Menachot 53a (נג.) — the Talmud in English

He said to him

Rabbi Perida said to Rabbi Ami: The baking of the meal-offering as unleavened bread 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 bread is

essential?

He said to him

Rabbi Ami said to Rabbi Perida:

It is also written that it is essential —

“It shall not be baked as leavened bread,”

and from this you learn that it may not be baked as leavened bread

but only as unleavened bread.

It follows that the verse repeated the matter in order to indicate that it is essential.

Rav Hisda challenged this:

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

And perhaps

even if they are not unleavened bread, they are valid; it is required only that they not be leavened, as the verse means:

“It shall not”

be baked

as leavened bread,”

and if he baked it as leavened bread, it is invalid,

but as shi’ur,

if he baked it when it was shi’ur, it is valid. Shi’ur means that it has undergone a degree of fermentation called shi’ur: it has departed from the status of unleavened bread but has not yet reached the status of leavened bread. Indeed, initially, as a mitzva, the meal-offering must be unleavened bread rather than shi’ur, since it is written, “It shall be eaten as unleavened bread.” But with regard to invalidation, from where do we know that it must be unleavened bread? Perhaps shi’ur is also valid!?

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah disagreed in tractate Pesachim as to what shi’ur is and what its status 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 receive karet for eating it on Passover, but one is flogged for it because of the prohibition, “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 when cracks resembling the horns of locusts have appeared in it is it shi’ur, until the cracks intersect with one another; at that point it becomes leavened. Thus 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 because of shi’ur. According to Rabbi Judah, it is completely permitted, and one may even fulfill the mitzva of eating unleavened bread on Passover with it.

b.

Horns of locusts

according to Rabbi Meir, constitute fully leavened bread, and one is liable to receive karet for eating it; according to Rabbi Judah, it is merely a prohibition of shi’ur.

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

The Gemara now discusses Rav Hisda’s question: The verse says, “It shall not be baked as leavened bread,” but as shi’ur.

Whose shi’ur?

Which shi’ur is meant, and according to whose opinion is Rav Hisda speaking?

If

Rav Hisda spoke of the shi’ur

of Rabbi Meir,

in the stage when the surface has become pale but cracks resembling locust horns have not yet appeared, and Rav Hisda stated his words

according

to the opinion of

Rabbi Judah,

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 excellent unleavened bread, is it not?!

If

Rav Hisda spoke of the shi’ur

of Rabbi Judah,

once it has cracked with cracks resembling locust horns, and he stated his words

according

to the opinion of

Rabbi Meir,

who said that one is flogged for eating shi’ur, how can you say, “It shall not be baked as leavened bread, but as shi’ur”? For according to Rabbi Meir, once cracks resembling locust horns have appeared in it,

it is fully leavened

and one is liable to receive karet for eating it!?

If Rav Hisda spoke of the shi’ur

of Rabbi Meir,

when its surface has become pale, and stated his words

according

to the opinion of

Rabbi Meir,

this too is difficult, for

one is flogged for it —

it is leavened.

Although one is not liable to receive karet for eating it, it is nevertheless leavened. How, then, can it be excluded by the verse, “It shall not be baked as leavened bread, but as shi’ur”!?

The Gemara concludes:

Rather,

Rav Hisda’s statement that the verse means, “It shall not be baked as leavened bread, but as shi’ur,” refers to the shi’ur

of Rabbi

Judah,

when it has cracked like the horns of locusts, and Rav Hisda speaks

according

to the opinion of

Rabbi Judah,

who maintains that one is not flogged for eating shi’ur. Since one is not flogged for it, it is possible to exclude it by the verse, “It shall not be baked as leavened bread, but as shi’ur.”

Rav Nahman bar Yitzḥak challenged this: And perhaps

the meaning of this verse is as follows:

“It shall not be baked as leavened bread” —

but as halut

in boiling water, which is neither leavened bread nor actual unleavened bread!?

We are astonished: What is Rav Nahman bar Yitzḥak asking? After all,

“What is halut?” —

It is ravukha!

For

if it comes

as a meal-offering

of ravukha,

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 must be

a ravukha,

which means that it is not baked as leavened bread but is scalded.

But if he did not bring

a meal offering in which it is stated

that it is ravukha,

but rather another meal offering, then it is proven from this very fact that it need not be made 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 with regard to the Minḥat Ravukha, it follows that the other meal offerings need not be scalded with boiling water. This is difficult for Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: what is he challenging when he says, “It is stated: ‘It shall not be baked leavened,’ but rather it must be scalded with boiling water”?

