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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 26, 2020 | 讬壮 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 5

This next week of learning is dedicated in memory of Major Itai Zayden and Corporal Lihu ben-Bassa who were tragically killed in a plane crash in the course of training on Tuesday. Our hearts go out to their families.
Today’s daf is dedicated by Silke Goldberg in memory of her mother Leoni Kimmel z鈥漧 who was an amazing teacher and whose first yahrzeit has just passed. And by Peninah Lamm in honor of Tina and Shalom Lamm and Dodi Lamm who finished Masechet Eruvin! From the Elm Street Lamms. And by Victor and Caroline Ofstein and Abi and Jonty Blackman in honor of their mum Lyn Fisher – on her birthday today – may she have continued good health and happiness 注讚 120, and in honor of the respective 20 and 40-year yahrzeits of her dear parents, our grandparents, Edna and Harry Isaacs. May our learning be in their zchut and may their neshamot have an aliya. And by Shulamith and Joel Cohn for a refuah shleima for Tova Mattel bat Chana Ettel.聽
From where do we derive that it is forbidden to eat chametz on erev Pesach and from midday? What is included and what is excluded from the prohibition against “seeing chametz” and “finding chametz”? How is this derived from the verses?

 

讚讛讗 讗讬转拽砖 讛砖讘转转 砖讗讜专 诇讗讻讬诇转 讞诪抓 讜讗讻讬诇转 讞诪抓 诇讗讻讬诇转 诪爪讛

The time for the removal of leaven is juxtaposed to the time when the eating of leavened bread is prohibited. When the prohibition against eating leaven goes into effect, the obligation to remove leaven is in effect as well. And furthermore, the time of the prohibition against the eating of leavened bread is juxtaposed to the time for the eating of matza, as its prohibition takes effect from the time that the mitzva to eat matza takes effect.

讛砖讘转转 砖讗讜专 诇讗讻讬诇转 讞诪抓 讚讻转讬讘 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 砖讗专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讘讘转讬讻诐 讻讬 讻诇 讗讻诇 诪讞诪爪转 讜谞讻专转讛

The Gemara elaborates: The removal of leaven is juxtaposed to the eating of leavened bread, as they appear in the same verse, as it is written: 鈥淪even days leaven shall not be found in your houses, as anyone who eats that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel鈥 (Exodus 12:19).

讜讗讻讬诇转 讞诪抓 诇讗讻讬诇转 诪爪讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 诪讞诪爪转 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘转讬讻诐 转讗讻诇讜 诪爪讜转 (讜讙讜壮) 讜讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讘诪爪讛 讘注专讘 转讗讻诇讜 诪爪讜转

And the prohibition against the eating of leavened bread is juxtaposed to the eating of matza, as both appear in the same verse, as it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not eat anything that is leavened; in all of your dwellings you shall eat matzot, etc.鈥 (Exodus 12:20), and it is written with regard to matza: 鈥淥n the first day, on the fourteenth day in the evening you shall eat matzot (Exodus 12:18). Since the halakha that leaven is prohibited on the first night of Passover is derived from this source, there is no need for an additional derivation.

讜讗讬诪讗 诇专讘讜转 诇讬诇 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 诇讘讬注讜专 讘讬讜诐 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: And say that the verse: 鈥淵et on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses鈥 comes to include the night of the fourteenth in the obligation to remove leaven, which would mean that one must remove all leaven from his house on the night of the fourteenth. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: That is not possible, as 鈥渙n the day鈥 is written.

讜讗讬诪讗 诪爪驻专讗 讗讱 讞诇拽

The Gemara continues to ask: And say that leaven must be removed immediately from the morning of the fourteenth. The Gemara answers: That is also incorrect, as the verse says, 鈥淵et on the first day鈥; and the word yet divides. The connotation of the word yet is one of restriction. In this context, it teaches that leaven is prohibited not for the entire day, but only for part of it. One is obligated to remove leaven only for the second half of the fourteenth of Nisan, not for the first half of the day.

讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 砖谞拽专讗 专讗砖讜谉 砖谞讗诪专 讘专讗砖讜谉 讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讬讜诐 诇讞讚砖 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讗砖讜谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诪砖诪注 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讛专讗砖讜谉 讗讚诐 转讜诇讚

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: We found that the fourteenth day is called: First, as it is stated: 鈥淥n harishon, on the fourteenth day of the month鈥 (Exodus 12:18). Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: It is evident from the verse itself that it is referring to the removal of leaven on the fourteenth, as rishon means previous. In this context, first means the day that precedes the others, i.e., the day before the Festival begins, as the verse stated: 鈥淎re you first [rishon] man born? Or were you brought forth before the hills?鈥 (Job 15:7). Based on the parallelism between the two parts of the verse, the word rishon here means before; the one preceding all others.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讜诇拽讞转诐 诇讻诐 讘讬讜诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 专讗砖讜谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诪砖诪注

The Gemara asks: But if that is so, consider a verse written with regard to Sukkot: 鈥淎nd you shall take for yourselves on the first [harishon] day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of palm trees, and boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook鈥 (Leviticus 23:40). So too, in this case, does harishon mean the day previous to the Festival? Clearly, one is not obligated to take the four species on the fourteenth of Tishrei, the eve of Sukkot.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诪讞转诐 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讻诐 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 诪讛 砖讘讬注讬 砖讘讬注讬 诇讞讙 讗祝 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 诇讞讙

The Gemara rejects this contention. There it is different, as it is written immediately thereafter: 鈥淎nd you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days鈥 (Leviticus 23:40). Just as the seventh of these seven days is the seventh day of the Festival, so too, the first of these days is the first day of the Festival itself, not the day before Sukkot. However, where it is not explicitly stated, rishon means the day before the Festival.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 讗讱 讘讬讜诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 转砖讘讬转讜 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 诪爪讜转 转讗讻诇讜 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 拽专讗 专讗砖讜谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讻讚讗诪专谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty. Here too, it is written with regard to Passover: 鈥淵et on the first [harishon] day you shall remove leaven from your houses鈥; 鈥渇or seven days you shall eat matza (Exodus 12:15). Just as seventh here is referring to the seventh day of the Festival, so too, rishon must refer to the first day of the Festival. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse write rishon; why do I need the addition of the definite article, harishon? Learn from it, as we said: Harishon means the day before the Festival.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 讜转讜 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讜诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖讘转讜谉 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖诪讬谞讬 砖讘转讜谉 讗讬诪专 专讗砖讜谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诪砖诪注 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖诪讬谞讬 砖讘转讜谉 诪讛 砖诪讬谞讬 砖诪讬谞讬 讚讞讙 讗祝 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讚讞讙

The Gemara raises an objection: If so, there too, with regard to Sukkot, why do I need the verse to say harishon? And furthermore, there it is written: 鈥淥n the first [harishon] day a solemn rest and on the eighth day a solemn rest鈥 (Leviticus 23:39). Here too, say that first means previous, the day preceding the Festival. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: It is different there, as the verse said: 鈥淎nd on the eighth day a solemn rest,鈥 from which it can be inferred that just as the eighth means the eighth day of the Festival, so too, rishon is referring to the first day of the Festival.

讛专讗砖讜谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 诪专讗砖讜谉 讜砖诪讬谞讬 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara repeats its earlier question: Why do I need the verse to say harishon? The Gemara answers: The definite article comes to exclude the intermediate days of the Festival. It is not prohibited to perform labor on these days, as the full-fledged sanctity of the Festival does not apply to them. The Gemara says: The status of the intermediate days is derived from the words first and eighth. The fact that the verse mentions only the first and the eighth days as Festivals clearly indicates that the days between them are not Festivals.

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖诪讬谞讬 讜讬讜 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, a special verse was necessary to exclude the intermediate Festival days, as otherwise it could enter your mind to say that since the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎nd on the eighth day,鈥 the principle: The letter vav adds to the previous matter, applies. When a phrase begins with the conjunction vav, meaning and, it is a continuation of the previous matter rather than a new topic. Based on this principle, I might have said that one must treat even the intermediate days as full-fledged Festival days. Therefore, the definite article teaches us not that this is not so.

讜诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讜讬讜 讜诇讗 讛讗 讜转讜 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讜诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 诪拽专讗 拽讚砖 讬讛讬讛 诇讻诐 专讗砖讜谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诪砖诪注

The Gemara asks: And let the Merciful One write in the Torah neither the conjunction vav nor the definite article heh. Since they neutralize each other, as explained above, the same result could have been achieved by omitting both. And furthermore, there, in its description of Passover, it is written: 鈥淥n the first [harishon] day you shall have a sacred convocation; you shall do no servile work鈥 (Leviticus 23:7). Does first mean previous, the day preceding the Festival, in this case too? Labor is permitted on the eve of the Festival.

讗诇讗 讛谞讬 砖诇砖讛 专讗砖讜谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘砖讻专 砖诇砖讛 专讗砖讜谉 讝讻讜 诇砖诇砖讛 专讗砖讜谉 诇讛讻专讬转 讝专注讜 砖诇 注砖讜 诇讘谞讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讜诇砖诪讜 砖诇 诪砖讬讞

Rather, the Gemara explains that those three times the word rishon is mentioned with regard to the Festivals are necessary for that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: In reward for the three times the word rishon is stated with regard to the Festivals observed by the Jewish people, they were entitled to three matters also referred to as rishon: To eradicate the descendants of Esau, to the construction of the Temple, and to the name of Messiah.

诇讛讻专讬转 讝专注讜 砖诇 注砖讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬爪讗 讛专讗砖讜谉 讗讚诪讜谞讬 讻诇讜 讻讗讚专转 砖注专 讜诇讘谞讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讚讻转讬讘 讻住讗 讻讘讜讚 诪专讜诐 诪专讗砖讜谉 诪拽讜诐 诪拽讚砖谞讜 讜诇砖诪讜 砖诇 诪砖讬讞 讚讻转讬讘 专讗砖讜谉 诇爪讬讜谉 讛谞讛 讛谞诐

The tanna provides the sources for his statement. To eradicate the descendants of Esau, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the first [harishon] came forth red, all over like a hairy mantle; and they called his name Esau鈥 (Genesis 25:25). And to the construction of the Temple, as it is written: 鈥淭he Throne of Glory, on High from the beginning [merishon], the place of our Temple鈥 (Jeremiah 17:12). And the Jewish people were also entitled to the name of Messiah, as it is written: 鈥淎 harbinger [rishon] to Zion I will give: Behold, behold them; and to Jerusalem a messenger of good tidings鈥 (Isaiah 41:27). However, harishon stated with regard to Passover is referring to the day before the Festival.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 诇讗 转砖讞讟 注诇 讞诪抓 讚诐 讝讘讞讬 诇讗 转砖讞讟 讛驻住讞 讜注讚讬谉 讞诪抓 拽讬讬诐

Rava said: The halakha that leaven is prohibited from midday on the fourteenth of Nisan is derived from here: 鈥淵ou shall not slaughter the blood of My offering over leavened bread; neither shall the offering of the feast of the Passover be left to the morning鈥 (Exodus 34:25). This verse means that you shall not slaughter the Paschal lamb while your leavened bread is still intact. In other words, all leaven must be removed before the time the Paschal lamb may be slaughtered.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讻讬 砖讞讬讟 讝诪谉 砖讞讬讟讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And say that the verse means that each and every person must ensure that he has no leaven in his possession when he slaughters his own Paschal lamb, and there is no fixed time for this prohibition. The Gemara answers: The Merciful One states the time of the slaughter of the Paschal lamb, which begins at the end of the sixth hour. In other words, this verse is referring to a particular point in time, rather than the individual act of slaughtering the Paschal lamb.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 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 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注爪诪讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转砖讞讟 注诇 讞诪抓 讚诐 讝讘讞讬 诇讗 转砖讞讟 讗转 讛驻住讞 讜注讚讬讬谉 讞诪抓 拽讬讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

The Gemara adds that some of the aforementioned opinions were also taught in a baraita: 鈥淵et on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses鈥 (Exodus 12:15). This prohibition is in effect from the eve of the Festival. Or perhaps that is not the case, but it applies only to the Festival itself. The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not slaughter the blood of My offering over leavened bread鈥 (Exodus 34:25), meaning that you shall not slaughter the Paschal lamb while your leavened bread is still intact. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 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 讜讻转讬讘 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讗 (转注砖讜) 讜诪爪讬谞讜 诇讛讘注专讛 砖讛讬讗 讗讘 诪诇讗讻讛

Rabbi Akiva says: There is no need for this proof, as it says: 鈥淵et on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses,鈥 and it is written: 鈥淎nd on the first day there shall be to you a sacred convocation, and on the seventh day a sacred convocation; you shall perform no manner of work on them鈥 (Exodus 12:17). And we found that kindling a fire is a primary category of prohibited labor. Since the fire in which the leaven is burned is not for the preparation of food, kindling it is not performed for the purpose of the Festival. Therefore, it is prohibited to burn the leaven on the Festival itself. Consequently, one must burn the leaven on the day before the Festival.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 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 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讱 讞诇拽 讜讗讬 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注爪诪讜 诪讬 砖专讬 讛讗 讗讬转拽砖 讛砖讘转转 砖讗讜专 诇讗讻讬诇转 讞诪抓 讜讗讻讬诇转 讞诪抓 诇讗讻讬诇转 诪爪讛 讗诪专 专讘讗

