Daf Ditty Pesachim 93: Modi’in,‫ ְרחוָֹקה‬:‫ֶדּ ֶר‬

1
What is a long journey? From Modi'in and further, and the same distance in all directions -
according to Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eli'ezer says, from the threshold of the Courtyard and further.
Rabbi Yosé says that that is why there is a dot over the letter Heh, to indicate that 'long' must not be
understood literally, but [as indicating] 'from the threshold of the Courtyard and further'.

Rabbi Simchah Roth writes:1

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.

1
http://www.bmv.org.il/shiurim/pesachim/pes09.html

2
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 [Pesaḥim 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 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-Calafat 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 [Pesaḥim 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.

MISHNA: What is the definition of a distant journey that exempts one from observing the first
Pesaḥ? Anywhere from the city of Modi’in and beyond, and from anywhere located an equal
distance from Jerusalem and beyond in every direction; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

3
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.

Steinzaltz

Jastrow

4
GEMARA: Ulla said: The distance from the city of Modi’in to Jerusalem is fifteen mil. He
held like this following opinion that Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: How
far can an average person walk on an average day? One can walk ten parasangs [parsaot],
which are forty mil. This is divided in the following way: From dawn until sunrise one can walk
a distance of five mil, and from sunset until the emergence of the stars one can walk another
five mil. There are thirty mil remaining that one can walk in a day: Fifteen from the morning
until midday, and fifteen from midday until evening.

The Gemara explains that Ulla conforms to his standard line of reasoning below, as Ulla said:
What is the definition of a distant journey? It is any distance from which one is unable to reach
Jerusalem and enter the Temple by the earliest time of the slaughter of the Paschal lamb. The
obligation to slaughter the Paschal lamb begins at noon; therefore, if one is a distance of fifteen
mil from the Temple in the morning, he will not be able to arrive there before the time that the
offering may be slaughtered.

The Gemara addresses the previously mentioned discussion: The Master said that from dawn
until sunrise one can walk a distance of five mil. From where do we derive this? As it is written:
“And when the morning arose, the angels hastened Lot, saying: Arise, take your wife and your
two daughters that are here, lest you be swept away in the iniquity of the city” (Genesis 19:15),
and it is written: “The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot came to Zoar” (Genesis 19:23).
Therefore, the distance between Sodom and Zoar is the distance one can walk between dawn and
sunrise, and Rabbi Ḥanina said: I myself saw that place, and it is a distance of five mil. This
serves as a biblical proof that one can walk five mil between dawn and sunrise.

5
The Gemara discusses the matter of the above statement itself. Ulla said: What is the definition
of a distant journey; any journey of a distance from which one is unable to reach Jerusalem and
enter the Temple by the earliest time of the slaughter of the Paschal lamb. And Rav Yehuda
said: Any journey of a distance from which one is unable to reach Jerusalem, where the Paschal
lamb is eaten, and enter during the time of the eating, the following night.

Summary

There is a dispute about how far away one must be in order to be exempt from bringing the Korban
Pesach.

Ula: He cannot get to the Beis ha'Mikdash by the designated time (in the afternoon of the fourteenth
of Nisan) at which the Korban Pesach is slaughtered.

Rav Yehudah: He cannot get to Yerushalayim by the time of the eating of the Korban Pesach.

"KARES" FOR FAILURE TO BRING THE KORBAN PESACH

ON PESACH RISHON
Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

Our Mishnah and the Beraisa teach that anyone who did not bring the Korban Pesach on Pesach
Rishon, the fourteenth of Nisan, must bring the Korban on Pesach Sheni, the fourteenth of Iyar,
regardless of why he did not bring the Pesach Rishon. The Mishnah and Beraisa ask that if anyone
who missed the Pesach Rishon must bring the Pesach Sheni, then why does the Torah specify that
the Pesach Sheni is brought by one who missed Pesach Rishon "because he was Tamei or because
he was far away from Yerushalayim (b'Derech Rechokah)"? They answer that those two are the
only ones who are exempt from Kares if they miss the Pesach Rishon, while all the others are
Chayav Kares.

When the Mishnah and Beraisa ask why the Torah specifies Tamei and b'Derech Rechokah, what
else do they propose that the Torah mention?

RASHI, TOSFOS and most Rishonim understand that the question is why does the Torah not
write that someone who intentionally (b'Mezid) missed the Korban Pesach Rishon is obligated to
bring the Pesach Sheni. The answer is that it lists only those who are exempt from Kares due to
"Shogeg" or "Ones" (one who misses the Korban Pesach inadvertently or due to circumstances
beyond his control). Someone who intentionally misses the Korban Pesach is Chayav Kares.

However, this point needs clarification. Would it not have been a greater Chidush for the Torah to
teach that even someone who missed the Korban Pesach Rishon intentionally and is Chayav Kares

2
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/pesachim/insites/ps-dt-093.htm

6
must still bring the Korban Pesach Sheni? Apparently, the answer is that the Torah lists Tamei and
b'Derech Rechokah because it does not want to discuss the case of someone who intentionally
transgressed the Mitzvah (see Yevamos 10a, "d'Iy [Avar] Lo Katani"). Someone who was Tamei
or b'Derech Rechokah had no obligation at all to bring the Korban Pesach Rishon, in contrast to
one who was obligated but who intentionally neglected to fulfill the Mitzvah.

This explanation is based on the Gemara (92b) which distinguishes between one who missed the
Pesach Rishon intentionally and the rest of the cases of the Mishnah. The phrase "v'Elu Chayavim"
refers exclusively to one who was Mezid, according to Rav Nachman, or to Mezid and Onan,
according to Rav Sheshes (that is, those are the only ones who are Chayav Kares).

RAMBAM (Hilchos Korban Pesach 5:2) has an entirely different approach. According to the
Rambam, the question of the Mishnah and Beraisa is why are Tamei and b'Derech Rechokah
singled out from all the other types of Shogeg and Ones. The answer is that they are the only ones
who are exempt from Kares.

