Pesachim 116b (קטז:) — the Talmud in English

And these are: the Paschal offering, matza, and maror.

And this is how one is obligated to say it:

a.

The Paschal offering, because the Omnipresent passed over the houses of our forefathers in Egypt

as it is stated:

“And you shall say: It is a Paschal sacrifice to the Lord, Who passed over

the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt.”]

b.

Matza, because our forefathers were redeemed from Egypt

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

As it is stated:

“And they baked the dough that they had brought out of Egypt

into matza cakes, because it had not become leavened.”]

c.

The maror, because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers in Egypt.

As it is stated:

“And they embittered their lives.”]

Up to this point are the matters that one is obligated to say.

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

As it is stated:

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

me when I went out of Egypt.”

This implies: for me personally, and not only for our forefathers.

And he says:

Therefore, we are obligated to thank, praise, laud, glorify, exalt, honor, bless, elevate, and acclaim the One Who performed all these miracles for our forefathers and for us: He brought us out from slavery to freedom, from anguish to joy, from mourning to a Festival, from darkness to great light, and from servitude to redemption.

And we shall say Halleluyah before Him!

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

Up to where does he recite

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

Beit Shammai say: Until

“A joyful mother of children.”

Only the first psalm.

And Beit Hillel say:

Also “When Israel went out,”

until

its end,

“Who turns the rock into a pool of water.”

And he concludes,

he concludes the Haggada

with

the blessing of

redemption.

The tannaim disagreed concerning the wording of this blessing:

Rabbi Tarfon says:

He recites, “Blessed are You,

Who redeemed us and redeemed our forefathers from Egypt.”

And he did not conclude

it with “Blessed are You” at the end, because it is a short blessing containing only thanksgiving, and it is similar to the blessings over fruits and mitzvot, which do not conclude with “Blessed are You.”

Rabbi Akiva says:

One must add words of appeasement and petition to it, making it an extended blessing. Therefore, one must also conclude it with a blessing.

And this is the wording of the addition:

So, Lord our God and God of our forefathers, may You bring us to other Festivals and pilgrimage festivals

that come toward us in peace, joyful in the building of Your city and rejoicing in Your service, and may we eat there

from the Paschal offerings and from the other offerings

etc.

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

Gemara:

Rava said: One 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 forefathers” [Deuteronomy 6:23]. For from here we learn that one must present himself as though he went out from there, for the Holy One, blessed be He, also redeemed us.

Rava said:

The

matza must be raised

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

And

the

maror must likewise be raised

when he says, “This maror that we are eating.”

But the

meat

of the two cooked dishes in the seder plate [one of which commemorates the Paschal offering]

need not be raised

when he says, “The Paschal offering that our forefathers used to eat when the Temple was standing,” since he does not say, “This Paschal offering.”

Moreover,

if he were to raise it, he would

appear to be eating consecrated meat outside its permitted place,

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

Rav Aḥa 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:

It is on account of this

that the Lord acted for me.”

And it is written there,

concerning a wayward and rebellious son:

“This is our son

who is wayward and rebellious.”

And we derive through a gzera shava:

Just as there, it excludes the blind,

for if the father or mother were blind, they would not apply to him the law of a wayward and rebellious son, since “this is our son” implies that they recognize him through visual sight,

so here too, it excludes a blind person,

who is exempt from the Haggada.

And we raise an objection:

Is that so? But didn’t Marimar say: “I asked the Sages in the house of Rav Yosef”,

I asked Rav Yosef’s students:

Who

is the one

who recites the Haggada in the house of Rav Yosef,

who recites the Haggada and fulfills the obligation on behalf of everyone in Rav Yosef’s presence? And

they said: Rav Yosef!

I likewise asked Rav Sheshet’s students:

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 both blind. If a blind person is exempt from the Haggada, how could they fulfill everyone else’s obligation?

And we answer:

The Sages hold,

Rav Yosef and Rav Sheshet, that

matza nowadays

is obligatory only

by rabbinic ordinance [since by Torah law one is obligated to eat matza only when there is a Paschal offering, as it is written, “With matzot and bitter herbs shall they eat it,” as stated below, 120a]. Consequently, the obligation of the Haggada nowadays is also only by rabbinic ordinance [as it is derived: “It is on account of this,” when matza and maror are placed before you]. Therefore, Rav Yosef and Rav Sheshet could fulfill the obligation of the community through the Haggada, since a blind person is also obligated in mitzvot instituted by the Sages.

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 inference, Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov holds that matza nowadays

is obligatory

by Torah law?!

For if he held that nowadays it is by rabbinic ordinance, then a blind person would also be obligated in matza and the Haggada by rabbinic ordinance. Why, then, did Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov say that a blind person is exempt from the Haggada [for he was certainly speaking of the present time]?

Rather, it is certainly the case that he held that nowadays matza is a Torah obligation, and consequently a blind person is entirely exempt, even by rabbinic ordinance, for the Sages obligated a blind person only when the primary obligation is itself rabbinic, but not when the primary obligation is by Torah law.

But it was Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov who said:

[below, 120a]

“Matza nowadays is a rabbinic obligation?”

And we answer: In fact, Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov holds that matza nowadays is a rabbinic obligation. Nevertheless, he holds that a blind person is entirely exempt, even by rabbinic ordinance,

because

he holds: Whatever the Sages instituted, they instituted in a manner resembling the Torah law.

Just as when the Temple was standing a blind person was exempt, even by rabbinic ordinance, so too nowadays the Sages did not obligate a blind person in matza and the Haggada.

And we raise an objection:

As for Rav Sheshet and Rav Yosef as well, surely the principle is that whatever the Sages instituted, they instituted in a manner resembling the Torah law,

and a blind person is entirely exempt even nowadays. If so, how could they fulfill the obligation of the community, since they themselves were entirely exempt?

And we answer: Rav Sheshet and Rav Yosef dispute the fundamental ruling of Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov that a blind person is exempt from the Torah obligation of the Haggada. For

can this really be compared? Granted, there,

in the case of a wayward and rebellious son,

since it would have been possible for the verse to write

“He is our son,”

but it writes

“This is our son,” it follows

that the phrase comes to teach

“to exclude the blind.”

That is what it comes to teach.

But here, if not

for the words

“It is on account of this,” what could it have written?

Rather,

it comes to teach “on account of matza and maror.”

That is what it comes to teach.

The word “this” is not intended for an exegetical derivation, but follows the plain meaning of the verse: I eat matza and maror because of what the Lord did for me when I went out of Egypt. Rav Sheshet and Rav Yosef did not accept from their teachers Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov’s gzera shava.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Therefore, we are obligated,”

and we shall say Halleluyah before Him.