1I would then think this comparison excludes wheat and barley, which are from a species that are brought as first fruits and should therefore not be used for the mitzva of matza . Therefore, the verse states: “ Matzot ,” “ matzot ” (Deuteronomy 16:3, 8) to amplify and teach that any matza is acceptable for this mitzva. The Gemara asks: If the repetition of matzot matzot comes to amplify this halakha that any matza is fit for Passover use, it should also include matza prepared from first-fruit wheat. The Gemara answers: This is indeed true, and Rabbi Akiva retracted his statement. He too derives the halakha from the verse: “In all of your habitations.”
2As it was taught in a baraita : I might have thought that a person can fulfill his obligation with matza from first fruit; therefore the verse states: “In all of your habitations you shall eat matzot ” (Exodus 12:20). The verse indicates that one can fulfill his obligation with matza that may be eaten in all habitations. It excludes first fruits, which may not be eaten in all habitations, but only in Jerusalem. I might have thought that I should also exclude second-tithe produce as fit for matza ; therefore the verse states: “ Matzot ,” “ matzot .” As stated above, this repetition serves to amplify, and it includes second tithe in the materials that may be used in the preparation of matza .
3The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include second-tithe produce due to the words matzot matzot but to exclude first fruits? The Gemara explains: I include the second tithe, which has a means by which it may be permitted to be eaten in all habitations, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as will be explained. And I exclude first fruits, which do not have, under any circumstances, a manner by which it is permitted to eat them in all habitations.
4The Gemara explains: As Rabbi Eliezer said: From where is it derived with regard to second-tithe produce that became ritually impure, that one may redeem it even in Jerusalem? Second-tithe produce that has been redeemed may be removed from the city. The verse states: “And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry it [ se’eto ], because the place is too far from you, which the Lord your God shall choose to set His name there, when the Lord your God shall bless you” (Deuteronomy 14:24).
5And it is derived by means of a verbal analogy that this carrying [ se’et ] is nothing other than eating, as it is stated: “And portions [ masot ] were taken to them from before him” (Genesis 43:34). In light of this parallel language, the Gemara understands the phrase “so that you are not able se’eto ” to mean: So that you are not able to eat it. Like second-tithe produce that has not yet been taken into Jerusalem, second-tithe produce in the capital that cannot be eaten due to ritual impurity can be redeemed and taken out of the city. Consequently, second tithe can indeed be considered food that may be eaten “in all of your habitations.”
6The Gemara applies this discussion to the issue at hand: Who did you hear that said: One can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with second tithe? It is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and yet he excludes first fruits due to the expression: “In all of your habitations.” Learn from this that Rabbi Akiva retracted his opinion and accepted Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s derivation.
7The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, why does he learn this halakha from the phrase: “In all of your habitations”? Let him derive it from the phrase: Leḥem oni (Deuteronomy 16:3). Rabbi Yosei HaGelili derives from this expression that matza must be prepared from produce that can be eaten in a state of acute mourning; that excludes this second tithe, which may be eaten only in a state of joy. This exposition should apply to first fruits as well, as they must also be eaten in a state of joy.
8The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili maintains in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that an acute mourner may eat first fruits. As it was taught in a baraita : First fruits are prohibited to an acute mourner, and Rabbi Shimon permits an acute mourner to eat first fruits.
9The Gemara explains this dispute: What is the reason for the Rabbis’ opinion, which maintains that an acute mourner may not eat first fruits? As it is written: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your corn, or of your wine, or of your oil, or the firstlings of your herd or of your flock, nor any of your vows which you vow, nor your free-will offerings, nor the offering of your hand” (Deuteronomy 12:17). And the Master said: “The offering of your hand,” these are first fruits, as this verse compares first fruits to the second tithe: Just as the second tithe is prohibited to an acute mourner, as stated explicitly in the Torah, so too are first fruits prohibited to an acute mourner.
10And Rabbi Shimon says in response to this contention: First fruits are called teruma by the Merciful One and therefore their status is like that of teruma : Just as teruma is permitted to an acute mourner, so too first fruits are permitted to an acute mourner.
11The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon, although he does not accept this juxtaposition of first fruits and second tithe, in any case the word joy is written with regard to first fruits, as it is written: “And you shall rejoice in all the good that the Lord has given you and your household” (Deuteronomy 26:11). In light of this, how can Rabbi Shimon permit an acute mourner to eat first fruits?
12The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon does not learn from that verse that one must eat first fruits while he is personally happy; rather, it comes to teach us that first fruits should be eaten during the period of rejoicing. As we learned in a mishna: From Shavuot until Sukkot , one brings first fruits and recites the prayers of thanks to God that appear in the Torah. From Sukkot until Hanukkah one may bring first fruits, but he does not recite the portion from the Torah. This mishna states that the ideal time for bringing first fruits to the Temple is during the joyous harvest season, from which it may be inferred that this verse is not referring to personal joy of the one bringing the first fruits, but rather to the period of communal joy.
13The Sages taught that the phrase poor man’s bread [ leḥem oni ] excludes matza that was boiled [ ḥalut ] in hot water after it was baked, which is considered to be a relative delicacy; and this expression also excludes matza that was baked as a large cake [ ashisha ]. I might have thought that a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza only with coarse [ hadra’a ] bread; therefore, the verse states: “ Matzot ,” “ matzot ,” which serves to amplify and include matza prepared with fine-grade flour. And in fact, one could fulfill his obligation even with matzot like those of King Solomon, which were prepared from the finest sifted flour. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Poor man’s bread”? This phrase comes to exclude boiled matza and large cakes, but it does not exclude matza prepared from refined flour.
14The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that ashisha is an expression that indicates importance? As it is written with regard to King David’s celebration after he brought the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem: “And he dealt among all the people, among the whole multitude of Israel, both to men and women, to every one a cake of bread, and an eshpar , and an ashisha , and all the people departed, every one to his house” (II Samuel 6:19).
15And Rav Ḥanan bar Abba said: The word eshpar refers to a portion of meat equivalent to one-sixth of an ox, and the word ashisha refers to a cake prepared from one-sixth of an eipha of flour. And this interpretation disputes the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: Ashisha means a jug of wine, as it is written: “And those who love the jug [ ashishei ] of grapes” (Hosea 3:1).
16The Sages taught: One may not bake thick bread on the Festival, on Passover, as it might be leavened before it has a chance to bake; this is the statement of Beit Shammai.