Pesachim 35a (לה.) — the Talmud in English

Rather, it is an enhancement:

The Sages instituted this as an enhancement with regard to the waters of the para aduma, that their vitality should be in a vessel. This is not מן התורה, however. And it is not a complete derivation, but merely an asmakhta.

And

here too,

with regard to impure seedlings that were planted,

it is an enhancement

with regard to teruma, for planting does not purify them.

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: We too have learned this in a Mishna:

there is an enhancement with regard to consecrated property even מן התורה. As we learned: One who was impure,

immersed and ascended

from his impurity,

may immediately eat maaser sheni

but he may not yet eat teruma. For until nightfall he is called a tevul yom, one who immersed that day. And we derive this from a woman who gave birth during the days of her purification, who may not eat teruma. And she also renders teruma unfit through contact, as it is written: “She shall not touch any sacred thing.” And she is comparable to one who immersed from a long-lasting impurity.

Once

the sun has set [

when night falls], he

may eat

even

teruma!

And we analyze this:

With regard to teruma, yes [he may eat]. Even an impure person who is obligated to bring an offering for atonement, such as a zav or a woman who gave birth, may eat it once the sun has set.

However,

But

with regard to consecrated property, no:

he may not eat it even at night, until he brings his offerings.

And

why?

But

he is pure

even before bringing his offerings.

Rather, it is an enhancement

that the Torah instituted with regard to consecrated property: one lacking atonement may not eat of it. And

here too,

with regard to impure teruma that was planted, the Sages instituted

an enhancement

and prohibited it for consumption.

Rav Ashi said: We too have learned this in a Mishna:

the Torah instituted an enhancement with regard to consecrated property. As it is taught: It is written with regard to consecrated property: “And the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fire;”

and the flesh

“that is pure may eat flesh.” And we expound the superfluous vav in the word “and the flesh”

to include wood and frankincense

of consecrated property: they too contract tum'at okhlin, ritual impurity of food.

And we raised a difficulty concerning this: Is it so that

wood and frankincense are capable of becoming impure?

But they are not subject to the status of food.

Rather, there is an enhancement

with regard to consecrated property. Even if they are not food, they nevertheless contract impurity because of the special status of consecrated property.

And

here too,

with regard to teruma,

the Sages instituted an enhancement

that planting does not purify it.

Mishna:

On the first night of Pesaḥ there is a positive commandment to eat matza, as it is written: “In the evening you shall eat matzot.” The matza must be made from flour of one of the five species of grain. The Mishna proceeds to explain which they are.

1.

These are the substances with which a person fulfills

his obligation

with

regard to the

first night of Pesaḥ: wheat, barley, spelt, rye, and oats !

The Gemara will explain the reason.

2. One fulfills the obligation only with matza that is permitted for consumption. But one does not fulfill the obligation with matza that is prohibited for consumption. As we will derive below, from the verse: “You shall not eat ḥametz with it; for seven days you shall eat matzot with it.” With regard to something whose leavening entails liability because of the prohibition of ḥametz, one fulfills the obligation of matza with it. But with regard to something prohibited because of another prohibition, one does not fulfill the obligation of matza with it .

And one does fulfill

the obligation to eat matza with matza of

demai!

Produce purchased from an am ha-aretz is called demai. This is an acronym for de mai—“what is this?” That is, it is uncertain whether its tithes were separated, and uncertain whether they were not separated. מן התורה it is not obligated in tithes, because we rely on the fact that most ammei ha-aretz separate tithes. But the Sages required tithes to be separated from it as a matter of doubt.

The Mishna teaches us that if one ate demai matza without separating tithes from it, he fulfilled his obligation.

And

everyone likewise fulfills the obligation of matza

with

matza of

first tithe

belonging to the Levite,

as

its

teruma has already been removed [

the Levite’s terumat maaser]. The Levite separates a tithe from the tithe and gives it to a kohen. Before he separates it, the tithe is prohibited like tevel. But once he has separated it, the tithe is permitted even to non-kohanim.

