Pesachim 29a (כט.) — the Talmud in English

But if

for

Rabbi Shimon,

leavened bread

belonging to a Jew is also permitted

after Passover, since the Torah prohibited leaven only during its appointed time.

And

if

for

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

then even

during its appointed time

[during Passover itself]

leavened bread is also permitted

leavened bread

for benefit!

It is prohibited only for eating.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: Actually,

the Mishna

is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

And it prohibited only leaven belonging to a Jew. This is because he

derives

“leaven”

that

was prohibited for

eating from “leaven”

that

was prohibited for

seeing.

Just as

“leaven”

that

was prohibited for

seeing

refers only to leaven belonging to a Jew—as we expound:

“You may not see what is yours, but you may see what belongs to others and what belongs to the Most High”—

so too leaven that

was prohibited for

eating

refers only to leaven belonging to a Jew. And specifically,

“what is yours”

you may not eat; but you may eat

leaven

belonging to others and to the Most High.

And it would have been appropriate for him to state

the tanna of the Mishna

to state that

leaven belonging to a gentile

is permitted even for eating,

and not specifically for benefit. Rather,

since he stated

as an especially novel point

that

leaven belonging to a

Jew is prohibited

even

for benefit, he also stated that

leaven

belonging to a gentile is permitted for benefit.

And it would have been appropriate for him to state that

leaven belonging to a gentile

is permitted even during its appointed time

[during Passover itself]

forbidden

for eating and

for benefit.

Rather,

since he stated

as an especially novel point

that

leaven belonging to a

Jew

even

after its appointed time

is prohibited,

he also stated that

leaven

belonging to a gentile

is permitted

after its appointed time.

Rava said: Actually,

the Mishna

is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

And in truth, according to Torah law even leaven belonging to a Jew is permitted after Passover. Rather,

Rabbi Shimon imposed a penalty

on leaven belonging to a Jew that remained throughout Passover ,

since he violated it

with regard to “You shall not see”

and “You shall not find” .

And we raise a difficulty:

Granted, according to Rava, this is what is meant by the statement

in the Mishna

“what belongs to a Jew is prohibited

for benefit,

as it is stated,

“You shall not see

leaven belonging to you”! Since he violated this prohibition, the Sages penalized him.

But according to Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov,

who says that the Mishna is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, leaven belonging to a Jew after its appointed time is prohibited by Torah law.

And

because it is stated, “One may not eat leavened bread,”

he should have had to state

that it is prohibited.

And we answer:

Do you maintain

that the verse “You shall not see leaven belonging to you” gives the reason for the prohibition of leaven belonging to a Jew, and

refers to the latter clause?!

That is not so. Rather, it

refers to the first clause. And this is what it is saying: Leaven belonging to a gentile that remained throughout Passover is permitted for benefit, as it is stated,

“You shall not see

leaven belonging to you.” And we expound:

“You may not see what is yours, but you may see what belongs to others and what belongs to the Most High.” And he derives leaven concerning eating from leaven concerning seeing!

Therefore, leaven belonging to a gentile is permitted both for eating and for benefit.

And

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov and Rava proceeded

according to their respective rationales.

For it was stated: One who eats

after Passover

leaven belonging to a gentile that remained throughout Passover, according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who prohibits leaven after its appointed time by Torah law—

Rava said: He is flogged

for eating it. There is no distinction, with regard to this prohibition, between leaven belonging to a Jew and that belonging to a gentile.

And Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: He is not flogged

for it. And they proceeded according to their respective rationales.

Rava said

that he

is flogged,

because

Rabbi Yehuda does not derive

leaven concerning eating

from leaven concerning seeing!

Although “You shall not see” does not apply to leaven belonging to a gentile, there is nevertheless a prohibition against eating it.

And Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said

that he

is not flogged,

because

he derives leaven concerning eating from leaven concerning seeing!

Just as the prohibition against seeing applies only to leaven belonging to a Jew, so too the prohibition against eating applies only to such leaven.

And Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov retracted that

derivation. He returned to saying, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, that the prohibition against eating applies even to leaven belonging to a gentile.

And we find that he retracted his position from what he explained in the following beraita.

As it was taught: One who eats consecrated leaven during the Festival

of Passover

has misused consecrated property!

