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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 8, 2021 | 讻状讚 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

The Daf Yomi women of Neve Daniel are proud to dedicate a month of learning in honor of all the women learning Torah in the world and in honor of completing our first year of learning together. Thank you to Hadran and to the Rabbaniot Michelle, Chamotal, Tanya, Sally, Michal, Chayuta and Meirav that lead us in our in depth learning. Yishar Cochachen!

  • This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

Pesachim 48

Today’s Daf is sponsored 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.” And by Deborah Lewis in honor of Traci Lewis “for all of the support and love. Traci always encourages me to continue my learning. She is a blessing.” And by Harry Green in honor of Karena M. Perry “who has been learning the Daf Yomi with this Hadran program for a year. She has been in the formidable environment of Alaska, doing this on her own. May she continue from strength to strength in her growth, and love of Torah.”

Is the debate between Raba and Rav Chisda regarding cooking on Yom tov for a regular day the same debate as between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua in our mishna regarding taking challa on Yom Tov of Pesach from an impure dough – it it also based on whether or not we say ho’il? What is the largest size dough that one can knead for making matza so that one need not worry that it leaven while kneading? If three women are sharing use of an oven, can they all knead their doughs at the same time or not? What is considered chametz nukshe – that one is not liable to receive karet, however one still needs to burn it?

诪谉 讛诪讗转讬诐 诪诪讜转专 砖转讬 诪讗讜转 砖谞砖转讬讬专讜 讘讘讜专 诪讻讗谉 诇注专诇讛 砖讘讟讬诇讛 讘诪讗转讬诐


The phrase: Out of two hundred, is expounded with regard to wine brought as a libation: From the remaining two hundred portions that remain in the vat. This is referring to a case where wine prohibited as produce grown during a tree or vine鈥檚 first three years [orla] is mixed with permitted wine. The halakha is that this wine mixture may be brought as a libation only if there is two hundred times more permitted wine than prohibited wine. From here it is derived that orla is nullified in a mixture of two hundred.


诪诪砖拽讛 讬砖专讗诇 诪谉 讛诪讜转专 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 谞住讻讬谉 诪谉 讛讟讘诇


The phrase: From the well-watered pastures of Israel, means that sacrifices may be offered only from that which is permitted to Israel. From here, the Sages stated: One may not offer libations from untithed produce [tevel], since Jews are prohibited from eating tevel.


讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 诪谉 讛诪讜拽爪讛 讗诪专转 诪讛 讟讘诇 诪讬讜讞讚 砖讗讬住讜专 讙讜驻讜 讙专诐 诇讜 讗祝 讻诇 砖讗讬住讜专 讙讜驻讜 讙专诐 诇讜 讬爪讗 诪讜拽爪讛 砖讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专 讙讜驻讜 讙专诐 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗讬住讜专 讚讘专 讗讞专 讙专诐 诇讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬住讜专 诪讜拽爪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讛 诇讬 讗讬住讜专 讙讜驻讜 诪讛 诇讬 讗讬住讜专 讚讘专 讗讞专


I might have thought that one may not offer an animal that is set-aside on Shabbat or during a Festival; therefore, you have said: Just as tevel is unique in that its inherent prohibition caused it to be prohibited for Jews to eat, so too, anything whose inherent prohibition caused it to be prohibited for Jews to eat is invalid as an offering. This excludes an animal that has been set aside, which does not have an inherent prohibition that caused it to be prohibited for eating; rather, a different prohibition, i.e., the prohibition of utilizing set-aside objects on Shabbat, caused it to be prohibited for eating. And if you say the prohibition of utilizing set-aside material is by Torah law, what difference is there to me if a food is inherently prohibited; and what difference is there to me if it is prohibited due to a different prohibition? If there is a distinction between these prohibitions, it must be that the prohibition of utilizing set-aside material is by rabbinic law, and therefore, like many other rabbinic decrees, it does not apply in the Temple.


讜注讜讚 讛讗 讗转 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专转 讞讬诇讜拽 诪诇讗讻讜转 诇砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 讞讬诇讜拽 诪诇讗讻讜转 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘


And furthermore, Abaye said to Rabba: It is possible to challenge your interpretation of the baraita from a different angle. Wasn鈥檛 it you who said, as cited in tractate Makkot, that there is division of labors with regard to Shabbat, and therefore one is required to bring two sin-offerings if he performed two prohibited labors of different primary categories in one lapse of awareness, or if he performed a prohibited labor twice, during separate lapses of awareness; however, there is no division of labors with regard to a Festival, and therefore one is not punished with multiple floggings for performing multiple prohibited labors? Consequently, how could one be liable for multiple floggings for the prohibition of utilizing set-aside materials and for cooking the sciatic nerve on a Festival?


讗诇讗 讗驻讬拽 讛讘注专讛 讜注讬讬诇 注爪讬 讗砖讬专讛 讜讗讝讛专讛 诪讛讻讗 讜诇讗 讬讚讘拽 讘讬讚讱 诪讗讜诪讛 诪谉 讛讞专诐


Rather, in order to make this baraita consistent with Rabba鈥檚 opinion, remove the prohibition of kindling a fire and add in its place the prohibition of using the wood of a tree designated for idolatry [asheira]. And the warning, i.e., the source of the negative commandment associated with using this wood, is derived from here, a verse that relates to an idolatrous city that is burned: 鈥淣othing from the spoil shall cling to your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:18).


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讜谞诇拽讬 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讜诇讗 转讘讬讗 转讜注讘讛 讗诇 讘讬转讱


Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Abaye: If this case is referring to using wood from an asheira, one should also be flogged due to having transgressed the prohibition of: 鈥淵ou shall not bring an abominable thing into your home鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:26). However, this would add an extra negative commandment to the list enumerated in the baraita.


