Pesachim 29a — the Talmud in English

But if

according to

Rabbi Shimon,

leaven

belonging to a Jew is likewise permitted

after Passover! For the Torah prohibited leaven only during its time.

And

if

according to

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean,

behold, even

during its time

[during Passover itself]

it too is permitted

leaven

for benefit!

And it is prohibited only for eating.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: In truth

the Mishna

is Rabbi Yehuda’s.

And he prohibited only leaven belonging to a Jew. Because he

derives

“leaven”

that

was prohibited for

eating from “leaven”

that

was prohibited for

seeing.

Just as

“leaven”

that

was prohibited for

seeing

is only 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

is only 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 properly have been necessary for him

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 additional 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 properly have been necessary for him to state that

leaven belonging to a gentile

even during its time

[during Passover itself]

is permitted

for eating and

for benefit.

Rather,

since he stated

as an additional point

that

leaven belonging to a

Jew

even

after its time

is prohibited,

he also stated that

leaven

belonging to a gentile

is permitted

after its time.

Rava said: In truth

the Mishna

is Rabbi Shimon’s.

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

Rabbi Shimon imposed a penalty

on leaven belonging to a Jew over which Passover had passed ,

since he violated it

with “you shall not see”

and with “it shall not be found” .

And we object:

Granted, according to Rava, this is what is meant by what it teaches

in the Mishna:

“What belongs to a Jew is prohibited

for benefit,

because it is stated

‘It shall not be seen

by you, leaven’!” Since he violated this negative commandment, the Sages penalized him.

But according to Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov,

who says that the Mishna is Rabbi Yehuda’s, behold, the leaven of a Jew after its time is prohibited by Torah law. And

because it is stated

“He shall not eat leaven”

it would be necessary

for the tanna to state that it is prohibited.

And we answer:

Do you hold

that the verse “It shall not be seen by you, leaven” gives the reason for prohibiting the leaven of a Jew, and

refers to the latter clause?!

That is not so. Rather,

it refers to the first clause. And this is what it says: Leaven belonging to a gentile over which Passover has passed is permitted for benefit. Because it is stated

“It shall not be seen by you

leaven.” 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

follow their respective positions.

For it was stated: One who eats

after Passover

leaven belonging to a gentile over which Passover has passed, according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who prohibits leaven after its time by Torah law—

Rava said: He is flogged

for eating it! And there is no distinction between leaven belonging to a Jew and that belonging to a gentile with regard to the negative commandment.

And Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: He is not flogged

for it! And they follow their respective positions.

Rava said

that he

is flogged,

because

Rabbi Yehuda does not derive

leaven concerning eating

from leaven concerning seeing!

And although “you shall not see” does not apply to the leaven of a gentile, there is nevertheless a prohibition of eating.

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 of seeing applies only to leaven belonging to a Jew, so too the prohibition of eating applies only to it.

And Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov retracted that

derivation. And he returned to say, according to Rabbi Yehuda, that the prohibition of eating applies even to the leaven of a gentile.

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

For it was taught: One who eats consecrated leaven during the festival

of Passover

commits sacrilege!

And this is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who says that leaven after Passover is permitted by Torah law for benefit . Its prohibition is only because of a penalty. But with consecrated leaven, since no person violated “you shall not see” concerning it, no penalty was imposed. Therefore it has monetary value. For after Passover the treasurer can sell it to a Jew for eating. And the law of sacrilege properly applies to it, making him liable for the principal, an added fifth, and a guilt-offering, since he caused a loss to the consecrated property.

And some say:

the one who eats it

does not commit sacrilege!

And he is liable neither for the principal, nor for the added fifth, nor for a sacrilege-offering.

And we inquire:

Who

are

the “some say”?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

According to the view of

Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKaneh.

For it was taught: Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKaneh would make Yom Kippur like Shabbat, with regard to

the matter of

payments!

For we hold: When a person performs an act that makes him liable for death and money, he becomes liable only for death, and not for money. For example, one who burns his fellow’s grain-stack on Shabbat becomes liable for death because of the labor of Shabbat, and he is exempt from paying the value of the grain-stack. This is because of “he is considered liable for the greater one among them”; that is, you do not judge him for the lesser act, but only for the more severe act. And we derive this from what is written concerning one who strikes a pregnant woman: “And if there is no fatal injury, he shall surely be punished.” Specifically, if there was no fatal injury to the woman and she did not die, he is liable to pay the husband the value of the fetuses. But if there is a fatal injury and the woman dies, he is exempt from the value of the fetuses.

Because he becomes liable for death as a murderer. And he is considered liable for the greater one among them.

And Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKaneh held that even one who burns a grain-stack on Yom Kippur is exempt from monetary payment. Although one who performs labor on it becomes liable not for death, but only for karet, the law of karet is like the law of a court-imposed death.

Just as

one who burns a grain-stack on

Shabbat—

because he

becomes liable with his life

through a court-imposed death—is

exempt from payments, so too

one who burns it on

Yom Kippur

because he

becomes liable with his life

through karet is

exempt from payment.

And the “some say” above likewise hold this way. Therefore, one who eats consecrated leaven on Passover is exempt from payments for sacrilege, since he becomes liable for karet for eating it . And he is likewise exempt from a sacrilege-offering.

For whoever is not liable for the principal and the added fifth is likewise not liable for an offering .

Rav Yosef said:

They all in truth hold like the Sages. And we do not say “he is considered liable for the greater one among them” in the case of karet, but only in the case of a court-imposed death.

And everyone likewise holds like Rabbi Yosei, that leaven on Passover is permitted for benefit [for if they held like Rabbi Shimon, who holds that leaven on Passover is prohibited for benefit, certainly there is no sacrilege with regard to it. And although after Passover it will return to its permitted status and again have monetary value, they hold: “That which causes monetary value is not considered money.” And since at present, at any rate, it is fit for nothing, it is not money, and there is no sacrilege with 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 committed sacrilege” [

the first tanna],

holds: 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 did not commit sacrilege” [

some say],

holds: One may not redeem

consecrated property in order to feed it to dogs! Because it is written concerning consecrated animals rendered unfit, after they have been redeemed: “You shall slaughter the meat and eat.” And we expound: “You shall slaughter”—but you may not use them for shearing; “meat”—but you may not use them for milk; “and eat”—but you may not give them to dogs .

It emerges that consecrated property cannot sell its leaven on Passover, because it is not fit for an Israelite for any benefit, since it is forbidden as food. And it is forbidden even to give it to dogs, because of the prohibition concerning consecrated property. And it is forbidden even to sell it to a gentile, since this too is included in the rule “one does not redeem consecrated property in order to feed it to dogs” . Therefore, it is not an object of monetary value, and there is no sacrilege with regard to it .