Pesachim 39b — the Talmud in English

And we object: the law of seeds being sown

according to their halakha

we already learned

before. For we learned:

A garden bed that is

of a size of

six

handbreadths

by six handbreadths; one sows within it five seeds

of five different species.

Four

of them

on the four sides,

each species within the boundary of a different side,

and

one species

in the middle!

It follows that there is a distance of at least three handbreadths between one species and another. And at this distance the seeds do not draw nourishment from one another.

And since it is an explicit Mishna, why did Rav need to teach us this law?

And we answer:

You might say: this matter

that this distance between one species and another is sufficient applies specifically

to seeds. But not to vegetables

for this is not sufficient, because vegetables draw nourishment more than seeds.

He teaches us

Rav that their law is like the law of seeds.

And we object:

Does this mean that

the nourishment of

vegetables is stronger than

the nourishment of

seeds,

and for that reason Rav needed to equate them? But we learned the opposite.

For

we learned: All kinds of seeds may not be sown

different species

in one garden bed.

And not even in the measure of five species on a garden bed of six by six. But

all kinds of vegetables may be sown

together

in one garden bed

at the stated distance! And when we learned, “A garden bed of six by six; one sows within it five seeds,” it was speaking of vegetable seeds.

And again there is a difficulty: what does Rav teach us?

And we answer:

You might say: these

vegetables from which one fulfills [the mitzva of]

maror,

are a species of

seeds,

and not a species of vegetables. Therefore they may not be sown in one garden bed at all.

He teaches us

Rav that they are kinds of vegetables. Therefore they may be sown in one garden bed according to their halakha.

And we are astonished: Is maror a species of

seeds

that

it would enter your mind

to say so?

But we learned:

These are

vegetables

with which a person fulfills his obligation on Passover!

And

so

bar Kappara taught:

These are

vegetables!

And

so

the school of Shmuel taught:

These are

vegetables!

And we answer:

It was horseradish that Rav needed

to teach us, that it may be sown together with four other species in one garden bed of six by six. For

you might say: since its end

the horseradish’s

is to become hard,

for its stalk hardens and becomes thick,

we should give it more space,

and a distance of three handbreadths between it and another species will not suffice.

And we establish this reasoning by proof: Did

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥanina not say: For a cabbage stalk that has hardened, they widen for it

a place of

a quarter of a beit se'a!

And it does not suffice for it to be distanced three handbreadths; rather, they distance another species from it on every side by the distance of a quarter of a beit se'a [the measure of the area in which a quarter-kav is sown. The calculation of the area of a quarter of a beit se'a is based on the calculation of a beit se'ataim, as we find concerning the courtyard of the Tabernacle, which was one hundred cubits by fifty cubits and contained the measure of a beit se'ataim].

It follows that, since its end

of the cabbage

is to become hard, we give it more space.

And I might say that the same applies to horseradish: because its end is to become hard and thick,

we should give it more space. He teaches us

Rav that spreading five seeds in a garden bed of six by six is sufficient for it.

We learned in the Mishna:

One fulfills his obligation with them whether they are moist or dry!

Rav Ḥisda said: They taught

this

only with regard to the stalk

of those vegetables, for even when it is dry, the taste of maror still remains in it.

But with regard to the leaves,

when they are

moist, one does not

[fulfill his obligation with them]. But when they are

dry, one does not

fulfill his obligation with them! Since they no longer have any taste, they are merely like dust.

And we object:

But from the fact that it teaches

in the

latter clause, “

and one fulfills his obligation

with their stalk,” it follows that the first clause

speaks of

leaves! And concerning them it teaches, “whether they are moist or dry,” contrary to Rav Ḥisda.

And we answer: The first clause, too, speaks of the stalk. And the latter clause

И отвечают: даже начало относится к стеблю. А конец

explains

the first clause. And this is what it says:

When it teaches

in the first clause

“whether they are moist or dry,” it teaches it with regard to the stalk

.

He raised an objection:

It was taught in a beraita:

One fulfills his obligation with them

[with the leaves]

and with their stalk, whether

they are

moist or

dry,

dry—

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say:

When they are

moist, one fulfills his obligation with them.

But when they are

dry, one does not fulfill his obligation with them!

And they agree,

Rabbi Meir and the Sages,

that one fulfills his obligation with them

when they are

withered

[slightly dry].

But not

when they are

pickled

in vinegar,

nor

when they are

boiled

[cooked extensively],

nor

when they are

cooked

by ordinary cooking! Since they no longer have the taste of maror.

The general principle is: Anything that contains the taste of maror, one fulfills his obligation with it. And anything that does not contain the taste of maror, one does not fulfill his obligation with it!

In any event, it teaches, “One fulfills his obligation with them and with their stalk, whether they are moist or dry.” It follows that one fulfills his obligation even with dry leaves. And this is difficult for Rav Ḥisda.

