בְּתוֹךְ הָנֵץ הַחַמָּה — בְּגִילּוּיָיא הֲוָה קָאֵי, וְזַהֲרוּרֵי בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דַּחֲזָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
that the incident occurred during sunrise is because he was standing out in the open and they were mere rays of light that he saw which he mistook for sunrise. In actuality, he too is testifying to an incident that occurred before sunrise, and the testimony of the two witnesses is therefore compatible testimony. Rav Shimi bar Ashi therefore teaches us that there is no concern that it transpired in that manner.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: וְנֵימָא מָר הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דִּסְתַם לַן תְּנָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ.
Rav Naḥman said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: And let the Master say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that one may eat during the entire fifth hour, as the tanna taught an unattributed mishna in accordance with his opinion, indicating that this is the halakha.
דִּתְנַן: כׇּל שָׁעָה שֶׁמּוּתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל — מַאֲכִיל!
As we learned in a mishna: For the entire time that one is permitted to eat leaven himself, he feeds it to his animal. It can be inferred from this mishna that there is no intermediate period when it is prohibited for a person to eat leaven but he may feed it to his animal. This unattributed mishna must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Yehuda maintains that during the fifth hour it is prohibited to eat leaven but one may feed it to an animal.
הָהִיא לָאו סְתָמָא הוּא, מִשּׁוּם דְּקַשְׁיָא ״מוּתָּר״.
The Gemara rejects this contention: That mishna is not classified as unattributed, as it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, due to the fact that had the mishna been in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the term: Permitted, is difficult. Instead, the mishna should have been formulated: When one eats he may feed.
וְנֵימָא מָר הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ מַכְרִיעַ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לָאו מַכְרִיעַ הוּא, טַעַם דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ קָאָמַר.
Rava raised an additional difficulty to Rav Naḥman: And let the Master say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, as he is the decisor in this dispute, and there is a general principle that the halakha is always in accordance with the decisor who states an opinion that compromises between two opinions cited previously. He said to him: Rabban Gamliel is not a decisor; he is stating a reason of his own. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir disagree with regard to consumption of any type of leaven; they do not distinguish between teruma and non-sacred food. Since Rabban Gamliel distinguishes between the time one must desist from eating teruma and the latest time that one may eat non-sacred food, his is evidently an unrelated opinion that is in no way a compromise between the other two rulings.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַב דְּאָמַר כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת — מְבַעֲרִין אֶת הַכֹּל מִלִּפְנֵי הַשַּׁבָּת. וְשׂוֹרְפִין תְּרוּמוֹת טְמֵאוֹת, תְּלוּיוֹת, וּטְהוֹרוֹת. וּמְשַׁיְּירִין מִן הַטְּהוֹרוֹת מְזוֹן שְׁתֵּי סְעוּדוֹת, כְּדֵי לֶאֱכוֹל עַד אַרְבַּע שָׁעוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ בַּרְתּוֹתָא, שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.
And if you wish, say instead: When Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, he ruled in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to the fourteenth of Nisan that occurs on Shabbat, one does not remove leaven on Passover eve in the usual manner. Rather, one removes everything leavened before Shabbat, and one burns ritually impure teruma: Teruma in abeyance, whose purity is uncertain, and even any pure teruma that he does not require for his Shabbat meals. And one leaves from the pure leaven food for two meals, the meal at night and the one in the morning, in order to eat and finish until four hours of Shabbat morning. This is the statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Yehuda of Bartota, who said it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: טְהוֹרוֹת לֹא יִשָּׂרְפוּ, שֶׁמָּא יִמָּצְאוּ לָהֶן אוֹכְלִין. אָמַר לָהֶן: כְּבָר בִּקְּשׁוּ וְלֹא מָצְאוּ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: שֶׁמָּא חוּץ לַחוֹמָה לָנוּ?
The Sages said to him: One should not burn pure teruma, as perhaps those who can eat it will be found on Shabbat, and he will have retroactively violated a Torah prohibition by burning pure teruma unnecessarily. Instead, one places the teruma aside, and if no one is found to eat it, he feeds it to the dogs or renders it null and void in his heart. He said to them: They already sought people to eat the teruma and they did not find any other priests in the city to eat it. They said to him: Perhaps those priests who could eat the teruma on that Shabbat slept outside the wall of the city and will enter the city on Shabbat morning, at which point they could eat the teruma.
אָמַר לָהֶם: לְדִבְרֵיכֶם, אַף תְּלוּיוֹת לֹא יִשָּׂרְפוּ — שֶׁמָּא יָבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ וִיטַהֲרֵם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: כְּבָר מוּבְטָח לָהֶן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵין אֵלִיָּהוּ בָּא לֹא בְּעַרְבֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת וְלֹא בְּעַרְבֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים, מִפְּנֵי הַטּוֹרַח.
He said to the Sages: According to your statement, that you take into account this unlikely scenario, one should not even burn teruma in abeyance, as perhaps Elijah the Prophet will come on Shabbat and establish prophetically that the teruma is not ritually impure, and render it ritually pure. They said to him: That possibility is no source of concern, as the Jewish people have already been assured that Elijah will come neither on a Friday nor on the eve of a Festival, due to the exertion involved preparing for the upcoming holy day. Consequently, Elijah will certainly come neither on Friday, nor on Shabbat itself, which is Passover eve.
אָמְרוּ: לֹא זָזוּ מִשָּׁם עַד שֶׁקָּבְעוּ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ בַּרְתּוֹתָא שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.
They said: They did not move from there until the Sages voted and they established the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Yehuda of Bartota, who said it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua.
מַאי לָאו, אֲפִילּוּ לֶאֱכוֹל? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: לֹא, לְבַעֵר.
Apropos the previous statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, what, is it not that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion even with regard to eating? Rav’s ruling indicates that one may eat leaven until the end of the fourth hour, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava: No, the aforementioned ruling applies only to the obligation to remove leaven, i.e., the Sages agreed that it is permitted to remove pure teruma on Friday only if there is no one available to eat it.
וְאַף רַבִּי סָבַר לְהָא דְּרַב נַחְמָן. דְּאָמַר רָבִין בַּר רַב אַדָּא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁהִפְקִיד דִּיסַקַּיָּא מְלֵאָה חָמֵץ אֵצֶל יוֹחָנָן חָקוֹקָאָה, וּנְקָבוּהָ עַכְבָּרִים, וְהָיָה חָמֵץ מְבַצְבֵּץ וְיוֹצֵא. וּבָא לִפְנֵי רַבִּי, שָׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה אָמַר לוֹ: הַמְתֵּן. שְׁנִיָּה, אָמַר לוֹ: הַמְתֵּן. שְׁלִישִׁית, אָמַר לוֹ: הַמְתֵּן. רְבִיעִית, אָמַר לוֹ: הַמְתֵּן. חֲמִישִׁית, אָמַר לוֹ: צֵא וּמוֹכְרֶהָ בַּשּׁוּק.
The Gemara notes: And even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with this statement of Rav Naḥman, and rules that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As Ravin bar Rav Adda said: There was an incident that occurred involving a certain person who deposited a saddlebag [disakkayya] filled with leavened bread with Yoḥanan Ḥakuka’a, and mice bore a hole in the bag, and leavened bread was spilling out of the sack. And he came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi on Passover eve to ask what he should do. In the first hour of the day Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Wait, as the owner of the bag might yet return to take it from you and eat the leaven. In the second hour he said to him: Wait. In the third hour he said to him: Wait. In the fourth hour he said to him: Wait. In the fifth hour, concluding that the person was not coming, he said to him: Go and sell it in the market.
מַאי לָאו, לְגוֹיִם — כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף? לָא, לְיִשְׂרָאֵל — כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִי לְיִשְׂרָאֵל — נִישְׁקְלֵיהּ לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ?
What, did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi not mean that Yoḥanan Ḥakuka’a should sell this leaven to gentiles, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that it is prohibited for a Jew to eat leaven during the fifth hour? Rav Yosef said: No, it could be that he meant to sell it to a Jew, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir that one may eat leaven during the fifth hour. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was simply advising him to sell the leaven quickly before the sixth hour begins, at which point it would be prohibited for Jews to eat it. Abaye said to him: If it is permitted for a Jew to eat leaven, let him take it for himself and pay the owner back later. Why trouble him to sell it to someone else?
מִשּׁוּם חֲשָׁדָא, דְּתַנְיָא: גַּבָּאֵי צְדָקָה שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם עֲנִיִּים לְחַלֵּק — פּוֹרְטִין לַאֲחֵרִים, וְאֵין פּוֹרְטִין לְעַצְמָן.
The Gemara responds: Eating it himself is not an option due to the potential of suspicion. As it was taught in a baraita with regard to a similar situation: Collectors of charity who have no poor people to whom they can distribute the money, change the money with other people and do not change it themselves, i.e., with their own coins.
גַּבָּאֵי תַמְחוּי, שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם עֲנִיִּים לְחַלֵּק — מוֹכְרִין לַאֲחֵרִים וְאֵין מוֹכְרִין לְעַצְמָן, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וִהְיִיתֶם נְקִיִּים מֵה׳ וּמִיִּשְׂרָאֵל״.
Likewise, collectors of food for the charity plate, who would collect food in large vessels for the poor to eat, who do not have poor people to whom to distribute the food, sell the food to others and do not sell it to themselves, as it is stated: “And you shall be clear before God and before Israel” (Numbers 32:22). It is not sufficient that a person is without sin in the eyes of God. He must also appear upright in the eyes of other people so that they will not suspect him of wrongdoing.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָה לְרַב יוֹסֵף: בְּפֵירוּשׁ אֲמַרְתְּ לַן, צֵא וּמוֹכְרֵן לַגּוֹיִם, כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rav Yosef: You told us explicitly that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi meant: Go and sell it to gentiles, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Yosef took ill late in life and forgot his studies, and therefore his student would remind him that he also agreed with that version of the incident.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא שְׁמַעְתָּא דְּרַבִּי — כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, דִּתְנַן: הַמַּפְקִיד פֵּירוֹת אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ הֵן אֲבוּדִין — לֹא יִגַּע בָּהֶן. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מוֹכְרָן בְּבֵית דִּין מִפְּנֵי הֲשָׁבַת אֲבֵידָה.
Rav Yosef said: In accordance with whose opinion, i.e., the opinion of which tanna, is that halakha which was taught by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that one should sell leaven deposited with him in order to prevent the depositor from losing his possession? Rav Yosef explains: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who deposits produce with another, even if the produce will be ruined by insects or mold, he should not touch them. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He should sell them in court, due to the obligation to restore lost property. Just as one is required to return a lost item, he is likewise required to prevent loss of another’s property for which he assumed responsibility.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְלָאו אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַב יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא
Abaye said to him: Wasn’t it stated with regard to that mishna that Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Rabbis taught that one may not touch them only if