פסחים כט

פסחים כט

דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי מִישְׁרֵא קָא שָׁרֵי! וְאִי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי — אֲפִילּוּ תּוֹךְ זְמַנּוֹ נָמֵי מִישְׁרֵא קָא שָׁרֵי בַּהֲנָאָה.

Rabbi Shimon also permits one to derive benefit from leavened bread after Passover even if it was owned by a Jew. And if the mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, he would permit one to derive benefit from it even during Passover.

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, וְיָלֵיף שְׂאוֹר דַּאֲכִילָה מִשְּׂאוֹר דִּרְאִיָּיה. מָה שְׂאוֹר דִּרְאִיָּיה — שֶׁלְּךָ אִי אַתָּה רוֹאֶה, אֲבָל אַתָּה רוֹאֶה שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים וְשֶׁל גָּבוֹהַּ. אַף שְׂאוֹר דַּאֲכִילָה — שֶׁלְּךָ אִי אַתָּה אוֹכֵל, אֲבָל אַתָּה אוֹכֵל שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים וְשֶׁל גָּבוֹהַּ.

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Actually, it is possible to explain that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and he derives the restrictions pertaining to the eating of leaven from the restrictions relating to seeing leaven. The prohibition against seeing leaven is worded: “It shall not be seen by you.” It is understood to mean that you should not see your own or another Jew’s leaven. But you may see leaven that belongs to others, i.e., gentiles, and leaven consecrated to God. Similarly, with regard to the prohibition against eating leaven that was owned by a Jew during Passover after Passover, you may not eat your own leavened bread, but you may eat the leavened bread of others or the leaven consecrated to God after Passover.

וּבְדִין הוּא דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמִיתְנֵא דַּאֲפִילּוּ בַּאֲכִילָה נָמֵי שְׁרֵי, וְאַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה — תְּנָא נָמֵי דְּגוֹי מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. וּבְדִין הוּא דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמִיתְנֵא דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּתוֹךְ זְמַנּוֹ מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה, וְאַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ — תְּנָא נָמֵי דְּגוֹי לְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ.

And by right it should have taught that even the eating of leavened bread belonging to a gentile is permitted after the conclusion of Passover, but since the tanna taught that it is forbidden to derive benefit from leavened bread belonging to a Jew after Passover, he also taught that it is permitted to derive benefit from leavened bread belonging to a gentile. However, one should understand that it is permitted to eat this leavened bread as well. And similarly, by right it should have taught that even during Passover it is permitted to derive benefit from leavened bread that belongs to gentiles. But since the tanna taught about the leavened bread belonging to a Jew after Passover, he also taught about the leavened bread belonging to a gentile after Passover. Thus, one should not infer halakhot from the exact formulation of these details in the baraita, but rather understand that the mishna follows Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion.

רָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, קְנָסָא קָנֵיס, הוֹאִיל וְעָבַר עֲלֵיהּ בְּבַל יֵרָאֶה וּבַל יִמָּצֵא.

Rava said: This is not so. Actually, our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. However, this is difficult, as Rabbi Shimon states that it is permitted for a Jew to derive benefit from leavened bread that had been owned by another Jew during Passover, while our mishna explicitly states that this is forbidden. This can be resolved by explaining that Rabbi Shimon argues that it is permitted only according to Torah law. However, one who intentionally commits such a transgression incurs a penalty. Since he transgressed the prohibition it shall not be seen and the prohibition it shall not be found, the Sages decreed that it is forbidden for him to derive benefit from this leavened bread.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרָבָא, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי: שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל אָסוּר, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לֹא יֵרָאֶה״. אֶלָּא לְרַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the opinion of Rava, this explanation is consistent with that which was taught in the mishna: Leavened bread that belonged to a Jew is forbidden because it is stated: “It shall not be seen” (Exodus 13:7). According to this explanation, the connection between the prohibition against deriving benefit from leavened bread that was owned by a Jew during Passover and the verse prohibiting seeing leaven during Passover is clear. The prohibition against deriving benefit from this leavened bread is a rabbinically instituted fine for transgressing the Torah prohibition of “It shall not be seen.” But according to the opinion of Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, which states that our mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and which renders forbidden by Torah law deriving benefit from leavened bread that was owned by a Jew during Passover, why is this verse cited? The mishna should have said that it is forbidden due to the verse “Leavened bread shall not be eaten” (Exodus 13:3), as that is the verse from which Rabbi Yehuda derives this prohibition.

