Talmud sobre Exodo 13:3

Rebbi Bun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Zeˋira: This¹¹The statement of the Mishnah, “if its time has passed one may not have usufruct from it,” seems to imply that any use from which the owner does not derive usufruct is permitted. implies that one is permitted to feed it to ownerless animals. Rebbi Jeremiah objected, did we not state “he crumbles it”? Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion, loaf sized¹²He reads the Mishnah as requiring only that loaves should not be disposed of whole, but may be disposed of in sizeable pieces. If these are thrown to the wind, the probability is great that a bird or a squirrel will pick them up; the reference to his usufruct seems to be unnecessary.. Rebbi Yose said to him, it only mentioned “he crumbles it”, that when he crumbled it it was nullified¹³The Mishnah requires that any leftovers be reduced to tiny crumbs which are of no use. These crumbs do no longer qualify as food; the leavened matter is considered disposed off even if not thrown to the wind.. But the following says it, leavend matter may not be eaten today¹⁴Ex. 13:3–4: Moses said to the people, remember this day on which you left Egypt, the House of Slavery, for with a strong hand did the Eternal remove you from there, and leavened matter shall not be eaten. Today you are leaving, in the Spring month. Since the text is written without commas and periods, the period implied by the oral tradition of separation of verses may be disregarded. A different interpretation of the same reading is in Mekhilta dR. Ismael ad loc. (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 62 line 2), Babli 28b., even by the dogs. This includes to forbid it for usufruct. Where do we hold? If for his own dog, the prohibition of usufruct had been stated¹⁵The passive voice in Ex. 13:3 implies that the identity of the eater is irrelevant, against the argument of Note 11.. But we must hold for the dog [of others]. This implies that one is prohibited from feeding it to ownerless animals.

A baraita³⁸Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Bo 16, p. 51. supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar³⁹The disagreement between R. Eleazar and R. Joḥanan is an old tannaïtic disagreement between Rabbis Josia and Isaac of the fourth tannaïtic generation.. “(Ex. 13:3) ‘Sour bread shall not be eaten’, to make the feeder equal to the eater⁴⁰The person who serves sour matter to a Jew on Passover is guilty as if he ate it, to be punished by extirpation. If the server acts intentionally and the eater unintentionally, the server alone is punishable.. You say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says (Deut. 16:3): ‘You shall not eat sour bread with it,’ we learned that usufruct is forbidden⁴¹This is the position of R. Eleazar.. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition⁴²Eating forbidden living things is punished by whipping by the earthly court; but eating sour matter on Passover is punished by Heaven with extirpation., He made the feeder equal to the eater⁴³Sifra Šemini Pereq 5(1). R. Abraham ben David in his commentary notes that this is not the position of the Babli; he does not refer to the Yerushalmi.; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that he feeder be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse comes only to forbid its usufruct.” Since it is written “sour bread shall not be eaten.” Therefore, from “you shall not eat” one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan.⁴⁴Here ends the parallel with Pesaḥim 2:1.

A baraita⁵⁶Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Bo 16, p. 51. Tanḥuma Bo 11 supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar⁵⁷The disagreement between R. Eleazar and R. Joḥanan is an old tannaitic disagreement between Rabbis Josia and Isaac of the fourth tannaitic generation.. Sour bread shall not be eaten⁵⁸Ex. 13:3., to make the feeder equal to the eater⁵⁹The person who serves sour matter to a Jew on Passover is guilty as if he ate it, to be punished by extirpation. If the server acts intentionally and the eater unintentionally, the server alone is punishable.. And you say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says:⁶⁰Deut. 16:3. You shall not eat sour bread with it, we learned that usufruct is forbidden⁶¹This is the position of R. Eleazar.. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition⁶²Eating forbidden living things is punished by whipping by the earthly court; but eating sour matter on Passover is punished by Heaven with extirpation., He made the feeder equal to the eater⁶³Sifra Šemini Pereq 5(1). R. Abraham ben David in his commentary notes that this is not the position of the Babli; he does not refer to the Yerushalmi.; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that we consider the feeder to be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse serves only to forbid its usufruct. Since it is written, sour bread shall not be eaten, therefore from you shall not eat one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan ⁶⁴Here ends the parallel with ˋOrlah 3:1..

Rebbi Yose said, also Rebbi Yose the Galilean is with them⁷⁷With the author of the last statement in the Mishnah, that Passover in Egypt was only one day. Tosephta 8:21, as minority opinion., as it was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, I am saying that Passover in Egypt was only one day, as it is said, no leavened matter shall be eaten; today⁷⁸Ex. 13:3–4..