Pesachim 43
שֶׁהִגִּיעוּ לְפִרְקָן, וְלֹא הִגִּיעוּ לְשָׁנִים, בְּנוֹת עֲנִיִּים — טוֹפְלוֹת אוֹתָן בְּסִיד, בְּנוֹת עֲשִׁירִים — טוֹפְלוֹת אוֹתָן בְּסוֹלֶת, בְּנוֹת מְלָכִים — בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמּוֹר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמּוֹר״.
who reached physical maturity, but had not yet reached the age of majority, and women who sought to remove hair for cosmetic purposes: They would smear daughters of the poor with lime; they would smear daughters of the wealthy with fine flour; they would smear daughters of kings with shemen hamor, as it was stated: “For so were the days of their anointing filled, six months with shemen hamor” (Esther 2:12).
מַאי ״שֶׁמֶן הַמּוֹר״? רַב הוּנָא בַּר יִרְמְיָה אוֹמֵר: סְטָכַת. רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר: שֶׁמֶן זַיִת שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁלִישׁ.
The Gemara asks: What is shemen hamor? Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said: Setaket. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said: It is olive oil extracted from an olive that has not yet reached a third of its growth; the acidic oil is effective as a depilatory.
תַּנְיָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַנְפִּיקְנִין — שֶׁמֶן זַיִת שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁלִישׁ, וְלָמָּה סָכִין אוֹתוֹ? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּשִּׁיר אֶת הַשֵּׂיעָר וּמְעַדֵּן אֶת הַבָּשָׂר.
It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that anpiknin is olive oil from an olive that has not reached a third of its growth. And why is it spread on the body? It is due to the fact that it removes [mashir] the hair and pampers the skin.
זֶה הַכְּלָל כׇּל שֶׁהוּא מִמִּין דָּגָן. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ כֹּל שֶׁהוּא מִין דָּגָן הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹבֵר בְּפֶסַח, לָמָּה מָנוּ חֲכָמִים אֶת אֵלּוּ? כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא רָגִיל בָּהֶן וּבִשְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן.
The mishna states: This is the principle: One violates these prohibitions on Passover with anything that is prepared from a type of grain. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua said: Now that we learned that by possessing anything that is a type of grain one violates the prohibition against leaven during Passover, why did the Sages list these items individually? They could have simply stated the principle. The baraita explains that the Sages provided a list of prohibited foods so that one would become familiar with these items and with their names, so that it would become widely known that these foods contain a small quantity of grain.
כִּי הָא דְּהָהוּא בַּר מַעְרְבָא אִיקְּלַע לְבָבֶל, הֲוָה בִּישְׂרָא בַּהֲדֵיהּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: קָרִיבוּ לִי מַתְכִּילְתָּא. שְׁמַע דְּקָאָמְרִי: קָרִיבוּ לֵיהּ כּוּתָּח. כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁמַע כּוּתָּח — פֵּירַשׁ.
The Gemara cites an incident that underscores the significance of familiarity with the names of foods: As in this case of that man from the West, Eretz Yisrael, who visited Babylonia, and had meat with him, he said to his hosts: Bring me a dip with which to eat my bread. He heard them saying: Bring him kutaḥ. Since he heard the word kutaḥ, he stopped eating, as he knew that kutaḥ contains milk and may not be eaten with meat. This incident underscores that it is advantageous for one to familiarize himself with the names and ingredients of different foods, so that he will be aware of the nature of the food even if he does not recognize it.
הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בְּאַזְהָרָה.
It is stated in the mishna: These substances are included in the prohibition but are not punishable by karet.
מַאן תַּנָּא דְּחָמֵץ דָּגָן גָּמוּר עַל יְדֵי תַּעֲרוֹבוֹת, וְנוּקְשֶׁה בְּעֵינֵיהּ בְּלָאו?
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who maintains that both full-fledged, leavened grain bread in a mixture, and hardened leaven, in its pure, unadulterated form, which is not suitable for consumption, are both included in a prohibition?
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: שִׂיאוּר — יִשָּׂרֵף, וְנוֹתְנוֹ לְכַלְבּוֹ, וְהָאוֹכְלוֹ — בְּאַרְבָּעִים.
The Gemara answers that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it was taught in a baraita: Leavening dough, i.e., dough that is at the beginning of the leavening process and is presently hardened leaven, must be burned, or one gives it to his dog. And one who eats it is flogged with forty lashes.
הָא גוּפָא קַשְׁיָא, אָמְרַתְּ ״שִׂיאוּר יִשָּׂרֵף״, אַלְמָא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: וְנוֹתְנוֹ לִפְנֵי כַּלְבּוֹ, אַלְמָא מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה!
Before analyzing the contents of the baraita, the Gemara addresses an apparent contradiction within the baraita. This baraita itself is difficult. You said that leavening dough must be burned; apparently it is prohibited to derive benefit from hardened leaven. And then it teaches: Or one gives it to his dog; apparently, it is permitted to derive benefit from the leaven.
הָכִי קָאָמַר: שִׂיאוּר יִשָּׂרֵף — דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְנוֹתְנוֹ לִפְנֵי כַּלְבּוֹ — דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The Gemara answers that this is what the baraita is saying: Leavening dough must be burned, i.e., leavening dough as defined by Rabbi Meir must be burned in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that leavening dough is full-fledged leaven. Alternatively, the baraita may be explained as referring to leavening dough as defined by Rabbi Yehuda, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that it is prohibited to derive benefit from leavening dough. Each tanna maintains that it is prohibited to derive benefit from any dough classified as leavening dough by his definition. When the baraita says that one gives it to his dog, it means: Leavening dough as defined by Rabbi Meir, is only hardened leaven according to Rabbi Yehuda, and therefore one may feed it to his dog. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that it is permitted to derive benefit from this type of leaven.
וְהָאוֹכְלוֹ בְּאַרְבָּעִים — אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר.
With regard to the final statement of the baraita, that one who eats leavening dough is flogged with forty lashes, we have once again arrived at the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir holds that one who eats this leavening dough, from which it is permitted to derive benefit according to Rabbi Yehuda, is flogged with forty lashes.
שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר נוּקְשֶׁה בְּעֵינֵיהּ — בְּלָאו. וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן חָמֵץ דָּגָן גָּמוּר עַל יְדֵי תַּעֲרוֹבֶת.
According to this explanation of the baraita, we have learned that Rabbi Meir maintains that hardened leaven in its pure, unadulterated form, is included in a prohibition, and one who eats this leaven is flogged. And all the more so, one who eats full-fledged, leavened grain bread in a mixture is flogged but does not receive karet, as he is not eating the leaven in and of itself. Nevertheless, the prohibition against eating leavened bread on Passover applies in that case.
רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: עַל חָמֵץ דָּגָן גָּמוּר — עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, עַל עֵירוּבוֹ — בְּלָאו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עַל חָמֵץ דָּגָן גָּמוּר — עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, עַל עֵירוּבוֹ — בְּלֹא כְּלוּם. וְשָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּאָמַר חָמֵץ דָּגָן גָּמוּר עַל יְדֵי תַּעֲרוֹבֶת — בְּלָאו, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן נוּקְשֶׁה בְּעֵינֵיהּ.
Rav Naḥman said: The mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as it was taught in a baraita: For eating full-fledged, leavened grain bread one is punishable by karet, whereas for eating a mixture that contains leaven one is punished merely for violating a prohibition. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: For eating full-fledged, leavened grain bread one is punishable by karet; however, for eating leaven in its mixture one is not punished at all. And we learned according to Rabbi Eliezer, who said that full-fledged, leavened grain bread in a mixture is included in a prohibition, and that is true all the more so with regard to hardened leaven in its pure, unadulterated form.
וְרַב נַחְמָן, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַב יְהוּדָה?
The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rav Naḥman did not state his opinion in accordance with the explanation of Rav Yehuda, that the mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Meir’s ruling?
אָמַר לָךְ: דִּילְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר הָתָם אֶלָּא נוּקְשֶׁה בְּעֵינֵיהּ, אֲבָל חָמֵץ דָּגָן גָּמוּר עַל יְדֵי תַּעֲרוֹבֶת — לָא.
The Gemara answers that Rav Naḥman could have said to you that the following distinction applies: Perhaps Rabbi Meir stated his opinion only there, with regard to hardened leaven in its pure, unadulterated form; however, with regard to full-fledged, leavened grain bread in a mixture, no, one is punished not with mere lashes but with karet.
וְרַב יְהוּדָה מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַב נַחְמָן?
The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rav Yehuda did not state his opinion in accordance with the explanation of Rav Naḥman, that the mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling?
אָמַר לָךְ: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הָתָם אֶלָּא חָמֵץ דָּגָן גָּמוּר עַל יְדֵי תַּעֲרוֹבֶת. אֲבָל נוּקְשֶׁה בְּעֵינֵיהּ — לָא אָמַר.
The Gemara answers that Rav Yehuda could have said to you: Rabbi Eliezer stated his opinion only there, with regard to full-fledged, leavened grain bread in a mixture that it is included in the prohibition. However, with regard to hardened leaven in its pure, unadulterated form, he did not state his ruling and perhaps Rabbi Eliezer maintains that it is permitted to eat hardened leaven.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה: ״כׇּל מַחְמֶצֶת לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״ — לְרַבּוֹת כּוּתָּח הַבַּבְלִי וְשֵׁכָר הַמָּדִי וְחוֹמֶץ הָאֲדוֹמִי וְזֵיתוֹם הַמִּצְרִי. יָכוֹל יְהֵא עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי כׇּל אֹכֵל חָמֵץ וְנִכְרְתָה״, עַל חָמֵץ דָּגָן גָּמוּר — עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, וְעַל עֵירוּבוֹ — בְּלָאו.
The Gemara notes that it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, who said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir’s opinion: “You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwellings you shall eat matzot” (Exodus 12:20). The Sages taught: This verse comes to include Babylonian kutaḥ, Median beer, Edomite vinegar, and Egyptian zitom. I might have thought that one who eats any of these items will be punishable by karet. Therefore, the verse states: “For whoever eats leavened bread…that soul shall be cut off from Israel” (Exodus 12:15), from which the Sages derived: For eating full-fledged, leavened grain bread one is punished with karet, but for eating its mixture one is only in violation of a prohibition.
מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר עַל עֵירוּבוֹ בְּלָאו? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, וְאִילּוּ נוּקְשֶׁה בְּעֵינֵיהּ לָא קָאָמַר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: נוּקְשֶׁה לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לֵית לֵיהּ.
The Gemara analyzes the above statement: Whom did you hear that said that for eating a mixture which contains leaven one is in violation of a prohibition? It is Rabbi Eliezer. However, the baraita is not stating the halakha of hardened leaven in its pure, unadulterated form. This baraita lists only items that contain leaven in a mixture, but not other substances whose legal status is that of hardened leaven, e.g., broth, worked dough, and glue. Learn from this that Rabbi Eliezer is not of the opinion that hardened leaven is prohibited.
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, עֵירוּבוֹ בְּלָאו מְנָא לֵיהּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״כׇּל מַחְמֶצֶת לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״.
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, from where does he derive the halakha that leaven in its mixture is included in a prohibition? The Gemara answers that he derives it as it is written: “You shall eat nothing leavened.”
אִי הָכִי, כָּרֵת נָמֵי לְחַיֵּיב, דְּהָא כְּתִיב: ״כִּי כׇּל אֹכֵל מַחְמֶצֶת וְנִכְרְתָה״!
The Gemara challenges this derivation: If so, if the expression: Anything leavened, includes leaven in a mixture, let one also be liable to receive karet for eating leaven in a mixture. As it is written: “Seven days no leaven shall be found in your houses; for whosoever eats anything [kol] leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the people of Israel, whether he is a sojourner or one born in the land” (Exodus 12:19). Apparently, one is punished with karet for eating anything that contains leaven.
הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא, (״מַחְמֶצֶת״) אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְחַמֵּץ מֵאֵלָיו, מֵחֲמַת דָּבָר אַחֵר מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל … מַחְמֶצֶת וְנִכְרְתָה״.
