Talmud su Deuteronomio 16:3

Rebbi Abun said: It is written (Deut. 16:3) “So that you should remember the day of your exodus from Egypt the totality of the days of your living;” the days when you are occupied with the living, not the days that you are occupied with the dead¹⁰The verse deals with the celebration of Passover but is used to indicate that any obligation of remembrance, and tefillin is one of them, are only for living and are invalid once one has to care for the dead. Rebbi Abun here follows the opponents of Ben Zoma in the first chapter who read כֹל֩, “the entirety” and not “all”. The verse gives a complete justification for the Mishnah, viz., that the entire first day is not for tefillin, even after the burial..

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..

“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..