על ממונו אמרינן אי שרית ליה במקום שאין עושין בו מום אתי למעבד במקום שעושין בו מום

about his property, as the priest who is watching the firstborn wants to slaughter it before it dies, as if it dies, eating it would be prohibited. Therefore, we say: If you permit him to let blood in a place that does not cause a blemish in the animal, he will come to do so in a place that causes a blemish in it, to save his animal.

ורבנן כל שכן דאי לא שרית ליה כלל אתי למעבד

And the Rabbis respond that if that is the case, all the more so should it be permitted to let blood in a manner that will not cause a blemish, for if you do not permit him to take any steps to save the animal at all, he will come to act in a prohibited manner and cause a blemish. If there is a legitimate alternative, he will not cause a blemish in the firstborn.

ומי אמרינן לרבי יהודה אדם בהול על ממונו והתנן רבי יהודה אומר אין (מקדרין) הבהמה ביום טוב מפני שהוא עושה חבורה אבל מקרצפין וחכמים אומרים אין מקדרין אף אין מקרצפין

The Gemara challenges this explanation: And do we say that according to Rabbi Yehuda a person is agitated about his property? But didn’t we learn in a mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: One may not scrape an animal on a Festival with a fine-tooth comb, because in doing so he inflicts a wound, which is prohibited on Festivals? However, one may scratch an animal with a wide-tooth comb, as this does not inflict a wound. And the Rabbis say: One may neither scrape nor even scratch, for if one were permitted to scratch an animal he might come to scrape it as well.

ותניא איזהו קידור ואיזהו קרצוף קידור קטנים ועושין חבורה קרצוף גדולים ואין עושין חבורה

And it was taught in the Tosefta : What is scraping and what is scratching? Scraping is performed with a comb with small teeth and with which one inflicts a wound. Scratching is performed with a comb that has large teeth and with which one does not inflict a wound. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda does not issue a decree to prohibit scratching lest one come to scrape, even though he is agitated over his property.

התם דאי שביק ליה מיית אמרינן אדם בהול על ממונו הכא אי שביק ליה צערא בעלמא הוא לא אמרינן אדם בהול על ממונו

The Gemara rejects this contention: There, with regard to a firstborn, it is different, for if he leaves it and does nothing the animal will die, and therefore we say that a person is agitated over his property. In his agitated state he will overlook the details of permitted and prohibited actions and violate a prohibition. Here, however, if he leaves his animal and does not comb it, it will merely suffer pain from the stinging insects. In that case we do not say that a person is agitated about his property.

ורבי יהודה מאי שנא גבי חמץ דגזר ומאי שנא גבי קרצוף דלא גזר לחם בלחם מיחלף קידור בקרצוף לא מיחלף:

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda, what is different with regard to leavened bread that he issued a decree lest a person come to eat the prohibited food, and what is different with regard to scraping that he did not issue a comparable decree? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda maintains that unleavened bread might be interchanged with leavened bread, whereas scraping would not be interchanged with scratching. Since one uses a completely different utensil in the performance of the prohibited action, interchanging the two actions is unlikely.

מתני׳ רבי מאיר אומר אוכלים כל חמש ושורפין בתחלת שש רבי יהודה אומר אוכלין כל ארבע ותולין כל חמש ושורפין בתחלת שש

MISHNA: 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.

ועוד אמר רבי יהודה שתי חלות של תודה פסולות מונחות על גב האיצטבא כל זמן שמונחות כל העם אוכלין ניטלה אחת תולין לא אוכלין ולא שורפין ניטלו שתיהן התחילו כל העם שורפין

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.

רבן גמליאל אומר חולין נאכלין כל ארבע ותרומה כל חמש ושורפין בתחלת שש:

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.

גמ׳ תנן התם אחד אומר בשנים בחדש ואחד אומר בשלשה עדותן קיימת

GEMARA: The Gemara seeks to draw a comparison between this dispute of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda and a dispute between them on a different topic. We learned in a mishna there: If one witness says that an incident occurred on the second day of the month and one other witness says that it happened on the third day of that month, their testimony is valid. This minor contradiction does not invalidate the testimony.

