עֲרוּגָה שֶׁהִיא שִׁשָּׁה עַל שִׁשָּׁה טְפָחִים — זוֹרְעִין בְּתוֹכָהּ חֲמִשָּׁה זֵרְעוֹנִין, אַרְבַּע — עַל אַרְבַּע רוּחוֹת הָעֲרוּגָה, וְאַחַת בָּאֶמְצַע. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּזְרָעִין, אֲבָל בִּירָקוֹת — לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. With regard to a garden bed that is six by six handbreadths in area, one may plant in it five different types of seeds, four types on the four sides of the bed and one type in the middle. This mishna teaches that it is permitted to plant different types of seeds in one garden bed, provided that one maintains the appropriate distance between them. The Gemara explains: Rav’s statement is nevertheless necessary. Lest you say that that applies only to seeds, but with regard to vegetables, no, it is prohibited to plant them in a single garden bed even if this separation is maintained, Rava teaches us that it is permitted to plant in this manner with vegetables as well.
לְמֵימְרָא דִּירָקוֹת אַלִּימָא מִזְּרָעִים? וְהָתְנַן: כׇּל מִינֵי זְרָעִים אֵין זוֹרְעִין בַּעֲרוּגָה אַחַת, כׇּל מִינֵי יְרָקוֹת זוֹרְעִין בַּעֲרוּגָה אַחַת! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא הָנֵי מָרוֹר מִין זְרָעִים נִינְהוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that vegetables are stronger in the level of their prohibition than seeds? But didn’t we learn in a mishna in Kilayim: With regard to multiple types of seeds, one may not plant them together in one garden bed, even if there is space between them; however, with regard to multiple types of vegetables, one may plant them together in one bed? This mishna apparently indicates that the halakha is stricter concerning seeds. The Gemara answers: Rav’s statement is necessary. Lest you say that these bitter herbs are a type of seed, not a vegetable, and therefore it is prohibited to plant them in a bed with other seeds, Rav teaches us that all the various bitter herbs are classified as types of vegetables.
זְרָעִים סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? וְהָא תְּנַן — יְרָקוֹת, וְתָנֵי בַּר קַפָּרָא — יְרָקוֹת, וְתָנֵי דְּבֵי שְׁמוּאֵל — יְרָקוֹת! חֲזֶרֶת אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְסוֹפָהּ לְהַקְשׁוֹת — נִיתֵּיב לַהּ רַוְוחָא טְפֵי. The Gemara asks: Could it even enter your mind that bitter herbs are types of seeds? But didn’t we learn the word vegetables in a mishna? And bar Kappara likewise taught: Vegetables. And furthermore, the Sage of the school of Shmuel taught: Vegetables. The Gemara explains: It was necessary for Rav to mention the status of ḥazeret. It could enter your mind to say that since ḥazeret ultimately hardens into a type of seed, one must therefore give it more space in a garden bed than other vegetables. Rav’s statement indicates that this is not the case.
לָאו אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, קֶלַח שֶׁל כְּרוּב שֶׁהוּקְשָׁה מַרְחִיבִין לוֹ בֵּית רוֹבַע! אַלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּסוֹפוֹ לְהַקְשׁוֹת יָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ רַוְוחָא טְפֵי, הָכָא נָמֵי נִיתֵּיב לַהּ רַוְוחָא טְפֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. The Gemara offers support for this contention: Didn’t Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, say: With regard to a stalk of cabbage that has hardened, one must allow a beit rova of space for it, in which no other seeds may be planted. Apparently, since it will ultimately harden, one must give it more space. Here too, in the case of the ḥazeret, it might have been thought that one is required to give it more space. Therefore, Rava teaches us that all types of bitter herbs, even lettuce, may be planted together in one bed without leaving additional space between each species.
יוֹצְאִין בָּהֶן בֵּין לַחִין בֵּין יְבֵשִׁין כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בַּקֶּלַח, אֲבָל בֶּעָלִין, לַחִין — אִין, יְבֵשִׁין — לָא. The mishna taught that one can fulfill his obligation to eat bitter herbs with these types of vegetables, whether they are fresh or whether they are dried. Rav Ḥisda said: They taught this halakha only with regard to the stem. However, with regard to the leaves, if they are moist, yes, they may be used as bitter herbs, but if they are dry, no, they may not serve as bitter herbs.
וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא ״בַּקֶּלַח שֶׁלָּהֶן״, מִכְלָל דְּרֵישָׁא עָלִין? פָּרוֹשֵׁי קָא מְפָרֵשׁ: כִּי קָתָנֵי בֵּין לַחִין בֵּין יְבֵשִׁין — אַקֶּלַח. The Gemara asks: But from the fact that it is taught in the last clause of the mishna: In their stems, it may be inferred that the first clause of the mishna refers to the leaves. The Gemara answers: The tanna is explaining his statement in the first clause of the mishna: When he taught that one may eat herbs whether they are fresh or whether dried, the tanna was referring to the stem, not the leaves.
מֵיתִיבִי: יוֹצְאִין בָּהֶן וּבַקֶּלַח שֶׁלָּהֶן, בֵּין לַחִין בֵּין יְבֵשִׁין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לַחִין — יוֹצְאִין בָּהֶן, יְבֵשִׁין — אֵין יוֹצְאִין בָּהֶן. וְשָׁוִין שֶׁיּוֹצְאִין בָּהֶן כְּמוּשִׁין. אֲבָל לֹא כְּבוּשִׁין וְלֹא שְׁלוּקִין וְלֹא מְבוּשָּׁלִין. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One can fulfill the obligation with the bitter herbs themselves or with their stems, whether they are fresh or whether they are dried; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: With regard to fresh bitter herbs, one can fulfill his obligation with them; however, with regard to dry bitter herbs, one cannot fulfill the obligation with them. And everyone agrees that one can fulfill his obligation with them if they are withered and are no longer fresh. However, one may neither use bitter herbs that have been pickled, nor over-boiled, nor boiled.
כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ טַעַם מָרוֹר — יוֹצְאִין בּוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ טַעַם מָרוֹר — אֵין יוֹצְאִין בּוֹ. תַּרְגּוּמָא אַקֶּלַח. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין יוֹצְאִין בָּהֶן כְּמוּשִׁין. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק אָמְרוּ: יוֹצְאִין בָּהֶן כְּמוּשִׁין. The baraita continues: The principle is: Anything that has the taste of bitter herbs, one can fulfill his obligation with it; but anything that does not have the taste of bitter herbs, one cannot fulfill his obligation with it. This baraita indicates that neither Rabbi Meir nor the Rabbis distinguish between the leaves of these herbs and their stems. The Gemara answers: Interpret Rabbi Meir’s statement, that one can fulfill the obligation with both fresh and dried bitter herbs, as referring to the stem but not to the leaves. The Sages taught: One cannot fulfill the obligation with them when they are withered. They said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok: One can fulfill his obligation with them even when they are withered.
בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: מַהוּ שֶׁיֵּצֵא אָדָם יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּמָרוֹר שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם? אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ: הַשְׁתָּא בְּמַצָּה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא נָפֵיק, בְּמָרוֹר דְּרַבָּנַן מִיבַּעְיָא? Rami bar Ḥama raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to the possibility that a person can fulfill his obligation with bitter herbs of second-tithe produce in Jerusalem? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who permits one to fulfill the obligation to eat matza with second-tithe produce because it can be eaten anywhere if it becomes ritually impure, do not raise this dilemma. Now that it has been mentioned that in the case of matza, where the obligation applies by Torah law, one can fulfill his obligation with second tithe in this manner, is it necessary to mention that one can use second tithe for bitter herbs, which nowadays applies by rabbinic law, as there is no Paschal lamb?
כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, מַאי? בְּמַצָּה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הוּא דְּלָא נָפֵיק, אֲבָל מָרוֹר דְּרַבָּנַן נָפֵיק? When you raise the dilemma, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who maintains that one cannot fulfill his obligation with matza of second-tithe produce. What is the halakha with regard to bitter herbs? The Gemara explains the two sides of this dilemma: Does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili say it is only with regard to matza of second-tithe produce, where the obligation applies by Torah law, that one does not fulfill the mitzva; however, with bitter herbs, a mitzva that applies by rabbinic law, one can fulfill his obligation with this second-tithe produce?
