(1-2) IN THE SECOND YEAR AFTER THEIR COMING OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT, IN THE FIRST MONTH. From here the Rabbis have deduced the principle:⁠¹ "There is no [strict] chronological order in the narrative of the Torah" [for the census mentioned at the beginning of this Book of Numbers was on the first day of 'the second' month in the second year, and the present chapter about the Passover was in the 'first month' of the same year]! Now the reason for this delay [in mentioning the section concerning the Passover] was that since this fourth book [of the Torah] comes to mention the commandments which Israel was given in the wilderness of Sinai for that particular time, He wanted [first] to complete everything related to the Tent of Meeting and its functioning during all the time [that Israel was] in the wilderness. Therefore He mentioned first the [commandments about the four] standards, and the place of the Tent [of Meeting], and the position of its ministers, and the ordinance concerning the divisions [of the Levites] when carrying [the Tabernacle whilst travelling, and] all services of the Tent. Then He mentioned the dedication-offerings of the princes, who brought the wagons in which they would carry it [the Tent] as long as they were to be in the wilderness, and He finished [the account of] their offerings at the dedication of the altar, which began on the first of Nisan or afterwards.⁠² After all this He returned and mentioned the admonition that He had given them not to forget the commandment of the Passover.
Now in the opinion of our Rabbis³ [the obligation to bring the Passover-offering] only applied in the wilderness in this [second] year, after the exodus because they did not perform circumcision in the wilderness,⁠⁴ and the [non-performance of] circumcision of the male children and the servants prevented them [from slaughtering the Passover-offering].⁠⁵ It is possible that this [specific] command [to bring the Passover] was necessary because at first they were only commanded about making the Passover-offering in future generations after [entering] the Land of Israel, as it is written, And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the Land which the Eternal will give you, according as He hath promised, that ye shall keep this Service.⁠⁶ And it is further stated there, And it shall be when the Eternal shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanite, etc., that thou shalt keep this Service in this month.⁠⁷ And now the Holy One, blessed be He, desired and commanded that they should make it [the Passover-offering] in order that the memory of their redemption and of the miracles which were done for them and their fathers should be transmitted from the fathers who saw them to their children, and their children to another generation.⁠⁸ Thus He had said at first, And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the Land,⁠⁹ meaning to say that this commandment [to bring the Passover-offering] does not apply outside the Land in future generations; therefore now He commanded that they should fulfill it in the desert. And in the opinion of our Rabbis¹⁰ they only brought the Passover-offering in this [second] year [after the exodus], because they begot sons and servants whom they could not circumcise, for the reason that the Rabbis mentioned, that it was dangerous [to observe circumcision], as is explained in Tractate Yebamoth.⁠¹¹
However, in the Sifre the Rabbis have said:⁠¹² "And they brought the Passover-offering in the first month.⁠¹³ Scripture speaks in a critical manner about Israel, inasmuch as [throughout their forty years in the desert] they brought only this Passover-offering, and likewise He said, Did ye bring unto Me offerings and meal-offerings in the wilderness forty years?⁠"¹⁴ The Rabbis arrived at this interpretation [that the verse is rebuking them because they only brought the Passover-offering in the second year after the exodus], on the basis of this verse which states, And they brought the Passover-offering in the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, at dusk, in the wilderness of Sinai,⁠¹⁵ since it is a superfluous verse, for it would have been sufficient to say, and they brought the Passover-offering "according to all that the Eternal commanded Moses.⁠" But Scripture mentioned the [exact] day and [the fact that it was in] the wilderness in order to hint that they only observed it in the wilderness on that day, and this was their "shortcoming" [which is referred to in the text of the Sifre].
It is possible that [the reason why it is considered] their shortcoming is because of their sin in the affair of the spies, on account of which they fell into disesteem¹⁶ and the [cooling] northern wind did not blow upon them, [with the result that on account of the great heat in the desert] they could not circumcise themselves, and therefore they were prohibited to eat any sacred offerings, and they were "rebuked" by [G-d]. Or it may be that this Beraitha [of the Sifre which speaks of the "shortcoming" of Israel, as hinted at in this section] is in agreement with the words of the Sage¹⁷ who holds that [non-performance of] circumcision of one's male children or servants does not prevent one from eating the Passover-offering, and therefore the people were permitted to bring the Passover-offering, but they did not trouble themselves to do it, and this is indeed a great "shortcoming.⁠" The first interpretation, however, appears more likely to be correct, for [had they been obliged to bring it] Moses would have forced them to observe it and would not have allowed them [by not bringing it] to incur the penalty of excision. But as for the Festival of Unleavened Bread for seven days, and the removal [over that period] of leavened bread, Scripture did not have to say that they observed it [in the wilderness], since these are commandments that are obligatory on everyone's person and apply in all places, and it has already been stated [that they are to be observed] throughout your generations by an ordinance forever.⁠¹⁸

[An interpretation of this verse is included in the commentary on Verse 1]

ACCORDING TO ALL THE STATUTES OF IT, AND ACCORDING TO ALL THE ORDINANCES THEREOF, SHALL YE BRING IT [i.e., the Passover-offering]. Now it is written in the commentary of Rashi: "According to all the statutes of it — this refers to the laws concerning the animal itself, [that it should be] a lamb without blemish, a male of the first year.⁠¹ And according to all the ordinances thereof — this relates to the laws 'upon' the lamb,⁠² such as eating unleavened bread for seven days, and the removal of leavened bread.⁠" But this is a copyist's error.⁠³ For the laws which concern the animal itself are as stated above], a lamb without blemish, a male of the first year;⁴ the laws "upon" the animal are that it should be roast with fire; its head with its legs and with the inwards thereof;⁵ whereas the laws which are "outside" the animal itself are [the duty to eat] unleavened bread [on the first evening of the festival] and the duty of removing leavened bread, concerning which Scripture does not speak here at all. Similarly, it is said of the second Passover that [it should be observed] according to the statute of the Passover, and according to the ordinance thereof,⁠⁶ and a person may [then] have both unleavened bread and leavened bread with him in his house,⁠⁷ and it applies for only one day.⁠⁸
Now Scripture spoke briefly, saying, at dusk, ye shall bring it in its appointed season; according to all the statutes of it, and according to all the ordinances thereof, shall ye bring it,⁠⁹ thereby including the laws relating to eating it, that it should not be on the day mentioned by the verse [on which the offering is slaughtered], but it is to be eaten on the following night, since He already explained previously, And they shall eat the flesh in that night etc.⁠¹⁰ Similarly, In the second month on the fourteenth day at dusk they shall bring it; they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs,⁠¹¹ means they shall eat it at the time of eating mentioned in the command concerning the first Passover.

B'DERECH R'CHOKAH' Rashi commented [that the meaning of this expression — literally "on a distant way" — is] "that he was outside the threshold of the Sanctuary Court during the whole time prescribed for slaughtering [the Passover-offering].⁠" According to this opinion, this interpretation is hinted at by the dot [on the letter hei in the word r'chokah (distant) in the Torah, thus indicating that the journey does not really have to be a distant one, for even if he is only outside the threshold of the Sanctuary Court during the time of slaughtering of the Passover-offering, it is considered "a distant way", as explained further on].
But I am surprised at him [Rashi]! Why did he adopt the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer,⁠¹ when it would have been correct to accept the opinion of Rabbi Akiba [that a distant way means] beyond Modiin [a city fifteen miles from Jerusalem; and the verse would thus be referring to someone who cannot reach the Sanctuary Court in time to bring the Passover-offering].⁠² And such is the opinion of the Amoraim in the Gemara³ [of Tractate Pesachim],⁠⁴ where Ula said, [a distant way is if he is at such a distance from Jerusalem that] he cannot come in, in time for the slaughtering [of the Passover-offering].⁠⁵ This is indeed the plain meaning of Scripture, that a person who is situated at the beginning of the afternoon in a place from which he cannot reach the Sanctuary Court [on foot] by the time of the slaughtering, is considered as being on a distant way, and therefore he is free [from the obligation of bringing the Passover-offering]. It is possible that [according to Rabbi Akiba] the reason for the dot [on the letter hei in the word r'chokah (distant) in the Torah] is to indicate that it is too distant for him to bring the Passover-offering, even though it is not actually distant [since fifteen-miles — walking-distance — is the required distance]; therefore when He repeated it He stated, But the man that is clean, and is not on 'a journey,' [and forbeareth to bring the Passover-lamb],⁠⁶ and did not mention "distant.⁠"⁷
Now Scripture commanded that a person who was impure or on a distant way should bring the second [Passover-offering], but the same law, for the same reason, applies to anyone who did not bring the first Passover-offering, even wilfully, namely that he is obliged to bring the second Passover-offering, in accordance with the words of our Rabbis.⁠⁸ Scripture, however, mentioned only [those who were impure or on a distant way in order] to say that they are allowed to bring the second Passover-offering, and to forbid an impure person to bring the first Passover-offering. However, one who was on a [distant] way is free from bringing the first Passover-offering, and may bring the second one, but if he wants to fulfill his duty on the first Passover and he told someone [in Jerusalem to include him in a group, and] to slaughter the offering for him [as well], it is acceptable [for him]. For we accept [as the correct interpretation of the law]⁠⁹ that the [meaning of the verse is not that he must bring it only on the second Passover, but that the] Merciful One dealt kindly with him [and allowed him if he prefers to bring the second Passover-offering], but if he did bring [the first one] — he is deserving of a blessing [and he has acted rightly]. It is also possible that the reason why Scripture mentioned "distant" [is because it is referring to a journey which is actually far away, and only then must he bring the second Passover-offering], but if he is on a "near" journey [i.e., within fifteen miles — this distance being considered the beginning of what is technically already "a far way"], he may bring the second Passover-offering, or the first one, by [telling them] to slaughter it and sprinkle it for him as well [in the afternoon of the fourteenth day of Nisan], and then coming [into the city of Jerusalem] and eating the Passover-offering at night.