Rabbi Yosei says: There is no need for that proof either, as it says: 鈥淵et on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses.鈥 This prohibition applies from the eve of the Festival. Or perhaps that is not the case, but it applies only to the Festival itself. The verse states: Yet, which comes to divide the day into two parts; the first half, when leaven is permitted, and the second half, when it is prohibited. And if this verse is referring to the first day of the Festival itself, is leaven permitted on the actual Festival? As explained above, the removal of leaven is juxtaposed to the eating of leavened bread, and the eating of leavened bread is juxtaposed to the eating of matza. Rava said:

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 讘讬注讜专 讞诪抓 讗诇讗 砖专讬驻讛 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讘注专讛 诇讞诇拽 讬爪讗转 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜转专讛 讛讘注专讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛讜转专讛 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱:

Learn from the statement of Rabbi Akiva three halakhot. Learn from it that the removal of leavened bread can be performed only by means of burning. Rabbi Akiva bases his opinion on the fact that it is prohibited to kindle a fire on the Festival.
And second, learn from it that the prohibition against kindling a fire on Shabbat was specifically singled out in the Torah to divide the various primary categories of labor and to establish liability for performance of each of them. The dissenting opinion is that kindling is singled out to teach that there is no capital punishment for performing that primary category of labor.
And third, learn from it that we do not say: Since it is permitted to kindle a fire for the purpose of preparing food, it is also permitted to light a fire not for the purpose of preparing food, e.g., to burn leaven.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 砖讗专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讘讘转讬讻诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬专讗讛 诇讱 砖讗专 [讜诇讗 讬专讗讛 诇讱 讞诪抓] 讘讻诇 讙讘诇讱

The Sages taught in a baraita: 鈥淪even days leaven shall not be found in your houses鈥 (Exodus 12:19). To what purpose does the verse state this prohibition? Wasn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淎nd no leaven shall be seen with you, neither shall there be leavened bread seen with you, in all your borders鈥 (Exodus 13:7)?

诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬专讗讛 诇讱 砖讗专 砖诇讱 讗讬 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 讗讘诇 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 讜砖诇 讙讘讜讛 讬讻讜诇 讬讟诪讬谉 讜讬拽讘诇 驻拽讚讜谞讜转 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗

The baraita answers: Because it is stated: 鈥淎nd no leaven shall be seen with you,鈥 which teaches that your own leaven you may not see, but you may see leaven that belongs to others, i.e., gentiles, and leaven consecrated to God. In light of this halakha, I might have thought that one may conceal leaven in one鈥檚 home or accept deposits of leaven from a gentile. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淪hall not be found,鈥 meaning that one may not retain any type of leaven in one鈥檚 house at all.

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讙讜讬 砖诇讗 讻讬讘砖转讜 讜讗讬谉 砖专讜讬 注诪讱 讘讞爪专 讙讜讬 砖讻讬讘砖转讜 讜砖专讜讬 注诪讱 讘讞爪专 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讘讘转讬讻诐

The tanna continues: Had only this verse been stated, I would have derived nothing other than this halakha with regard to a gentile whom you did not overcome and who does not dwell with you in the courtyard. With regard to a gentile whom you overcame and who dwells with you in the courtyard, from where do we know that he is also included in this prohibition? The verse states: 鈥淚t shall not be found in your houses鈥 at all, i.e., anywhere in one鈥檚 possession.

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖讘讘转讬讻诐 讘讘讜专讜转 讘砖讬讞讬谉 讜讘诪注专讜转 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讻诇 讙讘诇讱

The baraita further states that from the verse: 鈥淚t shall not be found in your houses,鈥 I have derived nothing other than the fact that this prohibition applies to leaven that is actually in your houses. From where is it derived that this halakha applies even to leaven in pits, ditches, and caves? The verse states: In all your borders, i.e., anywhere that belongs to you.

讜注讚讬讬谉 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讘讘转讬诐 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 讬专讗讛 讜讘诇 讬诪爪讗 讜讘诇 讬讟诪讬谉 讜讘诇 讬拽讘诇 驻拽讚讜谞讜转 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 砖诇讱 讗讬 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 讗讘诇 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 讜砖诇 讙讘讜讛 诪谞讬讬谉 诇讬转谉 讗转 讛讗诪讜专 砖诇 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜砖诇 讝讛 讘讝讛

And still I can say: If there is leaven in your houses, one violates the prohibition that leaven shall not be seen and the prohibition that it shall not be found, as well as the prohibitions of you shall not conceal and you shall not receive deposits from a gentile. Meanwhile, in your borders, outside your home, your own leaven you may not see, but you may see leaven that belongs to others, i.e., gentiles, and leaven consecrated to God. From where is it derived that it is proper to apply the prohibition that was said about this place to that place, and the prohibition that was said about that place to this place?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讗讜专 砖讗讜专 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 谞讗诪专 砖讗讜专 讘讘转讬诐 砖讗专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讘讘转讬讻诐 讜谞讗诪专 砖讗专 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讬专讗讛 诇讱 砖讗专 诪讛 砖讗讜专 讛讗诪讜专 讘讘转讬诐 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 讬专讗讛 讜讘诇 讬诪爪讗 讜讘诇 讬讟诪讬谉 讜讘诇 讬拽讘诇 驻拽讚讜谞讜转 诪谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讗祝 砖讗讜专 讛讗诪讜专 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 讬专讗讛 讜讘诇 讬诪爪讗 讜讘诇 讬讟诪讬谉 讜讘诇 讬拽讘诇 驻拽讚讜谞讜转 诪谉 讛讙讜讬诐

The tanna answers that the verse states the term leaven with regard to houses and the term leaven with regard to borders as a verbal analogy. It states leaven with regard to houses: 鈥淪even days leaven shall not be found in your houses,鈥 and it states leaven with regard to borders: 鈥淣either shall there be leaven seen with you.鈥 Just as for the leaven stated with regard to houses one transgresses the prohibition that leaven shall not be seen and the prohibition that it shall not be found, and the prohibitions of one shall not conceal and one shall not receive deposits from a gentile, so too, for the leaven stated with regard to borders, one transgresses the prohibition that leaven shall not be seen and the prohibition that it shall not be found, and the prohibitions of one shall not conceal and one shall not receive deposits from a gentile.

