אמר רבא הלכתא חמץ בזמנו בין במינו בין שלא במינו אסור במשהו כרב שלא בזמנו בין במינו בין שלא במינו מותר כרבי שמעון
Rava said: The halakha is that with regard to the prohibition against eating a mixture of leavened bread during its time of prohibition, i.e., during Passover, regardless of whether it is mixed with its own type or with another type, it is forbidden, even if any amount becomes mixed in, in accordance with the opinion of Rav. Not during its time of prohibition, but rather after the conclusion of Passover, regardless of whether the leavened bread was mixed with its own type or with another type, it is permitted, even when it gives flavor to the mixture. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who states that leavened bread owned by a Jew during Passover is permitted after Passover.
ומי אמר רבא הכי והאמר רבא רבי שמעון קנסא קניס הואיל ועבר עליו בבל יראה ובל ימצא
The Gemara asks: Did Rava actually say this, that according to Rabbi Shimon, leavened bread owned by a Jew on Passover is permitted after Passover? But didn’t Rava himself say that Rabbi Shimon imposed a penalty forbidding one from deriving benefit from leavened bread owned by a Jew during Passover, since he transgressed the prohibition it shall not be seen and the prohibition it shall not be found?
הני מילי בעיניה אבל על ידי תערובת לא ואזדא רבא לטעמיה דאמר רבא כי הוינן בי רב נחמן כי הוו נפקי שבעה יומי דפסחא אמר לן פוקו וזבינו חמירא דבני חילא:
The Gemara resolves this challenge: This penalty applies only to leavened bread that is in its pure unadulterated form, but with regard to a mixture, no, one does not impose a penalty, even though the leavened bread is still extant. The Gemara adds: And Rava follows his line of reasoning, stated elsewhere, that indicates that he rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as Rava said: While we were studying in Rav Naḥman’s house, on the evening when the seven days of Passover had passed, he said to us: Go and buy leavened bread from the gentiles who baked it on that day, the last day of Passover. Based on this story, it is clear that he maintained that one may eat leavened bread that was owned by a gentile during Passover.
אמר רב קדירות בפסח ישברו ואמאי לשהינהו אחר הפסח וליעבד בהו שלא במינן גזירה דילמא אתו למיעבד בהו במינו
Rav said: Earthenware pots in which leavened bread was cooked during Passover should be broken, as some small quantity of the flavor of the leavened bread was absorbed into the pot. It is therefore prohibited to cook in them again, as the forbidden flavor of this leavened bread would be transmitted to the new food. The Gemara asks: And why was Rav so stringent with regard to these pots? Let him retain the pots until after the conclusion of Passover and prepare mixtures of another type of food in them. Even Rav maintains that when a small bit of leavened bread is mixed with another type of food after Passover, the mixture is permitted. The Gemara explains that he did allow this due to a rabbinic decree that perhaps one will come to prepare a mixture of the same type in these pots, causing their contents to become prohibited. He therefore instructed that one destroy these pots in order to avoid this pitfall.
ושמואל אמר לא ישברו אבל משהי להו לאחר זמנו ועביד בהו בין במינו בין שלא במינו
And Shmuel said: They need not be broken. Rather, he should retain them until after its time, i.e., the conclusion of Passover, and then he may prepare food of either the same type or another type in them.
ואזדא שמואל לטעמיה דאמר שמואל להנהו דמזבני כנדי אשוו זביני אכנדיכי ואי לא דרשינא לכו כרבי שמעון
And Shmuel follows his line of reasoning, stated elsewhere, as Shmuel said to the pot merchants, who would dramatically raise their prices after Passover: Level the prices for your pots. And if you do not bring your prices down, I will teach you that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that one is permitted to derive benefit from leavened bread after Passover. This ruling would lead people to retain their vessels and desist from purchasing new vessels after Passover, and consequently the merchants would lose business.
ולידרוש להו דהא שמואל כרבי שמעון סבירא ליה אתריה דרב הוה
The Gemara asks: Let him indeed teach this ruling to them, for Shmuel holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as was previously mentioned. As such, why did he not publicize his opinion on the matter? The Gemara answers: It was Rav’s locale, and therefore it would not be appropriate for Shmuel to publicly present a position with which Rav did not agree. However, when he saw the merchants raising their prices in an unfair manner, he nevertheless threatened to make his opinion on the matter public.
ההוא תנורא דטחו ביה טיחיא אסרה רבא בר אהילאי למיכליה לריפתא אפילו במילחא לעולם דילמא אתי למיכליה בכותחא
The Gemara recounts: There was a certain oven that they smeared with grease from meat, and consequently the flavor of meat was absorbed into it, and then they used it to bake bread. Rava bar Ahilai prohibited eating this bread even with salt, and not just with milk. This status would apply forever to bread baked in this oven, even during subsequent baking, lest one eat such bread with kutaḥ, a dairy-based seasoning, which would be a violation of the prohibition against eating meat with milk.
מיתיבי אין לשין את העיסה בחלב ואם לש כל הפת כולה אסורה מפני הרגל עבירה כיוצא בו
The Gemara raises an objection to this statement: It was taught that one may not knead the dough with milk, and if he did knead the dough with milk, then all of the bread is prohibited due to concern that he will commit a habitual transgression. As one habitually eats bread with meat, there is a concern that one will come to eat this bread with meat as well, unwittingly transgressing the prohibition against eating meat with milk. Similarly,