Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 21, 2021 | 讞壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Terri Krivosha in memory of her father Nahum Mayar ben Dovid Baer. Judge Norman Krivosha was a remarkable individual who, in the words of Mary Oliver, did far more than "simply visit this world". Yehi Zichro Baruch.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Bill Futornick in memory of Rabbi David Teitelbaum Z"L, who led Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA for 38 years. He was an extraordinary leader, teacher, moral exemplar聽and family man聽who truly fought for equality and deeply embraced ahavat tzion.

Pesachim 120

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Sabina Weitzman in honor of her husband, Michael Camber, “a loving son and brother, husband and father 鈥 who encourages me in all things. I thank G-d for blessing me with the gift of this good man.”

Is one forbidden to eat after matza? There are two different versions of what Shmuel said about this. The gemara brings out mishna and another braita to question/support each reading. According to the first version, the mishna is brought to question and the braita to support and the reverse for the second version. Each support/question is rejected as the source can be interpreted differently. Is the commandment to eat matza and maror after the destruction of the temple a Torah commandment or rabbinic? There is a debate on the matter regarding matza, while all agree that maror is rabbinic. Verses are brought to show the derivation of each opinion. If several members of the chabura (group of people eating the sacrifice together) fall asleep, can they continue to eat the sacrifice when they wake up? What if all of them fell asleep? Is there is difference between if they dozed or fell into a deep sleep? Until what time can one eat the meat of the Pesach sacrifice? Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria and Rabbi Akiva disagree – is it midnight or alot hashachar, dawn? Each derives the halacha from a different verse in the Torah and explains the other’s verse in a different manner.

讘专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讗 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讚拽讗讻讬诇 诇转讬讗讘讜谉 讗讘诇 讘讗讞专讜谞讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讙住讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


However, if one eats matza before these other foods, no, one may not start eating other foods after matza. The mishna apparently supports Rav Yehuda鈥檚 opinion. The Gemara rejects this proof: The Tosefta is stated in the style of: Needless to say. Needless to say, one fulfills his obligation if he eats matza before other foods, as he eats it with an appetite. However, if one eats matza after eating other foods, perhaps he will come to eat it in the manner of excessive eating, as he is compelled to eat when he is not hungry. Consequently, you might say that one does not fulfill his obligation if he eats matza after all those other foods. Therefore, the Tosefta teaches us that one may eat matza even after consuming those foods.


诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪驻讟讬专讬谉 讗讞专 讛诪爪讛 讗驻讬拽讜诪谉 谞讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诪驻讟讬专讬谉 讗讞专 讛驻住讞 讗驻讬拽讜诪谉 讗讞专 讛驻住讞 讚诇讗 讗讘诇 讗讞专 诪爪讛 诪驻讟讬专讬谉


This is how Mar Zutra taught this discussion: Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One may conclude after the matza with an afikoman. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports his opinion: One does not conclude after the Paschal lamb with an afikoman. The Gemara infers: It is after the Paschal lamb that one may not conclude with an afikoman; however, after matza one may conclude with an afikoman.


诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗讞专 诪爪讛 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖 讟注诪讬讛 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 驻住讞 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara rejects this contention: The mishna is stated in the style of: Needless to say. Needless to say, one may not conclude with an afikoman after eating matza, as the taste of matza is slight; however, after the Paschal lamb, one might say that this prohibition does not apply. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that it is prohibited to conclude with an afikoman after the Paschal lamb as well.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讛住讜驻讙谞讬谉 讜讛讚讜讘砖谞讬谉 讜讛讗讬住拽专讬讟讬谉 讗讚诐 诪诪诇讗 讻专讬住讜 诪讛谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讗讻诇 (讗讻讬诇转) 讻讝讬转 诪爪讛 讘讗讞专讜谞讛 讘讗讞专讜谞讛 讗讬谉 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讗


The Gemara raises an objection: With regard to unleavened sponge cakes, cakes fried in oil and honey, and honey cakes, a person may fill his stomach with them on Passover night, provided that he eats an olive-bulk of matza after consuming them. The Gemara infers from here that if he eats matza after those cakes, yes, this is permitted; however, if one eats matza before these other foods, no, this is not an acceptable practice.


诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讚拽讗讻讬诇 诇转讬讗讘讜谉 讗讘诇 讘讗讞专讜谞讛 讚讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇讛 讗讻讬诇讛 讙住讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


The Gemara answers: As explained above, the Tosefta is stated in the style of: Needless to say. Needless to say, one fulfills his obligation if he eats matza before other foods, as he eats it with an appetite. However, if he eats matza after eating other foods, when he might come to eat it in the manner of an excessive eating, you might say that one does not fulfill his obligation if he eats matza after all those other foods. Therefore, the Tosefta teaches us that one may eat matza even after consuming those foods.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪爪讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪专讜专 讚专讘谞谉 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪专讜专 讚讻转讬讘 注诇 诪爪讜转 讜诪专讜专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 讚讗讬讻讗 驻住讞 讬砖 诪专讜专 讜讘讝诪谉 讚诇讬讻讗 驻住讞 诇讬讻讗 诪专讜专


Rava said: The mitzva of matza nowadays, even after the destruction of the Temple, applies by Torah law; but the mitzva to eat bitter herbs applies by rabbinic law. The Gemara asks: And in what way is the mitzva of bitter herbs different from matza? As it is written, with regard to the Paschal lamb: 鈥淭hey shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs鈥 (Numbers 9:11), from which it is derived: When there is an obligation to eat the Paschal lamb, there is likewise a mitzva to eat bitter herbs; and when there is no obligation to eat the Paschal lamb, there is also no mitzva to eat bitter herbs.


