Pesachim 4a — the Talmud in English

Rav, the son of the brother of Rabbi Chiyya,

was the son of Rabbi Chiyya’s brother,

and

also

the son of his sister,

the son of his sister. For Aivu [Rav’s father] was Rabbi Chiyya’s paternal brother, and “Imma” [Rav’s mother] was Rabbi Chiyya’s maternal sister.

When he went up,

when Rav went up from Babylonia

there,

to the Land of Israel and reached Rabbi Chiyya,

he said to him—the latter asked him:

Rabbi Chiyya: “Is

Aivu,

your father still

alive

[alive]?”

He said to him,

Rav [said]: “Is

Imma alive!?

That is, instead of asking me about my father, you should ask about my mother, who is also your sister.” By this he hinted to him that his father had died. He did not wish to say this explicitly, because “he who brings out an evil report is a fool.”

And again

he said to him,

Rabbi Chiyya: “And

Imma,

my sister—is she still

alive?

He said to him,

Rav [said]: “Is

Aivu

alive,

instead of asking me about my mother!”?

Again he hinted to him that his mother too had died.

He said to him,

Rabbi Chiyya

to his attendant,

to his servant:

“Remove my shoes,

so that I may observe mourning for my brother and sister.”

“And carry my utensils after me to the bathhouse!”

By this statement he intended to teach the students a halakha, as will be explained immediately.

Infer from this

from Rabbi Chiyya’s words,

three

halakhot:

A. From the fact that he said to him, “Remove my shoes”—

infer from this: a mourner is forbidden to wear shoes.

B.

And

from the fact that he told him to carry his utensils immediately after him to the bathhouse—

infer from this:

mourning for

a distant report,

which reached him after thirty days had already passed,

is observed for only one day

alone. It is not necessary to observe mourning for all seven days. For a mourner is forbidden to bathe, and Rabbi Chiyya did not wait seven days.

C.

And infer from this

that even on that day it is not necessary to observe mourning throughout the entire day; rather, one hour of it is sufficient, because

part of the day is like the whole of it.

For Rabbi Chiyya bathed already on that day and did not wait until the next day.

And the Gemara brings an incident involving

a certain

man,

who

whenever he had a dispute with his fellow, would

say

to him:

“Judge my case;

come with me to court!” For he did not wish to listen to anyone, but only to go to the court.

They said

about him: Since he was accustomed to say this,

infer from this: from the

tribe of

Dan he comes,

that he descended from the tribe of Dan,

as it is written

concerning him [Genesis 49:16]:

“Dan shall judge his people, as one of the tribes of Israel.”

A certain

man

who was accustomed to go about saying,

who was always accustomed to say:

“If I had the ability to build palaces, I would build them only on the seashore,”

if I had the ability to build palaces, I would build them only on the seashore. For he was always praising the seashore.

,They investigated him,

and found that from the

tribe of

Zebulun he came.

As it is written

concerning him [there, 49:13]:

“Zebulun shall dwell by the shore of seas.”

We learned in the Mishna: “On the night of the fourteenth, one searches for leaven.”

And we raise a difficulty concerning it:

And now, since we hold

as we concluded above in the dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda,

that according to everyone

“Or”

refers to the evening,

and the time for searching for leaven is on the night of the fourteenth—why in truth must the search be advanced to the night?

After all,

for

both according to Rabbi Yehuda and according to Rabbi Meir,

who dispute in the Mishna below [11b] from when the Sages prohibited eating leaven on Passover eve, everyone agrees by Torah law that

leaven is not forbidden

to be eaten [and with regard to “it shall not be seen”]]

except from six hours onward,

after six hours of the day have passed on Passover eve.

And

if so,

let us search at the sixth hour,

at the beginning of the sixth hour, and immediately remove the leaven before the end of the sixth hour, which is the time of its prohibition by Torah law.

Granted, if “or” refers to daytime, one can say that this is indeed the intention of the Mishna: that he should search at the sixth hour. But since we said that everyone searches for leaven at night, it is difficult: why must he advance the search to the night?

And if you would say

that the search is advanced to the night because

the diligent advance themselves for mitzvot,

if so,

let us search from the morning,

it would suffice to advance the search to the morning of the fourteenth, and in this way the advancement of the diligent would be fulfilled.

For

this

is written

concerning the mitzva of circumcision [Leviticus 12:3]:

“And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.”

And it was taught

concerning it:

“The entire day is fit for circumcision.”

