leavened

Rav said, one has to say “Who sanctified us by His Commandments and commanded us about the precept of eliminating leavened matter.”

Rav said, he who affixes leavened matter to his house has to eliminate. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, if one turns dough into a clump, it is nullified He explains it, either that one disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or that this clump is repugnant.

“If a Jew and a Gentile were travelling by ship and leavened matter was in the Jew’s hand, he sells it to the Gentile or gives it to him as a gift; then he reverts and buys it from him after Passover, on condition that it was an unconditional gift. The Jew may say to the Gentile, instead of buying it for a mina, come and buy it for 200 [denar]. Instead that you buy from a Gentile, come and buy it from a Jew, maybe I shall have need, then I shall buy from you after Passover.”

“If a Gentile comes to a Jew with leavened matter in his hand, one does not need to eliminate. If he deposited with him, he has to eliminate. If he gave him a separate room he does not need to eliminate.” If he did not eliminate, what is its status after Passover? Rebbi Jonah said, it is permitted; Rebbi Yose said, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, it is the Gentile’s leavened matter [but] the Jew acted wrongly and did not eliminate.

“If a Gentile comes to a Jew with leavened matter in his hand, one does not need to eliminate. If he deposited with him, he has to eliminate. If he gave him a separate room he does not need to eliminate.” If he did not eliminate, what is its status after Passover? Rebbi Jonah said, it is permitted; Rebbi Yose said, it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, it is the Gentile’s leavened matter [but] the Jew acted wrongly and did not eliminate.

Who is the Tanna of it should not be seen in your possession? Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated: He who eats leavened matter after the sixth hour, as well as leavened matter which was in existence during Passover violates a biblical prohibition but there is no extirpation, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, anything for which there is no extirpation there is no biblical prohibition. Rebbi Simeon agrees about the prohibition that it is prohibited. What is its prohibition? Rebbi Jeremiah said, its prohibition is a word of the Torah. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, its prohibition is from their words. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? No leavened matter may be eaten, today. Where do we hold? If during the holiday, it already is written, you may not eat leavened matter with it. But if it does not refer to the time during the holiday, transfer it to the time after the holiday. How does Rebbi Simeon explain Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, no leavened matter may be eaten, today? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he will explain if following Rebbi Yose the Galilean, as it was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, I am saying that in Egypt the Passover was only one day as it was said, no leavened matter may be eaten, today.

Who is the Tanna of it should not be seen in your possession? Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated: He who eats leavened matter after the sixth hour, as well as leavened matter which was in existence during Passover violates a biblical prohibition but there is no extirpation, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, anything for which there is no extirpation there is no biblical prohibition. Rebbi Simeon agrees about the prohibition that it is prohibited. What is its prohibition? Rebbi Jeremiah said, its prohibition is a word of the Torah. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, its prohibition is from their words. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? No leavened matter may be eaten, today. Where do we hold? If during the holiday, it already is written, you may not eat leavened matter with it. But if it does not refer to the time during the holiday, transfer it to the time after the holiday. How does Rebbi Simeon explain Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, no leavened matter may be eaten, today? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he will explain if following Rebbi Yose the Galilean, as it was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, I am saying that in Egypt the Passover was only one day as it was said, no leavened matter may be eaten, today.

Who is the Tanna of it should not be seen in your possession? Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated: He who eats leavened matter after the sixth hour, as well as leavened matter which was in existence during Passover violates a biblical prohibition but there is no extirpation, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, anything for which there is no extirpation there is no biblical prohibition. Rebbi Simeon agrees about the prohibition that it is prohibited. What is its prohibition? Rebbi Jeremiah said, its prohibition is a word of the Torah. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, its prohibition is from their words. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? No leavened matter may be eaten, today. Where do we hold? If during the holiday, it already is written, you may not eat leavened matter with it. But if it does not refer to the time during the holiday, transfer it to the time after the holiday. How does Rebbi Simeon explain Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, no leavened matter may be eaten, today? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he will explain if following Rebbi Yose the Galilean, as it was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, I am saying that in Egypt the Passover was only one day as it was said, no leavened matter may be eaten, today.

Who is the Tanna of it should not be seen in your possession? Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated: He who eats leavened matter after the sixth hour, as well as leavened matter which was in existence during Passover violates a biblical prohibition but there is no extirpation, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, anything for which there is no extirpation there is no biblical prohibition. Rebbi Simeon agrees about the prohibition that it is prohibited. What is its prohibition? Rebbi Jeremiah said, its prohibition is a word of the Torah. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, its prohibition is from their words. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? No leavened matter may be eaten, today. Where do we hold? If during the holiday, it already is written, you may not eat leavened matter with it. But if it does not refer to the time during the holiday, transfer it to the time after the holiday. How does Rebbi Simeon explain Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, no leavened matter may be eaten, today? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he will explain if following Rebbi Yose the Galilean, as it was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, I am saying that in Egypt the Passover was only one day as it was said, no leavened matter may be eaten, today.

Who is the Tanna of it should not be seen in your possession? Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated: He who eats leavened matter after the sixth hour, as well as leavened matter which was in existence during Passover violates a biblical prohibition but there is no extirpation, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, anything for which there is no extirpation there is no biblical prohibition. Rebbi Simeon agrees about the prohibition that it is prohibited. What is its prohibition? Rebbi Jeremiah said, its prohibition is a word of the Torah. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, its prohibition is from their words. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? No leavened matter may be eaten, today. Where do we hold? If during the holiday, it already is written, you may not eat leavened matter with it. But if it does not refer to the time during the holiday, transfer it to the time after the holiday. How does Rebbi Simeon explain Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, no leavened matter may be eaten, today? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he will explain if following Rebbi Yose the Galilean, as it was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, I am saying that in Egypt the Passover was only one day as it was said, no leavened matter may be eaten, today.

