Pesachim 28a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Judah went back and argued

for the burning of hametz

from another principle: notar exists

in

“You shall not leave over”

, as it is written concerning it, “He shall not leave any of it until morning

”.

And

hametz

also exists

under “You shall not leave over”, as it is written concerning it, “It shall not be seen” and “It shall not be found

”.

What

do we find with

notar

that it is

burned; so too, hametz is burned!

The Sages and Rabbi Judah disagreed at the end of tractate Temura concerning a provisional guilt-offering [which comes for a doubt concerning a prohibition punishable by karet, such as when forbidden fat and permitted fat are before him, and he ate one of them, but does not know which one] in which a disqualification occurred, or which became notar . According to Rabbi Judah, it is not burned, but rather buried. And he derives this accordingly, as it is written: “And you shall burn the notar in fire, for it is holy.” And he expounds: “It” is burned, but a provisional guilt-offering and the bird sin-offering are not burned.

And likewise the bird sin-offering that comes on account of a doubt [such as a woman who discharges something concerning which it is doubtful whether it is a fetus or is not a fetus, and she is uncertain whether she is liable for the sin-offering of a woman who gave birth, so she brings a bird sin-offering on account of the doubt. And it is derived for us from verses that there is here no doubt concerning the prohibition of unconsecrated matter in the Temple courtyard]. For this sin-offering is forbidden to be eaten, because the bird sin-offering is killed by pinching. And according to the possibility that she did not miscarry a fetus and did not become liable for a sin-offering, it is an unconsecrated bird. And unconsecrated matter becomes carrion through pinching, for the Torah permitted pinching only for the bird sin-offering.

And even concerning this Rabbi Judah held that its law is burial and not burning, because he excludes it from “it,” which is written concerning notar: “It” is burned, but the bird sin-offering that comes on account of a doubt is not burned.

And the Sages held that even a provisional guilt-offering and a bird sin-offering that comes on account of a doubt are burned.

And the Sages said to Rabbi Judah:

“A provisional guilt-offering and a bird sin-offering that comes on account of a doubt,

which

according to your words

are not burned,

will prove

concerning hametz that it is not subject to burning.

For

even

they are under ‘You shall not leave over,’

like all sacred things that it is forbidden to leave over until morning. And nevertheless they are not subject to burning.

For

only

we say

that they are

burned .

But

you say

that they are

buried!”

And their principal proof is from the provisional guilt-offering, but not from the bird sin-offering that comes on account of a doubt. For from there one can object: What is distinctive about the bird sin-offering? There is no punishment of karet for eating it, unlike notar and hametz.

Rashi,

according to

Sefat Emet .

Rabbi Judah was silent .

Rav Yosef said: This is what people say: “In the ladle with which the craftsman sinned, with it let him burn mustard” [in the ladle which the artisan carved, there he shall burn his tongue with mustard]! And it is a proverb for this: through Rabbi Judah’s words concerning the provisional guilt-offering, the ruling that he himself argued concerning hametz was refuted.

[на рукояти, которую вырезал мастер, он обожжет свой язык горчицей]! Это притча о том, что из слов рабби Иегуды относительно ашам талуй опровергается закон, который он сам вывел относительно хамеца.

Abaye said:

The matter resembles

“the block sits in the blocks” [a carpenter who repairs the block in which the prisoners’ feet are placed. And when he is finally caught in theft, he himself is put into the block that he repaired].

[плотник, изготовляющий колодку, в которую помещают ноги заключенных; когда в конце концов его поймали на краже, его самого поместили в колодку, которую он изготовил].

“For by the raising of his own hands” [through the raising of his hands, and his own handiwork], he

[поднятием собственных рук и своим же трудом] он

pays

his punishment.

Rava said:

The matter resembles

an arrow

that

is killed by arrows [one who makes arrows and is eventually killed by the arrow that he himself made].

For

by his own handiwork he pays!

We learned in the Mishna:

“And the Sages say:

even

he crumbles it and scatters it

to the wind, or casts it into the sea!”

It was asked of them: What does he say?

Did the Sages say:

“He crumbles

the hametz

and scatters

it

to the wind,”

or

“he crumbles it and casts

it

into the sea!”

For he must always crumble it first, whether he scatters it to the wind or casts it into the sea.

Or perhaps,

this is what they say:

“He crumbles it and scatters it to the wind.”

But

he casts

it

into the sea as it is!

