Pesachim 36b (לו:) — the Talmud in English

Therefore,

I would exclude wheat and barley

with which one does not fulfill the obligation of eating matza, because

they

are among the Seven Species, and

their species includes first fruits.

That is not so. For

the verse states: “

In the evening you shall eat

matzot.”

Even

matzot

made from wheat and barley

are included.

And we raise an objection:

If “matzot” includes [all kinds of] matzot,

let us say that

even

matza made from

first fruits as well

enables one to fulfill his obligation! And why do we include specifically a species that has [the status of] first fruits?

And we conclude: Rather,

Rabbi Akiva retracted

this exposition. He returned to excluding first fruits because they are not eaten in all settlements, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

As it was taught: One might have thought that a person fulfills his obligation with

matza made from

first fruits?

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

Matza that is eaten

in all settlements

enables one to fulfill his obligation.

First fruits are excluded,

because

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

one does not fulfill his obligation with them.

One might have thought that I exclude

for this reason

even

matza made from

second tithe

in Jerusalem, since it too is not eaten in all settlements, but only in Jerusalem . Once it has entered Jerusalem, it can no longer be redeemed, and it is not permitted to eat it outside Jerusalem. For once the city walls have absorbed the second tithe, according to rabbinic law it can no longer be redeemed. And if so, one would not fulfill the obligation with it — that is not so.

For

the verse states: “Matzot,”

in the plural;

even

second-tithe matzot

are included.

And we inquire:

What did you see that led you to include

matza made from

second tithe

from “matzot,”

and to exclude

matza made from

first fruits

from “in all your settlements”? Let us say the reverse: second tithe should be excluded from “in all your settlements,” and first fruits should be included by “matzot.”

And we answer:

I include second tithe,

because

it

sometimes

has an avenue for use

to be eaten

in all settlements

through redemption, even after it has entered Jerusalem. And this is

in accordance with Rabbi Elazar,

whose statement is brought immediately below.

And I exclude first fruits, which have no avenue for use

to be eaten

in all settlements

outside Jerusalem under any circumstances, since first fruits cannot be redeemed.

For Rabbi Elazar said: From where is it derived that second tithe that became impure,

and was thereby prohibited for consumption,

may be redeemed even

when it is already

in Jerusalem?

The verse states

concerning it:

“For you cannot carry it

and so on, “and you shall give the money, and bind up the money in your hand, and you shall go to the place that the Lord your God will choose.”

And

“carrying”

means nothing other than eating,

as

it is stated

concerning Joseph and his brothers:

“He carried portions from before him

to them,” meaning that he brought food before them.

And this is how we expound the verse: If the tithe became impure and you can no longer eat it, redeem it with money, and the money will assume the sanctity of second tithe. Then redeem the money in Jerusalem in exchange for food, and eat it with the sanctity of second tithe.

However, the plain meaning of the verse is not discussing this case. Rather, it concerns one who is far from Jerusalem and cannot carry the tithe itself to Jerusalem. He redeems it for money and brings the money to Jerusalem.

Once we find that impure second tithe can be redeemed even in Jerusalem, it can again be described as having “an avenue for use in all settlements,” even when it is pure. Therefore, one fulfills the obligation of matza with it in Jerusalem.

The Gemara concludes the proof that Rabbi Akiva retracted his interpretation that excluded first fruits through the comparison of matza to maror:

It is explained in the above-mentioned beraita that only first fruits are excluded from “in all your settlements,” whereas with matza made from second tithe one fulfills his obligation.

And who is the one from whom you heard that with second tithe one fulfills the obligation of matza

—is it not

Rabbi Akiva

who said so? For Rabbi Yosei HaGelili excludes even second tithe, as stated above. Evidently, this beraita follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. And it excludes first fruits from “in all your settlements,” rather than from the comparison of matza to maror.

Conclude from this: He retracted

Rabbi Akiva from that comparison.

We further inquire:

And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

why does he need to exclude first fruits from “in all your settlements”?

Let him derive it from “bread of affliction.”

For from this verse he previously excluded second tithe, since specifically

that which is eaten in “affliction”

—mourning—enables one to fulfill the obligation of matza.

This,

second tithe,

which is not eaten

in mourning,

but only with joy, is excluded. So too, he should exclude first fruits, since they are not eaten in mourning.

And we answer: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili

agrees with Rabbi Shimon

and permits eating first fruits while in mourning.

And this is

as it was taught: First fruits are prohibited to an onen

—a mourner before burial.

And Rabbi Shimon permits.

And we inquire:

What is the reason of the Rabbis,

who prohibit an onen from eating first fruits?

