Pesachim 86

סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל וכתיב (דברים טז, ג) לא תאכל עליו חמץ שבעת ימים תאכל עליו מצות כל שישנו בקום אכול מצה ישנו בבל תאכל חמץ והני נשי הואיל וליתנהו בקום אכול מצה דהויא ליה מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא (היא) אימא בבל תאכל חמץ נמי ליתנהו קמ"ל

you might argue, since it is written, Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVI,3.');">¹</span> whoever is subject to 'arise, eat unleavened bread', is subject to 'thou shalt e no leavened bread'; hence these women, since they are not subject to, 'arise, eat unleavened bread', because it is an affirmative precept limited to time,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'caused by the time'. I.e., it is performed at certain times or seasons, and it is shown in Kid. ');">²</span>

והשתא דאתרבו להו בבל תאכל חמץ איתרבי נמי לאכילת מצה כרבי אליעזר דאמר ר"א נשים חייבות באכילת מצה דבר תורה שנא' לא תאכל עליו חמץ וגו' כל שישנו בבל תאכל חמץ ישנו באכילת מצה והני נשי נמי הואיל וישנן בבל תאכל חמץ ישנן בקום אכול מצה

I would say that they are also not subject to, 'thou shalt eat no leavened bread'. Hence it [the verse] informs us [otherwise].

ומאי חזית דהאי כל לרבויי נשים ומפקת עירובו אימא לרבויי עירובו

And now that they have been included in [the injunction of] 'thou shalt eat no leavened bread', they are also included in respect of eating unleavened bread, in accordance with R'Eleazar. For R'Eleazar said: Women are subject to the [precept of] eating unleavened bread by the law of Scripture, for it is said, Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; [seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread [therewith]: whoever is subject to 'thou shalt eat no leavened bread', is subject to the eating of unleavened bread; and these women, since they are subject to [the injunction of] 'thou shalt eat no leavened bread', are [also] subject to, 'arise, unleavened bread'.

מסתברא קאי באוכלין מרבה אוכלין קאי באוכלין מרבה נאכלין

And why do you prefer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what (reason) do you see?'');">³</span> [to assume] that this 'whosoever is to include women, while you exclude its mixture; say that it is to include the mixture?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While the limitation excludes women.');">⁴</span>

מתקיף לה רב נתן אבוה דרב הונא (בריה דרב נתן) וכל היכא דקאי באוכלין לא מרבה נאכלין והא תניא (ויקרא ז, כה) כי כל אוכל חלב מן הבהמה אשר יקריב אין לי אלא חלב תמימין שראוי ליקרב חלב בעלי מומין מנין ת"ל מן הבהמה חלב חולין מניין ת"ל כי כל והא הכא דקאי באוכלין וקא מרבה נאכלין

- It is logical that when treating of eaters [Scripture] include eaters; [but] when treating of eaters, shall it include things which are eaten?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not.');">⁵</span> To this R'Nathan the father of R'Huna demurred: Then wherever [Scripture] treats of eaters does it not include things eaten?

התם דליכא אוכלין מרבה נאכלין הכא דאיכא אוכלין לא שביק להו לאוכלין ומרבה נאכלין

Surely it was taught: For whosoever eateth the fat [heleb] of the beast, of which men present an offering [made by fire to the Lord, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 25.');">⁶</span> I only know it of the heleb of unblemished [animals], which are fit to be offered [as sacrifices]; whence do we know it of the heleb of blemished animals?

ורבנן דלית להו עירוב כל לא דרשי אלא נשים מנא להו

Therefore it is stated, 'of the beast'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying whether it is fit for sacrificing or not.');">⁷</span> Whence do we know it of the heleb of hullin?