This implies that in other cases of Shogeg and Ones, one is Chayav Kares. How, though, could
one who was Shogeg or Ones be Chayav Kares just because he was not Tamei or b'Derech
Rechokah? Kares is a punishment for intentional transgression. It is never administered to one who
sinned unintentionally.

The Rambam explains that the term "Chayav Kares" refers to Pesach Sheni. That is, if someone
who was a Shogeg or Ones on Pesach Rishon (and thus was exempt from
Kares) intentionally failed to bring the Korban on Pesach Sheni, he is Chayav Kares. If, however,
he was Tamei or b'Derech Rechokah on Pesach Rishon, then even if he intentionally failed to bring
the Korban on Pesach Sheni, he is not Chayav Kares. What is the logical basis for this difference?
The Rambam (Hilchos Pesach 5:1) rules like Rebbi (in the Beraisa here) who says that the day of
Pesach Sheni is considered a "Regel Bifnei Atzmo," an independent festival (and is not merely
compensation for Pesach Rishon). Therefore, a person who was unable to bring the Korban Pesach
on Pesach Rishon (other than Tamei or b'Derech Rechokah) and was Mezid on Pesach Sheni is
Chayav Kares.

On the other hand, the Rambam rules that if a person was Mezid on Pesach Rishon but brought
the Korban on Pesach Sheni, he is exempt from Kares (ibid. 5:2). If Pesach Sheni is a Regel Bifnei
Atzmo, then how can one rectify the Kares (through bringing the Korban of Pesach Sheni) which
he should receive for Pesach Rishon? Apparently, the Rambam maintains that the Korban Pesach
Sheni is both a Regel Bifnei Atzmo and an opportunity to rectify one's failure to bring the Korban
on Pesach Rishon. It is considered like Tashlumin (compensation) for Pesach Rishon in that it
removes the Chiyuv Kares from one who was Mezid on Pesach Rishon. On the other hand, it will
cause someone to be Chayav Kares if he was Shogeg on Pesach Rishon and Mezid on Pesach
Sheni.

Consequently, the Rambam understands that the Torah singles out Tamei and b'Derech Rechokah
to teach that, in those two cases, Pesach Sheni is only Tashlumin and not Regel Bifnei Atzmo.
There is no independent obligation of Pesach Sheni for someone who was Tamei or b'Derech

7
Rechokah on Pesach Rishon. For one who missed Pesach Rishon for any other reason, Pesach
Sheni is both Tashlumin and a Regel Bifnei Atzmo. Therefore, one who misses Pesach Sheni
intentionally will be Chayav Kares. However, one who was Tamei or b'Derech Rechokah on
Pesach Rishon and then misses Pesach Sheni intentionally will not be Chayav Kares.3

How, though, does the Rambam understand the Gemara earlier (92b) which says that only one
type of person who misses Pesach Rishon -- one who was Mezid -- will be Chayav Kares, in
contrast to all types of Shogeg and Ones? According to the Rambam, even a Shogeg and Ones on
Pesach Rishon will be Chayav Kares if they miss Pesach Sheni intentionally. (According to the
Rambam, this is the Halachah to which the Mishnah refers.)

CHAFETZ CHAIM (in ZEVACH TODAH) answers that the Rambam understands that the
Gemara at that point assumes that Pesach Sheni is not a Regel Bifnei Atzmo. Consequently, the
Gemara does not entertain the option that a Shogeg and Ones on Pesach Rishon will be Chayav if
they miss Pesach Sheni intentionally. However, once the Gemara introduces the opinion of Rebbi
(93a), its understanding of the Mishnah changes, and it now reads the Mishnah as the Rambam
reads it. (The LECHEM MISHNEH gives a similar explanation.)

The Chafetz Chaim explains that this also answers the question of the RA'AVAD on the Rambam
(Hilchos Korban Pesach 5:2). The Ra'avad asks why the Rambam rules like Rebbi, even though
Rebbi's opinion is a minority opinion against the opinions of Rebbi Nasan and Rebbi Chananya
ben Akavyah in the Beraisa. Since the Mishnah is understood much more simply according to
Rebbi, it can be assumed that it agrees with the opinion of Rebbi. Furthermore, a Mishnah is
considered more authoritative than a Beraisa whenever there is a conflict.

The Rambam's approach provides an enlightening explanation of several other Gemaras:

1. The Gemara later (94a) says that if a person was near Yerushalayim but was not able to
bring his Korban Pesach because he was stuck in traffic, he is Chayav Kares. Why is he
Chayav Kares if he was an Ones? (Rashi there gives a somewhat forced answer.)
According to the Rambam, the Gemara does not mean that he is Chayav because he did not bring
the Korban on Pesach Rishon. Rather, the Gemara means that if he intentionally misses the
Pesach Sheni, then he will be Chayav Kares. (LECHEM MISHNEH, Hilchos Korban Pesach 5:9.
This answers the RA'AVAD's objection to the Rambam there.)

2. The Mishnah (93b) records the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer, who suggests that even a person
who stands right outside of the Azarah can be considered b'Derech Rechokah. Under what
circumstances can such a person be exempt from the Korban Pesach?

According to the Rambam (see PERUSH HA'MISHNAYOS), Rebbi Eliezer does not mean that
one who stands outside of the Azarah is considered b'Derech Rechokah and is exempt from the
Korban Pesach Rishon. Rather, he refers to one who was outside of the Azarah and was not able
to bring a Korban Pesach because of an Ones (for example, he was an Arel). If he also fails to
bring the Korban on Pesach Sheni (even b'Mezid) he is not Chayav Kares, because he is considered

3
That is, even Rebbi agrees with Rebbi Nasan and Rebbi Chananya ben Akavyah that Pesach Sheni is only Tashlumin for one
who was Tamei or b'Derech Rechokah on Pesach Rishon.

8
to have been b'Derech Rechokah on Pesach Rishon since he was outside of the Azarah. According
to Rebbi Eliezer, he will be Chayav Kares only when he was inside the Azarah on Pesach Rishon
and did not bring the Korban Pesach.

