Pesachim 189

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מה בין פסח הראשון לשני הראשון אסור בבל יראה ובל ימצא והשני חמץ ומצה עמו בבית הראשון טעון הלל באכילתו והשני אינו טעון הלל באכילתו זה וזה טעון הלל בעשייתן ונאכלין צלי על מצה ומרורים ודוחין את השבת:

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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 19; Deut. XVI, 4');">¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר (במדבר ט, יב) ככל חוקת הפסח יעשו אותו במצוה שבגופו הכתוב מדבר

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.

מצוה שעל גופו מנין ת"ל (במדבר ט, יא) על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו יכול אפילו מצות שלא על גופו ת"ל (במדבר ט, יב) ועצם לא ישברו בו מה שבירת העצם מיוחד מצוה שבגופו אף כל מצוה שבגופו

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. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our rabbis taught: According to all the statute of the Passover they shall keep it:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. IX, 12 with reference to the second Passover.');">²</span>

איסי בן יהודה אומר (במדבר ט, יב) יעשו אותו במצות שבגופו הכתוב מדבר

the Writ refers to the ordinance[s] pertaining to itself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g.. how the sacrifice shall be prepared, that it is to be eaten roast etc.; but regulations not directly pertaining to itself, e.g.. the removing of leaven, are not included.');">³</span> How do we know the ordinance[s] indirectly connected with itself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., that it is to be eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.');">⁴</span>

אמר מר יכול אף מצוה שלא על גופו הא אמרת במצוה שבגופו הכתוב מדבר

Because it is said, they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. IX, 11.');">⁵</span> 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 12.');">⁶</span>

ה"ק השתא דאמרת על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו אלמא יעשו אותו לאו דוקא הוא אימא הוה ליה כפרט וכלל ונעשה כלל מוסיף על הפרט ואפילו כל מילי נמי קמ"ל

just as the breaking of a bone stands out as an ordinance pertaining to itself so is every ordinance pertaining to itself [included].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not others.');">⁷</span> Issi B'Judah said: 'they shall keep it' [implies that] t Writ treats of regulations pertaining to itself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that 'nor shall they break a bone thereof' is unnecessary for that purpose.');">⁸</span>

איסי בן יהודה האי עצם מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לאחד עצם שיש בו מוח ואחד עצם שאין בו מוח

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'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'It' might imply that only the regulations directly bearing on the sacrifice itself are meant, and therefore exclude the eating of unleavened bread and bitter herbs.');">⁹</span>

ורבנן האי יעשו אותו מאי עבדי ליה מיבעי ליה שאין שוחטין את הפסח על היחיד דכמה דאפשר לאהדורי מהדרינן

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]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a general principle of exegesis that if a law is first stated in a particular instance and then in a general form, the former does not limit the latter but on the contrary the latter generalizes the former, so that all instances are included. Here a particular instance of similarity between the first Passover and the second is stated in v. 11 while in v. 12 a general law is stated that the two are alike in all respects.');">¹⁰</span> hence he informs us [that It is not so].

ת"ר ככל חוקת הפסח יעשו אותו יכול כשם שהראשון אסור בבל יראה ובל ימצא כך שני אסור בבל יראה ובל ימצא ת"ל על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו

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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 85a.');">¹¹</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if we have to defile a person at the first Passover, so that there may be at least two at the second; v. supra 91a.');">¹²</span>

ואין לי אלא מצות עשה מצות ל"ת מנין ת"ל (במדבר ט, יב) לא ישאירו ממנו עד בקר

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 508. they are alike only in respect of the regulations pertaining to or connected with itself, just like the particular case which is stated.');">¹³</span> Again, I know it only of positive precepts;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'They shall eat it' etc. is a positive precept, and therefore teaches that all the positive precepts applicable to the first Passover are also binding upon the second, e.g., the precept to eat it roast.');">¹⁴</span>

ואין לי אלא מצות ל"ת שניתק לעשה מצות ל"ת גמור מנין ת"ל (במדבר ט, יב) ועצם לא ישברו בו מה הפרט מפורש מ"ע ול"ת שניתק לעשה ול"ת גמור אף כל מ"ע ול"ת שניתק לעשה ול"ת גמור

how do we know it of negative precepts? Because It is stated, They shall leave none of it unto the morning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. IX, 12; hence the deduction stated in the preceding note applies to negative precepts too.');">¹⁵</span>

בכלליה דמצות ומרורים מאי קא מרבי צלי אש בפרטיה מאי ממעיט ליה השבתת שאור איפוך אנא מצוה דגופיה עדיף

Also, I know it only of a negative precept modified to a positive precept;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A prohibition which if violated must be repaired by a positive act. Thus 'and ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning' (Ex. XII, 10) is followed by 'but that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire'. Technically such an injunction is less stringent than an ordinary negative precept and does not involve flagellation.');">¹⁶</span> how do we know it of an absolute negative precept?

בכלליה דלא ישאירו ממנו עד בקר מאי קא מרבה ליה לא תוציא ממנו (דדמי ליה דהאי מיפסל בנותר והאי מיפסל ביוצא)

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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the general proposition, 'according to all the statute etc., is applied separately to each of these three particular laws, teaching that all laws which partake of their nature are included.');">¹⁷</span> What is included in the general proposition as applied to '[they shall eat it] with unleavened bread and bitter herbs'? - Roast with fire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n . 2.');">¹⁸</span>

בפרטיה מאי קא ממעט ליה לא יראה ולא ימצא (דדמי ליה דהאי אינו לוקה דהוה לאו שניתק לעשה והאי אינו לוקה דהוה ליה לאו שניתק לעשה) איפוך אנא מצוה דגופיה עדיף

What does it exclude in its particularization?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For just as the general proposition includes laws unstated, so the particularization teaches that some laws are excluded, as otherwise the former alone would suffice.');">¹⁹</span> -The putting away of leaven.

בכלליה דעצם לא ישברו בו

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],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 46');">²⁰</span> ²¹ while the other is disqualified through going out [of its permitted boundary]"&gt;.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. omits the bracketed passage.');">²²</span> 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).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If flesh of the Passover sacrifice is left over, it must be burnt, while if leaven is not completely removed before Passover, so that it is 'seen' or 'found', it must be destroyed whenever discovered. Hence both of these negative precepts are modified to positive precepts, and he who violates them is not flagellated.-Var. lec. omits the bracketed passage.');">²³</span> 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?