Pesachim 36
הָאוֹכֵל נְבֵלָה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים — פָּטוּר.
One who unwittingly eats an unslaughtered animal carcass on Yom Kippur is exempt from bringing a sin-offering to atone for this consumption. The prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur does not apply to the already prohibited meat of an animal carcass, which means only the prohibition against eating an unslaughtered animal carcass is violated by this act.
רָבִינָא אָמַר, אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן: מִי שֶׁאִיסּוּרוֹ מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תֹּאכַל חָמֵץ״ בִּלְבַד. יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאֵין אִיסּוּרוֹ מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תֹּאכַל חָמֵץ״ בִּלְבַד, אֶלָּא אַף מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תֹּאכַל טֶבֶל״.
Ravina said: Even if you say that this baraita is in accordance with the Rabbis, who maintain that a prohibition can take effect where another prohibition already exists, it can be explained as follows: One fulfills his obligation to eat matza with food whose prohibition is solely due to the commandment: Do not eat leavened bread, which excludes this grain, which is forbidden not only due to the prohibition: Do not eat leavened bread, but also due to the prohibition: Do not eat untithed produce.
מִידֵּי ״בִּלְבַד״ כְּתִיב? אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא כִּדְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת.
The Gemara raises a difficulty against this explanation: Is the word: Only, written in the baraita? This word, which is critical for Ravina’s explanation, does not appear in the baraita at all. Rather, it is clear that this must be explained in accordance with the explanation of Rav Sheshet, who maintains that the baraita should be attributed to Rabbi Shimon.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל יוֹצֵא אָדָם יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֶחֶם עוֹנִי״, מָה שֶׁנֶּאֱכָל בָּאֲנִינוּת. יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל בַּאֲנִינוּת, אֶלָּא בְּשִׂמְחָה — דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי.
The Sages taught: I might have thought that a person can fulfill his obligation to eat matza on Passover with matza of second tithe in Jerusalem. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza, the bread of affliction [leḥem oni]” (Deuteronomy 16:3), oni with the letter ayin, i.e., poor man’s bread. As this is similar to the phrase: Bread of acute mourning [leḥem oni], oni with an alef, it can be inferred that this mitzva must be fulfilled with matza that can be eaten during a period of acute mourning, on the day one’s close relative has died. This excludes this second tithe, which cannot be eaten during a period of acute mourning but only in a state of joy, as the Torah states: “I have not eaten from it in my acute mourning” (Deuteronomy 26:14). This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״מַצּוֹת״ ״מַצּוֹת״ רִיבָּה. אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לֶחֶם עוֹנִי״? פְּרָט לְעִיסָּה שֶׁנִּילּוֹשָׁה בְּיַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן וּדְבַשׁ.
Rabbi Akiva says: The repetition of matzot matzot serves to amplify, and teaches that all types of matza may be eaten on Passover. The baraita asks: If so, what is the meaning when the verse states leḥem oni, poor man’s bread? The baraita answers: This phrase excludes dough that was kneaded with wine, oil, or honey, which is not classified as poor man’s bread and therefore cannot be used for this mitzva.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מִי כְּתִיב ״לֶחֶם עוֹנִי״? ״עָנִי״ כְּתִיב.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Rabbi Akiva? The Gemara explains: Is it written in the consonantal text leḥem oni with a vav? That would allude to the comparison of matza to food eaten by an onen, an acute mourner, as onen is also spelled with a vav. Actually, it is written leḥem oni without a vav, meaning poor man’s bread.
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: מִי קָרֵינַן ״עָנִי״! ״עוֹנִי״ קָרֵינַן. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: הַאי דְּקָרֵינַן בֵּיהּ ״עוֹנִי״, כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל. דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: ״לֶחֶם עוֹנִי״ — לֶחֶם שֶׁעוֹנִין עָלָיו דְּבָרִים הַרְבֵּה.
