פסחים 9 — Soncino English Talmud

¹MISHNAH. WE HAVE NO FEAR THAT A WEASEL MAY HAVE DRAGGED [LEAVEN] FROM ONE ROOM TO ANOTHER OR FROM ONE SPOT TO ANOTHER. FOR IF SO, [WE MUST ALSO FEAR] FROM COURT-YARD TO COURT-YARD AND FROM TOWN TO TOWN, [AND] THE MATTER IS ENDLESS. GEMARA. The reason is that we did not see it take [leaven]; but if we saw it take [it] we do fear, and it requires a [re-]search. yet why so; let us assume that it ate it? Did we not learn: The dwellings of heathens are unclean, and how long must he [the heathen] stay in a dwelling so that it should need searching? Forty days, even if he has no wife. But in every place where a weasel or a swine can enter no searching is required! — Said R. Zera, There is no difficulty: one treats of flesh, the other of bread: in the case of flesh it [the weasel] leaves nothing, [whereas in the case of bread it does leave [something] — Raba said: How compare! As for there, it is well: it is [a case of mere] ‘say’: say that there was [a burial there], say that there was not. And if you assume that there was, say that it [e.g., a weasel] ate it. But here that we see for certain that it has taken [leaven], who is to say that it ate it? Surely it is a doubt [on the one hand] and a certainty [on the other], and a doubt cannot negative a certainty. But cannot a doubt negative a certainty? Surely it was taught: If a haber dies and leaves a store-house full of produce [crops]. even if they are but one day old, they stand in the presumption of having been tithed. Now here these crops were certainly liable to tithe, and there is a doubt whether they have been tithed or not tithed, yet the doubt comes and negatives the certainty?-There it is one certainty against another certainty, as [we presume that] they have certainly been tithed, in accordance with R. Hanina of Hozae. For R. Hanina of Hozae said: There is a presumption concerning a haber that he does not let anything untithed pass out from under his hand. Alternatively: it is a doubt [on the one hand] and a doubt [on the other]; perhaps from the very beginning say that it was not liable to tithe, in accordance with R. Oshaia. For R. Oshaia said: one may practise an artifice with his produce and take it in its husks, so that his cattle may eat thereof and it be exempt from tithes. But cannot a doubt negative a certainty? Surely it was taught, R. Judah said: It once happened that the bondmaid of a certain oppressor in Rimon threw her premature-born child into a pit,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ

^ᵃnote:I.e., after a room has been searched and cleared of leaven a weasel may have brought leaven into it from elsewhere.
^ᵇnote:Because they used to bury their premature births in their houses.
^ᶜnote:For a buried body, before a Jew may live there.
^ᵈnote:If a baby were thrown there these would eat it, Oh. XVIII, 7. — Thus the same should apply to leaven.
^ᵉnote:I.e., the presence there of a dead child is merely conjectured as a possibility.
^ᶠnote:V. Glos.
^ᵍnote:V. Supra 4b.
^ʰnote:A province of S. W. Persia, now known as Khuzestan; Obermeyer. pp. 204ff.
^ⁱnote:Lit., ‘unprepared’.
^ʲnote:Produce is not liable to tithes unless it is taken into the house through the front door when its work is completed, not through the roof or the backyard. If grain is brought in in its husks its work is not complete, as this is still to be separated, and it is not liable to tithe, and need not be tithed by Scriptural law; a human being may then make a light meal of it, while cattle may eat their fill. Thus there it may never have become liable to tithe at all. Though a human being may not make a meal of it, that is only a Rabbinical law and is certainly nullified here by the presumption that the haber had tithed it. But in its essence we see that it is doubt against doubt; the doubt whether it was liable to tithe at all offset by the doubt that it may have been tithed.
^ᵏnote:A powerful Jew (Rashi) who wielded his power oppressively.
^ˡnote:A town originally belonging to the tribe of Zebulun, on the north-east frontier (Josh. XIX, 13). It may correspond to the present Al-Rummanah, on the southern edge of the plain of Al-Battof, about ten kilometres north of Nazareth.

