Pesachim 95a (צה.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

What

is the difference

between the first Pesaḥ and the second?

a.

The first—

it is subject to the prohibition: “It shall not be seen and it shall not be found.” And the second—

one may have leaven and matza with it in the house.

And one is not required to remove the leaven. [In the Gemara, the reason for each of the matters taught in our Mishna is explained.]

b.

The first—

requires the recitation of Hallel during its eating;

when it is eaten, one recites Hallel.

And the second—

does not require the recitation of Hallel during its eating.

And although we said that there is a difference between the first Pesaḥ and the second Pesaḥ with regard to the matters listed above, nevertheless,

both this one and that one require the recitation of Hallel during their performance,

when the offering is brought, the Levites recite Hallel.

And

likewise both this one and that one

are eaten roasted, with matza and bitter herbs, and

likewise

override

in their performance

Shabbat.

For if the fourteenth of Nisan or the fourteenth of Iyyar falls on Shabbat, the Pesaḥ is offered on Shabbat.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is stated [Numbers 9], with regard to the second Pesaḥ:

“In accordance with every statute of the Pesaḥ

[the first Pesaḥ]

they shall perform it.”

And they interpreted the word “it”:

The verse speaks

of the Pesaḥ

with regard to mitzvot intrinsic to it.

For example, the order of its sacrificial service and that it be eaten roasted. But mitzvot that are not intrinsic to the Pesaḥ, such as the removal of leaven, were not stated with regard to the second Pesaḥ.

A mitzva concerning it,

such as matza and bitter herbs, which are eaten with the Pesaḥ,

from where

do we know that they too were included with regard to the second Pesaḥ?

The verse states:

It is stated concerning the second Pesaḥ:

“With matzot and bitter herbs shall they eat it”

[Numbers 9].

One might have thought

that perhaps we should include

even mitzvot that are not concerning it,

such as the removal of leaven. [The Gemara below asks: Did we not learn from the word “it” that the Torah equated the second Pesaḥ with the first only with regard to mitzvot intrinsic to it?]

The verse states:

It is stated concerning the second Pesaḥ:

“And they shall not break any bone of it.”

Why was “and they shall not break any bone of it” stated here? It is written later in the verse: “In accordance with every statute of the Pesaḥ they shall perform it,” which includes the prohibition against breaking a bone. Rather, the verse comes to teach us that specifically mitzvot intrinsic to it, like the prohibition against breaking a bone, were included with regard to the second Pesaḥ.

Just as the prohibition against breaking a bone is distinctive

in that it is

a mitzva intrinsic to it, so too everything

that the verse included with regard to the second Pesaḥ is specifically

a mitzva intrinsic to it.

Issi ben Yehuda says:

There is no need for the verse “and they shall not break any bone of it” for this purpose. Rather, it is stated:

“They shall perform it”—

the verse speaks of mitzvot intrinsic to it.

The Master said,

the tanna of the beraita asked:

“One might have thought, even mitzvot that are not concerning it?”

And we raise an objection:

Did you not say

that you already said at the beginning of the beraita: “In accordance with every statute of the Pesaḥ they shall perform it,”

the verse speaks of mitzvot intrinsic to it!

If so, how is it possible to include mitzvot that are not concerning it as well?

And we answer:

This is what he is saying;

this is how the tanna asked:

Now that you have said

that mitzvot concerning it were also included with regard to the second Pesaḥ, as it is stated,

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

even though it is not actually a mitzva intrinsic to it, if so,

apparently

we see that

“they shall perform it” is not specifically

referring to mitzvot intrinsic to it

alone.

If so,

it might have been

that the verse should be understood

as a “particular followed by a generalization.”

At first, the verse restricted its wording and spoke of mitzvot intrinsic to it [and this is called a particular], and afterward the verse broadened and generalized its wording to include mitzvot concerning it as well [and this is called a generalization].

And

where a particular followed by a generalization is written in the Torah,

the generalization adds to the particular

and reveals to us that the particular is not exclusive;

even every matter as well,

anything that is not intrinsic to it was also included with regard to the second Pesaḥ.

It teaches us

that the verse “and they shall not break any bone of it” teaches that mitzvot that are not concerning it should not be included. For if you say that all mitzvot were included, even those not intrinsic to it, it is difficult: Why did the Torah specify “and they shall not break any bone of it”? It could have been derived from the generalization, “In accordance with every statute of the Pesaḥ they shall perform it.”

