פסחים ז

פסחים ז

וְנִיבַטְּלֵיהּ בְּשֵׁית! כֵּיוָן דְּאִיסּוּרָא דְרַבָּנַן עִילָּוֵיהּ — כִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא דָּמְיָא, וְלָאו בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ קָיְימָא, וְלָא מָצֵי מְבַטֵּיל.

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

דְּאָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעְלָה, אֲפִילּוּ בְּחִיטֵּי קוּרְדִּנְיָתָא — אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְקִידּוּשִׁין.

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

וּלְבָתַר אִיסּוּרָא לָא מָצֵי מְבַטֵּיל לֵיהּ? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: הָיָה יוֹשֵׁב בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁיֵּשׁ חָמֵץ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ — מְבַטְּלוֹ בְּלִבּוֹ, אֶחָד שַׁבָּת וְאֶחָד יוֹם טוֹב. בִּשְׁלָמָא שַׁבָּת, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ, כְּגוֹן שֶׁחָל אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת. אֶלָּא יוֹם טוֹב — בָּתַר אִיסּוּרָא הוּא!

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And is it indeed the case that after the leaven has become prohibited one is unable to render it null and void? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: If one was sitting in the study hall and he remembered that there is leavened bread in his house, he should render it null and void in his heart, both on Shabbat and on the Festival? The Gemara analyzes this statement: Granted, on Shabbat you can find this case, as one can nullify the leaven before it becomes prohibited, in a case where the fourteenth of Nisan occurs on Shabbat and he remembers to nullify the leaven before the prohibition takes effect. However, if he remembered on the Festival itself, it is after the prohibition has taken effect, as the Festival has already begun, and yet the baraita says that one may render the leaven null and void.

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: הָכָא בְּתַלְמִיד יוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵי רַבּוֹ עָסְקִינַן, וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִיסָּה מְגוּלְגֶּלֶת בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, וּמִתְיָירֵא שֶׁמָּא תַּחֲמִיץ. קָדֵים וּמְבַטֵּיל לַיהּ מִיקַּמֵּי דְּתַחְמִיץ.

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

דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: הָיָה יוֹשֵׁב בְּתוֹךְ בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

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

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: הַפַּת שֶׁעִיפְּשָׁה. כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָבְתָה מַצָּה — מוּתֶּרֶת. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּיָדַע בַּהּ דְּחָמֵץ הִיא — כִּי רָבְתָה מַצָּה מַאי הָוֵי?

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

אֶלָּא דְּלָא יָדְעִינַן בָּהּ אִי חָמֵץ הוּא אִי מַצָּה הוּא — מַאי אִירְיָא כִּי רָבְתָה מַצָּה? אֲפִילּוּ כִּי לֹא רָבְתָה מַצָּה נָמֵי, נֵיזִיל בָּתַר בָּתְרָא.

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

מִי לָא תְּנַן: מָעוֹת שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ לִפְנֵי סוֹחֲרֵי בְהֵמָה — לְעוֹלָם מַעֲשֵׂר. בְּהַר הַבַּיִת — חוּלִּין.

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

בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, בִּשְׁעַת הָרֶגֶל — מַעֲשֵׂר, בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה — חוּלִּין.

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

וְאָמַר רַב שְׁמַעְיָה בַּר זֵירָא: מַאי טַעְמָא — הוֹאִיל וְשׁוּקֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם עֲשׂוּיִין לְהִתְכַּבֵּד בְּכׇל יוֹם. אַלְמָא אָמְרִינַן: קַמָּאֵי קַמָּאֵי אָזְלִי לֵיהּ, וְהָנֵי אַחֲרִינֵי נִינְהוּ. הָכָא נָמֵי, נֵימָא: קַמָּא קַמָּא אָזֵיל, וְהַאי דְּהָאִידָּנָא הוּא.

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

שָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּעִיפּוּשָׁהּ מוֹכִיחַ עִילָּוָיהּ. אִי עִיפּוּשָׁהּ מוֹכִיחַ עִילָּוָיהּ, כִּי רָבְתָה מַצָּה מַאי הָוֵי? אָמַר רַבָּה: לָא תֵּימָא שֶׁרָבְתָה מַצָּה, אֶלָּא אֵימָא: שֶׁרַבּוּ יְמֵי מַצָּה עִילָּוָיהּ.

