Pesachim 2b (ב:) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara infers:

since he says

at the end of the verse

“And at night he is like a thief,” it follows that “light”

at the beginning of the verse

refers to daytime.

The verse is saying: During the day, when travelers are on the roads, the murderer stands at the crossroads and kills people, taking their money. And at night he becomes like a thief, who breaks into houses and steals.

This is difficult for Rav Yehuda!

And we answer:

There,

the verse is not referring at all to the times of day and night. Rather, it comes to explain the law of a thief who comes through a tunnel, whom the Torah grants permission to kill, as it is stated: “If the thief is discovered while tunneling, and he is struck and dies, there is no bloodguilt against him.”

And

this is what it is saying: “The murderer rises in the light”:

“Let a murderer rise in the light”;

if the matter is as clear to you as daylight—

if it is as clear to you as the sun

that he has come with regard to a matter involving lives,

that he has come to endanger your life, for if you do not allow him to take your money, he will kill you—

he is a murderer, and permission is granted

to everyone to kill him in order

to save

the owner of the money

at the cost of

the thief’s life, since his status is that of a pursuer.

And with regard to anyone who comes through a tunnel, it is clear to us that he has come with intent to endanger lives, except for a father who comes to steal from his son, and any similar case, where it is known that he loves him greatly, and presumably he will not kill him.

But if the matter is uncertain to you like the night,

like the darkness of night—that is, it is not clear as daylight that he has come to kill you, as in the case of a father who comes through a tunnel into his son’s house, whose compassion for his son is great, and even if the son stands up to defend his property, his father will not kill him—

let him be regarded in your eyes as merely a thief

and not as a murderer,

and permission is not granted to save

the son

at the cost of

the father’s life.

The text raises an objection to Rav Yehuda from what Job said when cursing the day of his birth:

“

“May the stars of his twilight be darkened

[his night],

may it await light

[day],

but there be none; and may it not see the eyelids

[rays]

of dawn.”

And the Gemara infers:

since he says

“May it await light, but there be none,” it follows that

“light”

refers to daytime!

And we answer:

There, Job is cursing his fortune

with a curse;

Job did not curse the day, but rather himself and his bad fortune.

Job said:

May it be the will

may it be the will

that he await

he should await

that man

[Job]

the light, but not find it.

That he should await the appearance of light but not find it.

Thus, the “light” mentioned here is not the name of the day, for the verse does not mean that he should await the day; rather, he should await something that gives light.

The text raises an objection

to Rav Yehuda from what King David said (Psalms 139:11):

“And I said: Surely darkness will crush me, and night will be light for me.”

And this is what David said: When I was pursued, I thought that this darkness would crush me [from the expression “twilight,” which means night], that it would always darken over me until I died. But in the end it was transformed for the good, for the night and darkness became light for me.

And from the fact that David said that the night became light for him,

it follows that

“light”

refers to daytime.

For the opposite of night is day.

And we answer: The verse does not refer literally to night and day. Rather,

there, this is what David said: I said

because of my sin in the matter of Bathsheba,

“Surely darkness will crush me,”

and even

the World to Come, which resembles daytime

I would have no share in it.

Now,

that my sin concerning Bathsheba has been forgiven, even

this world, which

was

like

a night

to me,

because I dwelled in it in darkness and disgrace, is

“light for me”;

the Holy One, blessed be He, illuminated it for me. For the Holy One, blessed be He, informed David’s enemies in the days of Solomon that He had forgiven him. This occurred when Solomon sought to bring the Ark into the Holy of Holies, and the doors clung to one another, until Solomon said: “Lord God, do not reject the face of Your anointed; remember the kindnesses of David Your servant,” and he was immediately answered. At that moment, the faces of David’s enemies became like the bottoms of pots, and everyone knew that the Holy One, blessed be He, had forgiven him for that sin. [Shabbat 30a].

The text raises an objection

to Rav Huna from the Mishna below (12b):

Rabbi Yehuda says: One examines

the leaven

on the light of the fourteenth, on the morning of the fourteenth, and at the time of the removal.

That is, at the sixth hour. In other words, if he did not examine it at the first time, he examines it at the second; if he did not examine it at the second, he examines it at the third.

And

since Rabbi Yehuda says

“One examines on the light of the fourteenth and on the morning of the fourteenth,” it follows that

“the light

of the fourteenth” does not refer to the morning, but rather

is the night

[or],

is it not!?

And we conclude:

Conclude from this

in accordance with Rav Yehuda!

