Komentarz do Liczb 9:26

בחדש הראשון [AND THE LORD SPAKE UNTO MOSES] IN THE FIRST MONTH — The section which appears at the commencement of this Book was not spoken before Eyar (the second month; cf. Numbers 1:1): you learn, therefore, that there is no “earlier” or “later” (no chronological order) in the Torah. But why, indeed, did not Scripture open the Book with this section? Because it implies something disparaging to Israel (Sifrei Bamidbar 64:1) — that during all the forty years they were in the wilderness they offered only this single Passover sacrifice (Tosafot on Kiddushin 38b s. v. הואיל)

IN THE SECOND YEAR AFTER THEIR COMING OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT, IN THE FIRST MONTH. From here the Rabbis have deduced the principle:⁵⁸Sifre Beha’alothcha 64. Pesachim 6b. “There is no [strict] chronological order in the narrative of the Torah” [for the census mentioned at the beginning of this Book of Numbers was on the first day of ‘the second’ month in the second year, and the present chapter about the Passover was in the ‘first month’ of the same year]! Now the reason for this delay [in mentioning the section concerning the Passover] was that since this fourth book [of the Torah] comes to mention the commandments which Israel was given in the wilderness of Sinai for that particular time, He wanted [first] to complete everything related to the Tent of Meeting and its functioning during all the time [that Israel was] in the wilderness. Therefore He mentioned first the [commandments about the four] standards, and the place of the Tent [of Meeting], and the position of its ministers, and the ordinance concerning the divisions [of the Levites] when carrying [the Tabernacle whilst travelling, and] all services of the Tent. Then He mentioned the dedication-offerings of the princes, who brought the wagons in which they would carry it [the Tent] as long as they were to be in the wilderness, and He finished [the account of] their offerings at the dedication of the altar, which began on the first of Nisan or afterwards.⁵⁹See above. Seder Naso, Notes 131-132, which mention two opinions, to which Ramban alludes here. After all this He returned and mentioned the admonition that He had given them not to forget the commandment of the Passover.
Now in the opinion of our Rabbis⁶⁰Sifre Beha’alothcha 67. [the obligation to bring the Passover-offering] only applied in the wilderness in this [second] year, after the exodus because they did not perform circumcision in the wilderness,⁶¹The reason for this is that during the years of G-d’s displeasure with Israel after the incident of the golden calf (Rashi), or that of the spies (Ramban), the north wind did not blow, and there was nothing to mitigate the effect of the extreme heat, so that it was dangerous to do the circumcision (Yebamoth 72 a, and see Rashi and Ramban there). See also further on in the text here. and the [non-performance of] circumcision of the male children and the servants prevented them [from slaughtering the Passover-offering].⁶²Exodus 12:44. It is possible that this [specific] command [to bring the Passover] was necessary because at first they were only commanded about making the Passover-offering in future generations after [entering] the Land of Israel, as it is written, And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the Land which the Eternal will give you, according as He hath promised, that ye shall keep this Service.⁶³Ibid., Verse 25. And it is further stated there, And it shall be when the Eternal shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanite, etc., that thou shalt keep this Service in this month.⁶⁴Ibid., 13:5. And now the Holy One, blessed be He, desired and commanded that they should make it [the Passover-offering] in order that the memory of their redemption and of the miracles which were done for them and their fathers should be transmitted from the fathers who saw them to their children, and their children to another generation.⁶⁵Joel 1:3. Thus He had said at first, And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the Land,⁶³Ibid., Verse 25. meaning to say that this commandment [to bring the Passover-offering] does not apply outside the Land in future generations; therefore now He commanded that they should fulfill it in the desert. And in the opinion of our Rabbis⁶⁰Sifre Beha’alothcha 67. they only brought the Passover-offering in this [second] year [after the exodus], because they begot sons and servants whom they could not circumcise, for the reason that the Rabbis mentioned, that it was dangerous [to observe circumcision], as is explained in Tractate Yebamoth.⁶¹The reason for this is that during the years of G-d’s displeasure with Israel after the incident of the golden calf (Rashi), or that of the spies (Ramban), the north wind did not blow, and there was nothing to mitigate the effect of the extreme heat, so that it was dangerous to do the circumcision (Yebamoth 72 a, and see Rashi and Ramban there). See also further on in the text here.
However, in the Sifre the Rabbis have said:⁶⁶Sifre Beha’alothcha 67. “And they brought the Passover-offering in the first month.⁶⁷Verse 5. Scripture speaks in a critical manner about Israel, inasmuch as [throughout their forty years in the desert] they brought only this Passover-offering, and likewise He said, Did ye bring unto Me offerings and meal-offerings in the wilderness forty years?”⁶⁸Amos 5:25. The Rabbis arrived at this interpretation [that the verse is rebuking them because they only brought the Passover-offering in the second year after the exodus], on the basis of this verse which states, And they brought the Passover-offering in the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, at dusk, in the wilderness of Sinai,⁶⁷Verse 5. since it is a superfluous verse, for it would have been sufficient to say, and they brought the Passover-offering “according to all that the Eternal commanded Moses.” But Scripture mentioned the [exact] day and [the fact that it was in] the wilderness in order to hint that they only observed it in the wilderness on that day, and this was their “shortcoming” [which is referred to in the text of the Sifre].
It is possible that [the reason why it is considered] their shortcoming is because of their sin in the affair of the spies, on account of which they fell into disesteem⁶⁹The Hebrew word is nithnadu, which means literally “banished, isolated, or excommunicated.” and the [cooling] northern wind did not blow upon them, [with the result that on account of the great heat in the desert] they could not circumcise themselves, and therefore they were prohibited to eat any sacred offerings, and they were “rebuked” by [G-d]. Or it may be that this Beraitha [of the Sifre which speaks of the “shortcoming” of Israel, as hinted at in this section] is in agreement with the words of the Sage⁷⁰Rabbi Eliezer (Mechilta Pis’cha 15). who holds that [non-performance of] circumcision of one’s male children or servants does not prevent one from eating the Passover-offering, and therefore the people were permitted to bring the Passover-offering, but they did not trouble themselves to do it, and this is indeed a great “shortcoming.” The first interpretation, however, appears more likely to be correct, for [had they been obliged to bring it] Moses would have forced them to observe it and would not have allowed them [by not bringing it] to incur the penalty of excision. But as for the Festival of Unleavened Bread for seven days, and the removal [over that period] of leavened bread, Scripture did not have to say that they observed it [in the wilderness], since these are commandments that are obligatory on everyone’s person and apply in all places, and it has already been stated [that they are to be observed] throughout your generations by an ordinance forever.⁷¹Exodus 12:17.

בחודש הראשון, after he had taken a census of the males fit for service in the army according to their ages. Moses was to make all the preparations necessary to arrange for the orderly entrance of the Israelites into the land of Canaan.
This involved first and foremost that the inhabitants of the camps of the Israelites be ritually pure in conformity with the Torah’s imperative that the army of the Jewish people when assembled must be holy (Deuteronomy 23,15). Needless to say that it must not contain people who had not cleansed themselves of their ritual impurity. They also had to be certain that no members of the Israelite camp was the product of an illegal union between people whose incestuous relationship carried the karet penalty. The purpose of all this was that G’d’s Shechinah would rest on the troops, and that therefore victory would be assured and casualties minimized.
The Talmud in Sotah 11 and 31 relates that the Jewish people had 4 virtues to their credit on account of which they merited entering and conquering the land of Canaan already at that time if the sin of the spies had not intervened. We know that Moses was convinced that the conquest of the land of Canaan was at hand when he asked his father-in-law Yitro to remain with him and to partake in that event. (Numbers 10,29)
These merits were: 1) the altar had been successfully consecrated, the offerings of the Jewish people were being accepted by G’d. 2) the Levites had been consecrated. 3) The Jewish people had demonstrated eagerness when observing the anniversary of the Exodus by performing the required ceremonies in difficult circumstances. 4) They had followed their G’d to an inhospitable desert even though they had no idea if and when the cloud would lift and indicate that they were suddenly to break camp. Their entire situation was such that sometimes they would remain in the same spot for months or years, whereas other times they would break camp and re-establish camp after only 24 hours, all of which involved a tremendous upheaval when we consider that we speak about two and a half to three million souls.
In order to describe the various merits the Jewish people had in their favour at the time the Torah told us at this point about these events instead of relating them in chronological order, as we might have expected. Consecration of the altar occurred in the first month of the second year, so did the consecration of the Levites, and so did the celebration of the second Passover. Seeing that the beginning of the Book of Numbers speaks of events in the second month of that year, we could have questioned the Torah’s sequence. However, the Torah had a purpose in delaying the report about the last mentioned events in order to demonstrate that had it not been for the disastrous mission of the spies everything would have been in place for an immediate ascent to the Holy Land. The entire paragraph is another illustration of the principle known as אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה, that the Torah is not a record of events in chronological order. The Torah most certainly is very orderly, has been written after careful consideration, but G’d, the author, had decided that “order” does not necessarily mean “chronological sequence.”

בשנה השנית, in the second year, etc. Why did the Torah change its style in this instance by mentioning first the year and then the month of this event? When you look at the beginning of the Book of Numbers you will find that the Torah first mentions the month before mentioning the year. Not only this, but in our verse here the Torah does not even mention the month at all until after it referred to the Exodus. It would not have been necessary to interrupt mention of the date if the month in which G'd issued this command had been mentioned first. Another peculiarity in this paragraph is the absence of the customary instruction to Moses to "speak to the children of Israel!" The letter ו in the word ויעשו also needs explaining. To which previous instruction does that letter ו refer? Why was it altogether necessary to issue instructions to the Israelites to observe the Passover when this had already been commanded in Exodus 12,43? Apparently, the Torah was afraid that the Israelites had understood the previous commandment to apply only in Egypt and in the land of Israel so that the Torah had to make plain that it was a commandment which applied also during their stay in the desert.

בשנה השנית לצאתם מארץ מצרים, “during the second year, counting from their Exodus from Egypt.” This verse proves conclusively that the Torah has not imposed upon itself the rule of reporting events in historical sequence only, a rule known as אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה. It is stated specifically that the Book of Numbers commences with events which took place in the second month of the second year, whereas here the Torah backtracked to the first month of that year. The Israelites observed the Passover only once during all the years they were in the desert, i.e. on the first anniversary of the Exodus. One of the reasons was that the Israelites were not able to perform the rites of circumcision due to the northern wind which blew in the desert, exposure to which presented a health risk to the babies. Had they not sinned by accepting the majority report of the spies, they would not have had to wander in the desert and would have been in the Land of Israel before they would have had to observe a second Passover. Uncircumcised males are forbidden to partake of sacrificial meat, something unavoidable in performing the Passover ritual. [This editor has never understood this reason, as the natural increase of the Jewish people was about 2.5 percent annually, and it would have taken over 20 years before the majority of the male Israelites would have been uncircumcised. Why would the majority not perform such an important commandment because a minority was unable to? Ed.] Nachmanides writes that the reason why the Torah did not follow chronological sequence here was that before listing commandments issued to the people in the desert, the Torah wanted to complete the legislation pertaining to the erection of the Tabernacle, its inauguration, and to report on the composition of the encampment as it was to remain throughout the time the Israelites were in the desert. Seeing that the commandment to offer a Passover in the desert, at least according to some of our sages, was a one-time legislation, the record of this legislation and its performance could be deferred until this point. It is possible that mention had to be made of this commandment once more as in Exodus chapter 12 where we read about this legislation originally, it had never been stated that the commandment would remain in effect throughout the generations. [I do not follow, as in Exodus 12,14 this has been spelled out. Ed.] Now G’d wanted the people to perform these rites in order to remind them of what had happened exactly one year ago and to recall how many overt miracles G’d had performed in bringing about the people’s redemption from slavery. It was not necessary in the desert to write again the details of the seven day festival of matzot, etc., as being commandments that must be performed by the body they were automatically valid for all posterity.

Was not said until Iyar. As it is stated (Bamidbar 1:1) “in the second month.”

Kap. 9. V. 1. כמדבר סיני. Noch im Anblick der Gesetzgebungsstätte, vor dem ersten Aufbruch zum Weiterzuge in das der Verwirklichung dieses Gesetzes angehörende Land, sollte erst noch das Opfer des auf der ersten Grundbasis stets zu erneuenden Bewusstseins der Nationalbestimmung, das Peßachopfer, von der Gesamtheit des jüdischen Volkes begangen werden. Im Anblicke des Sinai, auf Grund der Erlösung aus Mizrajim, sollte erst noch jedes Haus in Israel und jede Seele eines jeden Hauses sich ihres von diesen beiden Säulen getragenen Berufes bewusst werden, und dieses Bewusstsein im פסח-Opfer betätigen. Es dürften aber mehrere Veranlassungen zu einer besonderen Erinnerung an die Erfüllung des Peßachgebotes vorhanden gewesen sein. Abgesehen davon, dass nach der Mechilta zu Schmot 12, 25 das jährliche Vollziehen des Peßachopfers erst nach erlangtem Landbesitze geboten, somit während der Wanderung in der Wüste ohne besondere göttliche Anordnung das Peßach gar nicht zu vollziehen gewesen wäre, — eine Bestimmung, deren Motiv sich sehr wohl aus dem Schmot daselbst von uns Bemerkten würde einsehen lassen, — abgesehen hiervon, da diese Ansicht nicht als die allgemeine aufzufassen ist (siehe תוספו Kiduschin 37 b ד׳׳ה הואיל): so trat ja ohnehin mit der ersten Wiederholung des Peßachopfers die von פסח מצרים teils verschiedene, teils erweiterte Begehung nach dem für פסח דורות Vorgeschriebenen in Kraft. מקחו בעשור אכילה בחפזון ,על המשקוף ועל שתי המזוזות ,הזאה באגודת אזוב fiel bei פסח דורות fort, dagegen trat הקטר חלבים ע׳׳ג המזבח ,שפיכת דם ליסוד המזבח ein, und während bei פסח מצרים das חמץ-Verbot nur einen Tag dauerte, trat mit פסח דורות das Verbot für sieben Tage ein (siehe Peßachim 96 a u. b und Schmot 12, 34). Es war somit vor der ersten Wiederkehr des vierzehnten Nissan eine erneute Erinnerung an die nunmehr eintretende Obliegenheit wohl motiviert, und dürfte auf die nun in voller Kraft eintretenden פסח דורות-Vorschriften wohl mit dem בכל חקתיו ובכל משפטיו וגו׳ des V. 3 hingewiesen sein. Wir möchten jedoch noch auf einen Umstand aufmerksam machen, der ein erneutes Gottesgebot des eben damals zu begehenden Peßachopfers unumgänglich gemacht haben dürfte. Nach סדר עולם (Schabbat 87 b) war der erste Nissan des zweiten Jahres, der Tag der endlichen Errichtung des Heiligtums, am ersten Wochentage. War aber der erste Nissan an einem Sonntage, so fiel der vierzehnte, also der Tag für die Darbringung des Peßach, auf einen Schabbat, und es bedurfte noch erst des Ausspruchs, dass פסח דוחה שבת, dass das מלאכה-Verbot des Schabbats vor der Peßachopferpflicht zurückzutreten habe und das Peßach selbst am Schabbat darzubringen sei. Eine Bestimmung, die ja in der Tat erst hier in dem במועדו des V. 2 zum Ausspruch gelangte. — בחדש הראשון: Wir haben schon zu Kap. 7, 1 darauf hingewiesen, wie dort die Schrift wieder zurückgreift, nachdem bereits der Anfang des Buches von dem im zweiten Monat Geschehenen berichtet hatte, und haben das Motiv dieser Berichtsfolge einzusehen geglaubt. Diese Eigentümlichkeit, dass die Schrift in ihren Berichten nicht immer die chronologische Folge beobachtet, sondern mitunter ihre Zusammenstellungen nach inneren Gründen ordnet, wird im ספרי eben an dieser Stelle und Peßachim 6 b mit dem Kanon: אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה bezeichnet. In Ordnung der Gesetzestitel folgt diesem Kanon gemäss die Schrift ganz entschieden einem durch den Inhalt der Gesetzobjekte gegebenen Zusammenhange, und setzt daher häufig in einem früheren Kapitel eine Gesetzesbestimmung voraus, die erst ausführlich in einem späteren Kapitel niedergelegt ist. So z. B. הזיה במי חטאת im V. 7 des vorigen Kapitels, wovon ausführlich erst Kap. 19 gehandelt wird. Ward ja schriftlich das Gesetz erst am Ende des vierzigsten Jahres übergeben, nachdem es bereits mündlich in vollständigster Ausführlichkeit dem Volke bekannt war, und konnte daher bei jedem schriftlich abgefassten die Bekanntschaft mit dem ganzen Gesetze vorausgesetzt werden.

בשנה השנית....ויעשו בני ישראל את הפסח במועדו, “in the second year after the Exodus....let the Children of Israel offer the Passover sacrifice at its appointed time;” in the Talmud, tractate Pessachim chapter one folio 6, the question is asked why the Torah first wrote the chapter about the census of the people in the first chapter of this Book, although it took place a month later than the observance of the first anniversary of the Exodus. The answer given there is that the Torah is not obligated to record events in their chronological order. Granted that this is true, it is nonetheless in order to enquire why the Torah departs from the chronological order when it does so. The reason may be that seeing the Book of Leviticus, containing all the commandments to be performed by the priests in the Tabernacle, and the tasks performed by the Levites were performed either at or near the Tabernacle, it was considered appropriate to continue with a subject closely related to that discussed in the Book of Leviticus. The flags, the order in which the Israelites encamped around the Tabernacle, were a natural continuation of what had been dealt with in the Book of Leviticus. Rashi explains that the reason why this Book does not commence with the observance of the Passover is that it draws attention to the fact that this was the only time in forty years that the Israelites did observe the anniversary of the Exodus in the manner prescribed. It is therefore an implied criticism of the Jewish people. If you were to ask that actually mandatory observance of the Passover was linked to residence in the land of Israel as spelled out in Exodus 13,5: והיה כי יביאך ה' אל ארץ הכנעני.....ועבדת את העבודה הזאת בחדש הזה. שבעת ימים תאכל מצות וגו', "it will be when Hashem will bring you to the land of the Canaanite........then shall you perform this ritual. For seven consecutive days you are to eat unleavened bread, etc.” So where is the implied criticism? Not only this; even this instance of offering the Passover was observed only after the Israelites had received specific instructions in verse one of our chapter. We would have to understand Rashi as implying that if the Israelites, due to their shortcomings, had not been forced to delay conquest of the land of the Canaanites for forty years, they could have fulfilled this commandment consecutively during all these years already.

בחדש הראשון, “in the first month;” The Torah writes here: במדבר סיני, “in the desert of Sinai,” and it did so also in Numbers 1,1, when that date was in the second year of the Israelites’ wanderings. This teaches that what was communicated to the Israelites on both occasions was told to them on the first day of the month. Here Rashi comments that the communication recorded there was not communicated to them until the beginning of the second month. This was to teach us that the author of the Torah did not feel obligated to order Moses to write things down in chronological order. Why did the Torah (Moses) not write this chapter at the beginning of the Book of Numbers? He did not want to commence this Book with recording matters which reflected negatively on the Jewish people. If you were to counter: what is so negative, seeing that in the Book of Exodus chapter12,25, the people’s coming to the land of Israel and receiving it as their ancestral heritage was made conditional on their observing the laws connected with the Exodus?The fact is that had it not been for the people’s complaining as reported in this chapter, they would have come to the land of Israel much sooner and the question of observing the anniversary of the Exodus in the desert would never have arisen. They would have entered the land of Israel during the month in which the event recorded in this chapter occurred. As it is, they moved away from Mount Sinai on the 20th day of the month of Iyar, and Moses told the people that there was only eleven days’ march to the land of Canaan from Mount Sinai. In fact, in expectation of this, Moses had invited his fatherinlaw Yitro to accompany them on that short journey in verse 29 of our chapter, indicating that they would move on forthwith. According to Rashi, the way Moses had formulated this invitation it meant that within a maximum of 3 days the Israelites would break camp and enter the Holy Land. They would have had ample time to prepare for the Passover which was to commence on the evening of the fifteenth of that month. Now, seeing that the Israelites had become guilty of the sin of demanding meat in an unfitting manner, and they had spent a whole month eating the quail, except for the ones who died from overindulging even earlier, the time to observe the Passover in the Holy Land had already passed. (Numbers 11,29) They were delayed again on account of having to wait until Miriam had been healed after she had spoken deprecatingly of her brother Moses. (Numbers 12,116). Subsequently, they were delayed for 40 days while Moses had to send out spies to pacify the doubters. To cap it all, the whole generation of the adults who had left Egypt were condemned to die in the desert for having preferred to return to Egypt rather than to trust the Lord to bring them to the Holy Land. All of this were events which Moses did not wish to record at the beginning of this Book.

That throughout the forty years. Since it is written (v. 5) “on the fourteenth day…” why was it necessary to say “in the desert of Sinai”? — At the beginning of the Parshah it writes “in the desert of Sinai”! Rather, it is to teach you that “throughout the forty years…” You might ask: Why did Moshe not compel them to offer the Pesach-offering? The answer is that in the desert there were many Jews who were not circumcised, and who did not circumcise their sons. In which case you might ask: If so, what was the discredit in this — surely they were unable to offer it? The answer is that they brought this about through their sin, because if it has not been for their sin, they would have entered the Land of Israel in another three days, as Rashi explains [below] on the verse “we are traveling…” (10:29) (Tosafos Kiddushin 38).

It appears that the repetition has to do with the prohibition of a בן נכר to eat of the Passover. According to the Mechilta on Exodus 12,43 that expression meant that anyone who was either a Gentile or a Jew who deliberately flouted G'd's laws was "estranged" and was not allowed to eat of that sacrifice. Seeing that in the interval since the Exodus the Israelites had become guilty of making the golden calf and worshiping it they had reason to believe that the injunction in Exodus 12,43 applied to them. This is especially so seeing that we are taught in Chulin 5 that anyone who acknowledges any deity other than G'd is considered as if he had denied all of Judaism. While it is true that G'd had accepted the repentance of the Jewish people after Moses had stayed on Mount Sinai three times for 40 days to beg for forgiveness, the people had not yet been told that that sin had been atoned for and there remained a lingering doubt concerning that forgiveness. The people therefore needed special permission in order to proceed and to offer the Passover on the anniversary of the Exodus. This is also why the Torah proceeds without the customary "speak to the children of Israel" to introduce this command simply as a corollary to the original Passover, and it uses the conjunctive letter ו when writing "and they shall perform the Passover." The word ויעשו tells the Israelites that not only had G'd reconsidered His original intent of destroying them but He had even consented to let them bring the Passover.

Now we can also better understand why the Torah began this chapter by first mentioning the year in which this command was issued. Seeing that the whole paragraph only intended to sanction the fact that the Israelites would offer the Passover, the Torah speaks of the second year so that we would appreciate that this was after the episode of the golden calf. Had the Torah commenced by first mentioning the month we would not have been struck by the fact that the command was issued after the episode of the golden calf. G'd did not tell Moses: "speak to the children of Israel," as He did not want to command them to do this; rather He wanted to permit them to offer the Passover. Seeing that the Talmud (Pessachim 6) claims that this communication occurred on the first of Nissan, it may have occurred before the שכינה descended onto the Tabernacle on that day, and it was G'd's way of informing the people that they had been found worthy to offer the Passover. Subsequent to this communication the Presence of G'd descended and this is why we find the Torah continue in verse 15 with: וביום הקים את המשכן כסה הענן.

במועדו AT ITS APPOINTED SEASON — even on Sabbath; במועדו AT ITS APPOINTED SEASON (stated again in v. 3) intimates that it must be offered even in a state of uncleanness (i.e. when the whole congregation, or at least its greater part is unclean as a result of having come in contact with a human corpse) (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 65).

ויעשו בני ישראל את הפסח, apart from the procedures reported as having taken place on the eighth day of the consecration of the Tabernacle, and the consecration of the princes between the first and twelfth of the month of Nissan, 2 days later the whole nation observed the Passover. They did not feel that they had become free from doing so seeing that they had just finished a string of rituals as a result of which they were on a spiritual “high,” full of joy. This was in contrast to the consecration of Solomon’s Temple, on the occasion of which, according to our sages in Moed Katan 9, Solomon ordered a dispensation of the Day of Atonement seeing that the people were on such a spiritual “high” on account of that event.

ויעשו בני ישראל, seeing that the festival of Passover in Egypt had been observed only for a single day, precluding the Israelites from offering all the other sacrifices scheduled for that festival, now that the Tabernacle had become functional the Torah had to instruct that this year the Passover was to be observed in accordance with the legislation recorded in both Leviticus and Deuteronomy where the Torah speaks of the Passover sacrifices which have to be brought when the Passover is observed in future generations.

Even during ritual uncleanliness. Meaning that we learn this from the second “in its proper time” written in the [next] verse. For we have already learned from the first “in its time” that Pesach-offering overrides Shabbos. We learn the meaning of “in its proper time” from the Tamid-offering where it is written “in its proper time” and the Tamid-offering overrides Shabbos. Thus the second “in its proper time” is “extra” for us to learn that it overrides ritual uncleanliness (Sifri). Alternatively, one may say that that we learn both [laws] from one verse, because either law can be learned. When the Torah writes (vs. 10-11) “any man who becomes unclean … shall make a Pesach-offering to Hashem in the second month” which implies that unclean people are pushed off to the second Pesach-offering, that applies specifically for a “man” — if an [individual] man is pushed off. But the [entire] community is not pushed off [to offer the second Pesach-offering]. Here the Torah is referring to the community or to the majority of the community who are ritually impure. In such a case the pure eat it in a state of purity, while the impure offer the Pesach-offering for themselves in a state of impurity (Pesachim 77). It is specifically [only] impurity caused by a corpse that is pushed aside, but not other impurities (Pesachim 79a).

V. 2. ויעשו בני ישראל וגו׳. Ebenso wie hier für פסח die Bestimmung ausgesprochen ist, dass es במועדו dargebracht werde, ebenso heißt es Kap. 28, 2 vom תמידOpfer: תשמרו להקדיב לי במועדו, und wird (Peßachim 77a) für beide an diesem Ausdruck במועדו die Halacha gelehrt: במועדו ואפי בשבת במועדו ואפי בטומאה, dass, sobald die für sie bestimmte Zeit da ist, diese Opfer in jedem Falle vollzogen werden müssen, selbst wenn ihre Zeit auf einen Schabbat fällt, und selbst wenn sie nur בטומאה vollzogen werden könnten, dass nämlich die Priester oder die כלי שרת, oder beim פסח die es darbringende Gesamtheit, oder doch der größte Teil derselben טמאים wären, und wird (daselbst) auch für alle anderen קרבנות צבור die Geltung dieser Halacha an dem auch für diese gegebenen Ausspruch: אלה תעשו לד׳ במועדיכם (Kap. 29, 39) und וידבר משה את מועדי ד׳ אל בני ישראל (Wajikra 23, 44) gelehrt, indem damit zusammenfassend die Bestimmung: "במועדו" für alle ausgesprochen ist: הכתוב קבעו מועד אחד לכולן. Peßachim 66 und 67 wird die gesetzliche Tatsache, dass תמיד selbst am שבת und פסח selbst בטומאה dargebracht wird, noch durch speziellen Nachweis im Texte begründet, indem es für תמיד am שבת heißt: עולת שבת בשבתו על עולת התמיד. (Bamidbar 28, 10) und für פסח בטומאה hier V. 10 nur für איש איש, für einzelne Individuen die Bestimmung gegeben ist, dass sie, wenn טמאים לנפש, das פסח שני in Ijar zu bringen haben, צבור, eine Gesamtheit aber selbst in solchem Falle das פסח zur Zeit im Nissan בטומאה bringe, אי איש נדחה לפסח שני ואין צבור נדחין לפסח שני אלא עבדי בטומאה, und werden sodann beide Bestimmungen durch גזירה שוה der gleichlautenden Ausdrücke במועדו במועדו bei תמיד und פסח gegenseitig übertragen. Beide Erörterungen (66 ff. und 77a) dürften sich gegenseitig ergänzen und durch die ג׳׳ש der Ausdruck במועדו erst seinen genauer umschriebenen Inhalt erhalten. Ohne dieselbe und die dadurch gegebene Übertragung der טומאה-Bestimmung von פסח auf תמיד würde die in במועדו liegende Bestimmung, dass das Opfer unter allen Umständen zur bestimmten Zeit zu vollziehen sei, auf alle טומאות, selbst טומאת זב וכו׳ ausgedehnt zu fassen gewesen sein. Durch die ג׳׳ש-Gleichstellung mit פסח ist diese Bestimmung nur auf טומאת מת beschränkt. Lediglich von ג׳׳ש getragen, würde die Halacha nur auf תמיד und פסח beschränkt geblieben sein; indem aber durch die ג׳׳ש nur משמעות, der begriffliche Inhalt des Ausdrucks במועדו präziser festgestellt ist, ist die Geltung dieser Halacha auch für alle קרבנות צבור durch deren Gesamtunterordnung unter den Begriff מועד gegeben. Eine solche Vereinigung beider Erörterungen scheint auch תוספו Menachot 72b ד׳׳ה שנאמר zu Grunde zu liegen. In der Tat ist auch der in "במועדו" liegende Begriff einer mit einer bestimmten Zeit eintretenden und auf diese bestimmte Zeit beschränkten Opferpflicht, שומנו קבוע, der wesentlich maßgebende für דחית שבת וטומאה. Wenngleich der immer wiederkehrende Ausdruck טומאה הותרה בצבור oder טומאה דחויה בצבור (siehe unten) den Begriff צבור zu betonen scheint und so auch in den obigen Erörterungen immer von קרבנות צבור die Rede ist, so wird doch Temura 14a und Joma 50a darauf hingewiesen, dass פר יום הכפורים des כה׳׳ג und die täglichen חביתי כה׳׳ג (Wajikra 6, 13) קרבן יחיד und doch דוחי שבת וטומאה, hingegen פר העלם דבר של צבור (Wajikra 4, 13) und שעירי ע ו (Bamidbar 15, 24), obgleich קרבנות צבור, nicht דוחי שבת וטומאה sind, und wird schließlich als das einzig Maßgebende זמנו קבוע festgehalten: נקוט האי כללא כל שומנו קבוע דוחה את השבת ואת הטומאה אפי ביחיד וכל שאין זמנו קבוע אינו דוחה לא את השבת ולא את הטומאה אפי בצבור (Joma 50 a). Näher erwogen, dürften sich jedoch die Begriffe זמנו קבוע und צבור insofern decken, dass, obgleich nicht alle קרבנות צבור auch ומנם קבוע, doch alle קרבנות שומנם קבוע unter den Begriff קרבנות צבור in weiterem Sinne fallen. Opfer nämlich, die dem כה׳׳ג als solchem obliegen, wie חביתין und פר ביה׳׳כ dürften doch wohl begrifflich von solchen zu unterscheiden sein, die er aus seinen rein individuellen privaten Verhältnissen und Beziehungen, z. B. als מחוסר כפרה nach überstandener טומאה, zu bringen hat. Letztere sind reine פר וחביתי כה׳׳ג .קרבנות יחיד kennzeichnen ihn jedoch als כהן גדול, somit als ideale Repräsentanz der Nation im Heiligtum, die nicht an seine individuelle Persönlichkeit gebunden ist und die, wenn durch Unfälle gestört oder hinweggenommen, sofort durch eine andere Persönlichkeit von der Nation ersetzt wird. Wenn daher gleich Joma 50 a die Ansicht nicht adoptiert wird, die פר יום הכפורים als קרבן צבור im engeren Sinne fassen wollte, so glauben wir doch aus dem angedeuteten Grunde die Gesetzesbestimmung also zusammenfassen zu dürfen: כל קרבנות צבור שזומנן קבוע דוחין את השבת ואת הטומאה.

