## Pesachim Daf 4b

###### Pesachim 4b:1
[Pesachim 4b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/4b:1)

לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּחֶזְקָתוֹ בָּדוּק, דְּקָסָבַר: הַכֹּל חֲבֵרִים הֵם אֵצֶל בְּדִיקַת חָמֵץ. דְּתַנְיָא: חָבֵר שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ מְגוּרָה מְלֵיאָה פֵּירוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ הֵן בְּנֵי יוֹמָן — הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶזְקַת מְתוּקָּנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Isn’t** it **due to** the fact **that the presumptive status** of the house is that it **has been searched, as** this *tanna* **maintains: All are** considered ***ḥaverim* with regard to the search for leavened bread?** A *ḥaver* is one with the presumptive status of trustworthiness with regard to a given matter, e.g., ritual purity and impurity, tithes, etc. In this case, since everyone has *ḥaver* status with regard to searching for leaven, everyone is deemed trustworthy to have performed the requisite action. **As it was taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **a *ḥaver* who died and left a storehouse filled with produce, even** if the produce was there only **that day,** the fruit has the **presumptive status** of produce that was ritually **prepared,** i.e., tithed, as there is no doubt that the *ḥaver* tithed his produce before he died. The same applies to the search for leaven: All are considered *ḥaverim* and are believed.


###### Pesachim 4b:2
[Pesachim 4b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/4b:2)

וּמִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָאָמְרִי הָנֵי. אַטּוּ אֲמִירָה דְּהָנֵי מִידֵּי מְשָׁשָׁא אִית בֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this claim: **And from where** can this be proven? It is possible that in general a house does not have presumptive status that it was searched, and **perhaps it is different here, due to** the fact that **these** people, e.g., a woman, slave, or minor, expressly **stated** that they conducted the search. Perhaps that is why the house is considered to have been searched. The Gemara rejects this contention: **Is that to say** that **there is any substance in the statement of these** people? Since the testimony of all these is disqualified, they lack credibility, and their statements are not reliable. Instead, the reason that there is no need to search the rented property for leaven must be because of the presumption that it has already been searched.


###### Pesachim 4b:3
[Pesachim 4b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/4b:3)

אֶלָּא מַאי — דְּחָזְקָתוֹ בָּדוּק? הַאי ״הַכֹּל נֶאֱמָנִים״, ״כָּל הַבָּתִּים בְּחֶזְקַת בְּדוּקִין בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara retorts: **Rather, what is** the reason that one need not search the rented property for leaven? Is it due to the fact **that its presumptive status** is that it **has been searched?** If so, **this** statement should not read: **Everyone is believed,** as women, slaves, or minors themselves have no credibility. **It should have** been formulated: With regard to **all houses on the fourteenth,** their **presumptive status is** that **they have** already **been searched,** as that is the actual rationale for the lenient ruling.


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

אֶלָּא מַאי — מִשּׁוּם אֲמִירָה דְּהָנֵי, הָא לָא אָמְרִי הָנֵי — לָא? תִּפְשׁוֹט מִינֵּיהּ דְּאֵין חֶזְקָתוֹ בָּדוּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this contention: **Rather, what** is the alternative? Is it that this *halakha* is **due to** the **statement of these** people, and by inference, **if these** people **do not say** that the house has been searched, then **no,** it cannot be assumed that it was searched? If so, **resolve** the original dilemma **from here,** as this is proof **that** the **presumptive status** of the house is **not** that it **has been searched,** unless someone explicitly states that this is the case.


###### Pesachim 4b:5
[Pesachim 4b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/4b:5)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ חֶזְקָתוֹ בָּדוּק, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — דְּמוּחְזָק לַן דְּלָא בְּדַק, וְקָאָמְרִי הָנֵי: בַּדְקִינֵּיהּ. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לָא לְהֵימְנִינְהוּ רַבָּנַן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: כֵּיוָן דִּבְדִיקַת חָמֵץ מִדְּרַבָּנַן הוּא, דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בְּבִיטּוּל בְּעָלְמָא סַגִּי לֵיהּ — הֵימְנוּהוּ רַבָּנַן בִּדְרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this conclusion: **No, actually** I can **say to you that** on the fourteenth **its presumptive status** is that it **has been searched, and with what** case **are we dealing here?** This *halakha* is referring to a situation **where our presumption is** that the owner **did not search** the house, **and these** women, slaves, or minors **say: We searched it. Lest you say** that **the Sages do not believe them,** as they are unfit to testify, the *baraita* therefore **teaches us** that **since the search for leavened bread is** an ordinance **by rabbinic law, as by Torah law mere nullification** of one’s ownership before the prohibition of the leaven takes effect **is sufficient, the Sages believe them with regard to** an ordinance instituted **by rabbinic law.**


###### Pesachim 4b:6
[Pesachim 4b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/4b:6)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת בָּדוּק, וּמְצָאוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּדוּק, מַהוּ? מִי הָוֵי כְּמִקָּח טָעוּת, אוֹ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: With regard to **one who lets a house to another** for Passover, **with the presumptive status** that **it was searched, and** the lessee **discovered that it was not searched, what is** the *halakha*? **Is it considered a mistaken transaction,** and the renter can abrogate the deal, claiming that he agreed on the basis of his belief that the property had already been searched? **Or no,** it is not considered a mistaken transaction?


