Les Nombres 9:10 Références du Talmud : Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim, Jerusalem Talmud Nazir & Avot DeRabbi Natan

MISHNAH: He who was impure or on a far trip and did not make the First shall make the Second¹A person impure and/or at a distance from Jerusalem on the afternoon of the 14^th of Nisan is obligated to bring a Pesaḥ on the 14^th of Iyar.. If in error or by force²He was pure and in Jerusalem on the 14th of Nisan but forcibly prevented from participating in a Pesaḥ. he did not make the First shall make the Second. If this is so, why was it said³Num. 9:9. impure or on a far trip? Because these are not liable for extirpation⁴The Second Pesaḥ is a positive commandment for which no penalties are indicated in case of omission, in contrast to the First whose intentional omission is a deadly sin implying extirpation. In contrast to the Babli (93b), the Yerushalmi does not expect that those who missed the First in error or by force are subject to extirpation if they intentionally miss the Second. but those are liable for extirpation.

HALAKHAH: “He who was impure,” etc. Impure by a corpse⁵Num. 9:10., I not only have impure by a corpse, from where forced or in error? The verse says, every man, [it added]⁶Babli 93a.. So far following Rebbi Aqiba; following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated, impure by a corpse is not equal to a far-away trip, nor is a far-away trip equal to impure by a corpse, what is common to them⁷This is the third hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael. Sifry Num. 69, Tosephta 8:2 (in the name of R. Aqiba); Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 9:10. is that he did not make the First and shall make the Second; also I am adding those forced or in error who did not make the First that they shall make the Second. Intentional from where? Rebbi Zeˋira said, but the man, to add the one acting intentionally⁸Num. 9:13: But the man who was pure.
This contradicts the position of R. Aqiba in the Tosephta, that both those impure by a corpse and those on a far trip are prevented from making the First Pesaḥ and therefore the third hermeneutical principle excludes the one who intentionally omitted the First even though he was pure and not far away. Cf. Babli 93a/b.. We have stated; “if in error or by force;” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, “if in error, or by force, or intentional.⁹Tosephta 8:1.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this, “because these are not liable for extirpation but those are liable for extirpation;” who is subject to extirpation if not intentional?

From where about a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis: “Or on a far trip for you.⁵⁸Num. 9:10, detailing the rules of “Second Passover” for people impure or absent on the 14^th of Nisan.” What is open for you, including everything in the open. This excludes the case of a grave in the abyss which is not open⁵⁹This and the following paragraphs are copied from Pesaḥim 7:7. In the present paragraph, the main text is missing. Both for the person going to celebrate the Passover sacrifice and the nazir who finished his term, the impurity caused by a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss is disregarded. In view of the central role of purity in everything connected with the Sanctuary, it is obvious that some biblical justification has to be found for the rule. In the case of Passover, the argument notes that the verse could have stated that a person “on a far trip” was required to celebrate the Second Passover. The addition “for you” seems to be superfluous. It is interpreted to mean just as the road is open to the wanderer, so the impurity has to be in the open for the impure person. The same argument is in the Babli, Pesaḥim 81b.
What is missing here is the argument for the nazir who had finished his term. In Pesaḥim 7:7 (34c bottom), R. Joḥanan in the name of R. Yannai quotes Num. 6:9: “If a person dies suddenly on him”, and explains the expression “over him” to indicate that it has to be in the open:.