Pesachim 57

דישראל נמי מישרא קא שרי ואי ר' יוסי הגלילי אפי' תוך זמנו נמי מישרא קא שרי בהנאה

even that of an Israelite is indeed permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For general use, after its time.');">¹</span> while if [it is] R'Jose the Galilean, even during its time it indeed permitted for [general] use? - Said R'Aha B'Jacob: In truth it is R'Judah, and he learns se'or [leaven] of 'eating' from se'or of seeing':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he learns the prohibition of eating se'or from that of seeing se'or.');">²</span>

אמר רב אחא בר יעקב לעולם ר' יהודה היא ויליף שאור דאכילה משאור דראייה מה שאור דראייה שלך אי אתה רואה אבל אתה רואה של אחרים ושל גבוה אף שאור דאכילה שלך אי אתה אוכל אבל אתה אוכל של אחרים ושל גבוה

just as [with] the se'or [stated in connection] with 'seeing', you must not see your own, but you may see that belonging to others or to the Most High',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 5b.');">³</span> so [with] the se'or [written in connection] with 'eating', you must not eat your own, but you may eat that belonging to others or to the Most High;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when R. Judah teaches supra ');">⁴</span>

ובדין הוא דאיבעי ליה למיתנא דאפי' באכילה נמי שרי ואיידי דתנא דישראל אסור בהנאה תנא נמי דנכרי מותר בהנאה ובדין הוא דאיבעי ליה למיתנא דאפילו בתוך זמנו מותר בהנאה ואיידי דתנא דישראל לאחר זמנו תנא נמי דנכרי לאחר זמנו

and logically he [the Tanna of our Mishnah] ought to teach that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The leaven of a Gentile.');">⁵</span> is permitted even for eating, but because he teaches that that of an Israelite is forbidden for use, he also teaches that that of a Gentile is permitted for use.

רבא אמר לעולם רבי שמעון היא ורבי שמעון קנסא קניס הואיל ועבר עליה בבל יראה ובל ימצא

Again, logically he ought to teach that even during its period it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The leaven of a Gentile.');">⁵</span> is permitted for use, but because he mentions after its period in connection with that of an Israelite, he also teaches about that of a heathen after its period.

בשלמא לרבא היינו דקתני של ישראל אסור משום שנאמר לא יראה אלא לרב אחא בר יעקב משום לא יאכל חמץ מיבעי ליה

Raba said: In truth it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our MISHNAH:');">⁶</span> is R'Simeon; but R'Simeon does indeed penalize him, since he transgresses 'there shall not be seen' and 'there shall not be found' therewith.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus the Mishnah states the Rabbinic law, while in the Baraitha the Scriptural law is stated.');">⁷</span>

מי סברת אסיפא קאי ארישא קאי והכי קאמר חמץ של נכרי שעבר עליו הפסח מותר בהנאה משום שנאמר לא יראה לך שלך אי אתה רואה אבל אתה רואה של אחרים ושל גבוה ויליף שאור דאכילה משאור דראייה

As for Raba, it is well: hence it is taught, BUT THAT OF AN ISRAELITE IS FORBIDDEN [FOR GENERAL USE], BECAUSE IT IS SAID, NEITHER SHALL THERE LEAVEN BE SEEN WITH THEE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as a penalty for violating this injunction.');">⁸</span> But according to R'Aha B'Jacob, he should state, because [it is said], there shall no leavened bread be eaten?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That being the verse quoted by R. Judah supra 28b.');">⁹</span>

ואזדו לטעמייהו דאיתמר האוכל שאור של נכרי שעבר עליו הפסח לדברי ר' יהודה רבא אמר לוקה ורב אחא בר יעקב אמר אינו לוקה

- Do you think that that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The verse quoted in the MISHNAH:');">¹⁰</span> refers to the second clause?

רבא אמר לוקה לא יליף רבי יהודה שאור דאכילה משאור דראייה ורב אחא בר יעקב אמר אינו לוקה יליף שאור דאכילה משאור דראייה

[No,] it refers to the first clause, and he states thus: LEAVEN BELONGING TO A GENTILE OVER WHICH PASSOVER HAS PASSED IS PERMITTED FOR USE, BECAUSE IT IS SAID, NEITHER SHALL THERE BE LEAVEN SEEN WITH THEE, [implying] thine own thou must not see, but thou mayest see the leaven of strangers or of the Most High; and se'or of 'eating' is learnt from se'or of 'seeing'. Now they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. Raba and R. Aha b. Jacob.');">¹¹</span>

והדר ביה רב אחא בר יעקב מההיא דתניא האוכל חמץ של הקדש במועד מעל ויש אומרים לא מעל

are consistent with their views. For it was stated: If one eats se'or belonging to a heathen ove which Passover has passed, according to R'Judah's view, - Raba said: He is flagellated; while R'Aha B'Jacob said: He is not flagellated.

מאן יש אומרים אמר רבי יוחנן רבי נחוניא בן הקנה היא דתניא ר' נחוניא בן הקנה היה עושה את יום הכפורים כשבת לתשלומין

Raba said, He is flagellated: R'Judah does not learn se'or of 'eating' from se'or of 'seeing'. While R'Aha B'Jacob, said, He is not flagellated: he learns se'or of 'eating' from se'or of 'seeing'.

מה שבת מתחייב בנפשו ופטור מן התשלומין אף יום הכפורים מתחייב בנפשו ופטור מתשלומין

But R'Aha B'Jacob retracted from that [view]. For it was taught: He who eats leaven of hekdesh<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹²</span>

רב יוסף אמר בפודין את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים קמיפלגי

during the Festival [Passover] commits trespass; but some say, He does not commit trespass.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On committing trespass V. p, 117, n. 6. The first Tanna holds that leaven belonging to hekdesh has a value even during Passover. For he agrees with R. Simeon that leaven kept during Passover is Biblically permitted after Passover, and though R. Simeon penalizes its owner, that does not apply to hekdesh, since leaven of hekdesh falls within the permissive law 'but thou mayest see that of Heaven'. Thus this man, by eating it, has caused loss to the Temple treasury, and therefore he is liable to a trespass-offering. But the second Tanna, while admitting this, holds that since he incurs kareth for the eating of leaven, he is free from any lesser penalty, as explained in the Text.');">¹³</span> Who is [meant by] 'some say'? - Said R'Johanan, It is R'Nehunia B'ha-Kanah.

מאן דאמר מעל קסבר פודין את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים ומאן דאמר לא מעל קסבר אין פודין

For it was taught: R'Nehunia B'ha-Kanah used to treat the Day of Atonement as the Sabbath in regard to payment: just as [with] the Sabbath, he forfeits his life and is exempt from (payment], so [with] the Day of Atonement, he forfeits his life and is exempt from payment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is a principle that if a man commits an act involving the death penalty and a monetary compensation. he is exempted from the latter owing to the greater punishment; this holds good');">¹⁴</span> R'Joseph said: They differ as to whether sacred food can be redeemed in order to feed dogs therewith.

רב אחא בר רבא תנא לה

He who says [that] he commits trespass holds, One may redeem sacred food in order to feed dogs therewith; while he who rules [that] he does not commit trespass holds, One may not redeem [etc.].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If these Tannaim held with R. Simeon that during Passover it is forbidden for general use, they would agree that he is not liable for trespass, since it was valueless when he actually ate it, notwithstanding that it would become valuable after Passover. But they hold with R. Jose the Galilean that leaven is permitted for use during Passover. Now, the only use to which leaven can be put then is to give it to dogs. This may be done with ordinary leaven, but there is a controversy in respect of sacred leaven. The first Tanna holds that it can be redeemed for that purpose: hence the leaven is valuable, and therefore the eater commits trespass. But the others ('some say') hold that sacred leaven may not be redeemed for dogs. Consequently it has no value, and the eater does not commit trespass.');">¹⁵</span> R'Aha B'Raba recited