Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day
Korban Pesach - Chapter 5
Korban Pesach - Chapter 5
I.e., the afternoon of the fourteenth of Nisan.
See Chapter 6, Halachot 1-2, which explains that there are situations when a person is ritually impure at the time the Paschal sacrifice is offered, but the sacrifice may be offered for him, since in the evening, he will regain ritual purity and be permitted to partake of the sacrifice.
See Numbers 9:10: “If any man will be impure because of contact with a corpse or on a distant way... he may perform the Paschal sacrifice for God. In the second month, on the fourteenth day, after midday, shall he perform it.” The term “a distant way” is defined in Halachot 8-9.
Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 57) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 380) include this as one of 613 mitzvot.
Thus if the fourteenth of Iyar falls on the Sabbath, the second Paschal sacrifice is brought regardless. Pesachim 66a derives this concept from the fact that Numbers 9:13 uses the term bimoado, “at its time.” Whenever that term is used, the offering of the sacrifice mentioned supersedes the Sabbath prohibitions.
Rav Yosef Corcus explains that according to the Rambam the term bimoado applies to both the day when the first Paschal sacrifice is offered and the day when the second Paschal sacrifice is offered.
As Rav Yosef Corcus points out, the intent is not that the second Pesach is an entirely independent festival, for it is observed only by those who did not bring the first Paschal sacrifice at the appropriate time. Instead, the intent is that one is liable for karet for failing to bring the second Paschal sacrifice as explained in the following halachah. See also Halachah 7.
As Numbers 9:13 states: “That person will be cut off from his nation.” The prevailing opinion in Pesachim 93a maintains that this verse refers to the second Paschal sacrifice.
The rationale is that he was potentially liable for karet for the first Pachal sacrifice. Although in fact he was not liable for karet, because his failure to bring the sacrifice was inadvertent or due to forces beyond his control, since he was obligated to bring the sacrifice, he is liable for karet if he willfully did not compensate by bringing the second Paschal sacrifice.
The Ra’avad notes that although Pesachim 93a states this view in the name of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, two different Rabbis offer conflicting views in that Talmudic passage. Hence, it appears that the position of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi does not represent the majority view. The Rambam does not accept that position because each of the conflicting views is based on a different rationale, and hence should not be considered as the same opinion (Rav Yosef Corcus).
Because his failure to compensate was not willful.
And hence was liable for karet. He had the opportunity to correct his transgression, but failed to make use of it.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 9:1), the Rambam explains the rationale for this ruling: there is no independent obligation for karet for failing to bring the second Paschal sacrifice. Hence even though he was given an opportunity to have fulfilled the mitzvah, since he was exempt from offering the first Paschal sacrifice, he receives no punishment for failing to offer the second. This explanation satisfies the objections raised by the Ra’avad (Rav Yosef Corcus).
And thus was exempt from the obligation to bring the Paschal sacrifice.
And thus was physically able to partake of the sacrifice. Nevertheless, since he was not obligated to bring the offering, he does not fulfill his obligation and is obligated to bring a second Paschal sacrifice.
As explained in Chapter 6, Halachah 2.
Even though he is unfit to bring the first Paschal sacrifice, he could have made himself fit.
More precisely, an uncircumcised natural born Jew. With regard to a convert, see Chapter 6, Halachah 7.
Since they could have offered the first Paschal sacrifice, as stated in Halachah 2.
See Chapter 9, Halachah 8.
The Rambam does not mention one’s children above majority, for then the obligation of circumcision is no longer the responsibility of the father, but is the son’s (Hilchot Milah 1:2).
See Chapter 9, Halachah 9.
The act which brings about their change in status from gentiles to Jews, as explained in Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 13:4,6, 11.
As recorded in the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai to Exodus 12:44.
I.e., together with others. A minor may not offer a sacrifice himself, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 4.
The term implies one who has attained majority.
Rav Yosef Corcus explains that there are other Rabbinic sources that appear to contradict this teaching. Nevertheless, the Rambam’s ruling has a basis, for a minor is not obligated in any of the mitzvot. Hence he is not obligated to have his servants circumcised.
For, as stated in Halachah 1, the second Pesach is an independent festival. Hence even a person like those mentioned above who were not obligated to bring the first Paschal sacrifice must bring the second.
Although the suffix the Rambam uses means “he,” it can only refer to a minor, for until a convert actually converts, he cannot be enumerated on a Paschal sacrifice (Kessef Mishneh).
Although the minor does not become personally obligated in the observance of mitzvot until he comes of age, the mitzvah he observed while being trained is considered as significant enough to exempt him from the obligation.
Since there is no obligation for them to offer this sacrifice, the Sabbath laws should not be violated to enable them to do so. See also Chapter 2, Halachah 4.
A mil is a Roman measure approximately equivalent to a kilometer.
The measurement is made from the walls of Jerusalem and not from the walls of the Temple, because-the Paschal sacrifice may be eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem.
This phrase apparently refers to hanetz hachamah, the time when the sun rises on the horizon. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 9:2), the Rambam speaks of dawn which is more than an hour earlier. The Meiri also notes that Pesachim 2b states that it is proper to wait until dawn to depart on a journey.
This point is the subject of a difference of opinion in Pesachim 93b. There is another opinion that maintains that the person does not really have to be in Jerusalem until the evening of the fourteenth when the sacrifice is eaten. Hence, seemingly, he should have been granted more time and a further distance to travel before being considered “on a distant way.”
And not riding on an animal or wagon.
As mentioned in Halachah 2, there is more leniency granted to a person “on a distant way” than to one held back by other forces beyond his control.
The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, stating that it runs contrary to Pesachim 94b. The Kessef Mishneh states that although a surface reading of the passage would appear to support the Ra’avad’s understanding, the Rambam makes a distinction between one who is prevented from reaching Jerusalem because he is “on a distant way” and one who is on a journey, but is prevented, not because of distance, but because of external factors.
If he was imprisoned inside Jerusalem, the Paschal sacrifice may be slaughtered on his behalf even if he was not promised to be released, because the sacrificial meat could be brought to him in prison [the Jerusalem Talmud (Pesachim 8:6)]. This applies even if he was imprisoned by gentiles.
Even if he is alone. Needless to say, this applies if others are enumerated on the sacrifice with him.
For they can be expected to keep their word. Ketubot 33b explains that at times a person may be imprisoned as a means of compulsion for him to pay his debts or divorce a woman with whom he should not remain married.
For we suspect that the gentiles will not keep their word. He may, however, be enumerated on a Paschal sacrifice that is slaughtered for others (Pesachim 91a).
And at the time the blood was cast on the altar, it was thought that he would partake of the sacrifice.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 9.
The authoritative Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah offer an alternate version: “who could not have partaken....” Nevertheless, the standard published text is preferred by the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Corcus, and other commentaries.
Here we are speaking about an instance where the Paschal sacrifice was sacrificed for such a person to be eaten together with other people.
Just as with regard to an ordinary person, since he was able to partake of the Paschal sacrifice at the time the blood was poured on the altar, he is exempt from the second Paschal sacrifice. These individuals are mentioned because there is an unusual element involved with each of them. The onain is unfit to partake of sacrifices during the day and the sick and the elderly are unlikely to eat large amounts. Nevertheless, they are exempt from the second Paschal sacrifice.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.