כל לא דרשי כי כל דרשי

Because it is stated, 'For whosoever',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is an extension.');">⁸</span> Thus here, though [Scripture] treats of eaters, yet it includes things eaten? - Since there are no eaters there [to be included],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the inclusion of women in the prohibition and penalty follows from Rab's dictum supra ');">⁹</span>

ור"א אימא כל לרבות את הנשים כי כל לרבות את עירובו

it includes things eaten. Here, however, that there are eaters [to be included],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., women, as explained supra.');">¹⁰</span>

וכי תימא כי כל ר"א לא דריש והתניא (ויקרא ב, יא) שאור בל תקטירו אין לי אלא כולו מקצתו מניין ת"ל כל עירובו מניין ת"ל כי כל מאן שמעת ליה דדריש כל רבי אליעזר וקא דריש כי כל

he cannot abandon eaters and include things eaten. Now as to the Rabbis who do not accept the view [that a negative injunction is violated through] a mixture, they do not interpret 'whosoever' [as an extension].

קשיא

But then how do they know [that] women [are liable to kareth]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For eating leaven. For R. Eliezer interprets 'whosoever' in both cases, one as including a mixture, and the other as including women. But since the Rabbis do not interpret 'whosoever' as an extension, there is nothing to intimate the inclusion of women.');">¹¹</span> - They do not interpret 'whosoever' [as an extension], but they do interpret 'for whosoever' [as such].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Written in connection with kareth, Ex. XXI, 15 and 19.');">¹²</span>

א"ר אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן כל איסורין שבתורה אין היתר מצטרף לאיסור חוץ מאיסורי נזיר שהרי אמרה תורה (במדבר ו, ג) משרת

Then [according to] R'Eliezer, say that 'whosoever' is to include women; 'for whosoever' is to include the mixture [of leaven]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Teaching that kareth is involved, and not merely a negative precept.');">¹³</span> And should you answer, R'Eliezer does not interpret 'for whosoever' [as an additional extension] surely it was taught: For ye shall not burn any leaven.

וזעירי אמר אף שאור בל תקטירו

[as an offering made by fire unto the Lord]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 11. For...any (E.V. For ye shall make no...) is ki...kol, the same words which are translated for whosoever' in the previous verses.');">¹⁴</span> I only know it of the whole of it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where the whole of that which is burnt on the altar consists of leaven.');">¹⁵</span>

כמאן כר"א דדריש כל

whence do I know [even] part of it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Leaven must not even be used as part of the offering.');">¹⁶</span> Because 'any' [kol] is stated.

אי הכי

Whence do we know [that] its mixture<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., anything containing a mixture of leaven.');">¹⁷</span> [is forbidden]? Because it is stated for any [ki kol]. Whom do you know to interpret kol [as any extension]? R'Eliezer; and he [also] interprets 'for any' [ki kol]. This is [indeed] a difficulty. R'Abbahu said in R'Johanan's name: In all the prohibitions of the Torah, a permitted [commodity] does not combine with a prohibited [commodity],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The minimum quantity to involve punishment is as much as an olive. Now, if a man eats half that quantity of heleb together with half that quantity of permitted meat simultaneously, the latter does not combine with the former, that it should be regarded as though he had eaten the full quantity of prohibited food.');">¹⁸</span> except in the [case of the] prohibitions of a nazirite, for lo! Torah said, [any] infusion [of grapes].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VI, 3: neither shall he drink any infusion of grapes. By this the Talmud understands that he must not eat bread steeped in wine. Now bread itself is permitted, yet Scripture forbids the combination of bread and wine as though that also were forbidden, and if the two together amount to an olive, punishment is involved. For if Scripture refers to a case where the wine itself contains that quantity, why state it at all; obviously the wine is not less prohibited merely because it has been absorbed by the bread?');">¹⁹</span> While Ze'iri said: Also 'ye shall not burn any leaven'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. I, 11. Rashi: if the priest put half an olive of leaven and half an olive of mazzah, not mixed together but each separately distinguishable, upon the altar, he incurs punishment. Tosaf. explains it differently.');">²⁰</span> With whom [does this agree]? With R'Eliezer, who interprets kol.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra: 'whence do I know (even) part of it' etc. He understands this to mean that there is half an olive of each.');">²¹</span> If so,