2001, L’chvod the Rav’s Yahrzeit

Be-reshus Harav Khalap, Rosh Yeshiva, Talmidei HaYeshiva, Morai VeRabbosai, in his introductory comments, Rabbi Khalap highlighted the source of my acute discomfort. I'm not going to tell you, I'm not going to make any disclaimers about not being Ra’uy to give such a Shiur, because such a disclaimer would be arrogant and a reflection of Yuhara. It doesn't occur to me, it doesn't occur to you, and there's no reason that it should occur to either of us. And thus, in keeping with the advice of Chazal, חש בראשו יעסוק בתורה, whatever the Maichush is Ya'asok BeTorah, so without any further ado, let's try to discuss briefly one or two Inyanim in this Sugyas of Pesach Sheini in the ninth perek. Let's begin with the Mishna in צדיק גמל עמוד בית. The Mishna presents a Machlokes Tannaim.

איזהו דרך רחוקה מן המודיעים ולחוץ וכמידתה לחבורה דברי רבי עקיבא.

The Torah says in Parshas Behaalosecha that if a person was Bederech Rechoka, so then he's certainly exempt from Pesach Rishon. It's a Machlokes Amora'im earlier in צדיק בית עמוד בית if it's only a Ptur or whether it's a Dichuy. The very first Gemorah in צדיק בית עמוד בית presents the Machlokes of Rav Nachman and Rav Sheishes. היה בדרך רחוקה ושחט וזרקו עליו. He had a Shaliach shacht on his behalf in the Azara and the Kohanim did this Zrikas hadam for his Korban Pesach.

רב נחמן אמר הורצה, רב ששת אמר לא הורצה. רב נחמן אמר הורצה מחייס הוא דחייס רחמנא עליו ואי עביד תעביד ליה ברכה, רב ששת אמר לא הורצה מדחא דחי רחמנא כטמא.

So according to Rav Nachman, Derech Rechoka is a Ptur, but a Ptur that a person needn't avail himself of. A person can see to it that the Korban Pesach is Kareiv on his behalf regardless and he would be Mekayem his Mitzvah. Rav Sheishes says no, it's not only a Ptur but it's a Dichuy, that the Torah renders him ineligible to be Makriv Korban Pesach if he's Bederech Rechoka. Now what exactly constitutes Derech Rechoka is the subject matter of our Mishna. So Rabbi Akiva says Min hamodi'im velachutz, which the Gemorah then explains to us is either 15 or 16 Mil from Yerushalayim. 15 or 16 Mil outside of Yerushalayim, if a person, which is the distance that a person can cover walking at a normal pace in half a day, either from sunrise till Chatzos or from Chatzos till Shkiyah. We'll see more about that in a minute. רבי אליעזר אומר מאסקופת העזרה ולחוץ. Rabbi Eliezer's famous opinion, Rashi al ha-Torah cites Rabbi Eliezer as well, that Derech Rechoka really means that a person is one step, maybe it means five Ammos, but probably it just means even one step outside of the Azara, that that already constitutes Derech Rechoka.

אמר לו רבי יוסי לפיכך נקוד על ה"א לומר לא מפני שרחוק ודאי אלא מאסקופת העזרה ולחוץ.

The Nekuda, the dot on top of the Hei, hints to this explanation of Rabbi Eliezer that Derech Rechoka should not be understood literally, that there's a great distance... Now obviously everyone's initial reaction to this Mishna or in being meshaveh seder to the Rashi Al HaTorah who quotes Rabbi Eliezer is how in the world did Rabbi Eliezer come up with this interpretation? Now clearly Rabbi Yose's comment notwithstanding that the nekuda on top of the Hei is a remez to this is obviously not Rabbi Yose doesn't intend that as explaining the basis for Rabbi Eliezer's opinion. Mistama there are other ways of deciphering what the Torah's remez is with the nekuda on the Hei. So it doesn't really, it's not intended to and therefore doesn't address the underlying issue: Where does Rabbi Eliezer come up with what seems to us lichora to be such a forced interpretation of derech rechoka? In fact, the Gemara on צדי דלת עמוד בית, if you take a look, the second line after they branch out, according to some versions of Rabbi Eliezer, even magnifies the difficulty. The Gemara says:

רבי אליעזר אומר מאסקופת העזרה ולחוץ ואף על גב דמצי עייל ולא אמרינן ליה קום עייל.

Even though he could enter the Azara, so nevertheless we don't instruct him that he get up and enter the Azara.

והתניא יהודי ערל שלא מל ענוש כרת דברי רבי אליעזר.

I but Rabbi Eliezer himself says that if a person is an arel and as such cannot bring a Korban Pesach, he can't hide behind that fact of his orla and thereby exempt himself from the Korban Pesach. No, if he's in a position to be mal and he's not mal, so then he can't hide behind his orla as an excuse. He's onush kares. אמר אביי דרך רחוקה לטהור ואין דרך רחוקה לטמא. So Abaye says no, there's really no need to modify what Rabbi Eliezer says. It's true, a person standing outside the Azara is not required to enter the Azara, but the din of derech rechoka doesn't apply to someone who's an arel, doesn't apply to someone who's a tameh sheretz. The Torah's din of derech rechoka applies to someone who doesn't have these obstacles to his bringing the Korban Pesach. But in fact, yes, everyone agrees that what Rabbi Eliezer maintains is that if a person is standing just outside the Azara, he has no obligation to step foot in the Azara and to bring the Korban Pesach. How can this be? That's one question. Let's come back to the Gemara in צדי גימל עמוד בית. The Gemara has a machlokes here between Ulla and Rav Yehuda.

אמר עולא מן המודיעים לירושלים חמישה עשר מילין הוי. סבר לה כי הא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כמה מהלך אדם ביום עשר פרסאות.

asar parsaos.

מעלות השחר ועד הנץ החמה חמישה מילין. משקיעת החמה ועד צאת הכוכבים חמישה מילין. הוו להו תלתין חמישה מצפרא לפלגא דיומא וחמישה מפלגא דיומא לאורתא. עולא לטעמיה דאמר עולא איזהו דרך רחוקה כל שאין יכול ליכנס בשעת שחיטה.

So the Gemara says as follows: How did Ulla reconstruct the distance between Modi'im and Yerushalayim? As follows: That a person again in half a day, walking again on the equinox, walking at an average pace, can cover 15 mil in half a day, again from neitz till chatzos or from chatzos till shkia. And that's the distance from Modi'im to Yerushalayim because Ulla says that the p'tur of derech rechoka or the dichuy of derech rechoka, whatever it is, is a function of sh'as shechita that we're measuring whether or not a person. person could arrive in Yerushalayim at sha'as shechita. According to most rishonim, what it means is that we're measuring where he is at chatzos and determining if he could arrive in Yerushalayim before shkiya. According to the Rambam, it means that we're looking at where he is at netz hachama at sunrise and we're measuring whether or not he could arrive by chatzos. More on that later bli neder, but either way according to Ula, derech rechoka hinges on the person's position vis-a-vis sha'as shechita. By contrast, the Gemara quotes Rav Yehuda. רב יהודה אמר כל שאין יכול ליכנס בשעת אכילה. That derech rechoka is rather a function of whether or not a person could arrive in Yerushalayim at night in order to eat the korban pesach. He doesn't need to be there for the shechitas hapesach, אפשר על ידי שליח. He doesn't need to be there for shechita, so derech rechoka measures whether or not the person could arrive in time to eat the korban pesach, i.e., whether or not he could reach Yerushalayim during the night. Good. So that's a machlokes amora'im here whether or not derech rechoka again is talui on sha'as shechita or whether it's talui on sha'as achila. Now there is a little difficulty here in the Gemara in that we understand according to Rav Yehuda that derech rechoka is concerned with sha'as achila, we understand that we should be focused on Yerushalayim, because that's where the korban pesach is ne'echal. So mimmela if derech rechoka is measuring whether or not the person can arrive where he needs to be besha'as achila, so then obviously we're gonna look at where the korban pesach is ne'echal, i.e., in Yerushalayim. However, according to Ula, that the p'tur of derech rechoka is concerned with where a person can arrive at sha'as shechita, so we would have expected Ula to say that מן המודיעים לעזרה חמישה עשר מילין הויה because the azara, it's not the, the shechitas hapesach obviously couldn't be anywhere in Yerushalayim, it had to be in the azara. So we should be measuring a person's distance from the azara, not from anywhere in Yerushalayim. So in fact, the Sfas Emes suggests that perhaps Modi'im was in the direction, again, Har HaBayis is not positioned centrally within Yerushalayim. So he suggests that maybe for all practical purposes min haModi'im liYerushalayim is the same basically as min haModi'im la'azara, that it means it's in that direction of Yerushalayim where Har HaBayis borders at the end of Yerushalayim. So it doesn't mean from Sha'ar Yafo, it doesn't mean that it's fifteen mil heading out from Sha'ar Yafo, because that takka would leave you short of the azara, but rather it means from the direction of Har HaBayis, from the, in the opposite direction. And that for all practical purposes, it really does have to mean min haModi'im la'azara. Whether with this explanation or not, lema'aseh the Ramban al haTorah in parshas Beha'aloscha does say that explicitly, that the din of derech rechoka according to Rabbi Akiva, according to Ula's understanding, is measured in terms of the azara. That's what the Ramban says explicitly in parshas Beha'aloscha. But when you look in the Rambam, I'm not sure. Perhaps one can say the same, but it's not so clear. In Perek Hey of Hilchos Korban Pesach, Halacha Tes, so the Rambam again reproduces this Gemara,

מי שהיה בינו ובין ירושלים יום ארבעה עשר עם עלות השחר. חמישה עשר מיל או יותר הרי זה דרך רחוקה.

So he also says beino u-vein Yerushalayim. So first of all, again, certainly the Sfas Emes's pshat doesn't seem to—the Rambam doesn't accommodate that because the Rambam doesn't give a particular example of a city. So he seems to be talking about 15 mil from any point in Yerushalayim. So the Sfas Emes's ukimta in terms of where we're positioning Modi'in, that doesn't seem to be any basis for that in the Rambam. The alternative to say that maybe the lashon ha-Gemara of Yerushalayim is lav davka, it really means the Azarah, also doesn't seem to fit too well in the Rambam because later within this same halacha, the Rambam refers explicitly to the Azarah. So the impression created is that when he mentioned Yerushalayim, he meant that in contradistinction to the Azarah. So it would seem that according to the Rambam, we are left with a little bit of a tzarich iyun. Why is it that if the p'tur of derech rechoka depends upon sha'as shechita, why are we measuring the distance from Yerushalayim? Yerushalayim is irrelevant to shechita, we should be measuring the distance from the Azarah. Okay, so those are the two questions which we want to focus on. Number one, where does Rabbi Eliezer get this interpretation of derech rechoka, this non-literal understanding, seemingly not the peshuto shel mikra at all, that it means just outside of the Azarah? How can it be that Rabbi Eliezer maintains that

אף על גב דמצי עייל לא אמרינן ליה קום עייל,

that a person can just stand there idly and not even be required to go into the Azarah? And finally, why is it that Ulla, who thinks that the p'tur of derech rechoka hinges on one's distance in terms of sha'as shechita, why is he measuring the distance to Yerushalayim? He should be measuring the distance to the Azarah. Now in Perek Aleph of Hilchos Korban Pesach, Halacha Gimmel, the Rambam, reflecting the Kesef Mishneh quotes the relevant sugyos here in Pesachim and in Zevachim, but the Rambam's understanding, when all is said and done, of those sugyos which the Kesef Mishneh refers to is as follows:

אין שוחטין את הפסח אלא בעזרה כשאר הקדשים. אף בשעת היתר הבמות לא היו מקריבין את הפסח בבמת יחיד. וכל המקריב את הפסח בבמת יחיד לוקה, שנאמר לא תוכל לזבוח את הפסח באחד שעריך. מפי השמועה למדו שזו אזהרה לשוחט בבמת יחיד אפילו בשעת היתר הבמות.

The Rambam here says, the Kesef Mishneh quotes the teshuva from רבינו אברהם בן הרמב"ם, who elaborates this a little bit, that there's a special lav for one who shachts the Korban Pesach outside of the Azarah at a bamas yachid. Now the significance of this is as follows: Number one, what this means is, the Rambam says explicitly, even at those times in history when bamos were muttaros, when they first came into Eretz Yisrael, right, when the Mishkan after the Midbar other than Shilo, so then bamos were muttaros. The Rambam's understanding is that there's a special lav for Korban Pesach. Korban Pesach alone amongst all korbanos, one is over a lav for shachting the Korban Pesach and being makriv be-bamas yachid. And the mashma'us clearly is, this is the understanding of the meforshei ha-Rambam, that this lav continues to be noheig bazman hazeh, that in addition to the issur of shchutei chutz, which would apply to any avoda, to any korbanos bazman hazeh, so there would be an additional lav by the Korban Pesach, by the Korban Pesach. So that in and of itself is very noteworthy. We'll comment on it in a second bli neder, and additionally, the Rambam's headlining this halakha is also quite remarkable. The Rambam places it right here at the beginning of Hilchos Korban Pesach after the only thing which precedes this issur is just the basic definition of the mitzvah, the

מצות עשה לשחוט הפסח בארבעה עשר לחודש ניסן אחר חצות.

So this isn't some minor detail in Hilchos Korban Pesach, but the Rambam places this center stage, center stage. So what we see from this din, again, the Rambam's understanding of those sugyos the Kesef Mishneh refers to, is that the relationship between Korban Pesach and the Beis HaMikdash or any place which can be considered lifnei Hashem to the exclusion of a bamas yachid which even at the time of heter bamos is not lifnei Hashem, is that the relationship between Korban Pesach and, again, in shorthand, Mikdash, is different than other korbanos. How so? Whereas other korbanos, so a person, a person has a korban to bring, harei alai olah, harei alai shelamim. A person has a korban to bring. Now, it's because the olah or the shelamim ba'asher hu doesn't really dictate where it should be karev, but since there are restrictions, there are constraints where a person can do avoda, where a person cannot do avoda, so practically, l'maiseh, one ends up in the Beis HaMikdash bringing this korban. The uniqueness of Korban Pesach is that Korban Pesach, the cheftza of korban, the korban itself is a korban of Mikdash. It's not simply due to the fact that avoda can only happen in the Beis HaMikdash. V'harei even when there's a היתר עבודה מחוץ למקדש, there's a special lav which one is over by Korban Pesach and only by Korban Pesach of being makriv bebamas yachid. So the pshat is that Korban Pesach, the korban is a korban of Mikdash. Not simply that it's a korban and אין עבודה חוץ למקדש. No, that may be true for other korbanos. By Korban Pesach the pshat clearly is that the korban, again, b'atzmuso, the cheftza of korban is a korban of Mikdash. And that's basically what the Torah is saying in Parshas Re'eh,

לא תוכל לזבוח את הפסח באחד שעריך כי אם אל המקום אשר יבחר ה'.

Hashta d'asina l'hacha, apparently the din of derech rechoka also is rooted in this connection to Mikdash. And the din of derech rechoka is not simply, again, that a person is remote from where he can do the maiseh hakravas hakorban, where he can actually bring the korban, but rather to have the chiyuv Korban Pesach, not to incur the ptur or the dichuy of derech rechoka, there has to be a certain connection to Mikdash. And derech rechoka, the din of derech rechoka is that when that connection to Mikdash, and again, because Korban Pesach is not stam a korban and אין עבודה חוץ למקדש, but it's rather a korban of Mikdash, so if there's no connection to Mikdash is missing, is lacking, so then the Torah has this din, be it a ptur, be it more than a ptur, even a dichuy of derech rechoka. משל למה הדבר דומה, according to Abaye's understanding of Rabbi Eliezer that everyone agrees with this version of Rabbi Eliezer, משל למה הדבר דומה, the din is, of course, that lulav is נוהג כל שבעה מן התורה במקדש. So what would be if a person standing one step outside of mikdash, whatever mikdash means for purposes of lulav kol shiva? What would be if a person is standing one step michutz lamikdash on shlishi shel succos? So what was the din if I'll ask a shayla אף על גב דמצי עייל is אמינן ליה קום עייל or לא אמינן ליה קום עייל? Does the person have a chiyuv to step foot in mikdash and to trigger the chiyuv of ושמחתם לפני ה' אלקיכם שבעת ימים, or no? The person is absolutely within his rights to remain bimdina and not to trigger that chiyuv. So lichora it's pashut that a person has no such chiyuv to step over the line and be lifnei Hashem so that he can incur the chiyuv of

ושמחתם לפני ה' אלקיכם שבעת ימים. אוהב כסף לא ישבע כסף אוהב מצוות לא ישבע מצוות.

Stamei it's a good thing to do, but he certainly has no chiyuv to do so. So apparently what Rabbi Eliezer says is in light of the posuk in Parshas Re'eh לא תוכל לזבוח את הפסח שהקורבן פסח again is not stam a korban and now let's find out where a person does avoda, but rather it's a korban of lifnei Hashem and therefore אין שוחטין בבמת יחיד. So Rabbi Eliezer says it's a chiyuv of mikdash. Mimeila according to Rabbi Eliezer, even if a person is one step outside of mikdash, he doesn't incur that chiyuv. If it were, if korban pesach had been again stam a korban and then clearly the pshat would be that a person again has this chiyuv gavra ba'asher hu sham, so then lichora Rabbi Eliezer's understanding of derech rechoka would have been inconceivable. But in light of the fact that korban pesach again לא תוכל לזבוח את הפסח באחד שעריך is a korban of mikdash, so then Rabbi Eliezer thinks that unless a person is in mikdash, he doesn't even incur that chiyuv and אף על גב דמצי עייל is לא אמינן ליה קום עייל. Ve'emes, it would appear that Rabbi Akiva also agrees. Rabbi Akiva also agrees that the ptur of derech rechoka also is rooted in the need for a connection to mikdash. That unless there's some zikka to mikdash, you can't have korban pesach. A person's not bechlal, either he's potur or nidcha from korban pesach because again it's a korban of mikdash that there has to be a zikka of the makriv of the korban pesach to mikdash in order to be bechlal the parsha. The only thing is again Rabbi Akiva thinks that it doesn't mean michutz la'azara, that a person certainly has a chiyuv of kum ayeil and therefore we measure by whether yachol lehikanes. But again since we're not, since derech rechoka isn't just measuring his ability to undertake and perform the shechita and the ha'va'as hakorban, but rather derech rechoka is measuring his zikka to mikdash, so then even according to Ulla, even according to Ulla that derech rechoka hinges on sha'as shechita that yitachen we're still interested in how far he is from the outer machne of the gimel machnos of mikdash even though that's not the mokom hashechita because what we're measuring is his zikka to mikdash rather than again the logistics of the ha'va'as hakorban. Well let's continue with another topic within the series of Pesach Sheini on the mishna, the first mishna in the perek on

