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:⁵⁸ 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.⁵⁹, 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 Rabbis⁶⁰ 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,⁶¹ and the [non-performance of] circumcision of the male children and the servants prevented them [from slaughtering the Passover-offering].⁶² 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.⁶³, 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.⁶⁴, 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.⁶⁵ Thus He had said at first, And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the Land,⁶³, 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 Rabbis⁶⁰ 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.⁶¹ However, in the Sifre the Rabbis have said:⁶⁶ 67. “And they brought the Passover-offering in the first month.⁶⁷ 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?”*⁶⁸ 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,⁶⁷ 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 disesteem⁶⁹, 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 Sage⁷⁰ 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.⁷¹

footnotes: ⁵⁸ Sifre Beha’alothcha ⁵⁹ See above. Seder Naso ⁶⁰ Sifre Beha’alothcha ⁶¹ The 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. ⁶² Exodus 12:44. ⁶³ Ibid. ⁶⁴ Ibid. ⁶⁵ Joel 1:3. ⁶³ Ibid. ⁶⁰ Sifre Beha’alothcha ⁶¹ The 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. ⁶⁶ Sifre Beha’alothcha ⁶⁷ Verse 5. ⁶⁸ Amos 5:25. ⁶⁷ Verse 5. ⁶⁹ The Hebrew word is nithnadu ⁷⁰ Rabbi Eliezer (Mechilta Pis’cha ⁷¹ Exodus 12:17.

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.⁷², Verse 5. And according to all the ordinances thereof — this relates to the laws ‘upon’ the lamb,⁷³ such as eating unleavened bread for seven days, and the removal of leavened bread.” But this is a copyist’s error.⁷⁴ [For the laws which concern the animal itself are as stated above], *a lamb without blemish, a male of the first year;*⁷², 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;*⁷⁵ 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,⁷⁶ and a person may [then] have both unleavened bread and leavened bread with him in his house,⁷⁷ and it applies for only one day.⁷⁸ 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,⁷⁹ 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.⁸⁰ 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,⁸¹ means they shall eat it at the time of eating mentioned in the command concerning the first Passover.

footnotes: ⁷² Ibid. ⁷³ Our texts of Rashi add here: “from another place.” Ramban interprets this phrase as an independent thought, as explained further on. ⁷⁴ Ramban’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. ⁷² Ibid. ⁷⁵ Exodus 12:9. ⁷⁶ Further, Verse 14. ⁷⁷ Pesachim 95 a. ⁷⁸ Hence 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 ⁷⁹ In Verse 3 before us. ⁸⁰ Exodus 12:8. ⁸¹ Further, Verse 11.

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,⁸² 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].⁸³. 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 Gemara⁸⁴ 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],⁸² 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].⁸⁵ 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],⁸⁶ and did not mention “distant.”⁸⁷ 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.⁸⁸ 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]⁸⁹ 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.

footnotes: ⁸² Pesachim 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. ⁸³ But 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 ⁸⁴ Amoraim ⁸² Pesachim 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. ⁸⁵ Ramban’s thought is as follows: The duty of bringing the Passover-offering commences at the beginning ⁸⁶ Further, Verse 13. ⁸⁷ For had Verse 13 said: “and he was not on a distant ⁸⁸ Pesachim 93b. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 67-69. ⁸⁹ Pesachim 92b. This is the opinion of Rav Nachman.

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),⁹⁰ And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee and will keep the Passover,⁹¹, 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,⁹², 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;*⁹³ therefore He had to make them liable here to bring the Passover-offering in [subsequent] generations, in the wilderness and in the Land.

footnotes: ⁹⁰ Exodus 10:1. ⁹¹ Ibid. ⁹² Ibid. ⁹³ Deuteronomy 6:23.

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.⁹⁴ 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.

footnotes: ⁹⁴ Further, 10:2.

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,⁹⁵ 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,⁹⁶ for instance two or three days, and the people were very tired because their strength had weakened in the way,⁹⁷ 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,⁹⁸ 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.⁹⁸ 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 up⁹⁸ they began reloading, and could not make any preparations for the journey. Whether it were two days,⁹⁸ 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,⁹⁸ then a day and night,⁹⁸ then two days,⁹⁹ then a month and finally a year.⁹⁹ 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],¹⁰⁰, 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.¹⁰¹).

footnotes: ⁹⁵ Verse 19. ⁹⁶ Verse 20. ⁹⁷ See Psalms 102:24. ⁹⁸ Verse 21. ⁹⁸ Verse 21. ⁹⁸ Verse 21. ⁹⁸ Verse 21. ⁹⁸ Verse 21. ⁹⁸ Verse 21. ⁹⁹ Verse 22. ⁹⁹ Verse 22. ¹⁰⁰ Verse 19: And when the cloud tarried upon the Tabernacle many ‘days’ ¹⁰¹ Deuteronomy 1:46. They stayed in Kadesh for 19 years (Rashi ibid.