Q&A: First and Second Passover
First and Second Passover
Question
Happy holidays, Rabbi!
I read a wonderful article you wrote about the relationship between the first Passover and the second Passover, and the categorical imperative and so on, and I have two questions:
1) You say that circumcision is similar to Passover in that there is “make-up.” But seemingly that is not correct at all, because indeed there is a first Passover and a second Passover, but circumcision is the same commandment; it is not that there is a circumcision at 8 days, and a circumcision on the 14th, and a circumcision that you are obligated in if your father did not circumcise you. Basically it is the same commandment, except that it can be done from 8 days onward, and what is done at 8 days is mostly because of the rule that the zealous perform commandments early.
In other words, the fact that Passover has a “make-up” is a law in Passover, but the fact that circumcision has a “make-up” is a law in the time and not in circumcision itself. In circumcision it is the same commandment that can be done from 8 days onward, and if one did not circumcise on the eighth day he is obligated to circumcise every single day afterward!
2) I did not understand the connection between the first Passover and the prisoner’s dilemma. In the dilemma there are two possibilities: a) to embezzle and betray, b) to cooperate, and the categorical imperative tells you to cooperate.
But in the Passover sacrifice, what possibilities are there??
Answer
Hello.
I no longer remember which article this is or what I wrote there.
1. In principle, if the second Passover is a make-up for the first, then the comparison to circumcision is reasonable. One who did not perform the first Passover postpones and performs it on the second. And so too with circumcision: one who did not do it on the eighth day does it on the ninth. This is especially so according to Maimonides’ view that one who postpones circumcision incurs karet, excision (see his dispute with the Raavad at the beginning of the Laws of Circumcision). The question of how many commandments are counted is not important to the point itself. Beyond that, it is possible that the counting is a result of the discussion and not its premise. I showed there that the second Passover is not really a make-up for the first, and therefore it is counted. And indeed, as best I recall, Maimonides in Sefer HaMitzvot bases counting the second Passover as an independent commandment on Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s view that the second Passover is a festival in its own right.
2. I do not remember what I wrote there or where. If you give me the reference or describe it, I will try to think about it and explain.
Discussion on Answer
There is no connection between the first or second Passover and the prisoner’s dilemma. My claim there was that Passover fuses the individuals into a people/collective. To illustrate the meaning of a collection of individuals as a collective, I brought the categorical imperative and the prisoner’s dilemma, where one can clearly see the significance of a collection of individuals acting as a collective (not because of explicit agreement between them).
Rabbi Natan says that the second Passover is a make-up for the first. What is unclear?
According to Rabbi Natan, it is not clear how the difficulties you raised at the beginning of the article are resolved. What is special about the Passover sacrifice that it has a make-up? How does the second Passover serve as a make-up for the first, when it is a different type? In other words, what you explained—that there are two dimensions in Passover, and the second Passover comes for the dimension of the individual, because everyone has the right to belong to the collective of the Jewish people, etc. etc. (and with this the above difficulties are resolved)—that is only according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and not according to Rabbi Natan, right?
It can be resolved in the same way, except that Rabbi Natan defines it as a make-up. Everyone is allowed to participate in creating the public, even someone who missed it.
I understand. So in short, according to everyone, all agree that in the first Passover sacrifice there are two dimensions, and all agree that it is similar to circumcision, etc., and all agree that the public dimension has no make-up but the individual dimension does. They only disagree whether this really is called a make-up (Rabbi Natan) or whether it is some other kind of connection (Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi), right? Is that the best way to understand it?
In other words, they disagree about this: according to everyone, in the first one they create a public, and in the second they join it, and they disagree about whether this joining is called a make-up or not. Right?
But if so, what is the basis of their dispute? On what does it depend whether we call this a make-up or not?
Sorry for the interruptions, but I really want to reach a deep understanding. Thank you, Rabbi.
Hello.
There is no way to know exactly what Rabbi Natan holds. Logically, when there is a dispute between two sages and we have reached the conclusion that one of them holds a combination of several variables: X, Y, and Z, then the other can disagree with any one of them, so there are several possible ways to explain the second one’s position. In such a case, we examine those variables and see which of them is reasonable or necessary, and then the assumption is that the other sage also agrees with it. Therefore it is reasonable to choose the one among them that is least reasonable/necessary, that is, that this is the novel point of the first sage. Then it is reasonable to explain that the other disagrees with him on that point.
1. Got it, thanks.
2. Here is the link: https://mikyab.net/posts/62101#_ftn2
3. If you go back over that article, maybe you can also explain to me what Rabbi Natan’s view is? Because there you explained what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds (that in the second Passover sacrifice there are two dimensions, one public and one private, etc. etc.), but what does Rabbi Natan hold?