Pesachim 120a — the Talmud in English

And we were precise:

“In the latter,” no.

That one must eat the olive-bulk of matza specifically at the end of his meal. But

“In the former,” no!

For he should not eat the matza of the afikoman at the beginning of his meal, because it is forbidden to eat anything after the obligatory matza. And a proof for Rav Yehuda, who said it in the name of Shmuel?

And we reject this: In reality, it is permitted to eat the matza even at the beginning of the meal. And the beraita

“It is not necessary”

says.

“It is not necessary in the former case,”

that it is permitted to eat,

for he eats

the matza

with appetite.

But in the latter case,

I might say

perhaps he will come to eat

the matza

as a gross eating,

and therefore

I would say: no,

he should not eat it at the end, but specifically at the beginning of the meal.

It teaches us

that it is permitted to eat the matza of the mitzva even in the latter case.

Mar Zutra taught it as follows: Rav Yosef said in the name of Rav Yehuda, who said it in the name of Shmuel: After the matza, one recites the afikoman.

Shall we say that it supports him?

From that which we learned:

“After the Paschal offering, one does not recite the afikoman.”

And we were precise:

“After the Paschal offering”

is

not.

But after matza, one does recite it.

And we reject this:

“It is not necessary; it says.”

“It is not necessary after matza,

when it is forbidden to eat,

because its taste is not strong.

But after the Paschal offering,

whose taste is strong,

I would say: no,

that there is no prohibition against eating after it.

It teaches us

that it is forbidden.

He raised an objection:

It was taught in a beraita:

“As for the sufganin, the dubshanin, and the iskritin, a person may fill his belly with them, provided that he eats an olive-bulk of matza last.”

And we were precise:

“Last,” no.

“First,” no.

For it is forbidden to eat anything after the matza. And this is difficult for Rav Yehuda, who said it in the name of Shmuel?

And we answer: In reality, even first it is permitted. And the beraita

“It is not necessary”

says.

“It is not necessary in the former case,”

when it is permitted,

for he eats

matza

with appetite; but in the latter case, when he comes to eat it as a gross eating,

I would say: no.

It teaches us

that it is permitted.

Rava said: Matza nowadays

when there is no Paschal offering, its obligation on the first night of Passover is

from the Torah.

And bitter herbs

whose obligation is only

rabbinic.

And we considered it:

And what is different about bitter herbs,

which you said are only rabbinic, because

it is written

concerning the Paschal offering:

“With matzot and bitter herbs

they shall eat it,” and we expound:

“When there is a Paschal offering, there are bitter herbs; and when there is no Paschal offering, there are no bitter herbs.”

If so,

with regard to matza as well, is it not written

“With matzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it”?

And let us likewise expound that when there is no Paschal offering, there is no mitzva of matza?

And we answer:

With regard to matza, the verse returns and repeats itself;

the Torah returned and wrote:

“In the evening you shall eat matzot.”

This tells you that its obligation is not dependent on the Paschal offering; rather, even when there is no Paschal offering, one is obligated in matza.

And Rav Aha bar Yaakov said: Both this one and that one

have no obligation nowadays except

rabbinic.

For we expound “With matzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it” both with regard to matza and with regard to bitter herbs.

And we challenge him:

But is it not written

“In the evening you shall eat matzot”?

And why did Scripture return and repeat it, if not to teach that matza even nowadays is from the Torah?

And we answer:

That

verse

is needed for one who is impure and one who was on a distant road,

in the time of the Temple, who cannot offer the Paschal offering.

For it might enter your mind to say: Since they do not eat the Paschal offering,

they should not eat matza and bitter herbs either,

meaning, that they are not obligated to eat them;

it teaches us

that nevertheless they are obligated in matza and bitter herbs.

But nowadays, even matza is only rabbinic.

And Rava could say to you: One who is impure and one who was on a distant road do not require a verse

to teach that they are obligated in matza and bitter herbs.

For they are not inferior to an uncircumcised person and a foreigner [apostate],

who are obligated in matza and bitter herbs despite the fact that they cannot eat the Paschal offering.

For it was taught:

It was stated concerning the Paschal offering:

“No uncircumcised person may eat of it.”

And we expound: specifically

“of it,”

of the Paschal offering,

he may not eat.

But

he

may eat matza and bitter herbs.

And necessarily, the verse “In the evening you shall eat matzot” comes to obligate one in matza nowadays by Torah law.

But the other one,

Rav Aha bar Yaakov, could say to you:

It is written in this one,

with regard to an uncircumcised person and a foreigner, that they are obligated in matza and bitter herbs.

And it is written

also

in this one,

with regard to one who is impure and one who was on a distant road: “In the evening you shall eat matzot.”

And both are necessary,

for one cannot be learned from the other.

The case of an uncircumcised person and a foreigner cannot be learned from for one who is impure and one who was on a distant road. For an uncircumcised person and a foreigner are different, since they cannot offer a Paschal offering at all, even on the Second Passover; therefore it is reasonable that they should be obligated on the First Passover at least in matza and bitter herbs. But concerning one who is impure and one who was on a distant road, who offer a Paschal offering on the Second Passover, I might say that on the First Passover they are exempt from matza and bitter herbs, and only on the Second Passover, when they will perform the Passover offering, will they fulfill “With matzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it.”

And if only “In the evening you shall eat matzot” had been written, we would explain the verse with regard to an uncircumcised person and a foreigner, who have no compensation on the Second Passover; but concerning one who is impure and one who was on a distant road, we would not know that they are obligated in matza and bitter herbs on the First Passover. Therefore both verses must be written.

It was taught in accordance with Rava:

It is written:

“Six days you shall eat matzot, and on the seventh day there shall be a solemn assembly for the Lord your God.”

And we expound:

Just as the seventh day is optional,

on which one is not obligated to eat matza, as it is said, “Six days you shall eat matzot,” to exclude the seventh day, only that one should not eat leavened bread on it [for it does not say “and on the seventh day you shall eat matzot,” but “and on the seventh day there shall be a solemn assembly”],

so too the six days

before it are

optional.

For there is no obligation to eat matza on them.

What is the reason?

Because

it is

the seventh day,

a matter that was included in the general rule,

“Seven days you shall eat matzot,”

and went out from the general rule

in the verse “Six days”

to teach

that it is optional. And

it did not go out to teach about itself

only,

but it went out to teach about the entire general rule,

about the other six days, that they are only optional. For this is one of the thirteen principles by which the Torah is expounded.

I might

say that

even the first night

is

optional?

The verse states

“With matzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it,”

the Paschal offering—that is, on the first night, which is obligatory.

I have

learned from this verse that he is obligated in matza on the first night

only while the Temple exists,

when the Paschal offering is offered; but

when the Temple does not exist

and there is no Paschal offering,

from where

do we know that he is obligated in matza alone on the first night?

The verse states:

“In the evening you shall eat matzot”—the verse established it as an obligation!

Mishna:

If some of them fell asleep

during the eating of the Paschal offering,

they may eat

after they awaken. And they are permitted to continue eating from it, since the other members of the group did not sleep; this is not an interruption even with regard to those who slept.

If

all of them fell asleep, they may not eat

any more after they awaken, because they diverted their attention from the Paschal offering and this is considered an interruption. Their continuing to eat appears as though they are eating in two places, which is forbidden.

The same law applies with regard to matza nowadays: after he began eating the olive-bulk of matza eaten at the end [the “afikoman”] and fell asleep, this is an interruption, and he may no longer eat, , because it is a remembrance of the Paschal offering from the time when the Temple existed.