Pesachim 9a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

When a person checking for leaven finishes checking one room and comes to check the second room,

we are not concerned that

in the meantime

a weasel dragged

leaven

from

a room that has not yet been checked

into

the room that has already been checked.

And

likewise,

we are not concerned that a weasel dragged leaven

from one place to another,

from one corner to another corner in the same room during the checking, so that he would then have to place guards in the places that had already been checked, to watch that a weasel does not enter them until he finishes checking the entire house.

For if

we were concerned

in this way,

these guards would be of no use, since there would also be reason for concern that after he finished checking the entire house, a weasel might drag leaven

from

the courtyard of a neighbor who had not yet checked

into

his courtyard, which had already been checked.

And

even if all the residents of the city had already checked for leaven, there would still be reason for concern that the weasel might drag it

from

another city, which had not yet been checked,

to

this city.

There would be no end to the matter.

For it is impossible for all the Jewish people to check for leaven at the same time. Therefore, there is necessarily no concern for this possibility.

Gemara:

The Gemara infers from the wording of the Mishna, “that perhaps a weasel dragged leaven”:

The reason is

that the entire reason we are not concerned is only

that we did not see it take it,

that we did not see the weasel bring leaven here.

But if we saw it take it,

if we saw that the weasel brought leaven to a place that had already been checked,

we are concerned,

since we must be concerned that it may still be here,

and it requires checking,

so they must return and check the place.

The Gemara asks:

But why!?

Let us say: “It ate it!”

Why should we not say that the weasel certainly already ate the leaven, and that there is no need to check again?

Did we not learn

in tractate Oholot:

The dwellings of gentiles

[the houses of gentiles]

are impure,

because they bury their miscarried fetuses in their houses, and a corpse imparts impurity through a tent.

And how long must

the gentile

remain in the dwelling for the dwelling to require checking

for a grave, after the gentile leaves it and a Jew wishes to enter and live there?

Forty days,

the amount of time in which a woman can become pregnant and miscarry a fetus that imparts impurity. And

even though he has no wife,

the dwelling of the gentile is nevertheless impure, because he is suspected of sexual immorality.

And any place through which a weasel and a pig can walk

does not require checking

for miscarried fetuses, because even if there had been a grave of a miscarried fetus there, the pig and the weasel would already have dug there and eaten the fetus.

If so, why here, with regard to leaven, should we not likewise say that even though we saw the weasel bringing leaven here, it presumably already ate it, and there is no need to check again!?

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Zeira said: This is not difficult: this

case in tractate Oholot, where we said that there is no concern for a miscarried fetus because the weasel certainly ate it, is referring

to

miscarried fetuses, which are

flesh.

. Ensure source words absent. Markdown heading original is italic;

And

whereas

that

case, our Mishna, is referring

to

leaven, which is

bread. Therefore,

И поэтому

with flesh,

which the animal normally eats in its entirety, it

does not leave over

anything from it, and therefore checking is not required afterward. But

with bread,

since it

leaves some over

from it, checking is required, in case it left some of the leaven behind.

Rava said: What is this!?

What is the question from that source in the first place? Even if we say that a weasel’s nature is to leave some flesh behind, the case there is nevertheless not comparable to this one. For

granted, there,

in the dwellings of gentiles, it is possible to be lenient, because

perhaps there was a miscarried fetus, and perhaps there was not,

that is, on the one hand, it is possible to say that there was a fetus here, but on the other hand, it is possible to say that there was no fetus here at all. Therefore, in a place where weasels are common, we take the lenient view.

And

even

if you should say that there was one

there, a miscarried fetus,

perhaps the weasel ate it,

because an uncertainty concerning whether it was eaten is sufficient to remove the uncertain possibility that a fetus was present.

But here, where it is certain

that there is leaven here,

for

we saw

the weasel

take it,

bringing it here,

who can say that it ate it!?

Its eating the leaven is only an uncertainty. It follows that there is

an uncertainty

as to whether the leaven was destroyed,

and

there was

a definite

prohibition

that removes

the house

from the definite

status of prohibition!

The Gemara raises an objection:

And

in general,

does an uncertainty not remove a definite status!?

But it was taught in a beraita: A reliable scholar

[who is trusted concerning tithes]

who died and left a storehouse

[a threshing floor]

full of produce, even if the produce is from that very day,

as is evident from it that only today its processing was completed [meaning that the final stage of processing the produce was completed, such as with grain, whose final processing is the smoothing of the grain pile], and it thereby became obligated in tithes,

it has the presumption of having been properly prepared

[tithed].

But here, these fruits certainly had the status of untithed produce,

since their processing had certainly been completed, and they had also entered the house [for every “storehouse” is in a house].

And it is uncertain whether they were tithed or whether they were not tithed,

since it is not certain that the reliable scholar tithed them.

And

even so,

an uncertainty comes

as to whether the scholar tithed them,

and removes

these fruits

from the definite

status of untithed produce!

And we answer:

There,

in the case of a haver who died, it is not certainly untithed produce and doubtful tithe. Rather,

certainly

untithed produce

and certainly

tithe

it is.

For it is certain

that the havers

tithe

immediately.

And it is in accordance with Rabbi Hanina Kozahai.

For Rabbi Hanina Kozahai said: There is a presumption concerning a haver, that he does not

take

from under his hand something that is not properly prepared.

Alternatively, one can say:

Actually, it is not certain that the haver tithed the produce before he died, but only doubtful. Nevertheless, it is permitted to eat from it without tithing it, because

it is a doubt and a doubt.

The prohibition of untithed produce upon it is also only doubtful. For

perhaps, originally, say that it was not rendered untithed produce.

Perhaps the designation “untithed produce” never applied to it. And although we see that the produce is piled and is inside the house, nevertheless it is possible that the haver acted

in accordance with Rabbi Oshaya:

that is, he brought the grain into the house while it was still in its chaff, and it did not become obligated in tithing. And since the prohibition of untithed produce is only doubtful, the haver’s doubtful tithe is sufficient to dislodge the doubt of untithed produce.

For Rabbi Oshaya said: A person may employ a stratagem with his grain and bring it

into his house when it is

in its chaff.

And afterward he threshes it and piles it up inside the house. And in such a manner the designation “untithed produce” does not apply to it, because the obligation to separate terumot and tithes takes effect only through the “seeing of the face of the house” by produce whose work has been completed. That is, the grain must enter when it is “piled up” [when its work has been completed], specifically through the doorway of the house. This grain, at the time it entered through the doorway of the house, was not yet piled up, and therefore the designation “untithed produce” did not apply to it. And afterward, when he piled it up and completed its work, it was already inside the house, and it did not see the doorway of the house again.

And all this is by Torah law; but by rabbinic law it is prohibited to eat even produce whose work has not been completed as a fixed meal. But as for feeding an animal, the Sages did not decree, and it is permitted to feed it without restriction. If so, he benefits from having brought it in with its chaff

so that his animal would eat

from the grain after it had been piled up

and would be exempt from the tithe!

And we ask again:

And

is it that

a doubt does not dislodge a certainty!?

And it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Judah said: An incident involving the slavewoman of a certain oppressor

[a violent person, and he was an Israelite]

in Rimmon

[a place name],

who cast a stillborn fetus into a pit.