Rabbi Yehuda finishes his arguments regarding why chametz should be burned before Pesach but the rabbis in the end win the debate and contradict Rabbi Yehuda from within his own opinion. The rabbis hold that one breaks it into pieces or throws the chametz into the river before throwing into the river, does one also need to break it up into pieces. The same question is asked on a mishna from Avoda Zara 43. Raba and Rav Yosef each distinguish between the two cases but each one in an opposite manner. Chametz that a gentile owned over Pesach is permitted to a Jew after Pesach but if owned by a Jew on Pesach, it is forbidden to benefit from after Pesach. The gemara questions – according to who is this mishna? It doesn’t seem to match either of three opinions brought in a braitia regarding from when and until when is chametz forbidden by a negative transgression by Torah law and is it forbidden to benefit from. First the gemara brings sources for the different opinions and then explains why it seems the mishna doesn’t correspond to any of these opinions.
Pesachim 28
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Pesachim 28
חָזַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְדָנוֹ דִּין אַחֵר: נוֹתָר יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּ״בַל תּוֹתִירוּ״, וְחָמֵץ בְּ״בַל תּוֹתִירוּ״. מָה נוֹתָר בִּשְׂרֵיפָה — אַף חָמֵץ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.
Then Rabbi Yehuda presented a different logical derivation: The prohibition against eating and deriving benefit from leftover sacrificial meat is clearly included in the prohibition of: And you shall not leave over. And leavened bread is also included, in a sense, in the prohibition of: And you shall not leave over, as once the time it may be eaten expires, one violates the prohibitions of: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, by owning it. Just as leftover sacrificial meat is subject to burning, so too, leavened bread is subject to burning.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אָשָׁם תָּלוּי וְחַטַּאת הָעוֹף הַבָּא עַל הַסָּפֵק לִדְבָרֶיךָ יוֹכִיחוּ, שֶׁהֵן בְּ״בַל תּוֹתִירוּ״. שֶׁאָנוּ אוֹמְרִים בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, וְאַתָּה אוֹמֵר בִּקְבוּרָה! שָׁתַק רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
They said to him: According to your opinion, an uncertain guilt-offering and a bird sacrificed as a sin-offering in a case of doubt will prove that this comparison is not valid, as they are also included in the prohibition of: And you shall not leave over, since these offerings are prohibited after the time in which they may be eaten has expired. As we say that they are subject to burning, but you say that an uncertain guilt-offering is subject to burial. Rabbi Yehuda was silent, as he had no response.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, הַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: כַּפָּא דַּחֲטָא נַגָּרָא — בְּגַוַּוהּ נִשְׂרוֹף חַרְדְּלָא.
Rav Yosef said: This is as people say: In the spoon that the carpenter made, the mustard will burn his palate. In other words, one can be harmed by his own actions. Similarly, in this case the strongest proof against Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion is the one based on Rabbi Yehuda’s own statement.
(אָמַר אַבָּיֵי:) סַדָּנָא בְּסַדָּנֵי יְתֵיב — מִדְּוִיל יְדֵיהּ מִשְׁתַּלֵּים.
Abaye said another folk expression: He who made the stocks [saddana] shall sit in the stocks; he is repaid through his own handiwork.
רָבָא אָמַר: גִּירָאָה בְּגִירֵיהּ מִקְּטִיל — מִדְּוִיל יְדֵיהּ מִשְׁתַּלֵּים.
Rava said another similar saying: He who made the arrows shall be killed with his own arrows; he is repaid through his own handiwork.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים מְפָרֵר וְזוֹרֶה וְכוּ׳. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ, הֵיכִי קָאָמַר: מְפָרֵר וְזוֹרֶה לָרוּחַ, וּמְפָרֵר וּמֵטִיל לַיָּם. אוֹ דִילְמָא: מְפָרֵר וְזוֹרֶה לָרוּחַ, אֲבָל מֵטִיל לַיָּם בְּעֵינֵיהּ. תְּנַן נָמֵי גַּבֵּי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: שׁוֹחֵק וְזוֹרֶה לָרוּחַ, אוֹ מֵטִיל לַיָּם. וְאִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הֵיכִי קָאָמַר? שׁוֹחֵק וְזוֹרֶה לָרוּחַ, וְשׁוֹחֵק וּמֵטִיל לַיָּם. אוֹ דִילְמָא שׁוֹחֵק וְזוֹרֶה לָרוּחַ, אֲבָל מֵטִיל לַיָּם בְּעֵינֵיהּ.
It was taught in the mishna: And the Rabbis say that leavened bread need not be burned; rather, one may even crumble it and throw it into the wind or the sea. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case are they speaking? Do they mean that he must specifically crumble it and throw it into the wind or crumble it and throw it into the sea? Or perhaps one may crumble it and throw it into the wind, but he may cast it into the sea in its pure, unadulterated form, without crumbling it first. We also learned in a mishna with regard to idolatry in a case like this that Rabbi Yosei says: He may grind the idol and throw the dust into the wind or cast it into the sea. And a dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case are they speaking? Must one specifically grind it and throw it into the wind or grind it and throw it into the sea? Or perhaps he may grind it and throw it into the wind; however, he may throw it into the sea in its pure, unadulterated form.
