Parallel
פסחים 10:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
in the case of terumah [only], which is merely Rabbinical; but do we say thus in the case of leaven, which is Scriptural? — Is then the searching for leaven Scriptural; surely it is [only] Rabbinical, for by Scriptural law mere annulment is sufficient. If there is one package of leaven, and in front of it are two houses which have been searched, and there came a mouse and seized it, and we do not know whether it entered this [house] or that, that is [similar to] the case of two paths. For we learned: If there are two paths, one clean and the other unclean, and a person went through one of them and then touched clean [food], and then his neighbour came and went through the other and he touched clean [food], — R. Judah said: If they each enquire separately. they are clean; if both together, they are unclean. R. Jose said: In both cases they are unclean. Raba — others say. R. Johanan — said: If they came together, all agree that they are unclean; if consecutively, all agree that they are clean. They differ only where one comes to enquire about himself and his neighbour: R. Jose compares it to [both coming] together. while R. Judah likens it to each coming separately. If it is doubtful whether it [the mouse] entered or not, that is [similar to] the case of a plain, and [there we are involved] in the controversy of R. Eleazar and the Rabbis. For we learned: If a man enters a plain in winter, and there is uncleanness in a particular field, and he states: I walked in that place, but do not know whether I entered that field or not, — R. Eleazar declares him clean, while the Sages declare him unclean. For R. Eleazar ruled: If there is a doubt about entering, he is clean: if there is a doubt of contact with uncleanness, he is unclean. If it [the mouse] entered [with the leaven], and he [the master] searched but did not find it, [in like case] there is a controversy of R. Meir and the Rabbis. For we learned: R. Meir used to say: Everything which is in the presumption of uncleanness always [remains] in its uncleanness until it is known to you whether its uncleanness is gone; while the Sages rule: one searches until he reaches a rock or virgin soil. If it [the mouse] entered [with leaven] and he searched and found [leaven]. — [in like case] there is a controversy of Rabbi and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. For it was taught: If a grave was lost in a field, he who enters therein is unclean. If a grave is [subsequently] found in it, he who enters therein is clean, for I assume: the grave which was lost is the same grave which was found: this is Rabbi's view. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: The whole field must be examined. If a man left nine [pieces of leaven] and found ten, there is a controversy of Rabbi and the Rabbis. For it was taught: If he left a maneh and found two-hundred [zuz], hullin and second tithe are intermingled, this is Rabbi's view. But the Sages maintain: It is all hullin. If he left ten and found nine, that is [analogous to] the second clause. For it was taught: If he deposited two hundred and found one maneh, [he assumes], one maneh was left lying and one maneh was taken away: this is Rabbi's view. But the Sages maintain: It is all hullin.
—