Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 5, scan section 73

these are included, why does the verse mention only those that were unclean and on a distant journey ? In order to exclude these from the penalty of Kareth." This teaching of the rabbis coincides with the opinion of R. Na'hman to the effect that if a paschal sacrifice had been slaugh- tered for one who was on a distant journey it is favorably accepted. Is a woman, then, obliged to bring a second Passover-offer- ing ? Have we not learned in a Boraitha: We might assume that the duty of offering the second Passover-sacrifice was only incumbent upon those who were unclean (through contact with a dead body) and upon those who were on a distant journey; whence do we know that men having a running issue, men afflicted with sores, and one who had sexual intercourse with a woman suffering from her menstruation are also included ? To that end it is written [Numbers ix. lo] : " any man whatever." Thus we see that "man" is mentioned, but not woman? This presents no difificulty. According to R. Jose women are also bound to bring the second Passover-sacrifice, while accord- ing to R. Jehudah and R. Simeon women need not. The rabbis taught : " Kareth is the penalty for the non-observ- ance of the first Passover as well as of the second." Such is the dictum of Rabbi. R. Nathan, however, said that punish- ment is incurred only for the non-observance of the first, but not of the second Passover. R. Hananiah bar Aqabia said : " Even for the non-observance of the first Passover the penalty is not incurred unless the second Passover is also not observed." The opinions of all three are in accordance with their indi- vidual theories, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: TRACT PESACHIM (PASSOVER). 193 If a proselyte had become converted (to the Judaic faith) in the interim between the two Passovers, or if a minor had attained his majority during that time, Rabbi holds that they should observe the second Passover. R. Nathan, however, says that only one who was obliged to observe the first Passover should observe the second ; but not one who was not in duty bound to observe the first. Wherein do these two sages differ ? Rabbi holds that the two Passovers are separate festivals, while R. Nathan maintains that the second is only supplementary to the first but not a substitute therefor; i.e., the observance of the second Passover does not absolve a man from the punish- ment incurred for the neglect of the first; but R. Hananiah bar Aqabia states that the second Passover is merely a substitute for the first, and its observance exempts a man from the penalty incurred through non-observance of the first. All three sages adduced their teachings from the one passage, viz. [Numb. ix. 13]: "But the man that is clean, and is not on a journey." Rabbi holds that the following words, " and forbeareth to pre- pare the Passover-lamb, even that same shall be cut off from his people," refer to the first Passover, and the sentence, " because the offering of the Lord hath he not brought at its appointed season, his sin shall that man bear," refers to the observance of the second Passover, and instead of " because " (Hebrew Kee*) it should read "or." R. Nathan, however, holds to the literal text of the verse, and says that it should read, " because the offering," etc. R. Hananiah bar Aqabia says that instead of *' because " it should read " if," and then the sentence will read, °* if he hath not brought," etc. Thus the conclusion is as follows: If a man had intentionally neglected the first and second Passover, all agree, that he incurs the penalty of Kareth. If he had inadvertently neglected both, all agree, that he is not culpable. If he had neglected the first intentionally and the second unintentionally, he is, according to Rabbi and R. Nathan, culpable, and according to R. Hananiah absolved. If he had neglected the first unintentionally and the second intentionally, he is, according to Rabbi, culpable, but according to R. Nathan and R. Hananiah bar Aqabia he is absolved. MISHNA: What must be considered a " distant " journey ? * The Hebrew word "' Kee" can be translated in four different ways; namely, " because," " therefore," " perhaps," and " if." 13 194 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. According to R. Aqiba, it is from Moodayim and beyond, and from all places around Jerusalem, situated at the same distance. R. EHezer said: "Any distance beyond the outside of the threshold of the Temple-court should be considered as coming in under that term." Said R. Jose to him: " It was to confirm this (Rabbi's statement) that it is (even to this day) directed that a dot must be placed over the Heh in the word Rahuqa'h (meaning ' distant '), to indicate that it is not necessary that a person should actually be on a distant road, but that he is con- sidered distant so long as he has not passed beyond the thresh- old of the court of the Temple." GEMARA: Said Ula: "From Moodayim * to Jerusalem is a distance of fifteen miles," and he is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar bar Hana, who said in the name of R. Johanan: " What is the distance that a man can traverse in one day ? Ten Parsaoth.f From the time the morning star appears until sunrise five miles, from sunset until the stars appear five miles, and from sunrise until noon fifteen miles, and from noon until sunset fifteen miles." Ula's reason for calling fifteen miles a distant journey is because he holds, that if a man were in Moodayim after sunrise he could not reach the court of the Temple in time to witness the slaughtering of the paschal offering. The Master said: " From the time the morning star appears until sunrise a man can traverse five miles." Whence does he adduce this ? From the passage [Gen. xix. 15] : " And as the morning dawn arose, the angels urged Lot," etc. ; and further, it is written [ibid. 23] : " The sun rose over the earth, when Lot entered into Zoar " ; and R. Hanina said: " I saw the distance between Sodom and Zoar, and found it to be five miles." Thus it is said that Ula calls a journey distant if the court of the Temple cannot be reached in time for the slaughtering on the same day, and R. Jehudah says that the journey is distant if the court of the Temple cannot be reached in time- for the eating of the paschal lamb on the same day. Said Rabba to Ula: " According to both thine and R. Jehudah's opinion there is a question. According to thy own opinion, for one who had become unclean through a reptile the paschal offering may be * The place Moodayim is frequently mentioned in Josephus and the histor}' of the Maccabees under the name of Modain. f Parsaoth is plural for Parsah, which is the equivalent of four miles, cajled in Hebrew " Milin." TRACT PESACHIM (PASSOVER). 195 slaughtered and the blood sprinkled notwithstanding the fact