Pesachim 30a — the Talmud in English

Rava said: The halakha is: leaven during its time

that became mixed with permitted matter,

whether

if it became mixed

with its kind, whether not with its kind,

is forbidden

even

in any amount !

And even if it does not impart taste in most of the permitted mixture, it is not nullified by the majority. And this is

like Rav,

for a substance mixed with its kind is not nullified in any of the prohibitions of the Torah.

Но хамец

But leaven

not during its time, whether

if it became mixed

with its kind, whether

if it became mixed not with its kind,

it is

permitted!

And even if there is in it the measure of imparting taste in the entire mixture. For the halakha is

like Rabbi Shimon,

that leaven after Passover is permitted.

And we raise an objection:

Did Rava indeed say this?

But Rava said:

even

Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that leaven over which Passover has passed is, by Torah law, nevertheless forbidden by rabbinic law. Because

he imposed a penalty

upon it,

since it passed over him with “it shall not be seen.”

And we answer:

These words—that it is forbidden because of the penalty—apply to leaven that is

in its own substance.

But

leaven that

is through a mixture [that is no longer present as such],

not

did they impose a penalty upon it.

And even if it passed over him with “it shall not be seen” while it was still present as such, if afterward it became mixed with permitted matter, it is permitted after Passover.

And Rava proceeded

in this

according to his reasoning, because he ruled that the halakha is like Rabbi Shimon regarding leaven over which Passover has passed.

For Rava said: When we were at the house of Rav Nahman, when the seven days of Passover had passed,

he said to us: Go out and buy the leaven of the foreign soldiers!

After Passover had passed, Rav Nahman permitted buying leaven from the non-Jewish soldiers. And this is because by Torah law it is permitted. And the Sages imposed a penalty only upon the leaven of a Jew, because “it shall not be seen” had passed over him. But with regard to the leaven of a non-Jew they did not decree. This is unlike Rabbi Judah, who holds that leaven not during its time is forbidden by Torah law; even the leaven of a non-Jew is included in this prohibition.

Rav said:

Earthenware pots

in which leaven was cooked,

when

Passover

arrived,

they must be broken!

And Rav proceeded according to his reasoning, that leaven after Passover is forbidden for benefit by Torah law. And he likewise held that even a minute amount of prohibited matter is nullified by a majority of permitted matter when it is of its kind. Therefore the pots are forbidden for use after Passover, because of the leaven absorbed within them. And if he cooks in them again, this leaven will become mixed into the dish and forbid it.

And although the taste of the prohibition absorbed in the vessel becomes spoiled after twenty-four hours have passed over it, it nevertheless forbids its mixture. Because Rav holds that “imparting spoiled taste” is forbidden.

And we object:

But why

should they be broken?

Let them remain [let him leave] the pots until after Passover,

and

let him make [cook]

in them

a dish

that

is

not

of

their kind

of the absorbed leaven within them! For Rav forbade leaven in any amount after Passover only when it became mixed with its kind. But when it became mixed not with its kind, Rav agrees that it is nullified

if it does not contain the measure of imparting taste . And he did not decree after Passover with regard to something not of its kind on account of its kind.

И ответили: запрещено оставлять их даже для того, чтобы варить в них нечто неоднородное с хамецом,

And we answer: It is forbidden to leave them even in order to cook in them something not of the kind of the leaven, because of

a decree, lest they come to make in them

a dish that is

of the kind

of the leaven. [And although he did not decree with regard to a mixture not of its kind, there it is because it is not common for leaven to become mixed for him.]

Tosafot.

And Shmuel said:

the pots

need not be broken

on Passover.

But [rather]

let him leave them

until

after its time

of the prohibition of the leaven,

and

let him cook in them

after Passover,

whether in

a dish that is of

its kind

of the leaven,

or whether not of its kind!

Because he holds like Rabbi Shimon, that leaven over which Passover has passed is not forbidden by Torah law. And the Sages likewise imposed a penalty upon it only when it is present as such, but not when it is mixed with permitted matter.

And Shmuel proceeded according to his reasoning. For Shmuel said

after Passover

to those who sell pots [pot sellers]:

Make your sales equal on your pots [do not raise the price of the pots].

And if not

you obey me,

I will expound to you in accordance with Rabbi Shimon!

That is, I will expound against you that the halakha is like Rabbi Shimon regarding leaven not during its time, which is permitted by Torah law. Consequently, the old pots that had been used for leaven before Passover will be permitted after Passover, and they will find no buyers for the new pots.

Thus, according to Rabbi Shimon, a mixture of leaven over which Passover has passed is permitted even by rabbinic law.

And we wonder: Why did he merely threaten them that he would expound in accordance with Rabbi Shimon?

Let him expound to them

so in practice.

For Shmuel held like Rabbi Shimon,

as we said above. And according to his view, pots on Passover need not be broken; rather, they are permitted for use after Passover.

And we answer: That place

was Rav’s place.

And Rav held, “Pots on Passover must be broken.” For he held like Rabbi Judah, that leaven after its time is forbidden by Torah law. Therefore Shmuel did not rule there like Rabbi Shimon.

There was that oven in which they spread fat [an oven that they smeared with ox fat on its bottom, and the fat imparts taste to the bread baked in it]—

Rava bar Ahilai prohibited eating the bread [eating that bread]. Since the fat was absorbed in it and imparts taste to it, it is forbidden to eat it with a milk food because of the prohibition of meat and milk.

And he did not prohibit it only with milk. Rather, even eating it with salt [with salt] is always forbidden.

печь, дно которой смазали говяжьим жиром, и жир передавал вкус выпекаемому в ней хлебу], —

Рава бар Ахилай запретил есть этот хлеб [

есть этот хлеб]. Поскольку жир впитался в хлеб и передал ему вкус, запрещено есть его с молочной пищей из-за запрета мяса и молока .

A decree,

lest he come to eat it with kutaha [a food containing cheese].

[And he did not specifically prohibit eating it with salt. Rather, even as it is, without anything else. And he mentioned “with salt” because it is not customary to eat bread without salt or a relish.]

Meitivi:

It was taught in a beraita:

One may not knead dough with milk. And if he kneaded

it with milk,

the entire loaf is forbidden. Because of habituation to transgression!

For he is liable to eat it with meat and to stumble into the prohibition of meat and milk.

[И запрет относился не только к употреблению хлеба с солью, но даже к его употреблению как таковому, без всякой другой добавки. Упоминание соли связано с тем, что хлеб обычно едят с солью или с закуской.]

Мейтиви:

учили в барайте:

Не замешивают тесто на молоке. А если замесил

его на молоке,

весь хлеб полностью запрещен. Чтобы не привыкнуть к нарушению!

Поскольку существует опасение, что его съедят с мясом и нарушат запрет мяса и молока.