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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 19, 2020 | 讚壮 讘讟讘转 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 28

Rabbi Yehuda finishes his arguments regarding why chametz should be burned before Pesach but the rabbis in the end win the debate and contradict Rabbi Yehuda from within his own opinion. The rabbis hold that one breaks it into pieces or throws the chametz into the river before throwing into the river, does one also need to break it up into pieces. The same question is asked on a mishna from Avoda Zara 43. Raba and Rav Yosef each distinguish between the two cases but each one in an opposite manner. Chametz that a gentile owned over Pesach is permitted to a Jew after Pesach but if owned by a Jew on Pesach, it is forbidden to benefit from after Pesach. The gemara questions – according to who is this mishna? It doesn’t seem to match either of three opinions brought in a braitia regarding from when and until when is chametz forbidden by a negative transgression by Torah law and is it forbidden to benefit from. First the gemara brings sources for the different opinions and then explains why it seems the mishna doesn’t correspond to any of these opinions.

讞讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讚谞讜 讚讬谉 讗讞专 谞讜转专 讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 转讜转讬专讜 讜讞诪抓 讘讘诇 转讜转讬专讜 诪讛 谞讜转专 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗祝 讞诪抓 讘砖专讬驻讛


Then Rabbi Yehuda presented a different logical derivation: The prohibition against eating and deriving benefit from leftover sacrificial meat is clearly included in the prohibition of: And you shall not leave over. And leavened bread is also included, in a sense, in the prohibition of: And you shall not leave over, as once the time it may be eaten expires, one violates the prohibitions of: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, by owning it. Just as leftover sacrificial meat is subject to burning, so too, leavened bread is subject to burning.


讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讜讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讛讘讗 注诇 讛住驻拽 诇讚讘专讬讱 讬讜讻讬讞讜 砖讛谉 讘讘诇 转讜转讬专讜 砖讗谞讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘拽讘讜专讛 砖转拽 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


They said to him: According to your opinion, an uncertain guilt-offering and a bird sacrificed as a sin-offering in a case of doubt will prove that this comparison is not valid, as they are also included in the prohibition of: And you shall not leave over, since these offerings are prohibited after the time in which they may be eaten has expired. As we say that they are subject to burning, but you say that an uncertain guilt-offering is subject to burial. Rabbi Yehuda was silent, as he had no response.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讻驻讗 讚讞讟讗 谞讙专讗 讘讙讜讜讛 谞砖专讜祝 讞专讚诇讗


Rav Yosef said: This is as people say: In the spoon that the carpenter made, the mustard will burn his palate. In other words, one can be harmed by his own actions. Similarly, in this case the strongest proof against Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion is the one based on Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 own statement.


(讗诪专 讗讘讬讬) 住讚谞讗 讘住讚谞讬 讬转讬讘 诪讚讜讬诇 讬讚讬讛 诪砖转诇讬诐


Abaye said another folk expression: He who made the stocks [saddana] shall sit in the stocks; he is repaid through his own handiwork.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讙讬专讗 讘讙讬专讬 诪拽讟讬诇 诪讚讜讬诇 讬讚讬讛 诪砖转诇讬诐:


Rava said another similar saying: He who made the arrows shall be killed with his own arrows; he is repaid through his own handiwork.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪驻专专 讜讝讜专讛 讜讻讜壮: 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪驻专专 讜讝讜专讛 诇专讜讞 讜诪驻专专 讜诪讟讬诇 诇讬诐 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪驻专专 讜讝讜专讛 诇专讜讞 讗讘诇 诪讟讬诇 诇讬诐 讘注讬谞讬讛 转谞谉 谞诪讬 讙讘讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖讜讞拽 讜讝讜专讛 诇专讜讞 讗讜 诪讟讬诇 诇讬诐 讜讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖讜讞拽 讜讝讜专讛 诇专讜讞 讜砖讜讞拽 讜诪讟讬诇 诇讬诐 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 砖讜讞拽 讜讝讜专讛 诇专讜讞 讗讘诇 诪讟讬诇 诇讬诐 讘注讬谞讬讛


It was taught in the mishna: And the Rabbis say that leavened bread need not be burned; rather, one may even crumble it and throw it into the wind or the sea. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case are they speaking? Do they mean that he must specifically crumble it and throw it into the wind or crumble it and throw it into the sea? Or perhaps one may crumble it and throw it into the wind, but he may cast it into the sea in its pure, unadulterated form, without crumbling it first. We also learned in a mishna with regard to idolatry in a case like this that Rabbi Yosei says: He may grind the idol and throw the dust into the wind or cast it into the sea. And a dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case are they speaking? Must one specifically grind it and throw it into the wind or grind it and throw it into the sea? Or perhaps he may grind it and throw it into the wind; however, he may throw it into the sea in its pure, unadulterated form.


讗诪专 专讘讛 诪住转讘专讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 拽讗 讗讝诇讗 诇讗 讘注讬 砖讞讬拽讛 讞诪抓 讚诇砖讗专 谞讛专讜转 拽讗讝讬诇 讘注讬 驻讬专讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讚专讘讛 讗讬驻讻讗 诪住转讘专讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚诇讗 诪诪讬住讛 讘注讬 砖讞讬拽讛 讞诪抓 讚诪诪讬住 诇讗 讘注讬 驻讬专讜专


Rabba said: It stands to reason that since idols are thrown into the Dead Sea, they do not need grinding, as there is no concern that they will be removed and used again. However, leavened bread that may be thrown into other rivers, needs crumbling before being cast away. Rav Yosef said to him: On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable. Idols, which do not normally disintegrate in the water, need grinding. However, leavened bread, which disintegrates in the water on its own, does not need crumbling.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讛 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讛 讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 讘诪讚讘专 诪驻专专 讜讝讜专讛 诇专讜讞 讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 讘住驻讬谞讛 诪驻专专 讜诪讟讬诇 诇讬诐 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 讘诪讚讘专 砖讜讞拽 讜讝讜专讛 诇专讜讞 讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 讘住驻讬谞讛 砖讜讞拽 讜诪讟讬诇 诇讬诐


A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabba and a baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef. The Gemara explains: A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabba: If one was walking in the desert with leavened bread in his hand and the time came on the eve of Passover to remove it, then he must crumble the leavened bread and throw it into the wind. If he was traveling on a ship, he must crumble the leavened bread and throw it into the sea. And a baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef: If one was walking in the desert and found an idol, he must grind it and throw it into the wind. If he was traveling on a ship, he must grind it and throw it into the sea.


砖讞讬拽讛 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘讛 驻讬专讜专 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 砖讞讬拽讛 诇专讘讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讛讗 诇砖讗专 谞讛专讜转 驻讬专讜专 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讞讬讟讬 讛讗 讘谞讛诪讗:


The Gemara comments: The requirement of grinding in one baraita is difficult for Rabba, since according to his opinion there is no need to grind idols before throwing them into the sea. And the requirement of crumbling leavened bread mentioned in the other baraita is difficult for Rav Yosef, as in his opinion leavened bread need not be crumbled before it is thrown into the sea. The Gemara answers: The requirement of grinding is not difficult for Rabba. This case, where one is not required to grind it, is where he throws it into the Dead Sea. That case, where he is required to grind it before throwing it, is where he throws it into other rivers. Similarly, the requirement of crumbling is not difficult for Rav Yosef. This case is dealing with a bag of wheat that became leavened. Since wheat does not disintegrate on its own, one must grind it up and scatter it into the water. That case is referring to bread. Since bread will disintegrate in the water on its own, there is no need to crumble it.


诪转谞讬壮 讞诪抓 砖诇 讙讜讬 砖注讘专 注诇讬讜 讛驻住讞 诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 讜砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬专讗讛 诇讱 砖讗讜专:


MISHNA: It is permitted for a Jew to derive benefit from leavened bread of a gentile over which Passover has elapsed, i.e., leavened bread that remains after the conclusion of Passover. However, it is prohibited to derive benefit from leaven of a Jew over which Passover has elapsed, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd no leavened bread shall be seen with you, neither shall there be leaven seen with you, in all your borders鈥 (Exodus 13:7).


讙诪壮 诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞诪抓 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讝诪谞讜 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专 讝诪谞讜 注讜讘专 注诇讬讜 讘诇讗讜 转讜讱 讝诪谞讜 注讜讘专 注诇讬讜 讘诇讗讜 讜讻专转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


GEMARA: The Gemara begins by asking: Who is the author of the mishna? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. The Gemara clarifies this question: What is the case about which these Sages disagree, and what are their opinions on this issue? The Gemara explains: As it was taught in a baraita: One who eats or derives benefit from leavened bread, whether before its time, starting at midday on Passover eve, or after its time, i.e., leavened bread over which Passover has elapsed, transgresses a negative mitzva. During its time, on Passover itself, one who eats leavened bread transgresses a negative mitzva and is liable to receive karet. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讞诪抓 诇驻谞讬 讝诪谞讜 讜诇讗讞专 讝诪谞讜 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 注诇讬讜 讘诇讗 讻诇讜诐 转讜讱 讝诪谞讜 注讜讘专 注诇讬讜 讘讻专转 讜讘诇讗讜 讜诪砖注讛 砖讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 讗转讗谉 诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 转诪讛 注诇 注爪诪讱 讛讬讗讱 讞诪抓 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 讻诇 砖讘注讛


Rabbi Shimon says: One who eats or derives benefit from leavened bread, both before its time and after its time, does not transgress any prohibition. During its time one is liable to receive karet and transgresses a negative mitzva for eating or deriving benefit from leavened bread. And from the time that it is prohibited to eat leavened bread, beginning at midday on Passover eve, it is also prohibited to derive benefit from it. The Gemara comments: With this last sentence we have come to the opinion of the first tanna, as this statement appears to present Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion and not that of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Be astounded with yourself. How can it be prohibited to derive benefit from leavened bread for all seven days? In other words, he disagrees with the premise that it is prohibited to derive benefit from leavened bread even during the seven days of Passover.


