Pesachim 10

Chapter 10

א שמע מינה מדרבי עקיבא תלת שמע מינה אין ביעור חמץ אלא שריפה ושמע מינה הבערה לחלק יצאת ושמע מינה לא אמרינן הואיל והותרה הבערה לצורך הותרה נמי שלא לצורך:

1 Three things may be inferred from R'Akiba: [i] There is no [other] removal of leaven save [by] burning.1 [ii] Kindling was singled out to indicate separation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Ex. XX, 10 work is forbidden on the Sabbath; this is repeated in XXXV, 2 and 3, with a special prohibition against kindling a fire. Now, kindling is prohibited by the general law of Ex. XX, 10: why then is it singled out? There are two views on this: (i) In order to teach that whereas other labours are punishable by death, this is merely punishable like any other negative precept, viz., by flagellation. (ii) To teach that if one does a number of separate acts on the Sabbath, e.g., seething, reaping, and threshing, they are accounted as separate offences, just as kindling was stated as a separate offence, and a sacrifice must be offered on account of each. Now the first view postulates that kindling is not a principal labour like the rest (v. Mishnah on Shab. 73a) ; hence R. Akiba must agree with the second view.');">2

ב ת"ר (שמות יב, יט) שבעת ימים שאור לא ימצא בבתיכם מה ת"ל והלא כבר נאמר (שמות יג, ז) לא יראה לך שאור [ולא יראה לך חמץ] בכל גבולך

2 [iii] We do not say, since kindling was permitted when it is necessary [for the preparation of food], it was also permitted when it is unnecessary.3 Our Rabbis taught: Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your house:4

ג לפי שנא' לא יראה לך שאור שלך אי אתה רואה אבל אתה רואה של אחרים ושל גבוה יכול יטמין ויקבל פקדונות מן הנכרי ת"ל לא ימצא

3 why is this stated, seeing that it is already said, and there shall no leavened bread be seen unto thee, neither shall there be leaven seen unto thee, in all thy borders?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XIII, 7. Though this is in a further chapter, the phrase, 'seeing that it is already said', is employed because it is a Talmudic principle that the written order of the Torah is not necessarily chronological.');">5 Because it is said, Neither shall there be leaven seen unto thee, [implying] thine own thou must not see, yet thou mayest see that belonging to others and to the Most High.6

ד אין לי אלא בנכרי שלא כיבשתו ואין שרוי עמך בחצר נכרי שכיבשתו ושרוי עמך בחצר מנין ת"ל לא ימצא בבתיכם

4 One might think that one may hide [leaven] or accept bailments [of leaven] from a Gentile:7 therefore it is stated, it sh not be found [in your houses],8

ה אין לי אלא שבבתיכם בבורות בשיחין ובמערות מנין ת"ל בכל גבולך

5 Now, I know this only of a Gentile who is not in your power9 or does not dwell with you in the [same] court-yard; how do I know it of a Gentile who is in your power and dwells with you in the [same] court-yard?

ו ועדיין אני אומר בבתים עובר משום בל יראה ובל ימצא ובל יטמין ובל יקבל פקדונות מן הנכרי בגבולין שלך אי אתה רואה אבל אתה רואה של אחרים ושל גבוה מניין ליתן את האמור של זה בזה ושל זה בזה

6 Because it is stated, [leaven] shall not be found in your houses. I know this only of that which is your houses; how do I know it of [leaven] in pits, ditches and cavities?10

ז ת"ל שאור שאור לגזרה שוה נאמר שאור בבתים שאור לא ימצא בבתיכם ונאמר שאור בגבולין לא יראה לך שאור מה שאור האמור בבתים עובר משום בל יראה ובל ימצא ובל יטמין ובל יקבל פקדונות מן הנכרי אף שאור האמור בגבולין עובר משום בל יראה ובל ימצא ובל יטמין ובל יקבל פקדונות מן הנכרי'

7 Because it is stated, [neither shall there be leaven seen with thee,] in all thy borders.11 Yet I might still argue, [indeed on account of leaven] 'in houses' one transgresses the injunction against it being seen, found, and against hiding it and receiving [it as] bailments from a Gentile; whereas in [respect to leaven in] 'thy borders' [we say,] thine own thou must not see, yet thou mayest see that belonging to others and to the Most High.

ח ומה שאור האמור בגבולין שלך אי אתה רואה אבל אתה רואה של אחרים ושל גבוה אף שאור האמור בבתים שלך אי אתה רואה אבל אתה רואה של אחרים ושל גבוה:

8 How do we [however] know to apply that which is stated in this [verse] to the other, and vice versa?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'For there shall not be found' is written only in connection with 'your houses', while 'unto thee' is mentioned only in connection with 'borders'; how do we know that the implications of the one verse hold good in respect of the other?');">12 Therefore leaven is stated twice13

ט אמר מר אין לי אלא בנכרי שלא כיבשתו ואין שרוי עמך בחצר נכרי שכיבשתו ושרוי עמך בחצר מנין ת"ל לא ימצא

9 for a gezerah shawah.14 [Thus:] leaven is stated in connection with houses: 'no leaven shall be found in your houses',' and leaven is stated in connection with the borders; 'neither shall there be leaven seen with thee [in all thy borders]': just as with the leaven which is stated in connection with houses, one transgresses the injunctions, it shall not be seen, it shall not be found, it shall not be hidden no accepted as bailments from Gentiles, so with the leaven which is stated in connection with the borders, one violates the injunctions, it shall not be seen, it shall not be found, it shall not be hidden nor accepted as bailments from a Gentile.

