Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

January 13, 2021 | 讻状讟 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

Pesachim 53

Today鈥檚 Daf is sponsored by Marcia Baum in memory of her mother Helena K. Baum on her fifth Yartzeit. “Mom was a lifelong learner and lover of Torah studies, an anomaly for women of her generation. She is sorely missed by those whose lives she touched.”

How did Rabbi Ilai cut wood with unripe fruits? It seems even the rabbis consider them fruits? The gemara brings contradictory braitot regarding when one needs to get rid of one’s fruits in the house. Do they really contradict? A bratia is brought describing what different types of land or water is known for – mountains, valleys, streams and plains. What is the halachic relevance? There is a custom not to sell small animals, however large animals are always forbidden. Why? Are there exceptions to the rule? There was a custom to eat roasted meat on Pesach night and not to eat roasted meat. If one says they are doing it for Pesach, it is forbidden. The gemara brings a contradiction from a braita regarding a story with Todos. Who was Todos and why according to the story did the rabbis not excommunicate him because of his stature – why did he have stature? There was a custom to light candles on erev Yom Kippur and a custom not to light. Both customs had the same intent in mind – to prevent sexual relations between husband and wife. Some said that Rabbi Yochanan said one only lights a candle for havdala on Saturday night but not after holidays and Yom Kippur. Did he really say that or did he say that if Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat, one does not light candles before?

诪砖讬讙专讬注讜 讜讛讝讬转讬诐 诪砖讬谞讬爪讜 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 诪砖讬讜爪讬讗讜 讜讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讛讜讗 讘讜住专 讛讜讗 讙讬专讜注 讛讜讗 驻讜诇 讛诇讘谉 驻讜诇 讛诇讘谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 砖讬注讜专讜 讻驻讜诇 讛诇讘谉


from when the grapes form kernels and grow slightly; and olive trees, from when they blossom; and all other trees may not be chopped down from when they produce fruit. And Rav Asi said: It is an unripe grape, it is a grape kernel, it is a white bean, i.e., their legal status is the same. Before this is explained, the Gemara expresses astonishment: Does it enter your mind that the grape is at any stage a white bean? Rather, say: The size of an unripe grape is equivalent to the size of a white bean.


讜诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讘讜住专 讗讬谉 住诪讚专 诇讗 专讘谞谉 讜拽转谞讬 砖讗专 讻诇 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 诪砖讬讜爪讬讗讜 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 讘讚谞讬住讞谞讬 拽抓


In any case, whom did you hear that said: An unripe grape, yes, is considered fruit, while a grape bud, no, it is not considered fruit? Wasn鈥檛 it the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yosei? And it is taught that, according to the Rabbis, it is prohibited to chop down all other trees from when they produce fruit. This indicates that unripe dates have the same status as ordinary dates. Rather, the Gemara retracts its previous answer and explains that Rabbi Elai chopped down a palm tree with stunted dates, which never ripen on the tree. It was permitted to chop down the tree because the dates can be ripened only after they are removed from the tree.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘注谞讘讬诐 注讚 砖讬讻诇讜 讚诇讬讜转 砖诇 讗讜讻诇 讗诐 讬砖 诪讗讜讞专讜转 诪讛谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇讬讛谉


The Sages taught: One may eat grapes during the Sabbatical Year until the grapes on the vine branches in the place called Okhel have ceased. And if there are grapes elsewhere later than those, one may continue eating grapes on their basis, as the Sages鈥 statement is merely based on the assumption that the grapes in Okhel are the last to remain in the field, but the halakha is not specific to them.


讗讜讻诇讬诐 讘讝讬转讬诐 注讚 砖讬讻诇讛 讗讞专讜谉 砖讘转拽讜注 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讻诇讛 讗讞专讜谉 砖诇 讙讜砖 讞诇讘 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 注谞讬 讬讜爪讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讗 诇讗 讘谞讜驻讜 讜诇讗 讘注讬拽专讜 专讜讘注 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘讙专讜讙专讜转 注讚 砖讬讻诇讜 驻讙讬 讘讬转 讛讬谞讬


Similarly, one may eat olives until the final olives have ceased on the trees in Tekoa. Rabbi Eliezer says: One may eat olives until the final olives have ceased on the trees in Gush 岣lav. At what point is the fruit considered to have ceased? At the point that a poor person will go out to search for fruit and find, neither in the tree鈥檚 branches nor in the proximity of its trunk, a quarter-kav of olives that have fallen. One may eat dried figs until the unripe figs of Beit Hini have ceased.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讛讜讝讻专讜 驻讙讬 讘讬转 讛讬谞讬 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪注砖专 (讚转谞谉) 驻讙讬 讘讬转 讛讬谞讬 讜讗讛讬谞讬 讚讟讜讘讬谞讗 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘诪注砖专:


Rabbi Yehuda said: The unripe figs of Beit Hini were mentioned only with regard to tithes, not with regard to the Sabbatical Year. As we learned in a mishna: The unripe figs of Beit Hini and the dates of Tovyana, both of which never completely ripen but are nonetheless edible, one is obligated to tithe them.


讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘转诪专讬诐 注讚 砖讬讻诇讛 讛讗讞专讜谉 砖讘爪讜注专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇 砖诇 讘讬谉 讛讻讬驻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇 砖诇 讘讬谉 讛砖讬爪讬谉


We learned in the mishna: One may eat dates in all of Judea until the last palm tree in Tzoar has ceased producing dates. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may continue eating dates based on those between the palm branches; but one may not continue eating on the basis of those between the thorn branches.


讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘注谞讘讬诐 注讚 讛驻住讞 讘讝讬转讬诐 注讚 讛注爪专转 讘讙专讜讙专讜转 注讚 讛讞谞讜讻讛 讘转诪专讬诐 注讚 讛驻讜专讬诐 讜讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转专转讬 讘转专讬讬转讗 诪讞诇讬祝 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讞讚 砖讬注讜专讗 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 拽转谞讬 讘讛讚讬讗 讗诐 讬砖 诪讗讜讞专讜转 诪讛谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇讬讛谉


And the Gemara raises a contradiction from that which was taught in a different baraita: One may eat from the grapes until Passover; from the olives, until the festival of Assembly, i.e., Shavuot; from the dried figs, until Hanukkah; and from the dates, until Purim. And Rav Beivai said: Rabbi Yo岣nan transposes the last two. According to his version of the baraita, one may eat dried figs until Purim and dates until Hanukkah. This is inconsistent with the previous statement that dates may be eaten until those in Tzoar have ceased. The Gemara resolves this contradiction: Both this time and that time are one period. The first Sage designated the deadline in terms of the place where dates grow, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel designated the deadline in terms of the dates. And if you wish, say instead that it is taught explicitly: And if there are fruits elsewhere later than those, one may continue eating on their basis. This indicates that the places and the times mentioned are merely indicators, but that the prohibition depends on actual conditions in the field.


转谞讬讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 住讬诪谉 诇讛专讬诐 诪讬诇讬谉 住讬诪谉 诇注诪拽讬诐 讚拽诇讬诐 住讬诪谉 诇谞讞诇讬诐 拽谞讬诐 住讬诪谉 诇砖驻诇讛 砖拽诪讛 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专 讝讻专 诇讚讘专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬转谉 讛诪诇讱 讗转 讛讻住祝 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讻讗讘谞讬诐 讜讗转 讛讗专讝讬诐 谞转谉 讻砖拽诪讬诐 讗砖专 讘砖驻诇讛 诇专讜讘


The Gemara continues: It was taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A good sign for mountains is that gallnut oaks, used in the preparation of ink, grow there. A good sign for valleys is palm trees. A good sign for streams is reeds. A good sign for the plain is a sycamore tree. And although there is no proof for these indicators, there is an allusion to the matter in the verse, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the king made silver to be in Jerusalem like stones, and he made cedars to be as the sycamore trees in the plain鈥 (I Kings 10:27).


住讬诪谉 诇讛专讬诐 诪讬诇讬谉 住讬诪谉 诇注诪拽讬诐 讚拽诇讬诐 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讘讻讜专讬诐 讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讘讻讜专讬诐 讗诇讗 诪砖讘注转 讛诪讬谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讚拽诇讬诐 砖讘讛专讬诐 讜诇讗 诪驻讬专讜转 砖讘注诪拽讬诐


The Gemara elaborates on this baraita: A good sign for mountains is gallnut oaks, a good sign for valleys is palm trees. What purpose is served by these signs? The practical difference of these signs pertains to the halakha of first fruits. As we learned in a mishna: One may bring first fruits only from the seven species and only from the highest quality fruit. Therefore, one may not bring first fruits from palm trees that grow in the mountains. Since the mountains are not a suitable location for palm trees, the dates grown there are inferior. Similarly, one does not bring first fruits from produce, i.e., from wheat and barley, that grow in the valleys, because mountain fruits do not grow there properly.


住讬诪谉 诇谞讞诇讬诐 拽谞讬诐 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇谞讞诇 讗讬转谉 住讬诪谉 诇砖驻诇讛 砖拽诪讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专 讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 诇诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专:


A good sign for streams is reeds. The case where this sign makes a practical halakhic difference is with regard to the rough dried-up stream mentioned in the Torah. When a corpse is found between two towns and the murderer cannot be identified, the Torah states that a calf鈥檚 neck is broken in a rough stream. The baraita teaches that growing reeds identify the spot as a stream. A good sign for the plain is a sycamore tree. The Gemara explains that the case where this sign makes a practical difference is with regard to buying and selling. If one stipulates that he is buying land in the plains, it is defined as an area where sycamore trees grow. The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this practical halakhic difference with regard to assessing the quality of land for the purpose of transactions, all the signs can be understood as pertaining to buying and selling as well, to identify valleys and mountainous regions.


诪转谞讬壮 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇诪讻讜专 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 诇讙讜讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 谞讛讙讜 诇诪讻讜专 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 讜讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛诐 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 注讙诇讬诐 讜住讬讬讞讬谉 砖诇诪讬谉 讜砖讘讜专讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讘砖讘讜专讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪转讬专 讘住讜住


MISHNA: Apropos different local customs discussed in the first mishna in this chapter, this mishna discusses various halakhot with regard to which there are different customs. In a place where the people were accustomed to sell small livestock to gentiles, one may sell them. In a place where the people were not accustomed to sell them due to certain concerns and decrees, one may not sell them. However, in every place, one may sell to gentiles neither large livestock, e.g., cows and camels, nor calves or foals, whether these animals are whole or damaged. The Sages prohibited those sales due to the concern lest the transaction be voided or one side reconsider, creating retroactively a situation where a Jew鈥檚 animal performed labor for the gentile on Shabbat in violation of an explicit Torah prohibition. Rabbi Yehuda permits the sale of a damaged animal because it is incapable of performing labor. Ben Beteira permits the sale of a horse for riding, because riding a horse on Shabbat is not prohibited by Torah law.


诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讗讻讜诇 爪诇讬 讘诇讬诇讬 驻住讞讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 砖诇讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉:


The mishna cites another custom related to Passover. In a place where people were accustomed to eat roasted meat on Passover evenings, outside of Jerusalem or after the Temple was destroyed, one may eat it. In a place where people were accustomed not to eat outside Jerusalem, one may not eat it.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讜专 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 砖讬讗诪专 讘砖专 讝讛 诇驻住讞 讛讜讗 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讛 讻诪拽讚讬砖 讘讛诪转讜 讜讗讜讻诇 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讜拽讗 讘砖专 讗讘诇 讞讬讟讬 诇讗 讚诪讬谞讟专 诇驻住讞讗 拽讗诪专


GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said that it is prohibited for a person to say in modern times: This meat is for Passover, due to the fact that one appears to be consecrating his animal as his Paschal lamb, and he thereby eats consecrated items outside the permitted area. Rav Pappa said: This prohibition against saying: This is for Passover, applies specifically to meat, which is similar to consecrated meat; however, with regard to wheat, no, it does not apply. In that case, it is clear that one is saying that the flour be watched for Passover.


讜讘砖专 诇讗 诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转讜讚讜住 讗讬砖 专讜诪讬 讛谞讛讬讙 讗转 讘谞讬 专讜诪讬 诇讗讻讜诇 讙讚讬讬诐 诪拽讜诇住讬谉 讘诇讬诇讬 驻住讞讬诐 砖诇讞讜 诇讜 讗诇诪诇讗 转讜讚讜住 讗转讛 讙讝专谞讜 注诇讬讱 谞讚讜讬 砖讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓 拽讚砖讬诐 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗


The Gemara asks: And with regard to meat is that not the case? Is it really prohibited to say that meat is for Passover? The Gemara raises an objection. Rabbi Yosei said: Theodosius [Todos] of Rome, leader of the Jewish community there, instituted the custom for the Roman Jews to eat kids roasted [mekulas] whole with their entrails over their heads on the evenings of Passover, as was the custom in the Temple. The Sages sent a message to him: If you were not Theodosius, an important person, we would have decreed ostracism upon you, as it appears as if you are feeding Israel consecrated food, which may be eaten only in and around the Temple itself, outside the permitted area. The Gemara asks about the terminology used here: Could it enter your mind that this meat was actually consecrated meat? That was certainly not the case. Rather, say instead:


拽专讜讘 诇讛讗讻讬诇 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓 诪拽讜诇住 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪拽讜诇住 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诪拽讜诇住 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗 讗诪专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽讜诇住 驻讬专砖 讗讬谉 诇讗 驻讬专砖 诇讗


Doing so is akin to feeding Jews consecrated meat outside the permitted area, as due to its resemblance to the Paschal lamb it could be misleading. The Gemara analyzes this statement: A goat roasted whole, yes, it is prohibited; a goat not roasted whole, no, it is not prohibited. This contradicts Rav, who prohibited roasting even ordinary meat. The Sages say that this is the distinction: With regard to a goat roasted whole, there is no difference if one said it is for Passover, and there is no difference if one did not say it is for Passover. In either case, it looks like a sacrifice and it is prohibited. With regard to a goat not roasted whole, if one specified that it is for Passover, yes, it is prohibited because it appears that he is consecrating it as a sacrifice. However, if one did not specify that it is for Passover, no, it is not prohibited, as there is no need for concern.


专讘 讗讞讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讛讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖砖转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讬 谞讬讞讗


Rav A岣 teaches this baraita about Theodosius in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rav Sheshet strongly objected to this: Granted, according to the one who learns it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, it works out well. However, according to the one who teaches it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, does it work out well? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna about a dispute with regard to one who consecrated an item for a purpose for which it was unsuited, e.g., a case where one sought to bring a meal-offering of barley, although meal-offerings may be brought only from wheat? In that case, the Rabbis say he is required to bring a meal-offering of wheat because in the first part of his statement he vowed to bring a meal-offering.


讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 砖诇讗 讛转谞讚讘 讻讚专讱 讛诪转谞讚讘讬诐


Rabbi Shimon exempts him from any obligation, as in his opinion, he did not donate in the manner typical of donors. In other words, Rabbi Shimon relates to the statement: A meal-offering of barley, as a single entity. Since no meal-offering of that kind exists, one is not required to bring an offering at all. Similarly, with regard to Passover, since one can consecrate only a living animal as a sacrifice and cannot consecrate meat as a sacrifice, if one declares: This meat is for Passover, it is in no way similar to consecrating an animal, and the meat has no sanctity.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讬 谞讬讞讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专讛 讚讗诪专 讗祝 讘讙诪专 讚讘专讬讜 讗讚诐 谞转驻住


Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And according to the one who teaches it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, does it work out well? Didn鈥檛 Rava say: With regard to a meal-offering of barley, Rabbi Shimon stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said: A person is also held accountable for the conclusion of his statement. The Sages disagreed with regard to the halakhot of consecration in a case where one consecrates an animal for two objectives in the same statement, e.g., as both a burnt-offering and a peace-offering. According to Rabbi Meir, one is held accountable for the beginning of his statement. Since he mentioned the burnt-offering first, the animal assumes the status of a burnt-offering. However, Rabbi Yosei says that one鈥檚 entire statement is significant, and that the animal is consecrated for two sacrifices. The owner must wait until the animal becomes blemished, redeem it, and use the money to purchase a burnt-offering and a peace-offering. Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion concerning a barley meal-offering. He maintains that one is held accountable not only for his first expression, i.e., that it is a meal-offering, but also for his second expression, i.e., that it is of barley. In that case, the second part of his statement negates the first part.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


What, is it not concluded from the fact that Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yosei also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that if one did not donate in the manner typical of donors, his act is meaningless? If that is the case, then any difficulty for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon would be similarly difficult for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara rejects this: No, although Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yosei does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 转讜讚讜住 讗讬砖 专讜诪讬 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讛讜讛 讗讜 讘注诇 讗讙专讜驻讬谉 讛讜讛


A dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to the above incident. Was Theodosius of Rome a great man in terms of his Torah scholarship, and the Sages refrained from ostracizing him in deference to the Torah that he studied? Or, was he a violent man who could not be punished due to his local influence?


转讗 砖诪注 注讜讚 讝讜 讚专砖 转讜讚讜住 讗讬砖 专讜诪讬 诪讛 专讗讜 讞谞谞讬讛 诪讬砖讗诇 讜注讝专讬讛 砖诪住专讜 [注爪诪谉] 注诇 拽讚讜砖转 讛砖诐 诇讻讘砖谉 讛讗砖


Come and hear: This was also taught by Theodosius of Rome: What did Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah see that led them to deliver themselves to the fiery furnace for sanctification of the name of God during the rule of Nebuchadnezzar rather than worship idols under duress?


