Pesachim 116b — the Talmud in English

And these are: the Passover-offering, matza, and maror.

And thus he is obligated to say:

a.

The Passover-offering, on account of what? Because the Omnipresent passed over the houses of our fathers in Egypt

as it is stated:

“And you shall say: It is a Passover-offering to the Lord, which passed over

the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt.”

b.

The matza, on account of what? Because our fathers were redeemed from Egypt

in haste, and at that time their dough did not suffice to become leavened.

As it is stated:

“And they baked the dough that they brought out from Egypt

into unleavened cakes, for it had not become leavened.”

c.

The maror, on account of what? Because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our fathers in Egypt.

As it is stated:

“And they embittered their lives.”

[Thus far are the matters that he is obligated to say.]

In every generation and generation a person is obligated to see himself as though he went out from Egypt.

As it is stated:

“And you shall tell your son on that day, saying: It is because of this that the Lord acted for

me when I went out from Egypt.”

And it is implied: for me myself, and not only for our fathers.

And he says:

Therefore, we are obligated to give thanks, to recite praise, to laud, to glorify, to exalt, to honor, to bless, to raise up, and to acclaim the One who performed for our fathers and for us all these miracles: He brought us out from slavery to freedom, from distress to joy, from mourning to a festival, from darkness to great light, and from servitude to redemption.

And before Him let us say: Hallelujah!

That is, the Hallel that begins with “Hallelujah.”

How far does he say

the first section of the Hallel, which is recited now before the meal?

The House of Shammai says: Until

“A joyful mother of children.”

Only the first psalm.

And the House of Hillel says:

also “When Israel went out,”

until

its end,

“The flint into a fountain of water.”

And he concludes,

he ends the Haggada

with

the blessing of

redemption.

And the tannaim disagreed concerning the wording of this blessing:

Rabbi Tarfon says:

He blesses, “Blessed

is He who redeemed us and redeemed our fathers from Egypt.”

And he did not conclude

it at its end with “Blessed,” because it is a short blessing, containing only thanksgiving, and it resembles the blessing over fruits and the blessing over mitzvot, which does not conclude with “Blessed.”

Rabbi Akiva says:

It is necessary to add to it words of appeasement and request, and this is a long blessing. Therefore, it is also necessary to conclude it.

And this is the wording of the addition:

“So may the Lord our God and the God of our fathers bring us to other festivals and pilgrimage festivals

that are coming toward us in peace, rejoicing in the building of Your city and delighting in Your service, and there we shall eat

from the Passover-offerings and from the sacrificial offerings

etc.

until “Blessed are You, Lord, who redeemed Israel.”

Gemara:

Rava said: He must say

this verse:

“And He brought us out from there

in order to bring us and give us the land that He swore to our fathers” [Deuteronomy 6:23]. For from here we learn that he must show himself as though he went out from there, for the Holy One, blessed is He, also redeemed us.

Rava said:

The

matza must be raised

when he says, “This matza that we eat,” in order to show it to those reclining at the meal and make the mitzva dear in their eyes.

And

likewise the

maror must be raised

when he says, “This maror that we eat.”

But the

meat

of the two cooked dishes in the dish [one of which is a remembrance of the Passover-offering]

need not be raised

when he says, “The Passover-offering that our fathers used to eat when the Temple existed,” since he does not say, “This Passover-offering.”

And furthermore,

if he were to raise it,

he would appear to be eating sacred offerings outside

as though he had consecrated the animal while alive for the sake of the Passover-offering and were now eating it outside Jerusalem.

Rabbi Aha bar Yaakov said: A blind person is exempt from reciting the Haggada.

For

it is written here

in the Haggada: “And you shall tell your son:

Because of this

the Lord acted for me.”

And it is written there,

concerning the rebellious son,

“Our son is this

rebellious and wayward.”

And we expound by a gzera shava:

Just as there, it excludes the blind,

for if his father or his mother were blind, the law of the rebellious son is not applied to him, since “our son is this” implies that they recognize him by the sight of the eye.

So too here, it excludes a blind person,

who is exempt from the Haggada.

And we raise an objection:

Is that so? For Marimar did not say: “I asked the Sages of the house of Rav Yosef,”

I asked the students of Rav Yosef:

Who

is the one who

recites the Haggada in the house of Rav Yosef,

who reads the Haggada and fulfills the obligation for everyone in the presence of Rav Yosef? And

they said: Rav Yosef!

And I also asked the students of Rav Sheshet:

Who

is the one who

recites the Haggada in the house of Rav Sheshet?

And

they said: Rav Sheshet!

But Rav Yosef and Rav Sheshet were blind. And if a blind person is exempt from the Haggada, how did they fulfill the obligation for everyone?

And we answer:

The Sages hold,

Rav Yosef and Rav Sheshet:

The matza at the present time

is obligated only

by rabbinic ordinance [for by Torah law one is obligated in matza only when there is a Passover-offering, as it is written, “with matzot and maror shall they eat it,” as below, 120a]. Consequently, the obligation of the Haggada at the present time is also only by rabbinic ordinance [as we expound, “Because of this,” at the time when matza and maror are placed before you]. Therefore Rav Yosef and Rav Sheshet could fulfill the obligation of the public in the Haggada, for a blind person is also obligated in mitzvot by rabbinic ordinance.

the Torah requires matza only when there is a Paschal offering, as it is written: “With matza and bitter herbs shall they eat it,” as will be explained below, 120a]. Consequently, the obligation of the Haggada at the present time is also only rabbinic [as it is expounded from “For the sake of this”: when matza and bitter herbs are placed before you]. Therefore, Rav Yosef and Rav Sheshet could fulfill the public’s obligation through the Haggada, since a blind person is also obligated in mitzvot instituted by the Sages.

And we raise an objection:

By implication, Rabbi Aha bar Yaakov holds: The matza at the present time

is obligated

by Torah law?!

For if he held that at the present time it is by rabbinic ordinance, then a blind person would also be obligated in matza and the Haggada by rabbinic ordinance. Why, then, did Rabbi Aha bar Yaakov say that a blind person is exempt from the Haggada [for he certainly spoke concerning the present time]?

Rather, certainly he held that at the present time matza is required by Torah law. Consequently, a blind person is entirely exempt, even by rabbinic ordinance, for the Sages obligated a blind person only when the essential obligation is only by rabbinic ordinance, and not at a time when the essential obligation is by Torah law.

But was it not Rabbi Aha bar Yaakov who said: [below, 120a]

“The matza at the present time is by rabbinic ordinance?”

And we answer: In truth, Rabbi Aha bar Yaakov holds that matza at the present time is by rabbinic ordinance. Nevertheless, he holds that a blind person is entirely exempt, even by rabbinic ordinance.

Because

he holds:

Whatever the Sages instituted, they instituted in the form of the Torah law.

And just as when the Temple existed a blind person was exempt, even by rabbinic ordinance, so too at the present time the Sages did not obligate a blind person in matza and the Haggada.

And we raise an objection:

For Rav Sheshet and Rav Yosef too, surely whatever the Sages instituted, they instituted in the form of the Torah law,

and a blind person is entirely exempt even at the present time. If so, how did they fulfill the obligation for the public, since they themselves were entirely exempt?

And we answer: Rav Sheshet and Rav Yosef disagree with the fundamental ruling of Rabbi Aha bar Yaakov, that a blind person is exempt by Torah law from the Haggada. For

this is how can it be compared? Granted, there

in the case of the rebellious son,

since it would have been sufficient for Scripture to write

“He is our son,”

and it wrote

“Our son is this,” you may infer

that it came in order to expound

“to exclude the blind.”

That is what it came for.

But here, if not

for what is written

“Because of this,” what could it write?

Rather,

“Because of matza and maror”

is what it came for.

The word “this” does not come for an exposition, but according to the plain meaning of the verse: for this reason I eat matza and maror, as a remembrance of what the Lord did for me when I went out from Egypt. And Rav Sheshet and Rav Yosef did not receive from their teachers the gzera shava of Rabbi Aha bar Yaakov.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Therefore we are obligated,”

and before Him let us say: Hallelujah.