usufruct

[Concerning] relatives of the second degree [of incest laws who are forbidden] by the words of the scribes: [A woman who is] a second degree of kinship to the husband but not a second degree of kinship to the yavam, is forbidden to the husband and permitted to the yavam; [A woman who is] a second degree of kinship to the yavam but not a second degree of kinship to the husband is forbidden to the yavam and permitted to the husband; [A woman who is] a second degree of kinship to the one and to the other is forbidden to the one as well as to the other. She cannot claim her ketubah or usufruct or support money, or her worn clothes. The child is fit [to marry a priest], but the husband is compelled to divorce her. A widow who was married to a high priest, a divorcee or halutzah who was married to an ordinary priest, a mamzer or a netinah who was married to an Israelite, or the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a natin or a mamzer is entitled to her ketubah.

A woman whose husband had gone to a country beyond the sea and they came and told her, “Your husband died”, married, and then her husband returned: She must leave this one and that one, and she also requires a get from this one and that one. She has no ketubah, no usufruct, no support money or worn clothes, neither from this one nor from that one. If she has taken anything from this one or that one, she must return it. The child from this one or that one is a mamzer. Neither this one nor that one may impurify himself for her. Neither this one and that one has a claim to whatever she may find, nor what she makes with her hands, nor to invalidate her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israelite, she becomes disqualified from marrying a priest; if the daughter of a Levite, from the eating of tithe; and if the daughter of a priest, from the eating of terumah. Neither the heirs of this one nor the heirs of that one are entitled to inherit her ketubah. And if [the husbands] die, the brother of the one and the brother of the other must perform halitzah, but may not contract yibbum. Rabbi Yose said: her ketubah remains a charge upon the estate of her first husband. Rabbi Elazar said: the first husband is entitled to whatever she may find, and what she makes with her hands, and also has the right to invalidate her vows. Rabbi Shimon said: intercourse or halitzah with the brother of the first husband exempts her rival, and the child from him is not a bastard. If she married without an authorization, she may return to him.

A father has authority over his daughter in her betrothal [whether it was effected] by money, document or intercourse. He is entitled to anything she finds, to her handiwork and to annul her vows. He receives her get but he has no usufruct [from her property] during her lifetime. When she marries, the husband surpasses him [in his rights] in that he has usufruct during her lifetime. And he is obligated to feed her, to pay a ransom for her and to provide for her burial. Rabbi Judah says: even the poorest man in Israel must provide no less than two flutes and one lamenting woman.

A father has authority over his daughter in her betrothal [whether it was effected] by money, document or intercourse. He is entitled to anything she finds, to her handiwork and to annul her vows. He receives her get but he has no usufruct [from her property] during her lifetime. When she marries, the husband surpasses him [in his rights] in that he has usufruct during her lifetime. And he is obligated to feed her, to pay a ransom for her and to provide for her burial. Rabbi Judah says: even the poorest man in Israel must provide no less than two flutes and one lamenting woman.

A wife’s find and her handiwork belong to her husband. And [concerning] her inheritance: He has the usufruct during her lifetime. [Any compensation for] an embarrassment or blemish [that may have been inflicted upon] her belongs to her. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: [if the embarrassment or blemish was inflicted upon her] on a hidden place [on her body] she receives two-thirds while he receives one-third; if on an open place [on her body] he receives two-thirds and she receives one-third. His share is to be given to him immediately, but with hers land is to be bought and he enjoys the usufruct.

A wife’s find and her handiwork belong to her husband. And [concerning] her inheritance: He has the usufruct during her lifetime. [Any compensation for] an embarrassment or blemish [that may have been inflicted upon] her belongs to her. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: [if the embarrassment or blemish was inflicted upon her] on a hidden place [on her body] she receives two-thirds while he receives one-third; if on an open place [on her body] he receives two-thirds and she receives one-third. His share is to be given to him immediately, but with hers land is to be bought and he enjoys the usufruct.

[If a married woman] came into the possession of money, land should be bought with the money and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If she came into the possession of] produce that was detached from the ground, land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If it was] produce attached to the ground Rabbi Meir says, the land is to be valued as to how much it is worth with the produce and how much without the produce, and with the difference land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. The Sages say: produce attached to the ground belongs to the husband and produced detached from it belongs to the wife; [with the proceeds from the latter] land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct.

[If a married woman] came into the possession of money, land should be bought with the money and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If she came into the possession of] produce that was detached from the ground, land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If it was] produce attached to the ground Rabbi Meir says, the land is to be valued as to how much it is worth with the produce and how much without the produce, and with the difference land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. The Sages say: produce attached to the ground belongs to the husband and produced detached from it belongs to the wife; [with the proceeds from the latter] land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct.

[If a married woman] came into the possession of money, land should be bought with the money and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If she came into the possession of] produce that was detached from the ground, land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If it was] produce attached to the ground Rabbi Meir says, the land is to be valued as to how much it is worth with the produce and how much without the produce, and with the difference land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. The Sages say: produce attached to the ground belongs to the husband and produced detached from it belongs to the wife; [with the proceeds from the latter] land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct.

[If a married woman] came into the possession of money, land should be bought with the money and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If she came into the possession of] produce that was detached from the ground, land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If it was] produce attached to the ground Rabbi Meir says, the land is to be valued as to how much it is worth with the produce and how much without the produce, and with the difference land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. The Sages say: produce attached to the ground belongs to the husband and produced detached from it belongs to the wife; [with the proceeds from the latter] land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct.

If she inherited old slaves or female slaves, they are to be sold, and land purchased with the proceeds, and the husband can enjoy the usufruct. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: she need not sell them, because they are the glory of her father’s house. If she inherited old olive-trees or vines they must be sold, and land purchased with the proceeds, and the husband can enjoy the usufruct. Rabbi Judah says: she need not sell them, because they are the glory of her paternal house. He who spent money in connection with his wife’s property, whether he spent much and consumed little, [or spent] little and consumed much, what he has spent he has spent, and what he has consumed he has consumed. If he spent but did not consume he may take an oath as to how much he has spent and receive compensation.

If she inherited old slaves or female slaves, they are to be sold, and land purchased with the proceeds, and the husband can enjoy the usufruct. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: she need not sell them, because they are the glory of her father’s house. If she inherited old olive-trees or vines they must be sold, and land purchased with the proceeds, and the husband can enjoy the usufruct. Rabbi Judah says: she need not sell them, because they are the glory of her paternal house. He who spent money in connection with his wife’s property, whether he spent much and consumed little, [or spent] little and consumed much, what he has spent he has spent, and what he has consumed he has consumed. If he spent but did not consume he may take an oath as to how much he has spent and receive compensation.

