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

Daf Yomi

January 6, 2021 | 讻状讘 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.

Pesachim 46

A week of learning is sponsored by Rhonda and David Newman in memory of Rhonda’s father, Yosef Eliezer ben Yaakov Yitzchak z”l on his 18th yahrzeit.聽

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ira and Natanya Slomowitz in memory of the shloshim of Ira鈥檚 mother, Lillian Slomowitz, Ahuva bat Rivka and Asher Tzvi z”l. And by Moishe Morgenstern in honor of his wife Laya Mohadeb Morgenstern. “I honor your dedication to learn the daf every day. I am very proud of you.”

The mishna contradicts itself – on the one hand it says for issues of impurity, the laws are the same as for chametz when there is dough filling in a crack – depends on the size and on the other hand it says that it depends on whether or not you plan to leave it there or remove it. Four different explanations of the mishna are brought. If the dough does not seem to rise, at what point does one need to assume it has leavened? How does one separate challa on Yom Tov of Pesach from a dough that has become impure – if one separates it, one cannot burn it (as cooking on a fire os only allowed for eating purposes), but if one leaves it, it will leaven? Three explanations are brought in the mishna and the gemara tries to assess the basis of the debate between two of the rabbis. Is it due to a debate about benefit gained from being able to determine who one gives the challa to – does that benefit have financial value to it? Or is it due to a debate about whether we can use the principle “ho’il” – since potentially something can happen, do we view it as if it did. Do we say since one could undo the challa as one nullifies a vow, it is still considered in the owner’s possession? Also regarding cooking on Yom Tov to a regular day, there is a debate is one liable for lashes by Torah law – do we say it is not since potentially guests may show up on the holiday and one will need extra food. Raba raises two questions on Rav Chisda who thinks one receives lashes as we can’t use the ho’il principle.

诇注谞讬谉 爪讬专讜祝 讟讜诪讗讛 讘驻住讞 讜讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讗讬讻讗 驻诇讜讙转讗


with regard to the combination of two pieces vis-脿-vis ritual impurity during Passover, when it depends upon their volume. However, during the rest of the year there is a distinction based upon whether the owner is particular about it or not.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 驻讞讜转 诪讻讘讬爪讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜谞讙注讜 讘讛讗讬 讘爪拽 讘驻住讞 讚讗讬住讜专讜 讞砖讜讘 诪爪讟专祝 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讚讘拽驻讬讚讗 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗诐 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 诪爪讟专祝 讗诐 专讜爪讛 讘拽讬讜诪讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻注专讬讘讛


The Gemara explains: What are the circumstances of the mishna鈥檚 case? It is a case where there is less than an egg-bulk of ritually impure food, and it touched this dough in the bowl, and then it came into contact with ritually pure food. During Passover, when the prohibition that applies to the dough causes it to be considered significant although it is a very small quantity, it combines with the first piece of food. Together they are the size of an egg-bulk, which is able to transmit the ritual impurity of foods. However, during the rest of the year, when there is no prohibition that imparts this significance to the dough, the matter is dependent on the owner鈥檚 particularity; if he is particular about it, i.e., he does not want the dough to be there, it is considered food rather than part of the bowl, and it combines with the other piece of food. However, if one prefers its continued presence in its current location, it is considered like part of the kneading bowl itself, rather than food.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 诪讬 拽转谞讬 诪爪讟专祝 讜讛讗 讞讜爪抓 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讻谉 诇讛注诇讜转 讟讛专讛 诇注专讬讘讛


Rava strongly objects to this: Was the language taught in the mishna: Combines? Didn鈥檛 the mishna teach that it interposes? Abaye鈥檚 explanation does not account for this term. Rather, Rava said that the mishna should be understood as saying: And so too with regard to purifying the kneading bowl via immersion.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讟诪讬 讛讱 注专讬讘讛 讜讘注讬 诇讗讟讘讜诇讬 讘驻住讞 讚讗讬住讜专讜 讞砖讜讘 讞讜爪抓 讜诇讗 住诇拽讗 诇讛 讟讘讬诇讛 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讘拽驻讬讚讗 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗讬 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 讞讜爪抓 讜讗诐 专讜爪讛 讘拽讬讜诪讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻注专讬讘讛


The Gemara explains: What are the circumstances of the mishna鈥檚 case? It is a case where the kneading bowl became ritually impure, and one wishes to immerse it. During Passover, when the prohibition of an olive-bulk of leaven causes it to be considered significant, it interposes between the water and the kneading bowl, and the immersion is ineffective. However, during the rest of the year, the matter depends upon whether or not the owner is particular about it. If he is particular about the dough and wishes to remove it, it interposes between the water and the bowl. However, if the owner desires it to be present, it is considered like part of the kneading bowl itself, and it does not interpose between the water and the bowl.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 讟讛专讛 讛讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 诇讛讜专讬讚 讟讜诪讗讛 诇注专讬讘讛


Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: Was the language taught in the mishna: And similarly with regard to ritual purity? Didn鈥檛 the mishna teach: And similarly with regard to ritual impurity? Rather, Rav Pappa said the mishna should be understood as saying: And similarly with regard to the transfer of ritual impurity to the kneading bowl via this dough.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚谞讙注 砖专抓 讘讛讗讬 讘爪拽 讘驻住讞 讚讗讬住讜专讜 讞砖讜讘 讞讜爪抓 讜诇讗 谞讞转讛 诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讚讘拽驻讬讚讗 转诇讬讗 讗诐 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 讞讜爪抓 讗诐 专讜爪讛 讘拽讬讜诪讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻注专讬讘讛:


The Gemara explains: What are the circumstances of the mishna鈥檚 case? It is a case where the carcass of a creeping animal touched this dough. During Passover, when its prohibition causes the dough to be considered significant, it interposes between the bowl and the creeping animal, and ritual impurity does not descend to the kneading bowl, i.e., the kneading bowl does not become impure. During the rest of the year, when it depends upon whether one is particular about the presence of the dough, if he is particular about it, it interposes between the bowl and the creeping animal and prevents the bowl from becoming impure. However, if he desires it to be present, it is considered like it is part of the kneading bowl itself. Therefore, the entire bowl becomes ritually impure when the carcass of the creeping animal touches the dough.


诪转谞讬壮 讘爪拽 讛讞专砖 讗诐 讬砖 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 砖讛讞诪讬抓 讛专讬 讝讛 讗住讜专:


MISHNA: Deaf dough is dough for which it is difficult to determine if it has been leavened. It is comparable to a deaf-mute, who cannot communicate. If there is dough similar to it in that water was added to both at the same time, which became leavened, the deaf dough is prohibited. Although it has not shown external signs of becoming leavened, it can be presumed that the deaf dough has also become leavened.


讙诪壮 讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讻讚讬 砖讬诇讱 讗讚诐 诪诪讙讚诇 谞讜谞讬讗 诇讟讘专讬讗 诪讬诇


GEMARA: The Gemara seeks to clarify the ruling of the mishna: If there is no dough similar to it, what is the halakha? Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: According to the Sages, leavening occurs in the time it takes a person to walk the distance from Migdal Nunaya to Tiberias, which is a mil, two thousand cubits.


讜谞讬诪讗 诪讬诇 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚砖讬注讜专讗 讚诪讬诇 讻诪诪讙讚诇 谞讜谞讬讗 讜注讚 讟讘专讬讗


The Gemara asks about this formulation: Why is it necessary to mention the distance between these two places? Let us say that leavening begins after the time it takes a person to walk a mil. The Gemara answers: This statement incidentally teaches us that the length of a mil is the distance from Migdal Nunaya to Tiberias.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇讙讘诇 讜诇转驻诇讛 讜诇谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 讗专讘注讛 诪讬诇讬谉


Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: With regard to a kneader, i.e., one who kneads dough for others and should maintain the ritual purity of the dough; and similarly, with regard to washing one鈥檚 hands for prayer (Arukh), and with regard to washing hands before eating, one must search either for a ritual bath to immerse the vessel he is using to knead the dough, or for water to purify his hands, provided that water is accessible within the time it takes to walk four mil, eight thousand cubits.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讬讬讘讜 讗诪专讛 讜讗专讘注讛 讗诪专 讘讛 讜讞讚讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 注讘讜讚 讚转谞谉 讜讻讜诇谉 砖注讬讘讚谉 讗讜 砖讛讬诇讱 讘讛谉 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚讛 讟讛讜专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪注讜专 讛讗讚诐 讜讻诪讛 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 (讗讬谞讬讬讗) 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讻讚讬 讛讬诇讜讱 讗专讘注讛 诪讬诇讬谉


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Ayvu said this halakha, and he said it about four cases, as opposed to the three cases mentioned previously. And one of them pertained to the tanning of hides, which lasts for the time that it takes a person to walk four mil. As we learned in a mishna: And all types of thin, soft hides, which have the status of flesh with regard to ritual impurity because their texture is similar to flesh, that were tanned in order to be made into leather, or that one trod upon for as long as necessary for the leatherworking process, are ritually pure. They are considered to be leather and are no longer considered like the flesh of the animal, except for the skin of a human corpse, which always remains ritually impure. The Gemara asks: How much time must one tread upon a hide for the leatherworking process? Rabbi Ayvu said that Rabbi Yannai said: It is the amount of time it takes to walk four mil.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬诇 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讜诪讬谞讛 诪讬诇 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讛讗 驻讞讜转 诪诪讬诇 讞讜讝专:


Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: They taught that one must search for water to wash one鈥檚 hands before eating or prayer for the amount of time it takes to walk four mil only when the water is before him, in the direction that he is traveling. However, when it is behind him, he need not return even a mil. Rav A岣 said: From this statement one may infer that he need not return a mil, but he must return less than one mil in order to obtain water.


诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讞诇讛 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘


MISHNA: How does one separate 岣lla in ritual impurity during the Festival day of Passover? Ordinarily, one may separate ritually pure 岣lla from dough and give it to a priest immediately so that he may eat it. Ritually impure 岣lla is unfit for a priest and must be burned, yet it is prohibited to bake or burn anything that is not fit to be eaten during the Festival day. However, it is also prohibited to wait and burn it after the Festival day, since it will become leavened in the meantime.


专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 转拽专讗 诇讛 砖诐 注讚 砖转讗驻讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 转讟讬诇 讘爪讜谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注


Rabbi Eliezer says: A woman should not designate it as 岣lla prior to baking; rather, she should refrain from doing so until it is baked. In other words, she should wait until she has baked all of the dough, and there is no risk of it becoming leavened. Only then should she separate 岣lla from it. The portion of 岣lla may then be kept until after the Festival day, when it may be burned. Ben Beteira says: She should separate the 岣lla before it is baked, and place the dough in cold water so that it will not become leavened. Rabbi Yehoshua said:


诇讗 讝讛 讛讜讗 讞诪抓 砖诪讜讝讛专讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讘诇 讬专讗讛 讜讘讘诇 讬诪爪讗 讗诇讗 诪驻专讬砖转讛 讜诪谞讬讞转讛 注讚 讛注专讘 讜讗诐 讛讞诪讬爪讛 讛讞诪讬爪讛:


This is not the leavened bread about which we are warned with the prohibitions: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found. These prohibitions do not apply because the 岣lla does not actually belong to the owner of the dough; it is instead considered to be consecrated property. Rather, she should separate the 岣lla and leave it until the evening; and if it becomes leavened, then it will become leavened, but this is of no concern.


讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 讘讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 诪诪讜谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 讗讬谞讛 诪诪讜谉


GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to benefit of discretion, i.e., benefit accrued from the option of giving 岣lla, teruma and tithes to whichever priest or Levite one chooses. The Sages debated whether this benefit has monetary value and would constitute a form of ownership. Rabbi Eliezer holds: Benefit of discretion is considered to have monetary value. Therefore, one owns the 岣lla he separates, and he must be careful to prevent it from becoming leavened. However, Rabbi Yehoshua holds: Benefit of discretion is not considered to have monetary value. One does not own the 岣lla, and therefore he may allow it to become leavened.


诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 住讘专讬 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 讗讬谞讛 诪诪讜谉 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讜讗讬诇 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬 讘注讬 讗讬转砖讬诇 注诇讛 诪诪讜谞讬讛 讛讜讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, everyone holds that benefit of discretion is not considered to have monetary value, and here they disagree with regard to the principle of: Since, etc. As Rabbi Eliezer holds: We say that since, if he wants, he can ask to have his separation of the 岣lla voided when he regrets having done so, it is his property. Even if one does not actually revoke the status of the 岣lla, the fact that the potential for such an action exists indicates that he still maintains a form of ownership of this dough. And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: We do not say that since he could theoretically revoke the status of the 岣lla, the dough is considered his. Consequently, he may leave it until the end of the Festival day without being concerned that it will become leavened.


讗讬转诪专 讛讗讜驻讛 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讞讜诇 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛


Apropos the principle: Since, etc., the Gemara cites a related dispute. It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to one who bakes bread on a Festival day for use during the week. Rav 岣sda said: He is flogged because he has desecrated the Festival. Rabba said: He is not flogged.


专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讬拽诇注讬 诇讬讛 讗讜专讞讬诐 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇


The Gemara explains the two opinions: Rav 岣sda said that he is flogged because we do not say that since guests may happen to visit him, the bread is fit for him on the Festival day itself. Rabba said that he is not flogged because we say that since guests may visit him, the bread is considered to have been baked for use on the Festival day itself. Even if guests do not actually come, he has not desecrated the Festival.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讛讬讗讱 讗讜驻讬谉 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉


Rabba said to Rav 岣sda: According to you, who said that we do not say the principle: Since, etc., how is it permitted to bake on a Festival for Shabbat? He said to him: One is permitted to bake on a Festival for Shabbat due to the joining of cooked foods [eiruv tavshilin] instituted by the Sages.


讜诪砖讜诐 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 砖专讬谞谉 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 爪讜专讻讬 砖讘转 谞注砖讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 讗讜驻讬谉 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗祝 诇讞讜诇 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗爪专讻讜讛 专讘谞谉 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讬讻讬专讗


Rabba responded: Due to the practice of the joining of cooked foods, which was instituted by the Sages, may one permit a Torah prohibition? Rav 岣sda said to him: By Torah law, whatever one needs for Shabbat may be done on a Festival, and the prohibition against performing labor during the Festival does not apply to preparations for Shabbat. It was the Sages who decreed that one may not bake on a Festival for Shabbat, as a decree lest people say that one may bake on the Festival even for use during the week. And since the Sages required a joining of cooked foods, one has a conspicuous marker reminding him that baking on the Festival for Shabbat is permitted but baking on the Festival for a weekday is prohibited.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讘讛诪讛 讛诪住讜讻谞转 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讗讻讜诇 讛讬诪谞讛 讻讝讬转 爪诇讬 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讗讻讜诇 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬讻诇 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪专讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬 讘注讬 诇诪讬讻诇 诪爪讬 讗讻讬诇 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讬砖讞讜讟 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讗诪讗讬 讬砖讞讜讟


Rabba raised an objection to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: If one wishes to slaughter a dangerously ill animal before it dies on its own and becomes prohibited for consumption, he may not slaughter it on a Festival day unless there is enough time so that he can eat an olive-bulk of it roasted while it is still day. Rabba reads this statement precisely: The baraita stipulates that the slaughter is permitted if one can eat the meat while it is still day, although he is not required to actually eat the meat. Granted, according to my position, that I said that one may rely on the principle: Since, etc., this ruling is reasonable. Since if one wants to eat he may eat, due to that reason alone he may slaughter the animal. But according to you, who said that we do not say the principle of: Since, etc., why may he slaughter such an animal?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讛驻住讚 诪诪讜谞讜 讜诪砖讜诐 讛驻住讚 诪诪讜谞讜 砖专讬谞谉 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗


Rav 岣sda said to him: He is permitted to slaughter the animal due to the monetary loss that would be incurred by not slaughtering it, and not due to the principle of: Since, etc. Rabba asked rhetorically: Will we permit a Torah prohibition due to monetary loss?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讛驻住讚 诪诪讜谞讜 讙诪专 讘诇讘讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘诇讗 砖讞讬讟讛


Rav 岣sda said to him: Yes, although this factor on its own does not mitigate the prohibition. Rather, due to the monetary loss that would otherwise be incurred, one decided to eat an olive-bulk of the meat, although he does not need to. And since it is impossible to eat even an olive-bulk of meat without slaughtering the animal, one is permitted to slaughter the animal.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐


Rabba raised another objection to him: The shewbread in the Temple


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.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Pesachim 46-52 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about 鈥渄eaf dough鈥 and if you can separate Challah from your impure matzah dough. We...

Pesachim 46

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 46

诇注谞讬谉 爪讬专讜祝 讟讜诪讗讛 讘驻住讞 讜讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讗讬讻讗 驻诇讜讙转讗


with regard to the combination of two pieces vis-脿-vis ritual impurity during Passover, when it depends upon their volume. However, during the rest of the year there is a distinction based upon whether the owner is particular about it or not.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 驻讞讜转 诪讻讘讬爪讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜谞讙注讜 讘讛讗讬 讘爪拽 讘驻住讞 讚讗讬住讜专讜 讞砖讜讘 诪爪讟专祝 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讚讘拽驻讬讚讗 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗诐 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 诪爪讟专祝 讗诐 专讜爪讛 讘拽讬讜诪讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻注专讬讘讛


The Gemara explains: What are the circumstances of the mishna鈥檚 case? It is a case where there is less than an egg-bulk of ritually impure food, and it touched this dough in the bowl, and then it came into contact with ritually pure food. During Passover, when the prohibition that applies to the dough causes it to be considered significant although it is a very small quantity, it combines with the first piece of food. Together they are the size of an egg-bulk, which is able to transmit the ritual impurity of foods. However, during the rest of the year, when there is no prohibition that imparts this significance to the dough, the matter is dependent on the owner鈥檚 particularity; if he is particular about it, i.e., he does not want the dough to be there, it is considered food rather than part of the bowl, and it combines with the other piece of food. However, if one prefers its continued presence in its current location, it is considered like part of the kneading bowl itself, rather than food.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 诪讬 拽转谞讬 诪爪讟专祝 讜讛讗 讞讜爪抓 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讻谉 诇讛注诇讜转 讟讛专讛 诇注专讬讘讛


Rava strongly objects to this: Was the language taught in the mishna: Combines? Didn鈥檛 the mishna teach that it interposes? Abaye鈥檚 explanation does not account for this term. Rather, Rava said that the mishna should be understood as saying: And so too with regard to purifying the kneading bowl via immersion.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讟诪讬 讛讱 注专讬讘讛 讜讘注讬 诇讗讟讘讜诇讬 讘驻住讞 讚讗讬住讜专讜 讞砖讜讘 讞讜爪抓 讜诇讗 住诇拽讗 诇讛 讟讘讬诇讛 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讘拽驻讬讚讗 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗讬 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 讞讜爪抓 讜讗诐 专讜爪讛 讘拽讬讜诪讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻注专讬讘讛


The Gemara explains: What are the circumstances of the mishna鈥檚 case? It is a case where the kneading bowl became ritually impure, and one wishes to immerse it. During Passover, when the prohibition of an olive-bulk of leaven causes it to be considered significant, it interposes between the water and the kneading bowl, and the immersion is ineffective. However, during the rest of the year, the matter depends upon whether or not the owner is particular about it. If he is particular about the dough and wishes to remove it, it interposes between the water and the bowl. However, if the owner desires it to be present, it is considered like part of the kneading bowl itself, and it does not interpose between the water and the bowl.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 讟讛专讛 讛讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 诇讛讜专讬讚 讟讜诪讗讛 诇注专讬讘讛


Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: Was the language taught in the mishna: And similarly with regard to ritual purity? Didn鈥檛 the mishna teach: And similarly with regard to ritual impurity? Rather, Rav Pappa said the mishna should be understood as saying: And similarly with regard to the transfer of ritual impurity to the kneading bowl via this dough.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚谞讙注 砖专抓 讘讛讗讬 讘爪拽 讘驻住讞 讚讗讬住讜专讜 讞砖讜讘 讞讜爪抓 讜诇讗 谞讞转讛 诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讚讘拽驻讬讚讗 转诇讬讗 讗诐 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 讞讜爪抓 讗诐 专讜爪讛 讘拽讬讜诪讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻注专讬讘讛:


The Gemara explains: What are the circumstances of the mishna鈥檚 case? It is a case where the carcass of a creeping animal touched this dough. During Passover, when its prohibition causes the dough to be considered significant, it interposes between the bowl and the creeping animal, and ritual impurity does not descend to the kneading bowl, i.e., the kneading bowl does not become impure. During the rest of the year, when it depends upon whether one is particular about the presence of the dough, if he is particular about it, it interposes between the bowl and the creeping animal and prevents the bowl from becoming impure. However, if he desires it to be present, it is considered like it is part of the kneading bowl itself. Therefore, the entire bowl becomes ritually impure when the carcass of the creeping animal touches the dough.


诪转谞讬壮 讘爪拽 讛讞专砖 讗诐 讬砖 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 砖讛讞诪讬抓 讛专讬 讝讛 讗住讜专:


MISHNA: Deaf dough is dough for which it is difficult to determine if it has been leavened. It is comparable to a deaf-mute, who cannot communicate. If there is dough similar to it in that water was added to both at the same time, which became leavened, the deaf dough is prohibited. Although it has not shown external signs of becoming leavened, it can be presumed that the deaf dough has also become leavened.


讙诪壮 讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讻讚讬 砖讬诇讱 讗讚诐 诪诪讙讚诇 谞讜谞讬讗 诇讟讘专讬讗 诪讬诇


GEMARA: The Gemara seeks to clarify the ruling of the mishna: If there is no dough similar to it, what is the halakha? Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: According to the Sages, leavening occurs in the time it takes a person to walk the distance from Migdal Nunaya to Tiberias, which is a mil, two thousand cubits.


讜谞讬诪讗 诪讬诇 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚砖讬注讜专讗 讚诪讬诇 讻诪诪讙讚诇 谞讜谞讬讗 讜注讚 讟讘专讬讗


The Gemara asks about this formulation: Why is it necessary to mention the distance between these two places? Let us say that leavening begins after the time it takes a person to walk a mil. The Gemara answers: This statement incidentally teaches us that the length of a mil is the distance from Migdal Nunaya to Tiberias.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇讙讘诇 讜诇转驻诇讛 讜诇谞讟讬诇转 讬讚讬诐 讗专讘注讛 诪讬诇讬谉


Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: With regard to a kneader, i.e., one who kneads dough for others and should maintain the ritual purity of the dough; and similarly, with regard to washing one鈥檚 hands for prayer (Arukh), and with regard to washing hands before eating, one must search either for a ritual bath to immerse the vessel he is using to knead the dough, or for water to purify his hands, provided that water is accessible within the time it takes to walk four mil, eight thousand cubits.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讬讬讘讜 讗诪专讛 讜讗专讘注讛 讗诪专 讘讛 讜讞讚讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 注讘讜讚 讚转谞谉 讜讻讜诇谉 砖注讬讘讚谉 讗讜 砖讛讬诇讱 讘讛谉 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚讛 讟讛讜专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪注讜专 讛讗讚诐 讜讻诪讛 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 (讗讬谞讬讬讗) 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讻讚讬 讛讬诇讜讱 讗专讘注讛 诪讬诇讬谉


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Ayvu said this halakha, and he said it about four cases, as opposed to the three cases mentioned previously. And one of them pertained to the tanning of hides, which lasts for the time that it takes a person to walk four mil. As we learned in a mishna: And all types of thin, soft hides, which have the status of flesh with regard to ritual impurity because their texture is similar to flesh, that were tanned in order to be made into leather, or that one trod upon for as long as necessary for the leatherworking process, are ritually pure. They are considered to be leather and are no longer considered like the flesh of the animal, except for the skin of a human corpse, which always remains ritually impure. The Gemara asks: How much time must one tread upon a hide for the leatherworking process? Rabbi Ayvu said that Rabbi Yannai said: It is the amount of time it takes to walk four mil.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬诇 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讜诪讬谞讛 诪讬诇 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讛讗 驻讞讜转 诪诪讬诇 讞讜讝专:


Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: They taught that one must search for water to wash one鈥檚 hands before eating or prayer for the amount of time it takes to walk four mil only when the water is before him, in the direction that he is traveling. However, when it is behind him, he need not return even a mil. Rav A岣 said: From this statement one may infer that he need not return a mil, but he must return less than one mil in order to obtain water.


诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讞诇讛 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘


MISHNA: How does one separate 岣lla in ritual impurity during the Festival day of Passover? Ordinarily, one may separate ritually pure 岣lla from dough and give it to a priest immediately so that he may eat it. Ritually impure 岣lla is unfit for a priest and must be burned, yet it is prohibited to bake or burn anything that is not fit to be eaten during the Festival day. However, it is also prohibited to wait and burn it after the Festival day, since it will become leavened in the meantime.


专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 转拽专讗 诇讛 砖诐 注讚 砖转讗驻讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 转讟讬诇 讘爪讜谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注


Rabbi Eliezer says: A woman should not designate it as 岣lla prior to baking; rather, she should refrain from doing so until it is baked. In other words, she should wait until she has baked all of the dough, and there is no risk of it becoming leavened. Only then should she separate 岣lla from it. The portion of 岣lla may then be kept until after the Festival day, when it may be burned. Ben Beteira says: She should separate the 岣lla before it is baked, and place the dough in cold water so that it will not become leavened. Rabbi Yehoshua said:


诇讗 讝讛 讛讜讗 讞诪抓 砖诪讜讝讛专讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讘诇 讬专讗讛 讜讘讘诇 讬诪爪讗 讗诇讗 诪驻专讬砖转讛 讜诪谞讬讞转讛 注讚 讛注专讘 讜讗诐 讛讞诪讬爪讛 讛讞诪讬爪讛:


This is not the leavened bread about which we are warned with the prohibitions: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found. These prohibitions do not apply because the 岣lla does not actually belong to the owner of the dough; it is instead considered to be consecrated property. Rather, she should separate the 岣lla and leave it until the evening; and if it becomes leavened, then it will become leavened, but this is of no concern.


讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 讘讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 诪诪讜谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 讗讬谞讛 诪诪讜谉


GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to benefit of discretion, i.e., benefit accrued from the option of giving 岣lla, teruma and tithes to whichever priest or Levite one chooses. The Sages debated whether this benefit has monetary value and would constitute a form of ownership. Rabbi Eliezer holds: Benefit of discretion is considered to have monetary value. Therefore, one owns the 岣lla he separates, and he must be careful to prevent it from becoming leavened. However, Rabbi Yehoshua holds: Benefit of discretion is not considered to have monetary value. One does not own the 岣lla, and therefore he may allow it to become leavened.


诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 住讘专讬 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 讗讬谞讛 诪诪讜谉 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讜讗讬诇 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬 讘注讬 讗讬转砖讬诇 注诇讛 诪诪讜谞讬讛 讛讜讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, everyone holds that benefit of discretion is not considered to have monetary value, and here they disagree with regard to the principle of: Since, etc. As Rabbi Eliezer holds: We say that since, if he wants, he can ask to have his separation of the 岣lla voided when he regrets having done so, it is his property. Even if one does not actually revoke the status of the 岣lla, the fact that the potential for such an action exists indicates that he still maintains a form of ownership of this dough. And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: We do not say that since he could theoretically revoke the status of the 岣lla, the dough is considered his. Consequently, he may leave it until the end of the Festival day without being concerned that it will become leavened.


讗讬转诪专 讛讗讜驻讛 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讞讜诇 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛


Apropos the principle: Since, etc., the Gemara cites a related dispute. It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to one who bakes bread on a Festival day for use during the week. Rav 岣sda said: He is flogged because he has desecrated the Festival. Rabba said: He is not flogged.


专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讬拽诇注讬 诇讬讛 讗讜专讞讬诐 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇


The Gemara explains the two opinions: Rav 岣sda said that he is flogged because we do not say that since guests may happen to visit him, the bread is fit for him on the Festival day itself. Rabba said that he is not flogged because we say that since guests may visit him, the bread is considered to have been baked for use on the Festival day itself. Even if guests do not actually come, he has not desecrated the Festival.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讛讬讗讱 讗讜驻讬谉 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉


Rabba said to Rav 岣sda: According to you, who said that we do not say the principle: Since, etc., how is it permitted to bake on a Festival for Shabbat? He said to him: One is permitted to bake on a Festival for Shabbat due to the joining of cooked foods [eiruv tavshilin] instituted by the Sages.


讜诪砖讜诐 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 砖专讬谞谉 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 爪讜专讻讬 砖讘转 谞注砖讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 讗讜驻讬谉 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗祝 诇讞讜诇 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗爪专讻讜讛 专讘谞谉 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讬讻讬专讗


Rabba responded: Due to the practice of the joining of cooked foods, which was instituted by the Sages, may one permit a Torah prohibition? Rav 岣sda said to him: By Torah law, whatever one needs for Shabbat may be done on a Festival, and the prohibition against performing labor during the Festival does not apply to preparations for Shabbat. It was the Sages who decreed that one may not bake on a Festival for Shabbat, as a decree lest people say that one may bake on the Festival even for use during the week. And since the Sages required a joining of cooked foods, one has a conspicuous marker reminding him that baking on the Festival for Shabbat is permitted but baking on the Festival for a weekday is prohibited.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讘讛诪讛 讛诪住讜讻谞转 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讗讻讜诇 讛讬诪谞讛 讻讝讬转 爪诇讬 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讗讻讜诇 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬讻诇 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪专讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬 讘注讬 诇诪讬讻诇 诪爪讬 讗讻讬诇 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讬砖讞讜讟 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讗诪讗讬 讬砖讞讜讟


Rabba raised an objection to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: If one wishes to slaughter a dangerously ill animal before it dies on its own and becomes prohibited for consumption, he may not slaughter it on a Festival day unless there is enough time so that he can eat an olive-bulk of it roasted while it is still day. Rabba reads this statement precisely: The baraita stipulates that the slaughter is permitted if one can eat the meat while it is still day, although he is not required to actually eat the meat. Granted, according to my position, that I said that one may rely on the principle: Since, etc., this ruling is reasonable. Since if one wants to eat he may eat, due to that reason alone he may slaughter the animal. But according to you, who said that we do not say the principle of: Since, etc., why may he slaughter such an animal?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讛驻住讚 诪诪讜谞讜 讜诪砖讜诐 讛驻住讚 诪诪讜谞讜 砖专讬谞谉 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗


Rav 岣sda said to him: He is permitted to slaughter the animal due to the monetary loss that would be incurred by not slaughtering it, and not due to the principle of: Since, etc. Rabba asked rhetorically: Will we permit a Torah prohibition due to monetary loss?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讛驻住讚 诪诪讜谞讜 讙诪专 讘诇讘讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘诇讗 砖讞讬讟讛


Rav 岣sda said to him: Yes, although this factor on its own does not mitigate the prohibition. Rather, due to the monetary loss that would otherwise be incurred, one decided to eat an olive-bulk of the meat, although he does not need to. And since it is impossible to eat even an olive-bulk of meat without slaughtering the animal, one is permitted to slaughter the animal.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐


Rabba raised another objection to him: The shewbread in the Temple


Scroll To Top