אָמַר רַבָּה: מִסְתַּבְּרָא עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה דִּלְיָם הַמֶּלַח קָא אָזְלָא — לָא בָּעֵי שְׁחִיקָה. חָמֵץ דְּלִשְׁאָר נְהָרוֹת קָאָזֵיל — בָּעֵי פֵּירוּר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: אַדְּרַבָּה, אִיפְּכָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה דְּלָא מִמִּיסָּה — בָּעֵי שְׁחִיקָה. חָמֵץ דְּמִמִּיס — לָא בָּעֵי פֵּירוּר.
Rabba said: It stands to reason that since idols are thrown into the Dead Sea, they do not need grinding, as there is no concern that they will be removed and used again. However, leavened bread that may be thrown into other rivers, needs crumbling before being cast away. Rav Yosef said to him: On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable. Idols, which do not normally disintegrate in the water, need grinding. However, leavened bread, which disintegrates in the water on its own, does not need crumbling.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה, תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף. תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה: הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בַּמִּדְבָּר — מְפָרֵר וְזוֹרֶה לָרוּחַ. הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בִּסְפִינָה — מְפָרֵר וּמֵטִיל לַיָּם. תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף: הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בַּמִּדְבָּר — שׁוֹחֵק וְזוֹרֶה לָרוּחַ. הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בִּסְפִינָה — שׁוֹחֵק וּמֵטִיל לַיָּם.
A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabba and a baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef. The Gemara explains: A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabba: If one was walking in the desert with leavened bread in his hand and the time came on the eve of Passover to remove it, then he must crumble the leavened bread and throw it into the wind. If he was traveling on a ship, he must crumble the leavened bread and throw it into the sea. And a baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef: If one was walking in the desert and found an idol, he must grind it and throw it into the wind. If he was traveling on a ship, he must grind it and throw it into the sea.
שְׁחִיקָה קַשְׁיָא לְרַבָּה, פֵּירוּר קַשְׁיָא לְרַב יוֹסֵף. שְׁחִיקָה לְרַבָּה לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — לְיָם הַמֶּלַח, הָא — לִשְׁאָר נְהָרוֹת. פֵּירוּר לְרַב יוֹסֵף לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בְּחִיטֵּי, הָא — בְּנַהֲמָא.
The Gemara comments: The requirement of grinding in one baraita is difficult for Rabba, since according to his opinion there is no need to grind idols before throwing them into the sea. And the requirement of crumbling leavened bread mentioned in the other baraita is difficult for Rav Yosef, as in his opinion leavened bread need not be crumbled before it is thrown into the sea. The Gemara answers: The requirement of grinding is not difficult for Rabba. This case, where one is not required to grind it, is where he throws it into the Dead Sea. That case, where he is required to grind it before throwing it, is where he throws it into other rivers. Similarly, the requirement of crumbling is not difficult for Rav Yosef. This case is dealing with a bag of wheat that became leavened. Since wheat does not disintegrate on its own, one must grind it up and scatter it into the water. That case is referring to bread. Since bread will disintegrate in the water on its own, there is no need to crumble it.
מַתְנִי׳ חָמֵץ שֶׁל גּוֹי שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו הַפֶּסַח — מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה, וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל — אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יֵרָאֶה לְךָ שְׂאוֹר״.
MISHNA: It is permitted for a Jew to derive benefit from leavened bread of a gentile over which Passover has elapsed, i.e., leavened bread that remains after the conclusion of Passover. However, it is prohibited to derive benefit from leaven of a Jew over which Passover has elapsed, as it is stated: “And no leavened bread shall be seen with you, neither shall there be leaven seen with you, in all your borders” (Exodus 13:7).
גְּמָ׳ מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין? לָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְלָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְלָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: חָמֵץ, בֵּין לִפְנֵי זְמַנּוֹ בֵּין לְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ — עוֹבֵר עָלָיו בְּלָאו. תּוֹךְ זְמַנּוֹ — עוֹבֵר עָלָיו בְּלָאו וְכָרֵת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
GEMARA: The Gemara begins by asking: Who is the author of the mishna? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. The Gemara clarifies this question: What is the case about which these Sages disagree, and what are their opinions on this issue? The Gemara explains: As it was taught in a baraita: One who eats or derives benefit from leavened bread, whether before its time, starting at midday on Passover eve, or after its time, i.e., leavened bread over which Passover has elapsed, transgresses a negative mitzva. During its time, on Passover itself, one who eats leavened bread transgresses a negative mitzva and is liable to receive karet. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: חָמֵץ לִפְנֵי זְמַנּוֹ וּלְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ — אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו בְּלֹא כְּלוּם. תּוֹךְ זְמַנּוֹ — עוֹבֵר עָלָיו בְּכָרֵת וּבְלָאו. וּמִשָּׁעָה שֶׁאָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, אֲתָאן לְתַנָּא קַמָּא. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: תְּמַהּ עַל עַצְמְךָ, הֵיאַךְ חָמֵץ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה כׇּל שִׁבְעָה!
Rabbi Shimon says: One who eats or derives benefit from leavened bread, both before its time and after its time, does not transgress any prohibition. During its time one is liable to receive karet and transgresses a negative mitzva for eating or deriving benefit from leavened bread. And from the time that it is prohibited to eat leavened bread, beginning at midday on Passover eve, it is also prohibited to derive benefit from it. The Gemara comments: With this last sentence we have come to the opinion of the first tanna, as this statement appears to present Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion and not that of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Be astounded with yourself. How can it be prohibited to derive benefit from leavened bread for all seven days? In other words, he disagrees with the premise that it is prohibited to derive benefit from leavened bread even during the seven days of Passover.
וּמִנַּיִן לָאוֹכֵל חָמֵץ מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעְלָה שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The baraita discusses a related issue: From where is it derived that one who eats leavened bread on Passover eve from the sixth hour and onward transgresses a negative mitzva? As it is stated: “And you shall sacrifice the Paschal lamb to the Lord your God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the Lord shall choose to cause His name to dwell there. You shall eat no leavened bread with it; for seven days you shall eat matzot, the bread of affliction” (Deuteronomy 16:2–3). The juxtaposition of the Paschal lamb with the prohibition of leavened bread teaches that the prohibition to eat leavened bread begins from the time that the Paschal lamb is slaughtered, namely, the afternoon of the fourteenth of Nisan. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר כֵּן? וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תֹּאכַל עָלָיו מַצּוֹת״! אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ״? בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בְּקוּם אֱכוֹל מַצָּה — יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּבַל תֹּאכַל חָמֵץ, וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּקוּם אֱכוֹל מַצָּה — אֵינוֹ בְּבַל תֹּאכַל חָמֵץ.
Rabbi Shimon said to him: Is it possible to say this? Isn’t it already stated: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; for seven days you shall eat matzot”? Since the verse links the prohibition of leavened bread to the mitzva of eating matza, one should also say that one must eat matza on the fourteenth of Nisan. If so, what does it mean when the verse states: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it”? The verse indicates that at a time when he is under the obligation to get up and eat matza, he is subject to the prohibition of: You shall eat no leavened bread. And at a time when he is under no obligation to get up and eat matza, he is not subject to the prohibition of: You shall eat no leavened bread.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? תְּלָתָא קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי: ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ״, ״וְכׇל מַחְמֶצֶת לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״, ״לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ״. חַד לִפְנֵי זְמַנּוֹ, וְחַד לְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ, וְחַד לְתוֹךְ זְמַנּוֹ.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara explains: There are three verses that are written with regard to this prohibition, and in Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion each one teaches that the prohibition applies at a different time. One verse states: “Leavened bread shall not be eaten” (Exodus 13:3). Another verse states: “And all that which is leavened you shall not eat; in all your habitations you shall eat matzot” (Exodus 12:20). And a third verse states: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it” (Deuteronomy 16:3). One verse indicates that there is a prohibition against eating leavened bread even before its time, on Passover eve. One verse indicates that there is a prohibition against eating leavened bread after its time as well, if a Jew owned it during Passover. And one verse indicates that the prohibition applies during Passover itself.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: חַד לְתוֹךְ זְמַנּוֹ. ״וְכׇל מַחְמֶצֶת״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְחַמֵּץ מֵאֵלָיו. מֵחֲמַת דָּבָר אַחֵר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל מַחְמֶצֶת לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״.
The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Shimon interpret these three verses? The Gemara explains: One verse is required to teach about the prohibition during its time. The verse: “And all that which is leavened you shall not eat” is required for another halakha, as it was taught in a baraita: I have derived that leavened bread is prohibited only if it became leavened on its own, through its own natural process. From where do I derive that if it became leavened due to another substance it is considered to be leavened bread as well? The verse states: “All that which is leavened you shall not eat.” This indicates that all leavened bread, no matter how it became so, is forbidden during Passover.
״לֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לְפֶסַח מִצְרַיִם שֶׁאֵין חִימּוּצוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא יוֹם אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ״, וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ: ״הַיּוֹם אַתֶּם יֹצְאִים״.
The verse “Leavened bread shall not be eaten” is also required for another halakha. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: From where is it derived that the prohibition against eating leavened bread during the first Passover in Egypt applied for only one day? The verse states: “Leavened bread shall not be eaten,” and this is juxtaposed to the verse that states: “This day you go forth in the month of spring” (Exodus 13:4). This indicates that the prohibition against eating leavened bread during the first Passover in Egypt applied for only that one day.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מֵחֲמַת דָּבָר אַחֵר מְנָא לֵיהּ? מִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא בִּלְשׁוֹן מַחְמֶצֶת.
