Pesachim 38b — the Talmud in English

Rabba said:

because

the verse says ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

“And you shall guard the matzot.”

And we expound:

matza guarded for the sake of

matza

is required! For every guarding with which you guard it so that it should not become leavened, you must intend it for the sake of the matza of the mitzva of Passover .

This excludes

the thanksgiving-offering bread

this, which

although it is guarded against becoming leavened,

is not

it

guarded for the sake of matza

of the mitzva of Passover,

but for the sake of

the matza of the

sacrifice.

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

Rav Yosef said:

There is an additional reason why one does not fulfill [the obligation] with the thanksgiving-offering bread and the wafers of the nazirite, because

the verse says

“For seven days you shall eat matzot.”

And we expound:

matza eaten for

all

seven days

one fulfills [the obligation] with it.

This excludes

the thanksgiving-offering bread

this,

with which one does not fulfill [the obligation], because

it is not eaten for seven days, but for a day and a night!

For its law is like the law of the flesh of the thanksgiving-offering, which is eaten on the day of its offering and only on the night following it. And afterward it becomes notar, and is taken out for burning.

And even if the sacrifice has not yet been slaughtered for the bread, and it has not yet become consecrated so as to become disqualified as notar, nevertheless it has been made for the purpose that the sacrifice should consecrate it and it should become disqualified after a day and a night. And we require that it be guarded for the sake of matza fit to be eaten all seven [days].

And Rav Yosef also agrees with Rabba’s reason, that guarding for the sake of matza is required. But he added another reason, to say that even if he guarded it also for the sake of the matza of the mitzva , one does not fulfill [the obligation] with it, because guarding for the sake of matza eaten all seven [days] is required .

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with Rabba. And it was taught in a beraita in accordance with Rav Yosef.

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with Rabba: Could a person fulfill

his

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

The verse says: “And you shall guard the matzot.”

Matza guarded for the sake of matza. This excludes this one, which is not guarded for the sake of matza, but for the sake of a sacrifice!

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

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

Matza eaten for seven

days.

This excludes this one, which is not eaten for seven

days,

but for a day and a night!

And we raised an objection to this:

But let it be excluded

because one does not fulfill [the obligation] with it,

from

as it is written,

“bread of affliction,”

and we read “bread of mourning.” And let us expound:

that which is eaten in mourning

during the mourning of the first day, which is from the Torah], one fulfills the obligation of matza with it.

This excludes

the thanksgiving-offering bread and the wafer of a nazirite,

this, which is not eaten in mourning, but in joy !

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

And even the thanksgiving-offering loaves are not eaten in mourning. Because their law is like that of sacrificial flesh, as we derive it by a kal va-chomer from second tithe, which is not eaten in mourning: just as concerning the lenient second tithe the Torah said, “I have not eaten from it in my mourning,” concerning sacred flesh, which is more stringent, is it not all the more so?!

And we answer: this tanna

holds in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who says

“afflicted”

is written,

without a vav. Therefore we do not read in it “my mourning.” And we do not require bread eaten in mourning. And one fulfills [the obligation] even with the matza of second tithe. Therefore it was necessary to exclude the thanksgiving-offering bread, either because it is not guarded for the sake of matza or because it is not eaten throughout all seven [days].

And further we raised an objection:

But let it be excluded

because one does not fulfill [the obligation] with thanksgiving-offering loaves and wafers of a nazirite, because

it is rich matza!

For they are kneaded with oil. And Rabbi Akiva already expounded from “bread of affliction” that one does not fulfill [the obligation] with it. If so, why do I need all the reasons stated above concerning the thanksgiving-offering bread?

Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak said:

Half a log of oil is brought for all forty loaves that come with the thanksgiving-offering. And he divides it into two. Half of it [that is, a quarter-log] is kneaded with the ten loaves and the ten wafers, and half of it is kneaded with the ten boiled loaves. And for the offerings of a nazirite, with which they did not bring boiled loaves, he brought only a quarter-log of oil, and with it he kneaded the ten loaves and the ten wafers.

And since

a quarter-log

of oil alone

is it, and it is divided among several loaves

twenty large loaves, whose total measure is seventeen-tenths less one-third of a tenth], there is not enough oil in such a small measure to render the loaves rich matza .

And further we raised an objection:

But let it be excluded

because one does not fulfill the obligation of matza with them, because

they are not eaten in all dwellings,

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

Resh Lakish said:

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

this means that the thanksgiving-offering loaves

and the wafers of a nazirite are eaten in Nob and Gibeon!

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

And Rabbi Shimon’s view is that on the great private altar only obligations whose time is fixed were offered, such as Passover-offerings, daily offerings, and additional offerings .

And there is also one who says that only burnt-offerings and peace-offerings were offered there [which were also offered on a small private altar, which every individual made for himself, during the period when private altars were permitted]. But meal-offerings and nazirite offerings were not offered on a private altar.

And from here Resh Lakish proved that his words are not [correct]. Rather, even the thanksgiving-offering loaves and the peace-offering of a nazirite were offered on the great private altar of Nob and Gibeon. And for this reason the thanksgiving-offering loaves and the wafers of a nazirite are properly considered matza that has permission in the dwellings, and there is no basis to exclude them from “in all your dwelling places.” For the lesser sanctified offerings that were offered on the great private altar were eaten in all the cities of Israel . Therefore it was necessary to exclude them because they are not guarded for the sake of matza, or because they are not eaten throughout all seven [days].

And the statement of Resh Lakish, “The thanksgiving-offering loaves and the wafers of a nazirite are eaten in Nob and Gibeon,” is not precise. Rather, they were offered in Nob and Gibeon, but they were eaten in all the cities of Israel.

The Rishonim].

It was taught: Rabbi Ila’i said: I asked Rabbi Eliezer, what is the law concerning a person fulfilling

the obligation of matza

with thanksgiving-offering loaves and wafers of a 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 have said that thanksgiving-offering loaves and wafers of a nazirite that he made

in order to bring them

for

the obligation of

himself, a person does not fulfill [the obligation] with them.

But if he made them in order

to sell

them

in the market

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

fulfills [the obligation] with them!

And

when I came and presented these words

that Rabbi Yehoshua had said to me

before Rabbi Eliezer, he said to me: By covenant [that is, an expression of an oath].

[an expression of an oath],

These are precisely the words that were said to Moses at Sinai!

For the truth is in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yehoshua.

Some say:

Rabbi Eliezer said this to him as a question:

By covenant,

but

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

And since there is no reason to distinguish between when he made them for himself and when he made them to sell in the market, there is no distinction in this matter. For this is not a halakha given to Moses at Sinai that must be accepted without a reason.

And we raised an objection to this:

But what is the reason

that, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, one fulfills [the obligation] with them when he made them to sell them in the market? For in the end, they were not guarded for the sake of matza, but for the sake of a sacrifice.

Rabba said: Every

person who makes them in order

to

sell them in the

market, changes his mind.

And he does not decide completely 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,

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

they are sold.

And they will be for that purpose. And

if they are not sold, I will fulfill the obligation of matza with them

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