פסחים 29 — Soncino English Talmud

¹even that of an Israelite is indeed permitted. while if [it is] R. Jose the Galilean, even during its time it is indeed permitted for [general] use? — Said R. Aha b. Jacob: In truth it is R. Judah, and he learns se'or [leaven] of ‘eating’ from se'or of seeing’: just as [with] the se'or [stated in connection] with ‘seeing’, you must not see your own, but you may see that belonging to others or to the Most High’, so [with] the se'or [written in connection] with ‘eating’, you must not eat your own, but you may eat that belonging to others or to the Most High; and logically he [the Tanna of our Mishnah] ought to teach that it is permitted even for eating, but because he teaches that that of an Israelite is forbidden for use, he also teaches that that of a Gentile is permitted for use. Again, logically he ought to teach that even during its period it is permitted for use, but because he mentions after its period in connection with that of an Israelite, he also teaches about that of a heathen after its period. Raba said: In truth it is R. Simeon; but R. Simeon does indeed penalize him, since he transgresses ‘there shall not be seen’ and ‘there shall not be found’ therewith. As for Raba, it is well: hence it is taught, BUT THAT OF AN ISRAELITE IS FORBIDDEN [FOR GENERAL USE], BECAUSE IT IS SAID, NEITHER SHALL THERE LEAVEN BE SEEN WITH THEE. But according to R. Aha b. Jacob, he should state, because [it is said], there shall no leavened bread be eaten? — Do you think that that refers to the second clause? [No,] it refers to the first clause, and he states thus: LEAVEN BELONGING TO A GENTILE OVER WHICH PASSOVER HAS PASSED IS PERMITTED FOR USE, BECAUSE IT IS SAID, NEITHER SHALL THERE BE LEAVEN SEEN WITH THEE, [implying] thine own thou must not see, but thou mayest see the leaven of strangers or of the Most High; and se'or of ‘eating’ is learnt from se'or of ‘seeing’. Now they are consistent with their views. For it was stated: If one eats se'or belonging to a heathen over which Passover has passed, according to R. Judah's view, — Raba said: He is flagellated; while R. Aha b. Jacob said: He is not flagellated. Raba said, He is flagellated: R. Judah does not learn se'or of ‘eating’ from se'or of ‘seeing’. While R. Aha b. Jacob, said, He is not flagellated: he learns se'or of ‘eating’ from se'or of ‘seeing’. But R. Aha b. Jacob retracted from that [view]. For it was taught: He who eats leaven of hekdesh during the Festival [Passover] commits trespass; but some say, He does not commit trespass. Who is [meant by] ‘some say’? — Said R. Johanan, It is R. Nehunia b. ha-Kanah. For it was taught: R. Nehunia b. ha-Kanah used to treat the Day of Atonement as the Sabbath in regard to payment: just as [with] the Sabbath, he forfeits his life and is exempt from (payment], so [with] the Day of Atonement, he forfeits his life and is exempt from payment. R. Joseph said: They differ as to whether sacred food can be redeemed in order to feed dogs therewith. He who says [that] he commits trespass holds, One may redeem sacred food in order to feed dogs therewith; while he who rules [that] he does not commit trespass holds, One may not redeem [etc.]. R. Aha b. Raba recited^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ

^ᵃnote:For general use, after its time.
^ᵇnote:I.e., he learns the prohibition of eating se'or from that of seeing se'or.
^ᶜnote:V. supra 5b.
^ᵈnote:I.e., when R. Judah teaches supra 28b that leaven even after its period is forbidden, this analogy shows that that applies to leaven belonging to a Jew only.
^ᵉnote:The leaven of a Gentile.
^ᶠnote:Our Mishnah.
^ᵍnote:Thus the Mishnah states the Rabbinic law, while in the Baraitha the Scriptural law is stated.
^ʰnote:I.e., as a penalty for violating this injunction.
^ⁱnote:That being the verse quoted by R. Judah supra 28b.
^ʲnote:The verse quoted in the Mishnah.
^ᵏnote:Sc. Raba and R. Aha b. Jacob.
^ˡnote:V. Glos.
^ᵐnote:On committing trespass V. p, 117, n. 6. The first Tanna holds that leaven belonging to hekdesh has a value even during Passover. For he agrees with R. Simeon that leaven kept during Passover is Biblically permitted after Passover, and though R. Simeon penalizes its owner, that does not apply to hekdesh, since leaven of hekdesh falls within the permissive law ‘but thou mayest see that of Heaven’. Thus this man, by eating it, has caused loss to the Temple treasury, and therefore he is liable to a trespass-offering. But the second Tanna, while admitting this, holds that since he incurs kareth for the eating of leaven, he is free from any lesser penalty, as explained in the Text.
^ⁿnote:It is a principle that if a man commits an act involving the death penalty and a monetary compensation. he is exempted from the latter owing to the greater punishment; this holds good
^ᵒnote:If these Tannaim held with R. Simeon that during Passover it is forbidden for general use, they would agree that he is not liable for trespass, since it was valueless when he actually ate it, notwithstanding that it would become valuable after Passover. But they hold with R. Jose the Galilean that leaven is permitted for use during Passover. Now, the only use to which leaven can be put then is to give it to dogs. This may be done with ordinary leaven, but there is a controversy in respect of sacred leaven. The first Tanna holds that it can be redeemed for that purpose: hence the leaven is valuable, and therefore the eater commits trespass. But the others (‘some say’) hold that sacred leaven may not be redeemed for dogs. Consequently it has no value, and the eater does not commit trespass.