讜诪讛 砖讗讜专 讛讗诪讜专 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 砖诇讱 讗讬 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 讗讘诇 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 讜砖诇 讙讘讜讛 讗祝 砖讗讜专 讛讗诪讜专 讘讘转讬诐 砖诇讱 讗讬 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 讗讘诇 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 讜砖诇 讙讘讜讛:

The converse is also true: Just as concerning the leaven stated with regard to borders, your own leaven you may not see, but you may see leaven that belongs to others, i.e., gentiles, and leaven consecrated to God, so too, concerning the leaven stated with regard to houses: Your own leaven you may not see, but you may see leaven that belongs to others and leaven consecrated to God.

讗诪专 诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讙讜讬 砖诇讗 讻讬讘砖转讜 讜讗讬谉 砖专讜讬 注诪讱 讘讞爪专 讙讜讬 砖讻讬讘砖转讜 讜砖专讜讬 注诪讱 讘讞爪专 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗

The Gemara addresses several difficult aspects of this baraita. The Master said: I would have derived nothing other than this halakha with regard to a gentile whom you did not overcome and who does not dwell with you in the courtyard. With regard to a gentile whom you overcame and who dwells with you in the courtyard, from where is it derived that he is also included in this prohibition? The verse states: 鈥淚t shall not be found in your houses.鈥

讻诇驻讬 诇讬讬讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬驻讜讱

The Gemara questions the logic of this proof. On the contrary; the prohibition regarding the leaven of a gentile who is subservient to and lives with a Jew is more obvious than the prohibition regarding the leaven of a gentile who is neither. The tanna should have started with the leaven belonging to a gentile who is subservient to a Jew. Abaye said: Reverse the order of the statement: I might have thought that only leaven owned by a gentile whom you overcame and who dwells with you in the courtyard is prohibited; but leaven owned by a gentile whom you did not overcome and who does not dwell with you in the courtyard is permitted.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讜讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 砖诇讱 讗讬 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 讗讘诇 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 讜砖诇 讙讘讜讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讙讜讬 砖诇讗 讻讬讘砖转讜 讜讗讬谉 砖专讜讬 注诪讱 讘讞爪专 讙讜讬 砖讻讬讘砖转讜 讜砖专讜讬 注诪讱 讘讞爪专 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗

Rava said: Actually, do not reverse the order, as this statement is not in fact a continuation of the previous one and instead it applies to the first clause of the baraita, which deals with the time when leaven is permitted. The entire statement should read as follows: Your own leaven you may not see, but you may see leaven that belongs to others, i.e., gentiles, and leaven consecrated to God, as one is not commanded to remove leaven that belongs to a gentile. I have derived nothing other than this halakha with regard to a gentile whom you did not overcome and who does not dwell with you in the courtyard, as the leaven belonging to that gentile is in no way tied to the Jew. With regard to a gentile whom you overcame and who dwells with you in the courtyard, from where is it derived that he is also included in this leniency? The verse states: 鈥淚t shall not be found.鈥

讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 诪讬讛讚专 讗讛讬转讬专讗 讜谞住讬讘 诇讛 拽专讗 诇讗讬住讜专讗 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讱 诇讱 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬:

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This tanna seeks permission for seeing the leaven of a gentile, and yet he cites a verse to establish a prohibition. The Gemara answers that the tanna did not cite proof from the phrase: It shall not be found. Due to the fact that it is stated: 鈥淣o leaven shall be seen with you in all your borders鈥 (Exodus 13:7) and 鈥淣o leaven shall be seen with you in all your borders鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:4) twice, one of them is superfluous and may be appended to: It shall not be found, creating the prohibition: It shall not be found with you. Only leaven belonging to a Jew is prohibited.

讗诪专 诪专 讬讻讜诇 讬讟诪讬谉 讜讬拽讘诇 驻拽讚讜谞讜转 诪谉 讛讙讜讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讛讗 讗诪专转 专讬砖讗 砖诇讱 讗讬 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 讗讘诇 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 讜砖诇 讙讘讜讛

The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita. The Master said: I might have thought that one may conceal leaven in one鈥檚 home or accept deposits of leaven from the gentiles. Therefore, the verse states: It shall not be found. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say in the first clause of the baraita: Your own leaven you may not see, but you may see leaven that belongs to others and leaven consecrated to God, indicating that it is permitted to have leaven in one鈥檚 house if it belongs to a gentile?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 讗讞专讬讜转 讛讗 讚诇讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 讗讞专讬讜转

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; in this case it is prohibited, as he accepted upon himself responsibility to pay for the leaven if it is destroyed. Therefore, it is considered as though the leaven belonged to him. In that case it is permitted, as he did not accept upon himself responsibility, and therefore the leaven remains the full-fledged property of the gentile.

讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 诇讘谞讬 诪讞讜讝讗 讘注讬专讜 讞诪讬专讗 讚讘谞讬 讞讬诇讗 诪讘转讬讬讻讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 诪讬讙谞讘 讜讗讬诇讜 诪讬转讘讬讚 讘专砖讜转讬讬讻讜 拽讗讬 讜讘注讬转讜 诇砖诇讜诪讬 讻讚讬诇讻讜谉 讚诪讬 讜讗住讜专

That ruling is like that which Rava said to the residents of Me岣za: Remove the leavened bread that belongs to the members of the gentile army from your houses. Gentile soldiers would bring flour with them and force the people in the city to prepare bread on their behalf. Rava explained the rationale for his ruling: Since if the flour were stolen or if it were lost, it stands in your possession and you would be required to pay for it, its legal status is as if it were yours, and it is prohibited to keep it during Passover.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 讛讙讜专诐 诇诪诪讜谉 讻诪诪讜谉 讚诪讬 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗讜 讻诪诪讜谉 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This explanation works out well according to the one who said: The legal status of an object that effects monetary loss is like that of money. If an item is inherently or currently worthless, but if it is lost or stolen one would be obligated to pay to replace it, its legal status is like that of money. Therefore, the Jews鈥 responsibility for the leaven renders its legal status as if it belonged to them. However, according to the one who said: The legal status of an object that effects monetary loss is not like that of money, what can be said?

砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗

The Gemara answers: It is different here, as the verse said: 鈥淚t shall not be found,鈥 indicating that leaven may not be found in any place, even if there is only a token connection between the leaven and the Jew in whose property it is situated, and even if he is not required to pay for it if it is lost or stolen.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 讛讙讜专诐 诇诪诪讜谉 诇讗讜 讻诪诪讜谉 讚诪讬

Some state a contrary version of the above discussion. This explanation works out well according to the one who said: The legal status of an object that effects monetary loss is not like that of money.

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 5: Such Need for the Biblical Text

Pesachim 5: Delving into Midrash Halakhah - on the verses that address the prohibition of chametz being found in one's...
Pesachim Essentials

Pesachim Essentials- an Introduction by Gitta Neufeld

Click here for the full Introduction to Masechet Pesachim Structure of Pesachim Follows a chronological sequence: Chapter 1 Requirement to...
facebook ads size (2)

The Hidden Meaning of Darkness by Shoshana Baker

The opening of Masechet Pesachim begins with the discussion of when one must search for Chametz by candlelight. The use...

Pesachim 5

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 5

讚讛讗 讗讬转拽砖 讛砖讘转转 砖讗讜专 诇讗讻讬诇转 讞诪抓 讜讗讻讬诇转 讞诪抓 诇讗讻讬诇转 诪爪讛

The time for the removal of leaven is juxtaposed to the time when the eating of leavened bread is prohibited. When the prohibition against eating leaven goes into effect, the obligation to remove leaven is in effect as well. And furthermore, the time of the prohibition against the eating of leavened bread is juxtaposed to the time for the eating of matza, as its prohibition takes effect from the time that the mitzva to eat matza takes effect.

讛砖讘转转 砖讗讜专 诇讗讻讬诇转 讞诪抓 讚讻转讬讘 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 砖讗专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讘讘转讬讻诐 讻讬 讻诇 讗讻诇 诪讞诪爪转 讜谞讻专转讛

The Gemara elaborates: The removal of leaven is juxtaposed to the eating of leavened bread, as they appear in the same verse, as it is written: 鈥淪even days leaven shall not be found in your houses, as anyone who eats that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel鈥 (Exodus 12:19).

讜讗讻讬诇转 讞诪抓 诇讗讻讬诇转 诪爪讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 诪讞诪爪转 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘转讬讻诐 转讗讻诇讜 诪爪讜转 (讜讙讜壮) 讜讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讘诪爪讛 讘注专讘 转讗讻诇讜 诪爪讜转

And the prohibition against the eating of leavened bread is juxtaposed to the eating of matza, as both appear in the same verse, as it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not eat anything that is leavened; in all of your dwellings you shall eat matzot, etc.鈥 (Exodus 12:20), and it is written with regard to matza: 鈥淥n the first day, on the fourteenth day in the evening you shall eat matzot (Exodus 12:18). Since the halakha that leaven is prohibited on the first night of Passover is derived from this source, there is no need for an additional derivation.

讜讗讬诪讗 诇专讘讜转 诇讬诇 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 诇讘讬注讜专 讘讬讜诐 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: And say that the verse: 鈥淵et on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses鈥 comes to include the night of the fourteenth in the obligation to remove leaven, which would mean that one must remove all leaven from his house on the night of the fourteenth. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: That is not possible, as 鈥渙n the day鈥 is written.

讜讗讬诪讗 诪爪驻专讗 讗讱 讞诇拽

The Gemara continues to ask: And say that leaven must be removed immediately from the morning of the fourteenth. The Gemara answers: That is also incorrect, as the verse says, 鈥淵et on the first day鈥; and the word yet divides. The connotation of the word yet is one of restriction. In this context, it teaches that leaven is prohibited not for the entire day, but only for part of it. One is obligated to remove leaven only for the second half of the fourteenth of Nisan, not for the first half of the day.

讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 砖谞拽专讗 专讗砖讜谉 砖谞讗诪专 讘专讗砖讜谉 讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讬讜诐 诇讞讚砖 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讗砖讜谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诪砖诪注 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讛专讗砖讜谉 讗讚诐 转讜诇讚

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: We found that the fourteenth day is called: First, as it is stated: 鈥淥n harishon, on the fourteenth day of the month鈥 (Exodus 12:18). Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: It is evident from the verse itself that it is referring to the removal of leaven on the fourteenth, as rishon means previous. In this context, first means the day that precedes the others, i.e., the day before the Festival begins, as the verse stated: 鈥淎re you first [rishon] man born? Or were you brought forth before the hills?鈥 (Job 15:7). Based on the parallelism between the two parts of the verse, the word rishon here means before; the one preceding all others.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讜诇拽讞转诐 诇讻诐 讘讬讜诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 专讗砖讜谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诪砖诪注

The Gemara asks: But if that is so, consider a verse written with regard to Sukkot: 鈥淎nd you shall take for yourselves on the first [harishon] day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of palm trees, and boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook鈥 (Leviticus 23:40). So too, in this case, does harishon mean the day previous to the Festival? Clearly, one is not obligated to take the four species on the fourteenth of Tishrei, the eve of Sukkot.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诪讞转诐 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讻诐 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 诪讛 砖讘讬注讬 砖讘讬注讬 诇讞讙 讗祝 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 诇讞讙

The Gemara rejects this contention. There it is different, as it is written immediately thereafter: 鈥淎nd you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days鈥 (Leviticus 23:40). Just as the seventh of these seven days is the seventh day of the Festival, so too, the first of these days is the first day of the Festival itself, not the day before Sukkot. However, where it is not explicitly stated, rishon means the day before the Festival.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 讗讱 讘讬讜诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 转砖讘讬转讜 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 诪爪讜转 转讗讻诇讜 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 拽专讗 专讗砖讜谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讻讚讗诪专谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty. Here too, it is written with regard to Passover: 鈥淵et on the first [harishon] day you shall remove leaven from your houses鈥; 鈥渇or seven days you shall eat matza (Exodus 12:15). Just as seventh here is referring to the seventh day of the Festival, so too, rishon must refer to the first day of the Festival. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse write rishon; why do I need the addition of the definite article, harishon? Learn from it, as we said: Harishon means the day before the Festival.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 讜转讜 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讜诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖讘转讜谉 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖诪讬谞讬 砖讘转讜谉 讗讬诪专 专讗砖讜谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诪砖诪注 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖诪讬谞讬 砖讘转讜谉 诪讛 砖诪讬谞讬 砖诪讬谞讬 讚讞讙 讗祝 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讚讞讙

The Gemara raises an objection: If so, there too, with regard to Sukkot, why do I need the verse to say harishon? And furthermore, there it is written: 鈥淥n the first [harishon] day a solemn rest and on the eighth day a solemn rest鈥 (Leviticus 23:39). Here too, say that first means previous, the day preceding the Festival. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: It is different there, as the verse said: 鈥淎nd on the eighth day a solemn rest,鈥 from which it can be inferred that just as the eighth means the eighth day of the Festival, so too, rishon is referring to the first day of the Festival.

讛专讗砖讜谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 诪专讗砖讜谉 讜砖诪讬谞讬 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara repeats its earlier question: Why do I need the verse to say harishon? The Gemara answers: The definite article comes to exclude the intermediate days of the Festival. It is not prohibited to perform labor on these days, as the full-fledged sanctity of the Festival does not apply to them. The Gemara says: The status of the intermediate days is derived from the words first and eighth. The fact that the verse mentions only the first and the eighth days as Festivals clearly indicates that the days between them are not Festivals.

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖诪讬谞讬 讜讬讜 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, a special verse was necessary to exclude the intermediate Festival days, as otherwise it could enter your mind to say that since the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎nd on the eighth day,鈥 the principle: The letter vav adds to the previous matter, applies. When a phrase begins with the conjunction vav, meaning and, it is a continuation of the previous matter rather than a new topic. Based on this principle, I might have said that one must treat even the intermediate days as full-fledged Festival days. Therefore, the definite article teaches us not that this is not so.

讜诇讗 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讜讬讜 讜诇讗 讛讗 讜转讜 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讜诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 诪拽专讗 拽讚砖 讬讛讬讛 诇讻诐 专讗砖讜谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诪砖诪注

The Gemara asks: And let the Merciful One write in the Torah neither the conjunction vav nor the definite article heh. Since they neutralize each other, as explained above, the same result could have been achieved by omitting both. And furthermore, there, in its description of Passover, it is written: 鈥淥n the first [harishon] day you shall have a sacred convocation; you shall do no servile work鈥 (Leviticus 23:7). Does first mean previous, the day preceding the Festival, in this case too? Labor is permitted on the eve of the Festival.

讗诇讗 讛谞讬 砖诇砖讛 专讗砖讜谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘砖讻专 砖诇砖讛 专讗砖讜谉 讝讻讜 诇砖诇砖讛 专讗砖讜谉 诇讛讻专讬转 讝专注讜 砖诇 注砖讜 诇讘谞讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讜诇砖诪讜 砖诇 诪砖讬讞

Rather, the Gemara explains that those three times the word rishon is mentioned with regard to the Festivals are necessary for that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: In reward for the three times the word rishon is stated with regard to the Festivals observed by the Jewish people, they were entitled to three matters also referred to as rishon: To eradicate the descendants of Esau, to the construction of the Temple, and to the name of Messiah.

诇讛讻专讬转 讝专注讜 砖诇 注砖讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬爪讗 讛专讗砖讜谉 讗讚诪讜谞讬 讻诇讜 讻讗讚专转 砖注专 讜诇讘谞讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讚讻转讬讘 讻住讗 讻讘讜讚 诪专讜诐 诪专讗砖讜谉 诪拽讜诐 诪拽讚砖谞讜 讜诇砖诪讜 砖诇 诪砖讬讞 讚讻转讬讘 专讗砖讜谉 诇爪讬讜谉 讛谞讛 讛谞诐

The tanna provides the sources for his statement. To eradicate the descendants of Esau, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the first [harishon] came forth red, all over like a hairy mantle; and they called his name Esau鈥 (Genesis 25:25). And to the construction of the Temple, as it is written: 鈥淭he Throne of Glory, on High from the beginning [merishon], the place of our Temple鈥 (Jeremiah 17:12). And the Jewish people were also entitled to the name of Messiah, as it is written: 鈥淎 harbinger [rishon] to Zion I will give: Behold, behold them; and to Jerusalem a messenger of good tidings鈥 (Isaiah 41:27). However, harishon stated with regard to Passover is referring to the day before the Festival.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 诇讗 转砖讞讟 注诇 讞诪抓 讚诐 讝讘讞讬 诇讗 转砖讞讟 讛驻住讞 讜注讚讬谉 讞诪抓 拽讬讬诐

Rava said: The halakha that leaven is prohibited from midday on the fourteenth of Nisan is derived from here: 鈥淵ou shall not slaughter the blood of My offering over leavened bread; neither shall the offering of the feast of the Passover be left to the morning鈥 (Exodus 34:25). This verse means that you shall not slaughter the Paschal lamb while your leavened bread is still intact. In other words, all leaven must be removed before the time the Paschal lamb may be slaughtered.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讻讬 砖讞讬讟 讝诪谉 砖讞讬讟讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And say that the verse means that each and every person must ensure that he has no leaven in his possession when he slaughters his own Paschal lamb, and there is no fixed time for this prohibition. The Gemara answers: The Merciful One states the time of the slaughter of the Paschal lamb, which begins at the end of the sixth hour. In other words, this verse is referring to a particular point in time, rather than the individual act of slaughtering the Paschal lamb.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 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 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注爪诪讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转砖讞讟 注诇 讞诪抓 讚诐 讝讘讞讬 诇讗 转砖讞讟 讗转 讛驻住讞 讜注讚讬讬谉 讞诪抓 拽讬讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

The Gemara adds that some of the aforementioned opinions were also taught in a baraita: 鈥淵et on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses鈥 (Exodus 12:15). This prohibition is in effect from the eve of the Festival. Or perhaps that is not the case, but it applies only to the Festival itself. The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not slaughter the blood of My offering over leavened bread鈥 (Exodus 34:25), meaning that you shall not slaughter the Paschal lamb while your leavened bread is still intact. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 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 讜讻转讬讘 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛 诇讗 (转注砖讜) 讜诪爪讬谞讜 诇讛讘注专讛 砖讛讬讗 讗讘 诪诇讗讻讛

Rabbi Akiva says: There is no need for this proof, as it says: 鈥淵et on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses,鈥 and it is written: 鈥淎nd on the first day there shall be to you a sacred convocation, and on the seventh day a sacred convocation; you shall perform no manner of work on them鈥 (Exodus 12:17). And we found that kindling a fire is a primary category of prohibited labor. Since the fire in which the leaven is burned is not for the preparation of food, kindling it is not performed for the purpose of the Festival. Therefore, it is prohibited to burn the leaven on the Festival itself. Consequently, one must burn the leaven on the day before the Festival.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 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 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讱 讞诇拽 讜讗讬 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注爪诪讜 诪讬 砖专讬 讛讗 讗讬转拽砖 讛砖讘转转 砖讗讜专 诇讗讻讬诇转 讞诪抓 讜讗讻讬诇转 讞诪抓 诇讗讻讬诇转 诪爪讛 讗诪专 专讘讗