诪爪讛 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 注诇 诪爪讜转 讜诪专讜专讬诐 诪爪讛 诪讬讛讚专 讛讚专 讘讬讛 拽专讗 讘注专讘 转讗讻诇讜 诪爪讜转 讜专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讚专讘谞谉


The Gemara asks: But if so, the same reasoning should apply to matza as well, as it is written: 鈥淲ith matzot and bitter herbs.鈥 The mitzva of matza should also depend on the obligation of the Paschal lamb. The Gemara rejects this contention: The verse repeats the obligation to eat matza, as it states: 鈥淚n the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, you shall eat matzot (Exodus 12:18). This verse establishes a separate obligation to eat matza, unrelated to the Paschal lamb. And Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Nowadays, both this, the mitzva to eat matza, and that, the mitzva to eat bitter herbs, apply by rabbinic law, as the Torah obligation to eat these foods is in effect only when the Paschal lamb is sacrificed.


讗诇讗 讛讻转讬讘 讘注专讘 转讗讻诇讜 诪爪讜转 讛讛讬讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讟诪讗 讜砖讛讬讛 讘讚专讱 专讞讜拽讛 讚住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚驻住讞 诇讗 讗讻诇讬 诪爪讛 讜诪专讜专 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞讬讻讜诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara challenges: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淚n the evening, you shall eat matzot鈥? The Gemara answers: Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov needs that verse for the following halakha: When the Temple was standing, one who was ritually impure or one who was on a distant road was nonetheless obligated to eat matza. As it could enter your mind to say that since these two categories of people do not eat the Paschal lamb on the first Pesa岣, they also do not eat matza and bitter herbs. According to Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov, this verse teaches us that even one who was ritually impure and one who was on a distant road are obligated to eat matza and bitter herbs, as these mitzvot do not depend on one鈥檚 eligibility to sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the first Pesa岣.


讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讟诪讗 讜砖讛讬讛 讘讚专讱 专讞讜拽讛 诇讗 爪专讬讱 拽专讗 讚诇讗 讙专注讬 诪注专诇 讜讘谉 谞讻专 讚转谞讬讗 讻诇 注专诇 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讜 讘讜 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讗讘诇 讗讜讻诇 讘诪爪讛 讜诪专讜专


The Gemara asks: And Rava, who maintains that it is a mitzva from the Torah to eat matza nowadays, how could he respond to that interpretation of the verse? Rava could have said to you: I do not require a special verse to teach that a ritually impure person and a person who was on a distant road are obligated to eat matza. These people are obligated because they are no worse than an uncircumcised man or an alien, i.e., one who does not observe the mitzvot, who are obligated to eat matza despite the fact that they do not sacrifice the Paschal lamb. As it was taught in a baraita: 鈥淏ut no uncircumcised man shall eat from it鈥 (Exodus 12:48). 鈥淔rom it鈥 indicates that he may not eat from the Paschal lamb; however, he does eat matza and bitter herbs. The same is true for anyone else who is prevented from eating the Paschal lamb.


讜讗讬讚讱 讻转讬讘 讘讛讗讬 讜讻转讬讘 讘讛讗讬 讜爪专讬讻讬


The Gemara asks: And the other, Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov, how does he respond to this argument? The Gemara answers: According to Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov, the halakha that one must eat matza and bitter herbs despite being unable to partake of the Paschal lamb was written with regard to this person, an uncircumcised man, and it was written also with regard to that one, a ritually impure person, and both verses are necessary. We cannot learn the halakha of a ritually impure person from that of an uncircumcised man, or vice versa, as is explained in several places.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 砖砖转 讬诪讬诐 转讗讻诇 诪爪讜转 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 注爪专转 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 诪讛 砖讘讬注讬 专砖讜转 讗祝 砖砖转 讬诪讬诐 专砖讜转


The Gemara comments: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: 鈥淪ix days you shall eat matzot, and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:8). Just as eating matza on the seventh day is merely optional, i.e., there is no obligation to eat matza on the last day of Passover, but only to avoid eating leavened bread, as the verse states: 鈥淪ix days you shall eat matzot,鈥 so too, eating matza during the first six days is optional.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讬 讚讘专 砖讛讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讜讬爪讗 诪谉 讛讻诇诇 诇诇诪讚 诇讗 诇诇诪讚 注诇 注爪诪讜 讬爪讗 讗诇讗 诇诇诪讚 注诇 讛讻诇诇 讻讜诇讜 讬爪讗


What is the reason that it is optional to eat matza on the first six days of Passover as well as the seventh? The seventh day of Passover is something that was included in a generalization but was explicitly singled out to teach. According to the rules of exegesis, it was intended to teach not just about itself but about the entire generalization. In other words, the seventh day of Passover was initially included in the verse: 鈥淵ou shall eat matzot for seven days鈥 (Exodus 12:15), but was excluded from this generalization by the verse: 鈥淪ix days you shall eat matzot.鈥 In accordance with the above principle, the halakha of the seventh day applies to all the other days of Passover as well. That means there is no obligation to eat matza for all seven days of the Festival, but only on the first day.


