Pesachim 95a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

What

is the difference

between the first Pesach and the second?

a.

The first—

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

leaven and matza are with it in the house.

And one does not need to remove the leaven [and in the Gemara the reason for all the matters taught in our Mishna is explained].

b.

The first—

requires Hallel during its eating

when one eats it, one recites Hallel.

And the second—

does not require Hallel during its eating.

And even though we said that there is a difference between the first Pesach and the second Pesach in the matters mentioned above, nevertheless

both this one and that one require Hallel during their performance,

at the time when they offer the offering, the Levites recite Hallel.

And

so too, both this one and that one

are eaten roasted, over matza and bitter herbs, and

so too

override

during their performance

the Shabbat.

For if the fourteenth of Nisan or the fourteenth of Iyyar falls on Shabbat, they offer the Pesach on Shabbat.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is stated [Numbers 9] concerning the second Pesach:

“According to all the statute of the Pesach

[the first Pesach]

they shall perform it.”

And they expounded from the word “it”:

in a mitzva concerning its body

of the Pesach

the verse is speaking.

For example, the order of its service, and that it is eaten roasted. But mitzvot that are not concerning the body of the Pesach, such as the removal of leaven, were not stated concerning the second Pesach.

A mitzva concerning its body

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

from where

do we know that they too were included in the second Pesach?

The verse says:

It is stated concerning the second Pesach:

“With matzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it”

[Numbers 9].

One might have thought

perhaps we should include

even mitzvot not concerning its body,

such as the removal of leaven [and the Gemara below asks: did we not learn from the word “it” that the Torah equated the second Pesach with the first only concerning mitzvot that are concerning its body?].

The verse says:

Concerning the second Pesach:

“And a bone they shall not break in it.”

Why was it stated here, “And a bone they shall not break in it”? After all, it is written later in the verse, “According to all the statute of the Pesach they shall perform it,” and included in this is the breaking of a bone! Rather, the verse comes to teach us that specifically mitzvot concerning its body, like the breaking of a bone, were included in the second Pesach.

Just as the breaking of a bone is distinctive

in that it is

a mitzva concerning its body, so too everything

that the verse included in the second Pesach is specifically

a mitzva concerning its body.

Issi ben Judah says:

There is no need for the verse “And a bone they shall not break in it” for this. Rather, it is stated

“they shall perform it”—

in mitzvot concerning its body the verse is speaking.

The Master said

the tanna asked in the beraita:

“One might have thought, even mitzvot not concerning its body?”

And we object:

But you said

for you already said at the beginning of the beraita: “According to all the statute of the Pesach they shall perform it”

in a mitzva concerning its body the verse is speaking!

And if so, how is it possible to include also mitzvot that are not concerning its body?

And we resolve:

This is what he is saying:

this is how the tanna asked:

Now that you have said

now that you have said that even mitzvot concerning its body were included in the second Pesach, as it is stated

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

and even though it is not literally a mitzva concerning its body, if so

it follows

we see that

“they shall perform it” is not specifically

mitzvot concerning its body

only.

If so,

it should have become

that the verse was made

“a particular and a generalization.”

At first the verse restricted its words and spoke of mitzvot concerning its body [and this is called a particular], and afterward the verse broadened its words and included also mitzvot concerning its body [and this is called a generalization].

And

in a place where a particular and afterward a generalization are written in the Torah,

the generalization becomes additive to the particular

and reveals to us that the particular is not specifically so,

and even every matter as well,

every matter that is not concerning its body was also included in the second Pesach.

It teaches us

the verse “And a bone they shall not break in it” teaches us that mitzvot that are not concerning its body are not to be included. For if you say that all the mitzvot were included, even if they are not concerning its body, it is difficult: why did the Torah specify also “And a bone they shall not break in it”? After all, this can be learned from the generalization—“According to all the statute of the Pesach they shall perform it.”

Rather, necessarily, it comes to teach us that the generalization “According to all the statute of the Pesach they shall perform it” was stated specifically in the manner of the particulars explicitly written, which are mitzvot concerning its body and mitzvot concerning what accompanies its body [and below the beraita explains what is included and excluded from everything mentioned in the verse].

It was taught in a beraita: Issi ben Judah says: “They shall perform it”—in mitzvot concerning its body the verse is speaking.

And we object:

Issi ben Judah, this bone

the verse “And a bone they shall not break in it”

what does he do with it

what does he learn from this verse?

After all, he already excluded mitzvot that are not concerning its body from “they shall perform it”! If so, there is no need to specify “And a bone they shall not break in it,” since the breaking of a bone is a mitzva concerning its body, regarding which it is stated, “According to all the statute of the Pesach they shall perform it.” And we resolve:

he needs it

Issi ben Judah needs the verse “And a bone they shall not break in it”

to

teach that not only is a bone in which there is no marrow forbidden to break, but

both a bone in which there is marrow and a bone in which there is no marrow.

[For I might have said that even with the first Pesach 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. And this positive mitzva would come and override the prohibition against breaking a bone! Therefore the verse concerning the second Pesach says: “And a bone they shall not break in it,” which is a superfluous verse as above, to teach you that even with the second Pesach one does not break a bone containing marrow, and all the more so with the first. For the second Pesach is a rectification of the first Pesach. Gemara above, 85a.]

And now we object to the view of the Sages:

And the Sages

who said that “they shall perform it” does not specifically mean mitzvot concerning its body, if so

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

what did they learn from this?

