Pesachim 95aפסחים צ״ה א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
95aצ״ה א

מתני׳ מה בין פסח הראשון לשני הראשון אסור בבל יראה ובל ימצא והשני חמץ ומצה עמו בבית הראשון טעון הלל באכילתו והשני אינו טעון הלל באכילתו זה וזה טעון הלל בעשייתן ונאכלין צלי על מצה ומרורים ודוחין את השבת:

MISHNA: What is the difference between the Paschal lamb offered on the first Pesaḥ and the Paschal lamb offered on the second Pesaḥ? On the first Pesaḥ, at the time of slaughtering the Paschal lamb, it is prohibited to own leavened bread due to the prohibitions: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found. And on the second Pesaḥ it is permissible for one to have both leavened bread and matza with him in the house. Another difference is that the Paschal lamb offered on the first Pesaḥ requires the recitation of hallel as it is eaten and the second does not require the recitation of hallel as it is eaten. However, they are the same in that the Paschal lambs sacrificed on both the first and second Pesaḥ require the recitation of hallel as they are prepared, i.e., as they are slaughtered, and they are both eaten roasted with matza and bitter herbs, and they override Shabbat in that they may be slaughtered and their blood sprinkled even on Shabbat.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן ככל חוקת הפסח יעשו אותו במצוה שבגופו הכתוב מדבר

GEMARA: The Sages taught a halakhic midrash pertaining to the Paschal lamb offered on the second Pesaḥ. The verse states with regard to the second Pesaḥ: “They shall leave none of it to the morning, nor break a bone in it; according to all the entire statute of the Paschal lamb they shall offer it” (Numbers 9:12). The fact that the verse says “it” indicates that the verse is speaking of a mitzva applicable to the body of the Paschal lamb, meaning that halakhot pertaining to the actual Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ apply equally to the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ.

מצוה שעל גופו מנין תלמוד לומר על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו יכול אפילו מצות שלא על גופו תלמוד לומר ועצם לא ישברו בו מה שבירת העצם מיוחד מצוה שבגופו אף כל מצוה שבגופו

The midrash continues: With regard to a mitzva related to the body of the Paschal lamb but not actually performed on the body of the offering, from where is it derived that it applies to the second Pesaḥ as well? The verse states: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:11). One might have thought that one must fulfill all mitzvot related to the first Pesaḥ on the second Pesaḥ, even mitzvot not at all related to the body of the Paschal lamb, such as the requirement to destroy all one’s leaven. Therefore, the Torah states: “And they shall not break a bone in it” (Numbers 9:12), which teaches that just as the prohibition of breaking a bone is notable among the mitzvot related to the Paschal lamb in that it is a mitzva applicable to the Paschal lamb itself, so too, any mitzva applicable to the Paschal lamb itself must be fulfilled on the second Pesaḥ. However, other mitzvot pertaining to the first Pesaḥ need not be fulfilled on the second Pesaḥ.

איסי בן יהודה אומר יעשו אותו במצות שבגופו הכתוב מדבר

Isi ben Yehuda says: It is unnecessary to derive that halakha from the end of the verse quoted, as the phrase in the first half of the verse: “They shall perform it,” indicates that the verse is speaking only of mitzvot applicable to the body of the Paschal lamb itself.

אמר מר יכול אף מצוה שלא על גופו הא אמרת במצוה שבגופו הכתוב מדבר

The Gemara clarifies the details of the baraita. The Master said: One might have thought that one must fulfill even a mitzva not at all related to the body of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ. The Gemara expresses surprise: But you said that the verse is speaking only of a mitzva applicable to the body of the Paschal lamb, so why would one think that unrelated mitzvot are also included?

הכי קאמר השתא דאמרת על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו אלמא יעשו אותו לאו דוקא הוא אימא הוה ליה כפרט וכלל ונעשה כלל מוסיף על הפרט ואפילו כל מילי נמי קא משמע לן

The Gemara explains that this is what the baraita is saying: Now that you said the additional halakha that they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, apparently the phrase: “They shall perform it,” is not specific and does not limit the halakhot of the second Pesaḥ to those applicable to the Paschal lamb itself, say that this verse is expounded according to the principle of a detail and a generalization, as it first said: “They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs” and “They shall leave none of it to the morning,” and then it stated a generalization: “According to all the statute of the Paschal lamb they shall perform it.” The principles of halakhic midrash state that in that case, the generalization adds to the detail and even includes everything, such that all the mitzvot of the first Pesaḥ would apply equally to the second, including the removal of leaven. Therefore, the verse “They shall not break a bone in it” teaches us that mitzvot unrelated to the Paschal lamb do not apply to the second Pesaḥ.

איסי בן יהודה האי עצם מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לאחד עצם שיש בו מוח ואחד עצם שאין בו מוח

The Gemara asks: What does Isi ben Yehuda do with the end of the verse: “And they shall not break a bone in it”? The Gemara answers: He needs it to teach that the prohibition of breaking a bone applies both to a bone that has marrow and to a bone that does not have marrow.