TOSFOS (DH v'Ein) points out that the Gemara (94b) states that even according to Rebbi Eliezer
the person outside of the Azarah who is an Arel or a Tamei is obligated to circumcise himself or
make himself Tahor in order to bring the Korban Pesach. If he does not, then he will be Chayav
Kares. Tosfos asks, if one who stands outside of the Azarah is exempt from the Korban Pesach,
why is he required to circumcise himself or make himself Tahor?

According to the Rambam's understanding of Rebbi Eliezer's opinion, one who stands outside of
the Azarah is not exempt from the Korban Pesach Rishon. An Arel certainly must circumcise
himself in order to enter the Azarah and bring the Korban Pesach. However, if he does not
circumcise himself, then on Pesach Sheni he will not be Chayav Kares if he intentionally misses
the Korban because he was outside of the Azarah and considered b'Derech Rechokah on Pesach
Rishon.

In our Mishnah, Rabbi Akiva interprets “a long distance” to be 15 mil away from the Beis
HaMikdash. Rashi explains that this person finds himself at a distance which precludes his ability
to arrive at the Beis HaMikdash during the hour when the Shechitah should be done, which is from
midday until sundown.4

This means that at midday the person finds himself fifteen mil away, and he will not be able to
enter the Mikdash even at the last moment. Rambam (Hilchos Korban Pesach 5:9) explains that
Rabbi Akiva’s case of a person at a 15-mil distance is determined at the moment of sunrise,
meaning he will not be able to enter the Mikdash at midday, the beginning of the time of Shechitah.

The opinion of Rabbi Eliezer is that “a far distance” is that a person is exempt from Pesach even
if he is merely outside the walls of the courtyard (‫( העזרה לאסקופת חוץ‬Here Rambam (Commentary
to Mishnah) explains that if a person is ill or if he cannot walk, he is exempt if he cannot make it
to the courtyard at all, even until the last moment when the Shechitah is still valid, which is
sundown.

We note that Rambam explains the guideline of Rabbi Akiva in reference to whether a person can
arrive at the beginning of the korban time period, while the words of Rabbi Eliezer are understood
in reference to whether an ill person can arrive until the end of the time period of the korban. Why
does Rambam explain this dispute in this manner?

4
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20093.pdf

9
 ‫ חדש אור‬explains that Rambam felt it unreasonable that Rabbi Eliezer would exempt a person from
the Pesach if he finds himself in Yerushalayim the entire afternoon, just because he was outside
the courtyard for the first moment of the Shechitah. Therefore, he explains Rabbi Eliezer to refer
only to the inability of a person to enter the ‫ עזרה‬the entire afternoon, up until the last moment. If
this is too difficult for the ill person, then he is exempt.

Rambam understands Rabbi Akiva to exempt a person who is a 15-mil distance from
Yerushalayim in the morning, but this is only if he does not travel and arrive in Yerushalayim the
entire day. If he finally arrives during the afternoon, while the Shechitah is still in progress, this
person would not be exempt. If he did not travel to Yerushalayim, his exemption is determined
based upon where he was in the early morning.

The Knesses Mordechai of Sadigura, zt” l, asked an obvious question on Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion:
How could someone standing just outside the threshold of the Azarah be considered as if he were
far away? He’s so close by!

But the truth of the matter is that if a person is standing just outside a place as holy as the Azarah,
and nevertheless he remains where he is and doesn’t leap right into the Beis HaMikdash, this is a
sign that he really is very far! It’s as if he is ritually impure.

A person who came in contact with a dead body can be standing in geographical proximity to the
Beis HaMikdash, but his impurity makes him as good as light years away. This is no less true of
the person who can enter but refuses to. Contrast this with our tzaddikim who see the effort they
have to make to come close to Hashem not as a burden, but a privilege.

When Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer zt” l, Rosh Yeshivas “Eitz Chayim”, needed to look something
up in a certain book, he would always rush to get it for himself before a student could get it for
him. He would race to the bookcase and pull the volume that he needed so quickly that no talmid
could keep up!

This was even true when he was older and infirm—he would never allow a student to fetch a book
for him, but rather insisted on even climbing the library ladder to get it himself.

Rav Shach zt” l explained his behavior: “It isn’t only that he doesn’t want to bother anyone. He
wants that the effort he puts in to get the sefer will be considered an added part of his ameilah shel
Torah, his labors in learning!”

Rabbi Jaclyn Rubin-Blaier writes:5

5
Myjewishlearning.com

10
We have all heard stories that take place “in a land far, far away.” But how far, exactly, is far, far
away? Our daf attempts to answer that question when discussing Pesach Sheni, a second chance
to bring the Passover offering for those who missed it on the 14th of Nisan due to corpse impurity
or “a long journey” (Numbers 9:10-11).

The Mishnah cites two opinions as to what counts as “a long journey”: Rabbi Akiva holds that it
is a distance of about twenty miles, while Rabbi Eliezer holds it is the distance from outside the
threshold of the Temple courtyard to the center of the Temple. In other words, according to Rabbi
Eliezer, anyone who is not in the Temple itself on Passover is eligible for a second chance due to
being on a “long journey.”

In the course of examining Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, the Talmud mentions that one can walk
five mil (10,000 cubits or about three miles) between dawn (when light first appears in the sky)
and sunrise. Proof of this is taken from the story of Abraham’s nephew Lot’s flight from the
doomed city of Sodom:

As dawn broke, the angels urged Lot on … As the sun rose upon the earth, Lot entered
Zoar. (Genesis 19:15, 23)

The story is one of misplaced good intentions. Lot was a good man living in a bad place — so bad,
in fact, that God decided to destroy the city. Lot offers hospitality to the angels God sends to warn
him of the upcoming destruction. When the townspeople demand Lot hand over his guests, Lot
(with good though misguided intentions) offers his virgin daughters instead. When the angels tell
Lot what is about to happen and that he and his family must flee, he hesitates to the point that the
angels need to drag him along. He begs the angels to let him stop at a nearby town (called Zoar).
There, he sees Sodom obliterated in fire and brimstone. Finally, when his daughters believe they
are the last humans alive, they (again with good though misguided intentions) trick their father
into committing incest in an attempt to sustain humanity.

On a simple level, the verse about Lot’s journey to Zoar, a three mile journey that begins at dawn
and ends at sunrise, is quoted on our daf to indicate how far a person can travel in a particular
amount of time. Taking into account the context of Lot’s story, however, the use of the verse also
offers a subtle critique of those who miss Passover because of a long journey.

Pesach Sheni is introduced in Numbers in response to people who cannot offer the regular Passover
offering because of corpse impurity. Their impurity is due to an event that cannot be planned for
and that must be taken care of immediately. Then, the second chance is also offered to those who
miss Passover because they are on a long journey. Though the Torah finds this a reasonable excuse,
it seems the rabbis here would encourage people to plan their journeys around Passover.

Or perhaps, like the interpretation that a “long journey” simply means outside of the Temple
courtyard, Lot’s hesitation stands in for an emotional or spiritual distance. Lot hesitated; he didn’t
miss his deadline, but that is only because of divine intervention. Lot was meant to go further, but
he lacked the energy and begged to stop at a nearby town. And perhaps it is this spiritual distance
that needs to be overcome, according to the rabbis.

11
In what ways do our emotional and spiritual distances separate us from things that are important,
and in what can we do to overcome those obstacles? While the Torah offers a second chance,
recognizing that we cannot always do things perfectly or according to plan, the rabbis urge us to
examine our motives, to understand what creates distance even as we work to minimize that
distance with second chances.

Distance Equals Time X Rate?

Rav Berach Steinfeld writes:6

Our Daf discusses what is considered a “derech reḥoka,” (far away path) regarding a person being
exempt from bringing a korban Pesach due to the distance from Yerushalayim. Reb Akiva says the
distance from Modiim and outward in all directions would be considered “reḥoka.” Ula says the
distance from Modiim and outwards fifteen “mil” would be considered “reḥoka.”

Rashi explains that the distance mentioned above is the amount of land that could be traversed
were one to travel from chatzos until shkiya. Chatzos until shkiya is the timeframe given for the
bringing of the korban Pesach; therefore, the person who is farther than that distance from the Bais
Hamikdosh is exempt from bringing the Korban until Pesach Sheini.

The Tiferes Yisroel in Perek Tes, mishna bais writes that in our times where we have the means
and ways of travelling in a much quicker fashion, when the time comes and we will be zocheh to
bring the Korban Pesach, we will not be exempt even though we may be far way. This is so because
we will be able to cover the long distance in less time and be able to arrive on time to bring
the Korban. The Tiferes Yisroel changes his mind later on and says that it is the distance that the
average person would travel in that amount of time, and it does not matter that we have quicker
ways of travel today.

A similar question arises regarding the bracha of Hagomel. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim,
siman resh yud tes, seif zayin discusses that in Sforad the minhag is to bentch Gomel even when
just traveling from city to city. We say that all roads are bechezkas sakana. In the event that the
road travelled between two cities is less than a parsa 4 millin, (72-minute walk) one does not make
a birchas Hagomel. The Sdei Chemed wants to say based on the Tiferes Yisroel’s final thought
process that even if one travels that distance in much less time, he would still need to make
the birchas Hagomel. The Shailos U’tshuvos Zichron Yehuda, Orach Chaim, siman mem bais
paskens differently than the Sdei Chemed and says that one would need to spend that amount of
time travelling, (not just measure it by the distance) otherwise he would not be mechuyav to make
the bracha of Hagomel.

6
https://matzav.com/distance-equals-time-x-rate/

12
We could differentiate between Pesach and Birchas Hagomel. When someone makes a Birchas
Hagomel, the person had been traveling in a “makom sakana.” He still needs to thank Hashem for
protecting him, whether he travels quickly or slowly. However, there is an issue with timing
regarding the Korban Pesach. The Torah says that if a person is not on the road within the normal
time frame it would take an average person to travel to Yerushalayim, even if he could travel
quickly, he would be exempt from bringing the Korban Pesach.

This is a lesson for all procrastinators; even if you are sure to finish on time, the start time has to
be “on time” too.

‫מוִֹדיִﬠין‬

Three possible locations of historical Modi'in

Antiquity
In Ancient Israel, a town named Modi'in existed in the general area the modern city is located in.
It was the place of origin of the Maccabees, a group of Jewish rebel warriors who started and led
the Jewish revolt against the Seleucid rule over Judea and the Hellenisation of its Jewish
population. The revolt succeeded in driving out the Selucids, and the rededication of the Second
Temple at the end of the revolt is commemorated by the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah. After
expelling the Selucids, the Maccabees formed the Hasmonean dynasty, which ruled Judea in the
2nd and 1st centuries BCE.[5][6]

13
Ancient Jewish artifacts believed to date to the First Temple and Hasmonean periods have been
found in the area.[5][6]
Identification of ancient Modi'in
Modern Modi'in is located near the site of the ancient Modi'in described in the Talmud, though the
specific location is uncertain. Possibilities are Suba, Umm el-'Umdan near Route 20 to Canada
Park and Latrun, al-Midya, and Khirbet el-Burj (Titura[7][8][9]/Horbat Tittora).
Horbat Tittora
The site, located on a hill at Modi'in, shows signs of habitation from the Chalcolithic to
the Ottoman period, with continuous habitation from the Iron Age II through to
the Byzantine period and some traces from the Early Muslim, Mamluk and Ottoman
periods.[10][11]
Crusader period
The ruins of a Crusader castle have been excavated at Titura/Tittora. The findings from the castle's
courtyard, which has also been used as a kitchen, include various kitchenware as well as bronze
and silver jewelry lost by the medieval female kitchen staff.[12][11]

