Pesachim 34 – Planting the priest’s portion

Abaye and Chananiah, son of Avin, were learning about priest’s portion (terumah) in the academy of Rabbah – who was quite a personality, see here. Rava met them and asked what new have they learned. They replied, “And what problem do you have?” Rava told them that he could not understand the following ruling: If a priest’s portion of grain became impure and one planted it, then this grain cannot make other food impure, but it itself is still forbidden to be eaten. The earth should purify it! 

They told him, “You know for whom it is forbidden? – For all others, but not for the priests, and in fact, it is pure.” Rava rejected the answer since it would not be teaching anything new. They tried another time: “It became impure because the priests did not watch it!” – but that answer was not satisfactory either.

When Ravin went to Israel and related this question to Rav Yirmiyah, the latter said, “Stupid Babylonians! They live in the low dark land, and because of that, their teachings are murky.” (When they don’t know a reason, they just invent it!) The real reason was conclusively proven by Resh Lakish to be this: in truth, this portion of the grain is pure, but the Sages, out of their love for holy things, decreed additional impurity on the planted grain and removed the power of the earth to purify it. Basically, however, it is pure, and thus it cannot transmit impurity further.

Art: Proverb 'everything has a reason' by Pieter The Younger Brueghel

Pesachim 33 – Squeezing pure juice out of impure grapes

Rabbi Yochanan made a puzzling statement: “If grapes became impure, one could squeeze the juice out of them in the amount of less than an egg’s volume, and that juice will be so pure that one can use it for libations in the Temple.” How could that be?

The answer is that Rabbi Yochanan considers grape juice as a separate liquid that happens to be contained in grape skin. As such, the skin protects the juice rather than contaminate it. When he squeezes the juice out, given that the amount of grapes is less than an egg’s volume, it cannot transmit impurity further.

Still, Rav Chisda was amazed and asked, “The impurity of the grapes, where did it go?” That is because, according to him, the grape juice permeates the grape and becomes one with it, so an impure grape skin makes the juice impure right away, and this impurity cannot disappear.

Art: Hanging Grapes by George Henry Hall

Pesachim 32 – Eating priest’s chametz

If a wall fell on one’s chametz and buried it, he is not required to dig after it to destroy it. However, he still needs to renounce it in his heart – lest it becomes uncovered during Passover and he will want it. How deep does it have to be buried? – So that a dog cannot dig it out. And how deep is that? – Three handbreadths.

If one eats the priest’s portion (terumah) on Passover, and it was chametz, then if he did it by mistake, he needs to repay the amount he ate plus one fifth, whereas if he did it on purpose, he needs to repay nothing at all.

This seems counterintuitive! However, let’s look deeper. If he eats terumah (2% of the crop, Kohen’s portion) by mistake, the Torah says that he needs to return the grain itself. The grain becomes terumah again, and he even adds one-fifth to be forgiven for his error.

By contrast, if he eats it knowingly, he is treated like a regular thief, who repays only what he has stolen, in cash or other goods. Since chametz on Passover is worth nothing, it turns out that he stole zero value and has to repay zero.

Art: Peasants eating in a farmyard by Antonio Diziani

Pesachim 31 – Loan Secured by Whiskey

Imagine that a Jew borrowed money from a non-Jew and left some chametz (think whiskey or vodka) in the non-Jew’s house as collateral. If after Passover the Jew defaults on the loan, the non-Jew keeps the chametz as a repayment. We can say that the chametz was already in non-Jewish hand on Passover retroactively, and now it is permitted for use.

By contrast, imagine a non-Jew who borrowed money and left his chametz in the Jew's house. Now, if after Passover the non-Jew defaults on his loan, the chametz becomes Jewish retroactively and is therefore forbidden for use, as chametz owned by a Jew on Passover.

