DAF DITTY PESACHIM 10: Springmaus/Jerboa
Half Mouse Half Earth
The spiritual world of the Jewish sages in the Mishnah and Talmud period (1th -5 th centuries), as well as the doors of the study halls, were open to news from the external/secular world in various areas. The article below focuses on vermin or mouse that is half flesh and half earth. This creature was mentioned in the Mishna and Talmud literature in halakhic and ideological contexts. This miraculous hybrid creature was also described in the writings of Greek and Roman sages, and this phenomenon is grounded in a broader outlook mentioned by Aristotle concerning spontaneously generating creatures. According to the Greek and Roman sages, such as Diodorus, Ovid and Pliny, the mice can be seen in the area of the Nile in Egypt, when the water that floods the fields retreats to the river‟s normal channel. According to the Amoraim the mouse is created in a valley, apparently because it is a low place where the ground is normally moist and sometimes muddy. It seems that the origin of this belief is the fact the mice emerge from the earth with part of their body covered in mud and those observing from afar may receive the impression that they are half earth and half flesh.
Abraham Ofir Shemesh1
1 http://www.ejst.tuiasi.ro/Files/80/1_Shemesh.pdf
1
It must be . דב י הק רצ י ך ,and then find crumbs ץמח If we see a mouse go into a house with a piece of elsewhere - the mouse did not eat it, because mice do not typically leave crumbs. In the same דב י ק ,a child - ית נ קו situation with a
2
Rava said: If one saw a mouse enter a house with a loaf of bread in its mouth, and he entered after the mouse and found crumbs, the house requires additional searching, due to the fact that a mouse does not typically generate crumbs. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that these crumbs are from the loaf snatched by the mouse. And Rava also said: If one saw a child enter with a loaf in his hand, and he entered after the child and found crumbs, the house does not require additional searching, because a child typically generates crumbs, and one can therefore assume that the crumbs are from that loaf.
Jastrow
3
And if you say that we accept the contention that if it is so, that if the marten took it from the mouse the mouse itself would be in its mouth, in regard to a case where one saw a mouse enter with a loaf of bread in its mouth and a marten leave with both a loaf of bread and a mouse in its mouth, what is the halakha?
Do I say that this is certainly the same mouse and loaf, or perhaps even this conclusion can be disputed: If it is so, that this is the same mouse, the loaf would have been found in the mouse’s mouth rather than in the marten’s mouth.
Consequently, this must be a different loaf of bread. Or perhaps the loaf of bread fell from the mouse’s mouth due to its fear and the marten took it separately.
No satisfactory answer was found for these dilemmas and the Gemara concludes: Let them stand unresolved.
4
5
MISHNA: Rabbi Yehuda says: One searches for leaven on the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan, and on the fourteenth in the morning, and at the time of the removal of leaven. And the Rabbis say: that is not the case; however, if one did not search on the evening of the fourteenth, he should search on the fourteenth during the day.
If he did not search on the fourteenth, he should search during the festival of Passover. If he did not search during the Festival, he should search after the Festival, as any leaven that remained in his possession during the Festival is classified as leaven owned by a Jew during Passover, which one is obligated to remove. And the principle is: With regard to the leaven that
6 one leaves after the search, he should place it in a concealed location where it will most likely be left untouched, so that it will not require searching after it if it goes missing.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the statement of Rabbi Yehuda that one must conduct a search three times? The Gemara answers: It is Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna who both say: The requirement to conduct three searches corresponds to the three times that the removal of leaven is mentioned in the Torah. One verse says: “Matzot shall be eaten for seven days, and no leavened bread shall be seen with you, neither shall there be leaven seen with you, in all your borders” (Exodus 13:7), and another verse states: “Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses” (Exodus 12:19), while a third verse says: “Seven days shall you eat matzot, yet on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses” (Exodus 12:15).
TOSAFOS
'סות ה"ד םאו אל קדב ךותב דעומה ךותב קדב אל םאו ה"ד 'סות
Tosfos discusses his disagreement with Rashi's explanation in 'be'Soch ha'Mo'ed'.)
