Second Chances: Understanding Pesach Sheini

(ו) וַיְהִ֣י אֲנָשִׁ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֨ר הָי֤וּ טְמֵאִים֙ לְנֶ֣פֶשׁ אָדָ֔ם וְלֹא־יָכְל֥וּ לַעֲשֹׂת־הַפֶּ֖סַח בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֑וּא וַֽיִּקְרְב֞וּ לִפְנֵ֥י מֹשֶׁ֛ה וְלִפְנֵ֥י אַהֲרֹ֖ן בַּיּ֥וֹם הַהֽוּא׃ (ז) וַ֠יֹּאמְרוּ הָאֲנָשִׁ֤ים הָהֵ֙מָּה֙ אֵלָ֔יו אֲנַ֥חְנוּ טְמֵאִ֖ים לְנֶ֣פֶשׁ אָדָ֑ם לָ֣מָּה נִגָּרַ֗ע לְבִלְתִּ֨י הַקְרִ֜ב אֶת־קָרְבַּ֤ן יְהוָה֙ בְּמֹ֣עֲד֔וֹ בְּת֖וֹךְ בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ (ח) וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֖ם מֹשֶׁ֑ה עִמְד֣וּ וְאֶשְׁמְעָ֔ה מַה־יְצַוֶּ֥ה יְהוָ֖ה לָכֶֽם׃ (פ) (ט) וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃ (י) דַּבֵּ֛ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לֵאמֹ֑ר אִ֣ישׁ אִ֣ישׁ כִּי־יִהְיֶֽה־טָמֵ֣א ׀ לָנֶ֡פֶשׁ אוֹ֩ בְדֶ֨רֶךְ רְחֹקָ֜הׄ לָכֶ֗ם א֚וֹ לְדֹרֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם וְעָ֥שָׂה פֶ֖סַח לַיהוָֽה׃ (יא) בַּחֹ֨דֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִ֜י בְּאַרְבָּעָ֨ה עָשָׂ֥ר י֛וֹם בֵּ֥ין הָעַרְבַּ֖יִם יַעֲשׂ֣וּ אֹת֑וֹ עַל־מַצּ֥וֹת וּמְרֹרִ֖ים יֹאכְלֻֽהוּ׃ (יב) לֹֽא־יַשְׁאִ֤ירוּ מִמֶּ֙נּוּ֙ עַד־בֹּ֔קֶר וְעֶ֖צֶם לֹ֣א יִשְׁבְּרוּ־ב֑וֹ כְּכָל־חֻקַּ֥ת הַפֶּ֖סַח יַעֲשׂ֥וּ אֹתֽוֹ׃ (יג) וְהָאִישׁ֩ אֲשֶׁר־ה֨וּא טָה֜וֹר וּבְדֶ֣רֶךְ לֹא־הָיָ֗ה וְחָדַל֙ לַעֲשׂ֣וֹת הַפֶּ֔סַח וְנִכְרְתָ֛ה הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הַהִ֖וא מֵֽעַמֶּ֑יהָ כִּ֣י ׀ קָרְבַּ֣ן יְהוָ֗ה לֹ֤א הִקְרִיב֙ בְּמֹ֣עֲד֔וֹ חֶטְא֥וֹ יִשָּׂ֖א הָאִ֥ישׁ הַהֽוּא׃ (יד) וְכִֽי־יָג֨וּר אִתְּכֶ֜ם גֵּ֗ר וְעָ֤שָֽׂה פֶ֙סַח֙ לַֽיהוָ֔ה כְּחֻקַּ֥ת הַפֶּ֛סַח וּכְמִשְׁפָּט֖וֹ כֵּ֣ן יַעֲשֶׂ֑ה חֻקָּ֤ה אַחַת֙ יִהְיֶ֣ה לָכֶ֔ם וְלַגֵּ֖ר וּלְאֶזְרַ֥ח הָאָֽרֶץ׃ (פ) (טו) וּבְיוֹם֙ הָקִ֣ים אֶת־הַמִּשְׁכָּ֔ן כִּסָּ֤ה הֶֽעָנָן֙ אֶת־הַמִּשְׁכָּ֔ן לְאֹ֖הֶל הָעֵדֻ֑ת וּבָעֶ֜רֶב יִהְיֶ֧ה עַֽל־הַמִּשְׁכָּ֛ן כְּמַרְאֵה־אֵ֖שׁ עַד־בֹּֽקֶר׃

