(Exodus 12:15) "Seven days shall you eat matzoth": I might think that all types of matzoth are understood (i.e., that all grains are permitted as matzoth). It is, therefore, written (Devarim 16:3) "Do not eat chametz upon it; (seven days shall you eat matzoth upon it"). Scripture speaks only of something that can become chametz (i.e., that can turn sour) — wheat, barley, rye, oat, and spelt. This excludes rice, millet, poppyseed, pulse, and sesame, which do not become chametz, but which putrefy.
"Seven days shall you eat matzoth": I might think, even that which is cooked in a pot. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 16:3) "bread of affliction" (i.e., only what is baked in an oven).
"Seven days (shall you eat matzoth"): including the first day of the festival. You say this, but perhaps (the meaning is) excluding the first day? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 18) "until the twenty-first day" (i.e., since the seven days end on the twenty-first day of Nissan, the first day [i.e., the fourteenth of Nissan] must be included in the count). And if (it were written only) "until the twenty-first day" (and it were not written "Seven days"), I would exclude (the twenty-first day, which is) close to the twentieth (and I would read it as "until [but not including] the twenty-first day.")
It must, therefore, be written "Seven [and not six] days shall you eat matzoth." (Ibid. 15) "Only on the first day": This makes (the eating of matzoth on) the first day mandatory and the others optional. You say this, but perhaps (the intent is) to make the first optional and the others mandator? It is, therefore, written (18) "On the first day, on the fourteenth day of the month, in the evening shall you eat matzoth," whereby Scripture fixes the first day as mandatory. It is not the second assumption, then, which is to be accepted, but the first.
One verse (15) states "Seven days shall you eat matzoth," and a second (Devarim 16:8) "Six days shall you eat matzoth." How are these two verses to be reconciled? The seventh day was in the general category (of eating matzoth), and it left that category (in verse 15) to teach about the entire category, viz.: Just as the seventh is optional, so all are optional. But perhaps (the meaning is) Just as the seventh is optional, so the first night is optional? It is, therefore, written (18) "On the first day, on the fourteenth day of the month shall you eat matzoth." Scripture established it as mandatory. It is not the second assumption, then, which is to be accepted, but the first.
Variantly: One verse states "Six," and another "Seven." How are these two verses to be reconciled? Six from the new crop; seven from the old. (i.e., If he wishes to eat matzoth from the new crop, he can do so only for six days, it being forbidden on the first day, until after the offering of the omer [viz. Leviticus 23:15]).
(Ibid. 15) "Only on the first day you shall eliminate leaven from your houses": before the eve of the festival. You say this, but perhaps (the meaning is) on the day of the festival itself? (This cannot be, for) it is written (Ibid. 34:25) "Do not slaughter with chametz the blood of My sacrifice" — Do not slaughter the Paschal lamb when chametz is still found, (whence it is derived that chametz is forbidden from the sixth hour on the fourteenth of Nissan [when the Paschal lamb is slaughtered]). These are the words of R. Yishmael.
R. Akiva says: This (derivation) is not needed. It is already written (Ibid. 16) "No labor shall be done in them," and burning is a kind of labor. And what is the intent of "you shall eliminate leaven"? Before the eve of the festival.
R. Yossi Haglili says: "You shall eliminate leaven from your house" — before the eve of the festival. You say this, but perhaps (the meaning is) on the festival itself? "Ach" (i.e., "No labor shall be done in them ach ['only']" divides (the day into "permitted" [for the retention of chametz (i.e., until the sixth hour)] and "forbidden" [after the sixth hour]).
R. Yehudah says: "shall you eliminate leaven from your houses": by burning. You say this, but perhaps in any manner? You reason as follows: Nothar (left-overs of the Paschal lamb) may not be eaten, and chametz may not be eaten. If you have learned of chametz (that it is eliminated) only by burning (viz. 29:34), so, chametz, only by burning. (No,) this is refuted by neveilah (carcass) which may not be eaten, yet need not be burned.
Would you say that? There is a difference (between neveilah, [from which benefit may be derived] and chametz, [from which benefit may not be derived,], so that the resultant equation is:) Benefit may not be derived from nothar, and benefit may not be derived from chametz. If you have learned of nothar (that it is eliminated) only by burning, so, chametz only by burning. (No,) this is refuted by a stoned ox, which, though benefit may not be derived from it, need not be burned — Then say the same for chametz!
