Commentary for Numbers 9:6

לפני משה ולפני אהרן [AND THERE WERE CERTAIN MEN, WHO … COULD NOT KEEP THE PASSOVER AND THEY CAME] BEFORE MOSES AND BEFORE AARON — At a time when both were sitting together in the House of Study they came and put this question to them. It would not be correct to say — as the words “”before Moses and before Aaron” might suggest — that they came to them one after the other, because if Moses did not know the reply whence could Aaron know it? (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 68; Bava Batra 119b).

And there were (literally, was) men, etc.: One needs to know why it used the singular form for the many. And also why was it necessary to say, and they could not make the Pesach offering, since it informed us that they were impure. And maybe it is from the angle of that which God commanded on Rosh Chodesh (the first day of the month) about the Pesach offering, as they explained in Pesachim 6a, that the statement (Numbers 9:2), "And the Jews shall make the Pesach offering," was on Rosh Chodesh Nissan. And it would have been proper to guard against impurity [to reach the day of the offering, the fourteenth of Nissan, in a state of purity]. And one might attribute a defect to them that they did not keep the commandment of God and that they became impure and did not concern themselves with the commandment of the Pesach. Hence the verse teaches to say, And there was in the singular form, to say that there was only one matter of impurity by which [all of these] people became impure. And that matter of impurity was not in their power to guard from and they became impure against their will, as per their statement, may their memory be blessed (Sukkah 25a-b). Whether according to Rabbi Yose the Galilean who said that they were the carriers of Yosef's coffin, whether according to Rabbi Akiva or whether according to Rabbi Yitzchak who said they were impure from involvement with a corpse that required burial (met mitsvah), they needed to become impure - even if they knew that their impurity would last through the fourteenth. And this is to what the statement, and they could not make the Pesach offering hints to, saying that they could not guard themselves from impurity to make the Pesach offering. And about its stating, on that day, the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, already made a precise inference (Pesachim 90b) - for one master according to his opinion and for [the other] master according to his opinion. It also wanted to say by using the singular form that it was from the angle of their being individuals that that the could not do the Pesach offering, but if they had been the community, they could have done the Pesach offering, as it can come in impurity [in such circumstances]. Later I saw in the Sifrei of the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, that they made such a precise inference.

