Pesachim 37

ובית הלל מתירין וכמה פת עבה אמר רב הונא טפח שכן מצינו בלחם הפנים טפח

And Beit Hillel permit one to bake bread in this manner. The Gemara asks: And how much thickness is required for the matza to be considered thick bread? Rav Huna said: This category includes matza that is a handbreadth thick. The proof is as we found by the shewbread, which could not be leavened and which was a handbreadth thick.

מתקיף לה רב יוסף אם אמרו בזריזין יאמרו בשאינן זריזין אם אמרו בפת עמילה יאמרו בפת שאינו עמילה

Rav Yosef strongly objects to this explanation: If the Sages said that it is permitted to bake bread a handbreadth thick for the shewbread, which was prepared by diligent priests who ensured that the dough did not become leavened, will they say the same with regard to other people who are not as diligent? Furthermore, if they said this with regard to well-kneaded bread, will they say the same with regard to bread that is not well kneaded?

אם אמרו בעצים יבשין יאמרו בעצים לחים אם אמרו בתנור חם יאמרו בתנור צונן אם אמרו בתנור של מתכת יאמרו בתנור של חרס

Rav Yosef continues: If they said that bread a handbreadth thick is permitted in a case where the bread was cooked with dry wood, which was brought to the Temple during the dry summer months, as the heat generated from this type of wood would cause the bread to cook quickly before it leavened, will they say the same with regard to ordinary people who cook with moist wood? If they said this with regard to a hot oven in the Temple, will they also say it is permitted with regard to a cool oven? Finally, if they said so with regard to the shewbread, which was baked in a metal oven that could be heated quickly, will they say the same with regard to a clay oven? Clearly, these two cases are different, and no comparison can be drawn between the shewbread and ordinary matza.

אמר רב ירמיה בר אבא שאילית את רבי ביחוד ומנו רב איכא דאמרי רב ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב שאילית את רבי ביחוד ומנו רבינו הקדוש מאי פת עבה פת מרובה ואמאי קרו ליה פת עבה משום דנפישא בלישה ואי בעית אימא באתריה דהאי תנא לפת מרובה פת עבה קרו ליה

Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: I asked my special Rabbi, and who is this? Rav. Some say that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: I asked my special Rabbi, and who is this? Our holy Rabbi, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: What is the meaning of the expression: Pat ava? He explained that it means: A large quantity of bread, a large batch of dough prepared in one session. And why did they call it: Pat ava, thick bread? It is referred to by this name due to the fact that it requires a large amount of kneading. And if you wish, say instead that in the place where this tanna lived, a large quantity of bread was simply called pat ava, thick bread.

מאי טעמא אי משום דקא טרח טירחא דלא צריך מאי איריא בפסח אפילו ביום טוב נמי

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this prohibition against preparing a large batch? If the reason is due to the unnecessary exertion that is required to knead a large amount of dough, which is an improper activity on a Festival, why discuss particularly the application of this halakha to Passover? The same halakha should apply also to other Festivals.

אין הכי נמי והאי תנא ביום טוב של פסח קאי תניא נמי הכי בית שמאי אומרים אין אופין פת עבה ביום טוב ובית הלל מתירין

The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so; it is prohibited to prepare a large quantity of dough during any Festival. And while this tanna was referring to the festival of Passover, he incidentally mentioned a halakha that actually applies to other Festivals as well. The Gemara comments: That opinion was also taught in a baraita, which states that Beit Shammai say: One may not bake pat ava on a Festival, and Beit Hillel permit baking bread in this manner on a Festival.

תנו רבנן יוצאין בפת נקיה ובהדראה ובסריקין המצויירין בפסח אף על פי שאמרו אין עושין סריקין המצויירין בפסח אמר רב יהודה דבר זה שאל בייתוס בן זונין לחכמים מפני מה אמרו אין עושין סריקין המצויירין בפסח אמרו לו מפני שהאשה שוהה עליה ומחמצתה

The Sages taught: One fulfills the obligation to eat matza on Passover with fine bread, with coarse bread, and after the fact with matza shaped in figures, although they said that one should not bake matza shaped in figures on Passover ab initio. Rav Yehuda said that Baitos ben Zonin asked the Sages about this matter: Why did the Sages say that one may not prepare matza shaped in figures on Passover ab initio? They said to him: The reason is because a woman will tarry over it as she prepares the bread, so that she can form the figure before it is baked, and she will thereby cause it to become leavened.

