Pesachim 95b — the Talmud in English

The beraita answers:

“You shall not eat from it raw”

[Flesh that is not roasted completely is called raw; Rashi, Exodus 12].

The beraita asks:

In its particulars

From the fact that the Torah specified, “A bone shall not be broken in it,” which is a complete prohibition, it follows that it came to exclude that there is another similar prohibition that does not apply to the Second Passover. And

what does it exclude

what does it exclude from it?

The beraita answers:

“You shall not slaughter upon leaven the blood of My sacrifice”,

which does not apply to the Second Passover, for it is permitted to slaughter it while there is leaven in his possession.

And even though we already excluded above that in the Second Passover the prohibition of “it shall not be seen” and “it shall not be found,” and the law of removing leaven, do not apply, nevertheless I would say that all this applies specifically not at the time of slaughter. But at the time of slaughter it is also forbidden in the Second Passover. Therefore the specification, “and a bone shall not be broken in it,” comes and excludes the prohibition of “You shall not slaughter upon leaven”; Rashi.

The beraita objects:

Let me reverse it

Why should we not expound in the opposite manner: that the prohibition of “You shall not slaughter upon leaven” applies to the Second Passover, while the prohibition of “You shall not eat from it raw” does not apply?

The beraita answers:

A mitzva that concerns its body, “

You shall not eat from it raw,” which is a mitzva concerning the body of the offering,

is preferable,

is more important and resembles the prohibition of “A bone shall not be broken in it,” which likewise concerns the body of the offering.

We learned in the Mishna:

The first requires Hallel at its eating,

while the second does not require Hallel at its eating.

And we discussed it:

From where are these words,

from where did they learn these matters?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: The verse says,

it is stated in Isaiah 30:

“The song shall be for you like the night of the sanctification of the festival.”

And its meaning is: There shall be song for you [at the downfall of Sennacherib and his camp; the commentators explain there] just as you customarily sing on the night sanctified for the festival. And there is no festival night concerning which there is a reason to require song except the night of the first Passover, when one eats the Passover offering and song is required at its eating.

And from this they learned:

The night sanctified for the festival,

which is the night of the first Passover,

requires Hallel

at its eating. But

a night that is not sanctified for the festival,

which is the night of the Second Passover [which is not a festival day],

does not require Hallel

at its eating.

We learned in the Mishna:

This one and that one require Hallel at their performance.

And we discussed it:

What is the reason,

what is the reason that the Second Passover also requires Hallel at its performance? And we answer: It is possible to say two reasons for this.

1.

If you wish, say: The night

on which the Second Passover is eaten

is excluded,

the above verse excluded it [“The song shall be for you like the night of the sanctification of the festival”]. But

the day

on which the Second Passover is performed

is not excluded,

but it requires Hallel at its performance.

And if you wish, say:

It may be said logically that the Second Passover requires Hallel at its performance, for Rabbi Yosei said in a beraita [below, 117a]:

Is it possible that Israelites slaughter their Passover offerings

on Passover

and take their lulavs

on Sukkot,

and do not recite Hallel?!

For since they are a matter of mitzva, they require Hallel. And if so, by that same logic the Second Passover also requires Hallel at its performance.

We learned in the Mishna: This one and that one require Hallel at their performance,

and are eaten roasted

with matza and bitter herbs, and override the Shabbat.

And we infer: From the language of the Mishna, “and override the Shabbat,” it follows that specifically with regard to overriding the Shabbat, the first Passover and the Second Passover are equal. But with regard to overriding

impurity, they are not

equal in this respect, the first Passover and the second. For the first Passover overrides impurity, since if the majority of the public are impure, they slaughter the Passover offering in impurity. Whereas the Second Passover does not override impurity, even if the majority of the congregation are impure.

The Mishna is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

For it was taught:

The Second Passover

overrides the Shabbat,

but does not override impurity.

Rabbi Yehuda says: It also overrides impurity.

And we discussed it:

What is his reason,

what is his reason,

of the first Tanna?

