Pesachim 6b — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

for

we find in

Moses

our teacher, who was

standing on the first Passover and warning

Israel

about the second Passover.

As it is stated,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Moses [Numbers 9:2]

“And the Children of Israel shall make the Passover sacrifice in its appointed time.”

And it is written

afterward, at the time when the Children of Israel made the Passover sacrifice on the fourteenth of Nisan,

“And there were men who were impure through contact with a human corpse

and they could not make the Passover sacrifice on that day.” And Moses then commanded them the laws of the second Passover, which is on the fourteenth of Iyyar. Thus, they expound the laws of the Passover thirty days before it.

And we raise an objection to this:

And Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel,

why does he not learn from there?

And we explain:

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel could say to you:

There is no proof from there, for the command concerning the second Passover was never given at the same time when they made the first Passover sacrifice. Rather,

since he was speaking about matters of Passover,

because the verse here speaks about the matter of the first Passover sacrifice,

he concludes for them all the matters of Passover,

he also states the command concerning the second Passover.

And we raise an objection to this: And

what is the reason of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel

who says, “two weeks”?

And we explain:

For

we find in

Moses

our teacher, who was

standing at the beginning of the month

of Nisan,

and warning about the Passover sacrifice.

As it is stated concerning the Egyptian Passover [Exodus 12:2],

concerning the Egyptian Passover:

“This month shall be for you the beginning of months.”

And

immediately

it is written

“Speak to the entire assembly of Israel, saying: On the tenth of this month they shall take for themselves, each man, a lamb for the house of his fathers,

a lamb for a household,” for they were commanded to tell Israel the laws of the Passover sacrifice.

Thus, they expound the laws of the Passover two weeks before it.

But the difficulty still remains:

And from where is it known that at the beginning of the month

of Nisan

he was standing,

that we know that Moses’s command to the Children of Israel was also on the same day on which he was commanded by the Holy One, blessed be He, namely, at the beginning of the month?

Perhaps he was standing on the fourth of the month or on the fifth of the month,

and only then did he command Israel?

Rather, Rabbah bar Shimi said in the name of Ravina: Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel learned it from here:

as it is stated [Numbers 9:1]

“And the Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the second year, in the first month,

saying.”

And it is written

there, that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him:

“And the Children of Israel shall make the Passover sacrifice in its appointed time.”

Thus, Moses was commanded at the beginning of the month of Nisan to tell Israel about the Passover sacrifice, that is, two weeks before the Passover.

And again we ask:

Here too, from where is it known that at the beginning of the month he was standing,

that the command was at the beginning of the month of Nisan?

Perhaps he was standing on the fourth of the month or on the fifth of the month!?

And we explain:

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: It is derived by

a gzera shava,

“wilderness”

from “wilderness.”

It is written here

“in the wilderness of Sinai.”

And it is written there,

at the beginning of the Book of Numbers,

“And the Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the Tent of Meeting, on the first of the second month.”

Just as there, it was at the beginning of the month [of

Iyyar]: both the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, to count Israel, and Moses’s command to Israel concerning this [as it is stated: “On the first of the second month, and they established their genealogy according to their families, according to the house of their fathers”].

So too here,

both the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moses, and Moses’s command to Israel concerning the Passover sacrifice, likewise took place

at the beginning of the month [of

Nisan].

And incidentally, since the verse at the beginning of the Book of Numbers was cited, where it says “on the first of the second month,” the Gemara asks:

“And let him write first [the passage of] the first month,”

why does the Torah not first write the passage of the Passover sacrifice in the portion of Beha’alotekha, which was said in the first month,

“and afterward let him write [the passage of] the second month,”

and afterward write the passage of the census of the Children of Israel at the beginning of the Book of Numbers, which was said afterward, on the first of the second month?

And we explain:

Rav Menashya bar Tahlifa said

in the name of Rav: This is to say, there is no earlier and later in the Torah.

The Torah was not particular about the order of precedence. Sometimes passages that were said earlier were written in the Torah after passages that were said later.

Rav Pappa said: We said

that “there is no earlier and later in the Torah”

only with regard to two matters,

two subjects.

But with regard to one matter,

in the order of the verses in that very passage,

what is

written

earlier

was said

earlier, and what is

written

later

was also said

later

.

For if you do not say so,

but say that even within one passage there is no earlier and later, how do we rely throughout the Torah on the principle

“generalization and specification—

the generalization contains only what is in the specification”?

For this is one of the thirteen principles by which the Torah is expounded: wherever the Torah writes a certain matter in a general manner and afterward specifies a detail within it, we say that the specification comes to explain the generalization that preceded it, to say that the intention of the generalization is only what was stated in the specification, and no more.

And if it is said that even in the same matter there is “no earlier and later in the Torah,” then

perhaps

the specification was said first and the generalization afterward, and this is not “generalization and specification,” but rather

“specification and generalization”

is it?

And furthermore,

there is a difficulty: wherever the specification is written first and afterward the generalization, we expound by the principle

“specification and generalization—

the generalization adds to the specification,”

and we include everything. Therefore the Torah added the generalization, so that one should not say that only the specification or something similar is included, but rather everything is included.

And if it is said that there is no earlier and later in the Torah even within one matter, this too is difficult: how can one expound in this manner?

