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.
(שמות ח, ב) ותעל הצפרדע ותכס את ארץ מצרים אמר ר' אלעזר צפרדע אחת היתה השריצה ומלאה כל ארץ מצרים כתנאי רבי עקיבא אומר צפרדע אחת היתה ומלאה כל ארץ מצרים אמר לו רבי אלעזר בן עזריה עקיבא מה לך אצל הגדה כלה מדברותיך ולך אצל נגעים ואהלות צפרדע אחת היתה שרקה להם והם באו: אמר ר' עקיבא כו':
It is stated with regard to the plagues of Egypt: “And the frog came up and covered the land of Egypt” (Exodus 8:2). Noting that the term “the frog” is written in the singular, Rabbi Elazar says: At first it was one frog; it spawned and filled the entire land of Egypt with frogs. The Gemara comments: This matter is subject to a dispute between tanna’im: Rabbi Akiva says: It was one frog, and it spawned and filled the entire land of Egypt with frogs. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to him: Akiva, what are you doing occupying yourself with the study of aggada? This is not your field of expertise. Take your statements to the tractates of Nega’im and Oholot. In other words, it is preferable that you teach the halakhot of the impurity of leprosy and the impurity imparted in a tent, which are among the most difficult areas of halakha and are within your field of expertise. Rather, the verse is to be understood as follows: It was one frog; it whistled to the other frogs, and they all came after it. § In the mishna, Rabbi Akiva says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua that two people can each gather cucumbers by sorcery, one of whom is exempt, as he merely deceives the eyes, and one of whom is liable, as he performs real sorcery.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הֲלָכָה זוֹ נִתְעַלְּמָה מִבְּנֵי בְתִירָא. פַּעַם אַחַת חָל אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת, שָׁכְחוּ וְלֹא יָדְעוּ אִם פֶּסַח דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אִם לָאו. אָמְרוּ: כְּלוּם יֵשׁ אָדָם שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ אִם פֶּסַח דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אִם לָאו? אָמְרוּ לָהֶם: אָדָם אֶחָד יֵשׁ שֶׁעָלָה מִבָּבֶל וְהִלֵּל הַבַּבְלִי שְׁמוֹ, שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ שְׁנֵי גְּדוֹלֵי הַדּוֹר שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן, וְיוֹדֵעַ אִם פֶּסַח דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אִם לָאו. שָׁלְחוּ וְקָרְאוּ לוֹ, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: כְּלוּם אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ אִם הַפֶּסַח דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת אִם לָאו? אָמַר לָהֶם: וְכִי פֶּסַח אֶחָד יֵשׁ לָנוּ בַּשָּׁנָה שֶׁדּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת? וַהֲלֹא הַרְבֵּה יוֹתֵר מִמָּאתַיִם פְּסָחִים יֵשׁ לָנוּ בַּשָּׁנָה שֶׁדּוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִנַּיִן לְךָ? אָמַר לָהֶם: נֶאֱמַר ״מוֹעֲדוֹ״ בַּפֶּסַח, וְנֶאֱמַר ״מוֹעֲדוֹ״ בַּתָּמִיד: מָה ״מוֹעֲדוֹ״ הָאָמוּר בַּתָּמִיד דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, אַף ״מוֹעֲדוֹ״ הָאָמוּר בַּפֶּסַח דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. וְעוֹד, קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא: וּמָה תָּמִיד שֶׁאֵין עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, פֶּסַח שֶׁעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁדּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. מִיָּד הוֹשִׁיבוּהוּ בָּרֹאשׁ, וּמִינּוּהוּ נָשִׂיא עֲלֵיהֶם, וְהָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ בְּהִלְכוֹת הַפֶּסַח. הִתְחִיל מְקַנְטְרָן בִּדְבָרִים. אָמַר לָהֶן: מִי גָּרַם לָכֶם שֶׁאֶעְלֶה מִבָּבֶל וְאֶהְיֶה נָשִׂיא עֲלֵיכֶם — עַצְלוּת שֶׁהָיְתָה בָּכֶם, שֶׁלֹּא שִׁמַּשְׁתֶּם שְׁנֵי גְּדוֹלֵי הַדּוֹר, שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: רַבִּי, שָׁכַח וְלֹא הֵבִיא סַכִּין מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, מַהוּ? אָמַר לָהֶן: הֲלָכָה זוֹ שָׁמַעְתִּי וְשָׁכַחְתִּי, אֶלָּא הַנַּח לָהֶן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, אִם אֵין נְבִיאִים הֵן — בְּנֵי נְבִיאִים הֵן. לְמָחָר, מִי שֶׁפִּסְחוֹ טָלֶה — תּוֹחֲבוֹ בְּצַמְרוֹ, מִי שֶׁפִּסְחוֹ גְּדִי — תּוֹחֲבוֹ בֵּין קַרְנָיו. רָאָה מַעֲשֶׂה וְנִזְכַּר הֲלָכָה, וְאָמַר: כָּךְ מְקוּבְּלַנִי מִפִּי שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן.
GEMARA: The Sages taught a baraita with regard to the basic halakha governing the eve of Passover that occurs on Shabbat: This law was forgotten by the sons of Beteira, who were the leaders of their generation. The fourteenth of Nisan once occurred on Shabbat, and they forgot and did not know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not. They said: Is there any person who knows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? They said to them: There is a certain man in Jerusalem who came up from Babylonia, and Hillel the Babylonian is his name. At one point, he served the two most eminent scholars of the generation, Shemaya and Avtalyon, and he certainly knows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not. The sons of Beteira sent messengers and called for him. They said to him: Do you know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? He said to them: Have we but one Paschal lamb during the year that overrides Shabbat? Do we not have many more than two hundred Paschal lambs, i.e., sacrifices, during the year that override Shabbat? They said to him: From where do you know this? He said to them: “Its appointed time” is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb and “its appointed time” is also stated with regard to the daily offering, for the verse says: “Command the children of Israel and say to them, My offering, the provision of My sacrifice made with fire, for a sweet savor to Me, shall you observe to offer Me at its appointed time” (Numbers 28:2). From here we learn that the daily offering is brought even on Shabbat. Thus, the daily morning and afternoon offerings are brought on more than fifty Shabbatot over the course of the year, and two sheep are offered every Shabbat as additional offerings, for a total of more than two hundred sacrifices a year that override Shabbat. Just as the expression “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the daily offering, indicates that it overrides Shabbat, so too “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb, indicates that it overrides Shabbat. And furthermore, it is an a fortiori inference: If the daily offering, the neglect of which is not punishable by karet, overrides Shabbat, is it not right that the Paschal lamb, the neglect of which is punishable by karet, should override Shabbat? After Hillel brought these proofs, they immediately seated him at the head and appointed him Nasi over them, and he expounded the laws of Passover that entire day. In the course of his teaching, he began rebuking them [mekanteran] them with words. He said to them: What caused this to happen to you, that I should come up from Babylonia and become Nasi over you? It was the laziness in you that you did not serve the two most eminent scholars of the generation living in Eretz Yisrael, Shemaya and Avtalyon. They said to Hillel: Our teacher, if one forgot and did not bring a knife on the eve of Shabbat and cannot slaughter his Paschal lamb, what is the law? Since he could have brought the knife before Shabbat, he cannot bring it on Shabbat; but what should he do in this situation? He said to them: I once heard this halakha from my teachers but I have forgotten it. But leave it to the Jewish people; if they are not prophets to whom God has revealed His secrets, they are the sons of prophets, and will certainly do the right thing on their own. The next day, on Shabbat that was the eve of Passover, one whose Paschal offering was a lamb took the knife and stuck it in its wool; and one whose Paschal offering was a goat, which does not have wool, stuck it between its horns. Hillel saw the incident and remembered the halakha that he had once learned and said: This is the tradition I received from the mouths of Shemaya and Avtalyon, meaning that this is in fact the proper course of action. This concludes the text of the baraita and the Gemara will begin to elucidate it.