soaked

And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

Vetches of second tithe may be eaten when still tender. And they may be brought into Jerusalem and taken out again. If they became unclean: Rabbi Tarfon says: they must be divided among pieces of dough. But the sages say: they may be redeemed. [Vetches] of terumah: Bet Shammai says: they must be soaked and rubbed in a state of purity, but may be given as food [to an animal] in a state of impurity. Bet Hillel says: they must be soaked [only] in a state of purity, but they may be rubbed and given as food [to an animal] in a state of impurity. Shammai says: they must be eaten dry [only]. Rabbi Akiba says: whatever is done with them may be done in a state of impurity.

Vetches of second tithe may be eaten when still tender. And they may be brought into Jerusalem and taken out again. If they became unclean: Rabbi Tarfon says: they must be divided among pieces of dough. But the sages say: they may be redeemed. [Vetches] of terumah: Bet Shammai says: they must be soaked and rubbed in a state of purity, but may be given as food [to an animal] in a state of impurity. Bet Hillel says: they must be soaked [only] in a state of purity, but they may be rubbed and given as food [to an animal] in a state of impurity. Shammai says: they must be eaten dry [only]. Rabbi Akiba says: whatever is done with them may be done in a state of impurity.

Beth Shammai says: ink, dyes and vetch may not be soaked [on Friday afternoon] unless they can be fully soaked while it is yet day; And Bet Hillel permits it.

Beth Shammai says: ink, dyes and vetch may not be soaked [on Friday afternoon] unless they can be fully soaked while it is yet day; And Bet Hillel permits it.

Whatever was put into hot water before Shabbat, may be soaked in hot water on Shabbat; But whatever was not put into hot water before Shabbat may [only] be rinsed with hot water on Shabbat, except old salted fish, small salted fish, and Spanish colius, because their rinsing completes their preparation.

Three things are forbidden to a nazirite: ritual defilement, shaving, and products of the vine. All products of the vine join together [to add up to a minimum measure], and he is not liable until he eats an olive’s worth of grapes. According to the earlier mishnah, until he drinks a quarter [of a log] of wine. Rabbi Akiba says: even if he soaked his bread in wine and it is enough to make an olive’s worth he is liable.

Vetches of terumah: Beth Shammai says, “They must be soaked and rubbed in purity, but can be given for food in impurity.” And Beth Hillel says: “They must be soaked in purity, but can be rubbed and given for food in impurity.” Shammai says: “They must be eaten dry.” Rabbi Akiva says: “All actions in connection with them [can be carried out] in impurity.”

Vetches of terumah: Beth Shammai says, “They must be soaked and rubbed in purity, but can be given for food in impurity.” And Beth Hillel says: “They must be soaked in purity, but can be rubbed and given for food in impurity.” Shammai says: “They must be eaten dry.” Rabbi Akiva says: “All actions in connection with them [can be carried out] in impurity.”

The todah required five Jerusalem seahs [of flour], which are six wilderness seahs; This is the equivalent to two ephahs, for an ephah is three seahs, or to twenty tenths [of an ephah], ten for the leavened cakes and ten for the matzot. “Ten for the leavened cakes” one tenth for each cake; “And ten for the matzot” –there were three kinds of matzot: loaves, wafers, and soaked cakes, thus there were three and a third tenths of flour for each kind, three cakes to every tenth. By Jerusalem measure they were thirty kavs, fifteen for the leavened cakes and fifteen for the matzot. “Fifteen for the leavened cakes”, one kav and a half for each cake. “And fifteen for the matzot” there were three kinds of matzot: loaves, wafers, and soaked cakes, thus there were five kavs for each kind, two cakes to every kav.

The todah required five Jerusalem seahs [of flour], which are six wilderness seahs; This is the equivalent to two ephahs, for an ephah is three seahs, or to twenty tenths [of an ephah], ten for the leavened cakes and ten for the matzot. “Ten for the leavened cakes” one tenth for each cake; “And ten for the matzot” –there were three kinds of matzot: loaves, wafers, and soaked cakes, thus there were three and a third tenths of flour for each kind, three cakes to every tenth. By Jerusalem measure they were thirty kavs, fifteen for the leavened cakes and fifteen for the matzot. “Fifteen for the leavened cakes”, one kav and a half for each cake. “And fifteen for the matzot” there were three kinds of matzot: loaves, wafers, and soaked cakes, thus there were five kavs for each kind, two cakes to every kav.

The consecration [minhah] consisted of matzah like the todah: cakes, wafers, and soaked cakes. The nazirite minhah consisted of two thirds of the matzah of the todah: cakes and wafers, but not soaked cakes. Thus there were ten kavs by Jerusalem measure, which are six tenths and something over. From each kind [the priest] took one tenth part as terumah, as it is said, “Out of this he shall offer one of each kind as a gift to the Lord” (Leviticus 7:1: “One:” that he may not take what is broken. “Out of each offering:” that each kind of offering shall be equal, [and] that he must not take [the terumah] from the one kind of offering on behalf of another. “It shall go to the priest who dashes the blood of the shelamim:” and the rest was consumed by the owner.

The consecration [minhah] consisted of matzah like the todah: cakes, wafers, and soaked cakes. The nazirite minhah consisted of two thirds of the matzah of the todah: cakes and wafers, but not soaked cakes. Thus there were ten kavs by Jerusalem measure, which are six tenths and something over. From each kind [the priest] took one tenth part as terumah, as it is said, “Out of this he shall offer one of each kind as a gift to the Lord” (Leviticus 7:1: “One:” that he may not take what is broken. “Out of each offering:” that each kind of offering shall be equal, [and] that he must not take [the terumah] from the one kind of offering on behalf of another. “It shall go to the priest who dashes the blood of the shelamim:” and the rest was consumed by the owner.

Tekoa is “alpha” first its oil. Abba Saul says: Second to it is Regev, on the other side of the Jordan. The [oil of the] whole land was valid, but they used to bring it only from these places. One may not bring it from a manured field or from an irrigated field or from olive-trees planted in a field sown with seeds, but if one did bring it [from these] it was valid. One may not bring anpakinon, and if one did bring it, it is invalid. One may not bring it from olive-berries which had been soaked in water or preserved or stewed; and if one did bring it, it is invalid.

If one had arranged wine-jars in a cistern and they became filled with water, even though the water of the cistern was all soaked up, they may be broken.

The blood of a menstruant and the flesh of a corpse convey uncleanness when wet and when dry. But the discharge [of a zav], and the phlegm [of a zav] and the spittle [of a zav], a dead sheretz, a nevelah and semen convey uncleanness when wet but not when dry. If they can be soaked and then revert to their original condition they convey uncleanness when wet and when dry. And how long must they be soaked? In lukewarm water for a period of twenty four hours. Rabbi Yose says: If the flesh of a corpse is dry, and it cannot be soaked and brought back to its original condition, it is clean.

The blood of a menstruant and the flesh of a corpse convey uncleanness when wet and when dry. But the discharge [of a zav], and the phlegm [of a zav] and the spittle [of a zav], a dead sheretz, a nevelah and semen convey uncleanness when wet but not when dry. If they can be soaked and then revert to their original condition they convey uncleanness when wet and when dry. And how long must they be soaked? In lukewarm water for a period of twenty four hours. Rabbi Yose says: If the flesh of a corpse is dry, and it cannot be soaked and brought back to its original condition, it is clean.

The blood of a menstruant and the flesh of a corpse convey uncleanness when wet and when dry. But the discharge [of a zav], and the phlegm [of a zav] and the spittle [of a zav], a dead sheretz, a nevelah and semen convey uncleanness when wet but not when dry. If they can be soaked and then revert to their original condition they convey uncleanness when wet and when dry. And how long must they be soaked? In lukewarm water for a period of twenty four hours. Rabbi Yose says: If the flesh of a corpse is dry, and it cannot be soaked and brought back to its original condition, it is clean.

Water which had become so unfit that it could not be drunk by a beast: If it was in a vessel it is invalid, But if it was in the ground it is valid. If there fell into [the water], dye, or gum or sulphate of copper and its color changed, it is invalid. If a person did any work with it or soaked his bread in it, it is invalid. Shimon of Teman says: even if he intended to soak his bread in one water and it fell into another water the water is valid.

How much rain should fall that a man is required to recite a benediction? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: At the start, that it should fertilize, at the end that the surface should be wet. Rebbi Yannai ben Ismael in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: At the start, that it should fertilize, at the end that the seal of the amphora should be soaked. Is the seal ever soaked? But it is as if it were soaked. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Yehudah, Rebbi Jonah, Rav Yehudah in the name of Samuel: At the start, that it should fertilize, atthe end even a minimal amount. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: It was said for fast days. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Naḥum, and Rav Ada bar Abimi were sitting. Rebbi Naḥum said to Rav Ada bar Abimi: Is it not reasonable that this was said for the benediction; he answered: Yes. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said to Rav Ada bar Abimi: Is it not reasonable that this was said for fast days; he answered: Yes. He said to him, why did you say “yes” here? He said to him, it is the argumentation of my teacher. Rebbi Mana asked Rebbi Ḥizqiah, who is his teacher? He said to him, Rebbi Zeïra. He said to him, but we say: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: It was said for fast days.

How much rain should fall that a man is required to recite a benediction? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: At the start, that it should fertilize, at the end that the surface should be wet. Rebbi Yannai ben Ismael in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: At the start, that it should fertilize, at the end that the seal of the amphora should be soaked. Is the seal ever soaked? But it is as if it were soaked. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Yehudah, Rebbi Jonah, Rav Yehudah in the name of Samuel: At the start, that it should fertilize, atthe end even a minimal amount. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: It was said for fast days. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Naḥum, and Rav Ada bar Abimi were sitting. Rebbi Naḥum said to Rav Ada bar Abimi: Is it not reasonable that this was said for the benediction; he answered: Yes. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said to Rav Ada bar Abimi: Is it not reasonable that this was said for fast days; he answered: Yes. He said to him, why did you say “yes” here? He said to him, it is the argumentation of my teacher. Rebbi Mana asked Rebbi Ḥizqiah, who is his teacher? He said to him, Rebbi Zeïra. He said to him, but we say: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: It was said for fast days.

How much rain should fall that a man is required to recite a benediction? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: At the start, that it should fertilize, at the end that the surface should be wet. Rebbi Yannai ben Ismael in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: At the start, that it should fertilize, at the end that the seal of the amphora should be soaked. Is the seal ever soaked? But it is as if it were soaked. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Yehudah, Rebbi Jonah, Rav Yehudah in the name of Samuel: At the start, that it should fertilize, atthe end even a minimal amount. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: It was said for fast days. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Naḥum, and Rav Ada bar Abimi were sitting. Rebbi Naḥum said to Rav Ada bar Abimi: Is it not reasonable that this was said for the benediction; he answered: Yes. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said to Rav Ada bar Abimi: Is it not reasonable that this was said for fast days; he answered: Yes. He said to him, why did you say “yes” here? He said to him, it is the argumentation of my teacher. Rebbi Mana asked Rebbi Ḥizqiah, who is his teacher? He said to him, Rebbi Zeïra. He said to him, but we say: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: It was said for fast days.

Everybody agrees that water which was heated is forbidden. What is the difference between bread and water? Here the fire rules, there the fire does not rule. There, a vessel separates, here no vessel separates. Samuel said, what can this evil one do to me? I only drink hot [water]. His word says, cold water that was heated is permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this evil one has a delicate taste; he will not drink hot water that cooled. His word says, hot water that cooled is permitted. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both are forbidden. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Hot water is permitted as long as it is steaming. But water left uncovered is forbidden even after it was heated. Pickling, preserving, and lupine water is permitted. Water in which he soaked[food for] pickling or preserving, or lupines, is forbidden. If he soaked wild grapes for a sick person, it is forbidden.”

