Pesachim 8a — the Talmud in English

Because the light of the lamp is suitable for searching.

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

And although there is no proof for the matter,

there is

a remembrance for the matter. As it is stated:

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

And it says:

“And he searched, beginning with the great.”

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 raised an objection concerning it:

This

that it teaches: “One does not search by

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

in what manner is this speaking?

If you say it is concerning the

searching of a

courtyard,

where the light of the sun is found,

Rava said: A courtyard does not require searching

at all,

because ravens are commonly found there.

And if there was leaven there, the ravens have already eaten it!

Rather,

lest you say that it is speaking

of a portico,

where the light of the sun also enters, which is obligated in searching for leaven, and the beraita says that one does not search it by the light of the sun.

Rava said: A portico is searched by its light.

One can search it during the day by the light of the sun, and there is no need to search it at night by the light of a lamp!

And we answer:

It is necessary,

rather

for an opening in the roof of a room,

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

And we challenge:

And where is this?

Of which place in the room is this speaking?

If it is directly opposite the opening,

directly beneath the hole of the opening, why is the light of the sun not sufficient there? Is it not

the same as a portico?

And we conclude:

Rather,

the beraita is speaking

with respect to the two sides

of the opening in the roof. There the sun does not illuminate as it does in a portico, and therefore one does not search by its light.

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

And we raised an objection concerning it:

And

is it the case that

a torch is not

fit for searching? But 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 the radiance

of the righteous in the future

will be like the light

of the seven days of Creation;

horns from His hand are there for him”

from the radiance of the Holy One, blessed be He, will reach the righteous, causing their faces to shine. And nevertheless,

“and there

by the Holy One, blessed be He,

is the hiding-place of His might.”

The force of the light with Him is greater than with the righteous.

And Rava explains:

To what are the righteous compared in

relation to

the face of

the

Divine Presence?

To

the light of a

lamp before a torch.

And

Rava further

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

Thus the light of a torch is stronger than the light of a lamp; so why should one not search by the light of a torch?

And we answer:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

The reason that one does not search with a torch, but only with a lamp, is that

this

lamp

can be inserted into crevices and cracks

in order to search them for leaven.

But

that

this

torch,

cannot be inserted into crevices and cracks

to search them.

Rav Zevid said: This

lamp,

its light

illuminates

before it, but

this

one,

the torch,

its light

illuminates

behind it.

Therefore it is unsuitable for searching, since the person holding it searches the place before him, and there he requires light.

Rav Pappa said

another distinction:

This,

the torch, the person holding it

is afraid,

he fears that he may set the house alight with it, and because of this he does not pay attention to search properly.

But

if

this,

the lamp,

he is not afraid

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

Ravina said

another distinction:

This,

the lamp,

draws light,

its light continues and is steady, and it does not burn in leaps but rests in one place. Therefore it is suitable for searching.

But

if

this,

the torch,

is continually cut off,

the flame continually leaps and is interrupted; therefore it is not suitable for searching.

We learned in the Mishna:

Any place into which one does not bring

leaven does not require searching.

And we raised an objection concerning it:

“Any place”

that the tannai taught, rather than being satisfied to say, “A place into which one does not bring

to include what?

What does this come to include?

And we answer:

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 crevices

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 it is not convenient to use them, and they are like a place into which one does not bring leaven.

And

so too

the roof of the gallery,

a small structure adjacent to the house, does not require searching. For although it is low, it is not suitable for use, since it is sloping. [And all the other roofs of the houses in their time were flat].

And

so too

the roof of the tower,

a wooden cabinet in which vessels and food are placed, does not require searching, since it too is sloping. Only inside it does one need to search.

And

so too

a cattle shed and chicken coops

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

And

so too

a hayloft,

a house for hay,

and wine storehouses and oil storehouses do not require searching,

since it is not customary to bring leaven there.

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

which they place in the middle of the house as a partition dividing the house for different uses,

and

it

separates,

whose legs are high, and there is an open space separating it from the ground,

requires searching

beneath it.

And they juxtapose them:

apparently, a contradiction to this from another beraita:

A crevice

in a wall

between

the house of

a person and the

house of

his fellow.

This one searches

the crevice from the side of his house

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 the hand of neither of them 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 separates

so that there is a separation between it and the wood and stones,

does not require searching

beneath it.

The matter of a bed contradicts the matter of a bed.

And the matter of crevices contradicts the matter of crevices.

This beraita contradicts the preceding beraita both concerning the law of the bed and concerning the law of the crevices. For the first beraita holds that the crevices of the house do not require searching, and that a bed that divides requires searching. Whereas the second beraita holds the opposite: that the crevices of the house require searching, and that a bed that divides does not require searching.

And we answer:

The matter of the rear crevices is not difficult.

For

this

which the first beraita teaches, that the crevices of the house do not require searching, is speaking

of the upper and lower ones,

the upper and lower crevices, as is explicitly explained in the beraita, for those crevices are not convenient for use, and one does not bring leaven into them; therefore they are exempt from searching.

And this

which the second beraita teaches, that the crevices of the house require searching, is speaking

of the middle ones,

the middle crevices in the wall, which are convenient for use, and leaven is hidden in them. Therefore they are obligated in searching.

And also

the matter of a bed contradicting a bed is not difficult.

For

this

which teaches that a bed requires searching is speaking of a bed

that is raised,

which is high, and the open space beneath it is large, and therefore it is convenient to use that place. And

this

which teaches that a bed does not require searching is speaking of a bed

that is low,

which has only a small open space beneath it, and it is not convenient to use that place; therefore there is no need to search there.

We learned in a beraita: Wine storehouses and oil storehouses do not require searching.

And we challenge:

And

do

wine storehouses not require searching?

But it was taught: Wine storehouses require searching,

whereas only

oil storehouses do not require searching.

And we answer:

What are we dealing with here,

where searching is required?

With

a wine storehouse from which he

uses [

consumes] some for his meal. Sometimes the wine is finished in the middle of the meal, and the servant enters the storehouse to bring wine from there, with his bread in his hand.

And we challenge:

If so,

oil storehouses

also

should require searching when he uses from them for his meal, out of concern that 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 measure of how much oil is 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 needs to bring more wine in the middle of the meal.

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: They made

the Sages

wine-storehouses in Babylonia

require searching,

just

as

wine storehouses

in

the Land of Israel.

And this is

with

a beer storehouse from which he

uses

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

Rav Ḥisda said: Fish storehouses,

a fish storehouse,

does not require searching.

And we challenge:

But it was taught:

Fish storehouses

require searching?

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

For

this

which teaches that searching is not required is speaking

of large fish,

of a storehouse of large fish, for it is possible to estimate in advance how many of them are needed for the meal, and there is no need to get up in the middle of the meal and bring more. And

this

which teaches that searching is required is speaking

of small fish,

of a storehouse of small fish, for it is impossible to know in advance how many will be needed, and sometimes more must be brought in the middle of the meal, and he does this while the bread is in his hand.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Salt storehouses and candle storehouses,

the storehouses of salt and the storehouses of wax candles,

require searching,

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

Rav Pappa said: Wood storehouses and date storehouses,

the storehouses of wood and the storehouses of dates,

require searching,

since sometimes it is also customary to bring them during the meal.

It was taught: They do not obligate him to insert his hand into crevices and cracks

in the wall and

search

them for leaven,

because of the danger

involved.

And we raised an objection concerning it:

What danger,

because of what danger are we concerned?

If you say because of the danger of a scorpion,

which may be found in crevices and cracks, if so,

when he uses

that place throughout the year,

how did he use it!?

And if you obligate him to search there, this is a sign that there is no danger of a scorpion there.

And we answer:

It is necessary,

rather, in a wall

that fell,

and as long as the wall stood, he used its crevices. Nevertheless, they do not now obligate him to insert his hand into the heap of stones and search among the ruins; rather, it is sufficient for him to search from the outside as far as can be seen, because of the danger of scorpions commonly found in refuse heaps and stone piles.

And we challenge:

if it fell

the wall,

why do I need an inspection?

And even if there were no danger of a scorpion, he would not have needed to inspect, for

we learned: If a collapse fell upon chametz, it is considered as removed,

and he does not need to remove it any further!?

And we answer:

There,

it is speaking of a collapse three handbreadths high,

such that the dog cannot search after it

of the chametz beneath the collapse. Therefore, it is considered as removed. But

here,

in the case of a wall that fell, it is speaking

when the dog can search after it

of the chametz, because the heap is not three handbreadths high. And in such a case, the chametz is not considered as removed. And had there not been a danger of a scorpion, he would have been obligated to inspect after it and remove it.

And we challenge: Why must one be concerned about the danger of a scorpion while he is engaged in the mitzva of inspecting for chametz,

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

And we answer:

Rav Ashi said:

We are concerned

lest he lost a needle

within the ruins beforehand,

and

during the inspection for chametz

he will come to inspect after it,

and he will also search for the lost needle. And since he intends also to find the needle, he is no longer within the category of an agent performing a mitzva, and there is concern that he will be harmed by the scorpion.

And we still challenge:

And is it so that

in

such a case,

in which he intends both for a mitzva and for his own needs,

he is not

an agent performing a

mitzva?

And it was taught in a beraita: One who says,

"This sela

shall be

for charity for the sake that my son should live," or

"so that I may be a son of the World to Come

by virtue of the charity that I gave"