Would you say that? There is a difference, viz.: (Eating) nothar is subject to kareth ("cutting-off") and chametz is subject to kareth. If you have learned of nothar (that it is to be eliminated) only by burning, so should you learn of chametz. (No,) this is refuted by (eating of the) fats of a stoned ox, which, though (the eating is) subject to kareth, the ox need not be burned. Would you say this?
I will derive four determinants from four like determinants. Nothar is forbidden in eating, and in derivation of benefit, and it is subject to kareth, and it is time (i.e., Pesach)-conditioned, as is chametz. And this is not to be refuted by neveilah, which, though forbidden to be eaten, is not forbidden in derivation of benefit. Nor is it to be refuted by a stoned ox, which, though benefit may not be derived from it, is not subject to kareth. Nor is it to be refuted by (eating) the fats of a stoned ox, which, though benefit may not be derived from it, is not time-conditioned. But I will learn a thing from a (like) thing, and I will judge a thing from a (like) thing. And I will not learn a four-faceted thing from another which is not like it in one way or two ways or three ways. If you have learned, then, of nothar (that it is eliminated) only by burning, so, chametz (is to be eliminated only by burning).
R. Yehudah b. Betheira said: Do you think that you are being stringent with him (by having him burn it)? You are being lenient with him. For if he does not find fire, he will sit and not burn it! Rather, express it thus: Before the arrival of the time for eliminating it (by Torah mandate, i.e., the entire sixth hour), the mitzvah of eliminating it is by burning. Once that time has arrived, the mitzvah of eliminating it is in any manner.
Rebbi says: We learn (that chametz is to be eliminated by burning) from its being subject to the ban on its being found or its being seen. And this is found (ideally) only by burning.
"from Israel": I might think that it is cut off from Israel but may annex itself to a different nation; it is, therefore, written (Leviticus 22:3) "and that soul shall be cut off from before Me; I am the L–rd" — All places are My domain.
"from the first day until the seventh day": Its punishment is for seven days; the exhortation against it obtains always. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since (eating chametz is punishable by kareth, and (eating) forbidden fats is punishable by kareth, then if we have learned about forbidden fats that its punishment is equivalent (in time) to its exhortation, then the same applies to chametz. It is, therefore, written "from the first day until the seventh day" — Its punishment is seven days, but its exhortation obtains always. We have heard its punishment, but we have not heard its exhortation. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 16:3) "Do not eat chametz upon it."
(שמות יב,טו) ["שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מַצּוֹת תֹּאכֵלוּ, אַךְ בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן תַּשְׁבִּיתוּ שְּׂאֹר מִבָּתֵּיכֶם, כִּי כָּל אֹכֵל חָמֵץ, וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מִיּוֹם הָרִאשֹׁן עַד יוֹם הַשְּׁבִעִי."] "שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מַצּוֹת תֹּאכֵלוּ". שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, כָּל מַצָּה בְמַשְׁמָע! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (דברים טז,ג) "לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ", לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא דָּבָר הַבָּא לִידֵי חִמּוּץ, וְאֵי זֶה הוּא? אֵלּוּ חֲמֵשֶׁת הַמִּינִין, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: הַחִטִּים, וְהַשְּׂעוֹרִים, וְהַכֻּסְּמִים, וְשִׁבֹּלֶת שׁוּעָל, וְשִׁיפוֹן. יָצְאוּ הָאֹרֶז וְהַדֹּחַן וְהַפְּרָגִין וְהַשֻּׁמְשְׁמִין וְהַקִּטְנִיּוֹת, שֶׁאֵין בָּאִין לִידֵי חִמּוּץ, אֶלָּא לִידֵי סֵרָחוֹן.
(Exodus 12:15) "Seven days shall you eat matzoth": I might think that all types of matzoth are understood (i.e., that all grains are permitted as matzoth). It is, therefore, written (Devarim 16:3) "Do not eat chametz upon it; (seven days shall you eat matzoth upon it"). Scripture speaks only of something that can become chametz (i.e., that can turn sour) — wheat, barley, rye, oat, and spelt. This excludes rice, millet, poppyseed, pulse, and sesame, which do not become chametz, but which putrefy.
"שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מַצּוֹת תֹּאכֵלוּ". שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, אַף מַעֲשֵׂה קְדֵרָה בְמַשְׁמָע! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (דברים טז,ג) "לֶחֶם עֹנִי".
"Seven days shall you eat matzoth": I might think, even that which is cooked in a pot. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 16:3) "bread of affliction" (i.e., only what is baked in an oven).
"שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מַצּוֹת תֹּאכֵלוּ" עִם יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר עִם יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא חוּץ לְיוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (שמות יב,יח) "עַד יוֹם הָאֶחָד וְעֶשְׂרִים". אִי "עַד יוֹם הָאֶחָד וְעֶשְׂרִים", אוֹצִיא סָמוּךְ לְעֶשְׂרִים וְאֶחָד! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מַצּוֹת תֹּאכֵלוּ".
"Seven days (shall you eat matzoth"): including the first day of the festival. You say this, but perhaps (the meaning is) excluding the first day? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 18) "until the twenty-first day" (i.e., since the seven days end on the twenty-first day of Nissan, the first day [i.e., the fourteenth of Nissan] must be included in the count). And if (it were written only) "until the twenty-first day" (and it were not written "Seven days"), I would exclude (the twenty-first day, which is) close to the twentieth (and I would read it as "until [but not including] the twenty-first day.")
"שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מַצּוֹת תֹּאכֵלוּ", לַיְלָה הָרִאשׁוֹן חוֹבָה, וּשְׁאָר הַיָּמִים רְשׁוּת. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר רִאשׁוֹן חוֹבָה, וּשְׁאָר הַיָּמִים רְשׁוּת, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא רִאשׁוֹן רְשׁוּת? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (שמות יב,יח) "בָּרִאשֹׁן, בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ בָּעֶרֶב תֹּאכְלוּ מַצֹּת". הַכָּתוּב קְבָעוֹ חוֹבָה. הָא אֵין עָלֶיךָ לוֹמַר כְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֲרוֹן, אֶלָּא כְלָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן, לַעֲשׁוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹן חוֹבָה, וּשְׁאָר הַיָּמִים רְשׁוּת.
It must, therefore, be written "Seven [and not six] days shall you eat matzoth." (Ibid. 15) "Only on the first day": This makes (the eating of matzoth on) the first day mandatory and the others optional. You say this, but perhaps (the intent is) to make the first optional and the others mandator? It is, therefore, written (18) "On the first day, on the fourteenth day of the month, in the evening shall you eat matzoth," whereby Scripture fixes the first day as mandatory. It is not the second assumption, then, which is to be accepted, but the first.
"שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מַצּוֹת תֹּאכֵלוּ". כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: "שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מַצּוֹת תֹּאכֵלוּ", וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: (דברים טז,ח) "שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תֹּאכַל מַצּוֹת". כֵּיצַד יִתְקַיְּמוּ שְׁנֵי מִקְרָאוֹת הַלָּלוּ? הַשְּׁבִיעִי הָיָה בַכְּלָל, וְיָצָא מִן הַכְּלָל לְלַמֵּד עַל הַכְּלָל כֻּלּוֹ: מַה שְּׁבִיעִי רְשׁוּת, אַף כֻּלָּן רְשׁוּת. אוֹ מַה שְּׁבִיעִי רְשׁוּת, אַף לַיְלָה הָרִאשׁוֹן רְשׁוּת? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (שמות יב,יח) "בָּרִאשֹׁן בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם", הַכָּתוּב קְבָעוֹ חוֹבָה. הָא אֵין עָלֶיךָ לוֹמַר אֶלָּא כְלָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן. מַה שְּׁבִיעִי רְשׁוּת, אַף כֻּלָּן רְשׁוּת, חוּץ מִלַּיְלָה הָרִאשׁוֹן.