Who is the Tanna of it should not be seen in your possession? Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated: He who eats leavened matter after the sixth hour, as well as leavened matter which was in existence during Passover violates a biblical prohibition but there is no extirpation, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, anything for which there is no extirpation there is no biblical prohibition. Rebbi Simeon agrees about the prohibition that it is prohibited. What is its prohibition? Rebbi Jeremiah said, its prohibition is a word of the Torah. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, its prohibition is from their words. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? No leavened matter may be eaten, today. Where do we hold? If during the holiday, it already is written, you may not eat leavened matter with it. But if it does not refer to the time during the holiday, transfer it to the time after the holiday. How does Rebbi Simeon explain Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, no leavened matter may be eaten, today? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he will explain if following Rebbi Yose the Galilean, as it was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, I am saying that in Egypt the Passover was only one day as it was said, no leavened matter may be eaten, today.

If he declared his leavened matter ownerless on the thirteenth; what is its status after Passover? Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Do you not agree with me that it is forbidden after noontime? He answered, there its prohibition caused it; here what can you say? Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Phineas, do you remember that we said, Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish Rebbi Meïr? It is not so. Only Rebbi Joḥanan is concerned about cunning, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is not concerned about cunning. What is the difference? If debris fell on it. He who says cunning, there is no cunning and it is permitted. He who said acquisition, there is no acquisition and it is prohibited. Everybody agrees about a proselyte who died and the Jews plundered his property. For him who says cunning, it is permitted, and for him who says acquisition, it is permitted.

There, we have stated: “A slave whom his master gave as mortgage to others and then freed him [in strict law does not owe anything, but for the public good one forces the master to formally manumit him and he writes a bond for his own value. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the one who manumits writes.] Who frees? Rav says, either his first or his second master. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only his first master alone is able to free. Rebbi Haggai objected before Rebbi Yose: Does not a baraita disagree with Rav? If a Jew gave a loan to a Gentile on the latter’s leavened matter, it is permitted after Passover. If you say that the Jew has property rights in it, it would be forbidden. What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Yudan said, manumission is made easy, as it was stated: If somebody gives his slave as mortgage, if he sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the manumittor writes. If somebody mortgaged his field to another, then went and sold it, can the creditor not come and foreclose? Rebbi Abbahu said, in this matter Rebbi Joḥanan opened for us a door to illuminate. We do not find that a slave can again be enslaved after having been freed. If that is so, he should not have to write a bond for his value! Rebbi Ila said, it is better that a person say to him, give me the 200 zuz which you owe me than say to him, you are my slave! The rabbis of Caesarea say in Rebbi Nasaʹs name: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meïr imposes a fine for words, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel imposes a fine for words. As it was stated: With a bond documenting both principal and interest one can collect neither principal nor interest, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, one collects the principal but not the interest.

MISHNAH: Somebody who eats leavened heave on Passover, if in error pays its value and a fifth, if intentionally is not liable for restitution even as value of wood.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq: Our Mishnah if he separated it as unleavened and it became leavened. But if he separated it leavened, it does not apply. If he separated unleavened for leavened? Rebbi Zeˋira said, any heave which does not permit the remainder as food is no heave. [Even] if he separated leavened for unleavened? Rebbi Zeˋira said, since if he gave from its kind it would not be heave, and even if he gives from this kind for another place it is not heave.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq: Our Mishnah if he separated it as unleavened and it became leavened. But if he separated it leavened, it does not apply. If he separated unleavened for leavened? Rebbi Zeˋira said, any heave which does not permit the remainder as food is no heave. [Even] if he separated leavened for unleavened? Rebbi Zeˋira said, since if he gave from its kind it would not be heave, and even if he gives from this kind for another place it is not heave.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq: Our Mishnah if he separated it as unleavened and it became leavened. But if he separated it leavened, it does not apply. If he separated unleavened for leavened? Rebbi Zeˋira said, any heave which does not permit the remainder as food is no heave. [Even] if he separated leavened for unleavened? Rebbi Zeˋira said, since if he gave from its kind it would not be heave, and even if he gives from this kind for another place it is not heave.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Josadaq: Our Mishnah if he separated it as unleavened and it became leavened. But if he separated it leavened, it does not apply. If he separated unleavened for leavened? Rebbi Zeˋira said, any heave which does not permit the remainder as food is no heave. [Even] if he separated leavened for unleavened? Rebbi Zeˋira said, since if he gave from its kind it would not be heave, and even if he gives from this kind for another place it is not heave.

(If he beat) four quarters for themselves and made them leavened, and another four quarters for themselves, and mixed them. If one warned him because of eating ṭevel, he is not flogged, because of one who eats leavened matter on Passover, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition. But if he mixed them and afterwards made them leavened, if one warned him because of eating ṭevel. he is flogged, because of one who eats leavened matter on Passover, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition.

(If he beat) four quarters for themselves and made them leavened, and another four quarters for themselves, and mixed them. If one warned him because of eating ṭevel, he is not flogged, because of one who eats leavened matter on Passover, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition. But if he mixed them and afterwards made them leavened, if one warned him because of eating ṭevel. he is flogged, because of one who eats leavened matter on Passover, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition.

(If he beat) four quarters for themselves and made them leavened, and another four quarters for themselves, and mixed them. If one warned him because of eating ṭevel, he is not flogged, because of one who eats leavened matter on Passover, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition. But if he mixed them and afterwards made them leavened, if one warned him because of eating ṭevel. he is flogged, because of one who eats leavened matter on Passover, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition.

(If he beat) four quarters for themselves and made them leavened, and another four quarters for themselves, and mixed them. If one warned him because of eating ṭevel, he is not flogged, because of one who eats leavened matter on Passover, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition. But if he mixed them and afterwards made them leavened, if one warned him because of eating ṭevel. he is flogged, because of one who eats leavened matter on Passover, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: He who eats leavened heave on Passover, to whom does he pay? It is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since the disagreed: One who robbed heave from his mother’s father who was a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: It is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about the fifth that he has to pay it to the tribe. He told him, I also do agree with this, since impure heave is forbidden to the tribe. There came Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Even in this case they disagree.

Rebbi Yose asked, if somebody benefited from Temple property less than the value of a perutah, is he liable for reimbursement? (He said to him.) Let us hear from the following: What he appropriated from sancta he has to repay, except what is less than the value of a perutah. There are Tannaim who state, to add. (He who said except, for) [he who said “except what is less than the value of a perutah” for reimbursement and] sacrifice. He who said “to add”, for reimbursement. As you are saying there, intentionally less than the value of a perutah, even though he does not pay the fifth and a reparation sacrifice he has to pay to the tribe, one says the same here. The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose, is that not a Mishnah? “Somebody who eats leavened heave on Passover, if in error pays its value and a fifth, if intentionally he is not liable for restitution even as value of wood”? He told them, there it is impossible to complete, but here it is possible to complete.