Rather, inevitably, it teaches us that the generalization “In accordance with every statute of the Pesaḥ they shall perform it” applies specifically to matters similar to the particulars explicitly written, namely, mitzvot intrinsic to it and mitzvot concerning it. [Below, the beraita explains what is included and excluded from everything mentioned in the verse.]

It was taught in a beraita: Issi ben Yehuda says: “They shall perform it”—the verse speaks of mitzvot intrinsic to it.

And we raise an objection:

Issi ben Yehuda, this bone,

the verse “and they shall not break any bone of it,”

what does he do with it—

what does he derive from this verse?

He has already excluded mitzvot that are not concerning it from “they shall perform it.” If so, there is no need to specify “and they shall not break any bone of it,” since the prohibition against breaking a bone is a mitzva intrinsic to it, and the verse states concerning it: “In accordance with every statute of the Pesaḥ they shall perform it.” And we answer:

He requires it;

Issi ben Yehuda requires the verse “and they shall not break any bone of it”

to

teach that not only is it prohibited to break a bone that has no marrow, but

both a bone that contains marrow and a bone that does not contain marrow.

One might have said that even with regard to the first Pesaḥ, it is permitted to break a bone containing marrow in order to eat the meat inside it, since it is stated: “And they shall eat the meat on this night,” which is a positive mitzva. This positive mitzva should therefore come and override the prohibition against breaking a bone. Therefore, the verse stated with regard to the second Pesaḥ: “And they shall not break any bone of it”—a superfluous verse, as explained above—to teach you that even during the second Pesaḥ one may not break a bone containing marrow, and all the more so during the first Pesaḥ. For the second Pesaḥ is a rectification for the first Pesaḥ. Gemara above, 85a.

And now we raise an objection according to the view of the Sages:

And the Sages,

who said that “they shall perform it” does not specifically refer to mitzvot intrinsic to it, if so,

what do they do with this “they shall perform it”—

what do they derive from it?

And we answer:

They require it;

the Sages require the verse “they shall perform it” to teach

that one does not slaughter the Pesaḥ

the second

for a single individual

ab initio. As it is stated, “they shall perform” in the plural, and from this they learned

that whenever it is possible to seek out

another person and render him impure with a creeping creature,

we seek him out

we seek him out and render him impure so that a single individual will not perform a second Pesaḥ.

And since the verse had to say “they shall perform” in the plural, it wrote, “they shall perform it.”

The Sages taught:

The beraita expounds all the mitzvot that the Torah specified with regard to the second Pesaḥ, explaining why they were stated.

It is stated with regard to the second Pesaḥ: “In accordance with every statute of the Pesaḥ they shall perform it.”

One might have thought: Just as the first is subject to the prohibition “It shall not be seen and it shall not be found”

of leaven,

so too the second is subject to the prohibition “It shall not be seen and it shall not be found”

of leaven?

The verse states: “With matzot and bitter herbs shall they eat it.”

This verse is superfluous, since it was already stated: “In accordance with every statute of the Pesaḥ they shall perform it.” Rather, it comes to teach that although it was stated, “In accordance with every statute of the Pesaḥ they shall perform it,” the verse included only mitzvot concerning it, similar to the particular of matzot and bitter herbs.

And I have only

the possibility of learning from the generalization, “In accordance with every statute of the Pesaḥ they shall perform it,”

but

only matters similar to the particular of matzot and bitter herbs, which is

a positive mitzva.

A negative mitzva

that was stated with regard to the first Pesaḥ,

from where

do we know that it applies to the second Pesaḥ?

The verse states: “They shall not leave any of it until morning,”

and this is a prohibition whose remedy is a positive mitzva. After one has violated the prohibition, he is obligated to fulfill a positive mitzva, as it is stated concerning the first Pesaḥ: [Exodus 12] “Whatever is left of it until morning you shall burn in fire” [and the second Pesaḥ is learned from the first Pesaḥ]. The positive mitzva rectifies the violation of the prohibition.

And I have only

the possibility of learning from the generalization, “In accordance with every statute of the Pesaḥ they shall perform it,”

a negative mitzva whose remedy is a positive mitzva,

which is similar to the particular of the prohibition against leftover meat.

A complete negative mitzva,

which has no positive mitzva that rectifies it,

from where

do we know that it applies to the second Pesaḥ?