ויעשו בני ישראל את הפסח במועדו, “let the Children of Israel perform the Passover rites at its appointed time in the calendar. The letter פ in the word: הפסח has the vowel kametz gadol under it.

Versuchen wir, das Motiv dieser Bestimmung zu fassen, so dürften dem Begriff "במועדו", wie derselbe in קרבן שזמנו קבוע, vollständiger in קרבן צבור שזמנו קבוע zum Ausdruck gelangt, Momente innewohnen, welche die durch die Schabbat- und טמאה-Institutionen zu pflegenden Wahrheiten in so positiver Weise zur Anschauung bringen, dass vor ihrer Verwirklichung שבת und טומאה zurücktreten können. Ist doch מועד (siehe Schmot S. 96) ein von Gott zu unserer besonderen Vereinigung mit Ihm bezeichneter Zeitmoment, eine Aufforderung, der von uns durch קרבן לד׳ begegnet wird. Alle diese Momente beruhen auf einer freien, besonderen Waltungstat Gottes, durch welche ein jeder dieser Momente einen besonderen Charakter für unsere sittliche Erhebung außer derjenigen Bedeutung erhielt, die jedem Zeitmomente in Folge seiner Einreihung in die durch die Naturordnung der Dinge gegebene Zeitentwickelung innewohnt. Ein jeder solcher Moment ist somit eine Offenbarung Gottes, als der freien, persönlichen Allmacht, die die Welt nicht nur geschaffen, sondern auch nach der Schöpfung in freier Waltung beherrscht und gestaltet. So die Offenbarungstaten aus der Gründungsgeschichte Israels, welcher alle ראש חדש ,מועדי ד׳ mit inbegriffen (siehe Schmot 12, 1-2) angehören. Alle diese Momente sind daher innerhalb der geschichtlichen Erfahrung unserer eigenen Entwicklung liegende Dokumentierungen jenes Grundfaktums der Weltschöpfung und Weltherrschaft Gottes, für welches der Schabbat das erste und allgemeinste, über die Erfahrung hinausreichende Denkmal bildet. Alle מועדי ד׳ sind nur erneute Zeugen für den Schabbat, und es begreift sich, wie das קרבן, mit welchem wir in einem solchen Gedächtnismoment von Gottes Tatoffenbarungen Ihm, dem in diesem Momente uns offenbar Gewordenen, uns nahen, zu seiner Vollziehung auch sonst am Schabbat verbotene מלאכות in Anspruch nehmen darf. Diese Vollziehung ist keine Verletzung, sondern ein Aufbau des Schabbats. Und wenn zu diesen uns zu Gott rufenden Tatoffenbarungsmomenten, zu diesen מועדי ד׳, sich auch das תמיד, das Morgen- und Abendopfer eines jeden Tages gesellt; wenn, wie hier geschieht, das תמיד mit seinem במועדו dem במועדו des פסח — (beide sind die einzigen מלא geschriebenen, in welchen daher der hier so maßgebende Grundbegriff der Grundform יעד in voller Deutlichkeit hervorgehoben ist) — in völlig gleicher Bedeutsamkeit zur Seite tritt: so wird eben damit jeder Tag in seiner Beziehung zu uns zu einer besonderen Gottestat, rückt das "Alltägliche" zu dem "Ereigniseinzigen" zusammen zu einer Gott verkündenden Weltenhymne, und der steigende Sonnenstrahl und der sinkende eines jeden Tages wird zu einem מועד, zu einem Erfahrungsmoment der Gottesgegenwart, der uns zu einem קרבן לד׳, zu einem die Gottesnähe in seinem Offenbarungsmomente suchenden Opfer ladet. Ein solcher תמיד-Moment ist also nichts als eine Offenbarung Gottes in der Gegenwart, wie ihn der Schabbat aus מעשה בראשית bezeugt, und auch die Vollziehung des תמיר ist keine Verletzung, sondern ein Aufbau des שבת.

Ganz so auch דחית הטומאה. Ist doch טומאת מת im Gegensatz zum מקדש eine Verneinung des freipersönlichen Gottes, wie der sittlich freien Menschenpersönlichkeit. Beide Wahrheiten finden aber in jedem במועדו eines קרבן שומנו קבוע ihre positive, somit die Negation der טומאה aufhebende Bezeugung. Ein besonderer Zeitmoment wird ja zu einem מועד, zu einem זמן קבוע, nur durch einen besonderen freien Akt der Gottestat. In ihm selbst bezeugt sich Gott als freien persönlichen Gott, der ja die unerlässlichste Vorbedingung der freien Persönlichkeit des Menschen bildet. Und indem Er in einem solchen Moment uns zu einer Erhebung zu Sich ladet, setzt Er Seine persönliche Freiheit als Basis der unsrigen und gewährleistet uns die sittliche Freiheit, die im קרבן לד׳ ihren höchsten Ausdruck findet. Die freie Gottestat, die jedem זמן קבוע zu Grunde liegt, ladet uns zur freien Menschentat, der wir im קרבן den adäquaten Ausdruck leihen.

Ganz besonders tritt aber hier noch der Begriff צבור bedeutsam ein. Es scheint uns nämlich der Gedanke nicht irrig, dass ein קרבן שזמנו קבוע in dem Sinne des Gesetzes nur von einem צבור als Obliegenheit getragen werden könne, und daher קרבנות שזמנן קבוע in Wahrheit nur קרבנות צבור sein können. Nur die Gesamtheit kann einen bestimmten Zeitmoment bei jeder Wiederkehr desselben durch ein קרבן begehen. Nur die Gesamtheit ist in jedem solchen wiederkehrenden Zeitmomente da, das Individuum nicht; das Individuum vergeht, ist sterblich, אין צבור מת, die Gemeinde stirbt nicht, ist in der Einheit ihrer Erscheinung unsterblich ewig. Damit ist aber sofort die Gesamtheit, wie sie in קרבנות שזמנן קבוע auftritt, selbst das positiv sprechendste Zeugnis von dem über טומאת מת erhabenen, von ihr nicht erreichbaren, geistig göttlichen, sittlich freien Menschentum. Denn nicht das Leibliche, dem Verschwinden im Tode Verfallende: das geistig Göttliche, sittlich Freie ist es, in dessen Gemeinsamkeit die Vielheit sich zum צבור eint und durch welches auch der in die Gesamtheit aufgehende einzelne, über seinen leiblichen Tod hinaus in der Gesamtheit ewig fortlebend, mit allem gegenwärtig bleibt, was er an geistig Göttlichem, an sittlich Freiem mit seinem Hiersein in die Gesamtheit hinein gelebt, und worin er noch hienieden in ewiger Fortwirkung lebendig bleibt. Daher טומאה דחויה oder טומאה הותרה בצבור, und daher die Beschränkung dieser דחיה auf טומאת מת. (Daher dürfte denn auch der Begriff צבור neben dem Begriffe ומנו קבוע seine wesentliche Bedeutung bewahren und daher שלמי חגיגה und עולות ראיה nicht דוחה שבת וטומאה sein, die, wenn sie gleich auf das רגל beschränkt sind und אם יעבור רגל אין להם תקנה, doch, da יש להם תשלומין כל שבעה, sie nicht also בכנופיא, nicht also in einem Momente in Gesamtversammlung wie פסח dargebracht werden, und bei ihnen der Begriff צבור nicht rein und prägnant erscheint, und damit sich die in תוספו Pesachim 76 b angeregten Fragen lösen. Vergl. לחם משנה zu Chagiga l, 8, wo diese Fragen in etwas anderer Weise gelöst werden.)

ככל חקותיו ACCORDING TO ALL RITES OF IT [… SHALL YE KEEP IT] — This refers to the laws relating to its body itself (i.e. the animal itself) while alive — that it must be “a lamb, without blemish, a male, one year old” (Exodus 12:5) (Sifrei Bamidbar 65).

ACCORDING TO ALL THE STATUTES OF IT, AND ACCORDING TO ALL THE ORDINANCES THEREOF, SHALL YE BRING IT [i.e., the Passover-offering]. Now it is written in the commentary of Rashi: “According to all the statutes of it — this refers to the laws concerning the animal itself, [that it should be] a lamb without blemish, a male of the first year.⁷²Ibid., Verse 5. And according to all the ordinances thereof — this relates to the laws ‘upon’ the lamb,⁷³Our texts of Rashi add here: “from another place.” Ramban interprets this phrase as an independent thought, as explained further on. such as eating unleavened bread for seven days, and the removal of leavened bread.” But this is a copyist’s error.⁷⁴Ramban’s meaning is as follows: Even if we concede that the duty to eat unleavened bread can be called a law “upon the lamb,” because the Passover-offering must be eaten together with unleavened bread, in what way can the duty of destroying leavened bread be one that is “upon the lamb”? Therefore it must be a copyist’s mistake in Rashi, which thus requires re-interpretation. For the laws which concern the animal itself are as stated above], a lamb without blemish, a male of the first year;⁷²Ibid., Verse 5. the laws “upon” the animal are that it should be roast with fire; its head with its legs and with the inwards thereof;⁷⁵Exodus 12:9. whereas the laws which are “outside” the animal itself are [the duty to eat] unleavened bread [on the first evening of the festival] and the duty of removing leavened bread, concerning which Scripture does not speak here at all. Similarly, it is said of the second Passover that [it should be observed] according to the statute of the Passover, and according to the ordinance thereof,⁷⁶Further, Verse 14. and a person may [then] have both unleavened bread and leavened bread with him in his house,⁷⁷Pesachim 95 a. and it applies for only one day.⁷⁸Hence the duty to eat unleavened bread and to destroy all leavened bread, cannot be included [as implied in our texts of Rashi] in the statutes and ordinances of the second Passover, since we have been taught that on the second Passover one may have both unleavened and leavened bread with one in the house! Furthermore, the second Passover applies only for one day; so how can there be a duty to eat unleavened bread for seven days included in “the ordinances that are upon the animal” [as our texts of Rashi have it]!
Now Scripture spoke briefly, saying, at dusk, ye shall bring it in its appointed season; according to all the statutes of it, and according to all the ordinances thereof, shall ye bring it,⁷⁹In Verse 3 before us. thereby including the laws relating to eating it, that it should not be on the day mentioned by the verse [on which the offering is slaughtered], but it is to be eaten on the following night, since He already explained previously, And they shall eat the flesh in that night etc.⁸⁰Exodus 12:5. Similarly, In the second month on the fourteenth day at dusk they shall bring it; they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs,⁸¹Further, Verse 11. means they shall eat it at the time of eating mentioned in the command concerning the first Passover.

בין הערבים תעשו אותו, “you shall prepare it in the afternoon.” The various procedures connected with offering the Passover are all included in the words תעשו אותו, “prepare it.”

These are the commandments pertaining to its body. The text should read “According to all its statutes,” these are the commandments pertaining to its body — a lamb; unblemished; male; a yearling. “And according to all its laws,” these are the commandments that have a bearing on the body of the animal — roasted over fire; its head with its knees and its inner organs. Those laws that pertain to outside its body, meaning originating from elsewhere — for example “seven days…” This is also the version of the Ramban and Re’m. However, those texts that write “according to all its laws…” the seven days of eating matzoh and of eliminating chometz” are a copyist’s error. For if this were not an error, regarding the Pesach Sheni, the Torah also writes “according to its laws,” but nonetheless regarding the Pesach Sheni one may have matzoh and chometz together with him in his house, as Rashi explains later. See Kitzur Mizrochi and Nachalas Yaakov who resolve the text of Rashi that we have.

V. 3. תעשו אתו ,בארבעה עשר וגו׳: es ist dies der seltene, vielleicht einzige Fall, wo, nachdem in dem vorhergehenden Vers das Gebot als Verpflichtung der Nation in der dritten Person, ויעשו בני ישראל, ausgesprochen war, es nun in der zweiten, Mosche mit begreifend, ausgesprochen wird. Im ספרי wird das במועדו des ersten Verses auf דחית שבת, das במעדו dieses Verses aber auf דחית טומאה bezogen. Nun haben wir bereits in Vorstehendem die hohe Bedeutung entwickelt, die der Begriff צבור, der Begriff der nationalen Gesamtheit für die Gesetzesbestimmung: במעדו ואפילו בטומאה haben dürfte. Der Einschluss selbst eines Mosche in die Gesamtheit, und gerade eines Mosche, dürfte wie kaum etwas anderes den von uns hervorgehobenen unsterblichen Charakter der nationalen Gesamtheit dokumentieren. Wer ist so wie Mosche in der Gesamtheit und durch die Gesamtheit in jeder Zeit lebendig gegenwärtig und durch die Unsterblichkeit der Gesamtheit selber der irdischen Unsterblichkeit teilhaft wie Mosche, wer, obgleich leiblich gestorben, unerreichbar von dem Tode wie Er! — בארבעה עשר וגו׳ בחדש הזה בין הערבים (siehe Schmot 28, 38).

וככל משפטיו, “and according to all the ordinances thereof;” according to Rashi, this refers to the festival being observed for the full seven days, the search for chametz and its disposal prior to the beginning of the festival, all in accordance with what has been written in chapter 12 of the Book of Exodus.

וככל משפטיו AND ACCORDING TO ALL THE REGULATIONS THEREOF — This again refers to commands which have a bearing upon the animal itself but originating from another place (i.e. outside the animal itself), e.g. seven days for eating unleavened bread and during which the leaven must be removed from one’s home. [Some editions have (cf. Nachmanides): the laws relating to the animal itself are that it must be “a lamb, without blemish, a male and one year old”. Such as have to be practiced upon its body (note the difference in the meaning of this phrase, and the omission of ממקום אחר) are those mentioned in Exodus 12:9: “roasted with fire, its head with its legs and the inward parts thereof”; and finally such as go beyond the sacrifice itself: the eating of unleavened bread and the removal of leaven from the house].

ככל חוקותיו וככל משפטיו תעשו אותו, ”you shall make it according to all its decrees and its laws.” Here the Torah means to include the laws governing the eating of the Passover, such as that it must not be eaten on the day it was slaughtered but only on the night following it; as had been pointed out in chapter 12 in Exodus already, as well as the fact that similar rules apply to the people offering the substitute Passover known as פסח שני, by people who had been unable to do so on the proper date due to being ritually impure on account of contact with the dead.

בכל חקתיו ובכל משפטיו, für das פסח שני V. 12 heißt es nur בכל חקת הפסה יעשו אתו, der Begriff משפטיו fehlt dort. Aus Peßachim 95 a ist nun ersichtlich, dass פסח שני vom פסה ראשון sich darin unterscheidet, daß beim פסח שני nur die מצות שבגופו wie: אל תאכלו ממנו נא וגו׳ כי אם צלי אש, עצם לא ישברו בו, לא ישאירו ממני עד בקר, und ebenso מצות שעל גופו wie: על מצות ומרורים יאכלהו in Erfüllung kommen, nicht aber מצות שלא על גופו wie: לא יראה לך ,תשביתו שאור ,לא תשחט על, חמץ, vielmehr: פסה שני חמץ ומצה עמו בבית (nicht ganz sicher ist, ob איסור הוצאה מחבורה bei פ׳׳ש stattfindet. הל׳ קרבן פסה ,רמב׳׳ם verneint es). Es ist dem 14 .2nach klar, dass sowohl die מצות שבגופו, als שעל גופו, also alle, die das קרבן פסח selbst sowie dessen אכילה und selbstverständlich סדר עבודותיו betreffenden Bestimmungen unter: חקתיו begriffen sind, משפטיו aber die מצות שלא על גופו, diejenigen Vorschriften umfasst, durch welche andere, außerhalb des קרבן פסח liegende Verhältnisse in Folge desselben bestimmt werden, wie die mit שחיטת פסח eintretenden חמץ-Verbote. Bei חקתיו bildet das פסח das Objekt, bei משפטיו die bewirkende Ursache. Hier bei פסח ראשון treten die פסח-Bestimmungen in vollstem Umfange in Kraft, und haben wir bereits zu V. 1 bemerkt, wie bei diesem ersten פסח דורות zu der Erinnerung בכל חקתיו ובכל משפטיו תעשו אתו besondere Veranlassung war.

וידבר משה וגו׳ AND MOSES SPAKE [TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL THAT THEY SHOULD KEEP THE PASSOVER] — Why is this stated at all? Has it not already been said, (Leviticus 23:44) “And Moses declared [unto the children of Israel] the appointed festivals of the Lord”? But the reason is: when he heard on Sinai the section dealing with the festivals he told it to them then and he used to exhort them again about the festivals at the time when they had to be observed (lit., at the time of action) (Sifrei Bamidbar 66).

Of God’s holidays. However, our Rabbis do not ask why Hashem repeated the command of the Pesach-offering here, although He had already commanded it in Parshas Emor (Vayikra 23). In order that one should not say that they were exempt while in the desert, since the Torah linked it with entering the Land, therefore the Torah repeats itself and teaches it here. However, the statement of Moshe to Yisroel does not say to offer the Pesach-offering in this month, only to offer the Pesach-offering. This implies that he only commanded them the law of the Pesach-offering and thus the Rabbis ask “What does the Torah teach?” (Re’m) It appears to me that the Rabbis were answering the following question: Why did the Torah have to write “Moshe spoke…” at all, it should have merely said “the Bnei Yisroel offered the Pesach-offering…”? Logically, since Hashem commanded him to speak to them, Moshe certainly told them Hashem’s command. For in the beginning of the passage the Torah writes (8:2) “Speak to Aharon and say to him…,” and afterwards it is written “Aharon did so…” But we do not see in the Torah that Moshe told Aharon Hashem’s command. Rather it is logical that he told him the command, given that afterwards it writes “Aharon did so…” Similarly the Torah writes “Hashem spoke to Moshe, take the Levites…” (8:5) but we do not find that Moshe told Yisroel Hashem’s command. Rather the Torah relies upon what is written afterwards “Moshe and Aharon and all the congregation of Yisroel did…” (8:20). Similarly, from the passage “There were men who were impure, having had [contact with] a corpse…” (9:6), we infer that Hashem told him [Moshe] the laws of the Pesach Sheni, but we do not find that Moshe told the laws to them [the people]. Rather it is logical that he related the laws to them. If so, why does the Torah state “Moshe spoke…” when it should have relied on the verse [written afterwards] “they offered the Pesach-offering”? One cannot answer that he had not yet told them the laws of the Pesach-offering, and only he was relating the laws to them, and this is why it is written “Moshe said…,” for it is already written “Moshe spoke of God’s holidays…” (Vayikra 23:44). Therefore, the Rabbis teach as they do, “Evidently when he heard…” This is what seems to me.

ויעשו את הפסח בראשון, “They prepared the Passover in the first month, etc.” Nachmanides writes that in accordance with the opinion of the sages this was the only time that the Israelites celebrated the Passover during all the years they were in the desert. The reason was that they had uncircumcised slaves and children whom they could not circumcise due to the hazard of infection in the desert conditions. The matter is discussed in Yevamot 72. However, in Sifri Behaalotcha 67 the word בראשון is understood as a criticism of the Children of Israel for having celebrated the Passover only on that occasion. Similarly, Amos 5,25, where the prophet speaks of “did you offer sacrifice and oblation to Me those forty years in the wilderness?” is also seen as a criticism of the Israelites for not offering all these sacrifices. This criticism is based on the unnecessary words “in the first month, the fourteenth of the month, in the evening in the desert of Sinai.” It would have sufficed for the Torah to write that the Israelites offered the Passover in accordance with the rules laid down by G’d. The additional details provided are a hint that this was the one and only time the people did observe the Passover. (Thus far Sifri).
The reason that the Torah saw fit to write this passage at this point was that the inauguration of the Tabernacle and the Altar took place in the first month (of the second year); this was the month the Levites were set apart. Seeing that in connection with the Passover observance the Torah wrote (Exodus 12,25) “it will be when you come into the land, etc.,” and in Exodus 13,11 the Torah also appeared to tie the observance of the Passover to the Israelites coming to the Holy Land, the Torah here had to legislate its observance now as otherwise the people would have thought that the desert was not a suitable location for offering the Passover.

ויעשו את הפסח, “they performed the ritual of the Passover;” according to Rabbi Yossi in the Tossephta, this was the only time in all the years that the Israelites wandered in the desert that the Passover was actually observed. The reason for this was that at the time described they were encamped in a location where it was possible to perform circumcisions without endangering the lives of the infants being circumcised. This has been explained at the beginning of the Book of Joshua where a mass circumcision took place of all the people who had been born after the Exodus and who could not have been circumcised on account of the danger to the lives of these infants.

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.

למה נגרע WHEREFORE ARE WE KEPT BACK? — He (Moses) had said to them, “Sacrifices are not permitted to be offered by anyone who is in a state of uncleanness”. They retorted, “למה נגרע” — Why should that prevent us? Let the blood be sprinkled on our behalf by clean priests, and let the flesh be eaten by the clean”. (i.e. let us partake of the flesh at night when we shall already be clean: see Note). Thereupon he said to them: “Stand still (i.e. wait a short time) and I will hear [what the Lord will command concerning you]” — he said this with confidence, like a pupil who is certain that he will get information from his teacher at any time. Happy, indeed, is a human being (lit., one born of woman) who may so confidently rely that at any time when he wishes to do so he may speak with the Shechinah! — This section, in fact, ought to have been said by Moses, just as all the other sections of the Torah, only that these men were privileged that it should be promulgated through their intervention, because “meritorious deeds are brought about by worthy men” (Sifrei Bamidbar 68; Bava Batra 119b).

אנחנו טמאים לנפש אדם למה נגרע, seeing that the ritual impurity we have incurred was incurred in the process of our fulfilling a positive commandment, why should the result of this be the misdemeanour of not fulfilling such an important commandment as observing the Passover at the appointed time?

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.'

He said to them: The sacred offerings cannot. Rashi is answering the question: Why did they say “Why should we be excluded” — surely they were impure, and those who are impure are forbidden to offer an offering during the period of their impurity. If so, why was Moshe in doubt, telling them “Wait while I listen…”? Furthermore, how did Moshe forget the passage of the sending out of the impure (5:2), which was said to him on Rosh Chodesh Nissan? He answers that “[The sacred offerings] cannot…” and that his main question was only regarding the sprinkling of the blood for them in a state of impurity. This would be similar to the blood of a sin-offering which has the status of kodshei kodshim (most sanctified) but whose meat is eaten by those who are pure. Certainly this can be applied to the Pesach-offering which is of lesser [sanctity].

V. 7. ויאמרו האנשים ההמה אליו אנחנו וגו׳. Es spricht sich in ihrer Frage so sehr das ganze Verständnis der hier in betracht kommenden Momente aus, dass wohl darum es hervorgehoben wird, dass האנשים ההמה, dass diese Männer selbst, obgleich Männer aus dem Volke, aus sich heraus also diese Frage gestellt. Sie geben zu bedenken: אנחנו טמאים לנפש אדם, im Falle einer jeden anderen טומאה hätten sie nicht. gefragt. Sie hatten bereits die Lehre empfangen, dass nur טומאת מת vor קרבן פסח zurückzustehen habe. למה נגרע וגו׳ קרבן ד׳ במעדו: es war קרבן שזמנו קבוע, und בתוך בני ישראל: es war קורבן צבור, dem sie doch als Glied der Gesamtheit angehören durften. Beides Momente, die, wie wir zu V. 6 erkannt, ihre Zulässigkeit befürworten konnten.

למה נגרע, “what for are we to be denied?” Why are we not allowed to eat holy things while in a state of ritual impurity, seeing that last year when we were in Egypt we also ate it in a state of ritual impurity? The reason is that at that time we had not been warned not to do so.

במועדו, seeing that this is a commandment which can only be fulfilled at its appointed date?

This chapter should have appropriately. A question is widely asked: Why did Rashi link this to his previous comment? The answer is that if he had not explained “Fortunate is the mortal…” I would have said that this chapter was not said in Moshe’s name as punishment for him having said “every difficult matter…” (Shemos 18:26). However now that he explained “Fortunate is the mortal…” and the verse speaks in a manner that praises Moshe, why then is this passage not said in his name? Thus he explains “[This chapter should have] appropriately…”

Perhaps this is why the Torah stressed the words ביום ההוא, on that day, telling us that their inability to offer the Passover was only on that day (the 14th of Nissan) They would be ritually pure already on the 15th of that month. They would be able to make up for time lost already on the morrow.

This may also account for the fact that G'd did not legislate the "second Passover" on the 14th of Iyar until after the Levites had approached Moses concerning תשלומים, an alternate date to enable them to offer their Passover. G'd did not want this to be similar to the legislation of the חגיגה, when one may arbitrarily choose to delay the offering. Inasmuch as the Passover was an offering of a different class it could only be offered on the fourteenth of the second month by those people whose inability to offer it on the 14th of Nissan had not been due to their own negligence.

Another meaning of the words למה נגרע, may be that they argued that seeing their impurity ended that evening, why could not others slaughter the Passover on their behalf and they would be able to eat it on that night at the same time as all the other Israelites. After all, the same is permissible if a person had contracted ritual impurity through contact with a dead mouse, for instance? When the Levites emphasised the words ביום ההוא, this was a reference to such impurities which come to an end on the evening of the day they have been contracted. Some of our sages offer still other explanations for the words למה נגרע. All of these explanations reflect true Torah exegesis.

V. 8. עמדו ואשמעה וגו׳. Es ist dies ein konkreter Beleg für die Tatsache, dass die Gesetzesinstitutionen der תורה nicht nur in ihren allgemeinen Grundzügen, כללים, sondern auch in den näheren Bestimmungen ihrer Einzelheiten, פרטים, in direkter Gottesoffenbarung an Mosche gelangten. Es lag für Mosche ein spezieller Zweifelfall vor, zu dessen Entscheidung er besonderen Gottesausspruch erwartete.

או בדרך רחקה [IF ANY MAN … SHALL BE UNCLEAN BY REASON OF A DEAD,] OR BE ON A DISTANT JOURNEY — There is a dot on it (on the ה of the word רחקה which letter is therefore regarded as non-existent; cf. Rashi on Genesis 18:9 and Note thereon), in order to tell that what Scripture means by בדרך רחקה is that it (the journey) need not really be a distant one, but that his sacrifice is postponed even though he was merely outside the threshold of the forecourt during the whole time that the ceremony of slaughtering the Passover sacrifice tasted. (Pesachim 93b, cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 69:2). — On the “Second Passover” one may have with him unleavened and leavened bread together in his house, and there is no festival in connection with it, and the eating of leaven is forbidden only together with it (the Passover Sacrifice) — i.e. while the sacrifice is being eaten (cf. Pesachim 95a).