Umm el-Umdan
Umm el-Umdan in an archaeological hilltop site near the southern Moriah (Buchman)
neighborhood of Maccabim Reut, towards Latrun Junction. The six main settlement strata
excavated date to the Persian, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, and Early Muslim periods.
However, the main findings are from a rural settlement from the Hasmonean through to the Early
Roman periods. It contains the remains of a synagogue dated to the end of the 2nd-beginning of
the 1st century BCE (Hasmonean period), in use till 132 CE (Bar Kokhba revolt). It has a 1st-
century CE mikveh standing next to it

Where is Modi’in?
Prof. Yoel Elitzur writes:7

“In those days arose Mattathias the son of John, the son of Simeon, a priest of the sons of Joarib, from
Jerusalem, and dwelt in Modi’in”

I Maccabees 2:1

7
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/where-modiin

14
When Judah and his brothers died, they were buried in Modi’in, in an ancestral tomb. But where is Modi’in?

Today, it seems strange to even ask such a question. There is a large city in Israel known as Modi’in, in whose
vicinity lie towns with names like Matityahu, Hashmonaim and Maccabim, as well as a historical site known as
the Tombs of the Maccabees. It seems clear, then, that this region is where ancient Modi’in was located. But is
this actually true? What is the source of this identification?

In reality, the connection between ancient Modi’in and its modern-day counterpart is not so simple. The
identification is based on several sources.

Sources that Seem to Place Modi’in in the Eastern Part of Shephelat Lod

Let us begin with the book of Maccabees. Following the death of the High Priest Jonathan, who had been
betrayed and captured by the Seleucid ruler Diodotus Tryphon, we read:

Then sent Simon, and took the bones of Jonathan his brother, and buried them in Modi’in, the city of his fathers…
Simon also built a monument upon the tomb of his father and his brothers, and raised it aloft for all to see, of
hewn stone behind and before. Moreover, he set up seven pyramids, one against another, for his father, and his
mother, and his four brothers. And in these he made cunning devices, about which he set great pillars, and upon
the pillars he made all their armor for a perpetual memory, and by the armor ships carved, that they might be
seen by all that sail on the sea. This is the tomb which he made at Modi’in, and it stands yet until this day. (I
Maccabees 13:25-30)

15
According to Maccabees, Simon built a magnificent burial complex, with seven pyramids atop the tombs and
carved pillars depicting weapons, armor and ships. But the interesting part of this passage for our purposes is the
ending: “that they might be seen by all that sail on the sea” and “until this day.”

The words “until this day” refer to the time when I Maccabees was written, namely, several decades
following the events recounted in the book. But later authors also seem to be familiar with the location. In
Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews, he writes: “Moreover, he built seven pyramids also for his parents and his
brothers, one for each of them, which were made remarkably, both for their size and beauty, and which have
been preserved to this day” (13:211). Apparently even in Josephus’s time – in other words, after the destruction
of the Second Temple – Simon’s burial complex at Modi’in was still well known. See map below.[1]

16
 Today, we have not found any remnants of these seven adjacent pyramids anywhere in Israel. A
nineteenth-century scholar named George Grove suggested that a vestige of these Maccabean tombs could be
found in the name of the Arab village of al-Qubab (just east of Mishmar Ayalon and Kfar Bin Nun; abandoned
in 1948). The word qubāb is a plural form of qubba “dome,” which can be used to refer to a burial structure for
an important person. Victor Gu‫י‬rin rightfully rejected this highly dubious theory.

17
 The expression “that they might be seen by all that sail at sea” perhaps hints at a location that is not far
from the sea. This would also fit with an elevated location within the inner Shephelah. To be fair, though, there
is no solid proof for this speculation; some explain that the reference to “all that sail at sea” simply means that
the intricately carved pillars, which depicted ships, tended to attract sailors.

An additional, more explicit source supporting the inner Shephela theory can be found at the end of I
Maccabees. In chapters 15-16, we read that Antiochus VII (Sidetes) demanded that Simon return to Seleucid
hands Jaffa, Gezer and the Acra, a Jerusalem fortress built by Antiochus IV (Epiphanes). Simon refused, relaying
the famous message to Antiochus’s envoy:

We have neither taken other men’s land, nor held that which belongs to others, but the inheritance of our fathers,
which our enemies had conquered wrongfully at a certain time. And we, having opportunity, hold the inheritance
of our fathers. (I Maccabees 15:33-34)

In response, Antiochus appointed the military leader Cendebeus commander of the coastal region and sent him
to attack Judea.

In the course of the war narrative, the names Jamnia (Yavne in Hebrew, today an Israeli city) and Cedron
appear in connection with the Seleucids, and Gezer and Modi’in in connection with the Jews. John Hyrcanus
and Judah, the sons of Simon, led the fight against Cendebeus:

They rested that night at Modi’in. And when they rose in the morning, and went into the plain, behold, a mighty
host both of footmen and horsemen came against them, and a brook was between them… and Cendebeus and
his host were put to flight, so that many of them were slain, and the remnant fled to the stronghold… but John

18
still followed after them, until he came to Cedron… So they fled to the towers in the fields of Azotus [Ashdod]
where he burned it with fire. (16:4-10)

The location of Cedron is not known with certainty. Many believe that Qatra, an Arab village that lay at
the northern edge of Gedera before it was destroyed in 1948, preserved a remnant of Cedron in its name. A
similar name – Gedrus (variants: Kedus, Cedrus) – appears in Eusebius’s Onomasticon (circa 320 CE): “There
is now a large village [called] Gedrus ten miles from Diospolis on the road to Eleutheropolis [Beit Guvrin]”
(Onomasticon 68:22-23). Based on this identification, a moshav established in 1949 just east of that site was
named Kidron.

Whether or not there is actually a connection between Kidron and Qatra, it is clear from the geographical context
that Cedron, the site mentioned in I Maccabees, was located in this general region. In light of this, we can
reasonably assume that Modi’in was not far from there as well. The details of the narrative point to a location
that borders on the plains but is itself located on the Judean hillsides.

