## Pesachim Daf 23a

###### Pesachim 23a:1
[Pesachim 23a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/23a:1)

לְרַבִּים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַנָּטוּעַ לְרַבִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**for the public;** all the details of the prohibition of *orla* apply to a tree planted for public purposes. **Rabbi Yehuda says:** This verse comes **to exclude a tree planted for the public,** i.e., it is exempt from the laws of *orla*.


###### Pesachim 23a:2
[Pesachim 23a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/23a:2)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא — דִּכְתִיב ״וּנְטַעְתֶּם״, לְיָחִיד מַשְׁמַע, לְרַבִּים לָא מַשְׁמַע. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לָכֶם״ — לְהָבִיא אֶת הַנָּטוּעַ לְרַבִּים. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: ״וּנְטַעְתֶּם״ מַשְׁמַע בֵּין לְרַבִּים בֵּין לְיָחִיד, וְ״לָכֶם״ בֵּין יָחִיד בֵּין רַבִּים מַשְׁמַע. הָוֵי רִבּוּי אַחַר רִבּוּי — וְאֵין רִבּוּי אַחַר רִבּוּי אֶלָּא לְמַעֵט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What is the reason** for the opinion **of the first *tanna*? As it is written: “And you shall plant.”** That the mitzva applies **to an individual is indicated,** since planting a tree is ordinarily an individual activity; however, that the mitzva of *orla* applies to a tree planted **for the public is not indicated** by the verse. Therefore, **the Merciful One writes “for you”** in the plural, **to include** within this prohibition **that which is planted for the public. And Rabbi Yehuda** concedes that the phrase **“and you shall plant” indicates** that *orla* applies **both to** a tree planted **for the public and for an individual;** and the phrase **“for you”** also **indicates** that *orla* applies **both to** a tree planted for **an individual and for the public.** If so, then this **is one amplificatory expression after another,** and there is a principle that **one amplificatory expression after another is restrictive.** Therefore, the term: “For you” comes to exclude from this prohibition a tree planted for the public.


###### Pesachim 23a:3
[Pesachim 23a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/23a:3)

וַהֲרֵי תְּרוּמָה, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״וְכׇל זָר לֹא יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ״, וּתְנַן: מְעָרְבִין לְנָזִיר בְּיַיִן, וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל בִּתְרוּמָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further challenges Rabbi Abbahu’s opinion: **And** yet there is the prohibition that a non-priest shall not eat ***teruma*, as the Merciful One says: “No stranger shall eat of the sacred food;** a tenant of a priest, or a hired servant, shall not eat of the sacred food” (Leviticus 22:10). **And we learned** in a mishna: **One** may **establish an *eiruv*,** such as a joining of Shabbat boundaries, **on behalf of a nazirite with wine,** even though he may not drink it. **And** one may establish an *eiruv* **on behalf of an Israelite with *teruma*,** although it is prohibited for him to eat it. Apparently, it is permitted for an Israelite to derive benefit from the *teruma* even though the verse says: “He shall not eat.” This appears to be a challenge to the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu.


###### Pesachim 23a:4
[Pesachim 23a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/23a:4)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״תְּרוּמַתְכֶם״ — שֶׁלָּכֶם תְּהֵא. וְאִידַּךְ? ״תְּרוּמַתְכֶם״ — דְּכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: It is different there,** with regard to *teruma*, **as the verse said:** “And **your *teruma*** shall be reckoned unto you, as though it were the grain of the threshing floor, and as the fullness of the winepress” (Numbers 18:27). The Sages derived from the inclusion of the possessive pronoun “your” that the *teruma* **shall be yours;** therefore, it is permitted for an Israelite to benefit from *teruma*. The Gemara asks: **And** what does **the other** Sage, Ḥizkiya, derive from this phrase, as he holds that: “He shall not eat” already indicates that it is permitted to benefit from *teruma*? The Gemara answers: According to his opinion the phrase: **“Your *teruma*”** is referring to all of the *teruma* **of the entire Jewish people.** This is common biblical vernacular, and nothing may be derived from it.


###### Pesachim 23a:5
[Pesachim 23a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/23a:5)

וַהֲרֵי נָזִיר, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״מֵחַרְצַנִּים וְעַד זָג לֹא יֹאכֵל״, וּתְנַן: מְעָרְבִין לַנָּזִיר בְּיַיִן. אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״נִזְרוֹ״ — שֶׁלּוֹ יְהֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to challenge Rabbi Abbahu’s opinion: **And** yet there is the prohibition against **the nazirite** eating grape products, **as the Merciful One says:** “All the days of his naziriteship **he shall eat nothing** that is made of the grapevine, **from the seeds to the grape skin”** (Numbers 6:4). **And we learned** in the mishna: **One** may **establish an *eiruv*** on behalf of **a nazirite with wine** even though he may not drink it. Apparently, a nazirite may derive benefit from wine despite the fact that the verse says that he may not drink it. **Mar Zutra said: It is different there, as the verse said: “His naziriteship.”** He derives from this verse that **it shall be his;** in other words, the nazirite may continue to own wine and to benefit from it.


###### Pesachim 23a:6
[Pesachim 23a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/23a:6)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״קָדֹשׁ יִהְיֶה גַּדֵּל פֶּרַע שְׂעַר רֹאשׁוֹ״, גִּידּוּלוֹ קָדוֹשׁ, וְאֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר קָדוֹשׁ. מִידֵּי ״וְאֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר״ כְּתִיב?! אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא כִּדְמָר זוּטְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said:** This *halakha* is derived from another source. As the verse says: **“He shall be sacred, he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long”** (Numbers 6:5). Rav Ashi reads the verse precisely to indicate that **the growth** of the nazirite’s hair **is sacred** and must be burned, **but no other element** of his naziriteship **is sacred.** In other words, he may derive benefit from the other elements prohibited to him during his naziriteship, i.e., from grape products. The Gemara challenges: **And is it written: No other element** of his naziriteship? There is no indication that this statement means that the prohibition against deriving benefit is limited to this one element. **Rather, it is clear** that the derivation of this *halakha* is **in accordance with** the explanation of **Mar Zutra.**


###### Pesachim 23a:7
[Pesachim 23a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/23a:7)

וַהֲרֵי חָדָשׁ, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״לֶחֶם וְקָלִי וְכַרְמֶל לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַד עֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה״, וּתְנַן: קוֹצֵר לְשַׁחַת, וּמַאֲכִיל לַבְּהֵמָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to challenge Rabbi Abbahu’s opinion: **And** yet there is the prohibition of **new** grain, which was harvested before the bringing of the *omer* offering, **as the Merciful One says: “And you shall eat neither bread, nor parched grain, nor fresh stalks until this day itself,** until you have brought the offering of your God; it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings” (Leviticus 23:14). **And we learned** in a mishna: **One** may **harvest** grain before the *omer* **as fodder and feed it to his animal.** Apparently, one may derive benefit from this grain even though the verse says: “You shall not eat.”


###### Pesachim 23a:8
[Pesachim 23a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/23a:8)

אָמַר רַב שְׁמַעְיָה: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״קְצִירְכֶם״ — קְצִירְכֶם שֶׁלָּכֶם יְהֵא. וְאִידַּךְ? ״קְצִירְכֶם״ — דְּכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל מַשְׁמַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shemaya said: It is different there, as the verse said: “Your harvest”** (Leviticus 23:10), indicating that **your harvest will be yours.** In other words, one may benefit from it, as it is still considered to be his. The Gemara asks: **And** what does **the other** Sage, Ḥizkiya, derive from this phrase? The Gemara answers that according to his opinion, **“your harvest”** is referring to the harvest **of the entire Jewish people.** This is common biblical vernacular, and nothing may be derived from it.


###### Pesachim 23a:9
[Pesachim 23a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/23a:9)

וַהֲרֵי שְׁרָצִים, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״שֶׁקֶץ הוּא לֹא יֵאָכֵל״, וּתְנַן: צַיָּידֵי חַיָּה וְעוֹפוֹת וְדָגִים שֶׁנִּזְדַּמְּנוּ לָהֶם מִינִין טְמֵאִין — מוּתָּרִין לְמוֹכְרָן לְגוֹיִם. שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לָכֶם״ — שֶׁלָּכֶם יְהֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges both opinions. **And** yet there is the prohibition against eating **creeping animals, as the Merciful One says:** “And every creeping thing that swarms upon the earth **is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten”** (Leviticus 11:41). **And we learned** in a mishna: **If hunters of undomesticated animals, birds, and fish happen to catch non-kosher species** that they did not intend to trap, **it is permitted for them to sell** them **to gentiles.** Apparently, one may derive benefit from non-kosher species even though the verse says: “It shall not be eaten.” The Gemara answers: **It is different there, as the verse said: “For you”** (Leviticus 11:10), indicating that **they will be yours,** that one may derive benefit from them.


