Pesachim 11a — the Talmud in English

And this matter—

not with the consent of the Sages

(they were doing

, for they certainly reaped and ground this grain before the festival, when the grain was still forbidden for eating. And the Sages were concerned lest, while occupied with the grain, they come to eat from it, and thereby transgress the prohibition against eating “new” before the Omer—

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah says: With the consent of the Sages they were doing

so.

It follows that

Rabbi Judah did not decree

not to work with grain that is forbidden for eating

lest he come to eat from it.

And why, with regard to leaven, does he decree ? And we answer:

Rabba said: “New” is different

“new”,

for there is no concern that he will come to eat from the new grain at the time of its reaping, because

since you did not permit him

to reap it in his usual manner with a sickle,

but

with a change

by plucking

it by hand. For by Torah law it is forbidden to reap any grain before the reaping of the Omer, as it is stated: “And you shall bring the Omer, the first of your harvest, to the priest,” implying that the reaping of the Omer shall be the first reaping from the new crop. And only by means of a change is it permitted to reap beforehand. And because of this,

he remembers

that this grain is from the new crop, which is forbidden for eating, and he will not come to eat it.

Abaye said to him

to Rabba:

This works

with regard to there being no concern lest he eat from the grain

at the time of plucking

, since, as stated, he remembers then through the change; but at the time of

grinding and sifting

the flour, when there is no prohibition against doing them in the usual manner [since the Torah did not prohibit grinding and sifting before the Omer],

what is there to say

? How will he remember, while doing them, not to eat from them? After all, the flour in the markets of Jerusalem was ground and sifted before the Omer. And how did Rabbi Judah permit this to them?

Rava answers:

This is not difficult

, because they also performed these labors by means of a change, so that it would serve as a reminder because of the prohibition—

Grinding

they performed

with a reḥiya

[a millstone]

of did

, and not ordinarily with a water mill. And

sifting

they performed

on top of a sieve

, turning the sieve over and sifting from the other side.

The difficulty still remains:

But that which we learned: They reap

before the Omer [even without a change]

a field requiring irrigation

, a field that requires watering by human agency,

and those in the valleys

, grain that grew in a valley. Because the grain that grew there is not of the choice kind, and they do not bring the Omer meal-offering from it. And the Torah prohibited reaping before the Omer only with grain suitable for bringing an Omer from it.

And they derive this from the contradiction between the verses. In one place it is stated: “When you come into the land that I give you, and you reap its harvest and bring the Omer,” implying that it is permitted to reap before the Omer, even not for the purpose of the Omer. And at the end of the verse it is stated: “And you shall bring the Omer, the first of your harvest, to the priest,” implying that the reaping of the Omer shall be the beginning of all reaping. How is this to be understood?

Rather, we derive as follows: From a place from which you bring the Omer, you may not reap other grain before it. But from a place from which you do not bring the Omer, you may reap even before it.

But they may not make a heap

: It is forbidden to make a heap of the grain until after the bringing of the Omer. For the Sages permitted only reaping, because the grain is liable to spoil if they wait to reap it until after the Omer. But with regard to a heap, where there is no concern of spoilage if they wait until after the Omer, they did not permit making it before the Omer.

And we established

this Mishna in tractate Menachot

as according to Rabbi Judah.

Что можно сказать

What is there to say

? Why did Rabbi Judah permit reaping from a field requiring irrigation even without a change, and was he not concerned lest one come to eat from the grain at the time of its reaping?

And we answer:

Rather, Abaye said: “New”—

a person distances himself

from it

from it.

For they were not accustomed to eating it throughout the entire year, and people are not accustomed to stretch out their hand and take some of it into their mouths. Therefore Rabbi Judah did not decree lest he forget now and come to eat from it.

But

leaven—

a person does not distance himself

from it

from it.

For throughout the entire year they are accustomed to eating leaven. Therefore Rabbi Judah is concerned lest, at the time of the search, he forget and eat from the leaven.

Rava said

: Is it only

Rabbi Judah’s

position concerning leaven

against Rabbi Judah’s

position concerning “new” that is

difficult

, whereas

the Sages’ position against the Sages’ position is not difficult?

