Pesachim 42

ר' יהודה בן בתירא אומר כותח וכל מיני כותח אסור למכור שלשים יום קודם לפסח:

R'Judah B. Bathyra said: Kutah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jast.: a preserve consisting of sour milk, breadcrusts, and salt. V. Perles Et. St. 85; Fl. to Levy, Talm. Dict. II, p. 459b.');">¹</span> and all kinds of kutah!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Shab. ');">²</span> may not be sold thirty days before Passover.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is used as a sauce or relish, and hence lasts a long time. It was customary to give popular lectures about Festivals thirty days before, and therefore from that time one might not sell his kutah to a Gentile.');">³</span>

ומותר בהנאה: פשיטא לא צריכא שחרכו קודם זמנו וקמ"ל כדרבא דאמר רבא חרכו קודם זמנו מותר בהנאה אפילו לאחר זמנו:

AND BENEFIT THEREOF IS PERMITTED. That is obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For feeding cattle with it is benefit, and it is already stated that this is permitted.');">⁴</span> It is necessary [to teach it] only where he charred it [in the fire] before its time,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., before it becomes forbidden. It was so charred that it neither tastes nor looks like leaven.');">⁵</span>

עבר זמנו אסור בהנאתו: פשיטא לא צריכא לשעות דרבנן דאמר רב גידל אמר רב חייא בר יוסף א"ר יוחנן המקדש משש שעות ולמעלה אפילו בחיטי קורדניתא אין חוששין לקדושין:

and he [the Tanna] informs us [that the law is] as Rabbah. For Rabbah said: If he charred it [in the fire] before its time, benefit [thereof] is permitted even after its time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the Mishnah too refers to this.');">⁶</span> WHEN ITS PERIOD HAS PASSED, BENEFIT THEREOF IS FORBIDDEN.

ולא יסיק בו תנור וכירים: פשיטא לא צריכא לר' יהודה דאמר אין ביעור חמץ אלא שריפה סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ואמר ר' יהודה מצותו בשריפה בהדי דקא שריף ליה ליתהני מיניה קמ"ל:

That is obvious? - It is necessary [to state this] only in respect of the hours [when leaven is interdicted] by Rabbinical law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the sixth hour.');">⁷</span> For R'Gidal said in the name of R'Hiyya B'Joseph in R'Johanan's name: He who betroths from the sixth hour and onwards, even with wheat of Cordyene. We have no fear of his betrothal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra ');">⁸</span>

אמר חזקיה מנין לחמץ בפסח שאסור בהנאה שנאמר (שמות יג, ג) לא יאכל חמץ לא יהא בו היתר אכילה טעמא דכתב רחמנא לא יאכל חמץ הא לא כתב לא יאכל הוה אמינא איסור אכילה משמע איסור הנאה לא משמע

AND HE MAY NOT FIRE AN OVEN OR A POT-RANGE WITH IT. That is obvious? - This is necessary only according to R'Judah, who maintained: There is no removal of leaven save by burning. You might argue, since R'Judah said, Its precept demands burning, then while he is burning it let him benefit from it.

ופליגא דר' אבהו דא"ר אבהו כל מקום שנאמר לא יאכל לא תאכל לא תאכלו אחד איסור אכילה ואחד איסור הנאה (משמע) עד שיפרט לך הכתוב כדרך שפרט לך בנבילה

Hence we are informed [that it is not so]. Hezekiah said: How do we know that leaven during Passover is forbidden for [general] use?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not merely as food.');">⁹</span> Because it is said, there shall no leavened bread be eaten:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XIII, 3.');">¹⁰</span>

דתניא (דברים יד, כא) לא תאכלו כל נבלה לגר אשר בשעריך תתננה ואכלה או מכור לנכרי וגו' אין לי אלא לגר בנתינה ולנכרי במכירה לגר במכירה מנין ת"ל לגר אשר בשעריך תתננה או מכור לנכרי בנתינה מנין תלמוד לומר תתננה ואכלה או מכור לנכרי נמצאת אומר אחד גר ואחד נכרי בין במכירה בין בנתינה דברי ר' מאיר

