Pesachim 10a — the Talmud in English

This applies specifically

to teruma,

which nowadays is subject only to

a rabbinic prohibition,

and therefore we are lenient regarding it. But

with regard to the

prohibition of

leaven,

which is

a Torah prohibition, may we say

that one should be lenient and rely on the principle, “I say that…”?

And we answer:

Is it really so

[that this is a Torah matter]?

Is the search for leaven

—

under Torah law?

It is, after all, only an obligation

by rabbinic law, since according to Torah law, mere nullification is sufficient;

it is enough for a person simply to nullify the leaven. Since the entire issue here is whether the Sages required him to search the house again, or not, this is a rabbinic matter, and we rely on the principle, “I say that…”

d. A single

pile of leaven

is before us,

and two inspected houses are before it, and a mouse came and took

a piece from the pile and entered one of the houses,

but we do not know whether

the mouse went

to this

house

or

[entered]

to that

house

or.

This is

the same law as

“the two paths.”

As we learned

in tractate Taharot:

There are two paths, one

of

which is impure, and one

of

which is pure,

but it is not known which one is impure. For example, it is established that in one of the paths there is a grave extending across the entire width of the path, so that it is impossible to pass through without becoming under the same roof as the grave, but we do not know which path it is.

And

a person

walked along one of them and

afterward

prepared

[touched]

ritually pure foods

[Had the issue concerned only him, we would have declared him and the pure foods he touched pure, because the paths are a public domain, and the law is that in a case of uncertain impurity in a public domain, the uncertainty is treated as pure. But]

his fellow came and walked

also

along

the

second path and prepared pure foods

as well. The question is whether both can be declared pure, since one of them is certainly impure.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If they asked

[a Sage]

each separately,

meaning that each asked separately what his status is, both are

pure.

The Sage rules to each one that he is pure, since considered individually, each is merely possibly impure, and he can be maintained according to his presumption of purity.

But if

both

came to ask a Sage

at the same time—

both are

impure.

Since the Sage must issue one ruling for both of them—either “You are impure” or “You are pure”—he cannot tell them both that they are pure, since one of them is certainly impure. Therefore, he rules that both are impure.

Rabbi Yosei says: In either case,

even if each asked separately, both are

impure.

Rava said, and some say Rabbi Yohanan said:

If both came

at the same time

to ask the Sage,

according to everyone

both are

impure.

Likewise, if they came to ask

one after the other,

even if each tells the Sage, “This is what happened: my fellow also entered the second path, but I am asking only about myself,”

according to everyone

both are

pure.

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei disagree

only when

one of them comes

to ask about himself

and about his fellow,

asking, “What is the status of both of us?”

Rabbi Yosei compares it to

their coming to ask

at the same time,

because although only one of them is standing before the Sage, since he must issue one ruling for both, he cannot say, “You are pure.” Therefore, he must say: “Both of you are impure.”

And Rabbi Yehuda compares it to

their coming to ask

one after the other,

because since there is only one questioner present, the Sage need not answer him regarding his fellow. Rather, the Sage tells him, “You are pure,” and he will consequently understand that his fellow is pure as well.

But when both ask at the same time—that is, within the time needed to say a short statement—the Sage must answer them together. He is therefore compelled to rule that both are impure.

Similarly, with regard to two houses, if the two householders came to ask at the same time, the ruling is that both must search their houses again. If they came to ask one after the other, each is told that he need not search again, because the search for leaven is only rabbinic, and in a case of uncertainty concerning a rabbinic law, one is lenient. e. We saw a mouse take leaven from the room, and

it is uncertain

whether it

entered

[the inspected house]

or did not enter it.

There is no need to search the house again, because

this is

the same law as

the valley, and it is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis.

[This resembles the law over which Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagreed; however, in our case, everyone agrees that another search is unnecessary.]

As we learned

in tractate Taharot:

One who enters a valley [

many adjoining fields]

during the rainy season,

when the crops have already grown in the fields and not everyone is permitted to enter there. Therefore, at that time the valley is considered a private domain with regard to the law stated concerning uncertainty about impurity in a private domain: the uncertain case is impure.

And

we know of

impurity

that was found

in a certain field

in the valley [for each field is separately marked by its boundaries].

And one said: I walked in that place [

in this valley],

but I do not know whether I entered that field

in which the impurity was located and spread over it,

or [

whether]

I did not enter

there—

Rabbi Eliezer declares him pure, and the Sages declare him impure.

Rabbi Eliezer’s reason is

that Rabbi Eliezer would say: Uncertainty concerning entry is treated as pure.

If the uncertainty is whether he entered that field at all, he is pure, because this is a compound uncertainty.

It is uncertain whether he entered or did not enter; and if you should say that he entered, perhaps he did not pass precisely over the place of the impurity and did not become under the same roof as it. In a compound uncertainty, even in a private domain, the uncertainty is treated as pure. Only in the case of a single uncertainty—for example, if he certainly entered that field, but there is

uncertainty whether he came into contact with impurity,

as he does not know whether he touched the impurity or became under the same roof as it—then the law is that uncertain impurity in a private domain is

impure.

The Rabbis maintain that even in a compound uncertainty, the law is that in a private domain the item is impure.

