Parallel
פסחים 120
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
but not at the beginning! — [No:] He proceeds to a climax. [If he eats it] at the beginning it goes without saying [that his duty is discharged], since he eats it with an appetite; but at the end, [where] he may come to eat it as mere gorging, I might say that he does not [do his duty]. Hence he [the Tanna] informs us [otherwise]. Mar Zutra recited it thus: R. Joseph said in Rab Judah's name in Samuel's name: One may conclude after the unleavened bread [by saying] ‘Now to the entertainment.’ Shall we say that this supports him: ONE MAY NOT CONCLUDE AFTER THE PASCHAL MEAL. [BY SAYING], ‘NOW TO THE ENTERTAINMENT’; hence one may not conclude thus [only] after the Paschal lamb, yet one may conclude thus after the unleavened bread? — [No:] — He proceeds to a climax. After the unleavened bread it need not be stated, seeing that its taste is not substantial; but I would say [that it is] not so after the Paschal lamb; hence [the Tanna] informs us [otherwise]. An objection is raised: [As for] sponge-cakes, honey-cakes, and iskeritin, a man may fill his stomach therewith, providing that he eats as much as an olive of unleavened bread at the end. Thus it is only at the end, but not at the beginning? He proceeds to a climax: at the beginning, when he eats with an appetite, it is unnecessary [to teach it]; but at the end, where he may merely gorge, I might say [that it is] not [permitted]; hence [the Tanna] informs us [that it is]. Raba said: [The eating of] unleavened bread nowadays is a Scriptural obligation, whereas [that of] bitter herbs is Rabbinical. Yet wherein do bitter herbs differ? Because it is written, they shall eat it [the Passover-offering] with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, [which implies], when [the law of] the Passover-offering is in force, [that of] bitter herbs is in force, and when the Passover-offering is not in force, bitter herbs are not required either! Then in the case of unleavened bread too, surely it is written, ‘they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs’? — Scripture indeed repeated [the precept] in the case of unleavened bread: at even ye shall eat unleavened bread. But R. Aha b. Jacob maintained: Both the one and the other are [only] Rabbinical. But surely it is written, ‘at even ye shall eat unleavened bread’? — That is required in respect of an unclean person and one who was on a journey afar off. For you might argue: Since they cannot eat of the Passover-offering, they need not eat unleavened bread or bitter herbs either; hence [the verse] informs us [otherwise]. And Raba? — He can answer you: In respect of an unclean person and one who was on a journey afar off a verse is not required, for they are no worse than an uncircumcised person and an alien. For it was taught: No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof: ‘thereof’ he may not eat, but he must eat unleavened bread and bitter herbs. And the other? — It is written in the case of the one [the uncircumcised etc.] and it is written in the case of the other [the unclean etc.], and they are both necessary. It was taught in accordance with Raba: Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the Lord thy God: just as [on] the seventh day [the eating of unleavened bread] is voluntary, so [on] the six days it is voluntary. What is the reason? Because it is something which was included in the general law and then excluded from the general law, in order to illumine [other cases], [which means that] it was excluded not in order to throw light upon itself, but in order to throw light upon the entire general law. You might think that on the first night too it is [merely] voluntary; therefore it is stated, ‘they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.’ I know this only when the Temple is in existence; whence do we know it when the Temple is not in existence? From the verse, ‘at even ye shall eat unleavened bread’: thus the Writ made it a permanent obligation. MISHNAH. IF SOME OF THEM FELL ASLEEP, THEY MAY EAT [WHEN THEY AWAKE]; IF ALL OF THEM FELL ASLEEP THEY MUST NOT EAT.15
—
R. JOSE SAID: IF THEY FELL, INTO A LIGHT SLEEP, THEY MAY EAT; IF THEY FELL FAST ASLEEP, THEY MUST NOT EAT. THE PASSOVER-OFFERING DEFILES ONE'S HANDS AFTER MIDNIGHT; PIGGUL AND NOTHAR DEFILE ONE'S HANDS. GEMARA. R. JOSE SAID: IF THEY FELL INTO A LIGHT SLEEP, THEY MAY EAT; IF THEY FELL FAST ASLEEP, THEY MUST NOT EAT. What condition is meant by ‘A LIGHT SLEEP’? Said R. Ashi: A sleep which is not sleep, a wakefulness which is not wakefulness. E.g., if he answers when called, cannot make a reasoned statement, yet recollects when reminded. Abaye was sitting [at the Passover meal] before Rabbah. Seeing him dozing he remarked to him, ‘You, sir, are sleeping.’ ‘I was merely dozing.’ replied he, ‘and we have learnt: ‘IF THEY FELL INTO A LIGHT SLEEP, THEY MAY EAT; IF THEY FELL, FAST ASLEEP’, THEY MUST NOT EAT.’ THE PASSOVER-OFFERING DEFILES ONE'S HANDS AFTER MIDNIGHT etc. This proves that from midnight it is nothar. Which Tanna [holds thus]? — Said R. Joseph. It is R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah. For it was taught: And they shall eat the flesh in that night.’ R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah said: ‘In that night’ is stated here, while elsewhere it is stated, For I will go through the land of Egypt in that night: just as there it means midnight, so here too [they may eat the Passover-offering] until midnight. Said R. Akiba to him: Yet surely it is already stated, [and ye shall eat it] in haste, [implying] until the time of haste. If so, what is taught by ‘in [that] night?’ You might think that it can be eaten like [other] sacrifices, [viz.,] by day: therefore it is stated, ‘in [that] night’: it is eaten by night, but it may not be eaten by day. Now how does R. Akiba employ ‘that [night]’? He utilizes it as excluding a second night. For I might argue. Since the Passover-offering is a sacrifice of lesser sanctity, and the peace-offering is a sacrifice of lesser sanctity, the just as the peace-offering is to be eaten two days and one night, so in the case of the Passover-offering, I will substitute nights for days, and it may be eaten two nights and one day. Therefore the Divine Law wrote ‘that [night]’. And R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah? — He can answer you: That is deduced from, and ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning. And R. Akiba? — He can answer you: Had not the Divine Law written ‘that [night]’. I would have said, what does ‘morning’ mean? the second morning. Then what of R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah? — He can answer you: Wherever ‘morning’ is written, It means the first morning. Raba said: If a man eats unleavened bread after midnight nowadays, according to R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah he does not discharge his duty. That is obvious, [for] since it is assimilated to the Passover-offering, it is like the Passover-offering? — You might say, surely the Writ excluded it from the analogy; hence he informs us that when the Writ restores it, it restores it to its original state. PIGGUL AND NOTHAR DEFILE ONE'S HANDS. R. Huna and R. Hisda — one maintains: It is on account of suspected priests; while the other said: It is on account of the lazy priests. One maintained: As much as an olive [defiles]; while the other said: [At least] as much as an egg.
—