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

אִי הָכִי, פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּעִיפּוּשָׁהּ מְרוּבֶּה. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּעִיפּוּשָׁהּ מְרוּבֶּה — אִיגַּלְּיָא מִילְּתָא דְּוַדַּאי חָמֵץ מְעַלְּיָא הוּא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן:

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

כֵּיוָן שֶׁרַבּוּ יְמֵי מַצָּה עִילָּוָיהּ, אָמְרִינַן: כׇּל יוֹמָא וְיוֹמָא נַהֲמָא חַמִּימָא אֲפָה, וּשְׁדָא עִילָּוָיהּ וְעָפְשָׁא טְפֵי.

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

וּמִי אָזְלִינַן בָּתַר בָּתְרָא? וְהָא תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: תֵּיבָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהּ מְעוֹת חוּלִּין וּמְעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר, אִם רוֹב חוּלִּין — חוּלִּין, אִם רוֹב מַעֲשֵׂר — מַעֲשֵׂר. וְאַמַּאי? לֵיזִיל בָּתַר בָּתְרָא!

In regard to the aforementioned principle, the Gemara asks: And do we, in general, follow the last item in determining the identity of the item in question? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: With regard to a box that people used for both non-sacred coins and second-tithe coins, if the majority of its use was for non-sacred money, the coins are considered non-sacred. If the majority of its use was for second-tithe coins, the coins are considered second-tithe money. The Gemara asks: But why is this so? Let us follow the last item placed in the box.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהּ מְעוֹת חוּלִּין וּמְעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר, וְאֵין יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן בַּסּוֹף. רַב זְבִיד אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהּ צִיבּוּרִין צִיבּוּרִין. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן דְּאִישְׁתְּכַח בְּגוּמָּא.

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

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הַבּוֹדֵק צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּבָרֵךְ. מַאי מְבָרֵךְ? רַב פַּפֵּי אָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: (אוֹמֵר) ״לְבַעֵר חָמֵץ״. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: ״עַל בִּיעוּר חָמֵץ״. בִּ״לְבַעֵר״ — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּוַדַּאי לְהַבָּא מַשְׁמַע.

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

כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּ״עַל בִּיעוּר״. מָר סָבַר: מֵעִיקָּרָא מַשְׁמַע, וּמָר סָבַר: לְהַבָּא מַשְׁמַע.

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

מֵיתִיבִי: ״בָּרוּךְ … אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ עַל הַמִּילָה״!

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

הָתָם, הֵיכִי נֵימָא? נֵימָא ״לָמוּל״ — לָא סַגִּיא דְּלָאו אִיהוּ מָהֵיל? אֲבִי הַבֵּן מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אִין הָכִי נָמֵי.

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

מֵיתִיבִי: ״בָּרוּךְ … אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ עַל הַשְּׁחִיטָה״! הָתָם נָמֵי, הֵיכִי נֵימָא? נֵימָא ״לִשְׁחוֹט״ — לָא סַגִּיא דְּלָאו אִיהוּ שָׁחֵט?

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

פֶּסַח וְקׇדָשִׁים מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אִין הָכִי נָמֵי.

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

מֵיתִיבִי: הָעוֹשֶׂה לוּלָב לְעַצְמוֹ, מְבָרֵךְ: ״שֶׁהֶחֱיָינוּ וְקִיְּמָנוּ וְהִגִּיעָנוּ לַזְּמַן הַזֶּה״. נְטָלוֹ לָצֵאת בּוֹ, אוֹמֵר: ״אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ עַל נְטִילַת לוּלָב״! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּבְעִידָּנָא דְּאַגְבְּהֵהּ נְפַק בֵּיהּ.

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

אִי הָכִי: ״לָצֵאת בּוֹ״? ״יָצָא בּוֹ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, וּמִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתְנָא סֵיפָא: ״לֵישֵׁב בַּסּוּכָּה״, תְּנָא רֵישָׁא נָמֵי ״לָצֵאת בּוֹ״.

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

דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: הָעוֹשֶׂה סוּכָּה לְעַצְמוֹ, אוֹמֵר: ״בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה׳ … שֶׁהֶחֱיָינוּ וְקִיְּמָנוּ וְהִגִּיעָנוּ לַזְּמַן הַזֶּה״. נִכְנַס לֵישֵׁב בָּהּ, אוֹמֵר: ״בָּרוּךְ … אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ לֵישֵׁב בַּסּוּכָּה״. וְהִלְכְתָא: ״עַל בִּיעוּר חָמֵץ״.

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

דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִיהָא, מֵעִיקָּרָא בָּעִינַן לְבָרוֹכֵי, מְנָלַן? דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת מְבָרֵךְ עֲלֵיהֶן עוֹבֵר לַעֲשִׂיָּיתָן.

