Parallel
פסחים 4:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Is it not because it stands in the presumption of having been searched, [the Tanna] holding, All are haberim in respect to the searching of leaven. For it was taught: If a haber dies and leaves a store-house full of produce [crops], even if they are but one day old, they stand in the presumption of having been tithed. How so: perhaps it is different here because they [the woman, slave or minor] state it? — Has then the statement of these any substance? What then [will you assume]? It stands in the presumption of having been searched? Then it should state, ‘All houses stand on the fourteenth in the presumption of having been searched’? — What then [will you assume]? It is because of the statement of these [that the house is assumed to have been searched], but if these did not say [that it had been searched], it is not so? Then solve from this [teaching] that it does not stand in the presumption of having been searched! — No. In truth I may tell you [that generally] it does stand in the presumption of having been searched; but what we discuss here is a case where we know for certain that he [the owner] did not search, but these affirm. We searched it. You might say, Let not the Rabbis believe them. Therefore it informs us [that] since the search for leaven is [required only] by Rabbinical law, for by Scriptural law mere nullificationl suffices for it, the Rabbis gave them credence in [respect to] a Rabbinical [enactment]. The scholars asked: What if one rents a house to his neighbour in the presumption of its having been searched, and he [the tenant] finds that it has not been searched? Is it as an erroneous bargain or not? — Come and hear! For Abaye said: It is unnecessary [to say] of a town, where payment is not made [to others] for searching that a person is pleased to fulfil a precept personally; but even in a town where payment is made for searching [it is not an erroneous bargain], because [it is to be assumed that] one is pleased to fulfil a precept with his money. We learned elsewhere: R. Meir said: one may eat [leaven] the whole of the five [hours] and must burn [it] at the beginning of the sixth. R. Judah said: one may eat until four [hours], hold it in suspense the whole of the fifth, and must burn it at the beginning of the sixth. Thus incidentally all agree that leaven is [Scripturally] forbidden from six hours [i.e., noon] and onwards: whence do we know it? — Said Abaye, Two verses are written: Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses; and it is written, even [ak] the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: how is this [to be understood]? It must include the fourteenth [as the day] for removal. Yet say that it includes the night of the fifteenth [as the time] for removal; for one might argue, ‘days’ is written, [implying] only days but not nights: hence it [the verse] informs us that even nights [are included in the interdict]? — That is unnecessary,
—