Pesachim 35b — the Talmud in English

Fruit juices. ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

And fruit juices do not cause fermentation !

We learned in the Mishna: And

one fulfills [the obligation] with demai and with tithe, etc.!

And we raised the question concerning it: And why does one fulfill [the obligation] with

demai?

For it is not fit for him

to eat! For the Sages prohibited it for eating. And we hold that with every item whose fermentation entails liability because of another prohibition besides the prohibition of hametz, one does not fulfill the obligation of matza with it .

And we answer: Since the prohibition of demai is only a rabbinic stringency [for most unlearned people tithe], the Sages prohibited it only to a wealthy person. But to a poor person it is permitted. And

since, if he wishes, he can declare his property ownerless, he becomes poor, and

he

eats demai, now also

the demai is considered

fit for him

to eat! For through the ownerlessness it becomes fit for him. And since it is in his power to bring the demai to a state in which there is only the prohibition of hametz, he fulfills his obligation of matza with it .

And the poor person is permitted [to eat] demai, as we learned:

They feed poor people demai

. And

likewise they feed

the military billeting

[the troops of the kings of Israel , who defend against the enemies, and are Israelites. And the inhabitants of the towns are obligated to provide their sustenance]

demai!

Since they are not found in their place of residence, their status is that of poor people, who are permitted [to eat] demai.

And Rav Huna said: A tanna taught: The House of Shammai say: They may not feed poor people demai. And they may not feed

the military billeting

demai!

And the House of Hillel say: They may feed

the poor and the military billeting demai!

We learned in the Mishna: And one fulfills [the obligation] with

first tithe from which its teruma has been removed, etc.!

And we raised the question concerning it: Is it not

obvious

that one fulfills [the obligation] with it?

For

this

since its teruma has been removed

[its terumat ma'aser], it is

ordinary produce

completely

become. And what does the Mishna come to teach us?

And we answer:

It is necessary

to teach us only concerning first tithe

whose separation preceded [the other separations]

while [the grain was still] in the stalks,

before it was smoothed.

For produce does not become prohibited as tevel until the completion of its work, which is the smoothing at the threshing floor. However, if he separated teruma and tithes from it before the completion of the work, the terumot and tithes take effect.

And produce whose work has already been completed is first obligated to have teruma gedola separated from it. For the Torah called it “first.” And afterward he separates first tithe from what remains, and afterward he separates terumat ma'aser from the tithe.

But if its work has not yet been completed [so that it has not yet been designated as tevel], he is permitted to advance the tithe before the teruma gedola. Through this, the Levite gains the one-fiftieth portion in the tithe. For had he first separated teruma gedola, which is one-fiftieth, he would also separate from the portion intended to become tithe. But now, since he advanced the tithe, that tithe is exempt from teruma gedola. And he is obligated only in terumat ma'aser.

And this is what the Mishna speaks of. And it teaches us that since he advanced the tithing before smoothing,

and it was removed from it

[from the tithe]

the terumat ma'aser,

it is permitted for him to eat.

And

even though

the teruma gedola was not removed from it. And

this is the

law of Rabbi Abbahu.

For Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: First tithe whose separation preceded [the other separations] while [the grain was still] in the stalks is exempt from teruma gedola.

As it is stated concerning

first

tithe: “And you shall raise from it the gift of the Lord, a tithe from

the tithe.”

That is, the obligation of terumat ma'aser, which the Levite separates and gives to the kohen. And we expound: Only

“a tithe from the tithe”

have I said to you

to separate from it,

and not

have I also obligated [you] to separate

teruma gedola

from the tithe,

and

also

terumat ma'aser from the tithe .

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so, even if he advanced

the separation of first tithe

while [the grain was] in the pile

[after the produce had been smoothed and had become designated for teruma], before he separated teruma,

it too should be exempt

that tithe from teruma. For we exclude from this verse that the tithe is exempt from teruma.

He said to him,

Abaye:

Concerning you

[concerning this question of yours]

the verse says: “From all your gifts you shall raise every gift of the Lord”!

This implies that you shall raise teruma gedola even from the gift of the tithe.

And we raised the question concerning it:

And what did you see

to establish the verse that exempts from teruma gedola as referring to first tithe whose separation preceded [the other separations] while [the grain was still] in the stalks, and the verse that obligates [one] in teruma gedola as referring to first tithe whose separation preceded [the other separations] while [the grain was] in the pile ? And we answer:

This

tithe whose separation preceded [the other separations] while [the grain was] in the pile is more reasonably obligated in teruma gedola. For

it had been smoothed

[it had been smoothed and its work had been completed]! And it had already been designated as tevel with regard to teruma. And since it had already become obligated in it, it is no longer exempt from it. But

this

tithe whose separation preceded [the other separations] while [the grain was still] in the stalks had still

not been smoothed!

And since at the time that it became tithe it was not yet subject to teruma, it is more reasonable to exempt it from teruma.

We learned in the Mishna: And one fulfills [the obligation]

with second tithe and consecrated property that were redeemed!

And we raised the question concerning it:

It is obvious

that one fulfills [the obligation] with them. For they are already completely ordinary produce.

And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing? With a case where he gave

for their redemption only

the principal, and he did not give the additional fifth!

For the owner who redeems them is obligated to add a fifth of their value to their redemption, in addition to their value.

