Pesachim 7a (ז.) — the Talmud in English

We still raise an objection:

“And let him annul it at the sixth hour,”

that the Sages should institute that everyone annul his leaven in his heart at the beginning of the sixth hour, when he is occupied with burning it, and this would serve as a major reminder for him not to forget to annul the leaven at that time?

And we answer:

Since

at that time there has already taken effect

a rabbinic prohibition upon it,

as from the beginning of the sixth hour leaven is rabbinically forbidden in benefit,

like

a prohibition against benefit

by Torah law,

and the leaven

is no longer in his possession, and he cannot annul it

.

A proof that once leaven becomes forbidden in benefit, even only by rabbinic law, it is already no longer his:

For Rav Giddel said that Rav Hiyya bar Yosef said that Rav said: One who betroths

a woman with leaven on Passover eve

from six hours onward

from the beginning of the sixth hour—

even

if he betroths her

with Kurdinaite wheat,

very hard wheat, and even though if water fell upon it, it might come to ferment,

we have no concern for this betrothal

because at that time the wheat is already no longer his. Thus, from the beginning of the sixth hour, leaven is already considered something that is not his, although it is forbidden only by rabbinic law. Therefore, it cannot be annulled at that hour. And we raise an objection:

But

once

after

the time of

the prohibition,

when leaven is again

forbidden, is he unable to annul it?

Yet we find that even when it is forbidden by Torah law, he can annul it—

as it was taught in a beraita: If he was sitting in the study hall and remembered

that he had leaven inside his house,

he

annuls it

in his heart.

Whether

on

Shabbat or whether

on

a Festival, he does so

!

And now the difficulty arises:

Granted,

on

Shabbat, it can be found

that he can annul it before it becomes forbidden.

For example, when the fourteenth of

Nisan

falls on Shabbat,

he annuls it before the sixth hour, while it is still permitted for benefit.

But

on

the Festival

of Passover, how can he annul it? After all,

after

the time of

the prohibition it is!?

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

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.

And he remembered that

he had

dough being kneaded in his house

that had not yet become leavened,

and

he

was afraid that it might become leavened.

Because of the awe inspired by the honor of his teacher, he could not rise from before him, go home, and bake it. Therefore,

he hastens and nullifies it

here, in the study hall,

before

it

becomes leavened.

At that point he can certainly nullify it, since it is still permitted to eat and is considered his property.

And the Gemara brings a proof:

This is also precise

in that it is speaking of dough that has not yet become leavened.

For

it

teaches

“If he was sitting in the study hall,”

which indicates that this is why he nullifies it in his heart: because he cannot rise from before his teacher. Were that not the case, he would go home and bake the dough before it became leavened. For if the case concerned actual leaven, why did the beraita specify that he was sitting in the study hall? Even if he were sitting at home, he would have no means of doing more than nullifying the leaven.

And we conclude:

Learn from this!

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

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

since matza was more prevalent

among the items in the crate in which the bread was found—that is, matza was used there more frequently than leaven—it is

permitted

during Pesaḥ, 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 was leaven,

then even

if matza was more prevalent

in this crate,

what of it?

It is leaven; how can it be permitted?

Rather,

it must be that the case is

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

If so,

why specifically say

that it is permitted only

when matza was more prevalent?

It should be that

even when matza was not more prevalent,

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

also

the bread found inside during Pesaḥ should be permitted, because

we follow the last usage,

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

Did we not learn

that we follow the last usage?

As 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.

The produce of Second Tithe may be eaten only in Jerusalem. One who possesses Second-Tithe produce and finds it difficult to take it up to Jerusalem may redeem the Second Tithe onto money; the produce becomes non-sacred, while the money acquires the sanctity of Second Tithe.

He takes the money up to Jerusalem, purchases food with it, and then the sanctity of Second Tithe in the money is transferred to the food, while the money becomes non-sacred.

Since pilgrims did not have enough time to spend all the Second-Tithe money in their possession while they were in Jerusalem, they would give the remainder 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.

The principal use of Second-Tithe money was to purchase animals to offer as peace-offerings. [This is derived through a gzera shava, “there” and “there”: Second Tithe from peace-offerings].

As long as a person has Second-Tithe money in Jerusalem, he does not purchase animals with non-sacred money in his possession. Rather, he spends the tithe money on the animals and offers them as peace-offerings.

Since most animals in Jerusalem are purchased with Second-Tithe money, it follows that most of the money found before animal merchants, having fallen from those who came there to purchase, is Second-Tithe money. Although it is possible that the money fell from the seller after the animals had been purchased, in which case the sanctity had already been transferred from the money to the animals, this remains 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

non-sacred

money. 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 there is no concern that this is Second-Tithe money. This is because we follow the majority of the year, and assume that the money fell before the Festival, when most of the money in the city was non-sacred.

And money that was found

in Jerusalem—

if it was found

during the pilgrimage Festival,

it is

Second-Tithe money,

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 year,

it is

non-sacred.

For at that time most of the money in the city is non-sacred.

And Rav Shemaya bar Zeira said: What is the reason

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

Since the markets of Jerusalem are swept [that is, swept clean]

to be swept ]

every day

because of the mud. If the money had fallen before the Festival, the people who swept the market would have found it and taken it for themselves. Rather, it certainly fell during the Festival itself.

But the Temple Mount is not swept every day, because it is sloped and the wind clears it of dust. Also, no one 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 challenge:

Apparently, we say

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

the first ones go away first,

the money that fell before the Festival was already removed from there,

and this money,

the money now found in Jerusalem, is

different money,

which fell during the Festival itself.

If so,

here too,

with regard to bread found during Pesaḥ inside the crate,

let us say

that, ordinarily, in a crate in which food is placed,

the first one goes away first: the food placed there first is removed first, so that it will not become moldy. All the more so on the eve of Pesaḥ, when presumably he inspected the crate and removed the leaven from it.

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,

the bread now found during Pesaḥ,

which is of today,

must certainly be bread placed in the crate today—that is, matza. Why, then, do we permit it only when matza was used in the crate more than leaven?

And we answer:

This case is different,

with regard to bread that has become moldy,

for its moldiness proves concerning it

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

And we challenge this:

If its moldiness proves concerning it,

that it had been placed there many days earlier,

when matza was more prevalent, what of it?

It is certainly leaven!

And we resolve this:

Rabba said: Do not say,

in Rav’s statement,

“that matza was more prevalent”; rather, say,

“that the days of

matza became numerous”

concerning it,

meaning that the bread was found after several days of Pesaḥ had already passed. Even if it is matza, it could already have become moldy during those days. If so, we again follow the most recent usage: it certainly remained from Pesaḥ and is matza.

And we challenge this 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 Pesaḥ!?

And we answer:

It is necessary

to say this only in a case

where its moldiness is extensive,

so that the bread appears extremely moldy.

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

it is from before Pesaḥ, and

it is genuine leaven.

It teaches us that, since the days of matza became numerous concerning it,

and several days of Pesaḥ had already passed over it,

we say: Each and every day

of Pesaḥ,

hot bread,

hot matza,

was baked and placed upon it,

and laid upon it,

and

because of this

it became even more moldy,

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

Do we indeed follow the most recent usage?

? [

?