Pesachim 49a (מט.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

The fourteenth of

Nisan

that occurs on Shabbat,

when it is impossible to remove the leaven on it in the prescribed manner—

one removes everything,

both non-sacred produce and teruma,

before Shabbat,

except for what he needs for the Shabbat meals,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say:

He should remove it on Shabbat

at its proper time,

which is during the sixth hour of Passover eve; it is not necessary to remove it before Shabbat, since it is possible that people will be found to eat it before the time when it becomes forbidden.

Rabbi Eliezer bar Tzadok says:

The leaven of

teruma

he should remove

before Shabbat,

because there are not many people who eat it, since it is permitted only to kohanim. It is also forbidden to feed it to the animals of non-kohanim; it may be fed only to the animals of kohanim.

But

non-sacred produce

he removes on Shabbat

at its proper time,

since he can find many people to eat it.

Gemara:

The Gemara brings proof from an incident that the halakha is in accordance with the Sages, that it is not necessary to remove the leaven before Shabbat; rather, it is possible to remove it on Shabbat itself by eating the leaven.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer bar Tzadok says: Once my father spent Shabbat in Yavne.

And the fourteenth

of Nisan

occurred on Shabbat.

And Zunin came,

who was

Rabban Gamliel’s appointee, and said: The time has arrived to remove the leaven!

I followed my father, and we removed the leaven.

This indicates that the time to remove the leaven arrived only on Shabbat, and not on the preceding Friday. For if it were necessary to remove everything on Friday, except for what was needed for the Shabbat meals, and they had already eaten the Shabbat meal, Rabban Gamliel’s appointee should not have announced: “The time has arrived to remove the leaven.”

Mishna:

One who is going

on the fourteenth of Nisan

to slaughter his Paschal offering,

or

to circumcise his son,

or

to eat a betrothal feast at the home of his father-in-law,

and remembers that he has leaven in his house

that he has not yet removed:

If

he

can return

to his house

and remove it,

and afterward

return to perform his mitzva—

he should return and remove it,

and afterward return to perform his mitzva.

But if not,

that is, if by returning to remove it he will forfeit his mitzva, he should not return home to remove the leaven; rather, he

nullifies it in his heart.

For according to Torah law, nullification is sufficient, and he is obligated to remove it only by rabbinic law. In a case involving a passing mitzva, they did not obligate him to remove it; rather, they left him subject to the Torah-law requirement.

One who is going on the fourteenth of Nisan

to rescue

the Israelites pursued

by gentiles,

or to rescue them

from a river,

or

from bandits,

or

from a fire,

or

from a collapsed building, and remembers that he has leaven in his house—he should not return to remove it. Even if he will subsequently have enough time to return and rescue them, he should instead

and remembers that he has leaven in his house should not return to remove it, even if he will have time afterward to return and rescue them. Rather, he

nullify

the leaven

in his heart,

and that is sufficient.

If he went on Passover eve in order to reach a particular place before the festival began

and spend Shabbat

there [so that during the festival he could walk two thousand cubits in every direction from that place, in accordance with the laws of the Shabbat limit]—if he does so for the purpose of

an optional Shabbat residence [that is, if his purpose is to be able to walk during the festival for an optional matter],

that is, if his purpose is to be able to travel on the Festival for a voluntary matter,

he should return immediately

to his house and remove the leaven. Even if he will subsequently not have enough time to return to that place.

But if he wishes to establish his residence there so that he can walk during the festival for the sake of a mitzva, for example, to the house of a mourner or to a banquet, his status is like that of one going to slaughter his Paschal offering. If he will not have enough time both to return home and remove the leaven and then return and establish his residence in that place, he should not return home; rather, he should nullify it in his heart.

Likewise,

the law governing

one who left Jerusalem and remembered that he had sacred meat

with him on the way is as follows: once he has left beyond the city wall, the meat becomes disqualified through the disqualification of yotzei [since the walls of Jerusalem constitute the boundary of offerings of lesser sanctity, and offerings that leave their boundary become disqualified].

Disqualified sacred offerings are burned within their boundary. As we expounded above from the verse “It shall be burned in fire in a holy place”: the place where it is eaten is the place where it is burned. Offerings of the highest sanctity, which are eaten in the Temple courtyard, are burned in the courtyard. Offerings of lesser sanctity, which are eaten throughout Jerusalem, are burned anywhere in Jerusalem.

