Pesachim XI

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 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:

דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי־יִהְיֶה טָמֵא לָנֶפֶשׁ אוֹ בְדֶרֶךְ רְחֹקָה לָכֶם אוֹ לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם וְעָשָׂה פֶסַח לַיהוָה: בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם בֵּין הָֽעַרְבַּיִם יַעֲשׂוּ אֹתוֹ עַל־מַצּוֹת וּמְרֹרִים יֹאכְלֻהוּ: לֹא־יַשְׁאִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד־בֹּקֶר וְעֶצֶם לֹא יִשְׁבְּרוּ־בוֹ כְּכָל־חֻקַּת הַפֶּסַח יַעֲשׂוּ אֹתוֹ: וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־הוּא טָהוֹר וּבְדֶרֶךְ לֹא־הָיָה וְחָדַל לַֽעֲשׂוֹת הַפֶּסַח וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מֵעַמֶּיהָ כִּי קָרְבַּן יְהוָה לֹא הִקְרִיב בְּמֹעֲדוֹ חֶטְאוֹ יִשָּׂא הָאִישׁ הַהוּא:

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'. (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.

1:
As we noted in our study of the previous mishnah, the Torah [Numbers 9:10] gives a second opportunity to celebrate the paschal offering to people who were in two situations on Nisan 14th: those who were in a state of ritual impurity through contact with a corpse, and those who were 'on a long journey'. The former is clear: either one is in a state of ritual impurity through contact with a corpse or one is not. But in the latter case the phrase 'long journey' clearly needs some kind of legal definition; otherwise it would be completely subjective and there would be no justification for the penalty of excision imposed on others.

2:
In our present mishnah two definitions are offered: that of Rabbi Eli'ezer (supported by Rabbi Yosé) and that of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva sets a geographical distance as determining 'a long journey'. The town of Modi'in in modern Israel is about 25 kilometres north-west of Jerusalem 'as the crow flies'. (Modi'in was the hometown of the Hasmonean family, the heroes of the Chanukah story.)

3:
Rambam, in his commentary on our present mishnah (which, in turn, is based on the discussion in the Gemara [Pesaĥim 93a-b]) explains that Modi'in is fifteen mils from Jerusalem and that this is the distance that a person walking at a regular pace from sunrise to sunset would be able to cover. Therefore, anyone who is beyond such a point is more than a day's journey from Jerusalem and would not be able to arrive at the Priests' Courtyard on the same day even if they set out at sunrise. Therefore, according to Rabbi Akiva, one can draw an imaginary circle whose radius is 15 mils and whose centre is the Priests' Courtyard in the Bet Mikdash: anyone who is beyond the circumference of that circle at sunrise on Nisan 14th is considered to be an a journey that is 'too long' to be able to reach Jerusalem in time for the paschal sacrifice.

4:
Rabbi Eli'ezer, surprisingly, holds a more liberal view. (This is surprising since Rabbi Eli'ezer is known as one of the more conservative of the Tanna'im and it is Rabbi Akiva who is generally the more liberal in his views.) Rabbi Eli'ezer holds that if, for any reason whatsoever, one was delayed by circumstances beyond one's control and could not reach the Courtyard in time, one is considered as being on a long journey - even if one was in the city of Jerusalem at the time.

5:
Rabbi Yosé ben-Chalafta seems to support the view of Rabbi Eli'ezer, or at the very least to offer a rationale for his view. He says that in a Sefer Torah there is a dot placed above the Hebrew letter Heh, the last letter of the word Rechokah - the adjectival part of the phrase 'long journey'. If tradition places a dot over a letter of the text of the Torah it must be to indicate that the word must not be understood literally, but one must pay attention to the oral interpretation of the word or letter. In our case, he seems to imply, this supports the explanation of Rabbi Eli'ezer. The Talmud of Eretz-Israel [Pesaĥim 64b] teaches that the format of having the dot over the last letter means that one can read the word as two: 'distant five' - even one who is only five cubits distant from the courtyard but has arrived too late is considered to be 'on a long journey'.

6:
All this, however, from the practical point of view is immaterial, since accepted halakhah follows the view of Rabbi Akiva in this matter.

Orin Rotman asks a general question:

What are the practical aspects of being 'ritually impure' besides the status of being able to transmit that status of ritual impurity? Does it go beyond the ability to participate in the holy temple? I recall on several occassions you discussing the inability to effect biblically dictated repurification procedures for the temple itself. Might we assume that all contact in relatively normal human activities leads continuously to exposure to persons or things that are 'ritually impure', creating a virtual continuous and extensive web of 'ritual impurity'. Is ritual impurity compounded and intensified, or does one become 'ritually impure' with further ritually impure contacts having no additional effects?

I respond:

As we learned when we studied tractate Yadayyim there are varying causes of ritual impurity and each of these causes has varying degrees of severity. The cause and degree may be such that the remedy is simply netilat yadayyim - ritually washing the hands, as we still do before eating bread. The cause and degree may require bathing in a ritual bath, a Mikveh in order to remove the ritual impurity. The most severe case is ritual impurity caused by contact with a corpse, for which the remedy is having drops of water mixed with the ashes of the Red Heifer sprinkled over one.

Nowadays we are all considered to be in a state of ritual impurity caused by contact with a corpse; since there is now no possibility of being purified by the ceremony of the Red Heifer there is no way to remove this status of ritual impurity.

1:
There is very little new in our present mishnah. It starts with the introductory question as to the differences between the eating the paschal lamb at the Seder service when this is observed in Nisan as compared with that same observance when held in Iyyar. Two major differences are mentioned.

2:
Unlike the strict requirement for the complete elimination of all ĥametz from the possession and vicinity of the celebrants when the Seder takes place in Nisan, when the Alternative Passover is observed this is not the case. While, when observed in Iyyar, the paschal lamb must be eaten together with matzah, this does not also require the elimination of all ĥametz. The elimination of ĥametz under the usual circumstances when the festival is celebrated in Nisan was treated in great detail in the first three chapters of this tractate. I have previously written:

This is the prohibition which, our present mishnah says, does not apply to the Alternative Passover.

3:
We have already learned what Hallel is [5:7], and I shall not repeat it here, since we shall return to this subject again in the next chapter. All we need note is that it was not required to sing these psalms while eating the paschal lamb if this is being observed during Iyyar.

4:
The requirement to sing the Hallel psalms while the paschal lamb was being slaughtered was the subject of our study of Chapter 5, mishnah 7. This requirement also applies to the Alternative Passover. That the sacrifice of the paschal lamb supercedes the restrictions of Shabbat was detailed in Chapter 6; our present mishnah merely adds that this applies to both occasions, both to Nisan and to Iyyar. Perhaps we should note that under the present arrangement of the Jewish calendar Iyyar 14th can never fall on Shabbat. Nowadays Pesaĥ Sheni (the Alternative Passover) is marked solely by the fact that we refrain from including the penitentiary passages called Taĥanun in the daily service. (Though see a personal account in the discussion below.)

Art Evans writes:

This year my wife and I celebrated Pesaĥ Sheni. The circumstances may be of interest to you. Because my wife made several trips to an Emergency Room and subsequently was hospitalized, we totally missed most of Pesaĥ. As her recovery progressed, we felt sad that we had been unable to celebrate the holiday. I had been studying Numbers at our shul and remembered Chapter 9. After some discussion with our Rabbi, this is what we did.

We celebrated on the evening of Iyyar 15 (that is, after sundown of Iyyar 14). We prepared a meal using ingredients without ĥametz and used matzos rather than bread. For bitter herbs we used the bottle of horse radish we had purchased for the seder and never used. As we ate the herbs on matzos, we commented on the bitterness of sickness and the sweetness of returning health. We did no ritual from the seder; instead, I discussed Numbers Chapter 9 and the comments in Mishnah Pesaĥim Chapter 9.

While what we did was not exactly called for by our tradition, we derived a lot of satisfaction from our little bit of ritual. For erev Shavuot our Rabbi encourages members to offer teachings on topics of interest; I discussed what we did, and I think others found it of interest.

Our tradition tells us much that we are required to do. With a little thought we can often do more in ways that are consistent with the requirements and that provide much satisfaction. That's what we did this year.

1:
When we studied the 6th mishnah of chapter 7 we learned the following:

What this means is that if a very large segment of the people who are waiting to sacrifice their paschal lamb are in a state of ritual impurity through contact with a corpse they do not all postpone their celebration for one month, since the Alternative Passover is intended only for individual cases; they celebrate the Passover at the right time despite their being in a state of ritual impurity.

2:
Our present mishnah points out that when such a situation arises other people who are also in a state of ritual impurity, but for reasons not connected with a corpse, those individuals should not assume that since the majority of those sacrificing are ritually impure anyway, they too can join in. This is not the case, but they should wait for the Alternative Passover in one month's time, since permission to handle 'most sacred sacrifices' [ kodashim ] while in a state of ritual impurity was only given when a very large segment of the people is involved.

