MISHNA: The law (prohibiting leaven to be seen or found in the house) on Passover is transgressed by the following articles: Babylonian Kuthach, (1) Median beer (made of wheat or barley), Edomite Vinegar (made by the fermentation of barley and wine), Egyptian zeethum, (2) the dough of bran used by dyers, the dough used by cooks, (3) and the paste used by scribes (to paste the sheets of paper together). R. Eliezer says, also the ornaments used by women. This is the general rule: What is composed of any kind of grain can cause a transgression of the law of Passover, and they that become guilty of such a transgression incur the penalty attached to the transgression of a negative commandment (4) (i.e., a commandment Commencing with "thou shalt not"); but not the penalty of Kareth (being cut off).
GEMARA: The rabbis taught: " Three things were said in reference
to Babylonian Kuthach: It depresses the heart, blinds the eyes, and makes
the body lean. It depresses the heart on account of the whey contained
therein, it blinds the eyes on account of the salt, and makes the body
lean on account of the mould (on the bread)."
They also taught the three things which cause much waste (in
Tract Erubin, page 171).
They also taught: " Three things lessen waste, make the body
erect, and increase the light of the eyes, and they are: Bread made
of fine meal, fat flesh of a virgin she-goat, and [69] three-year-old
wine. As a general thing, all things that are good for the eyes affect
the heart and other parts of the body, while those that are good
for the heart affect the eyes, excepting moist ginger (5) and pepper-pods
and the three things mentioned above."
Median beer and Edomite vinegar are prohibited, because
they are both made of barley.
What is Egyptian zeethum ? R. Joseph taught: "A mixture of equal
parts of barley, salt, and wild saffron," but R. Papa substitutes
wheat for barley. The ingredients of this mixture are soaked, then parched
over the fire, and afterwards ground. (When the liquid is fermented) it
is usually drunk from Passover to Pentecost. One who is constipated
is relieved thereby, and diarrhea is stopped. For a sick person or
a pregnant woman it is a dangerous beverage.
"The dough of bran used by dyers," etc. This was explained
to mean water of bran used to remove spots on the chest. (This is
according to the explanation of Rashi in Tract Chulin and of Maimonides.)
" The dough used by cooks," etc. This is explained to mean
dough made of grain which had only been one-third mature, and when
kneaded into dough and placed over a boiling pot of victuals would attract
all the impurities in the pot.
"Paste used by scribes." This was explained to mean glue;
but R. Shimi of Huzana said, that this is a cosmetic used by the
daughters of rich men for the hair, and the reason it is called "
paste used by scribes" is, because the rich women would leave it
for the use of the daughters of the poor scribes, and he does not
concur in the opinion that it means glue, be- cause it would in that
event be called " paste used by shoe- makers." Said R. Oshiya: "
It is glue, and the reason it is called ` past used by scribes' is
because scribes also paste their sheets together therewith."
"R. Eliezer says also ornaments of women." What connection have
ornaments with the Passover? Read instead of ornament, paste used by women
to adorn themselves, as R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: The daughters
of Israel who have not yet attained the age of puberty, but have
all the signs thereof, are ashamed in consequence, and the poor conceal
those [70] signs with chalk, the rich with fine, meal, and daughters of
princes with oil of myrrh, as is written in Esther ii. 12.
"This is the general rule," etc. Said R. Jehoshua: If the general
rule was made that all things which are composed of any kind of grain cause
a transgression of the law of Passover, what need was there of enumerating
all the articles mentioned in the Mishna? This was done in order to acquaint
the people with the names of those articles in order that they might not
commit an error, as it happened that a Palestinian came to Babylon, and
having some meat in his possession asked for something to eat with the
meat. He heard his host order that he be given Kuthach, and having heard
the name Kuthach he refused to accept it.
"They that become guilty, etc., incur the penalty attached to
the transgression of a negative commandment. " Who is the Tana who holds
that suitable leaven combined with other ingredients, and unfit leaven
by itself, also comes under the prohibition of the negative commandment?