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Eliezer needs that phrase: Anything leavened, in order to derive for that which was taught in a baraita: From the phrase: Anything leavened, I have derived only that an item that became leavened on its own is prohibited. However, from where do I derive that one is punished with karet for eating an item that became leavened due to a different factor? The verse states: “Whosoever eats anything [kol] leavened…shall be cut off,” indicating that food that became leavened due to a different factor is considered leavened bread.
אִי הָכִי, דְּלָאו נָמֵי לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא!
The Gemara asks: If so, if the phrase: Anything leavened, is referring to food that became leavened by means of something else, then when this same phrase appears with regard to the prohibition, I should explain that it comes for that purpose as well. Consequently, there should be no violation for eating a mixture that contains leaven, as apparently, the phrase: Anything leavened, does not refer to that case at all.
אֶלָּא: טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מִ״כׇּל״.
Rather, the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer is that he derives this halakha from the term anything [kol]. He does not derive his opinion from the term leavened; he bases his ruling on the inclusive term anything.
הָתָם נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב ״כׇּל״? הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַנָּשִׁים.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: There, too, in the verse that mentions the punishment of karet, isn’t it written: “For whosoever [kol] eats anything leavened, that soul shall be cut off”? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer requires that term to include women who are also punishable by karet for eating leavened bread.
נָשִׁים מִדְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב נָפְקָא, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אָמַר קְרָא ״אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה כִּי יַעֲשׂוּ מִכׇּל חַטֹּאת הָאָדָם״, הִשְׁוָה הַכָּתוּב אִישׁ לְאִשָּׁה לְכׇל עוֹנָשִׁין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה.
The Gemara asks: Is this source necessary to derive this halakha? The fact that women may not eat leavened bread is derived from the statement that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said. As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and similarly, the Sage in the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse said: “Speak to the children of Israel: A man or woman, when they commit any of the sins of men, to commit a trespass against the Lord, and that soul shall be guilty” (Numbers 5:6). The Torah rendered a man equal to a woman for all punishments of the Torah. Since the punishment of karet for eating leavened bread on Passover is included in this general principle, there is no need for a separate source to include women.
אִיצְטְרִיךְ,
The Gemara answers: Nonetheless, it is necessary to cite a source that men and women are equal specifically with regard to the punishment of karet for eating leavened bread,
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב ״לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תֹּאכַל עָלָיו מַצּוֹת״, כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בְּקוּם אֱכוֹל מַצָּה — יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּבַל תֹּאכַל חָמֵץ, וְהָנֵי נְשֵׁי, הוֹאִיל וְלֵיתַנְהוּ בְּקוּם אֱכוֹל מַצָּה, דְּהָוְיָא לַיהּ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא (הִיא) — אֵימָא בְּבַל תֹּאכַל חָמֵץ נָמֵי לֵיתַנְהוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
as it could enter your mind to say that since it is written: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matzot” (Deuteronomy 16:3), one might have thought that anyone included in the obligation to eat matza is also included in the prohibition against eating leavened bread. And these women, since they are excluded from the obligation to eat matza, as it is a time-bound, positive mitzva from which they are exempt as a rule, I might say they are also excluded from the prohibition against eating leavened bread. Therefore, the verse teaches us that women are also prohibited from eating leavened bread.
וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאִתְרַבּוּ לְהוּ בְּבַל תֹּאכַל חָמֵץ — אִיתְרַבִּי נָמֵי לַאֲכִילַת מַצָּה, כְּרַבִּי (אֱלִיעֶזֶר). דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת בַּאֲכִילַת מַצָּה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ וְגוֹ׳״, כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בְּבַל תֹּאכַל חָמֵץ — יֶשְׁנוֹ בַּאֲכִילַת מַצָּה. וְהָנֵי נְשֵׁי נָמֵי, הוֹאִיל וְיׇשְׁנָן בְּבַל תֹּאכַל חָמֵץ — יֶשְׁנָן בְּקוּם אֱכוֹל מַצָּה.
