Talmud sobre Exodo 12:15

HALAKHAH: “At nightfall of the fourteenth,” etc. It is written⁵Ex. 12:17–18.: You shall guard the mazzot, because on this same day I took out your multitudes fromthe Land of Egypt. On the first, on the fourteenth of the month, in the evening, you shall eat mazzot, etc. Where do we hold⁶What means on the first? Does it mean on the first month, or on the first day of the holidays?? If for eating mazzah, is it not already written, seven days you shall eat mazzot⁷Ex. 12:15.? Or if to say that one starts on the Fourteenth, is it not written, until the twenty-first of the month⁵Ex. 12:17–18.? But if it is not needed as a reference to the eating of mazzah, take it as a reference to the elimination of leavened matter⁸As usual, the argument partially refers to parts of the verse which are not quoted in the text. It says in 12:15, seven days you shall eat mazzot, only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses. No calendar date has been given. One could read v. 17 to state that mazzot have to be eaten and leavened matter eliminated on the 14^th. This is impossible since the same verse states that the seventh day is the 21^st. Therefore the obligation to eat mazzot starts in the evening preceding the 15^th. Since it is accepted doctrine that the calendar day starts at nightfall of the preceding night, the reference to the 14^th cannot possibly refer to eating, but must give the date of the elimination of leavened matter for which the search in the preceding night is a preparation..

“It is written: Any leavened matter you shall not eat¹⁶Ex. 12:20., to include Babylonian kutah, and Median beer, and Edomite vinegar, in the admonition. I might think that these are subject to extirpation, the verse says, for anybody who eats leavened bread will be extirpated¹⁷Ex. 12:15. Babli 33a, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Ba 10 (p. 35), dR. Simeon ben Yohay12:20 (p.24)..“The colleagues asked before Rebbi Jonah: Here it is written any, and there it is written any. Here you are adding but there you are excluding¹⁸Both in v. 15 and in v. 20 is written any. Why in matters of the prohibition one includes admixture of leavening but in matters of extirpation one excludes it?. He told them, there He added eaters but there He added edibles¹⁹In both cases, “any” implies addition and extension. In v. 15, any who eats, includes women who are obligated to eat mazzah even though this is a positive commandment activated at a fixed date from which in general women are exempted (Mishnah Qiddušin 1:7). V. 20 any leavened matter includes admixture of leavening to edibles.. They objected, was it not stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”²⁰Cf. Chapter 2, Note 233.. And for these²¹Median beer. One agrees that Babylonian kutah might not trigger extirpation since the amount of leavened matter is small, but why should beer, which essentially is water and malt, be treated differently from bread which is water and flour?, because they are mostly grain, he should be liable. He told them, there is a difference, for it is written bread, and these are not bread. Rebbi Yose objected, was it not stated that only mazzah is called bread, seven days you shall eat mazzot, the bread of deprivation²²Deut. 16:3. Since mazzah is called bread, it is clear that the positive commandment to eat mazzah can only be fulfilled by eating azyme bread. But leavened matter is always called חָמֵץ, and never is explicitly called “bread”; there seems to be no reason why extirpation should be restricted to those who eat bread.? But here you infer mazzah from leavened bread? In addition, from the following which was stated: “A person may acquit himself of his obligation with a soaked wafer, or a cooked wafer, as long as it did not lose its shape.²³Babli 41a, Berakhot 38b.” It only says, “as long as it did not lose its shape,” therefore not if it lost its shape. But in the matter of leavened bread you are saying, if he mashed leavened bread and slurped it, he is liable²⁴It is true that the positive commandment can be fulfilled only with bread but the prohibition extends to anything produced from leavened flour.. How is this? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Idi: Their²⁵The items enumerated in the Mishnah. leavening is not clear leavening. Should he be flogged? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Concerning flogging, he cannot be flogged, as it was stated: On certain leavened bread he is subject to extirpation, for its admixture he receives forty [lashes]²⁶Since Ex. 12:20 states a general prohibition for food with an admixture of leavened matter, transgression has to be punished by the generic punishment prescribed for all prohibitions for which no particular punishment is specified.
G has an additional sentence: “The word of Rebbi (probably meaning Rabbenu, i. e., Rav) implies that he is not flogged.” On the other hand, a sentence of the ms. text is missing in G because of homoioteleuton.. Rav said, that is sour dough. He could have said, that is Babylonian kutah, and Median beer²⁷Since Rav explains that one is flogged for consuming something containing an admixture of sour dough but not the items enumerated in the Mishnah, one may conclude that only active souring agent exposes one to flogging.. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: Explain it if leavened bread and mazzah were mixed²⁸The preceding argument may be irrelevant since the baraita can be explained as referring directly to bread, eaten alone or with other edibles.. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty for Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: Where do we hold? If most of it was leavened bread, he is subject to extirpation. If most of it is mazzah, he could use it to fulfill his obligation on Passover²⁹Since by biblical standards, anything greater than 50% is counted as whole. Since the mixture still is forbidden, the argument is possible only for R. Yose (cf. Šabbat 13, Note 56), but nobody else.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Joshua from Ono stated: Explain it if the amount of leavened bread was less than the volume of an olive, following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, the most minute amount for flogging³⁰Babli Makkot 17a, Ševuot 21a, 24b, Menaḥot4a, Meˋilah18a. R. Simeon restricts the possibility of a purification sacrifice to the case that a person ingested at least the volume of an olive of food forbidden under punishment of extirpation (such as forbidden fat or leavened matter on Passover) but admits the possibility of criminal prosecution for the most minute amount..

It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, leavened matter may only be eliminated by burning.⁶⁶The first and last paragraphs in this section are also quoted in the Babli, 27b–28a; Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥay ad Ex. 12:15, pp. 17–18.. It is an argument de minore ad majus. Since piggul⁶⁷Sacrifices which were offered with the intention that the meat be eaten out of place or time; Lev. 19:7. and leftover⁶⁸Sacrificial meat left over after the time allotted for its consumption, depending on the kind of sacrifice either day and night or two daytimes with the night in between., which are not under an injunction not to be seen and not to be found, only may be disposed of by burning, for leavened matter which is under an injunction not to be seen and not to be found, it is only logical that it only may be disposed by burning. They told Rebbi Jehudah, any argument de minore ad majus which you argue in the beginning as a restriction but it turns out in the end to be a leniency, is no argument de minore ad majus⁶⁹The premise that there be a case of major and minor is disproved. Cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, Ph. Longworth, ed., London 1966, pp. 171–196.. It would imply that if he does not find fire he could sit and not dispose of it. The Torah said⁷⁰Ex. 12:15., eliminate sour dough from your houses.