Commentaire de citation sur Les Psaumes 112:10

And regarding what is said with the language of ‘af’ [also], saying “and you also blunt his teeth.” Because our Sages said [Seder Olam] that when Israel tied the lamb to the legs of the bed, the Egyptians’ teeth were blunted because the Egyptians also mocked this commandment, as they thought everything depended on the constellation of Aries [a lamb]. This is the opinion of this wicked person, and as soon as this wicked person sees Israel engaged in this commandment, his teeth become blunted on their own, as it is written: The wicked shall see it and be vexed; he shall gnash his teeth and melt away (Psalms 112:10). And in addition to his teeth already being blunted on their own, you should also further blunt his teeth and tell him the explanation of the verse And you shall say, “It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord” from which it can be understood Because of this the Lord did for me and not for him, etc. And if one would bring him the verse as it is, perhaps the wicked person would not understand from it this explanation that blunts his teeth. But the verse stated nearby, And you shall tell your son on that day, saying, “Because of this the Lord did for me” — even though there it explicitly says for me, nevertheless one cannot infer from it “for me and not for him” because the language for me is not precise at all, for how could the father say to the son “the Lord did for us” when the son was not there at the time of the exodus from Egypt? Therefore, the father had to say for me. Also, one cannot infer “for me and not for him” because if he had been there, he would not have performed this service — for who can tell us that he wouldn’t have performed the service? Presumably, he too would have performed it and would have been redeemed with all his Israelite brothers. But in the verse And you shall say, “It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord,” it is well understood that the interpretation of the scripture is “for me and not for him,” because there it explicitly explains that those who engaged in the service were saved from the plague, while the Egyptians who did not engage in it were struck. And so this wicked person who speaks with mocking lips, What is this service to you? and not to him, and excludes himself from the community — certainly if he had been there, he would not have performed this service, and then he would necessarily not have been redeemed but would have been struck with the Egyptians. And this is a correct and precious inference.