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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 29, 2020 | 讬状讚 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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of learning.

Pesachim 38

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Joanna Rom, marking the 23rd Yahrzeit of her father, Julius Rom z”l, “who was always a loving, supportive father to both his daughters and a strong role model for lifelong learning. I have no doubt he would have been supportive of our Daf Yomi adventure.” And by Becki Goldstein in memory of her father a Holocaust survivor, Yoel Ben Meir. “Always my guiding light who encouraged my unquestionable thirst for learning. He also imbued within me deep Emunah and taught me Hashem can say no and still love us like parents. 讬讛讬 讝讻专讜 讘专讜讱.”

Can one fulfill one’s obligation in matza from maaser sheni? It is dependent on the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding the status of maaser sheni – is it considered sanctified and belonging to God/the Temple or it is considered the owner’s property? The same debate would hold for the obligation of separating challa from maaser sheni produce and also for an etrog (and the other species on the first day of Sukkot. The matza loaves made for a nazir sacrifice or a thanks offering cannot be used for matza. Raba and rav Yosef each bring a different derivation from the Torah and a braita is brought to support each reading. The gemara asks why three other possible answers weren’t brought and explains why. Why is there a difference聽 in the law whether one prepared the loaves for a sacrifice or prepared them to sell to someone needing a sacrifice (in the latter, it could be used for matza)?

诪爪讜转 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞

With regard to matzot of second-tithe produce: In accordance with the statement of Rabbi Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation to eat matza on the first night of Passover with this matza. Rabbi Meir considers it consecrated property, and one must eat matza that belongs to him, not consecrated property. In accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, one can fulfill his obligation with this type of matza on the first night of Passover.

讗转专讜讙 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The same dispute applies to a citron of second-tithe produce: In accordance with the statement of Rabbi Meir, one cannot fulfill his obligation to take the four species on the first day of the festival of Sukkot with this citron. In accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, a person can use this citron to fulfill his obligation on the first day of the festival of Sukkot.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讘砖诇诪讗 注讬住讛 讚讻转讬讘 注专讬住转讬讻诐 诪砖诇讻诐

Rav Pappa strongly objects to this statement: Granted, one must separate 岣lla from this dough, as it is written: 鈥淥f the first of your dough you shall give to the Lord a portion [岣lla] for a gift throughout your generations鈥 (Numbers 15:21). This verse can be read in a very precise manner, so that the expression 鈥測our dough鈥 indicates that 岣lla is separated only from dough that belongs to you.

讗转专讜讙 谞诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞转诐 诇讻诐 诇讻诐 诪砖诇讻诐 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 诪爪讛 诪讬 讻转讬讘 诪爪转讻诐

With regard to a citron too, a similar conclusion can be drawn, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall take for yourselves on the first day a fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and boughs of thick trees and willows of the brook鈥 (Leviticus 23:40). Here too, the expression 鈥渇or yourselves鈥 indicates that what you take must belong to you. However, with regard to matza, is it written that you must use your own matza? Since there is no such requirement, it stands to reason that even consecrated matza is valid for this mitzva.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬讬诪专 讘专 砖诇诪讬讗 讗转讬讗 诇讞诐 诇讞诐 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 诇讞诐 注谞讬 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讜讛讬讛 讘讗讻诇讻诐 诪诇讞诐 讛讗专抓 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪砖诇讻诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪砖诇讻诐

Rava said, and some say Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya said: This principle can be derived by means of a verbal analogy between 鈥渂read鈥 and 鈥渂read.鈥 It is written here, with regard to matza: 鈥淧oor man鈥檚 bread鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:3), and it is written there, with regard to 岣lla: 鈥淎nd it shall be that when you eat of the bread of the land, you shall set apart a portion for a gift to the Lord鈥 (Numbers 15:19). Just as there, in the case of 岣lla, it must be separated only from food that belongs to you, so too here, with regard to matza, it must be prepared only from produce that belongs to you.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 注讬住讛 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛讞诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞讬讬讘转 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports Rav Asi: With regard to dough of second-tithe produce, one is exempt from separating 岣lla from it; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: One is obligated in this mitzva. Since this is a conclusive proof, the Gemara expresses surprise at the formulation: Let us say that it supports him. This statement is identical to that one; i.e., the ruling of the baraita is identical to Rav Asi鈥檚 opinion.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 (诇讬讛) 诇讬诪讗 诪讚驻诇讬讙讬 讘注讬住讛 讘讛谞讱 谞诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 注专讬住转讬讻诐 注专讬住转讬讻诐 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬

The Gemara explains: This is what the statement: Let us say, is saying: Let us say from the fact that they disagree with regard to dough, so too, they disagree with regard to these other issues. Or perhaps it is different there, with regard to 岣lla, as it is written: 鈥淵our dough,鈥 鈥測our dough,鈥 twice. This repetition might indicate that the mitzva of 岣lla applies only to one who maintains full ownership of the dough. Although Rabbi Meir contends that one need not separate 岣lla from second-tithe produce, he does not necessarily issue a similar ruling with regard to matza or a citron, as there is no explicit proof to this effect.