If his brother left money, land shall be bought with it and he enjoys the usufruct. Rabbi Meir says, the land is to be valued as to how much it is worth with the produce and how much without the produce, and with the difference land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If the his brother left] produce that was detached from the ground, land shall be bought [out of the proceeds] and he enjoys the usufruct. The Sages say: produce attached to the ground belongs to the husband but that which is detached from the ground belongs to the first person who takes it: [If it was] produce attached to the ground: If he [seized it] first he acquires ownership; and if she [seized it] first land shall be bought with it and he enjoys the usufruct. If he married her she is his wife in every respect save that her ketubah remains a debt on her first husband’s estate.

If his brother left money, land shall be bought with it and he enjoys the usufruct. Rabbi Meir says, the land is to be valued as to how much it is worth with the produce and how much without the produce, and with the difference land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If the his brother left] produce that was detached from the ground, land shall be bought [out of the proceeds] and he enjoys the usufruct. The Sages say: produce attached to the ground belongs to the husband but that which is detached from the ground belongs to the first person who takes it: [If it was] produce attached to the ground: If he [seized it] first he acquires ownership; and if she [seized it] first land shall be bought with it and he enjoys the usufruct. If he married her she is his wife in every respect save that her ketubah remains a debt on her first husband’s estate.

If his brother left money, land shall be bought with it and he enjoys the usufruct. Rabbi Meir says, the land is to be valued as to how much it is worth with the produce and how much without the produce, and with the difference land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If the his brother left] produce that was detached from the ground, land shall be bought [out of the proceeds] and he enjoys the usufruct. The Sages say: produce attached to the ground belongs to the husband but that which is detached from the ground belongs to the first person who takes it: [If it was] produce attached to the ground: If he [seized it] first he acquires ownership; and if she [seized it] first land shall be bought with it and he enjoys the usufruct. If he married her she is his wife in every respect save that her ketubah remains a debt on her first husband’s estate.

If his brother left money, land shall be bought with it and he enjoys the usufruct. Rabbi Meir says, the land is to be valued as to how much it is worth with the produce and how much without the produce, and with the difference land should be bought and the husband is entitled to the usufruct. [If the his brother left] produce that was detached from the ground, land shall be bought [out of the proceeds] and he enjoys the usufruct. The Sages say: produce attached to the ground belongs to the husband but that which is detached from the ground belongs to the first person who takes it: [If it was] produce attached to the ground: If he [seized it] first he acquires ownership; and if she [seized it] first land shall be bought with it and he enjoys the usufruct. If he married her she is his wife in every respect save that her ketubah remains a debt on her first husband’s estate.

If a husband writes to his wife, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property”, he may enjoy its usufruct during her lifetime and, when she dies, he is her heir. If so, why might he have written to her, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property”? That if she sold it or gave it away her act is valid. If he wrote, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property and upon their produce”, he may not enjoy their usufruct during her lifetime but, when she dies, he inherits her. Rabbi Judah says: he may in all cases enjoy the usufruct from the usufruct unless he wrote to her: “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property and upon its produce and the produce of its produce and so on without end.” If he wrote, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property, its produce and the produce of its produce during your lifetime and after your death”, he may neither enjoy it produce during her lifetime nor does he inherit her when she dies. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: when she dies he inherits her because [by his declaration] he is making a condition which is contrary to what is written in the Torah and whenever a man makes a condition which is contrary to what is written in the Torah, his condition is null and void.

If a husband writes to his wife, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property”, he may enjoy its usufruct during her lifetime and, when she dies, he is her heir. If so, why might he have written to her, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property”? That if she sold it or gave it away her act is valid. If he wrote, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property and upon their produce”, he may not enjoy their usufruct during her lifetime but, when she dies, he inherits her. Rabbi Judah says: he may in all cases enjoy the usufruct from the usufruct unless he wrote to her: “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property and upon its produce and the produce of its produce and so on without end.” If he wrote, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property, its produce and the produce of its produce during your lifetime and after your death”, he may neither enjoy it produce during her lifetime nor does he inherit her when she dies. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: when she dies he inherits her because [by his declaration] he is making a condition which is contrary to what is written in the Torah and whenever a man makes a condition which is contrary to what is written in the Torah, his condition is null and void.

If a husband writes to his wife, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property”, he may enjoy its usufruct during her lifetime and, when she dies, he is her heir. If so, why might he have written to her, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property”? That if she sold it or gave it away her act is valid. If he wrote, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property and upon their produce”, he may not enjoy their usufruct during her lifetime but, when she dies, he inherits her. Rabbi Judah says: he may in all cases enjoy the usufruct from the usufruct unless he wrote to her: “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property and upon its produce and the produce of its produce and so on without end.” If he wrote, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property, its produce and the produce of its produce during your lifetime and after your death”, he may neither enjoy it produce during her lifetime nor does he inherit her when she dies. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: when she dies he inherits her because [by his declaration] he is making a condition which is contrary to what is written in the Torah and whenever a man makes a condition which is contrary to what is written in the Torah, his condition is null and void.

If a husband writes to his wife, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property”, he may enjoy its usufruct during her lifetime and, when she dies, he is her heir. If so, why might he have written to her, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property”? That if she sold it or gave it away her act is valid. If he wrote, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property and upon their produce”, he may not enjoy their usufruct during her lifetime but, when she dies, he inherits her. Rabbi Judah says: he may in all cases enjoy the usufruct from the usufruct unless he wrote to her: “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property and upon its produce and the produce of its produce and so on without end.” If he wrote, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property, its produce and the produce of its produce during your lifetime and after your death”, he may neither enjoy it produce during her lifetime nor does he inherit her when she dies. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: when she dies he inherits her because [by his declaration] he is making a condition which is contrary to what is written in the Torah and whenever a man makes a condition which is contrary to what is written in the Torah, his condition is null and void.

[A minor] who refused her husband, a secondary incest prohibition, or an aylonit is not entitled to a ketubah or to the usufruct [of her dowry] or to maintenance, or to the worn-out articles [of her dowry]. If from the outset he had married on the understanding that she is an aylonit she is entitled to a ketubah. A widow who was married to a high priest, a divorced woman or a halutzah who was married to a regular priest, a mamzereth or a netinah who was married to an Israelite, or the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a Natin or a mamzer is entitled to a ketubah.

