Talmud su Numeri 9:25

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: “There are four New Year’s Days,” etc. It is written⁴Ex. 12:2. The verse establishes that months are counted from the month of the spring equinox, post-exilic (Accadic) called Nisan., this month shall be for you the head of the months. For you it is the head of the months but it is head neither for years nor for Sabbatical periods nor for Jubilees⁵It is clear from Lev.25 that Sabbaticals and Jubilees are counted from the end of the agricultural year in the month of the fall equinox. nor for planting⁶To determine the years of `orlah, when no fruit may be taken. nor for vegetables⁷To determine the year for purposes of the tithe since inferred from Deut. 14:22, which requires agricultural tithe being given year by year, that no tithe may be given from produce of one year for produce grown in another.. And I could say, for you it is the head of the months but it is head neither for kings nor for holidays. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is written⁸2Chr.3:2., he started to build in the second month, in the second,⁹The text is ambiguous. The later derivations read it as a repetition: He started to build in the second month, the second month of the fourth year; in the style of Gen. 8:5. If the same number is used to describe the month in the sequence of months and the month in the year, it follows that the year must start with month one. in the fourth year of his reign. It bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan. Or is it only the second in the month? Any place where the second day in the month is intended it is explicit¹⁰This is how the unofficial Targum of 2Chr.3:2 reads it: He started to build on the second day of the second month of the fourth year; a reading also rejected in the Babli 3a since it always is stated as “day nin the month.”. Or is it only the second in the week? We do not find this count in the Torah¹¹Babli 3a.. But is it not written, it was evening and it was morning, the second day¹²Gen. 1:8.? One makes no inferences from the Creation of the World¹³Since they are God’s days, not human days.. Which one is the second of the months and which one is the second of the years¹⁴In 2Chr.3:2.? Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Mana. One said, he started to build in the second month, that is the second of the months; in the second, that is the second in the year. But the other one, even if you switch it does not change anything. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood it from the following: This month is for you, an exclusion. The first it be for you, [an exclusion.] An exclusion after an exclusion is to include¹⁵A general principle in both Talmudim. Peah6:9 Note 154, Yebamot 12:1 Note10, Soṭah 9:2 Note 63, Horaiot1:1 Note 9 q. v., Megillah4:4 75b l.14; Babli Megillah23b, Yoma43a, Bava qamma15b, Bava batra15a, Sanhedrin15a,44b,66a, Makkot9b, Ševuot7b, Menaḥot9b,67a, Ḥulin132a. for kings and holidays. Could one include for years, or for Sabbatical periods, or for Jubilees, or for planting, or for vegetables? Following what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said: It is written, he started to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign. It bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph: He started to build in the second month, that is the second of the months; in the second, that is the second in the year. And when he says, in the fourth year of his reign, it bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan. Samuel stated and disagreed¹⁶He holds that the count of years depends on the political circumstances.: In the third month of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt¹⁷Ex. 19:1.. From here that one counts months from the exodus from Egypt. Not only months, from where years? The Eternal spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai in the second year¹⁸Num. 9:1.. Not only at that time, from where later? In the fortieth year of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt¹⁹Num. 33:38. Babli 2b. Not only temporarily, from where for later generations? It was in the 480th year of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt²⁰1K.6:1., etc. After the Temple had been built they started to count from its building: It was at the end of twenty years after Salomon built the two houses²¹1K. 9:1.. They did not merit to count from its building, they started counting from its destruction: In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, on New Year’s Day, on the tenth of the month²²Ez. 40:1. In a Jubilee year, New Year’s day is moved to the Day of Atonement; cf. the author’s edition of Seder Olam(Northvale 1998), pp. 118–119, Note 4., etc. They did not merit to count for themselves, they started counting regnal years, [as it is written,] in year two of Darius²³Ḥaggai1:1.; in year three of Cyrus, king of Persia²⁴Dan. 10:1.. And I am saying, ⁸2Chr.3:2.he started to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign. It bracketed the fourth year of his reign with the second of the months. Since the second of the months is only counted from Nisan, also the second in the fourth year of his reign is only counted from Nisan.

