חזר רבי יהודה ודנו דין אחר נותר ישנו בבל תותירו וחמץ בבל תותירו מה נותר בשריפה אף חמץ בשריפה
Then Rabbi Yehuda presented a different logical derivation: The prohibition against eating and deriving benefit from leftover sacrificial meat is clearly included in the prohibition of: And you shall not leave over. And leavened bread is also included, in a sense, in the prohibition of: And you shall not leave over, as once the time it may be eaten expires, one violates the prohibitions of: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, by owning it. Just as leftover sacrificial meat is subject to burning, so too, leavened bread is subject to burning.
אמרו לו אשם תלוי וחטאת העוף הבא על הספק לדבריך יוכיחו שהן בבל תותירו שאנו אומרים בשריפה ואתה אומר בקבורה שתק רבי יהודה
They said to him: According to your opinion, an uncertain guilt-offering and a bird sacrificed as a sin-offering in a case of doubt will prove that this comparison is not valid, as they are also included in the prohibition of: And you shall not leave over, since these offerings are prohibited after the time in which they may be eaten has expired. As we say that they are subject to burning, but you say that an uncertain guilt-offering is subject to burial. Rabbi Yehuda was silent, as he had no response.
אמר רב יוסף היינו דאמרי אינשי כפא דחטא נגרא בגווה נשרוף חרדלא
Rav Yosef said: This is as people say: In the spoon that the carpenter made, the mustard will burn his palate. In other words, one can be harmed by his own actions. Similarly, in this case the strongest proof against Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion is the one based on Rabbi Yehuda’s own statement.
(אמר אביי) סדנא בסדני יתיב מדויל ידיה משתלים
Abaye said another folk expression: He who made the stocks [saddana] shall sit in the stocks; he is repaid through his own handiwork.
רבא אמר גירא בגירי מקטיל מדויל ידיה משתלים:
Rava said another similar saying: He who made the arrows shall be killed with his own arrows; he is repaid through his own handiwork.
וחכמים אומרים מפרר וזורה וכו׳: איבעיא להו היכי קאמר מפרר וזורה לרוח ומפרר ומטיל לים או דילמא מפרר וזורה לרוח אבל מטיל לים בעיניה תנן נמי גבי עבודה זרה כי האי גוונא רבי יוסי אומר שוחק וזורה לרוח או מטיל לים ואיבעיא להו היכי קאמר שוחק וזורה לרוח ושוחק ומטיל לים או דילמא שוחק וזורה לרוח אבל מטיל לים בעיניה
It was taught in the mishna: And the Rabbis say that leavened bread need not be burned; rather, one may even crumble it and throw it into the wind or the sea. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case are they speaking? Do they mean that he must specifically crumble it and throw it into the wind or crumble it and throw it into the sea? Or perhaps one may crumble it and throw it into the wind, but he may cast it into the sea in its pure, unadulterated form, without crumbling it first. We also learned in a mishna with regard to idolatry in a case like this that Rabbi Yosei says: He may grind the idol and throw the dust into the wind or cast it into the sea. And a dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case are they speaking? Must one specifically grind it and throw it into the wind or grind it and throw it into the sea? Or perhaps he may grind it and throw it into the wind; however, he may throw it into the sea in its pure, unadulterated form.
אמר רבה מסתברא עבודה זרה דלים המלח קא אזלא לא בעי שחיקה חמץ דלשאר נהרות קאזיל בעי פירור אמר ליה רב יוסף אדרבה איפכא מסתברא עבודה זרה דלא ממיסה בעי שחיקה חמץ דממיס לא בעי פירור
Rabba said: It stands to reason that since idols are thrown into the Dead Sea, they do not need grinding, as there is no concern that they will be removed and used again. However, leavened bread that may be thrown into other rivers, needs crumbling before being cast away. Rav Yosef said to him: On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable. Idols, which do not normally disintegrate in the water, need grinding. However, leavened bread, which disintegrates in the water on its own, does not need crumbling.
תניא כוותיה דרבה תניא כוותיה דרב יוסף תניא כוותיה דרבה היה מהלך במדבר מפרר וזורה לרוח היה מהלך בספינה מפרר ומטיל לים תניא כוותיה דרב יוסף היה מהלך במדבר שוחק וזורה לרוח היה מהלך בספינה שוחק ומטיל לים
A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabba and a baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef. The Gemara explains: A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabba: If one was walking in the desert with leavened bread in his hand and the time came on the eve of Passover to remove it, then he must crumble the leavened bread and throw it into the wind. If he was traveling on a ship, he must crumble the leavened bread and throw it into the sea. And a baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef: If one was walking in the desert and found an idol, he must grind it and throw it into the wind. If he was traveling on a ship, he must grind it and throw it into the sea.
שחיקה קשיא לרבה פירור קשיא לרב יוסף שחיקה לרבה לא קשיא הא לים המלח הא לשאר נהרות פירור לרב יוסף לא קשיא הא בחיטי הא בנהמא:
The Gemara comments: The requirement of grinding in one baraita is difficult for Rabba, since according to his opinion there is no need to grind idols before throwing them into the sea. And the requirement of crumbling leavened bread mentioned in the other baraita is difficult for Rav Yosef, as in his opinion leavened bread need not be crumbled before it is thrown into the sea. The Gemara answers: The requirement of grinding is not difficult for Rabba. This case, where one is not required to grind it, is where he throws it into the Dead Sea. That case, where he is required to grind it before throwing it, is where he throws it into other rivers. Similarly, the requirement of crumbling is not difficult for Rav Yosef. This case is dealing with a bag of wheat that became leavened. Since wheat does not disintegrate on its own, one must grind it up and scatter it into the water. That case is referring to bread. Since bread will disintegrate in the water on its own, there is no need to crumble it.
מתני׳ חמץ של גוי שעבר עליו הפסח מותר בהנאה ושל ישראל אסור בהנאה שנאמר לא יראה לך שאור:
MISHNA: It is permitted for a Jew to derive benefit from leavened bread of a gentile over which Passover has elapsed, i.e., leavened bread that remains after the conclusion of Passover. However, it is prohibited to derive benefit from leaven of a Jew over which Passover has elapsed, as it is stated: “And no leavened bread shall be seen with you, neither shall there be leaven seen with you, in all your borders” (Exodus 13:7).
גמ׳ מני מתניתין לא רבי יהודה ולא רבי שמעון ולא רבי יוסי הגלילי מאי היא דתניא חמץ בין לפני זמנו בין לאחר זמנו עובר עליו בלאו תוך זמנו עובר עליו בלאו וכרת דברי רבי יהודה
GEMARA: The Gemara begins by asking: Who is the author of the mishna? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. The Gemara clarifies this question: What is the case about which these Sages disagree, and what are their opinions on this issue? The Gemara explains: As it was taught in a baraita: One who eats or derives benefit from leavened bread, whether before its time, starting at midday on Passover eve, or after its time, i.e., leavened bread over which Passover has elapsed, transgresses a negative mitzva. During its time, on Passover itself, one who eats leavened bread transgresses a negative mitzva and is liable to receive karet. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.