Parallel
פסחים 7:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Then let him annul it in the sixth [hour]? — Since the Rabbinical interdict is upon it, it is like a Scriptural [interdict] and does not stand in his ownership, hence he cannot annul it. For R. Gidal said in R. Hiyya b. Joseph's name in Rab's name: He who betroths from the sixth hour and onwards, even with wheat of Cordyene, we have no fear of his betrothal. But, is he unable to annul it after the prohibition [commences]? Surely it was taught: If he is sitting in the Beth Hamidrash and recollects that he has leaven at home, he annuls it in his heart, whether it is the Sabbath or the Festival. Now as for the Sabbath, it is well: this is possible where the fourteenth [of Nisan] falls on the Sabbath; but the Festival is after the prohibition [commences]? — Said R. Aha b. Jacob: We treat here of a disciple sitting before his master, and he recollects that he has a rolled dough at home and fears that it may turn leaven; [therefore] he anticipates and annuls it before it turns leaven. This may be proved too: for it states, ‘If he is sitting in the Beth Hamidrash’. This proves it. Rabbah the son of R. Huna said in Rab's name: If a loaf went mouldy, if mazzah exceeds it [in quantity], it is permitted. How is it meant? Shall we say that he [the owner] knows that this [loaf] is leaven, what then matters it if the mazzah does exceed it? Again if we do not know whether it is leaven or mazzah, then why particularly if the mazzah exceeds it; even if the mazzah does not exceed it too, let us go after the last? Did we not learn: Money found in front of cattle dealers at all times is [accounted as] tithe; on the Temple Mount, it is hullin; in [the rest of] Jerusalem, at any other part of the year. it is hullin; at the Festival season, it is tithe. And R. Shemaia b. Zera observed thereon: What is the reason? Because the streets of Jerusalem were swept daily. This proves that we assume: the earlier[losses] have gone. and these [coins] are different ones. So here too let us say: the earlier[bread] has gone and this is of the present? — Here it is different, because its mouldiness proves its status. If its mouldiness proves its status, what does it matter if the mazzah exceeds it? — Said Rabbah. Do not say, ‘if the mazzah exceeds it’, but say, ‘many days of mazzah have passed over it’. If so, it is obvious? — This is necessary only where it is very mouldy; you might argue, since it is very mouldy it is clear that it is certainly true leaven; therefore he informs us that since many days of mazzah have passed over it we say: every day hot mazzah was baked and thrown thereon, and that made it very mouldy. Yet do we follow the last? Surely it was taught. R. Jose b. Judah said: If a chest was used for money of hullin and money of tithe, if it was mostly hullin, it [the money found therein] is hullin; if mostly tithe, it is tithe. But why so? let us go after the last?-Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: of what do we treat here? E.g., where it was used for money of hullin and money of tithe, and one does not know which was last. R. Zebid said: E.g., where it was used for separate packages. R. Papa said: E.g., if it was found in a pit. of peace-offerings; when one could not stay long enough in Jerusalem to expend all his tithe money, he would distribute it among the poor or give it to his friends in Jerusalem. Consequently, if money is found in front of cattle dealers, whatever the time of the year, it is assumed to be of the second tithe. On the other hand, if it is found on the Temple Mount, we assume it to be hullin, even at Festival time, when most of money handled is tithe, because the greater part of the year is not Festival, and then ordinary hullin is in circulation and this money might have been lost before the Festival. But if found in the streets of Jerusalem, a distinction is drawn, as stated in the text. Rab Judah said: He who searches [for leaven] must pronounce a benediction. What benediction does he pronounce? R. Pappi said in Raba's name: ‘[. . . who hast commanded us] to remove leaven’. R. Papa said in Raba's name: ‘[. . . who hast coúmanded us] concerning the removal of leaven’. As for [the phrase] ‘to remove,’ there is no disagreement at all that it certainly implies in the future. 22
—