פסחים 7 — Soncino English Talmud

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

^ᵃnote:He is not likely to forget it then, since he is engaged in burning it.
^ᵇnote:On all views, v. supra 4b.
^ᶜnote:A district lying to the east of the river Tigris, south of Armenia. — That wheat is very hard and does not easily become leaven; nevertheless if moisture had fallen upon it after being harvested it is regarded as leaven.
^ᵈnote:The betrothal is definitely invalid, because the wheat has no value because of the Rabbi ical interdict, whereas for betrothal something of value is required (v. Kid. 2a). — Thus although the interdict at that hour is only Rabbinical, the leaven is regarded as completely valueless; hence not under his ownership.
^ᵉnote:And he recollects before the sixth hour.
^ᶠnote:How can he annul it then?
^ᵍnote:I.e., a dough kneaded but not baked. He cannot leave the Beth Hamidrash to attend to it out of respect to his Master.
^ʰnote:If it is already leaven, what does it matter where he is; even if he were at home he could do nothing else?
^ⁱnote:V. Glos.
^ʲnote:This is now assumed to mean: if there is more mazzah in the bin than this mouldy loaf, the whole is permitted.
^ᵏnote:Surely a loaf known to be leaven cannot be permitted on that account?
^ˡnote:I.e.,let us assume that this loaf is of the latest batch which was put there, i.e., it is mazzah, since a bread bin is cleared out every day, in order to prevent the bread from going mouldy — a necessary precaution in the hot eastern countries — and particularly so in this case, when there had been a search for leaven before the Festival.
^ᵐnote:Shek. VII, 2. If money is found in Jerusalem, the question arises, what is its status — is it ordinary secular coins (hullin) or tithe money? This was because the second tithe (v. Deut. XIV, 22ff this was designated second-tithe) had to be eaten in Jerusalem or its monetary equivalent expended there, which money likewise was governed by the law of second tithe. Now, most of the flesh eaten in Jerusalem was bought with second-tithe money, and generally took the form
^ⁿnote:But not the Temple Mount.
^ᵒnote:I.e., unleavened.
^ᵖnote:It must have been there a considerable time, hence it is leaven.
^ᵠnote:I.e., several days of Passover have gone, and so this had had time to go mouldy even if baked as mazzah at the beginning of the Festival.
^ʳnote:Lit., ‘bread’.
^ˢnote:And now we find money in it and do not know which it is.
^ᵗnote:Of money, some being hullin and others tithe, and both were there on the same day.
^ᵘnote:We cannot assume that the earlier coins had been removed while these were of the most recent deposit, because it might have been overlooked in a pit.
^ᵛnote:I.e. , it implies that the removal is still to be done. This phraseology is therefore certainly admitted, because a benediction is always recited prior to the actual performance of the precept to which it refers.

²They differ only in respect of ‘concerning the removal’: one Master holds that it implies in the past; while the other Master holds: It implies in the future. An objection is raised: ‘Blessed [art Thou] . . . who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and hast commanded us concerning circumcision’? — How [else] should he say [it] there? Shall he say, ‘to circumcise’ — is it imperative that he should circumcise? Then what can be said of the father of the infant? — Then indeed it is so. An objection is raised: ‘Blessed [art Thou] . . . who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and hast commanded us concerning shechitah’? — There too, how [else] shall he say it: shall he say ‘to slaughter,’ — is it imperative that he should slaughter? Then what can be said of the Passover sacrifice and [other] sacrifices? — [There] indeed it is so. An objection is raised: If one prepares a lulab for himself, he recites the blessing,’. . . who hast kept us in life and hast preserved us and hast suffered us to reach this season’. When he takes it in order to fulfil his obligation therewith, he recites:’ . . . who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and hast commanded us concerning the taking of the lulab?’ There it is different, because in the [very] moment that he lifts it up his duty is fulfilled. If so, [instead of stating] ‘in order to fulfil his obligation therewith,’ he should say. ‘having fulfilled his obligation therewith?’ — That indeed is so, but because he desires to teach ‘to sit in the sukkah’ in the second clause, he also states in the first clause, ‘to fulfil his obligation therewith’ — For he teaches in the second clause: He who makes a sukkah for himself recites: ‘Blessed art thou, O Lord . . . who has kept us in life and hast preserved us and hast enabled us to reach this season’. When he enters to sit therein he recites: ‘Blessed [art Thou] ... who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and hast commanded us to sit in the sukkah.’ And the law is: [He recites,] ‘concerning the removal of leaven’. Now incidentally all agree that we must recite the benediction beforehand: how do we know it? — Because Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: For all precepts a benediction is recited prior [‘ober] to their being performed — Where is it implied that this [word] ‘ober connotes priority? — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac, Because Scripture saith, Then Ahimaaz ran by the way of the Plain and overran [wa-ya'abor] the Cushite. Abaye said, [It follows] from this: and he himself passed over [‘abar] before them; alternatively, from this: and their king is passed on [wa-ya'abor] before them, and the Lord at the head of them. The School of Rab said: Except [for] a ritual bath and shofar. As for a ritual bath, it is well, because the person is not yet fit; but what is the reason for the shofar? And should you say, because he may sound the blast [teki'ah] incorrectly; if so, the same applies even to shechitah, and circumcision too? Rather, said R. Hisda: Except for a ritual bath alone was stated. It was taught likewise: When one has a ritual bath and ascends [from the bath], on his ascending he recites: Blessed [art Thou] . . . who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and hast commanded us concerning tebillah’. BY THE LIGHT OF A LAMP, etc. How do we know this? — Said R. Hisda: By deriving [the meaning of] ‘finding’ from ‘finding’ and ‘finding’ from ‘searching’, and ‘searching’ from ‘searching’, and ‘searching’ from ‘lamps’, and ‘lamps’ from ‘lamp’: [Thus:] ‘finding’ from ‘finding’: here it is written, seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses, while elsewhere it is written, and he searched, and began at the eldest, and left at the youngest: and the cup was found [in Benjamin's sack]. ‘Finding’ [is learned] from ‘searching’ [mentioned] in its own connection. And ‘searching’ from ‘lamps’, as it is written, And it shall come to pass at that time, that I will search Jerusalem with lamps. And ‘lamps’ from ‘lamp’, for it is written, The soul of man is the lamp of the Lord, searching all the innermost parts of the belly. The School of R. Ishmael taught: In the evening of the fourteenth leaven is searched for by the light of a lamp. Though there is no proof of this, there is an allusion to it, because it is said, ‘seven days shall there be no leaven [in your houses]’; and it is said, ‘and he searched, and began at the eldest, and left at the youngest: and the cup was found [in Benjamin's sack]’; and it is said, ‘And it shall come to pass at that time, that I will search Jerusalem with lamps’. and it is said, ‘The soul of man is the lamp of the Lord, searching [all the innermost parts of the belly]’. What is the purpose of the additional quotations? And should you answer, this ‘at that time’ is a statement of lenient treatment by the Merciful One, [viz.,] ‘I will not search Jerusalem with the light of a torch, which gives much light, but only with the light of a lamp, the light of which is much smaller, so that great wrongdoing will be found out but petty wrongdoing will not be found out, — then come and hear! ‘The soul of man is the lamp of the Lord, [searching. etc.]’. Our Rabbis taught: one may not search either by the light of the sun or by the light of the moon, or by the light of a torch, save by the light of a lamp,^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ

^ʷnote:I.e.,the removal has already been done. Hence this formula is inadmissible.
^ˣnote:Not, ‘to circumcise’.
^ʸnote:Lit., ‘is there no way that he should not circumcise’? — i.e., the obligation does not rest primarily upon the circumciser, but upon the father, whereas if the former said ‘to circumcise’, it would imply that it is his personal duty in every case.
^ᶻnote:What if the father circumcises?
^ᵃᵃnote:He must say ‘to circumcise’.
^ᵃᵇnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃᶜnote:Lit., ‘sacred (animals)’. The obligation of slaughtering a sacrifice rests primarily upon its owner.
^ᵃᵈnote:He must say ‘to slaughter’.
^ᵃᵉnote:V. Lev. XXIII, 40.
^ᵃᶠnote:But not ‘to take the lubab’.
^ᵃᵍnote:Hence he is reciting the blessing after performing the precept, and so he cannot say ‘to take’; v. Supra.
^ᵃʰnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃⁱnote:And there the future is required because it is an obligation during the whole week of Tabernacles.
^ᵃʲnote:That too implies the future. Consequently, this form is used by all in circumcision and shechitah.
^ᵃᵏnote:Before actually performing the precept.
^ᵃˡnote:II Sam. XVIII, 23. I.e., he passed in front of him, and similarly ‘ober, which is derived from the same root as wa-ya'abor, means in front of, i.e., prior to’
^ᵃᵐnote:Gen. XXXIII, 3.
^ᵃⁿnote:Mic. II, 13.
^ᵃᵒnote:V. Glos. Here the benediction is recited after the fulfilment of the precept.
^ᵃᵖnote:E.g., one who is unclean through nocturnal pollution may not recite a blessing; hence he is obviously unfit to recite the blessing until after the ritual bath, and all others requiring a ritual bath were treated likewise (Rashi).
^ᵃᵠnote:In which case the obligation is not fulfilled and the benediction was unnecessarily recited, which is prohibited.
^ᵃʳnote:As explained in the text.
^ᵃˢnote:Ex. XII, 19.
^ᵃᵗnote:Gen. XLIV, 12.
^ᵃᵘnote:I.e., in the verse just quoted ‘finding’ and ‘searching’ are linked together.
^ᵃᵛnote:Zeph. I, 12.
^ᵃʷnote:Prov. XX, 27. By comparing all these verses we learn that in order that leaven may not be found in the house it must be searched out by lamplight.
^ᵃˣnote:Lit., ‘what is (the purpose of) "and it is said"?’
^ᵃʸnote:But this verse does not prove that the searching for leaven too may be carried out merely with a lamp — perhaps a torch is required.
^ᵃᶻnote:Thus a single lamp suffices for a search.