Comentário sobre Números 9:10

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.