Pesachim 8

Chapter 8

א לאו משום דחזקתו בדוק דקסבר הכל חברים הם אצל בדיקת חמץ דתניא חבר שמת והניח מגורה מליאה פירות אפי' הן בני יומן הרי הן בחזקת מתוקנים

1 Is it not because it stands in the presumption of having been searched, [the Tanna] holding, All are haberim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Plur. of haber; lit., 'associates'. It denotes members of an association (haburah) who undertake to be very scrupulous in their religious observance, particularly in regard to uncleanness and tithes.');">1 in respect to the searching of leaven.2 For it was taught: If a haber dies and leaves a store-house full of produce [crops], even if they are but one day old,3

ב וממאי דילמא שאני הכא משום דקאמרי הני אטו אמירה דהני מידי מששא אית ביה

2 they stand in the presumption of having been tithed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'properly prepared' - it may be assumed that the priestly and Levitical dues have been rendered. Similarly it is to be presumed that the landlord had searched the house before renting it.');">4 How so: perhaps it is different here5 because they [the woman, slave or minor] state it? - Has then the statement of these any substance?6

ג אלא מאי דחזקתו בדוק האי הכל נאמנים כל הבתים בחזקת בדוקין בארבעה עשר מיבעי ליה

3 What then [will you assume]? It stands in the presumption of having been searched? Then it should state, 'All houses stand on the fourteenth in the presumption of having been searched'? - What then [will you assume]?

ד אלא מאי משום אמירה דהני הא לא אמרי הני לא תפשוט מיניה דאין חזקתו בדוק

4 It is because of the statement of these7 [that the house is assumed to have been searched], but if these did not say [that it had been searched], it is not so? Then solve from this [teaching] that it does not stand in the presumption of having been searched! - No.

ה לא לעולם אימא לך חזקתו בדוק והכא במאי עסקינן דמוחזק לן דלא בדק וקאמרי הני בדקיניה מהו דתימא לא להימנינהו רבנן קמ"ל כיון דבדיקת חמץ מדרבנן הוא דמדאורייתא בביטול בעלמא סגי ליה הימנוהו רבנן בדרבנן:

5 In truth I may tell you [that generally]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in a case such as submitted to R. Nahman b. Isaac. (12) A declaration by the owner that all leaven in the house is null and has no value whatsoever in his eyes.');">8 it does stand in the presumption of having been searched; but what we discuss here5 is a case where we know for certain that he [the owner] did not search, but these7

ו איבעיא להו המשכיר בית לחבירו בחזקת בדוק ומצאו שאינו בדוק מהו מי הוי כמקח טעות או לא

6 affirm. We searched it. You might say, Let not the Rabbis believe them.

ז תא שמע דאמר אביי לא מיבעיא באתרא דלא יהבי אגרא ובדקו דניחא ליה לאיניש לקיומי מצוה בגופיה אלא אפילו באתרא דיהבי אגרא ובדקו דניחא ליה לאיניש לקיומי מצוה בממוניה:

7 Therefore it informs us [that] since the search for leaven is [required only] by Rabbinical law, for by Scriptural law mere nullificationl suffices for it, the Rabbis gave them9 credence in [respect to] a Rabbinical [enactment]. The scholars asked: What if one rents a house to his neighbour in the presumption of its having been searched, and he [the tenant] finds that it has not been searched?

ח תנן התם ר"מ אומר אוכלין כל חמש ושורפין בתחלת שש ר' יהודה אומר אוכלין כל ארבע ותולין כל חמש ושורפין בתחלת שש דכולי עלמא מיהא חמץ משש שעות ולמעלה אסור מנלן

8 Is it as an erroneous bargain10 or not? - Come and hear! For Abaye said: It is unnecessary [to say] of a town, where payment is not made [to others] for searching that a person is pleased to fulfil a precept personally;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There the tenant is certainly unable to retract, as it is assumed that he, like all the others, is glad of this opportunity to fulfil personally a religious obligation.');">11 but even in a town where payment is made for searching [it is not an erroneous bargain], because [it is to be assumed that] one is pleased to fulfil a precept with his money.12

ט אמר אביי תרי קראי כתיבי כתיב (שמות יב, יט) שבעת ימים שאור לא ימצא בבתיכם וכתיב (שמות יב, טו) אך ביום הראשון תשביתו שאור מבתיכם הא כיצד לרבות ארבעה עשר לביעור

9 We learned elsewhere: R'Meir said: one may eat [leaven] the whole of the five [hours]13 and must burn [it] at the beginning of the sixth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But may not wait until the end of the sixth, i.e., noon (by which time it is Scripturally forbidden to have leaven in the house) , because one can err in the time.');">14 R'Judah said: one may eat until four [hours],15

י ואימא לרבות לילי חמשה עשר לביעור דסלקא דעתך אמינא ימים כתיב ימים אין לילות לא קא משמע לן אפילו לילות ההוא לא איצטריכא ליה

10 hold it in suspense the whole of the fifth,16 and must burn it at the beginning of the sixth.17 Thus incidentally all agree that leaven is [Scripturally] forbidden from six hours [i.e., noon] and onwards: whence do we know it? - Said Abaye, Two verses are written: Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses;18 and it is written, even [ak] the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses:19 how is this [to be understood]?20 It must include the fourteenth [as the day] for removal.21 Yet say that it includes the night of the fifteenth [as the time] for removal; for one might argue, 'days' is written, [implying] only days but not nights: hence it [the verse] informs us that even nights [are included in the interdict]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus 'yet at the first day', etc., may mean that at the very beginning of the seven days, i.e., on the evening of the fifteenth, all leaven must be removed, but there is no prohibition for any part of the fourteenth.');">22 - That is unnecessary,

Previous Chapter Next Chapter