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda, from where does he derive that leavened bread that became leavened due to another substance is prohibited? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the fact that the Merciful One expresses this halakha with the general term: “That which is leavened”; no additional amplification is required.
דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי מְנָא לֵיהּ? אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִדִּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ ״הַיּוֹם״. אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: סְמוּכִין לָא דָּרֵישׁ.
The Gemara asks: And this teaching of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili with regard to the Passover in Egypt, from where does Rabbi Yehuda derive it? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that he derives it from the fact that the phrase “this day” is juxtaposed to it. In Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, the entire verse: “Leavened bread shall not be eaten” is not required to make this point; instead, this verse indicates that there is an additional time when leavened bread is prohibited. Nonetheless, the juxtaposition with the following phrase does indicate something significant, namely, that the prohibition in Egypt was limited to one day. If you wish, say instead that Rabbi Yehuda does not employ the homiletic method of juxtaposition of verses, except in limited circumstances. Accordingly, Rabbi Yehuda does not accept Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s opinion at all and holds that the prohibition against eating leavened bread during the Passover in Egypt applied for all seven days.
אָמַר מָר: וּמִנַּיִן לְאוֹכֵל חָמֵץ מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעְלָה שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר כֵּן? וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תֹּאכַל עָלָיו מַצּוֹת״.
The Master said in the aforementioned baraita: From where is it derived that one who eats leavened bread from the sixth hour and onward transgresses a negative mitzva? As it is stated: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it”; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon said to him: And is it possible to say this? Isn’t it already stated: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; for seven days you shall eat matzot,” linking the time of the prohibition against eating leavened bread with the time of the mitzva to eat matza?
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, שַׁפִּיר קָאָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר לָךְ: הָהוּא — לְקוֹבְעוֹ חוֹבָה אֲפִילּוּ בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה הוּא דַּאֲתָא.
The Gemara asks: And indeed, Rabbi Shimon is saying well to Rabbi Yehuda, so how does Rabbi Yehuda use this verse to support his opinion? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda could have said to you: That verse comes to establish it as an obligation even nowadays. One might have assumed that after the destruction of the Temple, when the Paschal lamb can no longer be brought, the obligation to eat matza no longer applies either. Therefore, the verse links the prohibition against eating leavened bread to the obligation to eat matza in order to teach that just as it is prohibited to eat leavened bread even in the absence of the Temple, so too, there remains an obligation to eat matza as well.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, לְקוֹבְעוֹ חוֹבָה מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״בָּעֶרֶב תֹּאכְלוּ״. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְטָמֵא וְשֶׁהָיָה בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּבְפֶסַח לֹא יֹאכַל — מַצָּה וּמָרוֹר נָמֵי לָא נֵיכוֹל. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon, from where does he derive the need to establish it as an obligation even after the destruction of the Temple? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the following verse: “In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, you shall eat matzot, until the twenty-first day in the evening” (Exodus 12:18). This verse connects the obligation to eat matza to the date of Passover and not only to the Paschal lamb. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda, what does he derive from this verse? The Gemara answers: He requires it to teach that there remains an obligation for one who is ritually impure or on a distant journey and cannot bring the Paschal lamb. It could enter your mind to say that since he will not eat the Paschal lamb, he is also not obligated to eat matza and bitter herbs. Therefore, the verse teaches us that he is obligated to eat them.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, טָמֵא וְשֶׁהָיָה בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא, דְּלָא גָּרַע מֵעָרֵל וּבֶן נֵכָר. דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכׇל עָרֵל לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ״ — בּוֹ הוּא אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל, אֲבָל אוֹכֵל הוּא בְּמַצָּה וּבְמָרוֹר. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: כְּתִיב בְּהַאי וּכְתִיב בְּהַאי.
And Rabbi Shimon, from where does he derive this halakha? In his opinion, a verse is not necessary to teach that one who is ritually impure or on a distant journey is obligated to eat matza and bitter herbs, as he is no worse than an uncircumcised man or a resident alien. As it is written: “And no uncircumcised man shall eat of it” (Exodus 12:48). The added emphasis in “of it” indicates that only it, the Paschal lamb, he does not eat; however, he must eat matza and bitter herbs. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda, how would he respond? The Gemara answers: Granted, the Torah did not need to add this verse. Nonetheless, it is written in this context that one who is impure or on a distant journey is obligated to eat matza and bitter herbs. And it is written in that context with regard to the uncircumcised man and the resident alien as well.
מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין? אִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה — חָמֵץ סְתָמָא קָאָמַר, אֲפִילּוּ דְּגוֹי. וְאִי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן —
After clarifying the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, the Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna taught? If one suggests that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, this cannot be, as Rabbi Yehuda said leavened bread without stipulation that the leavened bread belong to a Jew, indicating that one may not even benefit from leavened bread of a gentile over which Passover elapsed. Therefore, since this opinion contradicts the statement made in the mishna discussed here, Rabbi Yehuda can be ruled out as its author. And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon,
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
Tel Aviv, Israel
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
Palo Alto, CA, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
Raanana, Israel
Ontario, Canada
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
Los Angeles, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
Pesachim 28
חָזַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְדָנוֹ דִּין אַחֵר: נוֹתָר יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּ״בַל תּוֹתִירוּ״, וְחָמֵץ בְּ״בַל תּוֹתִירוּ״. מָה נוֹתָר בִּשְׂרֵיפָה — אַף חָמֵץ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.
Then Rabbi Yehuda presented a different logical derivation: The prohibition against eating and deriving benefit from leftover sacrificial meat is clearly included in the prohibition of: And you shall not leave over. And leavened bread is also included, in a sense, in the prohibition of: And you shall not leave over, as once the time it may be eaten expires, one violates the prohibitions of: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, by owning it. Just as leftover sacrificial meat is subject to burning, so too, leavened bread is subject to burning.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אָשָׁם תָּלוּי וְחַטַּאת הָעוֹף הַבָּא עַל הַסָּפֵק לִדְבָרֶיךָ יוֹכִיחוּ, שֶׁהֵן בְּ״בַל תּוֹתִירוּ״. שֶׁאָנוּ אוֹמְרִים בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, וְאַתָּה אוֹמֵר בִּקְבוּרָה! שָׁתַק רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
They said to him: According to your opinion, an uncertain guilt-offering and a bird sacrificed as a sin-offering in a case of doubt will prove that this comparison is not valid, as they are also included in the prohibition of: And you shall not leave over, since these offerings are prohibited after the time in which they may be eaten has expired. As we say that they are subject to burning, but you say that an uncertain guilt-offering is subject to burial. Rabbi Yehuda was silent, as he had no response.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, הַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: כַּפָּא דַּחֲטָא נַגָּרָא — בְּגַוַּוהּ נִשְׂרוֹף חַרְדְּלָא.
Rav Yosef said: This is as people say: In the spoon that the carpenter made, the mustard will burn his palate. In other words, one can be harmed by his own actions. Similarly, in this case the strongest proof against Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion is the one based on Rabbi Yehuda’s own statement.
(אָמַר אַבָּיֵי:) סַדָּנָא בְּסַדָּנֵי יְתֵיב — מִדְּוִיל יְדֵיהּ מִשְׁתַּלֵּים.
Abaye said another folk expression: He who made the stocks [saddana] shall sit in the stocks; he is repaid through his own handiwork.
רָבָא אָמַר: גִּירָאָה בְּגִירֵיהּ מִקְּטִיל — מִדְּוִיל יְדֵיהּ מִשְׁתַּלֵּים.
Rava said another similar saying: He who made the arrows shall be killed with his own arrows; he is repaid through his own handiwork.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים מְפָרֵר וְזוֹרֶה וְכוּ׳. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ, הֵיכִי קָאָמַר: מְפָרֵר וְזוֹרֶה לָרוּחַ, וּמְפָרֵר וּמֵטִיל לַיָּם. אוֹ דִילְמָא: מְפָרֵר וְזוֹרֶה לָרוּחַ, אֲבָל מֵטִיל לַיָּם בְּעֵינֵיהּ. תְּנַן נָמֵי גַּבֵּי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: שׁוֹחֵק וְזוֹרֶה לָרוּחַ, אוֹ מֵטִיל לַיָּם. וְאִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הֵיכִי קָאָמַר? שׁוֹחֵק וְזוֹרֶה לָרוּחַ, וְשׁוֹחֵק וּמֵטִיל לַיָּם. אוֹ דִילְמָא שׁוֹחֵק וְזוֹרֶה לָרוּחַ, אֲבָל מֵטִיל לַיָּם בְּעֵינֵיהּ.
It was taught in the mishna: And the Rabbis say that leavened bread need not be burned; rather, one may even crumble it and throw it into the wind or the sea. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case are they speaking? Do they mean that he must specifically crumble it and throw it into the wind or crumble it and throw it into the sea? Or perhaps one may crumble it and throw it into the wind, but he may cast it into the sea in its pure, unadulterated form, without crumbling it first. We also learned in a mishna with regard to idolatry in a case like this that Rabbi Yosei says: He may grind the idol and throw the dust into the wind or cast it into the sea. And a dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case are they speaking? Must one specifically grind it and throw it into the wind or grind it and throw it into the sea? Or perhaps he may grind it and throw it into the wind; however, he may throw it into the sea in its pure, unadulterated form.
אָמַר רַבָּה: מִסְתַּבְּרָא עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה דִּלְיָם הַמֶּלַח קָא אָזְלָא — לָא בָּעֵי שְׁחִיקָה. חָמֵץ דְּלִשְׁאָר נְהָרוֹת קָאָזֵיל — בָּעֵי פֵּירוּר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: אַדְּרַבָּה, אִיפְּכָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה דְּלָא מִמִּיסָּה — בָּעֵי שְׁחִיקָה. חָמֵץ דְּמִמִּיס — לָא בָּעֵי פֵּירוּר.
Rabba said: It stands to reason that since idols are thrown into the Dead Sea, they do not need grinding, as there is no concern that they will be removed and used again. However, leavened bread that may be thrown into other rivers, needs crumbling before being cast away. Rav Yosef said to him: On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable. Idols, which do not normally disintegrate in the water, need grinding. However, leavened bread, which disintegrates in the water on its own, does not need crumbling.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה, תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף. תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה: הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בַּמִּדְבָּר — מְפָרֵר וְזוֹרֶה לָרוּחַ. הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בִּסְפִינָה — מְפָרֵר וּמֵטִיל לַיָּם. תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף: הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בַּמִּדְבָּר — שׁוֹחֵק וְזוֹרֶה לָרוּחַ. הָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בִּסְפִינָה — שׁוֹחֵק וּמֵטִיל לַיָּם.
A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabba and a baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef. The Gemara explains: A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabba: If one was walking in the desert with leavened bread in his hand and the time came on the eve of Passover to remove it, then he must crumble the leavened bread and throw it into the wind. If he was traveling on a ship, he must crumble the leavened bread and throw it into the sea. And a baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef: If one was walking in the desert and found an idol, he must grind it and throw it into the wind. If he was traveling on a ship, he must grind it and throw it into the sea.
שְׁחִיקָה קַשְׁיָא לְרַבָּה, פֵּירוּר קַשְׁיָא לְרַב יוֹסֵף. שְׁחִיקָה לְרַבָּה לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — לְיָם הַמֶּלַח, הָא — לִשְׁאָר נְהָרוֹת. פֵּירוּר לְרַב יוֹסֵף לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בְּחִיטֵּי, הָא — בְּנַהֲמָא.
The Gemara comments: The requirement of grinding in one baraita is difficult for Rabba, since according to his opinion there is no need to grind idols before throwing them into the sea. And the requirement of crumbling leavened bread mentioned in the other baraita is difficult for Rav Yosef, as in his opinion leavened bread need not be crumbled before it is thrown into the sea. The Gemara answers: The requirement of grinding is not difficult for Rabba. This case, where one is not required to grind it, is where he throws it into the Dead Sea. That case, where he is required to grind it before throwing it, is where he throws it into other rivers. Similarly, the requirement of crumbling is not difficult for Rav Yosef. This case is dealing with a bag of wheat that became leavened. Since wheat does not disintegrate on its own, one must grind it up and scatter it into the water. That case is referring to bread. Since bread will disintegrate in the water on its own, there is no need to crumble it.
מַתְנִי׳ חָמֵץ שֶׁל גּוֹי שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו הַפֶּסַח — מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה, וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל — אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יֵרָאֶה לְךָ שְׂאוֹר״.
MISHNA: It is permitted for a Jew to derive benefit from leavened bread of a gentile over which Passover has elapsed, i.e., leavened bread that remains after the conclusion of Passover. However, it is prohibited to derive benefit from leaven of a Jew over which Passover has elapsed, as it is stated: “And no leavened bread shall be seen with you, neither shall there be leaven seen with you, in all your borders” (Exodus 13:7).
גְּמָ׳ מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין? לָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְלָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְלָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: חָמֵץ, בֵּין לִפְנֵי זְמַנּוֹ בֵּין לְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ — עוֹבֵר עָלָיו בְּלָאו. תּוֹךְ זְמַנּוֹ — עוֹבֵר עָלָיו בְּלָאו וְכָרֵת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
GEMARA: The Gemara begins by asking: Who is the author of the mishna? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. The Gemara clarifies this question: What is the case about which these Sages disagree, and what are their opinions on this issue? The Gemara explains: As it was taught in a baraita: One who eats or derives benefit from leavened bread, whether before its time, starting at midday on Passover eve, or after its time, i.e., leavened bread over which Passover has elapsed, transgresses a negative mitzva. During its time, on Passover itself, one who eats leavened bread transgresses a negative mitzva and is liable to receive karet. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: חָמֵץ לִפְנֵי זְמַנּוֹ וּלְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ — אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו בְּלֹא כְּלוּם. תּוֹךְ זְמַנּוֹ — עוֹבֵר עָלָיו בְּכָרֵת וּבְלָאו. וּמִשָּׁעָה שֶׁאָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, אֲתָאן לְתַנָּא קַמָּא. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: תְּמַהּ עַל עַצְמְךָ, הֵיאַךְ חָמֵץ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה כׇּל שִׁבְעָה!