讜诪谞讬谉 诇讗讜讻诇 讞诪抓 诪砖砖 砖注讜转 讜诇诪注诇讛 砖讛讜讗 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 讞诪抓 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


The baraita discusses a related issue: From where is it derived that one who eats leavened bread on Passover eve from the sixth hour and onward transgresses a negative mitzva? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall sacrifice the Paschal lamb to the Lord your God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the Lord shall choose to cause His name to dwell there. You shall eat no leavened bread with it; for seven days you shall eat matzot, the bread of affliction鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:2鈥3). The juxtaposition of the Paschal lamb with the prohibition of leavened bread teaches that the prohibition to eat leavened bread begins from the time that the Paschal lamb is slaughtered, namely, the afternoon of the fourteenth of Nisan. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.


讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讻讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜诪专 讻谉 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 讞诪抓 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 诪爪讜转 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 讞诪抓 讘砖注讛 砖讬砖谞讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 诪爪讛 讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讜讘砖注讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 诪爪讛 讗讬谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 讞诪抓


Rabbi Shimon said to him: Is it possible to say this? Isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淵ou shall eat no leavened bread with it; for seven days you shall eat matzot鈥? Since the verse links the prohibition of leavened bread to the mitzva of eating matza, one should also say that one must eat matza on the fourteenth of Nisan. If so, what does it mean when the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall eat no leavened bread with it鈥? The verse indicates that at a time when he is under the obligation to get up and eat matza, he is subject to the prohibition of: You shall eat no leavened bread. And at a time when he is under no obligation to get up and eat matza, he is not subject to the prohibition of: You shall eat no leavened bread.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 转诇转讗 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讜讻诇 诪讞诪爪转 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 诇讗 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 讞诪抓 讞讚 诇驻谞讬 讝诪谞讜 讜讞讚 诇讗讞专 讝诪谞讜 讜讞讚 诇转讜讱 讝诪谞讜


The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara explains: There are three verses that are written with regard to this prohibition, and in Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion each one teaches that the prohibition applies at a different time. One verse states: 鈥淟eavened bread shall not be eaten鈥 (Exodus 13:3). Another verse states: 鈥淎nd all that which is leavened you shall not eat; in all your habitations you shall eat matzot鈥 (Exodus 12:20). And a third verse states: 鈥淵ou shall eat no leavened bread with it鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:3). One verse indicates that there is a prohibition against eating leavened bread even before its time, on Passover eve. One verse indicates that there is a prohibition against eating leavened bread after its time as well, if a Jew owned it during Passover. And one verse indicates that the prohibition applies during Passover itself.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讞讚 诇转讜讱 讝诪谞讜 讜讻诇 诪讞诪爪转 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖谞转讞诪抓 诪讗诇讬讜 诪讞诪转 讚讘专 讗讞专 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 诪讞诪爪转 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜


The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Shimon interpret these three verses? The Gemara explains: One verse is required to teach about the prohibition during its time. The verse: 鈥淎nd all that which is leavened you shall not eat鈥 is required for another halakha, as it was taught in a baraita: I have derived that leavened bread is prohibited only if it became leavened on its own, through its own natural process. From where do I derive that if it became leavened due to another substance it is considered to be leavened bread as well? The verse states: 鈥淎ll that which is leavened you shall not eat.鈥 This indicates that all leavened bread, no matter how it became so, is forbidden during Passover.


诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讞诪抓 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇驻住讞 诪爪专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讞讬诪讜爪讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讛讬讜诐 讗转诐 讬爪讗讬诐


The verse 鈥淟eavened bread shall not be eaten鈥 is also required for another halakha. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: From where is it derived that the prohibition against eating leavened bread during the first Passover in Egypt applied for only one day? The verse states: 鈥淟eavened bread shall not be eaten,鈥 and this is juxtaposed to the verse that states: 鈥淭his day you go forth in the month of spring鈥 (Exodus 13:4). This indicates that the prohibition against eating leavened bread during the first Passover in Egypt applied for only that one day.


