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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 27, 2020 | 讬状讗 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 6

Today鈥檚 daf is dedicated by Sara Berelowitz “in honor of Rabbanit Michelle and my fellow zoomers on the milestone of finishing Eruvin and starting a new masechet.”
The end of Pesachim 5 focuses on a simple contradiction in the braita related to chametz. The phrase 鈥lo yimatze鈥 (Exodus 12:19) seems to say that anyone鈥檚 chametz cannot be found in your property. But the earlier part of the braita says 鈥測our own chametz cannot be found,鈥 implying that other鈥檚 chametz is not a problem. The gemara鈥檚 solution to this differentiates between property which you accepted liability for (achriyut) and that which you did not accept liability. From here, the gemara discusses a principle known as 鈥渄avar hagorem le-mamon鈥 and discusses responsibility to rid oneself of chametz which the local authorities might make a claim on as part of a tax. Is there a distinction between laws of first born animals and laws of hafrashat challa regarding items taxed by gentile authorities?
From here, the gemara asks a series of very practical questions: Would you be liable if a non Jew walked into your house on Pesach with a sandwich? What about if I designated for the non Jew a room in which to put her chametz? Must I do bedikat chametz if I鈥檓 going away for pesach? What if I plan to return home just before Pesach? And what happens if I find chametz on Pesach?
Key to the gemara’s questions is the 鈥渢hirty day threshold鈥 which says that there are some distinctions if a person leaves thirty days or more before pesach. From here we learn that one is supposed to study the laws of Pesach (and maybe other holidays as well) 30 days before their onset. Finally, the gemara addresses the relationship between bedikat chametz and bitul chametz and asks the question when does one nullify the chametz after one has searched for it.

讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻诪诪讜谉 讚诪讬 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 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 讜讻讬 讗讬转讬讛 讛讚专 讘注讬谞讬讛 诇讗讜 讘专砖讜转讬讛 拽讗讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

That is the reason that it is necessary for the Torah to write: It shall not be found, to indicate that there is a halakha unique to leaven. In this case, it is considered as though it were in his possession. However, according to the one who said: The legal status of an object that effects monetary loss is like that of money, why do I need the phrase: It shall not be found? Obviously, the leaven is prohibited, as it is considered his property. The Gemara answers: It is nonetheless necessary, as it could enter your mind to say: Since when the leaven is intact it returns to the gentile in its pure, unadulterated form, it retroactively did not stand in the Jew鈥檚 possession and the Jew did not violate the prohibition against having leaven found on his property. Therefore, the verse teaches us that it is considered as though the leaven belonged to the Jew.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讗 讘讛诪转 讗专谞讜谞讗 讞讬讬讘转 讘讘讻讜专讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘转 讘讘讻讜专讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪爪讬 诪住诇拽 诇讬讛 讘讝讜讝讬 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讚讞讬讬讘

They raised a dilemma before Rava: Is the owner of an animal born into a herd from which the royal tax [arnona] is collected obligated in the mitzva to give the firstborn animal to a priest, as the animal still belongs to a Jew? Or perhaps he is not obligated to give the firstborn animal to the priest, as the obligation does not take effect on an animal partly owned by a gentile. The Gemara elaborates on the parameters of raising the dilemma: In any case where the Jew could dismiss the gentile tax collector with money in lieu of the animals, we do not raise the dilemma, as he is clearly obligated in the mitzva of the firstborn. The authorities own no part of the animal; the Jew merely owes them a monetary debt. Therefore, the animal is the property of the Jew exclusively.

讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诪住诇拽 诇讬讛 讘讝讜讝讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 驻讟讜专讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞讬讬讘转 讛转诐 讚诪爪讬 诪住诇拽 诇讬讛

The situation when we do raise the dilemma is specifically where the Jew cannot dismiss the gentile tax collector with money. What is the halakha is this case? He said to them: The owner is exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn. The Sages raised a difficulty: But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that he is obligated in the mitzva of the firstborn? He replied: There it is speaking of a case where the Jew could dismiss the gentile tax collector with money.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讛诪转 讗专谞讜谞讗 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪爪讬 诪住诇拽 诇讬讛 注讬住转 讗专谞讜谞讗 讞讬讬讘转 讘讞诇讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诪住诇拽 诇讬讛

Some say that Rava said: The owner of an animal born into a herd from which the royal tax is collected is exempt from the mitzva of a firstborn, even though the Jew could dismiss the gentile tax collector with money. However, the owner of dough from which the royal tax is collected is obligated in 岣lla, despite the fact that the owner of dough partially owned by a gentile is generally not obligated. This is the halakha even though the Jew cannot dismiss the gentile tax collector by paying him the value of the dough.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘讛诪讛 讗讬转 诇讛 拽诇讗 注讬住讛 诇讬转 诇讛 拽诇讗:

The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the difference between the halakha of a firstborn animal and the halakha of 岣lla? An animal generates publicity; as everyone knows that this Jew鈥檚 animal was confiscated by the authorities, no one will suspect him of intentionally refraining from fulfilling the mitzva. In contrast, dough does not generate publicity. Since not everyone knows that the dough is partially owned by a gentile, those who see a Jew failing to separate 岣lla will suspect him of neglecting the mitzva.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讙讜讬 砖谞讻谞住 诇讞爪讬专讜 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讜讘爪讬拽讜 讘讬讚讜 讗讬谉 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专 讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇讜 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专 讬讞讚 诇讜 讘讬转 讗讬谉 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a gentile who enters the courtyard of a Jew with his dough in his hand, the Jew need not remove the leaven by evicting the gentile from his property. However, if the gentile deposited the leaven with him, and the Jew accepted responsibility, he must remove it. If he designated a room in his house for the gentile to place his leavened food, he need not remove it, as it is stated: 鈥淚t shall not be found鈥 (Exodus 12:19).