In the Onomasticon’s entry for Modi’in, Eusebius writes: “Village near Diospolis. Home of the Maccabees
where their tomb is pointed out even now” (Onomasticon 132:16-17). We see from here that even centuries after
the destruction of the Second Temple, the tombs of the Maccabees were still plainly visible in a village near Lod.

The most important piece of information in support of this identification of Modi’in is the Madaba Map. In this
ancient mosaic map, dated to the sixth or seventh century CE, the village of Modi’in is accompanied by the
following label in Greek: “Mōdeeim which is now Mōditha, whence were the Maccabees.” West of the village
lies the city of “Lōd”; to the east lies the village of “Bethōrōn”; to the south lies “Bētoannaba”; to the northeast
lies “[Kaph]eruta”; and to the northwest lies “Aditha.” All of these locations are familiar to us. Lod and Beth-
horon (today Beit Ur al-Tahta) are well-known places. Bētoannaba refers to Innābe, an Arab village that was
destroyed in the War of Independence. Its name is preserved today in the form of Nachal Anava and the Anava

19
Interchange. Kapheruta apparently refers to Khirbet Kafr Lut, located east of Kfar Ruth. Finally, Aditha refers
to al-Haditha, an Arab village, now known as the archaeological site Tel Hadid, inhabited until 1948. All of this
information essentially corroborates the notion that ancient Modi’in and modern Modi’in are located in the same
region.

A portion of the Madaba Map. The map faces east. In the upper part of the image, the walled city of Jerusalem
is visible. Below Jerusalem – the village of BEΘWPWN (Beth-horon). Below it – the village of K[ ]ER‫ע‬TA
(K[ap]eruta/Kfar Ruth). Below it – the village of MOΔΕΕΙΜ · Η ΝΥΝ ΜWΔΙΘΑ ˙ ΕΚ ΤΑΥΤΗC HCAN OI
MAKKABAAIOI (Μοdi'im, which is today Moditha; home of the Maccabees). Below it – A large unwalled city
with the label ΛWΔ Η ΤΟΙ ΛΥΔΕΑ Η Κ ΔΙΟCΠΟΛΙC (Lod, which is Lydea, also known as Diospolis). Left
(north) of Modi’in – the village of AΔΙΑΘΙΜ Η ΝΥΝ ΑΔΙΘΑ (Adiathim, which is today Aditha). Right (south)
of Modi’in – the village of ANWB H NYN BETOANNABA = (Anob, which is today Betoannaba).

Thirteenth-century theologian and bishop Jacques de Vitry and fifteenth-century pilgrim Bernhard von
Breidenbach both identified Modi’in with Latrun. Edward Robinson wrote in 1841 that this was a reasonable
identification. Despite this, it is difficult to accept such a theory, as Latrun is neither “east of Lod” nor in the

20
vicinity of either Hadid or Kfar Ruth. The information in the sources points very clearly further north, toward
modern Modi’in.

Scholars have found a preservation of the name Modi’in in the name of the Arab village of al-Midya,
located near the town of Hashmonaim.[2] Several locations have been suggested as the precise location of
ancient Modi’in. Adjacent to the residential area in al-Midya, there is a tell that many have identified with
Modi’in, but this is unlikely; the remnants of city life found at the tell date back to the biblical period, while
there are relatively few remnants from the Second Temple period. Some suggested Titura Hill, formerly known
as Qal’at Tantura,[3] or Khirbet al-Burj,[4] a large ruin on a hilltop where findings from throughout history have
been unearthed, located north of modern Modi’in.[5]

Recently, two new theories have been suggested. In 2004, it was suggested that ancient Modi’in might
be identified with Khirbet Umm al-Umdan – “the ruin of the pillars” – on the southern edge of modern Modi’in.
This site was excavated in 2001, when remnants were found of a town that existed mostly during the Hellenistic
period and the Hasmonean period, and lasted until the Bar Kokhba revolt. A public building at the heart of the
site was identified by the excavators as an ancient synagogue from the Hasmonean period, perhaps the oldest
known synagogue today. According to the excavators, while the name “Umdan” has a very feasible interpretation
– indeed, pillars were found at the site – it may still be that the name represents some kind of evolution from the
name Modi’in.[6] In 2008, the location of ancient Modi’in was debated further in the research of Boaz Zissu and
Lior Perry. Zissu and Perry rejected the earlier identifications based on both archaeological reasons and
methodological reasons. In the end, the pair opted to identify Modi’in with Khirbet Hammam, formerly known
as Khirbet al-Midya, in the vicinity of the “Tombs of the Maccabees.” Numerous burial caves, built in the typical
Jewish style, were found at the foot of the ruin. On one of the ossuaries found with the caves (in a series of
salvage digs conducted in 1995 by Shimon Riklin), the names “Simon” and “Eleazar” were inscribed.

Summary

Two separate passages in I Maccabees seem to indicate that Modi’in was located in the inner Shephelah,
on the border of the hillsides and the plains, not far from the latitude of Yavne and Ashdod. The tombs of the
Maccabees were a prominent site, visible even from afar. In the Byzantine period, Modi’in and the tombs of the
Maccabees were known to be located east of Lod, in the vicinity of modern Modi’in. It is reasonable to assume
that the information we have gleaned from the Byzantine-era sources is reliable, and that it is based on an
authentic tradition. The precise location of ancient Modi’in within the greater Modi’in area has not been
determined conclusively.

21
Complications Arise

Modi’in is mentioned in the Mishna on two separate occasions as a name for the outermost reaches of
Jerusalem’s borders. The Mishna states: “What is ‘a far-off journey’?[7] From Modi’in and beyond, and the
same distance on all sides [of Jerusalem]; this is R. Akiba’s opinion” (Pesachim 9:2). Elsewhere we find: “From
Modi’in inwards [the potters] are trusted in regard to earthenware vessels” (Chagiga 3:5). In other words, from
Modi’in inwards one may purchase earthenware from any merchant, even if he is an am ha-aretz (one who is
ignorant of the laws of ritual purity). The purpose of this leniency was to allow the entire nation to celebrate the
festivals together in Jerusalem.

It seems from these examples that Modi’in refers to the border of Jerusalem. But where is this border located?
The Gemara following the mishna cited above (Pesachim 93b) explains, in a position ascribed to the
Palestinian amora Ulla, that “from Modi’in to Jerusalem is 15 miles (mil).” The problem with this is that fifteen
miles is a much shorter distance than the distance between Jerusalem and the Modi’in we have been discussing
until this point, on the border of Shephelat Lod. How can we deal with this discrepancy? As a result of these
Talmudic sources, some authors ignored the evidence in Maccabees and the Greek sources and suggested
identifying ancient Modi’in with a point located much closer to Jerusalem, in the mountainous region
surrounding the city. Thus R. Joseph Schwarz in 1845 chose the Giv’at Ye’arim-Ksalon ridge, while Yitzhak
Goldhor in 1913 chose the desert of Tekoa. Additionally, some Christian and Muslim traditions identified
Modi’in with Suba (as reported by Victor Gu‫י‬rin). However, once again, Modi’in proximity to the Shephelah is
practically proven by the account in I Maccabees, and moreover, it is difficult to question the authenticity of the
early Christian traditions that seem to fundamentally match both the Modi’in of I Maccabees and the Modi’in of
modern Israel.

Talmudic geography scholar Samuel Klein, who saw the name “Modi’in” as a territorial term, parallel to the
phrase “Har Ha-moda’i” that appears in one of the later sources, proposed a compromise. Klein suggests that
there were two parts of ancient Modi’in. First, there is the “city” at the eastern end of the larger metropolis,
which, being closer to Jerusalem, fits Ulla’s statement in Pesachim. Second, there is the “village” in the western
end which fits Eusebius’s description and the Madaba Map. With all due respect to Prof. Klein, this theory seems
unlikely.

The Solution

22
 I believe that the following solution provides the answer to all the questions raised above. Upon analyzing
the Gemara in Pesachim, a careful reader will note that Ulla’s position is emphatically rejected, using the strong
language, “teyuvta de-Ulla teyuvta.”[8] Ulla’s position was his attempt at quantifying the distance of a “far-off
journey” mentioned in the mishna. In his opinion, this term refers to the distance a person generally covers in a
half-day’s walk,[9] and Ulla calculated that this distance is 15 miles. However, it becomes clear by the end of
the Gemara’s discussion, in light of the commentaries of the main Rishonim, that the accepted interpretation of
a half-day’s walk is 20 miles – not 15 miles as Ulla claimed.

The Rambam adds a fascinating variable to the discussion. He writes:

23
If one was fifteen mil or more outside of Jerusalem at the appearance of the sun on the fourteenth
Nisan, he is considered to be "on a distant way." If he was closer than this, he is not considered to
be "on a distant way," because he could reach Jerusalem after midday while walking comfortably
by foot.

If he journeyed and did not reach Jerusalem in time, because he was held back by a press of
animals or he was in Jerusalem, but was infirm in his legs and did not reach the Temple Courtyard
until the time for the offering of the sacrifice passed, he is considered as having been held back by
forces beyond his control, but not "on a distant way."

If someone was imprisoned outside the walls of Jerusalem and was promised to be released in the
evening, the offering may be slaughtered on his behalf and when he is released in the evening, he
may partake of it.

When does the above apply? When he was imprisoned by Jews. If, by contrast, he was imprisoned
by gentiles, the Paschal sacrifice should not be slaughtered on his behalf until he is released. If,
however, it was slaughtered on his behalf and he was released, he may partake of it. If he was not
released, he is exempt from bringing a second Paschal sacrifice, since the sacrifice was
slaughtered on his behalf.

Similar laws apply when a Paschal sacrifice was slaughtered for a person in the acute state
of onain mourning, for an invalid, or for an elderly person who could have partaken of the
sacrifice who became impure after the blood was poured on the altar and thus, they are no longer
able to partake of it. They are exempt from offering the second Paschal sacrifice.

One who was, on the 14th [of Nisan] at sunrise, at a distance of 15 miles or more from Jerusalem, this is
considered a far-off journey. One who was at a shorter distance than that is not on a far-off journey, because he
can reach Jerusalem after midday if he walks at a leisurely pace. (Hilkhot Korban Pesach 5:9)

The commentators on the Rambam did not seem to notice anything out of the ordinary in the language of this
ruling. But something is indeed out of the ordinary here. In general, measurements of this nature that are based
on a person’s physical ability are defined using an average person as a point of reference. Accordingly, we would
have expected that the pace used to determine the distance of a half-day’s walk would be a normal walking
pace, not a “leisurely pace,” as the Rambam states.

24
 It seems to me that the Rambam intentionally used this language in order to resolve the discrepancy
between the accepted position in the Gemara – that a half-day’s walk is 20 miles[10] – and Ulla’s position – that
it is only 15 miles. Perhaps the Rambam was reluctant to reject Ulla’s position outright because Ulla actually
lived in the Land of Israel, making his position a kind of eyewitness account.[11] Because of this, the Rambam
proposed a novel explanation: In the case of the “far-off journey,” we measure distance based on a leisurely pace
rather than a normal walking pace.[12] In the Rambam’s reckoning, then, a 15-mile walk at a leisurely pace
takes the same amount of time as a 20-mile walk at a normal pace – half a day.

Now that it has become clear to us that “Modi’in” is located more than 15 miles away from Jerusalem,
perhaps we can beg the Rambam’s forgiveness and admit that Ulla’s position was most likely based on
interpretive speculation rather than his personal experience.[13] In light of this, we can accept that the Gemara’s
conclusion – teyuvta de-Ulla teyuvta –actually means that “a far-off journey” is 20 miles and not 15 miles.

