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation, this implies that if he drank them together he fulfilled his obligation. May one drink them with interruptions? They said that he should drink, not that he should get drunk. If he drinks them with interruptions, would he not become drunk? May one fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one may fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine. May one fulfill his obligation with spiced wine? Since Bar Qappara stated, spiced wine is like wine, which implies that one may fulfill his obligation with spiced wine. May one fulfill his obligation with mixed wine? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the Four Cups which they prescribed, one may fulfill his obligation either with unmixed or mixed, on condition that it have the taste and looks of wine. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is meritorious to fulfill one’s obligation with red wine. What is the reason? Do not see wine when it shows its red color. It was stated, cooked for spice. May one fulfill his obligation with cooked wine? Rebbi Jonah said, one may fulfill his obligation with cooked wine. Rebbi Jonah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jonah drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Pentecost.

May one drink them together? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said about Hallel, if he heard it in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation, this implies that if he drank them together he fulfilled his obligation. May one drink them with interruptions? They said that he should drink, not that he should get drunk. If he drinks them with interruptions, would he not become drunk? May one fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one may fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine. May one fulfill his obligation with spiced wine? Since Bar Qappara stated, spiced wine is like wine, which implies that one may fulfill his obligation with spiced wine. May one fulfill his obligation with mixed wine? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the Four Cups which they prescribed, one may fulfill his obligation either with unmixed or mixed, on condition that it have the taste and looks of wine. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is meritorious to fulfill one’s obligation with red wine. What is the reason? Do not see wine when it shows its red color. It was stated, cooked for spice. May one fulfill his obligation with cooked wine? Rebbi Jonah said, one may fulfill his obligation with cooked wine. Rebbi Jonah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jonah drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Pentecost.

May one drink them together? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said about Hallel, if he heard it in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation, this implies that if he drank them together he fulfilled his obligation. May one drink them with interruptions? They said that he should drink, not that he should get drunk. If he drinks them with interruptions, would he not become drunk? May one fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one may fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine. May one fulfill his obligation with spiced wine? Since Bar Qappara stated, spiced wine is like wine, which implies that one may fulfill his obligation with spiced wine. May one fulfill his obligation with mixed wine? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the Four Cups which they prescribed, one may fulfill his obligation either with unmixed or mixed, on condition that it have the taste and looks of wine. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is meritorious to fulfill one’s obligation with red wine. What is the reason? Do not see wine when it shows its red color. It was stated, cooked for spice. May one fulfill his obligation with cooked wine? Rebbi Jonah said, one may fulfill his obligation with cooked wine. Rebbi Jonah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jonah drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Pentecost.

May one drink them together? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said about Hallel, if he heard it in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation, this implies that if he drank them together he fulfilled his obligation. May one drink them with interruptions? They said that he should drink, not that he should get drunk. If he drinks them with interruptions, would he not become drunk? May one fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one may fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine. May one fulfill his obligation with spiced wine? Since Bar Qappara stated, spiced wine is like wine, which implies that one may fulfill his obligation with spiced wine. May one fulfill his obligation with mixed wine? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the Four Cups which they prescribed, one may fulfill his obligation either with unmixed or mixed, on condition that it have the taste and looks of wine. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is meritorious to fulfill one’s obligation with red wine. What is the reason? Do not see wine when it shows its red color. It was stated, cooked for spice. May one fulfill his obligation with cooked wine? Rebbi Jonah said, one may fulfill his obligation with cooked wine. Rebbi Jonah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jonah drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Pentecost.

May one drink them together? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said about Hallel, if he heard it in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation, this implies that if he drank them together he fulfilled his obligation. May one drink them with interruptions? They said that he should drink, not that he should get drunk. If he drinks them with interruptions, would he not become drunk? May one fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one may fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine. May one fulfill his obligation with spiced wine? Since Bar Qappara stated, spiced wine is like wine, which implies that one may fulfill his obligation with spiced wine. May one fulfill his obligation with mixed wine? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the Four Cups which they prescribed, one may fulfill his obligation either with unmixed or mixed, on condition that it have the taste and looks of wine. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is meritorious to fulfill one’s obligation with red wine. What is the reason? Do not see wine when it shows its red color. It was stated, cooked for spice. May one fulfill his obligation with cooked wine? Rebbi Jonah said, one may fulfill his obligation with cooked wine. Rebbi Jonah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jonah drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Pentecost.