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇讜 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗

The Gemara asks: What is the tanna of the baraita saying? How does the verse: It shall not be found, prove this halakha? Rav Pappa said: The verse cited is referring to the first clause of the baraita, and this is what the tanna is saying: If the gentile deposited the leavened dough with the Jew, he, i.e., the Jew, must remove the dough from his property, as it is stated: It shall not be found.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬讞讚 诇讜 讘讬转 讗讬谉 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讘讘转讬讻诐 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讙讜讬 讻讬 拽讗 诪注讬讬诇 诇讘讬转讗 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗 诪注讬讬诇

Rav Ashi said: Actually, the verse cited is referring to the last clause of the baraita, and this is what the tanna is saying: If he designated a room in his house for the gentile to place the leavened dough, he need not remove it, as it is stated: It shall not be found in your houses, and that house is not his; since when the gentile brings the dough into the house, he brings it into his own house, as the space was designated for his use.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚砖讻讬专讜转 拽谞讬讗 讜讛转谞谉 讗祝 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专讜 诇讛砖讻讬专 诇讗 诇讘讬转 讚讬专讛 讗诪专讜 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讻谞讬住讬谉 诇转讜讻讜 注讘讜讚转 讙诇讜诇讬诐 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚砖讻讬专讜转 拽谞讬讗 讻讬 拽讗 诪注讬讬诇 诇讘讬转讬讛 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗 诪注讬讬诇

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that rental denotes that the renter acquires the rented space as he would a full-fledged acquisition with regard to responsibility for that space? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: Even in a place with regard to which they said it is permitted for a Jew to rent houses to gentiles, e.g., in Syria, they did not say that one may rent it for use as a residence, because the gentiles will bring idolatry into it. And if it enters your mind to say that rental denotes that the renter acquires the rented space as he would a full-fledged acquisition, when the gentile brings the idols into the house he brings them into his own house. Why, then, is it prohibited for the owner to rent it to a gentile?

砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗驻拽讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇砖讜谉 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 诪讬 砖诪爪讜讬 讘讬讚讱 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谞讜 诪爪讜讬 讘讬讚讱

The Gemara answers: It is different here with regard to leaven, as the Merciful One expresses it using the language: It shall not be found, meaning, that which is found in your possession is prohibited, excluding this leaven, which is not found in your possession. However, with regard to other prohibitions, one who rents a place to others remains somewhat responsible for his property, despite the fact that he does not live there.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪讜爪讗 讞诪抓 讘讘讬转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讻讜驻讛 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讬讘讚诇 讘讚讬诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One who finds leavened bread in his house on the Festival, i.e., the first day of Passover, covers it with a vessel and burns it at the conclusion of the Festival day. Rava said: If that leaven is consecrated, he need not cover it. What is the reason for this difference? The reason is that people distance themselves from consecrated food in any case, due to the severity of the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property. Therefore, there is no concern that he will eat it.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪爪讜 砖诇 讙讜讬 注讜砖讛 诇讜 诪讞讬爪讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讛讬讻专 讜讗诐 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讬讘讚诇 讘讚讬诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诪讬谞讬讛

And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If leavened bread belonging to a gentile is in a Jew鈥檚 house, he, i.e., the Jew, should erect a barrier ten handbreadths high around it on the fourteenth of Nisan, as a conspicuous marker, so that he will not mistakenly eat it. And if the leaven is consecrated, he need not do so. What is the reason for this halakha? Since people distance themselves from consecrated food, they will not mistakenly eat it.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪驻专砖 讜讛讬讜爪讗 讘砖讬讬专讗 拽讜讚诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讬谉 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专 转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖讚注转讜 诇讞讝讜专 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讚注转讜 诇讞讝讜专 讗讬谉 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专

And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: With regard to one who sets sail, or one who departs in a caravan traveling to a distant place; if he did so before it was thirty days prior to Passover, he need not remove the leaven from his possession. If he departs within thirty days of the Festival, he must remove the leaven. Abaye said: That which you said, that within thirty days one must remove the leaven, we only said this in a case where his intention is to return home adjacent to Passover (Ran). However, in a case where it is not his intention to return before Passover, he need not remove the leaven.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讗讬 讚注转讜 诇讞讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 拽讜讚诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讬谉 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讚注转讜 诇讞讝讜专 讗讘诇 讚注转讜 诇讞讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专

Rava said to him: But if he intends to return home shortly before the Festival, even if he was gone from Rosh HaShana, shouldn鈥檛 he remove the leaven, as failure to do so will lead to his arriving home and discovering leaven in his house just before the Festival? Rather, Rava said: According to that which you said, i.e., that if he leaves before it was thirty days prior to Passover he need not remove the leaven, we said this halakha only if he does not intend to return before Passover. However, if he intends to return, even if he was gone from Rosh HaShana, he must remove the leaven.

讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛注讜砖讛 讘讬转讜 讗讜爪专 拽讜讚诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讬谉 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专 转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专

And Rava followed his line of reasoning stated elsewhere, as Rava maintains that one must remove all leaven from his possession within thirty days of Passover, even if he will not be there on the Festival itself. As Rava said: With regard to one who turns his house into a storehouse, and there is leaven beneath the stored grain, if he does so before it was thirty days prior to Passover, he need not remove the leaven. Since the leaven is concealed, it is considered removed after the fact. If it is within thirty days, he must remove the leaven, as it is not considered removed ab initio.

讜拽讜讚诐 砖诇砖讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讚注转讜 诇驻谞讜转讜 讗讘诇 讚注转讜 诇驻谞讜转讜 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讜讚诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 谞诪讬 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专

And even if this occurred before it was thirty days prior to Passover, we only said that he is not obligated to remove the leaven if it is not his intention to clear away the stored grain before Passover. However, if his intention is to clear away the grain before Passover, he must remove the leaven even before it was thirty days prior to Passover, as perhaps he will not have time to remove the leaven before the Festival.