Numbers 9

(1) The LORD spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, on the first new moon of the second year following the exodus from the land of Egypt, saying: (2) Let the Israelite people offer the passover sacrifice at its set time: (3) you shall offer it on the fourteenth day of this month, at twilight, at its set time; you shall offer it in accordance with all its rules and rites. (4) Moses instructed the Israelites to offer the passover sacrifice; (5) and they offered the passover sacrifice in the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, at twilight, in the wilderness of Sinai. Just as the LORD had commanded Moses, so the Israelites did. (6) But there were some men who were unclean by reason of a corpse and could not offer the passover sacrifice on that day. Appearing that same day before Moses and Aaron, (7) those men said to them, “Unclean though we are by reason of a corpse, why must we be debarred from presenting the LORD’s offering at its set time with the rest of the Israelites?” (8) Moses said to them, “Stand by, and let me hear what instructions the LORD gives about you.” (9) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: (10) Speak to the Israelite people, saying: When any of you or of your posterity who are defiled by a corpse or are on a long journey would offer a passover sacrifice to the LORD, (11) they shall offer it in the second month, on the fourteenth day of the month, at twilight. They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, (12) and they shall not leave any of it over until morning. They shall not break a bone of it. They shall offer it in strict accord with the law of the passover sacrifice. (13) But if a man who is clean and not on a journey refrains from offering the passover sacrifice, that person shall be cut off from his kin, for he did not present the LORD’s offering at its set time; that man shall bear his guilt. (14) And when a stranger who resides with you would offer a passover sacrifice to the LORD, he must offer it in accordance with the rules and rites of the passover sacrifice. There shall be one law for you, whether stranger or citizen of the country. (15) On the day that the Tabernacle was set up, the cloud covered the Tabernacle, the Tent of the Pact; and in the evening it rested over the Tabernacle in the likeness of fire until morning. (16) It was always so: the cloud covered it, appearing as fire by night. (17) And whenever the cloud lifted from the Tent, the Israelites would set out accordingly; and at the spot where the cloud settled, there the Israelites would make camp. (18) At a command of the LORD the Israelites broke camp, and at a command of the LORD they made camp: they remained encamped as long as the cloud stayed over the Tabernacle. (19) When the cloud lingered over the Tabernacle many days, the Israelites observed the LORD’s mandate and did not journey on. (20) At such times as the cloud rested over the Tabernacle for but a few days, they remained encamped at a command of the LORD, and broke camp at a command of the LORD. (21) And at such times as the cloud stayed from evening until morning, they broke camp as soon as the cloud lifted in the morning. Day or night, whenever the cloud lifted, they would break camp. (22) Whether it was two days or a month or a year—however long the cloud lingered over the Tabernacle—the Israelites remained encamped and did not set out; only when it lifted did they break camp. (23) On a sign from the LORD they made camp and on a sign from the LORD they broke camp; they observed the LORD’s mandate at the LORD’s bidding through Moses.

רש"י על במדבר ט׳:י״ד:א׳

(א) וכי יגור אתכם גר ועשה פסח. יָכוֹל כָּל הַמִּתְגַּיֵּר יַעֲשֶׂה פֶסַח מִיָּד, תַּ"ל "חֻקָּה אַחַת" וְגוֹ', אֶלָּא כָּךְ מַשְׁמָעוֹ — "וְכִי יָגוּר אִתְּכֶם גֵּר" וּבָא לַעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח עִם חֲבֵרָיו, "כְּחֻקַּת הַפֶּסַח וּכְמִשְׁפָּטוֹ יַעֲשֶׂה" (ספרי):

Rashi on Numbers 9:14:1

(1) וכי יגור אתכם גר ועשה פסח AND IF A STRANGER SHALL SOJOURN AMONG YOU, AND WILL KEEP THE PASSOVER [ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE OF THE PASSOVER … SO SHALL HE DO] — One might think that this verse implies that anyone who becomes a proselyte (גר) must keep the Passover offering rite immediately after his circumcision (even though it has not taken place just before Passover), therefore Scripture states, “yo shall have one ordinance, [both for the stranger, and for him that was born in the land]” (which implies that just as the native brings the offering on the fourteenth of Nisan, so the proselyte, too, must bring it only on the fourteenth of Nisan; cf. Rashi on Exodus 12:48). What the first part of the verse implies is, therefore, the following: “and if a proselyte will sojourn among you, and comes to celebrate the Passover rite together with his fellows, then according to the ordinance of the Passover and according to the manner thereof shall he do” (i.e. ועשה פסח is not a predicative clause — when he becomes a proselyte then shall he offer the Passover, i. e. offer it immediately — but it is a conditional clause, coordinate to וכי יגור אתכם and the apodosis begins with כחקת הפסח etc.) (Sifrei Bamidbar 71).

