פסחים 5 — Soncino English Talmud

¹for the putting away of leaven is assimilated to [the prohibition of] eating leavened bread, and the eating of leavened bread to the [precept of] the eating of unleavened bread. The putting away of leaven [is assimilated] to [the prohibition of] the eating of leavened bread, for it is written, seven days shall there be no leaven in your houses,’ for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off. And [the prohibition of] the eating of leavened bread [is likened] to the [precept of] eating unleavened bread, because it is written, Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread; and in respect to unleavened bread it is written, at even ye shall eat unleavened bread. Yet perhaps it is to include the night of fourteenth [as the time] for removal? — ‘The day’ is written. Then say [that it must be removed] from the morning? — ‘Ak’ divides [it]. The School of R. Ishmael taught: We find that the fourteenth is called the first, as it is said, on the first, on the fourteenth day of the month. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: ‘The first’ [rishon] means the preceding, for the Writ saith, Wast thou born, before [rishon] Adam? If so, and ye shall take you out the first [rishon] day, — does ‘rishon’ here too mean the preceding? — There it is different, because it is written, and ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days: just as the seventh [means] the seventh of the Festival, so the first [means] the first of the Festival. [But] here too it is written, even the first day [rishon] ye shall put away leaven out of your houses. Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread? — If so, let Scripture write ‘first’ [‘rishon’]; why ‘the first [ha-rishon]’? Infer from this [that it is required] for what we have stated. If so, there too what is the purpose of ‘the first’ [‘ha-rishon’]? Moreover, when it is written there, on the first day shall be a solemn rest, and on the eighth day shall be a solemn rest, say that rishon implies the preceding? There it is different, because Scripture saith, ‘and on the eighth day shall be a solemn rest’: just as ‘eighth’ means the eighth of the Festival, so ‘first’ means [the] first of the Festival. [But still] what is the purpose of ‘the first’ [ha-rishon]? — In order to exclude the Intermediate days of the Festival. [But the exclusion of] the Intermediate days of the Festival is derived from ‘first’ and ‘eighth’? — It is [nevertheless] required: you might argue, since the Divine Law writes, and on the eighth day, the waw [‘and’] indicates conjunction with the preceding subject, so [as to include] even the Intermediate days of the Festival too; hence ha-rishon informs us [otherwise]. Then let Scripture write neither the waw nor the heh? Moreover, when it is written there, In the first day [ha-rishon] ye shall have an holy convocation, does ‘rishon’ mean the preceding? Rather, these three [instances of] ‘rishon’ [‘first’] are necessary for what the School of R. Ishmael taught. For the School of R. Ishmael taught: As a reward for [the observance of] the three ‘firsts’ they [Israel] merited three firsts: to destroy the seed of Esau; the building of the Temple; and the name of the Messiah. ‘To destroy the seed of Esau,’ of whom it is written, And the first came forth red, all over like an hairy garment; and ‘the building of the Temple’, whereof it is written, A glorious throne, set on high from the first is the place of our sanctuary; ‘and the name of Messiah,’ for it is written, First unto Zion, behold, behold them. Raba said, [It is deduced] from here: Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread: [that means,] thou shalt not kill the passover sacrifice while leavened bread is still in existence. Then perhaps each person [must remove his leaven] when he kills [his sacrifice]? Scripture meant the time for killing. It was taught likewise: ‘[Even] the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses’: [this means] on the eve of the Festival. Yet perhaps that is not so, but [rather] on the Festival itself? — Therefore it is stated, ‘thou shalt not offer the blood of thy sacrifice with leavened bread,’ [i.e.,] thou shalt not kill the Passover sacrifice while leavened bread still exists [in thy, house]: that is R. Ishmael's view. R. Akiba said, That is unnecessary: lo, it is said, ‘Even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses’, and it is written, no manner of work shall be done in them; while we find that kindling is a principal labour. R. Jose said, It is unnecessary: lo, it is said, ‘Even [ak] on the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses’: [that means,] from the eve of the Festival. Or perhaps it is not so, but rather on the Festival? Therefore is stated, ‘Ak’, which serves to divide; hence if [it means] on the Festival itself, can [part of it] be permitted? Surely the putting away of leaven is likened to [the prohibition of] eating leavened bread, while the prohibition of eating leavened bread is likened to [the duty of] eating unleavened bread. Said Raba:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ

^ᵃnote:Immediately the latter comes into force the former is obligatory.