מִי סָבְרַתְּ אַסֵּיפָא קָאֵי?! אַרֵישָׁא קָאֵי וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: חָמֵץ שֶׁל גּוֹי שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו הַפֶּסַח מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לֹא יֵרָאֶה לְךָ״ — שֶׁלְּךָ אִי אַתָּה רוֹאֶה, אֲבָל אַתָּה רוֹאֶה שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים וְשֶׁל גָּבוֹהַּ. וְיָלֵיף שְׂאוֹר דַּאֲכִילָה מִשְּׂאוֹר דִּרְאִיָּיה.

The Gemara answers: Do you hold that this proof is referring to the latter clause of the mishna, where the prohibition against deriving benefit from leavened bread owned by a Jew is discussed? It is referring to the first clause of the mishna, which discusses permission to derive benefit from leavened bread owned by a gentile, and this is what it is saying: Leavened bread of a gentile, over which Passover has elapsed, i.e., that remains after the conclusion of Passover, it is permissible to derive benefit from it, due to the verse where it is stated: “It shall not be seen by you.” This indicates that you may not see your own leaven, but you may see leaven that belongs to others and leaven consecrated to God. And he derives the details about the prohibition of eating leaven from the prohibition of seeing leaven. The verse “It shall not be seen by you” should be understood as an explanation of what is permitted and not as an explanation of what is forbidden.

וְאָזְדוּ לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ: דְּאִיתְּמַר, הָאוֹכֵל שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל גּוֹי שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו הַפֶּסַח, לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, רָבָא אָמַר: לוֹקֶה, וְרַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר: אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה.

The Gemara comments that Rava and Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov follow their line of reasoning. For it was stated that they dispute this issue: With regard to one who eats leaven of a gentile over which Passover has elapsed, i.e., that remains after the conclusion of Passover, according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, Rava said: He is flogged, as he has violated a Torah prohibition. And Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: He is not flogged.

רָבָא אָמַר: לוֹקֶה, לָא יָלֵיף רַבִּי יְהוּדָה שְׂאוֹר דַּאֲכִילָה מִשְּׂאוֹר דִּרְאִיָּיה. וְרַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר: אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה, יָלֵיף שְׂאוֹר דַּאֲכִילָה מִשְּׂאוֹר דִּרְאִיָּיה.

The Gemara explains: Rava said that according to Rabbi Yehuda, he is flogged, as Rabbi Yehuda does not derive the prohibition against eating leaven from the prohibition against seeing leaven. Instead, he derives the prohibition from a verse that does not use the words “to you,” and therefore leavened bread owned by a gentile over Passover is forbidden in all circumstances. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: He is not flogged, as Rabbi Yehuda learns the prohibition against eating leaven from the prohibition against seeing leaven, and thus it is limited to leavened bread owned by a Jew.

וַהֲדַר בֵּיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב מֵהַהִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: הָאוֹכֵל חָמֵץ שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ בַּמּוֹעֵד — מָעַל. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: לֹא מָעַל.

The Gemara notes: Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov retracted that position on this matter. As it was taught in a baraita: One who eats consecrated leavened bread during the festival of Passover is guilty of misuse of consecrated items. If one performed this action unintentionally, then he must offer a guilt-offering to atone for using a consecrated item for non-sacred purposes. And some say: He is not guilty of misuse of consecrated items.

מַאן יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶּן הַקָּנָה הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶּן הַקָּנָה הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה אֶת יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים כַּשַּׁבָּת לְתַשְׁלוּמִין.

The Gemara asks: To whom is the phrase in the baraita: Some say, referring? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana would render the status of Yom Kippur the same as that of Shabbat with regard to payment for damage caused by a person in violation of the prohibitions of that day.

מָה שַׁבָּת מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ וּפָטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין, אַף יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ וּפָטוּר מִתַּשְׁלוּמִין.

Just as one who desecrates Shabbat by intentionally causing damage to his fellow’s property, e.g., by lighting his stack of grain on fire, is liable to receive the death penalty, since one who intentionally desecrates Shabbat is punished by stoning and is therefore exempt from payment, the basis for this exemption being the principle that after committing multiple transgressions, one is punished only with the most severe punishment; so too, one who causes damage by desecrating Yom Kippur is liable to receive the death penalty, as this violation is punished with karet, i.e., spiritual death at the hand of Heaven, and is therefore exempt from payment. According to this position, one who eats leavened bread during Passover and is deserving of karet should also be exempt from other punishments, including the penalty for misuse of consecrated items. In any case, it is clear that both Sages mentioned in the baraita agree that leavened bread has monetary value. This must be due to the fact that one is permitted to derive benefit from it after Passover. Therefore, it appears that they both accept Rabbi Shimon’s position.

רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: בְּפוֹדִין אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לִכְלָבִים קָמִיפַּלְגִי.

Rav Yosef said: The dispute mentioned in this baraita should be understood differently. Both tanna’im in the baraita accept the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, which states that one may derive benefit from leavened bread during Passover, and thus, in principle, one should be permitted to derive benefit from this consecrated leavened bread. Yet, unlike non-sacred leavened bread, which one may sell to gentiles or feed to dogs, it is prohibited to use consecrated leavened bread in this way. Therefore, the question whether this leavened bread has any monetary value depends on the question whether one may redeem consecrated items in order to feed them to dogs, and it is about this point that the tanna’im disagree.

מַאן דְּאָמַר מָעַל, קָסָבַר: פּוֹדִין אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לִכְלָבִים. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא מָעַל, קָסָבַר: אֵין פּוֹדִין.

The one who said that he misused consecrated items by using this leavened bread during Passover holds that one may redeem consecrated items in order to feed them to dogs. Because the food may be redeemed for this purpose, the consecrated leavened bread does have some monetary value, and therefore using it is considered misuse of consecrated items. And the one who said that he did not misuse consecrated items holds that consecrated property may not be redeemed for this purpose, but only in order to provide food for a Jewish person. In this case, since it is forbidden to eat this leavened bread during Passover, the consecrated leavened bread has no value at all at this time. Therefore, one who eats such leavened bread is not guilty of misuse of consecrated items.

רַב אַחָא בַּר רָבָא תְּנָא לָהּ

The Gemara comments: Rav Aḥa bar Rava taught

לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף בְּהָא לִישָּׁנָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֵין פּוֹדִין אֶת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְהַאֲכִילָן לִכְלָבִים, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: בְּדָבָר הַגּוֹרֵם לְמָמוֹן כְּמָמוֹן דָּמֵי.

this halakha in the name of Rav Yosef with the following formulation: Everyone agrees that one may not redeem consecrated items in order to feed them to dogs. And here, they disagree with regard to the question of whether an item that can cause a financial loss is considered to be of monetary value. The Sages disagree about the status of an object that does not have any present value but if lost or destroyed will cause the owner financial loss. In other words, they disagree as to whether such an item is considered to have inherent value. This dispute can be applied to our discussion of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who states that one is permitted to eat leavened bread after Passover even if it was owned by a Jew.

מַאן דְּאָמַר מָעַל, קָסָבַר: דָּבָר הַגּוֹרֵם לְמָמוֹן — כְּמָמוֹן דָּמֵי. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא מָעַל, קָסָבַר: דָּבָר הַגּוֹרֵם לְמָמוֹן — לָאו כְּמָמוֹן דָּמֵי.

The Gemara explains: The one who said that he misused consecrated property by using consecrated leavened bread during Passover holds that an item that can cause a financial loss is considered to be of monetary value. Although the leavened bread is currently worthless, it can be eaten after Passover and will have some value at that time. It is therefore considered to have monetary value now, such that one who uses it is guilty of misuse of consecrated items. And the one who said that he did not misuse consecrated property holds that an item that can cause a financial loss is not considered to be of monetary value. Therefore, since the leavened bread is currently worthless, one who uses it would not be guilty of misuse of consecrated property.

רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא דָּבָר הַגּוֹרֵם לְמָמוֹן — כְּמָמוֹן דָּמֵי, וְהָכָא בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא מָעַל — כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מָעַל — כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov explains the issue as follows: Everyone agrees that an item that can cause a financial loss is considered to be of monetary value, and here they disagree with regard to the same point of dispute as Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon. The opinion of the one who said that he did not misuse consecrated items is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that one may not derive benefit from leavened bread that was owned by a Jew during Passover. Thus, the consecrated leavened bread is worthless, since it will remain prohibited after Passover as well. And the one who said that he misused consecrated items is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that one may derive benefit from leavened bread after the conclusion of Passover even if it was owned by a Jew during Passover. Therefore, the consecrated leavened bread is considered to be of monetary value, and one who uses it is guilty of misuse of consecrated items.

