Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

December 12, 2020 | 讻状讜 讘讻住诇讜 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

Pesachim 21

Today鈥檚 daf is dedicated by Rella Feldman, Mindy Hecht and family in memory of our beloved husband, father and saba, Dr. Charles H. Feldman, Yitzchak Tzvi Ben Yaakov V鈥橪eah z”l, on his 9th Yahrzeit. Our light was extinguished with his passing on the second night of Chanukah, but his legacy of dedication to family, integrity, love of learning and inner strength lives on for each of us. He would have been so proud of all of our family members who are involved in learning daf yomi and helping build Hadran. May his memory be a blessing.

If one leaves wine that was truma that became disqualified in order to scatter for a good smell, one need be concerned that one will forget that it is disqualified truma and will drink it. Whether or not we are concerned about that is a subject of debate among tannaim. What if truma wine is spilling from the top of the wine press into a vat of impure chulin but the amount of chulin is 100 times the amount of truma at the top. In this case, there will not be a financial loss as the truma is nullified into the chulin. Therefore even Rabbi Yehoshua agrees that one would not be allowed to put the truma wine into impure vessels. The second chapter begins with a discussion of benefit from chametz – from what time is it forbidden to benefit from chametz on erev Pesach? If chametz is not yet forbidden can one sell to a gentile or give to one’s animals – what is the potential concern? Does everyone agree that this is allowed despite the potential concern? From where do we derive that one is forbidden to benefit from chametz on Pesach – the Torah only wrote no eating. There are two approaches – Chizkiya learns it from a verse, Rabbi Avahu thinks that any time where the Torah says it is forbidden to eat, it includes benefit unless otherwise stated (as by neveila – a dead animal). The gemara brings two opinions where this halacha by neveila is derived from.

讗讬谉 讛讻专注转 砖诇讬砖讬转 诪讻专注转


The decision of the third opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, is not considered a decision in this case, as the other two Sages do not raise the issue of a stumbling block at all.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞驻诇讛 诇驻讞讜转 诪诪讗讛 住讗讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉


Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: The dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to a barrel of teruma that broke in an upper press and was flowing down into the lower press applies only to a case where one se鈥檃 of teruma fell into less than one hundred se鈥檃 of impure, non-sacred wine in the lower press.


讗讘诇 谞驻诇讛 诇诪讗讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 转专讚 讜转讟诪讗 讜讗诇 讬讟诪讗谞讛 讘讬讚


However, if the teruma wine fell into one hundred se鈥檃 of ritually impure, non-sacred produce, everyone agrees that the wine should be allowed to descend and become ritually impure by itself, and one should not actively render it impure with his hand. The reason is that if teruma falls into non-sacred produce one hundred times greater in quantity than itself, the teruma is nullified by the non-sacred produce, and therefore, it would be permitted for a non-priest to eat it. Although it becomes ritually impure, the legal status of the nullified teruma is that of non-sacred produce.


转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讞讘讬转 砖谞砖讘专讛 讘讙转 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讜转讞转讬讛 诪讗讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讛爪讬诇 诪诪谞讛 专讘讬注讬转 讘讟讛专讛 讬爪讬诇 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 转专讚 讜转讟诪讗 讜讗诇 讬讟诪讗谞讛 讘讬讚


The Gemara comments: That was also taught in a baraita: With regard to a barrel of teruma wine that broke in the upper winepress, and in the lower press there is one hundred times that amount of ritually impure, non-sacred wine, Rabbi Eliezer concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua that if one is able to rescue even a quarter-log from the barrel that broke and keep the wine in a state of ritual purity, he should rescue it. And if not, one should let the teruma wine descend and become impure on its own, but he should not actively render it impure with his hand.


讛讗讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬驻讜讱


After citing proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, from this source, the Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita itself. This expression: Rabbi Eliezer concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua, is puzzling, as Rabbi Eliezer ruled that one may never directly render the barrel impure. The baraita should say the opposite: Rabbi Yehoshua concedes to Rabbi Eliezer, as it is Rabbi Yehoshua who concedes that one may not render impure the barrel of teruma in the upper vat. Rava said: Reverse the names, so that it is Rabbi Yehoshua who concedes to Rabbi Eliezer.


专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讻诇讬 砖转讜讻讜 讟讛讜专 讜讙讘讜 讟诪讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬讙讝讜专 讚讬诇诪讗 谞讙注 讙讘讜 讘转专讜诪讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Actually, do not reverse the names. Rather, with what are we dealing here? We are referring to a case where it is possible to collect the wine only in a vessel whose interior is ritually pure and whose exterior is impure by rabbinic law, having become impure through contact with impure liquids. Lest you say that we should issue a decree that one may not rescue even a quarter-log, lest the vessel鈥檚 exterior touch the teruma and render it impure, the baraita teaches us that Rabbi Eliezer concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua that despite that concern, it is permitted to rescue a quarter-log of pure teruma.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讗讜专 诇讗专讘注讛 注砖专



诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 砖注讛 砖诪讜转专 诇讗讻讜诇 诪讗讻讬诇 诇讘讛诪讛 诇讞讬讛 讜诇注讜驻讜转 讜诪讜讻专 诇讙讜讬 讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗转讜 注讘专 讝诪谞讜 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗转讜 讜诇讗 讬住讬拽 讘讜 转谞讜专 讜讻讬专讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讘讬注讜专 讞诪抓 讗诇讗 砖专讬驻讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪驻专专 讜讝讜专讛 诇专讜讞 讗讜 诪讟讬诇 诇讬诐:


MISHNA: For the entire time that it is permitted to eat leavened bread, one may also feed it to his domesticated animals, to non-domesticated animals, and to birds; and one may sell it to a gentile; and it is permitted to derive benefit from it. After its time passes, it is prohibited to derive benefit from it, and one may not even light an oven or a stove with leavened bread. With regard to the manner of removal of leavened bread, Rabbi Yehuda says: The removal of leavened bread is to be accomplished only through burning. And the Rabbis say: Burning is not required, as one may even crumble it and throw it into the wind or cast it into the sea.


讙诪壮 讻诇 砖注讛 砖诪讜转专 诇讗讻讜诇 诪讗讻讬诇 讛讗 讻诇 砖注讛 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜转专 诇讗讻讜诇 讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讞诪砖 讚讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讜诪讗讻讬诇 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讻诇 讞诪砖 讜砖讜专驻讬谉 讘转讞诇转 砖砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讻诇 讗专讘注 讜转讜诇讬谉 讻诇 讞诪砖 讜砖讜专驻讬谉 讘转讞诇转 砖砖


GEMARA: The Gemara reads the mishna precisely: For the entire time that it is permitted to eat leavened bread, one may feed it to his animals. However, apparently, for the entire time that it is not permitted to eat leavened bread, one may not feed his animals. Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, isn鈥檛 there the fifth hour, when one may not eat leavened bread but one may feed it to his animals? As we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Meir says: One may eat leavened bread on the morning of the fourteenth day of Nisan for the entire fifth hour, and he burns it at the beginning of the sixth hour. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may eat it for the entire fourth hour, he suspends his consumption of it for the entire fifth hour, and he burns it at the beginning of the sixth hour. Apparently, there is an hour in which it is prohibited to eat leavened bread, but it is permitted to feed it to one鈥檚 animals.


讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讛讗讬 讻诇 砖注讛 砖诪讜转专 诇讗讻讜诇 诪讗讻讬诇 讻诇 砖注讛 砖讗讜讻诇 诪讗讻讬诇 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: Rather, what can be said? This mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir. If so, this statement: For the entire time that it is permitted to eat leavened bread one may feed, is imprecise. It should have said: For the entire time that one eats leavened bread he may feed. As it stands, there is no parallel between the phrase: It is permitted to eat, and the phrase: One may feed. Therefore, it appears that the mishna is referring to two different people or cases.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讞讜诇讬谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讻诇 讗专讘注 转专讜诪讛 讻诇 讞诪砖 讜砖讜专驻讬谉 讘转讞诇转 砖砖 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖注讛 砖诪讜转专 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讛谉 讘转专讜诪讛 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讻讬诇 讞讜诇讬谉 诇讘讛诪讛 诇讞讬讛 讜诇注讜驻讜转


Rabba bar Ulla said: The mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. As we learned in a mishna that Rabban Gamliel says: Non-sacred leavened bread may be eaten on the fourteenth of Nisan during the entire fourth hour, leavened bread that is teruma may be eaten during the entire fifth hour, and one burns the leavened bread at the beginning of the sixth hour. And this is what the mishna is saying: For the entire time that it is permitted for a priest to partake of teruma, although an Israelite may not eat leavened bread at that time, an Israelite may feed non-sacred food to his domesticated animals, to non-domesticated animals, and to birds.


诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 讘讛诪讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 讞讬讛 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 转谞讗 讘讛诪讛 讚讗讬 诪砖讬讬专讗 讞讝讬 诇讛 讗讘诇 讞讬讛 讚讗讬 诪砖讬讬专讗 拽诪爪谞注讗 诇讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗


The Gemara continues to read the mishna precisely. The mishna states that one may feed his leavened bread to his domesticated animals, to non-domesticated animals, and to birds. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach about the case of domesticated animals, and why do I need it to teach about non-domesticated animals as well? The halakha should be the same for both cases. The Gemara answers: It is necessary to teach us both cases, as had it taught only about domesticated animals, one would have said that it is permitted feed them because if the animal leaves over some leavened bread one will see what is left over and dispose of it. However, with regard to a non-domesticated animal, if it leaves over any of the leavened bread, it hides it to save for later. Therefore, one could say that it is not permitted to feed it so close to the time when leavened bread is prohibited.


讜讗讬 转谞讗 讞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬 诪砖讬讬专讗 诪讬讛转 诪爪谞注讗 讗讘诇 讘讛诪讛 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪砖讬讬专讗 讜诇讗 诪住讬拽 讗讚注转讬讛 讜拽讗讬 注诇讬讛 讘讘诇 讬专讗讛 讜讘讘诇 讬诪爪讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗


And had it taught only the case of a non-domesticated animal, one might say that it is permitted to feed leavened bread to such an animal because if it leaves over any food in any case it will hide it, and the owner will not violate the prohibition: It shall not be seen. However, with regard to a domesticated animal, sometimes it leaves over food, and it does not enter his mind that the animal will do so. And in that case both prohibitions: It shall not be seen and it shall not be found, would apply to him. Consequently, one could say that it would not be permitted for him to feed a domesticated animal. Therefore, it was necessary to teach both cases.


注讜驻讜转 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 讘讛诪讛 讜讞讬讛 转谞讗 谞诪讬 注讜驻讜转:


The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to mention birds as well? The Gemara answers: There is no inherent need to mention birds; however, since the mishna taught the cases of domesticated animals and non-domesticated animals, it also taught the case of birds, as these are normally grouped together.


讜诪讜讻专讜 诇讙讜讬: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讗讚诐 讞诪爪讜 诇讙讜讬 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讬讜讚注 讘讜 砖讬讻诇讛 拽讜讚诐 驻住讞 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 砖注讛 砖诪讜转专 诇讗讻讜诇 诪讜转专 诇诪讻讜专


It was stated in the mishna that whenever it is permitted to eat leavened bread, one may also sell it to a gentile. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious, as the mishna already taught that one may benefit from it? The Gemara answers: This is stated to exclude the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita that Beit Shammai say: A person may not sell his leavened bread to a gentile unless he knows that the leavened bread will be consumed before Passover. According to Beit Shammai, a person retains some responsibility for his leavened bread even when it is no longer in his possession. And Beit Hillel say: For the entire time that it is permitted for a Jew to eat leavened bread, it is also permitted for him to sell it to a gentile. The Jew ceases to be responsible for leavened bread sold to a gentile from the moment it is sold.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讻讜转讞 讜讻诇 诪讬谞讬 讻讜转讞 讗住讜专 诇诪讻讜专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 拽讜讚诐 诇驻住讞:


Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, who agrees in principle with Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion, says: With regard to kuta岣, a dip that contains leavened breadcrumbs, and all types of kuta岣, it is prohibited to sell it to a gentile thirty days before Passover. Because kuta岣 is spicy, people use only a bit at a time, so it will likely last until Passover.


讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖讞专讻讜 拽讜讚诐 讝诪谞讜 讜拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讞专讻讜 拽讜讚诐 讝诪谞讜 诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 讝诪谞讜:


It was stated in the mishna that as long as leavened bread may be eaten, it is permitted to derive benefit from it. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this in a case where one charred the leavened bread with fire before its time, i.e., before it became prohibited, rendering it inedible. And it teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rava. As Rava said: If one charred leavened bread before its time, it is permitted to derive benefit from it even after its time, since it no longer has the legal status of leavened bread.


注讘专 讝诪谞讜 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗转讜: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇砖注讜转 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪拽讚砖 诪砖砖 砖注讜转 讜诇诪注诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讬讟讬 拽讜专讚谞讬转讗 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇拽讚讜砖讬谉:


It was stated in the mishna: After its time passes, it is prohibited to benefit from it. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to teach that it remains prohibited to benefit from leavened bread during additional hours that are delineated by rabbinic law. As Rav Giddel said that Rav 岣yya bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With regard to one who takes wheat grains that may have come into contact with water and become leavened and betroths a woman with the leaven from the beginning of the sixth hour, when the leaven is prohibited by rabbinic law, and onward on Passover eve, even if he betrothed her with wheat from the mountains, which is especially hard and unlikely to become leavened, nonetheless, we are not concerned that this betrothal is valid. This is because when performing a betrothal with money one must give the woman an object worth as least the value of a peruta, and leaven from which one is prohibited to benefit is considered worthless.


讜诇讗 讬住讬拽 讘讜 转谞讜专 讜讻讬专讬诐: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讬注讜专 讞诪抓 讗诇讗 砖专讬驻讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪爪讜转讜 讘砖专讬驻讛 讘讛讚讬 讚拽讗 砖专讬祝 诇讬讛 诇讬转讛谞讬 诪讬谞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


It was stated in the mishna: And one may not even light an oven or a stove with leavened bread once it becomes prohibited. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious, as this is also a type of benefit? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this due to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the removal of leavened bread is to be performed only through burning. Otherwise, it could enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Yehuda said that its mitzva is performed through burning, while one is burning it let him benefit from it. Therefore, it teaches us that it is prohibited to benefit from leavened bread even while burning it.


讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 诪谞讬谉 诇讞诪抓 讘驻住讞 砖讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讞诪抓 诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讜 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讛讗 诇讗 讻转讘 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬住讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 诪砖诪注 讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛 诇讗 诪砖诪注


岣zkiya said: From where is it derived in the mishna that it is prohibited to derive benefit from leavened bread on Passover? As it is stated: 鈥淟eavened bread shall not be eaten鈥 (Exodus 13:3). Since the verse uses the passive, it should be understood as follows: There shall be no permitted consumption of it at all, even deriving benefit, as benefit could be exchanged for money, which could be used to buy food. The Gemara reads precisely: The reason deriving benefit is prohibited is that the Merciful One writes in the Torah: 鈥淟eavened bread shall not be eaten.鈥 Had the Torah not written: 鈥淪hall not be eaten,鈥 and instead used the active form: You shall not eat, I would have said that the prohibition of eating is implied but that the prohibition of deriving benefit is not implied.


讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讗讞讚 讗讬住讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讗讞讚 讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛 (诪砖诪注) 注讚 砖讬驻专讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讻讚专讱 砖驻专讟 诇讱 讘谞讘讬诇讛


The Gemara comments: And this conclusion disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu said that wherever it is stated: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten,鈥 鈥淵ou, singular, shall not eat,鈥 or 鈥淵ou, plural, shall not eat,鈥 both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of deriving benefit are implied, unless the verse specifies that one may benefit, in the manner that it specified with regard to an unslaughtered animal carcass.


讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讻诇 谞讘诇讛 诇讙专 讗砖专 讘砖注专讬讱 转转谞谞讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讗讜 诪讻专 诇谞讻专讬 讜讙讜壮 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 诇讙专 讘谞转讬谞讛 讜诇讙讜讬 讘诪讻讬专讛 诇讙专 讘诪讻讬专讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讙专 讗砖专 讘砖注专讬讱 转转谞谞讛 讗讜 诪讻专 诇谞讻专讬 讘谞转讬谞讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转转谞谞讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讗讜 诪讻专 诇讙讜讬 谞诪爪讗转 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讙专 讜讗讞讚 讙讜讬 讘讬谉 讘诪讻讬专讛 讘讬谉 讘谞转讬谞讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专


As it was taught in a baraita: 鈥淵ou shall not eat of any unslaughtered animal; you may give it to the resident alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it; or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a sacred people to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:21). I have derived only that it is permitted to a resident alien through giving and to a gentile through selling. From where do I derive that it is permitted to a resident alien through selling? The verse states: 鈥淵ou may give it to the resident alien who is within your gates鈥r you may sell it,鈥 meaning that one has the option to do either of these. From where is it derived that it is permitted to a gentile through giving and one is not required to sell it to him? The verse states: 鈥淵ou may give itthat he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner.鈥 Therefore, you may say that he may transfer it to both a resident alien and a gentile, both through giving and through selling. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讚讘专讬诐 讻讻转讘谉 诇讙专 讘谞转讬谞讛 讜诇讙讜讬 讘诪讻讬专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讙专 讗砖专 讘砖注专讬讱 转转谞谞讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讜诪讻专 讗讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讚讘专讬诐 讻讻转讘谉


The baraita concludes: Rabbi Yehuda says: These matters are meant to be understood as they are written; he may transfer an unslaughtered animal carcass to a resident alien only through giving and to a gentile only through selling. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: If it could enter your mind to understand the verse in accordance with that which Rabbi Meir said, then let the Merciful One write: You may give it to the resident alien who is within your gates that he may eat it and sell it to a foreigner. Why do I need the word 鈥渙r鈥 between these two options? Learn from it that the matters are to be understood as they are written.


讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜 诇讛拽讚讬诐 谞转讬谞讛 讚讙专 诇诪讻讬专讛 讚讙讜讬 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 诇讗 爪专讬讱 拽专讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讙专 讗转讛 诪爪讜讜讛 诇讛讞讬讜转讜 讜讙讜讬 讗讬 讗转讛 诪爪讜讜讛 诇讛讞讬讜转讜 诇讗 爪专讬讱 拽专讗 住讘专讗 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Meir explain the formulation of the verse? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Meir would explain that the word 鈥渙r鈥 teaches one to give precedence to giving to a resident alien over selling to a gentile. The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yehuda derive this halakha? According to Rabbi Yehuda, this matter does not need a verse, since you are commanded to sustain a resident alien, as it is a mitzva for one to sustain a resident alien who has renounced idol worship, and you are not commanded to sustain a gentile. There is no need for a verse to teach this; it is based on a logical inference.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讗讞讚 讙专 讜讗讞讚 讙讜讬 讘讬谉 讘诪讻讬专讛 讘讬谉 讘谞转讬谞讛 诪讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪讬砖专讗 谞讘讬诇讛 讘讛谞讗讛 讛讗 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讬谉 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讘讬谉 讘讛谞讗讛


The Gemara applies this discussion to the previously mentioned topic. Granted, Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 opinion is reasonable according to Rabbi Meir, who said that one may transfer an animal carcass to both a convert and a gentile, both through selling and through giving. From the fact that a verse was necessary to permit one to derive benefit from an animal carcass, one can learn that with regard to all other prohibitions in the Torah about which it states only that one may not eat an item, it is prohibited both to eat it and to derive benefit from it.


讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 诇讚讘专讬诐 讻讻转讘谉 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬诐 砖讘转讜专讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讚讗住讜专讬谉 讘讛谞讗讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪诇讻诇讘 转砖诇讬讻讜谉 讗转讜


However, according to Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the word 鈥渙r鈥 comes to teach that the matters are to be understood as they are written, from where does he derive with regard to all prohibitions of eating mentioned in the Torah that it is prohibited to derive benefit as well? The Gemara answers: He derives it from another verse. It is stated with regard to an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa]: 鈥淎nd you shall be sacred men to Me, therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs鈥 (Exodus 22:30).


Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Pesachim 18-24 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week will continue discussing the laws of purity and impurity and the difference between the Temple and outside the...
talking talmud_square

Pesachim 21: Chametz Liability

Anytime that you are allowed to eat chametz, you're also allowed to get benefit from it in a variety of...

Pesachim 21

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 21

讗讬谉 讛讻专注转 砖诇讬砖讬转 诪讻专注转


The decision of the third opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, is not considered a decision in this case, as the other two Sages do not raise the issue of a stumbling block at all.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞驻诇讛 诇驻讞讜转 诪诪讗讛 住讗讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉


Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: The dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to a barrel of teruma that broke in an upper press and was flowing down into the lower press applies only to a case where one se鈥檃 of teruma fell into less than one hundred se鈥檃 of impure, non-sacred wine in the lower press.


讗讘诇 谞驻诇讛 诇诪讗讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 转专讚 讜转讟诪讗 讜讗诇 讬讟诪讗谞讛 讘讬讚


However, if the teruma wine fell into one hundred se鈥檃 of ritually impure, non-sacred produce, everyone agrees that the wine should be allowed to descend and become ritually impure by itself, and one should not actively render it impure with his hand. The reason is that if teruma falls into non-sacred produce one hundred times greater in quantity than itself, the teruma is nullified by the non-sacred produce, and therefore, it would be permitted for a non-priest to eat it. Although it becomes ritually impure, the legal status of the nullified teruma is that of non-sacred produce.


转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讞讘讬转 砖谞砖讘专讛 讘讙转 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讜转讞转讬讛 诪讗讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讛爪讬诇 诪诪谞讛 专讘讬注讬转 讘讟讛专讛 讬爪讬诇 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 转专讚 讜转讟诪讗 讜讗诇 讬讟诪讗谞讛 讘讬讚


The Gemara comments: That was also taught in a baraita: With regard to a barrel of teruma wine that broke in the upper winepress, and in the lower press there is one hundred times that amount of ritually impure, non-sacred wine, Rabbi Eliezer concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua that if one is able to rescue even a quarter-log from the barrel that broke and keep the wine in a state of ritual purity, he should rescue it. And if not, one should let the teruma wine descend and become impure on its own, but he should not actively render it impure with his hand.


讛讗讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬驻讜讱


After citing proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, from this source, the Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita itself. This expression: Rabbi Eliezer concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua, is puzzling, as Rabbi Eliezer ruled that one may never directly render the barrel impure. The baraita should say the opposite: Rabbi Yehoshua concedes to Rabbi Eliezer, as it is Rabbi Yehoshua who concedes that one may not render impure the barrel of teruma in the upper vat. Rava said: Reverse the names, so that it is Rabbi Yehoshua who concedes to Rabbi Eliezer.


专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讻诇讬 砖转讜讻讜 讟讛讜专 讜讙讘讜 讟诪讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬讙讝讜专 讚讬诇诪讗 谞讙注 讙讘讜 讘转专讜诪讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Actually, do not reverse the names. Rather, with what are we dealing here? We are referring to a case where it is possible to collect the wine only in a vessel whose interior is ritually pure and whose exterior is impure by rabbinic law, having become impure through contact with impure liquids. Lest you say that we should issue a decree that one may not rescue even a quarter-log, lest the vessel鈥檚 exterior touch the teruma and render it impure, the baraita teaches us that Rabbi Eliezer concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua that despite that concern, it is permitted to rescue a quarter-log of pure teruma.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讗讜专 诇讗专讘注讛 注砖专



诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 砖注讛 砖诪讜转专 诇讗讻讜诇 诪讗讻讬诇 诇讘讛诪讛 诇讞讬讛 讜诇注讜驻讜转 讜诪讜讻专 诇讙讜讬 讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗转讜 注讘专 讝诪谞讜 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗转讜 讜诇讗 讬住讬拽 讘讜 转谞讜专 讜讻讬专讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讘讬注讜专 讞诪抓 讗诇讗 砖专讬驻讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪驻专专 讜讝讜专讛 诇专讜讞 讗讜 诪讟讬诇 诇讬诐:


MISHNA: For the entire time that it is permitted to eat leavened bread, one may also feed it to his domesticated animals, to non-domesticated animals, and to birds; and one may sell it to a gentile; and it is permitted to derive benefit from it. After its time passes, it is prohibited to derive benefit from it, and one may not even light an oven or a stove with leavened bread. With regard to the manner of removal of leavened bread, Rabbi Yehuda says: The removal of leavened bread is to be accomplished only through burning. And the Rabbis say: Burning is not required, as one may even crumble it and throw it into the wind or cast it into the sea.


