Daf 355 (Pesachim 32a-32b)
Gemara. One who inadvertently eats terumah must replace it, but if the value of the terumah has fluctuated, is he expected to replace it according to the monetary value of what he consumed at the time he consumed it or with the volume of terumah he consumed? Those who hold that terumah that is chametz during Pesach has no value also hold that the one who ate it must replace it with the volume that he consumed. Others insist that chametz has value even when it is forbidden: “Even in this case . . . the Kohen has permission to burn it or to benefit from it in some other fashion. For had the Kohen wished, he could have placed it before his dog to eat, or burned it for fuel under his pot of food.”
Daf 356 (Pesachim 33a-33b)
A heated discussion continues on the permitted use of the forbidden.
Daf 357 (Pesachim 34a-34b)
The gemara seeks to determine the limits of invalidation due to “inattention.” When R’Yirmiyah heard an account of their investigations, he said, “The foolish Babylonians! It is because they dwell in a dark land that they state such murky teachings!” Rashi interprets this to mean “when they do not know the reason for a ruling, they simply invent one!”
Daf 358 (Pesachim 35a-35b)
Mishnah. Here are rules regarding the type of matzah that must be eaten on the first night of Pesach.
Gemara. The gemara seeks a Scriptural source that supports the mishnah. It argues over whether matzoh made from rice fulfills the mitzvah, as well as matzah made with flavored liquids (e.g., fruit juice).
Daf 359 (Pesachim 36a-36b)
Can a second prohibition ever be superimposed on an earlier prohibition?
Daf 360 (Pesachim 37a-37b)
Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai argue over the maximum thickness of an unleavened loaf one is permitted to bake during Pesach. Rav Yosef wonders if the same rules apply to people who are “diligent” and those who aren’t. The gemara seeks to develop a precise definition of bread; five definitions are offered and vigorously disputed.