Талмуд к Трумо́т 11:11

Rebbi [Yose]⁵⁷Missing in ms. and editio princeps; needed by the context and historical considerations. said to the colleagues: You should know that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree: If somebody split a limb from a living animal and ate it, everybody agrees that he is free from prosecution⁵⁸He has an olive-sized piece of flesh taken from a living animal and splits it in two. Neither piece has the minimum size that would make prosecution possible. He eats both pieces in one meal. As Rashi explains in Ḥulin 103b (s.v. מהו): “In general, undersized parts of forbidden food consumed in the same meal are added together (Babli Yoma 80b). But the prohibition of limbs from a living animal is particular since in general inedible sinews and bones (of carcass and “torn” meat) are not forbidden food. By contrast, here one would be guilty since there is no limb without sinews and bones. One may say that its rules are separate and if one eats it in one piece one is guilty, since this is the normal way of eating, but not in minute pieces.”. Where do they disagree? If he split it in his mouth before he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan considers his mouth as inside, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish considers his mouth as outside⁵⁹In the interpretation of the Babli, for R. Joḥanan the prohibition is triggered by the palate’s enjoyment, for R. Simeon ben Laqish by the act of swallowing.. They asked him, what do you say? He answered them, I informed you that mighty mountains disagree, and you ask this? If it is so, even if he split it outside and then ate, he should be guilty! Why? That is how one eats⁶⁰In the Babli, Ḥulin 103b, this is R. Eleazar’s opinion. The configuration of the food is irrelevant.. If somebody split an ant in his mouth⁶¹Since an ant is a complete creature, it is forbidden food (Lev. 11:41) irrespective of size (cf. Berakhot 6:1, Note 17). In the Babli, Makkot 16b, eating an ant is counted as violating up to five prohibitions simultaneously. and ate it, that is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish⁶²According to R. Simeon ben Laqish, what he did is forbidden but not prosecutable.. Rebbi Maisha asked Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he⁶³A nazir, who can be criminallyprosecuted for eating an olive’s volume of grapes. split a grape in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He answered, there⁶⁴A limb taken from a living animal causes impurity (Ahilut 2:1); similarly, crawling animals are called “impure”. An entire crawling animal is always impure. But all parts of such an animal cut into pieces smaller than lentils are pure. it is something for which there is a prohibition and impurity. In a circumstance in which its impurity disappeard, its prohibition disappeared. But here is a prohibition and no impurity⁶⁵R. Simeon ben Laqish will agree that for the nazir only the total amount consumed is relevant.. Rebbi Abba ben Rebbi Mamal asked: If he split an olive-sized bit of mazzah⁶⁶In the first night of Passover, when there is a biblical commandment to eat mazzah (in the minimal amount of one olive’s size); Ex. 12:18. in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in the other cases, his palate did not enjoy an olive sized bit⁶⁷Here also, R. Simeon ben Laqish will agree with R. Joḥanan.. The rabbis of Caesarea said that Rebbi Nisa asked: If he split in his mouth pomegranate berries⁶⁸The berries of the pomegranate, each containing a single seed. Such a berry is a creature (cf. Berakhot 6:1, Note 18). which are ‘orlah⁶⁹Harvested before the tree is three years old, when all usufruct is forbidden. and ate them, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Where do we hold? If because of fluids, we already did state: “Nothing makes impure as a drink except what comes from olives and grapes.⁷⁰Mishnah Terumot 11:3. Therefore, the pomegranate berries are food and follow the rules of food.” The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it if he swallowed them⁷¹A pomegranate berry is much smaller than an olive. It is agreed that eating a whole berry of ‘orlah can be prosecuted since it means eating a complete creature. But if the berry is eaten after being split into two parts, one might assume that R. Joḥanan will agree with R. Simeon ben Laqish that one cannot be prosecuted..

