Pesachim 53 – Customs not to follow

A while ago, there was a custom not to sell large livestock to gentiles for the following reason. One may sell an ox or a horse just before Shabbat, the buyer may then ask to demonstrate the animal’s prowess, and the Jew would spur it on with his voice, thus causing the animal to work on Shabbat. (This prohibition is not in force today).

Some communities adopted a prohibition not to sell small livestock – so that one does not come to sell large livestock. Others say that the prohibition was added to prevent bestiality. However, this is a kind of custom that was not generally adopted, and one is not obligated to conform to it, even in a city where everyone else does so.

In a similar vein, in some places, people had the custom to light a candle in a house on Yom Kippur's night, and in some – not to light it. However, both were intended for the good: those who lighted did so to prevent cohabitation on Yom Kippur since, in general, it is prohibited with the light of a candle. Those who did not light did so to not see the beauty of the spouse and not be aroused by it.

Art: A Lady Admiring An Earring by Candlelight by Godfried Schalcken

Pesachim 52 – Follow the most permissive opinion

The seventh-year (Shmita) produce, which one has collected for his own use, cannot be stored indefinitely. Rather, after it has become scarce, one must put it out into the street so that everybody can enjoy it. As the Torah said, it “shall [also] be eaten by the domestic and wild animals that are in your land.”

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar takes it literally: if one has taken such produce outside of Israel, then when the time for removing it from his home comes, he must travel back to Israel and offer it “in your land.” Rav Safra once traveled outside of Israel with a barrel of Shmita wine. He asked his companions, “What did your teacher, Rav Abahu, say about this? Is the law strict like Rabbi Shimon or no?” Rav Kahana answered that the teacher said yes, but Rav Huna told him that the teacher said no.” At this, Rav Safra said, “I will take the words of Rav Huna because he is always very precise in transmitting the sayings of his teacher.”

However, with this, he also saved himself a lot of trouble with the barrel. Rav Yosef applied to him the following verse, “My people use voodoo divination, and listen to a stick.” In Hebrew, a "stick" is “makel,” which also has the meaning of “lenient.” That is, whoever is more lenient, that is whose opinion you, Rav Safra, prefer.

Art: Barrel and Box of Corn with Scoop by Alfred Montgomery

Pesachim 51 - Wrong customs

Earlier, we learned that one should follow the customs of the place he came to and not deviate from them to avoid disagreements. However, here is an example of a custom adopted by the unlearned masses on their own: the people of Chozai separated the kohen’s portion (challah) from dough made of rice. This is not required at all, and Rav Yosef wanted to send a non-kohen who would eat such “challah” in front of them, thus proving that their custom had no validity. Abaye wanted to stop him, using our previous rule to not deviate from an existing custom. However, Rav Yosef replied that this does not apply to a wrong custom adapted by unlearned masses.

It turns out that there are two levels of ignorance. Totally unlearned masses should keep their wrong customs because once you start abrogating these customs, they will eventually confuse all the laws. However, a custom which was initially adopted with the consent of a Sage - such custom, if found erroneous, can, later on, be argued against, because the group of people with some education will understand the difference: they will accept the eradication of the wrong custom but keep the other rules intact.

Here is an example. The two sons of Rabban Gamliel bathed together in the city of Kabul. The populace was amazed, saying, “We have not seen such behavior ever in our lives.” At which one of the brothers left the bath, but he did not wish to tell them, “You are wrong, two brothers are allowed to bathe together, it is only that two brothers-in-law are not (because this may lead one to wrong thoughts about his sister).” Why didn’t they abrogate the custom? – Because the people of Kabul, although somewhat learned, were rarely visited by Sages.

Art: Trouville, Bathing Hour by Eugène Boudin

Pesachim 50 – Customs

In the Temple's times, people did not work on the day before Passover: this was a day of bringing a Passover sacrifice, and it had a character of a holiday. Later, some people adopted a custom to refrain from work on this day, while others did not. Therefore, if one is from a town where they work on this day, and he comes to a town where they don’t – he, too, should not do any work. In general, one should follow the local custom to avoid disagreements. Moreover, if he comes from a town with a more stringent custom, he is bound by it too. Therefore, one receives the stringencies of the place he left and the stringencies of the place he came to.

Similarly, on the Shmita year, one has to remove from his possession the fruit he has collected, once they are finished in the fields, and leave it for everyone to use. If he comes to a place where they are already putting the fruit into the streets for everyone’s enjoyment, he too has to do it, even if in his home town the time to remove the fruit has not come yet and vice versa.

Art: A Small Disagreement by Francesco Peluso

Pesachim 49 – Like a man whose hair stands on end

If three women have to bake matzot in one oven, they can do it in the normal way – so says Rabban Gamliel: they will all be fast and careful enough and won’t let the dough rise. However, the Sages disagree and say that the first one begins to knead; then, when she begins to form the loaf, the other begins to knead; when the first one puts the loaf in the oven, the third one begins to knead, and so on. They disagree on how much you can trust the average person on Passover. Rabbi Akiva claims that not all women and not all ovens are the same, so there seems to be no way to decide the law. However, a general rule is simply this: if she notices that the dough begins to leaven, she dips her hands in cold water, and that’s enough.

The dough that began to leaven must be burned, but one is still not liable for eating it; however, if it is beyond the first leavening stage, it still must be burned, and one how eats it is liable. What is the sign of the first stage above? – Cracks like the antennae of locusts. And of the second? – When the cracks interlace. These signs are given by Rabbi Yehudah. However, Rabbi Meir disagrees and says that there are many more cracks inside once you have any surface cracks, and the dough has already leavened. What then is the first stage? When the dough is pale like the face of a person whose hair stands on end because of fright.

The Talmud also discusses the deplorable state of unlearned people.

Art: Three Women by Theophile Alexandre Steinlen

Pesachim 48 – Another “since”?

On the previous page, we discussed baking bread (unleavened, of course) close to the end of a holiday, when one is full and cannot eat what he will bake. However, since should the guests chance, they will come and eat his bread, he is not liable for using the Holiday to prepare for a weekday. The principle of “since” had a champion in Rabbah, but Rav Chisda did not accept this way of reasoning.

Earlier, however, we saw a similar argument about baking matzah on Passover's holiday, when the dough was ritually impure. Rabbi Eliezer allowed it. Can we say that he too agrees with the principle of since, and he allowed it because of this: since one could bake each loaf separately, it was OK for him to bake all of them together and then designate one matzah as the kohen’s portion?

If the Talmud can, it will try to combine the disagreements and find the same root cause. However, this does not work here. Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer used the since principle for matzah baking only because each individual loaf is at least suited for him. However, in the case of guests, where he himself is full and cannot eat the bread, the principle of since would not t apply.

On the other hand, Rabbi Yehoshua may reverse his position. Maybe he only opposes the since principle in the case of matzah baking, where the impure challah portion was not fit for anyone. However, in the case of baking at the end of a holiday, where the food he is preparing would at least be good for the guests – there, Rabbi Yehoshua could agree to the principle of since. 

Art: A poor man's meal - a loaf of bread, porridge, buns, and a herring on a wooden table By Hieronymus Francken

Pesachim 47 – Since

If one bakes bread close to the end of a Holiday, essentially for the weekday following, then he is liable to punishment – says Rav Chisda. One is not allowed to cook during a Holiday other than for the needs of this Holiday.

However, Rabbah says that since guests may happen to visit him just before the end of the day, and then he would feed this bread to them, therefore even now, he can be considered baking for a valid purpose, and thus he is not liable.

This principle of “since” has so many implications that it gets a special name, “since,” or “hoyil” in Hebrew. Therefore Rav Chisda and Rabbah begin to argue about it. For example, they discuss the following case.

There is a situation where one can plow a single furrow and transgress eight times because of that. How so? – Firstly, he plows with an ox and a donkey tied together. Then, those animals are consecrated as sacrifices. Furthermore, he is sowing wheat in a vineyard. Besides, it is the seventh year (Shmita) when plowing is forbidden; moreover, he is doing this during a Holiday. He is a Kohen and a Nazirite, and he is plowing in a cemetery, which neither a Kohen nor a Nazirite can visit. That’s eight. However, if the principle of “since” is true, then it should be only seven transgressions, and he should not be liable for plowing itself because, with the act of plowing, he produces dust, which can be used to cover the blood of a bird, a requirement of kosher slaughter. And “since” he can use the dust for this, it should not be counted!

That is a question that Rav Chisda asked of Rabbah. However, Rabbah answered that he is plowing the rocky ground, with no dust. And the discussion continued.

Art: Plowed Field by Edgar Degas

Pesachim 46 – Deaf dough

If a batch of dough became “deaf,” that is, if there are reasons to suspect that it has leavened (such as if it became white but has not shown surface cracks typical of leavening), then we take another dough that was kneaded in a similar situation and check that one for chametz. If the other dough leavened, we assume that the one in question leavened also. But what if we don’t have another dough? Then we assume that the dough leavens in the time it takes one to walk a “mil,” or about two thousand steps, which is eighteen minutes. The same eighteen minutes appear in many other laws.

