Pesachim 7b (ז:) — the Talmud in English

Where they disagree is with regard to

the wording

“concerning the removal”—

One master,

Rav Pappi,

held:

this wording

indicates something that was done earlier,

meaning that he is reciting a blessing concerning the removal that he has already performed. Therefore, he may not recite this blessing, since he has not yet conducted the search at the time of the blessing.

And the other master,

Rav Pappa,

held:

this wording too

indicates the future,

and one may recite the blessing in this manner.

Meytivi

from that which was taught in a beraita: One who circumcises recites the blessing:

“Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning circumcision.”

The wording “concerning the circumcision” evidently indicates the future, since the blessing is recited before the circumcision. This is difficult for Rav Pappi, who holds that “concerning” indicates the past.

And we answer:

There,

with regard to circumcision, the circumciser is necessarily required to recite the blessing “concerning the circumcision,” because

how shall he say it?

How can he recite the blessing?

Shall he say

“to circumcise”?

That wording evidently indicates that the circumciser himself is obligated to circumcise this child. But

is it not possible

that

he is not the one who circumcises him?

After all, the mitzva does not devolve upon the circumciser, but upon the child’s father. Therefore, he recites “concerning the circumcision.” But with regard to the search for leaven, since each person searches for his own leaven, and the mitzva to search devolves upon him, he may recite “to remove.” Therefore, he should not recite “concerning the removal,” which indicates the past.

And we raise another difficulty: This works well when the circumciser is another person, but when he is

the child’s father

himself,

what can be said?

In that case, he can recite “to circumcise.” Why, then, is he permitted to recite “concerning the circumcision,” which indicates the past?

And we answer:

Indeed, that is so!

According to Rav Pappi, a father who circumcises his son himself does in fact recite “to circumcise.”

Meytivi

from that which was taught in a beraita: One who slaughters recites the blessing:

“Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning slaughter.”

But the blessing is recited before the slaughter, and nevertheless its wording is “concerning.” This is difficult for Rav Pappi, who holds that “concerning” indicates the past.

And we answer:

There too,

the slaughterer cannot recite the blessing otherwise.

How shall he say it;

what can the slaughterer say in his blessing?

Shall he say

“to slaughter,”

since that wording indicates that he himself is obligated to slaughter? That is impossible, since

is it not possible

that

he is not the one who slaughters it?

After all, the mitzva is not that he specifically slaughter it [even if he is the owner of the animal]; rather, the animal must be slaughtered before it is eaten.

And we raise another difficulty: This works well with regard to the slaughter of non-sacred animals. But with regard to the slaughter of

the Paschal offering and sacrificial animals,

where the owners were commanded that they themselves or their agents slaughter their offering [as it is stated: “And he shall lay his hand” — “and he shall slaughter”],

what can be said?

Why should one not recite “to slaughter” over their slaughter?

And we answer:

Indeed, that is so!

According to Rav Pappi, with regard to the slaughter of the Paschal offering and sacrificial animals, one recites “to slaughter.”

Meytivi:

It was taught in a beraita:

One who makes

[i.e., binds]

a lulav for himself

on the eve of Sukkot

recites

“Who has given us life, sustained us, and enabled us to reach this time.”

When he takes it in order to fulfill the mitzva of taking the lulav,

he recites a blessing and

says

“Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the taking of the lulav.”

This is difficult for Rav Pappi, who holds that “concerning” indicates the past.

And we answer:

The case there is different,

with regard to the lulav,

for at the moment that he raises it,

from the moment that he raises the lulav,

he has fulfilled the mitzva with it;

he has already fulfilled his obligation. It follows that the blessing over the lulav is always recited after he has fulfilled the mitzva. Therefore, one should use “concerning” in this case, which is an expression of the past. And we raise another difficulty:

If so,

if, as you say, he recites the blessing over the lulav after taking it, why does the beraita say, “He took it

in order to fulfill the mitzva with it,”

which implies that he recites the blessing before fulfilling the mitzva? It should have taught: “He took it and

fulfilled the mitzva with it,”

should it not?

And we answer:

Indeed, that is so!

The wording is not precise.

And because he wished to teach

in the

latter clause

of that same beraita the wording “One enters

to sit in the sukka,”

therefore

he taught

in the

first clause

with regard to the lulav

also

“He took it

in order to fulfill the mitzva with it.”

As it teaches in the latter clause: One who makes a sukka for himself says

“Blessed are You, Lord,

our God, King of the universe,

Who has given us life, sustained us, and enabled us to reach this time.”

One who enters to sit in it says

“Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to sit in the sukka.”

And we conclude:

And the halakha

is in accordance with Rav Pappa, and one recites

“concerning the removal of leaven,”

since this wording too indicates the future.

And we raise an objection concerning this: From the entire discussion in the Gemara regarding the wording of the blessings, it follows,

that everyone, in any event,

agrees that

at the outset one must recite the blessing,

that one must recite the blessing over mitzvot before performing them.

And the Gemara discusses this:

From where

do we know this?

And we answer:

As Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: For all mitzvot, one recites the blessing over them oveir [

before ]

performing them.

And we raise an objection concerning the wording of Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel, “oveir la-asiyatan”:

What [

from where ]

indicates that this word

“oveir” means preceding?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

From this

that the verse says [

II Samuel 18:23 ]

“Ahimaaz ran by way of the plain and passed the Cushite.”

That is, he preceded the Cushite.

Abaye said: From here

we learn it: From what is stated concerning Jacob [Genesis 33:3]:

“And he passed before them,”

as he preceded and passed before the mothers and children in order to approach Esau.

And if you wish, say: From here

we learn it: For it is stated in Micah’s prophecy [2:13] concerning Israel, regarding the future:

“Their king shall pass before them, and the Lord at their head,”

meaning that the king will precede them and walk at the head.

The scholars of the school of Rav said:

For all mitzvot, one recites the blessing over them before performing them,

except for immersion and

the sounding of the

shofar.

For with these mitzvot, one recites the blessing afterward.

And we raise an objection concerning this:

Granted, immersion:

It is understandable that one recites the blessing afterward, because before immersion,

the person is still [

not yet ]

fit

to recite the blessing. For example, in the immersion of one who experienced a seminal emission, such a person is forbidden to recite blessings or study Torah until he immerses, by enactment of Ezra. Therefore, he can recite the blessing only after immersion. And on account of that immersion, the Sages instituted that the blessing be recited after all immersions.

But

the sounding of the

shofar—what is the reason

that one recites the blessing afterward, rather than before performing it?

And should you say

that this is why he recites the blessing afterward

because

we are concerned

that perhaps the

shofar

sounding will be spoiled,

and he will not fulfill his obligation through it, with the result that he will have recited a blessing in vain?

If so, even with slaughtering and circumcision as well,

he should recite the blessing afterward, lest the slaughtering or circumcision be spoiled.

And we answer:

Rather, Rav Ḥisda said:

The scholars of the school of Rav did not say this. Rather,

“except for immersion”

alone

was stated

by the scholars of the school of Rav, that one recites the blessing afterward, for the reason stated above. But the law of sounding the shofar is like that of all mitzvot: one recites the blessing over it before performing it.

It was also taught so:

that with immersion one recites the blessing afterward:

He immersed and emerged

from the water;

upon emerging

he

says:

“Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning

immersion.”

We learned in the Mishna: On the night of the fourteenth, one searches for leaven

We learned in the Mishna: On the night of the fourteenth, one searches for leaven

by the light of a lamp.

And we raise an objection concerning this:

From where are these words

that the search must be conducted by the light of a lamp? And we answer:

Rav Ḥisda said: We derive it through

a gzera shava:

“Finding”

from “finding”;

and “finding”

from “search”;

and “search”

from “search”;

and “search”

from “lamps”;

and “lamps”

from “lamp”!

And we explain: We derive the

“finding”

mentioned with regard to leaven

from the “finding”

mentioned with regard to Benjamin’s goblet.

It is written here,

with regard to leaven [Exodus 12:19]:

“For seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses.”

And it is written there,

with regard to the goblet [Genesis 44:12]:

“He searched, beginning with the eldest and ending with the youngest, and the goblet was found

in Benjamin’s sack.”

And this “finding”

of the goblet we learn

from its search,

from the search mentioned concerning it. That is, we learn that the goblet was found through a search. And once again we apply this to the “finding” mentioned with regard to leaven, that it too is through a search.

And the search

for the goblet we learn

from

the search mentioned with regard to Jerusalem, which was conducted by

lamps.

As it is written [

Zephaniah 1:12 ]

“At that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps.”

Thus, the search for the goblet too was conducted with lamps. Consequently, the search for leaven is also performed with a lamp.

And “lamps”

we learn

from “lamp,” as it is written [

Proverbs 20:27 ]

“The lamp of the Lord is the soul of man, searching all the innermost parts.”

[The Gemara will immediately explain why this additional derivation is necessary.]

The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: On the night of the fourteenth, one searches for leaven by the light of a lamp.

And

although there is no actual proof

at all

for this matter,

that the search must be conducted by the light of a lamp [for the derivation is from verses in the Writings, and “words of Torah are not derived from words of tradition”], nevertheless there is

a remembrance of the matter.

As it is stated:

“For seven days leaven shall not be found.”

And it says:

“He searched, beginning with the eldest and ending with the youngest.”

And it says:

“At that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps.”

And it says:

“The lamp of the Lord is the soul of man, searching

all the innermost parts.”

And the Gemara asks:

What

is the meaning of “and it says”?

What need is there to derive this from the verse “The lamp of the Lord is the soul of man, searching all the innermost parts”? We have already learned from the verse “At that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps” that searching is performed with lamps.

And we answer: This is what the beraita is saying:

And should you say

that it is impossible to learn from

this

verse,

“At that time,”

that the search for leaven may be performed with the weak light of lamps alone. For

it is a leniency,

since with regard to the search of Jerusalem’s dwellings, the Holy One, blessed be He, wished to be lenient in its judgment,

as the Merciful One says: I will not search it

with

the iniquities

of Jerusalem by the light of a torch, which gives very great light,

for its light is abundant;

rather,

I will search it

by the light of a lamp,

by the light of a lamp,

whose light is much weaker,

for its light is limited,

so that

through this only

a great iniquity

severe iniquities

will be found

in it,

but

a lesser

iniquity will not be found

in it. This is not so with regard to the search for leaven, which specifically requires the light of a torch. Therefore, the beraita adds and says:

Come and hear

from the verse

“The lamp of the Lord is the soul of man,”

which indicates that a search by the light of a lamp is a thorough search, since the verse says that it “searches all the innermost parts.” And a search of this kind suffices for the search for leaven as well.

The Sages taught: One does not search

for leaven

by sunlight,

nor by moonlight, nor by the light of a torch, but only by the light of a lamp

alone.