Pesachim 76
רב יוסף אמר אמר קרא (שמות יב, טו) שבעת ימים מצות תאכלו מצה הנאכלת לשבעת ימים יצתה זו שאינה נאכלת לשבעת ימים אלא ליום ולילה
[it must be] unleavened bread which is guarded for the sake of [the precept of eating] unleavened bread, thus excluding this, which is guarded not for the sake of unleavened bread but for the sake of a sacrifice.
תניא כוותיה דרבה ותניא כוותיה דרב יוסף תניא כוותיה דרבה יכול יצא ידי חובתו בחלות תודה ורקיקי נזיר תלמוד לומר ושמרתם את המצות מצה המשתמרת לשם מצה יצתה זו שאינה משתמרת לשם מצה אלא לשום זבח
R'Joseph said, Scripture saith, seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 15.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ותיפוק ליה דהוה ליה מצה עשירה
It was taught in accordance with Rabbah: You might think that he can discharge his obligation with the loaves of the thanksoffering and the wafers of a nazirite, therefore it is stated, 'And ye shall guard the unleavened bread', teaching [that it must be] unleavened bread which is guarded for the sake of [fulfilling the obligation of eating] unleavened bread, thus excluding this which is guarded not for the sake of unleavened bread but for the sake of a sacrifice.
אמר שמואל בר רב יצחק רביעית היא ומתחלקת היא לכמה חלות
It was taught in accordance with R'Joseph: You might think that a man can discharge his obligation with the loaves of the thanksoffering and the wafers of a nazirite; therefore it is said, 'seven days ye shall eat unleavened bread', implying, unleavened bread which may be eaten seven days.
אמר ריש לקיש זאת אומרת חלות תודה ורקיקי נזיר נאכלין בנוב וגבעון
Yet deduce it from [the fact that it is designated], 'the bread of affliction', teaching, [it must be] that may be eaten in grief, thus excluding this, which is not eaten in grief but [only] in joy? - He holds as R'Akiba, who said, 'ani' is written.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Supra ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
תניא אמר ר' אילעאי שאלתי את ר' אליעזר מהו שיצא אדם בחלות תודה ורקיקי נזיר אמר לי לא שמעתי באתי ושאלתי לפני ר' יהושע אמר לי הרי אמרו חלות תודה ורקיקי נזיר שעשאן לעצמו אין אדם יוצא בהן למכור בשוק יוצא בהן
Then let him deduce it [from the fact] that it is rich unleavened bread?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he follows the written text, ani, viz., poverty; for the unleavened cakes brought with a sacrifice were kneaded with oil, which makes them 'rich' bread (supra 36a) .');"><sup>5</sup></span>
כשבאתי והרציתי דברים לפני ר' אליעזר אמר לי ברית הן הן הדברים שנאמרו לו למשה בסיני איכא דאמרי ברית הן הן הדברים שנאמרו לו למשה בסיני ולא טעמא בעיא
Said R'Samuel B'R'Isaac: There is [only] a rebi'ith [of oil], and it is divided among many loaves.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only a quarter log of oil was used in the kneading of twenty large loaves: this would not make it rich mazzah.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
וטעמא מאי אמר רבה כל לשוק אימלוכי מימלך אמר אי מזדבן מזדבן אי לא מזדבן איפוק בהו אנא:
Yet deduce it [from the fact] that they might not be eaten in all habitations?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., outside the walls of Jerusalem; v. supra 36a.');"><sup>7</sup></span> - Said Resh Lakish: This proves that the loaves of the thanksoffering and the wafers of the nazirite could be eaten in Nob and Gibeon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the building of the Temple, Israel sacrificed at the 'high places'. altars being erected at Nob and Gibeon, amongst other places. Resh Lakish observes that since we do not deduce the present law from the fact that these loaves might not be eaten in all 'habitations', it follows that there was a time when they were eaten without Jerusalem, viz., during the period of the high places at Nob and Gibeon, v. Zeb. 112b. There is an opposing view, that of R Simeon, that the thanksoffering and the sacrifices of a nazirite could not be offered at the high places. v. Meg. 9b.');"><sup>8</sup></span> It was taught. R'Il'ai said: I asked R'Eleazar, How about a man discharging his obligation with the loaves of the thanksoffering and the wafers of a nazirite? I have not heard, replied he. [So] I went and asked it before R'Joshua. Said he to me, Surely they [the Sages] said: [AS TO] THE [UNLEAVENED] LOAVES OF THE THANKS OFFERING AND THE WAFERS OF A NAZIRITE, IF HE MADE THEM FOR HIMSELF, HE CANNOT DISCHARGE HIS OBLIGATION WITH THEM; IF TO SELL IN THE MARKET, HE CAN DISCHARGE HIS OBLIGATION WITH THEM. When I went and discussed the matter before R'Eleazar, he said to me, By the covenant! These are the very words which were stated to Moses at Sinai. Others state: By the covenant! Are these the very words which were stated to Moses at Sinai? And is not a reason required?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Do you claim a divine origin for them that you draw this distinction without stating its grounds?');"><sup>9</sup></span> And what is the reason? - Said Rabbah: Whatever is for market, he may change his mind [about it]. and he says, 'If it is sold, it is sold; if it will not be sold, I will discharge my duty with it'.