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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 30, 2020 | ื™ืดื“ ื‘ื›ืกืœื• ืชืฉืคืดื

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 9

Today’s daf is sponsored by Naomi Ferziger in memory of her father, Chaim Zeev ben Pessel and Yoel Greenblatt z”l, on his 8th yartzeit.

After one checks one’s house for chametz, one does not need to be concerned that a marten or other creature moved chametz from one place to another. The gemara assumes from here that if one saw a marten with chametz, one would need to check. Why can’t one assume the marten ate it, as appears in Mishna Oholot 18:7 regarding a house of a gentile and assumption of impurity of a miscarried fetus. There is it assumed that if there are martens around that the fetus was eaten and there is no impurity. Rabbi Zeira says one can distinguish between flesh and bread and Rava says there is no contradiction because that case has a 2 doubts and our case has one definite and one doubt and a doubt (was it eaten) can’t remove a concern regarding a definite (the marten definitely moved the chametz). Is Rava’s principle really true? There gemara brings 2 sources to question that but resolves them. The mishna seems to contradict the end of the mishna where there they say to hide the chametz after checking, presumably because one is worried a marten may come. Three answers are brought. The gemara brings cases of doubt regarding piles of chametz and matza and doubt which was moved by mice. One case if compared to the famous cases of 10 stores – 9 kosher and one not kosher from Ketubot 15. If one buys from a store and not sure which one, we see it as a 50/50 chance one bought non kosher meat and it is forbidden. If the meat was on the street and it is unsure where it came from, we follow the majority. Also a comparison is made between another case and a case regarding regular and sanctified produce where we assume the regular went into the regular and the sanctified combined with the sanctified and we rule leniently. Can we assume the same with chametz? Why?

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืžื ื’ื™ืจืจื” ื—ื•ืœื“ื” ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœื‘ื™ืช ื•ืžืžืงื•ื ืœืžืงื•ื ื“ืื ื›ืŸ ืžื—ืฆืจ ืœื—ืฆืจ ื•ืžืขื™ืจ ืœืขื™ืจ ืื™ืŸ ืœื“ื‘ืจ ืกื•ืฃ:

MISHNA: After conducting the search, one need not be concerned that perhaps a marten dragged leaven from house to house, or from place to place, placing leaven in a house that was already searched. As if so, one need also be concerned that perhaps leaven might have been dragged from courtyard to courtyard and from city to city. In that case, there is no end to the matter, and it would be impossible to rely on any search for leaven.

ื’ืžืณ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืœื ื—ื–ื™ื ื ื“ืฉืงืœ ื”ื ื—ื–ื™ื ื ื“ืฉืงืœ ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ื•ื‘ืขื™ ื‘ื“ื™ืงื”

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna: The reason that one need not search again is that we did not see the marten drag the leaven from the house; however, if we saw the marten drag leaven from the house, we are indeed concerned that it dragged the leaven into the second house, and it therefore requires searching for leaven.

ื•ืืžืื™ ื ื™ืžื ืื›ืœืชื™ื” ืžื™ ืœื ืชื ืŸ ืžื“ื•ืจื•ืช ื”ื’ื•ื™ื ื˜ืžืื™ื ื•ื›ืžื” ื™ืฉื”ื” ื‘ืžื“ื•ืจ ื•ื™ื”ื ื”ืžื“ื•ืจ ืฆืจื™ืš ื‘ื“ื™ืงื” ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ื™ื•ื

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But why is this so? Let us say that the marten ate the bread it took. Didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna: The residences of gentiles are ritually impure, as their wives may have miscarried, and due to the fact that gentiles would bury their stillborn babies in their houses, all their residences are deemed ritually impure due to the possibility of impurity imparted by a corpse. And how long must a gentile have stayed in a residence for the residence to require searching? He must have lived there for forty days. The reason is that until forty days after conception the miscarried fetus is not classified as a stillborn, as it is not sufficiently developed before that stage.

ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืืฉื” ื•ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉื—ื•ืœื“ื” ื•ื—ื–ื™ืจ ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœื”ืœื•ืš ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ื‘ื“ื™ืงื”

This mishna continues: And this decree applies even though the gentile resident has no wife. In issuing the decree, the Sages did not distinguish between a married couple and a single man, so that people would not err in its application (Meโ€™iri). And any place where a marten or a pig can enter unimpeded need not be searched, as presumably if a stillborn was buried there, one of these animals would have taken it. As this mishna indicates that there is a presumption that martens eat whatever they find, the Gemara suggests that the same should apply to leaven. Therefore, even if one actually saw the marten take the bread, he can assume that the animal ate it, obviating the need for an additional search.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื‘ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื”ื ื‘ืœื—ื ื‘ื‘ืฉืจ ืœื ืžืฉื™ื™ืจื ื‘ืœื—ื ืžืฉื™ื™ืจื

Rabbi Zeira said: This is not difficult, as in this case, where no search is required, it is referring to flesh, whereas in that case, where one is required to search again, it is referring to bread. Rabbi Zeira elaborates: With regard to flesh, a marten does not leave remnants behind, and therefore the stillborn would have been entirely consumed. With regard to bread, however, the marten leaves remnants behind, requiring an additional search.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ืื™ ืžืื™ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื”ืชื ืื™ืžื•ืจ ื”ื•ื” ืื™ืžื•ืจ ืœื ื”ื•ื” ื•ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ื”ื•ื” ืื™ืžื•ืจ ืื›ืœืชื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ื“ื•ื“ืื™ ื“ื—ื–ื™ื ื ื“ืฉืงืœ ืžื™ ื™ื™ืžืจ ื“ืื›ืœืชื™ื” ื”ื•ื™ ืกืคืง ื•ื•ื“ืื™ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืกืคืง ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื•ื“ืื™