B’DERECH R’CHOKAH’ Rashi commented [that the meaning of this expression — literally “on a distant way” — is] “that he was outside the threshold of the Sanctuary Court during the whole time prescribed for slaughtering [the Passover-offering].” According to this opinion, this interpretation is hinted at by the dot [on the letter hei in the word r’chokah (distant) in the Torah, thus indicating that the journey does not really have to be a distant one, for even if he is only outside the threshold of the Sanctuary Court during the time of slaughtering of the Passover-offering, it is considered “a distant way”, as explained further on].
But I am surprised at him [Rashi]! Why did he adopt the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer,⁸²Pesachim 93 b. In other words, the interpretation of Rashi follows that of Rabbi Eliezer, whilst the accepted opinion of the Rabbis in the Gemara is that of Rabbi Akiba, as explained further on. when it would have been correct to accept the opinion of Rabbi Akiba [that a distant way means] beyond Modiin [a city fifteen miles from Jerusalem; and the verse would thus be referring to someone who cannot reach the Sanctuary Court in time to bring the Passover-offering].⁸³But if he were closer to Jerusalem on the afternoon of the fourteenth of Nisan than a distance of fifteen miles, it is not considered a distant way. The difference is important. The punishment of excision for neglecting to bring the Passover-offering is stated primarily with reference to the first Passover-offering. A person who was on a distant way on the fourteenth of Nisan [or in a state of impurity] must bring the second Passover-offering, on the fourteenth of Iyar; but if he did not bring the second Passover-offering, even wilfully, he is not liable to punishment, since at the time of the first Passover-offering, when the main duty arose, he was unable to bring the offering. However, a person who was not on a distant way on the fourteenth of Nisan and did not bring the Passover-offering, may nonetheless bring the second Passover-offering on the fourteenth of Iyar; but if he wilfully did not bring it then on the fourteenth of Iyar he is subject to the punishment of excision. See further in my translation of “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 67-69. And such is the opinion of the Amoraim in the Gemara⁸⁴Amoraim means literally: the Interpreters. This name is given to the Rabbis of the Gemara, as distinguished from the Tannaim, the Rabbis mentioned in the Mishnah or Beraitha. The Gemara is the text containing the collected discussions of the Amoraim on the Mishnah. The Mishnah and Gemara together are known as the the Talmud. See also Vol. II, p. 132, Note 204, and Vol. III, p. 192. Note 44. [of Tractate Pesachim],⁸²Pesachim 93 b. In other words, the interpretation of Rashi follows that of Rabbi Eliezer, whilst the accepted opinion of the Rabbis in the Gemara is that of Rabbi Akiba, as explained further on. where Ula said, [a distant way is if he is at such a distance from Jerusalem that] he cannot come in, in time for the slaughtering [of the Passover-offering].⁸⁵Ramban’s thought is as follows: The duty of bringing the Passover-offering commences at the beginning of the afternoon of the fourteenth day of Nisan (Exodus 12:6, see also Ramban there). Now since prior to that time there is no obligation to bring the offering yet, and Ula is of the opinion that a person on a distant way is “one who cannot come into the Sanctuary Court in time for the slaughtering of the Passover-offering,” it follows perforce that the term a distant way cannot mean in reality far away, since prior to the beginning of that afternoon there was no obligation to bring it yet. Hence even if the distance was actually not far but that person for some reason was not in the Sanctuary Court he is also considered as having been on a distant way. The case, however, would be different if he were to hold like Rav Yehudah, who says that a person on a distant way is “one who cannot come in, in time for the eating of the Passover-offering,” which is on the following night. In that case a person on a distant way would be one, who from the beginning of the afternoon cannot reach Jerusalem at night, in time for the eating of the Passover-offering, since he is actually on a far distant way. This is indeed the plain meaning of Scripture, that a person who is situated at the beginning of the afternoon in a place from which he cannot reach the Sanctuary Court [on foot] by the time of the slaughtering, is considered as being on a distant way, and therefore he is free [from the obligation of bringing the Passover-offering]. It is possible that [according to Rabbi Akiba] the reason for the dot [on the letter hei in the word r’chokah (distant) in the Torah] is to indicate that it is too distant for him to bring the Passover-offering, even though it is not actually distant [since fifteen-miles — walking-distance — is the required distance]; therefore when He repeated it He stated, But the man that is clean, and is not on ‘a journey,’ [and forbeareth to bring the Passover-lamb],⁸⁶Further, Verse 13. and did not mention “distant.”⁸⁷For had Verse 13 said: “and he was not on a distant journey,” it would have implied that even if he was beyond a distance of fifteen miles and fails to bring the Passover-offering, he is liable to the punishment of excision. But this is not the law, for if he were beyond fifteen miles the punishment does not apply. See Note 83 above.
Now Scripture commanded that a person who was impure or on a distant way should bring the second [Passover-offering], but the same law, for the same reason, applies to anyone who did not bring the first Passover-offering, even wilfully, namely that he is obliged to bring the second Passover-offering, in accordance with the words of our Rabbis.⁸⁸Pesachim 93b. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 67-69. Scripture, however, mentioned only [those who were impure or on a distant way in order] to say that they are allowed to bring the second Passover-offering, and to forbid an impure person to bring the first Passover-offering. However, one who was on a [distant] way is free from bringing the first Passover-offering, and may bring the second one, but if he wants to fulfill his duty on the first Passover and he told someone [in Jerusalem to include him in a group, and] to slaughter the offering for him [as well], it is acceptable [for him]. For we accept [as the correct interpretation of the law]⁸⁹Pesachim 92b. This is the opinion of Rav Nachman. that the [meaning of the verse is not that he must bring it only on the second Passover, but that the] Merciful One dealt kindly with him [and allowed him if he prefers to bring the second Passover-offering], but if he did bring [the first one] — he is deserving of a blessing [and he has acted rightly]. It is also possible that the reason why Scripture mentioned “distant” [is because it is referring to a journey which is actually far away, and only then must he bring the second Passover-offering], but if he is on a “near” journey [i.e., within fifteen miles — this distance being considered the beginning of what is technically already “a far way”], he may bring the second Passover-offering, or the first one, by [telling them] to slaughter it and sprinkle it for him as well [in the afternoon of the fourteenth day of Nisan], and then coming [into the city of Jerusalem] and eating the Passover-offering at night.

בדרך רחוקה, “on a remote road.” The dot over the letter ה in the word רחוקה alludes to the respective opinions concerning the distance the traveler has to be from the Temple at sunrise of the 14th of Nissan, the day the Passover must be slaughtered. One sage holds that anyone more distant than the threshold of the courtyard of the Temple during the period that the slaughtering was in progress is included here, whereas the other sage holds that a distance of approximately 30000 cubits, equivalent to the distance of the Hasmonean town of Modiin from Jerusalem constitutes “remote” in the sense that if the person was ritually impure he was equated with someone too far distant to be able to reach Jerusalem on that day. (compare Pessachim 69) Nachmanides writes that although in connection with the substitute Passover known as the “second Passover,” nothing has been written concerning the distance of a potential pilgrim from the Temple on the morning of the day the Passover must be slaughtered, the same rules that apply to someone offering the Passover on the 14th of Nissan also apply to a person who is permitted (commanded) to offer it on the 14th of Iyar. He who omitted offering the first Passover even deliberately, is still commanded to make up for this on the 14th of Iyar, whereas someone who on the morning of the 14th of Nissan was beyond Modiin and thus legally free to wait until the 14th of Iyar, is nonetheless permitted to offer his Passover on the 14th of Nissan if he managed to reach the Temple gates while the slaughtering was still in progress. (by driving or flying instead of walking). In fact, such a person is accorded special praise for having made the effort when legally he need not have exerted himself.

But that he was outside. You might ask: Then why did the Torah say “distant…”? The answer is that if it had said “on the road” but not said “distant” I would have said that only someone who is distant offers the Pesach Sheni. However if he is outside the threshold of the courtyard, then he would not. Therefore the Torah wrote “distant” and placed a dot over [the word] to expound that it does not mean literally “distant,” as I explained previously regarding “to pasture the flock” (Bereishis 37:12).

V. 10. איש איש וגו׳. Es lehrt die Halacha (Peßachim 93 b), dass nicht nur für טומאה und Entfernung, sondern auch für jede andere Verhinderung die Institution des פסח שני gegeben sei. Ja, dass selbst, wenn jemand במזיד das קרבן פסח im Nissan unterlassen hätte, ihm die Pflicht des פסח שני obläge. Die Ausdehnung auf jede andere טומאה und sonstige Verhinderung ist exemplifikatorisch durch דרך רחוקה gegeben. טמא לנפש, d. i. טומאת מת ist nur um des Gegensatzes willen erwähnt. Durch איש איש ist nämlich die Institution des פסח שני nur für einzelne, als Minorität dastehende, gegeben איש נדחה לפסח שני ואין צבור נדחין לפסח שני אלא עבדי בטומאה: wenn eine Gesamtheit zur Peßachzeit im Nissan טמא ist, haben sie das Opfer im Nissan בטומאה zu bringen; dies ist jedoch nur bei טומאת מת, andere טומאות stehen selbst בצבור der Darbringung entgegen, וכי עבדו בטומאה בטמא מת אבל בשאר טומאות לא עכדי. Eine solche Gesamtheit oder eine ihr gleichstehende Majorität, hätte weder ראשון noch שני zu bringen (daselbst 67 a). — כדרך רחוקה. Das ה von רחוקה ist mit einem Punkte bezeichnet, um zu lehren, dass hier nicht eine absolute, sondern nur die relative Entfernung im Verhältnis zu der obliegenden פסח-Darbringung in Betracht kommt. Wer mit Beginn der Darbringungszeit, also am Mittag des vierzehnten Nissan, sich in solcher Entfernung von der Darbringungsstätte, der עזרה, befindet, dass er vor Schluss der Darbringungszeit, also während בין הערבים nicht in der עזרה eintreffen kann, der ist בדרך רחוקה, der kann das פסח ראשון nicht vollziehen und dessen שחיטה usw. auch nicht durch andere für sich vollziehen lassen, selbst wenn er abends zur Zeit der אכילה eintreffen könnte. Ebenso wie: אין שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ, so auch: היה בדרך רחוקה ושחטו וזרקו עליו לא הורצה daselbst 92 b). Als reine solche Entfernung wird) eine Strecke von fünfzehn מיל, zugleich die Entfernung des Ortes Modiim von Jerusalem, betrachtet. (Nach רמב׳׳ם wäre דרך רחוקה, wenn er bei Sonnenaufgang des vierzehnten Nissan in einer solchen Entfernung gewesen, dass er zu Anfang der Darbringungszeit nicht eintreffen konnte. Raschi und תוספו und auch der Wortlaut des Jeruschalmi sind dieser Auffassung entgegen.)

או בדרך רחוקה, “or on a journey far off;” there is a dot on the letter ה in the word רחוקה; this dot is not connected to the word בדרך, for if so, the word would be treated as if it had not appeared. Rather, that dot connects to the word איש, “a man or person;” we are to understand the person concerned as being spiritually on a journey that had estranged him to Judaism and its G-d.

Matzoh and chometz may be with him. You might ask: Why did Rashi append this to the earlier comment? The answer is that he is answering the question: Why is the dot necessary to teach that even if he was only outside the threshold of the courtyard, this is termed “distant” and he offers the Pesach Sheni? Without the dot one could have also learned this, given that the law of being distant was juxtaposed to the law of the one who was impure. One could learn from the following juxtaposition: just as someone who is impure [cannot bring the offering] even if he was in the city because he is outside the Temple courtyard, and thus must offer the Pesach Sheni; Similarly, when it is written “or on a distant road,” even if the person was [only] outside the courtyard he offers the Pesach Sheni. If so this raises a difficulty: Why is the dot needed, for even the word “distant” is not needed, according to this explanation? Rashi answers that the dot comes to teach us that even regarding the Pesach Sheni — if he was outside the threshold of the courtyard for the entire period of the slaughter of the Pesach [Sheni]-offering he may not offer the Pesach Sheni. We need not ask that this is obvious, and why would one differentiate [between the first Pesach and Pesach Sheni], because we could answer that we find other differences in the offerings aside from this — since concerning the Pesach Sheni matzoh and chometz are with him in the house … Thus, one might have said that the laws are also different in this matter. Consequently the dot is necessary [to teach that this law is the same].

או לדורותיכם, “or someone of your generations;” the verse means that the person described is either at this time far from you spiritually or time wise, in other words, if many years from now there will be someone who due to the time that elapsed since the Exodus feels disconnected to our history, and therefore would not observe the Passover ritual by having his heart in it.

VV. 11 u. 12. Wir haben bereits zu V. 3 angemerkt, wie alle die unter den Begriff חקת הפסה zu fassenden מצות שבגופו und שעל גופו beim פסח שני zur Beachtung kommen, die מצות שלא על גופו aber, wie לא תשחט על חמץ ,השבתת שאור, לא יראה לך die unter משפטי פסח gehören, beim פסה שני nicht stattfinden, vielmehr חמץ ומצה עמו בבית.

בחודש השני, “in the second month;” seeing that the observance of the original Passover in Egypt was restricted to a single calendar day, they were not commanded concerning this now; but once when the Tabernacle had been built, people who had missed it through no fault of their own would be given a chance to make up for all of its essentials.

והאיש אשד הוא טהור, As to the man who is ritually pure, etc. Why did the Torah delay informing us about the penalty for people who deliberately fail to observe the Passover legislation until now? Why has this not been spelled out in Parshat Bo where the legislation was spelled out? We find a debate in Pessachim 93 between Rabbi and Rabbi Natan concerning whether a person who has failed to observe the Passover both on the 14th of Nissan and the 14th of Iyar incurs the prescribed penalty or whether the Karet penalty applies only if one has deliberately failed to observe the Passover on the 14th of Nissan. Rabbi holds that deliberate failure to observe either Passover results in that penalty, whereas Rabbi Natan holds that there is no Karet penalty for failure to observe the second Passover seeing that the Torah does not mention this penalty in that context. Rabbi Chanina son of Akiva holds that one is not even guilty of the karet penalty for failure to observe the Passover on the 14th of Nissan unless one had also failed to observe it on the 14th of Iyar. All three scholars cite the same verse to support their respective opinions. If the Torah had informed us about the penalty for deliberate non-observance in Parshat Bo, it would not have been possible for the three scholars to hold three different views on the subject.

V. 13. והאיש אשר הוא טהור. Peßachim 93 a findet das Verhältnis des zweiten Pesach zum ersten drei verschiedene Auffassungen. Nach רבי ist das zweite רגל בפני עצמן, ist jedes für sich eine selbständige Institution, so, dass selbst שגג בראשון והזיד בשני חייב כרת. Nach רבי נתן ist שני nur תשלומי דראשון, daher שגג בראשון והזיד בשני פטור: Nach רבי חנניה בן עקביה ist שני תקנתא דראשון, gehören beide zusammen, er ist nur חייב, wenn er beide במזיד unterlassen hat, dagegen selbst הזיד בראשון ושגג רמב׳׳ם .בשני פטור adoptiert die erste Ansicht, dass jedes eine besondere Institution bildet, und nach dieser Auffassung wäre גר שנתגייר בין שני פסחים וכן קטן שהגדיל בין שני פסחים חייב לעשות פסח שני, selbst derjenige zur Begehung des פסח שני verpflichtet, der zur Zeit des ersten noch gar nicht dem Gesetze pflichtig gewesen war. Dieser Auffassung zufolge spricht unser Vers כרת gesondert für beide Institutionen aus, der erste Satz für פסח ראשון, der zweite für פסח שני. Das האיש ההוא wäre dann derselbe, der das erste פסח aus was immer für einem Grunde unterlassen, und gleichwohl das für solchen Unterlassungsfall auf den vierzehnten Ijar bestimmte פסח שני nicht vollzogen hat, חטאו ישא .חטאו ישא ist כרת wie ונשא חמא Wajikra 24, 15 bei מברך ד (siehe Bamidbar Kap. 15, 30).

ובדרך לא היה, “and he did not have the excuse of being too far away from Jerusalem,” or he had never even set out on the journey to Jerusalem; we find a similar construction in Exodus 21,15: מכה אביו ואמו, “if someone strikes his father or his mother. Not “his father and his mother.” The connective letter ו in the word בדרך here, also means “or,” not “and.”

Es heißt: והאיש אשר הוא טהור ובדרך לא היה. Vielleicht erkärt sich dieser Wechsel der Zeiten dadurch, dass, wie es Peßachim 94 a scheint, der Begriff דרך רחוקה absolut verstanden wird, also, dass ein Umkreis von fünfzehn Mil um die Tempelstadt den Pflichtrayon für das Peßachopfer bildet, und derjenige, der mit Beginn der Darbringungszeit außerhalb dieses Rahons sich befunden, obgleich er vermittelst künstlicher Transportmittel, wie Reiten und Fahren, hätte eintreffen können, doch für unterlassenes פסה nicht dem כרת unterliegt. Darin unterscheidet sich der אונס דרך רחוקה von אונס werden können und טהור am vierzehnten hätte טבילה welcher durch ,טמא Der .טומאה die טבילה und dadurch auch das פסח unterlassen hat, ist חייב כרת (Peßachim 69 b). Es scheint uns nun nicht unmöglich, dass der durch דרך רחוקה bei Beginn der Darbringungszeit von der פסח-Pflicht nicht Betroffene selbst dann von כרת frei bleibe, selbst wenn er durch künstliche Transportmittel noch während der Darbringungszeit eingetroffen war und gleichwohl das Opfer nicht dargebracht hätte. Ist dies, so wäre der Wechsel der Zeiten in unserem Satze ganz präzis. Wer während der Darbringungszeit טהור ist, oder auch nur טהור werden könnte und beim Beginn der Darbringungszeit nicht בדרך war usw.

