Pesachim 38b (לח:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbah said:

because

the verse says:

“And you shall safeguard the matzot.”

And we derive:

a matza that is safeguarded for the sake of

matza

is required. For every safeguarding through which you safeguard it from becoming leavened, you must have in mind that it is matza for the sake of the mitzva of Passover.

This excludes

the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering

which

although they are safeguarded from becoming leavened,

are not

safeguarded

for the sake of matza

of the Passover offering,

but for the sake of

matza of a

sacrifice. Therefore, one cannot fulfill his obligation with it.

Therefore, one does not fulfill [the obligation] with it .

Rav Yosef said:

There is an additional reason why one cannot fulfill his obligation with the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering and the wafers of the nazirite. Because

the verse says

“For seven days you shall eat matzot.”

And we derive:

a matza that is eaten for

all

seven days

may be used to fulfill the obligation.

This excludes

the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering,

which

cannot be used to fulfill the obligation because

they are not eaten for seven days, but for one day and one night!

Their law is like that of the meat of the thanksgiving-offering, which is eaten only on the day it is offered and the following night. After that it becomes notar, sacrificial meat left beyond its permitted time, and is taken out to be burned.

Even if the sacrifice has not yet been slaughtered for the loaves, and they have not yet become consecrated and thereby disqualified as notar, nevertheless they were made with the intention that the sacrifice would consecrate them and disqualify them after one day and one night. But we require that it be safeguarded for the sake of matza fit to be eaten throughout the seven days.

Rav Yosef also agrees with Rabbah’s reason, that safeguarding for the sake of matza is required. He merely added another reason, saying that even if it was also safeguarded for the sake of matza of the mitzva, one cannot fulfill his obligation with it, because it must be safeguarded for the sake of matza that is eaten throughout the seven days.

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with Rabbah’s opinion, and it was taught in a beraita in accordance with Rav Yosef’s opinion.

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with Rabbah’s opinion: Could a person fulfill

his

obligation with the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering and the wafers of the nazirite? —

The verse states: “And you shall safeguard the matzot.”

A matza that is safeguarded for the sake of matza. This excludes this one, which is not safeguarded for the sake of matza, but for the sake of a sacrifice!

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with Rav Yosef’s opinion: Could a person fulfill his obligation with the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering and the wafers of the nazirite? —

The verse states: “For seven days you shall eat matzot.”

A matza that is eaten for seven

days.

This excludes this one, which is not eaten for seven

days,

but for one day and one night!

And we raised an objection:

But let it be excluded

because one cannot fulfill his obligation with it

from

what is written

“bread of affliction,”

and we read it as “bread of mourning.” Let us derive:

A food that is eaten in mourning

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

This excludes

the thanksgiving-offering bread and the nazirite wafer,

which are not eaten in mourning, but in joy! This is just as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili excluded the second-tithe matza from this verse.

Just as Rabbi Yosei the Galilean excluded the matza of second tithe from this verse .

The loaves of the thanksgiving-offering are likewise not eaten in mourning, because their law is like that of sacrificial meat. This is derived by a kal va-chomer from second tithe, which is not eaten in mourning. If concerning the less stringent second tithe the Torah says, “I did not eat of it in my mourning,” then concerning the more stringent sacred meat, is it not all the more so?!

And we answer: This tanna

holds in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who says

“affliction”

is written

without a vav. Therefore, it cannot be read as “my mourning,” and bread that is eaten in mourning is not required. One may even fulfill his obligation with second-tithe matza. Therefore, it was necessary to exclude the loaf of the thanksgiving-offering, either because it is not safeguarded for the sake of matza or because it is not eaten throughout the seven days.

We raised another question:

But let it be excluded

because one cannot fulfill his obligation with the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering and the wafers of the nazirite, since

it is rich matza!

For they are kneaded with oil. And Rabbi Akiva already derived from “bread of affliction” that one cannot fulfill his obligation with it. If so, why are all the reasons stated above concerning the loaf of the thanksgiving-offering necessary?