If the get was dated by an unfit kingship, by the empire of Medea, by the empire of Greece, by the building of the Temple or by the destruction of the Temple, Or if being in the east he wrote “in the west”, or being in the west he wrote “in the east”, She must leave this one and that one, and she also requires a get from this one and that one. She has no ketubah, no usufruct, no support money or worn clothes, neither from this one nor from that one. If she has taken anything from this one or that one, she must return it. The child from this one or that one is a mamzer. Neither this one nor that one may impurify himself for her. Neither this one and that one has a claim to whatever she may find, nor what she makes with her hands, nor to invalidate her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israelite, she becomes disqualified from marrying a priest; if the daughter of a Levite, from the eating of tithe; and if the daughter of a priest, from the eating of terumah. Neither the heirs of this one nor the heirs of that one are entitled to inherit her ketubah. And if [the husbands] die, the brother of the one and the brother of the other must perform halitzah, but may not contract yibbum. If his name or her name or the name of his town or the name of her town was wrongly given, she must leave both husbands and all the above consequences apply to her.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: They taught only the surroundings of the vine, hence, not the vine itself. Why? Because it is forbidden for usufruct. But is not the grave also forbidden for usufruct? A grave is not recognizable as forbidden. And is the working space of a vine forbidden for usufruct? This follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that a single vine does not have working space. But is not the grave forbidden for usufruct? A grave is not recognizable as forbidden.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: They taught only the surroundings of the vine, hence, not the vine itself. Why? Because it is forbidden for usufruct. But is not the grave also forbidden for usufruct? A grave is not recognizable as forbidden. And is the working space of a vine forbidden for usufruct? This follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that a single vine does not have working space. But is not the grave forbidden for usufruct? A grave is not recognizable as forbidden.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: They taught only the surroundings of the vine, hence, not the vine itself. Why? Because it is forbidden for usufruct. But is not the grave also forbidden for usufruct? A grave is not recognizable as forbidden. And is the working space of a vine forbidden for usufruct? This follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that a single vine does not have working space. But is not the grave forbidden for usufruct? A grave is not recognizable as forbidden.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: They taught only the surroundings of the vine, hence, not the vine itself. Why? Because it is forbidden for usufruct. But is not the grave also forbidden for usufruct? A grave is not recognizable as forbidden. And is the working space of a vine forbidden for usufruct? This follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that a single vine does not have working space. But is not the grave forbidden for usufruct? A grave is not recognizable as forbidden.

“Scroll wraps.” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Because he makes them into a kind of container and puts his Torah scroll on them. Rebbi Abba Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph in the name of Rav: Because he uses it to warm his hands. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Abba: Without that would it not be forbidden because of kilaim? He said to him, is not Rav the author? And Rav said they are forbidden and practice follows him who forbids. Rebbi Jonah said to Rebbi Abba, and why did you not say to him that he removes it full. If he had said to him, would it not be forbidden for usufruct, what could you have said to him?

It is written (Lev. 11:28): “They are impure for you”. Why does it say (Lev. 11:35) “they shall be impure for you”? One is for the prohibition of eating, the other for the prohibition of usufruct. Anything forbidden by the Torah is forbidden for trade but everything whose prohibition is rabbinical is permitted for trade. But is there not the donkey? It is raised for work. Is there not the camel? It is raised for work. Rebbi Yehoshaiah traded in muries, Rebbi Ḥuna traded in asafoetida.

Sap may be fruit, unripe fruits may be fruit. If you say that sap has the status of fruit, if he did it with heave it is forbidden. If you say that unripe fruits are fruit, if he did it with heave it is permitted. Why? Because usufruct of heave is permitted but usufruct of orlah is forbidden.

Sap may be fruit, unripe fruits may be fruit. If you say that sap has the status of fruit, if he did it with heave it is forbidden. If you say that unripe fruits are fruit, if he did it with heave it is permitted. Why? Because usufruct of heave is permitted but usufruct of orlah is forbidden.

If somebody said, I would not touch the volume of an olive, but I will touch half the volume of an olive, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he is like a person who eats half the volume of an olive unintentionally and half the volume of an olive intentionally. Would Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya hold with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he ate half the volume of an olive during one forgetting spell, he is free from punishment. So here, if he ate two times half the volume of an olive minus something, he is free from punishment. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees in the case of prohibitions of usufruct, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees in the case of the Day of Atonement, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees in case he would complete it in the future.

Rebbi Mana ben Rebbi Tanḥum asked: Following him who permits to laymen, why is muries of Gentiles forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, it is forbidden as being cooked by Gentiles. Rebbi Yose objected: Did we not state: “From a professional it is permitted, not from a professional it is forbidden.” From a professional it is permitted even if it is cooked; similarly, from a non-professional it is forbidden even if not cooked. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Maria said, even according to him who says from a professional it is permitted, only if he knows. This implies that usufruct of heave is permitted, usufruct of paganism is forbidden.

Rebbi Mana ben Rebbi Tanḥum asked: Following him who permits to laymen, why is muries of Gentiles forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, it is forbidden as being cooked by Gentiles. Rebbi Yose objected: Did we not state: “From a professional it is permitted, not from a professional it is forbidden.” From a professional it is permitted even if it is cooked; similarly, from a non-professional it is forbidden even if not cooked. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Maria said, even according to him who says from a professional it is permitted, only if he knows. This implies that usufruct of heave is permitted, usufruct of paganism is forbidden.

Rebbi Pedat, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon follows that of Rebbi Joshua, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Simeon says, balsamum is not subject to the Sabbatical because it is not a fruit.” Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Pedat, since we say there that practice follows Rebbi Joshua, would you have to say here that practice follows Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Jonah said, are the situations similar? It is the other way: Balsamum is essentially sap, a tree is not essentially in its sap. The holiness of the Sabbatical falls on animal feed, but the holiness of orlah never falls on it. Rebbi Abun said, there is another [difference]: Rebbi Joshua quoted it as a tradition, Rebbi Simeon said it in his own name. Sap may be fruit, unripe fruits may be fruit. If you say that sap has the status of fruit, if he did it with heave it is permitted. If you say that unripe fruits are fruit, if he did it with heave it is permitted. Why? Because usufruct of heave is permitted but usufruct of orlah is forbidden.

