Pesachim 49a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

The fourteenth

of Nisan

when it falls on Shabbat,

since it is impossible to remove the hametz on it in the prescribed manner—

they remove everything

ordinary 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 time,

which is in the sixth hour of the eve of Pesach, and he need not remove it before Shabbat, for it is possible that people will be found to eat it until the time of its prohibition.

Rabbi Eliezer bar Tzadok says:

hametz of

teruma

he should remove

before Shabbat,

because its eaters are not numerous. For it is permitted only to kohanim. And it is also forbidden to feed it to the animals of non-kohanim, but only to the animals of kohanim.

But

ordinary food

he removes on Shabbat

at its time,

for he can find many people to eat it.

Gemara:

And the Gemara brings proof from an incident that the practical halakha follows the Sages, that it is not necessary to remove it before Shabbat, but it is possible to remove it on Shabbat itself by eating the hametz.

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

And the fourteenth

of Nisan

fell on Shabbat.

And Zunin came,

who was

the supervisor of Rabban Gamliel, and said: The time has come to remove the hametz!

And I went after my father, and we removed the hametz.

And it follows that the time for removing the hametz arrived only on Shabbat, and not on the eve of Shabbat. For if it were necessary to remove everything on the eve of Shabbat, except for the Shabbat meals, and they had already eaten the Shabbat meal, Rabban Gamliel’s supervisor should not have proclaimed, “The time has come to remove the hametz.”

Mishna:

One who goes

on the fourteenth of Nisan

to slaughter his Paschal offering,

or

to circumcise his son,

or

to eat an engagement meal in his father-in-law’s house.

And he remembered that he has hametz inside his house

which he had not yet removed.

If

he

can return

to his house

and remove it

and afterward

return to his mitzva—

he should return and remove it,

and afterward return to perform his mitzva.

But if not,

rather, if he returns and removes it he will forfeit his mitzva, he should not return to his house to remove the hametz, but he

nullifies it in his heart.

For by Torah law nullification is sufficient, and he is obligated to remove it only by rabbinic law. And in a case of a passing mitzva they did not obligate him; rather, they left him according to his Torah-law status.

One who goes on the fourteenth of Nisan

to save

Israel who are pursued

from non-Jews,

or to save them

from a river,

or

from bandits,

or

from a fire,

or

from a collapse,

and he remembered that he has hametz inside his house—he should not return in order to remove it. Even if he has time afterward to return and save them. Rather, he

should nullify

the hametz

in his heart,

and that is sufficient!

And if he went on the eve of Pesach in order to reach a certain place before the festival entered

and to spend Shabbat

there [so that on the festival he could walk from that place two thousand cubits in every direction, according to the law of the Shabbat boundary]—if he does so for the purpose of

a voluntary Shabbat residence [that is, if his purpose is to be able on the festival to walk for a voluntary 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 it. Even if afterward he will not manage to return to that place.

But if he wishes to establish his residence there so that he can walk on the festival for the sake of a mitzva, for example, to the house of a mourner or to the house of a feast, his law is like that of one who goes to slaughter his Paschal offering. For if he will not manage both to return to his house and remove [the hametz] and afterward return and establish his residence in that place, he should not return to his house, but should nullify it in his heart.

And likewise

the law of

one who left Jerusalem and remembered that he had sacred meat

with him on the way. For once he left beyond the city wall, the meat became invalid with the disqualification of “going out” [because the partitions of lesser sanctity are the walls of Jerusalem, and sacred offerings that went outside their partition became invalid].

And invalid sacred offerings are burned within their partition. As we expounded above from “It shall be burned in fire in the holy place,” that in the place of its eating, there shall be its burning. Most holy offerings, which are eaten in the Temple courtyard, are burned in the courtyard. And lesser sacred offerings, which are eaten throughout Jerusalem, are also burned in Jerusalem.

And one who goes out of Jerusalem with invalid sacred meat

if

he has already

passed

the

Mount of Scopus [the village from which the Temple is visible],

a village from which the Temple can be seen,

they burn it in its place,

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

But if not,

rather, he has not yet reached the Mount of Scopus—

he returns

to Jerusalem

and burns it before the capital from the wood of the pyre,

for that was the place where sacred offerings were burned.

And to what extent

is the measure of the sacred meat and the measure of the hametz because of which

they return

to Jerusalem or to their homes, in order to burn them?

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

their measure

is an egg-bulk.

But for less than this he does not return to Jerusalem; rather, he burns it in its place. And likewise with hametz, he need not return on account of less than an egg-bulk, but he nullifies it in his heart.

Rabbi Judah says: Both this and that [the sacred meat and the hametz]—even

sacred meat and leaven

an olive-bulk

of them causes him to return in order to burn them.

And the Sages say: Sacred meat,

he returns to Jerusalem in order to burn it even

for an olive-bulk

of it. But concerning

the hametz

he does not return to his house to burn it unless there is

an egg-bulk in it.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: One who goes to eat an engagement meal in his father-in-law’s house—if he can return, remove [the hametz], and return to his mitzva, he should return and remove it. But if not, he nullifies it in his heart.

And we raise a contradiction

from that which

was taught in a beraita: One who goes to eat an engagement meal in his father-in-law’s house,

or

to spend a voluntary Shabbat residence,

and he remembered that he has hametz in his house—

he should return

to his house

immediately

in order to remove it. Even if he will not manage to return to the meal.

Whereas in the Mishna we learned that one who goes to eat an engagement meal in his father-in-law’s house does not return if he does not have enough time to do both; rather, “he nullifies it in his heart.”

Rabbi Yohanan said: It is not difficult.

This

which was taught, “he should return immediately”—

it is Rabbi Judah’s

opinion, who holds that an engagement meal is not a mitzva. Therefore, it does not override the rabbinic enactment of removal.

And

this

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

it is Rabbi Yose’s

opinion, who holds that it is a mitzva meal. And in a place of a mitzva, Torah-law nullification is sufficient.

And as it was taught in a beraita: An engagement meal

is a meal of

voluntary status.

The words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Yose says:

A meal of

mitzva

it is.

And the Gemara adds:

And now, since Rav Hisda said: The dispute

is only

with regard to the second meal.

For this is the practice of bridegrooms: after the first engagement meal, they again send gifts [to the bride] and dine there again. And it is concerning this meal that Rabbi Judah said it is voluntary.

But with regard to the first meal

of the engagement,

everyone agrees

that it is a meal of

mitzva. Even if you say that both this and that are Rabbi Judah’s opinion, it is not difficult

if so, there is no difficulty at all from the Mishna against the beraita.

Because

this

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

one

who is going to

the first meal.

And

this

which was taught, “he should return immediately,” speaks of

one

who is going to

the second meal.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Judah said: I heard nothing

that it should be considered a mitzva meal,

except an engagement meal.

But not

a meal of

gifts,

which is the second meal.

Rabbi Yose said to him: I heard

that both

the engagement meal, and

the meal of

gifts—

they are mitzva meals!

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

a

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

And we raised the question:

For example, what

is a meal that is not a mitzva meal?

Rabbi Yohanan said: For example,

an engagement meal of

a daughter of a kohen to an Israelite,

which contains no mitzva. For she ought to marry a kohen, and not damage her lineage.

And

likewise an engagement meal of

a daughter of a Torah scholar to an ignoramus,

which contains no mitzva, since he ought not marry his daughter to an ignoramus.

For Rabbi Yohanan said: A daughter of a kohen who marries an Israelite—their union does not prosper.

And we raised the question:

What is it?

That is, what will be their end, that their union will not prosper?

Rav Hisda said: Either

he dies before his time and she becomes

a widow.

Or

she becomes

divorced.

Or

they will have no offspring. As it is written, “And the daughter of a kohen, when she shall be married to a foreign man.” And juxtaposed to it is, “And the daughter of a kohen, when she shall be a widow or divorced, and

has no offspring.”