And one who leaves Jerusalem with disqualified sacred meat

if he has already

he has already

passed

the

Tzofim [the village from which the Temple can be seen],

a village from which the Temple can be seen,

burns it where he is,

since they did not trouble him to return from such a distance.

But if not,

that is, if he has not yet reached Tzofim,

he returns

to Jerusalem

and burns it before the capital on the wood of the pyres,

for that was the place where sacred offerings were burned.

And to what extent

is the quantity of sacred meat or the quantity of leaven for which

they must return

to Jerusalem or to their homes in order to burn it?

Rabbi Meir says: Both this and that [sacred meat and leaven]—

the measure

is the size of an egg.

If it is less than this, he does not return to Jerusalem; rather, he burns it where he is. And likewise with leaven: he need not return on account of less than the size of an egg; rather, he nullifies it in his heart.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Both this and that [sacred meat and leaven]—even

sacred meat and leaven

the size of an olive

of either one is sufficient reason for him to return in order to burn it.

And the Sages say: In the case of sacred meat,

he returns to Jerusalem to burn it even if it is only

the size of an olive.

But with regard to

leaven,

he does not return home to burn it unless it is

the size of an egg.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: One who is going to eat a betrothal feast at the home of his father-in-law—if he can return, remove the leaven, and return to his mitzva, he should return and remove it; but if not, he nullifies it in his heart.

And he raises a contradiction

from that which

was taught in a beraita: One who is going to eat a betrothal feast at the home of his father-in-law,

or

to establish an optional Shabbat residence,

and remembers that he has leaven at home—

he should return

home

immediately

in order to remove it, even if he will not have enough time afterward to return to the feast.

But in the Mishna we learned that one who is going to eat a betrothal feast at the home of his father-in-law does not return if he does not have enough time to do both; rather, “he nullifies it in his heart.”

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is not difficult.

This

which was taught—“he should return immediately”—is the opinion of

Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that a betrothal feast is not a mitzva. Therefore, it does not override the rabbinic ordinance requiring removal.

And

this

which we learned—“he nullifies it in his heart”—is the opinion of

Rabbi Yosei,

who holds that it is a mitzva feast. In a case involving a mitzva, the Torah-law requirement of nullification is sufficient.

And as it was taught in a beraita: A betrothal feast

is a feast of

optional status.

The words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei says:

It is a

mitzva

feast.

The Gemara adds:

And now, since Rav Ḥisda said: The dispute

applies only

to the second feast.

For it is customary for bridegrooms, after the first betrothal feast, to send gifts to the bride again and to eat there once more. It is with regard to this feast that Rabbi Yehuda says it is optional.

But with regard to the first feast,

of betrothal, according to

everyone

it is a

mitzva feast. You may even say that both this source and that source are in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, and there is no difficulty:

if so, there is no difficulty at all between the Mishna and the beraita.

Because

this

which we learned—“he nullifies it in his heart”—speaks

of

one going to

the first feast.

And

this

which was taught—“he should return immediately”—speaks

of

one going to

the second feast.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: I did not hear

that a feast is considered a mitzva feast

except for a betrothal feast.

But not

a

gifts feast,

which is the second feast.

Rabbi Yosei said to him: I heard

that both

the betrothal feast and

the feast of

gifts are mitzva feasts!

which is not a mitzva meal, because she should marry a kohein and not damage the standing of her lineage.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon says: Any feast that is not

a

mitzva feast, a Torah scholar is not permitted to derive benefit from it.

And we raised the following question:

For example, what

is a feast that is not a mitzva feast?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: For example,

a betrothal feast of

a kohen’s daughter to an Israelite,

which does not involve a mitzva, since she ought to marry a kohen and not damage her lineage.

And

likewise, a betrothal feast of

a Torah scholar’s daughter to an am ha-aretz,

which does not involve a mitzva, since he should not give his daughter in marriage to an am ha-aretz.

For Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A kohen’s daughter who marries an Israelite—their union will not succeed.

And we raised the question:

What does this mean?

That is, what will be the end of their union, such that it will not succeed?

Rav Ḥisda said: Either

he will die before his time and she will become an

almanah,

or

she will become a

divorcee,

or

they will have no offspring, as it is written: “And a kohen’s daughter, if she becomes the wife of a foreign man,” and immediately afterward it is written: “And a kohen’s daughter who is an almanah or a divorcee, and

she has no offspring.”

A tanna taught in a baraita:

A kohen’s daughter who marries an Israelite—either she will die before her time and he will

bury her, or

he will die and she will

bury him, or

she will

bring him to poverty.

