Pesachim 6 – Someone else’s chametz

There is an interesting contradiction in the Torah. On the one hand, it said, “No leaven shall be seen with you in your territory.“ So I might think that if I hide it, then it is allowed. I might also think that with me it cannot be seen, but if it belongs to someone else, such as a barrel of whiskey that someone left as a deposit, then it would be allowed.

On the other hand, the Torah also said, “No leaven may be found in your homes.”  This means that even hidden chametz should not be found, and even someone else’s chametz is not allowed to be deposited with me.

How does one resolve this? – It all depends on who accepts responsibility. If a Jew stores someone else’s chametz without any promises and guarantees, such that if it is stolen, he is not responsible, and in addition, he rents that place in his house where the non-Jew’s chametz is stored – then it is allowed. However, if he accepts responsibility for it, it becomes in some sense his, and that chametz should not be found in the Jew’s home.

For example, non-Jewish soldiers used to deposit flour with the residents of the city of Mechozah, and Jewish bakers would bake bread for them. The bakers accepted the responsibility, and Rava told them that this was not allowed on Pesach. However, if they could find someone else who would accept responsibility for them, then it would become allowed.

Art: The Whiskey Still at Lochgilphead by Sir David Wilkie (1785-1841)

Pesachim 5 – Why stop eating chametz already before Passover?

We mentioned earlier that we start destroying chametz the day before Passover because it is prohibited already then. Why? Here is Abaye’s explanation.

The Torah said, “For seven days, chametz should not be found in your homes.” However, it also said, “But on the first day, you should destroy chametz.” What is there to destroy if, on the first day, you can’t even find it? Therefore, it must be that by “first day” in this context, the Torah means “prior” day. Very well, but if so, it should be the whole day!? – that is the meaning of the word “but,” which comes to limit the new rule, and it is logical to limit it to a half-day. Thus, the clear result: chametz is prohibited for eating after midday before Passover, but the more serious consequence of being cut off from one’s people for one who eats chametz – that starts only when the Passover really begins.

The Talmud then finds many more ways to prove that chametz is prohibited half a day prior to Passover. This need is probably due to all of the proofs having complicated derivation or because none of them is obvious.

Art: A Weaver's Workshop With A Couple Eating At A Table by Cornelius Decker (1618-1678)

Pesachim 4 – Why search for chametz so early?

Now that all agree that the “light” of the search for chametz means night, it is fair to ask, why must it be done so early? Even if we are rushing to do a mitzvah, we don’t find anywhere that it should happen the night prior. Since chametz will be prohibited only from the middle of the next day, we could require the search to be done early in the morning.

Rav Nachman answered that there are two reasons: first, people are usually at home at this time, so albeit a little early, but guaranteed that all will take part. Also, we really want to use a candle, and the night is best for that.

If one rents a house around the fourteenth, who is supposed to search the house for chametz, the renter (because it's his house), or the house owner (because it's his chametz)? For the mezuzah, it is the renter’s obligation. However, that is because mezuzah is for the one who lives in the house, not for the house itself. For chametz, this is exactly our question - is it for the person or for the house? Again, Rav Nachman quoted a rule that resolves this: if the renter got the keys before the evening of the fourteenth, it’s his obligation, and if later – it’s the owner's obligation.

The Talmud also considers the situation where the renter assumed the house to be checked and found that it wasn’t – can he ask for his money back? (Spoiler: no money back! The person should be happy to do the mitzvah of searching for chametz or even pay someone to do it).

Art: The Keys by Edmund Blair Blair Leighton 1853 - 1922

Pesachim 3 – Trying to use clean language

We have explained the use of the word “light” to mean “night” in the opening rule of Passover as the teacher’s attempt to use clean language – since night has a connotation of darkness – with its possible spiritual implications. From where does the Talmud derive this idea?

In describing which animals went into Noah’s Ark, the Torah says, “and of animals that are not pure…” It could have said, “that are impure,” but it wanted to avoid calling them thus, and spent extra eight letters to use a lengthier but pure language.

However, in teaching, one must also express himself in the most concise and clear language possible to make it easier for students to remember. What is the conclusion then? As thus: if the two ways, the clean and the not clean, are equal in length, one should use the clean language. But if the clean language is longer, one should use the precise though unpleasant language. Why then did the Torah deviate from the rule and use a longer “animals that are not pure?” - to teach the value of refined speech.

Once two students were studying with Rav. One said, “this study made us tired as pigs,” and the other – “this study made us tired as young goats,” and Rav never spoke with the first one again.

Art: Girl with Pigs By Thomas Gainsborough 1727-1788

Pesachim 2 – “Light” of the fourteenth of Nissan

On the fifteenth day of the month of Nissan, Jews celebrate Passover and don’t eat or keep anything leavened, or “chametz.” Therefore on a day before, as a preparation, one should search for chametz and destroy it. When? – When it becomes “light” of the fourteenth, “ore” in Hebrew.

What does the teacher mean by the word “ore?” Rav Huna said that it means literally light, and Rav Yehudah said that it means night. Initially, the Talmud understands that Rav Huna means it to be really in the morning, and one should search for chametz then. Why would one use a candle in the morning? – it’s the early hours, and a candle can help. By contrast, Rav Yehudah really means searching at night, as soon as it becomes dark.

Can we clarify the meaning of the word “ore” or “light?” For example, in the phrase “And God called the light (“ore”) day,” it seems very clear that “ore” is the day. However, you can read it differently: God called to the light and told the light to serve the day's needs, but these are not the same.

In the end, the Talmud cannot conclusively prove from the Torah alone that “light” and “day” are the same. However, the way God explained the rules to Moses, chametz is indeed searched for at night. It's just that some people call night “night,” while others call night “light,” as a euphemism, or refined speech, trying to avoid any connotation of darkness.

Art: Saturday Night, On The Clyde At Glasgow by John Atkinson Grimshaw 1836 - 1893

Eruvin 94 – Broken wall

If one of the walls of a courtyard completely collapsed, then this courtyard becomes a public area, and one who carries an object on Shabbat from a house to the courtyard has violated Shabbat and needs to bring an offering for his mistake – that is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. The Sages, however, say that the courtyard is not really public – people still do not walk there freely, but rather it is a “karmelit,” meaning an area through which passers-by go only occasionally. How could they disagree to this extent? The truth is that they don’t argue about the complete courtyard, but only about the area where the wall stood. Rabbi Eliezer says that people now do walk there, and the Sages – that they did not do walk there before and don’t really walk there even now.

If a courtyard was broken through on two sides, one can still carry there, but only this Shabbat, and not the next – these are the words of Rabbi Yehudah, but the Sages say that it should be consistent on every Shabbat. What is the situation? If the breach is less than ten steps – it is a door, and even two doors do not make the courtyard lose its private status. And if the breaches are wider than ten steps, then even one of them makes the courtyard open, and we do not need the case of two!? Rav explained that here we are dealing with a breach in the corner of the courtyard, and people don’t normally walk through such breaches. This is why even with two broken walls the courtyard can still retain its private status.

Art: The doorstep encounter by Eugene de Blaas 1843-1932

Eruvin 93 – One-directional partition

Previously we learned that when two roofs or two courtyards, a large one and a small one, are adjoining, they are not equal: the small one is subordinate to the large one. The residents of the large one can carry in a small one, but not the other way around.

To emphasize this, Rabbah gave examples. If nine people are in the large courtyard and one is on the small one – they add up for prayer, but if nine are in the small courtyard and one is in the large one, he does not add up. If one planted grapevines in the large courtyard, then it is forbidden to plant wheat in the small one because one cannot plant the two together, and the small courtyard is considered to be part of the large one; however, if one planted grapevines in the small courtyard, then it is permitted to plant wheat in the large one because they are separate.

Abaye found the last rule very hard to understand: in fact, the separation between the two courtyards, in the form of an entrance, made planting forbidden! Had there not been a separation, it would have been enough to distance the plantings by four steps.

The Sages showed Abaye many cases where some form of separation actually created additional prohibitions, but Abaye dismissed them all by explaining that in each case they were not the same, and thus Abaye remained with his surprise at the Rabbah’s ruling.

Art: Still Life With Grapevine by Jean-Baptiste Robie 1821 - 1910