Pesach Sheni

B’DERECH R’CHOKAH’ Rashi commented [that the meaning of this expression — literally “on a distant way” — is] “that he was outside the threshold of the Sanctuary Court during the whole time prescribed for slaughtering [the Passover-offering].” According to this opinion, this interpretation is hinted at by the dot [on the letter hei in the word r’chokah (distant) in the Torah, thus indicating that the journey does not really have to be a distant one, for even if he is only outside the threshold of the Sanctuary Court during the time of slaughtering of the Passover-offering, it is considered “a distant way”, as explained further on].
But I am surprised at him [Rashi]! Why did he adopt the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, when it would have been correct to accept the opinion of Rabbi Akiba [that a distant way means] beyond Modiin [a city fifteen miles from Jerusalem; and the verse would thus be referring to someone who cannot reach the Sanctuary Court in time to bring the Passover-offering]. And such is the opinion of the Amoraim in the Gemara [of Tractate Pesachim], where Ula said, [a distant way is if he is at such a distance from Jerusalem that] he cannot come in, in time for the slaughtering [of the Passover-offering]. This is indeed the plain meaning of Scripture, that a person who is situated at the beginning of the afternoon in a place from which he cannot reach the Sanctuary Court [on foot] by the time of the slaughtering, is considered as being on a distant way, and therefore he is free [from the obligation of bringing the Passover-offering]. It is possible that [according to Rabbi Akiba] the reason for the dot [on the letter hei in the word r’chokah (distant) in the Torah] is to indicate that it is too distant for him to bring the Passover-offering, even though it is not actually distant [since fifteen-miles — walking-distance — is the required distance]; therefore when He repeated it He stated, But the man that is clean, and is not on ‘a journey,’ [and forbeareth to bring the Passover-lamb], and did not mention “distant.”
Now Scripture commanded that a person who was impure or on a distant way should bring the second [Passover-offering], but the same law, for the same reason, applies to anyone who did not bring the first Passover-offering, even wilfully, namely that he is obliged to bring the second Passover-offering, in accordance with the words of our Rabbis. Scripture, however, mentioned only [those who were impure or on a distant way in order] to say that they are allowed to bring the second Passover-offering, and to forbid an impure person to bring the first Passover-offering. However, one who was on a [distant] way is free from bringing the first Passover-offering, and may bring the second one, but if he wants to fulfill his duty on the first Passover and he told someone [in Jerusalem to include him in a group, and] to slaughter the offering for him [as well], it is acceptable [for him]. For we accept [as the correct interpretation of the law] that the [meaning of the verse is not that he must bring it only on the second Passover, but that the] Merciful One dealt kindly with him [and allowed him if he prefers to bring the second Passover-offering], but if he did bring [the first one] — he is deserving of a blessing [and he has acted rightly]. It is also possible that the reason why Scripture mentioned “distant” [is because it is referring to a journey which is actually far away, and only then must he bring the second Passover-offering], but if he is on a “near” journey [i.e., within fifteen miles — this distance being considered the beginning of what is technically already “a far way”], he may bring the second Passover-offering, or the first one, by [telling them] to slaughter it and sprinkle it for him as well [in the afternoon of the fourteenth day of Nisan], and then coming [into the city of Jerusalem] and eating the Passover-offering at night.