V. 6. ולא יבלו לעשת הפסח וגו׳. Selbst wenn in dem במועדו des zweiten und dritten Verses bereits die Bestimmung gegeben war, dass das פסח unter allen, selbst unter טומאה-Umständen nicht zu unterbleiben habe, so konnte doch ein noch erst zu lösender Zweifel vorwalten. Wir haben gesehen, dass neben dem Begriff שזמנו קבוע, doch auch der Begriff קרבן צבור nicht seine Bedeutung einbüßt. Wenngleich auch קרבן יחיד שזמנו קבוע, wie פר יה׳׳כ und חביתי כה׳׳ג, nicht vor der טומאה zurückstehen, so ist doch einerseits, wie bereits bemerkt, der כה׳׳ג bei solchem Opfer nicht als Individuum schlechthin, sondern in seiner nationalen Gesamtheitsstellung zu begreifen, andererseits würde auch, wenn diese Opfer nicht דוחי טומאה wären, im טומאה-Falle das Opfer überhaupt zur bestimmten Zeit völlig ausfallen. Das פסח ist aber das einzige קרבן צבור, bei welchem das צבור nicht in seiner Gesamtheit, sondern in seiner ganzen Vielheit auftritt, und es bedurfte sehr wohl noch der Aufklärung, welche Stellung der einzelne in dieser Gesamtvielheit zum Opfer einnehme. Wohl konnte es klar entschieden sein, טומאה dass, wenn die Gesamtheit, oder eine der Gesamtheit gleichgeltende Mehrheit durch verhindert wäre, das פסח zu vollziehen, und so das Gesamtheitsopfer במועדו unterbleiben müsste, dann טומאה vor במועדו zurücktrete. Allein, wenn eine solche Verhinderung nur einzelne träfe, konnte es eine noch nicht entschiedene Alternative geben. Es konnte sein, dass in einem solchen Falle, da doch objektiv dem Opfer durch die Gesamtheit במועדו Genüge geleistet wird und nur die subjektive Obliegenheit einzelner nicht zur Erfüllung käme, diese zu unterbleiben habe. Oder es konnte diese subjektive, den einzelnen doch nur in zusammengehöriger Gleichzeitigkeit mit der Gesamtheit במועדו treffende Obliegenheit also wesentlich zum Ganzen gehören, dass auch sein במועדו die טומאה zurückdrängte und er בטומאה sein Opfer mit allen anderen Gesamtgenossen brächte. In der Tat fiel ja auch die Entscheidung (V. 10) negativ aus, und es wird in solchem Falle für einzelne ein פסח שני statuiert. Peßachim 90 b wird aus dem ביום ההוא des Berichtes, ולא יכלו לעשות הפסח ביום ההוא geschlossen, dass sie am folgenden Tage zur Darbringung des Opfers tauglich gewesen wären: טמאי מת מצוה היו שחל שביעי שלהן להיות בערב פסח שנאמר ולא יכלו לעשות הפסח ביום ההוא ביום ההוא הוא דאינן יכולין לעשות אבל למחר יכולין לעשות, sie waren demnach bereits am siebten Tage ihrer טומאה, an welchem der טמא מת durch הזיה und טבילה und הערב שמש, also an dem nach Sonnenuntergang neuen Tage wieder völlig טהור wird. Sie hätten also des Abends das פסח genießen können, waren aber gleichwohl für die Darbringung desselben unzulässig, weil ihnen בשעת שחיטה noch die טבילה fehlte. Es ist dies der Grundsatz אין שחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ, obgleich der selbe noch durch הליבט und שמש ברעה für den Abend טהור werden kann. Dieser Annahme zufolge hatten die Betreffenden allerdings bereits ihr פסח dargebracht, und nachher הזיה und טבילה vorgenommen, und der Zweifel kam ihnen erst, nachdem die Zeit für die nochmalige Darbringung eines פסח vorüber war. (Siehe ראב׳׳ד zu הל׳ קרבן פסח Vl, 2. רמב׳׳ם hat eine andere Auffassung; siehe מלמ׳ daselbst.)

לנפש אדם, by the dead body of a man; the reason the Torah defines the nature of these people's ritual impurity is to tell us that if their ritual impurity had been of a less severe nature such as due to contact with certain dead animals such as mice, etc., this would not have prevented them from eating of the Passover as their impurity would have ceased at sundown if they had immersed themselves in a ritual bath at some time during the fourteenth of Nissan (Pessachim 90). If a person had been ritually impure due to contact with a dead body he would not have been able to eat the Passover even if the last day of his purification rites (the seventh day) had occurred on the 14th of Nissan. The reason is that others would not have been allowed to slaughter it on his behalf on the fourteenth (the day it had to be slaughtered). We derive this restriction from the words ביום ההוא, on that day, which are interpreted to mean that he could only have been fit to eat it on the morrow of the fourteenth. Even if we were to understand the word ביום ההוא as referring to the actual impurity having occurred on the fourteenth, i.e. contact with a dead mouse on that day, the additional restrictive words לנפש אדם would still imply that others could slaughter the Passover for a person who had incurred only this minor kind of impurity.

