Parallel
פסחים 6
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
hence ‘there shall not be found’ is necessary. But on the view that it is as money. what is the purpose of ‘there shall not be found’? — It is necessary: you might argue, since if in existence it is returned as it is, it does not stand in his possession. Hence he informs us [otherwise]. Raba was asked: Is cattle liable to arnona subject to the law of firstlings or not? Wherever one can put him off with money. we do not ask, for he is [certainly] liable. our problem arises where he cannot put him off with money: what then? He replied: It is not subject [thereto]. But surely it was taught: It [the animal] is subject [thereto]?-There it is a case where he can put him off with money. others state, Raba said: Cattle liable to arnona is not subject to the law of firstlings. even when he can put him off with money. A dough [made of flour] liable to arnona is subject to hallah. What is the reason? [The facts about] cattle are generally known; [the facts about a dough] are not generally known. Our Rabbis taught: If a Gentile enters an Israelite's court-yard with [leavened] dough in his hand, he [the Israelite] is not obliged to remove it if he deposits it with him, he is obliged to remove it; if he assigns a room to him [for the dough], he is not obliged to remove it, because it is said, ‘[Leaven] shall not be found’. What does he [the Tanna] mean? — Said R. Papa: He refers to the first clause, and says thus: If he deposits it with him, he is obliged to remove it, because it is said, ‘[Leaven] shall not be found’. R. Ashi said: After all it refers to the second clause, and he says thus: If he assigned a room to him he is not obliged to remove it, because it is said, ‘[Leaven] shall not be found in your houses,’ and this is not his [house], for when the Gentile carries in [the leaven], he carries it into his own house. Shall we say that renting confers a title? But surely we learned: Even in the place where they [the Sages] permitted renting [to a heathen], they did not permit [renting] for a dwelling-house, because he [the heathen] introduces [his] idols therein. Now if you should think that renting confers a title, when he introduces [the idols] he introduces [them] into his own house? — Here it is different, because the Divine Law expresses it in the form of ‘there shall not be found’, [implying] that which is found in your hand [is forbidden], which excludes this [case], since it is not found in your hand. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: If one finds leaven in his house during the Festival, he overturns a vessel upon it. Raba said: If dough partly owned by a non-Jew; nevertheless this dough is subject to hallah, as explained in the text. it is of hekdesh, this is unnecessary. What is the reason? He does indeed hold aloof from it. Rab Judah also said in Rab's name: Leaven belonging to a Gentile, he [the Israelite] must set up a partition of ten handbreadths around it as a distinguishing mark; but if it belongs to hekdesh this is unnecessary. What is the reason? People hold aloof from it. Rab Judah also said in Rab's name: He who sets sail, and he who sets out in a [caravan] company, before thirty days [prior to Passover], is not bound to remove [the leaven]; if within thirty days, he is bound to remove [it]. Abaye observed: When you say, if within thirty days he is bound to remove it, we said this only where his intention is to return [during Passover]; but if it is not his intention to return, he is not bound to remove [it]. Said Raba to him: But if his intention is to return, even [if he sets out] on New Year too? Rather, said Raba: When you say. if before thirty days he is not bound to remove it, we said this only where it is not his intention to return; but if his intention is to return, even [if he sets out] on New Year too. Now Raba is consistent with his view. For Raba said: If one turns his house into a granary before thirty days [prior to the Passover], he is not bound to remove [the leaven]; if within thirty days, he is bound to remove it; and even before thirty days too, we said this only when it is not his intention to clear it [the store of provisions] away; but if his intention is to clear it away, even before thirty days too he is bound to remove it. What business have these thirty days? — As it was taught: Questions are asked and lectures are given on the laws of Passover for thirty days before Passover. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Two weeks. What is the reason of the first Tanna?
—
Because lo! Moses was standing on the First Passover and giving instructions about the Second Passover, as it is said, Moreover, let the children of Israel keep the passover in its appointed season; and it is written, And there were certain men, who were unclean by the dead body of a man. And R. Simeon b. Gamaliel? — He answers you: Because he was engaged in the laws of Passover, he instructed them in all the laws of Passover. What is R. Simeon b. Gamaliel's reason? Because lo! Moses was standing at the beginning of the month and giving orders about the Passover, as it is said, This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. And it is written, Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their father's houses, etc. But how do you know that he was standing at the beginning of the month; perhaps he was standing on the fourth or the fifth of the month? Rather, said Rabbah b. Shimi in Rabina's name, [It is deduced] from here: And the Lord spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the first month of the second year; and it is written, Moreover let the children of Israel keep the passover in its appointed season. But here too, how do you know that he was standing at the beginning of the month: perhaps he was standing on the fourth or the fifth of the month? — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: [The implication of] ‘wilderness’ [here] is learned from ‘wilderness’ [elsewhere]. Here it is written, ‘in the wilderness of Sinai’,’ while there it is written, And the Lord spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tent of meeting, on the first day of the second month: just as there [it was] at the beginning of the month, so here too at the beginning of the month. Now, let [the events of] the first month be written first, and then that of the second month? — Said R. Menasia b. Tahlifa in Rab's name: This proves that there is no chronological order in the Torah. R. Papa observed: This was said only of two subjects; but in the same subject what is earlier is earlier and what is later is later. For should you not say thus, [how, then, apply the principle that] when a general proposition is followed by a particular specification the general proposition comprises only what is contained in the particular specification; perhaps it is a particular specification followed by a general proposition! Moreover, [it is a principle that] when a particular specification is followed by a general proposition, the generalization becomes an addition to the specification, [here too] perhaps it is a generalization followed by a particularization! But if so, the same [question] applies even to two subjects? Now, that is well on the view that [when] a generalization and a specification [are] at a distance from each other, we do not interpret them as a generalization followed by a specification, then it is correct. But on the view that we do interpret [them thus], what can be said? — Even on the view that we do interpret, that is only [when they occur] in the same subject; but [when] in two subjects we do not interpret [them thus]. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: He who searches [for leaven] must [also] declare it null. What is the reason? Shall we say [it is] because of crumbs — but they are of no value? And should you answer, since they are guarded in virtue of his house, they are of account, surely it was taught: [If there are in a man's field] late figs, while he guards his field on account of the grapes; or if there are late grapes, while he guards his field on account of his cucumbers and gourds, when the owner is particular about them, they are forbidden [to a stranger] as theft and are subject to tithes; when the owner is not particular about them, they are not forbidden as theft and are exempt from tithe! — Said Raba: It is a preventive measure, lest he find a tasty loaf and [set] his mind upon it. Then let him annul it when he finds it? — He may find it after the interdict [commences], and then it does not stand in his ownership and [so] he cannot annul it. For R. Eleazar said: Two things are not in a man's ownership, yet the Writ regarded them as though they were in his ownership. And these are they: a pit in public ground and leaven from six hours and onwards. Then let him annul it at the fourth or the fifth [hour]? — Since it is neither the time of the prohibition nor the time of searching, he may transgress and not annul it.
—