ממה אפשר להכין מצות כדי לצאת ידי חובת מצוות אכילת מצה בפסח? רק מחמשת מיני דגן. מהו המקור לדין הזה? חכמים ור’ יוחנן בן נורי חולקים לגבי אורז ודוחן האם יוצאים ידי חובת מצה על ידי מצות שמכינים מהם והאם חייבים עליהם כרת אם אוכלים אותם בפסח במקרה והחמיצו? האם הם באמת באים לידי חימוץ? מה הדין של עיסה שנילושה עם יין, שמן או דבש שהחמיצה – האם חייבים עליה חטאת? האם אומרים שבגלל שלא יוצאים ידי חובתו בפסח אם מצה העשויה ככה כי זה מצה עשירה, האם לא חייבים עליה כרת? המשנה רושמת כל מיני מקרים שיוצאים בהם ידי חיוב מצה (כי מותרים באכילה כגון מעשר שני שנפדה) ואלו שלא בגלל שהם אסורים מסיבות אחרות (מעשר שני שלא נפדה, וכו’). הגמרא עוברת על כל אחד מהם ומסבירה או למה ההלכה ככה או מקשה למה מוזכר, הרי זה פשוט! ואז מתרצת באוקימתא – שמדובר במקרה שלא היה מובן מאליו.
לימוד החודש מוקדש ע”י בט בלקני לכבוד נכדתה, דבורה חנה סרח אייכל.
רוצים להקדיש למידה? התחל כאן:
0:00
0:00
לימוד החודש מוקדש ע”י בט בלקני לכבוד נכדתה, דבורה חנה סרח אייכל.
פסחים לה
אֶלָּא מַעֲלָה. הָכִי נָמֵי — מַעֲלָה.
Rather, this is merely a higher standard, as by Torah law the water may be drawn with one vessel and sanctified in another vessel. The Sages added that this water must be sanctified in the same vessel in which it was drawn from the spring, and they found support for their opinion in the Torah. Here too, the Sages established a higher standard for a consecrated object that became ritually impure, as they decreed that it cannot be ritually purified through insertion in the ground.
אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: טָבַל וְעָלָה — אוֹכֵל בְּמַעֲשֵׂר. הֶעֱרִיב שִׁמְשׁוֹ — אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה. בִּתְרוּמָה אִין, בְּקָדָשִׁים לָא. אַמַּאי, טָהוֹר הוּא? אֶלָּא מַעֲלָה. הָכִי נָמֵי — מַעֲלָה.
Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: We, too, learned a similar statement in a baraita: When the period of ritual impurity of a zav or leper has been completed, and he immersed during the day and emerged, he may eat tithes immediately. Once the sun set for him, he may eat teruma. Rav Shimi bar Ashi infers from this statement: With regard to teruma, yes, he may eat it; however, with regard to consecrated food, no, he may not. Given that conclusion, Rav Shimi bar Ashi asks: Why is there a difference between teruma and consecrated foods? After all, he is ritually pure. Rather, the Sages established a higher standard for consecrated food, and permitted one to eat them only after sacrificing the requisite purification offering. Here too, the Sages established a higher standard for the ritual purity of consecrated liquids.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: ״וְהַבָּשָׂר״, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָעֵצִים וּלְבוֹנָה. עֵצִים וּלְבוֹנָה בְּנֵי אִיטַּמּוֹיֵי נִינְהוּ?! אֶלָּא מַעֲלָה. הָכָא נָמֵי — מַעֲלָה.
Rav Ashi said: We, too, learned another case where the Sages established a higher standard. The verse says: “And the flesh that touches any ritually impure thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire. And as for the flesh, anyone who is ritually pure may eat from it” (Leviticus 7:19). And the flesh comes to include the wood in the Temple and the frankincense. The Gemara asks: Do wood and frankincense have the capacity to become ritually impure, given that they are neither food nor drink? Rather, the Sages established a higher standard for these objects due to their sanctity; here too, the Sages established a higher standard for the ritual purity of consecrated liquids.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָדָם יוֹצֵא בָּהֶן יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַּפֶּסַח: בְּחִטִּים, בִּשְׂעוֹרִים, בְּכוּסְּמִין וּבְשִׁיפוֹן וּבְשִׁיבּוֹלֶת שׁוּעָל. וְיוֹצְאִין בִּדְמַאי וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ, וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ. וְהַכֹּהֲנִים בַּחַלָּה וּבַתְּרוּמָה.
MISHNA: These are the types of grain with which a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza on the first night of Passover: With wheat, with barley, with spelt [kusmin], with rye [shifon], and with oats [shibbolet shu’al]. And one fulfills his obligation by eating not only matza made from properly tithed grains, but even with matza made from doubtfully tithed produce, and matza made with first tithe from which its teruma was already taken, or second tithe and consecrated food that were redeemed. And priests may eat matza prepared from ḥalla, the portion of dough that is given to priests, or with teruma, as priests are permitted to eat these portions.
אֲבָל לֹא בְּטֶבֶל, וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ, וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ. חַלּוֹת הַתּוֹדָה וּרְקִיקֵי נָזִיר, עֲשָׂאָן לְעַצְמוֹ — אֵין יוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. עֲשָׂאָן לִמְכּוֹר בַּשּׁוּק — יוֹצְאִין בָּהֶן.
However, one may not fulfill one’s obligation to eat matza made with untithed produce, nor with matza made from the first tithe from which its teruma was not separated, nor with matza made either from the second tithe, nor from consecrated grain that was not redeemed. With regard to one who prepared loaves of matza that are brought with a thanks-offering, or to the wafers brought by a nazirite, the Sages drew the following distinction: If he prepared them for himself, then he does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza with them. However, if he prepared them to sell them in the market to those who require these loaves or wafers, one fulfills the obligation to eat matza with them.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: כּוּסְּמִין — מִין חִיטִּין, שִׁיבּוֹלֶת שׁוּעָל וְשִׁיפוֹן — מִין שְׂעוֹרִין. כּוּסְּמִין — גּוּלְבָּא, שִׁיפוֹן — דִּישְׁרָא, שִׁיבּוֹלֶת שׁוּעָל — שֻׁבְילֵי תַעֲלָא. הָנֵי אִין, אוֹרֶז וְדוֹחַן — לָא.
GEMARA: The Gemara identifies the species mentioned in the mishna. One of the Sages taught in the Tosefta: Spelt is a type of wheat, while oats [shibbolet shu’al] and rye [shifon] are a type of barley. The Gemara translates the lesser-known species into the vernacular Aramaic: Spelt is called gulba; rye is dishra; and oats are shevilei ta’ala. The Gemara infers: These species, yes, they may be used for matza; however, rice [orez] and millet [doḥan], no, they may not be used.
מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: אָמַר קְרָא ״לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תֹּאכַל עָלָיו מַצּוֹת״. דְּבָרִים הַבָּאִים לִידֵי חִימּוּץ — אָדָם יוֹצֵא בָּהֶן יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּמַצָּה, יָצְאוּ אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין בָּאִין לִידֵי חִימּוּץ, אֶלָּא לִידֵי סִירְחוֹן.
The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that matza cannot be prepared from rice or millet, derived? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, and likewise a Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, and likewise a Sage of the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov taught that the verse states: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza, the bread of affliction” (Deuteronomy 16:3). This verse indicates that only with substances which will come to a state of leavening, a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza with them, provided he prevents them from becoming leavened. This excludes these foods, i.e., rice, millet, and similar grains, which, even if flour is prepared from them and water is added to their flour, do not come to a state of leavening but to a state of decay [siraḥon].
מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי, דְּאָמַר: אוֹרֶז מִין דָּגָן הוּא, וְחַיָּיבִין עַל חִימּוּצוֹ כָּרֵת. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹסֵר בְּאוֹרֶז וְדוֹחַן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקָּרוֹב לְהַחְמִיץ.
The Gemara notes: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, who said: Rice is a full-fledged type of grain, and one is liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state, like other types of grain. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri prohibits eating cooked rice and millet on Passover, due to the fact that they are close to being leavened.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ ״שֶׁקָּרוֹב לְהַחְמִיץ״? דְּקָדֵים וּמַחְמִיץ, אוֹ דִילְמָא: ״קָרוֹב לְהַחְמִיץ״ — הָוֵי, חָמֵץ גָּמוּר — לָא הָוֵי.
A dilemma was raised before the scholars who were studying this issue. What is the meaning of the expression: That it is close to becoming leavened? Does this mean that it will be leavened even quicker than wheat or barley? Or does it perhaps mean that it is only close to being leavened, i.e., it resembles leavened bread, but it is not full-fledged leavened bread. In other words, perhaps Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri maintains that these grains cannot in fact become full-fledged leavened bread, and one is not punished with karet for eating them on Passover. However, he rules that one should nevertheless avoid eating them, due to their similarity to leavened bread.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי: אוֹרֶז מִין דָּגָן הוּא וְחַיָּיבִין עַל חִימּוּצוֹ כָּרֵת, וְאָדָם יוֹצֵא בּוֹ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַּפֶּסַח.
The Gemara responds: Come and hear a resolution to this question, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: Rice is a full-fledged type of grain. Therefore, one is liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state, and a person can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with it on Passover. This baraita clearly indicates that, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, rice becomes leavened like other grains, and the expression: It is close to becoming leavened, means that it becomes leavened quicker than other grains.
וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר: קַרְמִית חַיֶּיבֶת בְּחַלָּה. מַאי קַרְמִית? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שֵׁיצְנִיתָא. מַאי שֵׁיצְנִיתָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שֵׁיצְנִיתָא דְּמִשְׁתַּכְחָא בֵּינֵי כַּלָּנְיָתָא.
And so too, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri would say: One who has prepared bread from keramit, a type of wild wheat, is obligated to separate ḥalla, just as he must separate ḥalla from dough prepared of other types of grain. The Gemara asks: What is keramit? Abaye said: It is a plant called shitzanita. Since this name was not widely known either, the Gemara asks: What is shitzanita? Rav Pappa said: This is the wild grain that is found between papyrus reeds.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: עִיסָּה שֶׁנִּילּוֹשָׁה בְּיַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן וּדְבַשׁ — אֵין חַיָּיבִין עַל חִימּוּצָהּ כָּרֵת. יָתֵיב רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין, וְיָתֵיב רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין וְקָא מְנַמְנֵם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרַב פָּפָּא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ?
Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Reish Lakish said: With regard to dough that was kneaded with wine, oil, or honey, one is not liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state, since these liquids will not cause the dough to be leavened. Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, were sitting before Rav Idi bar Avin, and Rav Idi bar Avin was sitting and dozing as his students conversed. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: What is the reason of Reish Lakish, who maintains that one is not liable to receive karet for this type of leavening?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ [וְגוֹ׳]״. דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָדָם יוֹצֵא בָּהֶן יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּמַצָּה — חַיָּיבִין עַל חִימּוּצוֹ כָּרֵת. וְהָא, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא בָּהּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ, דְּהָוְיָא לַיהּ מַצָּה עֲשִׁירָה — אֵין חַיָּיבִין עַל חִימּוּצָהּ כָּרֵת.
Rav Pappa said to him: The verse states: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza” (Deuteronomy 16:3). In light of the juxtaposition of leavened bread and matza, Reish Lakish compares these two types of bread: With regard to those substances through which a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza, one is liable to receive karet for eating them in their leavened state. And with regard to this dough, which was kneaded with wine, oil, or honey, since a person does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza with it, as it is called rich, i.e., enhanced, matza, one is not liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state on Passover. Matza is called the bread of affliction, or the poor man’s bread, a description that does not apply to dough prepared with wine, oil, or honey.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרַב פָּפָּא: הִמְחָהוּ וּגְמָעוֹ, אִם חָמֵץ הוּא — עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, וְאִם מַצָּה הוּא — אֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַּפֶּסַח. וְהָא הָכָא, דְּאֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּמַצָּה, וְחַיָּיבִין עַל חִימּוּצוֹ כָּרֵת?
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raised an objection to Rav Pappa: We learned with regard to one who took a baked item, dissolved it in water, and swallowed this mixture on Passover: If the baked item is leavened bread, he is punished with karet; and if it is matza, a person does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza on Passover with this food. The reason one does not fulfill the obligation to eat matza is because swallowing in this manner is not considered an act of eating. But here this is a case where a person does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza with this dissolved food, and nevertheless he is liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state. This ruling conflicts with Rav Pappa’s general principle.
אִיתְּעַר בְּהוּ רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין, אָמַר לְהוּ: דַּרְדְּקֵי, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מִשּׁוּם דְּהָווּ לְהוּ מֵי פֵירוֹת,
At this point Rav Idi bar Avin woke up, due to their discussion, and said to them: Children, this is the reasoning of Reish Lakish: One is not liable to receive karet for eating dough kneaded with oil or honey, because oil and honey are considered fruit juices,
וּמֵי פֵירוֹת אֵין מַחְמִיצִין.
and fruit juice does not cause dough to be leavened. Therefore, dough prepared with these liquids is not considered full-fledged leavened bread.
יוֹצֵא בִּדְמַאי וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר וְכוּ׳. דְּמַאי הָא לָא חֲזֵי לֵיהּ! כֵּיוָן דְּאִי בָּעֵי מַפְקַר לְנִכְסֵיהּ הָוֵי עָנִי וְאוֹכֵל דְּמַאי — הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי חֲזֵי לֵיהּ.
The Gemara turns to the cases of the mishna. The mishna taught that one can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with doubtfully tithed produce and with produce of the first tithe, from which teruma has been separated. The Gemara asks: Can one really fulfill his obligation with doubtfully tithed produce? It is not suitable for him to eat. The Sages prohibited the eating of doubtfully tithed produce that has not been tithed. The Gemara answers: Since, if one so desires he may renounce all his property, thereby becoming a poor person who is permitted to eat doubtfully tithed produce, now too it is suitable for him, even though he did not declare his property ownerless. Consequently, if he used doubtfully tithed produce as matza, he has fulfilled the mitzva after the fact.
דִּתְנַן: מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי, וְאֶת אַכְסַנְיָא דְּמַאי. וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: תָּנָא בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי וְאֶת הָאַכְסַנְיָא דְּמַאי, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מַאֲכִילִין.
As we learned in a mishna: One may feed the poor doubtfully tithed produce, and he may also feed Jewish soldiers [akhsanya] who lodge with him doubtfully tithed produce. And Rav Huna said that it was taught that Beit Shammai say: One may neither feed the poor doubtfully tithed produce, nor feed soldiers doubtfully tithed produce. And Beit Hillel say: One may feed these groups doubtfully tithed produce. This mishna indicates that doubtfully tithed produce is not prohibited to the same extent as entirely untithed produce, as in certain situations the prohibition pertaining to doubtfully tithed produce does not take effect.
מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא! דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁנִּטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ חוּלִּין הָוֵי!
The mishna taught that one can fulfill the obligation to eat matza with produce of the first tithe from which its teruma, the teruma of the tithe, was taken and given to a priest. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious, as, since its teruma has been taken, it is non-sacred food? What novel element is taught by this statement?
לָא צְרִיכָא — שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בְּשִׁיבֳּלִים, וְנִטְּלָה הֵימֶנּוּ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְלֹא נִטְּלָה הֵימֶנּוּ תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְכִדְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ.
The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach the halakha in a case where a Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on its stalks. Ordinarily, the Levite would be given his first tithe only after the priest had taken the teruma gedola; however, in this case the Levite took his portion before the priest. And the teruma of the tithe was taken by the Levite from his tithe so that he would be permitted to eat the tithe; however, the teruma gedola was not taken from the produce at all. And the novel element of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu.
דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בְּשִׁיבֳּלִים — פָּטוּר מִתְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַהֲרֵמֹתֶם מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת ה׳ מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר״. מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.
As Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: First tithe in which the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks is exempt from teruma gedola, even though the Levite thereby reduces the amount of grain the priest receives. As it is stated: “Moreover you shall speak to the Levites and say to them: When you take from the children of Israel the tithe which I have given you from them as your inheritance, and you shall set apart from it a gift for the Lord, a tithe from the tithe” (Numbers 18:26). This verse teaches that the Levite is obligated to set apart a tithe from the tithe, i.e., the teruma of the tithe, and not teruma gedola and the teruma of the tithe from the tithe.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אֲפִילּוּ הִקְדִּימוֹ בִּכְרִי נָמֵי לִיפְּטַר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עָלֶיךָ אָמַר קְרָא ״מִכֹּל מַתְּנֹתֵיכֶם תָּרִימוּ אֵת כׇּל תְּרוּמַת ה׳״.
Rav Pappa said to Abaye: However, if that is so, even if the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were removed from the stalks and placed in a pile, the Levite should not have to separate teruma gedola in this case either. Abaye said to him: With regard to your claim, the verse states: “From all that is given to you, you shall set apart all of that which is the Lord’s teruma, of all the best of it, even its consecrated portion” (Numbers 18:29). This verse teaches that the Levites must designate a portion of the gifts they receive and give it to the priests.
וּמָה רָאִיתָ?! הַאי אִידְּגַן, וְהַאי לָא אִידְּגַן.
The Gemara asks: And what did you see to lead you to require the separation of teruma gedola from first tithe that was taken from grain in piles and not from first tithe that was taken from grain on stalks? Abaye answers: This produce, after being threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and has become grain; and that produce on the stalk did not yet become grain, and the Levite is therefore exempt from separating teruma gedola from it. Produce that has been arranged in a pile is called grain by the Torah and is given to the priest. Once it is classified as grain, the right of the priest takes effect and the Levite is required to separate teruma gedola from it.
מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, שֶׁנָּתַן אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא נָתַן אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. וְקָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאֵין חוֹמֶשׁ מְעַכֵּב.
The mishna taught that one can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with second-tithe grain and with consecrated grain that was redeemed. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as consecrated grain that has been redeemed is non-sacred produce. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the consecrated property was not completely redeemed, i.e., where one gave payment for the principal, the value of the tithe, but he did not give payment for the additional fifth due when redeeming consecrated items. And the mishna teaches us that failure to add the fifth does not invalidate the redemption. Although there is an obligation to pay this additional fifth, the neglect of this duty does not prevent the grain from becoming non-sacred.
וְהַכֹּהֲנִים בְּחַלָּה וּבִתְרוּמָה וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מַצָּה שָׁוָה לְכׇל אָדָם בָּעֵינַן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן — ״מַצּוֹת״ ״מַצּוֹת״ רִיבָּה.
And the mishna further taught that priests can fulfill their obligation with matza of ḥalla and with teruma. The Gemara again asks: It is obvious that this is the case. Since a priest is permitted to eat ḥalla and teruma, he can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with them. The Gemara responds: This ruling is nevertheless necessary, lest you say that we require matza that may be eaten equally by anyone, which would mean that matza that may not be eaten by regular Israelites is prohibited to priests as well. The mishna therefore teaches us that the repetition of the words “matzot,” “matzot” (Deuteronomy 16:3, 8) comes to amplify, i.e., one can fulfill one’s obligation to eat matza even with foods that may be eaten only by specific people.
אֲבָל לֹא בְּטֶבֶל וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, בְּטֶבֶל טָבוּל מִדְּרַבָּנַן שֶׁזְּרָעוֹ בְּעָצִיץ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב.
We learned in the mishna: However, one may not fulfill this obligation with untithed produce. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as it is always prohibited to eat tevel. The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where it is considered untithed produce by rabbinic law, and by Torah law the produce is permitted. For instance, this is the case with regard to grain that one sowed in an unperforated flowerpot. Anything grown disconnected from the ground is not defined as produce of the ground, and its owner is exempt by Torah law from tithing it. However, by rabbinic law, grain sowed in an unperforated flowerpot is considered untithed.
וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בִּכְרִי.
It was also taught in the mishna: And one does not fulfill his obligation with matza from produce of the first tithe, whose teruma, teruma of the tithe, was not taken. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as this produce may not be eaten. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to teach this with regard to a case where the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were placed in a pile but before teruma gedola was separated from the produce.
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא כְּדַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כִּדְשַׁנִּי לֵיהּ.
The Gemara elaborates: Lest you say, as Rav Pappa said to Abaye, that in that case too, the Levite should be exempt from the requirement to separate teruma gedola from this produce, the tanna of the mishna teaches us, as Abaye responded to Rav Pappa, that there is a difference between a case when the grain was on the stalks and when it was collected in a pile. Therefore, one may not eat this produce before separating teruma gedola from it.
וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא!
It was further taught in the mishna: And one does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza with second-tithe produce or consecrated grain that was not redeemed. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that, too, obvious, as it is prohibited to eat these foods?
לְעוֹלָם דְּנִפְדּוּ, וּמַאי לֹא נִפְדּוּ — שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ כְּהִלְכָתָן: מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁפְּדָאוֹ עַל גַּב אֲסִימוֹן, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״וְצַרְתָּ הַכֶּסֶף״ — דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ צוּרָה.
The Gemara answers: Actually, this is speaking of a case where they were redeemed, and what is the meaning of the expression: They were not redeemed? It means that they were not redeemed properly, e.g., second-tithe grain that was redeemed with an unminted coin [asimon]. As the Merciful One says with regard to the redemption of the second tithe: “And you shall turn it into money, and bind up the money in your hand, and go to the place which the Lord your God shall choose” (Deuteronomy 14:25). The phrase “and bind up [ve’tzarta] the money” indicates that the produce must be exchanged for an object that has a form [tzura], not unminted metal.
וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁחִילְּלוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״וְנָתַן הַכֶּסֶף וְקָם לוֹ״.
And with regard to consecrated property, we are dealing with a case where he redeemed it by exchanging it for land instead of money, as the Merciful One says: “And he will give the fifth part of the money of your valuation unto it and it shall be assured to him” (see Leviticus 27:19). If one redeemed consecrated property with land rather than money, the consecrated status is not transferred to the land.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל יוֹצֵא אָדָם יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּטֶבֶל שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַן. כׇּל טֶבֶל נָמֵי הָא לֹא נִתְקַן!
The Sages taught: I might have thought that a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza with untithed produce that was not amended with regard to tithes. The Gemara analyzes the apparently redundant phrase untithed produce that was not amended. But isn’t all untithed produce also not amended, by definition?
אֶלָּא: בְּטֶבֶל שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַן כׇּל צוֹרְכּוֹ. שֶׁנִּטְּלָה מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה וְלֹא נִטְּלָה מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, [מַעֲשֵׂר] רִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, וַאֲפִילּוּ מַעְשַׂר עָנִי, מִנַּיִן?