ויהי אנשים, “There were certain men, etc.” this paragraph teaches that the legislation for a “second Passover”, i.e. instead of the original date, is applicable only to individuals but not to the whole congregation, regardless of why they could not observe the original date. This legislation was made public on the day that the Tabernacle had been erected, i.e. two weeks before the date of Passover, (Sifri on verse 13)

ויקרבו לפני משה, They approached Moses, etc. The reason they wanted Aaron present when they approached Moses was that in the event Moses would give a ruling that they could proceed with their part in the Passover, Aaron would receive immediate instructions to slaughter the lamb on their behalf. Our sages in Baba Batra 119 phrased their amazement as follows: "Is it conceivable that they stood in front of Moses and turned to Aaron when Moses did not know? Whence would Aaron know if Moses did not know?" Rabbi Yoshiah answers that we must view this verse as having been truncated (not presented in the proper sequence) and interpret it in this light. Abba Chanan, quoting Rabbi Eliezer felt that the people in question did indeed stand facing both Moses, Aaron, as well as the elders simultaneously having encountered all of them in the hall of study where they had come to enquire from Moses about their status. Thus far the Talmud. What precisely was the difference of opinion of the scholars quoted there? According to the Talmud the problem that faced the scholars was whether one accords respect to subordinates in the presence of their superiors, i.e. should the enquirers display respect for Aaron and the elders in the presence of Moses, etc.? The decision arrived at by the Talmud is that one does not accord respect to the subordinates when their superiors are present. At the same time, the Talmud says that the decision is that one does accord honour to the subordinates in the presence of their superiors. How do we reconcile these conflicting statements? The Talmud resolves this quandary by saying that whenever the superior is himself perceived as according honour to his subordinates we too must honour the subordinates even when we are in the presence of their superiors. However, when the superiors are not seen according honour to their subordinates we must not do so either whilst their superiors are present. This proves that Rabbi Yoshiah on the one hand and Abba Chanan on the other are wide apart in their views on the subject. The former holds that even in a situation where the superior is seen to accord honour to his subordinates one is not allowed to accord honour to the subordinates in the presence of their superiors, (and this is why the verse has to be understood that after having enquired from the elders and then from Aaron and not having received a ruling, these Levites finally went to Moses himself to get a ruling). Abba Chanan holds that one does accord honour to the subordinates in the presence of their superiors even when their superior is not seen as according honour to them.

אשר היו טמאים לנפש אדם, “who had become ritually impure due to contact with a dead human body;” according to Rabbi Yitzchok, if these people’s impurity stemmed from the fact that they had been the carriers of the ark in which the remains of Joseph were being transported, they would have had time enough to purify themselves as the people had been stationary since the first of month at the latest. On the other hand, if these men were the ones who had carried the caskets in which Nadav and Avihu were being carried, they had plenty of time to purify themselves as these two men had died on the eighth day of Nissan; the Tabernacle had been erected on the first day of Nissan; on the second day of Nissan Eleazar had burned the red heifer (Jerusalem Talmud, Megillah, 3,3) and according to the Talmud in tractate Gittin on that day eight different subjects were revealed, one of them being the one containing the legislation about the red heifer. Seeing that the two sons of Aaron died on the first day of Nissan, according to parshat Sh’mini, these men could have completed their purification rites already on the eighth day of that month, in plenty of time before Passover. We are left therefore with the question whose death had caused their ritual impurity? The only answer that is reasonable is that they became ritually impure through burying someone who had no relatives who could bury him, and they fulfilled this commandment, something that if it occurred to a High Priest even he would have been obliged to attend to. (Compare Sifri)

We need to examine why the Talmud describes the difference of opinion between Rabbi Yoshiah and Abba Chanan as so wide. This is contrary to an accepted principle in the Talmud to try and present any divergence of opinions by different scholars as minimal rather than as maximal. If we were unaware whether the discussion between these two Rabbis took place in an instance where the superior did accord honour to his subordinate or not, why does the Talmud arrive at the conclusion that these two scholars argued across the board when it would have been easier to present their conflicting views as pertaining to two different situations and thus narrow them? The Talmud should have told us the final decision only after having presented the views of the two scholars without mentioning the context in which they disagreed and explaining that they addressed themselves to different circumstances.

ולא יכלו לעשות הפסח, “so that they had been unable to observe the commandment of offering the Passover.

I believe the reason that the Talmud was forced to present the disagreement between these scholars as wide-ranging was because of the examples in whose context their opinions were expressed. If these scholars disagreed about whether to accord honour to the subordinates in the presence of their superiors regardless of how the superiors related to the subordinates the argument quoted in the Talmud makes sense. If, however, they disagreed only in one of the two situations where the subordinates were in the presence of their superiors when a query was addressed to the latter, why did the Talmud not say that in the alternative situation the two scholars do not disagree? It is clear that the reason the Talmud was forced to present the argument covering both situations in which the subordinates are present when their superiors are being asked for a ruling is the fact that Rabbi Yoshiah saw himself compelled to reverse the apparent meaning of our verse. He would not have read it as if the words "in the presence of Moses" had appeared at the end of the verse rather than at the beginning except for the fact that he held that even when the superior accords honour to the subordinate in his presence, others are not allowed to do so.

ביום ההוא, “on that day.” The emphasis on the word ההוא suggests that if Passover had commenced only a single day later, these people would have completed their purification rites in time. In other words, their last day of purification rites occurred on Passover eve. (Sifri)

Surely Rabbi Yoshiah would have preferred not to have done violence to the sequence of the wording in our verse if he had been able to reconcile the wording as it stands with his view regarding whether one accords honour to the subordinates in the presence of their superiors at least when the superior himself is seen to do so! Had Rabbi Yoshiah held that when the superior is seen according honour to his subordinate when in his presence we too must accord such honour to the subordinates, he would not have needed to reverse the position of Moses in our verse, but would have explained simply that Moses was in the habit of according honour to his subordinates when they were in his presence. In view of the fact that Moses was the most humble man that ever lived, it would have sounded perfectly reasonable to argue that he did indeed accord honour to his subordinates in his presence. This would have been even more reasonable in view of the fact that his brother Aaron was his senior! Moreover, we find (Mechilta Parshat Bo 12,1) that when Moses and Aaron both stood in front of Pharaoh that Moses accorded honour to Aaron by letting him speak first.

When Rabbi Yoshiah insisted that our verse does not describe matters in the order in which they occurred, he made it plain that he holds that one does not accord honour to the subordinates in the presence of their superiors regardless of whether the superior accords honour to them or not. We find a similar argument between these scholars in the paragraph dealing with the daughters of Tzelotchod where the Torah describes them as standing in the presence of Moses and Eleazar (Numbers 27,2). The Sifri on that verse asks how it was possible that the daughters of Tzelofchod expected Eleazar to know something that Moses himself did not know? The answer given in the name of Rabbi Yoshiah is that we must read the verse in a reverse order, i.e. that the daughters of Tzelofchod only approached Moses after the High Priest Eleazar had been unable to give them a satisfactory answer. On the other hand, Abba Chanan gives the same answer that he gave in connection with our verse, i.e. that the daughters of Tzelofchod went looking for Moses and they found both Moses and Eleazar as well as the elders and the community at the entrance of the Tabernacle where they were engaged in studying Torah. The fact that Rabbi Yoshiah saw himself forced to rearrange the sequence of the words in Numbers also clearly shows that he held that the princes were not in the habit of showing honour to the people at large while they were in the presence of Moses. It is even less likely that Rabbi Yoshiah could conceive of Moses, the king of Israel, going out of his way to accord honour to the entire congregation. Nonetheless Abba Chanan held that even when the superior, i.e. Moses, did not accord special honour to his subordinates, outsiders must accord honour to their superiors even in the presence of a king who himself had not accorded honour to such people who were at one and the same time superior to the multitude but subordinate to Moses. The reason the argument between Rabbi Yoshiah and Abba Chanan is reported on two different occasions in connection with two separate events is that the two scholars were so far apart in their viewpoints.