פסחים 38 — parallel

38:1

[As to] unleavened bread of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a man cannot discharge his obligation therewith on Passover; according to the Sages, a man can discharge his obligation therewith on Passover. [With regard to] a citron of second tithe, according to R. Meir he cannot discharge his obligation therewith on the Festival; according to the Sages, a man can discharge his obligation therewith on the Festival. R. Papa demurred: as for dough, it is well, because it is written, of the first of your dough, [implying] of your own. The citron too [is likewise], for it is written, and ye shall take unto yourselves, [implying] it shall be of your own.But as for unleavened bread, is then ‘your unleavened bread’ written? — Said Raba — others state, R. Yemar b. Shalmia: [The meaning of] ‘bread’ [here] is derived from ‘bread’ [elsewhere]. Here It is written, the bread of affliction. while there it is written, then it shall be, that when ye eat of the bread of the land [ye shall offer up an heave offering unto the Lord. Of the first of your dough etc.]: just as there [it means] of your own, so here too [it must be] of your own. Shall we say that [the following] supports him: Dough of second tithe is exempt from hallah: this is the view of R. Meir; but the Sages maintain, It is liable? [You say], ‘Shall we say that this Supports him’: this is the identical statement! — This is what he says: Shall we say that since they differ in the case of dough, they differ in respect to those too; or perhaps it is different there, because ‘your dough’ ‘your dough’ is written twice? R. Simeon b. Lakish asked: Can a man discharge his obligation with the hallah of second tithe in Jerusalem? On the view of R. Jose the Galilean there is no problem; seeing that he does not fulfil his obligation with hullin, can there be a question about its hallah? Your question arises on the view of R. Akiba: is it only with hullin that he can discharge his obligation. because if it is defiled it is permitted in [all] ‘habitations’, but with hallah, which if defiled, is not permitted in [all] the ‘habitations’ and is consigned to the fire, he cannot discharge his obligation: or perhaps we say, since if he had not designated it with the name [of hallah] and it became defiled, it would be permitted in [all] the ‘habitations’, and he could discharge [his obligation therewith], then now too he can discharge [his obligation with it]? Others state, this is certainly no question. for we certainly say ‘since’. Your question arises in respect of hallah which was bought with the money of second tithe. Now, on the view of the Rabbis there is no question, for since they say that it is to be redeemed, it is [identical with] the tithe [itself]. Your question arises on the view of R. Judah who said, It must be buried. For we learned: If that which was bought with second tithe money was defiled, it must be redeemed: R. Judah said, It must be buried. Do we say, since if it were not purchased. and since if he had not designated it with the name [of second tithe] and it became defiled,it would be permitted in [all] ‘habitations’, and he could discharge his duty therewith, he can [therefore] discharge his duty therewith now too; or perhaps we say one ‘since’, but we do not say ‘since twice? — said Raba: It is logical that the name of tithe is one. THE UNLEAVENED LOAVES OF THE THANKSOFFERING AND THE WAFERS OF A NAZIRITE etc. Whence do we know it? — Said Rabbah, Because Scripture saith,

—

38:2

And ye shall guard the unleavened bread: [it must be] unleavened bread which is guarded for the sake of [the precept of eating] unleavened bread, thus excluding this, which is guarded not for the sake of unleavened bread but for the sake of a sacrifice. R. Joseph said, Scripture saith, seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread: [that implies] unleavened bread which may be eaten seven days. thus excluding this, which is not eaten seven days but [only] a day and a night. It was taught in accordance with Rabbah; it was taught in accordance with R. Joseph. It was taught in accordance with Rabbah: You might think that he can discharge his obligation with the loaves of the thanksoffering and the wafers of a nazirite, therefore it is stated, ‘And ye shall guard the unleavened bread’, teaching [that it must be] unleavened bread which is guarded for the sake of [fulfilling the obligation of eating] unleavened bread, thus excluding this which is guarded not for the sake of unleavened bread but for the sake of a sacrifice. It was taught in accordance with R. Joseph: You might think that a man can discharge his obligation with the loaves of the thanksoffering and the wafers of a nazirite; therefore it is said, ‘seven days ye shall eat unleavened bread’, implying, unleavened bread which may be eaten seven days. thus excluding this, which may not be eaten seven days but [only] a day and a night. Yet deduce it from [the fact that it is designated], ‘the bread of affliction’, teaching, [it must be] that which may be eaten in grief, thus excluding this, which is not eaten in grief but [only] in joy? — He holds as R. Akiba, who said, ‘ani’ is written. Then let him deduce it [from the fact] that it is rich unleavened bread? Said R. Samuel b. R. Isaac: There is [only] a rebi'ith [of oil], and it is divided among many loaves. Yet deduce it [from the fact] that they might not be eaten in all habitations? — Said Resh Lakish: This proves that the loaves of the thanksoffering and the wafers of the nazirite could be eaten in Nob and Gibeon. It was taught. R. Il'ai said: I asked R. Eleazar, How about a man discharging his obligation with the loaves of the thanksoffering and the wafers of a nazirite? I have not heard, replied he. [So] I went and asked it before R. Joshua. Said he to me, Surely they [the Sages] said: [AS TO] THE [UNLEAVENED] LOAVES OF THE THANKS OFFERING AND THE WAFERS OF A NAZIRITE, IF HE MADE THEM FOR HIMSELF, HE CANNOT DISCHARGE HIS OBLIGATION WITH THEM; IF TO SELL IN THE MARKET, HE CAN DISCHARGE HIS OBLIGATION WITH THEM. When I went and discussed the matter before R. Eleazar, he said to me, By the covenant! These are the very words which were stated to Moses at Sinai. Others state: By the covenant! Are these the very words which were stated to Moses at Sinai? And is not a reason required? And what is the reason? — Said Rabbah: Whatever is for market, he may change his mind [about it]. and he says, ‘If it is sold, it is sold; if it will not be sold, I will discharge my duty with it’.

—