## Pesachim Daf 10a

###### Pesachim 10a:1
[Pesachim 10a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/10a:1)

בִּתְרוּמָה דְּרַבָּנַן. בְּחָמֵץ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא מִי אָמְרִינַן?! אַטּוּ בְּדִיקַת חָמֵץ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא? דְּרַבָּנַן הִיא! דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בְּבִיטּוּל בְּעָלְמָא סַגִּי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
only with regard **to *teruma*** that in modern times is sacred **by rabbinic law,** as the Torah obligation to separate *teruma* was abrogated after the destruction of the First Temple. However, with regard **to leavened bread,** which is prohibited **by Torah law, do we say** that this principle applies? The Gemara responds: **Is that to say** that **the search for leavened bread** is required **by Torah law? It is** a **rabbinic** ordinance, **as by Torah law, mere nullification is sufficient.** Since the issue at hand is not the Torah prohibition of leaven but the rabbinic ordinance to search one’s house, this *halakha* is comparable to the case of baskets of *teruma* and non-sacred produce.


###### Pesachim 10a:2
[Pesachim 10a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/10a:2)

צִבּוּר אֶחָד שֶׁל חָמֵץ וּלְפָנָיו שְׁנֵי בָתִּים בְּדוּקִין, וַאֲתָא עַכְבָּר וּשְׁקַל, וְלָא יָדְעִינַן אִי לְהַאי עָל אִי לְהַאי עָל — הַיְינוּ שְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִין. דִּתְנַן: שְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִין, אֶחָד טָמֵא וְאֶחָד טָהוֹר, וְהָלַךְ בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן וְעָשָׂה טְהָרוֹת, וּבָא חֲבֵירוֹ וְהָלַךְ בַּשֵּׁנִי וְעָשָׂה טְהָרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents another situation: In a case where there is **one pile of leavened bread and before it** there are **two houses** that were **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 mishna: There were **two paths, one** of which was **ritually impure** due to a corpse buried there, **and one** of which was **ritually pure. And** someone **walked on one of them,** but he does not remember which, **and** afterward **he engaged in** handling items of **ritual purity,** e.g., *teruma* or consecrated items; **and another** person **came and walked on the second** path, and he too does not remember which path it was, **and he** also **engaged in** handling items of **ritual purity.**


###### Pesachim 10a:3
[Pesachim 10a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/10a:3)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם נִשְׁאֲלוּ זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ — טְהוֹרִין. שְׁנֵיהֶן בְּבַת אַחַת — טְמֵאִין. רַבִּי יוֹסִי אוֹמֵר: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ טְמֵאִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda says: If this** one **asked** a Sage **by himself, and that** one **asked** a Sage **by himself, they are** both **pure.** When considered separately, each person retains his presumptive status of ritual purity. However, if they **both** came to ask **at the same time, they are** both **ritually impure.** Since one of the two certainly passed on the impure path, even though it is uncertain which, both are deemed impure due to that uncertainty. **Rabbi Yosei says: One way or another they are** both **ritually impure.**


###### Pesachim 10a:4
[Pesachim 10a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/10a:4)

אָמַר רָבָא וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּבַת אַחַת — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל טְמֵאִין. בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל טְהוֹרִין. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בְּבָא לְהִשָּׁאֵל עָלָיו וְעַל חֲבֵירוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְדַמֵּי לֵיהּ לְבַת אַחַת, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְדַמֵּי לֵיהּ לְזֶה אַחַר זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said, and some say** it was **Rabbi Yoḥanan** who said: If they came **at the same time, everyone agrees** that **they are ritually impure,** as even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that this is the *halakha*. If they came independently, **one after the other, everyone agrees** that **they are ritually pure. They disagree only with regard to** a case where one **comes to ask about himself and about the other. Rabbi Yosei likens this** case **to** one where they come to ask **at the same time, and Rabbi Yehuda likens it to** a case where they come **one after the other.**


###### Pesachim 10a:5
[Pesachim 10a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/10a:5)

סָפֵק עָל, סָפֵק לָא עָל — הַיְינוּ בִּקְעָה, וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara addresses another case: If one saw a mouse take leaven and there is **uncertainty** whether the mouse **entered** a house that was already searched and **uncertainty** whether the mouse **did not enter** that house, **that is** akin to the *halakha* of ritual impurity in **a valley, and** is subject **to the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis.**


###### Pesachim 10a:6
[Pesachim 10a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/10a:6)

דִּתְנַן: הַנִּכְנָס לְבִקְעָה בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, וְטוּמְאָה בְּשָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית, וְאָמַר אֶחָד: הָלַכְתִּי בַּמָּקוֹם הַלָּז, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם נִכְנַסְתִּי בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׂדֶה וְאִם לֹא נִכְנַסְתִּי. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְטַהֵר, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַמְּאִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna with regard to **one who enters a valley during the rainy season,** when seeds are sprouting, people do not have permission to wander in the field of another, as they might harm the plants. For the purpose of this *halakha* a valley in the rainy season is considered a private domain, and there is a general principle that in the case of uncertainty concerning whether or not one contracted ritual impurity in a private domain he is ritually impure. **And if** there was **ritual impurity in a certain field, and one** person **said: I walked in that place,** in the valley, **and I do not know whether I entered that field or whether I did not enter, Rabbi Eliezer deems him pure, and the Rabbis deem him impure.**


###### Pesachim 10a:7
[Pesachim 10a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/10a:7)

שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: סְפֵק בִּיאָה — טָהוֹר, סְפֵק מַגַּע טוּמְאָה — טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Eliezer deems him pure, **as Rabbi Eliezer would say:** Concerning **uncertainty** with regard to **entry,** i.e., whether or not he entered the place, he is **ritually pure;** however, if one certainly entered the place and the **uncertainty** is with regard to **contact** with **ritual impurity,** he is **ritually impure.** According to this opinion, the principle with regard to uncertain impurity in the private domain applies only in a case where the uncertainty is with regard to contact. The Rabbis, however, do not distinguish between these situations, as they maintain he is impure regardless of whether the uncertainty is with regard to entry or with regard to contact. This dispute applies to the case of whether or not one is required to conduct an additional search for leaven in a case where there is uncertainty whether or not leaven was taken into the house.


###### Pesachim 10a:8
[Pesachim 10a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/10a:8)

עָל, וּבְדַק וְלָא אַשְׁכַּח — פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבָּנַן, דִּתְנַן: הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁבְּחֶזְקַת טוּמְאָה, לְעוֹלָם הוּא בְּטוּמְאָתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לָךְ הַטּוּמְאָה הֵיכָן הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses another case: If one saw a mouse **enter** a house with leaven in its mouth **and** someone **searched and did not find** any leaven there, this is akin to **the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis. As we learned** in a mishna, **Rabbi Meir would say: Any object that has** the **presumptive status of ritual impurity,** i.e., it is certain that an impure object was buried in a particular place, that place **forever** remains **in its ritual impurity,** even if it was excavated and the source of impurity was not found, **until it becomes known to you where the ritual impurity is.** The assumption is that the impurity was not found because the search was not conducted properly.


###### Pesachim 10a:9
[Pesachim 10a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/10a:9)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בּוֹדֵק עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לְסֶלַע אוֹ לְקַרְקַע בְּתוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis say** in this case: He continues **searching until he reaches bedrock or virgin soil,** under which there is certainly no ritual impurity. If he searched that extensively and failed to discover any impurity, it is apparently no longer there. This dispute applies to the aforementioned case involving leaven.


###### Pesachim 10a:10
[Pesachim 10a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/10a:10)

עָל, וּבְדַק וְאַשְׁכַּח — פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי וְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes yet another case: If one saw a mouse **enter** a house with leaven in its mouth **and** one **searched and found** a morsel of leaven there, but there is uncertainty whether or not the morsel that he found is the morsel that the mouse took into the house, this would be akin to **the dispute between Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.**


###### Pesachim 10a:11
[Pesachim 10a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/10a:11)

דְּתַנְיָא: שָׂדֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱבַד בָּהּ קֶבֶר — הַנִּכְנָס לְתוֹכָהּ טָמֵא. נִמְצָא בָּהּ קֶבֶר — הַנִּכְנָס לְתוֹכָהּ טָהוֹר, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: קֶבֶר שֶׁאָבַד הוּא קֶבֶר שֶׁנִּמְצָא — דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: תִּיבָּדֵק כׇּל הַשָּׂדֶה כּוּלָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it was taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **a field in which a grave was lost,** i.e., there is certainly a grave located in the field but its precise location is unknown, **one who enters** the field **is ritually impure,** as he might have stepped on the grave. **If a grave was** later **found** and marked **in** the field, **one who enters** and walks on the other parts of the field **is ritually pure, as I say:** The **grave that was** previously **lost is** the **grave that was** subsequently **found.** This is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The entire field must be searched,** as perhaps the grave discovered is not the one that was lost. This dispute applies to the above case of leaven.


###### Pesachim 10a:12
[Pesachim 10a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/10a:12)

הִנִּיחַ תֵּשַׁע וּמָצָא עֶשֶׂר — פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי וְרַבָּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא: הִנִּיחַ מָנֶה וּמָצָא מָאתַיִם, חוּלִּין וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי מְעוֹרָבִין זֶה בָּזֶה — דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses another situation: If a person **placed nine** morsels of leaven **and found ten,** indicating that mice had added at least one morsel, this is akin to **the dispute between Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **and the Rabbis. As it was taught** in a *baraita* with regard to a person who **placed a *maneh*,** one hundred dinars, of second tithe, **and found two hundred** dinars: Since it is evident that someone came and placed at least one extra *maneh* there whose status is unclear, the pile is presumed to contain **non-sacred** money **and second-tithe** money **intermingled with each other.** The assumption is that the additional money is non-sacred, and it is impossible to determine which is the non-sacred money and which is the second-tithe money. This is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi.


###### Pesachim 10a:13
[Pesachim 10a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/10a:13)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַכֹּל חוּלִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis say:** It is **all non-sacred** money. Since someone else was clearly involved, it is possible that he took the *maneh* and left behind two hundred other dinars. Consequently, it is impossible to identify any of this money as the original *maneh*. This same reasoning can be applied to the case of leaven. Since there were undoubtedly mice present, it is possible that the mice took the morsels, moved them, and replaced them with other morsels. As a result, the entire house must be searched again.


###### Pesachim 10a:14
[Pesachim 10a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/10a:14)

הִנִּיחַ עֶשֶׂר וּמָצָא תֵּשַׁע הַיְינוּ סֵיפָא, דְּתַנְיָא: הִנִּיחַ מָאתַיִם וּמָצָא מָנֶה — מָנֶה מוּנָּח וּמָנֶה מוּטָל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises the reverse situation. If one **placed ten** morsels **and found nine, this is** comparable to the case mentioned in **the latter clause** of that same *baraita*, **as it was taught** in the *baraita*: If one **left two hundred** dinars of second-tithe money **and found a *maneh*,** presumably, one ***maneh*** from the initial two hundred remains **placed, and** the other ***maneh*** is **taken** and missing. This is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi.


###### Pesachim 10a:15
[Pesachim 10a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/10a:15)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַכֹּל חוּלִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis say,** in keeping with their aforementioned opinion: It is **all non-sacred** money, as the assumption is that whoever took part of the money actually took it all, and this is a different *maneh*. Since it is different money, it is presumably non-sacred money, not second-tithe money. This dispute applies to the case where one finds fewer morsels of leaven than he left.