Yalkut Shimoni on Torah Reader

"A man a lamb for a father's house" (Exodus 12:3). The term "lamb" includes both a kid and a young sheep, as it is said, "a sheep of the flock and a goat" (Deuteronomy 14:4). "For a father's house"—"a father's house" means nothing other than families, as it is said, "by their families, by their fathers' houses" (Numbers 1:2). Now, suppose there were ten families belonging to a single father's house; I might hear that there is one lamb for them all. Scripture says, "a lamb for a house"—[one for each household].

Another interpretation: "a lamb for a house" teaches that a person brings and slaughters on behalf of his minor son and daughter, and on behalf of his Canaanite slave and maidservant, whether with their knowledge or without their knowledge. But he does not slaughter on behalf of his adult son and daughter, nor on behalf of his Hebrew slave and maidservant, nor on behalf of his wife, except with their knowledge. If one set aside a Passover lamb on behalf of another, he has accomplished nothing. "A lamb for a house" is not a Torah-level requirement, as we learned: One who says to his children, "I am slaughtering the Passover on behalf of whichever of you goes up first to Jerusalem"—once the first one has brought in his head and the greater part of his body, he has acquired his portion and confers it upon his brothers with him. Now if you say "a lamb for a house" is a Torah-level requirement, it rests on the actual meat and he confers it on them; then why did their father say it to them? In order to spur them on [to the commandments]. It was also taught thus: There was an incident in which the daughters got there ahead of the sons, and the daughters were found to be eager and the sons sluggish.

"And if the household is too few to be for a lamb" (Exodus 12:4). The verse comes to teach you that people may always be enrolled upon the Passover lamb and may withdraw from it until it is slaughtered, provided that one does not leave the Passover lamb as it is [with no one enrolled]. Rabbi Yehudah says: provided that there remained there one member of the first group, so as not to make the primary group secondary and the secondary group primary. "And they may withdraw from it until it is slaughtered." Rabbi Shimon says: until the blood is dashed. The Rabbis hold: "from being" [mihyot] means from the living state of the lamb; and Rabbi Shimon holds it means from the being of the lamb [i.e., once dashed]. But as for enrolling upon it, all agree it is until it is slaughtered, for Scripture says, "according to the number of souls" and afterward "you shall apportion it" (Exodus 12:4). It was taught: "too few to be for a lamb"—measured by what is needed for eating and not by what is needed for purchase. Rabbi says: also by what is needed for purchase, for if one has not enough, he enrolls others with him, and the money in his hand remains unconsecrated, for it was on this condition that Israel consecrated their Passover offerings. Rabbah and Rabbi Zeira: regarding the wood for its roasting all agree it is considered like its body; where they differ is regarding the unleavened bread and bitter herbs. The Rabbis hold these are a separate eating, while Rabbi holds that since they are part of what makes the Passover fit, they are like the Passover itself. And one said: regarding the unleavened bread and bitter herbs they also do not differ; where they differ is regarding using the money to buy a garment or a cloak, for the Rabbis hold "from being a lamb" means keep the lamb alive [count for the lamb's sake], while Rabbi holds it means keep yourself alive by means of the lamb.

"And he shall take, he and his neighbor" (Exodus 12:4). Rabbi Akiva says: From where do you say that if a person wishes to make the Passover by himself he is permitted? Scripture says, "and he shall take, he." Rabbi Ishmael says: From where do you say that if a person wishes to enroll others upon his Passover he is permitted? Scripture says, "and he shall take, he and his neighbor." I might hear that this means his neighbor on his roof; or perhaps it means only his neighbor at his side? Scripture says, "the one near to his house"—Scripture speaks of the usual case. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says: his neighbor in any case. "According to the number [mikhsat]"—"number" means nothing other than a count, that he slaughter it for those enrolled upon it. But if he slaughtered it for those not enrolled upon it, I might hear that it is valid; Scripture says, "a man according to his eating you shall apportion"—Scripture repeated the matter to disqualify. Rabbi says: this is the Syrian tongue, like a person who says to his fellow, "Slaughter [kos] this lamb for me." We have found this regarding those not enrolled upon it; regarding those who will not eat it, from where do we know? Scripture says, "a man according to his eating you shall apportion"—it likens those who eat it to those enrolled upon it.

It was taught: For a woman, on the first Passover one may slaughter on her behalf in her own right, and on the second one makes her secondary to others—the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Yose says: on the second one slaughters on her behalf in her own right, and needless to say on the first. Rabbi Shimon says: on the first one makes her secondary to others, and on the second one does not slaughter on her behalf at all. What is Rabbi Yehudah's reasoning? Regarding the first it is written "according to the number of souls" (Exodus 12:4), which includes even a woman; and regarding the second it is written, "that man shall bear his sin" (Numbers 9:13)—"man" and not woman. And when it excludes her, it excludes her from the obligation, but it does not exclude her from being made secondary, for when it wrote "the statute of the Passover" it was effective to make her secondary. And what is Rabbi Yose's reasoning? Regarding the first it is written "according to the number of souls," which includes even a woman, and regarding the second it is written, "that soul shall be cut off" (Numbers 9:13), which includes even a woman; and "that man shall bear his sin" is needed for "man" and not a minor. And what is Rabbi Shimon's reasoning? Regarding the first it is written "man" and not woman, and "according to the number of souls" serves to make her secondary; and regarding the second it is written "that man shall bear his sin"—"man" and not woman. From what does he exclude her? If you say from the obligation—now if on the first you say no, on the second is it necessary to say? Rather, it must be to make her secondary. And what is the "man" that Rabbi Shimon cites? If you say "let them take for themselves a man," that is needed for Rabbi Yitzchak's teaching: a man acquires and a minor does not acquire. Rather, it is "a man according to his eating." Then say it accords with Rabbi Yose, that one may slaughter the Passover for an individual? If so, let it write "according to his eating"; what is "man"? Learn from it two things.

Another interpretation: "according to the number of souls" (Exodus 12:4)—why is it stated? Because it says "a man," I would know only a man; from where do I know a woman, a tumtum [one whose sex is indeterminate], and an androgynos [one bearing both characteristics]? Scripture says, "according to the number of souls"—the word implies an inclusion. I might bring in these and also bring in the sick person and the minor who cannot eat an olive's worth; Scripture says, "according to his eating"—this excludes the sick person and the minor who cannot eat an olive's worth; one does not slaughter on their behalf. Rabbi Ishmael says: the verse comes to teach you that people are enrolled upon the Passover and may withdraw from it until it is slaughtered, provided that they do not leave the Passover lamb as it is [with no one enrolled]. Rabbi Yitzchak says: of what state does the matter speak? Of the living lamb.

