Pesachim 36a — the Talmud in English

For it was taught: Rabbi Shimon says: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

One who eats carrion on Yom Kippur

unintentionally,

is exempt

from a sin-offering for eating on Yom Kippur! Because the prohibition of carrion took effect before the entry of Yom Kippur . And the prohibition of Yom Kippur does not come and take effect upon the prohibition of eating forbidden fat .

And even if the animal became carrion on Yom Kippur itself, so that the prohibition of Yom Kippur preceded the prohibition of carrion, nevertheless it does not take effect, since before it became carrion the animal was prohibited because of a limb from a living creature. And the prohibition of Yom Kippur did not take effect upon the prohibition of a limb from a living creature .

Ravina said: You may even say

that the fact that we exclude tevel because its prohibition is on account of another matter,

is according to the Rabbis,

also works out well. For this is what it says:

One whose prohibition

[when it became leavened]

is because of

“You shall not eat leavened bread alone,”

[when it has not become leavened] one fulfills through it the obligation of matza.

This

tevel

is excluded, for its prohibition

in its leavening

is because of

“You shall not eat leavened bread”

alone.

Rather, also because of

“You shall not eat tevel.”

And nevertheless, it also contains the prohibition of “You shall not eat leavened bread.”

And we reject this:

Is “

You shall not eat leavened bread

alone”

written

in the verse, so that you could infer from this that specifically a species in which there is no other prohibition is one through which one fulfills the obligation of matza?! But “alone” is not written. And it is sufficient that in this species there is also the prohibition of leaven, for one to be able to fulfill through it the obligation of matza.

And we conclude:

Rather, it is clear as

the explanation

of Rav Sheshet!

For this beraita follows Rabbi Shimon, and the prohibition of leaven does not take effect upon tevel.

The Sages taught: One might say that a person fulfills his obligation with second tithe in Jerusalem

[which is the place where it is eaten]?

The verse states: “bread of affliction.”

And we expound:

That which is eaten in mourning

[in the mourning of the first day after the death, which is from the Torah] one fulfills through it the obligation of matza.

This

second tithe

is excluded,

through which one does not fulfill the obligation, and not even in Jerusalem, where it is permitted there to eat it, because

“it is not eaten in mourning, but in joy!”

As it is written concerning it, “I have not eaten of it in my mourning” -

the words of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean.

—

Rabbi Akiva says:

Since it is written

“matzot”

in the plural, it also

included

matzot of second tithe

as an increase,

so that one fulfills with them in Jerusalem.

If so, what does the verse teach by saying

“bread of affliction”? -

To exclude,

except for dough kneaded with wine and

with

oil and

with

honey!

For one does not fulfill with it, since it is not the matza of poverty, but it is rich matza .

And we inquire:

What is the reason of Rabbi Akiva

that he does not expound “affliction” for mourning, as Rabbi Yosei the Galilean expounds ?

And we answer: He does not expound so, because

is

“affliction”

written with a vav, so that you would understand from it the matter of mourning [as it is written, “I have not eaten in my mourning,” with a vav]? But

“afflicted”

is written

without a vav. Therefore it more strongly means bread which is customary for a poor person to eat.

And Rabbi Yosei the Galilean

did not say like Rabbi Akiva, because although “afflicted” is written defectively,

do we read

“afflicted”?

But

“my affliction”

we read in it!

And the verse is more readily interpreted concerning mourning.

And Rabbi Akiva

would say to you:

That which we read in it

“my affliction”

does not refer to mourning, but it comes for

what Shmuel said.

For Shmuel said:

That which we read in it

“bread of affliction”

is because matza is

bread over which

many things are recited!

For one completes over it the Hallel on the night of Passover and recites the Haggada over it.

And we object:

And

if

Rabbi Akiva holds

that

dough kneaded with wine, oil, and honey is not

eaten as matza?

But it was taught: One may not knead dough on Passover with wine, oil, or honey !

!

And if he kneaded

with them -

Rabban Gamliel says: It shall be burned

the dough

immediately !

For even if he baked it immediately, without leaving it at all, it becomes leavened, since it hastens to become leavened more than ordinary dough kneaded with water, and a person cannot guard it from leavening.

And although Reish Lakish said above, “Fruit juices do not cause leavening,” he said this only to mean that one is not liable to karet for their leavening, because their leavening is poor and makes the dough coarse leaven. Its prohibition is only a negative commandment. Nevertheless, they bring the dough to coarse leavening more quickly than ordinary water.

And the Sages say:

If, after the fact, he kneaded the dough with wine, oil, or honey, and guarded it from leavening,

he shall eat

it! For they hold that it is possible to guard it from leavening.

And Rabbi Akiva said: I spent

[my time on Passover]

at the homes of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. And I kneaded dough for them with wine, oil, and honey, and they said nothing to me!

And he disagrees with the first tanna and permits even kneading with them initially .

And the beraita concludes:

And although one may not knead

with oil, wine, or honey,

one may coat with it

[one spreads and smooths the surface of the dough after its kneading and shaping, before baking]! For coating with fruit juice does not cause leavening.

And we explain: This latter clause

comes to the first tanna,

who prohibited kneading initially with these liquids, but permitted coating with them.

And the Sages say: With that with which one kneads

also

one may coat.

But

with that with which one does not knead,

such as wine, oil, and honey, also

one may not coat!

For coating with them also hastens the dough to become leavened.

And they agree

all the tannaim above

that one may not knead the dough with

water

that is lukewarm

[slightly hot]! For it hastens the dough to become leavened.

It is nevertheless taught that Rabbi Akiva kneaded the matza with wine, oil, and honey. And there is a difficulty from one statement of his against another. For above he says, “except for dough kneaded with wine, oil, and honey,” with which one does not fulfill.

And we answer:

It is not difficult. This

that he excludes this dough from “bread of affliction” is on the night of

the first Festival day,

when eating matza is obligatory, as it is written, “In the evening you shall eat matzot.” And one fulfills the obligation only with bread of affliction. And this is rich matza .

And

this

that Rabbi Akiva kneaded with wine, oil, and honey was

on the second Festival day

[the intermediate days]! For there is no obligation to eat matza throughout all six days; rather, it is optional. If one wishes to eat a grain species, he may not eat it as leaven, but only as matza . And even rich matza, which is not bread of affliction, is permitted to be eaten, since there is no concern of leavening in it.

And as

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to his sons

[to his sons]:

On the first day

of Passover,

do not knead for me

the matza

with milk

[with milk] . Because this is not bread of affliction, and one does not fulfill with it the obligation of matza on the first night. But

from here onward,

on the other days of Passover,

knead for me

the matza

with milk!

Because there is no obligation to eat matza on them, and then we do not require bread of affliction.

And we wonder: How could he tell them so?

But it was taught: One may not knead the dough with milk,

even throughout the entire year.

And if he kneaded

with milk,

the entire loaf is prohibited, because of habituation to transgression!

For we are concerned lest he eat it with meat and transgress the prohibition of meat with milk.

And we answer:

Rather, this is what

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to his sons:

On the first day, do not knead for me

the matza

with honey.

Because this is not bread of affliction. But

from here onward, knead for me with honey!

And if you wish, say: Actually

he told them to knead

with milk,

and this was in a manner in which there is no concern of habituation to transgression. And

such

as this

which Ravina said:

A piece of dough

the size of

an

ox’s eye

[an ox’s eye],

is permitted

to knead with milk! Since it is small, there is no concern lest he eat it with meat, for he does not leave it, but eats it immediately.

And

here too,

in the incident of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, he instructed his sons to knead for him a small piece of dough

the size of an ox’s eye.

We learned in a beraita:

And they agree that one may not knead the dough with lukewarm water!

And we inquire:

What is different from the meal-offerings,

which also may not come as leaven, but only as matza? And

we learned: All meal-offerings are kneaded with lukewarm water, and one guards them so that they should not become leavened!

And why, concerning Passover, do we say that it is impossible to guard them from leavening ? And we answer: The work of the meal-offerings is performed by the kohanim, who are diligent and know how to guard well against leavening.

And if they said this concerning the diligent,

who guard against leavening even when kneading with lukewarm water, should they

say

this also concerning

the

kneading of matza for Passover, which is entrusted to everyone, even to one

who is not diligent?!

And we raise an objection again:

If so,

let us say concerning the meal-offerings that

it is also permitted to soak them!

that we should permit even soaking [to

soak

the wheat in water] and pound it in order to remove its bran, so that its fine flour will be clean. And let us not be concerned that the wheat will become leavened on account of this, for the kohanim are diligent.

But, said Rav Zeira, Ravba bar Yirmeya said that Shmuel said: The wheat of meal-offerings may not be soaked,

because through this it comes to leavening. It follows that even with the diligent we are concerned about leavening.

And we answer:

kneading is performed among the diligent.

For the meal-offerings are kneaded in the Temple courtyard, by the kohanim. But

soaking is not performed among the diligent!

For the kohanim do not soak the wheat; rather, the non-priest who offers the meal-offering soaks it in his house, and brings the fine flour to the Temple courtyard after it has been ground.

And we raise an objection again:

And

when

is kneading indeed

specifically

among the diligent?

But it is written

concerning the meal-offering:

“And he shall pour oil upon it

and place frankincense upon it.” And afterward it is written:

“And he shall bring it to

the sons of Aaron, the kohanim, and he shall take a handful

from there, his full handful.” Learn from this that specifically the procedures that

are from the taking of the handful onward

are

mitzvot of the priesthood,

and are not valid when performed by a non-priest. But all the procedures that precede the taking of the handful are not mitzvot of the priesthood.

From here

he taught concerning the pouring

of the oil,

and

concerning the

mixing

of the meal-offering,

that

it is

valid when performed by anyone,

and even by a non-priest.

But kneading and baking precede pouring. For such is the order of the procedures in a meal-offering baked in an oven, or in a pan, or in a shallow pan: first they bake them, and afterward break them into pieces, and afterward pour the oil over them and mix them. And if pouring is valid when performed by a non-priest, certainly kneading is valid when performed by him. And how did you say that kneading is not performed by the diligent kohanim?

And we answer:

As for kneading, although it is not specifically among the diligent,

but rather it is also valid when performed by a non-priest, nevertheless, specifically

it is performed in a place of the diligent!

For from kneading onward the meal-offering is made only in the Temple courtyard. For the oven, the pan, and the shallow pan in which the meal-offering is baked are service vessels.

And

as the Master said: mixing is valid when performed by a non-priest.

But if it is done

outside the wall of

the Temple courtyard, it is

invalid!

For after it has been sanctified with sanctity of the body by means of a service vessel, it becomes invalid through being taken outside.

And since the Temple courtyard is a place in which the kohanim are found, they see the non-priest during his kneading. And they teach him to take care against leavening.

To exclude soaking, which is not among the diligent, and

even

not in

the Temple courtyard, which is

a place of the diligent!

Rather, it is performed by non-priests, even outside the wall of the Temple courtyard. Therefore the meal-offerings may not be soaked, for there is concern that they may become leavened.

And furthermore we ask:

And what is different about

the other meal-offerings

from the omer meal-offering,

which also does not come as leavened bread.

And it was taught in a beraita: The omer meal-offering—they soak it and heap it [

they pile it into a heap], so that the water in which it was soaked will drain out! Yet the soaking is not performed among the diligent, nor in a place of the diligent, and why are we not concerned about leavening in its case?

And we answer: The omer meal-offering is a communal offering. And

a communal offering is different!

For all its procedures are performed under the direction of the court. And they take great care with it against leavening. Therefore, there is no concern that it will become leavened through soaking. This is not so with individual meal-offerings: we are concerned that perhaps at the time of soaking he will not properly guard the wheat against leavening.

The Sages taught: Could a person fulfill his obligation

on Passover

with

matza of

first fruits? —

The verse says: “In all your settlements you shall eat matzot.”

One fulfills his obligation only with

matza that is eaten in all your settlements. First fruits are excluded,

for one does not fulfill his obligation with them, because

they are not eaten in all your settlements, but only in Jerusalem,

alone —

these are the words of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean.

Rabbi Akiva says:

For another reason one does not fulfill his obligation with matza of first fruits, because

matza and bitter herbs

are compared to one another, as it is written: “With matzot and bitter herbs shall they eat it

” Just as bitter herbs,

one fulfills his obligation with them only with a vegetable

that is not

subject to the law of

first fruits [

for first fruits are brought only from the seven species],

so too matza,

one fulfills his obligation only with matza

that is not first fruits.

And

if

you will say,

just as bitter herbs

one fulfills his obligation with them only with a vegetable

whose species does not have first fruits,

then also

matza

one fulfills his obligation only with matza

whose species does not have first fruits.