Pesachim 36a (לו.) — the Talmud in English

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon says:

One who unwittingly eats

an unslaughtered animal on Yom Kippur,

is exempt

from a sin-offering for eating on Yom Kippur! Since the prohibition of an unslaughtered animal took effect before the onset of Yom Kippur. And the prohibition of Yom Kippur does not come and take effect upon the prohibition against eating forbidden fat.

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

Ravina said: You may even say

that the fact that we exclude tevel because its prohibition is due to another matter is also well explained according to

the Rabbis.

For this is what it means:

One whose prohibition [

when it became leavened]

is only because of

“Do not eat leaven,”

one fulfills the obligation of eating matza with it [when it did not become leavened].

This

tevel

is excluded, since its prohibition

when it becomes leavened

is not only because of

“Do not eat leaven”

alone.

Rather, it is also because of

“Do not eat tevel.”

And nevertheless, it also contains the prohibition of “Do not eat leaven.”

We reject this:

Is

“Do not eat leaven”

alone”

written

in the verse, so that you could infer from this that only a type of food that has no other prohibition may be used to fulfill the obligation of matza?! The word “alone” is not written. It is sufficient that this type of food is also subject to the prohibition of leaven for it to be possible to fulfill the obligation of matza with it.

We conclude:

Rather, it is evident as

Rab Sheshet

explained!

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

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

the place where it is eaten]?

The verse states: “Bread of affliction.”

And we expound:

That which may be eaten in acute mourning [

during the mourning on the first day after the death, which is mandated by Torah law] may be used to fulfill the obligation of matza.

This

second tithe

is excluded,

as it may not be used to fulfill the obligation—even in Jerusalem, where it is permitted to be eaten. Because

it is not eaten in acute mourning, but in joy!

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

—

the words of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

Rabbi Akiva says:

Since it is written

“matzot”

in the plural, it also

includes

matzot of second tithe;

it includes them,

so that one may fulfill the obligation with them in Jerusalem.

If so, what is the meaning of

“bread of affliction”? —

To exclude,

excluding dough kneaded with wine and

with

oil and

with

honey!

One may not fulfill the obligation with it, because it is not matza of poverty; rather, it is rich matza.

We inquire:

What is the reason of Rabbi Akiva

that he does not expound “affliction” as referring to acute mourning, as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili expounds?

We answer: He does not expound it in this manner because

is

“affliction”

written with a vav, so that one could infer from it the concept of acute mourning [as in the verse “I have not eaten of it in my mourning,” written with a vav]? But

“poor”

is written

without a vav. Therefore, it more strongly indicates bread of the kind that a poor person customarily eats.

And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili

did not state his opinion in accordance with Rabbi Akiva because, although “poor” is written defectively,

do we read

“poor”?

But

“my mourning”

is read in it!

And the verse is more readily interpreted as referring to acute mourning.

And Rabbi Akiva

would say to you:

The fact that we read in it

“my mourning”

does not refer to acute mourning; rather, it comes to teach

as Shmuel stated.

For Shmuel said:

The reason that we read in it

“bread of affliction”

is that matza is

bread over which

many things are recited!

For on it, the Hallel is completed on the night of Passover, and the Haggada is recited over it.

We object:

And

if

Rabbi Akiva holds

that

dough kneaded with wine, oil, and honey may not

be used to fulfill the obligation,

but it is taught in a beraita: Dough may not be kneaded on Passover with wine, oil, or honey!

!

And if one kneaded

with them—

Rabban Gamliel says: It must be burned

the dough

immediately!

For even if one baked it immediately, without allowing it to rest at all, it becomes leavened. Since it becomes leavened more quickly than ordinary dough kneaded with water, no person can guard it from leavening.

Although Reish Lakish said above, “Fruit juice does not cause leavening,” he meant only that one is not liable to receive karet for its leavening. Its leavening is poor and causes the dough to become coarse leaven, for which there is only a prohibition. Nevertheless, fruit juice causes the dough to become coarse leaven more quickly than ordinary water does.

And the Sages say:

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

he may eat

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

And Rabbi Akiva said: I spent [

the time of my stay on Passover]

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

He disagrees with the first tanna and permits kneading with them even ab initio.

The beraita concludes:

And although one may not knead

with oil, wine, or honey,

one may coat it [

spread over and smooth the surface of the dough after kneading and shaping it, before baking]! For coating with fruit juice does not cause leavening.

And we explain: This final clause

refers to the first tanna,

who prohibits kneading with these liquids ab initio, but permits coating with them.

And the Sages say: That with which one may knead

may also

be used for coating.

But

that with which one may not knead,

such as wine, oil, and honey,

may not be used for coating either!

For coating with them also hastens the dough’s becoming leavened.

And all the earlier tannaim agree

that

one may not knead the dough with

water

that is lukewarm [

slightly hot]! For it causes the dough to become leavened quickly.

In any event, it is taught that Rabbi Akiva kneaded matza with wine, oil, and honey. This presents a contradiction within his own words, for above he said: “Excluding dough kneaded with wine, oil, and honey,” with which one may not fulfill the obligation.

We answer:

It is not difficult. This

the exclusion of this dough from “bread of affliction” applies on the night of

the first day of the Festival,

when eating matza is obligatory, as it is written: “In the evening you shall eat matzot.” One can fulfill the obligation only with bread of affliction, whereas this is rich matza.

