פסחים 10 — Soncino English Talmud

¹in 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.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ

^ᵃnote:Nowadays.
^ᵇnote:When doubt arises in a Rabbinical law we are naturally lenient; but where the law is Scriptural we are strict.
^ᶜnote:Supra 4b.
^ᵈnote:E.g., there is a lost grave in one of them, but we do not know in which.
^ᵉnote:Lit., ‘made’.
^ᶠnote:Each is given the benefit of the doubt; consequently the food remains clean.
^ᵍnote:Since the question is asked on behalf of both.
^ʰnote:Since there is only one man asking. — It is a principle that if a doubt of uncleanness arises in public ground, it is clean; if in private ground, it is unclean. Here the paths are public ground; hence when they come separately each is declared clean. But we cannot rule thus when they come together. since one is certainly unclean. The same principles apply mutatis mutandis to the searched houses.
^ⁱnote:A mouse was seen to take a package of leaven, but we do not know whether or not it entered a room already searched.
^ʲnote:[This clause is omitted in MS.M., cf. p 43. n. 2.]
^ᵏnote:Many fields together constitute a plain.
^ˡnote:It is then private ground, because the seed has already started sprouting.
^ᵐnote:I.e., a grave.
^ⁿnote:The field is known.
^ᵒnote:For in the first case there is really a double doubt: firstly, whether he entered the field at all, and secondly, even if he did enter, whether he passed over the grave. — In our problem, however, even the Rabbis agree that a re-search is not necessary; since the search is only Rabbinical, we make the more lenient assumption (Rashi). [Apparently Rashi did not read’, ‘and in the controversy. . . Rabbis’, cf. p. 42, n. 10.]
^ᵖnote:If a pile or heap contains a portion of a corpse, so that it is unclean, while there are two other clean piles, and we do not know now which is which; if one is examined and found to be clean, that is clean, while the others are treated as unclean; if two are found to be clean, they are clean and the third is unclean; but if the three are examined and found to be clean, they are all unclean in R. Meir's opinion, unless we know definitely whither the defilement has disappeared. But the Sages maintain that he examines the ground until he reaches a rock or virgin soil which has obviously never been touched, and if it is not found we assume that a bird has flown off with it. — But in the present problem even R. Meir agrees that we are lenient, since the search is only a Rabbinical requirement (Rashi). V. however Tosaf.
^ᵠnote:But he does not know whether it is the same.
^ʳnote:We do not know where it is.
^ˢnote:It may not be the same grave. Here too, presumably, even R. Simeon b. Gamaliel is lenient; cf. n. 3.
^ᵗnote:Of second title.
^ᵘnote:I.e., two manehs.
^ᵛnote:We assume that the original match was left and an unknown person added another. It will therefore be necessary to redeem one maneh by exchanging it for another.
^ʷnote:For the original manehs may have been taken away. The Rabbis will make a similar assumption here and therefore the house must be searched for the nine pieces.
^ˣnote:Hence the present maneh is treated as second tithe.

