Pesachim 12b — the Talmud in English

Rather,

that

people do not err between daytime and nighttime.

And they also give him the fourth, fifth, and sixth hours [for he can claim that he intended the end of the third hour].

And this one who said, “At five,” they give him the second, third, and fourth hours [perhaps he intended the beginning of five], and also the sixth hour.

And by rights, he should be given

it

further before it,

that is, we should have given him another two hours forward,

but

Rabbi Yehuda himself said in the beraita that one does not err between the fifth and seventh hours, because

at five, the sun

stands

in the east

of the firmament,

whereas

if

at seven, the sun

stands

in the west

of the firmament.

Everything stated above concerning the measure of time given to the witnesses is only in order to save them from the punishment of “as he plotted.” But with regard to the validity of the testimony itself, less than this suffices for the testimony to be nullified. For example, if the witness who said, “At three,” was exposed as a conspiring witness concerning the third, fourth, and fifth hours, the testimony is immediately nullified. For if he claims that he erred backward, and that the act took place before the third hour, we cannot combine his testimony with that of the second witness who said, “At five,” because there is a difference of more than three hours between them, for even according to Rabbi Yehuda a person does not err to such an extent. Rashi].

The Gemara now discusses how to reconcile our Mishna according to the opinions stated above concerning the measure of time during which a person may err.

We learned: Rabbi Meir says: One eats throughout the entire fifth hour, and burns [the leaven] at the beginning of the sixth.

Rabbi Yehuda says: One eats throughout the entire fourth hour, suspends [the leaven] throughout the fifth, and burns [it] at the beginning of the sixth.

And we raise a difficulty:

According to Abaye, in accordance with Rabbi Meir, who says that a person does not err at all, let him eat throughout the entire sixth [hour]!

It should be permitted to eat hametz throughout the entire sixth hour. For by Torah law hametz is forbidden only from the beginning of the seventh hour. And why did the Sages decree and distance him, so that he should not eat before then, since there is no concern at all that people will err concerning the time?

And according to this latter formulation

of Abaye

also, who says

that Rabbi Meir holds that

a person errs

by

something,

there is a difficulty:

let him eat until the end of six,

and let him distance himself only by something at the end of the sixth hour. Why did they prohibit the entire sixth hour?

And

this is likewise difficult for

Abaye, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who says that a person errs

by

half an hour: let him eat until half of six

[until five and a half hours], and distancing himself by half an hour, which is the measure of time during which a person may err, should suffice!

And according to this latter formulation

of Abaye

also, which you said

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

a person errs by an hour and something; let him eat until the end of five,

and let him distance himself throughout the entire sixth hour and by something of the fifth hour. Why did Rabbi Yehuda decree concerning the entire fifth hour?

Abaye said: Testimony is entrusted to the diligent.

For a person does not come to testify in capital cases unless he is expert in the hours, since he knows that he will ultimately be examined through detailed interrogations and inquiries. Therefore, he errs only by a small measure.

But the law of eating

hametz, for everyone,

is

entrusted.

It applies even to people who are not expert in the hours. Therefore, they had to decree for a greater measure of time as well.

And furthermore, we raise a difficulty:

and

for

Rava, in accordance with Rabbi Meir,

who says that a person errs by two hours less something, from the beginning of five let him not eat,

and let him distance himself by two hours from the time of the Torah prohibition. Why did Rabbi Meir decree only concerning the sixth hour?

And we answer: One does not err between the fifth and seventh hours, because

at five the sun is in the east, and

at

seven the sun is in the west.

And we raise a difficulty:

If so, at six also let him eat!

For one cannot err between six and seven either, because at six the sun has not yet inclined toward the west; rather, it stands in the middle of the firmament, and the shadow inclines neither this way nor that, but is directly beneath it, whereas at seven the sun has already inclined toward the west.

And we answer:

Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

At

six, the day stands at the corners,

the sun stands in the middle of the firmament, and it is close to inclining toward the east and close to inclining toward the west. It is impossible to determine precisely toward which side it inclines, and therefore one may err between six and seven. And furthermore, we raise a difficulty:

and

for

Rava, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who says that a person errs by three hours less something, from the beginning of four

hours

let him not eat,

so that he distances himself by three hours from the time forbidden by Torah law. Why does he permit eating during the fourth hour?

And we answer: We have heard Rabbi Yehuda himself hold that a person does not err between five and seven, because

at five the sun is in the east and

at

seven the sun is in the west, and all the more so

that he does not err between

four

and seven.

And we again raise a difficulty:

If so, at five

hours

also let him eat

hametz, since, as stated, a person does not err between five and seven?

Explain it [

he explained and answered ]

Abaye in accordance with Rava:

Rabbi Yehuda holds that the witnesses err between five and seven only with regard to testimony, because

testimony is entrusted to the diligent.

But with regard to

hametz,

which is

for every

person

entrusted,

he does err even in this.

Nevertheless, he does not err between four and seven [as he does between the beginning of three and the end of five, which, according to Rabbi Yehuda, a person does err over]. For in any event he has an indication through the sun that prevents him from erring to such an extent, since at four the sun is still very far from the western side, and it is only between five and seven that he may err.

And Rava

himself

said [to reconcile his position]: Rabbi Yehuda indeed holds that even concerning hametz, although it is entrusted to everyone, there is no concern that a person will err between five and seven, because at five the sun is in the east and at seven the sun is in the west. And the reason that he forbids eating during the fifth hour

hour

is not the reason of Rabbi Yehuda

as we had thought, namely, that he may err concerning the time.

Rather, Rabbi Yehuda follows his own reasoning, for he says below [21a]:

below [21a]:

The removal of hametz is only through burning,

and he disagrees with the Rabbis, who hold that “its removal is through anything.”

And

therefore the Sages prohibited eating hametz during the fifth hour, because

the Sages gave him [

they gave him ]

one

hour

in which he would be free

to gather wood

for the burning during the sixth hour. For if he were permitted to eat hametz then, he would not remember to prepare wood; but now, since he is forbidden to eat hametz, he pays attention to this.

Ravina raised an objection to Rava

from that which was taught:

Rabbi Yehuda said: When

do I say that the removal of hametz is only through burning? Specifically

when it is not the time of its removal

of the hametz, that is, during the entire sixth hour, when it is still not forbidden by Torah law.

But at the time of its removal,

from the beginning of seven, when it is already forbidden by Torah law,

its removal is through anything,

and not only through burning.

And if so, why does he need to trouble himself to gather wood? If he has no wood prepared, let him wait until the seventh hour, and then he will not need to burn it, but will be able to remove it in any manner he wishes?

Rather, Ravva said:

the reason for Rabbi Judah,

is a decree on account of a cloudy day

on which the sun does not shine, and it is impossible to know the hour according to the sun, so that then one may err even between the fifth and the seventh hour; therefore they decreed on every Passover eve not to eat leavened bread during the fifth hour.

And we raise an objection:

If so, even during the fourth hour one should likewise not eat!?

For according to Rabbi Judah, a person may err even by three hours, in a manner in which there is no recognition according to the sun?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said:

The

fourth

hour is known by everyone as to when it is, because

the time of the meal

is for everyone.

And there is no concern that they will mistake the seventh hour for the fourth hour.

The Sages taught: The first hour

is the time for

the meal of the “Ludim”

[the name of a nation of cannibals, Rashi, Shabbat 10a], and they are ravenous and hurry to eat.

The

second

hour is the time for

the meal of bandits,

They too are ravenous, but because they are awake the entire night, they are still sleeping during the first hour and eat only during the second hour.

The

third

hour is the time for

the meal of heirs,

people who inherited great wealth and do not need to worry about their livelihood; therefore they eat early.

The

fourth

hour is the time for

the meal of laborers.

The

fifth

hour is the time for the meal of

Torah scholars.

The

sixth

hour is the time for

the meal of every person.

And we raise an objection:

But did Rav Pappa not say

above: The

fourth hour is the time of the meal for everyone, whereas in the beraita it is stated that the sixth hour is the time for the meal of a person?

And we answer:

Rather,

reverse it

[reverse it], and recite the beraita as follows:

The fourth: the meal of every person; the fifth: the meal of laborers; the sixth: the meal of Torah scholars.

And the beraita concludes: Everyone who eats

from this point onward,

is

like one who throws a stone into a wineskin.

That is, eating then harms the human body.

Abaye said: We said

that he is like one who throws a stone into a wineskin

only when he has tasted nothing in the morning,

having tasted nothing in the morning.

But

if

he has tasted something in the morning, we have no concern,

for even if he delays his meal until after the sixth hour, it still benefits the body.

Rav Ashi said: Just as the dispute is with regard to testimony,

just as Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah disputed with regard to testimony, for according to Rabbi Judah a person errs in time more than according to Rabbi Meir,

so is the dispute with regard to leavened bread.

Therefore Rabbi Judah advances the time of the prohibition of eating leavened bread by one hour relative to Rabbi Meir, because in his view a person may err in time more than according to Rabbi Meir.

And we wonder:

It is obvious!

For

that is precisely what we said

above in order to resolve the contradiction between the dispute with regard to testimony and the dispute with regard to leavened bread?

And we answer:

This teaches us

that

the resolutions that we offered are indeed a resolution.

For all the answers that we said above are valid as halakha.

And do not say

in resolving the contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah with regard to testimony and their statements with regard to leavened bread, that

it is a dispute of tannaim,

who disputed in their understanding. For according to the tanna of our Mishna, Rabbi Meir holds that a person errs by only one hour, and Rabbi Judah holds that a person errs by two hours. But the tanna of the Mishna in Sanhedrin holds that according to Rabbi Meir a person errs by two hours, and according to Rabbi Judah by three hours [according to Ravva].

Therefore Rav Ashi teaches us that there is no dispute here; rather, there is a difference between leavened bread and testimony, as was explained above.

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: We have learned

with regard to testimony that even when the witnesses contradict one another concerning the time, sometimes the matter is attributed to error and the testimony is upheld,

only

when they testify

in hours,

for example, one says at two and the other says at three.

But

if

one says

that the act took place

before sunrise, and one says

that it took place

after sunrise, their testimony is invalid,

because a person does not err between before sunrise and after it.

And we raise an objection: What does Rav Shimi teach us? Is it not

obvious

?

And we answer:

Rather,

this is what Rav Shimi said:

One

says before sunrise, and one says during sunrise

at the beginning of sunrise,

their testimony is invalid.

And we still raise an objection:

This too is obvious

for it is likewise impossible to err?