Shiur Supplement #18 Daf 10a-b
A. Al u-badak ve-lo eshkach [lines 23-24] A mouse entered a house that had been previously checked, with a piece of chametz. However, the owner was unable to find the chametz even though he subsequently searched for it. Can we assume that the mouse consumed the chametz, or do we have to concern ourselves with the possibility that the chametz is still somewhere in the house and, therefore, necessitate another bedika?
B. Plugta de-Rabbi Meir ve-rabbanan [lines 24-28] Background: The mishna in Nida [61a] records a dispute between R. Meir and the Rabbis relating to the following case: There are THREE piles or heaps, ONE containing portions of a corpse (which is tamei). However, we are not sure which one contains the tum'a. Thus, ALL are considered to be tamei. If the first heap is checked and the tum'a is NOT found, it is considered to be TAHOR and the remaining two are considered to be TAMEI. If the second heap is subsequently checked and the tum'a is still not found, it too is considered to be TAHOR and only the remaining heap is considered TAMEI. If the THIRD heap is then checked and the tum'a STILL not found, according to R. Meir, ALL THREE are once again considdered to be TAMEI until we know where the tum'a is. According to Chakhamim, however, ALL THREE are considered to be TAHOR as we rely on the fact that a raven probably did away with the flesh (assuming that one checked the heaps until virgin soil or rocks were reached, thereby eliminating any chance that the tum'a is still inside.)
Applying this gemara to our case, we can conclude that according to Chakhamim, one does not have to concern himself with the possibility that the chametz is still somewhere in the house. Even R. Meir who rules stringently in the case of tum'a would agree with chakhamim with regards to chametz as the obligation to do bedika is only mi-de-rabbanan. [See Rashi s.v. kol davar she-bechezkat tum'a.]
C. Al u-badak ve-eshkach [line 28] A mouse entered a house that had been previously checked, with a piece of chametz. The owner subsequently found some chametz in the house. Can he assume that the chametz he found was the chametz that was brought in by the mouse, or should he concern himself with the possibility that the mouse's chametz has not yet been detected and that the chametz he found came from elsewhere?
D. Plugta de-Rebbi ve-Rabbi Shimon ben Gamli'el [lines 28-33] Background: A person who walks over a grave becomes tamei. If we know that there is a grave in a field but are unsure of its exact location, we consider one who enters the field tamei as it is possible that he has unknowingly walked over the grave.
If a grave is found in the field, Rebbi claims that we can assume that the grave that was "lost" is the grave that was found. Therefore, only one who walks over this specific area will become tamei. According to R. Shimon b. Gamliel, however, we cannot be sure that the grave that was found is indeed the grave that was "lost." Perhaps there is more than one grave in the field. Thus, walking in any part of the field will render one tamei until th entire field is checked and no other graves are uncovered.
Applying this argument to the case of chametz in our gemara, it is clear that according to Rebbi, we can assume that the piece of chametz that was found is indeed the same piece that was brought in by the mouse. According to R. Shimon b. Gamliel, though, one would have to search the ENTIRE house house again in order to fulfil his obligation of bedikat chametz. However, it is possible that even R. Shimon b. Gamliel, who argues with Rebbi with regard to the grave, will agree in our case where there exists only a safek mi-de-rabbanan (as opposed to tum'a which is a safek mi-de-oraita).
D. Hini'ach tish'a u-matza asara [line 33] A person left NINE pieces of chametz in his house, but, subsequently found TEN. Can he assume that ONE piece was added and, thus there is no need to search the house at all, or must he concern himself with the possibility that all NINE were taken and that someone came and left a different TEN in the house, thus necessitating a search for another NINE?