In the baraita it was taught:

A daughter of a kohen who marries an Israelite—either she dies before her time and he

buries her, or

he dies and she

buries him, or

she

brings him to poverty.

And we object:

Is that so? But Rabbi Yohanan said the opposite: One who wishes to become wealthy should cleave to the seed of Aaron,

and marry a woman of priestly lineage.

And if he is a Torah scholar—

all the more so, that Torah

of his

and priesthood

of hers

will make them wealthy [make them wealthy].

He said: Aaron would not be pleased that I

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

which he said that he becomes wealthy speaks

of a Torah scholar

who married a woman of priestly lineage.

And

this

which was taught, “she brings him to poverty,” speaks

of an ignoramus

who married a woman of priestly lineage, for it is disgraceful to Aaron on account of this, and for that reason he is punished.

Rabbi Joshua married

a woman of priestly lineage,

and became ill

[became sick].

He said: Aaron does not desire that

I

cleave to his descendants.

And he does not desire

that he should have a son-in-law such as I

[a son-in-law like me].

Rabbi Idi bar Avin married a woman of priestly lineage. Two ordained sons emerged from him

[authorized to issue rulings]. And they were:

Rav Sheshet, the son of Rav Idi, and Rav Joshua, the son of Rav Idi.

Rav Pappa said: If I had not married a woman of priestly lineage—

I would not have become wealthy

[I would not have become wealthy]. For a Torah scholar who cleaves to the seed of Aaron becomes wealthy, as stated above.

Rav Kahana said:

Because I married a woman of priestly lineage, I was exiled from Babylonia to the Land of Israel.

For if I had not married a woman of priestly lineage, 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 this at all.

He said to them:

I was not exiled as people are exiled,

like the other students who are exiled from their homes for Torah study. For they are exiled willingly. But I, because I married a woman of priestly lineage, was exiled against my will, because of fear of the government.

Rabbi Isaac said: Anyone who derives benefit from a voluntary meal

[which is not a mitzva meal],

in

the

end

he

is exiled.

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

And it is written

after it,

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

The Sages taught: Any Torah scholar who increases his meals everywhere,

in the

end he destroys his house, makes his wife a widow, and makes his young children orphans

[his children].

And since his needs are numerous and are not available to him, he is exiled from his house to seek his livelihood, and his wife is like a living widow, and his sons are like living orphans.

And

likewise

his learning is forgotten by him.

For since he increases his meals, he has no time to review his learning.

And many disputes come upon him

because he forgot his learning. And also because he takes the necessities of his meals from sellers on credit, and his debts are numerous.

And his words are not heeded.

And he profanes the Name of Heaven, and 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 him

his son

“the son of the one who heats ovens”!

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

Rava said: They call

his son

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

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

Rav Pappa said: They call

his son

“the son of the one who licks bowls”

[one who licks bowls].

Rav Shemaya said: They call

his son

“the son of the one who folds and lies down”

[folds and lies down]. For such is the way of drunkards, who do not manage to walk to their homes and lie down on their beds. Rather, they fold their garments and sleep on them.

The Sages taught: A person should always sell

everything

that he has and marry the daughter of a Torah scholar.

Because

even

if

if

in the end he

dies or is exiled

from his house,

it is guaranteed to him that

his

sons will be Torah scholars,

for they will grow up on the knees of their maternal grandfather, the Torah scholar.

And he should not marry the daughter of an ignoramus.

Because

if

in the end he

dies or is exiled

from his house, his

sons will be ignoramuses,

for they will grow up with their grandfather, the ignoramus.

The Sages taught: A person should always sell

everything

that he has and marry the daughter of a Torah scholar.

And likewise, he should sell what he has 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

the grafting of

grapes of the vine with grapes of the vine,

which is

a fine and acceptable thing.

And he should not marry

a Torah scholar

the daughter of an ignoramus.

For the marriage of a Torah scholar and the daughter of an ignoramus is

likened

to the grafting of

grapes of the vine with grapes of the thornbush,

which is

an ugly thing!

exact page position")

And it is not acceptable.