Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 5, scan section 29

Kareth ? To that end it is written [ibid. 15] : " Whosoever eat- eth leavened bread, that soul shall be cut off," whence we infer, that only one who eats leavened bread made of suitable grain incurs the penalty of Kareth ; but one who eats such as is com- bined with other ingredients only incurs the penalty attached to the transgression of a negative commandment. Now, then, who TRACT PESACHIM (PASSOVER). 71 is the Tana who holds that the use of leaven combined with other ingredients make one incur the penalty attached to the transgression of a negative commandment ? R. Eliezer; but we do not learn that he classes unfit leaven in the same category as that of mixed leaven, and for the simple reason that he does not consider the use of unfit leaven a violation of the law. (Hence the Tana who also holds the use of unfit leaven to constitute a transgression of the law is R. Meir.) Whence does R. Eliezer adduce that the use of leaven com- bined with the other ingredients constitutes a transgression of the law ? From the passage, " Nothing that is leavened shall ye eat," and he means to say that "nothing" includes also leaven combined with the ingredients. How will he explain the "whosoever"* in the other passage [Exod. xii. 15]? That includes women, who must also not eat leavened bread on Passover. Did not R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh say, that women are held to be equal to men as far as all prohibitory laws are concerned, on account of the passage [Numbers v. 6]: " If any man or woman commit any sin "? In this case a special passage prohibiting the eating of leavened bread by women is essential, for the following reason : The negative commandment prohibit- ing the eating of leavened bread and the positive ordaining the eating of unleavened bread [Deut. xvi. 3] being written together, we might assume that only those who are obliged to eat Mat- zoth must not eat Chometz ; and as the women are not obliged to eat Matzoth, because the positive commandment ordaining the eating of Matzoth is dependent upon the time,f we might assume that women may eat Chometz ; hence we are told by the passage, " Whosoever eateth leavened bread, etc., shall be cut off." Now, if we have arrived at the conclusion that women must not eat Chometz, we may add, that they are also obliged to eat Matzoth, and this is in accordance with the opinion of R. Eliezer, who said, that women are biblically obliged to eat Matzoth ; because the negative and positive commandments are consequent one upon the other, I say, that as they must observe * Both passages quoted contain the word " Kol," Hebrew for "all"; and the passages should read : " All that is leavened shall ye not eat" and " All who eat leavened bread shall be cut o£E," etc. Hence the analogous comparison made in the above paragraph.. f Vide page 71. 72 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. the negative commandment prohibiting the eating of Chometz, so must they also observe the positive commandment ordaining the eating of Matzoth. Why is it adduced that the " all " (Kol) in the passage means to include women and to exclude leaven combined with other ingredients ? Say, that the " all " also means to include leaven combined with other ingredients. Common sense precludes this supposition ; because the passage refers to those who had eaten ; hence if anything should be included, it must be that which is also capable of being eaten, but not things that are eaten, as leaven combined with other ingredients. MISHNA: Should there be any dough in the (holes or) crevices of a kneading-trough, and there is as much as the size of an olive in any one place, it must be removed immediately; but if there be less than that quantity in any one place, it may be considered as not in existence, being so inconsiderable. Thus it is also with respect to defilement: If the owner, how- ever, be particular about the dough, it constitutes an interven- tion (between the trough and possible defilement, and the trough is not rendered defiled) ; but if it is desired to leave the dough in the trough, it should be considered as an integral part of the trough. GEMARA : " If there be less than that quantity,'' etc. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: "This applies to a case where the dough was placed in the crevice of the trough in order to strengthen the trough ; but if it is not there for that purpose it must be forthwith removed." Whence we infer, that even if there was a piece of the size of an olive in the crevice of a trough for the purpose of strengthening it, it must also be removed. We have learned to this effect in a Boraitha: Dough which was placed in the crevices of a kneading- trough for the purpose of strengthening it does not constitute an intervention to defilement nor a transgression of the law of Passover; but if it be found in places where it was not necessary, in order to make the trough firmer, it does constitute an inter- vention and does cause a transgression of the law. All this is said of dough which was less than the size of an olive ; but if it was of that size, even if it was used to make the trough firmer, it must forthwith be removed. Said R. Na'hman in the name of Samuel: " If there were two pieces of dough each the size of half an olive in the trough and happened to be connected with a thread, they are considered TRACT PESACHIM (PASSOVER). 73 as a whole olive, provided when the thread is lifted both pieces are carried with it, otherwise they are not and may remain in the trough." Said Ula: " This applies to dough situated in the trough ; but if the two pieces were not in a trough but in the house, and being connected by a thread would not be carried with the thread, if lifted, they must nevertheless forthwith be removed, lest they in some manner become joined and there will be leaven in the house to the size of an olive." The rabbis taught: If bread had become mouldy and while unfit for a human being could be eaten by a dog, it is subject to defilement as long as it is of the size of an egg, and may be burned together with unclean things on Passover, even though it be itself clean (heave-offering). Upon the authority of R. Nathan it was said, however, that not being fit for a human being it cannot be subject to defilement. The rabbis taught : If in a trough of the tanners flour had been put within the three days preceding the Passover, it should be removed ; but if it had been placed prior to that time, it need not be removed. This is said of a case where no skins had been placed in the trough by the tanner; but if this had been done, even flour placed in the trough during the three days need not be removed. Said Rabha: " The Halakha prevails accord- ing to R. Nathan, and even if the flour was put in one day, yea,