And we answer:

Because of impurity I postponed him,

the Torah postponed the person to the Second Passover because he was impure at the first one. And should he

return and perform it in impurity?!

If you say so, it turns out that he accomplished nothing by being postponed to the Second Passover! Rather, it is better that it be postponed completely.

And Rabbi Yehuda

holds: Even though

the Torah returned him in order that he perform it in purity,

nevertheless, if he

did not merit, he should perform it in impurity.

The Sages taught:

The first Passover overrides the Shabbat, and the Second Passover overrides the Shabbat.

The first Passover overrides impurity, and the Second Passover overrides impurity.

The first Passover requires lodging

on the first night of Passover in Jerusalem. And on the following day he is permitted to leave outside the wall, but only within the limit [for it is a festival day; therefore he is not permitted to leave outside the limit]. And also

the Second Passover requires lodging.

And we discussed it: What the beraita said, “The Second Passover

overrides impurity”—

according to whom

did it say this? It is

according to Rabbi Yehuda.

And we are astonished: Surely later the beraita said that the Second Passover requires lodging.

And

since

according to Rabbi Yehuda,

the Second Passover

requires lodging?!

But it was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: From where [do we know] that the Second Passover does not require lodging?

As it is stated

[Deuteronomy 16], concerning the first Passover:

“And you shall turn in the morning and go to your tents.”

And from here they learned that one must lodge in Jerusalem, and only in the morning may he turn to a tent outside the wall [within the limit; but to his house outside the limit he cannot turn, since it is a festival day] .

And it is written

immediately afterward in that passage:

“For six days you shall eat matza.”

And this is referring to the first Passover, on which one eats matza for six days, since one is forbidden to have leaven throughout the entire festival.

And although it is forbidden to eat leaven for seven days, the verse says “six days” to teach that eating matza on the seven days of Passover is optional, except for the first night .

And from here Rabbi Yehuda expounded: The first Passover,

which is eaten for six,

on which one eats matza for six days [the language of the verse is used, but in truth one eats matza on it for seven days],

requires lodging. But the Second Passover,

which is not eaten

for six,

on which one does not eat matza

for six, does not require lodging.

And this is difficult: The first clause of the beraita, that the Second Passover overrides impurity, is according to Rabbi Yehuda. Yet Rabbi Yehuda himself holds that the Second Passover does not require lodging. If so, how did the beraita say that the Second Passover requires lodging?

And we answer:

Two Tannaim,

two Tannaim disagreed whether the Second Passover requires lodging,

and according to

the view of

Rabbi Yehuda.

Mishna:

The Passover offering that comes in impurity,

when the majority of the congregation were impure and it was permitted for them to perform the Passover in impurity [as it is stated in Numbers 9, concerning the Second Passover: “Any person, should he become impure”—he is postponed to the Second Passover. And the Sages expounded: An impure individual is postponed to the Second Passover, but an impure public is not postponed to the Second Passover; rather, they offer it in impurity. Above, 66b].

Zavim, zavot, menstruating women, and women after childbirth shall not eat from it,

for impurity was permitted for the public only with regard to those impure through contact with the dead and not with regard to other impure persons .

And if they ate

in bodily impurity, even though one who eats sacrificial flesh in bodily impurity is liable for excision, here they are

exempt from excision.

Nevertheless, if they entered the Temple to perform their Passover offerings, they are liable for excision, according to the law of one who enters the Temple while impure. [And the reason is explained in the Gemara].

And Rabbi Eliezer exempts

them from excision

even for entering the Temple.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

Zavim, zavot, menstruating women, and women after childbirth who ate of the Passover offering

that came in impurity—one might have thought that they would be liable

for eating it, since they are forbidden to eat from it!

The verse says

[Leviticus 7], concerning an impure person who ate from sacrificial offerings: “And the flesh,

every pure person shall eat flesh. And the person who eats the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings that belongs to the Lord, while his impurity is upon him, shall be cut off

that person from his people.”

And the Sages expounded from the juxtaposition of the verses: Sacrificial flesh that is

eaten

only

by pure persons

[as it is written at the beginning of the passage: “Every pure person shall eat flesh”]

they are liable for it

for excision

because of impurity. And

if sacrificial flesh

that is not eaten by pure persons

alone but also by impure persons,

impure persons are not liable for it because of impurity.

Rabbi Eliezer says: One might have thought that zavim were forced

and lepers

entered the courtyard during a Passover offering that came in impurity; one might have thought that they would be liable

for excision according to the law of one who enters the Temple while impure?

The verse says

[Numbers 5], concerning the sending of impure persons out of the courtyard: “Command the children of Israel,

and they shall send from the camp every leper, every zav, and everyone impure through a person.”

And they expounded from here:

At a time when those impure through contact with the dead

[who are mentioned at the end of the verse]

are sent out,

also

zavim

and lepers

[who are mentioned at the beginning of the verse]

are sent out.

But at a time when the Passover offering comes in impurity, when

those impure through contact with the dead are not sent out, zavim and lepers are not sent out.

He inquired,

he was uncertain,

Rav Yosef:

At a time when the Passover offering comes in impurity, it is permitted to enter the courtyard in impurity for the purpose of offering the Passover offering. But there is no need to enter the Sanctuary, since the Passover offering is offered in the courtyard.

And the Sanctuary is holier than the courtyard, since even priests are forbidden to enter there without a need. As it is stated, “He shall not come at all times into the sacred place,” according to Rashi.

And Rav Yosef was uncertain:

Those impure through contact with the dead were forced and entered the Sanctuary during a Passover offering that came in impurity. What is the law

what is the ruling in this matter:

Do we say:

Since the impurity of the courtyard was permitted,

since impurity was permitted in the courtyard,

the impurity of the Sanctuary was also permitted,

impurity in the Sanctuary was also permitted.

Or perhaps

perhaps

that which was permitted,

what we learned from the verse—that it is permitted to perform the Passover offering in the courtyard in impurity—this alone

was permitted. But

what was not permitted,

was not permitted,

what we did not find explicitly permitted by the Torah [with regard to impurity in the Sanctuary]

was not permitted—it was not permitted!

Rava said

to resolve

Rav Yosef’s uncertainty:

The verse says: “And they shall send from the camp.” “From the camp” implies

even part of the camp.

Even part of the camp.

That is, even when it is permitted for an impure person to enter the courtyard, nevertheless the Torah commanded that he be sent from the Sanctuary, which is part of the camp.

There are those who say

that Rava resolved it in the opposite manner: that one impure through contact with the dead who entered the Sanctuary during a Passover offering that came in impurity is exempt from excision. And so

Rava said:

The verse says: “And they shall send from the camp

every leper, every zav, and everyone impure through a person.” And later in the passage it is stated:

“Outside the camp you shall send them.”

And Rava learned from here:

Wherever we can read,

every place concerning which it is stated

“Outside the camp you shall send them”,

that the impure person must be removed completely from the entire camp, even from the courtyard [that is, during the other days of the year], there

we can read

that it is also stated

“And they shall send from the camp.”

That is, they shall send him from the Sanctuary.

But during a Passover offering that comes in impurity, when impure persons may enter the courtyard to offer their Passover offerings, and “Outside the camp you shall send them” was not stated concerning them, consequently “And they shall send from the camp” was also not stated concerning them.

And from here it follows that one impure through contact with the dead who entered the Sanctuary during a Passover offering that came in impurity is exempt from excision .

He inquired,

he was uncertain,

Rav Yosef:

The Torah permitted those impure through contact with the dead to eat from the Passover offering that comes in impurity. But the fats of the Passover offering are forbidden to eat even to pure persons, since they are burned upon the altar.

And Rav Yosef was uncertain:

Those impure through contact with the dead were forced and ate the fats of the Passover offering that came in impurity—