Then let him annul it in the sixth [hour]?1 —
Since the Rabbinical interdict is upon it,2 it is
like a Scriptural [interdict] and does not
stand in his ownership, hence he cannot
For R. Gidal said in R. Hiyya b. Joseph’s
name in Rab’s name: He who betroths from
the sixth hour and onwards, even with wheat
of Cordyene,3 we have no fear of his
betrothal.4 But, is he unable to annul it after
the prohibition [commences]? Surely it was
taught: If he is sitting in the Beth Hamidrash
and recollects that he has leaven at home, he
annuls it in his heart, whether it is the
Sabbath or the Festival. Now as for the
Sabbath, it is well: this is possible where the
fourteenth [of Nisan] falls on the Sabbath;5
but the Festival is after the prohibition
Said R. Aha b. Jacob: We treat here of a
disciple sitting before his master, and he
recollects that he has a rolled dough7 at home
and fears that it may turn leaven; [therefore]
he anticipates and annuls it before it turns
leaven. This may be proved too: for it states,
‘If he is sitting in the Beth Hamidrash’.8 This
Rabbah the son of R. Huna said in Rab’s
name: If a loaf went moldy, if mazzah9
exceeds it [in quantity], it is permitted.10 How
is it meant? Shall we say that he [the owner]
knows that this [loaf] is leaven, what then
matters it if the Mazzah does exceed it?11
Again if we do not know whether it is leaven
or Mazzah, then why particularly if the
Mazzah exceeds it; even if the Mazzah does
not exceed it too, let us go after the last?12
Did we not learn: Money found in front of
cattle dealers at all times is [accounted as]
tithe; on the Temple Mount, it is Hullin;9 in
[the rest of] Jerusalem, at any other part of
the year. it is Hullin; at the Festival season, it
And R. Shemaia b. Zera observed thereon:
What is the reason? Because the streets of
Jerusalem14 were swept daily. This proves
that we assume: the earlier[losses] have gone.
and these [coins] are different ones. So here
too let us say: the earlier[bread] has gone and
this is of the present?15 — Here it is different,
because its moldiness proves its status.16 If its
moldiness proves its status, what does it
matter if the Mazzah exceeds it? —
Said Rabbah. Do not say, ‘if the Mazzah
exceeds it’, but say, ‘many days of Mazzah
have passed over it’.17 If so, it is obvious? —
This is necessary only where it is very moldy;
you might argue, since it is very moldy it is
clear that it is certainly true leaven; therefore
he informs us that since many days of
Mazzah have passed over it we say: every day
hot mazzah18 was baked and thrown thereon,
and that made it very moldy. Yet do we
follow the last? Surely it was taught. R. Jose
b. Judah said: If a chest was used for money
of Hullin and money of tithe,19 if it was
mostly Hullin, it [the money found therein] is
Hullin; if mostly tithe, it is tithe. But why so?
let us go after the last? —
Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: of what do we treat
here? E.g., where it was used for money of
Hullin and money of tithe, and one does not
know which was last.
R. Zebid said: e.g., where it was used for
R. Papa said: e.g., if it was found in a pit.21 of
peace-offerings; when one could not stay long
enough in Jerusalem to expend all his tithe
money, he would distribute it among the poor
or give it to his friends in Jerusalem.
Consequently, if money is found in front of
cattle dealers, whatever the time of the year,
it is assumed to be of the second tithe. On the
other hand, if it is found on the Temple
Mount, we assume it to be Hullin, even at
Festival time, when most of money handled is
tithe, because the greater part of the year is
not Festival, and then ordinary Hullin is in
circulation and this money might have been
lost before the Festival. But if found in the
streets of Jerusalem, a distinction is drawn,
as stated in the text.
Rab Judah said: He who searches [for
leaven] must pronounce a benediction. What
benediction does he pronounce?
R. Pappi said in Raba’s name: ‘[. . . who hast
commanded us] to remove leaven’. R. Papa
said in Raba’s name: ‘[. . . who hast
commanded us] concerning the removal of
leaven’. As for [the phrase] ‘to remove,’ there
is no disagreement at all that it certainly
implies in the future.22
(1) He is not likely to forget it then, since he is
engaged in burning it.
(2) On all views, v. supra 4b.
(3) A district lying to the east of the river Tigris,
south of Armenia. — That wheat is very hard and
does not easily become leaven; nevertheless if
moisture had fallen upon it after being harvested
it is regarded as leaven.
(4) The betrothal is definitely invalid, because the
wheat has no value because of the Rabbinical
interdict, whereas for betrothal something of
value is required (v. Kid. 2a). — Thus although
the interdict at that hour is only Rabbinical, the
leaven is regarded as completely valueless; hence
not under his ownership.
(5) And he recollects before the sixth hour.
(6) How can he annul it then?
(7) I.e., a dough kneaded but not baked. He cannot
leave the Beth Hamidrash to attend to it out of
respect to his Master.
(8) If it is already leaven, what does it matter
where he is; even if he were at home he could do
(9) V. Glos.
(10) This is now assumed to mean: if there is more
Mazzah in the bin than this moldy loaf, the whole
(11) Surely a loaf known to be leaven cannot be
permitted on that account?
(12) I.e., let us assume that this loaf is of the latest
batch which was put there, i.e., it is Mazzah, since
a bread bin is cleared out every day, in order to
prevent the bread from going moldy — a
necessary precaution in the hot eastern countries
— and particularly so in this case, when there had
been a search for leaven before the Festival.
(13) Shek. VII, 2. If money is found in Jerusalem,
the question arises, what is its status — is it
ordinary secular coins (Hullin) or tithe money?
This was because the second tithe (v. Deut. XIV,
22ff this was designated second-tithe) had to be
eaten in Jerusalem or its monetary equivalent
expended there, which money likewise was
governed by the law of second tithe. Now, most of
the flesh eaten in Jerusalem was bought with
second-tithe money, and generally took the form
(14) But not the Temple Mount.
(15) I.e., unleavened.
(16) It must have been there a considerable time,
hence it is leaven.
(17) I.e., several days of Passover have gone, and
so this had had time to go moldy even if baked as
Mazzah at the beginning of the Festival.
(18) Lit., ‘bread’.
(19) And now we find money in it and do not know
which it is.
(20) Of money, some being Hullin and others tithe,
and both were there on the same day.
(21) We cannot assume that the earlier coins had
been removed while these were of the most recent
deposit, because it might have been overlooked in
(22) I.e. , it implies that the removal is still to be
done. This phraseology is therefore certainly
admitted, because a benediction is always recited
prior to the actual performance of the precept to
which it refers.