Menachot 53a — the Talmud in English

He said to him,

Rabbi Perida to Rabbi Ami: The baking of the meal-offering when it is unleavened, as a

mitzva

in the first instance,

is not my question. What I am asking is,

from where do we know that baking it as unleavened is

indispensable?

He said to him,

Rabbi Ami to Rabbi Perida:

It is also written as indispensable —

“You shall not bake it leavened,”

and from this you learn that it shall not be baked leavened

but unleavened.

It follows that Scripture repeated the matter in order to make it indispensable.

Rav Chisda challenged it:

From where do we know that when they are not “unleavened” they are invalid?

And say

that even if they are not unleavened, they are valid, for the only requirement is that they not be leavened, as this is the meaning of the verse:

“Not”

shall you bake

leavened,

and if he baked it leavened, it is invalid,

but shi'ur,

for if he baked it when it was shi'ur, it is valid. And shi'ur means that it became slightly leavened, at the degree of leavening called shi'ur: the shi'ur has left the category of unleavened dough, but has not yet reached the category of leaven. Indeed, initially, as a mitzva, the meal-offering must certainly be unleavened and not shi'ur, for it is written, “it shall be eaten unleavened”; but as for making it indispensable, from where do we know that it must be unleavened? Perhaps shi'ur is also valid!?

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah disagreed in tractate Pesachim as to what shi'ur is and what its law is.

According to Rabbi Meir, once the surface of the dough has become pale, it is shi'ur: it is not fully leavened, and one is not liable to excision for eating it on Passover, but one is flogged for it on account of “You shall not eat any leavened substance.”

According to Rabbi Judah, when the surface has become pale, it may still be baked as unleavened bread. Only once cracks resembling locust horns have appeared in it is it shi'ur, until the cracks merge with one another; then it becomes leaven. It follows that Rabbi Judah disagrees with Rabbi Meir in two matters:

a.

When the surface has become pale —

according to Rabbi Meir it is forbidden by Torah law, and one is flogged for it on account of shi'ur. According to Rabbi Judah, it is completely permitted, and one may even fulfill the obligation of unleavened bread on Passover with it.

b.

Locust horns —

according to Rabbi Meir it is fully leavened, and one is liable to excision for eating it; according to Rabbi Judah, it is only the prohibition of shi'ur.

They likewise disagreed concerning the prohibition of shi'ur: according to Rabbi Meir one is flogged for it, while according to Rabbi Judah one is not flogged.

The Gemara now discusses Rav Chisda’s question, that it is stated, “You shall not bake it leavened,” but rather shi'ur.

Whose shi'ur?

With which shi'ur, and according to whom, is Rav Chisda speaking?

If

Rav Chisda said that it was shi'ur

according to Rabbi Meir,

when its surface had become pale but cracks resembling locust horns had not yet appeared in it, and Rav Chisda said his words

according to the

method of

Rabbi Judah, who said that one is not flogged for eating shi'ur, this cannot be: for this dough, whose surface has merely become pale and which has not cracked, if he bakes it —

who said that one is not flogged for eating shi’ur, this is impossible. For this dough, whose surface has merely become pale and has not cracked, if it is baked,

is it not excellent unleavened bread?!

If

Rav Chisda said that it was shi'ur

according to Rabbi Judah,

once cracks resembling locust horns have appeared, and he proceeds

according to the

method of

Rabbi Meir,

who said that one is flogged for eating shi'ur, how can you say, “You shall not bake it leavened, but shi'ur”? For according to Rabbi Meir, when cracks resembling locust horns have appeared in it,

it is excellent leaven

and one is liable to excision for eating it!?

If Rav Chisda said that it was shi'ur

according to Rabbi Meir,

when its surface had become pale, and he proceeds

according to the

method of

Rabbi Meir, this too is difficult, for

they flog for it

—

it is leavened.

For although one is not liable to excision for eating it, it is nevertheless leavened; how, then, is it excluded by the verse, “You shall not bake it leavened,” but rather shi'ur!?

And we conclude:

Rather,

the matter asked by Rav Chisda, that it is stated, “You shall not bake it leavened,” but rather shi'ur, is speaking of shi'ur

of Rabbi

Judah,

when it has cracked like locust horns; and Rav Chisda proceeds

according to the

method of

Rabbi Judah,

who holds that one is not flogged for eating shi'ur. And since one is not flogged for it, it can be excluded by the verse, “You shall not bake it leavened, but rather shi'ur.”

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak challenged it: And say

that this is the meaning of the verse:

“You shall not bake it leavened” —

but rather chalut

in boiling water, which is neither leaven nor genuine unleavened bread!?

We ask: What is Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak challenging? For

“What is chalut?” —

[It is] revukha!

For

if it comes

from the meal-offering of

revukha,

which is the meal-offering mentioned in the Torah that is first scalded in boiling water, then

it is written with regard to it

explicitly that it should be

revukha,

meaning that it is not to be baked leavened but rather chalut.