讗诇讗 讗驻讬拽 讛讘注专讛 讜注讬讬诇 注爪讬 讛拽讚砖 讜讗讝讛专讛 诪讛讻讗 讜讗砖专讬讛诐 转砖专驻讜谉 讘讗砖 诇讗 转注砖讜谉 讻谉 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讻诐


Rather, remove the prohibition of kindling a fire and add in its place the prohibition of burning consecrated wood. And the warning, i.e., the source of this negative command, is from here: 鈥淎nd you shall burn their asheira trees with fire…you shall not do this to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:3鈥4). Therefore, one who burns a consecrated item in a destructive manner is punished with lashes. In conclusion, no adequate proof can be adduced from the baraita to reject Rabba鈥檚 opinion.


讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讬讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇


Rami bar 岣ma said: This dispute between Rav 岣sda and Rabba with regard to the principle: Since, etc., is a matter of dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua in the mishna. As, Rabbi Eliezer, who says that 岣lla should be separated only after the bread has been baked, holds that we say the principle: Since, etc. Since any portion of the dough could potentially be eaten if another part of the dough is designated as 岣lla, therefore, one is permitted to bake bread without separating 岣lla from it ab initio. And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: We do not say the principle: Since, etc.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讚讬诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讗诇讗 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚拽讗 注讬讬诇讬 诇转谞讜专讗 讻诇 讞讚讗 讜讞讚讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗讜专讞讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讞讝讬 诇讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 讞讝讬 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇


Rav Pappa said that this claim can be rejected in the following manner: Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer only stated that we say the principle: Since, etc., there, in the case of the separation of 岣lla, because at the time that it was placed into the oven, each and every loaf was fit for him, and there was no indication as to which loaf he would designate as 岣lla. However, here, in a case where the bread one is baking on the Festival is fit for guests but is not fit for him, say that so too, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer we do not say the principle: Since, etc.


讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛转诐 讚诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讗诇讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讞讚讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讗 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讜诇讗 诇讗讜专讞讬谉 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讞讝讬 诪讬讛转 诇讗讜专讞讬谉 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇


Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, rejected Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 statement for a different reason and said: Perhaps that is not so. Rabbi Yehoshua only stated that we do not say the principle: Since, etc., there, where there is one portion of the bread that is not fit for him or for guests, because the piece that is designated as 岣lla cannot be eaten by anyone due to the fact that it is ritually impure. However, here, in the case of one who is baking bread during the Festival so that it can be eaten on a weekday, when it is at least fit for guests, say that so too, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, we say the principle: Since, etc.


讗诪专讜讛 [专讘谞谉] 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 拽讬讘诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 拽讬讘诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚拽砖讬讗 诇谉 讜讗转讬讗 讻诪讛 砖谞讬 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛砖转讗 讗诪专讜讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讜诇讗 谞讬拽讘诇讛


The Gemara recounts: The Sages said Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 statement before Rabbi Yirmeya and Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Yirmeya accepted it and Rabbi Zeira did not accept it. Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: The following matter has been difficult for us to explain for several years: With regard to what principle did Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree? Now an explanation has been stated in the name of a great man. Shall we not accept it?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬讻讬 讗拽讘诇讛 讚转谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讚讘专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转注砖讛 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讜砖转讬拽 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 讗讬转讗 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讜讗讬诇


He said to him: How can I accept it? We already learned in a baraita with regard to their dispute: Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: According to your statement, one violates the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not perform any labor鈥 (Exodus 20:9). Rabbi Eliezer could not respond to this claim and was silent. But if it is as Rami bar 岣ma explained, Rabbi Eliezer should have said to him: The reason for my opinion is due to the principle: Since, etc., on the basis of which no prohibited labor has been performed.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚转谞讬谞讗 讘讘专讬讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讚讘专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 讬专讗讛 讜讘诇 讬诪爪讗 讜砖转讬拽 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讗讛讚专 诇讬讛 讛讗 拽讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚转谞谉 诇讗 讝讛讜 讞诪抓 砖诪讜讝讛专讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 讬专讗讛 讜讘诇 讬诪爪讗 讗诇讗 砖转讬拽 诇讬讛 讘讘专讬讬转讗 讜诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗讬诪讜专 砖转讬拽 诇讬讛 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜讗讛讚专 诇讬讛 讘诪讻讬诇转讗 讗讞专讬转讬


Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: According to your reasoning, with regard to that which we already learned in a baraita, that Rabbi Eliezer said to him: According to your statement, he transgresses the prohibitions: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, and in response to this challenge Rabbi Yehoshua was silent, did he too not respond to Rabbi Eliezer? He responded to him in the mishna, as we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehoshua said: 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. Rather, it must be explained in the following manner: He appeared to be silent in the baraita simply because his response was not recorded, but he responded in the mishna. So too, here it is possible to say that he appeared silent in the mishna, but he responded in a different tractate.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻讘谉 讘转讬专讗


It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The halakha with regard to the separation of 岣lla from impure dough during Passover is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. And Rabbi Yitz岣k said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of ben Beteira.


讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专 注讬住讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讘讞讬讟讬谉 拽讘讬谉 讜讘砖注讜专讬谉 砖诇砖转 拽讘讬谉 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讞讬诇讜祝 讛讚讘专讬诐


The Gemara asks: How much dough may be kneaded at once on Passover without concern that the dough will become leavened in the process? Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: With regard to wheat, one may use the amount of flour that comes from two kav of grain; and with regard to barley, one may use the amount of flour that comes from three kav. Rabbi Natan says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: The matters are reversed. One may knead the flour produced from three kav of wheat or two kav of barley without concern that it will become leavened.


讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讘讞讟讬谉 砖诇砖转 拽讘讬谉 讜讘砖注讜专讬谉 讗专讘注讛 拽讘讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讞住讬讻转讗 讛讗 讘诪注诇讬讬转讗


The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a different baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: With regard to wheat, one may use the amount of flour that comes from three kav of grain, and with regard to barley, one may use the amount of flour that comes from four kav? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this latter baraita is referring to low-quality grain, and that baraita is referring to high-quality grain. One can obtain a higher proportion of flour from high-quality grain than from low-quality grain, which contains a greater amount of chaff.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讙专讬注讬谉 讞讬讟讬 讞住讬讻转讗 诪讞讬讟讬 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讟驻讬 诪讚讙专讬注谉 砖注专讬 讞住讬讻转讗 诪砖注专讬 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讚讗讬诇讜 讛转诐 转讬诇转讗 讜讛讻讗 专讬讘注讗


Rav Pappa said: Learn from this that the extent to which low-quality wheat is worse than high-quality wheat is greater than the extent to which low-quality barley is worse than high-quality barley, i.e., the discrepancy between the different levels of quality is more significant with regard to wheat, as there, in the case of wheat, they differ by one-third; and here, in the case of barley, they differ by only one-fourth.


讗诪专 专讘 拽讘讗 诪诇讜讙谞讗讛 诇驻讬住讞讗 讜讻谉 诇讞诇讛 (讜讛转谞讬讗)


Rav said: A kav from the place Melogna is the amount that can be used to prepare dough for Passover. And similarly, with regard to 岣lla, that is the minimum amount of dough from which 岣lla must be separated. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita:


讞诪砖转 专讘注讬诐 拽诪讞 讜注讜讚 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讞诇讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 拽讘讗 诪诇讜讙谞讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讛讗讬 砖讬注讜专讗 拽讗讬


Dough made from five-quarters of a log of flour and a bit more obligates one to separate 岣lla? The Gemara answers that this is what Rav is saying: A kav from Melogna is the same measure as this, as it is not a regular kav but a larger measure, identical to the amount from which one is required to separate 岣lla.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛谞讬 谞砖讬 讚讬讚谉 谞讛讜讙 诇诪讬驻讗 拽驻讬讝讗 拽驻讬讝讗 诇驻讬住讞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 诇讞讜诪专讗 讞讜诪专讗 讚讗转讬 诇讬讚讬 拽讜诇讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪驻拽注 诇讛 诪讞诇讛


Rav Yosef said: These women of our family ordinarily bake kefiza by kefiza, i.e., three-quarters of a log at a time, on Passover, since it is easier to prevent small quantities of dough from becoming leavened. Abaye said to him: What is your opinion? Do you tell them to do this in order to be stringent? That is a stringency that leads to a leniency, as by working with small quantities one removes the dough from the obligation to separate 岣lla.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚注讘讚谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 (讚转谞讬讗) 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛专讜讚讛 讜谞讜转谉 诇住诇 讛住诇 诪爪专驻谉 诇讞诇讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专


Rav Yosef said to him: They do separate 岣lla from the dough, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: One who removes loaves of bread from an oven and places them in a basket, the basket combines them to reach the quantity from which one is required to separate 岣lla, even if each of the loaves would not attain the necessary measure for separating 岣lla on their own. And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Therefore, the women of Rav Yosef鈥檚 household would put all the finished matzot into a basket and separate 岣lla from them.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讻讻专讜转 砖诇 讘讘诇 砖谞讜砖讻讜转 讝讜 诪讝讜 讗讘诇 讻注讻讬谉 诇讗 讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻注讻讬谉


Abaye said to him: But wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: They taught that a basket combines the loaves only with regard to Babylonian loaves that bite from one another. In other words, the loaves are slightly attached, and when one separates them, a bit from one loaf comes off with the other loaf. However, it does not apply to long, rod-like loaves [ke鈥檃khin] that were baked separately. Therefore, that principle cannot be applied to the case discussed here, in which each batch of matza was baked on its own. Rav Yosef answered: Wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that baraita that Rabbi 岣nina said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer even with regard to long, rod-like loaves? This indicates that Rav Yosef accepted the view of Rabbi 岣nina.


讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讟讘诇讗 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讘讝讘讝讬谉 诪讛讜 转讜讱 讻诇讬 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讜讬专 讻诇讬 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 转讬拽讜:


In light of this discussion, Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma: With regard to a board without a rim [levizbezin], what is the halakha? Is it considered to be a vessel that combines loaves baked separately into one unit with regard to 岣lla? Do we require the inside of the vessel in order to combine the loaves, and that is lacking, since the board is flat rather than concave? Or perhaps we require the airspace of the vessel, and that is present in this case? The Gemara concludes: Let it stand unresolved.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛住诇 诪爪专驻谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 转谞讜专 诪爪专驻谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻讻专讜转 砖诇 讘讘诇 砖谞讜砖讻讜转 讝讜 诪讝讜 诪爪讟专驻讜转:


It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: A basket combines different loaves placed in it with regard to the obligation to separate 岣lla. Rabbi Yehoshua says: An oven combines them. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Babylonian loaves that bite from one another are combined; however, if the loaves are connected to any lesser degree, e.g., if they are together in an oven or basket, they are not considered combined for the purpose of separating 岣lla.