讛谞讬 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讬讛讜 讻讚转谞讬讗 砖讜讗诇讬谉 讜讚讜专砖讬谉 讘讛诇讻讜转 讛驻住讞 拽讜讚诐 讛驻住讞 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖转讬 砖讘转讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗

The Gemara asks: What is the purpose of this period of thirty days that renders it significant? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: One asks about and teaches the halakhot of Passover thirty days before Passover. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One begins studying those halakhot two weeks before the Festival. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of the first tanna, that one begins studying the halakhot of Passover thirty days before the Festival?

砖讛专讬 诪砖讛 注讜诪讚 讘驻住讞 专讗砖讜谉 讜诪讝讛讬专 注诇 讛驻住讞 砖谞讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬注砖讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讛驻住讞 讘诪讜注讚讜 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬讛讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讗砖专 讛讬讜 讟诪讗讬诐 诇谞驻砖 讗讚诐

The Gemara explains that this halakha is derived from the fact that Moses was standing at the time of the first Pesa岣, on the fourteenth of Nisan, and warning the people about the halakhot of the second Pesa岣, which occurred a month later, on the fourteenth of Iyyar. As it is stated that God said to Moses: 鈥淟et the children of Israel perform the Pesa岣 at its appointed time鈥 (Numbers 9:2). A subsequent verse says: 鈥淎nd Moses told the children of Israel to perform the Pesa岣, and they performed the Pesa岣 in the first month on the fourteenth of the month in the evening, in the desert of Sinai鈥 (Numbers 9:4鈥5). And it is written in the next verse: 鈥淎nd there were people who were impure due to a dead body and could not perform the Passover on that day, and they came before Moses and before Aaron on that day鈥 (Numbers 9:6), at which point Moses explained the halakhot of the second Pesa岣 to them. This proves that one begins studying the halakhot of the Festival thirty days beforehand.

讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 诇讱 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗讬讬专讬 讘诪讬诇讬 讚驻住讞讗 诪住讬拽 诇讛讜 诇讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚驻住讞讗

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel could have said to you in rejecting that proof: Since Moses was speaking with regard to the laws of Passover, he completed teaching all the matters of Passover, including those of the second Pesa岣. Consequently, one cannot derive a principle from this case.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖讛专讬 诪砖讛 注讜诪讚 讘专讗砖 讛讞讚砖 讜诪讝讛讬专 注诇 讛驻住讞 砖谞讗诪专 讛讞讚砖 讛讝讛 诇讻诐 专讗砖 讞讚砖讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讚讘专讜 讗诇 讻诇 注讚转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗诪专 讘注砖专 诇讞讚砖 讛讝讛 讜讬拽讞讜 诇讛诐 讗讬砖 砖讛 诇讘讬转 讗讘讜转 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel鈥檚 ruling? He explains that Moses was standing on the first day of Nisan and warning about the performance of the first Pesa岣, as it is stated: 鈥淭his month shall be for you the beginning of the months, the first of the months of the year鈥 (Exodus 12:2). And it is written in the next verse: 鈥淪peak to the entire congregation of Israel, saying: On the tenth day of this month they shall take for them every man a lamb, according to their fathers鈥 houses, a lamb for each household鈥 (Exodus 12:3). The Torah proceeds to detail the halakhot of the Paschal lamb sacrificed on the fourteenth day of that month.

诪诪讗讬 讚讘专讬砖 讬专讞讗 拽讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讘讗专讘注讛 讘讬专讞讗 讗讜 讘讞诪砖讛 讘讬专讞讗 拽讗讬

The Gemara asks: Although this source does indicate that one should study the halakhot of Passover prior to the Festival, from where is it derived that he was standing and saying these matters on the day of the New Moon? Perhaps he was standing on the fourth of the month or on the fifth of the month of Nisan?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖讬诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讬讚讘专 讛壮 讗诇 诪砖讛 讘诪讚讘专 住讬谞讬 讘砖谞讛 讛砖谞讬转 讘讞讚砖 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬注砖讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讛驻住讞 讘诪讜注讚讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪诪讗讬 讚讘专讬砖 讬专讞讗 拽讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讘讗专讘注讛 讘讬专讞讗 讗讜 讘讞诪砖讛 讘讬专讞讗 拽讗讬

Rather, Rabba bar Shimi said in the name of Ravina: The halakha is derived from here: 鈥淎nd God spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the first month of the second year after they came out of the land of Egypt鈥 (Numbers 9:1), and it is written: 鈥淎nd let the children of Israel perform the Pesa岣 at its appointed time鈥 (Numbers 9:2). Evidently, Moses taught the halakhot of Passover two weeks prior to the Festival. The Gemara asks: Here too, from where is it derived that he was standing on the day of the New Moon? Perhaps he was standing on the fourth of the month or on the fifth of the month?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗转讬讗 诪讚讘专 诪诪讚讘专 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讘诪讚讘专 住讬谞讬 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讜讬讚讘专 讛壮 讗诇 诪砖讛 讘诪讚讘专 住讬谞讬 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讘讗讞讚 诇讞讚砖 讛砖谞讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘专讗砖 讞讚砖 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘专讗砖 讞讚砖

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term wilderness written here and the term wilderness written previously. It is written here: 鈥淚n the wilderness of Sinai,鈥 and it is written there: 鈥淎nd God spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai in the Tent of Meeting on the first of the second month鈥 (Numbers 1:1). Just as there it occurred on the day of the New Moon, on the first of the month, so too here, with regard to Passover, it was on the day of the New Moon.

