פסחים 28 — Soncino English Talmud

¹R. Judah argued again [with] another argument: Nothar is subject to ‘ye shall let nothing of it remain,’ and leaven is subject to ‘ye shall let nothing of it remain’: just as nothar [is disposed of] by burning, so is leaven [disposed of] by burning. Said they to him, Let the guilt-offering of suspense and the sin-offering of a bird which is brought for a doubt, on your view, prove it: for they are subject to ‘ye shall let nothing of it remain,’ and we maintain that they require burning, while you say [it is disposed of] by burial. [Thereupon] R. Judah was silent. Said R. Joseph: Thus people say, The ladle which the artisan hollowed out, in it [his tongue] shall be burnt with mustard. Abaye said: When the maker of the stocks sits in his own stock, he is paid with the clue which his own hand wound. Raba said: When the arrow maker is slain by his own arrows, he is paid with the clue which his own hand wound. BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: HE CRUMBLES AND THROWS IT etc. The scholars asked: How is it meant: He crumbles and throws it to the wind, or he crumbles and throws it into the sea; or perhaps, he crumbles and throws it to the wind, but he may throw it into the sea whole [without crumbling]? And we learned similarly in connection with an idol too: R. Jose said: He crushes and throws it to the wind or casts it into the sea. And the scholars asked: How is it meant: He crushes and throws it to the wind, or he crushes and casts it into the sea; or perhaps, he crushes and throws it to the wind, but he may cast it into the sea whole [without crushing?]—Said Rabbah: It is logical that an idol, which goes into the Dead Sea, need not be crushed; leaven, which goes into other streams, needs crumbling. Said R. Joseph to him, On the contrary, the logic is the reverse: An idol, which does not dissolve, needs crushing; leaven, which dissolves, does not need crumbling. It was taught in accordance with Rabbah; it was taught in accordance with R. Joseph. It was taught in accordance with Rabbah: If he was walking in a wilderness, he crumbles it [the leaven] and casts it to the wind; if he was travelling in a ship, he crumbles it and casts it into the sea. It was taught in accordance with R. Joseph: If he was travelling in the desert, he crushes [the idol] and throws it to the wind; if he was travelling in a ship, he crushes and casts it into the sea. [The teaching requiring] ‘crushing’ is a difficulty according to Rabbah, [while the teaching requiring] ‘crumbling’ is a difficulty according to R. Jose? ‘Crushing’ is not a difficulty according to Rabbah: one means into the Dead Sea, the other means into other waters. ‘Crumbling’ is not a difficulty according to R. Joseph: One refers to wheat [grains], the other refers to bread. MISHNAH. LEAVEN BELONGING TO A GENTILE OVER WHICH PASSOVER HAS PASSED IS PERMITTED FOR USE; BUT THAT OF AN ISRAELITE IS FORBIDDEN FOR USE, BECAUSE IT IS SAID, NEITHER SHALL THERE BE LEAVEN SEEN WITH THEE. GEMARA. Who is [the authority of] our Mishnah: it is neither R. Judah nor R. Simeon nor R. Jose the Galilean. What is this [allusion]? — For it was taught: [As to] leaven, both before its time and after its time, he transgresses a negative command on its account; during its time, he transgresses a negative command and [commits a sin subject to] kareth.17^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ

^ᵃnote:Ex. XII, 10.
^ᵇnote:Since leaven must not be seen or found in the house after midday on the fourteenth of Nisan, it may obviously not remain there until then.
^ᶜnote:I.e., doubt. When a man is in doubt whether he has committed a transgression for which, if certain, a sin-offering is due, he brings a guilt-offering of suspense.
^ᵈnote:E.g., when a woman miscarries, and it is not known whether the fetus was viable or not.
^ᵉnote:V. Tem. 34a. The Rabbis hold that this bird sin-offering must be burnt, while R. Judah maintains that it is cast into a waterduct which carries it off.
^ᶠnote:In common with all sacrifices.
^ᵍnote:This refers to the guilt-offering of suspense.
^ʰnote:Or, from it he shall swallow mustard.
^ⁱnote:Jast. Rashi, he is paid by the uplifting— i.e., the work —of his own hand.
^ʲnote:For the Dead Sea is unnavigable; hence none will pick it up.
^ᵏnote:That leaven requires ‘crumbling’.
^ˡnote:That an idol requires ‘crushing’.
^ᵐnote:The idol need not be crushed before it is thrown thither.
^ⁿnote:Which had turned leaven. These must be crumbled, i.e., scattered into the sea. But they may not be tied in a sack and thrown into the sea, lest someone finds the sack.
^ᵒnote:I.e., it had been kept over Passover.
^ᵖnote:Ex. XIII, 7.
^ᵠnote:During its (forbidden) time means during Passover. Before its time, from six hours (mid-day) on the fourteenth of Nisan until evening, when Passover commences; after its time, after Passover — i.e., leaven which was kept from before until after Passover. He transgresses by eating it.

²R. Simeon said: [As to] leaven, before and after its time, he does not transgress anything at all on its account; during its time, he transgresses on its account [an interdict subject to] kareth and a negative command. And from the hour that it is forbidden for eating, it is forbidden for [general] use; this agrees with the first Tanna. R. Jose the Galilean said: Wonder at yourself! How can leaven be prohibited for [general] use the whole seven [days]? And how do we know of him who eats leaven from six hours and onwards that he transgresses a negative command? Because it is said, Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it: this is R. Judah's opinion. Said R. Simeon to him: Is it then possible to say thus, seeing that it is already stated, Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith? If so, what does ‘thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it’ teach? When he is subject to [the injunction], arise, eat unleavened bread,’ he is subject to [the prohibition], ‘do not eat leavened bread’; and when he is not subject to, ‘arise, eat unleavened bread,’ he is not subject to, ‘do not eat leavened bread.’ What is R. Judah's reason? — Three verses are written: There shall no leavened bread be eaten; Ye shall eat nothing leavened; and Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it. One refers to before its time; another to after its time; and the third to during its time. And R. Simeon? — One refers to during its time. ‘Ye shall eat nothing leavened’ he requires for what was taught: Hamez: I only know [that it is forbidden] where it turned leaven of its own accord; if [it turned leaven] through another substance, how do we know it? Therefore it is stated, Ye shall eat nothing leavened. There shall no leavened bread be eaten’ he requires for what was taught: R. Jose the Galilean said: How do we know that at the Passover of Egypt its [prohibition of] leaven was in force one day only? Because it is said, ‘There shall no leavened bread be eaten’, and in proximity thereto [is written], This day ye go forth. And R. Judah: how does he know [that it is prohibited when made leaven] through another substance? — Because the Divine Law expressed it in the term mahmezeth. How does he know R. Jose the Galilean's [deduction]? — I can either say, because ‘this day’ is stated in proximity thereto. Alternatively, he does not base interpretations on the proximity of verses. The Master said: ‘And how do we know of him who eats leaven from six hours and onwards that he transgresses a negative command? Because it is said, Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it: this is R. Judah's opinion. Said R. Simeon to him: Is it then possible to say thus, Seeing that it is already stated, Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith?’ Now as to R. Judah, R. Simeon says well to him?- R. Judah can answer you: [The purpose of] that [verse] is to make it a statutory obligation even for nowadays. And R. Simeon? Whence does he know to make it a statutory obligation [even nowadays]! — He deduces it from, at even ye shall eat unleavened bread. And R. Judah? — He requires that in respect of an unclean person or one who was on a distant journey. I might say, since he cannot eat the Passover sacrifice, he need not eat unleavened bread or bitter herbs either. Hence we are informed [that it is not so]. And R. Simeon? — For an unclean person or one who was on a distant journey no verse is required, because he is no worse than an uncircumcised person and an alien, for it is written, but no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof: ‘thereof’ he shall not eat, but he eats of unleavened bread and bitter herbs. And R. Judah? It is written in the case of one, and it is written in the case of the other. Now, who is [the authority for] our Mishnah? If R. Judah, he states leaven without qualification, even that of a Gentile. And if R. Simeon,^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ

^ʳnote:Deut. XVI, 3. ‘It’ refers to the Passover sacrifice, which was offered on the fourteenth of Nisan from mid-day and onwards; and the verse is interpreted: You are to eat no leavened bread at the time that you must offer the Passover sacrifice.
^ˢnote:Now, unleavened bread (mazzah) was not eaten before evening; hence ‘therewith’ must mean when the Passover sacrifice is eaten, viz., in the evening, and ‘with it’ must bear the same meaning in the first half of the verse.
^ᵗnote:I.e., in the evening.
^ᵘnote:Ex. XIII, 3.
^ᵛnote:Ibid. XII, 20.
^ʷnote:On the meaning of these terms v. p. 129, n. 4.
^ˣnote:How does he interpret these verses?
^ʸnote:In Ex. XIII, 3 and Deut. XVI, 3 (E.V. leavened bread).
^ᶻnote:Heb. mahmezeth. This implies even if fermentation was induced by something else.
^ᵃᵃnote:Ex. XIII. 4. He translates: There shall no leavened bread be eaten (on) this day (that) ye go forth.
^ᵃᵇnote:‘Leavened’; v. n. 8. This implies an additional teaching, for otherwise the three verses should use the same term, viz., hamez.
^ᵃᶜnote:Thus this too conveys an additional teaching.
^ᵃᵈnote:And thus he rejects the view that at the Exodus the prohibition of leaven was for one day only.
^ᵃᵉnote:The verse does not assimilate the prohibition of leavened bread to the precept of eating unleavened bread, in the sense that the former is valid only when the latter is, but the reverse: the latter is assimilated to the former. As long as leaven is prohibited, there is an obligation to eat unleavened bread, i.e., even nowadays, after the destruction of the Temple and the cessation of sacrifices. For I might think, since it is written, they shall eat it (sc. the Passover sacrifice) with unleavened bread and bitter herbs (Num. IX, 11), the obligation to eat unleavened bread holds good only as long as the Passover sacrifice is offered. Hence this verse teaches that it is not so.
^ᵃᶠnote:Ex. XII, 18. This is otherwise superfluous, since it is stated in v. 8, and they shall eat the flesh in that night ... and unleavened bread.
^ᵃᵍnote:That he has to eat unleavened bread.
^ᵃʰnote:V. Ex. XII, 43. According to the Talmud, Shab. 87a this means a Jew whose acts have alienated him from Heaven, i.e., a nonconformist.
^ᵃⁱnote:Ibid. 48.
^ᵃʲnote:Sc. an uncircumcised person and an ‘alien’.
^ᵃᵏnote:Sc. an unclean person and one who was on a distant journey; v. infra 120a, p. 619, n. 6. Hence Deut. XVI, 3 is still required to show that the eating of unleavened bread is a permanent obligation.
^ᵃˡnote:Here the Talmud reverts to its original question (supra a bottom), which was interrupted for a discussion of the various opinions quoted.