²and a priest came and looked down it to see whether it was a male or a female; and when the matter came before the Sages they declared him clean, because weasels and martens were to be found there. Now here, she had certainly thrown it in, while it is doubtful whether they had dragged it away or not by that time, yet the doubt comes and negatives the certainty? — Do not say that she threw a premature child into a pit, but say, ‘she threw something like a premature child into a pit’, so that it is a doubt against a doubt. But it states: ‘In order to see whether it was a male or a female’? — This is what it says: To know whether she had aborted wind or a premature child; and should you say that it was a premature child, to see whether it was a male or a female. Alternatively. there it is a certainty against a certainty; since weasels and martens are to be found there they had certainly dragged it away by that time; [for] granted that they may have left over, yet they certainly had dragged it away by that time. But do we say, we leave no fear that a weasel may have dragged [leaven], etc.? Surely the second clause states: What he leaves over he must put away in a hidden place, so that it should not require a search after it? Said Abaye. There is no difficulty: the one [refers to a search] on the fourteenth; the other, on the thirteenth. [If one searches] on the thirteenth, when bread is [yet] to be found in all houses, it [a weasel] does not hide [leaven]; on the fourteenth, when bread is not to be found in all houses, it does hide [it]. Said Raba: Is then a weasel a prophet to know that it is the fourteenth now and people will not bake until the evening, so that it should leave [some] over and hide [it]? Rather said Raba: What one leaves over he must put away in a hidden place lest a weasel seize it in his presence and it require a search after it. It was taught in accordance with Raba: If one wishes to eat leaven after the search, what shall he do? Let him put it away in a hidden place, lest a weasel come and seize it in his presence and it require a search after it. R. Mari said: It is for fear that he may leave ten and [only] ‘find nine. If there are nine packages of mazzah and one of leaven, and a mouse comes and steals [a package], and we do not know whether it took mazzah or leaven, that is [similar to the case of] nine shops. If [one package] was separated and a mouse came and stole it, that is [similar to] the second clause. For it was taught: If there are nine shops all selling meat of [ritually] slaughtered [animals], and there is one shop selling meat of nebelah, and a man buys [meat] from one of them , but he does not know from which [shop] he bought the [meat in] doubt is prohibited; but in the case of [meat] found, we follow the majority. If there are two packages, one of mazzah and the other of leaven, and before them are two rooms, one searched and the other unsearched, and two mice came, one took mazzah and the other took leaven, and we do not know which [mouse] entered which [house], that is the case of two baskets. For we learned: If there are two baskets, one containing hullin and the other containing terumah, and in front of them are two se'ahs [of provisions], one of hullin and the other of terumah, and these fell into those, they [sc. the contents of the baskets] are permitted, for I assume: The hullin fell into hullin and the terumah fell into terumah. Perhaps we say ‘I assume’^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ

^ᵐnote:To decide the period of the slave's uncleanness (v. Lev. XII, 4, 5). A heathen slave in a Jewish house was a semi-Jew, and bound to observe all the religious obligations of a Jewess.
^ⁿnote:The priest.
^ᵒnote:Heb. Bardelles.
^ᵖnote:They may have dragged the body into one of their holes, leaving the pit itself empty. Had it been there the priest would have been defiled through stooping over it, even though he did not touch it.
^ᵠnote:For the body may not have been formed yet, in which case it does not contaminate.
^ʳnote:Which implies that the body was fully formed and the mother was unclean, as after a proper birth, save that the sex had been overlooked.
^ˢnote:I.e., an unformed body.
^ᵗnote:I.e., not eaten it.
^ᵘnote:Infra 10b.
^ᵛnote:After the search, for the following morning's meal.
^ʷnote:For otherwise a weasel may drag it away.
^ˣnote:E.g., rolls.
^ʸnote:For then it would be certain that one had been removed, and this would necessitate a further search.
^ᶻnote:V. p. 33. n. 3. If mazzah, no further search is required; if leaven, it is required.
^ᵃᵃnote:Explained infra.
^ᵃᵇnote:But we do not know whether this separated package was leaven or mazzah.
^ᵃᶜnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃᵈnote:And assume it to have come out of one of the nine. In the first instance the forbidden meat is in a fixed place; technically this is called kabu'a (fixed), and it is shown in Sanh. 79b that we must then regard the doubt as equally balanced, i.e., as though there were an equal quantity of both, and we are therefore stringent. But in the second case the forbidden meal has left its fixed place and is somewhere in the street; the ordinary rule is then followed that the majority decides.
^ᵃᵉnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃᶠnote:By a similar assumption the house already searched does not needed to be searched anew.