The Gemara comments: And now that women have been included in the prohibition against eating leavened bread, they should also be included in the obligation to eat matza, even though it is a time-bound, positive mitzva, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As Rabbi Eliezer said: Women are obligated to eat matza by Torah law, as it is stated: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matzot” (Deuteronomy 16:3). These two commandments are juxtaposed to teach that anyone included in the prohibition against eating leavened bread is also included in the obligation to eat matza. And these women too, since they are included in the prohibition against eating leavened bread, they are also included in the obligation to eat matza.
וּמַאי חָזֵית דְּהַאי ״כׇּל״ לְרַבּוֹיֵי נָשִׁים, וּמַפְּקַתְּ עֵירוּבוֹ? אֵימָא: לְרַבּוֹיֵי עֵירוּבוֹ!
The Gemara questions this derivation: What did you see that led you to understand that the term anything [kol] comes to include women and to exclude leaven in its mixture? On the contrary, say that it comes to include in the punishment of karet one who eats its mixture.
מִסְתַּבְּרָא, קָאֵי בְּאוֹכְלִין מְרַבֵּה אוֹכְלִין. קָאֵי בְּאוֹכְלִין מְרַבֵּה נֶאֱכָלִין?
The Gemara answers: It is reasonable to explain that the verse comes to include women since the verse is dealing with those who are obligated in the mitzva not to eat leavened bread, it includes those who eat, as the verse says: “For anyone who eats leavened bread…shall be cut off.” It stands to reason that the expression: Anyone [kol] includes additional people who are punishable by karet, not additional types of leaven. Would a verse that is dealing with those who may not eat leaven come to include additional types of foods that may not be eaten?
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב נָתָן אֲבוּהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא (בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן): וְכׇל הֵיכָא דְּקָאֵי בְּאוֹכְלִין לָא מְרַבֵּה נֶאֱכָלִין? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: ״כִּי כׇּל אֹכֵל חֵלֶב מִן הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיב״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא חֵלֶב תְּמִימִין שֶׁרָאוּי לִיקְרַב, חֵלֶב בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״. חֵלֶב חוּלִּין מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי כׇּל״. וְהָא הָכָא דְּקָאֵי בְּאוֹכְלִין, וְקָא מְרַבֵּה נֶאֱכָלִין!
Rav Natan, father of Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, strongly objects to this: And anywhere that a verse is dealing with those who eat, does it necessarily not come to include additional types of food in the prohibition? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: “For anyone who eats the fat of the domesticated animal, of which men present an offering of fire to God, the soul that eats it shall be cut off from its people” (Leviticus 7:25)? The Sages interpreted this verse: I have derived from this verse that the prohibition applies only to the fats of unblemished animals that are fit to be sacrificed. From where is it derived that it is also prohibited to eat the fats of blemished animals, which may not be offered as sacrifices? The verse states: “Of the domesticated animal.” From where is it derived that it is prohibited to eat the fats of non-sacred animals? The verse states: “For anyone who eats the fat.” Rav Natan explains his objection: Here, isn’t the verse dealing with those who eat fats, and nevertheless, its superfluous phrases come to include types of foods that may not be eaten.
הָתָם דְּלֵיכָּא אוֹכְלִין — מְרַבֵּה נֶאֱכָלִין. הָכָא דְּאִיכָּא אוֹכְלִין — לָא שָׁבֵיק לְהוּ לְאוֹכְלִין וּמְרַבֵּה נֶאֱכָלִין.
The Gemara answers: There, in the verse concerning prohibited fats, where there are no additional people who eat of it to include, as the prohibition already applies to everyone, the superfluous expression comes to include additional foods. Here, in the verse that deals with leavened bread, where there are people who eat of it who can be included, namely women, the verse does not exclude people who eat and include foods that are eaten. Generally, there should be a connection between the content of a verse and that which is derived from it. Only when no other derivation is possible is a less related matter derived.
וְרַבָּנַן דְּלֵית לְהוּ עֵירוּב, ״כׇּל״ לָא דָּרְשִׁי. אֶלָּא נָשִׁים מְנָא לְהוּ?
