Pesachim 7b — the Talmud in English

When they disagree, regarding

the wording of

“upon the removal”—

One Master,

Rav Pappa

held:

this wording

implies from the outset,

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

And the other Master,

Rav Pappa

held:

this wording too

implies the future,

and it is possible to recite such a blessing.

The Gemara raises an objection

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

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

It follows that the wording “upon the circumcision” implies the future, since the blessing is recited before the circumcision. And this is difficult for Rav Pappa, who holds that “upon” implies the past?

And we answer:

There,

in the case of circumcision, the circumciser is compelled to recite “upon the circumcision,” because

how shall he say it?

How can he recite a blessing?

Shall he say

“to circumcise”?

It is impossible to recite this, because this wording implies that the circumciser is the one obligated to circumcise this infant. And

is it not sufficient

—is it not possible

that he is not the one circumcising!?

For the mitzva is not imposed upon the circumciser, but upon the father of the son. Therefore he recites “upon the circumcision.” But in the case of the search for leaven, where each person searches for his own leaven, and the mitzva to search is imposed upon him, he may recite “to remove.” Therefore he should not recite “upon the removal,” which implies the past. Again we ask:

This works well when the circumciser is another person, but when he is

the father of the son

himself,

what is there to say?

For then he can recite “to circumcise.” Why do they permit him to recite “upon the circumcision,” which implies the past?

And we answer:

Indeed, so!

And according to Rav Pappa, a father who circumcises his son himself indeed recites “to circumcise.”

The Gemara raises an objection

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

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

Yet the blessing is recited before the slaughter, and nevertheless its wording is “upon.” And this is difficult for Rav Pappa, who holds that “upon” implies the past?

And we answer:

There too,

the slaughterer cannot recite a different blessing. For

how shall he say it,

how shall the slaughterer say in his blessing:

Shall he say

“to slaughter,”

for this wording implies that he himself is obligated to slaughter. But this is impossible, for

is it not sufficient

—is it not possible

that he is not the one slaughtering!?

For the mitzva is not that specifically he slaughter, [even if he is the owner of the animal], but that the animal be slaughtered before it is eaten. Again we ask:

This works well with regard to the slaughter of non-sacred animals. But with regard to the slaughter of

the Paschal offering and sacrificial offerings,

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

what is there to say?

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

And we answer:

Indeed, so!

According to Rav Pappa, in the slaughter of the Paschal offering and sacrificial offerings one recites “to slaughter.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

It was taught:

One who makes

[that is, binds]

a lulav for himself

on the eve of Sukkot

recites

“Who has kept us alive, sustained us, and brought us to this time.”

When he takes it in order to fulfill with it

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.”

And this is difficult for Rav Pappa, who holds that “upon” implies the past?

And we answer:

It is different there,

in the case of the lulav,

for at the time that he raises it,

from the moment that he raises the lulav,

he has fulfilled it,

he has already fulfilled his obligation. It follows that the blessing over the lulav is always after he has fulfilled the mitzva. Therefore one should say “upon” in its case, which is an expression of the past. And again we ask:

If so,

if it is as you say, that in the case of the lulav he recites the blessing after taking it, why does the beraita say “he takes it

in order to fulfill with it,”

which implies that he recites the blessing before he fulfills his obligation? For “he takes it and

fulfills with it, it should have said”

instead!?

And we answer:

Indeed, so!

The wording is not precise.

And because he wished to teach

in the

latter part

of that same beraita the wording “he enters

to sit in the sukkah,”

therefore

the tanna taught

in the

first part

concerning the lulav

also “he takes it

in order

to fulfill with it.”

For it teaches in the latter part: One who makes a sukkah for himself says

“Blessed are You, Lord,

our God, King of the universe,

Who has kept us alive, sustained us, and brought us to this time.”

When he enters to sit in it, he says

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

And we conclude:

And the halakha

is in accordance with Rav Pappa, and he recites

“upon the removal of leaven,”

for this wording too implies the future.

And we raised it: From the entire discussion in the Gemara concerning the wording of the blessings, it follows that

at least everyone

agrees that

from the outset we must recite the blessing:

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

And the Gemara asks:

from where

is this so?

And we answer:

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: For all the mitzvot, one recites the blessing over them overer [that is,

before]

performing them.