Perhaps

this is not “specification and generalization,” but

“generalization and specification”

is it?

Rather, certainly, with regard to one matter, “there is an earlier and later in the Torah.”

And we ask:

If so, even with regard to two matters,

where we certainly say “there is no earlier and later in the Torah,”

also

there should be a difficulty: how do we expound “generalization and specification” or “specification and generalization” when one of them was stated in this passage and the other in another passage?

That works well according to the one who says

“generalization and specification”

that are distant from each other are not expounded by “generalization and specification”—

it is fine!

For according to his view, this principle is indeed not expounded in two passages.

But according to the one who says

even when they are distant from each other

they are expounded

by “generalization and specification,”

what can be said?

For there is no earlier and later in the Torah!

And we explain:

Even according to the one who says that they are expounded,

generalization and specification that are distant from each other,

this statement applies

specifically when they are written

within one matter,

in the same passage.

But with regard to two matters,

in two passages, according to everyone

they are not expounded.

For with regard to two passages, “there is no earlier and later in the Torah.”

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: One who examines

the leaven

must

in addition

nullify

the leaven in his heart immediately after the examination. And he should say: “Any leaven that is in this house shall be nullified.”

And we raise an objection to this:

What is the reason

that he must also nullify? Does he not remove all the leaven found in the house?

If you say, because

we are concerned lest small

crumbs

remain in the house after the examination—

Even if crumbs remained, he does not transgress because of them through “it shall not be seen,” for

they are not significant,

and they are nullified on their own?

And if you would say: Since he safeguards them incidentally along with his house,

because the homeowner guards the crumbs together with his other property—for when he locks his house to guard it, he thereby also guards the crumbs—therefore they are

significant

and are not nullified?

And does such safeguarding, which is only incidental, make the object significant?

But it was taught in a beraita: The last figs,

figs that the homeowner leaves on the tree at the end of the gathering, which will never ripen completely.

And

the homeowner

guards

the

field

in which these figs are found only

because of

the

grapes

in it, whose harvest time has not yet arrived. And likewise,

the last

grapes

that remained on the tree,

and

the homeowner

guards

his

field because of cucumbers and because of pumpkins,

the cucumber and pumpkin produce within it—

When the homeowner is particular about them,

about the last figs and grapes, they are

forbidden

to every person

because of robbery.

And they are subject to tithes,

for they belong to the homeowner and are not ownerless.

But

when the owner does not insist on them

, they are

permitted

for every person, and there is no

prohibition of theft

, because the owner renounces ownership of them.

And

likewise they are

exempt from the prohibition of untithed produce

, in accordance with the law of ownerless property that is exempt from tithing.

It follows that even though the owner guards the ends of the figs and the grapes along with the other things in the field, this does not prevent them from being ownerless, since he does not intend by this guarding to guard them. Here too, he does not intend to guard the crumbs; why, then, should they not become nullified by themselves

? And we answer

:

Rava said

: The reason for the nullification is a decree, lest

he not inspect thoroughly and

find

during Passover

a fine loaf

of hametz that is not nullified by itself,

and his mind is upon it

, and it will be important in his eyes, and he will take pity on it and refrain from burning it immediately. And it will emerge that he transgresses “it shall not be seen” and “it shall not be found” even for a single moment during which he keeps it and does not remove it.

But if he now nullifies it, at the time of the inspection, he no longer transgresses concerning it, for the Torah did not specifically obligate removing the hametz, but said, “you shall remove it”—that is, nullification in the heart.

And we ask

: And

still, why do we obligate him already now to nullify the hametz, rather than say

: when he finds it

, when he finds the loaf,

let him nullify it

immediately then?

And we answer: We are concerned

perhaps he will find it

after

the time

of the prohibition

of the hametz, that is, after midday on the eve of Passover,

and it is not in his domain.

For then the hametz is no longer his, since benefit from it is prohibited, and objects from which benefit is prohibited are not considered a person’s property,

and

again he

cannot nullify it

, for a person cannot nullify hametz that is not his.

And as

Rabbi Elazar said: There are two things that are not in a person’s domain, and the verse made them as though they were in his domain

in order to make him liable for them.

And these are they: a pit in the public domain,

for one who opens or digs a pit in the public domain is liable for its damage. And although the pit is not his but ownerless, nevertheless the Torah made him liable as though the pit were his.

And hametz from six hours onward,

for it too is not his, and nevertheless the Torah made him liable concerning it for “it shall not be seen” and “it shall not be found” as though it were his. Nevertheless, with regard to nullification, the law remains that hametz is not in a person’s domain, and he cannot nullify it from six hours onward.

And still we ask: Why is it necessary to nullify the chametz already on the night of the fourteenth, after the search?

Let him nullify it

on the day of the fourteenth

at four

hours, or

let him nullify it at five

hours during the day, before it becomes forbidden to derive benefit from it?

And we answer:

Since

at the fourth and fifth hour, it is still

not the time of the prohibition

of the chametz

is,

and

also it is still

not the time of its removal

since they burn it only at the beginning of the sixth hour, therefore we are concerned

lest he be negligent and not nullify it,

lest he forget and come to the point that he will not nullify it, for there is nothing that will remind him at that time that he needs to nullify it. But now, at the time when he is occupied with searching for the chametz, if they obligate him to nullify it, he will have a sign by which to remember.