It was stated⁶⁴Tosefta 2:1, Demai 3:1, Note 5.: “It happened that Rebbi Joshua went to Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai in Bene Ḥayil⁶⁵In the other sources, the place of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai is Beror Ḥayil., and some local people brought them fruits. Rebbi Joshua said to them, if we stay overnight⁶⁶Reading לנו as contracted from לנין אנו found in the other sources. The Tosephta seems to contradict the Mishnah., we are obligated to tithe; otherwise, we are not obligated to tithe.” Rebbi Zeїra said, Rebbi Joshua insists on cleanliness⁶⁷He will stay only in a clean room. Therefore, for him staying overnight is comparable to staying during the Sabbath and counted as if he stayed in his own house.. Rebbi Mana said to him, are all others insane⁶⁸To want to stay in dirty, unhealthy surroundings.? But Rebbi Joshua, who frequently was attended to⁶⁹He was so famous that people prepared his lodgings specially for him; the lodgings could be considered his personally., says that staying overnight induces ṭevel. For all others, who are not frequently attended to, staying overnight does not induce ṭevel. But did we not state: “Peddlers who make the tour of villages may eat⁵⁶The character of the courtyard alone determines the obligation. until they come to the place where they will stay for the night.” Where is their overnight stay? In their house! Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Like those of Kefar Ḥanina⁷⁰Cf. Ševi‘it 9.2, Note 40. who go out, trade in four or five villages, return, and sleep in their houses.

What are the rules if somebody improved today? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, did Rebbi Jeremiah not hear that he would be whipped? Did he not hear that he would be unacceptable for testimony³⁶Both whipping and the exclusion from being a witness are rabbinic decrees since only activities mentioned in the verse are biblical prohibitions.? He turned around and said, certainly he had heard! But he is like someone who hears a statement and questiones it. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, it was objected before Rebbi Jeremiah, there seems not to have been a court which disestablished³⁷A rabbinic decree passed by a competent court can only be lifted by a court of higher standing. Since the rabbinic restrictions of the Sabbatical year go back to the Men of the Great Assembly, the minimum standing such a court would have to have is that of Rabban Gamliel who disestablished the prohibition of the first two terms (Halakhah 1:1). No court of later times has that standing.! The force of Rebbi Jeremiah is from the following³⁸Terumot11:10. “Oil to burn” is olive oil of the heave that became impure and can no longer be consumed. It is the Cohen’s property and must be burned either for heat or for light. By rabbinic decree, the burning also must be for the benefit of the Cohen or his family. The baraita permits some use of the oil by non-Cohanim.: “An Israel woman who comes to a priestly woman³⁹The wife or unmarried daughter of a Cohen. to get fire dips the wick into oil to burn and lights.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the house of Rebbi Yannai: It was a time of wolf packs⁴⁰A time of emergency when people tried to be out on the street as little as possible.; there was no court which disestablished⁴¹The short-cut described was never endorsed by a court but was tolerated by the rabbis of the time. Since the baraita is an unconditional statement, it follows that a rabbinic decree that fell into general disuse because of special circumstances remains in disuse even in normal times; no court is needed to lift the decree. In this case, the power of the people is greater than the power of the court.. As you say there, there was no court which disestablished, so here there was no court which disestablished⁴²No court was needed once permission was given to work for the Roman government.!

MISHNAH: Fish sauce²⁰⁶Latin muries; this also might have been made with wine, even though using only salt and water is cheaper., cheese²⁶⁹The reasons for prohibiting Gentile cheese will be discussed in the next Halakhot., and theriac²⁷⁰Greek θηριακή, scil., φάρμακα “medicines made from poisonous beasts (θηρίον)”. It is possible however that ותרײקי is an error for בתנײקי “Bithynian”, which in the Mishnah in the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss. characterizes the kind of cheese which if made by Gentiles is forbidden for usufruct; cf. Note 431. of Gentiles are forbidden and the prohibition is of usufruct, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, theitr prohibition is not of usufruct.