## Pesachim Daf 9a

###### Pesachim 9a:1
[Pesachim 9a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/9a:1)

**מַתְנִי׳** אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא גֵּירְרָה חוּלְדָּה מִבַּיִת לְבַיִת וּמִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, דְּאִם כֵּן מֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר וּמֵעִיר לָעִיר — אֵין לַדָּבָר סוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** After conducting the search, **one** need **not** be **concerned that perhaps a marten dragged** leaven **from house to house, or from place to place,** placing leaven in a house that was already searched. **As if so,** one need also be concerned that perhaps leaven might have been dragged **from courtyard to courtyard and from city to city.** In that case, **there is no end to the matter,** and it would be impossible to rely on any search for leaven.


###### Pesachim 9a:2
[Pesachim 9a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/9a:2)

**גְּמָ׳** טַעְמָא דְּלָא חֲזֵינָא דִּשְׁקַל, הָא חֲזֵינָא דִּשְׁקַל — חָיְישִׁינַן, וּבָעֵי בְּדִיקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara infers from the mishna: **The reason** that one need not search again **is that we did not see** the marten **drag** the leaven from the house; **however, if we saw** the marten **drag** leaven from the house, **we** are indeed **concerned** that it dragged the leaven into the second house, and it therefore **requires searching** for leaven.


###### Pesachim 9a:3
[Pesachim 9a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/9a:3)

וְאַמַּאי? נֵימָא אֲכַלְתֵּיהּ! מִי לָא תְּנַן: מְדוֹרוֹת הַגּוֹיִם טְמֵאִים. וְכַמָּה יִשְׁהֶה בְּמָדוֹר וִיהֵא הַמָּדוֹר צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה — אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But why** is this so? **Let us say** that the marten **ate** the bread it took. **Didn’t we learn** in a mishna: **The residences of gentiles are ritually impure,** as their wives may have miscarried, and due to the fact that gentiles would bury their stillborn babies in their houses, all their residences are deemed ritually impure due to the possibility of impurity imparted by a corpse. **And how long** must a gentile have **stayed in a residence** for **the residence to require searching?** He must have lived there for **forty days.** The reason is that until forty days after conception the miscarried fetus is not classified as a stillborn, as it is not sufficiently developed before that stage.


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

וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אִשָּׁה. וְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁחוּלְדָּה וַחֲזִיר יְכוֹלִין לַהֲלוֹךְ — אֵין צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This mishna continues: **And** this decree applies **even though** the gentile resident **has no wife.** In issuing the decree, the Sages did not distinguish between a married couple and a single man, so that people would not err in its application (*Me’iri*). **And any place where a marten or a pig can enter** unimpeded **need not be searched,** as presumably if a stillborn was buried there, one of these animals would have taken it. As this mishna indicates that there is a presumption that martens eat whatever they find, the Gemara suggests that the same should apply to leaven. Therefore, even if one actually saw the marten take the bread, he can assume that the animal ate it, obviating the need for an additional search.


###### Pesachim 9a:5
[Pesachim 9a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/9a:5)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּבָשָׂר, וְהָא בְּלֶחֶם. בְּבָשָׂר — לָא מְשַׁיְּירָא. בְּלֶחֶם — מְשַׁיְּירָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said:** This is **not difficult,** as in **this** case, where no search is required, it is referring **to flesh,** whereas in **that** case, where one is required to search again, it is referring **to bread.** Rabbi Zeira elaborates: **With regard to flesh,** a marten **does not leave** remnants behind, and therefore the stillborn would have been entirely consumed. **With regard to bread,** however, the marten **leaves** remnants behind, requiring an additional search.


###### Pesachim 9a:6
[Pesachim 9a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/9a:6)

אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי מַאי? בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם — אֵימוֹר הֲוָה, אֵימוֹר לָא הֲוָה. וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר הֲוָה — אֵימוֹר אֲכַלְתֵּיהּ. אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּוַדַּאי דַּחֲזֵינָא דִּשְׁקַל — מִי יֵימַר דַּאֲכַלְתֵּיהּ? הָוֵי סָפֵק וּוַדַּאי, וְאֵין סָפֵק מוֹצִיא מִידֵי וַדַּאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: What is this** comparison? These cases are not comparable. **Granted, there,** with regard to the stillborn, one could **say** that it **was** in the house **and** one could **say** that it **was not** in the house. **And** even **if you say** it **was** there, **say** that the marten **ate it.** The very presence of the stillborn in the house is based on an assumption, and even if it was there, it was probably consumed. **However, here, where one definitely saw** the marten **take** the bread, **who will say that** the marten **ate it? It is** a conflict between **an uncertainty** whether or not the marten ate the bread, **and a certainty** that the bread was there. The principle is that **an uncertainty does not override a certainty.**


