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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 28, 2020 | 讬状讙 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

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

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

Pesachim 37

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored with hakarat hatov to Hashem by Shalom and Tina Lamm to celebrate their new granddaughter, Mindl Hodaya (鈥淢indy鈥) born to their children, Ari & Shlomit Lamm. And by Yonatan Huber for a refuah shleima for Basmat bat Yardena and Shaul and Nissim ben Rosa and Machluf Malul.聽聽

What is “thick dough” that Beit Hillel permits on Pesach? What is the difference in terms of concern for the dough leavening between matza baking and the baking of the showbread? From the comparison, the gemara rejects the first explanation of “thick dough” and explains it being an issue of Yom Tov and not specifically Pesach. What is the difficulty with that explanation and how is it resolved? Can one make matza in different shapes or with shapes etched in? Can one distinguish between a baker and a homemaker? Can one distinguish between different people or different situations? The gemara deals with with different types of doughs that are not obligated in challa. Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree regarding dough make in a pot. The gemara raises questions on each approach and tries to resolve.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉 讜讻诪讛 驻转 注讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讟驻讞 砖讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讘诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讟驻讞


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.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诐 讗诪专讜 讘讝专讬讝讬谉 讬讗诪专讜 讘砖讗讬谞谉 讝专讬讝讬谉 讗诐 讗诪专讜 讘驻转 注诪讬诇讛 讬讗诪专讜 讘驻转 砖讗讬谞讜 注诪讬诇讛


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?


讗诐 讗诪专讜 讘注爪讬诐 讬讘砖讬谉 讬讗诪专讜 讘注爪讬诐 诇讞讬诐 讗诐 讗诪专讜 讘转谞讜专 讞诐 讬讗诪专讜 讘转谞讜专 爪讜谞谉 讗诐 讗诪专讜 讘转谞讜专 砖诇 诪转讻转 讬讗诪专讜 讘转谞讜专 砖诇 讞专住


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.


讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 砖讗讬诇讬转 讗转 专讘讬 讘讬讞讜讚 讜诪谞讜 专讘 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讗讬诇讬转 讗转 专讘讬 讘讬讞讜讚 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 讛拽讚讜砖 诪讗讬 驻转 注讘讛 驻转 诪专讜讘讛 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讬讛 驻转 注讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚谞驻讬砖讗 讘诇讬砖讛 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讗转专讬讛 讚讛讗讬 转谞讗 诇驻转 诪专讜讘讛 驻转 注讘讛 拽专讜 诇讬讛


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.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讟专讞 讟讬专讞讗 讚诇讗 爪专讬讱 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讘驻住讞 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞诪讬


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.


讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖诇 驻住讞 拽讗讬 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讜驻讬谉 驻转 注讘讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉


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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘驻转 谞拽讬讛 讜讘讛讚专讗讛 讜讘住专讬拽讬谉 讛诪爪讜讬讬专讬谉 讘驻住讞 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 住专讬拽讬谉 讛诪爪讜讬讬专讬谉 讘驻住讞 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讘专 讝讛 砖讗诇 讘讬讬转讜住 讘谉 讝讜谞讬谉 诇讞讻诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 住专讬拽讬谉 讛诪爪讜讬讬专讬谉 讘驻住讞 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讗砖讛 砖讜讛讛 注诇讬讛 讜诪讞诪爪转讛


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.


讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗驻砖专 讬注砖谞讛 讘讚驻讜住 讜讬拽讘注谞讛 讻讬讜谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讬讗诪专讜 讻诇 讛住专讬拽讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜住专讬拽讬 讘讬讬转讜住 诪讜转专讬谉


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鈥 shaped matza is permitted. Consequently, the Sages rejected this distinction, and prohibited all forms of matza shaped in figures on Passover.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 爪讚讜拽 驻注诐 讗讞转 谞讻谞住转讬 讗讞专 讗讘讗 诇讘讬转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诇驻谞讬讜 住专讬拽讬谉 讛诪爪讜讬讬专讬谉 讘驻住讞 讗诪专转讬 讗讘讗 诇讗 讻讱 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 住专讬拽讬谉 讛诪爪讜讬讬专讬谉 讘驻住讞 讗诪专 诇讬 讘谞讬 诇讗 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 砖诇 谞讞转讜诪讬谉 讗诪专讜


Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok said: Once I followed my father, Rabbi Tzadok, into Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 home, and they brought before him matza shaped in figures on Passover. I said: Father, didn鈥檛 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.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖诇 谞讞转讜诪讬谉 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 注讜砖讬谉 住专讬拽讬谉 讻诪讬谉 专拽讬拽讬谉 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 住专讬拽讬谉 讻诪讬谉 讙诇讜住拽讗讜转