"A lamb without blemish" (Exodus 12:5). The term "lamb" (seh) includes both a kid and a young sheep, as it is said, "a lamb of the sheep and a lamb of the goats." "Without blemish" excludes one that has a defect. "A male" excludes one of doubtful sex (tumtum), a hermaphrodite, and a female. "A year old": I know only one literally a year old; from where do I learn that any animal within its first year qualifies? Rabbi Yishmael used to say a conclusion from the lesser to the greater: if the burnt offering, which is stringent, is fit to be brought throughout its year as though on the day it turned a year old, then the Passover offering, which is lenient, is it not right that it be valid throughout its year as though a year old? Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: if a ram, which is unfit at the start of its second year yet fit at its end, then the Passover offering, which is fit at its start, is it not right that it be fit at its end as well? "From the sheep or from the goats" (Exodus 12:5): from this one on its own and from that one on its own. Or might it mean from both together? Scripture teaches, "and if his offering is from the flock" (Leviticus 1:10), from this one on its own and from that one on its own. And here is an argument from the lesser to the greater: if the burnt offering, which is stringent, is fit to be brought from a single kind, then the Passover offering, which is lenient, is it not right that it be brought from a single kind? So why does Scripture say "from the sheep or from the goats"? From this one on its own and from that one on its own. "It shall be for you" (Exodus 12:6) teaches you to bring the Passover offering for the generations only from the sheep or from the goats; these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yoshiyah says: why is "you shall take" stated? Since it says, "you shall slaughter the Passover offering to the LORD your God, of the flock and the herd" (Deuteronomy 16:2) -- the flock for the Passover offering and the herd for the festival offering. Or might it mean one of these and one of those for the Passover offering, and how then do I uphold "a lamb without blemish, a male, a year old"? That it applies only to the Passover of Egypt, but for the Passover of the generations one may bring from this and from that? Scripture teaches, "from the sheep or from the goats you shall take" -- these are the words of Rabbi Yoshiyah. Rabbi Yonatan says: the flock for the Passover offering, the herd for the festival offering. Or might it mean one of these and one of those for the Passover offering? And how then do I uphold "a lamb without blemish"? That it applies to the Passover of Egypt, but for the Passover of the generations one may bring from this and from that? Scripture teaches, "and you shall perform this service in this month" (Exodus 13:5) -- as the service you performed in Egypt, so do for the generations; these are the words of Rabbi Natan. Rabbi Eliezer says: the flock for the Passover offering and the herd for the festival offering, and so on. And how do I uphold "a lamb without blemish"? For the Passover of Egypt; but for the Passover of the generations one may bring from this and from that? Scripture teaches, "and you shall keep this matter" (Exodus 12:24) -- here the Passover of the generations is spoken of. If so, why does Scripture say, "you shall slaughter the Passover offering to the LORD your God, of the flock and the herd" (Deuteronomy 16:2)? The flock for the Passover offering and the herd for the festival offering. Rabbi Akiva says: one verse says, "you shall slaughter the Passover offering... of the flock and the herd," and one verse says, "from the sheep or from the goats." How can both verses be upheld? You must say this is a principle in the Torah: when two verses stand one against the other and contradict one another, they remain in their place until a third verse comes and decides between them. Scripture teaches, "draw out and take for yourselves of the flock" (Exodus 12:21) -- the flock for the Passover offering and the herd for the festival offering, and not the herd for the Passover offering. Rabbi Yishmael says: Scripture speaks of the festival offering that comes with the Passover. Or perhaps it speaks of the Passover itself? When it says "a lamb without blemish, a male, a year old," the Passover itself has already been stated. So why does Scripture say, "you shall slaughter the Passover offering to the LORD your God, of the flock and the herd"? Of the festival offering that comes with the Passover. Rabbi [Yehudah HaNasi] says: Scripture speaks of a sacrifice that comes from the flock and from the herd, and which is this? The peace offering. From here they said: the surplus of a peace offering goes toward a peace offering, and the surplus of a Passover offering goes toward a peace offering.

"A lamb without blemish, a male, a year old, shall be for you" (Exodus 12:5): that it must be unblemished and a year old at the moment of slaughter. And from where do we learn that it must also be so at the receiving of the blood, the carrying of the blood, and the sprinkling? Scripture teaches "shall be" (yihyeh), that its whole existence in the rite be unblemished and a year old. This was rendered also concerning "a year old." So too it stands to reason, for it is taught: Rabbi Yehoshua says, of all the sacrifices in the Torah, if there remains of them an olive's bulk of flesh or an olive's bulk of fat, one sprinkles the blood. Learn from this -- yet is there anything that at the moment of slaughter is a year old, and at the receiving, carrying, and sprinkling of the blood becomes two years old? Rava said: this teaches that hours disqualify in consecrated offerings [the passing of hours can render an animal too old]. "From the cattle, from the herd or from the flock" (Leviticus 1:2): this excludes the aged, the sick, and the foul-smelling. But that teacher who derives from "from the cattle" the exclusion of an animal that mounts or is mounted -- from where does he derive the aged, the sick, and the foul-smelling? He derives it from what is taught: "from the sheep or from the goats you shall take" -- these are restrictive terms, excluding the aged, the sick, and the foul-smelling. And that teacher of the school of Rabbi Yishmael holds that "from the sheep or from the goats you shall take" is simply the manner of Scripture to speak in this way.

"And it shall be for you to keep until the fourteenth" (Exodus 12:6). For what reason did Scripture have the taking of the Passover lamb precede its slaughter by four days? Rabbi Matya ben Charash used to say: it says, "And I passed by you and saw you" (Ezekiel 16:8) and so on -- the time had come for the oath the Holy One, blessed be He, had sworn to our father Abraham, that He would redeem his children. But they had no commandments in their hands to occupy themselves with so as to be redeemed, as it is said, "your breasts were formed and your hair had grown, yet you were naked and bare" (Ezekiel 16:7), "bare" of commandments. So the Holy One, blessed be He, gave them two commandments, the commandment of the Passover offering and the commandment of circumcision, that they occupy themselves with them and be redeemed, and so on. And it says, "so too you, by the blood of your covenant I have sent forth your prisoners" (Zechariah 9:11). Therefore He had the taking of the Passover precede its slaughter by four days, for one is rewarded only for the deed. Rabbi Eliezer says: four [things] were in their hands (this is written at the verse "and a woman shall ask of her neighbor"). And for what reason did He have the taking of the Passover precede its slaughter by four days? Because Israel was steeped in idolatry in Egypt, and idolatry is weighed against all the commandments of the Torah, as it is said, "and if it be hidden from the eyes of the congregation" and so on (Numbers 15:24) -- here Scripture singled out this commandment and stated it as a matter by itself; this is the worship of idols. Or is it merely one of all the commandments stated in the Torah? When it says, "and when you err and do not perform" and so on (Numbers 15:22), all the commandments came to teach you about one commandment: just as one who transgresses all the commandments casts off the yoke, breaks the covenant, and shows brazenness toward the Torah, so too one who transgresses this one commandment, and so on, as it is said, "to pass into the covenant" -- and "covenant" means nothing other than the Torah, as it is said, "these are the words of the covenant" (Deuteronomy 28:69). He said to them: withdraw your hands from idolatry and cleave to the commandments. Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira says: it says, "and they did not listen to Moses" (Exodus 6:9) (written at remez 177). "And it shall be for you to keep": why is this stated? Since it says, "draw out and take," Israel said to Moses our teacher, "shall we slaughter what is an abomination to the Egyptians" and so on (Exodus 8:22). He said: from the miracle He performs for you in the drawing out, you will know what happens in the slaughtering. "And it shall be for you to keep": guard it until the fourteenth, slaughter it on the fourteenth. Or perhaps: guard it until the fourteenth, then draw it out and slaughter it? Scripture teaches, "in the first month, on the fourteenth" (Numbers 9:5) -- Scripture fixed it as an obligation.

"And it shall be for you to keep" (Exodus 12:6): Scripture tells that they would inspect it four days before its slaughter. From here you may reason about the daily offering: "keeping" is stated regarding the Passover, and "keeping" is stated regarding the daily offering. Just as the keeping stated regarding the Passover means they inspect it four days before its slaughter, so too the keeping stated regarding the daily offering means they inspect it four days before its slaughter. From here they said: they keep no fewer than six inspected lambs in the Chamber of Lambs, enough for a Sabbath and the two festival days of the New Year, and one always adds to them. If on the eve of festivals the daily and additional offerings are many -- but this teacher is speaking generally, only of the daily offerings, and what does "enough for a Sabbath" mean? It is merely a sign, and this is what he says: they keep no fewer than six inspected lambs in the Chamber of Lambs four days before slaughter. And who is this teacher? It is Ben Bag Bag, for it is taught: from where do we learn that the daily offering requires inspection, and so on. It is also precise, for it teaches "enough for a Sabbath" and does not teach "for a Sabbath" -- learn from this. "And it shall be for you to keep" excludes the Passover of the generations, for the Passover of Egypt was taken from the tenth, while the Passover of the generations is taken at any time. "On the tenth of this month" -- this one is taken from the tenth, but the Passover of the generations is not taken from the tenth. "And it shall be for you to keep until the fourteenth day of this month." Why do I need "this"? To exclude the second Passover, of which a similar wording is written in the portion of Beha'alotekha.

