(a)A mouse took Chametz from a pile of Chametz and scampered off with it into one of two rooms that had already been searched for Chametz , but we don't know which - this has the same Din as two people who walked down two paths, one of which was Tamei, and the other, Tamei - and we don't know down which of the two walked down which path; Rebbi Yosi renders them both Tamei, since it is impossible to exempt both from Bedikah. What does Rebbi Yehudah say?
(b)How does Rava (some say Rebbi Yochanan) establish the Machlokes? What would be the Din, if both owners came to ask what they should do?
(c)If someone enters a valley where there is a corpse in one of the fields - in winter, but he does not know which field he entered, according to Rebbi Eliezer, he remains Tahor. Why is that?
(d)The Rabanan rule that he is Tamei. Why is that, and why will they agree that, if a mouse takes a piece of Chametz, and we are not certain whether it entered a room that was already searched for Chametz, it does not need to be re-searched?
(a)If a mouse took Chametz from a pile of Chametz and scampered off with it into one of two rooms that had already been searched for Chametz , but we don't know which - Rebbi Yehudah says that, as long as they both come to ask separately, they are both declared Tahor (because of the principle 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, Tahor').
(b)Rava (or Rebbi Yochanan) says that if the two owners came to ask simultaneously, then even Rebbi Yehudah will agree that they will both be Tamei; if they came independently, then even Rebbi Yosi will agree that they are both Tahor - when do they argue, only when one of the two comes to ask on behalf of both himself and his friend: Rebbi Yosi compares it to when they ask simultaneously, Rebbi Yehudah to when they ask independently (because it is possible to answer him that he is Tahor, without actually saying that his friend is Tahor, too.
(c)If in winter, someone enters a valley where there is a corpse in one of the fields, but he does not know which field he entered, according to Rebbi Eliezer, he remains Tahor - because it is a double Safek (a S'fek Sefeika) maybe he did not enter the field, and, even if he did, maybe he did not touch or walk over, the corpse.
(d)The rule that he is Tamei - because it is a case of Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid (seeing as we are speaking in the winter, when the seeds have already begun to grow, and one does not have permission to enter the field. Nevertheless, in our case, they agree that the room does not require a second Bedikah, because Bedikas Chametz (once one has made Bitul Chametz) is only mid'Rabanan, whereas in the case of the two paths, we are speaking about Tum'ah d'Oraysa.
(a)What do the Chachamim hold with regard to a field containing one pile which contains Tum'ah, and two which are Tahor (or vice-versa), if all three are searched, but no Tum'ah is found?
(b)What does Rebbi Meir say
(c)If a mouse carries Chametz into a room, and the owner searched but found nothing, what must he do according to Rebbi Meir? Why does he rule differently here than in the previous case?
(a)In a field containing one pile which is Tamei, and two which are Tahor (or vice-versa), if all three are searched, but no Tum'ah is found - according to the Chachamim, all three piles are now Tahor (since we assume that the Tum'ah was somehow removed).
(b)According to Rebbi Meir, all three piles are Tamei. Why? Because anything that has a Chezkas Tum'ah remains Tamei until the Tum'ah is discovered.
(c)If a mouse carries Chametz into a room, and the owner searched but found nothing, then even Rebbi Meir will agree that it is not necessary to search again, since Bedikas Chametz is only mid'Rabanan (see Tosfos, DH 'Al', in whose opinion Bitul Chametz is nevertheless required).
(a)If he followed the mouse into the room, searched and found some Chametz, Rebbi maintains that the Chametz that is found is assumed to be the Chametz that was brought in by the mouse. What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel hold?
(b)What is the case over which they argue?
(c)If the mouse carried nine pieces of Chametz into the room, and he found ten, he will not be obligated to search any further, according to Rebbi. What does Rebbi actually say?
(d)What do the Chachamim say there, and what are the ramifications with regard to our Din?
(a)According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, even if one searched and found a piece of Chametz, we do not assume that that is the piece brought in by the mouse; Consequently, he is obligated to search the entire room.
(b)They argue in a case where they searched a field for a grave which they knew to be there, and in the course of the search, they did indeed find a grave. According to Rebbi, we assume the grave that they found to be the one that was lost, and it is not necessary to continue with the search; whereas according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, they are obligated to search the entire field, irrespective of what they find.
(c)Rebbi Says that if someone left one Manah of Ma'aser Sheni money, and when he returned, he found two - we assume the Manah to be the one that he placed, and someone added a second Manah to the original one (so both are Safek Ma'aser Sheni).
(d)According to the Chachamim - since he left one Manah and found two, we presume that this is not the same money that he left, but that it is all Chulin money. Similarly in our case, since the mouse carried nine pieces of Chametz into the room and he found ten, we will not assume them to be the same pieces that the mouse carried into the room, and he will be obligated to continue searching until he finds just nine pieces. Note: This Sugya speaks when both the money and the pieces of Chametz are tied together (see Tosfos DH 'Hini'ach' and Maharsha).
(a)Rebbi issues the same ruling in a case where the mouse carried in ten pieces, and nine were subsequently found. What do the Rabanan say there?
(a)If the mouse carried in ten pieces, and nine were subsequently found then, according to the Rabanan - all ten pieces are Chulin, because we assume them to be different pieces than those carried in by the mouse.
(a)If someone leaves an axe in a specific place in a room, and then finds it elsewhere, the Chachamim rule that everything in the room is Tamei. Why is that?
(b)What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel say, and why is that?
(c)How will this same Machlokes apply to Bedikas Chametz?
(a)If someone leaves an ax in a specific spot in a room, and then finds it elsewhere, the Chachamim rule that everything in the room is Tamei - because someone must have entered the room and moved the ax. In the process, he is likely to have touched any of the objects in the room (and as far as a Chaver is concerned, unspecified people are assumed to be Tamei).
(b)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says that everything in the room retains is Chezkas Taharah, because he probably lent the ax to someone or even moved it himself, and forgot about it.
(c)According to the Rabanan, if someone leaves Chametz in one corner of a room that has already been searched, and finds it in another, he will be obligated to search for Chametz; according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, he will be Patur.
(a)If someone followed a mouse that carried Chametz into a room and found crumbs on the floor, what must he assume?
(b)What if it is not a mouse that he followed, but a child?
(a)It is not common for mice to leave crumbs. Consequently, if someone follows a mouse that carried Chametz into a room and finds crumbs on the floor, the owner will be obligated to search the room again - he must assume that the Chametz that was found is not the same Chametz that the mouse carried in.
(b)Children eating bread do tend to leave crumbs. Consequently, if he followe a child into a room and discovered crumbs, he should just collect them, but does not need to search the room again.
(a)Assuming that, if one sees a mouse enter a room with a piece of Chametz in its mouth, and another mouse leaving the room with a piece of Chametz in its mouth, it is the same mouse that entered, and that one is subsequently Patur from Bedikas Chametz, one may possibly be Patur even if the one mouse is white, and the other, black. How is that possible?
(b)What is the counter-argument to this?
(a)If one sees a white mouse enter a room with a piece of Chametz in its mouth and a black mouse leaving it, also with a piece of Chametz in its mouth, the Gemara considers the possibility that the second mouse grabbed the Chametz from the first one, in which case, the owner will be exempt from a second Bedikah.
(b)The counter-argument is that mice do not grab from each other (honor among thieves), in which case, this is a second piece of Chametz, and he will remain obligated to make Bedikas Chametz again.
(a)Even assuming that mice do not steal from each other, a weasel will certainly steal from a mouse. Why then, if we saw a mouse enter the room with Chametz in its mouth, and a weasel come out with Chametz in its mouth, will we not automatically assume that the weasel took the Chametz from the mouse (and exempt the owner from the need to search the room again?
(b)When will we even have doubts if the weasel comes out holding both the mouse and the Chametz in its mouth?
(a)If we saw a mouse enter the room with Chametz in its mouth, and a weasel come out with Chametz in its mouth, we will not necessarily assume that the weasel took the Chametz from the mouse - because then it would have been more likely for the weasel to have been holding the mouse (which was in turn, still holding the Chametz) in its mouth. Consequently, it is more logical to assume that this is not the same piece of Chametz.
(b)We even have doubts - if the weasel comes out holding the mouse and the Chametz in its mouth, but separately. Do we now say that this is most certainly not the same mouse and Chametz as the one that entered, because, if it had been, why was the Chametz not still in the mouse's mouth? Or perhaps, when the mouse saw the weasel, it got a shock and dropped the Chametz, and the weasel then picked up first the one and then the other.
(a)The Gemara asks whether, if there is Chametz on a high beam, one is obligated to find a ladder to fetch it in order to burn it, or not. What are the two sides of the She'eilah?
(b)Assuming that one is obligated in the previous case, why might also be obligated to do likewise if the Chametz is in a deep pit, despite the fact that the reason for being Chayav there is not applicable here?
(c)Assuming that one is obligated even there, to bring a ladder, why may he not be Chayav to hire a snake charmer to remove the Chametz from the mouth of a snake - in order to burn it?
(a)If there is Chametz on a high beam, the Gemara asks whether one is obligated to find a ladder to fetch it in order to burn it (due to the possibility of the Chametz falling down on Pesach, in which case he may come to eat it), or whether (seeing as he will anyway make Bitul Chametz, and the Chametz is currently out of harm's way) the Chachamim did not obligate him to go to such lengths).
(b)If the Chametz is in a deep pit, and is therefore not subject to falling, the Chachamim may still have obligated him to climb down and destroy the Chametz - because he may possibly descend into the pit on Pesach, to do something there, find the Chametz there and eat it.
(c)Assuming that one is obligated even there, to bring a ladder, he may not be Chayav to hire a snake charmer to remove the Chametz from the mouth of a snake - in order to burn it - because Chazal may only have obligated him to remove the Chametz bodily, but not to spend money on it.
(a)Which three time-periods does Rebbi Yehudah give for Bedikas Chametz?
(b)Which time-period do the Rabanan add to that?
(c)What should one do with the Chametz that remains after the Bedikah on the eve of the fourteenth?
(a)The three time periods for Bedikas Chametz, according to Rebbi Yehudah are the eve of the fourteenth, the morning of the fourteenth and the sixth hour.
(b)The Rabanan add from the sixth hour until night-fall (see Tosfos DH 've'Im' who interpret 'be'Soch ha'Mo'ed' to mean during Yom-Tov, and 'le'Achar ha'Mo'ed', even after Yom-Tov.
(c)The Chametz that remains after the Bedikah on the eve of the fourteenth should be placed out of reach of children and mice, who may otherwise take some of it, thereby creating problems.
(a)Why does the Gemara reject the suggestion that Rebbi Yehudah's three time-periods are connected with the three Pesukim written in connection with Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei?
(b)What is the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan?
(a)From Rebbi Yehudah's statement in a Beraisa 'Kol she'Lo Badak bi'Sheloshah Perakim Halalu, Shuv Eino Bodek' it is clear that the dispute between him and the Rabanan concerns whether or not to search for Chametz after the three times specified by Rebbi Yehudah (and not the three periods themselves).
(b)Rebbi Yehudah forbids searching after the time of Bi'ur, for fear that he may come to eat any Chametz that he finds; whereas the Rabanan maintain that, since he is busy searching for Chametz to destroy it, he is most unlikely to then go and eat it.