וְהָא רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב הוּא דְּאָמַר דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה יָלֵיף שְׂאוֹר דַּאֲכִילָה מִשְּׂאוֹר דִּרְאִיָּיה! אֶלָּא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב מֵהַהִיא.

The Gemara raises a challenge: But isn’t it Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov who said that Rabbi Yehuda derives the details of the prohibition against eating leaven from the details of the prohibition against seeing leaven? Just as it is permitted to see the leavened bread of a gentile or of God, so too, it is permitted to eat this type of leavened bread after Passover. Therefore, consecrated leavened bread would be permitted after Passover even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rather, it should be understood that Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov retracted that explanation of Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, and agrees with Rava, who explains that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that any leavened bread in existence during Passover is forbidden afterward.

רַב אָשֵׁי אֲמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא — אֵין פּוֹדִין, וְדָבָר הַגּוֹרֵם לְמָמוֹן — לָאו כְּמָמוֹן דָּמֵי, וְהָכָא בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי וְרַבָּנַן קָמִיפַּלְגִי. מַאן דְּאָמַר מָעַל — כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא מָעַל — כְּרַבָּנַן.

Rav Ashi said that everyone agrees that one does not redeem consecrated property in order to feed it to dogs, and similarly, everyone agrees that an item that can cause a financial loss is not considered to be of monetary value. And here, in this baraita, they disagree with regard to the same point of dispute as do Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and the Rabbis. The opinion of the one who said that he misused consecrated items by eating the consecrated leavened bread is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who maintains that one may derive benefit from leavened bread that belongs to a Jew even during the seven days of Passover. Therefore, since the leavened bread has some value, one is guilty of misuse of consecrated items by using it. And the opinion of the one who said that he did not misuse consecrated items is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that one may not derive benefit from leavened bread during Passover, thus rendering the consecrated leavened bread worthless. Although it may have some value after Passover, an item that can cause a financial loss is not considered to be of monetary value, and therefore it is presently considered to be worthless.

אָמַר רַב: חָמֵץ בִּזְמַנּוֹ, בֵּין בְּמִינוֹ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ — אָסוּר. שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנּוֹ, בְּמִינוֹ — אָסוּר, שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ — מוּתָּר.

Rav said: With regard to leavened bread that becomes mixed with permitted food, the following distinction applies. During its time of prohibition, i.e., during the seven days of Passover, leavened bread is forbidden whether it is mixed with its own type, for example, when leavened flour is mixed with matza flour or when unleavened matza is mixed with leavened matza, or it is mixed with another type of substance. Not during its time of prohibition, but rather after Passover, if it is mixed with its own type of substance, then it is prohibited. However, if it is mixed with another type of substance, then it is permitted.

בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ מוּתָּר? הָא יְהֵיב טַעְמָא!

The Gemara asks: With what are we dealing? If you say that there is enough leavened bread such that it gives flavor to the mixture, i.e., at least one part in sixty, then if it is not during its time and mixed with another type of substance, why is it permitted? Doesn’t it give flavor to the mixture, and, as one who eats this mixture will distinguish the forbidden flavor, the entire mixture is forbidden?

אֶלָּא בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ. חָמֵץ בִּזְמַנּוֹ, בֵּין בְּמִינוֹ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ אָסוּר, רַב לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, בְּמִינוֹ — בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.

Rather, this case is dealing with any amount, a minimal quantity of leavened bread that has been mixed with a large quantity of matza. The halakha in this case is that leavened bread during its time of prohibition is forbidden, whether it is mixed with its own type of substance or with another type of substance. This statement of Rav conforms to his line of reasoning as follows: As it is Rav and Shmuel who both say: With regard to any foods forbidden by the Torah that become mixed with permitted foods, if the permitted food is of its own type, such that it is impossible to distinguish one from another, then even any amount of the prohibited substance renders the entire mixture prohibited. However, if the forbidden food was mixed with another type of substance, then the mixture becomes prohibited only when there is enough of the forbidden item to give flavor to the mixture.

