(א) אוֹר לְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הֶחָמֵץ לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכְנִיסִין בּוֹ חָמֵץ אֵין צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה. וְלָמָה אָמְרוּ שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת בַּמַּרְתֵּף, מָקוֹם שֶׁמַּכְנִיסִין בּוֹ חָמֵץ. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת עַל פְּנֵי כָל הַמַּרְתֵּף. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת שֶׁהֵן הָעֶלְיוֹנוֹת:
(1) On the evening [or] of the fourteenth of the month of Nisan, one searches for leavened bread in his home by candlelight. Any place into which one does not typically take leavened bread does not require a search, as it is unlikely that there is any leavened bread there. And with regard to what the Sages of previous generations meant when they said that one must search two rows of wine barrels in a cellar, i.e., a place into which one typically takes some leavened bread, the early tanna’im are in dispute. Beit Shammai say that this is referring to searching the first two rows across the entire cellar, and Beit Hillel say: There is no need to search that extensively, as it is sufficient to search the two external rows, which are the upper ones. This dispute will be explained and illustrated in the Gemara.
פְּרַקְדָּן לָא שְׁמֵיהּ הֲסִיבָּה. הֲסִיבַּת יָמִין לָא שְׁמַהּ הֲסִיבָּה. וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁמָּא יַקְדִּים קָנֶה לְוֶושֶׁט, וְיָבֹא לִידֵי סַכָּנָה. אִשָּׁה אֵצֶל בַּעְלָהּ לָא בָּעֲיָא הֲסִיבָּה, וְאִם אִשָּׁה חֲשׁוּבָה הִיא — צְרִיכָה הֲסִיבָּה. בֵּן אֵצֶל אָבִיו בָּעֵי הֲסִיבָּה. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: תַּלְמִיד אֵצֶל רַבּוֹ מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע, (אֲמַר) אַבָּיֵי: כִּי הֲוֵינַן בֵּי מָר זְגֵינַן אַבִּירְכֵי דַהֲדָדֵי, כִּי אָתֵינַן לְבֵי רַב יוֹסֵף, אָמַר לַן: לָא צְרִיכִתוּ, מוֹרָא רַבָּךְ כְּמוֹרָא שָׁמַיִם. מֵיתִיבִי: עִם הַכֹּל אָדָם מֵיסֵב, וַאֲפִילּוּ תַּלְמִיד אֵצֶל רַבּוֹ! כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא — בִּשְׁוַלְיָא דְנַגָּרֵי. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שַׁמָּשׁ מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הַשַּׁמָּשׁ שֶׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת מַצָּה כְּשֶׁהוּא מֵיסֵב — יָצָא. מֵיסֵב — אִין, לֹא מֵיסֵב — לָא. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: בָּעֵי הֲסִיבָּה. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת בְּאַרְבָּעָה כּוֹסוֹת הַלָּלוּ, שֶׁאַף הֵן הָיוּ בְּאוֹתוֹ הַנֵּס.
The Gemara continues to discuss the halakha of reclining. Lying on one’s back is not called reclining. Reclining to the right is not called reclining, as free men do not recline in this manner. People prefer to recline on their left and use their right hand to eat, whereas they find it more difficult to eat the other way. And not only that, but if one reclines to the right, perhaps the windpipe will precede the esophagus. The food will enter the windpipe, and one will come into danger of choking. A woman who is with her husband is not required to recline, but if she is an important woman, she is required to recline. A son who is with his father is required to recline. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to a student who is with his teacher? Perhaps he is not obligated to recline, as he is in awe of his rabbi, and reclining is a sign of complete freedom and independence. Come and hear a proof that Abaye said: When we were in the house of my Master, Rabba, there was not enough room for everyone to recline on Passover, so we reclined on each other’s knees, to fulfill the obligation to recline. When we came to the house of Rav Yosef, he said to us: You need not recline, as the fear of your teacher is like the fear of Heaven. A student is subject to the authority of his teacher and may not display freedom in his presence. The Gemara raises an objection: A person must recline in the presence of anyone, and even a student who is with his teacher must do so. This baraita directly contradicts the statement of Rav Yosef. The Gemara answers: When that baraita was taught, it was with regard to a craftsman’s apprentice, not a student of Torah in the company of his rabbi. One who is in the presence of a person teaching him a trade is not in awe of his instructor, and he is therefore obligated to recline. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to a waiter? Is a waiter obligated to recline? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a solution, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A waiter who ate an olive-bulk of matza while reclining has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara infers: If he ate matza while reclining, yes, he has fulfilled his obligation; if he was not reclining, no, he has not fulfilled the obligation. Learn from this that a waiter requires reclining. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is the case. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Women are obligated in these four cups of wine at the Passover seder. As they too were included in that miracle of the Exodus, they are therefore obligated to participate in the celebration.
מַתְנִי׳ מָזְגוּ לוֹ כּוֹס שֵׁנִי וְכָאן הַבֵּן שׁוֹאֵל אָבִיו. וְאִם אֵין דַּעַת בַּבֵּן אָבִיו מְלַמְּדוֹ. מָה נִשְׁתַּנָּה הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה מִכׇּל הַלֵּילוֹת. שֶׁבְּכָל הַלֵּילוֹת אָנוּ אוֹכְלִין חָמֵץ וּמַצָּה, הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה — כּוּלּוֹ מַצָּה. שֶׁבְּכָל הַלֵּילוֹת אָנוּ אוֹכְלִין שְׁאָר יְרָקוֹת, הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה — מָרוֹר. שֶׁבְּכָל הַלֵּילוֹת אָנוּ אוֹכְלִין בָּשָׂר צָלִי שָׁלוּק וּמְבוּשָּׁל, הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה — כּוּלּוֹ צָלִי. שֶׁבְּכָל הַלֵּילוֹת אָנוּ מַטְבִּילִין פַּעַם אֶחָת, הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה — שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים. וּלְפִי דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל בֵּן אָבִיו מְלַמְּדוֹ. מַתְחִיל בִּגְנוּת וּמְסַיֵּים בְּשֶׁבַח. וְדוֹרֵשׁ מֵ״אֲרַמִּי אוֹבֵד אָבִי״, עַד שֶׁיִּגְמוֹר כׇּל הַפָּרָשָׁה כּוּלָּהּ. גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חָכָם — בְּנוֹ שׁוֹאֲלוֹ. וְאִם אֵינוֹ חָכָם — אִשְׁתּוֹ שׁוֹאַלְתּוֹ, וְאִם לָאו — הוּא שׁוֹאֵל לְעַצְמוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁיּוֹדְעִין בְּהִלְכוֹת הַפֶּסַח — שׁוֹאֲלִין זֶה לָזֶה. מָה נִשְׁתַּנָּה הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה מִכׇּל הַלֵּילוֹת, שֶׁבְּכָל הַלֵּילוֹת אָנוּ מַטְבִּילִין פַּעַם אֶחָת, הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה — שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא: אַטּוּ כׇּל יוֹמָא לָא סַגִּיא דְּלָא מְטַבְּלָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא? אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא, הָכִי קָתָנֵי: שֶׁבְּכָל הַלֵּילוֹת אֵין אָנוּ חַיָּיבִין לְטַבֵּל אֲפִילּוּ פַּעַם אֶחָת, הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה — שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב סָפְרָא: חִיּוּבָא לְדַרְדְּקֵי?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא, הָכִי קָתָנֵי: אֵין אָנוּ מַטְבִּילִין אֲפִילּוּ פַּעַם אֶחָת, הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה — שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים. מַתְחִיל בִּגְנוּת וּמְסַיֵּים בְּשֶׁבַח. מַאי בִּגְנוּת? רַב אָמַר: ״מִתְּחִלָּה עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הָיוּ אֲבוֹתֵינוּ״. [וּשְׁמוּאֵל] אָמַר: ״עֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְדָרוּ עַבְדֵּיהּ: עַבְדָּא דְּמַפֵּיק לֵיהּ מָרֵיהּ לְחֵירוּת, וְיָהֵיב לֵיהּ כַּסְפָּא וְדַהֲבָא, מַאי בָּעֵי לְמֵימַר לֵיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בָּעֵי לְאוֹדוֹיֵי וּלְשַׁבּוֹחֵי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פְּטַרְתַּן מִלּוֹמַר ״מָה נִשְׁתַּנָּה״. פָּתַח וְאָמַר ״עֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ:״. מַתְנִי׳ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הָיָה אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ בַּפֶּסַח לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: פֶּסַח, מַצָּה, וּמָרוֹר. פֶּסַח — עַל שׁוּם שֶׁפָּסַח הַמָּקוֹם עַל בָּתֵּי אֲבוֹתֵינוּ בְּמִצְרַיִם, [שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַאֲמַרְתֶּם זֶבַח פֶּסַח הוּא לַה׳ אֲשֶׁר פָּסַח וְגוֹ׳״]. מַצָּה — עַל שׁוּם שֶׁנִּגְאֲלוּ אֲבוֹתֵינוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם, [שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאפוּ אֶת הַבָּצֵק אֲשֶׁר הוֹצִיאוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם וְגוֹ׳״]. מָרוֹר — עַל שׁוּם שֶׁמֵּרְרוּ הַמִּצְרִיִּים אֶת חַיֵּי אֲבוֹתֵינוּ בְּמִצְרַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: [״וַיְמָרְרוּ אֶת חַיֵּיהֶם וְגוֹ׳״]. בְּכׇל דּוֹר וָדוֹר חַיָּיב אָדָם לִרְאוֹת אֶת עַצְמוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא יָצָא מִמִּצְרַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִגַּדְתָּ לְבִנְךָ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לֵאמֹר בַּעֲבוּר זֶה עָשָׂה ה׳ לִי בְּצֵאתִי מִמִּצְרָיִם״. לְפִיכָךְ אֲנַחְנוּ חַיָּיבִים לְהוֹדוֹת, לְהַלֵּל, לְשַׁבֵּחַ, לְפָאֵר, לְרוֹמֵם, לְהַדֵּר, לְבָרֵךְ, לְעַלֵּה וּלְקַלֵּס לְמִי שֶׁעָשָׂה לַאֲבוֹתֵינוּ וְלָנוּ אֶת כׇּל הַנִּסִּים הָאֵלּוּ. הוֹצִיאָנוּ מֵעַבְדוּת לְחֵרוּת, מִיָּגוֹן לְשִׂמְחָה, וּמֵאֵבֶל לְיוֹם טוֹב, וּמֵאֲפֵלָה לְאוֹר גָּדוֹל, וּמִשִּׁעְבּוּד לִגְאוּלָּה. וְנֹאמַר לְפָנָיו הַלְלוּיָהּ.
MISHNA: The attendants poured the second cup for the leader of the seder, and here the son asks his father the questions about the differences between Passover night and a regular night. And if the son does not have the intelligence to ask questions on his own, his father teaches him the questions. The mishna lists the questions: Why is this night different from all other nights? As on all other nights we eat leavened bread and matza as preferred; on this night all our bread is matza. As on all other nights we eat other vegetables; on this night we eat bitter herbs. The mishna continues its list of the questions. When the Temple was standing one would ask: As on all other nights we eat either roasted, stewed, or cooked meat, but on this night all the meat is the roasted meat of the Paschal lamb. The final question was asked even after the destruction of the Temple: As on all other nights we dip the vegetables in a liquid during the meal only once; however, on this night we dip twice. And according to the intelligence and the ability of the son, his father teaches him about the Exodus. When teaching his son about the Exodus. He begins with the Jewish people’s disgrace and concludes with their glory. And he expounds from the passage: “An Aramean tried to destroy my father” (Deuteronomy 26:5), the declaration one recites when presenting his first fruits at the Temple, until he concludes explaining the entire section. GEMARA: The Sages taught: If his son is wise and knows how to inquire, his son asks him. And if he is not wise, his wife asks him. And if even his wife is not capable of asking or if he has no wife, he asks himself. And even if two Torah scholars who know the halakhot of Passover are sitting together and there is no one else present to pose the questions, they ask each other. The mishna states that one of the questions is: Why is this night different from all other nights? As on all other nights we dip once; however, on this night we dip twice. Rava strongly objects to this statement of the mishna: Is that to say that on every other day there is no alternative but to dip once? Is there an obligation to dip at all on other days, as indicated by the wording of the mishna? Rather, Rava said that this is what the mishna is teaching: As on all other nights we are not obligated to dip even once; however, on this night we are obligated to dip twice. Rav Safra strongly objects to this explanation: Is it obligatory for the children? As previously mentioned, the reason one dips twice is to encourage the children to ask questions. How can this be called an obligation? Rather, Rav Safra said that this is what the mishna is teaching: We do not normally dip even once; however, on this night we dip twice. This wording is preferable, as it indicates the performance of an optional act. It was taught in the mishna that the father begins his answer with disgrace and concludes with glory. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term: With disgrace? Rav said that one should begin by saying: At first our forefathers were idol worshippers, before concluding with words of glory. And Shmuel said: The disgrace with which one should begin his answer is: We were slaves. Rav Naḥman said to his servant, Daru: With regard to a slave who is freed by his master, who gives him gold and silver, what should the slave say to him? Daru said to him: He must thank and praise his master. He said to him: If so, you have exempted us from reciting the questions of: Why is this night different, as you have stated the essence of the seder night. Rav Naḥman immediately began to recite: We were slaves. MISHNA: Rabban Gamliel would say: Anyone who did not say these three matters on Passover has not fulfilled his obligation: The Paschal lamb, matza, and bitter herbs. When one mentions these matters, he must elaborate and explain them: The Paschal lamb is brought because the Omnipresent passed over [pasaḥ] the houses of our forefathers in Egypt, as it is stated: “That you shall say: It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s Paschal offering for He passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses” (Exodus 12:27). Rabban Gamliel continues to explain: The reason for matza is because our forefathers were redeemed from Egypt, as it is stated: “And they baked the dough that they took out of Egypt as cakes of matzot, for it was not leavened, as they were thrust out of Egypt and could not tarry, neither had they prepared for themselves any victual” (Exodus 12:39). The reason for bitter herbs is because the Egyptians embittered our forefathers’ lives in Egypt, as it is stated: “And they embittered their lives with hard service, in mortar and in brick; in all manner of service in the field, all the service that they made them serve was with rigor” (Exodus 1:14). The tanna of the mishna further states: In each and every generation a person must view himself as though he personally left Egypt, as it is stated: “And you shall tell your son on that day, saying: It is because of this which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt” (Exodus 13:8). In every generation, each person must say: “This which the Lord did for me,” and not: This which the Lord did for my forefathers. The mishna continues with the text of the Haggadah. Therefore we are obligated to thank, praise, glorify, extol, exalt, honor, bless, revere, and laud [lekales] the One who performed for our forefathers and for us all these miracles: He took us out from slavery to freedom, from sorrow to joy, from mourning to a Festival, from darkness to a great light, and from enslavement to redemption. And we will say before Him: Halleluya. At this point one recites the hallel that is said on all joyous days.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין מַפְטִירִין אַחַר הַפֶּסַח אֲפִיקוֹמָן. גְּמָ׳ מַאי אֲפִיקוֹמָן? אָמַר רַב: שֶׁלֹּא יֵעָקְרוּ מֵחֲבוּרָה לַחֲבוּרָה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: כְּגוֹן אוֹרְדִּילָאֵי לִי וְגוֹזָלַיָּיא לְאַבָּא. וְרַב חֲנִינָא בַּר שֵׁילָא וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן (אָמַר) [אָמְרוּ]: כְּגוֹן תְּמָרִים קְלָיוֹת וֶאֱגוֹזִים. תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין מַפְטִירִין אַחַר הַפֶּסַח כְּגוֹן תְּמָרִים קְלָיוֹת וֶאֱגוֹזִים. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין מַפְטִירִין אַחַר מַצָּה אֲפִיקוֹמָן. תְּנַן: אֵין מַפְטִירִין אַחַר הַפֶּסַח אֲפִיקוֹמָן. אַחַר הַפֶּסַח הוּא דְּלָא, אֲבָל לְאַחַר מַצָּה — מַפְטִירִין! לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא אַחַר מַצָּה — דְּלָא נְפִישׁ טַעְמַיְיהוּ, אֲבָל לְאַחַר הַפֶּסַח, דִּנְפִישׁ טַעְמֵיהּ וְלָא מָצֵי עַבּוֹרֵיהּ — לֵית לַן בַּהּ, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן. נֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: הַסּוּפְגָּנִין וְהַדּוּבְשָׁנִין וְהָאִיסְקְרִיטִין, אָדָם מְמַלֵּא כְּרֵיסוֹ מֵהֶן, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל כְּזַיִת מַצָּה בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה. בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה אִין, בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה לָא. לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר. לָא מִיבַּעְיָא בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה — דְּקָאָכֵיל לְתֵיאָבוֹן, אֲבָל בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה דִּילְמָא אָתֵי לְמֵיכַל אֲכִילָה גַּסָּה — אֵימָא לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. מָר זוּטְרָא מַתְנֵי הָכִי: אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַפְטִירִין אַחַר הַמַּצָּה אֲפִיקוֹמָן. נֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ, אֵין מַפְטִירִין אַחַר הַפֶּסַח אֲפִיקוֹמָן: אַחַר הַפֶּסַח דְּלָא, אֲבָל אַחַר מַצָּה — מַפְטִירִין. לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר. לָא מִיבַּעְיָא אַחַר מַצָּה — דְּלָא נְפִישׁ טַעְמֵיהּ, אֲבָל לְאַחַר פֶּסַח — אֵימָא לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. מֵיתִיבִי: הַסּוּפְגָּנִין וְהַדּוּבְשָׁנִין וְהָאִיסְקְרִיטִין אָדָם מְמַלֵּא כְּרֵיסוֹ מֵהֶן וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל (אֲכִילַת) כְּזַיִת מַצָּה בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה. בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה אִין, בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה לָא! לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר. לָא מִיבַּעְיָא בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה — דְּקָאָכֵיל לְתֵיאָבוֹן, אֲבָל בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה דְּאָתֵי לְמֵיכְלַהּ אֲכִילָה גַּסָּה — אֵימָא לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. אָמַר רָבָא: מַצָּה בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וּמָרוֹר דְּרַבָּנַן. וּמַאי שְׁנָא מָרוֹר, דִּכְתִיב: ״עַל מַצּוֹת וּמְרוֹרִים״, בִּזְמַן דְּאִיכָּא פֶּסַח — יֵשׁ מָרוֹר, וּבִזְמַן דְּלֵיכָּא פֶּסַח — לֵיכָּא מָרוֹר. מַצָּה נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב: ״עַל מַצּוֹת וּמְרוֹרִים״! מַצָּה מִיהְדָּר הָדַר בֵּיהּ קְרָא: ״בָּעֶרֶב תֹּאכְלוּ מַצּוֹת״. וְרַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה דְּרַבָּנַן. אֶלָּא הָכְתִיב: ״בָּעֶרֶב תֹּאכְלוּ מַצּוֹת״! הָהִיא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְטָמֵא וְשֶׁהָיָה בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה, דְּסָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא כֵּיוָן דְּפֶסַח לָא אָכְלִי — מַצָּה וּמָרוֹר נָמֵי לָא נֵיכוֹל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. וְרָבָא אָמַר לָךְ: טָמֵא וְשֶׁהָיָה בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה לָא צְרִיךְ קָרָא, דְּלָא גָּרְעִי מֵעָרֵל וּבֶן נֵכָר. דְּתַנְיָא: ״כׇּל עָרֵל לֹא יֹאכַל בּוֹ״ — ״בּוֹ״ אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל, אֲבָל אוֹכֵל בְּמַצָּה וּמָרוֹר. וְאִידַּךְ? כְּתִיב בְּהַאי וּכְתִיב בְּהַאי, וּצְרִיכִי. תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: ״שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תֹּאכַל מַצּוֹת וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי עֲצֶרֶת לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״. מָה שְׁבִיעִי רְשׁוּת, אַף שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים רְשׁוּת. מַאי טַעְמָא? הָוֵי דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה בַּכְּלָל, וְיָצָא מִן הַכְּלָל לְלַמֵּד, לֹא לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמוֹ יָצָא, אֶלָּא לְלַמֵּד עַל הַכְּלָל כּוּלּוֹ יָצָא. יָכוֹל אַף לַיְלָה הָרִאשׁוֹן רְשׁוּת, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַל מַצּוֹת וּמְרוֹרִים יֹאכְלוּהוּ״. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים, בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בָּעֶרֶב תֹּאכְלוּ מַצּוֹת״, הַכָּתוּב קְבָעוֹ חוֹבָה.
MISHNA: One does not conclude after the Paschal lamb with an afikoman. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of afikoman? Rav said: It means that a member of a group that ate the Paschal lamb together should not leave that group to join another group. One who joined one group for the Paschal lamb may not leave and take food with him. According to this interpretation, afikoman is derived from the phrase afiku mani, take out the vessels. The reason for this prohibition is that people might remove the Paschal lamb to another location after they had begun to eat it elsewhere. This is prohibited, as the Paschal lamb must be eaten in a single location by one group. And Shmuel said: It means that one may not eat dessert after the meal, like mushrooms [urdila’ei] for me, and chicks for Abba, Rav. It was customary for them to eat delicacies after the meal. And Rav Ḥanina bar Sheila and Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Afikoman refers to foods such as dates, roasted grains, and nuts, which are eaten during the meal. It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: One does not conclude by eating after the Paschal lamb foods such as dates, roasted grains, and nuts. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said an additional halakha: Nowadays, when we have no Paschal lamb, one does not conclude after matza with an afikoman. The Gemara asks: We learned in the mishna that one does not conclude after the Paschal lamb with an afikoman. The Gemara infers from the mishna: It is after the Paschal lamb that one may not conclude with an afikoman; however, after matza one may conclude with an afikoman. This statement of the mishna apparently contradicts Shmuel’s ruling. The Gemara rejects this contention: That is an incorrect inference, as the mishna is stated in the style of: Needless to say. The mishna should be understood as follows: Needless to say that one may not conclude with an afikoman after eating matza, as the taste of matza is slight. If one eats anything else afterward, the taste of the matza will dissipate. However, after the Paschal lamb, which has a strong taste that is not easily removed, one might think that we have no problem with it. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that it is prohibited to conclude with an afikoman after the Paschal lamb as well. The Gemara proposes: Let us say that the Tosefta supports Shmuel’s ruling: 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 all that food. The Gemara infers from here that if he eats the matza after those cakes, yes, this is acceptable, as the matza is eaten last. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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.