Pesachim 35b (לה:) — the Talmud in English

Fruit juices.

And fruit juices do not cause leavening !

We learned in the Mishna: “And one may fulfill his obligation with demai and with maaser, etc.!”

And with demai and with maaser, etc.!

And we raise a difficulty concerning it: Why may one fulfill his obligation with

demai?

Is it not fit for him

to eat? For the Sages prohibited its consumption. And we hold that with regard to anything whose leavening entails liability because of another prohibition besides the prohibition of leaven, one does not fulfill his obligation of eating matza with it .

And we answer: Since the prohibition of demai is only a rabbinic stringency—for most ammei ha-aretz tithe their produce—the Sages prohibited it only to a wealthy person. But it is permitted to a poor person.

And since, if he wishes, he can declare his property ownerless, he is considered poor, and

he may then

eat demai; now too

the demai is considered

fit for him

to eat, since through the declaration of ownerlessness it is fit for him. And since he can bring the demai into a state in which it involves only the prohibition of leaven, he fulfills his obligation of eating matza with it .

And a poor person is permitted to eat demai,

as we learned: One may feed the poor demai

. And

one may likewise feed

the military garrison

[the armies of the kings of Israel who defend against enemies and are Israelites; and the inhabitants of the towns are obligated to provide their food]

demai!

Since they are not in their places of residence, they have the status of poor people, who are permitted to eat demai.

And Rav Huna said: A tanna taught: Beit Shammai say: One may not feed the poor demai. And

one may not feed

the garrison demai!

And Beit Hillel say: One may feed

the poor and the garrison demai!

We learned in the Mishna: “And one may fulfill his obligation with

first tithe from which its teruma has been removed, etc.!”

And we raise a difficulty concerning it: Is it not

obvious

that one fulfills his obligation with it?

For

since

its teruma has been removed

[its terumat maaser], it is

ordinary produce

completely

and is

what, then, does the Mishna come to teach us?

And we answer:

It is necessary

to teach us about first tithe

that was taken early while the grain was still in its stalks,

before the grain had been smoothed.

Produce does not become prohibited as tevel until the completion of its processing, which is its being smoothed at the threshing floor. Nevertheless, if one separates terumot and tithes from it before the completion of processing, the terumot and tithes take effect.

With regard to produce whose processing has already been completed, one must first separate teruma gedola from it, for the Torah calls it “the first.” He then separates first tithe from what remains, and afterward separates terumat maaser from the tithe.

But if its processing has not yet been completed—so that it has not yet acquired the status of tevel—he may take the tithe before the teruma gedola. In this way, the Levite gains the one-fiftieth portion contained in the tithe. Had he first separated teruma gedola, which is one-fiftieth, he would also have separated from the portion designated to become the tithe. But now that he took the tithe first, that tithe is exempt from teruma gedola, and he is obligated only in terumat maaser.

And this is the case to which the Mishna refers. It teaches us that since he took the tithe before the grain was smoothed,

and its

[from the tithe]

terumat maaser

was removed from it, it is permitted to eat.

And

even though

its teruma gedola was not removed. And

this is the

law of Rabbi Abbahu.

For Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: First tithe that was taken early while the grain was still in its stalks is exempt from teruma gedola.

As it is stated concerning

first tithe:

“And you shall raise from it the teruma of the Lord, a tithe from

the tithe.”

This refers to the obligation of terumat maaser, which the Levite separates and gives to a kohen. And we derive: Only

“a tithe from the tithe”

did I tell you

to separate from it,

but I did not

obligate you also to separate

teruma gedola

from the tithe,

and

also

terumat maaser from the tithe .

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so, even if they took

first tithe

from the heap

[after the grain had been smoothed and had thereby become subject to teruma, but before teruma had been separated],

should it too be exempt

from teruma? For we exclude from this verse that the tithe is exempt from teruma.

He said to him,

Abaye:

Regarding

[this question of yours],

the verse says: “From all your gifts you shall raise every teruma of the Lord”!

This indicates that one must also raise teruma gedola from the gift of the tithe.

And we raise a difficulty:

What did you see

to interpret the verse that exempts from teruma gedola as referring to tithe taken early while the grain was still in its stalks, and the verse that obligates teruma gedola as referring to tithe taken from the heap ? And we answer:

This

tithe taken from the heap is more reasonably obligated in teruma gedola, for

it had been smoothed

[and its processing had been completed]! It had already acquired the status of tevel with regard to teruma, and once it became obligated, it does not later become exempt. But

this

tithe taken while the grain was still in its stalks

had not yet been smoothed!

Since, at the time it became tithe, it was not yet subject to teruma, it is more reasonably exempt from teruma.

We learned in the Mishna: “And one may fulfill his obligation

with second tithe and consecrated property that were redeemed!”

And we raise a difficulty:

Obviously

one fulfills his obligation with them, since they are already completely ordinary produce.

And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing? With a case where he gave

only

the principal in their redemption, but did not give the fifth!

The owner who redeems them is obligated to add a fifth of their value to the redemption payment, in addition to their principal value.

And

it teaches us

that the giving of

the fifth does not prevent

them from becoming ordinary produce.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And the kohanim

fulfill their obligation

with

matza made from

ḥalla and

from

teruma!”

