Rabbi Shimon also permits one to derive benefit from leavened bread after Passover even if it was owned by a Jew. And if the mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, he would permit one to derive benefit from it even during Passover.

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Actually, it is possible to explain that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and he derives the restrictions pertaining to the eating of leaven from the restrictions relating to seeing leaven. The prohibition against seeing leaven is worded: ''It shall not be seen by you.'' It is understood to mean that you should not see your own or another Jew’s leaven. But you may see leaven that belongs to others, i.e., gentiles, and leaven consecrated to God. Similarly, with regard to the prohibition against eating leaven that was owned by a Jew during Passover after Passover, you may not eat your own leavened bread, but you may eat the leavened bread of others or the leaven consecrated to God after Passover.

And by right it should have taught that even the eating of leavened bread belonging to a gentile is permitted after the conclusion of Passover, but since the tanna taught that it is forbidden to derive benefit from leavened bread belonging to a Jew after Passover, he also taught that it is permitted to derive benefit from leavened bread belonging to a gentile. However, one should understand that it is permitted to eat this leavened bread as well. And similarly, by right it should have taught that even during Passover it is permitted to derive benefit from leavened bread that belongs to gentiles. But since the tanna taught about the leavened bread belonging to a Jew after Passover, he also taught about the leavened bread belonging to a gentile after Passover. Thus, one should not infer halakhot from the exact formulation of these details in the baraita, but rather understand that the mishna follows Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion.

Rava said: This is not so. Actually, our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. However, this is difficult, as Rabbi Shimon states that it is permitted for a Jew to derive benefit from leavened bread that had been owned by another Jew during Passover, while our mishna explicitly states that this is forbidden. This can be resolved by explaining that Rabbi Shimon argues that it is permitted only according to Torah law. However, one who intentionally commits such a transgression incurs a penalty. Since he transgressed the prohibition it shall not be seen and the prohibition it shall not be found, the Sages decreed that it is forbidden for him to derive benefit from this leavened bread.

The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the opinion of Rava, this explanation is consistent with that which was taught in the mishna: Leavened bread that belonged to a Jew is forbidden because it is stated: ''It shall not be seen'' (Exodus 13:7). According to this explanation, the connection between the prohibition against deriving benefit from leavened bread that was owned by a Jew during Passover and the verse prohibiting seeing leaven during Passover is clear. The prohibition against deriving benefit from this leavened bread is a rabbinically instituted fine for transgressing the Torah prohibition of ''It shall not be seen.'' But according to the opinion of Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, which states that our mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and which renders forbidden by Torah law deriving benefit from leavened bread that was owned by a Jew during Passover, why is this verse cited? The mishna should have said that it is forbidden due to the verse ''Leavened bread shall not be eaten'' (Exodus 13:3), as that is the verse from which Rabbi Yehuda derives this prohibition.

The Gemara answers: Do you hold that this proof is referring to the latter clause of the mishna, where the prohibition against deriving benefit from leavened bread owned by a Jew is discussed? It is referring to the first clause of the mishna, which discusses permission to derive benefit from leavened bread owned by a gentile, and this is what it is saying: Leavened bread of a gentile, over which Passover has elapsed, i.e., that remains after the conclusion of Passover, it is permissible to derive benefit from it, due to the verse where it is stated: ''It shall not be seen by you.'' This indicates that you may not see your own leaven, but you may see leaven that belongs to others and leaven consecrated to God. And he derives the details about the prohibition of eating leaven from the prohibition of seeing leaven. The verse ''It shall not be seen by you'' should be understood as an explanation of what is permitted and not as an explanation of what is forbidden.

The Gemara comments that Rava and Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov follow their line of reasoning. For it was stated that they dispute this issue: With regard to one who eats leaven of a gentile over which Passover has elapsed, i.e., that remains after the conclusion of Passover, according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, Rava said: He is flogged, as he has violated a Torah prohibition. And Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: He is not flogged.

The Gemara explains: Rava said that according to Rabbi Yehuda, he is flogged, as Rabbi Yehuda does not derive the prohibition against eating leaven from the prohibition against seeing leaven. Instead, he derives the prohibition from a verse that does not use the words ''to you,'' and therefore leavened bread owned by a gentile over Passover is forbidden in all circumstances. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: He is not flogged, as Rabbi Yehuda learns the prohibition against eating leaven from the prohibition against seeing leaven, and thus it is limited to leavened bread owned by a Jew.

The Gemara notes: Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov retracted that position on this matter. As it was taught in a baraita: One who eats consecrated leavened bread during the festival of Passover is guilty of misuse of consecrated items. If one performed this action unintentionally, then he must offer a guilt-offering to atone for using a consecrated item for non-sacred purposes. And some say: He is not guilty of misuse of consecrated items.

The Gemara asks: To whom is the phrase in the baraita: Some say, referring? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana would render the status of Yom Kippur the same as that of Shabbat with regard to payment for damage caused by a person in violation of the prohibitions of that day.

Just as one who desecrates Shabbat by intentionally causing damage to his fellow’s property, e.g., by lighting his stack of grain on fire, is liable to receive the death penalty, since one who intentionally desecrates Shabbat is punished by stoning and is therefore exempt from payment, the basis for this exemption being the principle that after committing multiple transgressions, one is punished only with the most severe punishment; so too, one who causes damage by desecrating Yom Kippur is liable to receive the death penalty, as this violation is punished with karet, i.e., spiritual death at the hand of Heaven, and is therefore exempt from payment. According to this position, one who eats leavened bread during Passover and is deserving of karet should also be exempt from other punishments, including the penalty for misuse of consecrated items. In any case, it is clear that both Sages mentioned in the baraita agree that leavened bread has monetary value. This must be due to the fact that one is permitted to derive benefit from it after Passover. Therefore, it appears that they both accept Rabbi Shimon’s position.

Rav Yosef said: The dispute mentioned in this baraita should be understood differently. Both tanna’im in the baraita accept the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, which states that one may derive benefit from leavened bread during Passover, and thus, in principle, one should be permitted to derive benefit from this consecrated leavened bread. Yet, unlike non-sacred leavened bread, which one may sell to gentiles or feed to dogs, it is prohibited to use consecrated leavened bread in this way. Therefore, the question whether this leavened bread has any monetary value depends on the question whether one may redeem consecrated items in order to feed them to dogs, and it is about this point that the tanna’im disagree.

The one who said that he misused consecrated items by using this leavened bread during Passover holds that one may redeem consecrated items in order to feed them to dogs. Because the food may be redeemed for this purpose, the consecrated leavened bread does have some monetary value, and therefore using it is considered misuse of consecrated items. And the one who said that he did not misuse consecrated items holds that consecrated property may not be redeemed for this purpose, but only in order to provide food for a Jewish person. In this case, since it is forbidden to eat this leavened bread during Passover, the consecrated leavened bread has no value at all at this time. Therefore, one who eats such leavened bread is not guilty of misuse of consecrated items.

The Gemara comments: Rav Aḥa bar Rava taught