Pesachim 95b (צה:) — the Talmud in English

The beraita answers:

“You shall not eat of it raw”

meat that has not been fully roasted is called “raw,” according to Rashi on Exodus 12.

The beraita asks,

in its details:

Since the Torah specified, “No bone of it shall be broken,” indicating that this is a full-fledged prohibition, it follows that the verse came to exclude another similar prohibition that does not apply to the second Pesach.

And what does it exclude—

what does it exclude by means of this specification?

The beraita answers:

“You shall not slaughter My sacrifice’s blood while there is leavened bread”—

this prohibition does not apply to the second Pesach, as one may slaughter it while he possesses leavened bread.

[And although we already excluded above the prohibitions of bal yera’eh and bal yimatze—that one may not see or find leavened bread in his possession—and the requirement to remove leavened bread, from the second Pesach, nevertheless, I might have said that this applies only when it is not the time of slaughter. But at the time of slaughter, it would also be prohibited during the second Pesach. Therefore, the specification “No bone of it shall be broken” comes and excludes the prohibition “You shall not slaughter My sacrifice’s blood while there is leavened bread”—Rashi].

The beraita objects:

Perhaps I should reverse it—

why not interpret the matter in the opposite manner: the prohibition “You shall not slaughter My sacrifice’s blood while there is leavened bread” applies to the second Pesach, whereas the prohibition “You shall not eat of it raw” does not apply?

The beraita answers:

A mitzva concerning its substance,

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

is preferable—

it is more significant and resembles the prohibition “No bone of it shall be broken,” which likewise concerns the substance of the offering.

We learned in the Mishna:

The first requires Hallel when it is eaten,

whereas the second does not require Hallel when it is eaten.

And we raised a question concerning it:

From where are these matters—

from where did they learn these statements?

And we answered:

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

it is stated in Isaiah 30:

“The song shall be for you as on the night when the festival is sanctified.”

Its meaning is that there will be song for you [at the downfall of Sennacherib and his army; so explain the verse there] as you customarily sing on the night sanctified for the festival. There is no festival night that provides a reason to require song except the night of the first Pesach, when the Paschal offering is eaten and song is required at its eating.

And from here they learned:

The night sanctified for the festival,

which is the night of the first Pesach,

requires Hallel

when it is eaten. But

a night that is not sanctified for the festival,

which is the night of the second Pesach [as it is not a Festival day],

does not require Hallel

when it is eaten.

We learned in the Mishna:

Both this one and that one require Hallel when they are performed.

And we raised a question concerning it:

What is the reason—

what is the reason that even the second Pesach requires Hallel when it is performed? And we answer: There are two possible explanations for this.

1.

If you wish, say:

The night on which the second Pesach is eaten

is excluded—

the aforementioned verse excluded it [“The song shall be for you as on the night when the festival is sanctified”]. But

the day

on which the second Pesach is performed

is not excluded;

rather, it requires Hallel when it is performed.

And if you wish, say:

It is logically reasonable to say that the second Pesach requires Hallel when it is performed, for Rabbi Yosei said in a beraita [below, 117a]:

Is it possible that the Jewish people slaughter their Paschal offerings

on Pesach,

and take their lulavim

on Sukkot,

and do not recite Hallel?!

Since these are matters involving a mitzva, they require Hallel. Therefore, on the same logical basis, the second Pesach also requires Hallel when it is performed.

We learned in the Mishna: Both this one and that one require Hallel when they are performed,

and are eaten roasted

with matza and bitter herbs, and override Shabbat.

And we infer: From the wording of the Mishna, “and override Shabbat,” it appears that specifically with regard to overriding Shabbat, the first Pesach and the second Pesach are equivalent. But with regard to overriding

impurity, they are not

equivalent: The first Pesach overrides impurity, as when the majority of the community is impure, they slaughter the Paschal offering in a state of impurity. The second Pesach, however, does not override impurity, even if the majority of the congregation is impure.

The Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

As it was taught:

The second Pesach

overrides Shabbat,

but does not override impurity.

Rabbi Yehuda says: It also overrides impurity.

And we raised a question concerning it:

What is his reason,

what is the reason

of the first tanna?

And we answered:

Because of impurity I deferred him—

the Torah deferred the person to the second Pesach because he had been impure during the first one. And should he

then perform it in a state of impurity?!

If you say so, it follows that nothing was remedied by deferring him to the second Pesach! Rather, it is preferable that it be entirely deferred.

And Rabbi Yehuda

holds that although

the Torah again required him to perform it in a state of purity,

nevertheless, if he

was not privileged to do so, he should perform it in a state of impurity.

The Sages taught:

The first Pesach overrides Shabbat, and the second Pesach overrides Shabbat.

The first Pesach overrides impurity, and the second Pesach overrides impurity.

The first Pesach requires lodging

in Jerusalem on the first night of Pesach. And on the following day he may leave beyond the wall, but only within the Shabbat boundary [since it is a Festival day, he may not leave beyond the boundary]. And likewise

the second Pesach requires lodging.

And we raised a question concerning it: Regarding what the beraita said, “The second Pesach

overrides impurity”—

in accordance with whom

was this stated? It is

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

And we object: Yet later the beraita says that the second Pesach requires lodging.

And

if so,

according to Rabbi Yehuda,

the second Pesach

requires lodging?!

But it was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: From where is it derived that the second Pesach does not require lodging?

As it is stated

[Deuteronomy 16] concerning the first Pesach:

“And in the morning you shall turn 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 boundary; but he cannot turn to his home beyond the boundary, since it is a Festival day] .

And it is written

immediately afterward in that passage:

“For six days you shall eat matza.”

This refers to the first Pesach, during which one eats matza for six days, since leavened bread is prohibited throughout the entire festival.

[And although leavened bread is prohibited for seven days, the verse says “six days” to teach that eating matza during the seven days of Pesach is optional, except on the first night ].

And from here Rabbi Yehuda expounded: The first Pesach

which is eaten for six—

during which matza is eaten for six days [the wording follows the verse, although in truth matza is eaten during it for seven days]—

requires lodging.

But the second Pesach,

during which matza is not eaten

for

six days, does not require lodging.

This is difficult, for the first clause of the beraita, which states that the second Pesach overrides impurity, accords with Rabbi Yehuda. Yet Rabbi Yehuda himself holds that the second Pesach does not require lodging. If so, how could the beraita say that the second Pesach requires lodging?

And we answer:

There are two tannaim—

two tannaim disagree as to whether the second Pesach requires lodging—

and according

to the position

of Rabbi Yehuda.

Mishna:

A Pesach that was brought in a state of impurity,

when the majority of the congregation was impure and they were permitted to perform the Pesach in a state of impurity [as it is stated in Numbers 9 concerning the second Pesach: “Any person who shall be impure” is deferred to the second Pesach. And the Sages expounded: An impure individual is deferred to the second Pesach, but an impure community is not deferred to the second Pesach; rather, they offer it in a state of impurity. Above, 66b].

Zavim, zavot, menstruating women, and women who have given birth may not eat from it,

for the allowance of impurity in the community applies only to those impure through contact with the dead and not to other impure persons .

And if they ate

while impure in body, although one who eats sacrificial meat while impure in body is liable to karet, here they are

exempt from karet.

Nevertheless, if they entered the Temple to perform their Pesach offerings, they are liable to karet, in accordance with the law governing one who enters the Temple while impure. [The reason is explained explicitly in the Gemara].

And Rabbi Eliezer exempts

them from karet

even for entering the Temple.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

Zavim, zavot, menstruating women, and women who have given birth who ate from a Pesach

that was brought in a state of impurity—might they be liable

for eating it, since they are prohibited from eating it?

The verse states

[Leviticus 7], concerning one impure who ate sacrificial meat: “And the meat,

any pure person may eat meat. But the person who eats the meat 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 derived from the juxtaposition of the verses: Sacrificial meat that is

eaten

only

by pure persons [as it is written at the beginning of the passage: “Any pure person may eat meat”]

is

liable for it

to karet

on account of impurity. And

if it is sacrificial meat

that is not eaten by pure persons

alone, but also by impure persons,

impure persons are not liable for it on account of impurity.

Rabbi Eliezer says: One might think that zavim

and lepers

who forced their way in and entered the Temple courtyard for a Pesach brought in a state of impurity might be liable

to karet, as is the law governing one who enters the Temple while impure.

The verse states

[Numbers 5], concerning the removal of impure persons from the Temple courtyard: “Command the children of Israel

that they send out from the camp every leper, every zav, and everyone impure through contact with the dead.”

And they derived from here:

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 when the Pesach is brought in a state of impurity, when

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

Rav Yosef inquired

and was uncertain

about this:

When the Pesach is brought in a state of impurity, it is permitted to enter the Temple courtyard in a state of impurity for the purpose of offering the Pesach. But there is no need to enter the Sanctuary, since the Pesach is offered in the courtyard.

[And the Sanctuary is holier than the courtyard, since even priests are prohibited from entering there without need, as it is stated: “He shall not come at all times into the Sanctuary,” according to Rashi].

And Rav Yosef was uncertain:

If those impure through contact with the dead forced their way in and entered the Sanctuary while the Pesach was brought in a state of impurity, what is the law—

what is the ruling in this matter?

Do we say:

Since impurity in the courtyard was permitted,

since impurity was permitted in the courtyard,

impurity in the Sanctuary was likewise permitted,

so impurity in the Sanctuary was also permitted?

Or perhaps

maybe

that which was permitted,

what we learned from the verse—that it is permitted to perform the Pesach in the courtyard while impure—was permitted only to that extent;

it was permitted. But

that which was not permitted,

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

was permitted—

it was not permitted!

Rava said

to resolve Rav Yosef’s uncertainty:

The verse states: “And they shall send out from the camp.” The phrase “from the camp” indicates

even part of the camp.

“From the camp” means

even part of the camp.

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

Some say

that Rava resolved the matter in the opposite manner: One impure through contact with the dead who entered the Sanctuary while the Pesach was brought in a state of impurity is exempt from karet. And thus

Rava said:

The verse states: “And they shall send out from the camp

every leper, every zav, and everyone impure through contact with the dead.” And later in the passage it states:

“Outside the camp you shall send them.”

And Rava learned from here:

Wherever we can apply,

wherever it is stated

“Outside the camp you shall send them,”

meaning that the impure person must be removed entirely from the whole camp, even from the courtyard [that is, during the rest of the year],

we can apply

that it is also stated there

“And they shall send out from the camp.”

That is, they shall send him out of the Sanctuary.

But when the Pesach is brought in a state of impurity, when impure persons may enter the courtyard to offer their Paschal offerings and the verse “Outside the camp you shall send them” is not applied to them, it follows that “And they shall send out from the camp” is likewise not applied to them.

And from here it follows that one impure through contact with the dead who entered the Sanctuary while the Pesach was brought in a state of impurity is exempt from karet .

Rav Yosef inquired

and was uncertain

about this:

The Torah permitted those impure through contact with the dead to eat from the Pesach brought in a state of impurity. But the sacrificial fats of the Pesach are forbidden to be eaten even by pure persons, since they are offered upon the altar.

And Rav Yosef was uncertain:

If those impure through contact with the dead forced their way in and ate the sacrificial fats of the Pesach brought in a state of impurity—