Pesachim 28b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Shimon says: hametz —

before its time and after its time, one does not violate a prohibition because of it

by eating it

at all !

Тосафот Раббену Перец А в сочинении Роша сказано, что таким способом заповедь «устраните его» действительно исполняется. Третий — мнение Рана: согласно Торе с шести часов квасное запрещено даже по мнению Рабби Шимона — и есть его, и получать от него пользу. Ведь заповедь «устраните его» включает также аннулирование квасного. Аннулировать — значит полностью удалить квасное из своих мыслей, чтобы оно считалось для человека уничтоженным. Но если человеку разрешено получать от него пользу, значит, он вообще его не аннулировал. Четвёртый — мнение Итура и Рамбана в «Войне Господа»: есть квасное и получать от него пользу запрещено лишь по постановлению мудрецов, чтобы человек не оставил его у себя и не нарушил повелительную заповедь «устраните его». Пятый — мнение Бааль hа-Маор: по мнению Рабби Шимона разрешено даже изначально есть квасное до ночи, и таким образом надлежащим образом исполняется повелительная заповедь «устраните его» .

And if he ate it

within its time, he violates it by karet and by a prohibition!

And from the time when it is forbidden

the hametz

to eat,

it is

forbidden

also

to benefit from it!

But this matter

refers to the First Tanna [Rabbi Judah]! For from the sixth hour onward, when there is a prohibition against eating it, benefiting from it is also forbidden.

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Consider this for yourself! How can it be said that hametz is forbidden to benefit from throughout the seven days?!

It is clear to Rabbi Yosei that even during Passover hametz is not forbidden to benefit from, but only to eat. And all the more so, before its time it is not forbidden to benefit from.

And he proceeds to explain their dispute:

And from where is it derived concerning one who eats hametz

from the sixth hour onward, that he violates a prohibition? —

As it is stated:

“You shall not eat hametz with it.”

And it refers to the Passover offering. The meaning of the verse is: You shall not eat hametz from the time of the slaughtering of the Passover offering, which is in the afternoon. That is, from the sixth hour onward, when the sun begins to decline —

the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Shimon said to him: Can this possibly be said,

that “with it” refers to the time of the slaughtering of the Passover offering?

But it has already been stated

in this verse,

“You shall not eat hametz with it; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it,

the bread of affliction”! And just as “with it,” which is written concerning eating matza, refers to the time of eating the Passover offering, which is the night of the fifteenth, so “with it,” which is written concerning the prohibition of hametz, refers to the time of eating it, and not to the time of its slaughtering on the fourteenth [Tosafot].

If so, what does the verse teach

“You shall not eat hametz with it”? —

To juxtapose it with the eating of matza.

At the time when there is “Arise, eat matza,”

that is, from the night of the fifteenth,

there is

the prohibition of

“Do not eat hametz.”

And at the time when there is no “Arise, eat matza,”

there is also

no “Do not eat hametz” !

Thus, apparently, there is no prohibition against eating hametz on the fourteenth.

And we raise the question:

And what is Rabbi Judah’s reason

for prohibiting it from the sixth hour? After all, we do not learn this from “You shall not eat hametz with it,” as stated.

And we answer:

Three verses are written

concerning eating hametz:

“Hametz shall not be eaten”;

“And every leavened thing you shall not eat”;

and

“You shall not eat hametz with it.”

One

verse comes to prohibit hametz

before its time.

And one verse comes to prohibit it

after its time. And one

verse

to

prohibit it

within its time .

And Rabbi Shimon

held that

one

verse [“You shall not eat hametz with it”] comes

to

prohibit eating it

within its time.

And that which is written,

“And every leavened thing you shall not eat,” is needed for that which was taught: “

You shall not eat with it

“hametz” —

I have only

to prohibit

only

hametz

that became leavened by itself.

But if it became leavened

because of another thing [such as through wine lees or any substance that is not of the type of hametz ],

],

from where

do we know that it too is forbidden to eat?

The verse teaches: “

And

every leavened thing you shall not eat”!

For it implies that even if it became leavened through another thing.

And that which is written,

“Hametz shall not be eaten,” is needed for that which was taught: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: From where is it derived concerning the Passover of Egypt that its prohibition of leaven

[the prohibition against eating its hametz]

applies only for one day,

and not for all seven days, as with the Passover of the generations?

The verse teaches

in its regard:

“Hametz shall not be eaten.”

And adjacent to it

is this verse,

“Today you are going out

in the month of spring.” And we read it as: “Hametz shall not be eaten today.” But on all the other days it may be eaten.

Therefore, all these three verses are necessary. No verse remains superfluous from which to derive the prohibition against eating hametz before its time and after its time.

And we raise the question:

And Rabbi Judah,

who expounds these verses to prohibit hametz before its time and after its time, from where does he derive the prohibition against hametz that became leavened

because of another thing?

And we answer: He derives it from the meaning of the verse, and not from a superfluity.

Since the Merciful One expressed

hametz

in the language of

“leavened thing.”

квасное.

