Pesachim 40a (מ.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Yosef said:

Scalding in boiling water prevents leavening only when one places each kernel into the boiling water separately. But

a person should not scald

scald]

two

wheat kernels

together,

one alongside the other.

Perhaps one

kernel

will go and settle in the cleft of its fellow

will settle on the fissure of the second kernel] and cover it.

And

it will turn out that

the boiling water does not reach it

the boiling water does not reach it]

from all four sides

from the four sides of the kernel],

and it will consequently come to leavening.

And Abaye said: A person should not roast

burn]

two

over the fire

ears of grain together.

Perhaps water will emerge from this

ear

and the other will absorb it

from the water emitted by the first.

And

before it has time to become roasted,

it will come to leavening.

Rava said to him: If so, even

one ear

also

should not be roasted, because we should be concerned

perhaps water will emerge

from

this end [

one end of the ear],

and the other end

will absorb water from it and become leavened because of it.

Rather, Rava said:

There is no concern at all that the water emerging from the ears themselves will cause leavening.

Because

they are fruit juice. And fruit juice does not cause leavening!

Therefore, it is permitted to roast even two ears together.

And Abaye retracted

even

from that statement

and returned to permitting it—not for Rava’s reason, but for another reason:

For every

drop of water

in the course of its falling [

in the course of its descent]

does not cause leavening!

Water causes leavening only when it remains and stands upon the wheat. But while it is in the process of falling, it does not cause leavening.

For

that is

what Abaye said: In the case of this vessel used for parching grain [

a vessel in which wheat is dried in an oven, producing parched grain]—if the vessel

is overturned [

with its opening facing downward],

it is permitted!

The parched grain made in it is permitted on Pesaḥ, because the water emitted from the wheat by the heat of the oven falls outside the vessel, and it does not cause leavening while falling.

But in a vessel that is

upright [

when the vessel is upright and its opening faces upward],

it is forbidden!

Because the falling water returns and is absorbed into the wheat, causing it to leaven. For it remains and stays inside the vessel.

Thus, Abaye holds that whenever the water is in the midst of falling, it does not cause leavening. And he retracted what he had said prohibiting the roasting of two ears together.

And Rava said: Even

if one placed the wheat in an

upright vessel, it is likewise permitted

to eat it, because the water emitted from it

is fruit juice. And fruit juice does not cause leavening!

The Sages taught: One may not soak [

soak in water]

barley on Pesaḥ

before grinding it, because it may thereby come to leavening if it splits.

And

after the fact,

if one soaked it—

if

the barley split

because of the swelling caused by the water, it will certainly leaven more quickly, and

it is forbidden.

But if it

did not split,

it is

permitted.

Rabbi Yosei says: If he sees that they have swollen and are about to split,

he

soaks them in vinegar,

and they thereby become permitted, because the

vinegar hardens them [

strengthens them] and does not allow them to leaven.

Shmuel said: The halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei!

And if they ultimately split, the vinegar does not save them from leavening.

Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Mar Ukva:

This that we learned, “If they split, they are forbidden,”

not

only when they

actually split

are they forbidden.

Rather, any

that swelled to such an extent

that if

one

were to place them on the mouth of a barrel

of wine,

and

because of the smell of the wine

they would split on their own, they have come to the point of leavening.

they have come to leavening.

And Shmuel said:

The barley is forbidden only if it

actually split.

Shmuel performed an act in the village of the house of Bar Ḥashu [

in the village of a man named “Bar Ḥashu”], and there he permitted barley that had swollen through soaking but had not yet split—even though, if it had been placed on a barrel, it would have split on its own. He prohibited it only when it had

actually split.

Rabba said: One who is concerned for his soul [

a pious, God-fearing person who is concerned for his soul]

should not soak

on Pesaḥ! It was initially understood that he was speaking about barley.

We objected:

Why specifically

“one who is concerned for his soul,”

which implies that this is merely an additional stringency? It is required by the basic law.