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞诪转 讚讘专 讗讞专 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诪讚讗驻拽讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇砖讜谉 诪讞诪爪转


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda, from where does he derive that leavened bread that became leavened due to another substance is prohibited? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the fact that the Merciful One expresses this halakha with the general term: 鈥淭hat which is leavened鈥; no additional amplification is required.


讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讚住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讛讬讜诐 讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住诪讜讻讬谉 诇讗 讚专讬砖


The Gemara asks: And this teaching of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili with regard to the Passover in Egypt, from where does Rabbi Yehuda derive it? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that he derives it from the fact that the phrase 鈥渢his day鈥 is juxtaposed to it. In Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion, the entire verse: 鈥淟eavened bread shall not be eaten鈥 is not required to make this point; instead, this verse indicates that there is an additional time when leavened bread is prohibited. Nonetheless, the juxtaposition with the following phrase does indicate something significant, namely, that the prohibition in Egypt was limited to one day. If you wish, say instead that Rabbi Yehuda does not employ the homiletic method of juxtaposition of verses, except in limited circumstances. Accordingly, Rabbi Yehuda does not accept Rabbi Yosei HaGelili鈥檚 opinion at all and holds that the prohibition against eating leavened bread during the Passover in Egypt applied for all seven days.


讗诪专 诪专 讜诪谞讬谉 诇讗讜讻诇 讞诪抓 诪砖砖 砖注讜转 讜诇诪注诇讛 砖讛讜讗 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 讞诪抓 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讻讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜诪专 讻谉 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 讞诪抓 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 诪爪讜转


The Master said in the aforementioned baraita: From where is it derived that one who eats leavened bread from the sixth hour and onward transgresses a negative mitzva? As it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall eat no leavened bread with it鈥; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon said to him: And is it possible to say this? Isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淵ou shall eat no leavened bread with it; for seven days you shall eat matzot,鈥 linking the time of the prohibition against eating leavened bread with the time of the mitzva to eat matza?


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讛讜讗 诇拽讜讘注讜 讞讜讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗


The Gemara asks: And indeed, Rabbi Shimon is saying well to Rabbi Yehuda, so how does Rabbi Yehuda use this verse to support his opinion? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda could have said to you: That verse comes to establish it as an obligation even nowadays. One might have assumed that after the destruction of the Temple, when the Paschal lamb can no longer be brought, the obligation to eat matza no longer applies either. Therefore, the verse links the prohibition against eating leavened bread to the obligation to eat matza in order to teach that just as it is prohibited to eat leavened bread even in the absence of the Temple, so too, there remains an obligation to eat matza as well.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇拽讜讘注讜 讞讜讘讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讘注专讘 转讗讻诇讜 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讟诪讗 讜砖讛讬讛 讘讚专讱 专讞讜拽讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘驻住讞 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诪爪讛 讜诪专讜专 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞讬讻讜诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon, from where does he derive the need to establish it as an obligation even after the destruction of the Temple? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the following verse: 鈥淚n the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, you shall eat matzot, until the twenty-first day in the evening鈥 (Exodus 12:18). This verse connects the obligation to eat matza to the date of Passover and not only to the Paschal lamb. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda, what does he derive from this verse? The Gemara answers: He requires it to teach that there remains an obligation for one who is ritually impure or on a distant journey and cannot bring the Paschal lamb. It could enter your mind to say that since he will not eat the Paschal lamb, he is also not obligated to eat matza and bitter herbs. Therefore, the verse teaches us that he is obligated to eat them.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讟诪讗 讜砖讛讬讛 讘讚专讱 专讞讜拽讛 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 讚诇讗 讙专注 诪注专诇 讜讘谉 谞讻专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 注专诇 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讜 讘讜 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讗讘诇 讗讜讻诇 讛讜讗 讘诪爪讛 讜讘诪专讜专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻转讬讘 讘讛讗讬 讜讻转讬讘 讘讛讗讬


And Rabbi Shimon, from where does he derive this halakha? In his opinion, a verse is not necessary to teach that one who is ritually impure or on a distant journey is obligated to eat matza and bitter herbs, as he is no worse than an uncircumcised man or a resident alien. As it is written: 鈥淎nd no uncircumcised man shall eat of it鈥 (Exodus 12:48). The added emphasis in 鈥渙f it鈥 indicates that only it, the Paschal lamb, he does not eat; however, he must eat matza and bitter herbs. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda, how would he respond? The Gemara answers: Granted, the Torah did not need to add this verse. Nonetheless, it is written in this context that one who is impure or on a distant journey is obligated to eat matza and bitter herbs. And it is written in that context with regard to the uncircumcised man and the resident alien as well.


诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞诪抓 住转诪讗 拽讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讙讜讬 讜讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


After clarifying the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, the Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna taught? If one suggests that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, this cannot be, as Rabbi Yehuda said leavened bread without stipulation that the leavened bread belong to a Jew, indicating that one may not even benefit from leavened bread of a gentile over which Passover elapsed. Therefore, since this opinion contradicts the statement made in the mishna discussed here, Rabbi Yehuda can be ruled out as its author. And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon,


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 25-31 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn if the involuntary benefit from a forbidden item is permitted or forbidden, how we are...
talking talmud_square

Pesachim 28: Dumpster Diving

Rejecting R. Yehudah's conclusion based on his own rationale, in the sharpest of terms. Also: Crumbling chametz and throwing it...

Pesachim 28

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 28

讞讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讚谞讜 讚讬谉 讗讞专 谞讜转专 讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 转讜转讬专讜 讜讞诪抓 讘讘诇 转讜转讬专讜 诪讛 谞讜转专 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗祝 讞诪抓 讘砖专讬驻讛


Then Rabbi Yehuda presented a different logical derivation: The prohibition against eating and deriving benefit from leftover sacrificial meat is clearly included in the prohibition of: And you shall not leave over. And leavened bread is also included, in a sense, in the prohibition of: And you shall not leave over, as once the time it may be eaten expires, one violates the prohibitions of: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, by owning it. Just as leftover sacrificial meat is subject to burning, so too, leavened bread is subject to burning.


讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讜讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讛讘讗 注诇 讛住驻拽 诇讚讘专讬讱 讬讜讻讬讞讜 砖讛谉 讘讘诇 转讜转讬专讜 砖讗谞讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘拽讘讜专讛 砖转拽 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


They said to him: According to your opinion, an uncertain guilt-offering and a bird sacrificed as a sin-offering in a case of doubt will prove that this comparison is not valid, as they are also included in the prohibition of: And you shall not leave over, since these offerings are prohibited after the time in which they may be eaten has expired. As we say that they are subject to burning, but you say that an uncertain guilt-offering is subject to burial. Rabbi Yehuda was silent, as he had no response.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讻驻讗 讚讞讟讗 谞讙专讗 讘讙讜讜讛 谞砖专讜祝 讞专讚诇讗


Rav Yosef said: This is as people say: In the spoon that the carpenter made, the mustard will burn his palate. In other words, one can be harmed by his own actions. Similarly, in this case the strongest proof against Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion is the one based on Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 own statement.


(讗诪专 讗讘讬讬) 住讚谞讗 讘住讚谞讬 讬转讬讘 诪讚讜讬诇 讬讚讬讛 诪砖转诇讬诐


Abaye said another folk expression: He who made the stocks [saddana] shall sit in the stocks; he is repaid through his own handiwork.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讙讬专讗 讘讙讬专讬 诪拽讟讬诇 诪讚讜讬诇 讬讚讬讛 诪砖转诇讬诐:


Rava said another similar saying: He who made the arrows shall be killed with his own arrows; he is repaid through his own handiwork.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪驻专专 讜讝讜专讛 讜讻讜壮: 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪驻专专 讜讝讜专讛 诇专讜讞 讜诪驻专专 讜诪讟讬诇 诇讬诐 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪驻专专 讜讝讜专讛 诇专讜讞 讗讘诇 诪讟讬诇 诇讬诐 讘注讬谞讬讛 转谞谉 谞诪讬 讙讘讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖讜讞拽 讜讝讜专讛 诇专讜讞 讗讜 诪讟讬诇 诇讬诐 讜讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖讜讞拽 讜讝讜专讛 诇专讜讞 讜砖讜讞拽 讜诪讟讬诇 诇讬诐 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 砖讜讞拽 讜讝讜专讛 诇专讜讞 讗讘诇 诪讟讬诇 诇讬诐 讘注讬谞讬讛


It was taught in the mishna: And the Rabbis say that leavened bread need not be burned; rather, one may even crumble it and throw it into the wind or the sea. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case are they speaking? Do they mean that he must specifically crumble it and throw it into the wind or crumble it and throw it into the sea? Or perhaps one may crumble it and throw it into the wind, but he may cast it into the sea in its pure, unadulterated form, without crumbling it first. We also learned in a mishna with regard to idolatry in a case like this that Rabbi Yosei says: He may grind the idol and throw the dust into the wind or cast it into the sea. And a dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case are they speaking? Must one specifically grind it and throw it into the wind or grind it and throw it into the sea? Or perhaps he may grind it and throw it into the wind; however, he may throw it into the sea in its pure, unadulterated form.


讗诪专 专讘讛 诪住转讘专讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 拽讗 讗讝诇讗 诇讗 讘注讬 砖讞讬拽讛 讞诪抓 讚诇砖讗专 谞讛专讜转 拽讗讝讬诇 讘注讬 驻讬专讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讚专讘讛 讗讬驻讻讗 诪住转讘专讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚诇讗 诪诪讬住讛 讘注讬 砖讞讬拽讛 讞诪抓 讚诪诪讬住 诇讗 讘注讬 驻讬专讜专


Rabba said: It stands to reason that since idols are thrown into the Dead Sea, they do not need grinding, as there is no concern that they will be removed and used again. However, leavened bread that may be thrown into other rivers, needs crumbling before being cast away. Rav Yosef said to him: On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable. Idols, which do not normally disintegrate in the water, need grinding. However, leavened bread, which disintegrates in the water on its own, does not need crumbling.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讛 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讛 讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 讘诪讚讘专 诪驻专专 讜讝讜专讛 诇专讜讞 讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 讘住驻讬谞讛 诪驻专专 讜诪讟讬诇 诇讬诐 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 讘诪讚讘专 砖讜讞拽 讜讝讜专讛 诇专讜讞 讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 讘住驻讬谞讛 砖讜讞拽 讜诪讟讬诇 诇讬诐


A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabba and a baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef. The Gemara explains: A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabba: If one was walking in the desert with leavened bread in his hand and the time came on the eve of Passover to remove it, then he must crumble the leavened bread and throw it into the wind. If he was traveling on a ship, he must crumble the leavened bread and throw it into the sea. And a baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef: If one was walking in the desert and found an idol, he must grind it and throw it into the wind. If he was traveling on a ship, he must grind it and throw it into the sea.


砖讞讬拽讛 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘讛 驻讬专讜专 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 砖讞讬拽讛 诇专讘讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讛讗 诇砖讗专 谞讛专讜转 驻讬专讜专 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讞讬讟讬 讛讗 讘谞讛诪讗:


The Gemara comments: The requirement of grinding in one baraita is difficult for Rabba, since according to his opinion there is no need to grind idols before throwing them into the sea. And the requirement of crumbling leavened bread mentioned in the other baraita is difficult for Rav Yosef, as in his opinion leavened bread need not be crumbled before it is thrown into the sea. The Gemara answers: The requirement of grinding is not difficult for Rabba. This case, where one is not required to grind it, is where he throws it into the Dead Sea. That case, where he is required to grind it before throwing it, is where he throws it into other rivers. Similarly, the requirement of crumbling is not difficult for Rav Yosef. This case is dealing with a bag of wheat that became leavened. Since wheat does not disintegrate on its own, one must grind it up and scatter it into the water. That case is referring to bread. Since bread will disintegrate in the water on its own, there is no need to crumble it.


诪转谞讬壮 讞诪抓 砖诇 讙讜讬 砖注讘专 注诇讬讜 讛驻住讞 诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 讜砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬专讗讛 诇讱 砖讗讜专:


MISHNA: It is permitted for a Jew to derive benefit from leavened bread of a gentile over which Passover has elapsed, i.e., leavened bread that remains after the conclusion of Passover. However, it is prohibited to derive benefit from leaven of a Jew over which Passover has elapsed, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd no leavened bread shall be seen with you, neither shall there be leaven seen with you, in all your borders鈥 (Exodus 13:7).


讙诪壮 诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞诪抓 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讝诪谞讜 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专 讝诪谞讜 注讜讘专 注诇讬讜 讘诇讗讜 转讜讱 讝诪谞讜 注讜讘专 注诇讬讜 讘诇讗讜 讜讻专转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


GEMARA: The Gemara begins by asking: Who is the author of the mishna? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. The Gemara clarifies this question: What is the case about which these Sages disagree, and what are their opinions on this issue? The Gemara explains: As it was taught in a baraita: One who eats or derives benefit from leavened bread, whether before its time, starting at midday on Passover eve, or after its time, i.e., leavened bread over which Passover has elapsed, transgresses a negative mitzva. During its time, on Passover itself, one who eats leavened bread transgresses a negative mitzva and is liable to receive karet. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讞诪抓 诇驻谞讬 讝诪谞讜 讜诇讗讞专 讝诪谞讜 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 注诇讬讜 讘诇讗 讻诇讜诐 转讜讱 讝诪谞讜 注讜讘专 注诇讬讜 讘讻专转 讜讘诇讗讜 讜诪砖注讛 砖讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 讗转讗谉 诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 转诪讛 注诇 注爪诪讱 讛讬讗讱 讞诪抓 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 讻诇 砖讘注讛


Rabbi Shimon says: One who eats or derives benefit from leavened bread, both before its time and after its time, does not transgress any prohibition. During its time one is liable to receive karet and transgresses a negative mitzva for eating or deriving benefit from leavened bread. And from the time that it is prohibited to eat leavened bread, beginning at midday on Passover eve, it is also prohibited to derive benefit from it. The Gemara comments: With this last sentence we have come to the opinion of the first tanna, as this statement appears to present Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion and not that of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Be astounded with yourself. How can it be prohibited to derive benefit from leavened bread for all seven days? In other words, he disagrees with the premise that it is prohibited to derive benefit from leavened bread even during the seven days of Passover.


讜诪谞讬谉 诇讗讜讻诇 讞诪抓 诪砖砖 砖注讜转 讜诇诪注诇讛 砖讛讜讗 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 讞诪抓 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


The baraita discusses a related issue: From where is it derived that one who eats leavened bread on Passover eve from the sixth hour and onward transgresses a negative mitzva? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall sacrifice the Paschal lamb to the Lord your God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the Lord shall choose to cause His name to dwell there. You shall eat no leavened bread with it; for seven days you shall eat matzot, the bread of affliction鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:2鈥3). The juxtaposition of the Paschal lamb with the prohibition of leavened bread teaches that the prohibition to eat leavened bread begins from the time that the Paschal lamb is slaughtered, namely, the afternoon of the fourteenth of Nisan. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.


讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讻讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜诪专 讻谉 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 讞诪抓 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 诪爪讜转 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 讞诪抓 讘砖注讛 砖讬砖谞讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 诪爪讛 讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讜讘砖注讛 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 诪爪讛 讗讬谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 讞诪抓


Rabbi Shimon said to him: Is it possible to say this? Isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淵ou shall eat no leavened bread with it; for seven days you shall eat matzot鈥? Since the verse links the prohibition of leavened bread to the mitzva of eating matza, one should also say that one must eat matza on the fourteenth of Nisan. If so, what does it mean when the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall eat no leavened bread with it鈥? The verse indicates that at a time when he is under the obligation to get up and eat matza, he is subject to the prohibition of: You shall eat no leavened bread. And at a time when he is under no obligation to get up and eat matza, he is not subject to the prohibition of: You shall eat no leavened bread.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 转诇转讗 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讜讻诇 诪讞诪爪转 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 诇讗 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 讞诪抓 讞讚 诇驻谞讬 讝诪谞讜 讜讞讚 诇讗讞专 讝诪谞讜 讜讞讚 诇转讜讱 讝诪谞讜


The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara explains: There are three verses that are written with regard to this prohibition, and in Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion each one teaches that the prohibition applies at a different time. One verse states: 鈥淟eavened bread shall not be eaten鈥 (Exodus 13:3). Another verse states: 鈥淎nd all that which is leavened you shall not eat; in all your habitations you shall eat matzot鈥 (Exodus 12:20). And a third verse states: 鈥淵ou shall eat no leavened bread with it鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:3). One verse indicates that there is a prohibition against eating leavened bread even before its time, on Passover eve. One verse indicates that there is a prohibition against eating leavened bread after its time as well, if a Jew owned it during Passover. And one verse indicates that the prohibition applies during Passover itself.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讞讚 诇转讜讱 讝诪谞讜 讜讻诇 诪讞诪爪转 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖谞转讞诪抓 诪讗诇讬讜 诪讞诪转 讚讘专 讗讞专 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 诪讞诪爪转 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜


The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Shimon interpret these three verses? The Gemara explains: One verse is required to teach about the prohibition during its time. The verse: 鈥淎nd all that which is leavened you shall not eat鈥 is required for another halakha, as it was taught in a baraita: I have derived that leavened bread is prohibited only if it became leavened on its own, through its own natural process. From where do I derive that if it became leavened due to another substance it is considered to be leavened bread as well? The verse states: 鈥淎ll that which is leavened you shall not eat.鈥 This indicates that all leavened bread, no matter how it became so, is forbidden during Passover.


诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讞诪抓 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇驻住讞 诪爪专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讞讬诪讜爪讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讛讬讜诐 讗转诐 讬爪讗讬诐


The verse 鈥淟eavened bread shall not be eaten鈥 is also required for another halakha. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: From where is it derived that the prohibition against eating leavened bread during the first Passover in Egypt applied for only one day? The verse states: 鈥淟eavened bread shall not be eaten,鈥 and this is juxtaposed to the verse that states: 鈥淭his day you go forth in the month of spring鈥 (Exodus 13:4). This indicates that the prohibition against eating leavened bread during the first Passover in Egypt applied for only that one day.


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞诪转 讚讘专 讗讞专 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诪讚讗驻拽讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇砖讜谉 诪讞诪爪转


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda, from where does he derive that leavened bread that became leavened due to another substance is prohibited? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the fact that the Merciful One expresses this halakha with the general term: 鈥淭hat which is leavened鈥; no additional amplification is required.


讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讚住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讛讬讜诐 讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住诪讜讻讬谉 诇讗 讚专讬砖


The Gemara asks: And this teaching of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili with regard to the Passover in Egypt, from where does Rabbi Yehuda derive it? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that he derives it from the fact that the phrase 鈥渢his day鈥 is juxtaposed to it. In Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion, the entire verse: 鈥淟eavened bread shall not be eaten鈥 is not required to make this point; instead, this verse indicates that there is an additional time when leavened bread is prohibited. Nonetheless, the juxtaposition with the following phrase does indicate something significant, namely, that the prohibition in Egypt was limited to one day. If you wish, say instead that Rabbi Yehuda does not employ the homiletic method of juxtaposition of verses, except in limited circumstances. Accordingly, Rabbi Yehuda does not accept Rabbi Yosei HaGelili鈥檚 opinion at all and holds that the prohibition against eating leavened bread during the Passover in Egypt applied for all seven days.


讗诪专 诪专 讜诪谞讬谉 诇讗讜讻诇 讞诪抓 诪砖砖 砖注讜转 讜诇诪注诇讛 砖讛讜讗 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 讞诪抓 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讻讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜诪专 讻谉 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 讞诪抓 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 诪爪讜转


The Master said in the aforementioned baraita: From where is it derived that one who eats leavened bread from the sixth hour and onward transgresses a negative mitzva? As it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall eat no leavened bread with it鈥; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon said to him: And is it possible to say this? Isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淵ou shall eat no leavened bread with it; for seven days you shall eat matzot,鈥 linking the time of the prohibition against eating leavened bread with the time of the mitzva to eat matza?


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讛讜讗 诇拽讜讘注讜 讞讜讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗


The Gemara asks: And indeed, Rabbi Shimon is saying well to Rabbi Yehuda, so how does Rabbi Yehuda use this verse to support his opinion? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda could have said to you: That verse comes to establish it as an obligation even nowadays. One might have assumed that after the destruction of the Temple, when the Paschal lamb can no longer be brought, the obligation to eat matza no longer applies either. Therefore, the verse links the prohibition against eating leavened bread to the obligation to eat matza in order to teach that just as it is prohibited to eat leavened bread even in the absence of the Temple, so too, there remains an obligation to eat matza as well.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇拽讜讘注讜 讞讜讘讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讘注专讘 转讗讻诇讜 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讟诪讗 讜砖讛讬讛 讘讚专讱 专讞讜拽讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘驻住讞 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诪爪讛 讜诪专讜专 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞讬讻讜诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon, from where does he derive the need to establish it as an obligation even after the destruction of the Temple? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the following verse: 鈥淚n the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, you shall eat matzot, until the twenty-first day in the evening鈥 (Exodus 12:18). This verse connects the obligation to eat matza to the date of Passover and not only to the Paschal lamb. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda, what does he derive from this verse? The Gemara answers: He requires it to teach that there remains an obligation for one who is ritually impure or on a distant journey and cannot bring the Paschal lamb. It could enter your mind to say that since he will not eat the Paschal lamb, he is also not obligated to eat matza and bitter herbs. Therefore, the verse teaches us that he is obligated to eat them.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讟诪讗 讜砖讛讬讛 讘讚专讱 专讞讜拽讛 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 讚诇讗 讙专注 诪注专诇 讜讘谉 谞讻专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 注专诇 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讜 讘讜 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讗讘诇 讗讜讻诇 讛讜讗 讘诪爪讛 讜讘诪专讜专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻转讬讘 讘讛讗讬 讜讻转讬讘 讘讛讗讬


And Rabbi Shimon, from where does he derive this halakha? In his opinion, a verse is not necessary to teach that one who is ritually impure or on a distant journey is obligated to eat matza and bitter herbs, as he is no worse than an uncircumcised man or a resident alien. As it is written: 鈥淎nd no uncircumcised man shall eat of it鈥 (Exodus 12:48). The added emphasis in 鈥渙f it鈥 indicates that only it, the Paschal lamb, he does not eat; however, he must eat matza and bitter herbs. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda, how would he respond? The Gemara answers: Granted, the Torah did not need to add this verse. Nonetheless, it is written in this context that one who is impure or on a distant journey is obligated to eat matza and bitter herbs. And it is written in that context with regard to the uncircumcised man and the resident alien as well.


诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞诪抓 住转诪讗 拽讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讙讜讬 讜讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


After clarifying the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, the Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna taught? If one suggests that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, this cannot be, as Rabbi Yehuda said leavened bread without stipulation that the leavened bread belong to a Jew, indicating that one may not even benefit from leavened bread of a gentile over which Passover elapsed. Therefore, since this opinion contradicts the statement made in the mishna discussed here, Rabbi Yehuda can be ruled out as its author. And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon,


Scroll To Top