Pesachim

R. 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:1 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?2 If so, what does ‘thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it’ teach? When he is subject to [the injunction], arise, eat unleavened bread,’3 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;4 Ye shall eat nothing leavened;5 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.6 And R. Simeon?7 — One refers to during its time. ‘Ye shall eat nothing leavened’ he requires for what was taught: Hamez:8 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.9 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.10 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.11 How does he know R. Jose the Galilean's [deduction]? — I can either say, because ‘this day’ is stated in proximity thereto.12 Alternatively, he does not base interpretations on the proximity of verses. 13 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.14 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.15 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,16 because he is no worse than an uncircumcised person and an alien,17 for it is written, but no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof:18 ‘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,19 and it is written in the case of the other.20 Now, who is [the authority for] our Mishnah?21 If R. Judah, he states leaven without qualification, even that of a Gentile. And if R. Simeon, onwards; and the verse is interpreted: You are to eat no leavened bread at the time that you must offer the Passover sacrifice. sacrifice is eaten, viz., in the evening, and ‘with it’ must bear the same meaning in the first half of the verse. viz., hamez. 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. unleavened bread. i.e., a nonconformist. required to show that the eating of unleavened bread is a permanent obligation. various opinions quoted.