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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 29, 2020 | 讬状讙 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 8

Today鈥檚 daf is dedicated by Rhona Fink in memory of her brother Elliot Laxer, Yisrael Tzvi ben Chaim z”l, on his yahrzeit. And by Sara Berelowitz in honor of the engagement of her daughter Talya Sterman to David Wertenteil. 砖讬专讘讜 砖诪讞讜转 讘讬砖专讗诇!
One should light with the light of a single candle. Are they places one can check with sunlight? Why? Why is it not better to use a torch? What places do not need to be checked for chametz? Why? What is the difference between storage houses for wine or for oil? What about other storage areas? A braita is quoted that says one does not need to check in holes in the wall due to danger. What type of danger? Two answers are brought. Wouldn’t one be protected by the mitzva as a person on the way to do a mitzva is protected? To what extent is that effective? Are they also protected on the way home from doing a聽 mitzva? The gemara brings two explanations for both Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel’s opinions of which two rows need to be checked in a wine cellar.

诪驻谞讬 砖讗讜专 讛谞专 讬驻讛 诇讘讚讬拽讛 讜讗祝 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 讘讘转讬讻诐 讜讗讜诪专 讜讬讞驻砖 讘讙讚讜诇 讛讞诇 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 讛壮 谞砖诪转 讗讚诐 讞驻砖 讻诇 讞讚专讬 讘讟谉

because the light of a lamp is effective for searching. And even though there is no 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 (Exodus 12:19), and it says: 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 it says: 鈥淎t that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps鈥 (Zephaniah 1:12), and it says: 鈥淭he spirit of man is the lamp of God, searching all the inward parts鈥 (Proverbs 20:27).

讛讗讬 讗讜专 讛讞诪讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讘讞爪专 讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讞爪专 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛注讜专讘讬谉 诪爪讜讬讬谉 砖诐 讗诇讗 讘讗讻住讚专讛 讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讻住讚专讛 诇讗讜专讛 谞讘讚拽转

The Gemara asks a question: This light of the sun, by which one may not conduct the search for leaven, what are the circumstances of this case? If we say it is referring to conducting a search in the courtyard, didn鈥檛 Rava say that a courtyard does not require searching, due to the ravens and other birds that are found there, and will certainly eat any leaven there? Rather, perhaps this ruling is referring to a portico, which is not frequented by ravens. However, this cannot be the correct interpretation either, as didn鈥檛 Rava say with regard to that case that a portico may be searched by its own light, i.e., one need not use a lamp at all when searching a portico, but one may search it by sunlight?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇讗专讜讘讛 讚讘讞讚专 讜讚讛讬讻讗 讗讬 诇讘讛讚讬 讗专讜讘讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讻住讚专讛 讗诇讗 诇爪讚讚讬谉

The Gemara answers: No, this statement with regard to sunlight is necessary with regard to the skylight that is in a room. The Gemara asks: And with regard to the area to which the tanna is referring, where in the room is it located? If he is referring to the place opposite the skylight, the legal status of that area is like that of a portico, as its abundant sunlight is adequate to search for leaven. Rather, the tanna is referring to the sides of the room. In those areas, one cannot rely on the sunlight from the skylight. He must search by the light of the lamp.

讜讗讘讜拽讛 诇讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞讙讛 讻讗讜专 转讛讬讛 拽专谞讬诐 诪讬讚讜 诇讜 讜砖诐 讞讘讬讜谉 注讝讜 诇诪讛 爪讚讬拽讬诐 讚讜诪讬谉 讘驻谞讬 砖讻讬谞讛 讻谞专 讘驻谞讬 讛讗讘讜拽讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讘讜拽讛 诇讛讘讚诇讛 诪爪讜讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专

The Gemara asks: And is the light of a torch not bright enough for searching? But didn鈥檛 Rava say: What is the meaning of that which is written, 鈥淎nd a brightness appears as the light; He has rays at His side; and there is the hiding of His power鈥 (Habakkuk 3:4), which indicates that God will provide rays of glory for the righteous in the future? The Sages explained this verse by means of a parable: To what are the righteous comparable before the Divine Presence? They are comparable to a lamp in the face of a torch. This statement indicates that the light of a torch is significantly greater than that of a lamp, and consequently a torch should be more effective in the search for leaven. And likewise Rava said: One who uses a torch for the blessing over fire in havdala has performed the mitzva in the optimal manner. Apparently, the light of a torch is greater than that of a lamp.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讝讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讻谞讬住讜 诇讞讜专讬谉 讜诇住讚拽讬谉 讜讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讻谞讬住讜 诇讞讜专讬谉 讜诇住讚拽讬谉 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 讝讛 讗讜专讜 诇驻谞讬讜 讜讝讛 讗讜专讜 诇讗讞专讬讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讛讗讬 讘注讬转 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 讘注讬转 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讛讗讬 诪砖讱 谞讛讜专讗 讜讛讗讬 诪讬拽讟祝 讗讬拽讟讜驻讬:

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The baraita does not prohibit the use of a torch due to its failure to provide sufficient light. Rather, it is due to the fact that one can put this lamp into holes and crevices, as it is a small flame, and one cannot put that torch into holes and crevices, as it is a large flame.
Rav Zevid said: This lamp projects its light before it, facilitating the search, and that torch projects its light behind it, on the person conducting the search.
Rav Pappa said: The reason is that when using this torch one fears starting a fire, and when using that lamp he does not fear starting a fire.
Ravina said: This lamp consistently draws light, and the light of that torch fluctuates. Although overall the torch provides greater light than a lamp, it is less effective for use in a search.

讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讻讜壮: 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞讜专讬 讘讬转 讛注诇讬讜谞讬诐 讜讛转讞转讜谞讬诐 讜讙讙 讛讬爪讬注 讜讙讙 讛诪讙讚诇 讜专驻转 讘拽专 讜诇讜诇讬谉 讜诪转讘谉 讜讗讜爪专讜转 讬讬谉 讜讗讜爪专讜转 砖诪谉 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讘讚讬拽讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪讟讛 讛讞讜诇拽转 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讜诪驻住拽转 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛

We learned in the mishna: Any place into which one does not typically take leaven does not require searching. The Gemara asks: What does the inclusive phrase: Any place, come to include? The Gemara answers that it comes to include that which the Sages taught in a baraita: The upper and lower holes in the wall of a house that are difficult to use, as well as a veranda roof, a closet roof, a cowshed, chicken coops, a storehouse for straw, a wine cellar, and a storeroom for oil; all these do not require that a search be conducted. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A bed that divides the area inside a house and space separates the bottom of the bed from the floor requires a search, as there might be leaven beneath it.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讞讜专 砖讘讬谉 讗讚诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 讝讛 讘讜讚拽 注讚 诪拽讜诐 砖讬讚讜 诪讙注转 讜讝讛 讘讜讚拽 注讚 诪拽讜诐 砖讬讚讜 诪讙注转 讜讛砖讗专 诪讘讟诇讜 讘诇讘讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪讟讛 讛讞讜诇拽转 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讜注爪讬诐 讜讗讘谞讬诐 住讚讜专讬诐 转讞转讬讛 讜诪驻住拽转 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛

The Gemara raises a contradiction between this baraita and another: With regard to a hole in a wall that is between a house belonging to one person and a house belonging to another, this neighbor searches to the point that his hand reaches, and that neighbor searches to the point that his hand reaches. And as for leaven found in the rest of the hole, each one renders it null and void in his heart. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A bed that divides the area inside a house, with wood and stones placed under it, and space separates the bottom of the bed from the wood and stones beneath it, does not require searching.

