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

Daf Yomi

December 27, 2020 | 讬状讘 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!

Pesachim 36

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Jenifer Nech in honor of her Talmud teacher, Samara Schwartz. “Samara started my learning journey by teaching the 鈥榳ay of the Talmud鈥. I am now proud to be a part of the Hadran community.”

Can one fulfill one鈥檚 obligation to eat matza through eating matza in Jerusalem made from maaser sheni? Rabbi Yosi HaGelili learns from the fact that matza is called 鈥lechem oni鈥 鈥 that sounds like 鈥oni鈥 meaning 鈥onen鈥 that one cannot fulfill one鈥檚 obligation with something that one cannot eat when one has the status of an onen (when one鈥檚 close relative dies until the burial) and maaser sheni cannot be eaten by an onen. Rabbi Akiva derives from 鈥渕atzot鈥 鈥渕atzot鈥 that one can fulfill one鈥檚 obligation with maaser sheni. According to him, 鈥Lechem oni鈥澛 refers to poor man鈥檚 bread and comes to exclude matza ashira, one made with oil, honey or wine. In addition it is read as 鈥oni鈥 also referring to bread that one recites things on during the seder. Can one knead dough for matza with oil, honey or wine? And if not, what if one already did? What does Rabbi Akiva hold regarding this? His opinion seems to contradict what he says elsewhere. How is this resolved? One cannot knead matza dough in warm water as it hastens the leavening process. If so, why are menachot, meal offerings, kneaded with warm water, if they also are not allowed to leaven? Can one fulfill one鈥檚 obligation to eat matza using bikurim, the first fruits? Rabbi Yosi HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva both forbid it, each derive it from different verses. The gemara questions Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 proof and then shows that even Rabbi Akiva changed his mind and ultimately agreed with Rabbi Yosi HaGelili鈥檚 proof. Why did Rabbi Yosi HaGelili not use the same verse that he used to derive the halacha for maaser sheni from lechem oni? Because he held like Rabbi Shimon that an onen can eat bikurim. From where do Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis derive their opinions whether or not an onen can eat bikurim?

讛讗讜讻诇 谞讘诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 驻讟讜专


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.


专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 诪讬 砖讗讬住讜专讜 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讘诇讘讚 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 讘诇讘讚 讗诇讗 讗祝 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 讟讘诇


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.


诪讬讚讬 讘诇讘讚 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚专讘 砖砖转


The Gemara raises a difficulty against this explanation: Is the word: Only, written in the baraita? This word, which is critical for Ravina鈥檚 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.


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 讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讞诐 注讜谞讬 诪讛 砖谞讗讻诇 讘讗谞讬谞讜转 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 讘讗谞讬谞讜转 讗诇讗 讘砖诪讞讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬


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: 鈥淵ou shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza, the bread of affliction [le岣m oni]鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:3), oni with the letter ayin, i.e., poor man鈥檚 bread. As this is similar to the phrase: Bread of acute mourning [le岣m 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鈥檚 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: 鈥淚 have not eaten from it in my acute mourning鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:14). This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.


专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪爪讜转 诪爪讜转 专讬讘讛 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讞诐 注讜谞讬 驻专讟 诇注讬住讛 砖谞讬诇讜砖讛 讘讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讜讚讘砖


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 le岣m oni, poor man鈥檚 bread? The baraita answers: This phrase excludes dough that was kneaded with wine, oil, or honey, which is not classified as poor man鈥檚 bread and therefore cannot be used for this mitzva.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讬 讻转讬讘 诇讞诐 注讜谞讬 注谞讬 讻转讬讘


The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Rabbi Akiva? The Gemara explains: Is it written in the consonantal text le岣m 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 le岣m oni without a vav, meaning poor man鈥檚 bread.


讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诪讬 拽专讬谞谉 注谞讬 注讜谞讬 拽专讬谞谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗讬 讚拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 注讜谞讬 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讞诐 注讜谞讬 诇讞诐 砖注讜谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 讛专讘讛


And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili could respond: Do we vocalize the word as ani, as would be appropriate for a phrase meaning a poor man鈥檚 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 le岣m 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.


讜住讘专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 注讬住讛 砖谞讬诇讜砖讛 讘讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讜讚讘砖 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诇砖讬谉 注讬住讛 讘驻住讞 讘讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讜讚讘砖 讜讗诐 诇砖 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 转砖专祝 诪讬讚 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讗讻诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖讘转讬 讛讬转讛 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜诇砖转讬 诇讛诐 注讬住讛 讘讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讜讚讘砖 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬 讚讘专


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鈥檛 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.


讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇砖讬谉 诪拽讟驻讬谉 讘讜 讗转讗谉 诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗转 砖诇砖讬谉 讘讜 诪拽讟驻讬谉 讘讜 讜讗转 砖讗讬谉 诇砖讬谉 讘讜 讗讬谉 诪拽讟驻讬谉 讘讜 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诇砖讬谉 讗转 讛注讬住讛 讘驻讜砖专讬谉


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.


诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 讛讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讬


The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this statement of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚, 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.


讻讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讘谞讬讛 讬讜诪讗 拽诪讗 诇讗 转诇讜砖讜 诇讬 讘讞诇讘讗 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 诇讜砖讜 诇讬 讘讞诇讘讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 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 讗住讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 讛专讙诇 注讘讬专讛 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬讜诪讗 拽诪讗 诇讗 转诇讜砖讜 诇讬 讘讚讜讘砖讗 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 诇讜砖讜 诇讬 讘讚讜讘砖讗


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鈥檛 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.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讞诇讘讗 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讻注讬谉 转讜专讗 砖专讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻注讬谉 转讜专讗:


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鈥檚 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鈥檚 eye.


讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诇砖讬谉 讗转 讛注讬住讛 讘驻讜砖专讬谉: 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诪谞讞讜转 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 谞讬诇讜砖讜转 讘驻讜砖专讬谉 (讜诪砖转诪专讬谉) 砖诇讗 讬讞诪爪讜 讗诐 讗诪专讜 讘讝专讬讝讬谉 讬讗诪专讜 讘砖讗讬谉 讝专讬讝讬谉


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.


讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讬诇转转 谞诪讬 诇转讬转 讗诇诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讬讟讬谉 砖诇 诪谞讞讜转 讗讬谉 诇讜转转讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇讬砖讛 讘讝专讬讝讬谉 讗讬转讗 诇转讬转讛 诇讬转讗 讘讝专讬讝讬谉


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.


讜诇讬砖讛 诪讬 讗讬转讗 讘讝专讬讝讬谉 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬爪拽 注诇讬讛 砖诪谉 讜讙讜壮 讜讛讘讬讗讛 讗诇 讛讻讛谉 诪拽诪讬爪讛 讜讗讬诇讱 诪爪讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讬爪讬拽讛 讜讘诇讬诇讛 砖讻砖讬专讛 讘讻诇 讗讚诐


The Gemara asks: And with regard to kneading, is it performed only by diligent priests? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd 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鈥檚 sons the priests; and he shall take from it his handful of its fine flour, and of its oil, together with all its frankincense鈥 (Leviticus 2:1鈥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.


诇讬砖讛 谞讛讬 讚讘讝专讬讝讬谉 诇讬转讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讝专讬讝讬谉 讗讬转讗 讚讗诪专 诪专 讘诇讬诇讛 讻砖讬专讛 讘讝专 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪转 注讝专讛 驻住讜诇讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诇转讬转讛 讚讗讬谞讛 讘讝专讬讝讬谉 讜诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讝专讬讝讬谉


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.


讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 诇讜转转讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜爪讜讘专讬谉 讗讜转讛 爪讬讘讜专 砖讗谞讬


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.


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 讘讘讻讜专讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘讜转讬讻诐 转讗讻诇讜 诪爪讜转 诪爪讛 讛谞讗讻诇转 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘讜转讬讻诐 讬爪讗讜 讘讻讜专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘讜转讬讻诐 讗诇讗 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬


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: 鈥淚n 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 鈥渋n all of your habitations.鈥 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.


专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪爪讛 讜诪专讜专 诪讛 诪专讜专 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讻讜专讬诐 讗祝 诪爪讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讘讻讜专讬诐 讗讬 诪讛 诪专讜专 砖讗讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘讻讜专讬诐 讗祝 诪爪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘诪讬谞讛 讘讻讜专讬诐


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,


讗讜爪讬讗 讞讬讟讬谉 讜砖注讜专讬谉 砖讬砖 讘诪讬谞谉 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪爪讜转 诪爪讜转 专讬讘讛 讗讬 诪爪讜转 诪爪讜转 专讬讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 谞诪讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗


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: 鈥Matzot,鈥 鈥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: 鈥淚n all of your habitations.鈥


讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬爪讗 讗讚诐 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讘讬讻讜专讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘转讬讻诐 转讗讻诇讜 诪爪讜转 诪爪讛 讛谞讗讻诇转 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘讜转 讬爪讗讜 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘讜转 讗诇讗 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪讜爪讬讗 讗祝 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪爪讜转 诪爪讜转 专讬讘讛


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: 鈥淚n 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: 鈥Matzot,鈥 鈥matzot.鈥 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.


讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讛讬转专 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘讜转 讻讚专讘讬 (讗诇讬注讝专) 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讛讬转专 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘讜转


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.


讚讗诪专 专讘讬 (讗诇讬注讝专) 诪谞讬谉 诇诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖谞讟诪讗 砖驻讜讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 诇讗 转讜讻诇 砖讗转讜


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: 鈥淎nd if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry it [se鈥檈to], 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:24).


讜讗讬谉 砖讗转 讗诇讗 讗讻讬诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬砖讗 诪砖讗转 诪讗转 驻谞讬讜


And it is derived by means of a verbal analogy that this carrying [se鈥檈t] is nothing other than eating, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd portions [masot] were taken to them from before him鈥 (Genesis 43:34). In light of this parallel language, the Gemara understands the phrase 鈥渟o that you are not able se鈥檈to鈥 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 鈥渋n all of your habitations.鈥


诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 谞驻讬拽 讘讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜拽诪诪注讬讟 诇讛讜 诇讘讬讻讜专讬诐 诪讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘转讬讻诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讚专 讘讬讛


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: 鈥淚n all of your habitations.鈥 Learn from this that Rabbi Akiva retracted his opinion and accepted Rabbi Yosei HaGelili鈥檚 derivation.


讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪诇讞诐 注讜谞讬 诪讬 砖谞讗讻诇 讘讗讜谞讬 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 谞讗讻诇 讗诇讗 讘砖诪讞讛


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, why does he learn this halakha from the phrase: 鈥淚n all of your habitations鈥? Let him derive it from the phrase: Le岣m 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.


住讘专 诇讬讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 诇讗讜谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专


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.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讗讻诇 讘砖注专讬讱 讜讗诪专 诪专 转专讜诪转 讬讚讱 讗诇讜 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讚讗讬转拽砖 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 诇诪注砖专 诪讛 诪注砖专 讗住讜专 诇讗讜谞谉 讗祝 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讗住讜专 诇讗讜谞谉


The Gemara explains this dispute: What is the reason for the Rabbis鈥 opinion, which maintains that an acute mourner may not eat first fruits? As it is written: 鈥淵ou 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17). And the Master said: 鈥淭he offering of your hand,鈥 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.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 转专讜诪讛 拽专讬谞讛讜 专讞诪谞讗 讻转专讜诪讛 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 诪讜转专转 诇讗讜谞谉 讗祝 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 诪讜转专 诇讗讜谞谉


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.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞讛讬 讚讛讬拽讬砖 诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖诪讞讛 诪讬讛讗 诪讬讻转讘 讻转讬讘讗 讘讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诪讞转 讘讻诇 讛讟讜讘


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: 鈥淎nd you shall rejoice in all the good that the Lord has given you and your household鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:11). In light of this, how can Rabbi Shimon permit an acute mourner to eat first fruits?


讛讛讜讗 诇讝诪谉 砖诪讞讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讚转谞谉 诪注爪专转 讜注讚 讛讞讙 诪讘讬讗 讜拽讜专讗 诪讛讞讙 讜注讚 讞谞讜讻讛 诪讘讬讗 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讜专讗


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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讞诐 注谞讬 驻专讟 诇讞诇讜讟 讜诇讗砖讬砖讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬爪讗 讗讚诐 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讗诇讗 讘驻转 讛讚专讗讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪爪讜转 诪爪讜转 专讬讘讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻诪爪讜转 砖诇 砖诇诪讛 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讞诐 注讜谞讬 驻专讟 诇讞诇讜讟 讜诇讗砖讬砖讛


The Sages taught that the phrase poor man鈥檚 bread [le岣m oni] excludes matza that was boiled [岣lut] 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鈥檃] bread; therefore, the verse states: 鈥Matzot,鈥 鈥matzot,鈥 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: 鈥淧oor man鈥檚 bread鈥? This phrase comes to exclude boiled matza and large cakes, but it does not exclude matza prepared from refined flour.


讜诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚讛讗讬 讗砖讬砖讛 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讞砖讬讘讜转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讞诇拽 诇讻诇 讛注诐 诇讻诇 讛诪讜谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪讗讬砖 讜注讚 讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖 讞诇转 诇讞诐 讗讞转 讜讗砖驻专 讗讞讚 讜讗砖讬砖讛 讗讞转 讜讙讜壮


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鈥檚 celebration after he brought the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (II Samuel 6:19).


讜讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讗砖驻专 讗讞讚 诪砖砖讛 讘驻专 讗砖讬砖讛 讗讞讚 诪砖砖讛 讘讗讬驻讛 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗砖讬砖讛 讙专讘讗 讚讞诪专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗讛讘讬 讗砖讬砖讬 注谞讘讬诐


And Rav 岣nan 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: 鈥淎nd those who love the jug [ashishei] of grapes鈥 (Hosea 3:1).


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讗讜驻讬谉 驻转 注讘讛 (讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘) 讘驻住讞 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬


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.


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!

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...
alon shvut women

Can Matza Be Made From…

Pesachim Daf 036 -Can matza be from maaser sheni or not? Opinions of Rebbi Yossi Haglili and Rebbi Akiva. -What...

Pesachim 36

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 36

讛讗讜讻诇 谞讘诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 驻讟讜专


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.


专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 诪讬 砖讗讬住讜专讜 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讘诇讘讚 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 讘诇讘讚 讗诇讗 讗祝 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 讟讘诇


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.


诪讬讚讬 讘诇讘讚 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚专讘 砖砖转


The Gemara raises a difficulty against this explanation: Is the word: Only, written in the baraita? This word, which is critical for Ravina鈥檚 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.


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 讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讞诐 注讜谞讬 诪讛 砖谞讗讻诇 讘讗谞讬谞讜转 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 讘讗谞讬谞讜转 讗诇讗 讘砖诪讞讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬


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: 鈥淵ou shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza, the bread of affliction [le岣m oni]鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:3), oni with the letter ayin, i.e., poor man鈥檚 bread. As this is similar to the phrase: Bread of acute mourning [le岣m 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鈥檚 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: 鈥淚 have not eaten from it in my acute mourning鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:14). This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.


专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪爪讜转 诪爪讜转 专讬讘讛 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讞诐 注讜谞讬 驻专讟 诇注讬住讛 砖谞讬诇讜砖讛 讘讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讜讚讘砖


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 le岣m oni, poor man鈥檚 bread? The baraita answers: This phrase excludes dough that was kneaded with wine, oil, or honey, which is not classified as poor man鈥檚 bread and therefore cannot be used for this mitzva.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讬 讻转讬讘 诇讞诐 注讜谞讬 注谞讬 讻转讬讘


The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Rabbi Akiva? The Gemara explains: Is it written in the consonantal text le岣m 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 le岣m oni without a vav, meaning poor man鈥檚 bread.


讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诪讬 拽专讬谞谉 注谞讬 注讜谞讬 拽专讬谞谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗讬 讚拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 注讜谞讬 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讞诐 注讜谞讬 诇讞诐 砖注讜谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 讛专讘讛


And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili could respond: Do we vocalize the word as ani, as would be appropriate for a phrase meaning a poor man鈥檚 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 le岣m 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.


讜住讘专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 注讬住讛 砖谞讬诇讜砖讛 讘讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讜讚讘砖 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诇砖讬谉 注讬住讛 讘驻住讞 讘讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讜讚讘砖 讜讗诐 诇砖 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 转砖专祝 诪讬讚 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讗讻诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖讘转讬 讛讬转讛 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜诇砖转讬 诇讛诐 注讬住讛 讘讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讜讚讘砖 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬 讚讘专


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鈥檛 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.


讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇砖讬谉 诪拽讟驻讬谉 讘讜 讗转讗谉 诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗转 砖诇砖讬谉 讘讜 诪拽讟驻讬谉 讘讜 讜讗转 砖讗讬谉 诇砖讬谉 讘讜 讗讬谉 诪拽讟驻讬谉 讘讜 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诇砖讬谉 讗转 讛注讬住讛 讘驻讜砖专讬谉


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.


诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 讛讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讬


The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this statement of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚, 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.


