Pesachim 29b — the Talmud in English

Rav Aḥa bar Ravʾa taught it ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

this teaching in the name of Rav Yosef, in this wording: that all

the world

between the First Tanna and the “Some say” hold

“One does not redeem consecrated property in order to feed it to dogs.”

Therefore, it is impossible to sell it to a gentile. It follows that during Passover it is not fit for anything.

And here they disagree about this:

if

“an item that causes monetary value is considered monetary value,”

or not. That is to say, an item which, according to its present state, is not fit to be considered monetary value, since it is fit for nothing. But after some time it will become permitted for benefit and will again become monetary value. Is it already from now subject to the status of monetary value, since it causes its owner monetary value in the future, or not?

And everyone holds like Rabbi Shimon, who says: consecrated leaven during Passover is forbidden for benefit. But after Passover it is permitted for benefit [for since there is no one who violates “it shall not be seen,” the Sages did not impose a penalty upon it].

The one who says

“one who eats consecrated leaven on Passover”

“has committed misuse,” holds: an item that causes monetary value is considered monetary value!

And although during Passover the leaven is not fit for anything, nevertheless even now it is important as the monetary value of consecrated property. For it causes consecrated property to have monetary value after Passover.

And the one who says

“he has not committed misuse,” holds: an item that causes monetary value is not considered monetary value!

And since at present it has no monetary value, there is no misuse of it.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: Everyone

holds

“an item that causes monetary value is considered monetary value.”

And here they disagree in the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon.

The one who says

“he has not committed misuse”

[the First Tanna], holds

like Rabbi Yehuda,

for leaven over which Passover has passed is forbidden by Torah law! And it makes no difference whether it is ordinary leaven or leaven belonging to the Most High; they are forbidden. For it is not because of a penalty. And since it is forever forbidden for benefit, and even after Passover it is impossible to sell it, it is fit for nothing. Therefore it is not an item that causes monetary value, and there is no misuse of it.

And the one who says

“he has committed misuse,”

holds

like Rabbi Shimon,

for consecrated leaven over which Passover has passed is permitted for benefit! And since after Passover the treasurer will be able to sell it, it is an item that causes monetary value, and it is considered monetary value. Therefore there is misuse of it.

And we object:

But it is Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov who said that even for

for

Rabbi Yehuda

leaven belonging to a gentile is not forbidden for benefit. Because

he derives leaven of eating from leaven of seeing!

And even consecrated leaven is not forbidden in the matter of seeing. As we expound: “You may not see your own, but you may see that of others and that of the Most High.” If so, even consecrated leaven should be permitted for benefit, just as it is permitted in the matter of seeing. And how does Rav Aḥa say that the one who says “he has not committed misuse” holds like Rabbi Yehuda? But it is permitted for benefit and is considered complete monetary value. And why should there not be misuse of it?

And we conclude:

Rather,

certainly

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov retracted that derivation!

And even leaven belonging to a gentile and to the Most High, which is permitted in the matter of seeing, is forbidden in the matter of eating.

Rav Ashi said,

to explain the dispute between the First Tanna and the “Some say”:

Everyone

holds

“One does not redeem consecrated property in order to feed it to dogs”.

And during Passover itself it is not fit for anything and has no monetary value. And likewise everyone holds

“an item that causes monetary value is not considered monetary value”:

although after Passover it is permitted for benefit, at present, in any event, it is not considered monetary value.

And here they disagree in the dispute between Rabbi Yosei the Galilean and the Rabbis.

The one who says

“he has committed misuse”

holds

like Rabbi Yosei,

for leaven is permitted for benefit even during Passover! Therefore consecrated property can sell it during Passover even to an Israelite, in order to use it as fuel beneath his cooking pot.

And the one who says

“he has not committed misuse”

holds

like the Rabbis,

for leaven on Passover is forbidden for benefit! Therefore it is impossible to sell it to an Israelite during Passover, since it is forbidden for him to benefit from it. And it is also impossible to sell it to a gentile, since one does not redeem consecrated property in order to feed it to dogs. And it is not considered monetary value because it is fit to be sold to an Israelite after Passover, since every item that causes monetary value is not considered monetary value.

