פסחים 93 — Soncino English Talmud

¹just as an unclean [person] is one who has the means of keeping it, yet must not keep it, so [a man ‘in ] a journey afar off’ means one who has the means of keeping it, yet he must not keep it. And R. Nahman?- He can answer you: R. Akiba is consistent with his view, for he holds: One must not slaughter and sprinkle on behalf of a person unclean through a reptile; whereas I agree with the view that one slaughters and sprinkles on behalf of a person unclean through a reptile. Our Rabbis taught: The following keep the second [Passover]: zabin and zaboth, male lepers and female lepers, niddoth and those who had intercourse with niddoth, and women after confinement, those who [do not observe the first Passover] inadvertently, and those who are forcibly prevented, and those who [neglect it] deliberately, and he who is unclean, and he who was in ‘a journey afar off’. If so, why is an unclean person mentioned? [You ask] ‘why is he mentioned’? [Surely to teach] that if he wishes to keep it at the first we do not permit him? Rather [the question is] why is [a person] on a journey afar off mentioned? — To exempt him from kareth, this being in accordance with the view that it is accepted. Is then a woman obliged [to keep] the second [Passover], but surely it was taught: You might think that only a person unclean through the dead and one who was in ‘a journey afar off’ keep the second [Passover], — whence do we know [that] zabin and lepers and those who had intercourse with niddoth [must keep it]? From the verse, If any man [etc.]? -There is no difficulty: one is according to R. Jose; the other, according to R. Judah and R. Simeon. Our Rabbis taught: One incurs kareth on account of the first [Passover], and one incurs kareth on account of the second: this is Rabbi's view. R. Nathan said: One incurs kareth on account of the first, but does not incur it on account of the second. R. Hanania b. ‘Akabia said: One does not incur kareth even on account of the first, unless he [deliberately] does not keep the second. Now they are consistent with their views. For it was taught: A proselyte who became converted between the two Passovers, and similarly a minor who attained his majority between the two Passovers, are bound to keep the second Passover: that is Rabbi's view. R. Nathan said: Whoever is subject to the first is subject to the second, and whoever is not subject to the first is not subject to the second. Wherein do they differ? — Rabbi holds: The second is a separate Festival. R. Nathan holds: The second is a compensation for the second, [but] it does not make amends for the first. While R. Hanania b. ‘Akabia holds: The second makes amends for the first. Now the three deduce [their views] from the same verse: But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey. Rabbi holds: And forbeareth to keep the Passover, that soul shall be cut off - because he did not keep [it] at the first; or alternatively [if] he brought not the offering of the Lord in its appointed season [i.e.,] at the second. And how do you know that that [phrase], ‘that man shall bear his sin, ‘ means kareth?^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ

^ᵃnote:He is physically able to keep it.
^ᵇnote:E.g., one could sacrifice on his behalf and he could reach Jerusalem in time.
^ᶜnote:But must postpone it; hence if he does have it sacrificed on his behalf, it is not accepted.
^ᵈnote:Though he will be fit to eat in the evening, because at the time of sacrificing he is not fit.The present case is similar.
^ᵉnote:The translation and explanation follows cur. edd. Tosaf. records a different reading, which is supported by the Sifre (Be-ha alotheka): Just as an unclean person is one who cannot possibly keep it, on account of his uncleanness, and he must not keep it, so a person in ‘a journey afar off’ means one who cannot possibly reach Jerusalem in time (according to ‘Ulla, for the sacrificing; according to Rab Judah, for the eating),and he too must not keep it. R. Shesheth deduces that ‘he must not keep it’ means that even if it is sacrificed on his behalf it is not accepted, since it is completely analogous to the case of an unclean person. R. Nahman answers that because R. Akiba holds that you may not slaughter and sprinkle on behalf of a person unclean through a reptile, therefore he learns the case of ‘a journey afar off’ from that of uncleanness, since the former two are alike in that both are unfit at the time of slaughtering and fit and able at the time of eating. Hence it is true that in R. Akiba's opinion the sacrifice is not accepted’ if offered, but R. Nahman holds that you do slaughter and sprinkle for a person unclean through a reptile. Tosaf. adds that R. Shesheth too holds thus, but that in his view R. Akiba learns it from’ a person unclean through the dead, though the cases are not really alike then.
^ᶠnote:Plural of zabb and zabah respectively, q.v. Glos.
^ᵍnote:Pl. of niddah, q.v. Glos.
^ʰnote:Supra 92b. For if he held that it is not accepted, then this case must be stated for that very teaching.
^ⁱnote:So that female lepers, menstruants and women after childbirth are included.