And

the fact that

Rabbi Akiva kneaded with wine, oil, and honey was

on the second day of the Festival [

the intermediate days of the Festival]! For there is no obligation to eat matza throughout all six days; it is optional. If one wishes to eat a grain product, he may not eat it as leaven, but only as matza. Even rich matza, which is not bread of affliction, is permitted to be eaten, since there is no concern that it will become leavened.

And as

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to his sons [

his children]:

On the first day

of Passover

do not knead for me

the matza

with milk [

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

from then onward,

on the other days of Passover,

knead for me

the matza

with milk!

For there is no obligation to eat matza on those days, and bread of affliction is not required then.

We wonder: How could he have said this to them?

But it is taught in a beraita: One may not knead dough with milk,

even throughout the entire year.

And if one kneaded

with milk,

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

We are concerned that he might eat it together with meat and violate the prohibition of meat and milk.

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 then onward, knead it for me with honey!

Alternatively, you may say: In fact,

he told them to knead

with milk,

but this was in a manner where there was no concern of habituation to transgression.

Such

as

Ravina said:

Dough

the size of

an

ox’s eye [

an ox’s eye],

is permitted

to knead with milk! Since it is a small amount, there is no concern that one will eat it with meat, as he will not leave it for later; rather, he will eat it immediately.

And

here too,

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

the size of an ox’s eye.

We learned in a beraita:

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

We inquire:

What is different from the meal-offerings,

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

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

Why, with regard to Passover, do we say that it is impossible to guard them from leavening? We answer: The preparation of the meal-offerings is performed by the priests, who are diligent and know how to guard them carefully from 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

kneading matza for Passover, which is entrusted to everyone, including one

who is not diligent?!

And again we raise an objection:

If so,

let us say with regard to meal-offerings that

soaking should also be permitted!

that we should also permit soaking

the wheat

in water] and crushing it in order to remove its bran, so that its fine flour will be clean. And let us not be concerned that the wheat might become leavened as a result, since the priests are diligent.

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

because through this it can become leavened. Apparently, even with regard to diligent people we are concerned about leavening.

And we answer:

Kneading is performed by diligent people.

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

soaking is not performed by diligent people!

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

And again we raise an objection:

But

when

is kneading actually performed

specifically

by diligent people?

But is it not written

with regard to 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 priests, and one of them shall scoop

from it his full handful.” Infer from this that specifically the rites

from the scooping onward

are

the mitzvot of the priesthood,

and they are not valid when performed by a non-priest. But all the rites performed before the scooping are not among the mitzvot of the priesthood.

From here

it is taught with regard to the pouring

of the oil

and

the

mixing

of the meal-offering,

that

it is

valid when performed by anyone,

even by a non-priest.

But kneading and baking precede the pouring. For this is the order of the procedures in a meal-offering baked in an oven, or in a pan, or in a shallow frying vessel: first they bake them, afterward they break them into pieces, and afterward they 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. How, then, did you say that kneading is not performed by the diligent priests?

And we answer:

As for kneading, although it is not performed specifically by diligent people,

it is valid even when performed by a non-priest; nevertheless, it is performed specifically

in a place where diligent people are present!

For from kneading onward the meal-offering is prepared only in the Temple courtyard. After all, the oven, pan, and shallow frying vessel in which the meal-offering is baked are sacred vessels.

And

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

But if it is performed

outside the wall of

the Temple courtyard, it is

invalid!

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

And since the Temple courtyard is a place where the priests are constantly present, they see the non-priest kneading it. And they instruct him to take care that it not become leavened.

This excludes soaking, which is not performed by diligent people, and

even

not in

the Temple courtyard, which is

a place where diligent people are present!

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

And furthermore, we inquire:

And in what way are

the other meal-offerings

different from the omer meal-offering,

which also may not be brought in a leavened state?

And it was taught in a beraita: The omer meal-offering is soaked, and it is piled up

[they heap it into a pile], so that the water with which it was soaked will drain out! But the soaking is not performed by diligent people, nor in a place where diligent people are present; why, then, are we not concerned that it may become leavened through the soaking?

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

the communal offering is different!

For all its procedures are performed under the direction of the court, and great care is taken with it to prevent leavening. Therefore, there is no concern that it will become leavened through soaking. By contrast, with individual meal-offerings, we are concerned that perhaps, at the time of soaking, the person will not properly guard the wheat against becoming leavened.

The Sages taught: One might have thought that a person can fulfill his obligation

on Passover

with

matza of

first fruits? —

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

One fulfills the obligation only with

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

as one does not fulfill the obligation with them,

because they may not be eaten in all your settlements, but only in Jerusalem

alone —

this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

Rabbi Akiva says:

There is another reason why one does not fulfill the obligation with matza of first fruits. For

matza and bitter herbs

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

Just as bitter herbs,

one fulfills the obligation with them only when they are a vegetable

that is not

of a type subject to the laws of

first fruits

[for one brings first fruits only from the seven species],

so too, with matza,

one fulfills the obligation only with matza

that is not subject to first fruits.

And

if

you would say:

Just as bitter herbs

are used to fulfill the obligation only when they are a vegetable

whose species is not subject to first fruits,

so too,

matza

may be used to fulfill the obligation only with matza

whose species is not subject to first fruits.