ת"ר אלו שעושין את השני הזבין והזבות המצורעין והמצורעות [ונדות] ובועלי נדות והיולדות השוגגין והאנוסין והמזידין וטמא ושהיה בדרך רחוקה
whereas I agree with the view that one slaughters and sprinkles on behalf of a person unclean through a reptile.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');"><sup>5</sup></span> Our Rabbis taught: The following keep the second [Passover]: zabin and zaboth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Plural of zabb and zabah respectively, q.v. Glos.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
Sefer HaMitzvot
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.)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