And

everyone likewise fulfills the obligation

with

matza of

second tithe and consecrated property that have been redeemed!

Second tithe is prohibited for consumption outside Jerusalem, and consecrated property is likewise prohibited for consumption. But when they are redeemed onto another object, their sanctity is transferred, and that object assumes it.

Since they have thereby become entirely non-sacred property, one fulfills the obligation with them on Pesaḥ.

And the kohanim

may fulfill the obligation even

with

matza of

ḥalla and with

matza of

teruma!

This applies specifically to kohanim, since these foods were given to them for consumption. But an Israelite, who is prohibited from eating them, does not fulfill the obligation with them.

3.

But one does not

fulfill the obligation

with

matza of

tevel!

For it is prohibited for consumption.

And

one does not fulfill the obligation

with

matza of

first tithe from which its teruma has not been removed!

For it is entirely tevel, and it is prohibited for everyone to eat.

And

one does not fulfill the obligation

with second tithe

outside Jerusalem,

or

with

consecrated property ,

as long as

they have not been redeemed!

For they are prohibited for consumption.

4. One who brings a todah offering brings with it forty loaves from four species: ten from each species. Three species are matza: loaves, wafers, and loaves scalded with boiling water. The fourth species is leavened bread.

Likewise, a nazirite, when the days of his naziriteship are complete, brings with his peace offering thirty loaves from three species: matzot, loaves, and wafers—ten of each species. All of them are made as matza, without leavening.

The loaves of the thanksgiving offering and the wafers of the nazirite—

if

he made them for himself,

for the sake of fulfilling the obligation of his offering,

he does not

fulfill

fulfill the obligation with them

of matza on Pesaḥ! Even if he has not yet designated them as the loaves of a thanksgiving offering and has not slaughtered the offering for which they were made, he does not fulfill the obligation with them.

But if

he made them

in order

to sell

them in the marketplace to others who are obligated to bring a thanksgiving offering or nazirite offerings,

he fulfills the obligation with them

of matza on Pesaḥ! The reason will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: These are the substances with which a person fulfills his obligation on Pesaḥ: wheat, barley, spelt, rye, and oats!

The tanna taught: Spelt

is

a species of wheat. Oats and rye

are

a species of barley !

The practical implication is with regard to teruma . For we hold: One may not separate teruma from one species for another species . But one may separate from spelt for wheat, and from oats or rye for barley, since they are of the same species .

And we explain:

“Spelt”

means

“gulba.”

“Rye”

means

“dishra.”

“Oats”

means

“fox paths”!

For its ear resembles a fox’s tail. And ta'ala is the translation of “fox.”

And we analyze:

These

five species,

if

[one does not fulfill the obligation with them on Pesaḥ]. But

rice and millet do not

belong to the species of grain, and one does not fulfill the obligation with them.

And we raise a difficulty:

From where are these matters derived,

that one fulfills the obligation of matza specifically with these species?

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, and likewise the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, and likewise the tanna of the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: The verse states, “You shall not eat ḥametz with it; seven days you shall eat matzot with it.”

And we expound:

With substances that can become leavened, a person fulfills his obligation

of eating

matza.

This means specifically the five species of grain.

These are excluded [

rice and millet],

which do not

ever come

at any time

to the point of leavening. Rather,

if they are left for a time, they come

to the point of putrefaction .

The Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri.

The Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri.

For it is apparent from the words of the Mishna that rice does not come to the point of leavening, as stated. Whereas Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri

is the one who says: Rice is a species of grain, and one is liable for

eating it on Pesaḥ because of its

leavening, karet. And

therefore,

a person fulfills his obligation with it

by eating matza

on Pesaḥ!

For, as stated, with anything that can become leavened one fulfills the obligation of matza.