May one drink them together? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said about Hallel, if he heard it in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation, this implies that if he drank them together he fulfilled his obligation. May one drink them with interruptions? They said that he should drink, not that he should get drunk. If he drinks them with interruptions, would he not become drunk? May one fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one may fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine. May one fulfill his obligation with spiced wine? Since Bar Qappara stated, spiced wine is like wine, which implies that one may fulfill his obligation with spiced wine. May one fulfill his obligation with mixed wine? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the Four Cups which they prescribed, one may fulfill his obligation either with unmixed or mixed, on condition that it have the taste and looks of wine. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is meritorious to fulfill one’s obligation with red wine. What is the reason? Do not see wine when it shows its red color. It was stated, cooked for spice. May one fulfill his obligation with cooked wine? Rebbi Jonah said, one may fulfill his obligation with cooked wine. Rebbi Jonah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jonah drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Pentecost.

May one drink them together? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said about Hallel, if he heard it in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation, this implies that if he drank them together he fulfilled his obligation. May one drink them with interruptions? They said that he should drink, not that he should get drunk. If he drinks them with interruptions, would he not become drunk? May one fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one may fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine. May one fulfill his obligation with spiced wine? Since Bar Qappara stated, spiced wine is like wine, which implies that one may fulfill his obligation with spiced wine. May one fulfill his obligation with mixed wine? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the Four Cups which they prescribed, one may fulfill his obligation either with unmixed or mixed, on condition that it have the taste and looks of wine. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is meritorious to fulfill one’s obligation with red wine. What is the reason? Do not see wine when it shows its red color. It was stated, cooked for spice. May one fulfill his obligation with cooked wine? Rebbi Jonah said, one may fulfill his obligation with cooked wine. Rebbi Jonah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jonah drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Pentecost.

May one drink them together? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said about Hallel, if he heard it in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation, this implies that if he drank them together he fulfilled his obligation. May one drink them with interruptions? They said that he should drink, not that he should get drunk. If he drinks them with interruptions, would he not become drunk? May one fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one may fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine. May one fulfill his obligation with spiced wine? Since Bar Qappara stated, spiced wine is like wine, which implies that one may fulfill his obligation with spiced wine. May one fulfill his obligation with mixed wine? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the Four Cups which they prescribed, one may fulfill his obligation either with unmixed or mixed, on condition that it have the taste and looks of wine. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is meritorious to fulfill one’s obligation with red wine. What is the reason? Do not see wine when it shows its red color. It was stated, cooked for spice. May one fulfill his obligation with cooked wine? Rebbi Jonah said, one may fulfill his obligation with cooked wine. Rebbi Jonah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jonah drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Pentecost.

May one drink them together? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said about Hallel, if he heard it in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation, this implies that if he drank them together he fulfilled his obligation. May one drink them with interruptions? They said that he should drink, not that he should get drunk. If he drinks them with interruptions, would he not become drunk? May one fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one may fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine. May one fulfill his obligation with spiced wine? Since Bar Qappara stated, spiced wine is like wine, which implies that one may fulfill his obligation with spiced wine. May one fulfill his obligation with mixed wine? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the Four Cups which they prescribed, one may fulfill his obligation either with unmixed or mixed, on condition that it have the taste and looks of wine. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is meritorious to fulfill one’s obligation with red wine. What is the reason? Do not see wine when it shows its red color. It was stated, cooked for spice. May one fulfill his obligation with cooked wine? Rebbi Jonah said, one may fulfill his obligation with cooked wine. Rebbi Jonah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jonah drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Pentecost.

May one drink them together? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said about Hallel, if he heard it in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation, this implies that if he drank them together he fulfilled his obligation. May one drink them with interruptions? They said that he should drink, not that he should get drunk. If he drinks them with interruptions, would he not become drunk? May one fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, one may fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine. May one fulfill his obligation with spiced wine? Since Bar Qappara stated, spiced wine is like wine, which implies that one may fulfill his obligation with spiced wine. May one fulfill his obligation with mixed wine? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the Four Cups which they prescribed, one may fulfill his obligation either with unmixed or mixed, on condition that it have the taste and looks of wine. Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is meritorious to fulfill one’s obligation with red wine. What is the reason? Do not see wine when it shows its red color. It was stated, cooked for spice. May one fulfill his obligation with cooked wine? Rebbi Jonah said, one may fulfill his obligation with cooked wine. Rebbi Jonah follows his own opinion, since Rebbi Jonah drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Pentecost.