Rabbi Yosei says: There is no need for that proof either, as it says: 鈥淵et on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses.鈥 This prohibition applies from the eve of the Festival. Or perhaps that is not the case, but it applies only to the Festival itself. The verse states: Yet, which comes to divide the day into two parts; the first half, when leaven is permitted, and the second half, when it is prohibited. And if this verse is referring to the first day of the Festival itself, is leaven permitted on the actual Festival? As explained above, the removal of leaven is juxtaposed to the eating of leavened bread, and the eating of leavened bread is juxtaposed to the eating of matza. Rava said:

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 讘讬注讜专 讞诪抓 讗诇讗 砖专讬驻讛 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讘注专讛 诇讞诇拽 讬爪讗转 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜转专讛 讛讘注专讛 诇爪讜专讱 讛讜转专讛 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱:

Learn from the statement of Rabbi Akiva three halakhot. Learn from it that the removal of leavened bread can be performed only by means of burning. Rabbi Akiva bases his opinion on the fact that it is prohibited to kindle a fire on the Festival.
And second, learn from it that the prohibition against kindling a fire on Shabbat was specifically singled out in the Torah to divide the various primary categories of labor and to establish liability for performance of each of them. The dissenting opinion is that kindling is singled out to teach that there is no capital punishment for performing that primary category of labor.
And third, learn from it that we do not say: Since it is permitted to kindle a fire for the purpose of preparing food, it is also permitted to light a fire not for the purpose of preparing food, e.g., to burn leaven.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 砖讗专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讘讘转讬讻诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬专讗讛 诇讱 砖讗专 [讜诇讗 讬专讗讛 诇讱 讞诪抓] 讘讻诇 讙讘诇讱

The Sages taught in a baraita: 鈥淪even days leaven shall not be found in your houses鈥 (Exodus 12:19). To what purpose does the verse state this prohibition? Wasn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淎nd no leaven shall be seen with you, neither shall there be leavened bread seen with you, in all your borders鈥 (Exodus 13:7)?

诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬专讗讛 诇讱 砖讗专 砖诇讱 讗讬 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 讗讘诇 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 讜砖诇 讙讘讜讛 讬讻讜诇 讬讟诪讬谉 讜讬拽讘诇 驻拽讚讜谞讜转 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗

The baraita answers: Because it is stated: 鈥淎nd no leaven shall be seen with you,鈥 which teaches that your own leaven you may not see, but you may see leaven that belongs to others, i.e., gentiles, and leaven consecrated to God. In light of this halakha, I might have thought that one may conceal leaven in one鈥檚 home or accept deposits of leaven from a gentile. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淪hall not be found,鈥 meaning that one may not retain any type of leaven in one鈥檚 house at all.

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讙讜讬 砖诇讗 讻讬讘砖转讜 讜讗讬谉 砖专讜讬 注诪讱 讘讞爪专 讙讜讬 砖讻讬讘砖转讜 讜砖专讜讬 注诪讱 讘讞爪专 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讘讘转讬讻诐

The tanna continues: Had only this verse been stated, I would have derived nothing other than this halakha with regard to a gentile whom you did not overcome and who does not dwell with you in the courtyard. With regard to a gentile whom you overcame and who dwells with you in the courtyard, from where do we know that he is also included in this prohibition? The verse states: 鈥淚t shall not be found in your houses鈥 at all, i.e., anywhere in one鈥檚 possession.

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖讘讘转讬讻诐 讘讘讜专讜转 讘砖讬讞讬谉 讜讘诪注专讜转 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讻诇 讙讘诇讱

The baraita further states that from the verse: 鈥淚t shall not be found in your houses,鈥 I have derived nothing other than the fact that this prohibition applies to leaven that is actually in your houses. From where is it derived that this halakha applies even to leaven in pits, ditches, and caves? The verse states: In all your borders, i.e., anywhere that belongs to you.

讜注讚讬讬谉 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讘讘转讬诐 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 讬专讗讛 讜讘诇 讬诪爪讗 讜讘诇 讬讟诪讬谉 讜讘诇 讬拽讘诇 驻拽讚讜谞讜转 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 砖诇讱 讗讬 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 讗讘诇 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 讜砖诇 讙讘讜讛 诪谞讬讬谉 诇讬转谉 讗转 讛讗诪讜专 砖诇 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜砖诇 讝讛 讘讝讛

And still I can say: If there is leaven in your houses, one violates the prohibition that leaven shall not be seen and the prohibition that it shall not be found, as well as the prohibitions of you shall not conceal and you shall not receive deposits from a gentile. Meanwhile, in your borders, outside your home, your own leaven you may not see, but you may see leaven that belongs to others, i.e., gentiles, and leaven consecrated to God. From where is it derived that it is proper to apply the prohibition that was said about this place to that place, and the prohibition that was said about that place to this place?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讗讜专 砖讗讜专 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 谞讗诪专 砖讗讜专 讘讘转讬诐 砖讗专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讘讘转讬讻诐 讜谞讗诪专 砖讗专 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讬专讗讛 诇讱 砖讗专 诪讛 砖讗讜专 讛讗诪讜专 讘讘转讬诐 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 讬专讗讛 讜讘诇 讬诪爪讗 讜讘诇 讬讟诪讬谉 讜讘诇 讬拽讘诇 驻拽讚讜谞讜转 诪谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讗祝 砖讗讜专 讛讗诪讜专 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 讬专讗讛 讜讘诇 讬诪爪讗 讜讘诇 讬讟诪讬谉 讜讘诇 讬拽讘诇 驻拽讚讜谞讜转 诪谉 讛讙讜讬诐

The tanna answers that the verse states the term leaven with regard to houses and the term leaven with regard to borders as a verbal analogy. It states leaven with regard to houses: 鈥淪even days leaven shall not be found in your houses,鈥 and it states leaven with regard to borders: 鈥淣either shall there be leaven seen with you.鈥 Just as for the leaven stated with regard to houses one transgresses the prohibition that leaven shall not be seen and the prohibition that it shall not be found, and the prohibitions of one shall not conceal and one shall not receive deposits from a gentile, so too, for the leaven stated with regard to borders, one transgresses the prohibition that leaven shall not be seen and the prohibition that it shall not be found, and the prohibitions of one shall not conceal and one shall not receive deposits from a gentile.