Rava said: What is this comparison? These cases are not comparable. Granted, there, with regard to the stillborn, one could say that it was in the house and one could say that it was not in the house. And even if you say it was there, say that the marten ate it. The very presence of the stillborn in the house is based on an assumption, and even if it was there, it was probably consumed. However, here, where one definitely saw the marten take the bread, who will say that the marten ate it? It is a conflict between an uncertainty whether or not the marten ate the bread, and a certainty that the bread was there. The principle is that an uncertainty does not override a certainty.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ืกืคืง ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื•ื“ืื™ ื•ื”ื ืชื ื™ื ื—ื‘ืจ ืฉืžืช ื•ื”ื ื™ื— ืžื’ื•ืจื” ืžืœื™ืื” ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื•ืžืŸ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ื‘ื—ื–ืงืช ืžืชื•ืงื ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื ื”ื›ื ื“ื•ื“ืื™ ื˜ื‘ื™ืœื™ ื”ื ื™ ืคื™ืจื™ ื•ืกืคืง ืžืขื•ืฉืจื™ืŸ ื•ืกืคืง ืœื ืžืขื•ืฉืจื™ืŸ ื•ืงืืชื™ ืกืคืง ื•ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื•ื“ืื™

The Gemara raises a difficulty against this principle: And is it so that an uncertainty does not override a certainty? But wasnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: With regard to a แธฅaver who died and left a storehouse filled with produce, even if the produce was there only that day, the fruit has the presumptive status of produce that was ritually prepared, i.e., properly tithed. The assumption is that the owner tithed it himself or commanded others to do so. However, here, this produce was certainly untithed at the outset, and there is uncertainty whether they are tithed or whether they are not tithed. Despite this conflict, the uncertainty whether they were tithed comes and overrides the certainty that they were untithed produce.

ื”ืชื ื•ื“ืื™ ื•ื•ื“ืื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ื•ื“ืื™ ืžืขืฉืจื™ ื›ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื—ื•ื–ืื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื—ื•ื–ืื” ื—ื–ืงื” ืขืœ ื—ื‘ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื• ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžืชื•ืงืŸ

The Gemara rejects this contention: There, the conflict is between certainty and certainty, as the produce is certainly tithed, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi แธคanina แธคozaโ€™a. As Rabbi แธคanina แธคozaโ€™a said: There is a presumption with regard to a แธฅaver that he does not allow produce that is not ritually prepared, to leave his possession. It is therefore certain that the produce is tithed.

ื•ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืกืคืง ื•ืกืคืง ื”ื•ื ื“ื™ืœืžื ืžืขืงืจื ืื™ืžื•ืจ ื“ืœื ื˜ื‘ื™ืœื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื

And if you wish, say instead that in that case the conflict is between uncertainty and uncertainty, as perhaps one could say that the produce was never initially untithed. It is possible that there was never an obligation to tithe this produce, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya.

ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ืžืขืจื™ื ืื“ื ืขืœ ืชื‘ื•ืืชื• ื•ืžื›ื ื™ืกื” ื‘ืžื•ืฅ ืฉืœื” ื›ื“ื™ ืฉืชื”ื ื‘ื”ืžืชื• ืื•ื›ืœืช ื•ืคื˜ื•ืจื” ืžืŸ ื”ืžืขืฉืจ

As Rabbi Oshaya said: A person may employ artifice to circumvent obligations incumbent upon him in dealing with his grain, and bring it into the courtyard in its chaff so that his animal may eat from it. And this grain is exempt from tithes. Although the obligation to tithe produce that has been fully processed applies even to animal fodder, it is permitted to feed oneโ€™s animal untithed produce that has not been fully processed. In light of this halakha it is possible that the fruit of the แธฅaver in the storehouse may not have been subject to the obligation to be tithed. Consequently, the aforementioned case involving produce is a conflict between two uncertain factors, as it is uncertain whether or not the owner was obligated to tithe the produce in the first place, and even if he was required to do so, it is uncertain whether or not the แธฅaver tithed it.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ืกืคืง ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื•ื“ืื™ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืฉืคื—ืชื• ืฉืœ ืžืฆื™ืง ืื—ื“ ื‘ืจื™ืžื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื˜ื™ืœื” ื ืคืœ ืœื‘ื•ืจ

The Gemara raises a further difficulty against Rava: And is it so that an uncertainty does not override a certainty? But wasnโ€™t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving the maidservant of a certain violent person in the city of Rimon, who threw a stillborn baby into a pit,

ื•ื‘ื ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ื”ืฆื™ืฅ ื‘ื• ืœื™ื“ืข ืื ื–ื›ืจ ื”ื•ื ืื ื ืงื‘ื” ื”ื™ื ื•ื‘ื ืžืขืฉื” ืœืคื ื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื•ื˜ื™ื”ืจื•ื”ื• ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื—ื•ืœื“ื” ื•ื‘ืจื“ืœืก ืžืฆื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื

and a priest came and glanced at the baby to ascertain whether it is male or whether it is female, as a woman who has just given birth, even to a stillborn, is ritually impure for different lengths of time, depending on whether she gave birth to a male or a female (see Leviticus 12). And the incident came before the Sages, to rule whether or not the priest contracted ritual impurity when standing over the corpse, and they deemed him ritually pure. The basis for this ruling was due to the fact that as a marten and a polecat [bardelas] are found there, it is likely that the baby was dragged away before the priest arrived at the pit.