R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: " That is R. Meir," and R. Na'hman
said: " It is R. Eliezer," as we have learned in a Boraitha: " For the
transgression of the law with leaven of suitable grain the penalty is Kareth;
but if combined with other ingredients the penalty is that attached to
the transgression of a negative commandment. Such is the decree of R. Eliezer;
the sages, however, maintain that with leaven proper the penalty is Kareth;
but if combined with other ingredients no penalty whatever is incurred."
Now, if R. Eliezer holds that the penalty for using leaven combined with
other ingredients is the same as that attached to the transgression of
a negative commandment, so much the more would the use of leaven itself,
even if it be unfit, make one incur the same penalty.
We have learned a Boraitha in accordance with R. Jehudah: It
is written [Exod. xii. 20]:" Nothing that is leavened shall ye eat," which
means to include Babylonian Kuthach, Median beer, Egyptian zeethum, and
Edomite vinegar Shall we assume that these articles, if used, would make
a man incur the penalty of Kareth ? To that end it is written [ibid. `5]:"
Whosoever eat- eth leavened bread, that soul shall be cut off," whence
we infer, that only one who eats leavened bread made of suitable grain
incurs the penalty of Kareth; but one who eats such as is combined with
other ingredients only incurs the penalty attached to the transgression
of a negative commandment. Now, then, who [71] is the Tana who holds
that the use of leaven combined with other ingredients make one incur the
penalty attached to the transgression of a negative commandment? R. Eliezer;
but we do not learn that he classes unfit leaven in the same category as
that of mixed leaven, and for the simple reason that he does not Consider
the use of unfit leaven a violation of the law. (Hence the Tana who also
holds the use of unfit leaven to constitute a transgression of the law
is R. Meir.)
Whence does R. Eliezer adduce that the use of leaven cornbined
with the other ingredients constitutes a transgression of the law? From
the passage, " Nothing that is leavened shall ye eat," and he means to
say that " nothing" includes also leaven combined with the ingredients.
How will he explain the "whosoever" (6) in the other passage [Exod. xii.
15] ? That includes women, who must also not eat leavened bread on Passover.
Did not R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh say, that women are held
to be equal to men as far as all prohibitory laws are concerned, on account
of the passage [Numbers V.6]: " If any man or woman commit any sin"? In
this case a special passage prohibiting the eating of leavened bread by
women is essential, for the following reason: The negative commandment
prohibit- ing the eating of leavened bread and the positive ordaining the
eating of unleavened bread [Deut. xvi 3] being written together, we might
assume that only those who are obliged to eat Matzoth must not eat Chometz;
and as the women are not obliged to eat Matzoth, because the positive commandment
ordaining the eating of Matzoth is dependent upon the time, (7) we might
assume that women may eat Chometz; hence we are told by the passage, "Whosoever
eateth leavened bread, etc., shall be cut off."
Now, if we have arrived at the conclusion that women must not
eat Chometz, we may add, that they are also obliged to eat Matzoth,
and this is in accordance with the opinion of R. Eliezer, who said
that women are biblically obliged to eat Matzoth; because the negative
and positive commandments are Consequent one upon the other, I say,
that as they must observe [72] the negative commandment prohibiting the
eating of Chometz, so must they also observe the positive commandment ordaining
the eating of Matzoth.
Why is it adduced that the "all'' (Kol) in the passage means
to include women and to exclude leaven combined with other ingredients?
Say, that the " all" also means to include leaven combined with other ingredients.
Common sense precludes this supposition; because the passage refers to
those who had eaten; hence if anything should be included, it must be that
which is also capable of being eaten, but not things that are eaten, as
leaven combined with other ingredients.
