and fruit juice does not cause dough to be leavened. Therefore, dough prepared with these liquids is not considered full-fledged leavened bread.

The Gemara turns to the cases of the mishna. The mishna taught that one can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with doubtfully tithed produce and with produce of the first tithe, from which teruma has been separated. The Gemara asks: Can one really fulfill his obligation with doubtfully tithed produce? It is not suitable for him to eat. The Sages prohibited the eating of doubtfully tithed produce that has not been tithed. The Gemara answers: Since, if one so desires he may renounce all his property, thereby becoming a poor person who is permitted to eat doubtfully tithed produce, now too it is suitable for him, even though he did not declare his property ownerless. Consequently, if he used doubtfully tithed produce as matza, he has fulfilled the mitzva after the fact.

As we learned in a mishna: One may feed the poor doubtfully tithed produce, and he may also feed Jewish soldiers [akhsanya] who lodge with him doubtfully tithed produce. And Rav Huna said that it was taught that Beit Shammai say: One may neither feed the poor doubtfully tithed produce, nor feed soldiers doubtfully tithed produce. And Beit Hillel say: One may feed these groups doubtfully tithed produce. This mishna indicates that doubtfully tithed produce is not prohibited to the same extent as entirely untithed produce, as in certain situations the prohibition pertaining to doubtfully tithed produce does not take effect.

The mishna taught that one can fulfill the obligation to eat matza with produce of the first tithe from which its teruma, the teruma of the tithe, was taken and given to a priest. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious, as, since its teruma has been taken, it is non-sacred food? What novel element is taught by this statement?

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach the halakha in a case where a Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on its stalks. Ordinarily, the Levite would be given his first tithe only after the priest had taken the teruma gedola; however, in this case the Levite took his portion before the priest. And the teruma of the tithe was taken by the Levite from his tithe so that he would be permitted to eat the tithe; however, the teruma gedola was not taken from the produce at all. And the novel element of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu.

As Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: First tithe in which the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks is exempt from teruma gedola, even though the Levite thereby reduces the amount of grain the priest receives. As it is stated: “Moreover you shall speak to the Levites and say to them: When you take from the children of Israel the tithe which I have given you from them as your inheritance, and you shall set apart from it a gift for the Lord, a tithe from the tithe” (Numbers 18:26). This verse teaches that the Levite is obligated to set apart a tithe from the tithe, i.e., the teruma of the tithe, and not teruma gedola and the teruma of the tithe from the tithe.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: However, if that is so, even if the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were removed from the stalks and placed in a pile, the Levite should not have to separate teruma gedola in this case either. Abaye said to him: With regard to your claim, the verse states: “From all that is given to you, you shall set apart all of that which is the Lord’s teruma, of all the best of it, even its consecrated portion” (Numbers 18:29). This verse teaches that the Levites must designate a portion of the gifts they receive and give it to the priests.

The Gemara asks: And what did you see to lead you to require the separation of teruma gedola from first tithe that was taken from grain in piles and not from first tithe that was taken from grain on stalks? Abaye answers: This produce, after being threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and has become grain; and that produce on the stalk did not yet become grain, and the Levite is therefore exempt from separating teruma gedola from it. Produce that has been arranged in a pile is called grain by the Torah and is given to the priest. Once it is classified as grain, the right of the priest takes effect and the Levite is required to separate teruma gedola from it.

The mishna taught that one can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with second-tithe grain and with consecrated grain that was redeemed. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as consecrated grain that has been redeemed is non-sacred produce. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the consecrated property was not completely redeemed, i.e., where one gave payment for the principal, the value of the tithe, but he did not give payment for the additional fifth due when redeeming consecrated items. And the mishna teaches us that failure to add the fifth does not invalidate the redemption. Although there is an obligation to pay this additional fifth, the neglect of this duty does not prevent the grain from becoming non-sacred.

