Pesachim 30
אָמַר רָבָא: הִלְכְתָא חָמֵץ בִּזְמַנּוֹ, בֵּין בְּמִינוֹ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ — אָסוּר בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, כְּרַב. שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנּוֹ, בֵּין בְּמִינוֹ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ — מוּתָּר, כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
Rava said: The halakha is that with regard to the prohibition against eating a mixture of leavened bread during its time of prohibition, i.e., during Passover, regardless of whether it is mixed with its own type or with another type, it is forbidden, even if any amount becomes mixed in, in accordance with the opinion of Rav. Not during its time of prohibition, but rather after the conclusion of Passover, regardless of whether the leavened bread was mixed with its own type or with another type, it is permitted, even when it gives flavor to the mixture. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who states that leavened bread owned by a Jew during Passover is permitted after Passover.
וּמִי אָמַר רָבָא הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן קְנָסָא קָנֵיס, הוֹאִיל וְעָבַר עָלָיו בְּ״בַל יֵרָאֶה״ וּ״בַל יִמָּצֵא״!
The Gemara asks: Did Rava actually say this, that according to Rabbi Shimon, leavened bread owned by a Jew on Passover is permitted after Passover? But didn’t Rava himself say that Rabbi Shimon imposed a penalty forbidding one from deriving benefit from leavened bread owned by a Jew during Passover, since he transgressed the prohibition it shall not be seen and the prohibition it shall not be found?
הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּעֵינֵיהּ, אֲבָל עַל יְדֵי תַּעֲרוֹבֶת — לָא. וְאַזְדָּא רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: כִּי הֲוֵינַן בֵּי רַב נַחְמָן, כִּי הֲווֹ נָפְקִי שִׁבְעָה יוֹמֵי דְפִסְחָא אֲמַר לַן: פּוּקוּ וּזְבִינוּ חֲמִירָא דִּבְנֵי חֵילָא.
The Gemara resolves this challenge: This penalty applies only to leavened bread that is in its pure unadulterated form, but with regard to a mixture, no, one does not impose a penalty, even though the leavened bread is still extant. The Gemara adds: And Rava follows his line of reasoning, stated elsewhere, that indicates that he rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as Rava said: While we were studying in Rav Naḥman’s house, on the evening when the seven days of Passover had passed, he said to us: Go and buy leavened bread from the gentiles who baked it on that day, the last day of Passover. Based on this story, it is clear that he maintained that one may eat leavened bread that was owned by a gentile during Passover.
אָמַר רַב: קְדֵירוֹת בַּפֶּסַח יִשָּׁבְרוּ. וְאַמַּאי? לַשְׁהִינְהוּ אַחַר הַפֶּסַח, וְלֶיעְבַּד בְּהוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן! גְּזֵירָה דִּילְמָא אָתוּ לְמֶיעְבַּד בְּהוּ בְּמִינוֹ.
Rav said: Earthenware pots in which leavened bread was cooked during Passover should be broken, as some small quantity of the flavor of the leavened bread was absorbed into the pot. It is therefore prohibited to cook in them again, as the forbidden flavor of this leavened bread would be transmitted to the new food. The Gemara asks: And why was Rav so stringent with regard to these pots? Let him retain the pots until after the conclusion of Passover and prepare mixtures of another type of food in them. Even Rav maintains that when a small bit of leavened bread is mixed with another type of food after Passover, the mixture is permitted. The Gemara explains that he did not allow this due to a rabbinic decree that perhaps one will come to prepare a mixture of the same type in these pots, causing their contents to become prohibited. He therefore instructed that one destroy these pots in order to avoid this pitfall.
וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: לֹא יִשָּׁבְרוּ, אֲבָל מַשְׁהֵי לְהוּ לְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ, וְעָבֵיד בְּהוּ בֵּין בְּמִינוֹ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ.
And Shmuel said: They need not be broken. Rather, he should retain them until after its time, i.e., the conclusion of Passover, and then he may prepare food of either the same type or another type in them.
וְאַזְדָּא שְׁמוּאֵל לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל לְהָנְהוּ דִּמְזַבְּנֵי כַּנְדֵי: אַשְׁווֹ זְבִינֵי אַכַּנְדַיְכִי, וְאִי לָא — דָּרְשִׁינָא לְכוּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
And Shmuel follows his line of reasoning, stated elsewhere, as Shmuel said to the pot merchants, who would dramatically raise their prices after Passover: Level the prices for your pots. And if you do not bring your prices down, I will teach you that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that one is permitted to derive benefit from leavened bread after Passover. This ruling would lead people to retain their vessels and desist from purchasing new vessels after Passover, and consequently the merchants would lose business.
וְלִידְרוֹשׁ לְהוּ, דְּהָא שְׁמוּאֵל כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ! אַתְרֵיהּ דְּרַב הֲוָה.
The Gemara asks: Let him indeed teach this ruling to them, for Shmuel holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as was previously mentioned. As such, why did he not publicize his opinion on the matter? The Gemara answers: It was Rav’s locale, and therefore it would not be appropriate for Shmuel to publicly present a position with which Rav did not agree. However, when he saw the merchants raising their prices in an unfair manner, he nevertheless threatened to make his opinion on the matter public.
הָהוּא תַּנּוּרָא דִּטְחוֹ בֵּיהּ טִיחְיָא. אַסְרֵהּ רָבָא בַּר אֲהִילַאי לְמֵיכְלֵיהּ לְרִיפְתָּא אֲפִילּוּ בְּמִילְחָא לְעוֹלָם, דִּילְמָא אָתֵי לְמֵיכְלֵיהּ בְּכוּתָּחָא.
The Gemara recounts: There was a certain oven that they smeared with grease from meat, and consequently the flavor of meat was absorbed into it, and then they used it to bake bread. Rava bar Ahilai prohibited eating this bread even with salt, and not just with milk. This status would apply forever to bread baked in this oven, even during subsequent baking, lest one eat such bread with kutaḥ, a dairy-based seasoning, which would be a violation of the prohibition against eating meat with milk.
מֵיתִיבִי: אֵין לָשִׁין אֶת הָעִיסָּה בְּחָלָב, וְאִם לָשׁ — כׇּל הַפַּת כּוּלָּהּ אֲסוּרָה, מִפְּנֵי הֶרְגֵּל עֲבֵירָה. כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ,
The Gemara raises an objection to this statement: It was taught that one may not knead the dough with milk, and if he did knead the dough with milk, then all of the bread is prohibited due to concern that he will commit a habitual transgression. As one habitually eats bread with meat, there is a concern that one will come to eat this bread with meat as well, unwittingly transgressing the prohibition against eating meat with milk. Similarly,
אֵין טָשִׁין אֶת הַתַּנּוּר בְּאַלְיָה. וְאִם טָשׁ — כׇּל הַפַּת כּוּלָּהּ אֲסוּרָה, עַד שֶׁיַּסִּיק אֶת הַתַּנּוּר. הָא הוּסַּק הַתַּנּוּר — מִיהָא שְׁרֵי. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרָבָא בַּר אֲהִילַאי, תְּיוּבְתָּא.
one may not smear the inside of an oven with the fat tail [alya] of a sheep, because it is meat. And if one did smear it over the oven, then all of the bread baked in it is prohibited, lest one accidentally eat this bread with milk. However, this applies only until one kindles the oven and burns off this fat. The Gemara infers from this baraita that if the oven was kindled afterward then it is permitted in any case. This would seem to present a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rava bar Ahilai who maintains that the bread cooked in this oven is prohibited forever, even after the oven is rekindled. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is a conclusive refutation of his opinion.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְכִי מֵאַחַר דְּאִיתּוֹתַב רָבָא בַּר אֲהִילַאי, אַמַּאי קָאָמַר רַב: קְדֵירוֹת בַּפֶּסַח יִשָּׁבְרוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם תַּנּוּר שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת, הָכָא בִּקְדֵירָה שֶׁל חֶרֶס.
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Since the statement of Rava bar Ahilai was refuted, why did Rav say that pots that were used for leavened bread on Passover should be broken? Presumably, their status could be remedied in the same way as was that of this oven, by heating them on a fire until the flavor of the leavened bread absorbed in them was removed. Rav Ashi said to him: There is a distinction between these two cases. There, it is referring to a metal oven, which can be cleansed through an additional kindling, while here, it is referring to an earthenware pot, where additional kindling is insufficient, as the earthenware has the capacity to absorb more of the flavor of the leavened bread and it cannot be purged by fire.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא הָא וְהָא בְּשֶׁל חֶרֶס. זֶה — הֶסֵּיקָן מִבִּפְנִים, וְזֶה — הֶסֵּיקָן מִבַּחוּץ. וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכִי נָמֵי לֶיעְבַּד לֵיהּ הַסָּקָה מִבִּפְנִים — חָיֵיס עֲלֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם דְּפָקְעָה.
If you wish, say instead that both this, the oven, and that, the pot, are earthenware, but that the following distinction applies. This, the oven, is kindled from the inside, and as the fire is kindled inside the oven itself, it consumes the absorbed flavor of the leavened bread. While that, the pot, is kindled from the outside, such that the flavor of the prohibited material absorbed in the pot is not purged by the fire. And if you say, so too here, in the case of the pot, he should perform the kindling procedure on the pots from the inside to remove that which has been absorbed, this is not reasonable. Presumably, the owner of the pot will be concerned lest it burst if he makes the pot too hot. Therefore, he will not use sufficient heat to ensure that the leavened bread that has been absorbed will be completely purged.
הִלְכָּךְ הַאי בּוּכְיָא הֶסֵּיקוֹ מִבַּחוּץ הוּא — וְאָסוּר, וְאִי מַלְּיֵיהּ גּוּמְרֵי — שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.
The Gemara concludes: Therefore, based on this principle, this griddle made from earthenware tiles that was used to bake bread is a type of oven where the kindling is from the outside and therefore prohibited. But if he fills it with burning coals, then it seems well and it can be used afterward. Because this vessel is often subject to a high level of heat, the owner will not be concerned that it will break when heated.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הָנֵי סַכִּינֵי בְּפִסְחָא הֵיכִי עָבְדִינַן לְהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְדִידִי חַדְתָּא קָא עָבְדִינַן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תִּינַח מָר דְּאֶפְשָׁר לֵיהּ, דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר לֵיהּ מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא, כְּעֵין חַדְתָּא קָאָמֵינָא: קַתַּיְיהוּ בְּטִינָא, וּפַרְזְלַיְיהוּ בְּנוּרָא, וַהֲדַר מְעַיֵּילְנָא לְקַתַּיְיהוּ בְּרוֹתְחִין. וְהִלְכְתָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּרוֹתְחִין וּבִכְלִי רִאשׁוֹן.
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: With regard to these knives, how do we prepare them for use during Passover? Rav Ashi said to him: For me, personally, we craft new ones. Ravina said to him: It works out well for Master, as you are able to afford new knives. However, what should one who is unable to purchase new knives do? He said to him: I was speaking of making them like new by thoroughly cleaning them in the following manner: One should cover the wooden handles in mud, so that they will not be burned, and heat the metal with fire until it is white-hot. And then I place the handles of the knives in boiling water in order to remove anything that had been absorbed into the wood. And the halakha is that with regard to both this, the blade, and that, the handle, it is sufficient to immerse them in boiling water, so long as this water is still in a primary vessel. The water must still be in the original pot in which it was boiled and not poured from another pot.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: עֵץ פָּרוּר מַגְעִילוֹ בְּרוֹתְחִין וּבִכְלִי רִאשׁוֹן. קָסָבַר: כְּבוֹלְעוֹ כָּךְ פּוֹלְטוֹ.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: A wooden ladle should be purged in boiling water in a primary vessel in order to remove the flavor of the forbidden food that it absorbed. The Gemara states: He holds in accordance with the principle: As it absorbs the flavor of the forbidden substance, so it emits it. The same cooking method and level of heat that caused the flavor of the forbidden substance to be absorbed in the vessel suffices to discharge the flavor of that substance from the vessel. Therefore, a ladle that absorbed flavor of leavened bread from a pot of boiling water which was over a fire will discharge the flavor of leavened bread once it is placed in the boiling water again.
בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵאַמֵּימָר: הָנֵי מָאנֵי דְקוּנְיָא, מַהוּ לְאִישְׁתַּמּוֹשֵׁי בְּהוּ בְּפִסְחָא? יְרוּקָּא לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ — דְּוַדַּאי אֲסִירִי. כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ אוּכָּמֵי וְחִיוָּרֵי, מַאי? וְהֵיכָא דְּאִית בְּהוּ קַרְטוּפָנֵי, לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּוַדַּאי אֲסִירִי. כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ דְּשִׁיעִי, מַאי?
They raised a dilemma before Ameimar: Concerning certain glazed [konya] earthenware vessels, what is the halakha with regard to using them during Passover? The Gemara explains: With regard to green vessels, the dilemma need not even be raised, as they are certainly prohibited as their coating does not prevent them from absorbing the flavor of leavened bread. Let the dilemma be raised with regard to black and white vessels: What is the halakha here? And furthermore, the dilemma need not be raised when they have cracks; as the leavened bread will remain stuck in these cracks, they are certainly prohibited. Let the dilemma be raised with regard to smooth vessels: What is the halakha in that case?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲזֵינָא לְהוּ דְּמִידַיְּיתֵי, אַלְמָא בָּלְעִי, וַאֲסִירִי. וְהַתּוֹרָה הֵעִידָה עַל כְּלִי חֶרֶס שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִידֵי דּוֹפְיוֹ לְעוֹלָם.
Ameimar said to him: I saw that some of the liquid is expelled [demidayeti]? from the outside of the vessel. Apparently they absorb and are therefore prohibited, as they cannot be prepared for use on Passover through cleansing, and the Torah testified about earthenware vessels that when they absorb the flavor of a prohibited substance, they will never leave their defective status and they remain permanently prohibited. The Torah states that a person may cleanse other vessels by scouring and rinsing them, whereas it states that earthenware vessels must be broken.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא לְעִנְיַן יֵין נֶסֶךְ, דְּדָרֵישׁ מָרִימָר: מָאנֵי דְקוּנְיָא, בֵּין אוּכָּמֵא בֵּין חִיוָּרֵי וּבֵין יְרוּקֵּי — שְׁרֵי? וְכִי תֵּימָא: יֵין נֶסֶךְ — דְּרַבָּנַן, חָמֵץ — דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, כׇּל דְּתַקּוּן רַבָּנַן — כְּעֵין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא תַּקּוּן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זֶה תַּשְׁמִישׁוֹ עַל יְדֵי חַמִּין, וְזֶה תַּשְׁמִישׁוֹ עַל יְדֵי צוֹנֵן.
The Gemara asks: What is different about wine used for a libation, with regard to which the halakha of earthenware vessels is more lenient? As Mareimar taught: A glazed earthenware vessel is permitted whether it is black, white, or green if it was used to store wine belonging to gentiles. Any wine that came in contact with gentiles is suspected of having been poured as a libation offering to idolatry. And if you say that it is possible to distinguish between the prohibition of wine used for a libation, which is a rabbinic prohibition, and that of leavened bread, which is forbidden by Torah law, this is difficult, as all ordinances that the Sages instituted, they instituted similar to Torah law. Once they have declared that this item is prohibited, the principles applicable to Torah prohibitions apply to it as well. Ameimar said to him: The distinction between the two cases is that with regard to this vessel, which is used for cooking during Passover, its primary use is with hot foods, and therefore the flavor of the leavened bread has become absorbed within its walls. But with regard to this vessel, which is used to store wine, its primary use is with cool liquids, which are not absorbed to the same degree.
