Pesachim 39b (לט:) — the Talmud in English

And we object: We have already learned the law of seeds that are sown

according to their proper law

in the Mishna

already. For we learned:

A garden bed that is

six

by six

handbreadths,

one sows five seeds in it

of five different species.

Four

of them are sown

on the four sides,

each species within the boundary of a different side,

and one

species

in the middle! Thus, there is a distance of at least three handbreadths between each species and the next. At this distance, the seeds do not draw nourishment from one another .

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

And we answer:

Lest you say, this applies

that this distance is sufficient between one species and another only

with regard to seeds, but not with regard to vegetables,

because that is insufficient for vegetables, as vegetables draw nourishment more extensively than seeds.

He teaches us

Rav that their law is the same as the law of seeds.

And we object:

Does this mean that

the nourishment drawn by

vegetables is stronger than that drawn by

seeds,

and

that this is why Rav had to equate them? But we have learned the opposite.

For

we learned: One may not sow any types of seeds

of different species

in a single garden bed.

Even not at the measure of five species in a bed measuring six by six. But

one may sow all types of vegetables

together

in a single garden bed

at the aforementioned distance! And when we learned, “A bed measuring six by six, one sows five seeds in it,” it was referring to vegetable seeds.

The difficulty returns: What does Rav teach us?

And we answer:

Lest you 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 a single garden bed at all.

He teaches us

Rav that they are species of vegetables. Therefore, they may be sown in a single garden bed according to their proper law.

And we are astonished: Is maror a species of

seeds

that

it might enter your mind

to say so?

But we learned: These are

the

vegetables

with which a person fulfills his obligation on Passover!

And

so

bar Kappara taught: These are

the

vegetables!

And

so

the school of Shmuel taught: These are

the

vegetables!

And we answer:

Rav specifically needed to teach us the case of lettuce,

that it is sown together with four other species in a single bed measuring six by six. For

it might enter your mind to say: Since ultimately it

the lettuce

will harden,

as its stalk hardens and becomes thick,

we should give it more space,

and a distance of three handbreadths between it and another species should not be sufficient.

And we prove this reasoning: Did

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥanina not say: For a cabbage stalk that has hardened, one widens its space

to the area of

a quarter-kav plot!

It is not sufficient to distance it by three handbreadths; rather, another species is distanced from it on every side by the area of a quarter-kav plot [the measure of the area in which a quarter-kav is sown. The calculation of the area of a quarter-kav plot is based on the calculation of a seah-and-a-half plot. We find that in the courtyard of the Tabernacle, which was one hundred cubits by fifty cubits, there was the measure of a seah-and-a-half plot].

Apparently, since ultimately it

the cabbage

will harden, we give it more space.

And I would have said that the same applies to lettuce: Since it will ultimately harden and become thick,

we should give it more space. He teaches us

Rav that it is sufficient for it to be distributed as one of five seeds in a bed measuring six by six.

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 the vegetables, for even when dry, it still retains the taste of maror.

But with regard to the leaves

of the vegetables, 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! For they no longer contain any taste, and are merely like dust.

And we object:

But from the fact that it teaches

in the

latter clause, “And one fulfills his obligation

with the

stalks,” it follows that the first clause

deals with

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

And we answer: The first clause, too, deals with the stalk. And the latter clause

is an explanation

of the first clause. And this is what it says:

When it teaches

in the first clause

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

.

We object:

It was taught in a beraita:

One fulfills his obligation with them

[with the leaves]

and with their stalks, whether

they are

moist or

dry,

these are 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 Rabbi Meir and the Sages agree

that

one fulfills his obligation with them when they are

wilted

[slightly dry ].

But not

when they are

pickled

in vinegar,

nor when they are

boiled

[cooked extensively],

nor when they are

cooked

in the ordinary manner of cooking! For they no longer contain the taste of maror.

The general rule 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 stalks, whether they are moist or dry.” Apparently, one fulfills his obligation even with dry leaves. This is a difficulty for Rav Ḥisda.

And we answer:

Interpret it [explain] this statement of Rabbi Meir, “whether they are moist or dry,” as referring

only to the stalk!

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

when they are

wilted!

They said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Rabbi Tzadok: One fulfills his obligation with them

even when they are

wilted!

Rami bar Ḥama raised a dilemma: May a person fulfill his obligation

on Passover

with maror of second tithe in Jerusalem?

And we explain:

According to Rabbi Akiva, you need not raise the dilemma,

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

Now,

if

with matza,

whose obligation of tithes is

by Torah law, one fulfills his obligation

with second tithe,

with

maror, which is a vegetable and whose obligation of tithes is only

by rabbinic law, should we need

to say that one fulfills his obligation with it when it is second tithe?!

The dilemma is necessary according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili

who 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 regard? Do we say that it is specifically

with matza,

whose obligation is

by Torah law, that one does not fulfill his obligation

with second tithe?

But with maror,

of produce that is subject only to

rabbinic second tithe, one fulfills his obligation

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

Or perhaps, whatever the Sages instituted, they instituted in the model of Torah law!

And once the Sages instituted the law of second tithe with regard to it, it is considered as though it is not permitted in all settlements. And since maror and matza are juxtaposed to one another, with regard to maror as well 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 equivalent in every respect with regard to their laws .

Mishna:

One may not soak

on Passover

bran

[the husks of wheat]

for chickens,

because by doing so it becomes chametz.

But one may scald it

with boiling water, because boiling water prevents it from becoming chametz.

A woman may not soak

on Passover

the bran

in order

to carry

it

in her hand to the bathhouse!

For it was their practice to rub the body with bran. It is forbidden to soak it because it becomes chametz through soaking.

But she may rub

the bran

on her flesh

when it [the bran] is

dry!

Even though her body is wet from the water, the bran does not become chametz from such a small amount of water .

A person may not chew wheat

in his mouth

and

afterward

place

it

on his wound!

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

The Sages taught: These are things that do not

become chametz:

Dough

that has been baked!

Once dough has been baked, it can never again become chametz, no matter how long it is soaked in water.

And

dough

that has been cooked!

This will be explained shortly.

And

dough

that has been scalded, which was scalded

in

boiling water!

For when it is placed into boiling water, the water prevents it from becoming chametz .

And we are astonished: How can it teach that cooked dough

does not

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

if one cooks it, it will become chametz

[before its cooking is completed, it will become chametz in the interim].

Rav Pappa said:

It is referring to

baked dough that one cooked

after baking it.

He is teaching us

that once it has been baked, it does not become chametz, even through cooking.

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

[water dripping from the roof]

even

if water dripped onto it

the entire day, does not become chametz!

Because the uninterrupted disturbance caused by the dripping prevents it from becoming chametz. This is like that which we learned below [48b], that as long as one is occupied with the dough, it does not become chametz [

Rishonim].

Rav Pappa said: And this is

only when the dripping is

a drop immediately following a drop!

That is, one drop falls immediately after another, without an interval between them. And it must be baked immediately after the dripping stops.

Rosh.

The school of Rav Sheila said: Tutika

[a type of flour-based food]

is permitted

to eat on Passover!

And we object:

But it was taught: Tutika is forbidden!

And we answer:

It is not difficult. This

case in which the school of Rabbi Sheila permitted it is when

he prepared it with oil and salt

[they cooked the flour in oil and salt] without water ! It therefore does not become chametz. As we have established: Fruit juice does not cause leavening !

And

the case

in which it teaches that it is forbidden is when

he prepared it

the flour

with water and salt!

For the water causes it to become chametz.

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

[flour made from moist wheat roasted in an oven]! It was customary to put flour into a cooked dish in order to thicken it. It is forbidden to do so on Passover because the water in the dish causes it to become chametz. This is forbidden even with roasted-wheat flour. Although baked food does not become chametz, and roasted wheat is like baked wheat, nevertheless we are concerned

lest the flour was not roasted

[was not toasted]

properly.

It can still become chametz.

And although flour does not become chametz when it is scalded with boiling water, the practice is to add it to the cooked dish before it boils.