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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 28, 2020 | 讬状讘 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.

Pesachim 7

A week of learning is dedicated by Audrey Mondrow for the 7th yahrzeit of her father, Irving “Poppy” Mauskopf Yechezkel Ben Avraham and Rachel z”l “who taught us with his complete emunah, faith, in Hashem: ‘Who is rich? One who is content with his lot’. My dad considered himself ‘extremely’ rich. May his neshama have an aliyah.”
Today’s daf is dedicated by Natalie Taylor in honor of Jordy Hyman, “a wonderful friend, doctor and talmida chachama. Happy birthday!”
Why do we nullify the chametz after the bedika and not during the late morning of erev Pesach? We can’t nullify it once it is forbidden to eat because it is no longer considered in our possession as we cannot benefit from chametz on Pesach. The gemara brings a source that seems to contradict this premise. What if one finds mouldy bread in a drawer that is used for chametz during the year and matza on Pesach and one cannot tell if it is chametz or matza. If the majority is matza, we follow that. What does that and shouldn’t we follow whatever was in the drawer last as we do regarding maaser sheni money? Based on that question, the gemara re-explains the law. What blessing to we make on bedikat chametz? There is a debate regarding the exact language. The gemara brings several questions from other blessings on mitzvot and discusses the idea of making the blessing before one performs the mitzva. Are there exceptions to this rule? From where do we learn that one needs to use a candle for bedikat chametz?

 

讜谞讬讘讟诇讬讛 讘砖讬转 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讚专讘谞谉 注讬诇讜讬讛 讻讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚诪讬讗 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


The Gemara asks: But let him render the leaven null and void during the sixth hour, when he burns it. The Gemara answers: Since there is a rabbinic prohibition that takes effect on the leaven, as it is prohibited to derive benefit from it after the fifth hour, its legal status is like that of leaven prohibited by Torah law, and therefore it is not in his possession and he is unable to nullify it.


讚讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪拽讚砖 诪砖砖 砖注讜转 讜诇诪注诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讬讟讬 拽讜专讚谞讬转讗 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬谉


The Gemara continues: There is proof that the Sages were stringent with regard to leaven prohibited by rabbinic law, as Rav Giddel said that Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef said that Rav said: With regard to a man who betroths a woman on the fourteenth of Nisan from the beginning of the sixth hour and onward, even if he does so with wheat from the mountains [kurdanaita], which is particularly hard and there is no certainty that it will ferment even if water falls on it, nevertheless, as it is possible that the wheat leavened, its legal status is that of leaven. Consequently, it is prohibited to derive benefit from this wheat, which is legally worthless. Therefore, if a man gives the wheat to a woman for the purpose of betrothal, one need not be concerned that it is a betrothal. The reason is that a betrothal is effective only if the man gives the woman an object worth at least a peruta. In this case the Sages disqualify the betrothal and allow the woman to marry another man, despite the fact that by Torah law she is betrothed to the first man, as the leaven with which he betrothed her is prohibited only by rabbinic law.


讜诇讘转专 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讘讟讬诇 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 讬讜砖讘 讘讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讜谞讝讻专 砖讬砖 讞诪抓 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 诪讘讟诇讜 讘诇讘讜 讗讞讚 砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘砖诇诪讗 砖讘转 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讞诇 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘转专 讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讗


The Gemara raises a difficulty: And is it indeed the case that after the leaven has become prohibited one is unable to render it null and void? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If one was sitting in the study hall and he remembered that there is leavened bread in his house, he should render it null and void in his heart, both on Shabbat and on the Festival? The Gemara analyzes this statement: Granted, on Shabbat you can find this case, as one can nullify the leaven before it becomes prohibited, in a case where the fourteenth of Nisan occurs on Shabbat and he remembers to nullify the leaven before the prohibition takes effect. However, if he remembered on the Festival itself, it is after the prohibition has taken effect, as the Festival has already begun, and yet the baraita says that one may render the leaven null and void.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讛讻讗 讘转诇诪讬讚 讬讜砖讘 诇驻谞讬 专讘讜 注住拽讬谞谉 讜谞讝讻专 砖讬砖 注讬住讛 诪讙讜诇讙诇转 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜诪转讬讬专讗 砖诪讗 转讞诪讬抓 拽讚讬诐 讜诪讘讟讬诇 诇讬讛 诪讬拽诪讬 讚转讞诪讬抓


Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Here we are dealing with a student sitting before his teacher, and he remembers that there is kneaded dough in his house, and he is afraid lest it leaven before he can return home to warn the members of his household. Since the dough has not yet leavened and is not yet prohibited, he can take earlier action and render it null and void before it becomes leavened.


讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讛讬讛 讬讜砖讘 讘转讜讱 讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:


The Gemara comments: The language of the baraita is also precise in accordance with this explanation, as the baraita teaches: If one was sitting in the study hall. This indicates that the dough has not yet risen, and the problem is that he cannot arrive home in time to prevent it from rising. However, if it had already become leavened, rendering it null and void will not remedy the situation even if he were home. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this proof that Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov鈥檚 interpretation is correct.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛驻转 砖注讬驻砖讛 讻讬讜谉 砖专讘转讛 诪爪讛 诪讜转专转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讬讚注 讘讛 讚讞诪抓 讛讬讗 讻讬 专讘转讛 诪爪讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬


Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: With regard to a vessel that contains several loaves in which there was bread that became moldy, and it is not evident whether it is leaven or matza, once there was more matza than leaven in the vessel, it is permitted. The Gemara first analyzes the case itself: What are the circumstances? If you say that he knows that this loaf is leavened bread, even if there were more matza, what of it? What difference does it make that most of the food is matza, if it is clear that this loaf is leaven?


讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讘讛 讗讬 讞诪抓 讛讜讗 讗讬 诪爪讛 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讻讬 专讘转讛 诪爪讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讬 诇讗 专讘转讛 诪爪讛 谞诪讬 谞讬讝讬诇 讘转专 讘转专讗


Rather, Rav must be speaking of a case where we do not know whether it is leavened bread or whether it is matza. However, in that case, why discuss specifically a situation where there was more matza in the vessel? Even in a case where there was not more matza in the vessel as well, the questionable loaf is likely to be matza, as let us follow the last item placed in the vessel, which even on the first day of Passover would be matza.


诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 诪注讜转 砖谞诪爪讗讜 诇驻谞讬 住讜讞专讬 讘讛诪讛 诇注讜诇诐 诪注砖专 讘讛专 讛讘讬转 讞讜诇讬谉


Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: With regard to coins that were found before animal merchants in Jerusalem, they are always assumed to be money of the second tithe, as most of the animals purchased in Jerusalem were bought with that money. This halakha applies both during a Festival and throughout the year, as people would purchase animals for meat with their second-tithe money, and it can therefore be assumed that these coins have the status of second tithe. However, if the money was found on the Temple Mount it is non-sacred money, even during a Festival. It can be assumed that one who enters the Temple Mount has already purchased all the animals that he required beforehand. Any coins in his possession are non-sacred money, not tithes.


讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘砖注转 讛专讙诇 诪注砖专 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讞讜诇讬谉


If the money was found elsewhere in Jerusalem during the Festival, when many people came to Jerusalem with their second-tithe money, the coins are presumed to be second-tithe money. However, if the coins were found during the rest of the year, it is non-sacred money.


讜讗诪专 专讘 砖诪注讬讛 讘专 讝讬专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜砖讜拽讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 注砖讜讬讬谉 诇讛转讻讘讚 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讗诇诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽诪讗讬 拽诪讗讬 讗讝诇讬 诇讬讛 讜讛谞讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 拽诪讗 拽诪讗 讗讝讬诇 讜讛讗讬 讚讛讗讬讚谞讗 讛讜讗


The Gemara explains the proof. And Rav Shemaya bar Zeira said: What is the reason that during the rest of the year the coins are considered non-sacred money, even on the day after the Festival? Since the markets of Jerusalem tend to be cleaned every day, any money left there would already have been found by the street cleaners. Consequently, any coins found there were left there recently. Apparently, we say that the first ones are gone and these objects are later ones. Here too, with regard to moldy bread, let us say: The first ones have been eaten and are gone, and this food is from now and is undoubtedly matza.


砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚注讬驻讜砖讛 诪讜讻讬讞 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗讬 注讬驻讜砖讛 诪讜讻讬讞 注讬诇讜讬讛 讻讬 专讘转讛 诪爪讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 转讬诪讗 砖专讘转讛 诪爪讛 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 砖专讘讜 讬诪讬 诪爪讛 注讬诇讜讬讛


The Gemara rejects this proof: It is different here, as the mold proves about the loaf that it is leaven, as food does not become moldy unless it has been sitting for a long time. The Gemara retorts: If its mold proves about the loaf that it is leaven, if there was more matza in the vessel, what of it? Even in that case, the very fact that it is moldy proves that it is leaven. Rabba said: Do not say there was more matza than leaven in the vessel; rather, say that several days of eating matza have passed over the vessel. In other words, several days of the Festival, during which matza is consumed, have passed. Therefore, it is more likely that the moldy loaf is matza.


讗讬 讛讻讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚注讬驻讜砖讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚注讬驻讜砖讛 诪专讜讘讛 讗讬讙诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讜讚讗讬 讞诪抓 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara asks: If so, it is obvious that the moldy loaf is matza, not leaven. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha with regard to a situation where its mold is extensive. Lest you say: Since its mold is extensive the matter is revealed that it is certainly leavened bread, therefore Rav teaches us that one cannot be entirely sure that this is the case.


讻讬讜谉 砖专讘讜 讬诪讬 诪爪讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讜讬讜诪讗 谞讛诪讗 讞诪讬诪讗 讗驻讛 讜砖讚讗 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜注驻砖讗 讟驻讬


The Gemara explains the reason for the uncertainty. Since several days of eating matza have passed over the vessel, we say: Each and every day he baked warm loaves, which he placed upon the previous days鈥 matza, causing it to grow moldier. Therefore, it is possible that even though only a brief time has passed, the matza has grown very moldy, due to the moisture and heat inside the vessel.


讜诪讬 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 讘转专讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 转讬讘讛 砖谞砖转诪砖讜 讘讛 诪注讜转 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诪注讜转 诪注砖专 讗诐 专讜讘 讞讜诇讬谉 讞讜诇讬谉 讗诐 专讜讘 诪注砖专 诪注砖专 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬讝讬诇 讘转专 讘转专讗


In regard to the aforementioned principle, the Gemara asks: And do we, in general, follow the last item in determining the identity of the item in question? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: With regard to a box that people used for both non-sacred coins and second-tithe coins, if the majority of its use was for non-sacred money, the coins are considered non-sacred. If the majority of its use was for second-tithe coins, the coins are considered second-tithe money. The Gemara asks: But why is this so? Let us follow the last item placed in the box.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞砖转诪砖讜 讘讛 诪注讜转 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诪注讜转 诪注砖专 讜讗讬谉 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 讘住讜祝 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖谞砖转诪砖讜 讘讛 爪讬讘讜专讬谉 爪讬讘讜专讬谉 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬砖转讻讞 讘讙讜诪讗:


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where people used the box for both non-sacred coins and second-tithe coins, and he does not know which of the two kinds of money was placed there last.
Rav Zevid said: The baraita is referring to a case where he used one part of the box for piles of non-sacred coins and another part of the box for piles of second-tithe coins. In this case, there was no definitive most recent use of the box, as a coin may have moved from one side of the box to the other.
Rav Pappa said: We are dealing with a case where the coin was found in a hole in the box. The concern is that this coin might not be of the type last placed into the box. Instead, it is possible that this coin remained from a previous use and was not removed because it was obscured in the hole.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讘讜讚拽 爪专讬讱 砖讬讘专讱 诪讗讬 诪讘专讱 专讘 驻驻讬 讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 (讗讜诪专) 诇讘注专 讞诪抓 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 注诇 讘讬注讜专 讞诪抓 讘诇讘注专 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讜讚讗讬 诇讛讘讗 诪砖诪注


Rav Yehuda said: One who searches for leaven must recite a blessing. The Gemara asks: What blessing does he recite, i.e., what is the correct formula of the blessing? Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava that one recites: Who has made us holy through His mitzvot and has commanded us to remove leavened bread. Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava: One should recite: Concerning the removal of leavened bread. The Gemara comments: With regard to the formula: To remove, everyone agrees that it certainly refers to the future. This formulation undoubtedly indicates that the person reciting the blessing is about to begin fulfilling the mitzva of removing leaven, and it is therefore an appropriate blessing.


讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘注诇 讘讬注讜专 诪专 住讘专 诪注讬拽专讗 诪砖诪注 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讛讘讗 诪砖诪注


Where they disagree is with regard to the formula: Concerning the elimination of leaven. One Sage, Rav Pappi, maintains that it is referring to an act that was performed previously. Since this formula is referring to the removal of leaven as a task already completed, it would be more appropriate for a blessing recited after performance of that mitzva was completed. And the other Sage, Rav Pappa, maintains that this expression refers to the future.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讘专讜讱 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 注诇 讛诪讬诇讛


The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Pappi鈥檚 opinion from the formula of the blessing recited just prior to circumcision: Blessed are You鈥Who has made us holy through His mitzvot and has commanded us concerning circumcision. Apparently this expression indeed is referring to a future act.


讛转诐 讛讬讻讬 谞讬诪讗 谞讬诪讗 诇诪讜诇 诇讗 住讙讬讗 讚诇讗讜 讗讬讛讜 诪讛讬诇 讗讘讬 讛讘谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬


The Gemara rejects this contention: That is no proof, as what alternative formula can we recite there? If we say: He, Who has made us holy through His mitzvot and commanded us to circumcise, is there no alternative to he himself, i.e., the boy鈥檚 father, circumcising his son? The father is commanded to circumcise his son, and he may appoint one who is not commanded to circumcise his son to act in his stead. Therefore, the more general formula of the blessing is recited: About the circumcision. The Gemara raises a difficulty: In a case where the child鈥檚 father himself circumcises his son, what can be said? The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so. If the father himself performs the circumcision he in fact recites the blessing: And has commanded us to circumcise.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讘专讜讱 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 注诇 讛砖讞讬讟讛 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讛讬讻讬 谞讬诪讗 谞讬诪讗 诇砖讞讜讟 诇讗 住讙讬讗 讚诇讗讜 讗讬讛讜 砖讞讟


The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Pappi鈥檚 opinion. The blessing recited over ritual slaughter is: BlessedWho has made us holy through His mitzvot and has commanded us concerning slaughtering. This blessing likewise indicates that this formula is appropriate prior to an action. The Gemara again rejects this claim: There too, what alternative formula can we recite? If we say: Who has commanded us to slaughter, is there no alternative to his slaughtering the animal? There is no mitzva to slaughter an animal. It is merely the necessary preparation before one may eat meat. Therefore, the more general formula of the blessing is recited: Concerning slaughtering.


驻住讞 讜拽讚砖讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬


The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, with regard to the slaughter of the Paschal lamb and other consecrated animals, what can be said? One is indeed commanded to slaughter these animals. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so. When slaughtering the Paschal lamb or any other offering, one recites: Who has commanded us to slaughter.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讛注讜砖讛 诇讜诇讘 诇注爪诪讜 诪讘专讱 砖讛讞讬讬谞讜 讜拽讬诪谞讜 讜讛讙讬注谞讜 诇讝诪谉 讛讝讛 谞讟诇讜 诇爪讗转 讘讜 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 注诇 谞讟讬诇转 诇讜诇讘 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗讙讘讛讛 谞驻拽 讘讬讛


The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Pappi鈥檚 opinion from the Tosefta: One who prepares a lulav for himself recites the blessing: Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time. When he takes it to fulfill with it the obligation to take the lulav, he says: Who has made us holy through His mitzvot and has commanded us concerning the taking of the lulav. Although he has yet to perform the mitzva, he does not recite the formula: To take. The Gemara answers: It is different there, as at the time when he lifts the lulav before he recites the blessing, he already fulfilled his obligation by Torah law. Consequently, the formula: Concerning the taking, is indeed more appropriate for an action that he has already performed.


讗讬 讛讻讬 诇爪讗转 讘讜 讬爪讗 讘讜 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 住讬驻讗 诇讬砖讘 讘住讜讻讛 转谞讗 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 诇爪讗转 讘讜


The Gemara raises an objection: If so, the statement that he takes it to fulfill his obligation with it is imprecise, as the tanna should have said that he took the lulav with which he already fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so; the tanna should have formulated the halakha in that manner. But due to the fact that he wants to teach the latter clause of the baraita: One who comes to sit in the sukka, he likewise taught in the first clause: To fulfill his obligation with it. This phrase maintains the consistency of the language of the Tosefta, even though it is imprecise with regard to the halakha of lulav.


讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛注讜砖讛 住讜讻讛 诇注爪诪讜 讗讜诪专 讘专讜讱 讗转讛 讛壮 砖讛讞讬讬谞讜 讜拽讬诪谞讜 讜讛讙讬注谞讜 诇讝诪谉 讛讝讛 谞讻谞住 诇讬砖讘 讘讛 讗讜诪专 讘专讜讱 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 诇讬砖讘 讘住讜讻讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 注诇 讘讬注讜专 讞诪抓


As it teaches in the latter clause of this baraita: One who erects a sukka for himself recites: Blessed are You, God, Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time. When he enters to sit in the sukka he says: BlessedWho has made us holy through His mitzvot and has commanded us to sit in the sukka. In summary, no conclusive proof has been found for either side of this debate. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that one should recite: Concerning the removal of leaven, as that expression is referring to the future as well.


讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讘注讬谞谉 诇讘专讜讻讬 诪谞诇谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 讛诪爪讜转 诪讘专讱 注诇讬讛谉 注讜讘专 诇注砖讬讬转谉


The Gemara poses a question: In any event, it is clear from the previous discussion that everyone agrees that one is required to recite a blessing prior to performing a mitzva. From where do we derive this principle? It is as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to all the mitzvot, one recites a blessing over them prior to [over] their performance.


诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚讛讗讬 注讜讘专 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗拽讚讜诪讬 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬专抓 讗讞讬诪注抓 讚专讱 讛讻讻专 讜讬注讘专 讗转 讛讻讜砖讬 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜讛讜讗 注讘专 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讬注讘专 诪诇讻诐 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜讛壮 讘专讗砖诐


The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that the word over is the language of priority? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that the verse said: 鈥淎nd Ahimaaz ran by the way of the plain, and overran [vaya鈥檃vor] the Cushite鈥 (II Samuel 18:23), i.e., Ahimaaz overtook the Cushite. Abaye said: It is derived from here: 鈥淎nd he passed [avar] before them鈥 (Genesis 33:3). And if you wish, say instead that the proof is from here: 鈥淎nd their king passed [vaya鈥檃vor] before them and God at their head鈥 (Micah 2:13).