讜谞讬讻转讜讘 讘专讬砖讗 讚讞讚砖 专讗砖讜谉 讜讛讚专 谞讬讻转讜讘 讚讞讚砖 砖谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讗讬谉 诪讜拽讚诐 讜诪讗讜讞专 讘转讜专讛

The Gemara asks: If so, let the Torah write first that which occurred in the first month and then let it write that which occurred in the second month, as the portion of the Paschal lamb preceded the beginning of the book of Numbers chronologically. Rav Menashiya bar Ta岣ifa said in the name of Rav: That is to say that there is no earlier and later, i.e., there is no absolute chronological order, in the Torah, as events that occurred later in time can appear earlier in the Torah.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘转专讬 注谞讬讬谞讬 讗讘诇 讘讞讚 注谞讬讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讚诪讜拽讚诐 诪讜拽讚诐 讜诪讗讬 讚诪讗讜讞专 诪讗讜讞专 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讗讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讘驻专讟 讚讬诇诪讗 驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讛讜讗

Rav Pappa said: This principle applies only when the Torah deals with two separate matters, but within one matter, that which is written earlier occurred earlier, and that which is written later occurred later; as, if you do not say so but you claim that there is no definite order within each matter, then the hermeneutic principle: When a generalization is followed by a detail the generalization refers only to that which is specified in the detail, is problematic. This principle is valid only if there is a definite order to the verses and words in each matter. If there is no definite order, perhaps it is actually a detail followed by a generalization, which is interpreted by means of an alternate hermeneutic principle with different results.

讜转讜 驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 谞注砖讛 讻诇诇 诪讜住祝 注诇 讛驻专讟 讚讬诇诪讗 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讛讜讗

And furthermore, this is equally difficult with regard to the hermeneutic principle: 鈥淲hen a detail is followed by a generalization, the generalization becomes an addition to the detail, adding cases dissimilar to the detail. Here too, perhaps it is a generalization followed by a detail, as there is no defined order. Apparently, there must be a fixed order within a given matter.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转专讬 注谞讬讬谞讬 谞诪讬 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讛诪专讜讞拽讬谉 讝讛 诪讝讛 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚谞讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: If so, based on the above reasoning one cannot apply these principles even with regard to two matters. This statement works out well according to the opinion of the one who said: With regard to a generalization and a detail that appear in the Torah removed from one another, one cannot derive a halakha from it with the principle of a generalization and a detail. However, according to the one who said: One derives from a generalization and a detail that are removed from one another by means of said principle, what is there to say?

讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚谞讬谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讞讚 注谞讬讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讘转专讬 注谞讬讬谞讬 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉:

The Gemara answers: Even according to the one who said that one derives a halakha from a generalization and a detail that are removed from one another, this applies only with regard to one matter, i.e., verses dealing with the same issue, even if they do not appear together. However, if they address two different matters, one cannot derive a halakha from a generalization and a detail, as the Torah is not written in absolute chronological order.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讘讜讚拽 爪专讬讱 砖讬讘讟诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 驻讬专讜专讬谉 讛讗 诇讗 讞砖讬讘讬

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One who searches for leaven must render all his leaven null and void, cognitively and verbally. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? If you say it is due to crumbs that he failed to detect in his search, they are inherently insignificant, and null and void by definition.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬谞讟专 诇讛讜 讗讙讘 讘讬转讬讛 讞砖讬讘讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 住讜驻讬 转讗谞讬诐 讜诪砖诪专 砖讚讛讜 诪驻谞讬 注谞讘讬诐 住讜驻讬 注谞讘讬诐 讜诪砖诪专 砖讚讛讜 诪驻谞讬 诪拽砖讗讜转 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讚诇注讜转

And lest you say: Since they are protected on account of their very presence in his house, whose protection is important to him, they are significant and are not null and void, wasn鈥檛 it taught in the Tosefta that this is not the case? When the end of the fig season arrives, and those remaining figs on the trees are few and of inferior quality, there is room to assume that the owner has renounced his ownership over them. However, he continues to guard his field due to the grapes, which are harvested at that time. Similarly, when the end of the grape season arrives, those few remaining grapes are of inferior quality and the owner guards his field due to the cucumbers and due to the gourds, which have not yet been harvested.

讘讝诪谉 砖讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘诪注砖专 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 诪注砖专

When the owner is particular about the figs and the grapes respectively, it is prohibited to take them, due to the prohibition against robbery, and one with permission to eat them is obligated due to the mitzva to separate the tithe from them, as they are considered like any other fruit. When the owner is not particular about them, it is permitted to eat them due to the fact that the prohibition against robbery does not apply, and one who eats them is exempt due to the fact that the obligation to separate the tithe does not apply, as they are ownerless property. This indicates that if one is not particular about an object, even if it is located in property that he is guarding for another purpose, that object is not thereby rendered significant. The same reasoning applies to breadcrumbs that remain in one鈥檚 house.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 讙诇讜住拽讗 讬驻讛 讜讚注转讬讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讬讛 诇讘讟诇讬讛

Rava said: The reason for the requirement to render leaven null and void is based on a decree lest he find a fine cake [geluska] among the leaven that he did not destroy and his thoughts are upon it. Due to its significance, he will hesitate before removing it and will be in violation of the prohibition against owning leaven. The Gemara asks: And let him nullify it when he finds it.

讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讬讛 诇讘转专 讗讬住讜专讗 讜诇讗讜 讘专砖讜转讬讛 拽讬讬诪讗 讜诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讘讟讬诇 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 讗讬谞谉 讘专砖讜转讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讜注砖讗谉 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 讘专砖讜转讜 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讞诪抓 诪砖砖 砖注讜转 讜诇诪注诇讛

The Gemara rejects this suggestion. Perhaps he will find it only after it is already forbidden, and at that time it is no longer in his possession and he is therefore unable to nullify leaven when it is already Passover, as Rabbi Elazar said: Two items are not in a person鈥檚 possession in terms of legal ownership, and yet the Torah rendered him responsible for them as though they were in his property. And these are they: An open pit in the public domain, for which the one who excavated it is liable to pay any damages it causes even though it does not belong to him; and leaven in one鈥檚 house from the sixth hour on the fourteenth of Nisan and onward. As this leaven has no monetary value, since it is prohibited to eat or to derive benefit from it, it is not his property, and nevertheless he violates a prohibition if it remains in his domain.

讜谞讬讘讟诇讬讛 讘讗专讘注 讜谞讬讘讟诇讬讛 讘讞诪砖 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 讝诪谉 讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讗 讜诇讗讜 讝诪谉 讘讬注讜专讗 讛讜讗 讚讬诇诪讗 驻砖注 讜诇讗 诪讘讟诇 诇讬讛

The Gemara returns to the issue of the nullification of leaven. If so, let him render the leaven null and void during the fourth hour or let him render it null and void during the fifth hour of the fourteenth of Nisan. Why is he required to do so when he searches for leaven on the evening of the fourteenth? The Gemara answers: Since the fourth hour is neither the time of the prohibition of the leaven nor the time of its removal, it is a nondescript point in time. There is concern that perhaps he will be negligent and will not render it null and void, and the leaven will remain in his possession.

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

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...
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 6: Rules of Gemara Logic

Pesachim 6: More interplay between Jews and non-Jews, and ownership of chametz (by a non-Jew) in a Jew's space. Note...
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...

Pesachim 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 6

讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻诪诪讜谉 讚诪讬 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 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 讜讻讬 讗讬转讬讛 讛讚专 讘注讬谞讬讛 诇讗讜 讘专砖讜转讬讛 拽讗讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

That is the reason that it is necessary for the Torah to write: It shall not be found, to indicate that there is a halakha unique to leaven. In this case, it is considered as though it were in his possession. However, according to the one who said: The legal status of an object that effects monetary loss is like that of money, why do I need the phrase: It shall not be found? Obviously, the leaven is prohibited, as it is considered his property. The Gemara answers: It is nonetheless necessary, as it could enter your mind to say: Since when the leaven is intact it returns to the gentile in its pure, unadulterated form, it retroactively did not stand in the Jew鈥檚 possession and the Jew did not violate the prohibition against having leaven found on his property. Therefore, the verse teaches us that it is considered as though the leaven belonged to the Jew.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讗 讘讛诪转 讗专谞讜谞讗 讞讬讬讘转 讘讘讻讜专讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘转 讘讘讻讜专讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪爪讬 诪住诇拽 诇讬讛 讘讝讜讝讬 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讚讞讬讬讘

They raised a dilemma before Rava: Is the owner of an animal born into a herd from which the royal tax [arnona] is collected obligated in the mitzva to give the firstborn animal to a priest, as the animal still belongs to a Jew? Or perhaps he is not obligated to give the firstborn animal to the priest, as the obligation does not take effect on an animal partly owned by a gentile. The Gemara elaborates on the parameters of raising the dilemma: In any case where the Jew could dismiss the gentile tax collector with money in lieu of the animals, we do not raise the dilemma, as he is clearly obligated in the mitzva of the firstborn. The authorities own no part of the animal; the Jew merely owes them a monetary debt. Therefore, the animal is the property of the Jew exclusively.

讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诪住诇拽 诇讬讛 讘讝讜讝讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 驻讟讜专讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞讬讬讘转 讛转诐 讚诪爪讬 诪住诇拽 诇讬讛

The situation when we do raise the dilemma is specifically where the Jew cannot dismiss the gentile tax collector with money. What is the halakha is this case? He said to them: The owner is exempt from the mitzva of the firstborn. The Sages raised a difficulty: But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that he is obligated in the mitzva of the firstborn? He replied: There it is speaking of a case where the Jew could dismiss the gentile tax collector with money.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讛诪转 讗专谞讜谞讗 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪爪讬 诪住诇拽 诇讬讛 注讬住转 讗专谞讜谞讗 讞讬讬讘转 讘讞诇讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 诪住诇拽 诇讬讛

Some say that Rava said: The owner of an animal born into a herd from which the royal tax is collected is exempt from the mitzva of a firstborn, even though the Jew could dismiss the gentile tax collector with money. However, the owner of dough from which the royal tax is collected is obligated in 岣lla, despite the fact that the owner of dough partially owned by a gentile is generally not obligated. This is the halakha even though the Jew cannot dismiss the gentile tax collector by paying him the value of the dough.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘讛诪讛 讗讬转 诇讛 拽诇讗 注讬住讛 诇讬转 诇讛 拽诇讗:

The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the difference between the halakha of a firstborn animal and the halakha of 岣lla? An animal generates publicity; as everyone knows that this Jew鈥檚 animal was confiscated by the authorities, no one will suspect him of intentionally refraining from fulfilling the mitzva. In contrast, dough does not generate publicity. Since not everyone knows that the dough is partially owned by a gentile, those who see a Jew failing to separate 岣lla will suspect him of neglecting the mitzva.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讙讜讬 砖谞讻谞住 诇讞爪讬专讜 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讜讘爪讬拽讜 讘讬讚讜 讗讬谉 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专 讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇讜 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专 讬讞讚 诇讜 讘讬转 讗讬谉 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a gentile who enters the courtyard of a Jew with his dough in his hand, the Jew need not remove the leaven by evicting the gentile from his property. However, if the gentile deposited the leaven with him, and the Jew accepted responsibility, he must remove it. If he designated a room in his house for the gentile to place his leavened food, he need not remove it, as it is stated: 鈥淚t shall not be found鈥 (Exodus 12:19).

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛驻拽讬讚讜 讗爪诇讜 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗

The Gemara asks: What is the tanna of the baraita saying? How does the verse: It shall not be found, prove this halakha? Rav Pappa said: The verse cited is referring to the first clause of the baraita, and this is what the tanna is saying: If the gentile deposited the leavened dough with the Jew, he, i.e., the Jew, must remove the dough from his property, as it is stated: It shall not be found.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬讞讚 诇讜 讘讬转 讗讬谉 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讘讘转讬讻诐 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讙讜讬 讻讬 拽讗 诪注讬讬诇 诇讘讬转讗 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗 诪注讬讬诇

