Pesachim 29b (כט:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Aḥa bar Rava taught it

this halakha in the name of Rav Yosef in the following formulation: Everyone

—

both the first tanna and the “Some say”—hold that

“consecrated property is not redeemed 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 any use.

And here they disagree over the following:

whether

“an item that causes monetary benefit is considered equivalent to money,”

or not. That is to say: An item that, in its present state, is not fit to be considered money, since it is currently fit for nothing, will later become permitted for benefit and will again have monetary value. Does it already have the status of money now, since it will cause its owner monetary benefit in the future, or not?

Everyone agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that consecrated leaven during Passover is forbidden for benefit. But after Passover it is permitted for benefit, since, as no one violates the prohibition of “it shall not be seen” with regard to it, the Sages did not impose a penalty on it.

The one who says that

“one who eats consecrated leaven during Passover”

“has misused consecrated property” holds that an item that causes monetary benefit is considered equivalent to money!

Although during Passover the leaven is not fit for any use, nevertheless even now it is considered the monetary property of the Temple, since it will cause the Temple monetary benefit after Passover.

And the one who says

“he has not misused consecrated property” holds that an item that causes monetary benefit is not considered equivalent to money!

Since at present it has no monetary value, one does not misuse consecrated property through it.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: Everyone

holds

“an item that causes monetary benefit is considered equivalent to money.”

And here they disagree with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon.

The one who says

“he has not misused consecrated property,”

the first tanna, holds

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who says that leaven over which Passover has passed is forbidden by Torah law. It makes no difference whether it is ordinary leaven or consecrated leaven; both are forbidden. For the prohibition is not due to a penalty. Since it is forbidden for benefit forever, and even after Passover it is impossible to sell it, it is fit for nothing. Therefore, it is not an item that causes monetary benefit, and one does not misuse consecrated property through it.

And the one who says

“he has misused consecrated property”

holds

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

who says that consecrated leaven over which Passover has passed is permitted for benefit. Since after Passover the Temple treasurer can sell it, it is an item that causes monetary benefit and is considered equivalent to money. Therefore, one does misuse consecrated property through it.

And we raise an objection:

But it was Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov who said that

even according to

Rabbi Yehuda

leaven belonging to a gentile is not forbidden for benefit, because

he derives the leaven forbidden for consumption from the leaven forbidden to be seen!

Consecrated leaven, too, is not forbidden to be seen, as we expound: “You may not see your own, but you may see that of others and that of the Most High.” If so, consecrated leaven should also be permitted for benefit, just as it is permitted to be seen. How, then, could Rav Aḥa say that the one who says “he has not misused consecrated property” holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda? It is permitted for benefit and is considered fully monetary property. Why, then, should one not misuse consecrated property through it?

And we conclude:

Rather,

certainly

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov retracted that derivation.

Leaven belonging to a gentile or to the Most High, although it is permitted to be seen, is nevertheless forbidden to be eaten.

Rav Ashi said to explain the dispute between the first tanna and the “Some say”:

to explain the dispute between the first tanna and the one who says: “There are those who say”:

Everyone

holds

“consecrated property is not redeemed in order to feed it to dogs!”

During Passover itself it is not fit for any use and has no monetary value. And everyone also holds

“an item that causes monetary benefit is not considered equivalent to money”:

Although after Passover it is permitted for benefit, at present it is not considered money.

And here they disagree with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and the Rabbis.

The one who says

“he has misused consecrated property”

holds

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

who says that leaven is permitted for benefit even during Passover. Therefore, the consecrated property can be sold during Passover even to a Jew in order to use it as fuel beneath his food.

And the one who says

“he has not misused consecrated property”

holds

in accordance with the Rabbis,

who say that leaven during Passover is forbidden for benefit. Therefore, it cannot be sold to a Jew during Passover, since he is forbidden to benefit from it. Nor can it be sold to a gentile, since consecrated property is not redeemed in order to feed it to dogs. Nor is it considered money because it could be sold to a Jew after Passover, since an item that causes monetary benefit is not considered equivalent to money.

We hold as follows: When a forbidden substance becomes mixed with a permitted substance, if the permitted substance constitutes the majority of the mixture, the prohibition is nullified in the permitted substance and its prohibition is removed.

However, we find a distinction in this law between a mixture of liquid with liquid and a mixture of dry items with dry items. In a dry-with-dry mixture, according to Torah law, any majority is always sufficient. One piece of forbidden matter is nullified even in a majority consisting of two permitted pieces. But for a liquid-with-liquid mixture, an ordinary majority of permitted matter is insufficient, because the forbidden matter imparts flavor to the permitted matter, and “flavor is equivalent to substance.” [The same applies in certain cases to a dry-with-liquid mixture, where the forbidden matter imparts flavor to the permitted matter, such as through cooking.] As long as the flavor of the forbidden matter is discernible in the mixture, it is not nullified by a majority. Rather, the permitted matter must contain sixty parts against one part of forbidden matter. The Sages estimated that at such a ratio the flavor of the forbidden matter is nullified from the mixture.

And in tractate Hullin 98b,

Rashi

and

Tosafot

disagree in terms of halakha as to whether the law that “flavor is equivalent to substance” is from Torah law or rabbinic.

All this applies to a mixture of one species with another species. But with regard to a mixture of one species with the same species, Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages disagree. Rabbi Yehuda derives from a verse that whenever the forbidden and permitted substances are of the same species, the forbidden substance is never nullified . But the Sages disagree with him in this matter. 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 another. Even in a liquid-with-liquid mixture, according to Torah law a majority of two to one is sufficient, since the forbidden substance does not alter the flavor of the permitted substance, as their flavors are identical. Therefore, the law that “flavor is equivalent to substance” does not apply to it.

Similarly, in a liquid-with-liquid mixture of one species with the same species, sixty parts are required by rabbinic law, as a safeguard against a mixture of one species with another. Specifically, when dry items of the same species become mixed, the forbidden substance 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 matza,

or

whether it became mixed with a permitted substance

that

is

not

of

the same species,

it is

forbidden!

Even if it is the minority in the mixture, it is not nullified by the majority of permitted matter. 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 matter that is

of the same species,

it is

forbidden!

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 matter

that

is

not

of

the same species,

it is nullified by this majority, and

permitted!

We inquire:

What are we dealing with?

If we say it is

a case in which the leaven

imparts flavor

to the permitted matter, why is leaven

not in its time

that became mixed

with a different species permitted?

It imparts flavor

to the permitted matter! Since Rav forbids leaven not in its time when it becomes mixed with the same species, it is evident that he holds that leaven after its time is forbidden by Torah law. And we hold that all prohibitions in the Torah render their mixtures forbidden when they impart flavor.

And we conclude:

Rather,

what are we dealing with here?

With a minute quantity

of leaven that became mixed with permitted matter, where this minute quantity is insufficient to impart flavor to the entire mixture [for example, where the leaven constitutes not even one-sixtieth of the permitted matter].

We explain: The statement of Rav, “Leaven

in its time, whether with its own species

and

whether with a different species, is forbidden,”

means that with its own species it is forbidden as a matter of fundamental law even in the smallest quantity, because

Rav follows his own reasoning.

For

Rav and Shmuel both said:

All

prohibitions in the Torah

that become mixed

with

permitted matter of

the same species

as the forbidden matter render their mixtures forbidden even

in the smallest quantity!

This is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who derives from a verse that the law of nullification by a majority does not apply to a mixture of forbidden and permitted matter of the same species.

A forbidden substance that becomes mixed with a majority of permitted matter

that

is

not

of

the same species

does not render the entire mixture forbidden, except

where

it

imparts

into it

flavor!

But if the permitted matter exceeds the forbidden matter to such an extent that its flavor is no longer discernible—for example, at a ratio of one to sixty—the forbidden matter is properly nullified by the majority, and its prohibition is removed.

This is likewise the case with all prohibitions of the Torah. But leaven during Passover is different. Because of the severity of its prohibition, which carries karet,

Rav issued a decree

concerning

leaven in its time,

so that even when it became mixed with

a different species

and was insufficient to impart flavor, it was nevertheless not nullified. This was a decree

as a safeguard

against a case where it became mixed with

its own species,

in which case, according to Torah law, the law of nullification does not apply at all .

Rav issued this decree specifically with regard to leaven. But with regard to other prohibitions carrying karet, such as forbidden fat and blood, he did not issue such a decree, because people naturally distance themselves from them. Leaven is different, since a person eats it throughout the year and does not distance himself from it .

The same applies to 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 quantity. This is because Rav holds

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who says that leaven after its time is forbidden by Torah law. Its law is therefore like that of all prohibitions of the Torah, which are not nullified in a mixture of their own species even in the smallest quantity.

But when it became mixed

with a different species,

if it does not impart flavor to the majority of permitted matter, it is nullified in it, and

permitted! For

leaven

not in its time

is forbidden only by a negative commandment and does not carry karet.

And

since a mixture of a different

species

is nullified by Torah law,

we do not issue such an extensive decree

concerning it as a safeguard against a mixture of the same species.

Shmuel said: Leaven in its time—

if even a minute quantity of it became mixed

with

permitted matter 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 flavor, it is nullified by the majority of permitted matter, and

permitted!

And leaven

not in its time

[after Passover],

whether

it became mixed

with

permitted matter of

the same species or with a different species,

it is

permitted!

We explain: The statement of Shmuel,

“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 in the Torah,

if they become mixed

with

permitted matter of

the same species

as the forbidden substance, are

forbidden in the smallest quantity.

And if they become mixed with a

different species,

they are forbidden

when they impart flavor!

Therefore, even leaven that became mixed with permitted matter of a different species, when it does not impart flavor, is nullified by the majority of permitted matter. In this he disagrees with Rav. He holds that with regard to a mixture of

a different species as a safeguard against the same species, we do not issue a decree

even concerning the more severe prohibition of leaven.

And the statement of Shmuel, “Leaven

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

is because he holds

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

who says that leaven after Passover is permitted by Torah law. The Gemara will ask below: Nevertheless, it is forbidden by rabbinic law.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Leaven in its time, whether

it became mixed

with

permitted matter of

the same species, or with a different species,

it is

forbidden in

a quantity sufficient to

impart

flavor

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

And leaven

not in its time

that became mixed with permitted matter,

whether with

permitted matter that is

of the same species or with a different species,

it is

permitted!

We explain: The statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan,

“Leaven in its time, whether mixed with its own species or with a different species, is forbidden when it imparts flavor,”

is because

Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his own reasoning.

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

they became mixed

with

permitted matter of

the same species or with a different species,

render their mixtures forbidden as long as there is

in

the forbidden substance a quantity sufficient to

impart flavor

to the mixture. But when there is less than this amount, the forbidden substance is nullified in the permitted matter, even in a mixture of the same species. This is in accordance with the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda, as even a mixture of the same species is nullified .

And the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, “Leaven

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

is because he holds

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

who says that leaven after Passover is permitted by Torah law.