Pesach Sheni
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Daf Ditty Pesachim 92: Pesach Sheni Num 9:10 1 2 Anyone who was ritually impure or on a long journey and did not observe the first must observe the second. If, because of error or force of circumstances, one did not observe the first one must observe the second. In which case, why does it specify 'ritually impure or on a long journey'? - The former are excused the excision and the latter incur excision. 1: The first subject to be treated in this tractate's penultimate chapter is what we have previously termed the Alternative Passover. We have had occasion to mention this matter several times already, but, as promised, this is the appropriate place to explain its biblical origins. 2: So important and so crucially essential does the Torah hold the celebration of the Passover 3 to be that it annually introduces a 'second chance' for participation for those who were unable to participate in the general celebration in Nisan. (This is the only festival in the calendar to receive such treatment.) At the very beginning of our study of this tractate [RMSG Pesaĥim 2] I pointed out that the Torah seems to be speaking of two separate festivals: the festival of the Passover and the festival of Matzah. The former takes place on Nisan 14th and the latter lasts for seven days, Nisan 15th to 21st. The main observance of the former is the slaughter and preparation of the paschal lamb, whereas the main observance of the latter is the prohibition of leaven and the eating of matzah. Indeed, I pointed out that the very name of the tractate, Pesaĥim, indicates 'Paschal lambs' and not 'Passover festivals'. 3: It was the observance of the ceremony of the Paschal lamb that was considered to be crucial to the Jewish ethos, and it is this aspect of Passover that is observed in the 'Alternative Passover'. As we shall see later in this chapter its observance only involves the eating of a paschal lamb together with matzah and maror, it lasts for only one day and does not involve the prohibition of ĥametz. Indeed, the most obvious indication of the paramountcy of the paschal ceremony in this regard is the fact that the 'Alternative' falls on Iyyar 14th and not Iyyar 15th, i.e. exactly one month after the ceremony of the slaughter of the paschal lamb and not one month after the beginning of the festival of Unleavened Bread. 4: The Torah [Numbers 9:9-13] makes the following provision: אבּשׁכּ משַׁדּרִנטללבּ־היא־י יוֹא ִשׂיאא נימהְֶ ֵשׁרֵי ְִָ ָיפלאר ֶלֵאֶ ְִִֵֵֶָֹ יָלהוה: ַספח וﬠֶַשׂה ְיָרָדתלכם ְֵֶֹֹאוֹ ל כם ֶָרקחה רד ְְֶבmְֶֶָ mָֹר ָקהכ ְֹא ירדלםוַשׂ סחילו: דַבּשׁהשּׁח יֶבֵַֹּנ הםיןֵבּﬠשׂﬠהרִא רָבּ ְ מםַיַבְּֽרָָָﬠָוַֹי ﬠמאתי ִצּוֹתﬠוּוּרשׂ ְוֹ ְֲַֹםַלר־ ִ־שׁוּ:הלֹלאיכיַֹ ְֹֻאי ַ ְ מּומרקבּ םדצﬠﬠ־ רֹוּוּ נּ ִִֶאֶיְֶֶַ נּ רֹוּוּ םדצﬠﬠ־ מּומרקבּ אֹל ְבִּשׁי וֹב־וְּר ְככּ ֻקּח־לָ ַ ת פַּ ה סֶ חַ וּשֲׂﬠַ י :וֹתֹא הְ ו אָ שׁיִ ֲשׁא אוּה־רֶ רוֹהָ ט בוּ דְ רֶ mֶ ה־אֹל יָ הָ חְ ו דָ לַ ַ תוֹשֲׂﬠֽ ל פַּ ה סֶ חַ נְ ו כִ רְ ְת הָ נַּ ה פֶ ֶ שׁ שׁ אמַהה כָּהֵַמִּﬠו ִקיֶי ְַןבָּר להְוהי ֹאהָ יבּבְִרק ֲחוֹדְֹﬠִמ וֶֹאט אָהשַׁהוּאה:ְשּׂאי ִָיִ God told Moses to say to the Israelites: If any of you or of your descendents is ritually impure by reason of a dead body, or is on a long journey, he shall still keep the God's Passover. In the second month, on the fourteenth day at evening they shall keep it; they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. They shall leave none of it until the morning, nor break a bone of it. According to all the law of the paschal lamb they shall keep it. But the person who is clean, and is not on a journey, and fails to keep the Passover, that soul shall be cut off t offer the offering of God in its appointed season, thatעfrom his people. Because he didn man shall bear his sin. 5: Our present mishnah relates to the two reasons why, according to the Torah, someone might have been prevented from observing the original celebration at the appointed time: they may have been ritually impure at the time or they may have been on a long journey. Previous mishnayot that we have studied recently have dealt with the issue of ritual impurity in connection with the paschal lamb, and the next mishnah in this chapter will attempt a definition of 'a long journey'. However, our present mishnah adds two other considerations which are not specifically mentioned in the Torah: 'error' and 'force of circumstances'. 4 (Force of circumstances in this context means circumstances over which one has no control, such as illness or involuntary incarceration.) 6: The very phrasing of our mishnah is awkward, and deliberately so. It would have been so much clearer to state that the Alternative Passover is for 'anyone who was ritually impure, on a long journey, in error or because of force of circumstances'. The repetitiousness noted in our mishnah is in order to indicate that the first two reasons do not have the same implications as the other two. If one was not able to observe the original Pesaĥ because of ritual impurity or being on a long journey and one also fails to observe the second opportunity one is not held to be liable to the doom of excision imposed by the Torah [Numbers 9:13] for non-observance. The reason is that one was legitimately excused at the original time. However, if one did not observe the paschal ceremony in Nisan for the other two reasons and also failed to observe it in Iyyar one is held to be liable to the penalty of excision for non-observance. MISHNA: One who was ritually impure or on a distant journey and did not observe the first Pesaḥ by participating in the offering of the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth of Nisan should observe the second Pesaḥ by participating in the offering on the fourteenth of Iyyar. If one unwittingly forgot or was prevented due to circumstances beyond his control and did not observe the first Pesaḥ, he too should observe the second Pesaḥ. If so, that the second Pesaḥ is observed even by someone who forgot or was prevented from observing the first Pesaḥ, why is it stated in the Torah that the second Pesaḥ is observed only by one who was ritually impure or on a distant journey? These cases were specified in order to teach that these two groups of people are exempt from karet if they do not observe the second Pesaḥ, but those who 5 were not ritually impure or on a distant journey are liable to receive karet, as the Gemara will explain. 6 GEMARA: It was stated that the amora’im disagreed about the following issue: If one was on a distant journey and others slaughtered the Paschal lamb and sprinkled its blood on his behalf, and he arrived in time to eat the Paschal lamb, does he need to observe the second Pesaḥ since he was far away at the time that the sacrifice was offered? Rav Naḥman said: His offering was accepted, and he need not observe the second Pesaḥ. Rav Sheshet said: His offering was not accepted, and he must sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ. The Gemara explains their opinions. Rav Naḥman said: His offering was accepted because the Torah has mercy on one who was on a distant journey and allows him the option of observing the second Pesaḥ; but if he nonetheless did participate in the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ, may blessing come upon him. And Rav Sheshet said: His offering is not accepted because the Torah deferred his observance to the second Pesaḥ just as it does for one who is ritually impure. Just as one who is ritually impure may not voluntarily participate in the Paschal lamb, neither may one who is on a distant journey. Rav Naḥman said: From where do I say my opinion? As we learned in the mishna: One who was ritually impure or on a distant journey and did not observe the first Pesaḥ should observe the second Pesaḥ. The expression: And did not observe, indicates by inference that regarding one who was on a distant journey, had he wished, he could have observed it and would thereby be exempt from participating in the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ. And Rav Sheshet said in response: If so, consider the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches: If one unwittingly forgot or was prevented due to circumstances beyond his control and did not observe the first Pesaḥ, he should observe the second Pesaḥ. According to your reasoning, from the fact that it is 7 taught: And did not observe, conclude by inference that had he wished, he could have observed it. However, this is not possible, as the mishna states explicitly that he unwittingly forgot or was prevented due to circumstances beyond his control and was unable to observe the first Pesaḥ. 8 Rather, the mishna must be explained differently, as follows: Even though it does not say so explicitly, the mishna is teaching with the phrase: And he did not observe, the case of one who intentionally refrained from observing the first Pesaḥ together with the other cases in the mishna. Here, too, in the first part of the mishna, the phrase: And he did not observe, must be understood as including another category of people: It is teaching the case of an acute mourner, i.e., one whose relative died that same day and has not yet been buried, together with the other cases.