The colleagues asked before Rebbi Yose, did not Rebbi Joḥanan say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Joṣadaq, on Passover one cannot fulfill one’s obligation with a robbed mazzah? He told them, there in itself it is sinful, but here he committed a sin. Would we say, if one brought a mazzah from a private to the public domain that he could not fulfill his obligation on Passover?

The colleagues asked before Rebbi Yose, did not Rebbi Joḥanan say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Joṣadaq, on Passover one cannot fulfill one’s obligation with a robbed mazzah? He told them, there in itself it is sinful, but here he committed a sin. Would we say, if one brought a mazzah from a private to the public domain that he could not fulfill his obligation on Passover?

It was stated: It is forbidden to recite a benediction over a robbed mazzah. Rebbi Hoshaia said, because of he who recites the blessing over a piece of bread blasphemes. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, originally. But in the end, does he not incur a monetary obligation? Rebbi Jonah said, no sin can be a good deed. Rebbi Yose said, no good deed can be a sin. Rebbi Ila said, these are the commandments. If you did them the way they were commanded they are a good deeds; otherwise they are not good deeds.

How many form a camp? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, one hundred. Gideon came with the hundred men who were with him to the border of the camp. Rebbi Abuna asked, if it had said, “the camp of a hundred men who were with him” it would be acceptable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, ten: David’s servants came and spoke to Nabal, etc. What means and they rested? Rebbi Justus bar Shune said, they made a camp. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, ten: Until the camp was large like God’s camp. How many are “God’s camp”? Ten. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: 12’000 who are marching off as camp of Israel in a war of choice are permitted to rob moist wood but are forbidden to rob dry wood. Those who march out in a war of obligation are permitted to rob both dry and moist wood. Rebbi Daniel the son of Rav Qatina in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If they were made into bundles it is forbidden. So far if it was not close to a forest; even if it was close to a forest. So far if it was not close to a spring; even if it was close to a spring. If they brought it with them to a town, they already are freed from liability. What they took out with them from a town already is liable for demay. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Ḥizqiah said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi: Demay was put in order or not in order.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Illai said, I heard from Rebbi Eliezer: Even if it is a bet kor, and I also heard from him that if one of the dwellers in a courtyard had forgotten to make an eruv he is forbidden to bring into or bring out of his house but to others it is permitted. I also heard from him that one may satisfy one’s obligation on Passover with white stone-crop. I asked around among all his students to find support but did not find any.

“Also I heard from him that one may satisfy one’s obligation on Passover with white stone-crop.” They were of the opinion to say, about white stone-crop. It was found stated, about all of them.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He who puts on tefillin in the night transgresses a positive commandment. What is the reason? You shall keep this law …, from day to day; “days” not nights. But Rebbi Abbahu sat studying at night with his tefillin on his head! He put them on the side; they were like a deposit in his keeping. Some want to say, he only meant “not to put them on,” but when they were on him during daytime it would be permitted. Some want to say that the obligation is until the foot is disappearing from public places. Some want to say, let us hear it from the following: It shall be for you a sign, when you need it for a sign, but not holiday or Sabbaths that are all sign. But is it not written from day to day? You have only what Rebbi Joḥanan said: Everything that is not clear one supports from many places.

MISHNAH: With the following one fulfills his obligation on Passover: With wheat, and with barley, and with spelt, and with rye, and with fox grain, and with demay, and with First Tithe whose heave was removed, and with Second Tithe or sancta which were redeemed, and the Cohanim with ḥallah and heave. But not with ṭevel, nor with First Tithe whose heave was not removed, nor with Second tithe or sancta which were not redeemed. Flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir, if he made them for himself one cannot fulfill his obligation; if he made them to sell on the market one fulfills his obligation.