MISHNA: Should there be any dough in the (holes or) crevices of a kneading-trough, and there is as much as the size of an olive in any one place, it must be removed immediately; but if there be less than that quantity in any one place, it may be considered as not in existence, being so inconsiderable. Thus it is also with respect to defilement: If the owner, how- ever, be particular about the dough, it constitutes an intervention (between the trough and possible defilement, and the trough is not rendered defiled); but if it is desired to leave the dough in the trough, it should be considered as an integral part of the trough.
GEMARA: " If there be less than that quantity," etc. Said R.
Jehudah in the name of Samuel: " This applies to a case where the dough
was placed in the crevice of the trough in order to strengthen the trough;
but if it is not there for that purpose it must be forthwith removed."
Whence we infer, that even if there was a piece of the size of an olive
in the crevice of a trough for the purpose of strengthening it, it must
also be removed. We have learned to this effect in a Boraitha:
Dough which was placed in the crevices of a kneading- trough
for the purpose of strengthening it does not constitute an intervention
to defilement nor a transgression of the law of Passover; but if it be
found in places where it was not necessary, in order to make the trough
firmer, it does constitute an intervention and does cause a transgression
of the law. All this is said of dough which was less than the size
of an olive; but if it was of that size, even if it was used to make
the trough firmer, it must forthwith be removed. Said R. Na'hman
in the name of Samuel: " If there were two pieces of dough each the
size of half an olive in the trough and happened to be connected
with a thread, they are considered [73] as a whole olive, provided when
the thread is lifted both pieces are carried with it, otherwise they are
not and may remain in the trough." Said Ula: "This applies to dough situated
in the trough; but if the two pieces were not in a trough but in the house,
and being connected by a thread would not be carried with the thread, if
lifted, they- must nevertheless forthwith be removed, lest they in some
manner become joined and there wilt be leaven in the house to the size
of an olive."
The rabbis taught: If bread had become mouldy and while unfit
for a human being could be eaten by a dog, it is subject to defilement
as long as it is of the size of an egg, and may be burned together with
unclean things on Passover, even though it be itself clean (heave-offering).
Upon the authority of R. Nathan it was said, however, that not being fit
for a human being it cannot be subject to defilement.
The rabbis taught: If in a trough of the tanners flour had been
put within the three days preceding the Passover, it should be removed;
but if it had been placed prior to that time, it need not be removed. This
is said of a case where no skins had been placed in the trough by the tanner;
but if this had been done, even flour placed in the trough during the three
days need not be removed. Said Rabha: "The Halakha prevails according to
R. Nathan, and even if the flour was put in one day, yea, 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 explained thus: " So it is also with respect to defilement
on Passover, 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 contaminated
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] 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: flow 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." (8) " 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 sufficient 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 [75] that he could
eat it, the man is allowed to slaughter the anima]; 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 disregarded
on account of a pecuniary injriry?" "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 differ concerning this supposition?) 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 supposition." Said R. Shesha the son of R. Idi: " Perhaps
the argument 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
mit3t 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] 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 permitting
the baking of the dough and the subsequent naming thereof, would
the man not be culpable of transgressing the law contained in the passage
[Exod. xii. 16, "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 supposition"' ?" Rejoined R. Jeremiah: "And according
to thy opinon, does the teaching in another Boraitha, that R. Eliezer
said to R. Jehoshua: Will not, according to thy decree, a man be
culpable for the transgression of the law, ` It shall not be seen
nor found in thy house,' and the failure of R. Jehoshua to answer,
prove that he could make no reply to the query? Is it not answered
in the Mishna by ‘this is not the leaven referred to by that passage'
? Hence the former Boraitha brings only the question, but not the
answer, and the answer may be found elsewhere."
We have learned in a Boraitha: Rabbi said: "The Halakha
prevails according to R. Eliezer," and R. Itz'hak said: " The Halakha
prevails according to Ben Bathyra."