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

מַאי מַשְׁמַע דְּהַאי ״עוֹבֵר״ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאַקְדּוֹמֵי הוּא? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וַיָּרׇץ אֲחִימַעַץ דֶּרֶךְ הַכִּכָּר וַיַּעֲבֹר אֶת הַכּוּשִׁי״. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״וְהוּא עָבַר לִפְנֵיהֶם״. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵהָכָא: ״וַיַּעֲבֹר מַלְכָּם לִפְנֵיהֶם וַה׳ בְּרֹאשָׁם״.

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

בֵּי רַב אָמְרִי: חוּץ מִן הַטְּבִילָה וְשׁוֹפָר. בִּשְׁלָמָא טְבִילָה — דְּאַכַּתִּי גַּבְרָא לָא חֲזֵי. אֶלָּא שׁוֹפָר מַאי טַעְמָא? וְכִי תֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּילְמָא מִיקַּלְקְלָא תְּקִיעָה. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ שְׁחִיטָה וּמִילָה נָמֵי!

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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: חוּץ מִן הַטְּבִילָה בִּלְבַד אִיתְּמַר. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: טָבַל וְעָלָה, בַּעֲלִיָּיתוֹ אוֹמֵר: ״בָּרוּךְ … אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ עַל הַטְּבִילָה״.

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

לְאוֹר הַנֵּר וְכוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לָמַדְנוּ מְצִיאָה מִמְּצִיאָה, וּמְצִיאָה מֵחִיפּוּשׂ, וְחִיפּוּשׂ מֵחִיפּוּשׂ, וְחִיפּוּשׂ מִנֵּרוֹת, וְנֵרוֹת מִנֵּר.

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

מְצִיאָה מִמְּצִיאָה — כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״שִׁבְעַת יָמִים שְׂאֹר לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְּבָתֵּיכֶם״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וַיְחַפֵּשׂ בַּגָּדוֹל הֵחֵל וּבַקָּטֹן כִּלָּה וַיִּמָּצֵא״. וּמְצִיאָה מֵחִיפּוּשׂ דִּידֵיהּ.

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

וְחִיפּוּשׂ מִנֵּרוֹת, דִּכְתִיב: ״בָּעֵת הַהִיא אֲחַפֵּשׂ אֶת יְרוּשָׁלִַים בַּנֵּרוֹת״, וְנֵרוֹת מִנֵּר, דִּכְתִיב: ״נֵר (אֱלֹהִים) [ה׳] נִשְׁמַת אָדָם חֹפֵשׂ כׇּל חַדְרֵי בָטֶן״.

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

תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: לֵילֵי אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר בּוֹדְקִים אֶת הֶחָמֵץ לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאָיָה לְדָבָר, זֵכֶר לַדָּבָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שִׁבְעַת יָמִים שְׂאֹר לֹא יִמָּצֵא״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״וַיְחַפֵּשׂ בַּגָּדוֹל הֵחֵל וּבַקָּטֹן כִּלָּה״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״בָּעֵת הַהִיא אֲחַפֵּשׂ אֶת יְרוּשָׁלִַים בַּנֵּרוֹת״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״נֵר (אֱלֹהִים) [ה׳] נִשְׁמַת אָדָם חֹפֵשׂ״.

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

מַאי ״וְאוֹמֵר״?

With regard to this teaching, the Gemara asks a question: What is the reason for the last citation introduced by the final And the verse says? Why doesn’t the previous verse, “At that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps,” provide sufficient proof that the search must be conducted by the light of the lamp?

וְכִי תֵּימָא: הַאי ״בָּעֵת הָהִיא״ — קוּלָּא הוּא דְּקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: לָא בָּדֵיקְנָא לַהּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם בִּנְהוֹרָא דַאֲבוּקָה — דִּנְפִישׁ נְהוֹרָא טוּבָא, אֶלָּא בִּנְהוֹרָא דִשְׁרָגָא — דְּזוּטַר נְהוֹרָא טְפֵי, דְּעָוֹן רַבָּה מִשְׁתְּכַח וְעָוֹן זוּטַר לָא מִשְׁתְּכַח, תָּא שְׁמַע: ״נֵר ה׳ נִשְׁמַת אָדָם״.

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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין בּוֹדְקִין לֹא לְאוֹר הַחַמָּה, וְלֹא לְאוֹר הַלְּבָנָה, וְלֹא לְאוֹר הָאֲבוּקָה, אֶלָּא לְאוֹר הַנֵּר,

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