Pesachim 13a (יג.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

lest you say

that in fact

the two of them always meant one and the same thing,

and both referred to the same time, for the event had indeed taken place shortly before sunrise,

and the reason he said

“within sunrise” was

because

he was standing in an exposed place,

he was standing in an open area,

and he merely saw rays of light,

he saw the first glimmering of the sun’s rays and thought that sunrise had already begun. Thus, they do not contradict one another.

This teaches us

that Rav Shimi bar Ashi maintains that a person does not err in this matter, and indeed their testimony is invalid.

Rav Naḥman said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

One may eat during the entire fourth hour, suspend the matter during the entire fifth hour, and burn it at the beginning of the sixth hour.

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Let the master say: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir,

who says that one may eat throughout the fifth hour.

For

after all,

the tanna established an anonymous Mishna in accordance with his view?

As we learned

at the beginning of the second chapter:

Whenever it is permitted to eat

leaven, one may

feed

it to one’s animal.

This implies that from the time when it is forbidden to eat leaven, it is also forbidden to feed it to one’s animal—that is, it is forbidden even to derive benefit from it. This is the view of Rabbi Meir, who permits eating until the beginning of the sixth hour, from which point it is forbidden even to derive benefit. For according to Rabbi Yehuda, there is an hour during which it is forbidden to eat but permitted to derive benefit, namely, the fifth hour.

But the halakha follows an anonymous Mishna; if so, you should have ruled in accordance with Rabbi Meir.

Rav Naḥman replied:

That

Mishna, which states, “Whenever it is permitted to eat, one may feed it,”

is not an anonymous ruling

in accordance with Rabbi Meir

at all.

Because

if it is Rabbi Meir’s opinion,

the wording

is

“permitted”

is difficult. It should have said, “Whenever one eats, one may feed it.” But the wording, “Whenever it is permitted to eat, one may feed it,” implies that two different people are being discussed: whenever it is permitted for one person to eat, it is permitted for the other, who is already forbidden to eat, to feed it to his animal.

Because of this difficulty, the Gemara there established that the Mishna follows Rabban Gamliel, who maintains in our Mishna that unconsecrated leaven may be eaten only throughout the fourth hour, whereas teruma leaven may be eaten even during the fifth hour.

The meaning of the Mishna is therefore that whenever it is permitted for a kohen to eat teruma leaven, it is also permitted for an Israelite to feed unconsecrated leaven to his animal; but the Israelite himself may not eat it during the fifth hour.

Rava then asked him:

And let the master say that the halakha is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel, for

this

would make

Rabban Gamliel

the निर्णor

between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda: With regard to unconsecrated produce, he rules like Rabbi Yehuda, and with regard to teruma, like Rabbi Meir. And we have an established principle: Whenever you find two sages who disagree and a third who decides between them, the halakha follows the words of the निर्णor [Shabbat 31b]?

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman:

Rabban Gamliel is not a निर्णor;

rather,

he stated a reason of his own.

The Tosafot raise a difficulty: Rav Naḥman should still have ruled in accordance with Rabban Gamliel, because the anonymous Mishna of “Whenever it is permitted to eat” follows his view, as he himself inferred from the wording “permitted.” And even if we say that Rav Naḥman was uncertain whether this inference should in fact be made from the wording of the Mishna, he should nevertheless have ruled either in accordance with Rabbi Meir or in accordance with Rabban Gamliel, since in either event the Mishna follows one of them and not Rabbi Yehuda. They answer that Rav Naḥman relies primarily on the second explanation introduced by the phrase “If you wish, say”: Rav holds in accordance with the tannaitic source of the Tosafot commentary, s.v. Rabban. The Ran’s novellae answer that if the Mishna followed Rabbi Meir, it would indeed be an anonymous Mishna in accordance with his view. But according to the true interpretation—that the wording “permitted” indicates that the Mishna follows Rabban Gamliel—there is no proof that the Mishna rules in accordance with him. It is possible that the Mishna came only to clarify Rabban Gamliel’s statement. One might otherwise say that just as he equates the times for eating and deriving benefit from teruma, so that both begin at the same time, he likewise rules stringently with regard to ordinary leaven, prohibiting benefit from it from the fifth hour, so that a kohein should not err and think that he may derive benefit from teruma after the time when he may eat it, just as with ordinary leaven. Therefore, the Mishna teaches us that Rabban Gamliel agrees with Rabbi Yehuda with regard to ordinary leaven: whenever it is permitted for a kohein to eat teruma, it is permitted for an Israelite to derive benefit from the leaven. That is, during the fifth hour it is still permitted to derive benefit from it. In fact, with regard to the halakha, the Mishna follows Rabbi Yehuda. The Tosafot of the Rid write that since Rabban Gamliel lived before Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, this is a case of an anonymous ruling followed by a dispute, and the halakha does not follow an anonymous ruling that is followed by a dispute.