讬讻讜诇 讗祝 诇讬诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谉 专砖讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇 诪爪讜转 讜诪专讜专讬诐 讬讗讻诇讜讛讜


The baraita continues: I might have thought that even the mitzva to eat matza on the first night of Passover is included by the above principle, and it too is merely optional; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hey shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs鈥 (Numbers 9:11).


讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘注专讘 转讗讻诇讜 诪爪讜转 讛讻转讜讘 拽讘注讜 讞讜讘讛:


I have derived nothing other than that one is obligated to eat matza when the Temple is standing. From where is it derived that one is obligated to eat matza on the first night of Passover even when the Temple is not standing? The verse states: 鈥淚n the evening you shall eat matzot.鈥 The verse here establishes the mitzva of matza as obligatory, in accordance with the opinion of Rava.


诪转谞讬壮 讬砖谞讜 诪拽爪转谉 讬讗讻诇讜 讻讜诇谉 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜


MISHNA: If some of the participants at the seder fell asleep, thereby interrupting their meal, they may eat from the Paschal lamb when they awake. If the entire company fell asleep, they may not eat any more. If they all fall asleep, this is considered a complete interruption, and if they were to resume their meal it would be akin to eating the offering in two different places.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 谞转谞诪谞诪讜 讬讗讻诇讜 谞专讚诪讜 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讛驻住讞 讗讞专 讞爪讜转 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 讛驻讙讜诇 讜讛谞讜转专 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐:


Rabbi Yosei says: If they dozed they may eat from the Paschal lamb when they awake, but if they fell fast asleep they may not eat from it. The Sages further said: The Paschal lamb after midnight renders one鈥檚 hands ritually impure, as it becomes notar, an offering that remained after the time when they may be eaten has expired; and the Sages ruled that both piggul, offerings that were invalidated due to inappropriate intent while being sacrificed, and notar render one鈥檚 hands ritually impure.


讙诪壮 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 谞转谞诪谞诪讜 讬讗讻诇讜 谞专讚诪讜 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 谞转谞诪谞诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 谞讬诐 讜诇讗 谞讬诐 转讬专 讜诇讗 转讬专 讻讙讜谉 讚拽专讬 诇讬讛 讜注谞讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 住讘专讗 讜讻讬 诪讚讻专讜 诇讬讛 诪讚讻专


GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: If they dozed they may eat from the Paschal lamb, but if they fell asleep they may not eat from it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of dozing? Rav Ashi said: One is asleep but not asleep, awake but not awake, when, if they call him, he will answer, but he is unable to provide a reasonable answer. And when they later inform him of what happened, he remembers it.


讗讘讬讬 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讞讝讗 讚拽讗 谞诪谞诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬谞诐 拽讗 谞讗讬诐 诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讜诪讬 拽讗 诪谞诪谞诐 讜转谞谉 谞转谞诪谞诪讜 讬讗讻诇讜 谞专讚诪讜 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜:


The Gemara cites a related episode: Abaye was sitting before Rabba, and he saw that Rabba was dozing off after he had begun to eat the final obligatory piece of matza. He said to him: Is the Master sleeping? Rabba said to him: I am dozing, and we learned in the mishna: If they dozed, they may eat from the Paschal lamb, but if they fell fast asleep they may not eat from it.


讛驻住讞 讗讞专 讞爪讜转 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 讜讻讜壮: 讗诇诪讗 诪讞爪讜转 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讜转专 诪讗谉 转谞讗


We learned in the mishna that the Paschal lamb after midnight renders one鈥檚 hands ritually impure. The Gemara infers: Apparently, from midnight and onward the Paschal lamb is classified as notar. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who maintains this opinion?


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讗讻诇讜 讗转 讛讘砖专 讘诇讬诇讛 讛讝讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讘诇讬诇讛 讛讝讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讜注讘专转讬 讘讗专抓 诪爪专讬诐 讘诇讬诇讛 讛讝讛


Rav Yosef said: It is Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to the verse 鈥淎nd they shall eat of the meat on that night鈥 (Exodus 12:8), Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: Here it is stated 鈥渙n that night,鈥 from which it cannot be determined when the night ends. And below it is stated: 鈥淎nd I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night and I will strike every firstborn in the land of Egypt鈥 (Exodus 12:12). The Torah states with regard to the death of the firstborns: 鈥淭hus said the Lord: At about midnight, I will go out into the midst of Egypt and every firstborn in Egypt shall die鈥 (Exodus 11:4鈥5).


诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注讚 讞爪讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 注讚 讞爪讜转


The baraita continues: Just as in the verse below, the striking of the firstborns took place until midnight, as stated explicitly in the verse, so too, in the verse here, the mitzva to eat the Paschal lamb continues until midnight but not beyond. Evidently, the Paschal lamb may not be eaten after midnight.


讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讛诇讗 谞讗诪专 讞驻讝讜谉 注讚 砖注转 讞驻讝讜谉


Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: But wasn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淭hus you shall eat it, with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, your staffs in your hands, and you will eat it in haste, for it is the Paschal offering for the Lord鈥 (Exodus 12:11)? This verse indicates that the Paschal lamb may be eaten until the time of haste, i.e., until dawn, as the Jewish people left Egypt the next day.


讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘诇讬诇讛 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 谞讗讻诇 讻拽讚砖讬诐 讘讬讜诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘诇讬诇讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讛讜讗 谞讗讻诇 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 讘讬讜诐


Rabbi Akiva continues: If that is so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淥n that night,鈥 with regard to eating the Paschal lamb? The Gemara explains that this phrase is necessary, as I might have thought that the Paschal lamb is eaten during the day, like all other offerings, which must be slaughtered and eaten during the day. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淥n that night,鈥 to underscore that this particular offering is eaten at night, and it is not eaten during the day.


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗讬 讛讝讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 诇讬诇讛 讗讞专 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻住讞 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜砖诇诪讬诐 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诪讛 砖诇诪讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬诐 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚 讗祝 驻住讞


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Akiva, what does he do with the word 鈥渢hat鈥? As he doesn鈥檛 use it for a verbal analogy, what does Rabbi Akiva learn from this word? The Gemara answers: He needs it to exclude another night. It could enter your mind to say that since the Paschal lamb falls into the category of offerings of lesser sanctity, and peace-offerings are also offerings of lesser sanctity, just as peace-offerings may be eaten for two days and one night, i.e., the day they are sacrificed through the following day, as stated in the Torah, so too, the same halakha should apply to the Paschal lamb.


讗讜拽讬诐 诇讬诇讜转 讘诪拽讜诐 讬诪讬诐 讜讬讛讗 谞讗讻诇 诇砖谞讬 诇讬诇讜转 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讛讝讛


The Gemara explains the previous statement. How could the Paschal lamb be eaten for two days and one night if one starts eating it at night? The Gemara explains: One may say: I will substitute the nights that the Paschal lamb may be eaten instead of the days that a peace-offering is eaten. And accordingly, the Paschal lamb may be eaten for two nights and one day. Therefore, the Torah wrote the word 鈥渢hat,鈥 to teach that the Paschal lamb may be eaten only on that one night.


讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讱 诪诇讗 转讜转讬专讜 注讚 讘拽专 谞驻拽讗 讛讗


And Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, from where might he derive the halakha that the Paschal lamb may not be eaten for two nights? Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya could have said to you: This halakha is derived from the verse: 鈥淵ou shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that of it which remains until the morning you shall burn with fire鈥 (Exodus 12:10). If it is prohibited to leave any part of the Paschal lamb until the morning, it is certainly prohibited to leave any of it until the following night. Therefore, it is unnecessary to cite an additional source to teach that the Paschal lamb may be eaten only on the first night.


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讗讬 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讛讝讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讘拽专 讘拽专 砖谞讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诇讱 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讘 讘拽专 讘拽专 专讗砖讜谉 讛讜讗


And Rabbi Akiva could have said to you, in response to this argument: If the Torah hadn鈥檛 written 鈥渙n that night,鈥 I would have said: What is indicated by the word 鈥渕orning鈥 in that verse? It means the second morning after the Festival, the day of the sixteenth of Nisan. Therefore, it was necessary for the Torah to write that one may eat the Paschal lamb only on that night and no other. And Rabbi Elazar could have said to you in response: Anywhere that the Torah writes 鈥渕orning,鈥 it is referring to the first, i.e., the next morning. If that were not the case, no biblical text could have any definitive meaning.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讻诇 诪爪讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讗讞专 讞爪讜转 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诇讗 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转拽砖 诇驻住讞 讻驻住讞 讚诪讬


Rava said: Nowadays, if one ate matza after midnight, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, he has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: It is obvious that this is the case, for since the verse juxtaposes matza to the Paschal lamb, it is considered like the Paschal lamb, and therefore matza may also be eaten only until midnight.


诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讗 讗驻拽讬讛 拽专讗 诪讛讬拽讬砖讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讻讬 讗讛讚专讬讛 拽专讗 诇诪讬诇转讗 拽诪讬讬转讗 讗讛讚专讬讛:


The Gemara answers: Rava鈥檚 statement is necessary, lest you say that the verse has removed the halakha of matza from this juxtaposition, as Rava maintains that eating matza is a distinct mitzva that applies even nowadays. One might therefore have thought that the halakhot of eating matza differ entirely from those of the Paschal lamb. Rava therefore teaches us that when the verse repeats the mitzva to eat matza on the first night, it restores this mitzva to its original status, which means that one may eat matza only at a time when he may also eat the Paschal lamb.


讛驻讬讙讜诇 讜讛谞讜转专 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 讜讻讜壮: 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讞砖讚讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 注爪诇讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讞讚 讗诪专 讻讝讬转 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讻讘讬爪讛


The mishna taught that piggul and notar render one鈥檚 hands ritually impure. This issue is subject to a dispute between Rav Huna and Rav 岣sda. One of them said: The reason for this enactment is due to suspected priests, i.e., priests who were suspected of invalidating offerings; and the other one said the reason is due to lazy priests. Rav Huna and Rav 岣sda also disagree about another matter: One of them said that the ritual impurity of notar and piggul applies even to an olive-bulk of the meat; and one of them said it applies only to an egg-bulk.


Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Terri Krivosha in memory of her father Nahum Mayar ben Dovid Baer. Judge Norman Krivosha was a remarkable individual who, in the words of Mary Oliver, did far more than "simply visit this world". Yehi Zichro Baruch.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Bill Futornick in memory of Rabbi David Teitelbaum Z"L, who led Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA for 38 years. He was an extraordinary leader, teacher, moral exemplar聽and family man聽who truly fought for equality and deeply embraced ahavat tzion.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Shira HK pesachim

Cultivating Creativity at the Seder with Shira Hecht-Koller

https://youtu.be/x5CRJnPWDMk Shira Hecht-Koller is the Director of Education of 929 English. For Shira's presentation, click here.  
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Pesachim 116-121 -(Siyum Masechet Pesachim) Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the rest of the Seder night, including cups 2-4, the importance of asking questions,...

Pesachim 120

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 120

讘专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讗 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讚拽讗讻讬诇 诇转讬讗讘讜谉 讗讘诇 讘讗讞专讜谞讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讙住讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


However, if one eats matza before these other foods, no, one may not start eating other foods after matza. The mishna apparently supports Rav Yehuda鈥檚 opinion. The Gemara rejects this proof: The Tosefta is stated in the style of: Needless to say. Needless to say, one fulfills his obligation if he eats matza before other foods, as he eats it with an appetite. However, if one eats matza after eating other foods, perhaps he will come to eat it in the manner of excessive eating, as he is compelled to eat when he is not hungry. Consequently, you might say that one does not fulfill his obligation if he eats matza after all those other foods. Therefore, the Tosefta teaches us that one may eat matza even after consuming those foods.


诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪驻讟讬专讬谉 讗讞专 讛诪爪讛 讗驻讬拽讜诪谉 谞讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诪驻讟讬专讬谉 讗讞专 讛驻住讞 讗驻讬拽讜诪谉 讗讞专 讛驻住讞 讚诇讗 讗讘诇 讗讞专 诪爪讛 诪驻讟讬专讬谉


This is how Mar Zutra taught this discussion: Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One may conclude after the matza with an afikoman. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports his opinion: One does not conclude after the Paschal lamb with an afikoman. The Gemara infers: It is after the Paschal lamb that one may not conclude with an afikoman; however, after matza one may conclude with an afikoman.


诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗讞专 诪爪讛 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖 讟注诪讬讛 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 驻住讞 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara rejects this contention: The mishna is stated in the style of: Needless to say. Needless to say, one may not conclude with an afikoman after eating matza, as the taste of matza is slight; however, after the Paschal lamb, one might say that this prohibition does not apply. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that it is prohibited to conclude with an afikoman after the Paschal lamb as well.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讛住讜驻讙谞讬谉 讜讛讚讜讘砖谞讬谉 讜讛讗讬住拽专讬讟讬谉 讗讚诐 诪诪诇讗 讻专讬住讜 诪讛谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讗讻诇 (讗讻讬诇转) 讻讝讬转 诪爪讛 讘讗讞专讜谞讛 讘讗讞专讜谞讛 讗讬谉 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讗


The Gemara raises an objection: With regard to unleavened sponge cakes, cakes fried in oil and honey, and honey cakes, a person may fill his stomach with them on Passover night, provided that he eats an olive-bulk of matza after consuming them. The Gemara infers from here that if he eats matza after those cakes, yes, this is permitted; however, if one eats matza before these other foods, no, this is not an acceptable practice.


诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讚拽讗讻讬诇 诇转讬讗讘讜谉 讗讘诇 讘讗讞专讜谞讛 讚讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇讛 讗讻讬诇讛 讙住讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


The Gemara answers: As explained above, the Tosefta is stated in the style of: Needless to say. Needless to say, one fulfills his obligation if he eats matza before other foods, as he eats it with an appetite. However, if he eats matza after eating other foods, when he might come to eat it in the manner of an excessive eating, you might say that one does not fulfill his obligation if he eats matza after all those other foods. Therefore, the Tosefta teaches us that one may eat matza even after consuming those foods.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪爪讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪专讜专 讚专讘谞谉 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪专讜专 讚讻转讬讘 注诇 诪爪讜转 讜诪专讜专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 讚讗讬讻讗 驻住讞 讬砖 诪专讜专 讜讘讝诪谉 讚诇讬讻讗 驻住讞 诇讬讻讗 诪专讜专


Rava said: The mitzva of matza nowadays, even after the destruction of the Temple, applies by Torah law; but the mitzva to eat bitter herbs applies by rabbinic law. The Gemara asks: And in what way is the mitzva of bitter herbs different from matza? As it is written, with regard to the Paschal lamb: 鈥淭hey shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs鈥 (Numbers 9:11), from which it is derived: When there is an obligation to eat the Paschal lamb, there is likewise a mitzva to eat bitter herbs; and when there is no obligation to eat the Paschal lamb, there is also no mitzva to eat bitter herbs.