“But the diligent advance themselves for mitzvot,”

and they circumcise in the morning, as we find concerning the binding of Isaac,

as it is stated [

Genesis 22:3]:

“And Abraham rose early in the morning,”

for he did not wait until sunrise, but hastened to rise at dawn.

And nevertheless he did not advance it from the night. Thus, even the diligent advance themselves only from the morning. And why must one advance the search for leaven to the night of the fourteenth?

And we answer:

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said:

The Sages therefore instituted advancing it to the night, so that the search for leaven would be

at a time when people are found in their homes.

And

also because at night

candlelight is suitable for searching,

whereas during the day the candle does not illuminate, but darkens.

Abaye said:

Since one must search specifically at night,

therefore, this Torah scholar should not begin at its time,

he should not begin his learning if he has fixed his time for Torah at night,

on the evening of the thirteenth, which ushers in the fourteenth,

on the conclusion of the thirteenth, which is the night of the fourteenth, that is, the night of the search for leaven. For

perhaps his learning will draw him on,

perhaps he will continue in his learning,

and come to refrain from the mitzva

of searching for leaven.

They asked Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak: “One who rents a house to his fellow on the fourteenth

of Nisan—

upon whom is it incumbent to search

the house for leaven? Is it

upon the landlord to search,

because

the leaven

in the house

belongs to him?

Or perhaps the tenant is responsible for searching

because

of the prohibition

of the leavened food:

it is considered to be in his possession,

since the house is now his for the duration of the rental period.

Come and hear

from that which was taught in a

beraita: “One who rents a house to another, the tenant must affix a mezuzah for him.”

We find, then, that a mitzva connected with the house is incumbent upon the tenant. If so, the search for leaven should likewise be incumbent upon him.

The Gemara rejects the proof:

There,

with regard to a mezuzah, it is therefore placed upon the tenant, because

Rabbi Mesharsheya said: The obligation of mezuzah is that of the person who dwells in the house.

The person who dwells in the house is obligated in mezuzah, because the mezuzah protects him. This is also because it is stated: “On the doorposts of your house,” and we interpret “your house” as “your entering”: the obligation applies to the person who enters and leaves the house. But

here,

with regard to searching for leaven, whose entire obligation is only by rabbinic decree, since according to Torah law it is sufficient to nullify the leaven in one’s heart so that he will not violate the prohibition against having it seen in his possession, the Gemara raises the doubt:

What

is the law—upon whom did the Sages impose this burden?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to them: We learned it

in a

baraita—a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna:

One who rents a house to another—

if, before he handed over to him

the

keys

of the house,

the night of

the

fourteenth had already begun, the landlord must search,

because handing over the key constitutes the acquisition of the rental. Since at the beginning of the night of the fourteenth, when the obligation to search took effect, the landlord had still not handed the keys to the tenant, and the house was still in his possession, the obligation to search took effect upon him. He is no longer released from it, even if he hands the keys to the tenant the following day.

And if, after he handed him

the

keys, the fourteenth had begun,

meaning that he handed him the keys on the thirteenth,

the tenant must search,

because at the beginning of the search period the house was already in his possession, and the obligation to search had taken effect upon him.

They inquired of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: If one rents a house to another on the fourteenth

of Nisan in the morning, and the tenant does not know whether the landlord searched the house the previous evening or not, is

it presumed to have been searched,

as we assume that the landlord certainly fulfilled the mitzva of searching for leaven the previous day, since we said that in such a case the obligation rests upon him?

Or

perhaps

it is not presumed to have been searched,

and the tenant must now search for the leaven?

The Gemara asks:

What practical difference does it make

in this question whether it is presumed to have been searched or not?

Let him ask him—

let him ask the landlord whether he searched or not.

The Gemara answers: What are we dealing with here?

With a case in which this person is not present to be asked,

because the landlord is not here, and it is therefore impossible to ask him whether he searched or not. Therefore, the question is

whether the Sages required this person to undertake the effort—what is the law?

Did the Sages require the tenant to search because of the uncertainty, or not?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to them: We have learned it,

for this is a law taught in a

baraita:

Everyone is trusted to testify on the fourteenth of Nisan

about the removal of leaven,

that the owners of this house searched it the previous evening.

Even women, even slaves, even minors!

The Gemara infers:

What is the reason they are trusted?

Why are they trusted to testify about this, when they are disqualified from giving testimony?