How much must the quantity of the dough under discussion
be? Said R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan ben Berokah: "If made of
wheat it must be two Kabh, but if made of barley three Kabh." Did
we not learn in another Boraitha that the same R. Ishmael said: "
If made of wheat, three Kabh, and if made of barley four ?" This
presents no difficulty. One Boraitha treats of good grain and the other
of poor grain.
Rabh said: " The measure of dough to be prepared on Passover
is a Kabh as used in Lugan, and the same measure applies to a dough
of which legal first must be acquitted (to the priests)."
Have we not learned in a Mishna, however, that a trifle over
five quarters of meal (equal to five lugs as used in Sepphoris and
to seven lugs and a trifle over as used in the desert, which in turn
equ~led an Omer) are subject to the first of the dough? A Kabh of
Lugan contains about the same quantity. Said R. Joseph: " Our wives
bake bread in small quantities on the Passover, not over three lugs
of me~ at a time," and [77] Abayi remarked: "Thou wouldst suppose that
they do this in order to observe the more rigorous interpretation
of the Passover law? However, a more lenient ordinance is thereby observed,
namely: They thus become exempt from the duty of acquitting the first
of the dough," and R. Joseph replied: " Nay; they do this in accordance
with the opinion of R. Eliezer, who said in a Mishna elsewhere, that
the basket wherein the loaves are deposited combine the quantities,
and they acquit themselves of the duty of the first of the dough
from the combined quantity of loaves, and R. Jehudah said in the name of
Samuel, that the halakha prevails according to R. Eliezen"
MISHNA: Rabbon Gamaliel says: "Three women may knead dough on the Passover at the same time and bake it in the same oven, one after the other"; but the sages say: " Three women may occupy themselves with their dough, but in the following manner: one should knead the dough, another form it, and the third bake it." R. Aqiba said: " Not all women, nor all wood, nor all ovens are alike." This is the rule: as soon as the dough rises, let the woman plunge her hand in cold water (in order to moisten the dough).
GEMARA: The rabbis taught: The same woman who kneads should
also moisten the dough, and the one next to her should then take
up the kneading; while the former is baking the latter should moisten
the dough, and the third woman should take up kneading. Thus the
first woman will commence kneading while the last is moistening the
dough, and so on in rotation. The principle thereof is, that so long
as the dough is being handled it does not become leavened.
"R. Aqiba says," etc. We have learned in a Boraitha:" R.
Aqiba said: I argued thus before Rabbon Gamaliel: ` Let our Master
teach us whether skilled or inexperienced women are meant; whether
dry or damp wood is spoken of; whether a heated or a cooled stove
is under consideration,' and he answered: `We need only follow the teachings
of the sages (and not concern ourselves as to details), but this
bear in mind as the rule: As soon as the dough rises, let the woman
moisten the dough.'."
MISHNA: Dough which commences to become leavened must be burned; but the person who had eaten it does not incur the penalty of Kareth (being cut off). Dough which becomes riven must be burned, and whosoever eats it incurs the penalty of Kareth, When is a dough considered as about to become [78] leavened ? When small rents can be observed, standing apart in different directions like the feelers `of locusts. When is a dough to be considered riven ? When the rents cross each other; such is the dictum of R. Jehudah, but the sages say: Whoever eats either kind of dough incurs the penalty of Kareth. When is a dough considered about to become leavened? When (no rents are visible, but) its surface becomes pale like the face of a person whose hair stands on end (through fright).
GEMARA: The rabbis taught: What is called dough about to become
leavened? If its surface becomes pale as the face of a man whose hair stands
on end. What is called riven dough? If there are rents visible, standing
apart like the feelers of a locust. Such is the dictum of R. Meir; the
sages, however, maintain: When the rents standing. apart like the feelers
of a locust are visible, the dough is considered about to become leavened,
and when the rents cross each other, the dough is considered riven. Whosoever
eats either kind incurs the penalty of Kareth. Have we not learned in our
Mishna that dough about to become leavened must be burned, but one who
eats it does not incur that penalty and that such is the decree of R. Jehudah
? The Mishna should be supplemented with the statement: According to R.
