MISHNA: With regard to the fourteenth of Nisan that occurs on Shabbat, one removes all leaven from his possession, whether it is teruma or non-sacred food, before Shabbat, except for that which will be eaten during the first part of Shabbat. In that case, one cannot remove leaven from his possession on the fourteenth of Nisan itself as he does in other years. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: One may remove the leaven at its usual time on the fourteenth of Nisan by throwing it away or declaring it ownerless. Rabbi Eliezer bar Tzadok says: Teruma should be removed before Shabbat, as only a few people are permitted to eat it and therefore one can presume that it will remain uneaten during Shabbat. However, non-sacred foods should be removed at their usual time, on the fourteenth of Nisan itself.

GEMARA: It was taught in the Tosefta that Rabbi Eliezer bar Tzadok says: One time my father, Rabbi Tzadok, spent Shabbat in Yavne, and the fourteenth of Nisan occurred on that Shabbat. Zonin, who was the appointee of Rabban Gamliel, came and said: The time has come to remove leavened bread; and I went with my father and we removed the leavened bread. This story serves as anecdotal evidence that leaven is removed at the usual time on the fourteenth of Nisan, even on Shabbat.

MISHNA: One who is traveling on the eve of Passover to slaughter his Paschal lamb, to circumcise his son, or to eat a betrothal feast in his father-in-law’s house, and he remembers that he has leavened bread in his house, if he is able to return to his house and remove the leaven and afterward return to the mitzva toward which he was traveling, he should return home and remove his leaven. But if there is not enough time for him to go home and remove the leaven, and still complete the mitzva that he already began, he should nullify it in his heart, as by Torah law this is sufficient.

If one was traveling to save Jews from an attack by gentiles, from a flooding river, from bandits, from a fire, or from a collapsed building, he should not even attempt to return, and instead he should nullify the leaven in his heart. This applies even if he could remove his leaven and still return to his previous activity. If he went to establish his Shabbat residence in order to adjust his Shabbat limit for an optional purpose, rather than in order to fulfill a commandment, he should return immediately to remove his leaven.

And so too, the same halakha applies to one who left Jerusalem and remembered that there was consecrated meat in his hand. Meat that is taken out of Jerusalem becomes disqualified, and one is required to burn it in proximity to the Temple. If he passed the area of Mount Scopus [Tzofim], beyond which one cannot see Jerusalem, he burns the meat at the site where he is located; and if he has not traveled that far, he must return and burn it before the Temple with wood from the arrangement on the altar, which was designated for burning consecrated items that were disqualified.

The mishna asks: For how much leaven or consecrated meat is one required to return? Rabbi Meir says: In both this case and that case, one must return for an egg-bulk. Rabbi Yehuda says: In both this case and that case, one must return for an olive-bulk. And the Rabbis say that the amount depends on the case: With regard to consecrated meat, he is required to return if he has an olive-bulk, but in a case where he remembers that he has leavened bread, he required to return only for an egg-bulk.

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a contradiction between this mishna and another source. It was taught in a baraita: One who is traveling to eat a betrothal feast in his father-in-law’s house or to establish his Shabbat residence for an optional purpose, must return immediately to remove his leaven. This contradicts the mishna, which states that one who is going to a betrothal feast may nullify the leaven without returning for it, because the meal is considered a mitzva.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is not difficult, as there is a tannaitic dispute with regard to the issue. This source, the baraita, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, while that source, the mishna, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As it was taught in a baraita: A betrothal feast is optional; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: It is a mitzva.

And now that Rav Ḥisda said: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei applies to the second betrothal feast, where the groom takes part in an additional meal with the bride’s family, but everyone agrees that the first betrothal feast is a mitzva, the contradiction between the mishna and the baraita can be resolved differently. Even if you say that this mishna and that baraita are both in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it is not difficult. This mishna, which relates to the meal as a mitzva, is referring to the first meal. That baraita, which assumes that the meal is not a mitzva, is referring to the second meal.

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard only that there is a mitzva with regard to a betrothal feast itself, but not with regard to the feast of the gifts [sivlonot], when the groom would present gifts to the bride. While a festive meal was eaten on this occasion, it was not considered to be a mitzva. Rabbi Yosei said to him: I heard that both a betrothal feast and the feast of the gifts are considered mitzvot.