And if he did not bring

a meal-offering in which it was stated

“ravukha”

but another meal-offering, then it is proven from this itself that it is not necessary to make it ravukha, because

this one does not have written in it “ravukha”

“Bake it.” And since it is not written in it as it is written concerning the ravukha meal-offering, it follows that it is not necessary to scald the other meal-offerings with boiling water. And this is difficult for Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: what is he asking—“It shall not be baked leavened, but scalded with boiling water”?

And we answer: this is what Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak asked:

And say: concerning a meal-offering in which “ravukha” is written—

the mitzva is specifically with ravukha.

But a meal-offering

in which “ravukha” is not written—

if he wishes, let him bring ravukha,

if he wishes, let him bring unleavened bread.

And his question is: It is stated, “It shall not be baked leavened”—but scalded. Every meal-offering, if he wishes, he can make it ravukha, and he is not obligated to make it unleavened bread.

And likewise

Ravina raised an objection to it: And say

that what is written

“It shall not be baked leavened”

is only

to place a person under a mere negative commandment

for baking the meal-offering while it is leavened. But

its disqualification

the meal-offering itself

is not disqualified

if it became leavened!?

Rather, from where

do we know that only if he baked the meal-offering in such a manner that it is unleavened bread, only then is the meal-offering valid?

As it was taught in a beraita: “Unleavened bread”—

one might have thought

that the baking of the meal-offering as unleavened bread is according to the law of

a mitzva

only;

the verse states “it shall be”: the verse established it as an obligation,

that if he did not bake it as unleavened bread, it was disqualified.

Rabbi Ferida asked Rabbi Ami: From where for all the meal-offerings that are kneaded in

water

that is lukewarm,

and

since he kneads them with water, he is obligated to be

guarding them so that they will not become leavened

, by occupying himself with the dough the entire time?

Let us learn it from Passover, for it is written “You shall guard the

unleavened breads,”

and it is proven that guarding is required for the unleavened breads.

He said to him: In the body of the meal-offering it is written

that it must be guarded:

“It shall be unleavened bread”—

preserve

it as unleavened bread, by guarding it and preparing it.

And we challenge this:

But you have used it up

this verse concerning “unleavened bread,” to learn from it that the baking of the unleavened bread is

essential

, and is not merely a mitzva!?

And we answer:

If so,

that the verse comes only to teach that it is essential,

let the verse write “it is unleavened bread”;

since “it is” is written, one could learn that it is essential, and if so,

what

is the reason that the verse wrote

“it shall be”? You learn from it two things,

both that unleavened bread is essential and that guarding is required.

The Sages said to Rabbi Ferida: Rabbi Ezra, son of the son of Rabbi Avtolas, who is

a

tenth

generation from Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, who is

a tenth

generation from Ezra, is standing at the gate.

Rabbi Ferida said to them

:

What is all this?

Why did you explain all his lineage? After all,

if he is a scholar

a Torah scholar,

he is fine,

he is worthy.

If he is a scholar and the son of ancestors—

fine and fine.

But

if he is the son of ancestors but not a scholar

he is [that is, he is of distinguished lineage, but is not a Torah scholar]—

let the fire consume him!

Let it consume him, since despite such lineage he himself is not a Torah scholar.

They said to him: He is a scholar.

Rabbi Ferida said to them

—

let Rabbi Ezra enter

,

and let him come,

he shall come.

He saw

Rabbi Ferida saw Rabbi Ezra

that his mind was troubled,

that his mind was troubled because of his distress.

He began

Rabbi Ferida began with words of aggadah in order to gladden him:

It is written in the Book of Psalms:

“I have said to the Lord: You are my Lord; my good is not upon You.”

The Assembly of Israel said before the Holy One, blessed is He: Master of the World, hold a favor for me

for this,

that I made You known in the world.

He said to it

the Holy One, blessed is He:

“My good”—

is not upon you. I hold it only for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who made Me known first in the world. As it is stated: “For the holy ones who are in the land, and the mighty ones

—all My desire is in them.”

When he heard

Rabbi Ezra from Rabbi Ferida

saying “mighty,” he began

as well, remembering a matter of aggadah concerning “mighty,”

and said:

Thus said the Holy One, blessed is He, when He took vengeance upon Egypt at the Red Sea—

the Mighty One will come

[the Holy One, blessed is He]

and exact payment from the mighty

[Israel]

from the mighty

[the Egyptians]

through the mighty

[water].

“The Mighty One will come”—

this is the Holy One, blessed is He, for it is written

“The Lord is mighty on high.”

“And exact payment from the mighty”—

these are Israel, as it is stated: “And the mighty ones—all My desire is in them.”

“From the mighty”—

these are the Egyptians, for it is written: “They sank like lead in mighty waters.”

“Through the mighty”—

these are waters, as it is stated: “From the sounds of mighty, abundant waters, the breakers of the sea.”

And likewise Rabbi Ezra expounded concerning the love between the Holy One, blessed is He, and the patriarchs mentioned in that same verse, in the same style of language:

“A beloved one will come, the son of a beloved one, and will build a beloved one

for a beloved one, in the portion of a beloved one, and beloved ones will be atoned for through him.”

“A beloved one will come”—

this is King Solomon, for it is written: “And he sent through Nathan the prophet, and he called his name Jedidiah, for the sake of the Lord.”