Pesachim 31a-b
According to the
Mishnah (30b)
if a non-Jew lent money to a Jewish person before
Pesach, and held the Jew's
hametz as collateral, the Jew would be allowed to pay back
the loan after the holiday and make use of the hametz.
Conversely, if the Jew lent money to the non-Jew and held the
non-Jew's hametz as collateral over Pesach, that hametz
could not be used after the holiday is over.
A
baraita is quoted on our daf (=page) that
brings in another opinion. According to
Rabbi Meir, if the Jew is holding a non-Jew's hametz over
Pesach as collateral on a loan, it cannot be used after Pesach, but
there is another opinion in the baraita that rules that the
hametz can be used.
Our
Gemara explains that these cases are specifically when the
collateral - in this case, the hametz - is actually handed
over to the lender, who takes possession of it. The idea that
collateral becomes the possession of the lender is based on a
statement by Rabbi Yitzhak, who explains the passage (Devarim
24:13) which teaches how a lender must return the collateral
given to him by a poor person to him when he needs it. According to
the pasuk (=verse), when the lender fulfils his Biblical
obligation and returns the collateral, he is credited with
tzedakah - charity. Rabbi Yitzhak asks - why should he be
credited with charity, if the object remains the property of the
poor person? We must conclude that ba'al hov koneh mashkon -
that the lender takes actual ownership of the collateral. The
disagreement between the
Tannaim is based on a dispute as to whether the same rules
of ownership transfer apply when dealing with non-Jews.
The
Talmud presents a wide variety of methods for transferring
ownership of objects. Purchase by means of money is, perhaps, the
best known; other methods include meshikha - pulling an
object, hagbahah - lifting an object, halipin - a
symbolic method to indicate agreement, and others. The Gemara does
not make clear whether these methods are Rabbinic in origin and
normal money purchase is the most basic method, or, perhaps, these
are the foundational methods of transfer, and purchase with money is
a weaker method - one that indicates agreement, but does not affect
the transfer in and of itself.
The appropriate method of transferring ownership between Jews and
non-Jews is a topic that is discussed several times in the Talmud.
In our case, the lack of clarity with regard to the power of these
different methods is the source for the discussion in the Gemara
about how a Jew and non-Jew can successfully buy and sell hametz
from one-another.
Pesachim 32a-b
According to the
Torah (Vayikra
22:14) if someone accidentally eats
terumah (=tithes) that is supposed to be given to the
kohen, he needs to repay the value of the terumah to
the kohen, plus an additional one-fifth of the value (20%) as
a penalty. The
Mishnah (31b)
teaches that if the terumah was
hametz (i.e. it had been baked into bread), and it was
accidentally eaten on
Pesach, the person who ate it needs to pay its value together
with the penalty - even though hametz on Pesach is ordinarily
considered to have no value.
In explaining this law, the
Gemara on our daf (=page) brings a
baraita, where the
Tanna Kamma (=first) rules that someone who eats an
olive-size amount of terumah needs to pay the value plus the
penalty, while
Abba Shaul rules that it is only true if the terumah that
was eaten is worth at least a perutah (the smallest amount
which still has monetary value). Each of the parties to this
disagreement emphasizes a different part of the
passage in Vayikra. The Tanna Kamma chooses to put
emphasis on "And if a man eat of the holy thing," explaining that
the term "eat" always means a minimum amount of food, which is
traditionally understood to be a ka-zayit - food the size of
an olive. Abba Shaul stresses the end of the pasuk (=verse) -
that the man must "give unto the priest the holy thing." The term
"give" means a significant amount - minimally the value of a
perutah.
Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook, in his book Tov Ra'ayah,
suggests that the disagreement between Abba Shaul and the
Hakhamim is based on two opinions in the
Jerusalem Talmud. The Yerushalmi brings a discussion as
to whether the source of the 20% penalty stems from the unique
property of holiness of the terumah, which exists from the
moment it is tithed by the farmer, or if it is a fine based on the
fact that it was stolen from the kohen, which would not take
effect until the kohen takes possession of the terumah.
