הִנִּיחַ בְּזָוִית זוֹ וּמָצָא בְּזָוִית אַחֶרֶת – פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבָּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא: קַרְדּוֹם שֶׁאָבַד בַּבַּיִת – הַבַּיִת טָמֵא, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אָדָם טָמֵא נִכְנַס לְשָׁם וּנְטָלוֹ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הַבַּיִת טָהוֹר, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: הִשְׁאִילוֹ לְאַחֵר וְשָׁכַח, אוֹ שֶׁנְּטָלוֹ מִזָּוִית זוֹ וְהִנִּיחַ בַּזָּוִית הָאַחֶרֶת וְשָׁכַח.

The Gemara addresses yet another case: If one placed leaven in this corner and found it in another corner, this is akin to the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis, as it was taught in a baraita : With regard to an axe that was lost in a house, the house is impure, as I say that a ritually impure person entered the house and took the axe, touching other items in the process. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The house is ritually pure, as I say that he lent the axe to another person and forgot, or that he took it from this corner and placed it in the other corner and forgot.

זָוִית מַאן דְּכַר שְׁמֵיהּ?

The Gemara asks: A corner, who mentioned anything about it? The baraita was referring to an axe that was lost, not one that was in a different corner.

חַסּוֹרֵי מְחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: קַרְדּוֹם שֶׁאָבַד בַּבַּיִת – הַבַּיִת טָמֵא, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אָדָם טָמֵא נִכְנַס לְשָׁם וּנְטָלוֹ; אוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחוֹ בְּזָוִית זוֹ וּמְצָאוֹ בְּזָוִית אַחֶרֶת – הַבַּיִת טָמֵא, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אָדָם טָמֵא נִכְנַס לְשָׁם וּנְטָלוֹ מִזָּוִית זוֹ וְהִנִּיחוֹ בְּזָוִית אַחֶרֶת. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הַבַּיִת טָהוֹר, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: הִשְׁאִילוֹ לְאַחֵר וְשָׁכַח, אוֹ שֶׁנְּטָלוֹ מִזָּוִית זוֹ וְהִנִּיחַ בְּזָוִית זוֹ וְשָׁכַח.

The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete, and is teaching the following: With regard to an axe that was lost in a house, the house is ritually impure, as I say that an impure person entered the house and took the axe, or, if the owner placed it in this corner and later found it in another corner, the house is likewise ritually impure, as I say that an impure person entered the house and took the axe from this corner and placed in another corner. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The house is ritually pure, as I say that he lent it to another person and forgot, or that he took it from this corner and placed it in that corner and forgot about it. When the baraita is interpreted in this manner, the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis applies to the question about leaven.

אָמַר רָבָא: עַכְבָּר נִכְנַס וְכִכָּר בְּפִיו, וְנִכְנַס אַחֲרָיו וּמָצָא פֵּירוּרִין – צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל עַכְבָּר לְפָרֵר. וְאָמַר רָבָא: תִּינוֹק נִכְנַס וְכִכָּר בְּיָדוֹ, וְנִכְנַס אַחֲרָיו וּמָצָא פֵּירוּרִין – אֵין צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל תִּינוֹק לְפָרֵר.

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.

בָּעֵי רָבָא: עַכְבָּר נִכְנַס וְכִכָּר בְּפִיו, וְעַכְבָּר יוֹצֵא וְכִכָּר בְּפִיו מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: הַיְינוּ הַאי דְּעַל, וְהַיְינוּ הַאי דִּנְפַק. אוֹ דִּילְמָא: אַחֲרִינָא הוּא?

Although the rulings in these cases were clear to Rava, Rava raised a dilemma with regard to a related case: If one saw a mouse enter with a loaf in its mouth, and he saw a mouse leave with a loaf in its mouth, what is the halakha ? The Gemara elaborates: Do we say that this mouse that entered is that same mouse that left and there is no more leaven left in the house? Or perhaps it is a different mouse.

אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר: הַיְינוּ הַאי דְּעַל וְהַיְינוּ הַאי דִּנְפַק, עַכְבָּר לָבָן נִכְנַס וְכִכָּר בְּפִיו, וְעַכְבָּר שָׁחוֹר יוֹצֵא וְכִכָּר בְּפִיו מַהוּ? הַאי וַדַּאי אַחֲרִינָא הוּא, אוֹ דִּילְמָא אַרְמוּיֵי אַרְמֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ?

The Gemara adds: If you say that this mouse that entered was this one that left, another dilemma arises: If one saw a white mouse enter with a loaf of bread in its mouth and a black mouse leave with a loaf of bread in its mouth, what is the halakha ? Do I say this is certainly a different mouse, or perhaps the black mouse took the loaf from the white mouse?

וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר: עַכְבָּרִים לָא שָׁקְלִי מֵהֲדָדֵי, עַכְבָּר נִכְנַס וְכִכָּר בְּפִיו, וְחוּלְדָּה יוֹצְאָה וְכִכָּר בְּפִיהָ מַהוּ? חוּלְדָּה וַדַּאי מֵעַכְבָּר שְׁקַלְתֵּיהּ, אוֹ דִּילְמָא: אַחֲרִינָא הוּא, דְּאִם אִיתָא דְּמֵעַכְבָּר שְׁקַלְתֵּיהּ – עַכְבָּר בְּפִיהָ הֲוָה מִשְׁתַּכַּח,

The Gemara continues to suggest variations on this case: And if you say that mice do not take from each other, as one mouse is generally not significantly stronger than another, if one saw a mouse enter with a loaf of bread in its mouth and a marten leave with a loaf of bread in its mouth, what is the halakha ? Do I say that the marten certainly took it from the mouse, as it is larger and stronger? Or perhaps it is a different loaf, for if it is so, that the marten took the loaf from the mouse, the mouse itself would also be found in its mouth, as the marten would presumably take not only the loaf of bread but the mouse as well.

וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר: אִם אִיתָא דְּמֵעַכְבָּר שְׁקַלְתֵּיהּ עַכְבָּר בְּפִיהָ הֲוָה מִשְׁתַּכַּח – עַכְבָּר נִכְנַס וְכִכָּר בְּפִיו, וְחוּלְדָּה יוֹצְאָה וְכִכָּר וְעַכְבָּר בְּפִי חוּלְדָּה, מַהוּ? הָכָא וַדַּאי אִיהוּ הוּא, אוֹ דִּילְמָא: אִם אִיתָא דְּאִיהוּ נִיהוּ – כִּכָּר בְּפִי עַכְבָּר מִשְׁתַּכַּח הֲוָה בָּעֵי אִישְׁתַּכּוֹחֵי. אוֹ דִּילְמָא: מִשּׁוּם בִּיעֲתוּתָא הוּא נָפַל, וּשְׁקַלְתֵּיהּ? תֵּיקוּ.

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.

בָּעֵי רָבָא: כִּכָּר בִּשְׁמֵי קוֹרָה צָרִיךְ סוּלָּם לְהוֹרִידָהּ אוֹ אֵין צָרִיךְ? מִי אָמְרִינַן כּוּלֵּי הַאי לָא אַטְרַחוּהוּ רַבָּנַן כֵּיוָן דְּלָא נָחֵית מִנַּפְשֵׁיהּ – לָא אָתֵי לְמֵיכְלָהּ, אוֹ דִּילְמָא: זִימְנִין דְּנָפַל וְאָתֵי לְמֵיכְלָהּ.

Rava raised a dilemma: If there was a loaf of bread on a high beam in the ceiling, does one need to climb a ladder to take it down or is this effort not necessary? Do we say: The Sages did not obligate one to exert himself that much in his search for leaven, and since the loaf of bread will not fall on its own he will not come to eat it? Or perhaps it can be claimed that sometimes the loaf may fall and he will come to eat it, as objects placed high up occasionally drop.

וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר זִימְנִין דְּנָפַל וְאָתֵי לְמֵיכְלָהּ – כִּכָּר בַּבּוֹר צָרִיךְ סוּלָּם לְהַעֲלוֹתָהּ אוֹ אֵין צָרִיךְ? הָכָא וַדַּאי דְּלָא עֲבִידָא דְּסָלְקָה מִנַּפְשָׁהּ, אוֹ דִּילְמָא: זִימְנִין דְּנָחֵית לְמֶעֱבַד צוֹרְכֵּיהּ, וְאָתֵי לְמִיכְלֵיהּ.

And if you say with regard to a loaf of bread on a beam, sometimes it will fall and he will come to eat it, in a case where the loaf was in a pit, does one need to use a ladder to bring it up, or is this effort not necessary? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Here the loaf will certainly not come up on its own, and one can therefore let it remain where it is; or perhaps there is still a concern that sometimes he might go down into the pit to perform some requirement of his, and he will come to eat it.

אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר: זִימְנִין דְּנָחֵית לְצוֹרְכֵּיהּ וְאָתֵי לְמִיכְלָהּ, כִּכָּר בְּפִי נָחָשׁ צָרִיךְ חַבָּר לְהוֹצִיא אוֹ אֵין צָרִיךְ?

The Gemara continues to discuss the various permutations of this case. And if you say that sometimes one goes down into the pit for some requirement of his, and he will come to eat it, with regard to a loaf that was in the mouth of a snake, is it necessary for him to bring a snake charmer to take the loaf out of the snake’s mouth, or is this effort not necessary?

בְּגוּפֵיהּ אַטְרַחוּהוּ רַבָּנַן, בְּמָמוֹנֵיהּ לָא אַטְרַחוּהוּ רַבָּנַן, אוֹ דִּילְמָא לָא שְׁנָא? תֵּיקוּ.