And we resolve:

they need it

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

that one does not slaughter the Pesach

the second

for an individual

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

that to the extent that it is possible to seek out

another person and render him impure through contact with a creeping creature,

we seek him out

we seek him out and render him impure so that he should not perform the second Pesach as an individual.

And since the verse needed 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 concerning the second Pesach, [to determine] why they were stated.

It is stated concerning the second Pesach: “According to all the statute of the Pesach they shall perform it.”

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

leaven,

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

leaven?

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

This verse is superfluous, for it was already stated, “According to all the statute of the Pesach they shall perform it.” Rather, it comes to teach that although it was stated, “According to all the statute of the Pesach they shall perform it,” the verse included only mitzvot concerning its body, in the manner of the particular of matzot and bitter herbs.

And I have only

the possibility of learning from the generalization of “According to all the statute of the Pesach they shall perform it”

but

in the manner of the particular of matzot and bitter herbs, which is

a positive mitzva.

A negative mitzva

that was stated concerning the first Pesach

from where

do we know that it applies to the second Pesach?

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

and this is a prohibition that is remedied by a positive mitzva. After he has transgressed the prohibition, he is obligated to fulfill a positive mitzva, as it is stated concerning the first Pesach: [Exodus 12] “And what is left of it until morning you shall burn with fire” [and the second Pesach is learned from the first Pesach]. And the positive mitzva remedies the prohibition.

And I have only

the possibility of learning from the generalization of “According to all the statute of the Pesach they shall perform it”

a negative mitzva that is remedied by a positive mitzva,

which is like the particular of the prohibition of leftover.

A complete negative mitzva,

which has no positive mitzva that remedies it,

from where

do we know that it applies to the second Pesach?

The verse says: “And a bone they shall not break in it,”

which is a complete negative mitzva, which is not remedied by a positive mitzva.

And now the beraita summarizes:

Just as the particular,

the

explicit

in the verse, is

a positive mitzva, a negative mitzva that is remedied by a positive mitzva, and a complete negative mitzva—

so too everything

that is included from the generalization is

a positive mitzva, a negative mitzva that is remedied by a positive mitzva, and a complete negative mitzva.

The beraita asks:

In its generalization,

in the generalization of “According to all the statute of the Pesach they shall perform it,” in the manner of a positive mitzva, like the particular

of matzot and bitter herbs—

what does it include?

Which positive mitzva does it include that applies to the second Pesach? The beraita answers: the positive mitzva that the Pesach is eaten

roasted by fire.

The beraita asks:

In its particulars,

from the fact that the Torah specified matzot and bitter herbs, which is a positive mitzva, it follows that it came to exclude that there are positive mitzvot that do not apply to the second Pesach. And

what does it exclude

what did the verse come to exclude?

The beraita answers: it excludes

the removal of leaven,

which does not apply to the second Pesach.

The beraita objects:

Reverse it!

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

The beraita answers:

A mitzva concerning its body

a mitzva concerning the body of the Pesach

is preferable,

more important. And it resembles the positive mitzva of matzot and bitter herbs, which is concerning the Pesach.

The beraita further asks:

In its generalization,

in the generalization of “According to all the statute of the Pesach they shall perform it,” in the manner of a prohibition that is remedied by a positive mitzva, like the particular

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

what does it include,

which prohibition that is remedied by a positive mitzva does it include?

The beraita answers: it includes the prohibition

“You shall not take any of it out”,

which was stated concerning the first Pesach [Exodus 12:46]: “In one house shall it be eaten; you shall not take any of the meat outside from the house.” For this prohibition is remedied by a positive mitzva. Even after he has already taken the meat outside, he is obligated to fulfill the positive mitzva and return the meat to the house in order to eat it.

[There are those who have the version here:

that it resembles it,

for the prohibition of “You shall not take it out” resembles the prohibition of leftover:

for this one becomes disqualified through leftover and that one becomes disqualified through being taken outside,

and this is Rabbi Hananel’s version. But in other books this is not found].

The beraita asks:

In its particulars,

from the fact that the Torah specified the prohibition of “They shall not leave any of it until morning,” which is a prohibition remedied by a positive mitzva, it follows that it came to exclude that there is a prohibition remedied by a positive mitzva that does not apply to the second Pesach, and

what does it exclude

what did the verse come to exclude?

The beraita answers: it excluded

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

For this is a prohibition remedied by a positive mitzva: if leaven is seen in his possession, he is obligated to remove it, as it is stated, “You shall remove leaven from your houses.” And it excludes it, so that it does not apply to the second Pesach.

[There are those who have the version here:

that it resembles it,

for “It shall not be seen and it shall not be found” resembles the prohibition of leftover,

for this one is not liable for lashes, because it is a prohibition remedied by a positive mitzva, and that one is not liable for lashes, because it is a prohibition that is remedied by a positive mitzva.

And Rabbi Hananel likewise copied this version, but in other books this is not found].

The beraita objects:

Reverse it!

Why should we not expound oppositely, that “It shall not be seen and it shall not be found” applies to the second Pesach, whereas “You shall not take it out” does not apply to the second Pesach?

The beraita answers:

A mitzva concerning its body

a mitzva concerning the body of the Pesach offering

is preferable,

more important, and resembles the prohibition of “They shall not leave any of it until morning,” which is a prohibition concerning the body of the Pesach. But “it shall not be seen” and “it shall not be found” are not concerning the body of the Pesach offering.

The beraita further asks:

In its generalization,

in the generalization of “According to all the statute of the Pesach they shall perform it,” in the manner of a complete prohibition, like the particular

of “And a bone they shall not break in it”! ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact column location")

what does it include,

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