Daf Ditty Pesachim 92: Pesach Sheni

Num 9:10

1
2
Anyone who was ritually impure or on a long journey and did not observe the first must observe
the second. If, because of error or force of circumstances, one did not observe the first one must
observe the second. In which case, why does it specify 'ritually impure or on a long journey'? -
The former are excused the excision and the latter incur excision.

1:
The first subject to be treated in this tractate's penultimate chapter is what we have
previously termed the Alternative Passover. We have had occasion to mention this matter
several times already, but, as promised, this is the appropriate place to explain its biblical
origins.

2:
So important and so crucially essential does the Torah hold the celebration of the Passover

3
to be that it annually introduces a 'second chance' for participation for those who were
unable to participate in the general celebration in Nisan. (This is the only festival in the
calendar to receive such treatment.) At the very beginning of our study of this tractate
[RMSG Pesaĥim 2] I pointed out that the Torah seems to be speaking of two separate
festivals: the festival of the Passover and the festival of Matzah. The former takes place on
Nisan 14th and the latter lasts for seven days, Nisan 15th to 21st. The main observance of the
former is the slaughter and preparation of the paschal lamb, whereas the main observance
of the latter is the prohibition of leaven and the eating of matzah. Indeed, I pointed out that
the very name of the tractate, Pesaĥim, indicates 'Paschal lambs' and not 'Passover festivals'.

3:
It was the observance of the ceremony of the Paschal lamb that was considered to be crucial
to the Jewish ethos, and it is this aspect of Passover that is observed in the 'Alternative
Passover'. As we shall see later in this chapter its observance only involves the eating of a
paschal lamb together with matzah and maror, it lasts for only one day and does not involve
the prohibition of ĥametz. Indeed, the most obvious indication of the paramountcy of the
paschal ceremony in this regard is the fact that the 'Alternative' falls on Iyyar 14th and not
Iyyar 15th, i.e. exactly one month after the ceremony of the slaughter of the paschal lamb
and not one month after the beginning of the festival of Unleavened Bread.

4:
The Torah [Numbers 9:9-13] makes the following provision:

:‫שׂה ֶפַסח ַליהָוה‬ ָ ‫ ְרֹחָקה ָלֶכם אוֹ ְלֹדֹרֵתיֶכם ְוָﬠ‬m‫ַדֵּבּר ֶאל־ְבֵּני ִיְשׂ ָרֵאל ֵלאֹמר ִאישׁ ִאישׁ ִכּי־ ִיְהֶיה ָטֵמא ָלֶנֶפשׁ אוֹ ְבֶד ֶר‬
‫ ל ֹא־ַיְשִׁאירוּ ִמֶמּנּוּ ַﬠד־ֹבֶּקר ְוֶﬠֶצם‬:‫ַבֹּחֶדשׁ ַהֵשּׁ ִני ְבַּא ְרָבָּﬠה ָﬠָשׂר יוֹם ֵבּין ָ ֽהַﬠ ְרַבּ ִים ַיֲﬠשׂוּ ֹאתוֹ ַﬠל־ַמצּוֹת וְּמֹר ִרים י ֹאְכֻלהוּ‬
‫ ל ֹא־ָהָיה ְוָחַדל ַֽלֲﬠשׂוֹת ַהֶפַּסח ְו ִנְכ ְרָתה ַהֶנֶּפשׁ‬m‫ ְוָהִאישׁ ֲאֶשׁר־הוּא ָטהוֹר וְּבֶד ֶר‬:‫ל ֹא ִיְשְׁבּרוּ־בוֹ ְכָּכל־ֻחַקּת ַהֶפַּסח ַיֲﬠשׂוּ ֹאתוֹ‬
:‫ַהִהוא ֵמַﬠֶמּיָה ִכּי ָק ְרַבּן ְיהָוה ל ֹא ִהְק ִריב ְבֹּמֲﬠדוֹ ֶחְטאוֹ ִיָשּׂא ָהִאישׁ ַההוּא‬

God told Moses to say to the Israelites: If any of you or of your descendents is ritually impure
by reason of a dead body, or is on a long journey, he shall still keep the God's Passover. In
the second month, on the fourteenth day at evening they shall keep it; they shall eat it with
unleavened bread and bitter herbs. They shall leave none of it until the morning, nor break
a bone of it. According to all the law of the paschal lamb they shall keep it. But the person
who is clean, and is not on a journey, and fails to keep the Passover, that soul shall be cut off
from his people. Because he didn‫ע‬t offer the offering of God in its appointed season, that
man shall bear his sin.

5:
Our present mishnah relates to the two reasons why, according to the Torah, someone might
have been prevented from observing the original celebration at the appointed time: they may
have been ritually impure at the time or they may have been on a long journey. Previous
mishnayot that we have studied recently have dealt with the issue of ritual impurity in
connection with the paschal lamb, and the next mishnah in this chapter will attempt a
definition of 'a long journey'. However, our present mishnah adds two other considerations
which are not specifically mentioned in the Torah: 'error' and 'force of circumstances'.

4
(Force of circumstances in this context means circumstances over which one has no control,
such as illness or involuntary incarceration.)

