The Forbidden Leaven of the Nations and the Penalty of Karet

"You shall eat nothing leavened" (Exodus 12:20) comes to include the Babylonian kutach, the Median beer, the Edomite vinegar, and the Egyptian zithom (fermented foods of the surrounding nations). One might think a person is liable to karet (being cut off) for these as well; therefore Scripture teaches, "For whoever eats what is leavened, that soul shall be cut off" (Exodus 12:19): for leaven made of pure grain one is liable to karet, but for its mixture with other foods one transgresses only a negative commandment. These are the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the Sages say: for its mixture there is no penalty at all. From where does Rabbi Eliezer derive that the mixture carries a negative commandment? Because it is written, "You shall eat nothing leavened." If so, let one be liable to karet for it too, for it is written, "Whoever eats what is leavened shall be cut off." That verse, "leavened," is needed for what was taught: I know only of leaven that became leavened on its own; from where do I learn of dough leavened by another substance? Scripture teaches, "leavened." If so, the negative commandment came only for that purpose. Rather, Rabbi Eliezer's reasoning is derived from the word "all" [the inclusive "kol"]. But by the karet verse "all" is also written. That "all" is needed to include women. Women are derived from what Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: "a man or a woman who commits any sin" (Numbers 5:6) shows that Scripture equated woman to man for all penalties in the Torah. The verse was nonetheless required, for you might have thought: since it is written, "You shall eat no leavened bread with it" (Deuteronomy 16:3), whoever is bound by the positive command "eat matzah" is bound by "do not eat leaven," and since women are not bound by the positive command to eat matzah (it being a time-bound positive commandment), I might say they are not bound by "do not eat leaven" either; therefore Scripture teaches us that they are. And now that they are included in the prohibition of leaven, they are likewise included in the eating of matzah, in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, who said: women are obligated to eat matzah by Torah law, as it says, "You shall eat no leavened bread with it for seven days," for whoever is bound by "do not eat leaven" is bound by "eat matzah." And what did you see to use "all" to include women? Say it includes the mixture. It stands to reason: a verse dealing with eaters includes eaters; a verse dealing with eaters does not extend to things eaten. Yet was it not taught regarding "whoever eats fat" (Leviticus 7:25): I know only the fat of unblemished animals fit for offering; from where the fat of blemished animals? Scripture teaches, "whoever eats fat"; from where the fat of non-sacred animals? Scripture teaches, "for whoever" - here a verse dealing with eaters does extend to things eaten? There, where there are no further eaters to include, it extends to things eaten; here, where there are eaters to include, it does not abandon eaters to include things eaten. And the Sages, who hold there is no liability for a mixture, do not expound "all"; from where do they include women? "All" we do not expound, "for all" we do expound. And Rabbi Eliezer - say "all" includes women and "for all" includes the mixture. And should you say Rabbi Eliezer does not expound "for all," was it not taught regarding "for no leaven and no honey shall you burn" (Leviticus 2:11): I know only the whole of it; from where a part of it? Scripture teaches "all"; from where a mixture? Scripture teaches "for all"? Whom did you hear expounding "all"? Rabbi Eliezer - and he expounds "for all" too. This is a difficulty. (It is written in remez 504.)