Next week, with God’s help, we will begin the tenth chapter of Pesachim, a very popular chapter known as the chapter of the fourteenth. We will begin with the Mishnah and try to study it with somewhat more analysis, since it is important to know this chapter properly and to examine it with the commentaries as best we can in this forum.
The Mishnah begins: “On the eve of Passover”—although the chapter is called the chapter of the fourteenth, the text of our Mishnah begins with the words “the eve of Passover.” For our purposes, without becoming confused, this means the day before Passover. The plural form in the title requires explanation, since there is only one eve of Passover. One possibility is that the reference is to the eve of the first Passover and the eve of the second Passover. Tosafot, in the opening commentary, points this out as one way of explaining the plural.
According to the text before us, the Mishnah continues: “Close to the afternoon prayer, a person may not eat until it becomes dark.” These words are not entirely clear. What does “close to” mean? We know what the afternoon prayer is, but there are two relevant times: the earlier afternoon prayer and the later afternoon prayer. The Mishnah could be referring to being close to either one.
The simple meaning is that close to the later afternoon prayer, on the eve of Passover, a person may not eat. The Mishnah does not yet tell us precisely what he may not eat, only that he may not eat something. It is also not a fast day, so why may he not eat? The Mishnah says that he must wait until it becomes dark, at which point he may begin eating again.
The primary commentator on this chapter is Rashbam, the grandson of Rashi, and that is the commentary we customarily study here. Immediately, we notice that Rashbam’s text reads “the eves of Passover,” in the plural, unlike the text of our Mishnah. If the wording is plural, it is understandable: the law applies every year. But if the text reads “the eve of Passover,” with “eve” in the singular and “Passover” in the plural, we need an explanation.
Rashbam explains that it refers to the day on which many Passover offerings are slaughtered. The day is singular, but the offerings are plural, because thousands of Passover offerings were slaughtered on that day. That would explain the singular and plural together. According to another version of Rashbam’s text, both words are plural, which would indicate that the law applies every year.
Rashbam then explains “close to the later afternoon prayer.” If the daylight hours are divided into twelve equal hours, the day begins at approximately 6:00 a.m. and ends at approximately 6:00 p.m. The earlier afternoon prayer begins at six and a half hours, approximately 12:30 p.m., while the later afternoon prayer begins at nine and a half hours, approximately 3:30 p.m. “Close to” the later afternoon prayer means a short time before it, approximately half an hour earlier—around 3:00 p.m., at the beginning of the tenth hour.
Rashbam derives the time of the later afternoon prayer from the daily offering. The daily offering was slaughtered at eight and a half hours, approximately 2:30 p.m., and brought at nine and a half hours, approximately 3:30 p.m. The later afternoon prayer corresponds to the time of the daily offering. Therefore, “close to the later afternoon prayer” means half an hour before that time.
We now understand the first law of the Mishnah: on the eve of Passover, beginning approximately half an hour before the later afternoon prayer, a person may not eat. Why? It is not because the day is a fast day. The purpose is that he should eat the matzah of the mitzvah with an appetite. This is part of enhancing the mitzvah: the matzah should be eaten with desire and appetite. A fair question is why we do not establish the same rule every day before a regular meal. The answer is that the Mishnah is not saying that this is an ordinary rule about meals. It is a special requirement connected with eating the matzah with an appetite.
Tosafot immediately directs us toward the correct interpretation. The Mishnah is not discussing the general rule that one should not eat before praying the afternoon prayer. Even if a person prayed the afternoon prayer early, he may not eat at this time. The issue is not the prayer but the matzah.
Tosafot asks what food the Mishnah prohibits. Perhaps it means that one may not eat matzah. But matzah is already prohibited from the morning, since one may not eat the matzah that can be used for the mitzvah on the night of Passover before the proper time. Tosafot illustrates this with the idea of a person who could not wait for seven blessings. On the night of the Seder, before eating the matzah, there are several blessings: the blessing over wine, the blessing of sanctifying the day, the blessing of the season, the blessing over the earth’s produce, the blessing over hand-washing, the blessing over bread, and the blessing over matzah. The point of the illustration is that the person could not wait for all those blessings before eating.
Since matzah that can be used for the mitzvah is already prohibited from the morning, the Mishnah cannot be coming to prohibit only that food at the time of the later afternoon prayer. Perhaps it refers to other foods, such as fruit, vegetables, or other cooked foods. But the Gemara already teaches that a person may eat other foods throughout the day. Therefore, Tosafot narrows the Mishnah’s prohibition to rich matzah—matzah made with ingredients such as eggs or other liquids, which cannot be used for the mitzvah of matzah on the night of Passover.
According to Tosafot, a person may eat rich matzah in the morning of the eve of Passover. After the later afternoon prayer begins, however, he should minimize his eating, and he may no longer eat that rich matzah. Other foods, such as fruit, rice, and similar items, appear to remain permitted, although one should still be careful not to fill himself excessively. The principal issue in the Mishnah, according to Tosafot, is the rich matzah.
Tosafot then raises another question. Earlier, in connection with the Seder itself, we learned that a person may fill himself with ordinary matzah from the baker, provided that he leaves room to eat an olive-sized portion of matzah at the end. If so, how can the purpose of fasting on the eve of Passover be to preserve an appetite? On the night of the Seder, we are allowing him to fill himself with pieces of dough from the baker, as long as he leaves room for the required portion of matzah.
This is a strong question. Tosafot explains that a person can assess himself during an immediate meal. While eating the meal, he knows whether he still has room and can stop before eating the matzah. But a person cannot accurately assess himself several hours earlier in the afternoon. If he is told to eat as much as he wishes and merely try to remain hungry for the Seder, he will miscalculate. Food takes time to affect the stomach, and it takes time for the mind to recognize that one is full. He may think he will still be hungry later, but by the time the Seder begins he will have no appetite.
Therefore, during the meal itself, the Sages trusted a person to regulate himself. When the eating takes place many hours before the Seder, they established a clearer restriction: no more rich matzah and no excessive eating. The distinction is between assessing oneself during the same meal and trying to predict one’s appetite many hours in advance.
Tosafot then challenges this principle. The Gemara later says that wine stimulates the appetite. How do we know this? Between the first and second cups, a person is permitted to drink additional cups. If wine filled a person and destroyed his appetite, additional drinking would not be permitted. The fact that it is permitted indicates that wine stimulates the appetite.
But according to the principle Tosafot just explained, perhaps wine really does fill a person, and the reason a person may drink between the cups is that he can control himself during a meal. Tosafot answers that a person can regulate his eating, but he cannot regulate his drinking in the same way. When it comes to wine, people do not accurately measure themselves. If wine did not stimulate the appetite, they would not have permitted drinking between the cups.
Alternatively, Tosafot explains that the time between the first and second cups is so long—because of the Haggadah and the Hallel—that it is like the interval between two different meals. It is not comparable to eating several foods in one continuous meal. Thus, Tosafot’s principle remains intact: within an immediate meal a person can assess himself, whereas after a long interruption he cannot rely on his own assessment.
We must now examine the words “until it becomes dark.” Why does the Mishnah need to say this? We already know that the Seder takes place at night. Why not simply say, “until the Seder”? Furthermore, on Friday night we can sometimes begin Shabbat early. During the summer, for example, a person may eat the Shabbat meal before sunset. Why, then, does the Mishnah emphasize that on Passover one must wait until it becomes dark?
Perhaps the Mishnah is teaching a special law of Passover: one may not make an early Seder. On Friday night, Shabbat may be accepted early, and Kiddush and the meal may begin before sunset. On Passover, however, one must wait until nightfall. The first question of the Gemara is therefore why the Mishnah chose the eve of Passover as its example. The rule of not eating before a meal could have been taught regarding the eve of Shabbat.
The Gemara answers that the words “until it becomes dark” cannot be the reason the Mishnah chose Passover, because we already know from another place that the Passover offering may be eaten only at night. The Mishnah in the tractate of Zevachim teaches that the Passover offering is eaten only at night. Therefore, the fact that the matzah and the Passover offering are eaten after dark is not a new teaching here. The Mishnah may have mentioned Passover incidentally while teaching the general rule.
Nevertheless, there is a possible reason why the Mishnah needed to mention nightfall. Since the Passover offering was slaughtered in the afternoon and offerings are generally eaten on the day they are slaughtered, one might have thought that the Passover offering could be eaten during the day. The Mishnah therefore teaches that, despite the early slaughtering of the offering, it may not be eaten until nightfall.
The Tosefta teaches that the mitzvah of the Passover offering, matzah, and bitter herbs begins only when it becomes dark. Matzah is connected to the Passover offering, and just as the offering is eaten at night, the matzah is also eaten at night. This is different from Friday night, when Kiddush and the Shabbat meal may be begun early.
The Mishnah then continues: “Even the poorest person in Israel may not eat until he reclines.” This appears to introduce a new topic. The first part of the Mishnah dealt with the eve of Passover; now the Mishnah seems to be discussing the night of the Seder and the obligation to recline. It emphasizes that even a poor person must recline.
Why does the Mishnah single out a poor person? Perhaps a poor person does not ordinarily have a table, couch, or comfortable place on which to recline. He may eat standing or on a simple bench. The Mishnah teaches that on the night of Passover, even he must act like a free person and recline in the manner of people who are free.
Rashbam explains that the poor person must change from his ordinary manner and sit at a table or on a couch. Tosafot considers another possibility: perhaps the Mishnah is teaching that even if a poor person has nothing on which to recline, he must make an effort to obtain the necessary equipment. Reclining in midair is not reclining. He may need to borrow or arrange a table, bench, cushions, or another suitable support.
The purpose of reclining is comfort and the expression of freedom. The question of which side one reclines on belongs to another discussion involving possible danger; the basic point here is that reclining expresses importance and freedom.
There is a textual issue in the Mishnah. Our text reads, “Even a poor person in Israel,” while Tosafot’s text includes the conjunction “and”: “And even a poor person in Israel.” If the conjunction is present, Tosafot’s second interpretation becomes plausible, because the word connects the obligation to recline with the preceding law. Without the conjunction, it sounds more like a separate law. Rashbam’s text does include the conjunction, although he nevertheless explains that this is not necessarily a continuation of the first law. Therefore, the textual distinction is not entirely decisive.
Rashi explains that the poor person must perform the new practice on Passover and sit at the table in the manner of free people. Tosafot asks: if the Mishnah is merely teaching that a poor person must recline, what is the novelty? Is a poor person incapable of reclining? Perhaps poor people in those days did not normally have cushions or couches, and their ordinary way of eating was not in a reclining position. The Mishnah teaches that even if he is not accustomed to reclining, he must do so on Passover.
The Mishnah continues: “They must not give him fewer than four cups of wine.” We must analyze every word. Who is “they”? It refers to the charity collectors, the people responsible for distributing food to the poor. The Mishnah is teaching that they have an obligation to provide a poor person with four cups of wine for the Seder.
Why does the Mishnah phrase the law negatively—“they must not give him fewer than four cups”—rather than positively, “they must give him four cups”? The wording suggests that four cups are required, not merely whatever amount happens to be available. If the charity collectors have three cups, they cannot simply give him three and consider their obligation fulfilled.
Rashbam explains that the obligation rests on the charity collectors. The practice of giving four cups is connected with the four expressions of redemption used in the account of the Exodus: “I will bring out,” “I will save,” “I will redeem,” and “I will take.” Corresponding to these four expressions, the Sages established four cups.
The Gemara asks why the Mishnah had to teach this specifically regarding the poor person. The answer is that even a person who receives support from the communal charity fund must receive the four cups. If the charity collectors fail to provide the wine, the poor person may not simply give up. He must make every effort to obtain the wine, even by borrowing money or selling clothing if necessary.
The Shulchan Aruch and the commentaries later codify this point. Even a poor person who is supported by charity must obtain four cups. If the charity collectors did not provide them, he must borrow money, sell clothing, or otherwise arrange for the wine. He may not say, “Since they did not give it to me, I will not drink the four cups.”
This raises a broader question. In other mitzvot, we generally say that a person is not required to impoverish himself in order to fulfill a mitzvah. If the only available etrog costs an enormous amount, a person is not necessarily required to spend a fortune and become poor in order to acquire it. Similarly, a person who cannot afford tefillin is not always required to go door to door to collect the money.
Why, then, does the law of the four cups say that a poor person must sell his clothing, borrow money, or hire himself out in order to obtain wine? The answer offered is that there is a difference between a person who is normally financially stable and would become poor because of a mitzvah, and a person who is already poor. If the poor person spends money for the four cups, his basic economic status has not changed. He was already poor. The law is not telling a wealthy person to become poor; it is telling a poor person to make the effort required for this mitzvah.
This distinction was illustrated by discussing people who were poor even when the economy was strong. When the economy became weaker, their situation may have become somewhat more difficult, but their basic status did not change in the same way as that of a middle-class person who suddenly lost his income. The pain of a wealthy or middle-class person who becomes poor is different from the situation of someone who was already living with very little. This distinction is offered as the basis for the special stringency of the four cups.
Tosafot discusses whether every member of the family requires his or her own four cups, or whether the obligation is primarily that the head of the household have four cups and that the others listen to him and participate. The wording “they must not give him fewer than four cups” appears to refer specifically to the poor person himself, not explicitly to his wife and children.
One possibility is that the Mishnah is discussing a poor person’s small children, who are not independently obligated in the mitzvah. In that case, the charity collectors provide the father with the four cups, and he can include the children through the Seder. If the children are older and independently participate in the mitzvah, they may also require their own cups.
Tosafot compares this to Kiddush. Throughout the year, the head of the household may make Kiddush, drink the required amount, and have the others fulfill their obligation by listening. Perhaps the four cups operate in the same way: the head of the household drinks the cups, and the family members fulfill their obligation through him.
On the other hand, the four cups may be different from ordinary Kiddush. The Gemara’s discussion of the cups could indicate that each person has his or her own cup. Tosafot is therefore uncertain. Something that appears obvious to us—that every participant needs four cups—is not entirely simple in Tosafot. It may be a requirement, or it may be a stringency based on the way we practice today.
There is also a discussion of women and children. One source might seem to exclude women, while another passage indicates that women and children are included. The conclusion is not entirely straightforward. Tosafot himself is uncertain whether everyone must have four cups or whether the head of the household can serve for the others, just as he does for Kiddush.
The Mishnah does not explicitly say that the poor person must be given matzah, bitter herbs, or the other foods needed for the Seder. The immediate subject is wine. One might suggest that he already has the other foods, while he lacks wine and therefore requires assistance specifically with the four cups. Alternatively, the charity organizations may provide the other necessities through separate arrangements, while this Mishnah teaches the particular obligation concerning wine.
The Mishnah concludes with the words “even from the charity plate.” There were different levels of charitable support. The communal food fund was intended for people who were truly poor and had no regular meals. The Mishnah teaches that even someone so poor that he receives food from this lowest level of charity must be provided with four cups.
Why is the word “even” necessary? If an ordinary poor person must receive four cups, certainly someone who is even poorer must receive them. The novelty is that even if the charity collectors failed to provide the wine, the extremely poor person must still make every effort to obtain it. He must borrow, sell clothing, or otherwise arrange for the four cups.
The Mishnah Berurah explains that if a person has enough wine for only four cups, he should use it all on the first night rather than divide it between the first and second nights. The obligation of the four cups is concentrated on the first night. He should not say that he will drink two cups on the first night and save two for the following night.
The halachic discussion emphasizes that charity collectors are genuinely obligated to provide the four cups. This is not merely a recommendation. Communities must be careful about it, and a poor person may not be left without the wine needed for the Seder.
We now return to the Gemara’s opening question: why did the Mishnah choose the eve of Passover as its example? The same concern seems to apply to the eve of Shabbat and the eve of other festivals. A person should not fill himself in the afternoon if he is meant to enter the coming meal with an appetite.
A teaching in the name of Rabbi Yehuda says that on the eve of Shabbat and the eve of festivals, a person may not eat from the time of the afternoon prayer onward, so that he will enter Shabbat with an appetite. Rabbi Yose says that on the eve of Shabbat he may eat until it becomes dark.
If the Mishnah is following Rabbi Yose, then it chose the eve of Passover because the restriction is unique to Passover. On the eve of Shabbat, according to Rabbi Yose, one may eat until nightfall. The Mishnah therefore needed to mention Passover specifically.
Another possibility is that the Mishnah follows Rabbi Yehuda but distinguishes between the eve of Passover and the eve of Shabbat. The wording “close to the later afternoon prayer” would indicate an earlier restriction on Passover, whereas on the eve of Shabbat the restriction would begin only at the later afternoon prayer itself.
The Gemara challenges this distinction from a source that appears to say that on the eve of Shabbat and festivals one may not eat from the later afternoon prayer onward. If that source is accurate, then the eve of Shabbat and the eve of Passover would have the same time restriction.
One response is that the source may be textually corrupted. Perhaps it should say that the restriction begins close to the later afternoon prayer, rather than at the later afternoon prayer itself. That would allow us to preserve the distinction between the Mishnah’s wording and the other source.
However, the text was apparently sent before the scholars, who accepted it as it stood. Therefore, it is difficult simply to declare the source corrupted. The Gemara returns to the first answer: the Mishnah follows Rabbi Yose, according to whom the special restriction applies to the eve of Passover, while on the eve of Shabbat one may eat until nightfall.
The Gemara then cites a ruling in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, or according to another version in the name of Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yose bar Rav Hanina: the law follows Rabbi Yehuda on the eve of Passover. The fact that this ruling had to be stated specifically regarding Passover indicates that Rabbi Yose disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda there as well. According to Rabbi Yose, perhaps one may eat on the eve of Passover until nightfall, just as on the eve of Shabbat.
Rashbam explains that the disagreement may concern not the time at which one may begin eating, but what one must do if he began eating earlier. Everyone may agree that one should not begin eating the prohibited meal close to the later afternoon prayer. The question is whether a person who began earlier must stop when the restricted time arrives.
This distinction is important. The Mishnah may be saying that one may not begin eating close to the later afternoon prayer. If he began before that time, however, Rabbi Yose may allow him to continue until nightfall, whereas Rabbi Yehuda may require him to stop. The issue is the interruption of an already existing meal, not merely the beginning of a new one.
A source teaches that if a person began eating on the eve of Shabbat, he may continue until it becomes dark, at which point he must make Kiddush. According to Rabbi Yehuda, even though the person began before the restricted time, he must stop when night arrives and make Kiddush. This suggests that the concept of stopping an existing meal is a separate law from the rule prohibiting one from beginning a meal at a certain time.
There is a story of Rabbi Yosef and Rabbi Yehuda eating together when Shabbat arrived. The students asked whether they should stop eating out of respect for Rabbi Yehuda’s position. Rabbi Yosef responded that Rabbi Yehuda’s views were always treated with respect, and he did not want the students to think that the halachah necessarily followed Rabbi Yehuda merely because they stopped in his presence. They therefore continued until the halachah was established.
The point of the story is that the students’ actions could create a misunderstanding. If they stopped eating, people might conclude that the halachah was definitively like Rabbi Yehuda. The scholars therefore did not leave the situation until they clarified the ruling and established the halachah according to Rabbi Yose.
From this entire discussion, Rashbam concludes that on the eve of Passover one may not begin eating from the later afternoon prayer onward. On the eve of Shabbat and on the eves of other festivals, however, the law follows Rabbi Yose, and one may begin eating until nightfall. This is also consistent with the general principle that the law follows Rabbi Yose when he disputes Rabbi Yehuda.
On the eve of Passover, however, if a person began eating before the restricted time, the matter requires separate analysis. We must distinguish three questions: when one may no longer begin eating; what happens if one began before that time; and whether the rule regarding the interruption of a meal applies equally on the eve of Passover and on the eve of Shabbat.
The most basic point appears to be that one may not begin the prohibited meal at the relevant time on the eve of Passover. The dispute concerns whether someone who began earlier may continue, and what he must do when nightfall arrives. These are separate halachic questions and should not be merged.
We now turn to the laws of the eve of Shabbat. The Shulchan Aruch says that one should not establish a large meal or celebration on the eve of Shabbat during the afternoon if that meal is not ordinarily eaten during the week. The reason is that one should enter Shabbat with an appetite and be able to enjoy the Shabbat meal.
There were families in Jerusalem who would establish their meal on the eve of Shabbat, and others who would establish it on Shabbat itself at the time of the rabbi’s public discourse. Both practices were criticized because they interfered with the honor of Shabbat and with the time designated for Torah study.
This does not necessarily refer to a large modern celebration with music, elaborate catering, and a full event. The discussion concerns establishing an unusual meal at a time when people are supposed to be preparing for Shabbat or attending the Torah class. Even a meal held respectfully, with people in Shabbat clothing and without any entertainment, could be problematic if it was scheduled at the wrong time.
At the same time, the halachah allows a person to eat ordinary food on the eve of Shabbat. If a person normally eats a small meal during the week at that time, he may eat it on Friday as well. The problem is establishing an unusual meal or filling oneself with a substantial amount of food before the Shabbat meal.
Therefore, if someone asks whether he may have a small snack on Friday afternoon, the answer depends on his ordinary eating habits and on the amount involved. One must ask whether it is merely a snack or whether he is establishing a full meal. A slice of pizza or a small amount of food intended only to relieve hunger may be different from a full meal of pizza, side dishes, and other foods.
The same distinction applies to a person who wants to eat meat, rice, or another substantial dish in the afternoon. If he is establishing a meal that he would not ordinarily eat during the week at that time, he should avoid doing so. If he is merely eating a small amount because he is hungry, and he will still be able to enjoy the Shabbat meal, the matter is different.
The term “establishing a meal” must therefore be understood carefully. It is not limited to bread, although a bread meal is certainly significant. The concern is creating a substantial or unusual eating occasion on the eve of Shabbat. A person should not abuse the leniency by filling himself with a large meal and then claim that it was only a snack.
The underlying reason is not merely appetite in the abstract. It is also the honor of Shabbat. A person should prepare himself to enter Shabbat with an appetite and with the ability to enjoy the Shabbat meal. At the same time, the prohibition is not meant to prevent all eating on Friday afternoon. The practical application depends on what the person normally eats, the amount he plans to eat, and whether the food will interfere with the Shabbat meal.
The broader lesson is that the halachah distinguishes between ordinary eating and establishing a meal, between beginning a meal and continuing one that already began, and between the eve of Passover and the eve of Shabbat. These distinctions are essential. We should not take a rule stated in one context and automatically apply it to another without first examining the precise wording of the Mishnah, the Gemara, Rashbam, Tosafot, and the later halachic authorities.