Pesachim 21a — the Talmud in English

And when he said this matter,

his contemporaries said to him:

“The halakha is not in accordance with you.” For

a third determination

of opinion

is not determinative.

For since Beit Shammai did not say, “Whether in the house or in the field, pour it out,” and since Beit Hillel did not say, “Whether in the house or in the field, use it for sprinkling,” it follows that it did not enter their minds at all to distinguish in this matter.

It is evident, then, that they do not disagree concerning the mishap. Rather, Beit Shammai prohibited it for another reason. And this concern that you raised regarding the mishap is a third position, and has no connection whatsoever with the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.

And this is what we say: “The mishap itself—it is a dispute among tannaim,” for Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis disagree about it.

We learned above: If a barrel of teruma broke, and so on; and if not, Rabbi Eliezer says: Let it descend and become impure, but he should not make it impure by hand. And Rabbi Yehoshua says: He should make it impure by hand!

Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said: The dispute

is when there is a measure of a se’a of teruma, which

fell into fewer than one hundred se’a of impure non-sacred produce.

For teruma is not nullified by a majority of non-sacred produce until there are in the non-sacred produce one hundred measures corresponding to it. But when there is less than this, it renders the entire mixture prohibited. And in such a case there is a considerable loss of non-sacred produce.

But

if

teruma

fell

into one hundred

se’a of

impure non-sacred produce, according to everyone let it descend

into them

and become impure, but he should not make it impure by hand.

For teruma is nullified in one hundred. And even if it falls into the non-sacred produce, it will be permitted for a non-priest to eat it. And since there is no loss in this, it is forbidden to make it impure gratuitously.

It was also taught so: If a barrel broke in the upper winepress, and beneath it there are

a measure of

one hundred

barrels of

impure non-sacred produce, Rabbi Eliezer concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua that if he can save from it a quarter-log in purity, he should save it. And if not, let it descend and become impure, but he should not make it impure by hand.

And we raise an objection: What is

this

that it teaches,

“Rabbi Eliezer concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua”?

But

“Rabbi Yehoshua concedes to Rabbi Eliezer” is what it should have taught!

Since there is no loss of non-sacred produce here, according to everyone he should not make it impure, as stated above.

Rava said: Reverse it.

And this is what it teaches: “Rabbi Yehoshua concedes to Rabbi Eliezer.”

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: In truth, do not reverse it.

And it refers not to the latter clause but to the first clause. For that which it teaches, “If he can save from it a quarter-log in purity, he should save it”—

with what are we dealing here? With a vessel whose interior is pure and whose exterior is impure.

Lest you say, let us decree

that he should not save the pure teruma in it, because

perhaps its exterior

the impure part of the vessel

will touch the teruma

and render it impure.

It teaches us

that Rabbi Eliezer concedes that we are not concerned about this, and it is permitted to save it in the interior of the vessel, which is pure.

And you find this in a vessel that became impure through liquids. Since its impurity is only rabbinic, if its exterior became impure, its interior did not become impure. For the Sages were lenient regarding its impurity, so that there would be an indication in it that it is impure only by rabbinic decree, so that people would not come to burn teruma and consecrated things that became impure through it.

We have returned to you, chapter “The Light for the Fourteenth.”

Mishna:

1.

Every hour during which it is permitted

for a person

to eat

from the chametz on the eve of Pesach, the person

feeds

from it

to an animal, to a wild animal, and to birds.

But during the hour when it is forbidden to eat from the chametz, it is also forbidden to feed it to his animal. For through this he derives benefit from the chametz, and at that point benefit from the chametz is already forbidden.

And

so too he

sells to a gentile

chametz while it is permitted for eating, but not afterward. For even the sale to a gentile is included in benefit.

And so he

is permitted to derive benefit from it.

And the Gemara explains what this is needed for.

But when

its permitted time has passed—

that is, from six hours onward—

it is forbidden

to him

to derive benefit from it.

And

also

he may not use it to heat

the

oven

and the

stove!

And the Gemara will explain what it teaches us.

b.

Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no removal of chametz except

by

burning.

And the Sages say:

A person fulfills his obligation of removing the chametz

e

ven when he

crumbles it and scatters

it

to the wind, or

by

throwing

it

into the sea.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

Every hour during which it is permitted to eat, he feeds.

And we deduce from it:

But every hour during which it is not permitted to eat,

also

he does not feed!

For from the time when the chametz becomes forbidden for eating, it also becomes forbidden for benefit.

We raise it:

Shall we say that the Mishna is not according to Rabbi Yehuda,

but according to Rabbi Meir?