Rebbi Pedat, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon follows that of Rebbi Joshua, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Simeon says, balsamum is not subject to the Sabbatical because it is not a fruit.” Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Pedat, since we say there that practice follows Rebbi Joshua, would you have to say here that practice follows Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Jonah said, are the situations similar? It is the other way: Balsamum is essentially sap, a tree is not essentially in its sap. The holiness of the Sabbatical falls on animal feed, but the holiness of orlah never falls on it. Rebbi Abun said, there is another [difference]: Rebbi Joshua quoted it as a tradition, Rebbi Simeon said it in his own name. Sap may be fruit, unripe fruits may be fruit. If you say that sap has the status of fruit, if he did it with heave it is permitted. If you say that unripe fruits are fruit, if he did it with heave it is permitted. Why? Because usufruct of heave is permitted but usufruct of orlah 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 Eleazar: Everywhere it is written “do not eat, do not eat, it shall not be eaten”, you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the probition of eating unless the verse comes and explains to you as it did explain about limbs of a living animal and a carcass. What did it explain about limbs of a living animal? (Ex. 22:30) “Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat.” And what did it explain about a carcass? (Deut. 14:21) “Do not eat any carcass; to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it.” Hizqiah stated a disagreement. What does one forbid to the dog?

But is it not written (Lev. 7:23): “Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat”? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written (Lev. 7:24): “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal”. But is it not written (Deut. 12:16): “Only the blood”? There is a difference, for it is written: “You shall pour it on the ground like water.” Since water is permitted for use, so blood is permitted for use. But is it not written (Gen. 32:33): “Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the schiatic muscle”? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass or a torn animal. But is it not written (Lev. 23:14): “Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat”? Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written (Lev. 11:42): “Do not eat them for they are abominations”? Rebbi Mana said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct.

But is it not written (Lev. 7:23): “Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat”? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written (Lev. 7:24): “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal”. But is it not written (Deut. 12:16): “Only the blood”? There is a difference, for it is written: “You shall pour it on the ground like water.” Since water is permitted for use, so blood is permitted for use. But is it not written (Gen. 32:33): “Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the schiatic muscle”? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass or a torn animal. But is it not written (Lev. 23:14): “Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat”? Rebbi Abba Mari the brother of Rebbi Yose said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written (Lev. 11:42): “Do not eat them for they are abominations”? Rebbi Mana said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct.

In a baraita one disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “What does one understand from what has been said (Ex. 21:28): ‘The ox shall certainly be stoned’? Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food? Then why does the verse say, ‘its meat shall not be eaten’? To tell you that just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden for usufruct.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explained it if the owners slaughtered it before sentence was pronounced.

The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the probition of eating if it is written “do not eat”. The paradigm for all cases is (Lev. 6:23): “Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned.” Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said (Lev. 7:23): “Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat,” why has it been said (Lev. 7:24): “But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work”? It comes to tell you, even for the work of Heaven. If one understands what has been said (Lev. 12:16): “But the blood you shall not eat,” why has it been said “you shall pour it on the ground like water”? It comes to tell you, as water prepares, so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said (Deut. 14:21) “Do not eat any carcass;” why has it been said “to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it”? To tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat. If one understands what has been said (Ex. 22:30): “Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat,” why has it been said “throw it to the dog”? This you throw to the dog but not profane meat slaughered in the Temple precinct.

A baraita supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar. “(Ex. 13:3) ‘Sour bread shall not be eaten’, to make the feeder equal to the eater. You say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says (Deut. 16:3): ‘You shall not eat sour bread with it,’ we learned that usufruct is forbidden. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition, He made the feeder equal to the eater; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that he feeder be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse comes only to forbid its usufruct.” Since it is written “sour bread shall not be eaten.” Therefore, from “you shall not eat” one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan.

A baraita supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar. “(Ex. 13:3) ‘Sour bread shall not be eaten’, to make the feeder equal to the eater. You say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says (Deut. 16:3): ‘You shall not eat sour bread with it,’ we learned that usufruct is forbidden. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition, He made the feeder equal to the eater; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that he feeder be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse comes only to forbid its usufruct.” Since it is written “sour bread shall not be eaten.” Therefore, from “you shall not eat” one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan.

A baraita supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar. “(Ex. 13:3) ‘Sour bread shall not be eaten’, to make the feeder equal to the eater. You say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says (Deut. 16:3): ‘You shall not eat sour bread with it,’ we learned that usufruct is forbidden. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition, He made the feeder equal to the eater; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that he feeder be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse comes only to forbid its usufruct.” Since it is written “sour bread shall not be eaten.” Therefore, from “you shall not eat” one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan.

There, we have stated: “The following things from Gentiles are forbidden even for usufruct: Wine, Gentiles’ vinegar which originally was wine, and Hadrianic pottery.” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: This is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated: Hadrianic pottery is forbidden even for usufruct. Where do we hold? If one put it into a dish, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If he sells it excluding the value of libation wine contained in it, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with the case that he put it on top of a dish.

There, we have stated: “The following things from Gentiles are forbidden even for usufruct: Wine, Gentiles’ vinegar which originally was wine, and Hadrianic pottery.” Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: This is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated: Hadrianic pottery is forbidden even for usufruct. Where do we hold? If one put it into a dish, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If he sells it excluding the value of libation wine contained in it, everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with the case that he put it on top of a dish.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said, when I descended from a ship I heard the voice of Rebbi Jacob stating: “Cloth dyed with ‘orlah shells should be burned.” But did we not state: “If one took from it {wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle, it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to weave cloth it is forbidden for usufruct. If libation wine fell into a cistern, all is forbidden for usufruct.” But did we not state: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it should all be sold to a Gentile except for the value of the libation wine contained in it.” Rebbi Aḥa ben Jacob said, Ḥaggai raised the question, Rebbi Ḥaggai resolved it. What is it? There people do not buy wine from Gentiles; but here people do buy cloth from Gentiles.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said, when I descended from a ship I heard the voice of Rebbi Jacob stating: “Cloth dyed with ‘orlah shells should be burned.” But did we not state: “If one took from it {wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle, it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to weave cloth it is forbidden for usufruct. If libation wine fell into a cistern, all is forbidden for usufruct.” But did we not state: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it should all be sold to a Gentile except for the value of the libation wine contained in it.” Rebbi Aḥa ben Jacob said, Ḥaggai raised the question, Rebbi Ḥaggai resolved it. What is it? There people do not buy wine from Gentiles; but here people do buy cloth from Gentiles.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said, when I descended from a ship I heard the voice of Rebbi Jacob stating: “Cloth dyed with ‘orlah shells should be burned.” But did we not state: “If one took from it {wood to make] a weaver’s shuttle, it is forbidden for usufruct. If he used it to weave cloth it is forbidden for usufruct. If libation wine fell into a cistern, all is forbidden for usufruct.” But did we not state: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it should all be sold to a Gentile except for the value of the libation wine contained in it.” Rebbi Aḥa ben Jacob said, Ḥaggai raised the question, Rebbi Ḥaggai resolved it. What is it? There people do not buy wine from Gentiles; but here people do buy cloth from Gentiles.