"And they shall slaughter it" (Exodus 12:6). But do all of them slaughter? Rather, this teaches that a person's agent is like himself. "And they shall slaughter it": whether on a weekday or on the Sabbath. And how do I uphold "those who profane it shall surely die" (Exodus 31:14)? Regarding all other labors, except the slaughter of the Passover. Or perhaps even the slaughter of the Passover, and how do I uphold "and they shall slaughter it"? On all other days except the Sabbath? Scripture teaches, "and the children of Israel shall perform the Passover in its appointed time" -- even on the Sabbath; these are the words of Rabbi Yoshiyah. Rabbi Yonatan says: from this we have still not heard it proven. Rabbi Yoshiyah said to him: it says, "command the children of Israel and say to them, my offering, my bread" and so on (Numbers 28:2). If this comes to teach that the daily offering overrides the Sabbath, has it not already been said, "and on the Sabbath day two lambs a year old" (Numbers 28:9)? So why does Scripture say "in its appointed time"? Rather, to liken it for the rule of a verbal analogy: "in its appointed time" is said here and "in its appointed time" is said of the Passover; just as there it overrides the Sabbath, so too here it overrides the Sabbath. "And they shall slaughter it." Rabbi Eliezer says: from where do you say that if Israel has only a single Passover lamb, all of them fulfill their obligation with it? Scripture teaches, "and they shall slaughter it." "All the assembled congregation of Israel": from here they said, the Passover is slaughtered in three groups -- "assembly," "congregation," and "Israel." Rabbi Yitzchak said: the Passover is slaughtered only in three groups of thirty people each. He is in doubt whether this "assembly, congregation, and Israel" means all at once or one after another. Therefore fifty suffices: thirty enter first and slaughter their Passover offerings, then ten of them go out and ten new ones enter; for if he means them together, here they are, and if he means one after another, here are ten new ones, which constitute a "congregation." The first group entered and the Temple court was filled. They locked the doors of the court. They sounded a long blast, a tremolo, and a long blast. The priests stood in rows, and in their hands were basins of silver and basins of gold -- a row of silver entirely silver, a row of gold entirely gold; they were not intermixed. And the basins had no flat bottoms, lest they set them down and the blood congeal. An Israelite slaughtered and a priest received the blood and gave it to his fellow, and his fellow received the full one and returned the empty one; the priest nearest the altar sprinkled one sprinkling toward the base. Who taught that the Passover is by sprinkling? It is Rabbi Yose the Galilean, for it is taught: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, it does not say "its blood" but "their blood," it does not say "its fat" but "their fat" -- this teaches concerning the firstborn, the tithe, and the Passover that they require the placing of blood and the burning of the fats upon the altar. From where do we learn "toward the base"? "Sprinkling" is derived from "sprinkling" of the burnt offering, and as for the burnt offering itself, from where? The verse says, "to the base of the altar of the burnt offering," teaching about the burnt offering that it requires the base.

"Between the evenings" (Exodus 12:6). I might hear it means at the fading of the sun; Scripture teaches "in the evening" (Deuteronomy 16:6). If "in the evening," I might think after dark; Scripture teaches "as the sun goes down" (Deuteronomy 16:6). If "as the sun goes down" -- "and you shall cook and eat" -- that is from after dark. Rabbi [Yehudah HaNasi] says: it says, "there you shall slaughter the Passover in the evening" (Deuteronomy 16:6); I might hear it as its plain sense; Scripture teaches "at the season of your going out from Egypt." When did Israel go out of Egypt? From the sixth hour and onward, as it says, "and it came to pass on the very day" (Exodus 12:41). Rabbi Natan says: from where do we know that "between the evenings" is from the sixth hour and onward? Though there is no proof for the matter, there is a remembrance of the matter: "for the day has turned, for the shadows of evening stretch out" (Jeremiah 6:4). Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says: Scripture comes to equate the first with the last and the last with the first -- "the season of your going out" for its slaughter, "as the sun goes down" for its roasting, "in the evening" for its eating. "Between the evenings." Ben Beteira says: between the evenings, slaughter it -- give an evening for slaughtering and an evening for eating. "And they shall take from the blood" (Exodus 12:7). I might hear it whether by hand or with a vessel; Scripture teaches "which is in the basin (saf)" (Exodus 12:22). Scripture tells that a hollow was carved beside the threshold and they slaughter into it, for "saf" means nothing other than threshold, as it is written, "in their placing their threshold (sippam) by my threshold" (Ezekiel 43:8), and it is written, "and the posts of the thresholds (sippim) shook"; these are the words of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: "saf" means nothing other than a vessel, as it is said, "and the basins (sippot), and the snuffers, and the bowls" (1 Kings 7:50). "And they shall place it on the two doorposts" (Exodus 12:7): from the inside. Or perhaps only from the outside? Scripture teaches, "and I shall see the blood" (Exodus 12:13) -- what is seen by Me and not by others; these are the words of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Yonatan says: from the inside. Or perhaps only from the outside? Scripture teaches, "and the blood shall be for you for a sign" (Exodus 12:13) -- for you for a sign and not for others for a sign. Rabbi Yitzchak says: always from the outside, so that the Egyptians would see and their innards be cut up with anguish. "And they shall place it on the two doorposts and on the lintel" (Exodus 12:7): I might hear that if one put this before that he has not fulfilled the duty; Scripture teaches, "and you shall touch the lintel and the two doorposts" (Exodus 12:22) -- thus if one put this before that, he has fulfilled it. We find ourselves learning that our ancestors in Egypt had three altars: the lintel and the two doorposts. Rabbi Shimon says: there were four -- the threshold, the lintel, and the two doorposts.

"Upon the houses in which they shall eat it" (Exodus 12:7). I know only houses in which they eat it; from where do I include houses in which they sleep? Scripture teaches, "upon the houses where you are" (Exodus 12:13) -- in any case. It is taught: "upon the houses in which they shall eat it" teaches that the Passover may be eaten by two companies. One might think that an eater may eat in two places; Scripture teaches, "in one house it shall be eaten" (Exodus 12:46). From here they said: a servant who ate an olive's bulk beside the oven -- if he is clever, he fills his belly from it. If the members of the company wish to do him a kindness, they come and sit beside him; these are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Shimon says: "the houses in which they shall eat it" teaches that an eater may eat in two places. One might think it may be eaten by two companies; Scripture teaches, "in one house it shall be eaten." This master holds that the way the text is read is authoritative, and that master holds that the traditional spelling is authoritative.

"And they shall eat the flesh" (Exodus 12:8) -- and not the sinews, the bones, the horns, or the hooves. "On that night": I might hear it means all night long; Scripture teaches, "and you shall not leave any of it until morning" (Exodus 12:10). I would still read, "that which remains of it you shall burn in fire" -- so why is "until morning" stated? Scripture comes only to set a limit for the morning of the morning, and which is that? It is the rising of the dawn. From here they said: the eating of the Passover offerings and the eating of the sacrifices, their commanded time is until the rising of the dawn. And why did the Sages say until midnight? In order to keep a person far from transgression, and to make a fence around the Torah, and to fulfill the words of the Men of the Great Assembly, who used to say three things: be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples, and make a fence around the Torah.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah says: It is stated here, "this night," and it is stated further on, "For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night" (Exodus 12:12). Just as there the meaning is until midnight, so too here the meaning is until midnight [the Pesach may be eaten only until midnight]. Rabbi Akiva said to him: But is it not stated, "and you shall eat it in haste" (Exodus 12:11), meaning up until the hour of haste [which is until dawn]? If so, what does the verse teach by saying "this night"? It comes to exclude another night. For it might enter your mind to say: since the Pesach is among the lesser holy offerings, and the peace-offering is also among the lesser holy offerings, then just as the peace-offering may be eaten for two days and one night, so too the Pesach should likewise be assigned two nights in place of two days, and it should be eaten for two nights and one day. Therefore the verse teaches us [that it is only this one night]. (If so, what does the verse teach by saying "at night"? It is to be eaten at night and is not eaten by day.)

"Roasted by fire" (Exodus 12:8) and not roasted on a spit, nor roasted on a grill, nor in an earthenware oven, but rather roasted by fire, that is, roasted from its raw state. You say it means from its raw state, or does it perhaps mean roasted in the manner of something boiled? The verse teaches, "but roasted by fire" (Exodus 12:9). Then what does "roasted by fire" come to teach? That it be roasted from its raw state. "Roasted by fire, and matzot." Scripture has added for it two commandments apart from the commandment stated regarding the offering itself. And which is that one? It is, "You shall not break a bone in it" (Exodus 12:46).

"Roasted by fire, and matzot" (Exodus 12:8). The verse tells us that the commandment of the Pesach is matzah, roasted meat, and bitter herbs. And from where do we know that if a person has no matzah and bitter herbs, they nonetheless fulfill their obligation with the Pesach? The verse teaches, "they shall eat it." And from where do we know that if they have no Pesach offering, they fulfill their obligation with matzah and bitter herbs? You may reason thus: since the Pesach is a positive commandment, and matzah and bitter herbs are a positive commandment, then just as you have learned that if they have no matzah and bitter herbs they fulfill their obligation with the Pesach, so too if they have no Pesach they fulfill their obligation with matzah and bitter herbs. Another interpretation: "they shall eat it." From here the sages said the Pesach is eaten as an eating to satiety. It was taught: They said of Hillel that he would wrap them together and eat them, to fulfill what is stated, "with matzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it" (Exodus 12:8 / Numbers 9:11). Rabbi Yochanan said: Hillel's colleagues disagree with him, for it was taught: One might think a person does not fulfill the obligation unless he wraps them together and eats them in the manner that Hillel ate them. The verse teaches, "with matzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it," meaning even this one by itself and that one by itself. And now that the law has not been stated either in accordance with this master or with that master, one recites the blessing over the matzah alone and eats it, then recites the blessing over the bitter herb alone and eats it, and then eats matzah and bitter herb together without a blessing, as a remembrance of the Temple, in the manner of Hillel.

"Do not eat any of it raw" (Exodus 12:9). "Raw" means nothing other than uncooked. "Or boiled in any way" (literally, boiled boiled), to render one liable for the raw and for the boiled. Or does it perhaps mean to render one liable only for the raw and for what is exceedingly boiled? The verse teaches, "but roasted by fire." Then what does "or boiled in any way" come to teach? To render one liable for the raw and for the boiled. "In water." From this I know only water; from where do we learn the other liquids? Rabbi Yishmael says it is an argument from the lesser to the greater: if water, which does not dilute its flavor, is forbidden for boiling, then all the other liquids, which do dilute their flavor, should they not by law be forbidden for boiling? Rabbi Akiva says: From this I know only water; from where do I learn the other liquids? The verse teaches, "boiled boiled," to include the other liquids. Rabbi says: I might read "do not eat any of it raw but only roasted by fire." What then does "or boiled in any way" teach? That one might think I have liability only at the time when one is positively obligated to eat it roasted, in which case one is also under the prohibition of "you shall not eat it raw"; but if it was boiled while it was still day, from where do I learn the prohibition? The verse teaches "or boiled," to render one liable for it even from while it is still day. "Boiled in any way," to include the other liquids. "Boiled" (bashel) means nothing other than roasted, for it is stated, "and you shall boil and eat" (Deuteronomy 16:7), and it says, "and they boiled the Pesach in the fire" (2 Chronicles 35:13). From here Rabbi Yoshiyah used to say: One who vows abstinence from what is boiled is forbidden also in what is roasted. "But only roasted by fire." Why is this stated? I might have said: what is fit to be boiled should be boiled, what is fit to be roasted should be roasted. The verse teaches, "but only roasted by fire," its head upon its legs, with its inner parts and its outer parts; these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiva says: roasted whole [mekulas, roasted with its legs and entrails arranged around it].

Our Rabbis taught: "In water." From this I know only water; from where do we learn the other liquids? You say it is an argument from the lesser to the greater, and so forth. Rabbi says: From this I know only water; from where do we learn the other liquids? The verse teaches, "boiled in any way," meaning from anything whatsoever. What is the practical difference between them? There is between them the case of meat roasted in a pot [tzli kedar]. And the first teacher, this phrase "boiled in any way," what does he do with it? He requires it for that which was taught: If one boiled it and afterward roasted it, or roasted it and afterward boiled it, he is liable. Granted, if he boiled it and afterward roasted it, he is liable, since he did boil it; but if he roasted it and afterward boiled it, it is still "roasted by fire"? Scripture says, "boiled in any way," from any state whatsoever. One might think that even if he roasted it fully [and then ate it raw in part] he would be liable. The verse teaches, "do not eat any of it raw or boiled": raw or boiled is what I told you, and not that which he roasted to its full need. What is the case in question? Where he made it charred. One might think it would be permitted. The verse teaches, "but only roasted by fire." And what is "raw"? As people say, half-cooked [avarnim, barely warmed]. One who cooks on the Sabbath in the hot springs of Tiberias is exempt, because that is not a derivative of fire. But a Pesach that one cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias renders one liable, because it is not "roasted by fire." Rava said: If one ate it raw, he is flogged twice; if he ate it boiled, he is flogged twice; if raw and boiled, he is flogged three times. Abaye said: One is not flogged for a prohibition stated in general terms. Some say only two sets of lashes are not given, but at least one set is given; and some say not even one, since the prohibition is not singled out like the prohibition against muzzling. "Do not eat any of it raw or boiled": since there was no need for the verse to say "but only roasted by fire," what does "but only roasted by fire" come to teach? To tell you that at the time when there is a positive obligation to eat it roasted, it is under the prohibition "you shall not eat it raw"; but at the time when there is no positive obligation to eat it roasted, it is not under the prohibition "you shall not eat it raw." Rabbi says: I might read "boiled"; what does "boiled in any way" teach? That one might think I have liability only for one who boiled it after dark; from where do I learn one who boiled it while it was still day? The verse teaches "boiled in any way," from any state whatsoever. But this "boiled in any way" has already been used for meat roasted in a pot. If so, let the verse say either "boiled boiled" or "cooked cooked." What is the force of "boiled cooked"? Learn from it two teachings. Our Rabbis taught: If one ate an olive's bulk of roasted meat while it was still day, and an olive's bulk of raw meat after dark, he is liable to karet [extirpation]. It teaches roasted alongside raw: just as raw is under a negative prohibition, so too roasted is under a negative prohibition. Granted regarding raw, for it is written, "do not eat any of it raw"; but roasted, from where do we learn it? It is written, "and they shall eat the meat in this night" (Exodus 12:8), at night, yes, by day, no. But this is a prohibition derived from a positive commandment, which has the status of a positive commandment. Rav Chisda said: This is the view of Rabbi Yehudah, for it was taught: "A bull or a lamb that has a limb too long or too short you may make a freewill offering" (Leviticus 22:23). "It" you may dedicate to the Temple's upkeep, but you may not dedicate unblemished animals to the Temple's upkeep. From here the sages said: anyone who dedicates unblemished animals to the Temple's upkeep transgresses a positive commandment. From this I know only a positive commandment; from where do I learn there is also a negative one? The verse teaches, "And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying," teaching about the entire passage that it is under a negative commandment; these are the words of Rabbi Yehudah, and so forth.

Rabbi Yitzchak said: From where do we know that an uncircumcised man is forbidden to eat the second tithe? It is stated "of it" (mimenu) regarding the Pesach, and it is stated "of it" regarding the tithe. Just as the "of it" stated regarding the Pesach means an uncircumcised man is forbidden it, so too the "of it" stated regarding the tithe means an uncircumcised man is forbidden it. This comparison must be free [for exposition], for if it were not free, one could refute it: what is unique about the Pesach is that one is liable concerning it for the laws of piggul [improper intent], notar [leftover], and impurity. But it is indeed free for exposition. What makes it free? Rava said in the name of Rabbi Yitzchak: "of it" is written three times regarding the Pesach, and "of it" is written three times regarding the tithe. Regarding the Pesach, one instance is for its own plain meaning, one is for the verbal analogy, and the other, according to the one who says Scripture comes to place a positive command after a negative command, since it wrote "leftover" it also wrote "of it"; and according to the one who says it is to grant a second morning for its burning, since it wrote "until morning" it also wrote "of it." "Of it" is written three times regarding the tithe: one for its own plain meaning, one for the teaching of Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, and one for the teaching of Reish Lakish in the name of Rabbi Simai, who said: From where do we know that second tithe which became impure may be used for anointing? As it is stated, "and I did not give of it for the dead" (Deuteronomy 26:14): for the dead I did not give it, but for the living, in a manner resembling the dead, I did give it. What is a use shared by the dead and the living? You must say this is anointing. Mar Zutra objected: say it refers to buying a coffin and shrouds. Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: "of it" means from its own substance [and a coffin is external to the body]. Rav Ashi said: we require "I did not give" to resemble "I did not eat"; just as there it means from its own substance, so here it means from its own substance. And still this is free for exposition from only one side. This works according to the one who holds that we learn and do not refute, but according to the one who holds that we learn and do refute, what is there to say? The teaching of Rabbi Abbahu derives from what Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha, as it is written, "And behold, I have given you the charge of My terumah-offerings" (Numbers 18:8): Scripture speaks of two terumah-offerings, one pure terumah and one impure terumah, and the Merciful One said "to you," meaning it shall be yours, to kindle it under your cooked food.