ื•ื”ื ื”ื›ื ื“ื•ื“ืื™ ื”ื˜ื™ืœื” ื•ืกืคืง ื’ืจืจื•ื”ื• ื•ืกืคืง ืœื ื’ืจืจื•ื”ื• ื”ื”ื™ื ืฉืขืชื ื•ืงืืชื™ ืกืคืง ื•ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื•ื“ืื™ ืœื ืชื™ืžื ืฉื”ื˜ื™ืœื” ื ืคืœ ืœื‘ื•ืจ ืืœื ืื™ืžื ืฉื”ืคื™ืœื” ื›ืžื™ืŸ ื ืคืœ ืœื‘ื•ืจ ื•ื”ื•ื™ ืกืคืง ื•ืกืคืง

And yet here, where it is certain that she threw the stillborn baby into the pit, and it is uncertain whether a marten or polecat dragged it away and it is uncertain whether it did not drag it away at that time, the Sages nevertheless ruled that an uncertainty comes and overrides a certainty. The Gemara rejects this contention: Do not say in the baraita that she certainly threw a stillborn into a pit; rather, say that she threw an object similar to a stillborn into a pit. Perhaps it was not a stillborn baby; it might have simply been congealed blood, which does not transmit impurity. And therefore, this is a conflict between uncertainty and uncertainty. It is unclear whether there was anything in the pit that could have rendered the priest ritually impure, and even if there was, it might have already been dragged away.

ื•ื”ื ืœื™ื“ืข ืื ื–ื›ืจ ื”ื•ื ืื ื ืงื‘ื” ื”ื™ื ืงืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœื™ื“ืข ืื ืจื•ื— ื”ืคื™ืœื” ืื ื ืคืœ ื”ืคื™ืœื” ื•ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ื ืคืœ ื”ืคื™ืœื” ืœื™ื“ืข ืื ื–ื›ืจ ื”ื•ื ื•ืื ื ืงื‘ื” ื”ื™ื

The Gemara retorts: But isnโ€™t it taught in the baraita: To ascertain whether it is male or whether it is female, indicating that the only uncertainty was with regard to gender; it was certainly a stillborn baby. The Gemara rejects this proof, as this is what the baraita is saying: The priest sought to ascertain whether she miscarried mere wind, i.e., an amorphous mass, or if she miscarried a stillborn baby. And if you say that she miscarried a stillborn, he sought to ascertain whether it is male or whether it is female.

ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื”ืชื ื•ื“ืื™ ื•ื•ื“ืื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื—ื•ืœื“ื” ื•ื‘ืจื“ืœืก ืžืฆื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื ื•ื“ืื™ ื’ืจืจื•ื”ื• ื‘ื”ื”ื™ื ืฉืขืชื ื ื”ื™ ื“ืฉื™ื•ืจื™ ืžืฉื™ื™ืจื ืžื™ื’ืจืจ ืžื™ื”ืช ื•ื“ืื™ ื’ืจืจื•ื ื‘ื”ื”ื™ื ืฉืขืชื (ืœื™ืฉื ื ืื—ืจื™ื ื ื ื”ื™ ื“ื•ื“ืื™ ืื›ืœื•ื ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื•ื“ืื™ ื’ืจืจื•ื”ื• ืœื—ื•ืจื™ื™ื”ื• ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ)

And if you wish, say instead: There it is not a conflict between certainty and uncertainty; rather it is between certainty and certainty. Since a marten and a polecat are found there, they certainly dragged it away at that time, without delay. Although martens leave part of their food, in any case they certainly dragged the baby to their holes at that time. Another version of this answer: Although we do not say that they certainly ate the stillborn, we do say that they certainly dragged it to their holes. Consequently, the ruling in this case does not contradict the general principle that an uncertainty does not override a certainty.

ื•ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืžื ื’ืจืจื” ื—ื•ืœื“ื” ื•ื”ื ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืžื” ืฉืžืฉื™ื™ืจ ื™ื ื™ื—ื ื• ื‘ืฆื ืขื” ืฉืœื ื™ื”ื ืฆืจื™ืš ื‘ื“ื™ืงื” ืื—ืจื™ื•

The Gemara proceeds to analyze a more fundamental aspect of the mishna: And do we say that one need not be concerned that perhaps a marten dragged the leaven? But isnโ€™t it taught in the last clause, in the next mishna: With regard to the leaven that one leaves after the search, he should place it in a concealed location, so that it will not require searching after it? Apparently, there is concern lest a marten take some of the remaining leaven.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื” ืขืฉืจ ื”ื ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ืขืฉืจ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ืขืฉืจ ื“ืฉื›ื™ื— ืจื™ืคืชื ื‘ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื‘ืชื™ ืœื ืžืฆื ืขื ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื” ืขืฉืจ ื“ืœื ืฉื›ื™ื—ื ืจื™ืคืชื ื‘ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื‘ืชื™ ืžืฆื ืขื

Abaye said: This is not difficult; this ruling is referring to the fourteenth of Nisan, whereas that ruling is referring to the thirteenth. The Gemara elaborates: On the thirteenth of Nisan, when bread is still found in every house, the marten does not conceal the leaven, and therefore there is no concern that perhaps the marten dragged the leaven elsewhere and concealed it. However, on the fourteenth of Nisan, when bread is not found in any of the houses, the marten hides the leaven.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื•ื›ื™ ื—ื•ืœื“ื” ื ื‘ื™ืื” ื”ื™ื ื“ื™ื“ืขื ื“ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ืืจื‘ื™ืกืจ ื•ืœื ืืคื™ ืขื“ ืœืื•ืจืชื ื•ืžืฉื™ื™ืจื ื•ืžื˜ืžืจื ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžื” ืฉืžืฉื™ื™ืจ ื™ื ื™ื—ื ื• ื‘ืฆื ืขื” ืฉืžื ืชื˜ื•ืœ ื—ื•ืœื“ื” ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื• ื•ื™ื”ื ืฆืจื™ืš ื‘ื“ื™ืงื” ืื—ืจื™ื•

Rava said in surprise: And is the marten a prophetess that knows that now is the fourteenth of Nisan and no one will bake until the evening, and it leaves over bread and conceals it in its hole? Rather, Rava rejected Abayeโ€™s answer and said: With regard to the leaven that one leaves after the search, he should place it in a concealed location, lest a marten take it before us and it will require searching after it. Only if one actually sees the marten take the leaven, is he required to search after it.