拽砖讬讗 诪讟讛 讗诪讟讛 拽砖讬讗 讞讜专讬谉 讗讞讜专讬谉

This is difficult due to a contradiction between the ruling with regard to a bed in the first baraita, where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that it requires a search, and the ruling with regard to a bed in the second baraita, where he rules that no search is required. Furthermore, it is similarly difficult due to a contradiction between the ruling with regard to holes in the first baraita, that a search is not required, and the ruling with regard to holes in the second baraita, that a search is required.

讞讜专讬谉 讗讞讜专讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘注讬诇讗讬 讜讘转转讗讬 讜讛讗 讘诪讬爪注讬 诪讟讛 讗诪讟讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪讬讚诇讬讗 讛讗 讚诪讬转转讗讬

The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between the first ruling with regard to holes and the second ruling with regard to holes is not difficult. This baraita, which rules that one need not search them, is referring to upper and lower holes, which are difficult to use. And that baraita, which rules that one is required to search them, is referring to intermediate holes, whose use is convenient. The apparent contradiction between the first ruling with regard to a bed and the second ruling with regard to a bed is similarly not difficult. This baraita, which rules that one is required to search them, is referring to a bed that is raised off the floor, and that ruling, that one need not search them, is referring to a bed that is low and the space beneath it cannot be used, and presumably, there is no leaven there.

讜讗讜爪专讜转 讬讬谉 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讜爪专讜转 讬讬谉 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛 讗讜爪专讜转 砖诪谉 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪住转驻拽 讗讬 讛讻讬 砖诪谉 谞诪讬

With regard to this baraita, the Gemara asks: And do wine storages not require searching? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Wine storages require searching; oil storages do not require searching. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where one supplies wine from the storage during the meal. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, then in the case of oil storages, if one supplies oil from the storage during the meal, he should be obligated to search there as well.

砖诪谉 讬砖 拽讘注 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讬讬谉 讗讬谉 拽讘注 诇砖转讬讛

The Gemara answers: With regard to oil, there is a fixed quantity used for eating a meal. A person knows how much oil he will require before the meal begins, and he will therefore supply himself with any oil that he will need before the meal, and no leaven will enter the storage. However, with regard to wine, there is no fixed quantity used for drinking, as one does not know how much wine he will drink during the meal. Consequently, it is possible that he will descend to his wine cellar with bread in his hand to replenish his supply of wine.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 注砖讜 讗讜爪专讜转 砖讻专 讘讘讘诇 讻讗讜爪专讜转 讬讬谉 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪住转驻拽

Rabbi 岣yya teaches: The Sages rendered the legal status of the beer storages in Babylonia like that of wine storages in Eretz Yisrael, with regard to one who supplies wine from the storage during the meal. Any storage from which one replenishes his supply during the meal requires searching for leaven.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘讬 讚讙讬诐 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 爪专讬讻讬谉 讘讚讬拽讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘专讘专讘讬 讛讗 讘讝讜讟专讬

Rav 岣sda said: A fish storage does not require searching. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that a fish storage requires searching? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; this lenient ruling is referring to large fish, and that stringent ruling deals with small fish. Since one does not know exactly how many small fish he will require for the meal, he might need to replenish his supply during his meal.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讬 诪讬诇讞讬 讜讘讬 拽讬专讬 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讬 爪讬讘讬 讜讘讬 转诪专讬 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A salt storage and a storage for candles require searching for leaven, as one might have entered those storages during a meal. Rav Pappa likewise said: A wood storage and a storage for dates require searching for the same reason.

转谞讗 讗讬谉 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讛讻谞讬住 讬讚讜 诇讞讜专讬谉 讜诇住讚拽讬谉 诇讘讚讜拽 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛 诪讗讬 住讻谞讛 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诪驻谞讬 住讻谞转 注拽专讘 讻讬 诪砖转诪砖 讛讬讻讬 讗讬砖转诪砖 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚谞驻诇

It was taught in the Tosefta: The Sages do not require one to place his hand into holes and crevices to search for leaven, due to the danger involved. The Gemara asks: Due to what danger? If we say it is due to the danger of a scorpion that might be in this hole, when he made use of the hole in the first place, how did he make use of it if there were scorpions there? If the hole is never used, there is no need to search it in any case. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to search this hole in a case where leaven fell into it unintentionally.

讗讬 谞驻诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 讘讚讬拽讛 讜讛转谞谉 讞诪抓 砖谞驻诇讛 注诇讬讜 诪驻讜诇转 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻诪讘讜注专 讛转诐 砖讗讬谉 讛讻诇讘 讬讻讜诇 诇讞驻砖 讗讞专讬讜 讛讻讗 讻砖讛讻诇讘 讬讻讜诇 诇讞驻砖 讗讞专讬讜

The Gemara asks: If the tanna is referring to a case where leaven fell into the hole, again, why do I need to conduct a search? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna with regard to leaven upon which a rockslide fell, it is considered removed from the owner鈥檚 possession? Here too, any leaven that fell into the hole should be considered removed. The Gemara answers: There, where the tanna said it is as though it were removed, he is referring to a case where the rockslide buries the leaven so that even a dog cannot search for it. Here, it is referring a hole that is not so deep, and therefore a dog can search for it and extract the leaven from the hole.

讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖诇讜讞讬 诪爪讜讛 讗讬谞谉 谞讬讝讜拽讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖诪讗 转讗讘讚 诇讜 诪讞讟 讜讗转讬 诇注讬讜谞讬 讘转专讛

The Gemara questions the halakha in the Tosefta from a different angle. Why is there any concern about danger in this case? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say: Those on the path to perform a mitzva are not susceptible to harm throughout the process of performing the mitzva? Rav Ashi said: Here we are concerned lest he will also have lost a needle in the same place, and he will look for it while he is searching for the leaven. Since he is not merely searching for leaven, the merit of the mitzva will not protect him.

讜讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 讛讜讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 住诇注 讝讜 诇爪讚拽讛 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬讞讬讛 讘谞讬 讗讜 砖讗讛讬讛 讘谉 讛注讜诇诐 讛讘讗

The Gemara asks: And in a case like that, where there is personal interest intermingled with the performance of a mitzva, is it not nevertheless considered a mitzva? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that one who says: I am contributing this sela to charity so that my son will live, or if he says: I am performing the mitzva so that I will be one destined for the World-to-Come,

讛专讬 讝讛 爪讚讬拽 讙诪讜专 讚讬诇诪讗 讘转专 讚讘讚拽 讗转讬 诇注讬讜谞讬 讘转专讛

this person is a full-fledged righteous person as far as that mitzva is concerned? These ulterior motives, e.g., seeking a reward, do not detract from the value of the mitzva. The Gemara answers: There is still concern lest he look for the needle after he searched for leaven and completed the search. There is danger that since he already completed the mitzva, its merit will not protect him when he is searching for the needle.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 住讻谞转 讛讙讜讬诐 讜驻诇讬诪讜 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞讜专 砖讘讬谉 讬讛讜讚讬 诇讗专诪讗讬 讘讜讚拽 注讚 诪拽讜诐 砖讬讚讜 诪讙注转 讜讛砖讗专 诪讘讟诇讜 讘诇讘讜 驻诇讬诪讜 讗诪专 讻诇 注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 讘讜讚拽 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The danger referred to by the Tosefta is the danger posed by gentiles. And this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of the tanna Pelimu. As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to a hole in a wall located between the residences of a Jew and a gentile, one searches in the hole as far as his hand reaches, and the rest he renders null and void in his heart. Pelimu said: One does not search the entire hole at all, due to the danger involved.

诪讗讬 住讻谞讛 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 住讻谞转 讻砖驻讬诐 讻讬 讗讬砖转诪讬砖 讛讬讻讬 讗讬砖转诪讬砖 讛转诐 讻讬 讗讬砖转诪讬砖 讬诪诪讗 讜谞讛讜专讗 讜诇讗 诪住讬拽 讗讚注转讬讛 讛讻讗 诇讬诇讬讗 讜砖专讙讗 讛讜讗 讜诪住讬拽 讗讚注转讬讛

The Gemara asks: Due to what danger? If we say it is due to the danger of sorcery, i.e., the gentile will suspect the Jew of casting spells on him and will come to hate him and threaten him, if so, when he made use of the hole in the first place, how did he make use of it without arousing the enmity of his gentile neighbor? If the hole is never used there is no need to search it in any case. The Gemara answers: There, when he made use of the hole, it was during the day and there was light, and the gentile would not raise the suspicion that the Jew was casting spells in his mind. Here, it is during the night and the search is performed with a lamp, and the gentile would raise the suspicion that the Jew was casting spells in his mind.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖诇讜讞讬 诪爪讜讛 讗讬谞谉 谞讬讝讜拽讬谉 讛讬讻讗 讚砖讻讬讞 讛讬讝讬拽讗 砖讗谞讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬讱 讗诇讱 讜砖诪注 砖讗讜诇 讜讛专讙谞讬 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 注讙诇转 讘拽专 转拽讞 讘讬讚讱 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say that those on the path to perform a mitzva are not susceptible to harm throughout the process of performing the mitzva? The Gemara responds: In a place where danger is commonplace it is different, as one should not rely on a miracle, as it is stated with regard to God鈥檚 command to Samuel to anoint David as king in place of Saul: 鈥淎nd Samuel said: How will I go, and Saul will hear and kill me; and God said: Take in your hand a calf and say: I have come to offer a sacrifice to God鈥 (I Samuel 16:2). Even when God Himself issued the command, there is concern with regard to commonplace dangers.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讛谞讬 讘谞讬 讘讬 专讘 讚讚讬讬专讬 讘讘讗讙讗 诪讛讜 诇诪讬转讬 拽讚诪讗 讜讞砖讜讻讗 诇讘讬 专讘 讗诪专 诇讛讜 谞讬转讜 注诇讬 讜注诇 爪讜讗专讬 谞讬讝讬诇 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗

They raised a dilemma before Rav: With regard to those members of the school of Rav who live in the fields [baga] far away from the city, what is the halakha as to whether they may come early before dawn and in the evening after dark to Rav鈥檚 school, or should they be concerned about robbers? He said to them: Let them come, and responsibility for their safety is upon me and my neck. They asked him: What is your opinion about returning home? He said to them: I do not know if it is possible to rely on the protection of the mitzva when returning home.

讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖诇讜讞讬 诪爪讜讛 讗讬谞谉 谞讬讝讜拽讬谉 诇讗 讘讛诇讬讻转谉 讜诇讗 讘讞讝讬专转谉 讻诪讗谉

On a related note, it was stated that Rabbi Elazar said: Those on the path to perform a mitzva are not susceptible to harm; neither when they go nor when they return. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did he say this?

讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇驻讬 砖讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讜诇讗 讬讞诪讚 讗讬砖 讗转 讗专爪讱 诪诇诪讚 砖转讛讗 驻专转讱 专讜注讛 讘讗驻专 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讛 诪讝讬拽转讛 转专谞讙讜诇转讱 诪谞拽专转 讘讗砖驻讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讜诇讚讛 诪讝讬拽转讛

The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita that Isi ben Yehuda says: With regard to that which the Torah said: 鈥淎nd no man shall covet your land, when you go up to appear before God your Lord three times in the year鈥 (Exodus 34:24), this teaches that your cow shall graze in the meadow and no beast will harm it, and your rooster shall peck in the garbage dump and no marten [岣lda] shall harm it. In other words, your property will be protected while everyone ascends to Jerusalem for the Festival, despite the fact that the farm will not be defended.

讜讛诇讗 讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讗诇讜 砖讚专讻谉 诇讝讜拽 讗讬谞谉 谞讬讝讜拽讬谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻谉 诇讝讜拽 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讛诇讬讻讛 讘讞讝专讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜驻谞讬转 讘讘拽专 讜讛诇讻转 诇讗讛诇讬讱 诪诇诪讚 砖转诇讱 讜转诪爪讗 讗讛诇讱 讘砖诇讜诐

And are these matters not inferred a fortiori? And if those animals that typically are harmed by other animals are not harmed, due to the protection provided by the mitzva, people who typically are not harmed, as they are capable of protecting themselves, all the more so, will not be harmed due to the protection provided by the mitzva of ascending to Jerusalem for the Festival. I have only derived that one is protected when going to Jerusalem; from where is it derived that one is protected even when returning from the Temple? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall roast and eat the Paschal lamb in the place which God your Lord shall choose; and you shall turn in the morning and go to your tents鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:7). This teaches that you shall go and upon your return find your tent in peace, unharmed.

讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讝讬专讛 讘讛诇讬讻讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讻诇 讗讚诐 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽专拽注 注讜诇讛 诇专讙诇 讜砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽专拽注 讗讬谉 注讜诇讛 诇专讙诇

The Gemara asks: And once we derived that the merit of a mitzva protects a person even when returning, why do I need a source to teach that he is protected when he goes? This teaching could also be derived by means of an a fortiori inference. The Gemara answers: Actually, the first verse is interpreted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami said: Any person who has land in his possession is obligated to ascend to the Temple for the three pilgrim Festivals. And one who does not have land in his possession is not obligated to ascend for the Festivals, as the verse states: Your land, in the context of the obligation to ascend to Jerusalem for the three Pilgrim Festivals.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讘专 专讘 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬谉 驻专讜转 讙讬谞讜住专 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 注讜诇讬 专讙诇讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诇诪诇讗 诇讗 注诇讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讻讜诇 驻专讜转 讙讬谞讜住专 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讚讬讬谞讜 谞诪爪讗转 注诇讬讬讛 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛

Apropos the ascent to Jerusalem for a Festival and the performance of a mitzva with ulterior motives, the Gemara cites that which Rabbi Avin bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitz岣k said: Due to what reason are there no fruits of Ginnosar, which were of the highest quality, growing in Jerusalem? Why is Jerusalem not graced with this produce? The reason is so that the pilgrims would not say: If we had ascended only to eat the fruit of Ginnosar, it would have been sufficient for us. The ascent to Jerusalem would then be performed not for its own sake.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讚讜住转讗讬 讘专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬谉 讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讗 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 注讜诇讬 专讙诇讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诇诪诇讗 诇讗 注诇讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇专讞抓 讘讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讗 讚讬讬谞讜 讜谞诪爪讗转 注诇讬讬讛 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛:

On a similar note, Rabbi Dostai, son of Rabbi Yannai, said: Due to what reason are the hot springs of Tiberias not located in Jerusalem? It is so that the pilgrims would not say: If we had only ascended to bathe in the hot springs of Tiberias, it would have been sufficient for us. The ascent to Jerusalem would then be performed not for its own sake.

讜讘诪讛 讗诪专讜 砖转讬 砖讜专讜转 讜讻讜壮: 诪专转祝 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讬讛

We learned in the mishna: And with regard to what did the Sages of previous generations say that one must search two rows of wine barrels in a cellar, etc. The Gemara asks: A cellar, who mentioned anything about that? What led the tanna to begin a discussion of a wine cellar?

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讘讜 讞诪抓 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛 讜讗讜爪专讜转 讬讬谉 讜讗讜爪专讜转 砖诪谉 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛 讜讘诪讛 讗诪专讜 砖转讬 砖讜专讜转 讘诪专转祝 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讘讜 讞诪抓 讜讘诪住转驻拽:

The Gemara answers that this is what the tanna is saying: Any place into which one does not take leaven does not require searching, and wine storages and oil storages also do not require searching. And with regard to what did the Sages say that one must search two rows in a cellar? This statement is referring to a place into which one brings leavened bread, and where one supplies wine from the storage during the meal.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬 砖讜专讜转 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖转讬 砖讜专讜转 砖讗诪专讜 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讜注讚 砖诪讬 拽讜专讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 砖讜专讛 讗讞转 讻诪讬谉 讙讗诐

We learned in the mishna that Beit Shammai say that one must search the first two rows across the entire cellar. Rav Yehuda said: The two rows that they stated are two full rows in the front, from the ground up to the ceiling. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: These two rows are one row at a right angle, like the shape of the letter gamma [gam], i.e., the entire length and height of the front row and the entire top row of the barrels along the length and width of the cellar.

转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬 砖讜专讜转 注诇 驻谞讬 讻诇 讛诪专转祝 讜砖转讬 砖讜专讜转 砖讗诪专讜 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讜注讚 砖诪讬 拽讜专讛 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖转讬 砖讜专讜转 注诇 驻谞讬 讻诇 讛诪专转祝 讞讬爪讜谞讛 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛驻转讞 讜注诇讬讜谞讛 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛拽讜专讛 砖诇驻谞讬诐 讛讬诪谞讛 讜砖诇诪讟讛 讛讬诪谞讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛:

The Gemara comments: One baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, and one baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. One baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda: Beit Shammai say that one must search two rows across the entire front of the cellar, and the two rows that were stated are from the ground up to the ceiling. One baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: One must search two rows across the entire cellar, i.e., the outer row that faces the door, and the upper row that faces the ceiling. The rows inward from the outermost one and the rows lower than the uppermost one do not require searching.

讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬 砖讜专讜转 讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 砖讛谉 讛注诇讬讜谞讜转: 讗诪专 专讘 注诇讬讜谞讛 讜砖诇诪讟讛 讛讬诪谞讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 注诇讬讜谞讛 讜砖诇驻谞讬诐 讛讬诪谞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讚讬讬拽 讞讬爪讜谞讜转 讜讛讗 注诇讬讜谞讜转 拽转谞讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 转转讗讬 讚转转讬讬转讗

We further learned in the mishna that Beit Hillel say: It is sufficient to search the two external rows, which are the upper ones. There is an amoraic dispute with regard to this statement. Rav said it is referring to the uppermost row of barrels and the row that is beneath it. And Shmuel said it means the uppermost front row and the next one that is inward into the cellar. What is the reason for the opinion of Rav? He infers from the term: Outer rows, that Beit Hillel mean that both rows face outward. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn鈥檛 the mishna also teach: Upper rows, indicating that both rows are adjacent to the ceiling? The Gemara answers: This term comes to exclude the lowest of the lower rows. One must search only the top two rows.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 注诇讬讜谞讛 讜砖诇驻谞讬诐 讛讬诪谞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讬讬拽 注诇讬讜谞讜转 讜讛讗 讞讬爪讜谞讛 拽转谞讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讙讜讬讬讗转讗 讚讙讜讬讬讗转讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 转谞讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讜讻讜诇讛讜 转谞讗讬 转谞讜 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇:

And Shmuel said the mishna is referring to the uppermost front row and the next one that is inward into the cellar. What is the reason for the opinion of Shmuel? He infers from the term: Upper rows, that one must search the first two rows on the top level of barrels. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn鈥檛 the mishna also teach: Outer row? The Gemara answers that this word comes to exclude the innermost of the inner rows. One must search only the two outermost rows. The Gemara comments: Rabbi 岣yya teaches a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and all the other tanna鈥檌m, who recite the mishnayot and baraitot by heart, teach in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

This month of learning is dedicated by Pam and Yoav Schwartz to honor the 5th yahrtzeit of their nephew Ezra Schwartz. Ezra's life was full of love, curiosity, laughter, and friendship. May this learning replace some of the light that was lost from this world.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Pesachim 4-10 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will continue to learn the laws regarding searching one鈥檚 home for leavened bread.聽 How and when is...
pilgrim experience

The Pilgrim Experience by Rina and Danny Yellin

Pesachim 8b: 状砖诇讜讞讬 诪爪讜讛 讗讬谞谉 谞讬讝讜拽讬谉, 诇讗 讘讛诇讬讻转谉 讜诇讗 讘讞讝讬专转谉状 鈥淭hose on the path to perform a mitzvah are not...
alon shvut women

Searching for Chametz

Pesachim Daf 008 How do we know that we search for Chametz with a candle? Where do we need to...
talking talmud_square

Pesachim 8: Are Mitzvot a Good-luck Charm?!