And we answer: This is how Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak challenged it:

And say: In the case of a meal offering concerning which it is written that it is ravukha—

the mitzva is specifically to make it ravukha.

And in the case of a meal offering

concerning which it is not written that it is ravukha—

if he wishes, he may bring it as ravukha,

and if he wishes, he may bring it as matza.

And his challenge is: “It shall not be baked leavened”—but rather it may be scalded. Every meal offering, if one wishes, may be made ravukha, and one is not required to make it matza.

And likewise

Ravina raised an objection to him: And say

that what is written,

“It shall not be baked leavened,”

serves only

to place the person who bakes the meal offering while it is leavened under a mere prohibition

but

the disqualification

of the offering itself

does not disqualify it

if it became leavened!?

Rather, from where do we know

that only if he baked the meal offering in the form of matza is the meal offering valid?

As it was taught in a beraita: “Matza”—

one might

think that baking the meal offering as matza is in accordance with the law of

a mitzva

alone.

The verse states: “It shall be”; the verse establishes it as an obligation,

so that if he did not bake it as matza, it is disqualified.

Rabbi Perida asked Rabbi Ami: From where is it derived that all the meal offerings that are kneaded with

water

that is lukewarm,

and

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

vigilant over them so that they do not become leavened,

by constantly working with the dough?

Let us derive it from Pesaḥ, as it is written, “You shall safeguard the

matzot,”

and it is thereby proven that the matzot require safeguarding.

He said to him: It is written concerning the meal offering itself

that it must be safeguarded:

“It shall be matza”—

preserve

it as matza by safeguarding it and rendering it fit.

And we challenge this:

But you have already used it

this verse concerning matza to derive that baking the matza is

essential for validity,

and is not merely a mitzva!?

And we answer:

If so,

if the verse comes only to establish that it is essential for validity,

the verse should have written, “It is matza.”

Since it wrote “it is,” one could derive that it is essential for validity. If so,

what

is the reason the verse wrote

“It shall be”? You may learn from it two things:

both that matza is essential for validity and that it requires safeguarding.

The Sages said to Rabbi Perida: Rabbi Ezra, the son of the son of Rabbi Avtulas, who is

a generation

tenth-generation descendant of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who was

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya,

a tenth-generation descendant of Ezra, is standing at the gate,

standing in the entranceway.

Rabbi Perida said to them

:

What is all this?

Why did you spell out his entire lineage? After all,

if he is a Torah scholar,

he is a Torah scholar,

he is worthy,

he is suitable.

If he is a Torah scholar and the son of ancestors—

he is worthy indeed.

But

if he is the son of ancestors but not a Torah scholar

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

may fire consume him!

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

They said to him: He is a Torah scholar.

Rabbi Perida said to them

—

Let Rabbi Ezra enter

and

come in,

he should come.

Rabbi Perida saw

Rabbi Ezra

whose spirits were troubled,

as he was distressed.

Rabbi Perida opened

with words of aggada in order to gladden him:

It is written in the Book of Psalms:

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

The Congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of the Universe, hold my goodness to my account

for

having made You known in the world.

He said to it

—the Holy One, blessed be He:

“My goodness”—

“is not upon You.” I credit only Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who first made Me known in the world. As it is stated: “As for the holy ones who are in the earth, and the mighty

—all My desire is in them.”

When Rabbi Ezra heard

Rabbi Perida

saying “mighty,” he opened

as well, having been reminded by the aggadic passage of the word “mighty,”

and said:

This is what the Holy One, blessed be He, said when He took vengeance upon Egypt at the Red Sea:

“The Mighty One will come

[the Holy One, blessed be He]

and exact punishment from the mighty

[Israel]

through the mighty

[the Egyptians]

with the mighty

[water].”

“The Mighty One will come”—

this is the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written:

“The Lord is mighty on high.”

“And exact punishment from the mighty”—

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

“Through the mighty”—

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

“With the mighty”—

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

And likewise Rabbi Ezra expounded concerning the endearment between the Holy One, blessed be He, and the Patriarchs mentioned in that same verse, using the same style of expression:

“The beloved will come, the son of the beloved, and build the beloved”—

“for the beloved, in the portion of the beloved, and the beloved will be atoned for through him.”

“The beloved will come”—

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