Pesachim 8b — the Talmud in English

he is entirely righteous

through this act. And he is not considered as one who performs a mitzva not for its own sake, since his principal intention is to fulfill the mitzva of the Creator, Who commanded [him] to give charity, except that together with this he also wishes to benefit from the act of charity: that he merit the World to Come, or that his sons live.

And here too, although he also intends to find the needle, his principal intention is for the sake of the mitzva of the search, and he is still considered an agent of a mitzva?

And we answer: We are concerned

perhaps after he has searched

for the leaven and completed the entire mitzva,

he will come to inspect after it

for the needle; at that point he is certainly no longer in the category of an agent of a mitzva, and he may be harmed by the scorpion.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

Actually, the beraita speaks of holes and cracks in an existing wall, which he is not obligated to search

because of the danger of

the gentiles,

since the gentile who lives there will think that he is performing sorcery for him, and will come to take revenge on him.

And

according to the view of

Pelaimo [

a tanna ],

it is.

As it was taught: A hole

in a wall

between a Jew and an Aramean [

a gentile ],

the Jew searches

on the side of the wall

as far as his hand reaches, and the rest he nullifies in his heart.

Pelaimo said:

The

entire

hole

he does not search

at all

because of the danger.

And we inquire:

What danger

is there in this?

If you say, because of the danger of sorcery,

that the gentile will say that the Jew is performing sorcery for him—if so,

when he used

that same hole until now,

how did he use it there,

and did not fear that the gentile would say about him that he was performing sorcery for him?

And we answer:

When he used

the hole until now,

daytime and light

he used it in the light of day.

And the gentile does not infer

from this

his intention

that he intends to perform sorcery for him. But

here,

in the search for leaven, it is

at night

and

with

a

lamp he is

searching,

and the gentile infers

from this

his intention,

and suspects the Jew is performing sorcery for him. And we object:

But Rabbi Elazar said: Agents of a mitzva are not harmed.

What, then, does he have to fear from the gentile?

And we answer:

Where harm is common,

such as here, in the danger posed by the gentile,

it is different.

Agents of a mitzva likewise are not assured that they will not be harmed.

And proof of this is

that,

when the Lord sent Samuel to anoint David as king, it is

stated [

I Samuel 16:2 ]:

“And Samuel said, How shall I go, and Saul will hear and kill me?”

And the Lord said, Take a heifer with you

and say, “I have come to sacrifice to the Lord!” Thus, even though Samuel had been sent by the Lord, he was afraid of Saul, since this was a case of “common harm.”

They asked Rav: These sons of the house of Rav,

those students

who dwell in the valley,

who live in the villages of the plain,

what is [the ruling] regarding coming early and in darkness,

are they permitted to leave their homes before dawn, or in the evening after dark, in order to arrive

at the house of Rav

at the beit-midrash in the city? Or perhaps they must fear the harmful beings?

He said to them

Rav:

Let them come,

they may come to the beit-midrash, and the punishment resulting from this will come

upon me and upon my neck!

That is, they need not fear the harmful beings, because the mitzva will certainly protect them.

And they asked him again:

Should we go

back at night to their lodging after darkness falls,

what

is the ruling? Can they also, on the return journey, rely on the mitzva to protect them, or not?

He said to them: I do not know!

It was stated: Rabbi Elazar said: Agents of a mitzva are not harmed, neither on their going

to perform the mitzva

nor on their returning

from it. For the mitzva protects those who perform it even on the way back from it.

And we inquire:

According to whom,

according to which tanna does Rabbi Elazar hold?

And we answer:

Like this tanna.

As it was taught: Isi ben Judah says: Since [

from ]

the Torah said

concerning those who go up for the Festival [Exodus 34:24]:

“And no man shall covet your land

when you go up to appear before the Lord your God three times in the year,”

the verse teaches

that when you go up for the Festival, you are assured

that your cow will graze in the meadow [

pasture ],

and no animal will harm it.

And

your chicken will peck in the garbage dump, and no weasel will harm it.

And

all the more so, you yourself will not suffer any harm as a result of going up for the Festival.

For is this not a

kal va-chomer

?

And what of

a cow and a chicken

which are accustomed to being harmed [

to being injured ], nevertheless the Torah promised that through the mitzva of going up for the Festival

they will not be harmed.

Human beings, who are not accustomed to being harmed,

because “a person has mazal,” meaning that he has awareness with which to guard himself,

all the more so

the mitzva protects them.

I have [a basis]

to learn about the mitzva’s protection

only on the going

to perform the mitzva.

On the return

from it,

from where

do we know that it also protects then?

The verse states

concerning the Passover Festival [Deuteronomy 16:7]:

“And you shall turn in the morning and go to your tents.”

It teaches that you shall go

back to your home,

and you shall find

your

tents in peace.

And we inquire:

And since

the verse promised him

that even on

the way

back

from going up for the Festival he will not be harmed, it is a

kal va-chomer

that on the way there he will not be harmed. If so,

why do I need

the verse, “And no man shall covet your land when you go up to appear”?

And we answer: It is needed

for [the teaching] of Rav Ami.

For Rav Ami said:

From the fact that the Torah said, “And no man shall covet your land,” we learn that only

a person who has land

is

one who goes up for the Festival.

And

however, a person

who has no land is not

obligated to be

one who goes up for the Festival.

Rav Avin bar Rav Adda said in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak: Why are the fruits of Ginosar [

the name of a place in the Land of Israel, whose fruits are exceedingly sweet]

found in Jerusalem?

So that those who go up for the Festival will not say,

“If only we had not gone up

for the Festival

except

only in order

to eat the fruits of Ginosar in Jerusalem, that would have sufficed for us!”

It follows

that the

going up

for the Festival was

not for its own sake.

Similarly, Rabbi Dostai son of Rabbi Yannai said: Why are the hot springs of Tiberias

found

in Jerusalem?

So that those who go up for the Festival will not say

“If only we had not gone up except

in order

to bathe in the hot springs of Tiberias, that would have sufficed for us!”

And it follows

that the

going up

for the Festival was

not for its own sake.

We learned in the Mishna: Any place into which leaven is not brought does not require searching.

And concerning what did they say [that one searches] two rows

in a wine cellar, a place into which leaven is brought?

And we inquire:

“A wine cellar”—

who mentioned it!?

Where was it mentioned in the Mishna that a wine cellar is exempt from the search for leaven, such that the tanna asks, why then did they say that a wine cellar requires searching?

And we answer:

This is what it says: Any place into which leaven is not brought does not require searching.

And

we said above that the Mishna comes to include, through the word “any,”

wine storerooms and oil storerooms,

into which leaven is likewise not brought,

also do not require searching.

And concerning this the tanna asks:

“And concerning what did they say

that

two rows in a wine cellar

of wine require searching”?

And the tanna answers that they said this only concerning a wine cellar that is

“a place into which leaven is brought.”

And

that is,

in

a wine cellar from which one

takes

wine for his meal.

We learned in the Mishna:

Beit Shammai say: Two rows

across the entire wine cellar.

Rav Judah said: The two rows that they said

Beit Shammai [requires searching], both parallel to one another

from the ground up to the ceiling [

the roof ].

For it was customary for the wine-storage owners to arrange the barrels in rows in the wine cellar until they filled the entire floor. Upon them they placed further layers up to the ceiling. And Beit Shammai hold that one must search the outer row opposite the entrance, from below to above, and another parallel row farther inside, also from below to above.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

The two rows according to Beit Shammai are not parallel; rather,

one row

stands and the other lies,

like the letter gamma [

the Greek gamma, resembling our final kaf ]. He searches, as stated, the outer row from below to above, and the upper row along its entire length and breadth of the wine cellar.

It was taught in accordance with Rav Judah’s view.

And

it was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan’s view.

It was taught in accordance with Rav Judah’s view: Beit Shammai say:

They search

two rows across the entire wine cellar.

And these two rows

are the ones

that

Beit Shammai said [to search], both

from the ground up to the ceiling.

It was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan’s view: The two rows across the entire wine cellar

that Beit Shammai said [to search]: one of them is the standing

outer row,

the one

that sees

the wall in which there is

the entrance.

And

the other is the

upper row,

the lying row,

that sees the ceiling [

the roof ].

But the rest of the rows

that are before it

of the outer row,

and that are below it

of the upper row,

do not require searching!

We learned in the Mishna:

Beit Hillel say: The two outer rows, which are the upper ones.

Rav said:

The two rows according to Beit Hillel: one of them is the

upper row,

not along the entire length and breadth of the wine cellar, but only the outer row in the upper layer, which sees both the entrance and the ceiling. And the other is the single row

below it.

And Samuel said:

The two rows according to Beit Hillel are:

the upper

one in the outer row,

and

another parallel row

before it,

also in the upper layer.

And we inquire:

What is Rav’s reason,

why does he not explain like Samuel, that the two rows are in the upper layer, as implied by Beit Hillel’s words, “which are the upper ones”?

And we answer: Because he

was precise

in Beit Hillel’s words, who said “the two

outer [rows],”

which implies that both of them are outer. But according to Samuel, the second row is no longer outer.

And we object:

But

“which are

the upper ones”

it teaches

also in Beit Hillel’s words, whereas according to Rav the second row is no longer upper, but is below the first?

And we answer: “Upper” is not precise. Rather, it comes

to exclude

the remaining rows below the two upper rows, which are

the lower of the lower [

lower in relation to the second row, which is also lower ].

And Samuel said

“the upper one and the one before it.”

What is the reason

that he did not say like Rav, that the two rows are outer?

Because he

was precise

in Beit Hillel’s words, “the

upper ones.”

But according to Rav, the second row is no longer upper.

And we object:

But

“outer”

it teaches

also in Beit Hillel’s words. And according to Samuel, the second is no longer outer?

And we answer: “Outer” is not precise. Rather, it comes to exclude the remaining rows before the two outer rows, which are

the inner of the inner [

inner in relation to the row, which is itself also inner ].

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught in accordance with Rav’s view.

And all the tannaim

and all the beraitot

taught in accordance with Samuel’s view.

And we conclude:

And the halakha is in accordance with Samuel’s view,

according to which, following Beit Hillel, one must search the two outer rows of the upper layer.