MISHNAH: With the following one fulfills his obligation on Passover: With wheat, and with barley, and with spelt, and with rye, and with fox grain, and with demay, and with First Tithe whose heave was removed, and with Second Tithe or sancta which were redeemed, and the Cohanim with ḥallah and heave. But not with ṭevel, nor with First Tithe whose heave was not removed, nor with Second tithe or sancta which were not redeemed. Flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir, if he made them for himself one cannot fulfill his obligation; if he made them to sell on the market one fulfills his obligation.

MISHNAH: With the following one fulfills his obligation on Passover: With wheat, and with barley, and with spelt, and with rye, and with fox grain, and with demay, and with First Tithe whose heave was removed, and with Second Tithe or sancta which were redeemed, and the Cohanim with ḥallah and heave. But not with ṭevel, nor with First Tithe whose heave was not removed, nor with Second tithe or sancta which were not redeemed. Flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir, if he made them for himself one cannot fulfill his obligation; if he made them to sell on the market one fulfills his obligation.

From where that the Cohanim may fulfill their obligation with ḥallah or heave, and Israel with Second Tithe on Passover? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot, this adds.

Could I think that they may fulfill their obligation with First Fruits? The verse says, inallyour dwelling places you shall eat mazzot, mazzah which may be eaten at any dwelling place; this excludes First Fruits which are not eaten at any dwelling place. They objected, but Second Tithe may not be eaten at any dwelling place! It may be redeemed and be eaten at any dwelling place. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: What was bought with tithe money and became impure, following Rebbi Jehudah, [what is its status? As it was stated: “If what was bought with tithe money became impure, it should be redeemed. Rebbi Jehudah says, it should be buried. They said to Rebbi Jehudah, if original Second Tithe which became impure is redeemed, what was bought with tithe money and became impure certainly should be redeemed. He said to them, no! If you referred to original Second Tithe, which can be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place, can you say the same about what was bought with tithe money which cannot be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place?”] since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: Ḥallah from dough made from Second Tithe in Jerusalem, since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it.

Could I think that they may fulfill their obligation with First Fruits? The verse says, inallyour dwelling places you shall eat mazzot, mazzah which may be eaten at any dwelling place; this excludes First Fruits which are not eaten at any dwelling place. They objected, but Second Tithe may not be eaten at any dwelling place! It may be redeemed and be eaten at any dwelling place. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: What was bought with tithe money and became impure, following Rebbi Jehudah, [what is its status? As it was stated: “If what was bought with tithe money became impure, it should be redeemed. Rebbi Jehudah says, it should be buried. They said to Rebbi Jehudah, if original Second Tithe which became impure is redeemed, what was bought with tithe money and became impure certainly should be redeemed. He said to them, no! If you referred to original Second Tithe, which can be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place, can you say the same about what was bought with tithe money which cannot be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place?”] since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: Ḥallah from dough made from Second Tithe in Jerusalem, since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it.

Could I think that they may fulfill their obligation with First Fruits? The verse says, inallyour dwelling places you shall eat mazzot, mazzah which may be eaten at any dwelling place; this excludes First Fruits which are not eaten at any dwelling place. They objected, but Second Tithe may not be eaten at any dwelling place! It may be redeemed and be eaten at any dwelling place. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: What was bought with tithe money and became impure, following Rebbi Jehudah, [what is its status? As it was stated: “If what was bought with tithe money became impure, it should be redeemed. Rebbi Jehudah says, it should be buried. They said to Rebbi Jehudah, if original Second Tithe which became impure is redeemed, what was bought with tithe money and became impure certainly should be redeemed. He said to them, no! If you referred to original Second Tithe, which can be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place, can you say the same about what was bought with tithe money which cannot be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place?”] since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: Ḥallah from dough made from Second Tithe in Jerusalem, since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it.

I could think that they may fulfill their obligation with flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir.The verse says, seven days you shall eat mazzot; mazzah which may be eaten all seven days. But flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir may not be eaten all seven days. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: since flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: this implies that wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. One understands about flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering. But it is not so for wafers of a nazir. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no nazir here; nezirut is an obligation. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it if his purification offering was presented in Shiloh but his elevation and well-being offerings in Nob or Gibeon. Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi [Azariah] asked before Rebbi Mana: Did not the teacher say in the name of Rebbi Yose: Holiday well-being offerings brought at an elevated place are qualified but they are not counted against an obligation of the owner? But it must be for Rebbi Jehudah, as Rebbi Jehudah said, purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a principal elevated place, but no purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a minor elevated place. It only follows Rebbi Simeon, since “Rebbi Simeon said, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself for the dead.”

I could think that they may fulfill their obligation with flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir.The verse says, seven days you shall eat mazzot; mazzah which may be eaten all seven days. But flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir may not be eaten all seven days. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: since flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: this implies that wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. One understands about flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering. But it is not so for wafers of a nazir. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no nazir here; nezirut is an obligation. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it if his purification offering was presented in Shiloh but his elevation and well-being offerings in Nob or Gibeon. Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi [Azariah] asked before Rebbi Mana: Did not the teacher say in the name of Rebbi Yose: Holiday well-being offerings brought at an elevated place are qualified but they are not counted against an obligation of the owner? But it must be for Rebbi Jehudah, as Rebbi Jehudah said, purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a principal elevated place, but no purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a minor elevated place. It only follows Rebbi Simeon, since “Rebbi Simeon said, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself for the dead.”

I could think that they may fulfill their obligation with flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir.The verse says, seven days you shall eat mazzot; mazzah which may be eaten all seven days. But flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir may not be eaten all seven days. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: since flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: this implies that wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. One understands about flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering. But it is not so for wafers of a nazir. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no nazir here; nezirut is an obligation. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it if his purification offering was presented in Shiloh but his elevation and well-being offerings in Nob or Gibeon. Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi [Azariah] asked before Rebbi Mana: Did not the teacher say in the name of Rebbi Yose: Holiday well-being offerings brought at an elevated place are qualified but they are not counted against an obligation of the owner? But it must be for Rebbi Jehudah, as Rebbi Jehudah said, purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a principal elevated place, but no purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a minor elevated place. It only follows Rebbi Simeon, since “Rebbi Simeon said, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself for the dead.”

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The olive-sized piece of mazzah with which a person fulfills his obligation on Passover must be without fluid. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Abba said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, this was said as a necessary condition. The word of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya implies that this was said as a necessary condition. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected, did we not state: “flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering”? Are there flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering without fluids? Rebbi Yose said, there it is a quartarius; one quartarius splits into many kinds. But what implies this? “One might think and a person could satisfy his obligation with pancake, the verse says, guard the mazzot, a mazzah which needs guarding, excluding this one which does not need guarding.” Because it does not need guarding; therefore if it would need guarding one would satisfy his obligation with it. And so we stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”. They thought to say, spiced by fluids. We may say, spiced by sesame, spiced by nuts. But the following says it: One might think that a person only could satisfy his obligation on Passover with (roasted) [whole grain] bread? From where even with Solomon’s mazzah? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot, it included. If it is so, why does it say bread of affliction? To exclude sursīn, and pancake, and cake.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The olive-sized piece of mazzah with which a person fulfills his obligation on Passover must be without fluid. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Abba said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, this was said as a necessary condition. The word of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya implies that this was said as a necessary condition. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected, did we not state: “flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering”? Are there flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering without fluids? Rebbi Yose said, there it is a quartarius; one quartarius splits into many kinds. But what implies this? “One might think and a person could satisfy his obligation with pancake, the verse says, guard the mazzot, a mazzah which needs guarding, excluding this one which does not need guarding.” Because it does not need guarding; therefore if it would need guarding one would satisfy his obligation with it. And so we stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”. They thought to say, spiced by fluids. We may say, spiced by sesame, spiced by nuts. But the following says it: One might think that a person only could satisfy his obligation on Passover with (roasted) [whole grain] bread? From where even with Solomon’s mazzah? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot, it included. If it is so, why does it say bread of affliction? To exclude sursīn, and pancake, and cake.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The olive-sized piece of mazzah with which a person fulfills his obligation on Passover must be without fluid. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Abba said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, this was said as a necessary condition. The word of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya implies that this was said as a necessary condition. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected, did we not state: “flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering”? Are there flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering without fluids? Rebbi Yose said, there it is a quartarius; one quartarius splits into many kinds. But what implies this? “One might think and a person could satisfy his obligation with pancake, the verse says, guard the mazzot, a mazzah which needs guarding, excluding this one which does not need guarding.” Because it does not need guarding; therefore if it would need guarding one would satisfy his obligation with it. And so we stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”. They thought to say, spiced by fluids. We may say, spiced by sesame, spiced by nuts. But the following says it: One might think that a person only could satisfy his obligation on Passover with (roasted) [whole grain] bread? From where even with Solomon’s mazzah? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot, it included. If it is so, why does it say bread of affliction? To exclude sursīn, and pancake, and cake.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The olive-sized piece of mazzah with which a person fulfills his obligation on Passover must be without fluid. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Abba said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, this was said as a necessary condition. The word of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya implies that this was said as a necessary condition. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected, did we not state: “flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering”? Are there flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering without fluids? Rebbi Yose said, there it is a quartarius; one quartarius splits into many kinds. But what implies this? “One might think and a person could satisfy his obligation with pancake, the verse says, guard the mazzot, a mazzah which needs guarding, excluding this one which does not need guarding.” Because it does not need guarding; therefore if it would need guarding one would satisfy his obligation with it. And so we stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”. They thought to say, spiced by fluids. We may say, spiced by sesame, spiced by nuts. But the following says it: One might think that a person only could satisfy his obligation on Passover with (roasted) [whole grain] bread? From where even with Solomon’s mazzah? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot, it included. If it is so, why does it say bread of affliction? To exclude sursīn, and pancake, and cake.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The olive-sized piece of mazzah with which a person fulfills his obligation on Passover must be without fluid. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Abba said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, this was said as a necessary condition. The word of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya implies that this was said as a necessary condition. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected, did we not state: “flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering”? Are there flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering without fluids? Rebbi Yose said, there it is a quartarius; one quartarius splits into many kinds. But what implies this? “One might think and a person could satisfy his obligation with pancake, the verse says, guard the mazzot, a mazzah which needs guarding, excluding this one which does not need guarding.” Because it does not need guarding; therefore if it would need guarding one would satisfy his obligation with it. And so we stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”. They thought to say, spiced by fluids. We may say, spiced by sesame, spiced by nuts. But the following says it: One might think that a person only could satisfy his obligation on Passover with (roasted) [whole grain] bread? From where even with Solomon’s mazzah? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot, it included. If it is so, why does it say bread of affliction? To exclude sursīn, and pancake, and cake.

One may fulfill his obligation with mazzah thick up to one hand-width like the shew bread. One may fulfill his obligation with raw mazzah if only it does not draw fibers when broken. An old mazzah is subject of a disagreement between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion; since he did not make it for Passover it is certain that he did not care to make it accurately. One may fulfill his obligation with seriqin both with figures or without figures, even though they said, one does not make painted seriqin on Passover.

One may fulfill his obligation with mazzah thick up to one hand-width like the shew bread. One may fulfill his obligation with raw mazzah if only it does not draw fibers when broken. An old mazzah is subject of a disagreement between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion; since he did not make it for Passover it is certain that he did not care to make it accurately. One may fulfill his obligation with seriqin both with figures or without figures, even though they said, one does not make painted seriqin on Passover.

One may fulfill his obligation with mazzah thick up to one hand-width like the shew bread. One may fulfill his obligation with raw mazzah if only it does not draw fibers when broken. An old mazzah is subject of a disagreement between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion; since he did not make it for Passover it is certain that he did not care to make it accurately. One may fulfill his obligation with seriqin both with figures or without figures, even though they said, one does not make painted seriqin on Passover.

MISHNAH: And with the following vegetables a person can fulfill his obligation on Passover: With Romaine lettuce, with endives, with gingidium. harhabina and bitter herb. One fulfills his obligation with both fresh and wilted, but not marinated or cooked in water or cooked in broth; and they may be combined for the volume of an olive. One fulfills his obligation with their stalk, and with demay, and with First Tithe whose heave was removed, and with Second Tithe or sancta which were redeemed.

MISHNAH: And with the following vegetables a person can fulfill his obligation on Passover: With Romaine lettuce, with endives, with gingidium. harhabina and bitter herb. One fulfills his obligation with both fresh and wilted, but not marinated or cooked in water or cooked in broth; and they may be combined for the volume of an olive. One fulfills his obligation with their stalk, and with demay, and with First Tithe whose heave was removed, and with Second Tithe or sancta which were redeemed.