讙诪壮 讻诇 砖注讛 砖诪讜转专 诇讗讻讜诇 诪讗讻讬诇 讛讗 讻诇 砖注讛 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜转专 诇讗讻讜诇 讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讞诪砖 讚讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讜诪讗讻讬诇 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讻诇 讞诪砖 讜砖讜专驻讬谉 讘转讞诇转 砖砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讻诇 讗专讘注 讜转讜诇讬谉 讻诇 讞诪砖 讜砖讜专驻讬谉 讘转讞诇转 砖砖


GEMARA: The Gemara reads the mishna precisely: For the entire time that it is permitted to eat leavened bread, one may feed it to his animals. However, apparently, for the entire time that it is not permitted to eat leavened bread, one may not feed his animals. Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, isn鈥檛 there the fifth hour, when one may not eat leavened bread but one may feed it to his animals? As we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Meir says: One may eat leavened bread on the morning of the fourteenth day of Nisan for the entire fifth hour, and he burns it at the beginning of the sixth hour. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may eat it for the entire fourth hour, he suspends his consumption of it for the entire fifth hour, and he burns it at the beginning of the sixth hour. Apparently, there is an hour in which it is prohibited to eat leavened bread, but it is permitted to feed it to one鈥檚 animals.


讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讛讗讬 讻诇 砖注讛 砖诪讜转专 诇讗讻讜诇 诪讗讻讬诇 讻诇 砖注讛 砖讗讜讻诇 诪讗讻讬诇 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: Rather, what can be said? This mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir. If so, this statement: For the entire time that it is permitted to eat leavened bread one may feed, is imprecise. It should have said: For the entire time that one eats leavened bread he may feed. As it stands, there is no parallel between the phrase: It is permitted to eat, and the phrase: One may feed. Therefore, it appears that the mishna is referring to two different people or cases.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讞讜诇讬谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讻诇 讗专讘注 转专讜诪讛 讻诇 讞诪砖 讜砖讜专驻讬谉 讘转讞诇转 砖砖 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖注讛 砖诪讜转专 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讛谉 讘转专讜诪讛 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讻讬诇 讞讜诇讬谉 诇讘讛诪讛 诇讞讬讛 讜诇注讜驻讜转


Rabba bar Ulla said: The mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. As we learned in a mishna that Rabban Gamliel says: Non-sacred leavened bread may be eaten on the fourteenth of Nisan during the entire fourth hour, leavened bread that is teruma may be eaten during the entire fifth hour, and one burns the leavened bread at the beginning of the sixth hour. And this is what the mishna is saying: For the entire time that it is permitted for a priest to partake of teruma, although an Israelite may not eat leavened bread at that time, an Israelite may feed non-sacred food to his domesticated animals, to non-domesticated animals, and to birds.


诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 讘讛诪讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 讞讬讛 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 转谞讗 讘讛诪讛 讚讗讬 诪砖讬讬专讗 讞讝讬 诇讛 讗讘诇 讞讬讛 讚讗讬 诪砖讬讬专讗 拽诪爪谞注讗 诇讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗


The Gemara continues to read the mishna precisely. The mishna states that one may feed his leavened bread to his domesticated animals, to non-domesticated animals, and to birds. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach about the case of domesticated animals, and why do I need it to teach about non-domesticated animals as well? The halakha should be the same for both cases. The Gemara answers: It is necessary to teach us both cases, as had it taught only about domesticated animals, one would have said that it is permitted feed them because if the animal leaves over some leavened bread one will see what is left over and dispose of it. However, with regard to a non-domesticated animal, if it leaves over any of the leavened bread, it hides it to save for later. Therefore, one could say that it is not permitted to feed it so close to the time when leavened bread is prohibited.


讜讗讬 转谞讗 讞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬 诪砖讬讬专讗 诪讬讛转 诪爪谞注讗 讗讘诇 讘讛诪讛 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪砖讬讬专讗 讜诇讗 诪住讬拽 讗讚注转讬讛 讜拽讗讬 注诇讬讛 讘讘诇 讬专讗讛 讜讘讘诇 讬诪爪讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗


And had it taught only the case of a non-domesticated animal, one might say that it is permitted to feed leavened bread to such an animal because if it leaves over any food in any case it will hide it, and the owner will not violate the prohibition: It shall not be seen. However, with regard to a domesticated animal, sometimes it leaves over food, and it does not enter his mind that the animal will do so. And in that case both prohibitions: It shall not be seen and it shall not be found, would apply to him. Consequently, one could say that it would not be permitted for him to feed a domesticated animal. Therefore, it was necessary to teach both cases.


