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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 26, 2020 | 讬状讗 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.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Pesachim 35 – Kitniot

From what grains does one fulfill one鈥檚 obligation to eat matza. Only from one of the 5 grains. What is the source for this? The rabbis and Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri debate the status of rice and millet both for fulfilling the mitzvah of matza using them and for receiving the punishment of karet if one eats them leavened on Pesach. Do they really leaven or not? Is one allowed to eat kitniot on Pesach?What is the status of a dough made with fruit juice, wine or honey that rose? Does one get karet for that? 聽Do we say that since one can鈥檛 fulfill one鈥檚 obligation for matza with a dough like that, as it is not poor man鈥檚 bread, then one is not obligated karet if it leavens? The Mishna lists situations in which one can or cannot fulfill one鈥檚 obligation of matza for an outside reason 鈥 either it is permitted or forbidden because of a different halachic issue. The gemara goes through each case and explains either why or asks why is this mentioned 鈥 isn鈥檛 it obvious?

讗诇讗 诪注诇讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪注诇讛


Rather, this is merely a higher standard, as by Torah law the water may be drawn with one vessel and sanctified in another vessel. The Sages added that this water must be sanctified in the same vessel in which it was drawn from the spring, and they found support for their opinion in the Torah. Here too, the Sages established a higher standard for a consecrated object that became ritually impure, as they decreed that it cannot be ritually purified through insertion in the ground.


讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讟讘诇 讜注诇讛 讗讜讻诇 讘诪注砖专 讛注专讬讘 砖诪砖讜 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讗讬谉 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 讗诪讗讬 讟讛讜专 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪注诇讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪注诇讛


Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: We, too, learned a similar statement in a baraita: When the period of ritual impurity of a zav or leper has been completed, and he immersed during the day and emerged, he may eat tithes immediately. Once the sun set for him, he may eat teruma. Rav Shimi bar Ashi infers from this statement: With regard to teruma, yes, he may eat it; however, with regard to consecrated food, no, he may not. Given that conclusion, Rav Shimi bar Ashi asks: Why is there a difference between teruma and consecrated foods? After all, he is ritually pure. Rather, the Sages established a higher standard for consecrated food, and permitted one to eat them only after sacrificing the requisite purification offering. Here too, the Sages established a higher standard for the ritual purity of consecrated liquids.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讜讛讘砖专 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛注爪讬诐 讜诇讘讜谞讛 注爪讬诐 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讘谞讬 讗讬讟诪讜讬讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 诪注诇讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪注诇讛:


Rav Ashi said: We, too, learned another case where the Sages established a higher standard. The verse says: 鈥淎nd the flesh that touches any ritually impure thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire. And as for the flesh, anyone who is ritually pure may eat from it鈥 (Leviticus 7:19). And the flesh comes to include the wood in the Temple and the frankincense. The Gemara asks: Do wood and frankincense have the capacity to become ritually impure, given that they are neither food nor drink? Rather, the Sages established a higher standard for these objects due to their sanctity; here too, the Sages established a higher standard for the ritual purity of consecrated liquids.


诪转谞讬壮 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞 讘讞讟讬诐 讘砖注讜专讬诐 讘讻讜住诪讬谉 讜讘砖讬驻讜谉 讜讘砖讬讘讜诇转 砖讜注诇 讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讚诪讗讬 讜讘诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖谞讟诇讛 转专讜诪转讜 讜讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 砖谞驻讚讜 讜讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘讞诇讛 讜讘转专讜诪讛


MISHNA: These are the types of grain with which a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza on the first night of Passover: With wheat, with barley, with spelt [kusmin], with rye [shifon], and with oats [shibbolet shu鈥檃l]. And one fulfills his obligation by eating not only matza made from properly tithed grains, but even with matza made from doubtfully tithed produce, and matza made with first tithe from which its teruma was already taken, or second tithe and consecrated food that were redeemed. And priests may eat matza prepared from 岣lla, the portion of dough that is given to priests, or with teruma, as priests are permitted to eat these portions.


讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讟讘诇 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖诇讗 谞讟诇讛 转专讜诪转讜 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 砖诇讗 谞驻讚讜 讞诇讜转 讛转讜讚讛 讜专拽讬拽讬 谞讝讬专 注砖讗谉 诇注爪诪讜 讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 注砖讗谉 诇诪讻讜专 讘砖讜拽 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讛谉:


However, one may not fulfill one鈥檚 obligation to eat matza made with untithed produce, nor with matza made from the first tithe from which its teruma was not separated, nor with matza made either from the second tithe, nor from consecrated grain that was not redeemed. With regard to one who prepared loaves of matza that are brought with a thanks-offering, or to the wafers brought by a nazirite, the Sages drew the following distinction: If he prepared them for himself, then he does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza with them. However, if he prepared them to sell them in the market to those who require these loaves or wafers, one fulfills the obligation to eat matza with them.


讙诪壮 转谞讗 讻讜住诪讬谉 诪讬谉 讞讬讟讬谉 砖讬讘讜诇转 砖讜注诇 讜砖讬驻讜谉 诪讬谉 砖注讜专讬谉 讻讜住诪讬谉 讙讜诇讘讗 砖讬驻讜谉 讚讬砖专讗 砖讬讘讜诇转 砖讜注诇 砖讘讬诇讬 转注诇讗 讛谞讬 讗讬谉 讗讜专讝 讜讚讜讞谉 诇讗


GEMARA: The Gemara identifies the species mentioned in the mishna. One of the Sages taught in the Tosefta: Spelt is a type of wheat, while oats [shibbolet shu鈥檃l] and rye [shifon] are a type of barley. The Gemara translates the lesser-known species into the vernacular Aramaic: Spelt is called gulba; rye is dishra; and oats are shevilei ta鈥檃la. The Gemara infers: These species, yes, they may be used for matza; however, rice [orez] and millet [do岣n], no, they may not be used.


诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讜讻谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讻谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 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 讚讘专讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 诇讬讚讬 讞讬诪讜抓 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘诪爪讛 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讗讬谉 诇讬讚讬 讞讬诪讜抓 讗诇讗 诇讬讚讬 住讬专讞讜谉


The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that matza cannot be prepared from rice or millet, derived? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, and likewise a Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, and likewise a Sage of the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov taught that the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza, the bread of affliction鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:3). This verse indicates that only with substances which will come to a state of leavening, a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza with them, provided he prevents them from becoming leavened. This excludes these foods, i.e., rice, millet, and similar grains, which, even if flour is prepared from them and water is added to their flour, do not come to a state of leavening but to a state of decay [sira岣n].


诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讚讗诪专 讗讜专讝 诪讬谉 讚讙谉 讛讜讗 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讞讬诪讜爪讜 讻专转 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜住专 讘讗讜专讝 讜讚讜讞谉 诪驻谞讬 砖拽专讜讘 诇讛讞诪讬抓


The Gemara notes: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, who said: Rice is a full-fledged type of grain, and one is liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state, like other types of grain. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri prohibits eating cooked rice and millet on Passover, due to the fact that they are close to being leavened.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖拽专讜讘 诇讛讞诪讬抓 讚拽讚讬诐 讜诪讞诪讬抓 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 拽专讜讘 诇讛讞诪讬抓 讛讜讬 讞诪抓 讙诪讜专 诇讗 讛讜讬


A dilemma was raised before the scholars who were studying this issue. What is the meaning of the expression: That it is close to becoming leavened? Does this mean that it will be leavened even quicker than wheat or barley? Or does it perhaps mean that it is only close to being leavened, i.e., it resembles leavened bread, but it is not full-fledged leavened bread. In other words, perhaps Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri maintains that these grains cannot in fact become full-fledged leavened bread, and one is not punished with karet for eating them on Passover. However, he rules that one should nevertheless avoid eating them, due to their similarity to leavened bread.


转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜专讝 诪讬谉 讚讙谉 讛讜讗 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讞讬诪讜爪讜 讻专转 讜讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞


The Gemara responds: Come and hear a resolution to this question, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri said: Rice is a full-fledged type of grain. Therefore, one is liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state, and a person can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with it on Passover. This baraita clearly indicates that, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, rice becomes leavened like other grains, and the expression: It is close to becoming leavened, means that it becomes leavened quicker than other grains.


讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 拽专诪讬转 讞讬讬讘转 讘讞诇讛 诪讗讬 拽专诪讬转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讬爪谞讬转讗 诪讗讬 砖讬爪谞讬转讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖讬爪谞讬转讗 讚诪砖转讻讞讗 讘讬谞讬 讻诇谞讬转讗


And so too, Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri would say: One who has prepared bread from keramit, a type of wild wheat, is obligated to separate 岣lla, just as he must separate 岣lla from dough prepared of other types of grain. The Gemara asks: What is keramit? Abaye said: It is a plant called shitzanita. Since this name was not widely known either, the Gemara asks: What is shitzanita? Rav Pappa said: This is the wild grain that is found between papyrus reeds.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 注讬住讛 砖谞讬诇讜砖讛 讘讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讜讚讘砖 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讞讬诪讜爪讛 讻专转 讬转讬讘 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜讬转讬讘 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜拽讗 诪谞诪谞诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖


Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Reish Lakish said: With regard to dough that was kneaded with wine, oil, or honey, one is not liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state, since these liquids will not cause the dough to be leavened. Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, were sitting before Rav Idi bar Avin, and Rav Idi bar Avin was sitting and dozing as his students conversed. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: What is the reason of Reish Lakish, who maintains that one is not liable to receive karet for this type of leavening?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 讞诪抓 [讜讙讜壮] 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘诪爪讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讞讬诪讜爪讜 讻专转 讜讛讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 诪爪讛 注砖讬专讛 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讞讬诪讜爪讛 讻专转


Rav Pappa said to him: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:3). In light of the juxtaposition of leavened bread and matza, Reish Lakish compares these two types of bread: With regard to those substances through which a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza, one is liable to receive karet for eating them in their leavened state. And with regard to this dough, which was kneaded with wine, oil, or honey, since a person does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza with it, as it is called rich, i.e., enhanced, matza, one is not liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state on Passover. Matza is called the bread of affliction, or the poor man鈥檚 bread, a description that does not apply to dough prepared with wine, oil, or honey.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讛诪讞讛讜 讜讙诪注讜 讗诐 讞诪抓 讛讜讗 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讗诐 诪爪讛 讛讜讗 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘诪爪讛 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讞讬诪讜爪讜 讻专转


Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raised an objection to Rav Pappa: We learned with regard to one who took a baked item, dissolved it in water, and swallowed this mixture on Passover: If the baked item is leavened bread, he is punished with karet; and if it is matza, a person does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza on Passover with this food. The reason one does not fulfill the obligation to eat matza is because swallowing in this manner is not considered an act of eating. But here this is a case where a person does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza with this dissolved food, and nevertheless he is liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state. This ruling conflicts with Rav Pappa鈥檚 general principle.