And we answer:

Interpret

what Rabbi Meir said, “whether they are moist or dry,” as referring

to the stalk

alone!

The Sages taught: One does not fulfill his obligation with them

when they are

withered!

In the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Rabbi Tzadok they said: One fulfills his obligation with them

even when they are

withered!

Rami bar Ḥama asked: What is the law as to whether a person fulfills his obligation

on Passover

with maror of second tithe in Jerusalem?

And we explain:

According to Rabbi Akiva, you need not ask

and it is obvious that one fulfills his obligation with it. For according to him, one fulfills his obligation even with matza of second tithe. And

now,

if

with matza,

whose tithe obligation is

from Torah law, one fulfills

with second tithe,

with maror,

which is a vegetable and whose tithe obligation is only

by rabbinic law, should it be necessary

for us to say that one fulfills his obligation with it as second tithe?!

When you need to ask, ask according to Rabbi Yosei the Galilean

For he says that one does not fulfill his obligation with matza of second tithe, because it is not eaten “in all your settlements,” but only in Jerusalem.

What

is the law of maror in this matter? Do we say that specifically

with matza,

whose obligation

is from Torah law, one does not fulfill his obligation

with second tithe?

But maror,

of tithe that is only

rabbinic, one does fulfill his obligation

with it, since by Torah law it is properly eaten in all settlements?

Or perhaps, everything that the Sages instituted, they instituted in the likeness of Torah law!

And since the Sages instituted in its regard the law of tithe, it is considered as lacking permission in the settlements. And since maror and matza were equated with one another, also with regard to maror we require that it be eaten “in all your settlements.”

Rava said:

It is reasonable

that one does not fulfill his obligation with it. And

matza and maror

are equal in their laws in every respect.

Mishna:

One may not soak

on Passover

bran

[the husks of wheat

for chickens,

because it becomes leavened through this.

But one may scald

it with boiling water, because the boiling water does not allow it to become leavened.

A woman may not soak

on Passover

the bran

in order

to carry

[to carry] it

in her hand to the bathhouse!

For it was their practice to rub the body with bran. And it is forbidden to soak it, because it becomes leavened through soaking.

But she may rub

the bran

on her flesh

when it

is dry!

And even though her body is wet from the water, the bran does not become leavened through so small an amount of water.

A person may not chew wheat

in his mouth

and

afterward

place

it

on his wound!

For if he leaves it after chewing it and moistening it with the saliva in his mouth, it will become leavened.

The Sages taught: These are things that do not

После того как его испекли, оно уже никогда не квасится, сколько бы его ни замачивали в воде.

become leavened:

dough

that has been baked!

For once bread has been baked, it never again becomes leavened, however long it is soaked in water.

And

dough

that has been cooked!

And this will be explained shortly.

And

dough

that has been scalded, which they scalded

it

with boiling water!

For when it is placed into boiling water, the water does not allow it to become leavened.

And we are astonished: How does it teach that the

cooked

does not become leavened? When it is placed in the water, the water has not yet boiled, and it is not cooked in it immediately. If so,

if he cooks it, it will cause leavening

[until its cooking is completed, it will become leavened in the meantime].

Rav Pappa said:

With

baked dough that he cooked

after its baking

he is speaking!

And he teaches us that after it has been baked it does not become leavened, even through cooking.

It was taught: Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda says: Flour into which a leak fell

[water leaking] from the roof—

even

if water dripped onto it

the entire day, it does not become leavened!

Because the uninterrupted disturbance of the leak prevents it from becoming leavened. And this is like that which we learned below [48b], that as long as one is occupied with the dough, it does not become leavened

[the early authorities].

Rav Pappa said: And this is when he makes

the leak

drop immediately after drop!

That is, a drop falls immediately after another drop, without a delay between them. And he must bake it immediately after the leak stops.

Rosh.

The school of Rav Shila said: Vetiqa

[a type of flour food],

is permitted

to eat on Passover!

And we object:

But it was taught: Vetiqa is forbidden!

And we answer:

It is not difficult. This

that the school of Rabbi Shila permitted applies when

he prepared it with oil and salt

[they cooked the flour in oil and salt] without water . And through this it does not become leavened. As we hold: fruit juices do not cause leavening!

And

this

that it teaches that it is forbidden applies when

he prepared it

the flour

with water and salt!

For the water causes it to become leavened.

Mar Zutra said: A person should not thicken a pot with roasted-wheat flour

[flour of moist wheat that was roasted in an oven]! For it was their practice to put flour into the food in the pot in order to thicken it. And it is forbidden to do so on Passover, because through the water in the food it becomes leavened. And even with roasted-wheat flour it is forbidden. And although baked [flour] does not become leavened, and roasted wheat is like baked wheat, nevertheless we are concerned

perhaps it was not roasted

[not toasted]

properly

and it can still become leavened.

And although flour does not become leavened when it is scalded with boiling water, the practice is to put it into the food before it has boiled.