Pesachim 7a — the Talmud in English

And we still raise a difficulty:

“Then let him nullify it at the sixth hour,”

that the Sages should institute that every person nullify the leaven in his heart at the beginning of the sixth hour, when he is occupied with burning it, and this would constitute a great sign for him that he should not forget to nullify the leaven then?

And we answer:

Since

at that hour there has already taken effect

a prohibition of benefit imposed by the Sages upon it,

for from the beginning of the sixth hour the leaven was prohibited in benefit by rabbinic law,

like

a prohibition of benefit

of Torah law it is considered,

and the leaven

no longer remains in his possession, and he is unable to nullify

it.

And proof of this—that from the time the leaven became prohibited in benefit, even if only by rabbinic law, it is already no longer his—

for Rav Giddel said in the name of Rav Hiyya bar Yosef, who said in the name of Rav: One who betroths

a woman with leaven on the eve of Passover

from six hours onward,

from the beginning of the sixth hour —

even

if he betrothed her

with Kurdanaite wheat,

very hard wheat, and even though water fell upon it and it came under the possibility of becoming leavened,

we are not concerned for these betrothals

because by that hour the wheat is no longer his. Thus, from the beginning of the sixth hour the leaven is already considered something that is not his, although it is prohibited only by rabbinic law. Therefore, it is impossible to nullify it at that hour. And we raise a difficulty:

B

ecause

after

the time of

the prohibition

of leaven,

is he no longer able to nullify it?

But we find that even at a time when it is prohibited by Torah law, he can nullify it—

but it was taught: If he was sitting in the study hall and remembered

that he had leaven inside his house,

he

nullifies it

in his heart.

One

among [both] on

Shabbat and one

and [both] on

a Festival

does so!

And now the difficulty arises:

Granted

with

Shabbat, it can be found

that he can nullify it before it becomes prohibited.

For example, when the fourteenth

of Nisan

falls on Shabbat,

and he nullifies it before the sixth hour, while it is still permitted in benefit.

But on

with regard to

the Festival

of Passover, how can he nullify it? Surely

after

the time of

the prohibition it is!?

Rather, it is certainly proven from here that even after the time when the leaven becomes prohibited, it can be nullified!

And we answer:

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said:

It is always impossible to nullify leaven after it has become forbidden. And

here we are dealing with a student who is sitting before his teacher

on a Festival,

we are dealing [with this case].

And he remembered that he has

with him

a rolled dough inside his house

that has not yet become leavened,

and

he

is afraid lest it become leavened.

And because of the awe of his teacher’s honor, he cannot rise from before him, go home, and bake it. Therefore

he precedes and nullifies it

here, in the beit-midrash,

before

[before]

it becomes leavened.

And then he can certainly nullify it, since it is still permitted for eating and is considered his.

And the Gemara brings a proof:

it is also precise

that the case concerns dough that has not yet become leavened.

For

this

it teaches

“He was sitting in the beit-midrash,”

and it implies that this is why he nullifies it in his heart, because he cannot rise from before his teacher; otherwise, he would go home and bake the dough before it became leavened. For if the case concerned actual leaven, why did the beraita state that he was sitting in the beit-midrash? After all, even if he were sitting at home, he likewise has no ability to do more than nullify the leaven.

And we conclude:

learn from it!

Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: With regard to bread that has become moldy

and it cannot be discerned whether it is leaven or matza,

once matza has become predominant

in the same crate in which the bread was found, more matza was used than leaven, it is

permitted

on Passover, because we follow the majority, which consisted of matza.

And we inquire about this:

What are the circumstances?

If you say that he knew about it

with regard to this bread

that it is leaven.

If so, even

when matza has become predominant

in this crate,

what is there?

After all, it is leaven; how is it permitted?

Rather,

necessarily, the case is

that we do not know concerning it whether it is leaven or whether it is matza.

If so,

why specifically

is it permitted only

when matza has become predominant?

After all,

even when matza has not become predominant,

but leaven was used there throughout the year more than matza,

also

that bread found inside the crate during Passover should be permitted, because

we should follow the last use—we should follow the last use made of that same crate, which certainly involved matza?

the most recent use made of that crate, which certainly involved matza?

Have we not learned

that we follow the last use?

For we learned:

Money that was found

in Jerusalem

before animal merchants is always

presumed to be money of

Second Tithe, because most animals purchased in Jerusalem are purchased with Second-Tithe money.

because most animals purchased in Jerusalem are purchased with Second-Tithe money.

[Second-Tithe produce is permitted for eating only in Jerusalem. One who has Second-Tithe produce and finds it difficult to bring it up to Jerusalem can redeem the Second Tithe onto money; the produce becomes ordinary, and the money acquires the sanctity of Second Tithe.

And he brings the money up to Jerusalem, purchases food with it, and then the sanctity of Second Tithe in the money is again transferred onto the food, and the money becomes ordinary.

And because pilgrims did not manage to spend all the Second-Tithe money in their possession while they were still in Jerusalem, they would give the remaining money to the residents of the city in exchange for some benefit, and the residents would use it throughout the year with the sanctity of Second Tithe.

And the principal use of Second-Tithe money was the purchase of animals in order to offer them as a peace-offering. [For they derive by gzera shava, “there” and “there,” that Second Tithe is for peace-offerings].

And as long as a person has Second-Tithe money in Jerusalem, he does not purchase animals with the ordinary money in his possession; rather, he spends the tithe money on the animals and offers them as peace-offerings.

And since most animals in Jerusalem are purchased with Second-Tithe money, it follows that most of the money found before the animal merchants, which fell from those who came there to purchase, is Second-Tithe money. And although it is possible that the money fell from the seller after the animals had been purchased with it, and the sanctity had already been transferred from the money to the animals, it is nevertheless a doubt, and in a doubt concerning a prohibition one is stringent]. And if the money was found

on the Temple Mount,

it is always presumed to be

ordinary

money. And even during the pilgrimage Festival, when most of the money in Jerusalem is Second-Tithe money because of the pilgrims who bring their Second-Tithe money, nevertheless we do not suspect that it is Second-Tithe money, because we follow the majority of the year and say that presumably the money fell before the Festival, when most of the money in the city was ordinary.

And money that was found

in Jerusalem—

if it was found

during the pilgrimage Festival,

it is

Second Tithe,

because most of the money in Jerusalem during the pilgrimage Festival is Second-Tithe money.

And if the money was found in Jerusalem

during the rest of the days of the year,

it is

ordinary.

Because then most of the money in the city is ordinary.

And Rav Shemaya bar Zeira said: What is the reason

that if the money was found during the pilgrimage Festival it is Second Tithe, and we do not say that presumably it fell before the Festival and is ordinary, as in the case of money found on the Temple Mount?

Since the marketplaces of Jerusalem are swept [swept clean]

to be swept ]

every day

because of the mud. And if the money had fallen before the Festival, the people who sweep the marketplace would have found it and taken it for themselves. Rather, certainly the money fell during the Festival itself.

But the Temple Mount is not swept every day, because it is sloped and the wind sweeps the dust from it. And also because no person enters the Temple Mount with dust on his feet. Therefore it is possible that the money found during the Festival fell before the Festival and remained there until now.

And we conclude the objection:

Apparently, we say

since money is an object that is likely to be swept away,

the earlier ones, the earlier ones, go away,

the first money that fell before the Festival has already been removed from here,

and these,

the money now found in Jerusalem, is money

of another kind,

which fell during the Festival itself.

If so,

here too,

in the case of bread found during Passover inside the crate,

let us say,

presumably, in a crate in which food is placed,

the earlier ones, the earlier ones, go away:

the food that was placed in it first is taken first, so that it will not become moldy. And all the more so on the eve of Passover, when presumably he inspected the crate and removed the leaven from it.

And this,

this bread now found during Passover,

which is of today,

is certainly from the bread placed in the crate today, namely, matza. And why do we permit it only when matza was used in the crate more than leaven?

And we answer:

here is different,

in the case of bread that has become moldy,

for its moldiness proves concerning it

that it has already been in the crate for many days, from before Passover, and it is certainly leaven.

And we challenge:

If its moldiness proves concerning it,

that it was placed here many days ago,

when matza has become predominant, what is there?

After all, it is certainly leaven!

And we resolve:

Rabba said: Do not say

in Rav’s statement

“that matza became predominant,” but rather say

“that the days of

matza”

became predominant over it,

that the bread was found after several days of Passover had already passed; and even if it is matza, it was already fit to become moldy during these days. If so, we again follow the last occurrence, for certainly it remained from Passover and is matza.

And we challenge again:

If so, it is obvious

that it is matza, and there is no doubt at all that it might be leaven, since he certainly inspected the crate for leaven on the eve of Passover!?

And we answer:

It is necessary,

rather,

that its moldiness is extensive,

that the bread appears very moldy.

Lest you say: Since its moldiness is extensive, it has become clear that certainly

it is from before Passover, and

it is excellent leaven.

It teaches us that, since the days of matza became predominant over it,

that several days of Passover had already passed over it,

we say: each and every day,

of the days of Passover,

hot bread,

hot matza,

he baked and placed upon it,

and laid it upon it,

and

because of this

it became more moldy,

and not because it was from before Passover. And we challenge the Mishna concerning money found in Jerusalem:

But do we follow the last occurrence?

But it was taught: Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: A box that was used for

for

non-sacred funds and

also for

Second-Tithe funds

at the same time, and funds were found in it, and they do not know whether they are non-sacred or Second-Tithe funds:

if the majority

of the funds that had been placed in it were from

non-sacred

, we assume that these funds are

non-sacred.

And

if the majority

of the funds until then had been

Second-Tithe funds

, we assume that these funds too are

Second-Tithe funds.

And

if you say that one follows the last one,

why

do we follow the majority here?

Let us follow the last one,

let us examine which funds were placed in the box last, and accordingly decide whether they are Second-Tithe funds or non-sacred funds?

For presumably they are careful not to use Second-Tithe funds and non-sacred funds together, so that they should not become mixed. Rather, they first remove one type before putting in the other type.

And we answer:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Here we are dealing with a case in which the box was used for

the

non-sacred funds and Second-Tithe funds,

but

he does not

know

which of them

he used it for

last,

and since it is impossible to follow the last one, we follow the majority.

Rav Zevid said:

Here we are dealing with a case

such as

one in which it was used

for Second-Tithe funds and non-sacred funds at the same time, in such a manner that he separated them and made

piles, piles,

a separate pile of Second-Tithe funds in this corner and another pile of non-sacred funds in that corner. And after he took the piles, funds were found in it, and they do not know from which pile they remained. And since they used them together, there is no “last one” here; therefore, we follow the majority.

Rav Pappa said:

Here we are dealing with a case

such as one in which the funds were found

the funds

in a hollow

in the box, so one cannot say, “Go after the last one,” for perhaps these funds remained from earlier, because the householder did not notice them since the funds were concealed inside the hollow.

Rav Yehuda said: One who searches for

leaven

must recite a blessing

before his search, like all the mitzvot over which one recites a blessing before performing them.

And we inquire about it:

What blessing does he recite?

With what wording does one recite the blessing?

Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava:

He recites: “Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us

to remove leaven.”

Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava:

He recites: “And commanded us

concerning the removal of leaven.”

“Removal” also means searching. Rashi.

And we explain:

In

the wording of

“to remove

leaven,”

everyone agrees that

it is certainly possible to recite the blessing, for this wording

indicates the future,

that he recites the blessing over the removal that he is going to perform afterward. And surely one must recite the blessing before performing the mitzva.