And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili could respond: Do we vocalize the word as ani, as would be appropriate for a phrase meaning a poor man’s bread? In fact, we vocalize it oni, which means oppression, affliction, or mourning. And Rabbi Akiva could retort: The fact that we vocalize the word as oni is in accordance with a statement of Shmuel. As Shmuel said: The expression leḥem oni means bread over which many matters are recited [onin], an allusion to the Passover Seder, at which one recites the Haggadah and eats matza.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא עִיסָּה שֶׁנִּילּוֹשָׁה בְּיַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן וּדְבַשׁ לָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵין לָשִׁין עִיסָּה בַּפֶּסַח בְּיַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן וּדְבַשׁ. וְאִם לָשׁ, רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: תִּשָּׂרֵף מִיָּד, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יֵאָכֵל. וְאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: שַׁבַּתִּי הָיְתָה אֵצֶל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וְלַשְׁתִּי לָהֶם עִיסָּה בְּיַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן וּדְבַשׁ, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ לִי דָּבָר.
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Akiva maintain with regard to dough that was kneaded with wine, oil, or honey, that it may not be used for matza? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One may not knead dough on Passover with wine, oil, or honey? And if one kneaded dough in this manner, Rabban Gamliel says: The dough must be burned immediately, as it is leavened faster than other types of dough. And the Rabbis say that although it is leavened quickly, one can still prevent it from being leavened, and if he does so it may be eaten. And Rabbi Akiva said: It was my Shabbat to serve before Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua during Passover (Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh), and I kneaded for them dough with wine, oil, and honey, and they said nothing to me by way of objection.
וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לָשִׁין, מְקַטְּפִין בּוֹ — אֲתָאן לְתַנָּא קַמָּא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵת שֶׁלָּשִׁין בּוֹ — מְקַטְּפִין בּוֹ. וְאֶת שֶׁאֵין לָשִׁין בּוֹ — אֵין מְקַטְּפִין בּוֹ. וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאֵין לָשִׁין אֶת הָעִיסָּה בְּפוֹשְׁרִין!
The baraita continues: And although one may not knead dough with these ingredients, one may spread these substances on the surface of the dough. The Gemara comments: With regard to this latter statement, we have come back to the opinion of the first tanna, who said that one may not knead bread with wine, oil, or honey. And the Rabbis say: With regard to dough into which one may knead wine, oil, or honey, one may likewise spread them on the dough, whereas concerning dough into which one may not knead these ingredients, one may not spread them on the dough either. And everyone agrees that one may not knead the dough with warm water, as this will cause it to be leavened quickly. In any case, it is evident from here that Rabbi Akiva himself prepared matza with wine, oil, and honey.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בְּיוֹם טוֹב רִאשׁוֹן. הָא — בְּיוֹם טוֹב שֵׁנִי.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this statement of Rabbi Akiva’s, which maintains that one does not fulfill his obligation with matza prepared with wine, oil, and honey, is referring to the first day of the Festival, during which there is a special commandment to eat matza. However, that second baraita, in which Rabbi Akiva states that he prepared this type of dough himself, pertains to the second day of Passover, when no special requirement to eat matza is in effect. On the second day, there is no mitzva to eat matza. It is only forbidden to own or eat leavened bread; consequently, so-called rich, or enhanced matza, prepared from fruit juices, is permitted.
כְּדַאֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לִבְנֵיהּ: יוֹמָא קַמָּא לָא תְּלוּשׁוּ לִי בַּחֲלָבָא, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ לוּשׁוּ לִי בַּחֲלָבָא. וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵין לָשִׁין אֶת הָעִיסָּה בְּחָלָב, וְאִם לָשׁ — כׇּל הַפַּת אֲסוּרָה, מִפְּנֵי הֶרְגֵּל עֲבֵירָה. אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: יוֹמָא קַמָּא לָא תְּלוּשׁוּ לִי בְּדוּבְשָׁא, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ — לוּשׁוּ לִי בְּדוּבְשָׁא.
The Gemara adds that this is as Rabbi Yehoshua said to his sons: On the first night of Passover, do not knead for me dough with milk, but from the first night onward, knead my dough for me with milk. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Throughout the whole year one may not knead dough with milk, and if he kneaded dough with milk, the entire bread is prohibited, due to the fact that one will become accustomed to sin, by unwittingly eating it with meat? Rather, this is what he is saying: On the first night of Passover do not knead me dough with honey; however, from then onward, knead me dough with honey.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם בַּחֲלָבָא, כְּדַאֲמַר רָבִינָא: כְּעֵין תּוֹרָא — שְׁרֵי. הָכָא נָמֵי כְּעֵין תּוֹרָא.
