Pesachim 8
מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאוֹר הַנֵּר יָפֶה לַבְּדִיקָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאָיָה לַדָּבָר — זֵכֶר לַדָּבָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שִׁבְעַת יָמִים שְׂאֹר לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְּבָתֵּיכֶם״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״וַיְחַפֵּשׂ בַּגָּדוֹל הֵחֵל״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״בָּעֵת הַהִיא אֲחַפֵּשׂ אֶת יְרוּשָׁלִַים בַּנֵּרוֹת״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״נֵר ה׳ נִשְׁמַת אָדָם חֹפֵשׂ כׇּל חַדְרֵי בָטֶן״.
because the light of a lamp is effective for searching. And even though there is no proof for this matter, there is an allusion to this matter, as it is stated: “Seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses” (Exodus 12:19), and it says: “And he searched, starting with the eldest, and ending with the youngest; and the goblet was found in Benjamin’s sack…” (Genesis 44:12). And it says: “At that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps” (Zephaniah 1:12), and it says: “The spirit of man is the lamp of God, searching all the inward parts” (Proverbs 20:27).
הַאי אוֹר הַחַמָּה הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי נֵימָא בְּחָצֵר, הָאָמַר רָבָא: חָצֵר אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָעוֹרְבִין מְצוּיִין שָׁם. אֶלָּא בְּאַכְסַדְרָה, הָאָמַר רָבָא: אַכְסַדְרָה לְאוֹרָהּ נִבְדֶּקֶת!
The Gemara asks a question: This light of the sun, by which one may not conduct the search for leaven, what are the circumstances of this case? If we say it is referring to conducting a search in the courtyard, didn’t Rava say that a courtyard does not require searching, due to the ravens and other birds that are found there, and will certainly eat any leaven there? Rather, perhaps this ruling is referring to a portico, which is not frequented by ravens. However, this cannot be the correct interpretation either, as didn’t Rava say with regard to that case that a portico may be searched by its own light, i.e., one need not use a lamp at all when searching a portico, but one may search it by sunlight?
לָא צְרִיכָא, לַאֲרוּבָּה דִּבְחֶדֶר. וּדְהֵיכָא? אִי לְבַהֲדֵי אֲרוּבָּה — הַיְינוּ אַכְסַדְרָה. אֶלָּא לִצְדָדִין.
The Gemara answers: No, this statement with regard to sunlight is necessary with regard to the skylight that is in a room. The Gemara asks: And with regard to the area to which the tanna is referring, where in the room is it located? If he is referring to the place opposite the skylight, the legal status of that area is like that of a portico, as its abundant sunlight is adequate to search for leaven. Rather, the tanna is referring to the sides of the room. In those areas, one cannot rely on the sunlight from the skylight. He must search by the light of the lamp.
וַאֲבוּקָה לָא? וְהָאָמַר רָבָא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנֹגַהּ כָּאוֹר תִּהְיֶה קַרְנַיִם מִיָּדוֹ לוֹ וְשָׁם חֶבְיוֹן עֻזּוֹ״, לְמָה צַדִּיקִים דּוֹמִין בִּפְנֵי שְׁכִינָה — כַּנֵּר בִּפְנֵי הָאֲבוּקָה. וְאָמַר רָבָא: אֲבוּקָה לְהַבְדָּלָה מִצְוָה מִן הַמּוּבְחָר!
The Gemara asks: And is the light of a torch not bright enough for searching? But didn’t Rava say: What is the meaning of that which is written, “And a brightness appears as the light; He has rays at His side; and there is the hiding of His power” (Habakkuk 3:4), which indicates that God will provide rays of glory for the righteous in the future? The Sages explained this verse by means of a parable: To what are the righteous comparable before the Divine Presence? They are comparable to a lamp in the face of a torch. This statement indicates that the light of a torch is significantly greater than that of a lamp, and consequently a torch should be more effective in the search for leaven. And likewise Rava said: One who uses a torch for the blessing over fire in havdala has performed the mitzva in the optimal manner. Apparently, the light of a torch is greater than that of a lamp.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: זֶה — יָכוֹל לְהַכְנִיסוֹ לְחוֹרִין וְלִסְדָקִין, וְזֶה — אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַכְנִיסוֹ לְחוֹרִין וְלִסְדָקִין. רַב זְבִיד אָמַר: זֶה — אוֹרוֹ לְפָנָיו, וָזֶה — אוֹרוֹ לְאַחֲרָיו. רַב פָּפָּא אֲמַר: הַאי — בְּעִית, וְהַאי — לָא בְּעִית. רָבִינָא אֲמַר: הַאי — מְשִׁךְ נְהוֹרָא, וְהַאי — מִיקַּטַּף אִיקַּטּוֹפֵי.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The baraita does not prohibit the use of a torch due to its failure to provide sufficient light. Rather, it is due to the fact that one can put this lamp into holes and crevices, as it is a small flame, and one cannot put that torch into holes and crevices, as it is a large flame.
Rav Zevid said: This lamp projects its light before it, facilitating the search, and that torch projects its light behind it, on the person conducting the search.
Rav Pappa said: The reason is that when using this torch one fears starting a fire, and when using that lamp he does not fear starting a fire.
Ravina said: This lamp consistently draws light, and the light of that torch fluctuates. Although overall the torch provides greater light than a lamp, it is less effective for use in a search.
כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכְנִיסִין כּוּ׳. ״כׇּל מָקוֹם״ לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי הָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: חוֹרֵי בַּיִת הָעֶלְיוֹנִים וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנִים, וְגַג הַיָּצִיעַ, וְגַג הַמִּגְדָּל, וְרֶפֶת בָּקָר, וְלוּלִין, וּמַתְבֵּן, וְאוֹצְרוֹת יַיִן וְאוֹצְרוֹת שֶׁמֶן — אֵין צְרִיכִין בְּדִיקָה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מִטָּה הַחוֹלֶקֶת בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת וּמַפְסֶקֶת — צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה.
We learned in the mishna: Any place into which one does not typically take leaven does not require searching. The Gemara asks: What does the inclusive phrase: Any place, come to include? The Gemara answers that it comes to include that which the Sages taught in a baraita: The upper and lower holes in the wall of a house that are difficult to use, as well as a veranda roof, a closet roof, a cowshed, chicken coops, a storehouse for straw, a wine cellar, and a storeroom for oil; all these do not require that a search be conducted. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A bed that divides the area inside a house and space separates the bottom of the bed from the floor requires a search, as there might be leaven beneath it.
וּרְמִינְהוּ: חוֹר שֶׁבֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ — זֶה בּוֹדֵק עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁיָּדוֹ מַגַּעַת, וְזֶה בּוֹדֵק עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁיָּדוֹ מַגַּעַת, וְהַשְּׁאָר מְבַטְּלוֹ בְּלִבּוֹ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מִטָּה הַחוֹלֶקֶת בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, וְעֵצִים וַאֲבָנִים סְדוּרִים תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וּמַפְסֶקֶת — אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה.
The Gemara raises a contradiction between this baraita and another: With regard to a hole in a wall that is between a house belonging to one person and a house belonging to another, this neighbor searches to the point that his hand reaches, and that neighbor searches to the point that his hand reaches. And as for leaven found in the rest of the hole, each one renders it null and void in his heart. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A bed that divides the area inside a house, with wood and stones placed under it, and space separates the bottom of the bed from the wood and stones beneath it, does not require searching.
קַשְׁיָא מִטָּה אַמִּטָּה, קַשְׁיָא חוֹרִין אַחוֹרִין!
This is difficult due to a contradiction between the ruling with regard to a bed in the first baraita, where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that it requires a search, and the ruling with regard to a bed in the second baraita, where he rules that no search is required. Furthermore, it is similarly difficult due to a contradiction between the ruling with regard to holes in the first baraita, that a search is not required, and the ruling with regard to holes in the second baraita, that a search is required.
חוֹרִין אַחוֹרִין לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בְּעִילָּאֵי וּבְתַתָּאֵי, וְהָא — בְּמִיצְעֵי. מִטָּה אַמִּטָּה לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — דְּמִידַּלְּיָא, הָא — דְּמִיתַּתַּאי.
The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between the first ruling with regard to holes and the second ruling with regard to holes is not difficult. This baraita, which rules that one need not search them, is referring to upper and lower holes, which are difficult to use. And that baraita, which rules that one is required to search them, is referring to intermediate holes, whose use is convenient. The apparent contradiction between the first ruling with regard to a bed and the second ruling with regard to a bed is similarly not difficult. This baraita, which rules that one is required to search them, is referring to a bed that is raised off the floor, and that ruling, that one need not search them, is referring to a bed that is low and the space beneath it cannot be used, and presumably, there is no leaven there.
וְאוֹצְרוֹת יַיִן אֵין צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה?! וְהָתַנְיָא: אוֹצְרוֹת יַיִן — צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה, אוֹצְרוֹת שֶׁמֶן — אֵין צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּמִסְתַּפֵּק. אִי הָכִי, שֶׁמֶן נָמֵי!
With regard to this baraita, the Gemara asks: And do wine storages not require searching? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Wine storages require searching; oil storages do not require searching. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where one supplies wine from the storage during the meal. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, then in the case of oil storages, if one supplies oil from the storage during the meal, he should be obligated to search there as well.
שֶׁמֶן — יֵשׁ קֶבַע לַאֲכִילָה. יַיִן — אֵין קֶבַע לִשְׁתִיָּה.
The Gemara answers: With regard to oil, there is a fixed quantity used for eating a meal. A person knows how much oil he will require before the meal begins, and he will therefore supply himself with any oil that he will need before the meal, and no leaven will enter the storage. However, with regard to wine, there is no fixed quantity used for drinking, as one does not know how much wine he will drink during the meal. Consequently, it is possible that he will descend to his wine cellar with bread in his hand to replenish his supply of wine.
תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: עָשׂוּ אוֹצְרוֹת שֵׁכָר בְּבָבֶל כְּאוֹצְרוֹת יַיִן בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּמִסְתַּפֵּק.
Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: The Sages rendered the legal status of the beer storages in Babylonia like that of wine storages in Eretz Yisrael, with regard to one who supplies wine from the storage during the meal. Any storage from which one replenishes his supply during the meal requires searching for leaven.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בֵּי דָגִים אֵין צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה. וְהָתַנְיָא צְרִיכִין בְּדִיקָה! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בְּרַבְרְבֵי, הָא — בְּזוּטְרֵי.
Rav Ḥisda said: A fish storage does not require searching. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that a fish storage requires searching? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; this lenient ruling is referring to large fish, and that stringent ruling deals with small fish. Since one does not know exactly how many small fish he will require for the meal, he might need to replenish his supply during his meal.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: בֵּי מִילְחֵי וּבֵי קִירֵי צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בֵּי צִיבֵי וּבֵי תַמְרֵי צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה.
Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A salt storage and a storage for candles require searching for leaven, as one might have entered those storages during a meal. Rav Pappa likewise said: A wood storage and a storage for dates require searching for the same reason.
תָּנָא: אֵין מְחַיְּיבִין אוֹתוֹ לְהַכְנִיס יָדוֹ לְחוֹרִין וְלִסְדָקִין לִבְדּוֹק — מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה. מַאי סַכָּנָה? אִי נֵימָא מִפְּנֵי סַכָּנַת עַקְרָב — כִּי מִשְׁתַּמַּשׁ, הֵיכִי אִישְׁתַּמַּשׁ? לָא צְרִיכָא, דִּנְפַל.
It was taught in the Tosefta: The Sages do not require one to place his hand into holes and crevices to search for leaven, due to the danger involved. The Gemara asks: Due to what danger? If we say it is due to the danger of a scorpion that might be in this hole, when he made use of the hole in the first place, how did he make use of it if there were scorpions there? If the hole is never used, there is no need to search it in any case. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to search this hole in a case where leaven fell into it unintentionally.
אִי נְפַל, לְמָה לִי בְּדִיקָה? וְהָתְנַן: חָמֵץ שֶׁנָּפְלָה עָלָיו מַפּוֹלֶת — הֲרֵי הוּא כִּמְבוֹעָר! הָתָם שֶׁאֵין הַכֶּלֶב יָכוֹל לְחַפֵּשׂ אַחֲרָיו, הָכָא כְּשֶׁהַכֶּלֶב יָכוֹל לְחַפֵּשׂ אַחֲרָיו.
The Gemara asks: If the tanna is referring to a case where leaven fell into the hole, again, why do I need to conduct a search? But didn’t we learn in a mishna with regard to leaven upon which a rockslide fell, it is considered removed from the owner’s possession? Here too, any leaven that fell into the hole should be considered removed. The Gemara answers: There, where the tanna said it is as though it were removed, he is referring to a case where the rockslide buries the leaven so that even a dog cannot search for it. Here, it is referring a hole that is not so deep, and therefore a dog can search for it and extract the leaven from the hole.
וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שְׁלוּחֵי מִצְוָה אֵינָן נִיזּוֹקִין? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: שֶׁמָּא תֹּאבַד לוֹ מַחַט, וְאָתֵי לְעַיּוֹנֵי בָּתְרַהּ.
The Gemara questions the halakha in the Tosefta from a different angle. Why is there any concern about danger in this case? But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say: Those on the path to perform a mitzva are not susceptible to harm throughout the process of performing the mitzva? Rav Ashi said: Here we are concerned lest he will also have lost a needle in the same place, and he will look for it while he is searching for the leaven. Since he is not merely searching for leaven, the merit of the mitzva will not protect him.
וּכְהַאי גַּוְונָא לָאו מִצְוָה הוּא?! וְהָתַנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״סֶלַע זוֹ לִצְדָקָה בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּחְיֶה בְּנִי״ אוֹ ״שֶׁאֶהְיֶה בֶּן הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא״ —
The Gemara asks: And in a case like that, where there is personal interest intermingled with the performance of a mitzva, is it not nevertheless considered a mitzva? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that one who says: I am contributing this sela to charity so that my son will live, or if he says: I am performing the mitzva so that I will be one destined for the World-to-Come,
הֲרֵי זֶה צַדִּיק גָּמוּר! דִּילְמָא בָּתַר דְּבָדֵק אָתֵי לְעַיּוֹנֵי בָּתְרַהּ.
this person is a full-fledged righteous person as far as that mitzva is concerned? These ulterior motives, e.g., seeking a reward, do not detract from the value of the mitzva. The Gemara answers: There is still concern lest he look for the needle after he searched for leaven and completed the search. There is danger that since he already completed the mitzva, its merit will not protect him when he is searching for the needle.
רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם סַכָּנַת הַגּוֹיִם, וּפְלֵימוֹ הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: חוֹר שֶׁבֵּין יְהוּדִי לְאַרְמַאי — בּוֹדֵק עַד מְקוֹם שֶׁיָּדוֹ מַגַּעַת, וְהַשְּׁאָר מְבַטְּלוֹ בְּלִבּוֹ. פְּלֵימוֹ אָמַר: כׇּל עַצְמוֹ אֵינוֹ בּוֹדֵק מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The danger referred to by the Tosefta is the danger posed by gentiles. And this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of the tanna Pelimu. As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to a hole in a wall located between the residences of a Jew and a gentile, one searches in the hole as far as his hand reaches, and the rest he renders null and void in his heart. Pelimu said: One does not search the entire hole at all, due to the danger involved.
מַאי סַכָּנָה, אִי נֵימָא סַכָּנַת כְּשָׁפִים, כִּי אִישְׁתַּמַּישׁ הֵיכִי אִישְׁתַּמַּישׁ? הָתָם כִּי אִישְׁתַּמַּישׁ — יְמָמָא וּנְהוֹרָא, וְלָא מַסִּיק אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ. הָכָא — לֵילְיָא וּשְׁרָגָא הוּא, וּמַסֵּיק אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ.
The Gemara asks: Due to what danger? If we say it is due to the danger of sorcery, i.e., the gentile will suspect the Jew of casting spells on him and will come to hate him and threaten him, if so, when he made use of the hole in the first place, how did he make use of it without arousing the enmity of his gentile neighbor? If the hole is never used there is no need to search it in any case. The Gemara answers: There, when he made use of the hole, it was during the day and there was light, and the gentile would not raise the suspicion that the Jew was casting spells in his mind. Here, it is during the night and the search is performed with a lamp, and the gentile would raise the suspicion that the Jew was casting spells in his mind.
וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שְׁלוּחֵי מִצְוָה אֵינָן נִיזּוֹקִין! הֵיכָא דִּשְׁכִיחַ הֶיזֵּיקָא שָׁאנֵי. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל אֵיךְ אֵלֵךְ וְשָׁמַע שָׁאוּל וַהֲרָגָנִי וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ עֶגְלַת בָּקָר תִּקַּח בְּיָדֶךָ וְגוֹ׳״.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say that those on the path to perform a mitzva are not susceptible to harm throughout the process of performing the mitzva? The Gemara responds: In a place where danger is commonplace it is different, as one should not rely on a miracle, as it is stated with regard to God’s command to Samuel to anoint David as king in place of Saul: “And Samuel said: How will I go, and Saul will hear and kill me; and God said: Take in your hand a calf and say: I have come to offer a sacrifice to God” (I Samuel 16:2). Even when God Himself issued the command, there is concern with regard to commonplace dangers.
בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַב: הָנֵי בְּנֵי בֵּי רַב דְּדָיְירִי בְּבָאגָא, מַהוּ לְמֵיתֵי קַדְמָא וַחֲשׁוֹכָא לְבֵי רַב? אֲמַר לְהוּ: נֵיתוֹ עֲלַי וְעַל צַוָּארִי. נֵיזִיל מַאי? אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא יָדַעְנָא.
They raised a dilemma before Rav: With regard to those members of the school of Rav who live in the fields [baga] far away from the city, what is the halakha as to whether they may come early before dawn and in the evening after dark to Rav’s school, or should they be concerned about robbers? He said to them: Let them come, and responsibility for their safety is upon me and my neck. They asked him: What is your opinion about returning home? He said to them: I do not know if it is possible to rely on the protection of the mitzva when returning home.
אִיתְּמַר, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שְׁלוּחֵי מִצְוָה אֵינָן נִיזּוֹקִין לֹא בַּהֲלִיכָתָן וְלֹא בַּחֲזִירָתָן. כְּמַאן?
On a related note, it was stated that Rabbi Elazar said: Those on the path to perform a mitzva are not susceptible to harm; neither when they go nor when they return. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did he say this?
כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא דְּתַנְיָא, אִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כְּלַפֵּי שֶׁאָמְרָה תּוֹרָה ״וְלֹא יַחְמֹד אִישׁ אֶת אַרְצְךָ״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁתְּהֵא פָּרָתְךָ רוֹעָה בָּאֲפָר וְאֵין חַיָּה מַזִּיקָתָהּ, תַּרְנְגוֹלְתְּךָ מְנַקֶּרֶת בָּאַשְׁפָּה וְאֵין חוּלְדָּה מַזִּיקָתָהּ.
The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita that Isi ben Yehuda says: With regard to that which the Torah said: “And no man shall covet your land, when you go up to appear before God your Lord three times in the year” (Exodus 34:24), this teaches that your cow shall graze in the meadow and no beast will harm it, and your rooster shall peck in the garbage dump and no marten [ḥulda] shall harm it. In other words, your property will be protected while everyone ascends to Jerusalem for the Festival, despite the fact that the farm will not be defended.
וַהֲלֹא דְּבָרִים קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה אֵלּוּ שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לִזּוֹק — אֵינָן נִיזּוֹקִין, בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכָּן לִזּוֹק — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בַּהֲלִיכָה, בַּחֲזָרָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּפָנִיתָ בַבֹּקֶר וְהָלַכְתָּ לְאֹהָלֶיךָ״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁתֵּלֵךְ וְתִמְצָא אָהָלְךָ בְּשָׁלוֹם.
And are these matters not inferred a fortiori? And if those animals that typically are harmed by other animals are not harmed, due to the protection provided by the mitzva, people who typically are not harmed, as they are capable of protecting themselves, all the more so, will not be harmed due to the protection provided by the mitzva of ascending to Jerusalem for the Festival. I have only derived that one is protected when going to Jerusalem; from where is it derived that one is protected even when returning from the Temple? The verse states: “You shall roast and eat the Paschal lamb in the place which God your Lord shall choose; and you shall turn in the morning and go to your tents” (Deuteronomy 16:7). This teaches that you shall go and upon your return find your tent in peace, unharmed.
וְכִי מֵאַחַר דַּאֲפִילּוּ בַּחֲזִירָה, בַּהֲלִיכָה לְמָה לִי? לְכִדְרַבִּי אַמֵּי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קַרְקַע — עוֹלֶה לָרֶגֶל, וְשֶׁאֵין לוֹ קַרְקַע — אֵין עוֹלֶה לָרֶגֶל.
The Gemara asks: And once we derived that the merit of a mitzva protects a person even when returning, why do I need a source to teach that he is protected when he goes? This teaching could also be derived by means of an a fortiori inference. The Gemara answers: Actually, the first verse is interpreted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami said: Any person who has land in his possession is obligated to ascend to the Temple for the three pilgrim Festivals. And one who does not have land in his possession is not obligated to ascend for the Festivals, as the verse states: Your land, in the context of the obligation to ascend to Jerusalem for the three Pilgrim Festivals.
אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין בַּר רַב אַדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין פֵּרוֹת גִּינּוֹסַר בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם? כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ עוֹלֵי רְגָלִים אוֹמְרִים: אִלְמָלֵא לֹא עָלִינוּ אֶלָּא לֶאֱכוֹל פֵּרוֹת גִּינּוֹסַר בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם — דַּיֵּינוּ. נִמְצֵאת עֲלִיָּיה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ.
Apropos the ascent to Jerusalem for a Festival and the performance of a mitzva with ulterior motives, the Gemara cites that which Rabbi Avin bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Due to what reason are there no fruits of Ginnosar, which were of the highest quality, growing in Jerusalem? Why is Jerusalem not graced with this produce? The reason is so that the pilgrims would not say: If we had ascended only to eat the fruit of Ginnosar, it would have been sufficient for us. The ascent to Jerusalem would then be performed not for its own sake.
כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ, אָמַר רַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי: מִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין חַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָא בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם? כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ עוֹלֵי רְגָלִים אוֹמְרִים: אִלְמָלֵא לֹא עָלִינוּ אֶלָּא לִרְחֹץ בְּחַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָא — דַּיֵּינוּ, וְנִמְצֵאת עֲלִיָּיה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ.
On a similar note, Rabbi Dostai, son of Rabbi Yannai, said: Due to what reason are the hot springs of Tiberias not located in Jerusalem? It is so that the pilgrims would not say: If we had only ascended to bathe in the hot springs of Tiberias, it would have been sufficient for us. The ascent to Jerusalem would then be performed not for its own sake.
וּבַמָּה אָמְרוּ שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת וְכוּ׳. מַרְתֵּף מַאן דְּכַר שְׁמֵיהּ?
We learned in the mishna: And with regard to what did the Sages of previous generations say that one must search two rows of wine barrels in a cellar, etc. The Gemara asks: A cellar, who mentioned anything about that? What led the tanna to begin a discussion of a wine cellar?
הָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכְנִיסִין בּוֹ חָמֵץ — אֵין צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה, וְאוֹצְרוֹת יַיִן וְאוֹצְרוֹת שֶׁמֶן נָמֵי אֵין צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה, וּבַמָּה אָמְרוּ שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת בַּמַּרְתֵּף — מָקוֹם שֶׁמַּכְנִיסִין בּוֹ חָמֵץ, וּבְמִסְתַּפֵּק.
The Gemara answers that this is what the tanna is saying: Any place into which one does not take leaven does not require searching, and wine storages and oil storages also do not require searching. And with regard to what did the Sages say that one must search two rows in a cellar? This statement is referring to a place into which one brings leavened bread, and where one supplies wine from the storage during the meal.
בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ, מִן הָאָרֶץ וְעַד שְׁמֵי קוֹרָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: שׁוּרָה אַחַת כְּמִין גַּאם.
We learned in the mishna that Beit Shammai say that one must search the first two rows across the entire cellar. Rav Yehuda said: The two rows that they stated are two full rows in the front, from the ground up to the ceiling. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: These two rows are one row at a right angle, like the shape of the letter gamma [gam], i.e., the entire length and height of the front row and the entire top row of the barrels along the length and width of the cellar.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת עַל פְּנֵי כׇּל הַמַּרְתֵּף, וּשְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ — מִן הָאָרֶץ וְעַד שְׁמֵי קוֹרָה. תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת עַל פְּנֵי כׇּל הַמַּרְתֵּף — חִיצוֹנָה רוֹאָה אֶת הַפֶּתַח, וְעֶלְיוֹנָה רוֹאָה אֶת הַקּוֹרָה. שֶׁלִּפְנִים הֵימֶנָּה, וְשֶׁלְּמַטָּה הֵימֶנָּה — אֵין צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה.
The Gemara comments: One baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, and one baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. One baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda: Beit Shammai say that one must search two rows across the entire front of the cellar, and the two rows that were stated are from the ground up to the ceiling. One baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: One must search two rows across the entire cellar, i.e., the outer row that faces the door, and the upper row that faces the ceiling. The rows inward from the outermost one and the rows lower than the uppermost one do not require searching.
בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת שֶׁהֵן הָעֶלְיוֹנוֹת. אָמַר רַב: עֶלְיוֹנָה וְשֶׁלְּמַטָּה הֵימֶנָּה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: עֶלְיוֹנָה וְשֶׁלִּפְנִים הֵימֶנָּה. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב — דָּיֵיק ״חִיצוֹנוֹת״. וְהָא עֶלְיוֹנוֹת קָתָנֵי! לְמַעוֹטֵי תַּתָּאֵי דְתַתָּיָיתָא.
We further learned in the mishna that Beit Hillel say: It is sufficient to search the two external rows, which are the upper ones. There is an amoraic dispute with regard to this statement. Rav said it is referring to the uppermost row of barrels and the row that is beneath it. And Shmuel said it means the uppermost front row and the next one that is inward into the cellar. What is the reason for the opinion of Rav? He infers from the term: Outer rows, that Beit Hillel mean that both rows face outward. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn’t the mishna also teach: Upper rows, indicating that both rows are adjacent to the ceiling? The Gemara answers: This term comes to exclude the lowest of the lower rows. One must search only the top two rows.
וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: עֶלְיוֹנָה וְשֶׁלִּפְנִים הֵימֶנָּה. מַאי טַעְמָא — דָּיֵיק ״עֶלְיוֹנוֹת״. וְהָא חִיצוֹנָה קָתָנֵי! לְמַעוֹטֵי גַּוָיָיאתָא דְגַוָיָיאתָא. רַבִּי חִיָּיא תָּנֵי כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב, וְכוּלְּהוּ תַּנָּאֵי תָּנוּ כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל.
And Shmuel said the mishna is referring to the uppermost front row and the next one that is inward into the cellar. What is the reason for the opinion of Shmuel? He infers from the term: Upper rows, that one must search the first two rows on the top level of barrels. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn’t the mishna also teach: Outer row? The Gemara answers that this word comes to exclude the innermost of the inner rows. One must search only the two outermost rows. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and all the other tanna’im, who recite the mishnayot and baraitot by heart, teach in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.
