משנה: הָרוֹדֶה פַת חַמָּה וּנְתָנָהּ עַל פִּי חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹסֵר וְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתִּיר בְּשֶׁל חִטִּים וְאוֹסֵר בְּשֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַשְּׂעוֹרִים שׁוֹאֲבוֹת. תַּנּוּר שֶׁהִסִּיקוֹ בְּכָמוֹן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה וְאָפָה בוֹ אֶת הַפַּת הַפַּת מוּתָּר שֶׁאֵין טַעַם כָּמוֹן אֶלָּא רֵיחַ כָּמוֹן. MISHNAH: If somebody takes hot pitta bread out of the oven and deposits it on the mouth of an amphora of heave wine25The hot flat bread absorbs the taste of the wine., Rebbi Meїr forbids26For the lay person and the impure. and Rebbi Jehudah permits. Rebbi Yose permits in the case of wheat and forbids in the case of barley because barley absorbs27It absorbs smells and particles..
If an oven was heated with heave cumin and one baked bread in it, the bread is permitted since it absorbs not the taste of cumin but the smell40In contrast to taste, smell is considered immaterial. of cumin.
הלכה: אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּעוֹן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יַנַּאי נְתָנוֹ עַל פִּי מְגוּפַת חָבִית מַהוּ. אָמַר לוֹן יַגִּיד עָלָיו רֵיעוֹ. מַהוּ יַגִּיד עָלָיו רֵיעוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְּהָדָא דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן חָבִית מְלֵיאָה פֵירוֹת וּנְתוּנָה לְתוֹךְ הַמַּשְּׁקִין אוֹ שֶׁמְּלֵיאָה מַשְׁקִין וּנְתוּנָה לְתוֹךְ הַפֵּירוֹת. כְּמַה דְאַתְּ אָמַר תַּמָּן וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא הַמַּשְׁקִין נוֹגְעִין בְּחָבִיּוֹת. וְהָכָא וְהוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא כִכָּר נוֹגַעַת בִּמְגוּפָה. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא וּמִינָהּ כְּמַה דְתֵימָא וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהוּ מַשְׁקִין נוֹגְעִין בְּחָבִיּוֹת עַצְמָהּ. וְאַף הָכָא וְהוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא כִכָּר נוֹגַעַת בִּמְגוּפָה עַצְמָהּ. מִילְתֵיהּ אָמַר אֲפִילוּ בְצוֹנֶנֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי בָא בְּצוֹנֶנֶת הֲוָה עוּבְדָא. וְהָא תַנִּינָן חַמָּה. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא שֶׁלֹֹּא תֹאמַר הוֹאִיל וְהַהֶבֶל כּוֹבֵשׁ יְהֵא מוּתָּר. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Zeїra said, they asked before Rebbi Yannai: What [are the rules] if he put it on the plug28A clay plug that closes the open top of the amphora and forms a barrier for the smell. of the amphora? He said to them (Job.36.33">Job 36:33): “Its neighbor29In the verse, ריע is derived from רוע “to sound the trumpet.” will inform about it.” What means, “its neighbor will inform about it”? Rebbi Yose said, that which we have stated there30Mishnah Makhšiřin 3:2–3: “2. An amphora full of fruits added to fluids, or one full of fluids added to fruits; if they absorbed, all those which absorbed are prepared. They spoke about water, wine, and vinegar, but the rest of the fluids are pure. R. Neḥemiah declares legumes pure because legumes do not absorb. 3. If somebody takes hot pitta bread out of the oven and deposits it on the mouth of an amphora of wine, Rebbi Meїr declares it impure but Rebbi Jehudah declares it pure. Rebbi Yose declares it pure in the case of wheat and impure in the case of barley because barley absorbs.”
For preparation of solid food for impurity, cf. Demay, Chapter 2, Note 141. For the impurity of fluids, Demay, Chapter 2, Notes 136–137.
The amphora contains fruit not prepared for impurity. Since the walls of a clay amphora are porous, the fruits inside (or outside) may get moist. Since human action puts the amphora into the fluid, the moisture prepares for impurity. This applies only to water and wine; the rest of the impure fluids (olive oil, date honey, and human body fluids) are viscous and do not penetrate a clay wall. In Mishnah 3, the wine is impure. Bread, being made with water, is always prepared for impurity. R. Meїr holds that the bread will receive the taste of the wine by absorbing particles evaporated from the wine. Since he holds that all smells transfer prohibitions and impurity, the bread must be impure.: “An amphora full of fruits added to fluids, or one full of fluids added to fruits.” As you say there, only if the fluids touch the amphora; so here only if the loaf touches the plug. Rebbi Mana said, from this it follows as you say there, only if the fluids touch the amphora itself; so here only if the loaf touches the plug itself31Since the plug sits on the narrowest part of the neck of the amphora, in most cases a pitta deposited on top of the rim will not touch the plug. As noted in the next sentence, this argument is valid only if the pitta is almost cold since a hot pitta will sink down and always touch the plug.. His opinion implies, even [if the pitta] is cold. Rebbi Abba said, the problem was about a cold one32The original question directed to R. Yannai.. But did we not state “hot”? Rav Ḥisda said, that one should not say since the vapor absorbs it should be permitted.
כְּמָה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מַיִם עוֹשִׂין פֵּירוֹת וּמַשְׁקִין אֵין עוֹשִׂין פֵּירוֹת דְּלֹא כְרִבִּי יוּדָה. אֶלָּא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר מַיִם עוֹשִׂין פֵּירוֹת וַחֲסֵירִין וּמַשְׁקִין עוֹשִׂין פֵּירוֹת וְאֵינָן חֲסֵירִין. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵין מַשְׁקִין עוֹשִׂין פֵּירוֹת כָּל־עִיקָּר. Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, water acts on fruits, [other] fluids do not act on fruits, against Rebbi Jehudah33This refers to the part of Makhshirin 3:2" href="/Mishnah_Makhshirin.3.2">Mishnah Makhširin 3:2 not quoted in our text, that only water and wine (table wine or vinegar) can influence the status of fruits through a clay wall. Everybody agrees that viscous fluids cannot act through the clay wall. The only problem is wine, which in the anonymous Mishnah 2 is equated with water but in Mishnah 3, R. Jehudah denies that it can act on bread. “Other fluids” here means the fluids excluded in Mishnah 2 plus wine. The statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish seems to point to an inconsistency in the position of R. Jehudah.! But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, water acts on fruits and loses fluid volume, [other] fluids act on fruits and do not lose volume34Since for R. Meїr it is enough that the fruits absorb some of the smell of the wine even if they do not become moistened.. Rebbi Jehudah says, [other] fluids do not act on fruits at all35Mishnah 2 is R. Meїr’s alone; R. Jehudah would classify wine as “other fluid.” Mishnah 2 is anonymous; therefore practice follows R. Meїr in this instance..
וּמַה דְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּשֶׁהָיִינוּ הוֹלְכִין אֶצֶל רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה רַבָּה לְקַיְסָרִין לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה הָיוּ נוֹתְנִין חֲמִטָתֵינוּ עַל גַּבֵּי קִבּוֹטִין שֶׁל מוּרִיֵיס וְהָיוּ טוֹעֲמִין בָּהּ טַעַם מוּרִיֵיס דְּלָא כְרִבִּי יוּדָה. מַהֲלִימִין הָיוּ. וְאֵין אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם גֶּזֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. נוֹטְלִין הָיוּ רְשׁוּתוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. And what Rebbi Joḥanan said, when we went to Caesarea to study Torah with the Great Rebbi Hoshaia, we put our flat-cake on boxes36Greek κιβώτιον “box, chest”. For muries, cf. Demay p. 384. of fish sauce and we tasted there the taste of fish sauce. Is this against Rebbi Jehudah37Then R. Joḥanan would agree with R. Simeon ben Laqish that Makhshirin 3:2" href="/Mishnah_Makhshirin.3.2">Mishnah Makhširin 3:2 determines practice following R. Meїr, against our rules that R. Jehudah is the greater authority than R. Meїr.? They put it into the brine38Greek ἁλμεύω “to put into brine”.. Is that not forbidden because they rob the owner? They had obtained the owner’s permission.
חִיטִּין מִלְּמַטָּן וּשְׂעוֹרִין מִלְּמַעֲלָן כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין חִיטִּין שׁוֹאֲבוֹת כָּךְ אֵין הַשְּׂעוֹרִים שֹׁאֲבוֹת. שְׂעוֹרִים מִלְּמַטָּן וְחִיטִּים מִלְּמַעֲלָן כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַשְּׂעוֹרִים שׁוֹאֲבוֹת כָּךְ הַחִיטִּים שׁוֹאֲבוֹת. Wheat below and barley above39This discusses the statement of R. Yose in the Mishnah whom practice has to follow not only because he is the highest authority but also because he gives a reasoned decision partially following each of the opponents in the matter. One deals with a two-layer dough made from two different grains.; just as wheat does not absorb so the barley will not absorb. Barley below and wheat above, just as barley absorbs so wheat will absorb.
מַהוּ לִצְלוֹת שְׁנֵי שְׁפוּדִין אֶחָד שֶׁל בָּשָׂר שְׁחוּטָה וְאֶחָד שֶׁל בָּשָׂר נְבֵילָה בְּתַנּוּר אֶחָד. רַב יִרְמְיָה אָמַר בְּשֵׁם רַב אָסוּר. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר בְשֵׁם לֵוִי מוּתָּר. פְּלִיגָא מַתְנִיתִין עַל רַב. אֵין צוֹלִין שְׁנֵי פְסָחִים בְּתַנּוּר אֶחָד מִפְּנֵי הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת. לֹא אָֽמְרוּ אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת. הָא שֶׁלֹּא מִפְּנֵי הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת לֹא. May one roast two spits together in one oven41This oven has the form of a conical frustrum and is open at the top; the hot air and the particles of meat it might carry escape with the draft through the open top. It is clear that in an enclosed oven one may not cook kosher and nonkosher food together., one of kosher meat and one of carcass meat42Meat from an animal not killed in a ritually acceptable way.? Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav, it is forbidden. Samuel said in the name of Levi, it is permitted. A baraita43Tosephta Pisḥa 5:11. disagrees with Rav: “One may not roast two Passover sacrifices together in one oven because they could be mixed up44The Passover sacrifice must be eaten by its subscribers. A person who was not part of the party at the time of slaughter is prohibited from eating of the sacrifice. The Tosephta notes that roasting the two sacrifices together is forbidden only because they should not accidentally be switched but not because particles of one could be carried by the hot air onto the other sacrifice.
The Passover sacrifice has to be “roasted over the fire,” Exodus.12.8">Ex. 12:8,Exodus.12.9">9. It is permitted to roast the sacrifice in an oven because the oven serves only to intensify the fire. It is forbidden to roast the sacrifice in a closed oven since then it also would be roasted by the heat stored in the walls..” They said only, because they could be mixed up; therefore, not if they could not be mixed up45The parallel is in Pesachim.96">Babli Pesaḥim96a/b. In both Talmudim, practice follows Levi..
מֵי צִתְרִי רַב אָמַר אָסוּר וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר מוּתָּר. אַייְכִל שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב מֵי צִתְרִי. Calamint water, Rav said it is forbidden, Samuel said it is permitted. Samuel served Rav calamint water46Ṣitra has been defined as calamint at the end of Ševi‘it 7:2. Calamint is a weed that may be used as spice. Since it is food only by the intent of the person collecting it, it is not subject to heave, certainly not outside the Land. So if somebody in Babylonia gave heave from calamint, any drink made from it is permitted to everybody. We have a principle that if a person thinks of something permitted as forbidden, another person may not serve him what he thinks is forbidden. If Samuel disregarded this injunction, he must have thought that Rav’s position did not merit attention, or he managed to convince Rav of his error..
הָדֵין טַװִיָּה רַב חִייָה בַּר אַשִׁי בְשֵׁם רַב מַשְׁגֵּר לֵיהּ בְּחָרוּתָה. That inner part47טויה II in Levy’s dictionary is explained from Arabic طُوِي “to be hidden”. This refers back to Rav’s statement that roasting kosher and non-kosher meats together in an open oven makes the kosher meat forbidden. Rav requires even that afterwards the oven be kashered by burning dry branches in the empty oven, to remove any particles of nonkosher meat from the walls. (Explanation of R. M. Margalit.), Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: One fires it with dry branches.