讻讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讘谞讬讛 讬讜诪讗 拽诪讗 诇讗 转诇讜砖讜 诇讬 讘讞诇讘讗 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 诇讜砖讜 诇讬 讘讞诇讘讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 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 讗住讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 讛专讙诇 注讘讬专讛 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬讜诪讗 拽诪讗 诇讗 转诇讜砖讜 诇讬 讘讚讜讘砖讗 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 诇讜砖讜 诇讬 讘讚讜讘砖讗


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鈥檛 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.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讞诇讘讗 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讻注讬谉 转讜专讗 砖专讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻注讬谉 转讜专讗:


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鈥檚 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鈥檚 eye.


讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诇砖讬谉 讗转 讛注讬住讛 讘驻讜砖专讬谉: 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诪谞讞讜转 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 谞讬诇讜砖讜转 讘驻讜砖专讬谉 (讜诪砖转诪专讬谉) 砖诇讗 讬讞诪爪讜 讗诐 讗诪专讜 讘讝专讬讝讬谉 讬讗诪专讜 讘砖讗讬谉 讝专讬讝讬谉


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.


讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讬诇转转 谞诪讬 诇转讬转 讗诇诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讬讟讬谉 砖诇 诪谞讞讜转 讗讬谉 诇讜转转讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇讬砖讛 讘讝专讬讝讬谉 讗讬转讗 诇转讬转讛 诇讬转讗 讘讝专讬讝讬谉


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.


讜诇讬砖讛 诪讬 讗讬转讗 讘讝专讬讝讬谉 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬爪拽 注诇讬讛 砖诪谉 讜讙讜壮 讜讛讘讬讗讛 讗诇 讛讻讛谉 诪拽诪讬爪讛 讜讗讬诇讱 诪爪讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讬爪讬拽讛 讜讘诇讬诇讛 砖讻砖讬专讛 讘讻诇 讗讚诐


The Gemara asks: And with regard to kneading, is it performed only by diligent priests? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd 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鈥檚 sons the priests; and he shall take from it his handful of its fine flour, and of its oil, together with all its frankincense鈥 (Leviticus 2:1鈥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.


诇讬砖讛 谞讛讬 讚讘讝专讬讝讬谉 诇讬转讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讝专讬讝讬谉 讗讬转讗 讚讗诪专 诪专 讘诇讬诇讛 讻砖讬专讛 讘讝专 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪转 注讝专讛 驻住讜诇讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诇转讬转讛 讚讗讬谞讛 讘讝专讬讝讬谉 讜诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讝专讬讝讬谉


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.


讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 诇讜转转讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜爪讜讘专讬谉 讗讜转讛 爪讬讘讜专 砖讗谞讬


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.


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 讘讘讻讜专讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘讜转讬讻诐 转讗讻诇讜 诪爪讜转 诪爪讛 讛谞讗讻诇转 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘讜转讬讻诐 讬爪讗讜 讘讻讜专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘讜转讬讻诐 讗诇讗 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬


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: 鈥淚n 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 鈥渋n all of your habitations.鈥 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.


专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪爪讛 讜诪专讜专 诪讛 诪专讜专 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讻讜专讬诐 讗祝 诪爪讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讘讻讜专讬诐 讗讬 诪讛 诪专讜专 砖讗讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘讻讜专讬诐 讗祝 诪爪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘诪讬谞讛 讘讻讜专讬诐


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,


讗讜爪讬讗 讞讬讟讬谉 讜砖注讜专讬谉 砖讬砖 讘诪讬谞谉 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪爪讜转 诪爪讜转 专讬讘讛 讗讬 诪爪讜转 诪爪讜转 专讬讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 谞诪讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗


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: 鈥Matzot,鈥 鈥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: 鈥淚n all of your habitations.鈥


讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬爪讗 讗讚诐 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讘讬讻讜专讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘转讬讻诐 转讗讻诇讜 诪爪讜转 诪爪讛 讛谞讗讻诇转 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘讜转 讬爪讗讜 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘讜转 讗诇讗 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪讜爪讬讗 讗祝 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪爪讜转 诪爪讜转 专讬讘讛


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: 鈥淚n 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: 鈥Matzot,鈥 鈥matzot.鈥 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.


讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讛讬转专 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘讜转 讻讚专讘讬 (讗诇讬注讝专) 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讛讬转专 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘讜转


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.


讚讗诪专 专讘讬 (讗诇讬注讝专) 诪谞讬谉 诇诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖谞讟诪讗 砖驻讜讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 诇讗 转讜讻诇 砖讗转讜


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: 鈥淎nd if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry it [se鈥檈to], 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:24).


讜讗讬谉 砖讗转 讗诇讗 讗讻讬诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬砖讗 诪砖讗转 诪讗转 驻谞讬讜


And it is derived by means of a verbal analogy that this carrying [se鈥檈t] is nothing other than eating, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd portions [masot] were taken to them from before him鈥 (Genesis 43:34). In light of this parallel language, the Gemara understands the phrase 鈥渟o that you are not able se鈥檈to鈥 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 鈥渋n all of your habitations.鈥


诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 谞驻讬拽 讘讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜拽诪诪注讬讟 诇讛讜 诇讘讬讻讜专讬诐 诪讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘转讬讻诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讚专 讘讬讛


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: 鈥淚n all of your habitations.鈥 Learn from this that Rabbi Akiva retracted his opinion and accepted Rabbi Yosei HaGelili鈥檚 derivation.


讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪诇讞诐 注讜谞讬 诪讬 砖谞讗讻诇 讘讗讜谞讬 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 谞讗讻诇 讗诇讗 讘砖诪讞讛


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, why does he learn this halakha from the phrase: 鈥淚n all of your habitations鈥? Let him derive it from the phrase: Le岣m 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.


住讘专 诇讬讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 诇讗讜谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专


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.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讗讻诇 讘砖注专讬讱 讜讗诪专 诪专 转专讜诪转 讬讚讱 讗诇讜 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讚讗讬转拽砖 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 诇诪注砖专 诪讛 诪注砖专 讗住讜专 诇讗讜谞谉 讗祝 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讗住讜专 诇讗讜谞谉


The Gemara explains this dispute: What is the reason for the Rabbis鈥 opinion, which maintains that an acute mourner may not eat first fruits? As it is written: 鈥淵ou 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17). And the Master said: 鈥淭he offering of your hand,鈥 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.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 转专讜诪讛 拽专讬谞讛讜 专讞诪谞讗 讻转专讜诪讛 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 诪讜转专转 诇讗讜谞谉 讗祝 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 诪讜转专 诇讗讜谞谉


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.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞讛讬 讚讛讬拽讬砖 诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖诪讞讛 诪讬讛讗 诪讬讻转讘 讻转讬讘讗 讘讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诪讞转 讘讻诇 讛讟讜讘


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: 鈥淎nd you shall rejoice in all the good that the Lord has given you and your household鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:11). In light of this, how can Rabbi Shimon permit an acute mourner to eat first fruits?


讛讛讜讗 诇讝诪谉 砖诪讞讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讚转谞谉 诪注爪专转 讜注讚 讛讞讙 诪讘讬讗 讜拽讜专讗 诪讛讞讙 讜注讚 讞谞讜讻讛 诪讘讬讗 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讜专讗


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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讞诐 注谞讬 驻专讟 诇讞诇讜讟 讜诇讗砖讬砖讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬爪讗 讗讚诐 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讗诇讗 讘驻转 讛讚专讗讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪爪讜转 诪爪讜转 专讬讘讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻诪爪讜转 砖诇 砖诇诪讛 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讞诐 注讜谞讬 驻专讟 诇讞诇讜讟 讜诇讗砖讬砖讛


The Sages taught that the phrase poor man鈥檚 bread [le岣m oni] excludes matza that was boiled [岣lut] 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鈥檃] bread; therefore, the verse states: 鈥Matzot,鈥 鈥matzot,鈥 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: 鈥淧oor man鈥檚 bread鈥? This phrase comes to exclude boiled matza and large cakes, but it does not exclude matza prepared from refined flour.


讜诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚讛讗讬 讗砖讬砖讛 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讞砖讬讘讜转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讞诇拽 诇讻诇 讛注诐 诇讻诇 讛诪讜谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪讗讬砖 讜注讚 讗砖讛 诇讗讬砖 讞诇转 诇讞诐 讗讞转 讜讗砖驻专 讗讞讚 讜讗砖讬砖讛 讗讞转 讜讙讜壮


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鈥檚 celebration after he brought the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (II Samuel 6:19).


讜讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讗砖驻专 讗讞讚 诪砖砖讛 讘驻专 讗砖讬砖讛 讗讞讚 诪砖砖讛 讘讗讬驻讛 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗砖讬砖讛 讙专讘讗 讚讞诪专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗讛讘讬 讗砖讬砖讬 注谞讘讬诐


And Rav 岣nan 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: 鈥淎nd those who love the jug [ashishei] of grapes鈥 (Hosea 3:1).


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讗讜驻讬谉 驻转 注讘讛 (讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘) 讘驻住讞 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬


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.


Scroll To Top