If one bakes dough on Passover itself, and this dough is ritually impure, as all our doughs today are, then he has a problem with “challah,” the kohen’s portion, as follows. He cannot bake it because one can only cook foods that will be eaten, and impure challah needs to be destroyed. Nor can he leave it over because it will leaven. Rabbi Eliezer suggests not declaring the challah portion until all dough is baked, and only then combine all the matzot in the basket and separate one as challah (by now, it is not chametz), and destroy it. Ben Beteira suggests putting it in a cool water place until the end of the Yom Tov when one will be allowed to bake it. Finally, Rabbi Yehoshua says that this challah can be separated, and if it leavens – let it be. Why? It does not belong to the owner because it is for the kohen. Nor does it belong to any specific kohen. Therefore, this is not chametz that was prohibited by the Torah.

The Talmud discusses why each of the disputants does not accept the solution of the other two.

Art: The Bakers Cart by Jean Michelin

Pesachim 45 – Dough in the cracks of a kneading trough

It is normal to have some dough stuck in the cracks of a kneading trough. If the amount of this dough is more than an olive volume, one must dispose of it for Passover. However, if it is less than an olive, then it is considered nullified due to its small size, and one can keep it there.

There are qualifications to this rule, though: it is only applicable to the trough's upper part, which does not hold water. The bottom part of the trough, where kneading takes place and where water enters, needs to be strong, so there even larger dough pieces are used to strengthen the trough, and therefore they don’t have to be removed.

The same rule applies to ritual impurity: if one cares that the dough is there, it stops impurity. However, this statement is not easy to understand: if anything, it is not the same. Before, all depended on the dough piece's size, and now it depends on one caring about the dough being there. The Talmud tries to give it a few interpretations and ends up understanding it as thus. If the dough is important in his eyes, such as on Passover when chametz is prohibited, it serves as a separation between the possible impurity source (such as a dead rat) and the trough. On all other days of the year, it depends upon his caring about it: if he objects to the dough being there, then it is not part of the trough. Therefore, it separates the trough impurity. If he does not mind the dough being there, it becomes as if part of the trough, and if a dead rat touches this dough, the whole trough becomes impure.

Art: Alexandrine Rat and Black Rat by Archibald Thorburn

Pesachim 44 – Infusions

In discussing infusions, Abaye asked the following question, “Is it true that eating chametz mixed with other foods is forbidden by the Torah?” Rav Dimi answered him, “Yes.” Abaye started attacking this statement.

Take, for example, the Babylonian sour dip we discussed above, which was not prohibited by the Torah and was only removed as a precaution? Rav Dimi answered, “Forget Babylonian sour dip, where the concentration of bread is not sufficient to reach an olive's bulk in normal eating.”

This dip is meant to be eaten as a condiment.     When one eats it, he does not reach the olive's bulk of bread in the normal eating period, and he is not liable from the Torah point of view. On the other hand, if he decides to gulp the dip, he is not eating like people normally eat. This is not considered an act of eating either – and Torah only prohibits eating chametz by swallowing it normally.

Abaye asked more questions, comparing this to the laws of a Nazirite who decides to soak his bread in wine, to meat cooked in milk, and to milk in which meat was cooked, but Rav Dimi was able to answer all of them, so in the end, one cannot mix bread into his food and eat it on Passover.

Art: A piece of meat, a glass of wine, and a plate of olives on a partly draped table by (after) Juan Van Der Hamen

Pesachim 43 – Perhaps women can eat chametz on Passover?

Women and men are equally included in all prohibitions of the Torah, based on the verse “When a man or a woman sins against a fellow, thus being untrue to God...”. However, according to Rabbi Eliezer, they might still be permitted to eat chametz on Pesach. Why? Since the Torah said, “Do not eat any leaven, seven days eat matzah.” Now we know that women are free from any Torah commandment that has a fixed time for doing it due to their busy schedules. This would include eating matzah since it is applicable only on the seven days of Passover. And once they don't have to eat matzah, the “do not eat leaven” should not apply to them either.

A third source comes to reconcile these contradictory indications. There is an extra word “anything” in verse, “You must not eat anything leavened.” This extra word shifts the balance and is used by Rabbi Eliezer to obligate women to abstain from chametz. And once this is achieved, the connection between not eating chametz and eating matzah at the Seder is restored, and women become obligated to eat matzah.

However, Rabbi Eliezer could have used the word “anything” for a different law and derive from it that other foods mixed with chametz are equally forbidden. Why didn't he? – It is reasonable to say that in the context of “eaters,” we add another group of “eaters,” that is, women, not another group of what is being eaten, that is, mixtures.

Art: Washerwomen of Fouesnant by William-Adolphe Bouguereau