Pesachim 8a (ח.) — the Talmud in English

Because the light of a lamp is suitable for searching.

The Gemara will explain below in what way it is superior to a torch.

And although there is no proof for the matter,

there is

an allusion to it, as it is stated:

“For seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses.”

And it says:

“And he shall search, beginning with the greatest.”

And it says:

“At that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps.”

And it says:

“The lamp of the Lord is the soul of man, searching all the chambers of the

belly.”

And we raise a difficulty:

this

that it teaches, “One does not search by

the light of the sun”; what are the circumstances,

what situation is it referring to?

If we say it concerns

searching a

courtyard,

where sunlight is present,

Rava said: A courtyard does not require searching

at all,

because ravens are commonly found there.

If there was leaven there, the ravens have already eaten it!

Rather,

perhaps you may say that it refers to

a portico,

where sunlight also enters, and which is obligated in the search for leaven; yet the beraita says that one does not search it by sunlight.

Rava said: A portico is searched by its light.

One may search it during the day by sunlight and need not search it at night by the light of a lamp!

And we answer:

It is necessary

only

in the case of a skylight in a room,

for although sunlight enters through the skylight, one does not search by its light during the day, but specifically by the light of a lamp at night.

And we object:

And where is this?

To which place in the room does this refer?

If it is directly beneath the skylight,

directly below the opening, why is sunlight not sufficient there? After all,

that is the same as a portico.

And we conclude:

Rather,

the beraita is speaking

with regard to the sides

of the skylight, where the sunlight does not shine as it does in a portico; therefore one does not search there by its light.

We learned in the beraita: And not by the light of a torch.

And we raise a difficulty:

But

if

a torch is not

suitable for searching, is that so? Its light is stronger than the light of a lamp!

For

Rava said: What is the meaning of that which is written [Habakkuk 3:4],

“And its radiance

“And his radiance

of the righteous in the future

shall be like the light

of the seven days of Creation;

rays came forth from his hand,”

from the radiance of the Holy One, blessed be He, the righteous will receive light that will cause their faces to shine. And even so,

“and there

with the Holy One, blessed be He,

is the hiding-place of His power.”

The intensity of the light with Him is greater than that with the righteous.

And Rava explains:

To what are the righteous compared in

relation to

the presence

of

the Divine Presence?

To

the light of

a lamp before a torch.

And

further

Rava said: For havdala, a torch is the choicest mitzva!

Thus, the light of a torch is stronger than that of a lamp. Why, then, should one not search by the light of a torch?

And we answer:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The reason one searches only with a lamp and not with a torch is that

The reason one searches only with a candle and not with a torch is that

this

lamp,

can be inserted into crevices and cracks

in order to search them for leaven.

But

if one had

this

torch,

he could not insert it into crevices and cracks

to search them.

Rav Zevid said: This

lamp,

its light

shines

before it, whereas

this

this

torch,

its light

shines

behind it.

Therefore it is unsuitable for searching, since the person holding it searches the place in front of him, where he needs light.

Rav Pappa said

there is another distinction:

this,

the torch, a person holding it

is afraid,

that he might set the house on fire with it, and consequently he does not pay proper attention to the search.

But

if he had

this,

a lamp,

he is not afraid

of it; therefore one searches only with a lamp and not with a torch.

Ravina said

there is another distinction:

this,

a lamp,

draws out its light;

the light extends steadily and does not leap about, but remains in one place. Therefore it is suitable for searching.

But

if he had

this,

a torch,

it flickers continuously;

the flame leaps and is constantly interrupted, and therefore it is unsuitable for searching.

We learned in the Mishna:

Any place into which one does not bring

leaven does not require searching.

And we raise a difficulty:

“Any place”

that the tanna taught—rather than merely saying, “A place into which one does not bring”

what does it include?

What does this wording come to include?

And we answer:

It comes to include that which the Sages taught:

the Mishna comes to include all the places mentioned in the following beraita, which do not require searching because one does not bring leaven there:

The holes

in the walls of the

house, the upper

ones, which are very high, or

the lower

ones, which are very low, do not require searching, since they are inconvenient to use and are therefore like a place into which one does not bring leaven.

And

likewise

the roof of the vestibule,

a small structure adjacent to the house, does not require searching. Although it is low, it is unsuitable for use since it is sloped. [All the other roofs of houses in their time were flat.]

And

likewise

the roof of the tower,

a wooden cabinet in which vessels and food are kept, does not require searching, since it too is sloped. Only its interior must be searched.

And

likewise

a cattle pen and chicken coops

do not require searching, since if there was leaven there, the animals and birds have already eaten it.

And

likewise

a hay storehouse,

a place for hay,

and storehouses of wine and storehouses of oil do not require searching,

since it is not customary to bring leaven there.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: A bed that divides the house

that is placed in the middle of the house as a partition dividing it for different uses,

and

that

interrupts

with elevated legs, leaving an open space between it and the ground,

requires searching

beneath it.

And it contradicts it

apparently, by means of another beraita:

A hole

in a wall

between

a person’s house and

his

neighbor’s house,

this one searches

the hole

from his side of the wall

as far as his hand reaches, and this one searches

from his side

as far as his hand reaches.

And the remainder,

within the thickness of the wall, where neither of their hands reaches,

he nullifies in his heart.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: A bed that divides the house, with wood and stones arranged beneath it, and that interrupts

with a separation between it and the wood and stones,

does not require searching

beneath it.

There is a difficulty between one bed and the other.

And there is a difficulty between the holes and the holes.