Rav Ashi said: Actually, the verse cited is referring to the last clause of the baraita, and this is what the tanna is saying: If he designated a room in his house for the gentile to place the leavened dough, he need not remove it, as it is stated: It shall not be found in your houses, and that house is not his; since when the gentile brings the dough into the house, he brings it into his own house, as the space was designated for his use.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚砖讻讬专讜转 拽谞讬讗 讜讛转谞谉 讗祝 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专讜 诇讛砖讻讬专 诇讗 诇讘讬转 讚讬专讛 讗诪专讜 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讻谞讬住讬谉 诇转讜讻讜 注讘讜讚转 讙诇讜诇讬诐 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚砖讻讬专讜转 拽谞讬讗 讻讬 拽讗 诪注讬讬诇 诇讘讬转讬讛 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗 诪注讬讬诇

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that rental denotes that the renter acquires the rented space as he would a full-fledged acquisition with regard to responsibility for that space? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: Even in a place with regard to which they said it is permitted for a Jew to rent houses to gentiles, e.g., in Syria, they did not say that one may rent it for use as a residence, because the gentiles will bring idolatry into it. And if it enters your mind to say that rental denotes that the renter acquires the rented space as he would a full-fledged acquisition, when the gentile brings the idols into the house he brings them into his own house. Why, then, is it prohibited for the owner to rent it to a gentile?

砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗驻拽讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇砖讜谉 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 诪讬 砖诪爪讜讬 讘讬讚讱 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谞讜 诪爪讜讬 讘讬讚讱

The Gemara answers: It is different here with regard to leaven, as the Merciful One expresses it using the language: It shall not be found, meaning, that which is found in your possession is prohibited, excluding this leaven, which is not found in your possession. However, with regard to other prohibitions, one who rents a place to others remains somewhat responsible for his property, despite the fact that he does not live there.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪讜爪讗 讞诪抓 讘讘讬转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讻讜驻讛 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讬讘讚诇 讘讚讬诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One who finds leavened bread in his house on the Festival, i.e., the first day of Passover, covers it with a vessel and burns it at the conclusion of the Festival day. Rava said: If that leaven is consecrated, he need not cover it. What is the reason for this difference? The reason is that people distance themselves from consecrated food in any case, due to the severity of the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property. Therefore, there is no concern that he will eat it.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪爪讜 砖诇 讙讜讬 注讜砖讛 诇讜 诪讞讬爪讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讛讬讻专 讜讗诐 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讬讘讚诇 讘讚讬诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诪讬谞讬讛

And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If leavened bread belonging to a gentile is in a Jew鈥檚 house, he, i.e., the Jew, should erect a barrier ten handbreadths high around it on the fourteenth of Nisan, as a conspicuous marker, so that he will not mistakenly eat it. And if the leaven is consecrated, he need not do so. What is the reason for this halakha? Since people distance themselves from consecrated food, they will not mistakenly eat it.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪驻专砖 讜讛讬讜爪讗 讘砖讬讬专讗 拽讜讚诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讬谉 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专 转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖讚注转讜 诇讞讝讜专 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讚注转讜 诇讞讝讜专 讗讬谉 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专

And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: With regard to one who sets sail, or one who departs in a caravan traveling to a distant place; if he did so before it was thirty days prior to Passover, he need not remove the leaven from his possession. If he departs within thirty days of the Festival, he must remove the leaven. Abaye said: That which you said, that within thirty days one must remove the leaven, we only said this in a case where his intention is to return home adjacent to Passover (Ran). However, in a case where it is not his intention to return before Passover, he need not remove the leaven.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讗讬 讚注转讜 诇讞讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 拽讜讚诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讬谉 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讚注转讜 诇讞讝讜专 讗讘诇 讚注转讜 诇讞讝讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专

Rava said to him: But if he intends to return home shortly before the Festival, even if he was gone from Rosh HaShana, shouldn鈥檛 he remove the leaven, as failure to do so will lead to his arriving home and discovering leaven in his house just before the Festival? Rather, Rava said: According to that which you said, i.e., that if he leaves before it was thirty days prior to Passover he need not remove the leaven, we said this halakha only if he does not intend to return before Passover. However, if he intends to return, even if he was gone from Rosh HaShana, he must remove the leaven.

讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛注讜砖讛 讘讬转讜 讗讜爪专 拽讜讚诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讬谉 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专 转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专

And Rava followed his line of reasoning stated elsewhere, as Rava maintains that one must remove all leaven from his possession within thirty days of Passover, even if he will not be there on the Festival itself. As Rava said: With regard to one who turns his house into a storehouse, and there is leaven beneath the stored grain, if he does so before it was thirty days prior to Passover, he need not remove the leaven. Since the leaven is concealed, it is considered removed after the fact. If it is within thirty days, he must remove the leaven, as it is not considered removed ab initio.

讜拽讜讚诐 砖诇砖讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讚注转讜 诇驻谞讜转讜 讗讘诇 讚注转讜 诇驻谞讜转讜 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讜讚诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 谞诪讬 讝拽讜拽 诇讘注专

And even if this occurred before it was thirty days prior to Passover, we only said that he is not obligated to remove the leaven if it is not his intention to clear away the stored grain before Passover. However, if his intention is to clear away the grain before Passover, he must remove the leaven even before it was thirty days prior to Passover, as perhaps he will not have time to remove the leaven before the Festival.

讛谞讬 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讬讛讜 讻讚转谞讬讗 砖讜讗诇讬谉 讜讚讜专砖讬谉 讘讛诇讻讜转 讛驻住讞 拽讜讚诐 讛驻住讞 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖转讬 砖讘转讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗

The Gemara asks: What is the purpose of this period of thirty days that renders it significant? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: One asks about and teaches the halakhot of Passover thirty days before Passover. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One begins studying those halakhot two weeks before the Festival. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of the first tanna, that one begins studying the halakhot of Passover thirty days before the Festival?