יפ ' וקה ,סרטנ העשב .תישש העשב ,סרטנ וקה ' יפ
Rashi explains in the sixth hour.
קו ,הש יברלד הדוהי ירק היל תעש' 'רועיבה , המלו הניש ?ונושל הניש המלו , 'רועיבה תעש' היל ירק הדוהי יברלד ,הש
But Rebbi Yehudah calls this same period 'the time of Bi'ur', so why does the Gemara change the expression.
אלא ךותב' 'דעומה יה י נ ו תלחתמ עבש דע ףוס ;חספה ו רחאל' 'דעומה קודבי ידכ אלש ברעתי ול ץמח לש רוסיא רוסיא לש ץמח ול ברעתי אלש ידכ קודבי 'דעומה רחאל' ו ;חספה ףוס דע עבש תלחתמ ו נ י יה 'דעומה ךותב' אלא לשב ה י ת ר , ו י א כ ל נ ו . ש
7 'B'soch ha'Mo'ed' therefore means from the beginning of the seventh hour until the end of Pesach, and the obligation to search after the Mo'ed is based on the concern that one Chametz of Isur might get mixed up with Chametz of Heter, and one eats it.
ו "שר י ל א ר הצ ל פ שר כ ן , מ פ נ י פש י שר ב שמ נ ה םיקדובד אלש רובעי לב'ב 'הארי .'אי בברבי ל ידב
Rashi however, did not want to explain it like this, because he explains in the Mishnah that the reason for searching for Chametz is in order not to transgress the Isur of 'Bal Yera'eh'.
Summary
Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2
Rabbi Yehudah maintains that we search for chametz three times and the Chachamim dispute this. Rabbi Yehudah says that we search for chametz on the night of the fourteenth of Nissan, on the morning of the fourteenth, and at the time when the chametz is removed, which is during the sixth hour on the fourteenth. The Chachamim, however, maintain that if one did not search for chametz on the night of the fourteenth, he should search for chametz on the morning of the fourteenth. If he did not search on the morning of the fourteenth, he should search during the appointed time that one removes chametz, which is during the sixth hour of the fourteenth. If he did not search during that appointed time, he should search after the appointed time until dark.
Rabbi Yehudah does not allow one to search for chametz after the chametz prohibition goes into effect because he may find chametz and eat it. Initially, the Gemora understood that the reason why Rabbi Yehudah requires three searches of chametz is because they correspond to the three terms that the Torah uses regarding removing chametz from one’s possession. It is said: chametz shall not be seen to you and leaven shall not be seen to you. It is also said: for a seven-day period leaven shall not be found in your homes. It is further said: but on the first day you shall eliminate leaven from your homes.
These three terms teach us that if one did not discover chametz during the first search, he will discover chametz during the second or third search. This explanation is challenged, however, from a braisa that records Rabbi Yehduah’s own statement that if one did not search for chametz in those three times, he does not search any more, and this indicates that Rabbi Yehudah only disagrees with the Chachamim regarding searching after the time of removing the chametz, but Rabbi Yehudah agrees with the Chachamim regarding the number of searches that are required. The Gemora therefore explains that Rabbi Yehudah agrees with the Chachamim that only one search for chametz is required, and the dispute between Rabbi Yehudah and the Chachamim is that Rabbi Yehudah maintains one can only search for chametz while chametz is permitted, but once chametz is prohibited, one cannot search for chametz, because if he were to find chametz, he may come to eat it.
2 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Pesachim_10.pdf
8
The Chachamim, however, maintain that if one did not search for chametz before the chametz was prohibited, he must still search for chametz afterwards. This ruling only applies on the fourteenth of Nissan, when chametz is forbidden, but one is not liable the penalty of kares, excision. Regarding Pesach itself, however, the Chachamim agree that one cannot search for chametz, because on Pesach one is liable kares if he were to eat chametz.