This beraita contradicts the preceding beraita both concerning the bed and concerning the holes. The first beraita holds that the holes of the house do not require searching, and that a bed dividing the house requires searching. The second beraita, however, holds the opposite: the holes of the house require searching, while a bed dividing the house does not.

And we answer:

The holes and the holes are not difficult.

For

this

that the first beraita teaches that the holes of the house do not require searching refers

to the upper and lower holes,

the upper and lower holes, as the beraita explicitly explains, which are inconvenient to use and into which one does not bring leaven; therefore they are exempt from searching.

And this

that the second beraita teaches that the holes of the house require searching refers

to the middle holes,

the holes in the middle of the wall, which are convenient to use and in which people store leaven. Therefore they are obligated in searching.

And

the difficulty between one bed and the other is also not difficult.

For

this

that it teaches that a bed requires searching refers to a bed

that is high,

with substantial space beneath it, and therefore convenient to use.

And this

that it teaches that a bed does not require searching refers to a bed

that is low,

with only a small amount of space beneath it, making it inconvenient to use; therefore it need not be searched there.

We learned in the beraita: Storehouses of wine and storehouses of oil do not require searching.

And we object:

But

if

storehouses of wine do not require searching,

but it was taught: A storehouse of wine requires searching,

while only

a storehouse of oil does not require searching!

And we answer:

With what are we dealing here,

where searching is required?

With

a storehouse of wine from which one

partakes

[uses] for his meal. Sometimes the wine runs out in the middle of the meal, and the servant enters the storehouse to bring wine while holding his bread.

And we object:

If so,

storehouses of

oil as well

should require searching when one uses oil from them for his meal, because perhaps the servant entered there in the middle of the meal with his bread in his hand.

And we answer:

Oil

is used for eating, and

there is a fixed measure for eating.

There is a fixed amount of oil needed for each meal according to the number of participants, and the servant prepares it in advance; he never needs to get up in the middle of the meal to bring more oil. But

there is no fixed measure for drinking wine.

Sometimes more wine is drunk at a meal and sometimes less, and the servant does not know exactly how much to prepare; sometimes he must bring more wine in the middle of the meal.

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: They decreed that

the Sages

made the storehouses of beer in Babylonia

subject to searching,

just

as

the storehouses of wine

in

the Land of Israel.

This applies

to

a storehouse of beer from which one

partakes

during his meal. Since the people of Babylonia are accustomed to drinking beer, it is for them like wine is for the people of the Land of Israel, for which there is no fixed measure of drinking.

Rav Ḥisda said: A fish storehouse

a storehouse of fish,

does not require searching.

And we object:

But it was taught:

A fish storehouse

requires searching?

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

For

this

that teaches that it does not require searching refers

to large fish,

a storehouse of large fish, whose quantity needed for a meal can be estimated in advance, so there is no need to get up in the middle of the meal to bring more.

And this

that teaches that it requires searching refers

to small fish,

a storehouse of small fish, whose required quantity cannot be known in advance; sometimes more must be brought during the meal, and he does so while holding bread.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A storehouse of salt and a storehouse of candles,

storehouses of salt and wax candles,

require searching,

because sometimes a person gets up in the middle of the meal to bring salt or candles from the storehouse.

Rav Pappa said: A storehouse of wood and a storehouse of dates,

storehouses of wood and dates,

require searching,

because people sometimes bring some of these during the meal as well.

A tanna taught: One is not required to insert his hand into crevices and cracks

in a wall and

search

them for leaven,

because of the danger

involved.

And we raise a difficulty:

What danger?

What danger are we concerned about?

If we say, because of the danger of a scorpion,

which may be found in holes and cracks, then

when he uses

the place throughout the year,

how does he use it!?

If you require him to search there, that itself indicates that there is no danger from a scorpion.

And we answer:

It is necessary

rather in the case of a wall

that collapsed,

while the wall was standing he used its holes. Nevertheless, we do not require him now to insert his hand into the pile of stones and search among the ruins. It is sufficient for him to search from the outside, as far as he can see, because of the danger of scorpions commonly found in refuse heaps and piles.

And we challenge this:

if the wall fell,

the wall,

why do I need to inspect it?

Even if there were no danger from scorpions, there would have been no need to inspect it, because

we learned: If a pile collapsed upon chametz, it is considered as having been destroyed,

and there is no further need to remove it!?

And we answer:

There,

the case is one in which the pile is three handbreadths high,

so that a dog cannot search for it

the chametz beneath the pile. Therefore, it is considered as having been destroyed. But

here,

in the case of a collapsed wall, the situation is one

in which a dog can search for it,

the chametz, because the pile is not three handbreadths high. In such a case, the chametz is not considered as having been destroyed. Were it not for the danger from scorpions, he would be obligated to inspect for it and remove it.

And we continue to challenge this: Why must one be concerned about the danger from scorpions while he is engaged in the mitzva of inspecting for chametz,

for Rabbi Elazar said: Those sent to perform a mitzva are not harmed!?

And we answer:

Rav Ashi said:

We are concerned

that perhaps he lost a needle

inside the ruins beforehand, and

and

while inspecting for chametz

he will come to search for it,

and he will search for the lost needle as well. Since his intention is also to find the needle, he no longer has the status of an emissary performing a mitzva, and there is concern that he will be harmed by a scorpion.

And we continue to challenge this:

But

in

such a case,

when his intention is both to perform a mitzva and to attend to his own needs,

is he not

an emissary performing a

mitzva?

But it was taught in a beraita: One who says

“This sela

shall be

for charity so that my son may live,” or

“so that I may be a member of the World-to-Come

in the merit of the charity I have given”