Pesachim 28

חזר רבי יהודה ודנו דין אחר נותר ישנו בבל תותירו וחמץ בבל תותירו מה נותר בשריפה אף חמץ בשריפה

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.

אמרו לו אשם תלוי וחטאת העוף הבא על הספק לדבריך יוכיחו שהן בבל תותירו שאנו אומרים בשריפה ואתה אומר בקבורה שתק רבי יהודה

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.

אמר רב יוסף היינו דאמרי אינשי כפא דחטא נגרא בגווה נשרוף חרדלא

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’s opinion is the one based on Rabbi Yehuda’s own statement.

(אמר אביי) סדנא בסדני יתיב מדויל ידיה משתלים

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

רבא אמר גירא בגירי מקטיל מדויל ידיה משתלים:

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

וחכמים אומרים מפרר וזורה וכו׳: איבעיא להו היכי קאמר מפרר וזורה לרוח ומפרר ומטיל לים או דילמא מפרר וזורה לרוח אבל מטיל לים בעיניה תנן נמי גבי עבודה זרה כי האי גוונא רבי יוסי אומר שוחק וזורה לרוח או מטיל לים ואיבעיא להו היכי קאמר שוחק וזורה לרוח ושוחק ומטיל לים או דילמא שוחק וזורה לרוח אבל מטיל לים בעיניה

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.

אמר רבה מסתברא עבודה זרה דלים המלח קא אזלא לא בעי שחיקה חמץ דלשאר נהרות קאזיל בעי פירור אמר ליה רב יוסף אדרבה איפכא מסתברא עבודה זרה דלא ממיסה בעי שחיקה חמץ דממיס לא בעי פירור

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.

תניא כוותיה דרבה תניא כוותיה דרב יוסף תניא כוותיה דרבה היה מהלך במדבר מפרר וזורה לרוח היה מהלך בספינה מפרר ומטיל לים תניא כוותיה דרב יוסף היה מהלך במדבר שוחק וזורה לרוח היה מהלך בספינה שוחק ומטיל לים

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.

שחיקה קשיא לרבה פירור קשיא לרב יוסף שחיקה לרבה לא קשיא הא לים המלח הא לשאר נהרות פירור לרב יוסף לא קשיא הא בחיטי הא בנהמא:

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.

מתני׳ חמץ של גוי שעבר עליו הפסח מותר בהנאה ושל ישראל אסור בהנאה שנאמר לא יראה לך שאור:

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: “And no leavened bread shall be seen with you, neither shall there be leaven seen with you, in all your borders” (Exodus 13:7).

גמ׳ מני מתניתין לא רבי יהודה ולא רבי שמעון ולא רבי יוסי הגלילי מאי היא דתניא חמץ בין לפני זמנו בין לאחר זמנו עובר עליו בלאו תוך זמנו עובר עליו בלאו וכרת דברי רבי יהודה

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.

רבי שמעון אומר חמץ לפני זמנו ולאחר זמנו אינו עובר עליו בלא כלום תוך זמנו עובר עליו בכרת ובלאו ומשעה שאסור באכילה אסור בהנאה אתאן לתנא קמא רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר תמה על עצמך היאך חמץ אסור בהנאה כל שבעה

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’s 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.

ומנין לאוכל חמץ משש שעות ולמעלה שהוא עובר בלא תעשה שנאמר לא תאכל עליו חמץ דברי רבי יהודה

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: “And 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” (Deuteronomy 16:2–3). 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.

אמר לו רבי שמעון וכי אפשר לומר כן והלא כבר נאמר לא תאכל עליו חמץ שבעת ימים תאכל עליו מצות אם כן מה תלמוד לומר לא תאכל עליו חמץ בשעה שישנו בקום אכול מצה ישנו בבל תאכל חמץ ובשעה שאינו בקום אכול מצה אינו בבל תאכל חמץ

Rabbi Shimon said to him: Is it possible to say this? Isn’t it already stated: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; for seven days you shall eat matzot”? 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: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it”? 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.

מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה תלתא קראי כתיבי לא יאכל חמץ וכל מחמצת לא תאכלו לא תאכל עליו חמץ חד לפני זמנו וחד לאחר זמנו וחד לתוך זמנו

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’s opinion each one teaches that the prohibition applies at a different time. One verse states: “Leavened bread shall not be eaten” (Exodus 13:3). Another verse states: “And all that which is leavened you shall not eat; in all your habitations you shall eat matzot” (Exodus 12:20). And a third verse states: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it” (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.

ורבי שמעון חד לתוך זמנו וכל מחמצת מבעי ליה לכדתניא אין לי אלא שנתחמץ מאליו מחמת דבר אחר מנין תלמוד לומר כל מחמצת לא תאכלו

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: “And all that which is leavened you shall not eat” 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: “All that which is leavened you shall not eat.” This indicates that all leavened bread, no matter how it became so, is forbidden during Passover.

לא יאכל חמץ מיבעי ליה לכדתניא רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר מנין לפסח מצרים שאין חימוצו נוהג אלא יום אחד תלמוד לומר לא יאכל חמץ וסמיך ליה היום אתם יצאים

The verse “Leavened bread shall not be eaten” 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: “Leavened bread shall not be eaten,” and this is juxtaposed to the verse that states: “This day you go forth in the month of spring” (Exodus 13:4). This indicates that the prohibition against eating leavened bread during the first Passover in Egypt applied for only that one day.

ורבי יהודה מחמת דבר אחר מנא ליה מדאפקיה רחמנא בלשון מחמצת

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: “That which is leavened”; no additional amplification is required.

דרבי יוסי הגלילי מנא ליה אי בעית אימא מדסמיך ליה היום אי בעית אימא סמוכין לא דריש

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 “this day” is juxtaposed to it. In Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, the entire verse: “Leavened bread shall not be eaten” 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’s opinion at all and holds that the prohibition against eating leavened bread during the Passover in Egypt applied for all seven days.

אמר מר ומנין לאוכל חמץ משש שעות ולמעלה שהוא עובר בלא תעשה שנאמר לא תאכל עליו חמץ דברי רבי יהודה אמר לו רבי שמעון וכי אפשר לומר כן והלא כבר נאמר לא תאכל עליו חמץ שבעת ימים תאכל עליו מצות

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: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it”; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon said to him: And is it possible to say this? Isn’t it already stated: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; for seven days you shall eat matzot,” linking the time of the prohibition against eating leavened bread with the time of the mitzva to eat matza?

ורבי יהודה שפיר קאמר ליה רבי שמעון ורבי יהודה אמר לך ההוא לקובעו חובה אפילו בזמן הזה הוא דאתא

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.

ורבי שמעון לקובעו חובה מנא ליה נפקא ליה מבערב תאכלו ורבי יהודה מיבעי ליה לטמא ושהיה בדרך רחוקה סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ובפסח לא יאכל מצה ומרור נמי לא ניכול קא משמע לן

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: “In 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” (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.

ורבי שמעון טמא ושהיה בדרך רחוקה לא איצטריך קרא דלא גרע מערל ובן נכר דכתיב וכל ערל לא יאכל בו בו הוא אינו אוכל אבל אוכל הוא במצה ובמרור ורבי יהודה כתיב בהאי וכתיב בהאי

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: “And no uncircumcised man shall eat of it” (Exodus 12:48). The added emphasis in “of it” 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.

מני מתניתין אי רבי יהודה חמץ סתמא קאמר אפילו דגוי ואי רבי שמעון

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,