And even according to everyone

it is prohibited to soak barley, and not only for “one who is concerned for his soul.”

For it was taught: One may not soak

initially

barley on Pesaḥ!

And we answer:

This is what he is saying:

By strict law, soaking is prohibited only with barley. But

one who is concerned for his soul—even

wheat, which is hard [

which is harder than barley and does not quickly come to leavening], also

should not soak.

Rav Naḥman said

to Rabba:

One who obeys Abba [

he is Rabba; he called him “Abba,” an expression of rabbinic status], and does not soak wheat on Pesaḥ,

eats moldy bread [

moldy bread]! For without soaking, it is impossible to remove the wheat husk properly, and the flour will not be clean.

Rav Naḥman held that there is no concern whatsoever in soaking wheat. Even one who is concerned for his soul should properly do so.

For in Rav Huna’s house they soaked

wheat on Pesaḥ,

and

so

in Rav Avin’s house they soaked

wheat on Pesaḥ.

And Rava said:

It is not only that one who is concerned for his soul should not soak; rather, by the basic law it is

forbidden

for everyone

to soak

wheat on Pesaḥ.

We challenge this:

But that which was taught

“One may not soak barley on Pesaḥ,”

implies that specifically

barley is what one may not

soak,

but wheat is permitted

to soak. This is difficult for Rava, who prohibits even wheat.

And we answer: The tanna of the beraita expressed himself by way of

“It is not necessary to state.”

So the tanna of the beraita is saying:

It is not necessary

to say

with regard to wheat

that it is prohibited to soak it,

for since it has

in wheat

clefts [

fissures],

water enters them

and they come to leavening.

But barley [

barley],

which is smooth [

smooth, without fissures, so that the water is not absorbed into it],

one might say it is entirely acceptable [

permitted] to soak it.

It teaches us

that even barley should not be soaked, because through swelling it may split and leaven.

Ultimately, he

retracted [

retracted] and

Rava said: It is permitted to soak

wheat initially! And he proved this from

that which was taught: One fulfills the obligation

both

with clean bread, and

both

with coarse bread [

coarse bread]! Both are properly called “the bread of affliction.”

For one cannot produce clean bread without soaking the wheat before grinding it. Thus, wheat may initially be soaked.

Rav Pappa raised an objection to Rava: The flours and fine flours [

clean flours]

of gentiles, if they are

from

of villages, are

they are

pure!

For villagers are not particular about exceptionally clean flour, and they do not soak the wheat in water before grinding it. Since it was not placed in water, it does not become susceptible to impurity, for food becomes susceptible to impurity only when prepared for impurity through contact with liquids.

But flours and fine flours

of cities are impure!

For city dwellers customarily soak the wheat in water. Since they were prepared through liquids, we are concerned that they may have become impure.

Rav Pappa concluded his challenge: Flour and fine flour

of villages—what is the reason

that they are pure? Is it

not because they were not soaked

and were not prepared through liquids?

And

even so,

it calls them

“fine flour.”

Fine flour means clean flour. Thus, even without soaking, one can produce “clean bread.” If so, how did Rava prove that wheat is soaked from the statement that one fulfills the obligation with clean bread? It can be properly explained even without soaking, for example, if it was made from fine flour.

Rava replied: In fact, “clean bread” is found only with wheat that was soaked. Without soaking, it is not called “fine flour.” And the statement that “the flour of villages is pure”

is interpreted as referring to ordinary flour!

It applies only to “flours,” not to “fine flours.” The statement about “fine flours” refers to those of cities, whose practice is to soak.

After Rava left

the study hall, Rav Pappa was distressed and

said

to himself:

Why

did I not remember to refute Rava’s words from another source? Why

did I not tell him [

did I not answer him]

what Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Yirmeya in the name of Shmuel: The wheat of meal-offerings may not be soaked!

This is in order that it not come to leavening, and meal-offerings are brought only as matza.

The meal-offerings are made from fine flour.

And

although they are not soaked,

it calls them “fine flour”!