Rather, this baraita is referring to untithed produce that was incompletely amended. How so? For example, produce from which teruma gedola was taken, but the teruma of the tithe was not taken from it. Alternatively, the first tithe was separated from the produce, but not the second tithe; or, it is referring even to grain from which all the tithes were separated, apart from the poor man’s tithe. Although no sanctity applies to the poor man’s tithe, which is simply a monetary gift to the poor, until this tithe has been separated the grain remains untithed. From where is it derived that these types of grain cannot be used for matza?
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ״ — מִי שֶׁאִיסּוּרוֹ מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תֹּאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ״, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאֵין אִיסּוּרוֹ מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תֹּאכַל חָמֵץ״, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תֹּאכַל טֶבֶל״.
The verse states: “You shall not eat leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza” (Deuteronomy 16:3). One fulfills his obligation to eat matza with food whose prohibition is solely due to the prohibition: Do not eat leavened bread with it, if it was not preserved in an unleavened state. This command excludes this grain, which is not prohibited due to the prohibition: Do not eat leavened bread, but rather due to the prohibition: Do not eat untithed produce.
וְאִיסּוּרָא דְחָמֵץ לְהֵיכָן אֲזַלָא? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הָא מַנִּי, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר:
The Gemara expresses surprise at this baraita. And the prohibition of leavened bread, where did it go? In other words, doesn’t the prohibition: “You shall not eat leavened bread” apply to untithed produce as well? Rav Sheshet said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: One prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists. No additional prohibitions can apply to an object that is already prohibited, e.g., untithed grain. Consequently, the prohibition of leavened bread does not take effect on untithed produce. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says:
לעקוב
העמקה
רוצה להבין מה באמת קורה מתחת לפני השטח של הסוגיה?
שיעורים, פודקאסטים והרחבות של מיטב המורות שלנו יפתחו לך עוד זוויות וכיווני חשיבה.
A Daf Of Their Own –Schita By a Woman
הרבנית שירה מירוויס מרילי והרבנית חמוטל שובל
12.10.2025 | כ׳ בתשרי תשפ״ו
נשים שוחטות- דף משלהן
הרבנית שירה מירוויס מרילי והרבנית חמוטל שובל
11.10.2025 | י״ט בתשרי תשפ״ו
Zevachim Daf 15-21 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
Dr. Tamara Spitz
06.10.2025 | י״ד בתשרי תשפ״ו
ערל: בין הגדרה פיזיולוגית להגדרה מהותית- גפ”ת
הרבנית חנה גודינגר (דרייפוס)
06.10.2025 | י״ד בתשרי תשפ״ו
A Daf Of Their Own –Defining Your Identity
הרבנית שירה מירוויס מרילי והרבנית חמוטל שובל
05.10.2025 | י״ג בתשרי תשפ״ו
Din & Daf: The Kohen Gadol’s New Clothes: Yom Kippur as Renewal
Dr. Elana Stein Hain
30.09.2025 | ח׳ בתשרי תשפ״ו
Zevachim Daf 8-14 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
Dr. Tamara Spitz
29.09.2025 | ז׳ בתשרי תשפ״ו
A Daf Of Their Own –The Kohen’s Garments
הרבנית שירה מירוויס מרילי והרבנית חמוטל שובל
28.09.2025 | ו׳ בתשרי תשפ״ו
בגדי כהונה- דף משלהן
הרבנית שירה מירוויס מרילי והרבנית חמוטל שובל
27.09.2025 | ה׳ בתשרי תשפ״ו
Zevachim Daf 2-7 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
Dr. Tamara Spitz
25.09.2025 | ג׳ בתשרי תשפ״ו
חדשה בלימוד הגמרא?
זה הדף הראשון שלך? איזו התרגשות עצומה! יש לנו בדיוק את התכנים והכלים שיעזרו לך לעשות את הצעדים הראשונים ללמידה בקצב וברמה שלך, כך תוכלי להרגיש בנוח גם בתוך הסוגיות המורכבות ומאתגרות.
פסיפס הלומדות שלנו
גלי את קהילת הלומדות שלנו, מגוון נשים, רקעים וסיפורים. כולן חלק מתנועה ומסע מרגש ועוצמתי.
התחלתי ללמוד לפני 4.5 שנים, כשהודיה חברה שלי פתחה קבוצת ווטסאפ ללימוד דף יומי בתחילת מסכת סנהדרין. מאז לימוד הדף נכנס לתוך היום-יום שלי והפך לאחד ממגדירי הזהות שלי ממש.
קרן רוזנברג
ירושלים, ישראל
. לא תמיד נהניתי מלימוד גמרא כילדה.,בל כהתבגרתי התחלתי לאהוב את זה שוב. התחלתי ללמוד מסכת סוטה בדף היומי לפני כחמש עשרה שנה ואז הפסקתי.הגעתי לסיום הגדול של הדרן לפני שנתיים וזה נתן לי השראה. והתחלתי ללמוד למשך כמה ימים ואז היתה לי פריצת דיסק והפסקתי…עד אלול השנה. אז התחלתי עם מסכת ביצה וב”ה אני מצליחה לעמוד בקצב. המשפחה מאוד תומכת בי ויש כמה שגם לומדים את זה במקביל. אני אוהבת שיש עוגן כל יום.
רבקה דרשן
בית שמש, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד את הדף היומי מעט אחרי שבני הקטן נולד. בהתחלה בשמיעה ולימוד באמצעות השיעור של הרבנית שפרבר. ובהמשך העזתי וקניתי לעצמי גמרא. מאז ממשיכה יום יום ללמוד עצמאית, ולפעמים בעזרת השיעור של הרבנית, כל יום. כל סיום של מסכת מביא לאושר גדול וסיפוק. הילדים בבית נהיו חלק מהלימוד, אני משתפת בסוגיות מעניינות ונהנית לשמוע את דעתם.
אלירז בלאו
מעלה מכמש, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד דף יומי כאשר קיבלתי במייל ממכון שטיינזלץ את הדפים הראשונים של מסכת ברכות במייל. קודם לא ידעתי איך לקרוא אותם עד שנתתי להם להדריך אותי. הסביבה שלי לא מודעת לעניין כי אני לא מדברת על כך בפומבי. למדתי מהדפים דברים חדשים, כמו הקשר בין המבנה של בית המקדש והמשכן לגופו של האדם (יומא מה, ע”א) והקשר שלו למשפט מפורסם שמופיע בספר ההינדי "בהגוד-גיתא”. מתברר שזה רעיון כלל עולמי ולא רק יהודי
אלנה ארנבורג
נשר, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד דף יומי בסבב הקודם. זכיתי לסיים אותו במעמד המרגש של הדרן. בסבב הראשון ליווה אותי הספק, שאולי לא אצליח לעמוד בקצב ולהתמיד. בסבב השני אני לומדת ברוגע, מתוך אמונה ביכולתי ללמוד ולסיים. בסבב הלימוד הראשון ליוותה אותי חוויה מסויימת של בדידות. הדרן העניקה לי קהילת לימוד ואחוות נשים. החוויה של סיום הש”ס במעמד כה גדול כשנשים שאינן מכירות אותי, שמחות ומתרגשות עבורי , היתה חוויה מרוממת נפש
אילנית ווייל
קיבוץ מגדל עוז, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד גמרא בבית הספר בגיל צעיר והתאהבתי. המשכתי בכך כל חיי ואף היייתי מורה לגמרא בבית הספר שקד בשדה אליהו (בית הספר בו למדתי בילדותי)בתחילת מחזור דף יומי הנוכחי החלטתי להצטרף ובע”ה מקווה להתמיד ולהמשיך. אני אוהבת את המפגש עם הדף את "דרישות השלום ” שמקבלת מקשרים עם דפים אחרים שלמדתי את הסנכרון שמתחולל בין התכנים.