י כלפי לייא אמר אביי איפוך

10 And just as with the leaven which is stated in connection with the borders, [only] thine own thou must not see, but thou mayest see that belonging to others and to the Most High, so with the leaven which is stated in connection with the houses, [only] thine own thou mayest not see, but thou mayest see that belonging to others and to the Most High. The Master said: 'I know this only of a Gentile who is not in your power or does not dwell with you in the [same] court-yard; how do I know it of a Gentile who is in your power or who dwells with you in the [same] court-yard?

יא רבא אמר לעולם לא תיפוך וארישא קאי שלך אי אתה רואה אבל אתה רואה של אחרים ושל גבוה אין לי אלא בנכרי שלא כיבשתו ואין שרוי עמך בחצר נכרי שכיבשתו ושרוי עמך בחצר מנין ת"ל לא ימצא

11 Because it is stated, [Leaven] shall not be found [in your houses].' Whither does this tend?15

יב והאי תנא מיהדר אהיתירא ונסיב לה קרא לאיסורא משום שנאמר לך לך תרי זימני:

12 - Said Abaye: Reverse it. Raba said: In truth you must not reverse it, but it refers to the first clause: 'Thine o thou mayest not see, yet thou mayest see that belonging to others and to the Most High.'

יג אמר מר יכול יטמין ויקבל פקדונות מן הנכרים תלמוד לומר לא ימצא הא אמרת רישא שלך אי אתה רואה אבל אתה רואה של אחרים ושל גבוה

13 I know this only of a Gentile who is not in your power or who does not dwell with you in the [same] court-yard.16 How do I know it of one who is in your power or who dwells with you in the [same] court-yard?

יד לא קשיא הא דקביל עליה אחריות הא דלא קביל עליה אחריות

14 Because it is stated, 'there shall not be found'. But this Tanna seeks permission yet cites a verse intimating a prohibition?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Raba's explanation. when the Tanna says. 'how do I know', etc., his purpose is to show that there too it is permitted; while 'there shall not be found' intimates a more extended prohibition.');">17

טו כי הא דאמר להו רבא לבני מחוזא בעירו חמירא דבני חילא מבתייכו כיון דאילו מיגנב ואילו מיתביד ברשותייכו קאי ובעיתו לשלומי כדילכון דמי ואסור

15 - Because 'unto thee' 'unto thee' is stated twice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: 'Unto thee' is written twice, once in the verse already quoted, and once in Deut. XVI, 4: and there shall be no leaven seen unto (E.V. with) thee in all thy borders seven days. Here too 'unto thee' is linked with seeing; since, however, it is superfluous in this connection, on account of the verse first quoted, it is applied to 'there shalt not be found', which is made to read: there shall not be found unto thee, 'unto thee' being a permissive limitation, and it is this which the Tanna quotes. - It is a principle of exegesis that if a word or phrase is superfluous in its own context, it is applied elsewhere. (The fact that 'unto thee' is written twice in Ex. XIII, 7 is not counted, since one refers to leaven and the other to leavened bread. - V. Bez. 7b.) R. Han. interprets it differently and more simply.');">18 The Master said: 'one might think that one may hide [leaven] or accept bailments [of leaven] from a Gentile; therefore it is stated, [leaven] shall not be found [in your houses].'

טז הניחא למאן דאמר דבר הגורם לממון כממון דמי אלא למאן דאמר לאו כממון דמי מאי איכא למימר

16 But you said in the first clause, 'thine own thou mayest not see, yet thou mayest see that belonging to others and to the Most High? ' - There is no difficulty: the one is meant where he [the Israelite] accepts responsibility [for same]; the other, where he does not accept responsibility.19 Just as Raba said to the townspeople of Mahuza:20

יז שאני הכא דאמר לא ימצא

17 Remove the leaven belonging to the troops from your houses: power or who lives with you in the same court-yard is more likely to be meant than he who is independent or living away from you.

יח איכא דאמרי הניחא למאן דאמר דבר הגורם לממון לאו כממון דמי

18 since the former is more like yourself. Whereas here the latter is taken for granted, while proof is sought for the former. since it stands in your possession if lost or stolen, and you must requite [the loss], it is as yours and is forbidden.21 Now, that is well on the view that that which causes [liability] for money is as money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence though the leaven does not belong to the Jew, yet since it throws a financial responsibility upon him it is regarded as his, i.e., as his money or property.');">22 But on the view that it is not as money, what can be said? - Here it is different, because Scripture saith, 'There shall not be found'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which implies even if it is not his own and it can be applied only to such a case, since 'unto thee' excludes leaven in which he has no financial interest at all.');">23 Others say, That is well on the view that that which causes [liability] for money is not as money:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter