(13a:1)that the incident occurred during sunrise is because he was standing out in the open and they were mere rays of light that he saw which he mistook for sunrise. In actuality, he too is testifying to an incident that occurred before sunrise, and the testimony of the two witnesses is therefore compatible testimony. Rav Shimi bar Ashi therefore teaches us that there is no concern that it transpired in that manner.
(13a:2)אמר רב נחמן אמר רב הלכה כרבי יהודה אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן ונימא מר הלכה כר' מאיר דסתם לן תנא כוותיה
(13a:2)Rav Naḥman said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: And let the Master say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that one may eat during the entire fifth hour, as the tanna taught an unattributed mishna in accordance with his opinion, indicating that this is the halakha.
(13a:3)דתנן כל שעה שמותר לאכול מאכיל
(13a:3)As we learned in a mishna: For the entire time that one is permitted to eat leaven himself, he feeds it to his animal. It can be inferred from this mishna that there is no intermediate period when it is prohibited for a person to eat leaven but he may feed it to his animal. This unattributed mishna must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Yehuda maintains that during the fifth hour it is prohibited to eat leaven but one may feed it to an animal.
(13a:4)ההיא לאו סתמא הוא משום דקשיא מותר
(13a:4)The Gemara rejects this contention: That mishna is not classified as unattributed, as it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, due to the fact that had the mishna been in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the term: Permitted, is difficult. Instead, the mishna should have been formulated: When one eats he may feed.
(13a:5)ונימא מר הלכה כרבן גמליאל דהוה ליה מכריע א"ל רבן גמליאל לאו מכריע הוא טעם דנפשיה קאמר
(13a:5)Rava raised an additional difficulty to Rav Naḥman: And let the Master say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, as he is the decisor in this dispute, and there is a general principle that the halakha is always in accordance with the decisor who states an opinion that compromises between two opinions cited previously. He said to him: Rabban Gamliel is not a decisor; he is stating a reason of his own. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir disagree with regard to consumption of any type of leaven; they do not distinguish between teruma and non-sacred food. Since Rabban Gamliel distinguishes between the time one must desist from eating teruma and the latest time that one may eat non-sacred food, his is evidently an unrelated opinion that is in no way a compromise between the other two rulings.
(13a:6)ואיבעי' אימא רב דאמר כי האי תנא דתני' ארבעה עשר שחל להיות בשבת מבערין את הכל מלפני השבת ושורפין תרומות טמאות תלויות וטהורו' ומשיירין מן הטהורו' מזון שתי סעודות כדי לאכול עד ד' שעות דברי רבי אלעזר בן יהודה איש ברתותא שאמר משום ר' יהושע
(13a:6)And if you wish, say instead: When Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, he ruled in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to the fourteenth of Nisan that occurs on Shabbat, one does not remove leaven on Passover eve in the usual manner. Rather, one removes everything leavened before Shabbat, and one burns ritually impure teruma: Teruma in abeyance, whose purity is uncertain, and even any pure teruma that he does not require for his Shabbat meals. And one leaves from the pure leaven food for two meals, the meal at night and the one in the morning, in order to eat and finish until four hours of Shabbat morning. This is the statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Yehuda of Bartota, who said it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua.
(13a:7)אמרו לו טהורות לא ישרפו שמא ימצאו להן אוכלין אמר להן כבר בקשו ולא מצאו אמרו לו שמא חוץ לחומה לנו
(13a:7)The Sages said to him: One should not burn pure teruma, as perhaps those who can eat it will be found on Shabbat, and he will have retroactively violated a Torah prohibition by burning pure teruma unnecessarily. Instead, one places the teruma aside, and if no one is found to eat it, he feeds it to the dogs or renders it null and void in his heart. He said to them: They already sought people to eat the teruma and they did not find any other priests in the city to eat it. They said to him: Perhaps those priests who could eat the teruma on that Shabbat slept outside the wall of the city and will enter the city on Shabbat morning, at which point they could eat the teruma.
(13a:8)אמר להם לדבריכם אף תלויות לא ישרפו שמא יבא אליהו ויטהרם אמרו לו כבר מובטח להן לישראל שאין אליהו בא לא בערבי שבתות ולא בערבי ימים טובים מפני הטורח
(13a:8)He said to the Sages: According to your statement, that you take into account this unlikely scenario, one should not even burn teruma in abeyance, as perhaps Elijah the Prophet will come on Shabbat and establish prophetically that the teruma is not ritually impure, and render it ritually pure. They said to him: That possibility is no source of concern, as the Jewish people have already been assured that Elijah will come neither on a Friday nor on the eve of a Festival, due to the exertion involved preparing for the upcoming holy day. Consequently, Elijah will certainly come neither on Friday, nor on Shabbat itself, which is Passover eve.
(13a:9)אמרו לא זזו משם עד שקבעו הלכה כרבי אלעזר בן יהודה איש ברתותא שאמר משום רבי יהושע
(13a:9)They said: They did not move from there until the Sages voted and they established the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Yehuda of Bartota, who said it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua.
(13a:10)מאי לאו אפילו לאכול אמר רב פפא משמיה דרבא לא לבער
(13a:10)Apropos the previous statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, what, is it not that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion even with regard to eating? Rav’s ruling indicates that one may eat leaven until the end of the fourth hour, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava: No, the aforementioned ruling applies only to the obligation to remove leaven, i.e., the Sages agreed that it is permitted to remove pure teruma on Friday only if there is no one available to eat it.
(13a:11)ואף ר' סבר להא דרב נחמן דאמר רבין בר רב אדא מעשה באדם אחד שהפקיד דיסקיא מלאה חמץ אצל יוחנן חקוקאה ונקבוה עכברי' והיה חמץ מבצבץ ויוצא ובא לפני רבי שעה ראשונה אמר לו המתן שניה אמר לו המתן שלישית אמר לו המתן רביעית אמר לו המתן חמישית א"ל צא ומוכרה בשוק
(13a:11)The Gemara notes: And even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with this statement of Rav Naḥman, and rules that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As Ravin bar Rav Adda said: There was an incident that occurred involving a certain person who deposited a saddlebag [disakkayya] filled with leavened bread with Yoḥanan Ḥakuka’a, and mice bore a hole in the bag, and leavened bread was spilling out of the sack. And he came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi on Passover eve to ask what he should do. In the first hour of the day Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Wait, as the owner of the bag might yet return to take it from you and eat the leaven. In the second hour he said to him: Wait. In the third hour he said to him: Wait. In the fourth hour he said to him: Wait. In the fifth hour, concluding that the person was not coming, he said to him: Go and sell it in the market.
(13a:12)מאי לאו לנכרים כרבי יהודה אמר רב יוסף לא לישראל כרבי מאיר אמר ליה אביי אי לישראל נישקלי' לנפשיה
(13a:12)What, did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi not mean that Yoḥanan Ḥakuka’a should sell this leaven to gentiles, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that it is prohibited for a Jew to eat leaven during the fifth hour? Rav Yosef said: No, it could be that he meant to sell it to a Jew, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir that one may eat leaven during the fifth hour. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was simply advising him to sell the leaven quickly before the sixth hour begins, at which point it would be prohibited for Jews to eat it. Abaye said to him: If it is permitted for a Jew to eat leaven, let him take it for himself and pay the owner back later. Why trouble him to sell it to someone else?
(13a:13)משום חשדא דתניא גבאי צדקה שאין להם עניים לחלק פורטין לאחרים ואין פורטין לעצמן
(13a:13)The Gemara responds: Eating it himself is not an option due to the potential of suspicion. As it was taught in a baraita with regard to a similar situation: Collectors of charity who have no poor people to whom they can distribute the money, change the money with other people and do not change it themselves, i.e., with their own coins.
(13a:14)גבאי תמחוי שאין להם עניים לחלק מוכרין לאחרים ואין מוכרין לעצמן משום שנאמר (במדבר לב, כב) והייתם נקיים מה' ומישראל
(13a:14)Likewise, collectors of food for the charity plate, who would collect food in large vessels for the poor to eat, who do not have poor people to whom to distribute the food, sell the food to others and do not sell it to themselves, as it is stated: “And you shall be clear before God and before Israel” (Numbers 32:22). It is not sufficient that a person is without sin in the eyes of God. He must also appear upright in the eyes of other people so that they will not suspect him of wrongdoing.
(13a:15)אמר ליה רב אדא בר מתנה לרב יוסף בפירוש אמרת לן צא ומוכרן לנכרים כרבי יהודה
(13a:15)Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rav Yosef: You told us explicitly that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi meant: Go and sell it to gentiles, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Yosef took ill late in life and forgot his studies, and therefore his student would remind him that he also agreed with that version of the incident.
(13a:16)אמר רב יוסף כמאן אזלא הא שמעתא דרבי כרשב"ג דתנן המפקיד פירות אצל חבירו אפילו הן אבודין לא יגע בהן רשב"ג אומר מוכרן בב"ד מפני השבת אבידה
(13a:16)Rav Yosef said: In accordance with whose opinion, i.e., the opinion of which tanna, is that halakha which was taught by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that one should sell leaven deposited with him in order to prevent the depositor from losing his possession? Rav Yosef explains: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who deposits produce with another, even if the produce will be ruined by insects or mold, he should not touch them. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He should sell them in court, due to the obligation to restore lost property. Just as one is required to return a lost item, he is likewise required to prevent loss of another’s property for which he assumed responsibility.
(13a:17)אמר ליה אביי ולאו איתמר עלה אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן לא שנו אלא
(13a:17)Abaye said to him: Wasn’t it stated with regard to that mishna that Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Rabbis taught that one may not touch them only if
(13b:1)בכדי חסרונן אבל יותר מכדי חסרונן מוכרן בבית דין וכל שכן הכא דהא פסידי לגמרי:
(13b:1)their decrease in value is at the standard rate of stored produce, due to rot and rodents. However, if their decrease in value is beyond the standard rate, everyone agrees that one sells them in court; and all the more so in the case here, with regard to leavened bread, as the bread will be entirely lost. Once the leaven is prohibited, it remains prohibited even after Passover. Consequently, everyone agrees that one is obligated to sell the leaven.
(13b:2)ועוד אמר ר' יהודה שתי חלות כו': תני תנא קמיה דרב יהודה על גב האיצטבא א"ל וכי להצניען הוא צריך תני על גג האיצטבא
(13b:2)We learned in the mishna: And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: Two disqualified loaves of a thanks-offering are placed on the pillars surrounding the Temple as an indicator. The tanna who recited mishnayot in the study hall taught a baraita before Rav Yehuda: The loaves were placed on [al gav] the bench in the Temple. He said to him: And does he need to conceal them? No one would see them if they were placed there. Rather, teach the baraita: On the roof of [al gag] the colonnade, where everyone could see them.
(13b:3)אמר רחבא אמר ר' יהודה הר הבית סטיו כפול היה תניא נמי הכי הר הבית סטיו כפול היה רבי יהודה אומר איסטוונית היתה נקראת סטיו לפנים מסטיו:
(13b:3)Raḥava said that Rabbi Yehuda said: The Temple Mount was a double colonnade, i.e., surrounded by two rows of columns. That was also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says it was called an istevanit and it was a colonnade within a colonnade.
(13b:4)פסולות וכו': אמאי פסולות אמר רבי חנינא מתוך שהיו מרובות נפסלות בלינה דתניא אין מביאין תודה בחג המצות מפני חמץ שבה
(13b:4)We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says these two loaves placed outside were disqualified. The Gemara asks: Why were they disqualified? What caused their disqualification? Rabbi Ḥanina said: Since the thanks-offerings brought that day are numerous, and the priests are unable to eat their portions from the loaves of all the offerings, the remaining loaves are disqualified by virtue of their being left overnight. The Gemara explains that so many loaves were brought that day, as it was taught in a baraita: One may not bring a thanks-offering on the festival of Passover due to the leavened bread included with it, as ten of the forty loaves brought with a thanks-offering are loaves of leavened bread.
(13b:5)פשיט' אמר רב אדא בר אהבה הכא בי"ד עסקינן וקסבר אין מביאין קדשים לבית הפסול
(13b:5)The Gemara raises a difficulty: It is obvious that one may not bring this offering on Passover, as it contains leaven. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Here this baraita is not referring to the prohibition against bringing the offering on Passover itself. Rather, we are dealing with the issue of sacrificing a thanks-offering on the fourteenth of Nisan, and this tanna maintains: One may not bring consecrated offerings to a situation where the time that they may be eaten is restricted, thereby increasing the likelihood of disqualification. Although it is permitted to eat leavened bread until the sixth hour of the fourteenth of Nisan, one may not bring a thanks-offering on Passover eve. The reason is that a thanks-offering may be eaten for one full day and the following night, and if it is brought on the eve of Passover, the time available before disqualification is reduced.
(13b:6)וכולי עלמא בשלשה עשר מייתי להו ומתוך שהן מרובות נפסלות בלינה
(13b:6)And therefore, everyone who ascended on the pilgrimage to Jerusalem and were obligated to bring thanks-offerings brought them on the thirteenth of Nisan. And since these thanks-offerings are numerous, they are disqualified by virtue of their being left overnight, as priests are unable to eat their portions from the loaves of all the offerings brought that day.
(13b:7)משום ר' ינאי אמרו כשירות היו ואלא אמאי קרי להו פסולות שלא נשחט עליהן הזבח ונשחוט שאבד הזבח
(13b:7)They said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The loaves placed as an indicator were not disqualified by being left overnight. Rather, why did the tanna call them disqualified? It was due to the fact that no animal offering was slaughtered together with them to consecrate them, but they were consecrated as thanks-offering loaves independently. They could not be eaten until the offering with which they were brought was slaughtered. The Gemara asks: And let us slaughter the thanks-offering to render the loaves permitted. The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a case where the animal for the offering was lost.
