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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 3, 2021 | 讬状讟 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's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Pesachim 43

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Professor Jonathan Ben-Ezra and Dr. Robin Zeiger on the yahrzeit of Jonathan’s father, Aaron Ben-Ezra. “He was passionate about Jewish learning and worked diligently that both his son and daughter would have a quality Jewish education.” And by Avi Hoffman in honor of Perel Mindal bat Menachem Mendel, 鈥渆emee moratee.鈥

What is the jewelry mentioned in the mishna that is problematic on Pesach? Why did the mishna list food items by name if they also listed the general principle? Who is the tana of our mishna who holds that chametz that is found in a mixture but dissolved and chametz nukshe聽is forbidden as a negative prohibition in the Torah that one would receive lashes for? There is a difference of opinion whether is it Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Eliezer. The gemara brings Rabbi Eliezer’s derivation of mixtures from the Torah and questions why he doesn’t derive that one receives karet for it? The gemara discusses the different verses in Exodus Chapter 12 and explains also how we derive that women receive karet for eating chametz and also how we derive that they are obligated to eat matza as theoretically it is a time bound positive commandment.

砖讛讙讬注讜 诇驻专拽谉 讜诇讗 讛讙讬注讜 诇砖谞讬诐 讘谞讜转 注谞讬讬诐 讟讜驻诇讜转 讗讜转谉 讘住讬讚 讘谞讜转 注砖讬专讬诐 讟讜驻诇讜转 讗讜转谉 讘住讜诇转 讘谞讜转 诪诇讻讬诐 讘砖诪谉 讛诪讜专 砖谞讗诪专 砖砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讘砖诪谉 讛诪讜专


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: 鈥淔or so were the days of their anointing filled, six months with shemen hamor (Esther 2:12).


诪讗讬 砖诪谉 讛诪讜专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 住讟讻转 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪谉 讝讬转 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 砖诇讬砖


The Gemara asks: What is shemen hamor? Rav Huna bar 岣yya 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.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗谞驻讬拽谞讬谉 砖诪谉 讝讬转 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 砖诇讬砖 讜诇诪讛 住讻讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪驻谞讬 砖诪砖讬专 讗转 讛砖讬注专 讜诪注讚谉 讗转 讛讘砖专:


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.


讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪诪讬谉 讚讙谉: 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 砖砖谞讬谞讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讬谉 讚讙谉 讛专讬 讝讛 注讜讘专 讘驻住讞 诇诪讛 诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗转 讗诇讜 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 专讙讬诇 讘讛谉 讜讘砖诪讜转讬讛谉


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.


讻讬 讛讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讘专 诪注专讘讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讘诇 讛讜讛 讘讬砖专讗 讘讛讚讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 拽专讬讘讜 诇讬 诪转讻讬诇转讗 砖诪注 讚拽讗诪专讬 拽专讬讘讜 诇讬讛 讻讜转讞 讻讬讜谉 讚砖诪注 讻讜转讞 驻讬专砖:


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 kuta岣. Since he heard the word kuta岣, he stopped eating, as he knew that kuta岣 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.


讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘讗讝讛专讛:


It is stated in the mishna: These substances are included in the prohibition but are not punishable by karet.


诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚讞诪抓 讚讙谉 讙诪讜专 注诇 讬讚讬 转注专讜讘讜转 讜谞讜拽砖讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 讘诇讗讜


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?


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖讬讗讜专 讬砖专祝 讜谞讜转谞讜 诇讻诇讘讜 讜讛讗讜讻诇讜 讘讗专讘注讬诐


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.


讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 砖讬讗讜专 讬砖专祝 讗诇诪讗 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讜谞讜转谞讜 诇驻谞讬 讻诇讘讜 讗诇诪讗 诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛


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.


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖讬讗讜专 讬砖专祝 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜谞讜转谞讜 诇驻谞讬 讻诇讘讜 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


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.


讜讛讗讜讻诇讜 讘讗专讘注讬诐 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专


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.


砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 谞讜拽砖讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 讘诇讗讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讞诪抓 讚讙谉 讙诪讜专 注诇 讬讚讬 转注专讜讘转


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.


专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 注诇 讞诪抓 讚讙谉 讙诪讜专 注谞讜砖 讻专转 注诇 注讬专讜讘讜 讘诇讗讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注诇 讞诪抓 讚讙谉 讙诪讜专 注谞讜砖 讻专转 注诇 注讬专讜讘讜 讘诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讜砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 讞诪抓 讚讙谉 讙诪讜专 注诇 讬讚讬 转注专讜讘转 讘诇讗讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 谞讜拽砖讛 讘注讬谞讬讛


Rav Na岣an 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.


讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 讬讛讜讚讛


The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rav Na岣an did not state his opinion in accordance with the explanation of Rav Yehuda, that the mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Meir鈥檚 ruling?


讗诪专 诇讱 讚讬诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛转诐 讗诇讗 谞讜拽砖讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 讗讘诇 讞诪抓 讚讙谉 讙诪讜专 注诇 讬讚讬 转注专讜讘转 诇讗


The Gemara answers that Rav Na岣an 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.


讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 谞讞诪谉


The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rav Yehuda did not state his opinion in accordance with the explanation of Rav Na岣an, that the mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 ruling?


讗诪专 诇讱 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讞诪抓 讚讙谉 讙诪讜专 注诇 讬讚讬 转注专讜讘转 讗讘诇 谞讜拽砖讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专


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.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻诇 诪讞诪爪转 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 诇专讘讜转 讻讜转讞 讛讘讘诇讬 讜砖讻专 讛诪讚讬 讜讞讜诪抓 讛讗讚讜诪讬 讜讝讬转讜诐 讛诪爪专讬 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 注谞讜砖 讻专转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讻诇 讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讜谞讻专转讛 注诇 讞诪抓 讚讙谉 讙诪讜专 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜注诇 注讬专讜讘讜 讘诇讗讜


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鈥檚 opinion: 鈥淵ou shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwellings you shall eat matzot鈥 (Exodus 12:20). The Sages taught: This verse comes to include Babylonian kuta岣, 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: 鈥淔or whoever eats leavened bread鈥that soul shall be cut off from Israel鈥 (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.


诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 注诇 注讬专讜讘讜 讘诇讗讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讜讗讬诇讜 谞讜拽砖讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 诇讗 拽讗诪专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 谞讜拽砖讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讬转 诇讬讛


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.


讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 注讬专讜讘讜 讘诇讗讜 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 诪讞诪爪转 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜


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: 鈥淵ou shall eat nothing leavened.鈥


讗讬 讛讻讬 讻专转 谞诪讬 诇讞讬讬讘 讚讛讗 讻转讬讘 讻讬 讻诇 讗讻诇 诪讞诪爪转 讜谞讻专转讛


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: 鈥淪even 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鈥 (Exodus 12:19). Apparently, one is punished with karet for eating anything that contains leaven.


讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 (诪讞诪爪转) 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖谞转讞诪抓 诪讗诇讬讜 诪讞诪转 讚讘专 讗讞专 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 诪讞诪爪转 讜谞讻专转讛


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: 鈥淲hosoever eats anything [kol] leavened鈥hall be cut off,鈥 indicating that food that became leavened due to a different factor is considered leavened bread.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讚诇讗讜 谞诪讬 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗


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.


讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讻诇


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.


讛转诐 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讻诇 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛谞砖讬诐


The Gemara raises a difficulty: There, too, in the verse that mentions the punishment of karet, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淔or whosoever [kol] eats anything leavened, that soul shall be cut off鈥? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer requires that term to include women who are also punishable by karet for eating leavened bread.


谞砖讬诐 诪讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞驻拽讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讜讻谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讬砖 讗讜 讗砖讛 讻讬 讬注砖讜 诪讻诇 讞讟讗转 讛讗讚诐 讛砖讜讛 讛讻转讜讘 讗讬砖 诇讗砖讛 诇讻诇 注讜谞砖讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛


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: 鈥淪peak 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鈥 (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.


讗讬爪讟专讬讱


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,


住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 讞诪抓 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 诪爪讜转 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 诪爪讛 讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讜讛谞讬 谞砖讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讬转谞讛讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 诪爪讛 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 (讛讬讗) 讗讬诪讗 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 讞诪抓 谞诪讬 诇讬转谞讛讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


as it could enter your mind to say that since it is written: 鈥淵ou 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.


讜讛砖转讗 讚讗转专讘讜 诇讛讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讗讬转专讘讬 谞诪讬 诇讗讻讬诇转 诪爪讛 讻专讘讬 (讗诇讬注讝专) 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讜转 讘讗讻讬诇转 诪爪讛 讚讘专 转讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 讞诪抓 讜讙讜壮 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讬砖谞讜 讘讗讻讬诇转 诪爪讛 讜讛谞讬 谞砖讬 谞诪讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬砖谞谉 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讬砖谞谉 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 诪爪讛


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: 鈥淵ou shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matzot鈥 (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.


讜诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讛讗讬 讻诇 诇专讘讜讬讬 谞砖讬诐 讜诪驻拽转 注讬专讜讘讜 讗讬诪讗 诇专讘讜讬讬 注讬专讜讘讜


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.


诪住转讘专讗 拽讗讬 讘讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪专讘讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉 拽讗讬 讘讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪专讘讛 谞讗讻诇讬谉


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: 鈥淔or anyone who eats leavened bread鈥hall be cut off.鈥 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?


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 谞转谉 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 (讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉) 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗讬 讘讗讜讻诇讬谉 诇讗 诪专讘讛 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讻讬 讻诇 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讗砖专 讬拽专讬讘 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讞诇讘 转诪讬诪讬谉 砖专讗讜讬 诇讬拽专讘 讞诇讘 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讞诇讘 讞讜诇讬谉 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讻诇 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚拽讗讬 讘讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜拽讗 诪专讘讛 谞讗讻诇讬谉


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鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: 鈥淔or 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鈥 (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: 鈥淥f the domesticated animal.鈥 From where is it derived that it is prohibited to eat the fats of non-sacred animals? The verse states: 鈥淔or anyone who eats the fat.鈥 Rav Natan explains his objection: Here, isn鈥檛 the verse dealing with those who eat fats, and nevertheless, its superfluous phrases come to include types of foods that may not be eaten.


讛转诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪专讘讛 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 诇讛讜 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪专讘讛 谞讗讻诇讬谉


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.


讜专讘谞谉 讚诇讬转 诇讛讜 注讬专讜讘 讻诇 诇讗 讚专砖讬 讗诇讗 谞砖讬诐 诪谞讗 诇讛讜


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?


讻诇 诇讗 讚专砖讬 讻讬 讻诇 讚专砖讬


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: 鈥淔or anyone who eats leaven.鈥


讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬诪讗 讻诇 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛谞砖讬诐 讻讬 讻诇 诇专讘讜转 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜


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.


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讬 讻诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗 讚专讬砖 讜讛转谞讬讗 砖讗专 讘诇 转拽讟讬专讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讻讜诇讜 诪拽爪转讜 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 注讬专讜讘讜 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讻诇 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讚专讬砖 讻诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜拽讗 讚专讬砖 讻讬 讻诇


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鈥檛 it taught in another baraita: 鈥淔or no [ki kol] leaven nor any honey shall be offered as a burnt-offering before God鈥 (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: 鈥淣o [kol] leaven,鈥 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: 鈥淔or no [ki kol] leaven.鈥 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.


拽砖讬讗


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.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讗讬谉 讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 讞讜抓 诪讗讬住讜专讬 谞讝讬专 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诪砖专转


After discussing leaven in a mixture, the Gemara states a more general principle. Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淗e 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鈥 (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.


讜讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 讗祝 砖讗讜专 讘诇 转拽讟讬专讜


And Ze鈥檈iri said: Permitted and prohibited substances also combine with regard to the prohibition against offering leaven on the altar, as it states: 鈥淔or no [kol] leaven and no [kol] honey shall be offered as a burnt-offering before the Lord鈥 (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.


讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讚专讬砖 讻诇


The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Ze鈥檈iri 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.


讗讬 讛讻讬


The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so,

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's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Dr. Tamara Spitz

Pesachim 39-45 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about different vegetables that can be used as Marror and if vinegar stops the leavening...
alon shvut women

Mixed and Inedible Chametz

Pesachim 043 The discussion revolves around the prohibition of items mixed with chametz and items that have pure chametz but...

Pesachim 43

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 43

砖讛讙讬注讜 诇驻专拽谉 讜诇讗 讛讙讬注讜 诇砖谞讬诐 讘谞讜转 注谞讬讬诐 讟讜驻诇讜转 讗讜转谉 讘住讬讚 讘谞讜转 注砖讬专讬诐 讟讜驻诇讜转 讗讜转谉 讘住讜诇转 讘谞讜转 诪诇讻讬诐 讘砖诪谉 讛诪讜专 砖谞讗诪专 砖砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讘砖诪谉 讛诪讜专


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: 鈥淔or so were the days of their anointing filled, six months with shemen hamor (Esther 2:12).


诪讗讬 砖诪谉 讛诪讜专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 住讟讻转 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪谉 讝讬转 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 砖诇讬砖


The Gemara asks: What is shemen hamor? Rav Huna bar 岣yya 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.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗谞驻讬拽谞讬谉 砖诪谉 讝讬转 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 砖诇讬砖 讜诇诪讛 住讻讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪驻谞讬 砖诪砖讬专 讗转 讛砖讬注专 讜诪注讚谉 讗转 讛讘砖专:


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.


讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪诪讬谉 讚讙谉: 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 砖砖谞讬谞讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讬谉 讚讙谉 讛专讬 讝讛 注讜讘专 讘驻住讞 诇诪讛 诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗转 讗诇讜 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 专讙讬诇 讘讛谉 讜讘砖诪讜转讬讛谉


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.


讻讬 讛讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讘专 诪注专讘讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讘诇 讛讜讛 讘讬砖专讗 讘讛讚讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 拽专讬讘讜 诇讬 诪转讻讬诇转讗 砖诪注 讚拽讗诪专讬 拽专讬讘讜 诇讬讛 讻讜转讞 讻讬讜谉 讚砖诪注 讻讜转讞 驻讬专砖:


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 kuta岣. Since he heard the word kuta岣, he stopped eating, as he knew that kuta岣 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.


讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘讗讝讛专讛:


It is stated in the mishna: These substances are included in the prohibition but are not punishable by karet.


诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚讞诪抓 讚讙谉 讙诪讜专 注诇 讬讚讬 转注专讜讘讜转 讜谞讜拽砖讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 讘诇讗讜


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?


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖讬讗讜专 讬砖专祝 讜谞讜转谞讜 诇讻诇讘讜 讜讛讗讜讻诇讜 讘讗专讘注讬诐


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.


讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 砖讬讗讜专 讬砖专祝 讗诇诪讗 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讜谞讜转谞讜 诇驻谞讬 讻诇讘讜 讗诇诪讗 诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛


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.


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖讬讗讜专 讬砖专祝 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜谞讜转谞讜 诇驻谞讬 讻诇讘讜 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


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.


讜讛讗讜讻诇讜 讘讗专讘注讬诐 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专


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.


砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 谞讜拽砖讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 讘诇讗讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讞诪抓 讚讙谉 讙诪讜专 注诇 讬讚讬 转注专讜讘转


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.


专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 注诇 讞诪抓 讚讙谉 讙诪讜专 注谞讜砖 讻专转 注诇 注讬专讜讘讜 讘诇讗讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注诇 讞诪抓 讚讙谉 讙诪讜专 注谞讜砖 讻专转 注诇 注讬专讜讘讜 讘诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讜砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 讞诪抓 讚讙谉 讙诪讜专 注诇 讬讚讬 转注专讜讘转 讘诇讗讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 谞讜拽砖讛 讘注讬谞讬讛


Rav Na岣an 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.


讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 讬讛讜讚讛


The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rav Na岣an did not state his opinion in accordance with the explanation of Rav Yehuda, that the mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Meir鈥檚 ruling?


讗诪专 诇讱 讚讬诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛转诐 讗诇讗 谞讜拽砖讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 讗讘诇 讞诪抓 讚讙谉 讙诪讜专 注诇 讬讚讬 转注专讜讘转 诇讗


The Gemara answers that Rav Na岣an 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.


讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 谞讞诪谉


The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rav Yehuda did not state his opinion in accordance with the explanation of Rav Na岣an, that the mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 ruling?


讗诪专 诇讱 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讞诪抓 讚讙谉 讙诪讜专 注诇 讬讚讬 转注专讜讘转 讗讘诇 谞讜拽砖讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专


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.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻诇 诪讞诪爪转 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 诇专讘讜转 讻讜转讞 讛讘讘诇讬 讜砖讻专 讛诪讚讬 讜讞讜诪抓 讛讗讚讜诪讬 讜讝讬转讜诐 讛诪爪专讬 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 注谞讜砖 讻专转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讻诇 讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讜谞讻专转讛 注诇 讞诪抓 讚讙谉 讙诪讜专 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜注诇 注讬专讜讘讜 讘诇讗讜


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鈥檚 opinion: 鈥淵ou shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwellings you shall eat matzot鈥 (Exodus 12:20). The Sages taught: This verse comes to include Babylonian kuta岣, 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: 鈥淔or whoever eats leavened bread鈥that soul shall be cut off from Israel鈥 (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.


诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 注诇 注讬专讜讘讜 讘诇讗讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讜讗讬诇讜 谞讜拽砖讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 诇讗 拽讗诪专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 谞讜拽砖讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讬转 诇讬讛


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.


讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 注讬专讜讘讜 讘诇讗讜 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 诪讞诪爪转 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜


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: 鈥淵ou shall eat nothing leavened.鈥


讗讬 讛讻讬 讻专转 谞诪讬 诇讞讬讬讘 讚讛讗 讻转讬讘 讻讬 讻诇 讗讻诇 诪讞诪爪转 讜谞讻专转讛


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: 鈥淪even 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鈥 (Exodus 12:19). Apparently, one is punished with karet for eating anything that contains leaven.


讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 (诪讞诪爪转) 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖谞转讞诪抓 诪讗诇讬讜 诪讞诪转 讚讘专 讗讞专 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 诪讞诪爪转 讜谞讻专转讛


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: 鈥淲hosoever eats anything [kol] leavened鈥hall be cut off,鈥 indicating that food that became leavened due to a different factor is considered leavened bread.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讚诇讗讜 谞诪讬 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗


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.


讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讻诇


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.


讛转诐 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讻诇 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛谞砖讬诐


The Gemara raises a difficulty: There, too, in the verse that mentions the punishment of karet, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淔or whosoever [kol] eats anything leavened, that soul shall be cut off鈥? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer requires that term to include women who are also punishable by karet for eating leavened bread.


谞砖讬诐 诪讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞驻拽讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讜讻谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讬砖 讗讜 讗砖讛 讻讬 讬注砖讜 诪讻诇 讞讟讗转 讛讗讚诐 讛砖讜讛 讛讻转讜讘 讗讬砖 诇讗砖讛 诇讻诇 注讜谞砖讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛


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: 鈥淪peak 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鈥 (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.


讗讬爪讟专讬讱


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,


住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 诇讗 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 讞诪抓 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 诪爪讜转 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 诪爪讛 讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讜讛谞讬 谞砖讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讬转谞讛讜 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 诪爪讛 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 (讛讬讗) 讗讬诪讗 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 讞诪抓 谞诪讬 诇讬转谞讛讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


as it could enter your mind to say that since it is written: 鈥淵ou 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.


讜讛砖转讗 讚讗转专讘讜 诇讛讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讗讬转专讘讬 谞诪讬 诇讗讻讬诇转 诪爪讛 讻专讘讬 (讗诇讬注讝专) 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 谞砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讜转 讘讗讻讬诇转 诪爪讛 讚讘专 转讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讗讻诇 注诇讬讜 讞诪抓 讜讙讜壮 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讬砖谞讜 讘讗讻讬诇转 诪爪讛 讜讛谞讬 谞砖讬 谞诪讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬砖谞谉 讘讘诇 转讗讻诇 讞诪抓 讬砖谞谉 讘拽讜诐 讗讻讜诇 诪爪讛


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: 鈥淵ou shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matzot鈥 (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.


讜诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讛讗讬 讻诇 诇专讘讜讬讬 谞砖讬诐 讜诪驻拽转 注讬专讜讘讜 讗讬诪讗 诇专讘讜讬讬 注讬专讜讘讜


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.


诪住转讘专讗 拽讗讬 讘讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪专讘讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉 拽讗讬 讘讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪专讘讛 谞讗讻诇讬谉


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: 鈥淔or anyone who eats leavened bread鈥hall be cut off.鈥 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?


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 谞转谉 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 (讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉) 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗讬 讘讗讜讻诇讬谉 诇讗 诪专讘讛 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讻讬 讻诇 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讗砖专 讬拽专讬讘 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讞诇讘 转诪讬诪讬谉 砖专讗讜讬 诇讬拽专讘 讞诇讘 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讞诇讘 讞讜诇讬谉 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讻诇 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚拽讗讬 讘讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜拽讗 诪专讘讛 谞讗讻诇讬谉


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鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: 鈥淔or 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鈥 (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: 鈥淥f the domesticated animal.鈥 From where is it derived that it is prohibited to eat the fats of non-sacred animals? The verse states: 鈥淔or anyone who eats the fat.鈥 Rav Natan explains his objection: Here, isn鈥檛 the verse dealing with those who eat fats, and nevertheless, its superfluous phrases come to include types of foods that may not be eaten.


讛转诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪专讘讛 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 诇讛讜 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪专讘讛 谞讗讻诇讬谉


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.


讜专讘谞谉 讚诇讬转 诇讛讜 注讬专讜讘 讻诇 诇讗 讚专砖讬 讗诇讗 谞砖讬诐 诪谞讗 诇讛讜


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?


讻诇 诇讗 讚专砖讬 讻讬 讻诇 讚专砖讬


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: 鈥淔or anyone who eats leaven.鈥


讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬诪讗 讻诇 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛谞砖讬诐 讻讬 讻诇 诇专讘讜转 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜


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.


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讬 讻诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗 讚专讬砖 讜讛转谞讬讗 砖讗专 讘诇 转拽讟讬专讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讻讜诇讜 诪拽爪转讜 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 注讬专讜讘讜 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讬 讻诇 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讚专讬砖 讻诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜拽讗 讚专讬砖 讻讬 讻诇


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鈥檛 it taught in another baraita: 鈥淔or no [ki kol] leaven nor any honey shall be offered as a burnt-offering before God鈥 (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: 鈥淣o [kol] leaven,鈥 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: 鈥淔or no [ki kol] leaven.鈥 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.


拽砖讬讗


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.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讗讬谉 讛讬转专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讬住讜专 讞讜抓 诪讗讬住讜专讬 谞讝讬专 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诪砖专转


After discussing leaven in a mixture, the Gemara states a more general principle. Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淗e 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鈥 (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.


讜讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 讗祝 砖讗讜专 讘诇 转拽讟讬专讜


And Ze鈥檈iri said: Permitted and prohibited substances also combine with regard to the prohibition against offering leaven on the altar, as it states: 鈥淔or no [kol] leaven and no [kol] honey shall be offered as a burnt-offering before the Lord鈥 (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.


讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讚专讬砖 讻诇


The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Ze鈥檈iri 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.


讗讬 讛讻讬


The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so,

Scroll To Top