²If a man left [leaven] in this corner and finds [leaven] in another corner, there is a controversy of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and the Rabbis. For it was taught: If an axe is lost in a house, the house is unclean, for I assume: An unclean person entered there and removed it. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: The house is clean, for I assume, He lent it to another and forgot, or he took it from one corner and placed it in another corner and forgot. Who mentioned anything about a corner? The text is defective, and is thus taught: If an axe is lost in a house, the house is unclean, for I say: An unclean person entered there and took it. Or if he leaves it in one corner and finds it in another corner the house is unclean, for I assume, An unclean person entered there and took it from one corner and placed it in another corner. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: The house is clean, for I say. He lent it to another and forgot, or he took it from one corner and placed it in another corner and forgot. Raba said: If a mouse enters [a room] with a loaf in its mouth and he [the owner] enters after him and finds crumbs, a [fresh] search is necessary, because it is not a mouse's nature to make crumbs. Raba also said: If a child enters [a room] with a loaf in his hand, and he [the owner] enters after him and finds crumbs, a [fresh] search is not necessary, because it is a child's nature to make crumbs. Raba asked: What if a mouse enters with a loaf in its mouth, and a mouse goes out with a loaf in its mouth: do we say, the same which went in went out; or perhaps it is a different one? Should you answer, the same which went in went out, — what if a white mouse entered with a loaf in its mouth, and black mouse went out with a loaf in its mouth? now this is certainly a different one; or perhaps it did indeed seize it from the other? And should you say, mice do not seize from each other, — what if a mouse enters with a loaf in its mouth and a weasel goes out with a loaf in it mouth? now the weasel certainly does take from a mouse; or perhaps it is a different one, for had it snatched it from the mouse, the mouse would have [now] been found in its mouth? And should you say, had it snatched it from the mouse, the mouse would have been found in its mouth, what if a mouse enters with a loaf in its mouth, and then a weasel comes out with a loaf and a mouse in the weasel's mouth? Here it is certainly the same; or perhaps, if it were the same, the loaf should indeed have been found in the mouse's mouth; or perhaps it fell out [of the mouse's mouth] on account of [its] terror, and it [the weasel] took it? The question stands over. Raba asked: If there is a loaf on the top rafters, need he [take] a ladder to fetch it down or not? Do we say, our Rabbis did not put him to all this trouble, [for] since it cannot descend of its own accord he will not come to eat it; or perhaps it may fall down and he will come to eat it? Now should you say, it may fall down and he will come to eat it, — if there is a loaf in a pit, does he need a ladder to fetch it up or not? Here it will certainly not happen that it will ascend of its own accord; or perhaps he may happen to go down to perform his requirements and come to eat it? Should you say that he may happen to go down for his purposes and come to eat it, — if a loaf is in a snake's mouth, does he need a snake-charmer to take it out or does he not need [one]? [Do we say,] our Rabbis put him to personal trouble, but they did not put him to trouble with his money; or perhaps there is no difference? The questions stand over. MISHNAH. R. JUDAH SAID: WE SEARCH [FOR LEAVEN] ON THE EVENING OF THE FOURTEENTH, AND IN THE MORNING OF THE FOURTEENTH, AND AT THE TIME OF REMOVAL. BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: IF HE DID NOT SEARCH IN THE EVENING OF THE FOURTEENTH, HE MUST SEARCH ON THE FOURTEENTH; IF HE DID NOT SEARCH IN [THE MORNING OF] THE FOURTEENTH, HE MUST SEARCH AT THE APPOINTED TIME; IF HE DID NOT SEARCH AT THE APPOINTED TIME, HE MUST SEARCH AFTER THE APPOINTED TIME. AND WHAT HE LEAVES OVER HE MUST PUT AWAY IN A HIDDEN PLACE, SO THAT HE SHOULD NOT NEED SEARCHING AFTER IT. GEMARA. What is R. Judah's reason? — R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna both say, It [the threefold searching] corresponds to the three ‘puttings away’ mentioned in the Torah: and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee; seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses; and even on the first day shall ye put away leaven out of your house. R. Joseph objected: R. Judah said: He who has not searched at these three periods can no longer search, which proves that they differ only in respect of from now and henceforth! Mar Zutra recited it thus: R. Joseph objected: R. Judah said: He who has not searched at one of these three periods can no longer search, which proves that they differ in [whether] he can no longer search? — Rather R. Judah too means, where he has not searched, and here they differ in this: one Master holds, only before it is forbidden; but not after it is forbidden, as a preventive measure, lest he come to eat of it; while the Rabbis hold that we do not preventively forbid. But did R. Judah preventively forbid lest he come to eat thereof, — surely we learned: As soon as the ‘omer has been offered, they used to go out and find the markets of Jerusalem filled with flour and parched corn,^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ

^ʸnote:We are discussing the case where it is lost.
^ᶻnote:Thus here too, according to the Rabbis we fear that mice have been about, and consequently we also fear that the leaven he now finds is not the same which he left, so that a re-search is required. But on R. Simeon b. Gamaliel's view we do not fear this.
^ᵃᵃnote:To find leaven with which the mouse was seen to enter.
^ᵃᵇnote:Therefore these are not merely the loaf crumbled up.
^ᵃᶜnote:Lit., ‘throw’.
^ᵃᵈnote:Therefore he may leave it there, and merely annul it.
^ᵃᵉnote:So presumably; v. Gemara.
^ᵃᶠnote:Sc. of removal, i.e., in the sixth hour (11 a.m. — noon).
^ᵃᵍnote:From noon until nightfall (Rashi). Tosaf. explains differently: ‘within the mo'ed’, from noon on the fourteenth until the end of Passover, translating mo'ed as festival, which meaning it generally bears; ‘after the mo'ed, after Passover, for leaven kept in the house during Passover is forbidden after Passover.
^ᵃʰnote:‘After the search in the evening, for the following morning's meal’ (R. Nissim).
^ᵃⁱnote:Ex. XIII, 7.
^ᵃʲnote:Ibid. XII, 19.
^ᵃᵏnote:Ibid. 15. — ‘Seen’ ‘found’ and ‘put away’ all mean in practice that the leaven must be put away, and corresponding to each expression there must be a search.
^ᵃˡnote:I.e., after the time of removal, R. Judah holding that there is no searching then, while the Sages maintain that there is. But before that all agree that only one search is necessary. R. Judah meaning either in the evening or in the morning etc., the waw (translated ‘AND’ in the Mishnah) being disjunctive, or.
^ᵃᵐnote:In the evening; then he must search in the morning.
^ᵃⁿnote:R. Judah.
^ᵃᵒnote:Must one search then.
^ᵃᵖnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃᵠnote:Of the new harvest; v. Lev. XXIII, 9-14. Of course, in order to have it ready for sale on the same day the vendors must have prepared it before, and thus they handled it while it was yet prohibited.