Everybody agrees that water which was heated is forbidden. What is the difference between bread and water? Here the fire rules, there the fire does not rule. There, a vessel separates, here no vessel separates. Samuel said, what can this evil one do to me? I only drink hot [water]. His word says, cold water that was heated is permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this evil one has a delicate taste; he will not drink hot water that cooled. His word says, hot water that cooled is permitted. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both are forbidden. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Hot water is permitted as long as it is steaming. But water left uncovered is forbidden even after it was heated. Pickling, preserving, and lupine water is permitted. Water in which he soaked[food for] pickling or preserving, or lupines, is forbidden. If he soaked wild grapes for a sick person, it is forbidden.”

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

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

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

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

They said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated thus: Food you shall buy from them with money and eat, and also water you may acquire, etc. As water is not changed from its natural state, so anything which was not changed from its natural state. They objected: Are there not their dry beans, פנקריסין and קובטיות, roasted grain, and hot water permitted? One understands all of these because they can be soaked and return to their former state. What about roasted grain? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav said: Any food which can be eaten alone raw is not in the category of Gentile cooking but one may use it for eruv tavšilin. How does Rebbi Ḥiyya explain food you shall buy from them? You shall buy with food. If you fed him you bought him. If he causes you trouble buy him with food or otherwise ply him with him money. They said, that is what Rebbi Jonathan did. When he saw that a superior came to his town, he sent him an honor gift. What did he say? If a suit involving an orphan or a widow came he would have a way to mollify him.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one does not soak ink, chemicals, or vetch, unless they will be soaked when it still is daylight; but the House of Hillel permit it.

The House of Shammai put a question to the House of Hillel which they could not answer. “The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, do you not agree with us that one does not roast meat, or onions, or an egg, unless they be completely roasted when it is still daylight? They did not find an answer.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, if I would not put my head between the lions I could give a reason. There, onion, meat, or egg, usually are flipped; here, what can you say? Rebbi Yudan said, if they were roasted like Ben Derosai’s food. They forbade something which usually is flipped unless it be completely roasted as long as it is still day. Rebbi Mana said, it is not reasonable that it should be permitted. For they can say to them, how can you respond to us with something which ordinarily is completely roasted when it still is day about something which ordinarily cannot be completely soaked when it still is day?

MISHNAH: One may put food in a cistern for preservation, and potable water into bad one to cool, and cold water into hot to warm it. One whose garments became soaked on the road walks in them without worry. If he comes to an outer courtyard he puts them out to dry in the sun but not in public.

“Water used by a baker has to be poured out because it makes leavened.” There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a depression. There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a declivity. Rebbi Yose said, he who said, he pours it into a depression, if the depression was large. He who said, he pours it into a declivity, if the declivity was consierable. Rebbi Phineas said to him in the name of Rebbi Ila: So was he discussing it: If he soaked wheat or barley grains in water, if they became leavened, they are forbidden; if they did not become leavened, they are permitted. Rebbi Yose said, if he soaked barley in water, if they split they are forbidden. If he soaked them in vinegar they are permitted since the vinegar contracts them.

“Water used by a baker has to be poured out because it makes leavened.” There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a depression. There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a declivity. Rebbi Yose said, he who said, he pours it into a depression, if the depression was large. He who said, he pours it into a declivity, if the declivity was consierable. Rebbi Phineas said to him in the name of Rebbi Ila: So was he discussing it: If he soaked wheat or barley grains in water, if they became leavened, they are forbidden; if they did not become leavened, they are permitted. Rebbi Yose said, if he soaked barley in water, if they split they are forbidden. If he soaked them in vinegar they are permitted since the vinegar contracts them.

“Water used by a baker has to be poured out because it makes leavened.” There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a depression. There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a declivity. Rebbi Yose said, he who said, he pours it into a depression, if the depression was large. He who said, he pours it into a declivity, if the declivity was consierable. Rebbi Phineas said to him in the name of Rebbi Ila: So was he discussing it: If he soaked wheat or barley grains in water, if they became leavened, they are forbidden; if they did not become leavened, they are permitted. Rebbi Yose said, if he soaked barley in water, if they split they are forbidden. If he soaked them in vinegar they are permitted since the vinegar contracts them.

“It is written: Any leavened matter you shall not eat, to include Babylonian kutah, and Median beer, and Edomite vinegar, in the admonition. I might think that these are subject to extirpation, the verse says, for anybody who eats leavened bread will be extirpated.“The colleagues asked before Rebbi Jonah: Here it is written any, and there it is written any. Here you are adding but there you are excluding. He told them, there He added eaters but there He added edibles. They objected, was it not stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”. And for these, because they are mostly grain, he should be liable. He told them, there is a difference, for it is written bread, and these are not bread. Rebbi Yose objected, was it not stated that only mazzah is called bread, seven days you shall eat mazzot, the bread of deprivation? But here you infer mazzah from leavened bread? In addition, from the following which was stated: “A person may acquit himself of his obligation with a soaked wafer, or a cooked wafer, as long as it did not lose its shape.” It only says, “as long as it did not lose its shape,” therefore not if it lost its shape. But in the matter of leavened bread you are saying, if he mashed leavened bread and slurped it, he is liable. How is this? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Idi: Their leavening is not clear leavening. Should he be flogged? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Concerning flogging, he cannot be flogged, as it was stated: On certain leavened bread he is subject to extirpation, for its admixture he receives forty [lashes]. Rav said, that is sour dough. He could have said, that is Babylonian kutah, and Median beer. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: Explain it if leavened bread and mazzah were mixed. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty for Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: Where do we hold? If most of it was leavened bread, he is subject to extirpation. If most of it is mazzah, he could use it to fulfill his obligation on Passover. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Joshua from Ono stated: Explain it if the amount of leavened bread was less than the volume of an olive, following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, the most minute amount for flogging.

How much rain should fall that a man is required to recite a benediction? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At the start, that it should fertilize, at the end that a brick should be soaked. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: At the start, that it should fertilize, at the end that the seal of the amphora should be soaked. Is the seal ever soaked? But it is as if it were soaked. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Jonah, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: At the start, that it should fertilize, at the end even a minimal amount. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: It was said for the interruption of fasting. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Naḥum, and Rav Ada bar (Ikoma) <abimi>> is to be adopted here also. were sitting. Rebbi Naḥum said to Rav Ada bar (Ikoma) <abimi>: Is it not reasonable that this was said for the benediction; he answered: Yes. <rebbi Ḥizqiah said to rav ada bar (ikoma) <abimi>: Is it not reasonable that this was said for the interruption of fasting; he answered: Yes.> He said to him, why did you say “yes” here? He said to him, because he follows the argumentation of his teacher. Rebbi Mana asked Rebbi Ḥizqiah, who is his teacher? He said to him, Rebbi Ze`ira. He said to him, so we are saying: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: It was said for the interruption of fasting.

How much rain should fall that a man is required to recite a benediction? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At the start, that it should fertilize, at the end that a brick should be soaked. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: At the start, that it should fertilize, at the end that the seal of the amphora should be soaked. Is the seal ever soaked? But it is as if it were soaked. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Jonah, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: At the start, that it should fertilize, at the end even a minimal amount. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: It was said for the interruption of fasting. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Naḥum, and Rav Ada bar (Ikoma) <abimi>> is to be adopted here also. were sitting. Rebbi Naḥum said to Rav Ada bar (Ikoma) <abimi>: Is it not reasonable that this was said for the benediction; he answered: Yes. <rebbi Ḥizqiah said to rav ada bar (ikoma) <abimi>: Is it not reasonable that this was said for the interruption of fasting; he answered: Yes.> He said to him, why did you say “yes” here? He said to him, because he follows the argumentation of his teacher. Rebbi Mana asked Rebbi Ḥizqiah, who is his teacher? He said to him, Rebbi Ze`ira. He said to him, so we are saying: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: It was said for the interruption of fasting.