讜诪讛 砖讗讜专 讛讗诪讜专 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 砖诇讱 讗讬 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 讗讘诇 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 讜砖诇 讙讘讜讛 讗祝 砖讗讜专 讛讗诪讜专 讘讘转讬诐 砖诇讱 讗讬 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 讗讘诇 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 讜砖诇 讙讘讜讛:

The converse is also true: Just as concerning the leaven stated with regard to borders, your own leaven you may not see, but you may see leaven that belongs to others, i.e., gentiles, and leaven consecrated to God, so too, concerning the leaven stated with regard to houses: Your own leaven you may not see, but you may see leaven that belongs to others and leaven consecrated to God.

讗诪专 诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讙讜讬 砖诇讗 讻讬讘砖转讜 讜讗讬谉 砖专讜讬 注诪讱 讘讞爪专 讙讜讬 砖讻讬讘砖转讜 讜砖专讜讬 注诪讱 讘讞爪专 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗

The Gemara addresses several difficult aspects of this baraita. The Master said: I would have derived nothing other than this halakha with regard to a gentile whom you did not overcome and who does not dwell with you in the courtyard. With regard to a gentile whom you overcame and who dwells with you in the courtyard, from where is it derived that he is also included in this prohibition? The verse states: 鈥淚t shall not be found in your houses.鈥

讻诇驻讬 诇讬讬讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬驻讜讱

The Gemara questions the logic of this proof. On the contrary; the prohibition regarding the leaven of a gentile who is subservient to and lives with a Jew is more obvious than the prohibition regarding the leaven of a gentile who is neither. The tanna should have started with the leaven belonging to a gentile who is subservient to a Jew. Abaye said: Reverse the order of the statement: I might have thought that only leaven owned by a gentile whom you overcame and who dwells with you in the courtyard is prohibited; but leaven owned by a gentile whom you did not overcome and who does not dwell with you in the courtyard is permitted.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讜讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 砖诇讱 讗讬 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 讗讘诇 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 讜砖诇 讙讘讜讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讙讜讬 砖诇讗 讻讬讘砖转讜 讜讗讬谉 砖专讜讬 注诪讱 讘讞爪专 讙讜讬 砖讻讬讘砖转讜 讜砖专讜讬 注诪讱 讘讞爪专 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗

Rava said: Actually, do not reverse the order, as this statement is not in fact a continuation of the previous one and instead it applies to the first clause of the baraita, which deals with the time when leaven is permitted. The entire statement should read as follows: Your own leaven you may not see, but you may see leaven that belongs to others, i.e., gentiles, and leaven consecrated to God, as one is not commanded to remove leaven that belongs to a gentile. I have derived nothing other than this halakha with regard to a gentile whom you did not overcome and who does not dwell with you in the courtyard, as the leaven belonging to that gentile is in no way tied to the Jew. With regard to a gentile whom you overcame and who dwells with you in the courtyard, from where is it derived that he is also included in this leniency? The verse states: 鈥淚t shall not be found.鈥

讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 诪讬讛讚专 讗讛讬转讬专讗 讜谞住讬讘 诇讛 拽专讗 诇讗讬住讜专讗 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讱 诇讱 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬:

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This tanna seeks permission for seeing the leaven of a gentile, and yet he cites a verse to establish a prohibition. The Gemara answers that the tanna did not cite proof from the phrase: It shall not be found. Due to the fact that it is stated: 鈥淣o leaven shall be seen with you in all your borders鈥 (Exodus 13:7) and 鈥淣o leaven shall be seen with you in all your borders鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:4) twice, one of them is superfluous and may be appended to: It shall not be found, creating the prohibition: It shall not be found with you. Only leaven belonging to a Jew is prohibited.

讗诪专 诪专 讬讻讜诇 讬讟诪讬谉 讜讬拽讘诇 驻拽讚讜谞讜转 诪谉 讛讙讜讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讛讗 讗诪专转 专讬砖讗 砖诇讱 讗讬 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 讗讘诇 讗转讛 专讜讗讛 砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 讜砖诇 讙讘讜讛

The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita. The Master said: I might have thought that one may conceal leaven in one鈥檚 home or accept deposits of leaven from the gentiles. Therefore, the verse states: It shall not be found. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say in the first clause of the baraita: Your own leaven you may not see, but you may see leaven that belongs to others and leaven consecrated to God, indicating that it is permitted to have leaven in one鈥檚 house if it belongs to a gentile?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 讗讞专讬讜转 讛讗 讚诇讗 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 讗讞专讬讜转

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; in this case it is prohibited, as he accepted upon himself responsibility to pay for the leaven if it is destroyed. Therefore, it is considered as though the leaven belonged to him. In that case it is permitted, as he did not accept upon himself responsibility, and therefore the leaven remains the full-fledged property of the gentile.

讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 诇讘谞讬 诪讞讜讝讗 讘注讬专讜 讞诪讬专讗 讚讘谞讬 讞讬诇讗 诪讘转讬讬讻讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 诪讬讙谞讘 讜讗讬诇讜 诪讬转讘讬讚 讘专砖讜转讬讬讻讜 拽讗讬 讜讘注讬转讜 诇砖诇讜诪讬 讻讚讬诇讻讜谉 讚诪讬 讜讗住讜专

That ruling is like that which Rava said to the residents of Me岣za: Remove the leavened bread that belongs to the members of the gentile army from your houses. Gentile soldiers would bring flour with them and force the people in the city to prepare bread on their behalf. Rava explained the rationale for his ruling: Since if the flour were stolen or if it were lost, it stands in your possession and you would be required to pay for it, its legal status is as if it were yours, and it is prohibited to keep it during Passover.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 讛讙讜专诐 诇诪诪讜谉 讻诪诪讜谉 讚诪讬 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗讜 讻诪诪讜谉 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This explanation works out well according to the one who said: The legal status of an object that effects monetary loss is like that of money. If an item is inherently or currently worthless, but if it is lost or stolen one would be obligated to pay to replace it, its legal status is like that of money. Therefore, the Jews鈥 responsibility for the leaven renders its legal status as if it belonged to them. However, according to the one who said: The legal status of an object that effects monetary loss is not like that of money, what can be said?

砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗

The Gemara answers: It is different here, as the verse said: 鈥淚t shall not be found,鈥 indicating that leaven may not be found in any place, even if there is only a token connection between the leaven and the Jew in whose property it is situated, and even if he is not required to pay for it if it is lost or stolen.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 讛讙讜专诐 诇诪诪讜谉 诇讗讜 讻诪诪讜谉 讚诪讬

Some state a contrary version of the above discussion. This explanation works out well according to the one who said: The legal status of an object that effects monetary loss is not like that of money.

Scroll To Top