33 (7) And they removed from Etam, and turned back to Pi-haĥirot, which is before Ba῾al-żefon: and they pitched before Migdol.

(8) And they departed from before Pi-haĥirot, and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness, and went three days’ journey in the wilderness of Etam and pitched in Mara.

(9) And they removed from Mara, and came to Elim: and in Elim were twelve fountains of water, and seventy palm trees; and they pitched there.

(10) And they removed from Elim, and encamped by the Sea of Suf.

2 (10) For pass over the isles of Kittiyyim, and see; and send to Qedar, and consider diligently, and see if there has been such a thing.

(11) Has a nation changed their gods, even though they are not gods? but my people have changed its glory for that which does not profit.

(12) Be astonished, O heavens, at this, and be horribly afraid, be greatly appalled, says the Lord.

(13) For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and have hewn them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.

44 (12) Thou hast given us like sheep to be eaten: and hast scattered us among the nations.

(13) Thou sellest Thy people for no great gain, and hast not put high their prices.

(14) Thou dost make us a taunt to our neighbours, a scorn and a derision to those round about us.

(15) Thou makest us a byword among the nations, a shaking of the head among the peoples.

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

2. What is the definition of a distant journey that exempts one from observing the first Pesaḥ? Anywhere from the city of Modi’im and beyond, and from anywhere located an equal distance from Jerusalem and beyond in every direction; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer says: From the threshold of the Temple courtyard and beyond is considered a distant journey;therefore, anyone located outside the courtyard at the time that the Paschal lamb is slaughtered is exempt from observing the first Pesaḥ. Rabbi Yosei said to him: Therefore, the word is dotted over the letter heh in the word “distant [reḥoka]” to say that the meaning of the word should be qualified: It should be understood that it is not because he is really distant; rather, it includes anyone located from the threshold of the Temple courtyard and beyond.

3. What is the difference between the Paschal lamb offered on the first Pesaḥ and the Paschal lamb offered on the second Pesaḥ? On the first Pesaḥ, at the time of slaughtering the Paschal lamb, it is prohibited to own leavened bread due to the prohibitions: It shall not be seen, and: It shall not be found. And on the second Pesaḥ it is permissible for one to have both leavened bread and matza with him in the house. Another difference is that the Paschal lamb offered on the first Pesaḥ requires the recitation of hallel as it is eaten and the second does not require the recitation of hallel as it is eaten. However, they are the same in that the Paschal lambs sacrificed on both the first and second Pesaḥ require the recitation of hallel as they are prepared, i.e., as they are slaughtered, and they are both eaten roasted with matza and bitter herbs, and they override Shabbat in that they may be slaughtered and their blood sprinkled even on Shabbat.

4. When the Paschal lamb is sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity due to the fact that the majority of the Jewish people are ritually impure, zavim, and zavot, and menstruating women, and women after childbirth may not eat it, because the Paschal lamb overrides only ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, but it does not override other forms of ritual impurity. However, if they violated the halakha and ate from the offering, they are exempt from karet. One who eats sacrificial food in a state of ritual impurity is generally liable to receive karet; however, since in this case the offering is sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity, there is no punishment of karet even for ritually impure individuals who are not permitted to eat it. And Rabbi Eliezer exempts these individuals from karet even for entering the Temple in a state of ritual impurity, despite their not being permitted to enter, because people who are impure due to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse are permitted to enter the Temple in this situation despite their impurity.

5. What are the differences between the Paschal lamb that the Jewish people offered in Egypt and the Paschal lamb offered in all later generations? The Paschal lamb the Jewish people offered in Egypt had to be taken from the tenth of the month of Nisan and required the people to sprinkle its blood with a bundle of hyssop, unlike the Paschal lamb in all later years, and its blood was also sprinkled upon the lintel and the two doorposts, and it was eaten with haste; in addition, the Paschal lamb in Egypt was only on one night, whereas the Paschal lamb throughout the generations is observed for seven days.

6. Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard two rulings from my teachers: One ruling was that the substitute of a Paschal lamb is sacrificed as a peace-offering after Passover, and another ruling was that the substitute of a Paschal lamb is not sacrificed as a peace-offering after Passover; and I cannot explain these two rulings, as I do not remember the circumstances to which each ruling applies. Rabbi Akiva said: I will explain: With regard to a lamb that is separated as a Paschal lamb and is then lost, leading the owner to separate another animal as its replacement, and is later found before the slaughter of the replacement Paschal lamb, it is left to graze until it becomes unfit [yista’ev] and disqualified for use as a sacrifice. It is then sold and becomes unconsecrated, and the owner must bring a peace-offering with its proceeds. And so too, the same is true with regard to its substitute: If one separates another lamb as a substitute for this replacement, the sanctity of the original lamb extends to the substitute as well. In the case outlined above, the substitute would graze, just like the replacement, until it developed a blemish and would then be sold. This is the circumstance in which the substitute of a Paschal lamb is not sacrificed. On the other hand, if the lost lamb is found after the slaughter of the replacement Paschal lamb, it itself is sacrificed as a peace-offering, and so too, its substitute is sacrificed, which explains the ruling that the substitute of a Paschal lamb is sacrificed as a peace-offering.

7. In the case of one who separates a female animal for his Paschal lamb although the Torah requires a male, or a male that is in its second year although a Paschal lamb must be an animal that is in its first year, the animal is left to graze until it develops a blemish and becomes unfit, and it is then sold and its money is used for free-will offerings or peace-offerings. With regard to one who separates his Paschal lamb and then dies, his son may not bring it after him for the purpose of a Paschal lamb because it may no longer be used for that purpose after its owner has died. Rather, it is brought for the purpose of a peace-offering.

8. In the case of a Paschal lamb that was intermingled with other offerings, such as guilt-offerings and burnt-offerings, and it is not known which animal was separated for which offering, all of them are left to graze until they develop a blemish and become unfit; and they are then sold, and with the proceeds of the choicest of them he must bring this type of sacrifice, and with the proceeds of the choicest of them he must bring this other type of sacrifice, meaning that he must purchase one of each type of sacrifice that was intermingled at the value of the most expensive animal in the group. And he loses the difference from his own pocket. Not all the offerings were as expensive as the most valuable animal in the group, yet he must purchase an animal for each type of offering for the value of the most expensive animal in the group. If a Paschal lamb was intermingled with firstborn animals, Rabbi Shimon says: If those whose offerings became mixed together were groups of priests, they may eat all of the animals on Passover night. This is because priests are permitted to eat the meat of a firstborn animal, and the slaughter and other services for a firstborn animal are the same as those for a Paschal lamb. The attending priests should state that they intend to sacrifice as a Paschal lamb whichever animal is the Paschal lamb and to sacrifice as a firstborn animal whichever animal is a firstborn.

9. With regard to a group whose Paschal lamb was lost, and they said to one member of the group: Go and search for our Paschal lamb, and when you find it, slaughter it on our behalf; and he went and found the missing offering and slaughtered it on behalf of the entire group, but in the meantime they took a different animal and slaughtered it as a Paschal lamb, the halakha is as follows: If his Paschal lamb was slaughtered first, he eats from his offering, as he is considered to be registered specifically for that offering, and they eat with him from his offering, because he included them in his offering and it belongs to the entire group. The second animal does not have any registrants and is therefore burned. And if theirs was slaughtered first, they eat from theirs because they withdrew from the original offering through the act of slaughtering a replacement, and he eats from his because he was not registered for the replacement offering sacrificed by the remainder of his group. And if it is not known which of the offerings was slaughtered first, or if both the group and the individual slaughtered them together, he eats from his and they do not eat with him in case theirs was slaughtered first, and theirs must be taken out to the place designated for burning. The offering slaughtered by the group may not be eaten due to the concern that it was slaughtered second and the members of the group would therefore have been included in the first offering. However, they are exempt from performing the offering of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ, because they were included in the slaughter of whichever animal was slaughtered first. It is only due to external circumstances that they cannot complete the mitzva by eating the Paschal lamb, and this does not prevent them from fulfilling their obligation. A somewhat different case of a lost Paschal lamb would occur if the group had sent one member as an agent to search for the lost animal, and the agent said to the other members of the group before he left: If I am late, go and slaughter a Paschal lamb for me. He then went and found the lost Paschal lamb and slaughtered it, and they took another animal and slaughtered it as a Paschal lamb. In that case, if theirs was slaughtered first, they eat from theirs and he eats with them, because he requested to be included in their offering and they registered him for their Paschal lamb. And if his was slaughtered first, he eats from his and they eat from theirs, because the fact that they slaughtered a different animal indicates that they have withdrawn from the original offering. And if it is not known which of the animals was slaughtered first, or if both the group and the individual slaughtered them together, they eat from theirs because they definitely withdrew from the original offering by slaughtering a different one, and he does not eat with them because he also intended to be included in the animal he slaughtered and it is not clear which was slaughtered first. Therefore, his must be taken out to the place designated for burning; and he is exempt from performing the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ. If he said to them that if he is delayed they should include him in their Paschal lamb, and they said to him that if he finds the original offering he should slaughter it on their behalf, all of them eat from the first sacrifice that was slaughtered. And if it is not known which of them was slaughtered first, both of them must be taken out to the place designated for burning, and the entire group is exempt from participating in the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ. If he did not say anything to them and they did not say anything to him, meaning that neither side granted the other authority to slaughter a Paschal lamb on its behalf, they are not responsible for each other, and the members of the group eat their Paschal lamb while the individual sent to find the lost animal eats from his own offering. The reason for this is that the individual is registered only for the original offering, while the other members of the group withdrew from that lost offering by sacrificing a different Paschal lamb.

10. Two groups whose Paschal lambs have become intermingled and they do not know which one belongs to which group should act in the following manner: These members of the first group draw one of the animals separated as a Paschal lamb for themselves, and those members of the second group draw one for themselves. One of these, a member of one group, comes to those, the members of the other group, and one of those members of the second group comes to these members of the first group. And this is what each group says to the member of the other group who has come to join them: If this Paschal lamb that is now in our possession is ours, you are withdrawn from the Paschal lamb that was yours, and you are registered for our Paschal lamb and you may eat from it. And if this Paschal lamb is yours, meaning that it actually belongs to the other group, including this individual, we are hereby withdrawn from ours and we are registered for your Paschal lamb, which you agree to share with us. The other group makes the same statement. And similarly, if there were five groups of five people each or of ten people each, they draw one person from each and every group, and they say this statement mentioned in the case of two groups. The remaining member or members of each group will grant the representatives of the other groups that have come to join them a share in the Paschal lamb, and they will acquire a share in it for themselves in case the animal they have chosen belonged originally to one of the other groups.

11. In the case of two individuals whose Paschal lambs became intermingled and each person was the only one registered for his offering, what should they do? This person draws one of the Paschal lambs for himself and that person draws one for himself; this person registers someone from the marketplace with him on his Paschal lamb and that person registers someone from the marketplace with him on his Paschal lamb. Once this has been done, this one comes to that person from the marketplace who has been added to the other person’s sacrifice, and that one comes to this person from the marketplace who has been added to the first person’s sacrifice, and this is what they say: If this Paschal lamb is mine, you are withdrawn from yours and you are registered for mine, and if this is your Paschal lamb, I am withdrawn from mine and I am hereby registered for yours, as described previously. The reason it is necessary for each individual to add an additional person to his Paschal lamb, is to ensure that when each person withdraws from his original Paschal lamb and registers for the other, no Paschal lamb will be left ownerless for any amount of time.

The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Remember the day of Shabbat to sanctify it” (Exodus 20:7): Remember it over wine, through the recitation of kiddush. I have only derived that there is a mitzva to recite kiddush during the day, as the verse is referring to the day of Shabbat. From where do I derive that one must also recite kiddush at night? The verse states: “Remember the day of Shabbat to sanctify it,” which indicates that one should also remember Shabbat as soon as it is sanctified.

The Gemara expresses surprise at this last question: From where is it derived that one must recite kiddush at night? Is this the appropriate question? On the contrary, the essential mitzva of kiddush is to sanctify the day at night, as one must sanctify the beginning of the day, i.e., Friday night; there is no reason to sanctify Shabbat in the middle of the day, i.e., in the morning. And furthermore, the continuation of the baraita states: From where do we derive the obligation of kiddush at night? The verse states: “Remember the day of Shabbat.” The tanna is seeking a source for kiddush at night, and yet he cites a verse that is referring to the day.

The Gemara answers that this is what the tanna is saying: “Remember the day of Shabbat to sanctify it” is a mitzva to remember it over wine when it begins. I have only derived the obligation to recite kiddush at night; from where do I derive that one must also recite kiddush during the day? The verse states: “Remember the day of Shabbat.” The emphasis of the word day indicates that one must recite kiddush again during the day.

The Gemara asks: During the day, when one does not recite the same kiddush as at night, what blessing does one recite? Rav Yehuda said: Before the meal, one brings a cup of wine and simply recites the usual blessing over wine: Who creates the fruit of the vine. The Gemara relates that Rav Ashi happened to come to the city of Meḥoza. The Sages of Meḥoza said to him on Shabbat day: Will the Master recite for us the great kiddush? And they immediately brought him a cup of wine.

Rav Ashi was unsure what they meant by the term great kiddush and wondered if the residents of Meḥoza included other matters in their kiddush. He thought: What is this great kiddush to which they refer? He said to himself: Since with regard to all the blessings that require a cup of wine, one first recites the blessing: Who creates the fruit of the vine, I will start with that blessing. He recited: Who creates the fruit of the vine, and lengthened it to see if they were expecting an additional blessing. He saw a particular elder bending over his cup and drinking, and he realized that this was the end of the great kiddush. He read the following verse about himself: “The wise man, his eyes are in his head” (Ecclesiastes 2:14), as he was alert enough to discern the expectations of the local residents.

As stated above, the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya say: One who did not recite havdala at the conclusion of Shabbat may recite havdala anytime over the course of the entire week. The Gemara asks: And until how many days of that week have passed may one still recite havdala? Rabbi Zeira said: Until the fourth day of the week, Wednesday, after which it is no longer considered the same week as the previous Shabbat.

This is like that ruling of halakha stated when Rabbi Zeira sat before Rav Asi, and some say it was Rav Asi who sat before Rabbi Yoḥanan. And he sat and said: With regard to the wording of bills of divorce, the first day of the week and the second and third days of the week are all called: After Shabbat. If a bill of divorce or a condition upon which the document depends includes the phrase: After Shabbat, it refers to one of the first three days of the week. However, the fourth and fifth days of the week and the eve of the day of Shabbat are called: Before Shabbat. Likewise, with regard to havdala, the first three days of the week are considered the time period after Shabbat, and therefore one may still recite havdala on these days.

Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said: However, one who recites havdala during this time period may not recite the blessing over fire. This blessing may be recited only at the conclusion of Shabbat, at the time when fire was originally created.

Rav Beruna said that Rav said:

One who washes his hands should not recite kiddush after washing, as this would constitute an interruption between washing and eating, and he will have to wash again. Instead, he should hear kiddush from someone else. Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta said to them: Not a lot of time has yet passed since Rav died, and we have already forgotten his halakhic rulings. Many times I stood before Rav and saw that sometimes he preferred bread, and he would recite kiddush over bread. On those occasions Rav would wash his hands, recite kiddush over the bread, and eat it. At other times he preferred wine and would recite kiddush over wine. This shows that kiddush is not considered an interruption between washing one’s hands and eating bread.

One who luxuriates at his table and delights in those foods ought to call to mind and to feel concern for the holiness of the Holy Land and for the Temple of the King that has been destroyed. In consideration of the sadness that one feels at one's table--in the midst of the joy and celebration [lit. drinking] there--the Holy Blessed One accounts it to one as if one has rebuilt His House and rebuilt all the ruins of the Temple. Happy is one's portion!

As soon as he has begun to read in the Torah, it is forbidden to converse even on a Halachic topic. All must listen silently and give heed to what he is reading, as it is said, "And the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the Law" (Nehemiah 8:3). It is likewise forbidden to leave the synagogue while the Torah is being read. But one may leave in the interval between one section and another. A person who is continuously engaged in the study of the Torah, this being his sole occupation, may continue his study while the Law is being read.

Since the days of Ezra it has been the rule that an interpreter shall be present to interpret to the people what the reader is reading in the Torah, so that they may understand the subject-matter. The reader reads one verse only, waits till the interpreter has interpreted it, and then reads the next verse. The reader may not read to the interpreter more than one verse at a time.