讘注讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪讛讜 砖讬爪讗 讗讚诐 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讞诇讛 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讛砖转讗 讘讞讜诇讬谉 诇讗 谞驻讬拽 讘讞诇转讜 诪讬讘注讬讗 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to the possibility that a person can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with 岣lla separated from second-tithe dough in Jerusalem? The Gemara clarifies this dilemma: In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, do not raise this dilemma. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili maintains that one can fulfill his obligation to eat matza only with food that may be eaten in a state of acute mourning. The Gemara explains why the dilemma does not arise according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: Now that it has been mentioned that one cannot fulfill his obligation with the non-sacred portion of second-tithe produce, i.e., with that which was not sanctified as 岣lla, is it necessary to mention that one cannot fulfill his obligation with its 岣lla? When you raise the dilemma, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

讘讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讚谞驻讬拽 讚讗讬 诪讬讟诪讜 讬砖 诇讛谉 讛讬转专 讘诪讜砖讘讜转 讗讘诇 讞诇讛 讚讗讬 诪讟诪讬讗 诇讬转 诇讛 讛讬转专 讘诪讜砖讘讜转 讜诇砖专讬驻讛 讗讝诇讗 诇讗 谞驻讬拽

The Gemara explains: Unlike Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Akiva does not interpret the phrase 鈥減oor man鈥檚 bread [le岣m oni]鈥 as though it were written with an alef, which indicates that it is referring to the bread of acute mourning [aninut], i.e., the period of mourning on the day of the death of a close relative. Consequently, the following dilemma arises: It can be suggested that it is with the non-sacred portion of the second-tithe produce that one can fulfill his obligation, for if the produce becomes ritually impure it can be permitted to be eaten in any habitation in Israel after it has been redeemed. Rabbi Akiva agrees that any food that can be eaten in an unrestricted manner in certain circumstances can also be used for the obligation to eat matza. However, with regard to 岣lla, which, if it becomes ritually impure, cannot be permitted to be eaten in any habitation, but goes, i.e., it is slated for burning, this 岣lla cannot be used to fulfill one鈥檚 obligation.

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬诇讜 诇讗 拽专讗 注诇讬讛 砖诐 讜讗讬讟诪讬 讗讬转 诇讛 讛讬转专 讘诪讜砖讘讜转 讜谞驻讬拽 讘讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 谞驻讬拽

Or perhaps we say: Since, if one had not designated the produce as 岣lla and it had become ritually impure, it could be redeemed and be permitted to be eaten in any habitation, and one could fulfill the obligation of matza with it, now too, one can fulfill his obligation with it, despite the fact that it has been designated as 岣lla. Since the sanctity is not inherent in the dough itself, it does not undermine its status as fit for matza.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讜讚讗讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讞诇讛 讛诇拽讜讞 讘讻住祝 诪注砖专 砖谞讬

Some say a different version of this analysis: With regard to this case, certainly do not raise the dilemma, as here we certainly apply the principle of: Since, as stated above. In other words, there is no doubt that 岣lla taken from second-tithe produce can be used for matza, as its sanctity is not inherent. Rather, when you raise the dilemma, it is with regard to 岣lla that was purchased with second-tithe money, as this type of food can be ritually purified if it becomes ritually impure.

讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专讬 讬驻讚讛 讛讬讬谞讜 诪注砖专 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讬拽讘专

And furthermore, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, do not raise this dilemma, since they say that it can be redeemed for a second time; this case is identical to the case of second-tithe produce itself. In this regard, the Rabbis do not distinguish between the money with which the second tithe was redeemed and the second-tithe produce itself. Rather, when you raise the dilemma, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that an object that was purchased with second-tithe money and that became ritually impure must be buried.

讚转谞谉 讛诇拽讜讞 讘讻住祝 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖谞讟诪讗 讬驻讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬拽讘专

As we learned in a mishna with regard to food that was purchased with second-tithe money that became ritually impure, this ritually impure food should be redeemed for money, with which one must purchase other food. Rabbi Yehuda says: It should be buried. Since this food was merely purchased with second-tithe money, it does not have the same degree of sanctity as the tithe itself. Therefore, its status as a second-tithe object cannot be transferred to yet a third object. Consequently, if it becomes impure, it cannot be redeemed for money but must be buried as an item for which there is no use.

诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇拽讜讞 讛讜讬 讜讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 拽专讗 注诇讬讛 砖诐 讜讗讬讟诪讬 讬砖 诇讜 讛讬转专 讘诪讜砖讘讜转 讜谞驻讬拽 讘讬讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 谞驻讬拽 讘讬讛

The Gemara clarifies the aforementioned dilemma: Do we say the following: Since, if it were not purchased with second-tithe money, and furthermore, since, if one had not designated it as 岣lla and it became ritually impure, this produce would be permitted to be eaten in any habitation, one can therefore fulfill his obligation with it even after its status has changed by being purchased with second-tithe money and designated as 岣lla?

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讞讚 讛讜讗讬诇 讗诪专讬谞谉 转专讬 讛讜讗讬诇 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪住转讘专讗 砖诐 诪注砖专 讞讚 讛讜讗:

Or perhaps we say one of these logical arguments starting with: Since, but we do not say two arguments of: Since. If so, one cannot fulfill his obligation with matza of 岣lla separated from second tithe. Rava said: It stands to reason that the category of tithe is a single designation. In other words, provided that the food is included in the general framework of second tithe, it can be used for matza, and this applies even to the 岣lla separated from second tithe.

讞诇转 转讜讚讛 讜专拽讬拽讬 谞讝讬专 讜讻讜壮: 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗

We learned in the mishna that if one prepared the loaves of a thanks-offering or a nazirite鈥檚 wafers for himself, he cannot use them to fulfill his obligation to eat matza on Passover. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabba said: As the verse states:

讜砖诪专转诐 讗转 讛诪爪讜转 诪爪讛 讛诪砖转诪专转 诇砖诐 诪爪讛 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讗讬谉 诪砖转诪专转 诇砖诐 诪爪讛 讗诇讗 诇砖讜诐 讝讘讞

鈥淎nd you shall guard the matzot (Exodus 12:17). This verse teaches that one may use only matza that has been guarded from becoming leavened for the purpose of matza, i.e., with the intention of fulfilling one鈥檚 obligation of matza with it. This explanation excludes this matza, which was prepared for a nazirite or a thanks-offering and which was not guarded for the purpose of matza but for the purpose of a sacrifice.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 诪爪讜转 转讗讻诇讜 诪爪讛 讛谞讗讻诇转 诇砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讗讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇转 诇砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讬讜诐 讜诇讬诇讛

Rav Yosef said a different reason: One may not use matza prepared for a nazirite or a thanks-offering because the verse states: 鈥淪even days you shall eat matzot (Exodus 12:15), which indicates that one can fulfill his obligation only with matza that can be eaten for all seven days. This requirement excludes this matza, which is of nazirite鈥檚 wafers or the loaves of a thanks-offering and which cannot be eaten for seven days, but only for one day and one night.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讛 讜转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讛 讬讻讜诇 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讞诇讜转 转讜讚讛 讜专拽讬拽讬 谞讝讬专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜砖诪专转诐 讗转 讛诪爪讜转 诪爪讛 讛诪砖转诪专转 诇砖诐 诪爪讛 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讗讬谞讛 诪砖转诪专转 诇砖诐 诪爪讛 讗诇讗 诇砖讜诐 讝讘讞

The Gemara comments: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, and it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef. The Gemara elaborates: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabba: I might have thought that one can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with the loaves of a thanks-offering or a nazirite鈥檚 wafers; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall guard the matzot,鈥 indicating that one must use matza that has been guarded from becoming leavened for the purpose of matza on Passover. This requirement excludes this matza, which was not guarded for the purpose of matza but for the purpose of a sacrifice.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讬讻讜诇 讬爪讗 讗讚诐 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讞诇讜转 转讜讚讛 讜专拽讬拽讬 谞讝讬专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 诪爪讜转 转讗讻诇讜 诪爪讛 讛谞讗讻诇转 诇砖讘注讛 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讗讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇转 诇砖讘注讛 讗诇讗 诇讬讜诐 讜诇讬诇讛

It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef: I might have thought that a person can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with the loaves of a thanks-offering or a nazirite鈥檚 wafers; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淪even days you shall eat matzot,鈥 from which it is inferred that one must fulfill this obligation with matza that can be eaten for all seven days. This requirement excludes this matza, as it cannot be eaten for seven days but only for a day and a night.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪诇讞诐 注谞讬 诪讬 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

The Gemara asks a question of both opinions: And let him derive this halakha, that one cannot fulfill his obligation to eat matza with the loaves of a thanks-offering or a nazirite鈥檚 wafers, from the phrase 鈥渂read of affliction [le岣m oni]鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:3). According to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, this phrase means: One can fulfill his obligation to eat matza only with food that may be eaten in a state of acute mourning. This requirement excludes this matza, i.e., the loaves of the thanks-offering and the nazirite wafers, which is not eaten in a state of acute mourning but in a state of joy, as an acute mourner is prohibited from eating sacrificial foods.

