Pesachim 40a — the Talmud in English

Rav Yosef said:

Scalding in boiling water is effective to prevent leavening only when he places each grain into the boiling water separately. But

a person should not scald

[scald]

two ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

grains

of wheat

together.

Perhaps one

grain

will go and settle in the crack of its fellow

[it will sit upon the fissure of the second grain] and cover it.

And

it will be found that

the boiling water does not rise over them

[the boiling of the water does not reach]

from the four sides

[from the four sides of the grain], and consequently

it comes to leavening.

And Abaye said: A person should not roast

[burn]

two

on the fire

ears of grain together.

Perhaps water will emerge from this

ear of grain,

and the other will absorb

the ear the water that emerged from the first.

And

before it has time to be 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

[from one end of the ear],

and the other end will absorb

the water and will leaven 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 juices. And fruit juices do not cause leavening!

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

And Abaye retracted

even

from that statement

and returned to permitting it. And not for Rava’s reason, but for another reason. Because

all

water

by virtue of its falling

[by virtue of its falling]

does not cause leavening!

For water causes leavening only when it exists and remains upon the wheat. But while it is in the course of falling, it does not cause leavening.

For

this

Abaye said: With regard to this vessel for drying grain

[a vessel in which wheat is dried in an oven, and from which kelayot are made]—if the vessel is

inverted

[turned over, with its opening downward],

it is permitted!

The kelayot made in it are permitted on Passover, 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 with a vessel that is

upright

[when the vessel is upright, with its opening upward], it is

forbidden!

For the water falls back and is reabsorbed into the wheat, and causes it to leaven. For it exists and remains inside the vessel.

Evidently, Abaye holds that whenever the water is in the midst of falling, it does not cause leavening. And he retracted from what he had prohibited, namely, roasting two ears of grain together.

And Rava said: Even

if he placed the wheat in an

upright vessel, it is also 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 moisten

[soak in water]

barley on Passover

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

And

after the fact,

if he moistened—

if

they split

the barley because of the swelling caused by the water, they certainly hasten to leaven, and

they are forbidden.

But if they

did not split,

they are

permitted.

Rabbi Yosei says:

If he sees that they have swollen and are about to split, he

soaks them in vinegar,

and thereby they become permitted. For

the vinegar strengthens them

[makes them firm], and does not allow them to leaven.

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

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

Rav Hisda said in the name of Mar Ukva:

That which we learned, “If they split, they are forbidden,”

not

only if they

actually split

are they forbidden.

Rather, every

case in which they swelled to such an extent

that if

he

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 leavening.

And Shmuel said:

The barley becomes forbidden only if it

actually split.

Shmuel performed a practical act in the village of the house of bar Hashu

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

actually split.

Rabba said: A person concerned for his soul

[a pious person, God-fearing and anxious for his soul]

should not moisten

on Passover! And it occurred to us that he was speaking about barley.

And we wonder:

Why specifically

“a person concerned for his soul,”

which implies that this is merely an extra stringency? But by the basic law it is so.

And even according to everyone as well,

it is forbidden to moisten barley, and not specifically for “a person concerned for his soul.”

For it was taught: One may not moisten

initially

barley on Passover!

And we answer:

This is what he is saying:

By law, moistening is forbidden only with barley. But

a person concerned for his soul, even

wheat that is hard

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

should not moisten.

Rav Nahman said to Rabba

:

One who obeys Abba

[he is “Rabba,” and he called him “Abba,” which is an expression of authority], and does not moisten wheat on Passover,

eats moldy bread

[moldy bread]! For without moistening, it is impossible to remove the wheat husk properly, and its flour is not clean.

And Rav Nahman held that there is no concern at all in moistening wheat. And even a person concerned for his soul should properly do so.

For in the school of Rav Huna they moistened

wheat on Passover.

And

so

in the school of Rav Avin they moistened

wheat on Passover.

And Rava said:

It is not only for a person concerned for his soul that it is improper to moisten, but by the basic law it is

forbidden

for every person

to moisten

wheat on Passover.

And we challenge this:

But that which was taught

“One may not moisten barley on Passover,”

implies that specifically

barley is what one may not

moisten;

but wheat is permitted

to moisten. And this is difficult for Rava, who prohibits it even with wheat.

And we answer: It was taught in the manner of

“it is not necessary to say.”

So the tanna of the beraita is saying:

It is not necessary

to say

with wheat

that it is forbidden to moisten it,

for since there is in it

in wheat

fissuring,

[cracks],

water enters them

and they come to leavening.

But barley

[barley],

which is smooth

[which is smooth, without cracks, and the water is not absorbed within it],

one might say that it is entirely proper

[permitted] to moisten it.

It teaches us

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

In the end, he

retracted

[he changed his mind] and

Rava said: It is permitted to moisten

wheat initially! And he proved this from that

which was taught: One fulfills

both

with clean bread, and

both

with coarse bread

[coarse bread]! And in both cases we properly call it “the bread of affliction.”

For one cannot find clean bread without having moistened the wheat before grinding it. Evidently, one may initially moisten wheat.

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

[clean flours]

of gentiles, if they are

from

villages,

they are

pure!

For the villagers are not particular about exceptionally clean flour, and they do not moisten the wheat with water before grinding it. And since they were not placed in water, they do not contract impurity, for food contracts impurity only if it was prepared to contract impurity by liquids.

But flours and fine flours

of towns are impure!

For it is the practice of townspeople to moisten wheat with water. And since they were prepared by liquids, we are concerned that perhaps they became impure.

And Rav Pappa concluded his objection: The flours and fine flours

of villages—what is the reason

that they are pure? Is it

not because they did not moisten

them and they were not prepared by liquids?

And

even so

they call them

“fine flour.”

And fine flour means clean flour. Evidently, even without moistening one can find “clean bread.” If so, how did Rava prove that wheat is moistened from the teaching, “One fulfills with clean bread”? It can be explained well even without moistening, for example, when it was made from fine flour.

Rava answered him: In fact, one cannot find “clean bread” except with wheat that was moistened. But without moistening it is not called “fine flour.” And that which it teaches, “The flours of villages are pure,”

translate it as referring to flour!

And it applies only to “flours,” and not to “fine flours.” And that which it teaches “fine flours” refers to those of towns, whose practice is to moisten.

After Rava left

the house of study, Rav Pappa was distressed and

said

to himself:

What is the reason

that I did not remember to refute Rava’s words from another place? And why

did I not say to him

[I did not answer him]

from that which Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Yirmeya in the name of Shmuel: The wheat of meal-offerings may not be moistened!

So that it should not come to leavening. And meal-offerings come only as matza.

And yet the meal-offerings come from fine flour.

And

even though they may not be moistened,

they call them “fine flour”!

Evidently, one can find clean bread even with wheat that was not moistened.

Rava further said:

It is not enough that it is permitted to moisten the wheat for the matzot on Passover, but

it is a mitzva to moisten

it. For

it is stated:

“And you shall safeguard the matzot.”

And we expound: The matza must be safeguarded from leavening for the sake of matza.

And if moistening is not necessary

with water,

the safeguarding

of the wheat

for

the sake of

what

was it necessary? For without contact with water, they cannot come to leavening, and safeguarding them from leavening does not apply to them.

And

if

you say that the verse speaks about

safeguarding during kneading,

that it must be safeguarded for the sake of matza—this cannot be said. For

safeguarding during kneading is not safeguarding!

That is to say, safeguarding the dough alone is insufficient. For it is evident from Rav Huna’s words that even safeguarding the wheat before it is kneaded must be done for the sake of the mitzva.

For Rav Huna said: Doughs of gentiles

[which were kneaded by gentiles and baked by an Israelite],

a person may fill his stomach with them

on Passover night! And we are not concerned that perhaps they leavened, because it is possible to recognize through signs that they did not come to leavening . For if they have not turned gray and there are no locust horns in them, it is known that they did not leaven.

Provided that he eats an olive-bulk of matza

that was safeguarded for the sake of the mitzva

last!

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

And that olive-bulk of matza safeguarded for its sake, he should eat last, because the principal obligation of eating matza is with the Paschal offering, as it is written: “With matzot and bitter herbs shall they eat it.” And the Paschal offering is eaten while satiated, as we learned: “One does not conclude after the Paschal offering with afikoman!” For one must eat it at the end of the meal, and one may not eat anything after it.

And Rava concludes his proof:

Last—yes!

Specifically, if he ate at the end an olive-bulk of matza safeguarded for its sake, he fulfilled the obligation. But

in

the

first

eating, when he ate from the doughs of gentiles,

he did not

fulfill the obligation of matza.

What is the reason?

It is

because he did not perform safeguarding with them

for its sake.

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

And

he could

perform for it

the dough

safeguarding

for the sake of the mitzva after it came into the possession of the Israelite,

from

the work of

baking onward!

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

Rather, is it not so? Learn from it:

even

initial safeguarding

[in the wheat itself]

we require

for the sake of the mitzva! Evidently, it is necessary to moisten them, since without moistening they cannot come to leavening. And safeguarding applies only to something liable to leaven. And without safeguarding for the sake of matza, one does not fulfill with them.

And we reject this:

And from where

do we require safeguarding even with wheat?

Perhaps

safeguarding the dough is sufficient.

But it is different there

with the doughs of gentiles, with which one does not fulfill, because

at the time when

the dough

enters

the status of being subject to concern for leaven, and it already requires

safeguarding, he did not perform for it

the Israelite

safeguarding

for its sake! And even if he safeguards the dough from this point onward, that is insufficient. Safeguarding for its sake is required from the placing of the water into the flour, since from then the concern of leavening begins.

But where, at the time when

the dough

enters

the status of

safeguarding, he performs safeguarding for it,

then

indeed

with

safeguarding during kneading

alone

there is safeguarding, and safeguarding is not required even with the wheat.

и охрана пшеницы также не требуется.

And

although Rava’s proof was rejected,

even so, Rava did not retract

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

For we find

that Rava said to

Rava

those who turn the sheaves [

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

when you turn

the wheat for the matzot of Passover,

turn

them

for the sake of the mitzva

of matza !

It is evident, then, that Rava holds

that concerning what is written, “And you shall guard the matzot” —

guarding from the outset

is required, even while they are still wheat. And

from its beginning

of the undertaking of the matza

until its end, it is required

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