3:
The punishment that awaits someone who handles kodashim without permission is 'excision'. (On many occasions by now we have explained that most commentators accept Rambam's explanation that excision implies the complete death of the soul at the same time as physical death.) Therefore our present mishnah adds a rider: if people who were ritually impure for other reasons did eat of the paschal lamb when the majority of the congregation were ritually impure by way of contact with a corpse, they are not punishable by excision [karet]. The reason for this is because of the way the Torah presents the rule. As regards the consumption of kodashim the Torah [Leviticus 7:19-20 ] states that

It seems logical to interpret these words as implying that only meat that is permitted to the ritually pure is forbidden to the ritually impure, and the situation under discussion is when people who are ritually impure have been permitted to eat sacrificial meat.

4:
Rabbi Eli'ezer would take this logic one stage further. The Torah [Numbers 5:2] instructs us to -

The sages habitually understand the references in the Torah to sanctity of the camp as being applicable to the Bet Mikdash. Thus the verse just quoted means that such people may not enter the precincts of the Bet Mikdash. Rabbi Eli'ezer says that if ritually impure people have been permitted to be present in the Bet Mikdash to offer their sacrifice anyway (under the circumstances implied in our present mishnah) the presence of other ritually impure people should also be permitted. The rest of the sages do not accept his reasoning: the permission to offer the paschal lamb when in a state of ritual impurity is applicable on in the specific circumstances we have described above and therefore no conclusions can be drawn therefrom as regards others.

Albert Ringer writes concerning chapter 8, mishnah 7:

In your explanations you write: Rabbi Yehudah holds that an individual, by himself or by herself, cannot constitute a group. The political correctness of the sentence is appreciated. However, could a group, consisting of one woman (if you excuse the mathematical way of stating this), be feasible in our context? Would it not be impossible for her to sacrifice the animal in the first place?

I respond:

But the halakhah was not according to Rabbi Yehudah! The sages permit 'a group of one' when the individual believes that he can consume all the meat by himself. This being the case, it makes no difference whether the individual concerned is male or female. (There is no reason why a woman should not bring a paschal lamb and slaughter it.)

Albert also writes:

You translate: we may not create a group that consists solely of women, servants and children. In your explanations you comment on the other translation, with 'or' instead of 'and'. It strikes me that in the context of the mishnah, 'and' leads to a quite simple explanation. None of the people in the group would be masters of their own time. One could end up with an empty group and nobody to take responsibility for the paschal lamb.

I respond:

Again, I do not understand why Albert sees it necessary to reject the clear explanation given by Rabbi Ovadyah of Betinoro that I quoted at the time:

We do not permit the constitution of a group that consists solely of women and servants for fear that they become habituated to sin; and we do not permit the constitution of a group that consists of servants and children alone for fear of pedophilia. But the constitution of a womenעs' group or a servants' group is permitted.

1:
Three terms are used in our mishnah that, despite their simplicity, require our attention, for their simplicity is in the Hebrew which almost defies a succinct translation into English. Our mishnah points out the differences between the observances of the original Pesaĥ and all subsequent ones.

2:
The term 'Passover' has two meanings in our mishnah and both, it seems, are implied at the same time. The word is meant to indicate both the name of the festival and the designation of the animal to be slaughtered.

3:
In Hebrew, what I have translated as 'Passover in Egypt' serves to indicate the very first Pesaĥ, the celebration of the Israelites in Egypt on the eve of their departure from Egyptian slavery. The term used is Pesaĥ Mitzrayyim. The other term in Hebrew is Pesaĥ ha-dorot. A literal translation is 'Passover of the generations' and serves to indicate the celebration of the Passover in all years subsequent to the Exodus itself.

4:
Throughout history the selection of the paschal lamb could be made even at the very last moment. In theory, one could take more than one animal to the Bet Mikdash and only decide which of them was the paschal sacrifice at the very last minute. (Someone arriving in the Temple forecourt on Nisan 14th with five sheep in train would probably have caused a riot.) Furthermore, all that was done with the blood of the slaughtered animal was to sprinkle it on the side of the main altar in the priestly courtyard. The Torah [Exodus 12:3-13] has more extensive requirements for the 'Pesaĥ in Egypt':