How much rain should fall that a man is required to recite a benediction? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At the start, that it should fertilize, at the end that a brick should be soaked. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: At the start, that it should fertilize, at the end that the seal of the amphora should be soaked. Is the seal ever soaked? But it is as if it were soaked. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Jonah, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: At the start, that it should fertilize, at the end even a minimal amount. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: It was said for the interruption of fasting. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Naḥum, and Rav Ada bar (Ikoma) <abimi>> is to be adopted here also. were sitting. Rebbi Naḥum said to Rav Ada bar (Ikoma) <abimi>: Is it not reasonable that this was said for the benediction; he answered: Yes. <rebbi Ḥizqiah said to rav ada bar (ikoma) <abimi>: Is it not reasonable that this was said for the interruption of fasting; he answered: Yes.> He said to him, why did you say “yes” here? He said to him, because he follows the argumentation of his teacher. Rebbi Mana asked Rebbi Ḥizqiah, who is his teacher? He said to him, Rebbi Ze`ira. He said to him, so we are saying: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: It was said for the interruption of fasting.

How much rain should fall that a man is required to recite a benediction? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At the start, that it should fertilize, at the end that a brick should be soaked. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: At the start, that it should fertilize, at the end that the seal of the amphora should be soaked. Is the seal ever soaked? But it is as if it were soaked. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Jonah, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: At the start, that it should fertilize, at the end even a minimal amount. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: It was said for the interruption of fasting. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Naḥum, and Rav Ada bar (Ikoma) <abimi>> is to be adopted here also. were sitting. Rebbi Naḥum said to Rav Ada bar (Ikoma) <abimi>: Is it not reasonable that this was said for the benediction; he answered: Yes. <rebbi Ḥizqiah said to rav ada bar (ikoma) <abimi>: Is it not reasonable that this was said for the interruption of fasting; he answered: Yes.> He said to him, why did you say “yes” here? He said to him, because he follows the argumentation of his teacher. Rebbi Mana asked Rebbi Ḥizqiah, who is his teacher? He said to him, Rebbi Ze`ira. He said to him, so we are saying: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: It was said for the interruption of fasting.

Warning for one who eats carcass meat, from where? “You shall not eat any carcass meat.” That covers carcass meat; from a “torn” animal from where? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “carcass meat” and “any carcass meat”, to include the “torn” animal. If somebody eats flesh from a living animal which is “torn”, Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is guilty twice, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty only once. What is the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan? “You shall not eat any carcass meat;” “you shall not eat of life with the flesh.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose: The assertion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish parallels what Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: “ ‘Flesh torn on the field you shall not eat’, you shall not tear from an animal and eat in the way you tear from the ground and eat.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish does not hold with Rebbi Joḥanan about the “torn” animal; if he did hold with him, one should be twice guilty. He said to them, even if he held with him, one should be guilty only once. There is a difference, because He repeated it and combined it. They objected: “Suet you shall not eat,” “and blood you shall not eat,” and it is written: “Any suet and any blood you shall not eat.” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once! He said to them, if it were written “suet and blood”, you would be correct. But it is written “any suet and any blood,” to declare him guilty for each case separately. But it is not written: “Anything soaked with grapes he shall not drink,” and it is written, “from skins to seeds he shall not eat.” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once! He said to them, if it were written “skins and seeds”, you would be correct. But it is written “skins unto seeds,” to declare him guilty for each case separately.

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

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

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

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

“Rebbi Aqiba says, even if he dipped his bread in wine for a total volume of an olive, he is guilty.” Rebbi Ḥanania said, only if he dipped in an olive-sized volume of wine. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For a mixed cup one whips because of soaking. That is, if they did (not) warn because of soaking. But if they warned because of soaking, this does not apply. It is written: “He shall not drink anything soaked in grapes.” Not only soaking grapes, from where soaking grape skins? The verse says “soaked, anything soaked,” that all kinds of soaking are counted. Mixed wine combines with pure wine. Soaking water of grapes combines with grapes. Do soaked grapes and wine combine? If one ate half an olive’s volume of wine and half an olive’s volume of soaking water, is he not guilty. Separately, he is not prosecutable. Because he combined, he is guilty. If he ate (sic!) an olive’s volume of wine and an olive’s volume of soaking water, he is guilty only once. Separately, he is guilty twice. Because he combined, he should be guilty only once.

“Rebbi Aqiba says, even if he dipped his bread in wine for a total volume of an olive, he is guilty.” Rebbi Ḥanania said, only if he dipped in an olive-sized volume of wine. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For a mixed cup one whips because of soaking. That is, if they did (not) warn because of soaking. But if they warned because of soaking, this does not apply. It is written: “He shall not drink anything soaked in grapes.” Not only soaking grapes, from where soaking grape skins? The verse says “soaked, anything soaked,” that all kinds of soaking are counted. Mixed wine combines with pure wine. Soaking water of grapes combines with grapes. Do soaked grapes and wine combine? If one ate half an olive’s volume of wine and half an olive’s volume of soaking water, is he not guilty. Separately, he is not prosecutable. Because he combined, he is guilty. If he ate (sic!) an olive’s volume of wine and an olive’s volume of soaking water, he is guilty only once. Separately, he is guilty twice. Because he combined, he should be guilty only once.

“Rebbi Aqiba says, even if he dipped his bread in wine for a total volume of an olive, he is guilty.” Rebbi Ḥanania said, only if he dipped in an olive-sized volume of wine. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For a mixed cup one whips because of soaking. That is, if they did (not) warn because of soaking. But if they warned because of soaking, this does not apply. It is written: “He shall not drink anything soaked in grapes.” Not only soaking grapes, from where soaking grape skins? The verse says “soaked, anything soaked,” that all kinds of soaking are counted. Mixed wine combines with pure wine. Soaking water of grapes combines with grapes. Do soaked grapes and wine combine? If one ate half an olive’s volume of wine and half an olive’s volume of soaking water, is he not guilty. Separately, he is not prosecutable. Because he combined, he is guilty. If he ate (sic!) an olive’s volume of wine and an olive’s volume of soaking water, he is guilty only once. Separately, he is guilty twice. Because he combined, he should be guilty only once.

“Rebbi Aqiba says, even if he dipped his bread in wine for a total volume of an olive, he is guilty.” Rebbi Ḥanania said, only if he dipped in an olive-sized volume of wine. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For a mixed cup one whips because of soaking. That is, if they did (not) warn because of soaking. But if they warned because of soaking, this does not apply. It is written: “He shall not drink anything soaked in grapes.” Not only soaking grapes, from where soaking grape skins? The verse says “soaked, anything soaked,” that all kinds of soaking are counted. Mixed wine combines with pure wine. Soaking water of grapes combines with grapes. Do soaked grapes and wine combine? If one ate half an olive’s volume of wine and half an olive’s volume of soaking water, is he not guilty. Separately, he is not prosecutable. Because he combined, he is guilty. If he ate (sic!) an olive’s volume of wine and an olive’s volume of soaking water, he is guilty only once. Separately, he is guilty twice. Because he combined, he should be guilty only once.

“Fresh”, to include unripe berries. “Fresh”, to include the flower. The baraita follows Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, the flower is forbidden for the nazir because it is a fruit. It is possible to eat a bunch of grapes and to be guilty in reference to “grapes, fresh or dried, he shall not eat.” If he soaked it for soaking, pressed it for wine, and they warned him about “anything that comes from the wine-vine”, etc.

We have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, dried flesh from a corpse which even if soaked will not return to its former status is pure. What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Did he not infer this from a carcass? From a carcass, since a dried carcass is pure, so also a dried corpse should be pure. Rebbi Immi asked: Since a foul-smelling carcass is pure, would a foul-smelling corpse also be pure? Then there can be no decayed matter for Rebbi Yose! It was found stated in Rebbi Yose’s name that there was decayed matter. The colleagues asked before Rebbi Yose: Since a carcass has no decay, so a corpse should have no decay! He told them that he inferred from an animal only for the flesh, not for the bones. There is no decay from flesh, there is decay from bones, as Bar Qappara stated, “decay of bones is jealousy.” Rebbi Yannai said, “or a grave”, even if one touched the first Adam’s grave. The colleagues say, he transposes the verse: “or a grave qbr” means “or decay rqb”. Bar Qappara stated, “or a grave qbr”, “or decay rqb”.

