Pesachim 4a (ד.) — the Talmud in English

Rav, the brother’s son of Rabbi Hiyya,

was the son of Rabbi Hiyya’s brother,

and

also

the sister’s son,

the son of his sister. Aibu, Rav’s father, was Rabbi Hiyya’s paternal half-brother, while “Imma,” Rav’s mother, was Rabbi Hiyya’s maternal half-sister.

When he went up,

when Rav went up from Babylonia

there,

to Eretz Yisrael, and reached Rabbi Hiyya,

he said to him, he asked him:

Rabbi Hiyya asked him: Is

Aibu,

your father, still

alive

[alive]?

He said to him,

Rav said: Is

Imma still alive!?

That is, rather than 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 so explicitly, because “one who spreads a defamatory report is a fool.”

Again,

he said to him,

Rabbi Hiyya said to him: And

Imma,

my sister—is she still

alive?

He said to him,

Rav said: Is

Aibu

alive,

that you ask me about my mother!?

He again hinted to him that his mother, too, had died.

He said to him,

Rabbi Hiyya said

to his attendant,

to his servant:

Remove my shoes,

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

And carry my belongings after me to the bathhouse!

By saying this, he intended to teach the students a halakha, as is explained immediately.

Infer from this

from Rabbi Hiyya’s words

three

halakhot:

a. From his saying to him, “Remove my shoes,”

infer from this: A mourner is prohibited from wearing shoes.

b.

And

from his telling him to carry his belongings immediately after him to the bathhouse—

infer from this:

Mourning for

a distant report,

when the report of the death reached him only after thirty days had already passed,

is observed for only one day

and there is no need to observe mourning for seven full days. For a mourner is prohibited from bathing, and Rabbi Hiyya did not wait seven days.

c.

And infer from this

that even on that one day it is not necessary to observe mourning throughout the entire day; it suffices to observe it for one hour, because

part of the day is considered like the entire day.

For Rabbi Hiyya bathed on that very day and did not wait until the following day.

The Gemara relates an incident involving

a certain

man

who,

whenever he had a legal dispute with another, would

say

to him:

“Bring your case before my court,”

come with me to court! He refused to listen to anyone and wanted only to go before a court.

They said

[they said about him]: Since he was accustomed to speaking in this manner,

infer from this: He comes from

the tribe of

Dan,

for he was descended from the tribe of Dan,

as it is written

about 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:

“On the shore of the sea I would build my palaces,”

if I had the opportunity to build palaces, I would build them only on the seashore. He was always praising the seashore.

They investigated him, and

found that he came from

the tribe of

Zevulun.

As it is written

about him [ibid., verse 13]:

“Zevulun shall dwell at the shore of seas.”

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

And we raised a difficulty:

But now, since we have established,

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

that according to everyone

“or”

means night,

and the time for searching for leaven is on the night of the fourteenth, why indeed must the search be advanced to the night?

Granted,

for

both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir,

who dispute in the Mishna below [11b] from what time the Sages prohibited eating leaven on Passover eve, all agree by Torah law that

leaven is not prohibited

from being eaten [or from the prohibition of “it shall not be seen”]

until six hours have passed,

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

And

if so,

let him search at the sixth hour,

at the beginning of the sixth hour, and immediately destroy the leaven before the end of the sixth hour, when its Torah prohibition begins.

If “or” means daytime, it is understandable to say that this is indeed the Mishna’s intention: one should search during the sixth hour. But once we have said that according to everyone one searches for leaven at night, it is difficult: Why must the search be advanced from the night?

And if you would say

that the search is advanced to the night because

the diligent advance themselves in the performance of mitzvot,

if so,

let him search in the morning;

it would have sufficed to advance the search to the morning of the fourteenth, and in this way the diligent would still have advanced themselves.

But

is it not

written

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

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

And it is taught

concerning this verse:

The entire day is fit for circumcision,

but the diligent advance themselves in the performance of 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.”

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

Nevertheless, he did not advance it to the night. This demonstrates that even the diligent advance themselves only from the morning. Why, then, must one advance the search for leaven to the night of the fourteenth?

And we answer:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

The Sages therefore instituted that the search be advanced to the night, so that the search for leaven would take place

at a time when people are found in their homes.

And

also because at night

the light of a lamp is well suited for searching,

whereas during the day the lamp does not illuminate but rather darkens.

Abaye said:

Since one must search specifically at night,

therefore, this Torah scholar must not begin at his regular time,

he must not begin his study if he has a fixed time for Torah study at night,

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

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,

and he will continue studying,

and come to neglect the mitzva

of searching for leaven.

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

of Nisan,

who must search

the house for leaven? Is it

the landlord who must search,

because

the leaven

in the house

belongs to him?

Or perhaps the tenant is obligated to search

because

the prohibition

of the leaven

is considered to be in his possession,

since the house is now his for the duration of the tenancy. And we resolve the question:

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.

We reject the proof:

There,

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

as Rav Mesharsheya said: The obligation of mezuzah is that of the one who dwells there.

The one 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 entry”; the obligation is imposed upon the one who enters and leaves the house. But

here,

with regard to the search for leaven, whose entire obligation is only rabbinic, since by Torah law it suffices for him to nullify the leaven in his heart so that he will not violate the prohibition of “You shall not see,” the question arises:

What

is the law? Upon whom did the Sages impose this exertion?

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

in a

beraita: “One who rents a house to another” —

One who rents a house to another—

if, before he handed over

the

keys

of the house to the tenant, it had already

become

the night of the

fourteenth, the landlord must search,

because handing over the key constitutes the acquisition of the tenancy. And 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 not subsequently exempt from it, even if he hands the keys to the tenant the next day.

And if, after he handed over

the

keys, the fourteenth arrived,

meaning that he handed him the keys on the thirteenth,

the tenant must search,

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

They asked Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: One who rents a house to another on the fourteenth

of Nisan, in the morning, while 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?

And we inquire:

What practical difference

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

Let him ask him:

Let him ask the landlord whether he searched or not?

And we answer: What are we dealing with here?

The one whom he could ask is not present,

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

Must we impose this exertion upon him—what is the law?

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

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

for we learned this halakha in a

beraita:

Everyone is deemed credible to testify on the fourteenth of Nisan

concerning the removal of leaven,

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

Even women, even slaves, and even minors!

The Gemara infers:

For what reason are they deemed credible?

Why are they believed to testify about this, given that they are disqualified from giving testimony?