출애굽기 12:45의 주석
תּוֹשָׁ֥ב וְשָׂכִ֖יר לֹא־יֹ֥אכַל־בּֽוֹ׃
거류인과 타국 품꾼은 먹지 못하리라
Rashi on Exodus
תושב A TOLERATED SOJOURNER — this means a stranger who has settled in Palestine (having undertaken to observe the seven precepts of the “Sons of Noah”).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Ramban on Exodus
TOSHAV’ (A SOJOURNER) ‘V’SACHIR’ (AND A HIRED SERVANT) SHALL NOT EAT THEREOF. “Toshav is a resident non-Israelite [who has foresworn idolatry, but has not as yet been fully converted to Judaism]. A ‘sachir’ is a non-Israelite. But why should Scripture mention all these? They are uncircumcised, [and an uncircumcised person may not eat of the Passover-offering]! However, it refers to a circumcised Arabian or a circumcised Gibeonite.”357“I might think that since they are circumcised, they are qualified to partake of the Passover-offering. Scripture therefore says, A ‘toshav’ and a ‘sachir’ shall not eat thereof” (Mechilta here). Thus the language of Rashi.
I do not know why the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote down matters which are rejected in the Gemara.358Yebamoth 71a. The Rabbis have objected to this explanation [that the verse refers to a circumcised Arabian or a circumcised Gibeonite], asking: “Are these considered circumcised?! Have we not been taught that he who vows not to have benefit from the uncircumcised is permitted to have benefit from the uncircumcised of Israel, but not from the circumcised of other nations, as it is written, For all the nations are uncircumcised, but all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart?”359Jeremiah 9:25. Thus it is clear that a circumcised Arabian, etc., is considered uncircumcised, and no special verse is needed to exclude him from eating the Passover-offering, as Rashi interpreted. Instead, the Rabbis [there in the Gemara]358Yebamoth 71a. explained the verse as referring to a proselyte who was circumcised but who has not yet undergone immersion.360For a proselyte to be fully accepted into the Jewish fold, he must undergo both circumcision, and immersion in a body of water valid for that purpose. The verse before us thus teaches that the proselyte who underwent the rite of circumcision alone is still forbidden to eat the Passover-offering, notwithstanding the fact that he is already circumcised and has begun his entry into the faith.
I do not know why the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote down matters which are rejected in the Gemara.358Yebamoth 71a. The Rabbis have objected to this explanation [that the verse refers to a circumcised Arabian or a circumcised Gibeonite], asking: “Are these considered circumcised?! Have we not been taught that he who vows not to have benefit from the uncircumcised is permitted to have benefit from the uncircumcised of Israel, but not from the circumcised of other nations, as it is written, For all the nations are uncircumcised, but all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart?”359Jeremiah 9:25. Thus it is clear that a circumcised Arabian, etc., is considered uncircumcised, and no special verse is needed to exclude him from eating the Passover-offering, as Rashi interpreted. Instead, the Rabbis [there in the Gemara]358Yebamoth 71a. explained the verse as referring to a proselyte who was circumcised but who has not yet undergone immersion.360For a proselyte to be fully accepted into the Jewish fold, he must undergo both circumcision, and immersion in a body of water valid for that purpose. The verse before us thus teaches that the proselyte who underwent the rite of circumcision alone is still forbidden to eat the Passover-offering, notwithstanding the fact that he is already circumcised and has begun his entry into the faith.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Siftei Chakhamim
A circumcised Arab. . . See Re”m, who discusses Rashi’s comments on תושב ושכיר at length, and reconciles them with what is stated in the Gemara.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy