Parallel
פסחים 95
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?
—
— Eat not of it half-roast. By its particularization what does it exclude? Thou shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread. May I [not] reverse it?- [The inclusion of] a precept pertaining to itself is preferable. THE FIRST REQUIRES [THE RECITING OF] HALLEL WHEN IT IS EATEN etc. Whence do we know it?-Said R. Johanan on the authority of R. Simeon b. Jehozadak: Scripture saith, Ye shall have a song as in the night when a feast is hallowed: the night that is hallowed for a feast [Festival] requires [the reciting of] Hallel [‘Song’], while the night which is not hallowed for a feast does not require [the reciting of] Hallel. BUT BOTH REQUIRE [THE RECITING OF] HALLEL WHEN THEY ARE SACRIFICED etc. What is the reason?-I can either say, [Scripture] excludes the night, but not the day; or alternatively, is it possible that Israel sacrifice their Passover-offerings or take their palm-branches without reciting Hallel! AND THEY ARE EATEN ROAST etc. Only the Sabbath [do they override], but not uncleanness: our Mishnah does not agree with R. Judah,for it was taught: It [the second Passover] overrides the Sabbath, but it does not override uncleanness; R. Judah maintained: It overrides uncleanness too. What is the reason of the first Tanna?-Seeing that I have suspended him [from the first Passover] on account of uncleanness, shall he after all keep it in uncleanness? And R. Judah? — The Torah sought [means] for him to keep it in cleanness; yet if he was not privileged [thus], he must keep it in uncleanness. Our Rabbis taught: The first Passover overrides the Sabbath, [and] the second Passover overrides the Sabbath; the first Passover overrides uncleanness,[and] the second Passover overrides uncleanness; the first Passover requires the spending of the night [in Jerusalem], [and] the second Passover requires the spending of the night [in Jerusalem]. ‘[The second Passover] overrides uncleanness . With whom [does this agree]? — With R. Judah. But according to R. Judah, does it require the spending of the night [in Jerusalem]? Surely it was taught, R. Judah said: How do we know that the second Passover does not require the spending of the night [in Jerusalem]? Because it is said, and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents; and it is written, six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread: that which is eaten six [days] requires the spending of the night [in Jerusalem], but that which is not eaten six [days] does not require the spending of the night [in Jerusalem]? -There is [a controversy of] two Tannaim as to R. Judah's opinion. MISHNAH. [WITH REGARD TO ] THE PASSOVER-OFFERING WHICH COMES IN UNCLEANNESS, ZABIN AND ZABOTH, MENSTRUANT WOMEN AND WOMEN AFTER CONFINEMENT MUST NOT EAT THEREOF, YET IF THEY DID EAT THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM KARETH; BUT R. ELIEZER EXEMPTS [THEM] EVEN [OF THE KARETH NORMALLY INCURRED] FOR ENTERING THE SANCTUARY. G E M A R A. Our Rabbis taught: If zabin and zaboth, menstruant women and women after confinement ate of the Passover-offering which was sacrificed in uncleanness, you might think that they are culpable, therefore it is stated, Every one that is clean may eat flesh [of sacrifices]. But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that pertain unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off: with regard to that which is eaten by clean persons, you are culpable on its account on the score of uncleanness, but as to that which is not eaten by clean persons, you are not culpable on its account on the score of ‘uncleanness — R. Eliezer said: If zabin and lepers forced their way through and entered the Temple Court at a Passover-offering which came in uncleanness, you might think that they are culpable; therefore it is stated , [command the children of Israel,] that they send out of the camp every leper, and everyone that hath an issue [zab], and whosoever,- is unclean by the dead: when those who are unclean by the dead are sent out, zabin and lepers are sent out; when those who are unclean by the dead are not sent out, zabin and lepers are not sent out. R. Joseph asked: What if persons unclean through the dead forced their way in and entered the Temple [hekal] at a Passoveroffering which came in uncleanness? [Do we say,] since the uncleanness of the Temple Court was permitted, the uncleanness of the Temple [hekal] too was permitted; or perhaps, what was permitted was permitted, while what was not permitted was not permitted? Said Raba: Scripture saith, ‘that they send out of the camp,’ [implying] even from part of the camp. Others maintain. Raba said: Scripture saith, without [mi-huz] the camp shall ye send then: only where ‘without the camp shall ye send them,’ is applicable, is ‘that they send out of the camp’ applicable. A. Joseph asked: What if persons unclean by the dead forced their way through [to the altar] and ate the emurim: of a Passover-offering which came in uncleanness?22
—