Pesachim 4b — the Talmud in English

No,

is the reason not

because its presumption

is that the house is

checked?

For he holds

that the baraita’s

all

“fellows”

[trusted as fellows]

are so with regard to checking chametz.

And even an am ha-aretz is presumed to be a fellow with regard to checking chametz, for he is not suspected of failing to check the chametz. And in a matter in which a person is presumed to be a fellow, there is a presumption that he fulfilled the mitzva at its proper time. Therefore, every house is presumed to have been checked on the eve of Passover. And this is the reason that we believe women, slaves, and minors who testify that a house was checked, for even without their testimony, the house in itself is presumed to have been checked. As

as it was taught,

that the fellow is presumed to fulfill the mitzva at its proper time:

A fellow

[who is trusted regarding tithes]

who died and left a granary

[a threshing floor]

full of produce—

even if they are of that very day

[for their work was completed only today and they became obligated in the tithe],

they are presumed to have been properly prepared

[tithed], for there is a presumption concerning the fellow that he certainly did not remove the produce from his possession until he completed the entire mitzva and separated the terumot and tithes in accordance with the law.

And if so, the ibaya is resolved: one who rents a house to his fellow on the morning of the fourteenth, and he is not present before us to ask him whether he checked the house or not, does not need to check it, because the house is presumed to have been checked.

And we raise an objection to the proof:

And from where

do you know to say that the reason everyone is trusted concerning checking chametz is because every Israelite is legally a fellow with regard to checking chametz, and automatically every house is presumed to have been checked?

Perhaps

one should say that, in fact, ammei ha-aretz are not fellows concerning this, and the house in itself is not presumed to have been checked. But

here it is different, because these say,

for the women, slaves, and minors testify that they saw the homeowner check the house, and only on the basis of this do we presume the house to have been checked?

And we answer:

Is it so

that

the statement of these has any substance,

does it have any validity? But there is no validity at all in the words of these, since they are disqualified from testimony. Rather, certainly, the reason is only because the house is presumed to have been checked.

And we raise an objection again:

Rather, what

will you say is the reason? It is

because its presumption

is that the house is

checked.

If so,

this

that it teaches

“Everyone is trusted

concerning the removal of chametz,” is difficult. For according to your words, the matter does not depend at all on their trustworthiness, but only on the presumption of the house. And

“All houses are presumed to have been checked on the fourteenth”

it should have needed

to say?

And we raise an objection to the objector who wishes to refute the proof from the baraita that the house is presumed to have been checked:

Rather, what

do you wish to say—that the entire reason is

because of the statement of these.

But,

if these did not say,

if they had not said that they saw him check,

not

would we presume the house to have been checked. If so,

resolve from it

from this baraita the opposite,

that the house does not have

on the fourteenth

a presumption of having been checked.

Therefore, one who rents a house from his fellow on the fourteenth must check it.

And we conclude:

No,

you cannot resolve anything from here in either direction. For

I can always say to you

that every house, ordinarily,

has a presumption

of having been checked.

And here, what are we dealing with? It is a case in which we are established

concerning this homeowner

that he did not check.

For example, we saw that he was occupied with another matter throughout the entire time of checking chametz, or that he left on a journey during the day of the thirteenth,

and these say

women, slaves, and minors, that

we checked it.

Lest you say, the Sages should not believe them

concerning this, for they are disqualified from testimony.

It teaches us that, since checking chametz

all of whose obligation

is rabbinic, for

after all,

according to Torah law, through nullification

the chametz

alone suffices

for him,

for it does not say, “you shall burn,” but rather, “you shall eliminate,” and elimination is in the heart, therefore

the Sages believed them,

the Sages believed the women, slaves, and minors

with regard to

checking chametz, which is only

rabbinic.

For since it was the Sages who obligated the

The search; they have the power also to permit relying upon the words of these people with regard to this obligation.

It was posed to them: One who rents a house to his fellow

on the eve of Passover,

with the presumption

that it is

searched.