In error for heave and intentional for leavened matter, in error for heave and intentional for nazir, in error for heave and intentional for the Day of Atonement. If one explains it with two things, it is fine. If one explains it for one, this is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Aḥava ben Rebbi Zeˋira (who said, I) [my father] said in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Bread” is mentioned for Passover and “bread” is mentioned for ḥallah. Since bread mentioned in a discussion of Passover is something that can be either mazzah or leavened, bread mentioned for ḥallah must be something that can be either mazzah or leavened. They checked and found that only the five kinds can be either mazzah or leavened; all others cannot be mazzah or leavened but would spoil.

Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Aḥava ben Rebbi Zeˋira (who said, I) [my father] said in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Bread” is mentioned for Passover and “bread” is mentioned for ḥallah. Since bread mentioned in a discussion of Passover is something that can be either mazzah or leavened, bread mentioned for ḥallah must be something that can be either mazzah or leavened. They checked and found that only the five kinds can be either mazzah or leavened; all others cannot be mazzah or leavened but would spoil.

Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Aḥava ben Rebbi Zeˋira (who said, I) [my father] said in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Bread” is mentioned for Passover and “bread” is mentioned for ḥallah. Since bread mentioned in a discussion of Passover is something that can be either mazzah or leavened, bread mentioned for ḥallah must be something that can be either mazzah or leavened. They checked and found that only the five kinds can be either mazzah or leavened; all others cannot be mazzah or leavened but would spoil.

Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Aḥava ben Rebbi Zeˋira (who said, I) [my father] said in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Bread” is mentioned for Passover and “bread” is mentioned for ḥallah. Since bread mentioned in a discussion of Passover is something that can be either mazzah or leavened, bread mentioned for ḥallah must be something that can be either mazzah or leavened. They checked and found that only the five kinds can be either mazzah or leavened; all others cannot be mazzah or leavened but would spoil.

It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit is obligated for ḥallah.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, it cannot be either mazzah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found that it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either mazzah or leavened.

It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit is obligated for ḥallah.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, it cannot be either mazzah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found that it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either mazzah or leavened.

It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit is obligated for ḥallah.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, it cannot be either mazzah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found that it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either mazzah or leavened.

It was stated: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit is obligated for ḥallah.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, it cannot be either mazzah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found that it can be either mazzah or leavened., but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either mazzah or leavened.

It was stated “Boethos ben Zenon asked Rabban Gamliel and the Sages at Jabneh: May one make seriqin with figures on Passover? They told him, no, because a woman would spend time with it and it would become leavened. He said to them, then one should make it in a form. They told him, one would say, all seriqin are forbidden but the seriqin of Boethos ben Zenon are permitted. Rebbi Yose said, one may make seriqin like wafers; one does not make (wafers) [seriqin] as loaves.”

MISHNAH: One may not soak bran as chicken feed but one may parboil. A woman may not soak bran to take it in her hand to the bath house but she may rub it dry on her skin. A person may not chew wheat kernels to put on his wound since they become leavened.

If there is any fat in them. Unguent which became putrid, there are Tannaim who state, he is required to eliminate; and there are Tannaim who state, he is not required to eliminate. He who said, he is required to eliminate, if it became leavened before becoming putrid; he who said, he is not required to eliminate, if it became putrid before becoming leavened.

If there is any fat in them. Unguent which became putrid, there are Tannaim who state, he is required to eliminate; and there are Tannaim who state, he is not required to eliminate. He who said, he is required to eliminate, if it became leavened before becoming putrid; he who said, he is not required to eliminate, if it became putrid before becoming leavened.

“One does not knead mazzah with fluids but one may rub it with them. Rebbi Aqiba said, I was with Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua on a ship and kneaded their mazzah with fluids. One may not knead mazzah with boiling water since it parboils, nor with lukewarm water because this makes leavened, but one kneads with cold water.” But did we not state: “All flour offerings are kneaded with lukewarm water and one guards them lest they become leavened”? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There the matter is in the hands of the Cohanim and Cohanim are quick; here it is in the hands of women and women are slow. Then it is a problem about Cohanim themselves, may they knead their mazzah with lukewarm water? It should be parallel to what Rebbi Zachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi stated: A menstruating woman washes her hair and combs. A priestly woman does not wash her hair and combs. A menstruating priestly woman washes her hair and combs, not to differentiate between one menstruating woman and another. So also here, not to differentiate between mazzah and mazzah.

“One does not knead mazzah with fluids but one may rub it with them. Rebbi Aqiba said, I was with Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua on a ship and kneaded their mazzah with fluids. One may not knead mazzah with boiling water since it parboils, nor with lukewarm water because this makes leavened, but one kneads with cold water.” But did we not state: “All flour offerings are kneaded with lukewarm water and one guards them lest they become leavened”? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There the matter is in the hands of the Cohanim and Cohanim are quick; here it is in the hands of women and women are slow. Then it is a problem about Cohanim themselves, may they knead their mazzah with lukewarm water? It should be parallel to what Rebbi Zachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi stated: A menstruating woman washes her hair and combs. A priestly woman does not wash her hair and combs. A menstruating priestly woman washes her hair and combs, not to differentiate between one menstruating woman and another. So also here, not to differentiate between mazzah and mazzah.

“Water used by a baker has to be poured out because it makes leavened.” There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a depression. There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a declivity. Rebbi Yose said, he who said, he pours it into a depression, if the depression was large. He who said, he pours it into a declivity, if the declivity was consierable. Rebbi Phineas said to him in the name of Rebbi Ila: So was he discussing it: If he soaked wheat or barley grains in water, if they became leavened, they are forbidden; if they did not become leavened, they are permitted. Rebbi Yose said, if he soaked barley in water, if they split they are forbidden. If he soaked them in vinegar they are permitted since the vinegar contracts them.