Before we actually measure the distance between Jerusalem and Modi’in, I would like to note that, in
contrast to the commonly held view of the Rishonim, Acharonim and even many contemporary Talmud scholars,
I believe that when Chazal use the term mil, they were referring to the Roman mile, not their own independent
measure of distance. This is a complicated issue that requires its own comprehensive discussion, far beyond the
scope of this chapter. In this forum, I will suffice in saying that the word mil is, in essence, a Roman noun (the
Latin phrase mille passuum means “a thousand double paces”), and the Romans who then ruled the land erected
milestones all along the major roads. It is reasonable to assume, then, that the Roman mile was the same mile
that Chazal used.[14]

If we accept that the mil found in the Talmud is the Roman mile, which is approximately 4,800 feet, 20
Roman miles comes out to about 18 English miles. This is the precise distance between Jerusalem and modern-
day Modi’in. I believe this is the best solution to the contradiction between the two groups of sources that we
outlined above.[15]

25
 Detailed schematics of the tomb identified by Gu‫י‬rin as the tomb of the
Maccabees in his expedition to the Holy Land in 1870. This tomb is located in
Khirbet al-Midya, which is distinct from the village of al-Midya on the eastern
bank of Wadi al-Midya. (Yad Ben Zvi)

As for the site known today as “the Tombs of the Maccabees,” although this place bore the Arabic
name Qubur el-Yahud (Tombs of the Jews), the burial style indicates that these tombs postdate the Hasmonean
period and are apparently non-Jewish. The actual tombs of the Maccabees described in the sources can likely be
found in close proximity to these tombs, but their precise location is difficult to pinpoint with certainty. Several
sites in the area were suggested as the tombs of the Maccabees during the last 150 years, and perhaps the truth
of the matter will become clearer in the future. In any case, the important conclusion here is that the city of
Modi’in and its surrounding towns – many of which bear the names of the heroes of ancient Modi’in, e.g.,
Matityahu, Hashmonaim and Maccabim – seem to have been established in the right place after all.

26
 “The Tomb of the Maccabees,” formerly Qubur el-Yahud (Z. Radovan)

For further study:8

J. J. Ajdler, “Talmudic Metrology: The Mile as a Unit of Length,” BDD 19 (2008), 57-60.

Z. H. Ehrlich, Gevurat Beit Chashmona’i, Jerusalem 1986, 7-10 [Hebrew].

Y. Goldhor, Admat Kodesh, Jerusalem 1913, 99a [Hebrew].

8
Translated by Daniel Landman

27
V. Gu‫י‬rin, Description g‫י‬ographique, historique et arch‫י‬ologique de la Palestine: Jud‫י‬e, 1, Paris 1868, 56-59; Samarie, 2, Paris

1875, 55-64; Galil‫י‬e, 1, Paris 1880, 46-57 [French].

S. Klein, Eretz Yehuda, Tel Aviv 1939, 60 [Hebrew].

M. Piccirillo and E. Alliata, The Madaba Map Centenary, Jerusalem 1997, 71-73.

E. Robinson, E. Smith, Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai and Arabia Petraea, London 1841, 2, 328-329; 3, 30.

J. Schwarz, Tevu’ot Ha-aretz, Jerusalem (1845) 1968, 115 [Hebrew].

J. E. Taylor, The Onomasticon by Eusebius of Caesarea, Jerusalem 2003, 42, 73.

S. Weksler-Bdolah, “Modi’in: Hometown of the Maccabees,” Biblical Archeology Review 40 (2014), 52-58, 70.

S. Weksler-Bdolah, A. Onn, Y. Rapuano, “Identifying the Hasmonean Village of Modi’in,” Cathedra 109 (2003), 69-86 [Hebrew].

B. Zissu, L. Perry, “Identification of Ancient Modi’in and Byzantine Moditha,” Cathedra 125 (2007), 5-25 [Hebrew].

References
[1] This map can be found here.

[2] This identification was first suggested by the Franciscan monk Emmanuel Forner in 1866.

[3] The word qal’a means “fortress,” referring to a prominent fortress at the top of the hill that existing during the Middle Ages.

A tantur, in colloquial Arabic, is a pointed hat; it can also refer to a conical hill.

[4] Burj is another word for “fortress.”

[5] Thanks to the work of advocates for the preservation of nature and antiquities, in particular Prof. Yair Parag, z”l, this hill was

saved from the clutches of building developers and converted into a nature park.

28
[6] Lending credence to this theory is the existence of other locations in the Land of Israel where the ancient name evolved and

took on a new meaning in Arabic. Examples were detailed by the excavators in their article; see bibliography below.

[7] The question concerns the distance beyond which a person is exempt from bringing the korban Pesach on its usual date, and

must instead do so one month later on Pesach Sheni.

[8] Literally, “the refutation of Ulla stands as a refutation”

[9] According to Rashi, the half-day here refers to the hours during which the korban Pesach is slaughtered, i.e., from midday to

sunset. In contrast, the Rambam writes that the half-day refers to the hours leading up to the time when the korban Pesach is

slaughtered, i.e., from sunrise to midday.

[10] The Rambam’s support of the 20-miles view can be deduced from his commentary to the Mishna Berakhot 1:1.

[11] In the Rambam’s halakhic methodology, he tended to defend rulings based on the eyewitness accounts of Chazal, even when

they went against the accepted halakha. See Hilkhot Kelei Mikdash 9:1 for comparison.

[12] In order to accept this approach, it is necessary to find a logical or text-based explanation for why here, unlike other areas of

halakha, a leisurely pace is used.

[13] Modi’im was located in the region known as Har Ha-melekh (King’s Mount), which was inhabited solely by non-Jews during

the Amoraic period. Visiting the area at the time often proved deadly for Jews; see Yerushalmi Shabbat 1:4 (10b). No synagogue

remnants have been found in this region from the Byzantine period, while many churches from that era have in fact been found.

[14] We will elaborate on this topic later, in the chapter on Yom Kippur.

[15] J. J. Ajdler suggested a similar solution in his article, though his proposal contains several flaws and unnecessary

complications.

29