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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 2, 2020 | 讟状讝 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 11 – To Forbid or Not to Forbid?

Today’s daf is dedicated by Racheli Mendelson in memory of her mother Shoshana Spitz z”l on her third yahrzeit.
Rabbi Yehuda doesn’t permit checking for chametz during the time that it is forbidden to eat chametz in case you may come to eat it. The rabbis permit. The gemara brings a contradiction from the new grain that is permitted after sacrificing the omer – as the shuk would immediately open with flour and toasted flour from the new crop – was this allowed or not? Should one be concerned that they may come to eat it while they were preparing the grain earlier? There the rabbis forbade and Rabbi Yehuda permitted? The rabbis bring three possible answers and questions are raised from other sources on each of these answers. From when is chametz forbidden on erev Pesach and by when does one need to burn the chametz? The rabbis forbid it earlier than it is actually forbidden so that people don’t make mistakes in the timing. The gemara bring the mishna in Sanhedrin 40 that describes a debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda about contradictory witnesses – to what extent can we assume they make a mistake and therefore even though they contradict each other, we accept their testimony as they really are not saying anything different. Abaye explains what is the root of the debate between them.

砖诇讗 讘专爪讜谉 讞讻诪讬诐 (讛谉 注讜砖讬谉) 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘专爪讜谉 讞讻诪讬诐 讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 讜诇讗 拽讗 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 讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讗谞讬 讞讚砖 诪转讜讱 砖诇讗 讛转专转 诇讜 讗诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 拽讟讜祝 讛讜讗 讝讻讜专

However, with regard to those people who harvest the crop before the omer is sacrificed, they act contrary to the will of the Sages. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The concern is that while working with the grain they might come to eat from it, despite the fact that it is still prohibited. Rabbi Yehuda says: They act in accordance with the will of the Sages. And in that case, Rabbi Yehuda did not issue a decree lest one eat from it. Why, then, does he issue a decree with regard to leaven? Rava said that the prohibition of new grain is different: Since before the omer you permitted one to harvest the crop only by picking it by hand and may not harvest it in the typical manner, he will remember the prohibition and refrain from eating it. That is not the case with regard to leaven.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 转讬谞讞 讘砖注转 拽讟讬驻讛 讟讞讬谞讛 讜讛专拽讚讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讟讞讬谞讛 讘专讞讬讗 讚讬讚 讛专拽讚讛 注诇 讙讘讬 谞驻讛

Abaye said to him: This works out well in explaining Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion with regard to the time when one is picking the grain; however, with regard to the time of grinding and sifting, what can be said? Apparently, it is permitted to perform these acts in a typical manner. Why, then, is there no concern lest one eat the grain at that stage? The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as one also performs grinding in an atypical manner. One must grind the grain before the sacrificing of the omer with a hand mill, not with a mill powered by an animal or by water. Likewise, sifting is performed atypically, not in the interior of the sifter. Instead, it is performed on top of the sifter. Since all of these actions are performed in an atypical manner, there is no concern lest he come to eat the grain.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 拽讜爪专讬谉 讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬诐 讜砖讘注诪拽讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讙讜讚砖讬谉 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara raises another difficulty: However, with regard to that which we learned in a mishna: One may harvest grain from a field that requires irrigation and from fields in the valleys, as their grain ripens long before the omer is sacrificed, but one may not pile the produce, and the Gemara adds: And we established that this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; what can be said? The use of the term: One may harvest, in this mishna indicates that the grain was harvested in a typical manner, not by hand.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讞讚砖 讘讚讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讞诪抓 诇讗 讘讚讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛

Rather, Abaye said: This difference between the cases of the omer and leaven is not based on the manner in which one harvests, grinds, or sifts. Instead, the reason for the different rulings is that from new grain, one distances himself, as it is prohibited to eat the new grain all year until the omer is offered. But from leavened bread one does not distance himself, as it is permitted during the rest of the year. Therefore, he is more likely to unwittingly eat leaven.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗

Rava said: Is the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda difficult, while the contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis is not difficult? There is also an apparent contradiction between the opinion of the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Meir, who rule that the Sages issued a decree with regard to new grain but did not issue a decree with regard to leaven.

讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讚砖谞讬谞谉 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 诪讞讝专 注诇讬讜 诇砖讜专驻讜 诪讬讻诇 拽讗讻讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛

Rava explains as follows: The contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as we resolved it above. The contradiction between one ruling of the Rabbis and the other ruling of the Rabbis is also not difficult: The Rabbis maintain that there is no need to issue a decree prohibiting searching for leaven after leaven is prohibited, as, with regard to one who himself is seeking out leaven to burn it, will he eat from that leaven? However, in the case of new grain, he is processing the grain, preparing it for consumption. Therefore, the concern is that he will come to eat it unwittingly.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 拽诪讞 讜拽诇讬 转谞谉

Rav Ashi said: The contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as the difficulty can be resolved in an alternative manner, as we learned in the mishna that the markets of Jerusalem were filled with flour and toasted grain. It is permitted to prepare only these foods before the omer, as they will not be eaten without further preparation. Therefore, there is no concern lest one eat it unwittingly before the omer offering is sacrificed.

讛讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讘讚讜转讗 讛讬讗 讛转讬谞讞 诪拽诇讬 讜讗讬诇讱 诪注讬拽专讗 注讚 拽诇讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara rejects this interpretation: That statement of Rav Ashi is a mistake, as this suggestion can easily be refuted. That works out well with regard to the status of the grain from the point that the grain was processed into flour or toasted grain and forward, as there is no concern lest one come to eat it. However, with regard to its status initially until it became toasted grain, what can be said? There must have been a certain point when the grain kernels were edible before they were transformed into toasted grain. Why is there no concern that one might come to eat the grain at this earlier stage?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 注诇 讬讚讬 拽讬讟讜祝 讻讚专讘讗 讗诇讗 拽讜爪专讬谉 讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 讜砖讘注诪拽讬诐 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讘讚讜转讗 讛讬讗

And lest you say that the grain is distinguished by the atypical manner in which it is harvested, in accordance with the earlier statement of Rava, but with regard to the difficulty raised to Rava鈥檚 opinion that one may harvest a field that requires irrigation and a field that is in the valleys in the typical manner and we established that statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, what can be said? Rather, the Gemara rejects this explanation and concludes that Rav Ashi鈥檚 statement is a mistake.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讘讚讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬 讙讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The above conclusion was that Rabbi Yehuda distinguishes between prohibitions involving substances from which people regularly separate themselves and prohibitions involving substances from which people are not used to keeping their distance. The Gemara asks: And anywhere that one does not distance himself from a prohibition, does Rabbi Yehuda issue a decree that one must keep away from a prohibited item to avoid accidentally using it?

讜讛转谞谉 诇讗 讬拽讜讘 讗讚诐 砖驻讜驻专转 砖诇 讘讬爪讛 讜讬诪诇讗谞讛 砖诪谉 讜讬转谞谞讛 讘爪讚 讛谞专 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讛讗 诪谞讟驻转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 砖诇 讞专住

But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: A person may not pierce a hole in an eggshell, and fill it with oil, and place it beside a lamp so that the egg will drip additional oil into the lamp and thereby extend the time that it burns? And this is the ruling even if it is not an actual egg but an earthenware tube, from which most people consider it unsuitable to drink. The concern is lest one forget and take the tube and use the oil for some other purpose, and violate the prohibition against extinguishing a flame on Shabbat.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诪专讗 讚砖讘转 诪讘讚诇 讘讚讬诇讬

And Rabbi Yehuda permits using a tube in that manner, as he is not concerned lest one remove it. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda does not issue a decree even with regard to an item from which people do not distance themselves, e.g., oil. The Gemara answers: There, due to the stringency of Shabbat, one distances himself, as on Shabbat one is careful to distance himself from a candle or anything placed alongside it.

讜专诪讬 讚砖讘转 讗砖讘转 讚转谞讬讗 讞讘诇 讚诇讬 砖谞驻住拽 诇讗 讬讛讗 拽讜砖专讜 讗诇讗 注讜谞讘讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讜专讱 注诇讬讜 驻讜谞讚讗 讗讜 驻住拽讬讗 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬注谞讘谞讜

And the Gemara raised a contradiction between this halakha of Shabbat and another halakha of Shabbat, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to the rope of a bucket that was severed on Shabbat, where one needs the rope to draw water from a well, he may not tie it with a regular knot, as by Torah law it is prohibited to tie a permanent knot. Rather, he may tie it into a bow. However, Rabbi Yehuda says: One may wrap a money belt [punda] around it or a sash [pesikya], provided that he does not tie it into a bow, lest he tie a proper knot.

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉

This presents a difficulty, as there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda, who permits placing a tube of oil beside the lamp, and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda, who prohibits tying a bow to reattach the severed rope of a bucket. There is likewise a difficulty between one statement of the Rabbis, who prohibit placing a tube of oil beside the lamp, and the other ruling of the Rabbis, where they permit tying a bow to reattach the severed rope of a bucket.

讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 砖诪谉 讘砖诪谉 诪讬讞诇祝 注谞讬讘讛 讘拽砖讬专讛 诇讗 诪讬讞诇祝

The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis is not difficult, as one usage of oil might be confused with another usage of oil. Given that it is permitted to use oil for other purposes, one is apt to utilize this oil as well. However, tying a bow will not be confused with the dissimilar tying of a knot. Consequently, the Rabbis do not issue a decree in that case.

讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讙讝专 注谞讬讘讛 讗讟讜 拽砖讬专讛 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 注谞讬讘讛 讙讜驻讛 拽砖讬专讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara continues: Likewise, the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is not because he issues a decree to prohibit tying a bow due to the prohibition against tying a knot. Rather, the reason is more fundamental, because Rabbi Yehuda maintains that a bow itself is a full-fledged knot. According to Rabbi Yehuda, tying a bow is included in the prohibition against tying a knot on Shabbat.

讜专诪讬 专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 讚转谞谉 拽讜砖专讬谉 讚诇讬 讘驻住拽讬讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讞讘诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讞讘诇 讚诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讞讘诇 讚注诇诪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 拽砖专 砖诇 拽讬讬诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讜讚讗讬 讗转讬 诇讘讟讜诇讬

And the Gemara raised a contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and another statement of the Rabbis, as we learned in a mishna: One may tie a bucket with a sash, to draw water from a well, but one may not do so with a rope, and Rabbi Yehuda permits the use of a rope. Before addressing the aforementioned contradiction, the Gemara asks: The mishna is referring to a rope of what kind? If you say it is referring to a standard rope, does Rabbi Yehuda permit tying a knot in this rope? It is a permanent knot, as in tying the rope to the bucket he certainly comes to negate any other use of the rope. He performs a primary category of prohibited labor by tying a permanent knot.

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讙专讚讬

Rather, it is obvious that the mishna is speaking about a rope used in the work of a weaver [gardi]. The legal status of this rope differs from that of an ordinary rope, as the weaver will certainly not leave his rope attached to a bucket and thereby negate any other use. Consequently, this knot is a temporary one.