One verse (15) states "Seven days shall you eat matzoth," and a second (Devarim 16:8) "Six days shall you eat matzoth." How are these two verses to be reconciled? The seventh day was in the general category (of eating matzoth), and it left that category (in verse 15) to teach about the entire category, viz.: Just as the seventh is optional, so all are optional. But perhaps (the meaning is) Just as the seventh is optional, so the first night is optional? It is, therefore, written (18) "On the first day, on the fourteenth day of the month shall you eat matzoth." Scripture established it as mandatory. It is not the second assumption, then, which is to be accepted, but the first.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר (דברים טז,ח) "שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים", וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר "שִׁבְעַת יָמִים". כֵּיצַד יִתְקַיְּמוּ שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִין הַלָּלוּ? שִׁשָּׁה מִן הֶחָדָשׁ, שִׁבְעָה מִן הַיָּשָׁן.
Variantly: One verse states "Six," and another "Seven." How are these two verses to be reconciled? Six from the new crop; seven from the old. (i.e., If he wishes to eat matzoth from the new crop, he can do so only for six days, it being forbidden on the first day, until after the offering of the omer [viz. Leviticus 23:15]).
"אַךְ בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן תַּשְׁבִּיתוּ שְּׂאֹר מִבָּתֵּיכֶם", מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּיוֹם טוֹב עַצְמוֹ? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (שמות לד,כה) "לֹא תִשְׁחַט עַל חָמֵץ דַּם זִבְחִי", לֹא תִשְׁחַט אֶת הַפֶּסַח וַעֲדַיִן חָמֵץ קַיָּם. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
(Ibid. 15) "Only on the first day you shall eliminate leaven from your houses": before the eve of the festival. You say this, but perhaps (the meaning is) on the day of the festival itself? (This cannot be, for) it is written (Ibid. 34:25) "Do not slaughter with chametz the blood of My sacrifice" — Do not slaughter the Paschal lamb when chametz is still found, (whence it is derived that chametz is forbidden from the sixth hour on the fourteenth of Nissan [when the Paschal lamb is slaughtered]). These are the words of R. Yishmael.
רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ! וַהֲלֹא כְבַר נֶאֱמַר (שמות יב,טז) "כָּל מְלָאכָה לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה בָהֶם", וּשְׂרֵפָה מֵעֵין מְלָאכָה הִיא. הָא מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן תַּשְׁבִּיתוּ שְּׂאֹר"? מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב.
R. Akiva says: This (derivation) is not needed. It is already written (Ibid. 16) "No labor shall be done in them," and burning is a kind of labor. And what is the intent of "you shall eliminate leaven"? Before the eve of the festival.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵה הַגָּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: "בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן תַּשְׁבִּיתוּ שְּׂאֹר מִבָּתֵּיכֶם", מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּיוֹם טוֹב עַצְמוֹ? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "אַךְ בַּיּוֹם", חִלֵּק.
R. Yossi Haglili says: "You shall eliminate leaven from your house" — before the eve of the festival. You say this, but perhaps (the meaning is) on the festival itself? "Ach" (i.e., "No labor shall be done in them ach ['only']" divides (the day into "permitted" [for the retention of chametz (i.e., until the sixth hour)] and "forbidden" [after the sixth hour]).
רַבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר: "תַּשְׁבִּיתוּ שְּׂאֹר מִבָּתֵּיכֶם", בִּשְׂרִיפָה. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בִּשְׂרִיפָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְכָל דָּבָר? הֲרֵי אַתְּ דָּן: נוֹתָר אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה, וְחָמֵץ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. אִם לָמַדְתָּ עַל נוֹתָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּשְׂרִיפָה, אַף חָמֵץ לֹא יְהֵי אֶלָּא בִּשְׂרִיפָה! הֲרֵי נְבֵלָה תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה וְאֵינָהּ בִּשְׂרִיפָה, הִיא תּוֹכִיחַ עַל חָמֵץ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה, לֹא יְהֵי בִשְׂרִיפָה.
R. Yehudah says: "shall you eliminate leaven from your houses": by burning. You say this, but perhaps in any manner? You reason as follows: Nothar (left-overs of the Paschal lamb) may not be eaten, and chametz may not be eaten. If you have learned of chametz (that it is eliminated) only by burning (viz. 29:34), so, chametz, only by burning. (No,) this is refuted by neveilah (carcass) which may not be eaten, yet need not be burned.
אָמַרְתָּ הֶפְרֵשׁ: נוֹתָר אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, וְחָמֵץ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, אִם לָמַדְתָּ עַל נוֹתָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּשְׂרִיפָה, אַף חָמֵץ לֹא יְהֵי אֶלָּא בִשְׂרִיפָה! וַהֲרֵי שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה וְאֵינוֹ בִשְׂרִיפָה! הוּא יוֹכִיחַ עַל חָמֵץ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, לֹא יְהֵי בִשְׂרִיפָה.
Would you say that? There is a difference (between neveilah, [from which benefit may be derived] and chametz, [from which benefit may not be derived,], so that the resultant equation is:) Benefit may not be derived from nothar, and benefit may not be derived from chametz. If you have learned of nothar (that it is eliminated) only by burning, so, chametz only by burning. (No,) this is refuted by a stoned ox, which, though benefit may not be derived from it, need not be burned — Then say the same for chametz!
אָמַרְתָּ הֶפְרֵשׁ: נוֹתָר, חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, וְחָמֵץ, חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. אִם לָמַדְתָּ עַל נוֹתָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּשְׂרִיפָה, אַף חָמֵץ לֹא יְהֵי אֶלָּא בִּשְׂרִיפָה! וַהֲרֵי חֵלֶב שֶׁלַּשּׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, וְאֵינוֹ בִּשְׂרִיפָה! הוּא יוֹכִיחַ עַל חָמֵץ, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, לֹא יְהֵי בִשְׂרִיפָה.
Would you say that? There is a difference, viz.: (Eating) nothar is subject to kareth ("cutting-off") and chametz is subject to kareth. If you have learned of nothar (that it is to be eliminated) only by burning, so should you learn of chametz. (No,) this is refuted by (eating of the) fats of a stoned ox, which, though (the eating is) subject to kareth, the ox need not be burned. Would you say this?
אָמַרְתָּ הֶפְרֵשׁ: אָדִין אַרְבָּעָה לְשׁוֹנוֹת כְּאַחַת: נוֹתָר אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וְאָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת וְהַזְּמַן גָּרֵם, וְחָמֵץ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וְאָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת וְהַזְּמַן גָּרֵם. וְאַל תֹּאמַר נְבֵלָה תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֲסוּרָה בַאֲכִילָה, אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה בַהֲנָאָה, וְלֹא שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, וְלֹא חֵלֶב שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, אֵין הַזְּמַן גּוֹרֵם, אֶלְמֹד דָּבָר מִדָּבָר, אָדִין דָּבָר מִדָּבָר: אֶלְמֹד דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא שָׁוֶה בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּרָכִים מִדָּבָר שֶׁשָּׁוֶה בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּרָכִים, וְאַל אֶלְמֹד דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא שָׁוֶה בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּרָכִים מִדָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה לֹא בְדֶרֶךְ אֶחָד, וְלֹא בִשְׁנַיִם, וְלֹא בִשְׁלֹשָׁה. אִם לָמַדְתָּ עַל נוֹתָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּשְׂרִיפָה, אַף חָמֵץ לֹא יִהְיֶה אֶלָּא בִּשְׂרִיפָה.
I will derive four determinants from four like determinants. Nothar is forbidden in eating, and in derivation of benefit, and it is subject to kareth, and it is time (i.e., Pesach)-conditioned, as is chametz. And this is not to be refuted by neveilah, which, though forbidden to be eaten, is not forbidden in derivation of benefit. Nor is it to be refuted by a stoned ox, which, though benefit may not be derived from it, is not subject to kareth. Nor is it to be refuted by (eating) the fats of a stoned ox, which, though benefit may not be derived from it, is not time-conditioned. But I will learn a thing from a (like) thing, and I will judge a thing from a (like) thing. And I will not learn a four-faceted thing from another which is not like it in one way or two ways or three ways. If you have learned, then, of nothar (that it is eliminated) only by burning, so, chametz (is to be eliminated only by burning).
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: סָבוּר אַתְּ שֶׁאַתְּ מַחְמִיר עָלָיו, וְאֵי אַתְּ אֶלָּא מֵקֵל עָלָיו! הָא אִם לֹא מָצָא אוּר, יֵשֵׁב לוֹ וְלֹא יִשְׂרֹף? אֶלָּא בְּלָשׁוֹן זֶה הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁלֹּא תַגִּיעַ שָׁעַת הַבֵּעוּר, מִצְוַת כִּלּוּיוֹ בִּשְׂרִיפָה. מִשֶּׁהִגִּיעָה שָׁעַת הַבֵּעוּר, מִצְוַת כִּלּוּיוֹ בְּכָל דָּבָר.