We establish: a prohibition that became mixed with a permitted substance, if the permitted substance is the majority in the mixture, the prohibition is nullified in the permitted substance and its prohibition is removed.

But we find in this law a distinction between a mixture of liquid with liquid and a mixture of dry with dry. In a mixture of dry with dry, by Torah law any majority is always sufficient. And one piece of prohibited substance is nullified even by a majority consisting of two permitted pieces. But for a mixture of liquid with liquid, an ordinary majority of permitted substance is not sufficient, because the prohibited substance imparts taste to the permitted substance, and “taste is equivalent to substance” [and likewise in a mixture of liquid with dry there is imparting of the prohibited taste into the permitted substance in certain circumstances, such as through cooking]. And as long as the taste of the prohibition is discernible in the mixture, it is not nullified by a majority. Rather, there must be sixty parts of permitted substance corresponding to one part of prohibited substance. For at such a measure, the Sages estimated that the taste of the prohibition is nullified from the mixture.

And in Ḥullin 98b,

Rashi

and

Tosafot

disagree concerning the halakha: whether the law of “taste is equivalent to substance” is by Torah law or rabbinic.

And all this is stated concerning a mixture of one species with a different species. But concerning a mixture of one species with the same species, Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages disagree. Rabbi Yehuda derives from a verse that whenever the prohibition and the permitted substance are of one species, the prohibition is never nullified. But the Sages disagree with him in this law. And they hold that even one species mixed with the same species is nullified by a majority. On the contrary, its law is more lenient than that of a mixture of one species with a different species. For even in a mixture of liquid with liquid, by Torah law a majority of one against two is sufficient. Since the prohibition does not alter the taste of the permitted substance, for their tastes are identical, the law of “taste is equivalent to substance” therefore does not apply to it.

And likewise, in a mixture of one species with the same species consisting of liquid with liquid, we require sixty by rabbinic law, on account of one species mixed with a different species. Specifically, when dry substances of one species are mixed with one another, the prohibition is nullified in the permitted substance by any majority.

Rav said: Leaven in its time

[during Passover]—

whether

it became mixed

with

a permitted substance that is of

the same species,

such as with matza,

or whether

it became mixed with a permitted substance

that

is

not

of

the same species,

it is

forbidden!

And even if it is the minority in the mixture, it is not nullified by the majority of the permitted substance. And the entire mixture becomes forbidden because of the prohibition of the leaven mixed into it.

And leaven

not in its time

[after Passover]—if it became mixed

with

a majority of permitted substance that is

of the same species,

it is

forbidden!

And it is not nullified by the majority; rather, the entire mixture becomes forbidden because of it.

But if it became mixed with a majority of permitted substance

that

is

not

of

the same species,

it is nullified by this majority, and

permitted!

And we inquire concerning it:

With what are we dealing?

If you say with

a place where the leaven

imparts taste

to the permitted substance, why is leaven

not in its time

that became mixed

with a different species permitted?

It imparts taste

to the permitted substance! And from the fact that Rav forbade leaven not in its time when it became mixed with the same species, it is proven that he holds that leaven after its time is forbidden by Torah law. And we establish that all prohibitions in the Torah forbid their mixtures through imparting taste.

And we conclude:

Rather,

with what are we dealing here?

With something

of leaven that became mixed with permitted substance, and this something is not sufficient to impart taste in the entire mixture [such as when the leaven is not even one-sixtieth of the permitted substance].

And we explain: that which Rav said, “Leaven

in its time, whether with its own species

or

whether with a different species, is forbidden”—

with its own species, by the essential law it is forbidden even in the smallest amount, because

Rav follows his own reasoning.

For

this is what

Rav and Shmuel both said: Every

prohibition in the Torah

that became mixed

with

a permitted substance that is of

the same species

as the prohibition forbids its mixture even

in the smallest amount!

And this is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who derives from a verse that there is no law of nullification by a majority in a mixture of prohibition and permitted substance that are of the same species.

And a prohibition that became mixed with a majority of permitted substance

that

is

not

of

the same species

does not forbid the entire mixture except

where

it

imparts

into it

taste!

