Pesachim 120a (קכ.) — the Talmud in English

And we inferred:

“In the latter case, yes”.

It is necessary to eat the olive-bulk of matza specifically at the end of the meal. But [image: precise page location]

“In the former case, no!”

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

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

“It is not necessary”

states.

It is not necessary to state this with regard to the beginning of the meal,

when it is permitted to eat,

as he eats

the matza

with appetite.

But in the latter case,

I might say

that perhaps he will come to eat

the matza

in a gluttonous manner,

and therefore

I would say no—he should not eat it at the end, but specifically at the beginning of the meal.

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

This teaches us

that it is permitted to eat the matza of the mitzva even at the end of the meal.

Mar Zutra taught it in this manner: Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One concludes after the matza with afikoman.

Shall we say that this supports him?

From that which we learned:

One may not conclude after the Paschal offering with afikoman.

And we inferred:

“After the Paschal offering”

is

“not” [permitted].

But after matza, one may conclude.

And we reject this:

It is not necessary to state this.

It is not necessary to state this with regard to after the matza,

when it is forbidden to eat,

because its taste is not very pronounced.

But after the Paschal offering,

whose taste is strong,

I might say no,

that there is no prohibition against eating after it.

This teaches us

that it is forbidden.

Meytivi:

It was taught in a beraita:

With regard to sufganin, dovshanin, and iskritin, a person may fill his stomach with them, provided that he eats an olive-bulk of matza at the end.

And we inferred:

“At the end, yes.”

“At the beginning, no.”

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

And we answer: Actually, even at the beginning it is permitted. And the beraita

“It is not necessary”

states.

It is not necessary to state this with regard to the beginning,

when it is permitted,

as he eats

matza

with appetite; but in the latter case, when he may come to eat it in a gluttonous manner,

I might say no.

This teaches us

that it is permitted.

Rava said: With regard to matza nowadays,

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

by Torah law.

But maror

is obligated only

by rabbinic law.

We raised a difficulty concerning this:

And what is different about maror,

which you said is only rabbinic because

it is written

with regard to the Paschal offering:

“With matzot and maror

they shall eat it,” and we expound:

When there is a Paschal offering, there is maror; and when there is no Paschal offering, there is no maror.

If so,

matza as well—behold, it is written

“With matzot and maror they shall eat it.”

Should we likewise expound that when there is no Paschal offering, there is no mitzva to eat matza?

And we answer:

With regard to matza, the verse returned and repeated itself,

the Torah repeated and wrote:

“In the evening you shall eat matzot.”

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

And Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: Both this and that,

their obligation nowadays is only

rabbinic.

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

And we challenge him:

But is it not written

“In the evening you shall eat matzot”?

Why did the verse repeat this, if not to teach that matza is required by Torah law even nowadays?

And we answer:

That

verse

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

during the time of the Temple, who are unable to 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 maror either,

meaning that they are not obligated to eat them;

this teaches us

that nevertheless they are obligated to eat matza and maror.

But nowadays, even matza is only rabbinic.

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

to teach that they are obligated to eat matza and maror,

as they are no less than an uncircumcised man and a gentile [an apostate,

who are obligated to eat matza and maror despite being unable to eat the Paschal offering].

As it was taught:

It is stated with regard to the Paschal offering:

“No uncircumcised man shall eat of it.”

And we expound: Specifically

“of it,”

the Paschal offering,

he may not eat.

But

he

may eat matza and maror.

It necessarily follows that the verse “In the evening you shall eat matzot” comes to obligate one to eat matza by Torah law nowadays.

And the other one,

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov, could say to you:

It is written in this one,

with regard to the uncircumcised man and the gentile, that they are obligated in matza and maror.

And it is written

also

in this one,

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

And both are necessary,

as one cannot be derived from the other.

The case of the uncircumcised man and the gentile cannot be used to derive the law for one who is impure and one who was on a distant journey. The uncircumcised man and the gentile are different, because they are entirely unable to offer a Paschal offering, even on the Second Passover. Therefore, it would be reasonable that they should at least be obligated to eat matza and maror on the First Passover. But regarding one who is impure and one who was on a distant journey, who offer a Paschal offering on the Second Passover, I might say that on the First Passover they are exempt from matza and maror, and only on the Second Passover, when they offer the Paschal offering, do they fulfill “With matzot and maror they shall eat it.”

And if only “In the evening you shall eat matzot” had been written, we would have explained the verse as referring to the uncircumcised man and the gentile, who have no compensation on the Second Passover; but we would not have known that one who is impure and one who was on a distant journey are obligated to eat matza and maror on the First Passover. Therefore, both verses had to be written.

It was taught in accordance with Rava’s opinion:

It is written:

“For six days you shall eat matzot, and on the seventh day there shall be an assembly for the Lord your God.”

And we expound:

Just as the seventh day is optional,

for one is not obligated to eat matza on it—as it is stated, “For six days you shall eat matzot,” excluding the seventh day, when one may not eat leaven [for it is not written, “and on the seventh day you shall eat matzot,” but rather, “and on the seventh day there shall be an assembly”],

so too the six days

before it are

optional.

There is no obligation to eat matza on them.

What is the reason?

Because

the seventh day is

a day that was included in the general statement

“For seven days you shall eat matzot,”

but it

left the general category

in the verse “For six days”

to teach

that it is optional. And it

did not leave only to teach about itself,

alone,

but left to teach about the entire general category—about the other six days, which are only optional. This is one of the thirteen principles by which the Torah is expounded.

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 therefore states

“With matzot and maror they shall eat it,”

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

I have derived only

from this verse that one is obligated to eat matza on the first night

only when the Temple is standing,

when the Paschal offering is brought. But

when the Temple is not standing

and there is no Paschal offering,

from where

do we know that one is obligated to eat matza alone on the first night?

The verse therefore states

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

Mishna:

If some of the members of the group fell asleep

in the middle of eating the Paschal offering,

they may eat

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

If

all of them fell asleep, they may not eat

anymore 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 different places, which is forbidden.

The same applies with regard to matza nowadays: after one has begun eating the olive-bulk of matza eaten at the end [the afikoman] and has fallen asleep, this is an interruption, and he may not eat again, , because it commemorates the Paschal offering, when the Temple was standing.