אָמַר רָבָא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהֶן חָמֵץ בְּצוֹנֵן — מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן מַצָּה, חוּץ מִן בֵּית שְׂאוֹר, הוֹאִיל שֶׁחִימּוּצוֹ קָשֶׁה. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: וּבֵית חֲרוֹסֶת — כְּבֵית שְׂאוֹר שֶׁחִימּוּצוֹ קָשֶׁה דָּמֵי.
The Gemara continues discussing the ways that a vessel must be cleansed so that it can be used during Passover. Rava bar Abba said that Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Shmuel said: Any vessel that was used for leavened bread only while cool can be used for matza, because no flavor of the leavened bread was absorbed by the vessel. The exception to this rule is the leaven container where the yeast was stored, since its leavening is more potent, and it can be assumed that the flavor from the yeast has entered the walls of the vessel even without heat. Rav Ashi said: And the spice container, in which potent spices that contained flour were stored, has the same status as the leaven container whose leavening is potent.
אָמַר רָבָא: הָנֵי אַגָּנֵי דְמָחוֹזָא, הוֹאִיל וּתְדִירִי לְמֵילַשׁ בְּהוּ חֲמִירָא, וּמְשַׁהוּ בְּהוּ חֲמִירָא — כְּבֵית שְׂאוֹר שֶׁחִימּוּצוֹ קָשֶׁה דָּמֵי. פְּשִׁיטָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דִּרְוִיחָא, שָׁלֵיט בְּהוּ אַוֵּירָא וְלָא בָּלְעִי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
Rava said: With regard to certain bowls of Meḥoza, since it is common to knead leavened bread in them and then store the leavened bread in them, they are considered to be like a leaven container whose leavening is potent. The Gemara asks: Why did Rava find it necessary to make this statement? Isn’t it obvious that these bowls are the same as a leaven container? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since these bowls are spacious, the air dominates them and they do not absorb the leavened bread in the same way as does a leaven container, therefore, he teaches us that no such distinction applies.
מַתְנִי׳ גּוֹי שֶׁהִלְוָה אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל חֲמֵצוֹ, אַחַר הַפֶּסַח — מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. וְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהִלְוָה אֶת גּוֹי עַל חֲמֵצוֹ, אַחַר הַפֶּסַח — אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה.
MISHNA: If a gentile lent money to a Jew, and the Jew gave him leavened bread as collateral until after Passover, and after Passover the gentile retains this leavened bread in lieu of payment, then one is permitted to derive benefit from this leavened bread. Since the leavened bread was retained by the gentile based on the transfer that took place prior to Passover, the leavened bread is considered to have belonged to the gentile during Passover. Whereas if a Jew lent money to a gentile, and leavened bread was given as collateral during Passover in the same manner as in the previous case, then after Passover it is forbidden to derive benefit from this leavened bread. Since this leavened bread was considered to be in the Jew’s property during Passover, it is forbidden to derive benefit from it afterward.
גְּמָ׳ אִיתְּמַר: בַּעַל חוֹב, אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: לְמַפְרֵעַ הוּא גּוֹבֶה. וְרָבָא אָמַר: מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא הוּא גּוֹבֶה. כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּאַקְדֵּישׁ לֹוֶה וְזַבֵּין לֹוֶה — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּאָתֵי מַלְוֶה וְטָרֵיף,
GEMARA: It was stated that the amora’im disagree about the rights of a creditor with regard to collateral. Abaye said: He retroactively collects the property. In a case where the creditor had a lien on the property of the debtor and the debtor defaults on the loan, it is considered as if the creditor acquired rights to the collateral at the time of the loan and not at the time of collection. And Rava said: This is not the case, but rather, he acquires the collateral from that point forward, and has rights to the collateral only from the time that the loan was due. This dispute has ramifications for the status of the property, and actions undertaken with regard to it, during the intervening period. The Gemara sets several limitations on the scope of this dispute: Anywhere that the debtor consecrated or sold the field that was serving as collateral, everyone agrees that the creditor can come and seize this property and override the sale, because its status as collateral preceded its sale.
