Pesachim 1

אוֹר לְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הֶחָמֵץ לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכְנִיסִין בּוֹ חָמֵץ אֵין צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה. וְלָמָה אָמְרוּ שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת בַּמַּרְתֵּף, מָקוֹם שֶׁמַּכְנִיסִין בּוֹ חָמֵץ. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת עַל פְּנֵי כָל הַמַּרְתֵּף. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת שֶׁהֵן הָעֶלְיוֹנוֹת:

At "light" on the fourteenth (of Nissan) [i.e., the night followed by the fourteenth. The tanna calls it "light," euphemistically, as a blind man is called "sagi nehor" ("full of light")], chametz is searched for [Some explain, so that he not be in transgression of the interdict against chametz being seen and being found in his house on Pesach. And even though nullification (bitul) itself is sufficient, we fear that he might find a choice morsel (of chametz), regret his nullification, think to eat it, and be in transgression of the interdict against chametz being seen and found. Therefore, chametz is searched for, to remove it from the world. Others say that the reason for searching is a decree, lest he find chametz in his house and eat it, not being accustomed to separation from chametz the other days of the year.] by the light of a candle. [The gemara derives this from its being written here (Exodus 12:19): "Leaven shall not be found," and elsewhere (Genesis 44:12): "and the cup was found." Just as the finding there was through searching, viz. (Ibid.): "And he searched … and it was found," the finding here is through searching, and "searching" is (optimally) with a candle, viz. (Proverbs 20:27): "The candle of G d is a man's soul; it searches all his hidden recesses." And they ordained that the searching take place at night because that is when everyone is found at home. And the light of a candle is better for searching with by night than by day, for "Of what avail is a candle by day?" However, if one did not search on the night preceding the fourteenth and he does so in the morning, he must also do so by the light of a candle.] Any place where chametz is not brought does not require searching. And why did they say [below] that two rows [of jugs] in a wine cellar [arranged one on top of the other require searching, if any place where chametz is not brought does not require searching? They answered: We are speaking of] a place where chametz is brought, [such as a wine cellar which supplies wine for one's table. Sometimes the steward is about to pour wine with his loaf in his hand, when he discovers that he is out of wine and he goes down to the cellar to bring more.] Beth Shammai say: Two rows on the face of the entire cellar. [It was the way of those who stored wine to arrange their jugs row after row until they covered the entire floor of the cellar, after which they would go back and place jug upon jug in the same pattern until the ceiling. The "two rows" of Beth Shammai are the outer row from the ground until the ceiling, and then the upper row, the length and width of the wine cellar, so that the "two rows" are like a Greek gamma, one perpendicular; the other, horizontal.] Beth Hillel say: The two outer upper rows, [the uppermost row near the ceiling, facing the entrance, and the row beneath that. And those within, he does not search at all. And of the outer ones, he searches the two top rows alone.]

אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא גָרְרָה חֻלְדָּה מִבַּיִת לְבַיִת וּמִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, דְּאִם כֵּן, מֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר וּמֵעִיר לְעִיר, אֵין לַדָּבָר סוֹף:

We do not fear that a weasel might have carried (chametz) from house to house and from place to place. For if so — from courtyard to courtyard and from city to city — there is no end to the thing! [If he searched one corner of the house and came to the other corner, he need not fear: "Perhaps when I came to this place, a weasel carried chametz to the already searched place, and I must go back and search." For if this were to be feared, it would have to be feared from courtyard to courtyard, too, viz.: "I searched before for my neighbor. Perhaps after my search a weasel brought chametz from my neighbor's courtyard to mine — and there is no end to the thing!]

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בּוֹדְקִין אוֹר אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר וּבְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שַׁחֲרִית וּבִשְׁעַת הַבִּעוּר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, לֹא בָדַק אוֹר אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, יִבְדֹּק בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר. לֹא בָדַק בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, יִבְדֹּק בְּתוֹךְ הַמּוֹעֵד. לֹא בָדַק בְּתוֹךְ הַמּוֹעֵד, יִבְדֹּק לְאַחַר הַמּוֹעֵד. וּמַה שֶּׁמְּשַׁיֵּר, יַנִּיחֶנּוּ בְצִנְעָא, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה אַחֲרָיו:

R. Yehudah says: We search at "light" on the fourteenth, the morning of the fourteenth, and at the time of removal. [That is, we search in one of these three times alone; and after these three times, if one did not search, he may search no longer.] And the sages say: If he did not search at light on the fourteenth, he searches on the fourteenth. If he did not search on the fourteenth, he searches in the midst of the time, [i.e., the sixth hour, the time for removal.] If he did not search in the midst of the time, he searches after the time [until dark. Some explain: "in the midst of the festival" — in the midst of Pesach; "after the festival" — after Pesach, so that "chametz over which Pesach has passed," from which it is forbidden to derive benefit, should not become intermixed with permitted chametz, which was produced after Pesach. And R. Yehudah holds that after removal, that is, after the time that chametz becomes forbidden, he should not search at all, lest he come to eat of it. And the Rabbis say that he should search after the time of removal and we are not afraid that he might come to eat of it, for his entire intent in searching for it is to burn it. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.] And what he leaves over (for the morning from his search at night), he should secrete, so that he need not search after it.

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אוֹכְלִין כָּל חָמֵשׁ, וְשׂוֹרְפִין בִּתְחִלַּת שֵׁשׁ. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אוֹכְלִין כָּל אַרְבַּע, וְתוֹלִין כָּל חָמֵשׁ, וְשׂוֹרְפִין בִּתְחִלַּת שֵׁשׁ:

R. Meir says: We eat all five (hours on the fourteenth) and burn it in the beginning of the sixth. [Even though by Torah law the entire sixth hour is permitted, the rabbis decreed against (eating on) it, lest they err and come to confuse the seventh hour with the sixth; but they would not come to confuse the seventh with the fifth, for which reason it is permitted.] And R. Yehudah says: We eat all four, suspend all of the fifth, and burn it at the beginning of the sixth [and we do not eat on the fifth, a decree by reason of the possibility of a cloudy day on which they might err and confuse the seventh hour with the fifth. However, it is not necessary to burn it, and it can be fed to one's beast. But in the sixth hour, even derivation of benefit is forbidden, a decree by reason of the seventh. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah.

וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת שֶׁל תּוֹדָה פְסוּלוֹת מֻנָּחוֹת עַל גַּג הָאִצְטַבָּא. כָּל זְמַן שֶׁמֻּנָּחוֹת, כָּל הָעָם אוֹכְלִים. נִטְּלָה אַחַת, תּוֹלִין, לֹא אוֹכְלִין וְלֹא שׂוֹרְפִין. נִטְּלוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן, הִתְחִילוּ כָל הָעָם שׂוֹרְפִין. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, חֻלִּין נֶאֱכָלִין כָּל אַרְבַּע, וּתְרוּמָה כָּל חָמֵשׁ, וְשׂוֹרְפִין בִּתְחִלַּת שֵׁשׁ:

R. Yehudah said further: Two chaloth [of chametz] of the todah (the thanksgiving offering) were pasul (unfit for eating) [having been rendered pasul by linah (passing the night without having been eaten)], and they were placed on the roof of the itzteva (the Temple portico). [For since there were many thanksgiving breads on the thirteenth of Nissan — for whoever had a todah to bring had to do so on the thirteenth — they (those which had not been eaten) became pasul by linah on the morning of the fourteenth. The thanksgiving breads consisted of forty chaloth, ten of them, chametz, and the todah could be eaten (only) on the (same) day and night. But if they were brought on the fourteenth, those of chametz could be eaten only until the sixth hour; and it is forbidden to bring an offering on a day when the time for eating it would be curtailed, for "Consecrated offerings are not brought to the house of psul." Therefore, whoever was obliged to bring a todah would do so on the thirteenth, not being able to bring it on the fourteenth (all the more so, on Pesach), so that they (i.e., some of them) became pasul by linah on the morning of the fourteenth, there not having been enough eaters. Therefore, because they were pasul, they were placed there (for if they were kasher, they would not place them there and render them pasul deliberately.) They were placed there until the time of removal and they were burned, and they were placed on the roof of the itzteva to be visible as a sign.] So long as they were lying there, all the people ate (chametz). When one of them was removed [At the beginning of the fifth hour, the messenger of beth-din came and removed one, whereby all the people understood that the fifth hour had arrived and] they "suspended" (activity) — they neither ate nor burned (chametz). When both had been removed, all the people began to burn (their chametz). R. Gamliel says: Chullin (mundane food) is eaten all four (hours); terumah, all five, [it being forbidden to deliberately waste consecrated food so long as one is permitted to eat it], and it is burned at the beginning of the sixth, [for most people can confuse the seventh with the sixth. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Gamliel.]

רַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹמֵר, מִימֵיהֶם שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים לֹא נִמְנְעוּ מִלִּשְׂרֹף אֶת הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּטְמָא בִוְלַד הַטֻּמְאָה עִם הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּטְמָא בְאַב הַטֻּמְאָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמּוֹסִיפִין טֻמְאָה עַל טֻמְאָתוֹ. הוֹסִיף רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְאָמַר, מִימֵיהֶם שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים לֹא נִמְנְעוּ מִלְּהַדְלִיק אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן שֶׁנִּפְסַל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם בְּנֵר שֶׁנִּטְמָא בִטְמֵא מֵת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמּוֹסִיפִין טֻמְאָה עַל טֻמְאָתוֹ:

R. Chanina, the adjutant high-priest, says: From the days of the Cohanim, they never held back from burning the flesh which had become unclean through a v'lad (derivative) of tumah (uncleanliness) together with the flesh that had become unclean through av hatumah (proto-uncleanliness) even though they added uncleanliness to its uncleanliness. [This is stated here because of what is to follow (1:7): "From their words we learned that clean terumah is burned together with unclean terumah." ("from burning the flesh which had become unclean through a v'lad hatumah":) We are speaking of a v'lad of a v'lad. That is, flesh which is of third-degree uncleanliness, which had become unclean through second-degree uncleanliness, so that it is a v'lad of a v'lad. They did not hold back from burning it together with flesh that had become unclean through av hatumah, and which had assumed first-degree uncleanliness. When this flesh, which in the beginning is of third-degree uncleanliness, comes in contact with the flesh that had become unclean through the av hatumah it reverts to its state of second-degree uncleanliness, having touched first-degree uncleanliness. It emerges, then, that they added uncleanliness to its uncleanliness. For in the beginning it was of third-degree uncleanliness, and now it is of second-degree uncleanliness — in spite of which they did not hold back from burning it together with a more stringent variety. For since even the lesser variety was slated for burning, they were not concerned about imparting to it a greater degree of uncleanliness. And even though by Torah law food does not impart uncleanliness to food, it being written in respect to food uncleanliness (Leviticus 11:38): "It is unclean" — It is unclean, but it does not render unclean a food like it — still, the rabbis decreed that food should impart uncleanliness to food.] R. Akiva added: From the days of the Cohanim, they never held back from kindling the oil [of terumah] that had become pasul (unfit) through a t'vul yom (one in a state of uncleanliness, who had immersed himself in the daytime and who is not clean until sunset) (they never held back from kindling that oil) in a lamp which had become unclean through one with dead-body uncleanliness, even though they added uncleanliness to its uncleanliness. [("from kindling the oil that had become pasul through a t'vul yom":) That oil assumes third-degree uncleanliness, t'vul yom making terumah pasul by Torah law, and conferring on it always third-degree uncleanliness, whether it be food or liquid. ("in a lamp which had become unclean by one with dead-body uncleanliness":) This lamp is of metal. All vessels (except earthenware vessels) which touch dead-body uncleanliness become like it — if an av, an av; if first-degree, first-degree, it being written (Numbers 19:16): "the slain one of a sword," which is expounded: The sword becomes like the slain one, i.e., The sword that touches the dead body becomes avi-avoth ("the father of the fathers of uncleanliness"), like the dead body itself. And if the sword touches one with dead-body uncleanliness, who is an av, the sword itself becomes an av. The same applies to all vessels, except earthenware vessels. It is seen, then, that if a metal lamp touches one with dead-body uncleanliness, it becomes an av-hatumah. R. Akiva, then, has added to the words of R. Chanina the adjutant high-priest. For R. Chanina permitted only the reversion of third-degree uncleanliness to second-degree uncleanliness, whereas R. Akiva permitted the reversion of third-degree to first-degree uncleanliness. For the oil which became pasul through a t'vul yom and which is of third-degree uncleanliness — when that oil is kindled in a lamp which has become unclean through one with dead-body uncleanliness, in which instance the lamp itself becomes av-hatumah, as stated — the oil of third-degree uncleanliness reverts to first-degree uncleanliness, in spite of which they did not hold back (from raising the uncleanliness level). For since it is already denominated as "uncleanliness," they were not concerned (about the particular degree of uncleanliness), and it is permitted to add (to its level of uncleanliness) directly.]

אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם לָמַדְנוּ, שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה עִם הַטְּמֵאָה בְּפֶסַח. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אֵינָהּ הִיא הַמִּדָּה. וּמוֹדִים רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין זוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ. עַל מַה נֶּחֱלְקוּ, עַל הַתְּלוּיָה וְעַל הַטְּמֵאָה, שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, תִּשָּׂרֵף זוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, שְׁתֵּיהֶן כְּאֶחָת:

R. Meir said: From their words we learned that clean terumah (of chametz) is burned together with unclean terumah on Pesach. [Both R. Meir and R. Yossi hold that flesh which became unclean through v'lad hatumah, of which R. Chanina speaks, is flesh that became unclean through liquids which became unclean through a vessel which had become unclean through a sheretz. R. Meir holds that the uncleanliness of liquids to make others unclean is not Torah law — liquids making others, and even foods unclean, being a rabbinic enactment. Therefore, he says that from the words of R. Chanina, who says that we burn flesh that has become unclean through liquids, which is unclean by rabbinic ordinance, being absolutely clean by Torah law, we learned that clean terumah is burned together with unclean terumah on Pesach [when the sixth hour arrives, when it is forbidden by rabbinic ordinance, just as we burn flesh that became unclean through liquids (which is absolutely clean by Torah law) together with flesh that became unclean through an av hatumah, and which is unclean by Torah law.] R. Yossi said to him: This is not a correct comparison. [R. Yossi is consistent with his view that the uncleanliness of liquids to make others unclean is Torah law, so that flesh which became unclean through liquids is unclean by Torah law. Therefore, he says: "This is not a correct comparison." That is, you cannot derive from their words that if it is permitted to burn lesser-degree uncleanliness together with greater-degree uncleanliness it should be permitted to burn what is clean (by Torah law) with what is unclean. And the halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi, that clean terumah is not burned together with unclean terumah on Pesach. And the uncleanliness of liquids to render others unclean is not Torah law, but rabbinic ordinance, as per R. Meir.] And R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua concur that each is to be burned by itself. [R. Yossi says this — that even though R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua differ as to the burning of terumah, they concur that each is burned by itself.] Where do they differ? In respect to the doubtful (possibly clean-possibly unclean) and the (definitely) unclean. R. Eliezer says: Each is to be burned by itself. [R. Eliezer holds that one is exhorted to guard the doubtful (against uncleanliness), it being written (Numbers 18:8): "the guarding of my terumoth" — The Torah speaks of two terumoth: one, doubtful; one, clean.] R. Yehoshua says: They are both burned together. [Since its status is doubtful, you are not exhorted to guard it. And they do not differ on the burning of the doubtful and the clean together, for since it is not definitely unclean, the impression is not given that he is making clean terumah unclean.]