This is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who says that leaven after Passover is permitted by Torah law for benefit . Its prohibition is only due to a penalty. But with regard to consecrated leaven, since no person violated “You shall not see” with regard to it, no penalty was imposed. Therefore, it has monetary value, since after Passover the Temple treasurer can sell it to a Jew for eating. The law of misuse of consecrated property therefore properly applies to it, requiring payment of the principal, an additional fifth, and a guilt-offering, since he caused a loss to consecrated property.

And some say:

One who eats it

has not misused consecrated property!

He is liable neither for the principal, nor for the additional fifth, nor for a sacrifice for misuse of consecrated property.

And we inquire:

Who

are

“some say”?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

It is in accordance with the view of

Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana.

As it was taught: Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana equated Yom Kippur with Shabbat with regard to

the matter of

compensatory payments!

For it is established that when a person performs an act that makes him liable for both death and monetary payment, he is liable only for death and not for payment. For example, one who burns another person’s grain pile on Shabbat is liable to death for performing labor on Shabbat, and is exempt from paying the value of the grain pile, because of the principle “the more severe liability exempts from the lesser one.” That is, one does not judge him for the less severe act, but only for the more severe act. We derive this from the verse concerning one who strikes a pregnant woman: “If there is no fatality, he shall be punished.” Specifically, if there was no fatality and the woman did not die, he is liable to pay the husband the value of the fetuses. But if there is a fatality and the woman dies, he is exempt from payment for the fetuses.

Because he becomes liable to death as a murderer, and the more severe liability exempts from the lesser one.

And Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana maintained that even one who burns a grain pile on Yom Kippur is exempt from monetary payment, although one who performs labor on Yom Kippur is liable not to death but only to karet. For the law of karet is like the law of a court-imposed death penalty.

Just as

one who burns a grain pile on

Shabbat—

because he

becomes liable for his life

through a court-imposed death penalty—is

exempt from compensatory payment, so too

one who burns it on

Yom Kippur

is exempt. Since he

becomes liable for his life

through karet, he is

exempt from payment.

And the “some say” cited above likewise hold this view. Therefore, one who eats consecrated leaven on Passover is exempt from payments for misuse of consecrated property, since he becomes liable to karet for eating it . He is also exempt from bringing the sacrifice for misuse of consecrated property.

For anyone who is not liable to pay the principal and the additional fifth is likewise not liable to bring the sacrifice.

Rav Yosef said:

They actually hold in accordance with the Sages. We do not apply the principle that the more severe liability exempts from the lesser one in a case of karet, but only in a case of a court-imposed death penalty.

And everyone agrees with Rabbi Yosei that leaven on Passover is permitted for benefit. [For if they held in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that leaven on Passover is prohibited for benefit, certainly there is no misuse of consecrated property with regard to it. Although after Passover it will again become permitted and will once more have monetary value, they maintain that “anything that merely causes monetary value is not considered equivalent to money”] . And since at present it is not fit for anything it is not considered money, and there is no misuse of consecrated property with regard to it ].

And

with

regard to whether

consecrated property may be redeemed in order to feed it to dogs, they disagree.

The one who says

“he has misused consecrated property”

[the first tanna]

maintains: Consecrated property may be redeemed in order to feed it to dogs!

Therefore, consecrated leaven on Passover has monetary value, since it can be redeemed and sold to a Jew so that he can feed it to an animal or to dogs.

And the one who says

“he has not misused consecrated property”

[the “some say”]

maintains: One may not redeem

consecrated property in order to feed it to dogs. This is because it is written with regard to consecrated animals that became disqualified and were redeemed: “You shall slaughter the flesh and eat it.” And we expound: “You shall slaughter”—but you may not use them for shearing; “the flesh”—but you may not use them for milk; “and eat it”—but you may not give any of it to dogs.

It follows that the consecrated property cannot sell its leaven on Passover, because it is not fit for an Israelite to derive any benefit from it: It is forbidden to eat it, and it is even forbidden to give it to dogs, because of the prohibition concerning sacred offerings. It is even forbidden to sell it to a gentile, since this too is included in the rule that “one does not redeem sacred offerings in order to feed them to dogs” . Therefore, it has no monetary value, and there is no me'ilah in it .