<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>R’n Chana Luntz wrote:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">the only reason they brought the korban pesach
in the second year of<BR>the midbar was "al pi hadibur" - ie it was a hora'as
sha'ah specifically<BR>commanded by HKBH for that year. GIven that, how is
it clear that<BR>this "dibur" included the aseh of eating a kezayis? Maybe it
only included<BR>the bringing of the korban and the requirement that it be eaten
- not the<BR>requirement that each person for whom it was brought must eat a
kezayis.<BR>That interpretation does give a slightly different spin to those who
asked<BR>for Pesach sheni though - ie one would have to say that they still
wanted<BR>to be "in on the pesach" even if they were not going to do anything
such as<BR>eating a kezayis - and perhaps one could then see Pesach sheni as an
even<BR>bigger reward - ie not only did they get to bring a Pesach, but since
it<BR>was probably only a relatively few who were included here, they would
have<BR>been able to eat of it also.</FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Chaim Manaster notes:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>While what you assume is not immpossible I think it is highly improbable to
assume that because the Pesach was al pi Ha’Dibur that the assei of achilas
Pesach was not included. The gm’ makes clear that the achila is the central
point of this korban. So making this shaky assertion requires some serious
proof for anyone to accept the proposition. The expected assumption would be
that the mitzvo of achila would be the same unless given a strong reason to
assume otherwise. Also under your assumption there would not have been any
“bigger reward” for also eating the Pesach.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Kol tuv</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Chaim Manaster</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>