住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 注谞讬 讻转讬讘

The Gemara answers: Rabba and Rav Yosef both maintain in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said that since oni, meaning poverty, is written, the matza must be bread of poverty. According to Rabbi Akiva, this phrase does not teach the halakha pertaining to consumption by acute mourners.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪爪讛 注砖讬专讛

The Gemara asks another question: And let him derive this halakha, that one cannot fulfill his obligation to eat matza with the loaves of a thanks-offering or a nazirite鈥檚 wafers, from the fact that it is matza ashira, enhanced matza, as both the loaves of the thanks-offering and the nazirite鈥檚 wafers contain oil. Matza that contains ingredients besides flour and water is classified as matza ashira and cannot be used for the mitzva of eating matza on the first night of Passover.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 专讘讬注讬转 讛讬讗 讜诪转讞诇拽转 讛讬讗 诇讻诪讛 讞诇讜转

Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k said: This is an incorrect definition, as the total amount of oil in these loaves or wafers is only a quarterlog, and as this small amount of oil is divided between several loaves, it is nullified in the mixture. Consequently, the loaves of the thanks-offering and the nazirite鈥檚 wafers are not matza ashira.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讗讬谞谉 谞讗讻诇讜转 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘讜转

The Gemara again asks: And let him derive this halakha, that one cannot fulfill his obligation to eat matza with the loaves of a thanks-offering or a nazirite鈥檚 wafers from that fact that these types of bread cannot be eaten in every habitation. It was previously stated that the obligation to eat matza can be fulfilled only with food that can be eaten anywhere in Israel, whereas offerings may be eaten only in Jerusalem.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讞诇讜转 转讜讚讛 讜专拽讬拽讬 谞讝讬专 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讘谞讜讘 讜讙讘注讜谉

Reish Lakish said: That is to say, the loaves of the thanks-offering and the nazirite鈥檚 wafers may be eaten in Nov and Givon. In other words, the omission of this reason indicates that offerings could have been sacrificed on the communal altars during the period when improvised altars were permitted, before the Temple was built. These offerings are not among those that can be sacrificed only: 鈥淚n the place that the Lord shall choose鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:5). This means that during that period the loaves of the thanks-offering and the nazirite鈥檚 wafers could indeed have been eaten anywhere, as improvised altars were built in any place. Consequently, even after the Temple was built, the loaves of the thanks-offering and the nazirite鈥檚 wafers are still considered fit to be eaten anywhere in Israel.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 砖讗诇转讬 讗转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讛讜 砖讬爪讗 讗讚诐 讘讞诇讜转 转讜讚讛 讜专拽讬拽讬 谞讝讬专 讗诪专 诇讬 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讘讗转讬 讜砖讗诇转讬 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诇讬 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讞诇讜转 转讜讚讛 讜专拽讬拽讬 谞讝讬专 砖注砖讗谉 诇注爪诪讜 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 诇诪讻讜专 讘砖讜拽 讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ilai said: I asked Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus: What is the halakha with regard to the possibility that a person can fulfill the obligation to eat matza with the loaves of a thanks-offering or a nazirite鈥檚 wafers? He said to me: I did not hear anything about this issue. I went and asked Rabbi Yehoshua, who said to me: They said, concerning loaves for a thanks-offering or a nazirite鈥檚 wafers that one prepared for his own offering, that a person cannot fulfill his obligation with them. However, if one baked them to sell in the market, he can fulfill his obligation with them.

讻砖讘讗转讬 讜讛专爪讬转讬 讚讘专讬诐 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 诇讬 讘专讬转 讛谉 讛谉 讛讚讘专讬诐 砖谞讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇诪砖讛 讘住讬谞讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘专讬转 讛谉 讛谉 讛讚讘专讬诐 砖谞讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇诪砖讛 讘住讬谞讬 讜诇讗 讟注诪讗 讘注讬讗

When I returned and recited these matters to Rabbi Eliezer, he said to me in excitement: By the covenant, these are the very matters that were stated to Moses on Mount Sinai. Rabbi Eliezer swore that this halakha had been transmitted over the generations going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. Some say he spoke in astonishment: By the covenant! Are these in fact the matters that were stated to Moses on Mount Sinai? And doesn鈥檛 this halakha require a reason? Since there is no explicit tradition in this regard, it is necessary to provide a reason for this distinction.

讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讻诇 诇砖讜拽 讗讬诪诇讜讻讬 诪讬诪诇讱 讗诪专 讗讬 诪讝讚讘谉 诪讝讚讘谉 讗讬 诇讗 诪讝讚讘谉 讗讬驻讜拽 讘讛讜 讗谞讗:

The Gemara asks: And indeed, what is the reason for this distinction between these loaves one prepared for himself and those he intended to sell in the market? Rabba said: With regard to anything sold in the market, the merchant may change his mind about it. He might say: If it is sold, it is sold; but if it is not sold for an offering, I will fulfill my obligation to eat matza with it. Since the merchant had in mind from the outset that these matzot might be used for the mitzva on Passover, he is permitted to use them to fulfill his obligation.

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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of learning.

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...

Pesachim 38

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 38

诪爪讜转 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞

With regard to matzot of second-tithe produce: In accordance with the statement of Rabbi Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation to eat matza on the first night of Passover with this matza. Rabbi Meir considers it consecrated property, and one must eat matza that belongs to him, not consecrated property. In accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, one can fulfill his obligation with this type of matza on the first night of Passover.

讗转专讜讙 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The same dispute applies to a citron of second-tithe produce: In accordance with the statement of Rabbi Meir, one cannot fulfill his obligation to take the four species on the first day of the festival of Sukkot with this citron. In accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, a person can use this citron to fulfill his obligation on the first day of the festival of Sukkot.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讘砖诇诪讗 注讬住讛 讚讻转讬讘 注专讬住转讬讻诐 诪砖诇讻诐

Rav Pappa strongly objects to this statement: Granted, one must separate 岣lla from this dough, as it is written: 鈥淥f the first of your dough you shall give to the Lord a portion [岣lla] for a gift throughout your generations鈥 (Numbers 15:21). This verse can be read in a very precise manner, so that the expression 鈥測our dough鈥 indicates that 岣lla is separated only from dough that belongs to you.

讗转专讜讙 谞诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞转诐 诇讻诐 诇讻诐 诪砖诇讻诐 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 诪爪讛 诪讬 讻转讬讘 诪爪转讻诐

With regard to a citron too, a similar conclusion can be drawn, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall take for yourselves on the first day a fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and boughs of thick trees and willows of the brook鈥 (Leviticus 23:40). Here too, the expression 鈥渇or yourselves鈥 indicates that what you take must belong to you. However, with regard to matza, is it written that you must use your own matza? Since there is no such requirement, it stands to reason that even consecrated matza is valid for this mitzva.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬讬诪专 讘专 砖诇诪讬讗 讗转讬讗 诇讞诐 诇讞诐 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 诇讞诐 注谞讬 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讜讛讬讛 讘讗讻诇讻诐 诪诇讞诐 讛讗专抓 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪砖诇讻诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪砖诇讻诐

Rava said, and some say Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya said: This principle can be derived by means of a verbal analogy between 鈥渂read鈥 and 鈥渂read.鈥 It is written here, with regard to matza: 鈥淧oor man鈥檚 bread鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:3), and it is written there, with regard to 岣lla: 鈥淎nd it shall be that when you eat of the bread of the land, you shall set apart a portion for a gift to the Lord鈥 (Numbers 15:19). Just as there, in the case of 岣lla, it must be separated only from food that belongs to you, so too here, with regard to matza, it must be prepared only from produce that belongs to you.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 注讬住讛 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛讞诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞讬讬讘转 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports Rav Asi: With regard to dough of second-tithe produce, one is exempt from separating 岣lla from it; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: One is obligated in this mitzva. Since this is a conclusive proof, the Gemara expresses surprise at the formulation: Let us say that it supports him. This statement is identical to that one; i.e., the ruling of the baraita is identical to Rav Asi鈥檚 opinion.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 (诇讬讛) 诇讬诪讗 诪讚驻诇讬讙讬 讘注讬住讛 讘讛谞讱 谞诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 注专讬住转讬讻诐 注专讬住转讬讻诐 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬

The Gemara explains: This is what the statement: Let us say, is saying: Let us say from the fact that they disagree with regard to dough, so too, they disagree with regard to these other issues. Or perhaps it is different there, with regard to 岣lla, as it is written: 鈥淵our dough,鈥 鈥測our dough,鈥 twice. This repetition might indicate that the mitzva of 岣lla applies only to one who maintains full ownership of the dough. Although Rabbi Meir contends that one need not separate 岣lla from second-tithe produce, he does not necessarily issue a similar ruling with regard to matza or a citron, as there is no explicit proof to this effect.

讘注讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪讛讜 砖讬爪讗 讗讚诐 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讞诇讛 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讛砖转讗 讘讞讜诇讬谉 诇讗 谞驻讬拽 讘讞诇转讜 诪讬讘注讬讗 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to the possibility that a person can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with 岣lla separated from second-tithe dough in Jerusalem? The Gemara clarifies this dilemma: In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, do not raise this dilemma. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili maintains that one can fulfill his obligation to eat matza only with food that may be eaten in a state of acute mourning. The Gemara explains why the dilemma does not arise according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: Now that it has been mentioned that one cannot fulfill his obligation with the non-sacred portion of second-tithe produce, i.e., with that which was not sanctified as 岣lla, is it necessary to mention that one cannot fulfill his obligation with its 岣lla? When you raise the dilemma, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

讘讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讚谞驻讬拽 讚讗讬 诪讬讟诪讜 讬砖 诇讛谉 讛讬转专 讘诪讜砖讘讜转 讗讘诇 讞诇讛 讚讗讬 诪讟诪讬讗 诇讬转 诇讛 讛讬转专 讘诪讜砖讘讜转 讜诇砖专讬驻讛 讗讝诇讗 诇讗 谞驻讬拽

The Gemara explains: Unlike Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Akiva does not interpret the phrase 鈥減oor man鈥檚 bread [le岣m oni]鈥 as though it were written with an alef, which indicates that it is referring to the bread of acute mourning [aninut], i.e., the period of mourning on the day of the death of a close relative. Consequently, the following dilemma arises: It can be suggested that it is with the non-sacred portion of the second-tithe produce that one can fulfill his obligation, for if the produce becomes ritually impure it can be permitted to be eaten in any habitation in Israel after it has been redeemed. Rabbi Akiva agrees that any food that can be eaten in an unrestricted manner in certain circumstances can also be used for the obligation to eat matza. However, with regard to 岣lla, which, if it becomes ritually impure, cannot be permitted to be eaten in any habitation, but goes, i.e., it is slated for burning, this 岣lla cannot be used to fulfill one鈥檚 obligation.

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬诇讜 诇讗 拽专讗 注诇讬讛 砖诐 讜讗讬讟诪讬 讗讬转 诇讛 讛讬转专 讘诪讜砖讘讜转 讜谞驻讬拽 讘讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 谞驻讬拽

Or perhaps we say: Since, if one had not designated the produce as 岣lla and it had become ritually impure, it could be redeemed and be permitted to be eaten in any habitation, and one could fulfill the obligation of matza with it, now too, one can fulfill his obligation with it, despite the fact that it has been designated as 岣lla. Since the sanctity is not inherent in the dough itself, it does not undermine its status as fit for matza.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讜讚讗讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讞诇讛 讛诇拽讜讞 讘讻住祝 诪注砖专 砖谞讬

Some say a different version of this analysis: With regard to this case, certainly do not raise the dilemma, as here we certainly apply the principle of: Since, as stated above. In other words, there is no doubt that 岣lla taken from second-tithe produce can be used for matza, as its sanctity is not inherent. Rather, when you raise the dilemma, it is with regard to 岣lla that was purchased with second-tithe money, as this type of food can be ritually purified if it becomes ritually impure.

讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专讬 讬驻讚讛 讛讬讬谞讜 诪注砖专 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讬拽讘专

And furthermore, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, do not raise this dilemma, since they say that it can be redeemed for a second time; this case is identical to the case of second-tithe produce itself. In this regard, the Rabbis do not distinguish between the money with which the second tithe was redeemed and the second-tithe produce itself. Rather, when you raise the dilemma, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that an object that was purchased with second-tithe money and that became ritually impure must be buried.

讚转谞谉 讛诇拽讜讞 讘讻住祝 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖谞讟诪讗 讬驻讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬拽讘专

As we learned in a mishna with regard to food that was purchased with second-tithe money that became ritually impure, this ritually impure food should be redeemed for money, with which one must purchase other food. Rabbi Yehuda says: It should be buried. Since this food was merely purchased with second-tithe money, it does not have the same degree of sanctity as the tithe itself. Therefore, its status as a second-tithe object cannot be transferred to yet a third object. Consequently, if it becomes impure, it cannot be redeemed for money but must be buried as an item for which there is no use.

诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇拽讜讞 讛讜讬 讜讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 拽专讗 注诇讬讛 砖诐 讜讗讬讟诪讬 讬砖 诇讜 讛讬转专 讘诪讜砖讘讜转 讜谞驻讬拽 讘讬讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 谞驻讬拽 讘讬讛

The Gemara clarifies the aforementioned dilemma: Do we say the following: Since, if it were not purchased with second-tithe money, and furthermore, since, if one had not designated it as 岣lla and it became ritually impure, this produce would be permitted to be eaten in any habitation, one can therefore fulfill his obligation with it even after its status has changed by being purchased with second-tithe money and designated as 岣lla?