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?

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?

HALAKHAH: “The following items about the Pesaḥ,” etc. ⁷Babli 66a; Tosephta 4:13–14. This question left the Elders of Bathyra at a loss. Once the Fourteenth fell on the Sabbath and they did not know whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not. They said, we have here a Babylonian who served Shemaya and Avtalion⁸The heads of the Pharisaic establishment in the preceding generation. and knows whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not. It is possible that there be hope from him. They sent and called him. The said to him, did you ever hear, if the Fourteenth falls on the Sabbath, whether Pesaḥ pushes aside the Sabbath or not? He told them, do we have only one Pesaḥ which pushes aside the Sabbath every year? Are there not many Pesaḥim which push aside the Sabbath every year? There are Tannaim who state: 100. There are Tannaim who state: 200. There are Tannaim who state: 300. He who says 100, the daily sacrifices of the Sabbath. He who says 200, the daily and additional sacrifices of the Sabbath. He who says 300, the daily and additional sacrifices of the Sabbath, and of holidays, and of New Moons, and of semi-holidays. They told him, already we said, there is hope from you. He started to explain to them by analogy, by an argument de minore ad majus, and by equal cut. By analogy: The daily sacrifice is a public offering and Pesaḥ is a public offering. Since the daily sacrifice as a public offering pushes aside the Sabbath, also Pesaḥ as a public offering pushes aside the Sabbath. By an argument de minore ad majus. Since the daily sacrifice, whose action is not subject to extirpation, pushes aside the Sabbath, it is only logical that Pesaḥ, whose action is subject to extirpation, push aside the Sabbath. By equal cut. It is said about the daily sacrifice, at its fixed time⁹Num. 28:2., and it is said about Pesaḥ, at its fixed time¹⁰Num. 9:2.. They said to him, we already said, is there hope from a Babylonian? The analogy which you proposed can be answered. No, if you said this about daily sacrifices which are fixed in number, what can you infer for Pesaḥ which is not fixed in number? The argument de minore ad majus which you proposed can be answered. No, if you said this about daily sacrifices which are most holy, what can you infer for Pesaḥ which is a simple sacrifice¹¹The relationship between daily sacrifice and Pesaḥ is not that of minor and major; the argument is intrinsically invalid.? Concerning the equal cut which you proposed, nobody can introduce an equal cut by himself¹²Equal expressions in the Pentateuch imply equal legal status only if there is a documented tradition that these words were written for this purpose. Babli 66a..

One asks about practices of Passover at Passover, practices of Pentecost at Pentecost, practices of Tabernacles at Tabernacles⁶⁸Babli Megillah 4a. Sifry Num. 66.. In the House of Assembly one asks thirty days in advance; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, two weeks⁶⁹Babli Pesaḥim 6a.. The statement of Rebbi Joḥanan follows the rabbis, that of the colleagues Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of the rabbis, because Moses stands on the First Passover and explains to them the rules of Second Passover⁷⁰The rules of the Second Passover to be celebrated on the 14^th of Iyar by people impure on the 14^th of Nisan were promulgated on the 13^th of Nisan, Num.9:9–14.. That of the colleagues follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, because Moses stands on the day of the New Moon and explains to them the rules of Passover⁷¹Num. 9:1–4..

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon said, the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya and bar Qappara disagreed. One said, that he could come and eat³⁴A person is not ”far away” to be absolved from participating in the First Pesaḥ if he can reach the walled city of Jerusalem in time for the eating of the Pesaḥ, i. e., between nightfall and midnight.; the other one said that he could come and pour³⁵He must be there at the time of pouring the blood at the altar walls, in the late afternoon.. And even following him who said, that he could come and eat; on condition that he be within the two thousand cubits of the [Sabbath] domain before nightfall³⁶Since on the holiday he is not permitted to walk more than 2’000 cubits from the place at which he started the holiday, it is clear that nobody farther than 2’000 cubits from Jerusalem at sundown can participate.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, there³⁷In Babylonia. In the text of the extracts from the Yerushalmi in Yalqut Šimony published by L. Ginzberg in his Genizah Fragments (p. 321): “Tannaim state.” they stated, if he happened to be closer than Modiˋin but his feet were bad, I could think that he be liable, the verse said, he refrained³⁸Num. 9:13., this excludes one who did not refrain. If he happened to be farther than Modiˋin but had a horse at his disposal, I could think that he be liable, the verse said, and he was not on a trip, this excludes this one who was on a trip. If he happened to be closer than Modiˋin before noontime but left before noontime, I could think that he be liable, the verse said, he refrained from doing, he who refrains at the time of doing is liable, not at the time of doing is not liable.