谞砖讗讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讘注爪诪谉 诪爪驻专讚注讬诐 讜诪讛 爪驻专讚注讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪爪讜讜讬谉 注诇 拽讚讜砖转 讛砖诐 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讜讘讗讜 [讜注诇讜] 讘讘讬转讱 [讜讙讜壮] 讜讘转谞讜专讬讱 讜讘诪砖讗专讜转讬讱 讗讬诪转讬 诪砖讗专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转 讗爪诇 转谞讜专 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讘砖注讛 砖讛转谞讜专 讞诐 讗谞讜 砖诪爪讜讜讬谉 注诇 拽讚讜砖转 讛砖诐 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛


They drew an a fortiori inference on their own from the plague of frogs in Egypt. With regard to frogs, which are not commanded concerning the sanctification of the name of God, it is written: 鈥淎nd the river shall swarm with frogs, which shall go up and come into your house, and into your bedchamber, and onto your bed, and into the houses of your servants, and upon your people, and into their ovens and kneading bowls鈥 (Exodus 7:28). When are kneading bowls found near the oven? You must say that it is when the oven is hot. If in fulfilling the command to harass the Egyptians, the frogs entered burning ovens, all the more so, we, who are commanded concerning the sanctification of the name of God, should deliver ourselves to be killed in the fiery furnace for that purpose. Apparently, Theodosius taught Torah in public, which indicates that he was a great man.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 诪讟讬诇 诪诇讗讬 诇讻讬住 砖诇 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讛讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛诪讟讬诇 诪诇讗讬 诇讻讬住 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讝讜讻讛 讜讬讜砖讘 讘讬砖讬讘讛 砖诇 诪注诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讘爪诇 讛讞讻诪讛 讘爪诇 讛讻住祝:


Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said: Theodosius was one who cast the profits from merchandise into the purse of Torah scholars. He would lend them money and enter into partnership with them so they could open businesses, and that is praiseworthy, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Anyone who casts merchandise into the purse of Torah scholars is rewarded and sits in the heavenly academy, as it is stated: 鈥淔or in the shadow of wisdom, is the shadow of money鈥 (Ecclesiastes 7:12). One who provides Torah scholars with money will merit being with them in the shadow of wisdom.


诪转谞讬壮 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛讚诇讬拽 讗转 讛谞专 讘诇讬诇讬 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 砖诇讗 诇讛讚诇讬拽 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讜诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讘转讬 讻谞住讬讜转 讜讘讘转讬 诪讚专砖讜转 讜讘诪讘讜讗讜转 讛讗驻诇讬诐 讜注诇 讙讘讬 讛讞讜诇讬诐:


MISHNA: The mishna discusses additional differences between local customs. In a place where people were accustomed to kindle a lamp in the house on Yom Kippur evenings, one kindles it. In a place where people were accustomed not to kindle a lamp, one does not kindle it. However, even in a place where the custom is not to kindle lamps in houses, one kindles in synagogues and study halls, in deference to these places. Similarly, lamps should be kindled in dark alleyways, so people will not be hurt, and next to the sick.


讙诪壮 转谞讗 讘讬谉 砖讗诪专讜 诇讛讚诇讬拽 讜讘讬谉 砖讗诪专讜 砖诇讗 诇讛讚诇讬拽 砖谞讬讛谉 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 谞转讻讜讜谞讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讚专砖 专讘讗 讜注诪讱 讻诇诐 爪讚讬拽讬诐 诇注讜诇诐 讬讬专砖讜 讗专抓 讜讙讜壮 讘讬谉 砖讗诪专讜 诇讛讚诇讬拽 讜讘讬谉 砖讗诪专讜 砖诇讗 诇讛讚诇讬拽 砖谞讬讛诐 诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚


GEMARA: It was taught in the Tosefta: Both in a place where the Sages said to kindle and in a place where they said not to kindle, they both intended to achieve the same objective, i.e., to distance people from sin, as conjugal relations are prohibited on Yom Kippur. Those who said that one kindles a lamp believe that because people do not engage in relations while a lamp is lit, the lamp will discourage intimacy. Those who maintain the opposite believe that spouses who are unable to see each other will not be tempted to engage in conjugal relations, and therefore it is preferable not to have a lamp lit on Yom Kippur. Rav Yehoshua said that Rava taught: 鈥淵our people are all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever; the branch of My planting, the work of My hands, in which I glory鈥 (Isaiah 60:21). Both in a place where the Sages said to kindle and in a place where they said not to kindle, they intended only to achieve the same objective, fulfilling a mitzva. Even though different places have different customs, the Jewish people all aspire to sanctity.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜专 讗诇讗 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜转讞诇转 讘专讬讬转讜 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讬砖专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讜诇讗 讛讜讛 专讻讬讘 讞诪专讗 讜讗讝讬诇 讜讛讜讛 砖拽讬诇 讜讗讝讬诇 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪讬诪讬谞讬讛 讜专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诪砖诪讗诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇注讜诇讗 讜讚讗讬 讚讗诪专讬转讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜专 讗诇讗 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜转讞诇转 讘专讬讬转讜 讛讜讗


On the topic of kindling a lamp for Yom Kippur, the Gemara discusses a related point. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One should recite the blessing over fire: Who creates the lights of fire, only at the conclusion of Shabbat, since the conclusion of Shabbat is the time of its original creation. A certain Elder said to him, and some say it was Rabba bar bar 岣na who said: That is correct; and so said Rabbi Yo岣nan. The Gemara relates: Ulla was riding on a donkey and going along, and Rabbi Abba was going along on his right and Rabba bar bar 岣na on his left. Rabbi Abba said to Ulla: Is it true that you said in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan that one recites the blessing over fire only at the conclusion of Shabbat, not at the conclusion of Yom Kippur, since the time of its original creation is the conclusion of Shabbat?


讛讚专 注讜诇讗 讞讝讗 讘讬讛 讘专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讘讬砖讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诇讗讜 讗讛讗 讗诪专讬 讗诇讗 讗讛讗 讗诪专讬 讚转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讗祝 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专讜 砖诇讗 诇讛讚诇讬拽 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讛砖讘转 讜注谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘转专讬讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讚讗 转讛讗


Since Ulla never transmitted that statement, he understood that it must have been Rabba bar bar 岣na who heard it from Rabbi Yo岣nan and transmitted it when he came from Eretz Yisrael. Ulla turned around and looked angrily at Rabba bar bar 岣na for misquoting Rabbi Yo岣nan. Still, Ulla said nothing. However, Rabba bar bar 岣na understood what had happened and said to him: I did not say anything about that matter; rather, what I said was about that which the reciter of the tannaitic literature taught in a baraita before Rabbi Yo岣nan in which Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to Yom Kippur that occurs on Shabbat, even in a place where they said not to kindle a lamp on Yom Kippur, one kindles in deference to Shabbat. Rabbi Yo岣nan answered after him and completed the statement: And the Rabbis prohibit kindling a lamp even when Yom Kippur occurs on Shabbat. Ulla said to Rabbi Abba: Let it be that Rabbi Yo岣nan indeed made this statement.