And we raise it concerning the wording of Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel, “overer le-asiyatan”:

what [that is,

from where]

indicates that this

“overer” is an expression of preceding?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

From this,

as the verse says [Samuel II 18:23]:

“

And 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 said concerning Jacob [Genesis 33:3],

“And he passed before them,”

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

And if you wish, say: From here

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

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

for the king will precede, walking at the front.

At the academy of Rav they said:

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

except for immersion and

the sounding of the

shofar.

For in these mitzvot, one recites the blessing afterward.

And we raise it:

Granted, immersion,

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

still

[he is]

not fit

to recite a blessing. For example, in the immersion of one who has experienced a seminal emission, since one who has experienced a seminal emission is forbidden to recite blessings and words of Torah until he immerses, by Ezra’s enactment. Therefore he cannot recite the blessing except after the immersion. And because of that immersion, they already instituted that in all immersions one recites the blessing afterward.

But

the sounding of the

shofar—what is the reason

that he recites the blessing after it, and not before performing it?

And if you would say:

Therefore he recites the blessing afterward

because

we are concerned

lest the sounding become defective

and the

sounding

not fulfill his obligation, and it would turn out that he recited a blessing in vain?

If so, even with slaughter and circumcision, likewise

he should recite the blessing afterward, lest the slaughter or the circumcision become defective?

And we answer:

Rather, Rav Ḥisda said:

This is not what they said at the academy of Rav. Rather,

“except for immersion”

alone

was stated

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

It was also taught so,

that in immersion one recites the blessing afterward:

He immersed and came up

from the water;

as he ascends

he

says:

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

the immersion.”

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

by the light of a lamp.

And we raise it:

From where are these words

that the search must be by the light of a lamp?

And we answer: Rav Ḥisda said: We learn

a gzera shava,

“finding”

from “finding.”

And “finding”

from “searching.”

And “searching”

from “searching.”

And “searching”

from “lamps.”

And “lamps”

from “lamp”!

from “lamp”!

And we explain: We learn the

“finding”

stated concerning leaven

from “finding”

stated concerning Benjamin’s goblet.

It is written here

concerning leaven [Exodus 12:19]:

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

And it is written there,

concerning the goblet [Genesis 44:12]:

“And he searched, beginning with the eldest and ending with the youngest, and he found

the goblet in Benjamin’s sack.”

And this finding

of the goblet, we learn

from its searching, from the searching mentioned concerning it. That is, we learn that the finding of the goblet was through searching. And again we apply this to the finding mentioned concerning leaven, that it too is through searching.

And the searching

of the goblet we learn

from

the searching mentioned concerning Jerusalem, which was by

lamps.

For it is written [Zephaniah 1:12]:

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

Thus, the searching for the goblet too was by lamps. And consequently, the searching for leaven too is through a lamp.

And “lamps”

we learn

from “lamp,” for it is written [Proverbs 20:27]:

“The lamp of the Lord is the soul of man, searching all the chambers of the belly”

[and the Gemara will immediately explain why this exposition 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

for

this matter, that the search must be by the light of a lamp [for the teaching is derived from verses in the Writings, and “words of Torah are not learned from words of the received books”], nevertheless there is

a remembrance of the matter.

As it is said,

“For seven days leaven shall not be found.”

And it says,

“And 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 chambers of the belly.”

And the Gemara asks:

What

is “and it says”?

What need is there for us to learn from the verse “The lamp of the Lord is the soul of man, searching all the chambers of the belly”? Have we not already learned from the verse “At that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps” that searching is by lamps?

And we answer: This is what it says:

And if you would say,

it is impossible to learn from

this

verse,

“at that time,”

that the search for leaven should be conducted by the faint light of lamps alone. For

it is a leniency,

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

as the Merciful One says: I will not search it

with the sins of

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

whose light is abundant,

but I will search it

by the light of a lamp,

by the light of a lamp,

whose light is much less,

whose light is slight,

since through this only

a great sin—serious sins—

is found

in it,

whereas

a minor sin is not found in it. This is not so with the search for leaven, for it 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 implies that searching by a lamp is a thorough search, since the verse says that it “searches all the chambers of the belly.” And even in the search for leaven, such a search suffices.

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.

in it. The search for leaven, by contrast, must specifically be performed by the light of a torch. Therefore, the beraita adds and says:

consider the proof

from the verse

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

which implies that a search by the light of a lamp is a thorough search, since the verse says that it “searches all the chambers of the innermost parts.” A search of this kind is also sufficient for leaven.

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.