And we raise another question: This teaching

of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili

[that the prohibition of leaven for the Passover of Egypt applied only for one day],

from where does Rabbi Judah derive it? The verse “Hametz shall not be eaten” is needed by him for after its time.

Рабби Йеуде? Ведь стих «Квасного да не едят» ему необходим для запрета после наступления его времени.

And we answer:

If you wish, say that he derives it from its adjacency

to this verse,

“Today

you are going out”! Although the body of the verse is not superfluous, we derive this from the adjacency.

And

if you wish, say:

Rabbi Judah in fact does not hold this teaching of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, because

he does not expound juxtaposed verses!

Rather, he holds that the prohibition of hametz of the Passover of Egypt also applied throughout the seven days.

The Master said:

“And from where is it derived concerning one who eats hametz from the sixth hour onward, that he violates a prohibition?” —

“As it is stated: ‘You shall not eat hametz with it’”—

the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Shimon said to him: Can this possibly be said?

But it has already been stated, “You shall not eat hametz with it; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it”!

It implies that the prohibition against eating hametz applies only at the time when the obligation to eat matza applies, that is, in the evening. And not from the sixth hour.

And we raise the question:

Rabbi Shimon has answered properly,

and what will Rabbi Judah answer to this?

And

we answer:

Rabbi Judah

held that the verse did not come to juxtapose hametz with matza regarding the time of the prohibition. Rather,

that juxtaposition

сопоставление

came to establish it

as a positive commandment of matza

as an obligation even in the present time!

For just as the prohibition against hametz applies even in the present time, so too the obligation of matza.

Were it not for the juxtaposition, I might have said that the obligation to eat matza applies only together with the Passover offering, as it is written, “They shall eat it roasted over fire, and matza with bitter herbs.” It teaches us that even in the present time, when there is no Passover offering, the obligation of matza applies on the first night .

And we raise the question:

And Rabbi Shimon, to establish

matza as

an obligation

even in the present time,

from where does he derive it?

But he expounds this juxtaposition to permit hametz before its time.

And we answer:

He derives it from

that which is written,

“In the evening you shall eat

matza,” which is superfluous! For it has already been written, “They shall eat it with matza and bitter herbs.” Rather, it comes to obligate one even in the present time.

And Rabbi Judah

held that

it is needed

for the verse “In the evening you shall eat matza,”

to

include one who was

impure

or

who was on a distant journey

at the time of Passover, when the Temple was standing, and who was deferred to the Second Passover. For

it might enter your mind to say, since

with the

Passover offering he shall not eat, he should likewise not eat matza and bitter herbs .

It teaches us that he is obligated to eat matza on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan.

что он обязан есть мацу в ночь пятнадцатого нисана.

And we still have not learned from this that eating matza is an obligation even in the present time . Therefore, the juxtaposition “You shall not eat hametz with it; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it” is needed, to establish it as an obligation even in the present time.

And Rabbi Shimon

held that

a verse is not needed for an impure person and one who was on a distant journey

to obligate him in matza.

For

this

is no less than an uncircumcised person

[whose brothers died because of circumcision, and circumcision is dangerous for him ]

and a foreigner

[an apostate, whose deeds have become estranged from his Father in Heaven ], who do not eat from the Passover offering, and nevertheless they are obligated in matza.

For

this

is written:

“And no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.”

And we expound:

“Of it”

[of the Passover offering]

he may not eat of it, but he may eat matza and bitter herbs!

And the same applies to an impure person and one who was on a distant journey.

And again the verse “You shall not eat hametz with it; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it” is superfluous. Necessarily, it comes to juxtapose hametz with matza, that its prohibition applies only at night, and not before its time.

And Rabbi Judah

held that although it is possible to derive one from the other ,

it is written in this case

[concerning an uncircumcised person and a foreigner] a separate verse,

and it is written in that case

[concerning an impure person and one who was on a distant journey] a separate verse! The juxtaposition “You shall not eat hametz with it” is still needed to establish it as an obligation in the present time.

And although additional verses were stated concerning matza, such as “For seven days you shall eat matza,” we cannot derive from them the establishment of an obligation. For they are not obligations; rather, if one wishes to eat, he may eat only matza and not hametz. But if he wishes not to eat at all, he is permitted to do so. The proof is that “for seven days” is written. Certainly there is no obligation for all seven days, but only on the first night, as we derive below [120a].

But from the juxtaposition above, we properly derive the establishment of an obligation on the first night. For the juxtaposition to hametz was written beside the Passover offering, as it is written, “You shall eat matza with it.” And “with it” means with the Passover offering. The juxtaposition is effective with regard to hametz, to establish it as an obligation even in the present time. And “with it” is effective to teach us that it is an obligation only on the first night, which is the time of eating the Passover offering.

And we return to our question:

Whose is the Mishna?

For that which it teaches, “The hametz of a gentile over which Passover has passed is permitted for benefit, while that of an Israelite is forbidden for benefit,” is according to no one. For

if it is according to Rabbi Judah,

then hametz after its time is forbidden by Torah law both to eat and to benefit from. And

“hametz”

is stated without qualification,

and

even

hametz

of a gentile.