אריאלה ביגמן
מעלה גלבוע, ישראל
התחלתי לפני 8 שנים במדרשה. לאחרונה סיימתי מסכת תענית בלמידה עצמית ועכשיו לקראת סיום מסכת מגילה.
דניאלה ברוכים
רעננה, ישראל
כבר סיפרתי בסיום של מועד קטן.
הלימוד מאוד משפיעה על היום שלי כי אני לומדת עם רבנית מישל על הבוקר בזום. זה נותן טון לכל היום – בסיס למחשבות שלי .זה זכות גדול להתחיל את היום בלימוד ובתפילה. תודה רבה !
שרה ברלוביץ
ירושלים, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד בסבב הנוכחי לפני כשנתיים .הסביבה מתפעלת ותומכת מאוד. אני משתדלת ללמוד מכל ההסכתים הנוספים שיש באתר הדרן. אני עורכת כל סיום מסכת שיעור בביתי לכ20 נשים שמחכות בקוצר רוח למפגשים האלו.
יעל אשר
יהוד, ישראל
התחלתי בסיום הש”ס, יצאתי באורות. נשברתי פעמיים, ובשתיהם הרבנית מישל עודדה להמשיך איפה שכולם בסבב ולהשלים כשאוכל, וכך עשיתי וכיום השלמתי הכל. מדהים אותי שאני לומדת כל יום קצת, אפילו בחדר הלידה, בבידוד או בחו”ל. לאט לאט יותר נינוחה בסוגיות. לא כולם מבינים את הרצון, בפרט כפמניסטית. חשה סיפוק גדול להכיר את המושגים וצורת החשיבה. החלום זה להמשיך ולהתמיד ובמקביל ללמוד איך מהסוגיות נוצרה והתפתחה ההלכה.
קרן וינגרטן שרינגטון
מודיעין, ישראל
הייתי לפני שנתיים בסיום הדרן נשים בבנייני האומה והחלטתי להתחיל. אפילו רק כמה דפים, אולי רק פרק, אולי רק מסכת… בינתיים סיימתי רבע שס ותכף את כל סדר מועד בה.
הסביבה תומכת ומפרגנת. אני בת יחידה עם ארבעה אחים שכולם לומדים דף יומי. מדי פעם אנחנו עושים סיומים יחד באירועים משפחתיים. ממש מרגש. מסכת שבת סיימנו כולנו יחד עם אבא שלנו!
אני שומעת כל יום פודקאסט בהליכה או בנסיעה ואחכ לומדת את הגמרא.
עדנה גרוס
מרכז שפירא, ישראל
התחלתי לפני כמה שנים אבל רק בסבב הזה זכיתי ללמוד יום יום ולסיים מסכתות
סיגל טל
רעננה, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד דף יומי אחרי שחזרתי בתשובה ולמדתי במדרשה במגדל עוז. הלימוד טוב ומספק חומר למחשבה על נושאים הלכתיים ”קטנים” ועד לערכים גדולים ביהדות. חשוב לי להכיר את הגמרא לעומק. והצעד הקטן היום הוא ללמוד אותה בבקיאות, בעזרת השם, ומי יודע אולי גם אגיע לעיון בנושאים מעניינים. נושאים בגמרא מתחברים לחגים, לתפילה, ליחסים שבין אדם לחברו ולמקום ולשאר הדברים שמלווים באורח חיים דתי 🙂
גאיה דיבו
מצפה יריחו, ישראל
בתחילת הסבב הנוכחי של לימוד הדף היומי, נחשפתי לחגיגות המרגשות באירועי הסיום ברחבי העולם. והבטחתי לעצמי שבקרוב אצטרף גם למעגל הלומדות. הסבב התחיל כאשר הייתי בתחילת דרכי בתוכנית קרן אריאל להכשרת יועצות הלכה של נשמ”ת. לא הצלחתי להוסיף את ההתחייבות לדף היומי על הלימוד האינטנסיבי של תוכנית היועצות. בבוקר למחרת המבחן הסופי בנשמ”ת, התחלתי את לימוד הדף במסכת סוכה ומאז לא הפסקתי.
חנה שחם-רוזבי (ד”ר)
קרית גת, ישראל
My explorations into Gemara started a few days into the present cycle. I binged learnt and become addicted. I’m fascinated by the rich "tapestry” of intertwined themes, connections between Masechtot, conversations between generations of Rabbanim and learners past and present all over the world. My life has acquired a golden thread, linking generations with our amazing heritage.
Thank you.
סוזן כשדן
חשמונאים, Israel
ראיתי את הסיום הגדול בבנייני האומה וכל כך התרשמתי ורציתי לקחת חלק.. אבל לקח לי עוד כשנה וחצי )באמצע מסיכת שבת להצטרף..
הלימוד חשוב לי מאוד.. אני תמיד במרדף אחרי הדף וגונבת כל פעם חצי דף כשהילדים עסוקים ומשלימה אח”כ אחרי שכולם הלכו לישון..
אולגה מזרחי
ירושלים, ישראל
שמעתי על הסיום הענק של הדף היומי ע”י נשים בבנייני האומה. רציתי גם.
החלטתי להצטרף. התחלתי ושיכנעתי את בעלי ועוד שתי חברות להצטרף. עכשיו יש לי לימוד משותף איתו בשבת ומפגש חודשי איתן בנושא (והתכתבויות תדירות על דברים מיוחדים שקראנו). הצטרפנו לקבוצות שונות בווטסאפ. אנחנו ממש נהנות. אני שומעת את השיעור מידי יום (בד”כ מהרב יוני גוטמן) וקוראת ומצטרפת לסיומים של הדרן. גם מקפידה על דף משלהן (ונהנית מאד).
ליאת סיטרון
אפרת, ישראל
אחרי שראיתי את הסיום הנשי של הדף היומי בבנייני האומה זה ריגש אותי ועורר בי את הרצון להצטרף. לא למדתי גמרא קודם לכן בכלל, אז הכל היה לי חדש, ולכן אני לומדת בעיקר מהשיעורים פה בהדרן, בשוטנשטיין או בחוברות ושיננתם.
רבקה שלוס
בית שמש, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד דף יומי ממסכת נידה כי זה היה חומר הלימוד שלי אז. לאחר הסיום הגדול בבנייני האומה החלטתי להמשיך. וב”ה מאז עם הפסקות קטנות של קורונה ולידה אני משתדלת להמשיך ולהיות חלק.
זה משפיע מאוד על היום יום שלי ועל אף שאני עסוקה בלימודי הלכה ותורה כל יום, זאת המסגרת הקבועה והמחייבת ביותר שיש לי.
מוריה תעסן מיכאלי
גבעת הראל, ישראל
למדתי גמרא מכיתה ז- ט ב Maimonides School ואחרי העליה שלי בגיל 14 לימוד הגמרא, שלא היה כל כך מקובל בימים אלה, היה די ספוראדי. אחרי "ההתגלות” בבנייני האומה התחלתי ללמוד בעיקר בדרך הביתה למדתי מפוקקטסים שונים. לאט לאט ראיתי שאני תמיד חוזרת לרבנית מישל פרבר. באיזה שהוא שלב התחלתי ללמוד בזום בשעה 7:10 .
היום "אין מצב” שאני אתחיל את היום שלי ללא לימוד עם הרבנית מישל עם כוס הקפה שלי!!
דבי גביר
חשמונאים, ישראל
פסחים לה
אֶלָּא מַעֲלָה. הָכִי נָמֵי — מַעֲלָה.