Rabbi Shimon says: One who eats or derives benefit from leavened bread, both before its time and after its time, does not transgress any prohibition. During its time one is liable to receive karet and transgresses a negative mitzva for eating or deriving benefit from leavened bread. And from the time that it is prohibited to eat leavened bread, beginning at midday on Passover eve, it is also prohibited to derive benefit from it. The Gemara comments: With this last sentence we have come to the opinion of the first tanna, as this statement appears to present Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion and not that of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Be astounded with yourself. How can it be prohibited to derive benefit from leavened bread for all seven days? In other words, he disagrees with the premise that it is prohibited to derive benefit from leavened bread even during the seven days of Passover.
וּמִנַּיִן לָאוֹכֵל חָמֵץ מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעְלָה שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The baraita discusses a related issue: From where is it derived that one who eats leavened bread on Passover eve from the sixth hour and onward transgresses a negative mitzva? As it is stated: “And you shall sacrifice the Paschal lamb to the Lord your God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the Lord shall choose to cause His name to dwell there. You shall eat no leavened bread with it; for seven days you shall eat matzot, the bread of affliction” (Deuteronomy 16:2–3). The juxtaposition of the Paschal lamb with the prohibition of leavened bread teaches that the prohibition to eat leavened bread begins from the time that the Paschal lamb is slaughtered, namely, the afternoon of the fourteenth of Nisan. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר כֵּן? וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תֹּאכַל עָלָיו מַצּוֹת״! אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ״? בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בְּקוּם אֱכוֹל מַצָּה — יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּבַל תֹּאכַל חָמֵץ, וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּקוּם אֱכוֹל מַצָּה — אֵינוֹ בְּבַל תֹּאכַל חָמֵץ.
Rabbi Shimon said to him: Is it possible to say this? Isn’t it already stated: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; for seven days you shall eat matzot”? Since the verse links the prohibition of leavened bread to the mitzva of eating matza, one should also say that one must eat matza on the fourteenth of Nisan. If so, what does it mean when the verse states: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it”? The verse indicates that at a time when he is under the obligation to get up and eat matza, he is subject to the prohibition of: You shall eat no leavened bread. And at a time when he is under no obligation to get up and eat matza, he is not subject to the prohibition of: You shall eat no leavened bread.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? תְּלָתָא קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי: ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ״, ״וְכׇל מַחְמֶצֶת לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״, ״לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ״. חַד לִפְנֵי זְמַנּוֹ, וְחַד לְאַחַר זְמַנּוֹ, וְחַד לְתוֹךְ זְמַנּוֹ.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara explains: There are three verses that are written with regard to this prohibition, and in Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion each one teaches that the prohibition applies at a different time. One verse states: “Leavened bread shall not be eaten” (Exodus 13:3). Another verse states: “And all that which is leavened you shall not eat; in all your habitations you shall eat matzot” (Exodus 12:20). And a third verse states: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it” (Deuteronomy 16:3). One verse indicates that there is a prohibition against eating leavened bread even before its time, on Passover eve. One verse indicates that there is a prohibition against eating leavened bread after its time as well, if a Jew owned it during Passover. And one verse indicates that the prohibition applies during Passover itself.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: חַד לְתוֹךְ זְמַנּוֹ. ״וְכׇל מַחְמֶצֶת״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְחַמֵּץ מֵאֵלָיו. מֵחֲמַת דָּבָר אַחֵר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל מַחְמֶצֶת לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״.
The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Shimon interpret these three verses? The Gemara explains: One verse is required to teach about the prohibition during its time. The verse: “And all that which is leavened you shall not eat” is required for another halakha, as it was taught in a baraita: I have derived that leavened bread is prohibited only if it became leavened on its own, through its own natural process. From where do I derive that if it became leavened due to another substance it is considered to be leavened bread as well? The verse states: “All that which is leavened you shall not eat.” This indicates that all leavened bread, no matter how it became so, is forbidden during Passover.
״לֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לְפֶסַח מִצְרַיִם שֶׁאֵין חִימּוּצוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא יוֹם אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ״, וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ: ״הַיּוֹם אַתֶּם יֹצְאִים״.
The verse “Leavened bread shall not be eaten” is also required for another halakha. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: From where is it derived that the prohibition against eating leavened bread during the first Passover in Egypt applied for only one day? The verse states: “Leavened bread shall not be eaten,” and this is juxtaposed to the verse that states: “This day you go forth in the month of spring” (Exodus 13:4). This indicates that the prohibition against eating leavened bread during the first Passover in Egypt applied for only that one day.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מֵחֲמַת דָּבָר אַחֵר מְנָא לֵיהּ? מִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא בִּלְשׁוֹן מַחְמֶצֶת.