讜讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 讞讘诇 讚讙专讚讬 讗讟讜 讞讘诇 讚注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讞讘诇 讘讞讘诇 诪讬讞诇祝 注谞讬讘讛 讘拽砖讬专讛 诇讗 诪讬讞诇驻讗

The Gemara asks: And did the Rabbis issue a decree prohibiting the rope of a weaver due to a standard rope but they did not issue a decree prohibiting a bow due to a knot? The Gemara explains: Yes, the Rabbis indeed issued a decree prohibiting the rope of a weaver, as one rope may be interchanged with another rope, leading one to mistakenly tie a knot with a different rope. However, a bow is not interchanged with a knot.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讘讚讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讗 讙讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讻讜专 砖讗讞讝讜 讚诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讜讗 诪转 讗讬谉 诪拽讬讝讬谉 诇讜 讚诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: And anywhere that one distances himself from the prohibition, does Rabbi Yehuda not issue a decree? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: What should one do if he has an unblemished firstborn kosher animal whose blood circulation is constricted, and it can be healed only through bloodletting? This situation is problematic, as an unblemished firstborn animal is consecrated, and wounding it is prohibited. Even if it dies due to this condition, one may not let its blood at all; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬拽讬讝 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讟讬诇 讘讜 诪讜诐 讛转诐 诪转讜讱 砖讗讚诐 讘讛讜诇

And the Rabbis say: One may let the animal鈥檚 blood, provided that he does not inflict a blemish on the firstborn animal. In this case Rabbi Yehuda issues a decree with regard to a firstborn animal, despite the fact that its use is generally prohibited and people distance themselves from consecrated items. The Gemara answers: There, in the case of a firstborn animal, since a person is agitated and anxious

注诇 诪诪讜谞讜 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬 砖专讬转 诇讬讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讘讜 诪讜诐 讗转讬 诇诪注讘讚 讘诪拽讜诐 砖注讜砖讬谉 讘讜 诪讜诐

about his property, as the priest who is watching the firstborn wants to slaughter it before it dies, as if it dies, eating it would be prohibited. Therefore, we say: If you permit him to let blood in a place that does not cause a blemish in the animal, he will come to do so in a place that causes a blemish in it, to save his animal.

讜专讘谞谉 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚讗讬 诇讗 砖专讬转 诇讬讛 讻诇诇 讗转讬 诇诪注讘讚

And the Rabbis respond that if that is the case, all the more so should it be permitted to let blood in a manner that will not cause a blemish, for if you do not permit him to take any steps to save the animal at all, he will come to act in a prohibited manner and cause a blemish. If there is a legitimate alternative, he will not cause a blemish in the firstborn.

讜诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚诐 讘讛讜诇 注诇 诪诪讜谞讜 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 (诪拽讚专讬谉) 讛讘讛诪讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讞讘讜专讛 讗讘诇 诪拽专爪驻讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪拽讚专讬谉 讗祝 讗讬谉 诪拽专爪驻讬谉

The Gemara challenges this explanation: And do we say that according to Rabbi Yehuda a person is agitated about his property? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: One may not scrape an animal on a Festival with a fine-tooth comb, because in doing so he inflicts a wound, which is prohibited on Festivals? However, one may scratch an animal with a wide-tooth comb, as this does not inflict a wound. And the Rabbis say: One may neither scrape nor even scratch, for if one were permitted to scratch an animal he might come to scrape it as well.

讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 拽讬讚讜专 讜讗讬讝讛讜 拽专爪讜祝 拽讬讚讜专 拽讟谞讬诐 讜注讜砖讬谉 讞讘讜专讛 拽专爪讜祝 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讞讘讜专讛

And it was taught in the Tosefta: What is scraping and what is scratching? Scraping is performed with a comb with small teeth and with which one inflicts a wound. Scratching is performed with a comb that has large teeth and with which one does not inflict a wound. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda does not issue a decree to prohibit scratching lest one come to scrape, even though he is agitated over his property.

讛转诐 讚讗讬 砖讘讬拽 诇讬讛 诪讬讬转 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讚诐 讘讛讜诇 注诇 诪诪讜谞讜 讛讻讗 讗讬 砖讘讬拽 诇讬讛 爪注专讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讚诐 讘讛讜诇 注诇 诪诪讜谞讜

The Gemara rejects this contention: There, with regard to a firstborn, it is different, for if he leaves it and does nothing the animal will die, and therefore we say that a person is agitated over his property. In his agitated state he will overlook the details of permitted and prohibited actions and violate a prohibition. Here, however, if he leaves his animal and does not comb it, it will merely suffer pain from the stinging insects. In that case we do not say that a person is agitated about his property.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 讞诪抓 讚讙讝专 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 拽专爪讜祝 讚诇讗 讙讝专 诇讞诐 讘诇讞诐 诪讬讞诇祝 拽讬讚讜专 讘拽专爪讜祝 诇讗 诪讬讞诇祝:

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda, what is different with regard to leavened bread that he issued a decree lest a person come to eat the prohibited food, and what is different with regard to scraping that he did not issue a comparable decree? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda maintains that unleavened bread might be interchanged with leavened bread, whereas scraping would not be interchanged with scratching. Since one uses a completely different utensil in the performance of the prohibited action, interchanging the two actions is unlikely.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讻诇 讞诪砖 讜砖讜专驻讬谉 讘转讞诇转 砖砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讻诇 讗专讘注 讜转讜诇讬谉 讻诇 讞诪砖 讜砖讜专驻讬谉 讘转讞诇转 砖砖

MISHNA: The tanna鈥檌m disagree regarding until what time leaven may be eaten and at what time it must be removed on Passover eve. Rabbi Meir says: One may eat leaven the entire fifth hour of the fourteenth of Nisan, and one must burn it immediately afterward at the beginning of the sixth hour. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may eat the entire fourth hour and one places it in abeyance for the entire fifth hour, and one burns it at the beginning of the sixth hour.

讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖转讬 讞诇讜转 砖诇 转讜讚讛 驻住讜诇讜转 诪讜谞讞讜转 注诇 讙讘 讛讗讬爪讟讘讗 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讜谞讞讜转 讻诇 讛注诐 讗讜讻诇讬谉 谞讬讟诇讛 讗讞转 转讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诇讗 砖讜专驻讬谉 谞讬讟诇讜 砖转讬讛谉 讛转讞讬诇讜 讻诇 讛注诐 砖讜专驻讬谉

And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: Two disqualified loaves of a thanks-offering are placed on the bench in the colonnade in the Temple as an indicator. There was a specially designated place for these loaves in the Temple. As long as the loaves are placed there, the entire nation continues to eat leaven. When one of the loaves was taken away, the people know that the time had come to place the leaven in abeyance, meaning that they neither eat nor burn their leaven. When they were both taken away, the entire nation began burning their leaven.