###### Pesachim 23a:10
[Pesachim 23a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/23a:10)

אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה נָמֵי! שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״יִהְיוּ״ — בַּהֲוָיָיתָן יְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** that it is permitted to derive benefit from these creeping animals, then **even** if one intends to catch them it should **also** be permitted to sell them to gentiles *ab initio*. However, the mishna indicates that this is prohibited. The Gemara answers: **It is different here,** in the case of creeping animals, **as the verse said: “They shall be”** (Leviticus 11:11). It is derived from this that **they shall be as they are.** In other words, they should remain in their detestable state, and one should stay away from them.


###### Pesachim 23a:11
[Pesachim 23a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/23a:11)

וּלְחִזְקִיָּה, לְמָה לִי לְמִיכְתַּב ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל״, וּמַיְיתֵי ״לָכֶם״ לְמִישְׁרְיֵיהּ? לָא לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל״, וְלָא בָּעֵי ״לָכֶם״! אָמַר לָךְ חִזְקִיָּה, טַעְמָא דִּידִי נָמֵי מֵהָכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to** the opinion of **Ḥizkiya, why do I** need the verse **to write: “It shall not be eaten,”** to teach that one may not derive benefit from them, **and** afterward **to say: “For you,” to permit** deriving benefit from **them? Let the Merciful One not write: “It shall not be eaten,” and it will not need** to say: **“For you.” Ḥizkiya** could have **said to you: My reason is also** derived **from here,** as this verse is a central source for my opinion. Since the verse needed to say explicitly: “For you,” it is evident that when the Torah writes only: “It shall not be eaten,” it is indicating that it is prohibited to benefit from the item as well.


###### Pesachim 23a:12
[Pesachim 23a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/23a:12)

וַהֲרֵי חָמֵץ, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״לֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ״, וְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: תְּמַהּ עַל עַצְמְךָ הֵיאַךְ חָמֵץ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה כׇּל שִׁבְעָה? שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְלֹא יֵרָאֶה לְךָ שְׂאוֹר״ — שֶׁלְּךָ יְהֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further challenges the opinions of Ḥizkiya and Rabbi Abbahu: **And** yet there is the prohibition of **leavened bread,** as **the Merciful One says: “Leavened bread shall not be eaten,”** and **it was taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Be astounded with yourself; how is it prohibited** to derive **benefit** from **leavened bread** for **all seven** days? Apparently, he holds that it is permitted for one to derive benefit from leavened bread for all seven days of Passover and certainly afterward. The Gemara answers: **It is different there, as the verse said:** “*Matzot* shall be eaten throughout the seven days; and no leavened bread shall be seen with you, **neither shall there be leaven seen with you,** in all your borders” (Exodus 13:7). The phrase “with you” indicates that **it is yours,** i.e., it is still considered to be in one’s possession, and it is permitted for him to derive benefit from it.


###### Pesachim 23a:13
[Pesachim 23a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/23a:13)

וְרַבָּנַן? שֶׁלְּךָ אִי אַתָּה רוֹאֶה, אֲבָל אַתָּה רוֹאֶה שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים וְשֶׁל גָּבוֹהַּ. וְאִידַּךְ? תְּרֵי ״לְךָ״ כְּתִיבִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** what do **the Rabbis,** who say that it is prohibited to derive benefit from leavened bread, learn from the phrase “with you”? The Gemara answers: They derive that **you** may **not see your own** leavened bread; **however, you** may **see** that **of others and** that which is consecrated **to God** but remained in one’s possession. The Gemara asks: **And** what does **the other** Sage, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, say about this *halakha*? The Gemara answers: There are **two** occurrences of the phrase **“with you” written.** One indicates that it is permitted to see leavened bread that belongs to a gentile, and the other indicates that one may derive benefit from leavened bread.


###### Pesachim 23a:14
[Pesachim 23a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/23a:14)

וְאִידַּךְ? חַד — בְּגוֹי שֶׁכִּיבַּשְׁתּוֹ, וְחַד — בְּגוֹי שֶׁלֹּא כִּיבַּשְׁתּוֹ. וְאִידַּךְ? תְּלָתָא ״לְךָ״ כְּתִיבִי. וְאִידַּךְ? חַד — בִּשְׂאוֹר, וְחַד — בְּחָמֵץ. וּצְרִיכִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to the opinion of **the other** Sages, the Rabbis, why is the phrase “with you” written twice? They explain: **One** is written **with regard to a gentile whom he has conquered,** i.e., who is under his control. **And the other** is written **with regard to a gentile whom he has not conquered.** In either case, one is permitted to keep the gentile’s leavened bread in his possession on Passover. **And** from where does **the other** Sage, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, derive this *halakha* that one may see even the leavened bread of a gentile who is under his control? He points out that there are **three** occurrences of the phrase **“with you” written. And** what do **the other** Sages, the Rabbis, learn from the extra instance of the phrase “with you”? They learn that it is used **once** to teach about **leaven, and once** to teach about **leavened bread. And they are** both **necessary** and must be mentioned explicitly, as one cannot derive this principle with regard to leavened bread from leaven or vice versa.


###### Pesachim 23a:15
[Pesachim 23a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/23a:15)

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי. ״יֵעָשֶׂה לְכׇל מְלָאכָה״, מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְכׇל מְלָאכָה״, שֶׁיָּכוֹל לִמְלֶאכֶת גָּבוֹהַּ יְהֵא מוּתָּר, לִמְלֶאכֶת הֶדְיוֹט יְהֵא אָסוּר, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְכׇל מְלָאכָה״ — דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** this dispute between Ḥizkiya and Rabbi Abbahu with regard to the implication of the phrase: It shall not be eaten, **is parallel to a** dispute between ***tanna’im*.** The verse states: “And the fat of the animal carcass, and the fat of that which is torn of beasts, **may be used for any other service;** but you shall surely not eat of it” (Leviticus 7:24). **What** does it mean when **the verse states: “For any other service”?** I **might** have thought **that** with regard **to the Temple service it should be permitted** to use this fat for the following reason: Because fats may generally be offered on the altar, it is as though it is permitted to consume them; therefore, they may be used for other sacred purposes as well. **However,** I might have thought that with regard **to common use it should be prohibited** to use them, as the verse states: “You shall surely not eat of it.” Therefore, **the verse states: “For any other service,”** meaning that its use is permitted in all contexts. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.**


###### Pesachim 23a:16
[Pesachim 23a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/23a:16)

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: שֶׁיָּכוֹל לִמְלֶאכֶת הֶדְיוֹט יְהֵא טָהוֹר, לִמְלֶאכֶת גָּבוֹהַּ יְהֵא טָמֵא, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְכׇל מְלָאכָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva says:** Although its use is clearly permitted, I **might** have thought **that** despite the fact that an animal carcass is impure, with regard **to common use** its fat **should be** ritually **pure;** however, with regard **to the Temple service it should be** ritually **impure.** Therefore, **the verse states: “For any other service,”** meaning that it is considered pure in all contexts.


###### Pesachim 23a:17
[Pesachim 23a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/23a:17)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, לְטוּמְאָה וּלְטׇהֳרָה לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא. כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא — לְאִיסּוּר וּלְהֶיתֵּר. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אִיסּוּר וְהֶיתֵּר לָא צְרִיךְ קְרָא, כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא — לְטוּמְאָה וּלְטׇהֳרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains their dispute: **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili** holds that **with regard to purity and impurity no verse is necessary,** as there is no reason to assume that the fat of an animal carcass is impure. **The verse is necessary to** establish the **prohibited or permitted** status of this fat. **And Rabbi Akiva** holds that to teach whether this fat is **prohibited or permitted no** separate **verse is necessary; it is necessary** to establish its status with regard **to ritual purity or impurity.**