“Water used by a baker has to be poured out because it makes leavened.” There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a depression. There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a declivity. Rebbi Yose said, he who said, he pours it into a depression, if the depression was large. He who said, he pours it into a declivity, if the declivity was consierable. Rebbi Phineas said to him in the name of Rebbi Ila: So was he discussing it: If he soaked wheat or barley grains in water, if they became leavened, they are forbidden; if they did not become leavened, they are permitted. Rebbi Yose said, if he soaked barley in water, if they split they are forbidden. If he soaked them in vinegar they are permitted since the vinegar contracts them.

“Water used by a baker has to be poured out because it makes leavened.” There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a depression. There are Tannaim who state, he pours it into a declivity. Rebbi Yose said, he who said, he pours it into a depression, if the depression was large. He who said, he pours it into a declivity, if the declivity was consierable. Rebbi Phineas said to him in the name of Rebbi Ila: So was he discussing it: If he soaked wheat or barley grains in water, if they became leavened, they are forbidden; if they did not become leavened, they are permitted. Rebbi Yose said, if he soaked barley in water, if they split they are forbidden. If he soaked them in vinegar they are permitted since the vinegar contracts them.

“It is written: Any leavened matter you shall not eat, 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 extirpated.“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 excluding. He told them, there He added eaters but there He added 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”. And for these, 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 deprivation? 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.” 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 liable. How is this? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Idi: Their 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]. Rav said, that is sour dough. He could have said, that is Babylonian kutah, and Median beer. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: Explain it if leavened bread and mazzah were mixed. 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 Passover. 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 flogging.

“It is written: Any leavened matter you shall not eat, 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 extirpated.“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 excluding. He told them, there He added eaters but there He added 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”. And for these, 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 deprivation? 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.” 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 liable. How is this? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Idi: Their 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]. Rav said, that is sour dough. He could have said, that is Babylonian kutah, and Median beer. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: Explain it if leavened bread and mazzah were mixed. 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 Passover. 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 flogging.

“It is written: Any leavened matter you shall not eat, 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 extirpated.“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 excluding. He told them, there He added eaters but there He added 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”. And for these, 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 deprivation? 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.” 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 liable. How is this? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Idi: Their 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]. Rav said, that is sour dough. He could have said, that is Babylonian kutah, and Median beer. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: Explain it if leavened bread and mazzah were mixed. 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 Passover. 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 flogging.

“It is written: Any leavened matter you shall not eat, 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 extirpated.“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 excluding. He told them, there He added eaters but there He added 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”. And for these, 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 deprivation? 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.” 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 liable. How is this? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Idi: Their 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]. Rav said, that is sour dough. He could have said, that is Babylonian kutah, and Median beer. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: Explain it if leavened bread and mazzah were mixed. 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 Passover. 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 flogging.

“It is written: Any leavened matter you shall not eat, 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 extirpated.“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 excluding. He told them, there He added eaters but there He added 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”. And for these, 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 deprivation? 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.” 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 liable. How is this? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Idi: Their 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]. Rav said, that is sour dough. He could have said, that is Babylonian kutah, and Median beer. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: Explain it if leavened bread and mazzah were mixed. 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 Passover. 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 flogging.

“It is written: Any leavened matter you shall not eat, 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 extirpated.“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 excluding. He told them, there He added eaters but there He added 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”. And for these, 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 deprivation? 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.” 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 liable. How is this? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Idi: Their 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]. Rav said, that is sour dough. He could have said, that is Babylonian kutah, and Median beer. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: Explain it if leavened bread and mazzah were mixed. 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 Passover. 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 flogging.

“It is written: Any leavened matter you shall not eat, 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 extirpated.“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 excluding. He told them, there He added eaters but there He added 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”. And for these, 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 deprivation? 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.” 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 liable. How is this? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Idi: Their 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]. Rav said, that is sour dough. He could have said, that is Babylonian kutah, and Median beer. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: Explain it if leavened bread and mazzah were mixed. 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 Passover. 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 flogging.

“It is written: Any leavened matter you shall not eat, 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 extirpated.“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 excluding. He told them, there He added eaters but there He added 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”. And for these, 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 deprivation? 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.” 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 liable. How is this? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Idi: Their 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]. Rav said, that is sour dough. He could have said, that is Babylonian kutah, and Median beer. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: Explain it if leavened bread and mazzah were mixed. 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 Passover. 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 flogging.

“It is written: Any leavened matter you shall not eat, 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 extirpated.“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 excluding. He told them, there He added eaters but there He added 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”. And for these, 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 deprivation? 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.” 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 liable. How is this? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Idi: Their 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]. Rav said, that is sour dough. He could have said, that is Babylonian kutah, and Median beer. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: Explain it if leavened bread and mazzah were mixed. 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 Passover. 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 flogging.

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: In a pot in which one cooked with water one may cook the same kind only after Passover. Therefore another kind is permitted although only after three dishes. If it becomes insignificant by other kinds, should it not become insignificant also by its own kind? A kind awakes its own kind to prohibit. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, Rebbi Abbahu ordered the millers not to put boxes one on top of the other lest they heated up and became leavened. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappos went to the millers. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun milled himself as guest. Rebbi Abun instructed the millers to fill a quartarius of water in the modii and moisten it four times. Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, grasses are permitted, moistened it is forbidden, but the other one switches. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, even the one who permits grasses, if he collected them in the afternoon. Why? For dew faded away from it.

MISHNAH: A person who goes to slaughter his Passover sacrifice, or to circumcise his son, or to eat the betrothal meal at his father-in-law’s house, and remembers that he has leavened matter in his house, if he can return, eliminate it, and return to his meritorious deed, he shall return and eliminate; otherwise, he has to nullify it in his thought. To save from the army, or from a river, or from a conflagration, or from a house collapse, he has to nullify it in his thought. To celebrate the holiday according to his wishes, he has to return immediately.

MISHNAH: Similarly, somebody who left Jerusalem and remembers that he has with him sacrificial meat, if he passed Mount Scopus he burns it on the spot, otherwise he returns and burns it before the citadel on altar wood. Up to what do they return? Rebbi Meïr says, in both cases the size of an olive; Rebbi Jehudah says, in both cases the size of an egg. But the Sages say, sacrificial meat in the volume of an olive, but leavened matter in that of an egg.