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:.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But the man who is pure and was not on the road³⁸Num. 9:13., this excludes the one on the road. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: when He warned, He mentioned far away, when He punishes He does not mention “far away”⁴¹“Far away” is mentioned in Num. 9:9, where the Second Pesaḥ is defined, but missing in 9:13 where omission of both Pesaḥim is declared to be a deadly sin.. But the rabbis are saying, in case that the letters are more than what is dotted, one explains the letters and disregards what is dotted; in case that the dotted is more than the letters, one explains the dotted and disregards the letter⁴²As in Gen. 18:9 where א֗לי֗ו֗ is read as איו “where?”. Rebbi⁴²As in Gen. 18:9 where א֗לי֗ו֗ is read as איו “where?” said, even though that in this case there is only one letter dotted on top, one explains the dotted and disregards the letters. The he in רחוקה is dotted: the man is far away, not the road far away.

⁶⁰While the text in Pesaḥim 7:7 is not without its problems, it is clear that the text there has to be taken as the source; the copyist here neither understood nor proofread what he wrote. If the public became publicly⁶¹The word is [correctly] missing in Pesaḥim; a case of doubtful impurity in the public domain is always resolved by a presumption of purity (Soṭah 1:2, Note 88). impure in a doubtful case of a grave in the abyss, does the diadem make it acceptable⁶²About the diadem worn by the High Priest, Ex. 28:38 states: “It shall be on Aaron’s forehead; Aaron shall carry the iniquity of the sacrificial gifts which the Children of Israel will dedicate, all their holy gifts; it shall always be on his forehead, to be accepted for them before the Eternal.” The action of the diadem, to make somewhat questionable sacrifices, e. g., those offered while using one of the legal fictions that may be used to overlook possible impurities, is therefore called “to make it acceptable.”? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since in the case of a single person, whose position you clarified to his disadvantage in the case of known impurity⁶³A single person impure on the 14^th of Nisan is required to celebrate the Second Passover on the 14^th of Iyar while if the majority of the people are impure on the 14^th of Nisan the congregation celebrate Passover in impurity. In this respect the standing of a single person clearly is inferior to that of the majority of the people., you clarified to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss⁶⁴If a doubt (mentioned explicitly in Pesaḥim, understood here) arises about a “grave of the abyss” in a private domain, it is treated as if it were in the public domain (Note 61)., it should be only logical that for the public, whose position you clarified to its advantage in the case of known impurity, you should clarify it to its advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. A leniency which you apply to a single person you treat as a restriction for the public⁶⁵This disproves the previous argument. The rules of impurity for private persons and for the majority of the people are not comparable.. A leniency which you apply to a single person, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure before sprinkling, that he should eat the meat⁶⁶This text does not make any sense. The correct text is in Pesaḥim: “A leniency which you apply to a single person, viz., that if it became known to him before sprinkling he should be treated as if he became impure after sprinkling, so that he should not be pushed to the Second Passover. You treat that as restriction for the public, that if it became known to them after sprinkling it should be treated as if they became impure before sprinkling, that the meat should not be eaten.”
The first statement is derived from Mishnah Pesaḥim 7:7: “For a nazir and one who celebrates Passover who became impure in the impurity of the abyss, the diadem makes it acceptable.” The private person being involved in a possible impurity caused by a grave of the abyss never has to celebrate the Second Passover.
The second statement refers to Mishnaiot Pesaḥim 7:4–5. If the public are impure, the Passover sacrifice is slaughtered and eaten in impurity. But if it was slaughtered as pure and then it became impure or became known to be impure, it cannot be eaten.. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir is a restriction for the impure nazir⁶⁷This is a kind of headline for the following argument, rather than a case of dittography.. The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, so that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, that he should bring a sacrifice of impurity⁶⁸The intelligible text is in Pesaḥim: “The leniency which you apply to the pure nazir, viz., that if it became known to him before sprinkling he is treated as impure after sprinkling, so that he should not bring a sacrifice of impurity.” This is the statement of the Mishnah here, following the rabbis.. You treat it as a restriction for the impure nazir, that if it became known to him after sprinkling he is treated as somebody repeatedly becoming impure so that he has to bring a sacrifice of impurity for each single case⁶⁹But if the impure nazir became aware of the second impurity before he offered his sacrifice of impurity, he has to bring only one sacrifice.. As it was stated: If he repeatedly became impure, he has to bring a sacrifice for each single case⁷⁰Halakhah 6:8, Note 198.. If somebody is officiating⁷¹The Nazir text has עוֹבֵר “the passer-by” instead of עוֹבֵד “the officiating [priest]” passim. for the Passover sacrifice, does the diadem make it acceptable? It is a conclusion de minore ad maius. Since for the owners [of the Passover sacrifice] whose position you clarified to their disadvantage in the case of the infirm and the aged⁷²The Passover sacrifice has to be slaughtered in the name of those who will be eating it, its “subscribers” (Mishnah Pesaḥim 5:3, Ex. 12:4). An old person and an infirm one who cannot eat meat in the volume of an olive may not subscribe to the Passover sacrifice, but as long as they do not exhibit a disability which disqualifies them (Lev. 21:18–20), old or infirm priests may serve in the Temple., you clarified to their advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss, it should be only logical that for the officiating, whose position you clarified to his advantage in the case of the infirm and the aged, you should clarify it to his advantage in the case of a grave in the abyss. No. For the owners [of sacrifices] you clarify to their disadvantage⁷³The correct reading “advantage” is in Pesaḥim. An impure person (including a nazir not impure by the impurity of the dead) can send his sacrifices (other than the Passover sacrifice) to the Temple by a pure agent, but an impure priest cannot officiate, irrespective of the nature of his impurity. in the case of impurity during the rest of the year; you also say for the officiating that you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year. Since you clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of impurity during the rest of the year, you also clarify their position to their disadvantage in the case of the impurity of the dead on Passover. How is it really? “For you⁵⁸Num. 9:10, detailing the rules of “Second Passover” for people impure or absent on the 14^th of Nisan.”, whether for him or for the one officiating for him. So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: We thought, “on him⁷⁴Num. 6:9: “If a person suddenly dies on him.” In Sifry Num. 28, the expression “if a person dies” is interpreted as stating a fact, not a suspicion. This is used to clear the nazir from any suspected, unproven impurity from the dead.”, not on the one officiating for him. Since we stated that the same rules apply to the nazir and to those celebrating Passover, it means that what holds for the one holds for the other⁷⁵Babli Pesaḥim 80b..

MISHNAH: Rebbi Aqiba answered, sprinkling⁶⁸Purifying a person impure by the impurity of the dead by sprinkling with water containing of the ashes of the Red Cow. In Second Temple times this was a public act (Mishnah Parah 11:4) not performed on the Sabbath. is a counter example, for it is a commandment and because of Sabbath rest does not push aside the Sabbath⁶⁹If the 14th of Nisan is a Sabbath and a person’s seventh day of impurity falls on that day, he may not be purified by sprinkling, but this is not biblically forbidden, and he has to celebrate his Pesaḥ on the 14th of Iyar. Cf. Mishnaiot 3,4.. So you should not wonder about these⁵⁵The Mishnah is a continuation of Mishnah 1, where R. Eliezer holds that all actions needed for the Pesaḥ push aside the Sabbath. The discussion in particular is about the list of rabbinically prohibited actions at the end of Mishnah 1, which are permitted by R. Eliezer but prohibited by the Sages (represented by R. Joshua.), even though they are commandments and because of Sabbath rest but shall not push aside the Sabbath.
Rebbi Eliezer said to him, about this I am arguing. Since slaughter, which is work, pushes the Sabbath aside, sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, shall push aside the Sabbath. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, or the other way. Since sprinkling, which is because of Sabbath rest, does not push aside the Sabbath, slaughter, which is work, shall not push the Sabbath aside⁸⁶Since it is agreed that the obligation to slaughter the Pesaḥ on the Sabbath if it is the 14th of Nisan is a biblical decree (Halakhah 6:1), what R. Aqiba proves is that biblical and rabbinic decrees cannot be compared in formal or informal arguments de minore ad majus..
Rebbi Eliezer said to him, Aqiba! You uprooted what is written in the Torah, between the evenings, at its fixed time⁸⁷Num. 9:2., whether on weekdays or on the Sabbath. He answered him, Rabbi, bring me a fixed time for these similar to the fixed time for slaughter⁸⁸There is no biblical authorization for preparations of the Pesaḥ to be executed in violation of Sabbath rules.. Rebbi Aqiba formulated a principle: Anything which can be done on Friday does not push the Sabbath aside. Slaughter which cannot be done on Friday pushes the Sabbath aside.

HALAKHAH: It is written: they shall not leave anything until morning⁴⁶Num. 9:12, stating the rules of the Second Pesaḥ.. If it relates to eating, this is the relevant positive commandment. No bone of it may be broken, that is the relevant prohibition. So when He says, according to all rules of the Pesaḥ they shall make it, I could think that I have to add the elimination of leavened matter and mazzah for seven days. The verse says, on mazzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it⁴⁷Num.9:11. Cf. Babli 95a.. Nothing external to its body impedes it except mazzot and bitter herbs. And following Rebbi Ismael? Since Rebbi Ismael says, a principle followed by a detail, everything is in the principle, I could think that everything impedes it; the verse says, on mazzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it. Nothing external to its body impedes it except mazzot and bitter herbs⁴⁸In Sifry Num. 69, the argument is based on another hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: “Anything mentioned in one setting and repeated in a different setting cannot be considered part of the original setting unless referred to explicitly by the verse.” Since the details, to be eaten with mazzah and bitter herbs, not to be left until morning, and no bone being broken, are repeated from the laws of the First Pesaḥ, they and only they are transferred to the Second..

HALAKHAH: It is written: they shall not leave anything until morning⁴⁶Num. 9:12, stating the rules of the Second Pesaḥ.. If it relates to eating, this is the relevant positive commandment. No bone of it may be broken, that is the relevant prohibition. So when He says, according to all rules of the Pesaḥ they shall make it, I could think that I have to add the elimination of leavened matter and mazzah for seven days. The verse says, on mazzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it⁴⁷Num.9:11. Cf. Babli 95a.. Nothing external to its body impedes it except mazzot and bitter herbs. And following Rebbi Ismael? Since Rebbi Ismael says, a principle followed by a detail, everything is in the principle, I could think that everything impedes it; the verse says, on mazzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it. Nothing external to its body impedes it except mazzot and bitter herbs⁴⁸In Sifry Num. 69, the argument is based on another hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: “Anything mentioned in one setting and repeated in a different setting cannot be considered part of the original setting unless referred to explicitly by the verse.” Since the details, to be eaten with mazzah and bitter herbs, not to be left until morning, and no bone being broken, are repeated from the laws of the First Pesaḥ, they and only they are transferred to the Second..

