Pesachim 120aפסחים ק״כ א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
120aק״כ א

בראשונה לא לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא בראשונה דקאכיל לתיאבון אבל באחרונה דילמא אתי למיכל אכילה גסה אימא לא קא משמע לן

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’s 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.

מר זוטרא מתני הכי אמר רב יוסף אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מפטירין אחר המצה אפיקומן נימא מסייע ליה אין מפטירין אחר הפסח אפיקומן אחר הפסח דלא אבל אחר מצה מפטירין

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.

לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא אחר מצה דלא נפיש טעמיה אבל לאחר פסח אימא לא קא משמע לן

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.

מיתיבי הסופגנין והדובשנין והאיסקריטין אדם ממלא כריסו מהן ובלבד שיאכל (אכילת) כזית מצה באחרונה באחרונה אין בראשונה לא

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.

לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא בראשונה דקאכיל לתיאבון אבל באחרונה דאתי למיכלה אכילה גסה אימא לא קא משמע לן:

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.

אמר רבא מצה בזמן הזה דאורייתא ומרור דרבנן ומאי שנא מרור דכתיב על מצות ומרורים בזמן דאיכא פסח יש מרור ובזמן דליכא פסח ליכא מרור

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: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs” (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.

מצה נמי הא כתיב על מצות ומרורים מצה מיהדר הדר ביה קרא בערב תאכלו מצות ורב אחא בר יעקב אמר אחד זה ואחד זה דרבנן

The Gemara asks: But if so, the same reasoning should apply to matza as well, as it is written: “With matzot and bitter herbs.” 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: “In 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 Aḥa bar Ya’akov 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.

אלא הכתיב בערב תאכלו מצות ההיא מיבעי ליה לטמא ושהיה בדרך רחוקה דסלקא דעתך אמינא כיון דפסח לא אכלי מצה ומרור נמי לא ניכול קא משמע לן

The Gemara challenges: But isn’t it written: “In the evening, you shall eat matzot”? The Gemara answers: Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov 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 Pesaḥ, they also do not eat matza and bitter herbs. According to Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, 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’s eligibility to sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ.

ורבא אמר לך טמא ושהיה בדרך רחוקה לא צריך קרא דלא גרעי מערל ובן נכר דתניא כל ערל לא יאכל בו בו אינו אוכל אבל אוכל במצה ומרור

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: “But no uncircumcised man shall eat from it” (Exodus 12:48). “From it” 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.

ואידך כתיב בהאי וכתיב בהאי וצריכי

The Gemara asks: And the other, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, how does he respond to this argument? The Gemara answers: According to Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, 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.

תניא כוותיה דרבא ששת ימים תאכל מצות וביום השביעי עצרת לה׳ אלהיך מה שביעי רשות אף ששת ימים רשות

The Gemara comments: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: “Six days you shall eat matzot, and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the Lord your God” (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: “Six days you shall eat matzot,” so too, eating matza during the first six days is optional.

מאי טעמא הוי דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא מן הכלל ללמד לא ללמד על עצמו יצא אלא ללמד על הכלל כולו יצא

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: “You shall eat matzot for seven days” (Exodus 12:15), but was excluded from this generalization by the verse: “Six days you shall eat matzot.” 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.

יכול אף לילה הראשון רשות תלמוד לומר על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו

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: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:11).

אין לי אלא בזמן שבית המקדש קיים בזמן שאין בית המקדש קיים מנין תלמוד לומר בערב תאכלו מצות הכתוב קבעו חובה:

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: “In the evening you shall eat matzot.” The verse here establishes the mitzva of matza as obligatory, in accordance with the opinion of Rava.

מתני׳ ישנו מקצתן יאכלו כולן לא יאכלו

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.