Pesachim 43b — the Talmud in English

For

it might have entered your mind

to permit them with regard to its eating,

since it is written

“You shall not eat leavened bread with it—

for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it.”

The verse juxtaposed the eating of leaven with the eating of unleavened bread. And it might have been possible to say that only

everyone

who

is included in “Arise, eat unleavened bread”

is the one who

is included in “You shall not eat leavened bread.”

But

these women, since they are not included

and are not

in

the mitzva of

“Arise, eat unleavened bread”—

because

it is

the obligation to eat unleavened bread on the first night

a positive commandment whose time causes it

[and women are exempt from every positive commandment whose time causes it],

say—

in “You shall not eat leavened bread”

they are likewise not included.

It teaches us

the inclusion of “Everyone who eats leavened matter shall be cut off,” that women too are forbidden to eat leaven.

And it follows that it is impossible to expound from this “everyone” that eating a mixture of leaven incurs karet.

And the Gemara adds:

And now, since they have been included

the women in the prohibition

“You shall not eat leaven”

from “Everyone who eats leavened matter shall be cut off,”

they have been included

women

also in

the mitzva of

eating unleavened bread.

And this is

as

Rabbi

Eleazar expounded.

For Rabbi Eleazar said: Women are obligated by Torah law in eating unleavened bread, as it is stated:

“You shall not eat leavened bread with it; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it.”

And this is to be learned through the juxtaposition of unleavened bread to leaven:

Everyone who is included in “You shall not eat leaven”—

is included in

the obligation of

eating unleavened bread.

And these women likewise, since they are included in “You shall not eat leaven,”

having been included from “Everyone who eats leavened matter shall be cut off”—they

are included

also

in “Arise, eat unleavened bread.”

And we raised the matter:

And what have you seen

to say

that this

“everyone”

came

to include women, and you exclude its mixture

[and exclude a mixture of leaven] from karet?

Say

the reverse: “Everyone” came

to include its mixture

of leaven for karet , and let us not include from it the prohibition of eating leaven for women.

And then it would be the reverse: the women would be exempt from eating unleavened bread by virtue of the juxtaposition of unleavened bread to leaven.

And we answer:

It is reasonable

that the verse came to include women in the prohibition of eating leaven, and not to impose the punishment of karet for a mixture of leaven.

Since the inclusion “everyone” [in the verse “For everyone who eats leavened matter shall be cut off”]

stands

and refers and pertains

to

the inclusion of the people who

eat,

and not to the inclusion of the kinds of leaven that are eaten.

Therefore, it

includes

another category of

eaters,

namely, women.

For is it possible to say that

the inclusion

of “everyone”

stands with regard to the eaters, and includes

thereby another category of

things eaten,

such as a mixture of leaven?!

Rabbi Natan, the father of Rav Huna, challenged this:

And

wherever the verse stands

with regard to

the

people who

eat, is it not

possible that the verse will

include

the kinds of things

eaten?!

For it was taught in a beraita: “For everyone who eats the fat of the animal from which he brings

an offering to the Lord, and the soul that eats shall be cut off from its people.”

I have only

to prohibit

only

the fat of

unblemished

animals,

because

it

is fit to be offered

on the altar.

The fat

of

blemished animals,

with regard to which we do not read “from the animal that he brings,”—

from where

do we know that it too is forbidden?

The verse states: “For every

eater of fat.”

“Every” is an inclusion, and from it we include also the fat of blemished animals.”

And Rav Natan concludes his challenge:

But here, where the verse stands

with regard to

things eaten,

as it is written, “For everyone who eats fat,” and the inclusion of “everyone” was not written with regard to the thing eaten, but with regard to the person who eats,

and

even so,

it includes

from it a type of

things eaten,

namely, the fat of blemished animals.

If so, here too let us say that the “everyone” written with regard to one who eats leavened matter will include a mixture of leaven.

And we answer:

There

with regard to fat,

there is no

way to include

eaters,

for women are forbidden by all the negative commandments in the Torah; therefore,

it includes

from it the category of

things eaten.

But

here

with regard to leaven,

there is

the possibility of including women, who are an inclusion among the

eaters;

it is more reasonable to expound the “everyone” with reference to them.

For

it does not abandon [

the tanna does not abandon]

them,

the inclusion of the

eaters

that is stated in the verse,

and

instead

includes things eaten.

And we raised the matter:

And the Rabbis,

who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, since

they do not have

a prohibition of a negative commandment with regard to a

mixture

of leaven, it is necessarily obvious that they too

do not expound the inclusion “every” stated in the third verse,

“Every

leavened substance you shall not eat,”

as an inclusion to prohibit a mixture of leaven.

And if so,

but

this matter that

women

are warned concerning leaven—

from where do they have it?

For according to Rabbi Eliezer, women were included only from the “everyone” written with regard to “Everyone who eats leavened matter shall be cut off.”

And since we have said that the Rabbis do not expound the word “everyone” [with regard to a mixture of leaven] in the verse “Every leavened substance you shall not eat,” and they also do not expound the word “everyone” in the verse “Everyone who eats leavened matter shall be cut off” [whereas the first verse, “Everyone who eats leaven shall be cut off,” even according to Rabbi Eliezer cannot be expounded to prohibit women with regard to leaven, because it is designated for another exposition.

Tosafot],

if so, from where do they know that women are warned concerning eating leaven? And we have a juxtaposition stating that everyone who is not included in eating unleavened bread is not included in the prohibition of eating leaven. If so, let us exempt women from eating unleavened bread, since it is a positive commandment whose time causes it, and by virtue of the juxtaposition of leaven to unleavened bread let us also permit them to eat leaven!?

And we answer: Indeed, the Rabbis

“everyone”

alone in the second verse [in the warning “Every leavened substance you shall not eat”]

do not expound

to include things eaten of a mixture of leaven.

But

“For everyone

who eats leavened matter shall be cut off” [in the third verse], which deals with the punishment of karet, since the word “for” is added in it to the word “everyone,” they

properly expound it to include women [and this is an inclusion of “eaters,” and not of “things eaten”].

And from here they learned that women are forbidden to eat leaven and are liable to karet for it.

But now, since we have learned that the addition of the word “for” to the word “everyone” serves as an inclusion even according to the Rabbis, who do not include from “everyone” alone, the Gemara challenges that Rabbi Eliezer too should expound an additional exposition from “for everyone”:

And Rabbi Eliezer,

who includes from the word “everyone” alone, has two matters to include from “For everyone who eats leavened matter shall be cut off.”

And say:

“Everyone”—

to include women.

“For everyone”—

to include

even

its mixture,

of the leaven, for karet.

For wherever there is no one to include among the eaters, according to his words we include things eaten as well; and from the additional word “for” to “everyone,” he should include a mixture of leaven for the punishment of karet, since women are included from the word “everyone.”

And if you would say

to answer that

“for everyone”—

Rabbi Eliezer does not expound

for an additional exposition,

this cannot be said.

For

it was taught:

The verse states, “For every

leaven

and every honey

you shall not

you shall not [“not”]

offer

as an offering from it to the Lord.”

I have only

to prohibit

only

when the offering

is

entirely

from the leaven [and he offered an olive-bulk of leaven, because there is no offering measure of less than an olive-bulk].

If he offered leaven in

part

of the offering measure, namely, half an olive-bulk of leaven—

from where

do we know that he transgresses?

The verse states: “Every

leaven”—to include one who offers leaven in part of the offering measure.

This is according to Abaye. But Ze’eiri explains it below in another manner.

Its mixture

of leaven [leaven that was kneaded and mixed with a valid meal-offering after it was broken into pieces, and is not visible]—

from where

do we know that it too is forbidden for offering?

The verse states: “For every

leaven.”

That is, the “for” added to “every” comes to teach an additional inclusion, to include its mixture [and it teaches us that the prohibition is not nullified on account of the permitted matter.

Tosafot].

And we conclude the difficulty:

Who is the one from whom you have heard that he expounds “every”

by itself?—

It is Rabbi Eliezer.

For the Rabbis disagree and do not expound from “every” alone.

And since this tanna, who follows the position of Rabbi Eliezer, derives an additional exposition from “For every,”

it is evident that he expounds

Rabbi Eliezer also

“for every.”

And if so, here too with regard to leaven, let us include its mixture for karet from “For everyone.”

And we conclude:

It is difficult!

Rav

Abaye said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

With regard to all prohibitions in the Torah—

permitted matter does not combine with forbidden matter

to complete its measure.

For example, with eating prohibitions, whose measure is an olive-bulk: if one ate half an olive-bulk of fat and half an olive-bulk of meat at one time, he is exempt. And he does not become liable until he eats an olive-bulk of fat by itself.

Except for the eating prohibitions of

a

nazirite,

for permitted eating combines to complete their measure, so that if he ate half an olive-bulk of grapes together with half an olive-bulk of bread, he is liable because of “and grapes he shall not eat.”

That is, the measure of the prohibitions of a nazirite is a measure of eating, and not a measure in the prohibition itself. Therefore, if a nazirite eats an eating that contains the measure, then even if the thing forbidden to him is only part of that eating, and it itself does not contain the measure, he is liable for it, since the designation “eating” applies to his eating.

And this stringency is with regard to the prohibitions of a nazirite, and it differs from the other prohibitions. For the Torah said

with regard to a nazirite,

“And every drink

of grapes he shall not drink,” to teach, through the inclusion “every,” that he is liable even when the wine does not contain the measure of a quarter-log. It is sufficient that he soak his bread in a small amount of wine, and the bread joins the wine to complete the measure, so that he is flogged for the small amount of wine.

And the proof that this is the intention of the verse is that it is impossible to say that it is speaking of a case in which the wine alone contains the measure that creates liability. For if so, obviously he is liable, and a verse is not needed for this. Rather, necessarily, the verse came to make him liable even when the wine alone does not contain the measure, but only together with the bread. Learn from this that permitted matter combines with forbidden matter in the prohibitions of a nazirite.

And Ze’eiri said:

It is not only in the prohibitions of a nazirite that permitted matter combines with forbidden matter, but

even

in the offering of

leaven

on the altar, permitted matter combines with forbidden matter.

For if he offered half an olive-bulk of a handful of leaven together with half an olive-bulk of unleavened bread, he transgresses

“You shall not offer

leaven.”

And we raised the matter:

According to whom

does Ze’eiri hold? It must be

according to Rabbi Eliezer, who expounds

“every”

that is written with regard to leaven,

to include part of it.

And Ze’eiri establishes this exposition with regard to one who offers a complete olive-bulk, but half of it is leaven and half of it is a valid meal-offering, and he is liable for the offering by virtue of “permitted matter combines with forbidden matter.”

that is written with regard to leavening, to include part of it.

And Zeiri establishes this exposition with regard to one who offers a complete olive-bulk, half of which is leavening and half of which is a valid meal-offering; he is liable for the offering because “permitted matter combines with prohibited matter.”