专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讞讜诇讬谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讻诇 讗专讘注 讜转专讜诪讛 讻诇 讞诪砖 讜砖讜专驻讬谉 讘转讞诇转 砖砖:

Rabban Gamliel says that the times are divided differently: Non-sacred foods are eaten the entire fourth hour, and teruma may be eaten during the entire fifth hour. Since it is a mitzva to eat teruma and burning it is prohibited, additional time was allocated for its consumption. And one burns all leaven including teruma at the beginning of the sixth hour.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘砖谞讬诐 讘讞讚砖 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘砖诇砖讛 注讚讜转谉 拽讬讬诪转

GEMARA: The Gemara seeks to draw a comparison between this dispute of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda and a dispute between them on a different topic. We learned in a mishna there: If one witness says that an incident occurred on the second day of the month and one other witness says that it happened on the third day of that month, their testimony is valid. This minor contradiction does not invalidate the testimony.

砖讝讛 讬讜讚注 讘注讘讜专讜 砖诇 讞讚砖 讜讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘注讘讜专讜 砖诇 讞讚砖

The mishna explains: The reason is that this witness knows about the addition of an extra day to the previous month. Since he knows that the court added a day to the previous month, which lasted thirty days, he testifies that the incident occurred on the second day of the month. And that witness does not know about the addition of an extra day to the previous month, and he therefore thinks that the incident in question occurred on the third of the month.

讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘砖诇砖讛 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘讞诪砖讛 注讚讜转谉 讘讟诇讛 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘砖转讬 砖注讜转 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘砖诇砖 砖注讜转 注讚讜转谉 拽讬讬诪转 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘砖诇砖 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘讞诪砖 注讚讜转谉 讘讟诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

If one says that the incident occurred on the third day of the month and one says it happened on the fifth, their testimony is void, as there is no way to rationalize this contradiction. Similarly, if one says the incident occurred at two hours of the day and one says it happened at three hours, their testimony is valid, as that discrepancy could be the result of the lack of precision. However, if one says it occurred at three hours and one says it took place at five hours, their testimony is void. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚讜转谉 拽讬讬诪转 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘讞诪砖 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘砖讘注 注讚讜转谉 讘讟诇讛 砖讘讞诪砖 讞诪讛 讘诪讝专讞 讜讘砖讘注 讞诪讛 讘诪注专讘

Rabbi Yehuda says: In the last case, their testimony is valid, as it could be that one is slightly mistaken. However, if one says it happened at five hours and one says at seven hours, everyone agrees that their testimony is void. That is a clear contradiction that cannot be rationalized as a miscalculation, as at five hours of the day the sun is in the east, and at seven hours the sun is already in the west. It is impossible to confuse the fifth hour with the seventh.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻砖转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讟讜注讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚诐 讟讜注讛 讞爪讬 砖注讛 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讟讜注讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 诪注砖讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 讘诪讬驻拽 转专转讬 讜诪注讬讬诇 转诇转 讜讛讗 讚拽讗诪专 砖转讬诐 讘住讜祝 砖转讬诐 讜讛讗 讚拽讗诪专 砖诇砖 讘转讞诇转 砖诇砖

Abaye said: When analyzing the matter, you will find that you can say that according to the statement of Rabbi Meir a person does not err at all, as Rabbi Meir assumes that people know the exact time of day. According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda a person errs up to half an hour. Abaye elaborates: According to the statement of Rabbi Meir, a person does not err at all, and the reason that in the case where one says two hours and one says three the testimony is valid is that the incident actually occurred as the second hour ended and the third hour began. And when this witness said it happened in the second hour he was referring to the end of the second hour. When that witness said the third hour he was referring to the beginning of the third hour. It is possible that both witnesses spoke the truth.

诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚诐 讟讜注讛 讞爪讬 砖注讛 诪注砖讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 讘驻诇讙讗 讚讗专讘注 讛讜讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 砖诇砖 讘住讜祝 砖诇砖 讜拽讟注讬 驻诇讙讗 讚砖注转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 讞诪砖 讘转讞诇转 讞诪砖 讜拽讟注讬 驻诇讙讗 讚砖注转讗 诇讗讞讜专讬讛

Abaye continues his explanation: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, a person errs by half an hour, as when the incident occurred, it occurred at the midpoint of the fourth hour, at three and a half hours of the day. And this witness, who says three hours, means the end of the third hour, and he errs by saying that it occurred half an hour before the incident actually occurred. And that witness, who says five hours, means the beginning of the fifth hour, i.e., the end of the fourth hour, and he errs by saying that it occurred half an hour after the incident actually occurred. Since it is possible that their testimonies do not conflict, their testimony is valid.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻砖转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讚诐 讟讜注讛 诪砖讛讜 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚诐 讟讜注讛 砖注讛 讜诪砖讛讜 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讚诐 讟讜注讛 诪砖讛讜 诪注砖讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 讗讜 讘住讜祝 砖转讬诐 讛讜讛 讗讜 讘转讞诇转 砖诇砖 讜讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讟讜注讛 诪砖讛讜 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚诐 讟讜注讛 砖注讛 讜诪砖讛讜 诪注砖讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 讗讜 讘住讜祝 砖诇砖 讗讜 讘转讞诇转 讞诪砖

Some say a different version of this statement. Abaye said: When analyzing the matter, you will find that you can say that according to Rabbi Meir a person errs a bit, and according to Rabbi Yehuda a person errs by an hour and a bit. Abaye elaborates: According to Rabbi Meir, a person errs a bit, as when the incident occurred, it occurred either at the end of the second hour or at the beginning of the third hour, and one of the two witnesses errs a bit. According to Rabbi Yehuda, a person errs by an hour and a bit, as when the incident occurred, it occurred either at the end of the third hour or at the beginning of the fifth hour,

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 11-17 Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we are going to learn the laws of eating leavened bread on the 14th of Nisan, Erev Pesach....
Tuma and Tahara - and intoduction

Tuma & Tahara: an Introduction

General Introduction to Tuma/Tahara Tuma/Tahara is a chok 鈥 not related to hygiene or ability to use the object/person. Usually...
talking talmud_square

Pesachim 11: Gaps in Time

The previous daf focuses on the time for Bedikat Chametz. On this daf, we delve into some of the rationale...
roman sundial turkey

Time is Flowing Like a River

Mishnah Pesachim 1:4-5 鈥漅abbi Meir says: one may eat [chametz] the whole of the five [hours] and must burn [it]...

Pesachim 11 – To Forbid or Not to Forbid?

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 11 – To Forbid or Not to Forbid?

砖诇讗 讘专爪讜谉 讞讻诪讬诐 (讛谉 注讜砖讬谉) 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘专爪讜谉 讞讻诪讬诐 讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 讜诇讗 拽讗 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 讗诪专 专讘讗 砖讗谞讬 讞讚砖 诪转讜讱 砖诇讗 讛转专转 诇讜 讗诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 拽讟讜祝 讛讜讗 讝讻讜专

However, with regard to those people who harvest the crop before the omer is sacrificed, they act contrary to the will of the Sages. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The concern is that while working with the grain they might come to eat from it, despite the fact that it is still prohibited. Rabbi Yehuda says: They act in accordance with the will of the Sages. And in that case, Rabbi Yehuda did not issue a decree lest one eat from it. Why, then, does he issue a decree with regard to leaven? Rava said that the prohibition of new grain is different: Since before the omer you permitted one to harvest the crop only by picking it by hand and may not harvest it in the typical manner, he will remember the prohibition and refrain from eating it. That is not the case with regard to leaven.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 转讬谞讞 讘砖注转 拽讟讬驻讛 讟讞讬谞讛 讜讛专拽讚讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讟讞讬谞讛 讘专讞讬讗 讚讬讚 讛专拽讚讛 注诇 讙讘讬 谞驻讛

Abaye said to him: This works out well in explaining Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion with regard to the time when one is picking the grain; however, with regard to the time of grinding and sifting, what can be said? Apparently, it is permitted to perform these acts in a typical manner. Why, then, is there no concern lest one eat the grain at that stage? The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as one also performs grinding in an atypical manner. One must grind the grain before the sacrificing of the omer with a hand mill, not with a mill powered by an animal or by water. Likewise, sifting is performed atypically, not in the interior of the sifter. Instead, it is performed on top of the sifter. Since all of these actions are performed in an atypical manner, there is no concern lest he come to eat the grain.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 拽讜爪专讬谉 讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬诐 讜砖讘注诪拽讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讙讜讚砖讬谉 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara raises another difficulty: However, with regard to that which we learned in a mishna: One may harvest grain from a field that requires irrigation and from fields in the valleys, as their grain ripens long before the omer is sacrificed, but one may not pile the produce, and the Gemara adds: And we established that this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; what can be said? The use of the term: One may harvest, in this mishna indicates that the grain was harvested in a typical manner, not by hand.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讞讚砖 讘讚讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讞诪抓 诇讗 讘讚讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛

Rather, Abaye said: This difference between the cases of the omer and leaven is not based on the manner in which one harvests, grinds, or sifts. Instead, the reason for the different rulings is that from new grain, one distances himself, as it is prohibited to eat the new grain all year until the omer is offered. But from leavened bread one does not distance himself, as it is permitted during the rest of the year. Therefore, he is more likely to unwittingly eat leaven.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗

Rava said: Is the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda difficult, while the contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis is not difficult? There is also an apparent contradiction between the opinion of the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Meir, who rule that the Sages issued a decree with regard to new grain but did not issue a decree with regard to leaven.

讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讚砖谞讬谞谉 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 诪讞讝专 注诇讬讜 诇砖讜专驻讜 诪讬讻诇 拽讗讻讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛

Rava explains as follows: The contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as we resolved it above. The contradiction between one ruling of the Rabbis and the other ruling of the Rabbis is also not difficult: The Rabbis maintain that there is no need to issue a decree prohibiting searching for leaven after leaven is prohibited, as, with regard to one who himself is seeking out leaven to burn it, will he eat from that leaven? However, in the case of new grain, he is processing the grain, preparing it for consumption. Therefore, the concern is that he will come to eat it unwittingly.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 拽诪讞 讜拽诇讬 转谞谉

Rav Ashi said: The contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as the difficulty can be resolved in an alternative manner, as we learned in the mishna that the markets of Jerusalem were filled with flour and toasted grain. It is permitted to prepare only these foods before the omer, as they will not be eaten without further preparation. Therefore, there is no concern lest one eat it unwittingly before the omer offering is sacrificed.

讛讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讘讚讜转讗 讛讬讗 讛转讬谞讞 诪拽诇讬 讜讗讬诇讱 诪注讬拽专讗 注讚 拽诇讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara rejects this interpretation: That statement of Rav Ashi is a mistake, as this suggestion can easily be refuted. That works out well with regard to the status of the grain from the point that the grain was processed into flour or toasted grain and forward, as there is no concern lest one come to eat it. However, with regard to its status initially until it became toasted grain, what can be said? There must have been a certain point when the grain kernels were edible before they were transformed into toasted grain. Why is there no concern that one might come to eat the grain at this earlier stage?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 注诇 讬讚讬 拽讬讟讜祝 讻讚专讘讗 讗诇讗 拽讜爪专讬谉 讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 讜砖讘注诪拽讬诐 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讘讚讜转讗 讛讬讗

And lest you say that the grain is distinguished by the atypical manner in which it is harvested, in accordance with the earlier statement of Rava, but with regard to the difficulty raised to Rava鈥檚 opinion that one may harvest a field that requires irrigation and a field that is in the valleys in the typical manner and we established that statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, what can be said? Rather, the Gemara rejects this explanation and concludes that Rav Ashi鈥檚 statement is a mistake.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讘讚讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬 讙讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The above conclusion was that Rabbi Yehuda distinguishes between prohibitions involving substances from which people regularly separate themselves and prohibitions involving substances from which people are not used to keeping their distance. The Gemara asks: And anywhere that one does not distance himself from a prohibition, does Rabbi Yehuda issue a decree that one must keep away from a prohibited item to avoid accidentally using it?