וחדל לעשות הפסח, “and he omits to perform the Passover ritual;” the Torah could have written: מעשות הפסח, thus saving a full word. The choice of words by the Torah teaches that the person the Torah has in mind here is the one who reasons that he can always make up for his failure to observe the Passover in Nissan, by observing it in lyar. We can find the root חדל used in a similar fashion in Genesis11,8, ויחדלו לבנות העיר, when the people of the generation of the Tower gave up that attempt after their languages had become confused. The choice of the word לעשות, instead of מעשות was also used when the Torah described G-d in Genesis 2,3 as having ceased His creative activities of the first six days. Instead of writing כי בו שבת מעשות כל מלאכתו וחדל לעשות, “for on it He ceased from completing all His work,” the Torah wrote אשר ברא אלוקים לעשות, thereby hinting that He was going to continue being involved in the improvement of His universe. The correct translation of that line would be: “for on it He ceased from completing all His work of creating.”

Obgleich aber nach der rezipierten Auffassung פסח שני eine besondere Festinstitution ist, רגל בפני עצמו, so ist gleichwohl ihm sein subsidiarischer und durch das eigentliche פסה bedingter Charakter aufgedrückt. Es ist, wie bereits bemerkt, überhaupt nur für יחידים, für einzelne, die sich damit nachträglich dem von der Nation zur Zeit begangenen, von ihnen versäumten Nationalopfer anschließen, איש נדחה ואין צבור נדחה לפסח שני, und es kann פסח שני von einzelnen nur dann begangen werden, wenn das פסח ראשון vom צבור zur Zeit בטהרה vollzogen worden war. War aber צבור durch andere, nicht vor פסח zurückstehende טומאות an der Darbringung im ניסן verhindert, oder hatten sie es בטומאת מת vollzogen, so ist פסח שני für יחידים nicht statthaft, אין תשלומין לפסח הבא בטומאה (Peßachim 80 a).

וכי יגור אתכם גר ועשה פסח AND IF A STRANGER SHALL SOJOURN AMONG YOU, AND WILL KEEP THE PASSOVER [ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE OF THE PASSOVER … SO SHALL HE DO] — One might think that this verse implies that anyone who becomes a proselyte (גר) must keep the Passover offering rite immediately after his circumcision (even though it has not taken place just before Passover), therefore Scripture states, “yo shall have one ordinance, [both for the stranger, and for him that was born in the land]” (which implies that just as the native brings the offering on the fourteenth of Nisan, so the proselyte, too, must bring it only on the fourteenth of Nisan; cf. Rashi on Exodus 12:48). What the first part of the verse implies is, therefore, the following: “and if a proselyte will sojourn among you, and comes to celebrate the Passover rite together with his fellows, then according to the ordinance of the Passover and according to the manner thereof shall he do” (i.e. ועשה פסח is not a predicative clause — when he becomes a proselyte then shall he offer the Passover, i. e. offer it immediately — but it is a conditional clause, coordinate to וכי יגור אתכם and the apodosis begins with כחקת הפסח etc.) (Sifrei Bamidbar 71).

AND IF A STRANGER SHALL SOJOURN AMONG YOU. The purpose of this is to command the stranger to bring this Passover-offering in the wilderness just as He commanded the Israelites. It is possible that when He said in Seder ‘Bo El Par’oh’ (Go in unto Pharaoh),⁹⁰Exodus 10:1. And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee and will keep the Passover,⁹¹Ibid., 12:48. it refers [only] to the [original] Passover kept in Egypt, for that section was said with reference to the Passover of Egypt, as I have explained there. In that case we might have thought that those strangers who joined us in going out from Egypt, the mixed multitude,⁹²Ibid., Verse 38. should keep the Passover, because they were also included in that miracle [of the exodus], but those who become proselytes afterwards, in the desert or in the Land of Israel, [we might have thought] do not have to bring the Passover-offering, since neither they nor their ancestors were included among [those of whom it is said], and He brought us out from thence;⁹³Deuteronomy 6:23. therefore He had to make them liable here to bring the Passover-offering in [subsequent] generations, in the wilderness and in the Land.

חקה אחת יהיה לכם, here while you are in the desert.

וכי יגור אתכם גר, And if a proselyte dwells amongst you, etc. The reason that this paragraph commences with the conjunctive letter ו is to warn the Israelites to ensure that these proselytes do not make light of the Torah's commandments. Just as the previous paragraph addressed itself to the Israelites so this paragraph also addresses itself to the Israelites.

וכי יגור אתכם גר, “when a proselyte shall dwell amongst you, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the reason why in connection with proselytes the Torah emphasized how and under what circumstances he may observe the Passover rites, whereas nothing like this is said about his observing most of the other commandments, is because the parallel paragraph in Exodus 12,48 applied only to converts that had converted prior to the Exodus. If the Torah had not repeated the legislation here, we would have thought that these converts were not obligated to observe the Passover in the desert or subsequently, as their fathers had not been redeemed from slavery, never having been slaves in Egypt.

V. 14. וכי יגור וגו׳ (siehe zu Schmot 12, 48). Diese Gleichheit des גר selbst hinsichtlich des Peßachopfers, die hier wiederholt zum Ausspruch kommt, kann als Basis seiner völligen Rechtsgleichheit vor dem Gesetze überhaupt betrachtet werden; wird doch eben durch diese seine Begehung des Peßachopfers die ganze jüdische Vergangenheit auch die seine, und, wie wir dies dort motiviert, wird damit jeder aus der Verschiedenheit der Abstammung etwa hervorzuleitende Unterschied völlig aufgehoben. Es war aber diese Gleichheit hier bei פסה שני noch besonders hervorzuheben, da ja damit die Möglichkeit gegeben ist, dass ein גר sogar das פסח ganz allein zu begehen haben könne. Während beim פסח ראשון er nur nicht von der Gesamtheit ausgeschlossen zu sein erscheinen durfte, würde, wie zu Verse 11 und 12 bemerkt, sogar ein גר שנתגייר בין שני פסחים das פסח שני zu begehen haben, obgleich er beim פסה ראשון noch gar nicht der nationalen Peßachpflicht angehörte. כחקת הפסח וכמשפטו וגו׳ spricht seine Hörigkeit zur Pesachpflicht im allgemeinen, speziell zum פסח ראשון (siehe zu V. 3) aus. Seine gleiche Verpflichtung zu פסה שני ist durch: חקה אחת וגו׳ gegeben.

וכי יגור אתכם גר, “and when a stranger has taken up temporary residence amongst you;” at this point the Torah reverts back to the rules governing the “second,” or “substitute” Passover.

ולגר ולאזרח הארץ, once you will have settled in the land of Israel.

ועשה פסח לשם, and he prepares the Passover for the Lord, etc. Why did the Torah uses the conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of the word ועשה? Furthermore, why did the Torah have to write וכן יעשה, "and so he shall do" at the end? One tends to believe that the Torah wanted to make certain that we understand that this legislation does not apply to a resident stranger, i.e. a stranger who has only accepted to observe the seven Noachide laws, but that only a Jew, i.e. a גר צדק, a true convert, is allowed to partake in the Passover observance. This is not a totally satisfactory explanation as we would not have assumed that anyone who is not Jewish would be included in that legislation.

Perhaps we should look at what the Sifri has to say on the subject. Here is the quotation from Sifri. "Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar says that I could have thought that the legislation applies to someone who converted between the dates of the first Passover and that of the second Passover. By writing ולגר ולאזרח הארץ, the Torah makes clear that the legislation applies equally to the convert and to the natural-born Jew. The Torah makes it plain that just as the second Passover can be observed only by someone who should have observed the first Passover but did not, so the recent convert who did not yet have an obligation to observe the Passover in the month of Nissan cannot observe it in the month of Iyar following his conversion. He has to wait until Nissan in the year following his conversion. This is the reason." This then accounts for the letter ו at the beginning of the word ועשה, i.e. if the convert in question would have been obliged to observe the first Passover he is now obliged to observe the second Passover if for some reason beyond his control he could not observe the Passover on the 14th of Nissan. The word ועשה represents a condition then. The words כחקת הפסח mean that just as the first Passover could be made up for by a second Passover by natural-born Israelites under certain conditions, the same conditions apply to the recent convert to Judaism.

We need to ask ourselves why the Torah singled out the Passover legislation for detailing the convert's obligation to fulfil the commandments similar to the natural-born Israelite. Why did the Torah not mention this in some other context? I believe the reason is simply that logic dictated that the convert should not observe this commandment at all as it recalls an event which occurred to the forefathers of the natural-born Jews and for which the recent convert has hardly any obligation to observe any remembrance, seeing neither he nor his ancestors had been part of the enslavement and the Exodus. G'd had not "passed over" the houses of the ancestors of that convert, after all. The matter could have been viewed as similar to the legislation of the bringing of the first ripe fruit to the Temple when the farmer bringing the gift recites his gratitude to G'd who took him (his ancestors) out of Egypt and gave him the land of Israel as a heritage (Deut. 26,3-10). The Mishnah in Bikkurim chapter 1 states that whereas a convert is obliged to bring this offering he does not read the passage detailed in the chapter we quoted. We could have assumed that similar restrictions would apply to a convert's observance of the Passover rites. This is why the Torah chose to mention the convert's obligation in connection with Passover rather than with any of the other 612 commandments.

The Torah was particular to write the word אתכם, "with you," to tell us that although we might view the convert as a most recent addition to Judaism, a "Johnny come lately," G'd wants us to relate to him as if he had always been Jewish. Our Exodus from Egypt also brought potential freedom to the soul of the person who has now converted to Judaism. This is so despite the fact that he was neither physically nor spiritually present at the time. Everything that is holy emanates from the same root. When our ancestors were in Egypt the whole concept of holiness was on the point of "drowning" with them in the moral abyss called Egypt. Had Israel succumbed to the influence of that centre of impurity, G'd forbid, the person who now converted to Judaism could not have done so as holiness had already "drowned" while our forefathers were slaves in Egypt. Every little spark of holiness strives to merge with the seat of holiness, its base. Once the centre of holiness was saved from "drowning," this enabled the scattered sparks of holiness throughout the universe to search for their roots and to eventually rejoin the mainstream of sanctity, the Jewish people.

When the Torah writes כחקת הפסח, this suggests that there is something lacking rationale in this legislation. The Torah was afraid that whereas we would accept that the convert is to observe the Passover laws in principle, he is nevertheless not to recite words which are outright lies. We refer to such recitals as: "we have been slaves in the land of Egypt when G'd took us out from there, etc." The Torah therefore writes כחקת הפסח to teach us that the convert may even recite such paragraphs from the Bible without making a liar of himself. The roots of sanctity which he now embraces had been in Egypt, i.e. he had his roots in Egypt. Please refer to what I have explained on Exodus 23,9 "for you know the soul of the stranger."

The reason the Torah adds the words כן יעשה, "he shall do so," is to make clear that the convert is not only allowed to participate fully in the Passover rites but he is commanded to do so. The words חקה אחת teach that the whole Torah is to be viewed as something indivisible.

המשכן לאהל העדות means THE TABERNACLE which is made FOR the purpose of being THE TENT for the tablets of THE TESTIMONY.

AND ON THE DAY THE TABERNACLE WAS RAISED UP. Now He resumes the telling of the journey [through the wilderness] and the commandments which they were commanded about it, such as the trumpets, which Moses was now commanded were to be for the calling of the congregation, and for causing the camps to set forward.⁹⁴Further, 10:2. The sense of the expression [And on the day the Tabernacle was raised up] the cloud covered the Tabernacle, even the Tent of the Testimony is to state that the cloud covered only the Tent of the Testimony, but not the court of the Tabernacle.

וביום הקים את המשכן, “and on the day the Tabernacle had been erected, etc.” now the Torah resumes the report of the Israelites’ journeys in the desert, prefacing it with the reminder that the clouds of G’d’s glory covered the Tent of Meeting by day and that it would be replaced each evening by a fire visible all night. The movements of these clouds or the fiery appearance would signal that the people were to either break up and move, or make camp, as the case might be. Audible signals were heard by means of the trumpets, as we shall be told in chapter 10

For the tablets of the testimony. Rashi is answering the question: “Mishkon” refers to the lower curtains, as he explains in Parshas Bamidbar (3:25), while the term “אהל” (tent) refers to the goats hair curtains that were above it. If so, how does the Torah say המשכן לאהל (lit. the Mishkon for the tent) which implies that the Mishkon was needed for the tent? Consequently, Rashi explains that it was “made to be a tent…” Re’m explains Rashi’s addition of the word “made” before the word לאהל (for a tent). Since the lamed of לאהל implies its purpose, as if it had said “to be a tent,” without its addition one would imply that the purpose [of the Mishkon] was related to the word “covered” — i.e. that the cloud covered the Mishkon to form a tent. However with the word “made” it is understood as being related to the Mishkon — meaning that the Mishkon was made as a tent. Rashi’s addition of the word “to be” would thus be in place of the lamed of לאהל. Furthermore, when Rashi adds the words “for the tablets of the testimony” this teaches that the Tablets were a testimony to Yisroel, not the tent. This is to be contrasted with the phrase “Mishkon of Testimony” (Shemos 38:21), which Rashi explains that it is “testimony to Yisroel…” For the word Mishkon (משכן) is related to the word Shechinah (שכינה — Divine Presence) which rests (שוכן) among us, a concept not appropriate for the word אהל. (Nachalas Yaakov). I have already fully explained in Parshas Terumah (Shemos 25:16) that sometimes the Tablets are referred to as “testimony,” sometimes the Torah is referred to as “testimony” and sometimes the Mishkon is referred to as “testimony.” See also the beginning of Parshas Pekudei (Shemos 38:21) etc. and elsewhere.

V. 15. וביום הקים וגו׳. Dieses וביום schließt das Folgende ohne allen Übergang so ohne weiteres dem Vorhergehenden an, dass dies den innigsten und natürlichsten Zusammenhang voraussetzt. In der Tat ist auch das Folgende nichts als eine konkrete Betätigung dessen, was das vorhergehende Peßach als Israels Bestimmung und Israels Gelöbnis symbolisch zum erneuten Bewusstsein und Ausdruck gebracht hatte. Als צאן seinem רועה, als Gottes Herde der Gottesführung sich bereit zu stellen, das ist ja, wie wir (Schmot 12, 3-6) erkannt, der Grundgedanke, mit welchem das erste Peßach Israel in die Gottesführung eintreten und sich ihrer würdig machen ließ, und das ist der Gedanke, der mit jedem wiederkehrenden Peßach als zu erneuendes Gelöbnis an Israel in allen seinen Gliedern herantritt. Alle Familien Israels, mit ihren Peßachlämmern zu Gott hintretend, sprechen aber nichts anderes aus, als על פי ד׳ יחנו ועל פי ד׳ יסעו, dass sie nur nach Gottes Ausspruch lagern und nach Gottes Ausspruch ziehen, dass sie da ihre Stätte finden wollen, wo Gott sie ihnen anweist, dorthin aufbrechen wollen, wohin Gottes Mund sie ruft. Wie sie diese hingebungsvolle Nachfolge Gottes zu lernen und zu betätigen hatten, das wird eben hier in dem Folgenden gezeigt.

וביום הקים את השמכן, ”and on the day when the Tabernacle had been erected;” since the Torah wished to speak about the journeys and the flags, it informs us about the manner in which the cloud that rested above the Tabernacle when the Israelites were stationary, ever since the Tabernacle had been put up.

יהיה על המשכן WAS UPON THE TABERNACLE — This has the sense of: was continuously being upon the Tabernacle. Similar is the usage in the whole section (i. e. the verbs יסעו, יחגו, ישכון etc. are imperfects expressing continuous action).

כסה הענן את המשכן לאהל העדות, “the cloud covered the Tabernacle that was a Tent of Testimony.” Nachmanides interprets these words as showing that the cloud only covered the actual Tabernacle, not the courtyard surrounding it.

Similarly, all the usages in the parshah. (Gur Aryeh) For the whole passage refers to what would take place continuously every day, as the Torah writes “so it always was” (v. 16). It would be incorrect to say “The cloud covered the Mishkon” in the past tense and later to say “in the evening it shall be over the Mishkon” in the future, because one does not follow from the other. Concerning the use of the word יהיה (lit. will be) in the future tense, see above in Parshas Beshalach on the verse “Thus sang…” (Shemos 15:1).

וביום הקים sofort, als das Heiligtum errichtet war, ließ sich die Wolke, durch welche Gott seine leitende Gegenwart im Volke ankündigte (Schmot 13, 21 u. 22). darauf nieder und bezeugte eben damit das משכן als die Gottesstätte, um welche das Volk, als um den gemeinsamen Mittelpunkt, sich gelagert zu halten hatte. — לאהל העדות. Kap. 17, 22 u. 23 bezeichnet אהל הערות den Raum des Allerheiligsten, in welchem der ארון העדות stand. Bereschit 49, 13 לחוף ימים ישכון bezeichnet ל־ die örtliche Richtung einer Stellung, so dürfte auch hier לאהל העדות die örtliche Richtung des כסה הענן angeben: die Wolke bedeckte die Wohnung der Zeugnisstätte zu, sie ruhte mit ihrer Basis auf dem אהל העדות, dem westlichen Teile der Wohnung und bekundete damit, dass eben die תורה es ist, deren Gegenwart im Volke die Gottesgegenwart bedingt.

כסה הענן את המשכן, “the cloud covered the Tabernacle.” This cloud was not the same cloud as the one that enveloped the entire camp of the Jewish people, and which therefore was at a higher elevation, as pointed out by Tanchuma Bamidbar 12. The cloud mentioned as covering the Tabernacle actually covered it as well as the surrounding area where the Levites had their dwellings.

VV. 16-23. Es war aber die Wolke der Hirtenstab, vermittelst dessen Gott, der רועה ישראל, dem Volke seiner Führung seinen Willen kund tat, wo und wann sie lagern, wann und wohin sie aufbrechen sollten. Und, wird hier geschildert, gar unberechenbar war für die Geführten der Wille und die Absicht dieser Führung. Bald eine lange Rast, bald eine Rast von nur wenigen Tagen. Bald nur die Rast von einer Nacht, von einem Tage und einer Nacht; oder von zwei Tagen, einem Monat, ein Jahr lang, und, wie רמב׳׳ן bemerkt, da nichts in vorhinein die beabsichtigte Rastdauer wissen ließ, mussten sie, so oft die Wolke das Zeichen zur Rast erteilte, sich völlig zum Lager einrichten, um dann vielleicht nach wenigen Stunden wieder alles ab- und aufzubrechen und dem Weiterzuge der Wolke zu folgen. Das ist die Schule der Wanderschaft durch die Wüste, in welcher wir für alle Zeit die hingebungs- und vertrauensvolle Nachfolge Gottes gelernt haben sollen, die, wie unbegreiflich ihr auch die Gottesführungen erscheinen, die bald kaum Liebgewonnenes wieder zu verlassen, bald in unwillkommenster Stellung geduldig auszuharren uns auferlegen, doch mit immer frischem heiterem Mute alles umfasst und alles löst, was Gott gebietet, unter dem Stab der Gottesführung sich immer glücklich fühlt, durch die bewährte Gehorsamstreue selber beglückt und immer bereit ist, Gott ihren Lebensplan anheimzustellen, und selbst zu ganz unbekannten Zielen hin, auf ganz unbegriffenen Wegen mit ebenso ausharrender Geduld, wie mit nimmer zu trübendem Wandermute Seiner Führung zu folgen. —

Sehen wir aber diesen, Verse 17-22 gegebenen Bericht über die Übungsproben genauer an, mit welchen Gott sich das Volk Seiner Führung für alle Zukunft erziehen wollte, so ist es nicht sowohl die Anstrengung langer Wanderungen, als das geduldige Ausharren in langer Rast, welches als Prüfungsaufgabe hervorgehoben scheint. Von den Wanderungen und ihrer Dauer wird nichts erwähnt, wohl aber sehr entschieden und wiederholt von dem Ausharren in langer Ruhe. Gleich V. 17 heißt es: ואחרי כן יסעו וגו׳, dass erst nachher und nicht früher aufgebrochen wurde, als die Wolke sich erhob, und V. 18, nachdem bereits gesagt ist: על פי ד׳ יסעו ועל פי ד׳ יחנו, wird nochmals wiederholt: כל ימי אשר ישכן הענן וגו׳ יחנו. Endlich V. 19 wird das לא יסעו, das Nichtaufbrechen, wenn auch die Wolke viele Tage lang ruhte, als שמירת משמרת ד׳, als besonderes Beachten des göttlichen Gebotes, als besonderer Beweis des Gehorsams bezeichnet. Offenbar wird also auf die Übung ausharrender Geduld der besondere Nachdruck gelegt, Es ist dies umsomehr erklärlich, wenn man die Unwirtlichkeit der Wüste und insbesondere bedenkt, dass dem Volke ja das volle Bewusstsein darüber war, dass die Wüste nicht das Ziel seiner Wanderung, sondern dieses Ziel außerhalb derselben lag, und jedes Verweilen an einem Orte in der Wüste, vor allem vor der verhängnisvollen Bestimmung einer vierzigjährigen Wanderung, nur von dem verheißenen Ziele fern hielt. Es war dies die Übung in jener Tugend der ruhigen und heiteren Ergebung und vertrauensvoll ausharrenden Geduld, derer das Volk der Gottesführungen auf seinen Galutwanderungen durch die "Wüste der Völker" wie der Prophet sie nennt, während so vieler Jahrhunderte der Zukunft vor allem andern bedürfen sollte, und die das Prophetenwort: אם יתמהמה חכה לו (Habakuk 2, 3) so bezeichnend wiedergibt.

העלות הענן — Understand this as the Targum does: the departure (more lit., the raising itself). Similar is, (v. 21): תעלה הענן which means “when the cloud raised itself” (departed; in both cases the verbs are Niphal). It would not be correct to have written in these passages ולפי עֲלוֹת הענן and וְעָלָה הענן (the verbs in the Kal), because this would not be an expression denoting departure, but “springing forth” and “rising”, just as, (1 Kings 18:44): “Behold a little cloud as small as a man’s hand rises (עלה) from the sea."

ואחרי כן יסעו, after the cloud had lifted off the Tabernacle the people would march, following its direction.

ולפי העלות הענן, and whenever the cloud would lift, etc. The reason this paragraph begins with the conjunctive letter ו is to remind us that the cloud served two different purposes. 1) Its function was to serve as a cover for the Holy Tabernacle and all its furnishings. As such its function was decorative, a compliment for the Jewish people who had become carriers of the שכינה. This is the meaning of the words in verse 15 that כסה הענן את המשכן לאהל העדות, "it covered the Tabernacle the Tent of Testimony." The Torah adds a second function of the cloud in our verse when it describes the motion of the cloud indicating that the Israelites were to break camp and to start marching on their way to the Holy Land. The cloud signalled both when it was time to move and when it was time to make camp.

Was lifted. But not in the sense of rising. For if this were so it should have said “whenever the cloud rose” in the active קל construct, rather than “was lifted” in the passive נפעל construct.

ובמקום אשר ישכון שם הענן שם יחנו, the Torah records this in order to praise the Israelites for following G’d in the desert regardless of the site where the cloud stopped being a desolate inhospitable place.

ואחרי כן יסעו, following this the Israelites journeyed. The expression ואחרי כן seems somewhat misplaced. We would have expected something parallel to ובמקום אשר ישכון שם יחנו without the words ואחרי כן. Why did the Torah write the words כן ואחרי? Had the Torah simply written ולפי העלות הענן יסעו בני ישראל, I would have concluded that the signal for the Israelites to move was the motion or lack of motion of the cloud. In order to make certain we understand that the Israelites journeyed at the direct command of G'd the Torah inserts the words ואחרי כן to direct our attention to verse 18 where the Torah spells out that the journeys were על פי השם. Our verse therefore deserves to be understood thus: "And in accordance with the cloud lifting from above the Tabernacle, shortly thereafter G'd would give the command for the Israelites to start journeying" so that they were actually journeying at the command of G'd. [The letter ו before the words אחרי כן means that the expression is not one describing a time frame, though it does describe a certain sequence of events. Ed.]

Another meaning of these words could be that the Torah wanted to inform us that the Israelites did not ever journey before the cloud lifted but only after it had already removed itself from above the Tabernacle. This did not imply however, that they automatically journeyed as soon as the cloud lifted, rather they awaited specific instructions from G'd to do so. Had the Torah used the alternative wording we mentioned earlier the impression would have been created that the lifting of the cloud was equivalent to a command for the Israelites to break camp and to start journeying.

(על פי ה’ יסעו (18 ” AT THE COMMANDMENT OF THE LORD [THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] JOURNEYED — We have learned in the Boraitha dealing with “the structure of the Tabernacle” (s. 13), “As soon as the Israelites set forth on a journey the pillar of cloud rolled itself up (contracted itself) and extended itself out above the camp of the sons of Judah, like a beam, whereupon they blew a “Tekiah”, a “Teruah”, and another “Tekiah”. It (the cloud) did not, however, move off until Moses said, (Numbers 10:35): “Rise up, O Lord!” — the latter statement is to be found in the Sifrei Bamidbar 84:5 (on the verse quoted) — and then the banner of the camp of Judah marched forward.

על פי ה׳ יסעו בני ישראל, the children of Israel journeyed at the command of G'd. The cloud was the means by which G'd made His wishes in the matter known.

על פי ה' יסעו ועל פי ה' יחנו, “they would journey at the command of the Lord and they would make camp a the command of the Lord.” The Torah only had to write the words: “the Children of Israel would journey or make camp at the command of the Lord.” The additional words על פי ה' יחנו appear quite superfluous. Seeing that we know all this from Exodus 13,21 where the Torah wrote that “G’d walked ahead of them by day in a pillar of cloud etc.,” the meaning of our verse here has to be that the words על פי ה' יסעו are a reference to the attribute of Justice. The very word has a connotation of the attribute of Justice seeing the word is always used in connection with going to war. By contrast then, the words על פי ה' יחנו, is reminiscent of the attribute of Mercy, the very word יחנו, reminding us of מנוחה, rest, calm, quiet, the opposite of war and warfare. We have a parallel situation where both the attribute of Justice and that of Mercy appear side by side. When the Torah speaks of ויהי בנסוע הארון in Numbers 10,35-36 the word נסע refers to he attribute of Justice and Moses‘ call for G’d’s foes being scattered clearly shows that forces of the attribute of Justice must be at work. When Moses continues speaking about the Ark coming to rest this indicates that now the Torah speaks about the attribute of Mercy. Whenever the Israelites are assembled in their thousands and tens of thousands the attribute of Mercy is nearby. At any rate, we must not perceive of these two attributes as separate and independent entities, rather they are bound up with each other, sometimes one attribute predominating, sometimes the other. Concerning this arrangement the prophet Jeremiah speaks of the kindness demonstrated by Israel in its youth when it followed G’d into the desert an area full of agents of the attribute of Justice in the form of harmful animals. The fact that the Israelites were always saved in such surroundings testifies to the attribute of Mercy being present although the habitat “desert” is that of agents of the attribute of Justice. Similarly, in Egypt, among all the negative influences Israel was exposed to they did not perish, proof of the presence of the attribute of Mercy (in some degree) even there. This is what Hoseah 13,4 had in mind when he said: “only I, the Lord, have been your G’d ever since the land of Egypt.” When the Israelites were being redeemed from Egypt, the Torah testifies that this occurred as an intervention by G’d with a “strong hand.” References to this “strong hand” appear in Moses’ prayer after the golden calf episode (Exodus 32,11) at the sea of reeds, (Exodus 15,2), in Exodus 15,6, etc. There is a constant interchange of references to the attribute of Mercy and the attribute of Justice, each appearing at the most unexpected times and places. All this demonstrates that both forces are constantly on the alert and circumstances determine which force asserts itself as dominant. At the very moment when the attribute of Mercy appeared at its most near, when G’d took up residence in the Tabernacle, Moses could not enter, as if rebuffed by the attribute of Justice. Having appreciated all this, we must not be surprised when the words 'על פי ה' are understood as the attribute of Mercy instead of as the attribute of Justice.

This is in Sifri. When Rashi said that we learned in [the Beraysa describing] the work of the Mishkon, all this is there until “tekiah, teruah and tekiah.” However when he says “they did not proceed until Moshe intoned: Arise Hashem” this is not in the Beraysa, thus regarding this comment Rashi says “this is in Sifri.” When he writes subsequently “then the banner of the camp of Yehudah departed” and also when he explains that “On the order of Hashem did they camp. When [the Israelites] were…” all this is written in the Beraysa.

ועל פי ה' יחנו AT THE COMMANDMENT OF THE LORD THEY ENCAMPED — As soon as the Israelites encamped the pillar of cloud rose in a column and extended itself above the camp of the sons of Judah like the roof of a hut, and did not depart until Moses said, (Numbers 10:36), “Return, O Lord, unto the myriads of thousands of Israel!” — You must say (admit; more lit., be saying) that this is the meaning of (Numbers 10:23) “at the commandment of the Lord [they encamped and at the commandment of the Lord they journeyed ...]” but also by the agency of Moses (Sifrei Bamidbar 84:5).

כל ימי אשר ישכון, all the days that the cloud would remain stationary, etc. Our verse details the various ways in which the cloud behaved. It also pays a compliment to the Israelites who made their own wishes correspond to G'd's wishes. The verse first tells about instances when the cloud remained stationary for a long period by stating that whenever the cloud remained in place for a long time the Israelites "were willing to remain encamped in that location during the entire length of time that the cloud showed no sign of moving." The proof for this is that the Torah speaks of יחנו in the future tense instead of reporting חנו, "they did remain in camp" in the past tense. The Torah continues by saying ובהאריך הענן, "and when the cloud tarried, etc." (verse 19), to tell us that even if the cloud remained stationary for an inordinately long period of time the Israelites did not demur but were content to stay where they were. The verse goes on to say: ושמרו בני ישראל את משמרת ה׳ ולא יסעו, "the children of Israel observed the orders of G'd and would not journey." This shows that even though there may have been times when the Israelites- had it been up to their own volition alone-would have liked to move on, they resisted such a temptation and voluntarily abided by G'd's wishes in the matter. This is why the Torah wrote ולא יסעו, "and they would not journey" instead of writing ולא נסעו, "and they did not journey," to make certain we would not interpret their remaining in a place for a long time as their first choice.

AND WHEN THE CLOUD TARRIED. This means that if the cloud tarried upon the Tabernacle many days, and the place [where they happened to be camped] was not good in their eyes, so that they very much desired and wanted to journey away from there, they were nonetheless not to transgress the will of G-d; this being the meaning of the verse, and the children of Israel kept the charge of the Eternal, and journeyed not,⁹⁵Verse 19. namely that [it was only] because of their fear of G-d and because they kept the charge of His command that they did not journey. Similarly, if the cloud was there only a few days,⁹⁶Verse 20. for instance two or three days, and the people were very tired because their strength had weakened in the way,⁹⁷See Psalms 102:24. they would nonetheless fulfill the will of G-d and walk after the cloud. And Scripture further relates that sometimes they tarried for only one night and journeyed in the [next] morning, although it was a great strain for them. And at times the cloud tarried a day and a night,⁹⁸Verse 21. when they had journeyed throughout the night and arrived at that place in the morning, and the cloud stayed there all that day and all the night, and was taken up on the second morning and they journeyed.⁹⁸Verse 21. This was an even greater trouble for them than the previously-mentioned one, because the people would think that they were to stay there [for a long time], and would unload the wagons and lay down their burdens, as is the custom of those who come from a journey, and when the cloud was taken up⁹⁸Verse 21. they began reloading, and could not make any preparations for the journey. Whether it were two days,⁹⁸Verse 21. and they journeyed at night.
It is possible that it happened during their journeys that they had to do as is narrated here, and not in another way, namely that the cloud first tarried from evening until morning,⁹⁸Verse 21. then a day and night,⁹⁸Verse 21. then two days,⁹⁹Verse 22. then a month and finally a year.⁹⁹Verse 22. This is why Scripture mentioned these periods in detail. It [the cloud] would also tarry for many years, as Scripture mentioned at the beginning [of this section],¹⁰⁰Verse 19: And when the cloud tarried upon the Tabernacle many ‘days’, which means “many years.” such as in Kadesh of which Scripture states, And ye abode in Kadesh many days, according to the days that ye abode there.¹⁰¹Deuteronomy 1:46. They stayed in Kadesh for 19 years (Rashi ibid.).

. ושמרו בני ישראל את משמרת ה', the reason why the Torah repeats this fact a second time is to emphasise that even when the location selected by the cloud was not only inhospitable, but the cloud remained there for a long period, the Israelites did not grumble or protest this fact. They did not start journeying on their own, looking for a more suitable place to encamp.

ובהאריך הענן, “and when the cloud remained stationary for a longer period, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the meaning is that the people were not always content that the cloud remained in the same place for a long period as it delayed their progress toward the Holy Land. Nonetheless, the people observed G’d’s expressed will, and the Torah compliments them for this. This is why the Torah added the otherwise superfluous words that the people honoured G’d’s wish by not breaking camp until told to do so. Similarly, when the motion of the cloud signaled that they were to continue their journey although they had only pitched their tents on the day before, they did not complain but obeyed G’d’s wish without protest. On occasion this meant that after a whole night’s journey, and making camp in morning, they had to break camp and move on within literally, a number of hours. Although such uncertainties about their movements must have taken a toll on their nerves, it is recorded to their credit that they did not express discontent about this, ever.

ובהאריך הענן , “and when the cloud remained stationary for a long period,” the Torah describes these matters at length to compliment the Israelites who were guided in their journeys or lack of movement by the behaviour of the cloud. The desert was not uniform; some places where the Israelites camped were more pleasant than others, and it would have been understandable for the people to be restless to get away from the less pleasant sites. Proof that there were distinct differences in the natural habitat are such descriptions as “the bitter waters at Marah” contrasted with the pleasant oasis Eylim which was liberally supplied with date palms (Exodus 15, 23 and 27 respectively). The Torah testifies that as soon as the cloud would move, even if the camp was a very pleasant site, the Israelites would get ready to move. To sum up: the Israelites instead of arranging their journeys in accordance with their own preferences submitted willingly to the decision made on their behalf by G’d as expressed by the movement of the cloud. The Torah here also describes another act of kindness by G’d in that all occasions when the people broke camp were in the morning. We derive this from the words או יומם ולילה, “or a day and a night,” instead of או לילה או יום, “or a night and a day” (verse 21). According to the report of the creation (Genesis 1,5 as interpreted by Chulin 83), day followed night, i.e. ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר. However, had the Torah followed that script, we would have concluded that at least on some occasions the Israelites were required to break camp in the evening.

ויש means as much as AND SOMETIMES; (it is therefore to be translated: and there were times).

ויש אשר יהיה הענן ימים מספר, now the Torah reports the same matter for the third time as sometimes the encampment of the Jewish people was in an area which was pleasant, offered grazing for their animals and in spite of this after a day or two the cloud lifted, something which must have caused the people discontent [especially after the decree that the generation of the spies would die in the desert and they could not expect even if they moved to enter their ultimate destination. Ed.] Still, and this is why the Torah repeats the basic fact, the Israelites never complained about the movements of the cloud. Whatever the situation,

ויש אשר יהיה הענן ימים מספר, Sometimes the cloud would remain over the Tabernacle only for a few days, etc. This too reflects credit on the Israelites. It tells us that although the Israelites had only just made camp they did not demur when they had to move again so shortly thereafter. The verse goes on to repeat that they camped at the command of G'd and that they moved at the command of G'd. The two statements are not to be understood sequentially. All the Torah wants to tell us is that just as the making of camp occurred at the command of G'd so the act of breaking camp occurred at the command of G'd. In either case the Israelites were in full accord with G'd's wishes in the matter, no matter that they had only had a few days' rest between journeys.

ימים מספר means, A FEW DAYS.

על פי ה' יחנו, they journeyed in accordance with G’d’s instructions, regardless if it suited them or not.

I have noted that Targum Yonatan ben Uzziel translates the words ימים מספר to mean "seven days." If we accept his words we cannot say, as we did, that our verse meant to compliment the Israelites as they had seven days to recover from the effects of their journey. According to Yonatan ben Uzziel we must explain our verse as follows: the Israelites did not demur during encampment or when the time came to break camp although they would have chosen a different time-table for their journeys had they been consulted. They did what G'd said without protest. This is why the Torah emphasised the words על פי ה׳ יחנו ועל פי ה יסעו׳.

ועל פי ה' יסעו, even if the location of their camp had suited them very well.

ויש אשר יהיה הענן מערב עד בוקר, this is the fourth time that the manner in which the cloud operated is being mentioned, to show that it was impossible to predict with any degree of probability how long they would stay in one location. Sometimes, only overnight. This was not even time enough to pitch their tents, much less to erect the Tabernacle. The principal reason this detail was mentioned is to make clear that the journeys never started at night.

ויש אשר יהיה הענן מערב עד בקר, Sometimes the cloud remained stationary only from evening to the following morning, etc. From this point on the Torah tells us only about the different periods the Israelites stayed in one place. It commences with telling us about their making camp in the evening, i.e. מערב עד בקר, from evening till morning. Following this we are told that the cloud remained stationary for a day and a night; this is followed by a description of the cloud remaining in one place for 2 days, i.e. יומים. The next longer period was a month, i.e. חדש, followed by ימים, a period of a whole year when the cloud did not move and the Israelites remained in the same spot. This paragraph cannot be meant to convey something similar to the previous verses as there would have been no logical reason to first describe the cloud as remaining stationary for ימים מספר, "a number of days, etc." Such a description should have been mentioned after מערב עד בקר and not before. The expression ימים מספר is to be understood like a general heading for the subject matter, the details following in verse 21-22. There can be no doubt that the first two verses were meant to compliment the conduct of the Israelites throughout most of their long journey through the desert, whereas the last 3 verses described the various lengths of time the Israelites stayed in one place during those journeys. According to the Kabbalists the reason why the Israelites did not break camp at regular intervals was that the purpose of traversing these various areas was to locate and rescue stray sparks of sanctity which had been "captured" by forces resident in this unfriendly desert environment. Only G'd Himself was able to determine which time frame was sufficient for this task to be accomplished in the various locations.

ונעלה הענן בבקר, “and when the cloud had ascended in the morning, etc.” This teaches that G-d did not inconvenience the people by making them break camp at midnight, etc. (B’chor shor)

או ימים means, [OR] A FULL YEAR, just as, (Leviticus 25:29) “A full year (ימים) shall he have the right of redemption”.

או יומים או חדש או ימים, this is now already the fifth time that the Torah belabours the subject of these journeys, something totally unprecedented. It alerts us to how sometimes the people did not even have time to send their beasts to graze, whereas on other occasions they had to dismantle everything at very short notice, any plans they had made having to be abandoned.

בהאריך הענן, when the cloud tarried, etc. The Torah mentions that even when the cloud tarried for a whole year, meaning that during that year the Israelites did not come any nearer to their ultimate goal, they did not demur but were content to remain encamped in that location. ובהעלתו, and when it rose, even when the cloud remained in place only overnight, יסעו they would (willingly) move on. The Torah describes the Israelites' will to make camp as equal to their desire to move on. Moreover, even when their journey commenced after a sojourn in the same location for a whole year and would be followed by a renewed encampment after a journey as brief as a day, they still did not demur but displayed the same willingness to encamp again as they had displayed when bidden to move after not having moved for a whole year. The Torah concludes its report by providing us with the reason why the Israelites displayed such equanimity, namely על פי ה׳, they had trained themselves to recognise that G'd acted in their own best interests when He gave the signal to rest or to move on respectively. The words את משמרת ה׳ שמרו, "they observed G'd's charges," mean that the Israelites' patience matched whatever timetable G'd had worked out for them.

As in “a year…” Because the verse is going in ascending order (Nachalas Yaakov). See the comment above in Parshas Chayei Soroh on the verse “the girl shall stay with us for a year (lit. days)” (Bereishis 24:55).

או יומים או חדש ימים, “or two days, or even a month of days.” If the Torah had not written this verse I would have said that the cloud never moved until it had remained in place either for a whole year or only for one night. This is why it had to add the words: “or two days.”

You may well ask that if these last verses were full of compliments for the conduct of the Israelites, as we have demonstrated, why did the Torah have to pay them similar compliments in verse 17 and 18 already? Surely their display of patience and obdedience is more impressive when it is based on recurring experiences, i.e. at the end of the passage than at the very beginning of a trek the length of which no one knew at that time? The reason is that unless we had explained the earlier verses in the manner we did we could not have explained the last verse in this vein. We would then have explained those verses as telling us that the Israelites were anxiously awaiting instructions to move whenever the cloud appeared to make an extended stop and they started moving as soon as they received the signal, whereas they would have anxiously awaited a signal to make camp if only the cloud would stop travelling. As soon as that occurred they would have hurried to make camp. This would not have allowed us to form the impression that they had completely assimilated themselves to what appeared to them to be G'd's wishes in the matter. It is only after we knew from the earlier verses that the Israelites did not pre-empt G'd's instructions when it came to making or breaking camp that we were able to see in the later verses proof that the Israelites were totally on the same wavelength as G'd in all matters pertaining to their journeys. When verse 23 concludes with the statement על פי השם ביד משה, Midrash Hagadol on our verse states that the cloud would not start moving or arresting its motion until Moses had bidden it to either arise or come to rest.

על פי ה' יחנו, even when the encampment was so short-lived and the time for the to arrange their affairs was so short.

על פי ה' יחנו ועל פי ה' יסעו, “They would encamp according to the word of Hashem, and they would break camp and commence their journey according to the word of Hashem.” This has been repeated once more to tell us that this pattern continued for all the forty years they were in the desert. Previously, the Torah had described the people as journeying followed by their making camp, whereas here the pattern is reversed and their encamping is mentioned ahead of their breaking camp. The Torah wanted to stress that on all occasions the glory of Hashem accompanied them. It also appears to me that the verse that concludes with ובמקום אשר ישכן שם הענן, שם יחנו בני ישראל is the verse to which the words על פי ה' יסעו apply, to tell us that after having encamped according to the word of Hashem, they also commenced journeying again only at the command of Hashem. On the other hand, when we read על פי ה' יסעו, the Torah follows with the report that the people started to journey at the command of Hashem, by adding that they did not continue but they encamped at the command of Hashem although they might have preferred to keep on journeying toward their ultimate destination.

V. 23. על פי ד׳ ביד משה. Ihre Lagerungen und Wanderungen geschahen nach dem durch die Wolke angekündigten Aussprüche Gottes, aber durch Mosche Vermittlung. Mosche hatte die jedesmalige Aufforderung zur Befolgung des durch die Wolke ergangenen Gottesausspruchs an das Volk ergehen zu lassen, wie sogleich im folgenden des näheren angedeutet wird.

ועל פי ה' יסעו, when the dismantling in advance of the next journey would be more time consuming seeing that they had been in the same location for a long time, they still hastened and packed up to follow the cloud.

That is that He commanded us that whoever was prevented from slaughtering the first Pesach-offering, slaughter the second Pesach-offering. And that is His, may be exalted, saying, "They shall offer it in the second month [...] at twilight" (Numbers 9:11). And here there is room for the questioner to challenge me, "Why do you count the second Pesach-offering? That contradicts what you have prefaced in the Seventh Principle, when you said that a law of a commandment is not counted as a separate commandment!" The questioner of this challenge should know that the Sages already argued about whether the second Pesach-offering is a law of the first, or a distinct command. And the legal decision was that it is a command stated on its own. So therefore it is appropriate to count it separately. In the Gemara (Pesachim 93a), they said, "'One is liable for excision for [not observing] the first, and one is liable for excision for [not observing] the second.' These are the words of Rabbi (Yehuda HaNasi). Rabbi Natan says, 'One is liable for excision for [not observing] the first, but one is exempt from excision for [not observing] the second.' Rabbi Chananiah ben Akaviah says, 'Even for [failing to observe] the first, one is only liable if he did not fulfill the second.'" And the Talmud [then] asked and said, "With regard to what do they disagree? Rabbi holds that [the second Pesach] is its own festival, whereas Rabbi Natan holds that it is a redress for the first, etc." Behold we have already made clear, that which we were referring to. And there (Pesachim 93b), they said, "Therefore, one who was volitional about this one and that one" - meaning that he volitionally did not offer the first Pesach-offering nor the second Pesach-offering - "is liable according to everyone; and one was inadvertent about this one and that one, is liable according to everyone. If one was volitional about the first but inadvertent about the second - according to Rabbi and Rabbi Natan, he is liable; according to Rabbi Chananiah ben Akaviah, he is exempt. And likewise, if he was volitional about the first, but sacrificed the second, he is liable according to Rabbi." As according to his opinion, there is no redress for the first. (See Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 5, where he writes, "If he was volitional about the first, he should sacrifice the second" - and that is the opposite of what he wrote here.) And the law in this is completely like Rabbi. But women are not obligated in this commandment; as it has already been explained there that the second [Pesach-offering] is optional for a woman. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the Gemara, Pesachim. (See Parashat Behaalotecha; Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 5.)

That is that He commanded us to eat from the meat of the second-Pesach offering on the night of the fifteenth of Iyar over matzah and bitter herbs. And that is His saying, "upon matzoh and bitter herbs shall they eat it" (Numbers 9:11). And they said that women are not obligated in it. For just as its slaughter is not obligatory for them - as we explained (in the previous commandment) - so too is its eating, without a doubt, not obligatory. (See Parashat Behaalotecha; Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 1.)