[meaning,] there shall not be in it permission [i.e.the rig of eating.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: the use of the passive intimates that no benefit which may lead to eating is permitted, i.e., no benefit whatsoever, for generally the monetary value of any benefit is expended on food.');">¹¹</span> [Thus] the reason is because the Divine Law wrote, 'there shall no leavened bread be eaten'; but if 'shall not be eaten' were not written, I would say, prohibition of eating is implied, [but] prohibition of benefit is not implied. Now he differs from R'Abbahu, for R'Abbahu said: Wherever it is said, 'It shall not be eaten,' 'that shalt not eat,' 'ye shalt not eat,' the prohibitions of both eating and benefit [in general] ar understood, unless the Writ expressly states [otherwise], as it does in the case of nebelah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹²</span>

ר' יהודה אומר דברים ככתבן לגר בנתינה ולנכרי במכירה מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה אי סלקא דעתך כדאמר ר' מאיר ליכתוב רחמנא לגר אשר בשעריך תתננה ואכלה ומכור או למה לי שמע מינה לדברים ככתבן

For it was taught: Ye shall not eat of [nebelah] anything that dieth of itself: thou mayest give it unto the stranger [ger] that is within thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto a foreigner:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 21.');">¹³</span> know only that it may be 'given' to a stranger<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A resident-alien who is a semi-proselyte in so far that he has abjured idolatry.');">¹⁴</span> or 'sold' to a foreigner [heathen]; how do I know [that] selling to a stranger [ger] [is permitted]?

ור' מאיר או להקדים נתינה דגר למכירה דנכרי ורבי יהודה הא לא צריך קרא כיון דגר אתה מצווה להחיותו ונכרי אי אתה מצווה להחיותו לא צריך קרא סברא הוא

Therefore it is stated, 'thou mayest give it unto the stranger [ger] that is within thy gates.' o sell.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Treating 'stranger' as the indirect object of both 'give' and 'sell'.');">¹⁵</span> How do we know [that] giving to a foreigner [is permitted]?

בשלמא לר' מאיר דאמר אחד גר ואחד נכרי בין במכירה בין בנתינה מדאיצטריך קרא למישרא נבילה בהנאה הא כל איסורין שבתורה אסורין בין באכילה בין בהנאה

Because it is stated, 'thou mayest give it, that he may eat it, or thou mayest sell it unto a foreigner',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Treating 'foreigner' as the indirect object of both 'give' and 'sell'.');">¹⁶</span> thus the result is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is found saying'.');">¹⁷</span> that [to] a stranger [ger] and foreigner [heathen] alike, both selling and giving [are permitted]: this is R'Meir's view.

אלא לרבי יהודה דאמר לדברים ככתבן הוא דאתא הא כל איסורים שבתורה מנא ליה דאסורין בהנאה נפקא ליה (שמות כב, ל) מלכלב תשליכון אותו

R'Judah said: The words are as they are written, [viz.] to a ger it must be given and to a heathen it must be sold. What is R'Judah's reason? If you should think as R'Meir says,let the Divine Law write, thou mayest give it unto the stranger [ger] that is within thy gates, that he may eat it, and thou mayest sell it: why state 'or'? Infer from this that the words are as they are written. And R'Meir?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he answer this?');">¹⁸</span> - 'Or' is to show that giving to a ger takes precedence over selling to a heathen. And R'Judah? - No verse is required for this: since you are commanded to maintain a ger, but you are not commanded to maintain a heathen,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a technical sense only: nevertheless Judaism teaches that the poor among heathens must be helped just as the Jewish poor, v. Git. 61a.');">¹⁹</span> a verse is not required, [for] it stands to reason. On the view of R'Meir who maintained,[to] a ger and a heathen alike, both selling and giving are permitted, it is well: since a verse is required to permit benefit from a nebelah, it follows that all other thi forbidden in the Torah are forbidden in respect of both eating and [general] benefit. But according to R'Judah, who maintained, it comes from [the purpose of teaching that] the words are as they are written, whence does he know that all [other] things forbidden in the Torah are forbidden in respect of benefit? He deduces it from, [ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field;] ye shall cast it to the dogs:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 30.');">²⁰</span>