One who unwittingly eats an unslaughtered animal carcass on Yom Kippur is exempt from bringing a sin-offering to atone for this consumption. The prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur does not apply to the already prohibited meat of an animal carcass, which means only the prohibition against eating an unslaughtered animal carcass is violated by this act.

Ravina said: Even if you say that this baraita is in accordance with the Rabbis, who maintain that a prohibition can take effect where another prohibition already exists, it can be explained as follows: One fulfills his obligation to eat matza with food whose prohibition is solely due to the commandment: Do not eat leavened bread, which excludes this grain, which is forbidden not only due to the prohibition: Do not eat leavened bread, but also due to the prohibition: Do not eat untithed produce.

The Gemara raises a difficulty against this explanation: Is the word: Only, written in the baraita? This word, which is critical for Ravina’s explanation, does not appear in the baraita at all. Rather, it is clear that this must be explained in accordance with the explanation of Rav Sheshet, who maintains that the baraita should be attributed to Rabbi Shimon.

The Sages taught: I might have thought that a person can fulfill his obligation to eat matza on Passover with matza of second tithe in Jerusalem. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza, the bread of affliction [leḥem oni]” (Deuteronomy 16:3), oni with the letter ayin, i.e., poor man’s bread. As this is similar to the phrase: Bread of acute mourning [leḥem oni], oni with an alef, it can be inferred that this mitzva must be fulfilled with matza that can be eaten during a period of acute mourning, on the day one’s close relative has died. This excludes this second tithe, which cannot be eaten during a period of acute mourning but only in a state of joy, as the Torah states: “I have not eaten from it in my acute mourning” (Deuteronomy 26:14). This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

Rabbi Akiva says: The repetition of matzot matzot serves to amplify, and teaches that all types of matza may be eaten on Passover. The baraita asks: If so, what is the meaning when the verse states leḥem oni, poor man’s bread? The baraita answers: This phrase excludes dough that was kneaded with wine, oil, or honey, which is not classified as poor man’s bread and therefore cannot be used for this mitzva.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Rabbi Akiva? The Gemara explains: Is it written in the consonantal text leḥem oni with a vav? That would allude to the comparison of matza to food eaten by an onen, an acute mourner, as onen is also spelled with a vav. Actually, it is written leḥem oni without a vav, meaning poor man’s bread.

And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili could respond: Do we vocalize the word as ani, as would be appropriate for a phrase meaning a poor man’s bread? In fact, we vocalize it oni, which means oppression, affliction, or mourning. And Rabbi Akiva could retort: The fact that we vocalize the word as oni is in accordance with a statement of Shmuel. As Shmuel said: The expression leḥem oni means bread over which many matters are recited [onin], an allusion to the Passover Seder, at which one recites the Haggadah and eats matza.

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Akiva maintain with regard to dough that was kneaded with wine, oil, or honey, that it may not be used for matza? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One may not knead dough on Passover with wine, oil, or honey? And if one kneaded dough in this manner, Rabban Gamliel says: The dough must be burned immediately, as it is leavened faster than other types of dough. And the Rabbis say that although it is leavened quickly, one can still prevent it from being leavened, and if he does so it may be eaten. And Rabbi Akiva said: It was my Shabbat to serve before Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua during Passover (Rav Yehuda ben Rav Binyamin HaRofeh), and I kneaded for them dough with wine, oil, and honey, and they said nothing to me by way of objection.

The baraita continues: And although one may not knead dough with these ingredients, one may spread these substances on the surface of the dough. The Gemara comments: With regard to this latter statement, we have come back to the opinion of the first tanna, who said that one may not knead bread with wine, oil, or honey. And the Rabbis say: With regard to dough into which one may knead wine, oil, or honey, one may likewise spread them on the dough, whereas concerning dough into which one may not knead these ingredients, one may not spread them on the dough either. And everyone agrees that one may not knead the dough with warm water, as this will cause it to be leavened quickly. In any case, it is evident from here that Rabbi Akiva himself prepared matza with wine, oil, and honey.

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this statement of Rabbi Akiva’s, which maintains that one does not fulfill his obligation with matza prepared with wine, oil, and honey, is referring to the first day of the Festival, during which there is a special commandment to eat matza. However, that second baraita, in which Rabbi Akiva states that he prepared this type of dough himself, pertains to the second day of Passover, when no special requirement to eat matza is in effect. On the second day, there is no mitzva to eat matza. It is only forbidden to own or eat leavened bread; consequently, so-called rich, or enhanced matza, prepared from fruit juices, is permitted.

The Gemara adds that this is as Rabbi Yehoshua said to his sons: On the first night of Passover, do not knead for me dough with milk, but from the first night onward, knead my dough for me with milk. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Throughout the whole year one may not knead dough with milk, and if he kneaded dough with milk, the entire bread is prohibited, due to the fact that one will become accustomed to sin, by unwittingly eating it with meat? Rather, this is what he is saying: On the first night of Passover do not knead me dough with honey; however, from then onward, knead me dough with honey.

And if you wish, say instead that actually Rabbi Yehoshua said: With milk, as Ravina said: If this bread, kneaded with milk, is prepared in the shape of an ox’s eye, it is permitted. In other words, if one forms this dough in a unique shape, e.g., the eye of an ox, one may eat it, as it is clearly distinguishable from ordinary bread. Therefore, there is no concern that it will be eaten with meat. Here too, the baraita is speaking about a case where he told them to prepare this matza in the shape of an ox’s eye.

It was incidentally mentioned in the previous baraita: And everyone agrees that one may not knead dough with warm water. The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from that of meal-offerings? As we learned in a mishna: All meal-offerings are kneaded with warm water and are watched so that they will not be leavened. The Gemara explains that there is a distinction between these two cases: If they say it is permitted for diligent priests to bake with warm water, shall they also say the same with regard to those who are not diligent? The priests are diligent and expert in the Temple service and are able to take extreme care, but not everyone can be relied upon to guard the dough unfailingly.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, if we rely on the diligence of the priests, let them also soak the grains in water to help them remove the husks. Why did Rabbi Zeira say that Rabba bar Yirmeya said that Shmuel said: With regard to the wheat used in the meal-offerings, one may not soak it? The Gemara answers: The kneading of the dough is performed by diligent priests; however, the act of soaking is not performed by diligent priests. Instead, this soaking is performed outside of the Temple confines by less reliable non-priests.

The Gemara asks: And with regard to kneading, is it performed only by diligent priests? But isn’t it written: “And when any one brings a meal-offering to the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it, and place frankincense upon it. And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests; and he shall take from it his handful of its fine flour, and of its oil, together with all its frankincense” (Leviticus 2:1–2). These verses indicate that from the scooping of a handful and onward, the mitzva must be performed by members of the priesthood. This teaches about the pouring of the oil and the stirring of the mixture that they are valid even if they are performed by any person, even a non-priest.

The Gemara answers: With regard to kneading, although it is not performed by diligent priests, it is nevertheless performed in the place of the diligent. Kneading may be carried out by a non-priest, but it must still be performed in the Temple courtyard. As the Master said: Mixing is valid if performed by a non-priest; however, if it is conducted outside the walls of the courtyard, it, the meal offering, is disqualified. This serves to exclude soaking, which is neither performed by the diligent nor performed in the place of the diligent.

The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from that of the omer meal-offering, which must also be guarded from leavening? As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to the omer offering, one soaks it and gathers it, without concern that it will become leavened. The Gemara answers: An act performed by the community is different, as the Great Sanhedrin supervises these operations, and those executing them no doubt proceed with great caution.

The Sages taught in another baraita: I might have thought that one can fulfill his obligation by eating matza prepared from the wheat of first fruits; therefore, the verse states: “In all of your habitations you shall eat matzot” (Exodus 12:20). This verse indicates that one fulfills his obligation only with matza that may be eaten “in all of your habitations.” This expression excludes first fruits, which may not be eaten in all of your habitations, but only in Jerusalem. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

Rabbi Akiva says: That verse is not the source for this halakha; rather, the fact that one cannot fulfill his obligation with matza of first fruits is derived from the juxtaposition of matza and bitter herbs: Just as bitter herbs are not first fruits, as they are not included in the seven species to which the mitzva of first fruits applies, so too matza may not be from first fruits. If you will claim: Just as bitter herbs are from a species that are not brought as first fruits, so too matza must be prepared from a species that are not brought as first fruits, e.g., spelt,