Pesachim 30b — the Talmud in English

Similarly, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

one does not smear

smear

the oven with the fat of the tail. And if he smeared it, all the bread

that was baked in it

is forbidden!

For fat from the tail was absorbed into the bread, and we are concerned lest he eat it with dairy foods.

And if he smeared the oven with the fat of the tail, it is forbidden to bake bread in it,

until he heats the oven!

For through heating the oven, all the fat of the tail is consumed.

And we conclude the objection: It follows that if the oven was heated, it is permitted to bake bread in it.

A refutation

of that

which

forbade

Rava bar Ahilai

forever the bread that was baked in an oven smeared with fat. And it follows that he forbade it even if it was baked after the oven had been heated.

And we conclude:

A refutation!

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Since Rava bar Ahilai has been refuted, and

we do not establish the law according to him, but rather heating the oven is effective to burn all that was absorbed within it,

why did Rav say: The pots on Passover must be broken!?

For it is possible to heat them with coals, and through this they will become white-hot, and the prohibition within them will be consumed.

He said to him: There

in the beraita, which teaches that heating is effective for an oven, it is speaking of

a metal oven.

But

here,

with regard to the pots that Rav forbade after Passover, it is speaking of

earthenware pots!

And the Torah testified concerning earthenware vessels that the absorptions within them never leave them, as will be explained below.

And if you wish, say: Both [cases] are with earthenware.

And the beraita too is speaking of an earthenware oven. But an oven differs from a pot. For

this

oven,

its heating

of the coals within it is

from the inside.

And specifically through this the fat smeared upon it is burned. But

these

pots,

their heating is from the outside.

For the coals are not placed inside the pot, but outside it. And this heating is insufficient to make them white-hot from the inside.

And we explain:

And should you say,

the same should also apply to pots, for they have a remedy by

having them undergo

for them

heating from the inside—even through this one may not permit them. For if we permit using them through heating from the inside, they will issue a leniency for themselves and permit them even through heating from the outside. Since

a person

takes care

of

it

[the pot], and will refrain from heating it from the inside,

because it will break

[it will be broken] as a result.

And we conclude: The law follows the second answer, that heating is effective even for earthenware, provided that they heat it from the inside.

Therefore, this bukhya

[a vessel made of earthen roof tiles, in which a loaf is baked and fried], since the manner of

its heating

is by placing coals

on the outside—

if a prohibition was absorbed in it, it is

forbidden!

And we do not rely on the whitening performed in it.

But

if he fills it with coals

[fills it with coals] from the inside,

it is entirely acceptable!

And we do not decree in its case lest they heat it from the outside, as we decree with pots, because a person does not take care of it.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: These knives

that were used with leaven—if he wants to use them

on Passover, what do we do with them

to make them fit by removing the leaven from them?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi:

As for me, we make new ones

[new knives]

we make!

And Ravina understood from his response that he did not use leaven knives at all on Passover.

He said to him,

Ravina:

That is well for you, for it is possible for you

to have new knives, since you are wealthy. But one

for whom it is not possible

to do this,

what

shall he do?

Rav Ashi said to him: Even

Even

I

do not make new knives for myself. Rather, I make the leaven knives like new ones

[like new ones],

[like new knives],

I say.

For I place

their handles

[the wooden handle of the knife]

in clay

[mud], so that they will not burn in the fire of the oven.

And

the

iron of them in fire

[I place the iron blade of the knife in fire] and make it white-hot.

And afterward I place their handles in boiling water

[and afterward I remove the clay from the handles and make them fit through scalding in boiling water].

For according to the law, scalding is sufficient for a knife. Rather, Rav Ashi was stringent upon himself. And to the extent that it was possible for him to make [the knives] white-hot in fire, he made them white-hot. And the handles, which it was impossible to make white-hot, he was satisfied with scalding them.

And we conclude:

And the law is, both this and that

[the handle and the iron] are made fit through scalding

in boiling water,

and that is sufficient!

However, one must scald them in boiling water that is

in a first vessel!

But if he poured the boiling water into a second vessel, it no longer has the power to expel the absorptions of the prohibition from the vessels.

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: A wooden stirring spoon

[a wooden spoon with which one stirs the stew in the pot] that was used for leaven,

he scalds it in boiling water, and in a first vessel!

Because

he holds: As it absorbs, so it expels!

The same heat that caused the prohibition to be absorbed into the wood is required to expel it from it. And just as the absorption was through the boiling of a first vessel, so boiling in a first vessel is required in order to expel it.

They asked Marimar: These vessels of kunya

[earthenware vessels coated with lead] of leaven,

what is [the law] regarding using them on Passover?

Is their law like that of earthenware vessels, for which scalding in boiling water is ineffective? Or does the lead smooth their earthenware and prevent them from absorbing? Therefore, scalding is effective for them.

And we explain: Lead

of green

[which was dug from earth mixed with a metal called “tsarif”],

you need not ask

anything about it.

They are certainly forbidden

the vessels coated with it, and scalding is not effective for them, because the “tsarif” is harsh and absorbs forever.

[Rashi. And in Ketubot 107b he wrote that the “tsarif” mixed with the lead does not seal the earthenware. Rather, it penetrates it and does not prevent it from absorbing.]

When you need to ask,

it is regarding kunya vessels coated with black or white lead [red or white],

what

is their law? Does this lead prevent the earthenware from absorbing, or not?

And where they have

in these vessels

cracks

[splits and cracks],

you need not ask

anything.

They certainly

absorb,

and are forbidden. When you need to ask,

it is regarding kunya vessels

that are smooth

[smooth],

what

is their law?