And we raise an objection:

Is that so? But Rabbi Yoḥanan said the opposite: One who wishes to become wealthy should attach himself to the descendants of Aaron,

and marry a kohenet.

And if he is a Torah scholar—

all the more so, since his Torah

and her

priesthood

will

make them wealthy [make them rich].

He said: Aaron would not be pleased that I

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

statement that he becomes wealthy speaks

of a Torah scholar

who married a kohenet.

And

this

baraita that says “she brings him to poverty” speaks

of an am ha-aretz

who married a kohenet, for this is disgraceful to Aaron, and therefore he is punished.

Rabbi Yehoshua married

a kohenet,

and became ill [he fell ill].

I was not exiled as people are ordinarily exiled,

He said: Aaron would not be pleased that I

I

attached myself to his descendants.

And he would not be pleased

that he had a son-in-law like me [a son-in-law such as I].

be exiled.

Rabbi Idi bar Avin married a kohenet. Two ordained sons emerged from him

[qualified to issue halakhic rulings]. They were:

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, and Rav Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi.

Rav Pappa said: If I had not married a kohenet—

I would not have become wealthy [I would not have become rich].

For a Torah scholar who attaches himself to the descendants of Aaron becomes wealthy, as stated above.

Rav Kahana said:

Because I married a kohenet, I was exiled from Babylonia to the Land of Israel.

For had I not married a kohenet, I would not have been exiled.

They said to him: But you were exiled to a place of Torah,

and there is no punishment in that at all.

He said to them:

I was not exiled as people are exiled,

like the other students who leave their homes for Torah study. They are exiled willingly. But I, because I married a kohenet, was exiled against my will, out of fear of the government.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Anyone who benefits from an optional feast

[one that is not a mitzva feast],

in

Because

the end

he

is exiled.

As it is stated: “Those who eat lambs from the flock, and calves from the midst of the stall.”

And it is written

afterward:

“Therefore they shall now go into exile at the head of the exiles.”

The Sages taught: Any Torah scholar who frequently feasts wherever he is,

in

the end he destroys his home, makes his wife a widow, and makes his children orphans

[his children].

And because his needs are many and he does not have the means to meet them, he is exiled from his home to seek his livelihood; his wife is like a living widow, and his sons are like living orphans.

And

likewise,

his learning is forgotten by him.

For because he feasts excessively, he has no time to review his learning.

And many disputes come upon him

because he has forgotten his learning, and also because he takes the food for his feasts from merchants on credit, and his debts are numerous.

And his words are not heeded.

And he profanes the Name of Heaven, the name of his teacher, and the name of his father.

And he causes a bad name for himself, for his sons, and for his sons’ sons, until the end of all generations.

And we raised the question:

What is

the “bad name” that he causes for his sons?

Abaye said:

Because

they call

his son

“the son of one who heats ovens”!

That is, the son of one who constantly heats the oven in order to cook his feasts.

Rava said:

They call his son

“the son of one who dances in wine shops”!

That is, the son of a buffoon who dances in wine shops, for in exchange for his dancing they give him wine free of charge.

Rav Pappa said:

They call his son

“the son of one who licks bowls”

[one who licks bowls].

Rav Shemaya said:

They call his son

“the son of one who lies down in the street”

[one who folds himself up and lies down]. For this is the way of drunkards: they do not manage to reach their homes and lie down on their beds. Rather, they fold up their clothing and sleep on it.

The Sages taught: A person should always sell

everything

he owns and marry the daughter of a Torah scholar.

Because

even

grafting

if

he eventually

dies or is exiled

from his home,

he is assured that

his

sons will be Torah scholars,

since they will grow up at the knees of their maternal grandfather, the Torah scholar.

And he should not marry the daughter of an am ha-aretz.

Because

if

he eventually

dies or is exiled

from his home, his

sons will be amei ha-aretz,

since they will grow up with their maternal grandfather, the am ha-aretz.

The Sages taught: A person should always sell

everything

he owns and marry the daughter of a Torah scholar.

And he should likewise sell what he owns so that he can

marry off

his

daughter to a Torah scholar.

For the marriage of the daughter of a Torah scholar to a Torah scholar is

likened to

grafting

grapes of the vine with grapes of the vine,

which is

a fine and acceptable thing.

And he should not marry

a Torah scholar

to the daughter of an am ha-aretz.

For the marriage of a Torah scholar and the daughter of an am ha-aretz is

likened

to grafting

grapes of the vine with grapes of the thornbush,

which is

an ugly thing!

And it is not acceptable.