And if you wish, say instead that actually Rabbi Yehoshua said: With milk, as Ravina said: If this bread, kneaded with milk, is prepared in the shape of an ox’s eye, it is permitted. In other words, if one forms this dough in a unique shape, e.g., the eye of an ox, one may eat it, as it is clearly distinguishable from ordinary bread. Therefore, there is no concern that it will be eaten with meat. Here too, the baraita is speaking about a case where he told them to prepare this matza in the shape of an ox’s eye.
וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאֵין לָשִׁין אֶת הָעִיסָּה בְּפוֹשְׁרִין. מַאי שְׁנָא מִמְּנָחוֹת, דִּתְנַן: כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת נִילּוֹשׁוֹת בְּפוֹשְׁרִין, (וּמִשְׁתַּמְּרִין) שֶׁלֹּא יֶחְמְצוּ. אִם אָמְרוּ בִּזְרִיזִין, יֹאמְרוּ בְּשֶׁאֵין זְרִיזִין?
It was incidentally mentioned in the previous baraita: And everyone agrees that one may not knead dough with warm water. The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from that of meal-offerings? As we learned in a mishna: All meal-offerings are kneaded with warm water and are watched so that they will not be leavened. The Gemara explains that there is a distinction between these two cases: If they say it is permitted for diligent priests to bake with warm water, shall they also say the same with regard to those who are not diligent? The priests are diligent and expert in the Temple service and are able to take extreme care, but not everyone can be relied upon to guard the dough unfailingly.
אִי הָכִי, מִילְתָּת נָמֵי לָתֵית! אַלְּמָה אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר יִרְמְיָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חִיטִּין שֶׁל מְנָחוֹת אֵין לוֹתְתִין אוֹתָהּ! לִישָׁה בִּזְרִיזִין אִיתָא, לְתִיתָה לֵיתָא בִּזְרִיזִין.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, if we rely on the diligence of the priests, let them also soak the grains in water to help them remove the husks. Why did Rabbi Zeira say that Rabba bar Yirmeya said that Shmuel said: With regard to the wheat used in the meal-offerings, one may not soak it? The Gemara answers: The kneading of the dough is performed by diligent priests; however, the act of soaking is not performed by diligent priests. Instead, this soaking is performed outside of the Temple confines by less reliable non-priests.
וְלִישָׁה מִי אִיתָא בִּזְרִיזִין? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְיָצַק עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְגוֹ׳ וֶהֱבִיאָהּ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן״ — מִקְּמִיצָה וְאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהוּנָּה, לִימֵּד עַל יְצִיקָה וּבְלִילָה שֶׁכְּשֵׁירָה בְּכׇל אָדָם!
The Gemara asks: And with regard to kneading, is it performed only by diligent priests? But isn’t it written: “And when any one brings a meal-offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it, and place frankincense upon it. And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests; and he shall take from it his handful of its fine flour, and of its oil, together with all its frankincense” (Leviticus 2:1–2). These verses indicate that from the scooping of a handful and onward, the mitzva must be performed by members of the priesthood. This teaches about the pouring of the oil and the stirring of the mixture that they are valid even if they are performed by any person, even a non-priest.
לִישָׁה, נְהִי דְּבִזְרִיזִין לֵיתָא, בִּמְקוֹם זְרִיזִין אִיתָא. דְּאָמַר מָר: בְּלִילָה כְּשֵׁירָה בְּזָר, חוּץ לְחוֹמַת עֲזָרָה — פְּסוּלָה. לְאַפּוֹקֵי לְתִיתָה — דְּאֵינָהּ בִּזְרִיזִין, וְלָא בִּמְקוֹם זְרִיזִין.
The Gemara answers: With regard to kneading, although it is not performed by diligent priests, it is nevertheless performed in the place of the diligent. Kneading may be carried out by a non-priest, but it must still be performed in the Temple courtyard. As the Master said: Mixing is valid if performed by a non-priest; however, if it is conducted outside the walls of the courtyard, it, the meal offering, is disqualified. This serves to exclude soaking, which is neither performed by the diligent nor performed in the place of the diligent.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִמִּנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר? דְּתַנְיָא: מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר לוֹתְתִין אוֹתָהּ וְצוֹבְרִין אוֹתָהּ! צִיבּוּר שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from that of the omer meal-offering, which must also be guarded from leavening? As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to the omer offering, one soaks it and gathers it, without concern that it will become leavened. The Gemara answers: An act performed by the community is different, as the Great Sanhedrin supervises these operations, and those executing them no doubt proceed with great caution.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל יוֹצֵא אָדָם יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּבִכּוּרִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּכֹל מוֹשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם תֹּאכְלוּ מַצּוֹת״ — מַצָּה הַנֶּאֱכֶלֶת בְּכׇל מוֹשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם, יָצְאוּ בִּכּוּרִים שֶׁאֵין נֶאֱכָלִין בְּכׇל מוֹשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם אֶלָּא בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי.