Once again the Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Do I say that with regard to his own body the Sages obligate one to exert himself and search everywhere, but with regard to his money the Sages do not obligate one to exert himself, Or perhaps, the legal status of his money is no different than that of his body, as one must remove leaven wherever he finds it, in any way he can? This series of dilemmas is also left answered and the Gemara concludes: Let them stand unresolved.

מתני׳ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בּוֹדְקִין אוֹר אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, וּבְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שַׁחֲרִית, וּבִשְׁעַת הַבִּיעוּר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא בָּדַק אוֹר אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר – יִבְדּוֹק בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר,

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.

לֹא בָּדַק בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר – יִבְדּוֹק בְּתוֹךְ הַמּוֹעֵד, לֹא בָּדַק בְּתוֹךְ הַמּוֹעֵד יִבְדּוֹק לְאַחַר הַמּוֹעֵד. וּמַה שֶּׁמְּשַׁיֵּיר יַנִּיחֶנּוּ בְּצִינְעָא, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה אַחֲרָיו.

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 one leaves after the search, 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.

גמ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: כְּנֶגֶד שָׁלֹשׁ הַשְׁבָּתוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה: ״לֹא יֵרָאֶה לְךָ חָמֵץ וְלֹא יֵרָאֶה לְךָ שְׂאֹר״, ״שִׁבְעַת יָמִים שְׂאֹר לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְּבָתֵּיכֶם״, ״אַךְ בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן תַּשְׁבִּיתוּ שְׂאֹר מִבָּתֵּיכֶם״.

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).

מְתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁלֹּא בָּדַק בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה פְּרָקִים הַלָּלוּ – שׁוּב אֵינוֹ בּוֹדֵק. אַלְמָא: בְּמִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ הוּא דִּפְלִיגִי!

Rav Yosef raised an objection to this explanation, seeking to prove that even according to Rabbi Yehuda one need not conduct three searches for leaven. He explained that Rabbi Yehuda lists the three times when one may conduct a search for leaven. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: Anyone who did not search at these three times may no longer search. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda does not hold that one must conduct three searches. Rather, in regard to whether or not one may conduct a search for leaven if he failed to conduct a search at one of those three opportunities, it is from this point forward that they disagree. The Rabbis hold that one may conduct the search even after the time of the removal of leaven, and Rabbi Yehuda disagrees.

מָר זוּטְרָא מַתְנֵי הָכִי; מְתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁלֹּא בָּדַק בְּאֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה פְּרָקִים הַלָּלוּ – שׁוּב אֵינוֹ בּוֹדֵק. אַלְמָא: בְּשׁוּב אֵינוֹ בּוֹדֵק הוּא דִּפְלִיגִי!

Mar Zutra taught Rav Yosef’s statement in this manner: Rav Yosef raised an objection from that which Rabbi Yehuda says: Anyone who did not search at one of these three times may no longer search. In Mar Zutra’s version, Rabbi Yehuda explicitly states: One of these three times, which reinforces the claim that he obligates one to conduct only one search. The Gemara similarly concludes: Apparently, it is with regard to whether or not one may no longer search that they disagree.

אֶלָּא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נַמִי אִם לֹא בָּדַק קָאָמַר.

Rather, the Gemara concludes that Rabbi Yehuda also said: If one did not search for leaven bread at the first opportunity, he may do so at the second or third opportunities; however, he may not search for leaven after these three times have passed.

וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר: מִקַּמֵּי אִיסּוּרָא – אִין, בָּתַר אִיסּוּרָא – לָא, גְּזֵירָה דִּילְמָא אָתֵי לְמֵיכַל מִינֵּיהּ. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: לָא גָּזְרִינַן.

And here, in the mishna, it is about this that they disagree: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, maintains that before the prohibition against eating leaven takes effect, yes, one may conduct a search; after the prohibition against eating leaven takes effect, no, one may no longer conduct a search, due to a rabbinic decree lest one come to eat from the leaven while searching for it. And the Rabbis maintain: We do not issue a decree lest one come to eat from the leaven, and he may therefore conduct a search even after the prohibition against eating leaven has taken effect.

וּמִי גָּזַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה דִּילְמָא אָתֵי לְמֵיכַל מִינֵּיהּ? וְהָא תְּנַן: מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הָעוֹמֶר יוֹצְאִין וּמוֹצְאִין שׁוּקֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם שֶׁהֵם מְלֵאִים קֶמַח וְקָלִי.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And does Rabbi Yehuda issue a decree lest one come to eat from the leaven in whose removal he is engaged? But didn’t we learn in a mishna: Once the omer offering was sacrificed, people would go out and find the markets of Jerusalem filled with flour and toasted grain, all from the new crop. This grain was undoubtedly harvested and processed when the Torah prohibition against eating from the new crop