Pesachim 8 - How and where to check for chametz during the official check. Does a wine cellar need to...

Pesachim 8

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 8

诪驻谞讬 砖讗讜专 讛谞专 讬驻讛 诇讘讚讬拽讛 讜讗祝 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 讘讘转讬讻诐 讜讗讜诪专 讜讬讞驻砖 讘讙讚讜诇 讛讞诇 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 讛壮 谞砖诪转 讗讚诐 讞驻砖 讻诇 讞讚专讬 讘讟谉

because the light of a lamp is effective for searching. And even though there is no 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 (Exodus 12:19), and it says: 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 it says: 鈥淎t that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps鈥 (Zephaniah 1:12), and it says: 鈥淭he spirit of man is the lamp of God, searching all the inward parts鈥 (Proverbs 20:27).

讛讗讬 讗讜专 讛讞诪讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讘讞爪专 讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讞爪专 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛注讜专讘讬谉 诪爪讜讬讬谉 砖诐 讗诇讗 讘讗讻住讚专讛 讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讻住讚专讛 诇讗讜专讛 谞讘讚拽转

The Gemara asks a question: This light of the sun, by which one may not conduct the search for leaven, what are the circumstances of this case? If we say it is referring to conducting a search in the courtyard, didn鈥檛 Rava say that a courtyard does not require searching, due to the ravens and other birds that are found there, and will certainly eat any leaven there? Rather, perhaps this ruling is referring to a portico, which is not frequented by ravens. However, this cannot be the correct interpretation either, as didn鈥檛 Rava say with regard to that case that a portico may be searched by its own light, i.e., one need not use a lamp at all when searching a portico, but one may search it by sunlight?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇讗专讜讘讛 讚讘讞讚专 讜讚讛讬讻讗 讗讬 诇讘讛讚讬 讗专讜讘讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讻住讚专讛 讗诇讗 诇爪讚讚讬谉

The Gemara answers: No, this statement with regard to sunlight is necessary with regard to the skylight that is in a room. The Gemara asks: And with regard to the area to which the tanna is referring, where in the room is it located? If he is referring to the place opposite the skylight, the legal status of that area is like that of a portico, as its abundant sunlight is adequate to search for leaven. Rather, the tanna is referring to the sides of the room. In those areas, one cannot rely on the sunlight from the skylight. He must search by the light of the lamp.

讜讗讘讜拽讛 诇讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞讙讛 讻讗讜专 转讛讬讛 拽专谞讬诐 诪讬讚讜 诇讜 讜砖诐 讞讘讬讜谉 注讝讜 诇诪讛 爪讚讬拽讬诐 讚讜诪讬谉 讘驻谞讬 砖讻讬谞讛 讻谞专 讘驻谞讬 讛讗讘讜拽讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讘讜拽讛 诇讛讘讚诇讛 诪爪讜讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专

The Gemara asks: And is the light of a torch not bright enough for searching? But didn鈥檛 Rava say: What is the meaning of that which is written, 鈥淎nd a brightness appears as the light; He has rays at His side; and there is the hiding of His power鈥 (Habakkuk 3:4), which indicates that God will provide rays of glory for the righteous in the future? The Sages explained this verse by means of a parable: To what are the righteous comparable before the Divine Presence? They are comparable to a lamp in the face of a torch. This statement indicates that the light of a torch is significantly greater than that of a lamp, and consequently a torch should be more effective in the search for leaven. And likewise Rava said: One who uses a torch for the blessing over fire in havdala has performed the mitzva in the optimal manner. Apparently, the light of a torch is greater than that of a lamp.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讝讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讻谞讬住讜 诇讞讜专讬谉 讜诇住讚拽讬谉 讜讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讻谞讬住讜 诇讞讜专讬谉 讜诇住讚拽讬谉 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 讝讛 讗讜专讜 诇驻谞讬讜 讜讝讛 讗讜专讜 诇讗讞专讬讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讛讗讬 讘注讬转 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 讘注讬转 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讛讗讬 诪砖讱 谞讛讜专讗 讜讛讗讬 诪讬拽讟祝 讗讬拽讟讜驻讬:

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The baraita does not prohibit the use of a torch due to its failure to provide sufficient light. Rather, it is due to the fact that one can put this lamp into holes and crevices, as it is a small flame, and one cannot put that torch into holes and crevices, as it is a large flame.
Rav Zevid said: This lamp projects its light before it, facilitating the search, and that torch projects its light behind it, on the person conducting the search.
Rav Pappa said: The reason is that when using this torch one fears starting a fire, and when using that lamp he does not fear starting a fire.
Ravina said: This lamp consistently draws light, and the light of that torch fluctuates. Although overall the torch provides greater light than a lamp, it is less effective for use in a search.

讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讻讜壮: 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞讜专讬 讘讬转 讛注诇讬讜谞讬诐 讜讛转讞转讜谞讬诐 讜讙讙 讛讬爪讬注 讜讙讙 讛诪讙讚诇 讜专驻转 讘拽专 讜诇讜诇讬谉 讜诪转讘谉 讜讗讜爪专讜转 讬讬谉 讜讗讜爪专讜转 砖诪谉 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讘讚讬拽讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪讟讛 讛讞讜诇拽转 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讜诪驻住拽转 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛

We learned in the mishna: Any place into which one does not typically take leaven does not require searching. The Gemara asks: What does the inclusive phrase: Any place, come to include? The Gemara answers that it comes to include that which the Sages taught in a baraita: The upper and lower holes in the wall of a house that are difficult to use, as well as a veranda roof, a closet roof, a cowshed, chicken coops, a storehouse for straw, a wine cellar, and a storeroom for oil; all these do not require that a search be conducted. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A bed that divides the area inside a house and space separates the bottom of the bed from the floor requires a search, as there might be leaven beneath it.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讞讜专 砖讘讬谉 讗讚诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 讝讛 讘讜讚拽 注讚 诪拽讜诐 砖讬讚讜 诪讙注转 讜讝讛 讘讜讚拽 注讚 诪拽讜诐 砖讬讚讜 诪讙注转 讜讛砖讗专 诪讘讟诇讜 讘诇讘讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪讟讛 讛讞讜诇拽转 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讜注爪讬诐 讜讗讘谞讬诐 住讚讜专讬诐 转讞转讬讛 讜诪驻住拽转 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛

The Gemara raises a contradiction between this baraita and another: With regard to a hole in a wall that is between a house belonging to one person and a house belonging to another, this neighbor searches to the point that his hand reaches, and that neighbor searches to the point that his hand reaches. And as for leaven found in the rest of the hole, each one renders it null and void in his heart. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A bed that divides the area inside a house, with wood and stones placed under it, and space separates the bottom of the bed from the wood and stones beneath it, does not require searching.

