אוֹר לְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הֶחָמֵץ לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכְנִיסִין בּוֹ חָמֵץ אֵין צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה. וְלָמָה אָמְרוּ שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת בַּמַּרְתֵּף, מָקוֹם שֶׁמַּכְנִיסִין בּוֹ חָמֵץ. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת עַל פְּנֵי כָל הַמַּרְתֵּף. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת שֶׁהֵן הָעֶלְיוֹנוֹת: On the evening [or] of the fourteenth of the month of Nisan, one searches for leavened bread in his home by candlelight. Any place into which one does not typically take leavened bread does not require a search, as it is unlikely that there is any leavened bread there. And with regard to what the Sages of previous generations meant when they said that one must search two rows of wine barrels in a cellar, i.e., a place into which one typically takes some leavened bread, the early tanna’im are in dispute. Beit Shammai say that this is referring to searching the first two rows across the entire cellar, and Beit Hillel say: There is no need to search that extensively, as it is sufficient to search the two external rows, which are the upper ones. This dispute will be explained and illustrated in the Gemara.
אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא גָרְרָה חֻלְדָּה מִבַּיִת לְבַיִת וּמִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, דְּאִם כֵּן, מֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר וּמֵעִיר לְעִיר, אֵין לַדָּבָר סוֹף: 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.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בּוֹדְקִין אוֹר אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר וּבְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שַׁחֲרִית וּבִשְׁעַת הַבִּעוּר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, לֹא בָדַק אוֹר אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, יִבְדֹּק בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר. לֹא בָדַק בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, יִבְדֹּק בְּתוֹךְ הַמּוֹעֵד. לֹא בָדַק בְּתוֹךְ הַמּוֹעֵד, יִבְדֹּק לְאַחַר הַמּוֹעֵד. וּמַה שֶּׁמְּשַׁיֵּר, יַנִּיחֶנּוּ בְצִנְעָא, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה אַחֲרָיו: Rabbi Yehuda says: One searches for leaven on the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan, and on the fourteenth in the morning, and at the time of the removal of leaven. And the Rabbis say: that is not the case; however, if one did not search on the evening of the fourteenth he should search on the fourteenth during the day. If he did not search on the fourteenth, he should search during the festival of Passover. If he did not search during the Festival, he should search after the Festival, as any leaven that remained in his possession during the Festival is classified as leaven owned by a Jew during Passover, which one is obligated to remove. And the principle is: With regard to the leaven that one leaves after the search, he should place it in a concealed location where it will most likely be left untouched, so that it will not require searching after it if it goes missing.
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אוֹכְלִין כָּל חָמֵשׁ, וְשׂוֹרְפִין בִּתְחִלַּת שֵׁשׁ. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אוֹכְלִין כָּל אַרְבַּע, וְתוֹלִין כָּל חָמֵשׁ, וְשׂוֹרְפִין בִּתְחִלַּת שֵׁשׁ: The tanna’im disagree regarding until what time leaven may be eaten and at what time it must be removed on Passover eve. 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.
וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת שֶׁל תּוֹדָה פְסוּלוֹת מֻנָּחוֹת עַל גַּג הָאִצְטַבָּא. כָּל זְמַן שֶׁמֻּנָּחוֹת, כָּל הָעָם אוֹכְלִים. נִטְּלָה אַחַת, תּוֹלִין, לֹא אוֹכְלִין וְלֹא שׂוֹרְפִין. נִטְּלוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן, הִתְחִילוּ כָל הָעָם שׂוֹרְפִין. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, חֻלִּין נֶאֱכָלִין כָּל אַרְבַּע, וּתְרוּמָה כָּל חָמֵשׁ, וְשׂוֹרְפִין בִּתְחִלַּת שֵׁשׁ: And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: Two disqualified loaves of a thanks-offering are placed on the bench in the colonnade in the Temple as an indicator. There was a specially designated place for these loaves in the Temple. As long as the loaves are placed there, the entire nation continues to eat leaven. When one of the loaves was taken away, the people know that the time had come to place the leaven in abeyance, meaning that they neither eat nor burn their leaven. When they were both taken away, the entire nation began burning their leaven. Rabban Gamliel says that the times are divided differently: Non-sacred foods are eaten the entire fourth hour, and teruma may be eaten during the entire fifth hour. Since it is a mitzva to eat teruma and burning it is prohibited, additional time was allocated for its consumption. And one burns all leaven including teruma at the beginning of the sixth hour.
רַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹמֵר, מִימֵיהֶם שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים לֹא נִמְנְעוּ מִלִּשְׂרֹף אֶת הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּטְמָא בִוְלַד הַטֻּמְאָה עִם הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּטְמָא בְאַב הַטֻּמְאָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמּוֹסִיפִין טֻמְאָה עַל טֻמְאָתוֹ. הוֹסִיף רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְאָמַר, מִימֵיהֶם שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים לֹא נִמְנְעוּ מִלְּהַדְלִיק אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן שֶׁנִּפְסַל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם בְּנֵר שֶׁנִּטְמָא בִטְמֵא מֵת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמּוֹסִיפִין טֻמְאָה עַל טֻמְאָתוֹ: Apropos the removal of leaven on Passover eve, including the consecrated loaves of thanks-offerings and teruma, the mishna cites a related halakha. Rabbi Ḥanina the deputy High Priest says: In all the days of the priests, they did not refrain from burning meat that became ritually impure by coming into contact with a secondary source of ritual impurity, i.e., an object that had come into contact with a primary source of impurity, together with meat that became ritually impure by contact with a primary source of impurity. They would do so even though they would thereby add a degree of impurity to the impurity of the first piece of meat, which was previously impure to a lesser degree. Rabbi Akiva added to the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina the deputy High Priest and said: In all the days of the priests, they did not refrain from lighting teruma oil that was ritually disqualified by coming into contact with one who immersed himself during that day and who does not become completely purified until nightfall in a lamp that became ritually impure with first-degree impurity through contact with one who became ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. They did so even though they would thereby add impurity to the impurity of the oil. A person who immersed himself during that day assumes the status of second-degree ritual impurity. His contact renders the oil ritually impure with third-degree ritual impurity. The lamp with first-degree ritual impurity renders the oil ritually impure with second-degree impurity.
אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם לָמַדְנוּ, שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה עִם הַטְּמֵאָה בְּפֶסַח. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אֵינָהּ הִיא הַמִּדָּה. וּמוֹדִים רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין זוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ. עַל מַה נֶּחֱלְקוּ, עַל הַתְּלוּיָה וְעַל הַטְּמֵאָה, שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, תִּשָּׂרֵף זוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ וְזוֹ לְעַצְמָהּ, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, שְׁתֵּיהֶן כְּאֶחָת: Rabbi Meir said: From their statements we learned that one may burn ritually pure teruma with impure teruma when removing leaven on Passover eve. The rationale that applies to the two previous cases applies here as well. Since both items are being burned, one may disregard the fact that one item will assume a higher degree of ritual impurity in the process. Rabbi Yosei said: That is not the inference from which the halakha in the case of ritually pure and ritually impure teruma can be learned. In those first two cases, the two items are both ritually impure, albeit at different degrees of ritual impurity. Rabbi Meir is referring to the combination of impure teruma with pure teruma, which would render pure teruma ritually impure. And in fact Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, who disagree with regard to the burning of leavened teruma, nevertheless concede that one burns this ritually pure teruma by itself and that impure teruma by itself. With regard to what did they disagree? They disagreed with regard to whether one may burn teruma in abeyance, i.e., teruma whose purity is uncertain, and definitely impure teruma together, as Rabbi Eliezer says: This teruma in abeyance should be burned by itself, and that impure teruma should be burned by itself; and Rabbi Yehoshua says: In that case, both of them may be burned as one.