Pesachim 43a (מג.) — the Talmud in English

And

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The daughters of Israel

who have hair below, as though

they have reached maturity,

but

have not reached

yet

the age of

twelve

years,

and are embarrassed by it—

The daughters of the poor apply

smear

them

the hair

with lime,

and as a result it falls out.

The daughters

of the

wealthy apply semolina to them.

The daughters of kings apply to them myrrh oil.

And we raised a question concerning it:

What

is “myrrh oil”?

Rav Huna bar Yirmeya said:

It is

“sitkat.”

Its nature was not explained [Rashi].

Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said:

It is

oil

made from a

olive that has not reached one-third

[that has not reached one-third of its growth].

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: “Anpikin”

is

olive oil from an olive that has not reached one-third. And why does one apply it? —

Because it removes the hair and softens the flesh.

We learned in the Mishna:

This is the general principle: Anything that is of the species of grain

is subject to the prohibition of ḥametz on Passover.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehoshua said: Since we have learned

“Anything that is of the species of grain is subject to the prohibition of ḥametz on Passover,”

this includes all types of ḥametz. If so,

why

did they specify and

enumerate the Sages

all these types

that

are mentioned in the Mishna?

[And if it was in order to teach us that ḥametz nוקשה and ḥametz in a mixture are subject to a prohibition but not to karet, it would have sufficed to enumerate one type of ḥametz nוקשה and one type of mixture. Tosafot].

Rather, they enumerated all of them

so that

everyone

would become familiar with them and with their names,

and would know of what they are made, thereby avoiding a mishap.

The Gemara adds an example from an actual incident:

It was like

the incident

involving a man from Eretz Yisrael

[a resident of Eretz Yisrael] who happened to come to Babylonia.

And he had meat

[meat]

with him

for his meal.

He said to them

to the local people:

Bring

bring

me matkhilta

[bring me a relish].

He heard

the man from Eretz Yisrael

that they were saying

the local people to one another:

Bring

bring him

kutah.

When he heard

that they were bringing him

kutah

as a relish,

he withdrew

from it, because he had eaten meat with his meal and kutah contains milk.

It follows that, because he was familiar with the types enumerated by the Sages, he was saved from a prohibition.

We learned in the Mishna:

These are subject to a prohibition.

Some of all the types listed in our Mishna are full-fledged ḥametz, but it is not present by itself; rather, it is mixed into another food, such as Babylonian kutah, Median beer, and Edomite vinegar. Some are ḥametz that is present by itself, but is not full-fledged ḥametz; rather, it is ḥametz nוקשה, which is unfit for human consumption, such as dye sediment and women’s cosmetics.

Introduction to the discussion of ḥametz nוקשה

A.

The distinction between sha’or and shi’ur:

One must note the distinction between

“shi’ur”

with a yod, and

“sha’or”

without a yod!

Sha’or is a leavening agent. It is made as follows: First, flour and water are mixed, and the mixture is buried in dry flour until it becomes hard. It is then removed from the flour and used as a leavening agent for other doughs.

The Torah was stringent regarding the eating of

sha’or,

making one liable to karet for it, even though it is not ordinarily eaten as it is, since it is not food but a leavening agent.

Whereas

“shi’ur”

is a term for bread made from dough that has not fully leavened, but has only begun to leaven; according to all opinions, one is not liable to karet for eating it.

Our discussion concerns shi’ur, and not sha’or!

B. The dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda—what is shi’ur, and what is its status. “

Shi’ur” is the beginning of the leavening of dough, and bread baked from such dough is in the category of “it has left the status of matza but has not entered the status of ḥametz” [Rashi, Ḥullin 23b, s.v. shi’ur].

We find in several places that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disputed the matter of shi’ur, both with regard to ḥametz on Passover and with regard to meal-offerings [which must be made as matza and not as ḥametz].

Their dispute is twofold:

First, at what stage of the leavening of the dough is it called “shi’ur.”

Second, what is its status.

They disputed the definition of shi’ur:

Rabbi Meir holds that as soon as the “face of the dough becomes pale” it is called shi’ur. Rabbi Yehuda, however, holds that dough in such a state is not called shi’ur; rather, one may bake from it valid matza for Passover or for meal-offerings. Only at a later stage, when the dough begins to crack with fine cracks shaped like locust horns, is it called shi’ur.

They also disputed the status of shi’ur, each according to his definition: According to Rabbi Meir, one is liable to lashes for eating shi’ur on Passover [as stated, in his view it is bread made from dough whose face has become pale], and likewise one does not fulfill the mitzva of eating matza with it, nor may it be used for a meal-offering.

According to Rabbi Yehuda, one is not liable to lashes for eating shi’ur [which, in his view, is bread made from dough that has reached the stage at which cracks like locust horns have formed].

[The early authorities disputed whether, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the prohibition of shi’ur is from the Torah or rabbinic].

C. Ḥametz nוקשה.

We do not find the term “ḥametz nוקשה” in the Mishna or in a beraita. However, the Gemara calls several of the types of ḥametz in our Mishna “ḥametz nוקשה,” and compares its status to that of shi’ur.

In the words of our early Sages, we find several formulations defining “ḥametz nוקשה.” Rashi [s.v. man tanna] defines it as “bad ḥametz,” which implies that the deficiency lies in its leavening; whereas later [at the end of s.v. shi’ur] he defines it as something unfit for eating.

