Pesachim 8b (ח:) — the Talmud in English

He is entirely righteous

through this act. He is not considered to be performing a mitzva שלא לשמה, since his primary intention is to fulfill the mitzva of the Creator, Who commanded him to give charity; it is merely that, at the same time, he also wishes to benefit from the act of charity, so that he will merit the World-to-Come or that his children will live.

And here as well, although his intention is also to find the needle, his primary intention is for the mitzva of the search, and he is still considered a messenger performing a mitzva?

And we answer: We are concerned

that 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 will certainly no longer have the status of a messenger performing a mitzva, and he may be harmed by a scorpion.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

The beraita is actually speaking of holes and cracks in an existing wall, in which one is not obligated to search

because of the danger posed by

non-Jews,

as the non-Jew who lives there might think that he is performing witchcraft there and come to take revenge against him.

And

according to the view of

Palaimo

(he was a tanna),

it is referring to this case.

As it was taught: A hole

in a wall

that lies between a Jew and an Aramean

(a non-Jew),

the Jew searches

on his side of the wall

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

Palaimo said:

The

entire

hole

is not searched

at all

because of the danger.

And we inquire:

What danger

is involved here?

If you say, because of the danger of witchcraft,

as the non-Jew might say that the Jew is performing witchcraft for him, then

when he used

that same hole until now,

how did he use it there,

without fearing that the non-Jew would say that he was performing witchcraft for him?

And we answer:

When he used

the hole until now,

it was during the day and in daylight;

he used it in the light of day.

And the non-Jew did not infer

from it

that

he intended to perform witchcraft for him. But

here,

in the search for leaven, it is

at night,

and

with

a lamp

he searches;

and the non-Jew infers

from it

that, and suspects the Jew is performing witchcraft for him.

And we raise an objection: But Rabbi Elazar said: Messengers performing a mitzva are not harmed.

Why, then, should he fear the non-Jew?

And we answer:

Where harm is common,

as here, in the danger posed by the non-Jew,

it is different.

Messengers performing a mitzva are not guaranteed that they will not be harmed.

And there is a proof for this

that

when God sent Samuel to anoint David as king,

it is stated

(I Samuel 16:2):

“And Samuel said: How can I go? Saul will hear and kill me.”

And God said: Take a heifer with you

and say: “I have come to sacrifice to God.”

Thus, although Samuel had been sent by God, he feared Saul, since this was a case in which “harm is common.”

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

those students

who live in the countryside,

those who live in the villages of the valley,

what is the ruling regarding their coming early and late,

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 harmful beings?

He said to them

Rav:

Let them come,

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

upon me and my neck!

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

They asked him again:

Should we go

back at night to their lodging after darkness falls,

what

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

He said to them: I do not know!

It was stated: Rabbi Elazar said: Messengers performing a mitzva are not harmed, neither on their way

to perform the mitzva

nor on their return

from it, because the mitzva protects those who perform it even on their return journey.

And we inquire:

In accordance with whom,

which tanna’s view does Rabbi Elazar follow?

And we answer:

In accordance with this tanna.

As it was taught, Isi ben Yehuda says: Since

[from the fact that]

the Torah said

concerning those who ascend for the pilgrimage [Exodus 34:24]:

“No man shall covet your land

when you go up to appear before the Lord your God three times a year” —

the verse teaches

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

that your cow will be grazing in the meadow

(pasture)

and no wild animal will harm it,

and your hen will be pecking in the refuse, and no weasel will harm it.

And

all the more so, no harm will happen to you personally as a result of ascending for the pilgrimage.

Is this not a kal

va-homer

?

What,

these cow and hen,

which are naturally vulnerable to harm

[to being harmed], nevertheless the Torah promised that, through the mitzva of ascending for the pilgrimage,

they will not be harmed.

Human beings, who are not naturally vulnerable to harm,

because “a person has mazal,” meaning that he has the intelligence to protect himself,

all the more so

the mitzva protects them.

I can derive

the mitzva’s protection

only while going

to perform the mitzva.

On the return

from it,

from where

do we know that it also protects him then?

The verse states

concerning the pilgrimage on Passover [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 find

your

tents in peace.

