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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 21, 2020 | 讜壮 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.

The Daf Yomi women of Neve Daniel are proud to dedicate a month of learning in honor of all the women learning Torah in the world and in honor of completing our first year of learning together. Thank you to Hadran and to the Rabbaniot Michelle, Chamotal, Tanya, Sally, Michal, Chayuta and Meirav that lead us in our in depth learning. Yishar Cochachen!

  • This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

Pesachim 30

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Rabbi Fredda Cohen in honor of her husband, Eric Nussbaum. “With much love for an amazing 47 year journey with many more years to go, ‘讗诐 讬专爪讛 讛. You are the most wonderful husband and father and you are a Saba Sababa.”

What do we hold regarding chametz that was owned by a Jew over Pesach that falls into a mixture (of non problematic food) on Pesach or after Pesach? Can it be nullified in the mixture or not? Is there an issue to use an earthenware vessel that was used for chametz before Pesach, after Pesach as the flavor will not come out into the food and it will be chametz that was left over Pesach, as earthenware vessels cannot be kashered? Rav and Shmuel disagree. The gemara tells that Shmuel used his lenient opinion as a threat to those selling new pots after Pesach to get them to lower their prices! Can one bake dairy bread? What is the issue? What types of utensils can be kashered? And how? Can eatherware ovens be kashered? What is the status of an earthenware glazed vessel? How are laws of glazed earthenware vessels different for cooking and storing wine? Why? If a Jew gives chametz as collateral for a loan or the reverse, what is its status after Pesach? Rava and Abaye disagree about when a collateral becomes the possession of the creditor in the event that the borrower doesn’t pay back the loan – it is considered retroactively the creditors from the moment he/she received it? Or from the moment the loan is due and is not paid?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讞诪抓 讘讝诪谞讜 讘讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞讜 讗住讜专 讘诪砖讛讜 讻专讘 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讜 讘讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞讜 诪讜转专 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


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.


讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽谞住讗 拽谞讬住 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注讘专 注诇讬讜 讘讘诇 讬专讗讛 讜讘诇 讬诪爪讗


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鈥檛 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?


讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘注讬谞讬讛 讗讘诇 注诇 讬讚讬 转注专讜讘转 诇讗 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讬 讛讜讜 谞驻拽讬 砖讘注讛 讬讜诪讬 讚驻住讞讗 讗诪专 诇谉 驻讜拽讜 讜讝讘讬谞讜 讞诪讬专讗 讚讘谞讬 讞讬诇讗:


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 Na岣an鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 专讘 拽讚讬专讜转 讘驻住讞 讬砖讘专讜 讜讗诪讗讬 诇砖讛讬谞讛讜 讗讞专 讛驻住讞 讜诇讬注讘讚 讘讛讜 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 讙讝讬专讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讜 诇诪讬注讘讚 讘讛讜 讘诪讬谞讜


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.


讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 讬砖讘专讜 讗讘诇 诪砖讛讬 诇讛讜 诇讗讞专 讝诪谞讜 讜注讘讬讚 讘讛讜 讘讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞讜


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.


讜讗讝讚讗 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讛谞讛讜 讚诪讝讘谞讬 讻谞讚讬 讗砖讜讜 讝讘讬谞讬 讗讻谞讚讬讻讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 讚专砖讬谞讗 诇讻讜 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


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.


讜诇讬讚专讜砖 诇讛讜 讚讛讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讗转专讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜讛


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鈥檚 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.


讛讛讜讗 转谞讜专讗 讚讟讞讜 讘讬讛 讟讬讞讬讗 讗住专讛 专讘讗 讘专 讗讛讬诇讗讬 诇诪讬讻诇讬讛 诇专讬驻转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪讬诇讞讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇讬讛 讘讻讜转讞讗


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 kuta岣, a dairy-based seasoning, which would be a violation of the prohibition against eating meat with milk.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬谉 诇砖讬谉 讗转 讛注讬住讛 讘讞诇讘 讜讗诐 诇砖 讻诇 讛驻转 讻讜诇讛 讗住讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 讛专讙诇 注讘讬专讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜


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,


讗讬谉 讟砖讬谉 讗转 讛转谞讜专 讘讗诇讬讛 讜讗诐 讟砖 讻诇 讛驻转 讻讜诇讛 讗住讜专讛 注讚 砖讬住讬拽 讗转 讛转谞讜专 讛讗 讛讜住拽 讛转谞讜专 诪讬讛讗 砖专讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗 讘专 讗讛讬诇讗讬 转讬讜讘转讗


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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚讗讬转讜转讘 专讘讗 讘专 讗讛讬诇讗讬 讗诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 拽讚讬专讜转 讘驻住讞 讬砖讘专讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 转谞讜专 砖诇 诪转讻转 讛讻讗 讘拽讚讬专讛 砖诇 讞专住


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.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘砖诇 讞专住 讝讛 讛住讬拽谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜讝讛 讛住讬拽谉 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讬注讘讚 诇讬讛 讛住拽讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讞讬讬住 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚驻拽注讛


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.


讛诇讻讱 讛讗讬 讘讜讻讬讗 讛住讬拽讜 诪讘讞讜抓 讛讜讗 讜讗住讜专 讜讗讬 诪诇讬讬讛 讙讜诪专讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬


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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛谞讬 住讻讬谞讬 讘驻住讞讗 讛讬讻讬 注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬 讞讚转讗 拽讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讬谞讞 诪专 讚讗驻砖专 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讻注讬谉 讞讚转讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗 拽转讬讬讛讜 讘讟讬谞讗 讜驻专讝诇讬讬讛讜 讘谞讜专讗 讜讛讚专 诪注讬讬诇谞讗 诇拽转讬讬讛讜 讘专讜转讞讬谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘专讜转讞讬谉 讜讘讻诇讬 专讗砖讜谉


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.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 注抓 驻专讜专 诪讙注讬诇讜 讘专讜转讞讬谉 讜讘讻诇讬 专讗砖讜谉 拽住讘专 讻讘讜诇注讜 讻讱 驻讜诇讟讜


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.


讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讗诪讬诪专 讛谞讬 诪讗谞讬 讚拽讜谞讬讗 诪讛讜 诇讗讬砖转诪讜砖讬 讘讛讜 讘驻住讞讗 讬专讜拽讗 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讜讚讗讬 讗住讬专讬 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讗讜讻诪讬 讜讞讬讜专讬 诪讗讬 讜讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 拽专讟讜驻谞讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讜讚讗讬 讗住讬专讬 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚砖讬注讬 诪讗讬


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?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讬谞讗 诇讛讜 讚诪讬讚讬讬转讬 讗诇诪讗 讘诇注讬 讜讗住讬专讬 讜讛转讜专讛 讛注讬讚讛 注诇 讻诇讬 讞专住 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讜驻讬讜 诇注讜诇诐


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.


讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇注谞讬谉 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讚讚专讬砖 诪专讬诪专 诪讗谞讬 讚拽讜谞讬讗 讘讬谉 讗讜讻诪讗 讘讬谉 讞讬讜专讬 讜讘讬谉 讬专讜拽讬 砖专讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讚专讘谞谉 讞诪抓 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讻诇 讚转拽讜谉 专讘谞谉 讻注讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转拽讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讛 转砖诪讬砖讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讞诪讬谉 讜讝讛 转砖诪讬砖讜 注诇 讬讚讬 爪讜谞谉


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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 砖谞砖转诪砖讜 讘讛谉 讞诪抓 讘爪讜谞谉 诪砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诪爪讛 讞讜抓 诪谉 讘讬转 砖讗讜专 讛讜讗讬诇 砖讞讬诪讜爪讜 拽砖讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讘讬转 讞专讜住转 讻讘讬转 砖讗讜专 砖讞讬诪讜爪讜 拽砖讛 讚诪讬


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 岣yya 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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讬 讗讙谞讬 讚诪讞讜讝讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜转讚讬专讬 诇诪讬诇砖 讘讛讜 讞诪讬专讗 讜诪砖讛讜 讘讛讜 讞诪讬专讗 讻讘讬转 砖讗讜专 砖讞讬诪讜爪讜 拽砖讛 讚诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚专讜讬讞讗 砖诇讬讟 讘讛讜 讗讜讬专讗 讜诇讗 讘诇注讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


Rava said: With regard to certain bowls of Me岣za, 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鈥檛 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.


诪转谞讬壮 讙讜讬 砖讛诇讜讛 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 注诇 讞诪爪讜 讗讞专 讛驻住讞 诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 讜讬砖专讗诇 砖讛诇讜讛 讗转 讙讜讬 注诇 讞诪爪讜 讗讞专 讛驻住讞 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛:


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鈥檚 property during Passover, it is forbidden to derive benefit from it afterward.


讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇诪驻专注 讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛讘讗 讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗拽讚讬砖 诇讜讛 讜讝讘讬谉 诇讜讛 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗转讬 诪诇讜讛 讜讟专讬祝


GEMARA: It was stated that the amora鈥檌m 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.


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.

The Daf Yomi women of Neve Daniel are proud to dedicate a month of learning in honor of all the women learning Torah in the world and in honor of completing our first year of learning together. Thank you to Hadran and to the Rabbaniot Michelle, Chamotal, Tanya, Sally, Michal, Chayuta and Meirav that lead us in our in depth learning. Yishar Cochachen!

  • This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

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...
alon shvut women

Kashering

Pesachim Daf 030 Kashering pots and oven - what needs to be done. Rav (paskens like Rebbi Yehudah) and Shmuel...

Pesachim 30

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 30

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讞诪抓 讘讝诪谞讜 讘讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞讜 讗住讜专 讘诪砖讛讜 讻专讘 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讜 讘讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞讜 诪讜转专 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


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.


讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽谞住讗 拽谞讬住 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注讘专 注诇讬讜 讘讘诇 讬专讗讛 讜讘诇 讬诪爪讗


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鈥檛 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?


讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘注讬谞讬讛 讗讘诇 注诇 讬讚讬 转注专讜讘转 诇讗 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讬 讛讜讜 谞驻拽讬 砖讘注讛 讬讜诪讬 讚驻住讞讗 讗诪专 诇谉 驻讜拽讜 讜讝讘讬谞讜 讞诪讬专讗 讚讘谞讬 讞讬诇讗:


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 Na岣an鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 专讘 拽讚讬专讜转 讘驻住讞 讬砖讘专讜 讜讗诪讗讬 诇砖讛讬谞讛讜 讗讞专 讛驻住讞 讜诇讬注讘讚 讘讛讜 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 讙讝讬专讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讜 诇诪讬注讘讚 讘讛讜 讘诪讬谞讜


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.


讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 讬砖讘专讜 讗讘诇 诪砖讛讬 诇讛讜 诇讗讞专 讝诪谞讜 讜注讘讬讚 讘讛讜 讘讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞讜


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.


讜讗讝讚讗 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讛谞讛讜 讚诪讝讘谞讬 讻谞讚讬 讗砖讜讜 讝讘讬谞讬 讗讻谞讚讬讻讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 讚专砖讬谞讗 诇讻讜 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


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.


讜诇讬讚专讜砖 诇讛讜 讚讛讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讗转专讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜讛


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鈥檚 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.


讛讛讜讗 转谞讜专讗 讚讟讞讜 讘讬讛 讟讬讞讬讗 讗住专讛 专讘讗 讘专 讗讛讬诇讗讬 诇诪讬讻诇讬讛 诇专讬驻转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪讬诇讞讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇讬讛 讘讻讜转讞讗


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 kuta岣, a dairy-based seasoning, which would be a violation of the prohibition against eating meat with milk.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬谉 诇砖讬谉 讗转 讛注讬住讛 讘讞诇讘 讜讗诐 诇砖 讻诇 讛驻转 讻讜诇讛 讗住讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 讛专讙诇 注讘讬专讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜


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,


讗讬谉 讟砖讬谉 讗转 讛转谞讜专 讘讗诇讬讛 讜讗诐 讟砖 讻诇 讛驻转 讻讜诇讛 讗住讜专讛 注讚 砖讬住讬拽 讗转 讛转谞讜专 讛讗 讛讜住拽 讛转谞讜专 诪讬讛讗 砖专讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗 讘专 讗讛讬诇讗讬 转讬讜讘转讗


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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚讗讬转讜转讘 专讘讗 讘专 讗讛讬诇讗讬 讗诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 拽讚讬专讜转 讘驻住讞 讬砖讘专讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 转谞讜专 砖诇 诪转讻转 讛讻讗 讘拽讚讬专讛 砖诇 讞专住


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.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘砖诇 讞专住 讝讛 讛住讬拽谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜讝讛 讛住讬拽谉 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讬注讘讚 诇讬讛 讛住拽讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讞讬讬住 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚驻拽注讛


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.