צדי ב עמוד ב. מי שהיה טמא או בדרך רחוקה ולא עשה את הראשון יעשה את השני.

If a person was tamei or bederech rechoka, so then he has a mitzvah to be makriv Pesach Sheini.

שוגג או נאנס ולא עשה את הראשון יעשה את השני.

Similarly, if a person wasn't makriv Pesach Rishon. due to reasons of shogeg or ones, he too has a mitzvah of Pesach Sheini. Im kein, the pshuto shel mishna seems to be, this is the Rambam's understanding of the mishna, אם כן למה נאמר טמא או שהיה בדרך רחוקה? So if Pesach Sheini is not only for someone who was tamei or bederech rechoka, but the mitzvah of Pesach Sheini is intended also for someone who was shogeg or ones in Pesach Rishon, so why does the Torah single out tamei and derech rechoka? Why does the Torah single out these examples? What's so special? שאלו פטורין מהכרת ואלו חייבין בהכרת. And again, the simplest pshat in the mishna seems to be, which is how the Rambam in fact learns pshat, that the difference is as follows: A person who was tamei or bederech rechoka in Pesach Rishon is absolutely patur from kares, even if he'll be meizid in neglecting Pesach Sheini, he'll still be patur min hakares. Ma she'ein kein, someone who was shogeg or ones for Pesach Rishon, if he will be meizid in Pesach Sheini, so then he will be chayav kares. And that again seems to be the simplest pshat in the mishna, that's the Rambam's pshat in the mishna, it's not what the Gemara says further down here on

ל"ב עמוד ב'. אם כן למה נאמר טמא או שהיה בדרך רחוקה?

If it's true that not only does a tamei or derech rechoka bring Pesach Sheini, but a shogeg or ones also does, why does the Torah single out tamei or derech rechoka? What's so special about them? What's so special is she'eilu, i.e., tamei and derech rechoka are absolutely pturin mehikaret regardless of what they'll do on Pesach Sheini, ma she'ein kein, eilu meaning shogeg or ones in Pesach Rishon, if they will be mezidin in Pesach Sheini, then they will be chayav kares. Now Rashi, based on the Gemara here on ל"ב עמוד ב' understands the mishna differently, based on the Gemara on ל"ב עמוד ב', the Gemara here finds an allusion to the fact that someone who was meizid on Pesach Rishon also brings a Pesach Sheini, because the Gemara is medayek:

מי שהיה טמא או בדרך רחוקה ולא עשה את הראשון יעשה את השני שוגג או אונס ולא עשה את הראשון יעשה את השני.

Lo asa implies that he could have, right? So what do you mean? He was ones, he could have? What do you mean he could have? So the mishna here is alluding to the fact that even someone who is meizid in Pesach Rishon, he too brings Pesach Sheini. So then according to this line of interpretation, when the mishna says אם כן למה נאמר טמא או שהיה בדרך רחוקה, it means why does the Torah single out tamei derech rechoka and for that matter shogeg and ones? How are they different than someone who was meizid be Pesach Rishon? And the distinction drawn is between meizid versus everything else. She'eilu pturin mehikaret means not only tamei and derech rechoka, but even shogeg and ones as well. V'eilu chayavin behikaret means meizid and possibly trei gavnei meizid, an onen as well. Okay, again what does the Rambam do with the Gemara? So we'll see shortly what this what we're alluding to now, but the consensus in the achronim seems to be that the Rambam understands this Gemara here on ל"ב עמוד ב' as being determined to read this mishna aliba deRabbi Natan and the Rambam's telling us the pshuto shel mishna which is aliba deRabbi. And we'll see in a minute what that's alluding to. So let's pick that up on ל"ג עמוד א'. If you take a look at the tana rabanan about midway down. tana rabanan:

תנו רבנן חייב כרת על הראשון וחייב כרת על השני דברי רבי.

A person can end up we'll translate in a neutral fashion initially. A person can incur chiyuv kares due to his behavior in Pesach Rishon or due to his behavior on Pesach Sheini, divrei Rabbi.

רבי נתן אומר חייב כרת על הראשון ופטור על השני.

A person's chiyuv kares hinges totally on what he does in Pesach Rishon. If he's meizid in Pesach Rishon, he'll be chayav kares. If shogeg, onus, or he was tamei, or bederech rechoka on Pesach Rishon, regardless of what he does in Pesach Sheni, he cannot be chayav kares. Right, that's what we were just alluding to that the acharonim suggest that the Rambam understood this gemara as learning pshat in the mishna aliba d'Rebbi Natan. So according to Rebbi, a person can incur a chiyuv kares either by virtue of being meizid on Pesach Rishon or by virtue of being meizid on Pesach Sheni. According to Rebbi Natan, only by virtue of being meizid on Pesach Rishon. And finally,

רבי חנינא בן עקביא אומר אף על הראשון אינו חייב כרת אלא אם כן לא עשה את השני.

That a person can only be chayav kares if he'ezid betarveihu. If he was meizid both on Pesach Rishon and on Pesach Sheni. Now what is this dispute revolve about? V'azlu l'tameihu the Gemara says.

דתניא גר שנתגייר בין שני פסחים וכן קטן שהגדיל בין שני פסחים חייב לעשות פסח שני דברי רבי.