###### Pesachim 9a:7
[Pesachim 9a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/9a:7)

וְאֵין סָפֵק מוֹצִיא מִידֵי וַדַּאי?! וְהָא תַּנְיָא: חָבֵר שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ מְגוּרָה מְלֵיאָה פֵּירוֹת, וַאֲפִילּוּ הֵן בְּנֵי יוֹמָן — הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶזְקַת מְתוּקָּנִין. וְהָא הָכָא, דְּוַדַּאי טְבִילִי הָנֵי פֵּירֵי, וְסָפֵק מְעוּשָּׂרִין וְסָפֵק לֹא מְעוּשָּׂרִין, וְקָאָתֵי סָפֵק וּמוֹצִיא מִידֵי וַדַּאי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty against this principle: **And** is it so that **an uncertainty does not override a certainty? But wasn’t** it **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., properly tithed. The assumption is that the owner tithed it himself or commanded others to do so. **However, here, this produce** was **certainly untithed** at the outset, **and** there is **uncertainty** whether **they** are **tithed or whether they are not tithed.** Despite this conflict, **the uncertainty** whether they were tithed **comes and overrides the certainty** that they were untithed produce.


###### Pesachim 9a:8
[Pesachim 9a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/9a:8)

הָתָם וַדַּאי וּוַדַּאי הוּא, דְּוַדַּאי מְעַשְּׂרִי, כִּדְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא חוֹזָאָה. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא חוֹזָאָה: חֲזָקָה עַל חָבֵר שֶׁאֵין מוֹצִיא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְתוּקָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this contention: **There,** the conflict **is** between **certainty and certainty, as** the produce is **certainly tithed, in accordance with** the statement of **Rabbi Ḥanina Ḥoza’a. As Rabbi Ḥanina Ḥoza’a said:** There is **a presumption with regard to a *ḥaver* that he does not** allow produce **that is not** ritually **prepared,** to **leave his possession.** It is therefore certain that the produce is tithed.


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

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: סָפֵק וְסָפֵק הוּא, דִּילְמָא מֵעִקָּרָא אֵימוֹר דְּלָא טְבִילִי, כְּרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that in that case the conflict **is** between **uncertainty and uncertainty,** as **perhaps one could say** that the produce was **never initially untithed.** It is possible that there was never an obligation to tithe this produce, **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Oshaya.**


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

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: מַעֲרִים אָדָם עַל תְּבוּאָתוֹ, וּמַכְנִיסָהּ בַּמּוֹץ שֶׁלָּהּ, כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא בְּהֶמְתּוֹ אוֹכֶלֶת וּפְטוּרָה מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rabbi Oshaya said: A person may employ artifice** to circumvent obligations incumbent upon him in dealing **with his grain, and bring it into** the courtyard **in its chaff so that his animal may eat** from it. **And** this grain **is exempt** from **tithes.** Although the obligation to tithe produce that has been fully processed applies even to animal fodder, it is permitted to feed one’s animal untithed produce that has not been fully processed. In light of this *halakha* it is possible that the fruit of the *ḥaver* in the storehouse may not have been subject to the obligation to be tithed. Consequently, the aforementioned case involving produce is a conflict between two uncertain factors, as it is uncertain whether or not the owner was obligated to tithe the produce in the first place, and even if he was required to do so, it is uncertain whether or not the *ḥaver* tithed it.


###### Pesachim 9a:11
[Pesachim 9a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/9a:11)

וְאֵין סָפֵק מוֹצִיא מִידֵי וַדַּאי?! וְהָתַנְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּשִׁפְחָתוֹ שֶׁל מֵצִיק אֶחָד בְּרִימּוֹן שֶׁהֵטִילָה נֵפֶל לְבוֹר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a further difficulty against Rava: **And** is it so that **an uncertainty does not override a certainty? But wasn’t** it **taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yehuda said:** There was **an incident involving the maidservant of a certain violent person in** the city of **Rimon, who threw a stillborn** baby **into a pit,**