The later authorities discussed how it resembles shi’ur, for shi’ur is fit for eating, except that it has not leavened properly. Rashi indeed explains that its failure to leaven properly makes it like food unfit for eating, but the later authorities found this difficult, because seemingly the deficiency in leavening does not impair the bread’s edibility.

In our explanation, we will follow the understanding of the later authorities, that shi’ur and ḥametz nוקשה share the feature that neither is considered “full-fledged ḥametz”: in one case because of a deficiency in the leavening of the dough, and in the other because it is unfit for eating.

And we raised a question concerning it:

Who

is the

tanna

who taught our Mishna and holds both of these laws:

that full-fledged grain ḥametz through a mixture, and ḥametz nוקשה present by itself,

are prohibited on Passover

by

a prohibition of

a negative commandment?

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

Our Mishna is in accordance with the opinion of

Rabbi Meir.

As it was taught in a beraita: Shi’ur

on Passover—

must be burned.

And one gives it

this shi’ur before

his dog.

And one who eats it

—his status is

forty

lashes less one.

And we raised a question concerning it:

This very matter

of the beraita

is difficult

internally.

On the one hand,

you stated

“shi’ur must be burned.”

Apparently, it is prohibited

for shi’ur

to be used for benefit.

But

if

you then teach

“and one gives it before his dog,”

although that is a benefit for him,

apparently, it is permitted

to derive benefit

from it.

Rather, necessarily

this is what

the tanna of the beraita meant:

a.

“Shi’ur must be burned”—

this refers to the shi’ur

of Rabbi Meir,

which is dough whose face has become pale, and

according

to the method of

Rabbi Meir,

who holds that it is ḥametz for which one is flogged and that it is also prohibited for benefit; therefore, its law is that it must be burned.

Likewise, the shi’ur

of Rabbi Yehuda,

when the dough has already cracked like locust horns, must be burned, even

according

to the method of

Rabbi Yehuda.

b.

“And one gives it before his dog”—the shi’ur

of

Rabbi Meir,

whose face has become pale, is given

according

to the method of

Rabbi Yehuda,

because he holds that in this state, when the dough has not yet cracked, it is not ḥametz at all and is permitted for benefit [but it may not be eaten, by rabbinic decree; therefore, one gives it only before his dog].

c.

And one who eats it,

this ḥametz, which according to Rabbi Yehuda is permitted for benefit, is flogged

forty

—and

we have arrived at Rabbi Meir,

according to whom any dough whose face has become pale is “shi’ur,”” and one is flogged for eating it.

Rav Yehuda, in the name of Rav, explains why our Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Meir:

From this beraita

we learn that Rabbi Meir holds

that

that is found

by itself,

and not in a mixture, although it is not full-fledged ḥametz, just as shi’ur is not full-fledged ḥametz, is prohibited

by a negative commandment.

And

if so,

all the more so

does Rabbi Meir hold that

full-fledged grain ḥametz

when it is

through a mixture

is prohibited by a negative commandment from the Torah.

Rav Yehuda holds that full-fledged ḥametz in a mixture is more severe than ḥametz nוקשה, even though the latter is present by itself.

Therefore, our Mishna, which prohibits a mixture of ḥametz and ḥametz nוקשה by a negative commandment, is in accordance with Rabbi Meir.

Rav Naḥman said:

The Mishna is

in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer!

As it was taught in a beraita: For

eating

full-fledged grain ḥametz, one is liable

the one who eats it is liable

to karet.

For its mixture

[a mixture containing ḥametz], one who eats it violates

a negative commandment—

the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

Although when one eats only an olive-bulk of the mixture, he does not eat a complete olive-bulk of the ḥametz itself, but the permitted food is mixed with it as well, nevertheless the permitted substance combines with the prohibited substance to complete the prohibited substance to the measure of an olive-bulk.

And the Sages say: For full-fledged grain ḥametz, one is liable to karet.

For its mixture

one does not

violate anything.

Rav Naḥman concludes his statement:

And we learn from Rabbi Eliezer, who says

“Full-fledged grain ḥametz through a mixture

is subject to a warning

of a negative commandment.”

And

if so,

all the more so

ḥametz

nוקשה present by itself

should be subject to a warning of a negative commandment. For Rav Naḥman holds that ḥametz nוקשה present by itself is more severe than full-fledged ḥametz in a mixture; therefore, our Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

And we raised a question concerning it:

And Rav Naḥman—

why did he not state in accordance with Rav Yehuda,

that our Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Meir?

And we answer: Because

he would say to you

Rav Naḥman:

Perhaps, Rabbi Meir said this only there

that one violates a negative commandment,

but

only with regard to shi’ur, because it is incomplete ḥametz resembling ḥametz

and it is

present by itself. But

with

full-fledged grain ḥametz through a mixture, he did not

say that one violates a negative commandment. Perhaps one does not violate anything with regard to it, because it is less severe than ḥametz nוקשה present by itself.

We raise another question:

And Rav Yehuda

[in the name of Rav]—

why did he not state in accordance with Rav Naḥman,

that our Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer?

Because

he would say to you

Rav Yehuda:

Perhaps, Rabbi Eliezer said this only there,

that one violates a negative commandment,

but only with regard to full-fledged grain ḥametz through a mixture. But

with regard to ḥametz

nוקשה present by itself, he did not say so.

Perhaps one does not violate anything with regard to it, because it is less severe than full-fledged ḥametz in a mixture.

?

за hametz,

—