^ʲnote:Num. IX, 10. Heb. aht aht, the repetition denoting extension. Thus nothing is said about women.
^ᵏnote:V. Supra 91b. R. Jose holds that even at the second Passover a company consisting entirely of women may be formed; hence in his view the second Passover is binding upon women. Whereas R. Judah and R. Simeon hold that it is voluntary only.
^ˡnote:Deliberate neglect to keep either when there is the obligation involves kareth. Of course, no man can actually incur kareth twice, but the point is that if a man sinned unwittingly in respect of one but deliberately in respect of the other he incurs kareth. Similarly, where a proselyte becomes converted between the two Passovers and deliberately neglects the second.
^ᵐnote:Hence if he inadvertently neglected the first, he does not incur kereth even if he deliberately neglects the second.
^ⁿnote:Thus both were exempt from the first Passover, but are in a condition to keep the second.
^ᵒnote:He regards it as a separate obligation entirely, even for those who were not subject to the law at all at the first, as in the present instances.
^ᵖnote:Hence only he who was subject to the law at the first can keep the second.
^ᵠnote:Hence if a person deliberately neglects the first he incurs kareth even if he keeps the second. On the other hand, if he neglects the first unwittingly, he is not liable to kareth even if he deliberately neglects the second, since the second is not an independent obligation apart from the first.
^ʳnote:Num. IX, 13.
^ˢnote:Ibid.
^ᵗnote:Ibid. because(Heb. ki) he brought not the offering etc. Ki is variously translated according to the context, v. R.H. 3a. Rabbi renders it ‘if’.
^ᵘnote:Ibid.

²He holds that megaddef is one who curses the [Divine] Name, while of him who curses the [Divine] Name It Is written, [Whosoever curseth his God] shall bear his sin, and [the meaning of] this ‘his sin’ is learnt from ‘his sin’ there: just as there [it means] kareth, so here too, [it means] kareth. Again, R. Nathan holds: And forbeareth to keep, the Passover, that soul shall be cut off’ for this ki denotes ‘because’ and this is what the Divine Law saith, Because he brought not the offering of the Lord at the first. How does he employ this [phrase] ‘that man shall bear his sin’? — He holds that megaddef is not one who curses the [Divine] Name, and so [the meaning of] this ‘his sin’ [written] there is learnt from ‘his sin’ [written] here; just as [it means] kareth here, so there too [it means] kareth. While R. Hanania b. ‘Akabia holds [that we translate thus]: ‘and forbeareth to keep the Passover, that soul shall be cut off’; if [also] he brought not the offering of the Lord in its appointed season, [viz.,] at the second. And how does he employ this ‘shall bear his sin’? — As we have stated. Therefore if [he neglected] deliberately both [Passovers], all agree that he is culpable. If [he neglected] both unwittingly, all agree that he is not culpable. If [he neglected] the first deliberately but the second unwittingly: according to Rabbi and R. Nathan he is culpable; according to R. Hanania b. ‘Akabia, he is not culpable. If [he neglected] the first unwittingly but the second deliberately: according to Rabbi he is culpable; according to R. Nathan and R. Hanania b. ‘Akabia he is not culpable. MISHNAH. WHAT IS ‘A JOURNEY AFAR OFF’? FROM MODI'IM AND BEYOND, AND THE SAME DISTANCE ON ALL SIDES [OF JERUSALEM]: THIS IS R. AKIBA'S OPINION. R. ELIEZER SAID: FROM THE THRESHOLD OF THE TEMPLE COURT AND WITHOUT. SAID R. JOSE TO HIM: FOR THAT REASON THE HEH IS POINTED IN ORDER TO TEACH: NOT BECAUSE IT IS REALLY AFAR OFF, BUT [WHEN ONE IS] FROM THE THRESHOLD OF THE TEMPLE COURT AND WITHOUT [HE IS REGARDED AS BEING ‘AFAR OFF’]. G E M A R A. ‘Ulla said: From Modi'im to Jerusalem is fifteen miles. He holds as Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: what is an [average] man's journey in a day? Ten parasangs: five mils from daybreak until the first sparklings of the rising sun, [and] five mils from sunset until the stars appear. This leaves thirty: fifteen from the morning until midday, and fifteen from midday until evening [i.e., sunset]. ‘Ulla Is consistent with his view, for ‘Ulla said: What is ‘a journey afar off’? Any place whence a man is unable to enter [Jerusalem] at the time of slaughtering. The Master said: ‘Five mils from daybreak until the first sparklings of the rising sun.’ Whence do we know it? — Because It is written, And when the morning arose [i.e., at daybreak], then the angels hastened Lot, saying etc.; and it is written, The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot came unto Zoar,. while R. Hanina said: I myself saw that place and it is five mils [from Sodom]. The [above] text [stated]: ‘’Ulla said, what is "a journey afar off"? Any place whence a man Is unable to enter [Jerusalem] at the time of slaughtering.’ But Rab Judah maintained: Any place whence one is unable to enter [Jerusalem] at the time of eating. Rabbah said to ‘Ulla: on your view there is a difficulty, and on Rab judah's view there is a difficulty. On your view there is a difficulty, for you say, ‘Any place whence a man is unable to enter at the time of slaughtering’: yet surely a man unclean through a reptile is unable to enter at the time of slaughtering, yet you say, One slaughters and sprinkles on behalf of a person unclean through a reptile? On Rab Judah's view there is a difficulty, for he says, ‘Any place whence one is unable to enter at the time of eating’: but surely he who is unclean through a reptile is able to enter at the time of eating, yet he says, One may not slaughter and sprinkle on behalf of a man unclean through a reptile? Said he to him: Neither on my view nor on Rab Judah's view Is there a difficulty. On my view there is no difficulty: ‘A journey afar off’ [is stated] in reference to a clean person, but ‘a journey afar off’ is not [stated] in reference to an unclean person.19^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ

^ᵛnote:Lit., ‘blesses’, a euphemism for ‘curses’
^ʷnote:V. Num. XV, 30; he blasphemeth (Heb. megaddef, R.V.: reproacheth) the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off(i.e., kareth). The meaning of megaddef is disputed in Ker. 7b.
^ˣnote:Lev. XXIV, 15. From Num. XV, 30 ‘ye know that he incurs kareth, and therefore that must be the meaning in this verse.
^ʸnote:R. Nathan renders ‘ki’ as ‘because’.
^ᶻnote:According to Rabbi it is necessary, as it refers to the punishment for the neglect of the second. But since R. Nathan relates it to the first, it is superfluous, having been already stated.
^ᵃᵃnote:But one who takes part in an idolatrous service, e.g., by singing hymns in a heathen Temple, v. Ker. 7b. Consequently, Nun,. XV, 30 cannot be identified with Lev. XXIV, 15 (v. notes supra), and so there is nothing to indicate the meaning of ‘shall bear his sin’ in the latter verse, which refers to blasphemy.
^ᵃᵇnote:As explicitly stated in the first half of the verse.
^ᵃᶜnote:Translating ki like Rabbi, except that he connects it with the preceding part of the verse.
^ᵃᵈnote:In connection with R. Nathan.
^ᵃᵉnote:Generally known as Modim, a town famous in Jewish history as the residence of Mattathias and his sons, where the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus flared up; it was some fifteen miles N.W. of Jerusalem.
^ᵃᶠnote:The Heb. for ‘a journey afar off’ (Num. IX, 10) is veujr lr the v (heh) being traditionally written with a dot, thus . Such a point was regarded as a weakening or limitation, as though the word were not really written.
^ᵃᵍnote:A mil=two thousand cubits, a quarter of a parasang.
^ᵃʰnote:From daybreak to nightfall, when the day and night are of equal length, i.e., from six a.m. To six p.m.
^ᵃⁱnote:I.e., so far, that if a man started walking at midday, which is the earliest time for sacrificing the Passover-offering, he could not reach it by sunset, which is the latest. Taking this statement in conjunction with the preceding calculation, we see that Modim must be fifteen mils from Jerusalem.
^ᵃʲnote:Gen. XIX, 15.
^ᵃᵏnote:Ibid. 23.
^ᵃˡnote:Sc. the Temple.
^ᵃᵐnote:For this controversy v. supra 90b.
^ᵃⁿnote:V. Num. IX, 13: But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep (lit., ‘do’) the Passover etc. From this we see, (i) that the exemption for a man who is in a ‘journey afar off’ applies to a clean person, and (ii) that a ‘journey (afar off)’ is determined by his inability to do the Passover, i.e., to slaughter it. Hence if he is so far away that he cannot reach the Temple Court in time for the slaughtering, he is in a journey afar off’. But an unclean person is exempt because of his uncleanness, which prevents his eating, but not his sacrificing, since that can be done by another acting on his behalf. Moreover, since Scripture specifies one who is ‘unclean by reason of a dead body’ and does not state one who is unclean through a reptile, it follows that this exemption applies only to such as the former, who are unclean for a long period (seven days) and cannot be fit in the evening, but not to such as the latter, who can be fit to eat in the evening.