רַב גָּזַר חָמֵץ בִּזְמַנּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ אַטּוּ מִינוֹ. וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנּוֹ בְּמִינוֹ — אָסוּר, כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

Rav rendered an additional decree prohibiting leavened bread during its time of prohibition, when that leavened bread is mixed with another type of food even when only a small bit of it is mixed in, due to the prohibition against consuming a comparable mixture with its own type of substance. Owing to the severity of the prohibition against consuming leavened bread during Passover, Rav thought it necessary to render this additional decree. Rav’s statement that leavened bread is forbidden not during its time, when it is mixed with its own type of substance, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that according to the Torah, leavened bread is forbidden even after Passover, and thus even a mixture of it is prohibited.

וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ — מוּתָּר, דְּשֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנּוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ אַטּוּ מִינוֹ — כּוּלֵּי הַאי לָא גָּזְרִינַן.

But if it is mixed with another type of substance it is permitted, because there is no need to go so far as to render a decree with regard to a mixture with another type of substance not during its time, due to the prohibition of a mixture with the same type of substance. Rav maintains that when any prohibited item falls into a mixture of a different type of substance, it is nullified, unless it gives flavor to the new mixture. Therefore, the same principle should apply to leavened bread after Passover, and a small amount should be nullified once the more serious prohibition no longer applies to it.

שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: חָמֵץ בִּזְמַנּוֹ, בְּמִינוֹ — אָסוּר, שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ — מוּתָּר. שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנּוֹ, בֵּין בְּמִינוֹ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ — מוּתָּר. חָמֵץ בִּזְמַנּוֹ, בְּמִינוֹ — אָסוּר, שְׁמוּאֵל לְטַעְמֵיהּ — דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, בְּמִינוֹ — אֲסוּרִין בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.

In contrast, Shmuel said that if leavened bread becomes mixed with permitted food during its time of prohibition, then the following distinction applies: If it becomes mixed with its own type of food it is forbidden, but if it becomes mixed with another type of food it is permitted. If it becomes mixed together not during its time of prohibition, but after Passover, then regardless of whether it becomes mixed with its own type or with another type of substance, it is permitted. With regard to the statement that leavened bread mixed with the same type of substance during its time of prohibition is forbidden, Shmuel conforms to his line of reasoning below: As it is Rav and Shmuel who both say: With regard to any foods prohibited by the Torah that become mixed with permitted foods, if the permitted food is of its own type, such that it is impossible to distinguish one from another, then even any amount of the prohibited substance renders the entire mixture prohibited. However, if the prohibited food is mixed with another type of substance, then the mixture becomes prohibited only when there is enough of the forbidden item to give flavor to the mixture.

שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן אַטּוּ מִינָן לָא גָּזַר. שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנּוֹ, בֵּין בְּמִינָן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן — מוּתָּרִין, כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

And Shmuel did not render a decree prohibiting a mixture with another type of substance, due to the prohibition against consuming a mixture with its same type. However, not during its time, but rather after Passover, the mixture is permitted, regardless of whether it was mixed with its own type or with another type. And this statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who states that after Passover one may derive benefit from leavened bread that was owned by a Jew during Passover.

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חָמֵץ בִּזְמַנּוֹ, בֵּין בְּמִינוֹ וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ — אָסוּר בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנּוֹ, בֵּין בְּמִינָן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן — מוּתָּר.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to leavened bread that falls into a mixture during its time of prohibition, whether it is mixed with its own type of substance or another type of substance, it becomes prohibited only when there is enough of the forbidden item to give flavor to the mixture. However, not during its time of prohibition, but rather after Passover, it is always permitted, regardless of whether it falls into a mixture of its own type of substance or whether it falls into a mixture of another type of substance.

חָמֵץ בִּזְמַנּוֹ, בֵּין בְּמִינוֹ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם — רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, בֵּין בְּמִינָן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנּוֹ, בֵּין בְּמִינוֹ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ מוּתָּרִין, כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

The Gemara explains this position: With regard to the statement that leavened bread that falls into a mixture during its time of prohibition, whether with its own type of food or with another type of food, then it is prohibited only when it gives flavor to the mixture, Rabbi Yoḥanan conforms to his line of reasoning below. As it is Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish who both say: With regard to any foods forbidden by the Torah that fall into a mixture, whether of its own type of food or another type of food, the mixture is prohibited when there is enough of the forbidden item to give flavor to the mixture. If less than this amount falls into the mixture, it is nullified by the large majority of permitted food. Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that not during its time of prohibition, but rather after Passover, it is permitted, regardless of whether it falls into a mixture of its own type of food or into a mixture of another type of food, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that leavened bread owned by a Jew during Passover is not prohibited afterward.