רש"י על במדבר ט׳:י׳

(א) או בדרך רחקה. ...פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי מַצָּה וְחָמֵץ עִמּוֹ בַּבַּיִת, וְאֵין שָׁם יוֹם טוֹב, וְאֵין אִסּוּר חָמֵץ אֶלָא עִמּוֹ בַאֲכִילָתוֹ (שם צ"ה):

Rashi on Numbers 9:10

(1) או בדרך רחקה [IF ANY MAN … SHALL BE UNCLEAN BY REASON OF A DEAD,] OR BE ON A DISTANT JOURNEY — There is a dot on it (on the ה of the word רחקה which letter is therefore regarded as non-existent; cf. Rashi on Genesis 18:9 and Note thereon), in order to tell that what Scripture means by בדרך רחקה is that it (the journey) need not really be a distant one, but that his sacrifice is postponed even though he was merely outside the threshold of the forecourt during the whole time that the ceremony of slaughtering the Passover sacrifice tasted. (Pesachim 93b, cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 69:2). — On the “Second Passover” one may have with him unleavened and leavened bread together in his house, and there is no festival in connection with it, and the eating of leaven is forbidden only together with it (the Passover Sacrifice) — i.e. while the sacrifice is being eaten (cf. Pesachim 95a).

פסחים צ״ה א

זבחי... מתני׳ מה בין פסח הראשון לשני הראשון אסור בבל יראה ובל ימצא והשני חמץ ומצה עמו בבית הראשון טעון הלל באכילתו והשני אינו טעון הלל באכילתו זה וזה טעון הלל בעשייתן ונאכלין צלי על מצה ומרורים ודוחין את השבת: גמ׳ תנו רבנן ככל חוקת הפסח יעשו אותו במצוה שבגופו הכתוב מדבר... בכלליה דמצות ומרורים מאי קא מרבי צלי אש בפרטיה מאי ממעיט ליה השבתת שאור... בכלליה דלא ישאירו ממנו עד בקר מאי קא מרבה ליה לא תוציא ממנו בפרטיה מאי קא ממעט ליה לא יראה ולא ימצא ... בכלליה דעצם לא ישברו בו מאי קא מרבה אל תאכלו ממנו נא בפרטיה מאי קא ממעטי לא תשחט על חמץ דם זבחי...

Pesachim 95a

MISHNA: What is the difference between the Paschal lamb offered on the first Pesaḥ and the Paschal lamb offered on the second Pesaḥ? On the first Pesaḥ, at the time of slaughtering the Paschal lamb, it is prohibited to own leavened bread due to the prohibitions: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found. And on the second Pesaḥ it is permissible for one to have both leavened bread and matza with him in the house. Another difference is that the Paschal lamb offered on the first Pesaḥ requires the recitation of hallel as it is eaten and the second does not require the recitation of hallel as it is eaten. However, they are the same in that the Paschal lambs sacrificed on both the first and second Pesaḥ require the recitation of hallel as they are prepared, i.e., as they are slaughtered, and they are both eaten roasted with matza and bitter herbs, and they override Shabbat in that they may be slaughtered and their blood sprinkled even on Shabbat. GEMARA: The Sages taught a halakhic midrash pertaining to the Paschal lamb offered on the second Pesaḥ. The verse states with regard to the second Pesaḥ: “They shall leave none of it to the morning, nor break a bone in it; according to all the entire statute of the Paschal lamb they shall offer it” (Numbers 9:12). The fact that the verse says “it” indicates that the verse is speaking of a mitzva applicable to the body of the Paschal lamb, meaning that halakhot pertaining to the actual Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ apply equally to the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ. The midrash continues: With regard to a mitzva related to the body of the Paschal lamb but not actually performed on the body of the offering, from where is it derived that it applies to the second Pesaḥ as well? The verse states: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:11). One might have thought that one must fulfill all mitzvot related to the first Pesaḥ on the second Pesaḥ, even mitzvot not at all related to the body of the Paschal lamb, such as the requirement to destroy all one’s leaven. Therefore, the Torah states: “And they shall not break a bone in it” (Numbers 9:12), which teaches that just as the prohibition of breaking a bone is notable among the mitzvot related to the Paschal lamb in that it is a mitzva applicable to the Paschal lamb itself, so too, any mitzva applicable to the Paschal lamb itself must be fulfilled on the second Pesaḥ. However, other mitzvot pertaining to the first Pesaḥ need not be fulfilled on the second Pesaḥ. Isi ben Yehuda says: It is unnecessary to derive that halakha from the end of the verse quoted, as the phrase in the first half of the verse: “They shall perform it,” indicates that the verse is speaking only of mitzvot applicable to the body of the Paschal lamb itself. The Gemara clarifies the details of the baraita. The Master said: One might have thought that one must fulfill even a mitzva not at all related to the body of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ. The Gemara expresses surprise: But you said that the verse is speaking only of a mitzva applicable to the body of the Paschal lamb, so why would one think that unrelated mitzvot are also included? The Gemara explains that this is what the baraita is saying: Now that you said the additional halakha that they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, apparently the phrase: “They shall perform it,” is not specific and does not limit the halakhot of the second Pesaḥ to those applicable to the Paschal lamb itself, say that this verse is expounded according to the principle of a detail and a generalization, as it first said: “They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs” and “They shall leave none of it to the morning,” and then it stated a generalization: “According to all the statute of the Paschal lamb they shall perform it.” The principles of halakhic midrash state that in that case, the generalization adds to the detail and even includes everything, such that all the mitzvot of the first Pesaḥ would apply equally to the second, including the removal of leaven. Therefore, the verse “They shall not break a bone in it” teaches us that mitzvot unrelated to the Paschal lamb do not apply to the second Pesaḥ. The Gemara asks: What does Isi ben Yehuda do with the end of the verse: “And they shall not break a bone in it”? The Gemara answers: He needs it to teach that the prohibition of breaking a bone applies both to a bone that has marrow and to a bone that does not have marrow. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who expound differently than Isi ben Yehuda, what do they do with this phrase: “They shall perform it”? The Gemara answers: They need it to teach that one does not slaughter the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ on behalf of a single individual. Since the verse speaks of people performing the second Pesaḥ in the plural, it is derived that as much as it is possible to search for more people to join this individual in his Paschal lamb, we search for them, even if it means causing another individual to become ritually impure to prevent him from performing the first Pesaḥ. The Sages taught in a different baraita: The verse states: “According to the entire statute of the Paschal lamb they shall offer it” (Numbers 9:12). One might have thought that just as at the time of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ it is prohibited to own leaven due to the prohibitions of: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, so too, at the time of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ it is prohibited to own leaven due to the prohibitions of: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found. Therefore, the Torah states: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:11), which indicates that the other mitzvot pertaining to the first Pesaḥ do not apply on the second. The baraita continues: And from here I have derived only that positive mitzvot related to the first Pesaḥ apply on the second Pesaḥ; from where do I derive that the same is true of negative mitzvot? The verse states: “They shall leave none of it to the morning, nor break a bone in it” (Numbers 9:12). The baraita continues: And from this verse I have derived only that a negative mitzva whose violation can be rectified by the fulfillment of a positive mitzva applies on the second Pesaḥ, e.g., the prohibition of leaving over meat from the Paschal lamb until morning, which can be rectified by the positive mitzva of burning the leftovers; from where is it derived that the same is true of a full-fledged negative mitzva? The verse states: “They shall not break a bone in it.” It may be concluded from these examples that just as the detail, i.e., the specific mitzvot mentioned in these verses, is explicit and includes a positive mitzva, a prohibition whose violation can be rectified by the fulfillment of a positive mitzva, and a full-fledged negative mitzva; so too, every positive mitzva, every prohibition whose violation can be rectified by the fulfillment of a positive mitzva, and every full-fledged negative mitzva is included. Now that the generalization has been interpreted as referring to the specific examples mentioned earlier, what is included through the generalization of unleavened bread and bitter herbs? The Gemara answers: It comes to teach that the mitzva of roasting in fire applies to the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ as well as to the first. Given that unleavened bread and bitter herbs is also a qualifying detail, what does it exclude through its detail? It teaches that the mitzva of removal of leaven does not apply on the second Pesaḥ. The Gemara asks: Perhaps I can reverse it and say that on the second Pesaḥ one is not obligated to roast the offering by fire, but one is obligated to remove all leaven? The Gemara answers: A mitzva relating to the Paschal lamb itself is preferable, as it is more reasonable to assume that the first and second Pesaḥ are comparable with regard to halakhot pertaining to the offering itself. The Gemara asks further: What is included through the generalization of: They shall leave none of it to the morning? The Gemara answers that it includes the prohibition of: You shall not remove any of its meat from one group to another, which is similar to it, as through this prohibition mentioned in the verse it is disqualified as leftovers, and through this prohibition of removing the meat of the offering it is disqualified as sacrificial meat that has left its permitted boundary. The Gemara asks further: What does it exclude through its detail? It excludes the prohibitions: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found, which are similar to it, as one who violates this prohibition of leaving over the meat of the offering until morning is not flogged because it is a prohibition whose violation can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva by burning the leftovers; and one who violates this prohibition of owning leaven is not flogged because it is a prohibition whose violation can be rectified by fulfilling a positive mitzva of burning the leaven. The Gemara asks: Perhaps I can reverse it and say that the generalization is meant to include removal of leaven and the detail excludes the prohibition of leaving over the meat of the offering? The Gemara answers: In a comparison of the first Pesaḥ and the second, including a mitzva related to the Paschal lamb itself is preferable to including one that does not relate to the Paschal lamb. The Gemara continues to ask: Through the generalization: They shall not break a bone in it,

