פסח שני

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. Moses instructed the Israelites to offer the passover sacrifice; 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 ה׳ had commanded Moses, so the Israelites did. But there were some householders who were impure by reason of a corpse and could not offer the passover sacrifice on that day. Appearing that same day before Moses and Aaron, those householders said to them, “Impure though we are by reason of a corpse, why must we be debarred from presenting ה׳’s offering at its set time with the rest of the Israelites?” Moses said to them, “Stand by, and let me hear what instructions ה׳ gives about you.” And ה׳ spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the Israelite people, saying: When any party—whether you or your posterity—who is defiled by a corpse or is on a long journey would offer a passover sacrifice to ה׳, 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, 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. But if any party who is pure and not on a journey refrains from offering the passover sacrifice, that person shall be cut off from kin, for ה׳’s offering was not presented at its set time; that party shall bear the guilt. And when a stranger who resides with you would offer a passover sacrifice to ה׳, it must be offered 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.

The Gemara cites a baraita in support of Rav Naḥman’s opinion. The Sages taught that these are the people who observe the secondPesaḥ: 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 Pesaḥunwittingly, 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 firstPesaḥwe 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 secondPesaḥ? 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 secondPesaḥ; 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.

Which impure individuals are prevented from offering until the second Pesach? Anyone who cannot partake of the Paschal sacrifice on the fifteenth of Nisan because of his impurity, e.g., zavim, zavot, niddot, women impure because of childbirth, and those who were intimate with a women in the niddah state. By contrast, those who are impure because they touched an animal corpse, a dead crawling animal, and the like on the day of the fourteenth of Nisan, should immerse themselves and the Paschal sacrifice should be sacrificed on their behalf after they immerse themselves. In the evening, when the day of their impurity is concluded, they may partake of the Paschal sacrifice.

Why should we be diminished, etc.: One needs to know the claim of the people in their statement, "why should we be diminished." Is the reason not answered by their own mouths - "we are impure"? And what do they want given to them - a new Torah? And maybe it is from the angle that they became impure with His consent, may He be blessed. Whether according to the opinion that they became impure from a corpse requiring burial or whether according to the opinion that they carried the coffin of Yosef, they thought that God would judge them as if they were pure, and in the same way that we find (Pesachim 77a) that God accepts the Pesach offering of the community when it is impure. And for this [reason], they claimed, "why should we be diminished" - and just because they preformed a commandment, they should be diminished from the Pesach offering? Or they meant to say that they be able to make up for the Pesach offering, like with the festive (chagigah) offering, about which they said (Chagigah 9a), "celebrate (chagog) the holiday through the whole festival." So too, God should command them that they be able to make up for the Pesach offering the next day, and that is the [meaning of the] statement, in its time, which is the time of the Pesach offering. And maybe for this [reason], the [previous] verse was exact to say on that day: According to the opinion that says that it was the seventh (last) day of their impurity, the explanation is that for this reason did they come on that day - so that he would say to them to make it up on the next day. And in this way, we gain the explanation [of something else]: God said this commandment of Pesach Sheni (the second Passover) after these men asked - to say that even if they will be pure during the days of Pesach, like in our case; nonetheless, he does not make it up during the seven days of Pesach like the festive offering, but rather on the second (next) month. It also means by saying, why should we be diminished, etc.: that since it was the seventh day of their impurity, that they were claiming that their Pesach offerings could be slaughtered for them; in the [same] way as we slaughter, and sprinkle [from, the offering] of one impurified by creeping animals (sherets) - since they will become pure at night and they only have [remaining] impurity on that day. And that is the [meaning of the] statement, in its time. And the rabbis, of blessed memory, said other matters - 'and these and those are the words of the living God.'

Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary? It was stated: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining others, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, and certainly the First. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Ex. 12:3) “Every man a sheep for the family,” if they want “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, “Every man a sheep for the family,” a fortiori “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? “Every man”, not woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, lest it become an obligation.

promiscuity, i.e., homosexual behavior. The Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself, i.e., the baraita partly cited previously, the full version of which states: A woman; on the firstPesaḥ, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on her behalf even if she is by herself. And on the secondPesaḥ, we make her ancillary to others, i.e., she may join others in a group registered for a Paschal lamb but we do not slaughter a lamb on her behalf if she is by herself; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: A woman; on the secondPesaḥ, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on her behalf even if she is by herself. And needless to say we also slaughter on her behalf even if she is by herself on the firstPesaḥ. Rabbi Shimon says: A woman; on the firstPesaḥwe make her ancillary to others, and on the secondPesaḥwe do not slaughter on her behalf at all.With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara explains that they disagree about how to interpret the various verses that refer to the first and second Pesaḥ: Rabbi Yehuda holds that the use of the word souls in the verse: “According to the number of the souls…you shall make your count for the lamb” (Exodus 12:4), includes everyone, and even women, in the first Pesaḥ. And if you say that if so, even on the secondPesaḥ, women should also be included, but it is written with regard to one who had not offered a Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ and then neglected to bring one on the second Pesaḥ: “That man shall bear his sin” (Numbers 9:13), which indicates that a man, yes, he is liable for not having brought a Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ, but a woman, no, she is not liable.

It is a positive commandment to offer the Paschal sacrifice on the fourteenth day of the month of Nisan after midday. This offering is brought only from lambs or goats, a male in its first year. Both men and women are obligated in this mitzvah.

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.

Since they were also part of the same miracle. Rashbam explained, that the primary part of the miracle was done by them; Purim - by Esther, Chanukah - by Judith, Pesach - for they were saved in the merit of the righteous ones of that generation. And this [interpretation] is difficult, for the language "since they were also" implies that they were secondary, and according to his [Rashbam's] interpretation, it should have said "since they were". Therefore, it seems to me, that they were also potentially going to be wiped out and killed, and so too on Pesach, when they were enslaved to Pharaoh in Egypt, and in Chanukah, the decrees applied to them too. In the matter of Matzah, there is one who asks why do we need this comparison, that everyone who is included in the prohibition of eating leavened bread is included in the positive commandment of eating Matzah. [Why not] learn it from them having been part of the same miracle? And it should be said, that this reason [part of the same miracle] does not obligate one but Rabbinically, so we need the comparison. And our Rabbi Joseph, of Jerusalem, explained that you might exempt them from it, by means of a comparison, for [Pesach] is on the 15th, and so too Sukkot is on the 15th [and women are exempt from the Sukkah], as I have explained in the chapter of Eilu Ovrin (Tosafot on Pesachim 43b:1).

But on the sixth day, when they apportion what they have brought in, it shall prove to be double the amount they gather each day.” So Moses and Aaron said to all the Israelites, “By evening you shall know it was ה׳ who brought you out from the land of Egypt; and in the morning you shall behold the Presence of ה׳, because [God] has heard your grumblings against ה׳. For who are we that you should grumble against us? Since it is ה׳,” Moses continued, “who will give you flesh to eat in the evening and bread in the morning to the full—because ה׳ has heard the grumblings you utter—what is our part? Your grumbling is against ה׳, not against us!”

In the evening quail appeared and covered the camp; in the morning there was a fall of dew about the camp. When the fall of dew lifted, there, over the surface of the wilderness, lay a fine and flaky substance, as fine as frost on the ground. When the Israelites saw it, they said to one another, “What is it?” —for they did not know what it was. And Moses said to them, “That is the bread which ה׳ has given you to eat. This is what ה׳ has commanded: Each household shall gather as much as it requires to eat—an omer to a person for as many of you as there are; each household shall fetch according to those in its tent.” The Israelites did so, some gathering much, some little. But when they measured it by the omer, anyone who had gathered much had no excess, and anyone who had gathered little had no deficiency: each household had gathered as much as it needed to eat. And Moses said to them, “Let no one leave any of it over until morning.”

But there were some householders who were impure by reason of a corpse and could not offer the passover sacrifice on that day. Appearing that same day before Moses and Aaron, those householders said to them, “Impure though we are by reason of a corpse, why must we be debarred from presenting ה׳’s offering at its set time with the rest of the Israelites?” Moses said to them, “Stand by, and let me hear what instructions ה׳ gives about you.” And ה׳ spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the Israelite people, saying: When any party—whether you or your posterity—who is defiled by a corpse or is on a long journey would offer a passover sacrifice to ה׳, 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,