And specifically when he scatters it to the wind does he need to crumble it first, because if he throws it while it is whole, perhaps he will find it afterward and come to eat it . But when he throws it into the sea, it is sufficient for him even without crumbling it. And there is no concern that he may find it, for it dissolves in the sea and is extinguished by itself.

And

likewise

we also learned

concerning

idolatry, in such a case!

For the Torah required that it be destroyed from the world. And there too this matter may be uncertain.

For we learned:

Rabbi Yosei says:

How does he destroy it? He

grinds

it

and scatters

its ground matter

to the wind,

or

casts

it

into the sea!

And it was asked of them: What does Rabbi Yosei say

? Did he say:

“He grinds and scatters

it

to the wind,”

or

“he grinds

and

casts

it

into the sea!”

For it always requires grinding, whether he scatters it to the wind or casts it into the sea.

Or perhaps,

this is what he says:

“He grinds and scatters it to the wind,”

so that it should not remain whole.

But

when he

casts

it

into the sea,

he does not need to grind it first, but casts it while it is

as it is.

Rabba said: It stands to reason that, concerning idolatry,

it is sufficient to cast it into the sea even while it is as it is, because

it is going to the Salt Sea!

Since no ship passes there,

grinding is not required.

But

hametz, which goes to the other rivers, requires

also

crumbling,

because there is concern that perhaps a ship will encounter the hametz and take it.

Rav Yosef said to him: On the contrary, the opposite is more logical. Idolatry, which does not dissolve [which does not dissolve]

in water,

requires grinding.

And even without this, this is not destruction . But

hametz, which

it

dissolves

by itself in water,

does not require crumbling.

It was taught in accordance with Rabba,

that hametz requires crumbling even in the sea.

And it was taught in accordance with Rav Yosef,

that idolatry requires grinding even in the sea.

It was taught in accordance with Rabba: If one was traveling

on the eve of Passover

in the wilderness,

and he had hametz in his possession, he

crumbles

it

and scatters

it

to the wind!

And if

he was traveling in a ship,

he

crumbles

it

and casts

it

into the sea!

Evidently, even when he casts it into the sea he must first crumble it.

It was taught in accordance with Rav Yosef: If one was traveling in the wilderness,

and he had idolatry in his possession, he

grinds

it

and scatters

it

to the wind!

And if

he was traveling in a ship,

he

grinds

it

and casts

it

into the sea!

Evidently, even when he casts it into the sea he must first grind it.

And we raise an objection: That which was taught concerning idolatry, that it requires

grinding

even when he casts it into the sea,

is difficult for Rabba,

who said, “It does not require grinding.”

And that which was taught concerning hametz, that it requires

crumbling

even when he casts it into the sea,

is difficult for Rav Yosef,

who said, “It does not require crumbling.”

And we answer: That which was taught

grinding

concerning idolatry

is not difficult for Rabba.

For

what Rabba said, “It does not require grinding,” deals with when he casts it

into the Salt Sea.

And

that

which was taught in the beraita, that it requires grinding, deals with when he casts it

into the other rivers, where ships are found.

где имеются корабли.

And likewise, that which was taught

crumbling

concerning hametz

is not difficult for Rav Yosef. That

which was taught, that it requires crumbling, deals

with wheat

upon which water fell and which became hametz. It requires crumbling because it does not dissolve in water. And

that

of Rav Yosef deals

with bread [bread]! Since it dissolves in water, it does not require crumbling.

[который, поскольку растворяется в воде, не требует крошения].

Mishna:

The hametz of a gentile over which Passover passed,

it is

permitted for benefit

after Passover!

But hametz

belonging to an Israelite

over which Passover passed, it is

forbidden for benefit

forever, because

it is stated,

“Leaven shall not be seen for you”!

And the Gemara concludes that because he transgressed this negative commandment, the Sages penalized him and forbade it for benefit forever.

Gemara:

And we consider it:

Who is the author of the Mishna?

It is

not

like

Rabbi Judah,

and

not

like

Rabbi Shimon, and not

like

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean.

And

what is it

that they disagree about?

As

it was taught:

There are three periods concerning the prohibition of

hametz. A. The eve of Passover, from the sixth hour onward until nightfall, namely, “before its time.” B. During Passover, namely, “within its time.” C. After Passover, namely, “after its time

”.

Both before its time

and

after its time,

he

transgresses a negative commandment concerning it!

But there is no punishment of karet for eating it, only lashes.

Within its time,

he

transgresses a negative commandment concerning it, and

for eating it he is liable to

karet—

the words of Rabbi Judah.

таково мнение Рабби Иегуды.