Another

objection is raised

to Rav Huna: We learned below (50a) that in a place where the custom is not to perform labor on the eve of Passover, even before midday, one may not perform labor.

And a beraita teaches concerning this:

From when

is the day

of the fourteenth forbidden for performing labor

in a place where the custom is not to perform labor?

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: From the time of light.

That is, from the beginning of the night of the fourteenth. But before then, even if they were accustomed not to perform labor, their opinion is disregarded, and it is not considered a valid custom.

Rabbi Yehuda says: From sunrise

of the fourteenth alone.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said to Rabbi Yehuda:

But the day follows the night, and the fourteenth day begins with the night preceding it.

Where do we ever find a day part of which is forbidden for performing labor and part of which is permitted for performing labor!?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yehuda:

It

[the fourteenth day]

itself proves

that it is indeed possible for that same day to have differing laws.

For

there is

a part

of the fourteenth day

when eating leaven is permitted, and a part when eating leaven is forbidden.

For by Torah law, eating leaven on the eve of Passover is permitted until the sixth hour of the day. Just as the fourteenth of Nisan is divided with regard to leaven between before midday and after midday, so too one can say that it is divided with regard to performing labor between the night of the fourteenth and its day.

And the Gemara proves:

since Rabbi Yehuda says

“from sunrise,” it follows that

the “light”

mentioned by Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

is the night!

And we answer:

No.

“Light” is not an expression referring to night. Rather,

what is

“light”?

Dawn!

According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, performing labor is forbidden beginning at dawn of the fourteenth, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda, it is forbidden only from sunrise. And we challenge this:

If so,

what

he said to him

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov to Rabbi Yehuda:

“Where do we find a day part of which is permitted for performing labor and part of which is forbidden for performing labor?”

will be difficult for him himself. For even according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, the prohibition does not begin at the beginning of the night, but only at dawn. If so,

let him say to himself,

let Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov raise the difficulty against himself:

There is a night during which labor is permitted,

so how can we divide the day from the night in their laws, when both of them constitute one day!?

And we answer:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov is saying this: Granted, according to me,

who maintain that only the night is permitted, whereas the entire day is forbidden from dawn, the matter is understandable. For although the prohibition against labor on the eve of Passover is only rabbinic, nevertheless,

we find that the Sages divided

I have found that the Sages made distinctions in their decrees

between daytime and nighttime,

making one permitted and the other forbidden.

As

it is taught with regard to a communal fast: Until when

may a person

eat and drink

during the night of the fast?

Until dawn,

because the fast does not begin at night, but only during the day,

the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

Rabbi Shimon says:

It is permitted to eat and drink only

until the rooster crows

[in the early morning], which is shortly before dawn.

Thus, we find with regard to a rabbinic prohibition that the Sages prohibited eating only during the day and not during the preceding night. Accordingly, it is possible to say the same with regard to the prohibition against labor on the eve of Passover.

But according to you

[Rabbi Yehuda], who divided the prohibition against performing labor between before sunrise and after sunrise, this is difficult. For from dawn it is already day, and

where do we find that the Sages themselves divided daytime,

forbidding only part of it!?

Concerning this,

he said to him,

Rav Yehuda:

It

[the fourteenth day]

itself proves that part of it is permitted for eating leaven and part of it is forbidden for eating leaven.

Thus, even within the day itself, it is possible for one part to be permitted and another part forbidden.

And we consider the matter:

Rabbi Yehuda has stated a sound argument to Rabbi Eliezer

ben Yaakov. Why did he not accept his words?

And we answer: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov did indeed respond to him, and

this is what Rabbi Eliezer

ben Yaakov said to Rabbi Yehuda:

I said,

I challenged

you

regarding

labor

that is forbidden by

rabbinic decree,

and I argued that we do not find that the Sages generally divided the laws of the day itself in their decrees.

But

if

you had said

you had answered

me

that we find that the day is divided in its laws with regard to

leaven,

which is

by Torah law,

we could say that this is the decree of the verse:

For until this point the Merciful One forbade it, and from this point the Merciful One permitted it.

The Torah prohibited eating leaven only during part of the day. But this is no proof concerning rabbinic prohibitions, for it is not the practice of the Sages to decree a prohibition for only part of the day!?

And the other one,

Rabbi Yehuda, responded: One can prove this from the

fifth

and sixth hours on the fourteenth, during which deriving benefit from and eating leaven is prohibited only

by rabbinic decree.

For the Sages added these hours to the Torah prohibition, which applies only from the sixth hour onward [as we learned below [11b]: one may eat throughout the first four hours, one suspends judgment throughout the fifth, and one burns the leaven at the beginning of the sixth]. Thus, even the Sages sometimes enacted their decrees for only part of the day and not for the entire day.

And the other one,

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov holds that even the hours during which leaven is prohibited by rabbinic decree are not comparable to the prohibition against performing work on Passover eve.

For in this decree concerning leaven,

the Sages made a distancing safeguard for

the

Torah-level

prohibition, as they decreed this because of a cloudy day. If we were to permit eating leaven after the fourth hour, people who are not proficient in calculating the hours of the day might err between the fifth and seventh hours and eat even after midday, when leaven is prohibited by Torah law. Therefore, they decreed only for part of the day.

But the prohibition against performing work on the fourteenth, which is entirely rabbinic, once they enacted the decree, they enacted it for the entire day.

Further,

meitivi

an objection to Rav Huna from that which was taught in a beraita: When the court would sanctify the month based on sighting the moon, they would light signal fires [torches] on the mountaintops to announce that the court had sanctified the month that day.

They would not raise

[light]

signal fires except for a month whose new moon was seen at its proper time for sanctification.

That is, only if witnesses came on the thirtieth day of the month and testified that they had seen the moon on that day, in which case the court would sanctify that day as the beginning of the new month, would they raise signal fires to announce it.

But if witnesses did not come on that day [in which case the moon was not “seen for sanctification,” since the court would not then sanctify the thirty-first day, as Heaven had already sanctified it, and it would consequently become the New Moon automatically]—they would not raise signal fires. This was a sign that the preceding month was extended, and that the New Moon would be established only on the thirty-first day.

And when would they raise signal fires? —

At the light of its extension.

That is, on the night following the thirtieth day,

in order to announce that the day had been sanctified as the New Moon. The thirtieth day is called the day of extension, because if the month was not sanctified until the thirty-first day, the preceding month became extended by that day.

Apparently,

“light”

means night!

For they certainly would raise the signal fires only at night, since during the day they would not be visible from a distance. This is difficult for Rav Huna!

And we conclude:

shema minah

that it is like Rav Yehuda!

And conversely,

meitivi

an objection to Rav Yehuda from that which was taught in a beraita: The koanim are required to sanctify their hands and feet by washing them with water from the basin when they come to begin their service in the Temple.

And every morning they were required to sanctify their hands and feet anew, even if he

had

the koen

standing throughout the entire night and offering on the altar,

nevertheless,

when it became light,

when daybreak arrived, he

was required

again to undergo

the sanctification of the hands and feet,

the words of

Rabbi.

This is so despite the fact that he had already sanctified them at the beginning of his service, because Rabbi holds that linah, that is, allowing the night to pass, invalidates the sanctification of the hands and feet.

Apparently, “light” means day. And this is difficult for Rav Yehuda?

And we answer:

“Light”

is different.

And Rav Yehuda too agrees that in this expression it is a term for day.

Mar Zutra meitivi

to Rav Huna: It is stated in the Torah that a woman who gives birth brings an offering after the completion of her days of purification. That is, after forty days following the birth of a male, and after eighty days following the birth of a female.

And the Sages expounded from that which is stated, “This is the law of the woman who gives birth,” that the verse uses the word “law” to include that a woman who gives birth may bring a single offering for several children.

Conversely, it is stated, “This,” which is an exclusion, to teach that only if the second child was born within the days of purification following the first birth, while she had not yet become obligated to bring an offering for that birth, may she discharge her obligation with a single offering for both births. But if the second child was born after the completion of the days of purification of the first child, and she had already become obligated to bring an offering for it, she must bring a separate offering for the second birth.

This is possible only in the case of the birth of a female, for whom immersion takes place at the end of two weeks from her birth. If she became pregnant again and miscarried [a fetus that was at least forty days old] within the period of completion of the days of purification, that is, within eighty days, she brings one offering for both births. But if she miscarried after eighty days from the first birth, she must bring two offerings after the completion of the days of purification following the second birth.

[But after the birth of a male, it is impossible for her to miscarry another fetus within forty days of his birth and for that fetus to be forty days old. For one must subtract the first seven days, during which she is impure with the impurity of childbirth, and she cannot become pregnant during that time. And for the birth of a fetus that is less than forty days old, one is not obligated to bring a childbirth offering.]