讛诇讻讱 讛讗讬 讘讜讻讬讗 讛住讬拽讜 诪讘讞讜抓 讛讜讗 讜讗住讜专 讜讗讬 诪诇讬讬讛 讙讜诪专讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬


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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛谞讬 住讻讬谞讬 讘驻住讞讗 讛讬讻讬 注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬 讞讚转讗 拽讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讬谞讞 诪专 讚讗驻砖专 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讻注讬谉 讞讚转讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗 拽转讬讬讛讜 讘讟讬谞讗 讜驻专讝诇讬讬讛讜 讘谞讜专讗 讜讛讚专 诪注讬讬诇谞讗 诇拽转讬讬讛讜 讘专讜转讞讬谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘专讜转讞讬谉 讜讘讻诇讬 专讗砖讜谉


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.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 注抓 驻专讜专 诪讙注讬诇讜 讘专讜转讞讬谉 讜讘讻诇讬 专讗砖讜谉 拽住讘专 讻讘讜诇注讜 讻讱 驻讜诇讟讜


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.


讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讗诪讬诪专 讛谞讬 诪讗谞讬 讚拽讜谞讬讗 诪讛讜 诇讗讬砖转诪讜砖讬 讘讛讜 讘驻住讞讗 讬专讜拽讗 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讜讚讗讬 讗住讬专讬 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讗讜讻诪讬 讜讞讬讜专讬 诪讗讬 讜讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 拽专讟讜驻谞讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讜讚讗讬 讗住讬专讬 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚砖讬注讬 诪讗讬


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?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讬谞讗 诇讛讜 讚诪讬讚讬讬转讬 讗诇诪讗 讘诇注讬 讜讗住讬专讬 讜讛转讜专讛 讛注讬讚讛 注诇 讻诇讬 讞专住 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讜驻讬讜 诇注讜诇诐


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.


讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇注谞讬谉 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讚讚专讬砖 诪专讬诪专 诪讗谞讬 讚拽讜谞讬讗 讘讬谉 讗讜讻诪讗 讘讬谉 讞讬讜专讬 讜讘讬谉 讬专讜拽讬 砖专讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讚专讘谞谉 讞诪抓 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讻诇 讚转拽讜谉 专讘谞谉 讻注讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转拽讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讛 转砖诪讬砖讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讞诪讬谉 讜讝讛 转砖诪讬砖讜 注诇 讬讚讬 爪讜谞谉


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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 砖谞砖转诪砖讜 讘讛谉 讞诪抓 讘爪讜谞谉 诪砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诪爪讛 讞讜抓 诪谉 讘讬转 砖讗讜专 讛讜讗讬诇 砖讞讬诪讜爪讜 拽砖讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讘讬转 讞专讜住转 讻讘讬转 砖讗讜专 砖讞讬诪讜爪讜 拽砖讛 讚诪讬


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 岣yya 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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讬 讗讙谞讬 讚诪讞讜讝讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜转讚讬专讬 诇诪讬诇砖 讘讛讜 讞诪讬专讗 讜诪砖讛讜 讘讛讜 讞诪讬专讗 讻讘讬转 砖讗讜专 砖讞讬诪讜爪讜 拽砖讛 讚诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚专讜讬讞讗 砖诇讬讟 讘讛讜 讗讜讬专讗 讜诇讗 讘诇注讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


Rava said: With regard to certain bowls of Me岣za, 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鈥檛 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.


诪转谞讬壮 讙讜讬 砖讛诇讜讛 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 注诇 讞诪爪讜 讗讞专 讛驻住讞 诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 讜讬砖专讗诇 砖讛诇讜讛 讗转 讙讜讬 注诇 讞诪爪讜 讗讞专 讛驻住讞 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛:


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鈥檚 property during Passover, it is forbidden to derive benefit from it afterward.


讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇诪驻专注 讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讛讘讗 讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗拽讚讬砖 诇讜讛 讜讝讘讬谉 诇讜讛 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗转讬 诪诇讜讛 讜讟专讬祝


GEMARA: It was stated that the amora鈥檌m 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.


Scroll To Top