Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 5, scan section 6

this within thirty days preceding Passover, he must search for leavened bread (notwithstanding the fact that it will lie under- neath the grain ; for during these thirty days the duty to search for leavened bread is already incumbent upon him, whereas prior to that time he was not even supposed to think of removing the leavened bread). Concerning the statement, that one need not search for the leavened bread if he turned his house into a ware- house prior to thirty days before Passover, it holds good only if he did not intend to do this before Passover; but if he did intend to turn his house into a warehouse before Passover, he must search for the leavened bread even then. Why are thirty days particularly specified ? It is as we have learned in a Boraitha, viz. : " One may inquire and preach con- cerning the laws of Passover thirty days previous to that festi- 8 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. val." R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said: "Two weeks before." (Why does the first Tana prescribe thirty days ?) Because Moses at the time of the first Passover already made the regula- tions concerning the second Passover (which was celebrated thirty days later), as it is written [Numbers ix. 2]: " That the children of Israel shall prepare the Passover lamb at its appointed season." and [ibid. lo and 11]: " Speak unto the children of Israel," etc. . . . "In the second month, on the fourteenth day," etc. Why, then, does R. Simeon ben Gamaliel not agree with the first Tana ? Because he holds, that Moses only enacted those regulations because it was Passover (yet this should not be made a general rule; hence two weeks are suflficient). R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: " He who searches for the leavened bread must at the same time renounce its use in his mind." Why so ? On account of the crumbs ? Those are of no value! Said Rabha: The reason is, lest he find a useful piece of bread and will not care to burn it (in which case should he even hold it for one second he will transgress the law of " There shall be no leavened bread in thy house," etc.). Can he not renounce its use as soon as he perceives it ? It may be, however, that he will not find it until it is too late to renounce its use, for R. Elazar said: " Two things are without the prov- ince of man ; but the Law made him responsible for them never- theless, as if they were his property, and they are : A pit in public ground (concerning which a man is responsible if another falls into it as explained in Tract Babah Kamma) and leavened bread after the sixth hour (on the fourteenth of Nissan); although the bread is no more in his possession, still he is respon- sible for it." Let the man then renounce the use of the bread in the fourth or fifth hour ? As that is not the time either for searching or for burning, there is fear lest a man forget to do this at that time. Let him renounce its use then in the sixth hour, when he is about to burn it. (This being according to a rabbinical enact- ment illegal, makes it the equivalent of a biblical prohibition ?) (As R. Giddel said in the name of Rabh. Vide Chap. 11. , page 31.) It is said, that after the prohibition to use bread had already gone into effect, it is not allowed to renounce its use, have we not learned in a Boraitha: " If a man sate in the house of learning and was suddenly reminded that he had not removed the leav- ened bread from his house, he may renounce its use in thought, TRACT PESACHIM (PASSOVER). 9 whether this happened on a Sabbath or on a festival ?" This would be correct if the eve of Passover fell on a Sabbath ; but how can this be done on the festival itself (for it is already Passover and the leavened bread is no longer the property of the man, how then can he renounce its use) ? Said R. A'ha bar Jacob : The case referred to is that of a scholar who sits before his master (and cannot leave without his consent) and having been reminded that there is some dough still in his house, which would shortly become leaven, he may renounce its use before it becomes leaven. This can be inferred from the Boraitha itself, which distinctly states " if a man sate in the house of learning'' (and if he had leavened bread in the house, what difference would it otherwise make, whether he sat in the house of learning or elsewhere) ? Hence the inference. Rabba bar R. Huna said in the name of Rabh: " If musty bread was found in a chest used for unleavened bread and for leavened bread, and the chest was used more for unleavened bread than for leavened, the musty bread may be used." How was the case ? If it was known that this bread was leavened, it would not be of any consequence that the chest was used more for unleavened bread; but if it was not known whether that bread was leavened or not, why say, that the chest was used more for unleavened bread ? The question at issue would then be for what purpose it was used last — for leavened or un- leavened bread. The use it was put to last is the main issue, as we have learned elsewhere (Tract Shekalim, Ch. VII., Mishna 2) concerning money found in Jerusalem : " If found during the festivals, it is regarded as second tithes, and if at other times of the year, it is ordinary money " ; and R. Shemaya bar Zera said : " If money was found on the day following the festivals, why should it not be considered second tithes, because the markets of Jerusalem were as a rule swept daily ?" whence we see, that the last contingency is the one to be considered, why not apply this to the case of the musty bread ? In the case of musty bread it is different. The very fact of its having become musty is suffi- cient evidence that it was not of recent use. Of what benefit then would it be to ascertain that the chest had been used more for unleavened bread than for leavened ? If the bread is musty it is no doubt leavened bread ? Said Rabba : Do not say, that Rabh meant to state, " if the chest was used more for unleav- ened than for leavened bread, but the days on which unleavened lO THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. bread was used outnumbered those on which leavened bread had been previously used." If so, the case would be self-evident. Why does Rabh come to tell us this ? Rabh means to state, that because the bread was very musty it might be assumed that it had been left over from the leavened bread, and he would tell us that this is not so, but that it may have been an instance of where unleavened bread had been baked on the first day of Passover and a piece was thrown into that chest, thus becoming musty. R. Jehudah said: " He who searches for leavened bread must pronounce a benediction." How should he pronounce the benediction ? R. Papi said in the name of Rabha: " Blessed be He, etc., who commanded us to remove the leavened bread,"