If leprous stones were turned into lime, some Tannaїm state they rose from their impurity; some Tannaїm state they did not rise from their impurity. For him who stated they rose from their impurity, are they permitted, but for him who stated they did not rise from their impurity, are they forbidden? Even for him who stated they rose from their impurity, they are forbidden since it is written (Lev. 14:44): “A cursed plague”, it should be cursed and you shall have no usufruct from it. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The ashes of everything burned are permitted except ashes coming from idolatry. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: There are the ashes of the (leprous) house which do not come from idolatry and you say they are forbidden! He said to him, there is a difference since it is written “tearing down, tearing down.”

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This has been said for idol worship. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this has been said for things forbidden for usufruct. Rav Ḥisda said, this has been said for minimal quantities. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable for a purification sacrifice. There are Tannaim who state, a minimal amount. He who said he is liable for a purification sacrifice supports Rav Ḥisda. He who said a minimal amount supports Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: For example, the wad which she prepared for her menstrual period.

HALAKHAH: 6. It was stated: Also bad smell in any amount. Rebbi Ila said, also Rebbi Simeon agrees to this. Rebbi Simeon agrees in cases of prohibitions of usufruct.

“A living person on a bier is not liable even for the bier,” for the living carries himself. “A dead person on a bier is liable,” the opinion of everybody? Was it not stated, also bad smell in the most minute amount? Rebbi Ila said, also Rebbi Simeon agrees to this. Rebbi Simeon also agrees in cases of prohibitions of usufruct. Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog. It was stated: For half the volume of an olive of a corpse and half the volume of an olive of a carcass and less than the volume of a lentil of a crawling animal one is liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? The impurity already is eliminated. What is the rabbis’ reason? Following Rebbi Yudan explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog.

MISHNAH: Any time one is permitted to eat one feeds it to domestic or wild animals or birds, or sells it to a Non-Jew, and one may have usufruct from it. If its time has passed one may not have usufruct from it, nor use it to heat an oven or a cooking stove. Rebbi Jehudah says, leavened matter may only be eliminated by burning. But the Sages say, he makes crumbs and scatters them in the wind or throws it into the Sea.

MISHNAH: Any time one is permitted to eat one feeds it to domestic or wild animals or birds, or sells it to a Non-Jew, and one may have usufruct from it. If its time has passed one may not have usufruct from it, nor use it to heat an oven or a cooking stove. Rebbi Jehudah says, leavened matter may only be eliminated by burning. But the Sages say, he makes crumbs and scatters them in the wind or throws it into the Sea.

Rebbi Bun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: This implies that one is permitted to feed it to ownerless animals. Rebbi Jeremiah objected, did we not state “he crumbles it”? Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion, loaf sized. Rebbi Yose said to him, it only mentioned “he crumbles it”, that when he crumbled it it was nullified. But the following says it, leavend matter may not be eaten today, even by the dogs. This includes to forbid it for usufruct. Where do we hold? If for his own dog, the prohibition of usufruct had been stated. But we must hold for the dog [of others]. This implies that one is prohibited from feeding it to ownerless animals.

Rebbi Bun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: This implies that one is permitted to feed it to ownerless animals. Rebbi Jeremiah objected, did we not state “he crumbles it”? Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion, loaf sized. Rebbi Yose said to him, it only mentioned “he crumbles it”, that when he crumbled it it was nullified. But the following says it, leavend matter may not be eaten today, even by the dogs. This includes to forbid it for usufruct. Where do we hold? If for his own dog, the prohibition of usufruct had been stated. But we must hold for the dog [of others]. This implies that one is prohibited from feeding it to ownerless animals.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Everywhere it is written do not eat, do not eat, it shall not be eaten, you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating unless the verse is explicit and explains to you as it did explain about limbs of a living animal and a carcass. What did it explain about limbs of a living animal? Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat; throw it to the dog. And what did it explain about a carcass? Do not eat any carcass; to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it, or sell to the stranger. Ḥizqiah stated a disagreement. What does one forbid to the dog?

But is it not written: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written: But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work, only it may not be eaten. But is it not written: Only the blood you may not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written: You shall pour it on the ground like water. Since water is permitted for use, so blood shall be permitted for use. But is it not written: Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the sciatic nerve? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass. But is it not written: Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat until this very day? Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written: Do not eat them for they are abominations? Rebbi [Mana] said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct.

But is it not written: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written: But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work, only it may not be eaten. But is it not written: Only the blood you may not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written: You shall pour it on the ground like water. Since water is permitted for use, so blood shall be permitted for use. But is it not written: Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the sciatic nerve? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass. But is it not written: Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat until this very day? Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written: Do not eat them for they are abominations? Rebbi [Mana] said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct.

But is it not written: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written: But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work, only it may not be eaten. But is it not written: Only the blood you may not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written: You shall pour it on the ground like water. Since water is permitted for use, so blood shall be permitted for use. But is it not written: Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the sciatic nerve? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass. But is it not written: Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat until this very day? Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written: Do not eat them for they are abominations? Rebbi [Mana] said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct.

In a baraita one disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: What does one understand from what has been said: the ox shall certainly be stoned? Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food? Then why does the verse say, its meat shall not be eaten? To tell you that just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden for usufruct. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explained it if the owners slaughtered it before sentence was pronounced.

The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating if it is written do not eat, do not eat. It may not be eaten (f.). it may not be eaten (m.), you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating. The paradigm for all cases is: Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned. Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat, why has it been said: but fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work? Even for the work of Heaven. If one understands what has been said: But the blood you shall not eat, why has it been said,you shall pour it on the ground like water? As water prepares, so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said: Do not eat any carcass; why has it been said, to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it? It serves to tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat. If one understands what has been said: Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat, why does the verse say, throw it to the dog? This you throw to the dog but you do not throw profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct.

The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating if it is written do not eat, do not eat. It may not be eaten (f.). it may not be eaten (m.), you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating. The paradigm for all cases is: Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned. Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat, why has it been said: but fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work? Even for the work of Heaven. If one understands what has been said: But the blood you shall not eat, why has it been said,you shall pour it on the ground like water? As water prepares, so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said: Do not eat any carcass; why has it been said, to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it? It serves to tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat. If one understands what has been said: Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat, why does the verse say, throw it to the dog? This you throw to the dog but you do not throw profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct.

A baraita supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar. Sour bread shall not be eaten, to make the feeder equal to the eater. And you say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says: You shall not eat sour bread with it, we learned that usufruct is forbidden. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition, He made the feeder equal to the eater; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that we consider the feeder to be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse serves only to forbid its usufruct. Since it is written, sour bread shall not be eaten, therefore from you shall not eat one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan .

A baraita supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar. Sour bread shall not be eaten, to make the feeder equal to the eater. And you say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says: You shall not eat sour bread with it, we learned that usufruct is forbidden. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition, He made the feeder equal to the eater; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that we consider the feeder to be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse serves only to forbid its usufruct. Since it is written, sour bread shall not be eaten, therefore from you shall not eat one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan .

A baraita supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar. Sour bread shall not be eaten, to make the feeder equal to the eater. And you say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says: You shall not eat sour bread with it, we learned that usufruct is forbidden. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition, He made the feeder equal to the eater; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that we consider the feeder to be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse serves only to forbid its usufruct. Since it is written, sour bread shall not be eaten, therefore from you shall not eat one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan .

Rebbi Jehudah came back and presented another argument: Leavened matter is forbidden as food and leftover is forbidden as food. Since the latter is to be burned, the former is to be burned. They told him, carcass meat disproves since it is forbidden as food and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food and for usufruct and leftover is forbidden as food and for usufruct; carcass meat does not disprove since it is not forbidden for usufruct. They told him, the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food and for usufruct and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, [and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation]; the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not make liable for extirpation. They told him, the fat of the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time; the fat of the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not depend on time. They told him, a suspended sacrifice following your opinion does disprove since it is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, [but is not to be burned]. Rebbi Jehudah remained silent.

Rebbi Jehudah came back and presented another argument: Leavened matter is forbidden as food and leftover is forbidden as food. Since the latter is to be burned, the former is to be burned. They told him, carcass meat disproves since it is forbidden as food and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food and for usufruct and leftover is forbidden as food and for usufruct; carcass meat does not disprove since it is not forbidden for usufruct. They told him, the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food and for usufruct and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, [and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation]; the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not make liable for extirpation. They told him, the fat of the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time; the fat of the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not depend on time. They told him, a suspended sacrifice following your opinion does disprove since it is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, [but is not to be burned]. Rebbi Jehudah remained silent.

Rebbi Jehudah came back and presented another argument: Leavened matter is forbidden as food and leftover is forbidden as food. Since the latter is to be burned, the former is to be burned. They told him, carcass meat disproves since it is forbidden as food and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food and for usufruct and leftover is forbidden as food and for usufruct; carcass meat does not disprove since it is not forbidden for usufruct. They told him, the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food and for usufruct and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, [and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation]; the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not make liable for extirpation. They told him, the fat of the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time; the fat of the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not depend on time. They told him, a suspended sacrifice following your opinion does disprove since it is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, [but is not to be burned]. Rebbi Jehudah remained silent.

Rebbi Jehudah came back and presented another argument: Leavened matter is forbidden as food and leftover is forbidden as food. Since the latter is to be burned, the former is to be burned. They told him, carcass meat disproves since it is forbidden as food and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food and for usufruct and leftover is forbidden as food and for usufruct; carcass meat does not disprove since it is not forbidden for usufruct. They told him, the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food and for usufruct and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, [and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation]; the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not make liable for extirpation. They told him, the fat of the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time; the fat of the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not depend on time. They told him, a suspended sacrifice following your opinion does disprove since it is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, [but is not to be burned]. Rebbi Jehudah remained silent.

Rebbi Jehudah came back and presented another argument: Leavened matter is forbidden as food and leftover is forbidden as food. Since the latter is to be burned, the former is to be burned. They told him, carcass meat disproves since it is forbidden as food and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food and for usufruct and leftover is forbidden as food and for usufruct; carcass meat does not disprove since it is not forbidden for usufruct. They told him, the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food and for usufruct and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, [and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation]; the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not make liable for extirpation. They told him, the fat of the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time; the fat of the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not depend on time. They told him, a suspended sacrifice following your opinion does disprove since it is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, [but is not to be burned]. Rebbi Jehudah remained silent.

Rebbi Jehudah came back and presented another argument: Leavened matter is forbidden as food and leftover is forbidden as food. Since the latter is to be burned, the former is to be burned. They told him, carcass meat disproves since it is forbidden as food and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food and for usufruct and leftover is forbidden as food and for usufruct; carcass meat does not disprove since it is not forbidden for usufruct. They told him, the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food and for usufruct and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, [and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation]; the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not make liable for extirpation. They told him, the fat of the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time; the fat of the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not depend on time. They told him, a suspended sacrifice following your opinion does disprove since it is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, [but is not to be burned]. Rebbi Jehudah remained silent.

Rebbi Jehudah came back and presented another argument: Leavened matter is forbidden as food and leftover is forbidden as food. Since the latter is to be burned, the former is to be burned. They told him, carcass meat disproves since it is forbidden as food and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food and for usufruct and leftover is forbidden as food and for usufruct; carcass meat does not disprove since it is not forbidden for usufruct. They told him, the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food and for usufruct and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, [and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation]; the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not make liable for extirpation. They told him, the fat of the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time; the fat of the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not depend on time. They told him, a suspended sacrifice following your opinion does disprove since it is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, [but is not to be burned]. Rebbi Jehudah remained silent.

Rebbi Jehudah came back and presented another argument: Leavened matter is forbidden as food and leftover is forbidden as food. Since the latter is to be burned, the former is to be burned. They told him, carcass meat disproves since it is forbidden as food and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food and for usufruct and leftover is forbidden as food and for usufruct; carcass meat does not disprove since it is not forbidden for usufruct. They told him, the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food and for usufruct and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, [and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation]; the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not make liable for extirpation. They told him, the fat of the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time; the fat of the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not depend on time. They told him, a suspended sacrifice following your opinion does disprove since it is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, [but is not to be burned]. Rebbi Jehudah remained silent.

