Pesachim 43a — the Talmud in English

and

as Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: The daughters of Israel

who have hair below, as though

they had reached puberty,

but

had not reached

yet

the age of

twelve

years,

and are embarrassed by it—

the daughters of poor men apply

smear

them,

the hairs,

with lime,

and by doing so they fall out.

The daughters

of

the wealthy apply them with fine flour.

The daughters of kings apply them with myrrh oil.

And we raised it:

What

is “myrrh oil”?

Rav Huna bar Yirmeya says:

It is

“satikhta.”

And what it is was not explained [Rashi].

Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said:

It is

oil

made from

an 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: “Anfikinon”

is

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

Because it removes the hair and softens the flesh.

We learned in the Mishna:

This is the general rule: anything that is of a type of grain,

it violates [the prohibition] on Passover.

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

“anything that is of a type of grain, it violates [the prohibition] on Passover,”

all types of chametz are included in this. And if so,

why

did they specify and

enumerate the Sages

all these types

these

mentioned in the Mishna?

[And if it was in order to teach us that inferior chametz and chametz in a mixture are subject to a negative prohibition and not to karet, it would have been sufficient to enumerate one type of inferior chametz and one type of mixture. Tosafot.]

Rather, they enumerated all of them

so that

every person

would be familiar with them and with their names,

and would know from what they are made, and through this would not come to stumble.

And the Gemara adds an example from an incident that occurred:

It is like this

incident,

of that man from the Land of Israel

[a son of the Land of Israel], who happened to come to Babylonia.

And there was meat

[meat]

with him

[with him for his food].

He said to them

[to the local people]:

Bring

[bring]

me relish

[bring me a relish].

He heard

[that man from the Land of Israel]

that they were saying

[the local people to one another]:

Bring

[bring him]

Babylonian kutaḥ.

When he heard

[that they were bringing him]

kutaḥ

[as a relish]—

he withdrew

[from it, since he had eaten meat with his meal, and there is milk in kutaḥ.]

It follows that, by virtue of his being familiar with the types that the Sages mentioned, he was saved from a prohibition.

We learned in the Mishna:

these are subject to a warning.

Of all the types listed in our Mishna, some are complete chametz, but are not present independently, rather mixed into another food, such as Babylonian kutaḥ, Median beer, and Edomite vinegar. And some are present chametz, but are not complete chametz, rather inferior chametz, which is bad for human consumption, such as dye-makers’ zuman and women’s ornaments.

Introduction to the discussion of inferior chametz

A.

The distinction between shaor and shiur:

One must pay attention to the distinction between

“shiur”

with a yod and

“shaor”

without a yod!

“Shaor” is a leavening substance. Its manner of preparation is as follows: first, one mixes flour and water, and buries the mixture inside dry flour until it becomes hard; then one removes it from the flour, and it serves as a leavening substance for other doughs.

And the Torah was stringent regarding eating the

“shaor”, obligating one to karet, even though it is not customary to eat it as it is, since it is not food but a leavening substance.

And

whereas

“shiur”

is a designation for bread made from dough that did not become completely leavened, but only began to become leavened, and according to everyone one is not liable to karet for eating it.

Our discussion deals with shiur, and not with shaor!

B. The dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda—what shiur is, and what its law is. “

Shiur” is the beginning of the leavening of the dough, and bread baked from such dough has the status of “it has left the category of matza but has not entered the category of chametz” [Rashi, Hullin 23b, s.v. shiur].

And we find in several places that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disputed concerning shiur, both with regard to chametz on Passover and with regard to meal-offerings [which must be made of matza and not chametz].

And their dispute is twofold:

The first: at what stage of the leavening of the dough is it called “shiur.”

The second: what is its law.

They disputed regarding the definition of shiur:

Rabbi Meir held that once the “face of the dough has turned pale,” it is already called “shiur.” Whereas Rabbi Yehuda held that dough in such a state is not called “shiur”; rather, one may bake from it valid matza for Passover or for meal-offerings. Only at a later stage, when the dough has begun to crack with fine cracks in the shape of locust horns, is it then called shiur.

And regarding the law of shiur, each according to his definition, they disputed: according to Rabbi Meir, one is liable to lashes for eating shiur on Passover [which, as stated, according to him is bread made from dough whose face has turned pale]; and likewise, one does not fulfill with it the mitzva of eating matza or the mitzva of offering a meal-offering.

Whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda, one is not liable to lashes for eating shiur [which according to him is bread made from dough that reached the state in which cracks like locust horns were formed].

[And the early authorities disputed whether, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the prohibition of shiur is from the Torah or rabbinic.]

C. Inferior chametz.

We do not find in the Mishna or in a beraita the concept of “inferior chametz”; rather, the Gemara calls several of the types of chametz in our Mishna “inferior chametz,” and compares its law to the law of shiur.

In the words of our early authorities, we find several formulations in defining “inferior chametz.” Rashi [s.v. man tana] defines it as “bad chametz,” implying that the deficiency is in its leavening, whereas later [at the end of s.v. shiur] he defines it as something unfit for eating.

And the later authorities discussed how it resembles shiur, since shiur is something fit for eating, except that it did not become properly leavened. Indeed, Rashi explains that its failure to become properly leavened makes it like food unfit for eating; but our later authorities found difficulty with his words, since apparently the deficiency in leavening does not impair the eating of the bread.

In our explanation, we shall follow the explanation of the later authorities, that there is a common aspect between shiur and inferior chametz: both are not considered “complete chametz”—this one because of a deficiency in the leavening of the dough, and that one because it is unfit for eating.

And we raised it:

Who

is the

tannaitic authority

who taught our Mishna, who holds both laws:

that complete grain chametz through a mixture, and inferior chametz independently,

are prohibited on Passover

by

a prohibition

of a negative commandment?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

Our Mishna is according to

Rabbi Meir.

For it was taught in a beraita: shiur

on Passover—

shall be burned.

And he gives it

[this shiur] before

his dog.

And one who eats it—

his law is

forty

lashes less one.

And we raised it:

This itself

[of the beraita]

is difficult

[from one part of it to another].

On the one hand,

you said

“shiur shall be burned.”

Apparently, it is prohibited

for shiur

to be used for benefit.

And

if

you then teach

“and he gives it before his dog,”

even though this is benefit for it,

apparently, it is permitted

[to use it]

for benefit.

Rather, necessarily

this is what

the tannaitic authority in the beraita

says:

“Shiur shall be burned”—

it is referring to shiur

of Rabbi Meir,

which is dough whose face has turned pale, and

ac

cording to the method of

Rabbi Meir,

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

And likewise, shiur

of Rabbi Yehuda,

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

ac

cording to the method of

Rabbi Yehuda.

b.

“And he gives it before his dog,”

the shiur

of Rabbi Meir,

whose face has turned pale,

ac

cording to the

method of Rabbi Yehuda, because he holds that in this state, when the dough has not yet cracked, this is not chametz at all and it is permitted for benefit [but one may not eat it, by rabbinic decree, and therefore one gives it only before his dog].

.

c.

“And one who eats it”

this chametz, which according to Rabbi Yehuda is permitted for benefit, receives lashes

forty,

and

we have arrived at Rabbi Meir,

according to whom every dough whose face has turned pale is “shiur,” and one receives lashes for eating it.

And Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav explains why our Mishna is Rabbi Meir:

From this beraita

we learn that Rabbi Meir holds

that

inferior

chametz that is

independently

present and not in a mixture, despite the fact that it is not complete chametz, just as shiur is not complete chametz, is prohibited

by a negative commandment.

And

if so,

all the more so

does Rabbi Meir hold that

complete grain chametz

when it is

through a mixture

is biblically prohibited to eat by a negative commandment.

Rav Yehuda holds that complete chametz in a mixture is more severe than inferior chametz, despite the fact that the latter is present independently.

And therefore our Mishna, which prohibits the mixture of chametz and inferior chametz by a negative commandment, is Rabbi Meir.

Rav Naḥman said:

Our Mishna is

Rabbi Eliezer!

For it was taught in a beraita: Regarding

[eating]

complete grain chametz, one is liable

[one who eats it is liable] to the punishment

of karet.

Regarding its mixture

[a mixture of chametz], one who eats it violates

a negative commandment—

the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And even though when he eats only an olive-bulk of the mixture, he does not eat a complete olive-bulk of the chametz itself, but permission is also mixed into it, nevertheless the permitted substance combines to complete the prohibited substance to the measure of an olive-bulk.

And the Sages say: Regarding complete grain chametz, one is liable to karet.

Regarding its mixture

one violates

nothing at all.

And Rav Naḥman concludes his words:

And we learn from Rabbi Eliezer, who says

“complete grain chametz through a mixture,

one is warned concerning it

by a negative commandment.”

And

if so,

all the more so

chametz

inferior chametz independently

should one be warned concerning it by a negative commandment. For Rav Naḥman holds that inferior chametz independently present is more severe than complete chametz in a mixture; therefore, our Mishna is Rabbi Eliezer.

And we raised it:

And Rav Naḥman—

what is the reason he did not say as Rav Yehuda,

that our Mishna is Rabbi Meir?

And we answer: because

Rav Naḥman can say:

Rav Naḥman:

Perhaps Rabbi Meir said there only up to this point

that one violates a negative commandment,

but

only regarding shiur, since it is incomplete chametz resembling

inferior chametz, and it is

independently

present. But

regarding

complete grain chametz through a mixture, he did not say

that one violates a negative commandment concerning it. And perhaps one does not violate [a prohibition] concerning it at all, since it is less severe than inferior chametz independently present.

And we raised another question:

And Rav Yehuda

[in the name of Rav]—

what is the reason he did not say as Rav Naḥman,

that our Mishna is Rabbi Eliezer?

Because

Rav Yehuda can say:

Rav Yehuda:

Rabbi Eliezer said there only up to this point

that one violates a negative commandment,

but only regarding complete grain chametz through a mixture. But

regarding

inferior chametz independently present, he did not say so. And perhaps one does not violate [a prohibition] concerning it at all, since it is less severe than complete chametz in a mixture.

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

In the section of Bo [in chapter 15], three verses were stated concerning the eating of leaven on Passover.

a. [verse 15] For whoever eats

leaven —

that person shall be cut off.

b. [verse 19] For whoever eats

ferment —

that person shall be cut off.

c. [verse 20] All

ferment

you shall not eat.

The first two verses deal with the punishment for eating leaven or “ferment” [as will be explained], whereas the third verse deals with the prohibition itself.

In the first two verses, the inclusion “every” is stated with regard to the person who eats the leaven, whereas in the third verse “every” is stated with regard to the leaven that is eaten.

In the following discussion it will be explained:

What is the “ferment” mentioned in the last two verses.

What is the status of a woman with regard to the prohibition against eating leaven, and with regard to the punishment of karet for it.

What is the punishment for eating a mixture of leaven or hard leaven — lashes or karet?

It was taught in accordance with Rav Judah

that complete leaven in a mixture is more stringent than hard leaven, and therefore it is impossible to say that according to Rabbi Eliezer, who prohibits complete leaven in a mixture, hard leaven must also be prohibited:

For it was taught: It is written,

“All ferment you shall not eat” —

to include Babylonian kutah, Median beer, Edomite vinegar, and Egyptian zitum.

For although they are not leaven itself but rather a mixture of leaven, they are nevertheless prohibited by a negative commandment. For the wording of the verse, “ferment” [and not “leaven”], comes to teach the prohibition of eating even leaven in a mixture.

One might have thought

even

he shall be liable to karet

for eating them.

The verse states: “For whoever eats leaven shall be cut off

that person from Israel.”

The verse comes to teach you that one is liable to karet only for “leaven,” whose meaning is specifically when it is itself present, and not for its mixture.

And therefore,

for

eating

complete grain leaven itself, one is liable to karet.

But

for

eating

its mixture

of leaven with another substance, one violates only

a negative commandment.

And from the fact that the tanna in the beraita mentioned only these four types of leaven, which are a mixture of leaven, it follows that only they alone are subject to a negative commandment.

But the other types mentioned in our Mishna, such as the sediment of dyers, the starch of cooks, and the kulan of scribes, which are hard leaven itself, are not prohibited by a negative commandment.

And the Gemara proves:

Whom do you know who says that for

its mixture

of complete leaven one violates

a negative commandment?

It is Rabbi Eliezer.

And since the tanna in the beraita [who holds like Rabbi Eliezer] prohibited only complete leaven in a mixture,

whereas he did not say that hard leaven itself

the tanna says is prohibited by a negative commandment —

infer from it:

Leaven

itself that is hard —

according to Rabbi Eliezer, he does not hold

that it is subject to a negative commandment.

And this proves what Rav Judah holds. According to Rabbi Eliezer, only complete leaven in a mixture is prohibited, but not hard leaven. Therefore Rav Judah did not establish the Mishna, which also prohibits hard leaven by a negative commandment, as referring to Rabbi Eliezer, but rather as referring to Rabbi Meir.

And the Gemara explains Rabbi Eliezer’s method:

It may be challenged:

And Rabbi Eliezer,

behold, that which

its mixture

of leaven is

subject to a negative commandment —

from where does he derive it?

It is obvious that its source is

from that which is written,

“All ferment you shall not

eat,”

for the wording of the verse, which says “ferment” instead of “leaven,” implies that the intention is a mixture of leaven.

If so —

he should also impose karet

for a mixture of leaven,

for it is written

concerning the punishment for eating ferment,

“For whoever eats ferment —

shall be cut off

that person from the congregation of Israel.” And according to Rabbi Eliezer, “ferment” means leaven in a mixture.

And we answer: “ferment,” stated with regard to the punishment of karet, does not mean a mixture of leaven.

Rather, that verse

itself

of “whoever eats ferment shall be cut off” —

is needed,

there is a need for it in order to learn from it

as it was taught:

I have only

that one is liable to karet for eating leaven

but

for leaven

that fermented by itself.

Leaven that fermented

through another thing [

such as when it was fermented through wine sediment] —

from where

do we know that it is subject to karet?

The verse states: “Whoever eats ferment shall be cut off

that person from the congregation of Israel.”

For “ferment” means leaven that did not ferment by itself, but fermented through another thing.

And we challenge again:

If so,

since the verse had to write a special verse for the punishment of karet for eating leaven that fermented through another thing, and the verse called it “ferment,” then also with regard to the prohibition of a negative commandment the verse had to write an additional verse in order to prohibit leaven that fermented through another thing.

And if so, let us say that the verse “All ferment you shall not eat”

that

was written concerning

a negative commandment —

also came for this purpose.

The verse comes to inform us that one violates a negative commandment even for leaven itself that fermented through another thing. And from where does Rabbi Eliezer know that there is a negative commandment for a mixture of leaven?

And we answer: In truth, Rabbi Eliezer does not derive a mixture of leaven from the meaning of “ferment.”

Rather, Rabbi Eliezer’s reason

is

from

that which is written,

“All

ferment you shall not eat.” For the inclusion “all” comes to include even a mixture of leaven.

And we challenge again: if Rabbi Eliezer expounds the word “every” as an inclusion for a mixture of leaven, then

there

in the verse concerning the punishment of karet,

also —

is it not written

an inclusion,

“Every

one who eats ferment shall be cut off”? If so, its mixture should be included even for the punishment of karet!?

And we answer:

that “every” which is written in the verse “Whoever eats ferment shall be cut off”

—

is needed to include women

in order to prohibit them from eating leaven.

And the Gemara is astonished that the inclusion is needed to prohibit women with regard to leaven:

For behold, that

women

are prohibited from eating leaven —

is derived from Rav Judah who said it in the name of Rav!

For Rav Judah said in the name of Rav, and likewise the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: The verse says

with regard to the guilt-offering for robbery,

“A man or a woman, when they commit any sin of a person

to act treacherously against it” —

the verse equated

here

a woman with a man, for all punishments in the Torah.

And from the fact that the verse punishes women like men with lashes, it is proven that women are prohibited by all the negative commandments in the Torah, just like men.

And since from here it can be learned that women are prohibited from eating leaven, the inclusion “every” in the verse “Whoever eats ferment shall be cut off” is superfluous.

And the question returns: let us include from it, according to Rabbi Eliezer, that one is liable to karet even for eating a mixture of leaven.

And we answer:

It was necessary

for leaven to have a special inclusion for women, in order to prohibit them from eating it.