משנה: כָּל שָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר לוֹכַל מַאֲכִיל לַבְּהֵמָה לַחַיָּה וְלָעוֹפוֹת וּמוֹכְרוֹ לַנָּכְרִי וּמוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָתוֹ. עָבַר זְמַנּוֹ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָתוֹ. לֹא יַסִּיק בּוֹ תַּנּוּר וְכִירַיִם. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵין בִּיעוּר חָמֵץ אֶלָּא שְׂרֵיפָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים מְפָרֵר וְזוֹרֶה לָרוּחַ אוֹ מַטִּיל לַיָּם: MISHNAH: Any time one is permitted to eat one feeds it1Leavened matter on the 14th of Nisan which has to be eliminated before noontime. to domestic or wild animals or birds, or sells it to a Non-Jew2Since only leavened matter in the possession of a Jew has to be eliminated, the Gentile may keep the leavened matter bought from the Jew and also use it during Passover time., and one may have usufruct from it3For example one may use the matter as fuel and its ashes as fertilizer.. If its time has passed4After noontime on the 14th, even though according to the majority opinion the biblical prohibition of usufruct only starts shortly before sundown, there is a rabbinic prohibition of usufruct for the entire afternoon. one may not have usufruct from it, nor use it to heat an oven or a cooking stove. Rebbi Jehudah says, leavened matter may only be eliminated by burning. But the Sages say, he makes crumbs and scatters them in the wind or throws it into the Sea5In this version, which also is the reading of the Munich ms. of the Babli, R. Hananel, some texts of Alfasi, and Maimonides’s autograph Mishnah, the Sages disagree with R. Jehudah. The Mishnah in the printed Babli, starting with the editio princeps, reads “But the Sages say, he also may make crumbs and …” This determines current practice following R. Jehudah, even though also is missing in the Mishnah quote in the Babli Halakhah (28a). Cf. Diqduqe Soferim Pesaḥim p. 28a Note 1..
הלכה: כָּל שָׁעָה כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי אִימִּי. מָאן תַּנָּא כָּל שָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר לוֹכַל מוּתָּר לְהַאֲכִיל. אָסוּר לָאוֹכֵל אָסוּר לְהַאֲכִיל. רִבִּי מֵאִיר. בְּרַם כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. חֲמִישִּׁית אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר לוֹכַל מוּתָּר לְהַאֲכִיל. הָתִיב רִבִּי בָּא. וְהָתַנִּינָן. סִיעוּר יִשָּרֵף וְהָאוֹכְלוֹ פָּטוּר. וְאָמַר רַב חוּנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי. מוּתָּר לְהַאֲכִילֹו לַכְּלָבִים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מָה אֲתִינָן מִיתְנֵי כָּל חָמֵץ. לֹא שָׁעוֹת. מָאן תַּנָּא שָׁעוֹת. רִבִּי מֵאִיר. HALAKHAH: “Any time” etc. Rebbi Immi said, who is the Tanna of “any time when he is permitted to eat he is permitted to feed, when it is forbidden to the eater he is forbidden to feed”? Rebbi Meïr6Babli 21a. In Mishnah 1:4 R. Meïr permits to eat up to the time one has to dispose of the leftovers, in contrast to R. Jehudah who forbids to eat starting one hour before the leavened matter will be forbidden. The latter could not have formulated “any time”.. But following Rebbi Jehudah, in the fifth hour even though he is forbidden to eat he is permitted to feed. Rebbi Abba objected: Did we not state7Mishnah 3:5, presumed to be R. Meïr’s., “sour dough has to be burned but one who eats it is not liable8Ex. 12:19 contains two statements. 1° leavened matter may not be in a Jew’s possession on Passover, and 2°, it is a deadly sin, punishable by extirpation, to eat leavened matter during the holiday. The Tanna of the Mishnah holds that the second statement is not applicable to matters commonly considered to be inedible.,” and did not Rav Ḥuna say in the name of Rebbi, one may feed it to the dogs9Mishnah 1 excludes feeding to animals.? Rebbi Yose said, did we state “any leavened matter”, not “time10Mishnah 2:1 is formulated to apply only to the 14th of Nisan. Mishnah 3:5, referring to Nisan 15–21, does not contradict the earlier Mishnah.”? Who is the Tanna of “time”, Rebbi Meïr.
אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָה. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶּׁמּוּתָּר לְהַאֲכִילוֹ לִבְהֵמַת הֶבְקֵר. הָתִיב רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. וְהָתַנִּינָן. מְפָרֵר. סָבַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה כִּכָּרוֹת. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא מְפָרֵר. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁפֵּירְרוֹ בָּטֵל. וְאֵיְידֵא אָמַר דָּא. לֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ הַיּוֹם. אֲפִילוּ לַכְּלָבִים. הֲרֵי זֶה בָא לְאוֹסְרוֹ בַהֲנָיָיה. מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם לְכַלְבּוֹ. הָהַנֵּי אִיסּוּר הֲנָיָיה. אֶלָּא כִי נָן קַיָימִין. אֲפִילוּ לְכֶלֶב [אֲחֵרִים]. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת. שֶׁאָסוּר לְהַאֲכִילֹו לִבְהֵמַת הֶבְקֵר. Rebbi Bun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: This11The statement of the Mishnah, “if its time has passed one may not have usufruct from it,” seems to imply that any use from which the owner does not derive usufruct is permitted. implies that one is permitted to feed it to ownerless animals. Rebbi Jeremiah objected, did we not state “he crumbles it”? Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion, loaf sized12He reads the Mishnah as requiring only that loaves should not be disposed of whole, but may be disposed of in sizeable pieces. If these are thrown to the wind, the probability is great that a bird or a squirrel will pick them up; the reference to his usufruct seems to be unnecessary.. Rebbi Yose said to him, it only mentioned “he crumbles it”, that when he crumbled it it was nullified13The Mishnah requires that any leftovers be reduced to tiny crumbs which are of no use. These crumbs do no longer qualify as food; the leavened matter is considered disposed off even if not thrown to the wind.. But the following says it, leavend matter may not be eaten today14Ex. 13:3–4: Moses said to the people, remember this day on which you left Egypt, the House of Slavery, for with a strong hand did the Eternal remove you from there, and leavened matter shall not be eaten. Today you are leaving, in the Spring month. Since the text is written without commas and periods, the period implied by the oral tradition of separation of verses may be disregarded. A different interpretation of the same reading is in Mekhilta dR. Ismael ad loc. (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 62 line 2), Babli 28b., even by the dogs. This includes to forbid it for usufruct. Where do we hold? If for his own dog, the prohibition of usufruct had been stated15The passive voice in Ex. 13:3 implies that the identity of the eater is irrelevant, against the argument of Note 11.. But we must hold for the dog [of others]. This implies that one is prohibited from feeding it to ownerless animals.
רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא תֹאכַל לֹא תֹאכְלוּ לֹא יֵאָכֵלוּ אַתְּ תּוֹפֵשׂ אִיסּוּר הֲנָיָיה כְּאִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה. עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא הַכָּתוּב וְיִפְרוֹשׁ לָךְ כְּשֵׁם שֶׁפִּירֵשׁ לָךְ בְּאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי וּבִנְבֵילָה. וְכִי מַה פִירֵשׁ לָנוּ בְּאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי. וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵיפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ לַכֶּלֶב תַּשְׁלִיכוּן אוֹתוֹ. וְכִי מַה פִירֵשׁ לָנוּ בִּנְבֵילָה. לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כָל נְבֵילָה לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ אוֹ מָכוֹר לְנָכְרִי. תַּנֵּי חִזְקִיָּה וּפְלִיג. וְכִי מִי אֲסָרוֹ לַכֶּלֶב. 16The text from here to Note 64 also is in Orlah 3:1, Notes 10–44, ע. It seems that the origin of the text is in Pesaḥim since only here the verses are quoted in full and an important sentence is missing in ע. In the Babli, the parallel is 21b–23a. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar17In the printed editions of the Babli, R. Eleazar is not mentioned, but his name appears in the Munich ms.: Everywhere it is written do not eat, do not eat18Plural., it shall not be eaten, you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating unless the verse is explicit and explains to you as it did explain about limbs of a living animal and a carcass. What did it explain about limbs of a living animal? Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat; throw it to the dog19Ex. 22:30. Why is it necessary to permit torn limbs as dog food? R. Eleazar argues that this shows that without such permission the limb would be forbidden for all usufruct.. And what did it explain about a carcass? Do not eat any carcass; to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it, or sell to the stranger.20Deut. 14:21. Ḥizqiah stated a disagreement21In the Babli 21b, Ḥizqiah accepts the statement of R. Eleazar only for the passive formulation; later (Note 48) this is clarified to be the position of Ḥizqiah and R. Joḥanan in a second version. In this first version, Ḥizqiah must hold that an inference from a verse is only valid if there is no second verse leading to the same result. The theoretical basis is the recognition that the legal texts in the Torah are incomplete and sometimes contradictory as a system. In addition, it is held that words do not change their meaning in legal contexts. Therefore, a mechanism of translation of the Torah text into a coherent and reasonably complete system must exist. The rule quoted by Ḥizqiah is one of the translation rules; cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Ph. Longworth (ed.), Confrontations with Judaism (London 1966) pp. 171–196.
Since here the mention of the torn limb and the carcass both lead to the same argument, either one of them would be superfluous and, therefore, both must be needed for other inferences. The argument of R. Eleazar is refuted.. What does one forbid to the dog22The dog is not a human and is not obliged by any rules.?
וְהָא כְתִיב. כָּל חֵלֶב שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ. מֵעַתָּה אַתְּ תּוֹפֵשׂ אִיסּוּר הֲנָיָיה כְּאִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא דִכְתִיב וְחֵלֶב נְבֵילָה וְחֵלֶב טְרֵיפָה יֵעָשֶׂה לְכָל מְלָאכָה וְאָכֹל לֹא תֹאכְלוּהוּ. וְהָכְתִיב רַק הַדַּם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ. מֵעַתָּה אַתְּ תּוֹפֵשׂ אִיסּוּר הֲנָיָיה כְּאִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה. שַׁנְיָיה הִיא דִכְתִיב עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם. מַה הַמַּיִם מוּתָּרִין בַּהֲנָיָיה אַף הַדָּם יְהֵא מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. וְהָכְתִיב עַל כֵּן לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. קִיַימְתֵּיהּ בְּגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁבִּנְבֵילוֹת. וְהָא כְתִיב וְלֶחֶם וְקָלִי וְכַרְמֶל לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַד עֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי אַחוֹי דְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. שַׁנְיָיה הִיא. שֶׁקָּבַע הַכָּתוּב זְמַן. וְהָא כְתִיב לֹא תֹאכְלוּם כִּי שֶׁקֶץ הֵם. אָמַר רִבִּי. מִיעֵט אִיסּוּר הֲנָיָיה שֶׁבּוֹ. But is it not written23Lev. 7:23. This paragraph discusses verses which present difficulties for R. Eleazar.: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written24Lev. 7:23. In the opinion of the Babli 23a, the verse is needed to permit any use of profane fat since otherwise one would argue that since fat is forbidden for humans but required for the altar, fat of animals unfit for the altar should be permitted for use in the Temple but forbidden for profane use. In the Sifra Ṣaw (Parasha 10), the argument of the Babli is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean; R. Aqiba concludes that fat of domesticated animals is not food nor subject to the impurity of food.
In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, since some fat is permitted for unrestricted use, no fat can be forbidden for usufruct in the absence of an explicit verse. For Ḥizqiah, this is a third verse that could be used for R. Eleazar’s argument; nobody will contest that three parallel verses invalidate the argument. In the second version of Ḥizqiah’s position (below, after Note 49), he needs the verse to permit use of fat for work on Temple property.: But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work, only it may not be eaten. But is it not written25Deut. 12:16.: Only the blood you may not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written: You shall pour it on the ground like water26The Babli 22b deduces from here that animal blood is a fluid which prepares for impurity only if it is spilled on the ground (cf. Demay 2:3, Note 136). The argument of the Yerushalmi, and an argument that animal blood prepares for impurity in all cases, is in Sifry Deut. 73 and later here, in the second version of Ḥizqiah. (Preparation for impurity is explained in Demay 2:3, Notes 136–141.). Since water is permitted for use, so blood shall be permitted for use. But is it not written27Gen. 32:33.: Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the sciatic nerve? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass28The argument is more explicit in the Babli 22a. R. Abbahu holds that when carcass and tom meat was permitted for the sojourner (Note 53) and the pagan, the entire animal was permitted, including the fat. Then the last paragraph of Note 24 establishes that the schiatic sinew cannot be forbidden for usufruct.. But is it not written29Lev. 23:14.: Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat until this very day? Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written30Lev. 11:42.: Do not eat them for they are abominations? Rebbi [Mana]31Added from Orlah, missing here. said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct33Latin splenium, Greek σπληνίον, τό, “pad, wound dressing.”.
רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הָעוֹשֶׂה אִיסְפְּלָנִית מִשּׁוֹר הַנִּסְקַל וּמֵחָמֵץ שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו הַפֶּסַח אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. שֶׁאֵין לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבּוֹ מְחוּוָר. מִכִּלאֵי הַכֶּרֶם לוֹקֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. פֶּן תִּקְדַּשׁ. פֶּן תּוּקַּד אֵשׁ. מֵעָרְלָה צְרִיכָה. עֲשֵׂה לְרָחֲקוֹ כָתוּב. לֹא תֵיעָשֶׂה לְאוֹכְלוֹ כָתוּב לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כָתוּב. לֹא תֵיעָשֶׂה לְרָחֲקוֹ לֹא כָתוּב. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who makes a wound dressing33Latin splenium, Greek σπληνίον, τό, “pad, wound dressing.” from a stoned ox34The Babli 24b explains that one might use fat from the stoned ox to cover a wound.
The ox was stoned by order of the court because it killed humans (Ex. 21:28–29). Its meat is forbidden for usufruct as explained in the sequel. Cf. Mekhilta dR.Ismael Mišpaṭim10 (p. 282). or from leftover sour matter after Passover35Since the Mishnah had stated that leavened matter becomes prohibited for all usufruct in the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan, after the holiday it cannot become permitted again. cannot be whipped since its prohibition is not clear. For vineyard kilaim he is whipped since Rebbi Ḥanina said36Deut. 22:9. For this derivation, cf. Kilaim 8:1, Note 6.: Lest it be sanctified, lest fire should be kindled. For ˋorlah it is problematic. A prescriptive commandment to removal is written37Since Lev. 19:23 requires that the (budding) fruit is treated as “foreskin” and the foreskin has to be removed, one may take the verse as prescribing the removal of any ˋorlah fruit., a prohibition to eat is written38Last two words of Lev. 19:23. Since R. Joḥanan reads לֹ֥א יֵֽאָכֵֽל as prohibition of eating, not of usufruct, he follows his teacher Ḥizqiah in rejecting the argument of R. Eleazar., [“do not eat”]39An incorrect and unnecessary addition by the corrector, not part of the original ms., a prohibition to remove it is not written40Non-fulfillment of a prescriptive commandment is not prosecutable..
מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל הַשּׁוֹר. וְכִי אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁבְּשָׂרוֹ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ. בָּא לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ. שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה כָּךְ הוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. פָּתַר לָהּ בְּשֶׁקָּדְמוּ הַבְּעָלִים וּשְׁחָטוּהוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ. In a baraita41The baraita as stated here is not found in any other source except the Yerushalmi parallels in Orlah and Avodah Zarah 5:12 (Note 155). In Mekhilta Mišpaṭim 19; quoted in Babli 22b, Qiddušin 56b, Bava Qamma 41a the text explicitly notes that, since “its meat shall not be eaten” is included in the statement of the sentence to be passed by the court, only after judgment is rendered does slaughter become ineffective. This may also be he rule implied by the Yerushalmi Targum to Ex.21:28: וְלָא יִתְנְכַס לְמֵיכוּל יַת בִּשְׂרֵיהּ “it should not be slaughtered to make its flesh edible.” Since the Babli follows R. Eleazar, no discussion of the prohibition of usufruct is necessary. one disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: What does one understand from what has been said42Ex. 21:28.: the ox shall certainly be stoned? Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food43As carcass meat.? Then why does the verse say, its meat shall not be eaten? To tell you that just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden for usufruct. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explained it if the owners slaughtered it before sentence was pronounced44This statement directly contradicts the position of the Babli. R. Joḥanan will hold that the prescriptive commandment to stone the ox after judgment has been passed automatically makes any slaughter invalid; that would not need a proof from the verse..
רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. הָכָא תֵימַר הָכֵין וְהָכָא תֵימַר הָכֵין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הָדָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר וְהָדָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Here you say so, there you say so45He states contradictory theses, whether or not prohibition as food implies prohibition of usufruct.? He said to him, here in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, there in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan.
רַבָּנִן דְּקַיְסָרִין רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא תֹאכַל לֹא תֹאכְלוּ אֵין אַתְּ תּוֹפֵשׂ אִיסּוּר הֲנָיָיה כְּאִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה. לֹא תֵאָכֵל לֹא יֵאָכֵל אַתְּ תּוֹפֵשׂ אִיסּוּר הֲנָיָיה כְּאִיסּוּר אֲכִילָה. בִּנְיַין אַב שֶׁבְּכוּלָּם. וְכָל חַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר יוּבָא מִדָּמָהּ אֶל אוֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לְכַפֵּר בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ לֹא תֵאָכֵל בָּאֵשׁ תִּשָּׂרֵף. תַּנֵּי חִזְקִיָּה מְסַיֵיעַ לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר חֵלֶב שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ. לְאֵי זֶה דָּבָר נֶאֱמַר וְחֵלֶב נְבֵילָה וְחֵלֶב טְרֵיפָה יֵעָשֶׂה לְכָל מְלָאכָה. אֲפִילוּ לִמְלֶאכֶת גָּבוֹהַּ. מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר רַק הַדָּם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ. לְאֵי זֶה דָּבָר נֶאֱמַר עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם. מָה הַמַּיִם מַכְשִׁירִין. אַף הַדָּם יְהֵא מַכְשִׁיר. מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כָל נְבֵילָה. לְאֵי זֶה דָּבָר נֶאֱמַר לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ. בָּא לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ. גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב אוֹכֵל בִּנְבֵילוֹת. מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵיפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר לַכֶּלֶב תַּשְׁלִיכוּן אוֹתוֹ. אוֹתוֹ אַתָּה מַשְׁלִיךְ לַכֶּלֶב וְאֵין אַתְּ מַשְׁלִיךְ לַכֶּלֶב חוּלִין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בָעֲזָרָה. The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating if it is written do not eat, do not eat. It may not be eaten (f.). it may not be eaten (m.), you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating46In contrast to the statement of R. Eleazar (Note 17) it is asserted that if the prohibition of food is in the active voice it does not imply prohibition of usufruct. Still the passive voice does imply prohibition of usufruct.. The paradigm for all cases is47Lev. 6:23.: Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned48It is shown that the passive voice implies prohibition of usufruct, since it is the only such case where the inference is valid according to everybody. The verse is understood (Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 8(5), quoted in Babli Zebaḥim 82a, Yerushalmi Pesaḥim7:9, fol. 35a] following a punctuation which differs from the masoretic one: Any purification offering, some of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify, in the Sanctuary it shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned. This is a possible reading since purification offerings may be eaten only in the Sanctuary. Then “Sanctuary” is taken also to refer to the last clause, (in the sanctuary) in fire it shall be burned. This excludes all sacred and profane usufruct after purification.. Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said49Lev. 7:23.: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat, why has it been said: but fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work? Even for the work of Heaven24Lev. 7:23. In the opinion of the Babli 23a, the verse is needed to permit any use of profane fat since otherwise one would argue that since fat is forbidden for humans but required for the altar, fat of animals unfit for the altar should be permitted for use in the Temple but forbidden for profane use. In the Sifra Ṣaw (Parasha 10), the argument of the Babli is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean; R. Aqiba concludes that fat of domesticated animals is not food nor subject to the impurity of food.
In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, since some fat is permitted for unrestricted use, no fat can be forbidden for usufruct in the absence of an explicit verse. For Ḥizqiah, this is a third verse that could be used for R. Eleazar’s argument; nobody will contest that three parallel verses invalidate the argument. In the second version of Ḥizqiah’s position (below, after Note 49), he needs the verse to permit use of fat for work on Temple property.. If one understands what has been said50Deut. 12:16.: But the blood you shall not eat, why has it been said,you shall pour it on the ground like water? As water prepares51Preparation for impurity is explained in Demay 2:3, Notes 136–141., so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said52Deut. 14:21.: Do not eat any carcass; why has it been said, to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it? It serves to tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat53The resident sojourner, in order to receive the full protection of the law, only has to follow the “precepts of the descendants of Noe”, to abstain from idolatry, murder, incest and adultery, eating limbs tom from a living animal, blasphemy, robbery, and anarchy.. If one understands what has been said54Ex. 22:30.: Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat, why does the verse say, throw it to the dog? This you throw to the dog but you do not throw profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct55In the Babli 22a this is quoted as the opinion of R. Meïr. It is forbidden to slaughter anything but sacrifices in the Temple precinct, Lev.17:4..
מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְדֵין וּמַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְדֵין. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. לֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ. לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת הַמַּאֲכִיל כְּאוֹכֵל. וְאַתָּה אוֹמֵר. לַעֲשׂוֹת הַמַּאֲכִיל כְּאוֹכֵל. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְאוֹסְרוֹ בַהֲנָיָיה. וּכְשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ. הָא לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַהֲנָיָיה. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ. לַעֲשׂוֹת הַמַּאֲכִיל כְּאוֹכֵל. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָה. רִבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר. אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. וּמַה שְׂרָצִים קַלִּים עָשָׂה בָהֶם אֶת הַמַּאֲכִיל כְּאוֹכֵל. חָמֵץ הֶחָמוּר אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה בוֹ אֶת הַמַּאֲכִיל כְּאוֹכֵל. וּמַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ. לֹא בָא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לְאוֹסְרוֹ בַהֲנָיָיה. בְּגִין כֵּן כָּתוּב לֹא יֵאָכֵל. הָא מִלֹּא תֹאכַל לֵית שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ כְּלוּם. וְהָדָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. A baraita56Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Bo 16, p. 51. Tanḥuma Bo 11 supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar57The disagreement between R. Eleazar and R. Joḥanan is an old tannaitic disagreement between Rabbis Josia and Isaac of the fourth tannaitic generation.. Sour bread shall not be eaten58Ex. 13:3., to make the feeder equal to the eater59The person who serves sour matter to a Jew on Passover is guilty as if he ate it, to be punished by extirpation. If the server acts intentionally and the eater unintentionally, the server alone is punishable.. And you say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says:60Deut. 16:3. You shall not eat sour bread with it, we learned that usufruct is forbidden61This is the position of R. Eleazar.. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition62Eating forbidden living things is punished by whipping by the earthly court; but eating sour matter on Passover is punished by Heaven with extirpation., He made the feeder equal to the eater63Sifra Šemini Pereq 5(1). R. Abraham ben David in his commentary notes that this is not the position of the Babli; he does not refer to the Yerushalmi.; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that we consider the feeder to be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse serves only to forbid its usufruct. Since it is written, sour bread shall not be eaten, therefore from you shall not eat one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan 64Here ends the parallel with ˋOrlah 3:1..
לֹא יַסִּיק בּוֹ תַּנּוּר וְכִירַיִם. עָבַר וְהִסִּיק. יָיבֹא כְהָדָא. אִם חָדָשׁ יוּתָּץ. אִם יָשָׁן יוּצָּן. “Nor use it to heat an oven or a cooking stove.” If he transgressed and heated, it shall come like the following65Mishnah Avodah zarah 3:14, dealing with using wood from an Asherah to heat a clay stove which was not finished in a kiln. It would become hardened by being exposed to the fire kindled in them. Therefore a new oven would be finished by the Ashera wood; it must be destroyed. The text might be a quote not of this Mishnah but of Tosephta Orlah 7 dealing with the same situation if the fuel is orlah fruit (Orlah 3:3 Note 114) which is quoted in extenso in the Babli 26b.: “If it was new it must be destroyed270Prepared to be used with the meat. Since both this and haroset are moist, leavening would be caused by the addition of flour., if it was old it must be cooled down.”
תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. אֵין בִּיעוּר חָמֵץ אֶלָּא בִשְׂרֵיפָה. דִּין הוּא. מָה אִם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בַּל יֵירָאֶה וּבַל יִימָּצֵא אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִשְׂרֵיפָה. חָמֵץ שֶׁהוּא בְּבַל יֵירָאֶה וּבַל יִימָּצֵא אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אֶלָּא בִשְׂרֵיפָה. אָמְרוּ לֹו לְרִבִּי יוּדָה. כָּל דִּין שֶׁאַתָּה דָן שֶׁתְּחִילָּתוֹ לְהַחֲמִיר וְסוֹפוֹ לְהָקֵל אֵינוֹ דִין. הָא אִם לֹא נִתָמַנֶּה לוֹ אוֹר יֵשֵׁב לוֹ וְלֹא יַבְעִיר. אָמְרָה תוֹרָה תַּשְׁבִּיתוּ שְּׂאוֹר מִבָּתֵּיכֶם. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, leavened matter may only be eliminated by burning.66The first and last paragraphs in this section are also quoted in the Babli, 27b–28a; Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥay ad Ex. 12:15, pp. 17–18.. It is an argument de minore ad majus. Since piggul67Sacrifices which were offered with the intention that the meat be eaten out of place or time; Lev. 19:7. and leftover68Sacrificial meat left over after the time allotted for its consumption, depending on the kind of sacrifice either day and night or two daytimes with the night in between., which are not under an injunction not to be seen and not to be found, only may be disposed of by burning, for leavened matter which is under an injunction not to be seen and not to be found, it is only logical that it only may be disposed by burning. They told Rebbi Jehudah, any argument de minore ad majus which you argue in the beginning as a restriction but it turns out in the end to be a leniency, is no argument de minore ad majus69The premise that there be a case of major and minor is disproved. Cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, Ph. Longworth, ed., London 1966, pp. 171–196.. It would imply that if he does not find fire he could sit and not dispose of it. The Torah said70Ex. 12:15., eliminate sour dough from your houses.
כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה. אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ וְיָלְדָה זָכָר. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר. לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְטָמְאָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי יִמּוֹל. שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי בְיוֹצֵא חַי שֶׁהוּא מְטַמֵּא אֶת אִמּוֹ טוּמְאַת לֵידָה. מְנַיִין לְיוֹצֵא מֵת שֶׁהוּא מְטַמֵּא אֶת אִמּוֹ טוּמְאַת לֵידָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה. הֲרֵי אֲנִי דָן. מָה אִם בְּיוֹצֵא חַי. שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶת אִמּוֹ וְאֶת הַבָּאִין עִמּוֹ [וְאֶת הָבָּא עִם אִמּוֹ] לְאוֹהֶל טוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה. מְטַמֵּא אֶת אִמּוֹ טוּמְאַת לֵידָה. הַיּוֹצֵא מֵת. שֶׁהוּא מְטַמֵּא אֶת אִמּוֹ וְאֶת הַבָּאִין עִמּוֹ [וְאֶת הָבָּא עִם אִמּוֹ] לְאוֹהֶל טוּמְאַת שִׁבְעָה. אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּטַמֵּא אֶת אִמּוֹ טוּמְאַת לֵידָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרִבִּי יוּדָה. כָּל דִּין שֶׁתְּחִילָּתוֹ אַתָּה דָן לְהַחֲמִיר וְסוֹפוֹ לְהָקֵל אֵינוֹ דִין. הָא אִם טִיהֵר הַחַי אֶת אִמּוֹ יְטָהֵר אַף הַמֵּת אֶת אִמּוֹ. אִם לֹא זָכִיתִי מן הַדִּין. [לְפִיכָךְ] אָמְרָה תוֹרָה זָכָר. לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַמֵּת. Similarly said Rebbi Jehudah, if a woman carries seed and gives birth to a male71Lev. 13:1. Sifra TazriaˋIntroduction (5); another version of Sifra in Midrash Haggadol Lev., ed A. Steinsalz, Jerusalem 1976, pp. 313–314.. What does the verse imply? Since it is said, she shall be impure for seven days,72Lev. 13:2.and on the eighth day one shall circumcise, I understand that a live birth makes his mother impure by the impurity of birth. From where that a stillbirth makes his mother impure by the impurity of birth? Rebbi Jehudah said, I am presenting an argument de minore ad majus. Since a live birth, who does not make impure for seven days his mother, and those who come with him73According to Pene Mosheh, this refers to multiple births if one of the fetuses is dead., [or who comes with his mother,]74Unnecessary addition by the corrector. into a tent75A live birth causes his mother to be impure for seven days; after this time she may remove her impurity at any time by immersion in a miqweh. A stillbirth causes impurity of the dead not only by touch but also by being under the same “tent” and requires the purification rite of the ashes of the Red Cow described in Num. 19., the stillbirth who makes impure for seven days his mother, and those who come with him, [or who comes with his mother,]74Unnecessary addition by the corrector. into a tent, it is only logical that he should make his mother impure by the impurity of birth. They told Rebbi Jehudah, any argument de minore ad majus which you argue in the beginning as a restriction but it turns out in the end to be a leniency is no argument de minore ad majus. As a consequence, since a live birth purifies his mother76After the impurity of the first 7 days, the next 33 days for a male or 66 days for a female no genital discharge of the mother induces biblical impurity., also the stillbirth should purify his mother? Since I cannot prove it by an argument de minore ad majus, [therefore} the Torah said a male, to include the stillbirth77Since the mention of a female in v. 5 implies that the preceding verses refer to a male, the explicit mention of “male” is unnecessary. It is concluded that the verses refer to any fetus recognizably male..
כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה. תֵּשְׁבוּ בַּסּוּכּוֹת. סוּכָּה שֶׁלָּכָל דָּבָר. שֶׁהָיָה רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. הַדִּין נוֹתֵן שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא הַסּוּכָּה בָאָה אֶלָּא מֵאַרְבָּעַת הַמִּינִין. מָה אִם לוּלָב שֶׂאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בַּלֵּילוֹת כְּבַיָּמִים אֵינוֹ בָא אֶלָּא מֵאַרְבָּעַת הַמִּינִין. סוּכָּה שֶׁהִיא נוֹהֶגֶת בַּלֵּילוֹת כְּבַיָּמִים אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֶֹּא תָבוֹא אֶלָּא מֵאַרְבָּעַת הַמִּינִין. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרִבִּי יוּדָה. כָּל דִּין שֶׁאַתָּה דָן שֶׁתְּחִילָּתוֹ לְהַחֲמִיר וְסוֹפוֹ לְהָקֵל אֵינוֹ דִין. הָא לֹא מָצָא מֵאַרְבָּעַת הַמִּינִין יֵשֵׁב לוֹ בְלֹא סוּכָּה. וְאָמְרָה תוֹרָה תֵּשְׁבוּ בַּסּוּכּוֹת. סוּכָּה שֶׁלָּכָל דָּבָר. [וְכֵן עֶזְרָא אָמַר וַאֲשֶׁר יַשְׁמִיעוּ וְיַעֲבִירוּ קוֹל בְּכָל עָרִים וּבִירוּשָׁלַם לֵאמֹר צְאוּ הָהָר וגו׳.] Similarly said Rebbi Jehudah, “you should dwell in huts78The reference obviously is to Lev.23:42 where the text reads either בַּסֻּכֹּ֥ת תֵּֽשְׁב֖וּ or יֵֽשְׁב֖וּ בַּסֻּכֹּֽת. The quote is correct in Sifra Emor Pereq 17(10) but incorrect in Midrash Haggadol (Note 71) p. 763. The reference is to the holiday of Tabernacles.,” a hut made of anything. For Rebbi Jehudah was saying, it is an argument de minore ad majus that the hut should come only from the Four Kinds79This can only mean that the thatched roof of the hut, which must be of vegetal material, should be composed of willow, myrrh, or palm branches. The fourth kind, the fruit of the hadar tree (Lev. 23:40), probably cannot be used for this purpose. [In medieval Germany the roof of the festival hut usually was covered with willow branches, Sefer Maharil (ed. S. J. Spitzer, Jerusalem 1989, p. 363)].. Since the lulav which is not used in nights as in days may come only from the Four Kinds, it is only logical that a hut which is used by nights as well as by days should come only from the Four Kinds. They told Rebbi Jehudah, any argument de minore ad majus which you argue in the beginning as a restriction but it turns out in the end to be a leniency is no argument de minore ad majus. As a consequence, if he did not find of the Four Kinds, should he sit without a hut? But the Torah said, “you should dwell in huts,” a hut made of anything. [And so Ezra said80Neh. 8:15. The proof is from the continuation of the verse, not quoted in the text: Bring olive leaves, and oil-wood leaves, and myrrh leaves, and palm leaves, and ˋavot-tree leaves, to make huts as it is written. Corrector’s addition from the parallel sources., they informed and did proclaim in all cities and in Jerusalem, go to the mountain, etc.]
חָזַר רִבִּי יוּדָה וְדָנוֹ דִין אַחֵר. חָמֵץ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וְנוֹתָר אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. מַה זֶה בִשְׂרֵיפָה אַף זֶה בִשְׂרֵיפָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. נְבֵילָה תוֹכִיחַ. שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה בַאֲכִילָה וְאֵינָהּ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה. אָמַר לָהֶן. חָמֵץ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָיָיה וְנוֹתָר אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָיָיה. אַל תּוֹכִיחַ נְבֵילָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָיה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ וַהֲרֵי שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל יוֹכִיחַ. שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָיָיה וְאֵינוֹ בִשְׂרֵיפָה. אָמַר לָהֶן. חָמֵץ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָיָיה וְחַיָיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת [וְנוֹתָר אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָיָיה וְחַיָיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת]. אַל יוֹכִיחַ שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל שֶׁאֵין חַיָיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. וַהֲרֵי חֵלֶב שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל יוֹכִיחַ. שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָיָיה וְחַיָיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת וְאֵינוֹ בִשְׂרֵיפָה. אָמַר לָהֶן. חָמֵץ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָיָיה וְחַיָיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת וְיֵשׁ לוֹ זְמַן וְנוֹתָר אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָיָיה וְחַיָיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת וְיֵשׁ לוֹ זְמַן. אַל יוֹכִיחַ חֵלֶב שׁוֹר הִַנִּסְקָל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ זְמַן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. וַהֲרֵי אָשָׁם תָּלוּי כְשִׁיטָּתָךְ יוֹכִיחַ. שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבַהֲנָיָיה וְחַיָיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת וְיֵשׁ לוֹ זְמַן [וְאֵינוֹ בִשְׂרֵיפָה]. וְשָׁתַק רִבִּי יוּדָה. Rebbi Jehudah came back and presented another argument: Leavened matter is forbidden as food and leftover68Sacrificial meat left over after the time allotted for its consumption, depending on the kind of sacrifice either day and night or two daytimes with the night in between. is forbidden as food. Since the latter is to be burned81Lev. 19:8., the former is to be burned. They told him, carcass meat disproves since it is forbidden as food and is not to be burned20Deut. 14:21.. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food and for usufruct and leftover is forbidden as food and for usufruct; carcass meat does not disprove since it is not forbidden for usufruct. They told him, the stoned ox34The Babli 24b explains that one might use fat from the stoned ox to cover a wound.
The ox was stoned by order of the court because it killed humans (Ex. 21:28–29). Its meat is forbidden for usufruct as explained in the sequel. Cf. Mekhilta dR.Ismael Mišpaṭim10 (p. 282). disproves which is forbidden as food and for usufruct82Since it says, its meat may not be eaten(Ex. 21:18) in the passive voice, according to everybody this implies prohibition of usufruct. and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation83Ex. 12:19., [and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation]84Lev. 19:8.; the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not make liable for extirpation. They told him, the fat85Lev. 7:25. of the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time; the fat of the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not depend on time. They told him, a suspended sacrifice86The sacrifice by a person who suspects that he inadvertently committed a deadly sin. He may not bring a purification sacrifice since that is possible only if there is proof of inadvertent sin; Lev. 5:17–19. following your opinion87In Mishnah Temurah 7:6 it is stated that Sages hold that the body of an animal dedicated as a hung sacrifice which was wrongly slaughtered has to be burned, but R. Jehudah requires that it be buried. does disprove since it is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, [but is not to be burned]. Rebbi Jehudah remained silent88And practice does not follow him..
תַּנֵּי. עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַן בִּיעוּרוֹ אַתְּ מְבַעֲרוֹ בְכָל דָּבָר. מִשֶּׁהִגִּיעַ זְמַן בִּיעוּרוֹ אַתְּ מְבַעֲרוֹ בִשְׂרֵיפָה. וְאַתְיָא כְרִבִּי יוּדָה. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַן בִּיעוּרוֹ אַתְּ מְבַעֲרוֹ בִשְׂרֵיפָה. מִשֶּׁהִגִּיעַ זְמַן בִּיעוּרוֹ אַתְּ מְבַעֲרוֹ בְכָל דָּבָר. וְאַתְיָא כְרַבָּנִין. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. תַּשְׁבִּיתוּ שְּׂאוֹר מִבָּתֵּיכֶם. דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בַּל יֵרָאֶה וּבַל יִמָּצֵא. וְאֵי זֶה. זֶה בִשְׂרֵיפָה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר שֶׁהֵמִית בַּמֶּה הִיא מִיתָתוֹ. בָּעֲרִיפָה [אוֹ] בִסְקִילָה. רִבִּי בִּנְיָמִן בַּר לֵוִי שָׁאַל. חַלּוֹת תּוֹדָה שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ נוֹתָר. נֵימַר. אִם נַעֲשׂוּ נוֹתָר עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ זְמַן בִּיעוּרָן. אַתְּ מְבַעֲרָן בְכָל דָּבָר. מִשֶּׁהִגִּיעַ זְמַן בִּיעוּרָן אַתְּ מְבַעֲרָן בִשְׂרֵיפָה. It was stated: Before the time of its elimination you eliminate it in any way you wish; at the time of its elimination you eliminate it by burning. This follows Rebbi Jehudah. There are Tannaim who state, before the time of its elimination you eliminate it by burning; at the time of its elimination you eliminate it in any way you wish89The Babli disagrees, 12b.. This follows the rabbis. Rebbi says, remove sour dough from your houses, anything which may not be seen nor found90Ex. 12:15. Rebbi disagrees with both the preceding baraitot. Since it is spelled out in Chapter 13 that on Passover sour matter may neither be seen nor found, the only acceptable form of removal both before noontime of the 14th or at noontime is by burning which transforms everything into ashes. If one would bury the leavened matter or crumble it and scatter it in the wind, it still would exist and could be found. 90a The firstling of a donkey which was not redeemed by a lamb given to a Cohen must be killed by breaking its neck (Ex.13:13). An animal which killed a human must be stoned (Ex. 21:28). If both conditions apply there are no rules to decide which precept to apply.. How is this? By burning. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if the firstling of a donkey killed, what is the form of his execution? By breaking the neck or by stoning90a? Rebbi Benjamin bar Levi asked about leftover flat-bread from a thanksgiving sacrifice, should we say that if they were left before the time ofelimination you may eliminate it in any way you wish; at the time of its elimination you have to eliminate it by burning91A thanksgiving offering must be accompanied by leavened bread (Chapter 1, Notes 34, 143). The argument is that if the offering was brought on the 14th of Nisan (cf. Chapter 1, Note 148) and there was no time to eat the bread, it is not biblical leftover; before noontime any elimination is purely rabbinical and can be done in any way. At noontime it no longer can be eaten by biblical standards, it becomes biblical leftover before its time and has to be burned. That latter statement is independent of the disagreements between R. Jehudah, Rebbi, and the Sages.?