Pesachim 21a (כא.) — the Talmud in English

And when he said this,

they said to him:

the sages of his generation: “The halakha is not in accordance with your opinion.” Since

there is no third opinion that determines

the

decisive view.

For since Beit Shammai did not say, “Whether it is in the house or in the field, spill it out,” and since Beit Hillel did not say, “Whether it is in the house or in the field, use it for sprinkling,” it follows that it never entered their minds to distinguish in this matter.

Thus, they do not disagree concerning the concern of a mishap. Rather, Beit Shammai prohibited it for another reason. And your concern about a mishap constitutes a third approach, and has no connection at all to the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.

And this is what we say: “The concern of a mishap itself is subject to a dispute between tannaim,” as Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, and the Sages disagree about it.

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

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: The dispute

is when the teruma consists of a measure of one se'a, which

fell into fewer than one hundred se'ah of impure non-sacred produce.

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

But

if

the

teruma

fell into one hundred

se'ah of

impure non-sacred produce, everyone agrees that it should descend

into them

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

For the teruma is nullified in one hundred parts. Even if it falls into the non-sacred produce, it will be permitted for a non-kohen to eat it. And since there is no loss in this case, it is prohibited to render it impure gratuitously.

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

there was a measure of

one hundred

barrels of

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

And we raise an objection: What is

this

that it teaches,

“Rabbi Eliezer concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua”?

After all,

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

Since there is no loss of non-sacred produce in this case, everyone agrees that he should not render 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: Actually, do not reverse it.

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

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

Lest you say that we should decree

that he may 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 the teruma in the interior of the vessel, which is pure.

And you find this case with a vessel that became impure through liquids. Since its impurity is only rabbinic, if its exterior became impure, its interior did not become impure. The Sages were lenient with regard to its impurity so that it would be recognizable that it is impure only by rabbinic decree, lest people come to burn teruma and sacrificial foods that became impure through it.

We have completed the chapter Or le-Arba'a Asar

Mishna:

1.

Whenever it is permitted

for a person

to eat

from the chametz on the eve of Pesaḥ, the person

may feed

it

to an animal, a wild animal, or birds.

But when it is forbidden to eat from the chametz, it is likewise forbidden to feed it to one’s animal. For by doing so he derives benefit from the chametz, and at that point benefit from chametz is already forbidden.

And

so too, he

may sell chametz to a gentile

while it is permitted to eat, but not afterward, since selling it to a gentile is also included under deriving benefit.

And so too, he

may derive benefit from it.

The Gemara explains the necessity of this statement.

But when

the time

during which eating chametz is permitted has passed, that is, from the sixth hour onward,

it is forbidden

to

derive benefit from it.

And

even

one may not use it to heat

the

oven or

the

stove!

The Gemara will explain what this teaches us.

2.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The elimination of chametz is only

through

burning.

And the Sages say:

A person fulfills his obligation to eliminate the chametz

even

when he

crumbles it and scatters

it

to the wind, or

by

throwing

it

into the sea.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

Whenever it is permitted to eat, one may feed.

And we infer from it:

But whenever it is not permitted to eat,

it

may not be fed either!

For from the time that chametz becomes forbidden to eat, it is also forbidden to derive benefit from it.

We raise a difficulty:

Shall we say that the Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

but rather in accordance with Rabbi Meir?

For if

according

to Rabbi Yehuda, there is

an

fifth hour,

when even though

he does not eat

chametz during it, he nevertheless

may feed it!

For at that time benefit from chametz is still permitted.

And

as we learned: Rabbi Meir says: One may eat

chametz on the eve of Pesaḥ

through the entire fifth

of the first hours of the day,

and one burns

it

at the beginning of the sixth

hour.

By Torah law, chametz does not become forbidden until the beginning of the seventh hour. The Sages decreed that eating and deriving benefit from it are forbidden from the beginning of the sixth hour, because a person may err by one hour. We are concerned that he may err during the seventh hour and think that it is the sixth, thereby violating a Torah prohibition.

Rabbi Yehuda says: One may eat

chametz

through the entire fourth hour

only. This is a decree on account of an overcast day, when there is concern that one may err by two hours.

And one leaves

the chametz

until the entire fifth hour.

One may not eat from it, but it is not yet necessary to burn it, because benefit from it is still permitted.

And one burns it at the beginning of the sixth hour.

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

Therefore, the Mishna cannot be in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda. For according to him, during the fifth hour one may not eat, but one may still feed the chametz to one’s animal.

We are perplexed:

Rather, what

is the Mishna? Is it

Rabbi Meir’s?

According to him, the time when eating is forbidden and the time when deriving benefit is forbidden are identical. The wording of the Mishna nevertheless remains difficult.

For what is

this

that it teaches:

“Whenever it is permitted to eat, one may feed”?

“Whenever one may eat, one may feed”

should have been stated. For the wording “whenever it is permitted to eat, one may feed” implies that it is speaking of two people: whenever it is permitted for one person to eat, it is permitted for another person to feed. But according to Rabbi Meir, the same applies even to one person: whenever he himself may eat, he may feed.

The wording “whenever it is permitted to eat, one may feed” indicates that the statement is referring to two different people: Whenever it is permitted for one person to eat, it is permitted for another person to feed. But according to Rabbi Meir, the same is true even with regard to one person: Whenever he himself may eat, he may feed.

Rabba bar Ulla said: The Mishna is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel.

For we learned: Rabban Gamliel says:

Ḥullin chametz

may be eaten only through the entire fourth

hour, because the Sages were concerned about an error of two hours. But teruma chametz

may be eaten

through

the entire fifth

hour, because, since it is forbidden to cause teruma and consecrated property to be lost, the Sages decreed against them only for one hour.

Both teruma and non-sacred chametz remain permitted for benefit throughout the fifth hour,

and one burns

them

at the beginning of the sixth.

And the tanna of the Mishna likewise holds this view.

And this is what it is saying: Whenever

the fifth hour

during which it is permitted

to

the priest to eat teruma,

also

the Israelite may feed

during it

non-sacred food to an animal, a wild animal, or birds.

But afterward, when eating teruma has already become forbidden to the priest, deriving benefit from non-sacred food is likewise forbidden to the Israelite.

We learned in the Mishna: One may feed it to an animal, a wild animal, or birds.

We raise a difficulty:

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

also

“wild animal”?

It would have been sufficient for the tanna to teach us one of them, that it is permitted to feed them chametz throughout the fifth hour.

And we answer:

Both are necessary

for us.

If the tanna had taught

“animal”

alone, I might have said that one may feed chametz specifically to an animal, because

even

if it leaves some of the chametz uneaten, it is not its practice to conceal it. And since

if it leaves some

the owner sees the chametz that it left, he will eliminate it.

can see

the leavened bread that it left, he will remove it.

But

with a

wild animal,

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

And if it leaves some, it will conceal it

the chametz that it left, and the owner will not find it and will not eliminate it, and he will violate the prohibition of bal yimatze, “it shall not be found.” Therefore,

I might say that he should not

feed it even before the time of the prohibition.

And if the tanna had taught

“wild animal,”

I might have said that one may feed chametz specifically to a wild animal,

because

even

if it leaves some

of the chametz, the owner would not violate bal yera'eh, “it shall not be seen,” because

at least it conceals

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

Text missing (Chavruta)

But with an animal, sometimes it leaves some of the chametz, and he does not take this into account, and he thereby violates bal yera'eh and bal yimatze. I might say that this is also unnecessary.

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

“And he may sell it to a gentile”: Obviously. This excludes 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 consumed before Pesaḥ; and Beit Hillel say: Whenever it is permitted to eat, it is permitted to sell.