²this discussion in R. Joseph's name in the following version: All agree that one may not redeem sacred food in order to feed it to dogs, but here they differ in this, viz., whether that which has indirect monetary value is as money. He who says [that] he commits trespass holds, That which has indirect monetary value is as money; while he who maintains [that] he does not commit trespass holds, That which has indirect monetary value is not as money. R. Aha b. Jacob said: All agree that that which has indirect monetary value is as money, but here they differ in the controversy of R. Judah and R. Simeon. He who says [that] he is not liable for trespass holds as R. Judah; while he who rules [that] he is liable for trespass even if he is not actually executed. E.g.. if he sets fire to another man's property on the Sabbath, since his violation of the Sabbath involves death, he is not liable for the damage. Now R. Nehunia b. ha-Kanah holds that it is the same if his act involves kareth instead of death: e.g., if he sets fire to another man's property on the Day of Atonement, the violation of which is punishable by kareth. — Thus in the present case he need not indemnify hekdesh for the leaven, in view of the kareth involved, and where that is so, there is no trespass-offering. agrees with R. Simeon. But it was R. Aha b. Jacob himself who said that R. Judah learns se'or of ‘eating’ from se'or of ‘seeing’? — Hence R. Aha b. Jacob retracted from that [statement]. R. Ashi said: All hold that we may not redeem [etc.], and that which has indirect monetary value is not as money. But here they differ in the controversy of R. Jose the Galilean and the Rabbis. He who rules [that] he is liable to trespass holds as R. Jose; while he who rules [that] he is not liable for trespass agrees with the Rabbis. Rab said: Leaven, in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, is forbidden; when not in its time, [if mixed] with its own kind, it is forbidden; [if with] a different kind, it is permitted. What are we discussing: Shall we say, where it imparts [its] taste [to the mixture], then [how state] when not in its time, if [mixed] with a different kind it is permitted? Surely it imparts taste! — Rather it refers to a minute quantity [of leaven]: ‘leaven in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, is forbidden’, Rab being consistent with his view. For Rab and Samuel both said: All forbidden things of the Torah, [if mixed] with their own kind, [render forbidden the mixture even] when there is a minute quantity; [if] with a different kind, [only] when [the forbidden element] imparts its taste. Now Rab forbade leaven in its time [when mixed] with a different kind on account of [a mixture with] its own kind. When not in its period [and mixed] with its own kind, it [the mixture] is forbidden in accordance with R. Judah: but [when leaven has no monetary value at all; nor has it any indirect monetary value, since it cannot be redeemed to feed it to dogs by selling it to a non-Jew for the purpose. mixed] with a different kind it is permitted, because [to forbid it] when not in its time and [mixed] with a different kind on account of [a mixture] with its own kind, — to that extent we do not enact a preventive measure. Samuel said: Leaven, in its time, [if mixed] with its own kind, is forbidden; if with a different kind, it is permitted. When not in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, it is permitted. ‘Leaven, in its time, [if mixed] with its own kind, is forbidden.’ Samuel is consistent with his view. For Rab and Samuel both said: All prohibited things of the Torah, [if mixed] with their own kind, [render forbidden the mixture even] when there is a minute quantity; [if mixed] with a different kind, [only] when [the forbidden element] imparts [its] flavour. Now he does not forbid [leaven mixed] with a different kind on account of [a mixture with] its own kind. ‘When not in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, it is permitted,’ — in accordance with R. Simeon. While R. Johanan said: Leaven, in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, is forbidden when it imparts [its] taste; when not in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, it is permitted. ‘Leaven, in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, [is forbidden] when it imparts [its] taste.’ R. Johanan is consistent with his view. For R. Johanan and Resh Lakish both maintain: All forbidden things in the Torah, whether [mixed] with their own kind or with a different kind, [render forbidden the mixture only] when they impart [their] taste.’ ‘When not in its time, whether [mixed] with its own kind or with a different kind, it is permitted,’- in accordance with R. Simeon.^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ

^ᵖnote:Lit., ‘a thing which leads to money’.
^ᵠnote:On this version both Tannaim agree with R. Simeon. Thus it has no present value at all, save an indirect value, since it can be used after Passover, and they disagree as to whether this deferred value can be regarded as immediate value.
^ʳnote:That all benefit is forbidden to an Israelite even after Passover, so that the
^ˢnote:That it is permissible for general use after Passover, even to an Israelite, and that it has a monetary value.
^ᵗnote:Whereby leaven of hekdesh is permitted for use during Passover even according to R. Judah.
^ᵘnote:That benefit is permitted even during Passover. This leaven could be redeemed and used as fuel.
^ᵛnote:V. supra p. 129, n. 4.
^ʷnote:Lit., ‘not with its kind’ — and similarly in the whole passage.
^ˣnote:It is a general principle that if something forbidden is mixed with something permitted and imparts its taste thereto, the whole mixture is prohibited.
^ʸnote:Insufficient to impart a flavour to the other.
^ᶻnote:Gazar means to enact a preventive measure, i.e., to forbid one case which should be permitted because it might otherwise be thought that another case, which is actually forbidden, is permitted too.