And we answer: It is because

it is written: “You shall not be able to eat within your gates

your grain tithe, your wine, and your oil, and the firstborn of your cattle and your flocks, and all your vows that you vow, and your offerings, and the gift of your hand.” The beginning of the verse is speaking of second tithe, which is eaten only in Jerusalem.

And the master said: “The gift of your hand,”

which is written at the end of the verse,

refers to first fruits,

as the word “hand” is written concerning them: “The koen shall take the basket from your hand.” This teaches that they too are eaten only in Jerusalem. Thus

first fruits are compared to second

tithe.

Just as second

tithe

is prohibited to an onen,

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

so too, first fruits are prohibited to an onen

from eating them.

And Rabbi Shimon

permits an onen to eat first fruits because

“an offering”

the Torah calls them

in this verse, as it is written, “the gift of your hand.”

Just as an offering is permitted to an onen

[as we expound from “No unauthorized person shall eat sacred things”: I said unauthorized person, but not one in mourning],

so too, first fruits are permitted to an onen.

We further inquire:

And Rabbi Shimon—granted that he does not hold

the comparison of first fruits to second tithe—

does not have it,

nevertheless, they should be prohibited to an onen because

“joy”

is explicitly written concerning them,

as it is written at the end of the section on first fruits:

“And you shall rejoice in all the good

that the Lord your God has given you and your household.” Let us derive from this that an onen is prohibited from eating first fruits, since he is not in a state of joy.

And we answer:

That

“and you shall rejoice”

comes only to establish the time of joy.

For one who brings first fruits to the Temple courtyard recites the section beginning, “An Aramean sought to destroy my father,” as it is written: “You shall respond and say before the Lord your God: An Aramean sought to destroy my father, and so on.” From the fact that “and you shall rejoice” is written, we learn that the mitzva of recitation applies only when a person rejoices in his produce.

This is

as we learned: From Shavuot until Sukkot,

[from Shavuot until Sukkot],

he brings

first fruits

and recites

the section beginning, “An Aramean sought to destroy my father,” because Shavuot is the time of harvesting the grain, while Sukkot is the time of gathering and collecting the produce. During this period, his heart rejoices in his produce.

From Sukkot until Hanukkah, he brings

first fruits, but

he does not recite

the section beginning, “An Aramean sought to destroy my father,” at the time he brings them, because it is no longer a time of joy.

From Hanukkah until Shavuot, it is not the time for bringing first fruits at all. For we expound in the Sifrei: “Which you shall bring from your land”—as long as the produce is found in your land, while it has not yet been exhausted for the animals of the field, you bring first fruits. From Hanukkah onward, the produce is no longer found in the fields.

The Sages taught: It is written concerning matza,

“bread of affliction.”

And we exclude

—

to the exclusion of boiled dough

[in boiling water ],

and

to the exclusion of matza made in the form of

an ashisha

[a large loaf], with which one does not fulfill his obligation, because such loaves are prestigious and are not “bread of affliction.”

One might have thought that a person fulfills his obligation only with coarse bread

[bread made from bran, stripped of all its fineness, and made from bran ], which alone is called “bread of affliction,” but he does not fulfill his obligation with fine bread?

The verse states: “Matzot,”

in the plural; even other

matzot are included, even matzot such as those of Solomon

the king, which were made from fine, sifted flour.

If so, what is the meaning of

“bread of affliction”? —

To the exclusion of boiled dough and an ashisha.

And we inquire:

What

[is the source]

indicates that this

“ashisha” is an expression denoting importance?

And we answer:

As it is written

concerning David [on the day the Ark of the Lord returned to the City of David],

“He distributed to all the people, to the entire multitude of Israel, both man and woman, to each person a loaf of bread, a portion of meat, and one ashisha

and all the people went, each to his home.”

And Rav Ḥanan bar Abba said: “A portion of meat”

is

one-sixth

of a

cattle animal!

That is, a piece of meat constituting one-sixth of a cattle animal.

“An ashisha”

is a large loaf whose measure is

one-sixth

of

an ephah!

And this disagrees

with the statement of Rav Ḥanan bar Abba and

that of Shmuel. For Shmuel said: “An ashisha”

is not food at all, but

a jar of wine

[an ephah of wine]. And this is

as it is written:

“They love raisin cakes.”

God said this to Hosea concerning Israel, that they turn to other gods and love raisin cakes. Evidently, “ashisha” is a measure of wine.

The Sages taught: One may not bake thick bread on Passover!

Because it is thick, it is impossible to safeguard it from becoming leavened —

the statement of Beit Shammai.