רש"י על פסחים צ״ה א:ב׳

גמ' ככל חוקת הפסח וגו' - בפסח שני כתיב: אותו - משמע גופו: במצות שבגופו הכתוב מדבר - לא ריבה את השני לדין ראשון אלא במצות שבגופו כגון סדר עבודותיו ואכילת צלי אבל לא למצות שאינן בגופו כגון השבתת שאור:

Rashi on Pesachim 95a:2

...

משנה תורה, הלכות קרבן פסח י׳:ט״ו

(טו) מַה בֵּין פֶּסַח רִאשׁוֹן לְפֶסַח שֵׁנִי. הָרִאשׁוֹן אָסוּר בְּחָמֵץ בְּבַל יֵרָאֶה וּבַל יִמָּצֵא. וְאֵינוֹ נִשְׁחָט עַל חָמֵץ. וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ חוּץ לַחֲבוּרָה. וְטָעוּן הַלֵּל בַּאֲכִילָתוֹ. וּמְבִיאִין עִמּוֹ חֲגִיגָה. וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיָּבוֹא בְּטֻמְאָה אִם נִטְמָא רֹב הַקָּהָל טֻמְאַת מֵת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲבָל פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי חָמֵץ וּמַצָּה עִמּוֹ בַּבַּיִת. וְאֵינוֹ טָעוּן הַלֵּל בַּאֲכִילָתוֹ. וּמוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ חוּץ לַחֲבוּרָתוֹ. וְאֵין מְבִיאִין עִמּוֹ חֲגִיגָה וְאֵינוֹ בָּא בְּטֻמְאָה. וּשְׁנֵיהֶם דּוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. וּטְעוּנִין הַלֵּל בַּעֲשִׂיָּתָן וְנֶאֱכָלִין צָלִי בְּבַיִת אֶחָד עַל מַצָּה וּמָרוֹר. וְאֵין מוֹתִירִין מֵהֶן. וְאֵין שׁוֹבְרִין בָּהֶן אֶת הָעֶצֶם. וְלָמָּה לֹא יִשְׁוֶה הַשֵּׁנִי לָרִאשׁוֹן לְכָל הַדְּבָרִים מֵאַחַר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ט יב) "כְּכָל חֻקַּת הַפֶּסַח יַעֲשׂוּ". לְפִי שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת חֻקַּת הַפֶּסַח. לְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵינָהּ שָׁוָה לָרִאשׁוֹן אֶלָּא בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁנִּתְפָּרְשׁוּ בּוֹ. וְהֵן הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁבְּגוּפוֹ וְהֵם חֻקַּת הַפֶּסַח. שֶׁכְּלָל זֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּמִצְרַיִם שֶׁיִּלָּקַח הַפֶּסַח מִבֶּעָשׂוֹר. וְשֶׁהוּא טָעוּן הַגָּעַת דָּם בַּאֲגוּדַת אֵזוֹב לַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְלִשְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזוֹת. וְשֶׁיֵּאָכֵל בְּחִפָּזוֹן. אֵין אוֹתָן הַדְּבָרִים נוֹהֲגִים לְדוֹרוֹת וְלֹא נַעֲשׂוּ אֶלָּא בְּפֶסַח מִצְרַיִם בִּלְבַד:

Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 10:15

...