Rebbi Jehudah came back and presented another argument: Leavened matter is forbidden as food and leftover is forbidden as food. Since the latter is to be burned, the former is to be burned. They told him, carcass meat disproves since it is forbidden as food and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food and for usufruct and leftover is forbidden as food and for usufruct; carcass meat does not disprove since it is not forbidden for usufruct. They told him, the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food and for usufruct and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, [and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation]; the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not make liable for extirpation. They told him, the fat of the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time; the fat of the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not depend on time. They told him, a suspended sacrifice following your opinion does disprove since it is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, [but is not to be burned]. Rebbi Jehudah remained silent.

Rebbi Jehudah came back and presented another argument: Leavened matter is forbidden as food and leftover is forbidden as food. Since the latter is to be burned, the former is to be burned. They told him, carcass meat disproves since it is forbidden as food and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food and for usufruct and leftover is forbidden as food and for usufruct; carcass meat does not disprove since it is not forbidden for usufruct. They told him, the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food and for usufruct and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, [and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation]; the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not make liable for extirpation. They told him, the fat of the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time; the fat of the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not depend on time. They told him, a suspended sacrifice following your opinion does disprove since it is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, [but is not to be burned]. Rebbi Jehudah remained silent.

MISHNAH: A Non-Jew’s leavened matter which existed during Passover is permitted for usufruct but a Jew’s is forbidden for usufruct since it is said, it should not be seen in your possession. If a Non-Jew gave a loan to a Jew secured by leavened matter, after Passover it is permitted for usufruct but if a Jew gave a loan to a Non-Jew secured by leavened matter, after Passover it is forbidden for usufruct. Leavened matter on which debris fell is as if eliminated; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only one which cannot be dug out by a dog.

MISHNAH: A Non-Jew’s leavened matter which existed during Passover is permitted for usufruct but a Jew’s is forbidden for usufruct since it is said, it should not be seen in your possession. If a Non-Jew gave a loan to a Jew secured by leavened matter, after Passover it is permitted for usufruct but if a Jew gave a loan to a Non-Jew secured by leavened matter, after Passover it is forbidden for usufruct. Leavened matter on which debris fell is as if eliminated; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only one which cannot be dug out by a dog.

MISHNAH: A Non-Jew’s leavened matter which existed during Passover is permitted for usufruct but a Jew’s is forbidden for usufruct since it is said, it should not be seen in your possession. If a Non-Jew gave a loan to a Jew secured by leavened matter, after Passover it is permitted for usufruct but if a Jew gave a loan to a Non-Jew secured by leavened matter, after Passover it is forbidden for usufruct. Leavened matter on which debris fell is as if eliminated; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only one which cannot be dug out by a dog.

MISHNAH: A Non-Jew’s leavened matter which existed during Passover is permitted for usufruct but a Jew’s is forbidden for usufruct since it is said, it should not be seen in your possession. If a Non-Jew gave a loan to a Jew secured by leavened matter, after Passover it is permitted for usufruct but if a Jew gave a loan to a Non-Jew secured by leavened matter, after Passover it is forbidden for usufruct. Leavened matter on which debris fell is as if eliminated; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only one which cannot be dug out by a dog.

HALAKHAH: From where the cleaning of the interior altar? Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He shall throw it next to the altar, to the East, on the place of ashes. It is unnecessary. If to designate [the place], it already is written, next to the altar. If to teach you that it should be put to the East of the ramp, it already is written, to the East. Also he explained, next to the altar, next to the altar. Since in one case it is to the East of the ramp, so in the other case it is to the East of the ramp. From where that it is forbidden for usufruct? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: to a pure place, that its place shall be pure. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but, from where that the cleaning of the exterior altar is forbidden for usufruct? The verse says, to the place of ashes, that it be its place forever. From where the cleaning of the interior altar? He shall sprinkle on it, he shall burn incense. Since sprinkling is on its body, also burning incense on its body. From where that the interior altar is forbidden for usufruct? An argument de minore ad majus. If from the exterior altar it is forbidden, so much more from the interior.

HALAKHAH: From where the cleaning of the interior altar? Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He shall throw it next to the altar, to the East, on the place of ashes. It is unnecessary. If to designate [the place], it already is written, next to the altar. If to teach you that it should be put to the East of the ramp, it already is written, to the East. Also he explained, next to the altar, next to the altar. Since in one case it is to the East of the ramp, so in the other case it is to the East of the ramp. From where that it is forbidden for usufruct? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: to a pure place, that its place shall be pure. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but, from where that the cleaning of the exterior altar is forbidden for usufruct? The verse says, to the place of ashes, that it be its place forever. From where the cleaning of the interior altar? He shall sprinkle on it, he shall burn incense. Since sprinkling is on its body, also burning incense on its body. From where that the interior altar is forbidden for usufruct? An argument de minore ad majus. If from the exterior altar it is forbidden, so much more from the interior.

HALAKHAH: From where the cleaning of the interior altar? Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He shall throw it next to the altar, to the East, on the place of ashes. It is unnecessary. If to designate [the place], it already is written, next to the altar. If to teach you that it should be put to the East of the ramp, it already is written, to the East. Also he explained, next to the altar, next to the altar. Since in one case it is to the East of the ramp, so in the other case it is to the East of the ramp. From where that it is forbidden for usufruct? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: to a pure place, that its place shall be pure. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but, from where that the cleaning of the exterior altar is forbidden for usufruct? The verse says, to the place of ashes, that it be its place forever. From where the cleaning of the interior altar? He shall sprinkle on it, he shall burn incense. Since sprinkling is on its body, also burning incense on its body. From where that the interior altar is forbidden for usufruct? An argument de minore ad majus. If from the exterior altar it is forbidden, so much more from the interior.

