Study Pesachim folio 46B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
לא זה הוא חמץ שמוזהרין עליו בבל יראה ובבל ימצא. אלא: מפרישתה ומניחתה עד הערב, ואם החמיצה — החמיצה.
This is not the leavened bread about which we are warned with the prohibitions: It should not be seen, and: It should not be found. These prohibitions do not apply because the ḥalla does not actually belong to the owner of the dough; it is instead considered to be consecrated property. Rather, she should separate the ḥalla and leave it until the evening; and if it becomes leavened, then it will become leavened, but this is of no concern.
גמ׳ לימא בטובת הנאה קמיפלגי. דרבי אליעזר סבר: טובת הנאה ממון. ורבי יהושע סבר: טובת הנאה אינה ממון.
Talmud: The Talmud suggests: Let us say that the tanna’im disagree with regard to benefit of discretion, i.e., benefit accrued from the option of giving ḥalla, teruma and tithes to whichever priest or Levite one chooses. The rabbis debated whether this benefit has monetary value and would constitute a form of ownership. R' Eliezer holds: Benefit of discretion is considered to have monetary value. Therefore, one owns the ḥalla he separates, and he must be careful to prevent it from becoming leavened. However, R' Yehoshua holds: Benefit of discretion is not considered to have monetary value. One does not own the ḥalla, and therefore he may allow it to become leavened.
לא, דכולי עלמא סברי טובת הנאה אינה ממון, והכא ב״הואיל״ קמיפלגי. דרבי אליעזר סבר: אמרינן ״הואיל״, ואי בעי איתשיל עלה — ממוניה הוא. ורבי יהושע סבר: לא אמרינן ״הואיל״.
The Talmud rejects this suggestion: No, everyone holds that benefit of discretion is not considered to have monetary value, and here they disagree with regard to the principle of: Since, etc. As R' Eliezer holds: We say that since, if he wants, he can ask to have his separation of the ḥalla voided when he regrets having done so, it is his property. Even if one does not actually revoke the status of the ḥalla, the fact that the potential for such an action exists indicates that he still maintains a form of ownership of this dough. And R' Yehoshua holds: We do not say that since he could theoretically revoke the status of the ḥalla, the dough is considered his. Consequently, he may leave it until the end of the Festival day without being concerned that it will become leavened.