讘讬 专讘 讗诪专讬 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讜砖讜驻专 讘砖诇诪讗 讟讘讬诇讛 讚讗讻转讬 讙讘专讗 诇讗 讞讝讬 讗诇讗 砖讜驻专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬拽诇拽诇讗 转拽讬注讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讞讬讟讛 讜诪讬诇讛 谞诪讬


In the school of Rav they say: One recites a blessing prior to performing all mitzvot, except for the ritual immersion after a nocturnal emission and the blowing of the shofar. The Gemara elaborates: Granted one does not recite a blessing prior to immersion, as this man who has not yet immersed is still unfit to recite a blessing because he is ritually impure. However, with regard to a shofar, what is the reason that one does not recite a blessing before sounding the shofar? And lest you say the reason is due to a concern lest the sounding of the shofar emerge flawed, and the blessing will be in vain, if so, one should not recite a blessing even prior to ritual slaughter and circumcision, as in those cases too one might fail to perform the action in the requisite manner.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讘诇讘讚 讗讬转诪专 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讟讘诇 讜注诇讛 讘注诇讬讬转讜 讗讜诪专 讘专讜讱 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 注诇 讛讟讘讬诇讛:


Rather, Rav 岣sda said: Except for prior to immersion alone was stated, due to the aforementioned reason. The Gemara adds: That was also taught in a baraita: With regard to one who immersed for ritual purification after a nocturnal emission and emerged, as he emerges he recites: BlessedWho has made us holy through His mitzvot and commanded us concerning immersion.


诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讜讻讜壮: 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇诪讚谞讜 诪爪讬讗讛 诪诪爪讬讗讛 讜诪爪讬讗讛 诪讞讬驻讜砖 讜讞讬驻讜砖 诪讞讬驻讜砖 讜讞讬驻讜砖 诪谞专讜转 讜谞专讜转 诪谞专


The mishna states that one searches for leaven by the light of the lamp, etc. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, i.e., that the search should be conducted by the light of the lamp, derived? Rav 岣sda said: We derive it by the hermeneutic principles of verbal analogy and juxtaposition: The term finding in one context is derived from finding in another context, and finding is derived from the word searching, and this searching is derived from searching elsewhere, and searching there is derived from the word lamps, and lamps is derived from lamp.


诪爪讬讗讛 诪诪爪讬讗讛 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 砖讗专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讘讘转讬讻诐 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讜讬讞驻砖 讘讙讚讜诇 讛讞诇 讜讘拽讟谉 讻诇讛 讜讬诪爪讗 讜诪爪讬讗讛 诪讞讬驻讜砖 讚讬讚讬讛


The Gemara cites the relevant verses included in the above derivation. Finding in one context is derived from finding in another context by verbal analogy, as it is written here: 鈥淪even days leaven shall not be found in your houses鈥 (Exodus 12:19), and it is written there: 鈥淎nd he searched, starting with the eldest, and ending with the youngest; and the goblet was found in Benjamin鈥檚 sack鈥 (Genesis 44:12). And the word finding in this verse is connected to searching in that same verse by juxtaposition, as the verse says: 鈥淎nd he searched… and was found.鈥


讜讞讬驻讜砖 诪谞专讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讘注转 讛讛讬讗 讗讞驻砖 讗转 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘谞专讜转 讜谞专讜转 诪谞专 讚讻转讬讘 谞专 (讗诇讛讬诐) [讛壮] 谞砖诪转 讗讚诐 讞驻砖 讻诇 讞讚专讬 讘讟谉


And searching is derived from lamps by means of juxtaposition, as it is written: 鈥淎nd it shall come to pass that at that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps鈥 (Zephaniah 1:12). And finally, the word lamps is derived from lamp by means of juxtaposition, as it is written: 鈥淭he spirit of man is the lamp of God, searching all the inward parts鈥 (Proverbs 20:27). Together these verses indicate that the search for leaven must be conducted by the light of the lamp.


转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讬诇讬 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讘讜讚拽讬诐 讗转 讛讞诪抓 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专 讝讻专 诇讚讘专 砖谞讗诪专 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 砖讗专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讜讗讜诪专 讜讬讞驻砖 讘讙讚讜诇 讛讞诇 讜讘拽讟谉 讻诇讛 讜讗讜诪专 讘注转 讛讛讬讗 讗讞驻砖 讗转 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘谞专讜转 讜讗讜诪专 谞专 (讗诇讛讬诐) [讛壮] 谞砖诪转 讗讚诐 讞驻砖


Similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: On the night of the fourteenth one searches for leavened bread by the light of the lamp. Although there is no absolute proof for this matter, there is an allusion to this matter, as it is stated: 鈥淪even days leaven shall not be found in your houses,鈥 and it says: 鈥淎nd he searched, starting with the eldest, and ending with the youngest; and the goblet was found.鈥 And it says: 鈥淎t that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps,鈥 and it says: 鈥淭he spirit of man is the lamp of God, searching all the inward parts.鈥


诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专


With regard to this teaching, the Gemara asks a question: What is the reason for the last citation introduced by the final And the verse says? Why doesn鈥檛 the previous verse, 鈥淎t that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps,鈥 provide sufficient proof that the search must be conducted by the light of the lamp?


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讗讬 讘注转 讛讛讬讗 拽讜诇讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讘讚讬拽谞讗 诇讛 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘谞讛讜专讗 讚讗讘讜拽讛 讚谞驻讬砖 谞讛讜专讗 讟讜讘讗 讗诇讗 讘谞讛讜专讗 讚砖专讙讗 讚讝讜讟专 谞讛讜专讗 讟驻讬 讚注讜谉 专讘讛 诪砖转讻讞 讜注讜谉 讝讜讟专 诇讗 诪砖转讻讞 转讗 砖诪注 谞专 讛壮 谞砖诪转 讗讚诐:


And the Gemara answers: The last verse is necessary, lest you say that this verse: 鈥淎t that time, etc.鈥 is a leniency, as God is saying: I will not search Jerusalem by the light of a torch, whose light is great, and through which I will expose every sin. Rather, I will search by the light of a small lamp, whose light is smaller, which will ensure that great sins will be discovered and small sins will not be discovered. To counter this argument, the tanna states: Come and hear, 鈥淭he spirit of man is the lamp of God, searching all the inward parts.鈥 This verse indicates that everything will be found by the light of the lamp, which is the most effective manner of searching.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讘讜讚拽讬谉 诇讗 诇讗讜专 讛讞诪讛 讜诇讗 诇讗讜专 讛诇讘谞讛 讜诇讗 诇讗讜专 讛讗讘讜拽讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜专 讛谞专


The Sages taught: One does not search for leaven, neither by the light of the sun, nor by the light of the moon, nor by the light of a torch. Rather, the search should be conducted by the light of a lamp,


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.

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 7: Finding the Right Words

Pesachim 7 - When on Passover Eve does the prohibition against owning chametz kick in? And what if you use...
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 7

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 7

讜谞讬讘讟诇讬讛 讘砖讬转 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讚专讘谞谉 注讬诇讜讬讛 讻讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚诪讬讗 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


The Gemara asks: But let him render the leaven null and void during the sixth hour, when he burns it. The Gemara answers: Since there is a rabbinic prohibition that takes effect on the leaven, as it is prohibited to derive benefit from it after the fifth hour, its legal status is like that of leaven prohibited by Torah law, and therefore it is not in his possession and he is unable to nullify it.


讚讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪拽讚砖 诪砖砖 砖注讜转 讜诇诪注诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讬讟讬 拽讜专讚谞讬转讗 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬谉


The Gemara continues: There is proof that the Sages were stringent with regard to leaven prohibited by rabbinic law, as Rav Giddel said that Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef said that Rav said: With regard to a man who betroths a woman on the fourteenth of Nisan from the beginning of the sixth hour and onward, even if he does so with wheat from the mountains [kurdanaita], which is particularly hard and there is no certainty that it will ferment even if water falls on it, nevertheless, as it is possible that the wheat leavened, its legal status is that of leaven. Consequently, it is prohibited to derive benefit from this wheat, which is legally worthless. Therefore, if a man gives the wheat to a woman for the purpose of betrothal, one need not be concerned that it is a betrothal. The reason is that a betrothal is effective only if the man gives the woman an object worth at least a peruta. In this case the Sages disqualify the betrothal and allow the woman to marry another man, despite the fact that by Torah law she is betrothed to the first man, as the leaven with which he betrothed her is prohibited only by rabbinic law.


讜诇讘转专 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讘讟讬诇 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 讬讜砖讘 讘讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讜谞讝讻专 砖讬砖 讞诪抓 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 诪讘讟诇讜 讘诇讘讜 讗讞讚 砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘砖诇诪讗 砖讘转 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讞诇 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘转专 讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讗


The Gemara raises a difficulty: And is it indeed the case that after the leaven has become prohibited one is unable to render it null and void? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If one was sitting in the study hall and he remembered that there is leavened bread in his house, he should render it null and void in his heart, both on Shabbat and on the Festival? The Gemara analyzes this statement: Granted, on Shabbat you can find this case, as one can nullify the leaven before it becomes prohibited, in a case where the fourteenth of Nisan occurs on Shabbat and he remembers to nullify the leaven before the prohibition takes effect. However, if he remembered on the Festival itself, it is after the prohibition has taken effect, as the Festival has already begun, and yet the baraita says that one may render the leaven null and void.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讛讻讗 讘转诇诪讬讚 讬讜砖讘 诇驻谞讬 专讘讜 注住拽讬谞谉 讜谞讝讻专 砖讬砖 注讬住讛 诪讙讜诇讙诇转 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜诪转讬讬专讗 砖诪讗 转讞诪讬抓 拽讚讬诐 讜诪讘讟讬诇 诇讬讛 诪讬拽诪讬 讚转讞诪讬抓


Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Here we are dealing with a student sitting before his teacher, and he remembers that there is kneaded dough in his house, and he is afraid lest it leaven before he can return home to warn the members of his household. Since the dough has not yet leavened and is not yet prohibited, he can take earlier action and render it null and void before it becomes leavened.


讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讛讬讛 讬讜砖讘 讘转讜讱 讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:


The Gemara comments: The language of the baraita is also precise in accordance with this explanation, as the baraita teaches: If one was sitting in the study hall. This indicates that the dough has not yet risen, and the problem is that he cannot arrive home in time to prevent it from rising. However, if it had already become leavened, rendering it null and void will not remedy the situation even if he were home. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this proof that Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov鈥檚 interpretation is correct.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛驻转 砖注讬驻砖讛 讻讬讜谉 砖专讘转讛 诪爪讛 诪讜转专转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讬讚注 讘讛 讚讞诪抓 讛讬讗 讻讬 专讘转讛 诪爪讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬


Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: With regard to a vessel that contains several loaves in which there was bread that became moldy, and it is not evident whether it is leaven or matza, once there was more matza than leaven in the vessel, it is permitted. The Gemara first analyzes the case itself: What are the circumstances? If you say that he knows that this loaf is leavened bread, even if there were more matza, what of it? What difference does it make that most of the food is matza, if it is clear that this loaf is leaven?


讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讘讛 讗讬 讞诪抓 讛讜讗 讗讬 诪爪讛 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讻讬 专讘转讛 诪爪讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讬 诇讗 专讘转讛 诪爪讛 谞诪讬 谞讬讝讬诇 讘转专 讘转专讗


Rather, Rav must be speaking of a case where we do not know whether it is leavened bread or whether it is matza. However, in that case, why discuss specifically a situation where there was more matza in the vessel? Even in a case where there was not more matza in the vessel as well, the questionable loaf is likely to be matza, as let us follow the last item placed in the vessel, which even on the first day of Passover would be matza.


诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 诪注讜转 砖谞诪爪讗讜 诇驻谞讬 住讜讞专讬 讘讛诪讛 诇注讜诇诐 诪注砖专 讘讛专 讛讘讬转 讞讜诇讬谉


Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: With regard to coins that were found before animal merchants in Jerusalem, they are always assumed to be money of the second tithe, as most of the animals purchased in Jerusalem were bought with that money. This halakha applies both during a Festival and throughout the year, as people would purchase animals for meat with their second-tithe money, and it can therefore be assumed that these coins have the status of second tithe. However, if the money was found on the Temple Mount it is non-sacred money, even during a Festival. It can be assumed that one who enters the Temple Mount has already purchased all the animals that he required beforehand. Any coins in his possession are non-sacred money, not tithes.


讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘砖注转 讛专讙诇 诪注砖专 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讞讜诇讬谉


If the money was found elsewhere in Jerusalem during the Festival, when many people came to Jerusalem with their second-tithe money, the coins are presumed to be second-tithe money. However, if the coins were found during the rest of the year, it is non-sacred money.


讜讗诪专 专讘 砖诪注讬讛 讘专 讝讬专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜砖讜拽讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 注砖讜讬讬谉 诇讛转讻讘讚 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讗诇诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽诪讗讬 拽诪讗讬 讗讝诇讬 诇讬讛 讜讛谞讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 拽诪讗 拽诪讗 讗讝讬诇 讜讛讗讬 讚讛讗讬讚谞讗 讛讜讗


The Gemara explains the proof. And Rav Shemaya bar Zeira said: What is the reason that during the rest of the year the coins are considered non-sacred money, even on the day after the Festival? Since the markets of Jerusalem tend to be cleaned every day, any money left there would already have been found by the street cleaners. Consequently, any coins found there were left there recently. Apparently, we say that the first ones are gone and these objects are later ones. Here too, with regard to moldy bread, let us say: The first ones have been eaten and are gone, and this food is from now and is undoubtedly matza.


砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚注讬驻讜砖讛 诪讜讻讬讞 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗讬 注讬驻讜砖讛 诪讜讻讬讞 注讬诇讜讬讛 讻讬 专讘转讛 诪爪讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 转讬诪讗 砖专讘转讛 诪爪讛 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 砖专讘讜 讬诪讬 诪爪讛 注讬诇讜讬讛


The Gemara rejects this proof: It is different here, as the mold proves about the loaf that it is leaven, as food does not become moldy unless it has been sitting for a long time. The Gemara retorts: If its mold proves about the loaf that it is leaven, if there was more matza in the vessel, what of it? Even in that case, the very fact that it is moldy proves that it is leaven. Rabba said: Do not say there was more matza than leaven in the vessel; rather, say that several days of eating matza have passed over the vessel. In other words, several days of the Festival, during which matza is consumed, have passed. Therefore, it is more likely that the moldy loaf is matza.


讗讬 讛讻讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚注讬驻讜砖讛 诪专讜讘讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚注讬驻讜砖讛 诪专讜讘讛 讗讬讙诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讜讚讗讬 讞诪抓 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara asks: If so, it is obvious that the moldy loaf is matza, not leaven. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha with regard to a situation where its mold is extensive. Lest you say: Since its mold is extensive the matter is revealed that it is certainly leavened bread, therefore Rav teaches us that one cannot be entirely sure that this is the case.


讻讬讜谉 砖专讘讜 讬诪讬 诪爪讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讜讬讜诪讗 谞讛诪讗 讞诪讬诪讗 讗驻讛 讜砖讚讗 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜注驻砖讗 讟驻讬


The Gemara explains the reason for the uncertainty. Since several days of eating matza have passed over the vessel, we say: Each and every day he baked warm loaves, which he placed upon the previous days鈥 matza, causing it to grow moldier. Therefore, it is possible that even though only a brief time has passed, the matza has grown very moldy, due to the moisture and heat inside the vessel.


讜诪讬 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 讘转专讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 转讬讘讛 砖谞砖转诪砖讜 讘讛 诪注讜转 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诪注讜转 诪注砖专 讗诐 专讜讘 讞讜诇讬谉 讞讜诇讬谉 讗诐 专讜讘 诪注砖专 诪注砖专 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬讝讬诇 讘转专 讘转专讗


In regard to the aforementioned principle, the Gemara asks: And do we, in general, follow the last item in determining the identity of the item in question? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: With regard to a box that people used for both non-sacred coins and second-tithe coins, if the majority of its use was for non-sacred money, the coins are considered non-sacred. If the majority of its use was for second-tithe coins, the coins are considered second-tithe money. The Gemara asks: But why is this so? Let us follow the last item placed in the box.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞砖转诪砖讜 讘讛 诪注讜转 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诪注讜转 诪注砖专 讜讗讬谉 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 讘住讜祝 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖谞砖转诪砖讜 讘讛 爪讬讘讜专讬谉 爪讬讘讜专讬谉 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬砖转讻讞 讘讙讜诪讗:


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where people used the box for both non-sacred coins and second-tithe coins, and he does not know which of the two kinds of money was placed there last.
Rav Zevid said: The baraita is referring to a case where he used one part of the box for piles of non-sacred coins and another part of the box for piles of second-tithe coins. In this case, there was no definitive most recent use of the box, as a coin may have moved from one side of the box to the other.
Rav Pappa said: We are dealing with a case where the coin was found in a hole in the box. The concern is that this coin might not be of the type last placed into the box. Instead, it is possible that this coin remained from a previous use and was not removed because it was obscured in the hole.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讘讜讚拽 爪专讬讱 砖讬讘专讱 诪讗讬 诪讘专讱 专讘 驻驻讬 讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 (讗讜诪专) 诇讘注专 讞诪抓 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 注诇 讘讬注讜专 讞诪抓 讘诇讘注专 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讜讚讗讬 诇讛讘讗 诪砖诪注


Rav Yehuda said: One who searches for leaven must recite a blessing. The Gemara asks: What blessing does he recite, i.e., what is the correct formula of the blessing? Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava that one recites: Who has made us holy through His mitzvot and has commanded us to remove leavened bread. Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava: One should recite: Concerning the removal of leavened bread. The Gemara comments: With regard to the formula: To remove, everyone agrees that it certainly refers to the future. This formulation undoubtedly indicates that the person reciting the blessing is about to begin fulfilling the mitzva of removing leaven, and it is therefore an appropriate blessing.


讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘注诇 讘讬注讜专 诪专 住讘专 诪注讬拽专讗 诪砖诪注 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讛讘讗 诪砖诪注


Where they disagree is with regard to the formula: Concerning the elimination of leaven. One Sage, Rav Pappi, maintains that it is referring to an act that was performed previously. Since this formula is referring to the removal of leaven as a task already completed, it would be more appropriate for a blessing recited after performance of that mitzva was completed. And the other Sage, Rav Pappa, maintains that this expression refers to the future.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讘专讜讱 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 注诇 讛诪讬诇讛


The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Pappi鈥檚 opinion from the formula of the blessing recited just prior to circumcision: Blessed are You鈥Who has made us holy through His mitzvot and has commanded us concerning circumcision. Apparently this expression indeed is referring to a future act.


讛转诐 讛讬讻讬 谞讬诪讗 谞讬诪讗 诇诪讜诇 诇讗 住讙讬讗 讚诇讗讜 讗讬讛讜 诪讛讬诇 讗讘讬 讛讘谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬


The Gemara rejects this contention: That is no proof, as what alternative formula can we recite there? If we say: He, Who has made us holy through His mitzvot and commanded us to circumcise, is there no alternative to he himself, i.e., the boy鈥檚 father, circumcising his son? The father is commanded to circumcise his son, and he may appoint one who is not commanded to circumcise his son to act in his stead. Therefore, the more general formula of the blessing is recited: About the circumcision. The Gemara raises a difficulty: In a case where the child鈥檚 father himself circumcises his son, what can be said? The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so. If the father himself performs the circumcision he in fact recites the blessing: And has commanded us to circumcise.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讘专讜讱 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 注诇 讛砖讞讬讟讛 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讛讬讻讬 谞讬诪讗 谞讬诪讗 诇砖讞讜讟 诇讗 住讙讬讗 讚诇讗讜 讗讬讛讜 砖讞讟


The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Pappi鈥檚 opinion. The blessing recited over ritual slaughter is: BlessedWho has made us holy through His mitzvot and has commanded us concerning slaughtering. This blessing likewise indicates that this formula is appropriate prior to an action. The Gemara again rejects this claim: There too, what alternative formula can we recite? If we say: Who has commanded us to slaughter, is there no alternative to his slaughtering the animal? There is no mitzva to slaughter an animal. It is merely the necessary preparation before one may eat meat. Therefore, the more general formula of the blessing is recited: Concerning slaughtering.


驻住讞 讜拽讚砖讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬


The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, with regard to the slaughter of the Paschal lamb and other consecrated animals, what can be said? One is indeed commanded to slaughter these animals. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so. When slaughtering the Paschal lamb or any other offering, one recites: Who has commanded us to slaughter.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讛注讜砖讛 诇讜诇讘 诇注爪诪讜 诪讘专讱 砖讛讞讬讬谞讜 讜拽讬诪谞讜 讜讛讙讬注谞讜 诇讝诪谉 讛讝讛 谞讟诇讜 诇爪讗转 讘讜 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 注诇 谞讟讬诇转 诇讜诇讘 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗讙讘讛讛 谞驻拽 讘讬讛


The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Pappi鈥檚 opinion from the Tosefta: One who prepares a lulav for himself recites the blessing: Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time. When he takes it to fulfill with it the obligation to take the lulav, he says: Who has made us holy through His mitzvot and has commanded us concerning the taking of the lulav. Although he has yet to perform the mitzva, he does not recite the formula: To take. The Gemara answers: It is different there, as at the time when he lifts the lulav before he recites the blessing, he already fulfilled his obligation by Torah law. Consequently, the formula: Concerning the taking, is indeed more appropriate for an action that he has already performed.


讗讬 讛讻讬 诇爪讗转 讘讜 讬爪讗 讘讜 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 住讬驻讗 诇讬砖讘 讘住讜讻讛 转谞讗 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 诇爪讗转 讘讜


The Gemara raises an objection: If so, the statement that he takes it to fulfill his obligation with it is imprecise, as the tanna should have said that he took the lulav with which he already fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so; the tanna should have formulated the halakha in that manner. But due to the fact that he wants to teach the latter clause of the baraita: One who comes to sit in the sukka, he likewise taught in the first clause: To fulfill his obligation with it. This phrase maintains the consistency of the language of the Tosefta, even though it is imprecise with regard to the halakha of lulav.


讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛注讜砖讛 住讜讻讛 诇注爪诪讜 讗讜诪专 讘专讜讱 讗转讛 讛壮 砖讛讞讬讬谞讜 讜拽讬诪谞讜 讜讛讙讬注谞讜 诇讝诪谉 讛讝讛 谞讻谞住 诇讬砖讘 讘讛 讗讜诪专 讘专讜讱 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 诇讬砖讘 讘住讜讻讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 注诇 讘讬注讜专 讞诪抓


As it teaches in the latter clause of this baraita: One who erects a sukka for himself recites: Blessed are You, God, Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time. When he enters to sit in the sukka he says: BlessedWho has made us holy through His mitzvot and has commanded us to sit in the sukka. In summary, no conclusive proof has been found for either side of this debate. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that one should recite: Concerning the removal of leaven, as that expression is referring to the future as well.


讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讘注讬谞谉 诇讘专讜讻讬 诪谞诇谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 讛诪爪讜转 诪讘专讱 注诇讬讛谉 注讜讘专 诇注砖讬讬转谉


The Gemara poses a question: In any event, it is clear from the previous discussion that everyone agrees that one is required to recite a blessing prior to performing a mitzva. From where do we derive this principle? It is as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to all the mitzvot, one recites a blessing over them prior to [over] their performance.


诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚讛讗讬 注讜讘专 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗拽讚讜诪讬 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬专抓 讗讞讬诪注抓 讚专讱 讛讻讻专 讜讬注讘专 讗转 讛讻讜砖讬 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜讛讜讗 注讘专 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讬注讘专 诪诇讻诐 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜讛壮 讘专讗砖诐


The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that the word over is the language of priority? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that the verse said: 鈥淎nd Ahimaaz ran by the way of the plain, and overran [vaya鈥檃vor] the Cushite鈥 (II Samuel 18:23), i.e., Ahimaaz overtook the Cushite. Abaye said: It is derived from here: 鈥淎nd he passed [avar] before them鈥 (Genesis 33:3). And if you wish, say instead that the proof is from here: 鈥淎nd their king passed [vaya鈥檃vor] before them and God at their head鈥 (Micah 2:13).


讘讬 专讘 讗诪专讬 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讜砖讜驻专 讘砖诇诪讗 讟讘讬诇讛 讚讗讻转讬 讙讘专讗 诇讗 讞讝讬 讗诇讗 砖讜驻专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬拽诇拽诇讗 转拽讬注讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讞讬讟讛 讜诪讬诇讛 谞诪讬


In the school of Rav they say: One recites a blessing prior to performing all mitzvot, except for the ritual immersion after a nocturnal emission and the blowing of the shofar. The Gemara elaborates: Granted one does not recite a blessing prior to immersion, as this man who has not yet immersed is still unfit to recite a blessing because he is ritually impure. However, with regard to a shofar, what is the reason that one does not recite a blessing before sounding the shofar? And lest you say the reason is due to a concern lest the sounding of the shofar emerge flawed, and the blessing will be in vain, if so, one should not recite a blessing even prior to ritual slaughter and circumcision, as in those cases too one might fail to perform the action in the requisite manner.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讘诇讘讚 讗讬转诪专 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讟讘诇 讜注诇讛 讘注诇讬讬转讜 讗讜诪专 讘专讜讱 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 注诇 讛讟讘讬诇讛:


Rather, Rav 岣sda said: Except for prior to immersion alone was stated, due to the aforementioned reason. The Gemara adds: That was also taught in a baraita: With regard to one who immersed for ritual purification after a nocturnal emission and emerged, as he emerges he recites: BlessedWho has made us holy through His mitzvot and commanded us concerning immersion.


诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讜讻讜壮: 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇诪讚谞讜 诪爪讬讗讛 诪诪爪讬讗讛 讜诪爪讬讗讛 诪讞讬驻讜砖 讜讞讬驻讜砖 诪讞讬驻讜砖 讜讞讬驻讜砖 诪谞专讜转 讜谞专讜转 诪谞专


The mishna states that one searches for leaven by the light of the lamp, etc. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, i.e., that the search should be conducted by the light of the lamp, derived? Rav 岣sda said: We derive it by the hermeneutic principles of verbal analogy and juxtaposition: The term finding in one context is derived from finding in another context, and finding is derived from the word searching, and this searching is derived from searching elsewhere, and searching there is derived from the word lamps, and lamps is derived from lamp.


诪爪讬讗讛 诪诪爪讬讗讛 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 砖讗专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讘讘转讬讻诐 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讜讬讞驻砖 讘讙讚讜诇 讛讞诇 讜讘拽讟谉 讻诇讛 讜讬诪爪讗 讜诪爪讬讗讛 诪讞讬驻讜砖 讚讬讚讬讛


The Gemara cites the relevant verses included in the above derivation. Finding in one context is derived from finding in another context by verbal analogy, as it is written here: 鈥淪even days leaven shall not be found in your houses鈥 (Exodus 12:19), and it is written there: 鈥淎nd he searched, starting with the eldest, and ending with the youngest; and the goblet was found in Benjamin鈥檚 sack鈥 (Genesis 44:12). And the word finding in this verse is connected to searching in that same verse by juxtaposition, as the verse says: 鈥淎nd he searched… and was found.鈥


讜讞讬驻讜砖 诪谞专讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讘注转 讛讛讬讗 讗讞驻砖 讗转 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘谞专讜转 讜谞专讜转 诪谞专 讚讻转讬讘 谞专 (讗诇讛讬诐) [讛壮] 谞砖诪转 讗讚诐 讞驻砖 讻诇 讞讚专讬 讘讟谉


And searching is derived from lamps by means of juxtaposition, as it is written: 鈥淎nd it shall come to pass that at that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps鈥 (Zephaniah 1:12). And finally, the word lamps is derived from lamp by means of juxtaposition, as it is written: 鈥淭he spirit of man is the lamp of God, searching all the inward parts鈥 (Proverbs 20:27). Together these verses indicate that the search for leaven must be conducted by the light of the lamp.


转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讬诇讬 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讘讜讚拽讬诐 讗转 讛讞诪抓 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专 讝讻专 诇讚讘专 砖谞讗诪专 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 砖讗专 诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讜讗讜诪专 讜讬讞驻砖 讘讙讚讜诇 讛讞诇 讜讘拽讟谉 讻诇讛 讜讗讜诪专 讘注转 讛讛讬讗 讗讞驻砖 讗转 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘谞专讜转 讜讗讜诪专 谞专 (讗诇讛讬诐) [讛壮] 谞砖诪转 讗讚诐 讞驻砖


Similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: On the night of the fourteenth one searches for leavened bread by the light of the lamp. Although there is no absolute proof for this matter, there is an allusion to this matter, as it is stated: 鈥淪even days leaven shall not be found in your houses,鈥 and it says: 鈥淎nd he searched, starting with the eldest, and ending with the youngest; and the goblet was found.鈥 And it says: 鈥淎t that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps,鈥 and it says: 鈥淭he spirit of man is the lamp of God, searching all the inward parts.鈥


诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专


With regard to this teaching, the Gemara asks a question: What is the reason for the last citation introduced by the final And the verse says? Why doesn鈥檛 the previous verse, 鈥淎t that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps,鈥 provide sufficient proof that the search must be conducted by the light of the lamp?


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讗讬 讘注转 讛讛讬讗 拽讜诇讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讘讚讬拽谞讗 诇讛 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘谞讛讜专讗 讚讗讘讜拽讛 讚谞驻讬砖 谞讛讜专讗 讟讜讘讗 讗诇讗 讘谞讛讜专讗 讚砖专讙讗 讚讝讜讟专 谞讛讜专讗 讟驻讬 讚注讜谉 专讘讛 诪砖转讻讞 讜注讜谉 讝讜讟专 诇讗 诪砖转讻讞 转讗 砖诪注 谞专 讛壮 谞砖诪转 讗讚诐:


And the Gemara answers: The last verse is necessary, lest you say that this verse: 鈥淎t that time, etc.鈥 is a leniency, as God is saying: I will not search Jerusalem by the light of a torch, whose light is great, and through which I will expose every sin. Rather, I will search by the light of a small lamp, whose light is smaller, which will ensure that great sins will be discovered and small sins will not be discovered. To counter this argument, the tanna states: Come and hear, 鈥淭he spirit of man is the lamp of God, searching all the inward parts.鈥 This verse indicates that everything will be found by the light of the lamp, which is the most effective manner of searching.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讘讜讚拽讬谉 诇讗 诇讗讜专 讛讞诪讛 讜诇讗 诇讗讜专 讛诇讘谞讛 讜诇讗 诇讗讜专 讛讗讘讜拽讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜专 讛谞专


The Sages taught: One does not search for leaven, neither by the light of the sun, nor by the light of the moon, nor by the light of a torch. Rather, the search should be conducted by the light of a lamp,


Scroll To Top