诪爪讛 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 注诇 诪爪讜转 讜诪专讜专讬诐 诪爪讛 诪讬讛讚专 讛讚专 讘讬讛 拽专讗 讘注专讘 转讗讻诇讜 诪爪讜转 讜专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讚专讘谞谉


The Gemara asks: But if so, the same reasoning should apply to matza as well, as it is written: 鈥淲ith matzot and bitter herbs.鈥 The mitzva of matza should also depend on the obligation of the Paschal lamb. The Gemara rejects this contention: The verse repeats the obligation to eat matza, as it states: 鈥淚n the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, you shall eat matzot (Exodus 12:18). This verse establishes a separate obligation to eat matza, unrelated to the Paschal lamb. And Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: Nowadays, both this, the mitzva to eat matza, and that, the mitzva to eat bitter herbs, apply by rabbinic law, as the Torah obligation to eat these foods is in effect only when the Paschal lamb is sacrificed.


讗诇讗 讛讻转讬讘 讘注专讘 转讗讻诇讜 诪爪讜转 讛讛讬讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讟诪讗 讜砖讛讬讛 讘讚专讱 专讞讜拽讛 讚住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚驻住讞 诇讗 讗讻诇讬 诪爪讛 讜诪专讜专 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞讬讻讜诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara challenges: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淚n the evening, you shall eat matzot鈥? The Gemara answers: Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov needs that verse for the following halakha: When the Temple was standing, one who was ritually impure or one who was on a distant road was nonetheless obligated to eat matza. As it could enter your mind to say that since these two categories of people do not eat the Paschal lamb on the first Pesa岣, they also do not eat matza and bitter herbs. According to Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov, this verse teaches us that even one who was ritually impure and one who was on a distant road are obligated to eat matza and bitter herbs, as these mitzvot do not depend on one鈥檚 eligibility to sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the first Pesa岣.


讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讟诪讗 讜砖讛讬讛 讘讚专讱 专讞讜拽讛 诇讗 爪专讬讱 拽专讗 讚诇讗 讙专注讬 诪注专诇 讜讘谉 谞讻专 讚转谞讬讗 讻诇 注专诇 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讜 讘讜 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讗讘诇 讗讜讻诇 讘诪爪讛 讜诪专讜专


The Gemara asks: And Rava, who maintains that it is a mitzva from the Torah to eat matza nowadays, how could he respond to that interpretation of the verse? Rava could have said to you: I do not require a special verse to teach that a ritually impure person and a person who was on a distant road are obligated to eat matza. These people are obligated because they are no worse than an uncircumcised man or an alien, i.e., one who does not observe the mitzvot, who are obligated to eat matza despite the fact that they do not sacrifice the Paschal lamb. As it was taught in a baraita: 鈥淏ut no uncircumcised man shall eat from it鈥 (Exodus 12:48). 鈥淔rom it鈥 indicates that he may not eat from the Paschal lamb; however, he does eat matza and bitter herbs. The same is true for anyone else who is prevented from eating the Paschal lamb.


讜讗讬讚讱 讻转讬讘 讘讛讗讬 讜讻转讬讘 讘讛讗讬 讜爪专讬讻讬


The Gemara asks: And the other, Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov, how does he respond to this argument? The Gemara answers: According to Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov, the halakha that one must eat matza and bitter herbs despite being unable to partake of the Paschal lamb was written with regard to this person, an uncircumcised man, and it was written also with regard to that one, a ritually impure person, and both verses are necessary. We cannot learn the halakha of a ritually impure person from that of an uncircumcised man, or vice versa, as is explained in several places.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 砖砖转 讬诪讬诐 转讗讻诇 诪爪讜转 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 注爪专转 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 诪讛 砖讘讬注讬 专砖讜转 讗祝 砖砖转 讬诪讬诐 专砖讜转


The Gemara comments: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: 鈥淪ix days you shall eat matzot, and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:8). Just as eating matza on the seventh day is merely optional, i.e., there is no obligation to eat matza on the last day of Passover, but only to avoid eating leavened bread, as the verse states: 鈥淪ix days you shall eat matzot,鈥 so too, eating matza during the first six days is optional.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讬 讚讘专 砖讛讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讜讬爪讗 诪谉 讛讻诇诇 诇诇诪讚 诇讗 诇诇诪讚 注诇 注爪诪讜 讬爪讗 讗诇讗 诇诇诪讚 注诇 讛讻诇诇 讻讜诇讜 讬爪讗


What is the reason that it is optional to eat matza on the first six days of Passover as well as the seventh? The seventh day of Passover is something that was included in a generalization but was explicitly singled out to teach. According to the rules of exegesis, it was intended to teach not just about itself but about the entire generalization. In other words, the seventh day of Passover was initially included in the verse: 鈥淵ou shall eat matzot for seven days鈥 (Exodus 12:15), but was excluded from this generalization by the verse: 鈥淪ix days you shall eat matzot.鈥 In accordance with the above principle, the halakha of the seventh day applies to all the other days of Passover as well. That means there is no obligation to eat matza for all seven days of the Festival, but only on the first day.


讬讻讜诇 讗祝 诇讬诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谉 专砖讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇 诪爪讜转 讜诪专讜专讬诐 讬讗讻诇讜讛讜


The baraita continues: I might have thought that even the mitzva to eat matza on the first night of Passover is included by the above principle, and it too is merely optional; therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hey shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs鈥 (Numbers 9:11).


讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘注专讘 转讗讻诇讜 诪爪讜转 讛讻转讜讘 拽讘注讜 讞讜讘讛:


I have derived nothing other than that one is obligated to eat matza when the Temple is standing. From where is it derived that one is obligated to eat matza on the first night of Passover even when the Temple is not standing? The verse states: 鈥淚n the evening you shall eat matzot.鈥 The verse here establishes the mitzva of matza as obligatory, in accordance with the opinion of Rava.


诪转谞讬壮 讬砖谞讜 诪拽爪转谉 讬讗讻诇讜 讻讜诇谉 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜


MISHNA: If some of the participants at the seder fell asleep, thereby interrupting their meal, they may eat from the Paschal lamb when they awake. If the entire company fell asleep, they may not eat any more. If they all fall asleep, this is considered a complete interruption, and if they were to resume their meal it would be akin to eating the offering in two different places.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 谞转谞诪谞诪讜 讬讗讻诇讜 谞专讚诪讜 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讛驻住讞 讗讞专 讞爪讜转 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 讛驻讙讜诇 讜讛谞讜转专 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐:


Rabbi Yosei says: If they dozed they may eat from the Paschal lamb when they awake, but if they fell fast asleep they may not eat from it. The Sages further said: The Paschal lamb after midnight renders one鈥檚 hands ritually impure, as it becomes notar, an offering that remained after the time when they may be eaten has expired; and the Sages ruled that both piggul, offerings that were invalidated due to inappropriate intent while being sacrificed, and notar render one鈥檚 hands ritually impure.


讙诪壮 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 谞转谞诪谞诪讜 讬讗讻诇讜 谞专讚诪讜 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 谞转谞诪谞诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 谞讬诐 讜诇讗 谞讬诐 转讬专 讜诇讗 转讬专 讻讙讜谉 讚拽专讬 诇讬讛 讜注谞讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 住讘专讗 讜讻讬 诪讚讻专讜 诇讬讛 诪讚讻专


GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: If they dozed they may eat from the Paschal lamb, but if they fell asleep they may not eat from it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of dozing? Rav Ashi said: One is asleep but not asleep, awake but not awake, when, if they call him, he will answer, but he is unable to provide a reasonable answer. And when they later inform him of what happened, he remembers it.


讗讘讬讬 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讞讝讗 讚拽讗 谞诪谞诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬谞诐 拽讗 谞讗讬诐 诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讜诪讬 拽讗 诪谞诪谞诐 讜转谞谉 谞转谞诪谞诪讜 讬讗讻诇讜 谞专讚诪讜 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜:


The Gemara cites a related episode: Abaye was sitting before Rabba, and he saw that Rabba was dozing off after he had begun to eat the final obligatory piece of matza. He said to him: Is the Master sleeping? Rabba said to him: I am dozing, and we learned in the mishna: If they dozed, they may eat from the Paschal lamb, but if they fell fast asleep they may not eat from it.


讛驻住讞 讗讞专 讞爪讜转 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 讜讻讜壮: 讗诇诪讗 诪讞爪讜转 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讜转专 诪讗谉 转谞讗


We learned in the mishna that the Paschal lamb after midnight renders one鈥檚 hands ritually impure. The Gemara infers: Apparently, from midnight and onward the Paschal lamb is classified as notar. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who maintains this opinion?


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讗讻诇讜 讗转 讛讘砖专 讘诇讬诇讛 讛讝讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讘诇讬诇讛 讛讝讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讜注讘专转讬 讘讗专抓 诪爪专讬诐 讘诇讬诇讛 讛讝讛


Rav Yosef said: It is Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to the verse 鈥淎nd they shall eat of the meat on that night鈥 (Exodus 12:8), Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: Here it is stated 鈥渙n that night,鈥 from which it cannot be determined when the night ends. And below it is stated: 鈥淎nd I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night and I will strike every firstborn in the land of Egypt鈥 (Exodus 12:12). The Torah states with regard to the death of the firstborns: 鈥淭hus said the Lord: At about midnight, I will go out into the midst of Egypt and every firstborn in Egypt shall die鈥 (Exodus 11:4鈥5).


诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注讚 讞爪讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 注讚 讞爪讜转


The baraita continues: Just as in the verse below, the striking of the firstborns took place until midnight, as stated explicitly in the verse, so too, in the verse here, the mitzva to eat the Paschal lamb continues until midnight but not beyond. Evidently, the Paschal lamb may not be eaten after midnight.


讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讛诇讗 谞讗诪专 讞驻讝讜谉 注讚 砖注转 讞驻讝讜谉


Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: But wasn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淭hus you shall eat it, with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, your staffs in your hands, and you will eat it in haste, for it is the Paschal offering for the Lord鈥 (Exodus 12:11)? This verse indicates that the Paschal lamb may be eaten until the time of haste, i.e., until dawn, as the Jewish people left Egypt the next day.


讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘诇讬诇讛 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 谞讗讻诇 讻拽讚砖讬诐 讘讬讜诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘诇讬诇讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讛讜讗 谞讗讻诇 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 讘讬讜诐


Rabbi Akiva continues: If that is so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淥n that night,鈥 with regard to eating the Paschal lamb? The Gemara explains that this phrase is necessary, as I might have thought that the Paschal lamb is eaten during the day, like all other offerings, which must be slaughtered and eaten during the day. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淥n that night,鈥 to underscore that this particular offering is eaten at night, and it is not eaten during the day.


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗讬 讛讝讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 诇讬诇讛 讗讞专 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻住讞 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜砖诇诪讬诐 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诪讛 砖诇诪讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬诐 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚 讗祝 驻住讞


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Akiva, what does he do with the word 鈥渢hat鈥? As he doesn鈥檛 use it for a verbal analogy, what does Rabbi Akiva learn from this word? The Gemara answers: He needs it to exclude another night. It could enter your mind to say that since the Paschal lamb falls into the category of offerings of lesser sanctity, and peace-offerings are also offerings of lesser sanctity, just as peace-offerings may be eaten for two days and one night, i.e., the day they are sacrificed through the following day, as stated in the Torah, so too, the same halakha should apply to the Paschal lamb.


讗讜拽讬诐 诇讬诇讜转 讘诪拽讜诐 讬诪讬诐 讜讬讛讗 谞讗讻诇 诇砖谞讬 诇讬诇讜转 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讛讝讛


The Gemara explains the previous statement. How could the Paschal lamb be eaten for two days and one night if one starts eating it at night? The Gemara explains: One may say: I will substitute the nights that the Paschal lamb may be eaten instead of the days that a peace-offering is eaten. And accordingly, the Paschal lamb may be eaten for two nights and one day. Therefore, the Torah wrote the word 鈥渢hat,鈥 to teach that the Paschal lamb may be eaten only on that one night.


讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讱 诪诇讗 转讜转讬专讜 注讚 讘拽专 谞驻拽讗 讛讗


And Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, from where might he derive the halakha that the Paschal lamb may not be eaten for two nights? Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya could have said to you: This halakha is derived from the verse: 鈥淵ou shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that of it which remains until the morning you shall burn with fire鈥 (Exodus 12:10). If it is prohibited to leave any part of the Paschal lamb until the morning, it is certainly prohibited to leave any of it until the following night. Therefore, it is unnecessary to cite an additional source to teach that the Paschal lamb may be eaten only on the first night.


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讗讬 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讛讝讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讗讬 讘拽专 讘拽专 砖谞讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诇讱 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讘 讘拽专 讘拽专 专讗砖讜谉 讛讜讗


And Rabbi Akiva could have said to you, in response to this argument: If the Torah hadn鈥檛 written 鈥渙n that night,鈥 I would have said: What is indicated by the word 鈥渕orning鈥 in that verse? It means the second morning after the Festival, the day of the sixteenth of Nisan. Therefore, it was necessary for the Torah to write that one may eat the Paschal lamb only on that night and no other. And Rabbi Elazar could have said to you in response: Anywhere that the Torah writes 鈥渕orning,鈥 it is referring to the first, i.e., the next morning. If that were not the case, no biblical text could have any definitive meaning.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讻诇 诪爪讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讗讞专 讞爪讜转 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 诇讗 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转拽砖 诇驻住讞 讻驻住讞 讚诪讬


Rava said: Nowadays, if one ate matza after midnight, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, he has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: It is obvious that this is the case, for since the verse juxtaposes matza to the Paschal lamb, it is considered like the Paschal lamb, and therefore matza may also be eaten only until midnight.


诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讗 讗驻拽讬讛 拽专讗 诪讛讬拽讬砖讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讻讬 讗讛讚专讬讛 拽专讗 诇诪讬诇转讗 拽诪讬讬转讗 讗讛讚专讬讛:


The Gemara answers: Rava鈥檚 statement is necessary, lest you say that the verse has removed the halakha of matza from this juxtaposition, as Rava maintains that eating matza is a distinct mitzva that applies even nowadays. One might therefore have thought that the halakhot of eating matza differ entirely from those of the Paschal lamb. Rava therefore teaches us that when the verse repeats the mitzva to eat matza on the first night, it restores this mitzva to its original status, which means that one may eat matza only at a time when he may also eat the Paschal lamb.


讛驻讬讙讜诇 讜讛谞讜转专 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 讜讻讜壮: 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讞砖讚讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 注爪诇讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讞讚 讗诪专 讻讝讬转 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讻讘讬爪讛


The mishna taught that piggul and notar render one鈥檚 hands ritually impure. This issue is subject to a dispute between Rav Huna and Rav 岣sda. One of them said: The reason for this enactment is due to suspected priests, i.e., priests who were suspected of invalidating offerings; and the other one said the reason is due to lazy priests. Rav Huna and Rav 岣sda also disagree about another matter: One of them said that the ritual impurity of notar and piggul applies even to an olive-bulk of the meat; and one of them said it applies only to an egg-bulk.


Scroll To Top