砖讛专讬 诪砖讛 注讜诪讚 讘驻住讞 专讗砖讜谉 讜诪讝讛讬专 注诇 讛驻住讞 砖谞讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬注砖讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讛驻住讞 讘诪讜注讚讜 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬讛讬 讗谞砖讬诐 讗砖专 讛讬讜 讟诪讗讬诐 诇谞驻砖 讗讚诐

The Gemara explains that this halakha is derived from the fact that Moses was standing at the time of the first Pesa岣, on the fourteenth of Nisan, and warning the people about the halakhot of the second Pesa岣, which occurred a month later, on the fourteenth of Iyyar. As it is stated that God said to Moses: 鈥淟et the children of Israel perform the Pesa岣 at its appointed time鈥 (Numbers 9:2). A subsequent verse says: 鈥淎nd Moses told the children of Israel to perform the Pesa岣, and they performed the Pesa岣 in the first month on the fourteenth of the month in the evening, in the desert of Sinai鈥 (Numbers 9:4鈥5). And it is written in the next verse: 鈥淎nd there were people who were impure due to a dead body and could not perform the Passover on that day, and they came before Moses and before Aaron on that day鈥 (Numbers 9:6), at which point Moses explained the halakhot of the second Pesa岣 to them. This proves that one begins studying the halakhot of the Festival thirty days beforehand.

讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 诇讱 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗讬讬专讬 讘诪讬诇讬 讚驻住讞讗 诪住讬拽 诇讛讜 诇讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚驻住讞讗

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel could have said to you in rejecting that proof: Since Moses was speaking with regard to the laws of Passover, he completed teaching all the matters of Passover, including those of the second Pesa岣. Consequently, one cannot derive a principle from this case.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖讛专讬 诪砖讛 注讜诪讚 讘专讗砖 讛讞讚砖 讜诪讝讛讬专 注诇 讛驻住讞 砖谞讗诪专 讛讞讚砖 讛讝讛 诇讻诐 专讗砖 讞讚砖讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讚讘专讜 讗诇 讻诇 注讚转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗诪专 讘注砖专 诇讞讚砖 讛讝讛 讜讬拽讞讜 诇讛诐 讗讬砖 砖讛 诇讘讬转 讗讘讜转 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel鈥檚 ruling? He explains that Moses was standing on the first day of Nisan and warning about the performance of the first Pesa岣, as it is stated: 鈥淭his month shall be for you the beginning of the months, the first of the months of the year鈥 (Exodus 12:2). And it is written in the next verse: 鈥淪peak to the entire congregation of Israel, saying: On the tenth day of this month they shall take for them every man a lamb, according to their fathers鈥 houses, a lamb for each household鈥 (Exodus 12:3). The Torah proceeds to detail the halakhot of the Paschal lamb sacrificed on the fourteenth day of that month.

诪诪讗讬 讚讘专讬砖 讬专讞讗 拽讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讘讗专讘注讛 讘讬专讞讗 讗讜 讘讞诪砖讛 讘讬专讞讗 拽讗讬

The Gemara asks: Although this source does indicate that one should study the halakhot of Passover prior to the Festival, from where is it derived that he was standing and saying these matters on the day of the New Moon? Perhaps he was standing on the fourth of the month or on the fifth of the month of Nisan?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖讬诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讬讚讘专 讛壮 讗诇 诪砖讛 讘诪讚讘专 住讬谞讬 讘砖谞讛 讛砖谞讬转 讘讞讚砖 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬注砖讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讛驻住讞 讘诪讜注讚讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪诪讗讬 讚讘专讬砖 讬专讞讗 拽讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讘讗专讘注讛 讘讬专讞讗 讗讜 讘讞诪砖讛 讘讬专讞讗 拽讗讬

Rather, Rabba bar Shimi said in the name of Ravina: The halakha is derived from here: 鈥淎nd God spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the first month of the second year after they came out of the land of Egypt鈥 (Numbers 9:1), and it is written: 鈥淎nd let the children of Israel perform the Pesa岣 at its appointed time鈥 (Numbers 9:2). Evidently, Moses taught the halakhot of Passover two weeks prior to the Festival. The Gemara asks: Here too, from where is it derived that he was standing on the day of the New Moon? Perhaps he was standing on the fourth of the month or on the fifth of the month?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗转讬讗 诪讚讘专 诪诪讚讘专 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讘诪讚讘专 住讬谞讬 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讜讬讚讘专 讛壮 讗诇 诪砖讛 讘诪讚讘专 住讬谞讬 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讘讗讞讚 诇讞讚砖 讛砖谞讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘专讗砖 讞讚砖 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘专讗砖 讞讚砖

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term wilderness written here and the term wilderness written previously. It is written here: 鈥淚n the wilderness of Sinai,鈥 and it is written there: 鈥淎nd God spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai in the Tent of Meeting on the first of the second month鈥 (Numbers 1:1). Just as there it occurred on the day of the New Moon, on the first of the month, so too here, with regard to Passover, it was on the day of the New Moon.

讜谞讬讻转讜讘 讘专讬砖讗 讚讞讚砖 专讗砖讜谉 讜讛讚专 谞讬讻转讜讘 讚讞讚砖 砖谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讗讬谉 诪讜拽讚诐 讜诪讗讜讞专 讘转讜专讛

The Gemara asks: If so, let the Torah write first that which occurred in the first month and then let it write that which occurred in the second month, as the portion of the Paschal lamb preceded the beginning of the book of Numbers chronologically. Rav Menashiya bar Ta岣ifa said in the name of Rav: That is to say that there is no earlier and later, i.e., there is no absolute chronological order, in the Torah, as events that occurred later in time can appear earlier in the Torah.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘转专讬 注谞讬讬谞讬 讗讘诇 讘讞讚 注谞讬讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讚诪讜拽讚诐 诪讜拽讚诐 讜诪讗讬 讚诪讗讜讞专 诪讗讜讞专 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讗讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讘驻专讟 讚讬诇诪讗 驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讛讜讗

Rav Pappa said: This principle applies only when the Torah deals with two separate matters, but within one matter, that which is written earlier occurred earlier, and that which is written later occurred later; as, if you do not say so but you claim that there is no definite order within each matter, then the hermeneutic principle: When a generalization is followed by a detail the generalization refers only to that which is specified in the detail, is problematic. This principle is valid only if there is a definite order to the verses and words in each matter. If there is no definite order, perhaps it is actually a detail followed by a generalization, which is interpreted by means of an alternate hermeneutic principle with different results.