In general, Abaye says that when one defaults on a loan, the lender acquires the collateral retroactively, from the first minute of the loan. Why? Since he did not repay, it is now clear that the collateral belonged to the lender all along. If he did something with it earlier, such as selling it, it now transpires that he had the right to do so.

Rava will say that since the borrower could have paid the money any time, the collateral always remained his. If the lender sold it before the loan was due, he did so illegally. It seems, though, that the rule we started with presents a problem to Rava! There, the lender did acquire chametz retroactively!? – Rava will answer that there it was different: whiskey was left with the lender who did not need to take any action to acquire it.

Art: The Irish Whiskey Still by Sir David Wilkie

Pesachim 30 – Chametz mix

If chametz is mixed with some permitted food, it is still prohibited to be eaten on Passover – so says Rav. Of course, if you can feel its taste, it is the same as chametz itself, but Rav refers even to minute amounts. Why doesn't the regular law of nullification of small amounts apply? This is a special decree: since normally people are accustomed to eating chametz, and since eating it leads to being cut off from one’s spiritual source, then it is better to distance people from even small admixtures of chametz.

However, Shmuel does not see a reason for this additional decree, and according to him, a small admixture of chametz that is not noticeable is, in fact, allowed on Passover. Even Shmuel does not allow nullification if the mixtures are of the same kind, for example, bread mixed with matzah. Finally, Rabbi Yochanan is even more lenient: he allows nullification of even bread with matzah.

Correspondingly, they will differ for chametz after Passover: some will consider the mixture with its own kind forever forbidden if owned by a Jew on Passover, while others will allow mixtures after the time of the prohibition has passed.

Rava, who lived after them, stated the decisive law: chametz mixture is forbidden on Passover and permitted afterward.

Art: An elderly couple eating and drinking in a tavern by (after) David Ryckaert III

Pesachim 29 – Eating chametz of the Temple

On the previous page, we had a rule about chametz after Passover – that if it had belonged to a Jew on Passover, then it was now prohibited – but we could not find a source for it. Now the Talmud says that it could have many sources. It could be the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah, who, although strict, interprets the law of “not seeing chametz in your dwelling” as telling us that your chametz cannot be seen, but non-Jewish chametz and chametz of the Temple can be seen. It could also be the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: even though the chametz after Passover is not prohibited, it could be that the Sages added a penalty and prohibited it nevertheless.

Now that we know that the Temple’s chametz is not “yours” and is less stringent, what if one does eat it after all? Does he have to bring a special sacrifice for using Temple’s property? Some say that yes: since after Passover, it is not prohibited and can be redeemed, he has used the Temple value and has to pay. However, others say that one does not bring this sacrifice: since by eating chametz, he anyway forfeits his soul, he is spared the monetary punishment.

Art: A peasant couple eating in an interior by (after) Egbert Van Heemskerck

Pesachim 28 – Some say, chametz is allowed

Rabbi Yehudah says that the only way to destroy chametz is by burning it in a fire. The Sages disagree and say to him, “You sound stringent here, but this will lead to a great leniency later on: if one does not have firewood, what is he to do?” Rabbi Yehudah tries to prove his point of view to the Sages by comparing chametz to various offerings that must be burned. Still, he is ultimately disproved by contradictions with his earlier statements. The Talmud then applies to him a proverb, “The arrow maker was killed by his own arrow.”

The next rule about chametz is that if a non-Jew owned it during Passover, then after Passover, it is permitted for use. Still, if it was a Jew who owned it on Passover, then this chametz is forever forbidden for use because of the phrase, “no leaven must be seen in your territories.”

This rule is strange according to whichever view you take. Rabbi Yose allows the use of chametz on Passover itself! Rabbi Shimon forbids it only during Passover, but not after. And Rabbi Yehudah, who is the strictest, should forbid any chametz that existed on Passover, regardless of who owned it. Thus, we are left with no authority that forbids only the chametz owned on Passover by a Jew.

Art: Forbidden Fruit by James Jebusa Shannon