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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛住讜驻讙谞讬谉 讜讛讚讜讘砖谞讬谉 讜讗讬住拽专讬讟讬谉 讜讞诇转 讛诪住专转 讜讛诪讚讜诪注 驻讟讜专讬诐 诪谉 讛讞诇讛 诪讗讬 讞诇转 讛诪住专转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讝讛 讞诇讜讟 砖诇 讘注诇讬 讘转讬诐


The Sages taught: Sponge-like cakes, honey cakes, spiced cakes [eskeritin], pan-fried bread [岣llat hamasret], and bread prepared from a mixture of permitted grain and teruma, their owners are all exempt from 岣lla. 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.


讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛诇诇讜 诪注砖讛 讗讬诇驻住 讛谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪注砖讛 讗讬诇驻住 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讛诇诇讜 砖注砖讗谉 讘讞诪讛


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 岣lla. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Even the owner of bread prepared like a pot-boiled stew is obligated in 岣lla, 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 岣lla.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讛住讜驻讙谞讬谉 讜讛讚讜讘砖谞讬谉 讜讛讗讬住拽专讬讟讬谉 注砖讗谉 讘讗讬诇驻住 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讞诪讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖讛专转讬讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛讚讘讬拽


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 岣lla. 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 岣lla from the dough.


讗讘诇 讛讚讘讬拽 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛专转讬讞 诪讗讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻讟讜专讬谉 讗讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 注砖讗谉 讘讞诪讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 诇讬驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻讙讜谉 砖讛专转讬讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛讚讘讬拽 讗讘诇 讛讚讘讬拽 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛专转讬讞 驻讟讜专讬谉


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 岣lla? 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 岣lla, 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鈥檛 the baraita formulate the halakha in this manner?


讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讛专转讬讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛讚讘讬拽 讗讘诇 讛讚讘讬拽 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛专转讬讞 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖注砖讗谉 讘讞诪讛 讜驻讟讜专讬谉


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 岣lla.


转讗 砖诪注 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘诪爪讛 讛讬谞讗 讜讘诪爪讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 讘讗讬诇驻住 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖讛专转讬讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛讚讘讬拽


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.


诪讗讬 诪爪讛 讛讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖驻讜专住讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讜讟讬谉 谞诪砖讻讬谉 讛讬诪谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讻谉 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讻讗 诇讞诐 讻转讬讘 讜讛讻讗 诇讞诐 讻转讬讘


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, 鈥渂read鈥 is written, and there, with regard to the loaves of the thanks-offering, 鈥渂read鈥 is also written (Leviticus 7:13). Since both loaves are called bread, it is obvious that the same criteria should apply to both cases.


诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讜讛拽专讬讘 诪诪谞讜


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


讗讞讚 诪讻诇 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚 砖诇讗 讬讟讜诇 驻专讜住 讜讛讻讗 讻诪讗谉 讚驻专讬住讗 讚诪讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


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鈥 (Leviticus 7:14), and the word 鈥渙ne鈥 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.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诪注讬住讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 驻讜讟专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讛讞诇讬讟讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 驻讜讟专讬谉 讗讬讝讛讜 讛诪注讬住讛 讜讗讬讝讛讜 讛讞诇讬讟讛 讛诪注讬住讛 拽诪讞 砖注诇 讙讘讬 诪讜讙诇砖讬谉 讛讞诇讬讟讛 诪讜讙诇砖讬谉 砖注诇 讙讘讬 拽诪讞


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


专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讬讜 讝讛 讜讝讛 诇驻讟讜专 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讝讛 讜讝讛 诇讞讬讜讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 注砖讗谉 讘讗讬诇驻住 驻讟讜专 讘转谞讜专 讞讬讬讘


Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said in the name of his father: From both this, me鈥檌sa, and that, 岣lita, one is exempt from separating 岣lla. And some say that he said: With regard to both this and that, one is obligated to separate 岣lla. 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 岣lla; however, if he prepared the bread in an oven, he is obligated to separate 岣lla.


讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛诪注讬住讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讞诇讬讟讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讝讜 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讝讜 讜转讘专讗 诪讬 砖砖谞讛 讝讜 诇讗 砖谞讛 讝讜


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鈥檌sa and what is different about 岣lita? 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.


拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 砖注砖讗谉 讘讗讬诇驻住 驻讟讜专 讘转谞讜专 讞讬讬讘 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 诪注讬住讛 讜讞诇讜讟讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讞诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讞诐


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鈥檌sa and 岣lita, if one prepared them in a pot he is exempt from the mitzva of 岣lla, but if he prepared them in an oven he is obligated to separate 岣lla. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who claims that one is obligated to separate 岣lla from bread cooked in a pot. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan could have said to you: It is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: I might have thought that one is obligated to separate 岣lla from me鈥檌sa and 岣luta; therefore, the verse states 鈥渂read鈥 to inform us that this is not the case.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讞诐 讗诇讗 讛讗驻讜讬 讘转谞讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪注砖讛 讗讬诇驻住 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诪注砖讛 讗讬诇驻住 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪注砖讛 讗讬诇驻住 驻讟讜专讬谉


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 岣lla from bread prepared as pot-boiled stew, unlike bread prepared by me鈥檌sa and 岣lita. And Rabbi Yehuda maintains: Similar to me鈥檌sa and 岣lita, one is exempt from separating 岣lla from bread prepared as pot-boiled stew, as it was not baked in an oven.


诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪注砖讛 讗讬诇驻住 驻讟讜专讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讞讝专 讜讗驻讗讜 讘转谞讜专 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 砖讞讝专 讜讗驻讗讜 讘转谞讜专 诇讞诐 拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讗讬谉 诇讞诐 讗诇讗 讛讗驻讜讬 讘转谞讜专 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗讜 讘转谞讜专 讗驻讬讬讛 诇讗讜 诇讞诐 讛讜讗


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 岣lla, 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 岣lla 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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗驻讜 注砖专 谞砖讬诐 诇讞诪讻诐 讘转谞讜专 讗讞讚 诇讞诐 讛讗驻讜讬 讘转谞讜专 讗讞讚 拽专讜讬 诇讞诐 讜砖讗讬谉 讗驻讜讬 讘转谞讜专 讗讞讚 讗讬谉 拽专讜讬 诇讞诐


Rava said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda? As it is written: 鈥淎nd ten women shall bake your bread in one oven鈥 (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.


讬转讬讘 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讞讜专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 拽诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪注讜诇讗 讛讚讘讬拽 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛专转讬讞 诪讘讞讜抓 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讚讗讬 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬 讛讬 谞讬讛讜 诪注砖讛 讗讬诇驻住


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 岣lla 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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪注讜诇讗 讛讚讘讬拽 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜讗讘讜拽讛 讻谞讙讚讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讚讗讬 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬 专讜讘 注谞讬讬诐 注讜砖讬谉 讻谉


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.


讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 注讬住讛 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛讞诇讛 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讞讬讬讘转 讘讞诇讛


Rav Asi said: With regard to dough of second-tithe produce, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Meir, one is exempt from separating 岣lla 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 岣lla from it.


Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Pesachim 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

The Mitzvah of Challah

Pesachim Daf 037 The thickness of matza and how much one can prepare on chag is discussed. Also discussed different...

Pesachim 37

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 37

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉 讜讻诪讛 驻转 注讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讟驻讞 砖讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 讘诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讟驻讞


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.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诐 讗诪专讜 讘讝专讬讝讬谉 讬讗诪专讜 讘砖讗讬谞谉 讝专讬讝讬谉 讗诐 讗诪专讜 讘驻转 注诪讬诇讛 讬讗诪专讜 讘驻转 砖讗讬谞讜 注诪讬诇讛


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?


讗诐 讗诪专讜 讘注爪讬诐 讬讘砖讬谉 讬讗诪专讜 讘注爪讬诐 诇讞讬诐 讗诐 讗诪专讜 讘转谞讜专 讞诐 讬讗诪专讜 讘转谞讜专 爪讜谞谉 讗诐 讗诪专讜 讘转谞讜专 砖诇 诪转讻转 讬讗诪专讜 讘转谞讜专 砖诇 讞专住


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.


讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 砖讗讬诇讬转 讗转 专讘讬 讘讬讞讜讚 讜诪谞讜 专讘 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讗讬诇讬转 讗转 专讘讬 讘讬讞讜讚 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 讛拽讚讜砖 诪讗讬 驻转 注讘讛 驻转 诪专讜讘讛 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讬讛 驻转 注讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚谞驻讬砖讗 讘诇讬砖讛 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讗转专讬讛 讚讛讗讬 转谞讗 诇驻转 诪专讜讘讛 驻转 注讘讛 拽专讜 诇讬讛


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.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讟专讞 讟讬专讞讗 讚诇讗 爪专讬讱 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讘驻住讞 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞诪讬


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.


讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖诇 驻住讞 拽讗讬 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讜驻讬谉 驻转 注讘讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉


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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘驻转 谞拽讬讛 讜讘讛讚专讗讛 讜讘住专讬拽讬谉 讛诪爪讜讬讬专讬谉 讘驻住讞 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 住专讬拽讬谉 讛诪爪讜讬讬专讬谉 讘驻住讞 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讘专 讝讛 砖讗诇 讘讬讬转讜住 讘谉 讝讜谞讬谉 诇讞讻诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 住专讬拽讬谉 讛诪爪讜讬讬专讬谉 讘驻住讞 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讗砖讛 砖讜讛讛 注诇讬讛 讜诪讞诪爪转讛


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.


讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗驻砖专 讬注砖谞讛 讘讚驻讜住 讜讬拽讘注谞讛 讻讬讜谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讬讗诪专讜 讻诇 讛住专讬拽讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜住专讬拽讬 讘讬讬转讜住 诪讜转专讬谉


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鈥 shaped matza is permitted. Consequently, the Sages rejected this distinction, and prohibited all forms of matza shaped in figures on Passover.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 爪讚讜拽 驻注诐 讗讞转 谞讻谞住转讬 讗讞专 讗讘讗 诇讘讬转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诇驻谞讬讜 住专讬拽讬谉 讛诪爪讜讬讬专讬谉 讘驻住讞 讗诪专转讬 讗讘讗 诇讗 讻讱 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 住专讬拽讬谉 讛诪爪讜讬讬专讬谉 讘驻住讞 讗诪专 诇讬 讘谞讬 诇讗 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 砖诇 谞讞转讜诪讬谉 讗诪专讜


Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok said: Once I followed my father, Rabbi Tzadok, into Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 home, and they brought before him matza shaped in figures on Passover. I said: Father, didn鈥檛 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.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖诇 谞讞转讜诪讬谉 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 注讜砖讬谉 住专讬拽讬谉 讻诪讬谉 专拽讬拽讬谉 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 住专讬拽讬谉 讻诪讬谉 讙诇讜住拽讗讜转


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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛住讜驻讙谞讬谉 讜讛讚讜讘砖谞讬谉 讜讗讬住拽专讬讟讬谉 讜讞诇转 讛诪住专转 讜讛诪讚讜诪注 驻讟讜专讬诐 诪谉 讛讞诇讛 诪讗讬 讞诇转 讛诪住专转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讝讛 讞诇讜讟 砖诇 讘注诇讬 讘转讬诐


The Sages taught: Sponge-like cakes, honey cakes, spiced cakes [eskeritin], pan-fried bread [岣llat hamasret], and bread prepared from a mixture of permitted grain and teruma, their owners are all exempt from 岣lla. 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.


讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛诇诇讜 诪注砖讛 讗讬诇驻住 讛谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪注砖讛 讗讬诇驻住 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讛诇诇讜 砖注砖讗谉 讘讞诪讛


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 岣lla. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Even the owner of bread prepared like a pot-boiled stew is obligated in 岣lla, 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 岣lla.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讛住讜驻讙谞讬谉 讜讛讚讜讘砖谞讬谉 讜讛讗讬住拽专讬讟讬谉 注砖讗谉 讘讗讬诇驻住 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讞诪讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖讛专转讬讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛讚讘讬拽


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 岣lla. 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 岣lla from the dough.


讗讘诇 讛讚讘讬拽 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛专转讬讞 诪讗讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻讟讜专讬谉 讗讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 注砖讗谉 讘讞诪讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 诇讬驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻讙讜谉 砖讛专转讬讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛讚讘讬拽 讗讘诇 讛讚讘讬拽 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛专转讬讞 驻讟讜专讬谉


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 岣lla? 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 岣lla, 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鈥檛 the baraita formulate the halakha in this manner?


讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讛专转讬讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛讚讘讬拽 讗讘诇 讛讚讘讬拽 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛专转讬讞 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖注砖讗谉 讘讞诪讛 讜驻讟讜专讬谉


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 岣lla.


转讗 砖诪注 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘诪爪讛 讛讬谞讗 讜讘诪爪讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 讘讗讬诇驻住 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖讛专转讬讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛讚讘讬拽


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.


诪讗讬 诪爪讛 讛讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖驻讜专住讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讜讟讬谉 谞诪砖讻讬谉 讛讬诪谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讻谉 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讻讗 诇讞诐 讻转讬讘 讜讛讻讗 诇讞诐 讻转讬讘


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, 鈥渂read鈥 is written, and there, with regard to the loaves of the thanks-offering, 鈥渂read鈥 is also written (Leviticus 7:13). Since both loaves are called bread, it is obvious that the same criteria should apply to both cases.


诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讜讛拽专讬讘 诪诪谞讜


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


讗讞讚 诪讻诇 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚 砖诇讗 讬讟讜诇 驻专讜住 讜讛讻讗 讻诪讗谉 讚驻专讬住讗 讚诪讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


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鈥 (Leviticus 7:14), and the word 鈥渙ne鈥 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.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诪注讬住讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 驻讜讟专讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讛讞诇讬讟讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 驻讜讟专讬谉 讗讬讝讛讜 讛诪注讬住讛 讜讗讬讝讛讜 讛讞诇讬讟讛 讛诪注讬住讛 拽诪讞 砖注诇 讙讘讬 诪讜讙诇砖讬谉 讛讞诇讬讟讛 诪讜讙诇砖讬谉 砖注诇 讙讘讬 拽诪讞


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


专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讬讜 讝讛 讜讝讛 诇驻讟讜专 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讝讛 讜讝讛 诇讞讬讜讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 注砖讗谉 讘讗讬诇驻住 驻讟讜专 讘转谞讜专 讞讬讬讘


Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said in the name of his father: From both this, me鈥檌sa, and that, 岣lita, one is exempt from separating 岣lla. And some say that he said: With regard to both this and that, one is obligated to separate 岣lla. 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 岣lla; however, if he prepared the bread in an oven, he is obligated to separate 岣lla.


讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛诪注讬住讛 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讞诇讬讟讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讝讜 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讝讜 讜转讘专讗 诪讬 砖砖谞讛 讝讜 诇讗 砖谞讛 讝讜


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鈥檌sa and what is different about 岣lita? 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.


拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 砖注砖讗谉 讘讗讬诇驻住 驻讟讜专 讘转谞讜专 讞讬讬讘 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 诪注讬住讛 讜讞诇讜讟讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讞诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讞诐


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鈥檌sa and 岣lita, if one prepared them in a pot he is exempt from the mitzva of 岣lla, but if he prepared them in an oven he is obligated to separate 岣lla. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who claims that one is obligated to separate 岣lla from bread cooked in a pot. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan could have said to you: It is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: I might have thought that one is obligated to separate 岣lla from me鈥檌sa and 岣luta; therefore, the verse states 鈥渂read鈥 to inform us that this is not the case.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讞诐 讗诇讗 讛讗驻讜讬 讘转谞讜专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪注砖讛 讗讬诇驻住 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诪注砖讛 讗讬诇驻住 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪注砖讛 讗讬诇驻住 驻讟讜专讬谉


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 岣lla from bread prepared as pot-boiled stew, unlike bread prepared by me鈥檌sa and 岣lita. And Rabbi Yehuda maintains: Similar to me鈥檌sa and 岣lita, one is exempt from separating 岣lla from bread prepared as pot-boiled stew, as it was not baked in an oven.


诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪注砖讛 讗讬诇驻住 驻讟讜专讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讞讝专 讜讗驻讗讜 讘转谞讜专 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 砖讞讝专 讜讗驻讗讜 讘转谞讜专 诇讞诐 拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讗讬谉 诇讞诐 讗诇讗 讛讗驻讜讬 讘转谞讜专 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗讜 讘转谞讜专 讗驻讬讬讛 诇讗讜 诇讞诐 讛讜讗


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 岣lla, 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 岣lla 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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗驻讜 注砖专 谞砖讬诐 诇讞诪讻诐 讘转谞讜专 讗讞讚 诇讞诐 讛讗驻讜讬 讘转谞讜专 讗讞讚 拽专讜讬 诇讞诐 讜砖讗讬谉 讗驻讜讬 讘转谞讜专 讗讞讚 讗讬谉 拽专讜讬 诇讞诐


Rava said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda? As it is written: 鈥淎nd ten women shall bake your bread in one oven鈥 (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.


讬转讬讘 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讞讜专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 拽诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪注讜诇讗 讛讚讘讬拽 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛专转讬讞 诪讘讞讜抓 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讚讗讬 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬 讛讬 谞讬讛讜 诪注砖讛 讗讬诇驻住


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 岣lla 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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪注讜诇讗 讛讚讘讬拽 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜讗讘讜拽讛 讻谞讙讚讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讚讗讬 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬 专讜讘 注谞讬讬诐 注讜砖讬谉 讻谉


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.


讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 注讬住讛 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛讞诇讛 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讞讬讬讘转 讘讞诇讛


Rav Asi said: With regard to dough of second-tithe produce, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Meir, one is exempt from separating 岣lla 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 岣lla from it.


Scroll To Top