讜转讜 驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 谞注砖讛 讻诇诇 诪讜住祝 注诇 讛驻专讟 讚讬诇诪讗 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讛讜讗

And furthermore, this is equally difficult with regard to the hermeneutic principle: 鈥淲hen a detail is followed by a generalization, the generalization becomes an addition to the detail, adding cases dissimilar to the detail. Here too, perhaps it is a generalization followed by a detail, as there is no defined order. Apparently, there must be a fixed order within a given matter.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转专讬 注谞讬讬谞讬 谞诪讬 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讛诪专讜讞拽讬谉 讝讛 诪讝讛 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚谞讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: If so, based on the above reasoning one cannot apply these principles even with regard to two matters. This statement works out well according to the opinion of the one who said: With regard to a generalization and a detail that appear in the Torah removed from one another, one cannot derive a halakha from it with the principle of a generalization and a detail. However, according to the one who said: One derives from a generalization and a detail that are removed from one another by means of said principle, what is there to say?

讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚谞讬谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讞讚 注谞讬讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讘转专讬 注谞讬讬谞讬 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉:

The Gemara answers: Even according to the one who said that one derives a halakha from a generalization and a detail that are removed from one another, this applies only with regard to one matter, i.e., verses dealing with the same issue, even if they do not appear together. However, if they address two different matters, one cannot derive a halakha from a generalization and a detail, as the Torah is not written in absolute chronological order.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讘讜讚拽 爪专讬讱 砖讬讘讟诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 驻讬专讜专讬谉 讛讗 诇讗 讞砖讬讘讬

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One who searches for leaven must render all his leaven null and void, cognitively and verbally. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? If you say it is due to crumbs that he failed to detect in his search, they are inherently insignificant, and null and void by definition.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讬谞讟专 诇讛讜 讗讙讘 讘讬转讬讛 讞砖讬讘讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 住讜驻讬 转讗谞讬诐 讜诪砖诪专 砖讚讛讜 诪驻谞讬 注谞讘讬诐 住讜驻讬 注谞讘讬诐 讜诪砖诪专 砖讚讛讜 诪驻谞讬 诪拽砖讗讜转 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讚诇注讜转

And lest you say: Since they are protected on account of their very presence in his house, whose protection is important to him, they are significant and are not null and void, wasn鈥檛 it taught in the Tosefta that this is not the case? When the end of the fig season arrives, and those remaining figs on the trees are few and of inferior quality, there is room to assume that the owner has renounced his ownership over them. However, he continues to guard his field due to the grapes, which are harvested at that time. Similarly, when the end of the grape season arrives, those few remaining grapes are of inferior quality and the owner guards his field due to the cucumbers and due to the gourds, which have not yet been harvested.

讘讝诪谉 砖讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘诪注砖专 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 诪注砖专

When the owner is particular about the figs and the grapes respectively, it is prohibited to take them, due to the prohibition against robbery, and one with permission to eat them is obligated due to the mitzva to separate the tithe from them, as they are considered like any other fruit. When the owner is not particular about them, it is permitted to eat them due to the fact that the prohibition against robbery does not apply, and one who eats them is exempt due to the fact that the obligation to separate the tithe does not apply, as they are ownerless property. This indicates that if one is not particular about an object, even if it is located in property that he is guarding for another purpose, that object is not thereby rendered significant. The same reasoning applies to breadcrumbs that remain in one鈥檚 house.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 讙诇讜住拽讗 讬驻讛 讜讚注转讬讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讬讛 诇讘讟诇讬讛

Rava said: The reason for the requirement to render leaven null and void is based on a decree lest he find a fine cake [geluska] among the leaven that he did not destroy and his thoughts are upon it. Due to its significance, he will hesitate before removing it and will be in violation of the prohibition against owning leaven. The Gemara asks: And let him nullify it when he finds it.

讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讬讛 诇讘转专 讗讬住讜专讗 讜诇讗讜 讘专砖讜转讬讛 拽讬讬诪讗 讜诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讘讟讬诇 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 讗讬谞谉 讘专砖讜转讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讜注砖讗谉 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 讘专砖讜转讜 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讞诪抓 诪砖砖 砖注讜转 讜诇诪注诇讛

The Gemara rejects this suggestion. Perhaps he will find it only after it is already forbidden, and at that time it is no longer in his possession and he is therefore unable to nullify leaven when it is already Passover, as Rabbi Elazar said: Two items are not in a person鈥檚 possession in terms of legal ownership, and yet the Torah rendered him responsible for them as though they were in his property. And these are they: An open pit in the public domain, for which the one who excavated it is liable to pay any damages it causes even though it does not belong to him; and leaven in one鈥檚 house from the sixth hour on the fourteenth of Nisan and onward. As this leaven has no monetary value, since it is prohibited to eat or to derive benefit from it, it is not his property, and nevertheless he violates a prohibition if it remains in his domain.

讜谞讬讘讟诇讬讛 讘讗专讘注 讜谞讬讘讟诇讬讛 讘讞诪砖 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 讝诪谉 讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讗 讜诇讗讜 讝诪谉 讘讬注讜专讗 讛讜讗 讚讬诇诪讗 驻砖注 讜诇讗 诪讘讟诇 诇讬讛

The Gemara returns to the issue of the nullification of leaven. If so, let him render the leaven null and void during the fourth hour or let him render it null and void during the fifth hour of the fourteenth of Nisan. Why is he required to do so when he searches for leaven on the evening of the fourteenth? The Gemara answers: Since the fourth hour is neither the time of the prohibition of the leaven nor the time of its removal, it is a nondescript point in time. There is concern that perhaps he will be negligent and will not render it null and void, and the leaven will remain in his possession.

Scroll To Top