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื”ืจื•ืฆื” ืœืื›ื•ืœ ื—ืžืฅ ืื—ืจ ื‘ื“ื™ืงื” ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื™ืขืฉื” ืžื” ืฉืžืฉื™ื™ืจ ื™ื ื™ื—ื ื• ื‘ืฆื ืขื” ืฉืœื ืชื‘ื•ื ื—ื•ืœื“ื” ื•ืชื™ื˜ื•ืœ ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื• ื•ื™ื”ื ืฆืจื™ืš ื‘ื“ื™ืงื” ืื—ืจื™ื•

It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: One who wishes to eat leavened bread after his search, what should he do? With regard to the leaven that one leaves after the search, he should place it in a concealed location, so that a marten will not come and take it before us, and he will need to search the house after it.

ืจื‘ ืžืจื™ ืืžืจ ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉืžื ื™ื ื™ื— ืขืฉืจ ื•ื™ืžืฆื ืชืฉืข:

Rav Mari said that there is a different resolution of the apparent contradiction between the baraitot: One conceals the leaven that he found, due to a decree lest he place ten pieces of bread and find only nine. Since the tenth piece is missing, he will be obligated to conduct an additional search.

ืชืฉืข ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืžืฆื” ื•ืื—ื“ ืฉืœ ื—ืžืฅ ื•ืืชื ืขื›ื‘ืจ ื•ืฉืงืœ ื•ืœื ื™ื“ืขื™ื ืŸ ืื™ ืžืฆื” ืฉืงืœ ืื™ ื—ืžืฅ ืฉืงืœ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืชืฉืข ื—ื ื•ื™ื•ืช ืคื™ืจืฉ ื•ืืชื ืขื›ื‘ืจ ื•ืฉืงืœ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืกื™ืคื

Apropos the issue of leaven taken by a rodent, the Gemara analyzes a series of similar cases. In a case where there were nine piles of matza and one pile of leavened bread, and one saw a mouse come and take a morsel from a pile, and we do not know if it took matza or if it took leavened bread, this is akin to the case of nine stores in the mishna cited below. If a portion became separated from one of the piles and we did not know if it was matza or leaven, and one saw a mouse come and take it, that is akin to the case mentioned in the latter clause of that mishna.

ื“ืชื ืŸ ืชืฉืข ื—ื ื•ื™ื•ืช ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืžื•ื›ืจื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจ ืฉื—ื•ื˜ื” ื•ืื—ืช ืžื•ื›ืจืช ื‘ืฉืจ ื ื‘ืœื” ื•ืœืงื— ืžืื—ืช ืžื”ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ื“ืข ืžืื™ื–ื” ืžื”ืŸ ืœืงื— ืกืคื™ืงื• ืืกื•ืจ

The Gemara elaborates. As we learned in a baraita: With regard to nine stores in a city, all of which sell kosher meat from a slaughtered animal, and one other store that sells meat from unslaughtered animal carcasses, and a person took meat from one of them and he does not know from which one he took the meat, in this case of uncertainty, the meat is prohibited. This ruling is based on the principle: The legal status of an item fixed in its place is that of an uncertainty that is equally balanced. In this case, when it comes to determining whether or not this meat comes from a kosher store, the two types of stores are regarded as though they were equal in number.

ื•ื‘ื ืžืฆื ื”ืœืš ืื—ืจ ื”ืจื•ื‘

This baraita continues: And in the case of meat found outside, follow the majority. If most stores in the city sell kosher meat one can assume that the meat he found is kosher, based on the principle: Any item separated, i.e., not fixed in its place, is presumed to have been separated from the majority. By the same token, if most stores in that city sell non-kosher meat, the meat found is presumed to be non-kosher. These two principles can be applied to the cases involving piles of matza and leaven: If the morsel was separated from the piles when taken by the mouse, follow the majority. However, if the mouse took the morsel from one of the piles, the legal status of the morsel is that of an equally balanced uncertainty concerning whether it was taken from a pile of matza or a pile of leaven, and the owner is required to conduct an additional search.

ืฉื ื™ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ืฉืœ ืžืฆื” ื•ืื—ื“ ืฉืœ ื—ืžืฅ ื•ืœืคื ื™ื”ื ืฉื ื™ ื‘ืชื™ื ืื—ื“ ื‘ื“ื•ืง ื•ืื—ื“ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื‘ื“ื•ืง ื•ืืชื• ืฉื ื™ ืขื›ื‘ืจื™ื ืื—ื“ ืฉืงืœ ืžืฆื” ื•ืื—ื“ ืฉืงืœ ื—ืžืฅ ื•ืœื ื™ื“ืขื™ื ืŸ ื”ื™ ืœื”ืื™ ืขื™ื™ืœ ื•ื”ื™ ืœื”ืื™ ืขื™ื™ืœ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืฉืชื™ ืงื•ืคื•ืช

The Gemara discusses another case: There are two piles, one of matza and one of leavened bread, and before them there are two houses, one which was searched and one which was not searched, and two mice came, and in our presence one took matza and one took leavened bread. Each mouse went into a different house, and we do not know which mouse entered this house and which mouse entered that house. It is unclear whether or not the mouse that took the leaven entered the house that was searched. This situation is akin to the case of two baskets.

ื“ืชื ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืงื•ืคื•ืช ืื—ืช ืฉืœ ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืื—ืช ืฉืœ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืœืคื ื™ื”ื ืฉื ื™ ืกืื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ืฉืœ ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืื—ื“ ืฉืœ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ื ืคืœื• ืืœื• ืœืชื•ืš ืืœื• ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืฉืื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœืชื•ืš ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื ืคืœื• ื•ืชืจื•ืžื” ืœืชื•ืš ืชืจื•ืžื” ื ืคืœื”

As we learned in the Tosefta: There are two baskets, one filled with non-sacred produce and the other one filled with teruma, and before them are two vessels each containing a seโ€™a of produce, one filled with non-sacred produce and the other one filled with teruma. And these, the contents of each of the baskets, fell into those, each of the seโ€™a vessels. It is possible that the teruma fell into the non-sacred produce, and it is prohibited for non-priests to eat a mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce. Nevertheless, the contents of the seโ€™a vessel containing the non-sacred produce is permitted, as I say that the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce and the teruma fell into the teruma. Likewise, with regard to leaven, presumably the mouse took the leaven into the house that had not been searched, and there is no need to conduct an additional search of the house that was already searched.

ืื™ืžื•ืจ ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืฉืื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ

The Gemara rejects this comparison: Say that we state and apply the principle: As I say, and assume that everything occurred in a way that preserves the produce in its permitted state

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 oneโ€™s home for leavened bread.ย  How and when is...
talking talmud_square

Pesachim 9: Rava Had a Sense of Humor

NOTE: This daf deals with infant loss in a graphic way. From the mishnah, if, after you've done Bedikat Chametz,...
alon shvut women

Situations of Doubt

Pesachim Daf 009 Great daf with a lot of important topics 1. A ื—ื•ืœื“ื” drags chametz into the house -...

Pesachim 9

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 9

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืžื ื’ื™ืจืจื” ื—ื•ืœื“ื” ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœื‘ื™ืช ื•ืžืžืงื•ื ืœืžืงื•ื ื“ืื ื›ืŸ ืžื—ืฆืจ ืœื—ืฆืจ ื•ืžืขื™ืจ ืœืขื™ืจ ืื™ืŸ ืœื“ื‘ืจ ืกื•ืฃ:

MISHNA: After conducting the search, one need not be concerned that perhaps a marten dragged leaven from house to house, or from place to place, placing leaven in a house that was already searched. As if so, one need also be concerned that perhaps leaven might have been dragged from courtyard to courtyard and from city to city. In that case, there is no end to the matter, and it would be impossible to rely on any search for leaven.

ื’ืžืณ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืœื ื—ื–ื™ื ื ื“ืฉืงืœ ื”ื ื—ื–ื™ื ื ื“ืฉืงืœ ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ื•ื‘ืขื™ ื‘ื“ื™ืงื”

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna: The reason that one need not search again is that we did not see the marten drag the leaven from the house; however, if we saw the marten drag leaven from the house, we are indeed concerned that it dragged the leaven into the second house, and it therefore requires searching for leaven.

ื•ืืžืื™ ื ื™ืžื ืื›ืœืชื™ื” ืžื™ ืœื ืชื ืŸ ืžื“ื•ืจื•ืช ื”ื’ื•ื™ื ื˜ืžืื™ื ื•ื›ืžื” ื™ืฉื”ื” ื‘ืžื“ื•ืจ ื•ื™ื”ื ื”ืžื“ื•ืจ ืฆืจื™ืš ื‘ื“ื™ืงื” ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ื™ื•ื

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But why is this so? Let us say that the marten ate the bread it took. Didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna: The residences of gentiles are ritually impure, as their wives may have miscarried, and due to the fact that gentiles would bury their stillborn babies in their houses, all their residences are deemed ritually impure due to the possibility of impurity imparted by a corpse. And how long must a gentile have stayed in a residence for the residence to require searching? He must have lived there for forty days. The reason is that until forty days after conception the miscarried fetus is not classified as a stillborn, as it is not sufficiently developed before that stage.

ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืืฉื” ื•ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉื—ื•ืœื“ื” ื•ื—ื–ื™ืจ ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœื”ืœื•ืš ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ื‘ื“ื™ืงื”

This mishna continues: And this decree applies even though the gentile resident has no wife. In issuing the decree, the Sages did not distinguish between a married couple and a single man, so that people would not err in its application (Meโ€™iri). And any place where a marten or a pig can enter unimpeded need not be searched, as presumably if a stillborn was buried there, one of these animals would have taken it. As this mishna indicates that there is a presumption that martens eat whatever they find, the Gemara suggests that the same should apply to leaven. Therefore, even if one actually saw the marten take the bread, he can assume that the animal ate it, obviating the need for an additional search.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื‘ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื”ื ื‘ืœื—ื ื‘ื‘ืฉืจ ืœื ืžืฉื™ื™ืจื ื‘ืœื—ื ืžืฉื™ื™ืจื

Rabbi Zeira said: This is not difficult, as in this case, where no search is required, it is referring to flesh, whereas in that case, where one is required to search again, it is referring to bread. Rabbi Zeira elaborates: With regard to flesh, a marten does not leave remnants behind, and therefore the stillborn would have been entirely consumed. With regard to bread, however, the marten leaves remnants behind, requiring an additional search.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ืื™ ืžืื™ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื”ืชื ืื™ืžื•ืจ ื”ื•ื” ืื™ืžื•ืจ ืœื ื”ื•ื” ื•ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ื”ื•ื” ืื™ืžื•ืจ ืื›ืœืชื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ื“ื•ื“ืื™ ื“ื—ื–ื™ื ื ื“ืฉืงืœ ืžื™ ื™ื™ืžืจ ื“ืื›ืœืชื™ื” ื”ื•ื™ ืกืคืง ื•ื•ื“ืื™ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืกืคืง ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื•ื“ืื™

Rava said: What is this comparison? These cases are not comparable. Granted, there, with regard to the stillborn, one could say that it was in the house and one could say that it was not in the house. And even if you say it was there, say that the marten ate it. The very presence of the stillborn in the house is based on an assumption, and even if it was there, it was probably consumed. However, here, where one definitely saw the marten take the bread, who will say that the marten ate it? It is a conflict between an uncertainty whether or not the marten ate the bread, and a certainty that the bread was there. The principle is that an uncertainty does not override a certainty.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ืกืคืง ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื•ื“ืื™ ื•ื”ื ืชื ื™ื ื—ื‘ืจ ืฉืžืช ื•ื”ื ื™ื— ืžื’ื•ืจื” ืžืœื™ืื” ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื•ืžืŸ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ื‘ื—ื–ืงืช ืžืชื•ืงื ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื ื”ื›ื ื“ื•ื“ืื™ ื˜ื‘ื™ืœื™ ื”ื ื™ ืคื™ืจื™ ื•ืกืคืง ืžืขื•ืฉืจื™ืŸ ื•ืกืคืง ืœื ืžืขื•ืฉืจื™ืŸ ื•ืงืืชื™ ืกืคืง ื•ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื•ื“ืื™

The Gemara raises a difficulty against this principle: And is it so that an uncertainty does not override a certainty? But wasnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: With regard to a แธฅaver who died and left a storehouse filled with produce, even if the produce was there only that day, the fruit has the presumptive status of produce that was ritually prepared, i.e., properly tithed. The assumption is that the owner tithed it himself or commanded others to do so. However, here, this produce was certainly untithed at the outset, and there is uncertainty whether they are tithed or whether they are not tithed. Despite this conflict, the uncertainty whether they were tithed comes and overrides the certainty that they were untithed produce.

ื”ืชื ื•ื“ืื™ ื•ื•ื“ืื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ื•ื“ืื™ ืžืขืฉืจื™ ื›ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื—ื•ื–ืื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื—ื•ื–ืื” ื—ื–ืงื” ืขืœ ื—ื‘ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžืชื—ืช ื™ื“ื• ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžืชื•ืงืŸ

The Gemara rejects this contention: There, the conflict is between certainty and certainty, as the produce is certainly tithed, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi แธคanina แธคozaโ€™a. As Rabbi แธคanina แธคozaโ€™a said: There is a presumption with regard to a แธฅaver that he does not allow produce that is not ritually prepared, to leave his possession. It is therefore certain that the produce is tithed.

ื•ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืกืคืง ื•ืกืคืง ื”ื•ื ื“ื™ืœืžื ืžืขืงืจื ืื™ืžื•ืจ ื“ืœื ื˜ื‘ื™ืœื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื

And if you wish, say instead that in that case the conflict is between uncertainty and uncertainty, as perhaps one could say that the produce was never initially untithed. It is possible that there was never an obligation to tithe this produce, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya.

ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ืžืขืจื™ื ืื“ื ืขืœ ืชื‘ื•ืืชื• ื•ืžื›ื ื™ืกื” ื‘ืžื•ืฅ ืฉืœื” ื›ื“ื™ ืฉืชื”ื ื‘ื”ืžืชื• ืื•ื›ืœืช ื•ืคื˜ื•ืจื” ืžืŸ ื”ืžืขืฉืจ

As Rabbi Oshaya said: A person may employ artifice to circumvent obligations incumbent upon him in dealing with his grain, and bring it into the courtyard in its chaff so that his animal may eat from it. And this grain is exempt from tithes. Although the obligation to tithe produce that has been fully processed applies even to animal fodder, it is permitted to feed oneโ€™s animal untithed produce that has not been fully processed. In light of this halakha it is possible that the fruit of the แธฅaver in the storehouse may not have been subject to the obligation to be tithed. Consequently, the aforementioned case involving produce is a conflict between two uncertain factors, as it is uncertain whether or not the owner was obligated to tithe the produce in the first place, and even if he was required to do so, it is uncertain whether or not the แธฅaver tithed it.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ืกืคืง ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื•ื“ืื™ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืฉืคื—ืชื• ืฉืœ ืžืฆื™ืง ืื—ื“ ื‘ืจื™ืžื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื˜ื™ืœื” ื ืคืœ ืœื‘ื•ืจ

The Gemara raises a further difficulty against Rava: And is it so that an uncertainty does not override a certainty? But wasnโ€™t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving the maidservant of a certain violent person in the city of Rimon, who threw a stillborn baby into a pit,

ื•ื‘ื ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ื”ืฆื™ืฅ ื‘ื• ืœื™ื“ืข ืื ื–ื›ืจ ื”ื•ื ืื ื ืงื‘ื” ื”ื™ื ื•ื‘ื ืžืขืฉื” ืœืคื ื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื•ื˜ื™ื”ืจื•ื”ื• ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื—ื•ืœื“ื” ื•ื‘ืจื“ืœืก ืžืฆื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื

and a priest came and glanced at the baby to ascertain whether it is male or whether it is female, as a woman who has just given birth, even to a stillborn, is ritually impure for different lengths of time, depending on whether she gave birth to a male or a female (see Leviticus 12). And the incident came before the Sages, to rule whether or not the priest contracted ritual impurity when standing over the corpse, and they deemed him ritually pure. The basis for this ruling was due to the fact that as a marten and a polecat [bardelas] are found there, it is likely that the baby was dragged away before the priest arrived at the pit.

ื•ื”ื ื”ื›ื ื“ื•ื“ืื™ ื”ื˜ื™ืœื” ื•ืกืคืง ื’ืจืจื•ื”ื• ื•ืกืคืง ืœื ื’ืจืจื•ื”ื• ื”ื”ื™ื ืฉืขืชื ื•ืงืืชื™ ืกืคืง ื•ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื•ื“ืื™ ืœื ืชื™ืžื ืฉื”ื˜ื™ืœื” ื ืคืœ ืœื‘ื•ืจ ืืœื ืื™ืžื ืฉื”ืคื™ืœื” ื›ืžื™ืŸ ื ืคืœ ืœื‘ื•ืจ ื•ื”ื•ื™ ืกืคืง ื•ืกืคืง

And yet here, where it is certain that she threw the stillborn baby into the pit, and it is uncertain whether a marten or polecat dragged it away and it is uncertain whether it did not drag it away at that time, the Sages nevertheless ruled that an uncertainty comes and overrides a certainty. The Gemara rejects this contention: Do not say in the baraita that she certainly threw a stillborn into a pit; rather, say that she threw an object similar to a stillborn into a pit. Perhaps it was not a stillborn baby; it might have simply been congealed blood, which does not transmit impurity. And therefore, this is a conflict between uncertainty and uncertainty. It is unclear whether there was anything in the pit that could have rendered the priest ritually impure, and even if there was, it might have already been dragged away.