In other words, Rabban Gamliel represents a third opinion. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda did not mention at all in their statements that there was room to distinguish between teruma and unconsecrated produce with regard to the time when they may be eaten. Had Rabbi Meir said that both unconsecrated produce and teruma may be eaten throughout the fifth hour, and Rabbi Yehuda said that both may be eaten only throughout the fourth hour, and Rabban Gamliel had then stated that unconsecrated produce is suspended throughout the fourth hour while teruma may be eaten throughout the fifth, he would have been considered the निर्णor. But now that they did not discuss teruma at all, Rabban Gamliel is considered a third opinion and not a निर्णor.

And alternatively: Rav

ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda because

he stated the same ruling as this tanna,

who established that the halakha is so.

As it was taught in a beraita: When the fourteenth of Nisan

falls on Shabbat,

all leaven is removed [the leaven]

the leaven

before Shabbat.

And they burn

the

terumot

of leaven, both those that are

impure

and those that are

of uncertain status [of uncertain impurity],

possibly impure,

and

those that are

pure.

Rabbeinu Efraim raised a difficulty against him: Rabbi Elazar of Bartota holds that everything is removed before Shabbat, even ordinary leaven, whereas according to Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok ordinary leaven is removed on Shabbat itself. The early authorities answered the Raavad in his commentary on the Ba'al HaMaor, Wars of the Lord, and the Ran in our passage, explaining the Rif’s position: Rabbi Elazar of Bartota spoke only about teruma. With regard to ordinary produce, he may agree that, since many people may eat it, it is permitted to leave it for Shabbat. His statement that “everything” is removed before Shabbat refers to all teruma, whether pure, impure, or of uncertain status, as mentioned below; the tannaitic source first states the general rule and then explains it. Even if we say that Rabbi Elazar of Bartota spoke about ordinary produce as well, the Sages established the halakha in accordance with him only with regard to teruma, concerning which the beraita records a dispute over whether it is removed before Shabbat. With regard to ordinary produce, they did not establish the halakha in accordance with him. Therefore, one should rule with regard to ordinary produce in accordance with Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok, since the Sages in that Mishna agree with him concerning ordinary produce. This is also supported by the fact that Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok brought there an incident showing that Rabban Gamliel issued this ruling in practice, and the established principle is that an act performed by a Sage constitutes authoritative evidence. The Rif’s statement that the halakha follows Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok because he follows the position of Rabbi Elazar of Bartota applies only to teruma. With regard to ordinary produce, it is obvious that the halakha follows him for the reasons stated: the Sages agree with him, and an act performed by a Sage is authoritative. However, Maimonides hold that even ordinary produce is removed before Shabbat, in accordance with the plain meaning of Rabbi Elazar of Bartota’s statement that everything is removed before Shabbat; and in this matter too, the halakha follows him. This is likewise the ruling in the Shulḥan Arukh [444:1]. See also Tosafot, s.v. Umeshayerin. Rashi instituted the practice of burning the leaven before midday even on this Friday, although one has time until the end of the day, so that people would not err in other years and remove leaven after midday, Hagahot Ashri. But the Ba'al Ha-Ma'or, Rambam Ba'al HaMaor later [15b in the Rif pagination] wrote that the reason Rabbi Meir in that Mishna likewise holds that everything is removed before Shabbat is that he follows Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the removal of leaven must be by burning. Since the mitzva of burning cannot be fulfilled on Shabbat, and there is concern that some leaven might remain until the time when it becomes prohibited and then could not be burned, the Sages instituted that the leaven be burned on Friday. They set its twelfth-hour time—that is, the end of Friday, when they established the burning time—as corresponding to the sixth hour on the fourteenth of Nisan in ordinary years. The Sages who hold there that leaven is removed on Shabbat itself follow their own view that one may eliminate leaven by crumbling it and scattering it to the wind, which does not constitute a biblically prohibited labor and may therefore be done even on Shabbat. They even permitted this rabbinically in order to fulfill the mitzva of eliminating leaven at its proper time. Therefore, one leaves the leaven until Shabbat and removes it at the proper time, as in all other years. The Tosafot write: Even if we say that it is prohibited to burn pure teruma because it is stated, “the safeguarding of My terumot,” and just as one must protect it from impurity, so too one must protect it from burning, it is nevertheless permitted to burn pure teruma on Friday even though it is not yet prohibited at that time. The reason is not that it will in any event have to be burned when the time of the prohibition arrives, since according to Torah law there is no need to remove leaven at all; nullifying it in one’s heart is sufficient. Rather, the reason is that this teruma will eventually become prohibited and be lost. It is therefore permitted to burn it, because one is commanded to safeguard only teruma that is destined to be eaten, not teruma that will in any event be lost. For the same reason, it is also permitted to render this teruma impure, as explained at the end of the chapter: it is permitted to burn pure teruma together with impure teruma on Friday, even though this causes the pure teruma to become impure, because, as stated, there is no obligation to safeguard teruma that is destined to be lost. Tosafot s.v. Umeshayerin. Rashi instituted the practice of burning the leaven before midday even on this Friday, although one has time until the end of the day, so that people would not err in other years and remove leaven after midday, Hagahot Ashri. But Rashi directed to burn the chametz before midnight even on this Shabbat eve, although there is time until the end of the day, so that people in other years will not err and burn after midnight — glosses of Ashri. But the Ba'al Ha-Ma'or, [below, 15b in the pages of the Rif] wrote that the reason Rabbi Meir in the Mishna there also maintains that all leaven is removed before Shabbat is that he follows Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the removal of leaven is performed only by burning. Since the mitzva of burning cannot be fulfilled on Shabbat, and there is concern that some leaven might remain until the time when it becomes forbidden and one would be unable to burn it, the Sages instituted that the leaven be burned on Friday. They designated the twelfth hour [that is, the end of Friday, when they established the time for burning] as corresponding to the sixth hour on the fourteenth in ordinary years. The Sages, who maintain there that leaven is removed on Shabbat itself, follow their own view that one may nullify leaven by crumbling it and scattering it to the wind, which does not constitute a biblically prohibited primary labor and may therefore be done even on Shabbat. They permitted this even rabbinically, in order to fulfill the mitzva of removing leaven at its proper time. Therefore, one leaves the leaven until Shabbat and removes it at the proper time, as in all other years. Tosafot, s.v. Vesorfim. And they leave from the teruma that is pure enough food for two meals alone, in order to eat from it until the fourth hour of Shabbat, which is the eve of Passover, the statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Yehuda of Bartota, who said so in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua. At first glance, should one not also leave food for the third meal? Some of the early authorities proved from here that the time for the third meal is only after the time of the afternoon prayer arrives, by which point it is already prohibited to eat leaven. Therefore, it is not relevant to leave leaven for the third meal. The Rosh, Shabbat, chapter “Kol Kitvei” [5]. However, The Tosafot even if one says that it is forbidden to burn pure terumah because it is said "the guard of my terumot" and just as one must guard it from impurity so too from burning — nevertheless it is permitted to burn pure terumah on the eve of Shabbat even though it is not yet forbidden then. The reason is not that it will in any case be consumed when the time of prohibition arrives, for Biblically there is no need to burn the chametz at all, for nullification alone would suffice. Rather the reason is that this terumah is destined to be forbidden and go to loss; therefore it may be burned. For only terumah that is fit for eating is subject to the obligation to guard it, not that which is destined to be lost. From this reason it is also permitted to render impure this terumah, as is explained at the end of the chapter that it is permitted to burn on the eve of Shabbat a pure terumah together with impure terumah, even though thereby the pure terumah becomes impure, because as stated there is no duty to guard terumah that is destined to perish. Tosafot s.v. Vesorfim.

And they leave over from

the

pure terumot enough food

for

two meals

only,

in order to eat

from them

until the fourth hour

of Shabbat, which is the eve of Passover],

the words of Rabbi Elazar ben Yehuda ish Bartota, who said

so

in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua.

It would seem one should also leave for a third meal? Some early authorities infer from here that the time for the third meal is only after the time of Mincha has arrived, and then it is already forbidden to eat chametz; therefore it is not fitting to reserve chametz for a third meal. Rosh the Tosafot there [118a], s.v. Beminḥa, reject this proof: Even if it is permitted to divide the morning meal into two and thereby fulfill the obligation of the third meal, there is here only the measure of one meal, and therefore it says that one leaves food for only two meals. The Tosafot of Rabbeinu Peretz uphold the proof: If it were possible to fulfill the third meal before the time of the afternoon prayer, one could leave three actual meals and eat the first meal during the first hour of the morning and the second meal during the fourth hour. Rather, it is certainly impossible to fulfill the third meal before the time of the afternoon prayer. They said to him: Pure teruma should not be burned at all on Friday, since the time for its removal has not yet arrived, because one should not deliberately cause teruma to be lost as long as it is possible to eat it. Even if the kohein has enough teruma for the members of his household for Shabbat, he should not burn the remainder, because perhaps people will be found to eat it. Perhaps visiting kohanim will happen to arrive and eat it during Shabbat before the time for its removal. If in the end he finds no one to eat the teruma, he may feed it to the dogs of kohanim or nullify it in his heart. He said to them, Rabbi Elazar: They have already sought people to eat it and have not found any. That is, the owner of the teruma has already set aside from his teruma for all possible people who could eat it, since no new guests will come on Shabbat, and regarding those who live in the city, he knows who will be his Shabbat guests. If so, why should he not burn the surplus now? They said to him: Even so, he should wait and not yet burn the pure teruma, perhaps they spent the night outside the wall. Perhaps tomorrow, on Shabbat, visiting kohanim who were within the city’s Shabbat limit will arrive after having spent the night outside the wall, so that they are permitted to enter the city on Shabbat, and he will be able to give them some of the pure teruma. He said to them, Rabbi Elazar: According to your words, since you are concerned about a “perhaps,” even teruma of uncertain status should not be burned on Friday, perhaps Elijah will come before the time for its removal and declare it pure. He might say that no impurity touched it, and it could then be eaten. Rather, it is certain that we do not take distant possibilities into account. The same applies here: one need not be concerned that additional guests may arrive. They said to him: It is already assured to the Jewish people that Elijah will not come to announce the redemption not on the eve of Shabbat and not on the eve of Festivals, because of the exertion, since at those times people are occupied with preparing the Shabbat and Festival meals, and if he were to come, they would have to leave everything and go out to greet him. At first glance, this is difficult: It is permitted to observe a fast because of a troubling dream on Shabbat, since the fast is considered pleasure for him because it settles his mind. Here too, there is surely no greater pleasure of Shabbat for the entire Jewish people than the joy that Elijah will come and redeem them. This pleasure should certainly be no less than the pleasure of fasting because of a troubling dream, even though as a result they would neglect the Shabbat meals. It must be said that if his time to come were on Friday, he would come one day earlier, so that people would not neglect the preparation of the Shabbat meals. And in tractate Eruvin [43b] it is explained that if there is a prohibition against traveling beyond the Shabbat limit above ten handbreadths, Elijah cannot come on Shabbat itself because of the prohibition against leaving the limit. This too is difficult: Surely, when Elijah comes, he will find many Jews held captive by gentiles who will be saved from death when he arrives. Why, then, should he not be permitted to come on Shabbat because of saving a life? Kovetz Shiurim. Therefore, there is no concern that Elijah will come before the time for removing the leaven, since today is the eve of Shabbat and tomorrow is the eve of a Festival. But there is concern that visiting kohanim who spent the night outside the wall may arrive. They said: They did not move from there until they established the halakha in accordance with Rabbi Elazar ben Yehuda of Bartota in the matter that he said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua. This is difficult: Since tomorrow is Shabbat, Elijah could come, for the reason “because of the exertion” does not apply, since it is prohibited to exert oneself on Shabbat in preparation for a Festival. He could come unless there is a prohibition against traveling beyond the limit above ten handbreadths, in which case he could not come because of the prohibition against leaving the limit. Maharsha. And Maharsha, in Eruvin, explains that the Tosafot themselves raised this question there. Therefore, they explained that just as Elijah does not come on the eve of Shabbat or the eve of a Festival because of the exertion involved in preparing the meal, so too he does not come on Shabbat before the time of eating—that is, until the fourth hour, when one must remove the leaven—because of the exertion involved in preparing the Shabbat meal. The Tosafot there (s.v. Mincha) Tosafot rejects this proof, that even if it would be permitted to split the morning meal into two and thereby fulfill a third meal, here there is only the measure for one meal, and therefore it is said they leave food for only two meals. And Tosafot Rabbeinu Peretz upholds the proof: if it were possible to fulfill a third meal before the time of Mincha, one could leave three actual meals, and eat the first in the first hour in the morning and the second in the fourth hour. But certainly it is impossible to fulfill a third meal before the time of Mincha.

They said to him:

Pure

teruma should not be burned

at all on Friday, since the time for its removal has not yet arrived, because one should not actively destroy teruma as long as it is possible to eat it. And even if the kohen has sufficient teruma for the members of his household for Shabbat, he should not burn the surplus,

lest people be found to eat it

—perhaps visiting kohanim will happen to come, and they will eat it during Shabbat before the time for its removal. If ultimately no one is found to eat the teruma, he may feed it to the dogs of kohanim, or nullify it in his heart.

He said to them,

Rabbi Elazar:

They have already sought

after people to eat it

and found none.

That is, the owner of the teruma had already left over from his teruma for all possible eaters, since no new guests would arrive on Shabbat, and he knew which local people would be guests at his home on Shabbat. If so, why should he not burn the surplus now?

They said to him:

Nevertheless, he should wait and not yet burn the pure teruma,

lest they have lodged outside the wall.

Perhaps tomorrow, on Shabbat, visiting kohanim who had been within the Shabbat limit of the city will arrive after having lodged outside the wall, so that they are permitted to enter the city on Shabbat, and he will be able to give them some of the pure teruma.

He said to them,

Rabbi Elazar:

According to your words,

since you are concerned about “lest,”

even

terumot

of uncertain status should not be burned

on Friday,

lest Elijah come

before the time for their removal

and declare them pure.

He might say that no impurity had touched them, and they would then be fit to eat?

Rather, it is certain that we do not concern ourselves with remote possibilities; similarly, there is no need to fear that additional guests may arrive.

They said to him: It is already guaranteed to Israel that Elijah will not come [to announce the redemption]

to announce the redemption

neither on the eve of Shabbat nor on the eves of Festivals, because of the exertion involved,

for people are then occupied with preparing the Shabbat and Festival meals, and if he were to come, they would have to leave everything and go out to greet him.

Therefore, there is no need to fear that Elijah will come before the time for removing the leaven, since today is the eve of Shabbat and tomorrow is the eve of a Festival. But one must be concerned that visiting kohanim who lodged outside the wall may arrive.

They said: They did not move from there until they established the halakha in accordance with Rabbi Elazar ben Yehuda ish Bartota

in that

which he said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua.

It is difficult: since tomorrow is Shabbat, he could come, and so one cannot say "because of the trouble," for it is forbidden to labor from Shabbat to the festival, and only if his domains exceed ten cubits would he be unable to come because of the prohibition of leaving the domain. Mahrsha. And in Mahrsha in Eruvin he explains that The Tosafot of the Rosh write that the Sages did not distinguish, and Elijah does not come on the eve of any Festival, even when the reason of exertion does not apply. The Tzelach explains that this is what they said to Rabbi Elazar ben Yehuda: Granted, if Elijah could come on Friday, one should not burn the teruma of uncertain status, lest Elijah come at the end of the day and declare it pure. But since he does not come on Friday, even if he comes on Shabbat, the teruma had already been set aside and excluded at twilight; and once it was excluded at twilight, it remains excluded for the entire day. The Gemara concludes its earlier explanation:

The Gemara concludes the earlier resolution:

Is it not that

they established the halakha in accordance with him in every matter, even with regard to his statement that teruma leaven too may

be eaten

only until the fourth hour, as is clear from his statement that one leaves enough pure teruma for two meals in order to eat until the fourth hour? This is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda and not with Rabban Gamliel, who permits eating teruma until the end of the fifth hour.

Therefore, Rav too ruled that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

The Gemara rejects this:

Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava:

There is no proof from there that the halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda, because the halakha was established in accordance with him only with regard to the requirement to

remove

even pure terumot before Shabbat, contrary to the view of his colleagues, who disagree with him and maintain that pure terumot should not be removed until the following day. But with regard to the time when eating teruma becomes forbidden, it is possible that the halakha does not follow him.

And Rabbi too held in accordance with this ruling of Rav Naḥman,

that the halakha follows Rabbi Yehuda.

For Ravin bar Rav Adda said: There was an incident involving a man who deposited a diskaya [a compound word, du-sakia.

The word is compound, meaning “two sacks.”

That is, two leather sacks]

full of leaven with Yoḥanan Ḥakuka’a [this was his nickname],

this was his nickname,

and mice gnawed holes in it, and leaven was protruding and falling out

from it. It was the eve of Passover.

And

Yoḥanan

came before Rabbi

to ask whether he should sell the leaven immediately because it was continually diminishing, causing the depositor a loss, or whether, since leaven was inexpensive that day, he should not sell it yet.

During the

first hour

of the day,

he said to him,

Rabbi:

Wait!

Perhaps the owner of the leaven will come and manage to eat it before the time when its consumption becomes forbidden.

these coins to, and they are concerned that over time the coins might rust and become unfit—

«