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讞讚 讛讜讗讬诇 讗诪专讬谞谉 转专讬 讛讜讗讬诇 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪住转讘专讗 砖诐 诪注砖专 讞讚 讛讜讗:

Or perhaps we say one of these logical arguments starting with: Since, but we do not say two arguments of: Since. If so, one cannot fulfill his obligation with matza of 岣lla separated from second tithe. Rava said: It stands to reason that the category of tithe is a single designation. In other words, provided that the food is included in the general framework of second tithe, it can be used for matza, and this applies even to the 岣lla separated from second tithe.

讞诇转 转讜讚讛 讜专拽讬拽讬 谞讝讬专 讜讻讜壮: 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗

We learned in the mishna that if one prepared the loaves of a thanks-offering or a nazirite鈥檚 wafers for himself, he cannot use them to fulfill his obligation to eat matza on Passover. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabba said: As the verse states:

讜砖诪专转诐 讗转 讛诪爪讜转 诪爪讛 讛诪砖转诪专转 诇砖诐 诪爪讛 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讗讬谉 诪砖转诪专转 诇砖诐 诪爪讛 讗诇讗 诇砖讜诐 讝讘讞

鈥淎nd you shall guard the matzot (Exodus 12:17). This verse teaches that one may use only matza that has been guarded from becoming leavened for the purpose of matza, i.e., with the intention of fulfilling one鈥檚 obligation of matza with it. This explanation excludes this matza, which was prepared for a nazirite or a thanks-offering and which was not guarded for the purpose of matza but for the purpose of a sacrifice.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 诪爪讜转 转讗讻诇讜 诪爪讛 讛谞讗讻诇转 诇砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讗讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇转 诇砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讬讜诐 讜诇讬诇讛

Rav Yosef said a different reason: One may not use matza prepared for a nazirite or a thanks-offering because the verse states: 鈥淪even days you shall eat matzot (Exodus 12:15), which indicates that one can fulfill his obligation only with matza that can be eaten for all seven days. This requirement excludes this matza, which is of nazirite鈥檚 wafers or the loaves of a thanks-offering and which cannot be eaten for seven days, but only for one day and one night.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讛 讜转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讛 讬讻讜诇 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讞诇讜转 转讜讚讛 讜专拽讬拽讬 谞讝讬专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜砖诪专转诐 讗转 讛诪爪讜转 诪爪讛 讛诪砖转诪专转 诇砖诐 诪爪讛 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讗讬谞讛 诪砖转诪专转 诇砖诐 诪爪讛 讗诇讗 诇砖讜诐 讝讘讞

The Gemara comments: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, and it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef. The Gemara elaborates: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabba: I might have thought that one can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with the loaves of a thanks-offering or a nazirite鈥檚 wafers; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall guard the matzot,鈥 indicating that one must use matza that has been guarded from becoming leavened for the purpose of matza on Passover. This requirement excludes this matza, which was not guarded for the purpose of matza but for the purpose of a sacrifice.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讬讻讜诇 讬爪讗 讗讚诐 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讞诇讜转 转讜讚讛 讜专拽讬拽讬 谞讝讬专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 诪爪讜转 转讗讻诇讜 诪爪讛 讛谞讗讻诇转 诇砖讘注讛 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讗讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇转 诇砖讘注讛 讗诇讗 诇讬讜诐 讜诇讬诇讛

It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef: I might have thought that a person can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with the loaves of a thanks-offering or a nazirite鈥檚 wafers; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淪even days you shall eat matzot,鈥 from which it is inferred that one must fulfill this obligation with matza that can be eaten for all seven days. This requirement excludes this matza, as it cannot be eaten for seven days but only for a day and a night.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪诇讞诐 注谞讬 诪讬 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

The Gemara asks a question of both opinions: And let him derive this halakha, that one cannot fulfill his obligation to eat matza with the loaves of a thanks-offering or a nazirite鈥檚 wafers, from the phrase 鈥渂read of affliction [le岣m oni]鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:3). According to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, this phrase means: One can fulfill his obligation to eat matza only with food that may be eaten in a state of acute mourning. This requirement excludes this matza, i.e., the loaves of the thanks-offering and the nazirite wafers, which is not eaten in a state of acute mourning but in a state of joy, as an acute mourner is prohibited from eating sacrificial foods.