The Sages taught in another baraita: I might have thought that one can fulfill his obligation by eating matza prepared from the wheat of first fruits; therefore, the verse states: “In all of your habitations you shall eat matzot” (Exodus 12:20). This verse indicates that one fulfills his obligation only with matza that may be eaten “in all of your habitations.” This expression excludes first fruits, which may not be eaten in all of your habitations, but only in Jerusalem. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מַצָּה וּמָרוֹר; מָה מָרוֹר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּכּוּרִים, אַף מַצָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בִּכּוּרִים. אִי: מָה מָרוֹר שֶׁאֵין בְּמִינוֹ בִּכּוּרִים, אַף מַצָּה שֶׁאֵין בְּמִינָהּ בִּכּוּרִים!
Rabbi Akiva says: That verse is not the source for this halakha; rather, the fact that one cannot fulfill his obligation with matza of first fruits is derived from the juxtaposition of matza and bitter herbs: Just as bitter herbs are not first fruits, as they are not included in the seven species to which the mitzva of first fruits applies, so too matza may not be from first fruits. If you will claim: Just as bitter herbs are from a species that are not brought as first fruits, so too matza must be prepared from a species that are not brought as first fruits, e.g., spelt,
אוֹצִיא חִיטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּמִינָן בִּיכּוּרִים. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מַצּוֹת״ ״מַצּוֹת״ רִיבָּה. אִי ״מַצּוֹת״ ״מַצּוֹת״ רִיבָּה, אֲפִילּוּ בִּיכּוּרִים נָמֵי! הֲדַר בֵּיהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
I would then think this comparison excludes wheat and barley, which are from a species that are brought as first fruits and should therefore not be used for the mitzva of matza. Therefore, the verse states: “Matzot,” “matzot” (Deuteronomy 16:3, 8) to amplify and teach that any matza is acceptable for this mitzva. The Gemara asks: If the repetition of matzot matzot comes to amplify this halakha that any matza is fit for Passover use, it should also include matza prepared from first-fruit wheat. The Gemara answers: This is indeed true, and Rabbi Akiva retracted his statement. He too derives the halakha from the verse: “In all of your habitations.”
דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל יֵצֵא אָדָם יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּבִיכּוּרִים, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּכֹל מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם תֹּאכְלוּ מַצּוֹת״ — מַצָּה הַנֶּאֱכֶלֶת בְּכׇל מוֹשָׁבוֹת, יָצְאוּ בִּיכּוּרִים שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין בְּכׇל מוֹשָׁבוֹת אֶלָּא בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מוֹצִיא אַף מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מַצּוֹת״ ״מַצּוֹת״ רִיבָּה.
As it was taught in a baraita: I might have thought that a person can fulfill his obligation with matza from first fruit; therefore the verse states: “In all of your habitations you shall eat matzot” (Exodus 12:20). The verse indicates that one can fulfill his obligation with matza that may be eaten in all habitations. It excludes first fruits, which may not be eaten in all habitations, but only in Jerusalem. I might have thought that I should also exclude second-tithe produce as fit for matza; therefore the verse states: “Matzot,” “matzot.” As stated above, this repetition serves to amplify, and it includes second tithe in the materials that may be used in the preparation of matza.
וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וּלְהוֹצִיא בִּיכּוּרִים? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ הֶיתֵּר בְּכׇל מוֹשָׁבוֹת, כִּדְרַבִּי (אֱלִיעֶזֶר), וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי בִּיכּוּרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן הֶיתֵּר בְּכׇל מוֹשָׁבוֹת.
The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include second-tithe produce due to the words matzot matzot but to exclude first fruits? The Gemara explains: I include the second tithe, which has a means by which it may be permitted to be eaten in all habitations, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as will be explained. And I exclude first fruits, which do not have, under any circumstances, a manner by which it is permitted to eat them in all habitations.
