דף 42

It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita: “Either a bull or a lamb that has anything too long or too short, you may offer it as a free-will offering [to the Temple treasury]; but for a vow [as a sacrifice] it shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 22:23). From here we learn that it, i.e., a blemished animal, you may consecrate for maintaining the Temple, but you may not consecrate unblemished animals for maintaining the Temple. In other words, any animal fit to be sacrificed as an offering may not be consecrated for maintaining the Temple but only as an offering. From here the Sages stated: Whoever consecrates unblemished animals for maintaining the Temple transgresses a positive mitzva.

From here I have only derived that he violates a positive mitzva; from where do I derive that he also transgresses a prohibition? The verse states at the beginning of that passage: “And the Lord spoke to Moses saying” (Leviticus 22:17). This introductory statement teaches with regard to the entire portion that a prohibition applies to it. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

The baraita adds that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Bar Kappara: From where may it be inferred that this is the case? How does Rabbi Yehuda derive his statement that a prohibition applies to the entire portion from the phrase “And the Lord spoke to Moses saying”?

He said to him: As it is written: “Saying [leimor].” Rabbi Yehuda expounds this term as though it read: Say no [lo emor]. In other words, the word no, an expression of prohibition, is stated with regard to the subsequent matters, which means that these mitzvot are categorized as prohibitions.

In the school of Rav they say a slightly different explanation: The term: Saying, can be expounded as if it were written lav emor, meaning: Say a prohibition. In other words, the verse indicates that Moses was instructed to inform the Jewish people of a prohibition. This teaches that any mitzva introduced by the word leimor should be treated as a prohibition. Since the halakhot of the Paschal lamb are preceded by the phrase: “And the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron in the Land of Egypt saying” (Exodus 12:1), it can be inferred that the subsequent mitzvot are also prohibitions.

We learned in the mishna: Water that has been used by a baker for cooling his hands or washing dishes must be poured out, as it contains a small, undefined quantity of leavened dough. It was taught in one baraita: One may pour out this water in a place with an incline, and he may not pour it out in a level place where the water collects. And it was taught in another baraita: One may even pour out this water in a level place where the water collects.

The Gemara resolves this contradiction: This is not difficult. This baraita, which states that it is prohibited to pour out this water in a level place, is referring to a large amount of water that will collect in one place. Since there is a large amount of water, the flour in the water will not be absorbed into the ground but will leaven. Conversely, that baraita, which states that it is permitted to pour out the water in a level place, is referring to a situation where there was not a large amount of water, so that it will not collect. Instead, this water will be absorbed into the ground before the dough leavens.

Rav Yehuda said: A woman may knead matza dough only with water that rested, i.e., water that was left indoors overnight to cool. If water is added to dough immediately after it was drawn, when it is still lukewarm, the dough will leaven at a faster rate.

The Gemara relates: Rav Mattana taught this halakha in Paphunya. On the next day, the eve of Passover, everyone brought their jugs to him and said to him: Give us water. They misunderstood his expression mayim shelanu, water that rested, as the near homonym mayim shelanu, our water, i.e., water that belongs to the Sage, and they therefore came to take water from his house. He said to them: I say and meant: Water that rested [devitu] in the house overnight.

Rava taught: A woman may not knead dough for matza in the sun, nor with water that has been heated by the sun, nor with water collected [hagerufin] in an urn heated by coals [mulyar] And in addition, she may not remove her hand from the oven, i.e., interrupt her baking, until she finishes forming all the loaves from the dough, so that it should not become leavened in the interim. And she requires two vessels, one in which she mixes the water into the dough and one in which she cools her hands so that the heat from her hands does not cause the dough to leaven.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If she transgressed and kneaded the dough with warm water, what is the halakha? Mar Zutra said: It is permitted after the fact. Rav Ashi said: It is forbidden.

Mar Zutra said: From where do I say my opinion on this issue? As it was taught in a baraita: One may not soak barley on Passover, and if one soaked barley and it split, the barley is forbidden. If it did not split, the barley is permitted. This case indicates that even if one violates the principles established by the Sages with regard to adding water to flour on Passover, the product is forbidden only after the fact if it actually leavened.

And Rav Ashi said in response: Is that to say that all of them are woven in the same act of weaving? In other words, is the halakha identical in all cases? Where it was stated that the Sages did not punish the violator by rendering his food prohibited, it was stated; and where it was not stated that they refrained from punishing the violator, it was not stated. It is therefore possible that the Sages rendered dough kneaded with warm water forbidden, to punish the woman who prepared it in this manner.

English translation not yet available

MISHNA: And for possessing these one transgresses [overin] the prohibitions of: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, on Passover, although not all of them are considered food: Babylonian kutaḥ, a dip with a sharp flavor that contains flour; Median beer; Edomite vinegar; Egyptian zitom, a type of beer; dyers’ broth [zoman]; bakers’ well-worked dough; and kolan of soferim.

Rabbi Eliezer says: The same prohibition also applies to women’s adornments, i.e., cosmetics, that contain leaven.

This is the principle: If one possesses any substance that is derived from a type of grain that became leavened, although it is not actually bread, one transgresses the prohibitions of: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, on Passover. These substances are included in the warning, i.e., the biblical prohibition of possessing leaven, but there is no element of karet if one eats them.

GEMARA: Since the mishna mentions kutaḥ, the Gemara cites a baraita where kutaḥ is discussed. The Sages taught that three things were said with regard to kutaḥ: It blocks the heart, it blinds the eyes, and it weakens the body.

The Gemara explains each statement: It blocks the heart due to the whey. Whey was added to kutaḥ and was considered to be an inferior type of food. It blinds the eyes due to the salt in it, which can be dangerous if it enters the eyes. And it weakens the body due to the mold in the bread, as one of the ingredients of kutaḥ was crumbs from dough that had become leavened to the point that they were nearly spoiled.

After mentioning this baraita, the Gemara continues to discuss the nutritional effects of other foods. The Sages taught: Three things increase one’s waste, lower one’s stature, and take one five-hundredth of a person’s vision if he eats them regularly. And they are: Bread from coarse flour, new beer, and raw vegetables.

Similarly, the Sages taught in another baraita: Three things decrease one’s waste, straighten one’s stature, and improve one’s vision, and they are: Bread from fine flour, fatty meat, and aged wine. The Gemara explains: Fine bread