拽专讬 注诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讬诐 注诪讜拽讬诐 注爪讛 讘诇讘 讗讬砖


Rav Yosef read the following verse about this event: 鈥淐ounsel in the heart of man is like deep water;


Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

templee

What Have We Lost?

The date is Nisan 71 CE. You are one of the lucky survivors of the Great Revolt and the horrific...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Pesachim 53-59 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we continue discussing different customs of different areas. We will learn what was created before the world, before...
talking talmud_square

Pesachim 53: A Jewish Leader in Rome

Defining Israel's topography based on what grows where. Also, more on different practices in different places. Beginning with commerce between...

Pesachim 53

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 53

诪砖讬讙专讬注讜 讜讛讝讬转讬诐 诪砖讬谞讬爪讜 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 诪砖讬讜爪讬讗讜 讜讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讛讜讗 讘讜住专 讛讜讗 讙讬专讜注 讛讜讗 驻讜诇 讛诇讘谉 驻讜诇 讛诇讘谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 砖讬注讜专讜 讻驻讜诇 讛诇讘谉


from when the grapes form kernels and grow slightly; and olive trees, from when they blossom; and all other trees may not be chopped down from when they produce fruit. And Rav Asi said: It is an unripe grape, it is a grape kernel, it is a white bean, i.e., their legal status is the same. Before this is explained, the Gemara expresses astonishment: Does it enter your mind that the grape is at any stage a white bean? Rather, say: The size of an unripe grape is equivalent to the size of a white bean.


讜诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讘讜住专 讗讬谉 住诪讚专 诇讗 专讘谞谉 讜拽转谞讬 砖讗专 讻诇 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 诪砖讬讜爪讬讗讜 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 讘讚谞讬住讞谞讬 拽抓


In any case, whom did you hear that said: An unripe grape, yes, is considered fruit, while a grape bud, no, it is not considered fruit? Wasn鈥檛 it the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yosei? And it is taught that, according to the Rabbis, it is prohibited to chop down all other trees from when they produce fruit. This indicates that unripe dates have the same status as ordinary dates. Rather, the Gemara retracts its previous answer and explains that Rabbi Elai chopped down a palm tree with stunted dates, which never ripen on the tree. It was permitted to chop down the tree because the dates can be ripened only after they are removed from the tree.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘注谞讘讬诐 注讚 砖讬讻诇讜 讚诇讬讜转 砖诇 讗讜讻诇 讗诐 讬砖 诪讗讜讞专讜转 诪讛谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇讬讛谉


The Sages taught: One may eat grapes during the Sabbatical Year until the grapes on the vine branches in the place called Okhel have ceased. And if there are grapes elsewhere later than those, one may continue eating grapes on their basis, as the Sages鈥 statement is merely based on the assumption that the grapes in Okhel are the last to remain in the field, but the halakha is not specific to them.


讗讜讻诇讬诐 讘讝讬转讬诐 注讚 砖讬讻诇讛 讗讞专讜谉 砖讘转拽讜注 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讻诇讛 讗讞专讜谉 砖诇 讙讜砖 讞诇讘 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 注谞讬 讬讜爪讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讗 诇讗 讘谞讜驻讜 讜诇讗 讘注讬拽专讜 专讜讘注 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘讙专讜讙专讜转 注讚 砖讬讻诇讜 驻讙讬 讘讬转 讛讬谞讬


Similarly, one may eat olives until the final olives have ceased on the trees in Tekoa. Rabbi Eliezer says: One may eat olives until the final olives have ceased on the trees in Gush 岣lav. At what point is the fruit considered to have ceased? At the point that a poor person will go out to search for fruit and find, neither in the tree鈥檚 branches nor in the proximity of its trunk, a quarter-kav of olives that have fallen. One may eat dried figs until the unripe figs of Beit Hini have ceased.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讛讜讝讻专讜 驻讙讬 讘讬转 讛讬谞讬 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪注砖专 (讚转谞谉) 驻讙讬 讘讬转 讛讬谞讬 讜讗讛讬谞讬 讚讟讜讘讬谞讗 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘诪注砖专:


Rabbi Yehuda said: The unripe figs of Beit Hini were mentioned only with regard to tithes, not with regard to the Sabbatical Year. As we learned in a mishna: The unripe figs of Beit Hini and the dates of Tovyana, both of which never completely ripen but are nonetheless edible, one is obligated to tithe them.


讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘转诪专讬诐 注讚 砖讬讻诇讛 讛讗讞专讜谉 砖讘爪讜注专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇 砖诇 讘讬谉 讛讻讬驻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇 砖诇 讘讬谉 讛砖讬爪讬谉


We learned in the mishna: One may eat dates in all of Judea until the last palm tree in Tzoar has ceased producing dates. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may continue eating dates based on those between the palm branches; but one may not continue eating on the basis of those between the thorn branches.


讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘注谞讘讬诐 注讚 讛驻住讞 讘讝讬转讬诐 注讚 讛注爪专转 讘讙专讜讙专讜转 注讚 讛讞谞讜讻讛 讘转诪专讬诐 注讚 讛驻讜专讬诐 讜讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转专转讬 讘转专讬讬转讗 诪讞诇讬祝 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讞讚 砖讬注讜专讗 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 拽转谞讬 讘讛讚讬讗 讗诐 讬砖 诪讗讜讞专讜转 诪讛谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇讬讛谉


And the Gemara raises a contradiction from that which was taught in a different baraita: One may eat from the grapes until Passover; from the olives, until the festival of Assembly, i.e., Shavuot; from the dried figs, until Hanukkah; and from the dates, until Purim. And Rav Beivai said: Rabbi Yo岣nan transposes the last two. According to his version of the baraita, one may eat dried figs until Purim and dates until Hanukkah. This is inconsistent with the previous statement that dates may be eaten until those in Tzoar have ceased. The Gemara resolves this contradiction: Both this time and that time are one period. The first Sage designated the deadline in terms of the place where dates grow, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel designated the deadline in terms of the dates. And if you wish, say instead that it is taught explicitly: And if there are fruits elsewhere later than those, one may continue eating on their basis. This indicates that the places and the times mentioned are merely indicators, but that the prohibition depends on actual conditions in the field.