דְּאָמַר רַבִּי (אֱלִיעֶזֶר): מִנְיָן לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁנִּטְמָא, שֶׁפּוֹדִין אוֹתוֹ אֲפִילּוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי לֹא תוּכַל שְׂאֵתוֹ״.
The Gemara explains: As Rabbi Eliezer said: From where is it derived with regard to second-tithe produce that became ritually impure, that one may redeem it even in Jerusalem? Second-tithe produce that has been redeemed may be removed from the city. The verse states: “And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry it [se’eto], because the place is too far from you, which the Lord your God shall choose to set His name there, when the Lord your God shall bless you” (Deuteronomy 14:24).
וְאֵין ״שְׂאֵת״ אֶלָּא אֲכִילָה — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּשָּׂא מַשְׂאֹת מֵאֵת פָּנָיו״.
And it is derived by means of a verbal analogy that this carrying [se’et] is nothing other than eating, as it is stated: “And portions [masot] were taken to them from before him” (Genesis 43:34). In light of this parallel language, the Gemara understands the phrase “so that you are not able se’eto” to mean: So that you are not able to eat it. Like second-tithe produce that has not yet been taken into Jerusalem, second-tithe produce in the capital that cannot be eaten due to ritual impurity can be redeemed and taken out of the city. Consequently, second tithe can indeed be considered food that may be eaten “in all of your habitations.”
מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי נָפֵיק בֵּיהּ? רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וְקָמְמַעֵיט לְהוּ לְבִיכּוּרִים ״מִבְּכֹל מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ הֲדַר בֵּיהּ.
The Gemara applies this discussion to the issue at hand: Who did you hear that said: One can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with second tithe? It is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and yet he excludes first fruits due to the expression: “In all of your habitations.” Learn from this that Rabbi Akiva retracted his opinion and accepted Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s derivation.
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִ״לֶּחֶם עוֹנִי״ — מִי שֶׁנֶּאֱכָל בְּאוֹנִי, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאֵין נֶאֱכָל אֶלָּא בְּשִׂמְחָה?
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, why does he learn this halakha from the phrase: “In all of your habitations”? Let him derive it from the phrase: Leḥem oni (Deuteronomy 16:3). Rabbi Yosei HaGelili derives from this expression that matza must be prepared from produce that can be eaten in a state of acute mourning; that excludes this second tithe, which may be eaten only in a state of joy. This exposition should apply to first fruits as well, as they must also be eaten in a state of joy.
סָבַר לֵיהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּתַנְיָא: בִּיכּוּרִים אֲסוּרִין לְאוֹנֵן, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר.
The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili maintains in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that an acute mourner may eat first fruits. As it was taught in a baraita: First fruits are prohibited to an acute mourner, and Rabbi Shimon permits an acute mourner to eat first fruits.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן — דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תוּכַל לֶאֱכֹל בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ״, וְאָמַר מָר: ״תְּרוּמַת יָדֶךָ״ אֵלּוּ בִּיכּוּרִים, דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ בִּיכּוּרִים לְמַעֲשֵׂר: מָה מַעֲשֵׂר אָסוּר לְאוֹנֵן — אַף בִּיכּוּרִים אָסוּר לְאוֹנֵן.
The Gemara explains this dispute: What is the reason for the Rabbis’ opinion, which maintains that an acute mourner may not eat first fruits? As it is written: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your corn, or of your wine, or of your oil, or the firstlings of your herd or of your flock, nor any of your vows which you vow, nor your free-will offerings, nor the offering of your hand” (Deuteronomy 12:17). And the Master said: “The offering of your hand,” these are first fruits, as this verse compares first fruits to the second tithe: Just as the second tithe is prohibited to an acute mourner, as stated explicitly in the Torah, so too are first fruits prohibited to an acute mourner.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: ״תְּרוּמָה״ קְרִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא. כִּתְרוּמָה: מָה תְּרוּמָה מוּתֶּרֶת לְאוֹנֵן — אַף בִּיכּוּרִים מוּתָּר לְאוֹנֵן.
And Rabbi Shimon says in response to this contention: First fruits are called teruma by the Merciful One and therefore their status is like that of teruma: Just as teruma is permitted to an acute mourner, so too first fruits are permitted to an acute mourner.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, נְהִי דְּהֶיקֵּישׁ לֵית לֵיהּ, שִׂמְחָה מִיהָא מִיכְתָּב כְּתִיבָא בְּהוּ. דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשָׂמַחְתָּ בְכׇל הַטּוֹב״?
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon, although he does not accept this juxtaposition of first fruits and second tithe, in any case the word joy is written with regard to first fruits, as it is written: “And you shall rejoice in all the good that the Lord has given you and your household” (Deuteronomy 26:11). In light of this, how can Rabbi Shimon permit an acute mourner to eat first fruits?
הָהוּא לִזְמַן שִׂמְחָה הוּא דַּאֲתָא, דִּתְנַן: מֵעֲצֶרֶת וְעַד הַחַג — מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא, מֵהַחַג וְעַד חֲנוּכָּה — מֵבִיא וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon does not learn from that verse that one must eat first fruits while he is personally happy; rather, it comes to teach us that first fruits should be eaten during the period of rejoicing. As we learned in a mishna: From Shavuot until Sukkot, one brings first fruits and recites the prayers of thanks to God that appear in the Torah. From Sukkot until Hanukkah one may bring first fruits, but he does not recite the portion from the Torah. This mishna states that the ideal time for bringing first fruits to the Temple is during the joyous harvest season, from which it may be inferred that this verse is not referring to personal joy of the one bringing the first fruits, but rather to the period of communal joy.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לֶחֶם עֹנִי״ — פְּרָט לְחָלוּט וְלַאֲשִׁישָׁה. יָכוֹל לֹא יֵצֵא אָדָם יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ אֶלָּא בְּפַת הַדְרָאָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מַצּוֹת״ ״מַצּוֹת״ רִיבָּה, וַאֲפִילּוּ כְּמַצּוֹת שֶׁל שְׁלֹמֹה. אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לֶחֶם עוֹנִי״ — פְּרָט לְחָלוּט וְלַאֲשִׁישָׁה.
The Sages taught that the phrase poor man’s bread [leḥem oni] excludes matza that was boiled [ḥalut] in hot water after it was baked, which is considered to be a relative delicacy; and this expression also excludes matza that was baked as a large cake [ashisha]. I might have thought that a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza only with coarse [hadra’a] bread; therefore, the verse states: “Matzot,” “matzot,” which serves to amplify and include matza prepared with fine-grade flour. And in fact, one could fulfill his obligation even with matzot like those of King Solomon, which were prepared from the finest sifted flour. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Poor man’s bread”? This phrase comes to exclude boiled matza and large cakes, but it does not exclude matza prepared from refined flour.
וּמַאי מַשְׁמַע דְּהַאי אֲשִׁישָׁה לִישָּׁנָא דַחֲשִׁיבוּתָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְחַלֵּק לְכׇל הָעָם לְכׇל הֲמוֹן יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמֵאִישׁ וְעַד אִשָּׁה לְאִישׁ חַלַּת לֶחֶם אַחַת וְאֶשְׁפָּר אֶחָד וַאֲשִׁישָׁה אֶחָת וְגוֹ׳״.
The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that ashisha is an expression that indicates importance? As it is written with regard to King David’s celebration after he brought the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem: “And he dealt among all the people, among the whole multitude of Israel, both to men and women, to every one a cake of bread, and an eshpar, and an ashisha, and all the people departed, every one to his house” (II Samuel 6:19).
וְאָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר אַבָּא: ״אֶשְׁפָּר״ — אֶחָד מִשִּׁשָּׁה בַּפָּר, ״אֲשִׁישָׁה״ — אֶחָד מִשִּׁשָּׁה בָּאֵיפָה. ופְלִיגָא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: ״אֲשִׁישָׁה״ — גַּרְבָּא דְחַמְרָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֹהֲבֵי אֲשִׁישֵׁי עֲנָבִים״.
And Rav Ḥanan bar Abba said: The word eshpar refers to a portion of meat equivalent to one-sixth of an ox, and the word ashisha refers to a cake prepared from one-sixth of an eipha of flour. And this interpretation disputes the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: Ashisha means a jug of wine, as it is written: “And those who love the jug [ashishei] of grapes” (Hosea 3:1).
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין אוֹפִין פַּת עָבָה (בְּיוֹם טוֹב) בַּפֶּסַח, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי,
The Sages taught: One may not bake thick bread on the Festival, on Passover, as it might be leavened before it has a chance to bake; this is the statement of Beit Shammai.