But if the permitted substance exceeds the prohibition by such a measure that the taste of the prohibition is no longer discernible in it [such as a ratio of one to sixty], the prohibition is properly nullified by the majority, and its prohibition is removed.

And so it is with all the prohibitions of the Torah. But leaven on Passover is different, for because of the severity of the prohibition, which is punishable by karet,

Rav decreed

concerning

leaven in its time

that even when it became mixed with

a different species

and it does not contain the measure of imparting taste, it too is not nullified—a decree

on account of

when it became mixed with

its own species,

for then by Torah law there is no law of nullification at all.

And specifically concerning leaven did he decree this. But concerning other prohibitions punishable by karet, such as forbidden fat and blood, he did not decree. Because people separate themselves from them. This is not so with leaven: a person eats it all year long and does not separate himself from it.

And so it is with leaven during Passover. But leaven

not in its time

[after Passover], if it became mixed

with its own species,

it is

forbidden

even in the smallest amount. Because Rav holds

like Rabbi Yehuda,

that leaven after its time is forbidden by Torah law. And its law is like that of all prohibitions of the Torah, which are not nullified when mixed with their own species even in the smallest amount.

But when it became mixed

with a different species,

if it does not impart taste into the majority of the permitted substance, it is nullified in it, and

permitted! For

leaven

not in its time

is forbidden only by a negative commandment, and it does not involve karet.

And

since a species

different from its own

is nullified by Torah law,

we do not decree so stringently

concerning it on account of a mixture of the same species.

Shmuel said: Leaven in its time—

if some of it became mixed

with

a permitted substance that is of

the same species,

it is

forbidden!

For it has no nullification.

And if it became mixed

with a different species—

if it does not impart taste, it is nullified by the majority of the permitted substance, and

permitted!

And leaven

not in its time

[after Passover],

whether

it became mixed

with

a permitted substance that is of

the same species, or with a different species,

it is

permitted!

And we explain: that which Shmuel said,

“Leaven in its time, when mixed with its own species, is forbidden,”

is because

Shmuel follows his own reasoning.

For Rav and Shmuel both said: All prohibitions of the Torah,

if they became mixed

with

a permitted substance that is of

the same species

as the prohibition, they are

forbidden in the smallest amount.

And if they became mixed with a species

different from their own,

they are forbidden

through imparting taste!

Therefore, even leaven that became mixed with a permitted substance of a different species and does not impart taste is nullified by the majority of the permitted substance. And in this he disagrees with Rav. And he holds that in a mixture of

a different species on account of the same species, we do not decree

even concerning the severe prohibition of leaven.

And that which Shmuel said, “Leaven

not in its time, whether with its own species or with a different species, is permitted,”

is because he holds

like Rabbi Shimon,

that leaven after Passover is permitted by Torah law! And below the Gemara raises a difficulty: in any event, it is forbidden by rabbinic law.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Leaven in its time, whether

it became mixed

with

a permitted substance that is of

the same species, or with a different species,

it is

forbidden in

a measure in which there is

imparting

of taste

[that is, more than one part in sixty]! But if it does not impart taste, it is nullified by the majority of the permitted substance.

And leaven

not in its time

that became mixed with permitted substance,

whether with

permitted substance that is

of the same species, or with a different species,

it is

permitted!

And we explain: that which Rabbi Yoḥanan said,

“Leaven in its time, whether with its own species or with a different species, is forbidden through imparting taste,”

is because

Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his own reasoning.

For Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both said: All prohibitions of the Torah, whether

they became mixed

with

a permitted substance that is of

the same species, or with a different species,

they forbid their mixtures as long as there is

in

the prohibition the measure of

imparting taste

in the mixture! But with less than this measure, the prohibition is nullified in the permitted substance, even in a mixture of the same species. And this is like the Sages of Rabbi Yehuda, who hold that even the same species is nullified.

And that which Rabbi Yoḥanan said, “Leaven

not in its time, whether with its own species or with a different species, is permitted,”

is because he holds

like Rabbi Shimon,

that leaven after Passover is permitted by Torah law.