פסחים דף יב

וחד מינייהו קטעי שעה ומשהו.

and one of them errs by an hour and a bit.

אזל רב הונא בריה דרב יהודה, אמרה לשמעתתא קמיה דרבא. אמר: ומה אילו דייקינן בהני סהדי, דהאי דקאמר שלש — בתחלת שלש, והאי דקאמר חמש — בסוף חמש,

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehuda, went and said the halakha of Abaye before Rava. Rava said to him that Abaye’s explanation must be rejected: And were we to closely examine the statements of these witnesses and ask them when precisely the incident occurred, and find that the one who says at three hours means that it occurred at the beginning of the third hour, and the one who says at five hours means that it occurred at the end of the fifth hour, it would be contradictory testimony and we would not kill the accused on the basis of this testimony; and will we arise and kill based on uncertainty? Although their testimony could be valid, it could also be void. Can the court execute the accused based on that uncertainty? And consider that the Merciful One says in the Torah: “And the congregation shall judge…and the congregation shall deliver” (Numbers 35:24–25), from which it is derived that judges must do everything in their power to save an accused from the death penalty.

והויא עדות מוכחשת, ולא קטלינן, ואנן ניקום ונקטיל מספקא?! ורחמנא אמר: ״ושפטו העדה״ ״והצילו העדה״!

אלא אמר רבא: לדברי רבי מאיר — אדם טועה שתי שעות חסר משהו; לדברי רבי יהודה — אדם טועה שלש שעות חסר משהו.

Rather, Rava said: In fact, according to the statement of Rabbi Meir, a person errs by two hours less a bit; according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, a person errs by three hours less a bit. The Gemara elaborates: According to the statement of Rabbi Meir, a person errs by two hours less a bit. How so? When the incident occurred, it was either at the beginning of the second hour or at the end of the third hour and one of the witnesses erred by two hours less a bit, as that is a reasonable discrepancy.

לדברי רבי מאיר — אדם טועה שתי שעות חסר משהו, מעשה כי הוה, או בתחלת שתים או בסוף שלש, וחד מינייהו קטעי שתי שעות חסר משהו.

לדברי רבי יהודה — אדם טועה שלש שעות חסר משהו, מעשה כי הוה או בתחלת שלש או בסוף חמש, וחד מינייהו קטעי שלש שעות חסר משהו.

According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, a person errs by three hours less a bit. How so? When the incident occurred, it was either in the beginning of the third hour or at the end of the fifth hour, and one of them errs by three hours less a bit. According to Rabbi Yehuda, that is a reasonable discrepancy.

תנן: היו בודקין אותו בשבע חקירות: באיזו שבוע, באיזו שנה, באיזה חדש, בכמה בחדש, באיזה יום, באיזו שעה, באיזה מקום. (ותניא:) מה בין חקירות לבדיקות? חקירות,

We learned in a mishna: The judges of the court would examine witnesses with seven forms of interrogation: In which seven-year Sabbatical cycle of the Jubilee did the incident occur, in which year of the seven-year Sabbatical cycle, in which month of that year, on which date of that month, on which day of the week, at which hour of the day, at which place did the incident occur? And it was taught in a baraita: What is the difference between interrogations and examinations? With regard to each of the forms of interrogation, if one of the witnesses said: I do not know, their testimony is void. However, with regard to examinations, even if they both say: We do not know, their testimony is valid.

אמר אחד מהן ״איני יודע״ — עדותן בטילה. בדיקות, אפילו שניהם אומרים ״אין אנו יודעים״ — עדותן קיימת.

והוינן בה: מאי שנא חקירות ומאי שנא בדיקות?

The Gemara continues. And we discussed this baraita: In what way are interrogations different and in what way are examinations different? Why is the testimony of a person who cannot answer one of the interrogations void, but his testimony is valid if he cannot answer one of the examinations?

ואמרינן: חקירות, אמר אחד מהן ״איני יודע״ — עדותן בטילה, דהויא לה עדות שאי אתה יכול להזימה.

And we said in response: With regard to interrogations, if one of them says: I do not know, their testimony is void, as this is testimony that you cannot render as false, conspiring testimony. Witnesses are determined to be false, conspiring witnesses when other witnesses arrive in court and testify that the first pair of witnesses could not possibly have witnessed the incident in question, as they were at a different place at that time together with them. If a witness says he does not know when the incident occurred or where it occurred, it would be impossible to testify that he was elsewhere and render him a false, conspiring witness. The Torah disqualifies the testimony of a witness who cannot be rendered a false, conspiring witness.

בדיקות, עדות שאתה יכול להזימה היא.

However, with regard to examinations, even if the witness cannot remember every detail, it remains testimony that you can render as false, conspiring testimony. Even without that detail, the second pair of witnesses can still testify that the first pair of witnesses was with them in a different place at that time.

ואי אמרת טעי איניש כולי האי, חקירות ד״איזו שעה״ נמי עדות שאי אתה יכול להזימה היא, דאמרי: מטעי קטעינן!

Based on the above, the Gemara returns to discuss the matter of discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses with regard to the hour that the incident occurred. And if you say that a person errs by that much, e.g., several hours, with regard to the interrogations of what time of day the incident occurred, this is also testimony that you cannot render as false, conspiring testimony, for if other witnesses claim that they were elsewhere at that time, the witnesses can say: We are mistaken, and the incident did not actually occur at that time, but a few hours earlier or later. Consequently, it is impossible to prove that they are false, conspiring witnesses.

דיהבינן להו כולי טעותייהו. לרבי מאיר — יהבינן להו מתחילת שעה ראשונה עד סוף חמש.

The Gemara explains that we give leeway to the first pair of witnesses for the entire duration of the potential margin of their error. In order to render them false, conspiring witnesses, the second pair of witnesses must testify that the first witnesses were with them for the entire period during which their testimony would be accepted, despite the discrepancy with regard to the hour in which it occurred. According to Rabbi Meir, we give the witnesses who testified that the incident occurred at two or three hours of the day, from the beginning of the first hour until the end of the fifth hour. If they testified that the incident occurred in the second hour or the third hour, the court must take into account a mistake of two hours in either direction.

ובדין הוא דניתיב להו מעיקרא טפי, אלא בין יממא לליליא לא טעו אינשי.

And by right we should give them even more leeway at the beginning. Since one errs by two hours less a bit, if the witnesses testified that the incident occurred at approximately two hours of the day, they might have erred by roughly two hours and the incident actually occurred before sunrise. However, since between day and night people do not err, and as the witnesses testify that the incident occurred during the second or third hour of the day, it could not have occurred before sunrise.

ולרבי יהודה — יהבינן להו מתחילת שעה ראשונה ועד סוף ששית. ובדין הוא דניתיב להו מעיקרא טפי,

And according to Rabbi Yehuda, we give the witnesses a margin of error from the beginning of the first hour until the end of the sixth hour. And by right we should give them even more leeway at the beginning, as according to his opinion one errs by three hours less a bit, and therefore the margin for error should be greater.

אלא בין יממא לליליא לא טעו אינשי. ובדין הוא דניתיב לקמיה טפי, אלא שבחמש חמה במזרח, ובשבע חמה במערב.

However, between day and night people do not err, and therefore there is no concern that they might have erred in this regard. And similarly, by right we should give them even more leeway at the end of the period. However, this too is not a reasonable discrepancy, as at five hours of the day the sun is in the east and at seven hours the sun is in the west. No one confuses the morning with the afternoon.

תנן רבי מאיר אומר: אוכלין כל חמש, ושורפין בתחילת שש. רבי יהודה אומר: אוכלין כל ארבע, ותולין כל חמש, ושורפין בתחילת שש.

In light of the above conclusions, the Gemara returns to address the issue of leaven. We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Meir says: One may eat leaven the entire fifth hour of the fourteenth of Nisan, and one must burn it immediately afterward at the beginning of the sixth hour. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may eat the entire fourth hour, and one places it in abeyance for the entire fifth hour, and one burns it at the beginning of the sixth hour.

לאביי אליבא דרבי מאיר, דאמר: אין אדם טועה ולא כלום — ניכול כולה שית. ולהך לישנא נמי דאמר: אדם טועה משהו — ניכול עד סוף שית.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: According to Abaye’s explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that he said a person does not err about the time at all, let him eat leaven for the entire sixth hour, as by Torah law it is permitted to eat until the end of the sixth hour, i.e., midday. The Sages issued a decree prohibiting the consumption of leaven from the beginning of the sixth hour, lest one unwittingly come to eat after midday. However, according to Rabbi Meir, people do not err in this regard at all and that concern is unfounded. And according to that version of Rabbi Meir’s opinion, that he said a person errs a bit, let him eat leaven until just before the end of the sixth hour.

ואביי אליבא דרבי יהודה, דאמר: אדם טועה חצי שעה — ניכול עד פלגא דשית. ולהך לישנא נמי דאמרת: אדם טועה שעה ומשהו — ניכול עד סוף חמש.

And according to Abaye’s explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that he said: A person errs by half an hour; let him eat leaven until the midpoint of the sixth hour. And even according to the version of Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, that he said: A person errs by an hour plus a bit; let him eat leaven until just before the end of the fifth hour. From the fact that this is not the ruling of these Sages, apparently Abaye’s assessment of the amount of time that a person errs is incorrect.

(אלא) אמר אביי: עדות מסורה לזריזים, חמץ לכל מסור.

Rather, Abaye said: There is a difference between the issues of testimony and leaven, as testimony is entrusted to the vigilant. One comes to testify only if he thoroughly scrutinized the subject of his testimony. Therefore, he will not err significantly with regard to the time in question. However, the prohibition against eating leavened bread is a halakha entrusted to all, and not everyone is able to correctly determine the time. Consequently, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda both extend the margin for error, so that people will not unwittingly eat leaven after the time that it is prohibited to do so.

ורבא אליבא דרבי מאיר, דאמר: אדם טועה שתי שעות חסר משהו — מתחילת חמש לא ניכול! חמש חמה במזרח, ושבע חמה במערב.

The Gemara raises another difficulty: And according to Rava’s explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that he said: A person errs by two hours less a bit; from the beginning of the fifth hour let one no longer eat leaven. After all, one could confuse the fifth hour with the seventh hour, when it is prohibited to eat leaven by Torah law. The Gemara answers: Since at five hours the sun is in the east and at seven hours the sun is in the west, no one confuses morning with afternoon.

אי הכי, בשית נמי ניכול?! אמר רב אדא בר אהבה: שית, יומא בקרנתא קאי.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, during the sixth hour let him eat leaven as well, as one distinguishes between the sixth hour and the seventh hour since the sun tends westward only during the seventh hour. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: In the sixth hour, the day, i.e., the sun, stands at the meridian, equidistant between east and west, and it is unclear toward which direction it tends. Therefore, confusion between the sixth and seventh hours is possible.

ורבא אליבא דרבי יהודה, דאמר: אדם טועה שלש שעות חסר משהו — מתחילת ארבע לא ניכול! חמש חמה במזרח, ושבע חמה במערב. וכל שכן ארבע. אי הכי,

The Gemara asks: And according to Rava’s explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that he said: A person errs by three hours less a bit; from the beginning of the fourth hour let one no longer eat leaven. The Gemara answers: If, since at five hours the sun is in the east and at seven hours the sun is in the west, one does not confuse the morning with the evening, and all the more so one will not confuse seven hours of the day with four hours of the day, when the sun is further east. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, i.e., there is no concern lest one confuse morning and afternoon, during the fifth hour let him eat leaven as well.

בחמש נמי ניכול!

תרגמה אביי אליבא דרבא: עדות מסורה לזריזים, חמץ לכל מסור.

Abaye interpreted it in accordance with the opinion of Rava: Testimony is entrusted to the vigilant, and therefore a witness is less likely to err, whereas the prohibition against eating leavened bread is entrusted to all. Since a common person is more likely to err, the Sages were more stringent with regard to leaven than with regard to testimony.

ורבא אמר: לאו היינו טעמא דרבי יהודה. אלא רבי יהודה לטעמיה, דאמר: אין ביעור חמץ אלא שריפה, ויהבו ליה רבנן שעה אחת ללקוט בה עצים.

And Rava said: That is not the reason for the added hour in the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as he is not concerned lest people err. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said: The removal of leaven can be performed only by burning it, and therefore by prohibiting the consumption of leaven, the Sages provided him with one hour during which to gather wood to burn the leaven.

איתיביה רבינא לרבא: אמר רבי יהודה: אימתי — שלא בשעת ביעורו. אבל בשעת ביעורו — השבתתו בכל דבר!

Ravina raised an objection to the opinion of Rava from a baraita. Rabbi Yehuda said: When is it that the elimination of leaven can be performed only by burning it? It is only when one removes the leaven not at the time designated for its removal. Then, one should seek out the preferred method of removal and implement it in the ideal manner. However, when one removes the leaven at the time designated for its removal, at the end of the sixth hour when he must remove the leaven immediately, the removal of leaven may be performed in any manner, and one need not seek wood for burning. Why, then, was it necessary for the Sages to provide him with an hour to gather wood?

אלא אמר רבא: גזירה משום יום המעונן. אי הכי, אפילו בארבע שעות נמי לא ניכול! אמר רב פפא: ארבע זמן סעודה לכל היא.

Rather, Rava reconsidered the previous explanation and said: It is a rabbinic decree due to a cloudy day, when one is unable to observe the precise position of the sun, increasing the likelihood of confusion. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, then even at fourth hour let one no longer eat leaven, as according to Rabbi Yehuda a person errs by three hours less a bit. Rav Pappa said: The fourth hour is mealtime for everyone, and therefore everyone is aware of that hour and will not confuse it with another.

תנו רבנן: שעה ראשונה — מאכל לודים. שניה — מאכל ליסטין. שלישית — מאכל יורשין. רביעית — מאכל פועלין. חמישית — מאכל תלמידי חכמים.

In light of Rav Pappa’s statement, the Gemara discusses the topic of mealtimes. The Sages taught in a baraita: Eating in the first hour of the morning is the time of eating for Ludim, who are members of a nation of cannibals, and they are ravenous and in a hurry to eat. The second hour is the time of eating for robbers [listin]. Since they spend the night stealing, they eat early in the morning. The third hour is the time of eating for heirs, i.e., people who inherited a lot of money and do not work for their sustenance. Their only preoccupation in the early hours of the morning is eating. The fourth hour is the time of eating for workers. The fifth hour is the time of eating for Torah scholars. The sixth hour is the time of eating for all people.

ששית — מאכל כל אדם.

והאמר רב פפא: רביעית — זמן סעודה לכל היא! אלא איפוך: רביעית — מאכל כל אדם, חמישית — מאכל פועלים, ששית — מאכל תלמידי חכמים.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn’t Rav Pappa say that the fourth hour is the time of eating for all? Rather, reverse the fourth, fifth, and sixth hours: The fourth hour is mealtime for all people, the fifth hour is the time of eating for workers, and the sixth hour is the time of eating for Torah scholars.

מכאן ואילך, כזורק אבן לחמת. אמר אביי: לא אמרן אלא דלא טעים מידי בצפרא. אבל טעים מידי בצפרא — לית לן בה.

One who eats from this point forward does not benefit from eating, as he is like one who throws a stone into a leather bottle, i.e., it does not contribute to his health. Abaye said: We only said that eating from the sixth hour onward is not beneficial, when he did not taste anything in the morning; however, if he tasted something in the morning we have no problem with it.

אמר רב אשי: כמחלוקת בעדות, כך מחלוקת בחמץ. פשיטא, היינו הך דאמרינן! הא קא משמע לן: שינויי דשנינן — שינויא הוא, ולא תימא תנאי היא.

Rav Ashi said: Like the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda with regard to testimony, so too is their dispute with regard to leavened bread. The Gemara comments: This is obvious, as this is precisely that which we said. The Gemara explains: Rav Ashi comes to teach us that the answers that we answered, distinguishing between the cases of testimony and leaven, are legitimate answers. And do not say that the different rulings in the two cases reflect a dispute between tanna’im with regard to the opinions of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda and the answers are merely forced attempts to resolve the contradiction but not legitimate answers.

אמר רב שימי בר אשי: לא שנו אלא בשעות, אבל אחד אומר קודם הנץ החמה ואחד אומר אחר הנץ החמה — עדותן בטילה. פשיטא!

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: They taught that the court does not reject testimony due to a discrepancy over time only with regard to testimony ascribed to different hours of the day. However, if one witness says that the incident occurred before sunrise and the other one says it occurred after sunrise, their testimony is void. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as a blatant contradiction of this kind could not possibly be the result of miscalculation.

אלא: אחד אומר קודם הנץ החמה ואחד אומר בתוך הנץ החמה — עדותן בטילה. הא נמי פשיטא! מהו דתימא: תרוייהו חדא מילתא קאמרי, והא דקאמר

Rather, emend the previous statement: If one witness says the incident occurred before sunrise and one says it occurred during sunrise, their testimony is void. The Gemara asks: That too is obvious, as the difference between those times is similarly conspicuous. The Gemara answers: It is necessary to teach this halakha, lest you say that both of the witnesses are saying one matter, and the fact that one witness says