Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 5, scan section 9

If there were only two heaps, one of which was Matzoth and the other Chometz, and two mice came along and taking a piece each of the two heaps ran into two different houses, in one of which search had already been made, while in the other it had not yet been made. If it was not noticed which mouse ran into the searched house, the one carrying Chometz or the other carry- ing Matzoth: It must be presumed, that the mouse carrying Chometz entered the house that had not yet been searched ; be- cause we have been taught in a Boraitha referring to such a case as follows: If there were two heaps of grain, one being heave- offering and the other ordinary, and opposite there were two measures, one containing heave-offering and the other ordinary grain, and the heaps had fallen into the measures, but it was not known which had fallen into which, we must presume that the ,6 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. heave-offering had fallen into the measure containing heave- offering and the ordinary had fallen into the measure containing ordinary'. [It might be said, however, that in these days heave-offering is merely the offspring of rabbinical law while Chometz is based upon biblical law (hence should be surrounded with more caution)! Nay; is then searching for Chometz bib- lical ? According to biblical law renouncing the use of Chometz is sufficient.] How is it, however, if there was but one heap and that was Chometz, while there were two houses both of which had been searched and a mouse had carried some of that Chometz into one of the houses; but it was not known into which? This presents an analogous case to two roads, one of which was clean and the other unclean and two men went on those roads but did not know which had taken the clean road and which the unclean. "If they both consecrated grain," said R, Jehudah, " and each one separately comes to inquire concerning the law in his case, they are both considered clean ; but if both come together, both are held to be unclean; (for one of them is surely so)." R. Jose, however, said: " In any event both are unclean." Com- menting upon Rabha, according to another version, R. Johanan said : " If both come together, all agree that they are held to be unclean; if they come each separately, all agree that both are considered clean ; their point of variance, however, is : if one comes and inquires concerning the other also. According to R. Jehudah, it is the same as if each had come separately, while according to R. Jose, it is the same as if both had come together. (The same rule applies to the two houses under consideration.) How is it, if it was not known whether the mouse that car- ried off some of the Chometz had entered either of the houses at all ? This presents an analogous case to a valley in which an uncleanness was lost, and remains a point of variance between R. Eliezer and the sages. (Tract Teharoth, Chap. VI., Mishna 5.) If the mouse had entered, however, and the man instituted another search but could not find the Chometz, must he go fur- ther and search the next house also ? This will present a point of variance between R. Mcir and the sages and is analogous to a case where the uncleanness of a place was at issue where the object causing the uncleanness could not be found. (Bechoroth XXV. b). If the mouse had entered the house and the man when insti- tuting another search had actually found the piece of Chometz TRACT PESACHIM (PASSOVER). 17 but did not know whether it is the same, that the mouse had carried in or not, it presents a similar case to the one concerning which Rabbi and R. Simeon ben Gamaliel differ, viz. : if a grave was lost and subsequently a grave was found but it was not known whether it was the same grave or not [ibid. ibid.]. If a man had left over nine pieces of bread and found ten, it again presents an analogous case to the point of variance between Rabbi and the sages concerning a case where a man had depos- ited one hundred coins and found two hundred. According to one opinion it is all ordinary money and according to another it is ordinary and second-tithe money combined. If a man had left over ten pieces and only found nine, it again presents a point of variance between Rabbi and the sages similar to the case where a man had deposited two hundred coins as second-tithe and subsequently only found one hundred. Accord- ing to one opinion the remainder is still second-tithe, while according to the other, the remainder is ordinary money ; for it is considered as if the two hundred coins had been stolen and another hundred of ordinary money had been left in place thereof. If the man had left the remainder of the Chometz in one corner and found it in another, according to the sages another search is necessary while according to R. Simeon ben Gamaliel it is not, and it is a similar case to the one in which they differ concerning uncleanness. Rabha said: " If a mouse entered a house with some Cho- metz in its mouth and the man going in after it poured crumbs on the floor, he must make another search ; because as a usual thing a mouse leaves no crumbs behind ; but if a child entered and he finds crumbs when entering after the child, he need not make another, for usually a child leaves crumbs behind it." Rabha propounded a question : " If a mouse entered a house and another came out of the same house and both had pieces of Chometz in their mouths, shall we presume that it was the same mouse in both cases or not ? If it should be said, that it is the same, how is it if the mouse entering was black and the other was white, shall we assume that one took the piece of bread away from the other or that there were two separate pieces of bread ? If you will say that one mouse would not take anything away from another, how would it be if a mouse entered with the piece of bread and a cat came out with a piece of bread ? If we presume that the piece of bread is the same, would the cat not 2 ,8 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. have held the mouse in its mouth also ? If then, you say, that the piece of bread was a different piece, how would it be if the cat came out with the mouse and the piece of bread in its mouth ? Shall we say that it is the same piece of bread and, the mouse having dropped it through fright, the cat picked it up, or that were it the same piece of bread the mouse would have had it in its mouth ? " This question is not decided. MISHNA: R. Jehudah said: " Search (for Chometz) should be made on the evening (' Or ') before the 14th (of Nissan), early on the morning of that day and at the time (when all Cho- metz must be removed);" but the sages said: " If search had not been made on the evening preceding the 14th (of Nissan), it may be made on that day; if neglected on that day, it may be