注讜驻讜转 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 讘讛诪讛 讜讞讬讛 转谞讗 谞诪讬 注讜驻讜转:


The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to mention birds as well? The Gemara answers: There is no inherent need to mention birds; however, since the mishna taught the cases of domesticated animals and non-domesticated animals, it also taught the case of birds, as these are normally grouped together.


讜诪讜讻专讜 诇讙讜讬: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讗讚诐 讞诪爪讜 诇讙讜讬 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讬讜讚注 讘讜 砖讬讻诇讛 拽讜讚诐 驻住讞 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 砖注讛 砖诪讜转专 诇讗讻讜诇 诪讜转专 诇诪讻讜专


It was stated in the mishna that whenever it is permitted to eat leavened bread, one may also sell it to a gentile. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious, as the mishna already taught that one may benefit from it? The Gemara answers: This is stated to exclude the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita that Beit Shammai say: A person may not sell his leavened bread to a gentile unless he knows that the leavened bread will be consumed before Passover. According to Beit Shammai, a person retains some responsibility for his leavened bread even when it is no longer in his possession. And Beit Hillel say: For the entire time that it is permitted for a Jew to eat leavened bread, it is also permitted for him to sell it to a gentile. The Jew ceases to be responsible for leavened bread sold to a gentile from the moment it is sold.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讻讜转讞 讜讻诇 诪讬谞讬 讻讜转讞 讗住讜专 诇诪讻讜专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 拽讜讚诐 诇驻住讞:


Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, who agrees in principle with Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion, says: With regard to kuta岣, a dip that contains leavened breadcrumbs, and all types of kuta岣, it is prohibited to sell it to a gentile thirty days before Passover. Because kuta岣 is spicy, people use only a bit at a time, so it will likely last until Passover.


讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖讞专讻讜 拽讜讚诐 讝诪谞讜 讜拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讞专讻讜 拽讜讚诐 讝诪谞讜 诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 讝诪谞讜:


It was stated in the mishna that as long as leavened bread may be eaten, it is permitted to derive benefit from it. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this in a case where one charred the leavened bread with fire before its time, i.e., before it became prohibited, rendering it inedible. And it teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rava. As Rava said: If one charred leavened bread before its time, it is permitted to derive benefit from it even after its time, since it no longer has the legal status of leavened bread.


注讘专 讝诪谞讜 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗转讜: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇砖注讜转 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪拽讚砖 诪砖砖 砖注讜转 讜诇诪注诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讬讟讬 拽讜专讚谞讬转讗 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇拽讚讜砖讬谉:


It was stated in the mishna: After its time passes, it is prohibited to benefit from it. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to teach that it remains prohibited to benefit from leavened bread during additional hours that are delineated by rabbinic law. As Rav Giddel said that Rav 岣yya bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: With regard to one who takes wheat grains that may have come into contact with water and become leavened and betroths a woman with the leaven from the beginning of the sixth hour, when the leaven is prohibited by rabbinic law, and onward on Passover eve, even if he betrothed her with wheat from the mountains, which is especially hard and unlikely to become leavened, nonetheless, we are not concerned that this betrothal is valid. This is because when performing a betrothal with money one must give the woman an object worth as least the value of a peruta, and leaven from which one is prohibited to benefit is considered worthless.


讜诇讗 讬住讬拽 讘讜 转谞讜专 讜讻讬专讬诐: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讬注讜专 讞诪抓 讗诇讗 砖专讬驻讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪爪讜转讜 讘砖专讬驻讛 讘讛讚讬 讚拽讗 砖专讬祝 诇讬讛 诇讬转讛谞讬 诪讬谞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


It was stated in the mishna: And one may not even light an oven or a stove with leavened bread once it becomes prohibited. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious, as this is also a type of benefit? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this due to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the removal of leavened bread is to be performed only through burning. Otherwise, it could enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Yehuda said that its mitzva is performed through burning, while one is burning it let him benefit from it. Therefore, it teaches us that it is prohibited to benefit from leavened bread even while burning it.


讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 诪谞讬谉 诇讞诪抓 讘驻住讞 砖讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讞诪抓 诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讜 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讛讗 诇讗 讻转讘 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬住讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 诪砖诪注 讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛 诇讗 诪砖诪注


岣zkiya said: From where is it derived in the mishna that it is prohibited to derive benefit from leavened bread on Passover? As it is stated: 鈥淟eavened bread shall not be eaten鈥 (Exodus 13:3). Since the verse uses the passive, it should be understood as follows: There shall be no permitted consumption of it at all, even deriving benefit, as benefit could be exchanged for money, which could be used to buy food. The Gemara reads precisely: The reason deriving benefit is prohibited is that the Merciful One writes in the Torah: 鈥淟eavened bread shall not be eaten.鈥 Had the Torah not written: 鈥淪hall not be eaten,鈥 and instead used the active form: You shall not eat, I would have said that the prohibition of eating is implied but that the prohibition of deriving benefit is not implied.


讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讗讞讚 讗讬住讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讗讞讚 讗讬住讜专 讛谞讗讛 (诪砖诪注) 注讚 砖讬驻专讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讻讚专讱 砖驻专讟 诇讱 讘谞讘讬诇讛


The Gemara comments: And this conclusion disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu said that wherever it is stated: 鈥淚t shall not be eaten,鈥 鈥淵ou, singular, shall not eat,鈥 or 鈥淵ou, plural, shall not eat,鈥 both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of deriving benefit are implied, unless the verse specifies that one may benefit, in the manner that it specified with regard to an unslaughtered animal carcass.


讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讻诇 谞讘诇讛 诇讙专 讗砖专 讘砖注专讬讱 转转谞谞讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讗讜 诪讻专 诇谞讻专讬 讜讙讜壮 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 诇讙专 讘谞转讬谞讛 讜诇讙讜讬 讘诪讻讬专讛 诇讙专 讘诪讻讬专讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讙专 讗砖专 讘砖注专讬讱 转转谞谞讛 讗讜 诪讻专 诇谞讻专讬 讘谞转讬谞讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转转谞谞讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讗讜 诪讻专 诇讙讜讬 谞诪爪讗转 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讙专 讜讗讞讚 讙讜讬 讘讬谉 讘诪讻讬专讛 讘讬谉 讘谞转讬谞讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专


As it was taught in a baraita: 鈥淵ou shall not eat of any unslaughtered animal; you may give it to the resident alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it; or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a sacred people to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:21). I have derived only that it is permitted to a resident alien through giving and to a gentile through selling. From where do I derive that it is permitted to a resident alien through selling? The verse states: 鈥淵ou may give it to the resident alien who is within your gates鈥r you may sell it,鈥 meaning that one has the option to do either of these. From where is it derived that it is permitted to a gentile through giving and one is not required to sell it to him? The verse states: 鈥淵ou may give itthat he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner.鈥 Therefore, you may say that he may transfer it to both a resident alien and a gentile, both through giving and through selling. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讚讘专讬诐 讻讻转讘谉 诇讙专 讘谞转讬谞讛 讜诇讙讜讬 讘诪讻讬专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讙专 讗砖专 讘砖注专讬讱 转转谞谞讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讜诪讻专 讗讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讚讘专讬诐 讻讻转讘谉


The baraita concludes: Rabbi Yehuda says: These matters are meant to be understood as they are written; he may transfer an unslaughtered animal carcass to a resident alien only through giving and to a gentile only through selling. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: If it could enter your mind to understand the verse in accordance with that which Rabbi Meir said, then let the Merciful One write: You may give it to the resident alien who is within your gates that he may eat it and sell it to a foreigner. Why do I need the word 鈥渙r鈥 between these two options? Learn from it that the matters are to be understood as they are written.


讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜 诇讛拽讚讬诐 谞转讬谞讛 讚讙专 诇诪讻讬专讛 讚讙讜讬 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 诇讗 爪专讬讱 拽专讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讙专 讗转讛 诪爪讜讜讛 诇讛讞讬讜转讜 讜讙讜讬 讗讬 讗转讛 诪爪讜讜讛 诇讛讞讬讜转讜 诇讗 爪专讬讱 拽专讗 住讘专讗 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Meir explain the formulation of the verse? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Meir would explain that the word 鈥渙r鈥 teaches one to give precedence to giving to a resident alien over selling to a gentile. The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yehuda derive this halakha? According to Rabbi Yehuda, this matter does not need a verse, since you are commanded to sustain a resident alien, as it is a mitzva for one to sustain a resident alien who has renounced idol worship, and you are not commanded to sustain a gentile. There is no need for a verse to teach this; it is based on a logical inference.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讗讞讚 讙专 讜讗讞讚 讙讜讬 讘讬谉 讘诪讻讬专讛 讘讬谉 讘谞转讬谞讛 诪讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪讬砖专讗 谞讘讬诇讛 讘讛谞讗讛 讛讗 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讬谉 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讘讬谉 讘讛谞讗讛


The Gemara applies this discussion to the previously mentioned topic. Granted, Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 opinion is reasonable according to Rabbi Meir, who said that one may transfer an animal carcass to both a convert and a gentile, both through selling and through giving. From the fact that a verse was necessary to permit one to derive benefit from an animal carcass, one can learn that with regard to all other prohibitions in the Torah about which it states only that one may not eat an item, it is prohibited both to eat it and to derive benefit from it.


讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 诇讚讘专讬诐 讻讻转讘谉 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬诐 砖讘转讜专讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讚讗住讜专讬谉 讘讛谞讗讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪诇讻诇讘 转砖诇讬讻讜谉 讗转讜


However, according to Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the word 鈥渙r鈥 comes to teach that the matters are to be understood as they are written, from where does he derive with regard to all prohibitions of eating mentioned in the Torah that it is prohibited to derive benefit as well? The Gemara answers: He derives it from another verse. It is stated with regard to an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa]: 鈥淎nd you shall be sacred men to Me, therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs鈥 (Exodus 22:30).


Scroll To Top