Thus, clean bread can be found even with wheat that was not soaked.

Rava said further:

It is not only permitted to soak the wheat for the matzot on Pesaḥ;

it is a mitzva to soak

it, because

it is stated

“And you shall guard the matzot.”

And we expound this to mean that the matza must be guarded from leavening for the sake of matza.

And if soaking is not required

in water, for what purpose

is the guarding

of the wheat

for

the

sake

of matza required? Without contact with water, it cannot come to leavening, and guarding it from leavening is irrelevant.

And

if

you say that the verse speaks of

guarding during kneading, that it must be guarded for the sake of matza—this cannot be said. For

guarding during kneading is not guarding!

That is, guarding the dough alone is insufficient. It is evident from Rav Huna’s statement that even guarding the wheat before it is kneaded must be performed for the sake of the mitzva.

For Rav Huna said: Doughs of gentiles [

that were kneaded by gentiles and baked by a Jew],

a person may fill his stomach with them

on the night of Pesaḥ! We are not concerned that they may have leavened, because it is possible to identify through signs that they did not leaven. If they have not become pale and do not have locust-horn-like cracks, it is certain that they did not leaven.

Provided that he eats an olive-bulk of matza

that was guarded for the sake of the mitzva

last!

For although there is no concern of leaven with the doughs of gentiles, one does not fulfill his obligation of matza with them, since they were not made for the sake of the mitzva.

That olive-bulk of matza guarded with the proper intention must be eaten last, because the principal obligation to eat matza is together with the Pesaḥ offering, as it is written: “Upon matzot and bitter herbs shall they eat it.” And the Pesaḥ offering is eaten when one is satiated, as we learned: “One does not conclude after the Pesaḥ offering with afikoman.” It must be eaten at the end of the meal, and one may not eat anything after it.

Rava concludes his proof:

“Last”—yes!

One fulfills the obligation specifically if he ultimately ate an olive-bulk of matza guarded with the proper intention. But

in

the

first

eating, when he ate from the gentile doughs, he

did not

fulfill the obligation of matza.

What is the reason?

It is

because no guarding was performed on them

with the proper intention.

And if you say that guarding the dough is sufficient, why does he not fulfill the obligation with them?

And

he could

perform for it

the dough

guarding

for the sake of the mitzva after it came into the Jew’s possession,

from

the work of

baking onward!

For example, while shaping the dough, smoothing its surface, and placing it in the oven.

Rather, infer from here that

even

initial guarding [

of the wheat itself]

is required

for the sake of the mitzva. Thus, it is necessary to soak it, since without soaking it cannot come to leavening, and guarding applies only to something liable to leaven. Without guarding it for the sake of matza, one does not fulfill the obligation with it.

And we reject this:

From where

do we know that guarding is required even for wheat?

Perhaps

guarding the dough is sufficient.

The case there is different

with regard to the gentile doughs, with which one does not fulfill the obligation, because

at the time when

the dough

entered

the realm of concern for leaven, and it already required

guarding, he did not perform for it

the Jew

guarding

with the proper intention. Even if he guards the dough from that point onward, this is insufficient. Guarding with the proper intention is required from the time the water is added to the flour, because the concern for leavening begins then.

But where, at the time when

the dough

entered

the category of

guarding, he performed guarding for it,

then

indeed

with

guarding during kneading

alone

there is guarding, and guarding is not required even for the wheat.

And

although Rava’s proof was rejected,

even so, Rava did not retract

from what he said, that safeguarding is required even before kneading .

For we find

that Rava said

to

those who turned over the sheaves

[those who turn over the sheaves and bind them into bundles]:

When you turn over

the wheat designated for the matza of Passover,

turn over

it

for the sake of the mitzva

of matza !

This proves that Rava maintains:

the meaning of that which is written, “And you shall safeguard the matzot” —

safeguarding from the outset

is required, even while they are still wheat. And

from the beginning

of the process involving the matza

until its end, it is required

that the matza be safeguarded for the sake of the mitzva .