Pesachim 5b (ה:) — the Talmud in English

Infer from Rabbi Akiva,

who proves that “on the first day” means the eve of the Festival from the fact that kindling is prohibited on the Festival,

three,

three matters:

a.

Infer from this: The removal of leaven is only by burning,

in accordance with the view of Rabbi Judah below [21a], who derives it from notar. For had Rabbi Akiva held in accordance with the Rabbis, that leaven may be removed by any means, it would be possible to remove it even on the Festival itself in a permitted manner, for example, by throwing it into the sea or

feeding it to dogs, and what proof would there be that “on the first day” means the eve of Passover? b.

And infer from this: The Torah singled out kindling in order to apportion liability.

The Sages of the Mishnaic period disagreed concerning the meaning of the verse, “You shall not kindle a fire in any of your dwelling places on the day of Shabbat.” Since kindling a fire is a primary category of labor, and the Torah had already stated, “You shall not perform any labor,” why did the Torah need to repeat the prohibition against kindling a fire separately?

The tanna’im disagreed concerning the verse: “You shall not kindle fire in any of your dwelling places on the day of Shabbat.” For kindling is a principal category of labor, and the Torah has already stated, “You shall not perform any labor”; why, then, did the Torah need to repeat the prohibition against kindling separately?

Rabbi Yosei holds that kindling was singled out for a prohibition. That is, the Torah singled out kindling from all the other labors to say that it does not entail the punishment of stoning as do the other labors, but only the punishment of lashes for violating a negative prohibition.

Rabbi Natan, however, holds that kindling was singled out in order to apportion liability. Otherwise, you might say that one who unwittingly performed several principal categories of labor on Shabbat in a single lapse of awareness [a single act of forgetfulness] is liable to bring only one sin-offering, since only one negative prohibition and one liability of excision are stated with regard to all the labors. Therefore, the verse came and specified a separate negative prohibition for the labor of kindling, to teach with regard to all the labors: Just as kindling is distinct from the other labors and one is liable to bring a separate sin-offering for it, so too all the principal categories of labor are distinct from one another, and one is liable to bring a sin-offering for each principal category of labor separately.

And from the fact that Rabbi Akiva calls kindling “a principal category of labor,” it is evident that he holds in accordance with Rabbi Natan, and not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, who holds that kindling is not a principal category of labor, but is merely subject to a negative prohibition. c.

And infer from this: We do not say that since kindling was permitted

on the Festival

for the sake of

food for the sake of the person,

it was also permitted when not for the sake of

food for the sake of the person.

The dispute appears in tractate Beitza [12a] between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. According to Beit Shammai, we do not apply the principle of “since,” and only labor performed for food for the person is permitted on the Festival. Beit Hillel holds that all labors relevant to food for the person [such as kindling, carrying out, slaughtering, baking, and cooking] were fully permitted on the Festival, even when not performed for the sake of food for the person, because since they were permitted for that purpose, they were also permitted when not for that purpose.

Since Rabbi Akiva holds that burning leaven is prohibited on the Festival, it is evident that he holds in accordance with Beit Shammai. For according to Beit Hillel, it is permitted to burn leaven on the Festival even though this does not serve the needs of food for the person.

The Sages taught:

That which the verse states [Exodus 12:19]:

“For seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses”—what does this teach?

But was it not already stated [ibid. 13:7]

Because, if it had been

“No leaven shall be seen for you, and no leavening shall be seen for you, throughout all your boundaries,”

and houses are also included in “your boundaries”? If so, why was it stated again, “It shall not be found in your houses”?

Since, if

it had been

stated

only

“No leavening shall be seen for you,”

I would say: Just as we expound from the fact that it is stated “for you” that only leaven

belonging to you may you not see, but you may see

leaven

belonging to others,

that is, it is permitted for a Jew to keep a gentile’s leaven in his house,

and that belonging to the Most High,

leaven that one consecrated for the Temple maintenance, which you may leave within your boundaries, so too

it is possible

that we could learn from this verse that he may

conceal

his own leaven in a place where he will not see it, and that would suffice, since it is stated, “It shall not be seen.”

And

I would likewise say that he may

accept deposits

of leaven

from a gentile,

and would not violate a prohibition concerning it because it does not belong to him?

The verse therefore states

“For seven days leaven

shall not be found.”

This teaches that it is prohibited to conceal leaven, since although it is not seen, it is found. Likewise, we learn from here that it is prohibited to accept deposits of leaven from a gentile, since this verse does not say “for you,” which would exclude the property of others.

And below the Gemara will explain the contradiction between the derivations: whether or not to exclude the leaven of others.

And still,

I have only

that it is prohibited to accept leaven as a deposit from a gentile

who has not been conquered by you

under your control,

and

he is not

residing with you in the courtyard.

But

a gentile whom you have conquered

under your control, whose property is like your property, or even a gentile whom you have not conquered but who is

residing with you in the courtyard—how

do we know that you also violate a prohibition with regard to his leaven that he deposited with you?

[And below the Gemara will ask that the opposite would seem more logical: In such a case, all the more so should one violate a prohibition.]

The verse therefore states

“It shall not be found in your houses.”

This will be explained below.

And had it been written only, “No leavening shall be found in your houses,”

I would have only

that it is prohibited to keep

only

leaven

that is in your houses,

because it is always present with him. But with regard to leaven that is

in pits

and

in cisterns and caves,

how

do we know that it is prohibited to keep it?

The verse therefore states “No leavening shall be seen for you

only

throughout all your boundaries,”

even if it is not in the house.

And

even though these two verses have been stated,

I would still say

that only

in houses

does one

violate

“It shall not be seen”

and “It shall not be found,”

and

the prohibition of

“He shall not conceal it,”

since the verse “It shall not be found,” from which we learn that even concealing it is prohibited, says only “in your houses.” Likewise, only in houses does one violate

“He shall not accept deposits from a gentile,”

which is also learned from the verse “No leavening shall be found in your houses,” because it does not say “for you.”

But

in the boundaries,

that is, in pits, cisterns, and caves, there is no prohibition against accepting deposits from a gentile, since the verse “throughout all your boundaries” says “for you.” We derive from this that only leaven

belonging to you may you not see, but you may see that belonging to others and that belonging to the Most High

within your boundaries. Likewise, it should not be prohibited to conceal leaven in the boundaries, since with regard to the boundaries it says, “It shall not be seen,” implying only leaven visible to the eye, and not concealed leaven.

From where do we derive that what is stated with regard to one of these applies to the other,

that the stringency stated with regard to houses also applies to boundaries,

and that what is stated with regard to the other applies to the first,

that the leniency stated with regard to boundaries—that only leaven belonging to you may you not see, but you may see that belonging to others and that belonging to the Most High—also applies to houses?

The verse therefore states

“leaven, leaven”

for a verbal analogy.

“Leaven”

is stated

with regard to houses, “For seven days

leaven

shall not be found in your houses.”

And

“leaven”

is stated

with regard to boundaries,

“No leaven shall be seen for you

throughout all your boundaries.”

I therefore reason: Just as with regard to the leaven stated in houses, one violates

it

through the prohibitions “It shall not be seen,” “It shall not be found,” “He shall not conceal it,” and “He shall not accept deposits from a gentile”—

so too, with regard to the leaven stated in boundaries, one violates

it

through the prohibitions “It shall not be seen,” “It shall not be found,” “He shall not conceal it,” and “He shall not accept deposits from a gentile.”

And just as with regard to the leaven stated in boundaries

we expound that only leaven

belonging to you may you not see, but you may see that belonging to others and that belonging to the Most High

in your boundaries—

so too, with regard to the leaven stated in houses,

it is specifically

only leaven belonging to you may you not see, but you may see that belonging to others and that belonging to the Most High. [And as stated, the Gemara will immediately explain the contradiction: The beraita once states the law concerning the leaven of others as a prohibition, and once as a permission.]

“One might think that he may conceal leaven and accept deposits from a gentile; therefore, the verse states, ‘It shall not be found.’

The Gemara explains the words of the beraita:

The Master said:

One might have said that he may conceal leaven and accept deposits from a gentile. The verse therefore states, “It shall not be found.”

I have only

with regard to a gentile whom you have not conquered and who is not residing with you in the courtyard.

How do we know

with regard to a gentile whom you have conquered and who is residing with you in the courtyard?

The verse therefore states

“It shall not be found in your houses.” And we raise a difficulty:

In which direction is this going? [That is, where is this statement tending?] For the opposite would seem more logical: A deposit belonging to a gentile whom you have conquered or who is residing with you in the courtyard should more reasonably be prohibited, since it more closely resembles your own leaven.

And we answer:

And we answer:

Abaye said: Reverse

the wording of the beraita, and it should be taught as follows: I have only that one may not accept deposits from a gentile in the case of a gentile whom you have conquered and who is residing with you in the courtyard, since he resembles your own leaven. But with regard to a gentile whom you have not conquered and who is not residing with you in the courtyard, how do we know that his deposit is also prohibited? The verse therefore states, “It shall not be found in your houses.” And from the fact that it does not say “you shall not find,” but rather “it shall not be found,” it follows that it must not be found at all, even if it belongs to a gentile whom you have not conquered and who is not residing with you in the courtyard.

Rava said: Actually, do not reverse

the wording of the beraita.

And

this clause

stands at the beginning

of the beraita and

refers

to it. For it teaches that a gentile’s leaven is permitted [in the manner that the Gemara will explain below], because we expound from “No leaven shall be seen for you” that only leaven

belonging to you may you not see, but you may see

leaven

belonging to others and that belonging to the Most High.

The beraita now continues on this very point:

I have only

that it is permitted

with

leaven belonging to a

gentile whom you have not conquered

under your control,

and

he is not

residing with you in the courtyard.

But with regard to leaven belonging to a

gentile whom you have conquered

and who is residing with you in the courtyard,

since it resembles your own leaven,

how

do we know that it too is permitted?

The verse therefore states

“It shall not be found.”

he seeks to prove that the leaven of a gentile whom you have subdued is also permitted. And if, at the end,

And we raise a difficulty:

And

but according to your words,

this tanna

of the beraita

returns to the matter of the permission;

he seeks to prove that the leaven of a gentile whom you have conquered is also permitted,

and

if at the end

he cites a verse,

he brings the verse “It shall not be found,” which implies

a prohibition!?

And we answer: The beraita derives from here that it is permitted,

because it is stated

“for you”

“for you”

twice.

The exclusionary phrase “for you” is stated twice in the Torah in connection with the prohibition against seeing leaven in one’s domain: besides “and no leaven shall be seen for you throughout all your borders,” stated at the end of Parashat Bo, it is stated once more in Parashat Re’eh [Deuteronomy 16:4]: “And no leaven shall be seen for you throughout all your borders for seven days.” And since the second “for you” is “not needed” for “it shall not be seen,” as “for you” has already been stated there, apply it to “it shall not be found,” as though it were written: “It shall not be found for you.” And derive from it that even leaven found in your possession—that is, leaven belonging to a gentile whom you have conquered and who resides with you—is not prohibited. For only your own leaven may you not find, but you may find the leaven of others.

The Master said: One might have thought that he may conceal leaven and accept deposits from gentiles?

The verse states

“it shall not be found.”

And we inquire about this:

Did you not say at the beginning

“You may not see your own, but you may see that of others and that of the Most High,”

whereas here the beraita says that it is prohibited to accept deposits from gentiles, even though the leaven is not yours?

And we answer:

It is not difficult: This

is referring to a deposit of a gentile, specifically where

he accepted responsibility

for safeguarding the leaven. Since responsibility for it rests upon you, it is considered yours.

Whereas

this

that it teaches, “but you may see that of others,” refers to a case

where he did not accept responsibility

for the leaven.

As in the incident where Rava said to the residents of

his city, whose name was

Mehoza:

[“Burn”] before Passover

the leaven of the soldiers

the leaven of the gentile soldiers who had camped in the city,

from your houses,

and they entrusted it to the townspeople and imposed upon them the burden of repairing and preparing their provisions, so that they would not transgress the prohibition of “it shall not be found” with regard to it, despite the fact that it was not theirs.

Since, if it were stolen

the leaven,

or if it were lost,

[lost],

it would remain in your possession

under your responsibility,

and they would demand payment from you,

and you would be obligated to pay the soldiers for it, therefore

it is considered like yours,

it is as though it were yours,

and it is prohibited,

and you transgress the prohibition of “it shall not be found” with regard to it.

It is established that one who steals consecrated property from its owners is exempt from paying double, because it is stated: “He shall pay double to his fellow”—but not to the Most High. Rabbi Shimon holds that if one steals a consecrated animal for which its owners bear responsibility—that is, the owners were obligated to bring another offering had this animal died or been stolen [for example, the owners vowed and said, “This is my responsibility as an elevation-offering”]—the thief is liable to pay double to the one who consecrated it. For although this animal is not literally his property, since it “causes him monetary loss,” in that he would not be obligated to bring another animal in its place, a thing that causes monetary loss is considered equivalent to money, and it is as though it were his; thus, the phrase “to his fellow” applies to it.

And we inquire about this:

That works well according to the one who says

[Rabbi Shimon]

“a thing that causes monetary loss is considered equivalent to money,”

it is understandable that one transgresses with regard to leaven for which he bears responsibility, since it “causes monetary loss” to the bailee: if it were lost, he would have to pay its value, and therefore it is considered his.

But according to the one who says

[Rabbi Shimon’s first tanna] that a thing that causes monetary loss

is not considered equivalent to money—

what can be said?

The leaven is not his, so why does he transgress with regard to it?

And we answer:

Here it is different, as the verse says

the verse

“it shall not be found,”

to include leaven for which one bears responsibility, even though it is not his.

There are those who say

the reverse:

That works well according to the one who says

“a thing that causes monetary loss is not considered equivalent to money,”