There are Tannaim who state that all of them are inferred from the Pesaḥ. There are Tannaim who state that each of them is inferred from its place. He who said that all of them are inferred from the Pesaḥ, since at its fixed time which is said (here) [about Pesaḥ pushes impurity aside, also at its fixed time which is written about all of them] pushes impurity aside⁷⁰Since it says (Lev.23:4): These are the times of the Eternal, holy convocations, which you have to proclaim at their fixed times. Cf. Chapter 6, Halakhah 1.. He who said that each of them is inferred from its place, from where does he have it? It comes as it is stated⁷¹Babli 77a, Menaḥot73a, Sifra Emor Pereq 17(13).: “Rebbi says, why does the verse say, Moses told the holidays of the Eternal⁷²Lev. 23:44.. Since we learned only about Pesaḥ and the daily sacrifices that they push the Sabbath aside, since it is said about them at its fixed time⁷³Num. 9:2, 28:2., from where the rest of public offerings? The verse says, these you shall offer to the Eternal at your fixed times⁷⁴Num. 29:39.. For the Omer and what is brought with it, and for the Two Breads and what is brought with them, we have no information. But since it is said, Moses told the holidays of the Eternal to the Children of Israel⁷¹Babli 77a, Menaḥot73a, Sifra Emor Pereq 17(13)., this fixed it as obligation that all of them have to be offered in impurity.” Just as they are brought in impurity, should they not be eaten in impurity? It is a decision of the verse: Any meat that touched anything impure may not be eaten⁷⁵Lev. 7:19.. One would say that the same is valid for the Pesaḥ. This is different since from the start this is what it is for⁶⁸Since it is written (Ex. 12:4), Everybody according to his eating you should slaughter the lamb..

Further [R. ‘Aḳiba] sat on the bench [and taught]: Good things are brought about through the agency of good men.⁶⁷Cf. Shab. 32a (Sonc. ed., p. 146). Even if Moses and Aaron had not arisen, Israel would still have been worthy to be redeemed from Egypt,⁶⁸Because of the promise God made to Abraham. as it is stated, And afterward shall they come out with great substance.⁶⁹Gen. 15, 14. Had not Moses and Aaron and the Generation of the Wilderness arisen, Israel would still have been worthy to receive the Torah, as it is stated, He layeth up sound wisdom for the upright.⁷⁰Prov. 2, 7, sound wisdom being a synonym for the Torah and the upright for Israel. The section of ‘the judges’⁷¹Ex. 18, 21-23. would have been worthy to be promulgated even if Jethro had not arisen. The section of ‘the smaller Passover’⁷²Num. 9, 1-14, also known as the ‘second Passover’. would have been worthy to be promulgated even if the ‘unclean’ had not arisen, as it is stated, We are unclean by the dead body of a man; wherefore are we to be kept back, so as not to bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season among the children of Israel?⁷³ibid. 7. The section of ‘inheritance’⁷⁴ibid.XXVII, 6-11. would have been worthy to be promulgated even if the daughters of Zelophehad⁷⁵ibid. 1-5. had not arisen. The Temple would have been worthy to be built even if David and Solomon had not arisen, as it is stated, The sanctuary, O Lord, which Thy hands have established.⁷⁶Ex. 15, 17. Israel would have been worthy to be redeemed in the days of Haman even it Mordecai and Esther had not arisen, as it is stated, And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly,⁷⁷Lev. 26, 44. etc.
Israel were destined to be enslaved even if Pharaoh had not arisen in Egypt, as it is stated, And [they] shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years.⁷⁸Gen. 15, 13. Israel were destined to serve idols even if Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, had not arisen, as it is stated, And this people will rise up, and go astray after the foreign gods of the land.⁷⁹Deut. 31, 16. The section of ‘the blasphemer’⁸⁰Lev. 24, 10ff. and of ‘the gatherer of sticks’⁸¹Num. 15 32-36. would have been worthy to be promulgated even if the son of the Israelitish woman and the gatherer of sticks had not arisen. Israel would have been destined to be destroyed by the sword even if so and so⁸²i.e. nations hostile to Israel. They were so many that they are not specified. had not arisen, as it is stated, All the sinners of My people shall die by the sword;⁸³Amos.Cf. IX, 10. and it declares, By sword and famine shall they be consumed.⁸⁴Jer. 14, 15. Israel would have deserved to be destroyed even if Nebuchadnezzar and his companions had not arisen, as it is stated, Therefore shall Zion for your sake be ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest.⁸⁵Micah 3, 12.

Ten words in the Torah are marked with dots. They are as follows: 1. “The Eternal will judge between me and you” (Genesis 16:5). There is a dot above the letter yod in the term, “and you.” This teaches that Sarah did not say this to Abraham, but to Hagar. Some say that it means she was speaking about those who caused the fighting “between me and you.” 2. “They said to him, Where is Sarah?” (Genesis 18:9). There are dots above the letters aleph, yod, and vav in the term, “to him,” to indicate that they already knew where she was, but they nevertheless inquired about her. 3. (There is a dot on the verse,) “When she lay down and when she arose” (Genesis 19:33). There is a dot above the letter vav in the term, “When she arose” the first time it is used [with regard to Lot’s older daughter]. This teaches that he was not aware of what happened until the (younger daughter) arose. 4. “And Esau ran to greet him, and he hugged him, fell on his neck, and kissed him” (Genesis 33:4). The term for, “and kissed him,” has dots above every letter, to teach that he did not kiss him sincerely. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: It means that this kiss was sincere, but every other one he gave Jacob was not. 5. “His brothers went to shepherd their father’s flocks in Shechem” (Genesis 37:12). There are dots on the word just before “flocks.” This teaches that they did not actually go to shepherd the flocks, but to eat and drink (and indulge their temptations). 6. “All the Levites who were recorded, whom Moses and Aaron recorded” (Numbers 3:39). There are dots above Aaron’s name. Why? To teach that Aaron himself was not counted in this record. 7. “On a long journey” (Numbers 9:10). There is a dot above the letter hei in the word “long.” This teaches that this does not really mean a long journey, but any exiting the boundaries of the outer court of the Temple. 8. “We caused destruction all the way up to Nophach, which reaches into Medeba” (Numbers 21:30). There is a dot above the letter reish in the word “which.” Why? To teach that they destroyed the idolaters but not the countries themselves (whereas the practice of idolaters was to destroy entire countries). 9. “A tenth, a tenth for each” (Numbers 29:15). [This verse delineates the meal offering that accompanies the burnt offering] on the first day of the Sukkot festival. There is a dot above the letter vav in the [first occurrence of the] word “tenth.” Why? To teach that there is only one-tenth [measure] for each. 10. “The hidden things are for the Eternal our God, and the revealed things are for us and our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:30). There are dots above the words “for us and our children,” and above the letter ayin in the word “forever.” Why? For this is what Ezra said: If Elijah comes and says to me: Why did you write it this way? I will say to him: I have already put dots above these words [to indicate I was not certain it was correct]. But if he says to me: You wrote it correctly, then I will remove the dots.
There are eleven instances in the Torah where the Hebrew word for “she,” היא, is written as הוא (which means “he” or “it”) but vocalized to mean “she.” The first is: “The King of Bela, he is [i.e., “she is”] Tzur” (Genesis 14:1). The second: “He himself said to me, ‘She is my sister,’ and SHE also said, ‘He is my brother’” (Genesis 20:5). The third: “As she was being brought out, SHE sent a message to her father-in-law, saying” (Genesis 38:25). The fourth: “If one of your animals of which it is [i.e., “she is”] used for food dies” (Leviticus 11:39). The fifth: “And it [i.e., “and she”] has turned the hair white” (Leviticus 13:10). The sixth: “If the priest sees it…and it [i.e., “and she”] has faded” (Leviticus 13:21). [The seventh: “It (i.e., “she”) shall be a Sabbath of complete rest for you” (Leviticus 16:31). The eighth: “And SHE sees his nakedness” (Leviticus 20:17). The ninth: “SHE has disgraced her father” (Leviticus 21:9). The tenth: “And SHE has kept secret, and defiled herself (and she was not caught)” (Numbers 5:13). The eleventh: “A spirit of jealousy has passed over him, and he is jealous of his wife…but SHE has not defiled herself” (Numbers 5:14).