דַּבְּרוּ אֶל־כָּל־עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר בֶּעָשֹׂר לַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה וְיִקְחוּ לָהֶם אִישׁ שֶׂה לְבֵית־אָבֹת שֶׂה לַבָּיִת: וְאִם־יִמְעַט הַבַּיִת מִהְיוֹת מִשֶּׂה וְלָקַח הוּא וּשְׁכֵנוֹ הַקָּרֹב אֶל־בֵּיתוֹ בְּמִכְסַת נְפָשֹׁת אִישׁ לְפִי אָכְלוֹ תָּכֹסּוּ עַל־הַשֶּׂה: ... וְהָיָה לָכֶם לְמִשְׁמֶרֶת עַד אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה וְשָׁחֲטוּ אֹתוֹ כֹּל קְהַל עֲדַת־יִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם: וְלָקְחוּ מִן־הַדָּם וְנָתְנוּ עַל־שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת וְעַל־הַמַּשְׁקוֹף עַל הַבָּתִּים אֲשֶׁר־יֹאכְלוּ אֹתוֹ בָּהֶם: ... וְכָכָה תֹּאכְלוּ אֹתוֹ מָתְנֵיכֶם חֲגֻרִים נַעֲלֵיכֶם בְּרַגְלֵיכֶם וּמַקֶּלְכֶם בְּיֶדְכֶם וַאֲכַלְתֶּם אֹתוֹ בְּחִפָּזוֹן פֶּסַח הוּא לַיהוָה:

5:
The seifa of our mishnah is puzzling, since it is not easy to relate it to the previous sentence. The Gemara [Pesaĥim 96a-b] also notices this difficulty.

It follows that the sages held that the original festival lasted but one day. According to the rabbinic calculations, in Egypt the lamb was to be selected on Shabbat Nisan 10th 1311 BCE, slaughtered on Wednesday Nisan 14th and eaten in haste during Wednesday evening. The festivals ended the following day, Thursday Nisan 15th 1311 BCE, the day of the Exodus. (One of the suggestions as to the origin of the name Shabbat ha-Gadol for the Shabbat before Pesaĥ is the fact that this was the day on which the original paschal lambs were selected.)

We have previously mentioned the incidence of the dot placed over the letter Heh. I am grateful to Albert Ringer for the following information:

I am reading Emmanuel Tov, 'Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible'. In chapter 2 he writes on the 'extraordinary points'. They appear in 15 places in the Tanach, ten in Torah, four in the Nevi'im and one in the Scrolls. The original meaning of the dots is a mark of correction. In the classical world this was the way a scribe or corrector would mark a letter or word that he found in error and wanted to erase from then text. Our text probably shows that one of the scribes or correctors of the text found the word derech (way) masculine instead of feminine. In the Tanach the word is normally feminine, except for Devarim 17:16, where the text speaks about baderech hazeh instead of baderech hazot. I find it quite interesting to note that the dot that Rabbi Yosé saw over the letter is still a part of our text. The rabbis of the Mishna used a copy of the text that is quite close to ours, even in these kind of tiny details.

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁתְּמוּרַת הַפֶּסַח קְרֵבָה, וּתְמוּרַת הַפֶּסַח אֵינָהּ קְרֵבָה, וְאֵין לִי לְפָרֵשׁ. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אֲנִי אֲפָרֵשׁ. הַפֶּסַח שֶׁנִּמְצָא קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטַת הַפֶּסַח, יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב, וְיִמָּכֵר, וְיִקַּח בְּדָמָיו שְׁלָמִים, וְכֵן תְּמוּרָתוֹ. אַחַר שְׁחִיטַת הַפֶּסַח, קָרֵב שְׁלָמִים, וְכֵן תְּמוּרָתוֹ:

הַמַּפְרִישׁ נְקֵבָה לְפִסְחוֹ אוֹ זָכָר בֶּן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב, וְיִמָּכֵר, וְיִפְּלוּ דָמָיו לִנְדָבָה. הַמַּפְרִישׁ פִּסְחוֹ וָמֵת, לֹא יְבִיאֶנּוּ בְנוֹ אַחֲרָיו לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח, אֶלָּא לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים:

1:
In order to understand mishnah 6 we must be aware that certain terms used had a slightly different connotation to the sages than they do for us. The study of the oral tradition was by rote. One listened to one's teacher, learned the material from him and conned it by rote. (Thus one of the characteristics of the successful sage was a prodigious memory. His teacher said of Rabbi Eli'ezer that he was 'like a cemented water reservoir': it all goes in and not a drop is ever lost. [Avot 2:8]) The sages were permitted to keep a 'secret notebook' [megillat setarim] in which they recorded material, but they were not permitted to use it when teaching and it had to be destroyed after their death. These precautions to maintain the tradition as oral were taken as long as the oral tradition was truly oral - that is, until the publication of the Mishnah.

2:
Thus, when Rabbi Yehoshu'a says that he had 'heard' something he means that he recalls having learned something. In the present case, Rabbi Yehoshu'a recalls having learned that in some circumstances a replacement for the paschal lamb may be sacrificed and in others it may not, but he cannot recall the details.

3:
Another point that needs clarification is the concept of replacement. Let us assume that a diligent person has designated a certain lamb a few days before Nisan 14th as his (or her) intended paschal sacrifice. Despite all the precautions taken the lamb gets lost or can no longer be identified. Under such circumstances it will be necessary, when the time comes, to offer a replacement lamb.

4:
We may now address mishnah 6. Rabbi Akiva explains to his beloved teacher that it all depends on when the animal was recovered. If a lost lamb was rediscovered after the paschal sacrifice had been made it could no longer be sacrificed at all for any purpose. It must be left to graze until it receives some blemish that will disqualify it for the altar; it should then be sold and the proceeds used to pay for a peace-offering. The same rule would apply if our person, after having selected his lamb, changed his mind and decided to replace it with another: the replaced lamb must be allowed to graze etc. (This is the situation which Rabbi Yehoshu'a remembered as a paschal lamb that could not be sacrificed.)

5:
If the wandering animal were only recaptured after the replacement had already been sacrificed it may be offered as a peace-offering, since it had never been disqualified as a sacrifice. (This is the paschal lamb that could be sacrificed.)

6:
Mishnah 7 deals with two different situations. The first situation is somewhat similar to that described in mishnah 6. The Torah [Exodus 12:5] makes two stipulations concerning the paschal lamb: it must be male and it must be a yearling. If someone selects as his paschal lamb an animal that does not meet those requirements (i.e. is female and/or is older than one year) it shares the same destiny as that described for the animal in the previous mishnah: the lucky animal must be allowed to graze in peace until it becomes disqualified by some injury or other. Once it is not fit for sacrifice it may be sold and the proceeds offered to the Bet Mikdash as a donation.

7:
The other situation described in mishnah 7 is when someone has selected their paschal lamb but dies before Nisan 14th. There are two possibilities here. It is possible that there were other people already subscribed to this lamb; in such a case one of the subscribers may offer it as the paschal lamb of the group. However, if there were as yet no other subscribers when this person died or when his son and heir was not subscribed to this lamb, the son does not inherit his father's subscription rights. Another animal should be selected as the paschal offering and the one already chosen should become a peace-offering.

1:
We can imagine that many people, not only zealous to perform a mitzvah but also eager to already begin enjoying the festival, would select their paschal lamb some days before Nisan 14th. I can imagine a father - let's call him Mr Cohen - taking his young children with him to the pens where their animals were tended, perhaps on Nisan 10th as a reminder of that first Passover in Egypt when our ancestors were required to choose their lamb on that date. In order to attract the attention of his children and in order to awaken the interest born of curiosity and expectation, he explains that they are now going to select the lamb that will be their paschal offering and that will serve them at the Seder service in a few days time. Perhaps some great happiness has befallen this same family and they wish to emphasize their gratitude to heaven by bringing some peace-offerings when they visit the Bet Mikdash. They select three animals: one will be their paschal lamb and the other two lambs will be their peace-offerings. For the sake of clarity let us call the one designated as the paschal lamb 'Snowy' and the other two are 'Blacknose' and 'Frisky'. When the time comes to collect their paschal lamb they cannot determine which animal was Snowy.

2:
Our mishnah teaches that since there is no way to make an accurate determination of the three animals a new paschal lamb must be selected and Snowy, Blacknose and Frisky must be allowed to graze in peace until, by some inevitable accident, they become disqualified as a sacrificial victim.

3:
However, the matter does not end there: these animals were designated for God and that debt must be made good. Our mishnah teaches that once the animals have become disqualified for the altar they must be sold. Let us assume that Snowy brings in 10 shekels, Blacknose 15 shekels and the sale of Frisky realizes 20 shekels. Thus the total revenue from the sale of these animals is 45 shekels. However, of course, our hapless family have no way of knowing which was in fact Snowy, which was Blacknose and which was Frisky. Therefore, our mishnah explains, that Mr Cohen must set aside 20 shekels as a donation to the Bet Mikdash in place of Snowy - the largest amount realized for any of the animals. The next best price obtained was 15 shekels, so he must also set aside 30 shekels as a donation in place of both Blacknose and Frisky. The total sum owing to the treasurers of the Bet Mikdash is thus 50 shekels. But Mr Cohen only received 45 shekels for the sale of the animals. This is what our mishnah means by the phrase 'the excess is his financial loss'.

4:
I am indebted to Rambam, the greatest mishnah commentator of them all, for the germ of the idea that underlies the above explanation.

5:
Thus far the reisha of our mishnah. The seifa records the view of Rabbi Shim'on bar-Yoĥai concerning an alternative scenario. What if the paschal lamb did not get mixed up with designated peace-offerings, but with 'yearlings'. In connection with the festival of Pesaĥ the Torah [Exodus 13:1-13] also stipulates what is to be done with firstborn of both man and other animals:

Rabbi Shim'on is of the opinion that a yearling - a firstborn designated for slaughter in any case - may be used as a paschal lamb in the event that the original paschal lamb got mixed up with such yearlings. The rest of the sages reject his view and say that the same fate must await these animals as that happy fate which awaits the animals described in the Cite>reisha. The reason for their rejection of his view is that it is tantamount to turning a perfectly valid sacrifice into a reject for no reason. After sacrifice, the meat of the firstborn may be eaten by priests 'for one day and two nights', whereas the paschal lamb must be consumed not only that same night, but before midnight.

חֲבוּרָה שֶׁאָבַד פִּסְחָהּ, וְאָמְרָה לְאֶחָד, צֵא וּבַקֵּשׁ וּשְׁחוֹט עָלֵינוּ, וְהָלַךְ וּמָצָא וְשָׁחַט, וְהֵם לָקְחוּ וְשָׁחֲטוּ, אִם שֶׁלּוֹ נִשְׁחַט רִאשׁוֹן, הוּא אוֹכֵל מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְהֵם אוֹכְלִים עִמּוֹ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְאִם שֶׁלָּהֶן נִשְׁחַט רִאשׁוֹן, הֵם אוֹכְלִין מִשֶּׁלָּהֶן, וְהוּא אוֹכֵל מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן נִשְׁחַט רִאשׁוֹן, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאֶחָד, הוּא אוֹכֵל מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְהֵם אֵינָם אוֹכְלִים עִמּוֹ, וְשֶׁלָּהֶן יֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּרֵפָה, וּפְטוּרִין מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי.

אָמַר לָהֶן, אִם אֵחַרְתִּי, צְאוּ וְשַׁחֲטוּ עָלָי. הָלַךְ ומָצָא וְשָׁחָט, וְהֵן לָקְחוּ וְשָׁחָטוּ. אִם שֶׁלָּהֶן נִשְׁחַט רִאשׁוֹן, הֵן אוֹכְלִין מִשֶּׁלָּהֶן, וְהוּא אוֹכֵל עִמָּהֶן. וְאִם שֶׁלּוֹ נִשְׁחַט רִאשׁוֹן, הוּא אוֹכֵל מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְהֵן אוֹכְלִין מִשֶּׁלָּהֶן. וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ אֵיזֶה מֵהֶם נִשְׁחַט רִאשׁוֹן, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַטוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּאֶחָד, הֵן אוֹכְלִין מִשֶּׁלָּהֶן, וְהוּא אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל עִמָּהֶן, וְשֶׁלּוֹ יֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּרֵפָה, וּפָטוּר מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח שֵׁנִי.

אָמַר לָהֶן וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ, אוֹכְלִין כֻּלָּם מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן. וְאִם אֵין יָדוּעַ אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן נִשְׁחַט רִאשׁוֹן, שְׁנֵיהֶן יוֹצְאִין לְבֵית הַשְּרֵפָה.

לֹא אָמַר לָהֶן וְלֹא אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵינָן אַחֲרָאִין זֶה לָזֶה:

If a group loses its paschal lamb and says to someone, 'Go and look for it and slaughter it on our behalf', and he goes and find it and slaughters it; but they have bought [another one] and slaughtered it - if his was the first to be slaughtered he must eat from his and they must share his with him. If theirs was the first to be slaughtered they must eat from theirs and he must eat of his. If it is not possible to determine which was slaughtered first, or if they were slaughtered simultaneously, he must eat from his own, they may not share his, and theirs must be incinerated, but they are excused the need to observe the Alternative Passover.
If he says to them, 'If it is getting late do you slaughter [a lamb] on my behalf,' and he goes and finds [the lost animal] but they have bought one and slaughtered it - if theirs was the first to be slaughtered they must eat from their own and he must eat with them; if his was the first to be slaughtered or they were both slaughtered simultaneously, they must eat from theirs, he may not share theirs and his must be incinerated, and he is excused the need to observe the Alternative Passover.
If he says to them and they say to him, they must all eat from the first, and if it cannot be determined which one was the first to be slaughtered both [animals] must be incinerated.
If he said nothing to them and they said nothing to him neither side is responsible for the other.

1:
I have presented this very long mishnah in four sections for the sake of clarity. However, despite its length it is quite straightforward. In his commentary on our mishnah all that Rambam says is: All this is quite straightforward and needs no explanation. And he gives none. What is clear and straightforward to him might be less clear and not straightforward to us, so let us try and clarify the mishnah.

2:
Let us imagine that a group has been formed of which Re'uven, Shim'on and Levi are the organizing leaders. To their horror, just before noon on Nisan 14th they discover that the lamb that they had bought as the paschal lamb of their party has slipped its tether and wandered off. Shim'on and Levi deputize Re'uven to go and look for the animal; since there is not much time left they also tell him that when he has found it he should take it to the Bet Mikdash and have it slaughtered as the paschal lamb of their subscription group as planned.

Re'uven goes off, locates the animal and has it slaughtered as agreed and arranged. However, unbeknown to him, in the meanwhile Shim'on and Levi are concerned at what will happen if Re'uven does not find the animal: they will be left at the last minute without a paschal lamb for their Seder. So, taking no chances, they go and buy another lamb, take it to the Bet Mikdash and have it slaughtered. There are so many people there with their animals that Re'uven does not see Shim'on and Levi and neither do they see him.
The question now is which of these two lambs is the 'real' paschal lamb of this group?

3:
Our mishnah explains that if it was Re'uven's lamb that was the first to be slaughtered then that is the paschal lamb for the whole group. After all, they deputed him to be their agent and he carried out his errand successfully. The lamb that he found is the lamb of all of them and they must all share this animal at the Seder service. The animal that they bought 'just in case' is now treated as an 'ownerless paschal lamb' and must be incinerated.

However, if the lamb bought 'just in case' was the first to be slaughtered Shim'on and Levi have thereby seceded from Re'uven's lamb, as it were; but Re'uven was not a part of the new subscription group that they have thus created. Therefore, states our mishnah, they must eat of their lamb at the Seder and he must eat of his.

Two more possibilities exist: that it is not possible to determine which animal was the first to be killed or that it is clear that both animals were killed at the same time. Now the situation is more complicated. Re'uven may use his lamb at the Seder service because no change has occurred in his regard. However, the rest of the original party are in a kind of 'limbo'. If in actual fact it was Re'uven's that was slaughtered first then that is also their lamb. But if theirs was the first to be slaughtered then they must be considered as having seceded from his lamb. But it is impossible to make this determination. Therefore, they may not join Re'uven in case that is not their lamb, but they may not eat the substitute lamb in case Re'uven's is in fact theirs too.

In such a case their hasty action means that they end up with no legitimate lamb at all! However, they do not observe the Alternative Pesaĥ one month later because one of the lambs was theirs and, as Rabbi Ovadyah of Bertinoro explains, it is the slaughtering that is important and the eating of the lamb is not essential.

4:
The second element in our mishnah is the same as the first, except that this time it is Re'uven who tries to hedge his bets. In such an event the situation is the same as previously, but with the roles reversed.

5:
The third situation is when all three of them hedge their bets. In such as case they must either all eat from whichever was the first of the two animals to be slaughtered, or, if it is not possible to make this determination, they all end up with no paschal lamb!

6:
If all of this happened when none of them made any explicit statement then the situation is simple: Re'uven will eat from the lamb that he had killed and the rest will eat from the lamb that they had killed.

שְׁתֵּי חֲבוּרוֹת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ פִסְחֵיהֶן, אֵלּוּ מוֹשְׁכִין לָהֶן אֶחָד וְאֵלּוּ מוֹשְׁכִין לָהֶן אֶחָד, אֶחָד מֵאֵלּוּ בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל אֵלּוּ, וְאֶחָד מֵאֵלּוּ בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל אֵלּוּ, וְכָךְ הֵם אוֹמְרִים, אִם שֶׁלָּנוּ הוּא הַפֶּסַח הַזֶּה, יָדֶיךָ מְשׁוּכוֹת מִשֶּׁלָּךְ וְנִמְנֵיתָ עַל שֶׁלָּנוּ, וְאִם שֶׁלָּךְ הוּא הַפֶּסַח הַזֶּה, יָדֵינוּ מְשׁוּכוֹת מִשֶּׁלָּנוּ וְנִמְנִינוּ עַל שֶׁלָּךְ. וְכֵן חָמֵשׁ חֲבוּרוֹת שֶׁלּ חֲמִשָּׁה חֲמִשָּׁה, וְשֶׁל עֲשָׂרָה עֲשָׂרָה, מוֹשְׁכִין לָהֶן אֶחָד מִכָּל חֲבוּרָה וַחֲבוּרָה, וְכֵן הֵם אוֹמְרִים:

שְׁנַיִם שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ פִסְחֵיהֶם, זֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ לוֹ אֶחָד, וְזֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ לוֹ אֶחָד, זֶה מְמַנֶּה עִמּוֹ אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק, וְזֶה מְמַנֶּה עִמּוֹ אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּק, זֶה בָא אֵצֶל זֶה, וְזֶה בָא אֵצֶל זֶה, וְכָךְ הֵם אוֹמְרִים, אִם שֶׁלִּי הוּא פֶּסַח זֶה, יָדֶיךָ מְשׁוּכוֹת מִשֶּׁלָּךְ וְנִמְנֵיתָ עַל שֶׁלִּי. וְאִם שֶׁלָּךְ הוּא פֶּסַח זֶה, יָדַי מְשׁוּכוֹת מִשֶּׁלִּי וְנִמְנֵיתִי עַל שֶׁלָּךְ:

If the paschal lambs of two groups get mixed up each group shall select one of the animals. One person from each group must join the other group. And this is their declaration: If this paschal lamb is ours, you hereby secede from yours and subscribe to ours; and if this paschal lamb is yours, we hereby secede from ours and subscribe to yours. The same applies even to five groups or five people or ten groups of ten people: one person secedes from each group and they make the declaration.

If the paschal lambs of just two people get mixed up, each must select one animal. Then each must get another person from the market to subscribe to his animal. Now one from each group must approach the other and declare: If this paschal lamb is mine you hereby secede from yours and subscribe to mine; if the paschal lamb is yours I hereby secede from mine and subscribe to yours.

1:
The two last mishnayot of Chapter 9 require us to consider certain regulations concerning the paschal lamb and to imagine certain conditions as prevailing. I have combined these two mishnayot, as it were, since essentially they deal with one and the same topic. This topic is how to deal with a situation in which paschal animals have become mixed up.

2:
Once a paschal animal has been selected as the intended sacrifice every effort must be made to prevent a situation in which it becomes ownerless. The term 'ownerless' here does not refer to the person from whose flock the animal was selected; it refers to the fact that from the moment of selection the animal is designated as belonging to anyone and everyone who subscribes to its group. Once selected a paschal lamb should only be offered by a representative member of that particular subscription group, and, having been sanctified as it were by virtue of its being designated the animal must not be allowed to fail to fulfill its designated function.

3:
Let us imagine a situation which was hinted at in the previous mishnah. It is the afternoon of Nisan 14th; we are members of a subscription group assembled in the Outer Court of the Bet Mikdash awaiting the turn of our representative to enter and slaughter our lamb. There is an immense throng of animals - both human and ruminant. In the crush we momentarily lose contact with our animal at the same time as the same thing happens to an animal of another group. We all discover our two lambs in mutual communion and now it is not possible to know which of the two animals is the one we have designated and which the one that they have designated. We have a double halakhic quandary. We can only sacrifice the lamb that we have designated and we don't know which one it is. On the other hand we cannot let both animals loose and buy two more animals in the handy market which is doing a roaring trade in this very courtyard because a designated animal must meet its fate.

4:
The solution outlined in Mishnah 10 is now clear. Each of the two groups takes charge of one of the two animals. One person from each group must now 'cross the lines' and join the other group. A situation has now been created in which at least one person in each group 'owns' the lamb in question. In order to verbally clarify the situation all the other members of the group must address the new member (presumably in chorus) the the following effect: 'If this paschal lamb is, in fact the one that we originally designated, you are hereby deemed to have seceded from your original lamb and to have subscribed to ours; on the other hand, if this paschal lamb was originally designated by you as a member of your previous group, we are hereby deemed to have seceded from our original lamb and have now subscribed to yours.' Problem neatly solved.

5:
This solution would apply even if it were not just two groups that were involved, but five groups or even ten groups: the groups must be reconstituted so that at least one person in each group could have been an original owner, in theory, of the animal now associated with the group.

6:
The problem is compounded, however, if we are only two people whose lambs have become mixed up; and this is the situation addressed by mishnah 11. The solution outlined in mishnah 10 will not work in such a situation for obvious reasons. Therefore it is necessary to create a situation in which its provisions can be applied. Each of us invites one other person in the marketplace to join us; thus we now constitute two discrete groups of two. Now that each group consists of more than one person it is possible to apply the solution outlined in mishnah 10: one of the two in each group changes groups and they can make their mutual declarations as outlined in the mishnah.

This concludes our study of Chapter 9 and our pre-occupation with the fate of the paschal lamb.