Pesachim 38

מצות של מעשר שני לדברי רבי מאיר אין אדם יוצא בה ידי חובתו בפסח לדברי חכמים יוצא בה ידי חובתו בפסח

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.

אתרוג של מעשר שני לדברי רבי מאיר אין יוצא בו ידי חובתו ביום טוב לדברי חכמים אדם יוצא בו ידי חובתו ביום טוב

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.

מתקיף לה רב פפא בשלמא עיסה דכתיב עריסתיכם משלכם

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

אתרוג נמי דכתיב ולקחתם לכם לכם משלכם יהא אלא מצה מי כתיב מצתכם

With regard to a citron too, a similar conclusion can be drawn, as it is written: “And 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” (Leviticus 23:40). Here too, the expression “for yourselves” 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.

אמר רבא ואיתימא רב יימר בר שלמיא אתיא לחם לחם כתיב הכא לחם עני וכתיב התם והיה באכלכם מלחם הארץ מה להלן משלכם אף כאן משלכם

Rava said, and some say Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya said: This principle can be derived by means of a verbal analogy between “bread” and “bread.” It is written here, with regard to matza: “Poor man’s bread” (Deuteronomy 16:3), and it is written there, with regard to ḥalla: “And 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” (Numbers 15:19). Just as there, in the case of ḥalla, 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.

לימא מסייע ליה עיסה של מעשר שני פטורה מן החלה דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים חייבת לימא מסייע היינו הך

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 ḥalla 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’s opinion.

הכי קאמר (ליה) לימא מדפליגי בעיסה בהנך נמי פליגי או דילמא שאני התם דכתיב עריסתיכם עריסתיכם תרי זימני

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 ḥalla, as it is written: “Your dough,” “your dough,” twice. This repetition might indicate that the mitzva of ḥalla applies only to one who maintains full ownership of the dough. Although Rabbi Meir contends that one need not separate ḥalla 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.

בעי רבי שמעון בן לקיש מהו שיצא אדם ידי חובתו בחלה של מעשר שני בירושלים אליבא דרבי יוסי הגלילי לא תיבעי לך השתא בחולין לא נפיק בחלתו מיבעיא כי תיבעי לך אליבא דרבי עקיבא

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 ḥalla 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 ḥalla, is it necessary to mention that one cannot fulfill his obligation with its ḥalla? When you raise the dilemma, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

בחולין הוא דנפיק דאי מיטמו יש להן היתר במושבות אבל חלה דאי מטמיא לית לה היתר במושבות ולשריפה אזלא לא נפיק

The Gemara explains: Unlike Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Akiva does not interpret the phrase “poor man’s bread [leḥem oni]” 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 ḥalla, 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 ḥalla cannot be used to fulfill one’s obligation.

או דילמא אמרינן הואיל ואילו לא קרא עליה שם ואיטמי אית לה היתר במושבות ונפיק בה השתא נמי נפיק

Or perhaps we say: Since, if one had not designated the produce as ḥalla 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 ḥalla. Since the sanctity is not inherent in the dough itself, it does not undermine its status as fit for matza.

איכא דאמרי הא ודאי לא תיבעי לך דודאי אמרינן הואיל כי תיבעי לך חלה הלקוח בכסף מעשר שני

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 ḥalla 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 ḥalla that was purchased with second-tithe money, as this type of food can be ritually purified if it becomes ritually impure.

ואליבא דרבנן לא תיבעי לך כיון דאמרי יפדה היינו מעשר כי תיבעי לך אליבא דרבי יהודה דאמר יקבר

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.

דתנן הלקוח בכסף מעשר שני שנטמא יפדה רבי יהודה אומר יקבר

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.

מי אמרינן הואיל ואי לא לקוח הוי והואיל ולא קרא עליה שם ואיטמי יש לו היתר במושבות ונפיק ביה השתא נמי נפיק ביה

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 ḥalla 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 ḥalla?

או דילמא חד הואיל אמרינן תרי הואיל לא אמרינן אמר רבא מסתברא שם מעשר חד הוא:

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 ḥalla 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 ḥalla separated from second tithe.

חלת תודה ורקיקי נזיר וכו׳: מנא הני מילי אמר רבה דאמר קרא

We learned in the mishna that if one prepared the loaves of a thanks-offering or a nazirite’s 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:

ושמרתם את המצות מצה המשתמרת לשם מצה יצתה זו שאין משתמרת לשם מצה אלא לשום זבח

“And 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’s 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.

רב יוסף אמר אמר קרא שבעת ימים מצות תאכלו מצה הנאכלת לשבעת ימים יצתה זו שאינה נאכלת לשבעת ימים אלא ליום ולילה

Rav Yosef said a different reason: One may not use matza prepared for a nazirite or a thanks-offering because the verse states: “Seven 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’s wafers or the loaves of a thanks-offering and which cannot be eaten for seven days, but only for one day and one night.

תניא כוותיה דרבה ותניא כוותיה דרב יוסף תניא כוותיה דרבה יכול יצא ידי חובתו בחלות תודה ורקיקי נזיר תלמוד לומר ושמרתם את המצות מצה המשתמרת לשם מצה יצתה זו שאינה משתמרת לשם מצה אלא לשום זבח

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’s wafers; therefore, the verse states: “And you shall guard the matzot,” 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.

תניא כוותיה דרב יוסף יכול יצא אדם ידי חובתו בחלות תודה ורקיקי נזיר תלמוד לומר שבעת ימים מצות תאכלו מצה הנאכלת לשבעה יצתה זו שאינה נאכלת לשבעה אלא ליום ולילה

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’s wafers; therefore, the verse states: “Seven days you shall eat matzot,” 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.

ותיפוק ליה מלחם עני מי שנאכל באנינות יצא זה שאינו נאכל באנינות אלא בשמחה

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’s wafers, from the phrase “bread of affliction [leḥem oni]” (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.

סבר לה כרבי עקיבא דאמר עני כתיב

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.

ותיפוק ליה דהוה ליה מצה עשירה

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’s wafers, from the fact that it is matza ashira, enhanced matza, as both the loaves of the thanks-offering and the nazirite’s 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.

אמר שמואל בר רב יצחק רביעית היא ומתחלקת היא לכמה חלות

Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: This is an incorrect definition, as the total amount of oil in these loaves or wafers is only a quarter–log, 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’s wafers are not matza ashira.

ותיפוק ליה דאינן נאכלות בכל מושבות

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’s 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.

אמר ריש לקיש זאת אומרת חלות תודה ורקיקי נזיר נאכלין בנוב וגבעון

Reish Lakish said: That is to say, the loaves of the thanks-offering and the nazirite’s 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: “In the place that the Lord shall choose” (Deuteronomy 12:5). This means that during that period the loaves of the thanks-offering and the nazirite’s 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’s wafers are still considered fit to be eaten anywhere in Israel.

תניא אמר רבי אילעאי שאלתי את רבי אליעזר מהו שיצא אדם בחלות תודה ורקיקי נזיר אמר לי לא שמעתי באתי ושאלתי לפני רבי יהושע אמר לי הרי אמרו חלות תודה ורקיקי נזיר שעשאן לעצמו אין אדם יוצא בהן למכור בשוק יוצא בהן

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’s 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’s 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.

כשבאתי והרציתי דברים לפני רבי אליעזר אמר לי ברית הן הן הדברים שנאמרו לו למשה בסיני איכא דאמרי ברית הן הן הדברים שנאמרו לו למשה בסיני ולא טעמא בעיא

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’t this halakha require a reason? Since there is no explicit tradition in this regard, it is necessary to provide a reason for this distinction.

וטעמא מאי אמר רבה כל לשוק אימלוכי מימלך אמר אי מזדבן מזדבן אי לא מזדבן איפוק בהו אנא:

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.