R. Yehudah b. Betheira said: Do you think that you are being stringent with him (by having him burn it)? You are being lenient with him. For if he does not find fire, he will sit and not burn it! Rather, express it thus: Before the arrival of the time for eliminating it (by Torah mandate, i.e., the entire sixth hour), the mitzvah of eliminating it is by burning. Once that time has arrived, the mitzvah of eliminating it is in any manner.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בְּדָבָר שֶׁהוּא 'בַל יֵרָאֶה' וּ'בַל יִמָּצֵא'. וְאֵי זֶה הוּא דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא 'בַל יֵרָאֶה' וּ'בַל יִמָּצֵא'? אֵין אַתְּ מוֹצֵא אֶלָּא בִשְׂרִיפָה.
Rebbi says: We learn (that chametz is to be eliminated by burning) from its being subject to the ban on its being found or its being seen. And this is found (ideally) only by burning.
"כִּי כָּל אֹכֵל חָמֵץ וְנִכְרְתָה". שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, כָּל חָמֵץ בְּמַשְׁמָע! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (דברים טז,ג) "לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ", לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בָא לִידֵי חִמּוּץ. וְאֵי זֶה הוּא דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בָא לִידֵי חִמּוּץ? אֵלּוּ מֵחֲמֵשֶׁת הַמִּינִין, חִטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִים וְכֻסְּמִים, שִׁבֹּלֶת שׁוּעָל, שִׁיפוֹן. יָצְאוּ הָאֹרֶז וְהַדֹּחַן וְהַפְּרָגִין וְהַשַּׁמְשְׁמִין*הַשַּׁמְשְׁמִין=הַשֻּׁמְשְׁמִין. וְהַקִּטְנִיּוֹת, שֶׁאֵין בָּאִין לִידֵי חִמּוּץ אֶלָּא לִידֵי סֵרָחוֹן.
"וְנִכְרְתָה". אֵין הַכְרָתָה אֶלָּא הַפְסָקָה.
"הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא", מְזִידָה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה.
(Exodus, Ibid.) "that soul": (This connotes) volition (as opposed to unwittingness).
"מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל". שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, תִּכָּרֵת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל וְתֵלֵךְ לָהּ אֶל עַם אַחֵר? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (ויקרא כב,ג) "מִלְּפָנַי, אֲנִי יי", בְּכָל מָקוֹם הוּא רְשׁוּתִי.
"from Israel": I might think that it is cut off from Israel but may annex itself to a different nation; it is, therefore, written (Leviticus 22:3) "and that soul shall be cut off from before Me; I am the L–rd" — All places are My domain.
"מִיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן עַד יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי." עָנְשׁוֹ שִׁבְעָה וְאַזְהָרָתוֹ לְעוֹלָם. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין, הוֹאִיל וְהַחֵלֶב, חַיָּב עָלָיו כָּרֵת, וְחָמֵץ, חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, אִם לָמַדְתָּ עַל הַחֵלֶב שֶׁעָנְשׁוֹ וְאַזְהָרָתוֹ לְעוֹלָם, אַף הֶחָמֵץ, עָנְשׁוֹ וְאַזְהָרָתוֹ לְעוֹלָם! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "מִיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן עַד יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי", עָנְשׁוֹ שִׁבְעָה וְאַזְהָרָתוֹ לְעוֹלָם. עֹנֶשׁ שָׁמַעְנוּ וְאַזְהָרָה לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (שמות יב,כ) "כָּל מַחְמֶצֶת לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ".
"from the first day until the seventh day": Its punishment is for seven days; the exhortation against it obtains always. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: Since (eating chametz is punishable by kareth, and (eating) forbidden fats is punishable by kareth, then if we have learned about forbidden fats that its punishment is equivalent (in time) to its exhortation, then the same applies to chametz. It is, therefore, written "from the first day until the seventh day" — Its punishment is seven days, but its exhortation obtains always. We have heard its punishment, but we have not heard its exhortation. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 16:3) "Do not eat chametz upon it."