(Bamidbar 9:6) "And there were men who were unclean by the body of a man, and they could not offer the Pesach on that day": Who were those men? They were the bearers of Joseph's casket. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: They were Mishael and Eltzafan, who had become tamei by (the bodies of Nadav and Avihu). R. Yitzchak says: If they were the bearers of Joseph's casket, they could have cleansed themselves (in time to eat the Paschal offering), and if they were Mishael and Eltzafan, they could have cleansed themselves. Rather, they were men who had become unclean by contact with a meth-mitzvah (a body with none to bury it, but themselves), their seventh (and final) day of uncleanliness falling out on Pesach eve. "And they drew near before Moses and before Aaron on that day": Is it possible that Moses did not know (the halachah) and Aaron did know? — Invert the verse (i.e., "they came before Aaron and Moses") and expound it (i.e., they came before Aaron and he did not know and then they came before Moses.) These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: They (Moses and Aaron) were sitting in the house of study, and they (the men) came and stood before them. We are hereby (by their asking) apprised that they were devout men, solicitous of the mitzvah. (Ibid. 7) "and those men said to him": Is it not already written (Ibid. 6) "the men"? What is the intent of "those men"? We are hereby apprised that only the one affected (by the question) makes the inquiry (and not his representative). "Why should we be held back (not to offer the sacrifice of the L-rd in its appointed time")? Moses: Offerings, (in this instance, the Pesach offering), are not offered in a state of tumah. They: This may be true of offerings which have a backup (i.e., which if not offered now may be offered later, but is it true of offerings (i.e., the Pesach offering) which have no backup (and which must be offered on the fourteenth of Nissan)? Moses: Offerings may not be eaten in a state of tumah. They: If so, let the blood (of the Pesach offering) be sprinkled on the unclean ones, and the flesh be eaten by the clean ones. And this would, indeed, follow. If a sin-offering, which is holy of holies — its blood is sprinkled on the unclean ones, and its flesh is eaten by the clean ones (the Cohanim), then the Paschal offering, a lower-order offering — how much more so should its blood be sprinkled on the unclean ones and its flesh be eaten by the clean ones! Moses; I have not heard (the halachah). (Ibid. 8) "Stand, and I will hear (what the L-rd will command concerning you") — as one would say: "I will hear the thing from my teacher's mouth." Happy the woman's son who was so confident that whenever he wished He would speak with him! R. Chidka said: Shimon Hashikmoni was a colleague of mine of the disciples of R. Akiva, and he said: Moses knew that a tamei does not eat the Pesach offering. What was their dispute? As to whether the blood is sprinkled upon them or not. It were fitting that the section on the tamei'im be related (independently) by Moses. Why was it related through them? For merit is conveyed through the meritorious and liability through the liable.

(Bamidbar 9:9-10) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel, saying: A man if he be unclean by a dead body, etc.": This is something that he (Moses) asked (of the L-rd). "or on a distant way": This is something that he did not ask. "if he be unclean by a dead body." This tells me only of one who is tamei by a dead body. Whence do I derive (the same [i.e., that Pesach Sheni is observed] for) other types of tumah? From "or if he were on a distant way." You induce (binyan av) from both, viz.: "tamei by a dead body" is not like "distant way," and "distant way" is not like "tamei by a dead body." What is common to both is that one who did not observe the first Pesach observes Pesach Sheni — So, all who could not observe the first Pesach observe Pesach Sheni. "on a distant way": I do not know what constitutes "a distant way." R. Akiva says: It is written "tamei by a dead body" and "distant way." Just as in the fist instance, he desired to observe but could not, so, in the second, he desired to observe but could not; and the sages delimited ("distant way" as applying to) anyone who at the time of the slaughtering of the Paschal lamb was at a distance from Modi'im (fifteen miles from Jerusalem) and beyond, along the entire circumference. R. Eliezer says "distant way" is stated in respect to the tithe (viz. Devarim 14:24), and "distant way" is stated in respect to Pesach. Just as "distant way" in respect to the tithe connotes outside the place where it is eaten, so, "distant way" in respect to Pesach. Which is the place where it is eaten? From the entrance of Jerusalem within. R. Yehudah says: "distant way" is stated in respect to Pesach, and "distant way" is stated in respect to the tithe. Just as "distant way" in respect to Pesach connotes outside the place of its (the Paschal lamb's) fitness, (i.e., the azarah [the Temple court]) so, "distant way" in respect to the tithe. And what is the place of its fitness? (All of Jerusalem) from the azarah outwards.