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda, from where does he derive that leavened bread that became leavened due to another substance is prohibited? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the fact that the Merciful One expresses this halakha with the general term: “That which is leavened”; no additional amplification is required.
דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי מְנָא לֵיהּ? אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִדִּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ ״הַיּוֹם״. אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: סְמוּכִין לָא דָּרֵישׁ.
The Gemara asks: And this teaching of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili with regard to the Passover in Egypt, from where does Rabbi Yehuda derive it? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that he derives it from the fact that the phrase “this day” is juxtaposed to it. In Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, the entire verse: “Leavened bread shall not be eaten” is not required to make this point; instead, this verse indicates that there is an additional time when leavened bread is prohibited. Nonetheless, the juxtaposition with the following phrase does indicate something significant, namely, that the prohibition in Egypt was limited to one day. If you wish, say instead that Rabbi Yehuda does not employ the homiletic method of juxtaposition of verses, except in limited circumstances. Accordingly, Rabbi Yehuda does not accept Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s opinion at all and holds that the prohibition against eating leavened bread during the Passover in Egypt applied for all seven days.
אָמַר מָר: וּמִנַּיִן לְאוֹכֵל חָמֵץ מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעְלָה שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר כֵּן? וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תֹּאכַל עָלָיו מַצּוֹת״.
The Master said in the aforementioned baraita: From where is it derived that one who eats leavened bread from the sixth hour and onward transgresses a negative mitzva? As it is stated: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it”; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon said to him: And is it possible to say this? Isn’t it already stated: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; for seven days you shall eat matzot,” linking the time of the prohibition against eating leavened bread with the time of the mitzva to eat matza?
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, שַׁפִּיר קָאָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר לָךְ: הָהוּא — לְקוֹבְעוֹ חוֹבָה אֲפִילּוּ בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה הוּא דַּאֲתָא.
The Gemara asks: And indeed, Rabbi Shimon is saying well to Rabbi Yehuda, so how does Rabbi Yehuda use this verse to support his opinion? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda could have said to you: That verse comes to establish it as an obligation even nowadays. One might have assumed that after the destruction of the Temple, when the Paschal lamb can no longer be brought, the obligation to eat matza no longer applies either. Therefore, the verse links the prohibition against eating leavened bread to the obligation to eat matza in order to teach that just as it is prohibited to eat leavened bread even in the absence of the Temple, so too, there remains an obligation to eat matza as well.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, לְקוֹבְעוֹ חוֹבָה מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״בָּעֶרֶב תֹּאכְלוּ״. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְטָמֵא וְשֶׁהָיָה בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּבְפֶסַח לֹא יֹאכַל — מַצָּה וּמָרוֹר נָמֵי לָא נֵיכוֹל. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon, from where does he derive the need to establish it as an obligation even after the destruction of the Temple? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the following verse: “In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, you shall eat matzot, until the twenty-first day in the evening” (Exodus 12:18). This verse connects the obligation to eat matza to the date of Passover and not only to the Paschal lamb. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda, what does he derive from this verse? The Gemara answers: He requires it to teach that there remains an obligation for one who is ritually impure or on a distant journey and cannot bring the Paschal lamb. It could enter your mind to say that since he will not eat the Paschal lamb, he is also not obligated to eat matza and bitter herbs. Therefore, the verse teaches us that he is obligated to eat them.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, טָמֵא וְשֶׁהָיָה בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא, דְּלָא גָּרַע מֵעָרֵל וּבֶן נֵכָר. דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכׇל עָרֵל לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ״ — בּוֹ הוּא אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל, אֲבָל אוֹכֵל הוּא בְּמַצָּה וּבְמָרוֹר. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: כְּתִיב בְּהַאי וּכְתִיב בְּהַאי.
And Rabbi Shimon, from where does he derive this halakha? In his opinion, a verse is not necessary to teach that one who is ritually impure or on a distant journey is obligated to eat matza and bitter herbs, as he is no worse than an uncircumcised man or a resident alien. As it is written: “And no uncircumcised man shall eat of it” (Exodus 12:48). The added emphasis in “of it” indicates that only it, the Paschal lamb, he does not eat; however, he must eat matza and bitter herbs. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda, how would he respond? The Gemara answers: Granted, the Torah did not need to add this verse. Nonetheless, it is written in this context that one who is impure or on a distant journey is obligated to eat matza and bitter herbs. And it is written in that context with regard to the uncircumcised man and the resident alien as well.
מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין? אִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה — חָמֵץ סְתָמָא קָאָמַר, אֲפִילּוּ דְּגוֹי. וְאִי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן —
After clarifying the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, the Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna taught? If one suggests that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, this cannot be, as Rabbi Yehuda said leavened bread without stipulation that the leavened bread belong to a Jew, indicating that one may not even benefit from leavened bread of a gentile over which Passover elapsed. Therefore, since this opinion contradicts the statement made in the mishna discussed here, Rabbi Yehuda can be ruled out as its author. And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon,