He said to them,

Marimar: But

we see them

these vessels

oozing

[that they expel] the liquids within them from their outer side.

It follows that they absorb

much of the liquid into their walls.

And

therefore

they are forbidden

forever, like earthenware vessels, and even scalding is not effective for them.

And for what reason

is scalding not effective for an earthenware vessel? For

the Torah testified concerning an earthenware vessel that it does not leave its walls

[the absorptions of the prohibition within it, an expression of “defect”]

forever!

For concerning wooden vessels and metal vessels absorbed with a prohibition, the Torah wrote, “it shall be rinsed.” And if they are vessels whose manner of use is through fire, their remedy is passing them through fire. But concerning earthenware vessels it is written, “it shall be broken”. It follows that it has no remedy.

And we challenge:

And in what way is this different with regard to wine of idolatrous libation, concerning which Marimar expounded: Vessels of kunya

that were used with wine of idolatrous libation,

whether black, whether white, or whether green, are permitted!

It follows that their law is not like that of an earthenware vessel, which does not leave its walls forever. And why did he forbid kunya vessels on Passover, of every type?

And should you say

to reconcile it, that

wine of idolatrous libation

differs, for its prohibition is only

rabbinic,

and therefore they were lenient with kunya vessels absorbed with it, and it is not comparable to

leaven

on Passover, whose prohibition is

from the Torah—this cannot be said. For

“

Whatever the Sages instituted, they instituted in the manner of Torah law!”

And since Torah prohibitions forbid these vessels through their absorption, one must also be stringent with them in rabbinic prohibitions.

He said to him: This

[leaven],

its use

in these vessels throughout the year is

with hot substances.

But

this

[wine of idolatrous libation]

its use is with cold substances!

And the vessel absorbs from the liquid only when it is used with hot substances.

Rava bar Abba said, Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said, and Shmuel said: All vessels that were used with leaven in a cold manner may be used with

on Passover for

matza.

For the vessel absorbs only from hot substances, as stated.

Except for a vessel for sourdough

[a vessel in which sourdough is soaked, and sometimes it is left there for an entire night], for it absorbs even from cold sourdough,

since its fermentation

of the sourdough

is strong,

it is absorbed into the vessel.

Rav Ashi said: And a vessel for haroset

[a vessel in which vinegar and flour are placed, and the flour ferments because of the acidity of the vinegar],

is equivalent to a vessel for sourdough!

Since its fermentation is strong, it is absorbed into the vessel even while cold.

Rava said: These basins

[troughs, bowls]

of Mehoza, since they regularly knead leaven in them, and keep leaven in them

[they are accustomed to knead leaven in them and keep leaven in them for an extended time],

are equivalent to a vessel for sourdough whose fermentation is strong!

And they too become forbidden on Passover, even though they were used only while cold.

And we raise it:

Obviously!

For this is precisely a sourdough trough.

And we answer:

You might say,

specifically a sourdough trough, whose leavening is severe, because it is entirely filled with sourdough, and there is no place in it into which air can enter. But these troughs,

since they are spacious

[spacious],

and air has control over them,

are not similar to a sourdough trough,

and they do not absorb.

It teaches us

that they too absorb when cold, like a sourdough trough.

Mishna:

A gentile who lent

money before Passover

to

the

Israelite against his chametz

of the Israelite, on the understanding that if the Israelite does not repay him the loan at its appointed time, the chametz will pass into the ownership of the gentile ,

after Passover it is permitted

this chametz

for benefit!

For if in the end he did not repay him, the chametz was acquired by the gentile already at the time of the loan, which was before Passover [and the reason will be explained in the Gemara]. It follows that during the days of Passover the chametz belonged to the gentile. Therefore it is permitted for benefit after Passover. For the entire prohibition of chametz that Passover had passed over it is only a penalty, because he violated “it shall not be seen,” according to Rabbi Shimon. And with gentile chametz there is no “it shall not be seen”.

And an Israelite who lent

before Passover

to the gentile

money

against his chametz

of the gentile, such that if the gentile does not repay him the loan at its appointed time, the chametz will pass into the ownership of the Israelite,

after Passover it is forbidden

chametz

this, for benefit!

For if in the end he did not repay him, the chametz was acquired by the Israelite already at the time of the loan. And Israelite chametz over which Passover passed is forbidden as a penalty.

Gemara:

It was stated: a creditor

[lender] who lent to his fellow, and the borrower encumbered his property to him , so that if he did not repay him by a certain day he would collect from his property, and the time arrived and he did not repay him—

Abaye said: He collects retroactively!

For the matter has become clear: what the lender collects now was already his from the time of the loan.

And Rava said:

a creditor

collects from this point onward!

And the lender does not become the owner of what he collected until the time of collection and onward .

And we explain: What practical difference is there between them?—

Whenever

he consecrated

the

borrower

his land, or

sold

[sold] those lands, the

borrower

before the time for repayment of the loan arrived,

everyone agrees that the lender comes and forecloses on

this land from the purchasers for the purpose of repayment of his debt. And even according to Rava, who said that until now the land belonged to the borrower, nevertheless he concedes that the borrower’s sale is not a sale. For although it is his, it is not in his possession, since it is mortgaged to the lender. And a person does not consecrate or sell something that is not in his possession .

And even after the borrower consecrated it, it still remains encumbered for repayment of the debt. And although we hold, “the consecration of chametz and emancipation remove from a lien,” this applies only to sanctity of the substance, such as offerings of the altar, and not to offerings for the maintenance of the Temple, which are sanctified only with sanctity of value. However, it is forbidden for the lender to foreclose on it from the consecration without payment.