They said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated thus: Food you shall buy from them with money and eat, etc. As water is not changed from its natural state, so anything which was not changed from its natural state. They objected: Are there not their dry beans, פנקריסין and קובטיות, roasted grain, and hot water permitted? One understands all of these because they can be soaked and return to their former state. But roasted grain? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Any food which can be eaten alone raw is not in the category of Gentile cooking. (With bread it is in the category of Gentile cooking.) How does Rebbi Ḥiyya explain food you shall buy from them? You shall buy with food. If you fed him you bought him. If he causes you trouble buy him with food or otherwise trade (ply him) with him money. They said, that is what Rebbi Jonathan did. When a superior came to [his] town, he sent him an honor gift, that if a suit involving an orphan or a widow came he would have a way to mollify him.

MISHNAH: If a woman miscarried the form of a membrane, a hair, dust, or red mosquitoes, it should be soaked in water; if it dissolves she is impure. If a woman miscarried the form of fishes, grasshoppers, abominable or crawling things; if this was accompanied by bleeding she is impure, otherwise pure. If a woman miscarried the form of a domestic or wild animal, or bird, whether pure or impure, if it is a male she should observe the days of a male birth, if a female of female births, if it cannot be determined then of both males and females, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, anything which has no human form is no child.

There, we have stated: How long does it have to be soaked? In lukewarm water, 24 hours.” “Jehudah ben Neqosa says, if has to be lukewarm for 24 hours”. How does one proceed? One puts it into hot ashes or adds any amount of hot water.

If a woman miscarried dry blood, Rebbi Eleazar says, she is impure; Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, she is pure. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “Menstrual blood and flesh from a corpse make impure moist and dry.” He explains it that it was moist and then became dry. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “If a woman had a miscarriage in the form of a lump, a hair, dust, or red mosquitoes, it should be soaked in water; if it dissolves she is impure.” He explains it, because of a creature. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even there you can object about dust. Is dust a creature? Rebbi Abba said, You even may mention dust. The dust from a pregnant woman exists as a creature. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “It happened that a woman miscarried with a kind of red membranes. The case came before the Sages who sent and called the doctors who told them, she has an internal wound. Also it happened that a woman miscarried with a kind of red hairs. The case came before the Sages who sent and called the doctors who told them, she has an internal wart.” Only because of a wart and a wound. Therefore, if there is no wart or no wound, it does not apply. This disagrees with him and [his opinion] cannot be upheld.

I say that [their difference of opinion] is taught in the following controversy; for there is a teaching : One complies with the requirements of the law with a wafer which has been soaked or cooked, provided it has not dissolved. These are the words of R. Meir ; but R. Jose says : One complies with the requirements of the law with a wafer which has been soaked, but not with one which has been cooked even if it has not dissolved.

I say that [their difference of opinion] is taught in the following controversy; for there is a teaching : One complies with the requirements of the law with a wafer which has been soaked or cooked, provided it has not dissolved. These are the words of R. Meir ; but R. Jose says : One complies with the requirements of the law with a wafer which has been soaked, but not with one which has been cooked even if it has not dissolved.

Minyamin, the servant of R. Ashi, had his shirt soaked in water, and he spread it out on their Sukkah. R. Ashi said to him, ‘Remove it, lest they say that it is permissible to use as a covering something which is susceptible to impurity. ‘But can they not see that it is wet?’ ‘I mean [the first answered] when it is dry.'

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: ‘If one covered a Sukkah with flax-stalks that had been soaked and baked, it is invalid; with flax stalks in their natural state it is valid; with flax-stalks in an intermediate stage of preparation, I do not know [whether it is valid or not]’.

But as to what constitutes an intermediate stage, I do not know whether if it has been pounded and not combed it is regarded as in an intermediate stage, but if it has been soaked and not pounded it is regarded as being in its natural state, or perhaps, even if it has been soaked but not pounded, it is also regarded as being in an intermediate stage.

But as to what constitutes an intermediate stage, I do not know whether if it has been pounded and not combed it is regarded as in an intermediate stage, but if it has been soaked and not pounded it is regarded as being in its natural state, or perhaps, even if it has been soaked but not pounded, it is also regarded as being in an intermediate stage.

Our Rabbis have taught: "I will give your rains in their season" (Lev., 26. 4) means that the soil will be neither soaked nor thirsty, for whenever the rain is excessive it washes away the soil, so that it yields no fruit. Another interpretation