讗讬转注专 讘讛讜 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚专讚拽讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 诪讬 驻讬专讜转


At this point Rav Idi bar Avin woke up, due to their discussion, and said to them: Children, this is the reasoning of Reish Lakish: One is not liable to receive karet for eating dough kneaded with oil or honey, because oil and honey are considered fruit juices,


讜诪讬 驻讬专讜转 讗讬谉 诪讞诪讬爪讬谉:


and fruit juice does not cause dough to be leavened. Therefore, dough prepared with these liquids is not considered full-fledged leavened bread.


讬讜爪讗 讘讚诪讗讬 讜讘诪注砖专 讜讻讜壮: 讚诪讗讬 讛讗 诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪驻拽专 诇谞讻住讬讛 讛讜讬 注谞讬 讜讗讜讻诇 讚诪讗讬 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讞讝讬 诇讬讛


The Gemara turns to the cases of the mishna. The mishna taught that one can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with doubtfully tithed produce and with produce of the first tithe, from which teruma has been separated. The Gemara asks: Can one really fulfill his obligation with doubtfully tithed produce? It is not suitable for him to eat. The Sages prohibited the eating of doubtfully tithed produce that has not been tithed. The Gemara answers: Since, if one so desires he may renounce all his property, thereby becoming a poor person who is permitted to eat doubtfully tithed produce, now too it is suitable for him, even though he did not declare his property ownerless. Consequently, if he used doubtfully tithed produce as matza, he has fulfilled the mitzva after the fact.


讚转谞谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讗转 讗讻住谞讬讗 讚诪讗讬 讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转谞讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讗转 讛讗讻住谞讬讗 讚诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉:


As we learned in a mishna: One may feed the poor doubtfully tithed produce, and he may also feed Jewish soldiers [akhsanya] who lodge with him doubtfully tithed produce. And Rav Huna said that it was taught that Beit Shammai say: One may neither feed the poor doubtfully tithed produce, nor feed soldiers doubtfully tithed produce. And Beit Hillel say: One may feed these groups doubtfully tithed produce. This mishna indicates that doubtfully tithed produce is not prohibited to the same extent as entirely untithed produce, as in certain situations the prohibition pertaining to doubtfully tithed produce does not take effect.


诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖谞讟诇讛 转专讜诪转讜 讜讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讻讬讜谉 砖谞讟诇讛 转专讜诪转讜 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讬


The mishna taught that one can fulfill the obligation to eat matza with produce of the first tithe from which its teruma, the teruma of the tithe, was taken and given to a priest. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious, as, since its teruma has been taken, it is non-sacred food? What novel element is taught by this statement?


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘砖讬讘诇讬诐 讜谞讟诇讛 讛讬诪谞讜 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜诇讗 谞讟诇讛 讛讬诪谞讜 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜


The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach the halakha in a case where a Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on its stalks. Ordinarily, the Levite would be given his first tithe only after the priest had taken the teruma gedola; however, in this case the Levite took his portion before the priest. And the teruma of the tithe was taken by the Levite from his tithe so that he would be permitted to eat the tithe; however, the teruma gedola was not taken from the produce at all. And the novel element of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu.


讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘砖讬讘诇讬诐 驻讟讜专 诪转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛专诪转诐 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪转 讛壮 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专


As Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: First tithe in which the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks is exempt from teruma gedola, even though the Levite thereby reduces the amount of grain the priest receives. As it is stated: 鈥淢oreover you shall speak to the Levites and say to them: When you take from the children of Israel the tithe which I have given you from them as your inheritance, and you shall set apart from it a gift for the Lord, a tithe from the tithe鈥 (Numbers 18:26). This verse teaches that the Levite is obligated to set apart a tithe from the tithe, i.e., the teruma of the tithe, and not teruma gedola and the teruma of the tithe from the tithe.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘讻专讬 谞诪讬 诇讬驻讟专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讱 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻诇 诪转谞转讬讻诐 转专讬诪讜 讗转 讻诇 转专讜诪转 讛壮


Rav Pappa said to Abaye: However, if that is so, even if the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were removed from the stalks and placed in a pile, the Levite should not have to separate teruma gedola in this case either. Abaye said to him: With regard to your claim, the verse states: 鈥淔rom all that is given to you, you shall set apart all of that which is the Lord鈥檚 teruma, of all the best of it, even its consecrated portion鈥 (Numbers 18:29). This verse teaches that the Levites must designate a portion of the gifts they receive and give it to the priests.


讜诪讛 专讗讬转 讛讗讬 讗讬讚讙谉 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 讗讬讚讙谉:


The Gemara asks: And what did you see to lead you to require the separation of teruma gedola from first tithe that was taken from grain in piles and not from first tithe that was taken from grain on stalks? Abaye answers: This produce, after being threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and has become grain; and that produce on the stalk did not yet become grain, and the Levite is therefore exempt from separating teruma gedola from it. Produce that has been arranged in a pile is called grain by the Torah and is given to the priest. Once it is classified as grain, the right of the priest takes effect and the Levite is required to separate teruma gedola from it.


诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 砖谞驻讚讜 讜讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖谞转谉 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜诇讗 谞转谉 讗转 讛讞讜诪砖 讜拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 讞讜诪砖 诪注讻讘:


The mishna taught that one can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with second-tithe grain and with consecrated grain that was redeemed. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as consecrated grain that has been redeemed is non-sacred produce. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the consecrated property was not completely redeemed, i.e., where one gave payment for the principal, the value of the tithe, but he did not give payment for the additional fifth due when redeeming consecrated items. And the mishna teaches us that failure to add the fifth does not invalidate the redemption. Although there is an obligation to pay this additional fifth, the neglect of this duty does not prevent the grain from becoming non-sacred.


