Pesachim 39b:8פסחים ל״ט ב:ח
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Pesachim 39b:8"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
39bל״ט ב
1 א

ערוגה שהיא ששה על ששה טפחים זורעין בתוכה חמשה זרעונין ארבע על ארבע רוחות הערוגה ואחת באמצע מהו דתימא הני מילי בזרעין אבל בירקות לא קא משמע לן

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.

2 ב

למימרא דירקות אלימא מזרעים והתנן כל מיני זרעים אין זורעין בערוגה אחת כל מיני ירקות זורעין בערוגה אחת מהו דתימא הני מרור מין זרעים נינהו קא משמע לן

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.

3 ג

זרעים סלקא דעתך והא תנן ירקות ותני בר קפרא ירקות ותני דבי שמואל ירקות חזרת איצטריכא ליה סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל וסופה להקשות ניתיב לה רווחא טפי

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.

4 ד

לאו אמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא קלח של כרוב שהוקשה מרחיבין לו בית רובע אלמא כיון דסופו להקשות יהבינן ליה רווחא טפי הכא נמי ניתיב לה רווחא טפי קא משמע לן:

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.

5 ה

יוצאין בהן בין לחין בין יבשין כו׳: אמר רב חסדא לא שנו אלא בקלח אבל בעלין לחין אין יבשין לא

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.

6 ו

והא מדקתני סיפא בקלח שלהן מכלל דרישא עלין פרושי קא מפרש כי קתני בין לחין בין יבשין אקלח

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.

7 ז

מיתיבי יוצאין בהן ובקלח שלהן בין לחין בין יבשין דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים לחין יוצאין בהן יבשין אין יוצאין בהן ושוין שיוצאין בהן כמושין אבל לא כבושין ולא שלוקין ולא מבושלין

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.

8 ח

כללו של דבר כל שיש בו טעם מרור יוצאין בו וכל שאין בו טעם מרור אין יוצאין בו תרגומא אקלח תנו רבנן אין יוצאין בהן כמושין משום רבי אליעזר ברבי צדוק אמרו יוצאין בהן כמושין

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.

9 ט

בעי רמי בר חמא מהו שיצא אדם ידי חובתו במרור של מעשר שני בירושלים אליבא דרבי עקיבא לא תיבעי לך השתא במצה דאורייתא נפיק במרור דרבנן מיבעיא

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?

10 י

כי תיבעי לך אליבא דרבי יוסי הגלילי מאי במצה דאורייתא הוא דלא נפיק אבל מרור דרבנן נפיק

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?

11 יא

או דילמא כל דתקינו רבנן כעין דאורייתא תקון אמר רבא מסתברא מצה ומרור:

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.

12 יב

מתני׳ אין שורין את המורסן לתרנגולים אבל חולטין האשה לא תשרה את המורסן שתוליך בידה למרחץ אבל שפה היא בבשרה יבש לא ילעוס אדם חיטין ויניח על מכתו מפני שהן מחמיצות:

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.

13 יג

גמ׳ תנו רבנן אלו דברים שאין באין לידי חימוץ האפוי והמבושל וחלוט שחלטו ברותחין מבושל אדמבשל ליה מחמע אמר רב פפא האפוי שבישלו קאמר

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.

14 יד

תניא רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר קמח שנפל לתוכו דלף אפילו כל היום כולו אינו בא לידי חימוץ אמר רב פפא והוא דעביד טיף להדי טיף

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.

15 טו

אמרי דבי רבי שילא ותיקא שרי והתניא ותיקא אסור לא קשיא הא דעבדיה במישחא ומילחא הא דעבדיה במיא ומילחא

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.

16 טז

אמר מר זוטרא לא לימחי איניש קדרא בקמחא דאבישנא דילמא לא בשיל שפיר ואתי לידי חימוץ אמר רב יוסף לא ליחלוט איניש

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