拽砖讬讗 诪讟讛 讗诪讟讛 拽砖讬讗 讞讜专讬谉 讗讞讜专讬谉

This is difficult due to a contradiction between the ruling with regard to a bed in the first baraita, where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that it requires a search, and the ruling with regard to a bed in the second baraita, where he rules that no search is required. Furthermore, it is similarly difficult due to a contradiction between the ruling with regard to holes in the first baraita, that a search is not required, and the ruling with regard to holes in the second baraita, that a search is required.

讞讜专讬谉 讗讞讜专讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘注讬诇讗讬 讜讘转转讗讬 讜讛讗 讘诪讬爪注讬 诪讟讛 讗诪讟讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪讬讚诇讬讗 讛讗 讚诪讬转转讗讬

The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between the first ruling with regard to holes and the second ruling with regard to holes is not difficult. This baraita, which rules that one need not search them, is referring to upper and lower holes, which are difficult to use. And that baraita, which rules that one is required to search them, is referring to intermediate holes, whose use is convenient. The apparent contradiction between the first ruling with regard to a bed and the second ruling with regard to a bed is similarly not difficult. This baraita, which rules that one is required to search them, is referring to a bed that is raised off the floor, and that ruling, that one need not search them, is referring to a bed that is low and the space beneath it cannot be used, and presumably, there is no leaven there.

讜讗讜爪专讜转 讬讬谉 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讜爪专讜转 讬讬谉 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛 讗讜爪专讜转 砖诪谉 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪住转驻拽 讗讬 讛讻讬 砖诪谉 谞诪讬

With regard to this baraita, the Gemara asks: And do wine storages not require searching? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Wine storages require searching; oil storages do not require searching. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where one supplies wine from the storage during the meal. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, then in the case of oil storages, if one supplies oil from the storage during the meal, he should be obligated to search there as well.

砖诪谉 讬砖 拽讘注 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讬讬谉 讗讬谉 拽讘注 诇砖转讬讛

The Gemara answers: With regard to oil, there is a fixed quantity used for eating a meal. A person knows how much oil he will require before the meal begins, and he will therefore supply himself with any oil that he will need before the meal, and no leaven will enter the storage. However, with regard to wine, there is no fixed quantity used for drinking, as one does not know how much wine he will drink during the meal. Consequently, it is possible that he will descend to his wine cellar with bread in his hand to replenish his supply of wine.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 注砖讜 讗讜爪专讜转 砖讻专 讘讘讘诇 讻讗讜爪专讜转 讬讬谉 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪住转驻拽

Rabbi 岣yya teaches: The Sages rendered the legal status of the beer storages in Babylonia like that of wine storages in Eretz Yisrael, with regard to one who supplies wine from the storage during the meal. Any storage from which one replenishes his supply during the meal requires searching for leaven.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘讬 讚讙讬诐 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 爪专讬讻讬谉 讘讚讬拽讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘专讘专讘讬 讛讗 讘讝讜讟专讬

Rav 岣sda said: A fish storage does not require searching. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that a fish storage requires searching? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; this lenient ruling is referring to large fish, and that stringent ruling deals with small fish. Since one does not know exactly how many small fish he will require for the meal, he might need to replenish his supply during his meal.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讬 诪讬诇讞讬 讜讘讬 拽讬专讬 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讬 爪讬讘讬 讜讘讬 转诪专讬 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A salt storage and a storage for candles require searching for leaven, as one might have entered those storages during a meal. Rav Pappa likewise said: A wood storage and a storage for dates require searching for the same reason.

转谞讗 讗讬谉 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讛讻谞讬住 讬讚讜 诇讞讜专讬谉 讜诇住讚拽讬谉 诇讘讚讜拽 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛 诪讗讬 住讻谞讛 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诪驻谞讬 住讻谞转 注拽专讘 讻讬 诪砖转诪砖 讛讬讻讬 讗讬砖转诪砖 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚谞驻诇

It was taught in the Tosefta: The Sages do not require one to place his hand into holes and crevices to search for leaven, due to the danger involved. The Gemara asks: Due to what danger? If we say it is due to the danger of a scorpion that might be in this hole, when he made use of the hole in the first place, how did he make use of it if there were scorpions there? If the hole is never used, there is no need to search it in any case. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to search this hole in a case where leaven fell into it unintentionally.

讗讬 谞驻诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 讘讚讬拽讛 讜讛转谞谉 讞诪抓 砖谞驻诇讛 注诇讬讜 诪驻讜诇转 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻诪讘讜注专 讛转诐 砖讗讬谉 讛讻诇讘 讬讻讜诇 诇讞驻砖 讗讞专讬讜 讛讻讗 讻砖讛讻诇讘 讬讻讜诇 诇讞驻砖 讗讞专讬讜

The Gemara asks: If the tanna is referring to a case where leaven fell into the hole, again, why do I need to conduct a search? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna with regard to leaven upon which a rockslide fell, it is considered removed from the owner鈥檚 possession? Here too, any leaven that fell into the hole should be considered removed. The Gemara answers: There, where the tanna said it is as though it were removed, he is referring to a case where the rockslide buries the leaven so that even a dog cannot search for it. Here, it is referring a hole that is not so deep, and therefore a dog can search for it and extract the leaven from the hole.

讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖诇讜讞讬 诪爪讜讛 讗讬谞谉 谞讬讝讜拽讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖诪讗 转讗讘讚 诇讜 诪讞讟 讜讗转讬 诇注讬讜谞讬 讘转专讛

The Gemara questions the halakha in the Tosefta from a different angle. Why is there any concern about danger in this case? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say: Those on the path to perform a mitzva are not susceptible to harm throughout the process of performing the mitzva? Rav Ashi said: Here we are concerned lest he will also have lost a needle in the same place, and he will look for it while he is searching for the leaven. Since he is not merely searching for leaven, the merit of the mitzva will not protect him.