6:
The very phrasing of our mishnah is awkward, and deliberately so. It would have been so
much clearer to state that the Alternative Passover is for 'anyone who was ritually impure,
on a long journey, in error or because of force of circumstances'. The repetitiousness noted
in our mishnah is in order to indicate that the first two reasons do not have the same
implications as the other two. If one was not able to observe the original Pesaĥ because of
ritual impurity or being on a long journey and one also fails to observe the second
opportunity one is not held to be liable to the doom of excision imposed by the Torah
[Numbers 9:13] for non-observance. The reason is that one was legitimately excused at the
original time. However, if one did not observe the paschal ceremony in Nisan for the other
two reasons and also failed to observe it in Iyyar one is held to be liable to the penalty of
excision for non-observance.

MISHNA: One who was ritually impure or on a distant journey and did not
observe the first Pesaḥ by participating in the offering of the Paschal lamb on the
fourteenth of Nisan should observe the second Pesaḥ by participating in the offering
on the fourteenth of Iyyar. If one unwittingly forgot or was prevented due to
circumstances beyond his control and did not observe the first Pesaḥ, he too should
observe the second Pesaḥ. If so, that the second Pesaḥ is observed even by someone
who forgot or was prevented from observing the first Pesaḥ, why is it stated in the
Torah that the second Pesaḥ is observed only by one who was ritually impure or on a
distant journey? These cases were specified in order to teach that these two groups of
people are exempt from karet if they do not observe the second Pesaḥ, but those who

5
were not ritually impure or on a distant journey are liable to receive karet, as the
Gemara will explain.

6
GEMARA: It was stated that the amora’im disagreed about the following issue:
If one was on a distant journey and others slaughtered the Paschal lamb and
sprinkled its blood on his behalf, and he arrived in time to eat the Paschal lamb, does
he need to observe the second Pesaḥ since he was far away at the time that the sacrifice
was offered? Rav Naḥman said: His offering was accepted, and he need not observe
the second Pesaḥ. Rav Sheshet said: His offering was not accepted, and he must
sacrifice the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ. The Gemara explains their
opinions. Rav Naḥman said: His offering was accepted because the Torah has
mercy on one who was on a distant journey and allows him the option of observing the
second Pesaḥ; but if he nonetheless did participate in the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb
on the first Pesaḥ, may blessing come upon him. And Rav Sheshet said: His
offering is not accepted because the Torah deferred his observance to the
second Pesaḥ just as it does for one who is ritually impure. Just as one who is ritually
impure may not voluntarily participate in the Paschal lamb, neither may one who is on
a distant journey.

Rav Naḥman said: From where do I say my opinion? As we learned in the

mishna: One who was ritually impure or on a distant journey and did not
observe the first Pesaḥ should observe the second Pesaḥ. The expression: And did
not observe, indicates by inference that regarding one who was on a distant
journey, had he wished, he could have observed it and would thereby be exempt from
participating in the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ.

And Rav Sheshet said in response: If so, consider the latter clause of the
mishna, which teaches: If one unwittingly forgot or was prevented due to
circumstances beyond his control and did not observe the first Pesaḥ, he should
observe the second Pesaḥ. According to your reasoning, from the fact that it is

7
taught: And did not observe, conclude by inference that had he wished, he could
have observed it. However, this is not possible, as the mishna states explicitly that he
unwittingly forgot or was prevented due to circumstances beyond his control and
was unable to observe the first Pesaḥ.

8
Rather, the mishna must be explained differently, as follows: Even though it does not
say so explicitly, the mishna is teaching with the phrase: And he did not observe, the
case of one who intentionally refrained from observing the
first Pesaḥ together with the other cases in the mishna. Here, too, in the first part of the
mishna, the phrase: And he did not observe, must be understood as including another
category of people: It is teaching the case of an acute mourner, i.e., one whose
relative died that same day and has not yet been buried, together with the other cases.
The first part of the mishna includes three cases: One who was ritually impure, one who
was on distant journey, and one who was an acute mourner. Therefore, it cannot be
inferred that had he wished to observe the first Pesaḥ, he could have done so.

Summary
If one did not bring his korban pesach on the night of pesach, he can bring a pesach sheini. The
Mishna lists four cases of people who can bring a korban pesach on pesach sheini. They are people
who were impure on pesach, were far away and therefore exempt from bringing a korban pesach,
and people who could not the korban pesach due to either forced or accidental circumstances.

9
There is an argument whether someone who was far away during the slaughtering of his korban
pesach fulfills his mitzvah with this korban pesach. The Gemora discusses someone who was far
away when his korban pesach was slaughtered (he could not get close before nightfall).

Rav Nachman says that as long as he eats it on time he does not have to bring another korban
pesach. He had an option to be exempt, but if he was able to fulfill his obligation anyway it is
valid. Rav Sheshes says that the Torah made him totally exempt, just like someone who is impure
who has no way to bring the korban. He therefore must bring another korban on pesach sheini.

There is a dispute about a person who has a Korban Pesach slaughtered for him while he is too far
away to do it himself.

The Torah says that someone who is far away from the Beis ha'Mikdash is exempt from bringing
a Korban Pesach. If people slaughter a Korban for him anyway, according to Rav Nachman he
fulfills his obligation, while according to Rav Sheshes he does not.

Prooftext

Num 9:10

Rashi

‫[ או בדרך רחקה‬IF ANY MAN … SHALL BE UNCLEAN BY REASON OF A DEAD,]

OR BE ON A DISTANT JOURNEY — There is a dot on it (on the ‫ ה‬of the word ‫רחקה‬
which letter is therefore regarded as non-existent; cf. Rashi on Genesis 18:9 and Note

10
thereon), in order to tell that what Scripture means by ‫ בדרך רחקה‬is that it (the journey)
need not really be a distant one, but that his sacrifice is postponed even though he was
merely outside the threshold of the forecourt during the whole time that the ceremony
of slaughtering the Passover sacrifice tasted. (Pesachim 93b , cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 69:2 ). —
On the “Second Passover” one may have with him unleavened and leavened bread
together in his house, and there is no festival in connection with it, and the eating of
leaven is forbidden only together with it (the Passover Sacrifice) — i.e. while the
sacrifice is being eaten (cf. Pesachim 95a ).

Bartenura

Chizkuni

‫או בדרך רחוקה‬, “or on a journey far off;” there is a dot on the letter ‫ ה‬in the word ‫;רחוקה‬
this dot is not connected to the word ‫בדרך‬, for if so, the word would be treated as if it
had not appeared. Rather, that dot connects to the word ‫איש‬, “a man or person;” we are
to understand the person concerned as being spiritually on a journey that had estranged
him to Judaism and its G-d.

11
Torah Temimah

Rabbi Obadiah of Bertinoro (below) and Rambam, in his Commentary to the Mishnah, both
explain that if someone was exempt from participating in the first Pesach due to his being tamei
or having been too far away, even if this person intentionally and neglectfully disregards the
opportunity to bring the second Pesach, he is not liable for kareis, for he was legitimately exempt
from the first Pesach.1

Bartenuro

1
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20092.pdf

12
However, someone else who did not bring the first Pesach due to an accident or oversight, if he
then did not bring the second Pesach due to negligence, is liable for kareis. This level of liability
for not offering Pesach Sheni as prescribed follows the opinion of Rebbe (93a).

This is also the ruling of Rambam (below) in Hilchos Korban Pesach (5:2). Nevertheless, Ra’avad
asks why there should be a distinction between different reasons why the first Pesach was not
brought. Why is kareis only applied for nonparticipation in the second Pesach when the first was
not done due to ‫אונס‬, but not when it was not done due to impurity or due to one’s being far away?

Lechem Mishna explains that the liability of kareis for not bringing the second Pesach is based
upon the verse:

-‫ ל ֹא‬i‫הוּא ָטהוֹר וְּבֶדֶר‬-‫יג ְוָהִאישׁ ֲאֶשׁר‬
‫ ְו ִנְכ ְרָתה ַהֶנֶּפשׁ‬--‫ ְוָחַדל ַלֲﬠשׂוֹת ַהֶפַּסח‬,‫ָהָיה‬
‫ ל ֹא ִהְק ִריב‬,‫ ִכּי ָק ְרַבּן ְיהָוה‬:‫ ֵמַﬠֶמּיָה‬,‫ַהִהוא‬
.‫ ָהִאישׁ ַההוּא‬,‫ֶחְטאוֹ ִיָשּׂא‬--‫ְבֹּמֲﬠדוֹ‬
13 But the man that is clean, and is not on a journey, and
for beareth to keep the passover, that soul shall be cut off
from his people; because he brought not the offering of the
LORD in its appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.
Num 9:13

‫ ישא חטאו‬. This means that the punishment of kareis is only applied to “a person who was tahor,
and was not on the road”.

However, if one was legitimately excused due to being tamei or being far away, even if he
subsequently was negligent in not bringing the second Pesach, the result of kareis would not apply
to him.

13
RAMBAM Hil Korban Pesach 5:2

1
When someone was impure at the time of the slaughter of the Paschal sacrifice and the Paschal
sacrifice could not be slaughtered for him, was "on a distant way," he was prevented because of
other reasons, or inadvertently failed to offer the first Paschal sacrifice, he should bring a Paschal
sacrifice on the fourteenth of the second month in the afternoon. Slaughtering this Paschal sacrifice
is an independent positive commandment and supersedes the Sabbath prohibitions. For the second
Pesach is not compensation for the first, but an independent festival. Therefore, one is liable
for karet for failing to bring the sacrifice.

14
2
What is implied? If a person inadvertently or because of forces beyond his control failed to offer
the first Paschal sacrifice, if he intentionally refrained from offering the second, he is liable
for karet. If he inadvertently did not offer the second Paschal sacrifice or was held back due to
forces beyond his control, he is exempt from karet. If he intentionally did not offer the first Paschal
sacrifice, he may offer the second. If he did not offer the second Paschal sacrifice, even if his lapse
was unintentional, he is liable for karet. The rationale is that he did not offer God's sacrifice at the
appointed time and was willful in his omission. If, however, he was impure or "on a distant way"
and did not offer the first Paschal sacrifice, he is not liable for karet even though he willfully did
not bring the second. The rationale is that on the first Pesach, he was already exempt from karet.

The Rambam above, writes that a person who missed Pesach Rishon b'ones and then b'meizid
skips Pesach Sheni is chayav kareis. Yet, a person who was b'derech rechoka, too far from
Yerushalayim to offer Pesach Rishon, and then skips Pesach Sheni b'meizid, is not chayav kareis.

