Parallel
פסחים 95:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIRST PASSOVER AND THE SECOND? THE FIRST IS SUBJECT TO THE PROHIBITION OF [LEAVEN] SHALL NOT BE SEEN AND [LEAVEN] SHALL NOT BE FOUND; WHILE AT THE SECOND [A MAN MAY HAVE] LEAVENED AND UNLEAVENED BREAD IN THE HOUSE WITH HIM. THE FIRST REQUIRES [THE RECITING OF] HALLEL WHEN IT [THE PASCHAL LAMB] IS EATEN, WHEN THE SECOND DOES NOT REQUIRE HALLEL WHEN IT IS EATEN. BUT BOTH REQUIRE [THE RECITING OF] HALLEL WHEN THEY ARE SACRIFICED, AND THEY ARE EATEN ROAST WITH UNLEAVENED BREAD AND BITTER HERBS, AND THEY OVERRIDE THE SABBATH. GEMARA. Our rabbis taught: According to all the statute of the Passover they shall keep it: the Writ refers to the ordinance[s] pertaining to itself. How do we know the ordinance[s] indirectly connected with itself? Because it is said, they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. You might think that regulations which are not even indirectly connected with itself [are included too]; therefore it is stated, nor shall they break a bone thereof: just as the breaking of a bone stands out as an ordinance pertaining to itself, so is every ordinance pertaining to itself [included]. Issi b. Judah said: ‘they shall keep it’ [implies that] the Writ treats of regulations pertaining to itself. The Master said: ‘You might think that regulations which are not even indirectly connected with itself [are included too]’ — But surely you have said that the Writ refers to ordinance[s] pertaining to itself?-This is what he means: now that you have quoted. ‘they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, which proves that ‘they shall keep it’ is not exact, then say that it is like a particularization and a general proposition, whereby the general proposition is accounted as adding to the particularization, so that even all regulations [are included]: hence he informs us [that It is not so]. Now Issi b. Judah, how does he utilize this [law concerning a] bone?-He requires it for [teaching that] both a bone which contains marrow and a bone which does not contain marrow [are meant]. And the Rabbis: how do they utilize this [verse] ‘they shall keep it’?-they require it to teach that one may not kill the Passover-offering on behalf of a single person, so that as far as it is possible to procure [another unclean person] we do so. Our Rabbis taught: ‘According to all the statute of the Passover they shall keep it’: you might think, just as the first is subject to the prohibition of [leaven] ‘shall not be seen’ and ‘shall not be found’, so is the second subject to the prohibition of [leaven] shall not be seen and shall not be found: therefore it is stated, they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Again, I know it only of positive precepts; how do we know it of negative precepts? Because It is stated, They shall leave none of it unto the morning. Also, I know it only of a negative precept modified to a positive precept; how do we know it of an absolute negative precept? Because It is stated, ‘and they shall not break a bone thereof’: [hence] just as the particularization is explicitly stated as a positive precept, and a negative precept modified to a positive precept, and an absolute negative precept, so every positive precept, and a negative precept modified to a positive precept, and complete negative precept [are included]. What is included in the general proposition as applied to ‘[they shall eat it] with unleavened bread and bitter herbs’?Roast with fire. What does it exclude in its particularization? -The putting away of leaven. May I [not] reverse it? — [The inclusion of] a precept pertaining to itself is preferable. What is included in the general proposition as bearing on ‘they shall leave none of it unto the morning’?- thou shall not carry forth aught [of the flesh abroad out of the house], (which is similar thereto, since the one is disqualified through being nothar, while the other is disqualified through going out [of its permitted boundary]). What does it exclude by its particularization?-[Leaven] ‘shall not be seen and ‘shall not be found,’ (which is similar thereto, for the one does not involve flagellation, since it is a negative precept modified to a positive precept, while the other does not involve flagellation, since It is a negative precept modified to a positive precept.) May I [not] reverse it?- [The inclusion of] a precept pertaining to itself is preferable. What is included in the general proposition as bearing on ‘they shall not break a bone thereof?
—