Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 5, scan section 30

even one hour before Passover, it need not be removed." " If the owner ^ however, be particular about the dough,'' etc. How can defilement be compared to the laws of Passover. Concerning the latter it depends entirely upon the size, while as for the former, it depends upon whether the owner is particular about it or not ? Said R. Papa: The Mishna should be ex- plained thus: "So it is also with respect to defilement on Pass- over, if it be of the size prescribed on that festival; and ' if the owner be particular,' etc., refers to any other time of the year." How should this be understood ? In this wise: If a reptile con- taminated such dough on the Passover, and the dough, being of the size of an olive, is for the time being a prohibited thing; hence it serves as an intervention between the uncleanness (of the reptile) and the trough ; but at any other time it depends whether the owner is particular about it or not. If he is, it proves an intervention ; but if he intends to leave it in the trough, it does not. MISHNA: Dull dough (which does not exhibit any signs of having risen) must not be used, if another dough which had been 74 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. kneaded at the same time and was of equal size and quality had already become leavened. GEMARA: How is it if there is no other dough on hand (with which to compare the dull dough) ? Said R. Abuhai in the name of Resh Lakish: "If it had lain the length of time it is required to walk from the tower of Nunia to Tiberias," which is a mile. MISHNA: How can the first of the dough (due the priest) be separated on the Passover when it had become unclean ? R. Eliezer says : " It should only be named after it had been baked. Ben Bathyra says, however, " It should be put in cold water." Said R. Jehudah to him: "This is not the leaven concerning which it is written, ' It shall not be seen nor found in thy house.' Therefore it may be separated, and left lying until evening, regardless of whether it become leavened or not." GEMARA: It was taught: He who bakes on a festival for the coming week-days, R. Hisda says, incurs the penalty of stripes; but Rabba says, that he does not. R. Hisda says, that he incurs that penalty because he does not admit of the supposition that, had the man called guests, he could have con- sumed the entire quantity baked, while Rabba holds, that because this could have been done (whether it was done or not) the man is not culpable. Said Rabba to R. Hisda: " If thou dost not admit of this supposition, how then can it be allowed to cook on a festival for the Sabbath?" and R. Hisda answered: "By means of the Erub of cooked things."* " May, then, a biblical prohibition be disregarded even by means of such an Erub?" queried Rabba, and R. Hisda replied: " Cooking on a festival for the Sabbath is, according to biblical law, permissible, and the sages only prohibited it as a precautionary measure, lest some people would cook on a festival for week-days. Hence an Erub of cooked things is a sign that this must not be done." Rabba objected: " We have learned: ' An animal which is supposed to be in danger of dying must not be slaughtered on a festival, unless there will be suflficient time after the slaughter- ing to roast and eat a piece of the size of an olive.' Thus we see, that there must be sufficient time to roast and eat a piece of that size, even if the man have no desire to eat it. According to my opinion, from the fact that I admit of the supposition- * See introduction to Tract Erubin. TRACT PESACHIM (PASSOVER). 75 that he could eat it, the man is allowed to slaughter the animal ; but according to thy opinion, if thou dost not admit of such a supposition, how can the man be allowed to slaughter the dying animal ?" R. Hisda replied: " In this case, where a pecuniary injury would have resulted, the prohibition was removed," and Rabba rejoined: "Will, then, a biblical prohibition be disre- garded on account of a pecuniary injury ? " " Yea," answered R. Hisda; " on account of such pecuniary injury the man would make up his mind to eat a piece of that animal of the size of an olive, and as he cannot do this unless the animal is ritually slaughtered, it is permitted to slaughter it." Said Rami bar Hama: " The same point of difference as was quoted between R. Hisda and Rabba exists between R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshua. R. Eliezer admits of the supposition (that a certain act was done whether it was done or not) ; therefore he decrees, that the dough should first be baked and then named ; because he holds that while the man is baking for himself he can bake for another also. R. Jehoshua does not admit of such a supposition and hence decrees, that the first of the dough should be separated before baking." Rejoined R. Papa: "(How canst thou say of a certainty that R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshua difTer concerning this supposi- tion ?) Perhaps R. Eliezer only admits of the supposition in a case of where a man, when baking each loaf of bread, may do so for himself alone (and afterwards separate a piece of a loaf as the legal first dough for all, which would not involve much labor) ; but as for the instance cited in the controversy between R. Hisda and Rabba, where it was an impossibility to consume the bread baked on a festival for the week-days without calling guests, and the supposition is, that guests were called, it may be that R. Eliezer in that case does not admit of such a suppo- sition." Said R. Shesha the son of R. Idi: " Perhaps the argu- ment may be reversed, namely: * In the case of loaves subject to the legal first of the dough, where it is a certainty that one of the loaves must not be used by the owner nor by anybody else, R. Jehoshua does not admit of the supposition, whereas in the point of controversy between R. Hisda and Rabba, where all the loaves baked may be eaten, if not by the man himself by guests, R. Jehoshua may admit of the supposition (that guests were called).' " The sages related the above to R. Jeremiah and R. Zera. R. Jeremiah accepted (the view of Rami bar Hama); but R. 76 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. Zera would not. Said R. Jeremiah to the latter: " Should the decision of a question which for such a length of time remained unanswered and was finally decided by so great a man as Rami bar Hama, not be accepted by us?" and he answered: How can I accept it ? Have we not learned in a Boraitha that R. Jehoshua said to R. Eliezer: " According to thy decree permit- ting the baking of the dough and the subsequent naming thereof, would the man not be culpable of transgressing the law con- tained in the passage [Exod. xii. i6], * No manner of work shall be done on them (the festival-days),' and R. Eliezer did not reply. Should he not have said : ' My reason is based upon