After R’ Yosef rejects R’ Chisda and Rabbah bar R’ Huna’s explanation of R’ Yehudah’s ruling in the Mishnah he explains that the dispute revolves around whether one who did not search for chometz should search even after the prohibition began. According to R’ Yehudah, it is prohibited because of the fear one may eat the chometz whereas according to Rabanan it is not only permitted but obligatory. The Gemara begins to question whether R’ Yehudah is concerned with the possibility one may inadvertently eat chometz.
Rabbi Asher Lopatin writes:3
Today’s daf continues to struggle with the challenges of trying to systematically rid one’s home of hametz before Passover begins. The rabbis acknowledge that it is difficult to control and contain food in a world where little rodents move things around, babies drop crumbs and grown-ups just plain forget where they left things. Arguably, in our day the invention of Tupperware has made this easier — but many of us are still overwhelmed by the task of ridding our house of leaven in time for Passover. There is always a nagging uncertainty that leaven lurks somewhere. It is a real comfort that numerous times on our page the rabbis end a short discussion with “teiko” — let Elijah the Prophet come and answer our questions, because we certainly can’t.
Here is an example of one such quandary the rabbis tackle on today’s page:
In a case where there is one pile of leavened bread in front of two houses that were already searched, and a mouse came and took a morsel from the pile, and we do not know if it entered this house or if it entered that house, this is akin to the case of two paths, as we learned in a mishnah: There were two paths, one of which was ritually impure due to a corpse buried there, and one of which was ritually pure, and he walked on one of them but does not know which…
In this scenario, two households have already cleaned for Passover, but there is a pile of leaven outside in front of them. Someone sees a mouse grab some leaven from that pile, and then it is thought to have entered one of the houses, but we do not know which. What do we do? Do we assume the houses are clean? Do we search one? Both?
To answer this question, the Gemara brings an analogous case — of a person who may have walked on a path that imparts impurity, but is uncertain whether they in fact took a different route. On the one hand, it’s helpful to have a parallel case which helps us resolve our problem of a mouse, a pile of hametz and two already-searched homes. On the other hand, it is somewhat jarring to mix up
3 Myjewishlearning.com
9 the joyous holiday of Passover with concerns about a path that might happen to have a corpse lying on it. But that’s the rabbis — eager to resolve our dilemma with whatever it takes.
The challenging scenarios keep coming. What if we see a mouse snatch some leaven but we don’t know if it has entered a clean house? What if we saw a mouse carrying leaven enter a house, but then we subsequently can’t find any leaven in that house? What if we see the mouse carry leaven into the house, and then we find some leaven in the house, but we’re not sure if it is the same leaven that the mouse was carrying? What if a mouse enters with a full loaf of bread in its mouth (a strong mouse!) but later only crumbs are found? What if a child enters with a loaf, and later we see crumbs? What if we see a mouse bring a loaf of bread into the house, and then we see a marten leaving the same house with a loaf of bread in its mouth? On it goes…
Despite careful discussion and clever halakhic parallels for each scenario, our confidence in solving each cases diminishes as the daf continues, until finally things feel completely out of control as we contemplate a white mouse entering the house with a chunk of hametz and a black mouse leaving the house, or worse, a mouse entering the house with hametz and a marten leaving the house with a mouse in its mouth and the hametz is either still in the mouse’s mouth or in the marten's mouth as well. And if a snake is holding hametz in its mouth, do you have to hire a snake charmer to get it out? Teiko! Don’t worry about it — and wait for Elijah who will answer all these questions!
Passover is in many ways a holiday which asks us to control a great deal: our eating, our cooking, even what is in our homes. But the real world is also chaotic and difficult. Our rabbis understood this and accepted it.
Rav David Silverberg writes:4
The Mishna in Masekhet Pesachim (10b) records a debate among the Tanna’im concerning the case of a person who neglected to perform bedikat chametz before the time on Erev Pesach when chametz becomes forbidden. Rabbi Yehuda rules that one should no longer perform the bedika, whereas the majority view among the Sages held that one should search for chametz at that point and then destroy any chametz he finds. Even if one neglected to search for chametz before the onset of Pesach, according to the majority view, he should search during Pesach. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda stated his position out of concern that the person might discover chametz and then eat it, in violation of the Torah’s prohibition. The other Sages disagree, and maintain that there is no reason for such concern, for since the person specifically searches for chametz in order to destroy it, he would not mistakenly eat it.
Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his Musar Ha-mishna, draws an intriguing connection between this debate and a debate between these same Tanna’im in Masekhet Sota (7a). The question surrounds the procedure followed in the case of a married woman suspected of infidelity, who would be brought to the Beit Ha-mikdash and given special waters to drink. If she survived, this would prove her innocence, and she and her husband could then resume their marital relationship.
4 https://www.etzion.org.il/en/salt-erev-pesach-monday-14-nisan-5777-april-10-2017
10 The Mishnayot in Masekhet Sota describe several measures that were taken to exhaust and intimidate the woman in the hope that, if she was guilty, she would confess and thereby be spared the deadly effects of the water. According to the majority view, these measures included exposing her hair and parts of her body, which would cause her embarrassment. Rabbi Yehuda disagreed, arguing that this could arouse inappropriate thoughts and desires among the kohen who performs this procedure.
The likely reason why the majority view discounts this consideration, Rav Ginsburg suggests, is the fact that this entire process is being done for the sake of eliminating sexual impropriety. There is no reason to be concerned about the kohen experiencing illicit thoughts or desires while he is intensely focused upon the effort to confront the problem of illicit relationships among the nation. Just as the majority view feels no need to be concerned about a person eating during Pesach chametz which he finds while in the process of seeking to destroy chametz, it similarly allows the kohen to expose the sota’s hair and parts of her body while he is in the process of trying to eliminate the scourge of sexual impropriety. Rabbi Yehuda is similarly consistent, forbidding bedikat chametz once the chametz prohibition has set in, and forbidding exposing a kohen to potentially arousing sights even as he conducts the sota ritual.
Reflecting upon the broader concepts at play in this debate, there is certainly a degree of truth to both perspectives. Rabbi Yehuda is undoubtedly correct that we human beings are frail and inconsistent enough to stumble and succumb even while working to combat that precise form of wrongdoing.
Even as we involve ourselves in the effort to oppose a certain negative phenomenon, exposure to that temptation could cause us to succumb. The other Sages, presumably, do not deny this possibility, only in their view, the small risk of failure does not justify withdrawing and abandoning the effort to eliminate “chametz” from our society. Although this effort will, invariably, expose us to the ills we seek to cure, the majority view maintains that this work is too important to neglect for the sake of avoiding all exposure to any forms of “chametz.”
Previously, we noted the question surrounding the relationship between two Mishnayot in the beginning of Masekhet Pesachim (2a, 9a) that discuss the laws of bedikat chametz. The first Mishna establishes that one is not required to search areas in the home where chametz is not brought, and the second Mishna (as understood by Rashi and Tosefot) establishes that after one searched an area in his home, it is considered chametz-free, despite the possibility that a rodent subsequently brought chametz there.
Chazal do not expect a person to concern himself with this possibility, the second Mishna explains, because there would then be “no end,” as one would never be able to declare any part of his home free of chametz. Tosefot, as we saw, raised the question of why the second Mishna’s ruling needed explication, as it is seemingly implied by the first Mishna’s ruling.
After all, once the first Mishna teaches that a place where one does not bring chametz does not require checking, we can logically deduce that Halakha does not require us to concern ourselves with the possibility of animals bringing chametz to different parts of the home. Why, then, does
11 the second Mishna need to instruct that an area that had been searched is presumed chametz-free even if it is possible that an animal brought chametz there subsequently?
Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his Mussar Ha-mishna, answers by suggesting a distinction between an area where chametz is never brought, and searching is therefore not required in the first place, and an area where chametz is brought and that was checked for chametz. In the latter case, the bedikat chametz obligation applies, requiring one to thoroughly search to ensure the absence of chametz, whereas in the former case, no bedika obligation applies at all. One might have thought that in areas where bedika is required, a higher level of certainty in required to assure the absence of chametz. And thus, even though we do not have to be concerned that an animal may have brought chametz to an area where chametz is not normally brought, one might have considered the possibility that such concern is warranted in areas that require bedika, after bedika has been performed. Since the bedika obligation had taken effect in these areas, it may have been reasonable to assume that one must be extremely thorough in his efforts to ensure the absence of chametz, to the point where he must repeat his search again later to ensure that an animal did not subsequently bring chametz there. The second Mishna therefore instructs that even though an area is subject to the bedikat chametz requirement, there is a limit to the extent of his responsibility to ensure the absence of chametz, and he does not have to concern himself with the risk of rodents bringing chametz there after the search.
Rav Ginsburg proceeds to note the broader implications of this distinction. When it comes to our efforts to rid ourselves of the “chametz” within our beings – our flaws and shortcomings – a higher standard of vigilance is required in regard to those areas “she-makhnisin bo chametz,” where we know we have a particular weakness. Once we have failed in regard to a certain matter, we must be especially careful and attentive to that area of religious life. When it comes to our areas of weakness, we require an extra level of care and concern, and must work especially hard to ensure the absence of any “chametz” – of any likelihood of repeating the mistake.
By the same token, we must also remember the Mishna’s conclusion – “im kein ein la-davar sof.” As in the case of bedikat chametz, we must acknowledge the inherent limits on our ability to guarantee the absence of “chametz.” Human beings are, by nature, imperfect, and thus no matter how vigilantly we work to rid ourselves of “chametz,” we will never reach a point where perfection is guaranteed. We must therefore follow Rabbi Tarfon’s timeless dictum in Avot (2:16), “Lo alekha ha-melakha li-gmor, ve-lo ata ben chorin le-hibatel mimena” – “You are not responsible to complete the work, but neither are you free to ignore it.”
We are to work hard to eliminate the “chametz” from our beings, paying especially close attention to our areas of weakness, while acknowledging our limits and accepting the inalterable reality of human imperfection.
When a Mouse Enters Your House with Bread in his Mouth
12 Steinzaltz (OBM) writes5
While the Mishna (9a) introduced us to a hulda – a marten – that we suspect may hoard hametz in houses already cleaned for Pesah, on our daf Rava presents us with another small animal, an akhbar. The akhbar discussed is, apparently, a conventional house mouse (Mus musculus), a small rodent that grows up to eight centimeters. This small creature sustains itself by eating food that is left around the house, usually breadcrumbs and other such things.
Rava said: If one saw a mouse enter a house with a loaf of bread in its mouth, and he entered after the mouse and found crumbs, the house requires additional searching, due to the fact that a mouse does not typically generate crumbs. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that these crumbs are from the loaf snatched by the mouse.
The Maharam Halavah quotes the Rif as explaining that mice do not make crumbs when they eat, so the crumbs that are found cannot possibly be from the loaf of bread brought in by the mouse, forcing us to check the house a second time.
The Ramban understands Rava’s ruling to mean that a mouse usually finishes the crumbs that he makes. According to this reasoning, if the amount of crumbs that is found is the size of the piece that the mouse was carrying, it could not possibly be from the piece that was recently brought in, since the mouse would have finished the crumbs.
If, however, only a small amount of crumbs were found, we can rely on the fact that the mouse ate the bread, leaving behind a small amount of crumbs, but the house does not need to be rechecked.
This discussion leads Rava to ask a series of hypothetical questions about this case: • What if the mouse was seen bringing in a loaf of bread and carrying out a loaf of bread? Do we assume that it is the same loaf, or not?
• If we assume that it is the same loaf, what if we see a mouse carrying in a loaf, and a mouse of a different color carrying out a loaf?
Do we still say that it is the same one?
• If we assume it could not be the same loaf because mice do not take from one another, what if a mouse carried in a loaf of bread and a rat is seen carrying out bread? Can we assume that the rat took the loaf from the mouse?
• And what if we see the rat carrying out a mouse and a loaf? Would that prove that it was the same hametz that was carried in?
5 https://steinsaltz.org/daf/pesahim10/
13 To all of these questions the Gemara answers Teiku – the question stands.
The Shulhan Arukh declines to bring these cases, with the explanation that they are so unlikely to occur that they do not require a pesak halakha.
And the Sages say; if one did not search on the night of the 14th he should search on the morning of the 14th. If one did not search on the morning of the 14th he should search during the moed (appointed time). If one did not search during the moed he should search after the moed.
The Rishonim differ over the understanding of the word ‘moed’ (appointed time).
Rashi explains that it refers to the sixth hour which is the appointed time for the elimination of all chometz from the person’s domain. Tosafos (1) and Ritva comment that Rashi explains this way because he maintains (2) that the requirement for the bedikah is in order that one will not transgress no chometz should be seen or found in his ( לב לב י הצמ and הארי לב the Torah prohibitions of possession). Therefore ‘moed’ cannot be referring to the festival of Pesach. This is because the latter requirement of the Mishna (to search after the moed) would be unnecessary since there are (after Pesach has finished. (3 אצמי לב and הארי לב no prohibitions of
Others (4) deduce another halachic implication from Rashi’s explanation. Since the reason for the search is in order to find chometz and to eliminate it in order not to transgress the Torah Rashi understands that the cases discussed in the Mishnayos , אצמי לב and הארי לב prohibitions of annulment of chometz). Had he made the ( ץמח ב י ט ו ל are when a person has not performed he would no longer be liable for any chometz in his possession. Based on ץמח ב י ט ו ל declaration of this, on Yom Tov itself, Rashi would maintain that there would be no reason to do a bedikah. Even if he found chometz he could not eliminate it on Yom Tov and he would transgress the prohibitions . אצמי לב and הארי לב of
According to Tosafos, however, (who maintains that the reason for the bedikah is to prevent a person from coming to eat chometz on Pesach) even on Yom Tov a person would be required to search for chometz in order to locate potential chometz and cover it with a vessel in order to prevent him from eating it (5).
14
Orach Chayim 435
The Shulchan Aruch above, (6) follows the view of Tosafos that one is obligated to perform the bedikah even after the festival of Pesach.
The Mishna Berura above, (7) cites a dispute regarding whether a person should search for chometz on Yom Tov.
There are those (8) that write that nowadays since people clean their houses thoroughly prior to Pesach one should not search for chometz on Yom Tov but only on Chol HaMoed.
The above stated halachos are relevant for one someone who did a bedikah but forgot to check a particular area e.g., a car, basement etc. (9)
15
BEDIKAS CHAMETZ ON PESACH AND AFTER PESACH
Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:6
The Mishnah says that according to Rebbi Yehudah, the time to perform Bedikas Chametz is until the sixth hour of the day on the fourteenth of Nisan, when Chametz must be destroyed. According to the Chachamim, if one did not search for Chametz at the proper time on the fourteenth of Nisan, one may search during the "Mo'ed" or even after the "Mo'ed." What does "Mo'ed" refer to in the Mishnah?
TOSFOS (see above) and other Rishonim explain that "Mo'ed" means literally during Pesach itself. If one did not check before Pesach arrived, then one must check even on Yom Tov. If one failed to check during Pesach, then one must check after the festival because of the rabbinical prohibition against using Chametz after Pesach that was in the possession of a Jew during Pesach.
RASHI explains that "Mo'ed" refers to the sixth hour on Erev Pesach. If one did not check for Chametz before the sixth hour, he may check after the sixth hour, until nightfall. However, if he failed to check after the sixth hour and did not remember until nightfall, on Pesach itself he may not perform Bedikah.
6 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/pesachim/insites/ps-dt-010.htm
16 Rashi argues with Tosfos on two points. First, Rashi understands that the Mishnah teaches that there is no obligation to check after Pesach for Chametz that was in one's possession during Pesach. Second, according to Rashi, one does not have to check for Chametz on Pesach itself, even when he did not check for Chametz before Pesach. What is Rashi's source for these two Halachos?
TOSFOS explains why Rashi maintains that there is no obligation to check for Chametz after Pesach. Rashi follows his own opinion as expressed elsewhere (2a), where he says that the purpose of Bedikah is to prevent one from transgressing the prohibitions of Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei.
After Pesach, the prohibitions of Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei do not apply. The Rabanan prohibited only eating Chametz after Pesach, and thus there is no reason to require Bedikah. (Tosfos there (2a, DH Or) argues and maintains that the purpose of Bedikah is to prevent one from eating Chametz, and therefore it applies after Pesach as well.)
What is the source for Rashi's opinion that one does not need to check for Chametz on Pesach itself? The Gemara implies the contrary. The Gemara clearly states that the Rabanan were not concerned that one might eat Chametz that he finds during the Bedikah. Accordingly, even on Pesach itself, and not just on Erev Pesach, one should be required to perform a Bedikah to avoid transgressing Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei!
RASHASH answers that Rashi derives this Halachah from the text of the Mishnah. Rashi explains that "after the Mo'ed" means after the sixth hour, but only until Pesach arrives, because if the Mishnah means after the sixth hour until after Pesach departs, then why does the Mishnah say only that one should check for Chametz "the evening of the fourteenth, [and if he forgets, then] on the morning of the fourteenth, [and if he forgets, then] during the sixth hour, and [and if he forgets, then] after the sixth hour"?
If it is true that one checks for Chametz even during Pesach itself, then the Mishnah should have added that if he can, he must check for Chametz before Pesach arrives rather than wait until after Pesach has arrived.
It certainly is better to check before Pesach arrives, when there is no Isur Kares for one who eats Chametz, than to check after Pesach arrives when there is an Isur Kares for one who eats Chametz. Why does the Mishnah leave out this extra stage? It must be that this extra stage does not exist, because one may not check for Chametz on Pesach itself.
Although the Gemara says that the Rabanan are not concerned that one might eat Chametz while he searches for it, the RAN explains that this is true only before Pesach, when there is only an Isur Lav not to eat Chametz.
However, when there is an Isur Kares (on Pesach itself), the Rabanan did not rely on the reasoning that when one searches for Chametz in order to destroy it, he will not eat it.
Telling Time
17
Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:7
The halachic legal system is much more than a set of abstract principles or technical details. It incorporates factors such as human psychology (something that is so impactful during the mourning process), human error, and probability analysis.
These extra-legal aspects of the law can be seen in three Talmudic debates, which appear back-to- back-to-back, that discuss the prohibition of chametz.
The first step in ridding our home of chametz is bedikat chametz, the search for chametz. For obvious reasons, this bedikah must be done before the prohibition to eat or own chametz begins. The Mishnah (Pesachim 10b) records a debate in a case where one neglects to do bedikah before the prohibition of chametz sets in. Rav Yehuda claims that one should do nothing; searching for chametz at a time when it is prohibited to eat or even own it would be counterproductive. Why look for something you don't want to find? Doing so might just cause one to eat the chametz accidentally--a real fear, considering that one is used to eating chametz during the rest of the year. Best to rely an oral declaration nullifying the chametz, and hope none turns up during Pesach.
The Sages disagree, arguing that one must search for chametz even on Pesach itself: "He, himself, is searching after it to destroy it; need we be concerned that he eat it?" (ibid 11a). Chametz must be destroyed, and ignoring it is not an option. This holds true even after Pesach is over; and if no search was done prior to Pesach, it must be conducted post-Pesach, lest one violate the prohibition of eating chametz that was owned by a Jew during Pesach.
In the course of analyzing the above-noted view of Rabbi Yehuda, the Talmud discusses the case of a firstborn animal that must be relieved of some blood (this was a very common occurrence in Talmudic times, even for humans). One of the basic notions of Judaism is that the first of everything belongs to G-d. That is why we must redeem our firstborn, give the first of our crops to the kohen, bring the first of our fruit to the Temple. Even a firstborn animal has a degree of sanctity and may only be eaten by a Kohen, unless the animal develops a permanent blemish.