ื•ื”ื ืœื™ื“ืข ืื ื–ื›ืจ ื”ื•ื ืื ื ืงื‘ื” ื”ื™ื ืงืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœื™ื“ืข ืื ืจื•ื— ื”ืคื™ืœื” ืื ื ืคืœ ื”ืคื™ืœื” ื•ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ื ืคืœ ื”ืคื™ืœื” ืœื™ื“ืข ืื ื–ื›ืจ ื”ื•ื ื•ืื ื ืงื‘ื” ื”ื™ื

The Gemara retorts: But isnโ€™t it taught in the baraita: To ascertain whether it is male or whether it is female, indicating that the only uncertainty was with regard to gender; it was certainly a stillborn baby. The Gemara rejects this proof, as this is what the baraita is saying: The priest sought to ascertain whether she miscarried mere wind, i.e., an amorphous mass, or if she miscarried a stillborn baby. And if you say that she miscarried a stillborn, he sought to ascertain whether it is male or whether it is female.

ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื”ืชื ื•ื“ืื™ ื•ื•ื“ืื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื—ื•ืœื“ื” ื•ื‘ืจื“ืœืก ืžืฆื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื ื•ื“ืื™ ื’ืจืจื•ื”ื• ื‘ื”ื”ื™ื ืฉืขืชื ื ื”ื™ ื“ืฉื™ื•ืจื™ ืžืฉื™ื™ืจื ืžื™ื’ืจืจ ืžื™ื”ืช ื•ื“ืื™ ื’ืจืจื•ื ื‘ื”ื”ื™ื ืฉืขืชื (ืœื™ืฉื ื ืื—ืจื™ื ื ื ื”ื™ ื“ื•ื“ืื™ ืื›ืœื•ื ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื•ื“ืื™ ื’ืจืจื•ื”ื• ืœื—ื•ืจื™ื™ื”ื• ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ)

And if you wish, say instead: There it is not a conflict between certainty and uncertainty; rather it is between certainty and certainty. Since a marten and a polecat are found there, they certainly dragged it away at that time, without delay. Although martens leave part of their food, in any case they certainly dragged the baby to their holes at that time. Another version of this answer: Although we do not say that they certainly ate the stillborn, we do say that they certainly dragged it to their holes. Consequently, the ruling in this case does not contradict the general principle that an uncertainty does not override a certainty.

ื•ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืžื ื’ืจืจื” ื—ื•ืœื“ื” ื•ื”ื ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืžื” ืฉืžืฉื™ื™ืจ ื™ื ื™ื—ื ื• ื‘ืฆื ืขื” ืฉืœื ื™ื”ื ืฆืจื™ืš ื‘ื“ื™ืงื” ืื—ืจื™ื•

The Gemara proceeds to analyze a more fundamental aspect of the mishna: And do we say that one need not be concerned that perhaps a marten dragged the leaven? But isnโ€™t it taught in the last clause, in the next mishna: With regard to the leaven that one leaves after the search, he should place it in a concealed location, so that it will not require searching after it? Apparently, there is concern lest a marten take some of the remaining leaven.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื” ืขืฉืจ ื”ื ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ืขืฉืจ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ืขืฉืจ ื“ืฉื›ื™ื— ืจื™ืคืชื ื‘ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื‘ืชื™ ืœื ืžืฆื ืขื ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื” ืขืฉืจ ื“ืœื ืฉื›ื™ื—ื ืจื™ืคืชื ื‘ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื‘ืชื™ ืžืฆื ืขื

Abaye said: This is not difficult; this ruling is referring to the fourteenth of Nisan, whereas that ruling is referring to the thirteenth. The Gemara elaborates: On the thirteenth of Nisan, when bread is still found in every house, the marten does not conceal the leaven, and therefore there is no concern that perhaps the marten dragged the leaven elsewhere and concealed it. However, on the fourteenth of Nisan, when bread is not found in any of the houses, the marten hides the leaven.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื•ื›ื™ ื—ื•ืœื“ื” ื ื‘ื™ืื” ื”ื™ื ื“ื™ื“ืขื ื“ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ืืจื‘ื™ืกืจ ื•ืœื ืืคื™ ืขื“ ืœืื•ืจืชื ื•ืžืฉื™ื™ืจื ื•ืžื˜ืžืจื ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžื” ืฉืžืฉื™ื™ืจ ื™ื ื™ื—ื ื• ื‘ืฆื ืขื” ืฉืžื ืชื˜ื•ืœ ื—ื•ืœื“ื” ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื• ื•ื™ื”ื ืฆืจื™ืš ื‘ื“ื™ืงื” ืื—ืจื™ื•

Rava said in surprise: And is the marten a prophetess that knows that now is the fourteenth of Nisan and no one will bake until the evening, and it leaves over bread and conceals it in its hole? Rather, Rava rejected Abayeโ€™s answer and said: With regard to the leaven that one leaves after the search, he should place it in a concealed location, lest a marten take it before us and it will require searching after it. Only if one actually sees the marten take the leaven, is he required to search after it.

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื”ืจื•ืฆื” ืœืื›ื•ืœ ื—ืžืฅ ืื—ืจ ื‘ื“ื™ืงื” ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื™ืขืฉื” ืžื” ืฉืžืฉื™ื™ืจ ื™ื ื™ื—ื ื• ื‘ืฆื ืขื” ืฉืœื ืชื‘ื•ื ื—ื•ืœื“ื” ื•ืชื™ื˜ื•ืœ ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื• ื•ื™ื”ื ืฆืจื™ืš ื‘ื“ื™ืงื” ืื—ืจื™ื•

It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: One who wishes to eat leavened bread after his search, what should he do? With regard to the leaven that one leaves after the search, he should place it in a concealed location, so that a marten will not come and take it before us, and he will need to search the house after it.

ืจื‘ ืžืจื™ ืืžืจ ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉืžื ื™ื ื™ื— ืขืฉืจ ื•ื™ืžืฆื ืชืฉืข:

Rav Mari said that there is a different resolution of the apparent contradiction between the baraitot: One conceals the leaven that he found, due to a decree lest he place ten pieces of bread and find only nine. Since the tenth piece is missing, he will be obligated to conduct an additional search.

ืชืฉืข ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืžืฆื” ื•ืื—ื“ ืฉืœ ื—ืžืฅ ื•ืืชื ืขื›ื‘ืจ ื•ืฉืงืœ ื•ืœื ื™ื“ืขื™ื ืŸ ืื™ ืžืฆื” ืฉืงืœ ืื™ ื—ืžืฅ ืฉืงืœ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืชืฉืข ื—ื ื•ื™ื•ืช ืคื™ืจืฉ ื•ืืชื ืขื›ื‘ืจ ื•ืฉืงืœ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืกื™ืคื

Apropos the issue of leaven taken by a rodent, the Gemara analyzes a series of similar cases. In a case where there were nine piles of matza and one pile of leavened bread, and one saw a mouse come and take a morsel from a pile, and we do not know if it took matza or if it took leavened bread, this is akin to the case of nine stores in the mishna cited below. If a portion became separated from one of the piles and we did not know if it was matza or leaven, and one saw a mouse come and take it, that is akin to the case mentioned in the latter clause of that mishna.

ื“ืชื ืŸ ืชืฉืข ื—ื ื•ื™ื•ืช ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืžื•ื›ืจื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจ ืฉื—ื•ื˜ื” ื•ืื—ืช ืžื•ื›ืจืช ื‘ืฉืจ ื ื‘ืœื” ื•ืœืงื— ืžืื—ืช ืžื”ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ื“ืข ืžืื™ื–ื” ืžื”ืŸ ืœืงื— ืกืคื™ืงื• ืืกื•ืจ

The Gemara elaborates. As we learned in a baraita: With regard to nine stores in a city, all of which sell kosher meat from a slaughtered animal, and one other store that sells meat from unslaughtered animal carcasses, and a person took meat from one of them and he does not know from which one he took the meat, in this case of uncertainty, the meat is prohibited. This ruling is based on the principle: The legal status of an item fixed in its place is that of an uncertainty that is equally balanced. In this case, when it comes to determining whether or not this meat comes from a kosher store, the two types of stores are regarded as though they were equal in number.

ื•ื‘ื ืžืฆื ื”ืœืš ืื—ืจ ื”ืจื•ื‘

This baraita continues: And in the case of meat found outside, follow the majority. If most stores in the city sell kosher meat one can assume that the meat he found is kosher, based on the principle: Any item separated, i.e., not fixed in its place, is presumed to have been separated from the majority. By the same token, if most stores in that city sell non-kosher meat, the meat found is presumed to be non-kosher. These two principles can be applied to the cases involving piles of matza and leaven: If the morsel was separated from the piles when taken by the mouse, follow the majority. However, if the mouse took the morsel from one of the piles, the legal status of the morsel is that of an equally balanced uncertainty concerning whether it was taken from a pile of matza or a pile of leaven, and the owner is required to conduct an additional search.

ืฉื ื™ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ืฉืœ ืžืฆื” ื•ืื—ื“ ืฉืœ ื—ืžืฅ ื•ืœืคื ื™ื”ื ืฉื ื™ ื‘ืชื™ื ืื—ื“ ื‘ื“ื•ืง ื•ืื—ื“ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื‘ื“ื•ืง ื•ืืชื• ืฉื ื™ ืขื›ื‘ืจื™ื ืื—ื“ ืฉืงืœ ืžืฆื” ื•ืื—ื“ ืฉืงืœ ื—ืžืฅ ื•ืœื ื™ื“ืขื™ื ืŸ ื”ื™ ืœื”ืื™ ืขื™ื™ืœ ื•ื”ื™ ืœื”ืื™ ืขื™ื™ืœ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืฉืชื™ ืงื•ืคื•ืช

The Gemara discusses another case: There are two piles, one of matza and one of leavened bread, and before them there are two houses, one which was searched and one which was not searched, and two mice came, and in our presence one took matza and one took leavened bread. Each mouse went into a different house, and we do not know which mouse entered this house and which mouse entered that house. It is unclear whether or not the mouse that took the leaven entered the house that was searched. This situation is akin to the case of two baskets.

ื“ืชื ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืงื•ืคื•ืช ืื—ืช ืฉืœ ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืื—ืช ืฉืœ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืœืคื ื™ื”ื ืฉื ื™ ืกืื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ืฉืœ ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืื—ื“ ืฉืœ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ื ืคืœื• ืืœื• ืœืชื•ืš ืืœื• ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืฉืื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœืชื•ืš ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื ืคืœื• ื•ืชืจื•ืžื” ืœืชื•ืš ืชืจื•ืžื” ื ืคืœื”

As we learned in the Tosefta: There are two baskets, one filled with non-sacred produce and the other one filled with teruma, and before them are two vessels each containing a seโ€™a of produce, one filled with non-sacred produce and the other one filled with teruma. And these, the contents of each of the baskets, fell into those, each of the seโ€™a vessels. It is possible that the teruma fell into the non-sacred produce, and it is prohibited for non-priests to eat a mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce. Nevertheless, the contents of the seโ€™a vessel containing the non-sacred produce is permitted, as I say that the non-sacred produce fell into the non-sacred produce and the teruma fell into the teruma. Likewise, with regard to leaven, presumably the mouse took the leaven into the house that had not been searched, and there is no need to conduct an additional search of the house that was already searched.

ืื™ืžื•ืจ ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืฉืื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ

The Gemara rejects this comparison: Say that we state and apply the principle: As I say, and assume that everything occurred in a way that preserves the produce in its permitted state

Scroll To Top