For that night I will go through the land of Egypt and strike down every [male] first-born in the land of Egypt, both human and animal; and I will mete out punishments to all the gods of Egypt, I GOD.

So, when GOD has brought you into the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, which was sworn to your fathers^bfathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; see Gen. 24.7; 26.3; 50.24; Deut. 1.8. to be given you, a land flowing with milk and honey, you shall observe in this month the following practice: “Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a festival of GOD. Throughout the seven days unleavened bread shall be eaten; no leavened bread shall be found with you, and no leaven shall be found in all your territory. And you shall explain to your child on that day, ‘It is because of what GOD did for me when I went free from Egypt.’ “And this shall serve you as a sign on your hand and as a reminder on your forehead^con your forehead Lit. “between your eyes”; cf. Deut. 6.8.—in order that GOD’s Teaching may be in your mouth—that with a mighty hand GOD freed you from Egypt. You shall keep this institution at its set time from year to year.

Observe the month^amonth Cf. Exod. 13.4; 23.15; 34.18. of Abib and offer a passover sacrifice to the ETERNAL your God, for it was in the month^bmonth See previous note. of Abib, at night, that the ETERNAL your God freed you from Egypt. You shall slaughter the passover sacrifice for the ETERNAL your God, from the flock and the herd, in the place where GOD will choose to establish the divine name. You shall not eat anything leavened with it; for seven days thereafter^cthereafter Lit. “upon it.” you shall eat unleavened bread, bread of distress—for you departed from the land of Egypt hurriedly—so that you may remember the day of your departure from the land of Egypt as long as you live.

אל ארץ הכנעני וגו׳ TO THE LAND OF THE CANAANITE — And although it enumerates here only the five peoples, all the seven nations are implied (Mekhilta) for all are included in the generic term Canaanite, although there was one of the races of Canaan which had no other name than that of Canaanite (whilst the other races had, beside the generic name Canaanite, some special designation as Hittite etc.: hence under the term Canaanite one may understand either the one race bearing this name or any of the other races. Here, therefore, the introductory word הכנעני alludes to the particular tribe so called and to the two others included in this generic term, or it may allude to three tribes included in the generic term. In either case we get the “seven peoples of Canaan”). נשבע לאבתיך WHICH HE SWORE UNTO THY FATHERS — In the case of Abraham it says, (Genesis 15:18) “On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram [saying, To thy seed I will give this land]”; in the case of Isaac it says, (Genesis 26:3) “Sojourn in this land … [for to thee and to thy seed I will give all these countries]”; and in the case of Jacob it says, (Genesis 28:13) “the land wheron thou liest [to thee will I give it and to thy seed]” (Mekhilta). זבת חלב ודבש FLOWING WITH MILK AND HONEY — milk flows from the goats and honey flows from the dates and from the figs. את העבודה הזאת THIS SERVICE — that of the Paschal offering. But has it not already been said above, (Exodus 12:25) “And it shall come to pass when ye be come into the land … [that ye shall keep this service]”? Why then does it repeat it again? On account of a new matter that is introduced here; viz., in the former chapter it says, (v. 26) “And it shall come to pass when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service?” and there Scripture is speaking about a wicked son who excludes himself from the Israelite community (by saying ye, as though he does not wish to participate in the service), whilst here it states, (v. 8) “And thou shalt tell thy son”, referring to a son who does not know how to enquire, and Scripture teaches you that you yourself must open up the conversation with Agadic explanations which attract the heart (cf. Mekhilta; Shabbat 87a). בעבור זה FOR THE SAKE OF THIS — for the sake that I should carry out His commands, such as this Passover offering, this unleavened bread and this bitter herb (cf. Mekhilta). עשה ה' לי GOD DID FOR ME — Here is an indication of the reply to be given to the wicked son: that one should say to him, “God did for me” — and one should not say “what God did לנו, for us” — thus implying “not for thee”, for if thou hadst been there (in Egypt) thou wouldst not have been regarded as worthy of being redeemed (Mekhilta).

The commandment to recount the exodus from Egypt: To tell about the exodus from Egypt on the night of the fifteenth of Nissan (the first night of Pesach) — each person according to his own power of expression — to laud and to praise God, may He be blessed, for all the miracles He performed for us there, as it is stated (Exodus 13:8), “And you shall tell your son.” [Although the verse doesn’t specify when this should be done,] the Sages have already explained (Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael 13:8) that this commandment of retelling is on the night of the fifteenth of Nissan — which is the time of the eating of the matsah. And that which the verse states, “[And you shall tell] your son,” [does not mean] exclusively one’s son; but rather even with any creature (Pesachim 116a). The content of the commandment is that one mentions the miracles and the [related] matters that happened to our forefathers during the exodus from Egypt, and how the Almighty, may He be blessed, exacted our revenge from [the Egyptians]. And even one who is by himself — if no other people are present — is obligated to verbally express these matters, so that his heart will be inspired in this matter; for the heart is inspired through verbal expression. (See Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 157.) That which we have written about the Pesach sacrifice (Sefer HaChinukh 5) is from the roots of this commandment. And it is no wonder if there are many commandments that came about this — positive commandments and negative commandments — since it is a great foundation and a strong pillar in our Torah and in our faith. And therefore we always say, “in remembrance of the exodus from Egypt,” in our blessing and in our prayers — since it is a sign and a total proof for the creation of the world and that there is a primordial God that has will [and] ability: He controls all of what exists and it is in His hand to change them according to what He desires at any time — as He did in Egypt when He changed the natural processes of the world for our sake, and made for us novel, great and powerful signs. This silences all that deny the creation of the world, and supports the faith with the knowledge of God, may He be blessed, and [affirms] that His providence and power is upon all of the general categories [as well as upon] the particulars! The laws of the commandment — for example, the Order (Seder) that Israel is obligated to do on this night in the matter of their meal; the cups of wine, their measurements, their pouring and their order; and the rest of their details — are [all] elucidated at the end of Pesachim. (See Tur, Orach Chaim 469-482.) And behold, my son, I will write for you the Seder in short — exactly as I have heard it from the sages of the generation: In the beginning, we bring water and wash one hand for the sake of the cup of Kiddush which needs to be held. And this is how it is in Berakhot 43a in the Chapter [entitled] Keitsad Mevarkhin — that with the cup, washing one hand is sufficient. And we do not recite a blessing on this washing. And if he wants to wash two hands for the cup, he washes them without a blessing. And afterwards, he washes both hands and recites the blessing, “upon the washing of the hands,” and dips with a vegetable (the vegetable, according to the Vilna edition) and recites the blessing, “Who creates the fruit of the ground,” before [eating it]. But he does not recite the blessing, “Who creates souls, etc.,” after it — since he waits until he eats the marror; and then he recites the blessing, “Who creates souls,” upon the marror and upon the vegetable. And everything that he did is not an interruption, as we will explain. And after they ate from the vegetable in charoset (a thick sweet dip), we pour a second cup and read the Haggadah with two chapters of Psalms and recite the blessing, “Who has redeemed us, etc.,” upon the second cup, and we drink it. And we do not recite the blessing, “Who creates the fruit of the vine,” upon it, nor “upon the vine,” after it. And after they drink the second cup, we wash our hands and recite the blessing, “upon the washing of the hands.” And [then] we take half of a matsah and we place it on the complete one and recite the blessing upon the half, “Who brings forth” and “to eat matsah.” And we take bitter herbs and we recite the blessing, “to eat marror,” and eat from it dipped in charoset; but we do not recite the blessing, “Who creates the fruit of the ground,” upon it, since he is exempted by the blessing that he recited upon the vegetable at the beginning. As this is how it is concluded in the Gemara (Pesachim 103b) — that it is never [considered] an interruption unless there is [one of] two things: That he removes his thoughts from the matter — for example when they say, “Let us bless (say Grace after Meals),” and similar to it. And also that [he be engaged in something else, such that] it not be possible to do the two things together, for example that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 87a and Rashi there), “Drinking and blessing together is not possible.” And after we eat from the marror with the dip, we wrap some of it on top of matsah and eat. Afterwards, we eat the festive meal, and then each participant eats a little bit of matsah, in memory of the Pesach sacrifice that was eaten upon satiation. And we do not eat more the whole night, so as not to remove the taste of matsah from the mouth; as it is written (Psalms 113:103), “than honey to my mouth.” But we can certainly drink water, since water does not spoil the taste. And we also drink the two cups of the commandment, as we do not push off the commandment [on account of] this reason. And afterwards, we wash our hands, but we do not recite the blessing, “upon the washing of the hands.” And we pour the third cup and recite the Grace after Meals and “Who has created the fruit of the vine” over it; but not “upon the vine,” after it. (See Baal HaMeor on the end of Arevei Pesachim.) And afterwards, we pour the fourth cup and finish Hallel over it. And we do not recite the blessing, “Who has created the fruit of the vine,” upon it; but we do recite the blessing, “upon the vine,” after it. And that is if he does not have in mind to still drink a fifth cup. It comes out according to this that we only recite the blessing, “Who has created the fruit of the vine,” twice — on the cup of Kiddush and on the cup of the Grace. And [we only recite the blessing,] “upon the vine,” once, after all of the cups. And the four cups and the matsah of the commandment requires leaning. And [it] is practiced by males and females (Pesachim 36a and Pesachim 115b) in every place and at all times. And one who transgresses it violates a positive commandment.

GOD said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt: This month shall mark for you the beginning of the months; it shall be the first of the months of the year for you. Speak to the whole community of Israel^awhole community of Israel Or the leadership, on everyone’s behalf; cf. v. 21. and say that on the tenth of this month each family shall take for itself a lamb,^blamb Or “kid.” Heb. seh means either “sheep” or “goat”; cf. v. 5. a lamb to a household. But if the household is too small for a lamb, let it share one with a neighbor who dwells nearby, in proportion to the number of persons: you shall contribute for the lamb according to what each household will eat. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a yearling male; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats. You shall keep watch over it until the fourteenth day of this month; and all the assembled congregation of the Israelites shall slaughter it at twilight. They shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they are to eat it. They shall eat the flesh that same night; they shall eat it roasted over the fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs. Do not eat any of it raw, or cooked in any way with water, but roasted—head, legs, and entrails—over the fire. You shall not leave any of it over until morning; if any of it is left until morning, you shall burn it. This is how you shall eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it hurriedly: it is a passover offering^cpassover offering Or “protective offering”; Heb. pesaḥ. to GOD. For that night I will go through the land of Egypt and strike down every [male] first-born in the land of Egypt, both human and animal; and I will mete out punishments to all the gods of Egypt, I GOD. And the blood on the houses where you are staying shall be a sign for you: when I see the blood I will pass over^dpass over Or “protect”; cf. v. 11 and note there. you, so that no plague will destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt. This day shall be to you one of remembrance: you shall celebrate it as a festival to GOD throughout the ages; you shall celebrate it as an institution for all time. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread; on the very first day you shall remove leaven from your houses, for whoever eats leavened bread from the first day to the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel. You shall celebrate a sacred occasion on the first day, and a sacred occasion on the seventh day; no work at all shall be done on them; only what every person is to eat, that alone may be prepared for you. You shall observe the [Feast of] Unleavened Bread, for on this very day I brought your ranks out of the land of Egypt; you shall observe this day throughout the ages as an institution for all time. In the first month, from the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread until the twenty-first day of the month at evening. No leaven shall be found in your houses for seven days. For whoever eats what is leavened, that person—whether a stranger or a citizen of the country—shall be cut off from the community of Israel. You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your settlements you shall eat unleavened bread. Moses then summoned all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Go, pick out lambs for your families, and slaughter the passover offering. Take a bunch of hyssop, dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and apply some of the blood that is in the basin to the lintel and to the two doorposts. None of you shall go outside the door of your house until morning. For GOD, when going through to smite the Egyptians, will see the blood on the lintel and the two doorposts, and GOD will pass over^epass over See note at v. 13. the door and not let the Destroyer enter and smite your home. “You shall observe this as an institution for all time, for you and for your descendants. And when you enter the land that GOD will give you, as promised, you shall observe this rite. And when your children ask you, ‘What do you mean by this rite?’ you shall say, ‘It is the passover sacrifice to GOD, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt when smiting the Egyptians, but saved our houses.’”
Those assembled then bowed low in homage. And the Israelites went and did so; just as GOD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did. In the middle of the night GOD struck down all the [male] first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh who sat on the throne to the first-born of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the first-born of the cattle. And Pharaoh arose in the night, with all his courtiers and all the Egyptians—because there was a loud cry in Egypt; for there was no house where there was not someone dead. He summoned Moses and Aaron in the night and said, “Up, depart from among my people, you and the Israelites with you! Go, worship GOD as you said! Take also your flocks and your herds, as you said, and begone! And may you bring a blessing upon me also!” The Egyptians urged the people on, impatient to have them leave the country, for they said, “We shall all be dead.” So the people took their dough before it was leavened, their kneading bowls wrapped in their cloaks upon their shoulders. The Israelites had done Moses’ bidding and borrowed from the Egyptians objects of silver and gold, and clothing. And GOD had disposed the Egyptians favorably toward the people, and they let them have their request; thus they stripped the Egyptians. The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand fighting men on foot, aside from noncombatants. Moreover, a mixed multitude went up with them, and very much livestock, both flocks and herds. And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough that they had taken out of Egypt, for it was not leavened, since they had been driven out of Egypt and could not delay; nor had they prepared any provisions for themselves. The length of time that the Israelites lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years; at the end of the four hundred and thirtieth year, to the very day, all the ranks of GOD departed from the land of Egypt. That was for GOD a night of vigil to bring them out of the land of Egypt; that same night is GOD’s, one of vigil for all the children of Israel throughout the ages. GOD said to Moses and Aaron: This is the law of the passover offering: No foreigner shall eat of it. But any [male] slave you have bought may eat of it once he has been circumcised. No bound or hired laborer shall eat of it. It shall be eaten in one house: you shall not take any of the flesh outside the house; nor shall you break a bone of it. The whole community of Israel^fwhole community of Israel Or the heads of its households, on everyone’s behalf. shall offer it. If a stranger who dwells with you would offer the passover^gstranger … would offer the passover Which is done on a per-household basis; cf. vv. 3–4. to GOD, all his males must be circumcised; then he shall be admitted to offer it; he shall then be as a citizen of the country. But no uncircumcised man may eat of it. There shall be one law for the citizen and for the stranger who dwells among you. And all the Israelites did so; as GOD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did. That very day GOD freed the Israelites from the land of Egypt, troop by troop.

Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread; on the very first day you shall remove leaven from your houses, for whoever eats leavened bread from the first day to the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel.

And Moses said to the people,
“Remember this day, on which you went free from Egypt, the house of bondage, how GOD freed you from it with a mighty hand: no leavened bread shall be eaten.

You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with anything leavened; and the fat of My festal offering shall not be left lying until morning.

You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with anything leavened; and the sacrifice of the Feast of Passover shall not be left lying until morning.

You shall not eat anything leavened with it; for seven days thereafter^cthereafter Lit. “upon it.” you shall eat unleavened bread, bread of distress—for you departed from the land of Egypt hurriedly—so that you may remember the day of your departure from the land of Egypt as long as you live. For seven days no leaven shall be found with you in all your territory, and none of the flesh of what you slaughter on the evening of the first day shall be left until morning.

The commandment of disposing of chamets: To remove all leavened bread from our dwellings on the fourteenth day of Nissan, as it is stated (Exodus 12:15), “but on the first day, you shall dispose of leaven from your homes” — and the understanding of “first” is before Pesach. It is from the roots of this commandment [that it is] in order that we should remember the miracles in Egypt, as it is written with the Pesach sacrifice (Sefer HaChinukh 5). The laws of this commandment — for example what time of the day is its destruction; what is its disposal (Pesachim 21a); in which place one needs to search for it (Pesachim 5a) and in which place one does not need; from when the commandment is incumbent upon him if he goes on the road (Pesachim 6a); how is its law if the fourteenth of Nissan falls out on Shabbat (Pesachim 49a); the oral negation that he needs to do in addition to the destruction (Pesachim 6b); and the rest of its details — are [all] elucidated in [the] first [section of] Pesach[im]. (See Tur, Orach Chaim 431-440.) And this commandment is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and does not dispose of [his chamets], has violated the commandment of “you shall dispose of [leaven].” And if there is chamets in his dwellings, he also transgresses a negative commandment — as it stated (Exodus 12:19), “leaven is not to be found in your homes.” But we do not administer lashes for this negative commandment, if he has not done an act — as it is the law that we do not administer lashes for a negative commandment that does not have an act [involved] with it.

That chamets not be found in our possession on Pesach: That chamets not be found in our possession on all the days of Pesach, as it is stated (Exodus 12:19), “Seven days leaven is not to be found in your homes.” And our Sages, may their memory be blessed, elucidated (Pesachim 5b) that it is not specifically one’s home, but rather anything that is in his possession; and not specifically leaven which makes rise, but the same is true of [any grain product] that has risen — as leaven and leavened grain products are one [and the same] concerning the matter of its prohibition (Beitzah 7b). It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] so that we should always remember the miracles that were done for us in the exodus from Egypt, as is written with the lamb of the Pesach sacrifice (Sefer HaChinukh 5). And we should remember that which occurred to us with this matter — that as a result of the haste of the exodus, we baked the dough [into] matsah. As they could not wait until it rose, as it is written (Exodus 12:39), “And they baked the dough, etc.” The laws of this commandment — for example if he deposits his chamets in the hand of others or [that of] others [is deposited] into his hand, and also chamets that is sacred property that is in his hand or that of a gentile, with responsibility or without responsibility, and the law of a violent [gentile] that deposited chamets with him; the law of whether one transgresses for a mixture that includes chamets; what is the law of bread that has rotted (Pesachim 45b); and the rest of its details — are elucidated in [the] first [section of] Pesach[im]. (See Tur, Orach Chaim 440-442.) And [it] is practiced by males and females in every place and at all times. And one who transgresses it and chamets is volitionally found in his possession violates two negative commandments, on account of “that it not be seen and it not be found.” And he is lashed anytime he does an act with it — for example [if] he had dough rise and left it in his home, or he purchased chamets and stored it in his home. But if he did not do any act, but it [just] remained at home from before Pesach, he is not lashed (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Leavened and Unleavened Bread 1:3). As it is the law that we do not administer lashes for a negative commandment that does not have an act [involved] with it, as we have said.