转谞讬讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 住讬诪谉 诇讛专讬诐 诪讬诇讬谉 住讬诪谉 诇注诪拽讬诐 讚拽诇讬诐 住讬诪谉 诇谞讞诇讬诐 拽谞讬诐 住讬诪谉 诇砖驻诇讛 砖拽诪讛 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专 讝讻专 诇讚讘专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬转谉 讛诪诇讱 讗转 讛讻住祝 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讻讗讘谞讬诐 讜讗转 讛讗专讝讬诐 谞转谉 讻砖拽诪讬诐 讗砖专 讘砖驻诇讛 诇专讜讘


The Gemara continues: It was taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A good sign for mountains is that gallnut oaks, used in the preparation of ink, grow there. A good sign for valleys is palm trees. A good sign for streams is reeds. A good sign for the plain is a sycamore tree. And although there is no proof for these indicators, there is an allusion to the matter in the verse, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the king made silver to be in Jerusalem like stones, and he made cedars to be as the sycamore trees in the plain鈥 (I Kings 10:27).


住讬诪谉 诇讛专讬诐 诪讬诇讬谉 住讬诪谉 诇注诪拽讬诐 讚拽诇讬诐 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讘讻讜专讬诐 讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讘讻讜专讬诐 讗诇讗 诪砖讘注转 讛诪讬谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讚拽诇讬诐 砖讘讛专讬诐 讜诇讗 诪驻讬专讜转 砖讘注诪拽讬诐


The Gemara elaborates on this baraita: A good sign for mountains is gallnut oaks, a good sign for valleys is palm trees. What purpose is served by these signs? The practical difference of these signs pertains to the halakha of first fruits. As we learned in a mishna: One may bring first fruits only from the seven species and only from the highest quality fruit. Therefore, one may not bring first fruits from palm trees that grow in the mountains. Since the mountains are not a suitable location for palm trees, the dates grown there are inferior. Similarly, one does not bring first fruits from produce, i.e., from wheat and barley, that grow in the valleys, because mountain fruits do not grow there properly.


住讬诪谉 诇谞讞诇讬诐 拽谞讬诐 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇谞讞诇 讗讬转谉 住讬诪谉 诇砖驻诇讛 砖拽诪讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专 讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 诇诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专:


A good sign for streams is reeds. The case where this sign makes a practical halakhic difference is with regard to the rough dried-up stream mentioned in the Torah. When a corpse is found between two towns and the murderer cannot be identified, the Torah states that a calf鈥檚 neck is broken in a rough stream. The baraita teaches that growing reeds identify the spot as a stream. A good sign for the plain is a sycamore tree. The Gemara explains that the case where this sign makes a practical difference is with regard to buying and selling. If one stipulates that he is buying land in the plains, it is defined as an area where sycamore trees grow. The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this practical halakhic difference with regard to assessing the quality of land for the purpose of transactions, all the signs can be understood as pertaining to buying and selling as well, to identify valleys and mountainous regions.


诪转谞讬壮 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇诪讻讜专 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 诇讙讜讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 谞讛讙讜 诇诪讻讜专 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 讜讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇讛诐 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 注讙诇讬诐 讜住讬讬讞讬谉 砖诇诪讬谉 讜砖讘讜专讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讘砖讘讜专讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪转讬专 讘住讜住


MISHNA: Apropos different local customs discussed in the first mishna in this chapter, this mishna discusses various halakhot with regard to which there are different customs. In a place where the people were accustomed to sell small livestock to gentiles, one may sell them. In a place where the people were not accustomed to sell them due to certain concerns and decrees, one may not sell them. However, in every place, one may sell to gentiles neither large livestock, e.g., cows and camels, nor calves or foals, whether these animals are whole or damaged. The Sages prohibited those sales due to the concern lest the transaction be voided or one side reconsider, creating retroactively a situation where a Jew鈥檚 animal performed labor for the gentile on Shabbat in violation of an explicit Torah prohibition. Rabbi Yehuda permits the sale of a damaged animal because it is incapable of performing labor. Ben Beteira permits the sale of a horse for riding, because riding a horse on Shabbat is not prohibited by Torah law.


诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讗讻讜诇 爪诇讬 讘诇讬诇讬 驻住讞讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 砖诇讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讗讬谉 讗讜讻诇讬谉:


The mishna cites another custom related to Passover. In a place where people were accustomed to eat roasted meat on Passover evenings, outside of Jerusalem or after the Temple was destroyed, one may eat it. In a place where people were accustomed not to eat outside Jerusalem, one may not eat it.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讜专 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 砖讬讗诪专 讘砖专 讝讛 诇驻住讞 讛讜讗 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讛 讻诪拽讚讬砖 讘讛诪转讜 讜讗讜讻诇 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讜拽讗 讘砖专 讗讘诇 讞讬讟讬 诇讗 讚诪讬谞讟专 诇驻住讞讗 拽讗诪专


GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said that it is prohibited for a person to say in modern times: This meat is for Passover, due to the fact that one appears to be consecrating his animal as his Paschal lamb, and he thereby eats consecrated items outside the permitted area. Rav Pappa said: This prohibition against saying: This is for Passover, applies specifically to meat, which is similar to consecrated meat; however, with regard to wheat, no, it does not apply. In that case, it is clear that one is saying that the flour be watched for Passover.