讜讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘讞诇讛 讜讘转专讜诪讛 讜讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪爪讛 砖讜讛 诇讻诇 讗讚诐 讘注讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪爪讜转 诪爪讜转 专讬讘讛:


And the mishna further taught that priests can fulfill their obligation with matza of 岣lla and with teruma. The Gemara again asks: It is obvious that this is the case. Since a priest is permitted to eat 岣lla and teruma, he can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with them. The Gemara responds: This ruling is nevertheless necessary, lest you say that we require matza that may be eaten equally by anyone, which would mean that matza that may not be eaten by regular Israelites is prohibited to priests as well. The mishna therefore teaches us that the repetition of the words matzot,鈥 鈥matzot (Deuteronomy 16:3, 8) comes to amplify, i.e., one can fulfill one鈥檚 obligation to eat matza even with foods that may be eaten only by specific people.


讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讟讘诇 讜讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讟讘诇 讟讘讜诇 诪讚专讘谞谉 砖讝专注讜 讘注爪讬抓 砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘:


We learned in the mishna: However, one may not fulfill this obligation with untithed produce. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as it is always prohibited to eat tevel. The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where it is considered untithed produce by rabbinic law, and by Torah law the produce is permitted. For instance, this is the case with regard to grain that one sowed in an unperforated flowerpot. Anything grown disconnected from the ground is not defined as produce of the ground, and its owner is exempt by Torah law from tithing it. However, by rabbinic law, grain sowed in an unperforated flowerpot is considered untithed.


讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖诇讗 谞讟诇讛 转专讜诪转讜: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘讻专讬


It was also taught in the mishna: And one does not fulfill his obligation with matza from produce of the first tithe, whose teruma, teruma of the tithe, was not taken. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as this produce may not be eaten. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to teach this with regard to a case where the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were placed in a pile but before teruma gedola was separated from the produce.


诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚砖谞讬 诇讬讛:


The Gemara elaborates: Lest you say, as Rav Pappa said to Abaye, that in that case too, the Levite should be exempt from the requirement to separate teruma gedola from this produce, the tanna of the mishna teaches us, as Abaye responded to Rav Pappa, that there is a difference between a case when the grain was on the stalks and when it was collected in a pile. Therefore, one may not eat this produce before separating teruma gedola from it.


讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 砖诇讗 谞驻讚讜 讜讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗


It was further taught in the mishna: And one does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza with second-tithe produce or consecrated grain that was not redeemed. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that, too, obvious, as it is prohibited to eat these foods?


诇注讜诇诐 讚谞驻讚讜 讜诪讗讬 诇讗 谞驻讚讜 砖诇讗 谞驻讚讜 讻讛诇讻转谉 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖驻讚讗讜 注诇 讙讘 讗住讬诪讜谉 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讜爪专转 讛讻住祝 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 爪讜专讛


The Gemara answers: Actually, this is speaking of a case where they were redeemed, and what is the meaning of the expression: They were not redeemed? It means that they were not redeemed properly, e.g., second-tithe grain that was redeemed with an unminted coin [asimon]. As the Merciful One says with regard to the redemption of the second tithe: 鈥淎nd you shall turn it into money, and bind up the money in your hand, and go to the place which the Lord your God shall choose鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:25). The phrase 鈥渁nd bind up [ve鈥檛zarta] the money鈥 indicates that the produce must be exchanged for an object that has a form [tzura], not unminted metal.


讜讛拽讚砖 砖讞讬诇诇讜 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讜谞转谉 讛讻住祝 讜拽诐 诇讜


And with regard to consecrated property, we are dealing with a case where he redeemed it by exchanging it for land instead of money, as the Merciful One says: 鈥淎nd he will give the fifth part of the money of your valuation unto it and it shall be assured to him鈥 (see Leviticus 27:19). If one redeemed consecrated property with land rather than money, the consecrated status is not transferred to the land.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讻讜诇 讬讜爪讗 讗讚诐 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讟讘诇 砖诇讗 谞转拽谉 讻诇 讟讘诇 谞诪讬 讛讗 诇讗 谞转拽谉


The Sages taught: I might have thought that a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza with untithed produce that was not amended with regard to tithes. The Gemara analyzes the apparently redundant phrase untithed produce that was not amended. But isn鈥檛 all untithed produce also not amended, by definition?


讗诇讗 讘讟讘诇 砖诇讗 谞转拽谉 讻诇 爪讜专讻讜 砖谞讟诇讛 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诇讗 谞讟诇讛 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 [诪注砖专] 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪注砖专 注谞讬 诪谞讬谉


Rather, this baraita is referring to untithed produce that was incompletely amended. How so? For example, produce from which teruma gedola was taken, but the teruma of the tithe was not taken from it. Alternatively, the first tithe was separated from the produce, but not the second tithe; or, it is referring even to grain from which all the tithes were separated, apart from the poor man鈥檚 tithe. Although no sanctity applies to the poor man鈥檚 tithe, which is simply a monetary gift to the poor, until this tithe has been separated the grain remains untithed. From where is it derived that these types of grain cannot be used for matza?


转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 讞诪抓 诪讬 砖讗讬住讜专讜 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 讞诪抓 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专讜 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 讟讘诇


The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not eat leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:3). One fulfills his obligation to eat matza with food whose prohibition is solely due to the prohibition: Do not eat leavened bread with it, if it was not preserved in an unleavened state. This command excludes this grain, which is not prohibited due to the prohibition: Do not eat leavened bread, but rather due to the prohibition: Do not eat untithed produce.


讜讗讬住讜专讗 讚讞诪抓 诇讛讬讻谉 讗讝诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专


The Gemara expresses surprise at this baraita. And the prohibition of leavened bread, where did it go? In other words, doesn鈥檛 the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not eat leavened bread鈥 apply to untithed produce as well? Rav Sheshet said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: One prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists. No additional prohibitions can apply to an object that is already prohibited, e.g., untithed grain. Consequently, the prohibition of leavened bread does not take effect on untithed produce. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says:

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.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

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 Daf 32-38 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time with Dr Tamara Spitz

This week we will learn the consequence of eating Chametz on Pesach that was also Terumah and therefore forbidden to...
map sefar

Living on the Edge

The Mishnah on daf 35 lists the five acceptable grains that can be used to make matza. We have discussed...

Pesachim 35 – Kitniot

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 35 – Kitniot

讗诇讗 诪注诇讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪注诇讛


Rather, this is merely a higher standard, as by Torah law the water may be drawn with one vessel and sanctified in another vessel. The Sages added that this water must be sanctified in the same vessel in which it was drawn from the spring, and they found support for their opinion in the Torah. Here too, the Sages established a higher standard for a consecrated object that became ritually impure, as they decreed that it cannot be ritually purified through insertion in the ground.


讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讟讘诇 讜注诇讛 讗讜讻诇 讘诪注砖专 讛注专讬讘 砖诪砖讜 讗讜讻诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讗讬谉 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 讗诪讗讬 讟讛讜专 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪注诇讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪注诇讛


Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: We, too, learned a similar statement in a baraita: When the period of ritual impurity of a zav or leper has been completed, and he immersed during the day and emerged, he may eat tithes immediately. Once the sun set for him, he may eat teruma. Rav Shimi bar Ashi infers from this statement: With regard to teruma, yes, he may eat it; however, with regard to consecrated food, no, he may not. Given that conclusion, Rav Shimi bar Ashi asks: Why is there a difference between teruma and consecrated foods? After all, he is ritually pure. Rather, the Sages established a higher standard for consecrated food, and permitted one to eat them only after sacrificing the requisite purification offering. Here too, the Sages established a higher standard for the ritual purity of consecrated liquids.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讜讛讘砖专 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛注爪讬诐 讜诇讘讜谞讛 注爪讬诐 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讘谞讬 讗讬讟诪讜讬讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 诪注诇讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪注诇讛:


Rav Ashi said: We, too, learned another case where the Sages established a higher standard. The verse says: 鈥淎nd the flesh that touches any ritually impure thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire. And as for the flesh, anyone who is ritually pure may eat from it鈥 (Leviticus 7:19). And the flesh comes to include the wood in the Temple and the frankincense. The Gemara asks: Do wood and frankincense have the capacity to become ritually impure, given that they are neither food nor drink? Rather, the Sages established a higher standard for these objects due to their sanctity; here too, the Sages established a higher standard for the ritual purity of consecrated liquids.


诪转谞讬壮 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞 讘讞讟讬诐 讘砖注讜专讬诐 讘讻讜住诪讬谉 讜讘砖讬驻讜谉 讜讘砖讬讘讜诇转 砖讜注诇 讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讚诪讗讬 讜讘诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖谞讟诇讛 转专讜诪转讜 讜讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 砖谞驻讚讜 讜讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘讞诇讛 讜讘转专讜诪讛


MISHNA: These are the types of grain with which a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza on the first night of Passover: With wheat, with barley, with spelt [kusmin], with rye [shifon], and with oats [shibbolet shu鈥檃l]. And one fulfills his obligation by eating not only matza made from properly tithed grains, but even with matza made from doubtfully tithed produce, and matza made with first tithe from which its teruma was already taken, or second tithe and consecrated food that were redeemed. And priests may eat matza prepared from 岣lla, the portion of dough that is given to priests, or with teruma, as priests are permitted to eat these portions.


讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讟讘诇 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖诇讗 谞讟诇讛 转专讜诪转讜 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 砖诇讗 谞驻讚讜 讞诇讜转 讛转讜讚讛 讜专拽讬拽讬 谞讝讬专 注砖讗谉 诇注爪诪讜 讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 注砖讗谉 诇诪讻讜专 讘砖讜拽 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讛谉:


However, one may not fulfill one鈥檚 obligation to eat matza made with untithed produce, nor with matza made from the first tithe from which its teruma was not separated, nor with matza made either from the second tithe, nor from consecrated grain that was not redeemed. With regard to one who prepared loaves of matza that are brought with a thanks-offering, or to the wafers brought by a nazirite, the Sages drew the following distinction: If he prepared them for himself, then he does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza with them. However, if he prepared them to sell them in the market to those who require these loaves or wafers, one fulfills the obligation to eat matza with them.


讙诪壮 转谞讗 讻讜住诪讬谉 诪讬谉 讞讬讟讬谉 砖讬讘讜诇转 砖讜注诇 讜砖讬驻讜谉 诪讬谉 砖注讜专讬谉 讻讜住诪讬谉 讙讜诇讘讗 砖讬驻讜谉 讚讬砖专讗 砖讬讘讜诇转 砖讜注诇 砖讘讬诇讬 转注诇讗 讛谞讬 讗讬谉 讗讜专讝 讜讚讜讞谉 诇讗


GEMARA: The Gemara identifies the species mentioned in the mishna. One of the Sages taught in the Tosefta: Spelt is a type of wheat, while oats [shibbolet shu鈥檃l] and rye [shifon] are a type of barley. The Gemara translates the lesser-known species into the vernacular Aramaic: Spelt is called gulba; rye is dishra; and oats are shevilei ta鈥檃la. The Gemara infers: These species, yes, they may be used for matza; however, rice [orez] and millet [do岣n], no, they may not be used.


诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讜讻谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讻谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 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 讚讘专讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 诇讬讚讬 讞讬诪讜抓 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘诪爪讛 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讗讬谉 诇讬讚讬 讞讬诪讜抓 讗诇讗 诇讬讚讬 住讬专讞讜谉


The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that matza cannot be prepared from rice or millet, derived? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, and likewise a Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, and likewise a Sage of the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov taught that the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza, the bread of affliction鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:3). This verse indicates that only with substances which will come to a state of leavening, a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza with them, provided he prevents them from becoming leavened. This excludes these foods, i.e., rice, millet, and similar grains, which, even if flour is prepared from them and water is added to their flour, do not come to a state of leavening but to a state of decay [sira岣n].


诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讚讗诪专 讗讜专讝 诪讬谉 讚讙谉 讛讜讗 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讞讬诪讜爪讜 讻专转 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜住专 讘讗讜专讝 讜讚讜讞谉 诪驻谞讬 砖拽专讜讘 诇讛讞诪讬抓


The Gemara notes: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, who said: Rice is a full-fledged type of grain, and one is liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state, like other types of grain. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri prohibits eating cooked rice and millet on Passover, due to the fact that they are close to being leavened.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖拽专讜讘 诇讛讞诪讬抓 讚拽讚讬诐 讜诪讞诪讬抓 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 拽专讜讘 诇讛讞诪讬抓 讛讜讬 讞诪抓 讙诪讜专 诇讗 讛讜讬


A dilemma was raised before the scholars who were studying this issue. What is the meaning of the expression: That it is close to becoming leavened? Does this mean that it will be leavened even quicker than wheat or barley? Or does it perhaps mean that it is only close to being leavened, i.e., it resembles leavened bread, but it is not full-fledged leavened bread. In other words, perhaps Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri maintains that these grains cannot in fact become full-fledged leavened bread, and one is not punished with karet for eating them on Passover. However, he rules that one should nevertheless avoid eating them, due to their similarity to leavened bread.


转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜专讝 诪讬谉 讚讙谉 讛讜讗 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讞讬诪讜爪讜 讻专转 讜讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞


The Gemara responds: Come and hear a resolution to this question, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri said: Rice is a full-fledged type of grain. Therefore, one is liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state, and a person can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with it on Passover. This baraita clearly indicates that, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, rice becomes leavened like other grains, and the expression: It is close to becoming leavened, means that it becomes leavened quicker than other grains.


讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 拽专诪讬转 讞讬讬讘转 讘讞诇讛 诪讗讬 拽专诪讬转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讬爪谞讬转讗 诪讗讬 砖讬爪谞讬转讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖讬爪谞讬转讗 讚诪砖转讻讞讗 讘讬谞讬 讻诇谞讬转讗


And so too, Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri would say: One who has prepared bread from keramit, a type of wild wheat, is obligated to separate 岣lla, just as he must separate 岣lla from dough prepared of other types of grain. The Gemara asks: What is keramit? Abaye said: It is a plant called shitzanita. Since this name was not widely known either, the Gemara asks: What is shitzanita? Rav Pappa said: This is the wild grain that is found between papyrus reeds.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 注讬住讛 砖谞讬诇讜砖讛 讘讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讜讚讘砖 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讞讬诪讜爪讛 讻专转 讬转讬讘 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜讬转讬讘 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜拽讗 诪谞诪谞诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖


Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Reish Lakish said: With regard to dough that was kneaded with wine, oil, or honey, one is not liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state, since these liquids will not cause the dough to be leavened. Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, were sitting before Rav Idi bar Avin, and Rav Idi bar Avin was sitting and dozing as his students conversed. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: What is the reason of Reish Lakish, who maintains that one is not liable to receive karet for this type of leavening?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 讞诪抓 [讜讙讜壮] 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘诪爪讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讞讬诪讜爪讜 讻专转 讜讛讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 诪爪讛 注砖讬专讛 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讞讬诪讜爪讛 讻专转


Rav Pappa said to him: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:3). In light of the juxtaposition of leavened bread and matza, Reish Lakish compares these two types of bread: With regard to those substances through which a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza, one is liable to receive karet for eating them in their leavened state. And with regard to this dough, which was kneaded with wine, oil, or honey, since a person does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza with it, as it is called rich, i.e., enhanced, matza, one is not liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state on Passover. Matza is called the bread of affliction, or the poor man鈥檚 bread, a description that does not apply to dough prepared with wine, oil, or honey.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讛诪讞讛讜 讜讙诪注讜 讗诐 讞诪抓 讛讜讗 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讗诐 诪爪讛 讛讜讗 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘诪爪讛 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讞讬诪讜爪讜 讻专转


Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raised an objection to Rav Pappa: We learned with regard to one who took a baked item, dissolved it in water, and swallowed this mixture on Passover: If the baked item is leavened bread, he is punished with karet; and if it is matza, a person does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza on Passover with this food. The reason one does not fulfill the obligation to eat matza is because swallowing in this manner is not considered an act of eating. But here this is a case where a person does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza with this dissolved food, and nevertheless he is liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state. This ruling conflicts with Rav Pappa鈥檚 general principle.


讗讬转注专 讘讛讜 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚专讚拽讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 诪讬 驻讬专讜转


At this point Rav Idi bar Avin woke up, due to their discussion, and said to them: Children, this is the reasoning of Reish Lakish: One is not liable to receive karet for eating dough kneaded with oil or honey, because oil and honey are considered fruit juices,


讜诪讬 驻讬专讜转 讗讬谉 诪讞诪讬爪讬谉:


and fruit juice does not cause dough to be leavened. Therefore, dough prepared with these liquids is not considered full-fledged leavened bread.