How does one roast the Pesach? A spit of pomegranate wood, one thrusts it into its mouth as far as its hindquarters. And let one bring a spit of metal! Since when part of it is hot all of it is hot, the meat would be scorched by the heat of the spit, and the Merciful One said "roasted by fire" and not roasted by something else.

Another interpretation. Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: An oven that one heated and then swept out [of its coals] and roasted the Pesach inside it, this is not "roasted by fire," because it is stated "roasted by fire, roasted by fire" two times [requiring direct fire]. Our Rabbis taught: If one cut it up and placed it upon coals, Rabbi says: I say this is "roasted by fire." But did Rabbi say a coal is called fire? They raised a contradiction: "a burn from fire" (Leviticus 13:24); from this I know only one who was burned by fire. By a coal, by hot ash, by boiling lime, by boiling plaster, and by anything that comes by means of the flame, to include water heated by fire, from where do we learn these? The verse teaches "a burn, a burn," the repetition includes them. The reason is that the Merciful One said "a burn, a burn"; but were it not so, I would have said a coal is not called fire. Ravina said: combine and teach it as "a burn from fire." From this I know only one burned by fire and by a coal; one burned by hot ash, by boiling lime, and so forth.

(Exodus 12:10) "And you shall let none of it remain until morning." This teaches that if one did leave any of it over, he has transgressed a commandment. But I might still understand that what is left over is fit to use; therefore the verse states, "And you shall let none of it remain until morning" [it is forbidden]. I might read only the verse, "And that which remains of it you shall burn with fire" (Exodus 12:10). Why then do I need the words "until morning"? Rather, Scripture comes to set a boundary for the morning of the morning [to fix the precise time after daybreak when the prohibition takes effect].

Another interpretation: What does the verse teach by saying "until morning"? It tells us that the remnant is not burned until the daylight of the sixteenth [of Nisan]. Rabbi Ishmael says: This is not needed, for the verse already says, "No manner of work shall be done in them" (Exodus 12:16), and burning is a form of work. Then why does the verse say "until morning"? Rather, it teaches that if the sixteenth falls on a Sabbath, the remnant is not burned until the daylight of the seventeenth. Rabbi Jonathan says: This too is not needed. By an argument from the lesser to the greater: in a case where the preparation of all food sets aside the festival, still the burning of the remnant does not set aside the festival; in a case where the preparation of some food does not set aside the Sabbath, is it not logical that the burning of the remnant should not set aside the Sabbath? Then why does the verse say "until morning"? Scripture comes to set a boundary for the morning of the morning. Rabbi Isaac says: This is not needed. If leaven, which falls under "it shall not be seen" and "it shall not be found," still its burning does not set aside the festival, and so forth. Then why does the verse say "until morning"? For the matter that we stated.

One does not kindle a lamp with oil of burning [oil from a defiled offering, on a festival]. From where are these words derived? Hezekiah said, and likewise the school of Hezekiah taught: The verse says, "And you shall let none of it remain until morning," for there is no need for the verse to say "until morning" [since the prohibition is already stated]; so why does the verse say "until morning"? Scripture comes to provide a second morning for its burning. Abaye said: The verse says, "the burnt offering of each Sabbath in its own Sabbath" (Numbers 28:10), and not the burnt offering of a weekday on a festival. Rava said: The verse says (Exodus 12:16), "that alone may be done for you" - "that" and not its preparations; "alone" and not circumcision performed out of its proper time. Rav Ashi said: The verse says (Leviticus 23:3), "a Sabbath of complete rest," a positive command, so that the festival becomes both a positive and a negative command, and a positive command does not override a command that is both negative and positive. The bones and the sinews are burned on the sixteenth. And let a positive command come and override a negative one. Hezekiah said: "And you shall let none of it remain until morning," and so forth. Abaye said: The verse says, "the burnt offering of each Sabbath in its own Sabbath," and so forth. Rava said: The verse says, "a Sabbath of complete rest," and so forth.

"And you shall let none of it remain until morning, and that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire" (Exodus 12:10). Scripture comes to place a positive command after a negative command, to say that one is not flogged for it; these are the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Jacob says: That is not the reason. Rather, it is because this is a negative command that involves no action, and for any negative command that involves no action one is not flogged. By implication, Rabbi Judah holds that one is flogged for it. From where does he derive this? Ulla said: He learns it from the conspiring witnesses [Deuteronomy 19:19]. Just as conspiring witnesses commit a negative command that involves no action and are flogged, so too for any negative command involving no action one is flogged. What is unique about conspiring witnesses, that they require no warning? Let the one who slanders a bride prove otherwise. What is unique about the slanderer, that he is both flogged and pays? Let conspiring witnesses prove otherwise. So the argument comes full circle: this case is not like that case, and that case is not like this case. Their common feature is that each is a negative command involving no action for which one is flogged; so too for any negative command involving no action one is flogged. And as for Rabbi Jacob, what does he do with the words "and that which remains of it"? He needs them for what we learned: the bones, the sinews, and the remnant are burned on the sixteenth; and if the sixteenth falls on a Sabbath, they are burned on the seventeenth, since it overrides neither the Sabbath nor the festival.

(Exodus 12:11) "And thus you shall eat it," like those who set out on a journey. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: Scripture comes to teach you proper conduct from the Torah, that travelers should be quick and ready. "And you shall eat it in haste" - this is the haste of Egypt. Or is it rather the haste of Israel? When it says, "But against any of the children of Israel" and so forth (Exodus 11:7), the haste of Israel is already mentioned; so why does the verse say "in haste"? This is the haste of Egypt. Rabbi Joshua ben Korhah says: This is the haste of Israel. Or is it rather the haste of Egypt? When it says, "because they were thrust out of Egypt" (Exodus 12:39), the haste of Egypt is already mentioned; so why does the verse say "and you shall eat it in haste"? This is the haste of Israel. Abba Hanan says in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: This is the haste of the Divine Presence. And although there is no proof for the matter, there is a hint of the matter, as it is said, "The voice of my beloved! Behold, he comes, leaping upon the mountains, skipping upon the hills" (Song of Songs 2:8), and it says, "Behold, he stands behind our wall" (Song of Songs 2:9). One might think that in the time to come there will also be haste; therefore the verse says, "For you shall not go out in haste" (Isaiah 52:12). "It is the LORD's Passover" - that all its deeds be for the sake of Heaven. "And you shall eat it in haste" - it in haste, but no other offering in haste.

(Exodus 12:12) "And I will pass through the land of Egypt." Rabbi Judah says: Like a king who passes from place to place.

Another interpretation: I place My wrath and My fear upon Egypt. "Wrath" means nothing but fury, as it is said, "He sent upon them the fierceness of His anger, wrath and indignation and trouble" (Psalms 78:49). And it says, "That day is a day of wrath" (Zephaniah 1:15). "And I will smite every firstborn." I might understand this to be by means of an angel or by means of a messenger; therefore the verse states, "And the LORD smote every firstborn in the land of Egypt" (Exodus 12:29) - not by means of an angel and not by means of a messenger. "And I will smite every firstborn in the land of Egypt" - even those from other places. From where do we learn the firstborn of Egypt who were in other places? As it is said, "To Him who smote Egypt through their firstborn" (Psalms 136:10). From where the firstborn of Ham, Cush, Put, and Lud? The verse states, "And He smote all the firstborn in Egypt, the first of their strength in the tents of Ham" (Psalms 78:51). "From man to beast" - from the one who began the transgression the punishment began, as in the case of "And the men who were at the entrance of the house" (Genesis 19:11). And these are matters argued from the lesser to the greater: if with the measure of punishment, which is the smaller, the punishment began with the one who began the transgression, how much more so with the measure of goodness, which is the greater. "And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments" - each different from the other: those of stone would melt, those of wood would rot, those of metal would rust, as it is said, "While Egypt was burying those whom the LORD had smitten among them, every firstborn; and against their gods the LORD executed judgments" (Numbers 33:4). And some say: those of stone would rot and those of wood would melt. Rabbi Nathan says: judgments and judgments of judgments - they rotted, split, were hewn down, were burned. We thus learn that the idols were struck in four ways and their worshipers in three: by plague, by destruction, by pestilence. "I am the LORD" - that which flesh and blood cannot say. "I am the LORD": by an oath I exact payment from them. And these are matters argued from the lesser to the greater: if with the smaller measure of punishment the Holy One, blessed be He, said He would act and did so, with the greater measure of goodness how much more so. "And I will pass through the land of Egypt" - I and not an angel; "and I will smite every firstborn" - I and not a seraph, and so forth. There is no nation that is struck whose god is not struck along with it, as it is said, "And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments."

(Exodus 12:13) "And the blood shall be for you a sign" - for you a sign, and not for Me a sign. "For you a sign" - and not for others a sign. "On the houses." Why is this said? Has it not already been said, "on the houses in which they shall eat it" (Exodus 12:7)? From that I would know only the houses in which they eat it; from where the houses in which they sleep? The verse states, "on the houses where you are" - in any case. "And I will see the blood." Rabbi Ishmael used to say: But is not everything revealed before Him, as it is said, "He knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwells with Him" (Daniel 2:22), and it says, "Even the darkness is not too dark for You" (Psalms 139:12)? Then why does the verse say, "And I will see the blood"? Rather, as the reward of one commandment that you perform, I reveal Myself and have compassion upon you, as it is said, "And I will pass over you" (Exodus 12:13). "Passing over" means nothing but sparing, as it is said, "As birds flying, so will the LORD of hosts protect Jerusalem; He will deliver it as He passes over and rescues it" (Isaiah 31:5).

Another interpretation: "the blood of Isaac's binding." As it is said, "And Abraham called the name of that place 'the LORD will see'" (Genesis 22:14), and elsewhere it says, "And as he was about to destroy, the LORD saw and relented" (1 Chronicles 21:15). What did He see? The blood of Isaac's binding, as it is said, "God will see to the lamb for Himself" (Genesis 22:8). "And I will pass over you." Rabbi Josiah says: Do not read 'and I will pass over' [u-fasachti] but 'and I will stride' [u-fasati], for the Omnipresent leaps over the houses of His children in Egypt, as it is said, "The voice of my beloved! Behold, he comes... behold, he stands behind our wall" (Song of Songs 2:8-9). Rabbi Jonathan says: "And I will pass over you" means: I have pity on you, and I have no pity on the Egyptians. Suppose an Egyptian was in the house of an Israelite. I might think he too would be saved on the Israelite's account; therefore Scripture teaches, "And I will pass over you" - upon you I have pity, and I have no pity on the Egyptians. And suppose an Israelite was in the house of an Egyptian. I might think he too would be struck on the Egyptian's account; therefore Scripture teaches, "and there shall be no plague upon you" - 'upon you' there is none, but in Egypt there is. "When I strike in the land of Egypt" - in the present there is none, but there is at a later time.

"And this day shall be a memorial for you" (Exodus 12:14) - a day that is a memorial for you, you shall celebrate as a festival. But we have not heard which day. When it says, "And Moses said to the people, Remember [this day]" and so forth, the matter is still in balance. When it says, "On the morrow of the Passover they went out" (Numbers 33:3) - when did Israel eat the Passover offering? On the night of the festival day; and they went out only on the festival day itself. "And you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD." I know only of the first festival day, which requires a festival offering. From where do I learn the last festival day? Scripture teaches, "Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a festival to the LORD." I know only of the first and last festival days, which require a festival offering. From where the intermediate days of the festival? You may reason: since the first and last festival days are called a holy convocation, and the intermediate days are called a holy convocation, if you have learned regarding the first and last days, which are called a holy convocation, that they require a festival offering, then the intermediate days too, which are called a holy convocation, should by law require a festival offering. And further, by an argument from the lesser to the greater: if the first and last days, which have no sanctified days before or after them, require a festival offering, then the intermediate days, which are sanctified before and after, should all the more require a festival offering.

Another interpretation: if the first and last days, which have no days before or after them, require a festival offering, then the intermediate days, which have days before and after them, should by law require a festival offering. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: Behold it says, "Seven days you shall keep the festival" (Deuteronomy 16:15), to include the seven days of Passover, that they require a festival offering. Or perhaps it speaks only of Sukkot? When it says, "And you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD" (Leviticus 23:41), behold, Sukkot is already stated; so what does "seven days you shall keep the festival" teach? To include the seven days of Passover, that they require a festival offering. "Throughout your generations" - I might hear a minimum of generations, namely two; Scripture teaches, "an eternal statute you shall celebrate it." The House of Shammai says: One brings peace offerings but does not lay hands upon them, and not burnt offerings. And the House of Hillel says: One brings peace offerings and burnt offerings and lays hands upon them. Ulla said: the dispute is over the festival peace offering with regard to laying hands, and over the burnt offering of appearance with regard to bringing it near, for the House of Shammai hold "and you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD" - a festival offering yes, a burnt offering of appearance no; and the House of Hillel hold "to the LORD" means all that is for the LORD. But as for vow offerings and freewill offerings, all agree they are not offered on a festival day. They challenged this: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says, they did not dispute over a burnt offering that is not of the festival day, that it is not offered on the festival day, nor over peace offerings that are of the festival day, that they are offered on the festival day. Over what did they dispute? Over a burnt offering that is of the festival day and over peace offerings that are not of the festival day, for the House of Shammai say one may not bring them, and the House of Hillel say one may bring them. Rav Yosef said: Have you taken Tannaim from the world? It is a dispute of Tannaim, as it was taught: peace offerings that come on account of the festival day, on the festival day, the House of Shammai say one brings them from the eve of the festival and lays hands and slaughters on the festival, and the House of Hillel say one lays hands on them on the festival and slaughters them on the festival; but as for vow offerings and freewill offerings, all agree they are not offered on the festival day. It was taught: The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: if in a case where it is forbidden to a layman it is permitted for the Most High, then in a case where it is permitted to a layman, is it not logical that it be permitted for the Most High? The House of Shammai said to them: vow offerings and freewill offerings prove otherwise, for they are permitted to a layman and forbidden for the Most High. The House of Hillel said to them: what of vow offerings and freewill offerings, which have no fixed time? Can you say the same of the burnt offering of appearance, which has a fixed time? The House of Shammai said to them: even the burnt offering has no fixed time, for we have learned: one who did not bring the festival offering on the first festival day may keep bringing it throughout the festival. The House of Hillel said to them: even this one has a fixed time, for we have learned: if the festival passed and he did not offer it, he is not liable for its replacement. The House of Shammai said to them: but has it not already been said "for you," and not for the Most High? The House of Hillel said to them: but has it not already been said "to the LORD," meaning all that is for the LORD? If so, what does "for you" teach? "For you" and not for the Samaritans, "for you" and not for dogs. Abba Shaul says it in another formulation: if in a place where your own oven is closed your master's oven is open, in a place where your own oven is open, is it not logical that your master's oven be open? And so it is by law, that your table should not be full while your master's table is empty. In what do they disagree? One master holds vow offerings and freewill offerings are offered on the festival day, and one master holds they are not offered on the festival day. Rabbi Yose said: the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not dispute over the laying on of hands, that it is required. Over what did they dispute? Over whether the slaughter must immediately follow the laying on of hands, for the House of Shammai say it is not required and the House of Hillel say it is required. Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Yehuda says: the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not dispute that the slaughter must immediately follow the laying on of hands, that it is required; over what did they dispute? Over the laying on of hands itself, for the House of Shammai say it is not required and the House of Hillel say it is required. The festival offering of the fourteenth - what is the reason it does not override the Sabbath, seeing that it is a communal offering? The verse says, "And you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD seven days" (Leviticus 23:41) - seven, but with the fourteenth there would be eight; rather, from here we learn that the festival offering does not override the Sabbath. Rabbi Elazar said: peace offerings slaughtered on the eve of the festival day do not fulfill the obligation, neither of rejoicing nor of the festival offering. Not of rejoicing, for it is written, "And you shall sacrifice peace offerings... and you shall rejoice" (Deuteronomy 27:7) - we require that the slaughter be at the time of rejoicing, and there is none. Not of the festival offering, for it is a matter of obligation, and every matter of obligation comes only from non-sacred property.

"Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread" (Exodus 12:15). I might hear that any unleavened bread is implied; Scripture teaches, "You shall not eat leavened bread with it" (Deuteronomy 16:3) - I have spoken only of a thing that can come to be unleavened or leavened. And these are the five species: wheat, barley, spelt, oats, and rye. Excluded are rice, millet, poppy, sesame, and legumes, which do not come to leavening but to spoilage. "Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread." I might hear that even a cooked dish is implied; Scripture teaches, "bread." "Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread" - together with the first festival day, or perhaps apart from the first festival day? Scripture teaches, "until the twenty-first day" (Exodus 12:18). And if "until the twenty-first day," one might exclude the time close to the twenty-first; Scripture teaches, "seven days you shall eat unleavened bread." To make the first day obligatory and the remaining days optional. Or perhaps to make the first day optional and the remaining days obligatory? Scripture teaches, "in the first month, on the fourteenth" - Scripture has fixed it as obligatory. One verse says, "seven days you shall eat unleavened bread," and one verse says, "six days you shall eat unleavened bread" (Deuteronomy 16:8). The seventh was included in the general rule and went out from the general rule to teach about the whole rule: just as the seventh is optional, so all of them are optional. If so, just as the seventh is optional, so the first night should be optional; Scripture teaches, "in the first month, on the fourteenth," and so forth - Scripture has fixed it as obligatory.

Another interpretation: one verse says six and one verse says seven - 'six' from the new grain and 'seven' from the old. "But on the first day" - from the eve of the festival, or perhaps only the festival day itself? Scripture teaches, "You shall not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread" (Exodus 34:25) - you shall not slaughter the Passover offering while leaven still remains, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Jonathan says: this is unnecessary, for has it not already been said, "and no work shall be done on them" (Exodus 12:16)? Burning is a kind of work. So what does "you shall remove leaven" teach - from the eve of the festival, or only on the festival day itself? Scripture teaches "but" [akh], which makes a distinction. Rabbi Yehuda says: "you shall remove" means by burning, or perhaps by anything? Behold, you must reason, and so forth. It was taught, Rabbi Yehuda says: the removal of leaven is only by burning. And the law supports this: if leftover sacrificial meat, which is not under the prohibition of "it shall not be seen" and "it shall not be found," requires burning, then leaven, which is under "it shall not be seen" and "it shall not be found," surely requires burning. They said to him: any argument that begins with stringency and ends with leniency is no argument; if he found no wood to burn it, would he sit idle? But the Torah said, "you shall remove leaven from your houses" - by any means by which you are able to remove it. Rabbi Yehuda returned and reasoned another argument: leftover sacrifice is forbidden to eat and leaven is forbidden to eat; just as leftover sacrifice is by burning, so leaven is by burning. They said to him: a carcass proves otherwise, for it is forbidden to eat and is not by burning. He said to them: there is a distinction - leftover sacrifice is forbidden in eating and in benefit, and leaven is forbidden in eating and in benefit; just as leftover sacrifice is by burning, so leaven is by burning. They said to him: an ox condemned to stoning proves otherwise, for it is forbidden in eating and in benefit and does not require burning. He said to them: there is a distinction - leftover sacrifice is forbidden in eating and benefit and punishable by excision, and leaven is forbidden in eating and benefit and punishable by excision; just as leftover sacrifice is by burning, so leaven is by burning. They said to him: the fat of the ox condemned to stoning proves otherwise, for it is forbidden in eating and benefit and punishable by excision and does not require burning. Rabbi Yehuda returned and reasoned another argument: leftover sacrifice is under "you shall not leave it over" and leaven is under "you shall not leave it over"; just as leftover sacrifice requires burning, so leaven requires burning. They said to him: a suspended guilt offering and a bird sin offering brought on doubt would, by your reasoning, prove otherwise, for they are under "you shall not leave it over," and we say by burning while you say by burial. Rabbi Yehuda fell silent. Rav Yosef said: this is what people say - the carpenter's mallet, the carpenter is caught in it; let the mustard be burnt. Abaye said: the smith sits at his anvil and is paid out of his own hand. Rava said: the arrow is killed by its own feathering, and pays from its own hand. [The argument is rehearsed once more, point by point, with each refutation: carcass, ox condemned to stoning, its fat. Then it is said:] You shall reason four matters at once - leftover sacrifice is forbidden in eating, forbidden in benefit, punishable by excision, and time-bound, and leaven is forbidden in eating, forbidden in benefit, punishable by excision, and time-bound. And do not say the carcass proves otherwise, for though forbidden in eating it is not forbidden in benefit, nor the ox condemned to stoning, for though forbidden in benefit it is not punishable by excision, nor the fat of that ox, for though punishable by excision it is not time-bound. Let me learn one matter from another and reason one from another. Let me learn a matter equal in four respects from a matter equal in four respects, and not learn a matter equal in four respects from a matter equal in one or two or three respects. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said to him: you think you are being stringent with him, but you are only being lenient with him - if he finds no fire, he will sit and not burn it! Rather, say it thus: before the time of removal arrives, the commandment of its destruction is by burning; once the time of removal arrives, the commandment of its destruction is by any means. Rabbi says: for a thing under "it shall not be seen" and "it shall not be found," you find it only by burning. "For whoever eats leaven, that soul shall be cut off." I might hear that any leaven is implied; Scripture teaches, "You shall not eat leavened bread with it" (Deuteronomy 16:3) - I have spoken only of a thing that comes to be unleavened or leavened, and these are the five species, and so forth. "And it shall be cut off" - cutting off means nothing other than separation. "That soul" - one who acts deliberately, the words of Rabbi Akiva. "From Israel" - I might hear that he is cut off from Israel and goes to another people; Scripture teaches, "from before Me, I am the LORD" (Leviticus 22:3) - in every place he is within My domain. "The soul, from the first day until the seventh day" - its punishment is seven days and its warning is forever. For by law, since one is punishable by excision for fat and punishable by excision for leaven, if Scripture taught regarding fat that it made its punishment match its warning, I might think that for leaven too its punishment should match its warning; Scripture teaches, "from the first day until the seventh day" - its punishment is seven and its warning is forever. We have heard the punishment but we have not heard the warning; Scripture teaches, "all that is leavened you shall not eat" (Exodus 12:20). In any case, all agree that leaven is forbidden from the sixth hour onward. From where do we learn this? Abaye said: two verses are written. It is written, "seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses," and it is written, "but on the first day you shall remove [it]" - how so? To include the fourteenth for removal. And say it includes the night of the fifteenth for removal? For it might enter your mind to say days yes, nights no; this teaches us even nights. That requires no verse, for the removal of leaven was likened to the eating of leaven, and the eating of leaven to the eating of unleavened bread, as it is written, "leaven shall not be found in your houses, for whoever eats what is leavened," and it is written, "all that is leavened you shall not eat; in all your dwellings you shall eat unleavened bread," and it is written of unleavened bread, "in the evening you shall eat unleavened bread." And say it includes the night of the fourteenth for removal? "On the day" is written. And say it means in the morning? "But" makes a distinction. The school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: we find the fourteenth called 'first,' as it is said, "in the first, on the fourteenth." Rav Nachman said: 'first' means from the very beginning, as it is said, "were you born the first man?" (Job 15:7). [And the three other places where 'first' is written - in the holy convocation of Passover, the holy convocation of Sukkot, and the commandment of the lulav - do not refute Rav Nachman, for those instances of 'first' do not come for their literal meaning but are merely names called 'first.'] And as the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: in reward for three 'firsts' they merited three 'firsts' - to cut off the seed of Esau, as it is written, "and the first came out ruddy" (Genesis 25:25); the building of the Temple, as it is written, "a throne of glory on high from the first" (Jeremiah 17:12); and the name of the Messiah, as it is said, "the first to Zion, behold, here they are" (Isaiah 41:27). Rava said: "You shall not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice with leaven" (Exodus 34:25) - you shall not slaughter the Passover offering while leaven still remains. And say each one when he slaughters? Scripture said the appointed time of slaughter. So too it was taught: "but on the first day you shall remove," and so forth. Rabbi Akiva says: this is unnecessary, for it says "but on the first day," and it is written, "no work shall be done," and we find kindling in the Torah to be a primary category of work. Rava said: learn from Rabbi Akiva three things - learn that the removal of leaven is only by burning, learn that the prohibition of kindling went out to make a distinction, and learn that we do not say: since kindling was permitted for a need, it is permitted also without a need.