Shmuel bar Rav Yitzhak said:

A half-log of oil is brought for all forty loaves that accompany the thanksgiving-offering. It is divided into two. Half of it, namely a quarter-log, is kneaded with the ten loaves and the ten wafers, and the other half is kneaded with the ten boiled loaves. In the offerings of a nazirite, for which no boiled loaves were brought, only a quarter-log of oil was brought, and with it the ten loaves and ten wafers were kneaded.

And since

a quarter-log

of oil alone

is divided among several loaves,

twenty large loaves whose total measure is seventeen-tenths minus one-third of a tenth, there is not enough oil in so small a quantity to cause the loaves to be considered rich matza.

We raised another question:

But let it be excluded

because one cannot fulfill his obligation with them, since

they are not eaten in all habitations,

but only in Jerusalem! For they are lesser sanctity offerings, which may be eaten only in Jerusalem, as it is written concerning them, “And you shall eat before the Lord your God.”"

Reish Lakish said:

Since we do not exclude them from “in all your habitations,”

that is to say, the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering

and the wafers of the nazirite are eaten in Nov and Gibeon!

For the Tabernacle was not erected there. Rather, there was a stone building there, and the copper altar was established in it. They were called “the great private altar.”

Rabbi Shimon’s opinion is that only time-bound obligatory offerings were offered on the great private altar, such as Passover offerings, daily offerings, and additional offerings.

There is likewise one who says that only burnt-offerings and peace-offerings were offered there, since these were also offered on a small private altar, which each individual would make for himself when private altars were permitted. But meal-offerings and nazirite offerings were not offered on a private altar.

From here Reish Lakish proved that this was not his opinion. Rather, even the thanksgiving-offering loaves and the nazirite peace-offerings were offered on the great private altar of Nov and Gibeon. Therefore, the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering and the wafers of the nazirite are properly considered matza that is permitted in the habitations, and they cannot be excluded from “in all your habitations.” For lesser sanctity offerings that were offered on the great private altar could be eaten in all the cities of Israel. Therefore, it was necessary to exclude them either because they were not safeguarded for the sake of matza or because they were not eaten throughout the seven days.

As for what Reish Lakish said, “The loaves of the thanksgiving-offering and the wafers of the nazirite are eaten in Nov and Gibeon,” this is not meant literally. Rather, they were offered in Nov and Gibeon, but were eaten in all the cities of Israel.

The early authorities.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Ilai said: I asked Rabbi Eliezer, “May a person fulfill

the obligation of matza

with the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering and the wafers of the nazirite?”

He said to me: I have not heard

the halakha concerning this!

I came and asked Rabbi Yehoshua

this question.

And he said to me: They said that the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering and the wafers of the nazirite, when one made them

in order to bring them

for

his own

obligation, a person cannot fulfill his obligation with them.

But if he made them in order

to sell

them

in the marketplace

to people who need to bring them with their offerings, he

may fulfill his obligation with them!

And

when I came and presented these words

that Rabbi Yehoshua had told me

before Rabbi Eliezer, he said to me: By the covenant

as an expression of an oath,

these are precisely the words that were spoken to Moses at Sinai!

For the truth is in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua.

Some say:

Rabbi Eliezer said this rhetorically:

By the covenant,

but

are these precisely the words that were spoken to Moses at Sinai, and no reason is required?!

Since there is no reason to distinguish between when he made them for himself and when he made them to sell in the marketplace, no such distinction should be made. This is not a halakha given to Moses at Sinai that must be accepted without a reason.

And we raise the question:

But what is the reason

that according to Rabbi Yehoshua one may fulfill his obligation with them when he made them to sell in the marketplace? Ultimately, they were not safeguarded for the sake of matza, but for the sake of a sacrifice.

Rabbah said: Anyone

who makes them in order

to

sell them in the

marketplace, changes his mind.

He does not decisively determine that they will be for the sake of a sacrifice. Rather, he stipulates in his heart

and says: If they are sold

if I find buyers for them for the needs of a sacrifice,

they are sold.

And they will be designated for that purpose.

But if they are not sold, I will use them

to fulfill my obligation of matza! Thus, if in the end he did not sell them, it turns out that they were made for the sake of matza.