And we inquire:

And since

the verse assured him

that even on

the way

back

from ascending for the pilgrimage he will not be harmed, this is a kal va-homer

while going

there. If so,

why do I need

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

And we answer: It is needed

for the teaching of Rav Ami.

As Rav Ami said:

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

a person who owns land

is

obligated to ascend for the pilgrimage.

But

a person

who does not own land is not

obligated to be

one who ascends for the pilgrimage.

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

(a place in the Land of Israel whose fruits are exceedingly sweet) not found

in Jerusalem?

So that those who ascend for the pilgrimage will not say,

“If only we had not ascended

for the pilgrimage

except

merely in order

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

It would turn out

that the

ascent

for the pilgrimage was

not for its own sake.

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

not found

in Jerusalem?

So that those who ascend for the pilgrimage will not say,

“If only we had not ascended except

in order

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

It would turn out that the

that the

ascent

for the pilgrimage was

not for its own sake.

We learned in the Mishna: Any place into which one does not bring leaven need not be searched.

And concerning what did they say, “two rows”

in a wine cellar, a place into which one brings leaven?

And we inquire:

“A wine cellar”—

who mentioned it?

Where is it mentioned in the Mishna that a wine cellar is exempt from the search for leaven, so that the tanna asks why they nevertheless said that a wine cellar requires a search?

And we answer:

This is what it says: Any place into which one does not bring leaven need not be searched.

And

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

wine storehouses and oil storehouses,

where as well one does not bring leaven;

they too do not require a search.

And concerning this the tanna asks:

“And concerning what did they say

that

two rows in a wine cellar

of wine require a search”?

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

“a place into which one brings leaven.”

And

that is,

a

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 Yehuda said: The two rows that they said,

Beit Shammai, are two parallel rows

from the ground to the ceiling

(the roof).

Wine merchants customarily arrange the barrels in rows in the cellar until they fill the entire floor, and place additional layers upon them until the ceiling. Beit Shammai hold that one must search the outermost row opposite the entrance from bottom to top, and another parallel row farther inside, likewise from bottom to top.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

The two rows according to Beit Shammai are not parallel. Rather,

one row

stands and the other lies

in the form of a gamma

(the Greek letter gamma, resembling our final kaf): one searches, as stated, the outer row from bottom to top, and the upper row along the entire length and width of the cellar.

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

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

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

One searches

two rows across the entire wine cellar.

And the two rows

that

they said

Beit Shammai are both

from the ground 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: one of them is the

outer standing row,

which

faces the

wall containing

the entrance.

And

the other is the

upper lying row,

which

faces the ceiling

(the roof).

But the remaining rows

in front of it

that is, inside the outer row,

and below it

that is, below the upper row,

do not require a search!

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 is the

upper

row—not along the entire length and width of the cellar, but only the outer row of the upper layer, which faces both the entrance and the ceiling. The other is the single row

below it.

And Shmuel said:

The two rows according to Beit Hillel are

the upper

row of the outer stack,

and

another parallel row

in front of it,

also in the upper layer.

And we inquire:

What is Rav’s reason,

why does he not interpret Beit Hillel as Shmuel does, that both rows are in the upper layer, as implied by Beit Hillel’s words, “which are the upper ones”?

And we answer: He

was precise

in Beit Hillel’s words, for they said “the two

outer rows,”

implying that both are outer. According to Shmuel, however, the second row is no longer outer.

And we object:

But

“which are

the upper ones”

is also taught

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

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

to exclude

the other rows below the two upper rows, which are

the lowest of the lower

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

And Samuel said

And Shmuel said:

“The upper one and the one in front of it.”

What is the reason

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

Because he

was precise

in Beit Hillel’s words, “the

upper ones.” According to Rav, however, the second row is no longer upper.

And we object:

But

“outer”

is also taught

in Beit Hillel’s statement. According to Shmuel, however, the second row is no longer outer?

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

the innermost of the inner

(internal in relation to the row that is itself also internal).

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught in accordance with Rav’s view.

And all the tannaim,

all the beraitot,

taught in accordance with Shmuel’s view.

And we conclude:

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

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