Having discussed whether a betrothal feast is a mitzva, the Gemara addresses a related issue. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: A Torah scholar may not derive benefit from partaking in any feast that is not a mitzva.

The Gemara asks: In what case does this statement apply? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In a case where the daughter of a priest marries an Israelite, or where the daughter of a Torah scholar marries an ignoramus. Although a wedding feast is generally a mitzva, it is not in this case, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: When the daughter of a priest marries an Israelite their union will not be auspicious, as it is disgraceful for the priesthood when the daughter of a priest marries an Israelite.

The Gemara asks: What is meant by this statement that their union will be inauspicious? Rav Ḥisda said: The inauspicious nature of such a marriage can be identified based on the verse describing the return of a daughter of a priest to her father’s house after marrying a non-priest. The verse is understood as mentioning that the marriage will result in one of three possibilities: she will either be a widow, a divorcee, or without children (see Leviticus 22:13). It was taught in a baraita: Either her husband will bury her or she will bury him, because one of them will die young, or she will cause him to become poor.

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan himself say: One who wishes to become wealthy should cling to the descendants of Aaron, and all the more so should the merit of the Torah and the priesthood cause them to become wealthy. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this case, where he becomes wealthy, refers to a Torah scholar who marries a woman of priestly lineage. In that case their union will be a successful one. That case, where their union will not be auspicious, refers to an ignoramus who marries a woman of priestly lineage.

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehoshua married a daughter of a priest and became ill. He said: Apparently, it is not satisfactory to Aaron the priest that I cling to his descendants, so that he has a son-in-law like me.

The Gemara also relates that Rav Idi bar Avin married a daughter of a priest. Two sons who were ordained to decide halakhic matters came from him, namely Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, and Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi. Similarly, Rav Pappa said: Had I not married a daughter of a priest, I would not have become wealthy.

On the other hand, Rav Kahana, who was not a priest, said: Had I not married a daughter of a priest, I would not have been exiled, as Rav Kahana was forced to flee from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael. They said to him: But you were exiled to a place of Torah, which is not a punishment at all. He answered: I was not exiled as people are generally exiled, i.e., I did not emigrate of my own free will; rather, I was forced to flee from the authorities.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Anyone who benefits from partaking in an optional feast, which is not a mitzva, will ultimately be exiled, as it is stated: “And eat the lambs of the flock and the calves out of the midst of the stall” (Amos 6:4), and it is written: “Therefore now they shall go into exile at the head of the exiles; and the revelry of those who stretched themselves out shall pass away” (Amos 6:7).

The Gemara continues discussing a Torah scholar who benefits from optional feasts. The Sages taught: Any Torah scholar who feasts excessively everywhere degrades himself and brings suffering upon himself. He will ultimately destroy his house, widow his wife, orphan his chicks, i.e., his children, and his studies will be forgotten. Much dispute will come upon him, his words will not be heeded, and he will desecrate God’s name and the name of his master and the name of his father. And he will cause a bad name for himself, his children, and his descendants throughout future generations.

The Gemara asks: What is this bad reputation that he causes to himself and his descendants? Abaye said: His son is called the son [bar] of the one who heats ovens, since this person continually heated ovens in order to prepare food for feasts. Rava said: His son will be called the son of the one who dances in inns [bei kuvei], as he seems to be invited to every feast to entertain the guests. Rav Pappa said: His son will be called the son of the one who licks bowls [pinkhei]. Rav Shemaya said: His son will be called the son of the one who folds his garment and crouches, i.e., falls asleep drunk.

On the topic of proper marriage partners, the Gemara cites the following discussion. The Sages taught: One should always be willing to sell all he has in order to marry the daughter of a Torah scholar, as if he dies or if he is exiled and he cannot raise his children, he can be assured that his sons will be Torah scholars, since their mother will ensure that they are well educated. And one should not marry the daughter of an ignoramus, as if he dies or is exiled, his sons will be ignoramuses.

Furthermore, the Sages taught: One should always be willing to sell all he has in order to marry the daughter of a Torah scholar and in order to marry off his daughter to a Torah scholar. This type of marriage can be compared to grapes of a vine that become intertwined with grapes of a vine, something which is beautiful and acceptable to God and man. And one should not marry the daughter of an ignoramus. This type of marriage can be compared to grapes of a vine that have become intertwined with berries of a bramble, which is something unseemly