As it is taught: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri prohibits on

Pesaḥ a dish of

rice and millet, because it is close to becoming leavened!

It follows that rice and millet can become leavened. Therefore, one also fulfills the obligation of matza with them.

They raised a dilemma:

When Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says “because it is

close to becoming leavened,”

does he mean

that it leavens earlier?

That it hastens to become leavened even more quickly than the five species of grain?

Or perhaps, “it is close to becoming leavened”

is

the intended meaning: It is close to becoming ḥametz, but

it is not fully-fledged ḥametz!

Consequently, one is not liable to karet for eating it intentionally, nor to bring an offering for eating it unintentionally.

And we resolve the dilemma:

Come and hear, as it is taught: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: Rice is a species of grain, and one is liable to karet for its leavening. And

therefore,

a person fulfills his obligation with it on Pesaḥ!

It follows that it hastens to become leavened and is fully-fledged ḥametz, for which one is liable to karet and must bring an offering.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri would likewise say: Karmit [

a species of seed]

is subject to the obligation of ḥalla!

For it is a species of grain.

The obligation of ḥalla applies only to a species of grain, as it is written with regard to ḥalla: “From the bread of the land.” And we derive it through a gzera shava, “bread” from “bread,” from matza, concerning which it is written: “The bread of affliction.” Just as one fulfills the obligation of matza only with species of grain that can become leavened, so too the obligation of ḥalla applies only to grain. And he says that karmit is also included in the category of grain.

And we raise a difficulty:

What

is “karmit”?

Abaye said: It is the seed called

“shitzanita.”

And again we ask:

What

is “shitzanita”?

Rav Pappa said:

“Shitzanita”

is the seed

“that is found” [

the common one]

among anemones!

This is ketzaḥ [black cumin], which is round like millet and black in color.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Reish Lakish said: Dough kneaded with wine, oil, or honey,

and no water was added to it ,

does not entail liability to karet for its leavening!

The reason will be explained shortly.

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, were sitting before Rav Idi bar Avin, and Rav Idi bar Avin was sitting and dozing.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa

in his presence:

What is the reason of Reish Lakish,

who exempts this dough from karet?

He said to him:

Rav Pappa said: It is because

the verse states: “You shall not eat ḥametz with it

for seven days you shall eat matzot with it.” Specifically,

substances with which a person fulfills his obligation of matza

when they have not become leavened—if they become leavened,

one is liable to karet for their leavening. But this

dough kneaded with fruit juices,

since a person does not fulfill his obligation with it

as matza [when it has not become leavened], because

it is rich matza,

and we require matza that is “the bread of affliction”—therefore,

one is not liable to karet for its leavening.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raised an objection to Rav Pappa:

But it is taught:

If one dissolved it [

melted the bread] and made it into a liquid,

and swallowed it

on Pesaḥ—

if

it is

leavened bread,

he is

liable to karet!

For the Torah imposes liability for prohibited foods even when they are consumed by drinking. This is derived from the verse stated with regard to forbidden fat: “The soul that eats it shall be cut off from its people.” “Soul” includes one who drinks.

But

if

it is

matza bread, a person does not fulfill his obligation with it on Pesaḥ

when he drinks it, because he has not eaten it in the ordinary manner of eating . With regard to matza, eating is required, as it is written: “You shall eat matzot.”

And Rav Huna concluded his objection:

But here, a person does not fulfill his obligation on Pesaḥ

by drinking it,

and

nevertheless

one is liable for

drinking the bread because of its

leavening, karet !

It follows that even substances with which one does not fulfill the obligation of matza entail liability to karet when they become leavened .

Meanwhile,

Rav Idi bar Avin awoke

[from his doze]

and said to them: Children

[young men who had not yet reached sound reasoning]! Rish Lakish did not exempt the dough kneaded with wine and oil from karet because of this juxtaposition. Rather, this is Rish Lakish’s reason:

because they constituted

wine, oil, and honey,