Midrash sobre Números 9:3

(Fol. 66) Our Rabbis were taught: The following Halacha (law) escaped the memory of the sons of Bathyra. It once happened that the fourteenth [of Nisan] fell on the Sabbath day and they did not know whether the Passover sacrifice supersedes the Sabbath or not. They appealed to the sages, saying: "Is there a man who knows [the law], whether the Passover sacrifice supersedes the Sabbath or not?" And they were told that there was a man who had recently come from Babylon whose name was Hillel, the Babylonian, who had served (in the academy of] the two greatest men of that generation, namely, Shemaya and Abitalyon, and who ought to know whether the Passover sacrifice supersedes the Sabbath or not. So they sent for him and asked him: "Have you any knowledge whether the Passover offering supersedes the Sabbath or not?" He replied: "Have we then only one Passover sacrifice during the year that supersedes the Sabbath? Behold, there are more than two hundred Passover sacrifices that supersede the Sabbath!" So they asked him: "Whence do you infer this?" Whereupon he said to them: "It is said (Num. 9, 3) B'mo'ado (at its appointed season) at the Passover offering, and it is said' (Ib. 28, 2) B'mo'ado at the perpetual daily offering; i.e., just as the B'mo'ado which is said at the perpetual daily offering is intended to mean that it supersedes the Sabbath, so also the B'mo'ado of the Passover offering is intended to mean that it supersedes the Sabbath. Aside from this, that oecision can also be derived by the rule of a fortiori; if the perpetual daily offering, for the neglect of which there is no Karath punishment, supersedes the Sabbath, how much the more then shall the Passover sacrifice, for the neglect of which there is the Karath punishment, supersede the Sabbath?" They immediately appointed him as their head (chief), whereupon he sat down and lectured the whole day upon the Halachas concerning Passover. Subsequently he began to reproach them (the sons of Bathyra) with words, saying to them: "What reason have you to make me, who come from Babylon, your Nasi (prince)? Only your idleness in not taking advantage to serve the two great men of your generation, Sh'maya and Abitalyon!" They then asked him another question, viz., "What is the law if a man had forgotten to bring the slaughtering knife on Friday, may he bring it on the Sabbath?" Hillel said to them: "This Halacha I have heard, but I have forgotten it. Leave this, however, to the Israelites themselves, for although they are not prophets, they are descendants of prophets [and evidently will know what to do]." On the morrow, whoever brought his sheep for the Passover offering had the knife thrust in the wool, and he who had a kid as his Passover offering thrust the knife between the horns. As soon as Hillel noticed this, he recollected the Halacha and said: "Such is the tradition I have from the mouth of Sh'maya and Abitalyon."

And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron: “This is the ordinance of the passover” (Exod. 12:43). There are chapters of the Torah in which a general statement is made at the beginning of the chapter, and a particular statement is made at its end. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests (Exod. 19:6) is a particular statement, while the verse These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel (ibid.) is a general statement. This is the statue of the law (Num. 19:2) is a general statement, while the verse That they bring thee a red heifer (ibid.) is a particular statement. This is the ordinance of the Passover (Exod. 12:43) is a general statement, whereas There shall no alien eat thereof (ibid.) is a particular statement. Whenever a general statement is followed by a particular one, the general statement does not include more than is contained in the particular.¹⁰The fourth of the thirteen rules of interpretation developed by R. Ishmael. This is the ordinance of the Passover. This passage deals with the Passover in Egypt. How then do we know about Passover in subsequent generations? Scripture informs us of this in the verse According to all the statutes of it, and according to all the ordinances thereof, shall ye keep it (Num. 9:3). There shall no alien eat thereof (Exod. 12:43) alludes also to a renegade Jew and a Gentile. Every man’s servant that is bought for money (ibid., v. 44). (The verse states:) Every man’s servant. Does this mean that the servant of a woman or of a child is excluded? Scripture says: That is bought for money, which implies (every servant that was purchased).

(Exodus 12:43) "And the L rd said to Moses and Aaron": There are some sections (in the Torah) which are generic in the beginning and specific after, and some which are specific in the beginning and generic after. (Exodus 19:6) "And you shall be unto Me a kingdom of lords and a holy nation" — specific; (Ibid.) "these are the things that you shall speak" — generic. (Numbers 19:2) "This is the statute of the Torah" — generic; (Ibid.) "They shall take to you a red heifer" — specific. (Exodus 12:43) "This is the statute of the Paschal offering" — generic; (Ibid.) "No stranger may eat of it" — specific. There is subsumed in the generic only what is in the specific. "This is the statute of the Paschal offering." Scripture speaks of (both) the Pesach of Egypt and the Pesach for all the generations. These are the words of R. Oshiyah. R. Yonathan says: Scripture speaks of the Pesach of Egypt. Whence do I derive (the same for) the Pesach of all the generations? From (Numbers 9:3) "according to all of its statutes and all of its ordinances." R. Yoshiyah said to him: Scripture (here) speaks of (both) the Pesach of Egypt and the Pesach for all the generations. What is the intent of "according to all of its statutes and all of its ordinances"? Scripture (there) comes to speak of details which are lacking here. R. Issi b. Akiva says: "statutes" (in Numbers 9:3) applies only (directly) to the body of the Paschal offering.