Stones quarried for a corpse are forbidden for usufruct. For a corpse or a living person they are permitted for usufruct. If somebody throws an implement near the bier of a corpse, within four cubits it is forbidden for usufruct; anything outside four cubits is permitted for usufruct

Stones quarried for a corpse are forbidden for usufruct. For a corpse or a living person they are permitted for usufruct. If somebody throws an implement near the bier of a corpse, within four cubits it is forbidden for usufruct; anything outside four cubits is permitted for usufruct

Stones quarried for a corpse are forbidden for usufruct. For a corpse or a living person they are permitted for usufruct. If somebody throws an implement near the bier of a corpse, within four cubits it is forbidden for usufruct; anything outside four cubits is permitted for usufruct

Stones quarried for a corpse are forbidden for usufruct. For a corpse or a living person they are permitted for usufruct. If somebody throws an implement near the bier of a corpse, within four cubits it is forbidden for usufruct; anything outside four cubits is permitted for usufruct

Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: So the Sages are answering Rebbi Simeon. If he sold them, would it not transfer sanctity to the money? What is the difference between them and their money’s worth? This disagrees with what Rebbi Eleazar said: There are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore it one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money, and there are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it transfers sanctity to the money. Of the ashes of the interior altar and the candelabrum one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money. Of blood one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold it, it transfers sanctity to the money.

Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: So the Sages are answering Rebbi Simeon. If he sold them, would it not transfer sanctity to the money? What is the difference between them and their money’s worth? This disagrees with what Rebbi Eleazar said: There are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore it one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money, and there are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it transfers sanctity to the money. Of the ashes of the interior altar and the candelabrum one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money. Of blood one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold it, it transfers sanctity to the money.

Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: So the Sages are answering Rebbi Simeon. If he sold them, would it not transfer sanctity to the money? What is the difference between them and their money’s worth? This disagrees with what Rebbi Eleazar said: There are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore it one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money, and there are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it transfers sanctity to the money. Of the ashes of the interior altar and the candelabrum one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money. Of blood one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold it, it transfers sanctity to the money.

Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: So the Sages are answering Rebbi Simeon. If he sold them, would it not transfer sanctity to the money? What is the difference between them and their money’s worth? This disagrees with what Rebbi Eleazar said: There are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore it one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money, and there are those of them of which they said, one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it transfers sanctity to the money. Of the ashes of the interior altar and the candelabrum one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold them it does not transfer sanctity to the money. Of blood one has no usufruct but one does not commit larceny, therefore if one sold it, it transfers sanctity to the money.

There we have stated: “There is about gifts for the upkeep of the Temple that unspecified gifts to the Temple are for the upkeep of the Temple. Sanctification for the upkeep of the Temple falls on everything, and me`ilah applies to what grows from it, and priests have no usufruct from it.” Rebbi Ḥanania said, this is Rebbi Eliezer’s, as we have stated: “If somebody gives his property to the Temple and in it there was an animal fit for the altar, males or females. Rebbi Eliezer says, males should be sold to those who need an elevation offering, and females be sold to those who need well-being offerings, and the revenue together with the remainder be for upkeep of the Temple.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer : If a man dedicate his house holy to the Eternal. How do we hold? If for a dwelling, it already is written, if the dedicator redeem his house. Therefore we hold that he dedicates his property. From here that unspecified dedications to the Temple are for the upkeep of the Temple.

A ram’s horn of idolatry or a seduced city. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is qualified. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, it is qualified. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, it is disqualified. Everybody agrees about a lulav that it is disqualified. What is the difference between a ram’s horn and a lulav? Rebbi Yose said, about a lulav it is written: You shall take for yourselves, from what is your own. Not from what is forbidden for usufruct. But here, a day of horn blowing it shall be for you. Rebbi Eleazar said, there he fulfills his obligation by the thing itself. But here he fulfills his obligation by the sound. Is there a sound which is forbidden for usufruct?

A ram’s horn of idolatry or a seduced city. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is qualified. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, it is qualified. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, it is disqualified. Everybody agrees about a lulav that it is disqualified. What is the difference between a ram’s horn and a lulav? Rebbi Yose said, about a lulav it is written: You shall take for yourselves, from what is your own. Not from what is forbidden for usufruct. But here, a day of horn blowing it shall be for you. Rebbi Eleazar said, there he fulfills his obligation by the thing itself. But here he fulfills his obligation by the sound. Is there a sound which is forbidden for usufruct?

The colleagues say, the words of Rebbi Yose are that a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition. Rebbi Yose told them, it is not from this but as Rebbi Ila said and as is stated there: “This was the usage in Jerusalem, a person goes to the synagogue with his lulav in his hand, goes to visit the sick with his lulav in his hand. he recites the shema` and prays with his lulav in his hand. To lift his hands or to read in the Torah, he hands it to another person. If he put it down on the floor it is forbidden to move it.” Rebbi Abun said, this implies that it is forbidden for usufruct. It was stated: One moves fragrant wood to let a sick person smell it on the Sabbath. The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, one may wave the myrtle branch for a sick person on the Sabbath. Does the same hold for a knife for circumcision, the same for unleavened bread? Since Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose, even if he finished he may return for fibers which do not invalidate the circumcision; this implies the same even for a knife for circumcision, the same for unleavened bread.

MISHNAH: The only difference between one who is under a vow {not to have} usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use of food is passing through his real estate and vessels that cannot be used to prepare food. The only difference between vows and voluntary gifts is that for vows one is responsible if they died or were lost, and for voluntary gifts one is not responsible if they died or were lost.

HALAKHAH: Therefore vessels used to prepare food are forbidden. But did he not make the vow about food? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: so is the Mishnah: The only difference between one who is under a vow {not to have} usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use for food. In the House of Rebbi it was stated thus: “One who is under a vow about use of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven.” It was stated: But he may borrow from him cups and bowls and fruit bowls, since these are not used to prepare food, only to serve food. Pans and pots are forbidden. To mill grain and to press grapes is forbidden. Harvesting grain is a problem, harvesting grapes is a problem. What kind of usufruct of food? It was stated: But he may borrow an axe from him. We wanted to say, an axe to split. Explain it by a hatchet for weeding, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Abuna said, that zwsta since one removes and separates the bran from flour with it, it is like a sieve.

HALAKHAH: Therefore vessels used to prepare food are forbidden. But did he not make the vow about food? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: so is the Mishnah: The only difference between one who is under a vow {not to have} usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use for food. In the House of Rebbi it was stated thus: “One who is under a vow about use of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven.” It was stated: But he may borrow from him cups and bowls and fruit bowls, since these are not used to prepare food, only to serve food. Pans and pots are forbidden. To mill grain and to press grapes is forbidden. Harvesting grain is a problem, harvesting grapes is a problem. What kind of usufruct of food? It was stated: But he may borrow an axe from him. We wanted to say, an axe to split. Explain it by a hatchet for weeding, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Abuna said, that zwsta since one removes and separates the bran from flour with it, it is like a sieve.