אמר להם אפשר יעשנה בדפוס ויקבענה כיון אמרו לו יאמרו כל הסריקין אסורין וסריקי בייתוס מותרין

He said to them: It is possible for a woman to prepare this matza with a mold, and she could set it immediately, without delaying the baking process. They said to him: People would fail to understand the distinction, and they would say that all shaped matza is prohibited, and yet Baitos’ shaped matza is permitted. Consequently, the Sages rejected this distinction, and prohibited all forms of matza shaped in figures on Passover.

אמר רבי אלעזר בר צדוק פעם אחת נכנסתי אחר אבא לבית רבן גמליאל והביאו לפניו סריקין המצויירין בפסח אמרתי אבא לא כך אמרו חכמים אין עושין סריקין המצויירין בפסח אמר לי בני לא של כל אדם אמרו אלא של נחתומין אמרו

Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok said: Once I followed my father, Rabbi Tzadok, into Rabban Gamliel’s home, and they brought before him matza shaped in figures on Passover. I said: Father, didn’t the Sages say that one may not prepare matza shaped in figures on Passover? He said to me: My son, they did not say this prohibition for the matza of all ordinary people; rather, they said so in regard to the matza of bakers, who are under pressure to enhance the appearance of their products in order to increase sales. The dough could leaven, since bakers might take too much time to ensure that the shape of their matza is exactly right.

איכא דאמרי הכי קאמר ליה לא של נחתומין אמרו אלא של כל אדם אמר רבי יוסי עושין סריקין כמין רקיקין ואין עושין סריקין כמין גלוסקאות

Some say that this is what Rabbi Tzadok said to his son: The Sages did not say that this practice is prohibited with regard to the matza of bakers, who are expert and efficient in their work and will do it quickly, but rather this prohibition applies to the matza of all ordinary people. According to both versions of this exchange, it is permitted to eat this matza after the fact. Rabbi Yosei said: One may prepare matzot shaped as thin wafers, but one may not prepare matzot shaped as thick loaves, as the latter is more likely to be leavened.

תנו רבנן הסופגנין והדובשנין ואיסקריטין וחלת המסרת והמדומע פטורים מן החלה מאי חלת המסרת אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי זה חלוט של בעלי בתים

The Sages taught: Sponge-like cakes, honey cakes, spiced cakes [eskeritin], pan-fried bread [ḥallat hamasret], and bread prepared from a mixture of permitted grain and teruma, their owners are all exempt from ḥalla. The Gemara clarifies these obscure terms. What is pan-fried bread? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: This is boiled bread baked by ordinary homeowners in a deep frying pan.

אמר ריש לקיש הללו מעשה אילפס הן ורבי יוחנן אמר מעשה אילפס חייבין והללו שעשאן בחמה

Reish Lakish said: These dishes are pot-boiled stew [ilpas], not bread. Since this food is prepared in a pot and not in an oven, it has been boiled rather than baked, and its owner is therefore exempt from ḥalla. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even the owner of bread prepared like a pot-boiled stew is obligated in ḥalla, but the owners of these pan-fried breads and the other baked goods listed are exempt, as these breads were baked in the sun. Since they were not baked over a fire, they are not classified as bread with regard to the mitzva of ḥalla.

מיתיבי הסופגנין והדובשנין והאיסקריטין עשאן באילפס חייבין בחמה פטורין תיובתיה דרבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר עולא אמר לך רבי שמעון בן לקיש הכא במאי עסקינן שהרתיח ולבסוף הדביק

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish statement from a baraita: With regard to sponge-cakes, honey cakes, or spiced cakes, if one prepared them in a pot, he is obligated to separate ḥalla. However, if he prepared them in the sun, he is exempt from this mitzva. This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. Ulla said: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish could have said to you: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where one heated the pot over the fire and afterward pasted the dough to the sides of the hot pot. This is considered like baking in an oven, and one is therefore obligated to separate ḥalla from the dough.

אבל הדביק ולבסוף הרתיח מאי הכי נמי דפטורין אדתני סיפא עשאן בחמה פטורין ליפלוג וליתני בדידה במה דברים אמורים כגון שהרתיח ולבסוף הדביק אבל הדביק ולבסוף הרתיח פטורין

The Gemara asks: However, if one pasted the dough to the sides of the pot and afterward heated it, what is the halakha? So too, you will say that is he is exempt from the mitzva of ḥalla? If so, rather than teach in the latter clause of that baraita that the owner of the bread is exempt if it was baked in the sun, let the tanna distinguish and teach this halakha within the presentation of this case itself: In what case is this statement, that one who prepares this bread in a pot is obligated to separate ḥalla, said? For example, when one heated the pot and afterward pasted the bread to its sides; but if he placed the bread in the pot and then boiled it, he is exempt. Why didn’t the baraita formulate the halakha in this manner?

חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני במה דברים אמורים שהרתיח ולבסוף הדביק אבל הדביק ולבסוף הרתיח נעשה כמי שעשאן בחמה ופטורין

The Gemara answers: The text of the baraita is incomplete and is teaching the following: In what case is this statement said? In a case where one heated the pot and afterward pasted the bread to its sides. However, if one placed the bread inside the pot and afterward boiled it, it is considered as though it had been cooked in the sun, and he is exempt from separating ḥalla.

תא שמע יוצאין במצה הינא ובמצה העשויה באילפס הכא נמי שהרתיח ולבסוף הדביק

Come and hear a difficulty from a baraita: One can fulfill the obligation to eat matza with half-baked matza and pot-boiled matza. Apparently, dough baked in a pot is classified as bread. The Gemara answers: Here too, the baraita is referring to a case where one heated the pot like an oven, and afterward he pasted the dough to the sides of the pot.

מאי מצה הינא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כל שפורסה ואין חוטין נמשכין הימנה אמר רבא וכן לחמי תודה פשיטא הכא לחם כתיב והכא לחם כתיב

The Gemara asks: What is half-baked matza? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This refers to any matza that is sufficiently baked so that when it is broken no strands of dough emerge from its sides. Rava said: And likewise the loaves of the thanks-offering may be used if they have been baked to this extent. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as here, with regard to matza, “bread” is written, and there, with regard to the loaves of the thanks-offering, “bread” is also written (Leviticus 7:13). Since both loaves are called bread, it is obvious that the same criteria should apply to both cases.

מהו דתימא הואיל וכתיב והקריב ממנו

The Gemara rejects this assertion: This statement is necessary, lest you say the following: Since it is written with regard to a thanks-offering: “And he shall present from it

אחד מכל קרבן אחד שלא יטול פרוס והכא כמאן דפריסא דמיא קא משמע לן

one out of each offering for a gift to the Lord; it shall belong to the priest who sprinkles the blood of the peace-offerings” (Leviticus 7:14), and the word “one” indicates that it must be a whole loaf, i.e., that one should not take a broken piece, and here the bread has not been properly baked, it might therefore have been thought that it is considered as though it were broken. Consequently, the baraita teaches us that this is nevertheless classified as bread.

מיתיבי המעיסה בית שמאי פוטרין ובית הלל מחייבין החליטה בית שמאי מחייבין ובית הלל פוטרין איזהו המעיסה ואיזהו החליטה המעיסה קמח שעל גבי מוגלשין החליטה מוגלשין שעל גבי קמח

The Gemara raises an objection: With regard to me’isa, dough that was boiled in water, Beit Shammai exempt one from separating ḥalla, and Beit Hillel obligate one to do so. As for dough that has undergone the process of ḥalita, Beit Shammai obligate one to separate ḥalla from it, and Beit Hillel exempt. The Gemara asks: What is me’isa and what is ḥalita? The Gemara explains: Me’isa is dough prepared by pouring flour on boiling water [muglashin], whereas ḥalita is formed by pouring boiling water on flour.

רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי אומר משום אביו זה וזה לפטור ואמרי לה זה וזה לחיוב וחכמים אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה עשאן באילפס פטור בתנור חייב

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said in the name of his father: From both this, me’isa, and that, ḥalita, one is exempt from separating ḥalla. And some say that he said: With regard to both this and that, one is obligated to separate ḥalla. And the Rabbis say: With regard to both this and that, if one prepared them in a pot, he is exempt from the mitzva of ḥalla; however, if he prepared the bread in an oven, he is obligated to separate ḥalla.

ותנא קמא מאי שנא המעיסה ומאי שנא חליטה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל וכן אמר רב יהודה ואיתימא רבי יהושע בן לוי כמחלוקת בזו כך מחלוקת בזו ותברא מי ששנה זו לא שנה זו

The Gemara asks: And according to the first tanna, who taught that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to these two cases, what is different about me’isa and what is different about ḥalita? Why do Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel reverse their opinions with regard to these types of bread? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, and likewise Rabbi Yehuda said, and some say it was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who said: As is the dispute with regard to this type of bread, so is the dispute with regard to that one; i.e., Beit Hillel are either lenient or stringent in both cases. And the variation in the baraita is due to a break in its text, which is actually a combination of two sources, because he who taught this baraita did not teach that one, as the two statements were taught by different Sages.

קתני מיהת וחכמים אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה שעשאן באילפס פטור בתנור חייב תיובתא דרבי יוחנן אמר לך רבי יוחנן תנאי היא דתניא יכול יהא מעיסה וחלוטה חייבין בחלה תלמוד לומר לחם

The Gemara now states the objection: In any event, the baraita is teaching that the Rabbis say: With regard to both this and that, me’isa and ḥalita, if one prepared them in a pot he is exempt from the mitzva of ḥalla, but if he prepared them in an oven he is obligated to separate ḥalla. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who claims that one is obligated to separate ḥalla from bread cooked in a pot. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said to you: It is a dispute between tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: I might have thought that one is obligated to separate ḥalla from me’isa and ḥaluta; therefore, the verse states “bread” to inform us that this is not the case.

רבי יהודה אומר אין לחם אלא האפוי בתנור רבי יהודה היינו תנא קמא אלא לאו מעשה אילפס איכא בינייהו תנא קמא סבר מעשה אילפס חייבין ורבי יהודה סבר מעשה אילפס פטורין

Rabbi Yehuda says: Bread is nothing other than that which is baked in an oven. The Gemara asks: The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is the same as that of the first tanna. Rather, is it not the case that the practical difference between them is in the case of bread prepared as pot-boiled stew? The first tanna maintains that one is obligated to separate ḥalla from bread prepared as pot-boiled stew, unlike bread prepared by me’isa and ḥalita. And Rabbi Yehuda maintains: Similar to me’isa and ḥalita, one is exempt from separating ḥalla from bread prepared as pot-boiled stew, as it was not baked in an oven.

לא דכולי עלמא מעשה אילפס פטורין והכא כגון שחזר ואפאו בתנור קא מיפלגי דתנא קמא סבר כיון שחזר ואפאו בתנור לחם קרינן ביה ורבי יהודה סבר אין לחם אלא האפוי בתנור מעיקרא וכיון דמעיקרא לאו בתנור אפייה לאו לחם הוא

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, it is possible to say that everyone agrees that the owner of bread prepared as pot-boiled stew is exempt from ḥalla, and here they disagree with regard to a case where one subsequently baked it in the oven. The first tanna maintains that since one subsequently baked it in the oven, it is called bread, and one must separate ḥalla from it. And Rabbi Yehuda maintains that bread is nothing other than that which is initially baked in an oven, and since this food was not initially baked in an oven, it is not classified as bread.

אמר רבא מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה דכתיב ואפו עשר נשים לחמכם בתנור אחד לחם האפוי בתנור אחד קרוי לחם ושאין אפוי בתנור אחד אין קרוי לחם

Rava said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda? As it is written: “And ten women shall bake your bread in one oven” (Leviticus 26:26). Rava learns from this verse that bread baked in one oven is called bread, and that which is not baked in one oven, but rather in several different vessels, is not called bread.

יתיב רבה ורב יוסף אחוריה דרבי זירא ויתיב רבי זירא קמיה דעולא אמר ליה רבה לרבי זירא בעי מיניה מעולא הדביק מבפנים והרתיח מבחוץ מהו אמר ליה מאי אימא ליה דאי אמינא ליה אמר לי הי ניהו מעשה אילפס

Rabba and Rav Yosef sat behind Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Zeira sat before Ulla to hear him teach Torah. Rabba said to Rabbi Zeira: Raise the following dilemma of Ulla: If one pasted bread inside a pot and heated it from the outside, what is the halakha? Is one obligated to separate ḥalla from this bread? He said to him: Why should I say this question to Ulla? For if I say this to him, he will say to me: What is the halakha with regard to bread prepared as pot-boiled stew? In other words, he will reply that my question is effectively the same as that well-known case.

אמר ליה רב יוסף לרבי זירא בעו מיניה מעולא הדביק מבפנים ואבוקה כנגדו מהו אמר ליה מאי אימא ליה דאי אמינא ליה אמר לי רוב עניים עושין כן

Rav Yosef further said to Rabbi Zeira: Raise the following dilemma of Ulla: If one pasted bread inside a pot and lit a torch opposite it, what is the halakha? He again said to him: Why should I say this question to Ulla? As if I say this to him, he will say to me: The majority of poor people do this when they use a pot for cooking, and therefore this too should be considered the same as bread prepared like pot-boiled stew.

אמר רב אסי עיסה של מעשר שני לדברי רבי מאיר פטורה מן החלה לדברי חכמים חייבת בחלה

Rav Asi said: With regard to dough of second-tithe produce, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Meir, one is exempt from separating ḥalla from it. The reason is that Rabbi Meir considers second tithe to be consecrated property, which means that although its owner is entitled to use this produce, it does not in fact belong to him. By contrast, in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, who maintain that second-tithe produce is the property of its owner, one is obligated to separate ḥalla from it.