(13b:8)ונייתי זבח אחר ונשחוט דאמר זו תודה וזו לחמה וכדרבה דאמר רבה אבד הלחם מביא לחם אחר אבדה תודה אין מביא תודה אחרת מ"ט לחם גלל תודה ואין תודה גלל לחם
(13b:8)The Gemara raises a further difficulty: And let us bring another animal to replace the first one for sacrifice and let them slaughter it. The Gemara answers: This is a case where the one who consecrated the thanks-offering said: This is a thanks-offering and these are its loaves. He consecrated the animal and the loaves together, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, as Rabba said: If the loaf of a thanks-offering is lost, its owner brings another loaf to complete the offering. However, if the thanks-offering was lost and the loaves remain, one may not bring another thanks-offering. What is the reason for this? The loaves are brought due to the thanks-offering but the thanks-offering is not brought on account of the loaves. The animal sacrificed is the primary component of the offering while the loaves are subordinate to it.
(13b:9)וניפרקינהו ונפקינהו לחולין אלא לעולם שנשחט עליהן הזבח ונשפך הדם
(13b:9)The Gemara asks: And let us redeem the loaves from their consecrated status and render them non-sacred, and there will be no need to burn the loaves. Rather, the Gemara explains that actually the case is one where the animal offering was indeed slaughtered over the loaves to permit them, but the animal’s blood spilled before it could be sprinkled on the altar. Once the animal has been slaughtered, the loaves are fully consecrated and cannot be redeemed, but in this case, neither can they be eaten, as the blood was not sprinkled on the altar.
(13b:10)וכמאן כרבי דאמר רבי שני דברים המתירין מעלין זה בלא זה דתניא כבשי עצרת אין מקדשין את הלחם אלא בשחיטה כיצד שחטן לשמן וזרק דמן לשמן קידש הלחם
(13b:10)And in accordance with whose opinion is this statement that the slaughter of the animal consecrates the loaves and from that point they can no longer be redeemed? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Each of two factors that are indispensable in permitting the sacrifice of an offering, elevates the subordinate components of the offering to consecrated status, without the other. In this case, the loaves are consecrated when the animal to be sacrificed is slaughtered, even if the blood was not sprinkled, as it was taught in a baraita: The lambs sacrificed on the festival of Assembly, i.e., Shavuot, consecrate the loaves that accompany them only by means of their slaughter. How so? If one slaughtered the lambs for their own sake, i.e., as lambs for Shavuot, in the appropriate manner, and the priest sprinkled their blood for their own sake, the loaves are consecrated.
(13b:11)שחטן שלא לשמן וזרק דמן שלא לשמן לא קידש הלחם שחטן לשמן וזרק דמן שלא לשמן לחם קדוש ואינו קדוש דברי רבי
(13b:11)However, if one slaughtered them not for their own sake, and the priest sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the loaves are not consecrated, as the factors indispensable in rendering the offering permitted were not properly performed. If one slaughtered them for their own sake, and he sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the fact that the lambs were properly slaughtered renders the loaves partially consecrated. Therefore, the loaves are consecrated to the extent that they cannot be redeemed, but they are not consecrated to the extent that they may be eaten. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
(13b:12)ר' אלעזר בר"ש אומר לעולם אינו קדוש הלחם עד שישחוט לשמן ויזרוק דמן לשמן
(13b:12)Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Actually, the loaves are consecrated only when one slaughters the offerings for their own sake and sprinkles their blood for their own sake, i.e., only if both factors indispensable in rendering the offering permitted were properly performed. The previous answer in the Gemara is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
(13b:13)אפי' תימא ר' אלעזר ברבי שמעון הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שנתקבל הדם בכוס ונשפך
(13b:13)The Gemara adds: Even if you say that the previous answer is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, it is understood, as with what case are we dealing here? It is in a unique case where after the slaughter, the blood was received in the cup and it only then spilled before it was sprinkled.
(13b:14)And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of his father, Rabbi Shimon, who stated a principle: The legal status of any blood that is about to be sprinkled and prepared for sprinkling is like that of blood that had already been sprinkled. Therefore, the loaves are consecrated when the blood is received in the vessel and thereby prepared to be sprinkled. They may not be eaten until the blood is actually sprinkled.
(13b:15)תנא משום רבי אלעזר אמרו כשירות היו כל זמן שמונחות כל העם אוכלין ניטלה אחת מהן תולין לא אוכלין ולא שורפין ניטלו שתיהן התחילו כולן שורפין
(13b:15)It was taught in the Tosefta that they said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: These loaves were entirely fit. As long as the loaves were placed there, the entire nation continued to eat leaven. When one of the loaves was taken away, the people knew that the time had come to place the leaven in abeyance, meaning that they neither eat nor burn their leaven. When both of the loaves were taken away, they all began burning their leaven.
(13b:16)תניא אבא שאול אומר
(13b:16)It was taught in a baraita that Abba Shaul says:
