Pesachim 27 – Not even lit the fire

A while back we learned that while destroying chametz, one cannot even warm himself in this fire. What if he did? We cannot, of course, require that he cool himself off. However, a related question may be asked.

What if he took forbidden wood (such as the peels of Orlah fruit, which has grown on a tree in the first three years of its life and is forbidden for use, or wheat stalks that have grown in a vineyard and are equally forbidden) and fired an oven with that? – Here the law is known. If the oven was new, now it has to be shattered, since the first firing improves it. If the oven was old, he only needs to wait till it cools off, to remove the forbidden benefit.

What about bread baked in such an oven? Rabbi Yehudah the Prince says that the bread is forbidden – because the improvement in the bread was created by forbidden wood. But the Sages allow such bread. What could be their reason? – They say that the heat affects the bread after the wood has been burned, and thus it is not a direct result of the forbidden wood.

Art: Eugene Murer at His Pastry Oven by Camille Pissarro

Pesachim 26 – Incidental pleasures

Consider a case where one is planning to do something permitted, but an additional forbidden pleasure comes his way in the course of it. For example, he plans to travel to a certain destination, but on his way, there is an idolatrous temple, from which there comes a fragrant smell of idolatrous spices. (Of course, we are not talking about a case where he intentionally inhales to enjoy the smell, but rather he is just passing by, and it fills his nostrils anyway). Should one avoid this nevertheless? Abaye says it is permitted, and he need not avoid it, but Rava says that it is prohibited, and one must avoid it.

Let’s take a closer look at the circumstances. If he can avoid the trip altogether, while he enjoys the smell, all agree that it is forbidden. Even if he cannot avoid the trip but still enjoys the spices, it is still forbidden. On the other hand, if he must travel on this road and does not intend to enjoy it, all agree that it is permitted. They only argue when he cannot avoid the trip and does enjoy the smell: according to Abaye, it is permitted, but Rava will require him to either avoid the trip or stop enjoying the smell.

The Talmud compares this to laws of Shabbat, of Temple repair, of the priests’ vestments, and of a red heifer, and finally refutes at least one version of Rava’s view from the sales of shatnez, as this. The sellers of shatnez are allowed to put the clothes on, as long as they don’t intend to warm themselves with them.

Art: The Spice Shop by Paolo Antonio Barbieri

Pesachim 25 – Three important things

Even when eating prohibited foods, one is only liable to punishment if he does it in the normal way people eat – these are the words of Rabbi Abahu. What would be an example? – If he takes that fat that is to be burned on the Altar and swallows it raw instead. A stricter version of this teaching prohibits even that and allows only an unusual manner of benefiting, such as putting this fat on a wound with medicinal purposes.

Rabbi Yakov said that three things one should not do, and the first one is healing himself with idolatry. But his life may be in danger!? – Yes, that is what he meant, even if life is in danger. Why? Because the Torah said, “You shall love your God with your soul and with your possessions.” This is talking about two kinds of people, for some their money is more important than life, and for others, their life is more important, and even so, there are situations where one must give up his life.

The second thing is having illicit relations, even if his health is in danger without them, and even if he is facing an ultimatum to do it. The third is killing someone. The latter is derived by logic: how do you know that your blood is redder than his, that you are willing to kill him in order to save your life?

Art: Sickness and Health, 1843 by Thomas Webster

Pesachim 24 – Again, why is chametz prohibited on Passover?

A student was sitting in front of Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani and retelling him the teachings of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. He said, “How do we know that chametz is forbidden for all benefit on Pesach?”

Rabbi Shmuel exclaimed in amazement, “We know that from ‘do not eat’ prohibition. Why do we need anything else?” The student then showed him how according to other views of Rabbi Yehoshua this derivation would not work. Rabbi Shmuel was convinced, and the student continued, “From ‘all invalid sin offerings you should burn in a fire.’” Now, this command is not needed, because the offering in question was already burned in a fire. Here we see a new fundamental rule: if there is a commandment, which seems unneeded and repetitive, one can apply it to another area of law. For example, if we don’t need to know that a sin offering should be burned, we can apply it to chametz on Passover and require it to be burned rather than used for benefit.

The Talmud then finds yet another, different way to derive that any use of chametz is prohibited on Passover.

Art: A Notty Question by Louis Charles Moeller

Pesachim 23 – Exceptions

On the previous page, Rabbi Abahu stated a rule that anything that the Torah prohibited to eat is also prohibited to use and sell. The Talmud keeps asking questions about this rule. Take, for example, the Kohen’s portion: a non-priest should not eat it, but one can use it for his eruv. Rabbi Abahu says that it is an exception: the Torah said, “This will be the priest’s portion for you,” which means that it is “for you,” you can use it, though not eat it.

Then what about wine for a Nazirite? He cannot drink it, but we can make an eruv of wine for him?! Again, this is an exception: the Torah said, “All the days of his vow, wine is forbidden” – the word “his” tells us that it is his, though forbidden for drinking.

What about the small non-kosher animals such as rats or rabbits: one cannot eat them, but if he catches them in a net accidentally, he can sell them?! – Again, exception: the Torah said, “They will be an unpleasant thing for you,” and this “for you” teaches that they will be yours, only prohibited for eating.

After a few more such examples we cannot find where the rule of “don’t eat, don’t use” is ever applicable, and what is the difference between “don’t eat” of Rabbi Abahu and “won’t be eaten” of Chizkiyah. We finally find only one such case: an animal that was brought into the Temple and slaughtered there, even though it was not a sacrifice – and the difference is whether this meat can be sold or not.

Art: Children Playing With Rabbits By Felix Schlesinger

Pesachim 22 – Not eating and not using

Not only chametz cannot be eaten on Passover, but one also should not derive from it any benefit, such as selling. Where does it say so in the Torah? – The words “It will not be eaten” are understood to mean, “You shall not do anything with it that can lead to eating.”

That, actually, is a general rule. Any time something “will not be eaten,” it is really prohibited for all use – these are the words of Chizkiyah. Rabbi Abahu says that the rule is even more general: anything about which the Torah says, “do not eat it,” is additionally prohibited for all benefit.

Where does Rav Abahu get his additional stringency? – From the rule about meat not slaughtered properly. Since such meat can be either “given as a present to a non-Jewish resident in Israel or sold to a non-Jew,” we understand that in all other cases, “do not eat” means “and don’t use or sell.”

The Talmud offers many challenges to both Chizkiyah and Rabbi Abahu. For example, the sciatic nerve (think filet mignon) cannot be eaten, but it can be sold to a non-Jewish butcher. Why is the benefit permitted in this case? – They will answer that it is an exception since this nerve was permitted for benefit together with the meat that was not slaughtered properly. Other cases intended to disprove them similarly end up being exceptions and special cases.

Art: The Butcher by Camille Pissarro

Pesachim 21 – Last hours before Passover

Earlier we learned that one must stop eating chametz midday before Passover, and in fact, even one or two hours before midday, depending on whose opinion you follow, Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Yehudah. Here is the exact rule.

As long as it is permitted to eat chametz, one may feed it to domestic animals, beasts in the field, and birds, sell it to a non-Jew, and generally benefit from it. Once the time has passed, all benefit from chametz is forbidden, even lighting up a fire to warm oneself or burning it in an oven to cook.

That, however, does not look right. According to Rabbi Yehudah, there is the fifth hour when one cannot eat chametz but can still benefit from it, and according to our rule here, there is no such time. According to Rabbi Meir, it should say “as long as he eats,” for otherwise “permitted” talks to one group of people, and “one may feed” to another!?

Indeed, this ruling belongs to neither one of them, but to Rabban Gamliel instead, who permits the Kohanim to eat their portion in the fifth hour. Why does the rule mention all animals separately? Because the wild animal hides the chametz, and because with a domestic animal he may forget to remove the leftovers. And why the birds? – After we mentioned both classes of animals, it would not be right to omit the birds either.

Art: Feeding Time For Farm Animals in Barn by John Frederick Herring Snr

Pesachim 20 – A needle in a cow, a reptile in an oven

Earlier we said that if a needle is found in the meat of a sacrifice (such as a cow), then that meat is considered impure, while the hands and the knife are pure, and explained the reason for it.

But why should the meat ever become impure? Any food, to become impure, must first become wet with water. While the animal is alive, it cannot become impure, and they have just slaughtered it!? It cannot be any liquid in the Temple, because these are all pure. Nor can it be the impurity declared out of love for holy things, because such impurity was only declared on object themselves, not giving them the power to transmit impurity further. Rav Yehudah gave the answer: the owner led the cow through a river on the way to the Temple, to wash it off, and this water was still dripping. Since the owner wanted this water to be on a cow, all preconditions for impurity are fulfilled.

The Talmud suggests and refutes a hypothesis about impurity. If a dead reptile is found in an earthenware utensil, it makes the utensil impure. Can we view the utensil as being full of impurity, contaminating any food that is inside? – No, we cannot. The Torah said, “anything inside,” which tells us that foods are impure by virtue of being inside. Thus, we have to say that the reptile touches the air, and the air touches the food, resulting in the transmission of impurity.

Art: Peasant Woman Watering Her Cow by Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot

Pesachim 19 – A needle in the meat

We mentioned earlier the extra love for the Temple sacrifices, which made the Sages decree additional impurity on such materials, thus forcing the people to be more careful. In discussing this, Rabbi Yochanan mentions that even non-edible parts of sacrifices, such as spices and woodblock, can become ritually impure. Moreover, if they are placed in a vessel, the vessel combines them, so that if a ritually impure person touches one component, they all become impure. However, Rav Chanin objects and says that it was not the Sages who decreed it, but the Torah: when it mentioned a sacrifice of “one cup,” Rav Chanin interprets this to mean “cup makes all one.”

Also on a tangent, the Talmud discusses a needle that was found in sacrificial meat, with the result that the meat is impure, but the hands and the knife are pure. How could that be? Why would we presume that the needle is impure? – We are forced to say that it touched a dead person, and was now recognized by someone. Then the knife should also be impure! In truth, it is not, because they only suspect that this is the same needle, and all suspicion of this sort are disregarded in a public area – which the Temple Courtyard surely is.

Art: Woman and Child Doing Needlework by Camille Pissarro

Pesachim 18 – Who contaminates whom

To add further shades to the question of ritual purity, the Talmud considers a situation where the liquid might have touched something else, but it might not. On this, there are three opinions.

Rabbi Meir says that the power of liquids to make other objects impure is only decreed by the Sages, and they never went as far as to forbid things out of doubt. Therefore, the object is pure. Rabbi Yehudah says that it is the Torah who gave the liquid the power to transmit impurity and therefore, to avoid any doubt in this, we must consider the objects impure. Finally, Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon divide this even further. If it was food that was possibly touched by the liquid, then – since this situation is given by the Torah – we must consider food impure. However, if it is a vessel, then – since this impurity would be only decreed by the Sages – we must consider the vessel pure.

They derive their opinions from the word “yitma” used by the Torah, which means “It will become impure.” Since this word can also be read “yitama”, which would mean that it will make another object impure, here we begin to consider exactly which other objects will become impure.

Art: A personification of Purity by Simone Pignone

Pesachim 17 – The impurity of liquids

The Torah describes the ritual impurity of foods. It also says that foods can become impure only after they were made wet with a liquid. This leaves us with a question: can liquids themselves become impure?

We can start with one fact that is certain: Rabbi Yosef ben Yoezer testified that the liquids in the Temple are pure. However, there are different ways to understand his words. For example, Rav understood them literally: these liquids are completely pure; Shmuel, by contrast, said that they are pure only in the sense that they don’t transmit impurity to other things, but they themselves can become ritually impure.

Rav explains that the Torah laws of impurity do not apply to liquids. The Sages extended them to liquids for people to be more careful, but stopped short of making the liquids in the Temple impure because the Kohanim are careful anyway. Shmuel explains that on the contrary, the Torah laws of impurity do apply to liquids – but only to themselves, not to transmit impurity to others. The Sages extended the laws of impurity further, giving liquids the power to contaminate other foods, but stopped from accepting these laws in the Temple.

There are different versions of the testimony of Rabbi Yosef: some say it applied to the place of washing the sacrifices only, while others – that he meant anywhere in the Temple. Rav Pappa complicated this even further, saying that the laws of liquids in the Temple were told by God to Moses as an exception, and thus no conclusions can be drawn from them to other areas of life.

Art: Washing Day by Edward Stott

Pesachim 16 – What did Rabbi Akiva add?

Rabbi Akiva added to Rabbi Chanina’s testimony by stating, “Kohanim had no problem burning oil that was only slightly ritually impure in a lamp that was more ritually impure.” How is that an addition to what Rabbi Chanina had said? Both state that one can add to the already existing impurity when the food is anyway being destroyed? And actually, what new did Rabbi Chanina say in the first place? Food can not make other food impure anyway!?

In order to answer this, the Talmud has to introduce two new concepts. True, by Torah law one food cannot convey impurity to another. However, the Sages, out of love for the purity of holy foods, added a law that food can (as if were, by this new decree) convey impurity to another food. We thus see what Rabbi Chanina is teaching us.

Rabbi Akiva seems to be adding nothing: if you count the degrees of impurity in his example, they are the same as in Rabbi Chanina’s. We are forced to say that the lamp that Rabbi Akiva is talking about was made of metal. Metal has the law of impurity different from other materials: it acquires the same level of impurity as the person who touches it, not the usual one-degree lower. Thus, Rabbi Akiva is teaching us that the oil was acquiring two degrees of impurity in the process and that this nevertheless was permitted.

Art: The Metalworker by Rudolph Ernst

Pesachim 15 – Rabbi Meir learns "from their words”

Previously we learned the testimony of Rabbi Chanina that when food is anyway being destroyed for some reason, then one can mix together foods of different degrees of ritual impurity. Even though normally one is forbidden to make foods impure, it is permissible to do so for the last few moments before it is finally destroyed.

Rabbi Akiva later added to this testimony, and Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagreed on a related topic. Rabbi Meir makes this relevant to Passover by stating, “from their words we can learn that on Passover when one is destroying chametz, he can burn the Kohen’s portion of the food, the pure and impure together.”

The problem is that Rabbi Meir did not specify whose words he had in mind. The Talmud considers what exactly did Rabbi Akiva add, and whose words did Rabbi Meir learn from. It is possible to understand the words of Rabbi Meir in many ways. Examples of such understanding will be given on the following pages.

Art: A Franciscan monk distributing food to the poor by Jan Miel

Pesachim 14 – The chapter of Rabbi Chanina the supervisor of the priests

Rabbi Chanina, the supervisor of the priests, made the following statement: “All the days of the priests the fact that they had to burn together meats of different degrees of impurity did not stop them; rather, they always burned such meats together, even though while burning they would further contaminate the meat of lesser impurity.”

What follows for the next seven pages is a discussion of this rule's ramifications, and this chapter is considered one of the hardest in the Talmud.

The subjects that will be discussed include sources of ritual impurity (humans and animals), degrees of impurity (there are five of them), objects that can become impure (humans but not animals, also vessels, clothing, food, and beverages), purification from impurity (mikveh), and consequences of impurity (none today, all were important only in the times of the Temple).

Art: A landscape with monkeys and humans and a mythical city beyond by (after) Lucas Gassel

Pesachim 13 – Chametz sign for the people

Ideally, one should consume the chametz and not destroy it, especially if this bread belongs not to himself but to someone else. For example, if Passover falls out on Sunday, so that one won’t be able to burn it on a day before, which is Shabbat – what is one to do with the Kohen’s portion of the bread in his possession? In this case, Rabbi Yehoshua allows him to burn it on Friday, but the Sages still require him to wait – perhaps a Kohen will chance to his house on Saturday.

Rabbi Yehoshua counters that if no Kohen was in town on Friday then he won’t come on Saturday – because one cannot travel on Shabbat, but the Sages say that a Kohen might be on the road close by. “If you are so careful,” – said Rabbi Yehoshua – “then why did you allow burning Kohen’s portion which may have become impure? Perhaps Elijah the Prophet will come and reveal that this bread is pure?” To which the Sages replied that it is well known that Elijah will not come on Friday when the Jews are busy preparing for Shabbat.

In the Temple, there was a sign for the people: two unused loaves of bread were lying on the roof while chametz could be eaten; one was removed when they had to refrain from eating, and the last was taken away when the time to burn chametz arrived.

Art: A panoramic landscape with travelers on a road, a town beyond by (after) Jan, The Younger Brueghel

Pesachim 12 – When does one finally stop eating chametz?

We learned before that it is prohibited to eat chametz (bread) already in the middle of the day before Passover. However, the Sages moved this time a little earlier, out of concern that the people won’t be precise with timing.

Rabbi Meir says that it is easy to tell midday by the sun. He, therefore, asks to stop eating chametz an hour before noon and requires all to start burning it in the sixth hour of the day. However, Rabbi Yehudah considers that on a cloudy day one may make a bigger mistake in estimating the time. He, therefore, permits eating chametz for four hours of the day, requires to refrain from eating it in the fifth hour, and to burn it in the sixth.

Art: Cloudy Day At Amagansett by Thomas Moran

Pesachim 11 – When one missed his search for chametz

If one missed the right time (night of the fourteenth of Nissan) to search for chametz, what is he to do? Rabbi Yehudah says that he can search in the morning of the next day, and even later, until midday, up until the time when chametz becomes prohibited. However, the Sages allow one search in the morning, and in the appointed time, and even after that. Why does Rabbi Yehudah stop the search after the chametz becomes forbidden? – Because he is concerned that people may accidentally put it in their mouths. And the Sages? – They say that since one is looking for chametz to destroy it, he will surely not eat it.

What is the “appointed time?” above. Rashi says that this is the time appointed for search, before Pesach. But the Tosafot say that this is the time of the Pesach celebration itself. Thus we have very divergent opinions, with Tosafot requiring to search for chametz all the way through Passover and even after that! What causes such a big disagreement? Rashi considered the purpose of the search to stop people from owning chametz on Passover; after Passover has started, chametz is legally not theirs anyway. But Tosafot say that the purpose of the search is so that people would not eat prohibited chametz, and chametz even after Passover can be prohibited if a Jew owned it.

Art: In Search of Medicine by Vladimir Egorovic Makovsky

Pesachim 10 – Rava, mouse, bread and weasel

Rava prepared the stage for his questions by stating what was obvious to him: if a mouse with a piece of bread in its mouth enters a house, and then the owner of the house comes in and finds this amount of bread crumbled into pieces, he cannot assume that this is the same bread – because mice usually don’t leave bread after having crumbled it. Therefore, it must be another bread, and one needs to search the house again to find the piece that the mouse may have hidden. Were it a child, we could assume that he just crumbled the bread and left it there – and no new search would be needed.

Then Rava asked his questions. If one sees a mouse with a piece of bread in its mouth enter his house, and then he sees a mouse with a piece of bread exit, can he assume that it is the same mouse and the same bread and therefore he need not search the house? Let’s assume it is the same mouse.

Next question: a white mouse with bread enters his house, and then a black one exits –is it for sure a different piece of bread, or perhaps the black mouse snatched it away from the white one? Let’s assume mice don’t snatch bread from each other.

Next question: a mouse with bread enters the house, and then a weasel with bread exits the house. If you tell me that the weasel took the bread from the mouse, I will answer that I would expect the mouse, not the bread, to be in the weasel’s mouth.

Next question: a mouse with bread enters the house, and then a weasel exits, and in its mouth, there is a mouse and a piece of bread. If you tell me that this is for sure the same bread, I will counter and tell you that the bread should be in the mouse’s mouth, and the mouse should be in the weasel’s mouth. To which you can still answer that perhaps the mouse got scared of the weasel and dropped the bread, and then the weasel picked up both. To this last question, the Talmud does not find a definitive answer.

Art: Grapes, pears and other fruit in a bowl, with a mouse by Johann Amandus Wink

Pesachim 9 – Weasel drags bread from house to house

After one searches his home for chametz, he does not have to worry that perhaps a weasel will now bring bread from another house. The same is true of one's room: once it is searched, one need not think that a weasel might bring it there from another room. This is true because if one is to be concerned, he would have to suspect that a weasel brought it from another courtyard or another town, and there would be no end to his worries.

However, as the Talmud notes, this rule is good only if one does not see a weasel or a mouse, going into his house with bread. If he does, then he has to be concerned. But why? Why not say that the mouse ate that bread?! After all, we have multiple rulings which assume that if a mouse or a weasel are found in a place where possibly ritually impure meat was dropped, then it was surely eaten, and the place is therefore ritually clean!? – True, they will eat the meat, but as for the bread, they will leave some over and hide it.

And yet, we do worry about weasels, since all food that is left over after the search for chametz is hidden and not put in an easily accessible place – obviously because a weasel may take it away. Abaye explained, “Yes, the weasel may hide it just before Pesach when soon there will be no bread available, but not earlier when there is plenty.” Rava objected, “Is a weasel a prophetess that she knows that soon there will be no bread?! – Rather, the danger is that the weasel will take it away in one's presence, and then he will have to search again.”

Art: A Weasel by Edward Lear

Pesachim 8 – The light of a candle

We mentioned before that one should search for chametz using the light of a candle. Why a candle? It comes through a chain of associations. Chametz should “not be found.” This leads to remembering Joseph who “searched and found” (a divining goblet in the sack of Benjamin). The “found” leads to the words of the prophet who promises that God will look for the errors of the people of the city of Jerusalem using the light of candles, and not “find” any. And finally “candles” leads to the words of King Solomon that “The soul of a man is the candle of God, which God uses to inspect the deeds of man."

Why do we need the last connection, from “candles” to “candle?” It is already pretty clear and close by then! – Because one might think that searching with candles is leniency, and God will overlook some errors precisely because of using candles. To show that this is untrue, we bring the last proof of the candle being the light of God.

Still, why not use a torch? First, because with the torch he will be afraid to examine nooks and crevices, since he may cause a fire. Also, a torch gives unsteady flame, while that of a candle is constant. Yet another reason is that one carries a torch behind himself, and the candle he carries in front.

Art: Boy with a Torch by Matthias Stomer (1600 - 1650)

Pesachim 7 – Right after searching for chametz…

After one finishes searching for and destroying his chametz, he must also declare whatever he missed as ownerless, the dust of the earth, and not belonging to him. Why is that? He just destroyed all his chametz anyway!?

One reason is that he might find a nice loaf of bread later. Since it is nice, he will desire it and in his mind own it, at least for a few seconds, and thus transgress the prohibition of owning chametz. Declaring it ownerless helps.

Still, why does he need to declare the chametz that is unknown to him ownerless? He might as well say this declaration the minute he sees the bread!? – By the time Pesach comes, it is not in his power to declare it ownerless.

Here we have an interesting paradox, as Rabbi Elazar puts it. There are two things that are not in the possession of a man, yet the Torah holds him responsible as if they were his. The first one is a pit in the street. If one opens it, then even though it does not belong to him, he still pays for the damages caused by the pit. The second one is chametz on Pesach: even though one cannot use it for any purpose or derive benefit from it (so technically it does not belong to him,) the Torah still considers it as if he transgressed “No leaven should be found with you on Passover” when it is found in his domain.

Art: Searching by Valentin Walter Bromley (1848-1877)