住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 注谞讬 讻转讬讘

The Gemara answers: Rabba and Rav Yosef both maintain in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said that since oni, meaning poverty, is written, the matza must be bread of poverty. According to Rabbi Akiva, this phrase does not teach the halakha pertaining to consumption by acute mourners.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪爪讛 注砖讬专讛

The Gemara asks another question: And let him derive this halakha, that one cannot fulfill his obligation to eat matza with the loaves of a thanks-offering or a nazirite鈥檚 wafers, from the fact that it is matza ashira, enhanced matza, as both the loaves of the thanks-offering and the nazirite鈥檚 wafers contain oil. Matza that contains ingredients besides flour and water is classified as matza ashira and cannot be used for the mitzva of eating matza on the first night of Passover.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 专讘讬注讬转 讛讬讗 讜诪转讞诇拽转 讛讬讗 诇讻诪讛 讞诇讜转

Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k said: This is an incorrect definition, as the total amount of oil in these loaves or wafers is only a quarterlog, and as this small amount of oil is divided between several loaves, it is nullified in the mixture. Consequently, the loaves of the thanks-offering and the nazirite鈥檚 wafers are not matza ashira.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讗讬谞谉 谞讗讻诇讜转 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘讜转

The Gemara again asks: And let him derive this halakha, that one cannot fulfill his obligation to eat matza with the loaves of a thanks-offering or a nazirite鈥檚 wafers from that fact that these types of bread cannot be eaten in every habitation. It was previously stated that the obligation to eat matza can be fulfilled only with food that can be eaten anywhere in Israel, whereas offerings may be eaten only in Jerusalem.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讞诇讜转 转讜讚讛 讜专拽讬拽讬 谞讝讬专 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讘谞讜讘 讜讙讘注讜谉

Reish Lakish said: That is to say, the loaves of the thanks-offering and the nazirite鈥檚 wafers may be eaten in Nov and Givon. In other words, the omission of this reason indicates that offerings could have been sacrificed on the communal altars during the period when improvised altars were permitted, before the Temple was built. These offerings are not among those that can be sacrificed only: 鈥淚n the place that the Lord shall choose鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:5). This means that during that period the loaves of the thanks-offering and the nazirite鈥檚 wafers could indeed have been eaten anywhere, as improvised altars were built in any place. Consequently, even after the Temple was built, the loaves of the thanks-offering and the nazirite鈥檚 wafers are still considered fit to be eaten anywhere in Israel.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗讬 砖讗诇转讬 讗转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讛讜 砖讬爪讗 讗讚诐 讘讞诇讜转 转讜讚讛 讜专拽讬拽讬 谞讝讬专 讗诪专 诇讬 诇讗 砖诪注转讬 讘讗转讬 讜砖讗诇转讬 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诇讬 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讞诇讜转 转讜讚讛 讜专拽讬拽讬 谞讝讬专 砖注砖讗谉 诇注爪诪讜 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 诇诪讻讜专 讘砖讜拽 讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ilai said: I asked Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus: What is the halakha with regard to the possibility that a person can fulfill the obligation to eat matza with the loaves of a thanks-offering or a nazirite鈥檚 wafers? He said to me: I did not hear anything about this issue. I went and asked Rabbi Yehoshua, who said to me: They said, concerning loaves for a thanks-offering or a nazirite鈥檚 wafers that one prepared for his own offering, that a person cannot fulfill his obligation with them. However, if one baked them to sell in the market, he can fulfill his obligation with them.

讻砖讘讗转讬 讜讛专爪讬转讬 讚讘专讬诐 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 诇讬 讘专讬转 讛谉 讛谉 讛讚讘专讬诐 砖谞讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇诪砖讛 讘住讬谞讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘专讬转 讛谉 讛谉 讛讚讘专讬诐 砖谞讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇诪砖讛 讘住讬谞讬 讜诇讗 讟注诪讗 讘注讬讗

When I returned and recited these matters to Rabbi Eliezer, he said to me in excitement: By the covenant, these are the very matters that were stated to Moses on Mount Sinai. Rabbi Eliezer swore that this halakha had been transmitted over the generations going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. Some say he spoke in astonishment: By the covenant! Are these in fact the matters that were stated to Moses on Mount Sinai? And doesn鈥檛 this halakha require a reason? Since there is no explicit tradition in this regard, it is necessary to provide a reason for this distinction.

讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讻诇 诇砖讜拽 讗讬诪诇讜讻讬 诪讬诪诇讱 讗诪专 讗讬 诪讝讚讘谉 诪讝讚讘谉 讗讬 诇讗 诪讝讚讘谉 讗讬驻讜拽 讘讛讜 讗谞讗:

The Gemara asks: And indeed, what is the reason for this distinction between these loaves one prepared for himself and those he intended to sell in the market? Rabba said: With regard to anything sold in the market, the merchant may change his mind about it. He might say: If it is sold, it is sold; but if it is not sold for an offering, I will fulfill my obligation to eat matza with it. Since the merchant had in mind from the outset that these matzot might be used for the mitzva on Passover, he is permitted to use them to fulfill his obligation.

Scroll To Top