Burning the Leaven and the Dispute Over How It Must Be Destroyed

Another interpretation: one verse says six and one verse says seven - 'six' from the new grain and 'seven' from the old. "But on the first day" - from the eve of the festival, or perhaps only the festival day itself? Scripture teaches, "You shall not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread" (Exodus 34:25) - you shall not slaughter the Passover offering while leaven still remains, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Jonathan says: this is unnecessary, for has it not already been said, "and no work shall be done on them" (Exodus 12:16)? Burning is a kind of work. So what does "you shall remove leaven" teach - from the eve of the festival, or only on the festival day itself? Scripture teaches "but" [akh], which makes a distinction. Rabbi Yehuda says: "you shall remove" means by burning, or perhaps by anything? Behold, you must reason, and so forth. It was taught, Rabbi Yehuda says: the removal of leaven is only by burning. And the law supports this: if leftover sacrificial meat, which is not under the prohibition of "it shall not be seen" and "it shall not be found," requires burning, then leaven, which is under "it shall not be seen" and "it shall not be found," surely requires burning. They said to him: any argument that begins with stringency and ends with leniency is no argument; if he found no wood to burn it, would he sit idle? But the Torah said, "you shall remove leaven from your houses" - by any means by which you are able to remove it. Rabbi Yehuda returned and reasoned another argument: leftover sacrifice is forbidden to eat and leaven is forbidden to eat; just as leftover sacrifice is by burning, so leaven is by burning. They said to him: a carcass proves otherwise, for it is forbidden to eat and is not by burning. He said to them: there is a distinction - leftover sacrifice is forbidden in eating and in benefit, and leaven is forbidden in eating and in benefit; just as leftover sacrifice is by burning, so leaven is by burning. They said to him: an ox condemned to stoning proves otherwise, for it is forbidden in eating and in benefit and does not require burning. He said to them: there is a distinction - leftover sacrifice is forbidden in eating and benefit and punishable by excision, and leaven is forbidden in eating and benefit and punishable by excision; just as leftover sacrifice is by burning, so leaven is by burning. They said to him: the fat of the ox condemned to stoning proves otherwise, for it is forbidden in eating and benefit and punishable by excision and does not require burning. Rabbi Yehuda returned and reasoned another argument: leftover sacrifice is under "you shall not leave it over" and leaven is under "you shall not leave it over"; just as leftover sacrifice requires burning, so leaven requires burning. They said to him: a suspended guilt offering and a bird sin offering brought on doubt would, by your reasoning, prove otherwise, for they are under "you shall not leave it over," and we say by burning while you say by burial. Rabbi Yehuda fell silent. Rav Yosef said: this is what people say - the carpenter's mallet, the carpenter is caught in it; let the mustard be burnt. Abaye said: the smith sits at his anvil and is paid out of his own hand. Rava said: the arrow is killed by its own feathering, and pays from its own hand. [The argument is rehearsed once more, point by point, with each refutation: carcass, ox condemned to stoning, its fat. Then it is said:] You shall reason four matters at once - leftover sacrifice is forbidden in eating, forbidden in benefit, punishable by excision, and time-bound, and leaven is forbidden in eating, forbidden in benefit, punishable by excision, and time-bound. And do not say the carcass proves otherwise, for though forbidden in eating it is not forbidden in benefit, nor the ox condemned to stoning, for though forbidden in benefit it is not punishable by excision, nor the fat of that ox, for though punishable by excision it is not time-bound. Let me learn one matter from another and reason one from another. Let me learn a matter equal in four respects from a matter equal in four respects, and not learn a matter equal in four respects from a matter equal in one or two or three respects. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said to him: you think you are being stringent with him, but you are only being lenient with him - if he finds no fire, he will sit and not burn it! Rather, say it thus: before the time of removal arrives, the commandment of its destruction is by burning; once the time of removal arrives, the commandment of its destruction is by any means. Rabbi says: for a thing under "it shall not be seen" and "it shall not be found," you find it only by burning. "For whoever eats leaven, that soul shall be cut off." I might hear that any leaven is implied; Scripture teaches, "You shall not eat leavened bread with it" (Deuteronomy 16:3) - I have spoken only of a thing that comes to be unleavened or leavened, and these are the five species, and so forth. "And it shall be cut off" - cutting off means nothing other than separation. "That soul" - one who acts deliberately, the words of Rabbi Akiva. "From Israel" - I might hear that he is cut off from Israel and goes to another people; Scripture teaches, "from before Me, I am the LORD" (Leviticus 22:3) - in every place he is within My domain. "The soul, from the first day until the seventh day" - its punishment is seven days and its warning is forever. For by law, since one is punishable by excision for fat and punishable by excision for leaven, if Scripture taught regarding fat that it made its punishment match its warning, I might think that for leaven too its punishment should match its warning; Scripture teaches, "from the first day until the seventh day" - its punishment is seven and its warning is forever. We have heard the punishment but we have not heard the warning; Scripture teaches, "all that is leavened you shall not eat" (Exodus 12:20). In any case, all agree that leaven is forbidden from the sixth hour onward. From where do we learn this? Abaye said: two verses are written. It is written, "seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses," and it is written, "but on the first day you shall remove [it]" - how so? To include the fourteenth for removal. And say it includes the night of the fifteenth for removal? For it might enter your mind to say days yes, nights no; this teaches us even nights. That requires no verse, for the removal of leaven was likened to the eating of leaven, and the eating of leaven to the eating of unleavened bread, as it is written, "leaven shall not be found in your houses, for whoever eats what is leavened," and it is written, "all that is leavened you shall not eat; in all your dwellings you shall eat unleavened bread," and it is written of unleavened bread, "in the evening you shall eat unleavened bread." And say it includes the night of the fourteenth for removal? "On the day" is written. And say it means in the morning? "But" makes a distinction. The school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: we find the fourteenth called 'first,' as it is said, "in the first, on the fourteenth." Rav Nachman said: 'first' means from the very beginning, as it is said, "were you born the first man?" (Job 15:7). [And the three other places where 'first' is written - in the holy convocation of Passover, the holy convocation of Sukkot, and the commandment of the lulav - do not refute Rav Nachman, for those instances of 'first' do not come for their literal meaning but are merely names called 'first.'] And as the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: in reward for three 'firsts' they merited three 'firsts' - to cut off the seed of Esau, as it is written, "and the first came out ruddy" (Genesis 25:25); the building of the Temple, as it is written, "a throne of glory on high from the first" (Jeremiah 17:12); and the name of the Messiah, as it is said, "the first to Zion, behold, here they are" (Isaiah 41:27). Rava said: "You shall not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice with leaven" (Exodus 34:25) - you shall not slaughter the Passover offering while leaven still remains. And say each one when he slaughters? Scripture said the appointed time of slaughter. So too it was taught: "but on the first day you shall remove," and so forth. Rabbi Akiva says: this is unnecessary, for it says "but on the first day," and it is written, "no work shall be done," and we find kindling in the Torah to be a primary category of work. Rava said: learn from Rabbi Akiva three things - learn that the removal of leaven is only by burning, learn that the prohibition of kindling went out to make a distinction, and learn that we do not say: since kindling was permitted for a need, it is permitted also without a need.