Rebbi Natan omer

כל שזקוק לראשון זקוק לשני וכל שאין זקוק לראשון אין זקוק לשני.

B'mai kamifligi? Rebbi savar שני רגל בפני עצמו הוא. Rebbi Natan savar

שני תשלומין דראשון הוא. תיקוני לראשון לא משכחת ליה. רבי חנינא בן עקביא סבר שני תקנתא דראשון הוא.

So the Gemara says what happens if you have someone who wasn't a bar chiyuva at the time of Pesach Rishon? Right, and the braisa gives the two examples. Ger shenitgayer or a katan shehigdil. So according to Rebbi, that person is chayav in Pesach Sheni. That person is chayav in Pesach Sheni. Why? Because Rebbi is of the opinion that Pesach Sheni is a regel bifnei atzmo. It's a totally independent mechayev in korban Pesach and therefore regardless of whether or not the person was a bar chiyuva for Pesach Rishon, he incurs the chiyuv of Pesach Sheni. And if he neglects korban Pesach, be it on Pesach Rishon, be it on Pesach Sheni, if he neglects it b'meizid, he's chayav kares. So that's shittas Rebbi again, חייב כרת על הראשון, חייב כרת על השני, and ger shenitgayer and a katan shehigdil. חייבים לעשות פסח שני. Rebbi Natan says no, if a person wasn't a bar chiyuva for Pesach Rishon, he's not chayav in Pesach Sheni. Pesach Sheni is a makeup, it's tashlumin l'rishon. Good. Now, the Rambam paskens clearly like Rebbi. Right, there's no question that the Rambam paskens like Rebbi because the Rambam holds that חייב כרת על השני, right? We just said before that the Rambam interprets the mishna and that's the way he writes it in Mishneh Torah as well, that if a person was shogeg or onus barishon v'hezid basheni, so then he is chayav kares, right? So that means that not only חייב כרת על הראשון, but חייב כרת על השני as well, right? Because even though it was shogeg or onus barishon he has a good excuse for the rishon, but hezid basheni, he is chayav kares. Whose opinion is that? The Gemara says on דף צג עמוד ב, right before the mishna, the Gemara sums up and concretizes the differences between the three views in the tannaim. The Gemara says on five lines before the mishna on

דף צג עמוד ב: הלכך הזיד בזה ובזה דברי הכל חייב.

Everyone agrees if a person is meizid barishon u'basheni, he's chayav kares. Everyone also agrees that שוגג בזה ובזה דברי הכל פטור. That's also a no-brainer, right? Shogeg bezeh u'bezeh, if he was shogeg both in Pesach Rishon and in Pesach Sheni, he's not going to be chayav chatas. Now,

הזיד בראשון ושוגג בשני לרבי ולרבי נתן מחייב רבי חנינא בן עקביא פוטר.

What about shogeg ba-rishon? If a person was shogeg the Pesach Rishon ve-hezid ba-sheni. So now it's only le-Rebbi chayav. Only according to Rebbi is the person going to be chayav because only Rebbi holds that chayav al ha-rishon and chayav al ha-sheni, right? So it's clear that the Rambam paskens like whom? That he paskens like Rebbi and therefore שוגג או נאנס בראשון והזיד בשני, the Rambam says is chayav kares. The problem is, and the Ra'avad is already massig for this reason, that the Rambam says, again, this is how he learned pshat in the mishna in Tzaddik Gimmel Amud Bet, that if a person was tamei or derech rechoka ba-rishon ve-hezid ba-sheni, then the Rambam says he's pattur min ha-kares. Then the Rambam says he's pattur min ha-kares. So the Ra'avad - the Rambam writes here,

כיצד פרק ה הלכה ב: מי ששוגג או נאנס ולא הקריב בראשון אם הזיד ולא הקריב בשני חייב כרת,

right? Shogeg ba-rishon, hezid ba-sheni according to Rebbi is chayav kares.

ואם שגג או נאנס אף בשני פטור. אבל מי שהיה טמא או בדרך רחוקה ולא עשה את הראשון אף על פי שהזיד בשני אינו חייב כרת.

So אמר הראב״ד עכשיו סותרת דבריו. The Rambam just paskened at the beginning of these halachos like Rebbi, that חייב כרת על הראשון, חייב כרת על השני, and that's why we understand that שוגג או נאנס בראשון והזיד בשני is chayav kares. How can the Rambam turn around toch kedei dibbur and say that טמא או דרך רחוקה בראשון והזיד בשני is not chayav kares?

מאי שנא טמא ודרך רחוקה והזיד בשני משוגג או נאנס בראשון והזיד בשני?

That's the hassaga of the Ra'avad. Okay. So if in either way, the problem is again that there's an apparent internal inconsistency in the Rambam. Because right away it occurs to us to say well maybe the Rambam understood regel bifnei atzmo differently than Rashi. Right? Rashi clearly understands that when Rebbi says that Pesach Sheni is a regel bifnei atzmo, he means that it's a regel bifnei atzmo which is equal to Pesach Rishon. Not a second-class Yom Tov, equal to Pesach Rishon in terms of the chomer ha-chiyuv. So we'll say maybe the Rambam is of the opinion, yes, it's a regel bifnei atzmo and that's why גר שנתגייר קטן שהגדיל is chayav la'asos Pesach Sheni, but lav davka that the regel bifnei atzmo is shaveh to the regel of Pesach Rishon. But again we're not going to - that we're still going to be stuck: so why is it that if שוגג או נאנס בראשון והזיד בשני, why is he chayav kares? If Sheni is not mechayiv kares, the Rishon certainly can't be mechayiv kares because he was shogeg or ones on the Rishon. So somehow or other, right, it's clear from the Rambam that what his excuse is, what his defense is for Pesach Rishon is relevant to whether he's chayav kares for Pesach Sheni. But that's very difficult because the Rambam himself here in פרק ה הלכה א says as follows:

מי שהיה טמא בשעת שחיטת הפסח שאין שוחטין עליו או שהיה בדרך רחוקה או נאנס באונס אחר או ששגג ולא הקריב בראשון הרי זה מביא פסח בארבעה עשר לחודש השני בין הערביים.

Now let's read carefully: ושחיטת פסח זה מצות עשה בפני עצמו. It's a regel bifnei atzmo.

דוחה את השבת שאין השני תשלומין לראשון אלא רגל בפני עצמו לפיכך חייבין עליו כרת.

So the Rambam explicitly, following the Gemara, right, the Rambam explicitly says why is it that there's a chiyuv kares for being meizid in Pesach Sheni? Because it's a regel bifnei atzmo. So if that's the case, then your defense, your excuse on Pesach... Rishon should be irrelevant. Whether one was shogeg or onus at Pesach Rishon or whether one was tamei or derech rechokah is totally irrelevant lichora because the Rambam says here black and white, reflecting this sugyas hagemara that the fact that there's chayavin kares is because regel bifnei atzmo, לפיכך חייבין עליו כרת. But let's step back for a minute and just review in the most elementary way what exactly is the din of Pesach Sheni? What is the din of Pesach Sheni? So according to Rebbe, Pesach Sheni is that a person who wasn't makriv Pesach Rishon for whatever reason, that's regel bifnei atzmo. According to Rav Nason, no, according to Rav Nason, a person who was chayav in Pesach Rishon, who was a bar chiyuva at the time of Pesach Rishon but wasn't makriv, so he has to compensate for that. He has to compensate for that and the Torah tells him what the compensation is. If we don't fast on Taanis Esther because we're cholei einayim, so we fast another day later. It's a compensation, it's a makeup. In lieu of what we didn't do, so we're substituting this. So too Pesach Sheni is for someone who was chayav in Pesach Rishon and didn't fulfill that chiyuv. And mimila גר שנתגייר קטן שהגדיל אף פטור. Right? That's what Pesach Sheni seems to be. But the truth is that it really goes much deeper than that and to appreciate it, let's return to the machlokes of the Rambam and the other Rishonim which we mentioned earlier. Right? When we were talking about derech rechokah, so we said that derech rechokah according to Ula means that a person is fifteen mil from Yerushalayim. At what point are we checking on his whereabouts to determine the din of derech rechokah? So Rashi and Tosfos and most Rishonim say that we're checking his whereabouts at chatzos. And the significance of fifteen mil is that he couldn't arrive in the azarah before shkia. Now the Rambam in perek hey of Hilchos Korban Pesach, halacha tes,

מי שהיה בינו ובין ירושלים יום ארבעה עשר עם עלות השחר חמישה עשר מיל או יותר הרי זה דרך רחוקה.

The Rambam's famous famous view here is that derech rechokah is determined by a person's whereabouts at neitz hachama. Not a person's whereabouts at chatzos, but rather a person's whereabouts at neitz hachama. Now whether whether derech rechokah is a simple p'tur or whether derech rechokah is a dichuy, it's quite clear that whatever it is, neither a p'tur nor a dichuy can be chal before the chiyuv hamitzvah is incurred. Let's say this may not be too hypothetical, let's say there are a lot of people with very bad headaches now that the shiur's been going on for close to an hour and there are a lot a lot of mista'arim in the room. So can we now decide that everyone who's nebech mista'ar should be patur from sukkah because מצטער פטור מן הסוכה? So among other things, among other things, obviously a person can't decide whether or not you should be a mista'ar and patur min hasukkah if it's not Sukkos and there's no chiyuv to be in the sukkah. A person can't can't be exempted from a mitzvah shelo bizman chiyuvo. There has to be a correlation between if it's a time which should be a zman chiyuv, a person can incur a p'tur, a person can incur a dichuy. So how in the world can the Rambam say that the p'tur or the dichuy, whatever it is, of derech rechokah is determined im alos hashachar, yud dalet in the morning? So the Mikdash David writes in his sefer, Rav Shechter has the same in his sefer as well, that al korchacha the pshat in the Rambam has to be that the Rambam thinks that the chiyuv to be makriv the Korban Pesach is chal yud dalet in the morning, that a person is mischayav in the mitzvah. of korban Pesach Yud-Daled in the morning. Ella mai, in terms of the zman which is muchshar lakorban, in terms of when the korban is fit to be brought, that doesn't happen until chatzos hayom, but the chiyuv, which which is chal, that a person is mischayev in korban Pesach, that happens Yud-Daled in the morning, and that has to do has relevance to Ben Batera and the and Rabbi Yehoshua in the first perek of Zevachim, whether or not a Pesach which is nishchat shelo lishmo Yud-Daled in the morning is treated as a Pesach bishar yemot hashanah which is kasher shelo lishmo, that Ben Batera pasuls. And again, that lichora works out very well according to the shitas HaRambam that hachiyuv, that hachovas gavra is chal Yud-Daled in the morning, even though הזמן המוכשר להבאת הפסח is not until chatzos. nimtzainu lomedim that by korban Pesach, unlike most mitzvos, not necessarily all mitzvos, but unlike most mitzvos, number one, there's a zman of the mitzvah, and number two, there's also a zman which is muchshar lehachrava. And as we've seen, the two are not the two are not identical, the two are not identical. Now, in light of that insight into Pesach Rishon, so let's rethink Pesach Sheini for a moment. nimtzainu lomedim now that according to Rebbe that Pesach Sheini is a regel bifnei atzmo, so be'emes the Torah said two things about Pesach Sheini. Number one, Torah said that Pesach Sheini, again as a regel bifnei atzmo, is an independent mechayiv. That's what regel bifnei atzmo means, it's an independent mechayiv, an independent mechayiv. חשיבין וסומא קטן שהגדיל אחר חיובן. But number two, since Pesach Sheini, what you're bringing is not stam a tashlumin be'alma for the korban Pesach, but what you're bringing on Pesach Sheini is a korban Pesach, so the Torah also was mechadesh that Yud-Daled Iyar is a הזמן המוכשר לקרבן פסח. So there's really two yesodos here implicit within Pesach Sheini. Again, according to Rebbe, that it's regel bifnei atzmo, number one, that Pesach Sheini as a regel bifnei atzmo is a mechayiv, is a mechayiv, and therefore חשיבין וסומא קטן שהגדיל אחר חיובן. Number two, the Torah's also saying since this regel bifnei atzmo mechayiv a korban Pesach, not stam a tashlumin lerishon, right, not stam a tashlumin lerishon, not stam a takana lerishon, but the korban that's brought is a חפצא של קרבן פסח, so that means the Torah is also saying that Yud-Daled Iyar is a הזמן המוכשר להקרבת הפסח. Now, the Rambam understands as follows. Again, according to the Rambam, this is all a meforash mishna here on tzadi-beis amud-beis at the beginning of our perek. ein hachi nami Pesach Sheini as a separate mechayiv, as a regel bifnei atzmo which is a separate mechayiv, is not equal to Pesach Rishon. No, כי כתיב כרת הפסח ראשון הוא דכתיב. hapshuto shel mikra in Parshas Behaalosecha is is like this, that the Torah prescribes kareis for a person who was mazid in Pesach Rishon only. Pesach Rishon is mechayiv in kareis, Pesach Sheini is not mechayiv in kareis. regel bifnei atzmo according to the Rambam, unlike Rashi, doesn't mean that it's equal to Pesach Rishon in in chomer hachiyuv, it doesn't mean that. However, however, the second din, let's not lose sight of the second din of Pesach Sheini. In addition to the fact that Pesach Sheni is a mechayav and the peshat is אזוי ומגלגלין זכות על ידי זכאי שהגיע לחיובים, but it's also the Torah was mechadesh that Yud-Daled Iyar is a זמן המוכשר להבאת קרבן פסח. So that means, that means that if a person was shogeg or annus bepesach rishon, so he now in addition to Pesach Sheni as a mitzvah bifnei atzmo, he also has a chance to fulfill that outstanding chiyuv mipesach rishon. By most mitzvos, by most mitzvos if a person for some reason didn't put on tefillin today is finished, right? So in one's ledger, so one can write down finished, that that on such and such a day on יום גימל של שבת קודש, so lo hinachti tefillin. You can fill in the ledger מעוות לא יוכל לתקן in terms of that mitzvah. Teshuvah yes, but in terms of that mitzvah is מעוות לא יוכל לתקן. By Pesach rishon because of the second chidush of Pesach sheni, the mechayav in כרת היא זה בשני is not because of the regel bifnei atzmo of sheni. The significance of the regel bifnei atzmo of sheni is that the korban of Yud-Daled Iyar is a korban Pesach. It's not stam a tashlumin of korban Pesach, it's a korban Pesach. If that's the case so then my outstanding chiyuv if someone was shogeg or annus on Pesach rishon, so shogeg or annus has a p'tur onishen. You can't say that the chiyuv, it's not a hafk'as chiyuv. You don't say that since I was shogeg that therefore the Torah's mafkia the chiyuv, that since the person was annus the Torah's mafkia the chiyuv. No, the chiyuv is be'eino omed and it's unsatisfied. Now in light of the fact that Pesach Sheni again is not only a new mechayav but implicit in that is that it's also a זמן המוכשר להבאת הפסח. So now the person who shogeg or annus really has a double chiyuv. He has the new chiyuv of Pesach Sheni but his outstanding chiyuv of Pesach Rishon is also relevant here and it's that which is responsible for the chiyuv kareis. So now the Rambam works out beautifully. The Rambam and again according to the Rambam this is all Mishnayos according to the Rambam. This was a brief excerpt from the Rambam's Mishnayos Pesachim Mishna Yomus shiur. And according to the Rambam it works out, according to the Rambam it works out beautifully. טמא או דרך רחוקה, טמא או דרך רחוקה is not a p'tur onishen. U'bifrat especially, especially in light of Rav Sheshes's opinion of lo hurtza that it's a dichee but even without it, but especially in light of Rav Sheshes, tamei v'derech rechoka again is not stam a p'tur onishen, not a p'tur onishen. At the techilas zman hachiyuv, fourteenth in the morning we already give them their dispensation. It's a hafk'as hachiyuv, it cancels the chiyuv. It cancels the chiyuv. Shogeg or annus doesn't cancel the chiyuv. A person was shogeg and he didn't lay tefillin, doesn't cancel his chiyuv. It's a p'tur onishen but it doesn't cancel the chiyuv. So now טמא או דרך רחוקה when he comes to Pesach Sheni the only thing relevant to him is that now there's a new mechayav because his mechayav of Pesach Rishon was parka because that is the din of טמא או דרך רחוקה. So he just has this independent regel bifnei atzmo mechayav of Pesach Sheni. That's not mechayav kareis. Regel bifnei atzmo doesn't mean they're equal, it just means that it's an independent mechayav and that the korban is a korban Pesach but it doesn't mean that they're equal. Mah she'ein kein shogeg and annus barishon, that's not a hafk'as chiyuv. No, the chiyuv of Pesach Rishon is talu v'omed. It's unsatisfied. Comes now a Pesach Sheni which since it's a regel bifnei atzmo means that it's being mechayav in a korban Pesach, not stam a tashlumin of Pesach but it's being mechayav in a korban Pesach. Oh, if it's being mechayav in a korban Pesach so that means that Yud-Daled Iyar in the afternoon is a זמן המוכשר להבאת הפסח. If it's a זמן המוכשר להבאת הפסח so not only is the person chayav mitzad Sheni regel bifnei atzmo but he's also chayav mitzad... the chiyuv of Pesach Rishon which remains unsatisfied. Hence the Rambam says that שוגג או אונס בראשון והזיד בשני יתחייב. However,

טמא או בדרך רחוקה אף על פי שהזיד בשני אינו חייב כרת שכבר נפטר בפסח ראשון מן הכרת.

Perhaps just just to be mesayem very briefly with the milei d'agadata. We spent some time trying to understand Rebbe Eliezer's shitta, that derech rechoka can be just chutz l'askofas ha'azarah. Just one step outside of the azarah is already a derech rechoka. And again, depending upon the different views aliba d'Rebbe Eliezer, so maybe that's a derech rechoka where he's not chayiv kares according to the other opinions who don't agree with Abaye. So then there are some versions of Rebbe Eliezer who say that if מוציא עייל ולא עייל, so chutz l'askofas ha'azarah is a derech rechoka for which he would be chayiv kares. But either way, Rebbe Eliezer says that chutz l'askofas ha'azarah is derech rechoka. It's important again in reflecting on the din of derech rechoka that we recognize that even when one clearly has the ptur or the dichuy of derech rechoka, it's not something to be welcomed. The whole parsha of Pesach Sheni in Behaalotecha, מגלגלין זכות על ידי זכאי, is that they had a ptur of being temei meis, temeim l'nefesh adam, and their reaction was למה נגרע לבלתי הקריב את קרבן ה' במועדו. They felt reduced. Nigra. They felt deprived not to be able to be makriv Korban Hashem. So derech rechoka is not a pass. Even derech rechoka when it's a ptur or a dichuy means that there's a lack of fulfillment. But what Rebbe Eliezer's shitta highlights for us very graphically and very powerfully is that derech rechoka doesn't have to imply great distance. A person can be at the threshold and still be b'derech rechoka. Now that's an eternally timeless lesson, but especially poignant after one's student years have gone by, that a person can be b'derech rechoka even though he's standing adjacent to the azarah. We have batei knesiyos and batei midrashos in our community, mamash we're standing chutz l'askofas ha'azarah. But if we're not devoted to tefillah b'tzibbur, if we're not moseir nefesh of kum ayel, so then we remain b'derech rechoka. Surrounded, surrounded by batei knesiyos and batei midrashos, thriving and flourishing, a person is standing right there adjacent to askofas ha'azarah, but a person should not, should not be lured into the false sense of security of because I'm living within a makom Torah, because I'm right there on the threshold, a person can be b'derech rechoka even though he's one step outside. Person can be baderech rechoka living in a time when Baruch Hashem as among other places our own Koslei HaYeshiva testify, even when Talmud Torah is thriving and flourishing like it never did before here in New York, United States. If a person again upon leaving Yeshiva with a kvius itim is not imposed, with a kvius itim is not scheduled by the registrar, if a person doesn't maintain kvius itim, he also runs the risk of being baderech rechoka even though he's only chutz l'agapas ha'azarah. He's not out in some midbar, out in some spiritual barren wasteland, no, even adjacent to the azarah. But that shouldn't exhaust our aspirations, not just to maintain kvius itim. A person should aspire initially to maintain that same level of Talmud Torah. Not that once a person leaves Yeshiva, so the sense of learning and becoming immersed in one's learning, that's forgotten. And the most that one can hope for is to sort of passively sit back and listen to a shiur. That's also a derech rechoka. The level of learning which a person attains, the ability to become immersed, again, it can be a sugya, it can be Chumash with Rashi, it can be a Mishnah Berurah, but that level should not be sacrificed when a person leaves the Koslei HaYeshiva. That too is a pitfall of דרך רחוקה חוץ לאסקופת העזרה that we have to be on guard against. Talmud Torah was not intended to be the exclusive province of Rabbanim of professional mechanchim. Talmud Torah is Morasha Kehillat Yaakov. We all have an equal stake in the Torah and we're all obligated to maximize our individual talents and potential in Talmud Torah, whether it's one's professional preoccupation or whether it's one's religious, spiritual, but not professional preoccupation. And to allow ourselves to be overtaken by this notion of well, what can a baal habayis aspire to, is to find ourselves בדרך רחוקה חוץ לאסקופת העזרה. But how does it happen? How could Rabbi Eliezer imagine that the Torah should be describing a person who's chutz l'agapas ha'azarah, one step outside of the azarah and doesn't step in? That even though motzei ayel has not kam ve-al? How could Rabbi Eliezer in his wildest dreams imagine such a person that the Torah could be addressing? It's unthinkable. Such an unfeeling, apathetic person, that's whom the Torah is addressing according to Rabbi Eliezer? I don't think so. The Torah was talking to Shomrei Torah U'Mitzvos. Torah's talking to a person erev Pesach. Erev Pesach is a busy time, the most hectic time there is. He's busy, he's busy getting ready for Yom Tov. He's busy with tzorchei hachag. No, he's not apathetic, not totally insensitive, but he's busy. So busy that what? He's so busy, so busy be-chutz lishkas ha-azara, and somehow or rather he forgets to come v'al into the azara. How did that happen? How did that happen? Lefikach naku'd alav. Everyone has a nekuda penimis. A nekuda penimis where a person senses what his true identity is, where a person recognizes a longing to come close to the Ribono Shel Olam, to spend his life as productively as possible, as constructively as possible, as usefully as possible, being all that Hashem. Everyone has that nekuda penimis. What happens if that nekuda gets displaced? Nekudos generally are not naku'd alav. Nekudos are underneath the osios. Underneath the osios. When that nekuda, when a person loses that orientation, it's naku'd alav. That nekuda penimis in the person, that pintele yid is displaced. The nekuda is not where it's supposed to be. The nekuda of what the etzem of a Jew is, an oved Hashem, what his dreams are, what his aspirations are, what he longs for, when that gets displaced, it's naku'd alav. The nekuda's not where it's supposed to be, so then a person loses his orientation. He becomes disoriented. Ikar ve-tafel become totally confused. The person initially gets involved with things for the right reason, but then loses that sense of direction. A person enters an omnus because the Torah clearly has a work ethic and clearly says that we're supposed to make hishtadlus for parnassa. But if that nekuda ha-penimis is dislodged and it ends up naku'd alav, a person begins to forget why he's there. He begins to think that he's there for the same reason others are, to get wealthy, that one's fulfillment comes purely from career, and instead of seeing that as one component of a balanced life of avodas Hashem, he falls prey to careerism. It's lefikach naku'd alav. The Torah wasn't addressing someone apathetic, wasn't addressing a mumar le-hachis who doesn't want to step over. No, the Torah was addressing us and saying, watch out, if it's naku'd alav, if the nekuda penimis of who we are, what we long for, what we aspire to, if it's naku'd alav, if that gets displaced, so then a person can fall prey to being omed be-derech rechoka even though in reality he's only mi-chutz lishkas ha-azara.