讜讘砖专 诇讗 诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转讜讚讜住 讗讬砖 专讜诪讬 讛谞讛讬讙 讗转 讘谞讬 专讜诪讬 诇讗讻讜诇 讙讚讬讬诐 诪拽讜诇住讬谉 讘诇讬诇讬 驻住讞讬诐 砖诇讞讜 诇讜 讗诇诪诇讗 转讜讚讜住 讗转讛 讙讝专谞讜 注诇讬讱 谞讚讜讬 砖讗转讛 诪讗讻讬诇 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓 拽讚砖讬诐 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗


The Gemara asks: And with regard to meat is that not the case? Is it really prohibited to say that meat is for Passover? The Gemara raises an objection. Rabbi Yosei said: Theodosius [Todos] of Rome, leader of the Jewish community there, instituted the custom for the Roman Jews to eat kids roasted [mekulas] whole with their entrails over their heads on the evenings of Passover, as was the custom in the Temple. The Sages sent a message to him: If you were not Theodosius, an important person, we would have decreed ostracism upon you, as it appears as if you are feeding Israel consecrated food, which may be eaten only in and around the Temple itself, outside the permitted area. The Gemara asks about the terminology used here: Could it enter your mind that this meat was actually consecrated meat? That was certainly not the case. Rather, say instead:


拽专讜讘 诇讛讗讻讬诇 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓 诪拽讜诇住 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪拽讜诇住 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诪拽讜诇住 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗 讗诪专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽讜诇住 驻讬专砖 讗讬谉 诇讗 驻讬专砖 诇讗


Doing so is akin to feeding Jews consecrated meat outside the permitted area, as due to its resemblance to the Paschal lamb it could be misleading. The Gemara analyzes this statement: A goat roasted whole, yes, it is prohibited; a goat not roasted whole, no, it is not prohibited. This contradicts Rav, who prohibited roasting even ordinary meat. The Sages say that this is the distinction: With regard to a goat roasted whole, there is no difference if one said it is for Passover, and there is no difference if one did not say it is for Passover. In either case, it looks like a sacrifice and it is prohibited. With regard to a goat not roasted whole, if one specified that it is for Passover, yes, it is prohibited because it appears that he is consecrating it as a sacrifice. However, if one did not specify that it is for Passover, no, it is not prohibited, as there is no need for concern.


专讘 讗讞讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讛讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖砖转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讬 谞讬讞讗


Rav A岣 teaches this baraita about Theodosius in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rav Sheshet strongly objected to this: Granted, according to the one who learns it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, it works out well. However, according to the one who teaches it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, does it work out well? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna about a dispute with regard to one who consecrated an item for a purpose for which it was unsuited, e.g., a case where one sought to bring a meal-offering of barley, although meal-offerings may be brought only from wheat? In that case, the Rabbis say he is required to bring a meal-offering of wheat because in the first part of his statement he vowed to bring a meal-offering.


讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 砖诇讗 讛转谞讚讘 讻讚专讱 讛诪转谞讚讘讬诐


Rabbi Shimon exempts him from any obligation, as in his opinion, he did not donate in the manner typical of donors. In other words, Rabbi Shimon relates to the statement: A meal-offering of barley, as a single entity. Since no meal-offering of that kind exists, one is not required to bring an offering at all. Similarly, with regard to Passover, since one can consecrate only a living animal as a sacrifice and cannot consecrate meat as a sacrifice, if one declares: This meat is for Passover, it is in no way similar to consecrating an animal, and the meat has no sanctity.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讬 谞讬讞讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专讛 讚讗诪专 讗祝 讘讙诪专 讚讘专讬讜 讗讚诐 谞转驻住


Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And according to the one who teaches it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, does it work out well? Didn鈥檛 Rava say: With regard to a meal-offering of barley, Rabbi Shimon stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said: A person is also held accountable for the conclusion of his statement. The Sages disagreed with regard to the halakhot of consecration in a case where one consecrates an animal for two objectives in the same statement, e.g., as both a burnt-offering and a peace-offering. According to Rabbi Meir, one is held accountable for the beginning of his statement. Since he mentioned the burnt-offering first, the animal assumes the status of a burnt-offering. However, Rabbi Yosei says that one鈥檚 entire statement is significant, and that the animal is consecrated for two sacrifices. The owner must wait until the animal becomes blemished, redeem it, and use the money to purchase a burnt-offering and a peace-offering. Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion concerning a barley meal-offering. He maintains that one is held accountable not only for his first expression, i.e., that it is a meal-offering, but also for his second expression, i.e., that it is of barley. In that case, the second part of his statement negates the first part.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


What, is it not concluded from the fact that Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yosei also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that if one did not donate in the manner typical of donors, his act is meaningless? If that is the case, then any difficulty for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon would be similarly difficult for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara rejects this: No, although Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Yosei does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 转讜讚讜住 讗讬砖 专讜诪讬 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讛讜讛 讗讜 讘注诇 讗讙专讜驻讬谉 讛讜讛


A dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to the above incident. Was Theodosius of Rome a great man in terms of his Torah scholarship, and the Sages refrained from ostracizing him in deference to the Torah that he studied? Or, was he a violent man who could not be punished due to his local influence?


转讗 砖诪注 注讜讚 讝讜 讚专砖 转讜讚讜住 讗讬砖 专讜诪讬 诪讛 专讗讜 讞谞谞讬讛 诪讬砖讗诇 讜注讝专讬讛 砖诪住专讜 [注爪诪谉] 注诇 拽讚讜砖转 讛砖诐 诇讻讘砖谉 讛讗砖


Come and hear: This was also taught by Theodosius of Rome: What did Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah see that led them to deliver themselves to the fiery furnace for sanctification of the name of God during the rule of Nebuchadnezzar rather than worship idols under duress?


谞砖讗讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讘注爪诪谉 诪爪驻专讚注讬诐 讜诪讛 爪驻专讚注讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪爪讜讜讬谉 注诇 拽讚讜砖转 讛砖诐 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讜讘讗讜 [讜注诇讜] 讘讘讬转讱 [讜讙讜壮] 讜讘转谞讜专讬讱 讜讘诪砖讗专讜转讬讱 讗讬诪转讬 诪砖讗专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转 讗爪诇 转谞讜专 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讘砖注讛 砖讛转谞讜专 讞诐 讗谞讜 砖诪爪讜讜讬谉 注诇 拽讚讜砖转 讛砖诐 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛


They drew an a fortiori inference on their own from the plague of frogs in Egypt. With regard to frogs, which are not commanded concerning the sanctification of the name of God, it is written: 鈥淎nd the river shall swarm with frogs, which shall go up and come into your house, and into your bedchamber, and onto your bed, and into the houses of your servants, and upon your people, and into their ovens and kneading bowls鈥 (Exodus 7:28). When are kneading bowls found near the oven? You must say that it is when the oven is hot. If in fulfilling the command to harass the Egyptians, the frogs entered burning ovens, all the more so, we, who are commanded concerning the sanctification of the name of God, should deliver ourselves to be killed in the fiery furnace for that purpose. Apparently, Theodosius taught Torah in public, which indicates that he was a great man.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 诪讟讬诇 诪诇讗讬 诇讻讬住 砖诇 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讛讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛诪讟讬诇 诪诇讗讬 诇讻讬住 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讝讜讻讛 讜讬讜砖讘 讘讬砖讬讘讛 砖诇 诪注诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讘爪诇 讛讞讻诪讛 讘爪诇 讛讻住祝:


Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said: Theodosius was one who cast the profits from merchandise into the purse of Torah scholars. He would lend them money and enter into partnership with them so they could open businesses, and that is praiseworthy, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Anyone who casts merchandise into the purse of Torah scholars is rewarded and sits in the heavenly academy, as it is stated: 鈥淔or in the shadow of wisdom, is the shadow of money鈥 (Ecclesiastes 7:12). One who provides Torah scholars with money will merit being with them in the shadow of wisdom.


诪转谞讬壮 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛讚诇讬拽 讗转 讛谞专 讘诇讬诇讬 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 砖诇讗 诇讛讚诇讬拽 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讜诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讘转讬 讻谞住讬讜转 讜讘讘转讬 诪讚专砖讜转 讜讘诪讘讜讗讜转 讛讗驻诇讬诐 讜注诇 讙讘讬 讛讞讜诇讬诐:


MISHNA: The mishna discusses additional differences between local customs. In a place where people were accustomed to kindle a lamp in the house on Yom Kippur evenings, one kindles it. In a place where people were accustomed not to kindle a lamp, one does not kindle it. However, even in a place where the custom is not to kindle lamps in houses, one kindles in synagogues and study halls, in deference to these places. Similarly, lamps should be kindled in dark alleyways, so people will not be hurt, and next to the sick.


讙诪壮 转谞讗 讘讬谉 砖讗诪专讜 诇讛讚诇讬拽 讜讘讬谉 砖讗诪专讜 砖诇讗 诇讛讚诇讬拽 砖谞讬讛谉 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 谞转讻讜讜谞讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讚专砖 专讘讗 讜注诪讱 讻诇诐 爪讚讬拽讬诐 诇注讜诇诐 讬讬专砖讜 讗专抓 讜讙讜壮 讘讬谉 砖讗诪专讜 诇讛讚诇讬拽 讜讘讬谉 砖讗诪专讜 砖诇讗 诇讛讚诇讬拽 砖谞讬讛诐 诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚


GEMARA: It was taught in the Tosefta: Both in a place where the Sages said to kindle and in a place where they said not to kindle, they both intended to achieve the same objective, i.e., to distance people from sin, as conjugal relations are prohibited on Yom Kippur. Those who said that one kindles a lamp believe that because people do not engage in relations while a lamp is lit, the lamp will discourage intimacy. Those who maintain the opposite believe that spouses who are unable to see each other will not be tempted to engage in conjugal relations, and therefore it is preferable not to have a lamp lit on Yom Kippur. Rav Yehoshua said that Rava taught: 鈥淵our people are all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever; the branch of My planting, the work of My hands, in which I glory鈥 (Isaiah 60:21). Both in a place where the Sages said to kindle and in a place where they said not to kindle, they intended only to achieve the same objective, fulfilling a mitzva. Even though different places have different customs, the Jewish people all aspire to sanctity.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜专 讗诇讗 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜转讞诇转 讘专讬讬转讜 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讬砖专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讜诇讗 讛讜讛 专讻讬讘 讞诪专讗 讜讗讝讬诇 讜讛讜讛 砖拽讬诇 讜讗讝讬诇 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪讬诪讬谞讬讛 讜专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诪砖诪讗诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇注讜诇讗 讜讚讗讬 讚讗诪专讬转讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜专 讗诇讗 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜转讞诇转 讘专讬讬转讜 讛讜讗


On the topic of kindling a lamp for Yom Kippur, the Gemara discusses a related point. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One should recite the blessing over fire: Who creates the lights of fire, only at the conclusion of Shabbat, since the conclusion of Shabbat is the time of its original creation. A certain Elder said to him, and some say it was Rabba bar bar 岣na who said: That is correct; and so said Rabbi Yo岣nan. The Gemara relates: Ulla was riding on a donkey and going along, and Rabbi Abba was going along on his right and Rabba bar bar 岣na on his left. Rabbi Abba said to Ulla: Is it true that you said in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan that one recites the blessing over fire only at the conclusion of Shabbat, not at the conclusion of Yom Kippur, since the time of its original creation is the conclusion of Shabbat?


讛讚专 注讜诇讗 讞讝讗 讘讬讛 讘专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讘讬砖讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诇讗讜 讗讛讗 讗诪专讬 讗诇讗 讗讛讗 讗诪专讬 讚转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讗祝 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专讜 砖诇讗 诇讛讚诇讬拽 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讛砖讘转 讜注谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘转专讬讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讚讗 转讛讗


Since Ulla never transmitted that statement, he understood that it must have been Rabba bar bar 岣na who heard it from Rabbi Yo岣nan and transmitted it when he came from Eretz Yisrael. Ulla turned around and looked angrily at Rabba bar bar 岣na for misquoting Rabbi Yo岣nan. Still, Ulla said nothing. However, Rabba bar bar 岣na understood what had happened and said to him: I did not say anything about that matter; rather, what I said was about that which the reciter of the tannaitic literature taught in a baraita before Rabbi Yo岣nan in which Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to Yom Kippur that occurs on Shabbat, even in a place where they said not to kindle a lamp on Yom Kippur, one kindles in deference to Shabbat. Rabbi Yo岣nan answered after him and completed the statement: And the Rabbis prohibit kindling a lamp even when Yom Kippur occurs on Shabbat. Ulla said to Rabbi Abba: Let it be that Rabbi Yo岣nan indeed made this statement.


拽专讬 注诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讬诐 注诪讜拽讬诐 注爪讛 讘诇讘 讗讬砖


Rav Yosef read the following verse about this event: 鈥淐ounsel in the heart of man is like deep water;


Scroll To Top