Meir, whosoever eats either kind incurs the penalty of Kareth.
Said Rabha: " What reason has R. Meir for his decree ?" According
to R. Meir, there can be no rents on the surface, even if they stand apart
like the feelers of locusts, that have not many rents underneath which
may even cross each other.
MISHNA: If the fourteenth (of Nissan) fall on the Sabbath, all leaven must be removed before the Sabbath commences. Such is the dictum of R. Meir; but the sages say that it should be done at the proper time. R. Elazer (9) ben Zadok says: "The heave-offering must be removed before the Sabbath, and non- consecrated things at the proper time."
GEMARA: We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Elazer ben Zadok said: " Once my father spent the Sabbath in Yemen (Yamnia), and that Sabbath being the fourteenth (of Nissan), Zunin, the supervisor of R. Gamaliel's household, came and said: `It is time to remove the leaven.' So I went with my father, and we removed the leaven." [79]
MISHNA: If a man (on the r4th of Nissan) went to slaughter his
Passover sacrifice, or to circumcise his Son, or to eat the betrothal-meal
at the house of his father-in-law, and on the road recollects that
he has left leaven in his house: if he can return home, remove it,
and then go back and accomplish any of the acts mentioned, he should
do so and remove the leaven; but if he cannot, he should in his mind
renounce (the use of the leaven). If his object in leaving home was
to aid persons to escape from armed foes, from inundation, robbers,
or fire, or to rescue persons from beneath the ruins of fallen buildings,
he should in his mind renounce the leaven; but' if his object in
leaving home was to secure his sabbatical resting-place for his private
purposes (in order to obtain his right to the legal limits), he must
immediately return and remove the leaven. Likewise, if a person on
leaving Jerusalem remembers having in his possession consecrated flesh:
if he had gone beyond (the hill) Zophim, he may burn it wherever
he may be; but if he had not gone beyond it, he must return and burn
it before the sanctuary, with wood of the altar. What is the quantify (of
consecrated flesh or leaven) which makes it obligatory for a man to
return ? R. Meir says: Either must be of the size of an egg." R.
Jehudah says: Of the Size of an Olive"; but the sages say: `Consecrated
flesh if of the size of an olive and leaven if of the Size of an
egg."
GEMARA: There is a contradiction: (We have learned): One
who goes to eat the betrothal-meal at the house of his father in-law
or to secure his sabbatical resting-place for his private purposes, should,
if he remembered having leaven in his house, return immediately and
remove it." Said R. Hisda: The point of difference between this teaching
and the Mishna is only Concerning the second meal (after the betrothal);
but as for the first, all agree, that it is a religious duty and
the man need not return."
We have learned in a Boraitha: " R. Jehudah said: `I only
heard concerning the actual betrothal-meal, but not concerning the
meal at which the bridal gifts are bestowed.' Said R. Jose to him:
` I heard concerning both.'
We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Simeon said: "A meal
which is not served on account of some religious duty should not
be enjoyed by a Talmud-chacham (scholar)." What kind of a meal is
referred to as not being served on account of a religious duty? Said
R. Johanan: " The betrothal-meal served [80] when an ordinary Israelite
weds the daughter of a priest, or when a common person weds the daughter
of a Talmud-chacham (scholar)" ; for R. Johanan would always maintain,
that such alliances do not end well. This is not so! Did not R. Johanan
say elsewhere, that he who would become rich should ally himself to the
descendants of Aaron, when the union of prestige and learning will make
him rich ? This presents no difficulty. For a scholar it is beneficial
to wed a priest's daughter, but not for one of the common people.
R. Jehoshua wedded the daughter of a priest. Subsequently he
became ill, and said: " Is then Aaron not contented to have his descendants
receive me as a son-in-law?"
R. Idi bar Abhin also wedded a priest's daughter, and they brought
forth two sons, both of whom were admitted to fellow- ship (i.e., were
entitled to be ranked as rabbis). They were R. Shesheth and R. Jehoshua.