For if

according to

Rabbi Yehuda, there is

an hour,

the fifth,

when even though

he does not eat

chametz during it, nevertheless he

feeds!

For at that time benefit from the chametz is still permitted.

And

as we learned: Rabbi Meir says: One eats

the chametz on the eve of Pesach

the entire fifth

of the first hours of the day,

and burns

it

at the beginning of the sixth

hour.

For by Torah law the chametz does not become forbidden except from the beginning of the seventh hour. And the Sages decreed to forbid its eating and its benefit from the beginning of the sixth hour, because a person errs by one hour. And we are concerned lest he err during the seventh hour and think that it is the sixth, and transgress a prohibition of Torah law.

Rabbi Yehuda says: One eats

chametz

the entire fourth

only. This is a decree on account of a cloudy day, during which there is concern that one will err by two hours.

And one suspends

the chametz

the entire fifth.

For one does not eat from it, but he still does not need to burn it, since benefit from it is still permitted.

And one burns at the beginning of the sixth.

For they also decreed concerning benefit during the sixth hour. However, they were not as stringent concerning benefit as concerning eating, and with regard to it they were concerned only about an error of one hour.

Therefore, the Mishna cannot be according to Rabbi Yehuda. For according to him, during the fifth hour he does not eat, but he still feeds his animal from the chametz during it.

And we are astonished:

Rather, what

is the Mishna?

Is it Rabbi Meir?

According to him, the time of the prohibition of eating and the time of the prohibition of benefit are equal. And the wording of the Mishna still presents a difficulty.

For what is

this

that it teaches:

“Every hour during which it is permitted to eat, he feeds”?

“Every hour during which he eats, he feeds”

it should have taught

it. For the wording, “it is permitted to eat, he feeds,” implies that it is speaking of two people: Every hour during which it is permitted for this one to eat, it is permitted for his fellow to feed. But according to Rabbi Meir, it is so even with the same person: Whenever he himself eats, he feeds.

Rabba bar Ulla said: The Mishna is according to Rabban Gamliel.

For we learned: Rabban Gamliel says:

My

non-sacred chametz is eaten during the entire fourth

hours only, because the Sages were concerned in its case about an error of two hours. But chametz of

tithes

is eaten

during the entire fifth

hour, because since it is forbidden to cause a loss to teruma and consecrated things, the Sages decreed in their case only one hour.

And both teruma and non-sacred produce are permitted for benefit during the entire fifth hour,

and one burns

them

at the beginning of the sixth.

And the tanna of the Mishna likewise holds this.

And this is what it says: Every hour

of the

fifth

during which it is

permitted for a kohen to eat teruma,

also

the Israelite feeds

during it

non-sacred produce to an animal, a wild animal, and birds.

But afterward, when the kohen has already become forbidden to eat teruma, the Israelite is likewise forbidden to derive benefit from the non-sacred produce.

We learned in the Mishna: He feeds it to an animal, to a wild animal, and to birds.

And we raise it:

Why do I need it to teach animal, and why do I need it to teach

also

wild animal?

For it would be enough if the tanna taught us one of them, that it is permitted to feed them chametz throughout the fifth hour.

And we answer:

It is necessary

for both of them.

For if it taught

“animal”

only, I would say that he feeds specifically an animal, because

for

even

if it leaves over

some of the chametz, it is not its way to conceal it. And since

it is visible to him

the chametz that it left over, the owner will remove it.

But

with a

wild animal,

we are concerned that it may leave over some of the chametz.

And if it leaves some over, it conceals it

—the chametz that it left over—and the owner will not find it and will not remove it, and he will transgress it through “it shall not be found.” Therefore,

say: No

he should not feed it even before the time of the prohibition.

And if it taught

“wild animal,”

I would say that he feeds specifically a wild animal.

Because

even

if it leaves some over

from the chametz, the owner will not transgress “it shall not be seen” because

at any rate it conceals

the chametz, and it is not visible to the eye [and he transgresses only “it shall not be found”] .

Text is missing (Chavruta)

But an animal sometimes leaves some over, and he does not take it into account, and the prohibition of “it shall not be seen” and “it shall not be found” rests upon him. Say: It is unnecessary.

As for birds, why do I need them? Since he taught animal and wild animal, he also taught birds.

“And he sells it to a gentile”: It is obvious; it is needed to exclude the following tanna, as it was taught in a beraita: Beit Shammai say: A person may not sell his chametz to a gentile unless he knows that it will be finished before Pesach. And Beit Hillel say: Every hour during which it is permitted to eat, it is permitted to sell.