E. Plugta de-Rebbi ve-Rabbanan [lines 33-36] Background: After one has removed teruma and ma'aser, he is obligated to separate a tenth of the remainder as MA'ASER SHEINI. This produce is holy and must be eaten in Yerushalayim. If one is unable to do so, he is required to redeem the produce with money which he must subsequently take to Yerushalayim and use to buy food. This money, too, is sanctified and may NOT be used for any other purpose. It can, however, be redeemed with OTHER money which in turn will become sanctified itself. The law of Ma'aser Sheini applies in the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th years of the seven year Shemita cycle. (In the 3rd and 6th years, this tithe is called MA'ASER ANI and must be given to poor people.)
If one put aside 100 zuz (type of coinage) of Ma'aser Sheini money, but upon his return found 200 zuz, there is an argument of the Sages concerning its status: According to Rebbi, we can assume that an extra 100 zuz was ADDED to the original money and, thus, the ma'aser money is now mixed together with non-sanctified (chulin) money. According to the Chakhamim, however, we can assume that the ma'aser money was TAKEN AWAY and 200 zuz put in its place. Thus, the money before us is ALL chulin.
With regards to the case of chametz, Rebbi would NOT require another bedika as we can assume that an extra piece was ADDED. According to Chakhamim, however, another bedika MUST be performed to find the missing NINE pieces.
F. Hini'ach asara u-matza tish'a [line 36] A person left TEN pieces of chametz in his house, but upon his return found only NINE. Can he assume that only ONE piece was removed and, thus, only one piece must be found, or must he concern himself with the possibility that ALL ten pieces were removed and these NINE were subsequently placed there, necessitating a search for TEN pieces?
G. Heinu seifa de-tanya [lines 36-38] If one put aside 200 zuz of Ma'aser Sheini money, but upon his return found only 100 zuz, there is an argument of the Sages concerning its status: According to Rebbi, we can assume that 100 zuz of ma'aser money was taken and 100 zuz left behimd. According to the Chakhamim, however, we assume that the FULL 200 zuz was removed and a DIFFERENT 100 zuz put in its place. Thus, this money is NOT sanctified.
Applying this argument to our gemara leads to the followng conclusion: According to Rebbi, one need search for ONE piece of chametz ONLY and his obligation of bedika is complete one it has been found. According to Chakhamim, however, one is obligated to search for TEN pieces.
H. Hini'ach be-zavit zo [line 1] A person left chametz in one corner of his house but, subsequently found it in a different corner. Can he assume that it is the SAME chametz and thus, NO further bedika is required or should he concern himself with the possibility that this is a DIFFERENT piece of chametz and, thus, he must conduct a search for another piece?
I. Plugta de-Rabbi Shimon b. Gamli'el ve-Rabbanan [lines 1-15] If one left an axe in his house and it subsequently dissappeared, all of his keilim (vessels) are tamei as we are concerned that an impure person took the axe and touched them while removing it. According to R. Shimon b. Gamli'el, however, his keilim are tahor as we assume that he lent out the axe or misplaced it which accounts for its disappearance.
The gemara's first attempt at drawing a parallel between our case and that of the axe is unsuccessful as there is no mention of the critical factor in our case - the phenomena that the item in question was left in one corner but FOUND in another. Thus, the gemara re-words the beraita (based on oral tradition) thereby, creating the following dialectic: If an axe was left in one corner of the house and, subsequently, found in a different corner, according to the Tanna Kamma, all of the keilim inside the house are tamei. This is because we assume that a tamei person moved the axe and we are concerned that he may have touched other keilim while in the house. According to R. Shimon b. Gamli'el, however, the keilim are tahor as we assume that the owner of the house moved the axe himself and, subsesquently forgot about it.
Applying the beraita to our case of the chametz, we reach the following conclusion: The Tanna Kama REQUIRES another bedika as we are concerned that a mouse may have brought in another piece of chametz and spirited the first piece away to another part of the house. According to R. Shimon b. Gamli'el, however, we do not consider this possibility. Instead we assume that the owner moved the chametz himself and, subsequently, forgot about it. Thus, no further bedika need be performed.