And

at the end

they found that

it

was not searched—

what is

it? Is it like a transaction

mistaken,

and the renter can retract from the rental and say: “I did not rent it with this in mind, that I would have to take the trouble to search it,”

or

is he

not

able to retract?

Come and hear

from this

that Abaye said: It is not necessary to say this in a place where they do not give payment and inspect,

a place where people do not customarily hire someone to inspect the leaven for them, but each person inspects his own house, for it is obvious that the renter cannot claim that it is a mistaken transaction. Even if he had known that the house was not inspected, he would not have rented it.

For

behold,

a person is pleased to perform a mitzva with his own body,

and certainly, even if he had known that it was not inspected, he would not have refrained from renting it on account of this.

Rather, even in a place where they give payment and inspect,

a place where all the townspeople customarily do not inspect the leaven themselves, but hire someone to do so for them, and it turns out that the renter incurs a monetary loss because the house was not inspected, and he is forced to hire someone to inspect it for him. Nevertheless, the renter cannot claim that it is a mistaken transaction, because

a person is pleased to perform a mitzva

even

with his money,

and certainly he would agree to rent the house even if he knew that he had to spend money for the inspection. This is not the reason that he now wishes to withdraw from the rental; rather, it is because he found another, more attractive house.

We learned there [below 11b]:

below, 11b]:

Rabbi Meir says: They eat

the leaven on the eve of Passover

all five

first hours of the day,

and burn

it

at the beginning of

the

sixth

hour. He should not wait until the beginning of the seventh hour, when it is prohibited by Torah law, because the Sages decreed and prohibited leaven during the sixth hour, lest people err by one hour and consider the seventh hour to be the sixth.

Rabbi Judah says: They eat during all four

hours,

and suspend during all five,

during the fifth hour they do not eat leaven, because a person errs even by two hours, and he may consider the seventh hour to be the fifth. Yet it need not be burned; rather, it is permitted for benefit, such as feeding it to his animal.

And burn

only

at the beginning of six.

For from then it is prohibited even for benefit by rabbinic law.

In any event, everyone

agrees

that leaven, from six hours onward, is prohibited

by Torah law. For if it were not prohibited until nightfall, the Sages would not have decreed to prohibit it beforehand, since people do not err between daytime and nighttime.

And we inquire about it:

From where do we know

that leaven is prohibited by Torah law on the eve of Passover after midday?

Abaye said: Two verses are written

concerning leaven—

It is written [Exodus 12:19]

“For seven days leaven

shall not be found in your houses,”

and it implies that even for a single hour within the seven days leaven shall not be found.

And it is written [there, 15]

“But on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses.”

And it implies that on the first day itself one removes the leaven.

How is this

possible? How are these two verses, which contradict one another, reconciled? For if he removes the leaven on the first day itself, it follows that he leaves the leaven for some time until he removes it, and “For seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses” is not fulfilled? Rather, necessarily, “on the first day” refers to the day preceding the seven days of Passover. The verse comes

to include

the day of

the fourteenth for removal,

for one is obligated to remove the leaven already on the eve of Passover. [And below the Gemara will explain from where we know that one is obligated only from six hours onward.] In this way both verses are fulfilled: indeed, throughout all seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses, not even for a single hour.

And we object:

And say,

the “first day” is indeed the first day of the seven days, and the verse comes

to include the night of the fifteenth for removal,

so that one must remove the leaven already on the night of the fifteenth and not wait until the following morning.

For it might enter your mind to say,

if only “For seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses” had been stated,

“days”

is written,

and it implies

“days,” not,

but

“nights, not”

are you warned concerning this. Therefore,

it teaches us

the verse “on the first day,” that immediately upon the entry of the first day you shall remove the leaven,

even nights!

And we answer:

That verse was not needed

for the verse “on the first day,” because even without it we know that the night of the fifteenth is also included in “For seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses.”