Ra'avad asks: why should there be any difference between these two cases?

Apparently the Rambam held that the ptur of ones and the ptur of derech rechoka are categorically
different. Someone who was ones had a chiyuv to bring Pesach Rishon but was exempt due to
circumstance; failing to make-up the chiyuv on Pesach Sheni renders one liable kareis for missing
that original chiyuv. Someone who was b'derech rechoka is considered to have had no obligation
whatsoever to bring Pesach Rishon.

The opportunity to offer Pesach Sheni is a new obligation which does not carry the penalty of
kareis.

Rambam is splitting the shitos of the tanaaim of what pesach sheini is -- tashlumin, takanta de-
rishon or regel bifnei atzmo. Now it is not entirely clear how the rambam paskens but the
conventional wisdom seems to be that he paskens like rebbe, who holds regel bifnei atzmo (le-
inyan katar shenisgadeil and ger shenisgaeyer) but the different approaches re: kareis make it
sound like it taluy on the machlokes tanaaim.2

2
http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2008/05/ones-vs-derech-rechoka-obligation-to.html

15
 Libi Bamizrach Va'ani B'sof Maarav

Rabbi Hershel Schachter writes:3

The obligation to offer a korban Pesach begins at twelve noon on erev Pesach, and
the korban must be offered in the Beis Hamikdash before shkia. One is considered to be
"b'derech r'choka" if he is so far away from Yerushalayim on erev Pesach at noon that even
if he were to walk non-stop at a reasonable pace he will still not arrive in Yerushalayim before
theshkia[1]. He simply does not halachically relate to Yerushalayim; even if he could travel
by horse or car and easily arrive in Yerushalayim before shkia, he is still considered b'derech
r'choka. Furthermore, even if he joined with others and became a partner in someone
else's korban Pesach, and he managed to arrive before the shkia, he still has not fulfilled the
mitzvah[2]. Only one who is b'derech k'rova can become a partner in a korban Pesach and
fulfill this mitzvah. All of those who are b'derech r'choka at noon on the fourteenth of Nissan
are obligated to bring a korban Pesach sheini one month later, on the fourteenth of Iyar.

After the passing of the Nodah B'Yehuda a dispute developed amongst his
close talmidim regarding the nature of this din. Why should derech r'choka be determined by
the distance one can walk by foot to Yerushalayim? Was setting the requisite distance based
on the pace of travel on foot built in to the very definition of the halacha of derech r'choka,
and therefore how fast one could travel by other means was and is entirely irrelevant, or was
travel only used as an example, since the average traveler in the days of the second Beis
Ha'mikdash would travel by foot, but now that we have trains and cars and the average traveler
would certainly use other means of travel, the distance of derech r'choka should be adjusted
accordingly?[3]

This debate regarding korban Pesach in the late 1700s was unfortunately not relevant halacha
l'maaseh since there was no Beis Ha'mikdash at the time and the korban Pesach was not being
offered. The rabbonim said that when the third beis ha'mikdash will be built, techiyas
ha'meisim will take place and we will be able to ask Moshe Rabbeinu this shaila.

There is, however, another halacha which is a function of this din which is relevant today.
The Gemorah tells us that if someone dies and the family starts sitting shiva, and a relative
who is unaware of the death shows up in the home of the aveilim before shiva is over, he picks
up shiva from what they are up to and he terminates his aveilus with those who started earlier.
The Gemorah[4] says, however, that this is only in cases where the relative in question came
from a "makom karov". The rishonim borrow the definition of makom karov from
the din of korban Pesach: if the relative was close enough to the beis
ha'avel when shiva began that he would have been able to arrive within one day, his location
is considered to be a makom karov. Regarding this din we cannot wait until techiyas
ha'meisim and ask Moshe Rabbeinu - this halacha is relevant every day of the year even when
there isn't a Beis Ha'mikdash! Later poskim ruled that since we have a rule in

3
https://www.torahweb.org/torah/2019/parsha/rsch_behalos.html

16
 the Gemorah[5] that whenever there is any slight sofek in Hilchos Aveilus we go l'kula, we
should be lenient and say that when the aveil was more than ten parso'os away from the beis
ha'ovel but could arrive within one day if he traveled by train or by car, which is the normal
way of traveling a distance today, he should end his shiva with the rest of the family.

Today the average person traveling a long distance would certainly travel by airplane, via
which one can get from one side of the world to the other within one day. Should we therefore
say that there is no place in the world that is called a makom rachok or a derech r'choka? Rav
Moshe Feinstein was of the opinion that this cannot be. The Torah has dinim that apply only
to one who is b'makom rachok and all aspects of the Torah are eternal. Rav Moshe suggested
that of necessity we must limit this halacha and say that the person's location must at least be
on the same continent as the beis ha'ovel in order to be considered a makom karov, and one
does not halachically relate to a city on a different continent. It is for that reason that Rav
Moshe felt that this din cannot apply connecting people in Eretz Yisroel and a beis
ha'ovel in America.

Rav Yehuda Halevi lived in Europe when he declared, "Libi Bamizrach Va'ani B'sof Maarav",
but those of us who live in America are on a different continent. As such, even if one living
in America feels that his heart is really "Bamizrach", Eretz Yisroel can not be considered
"his makom."

[1] The Rambam differs on this definition. See Eretz Hatzvi p. 81.

[2] Pesachim 92b – shelo hurtza

[3] Sefer Chaim U'Beracha L'Mishmeres Shalom, entry entitled Gadol Habayis, paragraph 12

[4] Moed Kattan 21b, Tosafos s.v. Makom Karov

[5] Moed Kattan 18a, halacha l'hakeil b'aveilus

Pesach Sheni, The “Second” Pesach

Rabbi Yehudah Prero writes:4

One who was ritually unclean, ta’mai, was not allowed to bring and partake of the Korban Pesach, the Paschal
Offering. In Bamidbar 9:6-8, we find that a group of people approached Mosheand Aharon at the time the first
offering was brought after the exodus. They, because of the fact they were ritually unclean from contact with a
corpse, were not able to bring the offering. This group asked Moshe and Aharon “Why are we being prevented

4
https://torah.org/learning/yomtov-omer-5755-vol1no21/

17
to bring the offering with the rest of Israel, in the proper time?’ The response from Moshe was ” Stand and hear
what Hashem has commanded you.” Then, the Torah relates the laws concerning Pesach Sheni, an opportunity
for all those who missed bringing the Korban Pesach in the proper time through no fault of their own, to bring
this offering, and fulfill this special mitzvah.
What makes the Korban Pesach so special that Hashem gave us a “make-up” date in the event we were not able
to bring it on Pesach?
The Sefer HaChinuch explains that the Pesach offering stands as a clear and strong sign that our destiny is in the
hands of Hashem. When we were taken out of Egypt, Hashem performed great miracles and changed “nature”
in a spectacle that was open to all for the viewing. The whole world saw that Hashem is the one who runs the
world and controls our destiny. At that time, we all believed in Hashem and recognized the role He plays in our
lives. The fact that we witnessed such a display at the time of our exodus and recognized how Hashem controls
our destiny is a pillar of our belief in Hashem. As the Pesach offering carries with it such great significance,
Hashem wanted everyone to have the opportunity to demonstrate their belief. Therefore, one who was unable to
bring the offering for a reason beyond his control had the opportunity to bring the offering a month later, in the
month of Iyar.
Not just anyone was able to bring a “make-up” sacrifice on Pesach Sheni. The Torah mentions that the following
can bring their sacrifice on Pesach Sheni: a person who was ritually unclean due to contact with a corpse at the
time of Pesach; and, a person who was in a distant place at the time of Pesach. The Ramban says that all who
miss bringing the offering at Pesach have to bring it on Pesach Sheni. However, only people who were in a
situation where their inability to bring the offering was beyond their control were exempt from bringing it on
Pesach (and therefore are not subject to any punishment.) The offering brought on Pesach Sheni differed in some
respects from the one brought on Pesach itself. On Pesach Sheni, it was permitted to have chametz (leavened
bread) in the house. However, the offering, as on Pesach, was to be eaten with Matzo and Maror. It was permitted
to remove the meat of the Pesach Sheni offering from the group of those who gathered together to eat it. It was
not brought together with a Korban Chagiga (a festival offering). It was like the Korban Pesach as the meat had
to be broiled, no meat could be left over, and bones of the offering could not be broken.
As mentioned in the introduction, Pesach Sheni does not carry much practical significance with us as far as any
performances or observances go. We do not say the Tachanun (a prayer of supplications which is normally not
said on holidays) as Pesach Sheni was a day of rejoicing for those who did bring the offering on that day.
Furthermore, some people have a custom of eating left-over matzo, to commemorate the offering which was
eaten with matzo.

18
Rav Yaakov Klass writes:5

Pesach Sheni is indeed more than just a mere notation on the calendar. We find the following in a
mishna in Tractate Rosh Hashana (18a): “For six [different] months, the messengers would go
forth [Rashi explains s.v. “shisha chodashim” that this was in the earlier times, before our pre-
calculated calendar was put into use, when Beit Din would send messengers, upon whose
testimony they relied, to report if a new moon was present in order to calculate the start of the
months and holidays]; Nissan [calculations were made] for Passover, Av for the fast [Tisha B’av],
Elul for Rosh Hashana, Tishrei for the setting of the Festivals. Kislev for Chanukah, and Adar for
Purim. When the Holy Temple stood, they would go forth even on Iyar for Pesach Kattan (lit.,
little Passover, meaning that this was a minor festival).”

Rashi s.v. “Pesach Kattan” explains this as referring to Pesach Sheni [which occurs on the 14th of
Iyar, based on the verses in Parashat Beha’alotcha, Numbers 9:9-11] “Daber el B’nei Yisrael
lemor, ish ish ki yi’hiyeh tamei lanefesh, o b’derech rechoka lachem, o l’doroteichem ve’asa
Pesach L’Hashem bachodesh hasheni b’arba’a asar yom bein ha’arbaim ya’asu oto al matzot
u’merorim yochluhu – [G-d told Moses] Speak to the Children of Israel saying, if any man will
become impure through a corpse or [will be] on a distant road, whether you or your [future]
generations, he shall make the Passover offering for G-d in the second month [Iyar], on the 14th
day in the afternoon shall they make it, with matzot and bitter herbs shall they eat it.”

Thus, the Torah offered one who was either ritually defiled or who was kept away from the Beit
Hamikdash another opportunity to bring his Passover offering, on Pesach Sheni. Rashi seems to
be the first to refer to this minor Passover as ‘Pesach Sheni,’ lit., the second Pesach.

As to the mishna’s referring to the day as Pesach Katan, meaning little or minor Passover, Rabbi
Zev Cohen, in his sefer Bein Pesach L’Shavuos (Kitzur Hadinim 5:37-38) explains that it is only
observed for one day and not seven, as the first Passover is. Also, the second Passover has many
leniencies. Thus, compared to the first Passover, the second is ‘minor’.

Rabbi Cohen adds that it is proper to learn about Pesach Sheni (in Parashat Beha’alotcha) and its
laws on the 14th of Iyar, when the offering was made, and again on the following evening (the
15th of Iyar) when the offering was eaten.

Further, R. Cohen states, “Though Pesach Sheni is not a festival and one is permitted to perform
labor, it is nonetheless proper to rejoice somewhat.”

We find other halachos pertaining to Pesach Sheni, as well, including those regarding prayer.
Sha’arei Teshuva (Orach Chayyim 131), quoting the Sha’arei Tziyon, states, “Those that do not

5
https://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/torah/q-a-pesach-sheni/2003/06/13/

19
fall Nefilat Apayim (lit., the falling on one’s face) in prayer and say Tachanun on the 14th of Iyar
because of Pesach Katan, do so on the 15th. In Saloniki they protest strongly against one who does
not do this, and such is the custom as well in Kushta, in Israel and in Egypt – to say it on the 15th.”

Sefer Likutei M’harich (p. 113) mentions the above, and also quotes Pri Megadim, Orach Chayyim
(ad. loc.), who states that our custom is to say Tachanun on the 14th of Iyar as well. In addition,
Likutei M’harich discusses Sefer Eishel Avraham (Orach Chayyim, ad. loc.) who had the custom
not to say Tachanun on the 14th. Eishel Avraham further comments that as we are t’mei’ei
meitim – all considered as virtually defiled via a corpse, and thus we would not have been able to
offer a sacrifice at the appropriate time, we fulfill our obligations on Passover at the seder with the
recitation of the Hagada. [It would thus seem that Pesach Sheni is of no consequence to us.]
Nevertheless, it is correct to remind G-d of the merit of the Pesach Sheni, which was offered in the
time the Holy Temple stood.

Sefer Likutei M’harich also discusses the opinion of Hagashot Yad Shaul (Yoreh Deah 401) which
is that even though in the Gemara (Pesachim 95) we rule that the evening is not sanctioned as a
festival and one does not say Hallel (Rashi ad. loc. defines the evening as that of Pesach Sheni)
nevertheless, neither do we say Tachanun. The custom of the Gaon of Liske (Sefer Hayashar
V’Hatov Vol. 2) is also mentioned. He did not say Tachanun for seven days (on Pesach Sheni and
afterward). Hagashot Yad Shaul (ad. loc.) further rules that as regard the fast of B’hab (lit.,
Monday, Thursday, Monday), referring to the custom of fasting on
these three days following a festival, if this occurred on Pesach Sheni, one would not fast.

Eishel Avraham (ad. loc.) disagrees and rules that not only would one fast, but Selichot would be
recited as well; however, Tachanun would be omitted just as we are accustomed to
doing when a brit occurs on a fast day.

Likutei M’harich then notes that it is the custom of people of piety and great deeds to eat matza on
Pesach Sheni, the 14th of Iyar. He poses a question: Was not Pesach Sheni observed by eating the
sacrifice on the next evening (the 15th) as well, and how can that be commemorated today? The
explanation provided is that indeed, the Gaon Imrei Esh, as
well as his father-in-law Rabbi Dovid Deitch, would eat matza on the eve of the 15th as well,
together with a cooked egg, and they also studied the subject of Pesach Sheni in the Torah
along with its halachot, as described in Sefer Zichron Yehuda.

It is our custom today to eat matza at least at one meal, even with chametz present in the house [at
the table]. This is based upon the mishna (Pesachim 95a), ‘… on the second (Pesach Sheni) one
may have in his house both chametz and matza.

In the sefer of Rabbi Z. Cohen (ad. loc.), we find three other halachot regarding Pesach Sheni,
dealing with death and mourning: One does not offer a eulogy or say Tzidduk Hadin. One does

20
not recite the Kel Maleh, hazkarat neshamot for the memory of the souls. Finally, unveilings of
monuments for the departed are not performed on this day.

In the merit of this discussion, may we again rejoice in our Holy Temple with the bringing of the
Passover sacrifices. May it be built speedily in our days.

Tzitz Eliezer on Whether We Have to Leave Jerusalem on the 14th of

Nissan

R. Gidon Rothstein writes:6

To those who see Jerusalem with the eyes to the past and to the future, the recapture of all of
Jerusalem in 1967 raised many questions that had not been entertained as practical possibilities
since the destruction of the Second Temple. One of those, to which Tzitz Eliezer 12;47 responded
on the 18th of Adar 5735 (1975), wondered about being in the Old City in the afternoon of the
14th of Nissan.
The premise of the question is the halachic truth that the Korban Pesach, the Paschal sacrifice,
can be offered even just on a mizbeach, an altar, in its right place on the Temple Mount, even

6
https://www.torahmusings.com/2016/02/leaving-jerusalem-on-the-14th-of-nissan/

21
without a standing Temple. Based on that, the questioner wondered whether Jews shouldn’t stay
away from the Old City at that time, so as to be be-derech rechoka, out of the place where the
sacrifice could be offered, and therefore exempt?
Tzitz Eliezer’s answer goes beyond the technical details of this issue, and raises broader issues that
will come up repeatedly in the future.

Possibility Does Not Mean Obligation

His first and fundamental answer is that there’s no obligation to offer sacrifices in our times, even
were it possible. To him, Vayikra 26;31’s phrasing of the destruction of the Temple (ve-hashimoti
et mikdesheichem ve-lo ariach be-reach nichochachem, I will lay desolate your Sanctuary, and
will not smell the smell of your offerings) meant that the state of desolation of the Mikdash is a
sign that our sacrifices are unwanted. [He has to mean “not obligated,” since
the halachicpossibility of sacrifice implies there could be some value to it.]

Sefer HaChinuch 440 says as much. While discussing the continuing prohibition of slaughtering
sacrifices outside the Temple grounds, he adds that this prohibition does not imply any current
obligation to offer sacrifices at the place where the Temple once stood. Tzitz Eliezer reads
Rambam as having said that as well, since he wrote, in Sefer HaMitzvot, Obligation 153, that
without a Temple, sacrifices have been suspended. He cannot mean it’s impossible to bring them,
since Rambam (and Sefer HaChinuch) held we can bring sacrifices even without a standing
Temple. It must mean any obligation to bring those has fallen away; for Rambam, lack of
obligation qualifies as suspension.

With no obligation, there is no reason to leave the Old City in the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan.

How Much Effort Do We Need to Make?

Taking it a step further, Tzitz Eliezer cites approvingly R. Shlomo Eliezer Alfandari’s view that
there is no reason to attempt to rebuild the altar. He held, first, that it’s having been destroyed
implies that there is no obligation to try to reverse that situation.

[Tzitz Eliezer cites this in 5735/1975; R. Alfandari passed away in 5730/1930, before there was a
serious hope of having a State, let alone Jewish control of the Temple Mount. Tzitz Eliezer does
not discuss the possibility that changes in the political situation might imply that we should answer
R. Alfandari’s question differently. He does not entertain the possibility that the political events
of his lifetime were in fact the implicit message R. Alfandari said we haven’t had, that Hashem
was ready for us to return.

Each time he cites predecessors who felt we had to wait for Mashiach for any of this to proceed,
we can note that it’s not been how the remarkable events of the past century have unfolded, and
wonder whether the examples of the past are necessarily the ones to follow on this question.]

22
R. Alfandari also noted that even when the Temple was standing, Torah scholars did not make a
determined effort to be in Jerusalem for Pesach (R. Yehuda b. Beteira, for example, lived outside
of Israel and seems not to have gone to Jerusalem, certainly not regularly). All the more so when
it’s destroyed, we should understand that it’s Hashem’s Will that we not offer such sacrifices. 7

Waiting for and the Sequence of the Redemption

The rabbis of the Mishnah who lived after the Destruction, even though they could have rebuilt
the altar and offered sacrifices did not do so [it’s not clear to me how he knows this; it seems to
me that the Romans were very leery of the Jews reestablishing their worship, seeing how that was
part of what fueled their rebellions], and did not give evidence that they longed to do so [again,
it’s not clear what evidence that provides—maybe they feared offending the authorities].
In R. Alfandari’s view, that was because they knew that it was not Hashem’s Will that we offer
sacrifices, not until we repent enough for Mashiach to come. R. Alfandari, too, closed with the
quote from Vayikra about Hashem laying waste to our Mikdash and not being interested in the
aromas of our sacrifices.

Nachal Eshkol, a commentary on the Sefer HaEshkol, came to the same conclusion from a different
approach. He noted that Yeshayahu 1;26 speaks of Hashem restoring our judges
and then Jerusalem’s again being called the City of Justice. Rambam in his Mishnah Commentary
to Sanhedrin inferred from this that the restoration of full Jewish courts (including the
classical semichah, qualifying judges to rule on all topics of Jewish law) had to precede the
rebuilding of the Beit HaMikdash.

Note that this doesn’t infer an obligatory passivity from previous generations’ passivity. It says,
instead, that we havehalachic evidence of the order in which the redemption has to proceed, and
according to that evidence, we need courts and judges before we can rebuild the Mikdash.

Gedolim Stories—The Vilna Gaon

In seeming contradiction to his view, Tzitz Eliezer knew stories of Torah giants reported to have
expressed a longing for sacrifice. First, the Vilna Gaon was reliably reputed to have said that if we
only secured the Temple Mount to offer one daily sacrifice, that would be a remarkable
achievement.

Tzitz Eliezer says the story’s missing many needed details, that it likely expresses the longing all
great Jews have for observing any mitzvah they can, especially those that have been denied for a

7
Aside from the rebuilding question, R. Alfandari raises the also interesting issue of how much of an effort one should make to
be at the Mikdash for Pesach even once it’s rebuilt. What is the lesson of R. Yehuda b. Beteira’s not having gone– how hard
would it have been for him, and how does that translate into our times?

23
long time. But the Gra’s phrase “secure the Temple Mount” could easily mean overcome all the
problems with renewing sacrifices, including that we have not yet had a sign from Heaven that it’s
time [once again, I wonder whatTzitz Eliezer would accept as such a sign, since he did not see the
events of 1967 as that sign].

Clearer proof that the Gaon did not mean his statement in its plainest sense comes from his reading
of the repeated verse inShir haShirim (2;7, 3;5, 5;8, 8;4) where the female voice of the book
administers an oath to the “daughters of Jerusalem” against awakening love too soon. The Gaon
interpreted that as forswearing us from rebuilding the Mikdash before the time has come. If so, he
clearly would not have been in favor of offering sacrifices without the rebuilding.

Gedolim Stories—The Netziv, Divrei Chaim, and Chafetz Chaim

That story of the Gaon was also reported to have been retold by the Netziv, which Tzitz
Eliezer can’t accept if the Gaon meant it literally, since Netziv (in his Torah commentary, Ha’amek
Davar) had taken Vayikra26;31 (ve-lo ariach be-reiach nichochachem) to mean that we cannot
today offer any sacrifices whose purpose is to be a reiach nichoach, a pleasing smell, including
the daily sacrifice that Gra mentioned as being a great accomplishment. (He explicitly excluded
the Pesach, since that’s not offered as a reiach nichoach; Tzitz Eliezer doesn’t note that that
implies that the Netziv might have been in favor of offering the Pesach sacrifice today,
counter Tzitz Eliezer’s basic claim in this responsum).

Netziv couldn’t have reported a story about the Gaon that runs against his
own halachic opinion, Tzitz Eliezer writes, unless it’s not to be taken in its plainest sense. He also
notes that Netziv, too, spoke of waiting for enlightenment from above as to when it’s time to
rebuild.

Tzitz Eliezer similarly quotes and rejects stories about the first Sanzer Rebbe and the Chafetz
Chayim, each of them in reaction to the publication of R. Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer’s Derishat
Tziyon (see my Daf Ditty citing R Gil Student).

Substantive Objections

Shu”t Sha’arei Tsedek pointed to another problem, that we would be offering sacrifices on the
Temple Mount while others are worshipping in their non-Jewish way. The existence of those other
forms of worship is the best proof, he said, that Hashem’s Hand, as it were, is still in opposition to
our service there.

Another problem, raised by the Sanzer Rebbe in his Divrei Chayim, was that the move to reinstate
sacrifices would not be accepted by all observant Jews, leading to a split in the Jewish people.
Similarly, R. Yehoshua of Kutna, in his letter agreeing to the publication of R.
Kalischer’s Derishat Tziyyon, noted that the dispersal of Jews across the world would make it
almost impossible to secure worldwide Jewish agreement. Tzitz Eliezer reads an implication that
the issue isn’t only physical dispersal, but the ideological disagreements that come in its wake.

24
[This ignores comments in the Gemara that only the Jews of Israel count for these kinds of issues.
Leaving that aside, it raises important general questions of how obligated we are to avoid splits in
the Jewish community, whose dissenting opinions we have to take into account and whose we can
ignore. Does one group’s current intransigence, on any issue, always obligate those militating for
change to refrain? The answer is obviously no, but defining when to yield to a minority’s
objections and when to ignore them is a complicated, case-by-case, endeavor, easily prone to being
too extreme in either direction.]

Others Would Get Involved

Tzitz Eliezer’s final concerns are who would be involved in any project to restore sacrifice. Since
the government is in the hands of nonobservant Jews (and, more, who at the time announced
frequently their sense that Jewish law does not obligate them). It doesn’t take a genius to see that
were sacrifices to be reinstated, they would want to be involved [since it would be a big national
event], and this would lead to various transgressions [he doesn’t specify, but I think he is referring
to issues of whether they would really render themselves ritually pure, and/or would observe the
many detailed laws around the offering of sacrifices].

Better to avoid the whole mess by being clear that this is not a possibility at this time; part of
asserting that is not doing anything to imply otherwise, such as leaving the Old City at the time
the Pesach might have been offered.

The second, bigger, issue is the outside world. This whole discussion has assumed it might be
possible to offer a Pesach, but the reality is that if Jews started constructing an altar on the Temple
Mount, millions of people would rise up and declare a holy war against us [I think he means
Muslims]. We have no way to know the outcome of such a war [another interesting question: in
the absence of prophecy, when can Jews do what they think is right and rely on Hashem to protect
them? In this case, Tzitz Eliezer is saying that the “rightness” of offering sacrifices is not enough
to bear the likelihood of a Muslim invasion. Would he have said the same about declaring a State?
It’s a repeat question to consider, in many Israel-related contexts.]

All of that leads him to close by saying that not only should one not make a point of leaving the
Old City, there’s room to call for making an effort to be in the Old City (at the Kotel) at that time,
to show that it’s not currently possibile to offer a sacrifice, and to pray that we soon see the time
when it is possible, when all the objections he has raised are surmounted, and we see the full
restoration of all for which we long.

25