The Gemara explains: And the Rabbis, who are not of the opinion that leaven in a mixture is included in the prohibition, do not interpret that the term: Anything [kol], comes to include other matters; neither with regard to leaven in a mixture nor with regard to karet. The Gemara asks: However, in that case, from where do they derive that it is prohibited for women to eat leavened bread?
״כׇּל״ — לָא דָּרְשִׁי, ״כִּי כׇּל״ — דָּרְשִׁי.
The Gemara answers: Although they do not derive a halakha from the term: Anything, they derive a halakha from the expression: For anyone [ki kol], in the verse: “For anyone who eats leaven.”
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אֵימָא: ״כׇּל״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַנָּשִׁים, ״כִּי כׇּל״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת עֵירוּבוֹ!
The Gemara asks: And if indeed the phrase: For anyone, is a more inclusive expression than the simple word anything, then according to Rabbi Eliezer, another halakha could also be derived from here. Say that the phrase: Anyone who eats leaven, comes to include the women, and the phrase: For anyone who eats, comes to include leaven in its mixture. According to Rabbi Eliezer, then, one would be punishable by karet for eating leaven in a mixture.
וְכִי תֵּימָא ״כִּי כׇּל״ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לָא דָּרֵישׁ, וְהָתַנְיָא: שְׂאֹר בַּל תַּקְטִירוּ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא כּוּלּוֹ, מִקְצָתוֹ מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל״. עֵירוּבוֹ מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי כׇּל״. מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּדָרֵישׁ ״כׇּל״ — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְקָא דָּרֵישׁ ״כִּי כׇּל״!
And lest you say that Rabbi Eliezer does not derive a halakha from the phrase: For anyone [ki kol], as he does not consider this an inclusive expression, the result would be another contradiction. Wasn’t it taught in another baraita: “For no [ki kol] leaven nor any honey shall be offered as a burnt-offering before God” (Leviticus 2:11)? Had the verse stated only: You shall not offer leaven, I would have derived nothing other than the halakha that it is prohibited to sacrifice an entire piece of leaven. From where is it derived that it is also prohibited to sacrifice part of it? The verse states: “No [kol] leaven,” indicating that it is prohibited to sacrifice even part of it. From where is it derived that it is prohibited to sacrifice leaven in a mixture? The verse states: “For no [ki kol] leaven.” The Gemara analyzes this statement: Whom did you hear who derives halakhot from the term: Kol? It is Rabbi Eliezer, and nevertheless, he derives additional details from the expression: Ki kol.
קַשְׁיָא.
The Gemara concludes: This matter remains difficult, as no satisfactory explanation has been found for why Rabbi Eliezer does not derive from the expression ki kol that leaven in a mixture is also prohibited.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה — אֵין הֶיתֵּר מִצְטָרֵף לְאִיסּוּר, חוּץ מֵאִיסּוּרֵי נָזִיר, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה ״מִשְׁרַת״.
After discussing leaven in a mixture, the Gemara states a more general principle. Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to all prohibitions of the Torah, a permitted substance does not join together with a prohibited substance. If one eats a permitted food with a prohibited food, and together they constitute the minimum prohibited measure, he is exempt from punishment for this act of consumption. This principle applies to all halakhot except for the prohibitions of a nazirite, who is liable for eating a mixture of that kind, as the Torah said with regard to a nazirite: “He shall abstain from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, nor shall he drink anything soaked in grapes” (Numbers 6:3). This verse indicates that a nazirite is prohibited from consuming not only wine and vinegar, but also any food that was soaked in these liquids.
וּזְעֵירִי אָמַר: אַף שְׂאוֹר בַּל תַּקְטִירוּ.
And Ze’eiri said: Permitted and prohibited substances also combine with regard to the prohibition against offering leaven on the altar, as it states: “For no [kol] leaven and no [kol] honey shall be offered as a burnt-offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 2:11). This indicates that one is also liable for sacrificing leaven in a mixture (Tosafot) in addition to the liability for sacrificing pure leaven.
כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּדָרֵישׁ ״כׇּל״.
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Ze’eiri issue his ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who derives from the term kol that any mixture that contains any amount of a prohibited substance is not nullified.
אִי הָכִי
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so,
