ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 95
1. Pesach Rishon is subject to Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei, if someone in
the group possesses Chametz, and it also requires Hallel to be said at the
time of eating - whereas neither of these apply to the Pesach Sheini. (Note:
One is permitted to have Chametz in the *house* where the Pesach Sheini is
being eaten, but not at the same *table*.)
2. Both the Rishon and the Sheini require Hallel to be recited whilst they
are being prepared (during the day), they must both be roasted and eaten
together with Matzah and Maror, and the Shechitah etc. of both over-rides
(a) From the Pasuk "ke'Chol Chukas ha'Pesach Ya'asu Oso", we include
Mitzvos she'be'Gufo in the Pesach Sheini - incorporating the Shechitah and
the other Avodos performed on the body of the Pesach, and eating it roasted.
'Mitzvos she'Lo Al Gufo' - comprises "Lo Sishchat Al Chametz Dam Zivchi".
(b) The Mitzvos she'Al Gufo - which "Al Matzos u'Merorim Yochluhu" come to
include - comprise eating it together with Matzah and Maror.
(c) Although we learnt from "ke'Chol Chukas ha'Pesach Ya'asu Oso" that
Mitzvos she'be'Gufo of the Pesach Sheini are similar to the Pesach Rishon,
we still need "ve'Etzem Lo Yishberu Bo" to preclude Mitzvos *she'Lo* Al
Gufo, because, since the Torah then writes "Al Matzos u'Merorim Yochluhu'
(which are *not* Mitzvos she'be'Gufo), it seems that our initial contention
(to *preclude* whatever is not a Mitzvah she'be'Gufo, is not absolutely
correct). In fact, maybe we are dealing here with a 'P'rat u'K'lal', which
(d) We would have treated it as a 'P'rat u'Ch'lal', and not vice versa -
because the P'rat is mentioned first. The reason that we do not treat it as
a 'P'rat u'K'lal' - is because if it were, the Torah would only have
inserted *one* P'rat; now that it mentions a number of Peratim, it must be
treated as a 'K'lal u'F'rat' (on each P'rat individually).
(a) Isi ben Yehudah learns from "ve'Etzem Lo Yishberu Bo" - that even
breaking the bones of a Pesach that do not contain marrow is prohibited.
(b) The Rabbanan learn from "ke'Chol Chukas ha'Pesach *Ya'asu* Oso" - 'Ein
Shochtin ha'Pesach Al ha'Yachid' (and since the Torah needed to write
"Ya'asu", it also added "Oso".
(c) 'de'Kamah de'Efshar Le'ahaduri, Mehadrinan' - means that if there is
only one person who is Tamei by Pesach Rishon (who will therefore be the
sole person bringing the Pesach Sheini), we try to prevent this from
happening - by making one other person a Tamei Sheretz.
(a) The K'lal written by Pesach Sheini is "ke'Chol Chukas ha'Pesach *Ya'asu*
(b) The Asei of "Al Matzos u'Merorim Yochluhu" includes that of "Tz'li-Esh"
and excludes that of "Tashbisu Se'or mi'Bateichem".
(c) The 'La'v ha'Nitak la'Asei' of "Lo Yash'iru Mimenu Ad Boker" includes
that of "Lo Sotzi Mimenu" - and excludes those of "Lo Yera'eh" and "Lo
(d) The 'La'v' (that is not a Nitak la'Asei) of "ve'Etzem Lo Yishberu Bo"
includes "Al Tochlu Mimenu Na" - and excludes that of "Lo Sishchat Al
Chametz Dam Zivchi".
(a) This Tana considers the La'v of "Lo Sotzi" (see 5c.) a 'La'v ha'Nitak
la'Asei' - because the Pasuk implies that even if one took it out, he should
take it inside again (see Tosfos DH 'Lo Sotzi'), in which case he is even
permitted to eat it.
(b) This explanation is not however, unanimous. According to one opinion
(see Daf 85a), someone who eats a piece of Pesach that left its borders,
transgresses the La'v of "u'Basar be'Sadeh Tereifah Lo Socheilu".
(c) Someone who transgresses "Lo Yera'eh" and "Lo Yimatzei" is subject to
the Asei of "Tashbisu" (until after Yom-Tov), making it 'Nitak la'Asei'.
(d) We *include* the La'v of "Al Tochlu Mimenu Na", and *exclude* that of
"Lo Sishchat Al Chametz Dam Zivchi" - because the former is a Mitzvah to do
with the body of the Pesach, and it is therefore more logical to include it
than the latter, which is not.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ha'Shir Yihye Lachem ke'Leil Hiskadesh Chag" -
that one only sings Hallel on the night that is sanctified as a Yom-Tov
(i.e. Pesach Rishon), but not on Pesach Sheini, which is not a Yom-Tov.
(b) The Gemara gives the logical reason for reciting Hallel during the
preparation of the Pesach Sheini as 'how can Yisrael possibly Shecht their
Pesachim or take their Lulavim and not sing Hallel'? (Rashi explains that
because it is a D'var Mitzvah it requires Hallel - though it is unclear what
(a) According to the Tana of our Mishnah, the Pesach Sheini does not over-
ride Tum'ah - since one of the major reasons that one brings the Pesach
Sheini is because the owner was Tamei by the Pesach Rishon, so what sense
will it make to bring it now b'Tum'ah?
(b) Rebbi Yehudah argues that the Torah gave him a chance to bring the
Pesach Rishon in a state of Taharah. Now that it did not work out, it is
better to bring it b'Tum'ah on Pesach Sheini, than not at all.
(c) Although it is clear that both Beraisos (the one which holds that Pesach
Sheini does *not* require Linah, and the one which holds that it *does*)
follow the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, we are forced to say that they are
learned by two different Tana'im, who argue over what Rebbi Yehudah holds.
(d) Rebbi Yehudah (in one of the above-mentioned Beraisos) learn from the
juxtaposition of "Sheshes Yamim Tochal Matzos" to "u'Fanisa va'Boker,
ve'Halachta le'Ohalecha" - that it is only when Matzos are eaten for six
days (i.e. Pesach Rishon) that Linah applies, but not on Pesach Sheini.
(a) Zavin and Zavos etc., are not included in the Heter of eating a Pesach
ha'Ba b'Tum'ah, together with Teme'ei Mes - because the Pasuk "Ish" that is
written by Pesach Sheini (and from which we learn that it is only an
individual who brings Pesach Sheini, but not a Tzibur), mentions
specifically "Tamei la'Nefesh", to preclude Zavin and Zavos from this
(b) We learn from the juxtaposition of "ve'ha'Nefesh Asher Tochal Basar
ve'Tum'aso Alav, ve'Nichresah" to "Kol Tahor Yochal Basar" - that it is only
when the flesh is eaten by Tehorin, that even Zavin and Zavos, Nidos and
Yoldos are Chayav Kares for eating the Pesach, but not a Pesach ha'Ba
b'Tum'ah (despite the fact that they forbidden to bring it).
(c) Rebbi Eliezer learns that they are *not* even Chayav for entering the
Azarah (by a Pesach ha'Ba b'Tum'ah) either - from the Pasuk "vi'Yeshalchu
Min ha'Machaneh Kol Tzaru'a, ve'Chol Zav ve'Chol Tamei la'Nafesh", which
compares a Metzora and a Zav to a Tamei Meis, to teach us that whenever a
Tamei Meis is Patur from Kareis for entering the Azarah (e.g. by a Pesach
ha'Ba b'Tum'ah), a Metzora and a Zav are not Chayav either.
(d) The Rabbanan (above on 67a.) learn from that Pasuk that each of the
three is forbidden to enter different Machanos (a Tamei Meis only the
Azarah - the Machaneh Shechinah, a Zav even the Har ha'Bayis - the Machaneh
Leviyah, and a Metzora even Machaneh Yisrael - outside the walls of every
(a) Kohanim who are Tahor are permitted to enter the Heichal only for the
Avodah, but not otherwise (because the Torah writes in Acharei Mos - "ve'Al
Yavo ve'Chol Eis El ha'Kodesh").
(b) The Tamei Mes by a Pesach ha'Ba b'Tum'ah might be Patur - because, since
he is permitted to enter the *Azarah* in order to bring his Korban Pesach,
he will also be Patur for entering the *Heichal*.
(c) Rava Darshens from ...
1. ... "vi'Yeshalchu *Min* ha'Machaneh" (according to the first Lashon) -
'Afilu Miktzas Machaneh' (meaning that sometimes a person has to be sent out
from one section of the Machaneh - i.e. the Heichal, even though he is not
sent out of the other section i.e. the Azarah), in which case he will be
2. ... "vi'Yeshalchu *Min* ha'Machaneh ... mi'Chutz la'Machaneh Teshalechum"
(according to the second Lashon) - exactly the opposite: that a person is
only sent out of part of the Machaneh Shechinah if he is obligated to leave
the entire Machaneh, but as long as he permitted to enter the *one* half, he
is not Chayav for entering the *other*.