讜讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 讛讜讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 住诇注 讝讜 诇爪讚拽讛 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬讞讬讛 讘谞讬 讗讜 砖讗讛讬讛 讘谉 讛注讜诇诐 讛讘讗

The Gemara asks: And in a case like that, where there is personal interest intermingled with the performance of a mitzva, is it not nevertheless considered a mitzva? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that one who says: I am contributing this sela to charity so that my son will live, or if he says: I am performing the mitzva so that I will be one destined for the World-to-Come,

讛专讬 讝讛 爪讚讬拽 讙诪讜专 讚讬诇诪讗 讘转专 讚讘讚拽 讗转讬 诇注讬讜谞讬 讘转专讛

this person is a full-fledged righteous person as far as that mitzva is concerned? These ulterior motives, e.g., seeking a reward, do not detract from the value of the mitzva. The Gemara answers: There is still concern lest he look for the needle after he searched for leaven and completed the search. There is danger that since he already completed the mitzva, its merit will not protect him when he is searching for the needle.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 住讻谞转 讛讙讜讬诐 讜驻诇讬诪讜 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞讜专 砖讘讬谉 讬讛讜讚讬 诇讗专诪讗讬 讘讜讚拽 注讚 诪拽讜诐 砖讬讚讜 诪讙注转 讜讛砖讗专 诪讘讟诇讜 讘诇讘讜 驻诇讬诪讜 讗诪专 讻诇 注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 讘讜讚拽 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The danger referred to by the Tosefta is the danger posed by gentiles. And this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of the tanna Pelimu. As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to a hole in a wall located between the residences of a Jew and a gentile, one searches in the hole as far as his hand reaches, and the rest he renders null and void in his heart. Pelimu said: One does not search the entire hole at all, due to the danger involved.

诪讗讬 住讻谞讛 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 住讻谞转 讻砖驻讬诐 讻讬 讗讬砖转诪讬砖 讛讬讻讬 讗讬砖转诪讬砖 讛转诐 讻讬 讗讬砖转诪讬砖 讬诪诪讗 讜谞讛讜专讗 讜诇讗 诪住讬拽 讗讚注转讬讛 讛讻讗 诇讬诇讬讗 讜砖专讙讗 讛讜讗 讜诪住讬拽 讗讚注转讬讛

The Gemara asks: Due to what danger? If we say it is due to the danger of sorcery, i.e., the gentile will suspect the Jew of casting spells on him and will come to hate him and threaten him, if so, when he made use of the hole in the first place, how did he make use of it without arousing the enmity of his gentile neighbor? If the hole is never used there is no need to search it in any case. The Gemara answers: There, when he made use of the hole, it was during the day and there was light, and the gentile would not raise the suspicion that the Jew was casting spells in his mind. Here, it is during the night and the search is performed with a lamp, and the gentile would raise the suspicion that the Jew was casting spells in his mind.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖诇讜讞讬 诪爪讜讛 讗讬谞谉 谞讬讝讜拽讬谉 讛讬讻讗 讚砖讻讬讞 讛讬讝讬拽讗 砖讗谞讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬讱 讗诇讱 讜砖诪注 砖讗讜诇 讜讛专讙谞讬 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 注讙诇转 讘拽专 转拽讞 讘讬讚讱 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say that those on the path to perform a mitzva are not susceptible to harm throughout the process of performing the mitzva? The Gemara responds: In a place where danger is commonplace it is different, as one should not rely on a miracle, as it is stated with regard to God鈥檚 command to Samuel to anoint David as king in place of Saul: 鈥淎nd Samuel said: How will I go, and Saul will hear and kill me; and God said: Take in your hand a calf and say: I have come to offer a sacrifice to God鈥 (I Samuel 16:2). Even when God Himself issued the command, there is concern with regard to commonplace dangers.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讛谞讬 讘谞讬 讘讬 专讘 讚讚讬讬专讬 讘讘讗讙讗 诪讛讜 诇诪讬转讬 拽讚诪讗 讜讞砖讜讻讗 诇讘讬 专讘 讗诪专 诇讛讜 谞讬转讜 注诇讬 讜注诇 爪讜讗专讬 谞讬讝讬诇 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗

They raised a dilemma before Rav: With regard to those members of the school of Rav who live in the fields [baga] far away from the city, what is the halakha as to whether they may come early before dawn and in the evening after dark to Rav鈥檚 school, or should they be concerned about robbers? He said to them: Let them come, and responsibility for their safety is upon me and my neck. They asked him: What is your opinion about returning home? He said to them: I do not know if it is possible to rely on the protection of the mitzva when returning home.

讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖诇讜讞讬 诪爪讜讛 讗讬谞谉 谞讬讝讜拽讬谉 诇讗 讘讛诇讬讻转谉 讜诇讗 讘讞讝讬专转谉 讻诪讗谉

On a related note, it was stated that Rabbi Elazar said: Those on the path to perform a mitzva are not susceptible to harm; neither when they go nor when they return. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did he say this?

讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇驻讬 砖讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讜诇讗 讬讞诪讚 讗讬砖 讗转 讗专爪讱 诪诇诪讚 砖转讛讗 驻专转讱 专讜注讛 讘讗驻专 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讛 诪讝讬拽转讛 转专谞讙讜诇转讱 诪谞拽专转 讘讗砖驻讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讜诇讚讛 诪讝讬拽转讛

The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita that Isi ben Yehuda says: With regard to that which the Torah said: 鈥淎nd no man shall covet your land, when you go up to appear before God your Lord three times in the year鈥 (Exodus 34:24), this teaches that your cow shall graze in the meadow and no beast will harm it, and your rooster shall peck in the garbage dump and no marten [岣lda] shall harm it. In other words, your property will be protected while everyone ascends to Jerusalem for the Festival, despite the fact that the farm will not be defended.

讜讛诇讗 讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讗诇讜 砖讚专讻谉 诇讝讜拽 讗讬谞谉 谞讬讝讜拽讬谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻谉 诇讝讜拽 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讛诇讬讻讛 讘讞讝专讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜驻谞讬转 讘讘拽专 讜讛诇讻转 诇讗讛诇讬讱 诪诇诪讚 砖转诇讱 讜转诪爪讗 讗讛诇讱 讘砖诇讜诐

And are these matters not inferred a fortiori? And if those animals that typically are harmed by other animals are not harmed, due to the protection provided by the mitzva, people who typically are not harmed, as they are capable of protecting themselves, all the more so, will not be harmed due to the protection provided by the mitzva of ascending to Jerusalem for the Festival. I have only derived that one is protected when going to Jerusalem; from where is it derived that one is protected even when returning from the Temple? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall roast and eat the Paschal lamb in the place which God your Lord shall choose; and you shall turn in the morning and go to your tents鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:7). This teaches that you shall go and upon your return find your tent in peace, unharmed.

讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讝讬专讛 讘讛诇讬讻讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讻诇 讗讚诐 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽专拽注 注讜诇讛 诇专讙诇 讜砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽专拽注 讗讬谉 注讜诇讛 诇专讙诇

The Gemara asks: And once we derived that the merit of a mitzva protects a person even when returning, why do I need a source to teach that he is protected when he goes? This teaching could also be derived by means of an a fortiori inference. The Gemara answers: Actually, the first verse is interpreted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami said: Any person who has land in his possession is obligated to ascend to the Temple for the three pilgrim Festivals. And one who does not have land in his possession is not obligated to ascend for the Festivals, as the verse states: Your land, in the context of the obligation to ascend to Jerusalem for the three Pilgrim Festivals.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讘专 专讘 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬谉 驻专讜转 讙讬谞讜住专 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 注讜诇讬 专讙诇讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诇诪诇讗 诇讗 注诇讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讻讜诇 驻专讜转 讙讬谞讜住专 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讚讬讬谞讜 谞诪爪讗转 注诇讬讬讛 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛

Apropos the ascent to Jerusalem for a Festival and the performance of a mitzva with ulterior motives, the Gemara cites that which Rabbi Avin bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitz岣k said: Due to what reason are there no fruits of Ginnosar, which were of the highest quality, growing in Jerusalem? Why is Jerusalem not graced with this produce? The reason is so that the pilgrims would not say: If we had ascended only to eat the fruit of Ginnosar, it would have been sufficient for us. The ascent to Jerusalem would then be performed not for its own sake.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讚讜住转讗讬 讘专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬谉 讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讗 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 注讜诇讬 专讙诇讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诇诪诇讗 诇讗 注诇讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇专讞抓 讘讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讗 讚讬讬谞讜 讜谞诪爪讗转 注诇讬讬讛 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛:

On a similar note, Rabbi Dostai, son of Rabbi Yannai, said: Due to what reason are the hot springs of Tiberias not located in Jerusalem? It is so that the pilgrims would not say: If we had only ascended to bathe in the hot springs of Tiberias, it would have been sufficient for us. The ascent to Jerusalem would then be performed not for its own sake.

讜讘诪讛 讗诪专讜 砖转讬 砖讜专讜转 讜讻讜壮: 诪专转祝 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讬讛

We learned in the mishna: And with regard to what did the Sages of previous generations say that one must search two rows of wine barrels in a cellar, etc. The Gemara asks: A cellar, who mentioned anything about that? What led the tanna to begin a discussion of a wine cellar?

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讘讜 讞诪抓 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛 讜讗讜爪专讜转 讬讬谉 讜讗讜爪专讜转 砖诪谉 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛 讜讘诪讛 讗诪专讜 砖转讬 砖讜专讜转 讘诪专转祝 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讘讜 讞诪抓 讜讘诪住转驻拽:

The Gemara answers that this is what the tanna is saying: Any place into which one does not take leaven does not require searching, and wine storages and oil storages also do not require searching. And with regard to what did the Sages say that one must search two rows in a cellar? This statement is referring to a place into which one brings leavened bread, and where one supplies wine from the storage during the meal.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬 砖讜专讜转 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖转讬 砖讜专讜转 砖讗诪专讜 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讜注讚 砖诪讬 拽讜专讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 砖讜专讛 讗讞转 讻诪讬谉 讙讗诐

We learned in the mishna that Beit Shammai say that one must search the first two rows across the entire cellar. Rav Yehuda said: The two rows that they stated are two full rows in the front, from the ground up to the ceiling. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: These two rows are one row at a right angle, like the shape of the letter gamma [gam], i.e., the entire length and height of the front row and the entire top row of the barrels along the length and width of the cellar.

转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬 砖讜专讜转 注诇 驻谞讬 讻诇 讛诪专转祝 讜砖转讬 砖讜专讜转 砖讗诪专讜 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讜注讚 砖诪讬 拽讜专讛 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖转讬 砖讜专讜转 注诇 驻谞讬 讻诇 讛诪专转祝 讞讬爪讜谞讛 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛驻转讞 讜注诇讬讜谞讛 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛拽讜专讛 砖诇驻谞讬诐 讛讬诪谞讛 讜砖诇诪讟讛 讛讬诪谞讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讘讚讬拽讛:

The Gemara comments: One baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, and one baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. One baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda: Beit Shammai say that one must search two rows across the entire front of the cellar, and the two rows that were stated are from the ground up to the ceiling. One baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: One must search two rows across the entire cellar, i.e., the outer row that faces the door, and the upper row that faces the ceiling. The rows inward from the outermost one and the rows lower than the uppermost one do not require searching.

讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬 砖讜专讜转 讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 砖讛谉 讛注诇讬讜谞讜转: 讗诪专 专讘 注诇讬讜谞讛 讜砖诇诪讟讛 讛讬诪谞讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 注诇讬讜谞讛 讜砖诇驻谞讬诐 讛讬诪谞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讚讬讬拽 讞讬爪讜谞讜转 讜讛讗 注诇讬讜谞讜转 拽转谞讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 转转讗讬 讚转转讬讬转讗

We further learned in the mishna that Beit Hillel say: It is sufficient to search the two external rows, which are the upper ones. There is an amoraic dispute with regard to this statement. Rav said it is referring to the uppermost row of barrels and the row that is beneath it. And Shmuel said it means the uppermost front row and the next one that is inward into the cellar. What is the reason for the opinion of Rav? He infers from the term: Outer rows, that Beit Hillel mean that both rows face outward. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn鈥檛 the mishna also teach: Upper rows, indicating that both rows are adjacent to the ceiling? The Gemara answers: This term comes to exclude the lowest of the lower rows. One must search only the top two rows.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 注诇讬讜谞讛 讜砖诇驻谞讬诐 讛讬诪谞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讬讬拽 注诇讬讜谞讜转 讜讛讗 讞讬爪讜谞讛 拽转谞讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讙讜讬讬讗转讗 讚讙讜讬讬讗转讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 转谞讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讜讻讜诇讛讜 转谞讗讬 转谞讜 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇:

And Shmuel said the mishna is referring to the uppermost front row and the next one that is inward into the cellar. What is the reason for the opinion of Shmuel? He infers from the term: Upper rows, that one must search the first two rows on the top level of barrels. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn鈥檛 the mishna also teach: Outer row? The Gemara answers that this word comes to exclude the innermost of the inner rows. One must search only the two outermost rows. The Gemara comments: Rabbi 岣yya teaches a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and all the other tanna鈥檌m, who recite the mishnayot and baraitot by heart, teach in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

Scroll To Top