## Pesachim Daf 95a

###### Pesachim 95a:1
[Pesachim 95a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/95a:1)

**מַתְנִי׳** מָה בֵּין פֶּסַח הָרִאשׁוֹן לַשֵּׁנִי? הָרִאשׁוֹן אָסוּר בְּ״בַל יֵרָאֶה״ וּ״בַל יִמָּצֵא״, וְהַשֵּׁנִי — חָמֵץ וּמַצָּה עִמּוֹ בַּבַּיִת. הָרִאשׁוֹן טָעוּן הַלֵּל בַּאֲכִילָתוֹ, וְהַשֵּׁנִי אֵינוֹ טָעוּן הַלֵּל בַּאֲכִילָתוֹ. זֶה וָזֶה טָעוּן הַלֵּל בַּעֲשִׂיָּיתָן, וְנֶאֱכָלִין צָלִי עַל מַצָּה וּמְרוֹרִים, וְדוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **What is** the difference **between**the Paschal lamb offered on **the first *Pesaḥ*** and the Paschal lamb offered on **the second***Pesaḥ*? On **the first** *Pesaḥ*, at the time of slaughtering the Paschal lamb, **it is prohibited** to own leavened bread due to the prohibitions: **It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found. And** on **the second** *Pesaḥ* it is permissible for one to have both **leavened bread and *matza* with him in the house.** Another difference is that the Paschal lamb offered on **the first** *Pesaḥ* **requires** the recitation of ***hallel* as it is eaten and the second does not require** the recitation of ***hallel* as it is eaten.** However, they are the same in that the Paschal lambs sacrificed on **both** the first and second *Pesaḥ* **require** the recitation of ***hallel* as they are prepared,** i.e., as they are slaughtered, **and they are** both **eaten roasted with *matza* and bitter herbs, and they override Shabbat** in that they may be slaughtered and their blood sprinkled even on Shabbat.


###### Pesachim 95a:2
[Pesachim 95a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/95a:2)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כְּכׇל חוּקַּת הַפֶּסַח יַעֲשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ״ — בְּמִצְוָה שֶׁבְּגוּפוֹ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** a halakhic midrash pertaining to the Paschal lamb offered on the second *Pesaḥ*. The verse states with regard to the second *Pesaḥ*: “They shall leave none of it to the morning, nor break a bone in it; **according to all the entire statute of the Paschal lamb they shall offer it”** (Numbers 9:12). The fact that the verse says “it” indicates that **the verse is speaking of a mitzva applicable to** the **body** of the Paschal lamb, meaning that *halakhot* pertaining to the actual Paschal lamb on the first *Pesaḥ* apply equally to the Paschal lamb on the second *Pesaḥ*.


###### Pesachim 95a:3
[Pesachim 95a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/95a:3)

מִצְוָה שֶׁעַל גּוּפוֹ, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַל מַצּוֹת וּמְרוֹרִים יֹאכְלוּהוּ״. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ מִצְוֹת שֶׁלֹּא עַל גּוּפוֹ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעֶצֶם לֹא יִשְׁבְּרוּ בוֹ״, מָה שְׁבִירַת הָעֶצֶם מְיוּחָד מִצְוָה שֶׁבְּגוּפוֹ — אַף כׇּל מִצְוָה שֶׁבְּגוּפוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The midrash continues: With regard to **a mitzva related to** the **body** of the Paschal lamb but not actually performed on the body of the offering, **from where** is it derived that it applies to the second *Pesaḥ* as well? **The verse states: “They shall eat it with *matzot* and bitter herbs”** (Numbers 9:11). One **might** have thought that one must fulfill all mitzvot related to the first *Pesaḥ* on the second *Pesaḥ*, **even mitzvot not** at all **related to** the **body** of the Paschal lamb, such as the requirement to destroy all one’s leaven. **Therefore, the Torah states: “And they shall not break a bone in it”** (Numbers 9:12), which teaches that **just as** the prohibition of **breaking a bone is notable** among the mitzvot related to the Paschal lamb in that it is **a mitzva applicable to** the Paschal lamb **itself, so too, any mitzva applicable to** the Paschal lamb **itself** must be fulfilled on the second *Pesaḥ*. However, other mitzvot pertaining to the first *Pesaḥ* need not be fulfilled on the second *Pesaḥ*.


###### Pesachim 95a:4
[Pesachim 95a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/95a:4)

אִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״יַעֲשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ״, בְּמִצְוֹת שֶׁבְּגוּפוֹ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Isi ben Yehuda says:** It is unnecessary to derive that *halakha* from the end of the verse quoted, as the phrase in the first half of the verse: **“They shall perform it,”** indicates that **the verse is speaking** only **of mitzvot applicable to** the **body** of the Paschal lamb **itself.**


###### Pesachim 95a:5
[Pesachim 95a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/95a:5)

אָמַר מָר: יָכוֹל אַף מִצְוָה שֶׁלֹּא עַל גּוּפוֹ. הָא אָמְרַתְּ בְּמִצְוָה שֶׁבְּגוּפוֹ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the details of the *baraita*. **The Master said:** One **might** have thought that one must fulfill **even a mitzva not** at all **related to** the **body** of the Paschal lamb on the second *Pesaḥ*. The Gemara expresses surprise: **But you said** that **the verse is speaking** only **of a mitzva applicable to** the **body** of the Paschal lamb, so why would one think that unrelated mitzvot are also included?


###### Pesachim 95a:6
[Pesachim 95a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/95a:6)

הָכִי קָאָמַר: הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ ״עַל מַצּוֹת וּמְרוֹרִים יֹאכְלוּהוּ״, אַלְמָא ״יַעֲשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ״ לָאו דַּוְקָא הוּא. אֵימָא הָוֵה לֵיהּ כִּפְרָט וּכְלָל, וְנַעֲשָׂה כְּלָל מוֹסִיף עַל הַפְּרָט, וַאֲפִילּוּ כֹּל מִילֵּי נָמֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that **this is** what the *baraita* **is saying: Now that you said** the additional *halakha* that **they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, apparently** the phrase: **“They shall perform it,” is not specific** and does not limit the *halakhot* of the second *Pesaḥ* to those applicable to the Paschal lamb itself, **say** that this verse **is** expounded according to the principle of **a detail and a generalization,** as it first said: “They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs” and “They shall leave none of it to the morning,” and then it stated a generalization: “According to all the statute of the Paschal lamb they shall perform it.” The principles of halakhic midrash state that in that case, **the generalization adds to the detail and even** includes **everything,** such that all the mitzvot of the first *Pesaḥ* would apply equally to the second, including the removal of leaven. Therefore, the verse “They shall not break a bone in it” **teaches us** that mitzvot unrelated to the Paschal lamb do not apply to the second *Pesaḥ*.


###### Pesachim 95a:7
[Pesachim 95a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/95a:7)

אִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה, הַאי ״עֶצֶם״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְאֶחָד עֶצֶם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מוֹחַ, וְאֶחָד עֶצֶם שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מוֹחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What does Isi ben Yehuda do with** the end of **the** verse: “And they shall not break a **bone** in it”? The Gemara answers: **He needs it** to teach that the prohibition of breaking a bone applies **both to a bone that has marrow and to a bone that does not have marrow.**


###### Pesachim 95a:8
[Pesachim 95a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/95a:8)

וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״יַעֲשׂוּ אֹתוֹ״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ שֶׁאֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת הַפֶּסַח עַל הַיָּחִיד, דְּכַמָּה דְּאֶפְשָׁר לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי מַהְדְּרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And the Rabbis,** who expound differently than Isi ben Yehuda, **what do they do with this** phrase: “They shall perform it”? The Gemara answers: **They need it** to teach **that one does not slaughter the Paschal** lamb on the second *Pesaḥ* **on** behalf of a single **individual.** Since the verse speaks of people performing the second *Pesaḥ* in the plural, it is derived **that as much as it is possible to search** for more people to join this individual in his Paschal lamb, **we search** for them, even if it means causing another individual to become ritually impure to prevent him from performing the first *Pesaḥ*.


###### Pesachim 95a:9
[Pesachim 95a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/95a:9)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כְּכׇל חוּקַּת הַפֶּסַח יַעֲשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ״. יָכוֹל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהָרִאשׁוֹן אָסוּר בְּ״בַל יֵרָאֶה״ וּ״בַל יִמָּצֵא״ כָּךְ שֵׁנִי אָסוּר בְּ״בַל יֵרָאֶה״ וּ״בַל יִמָּצֵא״ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַל מַצּוֹת וּמְרוֹרִים יֹאכְלוּהוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a different *baraita*: The verse states: **“According to the entire statute of the Paschal lamb they shall offer it”** (Numbers 9:12). **One might** have thought **that just as** at the time of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on **the first** *Pesaḥ* it **is prohibited** to own leaven due to the prohibitions of: **It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, so too,** at the time of the sacrifice of **the** Paschal lamb on the **second** *Pesaḥ* **it is prohibited** to own leaven due to the prohibitions of: **It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found. Therefore, the Torah states: “They shall eat it with *matzot* and bitter herbs”** (Numbers 9:11), which indicates that the other mitzvot pertaining to the first *Pesaḥ* do not apply on the second.


###### Pesachim 95a:10
[Pesachim 95a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/95a:10)

וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה, מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא יַשְׁאִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And** from here **I have** derived **only** that **positive mitzvot** related to the first *Pesaḥ* apply on the second *Pesaḥ*; **from where** do I derive that the same is true of **negative mitzvot? The verse states: “They shall leave none of it to the morning,** nor break a bone in it” (Numbers 9:12).