And the mishna further taught that priests can fulfill their obligation with matza of ḥalla and with teruma. The Gemara again asks: It is obvious that this is the case. Since a priest is permitted to eat ḥalla and teruma, he can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with them. The Gemara responds: This ruling is nevertheless necessary, lest you say that we require matza that may be eaten equally by anyone, which would mean that matza that may not be eaten by regular Israelites is prohibited to priests as well. The mishna therefore teaches us that the repetition of the words “matzot,” “matzot” (Deuteronomy 16:3, 8) comes to amplify, i.e., one can fulfill one’s obligation to eat matza even with foods that may be eaten only by specific people.

We learned in the mishna: However, one may not fulfill this obligation with untithed produce. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as it is always prohibited to eat tevel. The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where it is considered untithed produce by rabbinic law, and by Torah law the produce is permitted. For instance, this is the case with regard to grain that one sowed in an unperforated flowerpot. Anything grown disconnected from the ground is not defined as produce of the ground, and its owner is exempt by Torah law from tithing it. However, by rabbinic law, grain sowed in an unperforated flowerpot is considered untithed.

It was also taught in the mishna: And one does not fulfill his obligation with matza from produce of the first tithe, whose teruma, teruma of the tithe, was not taken. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as this produce may not be eaten. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to teach this with regard to a case where the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were placed in a pile but before teruma gedola was separated from the produce.

The Gemara elaborates: Lest you say, as Rav Pappa said to Abaye, that in that case too, the Levite should be exempt from the requirement to separate teruma gedola from this produce, the tanna of the mishna teaches us, as Abaye responded to Rav Pappa, that there is a difference between a case when the grain was on the stalks and when it was collected in a pile. Therefore, one may not eat this produce before separating teruma gedola from it.

It was further taught in the mishna: And one does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza with second-tithe produce or consecrated grain that was not redeemed. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that, too, obvious, as it is prohibited to eat these foods?

The Gemara answers: Actually, this is speaking of a case where they were redeemed, and what is the meaning of the expression: They were not redeemed? It means that they were not redeemed properly, e.g., second-tithe grain that was redeemed with an unminted coin [asimon]. As the Merciful One says with regard to the redemption of the second tithe: “And you shall turn it into money, and bind up the money in your hand, and go to the place which the Lord your God shall choose” (Deuteronomy 14:25). The phrase “and bind up [ve’tzarta] the money” indicates that the produce must be exchanged for an object that has a form [tzura], not unminted metal.

And with regard to consecrated property, we are dealing with a case where he redeemed it by exchanging it for land instead of money, as the Merciful One says: “And he will give the fifth part of the money of your valuation unto it and it shall be assured to him” (see Leviticus 27:19). If one redeemed consecrated property with land rather than money, the consecrated status is not transferred to the land.

The Sages taught: I might have thought that a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza with untithed produce that was not amended with regard to tithes. The Gemara analyzes the apparently redundant phrase untithed produce that was not amended. But isn’t all untithed produce also not amended, by definition?

Rather, this baraita is referring to untithed produce that was incompletely amended. How so? For example, produce from which teruma gedola was taken, but the teruma of the tithe was not taken from it. Alternatively, the first tithe was separated from the produce, but not the second tithe; or, it is referring even to grain from which all the tithes were separated, apart from the poor man’s tithe. Although no sanctity applies to the poor man’s tithe, which is simply a monetary gift to the poor, until this tithe has been separated the grain remains untithed. From where is it derived that these types of grain cannot be used for matza?

The verse states: “You shall not eat leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza” (Deuteronomy 16:3). One fulfills his obligation to eat matza with food whose prohibition is solely due to the prohibition: Do not eat leavened bread with it, if it was not preserved in an unleavened state. This command excludes this grain, which is not prohibited due to the prohibition: Do not eat leavened bread, but rather due to the prohibition: Do not eat untithed produce.

The Gemara expresses surprise at this baraita. And the prohibition of leavened bread, where did it go? In other words, doesn’t the prohibition: “You shall not eat leavened bread” apply to untithed produce as well? Rav Sheshet said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: One prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists. No additional prohibitions can apply to an object that is already prohibited, e.g., untithed grain. Consequently, the prohibition of leavened bread does not take effect on untithed produce. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: