Pesachim 13a — the Talmud in English

We explain:

One might have said

that in fact

both of them were saying the same thing:

they both referred to the same time, since the event had indeed taken place shortly before sunrise.

And the reason one of them said

“within sunrise”

is that

he was standing in an exposed place,

he was standing in an open area,

and he merely saw flashes 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 says that a person does not make such an error, and indeed their testimony is invalid.

Rav Naḥman said that Rav said:

The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda

that one may eat during all of the fourth hour, one suspends the prohibition during the fifth hour, and one burns the leaven 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 during all of the fifth hour.

For

after all,

a tannaitic statement was formulated anonymously in accordance with his view?

As we learned

at the beginning of the second chapter:

Whenever it is permitted to eat

leaven, he may

feed

it to his animal.

This indicates that from the time when it is prohibited to eat leaven, it is also prohibited to feed it to one’s animal; that is, it is prohibited even to derive benefit from it. This is the view of Rabbi Meir, who permits eating until the beginning of the sixth hour, and from then onward prohibits even deriving benefit from it. According to Rabbi Yehuda, however, there is an hour during which it is prohibited to eat but permitted to derive benefit, namely, the fifth hour.

The halakha follows an anonymous Mishna, so you should have ruled in accordance with Rabbi Meir.

Rav Naḥman replied:

That

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

is not an anonymous statement

in accordance with Rabbi Meir

at all.

Because

if it is the opinion of Rabbi Meir,

there is a difficulty

with the wording

“permitted.”

It should have said: “Whenever one may eat, he may feed it.” But the wording “Whenever it is permitted to eat, he may feed it” indicates that two different people are being discussed: whenever it is permitted for one person to eat, it is permitted for another person—who is already prohibited from eating—to feed it to his animal.

Because of this difficulty, the Gemara there interpreted the Mishna as referring to Rabban Gamliel, who says in our Mishna that ordinary leaven may be eaten only during all of the fourth hour, whereas leaven that is teruma may be eaten even during the fifth hour.

This is the meaning of the Mishna: whenever it is permitted for a priestly kohein, whose sacred status permits him to eat teruma, to eat leavened teruma, it is also permitted for an Israelite to feed ordinary leaven to his animal. But the Israelite himself may not eat it during the fifth hour.

Rava asked him again:

Let the Master say that the halakha is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel, for

he

would be

Rabban Gamliel,

the one who decides between

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. With regard to ordinary leaven, he rules in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, and with regard to teruma, in accordance with Rabbi Meir. And we have an established principle: Wherever you find two Sages who disagree and a third Sage decides between them, the halakha follows the words of the deciding Sage [Shabbat 31b]?

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman:

Rabban Gamliel is not a deciding Sage;

rather,

he stated a reason of his own.

In other words, Rabban Gamliel’s view is a third opinion. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda did not mention at all in their statements that there is room to distinguish between teruma and ordinary produce with regard to the time when they may be eaten. If Rabbi Meir had said that both ordinary produce and teruma may be eaten throughout the fifth hour, and Rabbi Yehuda had said that both ordinary produce and teruma may be eaten only throughout the fourth hour, and Rabban Gamliel had then said that ordinary produce may be eaten throughout the fourth hour while teruma may be eaten throughout the fifth hour, he would be considered a deciding Sage. But now that they did not speak about teruma at all, Rabban Gamliel is considered a third opinion and not one who decides between them.

Alternatively, one may say: Rav

ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda because

he stated an opinion like that of this tannaitic authority,

who established this as the halakha.

As it was taught in a beraita: The fourteenth

of Nisan

when it occurs on Shabbat, all leaven is removed

the leaven

before Shabbat.

And they burn

the

teruma

of leaven, both that which is

impure

and that which is

of uncertain status

possibly impure,

and

that which is

pure.

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.

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.

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.

The Gemara concludes its earlier explanation:

Is it not that

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

eaten

only until the fourth hour, as is clear from his words, that one leaves enough pure teruma for two meals in order to eat it until the fourth hour? This accords 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 they established the halakha in accordance with him only with regard to the requirement to

remove

even pure teruma on Friday, unlike his colleagues who disagree with him and hold that pure teruma should not be removed until the following day. But with regard to the time when eating teruma becomes prohibited, it is possible that the halakha does not follow him.

And Rabbi too agreed with this statement of Rav Naḥman,

that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

As Ravin bar Rav Adda said: An incident occurred involving a certain man who deposited a leather container

of leaven

The word is compound, meaning “two sacks.”

That is, two leather sacks,

full of leaven, with Yoḥanan Ḥakukaha

this was his nickname,

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

of it. It was the eve of Passover.

And

Yoḥanan

came before Rabbi

to ask whether he should sell the leaven immediately because it was steadily 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,

Rabbi said to him:

Rabbi:

Wait!

Perhaps the owner of the leaven will come and be able to eat it before the time when it becomes prohibited.

At the second

hour —

he said to him: “Wait!”

At the

third hour —

he said to him: “Wait!”

At the

fourth hour —

he said to him: “Wait!”

At the

fifth hour —

he said to him: “Go out and sell it in the marketplace!”

And we deduce:

Is it not that

Rabbi told him to sell it

to gentiles,

because at the fifth hour it is already forbidden to a Jew to eat, and therefore he told him that now, at the fifth hour, even if the owners arrive they will not be able to eat it, he should sell it to a gentile, while it is still permitted for benefit, and it is permitted for a Jew to sell it. And that is

in accordance with Rabbi Judah.

Thus Rabbi ruled in accordance with Rabbi Judah.

And we reject this:

Rav Yosef said: No!

Rather, Rabbi told him to sell it

to a Jew,

for even for a Jew it is still permitted to eat,

in accordance with Rabbi Meir,

who permits it even for eating throughout the entire fifth hour. And Rabbi’s intention was that he should hurry to sell it now, while there are Jewish buyers available who will purchase it.

Abaye said to him

to Rav Yosef:

If

you say

to a Jew

he told him to sell it, this is difficult: Why did Rabbi need to trouble him to go to the marketplace? For since he has permission to sell it,

let Yohanan take it

Yohanan

for himself,

let him take it for himself and eat it, and afterward pay its value to the owners?

Rav Yosef answered him: It is forbidden for a depositary to purchase the deposit for himself without the owners’ permission,

because of suspicion,

lest they suspect him of having purchased it at a price cheaper than the market price. Rather, he must specifically sell it to others.

And

as it was taught: Charity collectors

who have copper coins in their possession,

who do not have

at present

poor people to distribute

these coins to them, and they are concerned lest over time the coins may rust and become invalid,

exchange

them for silver selaim

to

people

other than themselves.

But

they do not

exchange

exchange

them

for themselves.

And likewise,

soup-kitchen collectors [

food collected from the townspeople for the poor]

who do not have poor people to distribute

the food to them,

sell

it

to others, and they do not sell

it

to themselves.

Because it is stated [Numbers 32:22]

«

“And you shall be clear before the Lord and before Israel,”

so that they will not suspect them of exchanging and purchasing for themselves cheaply.

So too with a deposit: the depositary may not purchase the deposit for himself, for the same reason.

Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rav Yosef: You explicitly said to us

that Rabbi said to Yohanan

“Go out and sell it to gentiles,”

and that is

in accordance with Rabbi Judah,

and not as you rejected just now, that he told him to sell it even to a Jew, in accordance with Rabbi Meir. [

Rav Yosef became ill and forgot his learning, and when he would err and alter his statements, his students would remind him: “Thus you taught us originally.” ]

Rav Yosef said: In accordance with whom does this teaching of Rabbi proceed,

whereby he instructed Yohanan to sell the deposit so that it would not be lost and the depositor would not suffer a loss?

In accordance with Rabbi

Shimon ben Gamliel.

For we learned

in Bava Metzia:

If one deposits produce with another, even if it is being lost,

as it is gradually rotting, he

may not touch it

to sell it [because a person prefers one kav of his own to nine kavs of another’s. That is, a person prefers his own produce even if it is little, to another’s produce even if it is much, Gemara there].

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says:

The depositary

sells it in

the presence

of a court, because of the returning of a lost object,

for he is saving his fellow’s produce from loss.

And here too, regarding leaven, according to the Sages, Yohanan would have been forbidden to sell the leaven deposited with him without the owners’ permission, despite the loss entailed in the matter. Only according to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel was it permitted for him to sell it. It follows that Rabbi instructed in accordance with the view of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel.