Pesachim 9b (ט:) — the Talmud in English

And a priest [

from among the members of the household, or he was a relative], and he stood at the edge of the pit,

and peered into it

into the pit,

to determine whether

the miscarried fetus

was male or female,

so that its mother would know how many days of impurity and purity she must observe after childbirth. [ For after giving birth to a male, a woman must observe seven days of impurity, followed by thirty-three days of purity. After giving birth to a female, she observes fourteen days of impurity and sixty-six days of purity.] Yet that priest did not take care lest he overhang the dead fetus in the pit, and thereby transgress the prohibition stated concerning priests, that they may not become impure through contact with the dead.

Ultimately, the priest did not discern any fetus inside the pit.

And the incident

came

before the Sages, and they declared him pure,

the priest, even though it was possible that the fetus had been there when he peered into the pit and he had become impure through the impurity of a tent from it,

because weasels and martens are commonly found there,

and they certainly dragged it into a hole they had in the sides of the pit. Presumably, that hole contained an empty space of a handbreadth, which interposes before the impurity and prevents it from imparting impurity to one who overhangs it from above.

But here, where it is certain that she delivered

the fetus into the pit, so that the impurity is certain,

and

the dragging of the fetus into the hole by the weasel is not certain, but rather

perhaps they dragged it

from the pit

and perhaps they did not drag it

at

that moment

when the priest overhung the pit,

and

even so,

does the doubt

of dragging

override the certainty

of impurity?

And we answer:

Do not say

“that she delivered

the maidservant

a fetus into the pit,”

so that there was certainly impurity there.

Rather, say: “that she expelled

something resembling a

fetus into the pit,”

and it might have been a shafir [the gestational sac of a fetus] filled with air, which does not impart impurity at all.

And

if so, it

is

only

a doubt and a doubt: The doubt that it was a fetus, alongside the doubt that the weasel dragged it away. Therefore, the doubt of dragging can override the doubt that it was a fetus. But it cannot override a certainty.

And we challenge this:

But “

he peered into it

to determine whether it was male or female,” it teaches.

This implies that it was certainly a fetus, and the only unknown was whether it was male or female?

And we answer:

This is what it is saying:

He peered into it

to determine whether it was air

that she expelled,

in which case she is not impure with the impurity of childbirth at all,

or whether she expelled a fetus,

in which case she is impure.

And if you would say that she expelled a fetus,

if he established that it was indeed a fetus and not merely air, there still remained

to determine whether it was male or female,

so as to know how many days of impurity and purity she must observe.

Alternatively,

the maidservant definitely expelled a fetus. Nevertheless, the Sages declared the priest pure, because

there, it is certainty and certainty.

Since weasels and martens are commonly found there, they certainly dragged it away,

the fetus,

at that moment

when the priest overhung the pit. That is, they dragged it away before the priest overhung it, so there was no fetus there when the priest overhung the pit. For

although,

even though with regard to hametz we are concerned that perhaps the weasel did not eat all of it but

left some of it, and therefore one must search again in a place where we saw that the weasel brought hametz, here, with regard to impurity, it is sufficient for us to say that

of it, and therefore one must search again in the place where we saw that the weasel brought leaven, here, concerning impurity, it is sufficient for us to say that

at least, they certainly dragged it away

the fetus

at that moment.

(Alternatively: We do not say that they certainly ate it

and therefore, with regard to hametz, we are stringent and search again. But

we do say that they certainly dragged it to their holes [

to their hole],

we say.)

We learned in the Mishna: We are not concerned that perhaps a weasel dragged hametz from house to house or from place to place.

And we challenge this:

And

is it

that we say

that

we are not concerned that perhaps a weasel dragged

the hametz from a place that had not been searched to a place that had been searched?

But it teaches in the latter clause [

in the following Mishna]:

Whatever one leaves over

from the hametz after the search for the purpose of eating it until the next day

he must place discreetly [

in a concealed place], so that

he will not have to search after it.

This implies that if he did not place it in a concealed place, he must search after it, out of concern that perhaps a weasel dragged the hametz to a place that had already been searched!?

And we answer:

Abaye said: This is not difficult: This

is on the fourteenth; that is on the thirteenth.

Abaye explains: Our Mishna, which says that we are not concerned that perhaps a weasel dragged hametz, is speaking about the time of the search for hametz, which is

on the thirteenth [

in the evening],

when bread is commonly found in all the houses,

so that bread is plentiful for the weasel inside the houses, and it does not fear that it will have nothing to eat. Therefore,

it does not conceal it,

and there is no concern that the weasel dragged hametz from an unsearched place in order to conceal it in a place that had been searched.

The following Mishna, however, speaks of the concern

on

the

fourteenth day,

that at that time it might drag some of the hametz left over after the search, since

bread is not commonly found in all the houses,

and the weasel does not see as much bread in the houses as it is accustomed to see. It therefore fears that it will have nothing to eat, and

it conceals

some of the hametz.

Rava said: Is a weasel a prophet, that it knows that today [

today] is

the fourteenth

of Nisan,

and not until evening,

so that it can pay attention and foresee that no more bread will be baked today? How can you be concerned that because it does not currently see bread in the house, it

leaves some

of the hametz

and hides it

and conceals it?

Rather, Rava said:

We need never be concerned at all that a weasel might drag away hametz, even on the fourteenth. And the latter clause of the Mishna,

“Whatever one leaves over, he must place discreetly,”

is because we are concerned

that perhaps a weasel will take it in our presence

from the remaining hametz,

and

then certainly

he will have to search after it.

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with Rava’s opinion: One who wishes to eat hametz after

the

search, what should he do?

Whatever he leaves over

for eating

he must place discreetly, so that

it will not happen

that a weasel comes and takes it

from him

in our presence, and he will have to search after it!

Rav Mari said:

The Mishna says that he must place the remaining hametz discreetly because of a

decree, lest he

place ten

pieces of hametz, and afterward

find

only

nine,

in which case he must certainly be concerned that perhaps a weasel dragged away the tenth, since we see that one is missing.

—