R. Papa said: " If I had not wedded a priest's daughter I should
never have become rich;" but R. Kahana said: "If I had not married a priest's
daughter I should never have gone into exile" ; (10) and he was asked:
" What hast thou suffered thereby; didst thou not flee to a place of learning
?" arid he answered: " I did not go into exile voluntarily (to improve
my learning or to better my condition), but was compelled to flee from
the persecution of the government."
R. Itz'hak said:" One who enjoys a meal which is not served
for the sake of a religious duty finally incurs the penalty of exile, as
it is written [Amos vi. 4]: `That eat lambs out of the flock, and calves
out of the midst of the stall,' and further, it is said [ibid. 7]:' Therefore
now shall they go into exile.'
The rabbis taught: "A scholar who indulges in too many meals
destroys his home, makes his wife a widow, his children orphans, his knowledge
vanishes; he becomes involved in strife, his words are disregarded, he
profanes the name of Heaven, puts to shame the name of his teacher and
the name of his father, and leaves behind him an ill-repute for himself,
and his children unto the end of his generations."
The rabbis taught: "A man should sell all his possessions
and wed the daughter of a scholar; for should he die or be forced
to go into exile he will be assured that his sons will be scholars,
and he should not wed a daughter of the common people; for [81] should
he die or be forced to go into exile, his children will be common persons."
The rabbis taught: "A man should sell all his Possessions in
order to secure a scholar as a husband for his daughter This can be compared
to grapes which are planted among other grapes in a vineyard, where they
are readily assimilated and present a good appearance. If, however, a common
person is secured as a husband, it is like planting grapes among thorns,
where they cannot thrive."
The rabbis taught: "A man should sell all his Possessions and
secure the daughter of a scholar for a wife, and if he cannot secure the
daughter of a scholar he should try to obtain a daughter of one of the
most prominent men of the age. If he cannot succeed in that, he should
endeavor to obtain a daughter of the most prominent men in his community;
and failing in that, should seek the daughter of a man known to be charitable;
and if he cannot succeed even in this, he should try and obtain the daughter
of a teacher of children; only should he avoid wedding the daughter of
a common person."
We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Aqiba said: When I was still
a common (ignorant) man, I used to say: "If I could lay my hands on a scholar
I would bite him like an ass," and his disciples said to him: "Rabbi, say
` like a dog,' an ass does not bite," and he replied: "When an ass bites
he generally breaks the bones of his victim, while a dog only bites the
flesh."
We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Meir said: " One who gives
his daughter to a common person virtually casts her to a lion, for as a
lion tears and devours his victim without shame, so does a common person
beat his wife, then they come together again and he is not ashamed."
We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Eliezer said: " If the common
people did not require us for their own welfare, they would slay us."
R. Hyya taught: "A man who occupies himself with the study of
the Law in the presence of a common person evokes as much hatred
from that person as if he had stolen his bride. As it is written [Deut.
xxxiii. 4]: "The law which Moses commanded us is the inheritance of the
congregation of Jacob." Do not read (inheritance), but (betrothed).
For the enmity of a common person toward a scholar is even more intense
than that of the heathens towards Israelites, and that of their wives even
greater than their own. A Boraitha [82] stated: That whosoever
was at first a scholar and then resigned his studies, and became
a common man, is even worse than if he were entirely ignorant.
"If a Person on leaving Jerusalem" etc.: We have learned in
a Boraitha: K. Nathan said: " The quantity for either (the consecrated
flesh or leaven) must be the Size of two eggs"; but the sages did
not coincide with him.
It is written [Zechariah xiv. 6]: " And it shall come to pass
on that day, that there shall be no light, but fleeting light and thick
darkness." What is meant by " fleeting light and thick darkness"
? He means to point out, that what is considered a' strong light
in this world is nothing but fleeting light in the world to Come.
So said K. Elazar; but K. Jehoshua ben Levi said:" The passage means
to state, that those men who are considered enlightened in this world are
enveloped in darkness in the world to come," as it happened that
K. Jose the son of R. Jehoshua ben Levi once fell in a trance, and
upon awakening was asked by his father what he had seen while in
his apparently lifeless state, and he answered: " I saw a reversed
world : Those who are at the head in this world were at the bottom
there, and those who are at the bottom here were at the head there."
And his father said to him: " My child, thou hast seen the right
world! But how do we scholars appear there?" and R. Jose replied:
" We are on the same footing there as we are here. I also heard it
said there: Well is to the man who hath brought his learning with
him, and further, it was said: The place of those who had suffered
death (had been martyrs) for the glory of God cannot be entered by
any other man. Does this refer to R. Aqiba and his companions? Were
they accorded that place merely because they were martyrs; did they
then possess no other merits ? Therefore this must refer to the two
brothers who sacrificed themselves at Lud (Lydda). (11)
It is written [Zechariah xiv. 9]: "And the Lord will be king
over all the earth; on that day shall the Lord be (acknowledged)
one, and His name be one.'' What is meant by " on that day" ? Is
He not one even to-day? Said R. A'ha bar Hanina: "This world is not
like the world to come. In this world, when [83] good tidings are
received, a man Says: `Blessed be He who is good and doth good to
others,' and the recipient of bad tidings says: `Blessed be He who
judgeth in truth1; but in the world to come the first benediction
only will be pronounced, for there shall be no more bad tidings."
Why is it said: " His name shall be one," is His name not one even
to-day? Said K. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: " Not as this world is the world
to come. In this world the Name is written Yahveh and pronounced
Adonai, while in the world to come it will be pronounced as it is
written."
Rabha wished to preach concerning the name of Yahveh from
the pulpit; so a certain elder said to him: " In the passage [Exod.
iii. 15] where it is written: ` This is my name forever,' the word
Olam, which when written Ayin, Vav, Lamed, Mem, means ` forever,’
is written in that passage Ayin, Lamed, Mem, which also signifies
` concealed.' Hence the name of the Lord should be concealed and
not openly discussed."
R. Abbini propounded a contradictory question about the
same passage: In the first part it says: "This is my name Leolam
(concealed)," and in the last part it says, "This is my memorial
unto all generations" ? And he answered: So said the Holy One, blessed
be He: Not as I (my name) am written shall I also be pronounced.
I am written Yahveh and am pronounced Adonai,
(1) This is explained to be a mixture of mouldy bread with milk
and salt, used as a sauce for food.
(2) According to the Talmud, this is a mixture of barley, salt,
and wild saffron, while according to Pliny, who calls it "zythum,"
it is a medicine of Egyptian origin.
(3) A dough used to attract the impurities in a pot where food
is boiling.
(4) The penalty for such transgression is chastisement with thirty-nine
stripes.
(5) The Hebrew term which we render with ginger is Zangbila,
and according to "`versions it is supposed to be sandal-wood.
(6) Both passages quoted contain the word " Kol," Hebrew for
"all"; and the passages should read: "All that is leavened shall
ye not eat" and " All who eat leavened bread shall be cut off," etc.
Hence the analogous comparison made in the above paragraph.
(7) Vide page 71.
(8) See introduction to Tract Erubin.
(9) According to Strack, referring to Franki, Brill, and Bacher.
But Heilpern in his Seder Hadoreth and Miciziner in his introduction
to the Talmud, Eliezer.
(10) R. Kahana was forced to flee from Babylon to Palestine.
(11) It is related in Tract Taanith that a daughter of a prince
in that city having been murdered, the crime was attributed to all
the Israelites, when, in order to save their co-religionists, who
were innocent of the crime, two brothers went up and confessed that they
had committed the murder (although they were also innocent), thus
shielding their brethren from persecution.-RASHI.