For one must also ask concerning them: Why, in our Mishna, did the Sages obligate one to search even after the time of the prohibition, and were they not concerned lest they come to eat from the leaven, whereas with regard to “new,” Rabbi Meir [who is among the Sages who disagreed with Rabbi Judah] prohibited working with new grain lest one come to eat it?

Rather, Rava said: Rabbi Judah’s position concerning Rabbi Judah’s position is not difficult—

as we answered

above, that with leaven there is greater concern than with “new,” because one does not distance himself from it.

The Sages’ position against the Sages’ position is also not difficult,

because according to their view, indeed one must be concerned with regard to every matter forbidden for eating, lest he come to eat it while occupied with it. But during the search for leaven there is no concern for this. For

he himself searches for it

after the leaven

to burn it

, since this is the entire purpose of the search. And how can we be concerned, lest

he is eating from it?

After all, the very search serves as a reminder to him that leaven is forbidden for eating.

Rav Ashi said: Rabbi Judah’s position concerning Rabbi Judah’s position is not difficult,

for

“flour and parched grain”

we learned, which were in the markets of Jerusalem, and these are not fit for eating. [For flour is not edible, and parched grain too is not fit for eating, as will be explained below.] Therefore Rabbi Judah was not concerned lest they come to eat them. This is unlike leaven, which is fit for eating.

that they were found in the markets of Jerusalem, and these are not fit for consumption. [Flour is not edible as it is, and parched grain is likewise not fit for consumption, as will be explained below.] Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda did not fear that people might come to eat them, unlike leaven, which is fit for consumption.

The Gemara rejects this:

Rav Ashi’s statement is nonsense!

It is not correct.

For

this works from

the time when it is made

parched grain and thereafter

, after the grain has dried in the oven, when it is certainly not fit for eating. But

initially,

before it dried, while the grain was soft,

until

he made it

parched grain

, such as at the time of reaping, when it is fit for eating,

what is there to say

? How did Rabbi Judah permit working with it then?

And if you would say

, since they permitted reaping it only

by means of plucking,

he remembers that the grain is forbidden, and there is no concern that he will come to eat it; and

thus

отвечал

Rava

answered above. [But the difficulty against him was how they permitted grinding and sifting; concerning this Rav Ashi came to answer that then it is already unfit for eating.]

The difficulty still remains:

But

that which we learned,

“They reap a field requiring irrigation and those in the valleys,”

even without a change,

and we established

this Mishna

as according to Rabbi Judah—what is there to say?

Why did Rabbi Judah permit reaping, when at the time of reaping it is still fit for eating!?

And we conclude:

Rather, Rav Ashi’s statement is nonsense!

And necessarily we require Abaye’s answer, that one distances himself from “new,” unlike leaven, from which one does not distance himself.

And we further ask:

A

re

wherever one does not distance himself from it, does Rabbi Judah decree?

And we learned

in tractate Shabbat:

A person may not pierce

[make a hole in]

an eggshell

[the shell of an egg]

and fill it with oil, and place it

on the eve of Shabbat

beside the lamp

[a small earthenware lamp with oil inside it],

so that it will drip

drop by drop from the oil into the lamp, so that the lamp will continue to burn for a long time. And the reason is that we are concerned lest on Shabbat he take oil from the tube for his eating, and become liable on account of extinguishing. Since he designated the oil for the lamp, it turns out that by taking the oil from the tube he hastens its extinguishing.

And even

if the tube

is of earthenware

, he may not place it beside the lamp. For although it is repulsive, we are concerned lest he take oil from inside it for his eating.

And Rabbi Judah permits

placing a perforated tube filled with oil beside the lamp.

It follows that Rabbi Judah does not decree lest one come to eat from a forbidden thing, even with regard to something from which people do not distance themselves, such as oil, which they are accustomed to use.

And why, in our Mishna, does he decree with regard to leaven lest one come to eat it? [But with regard to the Sages’ position against the Sages’ position it is not difficult. For it was explained above that the Sages always decree, except with regard to leaven, because he himself searches for it in order to burn it and will not come to eat it.]

Но противоречие между мнениями мудрецов не является трудным. Ведь выше было разъяснено, что мудрецы всегда устанавливают такие запреты, кроме случая квасного: человек сам разыскивает его, чтобы сжечь, и не станет есть его.

And we answer:

There,

with oil,

because of the stringency of Shabbat, people distance themselves greatly

from it, and therefore Rabbi Judah did not decree there lest they come to eat from it.

And he raises a contradiction

[and asks a seeming contradiction]

from Shabbat against Shabbat.

For it was taught: If the rope of a bucket is severed

in its middle,

he may not tie it

on Shabbat, because this is a permanent knot, since it is made to endure forever, and he is liable on account of the labor of tying.

Rather, he makes a bow

, making only a loop.

Rabbi Judah says

: He connects the two severed ends of the rope to one another

and wraps around it a punda

[belt]

or a paskia

[strap].

Provided that he does not make a loop on it

[the severed rope], since, while he is occupied with making the loop, there is concern lest he come to make a knot.

Rabbi Judah’s position against Rabbi Judah’s position is difficult,

since with oil he does not decree, while with a rope he does decree, although both cases concern Shabbat?

The Sages’ position against the Sages’ position is difficult,

since with oil they decreed, whereas with the rope they do not decree against making a loop?

And we answer:

The ruling of the Rabbis concerning the ruling of the Rabbis is not difficult.

When

oil

placed in a tube beside the lamp

is exchanged with

ordinary oil,

it is confused; therefore, they decree lest he forget and take from the oil in the tube, for it resembles ordinary oil. But

therefore they decree that perhaps he will forget and take some of the oil in the tube, since it resembles ordinary oil. But

a loop is not confused with a knot,

and therefore they do not decree, since if they permit him to make a loop, he will not come to make a knot.

The ruling of Rabbi Yehuda concerning the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda

also

is not difficult.

For

the reason of Rabbi Yehuda

who forbids making a loop on Shabbat

is not because he decrees a loop on account of a knot, but because he holds that a loop itself is a knot.

And it is forbidden by Torah law.

We raise another difficulty:

And the Rabbis contradict the Rabbis.

For we learned

in tractate Shabbat:

One may tie

on Shabbat

a bucket with a belt

with a belt, in order to draw water with it from the well. Since he does not intend to ruin the belt and leave it there permanently, this is a knot that is not permanent.

But one may not

tie the bucket

with a rope.

And the Gemara will immediately explain the reason.

And Rabbi Yehuda permits

even tying the bucket with a rope.

And we inquire concerning it:

What kind of rope?

Which rope is being discussed?

If you say, an ordinary rope,

an ordinary rope designated for this purpose, is it possible that

Rabbi Yehuda permits

tying with it? But

it is a permanent knot, for certainly he will come to nullify it,

so that it will remain there forever. And it follows that he transgresses the labor of tying?

Rather, it is obvious

that the rope under discussion is

a weaver’s rope

[of weavers], which is not suitable for drawing water on a permanent basis. And it is not a permanent knot.

And

even so,

the Rabbis decreed

not to tie with

a weaver’s rope, on account of an ordinary rope

which one ties permanently. But we said that the Rabbis do not decree a loop on account of a knot; why, then, do they decree a weaver’s rope on account of an ordinary rope?

And we answer:

Yes; one rope is confused with another,

a weaver’s rope resembles an ordinary rope, and therefore one must decree this on account of that. But

a loop and a knot

do not resemble one another; therefore

it is not confused,

and there is no concern that, because they permit him to make a loop, he will come to make a knot as well.

We raise another difficulty:

And

when

wherever a person refrains from it

does Rabbi Yehuda not decree?

But we learned

in tractate Bekhorot:

A firstborn

of a pure animal

that has been seized by blood,

which became ill because of an excess of blood, and its cure is that its blood be let,

even if it is dying,

that is, it is liable to die if its blood is not let,

one may not let its blood,

even in a case where the letting does not cause a blemish in it, meaning that it recovers afterward,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda,

who decrees on account of letting blood in a case where a blemish is made, for it is forbidden by Torah law to make a blemish in a firstborn.

And the Sages say: Let its blood

it is permitted to let its blood,

provided that he does not inflict a blemish upon it,

that he does not do it in a manner from which it does not recover afterward, such as cutting a bone or nicking its lip or its ear.

But concerning consecrated animals, everyone refrains from them, and even so Rabbi Yehuda decrees concerning a firstborn that one may not let its blood at all, on account of a case where a blemish is made?