Some Tannaim state it switched. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa following our Mishnah. Rebbi Yudan said, an indication is that of Berakhot: “What is the minimum to ‘invite’? Down to the size of an olive, Rebbi Jehudah says to the size of an egg.” Less than that one does not importune him to return. What is the difference between one and the other? One can be declared insignificant, the other cannot be declared insignificant. So far sacrificial meat; leavened matter from where? Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, from what we have stated, “similarly, somebody who left Jerusalem”, this implies that what is incident to one is incident to the other.

MISHNAH: One who slaughters the Pesaḥ on leavened matter transgresses a prohibition; Rebbi Jehudah says, also the daily sacrifice. Rebbi Simeon says, the Pesaḥ on the Fourteenth, if for its purpose, he is liable, not for its purpose he is not liable. All other sacrifices, whether for their purposes or not for their purposes, he is not liable. On the holiday, for its purpose he is not liable, not for its purpose he is liable; for all other sacrifices, whether for their purposes or not for their purposes, he is liable except for the purification offering which he slaughtered not for its purpose.

HALAKHAH: From where that one who slaughters the Pesaḥ on leavened matter transgresses a prohibition? The verse says, do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice. I have not only the slaughterer, from where the one who pours the blood? The verse says, not on leavened matter the blood. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, since he becomes guilty for pouring, this implies that the Pesaḥ be qualified. Rebbi Yose said, explain it that leavened matter came to him between slaughter and pouring or that one person was slaughtering and another pouring.

HALAKHAH: From where that one who slaughters the Pesaḥ on leavened matter transgresses a prohibition? The verse says, do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice. I have not only the slaughterer, from where the one who pours the blood? The verse says, not on leavened matter the blood. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, since he becomes guilty for pouring, this implies that the Pesaḥ be qualified. Rebbi Yose said, explain it that leavened matter came to him between slaughter and pouring or that one person was slaughtering and another pouring.

HALAKHAH: From where that one who slaughters the Pesaḥ on leavened matter transgresses a prohibition? The verse says, do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice. I have not only the slaughterer, from where the one who pours the blood? The verse says, not on leavened matter the blood. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, since he becomes guilty for pouring, this implies that the Pesaḥ be qualified. Rebbi Yose said, explain it that leavened matter came to him between slaughter and pouring or that one person was slaughtering and another pouring.

HALAKHAH: From where that one who slaughters the Pesaḥ on leavened matter transgresses a prohibition? The verse says, do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice. I have not only the slaughterer, from where the one who pours the blood? The verse says, not on leavened matter the blood. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, since he becomes guilty for pouring, this implies that the Pesaḥ be qualified. Rebbi Yose said, explain it that leavened matter came to him between slaughter and pouring or that one person was slaughtering and another pouring.

Ḥizqiah stated: Do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice, the Torah called it “My sacrifice”. Rebbi Mana said, if Ḥizqiah had not stated this, do we find anything disqualified because of which one is liable for a purification sacrifice? If somebody leavens the disqualified. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says liable, if it became disqualified because of its leavening; he who says not liable, if it did not become disqualified because of its leavening.

The rabbis of Caesarea asked: I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood] on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that one is liable for it outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, this excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose. Instead of arguing for absence of liability, argue for liability. I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood] on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], I also am adding burning of the parts for which one is liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, I also am adding the one who receives or carries who is indispensable for atonement. He said to him, anything equal in both respects instructs; anything not equal in both respects does not instruct. Sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement and for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside; it excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement.

The rabbis of Caesarea asked: I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood] on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that one is liable for it outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, this excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose. Instead of arguing for absence of liability, argue for liability. I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood] on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], I also am adding burning of the parts for which one is liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, I also am adding the one who receives or carries who is indispensable for atonement. He said to him, anything equal in both respects instructs; anything not equal in both respects does not instruct. Sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement and for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside; it excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement.

The rabbis of Caesarea asked: I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood] on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that one is liable for it outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, this excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose. Instead of arguing for absence of liability, argue for liability. I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood] on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], I also am adding burning of the parts for which one is liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, I also am adding the one who receives or carries who is indispensable for atonement. He said to him, anything equal in both respects instructs; anything not equal in both respects does not instruct. Sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement and for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside; it excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement.

The rabbis of Caesarea asked: I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood] on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that one is liable for it outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, this excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose. Instead of arguing for absence of liability, argue for liability. I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood] on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], I also am adding burning of the parts for which one is liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, I also am adding the one who receives or carries who is indispensable for atonement. He said to him, anything equal in both respects instructs; anything not equal in both respects does not instruct. Sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement and for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside; it excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement.

The rabbis of Caesarea asked: I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood] on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that one is liable for it outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, this excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose. Instead of arguing for absence of liability, argue for liability. I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood] on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], I also am adding burning of the parts for which one is liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, I also am adding the one who receives or carries who is indispensable for atonement. He said to him, anything equal in both respects instructs; anything not equal in both respects does not instruct. Sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement and for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside; it excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement.

The rabbis of Caesarea asked: I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood] on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that one is liable for it outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, this excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose. Instead of arguing for absence of liability, argue for liability. I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood] on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], I also am adding burning of the parts for which one is liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, I also am adding the one who receives or carries who is indispensable for atonement. He said to him, anything equal in both respects instructs; anything not equal in both respects does not instruct. Sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement and for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside; it excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement.

There, we have stated: “The House of Shammai say, leavening in the volume of an olive, and leavened matter in the volume of a dried fig.” Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive.

If one slaughtered on leavened matter, after what are you going? After eating or after elimination? There did Rebbi Jeremiah say in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Two volumes of half an olive in one house, the house does not combine them; in one vessel, the vessel does combine them. If one slaughtered on them, if they were in the house, and the house did not combine them, he is not liable; or if they were in one vessel and the vessel combines them, he is liable. If he slaughtered on leavening. Since Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav, he is permitted to feed it to his dog, he is not liable; or since Rav said, one flogs for eating it, he is liable.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon: One verse says, do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice, and another verse says, do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice. One refers to the Pesaḥ on the Fourteenth, one to all other consumed sacrifices on the workdays of the holiday. How did you understand to add them on the workdays of the holiday and to exclude them from the Fourteenth? After that the verse added, it subtracted. I am adding them on the workdays of the holiday since these are subject to “it should not be seen nor found”, and exclude them from the Fourteenth where they are not under “it should not be seen nor found”. And this parallels what Rebbi Meïr said; as Rebbi Meïr said, after noontime it is of their words. Rebbi Mana said, there where it says, the consumed sacrifice of the Pesaḥ holiday of pilgrimage, we hold that it refers to the Fourteenth.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon: One verse says, do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice, and another verse says, do not sacrifice on leavened matter the blood of my sacrifice. One refers to the Pesaḥ on the Fourteenth, one to all other consumed sacrifices on the workdays of the holiday. How did you understand to add them on the workdays of the holiday and to exclude them from the Fourteenth? After that the verse added, it subtracted. I am adding them on the workdays of the holiday since these are subject to “it should not be seen nor found”, and exclude them from the Fourteenth where they are not under “it should not be seen nor found”. And this parallels what Rebbi Meïr said; as Rebbi Meïr said, after noontime it is of their words. Rebbi Mana said, there where it says, the consumed sacrifice of the Pesaḥ holiday of pilgrimage, we hold that it refers to the Fourteenth.

May one start fire on a pyre of leavened matter? For him who infers from leftovers it is prohibited; for him who does not infer from leftovers it is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, they came to it following the argument of Rebbi Ismael. (etc.) [Just as Rebbi Ismael said, a baby whose time has passed can be circumcised either during the day or during the night, so when its time has passed the sanctum may be burned either during the day or during the night.]

Rebbi Eleazar said: The Pesaḥ of women is voluntary, but one pushes the Sabbath away for it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice from women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their mazzah? Rebbi Eleazar said, it is obligatory. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is voluntary. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s {opinion}. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeˋira: Lettuce, mazzah and Pesaḥ are obligatory the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: Do not eat leavened matter with it, for seven days you shall eat with it mazzot, the bread of deprivation. Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat mazzah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat mazzah. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”? Rebby Mana said, it is a powerful positive commandment since it is implied by a prohibition.

Rebbi Eleazar said: The Pesaḥ of women is voluntary, but one pushes the Sabbath away for it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice from women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their mazzah? Rebbi Eleazar said, it is obligatory. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is voluntary. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s {opinion}. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeˋira: Lettuce, mazzah and Pesaḥ are obligatory the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: Do not eat leavened matter with it, for seven days you shall eat with it mazzot, the bread of deprivation. Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat mazzah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat mazzah. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”? Rebby Mana said, it is a powerful positive commandment since it is implied by a prohibition.

Rebbi Eleazar said: The Pesaḥ of women is voluntary, but one pushes the Sabbath away for it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice from women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their mazzah? Rebbi Eleazar said, it is obligatory. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is voluntary. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s {opinion}. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeˋira: Lettuce, mazzah and Pesaḥ are obligatory the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: Do not eat leavened matter with it, for seven days you shall eat with it mazzot, the bread of deprivation. Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat mazzah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat mazzah. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”? Rebby Mana said, it is a powerful positive commandment since it is implied by a prohibition.

MISHNAH: What is the difference between the First and the Second Pesaḥ? The First is forbidden [leavened matter] to be seen or found. For the Second, leavened matter and mazzah are with him in the house. The First needs Hallel when it is eaten, but the Second does not need Hallel when it is eaten. Both need Hallel when it is offered, and they are eaten roasted, with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, and push the Sabbath aside.

MISHNAH: What is the difference between the First and the Second Pesaḥ? The First is forbidden [leavened matter] to be seen or found. For the Second, leavened matter and mazzah are with him in the house. The First needs Hallel when it is eaten, but the Second does not need Hallel when it is eaten. Both need Hallel when it is offered, and they are eaten roasted, with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, and push the Sabbath aside.

HALAKHAH: It is written: they shall not leave anything until morning. If it relates to eating, this is the relevant positive commandment. No bone of it may be broken, that is the relevant prohibition. So when He says, according to all rules of the Pesaḥ they shall make it, I could think that I have to add the elimination of leavened matter and mazzah for seven days. The verse says, on mazzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it. Nothing external to its body impedes it except mazzot and bitter herbs. And following Rebbi Ismael? Since Rebbi Ismael says, a principle followed by a detail, everything is in the principle, I could think that everything impedes it; the verse says, on mazzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it. Nothing external to its body impedes it except mazzot and bitter herbs.

MISHNAH: What is the difference between the First and the Second Pesaḥ? The First is forbidden [leavened matter] to be seen or found. For the Second, leavened matter and mazzah are with him in the house. The First needs Hallel when it is eaten, but the Second does not need Hallel when it is eaten. Both need Hallel when it is offered, and they are eaten roasted, with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, and push the Sabbath aside.

MISHNAH: What is the difference between the First and the Second Pesaḥ? The First is forbidden [leavened matter] to be seen or found. For the Second, leavened matter and mazzah are with him in the house. The First needs Hallel when it is eaten, but the Second does not need Hallel when it is eaten. Both need Hallel when it is offered, and they are eaten roasted, with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, and push the Sabbath aside.

Rebbi Yose said, also Rebbi Yose the Galilean is with them, 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; today.

MISHNAH: One mixes him the second cup, and here the son asks. If the son does not know how to ask, his father instructs him: What is the difference between this night and all other nights? For every night we dip once, but this night we dip twice. For every night we eat leavened and unleavened bread, but this night only unleavened. For in all other nights we eat meat roasted, preserved, or cooked, but in this night only roasted. According to the son’s understanding the father teaches him. He starts with ignominy and ends with praise and explains from “a lost Aramean was my father” until he finishes the paragraph. Rabban Gamliel used to say, anybody who did not teach these three words on Passover did not fulfill his duty, Pesaḥ, mazzah, and bitter herbs. Pesaḥ because the Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt, mazzah because our forefathers were freed from Egypt. Bitter herbs because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egypt. In every generation a person is required to see himself as if he himself had gone out of Egypt, as it was said, you shall tell your son on that day, this is on account of what the Eternal did for me when I left Egypt. Therefore we are required to thank, sing His praise, laud, glorify, exalt, praise in perpetuity, to glorify, Him who did all these miracles for us and led us from slavery to freedom; let us say before Him Hallelujah.

HALAKHAH: “The fife five and six,” etc. Therefore the one of sacrifices supersedes. The Mishnah is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: The fife accompanying the sacrifices supersedes the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages say, it supersedes neither the Sabbath nor the holiday. There we have stated: “On twelve days in the year the fife beats the time before the altar, at the sacrifice of the First Pesaḥ, the sacrifice of the Second Pesaḥ, on the first day of Passover, on the day of Pentecost, and on the eight days of Tabernacles.” Are there eight days without a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it anonymously, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah’s. In the opinion of those rabbis why does it not supersede? Because it is not clear. But is it not written, and the people blew fifes? That is written for Solomon’s festivity. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: And heartfelt joy like one marching with a fife. Any time one uses a fife one recites the Hallel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Why does one recite Hallel all seven days of Tabernacles? Corresponding to the lulav which is renewed all seven days. And why a fife for all these things? We have stated, for one is at stated times and the other is at stated times; this is beloved and that is beloved. They attached the beloved to the beloved. “On Pentecost one says to him, here you have maṣsah, here you have leavened.” There are Tannaim who state, here you have leavened, [here you have maṣsah.] He who said, here you have maṣsah, because it is beloved; he who said, here you have leavened, because it is frequent.

HALAKHAH: “The fife five and six,” etc. Therefore the one of sacrifices supersedes. The Mishnah is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: The fife accompanying the sacrifices supersedes the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages say, it supersedes neither the Sabbath nor the holiday. There we have stated: “On twelve days in the year the fife beats the time before the altar, at the sacrifice of the First Pesaḥ, the sacrifice of the Second Pesaḥ, on the first day of Passover, on the day of Pentecost, and on the eight days of Tabernacles.” Are there eight days without a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it anonymously, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah’s. In the opinion of those rabbis why does it not supersede? Because it is not clear. But is it not written, and the people blew fifes? That is written for Solomon’s festivity. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: And heartfelt joy like one marching with a fife. Any time one uses a fife one recites the Hallel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Why does one recite Hallel all seven days of Tabernacles? Corresponding to the lulav which is renewed all seven days. And why a fife for all these things? We have stated, for one is at stated times and the other is at stated times; this is beloved and that is beloved. They attached the beloved to the beloved. “On Pentecost one says to him, here you have maṣsah, here you have leavened.” There are Tannaim who state, here you have leavened, [here you have maṣsah.] He who said, here you have maṣsah, because it is beloved; he who said, here you have leavened, because it is frequent.

HALAKHAH: “The fife five and six,” etc. Therefore the one of sacrifices supersedes. The Mishnah is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: The fife accompanying the sacrifices supersedes the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages say, it supersedes neither the Sabbath nor the holiday. There we have stated: “On twelve days in the year the fife beats the time before the altar, at the sacrifice of the First Pesaḥ, the sacrifice of the Second Pesaḥ, on the first day of Passover, on the day of Pentecost, and on the eight days of Tabernacles.” Are there eight days without a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it anonymously, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah’s. In the opinion of those rabbis why does it not supersede? Because it is not clear. But is it not written, and the people blew fifes? That is written for Solomon’s festivity. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: And heartfelt joy like one marching with a fife. Any time one uses a fife one recites the Hallel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Why does one recite Hallel all seven days of Tabernacles? Corresponding to the lulav which is renewed all seven days. And why a fife for all these things? We have stated, for one is at stated times and the other is at stated times; this is beloved and that is beloved. They attached the beloved to the beloved. “On Pentecost one says to him, here you have maṣsah, here you have leavened.” There are Tannaim who state, here you have leavened, [here you have maṣsah.] He who said, here you have maṣsah, because it is beloved; he who said, here you have leavened, because it is frequent.

MISHNAH: On three occasions in a year were all watches equal in the parts of the holiday and in the distribution of the shew-bread; on Pentecost one says to him, here you have maṣsah, here you have leavened. The watch whose time is fixed brings daily sacrifices, vows and voluntary gifts, and all sacrifices of the public, and sacrifices everything. If the holiday is next to the Sabbath either before or after, all watches were equal in the distribution of the shew-bread. If one day fell between them, the watch whose time is fixed takes ten loaves and the one remaining takes two. On all other days of the year the incoming one takes six; Rebbi Jehudah says that the incoming takes seven and the outgoing takes five. The incoming ones distribute in the North and the outgoing in the South. Bilgah always distributes in the South; its ring was fixed and its window closed.

On Pentecost one says to him, here you have maṣsah, here you have leavened. There are Tannaim who state, here you have leavened, [here you have maṣsah.] He who said, here you have maṣsah, because it is beloved; he who said, here you have leavened, because it is frequent.

On Pentecost one says to him, here you have maṣsah, here you have leavened. There are Tannaim who state, here you have leavened, [here you have maṣsah.] He who said, here you have maṣsah, because it is beloved; he who said, here you have leavened, because it is frequent.

On Pentecost one says to him, here you have maṣsah, here you have leavened. There are Tannaim who state, here you have leavened, [here you have maṣsah.] He who said, here you have maṣsah, because it is beloved; he who said, here you have leavened, because it is frequent.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammay say that sour dough {causes liability} by the size of an olive and leavened matter by the size of a date, but the House of Hillel say that both are by the size of an olive.

Rebbi Huna explains the baraita: “Unleavened it must be eaten”. Since it was permitted before it was dedicated, if one wants to eat it leavened, he eats it, unleavened, he eats it. The verse states “unleavened it should be eaten” as commandment. Similarly, “her brother-in-law shall come upon her” as commandment. Since she was permitted before she was married to his brother, if he wanted to bring her into his house because of her shapeliness, he could bring her, because of her money, he could bring her. When she was married to his brother she became forbidden. When his brother died childless she became permitted again. Should one think she returned to her prior permission, if he wanted to bring her into his house because of her shapeliness, he could bring her, because of her money, he could bring her? The verse states “her levir shall come upon her” as commandment.