And

it teaches us that the

giving of

the additional fifth does not prevent

them from going out to ordinary status.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the kohanim

fulfill [the obligation]

with

matza of

hallah and

with that of

teruma!

And we raised the question concerning it:

It is obvious

that one fulfills [the obligation] with them, for they are permitted to kohanim for eating.

And we answer:

It might have entered your mind to say that

with

matza which is

that is

equally available

and permitted

to every

person we require.

It teaches us,

as it is written

“matzot”

in the plural, that it implies that even

matzot

that are not permitted to everyone

it includes!

Those people who are permitted to eat them fulfill [the obligation] with them. We learned in the Mishna:

But not

does one fulfill [the obligation]

with

matza of

tevel, etc.!

And we raised the question concerning it:

It is obvious !

For if it fermented, it is prohibited also because of tevel. And one fulfills [the obligation] only with that whose prohibition is solely because of hametz.

And we answer:

It is necessary,

but

with tevel

that is

subject

only

by rabbinic law.

And for example,

when he planted it in an unperforated flowerpot.

For it is not obligated in tithing by Torah law, since it is not attached to the ground . It teaches us that even so one does not fulfill [the obligation] with it , because it is a commandment performed through a transgression .

This is not comparable to demai, with which one fulfills [the obligation] even though it is prohibited by rabbinic law, because demai is permitted to poor people and to the military billeting. Therefore even a wealthy person, for whom it is prohibited, at least fulfills [the obligation] with it after the fact. In contrast, rabbinic tevel is prohibited to everyone.

We learned in the Mishna: And one does not fulfill [the obligation] with first tithe from which its teruma was not removed!

And it entered our minds that it speaks of tithe from which its terumat ma'aser was not removed.

And we raised the question concerning it:

It is obvious

that one does not fulfill [the obligation] with it. For it is tevel.

And we answer:

It is necessary,

but [it speaks of] first tithe from which its teruma gedola was not removed. And for example,

when he advanced [its separation] while [the grain was] in the pile,

after it had already become subject to teruma.

It might have entered your mind to say

that even this tithe is exempt from teruma gedola,

as Rav Pappa said to Abaye,

that it too is included in the exclusion, “a tithe from the tithe,” and not teruma gedola from the tithe.

It teaches us

that this is not so. Rather, since its work had already been completed and it became obligated in teruma before the tithe was separated, it is no longer exempt from it. And

as he answered him

Abaye to Rav Pappa.

We learned in the Mishna:

And not

does one fulfill [the obligation]

with

matza of

second tithe and consecrated property that were not redeemed, etc.!

And we raised the question concerning it:

It is obvious!

For they are prohibited for eating.

And we answer:

Actually,

it speaks of second tithe and consecrated property

that were redeemed.

And what is

“not redeemed”

that it teaches? It means:

that were not redeemed in accordance with their law. And for example,

second tithe that he redeemed on an asimon

,

which is a silver coin that was not stamped with the form of a coin. And initially one redeems second tithe only with a coin upon which its form has been stamped, because

the Torah said

concerning the redemption of second tithe:

“And you shall bind the money in your hand,”

“and you shall go to the place that the Lord your God will choose.” And from the fact that it is written “you shall bind,” we expound that one transfers sanctity specifically onto

an item that has a form.

And

likewise, it speaks of

consecrated property

that was redeemed, but that was not redeemed according to its law. For example,

when he transferred its sanctity onto land!

For one redeems consecrated property only with money or with movable property that is worth money. As it is written concerning one who consecrated a field and came to redeem it: “And he shall give the money, and it shall become his” .

The Sages taught: Could it be that a person fulfills [the obligation] with tevel that was not rectified?—

And the Gemara interrupts the words of the beraita in the middle and asks: What does it mean by “tevel that was not rectified”? Is it not

every tevel also not rectified?

And we explain:

Rather,

it speaks

of tevel that was not completely rectified.

And for example,

when the teruma gedola was removed from it. And

still

the terumat ma'aser was not removed from it,

and not

first tithe,

and not

second tithe.

And not only these, which contain sanctity [for terumat ma'aser has sanctity like teruma gedola. And first tithe also has sanctity because of the terumat ma'aser included in it. And second tithe has sanctity as well, and may be eaten only in purity and in Jerusalem], but

even

if only

poor tithe

was not removed from it, one does not fulfill the obligation of matza with it! And this is so even though poor tithe has no sanctity whatsoever, and is ordinary produce in every respect.

And concerning this the tanna asked:

From where

do we know that one does not fulfill [the obligation] with it ? He answers:

The verse states: “You shall not eat hametz with it;

for seven days you shall eat matzot with it.”

With that whose prohibition is because of

“Do not eat hametz with it,”

[if it fermented], one fulfills the obligation of matza with it [when it did not ferment].

Excluded

is this

tevel, which

if it fermented,

its prohibition is not because of

“Do not eat hametz, but because of

“Do not eat tevel.”

And even poor tithe makes the pile tevel and prohibits it for eating as long as it has not been separated .

And we raise a difficulty: how does he say concerning tevel that became leavened that its prohibition is not because of leaven?

And

is it that

where has the prohibition of leaven gone?!

Rav Sheshet said: Whose opinion is this? It is Rabbi Shimon’s, who says: A prohibition does not take effect upon a prohibition!

And since the prohibition of tevel preceded upon this produce, the prohibition of leaven no longer takes effect upon it.