Isn’t it due to the fact that the presumptive status of the house is that it has been searched, as this tanna maintains: All are considered ḥaverim with regard to the search for leavened bread? A ḥaver is one with the presumptive status of trustworthiness with regard to a given matter, e.g., ritual purity and impurity, tithes, etc. In this case, since everyone has ḥaver status with regard to searching for leaven, everyone is deemed trustworthy to have performed the requisite action. As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to a ḥaver who died and left a storehouse filled with produce, even if the produce was there only that day, the fruit has the presumptive status of produce that was ritually prepared, i.e., tithed, as there is no doubt that the ḥaver tithed his produce before he died. The same applies to the search for leaven: All are considered ḥaverim and are believed. The Gemara challenges this claim: And from where can this be proven? It is possible that in general a house does not have presumptive status that it was searched, and perhaps it is different here, due to the fact that these people, e.g., a woman, slave, or minor, expressly stated that they conducted the search. Perhaps that is why the house is considered to have been searched. The Gemara rejects this contention: Is that to say that there is any substance in the statement of these people? Since the testimony of all these is disqualified, they lack credibility, and their statements are not reliable. Instead, the reason that there is no need to search the rented property for leaven must be because of the presumption that it has already been searched. The Gemara retorts: Rather, what is the reason that one need not search the rented property for leaven? Is it due to the fact that its presumptive status is that it has been searched? If so, this statement should not read: Everyone is believed, as women, slaves, or minors themselves have no credibility. It should have been formulated: With regard to all houses on the fourteenth, their presumptive status is that they have already been searched, as that is the actual rationale for the lenient ruling. The Gemara rejects this contention: Rather, what is the alternative? Is it that this halakha is due to the statement of these people, and by inference, if these people do not say that the house has been searched, then no, it cannot be assumed that it was searched? If so, resolve the original dilemma from here, as this is proof that the presumptive status of the house is not that it has been searched, unless someone explicitly states that this is the case. The Gemara rejects this conclusion: No, actually I can say to you that on the fourteenth its presumptive status is that it has been searched, and with what case are we dealing here? This halakha is referring to a situation where our presumption is that the owner did not search the house, and these women, slaves, or minors say: We searched it. Lest you say that the Sages do not believe them, as they are unfit to testify, the baraita therefore teaches us that since the search for leavened bread is an ordinance by rabbinic law, as by Torah law mere nullification of one’s ownership before the prohibition of the leaven takes effect is sufficient, the Sages believe them with regard to an ordinance instituted by rabbinic law. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to one who lets a house to another for Passover, with the presumptive status that it was searched, and the lessee discovered that it was not searched, what is the halakha? Is it considered a mistaken transaction, and the renter can abrogate the deal, claiming that he agreed on the basis of his belief that the property had already been searched? Or no, it is not considered a mistaken transaction? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma, as Abaye said: Needless to say, that in a place where people typically do not pay a wage and hire others to conduct the search for leaven and everyone searches himself, a person prefers to fulfill the mitzva himself. However, even in a place where people pay a wage and have others search for leaven, it is not a mistaken transaction due to the fact that a person prefers to perform the mitzva with his own money. Consequently, it is not considered a mistaken transaction, as a person does not object to having to perform a mitzva. We learned in a mishna there, that Rabbi Meir says: One may eat leaven on the fourteenth day during the entire first five hours of the day, and he burns the leaven at the beginning of the sixth hour. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may eat leaven for the entire first four hours of the day, and one leaves it in abeyance during the fifth hour, at which point eating leaven is prohibited but it need not be burned yet, and one burns the leaven at the beginning of the sixth hour. Everyone agrees, in any case, that leavened bread is prohibited by Torah law from the sixth hour and onward. From where do we derive this? Abaye said: Two verses are written, and the halakha is derived by comparing them. It is written in one verse: “Seven days, leaven shall not be found in your houses” (Exodus 12:19), indicating that throughout these seven days it is prohibited to maintain leaven in one’s house. And it is written in another verse: “Yet on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses” (Exodus 12:15), indicating that one must remove the leaven on the first day, after the Festival has begun. How can this apparent contradiction be resolved? The Gemara responds: The latter verse comes to include the fourteenth day of Nisan with regard to the elimination of leaven. The phrase: On the first day, does not refer to the fifteenth of Nisan or to the beginning of the festival of Passover. It is referring to the fourteenth, the day on which the Paschal lamb is slaughtered. The Gemara asks: And say perhaps, that the verse comes to include the night of the fifteenth, the first night of Passover, with regard to the elimination of leaven. As, were it not for this verse, it could enter your mind to say: Seven days is written, which indicates by inference: During the days, yes, one is obligated to remove leaven, but during the nights, no, there is no requirement to do so. Therefore, the verse teaches us: On the first day, one may not be in possession of leaven even during the nights. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: That halakha was not necessary to be derived by the Sages, as it can be learned from another source. The time for the removal of leaven is juxtaposed to the time when the eating of leavened bread is prohibited. When the prohibition against eating leaven goes into effect, the obligation to remove leaven is in effect as well. And furthermore, the time of the prohibition against the eating of leavened bread is juxtaposed to the time for the eating of matza, as its prohibition takes effect from the time that the mitzva to eat matza takes effect. The Gemara elaborates: The removal of leaven is juxtaposed to the eating of leavened bread, as they appear in the same verse, as it is written: “Seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses, as anyone who eats that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel” (Exodus 12:19). And the prohibition against the eating of leavened bread is juxtaposed to the eating of matza, as both appear in the same verse, as it is written: “You shall not eat anything that is leavened; in all of your dwellings you shall eat matzot, etc.” (Exodus 12:20), and it is written with regard to matza: “On the first day, on the fourteenth day in the evening you shall eat matzot” (Exodus 12:18). Since the halakha that leaven is prohibited on the first night of Passover is derived from this source, there is no need for an additional derivation. The Gemara asks: And say that the verse: “Yet on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses” comes to include the night of the fourteenth in the obligation to remove leaven, which would mean that one must remove all leaven from his house on the night of the fourteenth. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: That is not possible, as “on the day” is written. The Gemara continues to ask: And say that leaven must be removed immediately from the morning of the fourteenth. The Gemara answers: That is also incorrect, as the verse says, “Yet on the first day”; and the word yet divides. The connotation of the word yet is one of restriction. In this context, it teaches that leaven is prohibited not for the entire day, but only for part of it. One is obligated to remove leaven only for the second half of the fourteenth of Nisan, not for the first half of the day. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: We found that the fourteenth day is called: First, as it is stated: “On harishon, on the fourteenth day of the month” (Exodus 12:18). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is evident from the verse itself that it is referring to the removal of leaven on the fourteenth, as rishon means previous. In this context, first means the day that precedes the others, i.e., the day before the Festival begins, as the verse stated: “Are you first [rishon] man born? Or were you brought forth before the hills?” (Job 15:7). Based on the parallelism between the two parts of the verse, the word rishon here means before; the one preceding all others. The Gemara asks: But if that is so, consider a verse written with regard to Sukkot: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first [harishon] day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of palm trees, and boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook” (Leviticus 23:40). So too, in this case, does harishon mean the day previous to the Festival? Clearly, one is not obligated to take the four species on the fourteenth of Tishrei, the eve of Sukkot. The Gemara rejects this contention. There it is different, as it is written immediately thereafter: “And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days” (Leviticus 23:40). Just as the seventh of these seven days is the seventh day of the Festival, so too, the first of these days is the first day of the Festival itself, not the day before Sukkot. However, where it is not explicitly stated, rishon means the day before the Festival. The Gemara raises a difficulty. Here too, it is written with regard to Passover: “Yet on the first [harishon] day you shall remove leaven from your houses”; “for seven days you shall eat matza” (Exodus 12:15). Just as seventh here is referring to the seventh day of the Festival, so too, rishon must refer to the first day of the Festival. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse write rishon; why do I need the addition of the definite article, harishon? Learn from it, as we said: Harishon means the day before the Festival. The Gemara raises an objection: If so, there too, with regard to Sukkot, why do I need the verse to say harishon? And furthermore, there it is written: “On the first [harishon] day a solemn rest and on the eighth day a solemn rest” (Leviticus 23:39). Here too, say that first means previous, the day preceding the Festival. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: It is different there, as the verse said: “And on the eighth day a solemn rest,” from which it can be inferred that just as the eighth means the eighth day of the Festival, so too, rishon is referring to the first day of the Festival. The Gemara repeats its earlier question: Why do I need the verse to say harishon? The Gemara answers: The definite article comes to exclude the intermediate days of the Festival. It is not prohibited to perform labor on these days, as the full-fledged sanctity of the Festival does not apply to them. The Gemara says: The status of the intermediate days is derived from the words first and eighth. The fact that the verse mentions only the first and the eighth days as Festivals clearly indicates that the days between them are not Festivals. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, a special verse was necessary to exclude the intermediate Festival days, as otherwise it could enter your mind to say that since the Merciful One writes: “And on the eighth day,” the principle: The letter vav adds to the previous matter, applies. When a phrase begins with the conjunction vav, meaning and, it is a continuation of the previous matter rather than a new topic. Based on this principle, I might have said that one must treat even the intermediate days as full-fledged Festival days. Therefore, the definite article teaches us not that this is not so. The Gemara asks: And let the Merciful One write in the Torah neither the conjunction vav nor the definite article heh. Since they neutralize each other, as explained above, the same result could have been achieved by omitting both. And furthermore, there, in its description of Passover, it is written: “On the first [harishon] day you shall have a sacred convocation; you shall do no servile work” (Leviticus 23:7). Does first mean previous, the day preceding the Festival, in this case too? Labor is permitted on the eve of the Festival. Rather, the Gemara explains that those three times the word rishon is mentioned with regard to the Festivals are necessary for that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: In reward for the three times the word rishon is stated with regard to the Festivals observed by the Jewish people, they were entitled to three matters also referred to as rishon: To eradicate the descendants of Esau, to the construction of the Temple, and to the name of Messiah. The tanna provides the sources for his statement. To eradicate the descendants of Esau, as it is written: “And the first [harishon] came forth red, all over like a hairy mantle; and they called his name Esau” (Genesis 25:25). And to the construction of the Temple, as it is written: “The Throne of Glory, on High from the beginning [merishon], the place of our Temple” (Jeremiah 17:12). And the Jewish people were also entitled to the name of Messiah, as it is written: “A harbinger [rishon] to Zion I will give: Behold, behold them; and to Jerusalem a messenger of good tidings” (Isaiah 41:27). However, harishon stated with regard to Passover is referring to the day before the Festival. Rava said: The halakha that leaven is prohibited from midday on the fourteenth of Nisan is derived from here: “You shall not slaughter the blood of My offering over leavened bread; neither shall the offering of the feast of the Passover be left to the morning” (Exodus 34:25). This verse means that you shall not slaughter the Paschal lamb while your leavened bread is still intact. In other words, all leaven must be removed before the time the Paschal lamb may be slaughtered. The Gemara raises a difficulty: And say that the verse means that each and every person must ensure that he has no leaven in his possession when he slaughters his own Paschal lamb, and there is no fixed time for this prohibition. The Gemara answers: The Merciful One states the time of the slaughter of the Paschal lamb, which begins at the end of the sixth hour. In other words, this verse is referring to a particular point in time, rather than the individual act of slaughtering the Paschal lamb. The Gemara adds that some of the aforementioned opinions were also taught in a baraita: “Yet on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses” (Exodus 12:15). This prohibition is in effect from the eve of the Festival. Or perhaps that is not the case, but it applies only to the Festival itself. The verse states: “You shall not slaughter the blood of My offering over leavened bread” (Exodus 34:25), meaning that you shall not slaughter the Paschal lamb while your leavened bread is still intact. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: There is no need for this proof, as it says: “Yet on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses,” and it is written: “And on the first day there shall be to you a sacred convocation, and on the seventh day a sacred convocation; you shall perform no manner of work on them” (Exodus 12:16). And we found that kindling a fire is a primary category of prohibited labor. Since the fire in which the leaven is burned is not for the preparation of food, kindling it is not performed for the purpose of the Festival. Therefore, it is prohibited to burn the leaven on the Festival itself. Consequently, one must burn the leaven on the day before the Festival. Rabbi Yosei says: There is no need for that proof either, as it says: “Yet on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses.” This prohibition applies from the eve of the Festival. Or perhaps that is not the case, but it applies only to the Festival itself. The verse states: Yet, which comes to divide the day into two parts; the first half, when leaven is permitted, and the second half, when it is prohibited. And if this verse is referring to the first day of the Festival itself, is leaven permitted on the actual Festival? As explained above, the removal of leaven is juxtaposed to the eating of leavened bread, and the eating of leavened bread is juxtaposed to the eating of matza. Rava said:

The commandment of eating matsah: To eat on the night of the fifteenth of Nissan matsah-bread that is made from a species of grain (Pesachim 35a), as it is stated (Exodus 12:18), “in the evening, you shall eat matsot.” And the understanding [of “evening”] is the night of the fifteenth of Nissan — whether it be at a time when the Pesach sacrifice is present or whether it be at a time that it is not present. That which is written about the Pesach sacrifice (Sefer HaChinukh 5) is from the roots of this commandment. The laws of the commandment — for example, the guarding needed for the matsah (Pesachim 40a); the matter of their kneading (Pesachim 42a); with which water they are kneaded; the minimal amount of time for their eating; and the rest of its details — are elucidated in [the] first [section of] Pesach[im]. (See Tur, Orach Chaim 453-466.) And it is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it violates a positive commandment. And we have already said that the court enforces [observance, in the case of the] negation of a positive commandment.

Rather, this is merely a higher standard, as by Torah law the water may be drawn with one vessel and sanctified in another vessel. The Sages added that this water must be sanctified in the same vessel in which it was drawn from the spring, and they found support for their opinion in the Torah. Here too, the Sages established a higher standard for a consecrated object that became ritually impure, as they decreed that it cannot be ritually purified through insertion in the ground. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: We, too, learned a similar statement in a baraita: When the period of ritual impurity of a zav or leper has been completed, and he immersed during the day and emerged, he may eat tithes immediately. Once the sun set for him, he may eat teruma. Rav Shimi bar Ashi infers from this statement: With regard to teruma, yes, he may eat it; however, with regard to consecrated food, no, he may not. Given that conclusion, Rav Shimi bar Ashi asks: Why is there a difference between teruma and consecrated foods? After all, he is ritually pure. Rather, the Sages established a higher standard for consecrated food, and permitted one to eat them only after sacrificing the requisite purification offering. Here too, the Sages established a higher standard for the ritual purity of consecrated liquids. Rav Ashi said: We, too, learned another case where the Sages established a higher standard. The verse says: “And the flesh that touches any ritually impure thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire. And as for the flesh, anyone who is ritually pure may eat from it” (Leviticus 7:19). And the flesh comes to include the wood in the Temple and the frankincense. The Gemara asks: Do wood and frankincense have the capacity to become ritually impure, given that they are neither food nor drink? Rather, the Sages established a higher standard for these objects due to their sanctity; here too, the Sages established a higher standard for the ritual purity of consecrated liquids. MISHNA: These are the types of grain with which a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza on the first night of Passover: With wheat, with barley, with spelt [kusmin], with rye [shifon], and with oats [shibbolet shu’al]. And one fulfills his obligation by eating not only matza made from properly tithed grains, but even with matza made from doubtfully tithed produce, and matza made with first tithe from which its teruma was already taken, or second tithe and consecrated food that were redeemed. And priests may eat matza prepared from ḥalla, the portion of dough that is given to priests, or with teruma, as priests are permitted to eat these portions. However, one may not fulfill one’s obligation to eat matza made with untithed produce, nor with matza made from the first tithe from which its teruma was not separated, nor with matza made either from the second tithe, nor from consecrated grain that was not redeemed. With regard to one who prepared loaves of matza that are brought with a thanks-offering, or to the wafers brought by a nazirite, the Sages drew the following distinction: If he prepared them for himself, then he does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza with them. However, if he prepared them to sell them in the market to those who require these loaves or wafers, one fulfills the obligation to eat matza with them. GEMARA: The Gemara identifies the species mentioned in the mishna. One of the Sages taught in the Tosefta: Spelt is a type of wheat, while oats [shibbolet shu’al] and rye [shifon] are a type of barley. The Gemara translates the lesser-known species into the vernacular Aramaic: Spelt is called gulba; rye is dishra; and oats are shevilei ta’ala. The Gemara infers: These species, yes, they may be used for matza; however, rice [orez] and millet [doḥan], no, they may not be used. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that matza cannot be prepared from rice or millet, derived? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, and likewise a Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, and likewise a Sage of the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov taught that the verse states: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza, the bread of affliction” (Deuteronomy 16:3). This verse indicates that only with substances which will come to a state of leavening, a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza with them, provided he prevents them from becoming leavened. This excludes these foods, i.e., rice, millet, and similar grains, which, even if flour is prepared from them and water is added to their flour, do not come to a state of leavening but to a state of decay [siraḥon]. The Gemara notes: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, who said: Rice is a full-fledged type of grain, and one is liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state, like other types of grain. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri prohibits eating cooked rice and millet on Passover, due to the fact that they are close to being leavened. A dilemma was raised before the scholars who were studying this issue. What is the meaning of the expression: That it is close to becoming leavened? Does this mean that it will be leavened even quicker than wheat or barley? Or does it perhaps mean that it is only close to being leavened, i.e., it resembles leavened bread, but it is not full-fledged leavened bread. In other words, perhaps Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri maintains that these grains cannot in fact become full-fledged leavened bread, and one is not punished with karet for eating them on Passover. However, he rules that one should nevertheless avoid eating them, due to their similarity to leavened bread. The Gemara responds: Come and hear a resolution to this question, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: Rice is a full-fledged type of grain. Therefore, one is liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state, and a person can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with it on Passover. This baraita clearly indicates that, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, rice becomes leavened like other grains, and the expression: It is close to becoming leavened, means that it becomes leavened quicker than other grains. And so too, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri would say: One who has prepared bread from keramit, a type of wild wheat, is obligated to separate ḥalla, just as he must separate ḥalla from dough prepared of other types of grain. The Gemara asks: What is keramit? Abaye said: It is a plant called shitzanita. Since this name was not widely known either, the Gemara asks: What is shitzanita? Rav Pappa said: This is the wild grain that is found between papyrus reeds. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Reish Lakish said: With regard to dough that was kneaded with wine, oil, or honey, one is not liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state, since these liquids will not cause the dough to be leavened. Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, were sitting before Rav Idi bar Avin, and Rav Idi bar Avin was sitting and dozing as his students conversed. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: What is the reason of Reish Lakish, who maintains that one is not liable to receive karet for this type of leavening? Rav Pappa said to him: The verse states: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza” (Deuteronomy 16:3). In light of the juxtaposition of leavened bread and matza, Reish Lakish compares these two types of bread: With regard to those substances through which a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza, one is liable to receive karet for eating them in their leavened state. And with regard to this dough, which was kneaded with wine, oil, or honey, since a person does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza with it, as it is called rich, i.e., enhanced, matza, one is not liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state on Passover. Matza is called the bread of affliction, or the poor man’s bread, a description that does not apply to dough prepared with wine, oil, or honey. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raised an objection to Rav Pappa: We learned with regard to one who took a baked item, dissolved it in water, and swallowed this mixture on Passover: If the baked item is leavened bread, he is punished with karet; and if it is matza, a person does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza on Passover with this food. The reason one does not fulfill the obligation to eat matza is because swallowing in this manner is not considered an act of eating. But here this is a case where a person does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza with this dissolved food, and nevertheless he is liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state. This ruling conflicts with Rav Pappa’s general principle. At this point Rav Idi bar Avin woke up, due to their discussion, and said to them: Children, this is the reasoning of Reish Lakish: One is not liable to receive karet for eating dough kneaded with oil or honey, because oil and honey are considered fruit juices,

MISHNA: And these are the vegetables with which a person can fulfill his obligation to eat bitter herbs on Passover: One can fulfill his obligation with ḥazeret, with chervil [tamkha], and with field eryngo [ḥarḥavina], and with endives [olashin], and with maror. One fulfills his obligation with them whether they are fresh or whether they are dry. However, one does not fulfill his obligation if they are pickled in water or vinegar, nor if they are over-boiled [shaluk] in hot water, nor if they are boiled [mevushal]. The mishna adds: And all these different types of vegetables join together to the measure of an olive-bulk, i.e., it is not necessary to eat this amount from one specific type of vegetable. And one fulfills his obligation by eating their stalk, as it is not necessary to eat the leaves. And one fulfills the obligation with doubtfully tithed produce, with first-tithe produce whose teruma has been taken and given to a priest, and with both second-tithe produce and consecrated property that were redeemed. GEMARA: The Gemara identifies the plants mentioned by the mishna by their Aramaic names. Ḥazeret is lettuce. Olashin is called hindevi. With regard to tamkha, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: It is called temakhta in Aramaic. As for ḥarḥavina, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: This is the plant that grows around the palm tree. The mishna taught: And with maror. The Gemara explains: This is a plant called merirata. Bar Kappara teaches: These are the vegetables with which a person can fulfill his obligation to eat bitter herbs on Passover: With endives, chervil, ḥarḥallin, field eryngo, and ḥazeret. Rav Yehuda says: Also wild endives, garden endives, and ḥazeret. The Gemara asks: Why does Rav Yehuda mention garden endives and ḥazeret? These were already taught in the first clause. The Gemara explains that this is what Rav Yehuda is saying: Even wild endives are equivalent to garden endives and ḥazeret and may be used as bitter herbs on Passover. Rabbi Meir says: The plants asvas, and tura, and sweet myrrh [mar yero’ar] can also be used to fulfill this obligation. Rabbi Yosei said to him: Asvas and tura are two names for one plant, and mar is the same plant as yero’ar. A Sage of the school of Rabbi Samuel teaches: These are the vegetables with which a person can fulfill his obligation to eat bitter herbs on Passover: With ḥazeret, endives, chervil, field eryngo, ḥarginnin, and hardofannin. Rabbi Yehuda says: One can also fulfill his obligation with ḥazeret yolin and ḥazeret gallin, as they are similar to the aforementioned vegetables. Rabbi Ile’a said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: One can also fulfill his obligation with arkablim. And I went around all of Rabbi Eliezer’s students looking for a colleague who agreed with me that Rabbi Eliezer said this, but I did not find anyone who remembered this ruling. But when I came before Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, he conceded to my statement. Rabbi Yehuda says: Any plant that has white sap when it is cut may be used as bitter herbs. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: Anything whose surface is light green may be used as bitter herbs. Aḥerim say: Any bitter herb that has sap and whose surface is light green is fit for this mitzva. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From the statements of all these Sages, we can learn that a bitter green herb has sap and its surface is light green. Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Aḥerim. Ravina found Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, searching for merirata to use as bitter herbs. He said to him: What is your opinion, that you seek this particular herb? If you are looking for that which is most bitter, but we learned ḥazeret first in the mishna, which indicates that this is the preferred choice. And likewise, a Sage of the school of Shmuel taught ḥazeret first, before the other types of bitter herbs. And Rabbi Oshaya said: The optimal fulfillment of the mitzva is with ḥazeret, and Rava said: What is ḥazeret? It is lettuce [ḥassa]. The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of lettuce [ḥassa]? It refers to the fact that God has mercy [ḥas] on us. And Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Why are the Egyptians likened to bitter herbs in the verse: “And they embittered their lives” (Exodus 1:14)? This comparison serves to tell you that just as these bitter herbs are soft at first and harsh in the end, so too, the Egyptians were soft at first, when they paid the Jews for their work, but were harsh in the end, as they enslaved them. This idea applies solely to ḥazeret, which has a bitter aftertaste, but not to other types of bitter herbs, which are bitter from the beginning. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Ravina: I retract my position and concede that it is preferable to use ḥazeret for bitter herbs. Rav Reḥumi said to Abaye: From where is it known that this bitter herb that must be eaten on Passover night is a type of vegetable? Perhaps one could say that the mitzva should be performed with the bile of a kufya fish, which is very bitter, but not necessarily with a type of plant? He answered: Bitter herbs are similar to matza; just as matza must be prepared only from food that grows from the ground, so too, bitter herbs must be from food that grows from the ground. The Gemara asks: How do we know that a bitter herb is specifically a vegetable rather than the bitter oleander bush? The Gemara answers: Bitter herbs are similar to matza; just as matza is prepared from a type of plant, but not including a tree, so too, bitter herbs must be from a type of plant that is not a tree. The Gemara asks a similar question: Perhaps I can say that one may use harzipu, a vegetable that poisons animals, as the bitter herb. The Gemara answers: It must be similar to matza; just as matza is prepared from plants that are fit for human consumption and can be purchased with second-tithe money, so too, bitter herbs must be from a species that can be purchased with second-tithe money. Rabba bar Rav Ḥanin said to Abaye: I can say that the bitter herb mentioned in the Torah includes merely one species, i.e., only the bitterest plant can be used for this obligation. Abaye responded: For this reason it is written: “Bitter herbs” (Exodus 12:8) in the plural, indicating that many types of bitter herbs are fit for this purpose. Rabba retorted: But one can say that “bitter herbs” refers to two different species, but no more. Abaye explained: Bitter herbs are similar to matza; just as matza can be prepared from many types of grain, so too, bitter herbs can be taken from many different types of vegetables. Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: With regard to the vegetables that the Sages said a person can fulfill with them his obligation to eat bitter herbs on Passover, they may all be planted in one garden bed. The Gemara concludes: That is to say that the prohibition against planting diverse kinds of seeds does not apply to them? Rav’s statement indicates that all these species are so similar that they may be planted together without violating the prohibition against planting different species of crops in one area of a field. Rava raised an objection from a mishna: Ḥazeret and ḥazeret gallin; endive and wild endive; leek and wild leek; coriander and wild coriander; mustard and Egyptian mustard; and Egyptian gourd and harmutza, a type of gourd, are not considered a mixture of diverse kinds when planted together. This indicates that ḥazeret and ḥazeret gallin, yes, they may be planted together; however, ḥazeret and endives, no, they may not be planted together. And lest you say that all these species are taught together, and the mishna is actually saying that any of these species may be planted together, but didn’t Rav himself say that these plants were taught in pairs, i.e., one may plant each plant only with its pair that is listed in the mishna, due to their similarity; however, one may not, e.g., plant lettuce and endive together. It therefore remains unclear what Rav meant when he said that vegetables fit for use as bitter herbs may be planted in a single garden bed. The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the term planted, which Rav said? It means that these plants may be properly planted. In other words, they may be planted together provided that there is an appropriate amount of space between them, so that there is no violation of the prohibition against planting diverse kinds of seeds. The Gemara asks: If he wishes to inform us about planting them properly, we already learned this in a mishna:

THE precepts of the eleventh class are enumerated in the Section on Divine Service (Sefer ‘abodah) and the Section on Sacrifices (Sefer ha-ḳorbanot). We have described their use in general terms (chap. xxxii.). I will now proceed to give the reason of each precept separately. Scripture tells us, according to the Version of Onkelos, that the Egyptians worshipped Aries, and therefore abstained from killing sheep, and held shepherds in contempt. Comp. “Behold we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians,” etc. (Exod. 8:26); “For every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians” (Gen. 46:34). Some sects among the Sabeans worshipped demons, and imagined that these assumed the form of goats, and called them therefore “goats” [se‘irim]. This worship was widespread. Comp. “And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto demons, after whom they have gone a whoring” (Lev. 17:7). For this reason those sects abstained from eating goats’ flesh. Most idolaters objected to killing cattle, holding this species of animals in great estimation. Therefore the people of Hodu [Indians] up to this day do not slaughter cattle even in those countries where other animals are slaughtered. In order to eradicate these false principles, the Law commands us to offer sacrifices only of these three kinds: “Ye shall bring your offering of the cattle [viz.], of the herd and of the flock” (Lev. 1:2). Thus the very act which is considered by the heathen as the greatest crime, is the means of approaching God, and obtaining His pardon for our sins. In this manner, evil principles, the diseases of the human soul, are cured by other principles which are diametrically opposite. This is also the reason why we were commanded to kill a lamb on Passover, and to sprinkle the blood thereof outside on the gates. We had to free ourselves of evil doctrines and to proclaim the opposite, viz., that the very act which was then considered as being the cause of death would be the cause of deliverance from death. Comp. “And the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come unto your houses to suite you” (Exod. 12:23). Thus they were rewarded for performing openly a service every part of which was objected to by the idolaters. To the above reason for the exclusive selection of the three kinds of animals for sacrifices, we may add the following, namely, that these species are animals which can be got very easily, contrary to the practice of idolaters that sacrifice lions, bears, and wild beasts, as is stated in the book Tomtom. As, however, many could not afford to offer a beast, the Law commanded that birds also should be sacrificed, but only of those species which are found abundantly in Palestine, are suitable, and can easily be obtained, namely, turtledoves and pigeons. Those who are too poor to offer a bird, may bring bread of any of the kinds then in use: baked in the oven, baked in a pan, or in a frying-pan. If the baking of the bread is too much trouble for a person, he may bring flour. All this concerns only those who desire to sacrifice; for we are distinctly told that the omission of the sacrificial service on our part will not be reckoned to us a sin: “If thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee” (Deut. 23:22). The idolaters did not offer any other bread but leavened, and chose sweet things for their sacrifices, which they seasoned with honey, as is fully described in the books which I named before: but salt is not mentioned in any of their sacrifices. Our Law therefore forbade us to offer leaven or honey, and commanded us to have salt in every sacrifice: “With all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt” (Lev. 2:13). It is further ordained that the offerings must all be perfect and in the best condition, in order that no one should slight the offering or treat with contempt that which is offered to God’s name: “Offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee?” (Mal. 1:8). This is the reason why no animal could be brought that was not yet seven days old (Lev. 22:26); it is imperfect and contemptible, like an untimely birth. Because of their degraded character it was prohibited to bring “the hire of a harlot and the price of a dog” (Deut. 23:18) into the Sanctuary. In order to bring the offering in the beat condition, we choose the old of the turtle-doves and the young of the pigeons, the old pigeons being less agreeable. The oblation must likewise be mingled with oil, and must be of fine flour (Lev. 2:1), for in this condition it is good and pleasant. Frankincense is prescribed (ibid.) because its fumes are good in places filled with the odour of burnt flesh. The burnt-offering was flayed (Lev. 1:16), and its inwards and legs, although they were entirely burnt, had to be previously washed (ibid. ver. 9), in order that due respect should be shown to the sacrifice, and it should not appear despicable and contemptible. This object is constantly kept in view, and is often taught, “Ye say, The table of the Lord is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible” (Mal. 1:12). For the same reason no body uncircumcised, or unclean (Lev. 22:4), was allowed to partake of any offering; nor could any offering be eaten that had become unclean (Lev. 7:19), or was left till after a certain time (ibid. 7:15-17), or concerning which an illegal intention had been conceived; and it had also to be consumed in a particular place. Of the burnt-offering, which is entirely devoted to God, nothing at all was eaten. Those sacrifices which are brought for a sin, viz., sin-offering and guilt-offering, must be eaten within the court of the Sanctuary (‘azarah), and only on the day of their slaughtering and the night following, whilst peace-offerings, which are next in sanctity, being sacrifices of the second degree, may be eaten in the whole of Jerusalem, on the day they have been offered and on the following day, but not later. After that time the sacrifices would become spoiled, and be unfit for food. In order that we may respect the sacrifices and all that is devoted to the name of God, we are told that whosoever takes part of a holy thing for common use has committed a trespass, must bring a sin-offering, and restore what he has taken with an addition of the fifth part of its value, although he may have committed the trespass in ignorance. For the same reason animals reserved for holy purposes must not be employed in work; nor is the shearing of such animals permitted (Deut. 15:19). The law concerning the change of a sacrifice must be considered as a preventive; for if it were permitted to substitute a good animal for a bad one, people would substitute a bad animal for a good one, and say that it was better than the original; it was therefore the rule that, if any such change had taken place, both the “original sacrifice and the exchange thereof should be holy” (Lev. 27:9). When a person redeems a thing devoted by him to the Sanctuary, he must likewise add one-fifth (Lev. 27:13, 15); the reason for this is plain. Man is usually selfish, and is naturally inclined to keep and save his property. He would therefore not take the necessary trouble in the interest of the Sanctuary: he would not expose his property sufficiently to the sight of the valuer, and its true value would not be fixed. Therefore the owner had to add one-fifth, whilst a stranger paid only the exact value. These rules were laid down in order that people should not despise that with which the name of God is connected, and which serves as a means of approaching God. The oblation of the priest was entirely burnt (Lev. 6:16), because the priest offered up his oblation by himself, and if he were to offer it, and at the same time to eat it, it would appear as if he had not performed any service. For nothing was offered upon the altar of the ordinary oblations of any person except the frankincense and a handful of the flour or cake; and if, in addition to the fact that the offering was small, he who offered it were himself to eat it, nothing of a sacrificial service would be noticed. It is therefore entirely burnt (Lev. 6:16). The reason of the particular laws concerning the Passover lamb is clear. It was eaten roasted by fire (Exod. 12:8-9) in one house, and without breaking the bones thereof (ibid. ver. 46). In the same way as the Israelites were commanded to eat unleavened bread, because they could prepare it hastily, so they were commanded, for the sake of haste, to roast the lamb, because there was not sufficient time to boil it, or to prepare other food; even the delay caused by breaking the bones and to extract their marrow was prohibited the one principle is laid down for all these rules, “Ye shall eat it in haste” (Exod. 12:11). But when haste is necessary the bones cannot be broken, nor parts of it sent from house to house; for the company could not wait with their meal till he returned. Such things would lead to laxity and delay, whilst the object of these rules was to make a show of the hurry and haste, in order that none should be too late to leave Egypt with the main body of the people, and be thus exposed to the attacks and the evil [designs of the enemy]. These temporary commandments were then made permanent, in order that we may remember what was done in those days. “And thou shalt keep this ordinance in his season from year to year” (Exod. 13:10). Each Passover lamb was only eaten by those who had previously agreed to consume it together, in order that people should be anxious to procure it, and should not rely on friends, relations, or on chance, without themselves taking any trouble about it before Passover. The reason of the prohibition that the uncircumcised should not eat of it (Exod. 12:48) is explained by our Sages as follows:—The Israelites neglected circumcision during their long stay in Egypt, in order to make themselves appear like the Egyptians. When God gave them the commandment of the Passover, and ordered that no one should kill the Passover lamb unless he, his sons, and all the male persons in his household were circumcised, that only “then he could come near and keep it” (ibid. 12:48), all performed this commandment, and the number of the circumcised being large the blood of the Passover and that of the circumcision flowed together. The Prophet Ezekiel (xvi. 6), referring to this event, says, “When I saw thee sprinkled with thine own blood I said unto thee, Live because of thy [two kinds of ] blood, “i.e., because of the blood of the Passover and that of the circumcision. Now there remained to provide for the slaughtering of the beasts of the field and birds, because those beasts were never sacrificed, and birds did never serve as peace-offerings (Lev. iii.). The commandment was therefore given that whenever a beast or a bird that may be eaten is killed, the blood thereof must be covered with earth (Lev. 17:13), in order that the people should not assemble round the blood for the purpose of eating there. The object was thus fully gained to break the connexion between these fools and their spirits. Although blood was very unclean in the eyes of the Sabeans, they nevertheless partook of it, because they thought it was the food of the spirits; by eating it man has something in common with the spirits, which join him and tell him future events, according to the notion which people generally have of spirits. There were, however, people who objected to eating blood, as a thing naturally disliked by man; they killed a beast, received the blood in a vessel or in a pot, and ate of the flesh of that beast, whilst sitting round the blood. They imagined that in this manner the spirits would come to partake of the blood which was their food, whilst the idolaters were eating the flesh: that love, brotherhood, and friendship with the spirits were established, because they dined with the latter at one place and at the same time; that the spirits would appear to them in dreams, inform them of coming events, and be favourable to them. Such ideas people liked and accepted in those days; they were general, and their correctness was not doubted by any one of the common people. The Law, which is perfect in the eyes of those who know it, and seeks to cure mankind of these lasting diseases, forbade the eating of blood, and emphasized the prohibition exactly in the same terms as it emphasizes idolatry: “I will set my face against that soul that eateth blood” (Lev. 17:10). The same language is employed in reference to him “who giveth of his seed unto Molech”; “then I will set my face against that man” (ibid. 20:5). There is, besides idolatry and eating blood, no other sin in reference to which these words are used. For the eating of blood leads to a kind of idolatry, to the worship of spirits. Our Law declared the blood as pure, and made it the means of purifying other objects by its touch. “And thou shalt take of the blood . . . and sprinkle it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him. And he shall be hallowed, and his garments, and his sons,” etc. (Exod. 29:21). Furthermore, the blood was sprinkled upon the altar, and in the whole service it was insisted upon pouring it out, and not upon collecting it. Comp. “And he shall pour out all the blood at the bottom of the altar” (Lev. 4:18); “And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the Lord thy God” (Deut. 12:27). Also the blood of those beasts that were killed for common use, and not for sacrifices, must be poured out, “Thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water” (ibid. ver. 24). We are not allowed to gather and have a meal round the blood, “You shall not eat round the blood” (Lev. 19:26). As the Israelites were inclined to continue their rebellious conduct, to follow the doctrines in which they had been brought up, and which were then general, and to assemble round the blood in order to eat there and to meet the spirits, God forbade the Israelites to eat ordinary meat during their stay in the wilderness: they could only partake of the meat of peace-offerings. The reason of this precept is distinctly stated, viz., that the blood shall be poured out upon the altar, and the people do not assemble round about. Comp. “To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they offer in the open field, even that they may bring them unto the Lord. . . . And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar, . . . and they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto the spirits” (Lev. 17:5-7). This belief flourished about the time of our Teacher Moses. People were attracted and misled by it. We find it in the Song of Moses (Deut. xxxii.): “They sacrificed unto spirits, not to God” (ibid. 17). According to the explanation of our Sages, the words lo eloha imply the following idea: They have not only not left off worshipping things in existence; they even worship imaginary things. This is expressed in Sifri as follows: “It is not enough for them to worship the sun, the moon, the stars; they even worship their babuah. The word babuah signifies “shadow.” Let us now return to our subject. The prohibition of slaughtering cattle for common use applied only to the wilderness, because as regards the “spirits” it was then the general belief that they dwelt in deserts, that there they spoke and were visible, whilst in towns and in cultivated land they did not appear. In accordance with this belief those inhabitants of a town who wanted to perform any of those stupid practices, left the town and went to woods and waste places. The use of cattle for common food was therefore allowed when the Israelites entered Palestine. Besides, there were great hopes that the disease would become weakened, and the followers of the doctrines would decrease. Furthermore, it was almost impossible that every one who wanted to eat meat should come to Jerusalem. For these reasons the above restriction was limited to the stay of the Israelites in the wilderness. The greater the sin which a person had committed, the lower was the species from which the sin-offering was brought. The offering for worshipping idols in ignorance was only a she-goat, whilst for other sins an ordinary person brought either a ewe-lamb or a she-goat (Lev. 4:27-35), the females bring, as a rule, in every species, inferior to the males. There is no greater sin than idolatry, and also no inferior species than a she-goat. The offering of a king for sins committed ignorantly was a he-goat (ibid. vers. 22-26), as a mark of distinction. The high priest and the Synhedrion, who only gave a wrong decision in ignorance, but have not actually committed a sin, brought a bull for their sin-offering (ibid. ver. 3-21), or a he-goat, when the decision referred to idolatry (Num. 15:27-26). The sins for which guilt-offerings were brought were not as bad as transgressions that required a sin-offering. The guilt-offering was therefore a ram, or a lamb, so that the species as well as the sex were superior in this latter case, for the guilt-offering was a male sheep. For the same reason we see the burnt-offering, which was entirely burnt upon the altar, was selected from the superior sex; for only male animals were admitted as burnt-offerings. It is in accordance with the same principle that luxury and incense were absent from the oblations of a sinner (Lev. v.11), and of a sotah, i.e., a woman suspected of adultery (Num. 5:15). In these cases the oil and the frankincense were not added: this luxury was absent, because the persons that brought the oblation were not good and proper in their deeds, and they are, as it were, to be reminded by their offerings that they ought to repent; as if they were told, “Your offering is without any ornamental addition on account of the wickedness of your deeds.” As the sotah acted more disgracefully than any person who sins in ignorance, her offering consisted of the lowest kind, viz., of barley flour (ibid.). Thus the reasons of all these particular laws are well connected, and show that the precepts are wonderful in their significance. Our Sages say that the offering for the eighth day of dedication was “a calf, a young bullock, for a sin-offering” (Lev. 11:2), in order to atone for the sin of the Israelites in making a golden calf. The sin-offering, which was brought on the Day of Atonement (ibid. 16:3), was likewise explained as being an atonement for that sin. From this argument of our Sages I deduce that he-goats were always brought as sin-offerings, by individual persons and also by the whole congregation, viz., on the Festivals, New-moon, Day of Atonement, and for idolatry, because most of the transgressions and sins of the Israelites were sacrifices to spirits (se‘irim, lit., goats), as is clearly stated, “They shall no more offer their sacrifices unto spirits” (Lev. 17:7). Our Sages, however, explained the fact that goats were always the sin-offerings of the congregation, as an allusion to the sin of the whole congregation of Israel: for in the account of the selling of the pious Joseph we read, “And they killed a kid of the goats” (Gen. 37:31). Do not consider this as a weak argument; for it is the object of all these ceremonies to impress on the mind of every sinner and transgressor the necessity of continually remembering and mentioning his sins. Thus the Psalmist says, “And my sin is ever before me” (Ps. 51:3). The above-mentioned sin-offerings further show us that when we commit a sin, we, our children, and the children of our children, require atonement for that sin by some kind of service analogous to the sin committed. If a person has sinned in respect to property he must liberally spend his property in the service of God; if he indulged in sinful bodily enjoyments he must weary his body and trouble it by a service of privation and fasting, and rising early before daybreak. If he went astray in respect to his moral conduct he must oppose his failings by keeping to the opposite extreme, as we have pointed out in Mishneh-torah Hilkot De‘ot (chap. ii.) et passim. If his intellectual faculties have been concerned in the sin, if he has believed something false on account of the insufficiency of his intellect, and his neglect of research and proper study, he must remedy his fault by turning his thoughts entirely away from worldly affairs, and directing them exclusively to intellectual exercise, and by carefully reflecting on that which ought to form the subject of his belief. Comp. “And my heart hath been secretly enticed, but my hand touched my mouth” (Job 31:27). These words express figuratively the lesson that we should pause and stop at that which appears doubtful, as has been pointed out by us in the beginning of this treatise. The same we notice in the case of Aaron. He had his share in the sin of the golden calf, and therefore a bullock and a calf were brought by him and his successors as an offering. Similarly, the sin connected with a kid of goats was atoned for by a kid of goats. When this theory has been well established in the minds of the people, they must certainly be led by it to consider disobedience to God as a disgraceful thing. Every one will then be careful that he should not sin, and require a protracted and burdensome atonement; he will be afraid he might not be able to complete it, and will therefore altogether abstain from sinning, and avoid it. This object [of the laws under discussion] is very clear, and note it likewise. I will here call your attention to a very remarkable thing, although it does not seem at first thought to belong to our subject. It is only the goat brought on New-moon as a sin-offering that the law calls “a sin-offering unto the Lord” (Num. 28:15). The sin-offerings brought on the three festivals (ibid. vers. 22, 30; 29:5, 11, etc.) are not called so, nor are any other sin-offerings. The reason thereof is, according to my opinion, undoubtedly this: The additional offerings brought by the congregation at certain periods were all burnt-offerings; only “one kid of goats to make an atonement” was offered on every one of these exceptional days. The latter was eaten [by the priests], whilst the burnt-offerings were entirely consumed by fire, and are called “an offering made by fire unto the Lord.” The phrases “a sin-offering unto the Lord” and “a peace-offering unto the Lord” do not occur in the law, because these were eaten by man; but even those sin-offerings that were entirely burnt (Lev. 4:12, 21) cannot be called “an offering made by fire unto the Lord,” as will be explained in the course of this chapter. It is therefore impossible that the goats which are eaten [by the priests], and are not entirely burnt, should be called “sin-offerings unto the Lord.” But as it was found that the kid offered on New-moon might be mistaken as an offering brought to the moon, in the manner of the Egyptians, who sacrificed to the moon on the days of New-moon, it was distinctly stated that this goat is offered in obedience to God’s command, and not in honour of the moon. This fear did not apply to the sin-offerings on the Festivals, nor to any other sin-offering, because they were not offered on the days of New-moon, or on any other day marked out by Nature, but on such days as were selected by the Divine Will. Not so the days of New-moon: they are not fixed by the Law [but by Nature]. On the New-moon the idolaters sacrificed to the moon, in the same manner as they sacrificed to the sun when it rose and set in certain particular degrees. This is described in the works [mentioned above]. On this account the extraordinary phrase “A sin-offering unto the Lord” is exceptionally introduced in reference to the goat brought on New-moon, in order to remove the idolatrous ideas that were still lingering in the sorely diseased hearts. Note this exception likewise. A sin-offering which is brought in the hope to atone for one or more great sins, as, e.g., the sin-offering [of the Synhedrion or the high-priest] for a sin committed in ignorance, and the like, are not burnt upon the altar, but without the camp; upon the altar only the burnt-offering, and the like, are burnt, wherefore it was called the altar of the burnt-offering. The burning of the holocaust, and of every “memorial,” is called “a sweet savour unto the Lord”; and so it undoubtedly is, since it serves to remove idolatrous doctrines from our hearts, as we have shown. But the burning of these sin-offerings is a symbol that the sin [for which the offering is brought] is utterly removed and destroyed, like the body that is being burnt; of the sinful seed no trace shall remain, as no trace is left of the sin-offering, which is entirely destroyed by fire: the smoke thereof is not “a sweet savour unto the Lord,” but, on the contrary, a smoke despised and abhorred. For this reason the burning took place without the camp. Similarly we notice that the oblations of a sotah is called “an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance” (Num. 5:15); it is not a pleasing thing [to the Lord]. The goat [of the Day of Atonement] that was sent [into the wilderness] (Lev. 16:20, seq.) served as an atonement for all serious transgressions more than any other sin-offering of the congregation. As it thus seemed to carry off all sins, it was not accepted as an ordinary sacrifice to be slaughtered, burnt, or even brought near the Sanctuary; it was removed as far as possible, and sent forth into a waste, uncultivated, uninhabited land. There is no doubt that sins cannot be carried like a burden, and taken off the shoulder of one being to be laid on that of another being. But these ceremonies are of a symbolic character, and serve to impress men with a certain idea, and to induce them to repent; as if to say, we have freed ourselves of our previous deeds, have cast them behind our backs, and removed them from us as far as possible. As regards the offering of wine (Num. 15:5, seq.), I am at a loss to find a reason why God commanded it, since idolaters brought wine as an offering. But though I am unable to give a reason, another person suggested the following one: Meat is the best nourishment for the appetitive faculty, the source of which is the liver; wine supports best the vital faculty, whose centre is the heart: music is most agreeable to the psychic faculty, the source of which is in the brain. Each one of our faculties approaches God with that which it likes best. Thus the sacrifice consists of meat, wine, and music. The use of keeping festivals is plain. Man derives benefit from such assemblies: the emotions produced renew the attachment to religion; they lead to friendly and social intercourse among the people. This is especially the object of the commandment to gather the people together on the Feast of Tabernacles, as is plainly stated: “that they may hear, and that they may learn and fear the Lord” (Deut. 31:12). The same is the object of the rule that the money for the second tithe must be spent by all in one place (ibid. 14:22-26), as we have explained (chap. xxxix. p. 184). The fruit of trees in their fourth year, and the tithe of the cattle, had to be brought to Jerusalem. There would therefore be in Jerusalem the meat of the tithes, the wine of the fruit of the fourth year, and the money of the second tithe. Plenty of food would always be found there. Nothing of the above things could be sold; nothing could be set aside for another year; the Law orders that they should be brought “year by year” (Deut. 14:22); the owner was thus compelled to spend part of them in charity. As regards the Festivals it is especially enjoined: “And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant, and the Levite, the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow” (ibid. 16:14). We have thus explained the reason of every law belonging to this class, and even many details of the laws.

MISHNA: And these are the vegetables with which a person can fulfill his obligation to eat bitter herbs on Passover: One can fulfill his obligation with ḥazeret, with chervil [tamkha], and with field eryngo [ḥarḥavina], and with endives [olashin], and with maror. One fulfills his obligation with them whether they are fresh or whether they are dry. However, one does not fulfill his obligation if they are pickled in water or vinegar, nor if they are over-boiled [shaluk] in hot water, nor if they are boiled [mevushal]. The mishna adds: And all these different types of vegetables join together to the measure of an olive-bulk, i.e., it is not necessary to eat this amount from one specific type of vegetable. And one fulfills his obligation by eating their stalk, as it is not necessary to eat the leaves. And one fulfills the obligation with doubtfully tithed produce, with first-tithe produce whose teruma has been taken and given to a priest, and with both second-tithe produce and consecrated property that were redeemed. GEMARA: The Gemara identifies the plants mentioned by the mishna by their Aramaic names. Ḥazeret is lettuce. Olashin is called hindevi. With regard to tamkha, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: It is called temakhta in Aramaic. As for ḥarḥavina, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: This is the plant that grows around the palm tree. The mishna taught: And with maror. The Gemara explains: This is a plant called merirata. Bar Kappara teaches: These are the vegetables with which a person can fulfill his obligation to eat bitter herbs on Passover: With endives, chervil, ḥarḥallin, field eryngo, and ḥazeret. Rav Yehuda says: Also wild endives, garden endives, and ḥazeret. The Gemara asks: Why does Rav Yehuda mention garden endives and ḥazeret? These were already taught in the first clause. The Gemara explains that this is what Rav Yehuda is saying: Even wild endives are equivalent to garden endives and ḥazeret and may be used as bitter herbs on Passover. Rabbi Meir says: The plants asvas, and tura, and sweet myrrh [mar yero’ar] can also be used to fulfill this obligation. Rabbi Yosei said to him: Asvas and tura are two names for one plant, and mar is the same plant as yero’ar. A Sage of the school of Rabbi Samuel teaches: These are the vegetables with which a person can fulfill his obligation to eat bitter herbs on Passover: With ḥazeret, endives, chervil, field eryngo, ḥarginnin, and hardofannin. Rabbi Yehuda says: One can also fulfill his obligation with ḥazeret yolin and ḥazeret gallin, as they are similar to the aforementioned vegetables. Rabbi Ile’a said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: One can also fulfill his obligation with arkablim. And I went around all of Rabbi Eliezer’s students looking for a colleague who agreed with me that Rabbi Eliezer said this, but I did not find anyone who remembered this ruling. But when I came before Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, he conceded to my statement. Rabbi Yehuda says: Any plant that has white sap when it is cut may be used as bitter herbs. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: Anything whose surface is light green may be used as bitter herbs. Aḥerim say: Any bitter herb that has sap and whose surface is light green is fit for this mitzva. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From the statements of all these Sages, we can learn that a bitter green herb has sap and its surface is light green. Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Aḥerim. Ravina found Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, searching for merirata to use as bitter herbs. He said to him: What is your opinion, that you seek this particular herb? If you are looking for that which is most bitter, but we learned ḥazeret first in the mishna, which indicates that this is the preferred choice. And likewise, a Sage of the school of Shmuel taught ḥazeret first, before the other types of bitter herbs. And Rabbi Oshaya said: The optimal fulfillment of the mitzva is with ḥazeret, and Rava said: What is ḥazeret? It is lettuce [ḥassa]. The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of lettuce [ḥassa]? It refers to the fact that God has mercy [ḥas] on us. And Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Why are the Egyptians likened to bitter herbs in the verse: “And they embittered their lives” (Exodus 1:14)? This comparison serves to tell you that just as these bitter herbs are soft at first and harsh in the end, so too, the Egyptians were soft at first, when they paid the Jews for their work, but were harsh in the end, as they enslaved them. This idea applies solely to ḥazeret, which has a bitter aftertaste, but not to other types of bitter herbs, which are bitter from the beginning. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Ravina: I retract my position and concede that it is preferable to use ḥazeret for bitter herbs. Rav Reḥumi said to Abaye: From where is it known that this bitter herb that must be eaten on Passover night is a type of vegetable? Perhaps one could say that the mitzva should be performed with the bile of a kufya fish, which is very bitter, but not necessarily with a type of plant? He answered: Bitter herbs are similar to matza; just as matza must be prepared only from food that grows from the ground, so too, bitter herbs must be from food that grows from the ground. The Gemara asks: How do we know that a bitter herb is specifically a vegetable rather than the bitter oleander bush? The Gemara answers: Bitter herbs are similar to matza; just as matza is prepared from a type of plant, but not including a tree, so too, bitter herbs must be from a type of plant that is not a tree. The Gemara asks a similar question: Perhaps I can say that one may use harzipu, a vegetable that poisons animals, as the bitter herb. The Gemara answers: It must be similar to matza; just as matza is prepared from plants that are fit for human consumption and can be purchased with second-tithe money, so too, bitter herbs must be from a species that can be purchased with second-tithe money. Rabba bar Rav Ḥanin said to Abaye: I can say that the bitter herb mentioned in the Torah includes merely one species, i.e., only the bitterest plant can be used for this obligation. Abaye responded: For this reason it is written: “Bitter herbs” (Exodus 12:8) in the plural, indicating that many types of bitter herbs are fit for this purpose. Rabba retorted: But one can say that “bitter herbs” refers to two different species, but no more. Abaye explained: Bitter herbs are similar to matza; just as matza can be prepared from many types of grain, so too, bitter herbs can be taken from many different types of vegetables. Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: With regard to the vegetables that the Sages said a person can fulfill with them his obligation to eat bitter herbs on Passover, they may all be planted in one garden bed. The Gemara concludes: That is to say that the prohibition against planting diverse kinds of seeds does not apply to them? Rav’s statement indicates that all these species are so similar that they may be planted together without violating the prohibition against planting different species of crops in one area of a field. Rava raised an objection from a mishna: Ḥazeret and ḥazeret gallin; endive and wild endive; leek and wild leek; coriander and wild coriander; mustard and Egyptian mustard; and Egyptian gourd and harmutza, a type of gourd, are not considered a mixture of diverse kinds when planted together. This indicates that ḥazeret and ḥazeret gallin, yes, they may be planted together; however, ḥazeret and endives, no, they may not be planted together. And lest you say that all these species are taught together, and the mishna is actually saying that any of these species may be planted together, but didn’t Rav himself say that these plants were taught in pairs, i.e., one may plant each plant only with its pair that is listed in the mishna, due to their similarity; however, one may not, e.g., plant lettuce and endive together. It therefore remains unclear what Rav meant when he said that vegetables fit for use as bitter herbs may be planted in a single garden bed. The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the term planted, which Rav said? It means that these plants may be properly planted. In other words, they may be planted together provided that there is an appropriate amount of space between them, so that there is no violation of the prohibition against planting diverse kinds of seeds. The Gemara asks: If he wishes to inform us about planting them properly, we already learned this in a mishna:

During the Passover seder, between these cups that one is obligated to drink, e.g., between the first two of the four cups of wine, if one wants to drink he may drink. However, between the third and fourth cups, which are consumed after the meal, one may not drink. And if you say that wine satisfies a person, why may one drink extra cups? He will later eat matza when he is already satiated, which will constitute an excessive eating. Rather, learn from this that wine whets the appetite. The Gemara relates that Rav Sheshet would fast the entire eve of Passover. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rav Sheshet maintains that this practice was necessary because of two factors? First, when the mishna states that one may not eat adjacent to minḥa time, we learned this ruling with regard to the period of time adjacent to the greater minḥa, and the reason for the prohibition is due to the Paschal lamb, lest one be drawn after one’s meal and come to refrain from performing the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb. And second, Rav Sheshet maintains in accordance with that statement that Rabbi Oshaya said that Rabbi Elazar said: Ben Beteira would deem valid a Paschal lamb that was slaughtered in the morning on the fourteenth of Nisan for its own purpose, as from the morning it is already the time during which a Paschal lamb may be sacrificed, as the whole day is fit for the Paschal lamb. As ben Beteira maintained that when the Torah says the Paschal lamb must be sacrificed “bein ha’arbayim” (Exodus 12:6), which literally means: Between the evenings, but is often rendered: In the afternoon, the term refers to any time between the evening of yesterday and the current evening of the fourteenth. In other words, as Rav Sheshet maintained that the reason one may not eat on Passover eve is to prevent him from being distracted from preparing the Paschal lamb, and he also maintained that the Paschal offering may be sacrificed during the entire day of the fourteenth of Nisan, therefore, he would not eat that entire day. They say in response to this suggested interpretation of Rav Sheshet’s practice: No, it is by no means clear that this was his reasoning. Rav Sheshet was different, as he was delicate [istenis], for if he would taste some food in the morning, the food he ate at night would not be effective for him. He would therefore fast the whole day so that he could eat matza at night with a hearty appetite. We learned in the mishna that even the poorest of Jews should not eat until he reclines. It was stated that amora’im discussed the requirement to recline. Everyone agrees that matza requires reclining, i.e., one must recline when eating matza, and bitter herbs do not require reclining. With regard to wine, it was stated in the name of Rav Naḥman that wine requires reclining, and it was also stated in the name of Rav Naḥman that wine does not require reclining. The Gemara explains: And these two statements do not disagree with each other: This statement is referring to the first two cups, and that statement is referring to the last two cups. However, it was not clear which two cups require reclining according to Rav Naḥman. Some say the explanation in this manner and some say it in that manner. The Gemara elaborates: Some say it in this manner, that the first two cups require reclining, as it is now that freedom begins. Since reclining is a sign of freedom, while discussing the exodus from Egypt it is appropriate to drink while reclining. By contrast, the last two cups do not require reclining, because what was already was. In other words, by this point one has completed the discussion of the Exodus and has reached the latter stages of the seder. And some say it in that manner and claim that on the contrary, the last two cups require reclining, as it is at that time that there is freedom. However, the first two cups do not require reclining, as one still says: We were slaves. The Gemara concludes: Now that it was stated so, and it was stated so, i.e., there are two conflicting opinions and it cannot be proven which two cups require reclining, both these sets of cups and those require reclining. The Gemara continues to discuss the halakha of reclining. Lying on one’s back is not called reclining. Reclining to the right is not called reclining, as free men do not recline in this manner. People prefer to recline on their left and use their right hand to eat, whereas they find it more difficult to eat the other way. And not only that, but if one reclines to the right, perhaps the windpipe will precede the esophagus. The food will enter the windpipe, and one will come into danger of choking. A woman who is with her husband is not required to recline, but if she is an important woman, she is required to recline. A son who is with his father is required to recline. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to a student who is with his teacher? Perhaps he is not obligated to recline, as he is in awe of his rabbi, and reclining is a sign of complete freedom and independence. Come and hear a proof that Abaye said: When we were in the house of my Master, Rabba, there was not enough room for everyone to recline on Passover, so we reclined on each other’s knees, to fulfill the obligation to recline. When we came to the house of Rav Yosef, he said to us: You need not recline, as the fear of your teacher is like the fear of Heaven. A student is subject to the authority of his teacher and may not display freedom in his presence. The Gemara raises an objection: A person must recline in the presence of anyone, and even a student who is with his teacher must do so. This baraita directly contradicts the statement of Rav Yosef. The Gemara answers: When that baraita was taught, it was with regard to a craftsman’s apprentice, not a student of Torah in the company of his rabbi. One who is in the presence of a person teaching him a trade is not in awe of his instructor, and he is therefore obligated to recline. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to a waiter? Is a waiter obligated to recline? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a solution, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A waiter who ate an olive-bulk of matza while reclining has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara infers: If he ate matza while reclining, yes, he has fulfilled his obligation; if he was not reclining, no, he has not fulfilled the obligation. Learn from this that a waiter requires reclining. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is the case. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Women are obligated in these four cups of wine at the Passover seder. As they too were included in that miracle of the Exodus, they are therefore obligated to participate in the celebration. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: These four cups must contain enough undiluted wine to allow for diluting a significant cup. In talmudic times, people would not drink pure wine. They would dilute it with water, generally adding three times as much water as wine. If one drank them undiluted, he has fulfilled his obligation. If one drank them all at once, i.e., he poured all four cups of wine into one large cup and drank it, he has fulfilled the obligation. If one gave his sons or the members of his household to drink from them, he has nevertheless fulfilled the obligation. The Gemara now addresses each of these rulings of Shmuel in turn. Shmuel said that if one drank them undiluted he has fulfilled his obligation. Rava said: He has fulfilled the obligation to drink the four cups of wine, but he has not fulfilled the obligation to drink in a way that expresses freedom, which is the preferable way to fulfill the mitzva, as aristocrats do not drink undiluted wine. If one drank the four cups all at once, Rav said that he has fulfilled the obligation to drink wine as an expression of rejoicing on the Festival, but he has not fulfilled the obligation to drink four cups, which requires four distinct cups, each drunk separately. Shmuel also stated that if one gave his sons or the members of his household to drink from them, he has nevertheless fulfilled his obligation. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And this is the case only if he himself drank the majority of the cup. The Gemara raises an objection to the above rulings from a baraita: These four cups must contain one quarter-log, whether the wine is undiluted or diluted, whether it is new or aged. Rabbi Yehuda says: It must have the taste and appearance of wine. In any event, this baraita is teaching that each cup must contain at least the amount of one quarter-log, and yet you said that each must contain enough for diluting a significant cup. They say in response that this and that are one and the same measure. The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the expression: Enough for diluting a significant cup, which Shmuel said? He meant that there must be enough undiluted wine for each and every one of the cups, i.e., one quarter-log of diluted wine. This amounts to one quarter-log of undiluted wine for all of them combined. A significant cup contains one quarter-log. This quarter-log is comprised of one quarter undiluted wine and three quarters water. Therefore, each cup must contain at least one quarter of one quarter-log of undiluted wine, so that one consumes a full quarter-log of liquid from each cup. The baraita stated that Rabbi Yehuda says the cup from which one drinks must have the taste and appearance of wine. Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? As it is written: “Look not upon wine when it is red” (Proverbs 23:31). This verse proves that the appearance of wine and not only its taste is important. The Sages taught in a baraita: All are obligated in these four cups, including men, women, and children. Rabbi Yehuda said: What benefit do children receive from wine? They do not enjoy it. Rather, one distributes to them

“I appeared to Abraham” – The Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: ‘Alas for those who are lost and are not present.¹³An expression of loss over the deceased. Many times I have revealed Myself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but I did not make known to them that My name is the Lord as I made known to you, yet they did not question My ways. I said to Abraham: “Arise, walk through the length and the breath of the land…” (Genesis 13:17). He sought to bury Sarah and did not find a place until he purchased it, and he did not question My ways. I said to Isaac: “Reside in this land… [for I will give all these lands] to you and your descendants…” (Genesis 26:3). He sought to drink water but did not find, but rather, “the shepherds of Gerar quarreled with Isaac's shepherds, [saying: The water is ours…]” (Genesis 26:20) and he did not question My ways. I said to Jacob: “The land on which you lie [I will give to you and to your descendants]” (Genesis 28:13). He sought a place to pitch his tent but did not find until he purchased one for one hundred kesita, and he did not question my ways, and did not ask Me what My name is, as you asked.’
‘But you, at the beginning of [receiving] My mission you said to Me: What is Your name? In the end, you said: “Since I came to Pharaoh [to speak in Your name, he has harmed this people, and You did not deliver Your people]” (Exodus 5:23). Regarding that, it is stated: “I have also established My covenant…[to give them the land of Canaan…]” (Exodus 6:4), that it was given to them, as I said to them that I would give the land to them, and they did not question Me. “Moreover, I have heard the cry of the children of Israel” (Exodus 6:5) – because they did not question Me, even though Israel in that generation were not conducting themselves properly, I heard their cry because of the covenant that I had established with their ancestors.’ That is what is written: “And I have remembered My covenant” (Exodus 6:5).
“Therefore say to the children of Israel: I am the Lord, and I will take you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their labor, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm, and with great judgments. And I will take you to Me as a people, and I will be to you a God; and you shall know that I am the Lord your God, who brings you out from under the burdens of Egypt ” (Exodus 6:6-7).
“Therefore [lakhen] say to the children of Israel” – lakhen is nothing other than the language of oath-taking, as it is stated: “Therefore [velakhen] I took an oath to the house of Eli” (I Samuel 3:14). The Holy One blessed be He took an oath that He would redeem them, so that Moses would not fear that perhaps the attribute of justice would delay their redemption.
“I will take you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians…” There are four redemptions here: “I will take out…I will deliver…I will redeem…I will take,” corresponding to the four decrees that Pharaoh decreed against them.¹⁴See Shemot Rabba 1:12. The four decrees are: 1) Hard labor to build the storehouse cities, 2) Killing the newborn males, 3) Casting the newborn sons into the Nile, 4) Withholding straw from brick production. Corresponding to them, the Sages instituted four cups on Passover eve, to fulfill what is stated: “I will raise the cup of salvation and call upon the name of God” (Psalms 116:13).
“And I will bring you into the land about which I raised my hand, to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it to you as a heritage; I am the Lord” (Exodus 6:8).
“And I will bring you into the land about which I raised my hand.” I will do for them what I said to your ancestors – that I would give them the Land, and they would inherit it by their [the forefathers] merit.

And because God, may He be blessed, took and chose the Jewish people in particular from all of the nations to be His; He showed through this that He is unique. For since He is unique, He chose a unique nation, and not the nations as a whole. For this fosters the idea of oneness, that He should have a specific nation. For were there no unity here, He would not have chosen a unique nation. However since He is unique, He chose the unique. And this service is the service of a unique people to the One who is one. And that is the essence of this sacrifice, and that is why all of this service related to oneness. For the commandment of this sacrifice is to eat it, "with its legs and its inner organs" (Exodus 12:9), since it is not fitting for this sacrifice to be divided up, but rather, "its head with its legs and its inner organs." For something divided up is not one; as behold, it has portions. But something that is whole has oneness, since all of the content of this sacrifice is to show oneness. And likewise, "It shall be eaten in one house" (Exodus 12:46): This whole idea is that it is forbidden to divide a sacrifice between two group or that it is forbidden to eat it in two places - as it is a disagreement among Tannaim in Tractate Pesachim (86a). This whole thing is so that the process of the sacrifice be in a manner of oneness, and not in a manner of division. And similarly, "Do not eat it raw, nor cooked, but rather roasted" (Exodus 12:9). This is all the same idea, that cooking in water or in other liquids causes the parts to detach through the cooking process, and disconnect. But with roasting, because of the fire's power, it is the opposite. The piece of meat becomes unified, because the fire expels the juices, and the meat becomes hard and one unit, which is not so when it is cooked in water, where it falls apart. So too it is forbidden because of this reason to eat it raw, but rather roasted, and then the meat hardens because of the fire. All of this teaches the idea of unity, that the sacrifice is one toward Hashem Yitbarach who is one. Furthermore, we have mentioned many times how water is always in the plural throughout Scripture, and we have explained the reason (in chapter 18 above) on the verse of "For from the water was he drawn out" (Exodus 2:10), that it is because water is substance (chomer), and unity can only occur in form (tzurah). Thus, this sacrifice, which teaches about unity, cannot be cooked in water, or any liquid which is like water. This idea is great and understandable. And similarly, "You shall not break any of its bones" (Exodus 12:46). This is the same thing, that if a bone of the Pesach is broken, this represents separation and disunity regarding something that is inedible. Because even though he eats the meat of the edible parts, that is not considered separation and disunity, because it is meant to be eaten. But breaking the bones, which is not for eating, that is called a break and a disconnection, which is not possible for the Pesach. Furthermore the breaking of bones, which is called an "etzem" (essence of a thing), that breaking is especially called separation and disunity. The principle of the thing is, that the Pesach should be a unified sacrifice, because it represents Hashem Yitbarach who is one, for the Israelite worship is from the aspect of unity that He is one, and therefore He chose a singular nation as well, since He Himself is singular. Furthermore, this sacrifice, which is the primary worship representing that He is the God of Israel, and that He is singular in His divinity, thus the sacrifice must be one. This is not so for other sacrifices, the service thereof is not about Him being their God - only with this sacrifice does it state, You shall serve with the worship..." (Exodus 13:5), where this sacrifice is just called "worship" (avoda). Therefore this sacrifice is regarding His divinity, and that He is singular in His divinity.

The commandment to recount the exodus from Egypt: To tell about the exodus from Egypt on the night of the fifteenth of Nissan (the first night of Pesach) — each person according to his own power of expression — to laud and to praise God, may He be blessed, for all the miracles He performed for us there, as it is stated (Exodus 13:8), “And you shall tell your son.” [Although the verse doesn’t specify when this should be done,] the Sages have already explained (Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael 13:8) that this commandment of retelling is on the night of the fifteenth of Nissan — which is the time of the eating of the matsah. And that which the verse states, “[And you shall tell] your son,” [does not mean] exclusively one’s son; but rather even with any creature (Pesachim 116a). The content of the commandment is that one mentions the miracles and the [related] matters that happened to our forefathers during the exodus from Egypt, and how the Almighty, may He be blessed, exacted our revenge from [the Egyptians]. And even one who is by himself — if no other people are present — is obligated to verbally express these matters, so that his heart will be inspired in this matter; for the heart is inspired through verbal expression. (See Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 157.) That which we have written about the Pesach sacrifice (Sefer HaChinukh 5) is from the roots of this commandment. And it is no wonder if there are many commandments that came about this — positive commandments and negative commandments — since it is a great foundation and a strong pillar in our Torah and in our faith. And therefore we always say, “in remembrance of the exodus from Egypt,” in our blessing and in our prayers — since it is a sign and a total proof for the creation of the world and that there is a primordial God that has will [and] ability: He controls all of what exists and it is in His hand to change them according to what He desires at any time — as He did in Egypt when He changed the natural processes of the world for our sake, and made for us novel, great and powerful signs. This silences all that deny the creation of the world, and supports the faith with the knowledge of God, may He be blessed, and [affirms] that His providence and power is upon all of the general categories [as well as upon] the particulars! The laws of the commandment — for example, the Order (Seder) that Israel is obligated to do on this night in the matter of their meal; the cups of wine, their measurements, their pouring and their order; and the rest of their details — are [all] elucidated at the end of Pesachim. (See Tur, Orach Chaim 469-482.) And behold, my son, I will write for you the Seder in short — exactly as I have heard it from the sages of the generation: In the beginning, we bring water and wash one hand for the sake of the cup of Kiddush which needs to be held. And this is how it is in Berakhot 43a in the Chapter [entitled] Keitsad Mevarkhin — that with the cup, washing one hand is sufficient. And we do not recite a blessing on this washing. And if he wants to wash two hands for the cup, he washes them without a blessing. And afterwards, he washes both hands and recites the blessing, “upon the washing of the hands,” and dips with a vegetable (the vegetable, according to the Vilna edition) and recites the blessing, “Who creates the fruit of the ground,” before [eating it]. But he does not recite the blessing, “Who creates souls, etc.,” after it — since he waits until he eats the marror; and then he recites the blessing, “Who creates souls,” upon the marror and upon the vegetable. And everything that he did is not an interruption, as we will explain. And after they ate from the vegetable in charoset (a thick sweet dip), we pour a second cup and read the Haggadah with two chapters of Psalms and recite the blessing, “Who has redeemed us, etc.,” upon the second cup, and we drink it. And we do not recite the blessing, “Who creates the fruit of the vine,” upon it, nor “upon the vine,” after it. And after they drink the second cup, we wash our hands and recite the blessing, “upon the washing of the hands.” And [then] we take half of a matsah and we place it on the complete one and recite the blessing upon the half, “Who brings forth” and “to eat matsah.” And we take bitter herbs and we recite the blessing, “to eat marror,” and eat from it dipped in charoset; but we do not recite the blessing, “Who creates the fruit of the ground,” upon it, since he is exempted by the blessing that he recited upon the vegetable at the beginning. As this is how it is concluded in the Gemara (Pesachim 103b) — that it is never [considered] an interruption unless there is [one of] two things: That he removes his thoughts from the matter — for example when they say, “Let us bless (say Grace after Meals),” and similar to it. And also that [he be engaged in something else, such that] it not be possible to do the two things together, for example that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 87a and Rashi there), “Drinking and blessing together is not possible.” And after we eat from the marror with the dip, we wrap some of it on top of matsah and eat. Afterwards, we eat the festive meal, and then each participant eats a little bit of matsah, in memory of the Pesach sacrifice that was eaten upon satiation. And we do not eat more the whole night, so as not to remove the taste of matsah from the mouth; as it is written (Psalms 113:103), “than honey to my mouth.” But we can certainly drink water, since water does not spoil the taste. And we also drink the two cups of the commandment, as we do not push off the commandment [on account of] this reason. And afterwards, we wash our hands, but we do not recite the blessing, “upon the washing of the hands.” And we pour the third cup and recite the Grace after Meals and “Who has created the fruit of the vine” over it; but not “upon the vine,” after it. (See Baal HaMeor on the end of Arevei Pesachim.) And afterwards, we pour the fourth cup and finish Hallel over it. And we do not recite the blessing, “Who has created the fruit of the vine,” upon it; but we do recite the blessing, “upon the vine,” after it. And that is if he does not have in mind to still drink a fifth cup. It comes out according to this that we only recite the blessing, “Who has created the fruit of the vine,” twice — on the cup of Kiddush and on the cup of the Grace. And [we only recite the blessing,] “upon the vine,” once, after all of the cups. And the four cups and the matsah of the commandment requires leaning. And [it] is practiced by males and females (Pesachim 36a and Pesachim 115b) in every place and at all times. And one who transgresses it violates a positive commandment.