פסחים צ״ג א

...תנו רבנן חייב כרת על הראשון וחייב כרת על השני דברי רבי רבי נתן אומר חייב כרת על הראשון ופטור על השני רבי חנניא בן עקביא אומר אף [על] הראשון אינו חייב כרת אלא אם כן לא עשה את השני ואזדו לטעמייהו דתניא גר שנתגייר בין שני פסחים וכן קטן שהגדיל בין שני פסחים חייב לעשות פסח שני דברי רבי רבי נתן אומר כל שזקוק לראשון זקוק לשני כל שאין זקוק לראשון אין זקוק לשני במאי קמיפלגי רבי סבר שני רגל בפני עצמו הוא רבי נתן סבר שני תשלומין דראשון הוא תקוני לראשון לא מתקין ליה ורבי חנניא בן עקביא סבר שני תקנתא דראשון הוא ושלשתן מקרא אחד דרשו והאיש אשר הוא טהור ובדרך לא היה רבי סבר וחדל לעשות הפסח ונכרתה דלא עבד בראשון אי נמי קרבן ה׳ לא הקריב במועדו בשני וממאי (דהא) חטאו ישא כרת הוא

Pesachim 93a

just as the case of one who was ritually impure is referring to one who has the means to observe the first Pesaḥ via an agent but does not do so because the Torah prohibited him from doing so, so too, the case of one who was on a distant journey also refers to one who has the means to observe the first Pesaḥ via an agent and eat the offering at night, but does not do so because the Torah prohibited him from doing so. And Rav Naḥman could have said to you: Rabbi Akiva conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he holds that one may not slaughter a Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood on behalf of one who is ritually impure due to contact with a dead creeping animal, even though he could immerse and become ritually pure in time to partake of the Paschal lamb in the evening. This indicates that according to Rabbi Akiva, one who is unfit when the blood is sprinkled is completely disqualified from participating in the offering. But I hold in accordance with the one who said: One may slaughter a Paschal lamb and sprinkle its blood on behalf of one who is ritually impure due to contact with a dead creeping animal, and therefore Rabbi Akiva’s ruling is not relevant to my opinion. The Gemara cites a baraita in support of Rav Naḥman’s opinion. The Sages taught that these are the people who observe the second Pesaḥ: Zavim and zavot; male lepers and female lepers; and menstruating women and those men who had sexual relations with menstruating women; and women after childbirth; those who failed to observe the first Pesaḥ unwittingly, and those who were prevented due to circumstances beyond their control, and those who intentionally refrained from doing so; and one who was ritually impure; and one who was on a distant journey. The baraita continues: If so, if one who missed the first Pesaḥ for any reason observes the second Pesaḥ, why is the case of one who was ritually impure stated explicitly in the Torah? The Gemara expresses surprise at this question: Why is it stated? It was necessary to mention this case to teach that if an impure person wishes to perform the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ we do not allow him to do so. Rather, the question should be: Why is the case of one who is on a distant journey stated in the Torah? It is stated to exempt him from karet even if he does not observe the second Pesaḥ. And this is in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that if the Paschal lamb was slaughtered on behalf of one who was on a distant journey it was accepted, which is the opinion of Rav Naḥman. The baraita mentioned several types of ritually impure women who observe the second Pesaḥ rather than the first. The Gemara asks: Is a woman obligated to observe the second Pesaḥ? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: I might have thought that only one who is impure due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse or one who was on a distant journey observe the second Pesaḥ; with regard to zavim, male lepers, and those men who had sexual relations with menstruating women, from where is it derived that they may observe the second Pesaḥ? The verse states: “If any man [ish ish] of you or of your generations shall be ritually impure due to a dead body or is on a journey far away, he shall still offer the Paschal lamb to the Lord” (Numbers 9:10). The word ish is doubled in order to include these other cases. Women are not included by the repetition of the word ish. The Gemara answers that this is not difficult: This first baraita, which includes women, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that one may slaughter the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ for women, and that second baraita, which includes only men, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, who hold that women do not have a full-fledged obligation to observe the second Pesaḥ. The Sages taught in the Tosefta: One is liable to receive karet for intentionally refraining from observing the first Pesaḥ; similarly, one who could not observe the first Pesaḥ is liable to receive karet if he intentionally refrained from observing the second Pesaḥ. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Natan says: One is liable to receive karet for intentionally refraining from observing the first Pesaḥ; and one is exempt from karet for intentionally refraining from observing the second Pesaḥ even if he unwittingly failed to observe the first Pesaḥ, as the Torah does not specify a punishment of karet with regard to the second Pesaḥ. Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya says: Even for intentionally failing to observe the first Pesaḥ one is liable to receive karet only if he intentionally fails to observe the second Pesaḥ. The Gemara adds that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Natan follow their line of reasoning as demonstrated by another dispute between them, which is related to the dispute quoted above. As it was taught in a baraita: A convert who converted during the month between the offering of the two Paschal lambs on the first and second Pesaḥ, and similarly, a minor who grew up and became obligated in mitzvot during the month between the offering of the two Paschal lambs, is obligated to observe the second Pesaḥ; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Natan says: Whoever needs to observe the first Pesaḥ needs to observe the second; whoever does not need to observe the first Pesaḥ, e.g., one who is a minor or is not yet Jewish, does not need to observe the second Pesaḥ either. The Gemara explains: With regard to what do they disagree? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the second Pesaḥ is its own Festival, and anyone who did not participate in the first Pesaḥ is obligated to participate in the second even if he was not fit to bring the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ. Conversely, Rabbi Natan holds that the second Pesaḥ is merely a redress for the first Pesaḥ, such that if one was obligated to bring the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ and did not, he may do so on the second Pesaḥ; however, it does not repair the failure to bring the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ. Therefore, one who intentionally refrained from bringing the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ is liable to receive karet even if he brought the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ. However, if one unwittingly failed to sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ, he is not liable to receive karet even if he intentionally refrained from observing the second Pesaḥ. And Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya held: The second Pesaḥ repairs the failure to offer the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ. In other words, the Paschal lamb brought on the second Pesaḥ is not an independent obligation; rather, it allows a second chance to avoid the liability to receive karet. And all three of them expounded the same verse to derive their opinions: “But the man who is ritually pure, and is not on a journey, and refrains from offering the Paschal lamb, that soul shall be cut off from his people; because [ki] he did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season, that man shall bear his sin” (Numbers 9:13). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the verse should be understood as follows: The phrase: “And refrains from offering the Paschal lamb, that soul shall be cut off,” means that he did not participate in the offering on the first Pesaḥ. In the continuation of the verse, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi understands the word ki to mean: If, as the word ki has various meanings, one of which is: If. Therefore, the verse can be interpreted in the following manner: If he also “did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season,” with regard to the second Pesaḥ, “that man shall bear his sin.” The Gemara asks: And from where do we know that this phrase: Shall bear his sin, refers to karet and not to some other punishment?