"And on the first day there shall be a holy convocation, and on the seventh day" (Exodus 12:16) - it is holy in food and drink and in clean clothing. I know only of the first and last festival days, which are called a holy convocation. From where the intermediate days of the festival? Scripture teaches, "the appointed times of the LORD which you shall proclaim" (Leviticus 23:2), and so forth. "No work shall be done on them." I know only of the last festival day, which is forbidden in the doing of work; from where the first festival day? Scripture teaches, "and on the first day a holy convocation." I know only of the first and last festival days, which are forbidden in the doing of work; from where the intermediate days? Scripture teaches, "the festival of unleavened bread you shall keep" - in any case, the words of Rabbi Josiah. Rabbi Jonathan says: this is unnecessary. If the first and last festival days, which have no sanctity before or after them, are forbidden in the doing of work, then the intermediate days, which have sanctity before and after them, are by law forbidden in the doing of work. The six days of Creation prove otherwise, for they have sanctity before and after them and are permitted in the doing of work; they prove regarding the intermediate days that they are permitted in the doing of work even though there is sanctity before and after them. No - if you spoke of the six days of Creation, in which there is no additional offering, therefore they are permitted in work, will you say the same of the intermediate days, in which there is an additional offering, therefore forbidden in work? But the New Moons prove otherwise, for they have an additional offering and are permitted in work, and they prove regarding the intermediate days that even though there is an additional offering, work should be permitted. No - if you spoke of the New Moons, which are not called a holy convocation, therefore permitted in work, will you say the same of the intermediate days, which are called a holy convocation, therefore forbidden in work? "No work shall be done on them" - you shall not do it, and your fellow shall not do it, but a gentile may do your work. Or perhaps a gentile may not do your work? Scripture teaches, "six days," and so forth - but a gentile may do your work, the words of Rabbi Josiah. Rabbi Jonathan says: this is unnecessary. Behold it says, "Remember the Sabbath day" (Exodus 20:8) - and the matter is an argument from lesser to greater: if regarding the Sabbath, which is stringent, you are not warned about a gentile's work as about your own, then regarding the festival day, which is lighter, by law you should not be warned about a gentile's work as about your own. "No work shall be done on them." I know only of the festival day, that you are warned about your fellow's work as about your own; from where the Sabbath? An argument from lesser to greater: if regarding the festival day, which is lighter, you are warned about your fellow's work as about your own, then regarding the Sabbath, which is stringent, by law you should be warned about your fellow's work as about your own.

"But what is eaten by every soul" (Exodus 12:16) - the preparation of food overrides the festival day, but the Temple service does not override the festival day. For by reasoning: if in a place where some food preparation does not override the Sabbath, some service does override the Sabbath, then in a place where all food preparation overrides the festival day, is it not logical that all service should override the festival day? Scripture teaches, "but what is eaten" - all food preparation overrides the festival day, and not all service overrides the festival day, and not some food preparation overrides the Sabbath. And the law supports this: if in a place where not all service overrides the festival day, all food preparation overrides the festival day, then in a place where some service overrides the Sabbath, is it not logical that some food preparation should override the Sabbath? Scripture teaches, "but what is eaten by every soul," and so forth - all food preparation overrides the festival day, and no food preparation overrides the Sabbath. "But what is eaten by every soul." I might hear that the souls of cattle and the souls of others are also implied; Scripture teaches, "for you" - 'for you' and not for cattle, 'for you' and not for others, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: "but what is eaten" implies even the souls of cattle. It implies bringing the souls of cattle and the souls of others; Scripture teaches "but" [akh], which makes a distinction. Rabbi Akiva says: "but what is eaten by every soul" implies the soul of cattle. It implies bringing the soul of cattle and the soul of others; Scripture teaches "for you" and not for others. And what did you see to make this distinction, that you are warned about the cattle and not warned about the others? Because others - their sustenance is not your responsibility, but cattle - their sustenance is your responsibility. "But what is eaten by every soul" - a thing common to every soul. But now, if a deer happened to come to one on a festival day, since it is not common to every soul, would it also be forbidden to slaughter it? He said to him: I said a thing that every soul needs, and a deer too is something every soul needs. This excludes incense, which is not something every soul needs. "It alone."

Rav Chisda expounded, and some say it was Rav Yosef: whether a knife that became notched, or a spit that became bent, or the scraping out of an oven and stove, we have come to the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages. For we have learned: there is no difference between a festival day and the Sabbath except for the preparation of food alone, and Rabbi Yehuda permits the implements of food preparation. What is the reason of the first teacher? The verse says, "it alone shall be done for you" - 'it,' and not its implements. And Rabbi Yehuda - the verse says, "for you," for all your needs. And the first teacher too, is it not written "for you"? He requires that for: "for you" and not for gentiles. And the other, is it not also written "it"? He can say to you: it is written "it" and it is written "for you" - here, regarding implements that can be made on the eve of the festival day; there, regarding implements that cannot be made on the eve of the festival day.

"And you shall guard the unleavened breads" (Exodus 12:17). Guard them so that you do not bring them into a state of disqualification. From here the Sages said: if dough is smoothed over with cold water its leaven shall be burned, and one who eats it is exempt [from the penalty of excision]; cracked dough shall be burned, and one who eats it is liable to excision. What is leaven? Dough resembling the horns of locusts. What is cracked dough? Dough whose cracks have run into one another, the words of Rabbi Yehudah. But the Sages say: of both this and that, one who eats it is liable to excision; and what is leaven? Any dough whose surface has turned pale, like a person whose hairs have stood on end. "And you shall guard the unleavened breads." Rabbi Yoshiyah says: Do not read it so, but rather read it 'And you shall guard the commandments' [u-shemartem et ha-mitzvot]. Just as one does not let the matzah go sour, so one should not let the commandments go sour; rather, if a commandment comes to your hand, perform it at once. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: One does not pass over commandments. Rava said: Learn from this teaching of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish that it is forbidden to move the arm-tefillin past the head-tefillin, and that the clearing of the inner altar precedes the trimming of the five lamps, because whoever enters first encounters the altar. For it has been taught: the table stands in the north, drawn two and a half cubits from the wall, and the menorah in the south, drawn two and a half cubits from the wall, and the altar is centered and stands in the middle.

It has been taught: One might think a person fulfills his obligation with the loaves of a thanksgiving offering or the wafers of a nazirite. Scripture therefore says, "And you shall guard the unleavened breads" (Exodus 12:17): matzah that is guarded for the sake of being matzah, excluding this which is not guarded for the sake of matzah but for the sake of a sacrifice. It has been taught otherwise: One might think a person fulfills his obligation with the loaves of a thanksgiving offering or the wafers of a nazirite. Scripture says, "Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread" (above, verse 15): matzah that is eaten over seven days, excluding this which is not eaten over seven days but only for a day and a night. And let it be derived instead that such bread is not eaten in poverty, according to Rabbi Akiva who said the word is written 'oni' [poor man's bread]. And let it be derived that it is rich matzah. The quarter-log of oil is divided among many loaves. And let it be derived that it is not eaten in all dwellings. This proves that the loaves of a thanksgiving offering and the wafers of a nazirite are eaten in Nob and in Gibeon. If one made them to sell in the market, he fulfills his obligation with them. And what is the reason? Whatever is for the market, a person reconsiders: if I sell, I sell, and if not, I myself go out with it. Rava said: It is a commandment to moisten the grain, as it is written, "And you shall guard the unleavened breads" — for if not for moistening, what would the guarding be for? The guarding of the kneading is not a guarding, for Rav Huna said: a person may fill his belly with the doughs of gentiles, provided that in the end he eats an olive's measure of matzah. Then let us perform the guarding from the baking onward. Rather, learn from this that we require guarding from the very beginning. Rava said to those who turned the loaves: turn them for the sake of the commandment. "On this very day" (Exodus 12:17). This teaches that they went out only by day. "I brought your hosts out." These are the hosts of Israel. Or is it only the hosts of the ministering angels? When it says, "all the hosts of the LORD went out," the hosts of the ministering angels are already stated. So what does Scripture teach by saying "your hosts"? These are the hosts of Israel.