In error for heave and intentional for leavened, in error for heave and intentional for nazir, in error for heave and intentional for the Day of Atonement. If one explains it with two things, it is fine. If one explains it for one, this is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

Who frees? Rav says, either his first or his second master. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only his first master alone is able to free. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose: Does not a baraita disagree with Rav? If a Jew gave a loan to a Gentile on the latter’s leavened matter, it is permitted after Passover. If you say that the Jew has property rights in it, it would be forbidden. What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Yudan said, manumission is made easy, as it was stated: If somebody gives his slave as mortgage, if he sold him, he is not sold; if he freed him, he is freed. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, only the manumittor writes. If somebody mortgaged his field to another, then went and sold it, can the creditor not come and foreclose? Rebbi Abbahu said, in this matter Rebbi Joḥanan opened for us a door to illuminate. We do not find that a slave can again be enslaved after having been freed. If that is so, he should not have to write a bond for his value! Rebbi Ila said, it is better that a person say to him, give me the 200 zuz which you owe me than say to him, you are my slave! The rabbis of Caesarea say in Rebbi Nasa’s name: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows Rebbi Meïr. Just as Rebbi Meїr imposes a fine for words, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel imposes a fine for words. As it was stated: With a bond documenting both principal and interest one can collect neither principal nor interest, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, one collects the principal but not the interest.

If he wrote it on material forbidden for usufruct? Rebbi Ḥanin stated: A case came before Rebbi who said, she is divorced. Rebbi Eleazar said, she is not divorced. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the rabbis disagree: For him who said, she is not preliminary married, she is not divorced. For him who said, she is preliminary married, she is divorced. The colleagues say, for restrictions. Rebbi Yose asked, what means “for restrictions”? She is not preliminarily married but divorced, is this “for restrictions”? Or she is not divorced but preliminarily married, is this “for restrictions”? What about it? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: He who says that she is divorced, involving material forbidden for usufruct by their words. But he who says that she is not divorced, involving material forbidden for usufruct by words of the Torah. Therefore, by material forbidden for usufruct by their words she is preliminarily married. If you say so, does this not disagree with Rav? For Rav said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: A person who uses leavened material for preliminary marriage after noontime did not do anything. Is leavened material of any use after noontime? There, he used the material for preliminary marriage, but here he effected the preliminary marriage by the [written] conditions. But then she should be preliminarily married even with material forbidden for usufruct by the Torah! What is the difference between this and a document not worth a peruṭah? There, it cannot be used as filler. But here, it can be used as filler.

If he wrote it on material forbidden for usufruct? Rebbi Ḥanin stated: A case came before Rebbi who said, she is divorced. Rebbi Eleazar said, she is not divorced. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the rabbis disagree: For him who said, she is not preliminary married, she is not divorced. For him who said, she is preliminary married, she is divorced. The colleagues say, for restrictions. Rebbi Yose asked, what means “for restrictions”? She is not preliminarily married but divorced, is this “for restrictions”? Or she is not divorced but preliminarily married, is this “for restrictions”? What about it? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: He who says that she is divorced, involving material forbidden for usufruct by their words. But he who says that she is not divorced, involving material forbidden for usufruct by words of the Torah. Therefore, by material forbidden for usufruct by their words she is preliminarily married. If you say so, does this not disagree with Rav? For Rav said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: A person who uses leavened material for preliminary marriage after noontime did not do anything. Is leavened material of any use after noontime? There, he used the material for preliminary marriage, but here he effected the preliminary marriage by the [written] conditions. But then she should be preliminarily married even with material forbidden for usufruct by the Torah! What is the difference between this and a document not worth a peruṭah? There, it cannot be used as filler. But here, it can be used as filler.

Rebbi Eleazar said: The Passover sacrifice of women is voluntary but one pushes the Sabbath away for it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice by women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their maẓẓah? He said to him, it is obligatory. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this is in dispute. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s [opinion]. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: Lettuce, maẓẓah and Passover sacrifice are obligatory in the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: “Do not eat leavened matter with it,” and it was said: “For seven days you shall eat with it maẓẓot, the bread of deprivation’.” Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat maẓẓah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat maẓẓah. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”? Rebby Mana said, it is a positive commandment which is implied by a prohibition.

Rebbi Eleazar said: The Passover sacrifice of women is voluntary but one pushes the Sabbath away for it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice by women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their maẓẓah? He said to him, it is obligatory. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this is in dispute. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s [opinion]. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: Lettuce, maẓẓah and Passover sacrifice are obligatory in the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: “Do not eat leavened matter with it,” and it was said: “For seven days you shall eat with it maẓẓot, the bread of deprivation’.” Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat maẓẓah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat maẓẓah. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”? Rebby Mana said, it is a positive commandment which is implied by a prohibition.

Rebbi Eleazar said: The Passover sacrifice of women is voluntary but one pushes the Sabbath away for it. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Passover sacrifice by women and slaves is voluntary; certainly one does push the Sabbath away for it. What is their maẓẓah? He said to him, it is obligatory. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this is in dispute. Rebbi Hila said, it is everybody’s [opinion]. A baraita supports the one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: Lettuce, maẓẓah and Passover sacrifice are obligatory in the first night; on all other days they are voluntary. A baraita supports Rebbi Hila: It was said: “Do not eat leavened matter with it,” and it was said: “For seven days you shall eat with it maẓẓot, the bread of deprivation’.” Anybody under the prohibition of leavened matter is under the obligation to eat maẓẓah, and women, being under the prohibition of leavened matter, are under the obligation to eat maẓẓah. But did we not state: “For any positive commandment triggered by time, men are obligated but women are free”? Rebby Mana said, it is a positive commandment which is implied by a prohibition.

MISHNAH: If he robbed a coin and it was split, fruits and they rotted, wine and it spoiled, he pays their value at the time of the robbery. A coin and it was declared invalid, heave and it became impure, leavened matter and Passover passed, an animal which was used for sin, or which became disqualified from the altar, or which was taken out to be stoned, he tells him: Here is your property before you.

Ḥilfai said, if he swore to him before Passover, then after Passover he pays him for fully useable leavened matter. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and asked Rebbi Ḥizqiah, who quoted this in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, is there anybody who disagrees with Ḥilfai so that he would not have to pay for fully useable leavened matter? Everybody agrees about leavened matter that he has to pay for fully useable leavened matter.