Here, however, with regard to the search for leaven, even the Rabbis will agree that we follow the lenient approach, since the search for leaven is only rabbinic. Because of the uncertainty, there is no need to search the house again.

v.

The

mouse entered an inspected house carrying leaven.

And the homeowner searched

after it

but found

none of the leaven. He need not search again, because this is

the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis.

As we learned

in tractate Niddah: A pile of stones that is impure [because an olive-bulk of a corpse was there], which became mixed with two pure piles, and all three were searched but the impurity was not found in any of them, all are impure—this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

According to the view that

Rabbi Meir said: Anything that

is

presumed impure remains

in

its

presumed

state of impurity until you know

where

the impurity is.

As long as the impurity has not been found, we are concerned that it is still here, even though nothing was found during the search.

And the Sages say: One searches

each mound and digs beneath it,

until he reaches bedrock or undisturbed ground

[hard ground that certainly has never been moved from its place], from which point downward the impurity certainly is not located. If he finds nothing, the mound is pure, because we assume that a raven or a mouse certainly came and carried away the olive-sized portion of the corpse.

With regard to searching for leaven, which is only a rabbinic requirement, Rabbi Meir will also agree that, since one searched and found nothing, we assume that the mouse certainly ate the leaven that it had brought in.

7.

If

the mouse brought leaven into a house that had been searched,

and the homeowner searched

after it

and found

a piece of leavened bread, but does not know whether this is the piece that the mouse brought in, or whether it is another piece that remained despite the search, while the piece brought in by the mouse is still in the house, and he must continue searching the entire house—this matter depends on the

dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel.

As it was taught in a beraita: If a grave was lost in a field,

and its location is unknown, everyone

who enters it

[the field]

is impure,

in case he passed over the location of the grave and became impure through contact with it.

And if, after some time,

a grave is found in it,

and it is unknown whether this is the lost grave or not,

one who enters it

[the field] without approaching the grave that was found

is pure.

Because

I say:

:

lost grave is

the

grave that was found; this is the statement of Rabbi.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says:

It is still not certain that this is the lost grave. Rather,

the entire field must be examined,

and if no additional grave is found, we will assume that this is indeed the lost grave, and the rest of the field is pure.

So too, here, with regard to searching for leaven: According to Rabbi, we assume that this is the piece that the mouse brought in, and there is no need to continue searching the house. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, however, one must still be concerned that this is not the piece brought in by the mouse, and one must continue searching the entire house.

8. A person

placed

in a house that had been searched

nine

pieces of leavened bread,

and

afterward

found

there

ten

pieces—this law depends on the

dispute between Rabbi and the Rabbis.

As it was taught in a beraita:

If someone

placed one maneh

[one hundred zuz] of second-tithe money in a chest,

and

afterward

found

there

two hundred

zuz, then among these two hundred

non-sacred money and second-tithe money are mixed together,

because we do not know which maneh is the original second-tithe money and which is the non-sacred maneh that was added. Therefore, he must take coins worth one maneh and say that the second-tithe maneh among the two hundred is transferred to these coins and assumes the sanctity of second tithe. The two hundred become non-sacred—

the statement of Rabbi.

Раши и Тосафот возразили: ведь сам Раши написал в трактате Бава Мециа, что нельзя выкупать с серебряной монеты на серебряную монету, а только с серебра на медь? Кроме того, если Раши придерживается здесь мнения, что можно выкупать серебро на серебро, ему не следовало говорить, что он приносит другие серебряные монеты и выкупает на них мане; он мог бы выкупить из самих этих денег. Пусть возьмёт один мане из двух и скажет: если это деньги второго десятины — хорошо, а если второй является деньгами второго десятины, пусть он будет выкуплен на этот. Тосафот «на слово „обычные деньги“».

And the Sages say:

Since he did not find the amount that he had placed, we assume leniently that the original second-tithe maneh was removed from here, while these two hundred were brought afterward, and

everything is non-sacred.

So too, here, with regard to leaven: According to Rabbi, we say that the nine pieces he placed are the pieces now found, and that one additional piece was added to them. There is no need to search the house again. According to the Rabbis, however, since he found more pieces than he had placed, we are concerned that all ten pieces now found are new pieces brought there by another person, while the nine original pieces were dragged into the house by rats, and he must search the entire house again.

9. And if he

placed

in a house that had been searched

ten

pieces of leavened bread

and

afterward

found

there only

nine

pieces,

that is

the law of the

final clause

of that same beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna.

As it was taught in a beraita: If he placed two hundred

zuz of second-tithe money,

and

afterward

found

there only

one maneh,

then we say that

one maneh

of the original two hundred still

lies

here,

and

only the

maneh

that is missing

has been removed

[taken from here]—

the statement of Rabbi.

And the Sages say: Everything is non-sacred.

Since he found less than he had placed, we say that none of the original two hundred remains, and that the current maneh is different money, which is non-sacred.

So too, here, with regard to leaven: If he placed ten pieces and found only nine, according to Rabbi he need search only for one piece. The nine pieces found are the same ones that had been there previously. According to the Rabbis, however, he must search for all ten pieces, because we are concerned that all of them were dragged into the house by a rat, and that the nine pieces now found are different pieces.