讜讛转谞谉 诇讗 讬拽讜讘 讗讚诐 砖驻讜驻专转 砖诇 讘讬爪讛 讜讬诪诇讗谞讛 砖诪谉 讜讬转谞谞讛 讘爪讚 讛谞专 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讛讗 诪谞讟驻转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 砖诇 讞专住

But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: A person may not pierce a hole in an eggshell, and fill it with oil, and place it beside a lamp so that the egg will drip additional oil into the lamp and thereby extend the time that it burns? And this is the ruling even if it is not an actual egg but an earthenware tube, from which most people consider it unsuitable to drink. The concern is lest one forget and take the tube and use the oil for some other purpose, and violate the prohibition against extinguishing a flame on Shabbat.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诪专讗 讚砖讘转 诪讘讚诇 讘讚讬诇讬

And Rabbi Yehuda permits using a tube in that manner, as he is not concerned lest one remove it. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda does not issue a decree even with regard to an item from which people do not distance themselves, e.g., oil. The Gemara answers: There, due to the stringency of Shabbat, one distances himself, as on Shabbat one is careful to distance himself from a candle or anything placed alongside it.

讜专诪讬 讚砖讘转 讗砖讘转 讚转谞讬讗 讞讘诇 讚诇讬 砖谞驻住拽 诇讗 讬讛讗 拽讜砖专讜 讗诇讗 注讜谞讘讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讜专讱 注诇讬讜 驻讜谞讚讗 讗讜 驻住拽讬讗 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬注谞讘谞讜

And the Gemara raised a contradiction between this halakha of Shabbat and another halakha of Shabbat, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to the rope of a bucket that was severed on Shabbat, where one needs the rope to draw water from a well, he may not tie it with a regular knot, as by Torah law it is prohibited to tie a permanent knot. Rather, he may tie it into a bow. However, Rabbi Yehuda says: One may wrap a money belt [punda] around it or a sash [pesikya], provided that he does not tie it into a bow, lest he tie a proper knot.

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉

This presents a difficulty, as there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda, who permits placing a tube of oil beside the lamp, and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda, who prohibits tying a bow to reattach the severed rope of a bucket. There is likewise a difficulty between one statement of the Rabbis, who prohibit placing a tube of oil beside the lamp, and the other ruling of the Rabbis, where they permit tying a bow to reattach the severed rope of a bucket.

讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 砖诪谉 讘砖诪谉 诪讬讞诇祝 注谞讬讘讛 讘拽砖讬专讛 诇讗 诪讬讞诇祝

The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis is not difficult, as one usage of oil might be confused with another usage of oil. Given that it is permitted to use oil for other purposes, one is apt to utilize this oil as well. However, tying a bow will not be confused with the dissimilar tying of a knot. Consequently, the Rabbis do not issue a decree in that case.

讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讙讝专 注谞讬讘讛 讗讟讜 拽砖讬专讛 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 注谞讬讘讛 讙讜驻讛 拽砖讬专讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara continues: Likewise, the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is not because he issues a decree to prohibit tying a bow due to the prohibition against tying a knot. Rather, the reason is more fundamental, because Rabbi Yehuda maintains that a bow itself is a full-fledged knot. According to Rabbi Yehuda, tying a bow is included in the prohibition against tying a knot on Shabbat.

讜专诪讬 专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 讚转谞谉 拽讜砖专讬谉 讚诇讬 讘驻住拽讬讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讞讘诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讞讘诇 讚诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讞讘诇 讚注诇诪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 拽砖专 砖诇 拽讬讬诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讜讚讗讬 讗转讬 诇讘讟讜诇讬

And the Gemara raised a contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and another statement of the Rabbis, as we learned in a mishna: One may tie a bucket with a sash, to draw water from a well, but one may not do so with a rope, and Rabbi Yehuda permits the use of a rope. Before addressing the aforementioned contradiction, the Gemara asks: The mishna is referring to a rope of what kind? If you say it is referring to a standard rope, does Rabbi Yehuda permit tying a knot in this rope? It is a permanent knot, as in tying the rope to the bucket he certainly comes to negate any other use of the rope. He performs a primary category of prohibited labor by tying a permanent knot.

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讙专讚讬

Rather, it is obvious that the mishna is speaking about a rope used in the work of a weaver [gardi]. The legal status of this rope differs from that of an ordinary rope, as the weaver will certainly not leave his rope attached to a bucket and thereby negate any other use. Consequently, this knot is a temporary one.

讜讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 讞讘诇 讚讙专讚讬 讗讟讜 讞讘诇 讚注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讞讘诇 讘讞讘诇 诪讬讞诇祝 注谞讬讘讛 讘拽砖讬专讛 诇讗 诪讬讞诇驻讗

The Gemara asks: And did the Rabbis issue a decree prohibiting the rope of a weaver due to a standard rope but they did not issue a decree prohibiting a bow due to a knot? The Gemara explains: Yes, the Rabbis indeed issued a decree prohibiting the rope of a weaver, as one rope may be interchanged with another rope, leading one to mistakenly tie a knot with a different rope. However, a bow is not interchanged with a knot.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讘讚讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讗 讙讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讻讜专 砖讗讞讝讜 讚诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讜讗 诪转 讗讬谉 诪拽讬讝讬谉 诇讜 讚诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: And anywhere that one distances himself from the prohibition, does Rabbi Yehuda not issue a decree? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: What should one do if he has an unblemished firstborn kosher animal whose blood circulation is constricted, and it can be healed only through bloodletting? This situation is problematic, as an unblemished firstborn animal is consecrated, and wounding it is prohibited. Even if it dies due to this condition, one may not let its blood at all; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬拽讬讝 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讟讬诇 讘讜 诪讜诐 讛转诐 诪转讜讱 砖讗讚诐 讘讛讜诇

And the Rabbis say: One may let the animal鈥檚 blood, provided that he does not inflict a blemish on the firstborn animal. In this case Rabbi Yehuda issues a decree with regard to a firstborn animal, despite the fact that its use is generally prohibited and people distance themselves from consecrated items. The Gemara answers: There, in the case of a firstborn animal, since a person is agitated and anxious

注诇 诪诪讜谞讜 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬 砖专讬转 诇讬讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讘讜 诪讜诐 讗转讬 诇诪注讘讚 讘诪拽讜诐 砖注讜砖讬谉 讘讜 诪讜诐

about his property, as the priest who is watching the firstborn wants to slaughter it before it dies, as if it dies, eating it would be prohibited. Therefore, we say: If you permit him to let blood in a place that does not cause a blemish in the animal, he will come to do so in a place that causes a blemish in it, to save his animal.

讜专讘谞谉 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚讗讬 诇讗 砖专讬转 诇讬讛 讻诇诇 讗转讬 诇诪注讘讚

And the Rabbis respond that if that is the case, all the more so should it be permitted to let blood in a manner that will not cause a blemish, for if you do not permit him to take any steps to save the animal at all, he will come to act in a prohibited manner and cause a blemish. If there is a legitimate alternative, he will not cause a blemish in the firstborn.

讜诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚诐 讘讛讜诇 注诇 诪诪讜谞讜 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 (诪拽讚专讬谉) 讛讘讛诪讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讞讘讜专讛 讗讘诇 诪拽专爪驻讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪拽讚专讬谉 讗祝 讗讬谉 诪拽专爪驻讬谉

The Gemara challenges this explanation: And do we say that according to Rabbi Yehuda a person is agitated about his property? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: One may not scrape an animal on a Festival with a fine-tooth comb, because in doing so he inflicts a wound, which is prohibited on Festivals? However, one may scratch an animal with a wide-tooth comb, as this does not inflict a wound. And the Rabbis say: One may neither scrape nor even scratch, for if one were permitted to scratch an animal he might come to scrape it as well.

讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 拽讬讚讜专 讜讗讬讝讛讜 拽专爪讜祝 拽讬讚讜专 拽讟谞讬诐 讜注讜砖讬谉 讞讘讜专讛 拽专爪讜祝 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讞讘讜专讛

And it was taught in the Tosefta: What is scraping and what is scratching? Scraping is performed with a comb with small teeth and with which one inflicts a wound. Scratching is performed with a comb that has large teeth and with which one does not inflict a wound. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda does not issue a decree to prohibit scratching lest one come to scrape, even though he is agitated over his property.

讛转诐 讚讗讬 砖讘讬拽 诇讬讛 诪讬讬转 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讚诐 讘讛讜诇 注诇 诪诪讜谞讜 讛讻讗 讗讬 砖讘讬拽 诇讬讛 爪注专讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讚诐 讘讛讜诇 注诇 诪诪讜谞讜

The Gemara rejects this contention: There, with regard to a firstborn, it is different, for if he leaves it and does nothing the animal will die, and therefore we say that a person is agitated over his property. In his agitated state he will overlook the details of permitted and prohibited actions and violate a prohibition. Here, however, if he leaves his animal and does not comb it, it will merely suffer pain from the stinging insects. In that case we do not say that a person is agitated about his property.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 讞诪抓 讚讙讝专 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 拽专爪讜祝 讚诇讗 讙讝专 诇讞诐 讘诇讞诐 诪讬讞诇祝 拽讬讚讜专 讘拽专爪讜祝 诇讗 诪讬讞诇祝:

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda, what is different with regard to leavened bread that he issued a decree lest a person come to eat the prohibited food, and what is different with regard to scraping that he did not issue a comparable decree? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda maintains that unleavened bread might be interchanged with leavened bread, whereas scraping would not be interchanged with scratching. Since one uses a completely different utensil in the performance of the prohibited action, interchanging the two actions is unlikely.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讻诇 讞诪砖 讜砖讜专驻讬谉 讘转讞诇转 砖砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讻诇 讗专讘注 讜转讜诇讬谉 讻诇 讞诪砖 讜砖讜专驻讬谉 讘转讞诇转 砖砖

MISHNA: The tanna鈥檌m disagree regarding until what time leaven may be eaten and at what time it must be removed on Passover eve. Rabbi Meir says: One may eat leaven the entire fifth hour of the fourteenth of Nisan, and one must burn it immediately afterward at the beginning of the sixth hour. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may eat the entire fourth hour and one places it in abeyance for the entire fifth hour, and one burns it at the beginning of the sixth hour.

讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖转讬 讞诇讜转 砖诇 转讜讚讛 驻住讜诇讜转 诪讜谞讞讜转 注诇 讙讘 讛讗讬爪讟讘讗 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讜谞讞讜转 讻诇 讛注诐 讗讜讻诇讬谉 谞讬讟诇讛 讗讞转 转讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诇讗 砖讜专驻讬谉 谞讬讟诇讜 砖转讬讛谉 讛转讞讬诇讜 讻诇 讛注诐 砖讜专驻讬谉

And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: Two disqualified loaves of a thanks-offering are placed on the bench in the colonnade in the Temple as an indicator. There was a specially designated place for these loaves in the Temple. As long as the loaves are placed there, the entire nation continues to eat leaven. When one of the loaves was taken away, the people know that the time had come to place the leaven in abeyance, meaning that they neither eat nor burn their leaven. When they were both taken away, the entire nation began burning their leaven.

专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讞讜诇讬谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讻诇 讗专讘注 讜转专讜诪讛 讻诇 讞诪砖 讜砖讜专驻讬谉 讘转讞诇转 砖砖:

Rabban Gamliel says that the times are divided differently: Non-sacred foods are eaten the entire fourth hour, and teruma may be eaten during the entire fifth hour. Since it is a mitzva to eat teruma and burning it is prohibited, additional time was allocated for its consumption. And one burns all leaven including teruma at the beginning of the sixth hour.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘砖谞讬诐 讘讞讚砖 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘砖诇砖讛 注讚讜转谉 拽讬讬诪转

GEMARA: The Gemara seeks to draw a comparison between this dispute of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda and a dispute between them on a different topic. We learned in a mishna there: If one witness says that an incident occurred on the second day of the month and one other witness says that it happened on the third day of that month, their testimony is valid. This minor contradiction does not invalidate the testimony.

砖讝讛 讬讜讚注 讘注讘讜专讜 砖诇 讞讚砖 讜讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘注讘讜专讜 砖诇 讞讚砖

The mishna explains: The reason is that this witness knows about the addition of an extra day to the previous month. Since he knows that the court added a day to the previous month, which lasted thirty days, he testifies that the incident occurred on the second day of the month. And that witness does not know about the addition of an extra day to the previous month, and he therefore thinks that the incident in question occurred on the third of the month.

讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘砖诇砖讛 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘讞诪砖讛 注讚讜转谉 讘讟诇讛 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘砖转讬 砖注讜转 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘砖诇砖 砖注讜转 注讚讜转谉 拽讬讬诪转 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘砖诇砖 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘讞诪砖 注讚讜转谉 讘讟诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

If one says that the incident occurred on the third day of the month and one says it happened on the fifth, their testimony is void, as there is no way to rationalize this contradiction. Similarly, if one says the incident occurred at two hours of the day and one says it happened at three hours, their testimony is valid, as that discrepancy could be the result of the lack of precision. However, if one says it occurred at three hours and one says it took place at five hours, their testimony is void. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚讜转谉 拽讬讬诪转 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘讞诪砖 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘砖讘注 注讚讜转谉 讘讟诇讛 砖讘讞诪砖 讞诪讛 讘诪讝专讞 讜讘砖讘注 讞诪讛 讘诪注专讘

Rabbi Yehuda says: In the last case, their testimony is valid, as it could be that one is slightly mistaken. However, if one says it happened at five hours and one says at seven hours, everyone agrees that their testimony is void. That is a clear contradiction that cannot be rationalized as a miscalculation, as at five hours of the day the sun is in the east, and at seven hours the sun is already in the west. It is impossible to confuse the fifth hour with the seventh.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻砖转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讟讜注讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚诐 讟讜注讛 讞爪讬 砖注讛 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讟讜注讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 诪注砖讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 讘诪讬驻拽 转专转讬 讜诪注讬讬诇 转诇转 讜讛讗 讚拽讗诪专 砖转讬诐 讘住讜祝 砖转讬诐 讜讛讗 讚拽讗诪专 砖诇砖 讘转讞诇转 砖诇砖

Abaye said: When analyzing the matter, you will find that you can say that according to the statement of Rabbi Meir a person does not err at all, as Rabbi Meir assumes that people know the exact time of day. According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda a person errs up to half an hour. Abaye elaborates: According to the statement of Rabbi Meir, a person does not err at all, and the reason that in the case where one says two hours and one says three the testimony is valid is that the incident actually occurred as the second hour ended and the third hour began. And when this witness said it happened in the second hour he was referring to the end of the second hour. When that witness said the third hour he was referring to the beginning of the third hour. It is possible that both witnesses spoke the truth.

诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚诐 讟讜注讛 讞爪讬 砖注讛 诪注砖讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 讘驻诇讙讗 讚讗专讘注 讛讜讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 砖诇砖 讘住讜祝 砖诇砖 讜拽讟注讬 驻诇讙讗 讚砖注转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 讞诪砖 讘转讞诇转 讞诪砖 讜拽讟注讬 驻诇讙讗 讚砖注转讗 诇讗讞讜专讬讛

Abaye continues his explanation: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, a person errs by half an hour, as when the incident occurred, it occurred at the midpoint of the fourth hour, at three and a half hours of the day. And this witness, who says three hours, means the end of the third hour, and he errs by saying that it occurred half an hour before the incident actually occurred. And that witness, who says five hours, means the beginning of the fifth hour, i.e., the end of the fourth hour, and he errs by saying that it occurred half an hour after the incident actually occurred. Since it is possible that their testimonies do not conflict, their testimony is valid.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻砖转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讚诐 讟讜注讛 诪砖讛讜 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚诐 讟讜注讛 砖注讛 讜诪砖讛讜 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讚诐 讟讜注讛 诪砖讛讜 诪注砖讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 讗讜 讘住讜祝 砖转讬诐 讛讜讛 讗讜 讘转讞诇转 砖诇砖 讜讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讟讜注讛 诪砖讛讜 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚诐 讟讜注讛 砖注讛 讜诪砖讛讜 诪注砖讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 讗讜 讘住讜祝 砖诇砖 讗讜 讘转讞诇转 讞诪砖

Some say a different version of this statement. Abaye said: When analyzing the matter, you will find that you can say that according to Rabbi Meir a person errs a bit, and according to Rabbi Yehuda a person errs by an hour and a bit. Abaye elaborates: According to Rabbi Meir, a person errs a bit, as when the incident occurred, it occurred either at the end of the second hour or at the beginning of the third hour, and one of the two witnesses errs a bit. According to Rabbi Yehuda, a person errs by an hour and a bit, as when the incident occurred, it occurred either at the end of the third hour or at the beginning of the fifth hour,

Scroll To Top