שזה יודע בעבורו של חדש וזה אינו יודע בעבורו של חדש

The mishna explains: The reason is that this witness knows about the addition of an extra day to the previous month. Since he knows that the court added a day to the previous month, which lasted thirty days, he testifies that the incident occurred on the second day of the month. And that witness does not know about the addition of an extra day to the previous month, and he therefore thinks that the incident in question occurred on the third of the month.

אחד אומר בשלשה ואחד אומר בחמשה עדותן בטלה אחד אומר בשתי שעות ואחד אומר בשלש שעות עדותן קיימת אחד אומר בשלש ואחד אומר בחמש עדותן בטלה דברי רבי מאיר

If one says that the incident occurred on the third day of the month and one says it happened on the fifth, their testimony is void, as there is no way to rationalize this contradiction. Similarly, if one says the incident occurred at two hours of the day and one says it happened at three hours, their testimony is valid, as that discrepancy could be the result of the lack of precision. However, if one says it occurred at three hours and one says it took place at five hours, their testimony is void. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

רבי יהודה אומר עדותן קיימת אחד אומר בחמש ואחד אומר בשבע עדותן בטלה שבחמש חמה במזרח ובשבע חמה במערב

Rabbi Yehuda says: In the last case, their testimony is valid, as it could be that one is slightly mistaken. However, if one says it happened at five hours and one says at seven hours, everyone agrees that their testimony is void. That is a clear contradiction that cannot be rationalized as a miscalculation, as at five hours of the day the sun is in the east, and at seven hours the sun is already in the west. It is impossible to confuse the fifth hour with the seventh.

אמר אביי כשתמצא לומר לדברי רבי מאיר אין אדם טועה ולא כלום לדברי רבי יהודה אדם טועה חצי שעה לדברי רבי מאיר אין אדם טועה ולא כלום מעשה כי הוה במיפק תרתי ומעייל תלת והא דקאמר שתים בסוף שתים והא דקאמר שלש בתחלת שלש

Abaye said: When analyzing the matter, you will find that you can say that according to the statement of Rabbi Meir a person does not err at all, as Rabbi Meir assumes that people know the exact time of day. According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda a person errs up to half an hour. Abaye elaborates: According to the statement of Rabbi Meir, a person does not err at all, and the reason that in the case where one says two hours and one says three the testimony is valid is that the incident actually occurred as the second hour ended and the third hour began. And when this witness said it happened in the second hour he was referring to the end of the second hour. When that witness said the third hour he was referring to the beginning of the third hour. It is possible that both witnesses spoke the truth.

לדברי רבי יהודה אדם טועה חצי שעה מעשה כי הוה בפלגא דארבע הוה והאי דקאמר שלש בסוף שלש וקטעי פלגא דשעתא לקמיה והאי דקאמר חמש בתחלת חמש וקטעי פלגא דשעתא לאחוריה

Abaye continues his explanation: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, a person errs by half an hour, as when the incident occurred, it occurred at the midpoint of the fourth hour, at three and a half hours of the day. And this witness, who says three hours, means the end of the third hour, and he errs by say ing that it occurred half an hour before the incident actually occurred. And that witness, who says five hours, means the beginning of the fifth hour, i. e., the end of the fourth hour, and he errs by say ing that it occurred half an hour after the incident actually occurred. Since it is possible that their testimonies do not conflict, their testimony is valid.

איכא דאמרי אמר אביי כשתמצא לומר לדברי רבי מאיר אדם טועה משהו לדברי רבי יהודה אדם טועה שעה ומשהו לדברי רבי מאיר אדם טועה משהו מעשה כי הוה או בסוף שתים הוה או בתחלת שלש וחד מינייהו טועה משהו לדברי רבי יהודה אדם טועה שעה ומשהו מעשה כי הוה או בסוף שלש או בתחלת חמש

Some say a different version of this statement. Abaye said: When analyzing the matter, you will find that you can say that according to Rabbi Meir a person errs a bit, and according to Rabbi Yehuda a person errs by an hour and a bit. Abaye elaborates: According to Rabbi Meir, a person errs a bit, as when the incident occurred, it occurred either at the end of the second hour or at the beginning of the third hour, and one of the two witnesses errs a bit. According to Rabbi Yehuda, a person errs by an hour and a bit, as when the incident occurred, it occurred either at the end of the third hour or at the beginning of the fifth hour,