###### Pesachim 95a:11
[Pesachim 95a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/95a:11)

וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה. מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה גָּמוּר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעֶצֶם לֹא יִשְׁבְּרוּ בוֹ״. מָה הַפְּרָט — מְפוֹרָשׁ: מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה, וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה, וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה גָּמוּר — אַף כׇּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה, וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה, וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה גָּמוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And** from this verse **I have** derived **only** that **a negative mitzva** whose violation **can be rectified by** the fulfillment of **a positive** mitzva applies on the second *Pesaḥ*, e.g., the prohibition of leaving over meat from the Paschal lamb until morning, which can be rectified by the positive mitzva of burning the leftovers; **from where** is it derived that the same is true of **a full-fledged negative mitzva? The verse states: “They shall not break a bone in it.”** It may be concluded from these examples that **just as the detail,** i.e., the specific mitzvot mentioned in these verses, **is explicit** and includes **a positive mitzva, a prohibition** whose violation **can be rectified by** the fulfillment of **a positive mitzva, and a full-fledged negative mitzva; so too, every positive mitzva,** every **prohibition** whose violation **can be rectified by** the fulfillment of **a positive mitzva, and** every **full-fledged negative mitzva** is included.


###### Pesachim 95a:12
[Pesachim 95a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/95a:12)

בִּכְלָלֵיהּ דְּ״מַצּוֹת וּמְרוֹרִים״, מַאי קָא מְרַבֵּי? צְלִי אֵשׁ. בִּפְרָטֵיהּ מַאי מְמַעֵיט לֵיהּ? הַשְׁבָּתַת שְׂאוֹר. אֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא! מִצְוָה דְגוּפֵיהּ עֲדִיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Now that the generalization has been interpreted as referring to the specific examples mentioned earlier, **what is included through the generalization of unleavened bread and bitter herbs?** The Gemara answers: It comes to teach that the mitzva of **roasting in fire** applies to the Paschal lamb on the second *Pesaḥ* as well as to the first. Given that unleavened bread and bitter herbs is also a qualifying detail, **what does it exclude through its detail?** It teaches that the mitzva of **removal of leaven** does not apply on the second *Pesaḥ*. The Gemara asks: Perhaps **I** can **reverse it** and say that on the second *Pesaḥ* one is not obligated to roast the offering by fire, but one is obligated to remove all leaven? The Gemara answers: **A mitzva relating to** the Paschal lamb **itself is preferable,** as it is more reasonable to assume that the first and second *Pesaḥ* are comparable with regard to *halakhot* pertaining to the offering itself.


###### Pesachim 95a:13
[Pesachim 95a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/95a:13)

בִּכְלָלֵיהּ דְּ״לֹא יַשְׁאִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר״ מַאי קָא מְרַבֵּה לֵיהּ? ״לֹא תוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ״ (דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ. דְּהַאי מִיפְּסַל בְּנוֹתָר, וְהַאי מִיפְּסַל בְּיוֹצֵא).

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks further: **What is included through the generalization of: They shall leave none of it to the morning?** The Gemara answers that it includes the prohibition of: **You shall not remove any of its** meat from one group to another, **which is similar to it, as** through **this** prohibition mentioned in the verse **it is disqualified as leftovers, and** through **this** prohibition of removing the meat of the offering **it is disqualified as** sacrificial meat that **has left** its permitted boundary.


###### Pesachim 95a:14
[Pesachim 95a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/95a:14)

בִּפְרָטֵיהּ מַאי קָא מְמַעֵט לֵיהּ? ״לֹא יֵרָאֶה וְלֹא יִמָּצֵא״ (דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ, דְּהַאי אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה דְּהָוֵה לָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה. וְהַאי אֵינוֹ לוֹקָה דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ לָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה). אֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא! מִצְוָה דְגוּפֵיהּ עֲדִיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks further: **What does it exclude through its detail?** It excludes the prohibitions: **It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, which are similar to it, as** one who violates **this** prohibition of leaving over the meat of the offering until morning **is not flogged because it is a prohibition** whose violation **can be rectified by** fulfilling **a positive mitzva** by burning the leftovers; **and** one who violates **this** prohibition of owning leaven **is not flogged because it is a prohibition** whose violation **can be rectified by** fulfilling **a positive mitzva** of burning the leaven. The Gemara asks: Perhaps **I** can **reverse it** and say that the generalization is meant to include removal of leaven and the detail excludes the prohibition of leaving over the meat of the offering? The Gemara answers: In a comparison of the first *Pesaḥ* and the second, including **a mitzva related to** the Paschal lamb **itself is preferable** to including one that does not relate to the Paschal lamb.


###### Pesachim 95a:15
[Pesachim 95a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/95a:15)

בִּכְלָלֵיהּ דְּ״עֶצֶם לֹא יִשְׁבְּרוּ בוֹ״

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to ask: **Through the generalization: They shall not break a bone in it,**