Rather, this is merely a higher standard, as by Torah law the water may be drawn with one vessel and sanctified in another vessel. The Sages added that this water must be sanctified in the same vessel in which it was drawn from the spring, and they found support for their opinion in the Torah. Here too, the Sages established a higher standard for a consecrated object that became ritually impure, as they decreed that it cannot be ritually purified through insertion in the ground.
אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: טָבַל וְעָלָה — אוֹכֵל בְּמַעֲשֵׂר. הֶעֱרִיב שִׁמְשׁוֹ — אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה. בִּתְרוּמָה אִין, בְּקָדָשִׁים לָא. אַמַּאי, טָהוֹר הוּא? אֶלָּא מַעֲלָה. הָכִי נָמֵי — מַעֲלָה.
Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: We, too, learned a similar statement in a baraita: When the period of ritual impurity of a zav or leper has been completed, and he immersed during the day and emerged, he may eat tithes immediately. Once the sun set for him, he may eat teruma. Rav Shimi bar Ashi infers from this statement: With regard to teruma, yes, he may eat it; however, with regard to consecrated food, no, he may not. Given that conclusion, Rav Shimi bar Ashi asks: Why is there a difference between teruma and consecrated foods? After all, he is ritually pure. Rather, the Sages established a higher standard for consecrated food, and permitted one to eat them only after sacrificing the requisite purification offering. Here too, the Sages established a higher standard for the ritual purity of consecrated liquids.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: ״וְהַבָּשָׂר״, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָעֵצִים וּלְבוֹנָה. עֵצִים וּלְבוֹנָה בְּנֵי אִיטַּמּוֹיֵי נִינְהוּ?! אֶלָּא מַעֲלָה. הָכָא נָמֵי — מַעֲלָה.
Rav Ashi said: We, too, learned another case where the Sages established a higher standard. The verse says: “And the flesh that touches any ritually impure thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire. And as for the flesh, anyone who is ritually pure may eat from it” (Leviticus 7:19). And the flesh comes to include the wood in the Temple and the frankincense. The Gemara asks: Do wood and frankincense have the capacity to become ritually impure, given that they are neither food nor drink? Rather, the Sages established a higher standard for these objects due to their sanctity; here too, the Sages established a higher standard for the ritual purity of consecrated liquids.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָדָם יוֹצֵא בָּהֶן יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַּפֶּסַח: בְּחִטִּים, בִּשְׂעוֹרִים, בְּכוּסְּמִין וּבְשִׁיפוֹן וּבְשִׁיבּוֹלֶת שׁוּעָל. וְיוֹצְאִין בִּדְמַאי וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ, וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ. וְהַכֹּהֲנִים בַּחַלָּה וּבַתְּרוּמָה.
MISHNA: These are the types of grain with which a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza on the first night of Passover: With wheat, with barley, with spelt [kusmin], with rye [shifon], and with oats [shibbolet shu’al]. And one fulfills his obligation by eating not only matza made from properly tithed grains, but even with matza made from doubtfully tithed produce, and matza made with first tithe from which its teruma was already taken, or second tithe and consecrated food that were redeemed. And priests may eat matza prepared from ḥalla, the portion of dough that is given to priests, or with teruma, as priests are permitted to eat these portions.
אֲבָל לֹא בְּטֶבֶל, וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ, וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ. חַלּוֹת הַתּוֹדָה וּרְקִיקֵי נָזִיר, עֲשָׂאָן לְעַצְמוֹ — אֵין יוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. עֲשָׂאָן לִמְכּוֹר בַּשּׁוּק — יוֹצְאִין בָּהֶן.
However, one may not fulfill one’s obligation to eat matza made with untithed produce, nor with matza made from the first tithe from which its teruma was not separated, nor with matza made either from the second tithe, nor from consecrated grain that was not redeemed. With regard to one who prepared loaves of matza that are brought with a thanks-offering, or to the wafers brought by a nazirite, the Sages drew the following distinction: If he prepared them for himself, then he does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza with them. However, if he prepared them to sell them in the market to those who require these loaves or wafers, one fulfills the obligation to eat matza with them.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: כּוּסְּמִין — מִין חִיטִּין, שִׁיבּוֹלֶת שׁוּעָל וְשִׁיפוֹן — מִין שְׂעוֹרִין. כּוּסְּמִין — גּוּלְבָּא, שִׁיפוֹן — דִּישְׁרָא, שִׁיבּוֹלֶת שׁוּעָל — שֻׁבְילֵי תַעֲלָא. הָנֵי אִין, אוֹרֶז וְדוֹחַן — לָא.
GEMARA: The Gemara identifies the species mentioned in the mishna. One of the Sages taught in the Tosefta: Spelt is a type of wheat, while oats [shibbolet shu’al] and rye [shifon] are a type of barley. The Gemara translates the lesser-known species into the vernacular Aramaic: Spelt is called gulba; rye is dishra; and oats are shevilei ta’ala. The Gemara infers: These species, yes, they may be used for matza; however, rice [orez] and millet [doḥan], no, they may not be used.
מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: אָמַר קְרָא ״לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תֹּאכַל עָלָיו מַצּוֹת״. דְּבָרִים הַבָּאִים לִידֵי חִימּוּץ — אָדָם יוֹצֵא בָּהֶן יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּמַצָּה, יָצְאוּ אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין בָּאִין לִידֵי חִימּוּץ, אֶלָּא לִידֵי סִירְחוֹן.
The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that matza cannot be prepared from rice or millet, derived? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, and likewise a Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, and likewise a Sage of the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov taught that the verse states: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza, the bread of affliction” (Deuteronomy 16:3). This verse indicates that only with substances which will come to a state of leavening, a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza with them, provided he prevents them from becoming leavened. This excludes these foods, i.e., rice, millet, and similar grains, which, even if flour is prepared from them and water is added to their flour, do not come to a state of leavening but to a state of decay [siraḥon].
מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי, דְּאָמַר: אוֹרֶז מִין דָּגָן הוּא, וְחַיָּיבִין עַל חִימּוּצוֹ כָּרֵת. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹסֵר בְּאוֹרֶז וְדוֹחַן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקָּרוֹב לְהַחְמִיץ.
The Gemara notes: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, who said: Rice is a full-fledged type of grain, and one is liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state, like other types of grain. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri prohibits eating cooked rice and millet on Passover, due to the fact that they are close to being leavened.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ ״שֶׁקָּרוֹב לְהַחְמִיץ״? דְּקָדֵים וּמַחְמִיץ, אוֹ דִילְמָא: ״קָרוֹב לְהַחְמִיץ״ — הָוֵי, חָמֵץ גָּמוּר — לָא הָוֵי.
A dilemma was raised before the scholars who were studying this issue. What is the meaning of the expression: That it is close to becoming leavened? Does this mean that it will be leavened even quicker than wheat or barley? Or does it perhaps mean that it is only close to being leavened, i.e., it resembles leavened bread, but it is not full-fledged leavened bread. In other words, perhaps Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri maintains that these grains cannot in fact become full-fledged leavened bread, and one is not punished with karet for eating them on Passover. However, he rules that one should nevertheless avoid eating them, due to their similarity to leavened bread.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי: אוֹרֶז מִין דָּגָן הוּא וְחַיָּיבִין עַל חִימּוּצוֹ כָּרֵת, וְאָדָם יוֹצֵא בּוֹ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַּפֶּסַח.
The Gemara responds: Come and hear a resolution to this question, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: Rice is a full-fledged type of grain. Therefore, one is liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state, and a person can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with it on Passover. This baraita clearly indicates that, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, rice becomes leavened like other grains, and the expression: It is close to becoming leavened, means that it becomes leavened quicker than other grains.
וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר: קַרְמִית חַיֶּיבֶת בְּחַלָּה. מַאי קַרְמִית? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שֵׁיצְנִיתָא. מַאי שֵׁיצְנִיתָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שֵׁיצְנִיתָא דְּמִשְׁתַּכְחָא בֵּינֵי כַּלָּנְיָתָא.
And so too, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri would say: One who has prepared bread from keramit, a type of wild wheat, is obligated to separate ḥalla, just as he must separate ḥalla from dough prepared of other types of grain. The Gemara asks: What is keramit? Abaye said: It is a plant called shitzanita. Since this name was not widely known either, the Gemara asks: What is shitzanita? Rav Pappa said: This is the wild grain that is found between papyrus reeds.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: עִיסָּה שֶׁנִּילּוֹשָׁה בְּיַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן וּדְבַשׁ — אֵין חַיָּיבִין עַל חִימּוּצָהּ כָּרֵת. יָתֵיב רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין, וְיָתֵיב רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין וְקָא מְנַמְנֵם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרַב פָּפָּא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ?
Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Reish Lakish said: With regard to dough that was kneaded with wine, oil, or honey, one is not liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state, since these liquids will not cause the dough to be leavened. Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, were sitting before Rav Idi bar Avin, and Rav Idi bar Avin was sitting and dozing as his students conversed. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: What is the reason of Reish Lakish, who maintains that one is not liable to receive karet for this type of leavening?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ [וְגוֹ׳]״. דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָדָם יוֹצֵא בָּהֶן יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּמַצָּה — חַיָּיבִין עַל חִימּוּצוֹ כָּרֵת. וְהָא, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא בָּהּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ, דְּהָוְיָא לַיהּ מַצָּה עֲשִׁירָה — אֵין חַיָּיבִין עַל חִימּוּצָהּ כָּרֵת.
Rav Pappa said to him: The verse states: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza” (Deuteronomy 16:3). In light of the juxtaposition of leavened bread and matza, Reish Lakish compares these two types of bread: With regard to those substances through which a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza, one is liable to receive karet for eating them in their leavened state. And with regard to this dough, which was kneaded with wine, oil, or honey, since a person does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza with it, as it is called rich, i.e., enhanced, matza, one is not liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state on Passover. Matza is called the bread of affliction, or the poor man’s bread, a description that does not apply to dough prepared with wine, oil, or honey.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרַב פָּפָּא: הִמְחָהוּ וּגְמָעוֹ, אִם חָמֵץ הוּא — עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, וְאִם מַצָּה הוּא — אֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַּפֶּסַח. וְהָא הָכָא, דְּאֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּמַצָּה, וְחַיָּיבִין עַל חִימּוּצוֹ כָּרֵת?
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raised an objection to Rav Pappa: We learned with regard to one who took a baked item, dissolved it in water, and swallowed this mixture on Passover: If the baked item is leavened bread, he is punished with karet; and if it is matza, a person does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza on Passover with this food. The reason one does not fulfill the obligation to eat matza is because swallowing in this manner is not considered an act of eating. But here this is a case where a person does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza with this dissolved food, and nevertheless he is liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state. This ruling conflicts with Rav Pappa’s general principle.
אִיתְּעַר בְּהוּ רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין, אָמַר לְהוּ: דַּרְדְּקֵי, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מִשּׁוּם דְּהָווּ לְהוּ מֵי פֵירוֹת,
At this point Rav Idi bar Avin woke up, due to their discussion, and said to them: Children, this is the reasoning of Reish Lakish: One is not liable to receive karet for eating dough kneaded with oil or honey, because oil and honey are considered fruit juices,
וּמֵי פֵירוֹת אֵין מַחְמִיצִין.
and fruit juice does not cause dough to be leavened. Therefore, dough prepared with these liquids is not considered full-fledged leavened bread.
יוֹצֵא בִּדְמַאי וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר וְכוּ׳. דְּמַאי הָא לָא חֲזֵי לֵיהּ! כֵּיוָן דְּאִי בָּעֵי מַפְקַר לְנִכְסֵיהּ הָוֵי עָנִי וְאוֹכֵל דְּמַאי — הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי חֲזֵי לֵיהּ.
The Gemara turns to the cases of the mishna. The mishna taught that one can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with doubtfully tithed produce and with produce of the first tithe, from which teruma has been separated. The Gemara asks: Can one really fulfill his obligation with doubtfully tithed produce? It is not suitable for him to eat. The Sages prohibited the eating of doubtfully tithed produce that has not been tithed. The Gemara answers: Since, if one so desires he may renounce all his property, thereby becoming a poor person who is permitted to eat doubtfully tithed produce, now too it is suitable for him, even though he did not declare his property ownerless. Consequently, if he used doubtfully tithed produce as matza, he has fulfilled the mitzva after the fact.
דִּתְנַן: מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי, וְאֶת אַכְסַנְיָא דְּמַאי. וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: תָּנָא בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי וְאֶת הָאַכְסַנְיָא דְּמַאי, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מַאֲכִילִין.
As we learned in a mishna: One may feed the poor doubtfully tithed produce, and he may also feed Jewish soldiers [akhsanya] who lodge with him doubtfully tithed produce. And Rav Huna said that it was taught that Beit Shammai say: One may neither feed the poor doubtfully tithed produce, nor feed soldiers doubtfully tithed produce. And Beit Hillel say: One may feed these groups doubtfully tithed produce. This mishna indicates that doubtfully tithed produce is not prohibited to the same extent as entirely untithed produce, as in certain situations the prohibition pertaining to doubtfully tithed produce does not take effect.
מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא! דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁנִּטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ חוּלִּין הָוֵי!
The mishna taught that one can fulfill the obligation to eat matza with produce of the first tithe from which its teruma, the teruma of the tithe, was taken and given to a priest. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious, as, since its teruma has been taken, it is non-sacred food? What novel element is taught by this statement?
לָא צְרִיכָא — שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בְּשִׁיבֳּלִים, וְנִטְּלָה הֵימֶנּוּ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְלֹא נִטְּלָה הֵימֶנּוּ תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְכִדְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ.
The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach the halakha in a case where a Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on its stalks. Ordinarily, the Levite would be given his first tithe only after the priest had taken the teruma gedola; however, in this case the Levite took his portion before the priest. And the teruma of the tithe was taken by the Levite from his tithe so that he would be permitted to eat the tithe; however, the teruma gedola was not taken from the produce at all. And the novel element of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu.
דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בְּשִׁיבֳּלִים — פָּטוּר מִתְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַהֲרֵמֹתֶם מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת ה׳ מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר״. מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.
As Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: First tithe in which the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks is exempt from teruma gedola, even though the Levite thereby reduces the amount of grain the priest receives. As it is stated: “Moreover you shall speak to the Levites and say to them: When you take from the children of Israel the tithe which I have given you from them as your inheritance, and you shall set apart from it a gift for the Lord, a tithe from the tithe” (Numbers 18:26). This verse teaches that the Levite is obligated to set apart a tithe from the tithe, i.e., the teruma of the tithe, and not teruma gedola and the teruma of the tithe from the tithe.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אֲפִילּוּ הִקְדִּימוֹ בִּכְרִי נָמֵי לִיפְּטַר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עָלֶיךָ אָמַר קְרָא ״מִכֹּל מַתְּנֹתֵיכֶם תָּרִימוּ אֵת כׇּל תְּרוּמַת ה׳״.
Rav Pappa said to Abaye: However, if that is so, even if the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were removed from the stalks and placed in a pile, the Levite should not have to separate teruma gedola in this case either. Abaye said to him: With regard to your claim, the verse states: “From all that is given to you, you shall set apart all of that which is the Lord’s teruma, of all the best of it, even its consecrated portion” (Numbers 18:29). This verse teaches that the Levites must designate a portion of the gifts they receive and give it to the priests.
וּמָה רָאִיתָ?! הַאי אִידְּגַן, וְהַאי לָא אִידְּגַן.
The Gemara asks: And what did you see to lead you to require the separation of teruma gedola from first tithe that was taken from grain in piles and not from first tithe that was taken from grain on stalks? Abaye answers: This produce, after being threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and has become grain; and that produce on the stalk did not yet become grain, and the Levite is therefore exempt from separating teruma gedola from it. Produce that has been arranged in a pile is called grain by the Torah and is given to the priest. Once it is classified as grain, the right of the priest takes effect and the Levite is required to separate teruma gedola from it.
מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, שֶׁנָּתַן אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא נָתַן אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. וְקָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאֵין חוֹמֶשׁ מְעַכֵּב.
The mishna taught that one can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with second-tithe grain and with consecrated grain that was redeemed. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as consecrated grain that has been redeemed is non-sacred produce. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the consecrated property was not completely redeemed, i.e., where one gave payment for the principal, the value of the tithe, but he did not give payment for the additional fifth due when redeeming consecrated items. And the mishna teaches us that failure to add the fifth does not invalidate the redemption. Although there is an obligation to pay this additional fifth, the neglect of this duty does not prevent the grain from becoming non-sacred.
וְהַכֹּהֲנִים בְּחַלָּה וּבִתְרוּמָה וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מַצָּה שָׁוָה לְכׇל אָדָם בָּעֵינַן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן — ״מַצּוֹת״ ״מַצּוֹת״ רִיבָּה.
And the mishna further taught that priests can fulfill their obligation with matza of ḥalla and with teruma. The Gemara again asks: It is obvious that this is the case. Since a priest is permitted to eat ḥalla and teruma, he can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with them. The Gemara responds: This ruling is nevertheless necessary, lest you say that we require matza that may be eaten equally by anyone, which would mean that matza that may not be eaten by regular Israelites is prohibited to priests as well. The mishna therefore teaches us that the repetition of the words “matzot,” “matzot” (Deuteronomy 16:3, 8) comes to amplify, i.e., one can fulfill one’s obligation to eat matza even with foods that may be eaten only by specific people.
אֲבָל לֹא בְּטֶבֶל וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, בְּטֶבֶל טָבוּל מִדְּרַבָּנַן שֶׁזְּרָעוֹ בְּעָצִיץ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב.
We learned in the mishna: However, one may not fulfill this obligation with untithed produce. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as it is always prohibited to eat tevel. The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where it is considered untithed produce by rabbinic law, and by Torah law the produce is permitted. For instance, this is the case with regard to grain that one sowed in an unperforated flowerpot. Anything grown disconnected from the ground is not defined as produce of the ground, and its owner is exempt by Torah law from tithing it. However, by rabbinic law, grain sowed in an unperforated flowerpot is considered untithed.
וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בִּכְרִי.
It was also taught in the mishna: And one does not fulfill his obligation with matza from produce of the first tithe, whose teruma, teruma of the tithe, was not taken. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as this produce may not be eaten. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to teach this with regard to a case where the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were placed in a pile but before teruma gedola was separated from the produce.
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא כְּדַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כִּדְשַׁנִּי לֵיהּ.
The Gemara elaborates: Lest you say, as Rav Pappa said to Abaye, that in that case too, the Levite should be exempt from the requirement to separate teruma gedola from this produce, the tanna of the mishna teaches us, as Abaye responded to Rav Pappa, that there is a difference between a case when the grain was on the stalks and when it was collected in a pile. Therefore, one may not eat this produce before separating teruma gedola from it.
וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא!
It was further taught in the mishna: And one does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza with second-tithe produce or consecrated grain that was not redeemed. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that, too, obvious, as it is prohibited to eat these foods?
לְעוֹלָם דְּנִפְדּוּ, וּמַאי לֹא נִפְדּוּ — שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ כְּהִלְכָתָן: מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁפְּדָאוֹ עַל גַּב אֲסִימוֹן, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״וְצַרְתָּ הַכֶּסֶף״ — דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ צוּרָה.
The Gemara answers: Actually, this is speaking of a case where they were redeemed, and what is the meaning of the expression: They were not redeemed? It means that they were not redeemed properly, e.g., second-tithe grain that was redeemed with an unminted coin [asimon]. As the Merciful One says with regard to the redemption of the second tithe: “And you shall turn it into money, and bind up the money in your hand, and go to the place which the Lord your God shall choose” (Deuteronomy 14:25). The phrase “and bind up [ve’tzarta] the money” indicates that the produce must be exchanged for an object that has a form [tzura], not unminted metal.
וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁחִילְּלוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״וְנָתַן הַכֶּסֶף וְקָם לוֹ״.
And with regard to consecrated property, we are dealing with a case where he redeemed it by exchanging it for land instead of money, as the Merciful One says: “And he will give the fifth part of the money of your valuation unto it and it shall be assured to him” (see Leviticus 27:19). If one redeemed consecrated property with land rather than money, the consecrated status is not transferred to the land.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל יוֹצֵא אָדָם יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּטֶבֶל שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַן. כׇּל טֶבֶל נָמֵי הָא לֹא נִתְקַן!
The Sages taught: I might have thought that a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza with untithed produce that was not amended with regard to tithes. The Gemara analyzes the apparently redundant phrase untithed produce that was not amended. But isn’t all untithed produce also not amended, by definition?
אֶלָּא: בְּטֶבֶל שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַן כׇּל צוֹרְכּוֹ. שֶׁנִּטְּלָה מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה וְלֹא נִטְּלָה מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, [מַעֲשֵׂר] רִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, וַאֲפִילּוּ מַעְשַׂר עָנִי, מִנַּיִן?
Rather, this baraita is referring to untithed produce that was incompletely amended. How so? For example, produce from which teruma gedola was taken, but the teruma of the tithe was not taken from it. Alternatively, the first tithe was separated from the produce, but not the second tithe; or, it is referring even to grain from which all the tithes were separated, apart from the poor man’s tithe. Although no sanctity applies to the poor man’s tithe, which is simply a monetary gift to the poor, until this tithe has been separated the grain remains untithed. From where is it derived that these types of grain cannot be used for matza?
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ״ — מִי שֶׁאִיסּוּרוֹ מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תֹּאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ״, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאֵין אִיסּוּרוֹ מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תֹּאכַל חָמֵץ״, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תֹּאכַל טֶבֶל״.
The verse states: “You shall not eat leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza” (Deuteronomy 16:3). One fulfills his obligation to eat matza with food whose prohibition is solely due to the prohibition: Do not eat leavened bread with it, if it was not preserved in an unleavened state. This command excludes this grain, which is not prohibited due to the prohibition: Do not eat leavened bread, but rather due to the prohibition: Do not eat untithed produce.
וְאִיסּוּרָא דְחָמֵץ לְהֵיכָן אֲזַלָא? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הָא מַנִּי, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר:
The Gemara expresses surprise at this baraita. And the prohibition of leavened bread, where did it go? In other words, doesn’t the prohibition: “You shall not eat leavened bread” apply to untithed produce as well? Rav Sheshet said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: One prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists. No additional prohibitions can apply to an object that is already prohibited, e.g., untithed grain. Consequently, the prohibition of leavened bread does not take effect on untithed produce. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says:
לעקוב
