Pesachim 2b — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara deduces:

since he says

at the end of the verse

“and at night he will be like a thief,” it follows that “light”

at the beginning of the verse

is daytime.

For the verse says: During the day, when travelers are walking, the murderer stands at the crossroads and kills people and takes their money. And at night he becomes like a thief, who breaks into houses and steals.

And this is difficult for Rav Yehuda!

And we answer:

There,

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

And

this is what it says: “A murderer rises at light”:

“A murderer rises at light,”

if the matter is as clear to you as daylight,

if it is clear to you as the sun

that he has come concerning lives,

that he has come for matters involving lives—that if you do not allow him to take your money, he will kill you—

he is a murderer, and permission is granted

to every person to kill him, in order

to save

the owner of the money

by his life,

the life of the thief, whose law is that of a pursuer.

And with everyone who comes through a tunnel, it is clear to us that he has come concerning lives, except for a father who comes to steal from his son, and anything similar, where he recognizes that he loves him greatly, and presumably he will not kill him.

And if the matter is doubtful to you like night,

like the darkness of night—that is, it is not clear as the sun that he has come to kill you, as, for example, a father who comes through a tunnel to his son’s house, whose compassion for his son is abundant, and even if the son stands up for his money, his father will not kill him—

let him be in your eyes as merely a thief

and not as a murderer,

and permission is not granted to save

the son

by the life

of the father.

He raised an objection

to Rav Yehuda from what Job said [Job 3:8] when cursing the day of his birth:

“May the stars of his twilight be darkened

[his night],

may he hope for light

[day],

and there be none; and may he not see with the eyelids of

[the glimmers of]

dawn.”

And the Gemara deduces:

since he says

“may he hope for light, and there be none,” it follows that

“light”

is daytime!

And we answer:

There, Job is cursing his constellation

—he is cursing his fortune.

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

As Job said:

May it be the will

may it be the will

that he should await

should await

this man

[Job]

the light, but not find it.

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

For the “light” mentioned here is not the name of the day, since the intention of the verse is not that he should hope for day, but that he should hope for something that gives light.

He raised 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 surely crush me [from the language of “twilight,” which is night], that it would always darken over me until I died. But in the end it was transformed for the good, so that 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”

is daytime.

For the opposite of night is day.

And we answer: The intention of the verse is not literally night and day, but rather

there, this is what David said: I said

because of my sin, the transgression of Bathsheba,

“Surely darkness will crush me,”

and even

in the World to Come, which resembles day,

I will have no portion.

Now

that my transgression involving Bathsheba has been forgiven, even

this World, which

had been

resembling

to me

night,

because I was dwelling 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 Solomon’s days that He had forgiven him. This was when Solomon sought to bring the Ark into the Holy of Holies, and the doors clung to one another, until Solomon said: “O Lord God, do not turn away the face of Your anointed one; remember the kindnesses of David Your servant,” and he was answered immediately. At that moment the faces of David’s enemies became like the bottom of a pot, and everyone knew that the Holy One, blessed be He, had forgiven him for that transgression. [Shabbat 30a].

He raised an objection

to Rav Huna from the Mishna below [12b]:

Rabbi Yehuda says: They examine

the leaven

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

That is, at the sixth hour. Meaning, if he did not examine at the first time, he should examine at the second; if he did not examine at the second, he should examine at the third.

And

since Rabbi Yehuda says

“They examine on the light of the fourteenth and on the fourteenth in the morning,” it follows that

“the light

of the fourteenth” is not in the morning, but

is evening

[night]

!?

And we conclude:

Learn from this

in accordance with Rav Yehuda!

Another

objection

to Rav Huna: We learned below [50a] that in a place where they are accustomed not to perform work on the eve of Passover even before midday, they do not perform it.

And a beraita teaches concerning this:

From when

is the day

of the fourteenth forbidden in performing work,

in a place where they are accustomed not to perform work?

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

That is, from the beginning of the night of the fourteenth. But before that, even if they were accustomed not to perform work, their opinion is nullified, and it is not considered a custom.

Rabbi Yehuda says: From the time of sunrise

of the fourteenth day only.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said to Rabbi Yehuda:

But the day follows the night. And the fourteenth day begins from the night preceding it.

And where have we found a day, part of which is forbidden in performing work and part of which is permitted in performing work!?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yehuda:

It

[the fourteenth day]

itself proves

that it is indeed possible for that very day to be divided in its laws.

For

indeed,

part of it

of the fourteenth day

is permitted for eating leaven, and part of it is forbidden for eating leaven.

For eating leaven on the eve of Passover is permitted by Torah law until six hours of the day. And just as the fourteenth of Nisan is divided with regard to leaven between before midday and after midday, so one may say that it is divided with regard to performing work between the night of the fourteenth and its day.

And the Gemara proves:

since Rabbi Yehuda says

“from the time of sunrise,” it follows that

“light”

which Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says—

is evening!

And we answer:

No. “Light”

is not an appellation for night. Rather,

what

is “light”?

Dawn!

According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, performing work becomes forbidden from the dawn of the fourteenth day, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda, only from sunrise. And we object:

If so,

what

he says

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov to Rabbi Yehuda:

“Where have we found a day, part of which is permitted in performing work and part of which is forbidden in performing work?”

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 from dawn; and if so,

let him say to himself:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov should raise this difficulty against himself:

there is a night during which work is permitted,

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

And we answer:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says this: Granted, according to me,

who hold that only the night is permitted, whereas the entire day is forbidden from dawn, this is understandable. For even though the prohibition of work on the eve of Passover is only rabbinic, nevertheless,

we find that the Sages divided

I have found that the Sages divided in their enactments

between daytime and nighttime,

so that one is permitted and the other is forbidden.

As

it is taught concerning a communal fast: Until when

does a person

eat and drink

on the night of the fast?

Until dawn rises,

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’s call

[the rooster, toward morning], which is shortly before dawn.

Thus we find that concerning a rabbinic prohibition, the Sages forbade only during the day and not during the night preceding it. If so, it is possible to say the same concerning the prohibition of work on the eve of Passover.

But according to you

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

where do we find that the Sages themselves divided daytime,

and forbade only part of it!?

And 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 during the day itself, it is possible that one part is permitted and another part is forbidden.

And we examine this:

Rabbi Yehuda has spoken well to Rabbi Eliezer

ben Yaakov. Why, then, did he not accept his words?

And we answer: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov indeed answered him, and

this is what Rabbi Eliezer

ben Yaakov said to Rabbi Yehuda:

I said,

I raised a difficulty

to you, I,

concerning

work

that is forbidden by

rabbinic law,

and I argued to you that we do not find that the Sages were accustomed, in their enactments, to divide the laws of the day itself,

but

if

you had said,

you had answered

me

that we find that the day is divided in its laws concerning

leaven,

which is

from the Torah,

and it is possible to say that this is the decree of Scripture,

for until here the Merciful One forbade, and until here the Merciful One permitted.

The Torah forbade eating leaven only during part of the day. But this is not proof concerning rabbinic prohibitions, for the Sages are not accustomed to enact decrees applying only during part of the day!?

And the other one,

Rabbi Yehuda replied: what can be proved from the

hours

the fifth and the sixth on the fourteenth day, which are forbidden in deriving benefit from and eating leaven only

by rabbinic decree.

For the Sages added them to the Torah prohibition, which applies only from the sixth hour onward [as we learned below [11b]: one eats throughout the fourth hour, suspends judgment throughout the fifth, and burns at the beginning of the sixth]. Thus, even the Sages sometimes decreed their decrees only for part of the day and not for all of it.

And the other one,

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov holds that even the hours of the prohibition of leaven by rabbinic decree are not comparable to the prohibition of work on the eve of Passover.

For with regard to this decree concerning leaven,

the Sages made a distancing for

the prohibition

of Torah law,

for they decreed because of a cloudy day. For if we were to permit eating leaven after the fourth hour, people who are not expert in the hours of the day would err between the fifth and the seventh hour and would eat even after midday, when leaven is forbidden by Torah law; therefore, they decreed only for part of the day. But the prohibition against doing work on the fourteenth day, which is entirely by rabbinic decree, since they decreed, they decreed for the entire 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

against Rav Huna from that which was taught in a beraita: When the court would sanctify the month on the basis of sighting the moon, they would light beacons [torches] on the mountaintops, to inform [people] that on that day the court had sanctified the month.

They light beacons [

lighting ]

only for a month that appeared at its proper time to be sanctified.

That is, only if the witnesses came on the thirtieth day of the month and testified that they had seen the moon on it; then the court would sanctify that day as the beginning of the month, and they would light beacons to inform [people] of this.

But if witnesses did not come on that day [then the moon was not “seen to be sanctified,” since the court would not then sanctify the thirty-first day, because Heaven had already sanctified it; rather, the beginning of the month would be established on that day by itself], they would not light beacons. This was a sign that the previous month was made full, and the beginning of the month was established only on the thirty-first day.

And when do they light beacons? -

By the light of its intercalation.

That is, on the night following the thirtieth day,

in order to inform [people] that that day had been sanctified as the beginning of the month. For the thirtieth day is called the day of intercalation, because if the month was not sanctified until the thirty-first day, the preceding month became full on the thirtieth day.

Evidently,

“or”

is orhta!

For certainly they would light the beacons only at night, since during the day they would not be seen from a distance. And this is a difficulty against Rav Huna!

And we conclude:

shema minah

that it is like Rav Yehuda!

And conversely,

meitivi

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

And every day in the morning they were obligated to sanctify their hands and their feet anew, and even if

the

priest

stood all night and offered [parts of offerings] on the altar,

nevertheless,

when it became light,

when the day became light at dawn, he

requires

again

sanctification of the hands and feet,

the words of

Rabbi.

And this is so even though he had already sanctified them at the beginning of his service. For Rabbi holds that linah, that is, the passing of the night, invalidates the sanctification of the hands and feet.

Evidently, “or” means daytime. And this is a difficulty against Rav Yehuda?

And we answer:

“orah”

is different.

And Rav Yehuda too agrees concerning it that it is an expression of day.

Mar Zutra meitivi

against Rav Huna: It is stated in the Torah that a woman who gives birth brings an offering after the completion of her days of purity. 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’s [use of] “law” comes to include that the woman who gives birth may bring one offering for several offspring.

And conversely, “this” is stated, which is a limitation, to say that only if the second offspring is born within the days of purity of the first birth, when she has not yet become obligated to bring an offering for that birth, can she fulfill her obligation with one offering for both births. But if the second is born after the completion of the days of purity of the first offspring, and she has already become obligated to bring an offering for it, she must bring a separate offering for the second birth.

And this is possible only with the birth of a female, for she immerses at the end of two weeks from her birth. And if she became pregnant again and miscarried [a fetus at least forty days old] within the completion of the days of purity, that is, within eighty days, she brings one offering for both of them. But if she miscarried after eighty days from the first birth, she must bring two offerings after the completion of the days of purity of the second birth. [

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