רש"י על פסחים צ״ג א:ח׳-י״א

ואזדו לטעמייהו - רבי ורבי נתן: שהגדיל - צמחו בו שערות: חייבין לעשות את השני - דקסבר רגל בפני עצמו הוא ואית ליה חיובא באנפי נפשיה ואפי' למאן דלא איחזי בראשון: תשלומין דראשון - ומאן דלא איחזי בראשון לא מיחייב אשני ומיהו תקוני לראשון מכרת אם הזיד בראשון לא מתקן ליה הלכך חייב כרת על הראשון ואפילו עשה את השני ופטור על השני אם שגג בראשון והזיד בשני דהא לית ליה חיובא באנפי נפשיה ובראשון הרי שגג: תקנתא דראשון - מכרת דיליה דאפילו הזיד בראשון השני פוטרו מן הכרת:

Rashi on Pesachim 93a:8-11

...

משנה תורה, הלכות קרבן פסח ה׳:א׳

(א) מִי שֶׁהָיָה טָמֵא בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטַת הַפֶּסַח שֶׁאֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין עָלָיו. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה בְּדֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה. אוֹ נֶאֱנַס בְּאֹנֶס אַחֵר. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁגַג וְלֹא הִקְרִיב בָּרִאשׁוֹן. הֲרֵי זֶה מֵבִיא פֶּסַח בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם. וּשְׁחִיטַת פֶּסַח זֶה מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְדוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת שֶׁאֵין הַשֵּׁנִי תַּשְׁלוּמִין לָרִאשׁוֹן אֶלָּא רֶגֶל בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ לְפִיכָךְ חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת:

Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 5:1

...

משנה תורה, הלכות קרבן פסח ה׳:ז׳

(ז) גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר בֵּין פֶּסַח רִאשׁוֹן לְפֶסַח שֵׁנִי. וְכֵן קָטָן שֶׁהִגְדִּיל בֵּין שְׁנֵי פְּסָחִים. חַיָּבִין לַעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי. וְאִם שָׁחֲטוּ עָלָיו בָּרִאשׁוֹן פָּטוּר:

Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 5:7

...

השגות הראב"ד על משנה תורה, הלכות קרבן פסח ה׳:ב׳

(א) מי ששגג או נאנס ולא הקריב בראשון אם הזיד. א''א שנה זה במשנתו כרבי. ור' נתן ור' חנינא בן עקביא פליגי עליה:

Hasagot HaRa'avad on Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 5:2

...

מנחת חינוך פרשת בהעלותך מצוה שפ
הכלל עיקר ד"ז דמיעוט ורוב גזה"כ הוא רק בעומדים כאן ויכולים לעשות הפסח א"כ נראה ברור אם יבנה הבית ב"ב בין ב' הפסחים ע' בש"ס דר"ה גבי עומר דאיבני בחמיסר כיון דבראשון לא היו ישראל שם ולא הי' מקדש אין חילוק בין רוב למיעוט א"כ כל ישראל חייבים לעשות פסח שני כמו גרים הרבה כי דינים אלו דרוב ומיעוט הם רק העומדים חוץ לעזרה כמבואר בר"מ ובש"ס ובירושלמי אבל באין עומדים ואין בית המקדש אין החשבון הזה וכל ישראל יעשו פ"ש כנ"ב. ואני כותב זה בין שני הפסחים יה"ר שיבנה מהרה קודם פ"ש ונזכה ונעשה הפ"ש אמן ואמן. שוב אח"ז רב ראיתי בירושלמי פ' מי שהיה שהוא פלוגתא דתנאי אם יבנה בהמ"ק בין פ"א לפ"ש דחד אמר דיקריבו ישראל פ"ש וח"א דלא יקריבו ע"ש.

הגדה של פסח, כורך

זֵכֶר לְמִקְדָּשׁ כְּהִלֵּל. כֵּן עָשָׂה הִלֵּל בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ הָיָה קַיָּם:

הָיָה כּוֹרֵךְ מַצָּה וּמָרוֹר וְאוֹכֵל בְּיַחַד, לְקַיֵּם מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר: עַל מַצּוֹת וּמְררִים יֹאכְלֻהוּ.

Pesach Haggadah, Korech

Wrap

All present should take a kazayit from the third whole matsa with a kazayit of marror, wrap them together and eat them while reclining and without saying a blessing. Before he eats it, he should say:

In memory of the Temple according to Hillel. This is what Hillel would do when the Temple existed:

He would wrap the matsa and marror and eat them together, in order to fulfill what is stated, (Exodus 12:15): "You should eat it upon matsot and marrorim."

רש"י על במדבר ט׳:ז׳:א׳

(א) למה נגרע... וּרְאוּיָה הָיְתָה פָרָשָׁה זוֹ לֵאָמֵר עַ"יְ מֹשֶׁה כִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּה, אֶלָּא שֶׁזָּכוּ אֵלּוּ שֶׁתֵּאָמֵר עַל יְדֵיהֶן, שֶׁמְּגַלְגְּלִין זְכוּת עַ"יְ זַכַּאי (שם):

Rashi on Numbers 9:7:1

(1) למה נגרע WHEREFORE ARE WE KEPT BACK? — He (Moses) had said to them, “Sacrifices are not permitted to be offered by anyone who is in a state of uncleanness”. They retorted, “למה נגרע” — Why should that prevent us? Let the blood be sprinkled on our behalf by clean priests, and let the flesh be eaten by the clean”. (i.e. let us partake of the flesh at night when we shall already be clean: see Note). Thereupon he said to them: “Stand still (i.e. wait a short time) and I will hear [what the Lord will command concerning you]” — he said this with confidence, like a pupil who is certain that he will get information from his teacher at any time. Happy, indeed, is a human being (lit., one born of woman) who may so confidently rely that at any time when he wishes to do so he may speak with the Shechinah! — This section, in fact, ought to have been said by Moses, just as all the other sections of the Torah, only that these men were privileged that it should be promulgated through their intervention, because “meritorious deeds are brought about by worthy men” (Sifrei Bamidbar 68; Bava Batra 119b).