אוֹ דִילְמָא: כׇּל דְּתַקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן — כְּעֵין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא תַּקּוּן. אָמַר רָבָא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא מַצָּה וּמָרוֹר. Or perhaps, everything that the Sages instituted, they instituted in a manner similar to the model provided by Torah law. If this principle is accepted, it would mean the following: Just as one may not use second-tithe produce for matza, so too, one may not use second tithe as bitter herbs, despite the fact that the obligation to eat them is rabbinic. Rava said: It stands to reason that since the verse juxtaposes matza and bitter herbs, similar restrictions apply to both mitzvot. Consequently, just as according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili one cannot use second-tithe produce for matza, so too, one cannot use this produce for bitter herbs.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין שׁוֹרִין אֶת הַמּוּרְסָן לְתַרְנְגוֹלִים, אֲבָל חוֹלְטִין. הָאִשָּׁה לֹא תִּשְׁרֶה אֶת הַמּוּרְסָן שֶׁתּוֹלִיךְ בְּיָדָהּ לַמֶּרְחָץ, אֲבָל שָׁפָה הִיא בִּבְשָׂרָהּ יָבֵשׁ. לֹא יִלְעוֹס אָדָם חִיטִּין וְיַנִּיחַ עַל מַכָּתוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מַחְמִיצוֹת. MISHNA: One may not soak coarse bran for feeding chickens, lest it be leavened. However, one may pour boiling water onto the bran before feeding it to the chickens, as it will not become leavened from this brief exposure to water. A woman may not soak coarse bran to bring by hand to the bathhouse for use as a cleanser; however, she may rub coarse bran on her dry skin. Likewise, the Sages said: A person may not chew wheat and place it on his wound, due to the fact that the wheat will be leavened from the saliva and his chewing.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּאִין לִידֵי חִימּוּץ: הָאָפוּי, וְהַמְבוּשָּׁל, וְחָלוּט שֶׁחֲלָטוֹ בְּרוֹתְחִין. מְבוּשָּׁל? אַדִּמְבַשֵּׁל לֵיהּ, מַחְמַע! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָאָפוּי שֶׁבִּישְּׁלוֹ קָאָמַר. GEMARA: The Sages taught: The following foods do not come to a state of leavening: Foods that have already been baked, or boiled, or over-boiled in hot water. With regard to the statement that boiled food will not become leavened, the Gemara asks: Why not? When it is boiled it will become leavened. The Gemara answers that Rav Pappa said: The tanna merely said that if it was first baked and afterward boiled, it will not be leavened; however, if it was initially boiled it will become leavened.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: קֶמַח שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹכוֹ דֶּלֶף, אֲפִילּוּ כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ — אֵינוֹ בָּא לִידֵי חִימּוּץ, אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וְהוּא דְּעָבֵיד טִיף לַהֲדֵי טִיף. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: In the case of flour into which water is dripping, even if the water drips the entire day the flour will not come to a state of leavening, as the ceaseless dripping prevents fermentation. Rav Pappa said: And that is the case only if one drop drips into the other, i.e., the dripping is continuous, preventing the mixture from settling.
אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי שֵׁילָא: וָתִיקָא שְׁרֵי. וְהָתַנְיָא וָתִיקָא אָסוּר?! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — דְּעַבְדֵיהּ בְּמִישְׁחָא וּמִילְחָא, הָא — דְּעַבְדֵיהּ בְּמַיָּא וּמִילְחָא. The school of Rabbi Sheila say: Vatika, a pastry prepared from a mixture of different liquids, is permitted on Passover. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that vatika is forbidden? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita, which states that vatika is permitted, is referring to a case in which it was prepared with oil and salt, whereas that baraita forbade vatika prepared with water and salt, as that dish will become leavened.
אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: לָא לִימַחֵי אִינִישׁ קִדְרָא בְּקִמְחָא דַאֲבִישֻׁנָא, דִּילְמָא לָא בְּשִׁיל שַׁפִּיר, וְאָתֵי לִידֵי חִימּוּץ. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא לִיחְלוֹט אִינִישׁ Mar Zutra said: A person should not line the edge of a pot with roasted flour, lest some of the flour was not properly roasted and it will come to a state of leavening in the pot. Rav Yosef said: A person should not scald