Rav Yehuda forbids one to perform the needed bloodletting, fearing that one will "accidentally" make a permanent blemish on the animal, which would conveniently allow the owner to eat it himself. "Adam bahul al mammono, a person gets very excited about his property"; one might, in violation of Jewish law, purposely inflict a permanent blemish. Apparently, a few crumbs of chametz are not temptation enough to cause one to violate the severe prohibition against eating chametz, and hence, there is no need to search for chametz once Pesach enters; but an entire animal brings one to a whole new level of monetary loss.
7 https://www.torahinmotion.org/users/rabbi-jay-kelman
18 Using the same premise, the Sages come to the exact opposite conclusion. Because people get excited (and irrational) when it comes to their money, we must allow the bloodletting. If we do not, the animal may become so sick as to become a treifah, an animal that has a life expectancy of less than a year which may not be eaten even if properly slaughtered. The Sages feared if we did not allow bloodletting, a person would be even more likely to inflict a blemish. Better to let him do the bloodletting, and not worry that he will "accidentally" cause a blemish.
This debate, while technical in nature, may reflect a much deeper divide, one we are most familiar with. Should we prevent any contact that may lead to sin, or is it better to allow for such contact in order to prevent that same sin?
A third debate (ibid 11b)--this time between Rav Yehuda and Rav Meir--regarding the time until which we may eat chametz on erev Pesach hinges on the extent of human error. According to biblical law, chametz may be eaten until noon. The Sages, fearful of a mistake in knowing the proper time--something quite reasonable when the best way to tell time was the sundial--extended the prohibition to either one (Rav Meir) or two hours (Rav Yehuda) prior, leading to a long debate as to what is a reasonable amount of human error. This goes well beyond the time to eat chametz, and impacts on cases--such as those involving capital punishment--where verification of time is crucial.
Halachic authorities must master not only Jewish law, but also human behavior--the latter being a much harder task than the former.
19 Spontaneous Generation
Jeremy Brown writes: 8 ח ןילו זכק א, כ ןל
רבכע יצחש ו רשב יצחו ו המדא יאש ן הרפ הברו ר ןישהד ויח רב צשרכ
There is a mouse that is hard made from flesh and half from dirt, and does not procreate
The spontaneous generation of the half-mouse
Deep into several pages about ritual impurity, the Talmud mentions in passing this strange creature, which has come to be called the mud-mouse. And what exactly is this strange creature? Here is the explanation of Rashi:
לכ רמו אלש היה הירפמ היברו לש רבכע יפל נש רצו ילאמ ו - יא ן הרפ הברו
It does not procreate: This means it does not sexually reproduce, but instead it spontaneously appears.
And here is Rashi from 127b:
שי ימ ן רבכע יאש נ ו הרפ הברו אלא ומצעמ נ ו רצ המדאמ הפשאכ תצרשמה ת ו על י ם
There is a species of mouse that does not reproduce sexually but is spontaneously generated from the earth, just as maggots appear at a garbage site.
The mud-mouse is also mentioned in Sanhedrin (91):
ירדהנס ן ,אצ א ,אצ ן ירדהנס
אצ ל העקב ו האר רבכע יהש םו יצח ו רשב יצחו ו המדא רחמל ץירשה ו השענ ולכ רשב ולכ השענ ו ץירשה רחמל המדא ו יצחו רשב ו יצח םו יהש רבכע
Consider the mouse which today is half flesh and half earth, and tomorrow it has become a creeping thing made entirely of flesh.
Clearly, Rashi and the rabbis of the Talmud believed in spontaneous generation. Here is the opening of the Wiki article on the subject:
Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. Typically, the idea was that
8 talmudology.com/jeremybrownmdgmailcom/2017/10/14/sanhedrin-91-spontaneous-generation-rbaf8
20 certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh.
Everyone Believed it
How could the esteemed rabbis of the Talmud believed in this crazy idea of spontaneous generation? The answer is simple. Everyone believed it. Everyone, from the time of Aristotle until Louis Pasteur.
Here is Aristotle (d. 322 BCE):
So, with animals, some spring from parent animals according to their kind, whilst others grow spontaneously and not from kindred stock; and of these instances of spontaneous generation some come from putrefying earth or vegetable matter. [History of Animals 539a, 18-26.]