讬讜爪讗 讘讚诪讗讬 讜讘诪注砖专 讜讻讜壮: 讚诪讗讬 讛讗 诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪驻拽专 诇谞讻住讬讛 讛讜讬 注谞讬 讜讗讜讻诇 讚诪讗讬 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讞讝讬 诇讬讛


The Gemara turns to the cases of the mishna. The mishna taught that one can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with doubtfully tithed produce and with produce of the first tithe, from which teruma has been separated. The Gemara asks: Can one really fulfill his obligation with doubtfully tithed produce? It is not suitable for him to eat. The Sages prohibited the eating of doubtfully tithed produce that has not been tithed. The Gemara answers: Since, if one so desires he may renounce all his property, thereby becoming a poor person who is permitted to eat doubtfully tithed produce, now too it is suitable for him, even though he did not declare his property ownerless. Consequently, if he used doubtfully tithed produce as matza, he has fulfilled the mitzva after the fact.


讚转谞谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讗转 讗讻住谞讬讗 讚诪讗讬 讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转谞讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讗转 讛讗讻住谞讬讗 讚诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉:


As we learned in a mishna: One may feed the poor doubtfully tithed produce, and he may also feed Jewish soldiers [akhsanya] who lodge with him doubtfully tithed produce. And Rav Huna said that it was taught that Beit Shammai say: One may neither feed the poor doubtfully tithed produce, nor feed soldiers doubtfully tithed produce. And Beit Hillel say: One may feed these groups doubtfully tithed produce. This mishna indicates that doubtfully tithed produce is not prohibited to the same extent as entirely untithed produce, as in certain situations the prohibition pertaining to doubtfully tithed produce does not take effect.


诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖谞讟诇讛 转专讜诪转讜 讜讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讻讬讜谉 砖谞讟诇讛 转专讜诪转讜 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讬


The mishna taught that one can fulfill the obligation to eat matza with produce of the first tithe from which its teruma, the teruma of the tithe, was taken and given to a priest. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious, as, since its teruma has been taken, it is non-sacred food? What novel element is taught by this statement?


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘砖讬讘诇讬诐 讜谞讟诇讛 讛讬诪谞讜 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜诇讗 谞讟诇讛 讛讬诪谞讜 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜


The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach the halakha in a case where a Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on its stalks. Ordinarily, the Levite would be given his first tithe only after the priest had taken the teruma gedola; however, in this case the Levite took his portion before the priest. And the teruma of the tithe was taken by the Levite from his tithe so that he would be permitted to eat the tithe; however, the teruma gedola was not taken from the produce at all. And the novel element of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu.


讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘砖讬讘诇讬诐 驻讟讜专 诪转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛专诪转诐 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪转 讛壮 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专


As Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: First tithe in which the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks is exempt from teruma gedola, even though the Levite thereby reduces the amount of grain the priest receives. As it is stated: 鈥淢oreover you shall speak to the Levites and say to them: When you take from the children of Israel the tithe which I have given you from them as your inheritance, and you shall set apart from it a gift for the Lord, a tithe from the tithe鈥 (Numbers 18:26). This verse teaches that the Levite is obligated to set apart a tithe from the tithe, i.e., the teruma of the tithe, and not teruma gedola and the teruma of the tithe from the tithe.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘讻专讬 谞诪讬 诇讬驻讟专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讱 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻诇 诪转谞转讬讻诐 转专讬诪讜 讗转 讻诇 转专讜诪转 讛壮


Rav Pappa said to Abaye: However, if that is so, even if the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were removed from the stalks and placed in a pile, the Levite should not have to separate teruma gedola in this case either. Abaye said to him: With regard to your claim, the verse states: 鈥淔rom all that is given to you, you shall set apart all of that which is the Lord鈥檚 teruma, of all the best of it, even its consecrated portion鈥 (Numbers 18:29). This verse teaches that the Levites must designate a portion of the gifts they receive and give it to the priests.


讜诪讛 专讗讬转 讛讗讬 讗讬讚讙谉 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 讗讬讚讙谉:


The Gemara asks: And what did you see to lead you to require the separation of teruma gedola from first tithe that was taken from grain in piles and not from first tithe that was taken from grain on stalks? Abaye answers: This produce, after being threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and has become grain; and that produce on the stalk did not yet become grain, and the Levite is therefore exempt from separating teruma gedola from it. Produce that has been arranged in a pile is called grain by the Torah and is given to the priest. Once it is classified as grain, the right of the priest takes effect and the Levite is required to separate teruma gedola from it.


诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 砖谞驻讚讜 讜讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖谞转谉 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜诇讗 谞转谉 讗转 讛讞讜诪砖 讜拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 讞讜诪砖 诪注讻讘:


The mishna taught that one can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with second-tithe grain and with consecrated grain that was redeemed. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as consecrated grain that has been redeemed is non-sacred produce. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the consecrated property was not completely redeemed, i.e., where one gave payment for the principal, the value of the tithe, but he did not give payment for the additional fifth due when redeeming consecrated items. And the mishna teaches us that failure to add the fifth does not invalidate the redemption. Although there is an obligation to pay this additional fifth, the neglect of this duty does not prevent the grain from becoming non-sacred.


讜讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘讞诇讛 讜讘转专讜诪讛 讜讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪爪讛 砖讜讛 诇讻诇 讗讚诐 讘注讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪爪讜转 诪爪讜转 专讬讘讛:


And the mishna further taught that priests can fulfill their obligation with matza of 岣lla and with teruma. The Gemara again asks: It is obvious that this is the case. Since a priest is permitted to eat 岣lla and teruma, he can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with them. The Gemara responds: This ruling is nevertheless necessary, lest you say that we require matza that may be eaten equally by anyone, which would mean that matza that may not be eaten by regular Israelites is prohibited to priests as well. The mishna therefore teaches us that the repetition of the words matzot,鈥 鈥matzot (Deuteronomy 16:3, 8) comes to amplify, i.e., one can fulfill one鈥檚 obligation to eat matza even with foods that may be eaten only by specific people.


讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讟讘诇 讜讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讟讘诇 讟讘讜诇 诪讚专讘谞谉 砖讝专注讜 讘注爪讬抓 砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘:


We learned in the mishna: However, one may not fulfill this obligation with untithed produce. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as it is always prohibited to eat tevel. The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where it is considered untithed produce by rabbinic law, and by Torah law the produce is permitted. For instance, this is the case with regard to grain that one sowed in an unperforated flowerpot. Anything grown disconnected from the ground is not defined as produce of the ground, and its owner is exempt by Torah law from tithing it. However, by rabbinic law, grain sowed in an unperforated flowerpot is considered untithed.


讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖诇讗 谞讟诇讛 转专讜诪转讜: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘讻专讬


It was also taught in the mishna: And one does not fulfill his obligation with matza from produce of the first tithe, whose teruma, teruma of the tithe, was not taken. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as this produce may not be eaten. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to teach this with regard to a case where the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were placed in a pile but before teruma gedola was separated from the produce.


诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚砖谞讬 诇讬讛:


The Gemara elaborates: Lest you say, as Rav Pappa said to Abaye, that in that case too, the Levite should be exempt from the requirement to separate teruma gedola from this produce, the tanna of the mishna teaches us, as Abaye responded to Rav Pappa, that there is a difference between a case when the grain was on the stalks and when it was collected in a pile. Therefore, one may not eat this produce before separating teruma gedola from it.


讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 砖诇讗 谞驻讚讜 讜讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗


It was further taught in the mishna: And one does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza with second-tithe produce or consecrated grain that was not redeemed. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that, too, obvious, as it is prohibited to eat these foods?


诇注讜诇诐 讚谞驻讚讜 讜诪讗讬 诇讗 谞驻讚讜 砖诇讗 谞驻讚讜 讻讛诇讻转谉 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖驻讚讗讜 注诇 讙讘 讗住讬诪讜谉 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讜爪专转 讛讻住祝 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 爪讜专讛


The Gemara answers: Actually, this is speaking of a case where they were redeemed, and what is the meaning of the expression: They were not redeemed? It means that they were not redeemed properly, e.g., second-tithe grain that was redeemed with an unminted coin [asimon]. As the Merciful One says with regard to the redemption of the second tithe: 鈥淎nd you shall turn it into money, and bind up the money in your hand, and go to the place which the Lord your God shall choose鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:25). The phrase 鈥渁nd bind up [ve鈥檛zarta] the money鈥 indicates that the produce must be exchanged for an object that has a form [tzura], not unminted metal.


讜讛拽讚砖 砖讞讬诇诇讜 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讜谞转谉 讛讻住祝 讜拽诐 诇讜


And with regard to consecrated property, we are dealing with a case where he redeemed it by exchanging it for land instead of money, as the Merciful One says: 鈥淎nd he will give the fifth part of the money of your valuation unto it and it shall be assured to him鈥 (see Leviticus 27:19). If one redeemed consecrated property with land rather than money, the consecrated status is not transferred to the land.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讻讜诇 讬讜爪讗 讗讚诐 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讟讘诇 砖诇讗 谞转拽谉 讻诇 讟讘诇 谞诪讬 讛讗 诇讗 谞转拽谉


The Sages taught: I might have thought that a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza with untithed produce that was not amended with regard to tithes. The Gemara analyzes the apparently redundant phrase untithed produce that was not amended. But isn鈥檛 all untithed produce also not amended, by definition?


讗诇讗 讘讟讘诇 砖诇讗 谞转拽谉 讻诇 爪讜专讻讜 砖谞讟诇讛 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诇讗 谞讟诇讛 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 [诪注砖专] 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪注砖专 注谞讬 诪谞讬谉


Rather, this baraita is referring to untithed produce that was incompletely amended. How so? For example, produce from which teruma gedola was taken, but the teruma of the tithe was not taken from it. Alternatively, the first tithe was separated from the produce, but not the second tithe; or, it is referring even to grain from which all the tithes were separated, apart from the poor man鈥檚 tithe. Although no sanctity applies to the poor man鈥檚 tithe, which is simply a monetary gift to the poor, until this tithe has been separated the grain remains untithed. From where is it derived that these types of grain cannot be used for matza?


转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 讞诪抓 诪讬 砖讗讬住讜专讜 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 讞诪抓 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专讜 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 讟讘诇


The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not eat leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:3). One fulfills his obligation to eat matza with food whose prohibition is solely due to the prohibition: Do not eat leavened bread with it, if it was not preserved in an unleavened state. This command excludes this grain, which is not prohibited due to the prohibition: Do not eat leavened bread, but rather due to the prohibition: Do not eat untithed produce.


讜讗讬住讜专讗 讚讞诪抓 诇讛讬讻谉 讗讝诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专


The Gemara expresses surprise at this baraita. And the prohibition of leavened bread, where did it go? In other words, doesn鈥檛 the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not eat leavened bread鈥 apply to untithed produce as well? Rav Sheshet said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: One prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists. No additional prohibitions can apply to an object that is already prohibited, e.g., untithed grain. Consequently, the prohibition of leavened bread does not take effect on untithed produce. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says:

Scroll To Top