###### Pesachim 4b:7
[Pesachim 4b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/4b:7)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא בְּאַתְרָא דְּלָא יָהֲבִי אַגְרָא וּבְדַקוּ — דְּנִיחָא לֵיהּ לְאִינִישׁ לְקַיּוֹמֵי מִצְוָה בְּגוּפֵיהּ. אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ בְּאַתְרָא דְּיָהֲבִי אַגְרָא וּבְדַקוּ — דְּנִיחָא לֵיהּ לְאִינִישׁ לְקַיּוֹמֵי מִצְוָה בְּמָמוֹנֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a resolution to this dilemma, **as Abaye said: Needless to say,** that **in a place where** people typically **do not pay a wage** and hire others to conduct the search for leaven **and** everyone **searches** himself, **a person prefers to fulfill** the **mitzva himself. However, even in a place where** people **pay a wage and** have others **search** for leaven, it is not a mistaken transaction due to the fact **that a person prefers to perform** the **mitzva with his** own **money.** Consequently, it is not considered a mistaken transaction, as a person does not object to having to perform a mitzva.


###### Pesachim 4b:8
[Pesachim 4b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/4b:8)

תְּנַן הָתָם, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אוֹכְלִין כָּל חָמֵשׁ, וְשׂוֹרְפִין בִּתְחִלַּת שֵׁשׁ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אוֹכְלִין כָּל אַרְבַּע, וְתוֹלִין כָּל חָמֵשׁ, וְשׂוֹרְפִין בִּתְחִלַּת שֵׁשׁ. דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִיהָא חָמֵץ מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעְלָה אָסוּר, מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in a mishna **there,** that **Rabbi Meir says: One** may **eat** leaven on the fourteenth day during **the entire** first **five** hours of the day, **and** he **burns** the leaven **at the beginning of the sixth** hour. **Rabbi Yehuda says: One** may **eat** leaven for **the entire** first **four** hours of the day, **and one leaves** it **in abeyance during the fifth** hour, at which point eating leaven is prohibited but it need not be burned yet, **and one burns** the leaven **at the beginning of the sixth** hour. **Everyone agrees, in any case,** that **leavened bread is prohibited** by Torah law **from the sixth hour and onward. From where do we** derive this?


###### Pesachim 4b:9
[Pesachim 4b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/4b:9)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי, כְּתִיב: ״שִׁבְעַת יָמִים שְׂאוֹר לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְּבָתֵּיכֶם״, וּכְתִיב: ״אַךְ בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן תַּשְׁבִּיתוּ שְּׂאוֹר מִבָּתֵּיכֶם״. הָא כֵּיצַד? לְרַבּוֹת אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לְבִיעוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Two verses are written,** and the *halakha* is derived by comparing them. **It is written** in one verse: **“Seven days, leaven shall not be found in your houses”** (Exodus 12:19), indicating that throughout these seven days it is prohibited to maintain leaven in one’s house. **And it is written** in another verse: **“Yet on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses”** (Exodus 12:15), indicating that one must remove the leaven on the first day, after the Festival has begun. **How** can **this** apparent contradiction be resolved? The Gemara responds: The latter verse comes **to include the fourteenth** day of Nisan with regard **to the elimination** of leaven. The phrase: On the first day, does not refer to the fifteenth of Nisan or to the beginning of the festival of Passover. It is referring to the fourteenth, the day on which the Paschal lamb is slaughtered.


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

וְאֵימָא לְרַבּוֹת לֵילֵי חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר לְבִיעוּר, דְּסָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״יָמִים״ כְּתִיב, יָמִים — אִין, לֵילוֹת — לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן אֲפִילּוּ לֵילוֹת! הָהוּא לָא אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And say** perhaps, that the verse comes **to include the night of the fifteenth,** the first night of Passover, with regard **to the elimination** of leaven. **As,** were it not for this verse, **it could enter your mind to say:** Seven **days is written,** which indicates by inference: During the **days, yes,** one is obligated to remove leaven, but during the **nights, no,** there is no requirement to do so. Therefore, the verse **teaches us:** On the first day, one may not be in possession of leaven **even** during the **nights.** The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **That** *halakha* was **not necessary to** be derived by the Sages, as it can be learned from another source.