诪转谞讬壮 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 诇砖讜转 讻讗讞转 讜讗讜驻讜转 讘转谞讜专 讗讞讚 讝讜 讗讞专 讝讜


MISHNA: Rabban Gamliel says: Three women may knead their dough as one, meaning at one time, and bake the batches of dough in one oven, one after the other, and they need not be concerned that their dough will become leavened while they are waiting to use the oven.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 注讜住拽讜转 讘讘爪拽 讻讗讞转 讗讞转 诇砖讛 讜讗讞转 注讜专讻转 讜讗讞转 讗讜驻讛


And the Rabbis say: Three women may be engaged in preparing dough as one, in the following manner: One kneads her dough as another one arranges her own dough so it takes the form of matza, while another one bakes her dough.


专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 讻诇 讛注爪讬诐 讜诇讗 讻诇 讛转谞讜专讬诐 砖讜讬谉 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 转驻讞 转诇讟讜砖 讘爪讜谞谉:


Rabbi Akiva says: Not all women, not all wood, and not all ovens are the same, and therefore no set rules should be established. Rather, this is the principle: If the dough begins to rise, she should spread cold water in which she immersed her hands, onto the dough, in order to stop the leavening process.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇砖讛 讛讬讗 诪拽讟驻转 讜讞讘讬专转讛 诇砖讛 转讞转讬讛 诪拽讟驻转 讛讬讗 讗讜驻讛 讜讞讘讬专转讛 诪拽讟驻转 转讞转讬讛 讜讛砖诇讬砖讬转 诇砖讛 讗讜驻讛 讛讬讗 诇砖讛 讜讞讘讬专转讛 讗讜驻讛 转讞转讬讛 讜讛砖诇讬砖讬转 诪拽讟驻转 讜讞讜讝专转 讞诇讬诇讛 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖注讜住拽讜转 讘讘爪拽 讗讬谞讜 讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讞讬诪讜抓:


GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: When the woman who kneads first completes her kneading, she arranges her dough and another woman kneads in her place. When the first woman finishes arranging her dough, she bakes and another woman arranges her dough in her place, and the third woman kneads her dough. When the first woman finishes baking, she kneads the dough for her next batch, and another woman bakes in her place, and the third woman arranges her dough, and they continue in turn. As long as they are engaged in handling the dough, it will not become leavened.


专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讜讻讜壮: 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚谞转讬 诇驻谞讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讬诇诪讚讬谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 讘谞砖讬诐 讝专讬讝讜转 讗讜 讘谞砖讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讝专讬讝讜转 讘注爪讬诐 诇讞讬诐 讗讜 讘注爪讬诐 讬讘砖讬诐 讘转谞讜专 讞诐 讗讜 讘转谞讜专 爪讜谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬 讗讬谉 诇讱 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖砖谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 转驻讞 转诇讟讜砖 讘爪讜谞谉:


It was taught in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva says that not all women, not all wood, and not all ovens are the same. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva said: I deliberated this matter before Rabban Gamliel, asking: May our master teach us if your statement, cited in the mishna, was said with regard to diligent women or women who are not diligent? Was it said with regard to an oven fueled with moist wood or dry wood? Was it said with regard to a hot oven or a cold oven? Rabban Gamliel himself said to me: You have only what the Sages taught, which is that this is the principle: If the dough begins to rise such that there is a concern that it may become leavened, she should spread cold water onto the dough to prevent it from becoming leavened.


诪转谞讬壮 砖讬讗讜专 讬砖专祝 讜讛讗讜讻诇讜 驻讟讜专 住讬讚讜拽 讬砖专祝 讜讛讗讜讻诇讜 讞讬讬讘 讻专转


MISHNA: Dough at the beginning of the leavening process [siur], must be burned, but one who eats it is exempt from the punishment of karet because the dough had not become fully leavened. Dough that has reached the stage of cracking must be burned, and one who eats it intentionally is liable to receive karet, as he has intentionally eaten leavened bread during Passover.


讗讬讝讛讜 砖讬讗讜专 讻拽专谞讬 讞讙讘讬诐 住讬讚讜拽 砖谞转注专讘讜 住讚拽讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 讛讗讜讻诇讜 讞讬讬讘 讻专转 讜讗讬讝讛讜 砖讬讗讜专 讻诇 砖讛讻住讬驻讜 驻谞讬讜 讻讗讚诐 砖注诪讚讜 砖注专讜转讬讜:


What is considered siur? Dough that has been leavened to the point that it has cracks that look like the antennae of locusts. The stage of cracking occurs later in the leavening process, when the cracks intermingle. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: One who intentionally eats either this or that, dough with cracks like locust antennae or with cracks that have become intermingled, is liable to receive karet, as once dough begins to crack it has certainly become leavened. And what is siur? It is any dough whose surface has becomes pale like the face of a person whose hair stands on end due to fear.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 砖讬讗讜专 讻诇 砖讛讻住讬驻讜 驻谞讬讜 讻讗讚诐 砖注诪讚讜 砖注专讜转讬讜 住讬讚讜拽 讻拽专谞讬 讞讙讘讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬讝讛讜 砖讬讗讜专 讻拽专谞讬 讞讙讘讬诐 住讬讚讜拽 砖谞转注专讘讜 住讚拽讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 讛讗讜讻诇讜 讞讬讬讘 讻专转


GEMARA: The Sages taught: What is siur? It is any dough whose surface has become pale like the face of a person whose hair stands on end due to fear. Cracking is considered to have occurred when cracks like the antennae of locusts appear. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: What is siur? It is when the dough forms cracks like the antennae of locusts, and cracking is when the cracks intermingle. And one who intentionally eats either this or that is liable to receive karet.


讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 砖讬讗讜专 讬砖专祝 讜讛讗讜讻诇讜 驻讟讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讛讗讜讻诇讜 讞讬讬讘 讻专转


The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that siur must be burned but that one who eats it is exempt from karet; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. The opinion attributed to the Rabbis in the baraita appears to be the same as that which is attributed to Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna, but according to Rabbi Yehuda, one who eats siur is exempt from karet. The Gemara answers: Say that the baraita should be understood in the following manner: According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, whose opinion was mentioned previously, one who intentionally eats either this or that is liable to receive karet, whereas according to the Rabbis he is exempt.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 诇讱 讻诇 住讚拽 讜住讚拽 诪诇诪注诇讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讻诪讛 住讚拽讬诐 诪诇诪讟讛:


Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir? It is that there is no crack above that does not have several cracks below. Therefore, even if only one small crack appears on the surface, it is a sign that the inside of the dough is filled with cracks and has become leavened.


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 is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

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 48

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 48

诪谉 讛诪讗转讬诐 诪诪讜转专 砖转讬 诪讗讜转 砖谞砖转讬讬专讜 讘讘讜专 诪讻讗谉 诇注专诇讛 砖讘讟讬诇讛 讘诪讗转讬诐


The phrase: Out of two hundred, is expounded with regard to wine brought as a libation: From the remaining two hundred portions that remain in the vat. This is referring to a case where wine prohibited as produce grown during a tree or vine鈥檚 first three years [orla] is mixed with permitted wine. The halakha is that this wine mixture may be brought as a libation only if there is two hundred times more permitted wine than prohibited wine. From here it is derived that orla is nullified in a mixture of two hundred.


诪诪砖拽讛 讬砖专讗诇 诪谉 讛诪讜转专 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 谞住讻讬谉 诪谉 讛讟讘诇


The phrase: From the well-watered pastures of Israel, means that sacrifices may be offered only from that which is permitted to Israel. From here, the Sages stated: One may not offer libations from untithed produce [tevel], since Jews are prohibited from eating tevel.


讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 诪谉 讛诪讜拽爪讛 讗诪专转 诪讛 讟讘诇 诪讬讜讞讚 砖讗讬住讜专 讙讜驻讜 讙专诐 诇讜 讗祝 讻诇 砖讗讬住讜专 讙讜驻讜 讙专诐 诇讜 讬爪讗 诪讜拽爪讛 砖讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专 讙讜驻讜 讙专诐 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗讬住讜专 讚讘专 讗讞专 讙专诐 诇讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬住讜专 诪讜拽爪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讛 诇讬 讗讬住讜专 讙讜驻讜 诪讛 诇讬 讗讬住讜专 讚讘专 讗讞专


I might have thought that one may not offer an animal that is set-aside on Shabbat or during a Festival; therefore, you have said: Just as tevel is unique in that its inherent prohibition caused it to be prohibited for Jews to eat, so too, anything whose inherent prohibition caused it to be prohibited for Jews to eat is invalid as an offering. This excludes an animal that has been set aside, which does not have an inherent prohibition that caused it to be prohibited for eating; rather, a different prohibition, i.e., the prohibition of utilizing set-aside objects on Shabbat, caused it to be prohibited for eating. And if you say the prohibition of utilizing set-aside material is by Torah law, what difference is there to me if a food is inherently prohibited; and what difference is there to me if it is prohibited due to a different prohibition? If there is a distinction between these prohibitions, it must be that the prohibition of utilizing set-aside material is by rabbinic law, and therefore, like many other rabbinic decrees, it does not apply in the Temple.


讜注讜讚 讛讗 讗转 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专转 讞讬诇讜拽 诪诇讗讻讜转 诇砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 讞讬诇讜拽 诪诇讗讻讜转 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘


And furthermore, Abaye said to Rabba: It is possible to challenge your interpretation of the baraita from a different angle. Wasn鈥檛 it you who said, as cited in tractate Makkot, that there is division of labors with regard to Shabbat, and therefore one is required to bring two sin-offerings if he performed two prohibited labors of different primary categories in one lapse of awareness, or if he performed a prohibited labor twice, during separate lapses of awareness; however, there is no division of labors with regard to a Festival, and therefore one is not punished with multiple floggings for performing multiple prohibited labors? Consequently, how could one be liable for multiple floggings for the prohibition of utilizing set-aside materials and for cooking the sciatic nerve on a Festival?


讗诇讗 讗驻讬拽 讛讘注专讛 讜注讬讬诇 注爪讬 讗砖讬专讛 讜讗讝讛专讛 诪讛讻讗 讜诇讗 讬讚讘拽 讘讬讚讱 诪讗讜诪讛 诪谉 讛讞专诐


Rather, in order to make this baraita consistent with Rabba鈥檚 opinion, remove the prohibition of kindling a fire and add in its place the prohibition of using the wood of a tree designated for idolatry [asheira]. And the warning, i.e., the source of the negative commandment associated with using this wood, is derived from here, a verse that relates to an idolatrous city that is burned: 鈥淣othing from the spoil shall cling to your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:18).


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讜谞诇拽讬 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讜诇讗 转讘讬讗 转讜注讘讛 讗诇 讘讬转讱


Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Abaye: If this case is referring to using wood from an asheira, one should also be flogged due to having transgressed the prohibition of: 鈥淵ou shall not bring an abominable thing into your home鈥 (Deuteronomy 7:26). However, this would add an extra negative commandment to the list enumerated in the baraita.


讗诇讗 讗驻讬拽 讛讘注专讛 讜注讬讬诇 注爪讬 讛拽讚砖 讜讗讝讛专讛 诪讛讻讗 讜讗砖专讬讛诐 转砖专驻讜谉 讘讗砖 诇讗 转注砖讜谉 讻谉 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讻诐


Rather, remove the prohibition of kindling a fire and add in its place the prohibition of burning consecrated wood. And the warning, i.e., the source of this negative command, is from here: 鈥淎nd you shall burn their asheira trees with fire…you shall not do this to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:3鈥4). Therefore, one who burns a consecrated item in a destructive manner is punished with lashes. In conclusion, no adequate proof can be adduced from the baraita to reject Rabba鈥檚 opinion.


讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讬讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇


Rami bar 岣ma said: This dispute between Rav 岣sda and Rabba with regard to the principle: Since, etc., is a matter of dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua in the mishna. As, Rabbi Eliezer, who says that 岣lla should be separated only after the bread has been baked, holds that we say the principle: Since, etc. Since any portion of the dough could potentially be eaten if another part of the dough is designated as 岣lla, therefore, one is permitted to bake bread without separating 岣lla from it ab initio. And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: We do not say the principle: Since, etc.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讚讬诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讗诇讗 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚拽讗 注讬讬诇讬 诇转谞讜专讗 讻诇 讞讚讗 讜讞讚讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗讜专讞讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讞讝讬 诇讚讬讚讬讛 诇讗 讞讝讬 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇


Rav Pappa said that this claim can be rejected in the following manner: Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer only stated that we say the principle: Since, etc., there, in the case of the separation of 岣lla, because at the time that it was placed into the oven, each and every loaf was fit for him, and there was no indication as to which loaf he would designate as 岣lla. However, here, in a case where the bread one is baking on the Festival is fit for guests but is not fit for him, say that so too, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer we do not say the principle: Since, etc.


讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛转诐 讚诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讗诇讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讞讚讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讗 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讜诇讗 诇讗讜专讞讬谉 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讞讝讬 诪讬讛转 诇讗讜专讞讬谉 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇


Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, rejected Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 statement for a different reason and said: Perhaps that is not so. Rabbi Yehoshua only stated that we do not say the principle: Since, etc., there, where there is one portion of the bread that is not fit for him or for guests, because the piece that is designated as 岣lla cannot be eaten by anyone due to the fact that it is ritually impure. However, here, in the case of one who is baking bread during the Festival so that it can be eaten on a weekday, when it is at least fit for guests, say that so too, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, we say the principle: Since, etc.


讗诪专讜讛 [专讘谞谉] 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 拽讬讘诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 拽讬讘诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚拽砖讬讗 诇谉 讜讗转讬讗 讻诪讛 砖谞讬 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛砖转讗 讗诪专讜讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讜诇讗 谞讬拽讘诇讛


The Gemara recounts: The Sages said Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 statement before Rabbi Yirmeya and Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Yirmeya accepted it and Rabbi Zeira did not accept it. Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: The following matter has been difficult for us to explain for several years: With regard to what principle did Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree? Now an explanation has been stated in the name of a great man. Shall we not accept it?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬讻讬 讗拽讘诇讛 讚转谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讚讘专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转注砖讛 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 讜砖转讬拽 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 讗讬转讗 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讜讗讬诇


He said to him: How can I accept it? We already learned in a baraita with regard to their dispute: Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: According to your statement, one violates the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not perform any labor鈥 (Exodus 20:9). Rabbi Eliezer could not respond to this claim and was silent. But if it is as Rami bar 岣ma explained, Rabbi Eliezer should have said to him: The reason for my opinion is due to the principle: Since, etc., on the basis of which no prohibited labor has been performed.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚转谞讬谞讗 讘讘专讬讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讚讘专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 讬专讗讛 讜讘诇 讬诪爪讗 讜砖转讬拽 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讗讛讚专 诇讬讛 讛讗 拽讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚转谞谉 诇讗 讝讛讜 讞诪抓 砖诪讜讝讛专讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 讬专讗讛 讜讘诇 讬诪爪讗 讗诇讗 砖转讬拽 诇讬讛 讘讘专讬讬转讗 讜诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗讬诪讜专 砖转讬拽 诇讬讛 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜讗讛讚专 诇讬讛 讘诪讻讬诇转讗 讗讞专讬转讬


Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: According to your reasoning, with regard to that which we already learned in a baraita, that Rabbi Eliezer said to him: According to your statement, he transgresses the prohibitions: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, and in response to this challenge Rabbi Yehoshua was silent, did he too not respond to Rabbi Eliezer? He responded to him in the mishna, as we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehoshua said: 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. Rather, it must be explained in the following manner: He appeared to be silent in the baraita simply because his response was not recorded, but he responded in the mishna. So too, here it is possible to say that he appeared silent in the mishna, but he responded in a different tractate.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻讘谉 讘转讬专讗


It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The halakha with regard to the separation of 岣lla from impure dough during Passover is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. And Rabbi Yitz岣k said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of ben Beteira.


讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专 注讬住讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讘讞讬讟讬谉 拽讘讬谉 讜讘砖注讜专讬谉 砖诇砖转 拽讘讬谉 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讞讬诇讜祝 讛讚讘专讬诐


The Gemara asks: How much dough may be kneaded at once on Passover without concern that the dough will become leavened in the process? Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: With regard to wheat, one may use the amount of flour that comes from two kav of grain; and with regard to barley, one may use the amount of flour that comes from three kav. Rabbi Natan says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: The matters are reversed. One may knead the flour produced from three kav of wheat or two kav of barley without concern that it will become leavened.


讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讘讞讟讬谉 砖诇砖转 拽讘讬谉 讜讘砖注讜专讬谉 讗专讘注讛 拽讘讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讞住讬讻转讗 讛讗 讘诪注诇讬讬转讗


The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a different baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: With regard to wheat, one may use the amount of flour that comes from three kav of grain, and with regard to barley, one may use the amount of flour that comes from four kav? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this latter baraita is referring to low-quality grain, and that baraita is referring to high-quality grain. One can obtain a higher proportion of flour from high-quality grain than from low-quality grain, which contains a greater amount of chaff.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讙专讬注讬谉 讞讬讟讬 讞住讬讻转讗 诪讞讬讟讬 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讟驻讬 诪讚讙专讬注谉 砖注专讬 讞住讬讻转讗 诪砖注专讬 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讚讗讬诇讜 讛转诐 转讬诇转讗 讜讛讻讗 专讬讘注讗


Rav Pappa said: Learn from this that the extent to which low-quality wheat is worse than high-quality wheat is greater than the extent to which low-quality barley is worse than high-quality barley, i.e., the discrepancy between the different levels of quality is more significant with regard to wheat, as there, in the case of wheat, they differ by one-third; and here, in the case of barley, they differ by only one-fourth.


讗诪专 专讘 拽讘讗 诪诇讜讙谞讗讛 诇驻讬住讞讗 讜讻谉 诇讞诇讛 (讜讛转谞讬讗)


Rav said: A kav from the place Melogna is the amount that can be used to prepare dough for Passover. And similarly, with regard to 岣lla, that is the minimum amount of dough from which 岣lla must be separated. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita:


讞诪砖转 专讘注讬诐 拽诪讞 讜注讜讚 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讞诇讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 拽讘讗 诪诇讜讙谞讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讛讗讬 砖讬注讜专讗 拽讗讬


Dough made from five-quarters of a log of flour and a bit more obligates one to separate 岣lla? The Gemara answers that this is what Rav is saying: A kav from Melogna is the same measure as this, as it is not a regular kav but a larger measure, identical to the amount from which one is required to separate 岣lla.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛谞讬 谞砖讬 讚讬讚谉 谞讛讜讙 诇诪讬驻讗 拽驻讬讝讗 拽驻讬讝讗 诇驻讬住讞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 诇讞讜诪专讗 讞讜诪专讗 讚讗转讬 诇讬讚讬 拽讜诇讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪驻拽注 诇讛 诪讞诇讛


Rav Yosef said: These women of our family ordinarily bake kefiza by kefiza, i.e., three-quarters of a log at a time, on Passover, since it is easier to prevent small quantities of dough from becoming leavened. Abaye said to him: What is your opinion? Do you tell them to do this in order to be stringent? That is a stringency that leads to a leniency, as by working with small quantities one removes the dough from the obligation to separate 岣lla.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚注讘讚谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 (讚转谞讬讗) 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛专讜讚讛 讜谞讜转谉 诇住诇 讛住诇 诪爪专驻谉 诇讞诇讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专


Rav Yosef said to him: They do separate 岣lla from the dough, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: One who removes loaves of bread from an oven and places them in a basket, the basket combines them to reach the quantity from which one is required to separate 岣lla, even if each of the loaves would not attain the necessary measure for separating 岣lla on their own. And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Therefore, the women of Rav Yosef鈥檚 household would put all the finished matzot into a basket and separate 岣lla from them.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讻讻专讜转 砖诇 讘讘诇 砖谞讜砖讻讜转 讝讜 诪讝讜 讗讘诇 讻注讻讬谉 诇讗 讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻注讻讬谉


Abaye said to him: But wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: They taught that a basket combines the loaves only with regard to Babylonian loaves that bite from one another. In other words, the loaves are slightly attached, and when one separates them, a bit from one loaf comes off with the other loaf. However, it does not apply to long, rod-like loaves [ke鈥檃khin] that were baked separately. Therefore, that principle cannot be applied to the case discussed here, in which each batch of matza was baked on its own. Rav Yosef answered: Wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that baraita that Rabbi 岣nina said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer even with regard to long, rod-like loaves? This indicates that Rav Yosef accepted the view of Rabbi 岣nina.


讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讟讘诇讗 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讘讝讘讝讬谉 诪讛讜 转讜讱 讻诇讬 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讜讬专 讻诇讬 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 转讬拽讜:


In light of this discussion, Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma: With regard to a board without a rim [levizbezin], what is the halakha? Is it considered to be a vessel that combines loaves baked separately into one unit with regard to 岣lla? Do we require the inside of the vessel in order to combine the loaves, and that is lacking, since the board is flat rather than concave? Or perhaps we require the airspace of the vessel, and that is present in this case? The Gemara concludes: Let it stand unresolved.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛住诇 诪爪专驻谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 转谞讜专 诪爪专驻谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻讻专讜转 砖诇 讘讘诇 砖谞讜砖讻讜转 讝讜 诪讝讜 诪爪讟专驻讜转:


It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: A basket combines different loaves placed in it with regard to the obligation to separate 岣lla. Rabbi Yehoshua says: An oven combines them. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Babylonian loaves that bite from one another are combined; however, if the loaves are connected to any lesser degree, e.g., if they are together in an oven or basket, they are not considered combined for the purpose of separating 岣lla.


诪转谞讬壮 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 诇砖讜转 讻讗讞转 讜讗讜驻讜转 讘转谞讜专 讗讞讚 讝讜 讗讞专 讝讜


MISHNA: Rabban Gamliel says: Three women may knead their dough as one, meaning at one time, and bake the batches of dough in one oven, one after the other, and they need not be concerned that their dough will become leavened while they are waiting to use the oven.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 注讜住拽讜转 讘讘爪拽 讻讗讞转 讗讞转 诇砖讛 讜讗讞转 注讜专讻转 讜讗讞转 讗讜驻讛


And the Rabbis say: Three women may be engaged in preparing dough as one, in the following manner: One kneads her dough as another one arranges her own dough so it takes the form of matza, while another one bakes her dough.


专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 讻诇 讛注爪讬诐 讜诇讗 讻诇 讛转谞讜专讬诐 砖讜讬谉 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 转驻讞 转诇讟讜砖 讘爪讜谞谉:


Rabbi Akiva says: Not all women, not all wood, and not all ovens are the same, and therefore no set rules should be established. Rather, this is the principle: If the dough begins to rise, she should spread cold water in which she immersed her hands, onto the dough, in order to stop the leavening process.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇砖讛 讛讬讗 诪拽讟驻转 讜讞讘讬专转讛 诇砖讛 转讞转讬讛 诪拽讟驻转 讛讬讗 讗讜驻讛 讜讞讘讬专转讛 诪拽讟驻转 转讞转讬讛 讜讛砖诇讬砖讬转 诇砖讛 讗讜驻讛 讛讬讗 诇砖讛 讜讞讘讬专转讛 讗讜驻讛 转讞转讬讛 讜讛砖诇讬砖讬转 诪拽讟驻转 讜讞讜讝专转 讞诇讬诇讛 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖注讜住拽讜转 讘讘爪拽 讗讬谞讜 讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讞讬诪讜抓:


GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: When the woman who kneads first completes her kneading, she arranges her dough and another woman kneads in her place. When the first woman finishes arranging her dough, she bakes and another woman arranges her dough in her place, and the third woman kneads her dough. When the first woman finishes baking, she kneads the dough for her next batch, and another woman bakes in her place, and the third woman arranges her dough, and they continue in turn. As long as they are engaged in handling the dough, it will not become leavened.


专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讜讻讜壮: 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚谞转讬 诇驻谞讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讬诇诪讚讬谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 讘谞砖讬诐 讝专讬讝讜转 讗讜 讘谞砖讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讝专讬讝讜转 讘注爪讬诐 诇讞讬诐 讗讜 讘注爪讬诐 讬讘砖讬诐 讘转谞讜专 讞诐 讗讜 讘转谞讜专 爪讜谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬 讗讬谉 诇讱 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖砖谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 转驻讞 转诇讟讜砖 讘爪讜谞谉:


It was taught in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva says that not all women, not all wood, and not all ovens are the same. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva said: I deliberated this matter before Rabban Gamliel, asking: May our master teach us if your statement, cited in the mishna, was said with regard to diligent women or women who are not diligent? Was it said with regard to an oven fueled with moist wood or dry wood? Was it said with regard to a hot oven or a cold oven? Rabban Gamliel himself said to me: You have only what the Sages taught, which is that this is the principle: If the dough begins to rise such that there is a concern that it may become leavened, she should spread cold water onto the dough to prevent it from becoming leavened.


诪转谞讬壮 砖讬讗讜专 讬砖专祝 讜讛讗讜讻诇讜 驻讟讜专 住讬讚讜拽 讬砖专祝 讜讛讗讜讻诇讜 讞讬讬讘 讻专转


MISHNA: Dough at the beginning of the leavening process [siur], must be burned, but one who eats it is exempt from the punishment of karet because the dough had not become fully leavened. Dough that has reached the stage of cracking must be burned, and one who eats it intentionally is liable to receive karet, as he has intentionally eaten leavened bread during Passover.


讗讬讝讛讜 砖讬讗讜专 讻拽专谞讬 讞讙讘讬诐 住讬讚讜拽 砖谞转注专讘讜 住讚拽讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 讛讗讜讻诇讜 讞讬讬讘 讻专转 讜讗讬讝讛讜 砖讬讗讜专 讻诇 砖讛讻住讬驻讜 驻谞讬讜 讻讗讚诐 砖注诪讚讜 砖注专讜转讬讜:


What is considered siur? Dough that has been leavened to the point that it has cracks that look like the antennae of locusts. The stage of cracking occurs later in the leavening process, when the cracks intermingle. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: One who intentionally eats either this or that, dough with cracks like locust antennae or with cracks that have become intermingled, is liable to receive karet, as once dough begins to crack it has certainly become leavened. And what is siur? It is any dough whose surface has becomes pale like the face of a person whose hair stands on end due to fear.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 砖讬讗讜专 讻诇 砖讛讻住讬驻讜 驻谞讬讜 讻讗讚诐 砖注诪讚讜 砖注专讜转讬讜 住讬讚讜拽 讻拽专谞讬 讞讙讘讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬讝讛讜 砖讬讗讜专 讻拽专谞讬 讞讙讘讬诐 住讬讚讜拽 砖谞转注专讘讜 住讚拽讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 讛讗讜讻诇讜 讞讬讬讘 讻专转


GEMARA: The Sages taught: What is siur? It is any dough whose surface has become pale like the face of a person whose hair stands on end due to fear. Cracking is considered to have occurred when cracks like the antennae of locusts appear. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: What is siur? It is when the dough forms cracks like the antennae of locusts, and cracking is when the cracks intermingle. And one who intentionally eats either this or that is liable to receive karet.


讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 砖讬讗讜专 讬砖专祝 讜讛讗讜讻诇讜 驻讟讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讛讗讜讻诇讜 讞讬讬讘 讻专转


The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that siur must be burned but that one who eats it is exempt from karet; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. The opinion attributed to the Rabbis in the baraita appears to be the same as that which is attributed to Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna, but according to Rabbi Yehuda, one who eats siur is exempt from karet. The Gemara answers: Say that the baraita should be understood in the following manner: According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, whose opinion was mentioned previously, one who intentionally eats either this or that is liable to receive karet, whereas according to the Rabbis he is exempt.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 诇讱 讻诇 住讚拽 讜住讚拽 诪诇诪注诇讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讻诪讛 住讚拽讬诐 诪诇诪讟讛:


Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir? It is that there is no crack above that does not have several cracks below. Therefore, even if only one small crack appears on the surface, it is a sign that the inside of the dough is filled with cracks and has become leavened.


Scroll To Top