Thus, the Tanna Kamma understands giving the "holy thing" to
the kohen as commanding that a minimum amount (a ka-zayit)
must be given to the kohen; only then will the penalty be in
place. Abba Shaul understands that the "holy thing" given is the
penalty for misusing the terumah itself.
Pesachim 33a-b
One set of laws that has been discussed here in
Masechet
Pesachim addresses how coming into contact with tumah
(ritual defilement) affects the status of people, objects or food,
particularly with regard to the
Temple and the
Temple service.
On our daf (=page),
Rabbi Yohanan is quoted as teaching a surprising rule. According
to him, if
grapes have become tameh (ritually defiled) they can be
pressed out in very small amounts - less than a beitzah (the
size of an egg) - and the
juice will still be appropriate for use as part of the Temple
sacrifices, since the amount that is squeezed out each time is
too small to become tameh.
Upon hearing this ruling from
Rav Aha bar Rav Avya,
Rav Hisda responded "Who will listen to you and your teacher,
Rabbi Yohanan? Those grapes were tameh - where did the
tumah go to?!"
In clarification of Rabbi Yohanan's position, the
Gemara explains that he believes that the juice is mifkad
pakid - that it is a distinct unit stored within the grape; it
is not part-and-parcel of a single entity. Rav Hisda, who disagrees,
believes that the juice is mivla beli'i - that the juice and
the grape are a single entity, so that when the grape becomes
tameh, the entire unit becomes defiled.
This disagreement about whether the juice contained within fruit is
part of the fruit or a separate entity (incidentally, the same
disagreement exists with regard to
blood within the human body, under certain circumstances) is not
so much a question of the physical reality of the situation as it is
how we perceive the relationship. The question is whether the liquid
that is pressed out of the fruit (or the body) was independent and
is now simply being removed, or if squeezing it out affects a real
change in the liquid.
Another way of looking at it is whether the tiny storage areas that
hold the liquid within the fruit must be seen as an integral part of
the fruit, or if they can be seen as separate compartments -
questions that cannot be answered definitively through testing or
similar methods.
Pesachim 34a-b
The
Gemara discusses what can be done with
terumah (=tithes) that has
become ritually defiled, and now can no longer be eaten by the
kohen. One suggestion is
that it can be used by the kohen for fuel, although care must
be taken to ensure that such terumah will not be eaten by
mistake. As an example, the Gemara tells of
Abba Shaul who worked kneading dough in the home of Rebbi, and
he would keep the dough warm by burning wheat kernels that were
terumah temei'ah - ritually defiled tithes.
Rav Ashi explains that he was careful to first prepare the
kernels by cooking them and dirtying them in order to make sure that
no one would come to eat them.
Tosafot point out that the story is odd, since we know that
Rebbi was not a kohen. Why was terumah being used in
his house? Some explain that there were kohanim who were part
of Rebbi's household, and their presence allowed for use of
terumah temei'ah even though others would benefit, as well.
Tosafot Ri"d explains that the laws regarding terumah
temei'ah are Rabbinic in nature, and the sages allowed their use
for the public benefit even if there are no kohanim involved,
and in the house of the
Nassi - the leader of the Jewish community - the
preparations were considered to be for the public benefit.
Another case discussed on our daf (=page) is a
Mishnah that appears in
Masechet
Terumot, which teaches that a vegetable which was terumah
temei'ah and then replanted loses its status as ritually
defiled, but it cannot be eaten. The Gemara grapples with this
halakha - if returning it to the ground removes its
tumah, why can it still not be eaten? Several possibilities
are raised by our Gemara. The Gemara records that when Ravin moved
from
Babylon to Israel he repeated these discussions to
Rabbi Yirmiyah, who responded by saying, "Those foolish
Babylonians! It is because they live in a dark country that they
record dark teachings!" He concludes that the reason for this is
straightforward - that replanted terumah may remove the
tumah, but it does not remove the status of the vegetable as
terumah. Therefore, when the Mishnah says that it cannot be
eaten, it means that it cannot be eaten by someone who is not a
kohen.
Rabbi Yirmiyah was, himself, born in Babylon and moved to Israel,
where he studied under the tutelage of
Rabbi Yohanan and his students, and became one of the leading
sages there. His statements are quoted in both the
Jerusalem and
Babylonian Talmud with such frequency that they are quoted as
"it was taught in Israel." His quick, sharp-witted tongue on
occasion got him in trouble, to the extent that he was removed from
the
study hall for a time.
Pesachim 35a-b
When thinking about
hametz, we usually associate it with a fermentation process
that occurs when grain flour is mixed with water and baked. The
Mishnah on our daf (=page) enumerates the types of grain
that undergo this process -
wheat,
rye,
oats,
barley and
spelt - but in a different context. According to the Mishnah, it
is specifically these types of grains from which
matzah can be made. The
Gemara learns this from the passage (Devarim
16:3) that forbids the eating of hametz in the same
context as the command to eat matzah, connecting the two to
one-another.
The Gemara understands this to be a clear rejection of the position
put forward by
Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri, who rules that
rice is also a type of grain for which one would be held liable
for eating if it became hametz, and that one could fulfill
the mitzvah by baking it into matzah. The accepted opinion
understands that the process of mixing rice with water does not lead
to himutz - fermentation - but to sirhon - spoilage.
The
Jerusalem Talmud explains that establishing which types of
grains are those that can become hametz and matzah was
based on extensive research done by the sages, who experimented with
the baking process to ascertain whether the fermentation process
takes place. With regard to a small number of grain-type products,
there remained differences of opinions as to whether the process
that took place should be considered himutz.
Although the conclusion of our Gemara clearly rejects the opinion of
Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri, nevertheless over centuries of Jewish
history traditions arose that limited the use of
kitniyot (=pulses)
on
Pesach due to a concern that kernels of grain may become mixed
in with them. Generally speaking,
Ashkenazi communities limit their use. Among the traditions:
-
Some make full use of
kitniyot.
-
Some forbid the use of rice, but permit other types of pulses.
-
Some forbid the use of all
kitniyot.
As a rule, people follow the traditions of their parents and
communities.
Pesachim 36a-b
The
Torah commands (Devarim
16:3) that during the
Pesach holiday no
hametz be eaten, rather that only
matzah -
lehem oni - can be eaten. Lehem oni is usually
translated as "the bread of affliction." In the context of our
Gemara it is understood to mean "poor bread," and the Gemara on
our daf (=page) brings a
baraita that understands it to exclude halut
and ashisha. These terms are unclear and are subject to a
disagreement among the
Rishonim.
Halut usually means "boiled."
Rav Hai Gaon explains that the dough was "boiled" in
oil or
honey and it is, therefore considered matzah ashirah -
"rich matzah" - that cannot be used. Others understand that
the dough was actually boiled (similar to the process used today to
make bagels) and cannot be used, either because boiling gives it a
certain importance that negates the "poor bread" that we need (Ra'avad
and others), or because the boiling process does not produce an
end-product that is considered to be bread at all (Rabbenu
Yehonatan).
An ashisha is a large cake. According to some Rishonim,
its very size gives it a certain importance that is problematic, as
noted above. According to Rabbenu Yehonatan, the ashisha is
kneaded together with oil or honey, again creating a situation of
matzah ashirah.
The Gemara rejects the suggestion that lehem oni teaches that
only pat hadra'ah can be used - i.e. that low grade
flour need be used - arguing that even
King Solomon's matzot, made of the finest flour, could be
used as matzah.
While all commentaries agree that the pat hadra'ah
mentioned means something baked from low-quality flour, the actual
definition of the term is subject to dispute. According to the
Maharam Halavah quoting the
Rambam, the word means "a worm" and the reference is to
worm-eaten flour. The
Arukh had a slight variation on the reading of the word; his
version is harda'ah, whose source is the Latin
horedeum, meaning barley. According to this, the suggestion
raised in the Gemara is that normal wheat flour should be rejected
for the "poor bread" and replaced with a lower quality barley grain.
