Talmud do Wyjścia 12:20

“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..

²⁰⁹This paragraph does not belong here; it is copied from Sabbat 3 immediately following the text of the preceding paragraph (Note 71). Kilaim 1:9 (Note 167); Babli Sabbat 123a, Eruvin 77a. It was stated: “An unripe fig which he hid in straw or a flat pita which he hid in coals may be taken on the Sabbath if they were partially uncovered, otherwise they may not be taken.”

From where that the Cohanim may fulfill their obligation with ḥallah or heave, and Israel with Second Tithe on Passover? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot²¹⁰Ex. 12:18,20. Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yohay 12:20 (p. 24)., this adds.

Could I think that they may fulfill their obligation with First Fruits? The verse says, inallyour dwelling places you shall eat mazzot²¹¹Ex. 12:20., mazzah which may be eaten at any dwelling place; this excludes First Fruits which are not eaten at any dwelling place²¹²First Fruits are sancta presented to the priest in the Temple and consumed in Jerusalem only (Mishnah Bikkurim 2:2). Babli 39a, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Ba 10, dR. Simeon ben Yohay 12:20 (p. 24).. They objected, but Second Tithe may not be eaten at any dwelling place²¹³It may be eaten only in Jerusalem, Mishnah Bikkurim 2:2, Deut. 14:23.! It may be redeemed and be eaten at any dwelling place²¹⁴Deut. 14:24. Redemption of pure Second Tithe is possible only outside of Jerusalem.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: What was bought with tithe money and became impure, following Rebbi Jehudah, ²¹⁵The text in brackets is an addition from the corrector who was misled by the expression “asked” because the statement of R. Abun bar Ḥiyya is a straight declarative sentence: “What was bought with tithe money which became impure, following Rebbi Jehudah since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it.” The question here and in the next sentence is whether there is any objection to the inference drawn. Since the scribe’s text is confirmed by G, the addition should be deleted.[what is its status? As it was stated: “If what was bought with tithe money became impure, it should be redeemed. Rebbi Jehudah says, it should be buried¹¹⁵S. Liebermann points out that this cannot mean that the key was handed over after a contract for lease or sale was signed, since for a lease the matter was settled in the preceding paragraph and for a sale it is stated that transfer of the key is transfer of the property (Bava batra 3:1, Note 12). Nevertheless Sefer Haˋittur (vol. 2, p. 121a, Note 17) reads the question as complement of the preceding statement.. They said to Rebbi Jehudah, if original Second Tithe which became impure is redeemed, what was bought with tithe money and became impure certainly should be redeemed. He said to them, no! If you referred to original Second Tithe, which can be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place, can you say the same about what was bought with tithe money which cannot be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place?²¹⁶Mishnah Maˋaser šeni 3:11 (p. 111).”] since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: Ḥallah from dough made from Second Tithe in Jerusalem, since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it²¹⁷Since ḥallah is heave and if impure must be burned, even for the majority which disagrees with R. Jehudah it cannot be used for the Passover obligation. Since no objection is raised, this is accepted doctrine in the Yerushalmi, rejected in the Babli 38a..

⁵⁸⁵This text is from Pesaḥim 2:4 (Notes 210–227) except for an unwarranted addition by the corrector in the Pesaḥim text. From where that the Cohanim may fulfill their obligation with ḥallah or heave, and Israel with Second Tithe on Passover? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot⁵⁸⁶Ex. 12:18,20. Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yohay 12:20 (p. 24).; this adds. Could I think that they may fulfill their obligation with First Fruits? The verse says, inallyour dwelling places you shall eat mazzot⁵⁸⁷Ex. 12:20., mazzah which may be eaten at any dwelling place; this excludes First Fruits which are not eaten at any dwelling place. They objected, but may Second Tithe be eaten at any dwelling place? It may be redeemed and be eaten at any dwelling place. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: What was bought with tithe money and became impure, following Rebbi Jehudah, since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: Ḥallah from dough made from Second Tithe in Jerusalem, since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it.