And we raise a difficulty:

Obviously

they fulfill their obligation with them, since they are permitted for kohanim to eat.

And we answer:

Lest you say that

the

matza

must be

suitable

and permitted

for every

person,

it teaches us that since it is written

“

matzot”

in the plural, this indicates that even

matzot

that are not permitted to everyone are

included! Those people who are permitted to eat them fulfill their obligation with them. We learned in the Mishna:

“

But one may not

fulfill his obligation

with

matza made from

tevel, etc.!”

And we raise a difficulty:

Obviously !

For if it becomes leavened, it is prohibited also as tevel, and one fulfills his obligation only with something whose sole prohibition is that of leaven.

And the Gemara answers:

And we answer:

It is necessary, but

with tevel

that is

subject

only

by rabbinic law.

For example,

where one sowed it in an unperforated flowerpot.

Since it is not attached to the ground, it is not obligated in tithes by Torah law . It teaches us that even so one does not fulfill his obligation with it , because it is a mitzva performed through a transgression .

This is unlike demai, with which one does fulfill his obligation even though it is prohibited by rabbinic law, because demai is permitted to the poor and to the garrison. Therefore, even a wealthy person, for whom it is prohibited, nevertheless fulfills his obligation with it after the fact. This is not so with rabbinic tevel, which is prohibited to everyone.

We learned in the Mishna: “And one may not fulfill his obligation with first tithe from which its terumat maaser has not been removed”!

It initially occurred to us that this refers to tithe from which its terumat maaser had not been removed.

And we raise a difficulty:

Obviously

one does not fulfill his obligation with it, since it is tevel.

And we answer:

It is necessary, rather, to teach about first tithe from which its teruma gedola has not been removed. For example,

when

it was taken early from the heap,

after it had already become subject to teruma.

Lest you say

that this tithe too is exempt from teruma gedola,

as Rav Pappa said to Abaye,

that it too should be included in the exclusion “a tithe from the tithe,” and not “teruma gedola from the tithe.”

It teaches us

that this is not so. Rather, since its processing had already been completed and it became obligated in teruma before the tithe was separated, it does not subsequently become exempt from it. This is

as he answered him,

Abaye to Rav Pappa.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And one may not

fulfill his obligation

with

matza made from

second tithe and consecrated property that were not redeemed, etc.!”

And we raise a difficulty:

Obviously!

For they are prohibited to eat.

And we answer:

Actually,

this is referring to second tithe and consecrated property

that were redeemed.

And what

does “not redeemed,”

which it teaches, mean? It means:

that were not redeemed in accordance with the halakha. For example,

second tithe that he redeemed on an asimon

second tithe that was redeemed onto an asimon,

a silver coin that had not been minted with the design of a coin. Ab initio, second tithe may be redeemed only onto a coin bearing a minted design, because

the Torah said

with regard to the redemption of second tithe:

“And bind up the money in your hand,”

and you shall go to the place that the Lord your God will choose. And from the word “bind,” we derive that one may redeem it only onto

something that has a design.

And

this also concerns

consecrated property

that was redeemed, but not redeemed in accordance with the halakha. For example,

where he redeemed it onto land!

Consecrated property may be redeemed only with money or movable property that has monetary value, as it is written concerning one who consecrated a field and then came to redeem it: “He shall give the money, and it shall be confirmed to him” .

The Sages taught: Could a person fulfill his obligation with unrectified tevel? —

The Gemara interrupts the words of the beraita and asks: What does it mean by “unrectified tevel”?

All tevel is also unrectified.

We explain:

Rather,

this is referring

to tevel that has not been fully rectified.

For example,

where the teruma gedola was removed from it, but

it still

did not have the terumat maaser removed from it,

nor

first tithe,

nor

second tithe.

And not only those which possess sanctity—for terumat maaser possesses sanctity like teruma gedola, first tithe is also sacred because of the terumat maaser contained within it, and second tithe is sacred and may be eaten only in ritual purity and in Jerusalem—but

even

if only

poor tithe

has not been removed from it, one does not fulfill his obligation of eating matza with it! This is so even though poor tithe possesses no sanctity whatsoever and is ordinary produce in every respect.

Concerning this, the tanna asked:

From where

do we know that one does not fulfill his obligation with it ? He answers:

The verse states: “You shall not eat leaven with it; for seven days you shall eat matzot with it.”

for seven days you shall eat matzot with it.”

One whose prohibition is because of

“You shall not eat leaven with it”

[if it became leavened] fulfills his obligation of eating matza [when it did not become leavened].

Excluded

is

this

tevel, which,

if it becomes leavened, its prohibition is not because of

“You shall not eat leaven,” but because of

“You shall not eat tevel.”

Even poor tithe renders the heap tevel and prohibits it for consumption as long as it has not been separated .

And we ask: How can he say that, with regard to tevel that became leavened, its prohibition is not due to hametz?

And

where

has the prohibition of hametz gone?!

Rav Sheshet said: Whose view is this? It is Rabbi Shimon’s, who says: One prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition!

Since the prohibition of tevel had already preceded with regard to this produce, the prohibition of hametz no longer takes effect upon it.