Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 1, 2020 | 讟状讜 讘讻住诇讜 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

This month of learning is dedicated by Pam and Yoav Schwartz to honor the 5th yahrtzeit of their nephew Ezra Schwartz. Ezra's life was full of love, curiosity, laughter, and friendship. May this learning replace some of the light that was lost from this world.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Pesachim 10 – A Mouse in Your House

Masechet Pesachim is dedicated by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter Shoshana Baker. “She astounds me by her love of learning, the depth of her knowledge, and her dedication to Hadran.” And in honor of the forthcoming bar mitzvah of our grandson, Ethan Lurie, on Shabbat Parshat Tezavah. Lastly, the masechet is dedicated in memory of Sivya’s father Harav Pesach Zechariah Halevi ben Reuven v鈥橪eah Z鈥檒ate Z鈥滾. “He was my inspiration for starting my first cycle of daf yomi eight years ago as the new cycle started when I was saying kaddish for him. I have no idea how many cycles of the daf he learned. I dove into uncharted waters and the learning brought me comfort in a year that I could not have predicted would be as difficult as it was. His yahrzeit occurs while we learn the masechet.”

The gemara brings other cases of doubtful situations – does one need to recheck for chametz or not. Each case is compared to a situation mentioned in a different tannaitic source with a tannaitic debate. If there is a pile of chametz and two houses and a mouse brings it into one of the houses but we don’t know which one. This is compared to the case of two paths – one pure and one impure and two people who each walked on one of the the paths. If a mouse took the chametz but it is unclear if he brought it into the house or not. It is compared to impurity in a field and we are unsure of someone walked into the field. If the mouse brought chametz and we check but can’t find it, this is like piles of rocks with impurity underneath one of them but we are unable to find it. If a mouse brings in chametz and we find chametz, can we assume it is the chametz that the mouse brought or do we need to continue to check the house. This is similar to a debate of a field with a dead body whose location is unclear – if a grave is found, can we assume it was the one that we know about. If a baby or a mouse bring in bread and we find crumbs, can we assume the crumbs are theirs – is there a reason to differentiate between the cases? If we see a mouse go in and a mouse leave with bread in its mouth – can we assume it is the same one. Rava asks several questions that branch out from here. Do we make you check for bread in the rafters? Or in a pit? Or if in the mouth of a snake, do you need to get a snake charmer?聽 Rabbi Yehuda seems from the mishna to require 3 bedikot, However Rav Yosef understands his debate with the rabbis differently.

讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讘讞诪抓 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讟讜 讘讚讬拽转 讞诪抓 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘讘讬讟讜诇 讘注诇诪讗 住讙讬 诇讬讛

only with regard to teruma that in modern times is sacred by rabbinic law, as the Torah obligation to separate teruma was abrogated after the destruction of the First Temple. However, with regard to leavened bread, which is prohibited by Torah law, do we say that this principle applies? The Gemara responds: Is that to say that the search for leavened bread is required by Torah law? It is a rabbinic ordinance, as by Torah law, mere nullification is sufficient. Since the issue at hand is not the Torah prohibition of leaven but the rabbinic ordinance to search one鈥檚 house, this halakha is comparable to the case of baskets of teruma and non-sacred produce.

爪讘讜专 讗讞讚 砖诇 讞诪抓 讜诇驻谞讬讜 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讘讚讜拽讬谉 讜讗转讗 注讻讘专 讜砖拽诇 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗讬 诇讛讗讬 注诇 讗讬 诇讛讗讬 注诇 讛讬讬谞讜 砖谞讬 砖讘讬诇讬谉 讚转谞谉 砖谞讬 砖讘讬诇讬谉 讗讞讚 讟诪讗 讜讗讞讚 讟讛讜专 讜讛诇讱 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜注砖讛 讟讛专讜转 讜讘讗 讞讘讬专讜 讜讛诇讱 讘砖谞讬 讜注砖讛 讟讛专讜转

The Gemara presents another situation: In a case where there is one pile of leavened bread and before it there are two houses that were searched, and a mouse came and took a morsel from the pile, and we do not know if it entered this house or if it entered that house, this is akin to the case of two paths, as we learned in a mishna: There were two paths, one of which was ritually impure due to a corpse buried there, and one of which was ritually pure. And someone walked on one of them, but he does not remember which, and afterward he engaged in handling items of ritual purity, e.g., teruma or consecrated items; and another person came and walked on the second path, and he too does not remember which path it was, and he also engaged in handling items of ritual purity.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 谞砖讗诇讜 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讟讛讜专讬谉 砖谞讬讛谉 讘讘转 讗讞转 讟诪讗讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讟诪讗讬谉

Rabbi Yehuda says: If this one asked a Sage by himself, and that one asked a Sage by himself, they are both pure. When considered separately, each person retains his presumptive status of ritual purity. However, if they both came to ask at the same time, they are both ritually impure. Since one of the two certainly passed on the impure path, even though it is uncertain which, both are deemed impure due to that uncertainty. Rabbi Yosei says: One way or another they are both ritually impure.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讘转 讗讞转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讟诪讗讬谉 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讟讛讜专讬谉 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讗 诇讛砖讗诇 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讞讘讬专讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诇讘转 讗讞转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诇讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛

Rava said, and some say it was Rabbi Yo岣nan who said: If they came at the same time, everyone agrees that they are ritually impure, as even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that this is the halakha. If they came independently, one after the other, everyone agrees that they are ritually pure. They disagree only with regard to a case where one comes to ask about himself and about the other. Rabbi Yosei likens this case to one where they come to ask at the same time, and Rabbi Yehuda likens it to a case where they come one after the other.

住驻拽 注诇 住驻拽 诇讗 注诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讘拽注讛 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘谞谉

The Gemara addresses another case: If one saw a mouse take leaven and there is uncertainty whether the mouse entered a house that was already searched and uncertainty whether the mouse did not enter that house, that is akin to the halakha of ritual impurity in a valley, and is subject to the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis.

讚转谞谉 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘拽注讛 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜讟讜诪讗讛 讘砖讚讛 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜讗诪专 讗讞讚 讛诇讻转讬 讘诪拽讜诐 讛诇讝 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诐 谞讻谞住转讬 讘讗讜转讛 砖讚讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 谞讻谞住转讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讟讛专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉

As we learned in a mishna with regard to one who enters a valley during the rainy season, when seeds are sprouting, people do not have permission to wander in the field of another, as they might harm the plants. For the purpose of this halakha a valley in the rainy season is considered a private domain, and there is a general principle that in the case of uncertainty concerning whether or not one contracted ritual impurity in a private domain he is ritually impure. And if there was ritual impurity in a certain field, and one person said: I walked in that place, in the valley, and I do not know whether I entered that field or whether I did not enter, Rabbi Eliezer deems him pure, and the Rabbis deem him impure.

砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 住驻拽 讘讬讗讛 讟讛讜专 住驻拽 诪讙注 讟讜诪讗讛 讟诪讗

Rabbi Eliezer deems him pure, as Rabbi Eliezer would say: Concerning uncertainty with regard to entry, i.e., whether or not he entered the place, he is ritually pure; however, if one certainly entered the place and the uncertainty is with regard to contact with ritual impurity, he is ritually impure. According to this opinion, the principle with regard to uncertain impurity in the private domain applies only in a case where the uncertainty is with regard to contact. The Rabbis, however, do not distinguish between these situations, as they maintain he is impure regardless of whether the uncertainty is with regard to entry or with regard to contact. This dispute applies to the case of whether or not one is required to conduct an additional search for leaven in a case where there is uncertainty whether or not leaven was taken into the house.

注诇 讜讘讚拽 讜诇讗 讗砖讻讞 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讘讞讝拽转 讟讜诪讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 讛讜讗 讘讟讜诪讗转讜 注讚 砖讬讜讚注 诇讱 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬讻谉 讛讬讗

The Gemara discusses another case: If one saw a mouse enter a house with leaven in its mouth and someone searched and did not find any leaven there, this is akin to the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna, Rabbi Meir would say: Any object that has the presumptive status of ritual impurity, i.e., it is certain that an impure object was buried in a particular place, that place forever remains in its ritual impurity, even if it was excavated and the source of impurity was not found, until it becomes known to you where the ritual impurity is. The assumption is that the impurity was not found because the search was not conducted properly.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讜讚拽 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇住诇注 讗讜 诇拽专拽注 讘转讜诇讛

And the Rabbis say in this case: He continues searching until he reaches bedrock or virgin soil, under which there is certainly no ritual impurity. If he searched that extensively and failed to discover any impurity, it is apparently no longer there. This dispute applies to the aforementioned case involving leaven.

注诇 讜讘讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara analyzes yet another case: If one saw a mouse enter a house with leaven in its mouth and one searched and found a morsel of leaven there, but there is uncertainty whether or not the morsel that he found is the morsel that the mouse took into the house, this would be akin to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讚转谞讬讗 砖讚讛 砖谞讗讘讚 讘讛 拽讘专 讛谞讻谞住 诇转讜讻讛 讟诪讗 谞诪爪讗 讘讛 拽讘专 讛谞讻谞住 诇转讜讻讛 讟讛讜专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 拽讘专 砖讗讘讚 讛讜讗 拽讘专 砖谞诪爪讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 转讬讘讚拽 讻诇 讛砖讚讛 讻讜诇讛

As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to a field in which a grave was lost, i.e., there is certainly a grave located in the field but its precise location is unknown, one who enters the field is ritually impure, as he might have stepped on the grave. If a grave was later found and marked in the field, one who enters and walks on the other parts of the field is ritually pure, as I say: The grave that was previously lost is the grave that was subsequently found. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The entire field must be searched, as perhaps the grave discovered is not the one that was lost. This dispute applies to the above case of leaven.

讛谞讬讞 转砖注 讜诪爪讗 注砖专 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讛谞讬讞 诪谞讛 讜诪爪讗 诪讗转讬诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诪注讜专讘讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬

The Gemara discusses another situation: If a person placed nine morsels of leaven and found ten, indicating that mice had added at least one morsel, this is akin to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis. As it was taught in a baraita with regard to a person who placed a maneh, one hundred dinars, of second tithe, and found two hundred dinars: Since it is evident that someone came and placed at least one extra maneh there whose status is unclear, the pile is presumed to contain non-sacred money and second-tithe money intermingled with each other. The assumption is that the additional money is non-sacred, and it is impossible to determine which is the non-sacred money and which is the second-tithe money. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讻诇 讞讜诇讬谉

And the Rabbis say: It is all non-sacred money. Since someone else was clearly involved, it is possible that he took the maneh and left behind two hundred other dinars. Consequently, it is impossible to identify any of this money as the original maneh. This same reasoning can be applied to the case of leaven. Since there were undoubtedly mice present, it is possible that the mice took the morsels, moved them, and replaced them with other morsels. As a result, the entire house must be searched again.

讛谞讬讞 注砖专 讜诪爪讗 转砖注 讛讬讬谞讜 住讬驻讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛谞讬讞 诪讗转讬诐 讜诪爪讗 诪谞讛 诪谞讛 诪讜谞讞 讜诪谞讛 诪讜讟诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬

The Gemara raises the reverse situation. If one placed ten morsels and found nine, this is comparable to the case mentioned in the latter clause of that same baraita, as it was taught in the baraita: If one left two hundred dinars of second-tithe money and found a maneh, presumably, one maneh from the initial two hundred remains placed, and the other maneh is taken and missing. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讻诇 讞讜诇讬谉

And the Rabbis say, in keeping with their aforementioned opinion: It is all non-sacred money, as the assumption is that whoever took part of the money actually took it all, and this is a different maneh. Since it is different money, it is presumably non-sacred money, not second-tithe money. This dispute applies to the case where one finds fewer morsels of leaven than he left.

讛谞讬讞 讘讝讜讬转 讝讜 讜诪爪讗 讘讝讜讬转 讗讞专转 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 拽专讚讜诐 砖讗讘讚 讘讘讬转 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 讟诪讗 谞讻谞住 诇砖诐 讜谞讟诇讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛讘讬转 讟讛讜专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讛砖讗讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 讜砖讻讞 讗讜 砖谞讟诇讜 诪讝讜讬转 讝讜 讜讛谞讬讞 讘讝讜讬转 讛讗讞专转 讜砖讻讞

The Gemara addresses yet another case: If one placed leaven in this corner and found it in another corner, this is akin to the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to an axe that was lost in a house, the house is impure, as I say that a ritually impure person entered the house and took the axe, touching other items in the process. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The house is ritually pure, as I say that he lent the axe to another person and forgot, or that he took it from this corner and placed it in the other corner and forgot.

讝讜讬转 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讬讛

The Gemara asks: A corner, who mentioned anything about it? The baraita was referring to an axe that was lost, not one that was in a different corner.

讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 拽专讚讜诐 砖讗讘讚 讘讘讬转 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 讟诪讗 谞讻谞住 诇砖诐 讜谞讟诇讜 讗讜 砖讛谞讬讞讜 讘讝讜讬转 讝讜 讜诪爪讗讜 讘讝讜讬转 讗讞专转 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 讟诪讗 谞讻谞住 诇砖诐 讜谞讟诇讜 诪讝讜讬转 讝讜 讜讛谞讬讞讜 讘讝讜讬转 讗讞专转 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛讘讬转 讟讛讜专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讛砖讗讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 讜砖讻讞 讗讜 砖谞讟诇讜 诪讝讜讬转 讝讜 讜讛谞讬讞 讘讝讜讬转 讝讜 讜砖讻讞

The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete, and is teaching the following: With regard to an axe that was lost in a house, the house is ritually impure, as I say that an impure person entered the house and took the axe, or, if the owner placed it in this corner and later found it in another corner, the house is likewise ritually impure, as I say that an impure person entered the house and took the axe from this corner and placed in another corner. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The house is ritually pure, as I say that he lent it to another person and forgot, or that he took it from this corner and placed it in that corner and forgot about it. When the baraita is interpreted in this manner, the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis applies to the question about leaven.

讗诪专 专讘讗 注讻讘专 谞讻谞住 讜讻讻专 讘驻讬讜 讜谞讻谞住 讗讞专讬讜 讜诪爪讗 驻讬专讜专讬谉 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 砖诇 注讻讘专 诇驻专专 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 转讬谞讜拽 谞讻谞住 讜讻讻专 讘讬讚讜 讜谞讻谞住 讗讞专讬讜 讜诪爪讗 驻讬专讜专讬谉 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讚专讻讜 砖诇 转讬谞讜拽 诇驻专专

Rava said: If one saw a mouse enter a house with a loaf of bread in its mouth, and he entered after the mouse and found crumbs, the house requires additional searching, due to the fact that a mouse does not typically generate crumbs. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that these crumbs are from the loaf snatched by the mouse. And Rava also said: If one saw a child enter with a loaf in his hand, and he entered after the child and found crumbs, the house does not require additional searching, because a child typically generates crumbs, and one can therefore assume that the crumbs are from that loaf.

讘注讬 专讘讗 注讻讘专 谞讻谞住 讜讻讻专 讘驻讬讜 讜注讻讘专 讬讜爪讗 讜讻讻专 讘驻讬讜 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讗讬 讚注诇 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讛讗讬 讚谞驻拽 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讜讗

Although the rulings in these cases were clear to Rava, Rava raised a dilemma with regard to a related case: If one saw a mouse enter with a loaf in its mouth, and he saw a mouse leave with a loaf in its mouth, what is the halakha? The Gemara elaborates: Do we say that this mouse that entered is that same mouse that left and there is no more leaven left in the house? Or perhaps it is a different mouse.

讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讗讬 讚注诇 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讛讗讬 讚谞驻拽 注讻讘专 诇讘谉 谞讻谞住 讜讻讻专 讘驻讬讜 讜注讻讘专 砖讞讜专 讬讜爪讗 讜讻讻专 讘驻讬讜 诪讛讜 讛讗讬 讜讚讗讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗专诪讜讬讬 讗专诪讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara adds: If you say that this mouse that entered was this one that left, another dilemma arises: If one saw a white mouse enter with a loaf of bread in its mouth and a black mouse leave with a loaf of bread in its mouth, what is the halakha? Do I say this is certainly a different mouse, or perhaps the black mouse took the loaf from the white mouse?

讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 注讻讘专讬诐 诇讗 砖拽诇讬 诪讛讚讚讬 注讻讘专 谞讻谞住 讜讻讻专 讘驻讬讜 讜讞讜诇讚讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讜讻讻专 讘驻讬讛 诪讛讜 讞讜诇讚讛 讜讚讗讬 诪注讻讘专 砖拽诇转讬讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚诪注讻讘专 砖拽诇转讬讛 注讻讘专 讘驻讬讛 讛讜讛 诪砖转讻讞

The Gemara continues to suggest variations on this case: And if you say that mice do not take from each other, as one mouse is generally not significantly stronger than another, if one saw a mouse enter with a loaf of bread in its mouth and a marten leave with a loaf of bread in its mouth, what is the halakha? Do I say that the marten certainly took it from the mouse, as it is larger and stronger? Or perhaps it is a different loaf, for if it is so, that the marten took the loaf from the mouse, the mouse itself would also be found in its mouth, as the marten would presumably take not only the loaf of bread but the mouse as well.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚诪注讻讘专 砖拽诇转讬讛 注讻讘专 讘驻讬讛 讛讜讛 诪砖转讻讞 注讻讘专 谞讻谞住 讜讻讻专 讘驻讬讜 讜讞讜诇讚讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讜讻讻专 讜注讻讘专 讘驻讬 讞讜诇讚讛 诪讛讜 讛讻讗 讜讚讗讬 讗讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讗讬讛讜 谞讬讛讜 讻讻专 讘驻讬 注讻讘专 诪砖转讻讞 讛讜讛 讘注讬 讗讬砖转讻讜讞讬 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讬注转讜转讗 讛讜讗 谞驻诇 讜砖拽诇转讬讛 转讬拽讜

And if you say that we accept the contention that if it is so, that if the marten took it from the mouse the mouse itself would be in its mouth, in regard to a case where one saw a mouse enter with a loaf of bread in its mouth and a marten leave with both a loaf of bread and a mouse in its mouth, what is the halakha? Do I say that this is certainly the same mouse and loaf, or perhaps even this conclusion can be disputed: If it is so, that this is the same mouse, the loaf would have been found in the mouse鈥檚 mouth rather than in the marten鈥檚 mouth. Consequently, this must be a different loaf of bread. Or perhaps the loaf of bread fell from the mouse鈥檚 mouth due to its fear and the marten took it separately. No satisfactory answer was found for these dilemmas and the Gemara concludes: Let them stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘讗 讻讻专 讘砖诪讬 拽讜专讛 爪专讬讱 住讜诇诐 诇讛讜专讬讚讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 讗讟专讞讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 谞讞讬转 诪谞驻砖讬讛 诇讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚谞驻诇 讜讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇讛

Rava raised a dilemma: If there was a loaf of bread on a high beam in the ceiling, does one need to climb a ladder to take it down or is this effort not necessary? Do we say: The Sages did not obligate one to exert himself that much in his search for leaven, and since the loaf of bread will not fall on its own he will not come to eat it? Or perhaps it can be claimed that sometimes the loaf may fall and he will come to eat it, as objects placed high up occasionally drop.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚谞驻诇 讜讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇讛 讻讻专 讘讘讜专 爪专讬讱 住讜诇诐 诇讛注诇讜转讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讛讻讗 讜讚讗讬 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚讗 讚住诇拽讛 诪谞驻砖讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚谞讞讬转 诇诪注讘讚 爪讜专讻讬讛 讜讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇讬讛

And if you say with regard to a loaf of bread on a beam, sometimes it will fall and he will come to eat it, in a case where the loaf was in a pit, does one need to use a ladder to bring it up, or is this effort not necessary? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Here the loaf will certainly not come up on its own, and one can therefore let it remain where it is; or perhaps there is still a concern that sometimes he might go down into the pit to perform some requirement of his, and he will come to eat it.

讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚谞讞讬转 诇爪讜专讻讬讛 讜讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇讛 讻讻专 讘驻讬 谞讞砖 爪专讬讱 讞讘专 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱

The Gemara continues to discuss the various permutations of this case. And if you say that sometimes one goes down into the pit for some requirement of his, and he will come to eat it, with regard to a loaf that was in the mouth of a snake, is it necessary for him to bring a snake charmer to take the loaf out of the snake鈥檚 mouth, or is this effort not necessary?

讘讙讜驻讬讛 讗讟专讞讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 讘诪诪讜谞讬讛 诇讗 讗讟专讞讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 转讬拽讜:

Once again the Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Do I say that with regard to his own body the Sages obligate one to exert himself and search everywhere, but with regard to his money the Sages do not obligate one to exert himself, i.e., he is not required to spend money in order to destroy leaven? Or perhaps, the legal status of his money is no different than that of his body, as one must remove leaven wherever he finds it, in any way he can? This series of dilemmas is also left answered and the Gemara concludes: Let them stand unresolved.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜专 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讜讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 砖讞专讬转 讜讘砖注转 讛讘讬注讜专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讘讚拽 讗讜专 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讬讘讚讜拽 讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专

MISHNA: Rabbi Yehuda says: One searches for leaven on the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan, and on the fourteenth in the morning, and at the time of the removal of leaven. And the Rabbis say: that is not the case; however, if one did not search on the evening of the fourteenth he should search on the fourteenth during the day.

诇讗 讘讚拽 讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讬讘讚讜拽 讘转讜讱 讛诪讜注讚 诇讗 讘讚拽 讘转讜讱 讛诪讜注讚 讬讘讚讜拽 诇讗讞专 讛诪讜注讚 讜诪讛 砖诪砖讬讬专 讬谞讬讞谞讜 讘爪讬谞注讗 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛 讗讞专讬讜:

If he did not search on the fourteenth, he should search during the festival of Passover. If he did not search during the Festival, he should search after the Festival, as any leaven that remained in his possession during the Festival is classified as leaven owned by a Jew during Passover, which one is obligated to remove. And the principle is: With regard to the leaven that one leaves after the search, he should place it in a concealed location where it will most likely be left untouched, so that it will not require searching after it if it goes missing.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻谞讙讚 砖诇砖 讛砖讘转讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 诇讗 讬专讗讛 诇讱 讞诪抓 讜诇讗 讬专讗讛 诇讱 砖讗专 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 砖讗专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讘讘转讬讻诐 讗讱 讘讬讜诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 转砖讘讬转讜 砖讗专 诪讘转讬讻诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the statement of Rabbi Yehuda that one must conduct a search three times? The Gemara answers: It is Rav 岣sda and Rabba bar Rav Huna who both say: The requirement to conduct three searches corresponds to the three times that the removal of leaven is mentioned in the Torah. One verse says: 鈥Matzot shall be eaten for seven days, and no leavened bread shall be seen with you, neither shall there be leaven seen with you, in all your borders鈥 (Exodus 13:7), and another verse states: 鈥淪even days shall there be no leaven found in your houses鈥 (Exodus 12:19), while a third verse says: 鈥淪even days shall you eat matzot, yet on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses鈥 (Exodus 12:15).

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖诇讗 讘讚拽 讘砖诇砖讛 驻专拽讬诐 讛诇诇讜 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讘讜讚拽 讗诇诪讗 讘诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬

Rav Yosef raised an objection to this explanation, seeking to prove that even according to Rabbi Yehuda one need not conduct three searches for leaven. He explained that Rabbi Yehuda lists the three times when one may conduct a search for leaven. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: Anyone who did not search at these three times may no longer search. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda does not hold that one must conduct three searches. Rather, in regard to whether or not one may conduct a search for leaven if he failed to conduct a search at one of those three opportunities, it is from this point forward that they disagree. The Rabbis hold that one may conduct the search even after the time of the removal of leaven, and Rabbi Yehuda disagrees.

诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖诇讗 讘讚拽 讘讗讞讚 诪砖诇砖讛 驻专拽讬诐 讛诇诇讜 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讘讜讚拽 讗诇诪讗 讘砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讘讜讚拽 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬

Mar Zutra taught Rav Yosef鈥檚 statement in this manner: Rav Yosef raised an objection from that which Rabbi Yehuda says: Anyone who did not search at one of these three times may no longer search. In Mar Zutra鈥檚 version, Rabbi Yehuda explicitly states: One of these three times, which reinforces the claim that he obligates one to conduct only one search. The Gemara similarly concludes: Apparently, it is with regard to whether or not one may no longer search that they disagree.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 讗诐 诇讗 讘讚拽 拽讗诪专

Rather, the Gemara concludes that Rabbi Yehuda also said: If one did not search for leaven bread at the first opportunity, he may do so at the second or third opportunities; however, he may not search for leaven after these three times have passed.

讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诪拽诪讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讬谉 讘转专 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 讙讝讬专讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉

And here, in the mishna, it is about this that they disagree: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, maintains that before the prohibition against eating leaven takes effect, yes, one may conduct a search; after the prohibition against eating leaven takes effect, no, one may no longer conduct a search, due to a rabbinic decree lest one come to eat from the leaven while searching for it. And the Rabbis maintain: We do not issue a decree lest one come to eat from the leaven, and he may therefore conduct a search even after the prohibition against eating leaven has taken effect.

讜诪讬 讙讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讛讗 转谞谉 诪砖拽专讘 讛注讜诪专 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讜诪讜爪讗讬谉 砖讜拽讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 砖讛诐 诪诇讗讬诐 拽诪讞 讜拽诇讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And does Rabbi Yehuda issue a decree lest one come to eat from the leaven in whose removal he is engaged? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: Once the omer offering was sacrificed, people would go out and find the markets of Jerusalem filled with flour and toasted grain, all from the new crop. This grain was undoubtedly harvested and processed when the Torah prohibition against eating from the new crop was still in effect.

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

This month of learning is dedicated by Pam and Yoav Schwartz to honor the 5th yahrtzeit of their nephew Ezra Schwartz. Ezra's life was full of love, curiosity, laughter, and friendship. May this learning replace some of the light that was lost from this world.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Pesachim 4-10 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will continue to learn the laws regarding searching one鈥檚 home for leavened bread.聽 How and when is...
talking talmud_square

Pesachim 10: The Mouse House

The question of a majority and certainty, and how it has impact on the assumptions that determine whether and how...

Pesachim 10 – A Mouse in Your House

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 10 – A Mouse in Your House

讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讘讞诪抓 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讟讜 讘讚讬拽转 讞诪抓 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘讘讬讟讜诇 讘注诇诪讗 住讙讬 诇讬讛

only with regard to teruma that in modern times is sacred by rabbinic law, as the Torah obligation to separate teruma was abrogated after the destruction of the First Temple. However, with regard to leavened bread, which is prohibited by Torah law, do we say that this principle applies? The Gemara responds: Is that to say that the search for leavened bread is required by Torah law? It is a rabbinic ordinance, as by Torah law, mere nullification is sufficient. Since the issue at hand is not the Torah prohibition of leaven but the rabbinic ordinance to search one鈥檚 house, this halakha is comparable to the case of baskets of teruma and non-sacred produce.

爪讘讜专 讗讞讚 砖诇 讞诪抓 讜诇驻谞讬讜 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讘讚讜拽讬谉 讜讗转讗 注讻讘专 讜砖拽诇 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗讬 诇讛讗讬 注诇 讗讬 诇讛讗讬 注诇 讛讬讬谞讜 砖谞讬 砖讘讬诇讬谉 讚转谞谉 砖谞讬 砖讘讬诇讬谉 讗讞讚 讟诪讗 讜讗讞讚 讟讛讜专 讜讛诇讱 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜注砖讛 讟讛专讜转 讜讘讗 讞讘讬专讜 讜讛诇讱 讘砖谞讬 讜注砖讛 讟讛专讜转

The Gemara presents another situation: In a case where there is one pile of leavened bread and before it there are two houses that were searched, and a mouse came and took a morsel from the pile, and we do not know if it entered this house or if it entered that house, this is akin to the case of two paths, as we learned in a mishna: There were two paths, one of which was ritually impure due to a corpse buried there, and one of which was ritually pure. And someone walked on one of them, but he does not remember which, and afterward he engaged in handling items of ritual purity, e.g., teruma or consecrated items; and another person came and walked on the second path, and he too does not remember which path it was, and he also engaged in handling items of ritual purity.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 谞砖讗诇讜 讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讜讝讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讟讛讜专讬谉 砖谞讬讛谉 讘讘转 讗讞转 讟诪讗讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讟诪讗讬谉

Rabbi Yehuda says: If this one asked a Sage by himself, and that one asked a Sage by himself, they are both pure. When considered separately, each person retains his presumptive status of ritual purity. However, if they both came to ask at the same time, they are both ritually impure. Since one of the two certainly passed on the impure path, even though it is uncertain which, both are deemed impure due to that uncertainty. Rabbi Yosei says: One way or another they are both ritually impure.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讘转 讗讞转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讟诪讗讬谉 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讟讛讜专讬谉 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讗 诇讛砖讗诇 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讞讘讬专讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诇讘转 讗讞转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诇讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛

Rava said, and some say it was Rabbi Yo岣nan who said: If they came at the same time, everyone agrees that they are ritually impure, as even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that this is the halakha. If they came independently, one after the other, everyone agrees that they are ritually pure. They disagree only with regard to a case where one comes to ask about himself and about the other. Rabbi Yosei likens this case to one where they come to ask at the same time, and Rabbi Yehuda likens it to a case where they come one after the other.

住驻拽 注诇 住驻拽 诇讗 注诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讘拽注讛 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘谞谉

The Gemara addresses another case: If one saw a mouse take leaven and there is uncertainty whether the mouse entered a house that was already searched and uncertainty whether the mouse did not enter that house, that is akin to the halakha of ritual impurity in a valley, and is subject to the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis.

讚转谞谉 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘拽注讛 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜讟讜诪讗讛 讘砖讚讛 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜讗诪专 讗讞讚 讛诇讻转讬 讘诪拽讜诐 讛诇讝 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诐 谞讻谞住转讬 讘讗讜转讛 砖讚讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 谞讻谞住转讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讟讛专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉

As we learned in a mishna with regard to one who enters a valley during the rainy season, when seeds are sprouting, people do not have permission to wander in the field of another, as they might harm the plants. For the purpose of this halakha a valley in the rainy season is considered a private domain, and there is a general principle that in the case of uncertainty concerning whether or not one contracted ritual impurity in a private domain he is ritually impure. And if there was ritual impurity in a certain field, and one person said: I walked in that place, in the valley, and I do not know whether I entered that field or whether I did not enter, Rabbi Eliezer deems him pure, and the Rabbis deem him impure.

砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 住驻拽 讘讬讗讛 讟讛讜专 住驻拽 诪讙注 讟讜诪讗讛 讟诪讗

Rabbi Eliezer deems him pure, as Rabbi Eliezer would say: Concerning uncertainty with regard to entry, i.e., whether or not he entered the place, he is ritually pure; however, if one certainly entered the place and the uncertainty is with regard to contact with ritual impurity, he is ritually impure. According to this opinion, the principle with regard to uncertain impurity in the private domain applies only in a case where the uncertainty is with regard to contact. The Rabbis, however, do not distinguish between these situations, as they maintain he is impure regardless of whether the uncertainty is with regard to entry or with regard to contact. This dispute applies to the case of whether or not one is required to conduct an additional search for leaven in a case where there is uncertainty whether or not leaven was taken into the house.

注诇 讜讘讚拽 讜诇讗 讗砖讻讞 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讘讞讝拽转 讟讜诪讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 讛讜讗 讘讟讜诪讗转讜 注讚 砖讬讜讚注 诇讱 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬讻谉 讛讬讗

The Gemara discusses another case: If one saw a mouse enter a house with leaven in its mouth and someone searched and did not find any leaven there, this is akin to the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna, Rabbi Meir would say: Any object that has the presumptive status of ritual impurity, i.e., it is certain that an impure object was buried in a particular place, that place forever remains in its ritual impurity, even if it was excavated and the source of impurity was not found, until it becomes known to you where the ritual impurity is. The assumption is that the impurity was not found because the search was not conducted properly.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讜讚拽 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇住诇注 讗讜 诇拽专拽注 讘转讜诇讛

And the Rabbis say in this case: He continues searching until he reaches bedrock or virgin soil, under which there is certainly no ritual impurity. If he searched that extensively and failed to discover any impurity, it is apparently no longer there. This dispute applies to the aforementioned case involving leaven.

注诇 讜讘讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara analyzes yet another case: If one saw a mouse enter a house with leaven in its mouth and one searched and found a morsel of leaven there, but there is uncertainty whether or not the morsel that he found is the morsel that the mouse took into the house, this would be akin to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讚转谞讬讗 砖讚讛 砖谞讗讘讚 讘讛 拽讘专 讛谞讻谞住 诇转讜讻讛 讟诪讗 谞诪爪讗 讘讛 拽讘专 讛谞讻谞住 诇转讜讻讛 讟讛讜专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 拽讘专 砖讗讘讚 讛讜讗 拽讘专 砖谞诪爪讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 转讬讘讚拽 讻诇 讛砖讚讛 讻讜诇讛

As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to a field in which a grave was lost, i.e., there is certainly a grave located in the field but its precise location is unknown, one who enters the field is ritually impure, as he might have stepped on the grave. If a grave was later found and marked in the field, one who enters and walks on the other parts of the field is ritually pure, as I say: The grave that was previously lost is the grave that was subsequently found. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The entire field must be searched, as perhaps the grave discovered is not the one that was lost. This dispute applies to the above case of leaven.

讛谞讬讞 转砖注 讜诪爪讗 注砖专 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讛谞讬讞 诪谞讛 讜诪爪讗 诪讗转讬诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诪注讜专讘讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬

The Gemara discusses another situation: If a person placed nine morsels of leaven and found ten, indicating that mice had added at least one morsel, this is akin to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis. As it was taught in a baraita with regard to a person who placed a maneh, one hundred dinars, of second tithe, and found two hundred dinars: Since it is evident that someone came and placed at least one extra maneh there whose status is unclear, the pile is presumed to contain non-sacred money and second-tithe money intermingled with each other. The assumption is that the additional money is non-sacred, and it is impossible to determine which is the non-sacred money and which is the second-tithe money. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讻诇 讞讜诇讬谉

And the Rabbis say: It is all non-sacred money. Since someone else was clearly involved, it is possible that he took the maneh and left behind two hundred other dinars. Consequently, it is impossible to identify any of this money as the original maneh. This same reasoning can be applied to the case of leaven. Since there were undoubtedly mice present, it is possible that the mice took the morsels, moved them, and replaced them with other morsels. As a result, the entire house must be searched again.

讛谞讬讞 注砖专 讜诪爪讗 转砖注 讛讬讬谞讜 住讬驻讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛谞讬讞 诪讗转讬诐 讜诪爪讗 诪谞讛 诪谞讛 诪讜谞讞 讜诪谞讛 诪讜讟诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬

The Gemara raises the reverse situation. If one placed ten morsels and found nine, this is comparable to the case mentioned in the latter clause of that same baraita, as it was taught in the baraita: If one left two hundred dinars of second-tithe money and found a maneh, presumably, one maneh from the initial two hundred remains placed, and the other maneh is taken and missing. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讻诇 讞讜诇讬谉

And the Rabbis say, in keeping with their aforementioned opinion: It is all non-sacred money, as the assumption is that whoever took part of the money actually took it all, and this is a different maneh. Since it is different money, it is presumably non-sacred money, not second-tithe money. This dispute applies to the case where one finds fewer morsels of leaven than he left.

讛谞讬讞 讘讝讜讬转 讝讜 讜诪爪讗 讘讝讜讬转 讗讞专转 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 拽专讚讜诐 砖讗讘讚 讘讘讬转 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 讟诪讗 谞讻谞住 诇砖诐 讜谞讟诇讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛讘讬转 讟讛讜专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讛砖讗讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 讜砖讻讞 讗讜 砖谞讟诇讜 诪讝讜讬转 讝讜 讜讛谞讬讞 讘讝讜讬转 讛讗讞专转 讜砖讻讞

The Gemara addresses yet another case: If one placed leaven in this corner and found it in another corner, this is akin to the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to an axe that was lost in a house, the house is impure, as I say that a ritually impure person entered the house and took the axe, touching other items in the process. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The house is ritually pure, as I say that he lent the axe to another person and forgot, or that he took it from this corner and placed it in the other corner and forgot.

讝讜讬转 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讬讛

The Gemara asks: A corner, who mentioned anything about it? The baraita was referring to an axe that was lost, not one that was in a different corner.

讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 拽专讚讜诐 砖讗讘讚 讘讘讬转 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 讟诪讗 谞讻谞住 诇砖诐 讜谞讟诇讜 讗讜 砖讛谞讬讞讜 讘讝讜讬转 讝讜 讜诪爪讗讜 讘讝讜讬转 讗讞专转 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 讟诪讗 谞讻谞住 诇砖诐 讜谞讟诇讜 诪讝讜讬转 讝讜 讜讛谞讬讞讜 讘讝讜讬转 讗讞专转 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛讘讬转 讟讛讜专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讛砖讗讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 讜砖讻讞 讗讜 砖谞讟诇讜 诪讝讜讬转 讝讜 讜讛谞讬讞 讘讝讜讬转 讝讜 讜砖讻讞

The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete, and is teaching the following: With regard to an axe that was lost in a house, the house is ritually impure, as I say that an impure person entered the house and took the axe, or, if the owner placed it in this corner and later found it in another corner, the house is likewise ritually impure, as I say that an impure person entered the house and took the axe from this corner and placed in another corner. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The house is ritually pure, as I say that he lent it to another person and forgot, or that he took it from this corner and placed it in that corner and forgot about it. When the baraita is interpreted in this manner, the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis applies to the question about leaven.

讗诪专 专讘讗 注讻讘专 谞讻谞住 讜讻讻专 讘驻讬讜 讜谞讻谞住 讗讞专讬讜 讜诪爪讗 驻讬专讜专讬谉 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 砖诇 注讻讘专 诇驻专专 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 转讬谞讜拽 谞讻谞住 讜讻讻专 讘讬讚讜 讜谞讻谞住 讗讞专讬讜 讜诪爪讗 驻讬专讜专讬谉 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讚专讻讜 砖诇 转讬谞讜拽 诇驻专专

Rava said: If one saw a mouse enter a house with a loaf of bread in its mouth, and he entered after the mouse and found crumbs, the house requires additional searching, due to the fact that a mouse does not typically generate crumbs. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that these crumbs are from the loaf snatched by the mouse. And Rava also said: If one saw a child enter with a loaf in his hand, and he entered after the child and found crumbs, the house does not require additional searching, because a child typically generates crumbs, and one can therefore assume that the crumbs are from that loaf.

讘注讬 专讘讗 注讻讘专 谞讻谞住 讜讻讻专 讘驻讬讜 讜注讻讘专 讬讜爪讗 讜讻讻专 讘驻讬讜 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讗讬 讚注诇 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讛讗讬 讚谞驻拽 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讜讗

Although the rulings in these cases were clear to Rava, Rava raised a dilemma with regard to a related case: If one saw a mouse enter with a loaf in its mouth, and he saw a mouse leave with a loaf in its mouth, what is the halakha? The Gemara elaborates: Do we say that this mouse that entered is that same mouse that left and there is no more leaven left in the house? Or perhaps it is a different mouse.

讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讗讬 讚注诇 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讛讗讬 讚谞驻拽 注讻讘专 诇讘谉 谞讻谞住 讜讻讻专 讘驻讬讜 讜注讻讘专 砖讞讜专 讬讜爪讗 讜讻讻专 讘驻讬讜 诪讛讜 讛讗讬 讜讚讗讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗专诪讜讬讬 讗专诪讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara adds: If you say that this mouse that entered was this one that left, another dilemma arises: If one saw a white mouse enter with a loaf of bread in its mouth and a black mouse leave with a loaf of bread in its mouth, what is the halakha? Do I say this is certainly a different mouse, or perhaps the black mouse took the loaf from the white mouse?

讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 注讻讘专讬诐 诇讗 砖拽诇讬 诪讛讚讚讬 注讻讘专 谞讻谞住 讜讻讻专 讘驻讬讜 讜讞讜诇讚讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讜讻讻专 讘驻讬讛 诪讛讜 讞讜诇讚讛 讜讚讗讬 诪注讻讘专 砖拽诇转讬讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚诪注讻讘专 砖拽诇转讬讛 注讻讘专 讘驻讬讛 讛讜讛 诪砖转讻讞

The Gemara continues to suggest variations on this case: And if you say that mice do not take from each other, as one mouse is generally not significantly stronger than another, if one saw a mouse enter with a loaf of bread in its mouth and a marten leave with a loaf of bread in its mouth, what is the halakha? Do I say that the marten certainly took it from the mouse, as it is larger and stronger? Or perhaps it is a different loaf, for if it is so, that the marten took the loaf from the mouse, the mouse itself would also be found in its mouth, as the marten would presumably take not only the loaf of bread but the mouse as well.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚诪注讻讘专 砖拽诇转讬讛 注讻讘专 讘驻讬讛 讛讜讛 诪砖转讻讞 注讻讘专 谞讻谞住 讜讻讻专 讘驻讬讜 讜讞讜诇讚讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讜讻讻专 讜注讻讘专 讘驻讬 讞讜诇讚讛 诪讛讜 讛讻讗 讜讚讗讬 讗讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讗讬讛讜 谞讬讛讜 讻讻专 讘驻讬 注讻讘专 诪砖转讻讞 讛讜讛 讘注讬 讗讬砖转讻讜讞讬 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讬注转讜转讗 讛讜讗 谞驻诇 讜砖拽诇转讬讛 转讬拽讜

And if you say that we accept the contention that if it is so, that if the marten took it from the mouse the mouse itself would be in its mouth, in regard to a case where one saw a mouse enter with a loaf of bread in its mouth and a marten leave with both a loaf of bread and a mouse in its mouth, what is the halakha? Do I say that this is certainly the same mouse and loaf, or perhaps even this conclusion can be disputed: If it is so, that this is the same mouse, the loaf would have been found in the mouse鈥檚 mouth rather than in the marten鈥檚 mouth. Consequently, this must be a different loaf of bread. Or perhaps the loaf of bread fell from the mouse鈥檚 mouth due to its fear and the marten took it separately. No satisfactory answer was found for these dilemmas and the Gemara concludes: Let them stand unresolved.

讘注讬 专讘讗 讻讻专 讘砖诪讬 拽讜专讛 爪专讬讱 住讜诇诐 诇讛讜专讬讚讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 讗讟专讞讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 谞讞讬转 诪谞驻砖讬讛 诇讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚谞驻诇 讜讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇讛

Rava raised a dilemma: If there was a loaf of bread on a high beam in the ceiling, does one need to climb a ladder to take it down or is this effort not necessary? Do we say: The Sages did not obligate one to exert himself that much in his search for leaven, and since the loaf of bread will not fall on its own he will not come to eat it? Or perhaps it can be claimed that sometimes the loaf may fall and he will come to eat it, as objects placed high up occasionally drop.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚谞驻诇 讜讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇讛 讻讻专 讘讘讜专 爪专讬讱 住讜诇诐 诇讛注诇讜转讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讛讻讗 讜讚讗讬 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚讗 讚住诇拽讛 诪谞驻砖讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚谞讞讬转 诇诪注讘讚 爪讜专讻讬讛 讜讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇讬讛

And if you say with regard to a loaf of bread on a beam, sometimes it will fall and he will come to eat it, in a case where the loaf was in a pit, does one need to use a ladder to bring it up, or is this effort not necessary? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Here the loaf will certainly not come up on its own, and one can therefore let it remain where it is; or perhaps there is still a concern that sometimes he might go down into the pit to perform some requirement of his, and he will come to eat it.

讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚谞讞讬转 诇爪讜专讻讬讛 讜讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇讛 讻讻专 讘驻讬 谞讞砖 爪专讬讱 讞讘专 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱

The Gemara continues to discuss the various permutations of this case. And if you say that sometimes one goes down into the pit for some requirement of his, and he will come to eat it, with regard to a loaf that was in the mouth of a snake, is it necessary for him to bring a snake charmer to take the loaf out of the snake鈥檚 mouth, or is this effort not necessary?

讘讙讜驻讬讛 讗讟专讞讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 讘诪诪讜谞讬讛 诇讗 讗讟专讞讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 转讬拽讜:

Once again the Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Do I say that with regard to his own body the Sages obligate one to exert himself and search everywhere, but with regard to his money the Sages do not obligate one to exert himself, i.e., he is not required to spend money in order to destroy leaven? Or perhaps, the legal status of his money is no different than that of his body, as one must remove leaven wherever he finds it, in any way he can? This series of dilemmas is also left answered and the Gemara concludes: Let them stand unresolved.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜专 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讜讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 砖讞专讬转 讜讘砖注转 讛讘讬注讜专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讘讚拽 讗讜专 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讬讘讚讜拽 讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专

MISHNA: Rabbi Yehuda says: One searches for leaven on the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan, and on the fourteenth in the morning, and at the time of the removal of leaven. And the Rabbis say: that is not the case; however, if one did not search on the evening of the fourteenth he should search on the fourteenth during the day.

诇讗 讘讚拽 讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讬讘讚讜拽 讘转讜讱 讛诪讜注讚 诇讗 讘讚拽 讘转讜讱 讛诪讜注讚 讬讘讚讜拽 诇讗讞专 讛诪讜注讚 讜诪讛 砖诪砖讬讬专 讬谞讬讞谞讜 讘爪讬谞注讗 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛 讗讞专讬讜:

If he did not search on the fourteenth, he should search during the festival of Passover. If he did not search during the Festival, he should search after the Festival, as any leaven that remained in his possession during the Festival is classified as leaven owned by a Jew during Passover, which one is obligated to remove. And the principle is: With regard to the leaven that one leaves after the search, he should place it in a concealed location where it will most likely be left untouched, so that it will not require searching after it if it goes missing.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻谞讙讚 砖诇砖 讛砖讘转讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 诇讗 讬专讗讛 诇讱 讞诪抓 讜诇讗 讬专讗讛 诇讱 砖讗专 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 砖讗专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讘讘转讬讻诐 讗讱 讘讬讜诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 转砖讘讬转讜 砖讗专 诪讘转讬讻诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the statement of Rabbi Yehuda that one must conduct a search three times? The Gemara answers: It is Rav 岣sda and Rabba bar Rav Huna who both say: The requirement to conduct three searches corresponds to the three times that the removal of leaven is mentioned in the Torah. One verse says: 鈥Matzot shall be eaten for seven days, and no leavened bread shall be seen with you, neither shall there be leaven seen with you, in all your borders鈥 (Exodus 13:7), and another verse states: 鈥淪even days shall there be no leaven found in your houses鈥 (Exodus 12:19), while a third verse says: 鈥淪even days shall you eat matzot, yet on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses鈥 (Exodus 12:15).

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖诇讗 讘讚拽 讘砖诇砖讛 驻专拽讬诐 讛诇诇讜 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讘讜讚拽 讗诇诪讗 讘诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬

Rav Yosef raised an objection to this explanation, seeking to prove that even according to Rabbi Yehuda one need not conduct three searches for leaven. He explained that Rabbi Yehuda lists the three times when one may conduct a search for leaven. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: Anyone who did not search at these three times may no longer search. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda does not hold that one must conduct three searches. Rather, in regard to whether or not one may conduct a search for leaven if he failed to conduct a search at one of those three opportunities, it is from this point forward that they disagree. The Rabbis hold that one may conduct the search even after the time of the removal of leaven, and Rabbi Yehuda disagrees.

诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 诪转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖诇讗 讘讚拽 讘讗讞讚 诪砖诇砖讛 驻专拽讬诐 讛诇诇讜 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讘讜讚拽 讗诇诪讗 讘砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讘讜讚拽 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬

Mar Zutra taught Rav Yosef鈥檚 statement in this manner: Rav Yosef raised an objection from that which Rabbi Yehuda says: Anyone who did not search at one of these three times may no longer search. In Mar Zutra鈥檚 version, Rabbi Yehuda explicitly states: One of these three times, which reinforces the claim that he obligates one to conduct only one search. The Gemara similarly concludes: Apparently, it is with regard to whether or not one may no longer search that they disagree.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 讗诐 诇讗 讘讚拽 拽讗诪专

Rather, the Gemara concludes that Rabbi Yehuda also said: If one did not search for leaven bread at the first opportunity, he may do so at the second or third opportunities; however, he may not search for leaven after these three times have passed.

讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诪拽诪讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讗讬谉 讘转专 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 讙讝讬专讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉

And here, in the mishna, it is about this that they disagree: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, maintains that before the prohibition against eating leaven takes effect, yes, one may conduct a search; after the prohibition against eating leaven takes effect, no, one may no longer conduct a search, due to a rabbinic decree lest one come to eat from the leaven while searching for it. And the Rabbis maintain: We do not issue a decree lest one come to eat from the leaven, and he may therefore conduct a search even after the prohibition against eating leaven has taken effect.

讜诪讬 讙讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讛讗 转谞谉 诪砖拽专讘 讛注讜诪专 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讜诪讜爪讗讬谉 砖讜拽讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 砖讛诐 诪诇讗讬诐 拽诪讞 讜拽诇讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And does Rabbi Yehuda issue a decree lest one come to eat from the leaven in whose removal he is engaged? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: Once the omer offering was sacrificed, people would go out and find the markets of Jerusalem filled with flour and toasted grain, all from the new crop. This grain was undoubtedly harvested and processed when the Torah prohibition against eating from the new crop was still in effect.

Scroll To Top