Pesachim 4b (ד:) — the Talmud in English

No,

is the reason not

because its presumption is

that the house is

examined?

For he holds that

the tanna of the beraita maintains that

all

are “trustworthy people”

[presumed trustworthy]

with regard to the examination of leaven.

Even an am ha-aretz is presumed trustworthy with regard to examining leaven, as he is not suspected of failing to examine the leaven. And regarding a matter in which a person is presumed trustworthy, there is a presumption that he fulfilled the mitzva at its proper time. Therefore, every house is presumed to have been examined on the eve of Passover. This is also the reason that we trust women, slaves, and minors who testify that a house was examined: even without their testimony, the house itself is presumed to have been examined. As

it was taught in a beraita,

that a trustworthy person is presumed to fulfill the mitzva at its proper time:

A trustworthy person

[who is trusted regarding tithes]

who died and left a granary

[a threshing floor]

full of produce—

even if it is only one day old,

meaning that its work was completed only that day and it thereby became obligated in tithing,

it is presumed to have been made fit

[tithed], for a trustworthy person is presumed certainly not to have released the produce from his possession until he completed the mitzva in its entirety and separated terumot and tithes in accordance with the law.

If so, the inquiry is resolved: when one who rented a house to another on the morning of the fourteenth is not present for us to ask him whether he examined the house, the tenant need not examine it, because the house is presumed to have been examined.

We raise a difficulty against this proof:

From where

do you know that the reason all are trusted regarding the examination of leaven is that every Jew has the status of a trustworthy person with regard to examining leaven, and consequently every house is presumed to have been examined?

Perhaps

it should instead be said that, in fact, amei ha-aretz are not considered trustworthy with regard to this, and the house itself is not presumed to have been examined. However,

the case here is different, because these people say—

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

We answer:

Is it so

that

the statement of these people has any substance?

Does it have any validity? Their statements have no validity whatsoever, since they are disqualified from bearing testimony. Rather, certainly the reason is only that the house is presumed to have been examined.

We raise another difficulty:

Rather, what

would you say is the reason? Is it

because its presumption is

that the house is

examined?

If so,

this

that it teaches

“All are trusted

regarding the removal of leaven”—is difficult. For according to you, the matter does not depend at all on their trustworthiness, but only on the presumption concerning the house. And

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

it should have stated

this?

We raise a difficulty against the one posing the objection, who wishes to refute the proof from the beraita that the house is presumed to have been examined:

Rather, what

do you wish to say—that the entire reason is

because of the statement of these people?

But,

if these people did not say

that they saw him examine the house,

we would not

presume the house to have been examined. If so,

you can resolve from it

from this beraita the opposite:

that the house does not have

on the fourteenth

a presumption of having been examined.

Therefore, one who rents a house from another on the fourteenth must examine it.

We conclude:

No,

you cannot resolve anything from here in either direction. For

I can always say to you

that every house, ordinarily,

has the presumption of being

examined.

And with what are we dealing here? With a case in which it is established for us

regarding this homeowner

that he did not examine.

For example, we saw that he was occupied with another matter throughout the entire time for examining leaven, or that he departed on a journey during the day on the thirteenth,

and these people say—

women, slaves, and minors—that we

examined it.

Lest you say that the Sages should not trust them

regarding this, since they are disqualified from bearing testimony,

it teaches us that, since the examination of leaven

all of whose obligation is

rabbinic, for

indeed,

according to Torah law, through nullification

of the leaven

alone it suffices

for it

for the verse does not say, “You shall burn,” but rather, “You shall cause to cease,” and causing it to cease is accomplished in one’s heart, therefore

the Sages trusted them,

the Sages trusted the women, slaves, and minors

with regard to

the examination of leaven, which is only

rabbinic.

For since it was the Sages who obligated one to the

The search, then, is within their power, and they may also permit relying on the statements of these people with regard to this obligation. They raised a dilemma before them: If one rents a house to another on the eve of Passover

on the presumption

that it is

searched.

And

at the end

they found that

it

had not been searched—

what

is the law?

Is it considered a mistaken transaction,

and

the renter may withdraw from the rental and say: I did not rent it with the understanding that I would have to trouble myself to search it?

Or

is he

not

permitted to withdraw?

able to withdraw?

Come and hear

from this

that Abaye said: It is not necessary to state this in a place where people do not pay a fee and have it inspected,

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

For

after all,

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

, and certainly, even had he known that the house had not been inspected, he would not have refrained from renting it for that reason.

Rather, even in a place where people pay a fee and have it inspected,

in a place where all the residents customarily do not inspect the hametz themselves, but hire someone to do so for them, with the result that the renter suffers 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 was a mistaken transaction, because

a person is pleased to perform a mitzva

even

with his money

, and certainly he would have agreed to rent the house even had he known that he would have to spend money on 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]:

Rabbi Meir says: One eats

hametz on Passover eve

throughout the first five

hours of the day,

and burns

it

at the beginning

of the

sixth

hour. One should not wait until the beginning of the seventh hour, at which point it is prohibited by Torah law, because the Sages decreed and prohibited hametz during the sixth hour, lest people err by one hour and think that the seventh hour is the sixth.

Rabbi Judah says: One eats throughout the first four

hours,

and suspends throughout the fifth

: during the fifth hour one may not eat hametz, because a person can err even by two hours and may think that the seventh hour is the fifth. Nevertheless, it need not yet be burned; it is still permitted for benefit, such as feeding it to one’s animal.

And one burns

only

at the beginning of the sixth.

From that point, it is prohibited even for benefit by rabbinic law.

In any event, everyone

agrees that

from six hours onward, hametz is prohibited

by Torah law. For if it were not prohibited until nightfall, the Sages would not have decreed that it be prohibited beforehand, since people do not confuse daytime with nighttime.

We inquire concerning this:

From where do we know

that hametz is prohibited by Torah law on Passover eve after midday?

Abaye said: Two verses are written

concerning hametz—

It is written [Exodus 12:19]:

“For seven days leaven

shall not be found in your houses,”

which indicates that not even for a single hour during the seven days may hametz be found.

And it is written [ibid., 15]:

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

This indicates that the hametz is removed on the first day itself.

How

are these two verses, which contradict one another, to be reconciled? For if one removes the hametz on the first day itself, it follows that he retains the hametz for some time until he removes it, and the statement “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,

meaning that one is obligated to remove the hametz already on the eve of Passover. [The Gemara will explain below from where we know that the obligation applies only from six hours onward.] Thus the two verses are reconciled: throughout all seven days, leaven indeed shall not be found in your houses, not even for a single hour.

And we challenge this:

And say:

Perhaps, in fact, “on the first day” is the first day of the seven days, and the verse comes

to include the night of the fifteenth for removal,

meaning that one must remove the hametz already on the night of the fifteenth and may not wait until the following morning.

For it might have entered your mind to say

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

“days”

is written,

which implies:

“days,” no

—but

“nights, no,”

we would not be warned concerning them. Therefore,

it teaches us

the verse “on the first day” that as soon as the first day begins, one must remove the hametz,

even at night!

And we answer:

That verse was not necessary

for this purpose, since even without it we know that the night of the fifteenth is included in “For seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses.”