ורבנן האי יעשו אתו מאי עבדי ליה מיבעי ליה שאין שוחטין את הפסח על היחיד דכמה דאפשר לאהדורי מהדרינן

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who expound differently than Isi ben Yehuda, what do they do with this phrase: “They shall perform it”? The Gemara answers: They need it to teach that one does not slaughter the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ on behalf of a single individual. Since the verse speaks of people performing the second Pesaḥ in the plural, it is derived that as much as it is possible to search for more people to join this individual in his Paschal lamb, we search for them, even if it means causing another individual to become ritually impure to prevent him from performing the first Pesaḥ.

תנו רבנן ככל חוקת הפסח יעשו אותו יכול כשם שהראשון אסור בבל יראה ובל ימצא כך שני אסור בבל יראה ובל ימצא תלמוד לומר על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו

The Sages taught in a different baraita: The verse states: “According to the entire statute of the Paschal lamb they shall offer it” (Numbers 9:12). One might have thought that just as at the time of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ it is prohibited to own leaven due to the prohibitions of: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, so too, at the time of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ it is prohibited to own leaven due to the prohibitions of: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found. Therefore, the Torah states: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:11), which indicates that the other mitzvot pertaining to the first Pesaḥ do not apply on the second.

ואין לי אלא מצות עשה מצות לא תעשה מנין תלמוד לומר לא ישאירו ממנו עד בקר

The baraita continues: And from here I have derived only that positive mitzvot related to the first Pesaḥ apply on the second Pesaḥ; from where do I derive that the same is true of negative mitzvot? The verse states: “They shall leave none of it to the morning, nor break a bone in it” (Numbers 9:12).

ואין לי אלא מצות לא תעשה שניתק לעשה מצות לא תעשה גמור מנין תלמוד לומר ועצם לא ישברו בו מה הפרט מפורש מצות עשה ולא תעשה שניתק לעשה ולא תעשה גמור אף כל מצות עשה ולא תעשה שניתק לעשה ולא תעשה גמור

The baraita continues: And from this verse I have derived only that a negative mitzva whose violation can be rectified by the fulfillment of a positive mitzva applies on the second Pesaḥ, e.g., the prohibition of leaving over meat from the Paschal lamb until morning, which can be rectified by the positive mitzva of burning the leftovers; from where is it derived that the same is true of a full-fledged negative mitzva? The verse states: “They shall not break a bone in it.” It may be concluded from these examples that just as the detail, i.e., the specific mitzvot mentioned in these verses, is explicit and includes a positive mitzva, a prohibition whose violation can be rectified by the fulfillment of a positive mitzva, and a full-fledged negative mitzva; so too, every positive mitzva, every prohibition whose violation can be rectified by the fulfillment of a positive mitzva, and every full-fledged negative mitzva is included.

בכלליה דמצות ומרורים מאי קא מרבי צלי אש בפרטיה מאי ממעיט ליה השבתת שאור איפוך אנא מצוה דגופיה עדיף

Now that the generalization has been interpreted as referring to the specific examples mentioned earlier, what is included through the generalization of unleavened bread and bitter herbs? The Gemara answers: It comes to teach that the mitzva of roasting in fire applies to the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ as well as to the first. Given that unleavened bread and bitter herbs is also a qualifying detail, what does it exclude through its detail? It teaches that the mitzva of removal of leaven does not apply on the second Pesaḥ. The Gemara asks: Perhaps I can reverse it and say that on the second Pesaḥ one is not obligated to roast the offering by fire, but one is obligated to remove all leaven? The Gemara answers: A mitzva relating to the Paschal lamb itself is preferable, as it is more reasonable to assume that the first and second Pesaḥ are comparable with regard to halakhot pertaining to the offering itself.

בכלליה דלא ישאירו ממנו עד בקר מאי קא מרבה ליה לא תוציא ממנו (דדמי ליה דהאי מיפסל בנותר והאי מיפסל ביוצא)

The Gemara asks further: What is included through the generalization of: They shall leave none of it to the morning? The Gemara answers that it includes the prohibition of: You shall not remove any of its meat from one group to another, which is similar to it, as through this prohibition mentioned in the verse it is disqualified as leftovers, and through this prohibition of removing the meat of the offering it is disqualified as sacrificial meat that has left its permitted boundary.

בפרטיה מאי קא ממעט ליה לא יראה ולא ימצא (דדמי ליה דהאי אינו לוקה דהוה לאו שניתק לעשה והאי אינו לוקה דהוה ליה לאו שניתק לעשה) איפוך אנא מצוה דגופיה עדיף

The Gemara asks further: What does it exclude through its detail? It excludes the prohibitions: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, which are similar to it, as one who violates this prohibition of leaving over the meat of the offering until morning is not flogged because it is a prohibition whose violation can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva by burning the leftovers; and one who violates this prohibition of owning leaven is not flogged because it is a prohibition whose violation can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva of burning the leaven. The Gemara asks: Perhaps I can reverse it and say that the generalization is meant to include removal of leaven and the detail excludes the prohibition of leaving over the meat of the offering? The Gemara answers: In a comparison of the first Pesaḥ and the second, including a mitzva related to the Paschal lamb itself is preferable to including one that does not relate to the Paschal lamb.

בכלליה דעצם לא ישברו בו

The Gemara continues to ask: Through the generalization: They shall not break a bone in it,