Pesachim 5

דהא איתקש השבתת שאור לאכילת חמץ ואכילת חמץ לאכילת מצה

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.

השבתת שאור לאכילת חמץ דכתיב שבעת ימים שאר לא ימצא בבתיכם כי כל אכל מחמצת ונכרתה

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: “Seven 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” (Exodus 12:19).

ואכילת חמץ לאכילת מצה דכתיב כל מחמצת לא תאכלו בכל מושבתיכם תאכלו מצות (וגו׳) וכתיב ביה במצה בערב תאכלו מצות

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: “You shall not eat anything that is leavened; in all of your dwellings you shall eat matzot, etc.” (Exodus 12:20), and it is written with regard to matza: “On 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.

ואימא לרבות ליל ארבעה עשר לביעור ביום כתיב

The Gemara asks: And say that the verse: “Yet on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses” 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 “on the day” is written.

ואימא מצפרא אך חלק

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, “Yet on the first day”; 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.

דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא מצינו ארבעה עשר שנקרא ראשון שנאמר בראשון בארבעה עשר יום לחדש רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר ראשון דמעיקרא משמע דאמר קרא הראשון אדם תולד

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: We found that the fourteenth day is called: First, as it is stated: “On harishon, on the fourteenth day of the month” (Exodus 12:18). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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: “Are you first [rishon] man born? Or were you brought forth before the hills?” (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.

אלא מעתה ולקחתם לכם ביום הראשון הכי נמי ראשון דמעיקרא משמע

The Gemara asks: But if that is so, consider a verse written with regard to Sukkot: “And 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” (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.

שאני התם דכתיב ושמחתם לפני ה׳ אלהיכם שבעת ימים מה שביעי שביעי לחג אף ראשון ראשון לחג

The Gemara rejects this contention. There it is different, as it is written immediately thereafter: “And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days” (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.

הכא נמי כתיב אך ביום הראשון תשביתו שבעת ימים מצות תאכלו אם כן נכתוב קרא ראשון הראשון למה לי שמע מינה לכדאמרן

The Gemara raises a difficulty. Here too, it is written with regard to Passover: “Yet on the first [harishon] day you shall remove leaven from your houses”; “for 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.

אי הכי התם נמי הראשון למה לי ותו התם דכתיב ביום הראשון שבתון וביום השמיני שבתון אימר ראשון דמעיקרא משמע שאני התם דאמר קרא וביום השמיני שבתון מה שמיני שמיני דחג אף ראשון ראשון דחג

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: “On the first [harishon] day a solemn rest and on the eighth day a solemn rest” (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: “And on the eighth day a solemn rest,” 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.

הראשון למה לי למעוטי חולו של מועד חולו של מועד מראשון ושמיני נפקא

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.

איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל דכתב רחמנא וביום השמיני ויו מוסיף על ענין ראשון דאפילו בחולו של מועד קא משמע לן

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: “And on the eighth day,” 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.

ולא לכתוב רחמנא לא ויו ולא הא ותו התם דכתיב ביום הראשון מקרא קדש יהיה לכם ראשון דמעיקרא משמע

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: “On the first [harishon] day you shall have a sacred convocation; you shall do no servile work” (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.

אלא הני שלשה ראשון מיבעי ליה לכדתני דבי רבי ישמעאל דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל בשכר שלשה ראשון זכו לשלשה ראשון להכרית זרעו של עשו לבנין בית המקדש ולשמו של משיח

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.

להכרית זרעו של עשו דכתיב ויצא הראשון אדמוני כלו כאדרת שער ולבנין בית המקדש דכתיב כסא כבוד מרום מראשון מקום מקדשנו ולשמו של משיח דכתיב ראשון לציון הנה הנם

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

רבא אמר מהכא לא תשחט על חמץ דם זבחי לא תשחט הפסח ועדין חמץ קיים

Rava said: The halakha that leaven is prohibited from midday on the fourteenth of Nisan is derived from here: “You 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” (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.

ואימא כל חד וחד כי שחיט זמן שחיטה אמר רחמנא

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.

תניא נמי הכי אך ביום הראשון תשביתו שאר מבתיכם מערב יום טוב או אינו אלא ביום טוב עצמו תלמוד לומר לא תשחט על חמץ דם זבחי לא תשחט את הפסח ועדיין חמץ קיים דברי רבי ישמעאל

The Gemara adds that some of the aforementioned opinions were also taught in a baraita: “Yet on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses” (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: “You shall not slaughter the blood of My offering over leavened bread” (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.

רבי עקיבא אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר אך ביום הראשון תשביתו שאר מבתיכם וכתיב כל מלאכה לא (תעשו) ומצינו להבערה שהיא אב מלאכה

Rabbi Akiva says: There is no need for this proof, as it says: “Yet on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses,” and it is written: “And 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” (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.

רבי יוסי אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר אך ביום הראשון תשביתו שאר מבתיכם מערב יום טוב או אינו אלא ביום טוב תלמוד לומר אך חלק ואי ביום טוב עצמו מי שרי הא איתקש השבתת שאור לאכילת חמץ ואכילת חמץ לאכילת מצה אמר רבא

Rabbi Yosei says: There is no need for that proof either, as it says: “Yet on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses.” 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:

שמע מינה מדרבי עקיבא תלת שמע מינה אין ביעור חמץ אלא שריפה ושמע מינה הבערה לחלק יצאת ושמע מינה לא אמרינן הואיל והותרה הבערה לצורך הותרה נמי שלא לצורך:

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.

תנו רבנן שבעת ימים שאר לא ימצא בבתיכם מה תלמוד לומר והלא כבר נאמר לא יראה לך שאר [ולא יראה לך חמץ] בכל גבלך

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

לפי שנאמר לא יראה לך שאר שלך אי אתה רואה אבל אתה רואה של אחרים ושל גבוה יכול יטמין ויקבל פקדונות מן הגוי תלמוד לומר לא ימצא

The baraita answers: Because it is stated: “And no leaven shall be seen with you,” 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’s home or accept deposits of leaven from a gentile. Therefore, the verse states: “Shall not be found,” meaning that one may not retain any type of leaven in one’s house at all.

אין לי אלא בגוי שלא כיבשתו ואין שרוי עמך בחצר גוי שכיבשתו ושרוי עמך בחצר מנין תלמוד לומר לא ימצא בבתיכם

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: “It shall not be found in your houses” at all, i.e., anywhere in one’s possession.

אין לי אלא שבבתיכם בבורות בשיחין ובמערות מנין תלמוד לומר בכל גבלך

The baraita further states that from the verse: “It shall not be found in your houses,” 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.

ועדיין אני אומר בבתים עובר משום בל יראה ובל ימצא ובל יטמין ובל יקבל פקדונות מן הגוי בגבולין שלך אי אתה רואה אבל אתה רואה של אחרים ושל גבוה מניין ליתן את האמור של זה בזה ושל זה בזה

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?

תלמוד לומר שאור שאור לגזירה שוה נאמר שאור בבתים שאר לא ימצא בבתיכם ונאמר שאר בגבולין לא יראה לך שאר מה שאור האמור בבתים עובר משום בל יראה ובל ימצא ובל יטמין ובל יקבל פקדונות מן הגוים אף שאור האמור בגבולין עובר משום בל יראה ובל ימצא ובל יטמין ובל יקבל פקדונות מן הגוים

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: “Seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses,” and it states leaven with regard to borders: “Neither shall there be leaven seen with you.” 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.

ומה שאור האמור בגבולין שלך אי אתה רואה אבל אתה רואה של אחרים ושל גבוה אף שאור האמור בבתים שלך אי אתה רואה אבל אתה רואה של אחרים ושל גבוה:

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.

אמר מר אין לי אלא בגוי שלא כיבשתו ואין שרוי עמך בחצר גוי שכיבשתו ושרוי עמך בחצר מנין תלמוד לומר לא ימצא

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: “It shall not be found in your houses.”

כלפי לייא אמר אביי איפוך

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.

רבא אמר לעולם לא תיפוך וארישא קאי שלך אי אתה רואה אבל אתה רואה של אחרים ושל גבוה אין לי אלא בגוי שלא כיבשתו ואין שרוי עמך בחצר גוי שכיבשתו ושרוי עמך בחצר מנין תלמוד לומר לא ימצא

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: “It shall not be found.”

והאי תנא מיהדר אהיתירא ונסיב לה קרא לאיסורא משום שנאמר לך לך תרי זימני:

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: “No leaven shall be seen with you in all your borders” (Exodus 13:7) and “No leaven shall be seen with you in all your borders” (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.

אמר מר יכול יטמין ויקבל פקדונות מן הגוים תלמוד לומר לא ימצא הא אמרת רישא שלך אי אתה רואה אבל אתה רואה של אחרים ושל גבוה

The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita. The Master said: I might have thought that one may conceal leaven in one’s home or accept deposits of leaven from the gentiles. Therefore, the verse states: It shall not be found. The Gemara asks: But didn’t 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’s house if it belongs to a gentile?

לא קשיא הא דקביל עליה אחריות הא דלא קביל עליה אחריות

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.

כי הא דאמר להו רבא לבני מחוזא בעירו חמירא דבני חילא מבתייכו כיון דאילו מיגנב ואילו מיתביד ברשותייכו קאי ובעיתו לשלומי כדילכון דמי ואסור

That ruling is like that which Rava said to the residents of Meḥoza: 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.

הניחא למאן דאמר דבר הגורם לממון כממון דמי אלא למאן דאמר לאו כממון דמי מאי איכא למימר

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’ 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?

שאני הכא דאמר לא ימצא

The Gemara answers: It is different here, as the verse said: “It shall not be found,” 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.

איכא דאמרי הניחא למאן דאמר דבר הגורם לממון לאו כממון דמי

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.