^ᵇnote:Ex. XII, 19.
^ᶜnote:Ibid. 20. Hence from the very moment that the latter is operative the former is too, and consequently by then the leaven must already be removed.
^ᵈnote:Ibid. 18. Hence no verse would be necessary to show that as soon as evening commences the leaven must be put away; therefore the verse quoted supra can only refer to the fourteenth.
^ᵉnote:Since we see that leaven is to be removed on the fourteenth, perhaps it must be done at the beginning of the fourteenth, Sc. in the evening.
^ᶠnote:As soon as day commences, not from midday.
^ᵍnote:It is a general principle in Talmudic exegesis that ak and rak (only) imply limitations; thus ak divides the day, showing that the putting away takes place in the middle of the day, not at the beginning.
^ʰnote:Ibid.
^ⁱnote:In verse 18.
^ʲnote:Job. XV, 7 (E.V.: Art thou the first man that was born). Hence Ex. XII, 15 is translated: yet on the preceding day — i.e., the fourteenth — ye shall put away, etc.
^ᵏnote:Lev. XXIII, 40.
^ˡnote:Lev. XXIII, 40.
^ᵐnote:By the same argument ‘rishon’ means first, not preceding. — Actually the order is reversed in Scripture.
^ⁿnote:Ibid. 39.
^ᵒnote:Lit., ‘the weekday (portion) of the Festival’. It teaches that these days enjoy semi-sanctity only, and work of an urgent nature is permitted.
^ᵖnote:That work thereon is forbidden.
^ᵠnote:The heh is the def. art. ‘the’ (ha). According to the present argument the heh (ha) merely neutralizes the possible teaching of the waw: then both should be omitted.
^ʳnote:Ibid. 7; the reference is to Passover.
^ˢnote:Surely not.
^ᵗnote:The ‘first’ of Passover, the ‘first’ of Tabernacles, and the taking of the four species (v. 40) on the ‘first’ day of Tabernacles.
^ᵘnote:Three things in connection with which ‘first’ is written.
^ᵛnote:Lit., ‘cut off’.
^ʷnote:Gen. XXV, 25.
^ˣnote:E.V. beginning.
^ʸnote:Jer. XVII, 12.
^ᶻnote:Isa. XLI, 27.
^ᵃᵃnote:Sc. that leaven is forbidden from midday on the fourteenth.
^ᵃᵇnote:Ex. XXXIV, 25.
^ᵃᶜnote:And since the sacrificing commences immediately after noon, it follows that the leaven must already be removed by then.
^ᵃᵈnote:Thus if he kills it at 4 p.m., leaven is permitted to him until that hour.
^ᵃᵉnote:When it is time to kill the sacrifice there must be no leaven in the house, as it is inconceivable that there should be no fixed hour applicable to all.
^ᵃᶠnote:Ibid. XII, 16.
^ᵃᵍnote:Forbidden on the Sabbath, and likewise on Festivals, save when required for the preparation of food. The leaven was burnt.
^ᵃʰnote:V. Supra p. 15, n. 8.
^ᵃⁱnote:Supra.

²Three things may be inferred from R. Akiba: [i] There is no [other] removal of leaven save [by] burning. [ii] Kindling was singled out to indicate separation. [iii] We do not say, since kindling was permitted when it is necessary [for the preparation of food], it was also permitted when it is unnecessary. Our Rabbis taught: Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your house: why is this stated, seeing that it is already said, and there shall no leavened bread be seen unto thee, neither shall there be leaven seen unto thee, in all thy borders? Because it is said, Neither shall there be leaven seen unto thee, [implying] thine own thou must not see, yet thou mayest see that belonging to others and to the Most High. One might think that one may hide [leaven] or accept bailments [of leaven] from a Gentile: therefore it is stated, it shall not be found [in your houses], Now, I know this only of a Gentile who is not in your power or does not dwell with you in the [same] court-yard; how do I know it of a Gentile who is in your power and dwells with you in the [same] court-yard? Because it is stated, [leaven] shall not be found in your houses. I know this only of that which is your houses; how do I know it of [leaven] in pits, ditches and cavities? Because it is stated, [neither shall there be leaven seen with thee,] in all thy borders. Yet I might still argue, [indeed on account of leaven] ‘in houses’ one transgresses the injunction against it being seen, found, and against hiding it and receiving [it as] bailments from a Gentile; whereas in [respect to leaven in] ‘thy borders’ [we say,] thine own thou must not see, yet thou mayest see that belonging to others and to the Most High. How do we [however] know to apply that which is stated in this [verse] to the other, and vice versa? Therefore leaven is stated twice for a gezerah shawah. [Thus:] leaven is stated in connection with houses: ‘no leaven shall be found in your houses’,’ and leaven is stated in connection with the borders; ‘neither shall there be leaven seen with thee [in all thy borders]’: just as with the leaven which is stated in connection with houses, one transgresses the injunctions, it shall not be seen, it shall not be found, it shall not be hidden nor accepted as bailments from Gentiles, so with the leaven which is stated in connection with the borders, one violates the injunctions, it shall not be seen, it shall not be found, it shall not be hidden nor accepted as bailments from a Gentile. And just as with the leaven which is stated in connection with the borders, [only] thine own thou must not see, but thou mayest see that belonging to others and to the Most High, so with the leaven which is stated in connection with the houses, [only] thine own thou mayest not see, but thou mayest see that belonging to others and to the Most High. The Master said: ‘I know this only of a Gentile who is not in your power or does not dwell with you in the [same] court-yard; how do I know it of a Gentile who is in your power or who dwells with you in the [same] court-yard? Because it is stated, [Leaven] shall not be found [in your houses].’ Whither does this tend? — Said Abaye: Reverse it. Raba said: In truth you must not reverse it, but it refers to the first clause: ‘Thine own thou mayest not see, yet thou mayest see that belonging to others and to the Most High.’ I know this only of a Gentile who is not in your power or who does not dwell with you in the [same] court-yard. How do I know it of one who is in your power or who dwells with you in the [same] court-yard? Because it is stated, ‘there shall not be found’. But this Tanna seeks permission yet cites a verse intimating a prohibition? — Because ‘unto thee’ ‘unto thee’ is stated twice. The Master said: ‘one might think that one may hide [leaven] or accept bailments [of leaven] from a Gentile; therefore it is stated, [leaven] shall not be found [in your houses].’ But you said in the first clause, ‘thine own thou mayest not see, yet thou mayest see that belonging to others and to the Most High?’ — There is no difficulty: the one is meant where he [the Israelite] accepts responsibility [for same]; the other, where he does not accept responsibility. Just as Raba said to the townspeople of Mahuza: Remove the leaven belonging to the troops from your houses: power or who lives with you in the same court-yard is more likely to be meant than he who is independent or living away from you. since the former is more like yourself. Whereas here the latter is taken for granted, while proof is sought for the former. since it stands in your possession if lost or stolen, and you must requite [the loss], it is as yours and is forbidden. Now, that is well on the view that that which causes [liability] for money is as money. But on the view that it is not as money, what can be said? — Here it is different, because Scripture saith, ‘There shall not be found’. Others say, That is well on the view that that which causes [liability] for money is not as money:^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ

^ᵃʲnote:For if it can be destroyed in any other way, his proof falls to the ground.
^ᵃᵏnote:In Ex. XX, 10 work is forbidden on the Sabbath; this is repeated in XXXV, 2 and 3, with a special prohibition against kindling a fire. Now, kindling is prohibited by the general law of Ex. XX, 10: why then is it singled out? There are two views on this: (i) In order to teach that whereas other labours are punishable by death, this is merely punishable like any other negative precept, viz., by flagellation. (ii) To teach that if one does a number of separate acts on the Sabbath, e.g., seething, reaping, and threshing, they are accounted as separate offences, just as kindling was stated as a separate offence, and a sacrifice must be offered on account of each. Now the first view postulates that kindling is not a principal labour like the rest (v. Mishnah on Shab. 73a); hence R. Akiba must agree with the second view.
^ᵃˡnote:There is such a view in Bez. 12b; if R. Akiba held it, his argument would lose its basis.
^ᵃᵐnote:Ex. XII, 19.
^ᵃⁿnote:Ex. XIII, 7. Though this is in a further chapter, the phrase, ‘seeing that it is already said’, is employed because it is a Talmudic principle that the written order of the Torah is not necessarily chronological.
^ᵃᵒnote:I.e, the sanctuary, this being the meaning of ‘unto thee’ (E.V.: with thee).
^ᵃᵖnote:For in the former case it cannot be seen, while in the latter it is not his property.
^ᵃᵠnote:It must not be there at all.
^ᵃʳnote:Lit., ‘whom you have not subjugated’.
^ᵃˢnote:Different shaped pits are connoted by these three words.
^ᵃᵗnote:Ex. XIII, 7.
^ᵃᵘnote:‘For there shall not be found’ is written only in connection with ‘your houses’, while ‘unto thee’ is mentioned only in connection with ‘borders’; how do we know that the implications of the one verse hold good in respect of the other?
^ᵃᵛnote:Lit. ‘leaven, leaven’.
^ᵃʷnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃˣnote:Or, towards the tail! I.e., when you say that you must not accept deposits from a Gentile, obviously he who is in your
^ᵃʸnote:He certainly comes under the category of ‘others’.
^ᵃᶻnote:According to Raba's explanation. when the Tanna says. ‘how do I know’, etc., his purpose is to show that there too it is permitted; while ‘there shall not be found’ intimates a more extended prohibition.
^ᵇᵃnote:Rashi: ‘Unto thee’ is written twice, once in the verse already quoted, and once in Deut. XVI, 4: and there shall be no leaven seen unto (E.V. with) thee in all thy borders seven days. Here too ‘unto thee’ is linked with seeing; since, however, it is superfluous in this connection, on account of the verse first quoted, it is applied to ‘there shalt not be found’, which is made to read: there shall not be found unto thee, ‘unto thee’ being a permissive limitation, and it is this which the Tanna quotes. — It is a principle of exegesis that if a word or phrase is superfluous in its own context, it is applied elsewhere. (The fact that ‘unto thee’ is written twice in Ex. XIII, 7 is not counted, since one refers to leaven and the other to leavened bread. — V. Bez. 7b.) R. Han. interprets it differently and more simply.
^ᵇᵇnote:If the Jew accepts responsibility for the bailment and must identify the owner against loss, it is as his own and must not be found in his house.
^ᵇᶜnote:A large Jewish commercial town on the Tigris. where Raba had his academy; v. obermeyer. pp. 169ff.
^ᵇᵈnote:Gentile troops were billeted in Jewish houses together with their food stores, for which the Jews were responsible.
^ᵇᵉnote:Hence though the leaven does not belong to the Jew, yet since it throws a financial responsibility upon him it is regarded as his, i.e., as his money or property.
^ᵇᶠnote:Which implies even if it is not his own and it can be applied only to such a case, since ‘unto thee’ excludes leaven in which he has no financial interest at all.