The verse states: “And they shall not break any bone of it,”

which is a complete negative mitzva, whose remedy is not a positive mitzva.

And now the beraita summarizes:

Just as the particular,

which is

explicitly stated

in the verse, is

a positive mitzva, a negative mitzva whose remedy is a positive mitzva, and a complete negative mitzva—

so too everything

included by the generalization is

a positive mitzva, a negative mitzva whose remedy is a positive mitzva, and a complete negative mitzva.

The beraita asks:

With regard to its generalization,

the generalization “In accordance with every statute of the Pesaḥ they shall perform it,” insofar as it is a positive mitzva, similar to the particular

of matzot and bitter herbs—

what does it include?

What positive mitzva does it include that applies to the second Pesaḥ? The beraita answers: The positive mitzva that the Pesaḥ be eaten

roasted in fire.

The beraita asks:

With regard to its particulars,

from the fact that the Torah specified the mitzva of matzot and bitter herbs, which is a positive mitzva, it follows that it came to exclude a positive mitzva that does not apply to the second Pesaḥ.

And what does it exclude?

What does the verse come to exclude?

The beraita answers: It excludes

the removal of leaven,

which does not apply to the second Pesaḥ.

The beraita challenges:

I could reverse it!

Why should we not learn the opposite—to include the removal of leaven and exclude roasted in fire?

The beraita answers:

A mitzva intrinsic to it—

a mitzva concerning the body of the Pesaḥ—

is preferable,

more important, and resembles the positive mitzva of matzot and bitter herbs, which concerns the Pesaḥ.

The beraita asks further:

With regard to its generalization,

the generalization “In accordance with every statute of the Pesaḥ they shall perform it,” insofar as it is a prohibition whose remedy is a positive mitzva, similar to the particular

of “They shall not leave any of it until morning”—

what does it include,

which prohibition whose remedy is a positive mitzva does it include?

The beraita answers: It includes the prohibition

“You shall not take any of it outside,”

which was stated with regard to the first Pesaḥ [Exodus 12:46]: “It shall be eaten in one house; you shall not take any of the meat outside from the house.” For this prohibition has a positive mitzva that remedies it. Even after he has already taken the meat outside, he remains obligated to fulfill the positive mitzva and return the meat to the house to eat it.

Some versions read here:

“For it is similar to it,”

as the prohibition “You shall not take any of it outside” is similar to the prohibition of leftover meat:

“This becomes invalid through being leftover, and that becomes invalid through being taken outside.”

This is also the version of Rabbi Ḥananel. Other texts do not have this reading.

The beraita asks:

With regard to its particulars,

from the fact that the Torah specified the prohibition “They shall not leave any of it until morning,” which is a prohibition whose remedy is a positive mitzva, it follows that it came to exclude a prohibition whose remedy is a positive mitzva that does not apply to the second Pesaḥ;

and what does it exclude?

What does the verse come to exclude?

The beraita answers: It excludes

“It shall not be seen and it shall not be found.”

This is a prohibition whose remedy is a positive mitzva: If leaven is found in his possession, he is commanded to remove it, as it is stated: “You shall remove leaven from your houses.” It is excluded, as it does not apply to the second Pesaḥ.

Some versions read here:

“For it is similar to it,”

as “It shall not be seen and it shall not be found” is similar to the prohibition of leftover meat,

“for one is not flogged, as it is a prohibition whose remedy is a positive mitzva, and the other is not flogged, as it is a prohibition whose remedy is a positive mitzva.”

Rabbi Ḥananel likewise cited this reading, but other texts do not have it.

The beraita challenges:

I could reverse it!

Why should we not expound it in the opposite manner, that “It shall not be seen and it shall not be found” applies to the second Pesaḥ, whereas “You shall not take any of it outside” does not apply to the second Pesaḥ?

The beraita answers:

A mitzva intrinsic to it—

a mitzva concerning the body of the Pesaḥ offering—

is preferable,

more important, and resembles the prohibition “They shall not leave any of it until morning,” which is a prohibition intrinsic to the Pesaḥ. But “It shall not be seen and it shall not be found” does not concern the body of the Pesaḥ offering.

The beraita asks further:

With regard to its generalization,

the generalization “In accordance with every statute of the Pesaḥ they shall perform it,” insofar as it is a complete prohibition, similar to the particular

of “And they shall not break any bone of it”!

what does it include,

which complete prohibition does it include that applies to the second Pesaḥ?